If Lizzie is innocent, why did the murderer take such lengths to spare her life?

[questions]

Hello all, it's my first post here! Like the rest of you, I've got the bug when it comes to a fascination with this real-life murder mystery. Unlike most though, I tend to think it's less likely that Lizzie did it.

One of the things that strikes me when you look at the facts of this case with a presumption of Lizzie's innocence, is that whoever was in the house from Abby to Andrew's murder (at least 90 minutes) must have taken great trouble to avoid detection by Lizzie, and to a lesser extent Bridget, who was mostly outside.

Why be so full of hatred for Andrew and his wife, but be so conscientious about sparing Lizzie? Presumably, the murderer could just as easily have killed her, but chose not to. Why might that be?

I assume, that if Lizzie is innocent, the most likely culprit is someone who felt Andrew wronged them in business. He dealt with people in foreclosures and bankruptcies. It's not hard to imagine a deranged person at the other end of these dealings choosing to murder. Perhaps if his own marriage or family life was ruined through business mis-adventure, they felt Andrew's wife must be punished to right a wrong.

[Reasonwhy]

Hi questions! Nice to have your new voice on the forum from someone who doubts Lizzie’s guilt.
Interesting spin on motivation for Abby’s death as part of revenge on Andrew. More hits to Abby indicates to me more hatred for her than for Andrew, but…it could be that the killer was interrupted (by some sound?) or had grown fearful of how long he/she had been in the house, and so shortened the attack on Andrew. Any opinion on who specifically might have been the killer?

[camgarsky4]

Hi Questions! Welcome to the forum!

I think the reason so many of us suspect Lizzie's guilt as the sole or co-conspirator is exactly the question you ask. How and why was Lizzie spared and, even more amazing, she had zero awareness of what had or was happening. Really difficult (or me) to rationalize how Lizzie could not have been involved to some extent. So I really can't help answer your question the way it was asked.

I do think there are scenarios where Lizzie had a co-killer and that is where I spend a lot of my time....vetting through those possiblities.

Please hang with us on the forum for a while!!

[questions]

>>How and why was Lizzie spared and, even more amazing, she had zero awareness of what had or was happening.

Perhaps not though?

The killer may have been attempting to rationalize their actions. If the injury they felt Andrew did them, felt like an injury to their own marriage (perhaps it was collapsing anyway & their business dealings with Andrew hastened that along), they may have thought they were meting out "justice", and thus "good" them was sparing the innocent.

A lot of the events make sense if you look at it from the point of view Of Lizzie's innocence & a killer trying hard to be undetected in the house.

They picked the time Lizzie went to the barn. Lizzie's thinking she heard Abby arrive back as soon as she re-entered the house, but before she discovered the body, could have been the killer leaving. I'm not convinced at all Lizzie had to have heard her step-mother's murder. Her divan/lounge in her room was beside the window. If she was sitting on it with the window open, and traffic happened to be busy at that moment, she could easily have missed the sounds in the guest room.

[camgarsky4]

Questions - what makes solving this puzzle difficult is that there are so many known conundrums to account for. While an outsider killer might have done as you describe, that scenario must still account for all the other peculiarities that cause folks to suspect Lizzie. "Lizzie is innocent" explanations for all the items listed below have been debated over the years on this forum, but to think she is innocent of any involvement, one has to believe there are rational explanations for all of them.

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious with this list......
1) How and when did the intruder enter the house? How and when did they escape?
2) Lizzie's multi-changing alibi within minutes of the killings.
3) The note to Abby.
4) Burning her dress the morning after being told she was a suspect. Where was the painted dress when the police searched on Saturday?
5) Her strange, contradictory testimony at the inquest.
6) She and her sister inherited $millions in 2023 dollars.
7) Front door being locked. (if the sound she heard was someone escaping, what door was it?)
8) Lizzie's solo second trip to the cellar August 4th night.
9) On murder day, before she took any medication, Lizzie telling police she last saw Abby in the guest room, but then changing that to last seeing her in the dining room as Lizzie came downstairs.
10) Why did Lizzie stand inside the side door as she sent Bridget off to fetch the doctor....the killer could/should be still in the house?
11) Why did the 3 eyewitnesses testify Lizzie attempted to purchase poison the day before the murders?
12) If it wasn't Lizzie or Emma would committed the home burglary the year before, who did it and why?
13) How to explain her prophetic statements to Alice Russell the night before the murders?

