Butcher's Motive

[Haulover]

i am asking myself two questions: why was the legend of lizzie the murderous daughter strong enough in the first place to survive and persist?
and, why is it that no other theory yet advanced satisfies me? and let me underline that with this -- that i do not believe lizzie was a monster (as
in elizabeth montgomery's performance) -- and i must conclude this is an utter mystery.

maybe the term i've been looking for is "human nature." that the legendary lizzie will pass the test of believable human nature even if of the most macabre kind. i mean, the motives are there -- oppression, resentment, greed, selfishness, peculiar temperament -- then there is that opportunity -- and the acquital and her inheritance and silence -- leaving only the HOW to be explained -- and the HOW works like a magnet. so this CAN be true, but is not necessarily true.

but to look at the other theories that have some reputation -- they have
bigger problems than (what i'll call) the legend theory. and the major
problems show when they are viewed in light of human nature -- i'll just say it's something difficult to discuss, but we all know about it to one degree or another.

that emma or bridget did it -- even if i can fit the pieces together, the necessary motivation and wherewithal strains a gnat and swallows a camel.
does anybody disagree? the brown theory breaks further from the legend -- but it takes a deranged son and an accidental meeting in the guest room, not to mention a conspiracy on the part of all concerned. and the other theories or partial ones, etc.

but i think that any theory must explain specifically the murder of andrew
since the killer waited for him. i mean, to leave lizzie out of it for a
minute -- who could this be in terms of motivation? the person does not rob or inherit -- lizzie does -- so what does this person gain? it must be
someone who believes/knows that his own existence is in danger if andrew
lives.

is someone going to do this over frustration about not getting something
they want? there must be more at stake, i would think. more about
someone's survival. so what could this be, i wonder? just speculating, of
course -- but what if andrew set this in motion in the first place -- what
if he had a hit out on someone or was in a position to ruin someone completely? i'm assuming this someone is involved with lizzie, and that's the talk at the house wednesday night. would this work as argument between andrew and morse?

[Kat]

I watch a show called "Crossing Jordan." And tonight the M.E. said to Nigel that the solution to a locked-room puzzle is usually suicide.
Nigel was conjuring up themes of vampirism and flying out of the window to account for the bloodless corpse and the locked door/open window etc. The case called for that kind of almost supernatural conclusion.
But the M.E. was right. It was more simple than that.
That's the point here. It's got to be more simple than a "locked room" mystery- which is sort of what we have here.

But of human nature- I think there are people who will kill without worrying about it too much. Back then especially- I mean it was still the "Wild West" in places, wasn't it? Sociopathic gunslingers...lawlessness...train robberies. The men and women didn't think like we do now. The men especially seemed more rigid and less romantic, less sentimental- more selfish, more unsophisticated, I guess I'd call it. I mean, wringing pigeons necks might be a common practice. How many men here would even think of doing that. They weren't so nice back then.

This difference in thinking is what I stall at when trying to place myself inside those times.

[Haulover]

in general, things were "rougher." this whole method/character of the murders can be hugely misleading -- one of the big debates: rage or execution? i now tend more toward the latter. the idea that who did this didn't really care one way or the other (understanding this is not lizzie) is supported in several ways. one thing not talked about that much that is very puzzling and yet telling is that the killer flees the premises and leaves lizzie to deal with it. (this is one of my major problems with the love connection -- i'm more inclined to go with something more sordid that would personally humiliate lizzie more than the murders)

if your bringing up the character of the times -- i remember the movie, gangs of new york. right at the beginning they all come out for a big fight (by the numbers, it's more like a battle) -- and most of them are using hatchets and axes -- and they just go at it like that face-to-face! with predictable results.

[augusta]

I had a boss once who would go upstairs in the old building we worked in, and he would wring the necks of the pigeons. He said some of the heads came off. I was grossed out. He'd never go down and dispose of the pigeons, so there would be these dead pigeons laying outside whenever you left the building. Someone would clean them up by morning.

We did have a pigeon problem at that place and contracted people to come out regularly and take care of them. At the time I didn't realize how disease-bearing they were.

It was quoted on a recent forensic show I watched that 60% of murders go unsolved.

The Borden case was the first one of any magnitude to be sent all over the world. That's one reason it grew into monstrous proportions compared to other cases that is often given.

Lizzie had no blood on her and there was no direct evidence against her. Plus the times, where a Sunday school teacher unmarried Miss who had never done anything but good works in her church just wouldn't do such a thing. The name "Borden" didn't hurt her, either. She was one of the 'lesser' Bordens, but I think her name helped her in her defense.

At this time, I vote for the butcher who did it. Motive? Money, I think. I always thought well, we don't have any evidence of Lizzie or Emma withdrawing a large amount of money to pay a hired killer off. ... But then we haven't seen evidence of her shelling out Robinson's hefty fee, either.

