Lots of questions...

[NancyDrew]

I decided to start a new topic about the ax (or hatchet) since it is being talked about on so many different threads. Also, I have nagging questions for which I cannot find the answers...

First, let's nail down the hatchet vs. ax question. An ax is a long handled instrument, requires 2 hands, and is used primarily for splitting logs. A hatchet has a shorter handle, and is intended for one-hand use. It is also called a 'tomahawk.'

It's assumed that the Bordens were killed with a hatchet. At least 3 hatchets were found in the basement...and at least one of them had the handle recently broken off.

1. Okay...so how would that happen? I mean, how hard is it to BREAK a solid piece of wood?
-Could it have snapped off during the murder?
-Would a man of ordinary strength be able to break off the handle if he put his foot (and therefore full body weight) on part of the handle, and held the end of with his hand?
-Is it extremely unusual for the handle of a hatchet to break off?
-where is the hatchet with the broken handle right now, at this very minute? Assuming it is with the Fall River Historical Society, how has it been treated during the years? Has it been cleaned, polished, repainted? Are there any forensic tests that could still be performed that would yield any useful information? (ie could it be tested for the presence of human DNA?)

2. During the trial, the skulls of Abby and Andrew were brought out and shown to the jury. The handless hatchet head was shown to fit into places in the skulls that had been struck. Was this really useful, or would ANY standard ax or hatchet have fit into skulls?


3. "A day in the life of the murder weapon."

Assuming Lizzie did it....Abby goes upstairs to finish her chores in the guest room (putting slips on the pillows of the bed John Morse slept in.) Lizzie has retrieved the hatchet from its hiding place (up until now).

Okay --STOP for a minute. The attack on Abby was frenzied, overkill. I think they had words; some sort of exchange that set Lizzie off. She was either holding the hatchet in her hands, arms by her sides so that the folds of her dress obscured the item, or in a white heat, ran thru the house and down into the basement to grab a weapon. Then back up the stairs, where, at first Abby faced her and Lizzie swung the weapon, glancing the left side of Abby's face. The hinge flap of one of the blows was definitely at the BACK of the wound..,..there is no way this could happen if the attacker were standing behind her.

What happened after that blow? Abby might have staggered backwards, or if she were already kneeling (adjusting the bedspread, tucking in the sheets, picking up a piece of lint off the floor, there are a million possibilities) fell backwards. Did Lizzie then spin her around? Push her face into the carpet?

17 blows followed. It's a LOT. All to the back of the head and neck. Some deep, some shallow. Over and over and over again. I wonder what made the attacker (Lizzie, imo) stop. When was 18 blows enough? Did she hear a noise, maybe Bridgette coming in the house?

For whatever reason, the attack stopped. Now what to do? CLEAN UP. She needs to change her dress, wipe her hands and face, pat down her hair. She had plenty of time for this...Father wouldn't be home for at least another hour.

**What does she do with the murder weapon? I think she cleaned it off, reason being, there was no blood found on the stairs, or outside the guestroom. She couldn't very well walk around with an instrument that is dripping blood.

The slop pail or the menstrual bucket. There is a pitcher of watcher and a bowl on the nightstand...plenty of hand towels, as was the custom. She dips the hatchet in the bucket, or does she drop it in? She could have wrapped it in a towel and hidden it in a basket of laundry, I suppose.

The interval between the two murders fascinates me. I think it needs to be studied more. What she did, her movements, where that murder weapon went.

One of the most nagging question I have...and continue to have is this (I beg for patience as I outline everything..)

I can actually understand her getting very excited and full of rage after an exchange of words with her stepmother. She might already be in an irritable mood, and then the two of them talk about...who knows, but something. Perhaps she told told Lizzie "Your father is finally making a will; he went to the bank this morning." Or..."As soon as your sister returns from her trip, your father is going to talk to both of you...we've made some decisions regarding a will.." And Lizzie LOST it. Smashed Abby Borden into kingdom come.

The frenzy of the attack...the number of blows...the sheer brutality. I'm not a homicidal maniac..but I've felt rage before. Not enough to kill someone, of course, but I can picture Lizzie doing this. The years of resentment and hostility brewing inside of her...the simmering rage at thsi woman who might legally inherit the money and property that she feel is rightly HERS.

The attack required energy, adrenaline. A normal person would be breathing hard, flushed, shaking. With trembling hands, she manages to put herself back together...presentable enough so that when father DOES come home, he isn't immediately alerted that something is amiss, his wife is lying upstairs, her brains bashed in.

She either does a REALLY good job of putting herself back together, or her father is not someone who notices details. The night lock is still one...he comes home while she is till upstairs.

Again...I get it. I can see ALL of this happening...then I get lost.

Andrew comes home....is there any mail for me? No Can I get you anything, father? Do you want the shades open or closed? Should i get you an afghan? Mrs. Borden? She had an note to visit someone; a sick neighbor I think.

Andrew settles comfortably on the sofa, half lying down, Congress boots on the floor, head laying on a pillow.

And here is where i get lost. Because if we are to believe that LIzzie murdered her father, than we must believe that she:

1. Calmly and politely speaks to him, helps him nestle onto the sofa for a catnap.
2. Retrieves the hatchet from wherever she placed it after killing Abby...and

Brings the hatchet down onto his sleeping face...slicing his eyeball in half, then doing it again. And again. And again. AND AGAIN!

Why does she stop at 11? We will never know, but it is a lot. And now, Lizzie must make sure she isn't covered in blood. She has put on father's cardigan backwards, so she bunches it under his head, which is dripping blood onto the carpet. Or she has on a dress over a dress. She strips it off, runs upstairs, puts in a sack on the floor of Emma's closet, drops the hatchet into the menstrual bucket.

Blood on her clothes? No, check.
Hair out of places? No, check.
Hands cut, bleeding, injured? NO, check.

OKay. Showtime: Go to the foot of the backstairs and holler for Bridgette.

And so it goes.

All i can say is WOW. Do those of use who think Lizzie did it really think she could carry this off? The rage at Abby, I get. But bludgeoning her father in the face while he sleeps? Cutting his damned eyeball in half?

Either Lizzie had help, let someone else in, hid them, and kept watch to help this person get away, or we are looking at a completely sociopathic, psychotic, and very, very sick woman.

Thoughts?

[Darrowfan]

I decided to start a new topic about the ax (or hatchet) since it is being talked about on so many different threads. Also, I have nagging questions for which I cannot find the answers...

First, let's nail down the hatchet vs. ax question. An ax is a long handled instrument, requires 2 hands, and is used primarily for splitting logs. A hatchet has a shorter handle, and is intended for one-hand use. It is also called a 'tomahawk.'

It's assumed that the Bordens were killed with a hatchet. At least 3 hatchets were found in the basement...and at least one of them had the handle recently broken off.

1. Okay...so how would that happen? I mean, how hard is it to BREAK a solid piece of wood?
-Could it have snapped off during the murder?
-Would a man of ordinary strength be able to break off the handle if he put his foot (and therefore full body weight) on part of the handle, and held the end of with his hand?
-Is it extremely unusual for the handle of a hatchet to break off?
-where is the hatchet with the broken handle right now, at this very minute? Assuming it is with the Fall River Historical Society, how has it been treated during the years? Has it been cleaned, polished, repainted? Are there any forensic tests that could still be performed that would yield any useful information? (ie could it be tested for the presence of human DNA?)

