lizzie a victim of incest?

[snokkums]

I was ready an article on "history buff".com, and one of theories that was suggested was that she was a victim of incest. Is there any proof of this? I have never heard this theory before.

[Haulover]

to my knowledge, there is no proof of it. it has been a popular theory. have you seen "the legend of lizzie borden" movie? it is implied.

snokkums, do you subscribe to The Hatchet?

[Kat]

There are few articles on the incest theory in Proceedings, in the Chapter devoted to "Psychological and Women's Issues."
It's considered a very 90's theory- last century, you know.

I think a form of M. Eileen McNamara, M.D.'s article on Lizzie and incest was online somewhere. I also think it's been either removed or moved to a closed site since I couldn't find it a few months ago.

[Kashesan]

I don't buy it.

[Allen]

I wouldn't say it is out of the realm of possibility, but I'd need more evidence.

[Haulover]

i lean more toward the idea that the borden family at second street was not so much dysfunctional or diseased -- as it was non-functioning and empty. the state of things not the result of abnormal interaction -- but the result of a general noncommunicating condition. for example, i don't think lizzie cared much for andrew or that andrew cared much for lizzie. it's a subjective view on my part, i understand - it's an impression. the lack of love among them seems more like disinterest than hate.

[Kat]

So from where comes the hate implied in the savage overkill of Abby?

[snokkums]

I kinda think that's what it was no communciation and they just didn't like each other. They were only related and they realized it and just stayed away from each other.

[Allen]

So from where comes the hate implied in the savage overkill of Abby?

Maybe Abby had an idea about what was going on, and did nothing to try and stop it. Or maybe Lizzie believed she did.

[Kat]

Disinterested people don't kill.
They just withdraw, move on, don't care.

[snokkums]

Good point. I think something was going on in the house. Noone just stops talking to their parents without a reason.

[Allen]

Disinterested people don't kill.
They just withdraw, move on, don't care.

I think Lizzie was far from disinterested. I think she held a seething hatred. Especially if something was going on, and she thought Abby knew about it but did nothing to help.

[DWilly]

I don't discount the incest theory but at the same time it's impossible to prove. I'm not saying it's not true just hard to prove at this late date.

Here's my own little theory. At first Lizzie is ok with Abby. She's young and doesn't remember her real mother but, as time wears on Emma begins to put thoughts in Little Lizzie's head. Lizzie also begins to notice a few things. Abby never tries to help her and Emma in trying to talk Andrew into moving and getting a better home. At the same time Abby does help her sister get a house from Andrew. In Lizzie's mind this is a betrayal. Abby will help her sister but not them. Lizzie begins to resent Abby even to the point of thinking that anything Andrew gave to Abby really belongs to her. So much so, that she breaks into Abby's room and steals her jewelry.

Now that's just part of what might have happened. There may be more and, yes, possibly incest. I think allowing your husband to abuse his daughters would be considered the ultimate in betrayal by a daughter.

[snokkums]

in other words lizzie thought of abby as the wicked stepmother

[sguthmann]

I guess one of the main problems for me in this case has always been trying to figure out what could cause Liz such rage, and against both parents, to have murdered them in such a way. What was the motive, besides money, which she'd almost certainly have gotten anyway, after Abby, of course. She just couldn't live another day without control of that estate? She got to the point where she simply couldn't go on if she couldn't live on "the hill?" I don't know, but it just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Now the question of incest - to me that could be a reason to murder in such a personal way as these people were killed. There's something deeply personal about the killing...incest and lack of action on Abby's part could fit the bill. Only trouble is, so far no proof, and not likely to ever be anything that could prove it. But still, a very emotionally "raw" motive that would seem to fit with the way in which the couple were dispatched.

[KT72]

Hello All,

I'm new to the forum, nice to meet everyone

Sorry to bump this topic, as it was at the bottom of p.2; but I find it of interest.

I've read the papers in Proceedings dealing with this issue, and they bring up some very good points. Much of what we know about Lizzie and what went on in the Borden household is right in line with what modern-day research has learned about incestuous relationships. Here are just a few examples. Please keep in mind, I am not a psychiatrist and know very little about this issue; I'm just quoting and referring to what I've read and what these authors say.

1.) Incest is most common between father and daughter. It can frequently begin during an absence or illness of the mother. One of the Proceedings papers (can't remember which and don't have it in front of me at the moment) claims that this fits with Sarah Morse's two-year illness.

2.) In cases where the mother dies, the father may attempt to re-create his relationship with her by seeing the daughter as a substitute. Sarah was known as Andrew's "first love" and when she died, he may have tried to act out with his daughters.

