what should Lizzie have done?

[PossumPie]

...
For me, the problem is that no matter what version of events someone accepts, you have to accept something that was rather unlikely. It IS unlikely that someone took the risk of taking out the hatchet for Lizzie. It is also unlikely that the hatchet remained hidden in the house through determined police searches by cops that were so desperate to find it that in the end they concocted the bogus broken hatchet theory. And it's also unlikely that an intruder got in unseen, killed Abby and Andrew unheard, and escaped through the crowded neighborhood unnoticed.

So it's a matter of choosing which unlikely scenario is most likely. In the end, that's what we argue about...

I agree.

And I have chosen my senario, in my opinion the most likely one among all these unlikely scenarios: "an intruder got in unseen, killed Abby and Andrew unheard, and escaped through the crowded neighborhood unnoticed."

Franz you forgot to mention "for a reason unknown"

[Franz]

...
I agree.

And I have chosen my senario, in my opinion the most likely one among all these unlikely scenarios: "an intruder got in unseen, killed Abby and Andrew unheard, and escaped through the crowded neighborhood unnoticed."

Franz you forgot to mention "for a reason unknown"

I didn't forget that. I just copied a phrase of Leitskeiv.

Did Lizzie kill for money? This reason (motive) is not a "known" reason, it is just a conjectural one.

[Mara]

PossumPie, thanks. I'm from rural Virginia, where temps in the 80s in August come with such ghastly humidity that it can be unbearable just to go about one's daily business, let alone manage heavy housework. After summer thunderstorms, as a cause of which we often lose power and have to live without air conditioning for sometimes as long as a week, I marvel at how people once lived like that routinely, and with heavier clothing required. I forgot that summers are different in New England, even when the thermometer reading is the same. I appreciate your setting me straight on that.

Something I guess we all have a tendency to do is automatically apply the rules of logic and sanity to the actions of everyone connected with this strange case. It's easy forget that crazy people sometimes do crazy things -- and sometimes sane people just plain act crazy. That's why facts, rather than conjecture about motives, are so important. Yet in this case, even the facts are almost hopelessly muddled! More fun for us, though, yes?

I hope more established Forum members won't mind my occasional thoughts and questions. Believe me, I respect the scholarship of those who know far more than I ever will about the Borden murders, but I realize that comments from lesser lights can be a bother.

[PossumPie]

PossumPie, thanks. I'm from rural Virginia, where temps in the 80s in August come with such ghastly humidity that it can be unbearable just to go about one's daily business, let alone manage heavy housework. After summer thunderstorms, as a cause of which we often lose power and have to live without air conditioning for sometimes as long as a week, I marvel at how people once lived like that routinely, and with heavier clothing required. I forgot that summers are different in New England, even when the thermometer reading is the same. I appreciate your setting me straight on that.

Something I guess we all have a tendency to do is automatically apply the rules of logic and sanity to the actions of everyone connected with this strange case. It's easy forget that crazy people sometimes do crazy things -- and sometimes sane people just plain act crazy. That's why facts, rather than conjecture about motives, are so important. Yet in this case, even the facts are almost hopelessly muddled! More fun for us, though, yes?

I hope more established Forum members won't mind my occasional thoughts and questions. Believe me, I respect the scholarship of those who know far more than I ever will about the Borden murders, but I realize that comments from lesser lights can be a bother.

My mother is from the eastern shore of Virginia, yep it gets Hazy,Hot, and Humid. I have seen arguments that the weather facts are wrong and it was hot, police said it was hot in the barn and I've seen the data saying it wasn't hot. Like everything else in the case, it is confusing.

[Mara]

A new year's resolution for me: re-read all the testimony. That should take me the better part of 2014, so I've also got my resolution for 2015: finish it!

[Franz]

A new year's resolution for me: re-read all the testimony. That should take me the better part of 2014, so I've also got my resolution for 2015: finish it!

Enjoy your reading!

[Curryong]

I agree the Borden case can seem like a maze sometimes. But, IF we except a murderous intruder, and stick to those in the household who were present on that day and go back to the three classic precepts of crime detection, vis. method, motive and opportunity, things do become clearer, no?

[PossumPie]

Motive, Means, and Opportunity, while important, can't convict. Lots of people have a motive to kill someone, but don't do it. The means of killing can be found in any house, garage, or even outside, so this leg of the triangle needs much supporting evidence to tie a means to a suspect-such as fingerprints. The opportunity is the easiest to DISPROVE, If you were in Las Vegas, and the killing happened in Fairfax, Virginia, you couldn't have had the opportunity. That is unless you hired someone to kill and went to Vegas for an alibi.
The hardest murders to solve are ones that are seemingly random. Without any motive except the thrill of doing it, it's hard to find a suspect. That is why family members are always looked at as suspects first...when you live with someone, you have a lot of time to develop a motive, tons of opportunity to kill, and the means to do it are right in the home.