2. During the trial, the skulls of Abby and Andrew were brought out and shown to the jury. The handless hatchet head was shown to fit into places in the skulls that had been struck. Was this really useful, or would ANY standard ax or hatchet have fit into skulls?


3. "A day in the life of the murder weapon."

Assuming Lizzie did it....Abby goes upstairs to finish her chores in the guest room (putting slips on the pillows of the bed John Morse slept in.) Lizzie has retrieved the hatchet from its hiding place (up until now).

Okay --STOP for a minute. The attack on Abby was frenzied, overkill. I think they had words; some sort of exchange that set Lizzie off. She was either holding the hatchet in her hands, arms by her sides so that the folds of her dress obscured the item, or in a white heat, ran thru the house and down into the basement to grab a weapon. Then back up the stairs, where, at first Abby faced her and Lizzie swung the weapon, glancing the left side of Abby's face. The hinge flap of one of the blows was definitely at the BACK of the wound..,..there is no way this could happen if the attacker were standing behind her.

What happened after that blow? Abby might have staggered backwards, or if she were already kneeling (adjusting the bedspread, tucking in the sheets, picking up a piece of lint off the floor, there are a million possibilities) fell backwards. Did Lizzie then spin her around? Push her face into the carpet?

17 blows followed. It's a LOT. All to the back of the head and neck. Some deep, some shallow. Over and over and over again. I wonder what made the attacker (Lizzie, imo) stop. When was 18 blows enough? Did she hear a noise, maybe Bridgette coming in the house?

For whatever reason, the attack stopped. Now what to do? CLEAN UP. She needs to change her dress, wipe her hands and face, pat down her hair. She had plenty of time for this...Father wouldn't be home for at least another hour.

**What does she do with the murder weapon? I think she cleaned it off, reason being, there was no blood found on the stairs, or outside the guestroom. She couldn't very well walk around with an instrument that is dripping blood.

The slop pail or the menstrual bucket. There is a pitcher of watcher and a bowl on the nightstand...plenty of hand towels, as was the custom. She dips the hatchet in the bucket, or does she drop it in? She could have wrapped it in a towel and hidden it in a basket of laundry, I suppose.

The interval between the two murders fascinates me. I think it needs to be studied more. What she did, her movements, where that murder weapon went.

One of the most nagging question I have...and continue to have is this (I beg for patience as I outline everything..)

I can actually understand her getting very excited and full of rage after an exchange of words with her stepmother. She might already be in an irritable mood, and then the two of them talk about...who knows, but something. Perhaps she told told Lizzie "Your father is finally making a will; he went to the bank this morning." Or..."As soon as your sister returns from her trip, your father is going to talk to both of you...we've made some decisions regarding a will.." And Lizzie LOST it. Smashed Abby Borden into kingdom come.

The frenzy of the attack...the number of blows...the sheer brutality. I'm not a homicidal maniac..but I've felt rage before. Not enough to kill someone, of course, but I can picture Lizzie doing this. The years of resentment and hostility brewing inside of her...the simmering rage at thsi woman who might legally inherit the money and property that she feel is rightly HERS.

The attack required energy, adrenaline. A normal person would be breathing hard, flushed, shaking. With trembling hands, she manages to put herself back together...presentable enough so that when father DOES come home, he isn't immediately alerted that something is amiss, his wife is lying upstairs, her brains bashed in.

She either does a REALLY good job of putting herself back together, or her father is not someone who notices details. The night lock is still one...he comes home while she is till upstairs.

Again...I get it. I can see ALL of this happening...then I get lost.

Andrew comes home....is there any mail for me? No Can I get you anything, father? Do you want the shades open or closed? Should i get you an afghan? Mrs. Borden? She had an note to visit someone; a sick neighbor I think.

Andrew settles comfortably on the sofa, half lying down, Congress boots on the floor, head laying on a pillow.

And here is where i get lost. Because if we are to believe that LIzzie murdered her father, than we must believe that she:

1. Calmly and politely speaks to him, helps him nestle onto the sofa for a catnap.
2. Retrieves the hatchet from wherever she placed it after killing Abby...and

Brings the hatchet down onto his sleeping face...slicing his eyeball in half, then doing it again. And again. And again. AND AGAIN!

Why does she stop at 11? We will never know, but it is a lot. And now, Lizzie must make sure she isn't covered in blood. She has put on father's cardigan backwards, so she bunches it under his head, which is dripping blood onto the carpet. Or she has on a dress over a dress. She strips it off, runs upstairs, puts in a sack on the floor of Emma's closet, drops the hatchet into the menstrual bucket.

Blood on her clothes? No, check.
Hair out of places? No, check.
Hands cut, bleeding, injured? NO, check.

OKay. Showtime: Go to the foot of the backstairs and holler for Bridgette.

And so it goes.

All i can say is WOW. Do those of use who think Lizzie did it really think she could carry this off? The rage at Abby, I get. But bludgeoning her father in the face while he sleeps? Cutting his damned eyeball in half?

Either Lizzie had help, let someone else in, hid them, and kept watch to help this person get away, or we are looking at a completely sociopathic, psychotic, and very, very sick woman.

Thoughts?

A thorough and interesting post, Nancy. You have struck upon most of the major points that have confounded us for years. I will respond with a few observations of my own. As to your theory that Abby and Lizzie had words, and Lizzie became enraged, I use to consider that a distinct possibility. But as I think about the case more, I find it unlikely. I believe, based on Lizzie "setting the stage" with her friend the night before, that the murders were premeditated quite far in advance. When Lizzie followed through with killing Abby, she was probably quite energetic about it without being "in a rage", as she had built up a great deal of hatred for Abby over the years. I do believe it's very possible that Lizzie had only planned to kill Abby, but as she considered what to do when her father came home, she may have decided that he must also die. (This partially answers your question about what Lizzie was doing between the 2 killings.)

As to the weapon, I agree it was most likely a hatchet, but let's not overlook the possibility that it was some other sharp, heavy, hand-held weapon. (I don't think it could have been a razor; too small and light to have inflicted some of the wounds). A meat cleaver has been suggested, but it could also have been a tool of some kind, or even some sharp household implement.

You mention the "fact" that Lizzie had no blood on her, and her hair or clothing were not disheveled. But is this indeed a fact? Let's remember that we only have the word of other witnesses for that. Mrs. Churchill may have actually seen blood on Lizzie, and decided not to say anything. Or, she and the other witnesses, in their excitement, may have even failed to notice it, if it was only a small amount of blood. And of course, no photos were taken of Lizzie the day of the murders, so it is indeed difficult to gage just how "clean and neat" she actually appeared right after the homicides were committed.

As you point out, Nancy, the murder of Andrew was particularly cold-blooded, perhaps even more so than Abby's murder. You talk about the calm, polite conversation that she had with Andrew immediately prior, but I can't remember if Bridgett was able to confirm that such a conversation took place. All the things you mentioned, "Calmly and politely speaks to him, helps him nestle onto the sofa for a catnap" could have been manufactured by Lizzie, if we only have her word for it.

I agree with the overall theme of your post, which is the seeming contradiction in logic: Lizzie must have committed the crime, but how could she possibly have committed the crimes? That is the compound question that will always plague us.