3.) When the above two criteria are met, the daughter involved frequently takes on the role of wife/mother. The "mother" role was certainly adopted by Emma; and in adulthood Lizzie took on roles more frequently attributed to a female head of household (one of the papers I'm referring to here cites Lizzie's overseeing of the painting of 92 Second Street).

4.) Having lost her own mother at a very young age, before she possessed the cognitive skills to process that event, Lizzie was perpetually confused as to what her birth mother's feelings had been toward her - "did my mother really love me?" If Andrew was indeed abusing Lizzie sexually, she may have over-idealized Sarah, seeing her as a potential protector who could and would have stopped or prevented the abuse had she lived.

5.) Then along comes Abby. Studies have shown that in cases where the mother is around, she usually knows the incest is taking place. Lizzie probably had ambivalent feelings toward Abby - it is recorded that she stopped calling Abby "Mother" about 5 years before the murders. This implies that she HAD called her "Mother" prior to that time. Lizzie probably longed for a real mother and hoped for a nurturing figure with Abby's arrival, while at the same time resenting Abby as a substitution for her own mother. Talk about confusion!

6.) Assuming the above is true, Lizzie's resentment towards Abby was intensified as a result of her non-action regarding the abuse. So there are two counts of very, very deep resentment going on here.

7.) Andrew had the weird idea of giving his daughter a definitively masculine middle name. This, coupled with incest (assuming the incest theory is true), creates gender identity confusion.

8.) The ring Lizzie gave Andrew - rings are usualyl symbols of sexual attachment.

9.) The ubuquitous locks throughout the Borden home. The Proceedings papers state that locks are symbolic of boundaries, which are violated in cases of incest. The lock-and-key obsession could point to Andrew's control over his family through abuse. This would seem to fit with his keeping his bedroom key on the mantel every day - a constant visual reminder of his control over his family's boundaries. (It's interesting that his fascination with locks went so far as to cause him to pick up a broken one and wrap it carefully on his way home the morning of the murders.)

10.) Andrew kept a club under his bed. One of the Proceedings authors states that this signifies a "sadistic love of weapons." I disagree with that; it may have just been a cheap self-defense weapon against robbery or some such. But taking everything else into account, it may also have been an intimidation tactic.

11.) Andrew may also have exercised control by giving Lizzie presents, such as the Grand Tour. Again, it may have just been a nice gesture; but it may also have been to keep her quiet. This is the irony in incestuous relationships: the perpetrator threatens dire consequences should the victim reveal him; but then showers the victim with gifts to buy her silence.

12.) Lizzie's shoplifting was an expression of the control she did not have over her own life; and also an acting out of the incest scenario: getting away with something forbidden, just as her own father had done. Shoplifting is not about having material things; it's a symptom of a deep psychological issue.

13.) Emma - the older child - had the smaller bedroom. Back in the 1890's this was not the typical pattern. The oldest child had the bigger room. Emma herself stated that she had once had the larger room but she and Lizzie had swapped. This may indicate a shifting of Andrew's "favor" - he may have started on Emma, and when she grew into adulthood he started on Lizzie. It was then that the room change happened. (I did not read this in Proceedings, but I remember hearing or reading it somewhere). This is a typical pattern in incestuous families.

14.) Assuming all this to be true...it CERTAINLY explains why Lizzie may have had ample reason to murder her parents. And it explains the method: where sexual crimes are involved, the killer's intention is to obliterate the identity of her violator. This was certainly accomplished in Andrew's case. And if we go with the theory that Abby was initially facing her attacker, then that attacker's intention may have been to obliterate her identity as well, seeing Abby as a kind of secondary perpetrator - the one who let Andrew get away with what he'd done to his daughters.

15.) Lizzie never before or since manifested such violence. This too is common in cases of incest - one violent outburst against the perpetrator, and that's it. This is because the victim's hatred is focused in a very particular place.

The savagery of the murders indicates a motive of pure rage and hatred, not greed and gain. A scenario like that outlined in the Proceedings papers can definitely account for the creation and nourishment of such hatred. I'm the first one to be skeptical of applying 20th/21st century psychology to people of any past era; but it is at least plausible and would explain much.

The only thing with which I really disagree in the Proceedings address of this issue, is that one of the authors suggests Lizzie may have committed the murders in a "fugue state" brought on by dissociative personality disorder, created by past abuse - i.e., she didn't remember killing her father and stepmother and wasn't even fully aware of what she was doing at the time. While I think she may have been dissociative in general, I have a hard time believing she - or anyone, for that matter - could have had the presence of mind in a fugue state to clear up all the evidence.

Thanks for bearing with my long post - feedback is appreciated!

