The Rhetoric of Gender Bias in Victorian New England: The Ongoing Dialectic

by Annette Holba

First published in February/March, 2004, Volume 1, Issue 1, The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies.

The Lizzie Borden case of 1892 is often compared to the O.J. Simpson case of 1994 because both involved seemingly guilty defendants who were acquitted of the murder of two people due to insufficient evidence, and the fact that popular notions of racial or gender bias played a significant role in their verdicts. In both cases the police were also accused of bungling their investigations, which leads to issues pertaining to the fruit of the poisonous tree evidentiary exclusions, and charges that the police failed in their duty to gather enough evidence to convict. Central to the Lizzie–OJ line of reasoning is the belief that they both actually committed the crimes and, consequently, a gross miscarriage of justice occurred with their acquittals. Yet, the major argument linking these two cases would fall like a house of cards if either Lizzie or OJ were truly innocent. Without dispute, however, is the second comparison, namely, that both criminal justice systems, at the times of the murders, reacted out of bias based on fear and ignorance and, it can be argued, that this same bias was responsible for both Lizzie and OJ enjoying quick acquittals. The purpose for this inquiry, then, is to enter the discourse about the impact of gender bias as it specifically relates to the Borden murder case and examine how this bias fueled ignorance rather than justice.

 Working from the assumption that we all have been exposed to the Borden narrative, I ground my claims in the official testimony taken from the inquest, preliminary hearing, and trial, newspaper reports of the grand jury proceedings, and the published correspondence of Borden case prosecutor Hosea Knowlton. In considering the relationship between gender bias and the events encountered, it is revealed that the rhetoric of gender bias significantly influenced the disposition of the investigation and the complete legal case. Through a close examination of dialectic encounters between Lizzie, who was the accused, and several officials involved in the legal matter, it becomes clear that gender bias and gender fear was prevalent in the rhetoric that directed human communication. True to the historical moment, woven within the social and legal tapestry, the rhetoric of gender bias was clear and present in 1892, Victorian New England.

At the time the Borden murders occurred, criminal investigation in America was maturing from a force of unskilled watchmen to a professional community of multidisciplinary experts. While at the beginning stages of this professionalization phase in law enforcement, media interest in crime was also flourishing. Combined, police and reporters would allow the public to actually see the crime and follow every aspect of the case. The Borden case would change the way America would view crime and criminal investigations forever. While this alone is a topic for future discussion, it also is the demonstration of how the rhetoric of gender bias could have influenced so many involved in the case.

GENDER BIAS

Gender bias is difficult to define and measure. A dictionary definition says that for a bias to exist there must be one to whom it belongs (Oxford 223). It is a point-of-view. Bias means to have a slanted or unreasoned temperament towards something or someone. It could be deliberate or involuntary. In order to have this temperament one must possess a particular judgment about something or someone (223). In the case of gender bias, this would include a predetermined judgment about someone, something, or a certain action or statement. This judgment may cause a certain response, which would therefore prejudice any outcome (1072). Joanne Belknap says, “discrimination against women is more often motivated by paternalism” (330). Julia Wood, in her book, Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender and Culture, suggests that in the modern reflection of Lizzie’s experience, there is still inequity against women based upon bias in today’s society (223).

In the case of Lizzie Borden, the accused hatchet murderer of her biological father and stepmother, the criminal justice system reacted through the gender bias of Victorian New England. Society, one hundred years ago, was structured much differently than today. In order to analyze what happened in Fall River on August 4, 1892, one must consider the attitudes of the time. The social and familial hierarchy in Victorian New England included the family as a nurturing and peaceful refuge from the harsh reality of the emerging industrial-revolutionized world. Women were the managers of their households and subjugated by their husbands or fathers. Men worked interchangeably between their private and public spheres. The ideal situation would include marriage, children, servants, a respectable house, and the opportunity to interact in the community. It would be appropriate for the unmarried women to engage suitors, serve in charitable organizations, or volunteer at their local church. According to Mary Shanley, historian in gender studies, “Women presided over the home, while men sallied forth into the public realm” (3). Additionally, she says, “the family was a locus of male power sustained by the judicial authority of the state” (4). As far as the duties women were expected to engage, Shanley says, “In addition to bearing children, middle class women directed and working class women performed, the work involved in maintaining the household – care of the children, sewing, cooking, and cleaning” (5). Generally, women had a place in society that was socially constructed by a male dominated culture.

