Murder For Revenge
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:05 am
F. Tennyson Jesse, great-niece of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, was a contemporary of Edmund Pearson's and wrote true-crime stories. Her book, Murder and Its Motives, first published in 1924, was dedicated to him, and was a learned look at her theories of murder, and she catagorized them as:
Murder for gain, Murder from revenge, Murder for elimination, Murder from jealousy, Murder from lust for killing, Murder from conviction.
She also illustrated these theories with true cases.
The case of Constance Kent fits her definition of "murder from revenge", and her reasoning is interesting and reminds me of the Borden murders.
Contance Kent was 16 when her 1/2 brother was killed, and he was 4 years old. He was found in the privy vault wrapped up and his throat was cut and he was stabbed once. This happened in 1860 and it's possible that the crime and the culprit were very much influenced by the Victorian age.
Because the father had taken the nanny as his second wife after the death of Constance's mother, Constance felt the lady was beaneath her. A quote from the chapter is that "Children, like servants and dogs, are instinctive snobs..." (105)
In analyzing Constance, she was described as being "...sullen calm...It is brooding sullenness, her way of thinking herself ill-used, and her deadly habit of nursing an injury were allowed to accumulate within her like a poison so long as she perserved outward decorum." (106)
The way murder from revenge is described is that Constance shored up every intentional or unintentional unkind thing the nanny/now mother ever said to her, the worst insult being anything negative the stepmother may ever had said against Constance's own mother. Now, her own mother died insane and from too many childbirths. This reminds me of the terrible postpartum depressions which we now recognize. This woman had a child every year until she weakened and died. The father then married and kept having a child a year, basically. This is the Victorian way, and he also, as a Victorian Patriarch, had no conception of how badly his family was managing, and believed in Providence when things went awry. It doesn't seem like he paid too much attention to what was going on in this blended family and he wasn't expected to, until too late.
The revenge was to be acted upon the stepmother by killing her favorite child. Constance said she killed for revenge, but also said she had no ill feelings against the little boy- but I don't believe that. I think she was fooling herself later, when she admitted to the murder.
There are aspects of the Borden case possible here in the theory of murder for revenge. Authors have concentrated on murder for gain because of Andrew's wealth, but what if that was just a sidelight- an added benefit?
If Lizzie killed Abby as her first real victim, then maybe her revenge was upon Andrew. Andrew who may have slowly withdrawn his shows of affection to Lizzie over time, because she was groing sullen and hard to live with. A man may ignore the child in his home which causes discomfort. If Lizzie saw him turning away from her, she might think it was Abby's doing, and not her own behavior which made him become aloof.
We have to admit that the homelife was in disruption, and the culprits were Emma, Lizzie and maybe even Abby. We don't know if Abby threw Sarah's uneven temperment in Lizzie's face sometimes, while trying to hurt her feelings or get through to her. In Constance Kent's reality, it was not that her stepmother said to her that her mother died insane and therefore she, Constance may be acting insane- she didn't take that as a thrust- what she took as the insult was any word about her mother, period.
I can see this maybe developing in the Borden household, and like Mr. Kent, Andrew would be oblivious.
If Lizzie killed Abby from revenge against Andrew, what's to stop her next killing Andrew for making her do it?
Murder for gain, Murder from revenge, Murder for elimination, Murder from jealousy, Murder from lust for killing, Murder from conviction.
She also illustrated these theories with true cases.
The case of Constance Kent fits her definition of "murder from revenge", and her reasoning is interesting and reminds me of the Borden murders.
Contance Kent was 16 when her 1/2 brother was killed, and he was 4 years old. He was found in the privy vault wrapped up and his throat was cut and he was stabbed once. This happened in 1860 and it's possible that the crime and the culprit were very much influenced by the Victorian age.
Because the father had taken the nanny as his second wife after the death of Constance's mother, Constance felt the lady was beaneath her. A quote from the chapter is that "Children, like servants and dogs, are instinctive snobs..." (105)
In analyzing Constance, she was described as being "...sullen calm...It is brooding sullenness, her way of thinking herself ill-used, and her deadly habit of nursing an injury were allowed to accumulate within her like a poison so long as she perserved outward decorum." (106)
The way murder from revenge is described is that Constance shored up every intentional or unintentional unkind thing the nanny/now mother ever said to her, the worst insult being anything negative the stepmother may ever had said against Constance's own mother. Now, her own mother died insane and from too many childbirths. This reminds me of the terrible postpartum depressions which we now recognize. This woman had a child every year until she weakened and died. The father then married and kept having a child a year, basically. This is the Victorian way, and he also, as a Victorian Patriarch, had no conception of how badly his family was managing, and believed in Providence when things went awry. It doesn't seem like he paid too much attention to what was going on in this blended family and he wasn't expected to, until too late.
The revenge was to be acted upon the stepmother by killing her favorite child. Constance said she killed for revenge, but also said she had no ill feelings against the little boy- but I don't believe that. I think she was fooling herself later, when she admitted to the murder.
There are aspects of the Borden case possible here in the theory of murder for revenge. Authors have concentrated on murder for gain because of Andrew's wealth, but what if that was just a sidelight- an added benefit?
If Lizzie killed Abby as her first real victim, then maybe her revenge was upon Andrew. Andrew who may have slowly withdrawn his shows of affection to Lizzie over time, because she was groing sullen and hard to live with. A man may ignore the child in his home which causes discomfort. If Lizzie saw him turning away from her, she might think it was Abby's doing, and not her own behavior which made him become aloof.
We have to admit that the homelife was in disruption, and the culprits were Emma, Lizzie and maybe even Abby. We don't know if Abby threw Sarah's uneven temperment in Lizzie's face sometimes, while trying to hurt her feelings or get through to her. In Constance Kent's reality, it was not that her stepmother said to her that her mother died insane and therefore she, Constance may be acting insane- she didn't take that as a thrust- what she took as the insult was any word about her mother, period.
I can see this maybe developing in the Borden household, and like Mr. Kent, Andrew would be oblivious.
If Lizzie killed Abby from revenge against Andrew, what's to stop her next killing Andrew for making her do it?