[leitskev]

Well said, Possum. What she said!

[Curryong]

Yes, Possum Pie, I know that MOST murders are domestic, (at least here in Australia!) with a high proportion of males killing their spouses. (Police do try to find motive/ who benefits from the death of the partner quite early in such cases.) However, I suppose I was concentrating more on the arguments on this forum rather than the full-blown police investigation of the time, ie that if we look at the three main contenders within the household, Lizzie, Uncle John and Bridget, who had means, motive and most importantly, opportunity to commit these murders.

[leitskev]

I think one of the main reasons, really the main reason, that Lizzie is the overwhelming suspect is not so much because she had the means and opportunity...but rather because it's hard to imagine that anyone else could have. The house was mostly locked up , there were 2 killings separated by an hour and a half, and there were 2 people that were in the house that didn't see or hear anything. That creates the likelihood that one or both of them is lying.

It's hard to imagine Bridgett killing both Abby and Andrew with Lizzy hearing or seeing anything. What's more, there is nothing suspicious in Bridget's version of events.

However, when Abby was killed, Bridget seems to have been outside, confirmed by Lizzie's testimony. Likewise when Andrew was killed, Lizzie confirms that Bridget was upstairs napping. So it's difficult to imagine Bridget committing the acts unless Lizzie was involved and lying in her statements.

Which pretty much leaves just Lizzie.

It's not impossible that an intruder got in and out unseen and unheard...but highly unlikely.

As far as motive, I don't think any of the evidence helps build the case, not much anyway. There's friction in any house, Lizzie had a comfortable level of wealth, and Emma stood to inherit the family fortune. Evidence suggests she was close to her father to a degree. I don't think motive sheds light here one way or the other.

[Curryong]

I didn't mean to push the theory of means, motive and opportunity over the top! 'Twas only a suggestion! However, surely you agree that If the murderer was Lizzy her motivations for killing her father and stepmother have been discussed many times throughout this forum and if she killed them without a clear motive then she's even stranger than I've always thought her!

[leitskev]

I'm not saying she didn't have a motive. I'm saying there is not enough evidence of motive that it becomes a substantial part of building the case against her. It's possible that she was a psychopath...and in fact there is new evidence that this may be part of her genetic heritage(if needed, I'll expand on that). It's possible that she was pissed that Andrew wouldn't build a house on the hill where the blue bloods lived. It's possible she resented Abby as her step mother who she felt threatened her inheritance. It's possible Abby just plain nagged her to the point of breaking, or some other little thing that we'll never know. People living together can end up at each other's throats. The things that drive people to murder can seem hard to understand from a distance. But when I weigh the probability of her guilt, motive doesn't really enter the equation. I look for other types of evidence. And don't worry, you weren't pushing anything! We're all just talking. Push away!

[Constantine]

...and in fact there is new evidence that this may be part of her genetic heritage(if needed, I'll expand on that).

You bet it's needed. Please, let's hear it!

[Mara]

Please do expand! It may not be needed, but it sure would be interesting.

[PossumPie]

I'm not saying she didn't have a motive. I'm saying there is not enough evidence of motive that it becomes a substantial part of building the case against her. It's possible that she was a psychopath...and in fact there is new evidence that this may be part of her genetic heritage(if needed, I'll expand on that). It's possible that she was pissed that Andrew wouldn't build a house on the hill where the blue bloods lived. It's possible she resented Abby as her step mother who she felt threatened her inheritance. It's possible Abby just plain nagged her to the point of breaking, or some other little thing that we'll never know. People living together can end up at each other's throats. The things that drive people to murder can seem hard to understand from a distance. But when I weigh the probability of her guilt, motive doesn't really enter the equation. I look for other types of evidence. And don't worry, you weren't pushing anything! We're all just talking. Push away!

I don't think that Lizzie felt "comfortable" with her "wealth" She went to Europe, saw how the better half lived, she saw the homes the upper class lived in...They lived in a cracker-box two-unit old home converted back to a single family dwelling. They had no phone, electric, indoor toilet/bathroom, and lived in a part of the city that was not the best. She HAD to be discontent. She had a small room and Emma had a tiny room. The first thing she did after acquittal was move out and into a REAL nice home, on the hill, with all modern conveniences, carved a poem into the mantle and carved the name of the house onto the front step. That is about as ostentatious as you can get. No, Even if she was not the killer, you must admit she welcomed that money and the change in lifestyle.

[Constantine]

They lived in a cracker-box two-unit old home converted back to a single family dwelling.

Strange to think that many of us today would give our eyeteeth to live in such a house (with the modern conveniences it has since acquired, of course)!