[PossumPie]

Great Posts Nancy Drew and Darrowfan. Some great questions raised...I also believe Lizzie set the stage the night before telling the neighbor that evil people were set to kill the whole family. WHY would she otherwise say that?
As for a weapon, you look at the LONGEST incision in the skull/skin, and that is the length of your blade. There can be shorter ones-hits at an angle- but the longest is the length of your sharp edge. Seems to rule a Meat Cleaver out. Cleavers also are not wide enough. I think just b/c the broken hatchet fit the wounds, doesn't mean it was used, most hatchets are about the same size head, it could have been any one...besides there were flecks of gilding in the wounds indicative of a brand new unused hatchet.
The handles are often oak or ash, hard sturdy wood. It is very difficult to break a hatchet handle, but if you wedge the head between two immovable items and pull, you can break it. Difficult at best for a woman in a hurry.
What the killer-whoever they were- did and thought for that hour-and-a-half between murders has always puzzled me. I've said before I am 99.9% certain a stranger would not sit patiently upstairs with the body for that long waiting to get caught. That fact, more than any other points to Lizzie.
The other frustration for me is that people think the entire house was systematically torn apart moments after the murder so the weapon couldn't possibly be there. We have shown through testimony that this was NOT the case. It was very quickly and superficially searched. AND why didn't the murderer just drop the hatchet on Mr. Borden's lap? There were no fingerprint labs or CSI back then. A hatchet wouldn't lead them to the killer...Franz once suggested it was taken b/c it may have identifying marks tying it to the killer. Is that true? Why take the effort to hide it?
As for the blood on the dress, I've never heard someone suggest that after killing Mrs. Borden, perhaps Lizzie saw her bloody dress, took it off, burned it then and there, and later put on Mr. Borden's coat backwards to prevent splatter on her fresh clean dress...she learned from her first murder. No one would have seen her burn that first dress, Bridget was still outside washing windows.

[leitskev]

Good post Nancy.

breakable hatchets: We have one in the house that we've used forever. It looks old enough to have been Lizzie's! The blade is so dull it could barely cut butter. We use it as a hammer for posts and such. It's about the same size as Lizzie's, but then, I think most hatchets are about that size, pretty standard. And I cannot imagine how I would break the handle off. A hatchet has a short handle, so breaking it off would be extremely difficult. And you'd need a tool. I more than doubt that Lizzie's hatchet broke during the attack, or that she later broke it on purpose. But I have no evidence or expert testimony to back that up. Maybe we should call Home Depot!

Also, keep in mind why the authorities were eager to blame the handle-less hatchet. The handle of the murder weapon would have blood traces on it that could not be washed off, since it was made of wood. In hindsight it's rather clear the police were kind of manufacturing the murder weapon because they couldn't find one. That resulted in the contradictory police testimony at the trial.

And I don't know, but I doubt that a hatchet handle could be quickly burned in a stove in such a way that no evidence remained. To burn a piece of wood so that nothing remains but ash takes a long time. Now, if they didn't check the stove until Monday, Lizzie could have managed it by then. But the police did see the remnants of Borden's notes in the stove.

Also, found on Abby's skull were the kind of blue paint chips that are found on a brand new hatchet. None were found on Andrew's, so the presumption is that a new hatchet was used, and the paint came off on Abby.

I believe the Fall River Hist Soc has concluded it was not the murder weapon. And they wish it was...because they own it.

Did Abby see her attacker? The original investigators believed she did not see the blow coming until perhaps the last second, because there were no defensive wounds and because of the body position. This meant that Abby knew and did not suspect her killer. When on the tour, I remember totally buying into that. But I'm not as confident in that now. Lizzie's lawyer's recently discovered diaries indicate he thought Abby had run there trying to get away. He claims the original position of the body was part way under the bed, suggesting someone trying to hide. I don't know.

I don't put much stock into the lack of defensive wounds. If she put her hands up part way in front of her face and closed her eyes, she could have taken the blow to the top of her face without her hands being hit. She was an older woman, her reactions would be slower. I'm not sure anything conclusive can be drawn from the evidence on Abby's death.

number of blows: the assumption is that the attacks were personal because of the number of blows. Well, maybe. I mean it's hard to know what's in the mind of a hatchet murderer. It doesn't take that long to swing 19 blows of a hatchet. When people start throwing punches in a fight, there is an adrenaline surge and the punches come in a big flurry. I can buy into the idea that the killer was likely filled with emotion...it was not a cold crime. Let's look at the possibilities:
1) Lizzie did it and was filled with pent up anger, which explains the number of blows.
2) someone pissed at Andrew did it. Would be filled with hatred, though not at Abby.
3) someone crazy did it. In this case, the killer could be mad at the world, but the hatred would still be there.
4) Lizzie hired someone to do it. One would think in this scenario, there would be no emotion so less blows. However, and inexperienced killer would want to be sure. Feeling more confident by the time he did Andrew, there were less blows.

Again, I'm not sure what can be conclusively determined from the number of blows.

Lizzie's demeanor: it IS troubling that she was found to be calm, clean, dry. No sweat in her hair, no water on her face or hands. Nothing to draw the suspicion of Bridgett, Churchill, Alice, Bowen. The killings took place around 11:00 and Bridgett was with her around 11:05 maybe a bit later, Churchill was with her before 11:15.

A big problem with the intruder possibility, for me, is just how many potential witnesses there would have been, and yet no one saw anyone leave. The police thoroughly interviewed people that were present on any possible escape route, and there were quite a few. This really stood out to me reading the transcript. It just seems almost impossible that someone could run out of there and not be seen. Even if Lizzie had an accomplice, how did he get away? Or...maybe the police testimony is deceiving. They were,after all, trying to help the prosecution build a case.

[Franz]

Yes, "lots of questions...", this is just the right title of the thread...

[PossumPie]

Good post Nancy.

breakable hatchets: We have one in the house that we've used forever. It looks old enough to have been Lizzie's! The blade is so dull it could barely cut butter. We use it as a hammer for posts and such. It's about the same size as Lizzie's, but then, I think most hatchets are about that size, pretty standard. And I cannot imagine how I would break the handle off. A hatchet has a short handle, so breaking it off would be extremely difficult. And you'd need a tool. I more than doubt that Lizzie's hatchet broke during the attack, or that she later broke it on purpose. But I have no evidence or expert testimony to back that up. Maybe we should call Home Depot!

Also, keep in mind why the authorities were eager to blame the handle-less hatchet. The handle of the murder weapon would have blood traces on it that could not be washed off, since it was made of wood. In hindsight it's rather clear the police were kind of manufacturing the murder weapon because they couldn't find one. That resulted in the contradictory police testimony at the trial.

And I don't know, but I doubt that a hatchet handle could be quickly burned in a stove in such a way that no evidence remained. To burn a piece of wood so that nothing remains but ash takes a long time. Now, if they didn't check the stove until Monday, Lizzie could have managed it by then. But the police did see the remnants of Borden's notes in the stove.

Also, found on Abby's skull were the kind of blue paint chips that are found on a brand new hatchet. None were found on Andrew's, so the presumption is that a new hatchet was used, and the paint came off on Abby.

I believe the Fall River Hist Soc has concluded it was not the murder weapon. And they wish it was...because they own it.

Did Abby see her attacker? The original investigators believed she did not see the blow coming until perhaps the last second, because there were no defensive wounds and because of the body position. This meant that Abby knew and did not suspect her killer. When on the tour, I remember totally buying into that. But I'm not as confident in that now. Lizzie's lawyer's recently discovered diaries indicate he thought Abby had run there trying to get away. He claims the original position of the body was part way under the bed, suggesting someone trying to hide. I don't know.