[Angel]

Hi KT72. Welcome. I have had strong feelings about this too. It explains alot of things, as you mentioned. It also explains why she never seemed to establish a relationship with a man and how she may have been attracted to women instead as a result of the abuse from her father. I posted ideas about this in the past. The violence of the murders seem to be a result of exactly what you described. And then once she committed the crimes nothing like this ever happened again because she was finally free of all the pent up anger she had boiling in her all those years. She probably felt relief rather than guilt because she felt justified in punishing them for all the horrible things they had put her through.

[KT72]

Thanks for the welcome, Angel!

Yes, I find it significant that Emma never married, either. While Lizzie may have later expressed sexuality in a homosexual manner, there is not a jot of suggestion that Emma ever did. Emma may simply have repressed all sexual expression due to her reknowned sense of religious piety; whereas Lizzie, having been ostracized from her faith community and thereby (perhaps) turned off of religion completely, had no reason to do the same. Regardless, the fact that neither of them ever married may point even more strongly toward gender confusion in both sisters, caused by childhood sexual abuse.

And I just thought of something else creepy....Apparently, Emma made a deathbed promise to Sarah to take care of "baby Lizzie". This could just be a simple wish from a dying mother; but could it be something more? Could Sarah have suspected that Andrew had that potential? Could she have been the only person preventing him from initiating the abuse during her lifetime? Could she have have feared for her daughters' safety at his hands after she was gone?..........

If even a small bit of this is true, it just casts an even darker pall over this whole case. It's just incredibly sad.

[Angel]

That's certainly a possibiity

[Susan]

Hi KT72, welcome to the Forum. Interesting post, we've kicked around the idea of incest before in the past. Does it say anywhere in what you have read what their take on the reason that Lizzie waited so long before exploding? If there was a case of incest going on that is the question that comes to my mind, why did Lizzie wait until she was 32 if this had been going on for years?

[FairhavenGuy]

Does it say anywhere in what you have read what their take on the reason that Lizzie waited so long before exploding? If there was a case of incest going on that is the question that comes to my mind, why did Lizzie wait until she was 32 if this had been going on for years?

Could having been left home alone by Emma for the first time in their adults lives have had something to do with it?

Is there something you've read, Susan, that makes you think a victim is required to finally snap at an age younger than 32?


Just because the incest theory popped up at the time society was focused on incest as the "Major Problem of the Moment," doesn't make it less valid. I think its a better trigger for this type of murder than wanting to live on The Hill. (And why would that push her over the edge at 32? Why would frustrated lesbianism? Why would addiction to opium provided by a Chinese Sunday School student?)

[1bigsteve]

I think you make some very good points, KT, especially about the "cleaning up of the evidence." There was an episode of Columbo that dealt with that very same condition of someone killing someone and then having no memory of it.

I never really leaned much toward the "incest theory" and I think that is mainly because I can't imagine a father wanting to rape his daughter in the first place but after reading these posts I have to say it is a real possibility. It is my view that Lizzie killed because she felt trapped in a dead-end situation. Broke, no husband, and getting older. The one thing that could give Lizzie her freedom was Andrew's money and all that was standing in her way was Abby and Andrew. I think Emma moving out of Maplecroft was not so much the lavish parties Lizzie threw but because she felt guilty of living on "blood money."

But you raised some good points, KT. Welcome to the forum. Glad to have you and your good input.

-1bigsteve (o:

[KT72]

Thanks for the welcomes, everyone!

Susan, re. your question: According to one of the papers, the rage, sorrow, and depression resulting from sexual trauma/abuse early in life frequently manifests later in life, triggered by environmental factors such as extreme stress. In Lizzie's case, the environmental trigger that caused her to snap was a kind of "anniversary" - Sarah Borden was 41 years old when she died, and Emma, who had taken on the mother role for Lizzie, was 41 at the time of the murders. According to the article, Emma's age "triggered in Lizzie the anniversary of the loss of her biological mother, Sarah". And Sarah's loss was, in Lizzie's mind, responsible for her torment at her father's hands. This author is convinced that had Sarah Borden not died when she did, there would have been no murders at all.

Here are the names and authors of the papers I'm referring to:

"Lizzie Borden: Violator or Victim?" by Margaret Judge Grenier

"Was Lizzie Borden the Victim of Incest?" by M. Eileen McNamara, M.D.

"Lizzie Borden, Anxious Attachment and Forty Whacks: A systemic Exploration of Incest and Parricide" by Stephen W. Kane, Ph.D. (this is the one I refer to in this post)

All of these appear in the book "The Legend 100 Years After the Crime: A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case", aka "Proceedings".

[Kat]

Hi.
Just a few notes on these posts:

-Prof. Starrs has wanted to dig up the bodies of Andrew and Abby, to check if their skulls had been placed in their graves and to try to match the handleless hatchet head at the FRHS to the wounds of each. It would also make more sense to dig up Lizzie and Emma too, (if they were going to be digging up anyone) and check to see if Emma or Lizzie had ever birthed a child. Heck, they could check Abby for that too. Just an interesting thing to know.