[nbcatlover]

I think the key to the story's viability had to do with

1) the prominence of the Borden name in business (not Andrew, but Borden in general);
2) belief in the superiority of the upper classes--Lizzie is represented with more of the sensibilities of associated with upper classness (than a fish peddlar's granddaughter may have deserved);
3) rich people summered along the Rhode Island and Massachusetts Coast so the spin on Andrew Borden as the richest man in town had an appeal to the rich who might otherwise have overlooked the case; the workers and immigrants could thumb their noses and say "Look, they are no different than us."
4) the politics of the day concerned where a woman's place was in society and temperance (too many drunks running around being violent).

Lizzie's persona could be used in so many ways to either make her a heroine or make her a villain. The media, today, still does the same thing. Lizzie was just meant to be a star.

(I recently noted that the "Evening Standard" was advertising the "record number" of copies they were selling during this period. Money makes the world go round, the world go round...)

[Haulover]

unless i'm overlooking something, there is nothing to show that andrew did not get a large sum of cash from one of the banks that morning -- to return to 2nd street with it, with the intention of getting someone off his back by paying it.

i guess it's my sordid imagination -- i don't know if that's all it is -- i keep seeing lizzie with someone in her bedroom between the murders. maybe it's process of elimination. if she isn't involved in murdering with blood on her dress -- then what is she involved with? my point being that lizzie cannot tell what she was really doing.

[augusta]

I think Andrew collected some rents that morning. He had something like $74 and change on him when he was killed. That would be like far more today. (Over a thousand, I think.) I always wondered why the killer didn't take it, even if his motive was not theft.

The safe upstairs was not opened until later. There wasn't anything of note in it. What with the daylight robbery of the summer before, I don't think Lizzie was given the combination.

I agree, Haulover. I would think Lizzie at some point was in her room with the killer. Nobody could go in Lizzie's room. It'd be a good place to meet.
That's true - Lizzie wouldn't be able to tell the cops she was doing that.

I wonder if we knew what Andrew went upstairs for, after he first got home, and what was in that package if that would shed some light on things. I don't think that old lock was wrapped up in a package. The big withdrawal? Why wouldn't a banker have told that? ... Unless it came from Charles Cook. He did not tell all, and he became Lizzie's employee after the murders for years.

[Edisto]

Those of us who have been reading the news stories from New Orleans have gotta realize that the "Wild West" mentality isn't dead. I basically agree that the killer in the Borden case had to be someone who felt trapped with no way out. However, feeling "trapped with no way out," is all in one's perception. Certainly Lizzie might have felt that way, as her youth was nearly at an end, and in some ways she had never had a life. Others might have had similar perceptions.

With regard to the Borden case being unique in the attraction it had for an international public, I beg to differ. Have you ever heard of the Jack the Ripper murders in London? Most of the killings occurred in 1888 (prior to the Borden murders), although there are a couple of later murders that some choose to group with the Ripper killings. I think that case has probably attracted more attention than the Borden murders, and it doesn't have the allure of a relatively young and attractive female as a suspect.

It's hard for me to believe the "Lizzie's lover did it" theory or any variation thereof. If Lizzie ever had a serious suitor, I haven't read about it, unless we want to consider the unfortunate Curtis Piece in that light. Nor did Lizzie seem to have any serious suitors after she came into her inheritance, which would seemingly have made her a lot more attractive (to some men, at least). She seemed all too eager to spurn any advance or deny any rumor that a man might be attracted to her. Maybe, as some surmise, she was attracted to her own sex. Maybe she wasn't attracted to committed relationships at all.

[Haulover]

i think the big difference between lizzie and jack the ripper -- is that in the borden case, someone was accused and tried for the murder -- that is, an individual was in the spotlight -- and it made a horrible kind of sense -- that an oppressed spinster was border-line mad and could cross that line. the story resonated, and her silence afterwards amplified it.

about lizzie's love life -- i think this is very important and is also total speculation. one thing i'd like to say about this is that the myth that she lived within her victorian confines has to be questioned to make sense out of this. i find it plausible that lizzie attracted a dangerous person -- the one source is her life afterwards as lizbeth of maplecroft. yet again, something is upsetting at home. emma leaves, etc. was lizzie herself a snob or did she attract "riff-raff"? boils down to this: if lizzie did not do it alone, then she must have attracted someone who did......the only thing is that if my gang-member idea has legs, it must be someone who knows andrew, because he waits for him. NOT someone oblivious to the household.

[Kat]

If it was an outside person, they either were very well supervised by an inmate, or were very used to the layout of the house and had knowledge of who would be there or not be there and when.

I think it's possible Andrew picked up some money at the bank- where he stopped in. It's possible. While I don't think we have testimony that Andrew collected rents that day, we also don't have testimony that he was shaved. And the fact that he was found with money on him (I'm thinking along the lines of $89) makes it seem like he wasn't *robbed.*

Edit here:
oops- it's $78.
Prelim
Winwood (sic)
386
A. I think there was $78. in bills in the pocket book.
Q. In a pocket book?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What pocket was that pocket book in?
A. In the inside pocket in the coat, I should think.
Q. In the coat pocket?
A. Yes Sir, inside pocket, inside the coat.

78x18= approx. $1,400.
I think that would have been taken.

[Haulover]

yes, it was lizzie and emma who clearly benefited monetarily. if the killer's benefit was the continued secret of his identity, this would fall into the "locked room" scenario, wouldn't it?