I know you know, but this swirl of oddities is what makes this case so compelling to research. Also it helps that there is so much information available and more keeps surfacing.

I like you pushing on the 'accepted' norms....happy to keep the dialogue humming!

[questions]

I'm half-thinking about doing a YouTube video exploring the possibility of Lizzie's innocence (I shouldn't really, I don't have the time & does the world really need another Lizzie Borden YouTube video?).

I'm not convinced she is innocent. I just think the balance swings more towards that likelihood. I will say though, in a quick reply to your points.

1. Yes, they needed luck to not be spotted entering and exiting, but that's not impossible. The side door and back door were both open at certain points.

2. She was in shock and only seemed to change the detail of what she wanted the metal for - perhaps she had been half-thinking in the barn about both options (repairs & fishing weights).

3. Mrs. Churchill testified Bridget heard Abby talk about the note too.

4. Emma said the dress was soiled with paint & they had talked about burning it before. She also did it in full view of witnesses and within a few feet of a policeman. Hardly fits with the picture of her as a devious criminal mastermind.

5. She was high! The doctor was giving her double doses of morphine.

6. Yes, a possible motive. But do all people with rich relatives murder them? No, only a tiny, tiny fraction.

7. Side door?

8. Odd yes, some embarrassment related to her period, or using the toilet? The obvious explanation is going to the toilet in the dark with your best friend is mortifying & she may have needed to be on her own to complete it.

9. Yes, confusing - but evidence of guilt? Bridget also has contradictory evidence. Sometimes people get confused.

10. I'd have stood there too. It was the perfect position to make a bolt for the street & keep an eye on someone approaching you from within the house.

11. Eli Bence & his two colleagues are VERY unreliable witnesses. Eli Bence first said he didn't know Lizzie at all, then said he vaguely knew from seeing her on the street, then finally said he knew her well and had seen her quite a few times. The two colleagues both testified they couldn't be sure they recognized her. They all seem prime suspects for being led in their testimony by the police.

12. There seems no evidence Lizzie was guilty of the burglary. Who knows why it was carried out - burglaries are commonplace. There's no reason to think it has anything to do with the murders.

13. This last one (if the LBF will indulge me!) I might do a separate post about. The fact Abby Borden confided in her doctor the night before her murder that she suspected one of her husband's enemies (not Lizzie!) might murder her & her husband - and then she and her husband were murdered less than 24 hours later - seems a huge indication of Lizzie's innocence.

[camgarsky4]

Each of these issues have been debated thoroughly on various threads on this forum. The 'other side of the coin' for each of your bullets are baked into those threads if you are interested.

Heads up that there are a number of factual errors included in your comments, so you may want to vet those out before making the video.

Good luck....I'll keep my eyes peeled to watch for new Lizzie Youtube videos!!

[questions]

>>Heads up that there are a number of factual errors included

Yes, I can already spot an error I made! It was Lizzie who made the suggestion about her father's enemies, Abby merely complained about non-specific poisoning of food from the bakers.

[Kat]

Food for thought is welcome!

I got stuck on the note business so had an interesting time following where the note thing led. I read all of Churchill and her responses are so ambiguous council kept asking her "...you have got that right...?" and "...lest there be any mistake...".

Final trial remarks of Churchill:
RE-DIRECT.
(370/i392)
Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Lest there be any mistake, Mrs. Churchill, you don't speak of this talk with Bridget with reference to the note as in substitution, but in addition to what Miss Lizzie Borden told you?
A. It was after Lizzie had told me.
Q. Then Bridget told you what you have told us?
A. Yes, after that.
__________-

Next, Bridget at trial:

Q. What did she say, if anything, to her father?
A. I heard her ask her father if he had any mail, and they had some talk between them which I didn't understand or pay any attention to, but I heard her tell her father that Mrs. Borden had a note and gone out.
…………...

A. She said, "Maggie, are you going out this afternoon?" I said, "I don't know; I might and I might not; I don't feel very well." She says, "If you go out, be sure and lock the door, for Mrs. Borden has gone out on a sick call, and I might go out, too." Says I, "Miss Lizzie, who is sick?" "I don't know; she had a note this morning; it must be in town.”
……...

Q. Up to the time when Miss Lizzie Borden told her father and told you in reference to the note, had you heard anything about it from anyone?
A. No sir, I never did.
Q. Let me ask you if anyone to your knowledge came to that house on the morning of Aug. 4th with a message or a note for Mrs. Borden?
A. On that day?
Q. Yes.
A. No sir, I never seen nobody.
…………..