[leitskev]

Not a surprise they moved out after acquittal. Wouldn't anyone? And no doubt she wanted more money and better living conditions, but that hardly establishes motive for murder. It might have been a motive, it might not. It's not enough that it should influence our weighing evidence on who the killer was.

Look at it this way: if Lizzie wasn't home, was there enough evidence of motive that one might suspect she hired someone to do the deed? I don't think so. If Lizzie had been with Emma, no one would suspect they had motive to kill their parents. I mean there might be some speculation, there always is when someone inherits and the crime goes unsolved, but beyond that there would be no suspicion.

[Curryong]

Yes, leitskev, please let us hear about possible genetic factors/ new evidence. Is it connected to Sarah Borden's 'spells' and so-called black moods?

[Mara]

I mean there might be some speculation, there always is when someone inherits and the crime goes unsolved, but beyond that there would be no suspicion.

True about the speculation. But it might have been weightier with two sisters as suspects than that which sent Lizzie to trial. It would have been easy to assume collusion.

People might have speculated that Abby's murder, the more ferocious of the two, was carried out by the more temperamental of the sisters, with the more reserved one handling their father.

People might have speculated that they stood watch for each other and kept "Maggie" out of the loop during both murders.

They might even have speculated that the time between the murders was taken up with discussion about how to handle the aftermath and how son after dispatching Father they should raise the alarm.

Of course, people would assume they helped each other look tidy before raising that alarm. So much easier to do with help. ;)

[PossumPie]

Not a surprise they moved out after acquittal. Wouldn't anyone? And no doubt she wanted more money and better living conditions, but that hardly establishes motive for murder. It might have been a motive, it might not. It's not enough that it should influence our weighing evidence on who the killer was.

Look at it this way: if Lizzie wasn't home, was there enough evidence of motive that one might suspect she hired someone to do the deed? I don't think so. If Lizzie had been with Emma, no one would suspect they had motive to kill their parents. I mean there might be some speculation, there always is when someone inherits and the crime goes unsolved, but beyond that there would be no suspicion.

Leitskev, You are correct, it's not surprising that they moved. But looking at her choice of home, is obvious that she was not content in that old house. She moved UP. Up the hill, Up in neighborhood, Up in size, Up in conveniences. Emma eventually moved out, and never bought a home of her own. In fact she moved from friend to friend's house, relative to relative, never having a place of her own. That implies she didn't care about having a nice large rich home as much as she cared about having caring people around her. Lizzie was content to live alone, but wanted wealth. While not clear motive, it is telling about her personality.

Converted to today's money, Lizzie and Emma inherited about TEN MILLION DOLLARS! That isn't pocket change.
Even if Lizzie and Emma had been in Europe when the murders occurred,TEN MILLION is still motive.
When we ask ourselves- who gained from the crimes, Lizzie and Emma gained financially. I think people would have still said Lizzie must have paid someone to kill them while she was away. With them dead, Lizzie got money, a new home, freedom to live her desired lifestyle. You read all the time about lawsuits, fights, and even murder when large inheritances are involved. How can you say people wouldn't have suspected her?

[leitskev]

I had trouble in the last post describing what I meant, and I'm not sure I can do any better now. I think I would expand on it by saying whenever someone of wealth is killed, one of the first places to start the investigation is to look at who benefited from the inheritance...but I think that's more a starting point for an investigation than suspicion of guilt. In today's terms, it's the difference between a "person of interest" and a "suspect".

Let me try something.

Let's pretend early that morning Bridget went to visit a friend in New York, and Lizzie had gone on the train to Providence. And let's say the side door was found unlocked after the murders when Morse returned and discovered the bodies. And let's further suppose there really WAS an intruder who entered the house and killed the Bordens. Maybe it was a disgruntled tenant or something. Wouldn't we still be able to say Lizzie had motive? After all, she ultimately would have done the same thing, building Maplethorpe and living the life she did.

So I'm just saying that from the perspective of trying to determine who killed the Bordens, the fact that Lizzie and Emma inherited the wealth doesn't weigh much for me. If, say, we learned that Andrew had discovered that Lizzie had had an affair with the preacher and was about to throw her out of the house...that would weigh as a motive to me. If we learned that Andrew had recently forced Lizzie to have an abortion, and thus the bloody bucket...that would weigh as motive to me. The fact that Lizzie stood to inherit, while it could have been the motive, just doesn't tell me enough. Does that make sense?

[PossumPie]

Leitskev, All that says to me is that you BELIEVE money wasn't motive enough, but a fight over an abortion would have been. That completely depends on the individual. I believe the equivalent of ten million dollars is one heck of a huge motivator to someone willing to squabble over her step mom getting a house for her relatives!

