Just for curiosity's sake...

[Lizthemadcow]

I hope this isn't violating any forum rules, but I was wondering how many people here think Lizzie was guilty? I personally think she was, as I don't think any theory has been adequitley presented to prove otherwise, and I think she was the only possible person who could have done it. What bothers me about the case are two things: what did she do with her bloody clothes, (if she didn't do it ala Elizabeth Montgomery style) and what happened to the hatchett? If anyone has any possible solutions to this problem, I would surely like to hear, as well as other theories as to whodunnit.

[Elizabelle]

I think that Lizzie and Emma were guilty in planning the murders. But I don't think they actually got "blood" on their hands. In my opinion, Lizzie did not swing the hatchet...but she and Emma paid someone to do the deed for them!

I wrote a very long "who-done-it" theory awhile ago. Scroll down and you'll find it.

I love hearing everyone's theories, although they seem to come in bits and pieces, here and there...

[theebmonique]

Liz,

Here is the link: viewtopic.php?t=1581


Tracy...

[RayS]

I hope this isn't violating any forum rules, but I was wondering how many people here think Lizzie was guilty? I personally think she was, as I don't think any theory has been adequitley presented to prove otherwise, and I think she was the only possible person who could have done it. What bothers me about the case are two things: what did she do with her bloody clothes, (if she didn't do it ala Elizabeth Montgomery style) and what happened to the hatchett? If anyone has any possible solutions to this problem, I would surely like to hear, as well as other theories as to whodunnit.

The verdict is in: Not Guilty of killing her father (June 1893). The other charges were noll prossed.
I do believe that she knew who did it, but refused to speak out. Arnold Brown's book answered that (for all time?).

[nbcatlover]

I believe Lizzie was an accomplice after the fact. I still subscribe to the David Anthony theory.

[FairhavenGuy]

Hyman Lubinsky. . . in the sitting room. . . with the ice cream. . .











But seriously, wasn't there a crime where the weapon was something like a frozen leg of lamb, which the murderer cooked and ate?

[Harry]

Hyman Lubinsky. . . in the sitting room. . . with the ice cream. . .


But seriously, wasn't there a crime where the weapon was something like a frozen leg of lamb, which the murderer cooked and ate?

That was an Alfred Hitchcock TV show, a classic. Must be something about mutton that makes people want to kill.

[doug65oh]

The foul stench just might inspire that killer instinct.

[Erato]

Why is everyone against mutton? I eat it often and like it.

[DWilly]

Why is everyone against mutton? I eat it often and like it.

Fresh mutton might be ok, but I think after it's sat around the house for several days rotting it would be enough to push one over the edge.

[Erato]

I think the "revolting mutton" is simply another one of the oft' repeated myths of the Borden case. At that time, people were used to living with inadequate refrigeration and they were used to eating the same thing for several days in a row until it was finished up; that's just how life was. I've lived that way myself for a number of years and you adapt to it pretty quickly.

[snokkums]

I think she is guilty as hell. And I think Emma is too. She just had an air tight alibi.

[FairhavenGuy]

I think the "revolting mutton" is simply another one of the oft' repeated myths of the Borden case.

I agree completely. Mutton was a perfectly acceptable meat, served in the finest places. It fell out of fashion and American's taste shifted toward more bland fare. There was nothing unusual about the Bordens having had mutton for several days running. Probably many families had a virtually identical menu.

[Ad]

Hyman Lubinsky. . . in the sitting room. . . with the ice cream. . .


But seriously, wasn't there a crime where the weapon was something like a frozen leg of lamb, which the murderer cooked and ate?

I laughed soooo hard when I read this....
Reading one serious response after another, and then.....pow!!!
Death by ice cream
lol lol


Thanks Chris

[Haulover]

lizzie is guilty in some way. bad judgment, at least. i believe there is a secret story. i doubt it can be proven one way or the other. the "facts" of lizzie's single-handed guilt just don't hold up. something is missing. i don't think lizzie borden herself picked up an axe. this much, i think is true. i think that the media and imagination constructed the legend -- which i think is a different phenomenon from "the truth." the story is so powerful, it lives. but truth? that's different. the notion that "no one else could have done it" is flawed because that presumption is based on ignorance of what actually happened that day. a person or people we don't know about exist in this tragedy. thus it is that we constantly find ourselves at loose ends. there are too many problems with lizzie as sole killer in this--by the evidence, i mean--too many holes. which is an indication that something essential is missing. and i think a man did the axe work.