Q. Was anything in that conversation with the father said about a sick person?
A. No sir, she had a note and gone out. I did not hear any more.
…………….

Q. But they wouldn't necessarily go to the back door, would they?
A. No. I never heard anything about a note, whether they got it or not. I don't know.
______________________--

--One would have to read all of Churchill and Bridget to get to the sense of the matter: Addie Churchill was confused and stuck to her story, but her wording and answers were, as I earlier claimed, ambiguous= Bridget had no personal knowledge or experience of a note and/or Mrs. Borden's reaction to it.

[Kat]

I have a question about doors: y'all say *side door* and *back door*-- back door being cellar door?, and side door being the one with steps and porch?

[questions]

>>I have a question about doors: y'all say *side door* and *back door*-

As I understand it, the house had 4 doors.

The main street-facing front door, the back door into the garden & 2 doors on the side of the house. A door with steps into the property, and a door that went into the cellar.

Other people will know more than me, but I believe it was established that the front & cellar doors were definitely locked, but that Bridget & Lizzie were coming and going through the back door a lot, and there is a question mark over the side door definitely being locked all the time during the morning of August 4th.

[questions]

>>RE-DIRECT.
(370/i392)
Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Lest there be any mistake, Mrs. Churchill, you don't speak of this talk with Bridget with reference to the note as in substitution, but in addition to what Miss Lizzie Borden told you?
A. It was after Lizzie had told me.
Q. Then Bridget told you what you have told us?
A. Yes, after that.


I agree, this is very confusing! I'm not sure what he means by "as in substitution, but in addition" - I don't think it means she is retracting what she said earlier. Her two follow on replies seem clear on that -

It was after Lizzie had told me.
Q. Then Bridget told you what you have told us?
A. Yes, after that.

The issue they seem to be confirming is the sequential relationship in time of Lizzie & Bridget's statements about the note. Or perhaps confirming she is aware she is giving two different accounts of the note, but that she doesn't mean to say one cancels the other.

Mrs. Churchill's earlier statements that Bridget told her Abby mentioned the note to her seem very unambiguous.

[camgarsky4]

Three doors with exterior access - the Borden house had a front door which was triple locked from the inside in the moments after the murder. A back door from the cellar which multiple folks gave statement or testimony was closed. There was a third door which is the door most talked about in the case. Perhaps you are referencing the interior cellar door which was just inside the side door as the fourth door. That door did not have external access. Only three doors.

Bridget testified under oath that she only heard of the note from Lizzie:
Q. Up to the time when Miss Lizzie Borden told her father and told you in reference to the note, had you heard anything about it from anyone?
A. No sir, I never did.
Q. Let me ask you if anyone to your knowledge came to that house on the morning of Aug. 4th with a message or a note for Mrs. Borden?
A. On that day?
Q. Yes.
A. No sir, I never seen nobody.

If you slowly read the related testimonies and let your mind 'go there' for the opening moments after Lizzie called down Bridget from the attic up to when Churchill was initially in the house, just minutes passed and during that time these three people were likely experiencing the most harrowing and traumatic event of their lives. That household would have been pure chaos. Misunderstanding and mishearing would have been prevalent. You made the observation that, Lizzie might change the reason she went to the barn because those minutes were craziness....it seems the same filter should be applied to everyone during those first 10-20 minutes.

If we add Bridget to the list of witnesses willing to perjure (joining the 3 gentlemen from the pharmacy), then, of course, we can create most any scenario or solution to the crime. Literally every witness has gaps in their testimony (headlined by Lizzie herself).

Lizzie was found innocent by the jury, so if you are looking for a case for Lizzie's innocence, you can follow the approach the defense took. They argued all the points you made earlier in this post. Really no need to look much further than the trial transcripts unless you are planning to come up with a specific suspect, motive and methodology of the killings.

[questions]

>>If we add Bridget to the list of witnesses willing to perjure (joining the 3 gentlemen from the pharmacy),

What's interesting to me about them, is not that they may have been deliberately lying, but rather they may been (subconsciously to them) coaxed by the police, who were keen to bolster the case for the prosecution. This is a well known phenomena that had happened lots of other times.