Lizzie, the unmarried woman, did not work outside the home. Her father was a respectable businessman and had several thriving ventures to occupy his time. Lizzie did not need to work for financial reasons, but spent her time teaching Sunday school and participating in volunteer activities with the local chapter of a Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. Nothing is factually known about her romantic interests. There have been innuendoes about a few possible suitors; however, there is nothing to suggest that Lizzie was involved in any serious relationship. Lizzie was thirty-two years old, unmarried, and living at home with her father, stepmother, older sister, and the family servant.

Typical patriarchal attitudes of the time would consider Lizzie less likely to be marriageable and still under her father’s domain. Even though Abby Borden married Andrew when Lizzie was about five years of age, two years after her biological mother died unexpectedly, Lizzie did not entertain the notion that Abby should be respected as her mother. Emma, Lizzie’s older sister by nine years, apparently assumed the role as caretaker of Lizzie when their mother died. It was rumored that Andrew married Abby out of convenience—to secure someone to run his household and to provide child-care for his two daughters.  In fact, when asked at the Inquest if Abby “filled the place of housekeeper,” Emma replied, “yes.”

In our historical moment, there is no reason to believe this to be a suspicious statement: “She is not my mother, sir; she is my stepmother; my mother died when I was a child” (Trial 464). This was Lizzie’s answer to a question asked by an official in Fall River, after the discovery of Abby Borden’s body, during the initial phase of the investigation. Her response was simple and clear. Abby Borden was not her mother. Abby Borden was her stepmother and her biological mother was no longer living. Lizzie merely clarified her relationship with Abby Borden. Common to our post modern era, there is a much higher divorce rate and a more liberal attitude toward the family unit, as society today seems to be rethinking and reshaping the idea of what elements constitute a family. Lizzie’s comment, today, would certainly be recorded but it would not be allowed to shape the investigation. However, in August of 1892, that statement, coming from a woman, was simply against all norms of society. In the eyes of the male authorities, Lizzie had erred against the institution of family and the authority of her patriarchal society. The next wrong assumption would then conclude that she hated Abby enough to kill her. 

During the trial of Lizzie Borden, the prosecution implied in opening comments that Lizzie’s statement defining her relationship with Abby was their first clear indication that she should be the main suspect. Of course, no respectable girl would consider devaluing the worth of a family unit like Lizzie did, unless, of course, she was the murderer. This was the hyper-masculine reaction to a perceived threat to the nucleus of the American Family, which was the foundation of their patriarchal society. Once this statement was made, there was very little investigation into the death of Andrew and Abby Borden unless it dealt with pooling evidence against Lizzie, for the criminal investigators knew their murderess and would stop at nothing to prove it.

GENDER FEAR

The criminal justice system of 1892, then, reacted out of Gender Fear. Lizzie’s statement to them was perceived as a threat that intended to undermine their authority in society. Coinciding with the gender bias claim, these male authoritative figures knew the women’s movement was forming and active. Patriarchal society was struggling against this backdrop to maintain its structure. How could they allow a spinster woman to decide for herself that a stepmother might not be a valid member of the familial structure? Andrew, the head of his household, had decided to remarry and bring Abbey into their lives. It was not Lizzie’s place to question that decision, for to allow that questioning would diminish the power that a man had over a woman, that a father had over his daughter. Township officials and police involved in the investigation became more concerned with society and what it was thinking than solving the crime.  

As this gender bias and gender fear manipulated the investigation, it resulted in the loss of evidence unrelated to Lizzie, as anything else was either deemed insignificant or could be dismissed as not pertinent. Due to their fear of losing the patriarchal authority that they were used to, they had to try and convict her at all cost. In this passionate derailment they lost the true sight of the principles of justice they should have been following and they forgot about solving the crime. The prosecutor and Attorney General knew they had no evidence that could directly be linked to Lizzie and that if they pursued the case in a criminal forum they would lose. This is documented in a memo sent to Attorney General Pillsbury from the prosecutor Knowlton, in which he details the obligation to pursue the matter in formal court proceeding only because of the media hype and to maintain appearance of doing something, which would “satisfy that portion of the public sentiment” (Knowlton 159).

I note your suggestions about form of indictment, which I will adopt if we ever get so far; of which, however, I am far from certain (Kent Whacks centerfold).