I don't put much stock into the lack of defensive wounds. If she put her hands up part way in front of her face and closed her eyes, she could have taken the blow to the top of her face without her hands being hit. She was an older woman, her reactions would be slower. I'm not sure anything conclusive can be drawn from the evidence on Abby's death.

number of blows: the assumption is that the attacks were personal because of the number of blows. Well, maybe. I mean it's hard to know what's in the mind of a hatchet murderer. It doesn't take that long to swing 19 blows of a hatchet. When people start throwing punches in a fight, there is an adrenaline surge and the punches come in a big flurry. I can buy into the idea that the killer was likely filled with emotion...it was not a cold crime. Let's look at the possibilities:
1) Lizzie did it and was filled with pent up anger, which explains the number of blows.
2) someone pissed at Andrew did it. Would be filled with hatred, though not at Abby.
3) someone crazy did it. In this case, the killer could be mad at the world, but the hatred would still be there.
4) Lizzie hired someone to do it. One would think in this scenario, there would be no emotion so less blows. However, and inexperienced killer would want to be sure. Feeling more confident by the time he did Andrew, there were less blows.

Again, I'm not sure what can be conclusively determined from the number of blows.

Lizzie's demeanor: it IS troubling that she was found to be calm, clean, dry. No sweat in her hair, no water on her face or hands. Nothing to draw the suspicion of Bridgett, Churchill, Alice, Bowen. The killings took place around 11:00 and Bridgett was with her around 11:05 maybe a bit later, Churchill was with her before 11:15.

A big problem with the intruder possibility, for me, is just how many potential witnesses there would have been, and yet no one saw anyone leave. The police thoroughly interviewed people that were present on any possible escape route, and there were quite a few. This really stood out to me reading the transcript. It just seems almost impossible that someone could run out of there and not be seen. Even if Lizzie had an accomplice, how did he get away? Or...maybe the police testimony is deceiving. They were,after all, trying to help the prosecution build a case.

I have to agree with everything you are saying...AND I have to say a stranger/intruder is highly unlikely. Sneak in and out with no one noticing? With every other person's entering/exiting from the house witnessed by neighbors EXCEPT the killer's??? Stretches my imagination..

[NancyDrew]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

Okay, so we don't really know what type of exchange transpired between Lizzie and Andrew, but we can conclude it wasn't thoroughly upsetting to him, because he did lay down. Why did Lizzie say she helped him on with his slippers when he died with boots on?

What bothers me the most about the two murders is the summoning of energy to actually perform the acts. To bring down a hatchet onto the face, THE FACE, of the man who you have loved your whole life....someone you gave a ring to that was the only piece of jewelry he wore. I just cannot wrap my head around it; she must have been psychotic. Or...

I cannot hold this in any longer: How many of you think it is possible Lizzie had been sexually abused by her father? Some things that point to it:

1. Andrew lost his wife at a young age. His new marriage bore no children, suggesting possibly they never had sex.
2. That ring. It bugs me.
3. Women who are sexually molested and never get to process it become neurotic; symptoms start to appear. Like shoplifting.
4. No boyfriends.
5. Why did Lizzie and Emma switch bedrooms?
6. The layout of the whole house is bizarre. It was a house cut in half, vertically. Andrew and Abby could only get to their bedrooms through the back stairs, and Lizzie and Emma through the front stairs. As it a barrier were erected. Something about that arrangement is very odd, very peculiar.
7. Andrew OWNED that family. He turned down offers from relatives to help when he was first starting out in life, worked his way up the ladder of success; he dictated who came in that house and who didn't. Turned away a doctor who was not only a friend, but a neighbor. Andrew was filthy rich, and yet he wouldn't pay Dr. Bowen for the price of a housecall? What's up with that? If my husband did that to me, I'd feel subjugated, angry, and helpless.
8. Referring again to #4...why were Lizzie and Emma spinsters? They weren't horrible looking; Lizzie was actually quite pretty when she was young, although her features coarsened as she got older (and heavier.) Marriage was a woman's only hedge against homelessness and poverty back then; why weren't they being courted by someone? I would think Andrew would have wanted to get his daughters out and on their own. I mean, c'mon, 32 and 42 and still living at home?

Sorry, I know all I have is more questions...!

[Allen]

If I answer these point by point I'd start with the fact that Andrew didn't lose his wife at a young age. He was 41 when Sarah died, and she was 40. Lizzie lost her mother at a young age. She was born in 1860 and Sarah died in 1863. Andrew and Abby married two years later in 1865. Abby was already 37 when they married in 1865. Back then the older a woman was the bigger risk it was considered to her health to have children. Sarah also died of uterine congestion. This was an infection in the uterus that was thought to spread through out the entire body if it couldn't be treated to kill the person. He had already lost one wife, maybe he didn't want to take the risk of losing another. What we consider old enough to have a baby now was not the case back then. You were considered a spinster if you weren't married by the time you were 25. And maybe with Andrew at age 43 and and Abby at age 37 they didn't want to start over again with having a new baby. It's also possible that Abby just couldn't have children.

The ring we don't even know where Lizzie got it to begin with. I've often wondered if it wasn't a ring that was given to Lizzie that had belonged to her mother. Maybe her mother's wedding ring. It would be a little less strange then it she had given it to Andrew. Maybe it was given as a Christmas or birthday present when instead of buying her father something she just gave him something she had. But since we know nothing about the ring or it's origin I can't say I would try to explain that one in depth.

Women who are sexually molested can grow up with many issues. I cannot speak for all of them but, I know several women and men today who were sexually molested as children. Myself included. Most of these women were blamed for their own abuse, or their mother had found out it was going on, or my grandmother, and did nothing about it. They took the side of the abuser. Two generations of my family were destroyed by this on both sides of my family. There was more than one abuser in my own family. Neither of them were prosecuted. Neither of them even had to admit out loud what they had done. It was covered up, kept secret. Their spouses stayed with them knowing full well what they had done. My escape was to cut ties with my entire family on my Dad's side. My children would not know them if they met them on the street. But these children that I know loved their mother even though they had never raised a finger to help them. Took care of her up until the end of her life and went out of their way to make sure she was comfortable. My father is still living with my 86 year old grandmother and takes complete care of her. Does all of the shopping, cooking, cleaning, taking her to the doctor. And I've only just now after many years started speaking to my father over the phone. I haven't seen him since I was young. Of all of the women and men I know who were abused, and I'd say there are easily 13 victims, only two of them had any real major acting out issues such as you mentioned. Two became drug addicts, acted out in just about every way possible, became thieves. One of them used to steal my grandmother's social security checks. One spent time in prison for dealing drugs. When they got out they got clean, this is a male victim, and is currently doing fine. The main way to deal with it seems to have been to turn to alcohol. Many of them went on to lead very successful uneventful normal lives. I myself do not see enough evidence to say that Andrew abused Lizzie. Some people are just not right even if they have not been abused.

Emma claims she offered the room to Lizzie. I think Emma liked having the smaller room for whatever reason. Either way you couldn't get to either bedroom through the locks.

I don't think they had anything to do with the layout of the house. Other than keeping the doors locked. And I think that had more to do with keeping people out of their rooms. If Lizzie was a thief maybe they kept their door locked for a good reason. If they believed they had been robbed in the daylight with people at home they might have kept their doors locked to keep out intruders. I think it could have had a lot to do with wanting privacy as well. Four adults who did not get along living in a home together.

He turned down offers because he didn't want to owe anyone any money. He bought his properties outright. He didn't want to have any loans. I don't see any evidence that he dictated who came to the house. Lizzie and Emma were free to have friends over. Alice Russell visited on occasion and never mentioned Andrew having to give permission.