[Aamartin]

Not a surprise they moved out after acquittal. Wouldn't anyone? And no doubt she wanted more money and better living conditions, but that hardly establishes motive for murder. It might have been a motive, it might not. It's not enough that it should influence our weighing evidence on who the killer was.

Look at it this way: if Lizzie wasn't home, was there enough evidence of motive that one might suspect she hired someone to do the deed? I don't think so. If Lizzie had been with Emma, no one would suspect they had motive to kill their parents. I mean there might be some speculation, there always is when someone inherits and the crime goes unsolved, but beyond that there would be no suspicion.

Leitskev, You are correct, it's not surprising that they moved. But looking at her choice of home, is obvious that she was not content in that old house. She moved UP. Up the hill, Up in neighborhood, Up in size, Up in conveniences. Emma eventually moved out, and never bought a home of her own. In fact she moved from friend to friend's house, relative to relative, never having a place of her own. That implies she didn't care about having a nice large rich home as much as she cared about having caring people around her. Lizzie was content to live alone, but wanted wealth. While not clear motive, it is telling about her personality.

Converted to today's money, Lizzie and Emma inherited about TEN MILLION DOLLARS! That isn't pocket change.
Even if Lizzie and Emma had been in Europe when the murders occurred,TEN MILLION is still motive.
When we ask ourselves- who gained from the crimes, Lizzie and Emma gained financially. I think people would have still said Lizzie must have paid someone to kill them while she was away. With them dead, Lizzie got money, a new home, freedom to live her desired lifestyle. You read all the time about lawsuits, fights, and even murder when large inheritances are involved. How can you say people wouldn't have suspected her?

Let us assume that one of us inherited $10,000 from a parent we lived with in average circumstances prior to their death. Would I move up? You damn right.

I wonder-- if there had been a conviction-- proof that someone else did the deed-- would it have bothered people so much about moving to Maplecroft?

[Franz]

I had trouble in the last post describing what I meant, and I'm not sure I can do any better now. I think I would expand on it by saying whenever someone of wealth is killed, one of the first places to start the investigation is to look at who benefited from the inheritance...but I think that's more a starting point for an investigation than suspicion of guilt. In today's terms, it's the difference between a "person of interest" and a "suspect".

Let me try something.

Let's pretend early that morning Bridget went to visit a friend in New York, and Lizzie had gone on the train to Providence. And let's say the side door was found unlocked after the murders when Morse returned and discovered the bodies. And let's further suppose there really WAS an intruder who entered the house and killed the Bordens. Maybe it was a disgruntled tenant or something. Wouldn't we still be able to say Lizzie had motive? After all, she ultimately would have done the same thing, building Maplethorpe and living the life she did.

So I'm just saying that from the perspective of trying to determine who killed the Bordens, the fact that Lizzie and Emma inherited the wealth doesn't weigh much for me. If, say, we learned that Andrew had discovered that Lizzie had had an affair with the preacher and was about to throw her out of the house...that would weigh as a motive to me. If we learned that Andrew had recently forced Lizzie to have an abortion, and thus the bloody bucket...that would weigh as motive to me. The fact that Lizzie stood to inherit, while it could have been the motive, just doesn't tell me enough. Does that make sense?

Very very well said, Leitskev! "The fact that Lizzie stood to inherit, while it could have been the motive, just doesn't tell" enough to me neither. No matter who (other than Lizzie) killed the Borden couple, Lizzie (and Emma) stood to inherit. And if I am not wrong, we have no other concrete evidence to indicate that Lizzie did kill for money - I am not simply saying that Lizzie did kill, but Lizzie did kill for money ---. This motive of her is only a conjecture and is made only because of the simple fact that she was the daughter of a very very rich man, (and if this rich man died, she would stand to inherit): all this is weak, even very weak, to accuse anyone.

[leitskev]

See, if Andrew had caught Lizzie in something scandalous(not suggesting that's the case, this is hypothetical), and was threatening to throw her out, than that would have created a crisis. A crisis like that can create the motive for murder. Lizzie was 32. Why didn't she kill her parents five years before if it was for money?

Again, I am not saying money was not her motive. What I am saying it is not the kind of compelling motive that weighs heavily as evidence. I mean if it is, then we should suspect Emma's involvement, but not many people do.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-In ... 1591846005

This new book is written by a neuroscientist who has studied psychopathic brains. He was shocked to discover that he himself had one! Furthermore, he is a descendant of the Bordens. In the book, he lists a long line of family members who seemed to share a trait which predisposes one to psychopathic behavior. He speculates that it's connected to an aggressive gene that has thrived in human populations in dangerous times.

The psychopathic brain has trouble with empathy. It doesn't react on a deep emotional level to other people's suffering. People may live completely normal lives with such a brain, but they are different.