A second memo:

Personally I would like very much to get rid of the trial of the case, and fear that my own feelings in that direction may have influenced my better judgment . . . I confess, however, I cannot see my way clear to any disposition other than a trial . . . even though there is every reasonable expectation of a verdict of not guilty (Kent Whacks Centerfold).

Once the investigation became slanted and focused only on Lizzie, the evidence that was obtained had to be manipulated in order to link it to Lizzie. For example, the hatchet found in the basement of her house was assumed to be the murder weapon. The media presented many articles about the hatchets that were discovered in the house and how they could be linked to Lizzie. Yet the hatchet was quite a common instrument to be found at anyone’s house, especially at the turn of the century, when chopping the heads off of chickens and cutting firewood might be a daily activity. It would not have been unusual to find several hatchets at most of the homes on the same street where she lived. Further, upon scientific examination of these hatchets, no human blood was ever identified. It was determined by scientists at Harvard University that the blood on the hatchet was, in fact, animal blood. While courtroom testimony indicated that one hatchet was the size of the instrument that impacted the victims, so were hundreds of other hatchets.  

Another example of the manipulation of evidence involved a dress that Lizzie burned while under guard by the Fall River police. After the police conducted three separate searches of the house and barn and during a period following the crimes when the police were positioned outside the house to guard it and observe the comings and goings of its inhabitants, no evidence implicating Lizzie was found nor was there any police report of any evidence having been removed from the house by an occupant. During the course of her confinement and as Emma cleaned the house (crime scene), Lizzie burned a dress that had been soiled by paint three months prior to the murders. The dress was burned in their stove and Lizzie’s good friend, Alice Russell, witnessed her tearing it up at the stove. During the Grand Jury phase of the investigation, after an extended period of adjournment, Russell came forward and testified that Lizzie burned a soiled dress. According to the transcripts of the Inquest and the Preliminary Hearing, Alice Russell had said nothing about the dress burning incident. It was only when Miss Russell asked for, and was granted, the chance to amend her previous testimony, that the tale was officially told. Alice’s Grand Jury revelation proved to be the deciding factor in indicting Lizzie and holding her for trial. At this point it was too late for officials to examine the dress for what might or might not be present. As overkill would prevail, Lizzie was formally charged with three indictments of murder—one for Andrew Borden, one for Abby Borden, and another which included both of the victims. 

Instead of asking additional investigative questions prior to the indictment, the prosecution subsequently lost the persuasiveness of their evidence when the truth came out about the dress and the burning. Through an independent witness it was supported that there was paint on the dress prior to the murders. Emma claimed she instructed Lizzie to burn it when she did. One question to consider is where was the dress during all three of the searches prior to the burning? Either the police overlooked it or its value as evidence was not as inflammatory as officials later suggested.

RHETORICAL OVERREACH

As their ignorance led them to lose what little circumstantial evidence they had, the police overlooked significant areas of examination. They accepted the testimony of the maid, Bridget Sullivan, too quickly, as well as the alibi of John Morse, Andrew’s brother-in-law. The strongest point that suggests a need for further inquiry may have moved the investigation in a different direction. Bridget testified that the morning of the murders she was not feeling well. However, Abby Borden instructed her to wash the windows, inside and out. Bridget testified that these instructions were given to her after John Morse left for a social engagement that morning about 8.45 AM. In Morse’s original inquest testimony, he offers the information that he heard Abby Borden give these instructions to Bridget at breakfast about 7.15 AM. In a time line constructed through documented testimony, Bridget claims she received these instructions at least ten minutes after Morse left the residence. This conflict constituted a major discrepancy and needed further inquiry. If Bridget’s testimony is accurate and the most consistent, and if Morse did hear the instructions given to Bridget by Abby, he would have been in the house after he officially left. However, police did not pursue further inquiry in this direction. Both situations cannot be true. After an analysis of Bridget’s testimony, which was lengthy and detailed, throughout the preliminary hearing and trial she remained consistent in all aspects. John Morse simply was not asked to clarify his statement. 

In addition to this inadequate inquiry, Lizzie had a right to decline to answer questions at the inquest if they tended to incriminate her. She did not necessarily have the right to counsel within the confines of the secret inquiry under Massachusetts law. The fact that there had been a warrant for her arrest already sworn and in the pocket of Marshal Hilliard while Lizzie was compelled to testify reflected the police and mayor’s rush to arrest Lizzie before even the Inquest began. Thus the judge ruled that Lizzie was “practically in custody” when she was brought before the inquiry by subpoena and therefore her testimony was inadmissible. Is it realistic, then, for us to believe that no deception was intended? I believe that both the Prosecutor and Judge intended to deceive Lizzie in order to get her confession. After all, she was merely a woman who stood to undermine their patriarchal privilege of power and control.