In his first witness statement on the day of the murder, Eli Bence said a woman he didn't recognize tried to buy prussic acid. When the police took him that evening to the house, he saw Lizzie in the kitchen (when he was in the hallway), and he identified her as the same woman based on that.

A few days later at the inquest he says he knew her name (Miss Borden), and that one of the other employer's said directly as she was leaving the shop - 'that is Andrew J. Borden's daughter'.

At the preliminary hearing, about three weeks after the murder, He says of knowing Lizzie - "I had seen the lady quite often before, and had her pointed out to me as Miss Borden, a good many times."

(As a side note the 2 clerks said they thought it was Lizzie, but they couldn't be sure).

I do agree if it was Lizzie - it's pretty damning! I don't get the judge's, who threw out Eli Bence's testimony, argument about not being related in time.

I agree with your point about trauma and confusion in people's memories, but I guess what's interesting to me, is how often people use the note to establish a case for Lizzie's guilt, but how rarely they mention someone else testified about Abby talking about the note to other people, apart from Lizzie.

To me it's interesting because it makes me wonder, of those that believe Lizzie more likely guilty, how much of their thinking might be influenced by unconscious biases.

[Kat]

I’m sorry if you are sticking to your position about the note, question. I can post the whole shebang that I researched in response to your initial statement. I’m not sure if you did that, but I did.
I will post it all, if you will read it.

[Kat]

Personally, I admit, I have never believed in the Bence fiasco. So, others tell me: “there were witnesses”…and I have no answer. The whole situation is something I discount, and I probably shouldn’t, but there it is.

It’s two very different modus operandi. If one thinks Lizzie killed using hatchet, how can they also believe she tried to kill by poison. That makes no sense to me.

[Marchesk]

To me it's interesting because it makes me wonder, of those that believe Lizzie more likely guilty, how much of their thinking might be influenced by unconscious biases.

Lizzie is the only known person to be in the house during Abby's murder. There's no evidence of someone else. There's no evidence for some business enemy of Andrew plotting his and Abby's murder (Lizzie's word on the matter is hearsay). Lizzie and Emma stood to gain. They had a frosty relationship with Abby. But Emma was out of town. An intruder would have to enter somehow avoiding detection, wait around for Andrew's return, and then make a quick getaway. Without knowing what Lizzie or Abbie might be doing that morning. How did they know Lizzie went outside to eat pears and search the barn for fishing lure, while Bridget went upstairs to nap? Where did they hide when Lizzie went upstairs before Andrew came home? Lizzie can be placed upstairs in the front of the house where Abby was murdered. Can you place anyone else there during that timeframe? Not without inventing a story.

There's all sorts of circumstantial evidence potentially pointing at Lizzie, and little pointing elsewhere. Although people have tried to come up with evidence for Uncle John, Emma, Bridget, William Borden and business enemies.

[Marchesk]

It’s two very different modus operandi. If one thinks Lizzie killed using hatchet, how can they also believe she tried to kill by poison. That makes no sense to me.

I view it as the poison didn't work so she used the hatchet out of desperate rage. Poison being the preferred means of killing for women back then. But it is on shakier ground than some other aspects of the case, like Lizzie being in a locked-up house during the first murder.

[camgarsky4]

Extract from a post above from 'questions'.....
To me it's interesting because it makes me wonder, of those that believe Lizzie more likely guilty, how much of their thinking might be influenced by unconscious biases.

That statement is bit peculiar. What unconscious bias are you referencing?

I'm confident that every single human who chooses to study crime as a hobby is wanting to be 'the one' who solves what no one else could solve. Since Lizzie is viewed as likely guilty by the majority of people (that is a just an assumption on my part), proving her innocent and finding the real culprit has probably been the secret wish (aka unconscious bias) of every amateur sleuth. We all want to be the most clever person around.

Could Lizzie be innocent? Sure, but NO ONE has provided a plausible alternative solution without inventing a large chunk of their theory.

To prove Lizzie innocent to the folks who have taken the time to carefully and thoroughly study the case, we need to be shown 'Who' did it, 'why' and 'how'. That theory also needs to include reasonable explanations for all or most of the oddities that point towards Lizzie's involvement.

None of us are going to find a 'tell all' video from a hidden camera or an authenticated confession from the killer or suddenly dredge up unknown blood or fingerprint analysis. So we can only read and ponder the information that is available.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread....arguing Lizzie is innocent is pretty simple....just follow the defenses trial tactics and you are home free.