[DWilly]

I think Lizzie did it. I also think Emma knew that Lizzie did it and helped her. I also, think it's possible that Bridget and/or Dr. Bowen may have helped Lizzie or at the very least not have told everything they knew. I'm not saying they were in on the murders only that after the murder they may not have wanted Lizzie to get into trouble.

Few notes on other theories mentioned:

1. I don't think Lizzie simply hired a killer. Abby was brutally killed. Whoever killed Abby hated her. In my opinion a hired killer would have stopped after four or five hits with the hatchet. There was too much emotion in Abby's murder to simply have been a guy hired for money. I think she was dead after the third hit. The rest were all hate filled hits.

2. I don't think Lizzie had a boyfriend. My opinion is based mainly on three things:

1. I think Lizzie wanted money AND freedom. She wanted to live her life her way. If she married the man would have gotten everything. She'd be swapping one man bossing her around for another. I especially can't see her allowing any lower class male that kind of power.

2. Not a single one of her girlfriends ever said Lizzie had a boyfriend. It's hard for me to picture a woman telling no one about a boyfriend. Besides, where did they meet? Where did they make love? The Barn?

3. There is no evidence that Lizzie was pregnant. I was reading in the archives and there's a thread I think it's called "Another coincidence" and there's an article which talks about how Jennings looked for Fredrick Chace, that's the man that Trickey and McHenry claimed heard Lizzie and her father fighting and something was said about her being pregnant, well Jennings never found the guy. He said something about there not being any house with Chace's address.

Btw, did Ruby Cameron ever say Lizzie was pregnant? Or is that something that was made up later just like the abortion? Btw, there's zero proof Lizzie had an abortion.

[KT72]

Hmmm, I tend to go back and forth on Lizzie's guilt. It depends on what day I'm asked, what my answer will be.

I've always said that if Lizzie did do it, she must have had a damn good reason - and it WAS NOT MONEY. The Borden murders don't fit the profit profile. They fit the hatred profile. The wounds inflicted, being on the heads and faces of the victims, point to the killer's desire to wipe out their identities. These were crimes of passion and fury and rage, not of material gain.

The fact that she spent her money after the trial doesn't automatically mean the money was the motive. Plenty of people change their lifestyles after coming into an inheritance. And unlike her father, Lizzie did not hoard her money but used it to better the world around her - by helping young people attend college, helping animals, buying books for those who couldn't afford them, etc. Sorry, but these don't strike me as the character attributes of a cold-hearted, blood-lusting fiend who commits an exceedingly grisly double murder.

Everything we know about Lizzie post-trial tells us she was a generous, good-hearted person. So she had outbursts of temper and spitefulness. So what? Who doesn't? So she was eccentric. Lots of people are. Those traits don't necessarily spell "murderess".

I tend to give some credence to the incest theory. It would fit perfectly with what we know of the household and family history, and with the way in which the murders were done.

[DWilly]

I'm not going to rule out incest. Sure, it could have happened. Although proving it at this late date is going to be next to impossible. The thing is if you go with incest as the motive then your suspects are going to be Emma and/or Lizzie.

I still think money played a major role. Lizzie and Emma were both upset over that house being given to Abby's sister. They made that very clear.

As for Lizzie doing nice things. Well, I don't know. Maybe she really did like doing nice things and had that side to her. Then again maybe she only did it to make people think she was nice. We can't read her mind so, in the end we don't know why she did it.

[KT72]

I'm not going to rule out incest. Sure, it could have happened. Although proving it at this late date is going to be next to impossible.

Of course; but it's valid speculation...and that's mostly all we can do with what we've got, isn't it?

I still think money played a major role. Lizzie and Emma were both upset over that house being given to Abby's sister. They made that very clear.

Yeah, but...enough to hack their heads open?...I don't know...it just doesn't feel like a money crime to me. And the house thing happened five years before the murders. If Lizzie or Emma did wish to kill their parents over this matter, why wait five years? Why not kill them right away, or at least within a shorter time span?...

And Emma testified that she was the one who harbored resentment over the house thing, and that Lizzie had been furious at first but Andrew's deed of the Ferry Street property (I think??) placated her, and by the time of the murders she'd considered it over and done with. Unless Emma was covering up with this story.

As for Lizzie doing nice things. Well, I don't know. Maybe she really did like doing nice things and had that side to her. Then again maybe she only did it to make people think she was nice. We can't read her mind so, in the end we don't know why she did it.