Alice Russell also never married. She was unmarried at the time of the murders, and to my knowledge never did marry. She made her own way in life. Spinsters did survive without a man. And many were actually happy not to marry. It gave them more freedom. When married you just had another man in your life who had control over you and your money. Your husband was your keeper just as your father had been. I don't think Lizzie liked being controlled by anyone. I think that is one of the major problems. We have many who say Lizzie was very out spoken, even to the point of belligerence, and would speak up for what she considered her rights. Which we see in the half house incident. I think she was also a spoiled brat. She was taken care of her whole life and never had to work. But still complained about not living according to what she considered her standards. She could have married after the murders. But neither of them ever married. I think that points more towards a lack of wanting to be tied to another man who could make decisions for you.

As for no boyfriends, if you're not looking or thinking about getting married that could deter any boyfriends from coming around.

[dalcanton]

Allen - you made some very thought-provoking statements & I'm sorry for what you endured growing up. I'd just like to add 2 things: I've read in a couple books that the ring in question was actually Lizzie's high school ring. I don't know if this were true. Maybe other forum members could offer their input on this? Also, as for boyfriends, perhaps Lizzie was attracted to women so she surely wouldn't be looking around for male companionship.

[PossumPie]

I also wondered about some type of abuse/molestation, but Lizzie was only 3 or 4 when her father remarried. Emma however was about the "right age" Often a father will move on to a younger child when the older one becomes old enough to resist or leave home. There is NO evidence however that abuse occurred, and the girls would have moved out long before, - they were over 30 years old and could have lived on their own if things had been that dysfunctional. Not that we don't have tons of evidence that the family was very dysfunctional in other ways...

[Allen]

Allen - you made some very thought-provoking statements & I'm sorry for what you endured growing up. I'd just like to add 2 things: I've read in a couple books that the ring in question was actually Lizzie's high school ring. I don't know if this were true. Maybe other forum members could offer their input on this? Also, as for boyfriends, perhaps Lizzie was attracted to women so she surely wouldn't be looking around for male companionship.

I stopped thinking of myself as a victim a long time ago. I'm a survivor who had something terrible done to them. As bad as it was I know there are still people out there dealing with far worse. This ring that Andrew wore being Lizzie's High School ring has been discussed. Lizzie's school handed out pins instead of rings at that time. The rings didn't start being given until later. Even then I believe the pins were given only to High School graduates and Lizzie did not graduate.

The subject of Lizzie's sexuality is intriguing. There is so little evidence about any sort of love life or romantic interests. It seems she had none that ever became a matter of real record. There was gossip. Even the rumors about Nance are just speculation. I'm not saying it's not entirely impossible, but there is no proof. We can't really ever know for sure what Lizzie's interests were. There were rumors of Lizzie being engaged to marry, it even appeared in the newspaper, but this was flatly denied pretty quickly and she of course never did marry.


Boston Globe December 10, 1896,

"Fall River, Mass., Dec. 10 - Friends of Lizzie Andrew Borden, who was once accused of the murder of her father and stepmother and whose trial was one of the most famous the country has known, are congratulating her upon the approach of her marriage. The husband-to-be is one Mr. Gardner, a school teacher of the village of Swansea, which lies a few miles across the bay to the west of the city. He has been a friend of Miss Borden since childhood days, which they spent upon adjoining farms. The engagement has been rumored about for weeks, but it lacked confirmation until a few days ago, when it was learned that Miss Borden has given to a well-known dressmaker an order for a trousseau. Mr. Gardner has had erected in South Somerset a fine new house. It is said that the wedding will probably take place about Christmas."

[Nadzieja]

I knew I read about this engagement rumor & found it in Parallel Lives, page 662. It says: Undoubtedly stunned & embarrassed by the rumors, it was likely Lizzie who, through an intermediary, saw to it that the following appeared in the "Our Folks and Other Folks" column in the Fall River Daily Evening News the next day:
A rumor that has been current for a week or more, announcing the engagement of Miss Lizzie A. Borden, and a young gentleman of Swansea, found its way into the out-of-town papers this morning. There is no foundation to the rumor and the News is authorized to deny it.

One of the "out-of-town papers" was the Boston Globe, whose article "Is Lizzie Borden To Marry?" was picked up by the wire services and reprinted in newspapers throughout the country.

The supposed groom was Orrin Augustus Gardner. The relationship between the two was that of third cousin.

[Allen]

I'm curious as to how this rumor got picked up and spread in the newspapers. I'm equally curious as to the reaction of Mr. Gardner. I wonder how he handled the situation.

[Nadzieja]

Off the top of my memory!!! I want to say that she wrote Orrin & apologized, but I haven't looked it up. Like I said I'm going by memory alone. I know that after Lizzie & Emma split that Orrin continued to be close friends with Emma. I don't think he had any contact with Lizzie. Like a lot of people when those two split, they kept their relationship with Emma but not Lizzie. So again Lizzie is ostracized for something that really shouldn't have affected anyone but the two sisters.

[Curryong]

Hi, new to this fascinating forum and have already learned a lot. With regard to the number of blows and the rage behind both murders, while not buying the theory of child abuse by Andrew I have always wondered about the savagery of those blows to his face, splitting an eyeball etc. While I can accept that if it was Lizzie she would be fuelled by adrenaline and some of her strokes would be wild, don't modern criminologists ascribe a special meaning to attempts by murderers to obliterate the victim's face when they are known to them?

[PossumPie]

Hi, new to this fascinating forum and have already learned a lot. With regard to the number of blows and the rage behind both murders, while not buying the theory of child abuse by Andrew I have always wondered about the savagery of those blows to his face, splitting an eyeball etc. While I can accept that if it was Lizzie she would be fuelled by adrenaline and some of her strokes would be wild, don't modern criminologists ascribe a special meaning to attempts by murderers to obliterate the victim's face when they are known to them?

In an over-simplistic way, destroying a victim's face often can point to personal anger with the victim, but in the Borden case, the blows came without warning from behind, and the facial wounds seem more accidental-perhaps the victim turning to see the attacker just before the first blow. The similarity in Mr. and Mrs. Borden's attacks is the surprise element. The killer seems to want to kill them before "they knew what hit them" swiftly and from the back. Some killers want the victim to see and understand who it is that is killing them- not so in this case. The amount of damage is not surprising considering a hatchet was used. The unusual element is the number of blows. 5 blows each would have most definitely rendered them dead beyond question, the added blows may be from personal anger at the victim, an excess of adrenalin during the attack. Since these were done so long apart-an hour and a half- robbery wasn't the motive, it had to have been personal. Again, anger with just Mr. Borden (a bad business deal) doesn't fit, why spend so much time there to kill both? The motive must have been anger/hatred of both of them specifically. The ferocity of the killings was the same for both, no more anger displayed at one than another.
We spend so much time asking who may have been angry at Mr. Borden...We forget that just as much anger was unleashed at Mrs. Borden. The killer chose to increase their chances of getting caught by making sure they stayed and killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden. By the same token, we focus on the 'girls' hatred of Mrs. Borden, and forget that just as much ferocity was used on Mr. Borden.

[twinsrwe]

… The motive must have been anger/hatred of both of them specifically. The ferocity of the killings was the same for both, no more anger displayed at one than another.
We spend so much time asking who may have been angry at Mr. Borden...We forget that just as much anger was unleashed at Mrs. Borden. The killer chose to increase their chances of getting caught by making sure they stayed and killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden. By the same token, we focus on the 'girls' hatred of Mrs. Borden, and forget that just as much ferocity was used on Mr. Borden.