During her inquest testimony, Lizzie was under the influence of morphine, as prescribed by Dr. Bowen, the Borden family physician. Dr. Bowen testified at the trial that Lizzie was under the influence of a doubled dosage of morphine (Trial 327-328). Authors and scholars have used the fact of Lizzie’s medicated state to support their assertions that her testimony at the Inquest was compromised and her thoughts jumbled as she gave conflicting statements as to her whereabouts the morning of the murders. While some of her testimony may have been unclear, after an objective review of Lizzie’s Inquest testimony, and with eleven years experience as a Prosecutor’s Detective in a Major Crimes Unit, I suggest that the questions presented by the Prosecutor were leading, deceptive, and manipulative, and that Lizzie was not as much the victim of a morphine induced state as she was provoked by an expert prosecutor which caused her to appear to indict herself in the crimes by seeming contradictions of fact.                    

For example, deceitfully leading lines of questioning that the prosecutor pursued involved his persistent questioning regarding her whereabouts when her father returned home the day of the murders, the frequency of John Morse’s visits, and Lizzie’s search for lead through a box in the barn. The implication of his pursuit is that her answers weren’t “right” and he needed to direct her to answer them again until he found the answer that he wanted. Deception is part of police investigations but in the court room there is a fine line between trickery and deception. First, as I mentioned earlier, the circumstances surrounding Lizzie’s Inquest testimony was deceptive. Also, in the questioning regarding Lizzie’s whereabouts at the time of her father’s return, the prosecutor blatantly used tactics to confuse her. On day two of the Inquest, the following occurs:

Q. (Knowlton) Now I call your attention to the fact that twice yesterday you told me, with some explicitness, that when your father came in, you were just coming down stairs.

A. No, I did not, I beg your pardon.

Q. That you were on the stairs at the time your father was let in, you said with some explicitness.  Do you now say you did not say so? (Inquest 66).

The result of this line of questioning was that Lizzie appeared to be changing her story and the Prosecutor looked like he “caught her.” But after review of her testimony on day one, the Prosecutor actually changed her words. Specifically, Lizzie initially stated that she was in the kitchen when her father came home. However, after the Prosecutor asked this same question several times (implying her answer was not ‘correct’) he managed to gain several different answers from a morphine-influenced Lizzie as to her whereabouts. After Lizzie became totally confused on day one of the Inquest regarding this issue, Lizzie would later clear up her position. 

I don’t know what I have said. I have answered so many questions and I am so confused I don’t know one thing from another. I am telling you just as nearly as I know (Inquest 61).

After this frustrated outburst by Lizzie, she asserts at least twice that she was in the kitchen when her father came home the day of the murders, which was her original answer to the question. The Prosecutor should have reviewed his notes of her testimony for day one. By asking her numerous times as to her whereabouts he was attempting to mislead her and distort her ability to answer. His questions on day two were based upon her answers from questions on day one. This was his deceptive effort to gain that ‘confession.’

Lastly, the Prosecutor was also manipulative in his direct questioning. For example, on day one of the Inquest, Lizzie stated that she did go upstairs, at one point, to sew a piece of tape on a garment. On day two the prosecutor refers to this circumstance:

Q.You mean you went up there to sew a button on?

A.I basted a piece of tape on.

Q.Do you remember that you did not say that yesterday?

A. I don’t think you asked me.  I told you yesterday I went up stairs directly after I came up from down cellar, with the clean clothes (Inquest 67).

Lizzie is truthful here.  She did not tell him she went to sew a button but the Prosecutor wanted her to agree with him, in order to demonstrate that she presents inconsistent testimony. The Prosecutor is wrong—Lizzie never mentioned she went to sew on a button. This leads us to believe the Prosecution was either ill prepared or calculatingly deceptive in his attempt to make Lizzie look like a liar.

In her testimony, Lizzie remained as consistent as she could, considering the impact of the morphine. As a matter of fact, it is obvious the Prosecutor, at times, became frustrated with his inability to trip her up or destroy her composure. During the Prosecutor’s questions regarding the fishing lines at the farm and the reasons why Lizzie would have to look for sinkers before going fishing, he seemed to be vexed because he could not ‘control’ Lizzie’s answers.