Lizzie is not discussed much in the book, the murders not at all. I myself wonder if Lizzie fantasized about the killings for some time. Not primarily for reasons of greed, though that is connected to it. When she sent people upstairs searching for Abby, it was almost as though she couldn't wait for the body to be found. It excited her. All the attention, the drama...and it was all due to her work.

But those are just idle speculations on my part. The fact is, there is not much evidence of psychopathic behavior. But there is some: there are the thefts within the house and the later arrest for shoplifting. Perhaps these were unconscious cries for attention. What a boring life they must have lived. I mean what did they have to do? There was no internet to start arguments over! They had no responsibilities. I think all she had was her Sunday school stuff. Big thrill there.

After the murders, Lizzie was involved with theater people, wild parties, etc. Living in that house with Andrew and Abby, she was comfortable...but bored as hell. She probably developed a deep fantasy life. Those killings were the most exciting things that ever happened in her life. And she may have thought it would be easy to get away with because she got away with the thefts previously.

Now, one might say they understand killing for money, but they don't understand killing your parents for excitement. But the psychopath has trouble caring for those around them. They are capable of caring...but the caring is tenuous, easily overcome by other needs. In her case, maybe the need for excitement, to feel alive, fueled fantasies which eventually overcame any caring she felt.

That's why she was not as careful with her attempts to create an alibi or a plausible explanation. Because she was not a cool, calculating person planning murders for fortune. She was someone in the grips of fantasy, a scheme which would put her at the center of attention for a while. She was already thinking about what to do at the funeral...her mind was absorbed in all the future drama she would be near the center of. It was exciting.

[Curryong]

Great post leitskev . Lizzie certainly appears to, at least partly, to exhibit the psychopathic characteristics you have so vividly described. Of course, such a diagnosis will always be purely speculative as none of us can time-travel and actually meet the lady. If true then the attention given to Lizizie after the murders and during her trial must have been pure, if necessarily secret, ecstasy. I agree that her anxiety that others find Abby rather than she discover it alone (where would be the glory in that?) probably does betray some secret inner excitement.
However, I do feel that you under-estimate somewhat Lizzie's need for money (the money motive) in order to lead the sort of life she wanted among surroundings she almost certainly felt she deserved. Why not kill her parents five years before when the issue first came up? Well I do feel, it is true without any evidence whatever, that her Uncle John's visit and late-night discussions with her father did push Lizzie's buttons somehow. She was already planning murder (in my opinion) because of her frustration levels at getting older, leading a dull life etc. with two older people in the house who weren't going to cater to her ambitions to lead life as a 'someone' in Fall River Society. Perhaps she overheard talk of wills (I still find it very peculiar that someone like Mr Borden didn't have one) or of the Swansea property between her father and uncle on that balmy Wednesday night or even (pure speculation, this) crept down before breakfast to listen at the dining room door on the Thursday and brooded on it. If she believed that she was about to be deprived of anything which she believed to be rightfully hers, then, psychopath or simply greedy bitch, it may well have caused her to act precipitately.

[leitskev]

It would be cool if we could get a psychologist here. A good one, someone who could really look at the evidence and make some professional speculation. Or even an FBI profiler.

Keep in mind, to be clear, my main point has not been that financial gain could not have been her main motive...rather, my emphasis has been that the fact that she gained does not really tell us much regarding whether she did it or not. Anyone in that house could have had motive, anyone who knew Andrew...was a tenant, or an employee...could have had motive. Just because Lizzie gained from their deaths does not, to me, shed much light on innocence or guilt. But if she is indeed guilty, that very well could be the motive.

I think you've hit in a key point, and I've mentioned this before. I look at coincidences for clues. John shows up, and the next day Andrew is killed. It could be coincidence. But often what looks like coincidence is something more, as you rightly suggest. And John didn't just show up...he was summoned by Andrew, and then went out on some business which absorbed his time the next day. It's also odd that according to Dr. Bowen, Abby visited the day before thinking maybe they were being poisoned. And then Bowen made an unwanted house call, only to be rebuffed by Andrew. Odd things to all be happening within a 30 hour period.

The reason I speculated above that maybe Lizzie's actions were more psychotic than motivated by greed were because I would expect someone acting on greed to be a better planner. I find it a bit revealing that Lizzie did essentially nothing to try to create a more plausible intruder scenario. Like at least open a door and come up with a clear version of events. If it were me, I would have left the house before Andrew got home, telling Bridgett I was going downtown. Then I would have sneaked back in around 11 and taken care of Andrew, and then headed out again. And this, IF she got away unseen, would have gotten her off the hook for Abby's death, even though she was home. Because if it was shown that Lizzie could not have called Andrew, no one would have suspected that she was the one to kill Abby.