I hope you don’t mind, but I took the liberty to underline the parts I disagree with. I believe that Andrew was killed in anger, but not hatred. I believe that the killer was not only angry at Abby, but filled with an extreme dislike for her. Due to the number of blows each victim received, I think Abby was the killer’s main target. Andrew received 10 blows, but Abby received 19 blows. Granted, the number of blows each victim received was definitely overkill, but Abby received almost twice to number of blows that Andrew did. This indicates to me that whoever the killer was, that person was definitely more ferocious with Abby. I do agree that the motive had to have been personal.

[PossumPie]

Swinging a hatchet 19 times is a lot of work. Maybe Lizzie didn't want to be out of breath after Mr Borden's murder. 10 or 19 Whacks both show a lot of anger to me. Both are overkill.

[twinsrwe]

I agree!

[Curryong]

'Swinging a hatchet 19 times is a lot of work' (Quote from PossumPie) Wasn't there evidence from witness statement transcripts that Lizzie attended a gym 'on Troy Block'? Maybe she was getting some serious training in!

[NancyDrew]

This is the first I've ever heard of this. I didn't even think they HAD gyms for women back in 1892. Do you have a citation for this reference? Thanks,

ND

[Curryong]

Hello NancyDrew, I am a new member and after I joined I looked through many of the early posts. I too was surprised, but I remember it was statements given to detectives by people who knew Lizzie. (seamstresses ? who had made some clothing for her perhaps) and the gym was located on Troy Block. It stuck in my mind both because it was unusual and Troy Block, it was said, had been named after an early name for the town/ settlement of Fall River, ie Troy. I'll try and find it again, might take me a while though. It was during posts discussing Lizzie's so-called masculine nature and low voice, supposed lesbian traits.

[PossumPie]

This is the first I've ever heard of this. I didn't even think they HAD gyms for women back in 1892. Do you have a citation for this reference? Thanks,

ND

Fall River, 28, 1892. The following is the result of my interview last Saturday night with Mrs. Whitehead. I could not reach her mother Mrs. Oliver Gray, ( the stepmother of late Mrs. Abbie Borden) until today. I found her at the home or Mr. Benj. Covell at the top of Second street. I questioned her at length as to whether there was anything new that had come to her mind since she was last seen. She stated that Officer Harrington had been to see her, but since that time she had heard a great deal. She also stated taht Mr. and Mrs. Case had gone to Tiverton R. I. or Little Compton, to remain away until after this Borden case had been disposed of; and that Mrs. Case was the woman above all others that was needed to let light in on Lizzie's actions. Mrs. Gray had heard of the scandal story as coming from Mrs. Case direct. She also stated that for years, whenever she, or any of Mrs. Borden's , visited the house on Second street, they were totally ignored by the girls, Lizzie and Emma. I then read your anonymous letter to her. She said that was true, every word of it, although she could not imagine who the writer was;and that her sister Mrs. Borden, Mrs. Fish in Hartford, was the one, and her daugther in law,that was referred to. I then pressed the old lady very hard as to what was said as coming from Mrs. Churchill. She demurred, finally admitted seh got her information from Mrs. Potter and her sister Miss Dimon, the milliners on Fourth Street. I then looked up the above mentioned ladies, and found them very hard people to handle. I was with them both two hours, and elicited the following; Lizzie Borden has been practicing in a gymnasium for a long time, and she has boasted of the strength she possessed not to these people, but to others. The place where she practiced was supposed to be in the Troy Block.

[Curryong]

Thank you, so much PossumPie for digging that particular nugget out for me. Thank heavens I didn't dream it!

[Mara]

Doesn't sound like particularly ironclad sourcing for that "evidence," though, does it? Third-hand? Fourth-hand? No-hand? I lost count! :)

[Curryong]

I expect the detectives heard a lot of this sort of thing, "Oh Mrs S. Told me that she had heard from Miss E. that so and so had said...," especially as the murders would be the main talking point around town. Nevertheless, it's intriguing, isn't it, the idea of Lizzie working with rings and swinging Indian clubs, building up the strength in her upper arms!

[Mara]

Mightn't be too far-fetched. I remember owning a book (alas, I gave it away years ago) that was printed in 1880, I think. It was basically some woman's thesis about the circulation of the blood (that was, in fact, its title, I think), with a subtext of encouraging women to throw off their tight corsets and high-buttoned shoes to take brisk walks outdoors, for their health. It was filled with apologias for mentioning such indelicate things as legs and lungs and whatnot, and suggested that this exercise be taken in the country. No mention of city parks or other places where the natural jigglings of an uncorseted figure might be observed by others. Hard to believe, but there you go.

[PossumPie]

Alas, like much connected with the case it is not hard evidence. That is why I constantly warn against building whole theories based on one or two statements by people even under oath.

[NancyDrew]

That's very interesting. A gymnasium? For women? I need to see more evidence before I sign on to this completely. I simply can't feature LIzzie lifting weights...

[Curryong]

Wouldn't there be a Town Directory for 1892 held somewhere in Fall River, in the town library archives, the Historical Society records etc. The place may have been a YWCA building, though it would be a bit early for a built-in gym on such premises. They may have had exercise classes for young ladies swinging Indian clubs round and round in rhythm. (That was very big in Edwardian times in Britain.)

[NancyDrew]

Curryong: That is very interesting! I'm fascinated by Victorian culture, but have mostly focused on fashion, decor (my home is decorated in Victorian period, with a few antiques from that period.) and of course, FOOD (I'm a home chef.)

But exercise and fitness...hmm, I never thought of such a thing. I have heard, of course, of the 'asylums' that existed, even seen a pamphlet for one that was posted, I believe, on this forum. It advocated fresh air, sunshine, maybe walking...but I had never heard of swinging Indian clubs around. Did they wear dresses while doing so? Thanks!!

[NancyDrew]

P.S. I didn't address your first question, pls forgive...I would think that yes, there would be a directory of municipal building in Fall River during that time. Let me do some digging and see if I come up with anything...

[Aamartin]

Curryong: That is very interesting! I'm fascinated by Victorian culture, but have mostly focused on fashion, decor (my home is decorated in Victorian period, with a few antiques from that period.) and of course, FOOD (I'm a home chef.)

But exercise and fitness...hmm, I never thought of such a thing. I have heard, of course, of the 'asylums' that existed, even seen a pamphlet for one that was posted, I believe, on this forum. It advocated fresh air, sunshine, maybe walking...but I had never heard of swinging Indian clubs around. Did they wear dresses while doing so? Thanks!!

I too and fascinated by the history of mental health and asylums.

I find that most of the documentaries and other shows about the history of mental health tend to be about alleged haunted asylums .

I did manage to find some really good ones on YouTube but they were mainly based in Britain. they also had a really good one about the workhouse

[twinsrwe]

I am also fascinated by the history of mental health and asylums; so, I did a bit of research and found the following information:

At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were, perhaps, a few thousand "lunatics" housed in a variety of disparate institutions throughout England, but by 1900 that figure had grown to about 100,000. This growth coincided with the growth of alienism, later known as psychiatry, as a medical specialism.[7] The treatment of inmates in early lunatic asylums was sometimes brutal and focused on containment and restraint.[8][9]

Citation # 7: I couldn’t find a web site for it, that was usable.