-Also, abuse could take many forms other than incest. The Bordens, with Sarah as wife and mother and later Abby as wife and step-mother, all lived with Andrew and other people.
If we believe that the Bordens mainly lived together at Ferry Street (one map at one time period seems to show the Harringtons and Andrew's family as across the street -sort of like on a communal property but not in the same house- which has confused the experts and may not be the case), then there were also at times all together Abraham, BeBe, Hiram, Lurana, George, Andrew, Sarah/Abby, and a maid or two, which these authors don't seem to take into account. I think it would be pretty hard to be sneaking around committing incest with that many possible witnesses or observers of any odd behaviour.

-Sending Lizzie on a trip - makes me shudder that she might talk. Could Andrew take that chance? Also, how do we know that Emma had never been away before that summer? Also, how do we know that Emma had a "renowned sense of religious piety?" (I understand some of these points are not yours but may be from the contributors to the Proceedings).

-Those who promote a seizure state, or a fugue state, or a black-out state wherein Lizzie killed, I think may seem to need this explanation because they subjectively think Lizzie did it, but don't want to find her culpable. Personally, I don't like this kind of *defense.* It's not very feasible, I don't think.

-The fact that Emma and Lizzie never married might have more to do with getting out from under Andrew's thumb, finally, and not wishing to turn over all their assets to another man and becoming his property. They had just escaped domination- why willingly go back into that subjugation?

-I recently read a book about a true crime axe murder of a farmer/husband/father in 1900 Iowa. His misdeeds within his family were legend and he seemed to be a cruel drunk and verbally abusive. Someone killed him in his bed. It was planned, not a heat-of-the-moment hate. I suppose there are so many kinds of abuse, I think it's possible there can be some in the Borden case, while not others. Depends on what the weak spot of the victim is.

-These are just my comments & opinions.

There are some good points posted here and an interesting
synopsis of the Proceedings chapters dealing with incest. Thanks.

[KT72]

Good points, Kat

Prof. Starrs has wanted to dig up the bodies of Andrew and Abby, to check if their skulls had been placed in their graves and to try to match the handleless hatchet head at the FRHS to the wounds of each. It would also make more sense to dig up Lizzie and Emma too, (if they were going to be digging up anyone) and check to see if Emma or Lizzie had ever birthed a child. Heck, they could check Abby for that too. Just an interesting thing to know.

But would it matter? If incest was being committed a pregnancy would not necessarily result....

If we believe that the Bordens mainly lived together at Ferry Street (one map at one time period seems to show the Harringtons and Andrew's family as across the street -sort of like on a communal property but not in the same house- which has confused the experts and may not be the case), then there were also at times all together Abraham, BeBe, Hiram, Lurana, George, Andrew, Sarah/Abby, and a maid or two, which these authors don't seem to take into account. I think it would be pretty hard to be sneaking around committing incest with that many possible witnesses or observers of any odd behaviour.

Abuse of any and all kinds goes on in large households all the time, though. If the household members are aware of it, they frequently keep quiet for one reason or other. I can easily believe that a Victorian family would say nothing about such a situation in order to avoid scandal; or simply out of a sense that it wasn't the rest of the family's business. In fact this very thing happens today - more often, I'll wager, than we wish to imagine.

Also, how do we know that Emma had a "renowned sense of religious piety?" (I understand some of these points are not yours but may be from the contributors to the Proceedings).

This is just my understanding from what I know of the two women's lives after the trial. Emma apparently had an ongoing friendship with Rev. Buck; in fact she consulted him about her disapproval of Lizzie's Maplecroft lifestyle and stayed with him and his family for a time after she moved out. Her discomfort with Lizzie just seems to stem from strong religious motives (consorting with actors, partying, heavens know what else, etc.).

Those who promote a seizure state, or a fugue state, or a black-out state wherein Lizzie killed, I think may seem to need this explanation because they subjectively think Lizzie did it, but don't want to find her culpable. Personally, I don't like this kind of *defense.* It's not very feasible, I don't think.

Yeah; like I said, I don't think this theory holds water, if for the only reason that someone in a fugue state would not have the presence of mind (as far as I know) to do such a good job of erasing the evidence. The post-crime cleanup was too good to not be planned in advance. (And, IMHO, advance planning doesn't preclude it being hate-motivated...........)

The fact that Emma and Lizzie never married might have more to do with getting out from under Andrew's thumb, finally, and not wishing to turn over all their assets to another man and becoming his property. They had just escaped domination- why willingly go back into that subjugation?

Excellent point; many women in the Victorian era were beginning to boycott marriage for just these reasons................

