Opinion on Lizzie's Guilt

[misterkth]

Hi Folks

I've been looking at the Borden case for a number of years, but only got involved in the various online communities about 2 years ago when we started doing the Audio Transcript.

For those who have been studying the case for years and involved in groups (online and in person) I've been wondering if support for Lizzie's innocence has grown over the past or if has "always" been so split. In conversations with folks working on our project, I've found people to flip flop a bit in their assessment of her guilt. When studying this in "my own little bubble" I'd assumed that Lizzie being innocent was an opinion held by a very small segment of the population. (Less than OJ, but more than Casey Anthony)

Prior to diving into Borden stuff, I was very much into O.J. Simpson, Jack The Ripper and Lee Harvey Oswald stuff (and still am) and I found those communities to be more set in stone about their opinions and less open minded to "new" evidence and presentations contradicting their beliefs. This seems to be the norm for a lot of groups.

I'm firmly in the "she did it" camp, but can't help but be compelled by certain elements that make me second guess some elements of the case and can fully understand why folks feel the other way. It's a very interesting thing about this case that I don't see in a lot of the others I've looked in to.

Wondering if I'm completely out to lunch on this or if there is a certain element to this case that opens it for "friendly debate" in a way that others don't and/or if, in general, the number of folks who think Lizzie didn't do it seems to be on the rise.

Keith

(I love this board and visit regularly. Kudos to the admins for making it a nice and friendly place to visit :) I rarely post as I'm in awe of the knowledge a lot of you have and truly don't have anything remotely as in depth or interesting to add. I also don't want to seem like I'm just plugging our audio ;).

[camgarsky4]

Keith -- I'm definitely of the school that Lizzie acted solo in the murders. That said, I spend most of my time on the case chasing down leads for alternative solutions. Some pretty interesting alternative killers, but each time the trails go cold and there is no reason to give them serious consideration. I would love to come up with a legit non-lizzie solution, but alas....nothing yet.

What almost no one has ever offered up is a plausible 'fact based' alternative scenario that does not include Lizzie at least helping the killer. How and when did the intruder enter the house and when and how did they escape? Folks poke at various aspects of the case to place doubt on Lizzie's guilt, but they don't offer up a rational option.

All that said, the case has so many characters involved that it is quite fun to speculate and research these people. That is what keeps this case alive and well!

[misterkth]

Seems to be much the same as myself, though, by no means am I as versed in the subject as yourself.

For me, it's always Lizzie alone, as well and nothing has come close to changing that. The fun rabbit holes for me are always those that involve weapon, motive, etc. So much fun... darkly tragic fun, but fun nonetheless.

[mysterium]

Interesting observation! I don't know the time period you are observing, but could it be that some of the myths associated with Lizzie and this case have since been debunked? This might not put some things not so straightforward towards Lizzie's guilt. Also, Parallel Lives might have "humanized" Lizzie more, and people view her in a more positive light than just viewing her as a "monster" as has seemed to have been done in the past.

I, for one, don't need to prove 130 years later, that someone else did it to believe that she didn't do it or that she couldn't have done it. One of the many reasons this case is remains so interesting!

[jcurrie]

Misterkth, I've always believed in Lizzie's guilt - not only she had a strong motive (money) and opportunity, but also because the sheer savagery of the crimes indicates that the perpetrator had great rage towards the victims.

Regarding your interest in the Jack the Ripper murders - one of our (UK) eminent criminal psychologists appeared in a TV programme a year or so ago with an actress who played a role in a detective series. Professor David Wilson had narrowed the suspects down to one Aaron Kosminski, a kosher butcher by profession who lived in Whitechapel. He was known to have mental problems and attacked his sister, which resulted in his committal to a lunatic asylum (as they were called in the 19th century). Of course, we'll never know for sure.

[camgarsky4]

Jcurrie -- I agree that Lizzie was likely either the sole or participatory killer of her parents.

That said, if she acted solo, what do you think became of the murder weapon? What did she do to avoid having any blood, etc on her clothing when seen by Churchill, et al? Was there sufficient time between when Bridget went upstairs and Lizzie called her back down to have done the murder, cleaned up, gone around back (as seen by Lubinsky), and maybe most difficult, have calmed her breathing and other physiological reactions to have slaughtered someone with 10ish violent swings of a hatchet.

These are the questions that have me considering the possibility that she had a cohort with the killing of AJB.

[jcurrie]

Dear camgarsky4

Thanks for the response. I have no idea how the hatchet was got rid of, but wasn't the head found newly washed and covered in ashes? I think there is an explanation of how Lizzie had no signs of blood. Andrew's coat was found under his head, blood soaked of course. Lizzie could have worn the coat - maybe back to front - and thus would have been protected of any blood spatters. Andrew was known to be a very fastidious person, not to mention frugal, and using his coat as a headrest isn't something he would have done. I have to put my hands up here and say that other contributors on this forum had mentioned this.# Also, weren't there some expert witnesses at the trial who testified that the assailant wouldn't necessarily have been covered with blood? We don't know which blow killed Andrew so I suppose his heart would have stopped beating. However, only an expert in this field could elucidate. At any rate Lizzie would have had plenty of time to place the jacket under Andrew's head and wash her hands.

# I don't know if you saw an episode of "The Curious Life and Death of...." on the Smithsonian Channel which had an episode about the Borden case. This was hosted by Dr Lindsey Fitzharris, a medical historian, with a former Scotland Yard detective assisting. Of course they concluded that Lizzie was guilty. I don't know the date it appeared on US TV but I saw this episode a few months ago. An American friend of mine sent me a cutting from the NY Times about the programme.

[camgarsky4]

Jcurrie -- agree with all your thoughts on how it might have been done.

Not sure if you are familiar with the hatchet found on the roof of the neighboring Crowe barns, if not, search this forum for the topic "Crowe" and you'll get up to date on that possibility quickly. Personally, I think that is the murder weapon. Question is whether it got on the roof via Lizzie tossing it or someone exiting the property and tossing it.

My point is more along the lines that Lizzie having a co-conspirator is more a possibility than many on this forum (including myself previously) would suggest. I've timed how long to walk back to fetch the hatchet, put on the coat, kill AJB, take off and fold coat, wash hands/face, go out back and toss the hatchet and slowly walking back into the house. It can be done in 10 minutes, but it requires precision execution and not sure even a sociopath would have their breathing and other signs of physical/mental 'excitement' completely under control like Lizzie displayed.

So I'm posting a few thoughts that might open folks up to considering scenarios that don't require Lizzie doing the crime solo. It is still the mostly likely solution, but to me the odds of a second person are much higher than I had previously considered.