[camgarsky4]

Personally, I admit, I have never believed in the Bence fiasco. So, others tell me: “there were witnesses”…and I have no answer. The whole situation is something I discount, and I probably shouldn’t, but there it is.

It’s two very different modus operandi. If one thinks Lizzie killed using hatchet, how can they also believe she tried to kill by poison. That makes no sense to me.

Thread for another day......

[Kat]

The only reason I can envision for there to have been such a haphazard attempt on the lives of the household using poison, was to weaken them by sickness so they might more easily be dispatched (by someone else?) But everyone (not sure about Lizzie) was affected. And poison can be administered from afar, and days earlier, without the perp being present, so that could be anyone, even Emma.
Abby could not have really thought she was being poisoned because she ate her breakfast! She also offered food to Morse when he came and he said he wasn’t hungry, yet he ate it.
Maybe Abbie was being dramatic- and when Dr Bowen came unofficially, Wednesday morning, he
was satisfied it was probably summer complaint, as Andrew was unconcerned.
I don’t think there was a poisoner in that house, unless it pertained to my first sentence, and that could mean conspiracy and still show Lizzie was not a poisoner, if one thinks she killed by hatchet.

[Kat]

We’ll get the doors straight, then tackle the note again. We have to agree on some vital points else debate will be stalled.
This time there’s the added treat of measurements!
Plz clic on pic to make bigger

[Kat]

Do we agree there are 3 doors?

[Kat]

I’ll throw some newspapers in about *The Note*, because Jennings thought they were important enough to include them in his notebook. The Jennings Journals 1892, Editors Michael Martins, Dennis Binette, Stefani Koorey, Fall River Historical Society Press, 2021. Pages230-235.
It’s not the same as testimony, but possibly he used them as a sort of timeline of influence of public opinion?
He has articles from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and the 11th (which was the last day of the Inquest), all pertaining to that *Note*.

News item on the 5th was speculation that Mrs Churchill got “information from the servant girl” (FRDG) about the note.

By the 9th, newspaper wrote that “there was no trace of the note Lizzie claimed was received by her mother.”

By the 11th (last day of testimony), there was in the news that “Lizzie is the only person that can be found who knows such a note was written by a sick friend…”

So Lizzie told everyone, and each told it to officials. Bridget did testify that she overheard Lizzie tell it to Andrew, Churchill and Bridget talked to each other, and Churchill did state it was after she herself had talked to Lizzie, and so the only words original to Bridget added to the story told by Lizzie, was that when Mrs Borden is going out she usually tells Bridget (and that is what makes it sound like Bridget had original knowledge of it from Mrs Borden.)

The changing storyline of the papers as time progressed implies that Churchill and Bridget both were discarded as actual witnesses to a note coming that day for Abbie Borden or Abbie’s first-hand account of it- because in the interim days the newspapers were investigating and trying to figure out the confusing stories and publishing everything they could about that note: during this time , as well, there was a $500 dollar reward offered to the note writer or the *boy* who delivered it to that house, and of course, it was never claimed.

[bipedalist]

I have just read the fascinating book The Borden Murders which offers the best defense of Lizzie I've heard yet. It takes a sympathetic view of her and explains different interpretations to all of the things we've all heard a million times. There was testimony someone saw a woman coming out of the barn, for instance, which supports her account, etc.

That house is so cramped and creaky it's simply not possible there could be someone hiding all around it and slipping out undetected with no one seeing him (or her). No random stranger would kill Abby, hide for an hour or so then spring out at just the right time to kill Andrew. These were targeted hits. someone who worked for Andrew would have just killed him. Not Abby. If it was some random murderer Abby, Bridget, Lizzie - all would be dead.

One thing not discussed often is that Lizzie was likely suffering PMS. I don't know about you but before I went through menopause my PMS was so bad I would do and say things that didn't seem like me - and I've always wondered if Lizzie hadn't spiraled into a rage and had that PMS-motivation to go through with such a violent act.

The movie was the money, but it was also freedom from the cloistered, miserable lives they led. And who knows what other secrets ...

All of that said, the book The Borden Murders made a convincing case that, at the very least, the case could not be proven against her to justify her death.

[Kat]

May I ask the authors name, please, so I know if I read it?
Your suggestion, if I understand you, is sympathy for a guilty Lizzie, not that she didn’t do it, is that right? And “by her death” do you mean death penalty as the potential punishment for killing? …just asking for clarity, please…