[/i]

[Angel]

Women might have been ready to boycott marriage, but at the same time they were still pretty much dependant on men for financial support because it was not the norm for women to work outside the home. So people like Lizzie and Emma had a frustrating dilemma because they didn't have the options we have today. That's why becoming heirs to solve this problem might have seemed pretty tempting. However, I still think there was a lot more to it than just the money. Something became too unbearable to Lizzie and she had to get out from under it. She had to have known the possible outcomes for her if she committed such a thing, but she was in enough torment to risk it.

[Susan]

Susan, re. your question: According to one of the papers, the rage, sorrow, and depression resulting from sexual trauma/abuse early in life frequently manifests later in life, triggered by environmental factors such as extreme stress. In Lizzie's case, the environmental trigger that caused her to snap was a kind of "anniversary" - Sarah Borden was 41 years old when she died, and Emma, who had taken on the mother role for Lizzie, was 41 at the time of the murders. According to the article, Emma's age "triggered in Lizzie the anniversary of the loss of her biological mother, Sarah". And Sarah's loss was, in Lizzie's mind, responsible for her torment at her father's hands. This author is convinced that had Sarah Borden not died when she did, there would have been no murders at all.

Thanks for answering my question, KT72. That is what I was looking for, what they came up with as a trigger that would have caused Lizzie to possibly snap.

FairhavenGuy @ Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:33 pm wrote:

Is there something you've read, Susan, that makes you think a victim is required to finally snap at an age younger than 32?

No, Chris, I haven't read anything that would require an incest victim to snap at any age at all. What I have read on incest is that there appears to be two different age groups that the victims are broken up into, younger victims and older victims. Though the statistics I've read are from current times, the average starting age of the younger victims of incest is 5, the older victims average starting age is 13. The incest with younger victims tends to stop before the victim hits puberty. With the older victims the incest usually begins around puberty and continues on from there.

So, from there, its anyone's guess as to which group Lizzie would have fell in. If it was the younger group and the incest stopped say for sake of argument at age 12, thats 20 years after the fact that Lizzie snapped. If it was the older group and the incest was still going on for 16 or 17 years, my question is what would suddenly trigger Lizzie to act out after all that time?

As Kat posted, there are other forms of abuse besides incest, and being a survivor myself of child abuse, I can attest that I never snapped and picked up a hatchet or even thought about it. Thats why I'm so curious as to what a possible trigger could be that would cause the lashing out later than sooner in life.

[FairhavenGuy]

I'm sorry, Susan, but the wording of your question along with the use of the rolling eyes guy gave me the impression you were being a little snarky.


It didn't seem like something you'd do, but even someone a sweet as I am can make a wiseguy comment once in a while.

[Kat]

We would know if either Lizzie or Emma had ever had a child by anyone. I find this possibility very interesting as a forensic outcome of an exhumation.
I mean, why not check?
Doesn't have to be from incest. Can be from these possible boyfriends we keep hearing about. Until they were past child-bearing age, they could have given birth.
We have the story of Lizzie visiting that child at that school every year. The donations to the Clubs for children in wills. The Trickey/McHenry rumors of a pregnancy. An illigitamte child from author Brown. No smoke without fire? Emma's year and a half away? I'm just expanding on the rumors- why not check?

I also think that with that many people living together at Ferry Street, there would not be enough privacy for incest. Also too many people a girl can tell.

If it happened at Second Street that might make more sense. Locked doors were posted here as a symptom. Second Street had the locked doors, tho we can't assume they were always locked on the interior rooms from move-in in 1872.
And take into account the ages of the *girls* by the time they got to Second Street: 12 and 21...pretty late.

[Kat]

PS: I use the *rolling-eyes-guy* when I am confused or wondering- not for snarky, either.
Maybe it has a different connotation than I myself thought?

This guy>>>

[Erato]

Incest is a possibility but it isn't the picture I have of Lizzie and Emma. I think that Lizzie (and Emma, too) felt cheated by life. There was Andrew with all that money and it did them no good. I think that they sat around upstairs in their section of the house and became increasingly embittered, nurturing every minor grievance - not just the money, but every occasion when Andrew sided with Abby, every time other people seemed to be enjoying life, every boring minute of dusting and ironing, every trip down to the squalid bathroom in the cellar. By 1892, it was clear to both of them that marriage was not going to be an option, so the only way to improve their situation was to get rid of Andrew and Abby.

[Susan]

I'm sorry, Susan, but the wording of your question along with the use of the rolling eyes guy gave me the impression you were being a little snarky.


It didn't seem like something you'd do, but even someone a sweet as I am can make a wiseguy comment once in a while.