Citation # 8: Bedlam by Albert Maisel (1946): The Council purchased a copy of the 1946 Life Magazine article entitled "Bedlam" by Albert Maisel. These photos are taken from that article: http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/prologue ... edlam.html

Citation # 9: BEDLAM 1946 MOST U.S. MENTAL HOSPITALS ARE A SHAME AND A DISGRACE by ALBERT Q. MAISEL: http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/prologue ... fe1946.pdf

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, terms such as "madness," "lunacy" or "insanity" -- all of which assumed a unitary psychosis -- were split into numerous "mental diseases," of which catatonia, melancholia and dementia praecox (modern day schizophrenia) were the most common in psychiatric institutions.[10]

Citation # 10: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -challenge

Source that above information was obtained from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_hospital


Here are some other interesting web sites regarding mental health history:

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/our-history

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nash/timeline/

http://www.uniteforsight.org/mental-health/module2

[twinsrwe]

This is the first I've ever heard of this. I didn't even think they HAD gyms for women back in 1892. Do you have a citation for this reference? Thanks,

ND

Since we don’t know a lot about what Lizzie did ‘in her spare time’, it is very possible that she did have access to a gymnasium – check this out:

In the United States, the Turner movement thrived in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The first Turners group was formed in London in 1848. The Turners built gymnasia in several cities like Cincinnati and St. Louis which had large German American populations. These Gyms were utilized by adults and youth. For example, a young Lou Gehrig would frequent the Turner gym in New York City with his father.

The YMCA first organized in Boston in 1851. A smaller branch opened in Rangasville in 1852. Ten years later there were some two hundred YMCAs across the country, most of which provided gymnasia for exercise, games and social interaction.

The 1920s was a decade of prosperity that witnessed the building of large numbers of public high schools with gymnasiums, an idea founded by Nicolas Isaranga. Over the course of the twentieth century, gymnasia have been reconceptualized to accommodate the popular team and individual games and sports that have supplanted gymnastics in the school curriculum.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gym#History

[Nadzieja]

Curryong: That is very interesting! I'm fascinated by Victorian culture, but have mostly focused on fashion, decor (my home is decorated in Victorian period, with a few antiques from that period.) and of course, FOOD (I'm a home chef.)

But exercise and fitness...hmm, I never thought of such a thing. I have heard, of course, of the 'asylums' that existed, even seen a pamphlet for one that was posted, I believe, on this forum. It advocated fresh air, sunshine, maybe walking...but I had never heard of swinging Indian clubs around. Did they wear dresses while doing so? Thanks!!

I too and fascinated by the history of mental health and asylums.

I find that most of the documentaries and other shows about the history of mental health tend to be about alleged haunted asylums .

I did manage to find some really good ones on YouTube but they were mainly based in Britain. they also had a really good one about the workhouse

You might have an interest in the book The Lives They Left Behind (Suitcases From a State Hospital Attic) by Darby Penney and Peter Stastny.
I'm re-writing what the back cover says so you can get an idea of what this is about:

By the time it closed in 1995 after 126 years of operation, Willard Psychiatric Center, overlooking Seneca Lake in upstate New York, had been home to over 54,000 people. If not for the discovery of more than 400 suitcases filled with patients' belongings in the hospital attic, their lives would have been lost to history. In The Lives They Left Behind, the contents of 10 of these suitcases are skillfully examined and compared to the written record to create a moving-and devastating-group portrait of 20th century American psychiatric care.

I read this book and was just blown away. Some of these patients spent years here. This was a time before there were drugs that could help so a lot of them were lumped under the wrong diagnosis. Also in one story, I couldn't believe that they didn't link traumatic events with a total breakdown.
I found it very interesting and a very honest look at these peoples' lives. Hope if you get it, that you like it.

[Aamartin]

I just downloaded it, thanks!!

[Curryong]

II think this may be of interest. The main exponent of Indian club exercise in the U.S was Sim D Kehoe who included exercises for ladies in his 1866 book. I have seen photos of women wearing knee length smocks over strange Turkish pants, a la Amelia Bloomer, while others had loose smocks down to their ankles.
http://www.pinterest.com/freakdye/edwar ... n-fitness/

[PossumPie]

I taught a course in the History of Mental Health once...Asylums were mainly for the Psychotic. Neurotic folks were kept at home..Quick definitions, Psychotic means out of touch with reality. Hear things, see hallucinations, deep paranoia like the FBI has implanted a bug in your brain to read your thought waves. Neurosis is depression, anxiety, things that can be mild or severe, but rarely cause us to lose touch with reality. Asylums were full of people out of touch with reality. Straight jackets and such were needed back then b/c psychopharmacologicals (Psyc meds) were not available. The advent of Thorazine in 1950 changed mental health forever. These antipsychotic meds decreased the psychotic episodes, so decreased the need for restraints and for inpatient treatment. During the 60-1980's Populations decreased and Asylums closed. The remaining were State Hospitals, for those who just couldn't make it on the outside. Many of these have closed down now, with the advent of short-term crisis oriented psyc facilities, and community mental health centers.
We tend to look down our noses at the treatment of the mentally ill in the past, but we must understand that without medications, the only way to deal with a psychotic violent patient was restraint. Movies like One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest emphasized the problems with these facilities, and did more to scare people than reassure them that mental illness is like any other illness.
I've worked in psychiatric hospitals, and toured several old asylums. Even 26 years ago when I started, things were a lot different than today.

Having said that, I again want to differentiate Axis I disorders from Personality disorders (Axis II).
Depression, anxiety, OCD, bipolar disorder, etc. are like other diseases, they come and go, get mild for awhile, then get severe then may disappear completely.
BUT
Axis II Personality disorders are part of one's personality. No more than you can change from an introvert to an extrovert, or a pessimist to an optimist, You cannot change personality disorders. They are part of who you are, and are almost "incurable" as far as treatment goes. You can change little things like procrastinating, or complaining, but you really cannot change your Personality. Nor can you change personality disorders. If Lizzie had symptoms of Antisocial personality disorder, or Bipolar Disorder, these started in early childhood, and would have lasted into old age. I will go out on a limb here and say that IF Lizzie killed her parents, there definitely was some Antisocial personality traits involved. No guilt, putting your own wants ahead of everyone else, the ability to lie convincingly without appearing nervous. I don't believe a typical Victorian woman could accomplish these without deep seeded Antisocial personality disorder (sometimes called Psychopathic personality disorder) There are two sub-classes, the first entails the traits I've listed above, and the latter is more the risk taking "Bonnie and Clyde" style. If someone has the traits from the first type, they can live peacefully among society with little trouble. They lie, steal, cheat, and don't feel guilty, sometimes getting caught, but often talking their way out of trouble. This is more how I see Lizzie. I really don't see much trying to please others...except giving the street car tickets she stole from Abby to "acquaintances" of hers...that seems a little like looking for approval. A true psychopath would have thrown them away.

[FactFinder]

Hello, all. I've been reading the board for quite some time now as I have been conducting my own research. I believe the only way to learn anything is to research it yourself. Asking anyone else only leads to answers that are as good as the research they may have conducted. I believe in being very thorough. I've been researching for quite a number of years on my own. I am glad to start posting, although I do miss a few of the members who seemed to have disappeared before I got my courage up enough to jump in. Many of them provided me with invaluable insights as long time learned members. I hope to see them posting again.

