Lizzie Borden: Animal Abuser?
An odd article appeared online on Azstarnet.com, “the online service of the Arizona Daily Star“, about animal abusers. It begins:
I read the newspaper with great interest. A few stories jump out, either at me or my mother: These are stories about people tormenting animals or keeping them in conditions not fit for any living being. It is well documented that the vast majority of humans who enjoy hurting other species go on to more interesting prey — us.
The article then goes on to list several infamous people from history who liked to “harm puppies and kittens when they were children.” The list includes “Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer and that great humanitarian Adolf Hitler.” I don’t even know if this is correct, but the author, one Lee Reynolds, then makes the audacious statement that “I don’t know much about Lizzie Borden’s past with animal life, but she evidently “took an ax” and made use of it.”
So there you have it. A new turn to the worm. Lizzie grouped in with serial killers who abused animals. Quite a new low for her, don’t you think? Especially when she was acquitted of the crimes and was such a famous benefactor to animal rescue leagues in later life. I guess the old girl is fated to be manhandled by history. Seems a shame though. For whatever Lizzie Borden was or did or maybe did, she was no Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler.
November 30, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Although I am one of those who believes Lizzie committed at least one of– if not both of– the murders, that does NOT make her a serial killer!!! If she killed her parents, it was with the specific purpose of personal gain and of ridding her life of their presence, which forced many limitations and discomforts upon her. If she were the murderess, the murdering stopped there!!!
Yes, ax-murdering is a gruesome business, but, if the prussic-acid story is true, she was aiming for a gentler (and more covert) modus operandi. Failing that, she couldn’t have used a gun– that would have made too much noise! If you’re going to use a knife, you’d better know what you’re doing– people can survive multiple stabbings, especially if they’re able to overcome their assailant, and Lizzie was no bigger than her two victims, nor was she known to be skilled with a knife blade.
But, however, a hatchet: That’s most definite– one good whack to the back or front of the head, and it’s sayonara. Also, would a woman use a hatchet? It would seem unlikely. And, if she did, she would not have raised it so many times. Only a fiend could have done that.
It was a sensational weapon, but it was the perfect weapon of choice. Quiet, deadly– and unthinkable that a woman should have used it.
However, she was no Hitler, Dahmer, nor Bundy. They were psychotic, to say the least. Even if Lizzie committed the double-murder, I would not call her psychotic, nor even insane. She dispensed of that which was holding her back, and obtained that which she thought she deserved. She wanted to be civil about it (with the poison), but had to settle for the other extreme (to make it look as if she didn’t commit the crime).
Is Lizzie any worse than a modern-day president, bankrolled by oil concerns, who then sanctions the mass killings of tens of thousands in an oil-rich nation?
But, wait, they were/are both good Christians, right?