It wouldn't have worked, of course. There were way too many prying eyes in that neighborhood. But it's strange that she really made no effort to plan some plausible explanation. I see someone acting for material gain as acting more rationally...a better planner.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud! Thanks for the post.

[Curryong]

I wonder where Lizzie kept her hats. Because no true Victorian woman would have gone out to 'Town' without one. If as you suggest, leitskev, she had gone out, surely, if her hats were kept upstairs, she would have used the front stairs and thus been faced with her 'work' in the guest room. Which may have led to some awkward questions afterwards. "So, Miss Borden, you were so anxious to do some shopping that you didn't even notice your stepmother's body in the guest room?" Of course I suppose she could always say she used the back stairs.

[Constantine]

I would expect someone acting on greed to be a better planner.

Not necessarily. Greedy people come at all levels of intelligence. I think it can safely be said that Lizzie was not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. (Her communicating her "fears" to Alice the night before that "someone will do something" is a pretty good indication of that!)

[Mara]

What am interesting conversation to eavesdrop upon!

Just a quick thought about the back-stairs option. It's my understanding that the back stairs admitted one only to the rear of the house.

[Curryong]

True, maybe she wouldn't then! Back to 'I ran past in my hurry and did not see a thing!'

[PossumPie]

Couple of points. There is just not enough info on Lizzie to make any psychological deductions, other than simplistic ones. I have a BA in Psychology, a Master's in Counseling, with an emphasis on Truama and forensic psychology. I am also an RN. I have been in the field of psyc. for 26 years. This isn't to brag, just to give a background that my comments that are psychologically oriented come from education and experience. (that doesn't make me right though)

There is not enough hard facts about Lizzie to make a diagnosis. Much of the talk of her "kleptomania" was exaggerated, I could only find a few possible instances. She didn't seem to exhibit a need for thrills, risks, or excitement, more than the average person. We see no documentation on fire-setting or cruelty to animals either, but again, we just don't know enough. She exhibited little emotion around her parents deaths, but people deal with shock differently. It is curious that she was so obsessed with sending someone upstairs to find Mrs. Borden, that seems to be suspicious. She also talked a lot before the crimes of all the danger the family appeared to be in, but no one else seemed to voice the concern. That seems like an immature attempt to "set the stage" for what was to come. Some witnesses have reported that she genuinely seemed sad while in jail, over the loss of her father, but again, not enough information to know for sure. The thing we are really lacking is video of her. If a profiler/psychologist could hear her voice, see her eye contact, listen to the cadence of her speech, etc. there may be the opportunity of making a better observation, but all we have is words typed on paper. We don't know for sure how she sounded or looked when questioned by police. Obviously in the 1800's there was no video.

Leitskev's comment on the excellent book about psychopaths is on the mark. Many of the people you meet, are friends with, and even love may have "sociopathic/psychopathic" personality traits. these are not mental disorders like depression or anxiety that come-and-go. These are personality traits that form very early in childhood, and are with you until death. A lack of true empathy to others, often masked by "pretending to care" saying the right things so you don't look different. Many politicians, Ambulance workers, Police, CEOs and lawyers have higher than average psychopathic traits. That is why they are successful, a lack of real empathy for others makes them successful in a business where your actions influence others' lives. The vast majority of people like this DON'T go on to commit crimes. But some do, some are good at it. Ted Bundy was charming and lovable, but was sociopathic (the better word than psychopathic) Many people with these traits don't harm others simply b/c they are afraid of getting caught.

Lastly, it is my experience that coincidence is often just coincidence. The human mind is wired to find patterns where none exist. That is why people pay hundreds of dollars for a piece of toast with Jesus face burnt on it. We see patterns in stars, where there is none. I've seen pictures purported to be Mother Mary's face on a wall with paint peeling off. We OVER see, we put too much significance in coincidental things. After JFK assassination, after 911, every little coincidence was given great meaning. I'm not saying there is no connection, just that when I see Morse come the day before the killings, I think perhaps it was not significant. People "snap" after years of slow gradual buildup, I tend to think that if Lizzie killed them, there was no planning, no making an alibi, no forethought other than day by day, month by month dissatisfaction, anger at Abby, worry of not getting the inheritance, anger at father not moving to a better house, frustration building to one day, perhaps hearing a comment that was the "straw that broke the camel's back" she snapped, hacked them up, then backtracked to cover her tracks. Think about school shootings, people going 'postal' etc. The vast majority of the time, people say "he was quiet, shy, but I would have never thought he would do this."

[Curryong]

Of course, PossumPie, we can't 'diagnose' someone who died decades ago, (though I used to post on the largest 'Jack the Ripper' site, and a retired F.B.I profiler was most interesting about that particular gentleman!) Nevertheless it's fun, isn't it, to bring to the board new theories and ideas and toss them about in a light-hearted sort of way. None of us, this side of the grave, will ever know the truth about Lizzie Borden anyway!