Thats okay, Chris. Sometimes I feel like I can't or don't quite make my point clear with words, I tend to work more visually what with being an artist. I don't think I ask questions in a condescending or snarky manner and I hope that no one ever gets that from my posts, because thats not my manner. When I ask a question its because I am genuinely curious. As Kat just posted, I use the little rolly eye guy to signify that I'm confused or wondering also. I guess it would be great if we had a little emoticon that had a big question mark over their head to use instead.

[KT72]

I think what we all need to keep in mind, is that there weren't options for girls/young women to report abuse back then like there are today. Nowadays, we have social services, guidance counselors, etc. etc.; authorities are more accessible and our culture strives to make people feel they must seek help from some quarter. (And an awful lot of it STILL isn't reported, even with all the awareness and resources that have been made available in recent years!)

Back in the Victorian era it wasn't like that. Frequently in sex crimes, the female victim was blamed. Imagine if Lizzie had tried to tell anyone what had gone on - there's no way anyone would ever believe her in that society. Especially when the accusation was leveled against an upstanding businessman from an old family, like Andrew Borden. She'd be a.) blamed; b.) brushed off as a liar; or c.) worse, assumed crazy and locked up in an asylum. There would have been no place for her to turn. That's the saddest thing of all, IMO.............

Like I said, even today you have cases where entire families know what's going on but say nothing to "protect the family name" and avoid scandal. (Nine times out of ten the mother even knows.) Just imagine what it must have been like in 1890's New England!!

[1bigsteve]

Incest is a possibility but it isn't the picture I have of Lizzie and Emma. I think that Lizzie (and Emma, too) felt cheated by life. There was Andrew with all that money and it did them no good. I think that they sat around upstairs in their section of the house and became increasingly embittered, nurturing every minor grievance - not just the money, but every occasion when Andrew sided with Abby, every time other people seemed to be enjoying life, every boring minute of dusting and ironing, every trip down to the squalid bathroom in the cellar. By 1892, it was clear to both of them that marriage was not going to be an option, so the only way to improve their situation was to get rid of Andrew and Abby.

Bingo!

I agree. I think Lizzie was tired of:

1. Being 32 and living under her father's thumb,
2. Being 32 and worrying about becoming an unmarried "old maid",
3. Being 32 and being broke
4. Being 32 and not being able to travel much because she was broke

Lizzie may have felt trapped and murder was the only way to solve ALL of her problems. Whether there was a pregnancy and/or incest I don't know, but I doubt it. Possible but I doubt it.

Like KT said above, many families keep their mouths shut to maintain the family name and most mothers do know what is going on but keep silent. The "don't rock the boat" syndrome, as I call it.

I don't think there was any avenue for people to take in those days to get relief from family abuse without being labled a "nut." That attitude is still alive even today to a large degree. "You were raped? Must have been your fault!" "Your father molested you? You must have been asking for it!" "The neigborhood bully is thumping on you? Oh, stop telling lies and go out and play!" I'm a realist. Some people look at the Emperor and see his new clothes but I look and see the guy is butt-a-- naked! Get a blanket! If there is a rotten apple in the barrel I'll throw it out rather than denying it's rotten and allowing it to spread.

I think Lizzie was caught in a situation that she felt only killing the folks would solve. There may have been something about this case that we don't see, some other thread running through this web.

-1bigsteve (o:

[DWilly]

We would know if either Lizzie or Emma had ever had a child by anyone. I find this possibility very interesting as a forensic outcome of an exhumation.
I mean, why not check?
Doesn't have to be from incest. Can be from these possible boyfriends we keep hearing about. Until they were past child-bearing age, they could have given birth.
We have the story of Lizzie visiting that child at that school every year. The donations to the Clubs for children in wills. The Trickey/McHenry rumors of a pregnancy. An illigitamte child from author Brown. No smoke without fire? Emma's year and a half away? I'm just expanding on the rumors- why not check?

I've done a little checking. The Tricke/McHenry story, as I pointed out in another thread, doesn't hold water. They "claim" their evidence of Lizzie being pregnant came from Fredrick Chace and his wife. Yet, neither of these individuals was found to be real. Jennings checked on the address that was given and found no such address was there. Also, the claim is made that the fight that McHenry and Trickey "claimed" happened at about the same time Lizzie was with Alice Russell. A lot of holes in an already discredited story.


As for those "possible" boyfriends, well, none of that came from Lizzie's real friends. Matter of fact her real friends said the opposite. She had no boyfriends.

And finally, about that "smoke" well, there was plenty of smoke about Lizzie and Nance. Matter of fact, there was more smoke about Lizzie and actresses than boyfriends.

[Kat]

When we have member Gramma here, she has given us hints about that Trickey/McHenry story. She has a direct relative who worked for Lizbeth.