Quick thoughts on mental health and women back in the Victorian era. Women were thought to have fragile minds and constitutions by a great many, including physicians, at this time. It was believed by most that almost anything could set women off into a state of "hysteria." Sometimes keeping them at home was almost as terrible as putting them into an institution. If anyone has ever read The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilbert this is a perfect example. She writes about a woman being locked away in her own home for what was termed "temporary mental hysteria." The treatment almost drove the poor woman completely mad. It was prescribed to her by her own husband who was himself a physician. It is determined she suffered from what we today would call Postpartum depression. She was kept in her room and not permitted to do anything at all except lay in her bed. Everything else was considered to physically and mentally exhausting. Even writing in her journals was thought to be too taxing on her fragile mind and she was forced to do it in secret. Charlotte got the idea for the story from her own experience as a patient. A well known doctor of the time diagnosed her with depression and prescribed for her this "rest cure." She was forbidden to do anything physical, to touch a pen or paper to write, and was only allowed two hours of mental stimulation per day as it was considered too taxing for her otherwise. She said it nearly drove her mad. There was an outbreak of women being diagnosed mentally ill due to the fact that they were believed to be mentally fragile to begin with. Charlotte became a woman's advocate. One of the first things she did when her story was published was send a copy to the physician who had diagnosed her. It's a very interesting study in how women were viewed as it pertains to mental health as having been diagnosed with "hysteria" over almost any little thing. And in most cases women had little or no say over their own medical treatment or care. Because their husbands, fathers, physicians, men in general, were thought to know best. She states that many women were treated this way and she became a voice for the women who did go through this. I will also be looking for the book that Nadzieja mentioned. Sounds incredibly informative.

[FactFinder]

Other fun facts about Charlotte Perkins Gilman. She divorced her first husband. The Yellow Wallpaper was not only written to show how women were seen by society when it came to their mental health, but to show what madness the monotony of days could bring about for Victorian women in general. And these was the instructions given to her by her physician as part of the rest cure, "Live as domestic a life as possible. Have your child with you all the time... Lie down an hour after each meal. Have but two hours' intellectual life a day. And never touch pen, brush or pencil as long as you live." Intellectual life included reading, stimulating conversation, and socializing.

[Nadzieja]

Thank you Possum Pie & Factfinder, I found both post very informative. I'm going to try to find the book The Yellow Wallpaper, it sounds fascinating. Women had no rights, no vote, nothing. I've read a book called The Last Generation which goes into the generation that worked in the mills here before they closed. Their parents were the immigrants from Canada & Europe. My mother would tell me stories and I didn't believe them until I read this book. I'm sure a lot of the women in Fall River faced a lot of the same issues.
Another is A Woman's Place-An Oral History of Working Class Women 1890-1940. This one is just unbelievable. What these women went through working hours on end. They were very candid when they talked of their lives concerning marriage, medical care and children. When I read this I realized how good I have it.

[Nadzieja]

I should have also written that the lives of common working women was so totally different from the Victorian ladies that it seems like two different planets!! It makes me wonder what would have happened if they had to trade places even for one day.

[Mara]

Working people of both genders today have the women of New England's late 19th century mills to thank for workplace rights and safety laws that we take for granted. They had incredible courage in the face of fearsome control.

[Nadzieja]

On March 25, 1911 the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City burned. It was because of this fire so many safety issues were addressed. Mostly women died, a total of 146 people. There is a movie on it and after I saw it was amazed that anyone got out alive. The movie is called Triangle Fire and it was a PBS movie.

[FactFinder]

Thank you very much Nadzieja for those interesting tid bits of information.

[Mara]

The 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire was a tragedy so horrible that it did indeed help labor's cause. For one thing, fire trucks in those days couldn't get higher than seven stories -- firefighters stood by helplessly while women jumped to their deaths from higher floors, where the fire had started. Laws were enacted to require ladders to go higher, and other safety measures were called for, some of which actually worked their way into workers' everyday reality. It's a terrible irony that the Triangle workers had walked out almost two years before along with other New York City garment workers in a dramatic strike some 20,000 women strong, but all were ultimately forced back to barely improved conditions.

The women of Lowell, Mass., walked out in 1834 in one of the first effective shows of labor organization in US history. The conditions under which those women worked, like all women in the early days of US industry, were draconian beyond belief, very close to enslavement, even torture. It's well worth reading about.

I would be very much surprised if Lizzie and her sister were unaware of these social issues, though they may well have taken a more pro-management view, if they reacted at all. Hard to say, though. They seem to have treated Bridget fairly and, to use a very Borden word, cordially. In later years, Emma, at least, seemed devoted to social welfare causes if we can judge this from the bequests in her Will.

[FactFinder]

The working conditions for women employed in the Mills were indeed horrendous at the time. Unbelievable manual labor expected of them on top of being scantily paid for their work. I feel that most women employed at the mills chose these jobs out of last resort knowing what the conditions were. When there were no other options and their family needed an income. This is how they were able to keep them under the thumb of management for so long. They had very little other choice. Do what you're told or have no job. The conditions for children at some periods in history have been just as awful. That both of the incidents mention by Mara and Nadzieja raised the public's awareness of such issues there is no doubt. But it's hard to say who sympathized with the workers, and who was on the side of management. I can picture Lizzie hearing about such incidents and not having any reaction at all. She probably felt, and this is just my opinion, it did not affect her one way or the other. She would never have to work in a mill.

[FactFinder]

Curryong: That is very interesting! I'm fascinated by Victorian culture, but have mostly focused on fashion, decor (my home is decorated in Victorian period, with a few antiques from that period.) and of course, FOOD (I'm a home chef.)

But exercise and fitness...hmm, I never thought of such a thing. I have heard, of course, of the 'asylums' that existed, even seen a pamphlet for one that was posted, I believe, on this forum. It advocated fresh air, sunshine, maybe walking...but I had never heard of swinging Indian clubs around. Did they wear dresses while doing so? Thanks!!

I too and fascinated by the history of mental health and asylums.

I find that most of the documentaries and other shows about the history of mental health tend to be about alleged haunted asylums .

I did manage to find some really good ones on YouTube but they were mainly based in Britain. they also had a really good one about the workhouse

You might have an interest in the book The Lives They Left Behind (Suitcases From a State Hospital Attic) by Darby Penney and Peter Stastny.
I'm re-writing what the back cover says so you can get an idea of what this is about:

By the time it closed in 1995 after 126 years of operation, Willard Psychiatric Center, overlooking Seneca Lake in upstate New York, had been home to over 54,000 people. If not for the discovery of more than 400 suitcases filled with patients' belongings in the hospital attic, their lives would have been lost to history. In The Lives They Left Behind, the contents of 10 of these suitcases are skillfully examined and compared to the written record to create a moving-and devastating-group portrait of 20th century American psychiatric care.

I read this book and was just blown away. Some of these patients spent years here. This was a time before there were drugs that could help so a lot of them were lumped under the wrong diagnosis. Also in one story, I couldn't believe that they didn't link traumatic events with a total breakdown.
I found it very interesting and a very honest look at these peoples' lives. Hope if you get it, that you like it.

Thanks again Nadzieja for the heads up on this book. I was able to obtain a copy and can't wait to read it.

[Nadzieja]

Glad you were able to get a copy. There are two book I would like to get but they are expensive, you can at least look them up to see the content. 1. Asylum: A Mid Century Madhouse & It's Lessons by Dr. Enoch Callaway The cheapest copy I could find was over $40
2. Abandoned Asylums of New England by John Gray This book is only sold through Museum of Disability History. Again the cost was like $64

I don't know if they are available for download on Kindle or Nook. I don't have one, I guess I just like turning the pages!!!!