[PossumPie]

Of course, PossumPie, we can't 'diagnose' someone who died decades ago, (though I used to post on the largest 'Jack the Ripper' site, and a retired F.B.I profiler was most interesting about that particular gentleman!) Nevertheless it's fun, isn't it, to bring to the board new theories and ideas and toss them about in a light-hearted sort of way. None of us, this side of the grave, will ever know the truth about Lizzie Borden anyway!

I Agree...I often try to psychoanalyze parts of this case, but have to catch myself and say, not enough information available.

[leitskev]

That was a great post Possum! I told you it would be interesting to bring some psychological analysis. And it's not diagnosis. It's speculation. Lizzie is dead, a historical figure. So no harm can be done. And because it's speculation, one is free to use hypotheticals when making the analysis. With so little info on Lizzie, you almost have to.

I would be curious about a general psychological analysis of women in Lizzie and Emma's situation in Victorian America. There was no shortage of them. Lizzie was 32, had little to occupy her time or energy, and seemingly no marital prospects. What is the effect of that? What would the effect of that be on someone who had psychopathic(or sociopathic as you prefer) tendencies? What happens to the sexual urges? I can say that I know so little about this stuff that I would be completely interested in speculation from someone who does.

What do we know if Lizzie's social circumstances? In their younger pictures, Lizzie and Emma were both fairly attractive women. At least there is nothing there that should have been a barrier. So what was preventing them from finding matches? I believe classmates in interviews have said Lizzie did not have many friends in school, was kind of a loner. Did she have friends as an adult? The only reference to friends I am aware of was that she gave the stolen transportation tickets that she took from Abby to friends, and they were later identified through the serial numbers. Alice was, I think, more Emma's friend, and thus 10 years older than Lizzie.

As far as coincidence, this situation does not compare to a large event like JFK or 9/11. It's apples and oranges. In large events like that, there are an almost infinite number of surrounding events. There are interviews with thousands of witnesses and there are thousands of things happening at the same time as the event. With that level of information, the human mind tends to cherry pick things in order to create meaningful patterns...as you were saying.

The Borden murders are not comparable. It's a small event with a limited number of things going on around it and a limited number of witnesses. Lizzie was 32 years old. The routine was the same at the Borden house for many years. The four of them lived there, five when Bridgett arrived, and they did their thing more or less the same every day. Until one day Lizzie killed her parents. It's a reasonable starting point of an investigation to look at anything that might have altered that routine. John's arrival could be coincidence, but it's a good place to start. It doesn't compare to a large event, like 9/11, where there are an infinite number of things going on at the same time.

It could be coincidence, or it could be a trigger where John was innocent of any wrongdoing, or it could even be something more.

Also, in a small event like the Borden murders(small in terms of number of people involved), coincidences can be assigned a probability, and the probability of certain related events can compound. So for example, let's say we assign a probability that John's arrival had any meaning for the event(the killings) at 10%. But then we learn that there was a loud argument involving John the night before. As isolated events, the unexpected arrival of John and the argument might not have too much meaning. But when combined together they become much more meaningful. And the more related events we can find, the more reason we have to want to investigate it more closely. So when we add in the fact the John was actually summoned by Andrew and went on some kind of mission for him the next day, and also John's strange behavior the day of the murder(the alibi, the behavior in the yard), we have a number of compounding coincidences. The probability becomes more and more that they have some meaning regarding the killings.

Another thing that increases the value is the degree to which things were unusual. If John was a regular visitor, then that lessons the possible value of the event. If John regularly went on little missions for Andrew, same thing. The more unusual these things can be shown to be, the more potential meaning they have.

[Curryong]

The fact that Lizzie doesn't appear to have had (at this stage of her life, anyway) any really close bosom buddies is striking. She seems to have had what might be termed close and cordial acquaintances whom she accompanied when visiting Europe and nearby resort towns at home, mingled with at Church affairs etc but that was it. Living in her father's home may well have caused her to become much more introverted and reserved than she already was. Plus the circumstances of that home were such, as we all know, that both Emma and Lizzie would have felt discouraged from inviting any friends for long visits. That is probably why the theatrical crowd Lizzie mixed with later in life, who were exuberant and friendly and free-spirited, was so liberating for her.
The lives of so many 'spinsters' in the late 19th century must have been spirit-crushing and incredibly frustrating. Their younger contemporaries were beginning to attend universities in greater numbers but this doesn't seem to have been mooted as an option for either sister. Andrew doesn't appear either, to have been the sort of man who would have been welcoming of any suitors for his daughters, and the girls were undoubtedly ashamed of their house. The Borden household has always seemed to me to be enclosed, not in an intimate way but a place of locks and keys and tensions and limited communication both physical and mental. Both Lizzie and Emma were products of this environment, and of a father who attempted to diffuse tensions by offering money in the form of allowances and half-shares in houses etc.