I say sometimes no smoke without fire because that is often the case.
That's what Gramma tells us. It's something to keep in mind.
Also we are discussing something which we don't know.
Look at posters who say there are probably things which are secret which we are not privy to: Eugene, Bigsteve, Gramma...etc. Maybe more. I believe that too.

We can still keep Nance in the picture if you want, but even she had a husband.

I don't believe or disbelieve. But Lizzie or Emma (don't forget Emma) might have had a child by a man. It's not impossible.

[Kat]

Also:
I believe that Abby was the intended victim. I think hate was poured out onto her assault.
Whatever Abby did to (supposedly) contribute to such hate might be something we might discuss?

[nbcatlover]

There are Chaces and Chases who are members of the same family. There are many, many Fredericks in both. I have to wonder how hard the Chace/Chase family tree was shaken.

[Audrey]

I think it is important to note that the role of 'victim' is something which is defined by the individual being 'victimized'.

Many of us have known someone in some sort of relationship where we felt the person was being mistreated... We would think we were a 'victim' if the same thing were to happen to us-- However the person may like how they are treated, ie- not being able to have a checkbook, required to dress in a certain way, etc. This person is not really a 'victim'.

Likewise, we can think people have been treated perfectly well-- but to their minds they are victims and therefore they ARE victims.

I do not beleive Lizzie was sexually abused by Andrew.

But I do think she perceived herself as a 'victim'. Therfore-- whether we think Andrew was kind to her or not-- She was indeed, a victim.

The 'victim mentality' can be the impetus to great 'power' when finally overcome-- or when the person perceiving the abuse has had enough. To me, this explains how Lizzie (if she did it) was able to emotionally carry out such a gruesome crime.

What it all boils down to is victimization is perceived by the sufferer or non-sufferer.

[Kat]

Yes, and each person has their limit. Their reality is true to them, whether we think it is meaningful or not.

[DWilly]

There are Chaces and Chases who are members of the same family. There are many, many Fredericks in both. I have to wonder how hard the Chace/Chase family tree was shaken.

This is what was in the McHenry/Trickey article identifying Fredrick Chace:

Mr. Frederick Chace of 198 Fourth street, Fall River, will testify:
I have known Andrew J. Borden and wife over 16 years, and have visited him at his home and he has visited me in mine. We were very close friends, and he has told me a great deal about his family troubles.

After this article appeared here is what was appeared in a later article on "Fredrick Chace"


The Evening Standard, New Bedford, Monday, October 10, 1892:
"A TISSUE OF LIES.
.......................
Lawyer Jennings Says the Boston Paper's Story Is False.
........................
Member of Fall River Police Force Asserts That It Is True.
........................
Names are Fictitious, But Statements Substantially True.
........................

Fall River, Oct.10.-- Andrew J. Jennings, counsel for the defendent in the Borden case, made the following statement to a correspondent to-day: The matter published in a Boston paper this morning relating to the murders of Andrew J. Borden and his wife [see second page] is a tissue of lies. I have endeavored to find out about Mr. and Mrs. Fred Chace, at the number indicated, 198 Fourth Street. There is not only no such number but not any within 50 of it.


The so called "Mr. and Mrs. Fred Chace" were NEVER found and they NEVER testified in court. Can you imagine anyone being convicted in a newspaper on testimony given by people who no one could even locate? How much credence would we give this today? This so called news article would be laughed at today.

[DWilly]

When we have member Gramma here, she has given us hints about that Trickey/McHenry story. She has a direct relative who worked for Lizbeth.

I say sometimes no smoke without fire because that is often the case.
That's what Gramma tells us. It's something to keep in mind.
Also we are discussing something which we don't know.
Look at posters who say there are probably things which are secret which we are not privy to: Eugene, Bigsteve, Gramma...etc. Maybe more. I believe that too.

We can still keep Nance in the picture if you want, but even she had a husband.

I don't believe or disbelieve. But Lizzie or Emma (don't forget Emma) might have had a child by a man. It's not impossible.

I don't know as much about this case as you do but from what I have read McHenry and Trickey is at best a dubious source. I find it odd that Gramma "hints" about anything. Why not just tell us? I would love to have her explain how she uses McHenry and Trickey article and then abandons it to come up with the "abortion story" which is not part of the article nor was it part of the Ruby Cameron story.

I have a few questions. Who was Gramma's relative who worked for Lizzie and how was this information verified? Also, is Gramma claiming that Lizzie told this relative something she didn't tell Ruby?


And finally in regard to this from your post:

We can still keep Nance in the picture if you want, but even she had a husband.


Normally, I would point out in a "frank and open" way that many gays and lesbians married. Especially, back then. I would also try to explain why they did, but I won't. Given your "if you want" comment I can see it would be pointless.