Ah, but her charitable giving wasn't revealed until after her death. She didn't broadcast her good deeds to the public, so that leads me to think that she didn't do it for public approval or to exonerate herself in the public eye.......

Enough of this, sorry for going off-topic

[Allen]

I think Lizzie did it. I think the best indication for why she may have done it, just in my own opinion, could be found somewhere in this bit of trial testimony.

Inquest testimony of Alice M. Russell page 150+:

Q. I do not like to ask this question, but I feel obliged to. Did you see enough to notice what the relations were between Miss Lizzie and her mother.
A. In all my aquaintance, which is ten years sure, and most of that time has been, part of the time quite intimate, I never yet heard any wrangling in the family. I have got to answer the question, and I will say I don't think they were congenial.

Q.What gave you the impression they were not congenial?
A. Because their tastes differed in ever way; one liked one thing, and the other liked another.

Q. Were they together very much?
A. I don't think they were very much.

Q.I suppose what you say about Lizzie is also true of Emma?
A. About the same; it was not always the same, but it would be hard work to tell.

Q.I judge by your saying they had a sitting room upstairs---
A. They sat up there a great deal.

Q. Their step mother did not sit up there with them?
A. I don't think so.

Q. Did you ever hear Lizzie speak of any trouble she had had with her mother?
A. Yes, I suppose I have. I have heard her say that Mrs. Borden thought so and so; the same as any family.

Q. Did she express to you ever that she regarded her mother as untruthful or deceitful?
A.I don't think she ever did.

Q. Did she ever allude particularly to any trouble she ever had with her mother?
A.No sir.

Q.Did she ever tell what the trouble was?
A. Nothing further than she was a step mother. The whole thing was as far as I could see, that an own mother might have more influence over the father; it was the father more than the mother.

Q. What do you mean?
A. The father was the head of the house; they had to do as he thought. Mrs. Borden did not control the house; the whole summing up of it, was that.

Q. Were her relations with her father cordial?
A. So far as I know. I never saw anything different.

Q. Were they congenial?
A. I should not suppose they would be - given their different natures.

Q. The different natures of the father and mother and Lizzie?
A. Yes, each of them.

Q. What was the difference in their natures?
A. Mr. Borden was a plain living man with rigid ideas, and very set. They were young girls. He had earned his money, and he did not care for things that young women in their position naturally would; and he looked upon those things --- I don't know just how to put it.

Q. He did not appreciate girls?
A. No, I don't think he did.

Q. Their ideas were more modern than his with regard to the way of living, do you mean?
A. Yes sir.

Q. How did you get this, from the girls talk, or what you observed?
A. From what I observed. Everybody knew what Andrew Borden's ideas were. He was a very plain living man; he did not care for anything different. It always seemed to me as if he did not see why they should care for anything different.

Q. Did they complain about it?
A. Yes, they used to think it ought to be different; there was no reason why it should not be. They used to think it might be different.

Q. Lizzie or Emma, or both?
A. Both.

Q. There was never any wrangling between them?
A. No I never heard any. They had quite refined ideas, and they would liked to have been cultured girls, and would like to have had different advantages, and it would natural for girls to express themselves this way. I think it would be very unnatural if they had not.

Q. He did not give them the advantages of education that they thought they ought to have?
A. I don't know as it is just that; but people cannot go and do and have, unless they have ample means to do it.

[DWilly]

I'm not going to rule out incest. Sure, it could have happened. Although proving it at this late date is going to be next to impossible.

Of course; but it's valid speculation...and that's mostly all we can do with what we've got, isn't it?

I still think money played a major role. Lizzie and Emma were both upset over that house being given to Abby's sister. They made that very clear.

Yeah, but...enough to hack their heads open?...I don't know...it just doesn't feel like a money crime to me. And the house thing happened five years before the murders. If Lizzie or Emma did wish to kill their parents over this matter, why wait five years? Why not kill them right away, or at least within a shorter time span?...

And Emma testified that she was the one who harbored resentment over the house thing, and that Lizzie had been furious at first but Andrew's deed of the Ferry Street property (I think??) placated her, and by the time of the murders she'd considered it over and done with. Unless Emma was covering up with this story.

As for Lizzie doing nice things. Well, I don't know. Maybe she really did like doing nice things and had that side to her. Then again maybe she only did it to make people think she was nice. We can't read her mind so, in the end we don't know why she did it.