Q.What was the use of telling me a little while ago you had no sinkers on your line at the farm?

A.I thought I made you understand that those lines at the farm were no good to use.

Q.Did you not mean for me to understand one of the reasons you were searching for sinkers was that the lines you had at the farm, as you remembered then, had no sinkers on them?

A. I said the lines at the farm had no sinkers.

Q. I did not ask you what you said.  Did you not mean for me to understand that? (Inquest 72).

The questioning here demonstrates that Lizzie was going to answer questions without being manipulated by the Prosecutor and he seemed irritated that he couldn’t get her to answer how he wanted her to answer.

DISPOSITION

Gender Bias most definitely guided and manipulated this investigation and the disposition of the case, which impacted Lizzie Andrew Borden during one of the most difficult periods in her life. Interestingly, it is this same gender bias that proved to save her life and find her not guilty of the horrific crimes. In addition to the fact that there was not one piece of direct evidence that linked Lizzie to the murders, Lizzie was acquitted because the all-male jury based their verdict on this awful question—could my daughter, wife, or sister, kill me? At this time in Victorian New England, the answer to this question would have to be no, and this resounding “no” was given very quickly, with hardly any deliberations, in one hour and eight minutes. If their answer had been other, it would set the stage for the decline of patriarchy in their community. In 1892 Fall River, violent crime involving women did occur, but with the female as the victim, not generally as the perpetrator. Without a tradition of woman-on-man crime, the male populace of the case (i.e. the judges, jury, police, and newspapermen) was content to accuse, but not convict, a woman of the outrageously brutal and sadistic acts of patricide and matricide. Lizzie’s punishment for her perceived crimes, then, was the incarceration of ten months, the ordeal of her trial, and her ostracization by Fall River as her life sentence.

The intention of this essay was to not only show the complicated nature of the case but to suggest that to define Lizzie as either being guilty or innocent is a flawed endeavor based upon fallacies of logic grounded in gender bias. To make the assumption of her innocence or guilt, either alone or with an accomplice, one must hold tight to far too many disconnected misconceptions, rendering understanding and clarity out of reach. It is my hope, especially with this new journal, The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies, that the narrative of Lizzie Borden will live on and we will continue to be engaged in a dialectic that is finally outside the rhetoric of gender bias.

Works Cited:

Belknap, Joanne. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. CA: Wadsworth, 2001.

Burt, Frank H. The Trial of Lizzie A. Borden. Upon an indictment charging her with the murders of Abby Durfee Borden and Andrew Jackson Borden. Before the Superior Court for the County of Bristol. Official stenographic report by Frank H. Burt (New Bedford, MA., 1893, 2 volumes).

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

Gustafson, Anita. Guilty or Innocent?  NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985.

History’s Mysteries: The Strange Case of Lizzie Borden. A & E Television Networks, NY: New Video Group, 1996.

Hunter, Evan. Lizzie.  NY: Arbor House, 1984.

Inquest Upon the Deaths of Andrew J. and Abby D. Borden, August 9 – 11, 1892, Volume I and II. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society.

Kent, David. Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden. PA: Yankee Books, 1992.

—. The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook. Boston: Branden Publishing Company, Inc., 1992.

Kronenwetter, Michael. Free Press v. Fair Trial. NY: Franklin Watts, 1986.

Lincoln, Victoria.  A Private Disgrace: Lizzie Borden by Daylight. NY: G.P. Putnam’s and Sons, 1967.

Lustgarten, Edgar. Verdict in Dispute. NY: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1950.

Muraskin, Roslyn. It’s a Crime: Women and Justice. NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.

Porter, E. H. The Fall River Tragedy. ME: Robert A. Flynn, King Phillip Publishing, 1985 (First published  George Buffington Co, 1893).

Radin, Edward. Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1961.

Rappaport, Doreen. Be the Judge, Be the Jury: The Lizzie Borden Trial. NY: Harper Collins, 1992.

Rebello, Leonard.  Lizzie Borden: Past and Present.  MA: Al-Zach Press, 1999.

Shanley, Mary Lyndon. Feminism, Marriage, and the Law in Victorian New England. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Showalter, Elaine. Hystories. NY: Columbia University Press, 1997.

Spiering, Frank. Lizzie.  NY: Random House, 1984.

Sullivan, Robert. Goodbye Lizzie Borden.  Vermont: Stephen Greene Press, 1974.