[Allen]

Just out of curiousity I looked for driving directions from 92 Second Street Fall River Ma to 198 Fourth Street Fall River Ma. It's not that far a distance, and there does exist an address 198 Fourth Street today. I guess that goes to show how much things can change?

Mr. Jennings stated:

I have endeavored to find out about Mr. and Mrs. Fred Chace, at the number indicated, 198 Fourth Street. There is not only no such number but not any within 50 of it.

Is there any way we can check to see what numbered addresses existed on Fourth Street at this time?

[DWilly]

Just out of curiousity I looked for driving directions from 92 Second Street Fall River Ma to 198 Fourth Street Fall River Ma. It's not that far a distance, and there does exist an address 198 Fourth Street today. I guess that goes to show how much things can change?

Mr. Jennings stated:

I have endeavored to find out about Mr. and Mrs. Fred Chace, at the number indicated, 198 Fourth Street. There is not only no such number but not any within 50 of it.

Is there any way we can check to see what numbered addresses existed on Fourth Street at this time?

When I went to Fall Rivers I only went to three places. The house where the murder happened, Maplecroft and where the family is buried. I *think*, if I remember right, the street where Maplecroft is has changed names. I almost drove right by the house.

As for the Chace family. If they were real how come no one said anything? Why didn't they come forward? Why did they go to New York and how come only Mrs. McHenry could find them? If the story was true.

[Audrey]

I think the T-M affair was one of those 'I had Elvis's baby' type of things... It just went too far!

[Bob Gutowski]

It would not be odd for Nance to have been even slightly sapphically inclined and to still be wed, especially as an actress. Look at Mary Martin, Gertrude Lawrence, and Katherine Cornell.

I think the incident of the half-house, added to the possible history of indifference from Abby when and if Andrew began molesting the adolescent Lizzie, topped with the threat of the Swansea farm being signed over to Abby (if that was going to occur) could be a powerful incentive to have done with it. I still feel Abby was the intended victim, and Andrew an improv based on circumstance.

[Angel]

I agree, Bob

[Allen]

It would not be odd for Nance to have been even slightly sapphically inclined and to still be wed, especially as an actress. Look at Mary Martin, Gertrude Lawrence, and Katherine Cornell.

I think the incident of the half-house, added to the possible history of indifference from Abby when and if Andrew began molesting the adolescent Lizzie, topped with the threat of the Swansea farm being signed over to Abby (if that was going to occur) could be a powerful incentive to have done with it. I still feel Abby was the intended victim, and Andrew an improv based on circumstance.

If Lizzie was being molested, she might feel that she was entitled to more of Andrew's attention and favor than anyone else. Children who are molested sometimes show signs of favoring the molesting parent, even though the parent is doing something harmful to them. This is because the abusing parent showers them with gifts, lets them get away with things, gives them money...etc... basically to keep their mouth shut about what's going on. I'm not saying that the child begins to feel the abuse is ok. There is a name given for this behavior but it escapes me at the moment.

There are some victims of extreme molestation that start to feel almost as if they are the wife, not the actual mother or stepmother, whatever the case may be. It's almost as if they become somewhat brainwashed by the abuser. Especially if it goes on for quite some time. Maybe Lizzie felt that since Andrew was taking such liberties with her he OWED her more than he did anyone else in the household. If Abby knew about it and let it go on she didn't deserve ANYTHING. And when Andrew started showing signs that he was doing little things for Abby such as buying the half house, and possibly putting the farm in her name, it infuriated her. Why should she be rewarded, and what did she do to deserve it?

What brings all this to mind for me are three things, the trip to Europe which Emma certainly never got, the ring on Andrew's finger, and that it was after the purchase of the half house that Lizzie stopped calling Abby mother.

[Audrey]

Did Emma ever ask to go to Europe?

I think it would be more likely that she did not.

Would Andrew have sent her if she did?

It is also worthy of noting that the abuser generally tries to isolate his victim from society and people he/she may tell. Would Andrew have sent Lizzie to Europe if this were the case? He may not have been able to stop her from her charitable work in town-- But refusing to pay for her Grand Tour would have certainly been his prerogative.

If Andrew was molesting Lizzie after she began to menstruate, Unless he limited himself to non penetrative sex--then what about birth control?

Does anyone think that Lizzie or Andrew buying contraceptives would have come out at the time of the scandal? These were not the days where you could drive two towns over where no one knew you to buy things on the sly.

[Audrey]

It would not be odd for Nance to have been even slightly sapphically inclined and to still be wed, especially as an actress. Look at Mary Martin, Gertrude Lawrence, and Katherine Cornell.

Even today many gay people try straight marriage....

It isn't easy being gay in today's 'enlightened' society... What must have it been like in those days?

I do think lesbians tend to have it a bit easier than gay men though...