Ah, but her charitable giving wasn't revealed until after her death. She didn't broadcast her good deeds to the public, so that leads me to think that she didn't do it for public approval or to exonerate herself in the public eye.......

Enough of this, sorry for going off-topic

Emma said a lot of things I think mainly to protect Lizzie who was on trial for her life.


As for Lizzie's good deeds. Before the murder she was very active in the community. Church, Women's Christian Temperance Union, and teaching Sunday School. All before the murder and her death. I really don't think the good deeds show us one way or another what went on inside Lizzie's head.

[KT72]

As for Lizzie's good deeds. Before the murder she was very active in the community. Church, Women's Christian Temperance Union, and teaching Sunday School. All before the murder and her death. I really don't think the good deeds show us one way or another what went on inside Lizzie's head.

Agreed......

My point was, if she did commit the murders, such heinous butchery seems incongruent with other aspects of her character. So, if she did do it, it wasn't because she was just evil; it was for another reason, a deep-seated psychological trauma of some kind that snapped her on that particular day, and which was specifically related to her life at her father and stepmother's hands. That's why I think severe abuse of some kind was going on in that family. IMHO it's the only motive that really makes sense.

That is, IF she did it

[Kat]

Pardon my quick interruption here- may I ask what abortion?

[DWilly]

Pardon my quick interruption here- may I ask what abortion?

I'm not sure if you mean my post or not. I did mention abortion. Let me make it clear I don't for one minute think Lizzie had one. I don't even think she was pregnant. I'm only talking about those posters who do.

I don't know for sure who first started the "Lizzie was pregnant, Lizzie had an abortion etc." I asked in my post if it was Ruby or Gramma. I looked through the archives and found a thread called, "The Ruby Story." In it, Kat tries to differentiate between what Ruby said and what Gramma said. In this post Gramma is called simply "G" Here is part of what was posted:

" The story is that David wanted to marry Lizzie-he 22 and she 32-both family's with decent money-but Andrew would not allow it. "G" points now to the Trickey-McHenry story of a mad Andrew who would not countence a marriage as he hated the man and would kick Lizzie out and it was implied she was pregnant. The Trickey-McHenry article implied this, and "G" says it was so. "G" says Lizzie had an abortion about the time of the murders. This part is "G" story but not RUBY articles."


Now, a few questions:

Doesn't the Trickey-McHenry article state that the argument between Lizzie and her father took place on Aug. 3, 1892?

And isn't it implied that on that night she was pregnant? Or at least that was McHenry and Trickey's claim.

So, when did she get this abortion? That night? What about talking to Alice? The Trickey-McHenry article places the "never to be found" Chace family as hearing this fight at around 7pm on Aug. 3rd

[Mossy Oak Mudslinger]

Yes,I believe she's guilty. I think she did it all by herself,although,I'm not quite sure about Emma. I'd like to know if Lizzie,while commiting the murders,was nervous that Brigette might unexpectedly show up,maybe to ask her a question or something. If I were planning on killing someone,I would be afraid if someone might unexpectedly catch me commiting it if they were on the same property.

[RayS]

I hope this isn't violating any forum rules, but I was wondering how many people here think Lizzie was guilty? I personally think she was, as I don't think any theory has been adequitley presented to prove otherwise, and I think she was the only possible person who could have done it. What bothers me about the case are two things: what did she do with her bloody clothes, (if she didn't do it ala Elizabeth Montgomery style) and what happened to the hatchett? If anyone has any possible solutions to this problem, I would surely like to hear, as well as other theories as to whodunnit.

The lack of murder weapon and bloody clothes say neither Lizzie or Bridget did it. The same lack of evidence prevented the conviction of OJ Simpson and Robert Blake (even thought Blake was present at the scene of the crime). The limo driver picked up OJ at 11pm, the ME said the murders occurred after this time. Read "Killing Time" by Freed & Briggs.

[RayS]

I think she is guilty as hell. And I think Emma is too. She just had an air tight alibi.

Ha-ha-ha!!! That's as funny as saying OJ wasn't convicted because it couldn't be proved. A "perfect alibi"?

[twinsrwe]

I think Lizzie committed both murders and I don't think incest had anything to do with it.

Lizzie was not a child; she was a 32 year old woman. Both she and Emma could have moved out of their father's house and lived together elsewhere.