[PossumPie]

We often think (wrongly) that examining things closer and closer gives us a better understanding. Take a book. Look at it across a room, we know it is a book but can't read it. Look at it under a microscope and we see wood fibers, and ink blobs, but can't read it. We must be at the right distance to read it. People who examine all this testimony under a 'microscope' rejecting that coincidences occur, putting meaning in every strange thing that occurred that day are misinterpreting the facts. I've watched some bizarre theories hatch from a string of unrelated coincidences, that cannot be proven to be related. We must step back, look for most likely reasons, and ask what the simplest explanation is.

We also fail to realize that society was drastically different back then. In 2014 we have tons of leisure time compared to the late 1800's. There was no standard "work week" Most worked 10hr/day 6 days/wk. A great improvement came about 1899 when people were given half of Saturday off.
Think about cooking a meal from scratch vs. Today- open a frozen food, pop it in the Microwave for 4 min. and eat it. Washing entailed warming water on a stove, scrubbing by hand, rinsing, drying on a line, ironing everything. It wasn't called "wash DAY" for nothing. Women worked from sun up to sun down. No time for petty neuroses.
One exception were women who were well off enough for a maid, cook, wash-woman, charwoman, etc. The upper class women had more leisure time, no paid occupations, so developed more neuroses. Sigmund Freud, an Austrian Neurologist, formed his entire bizarre theory of psychoanalysis based on observations of rich women in the late 1800s. They were the only people who had the money to talk to a shrink, and the leisure time to develop neuroses. Freud dealt mostly with neurotic women. He thought sex played a huge part in their problems, and once stated that MOST women who came to see him had been sexually abused as children. That is how his psychosexual theory developed.
The rise of feminism in the early 1900s and the suffrage movement did a lot to take Psychoanalysis OUT of vogue. It was seen as bias against women, overly emphasizing sexuality. Cultures with no leisure time have very little problem with all of the neurotic problems we have. Lizzie and Emma had tons of leisure time. Neither had a job, and I believe all the "charitable work" they did was mostly for distraction. At home, they were responsible for keeping their rooms clean. Bridget did the downstairs, the cooking, the wash, etc.

[Missus Pea-Eye]

I

A little more regarding the hatchet. If she were trying to hide her crime, the presence of the hatchet at the crime scene would hold more evidence to whom should be suspect. But how is a 30 such yr old woman living a quiet life in what seems a very impersonal family household to know whether to hide or leave the hatchet? How long would she have sat and thought out this plan to make it that all physical evidence (besides the bodies) was not available. All other evidence against or for Lizzie would be considered circumstantial.

The HUGE problem is that the killer killed Mrs. Borden about an hour and a half BEFORE Mr. Borden. So.... they killed her, sneaked out and down to the corner bar, had a few beers, sneaked back in, killed Mr. Borden and sneaked out again? Yea, right.

I don't think I have addressed you on this, Possum Pie. :)
I am a true crime junkie. I have read cases where killers waited in hiding for hours to days before acting on their murderous scheme.
Have you heard of the Bloody Benders Inn? http://www.prairieghosts.com/bender.html
Just as one example to the idea of lying in wait. An hour and a half is nothing! I don't think they left the house. I think they hid IN the house somewhere.
No matter who killed Abbey and Andrew Borden, it was not done by one person. It just does not seem to be physically possible. IMHO
The time between the 2 deaths would be with the heart pounding out of their chest while lying in wait.

[Mara]

Well that's a fresh thought, at least lately here. I'd love to hear more about what you think happened.

[Curryong]

Hello, Missus Pea-Eye, I have read about the Benders, a very strange 'family'. What makes you think there must be two killers of Abby then Andrew? Do you think Lizzie knew them? Please tell us what you think?

[debbiediablo]

I don't see the Benders being in a category similar to the killer(s) of Andrew and Abby Borden. They were mass murderers at a time when people could disappear on the prairie due to Indians or natural causes. Like H.H. Holmes they lived where they killed. That said, I thoroughly expected them to be making sausage out of their victims...cannibalism seems to be a German thing right up to advertising on the internet for someone to eat and having someone volunteer for butchering and frying.

[Curryong]

Eeew, debbie would that be bratwurst or frankfurters? I thought the victims were all buried near each other in the orchard, or what passed for one! You are right! They were wild and woolly times. The story goes the Benders didn't get away but were dealt with by the locals.

[debbiediablo]

Nope, the Benders didn't make sausage...but my first thought is that's where the story is heading.

[Curryong]

Where are you, Mrs Pea-Eye? Please come on the Forum and explain what you think happened in the Borden house.