Two things stand out for me:

1. Lizzie stayed in the house, alone, right after she discovered her father's brutally murdered body. Who, man or woman, would do this? If I had found my father murdered, as she did, I sure as hell would not stay in the house.

2. Bridget refused to stay in the house that night - I think she knew Lizzie was the killer and that she would be spending the night. Lizzie was the only other person at home during the time of both Abby and Andrew's demise, besides Bridget herself.

I do think that both murders were crimes of hatred. This is very obvious with the overkilling of both Abby and Andrew, and Abby more so than Andrew.

[Allen]

Both she and Emma could have moved out of their father's house, that's true. But what would they have lived on? It's not like they had an income of their own.

[Kat]

I'd been discussing this with Harry. I think because of the times they lived in, society would not support the idea of the 2 Borden girls going off and setting up their own household. They would still be relying on Andrew's money and he most likely would not allow that kind of independent move. I don't think either girl would have worked at a job to support themselves, simply because they would not have thought of it, even tho Lizzie's friends worked as teachers or principal.
Women were owned by the father or husband, and supported by him. They would be considered odd to have left their father's house. Also it would start gossip that all was not well in the family.
So much was kept secret and hidden back then- it seems as if those girls left it would speak volumes about a dysfunctional family and the patriarch would not like it.
Missy's point is valid-what would they live on, bottom line?

I think murder is the choice one makes when they think they have no choice.

[william]

If memory serves, Lizzie and Emma were receiving about four dollars each a week for an allowance. In addition they were receiving food, shelter and a place to receive and entertain their friends.

Lacking skills, it is doubtful they would do very well in the job market

Yes, they did have bank accounts, but the money wouldn't last forever. I think they made a wise choice in staying at 92 Second Street, don't you?

(and they were also able to keep an eye on Abby, and make sure she didn't inherit the whole pie!)

[DWilly]

I'm not sure what the deal was with Lizzie and Emma. Neither one seemed interested in having a career. I understand that they both may have felt that the idea of working was still something only lower class women did but I also know that some women were starting to have careers as doctors, engineers etc. I don't know if it was because they were both rather old fashioned on the idea of women working or just to lazy or maybe Andrew just wouldn't let them work. The thing is neither women seemed all that bent on getting married either. They both expressed anger about how they were living under Andrew and yet neither went to great lengths to get out of it.

Btw, about their living on their own and how it might have led to some gossip about the family having troubles. I recall reading that at one point Lizzie did stay somewhere else. I think it was just for a day and I guess a number of people in Fall Rivers knew about it.

[RayS]

I think Lizzie committed both murders and I don't think incest had anything to do with it.
(...)
Two things stand out for me:

1. Lizzie stayed in house, alone, right after she discovered her father's brutally murdered body. Who, man or woman, would do this? If I had found my father murdered, as she did, I sure as hell would not stay in the house.

2. Bridget refused to stay in the house that night - I think she knew Lizzie was the killer and that she would be spending the night. Lizzie was the only other person at home durning the time of both Abby and Andrew's demise, besides Bridget herself.

I do think that the both murders were crimes of hatred. This is very obvious with the overkilling of both Abby and Andrew, and Abby more so than Andrew.

Wasn't there a quote from Bridget saying she 'was afraid to speak out for fear that the man who killed poor Mrs Borden would get her next'? (I don't have the exact quote, so ' is used.
Bridget, like Uncle John, was a material witness but found a job in the Sheriff's office so she was present for the trial.
Didn't Reporter Tricky get indicted for trying to get Bridget to leave the state? Was that to make her look like a suspect?
"Fleeing is evidence of guilt" in some states (like Calif).

[twinsrwe]

It is true that unmarried women lived in their father's house and were supported by him. I still think that if there was a will, they would have found a way to support themselves. How did a single woman support herself who did not have a father to support her?

I do think Abby, Emma and Lizzie were all as lazy as the day is long. I have always wondered why Andrew being the miser he was, agreed to pay the wages of a maid when he had three grown women living in his house. What else did these women have to do except torment each other.

It is also true that if Emma and Lizzie had moved out of their father's house it would have started unwanted gossip, but then Lizzie lived the rest of her life, being ostracized and gossiped about for two murders that she may or may not have committed. As far as that goes, she is still being "gossiped" about decades after her death.

[snokkums]

I think both lizzie and emma were guilty of consipracy of murder. I think that Emma had enough sense to get out of town so she couldn't get blamed for anything. Very smart cookie.