"Strongest" Evidence of Lizzie's Innocence?

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:07 pm

Emma Borden, from her April 1913 interview with Edwin Maguire of the Boston Sunday Post:

...Here is the strongest thing that has convinced me of Lizzie's innocence. The authorities never found the axe or whatever implement it was that figured in the killing.

Does this statement strike anyone else as odd, for Emma to say the strongest reason she believed Lizzie to be innocent was because the murder weapon was never found? What about instead, "the strongest thing that convinced me of Lizzie's innocence was that I knew she could not have done such a thing," or "was not capable of committing such an terrible act?"

No, Emma chooses to cite the strongest evidence of her sister's innocence was that the murder weapon was not found. By omitting the most obvious reason, it's almost as if Emma says, "well, she may have been capable of the act, but she would not have been capable of getting rid of the weapon; no weapon was ever found that was conclusively proven to have been the one used to commit the murders, therefore, I believe in her innocence."

Is it just me, or does this statement strike anyone else as VERY odd?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:14 pm

Nope, that does seem more than a wee bit odd, now that you mention it. It reads almost like circular reasoning in a way.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:04 am

I think Emma was sort of naive.
Also, she had been estranged from Lizbeth 8 years when quoted. If Emma left French Street because of some suspicion - then giving that as a *reason* for believing Lizbeth innocent sounds like a poor attempt to convince someone...or herself. It may be how she copes.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:46 am

Emma's argument is very weak. As stated, it implies that if the authorities had found a murder weapon, then Lizzie would be guilty. This further implies that, according to Emma, Lizzie was capable of the murders, given a weapon. If that was the strongest evidence to Emma, she was not very well convinced of Lizzie's innocence.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:04 am

It sounds like Emma is subscribing to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". I too think her argument is weak, unless she included herself in the mix of people who looked for the weapon. Emma would know of all the hidey holes in that house, do you think she searched at all during the time that she lived alone at the Second Street house? As Kat posts, I too think it may have just been Emma's coping mechanism. I think Emma needed to believe that Lizzie was innocent in order to go on in life.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:10 am

That's an excellent point Susan about Emma needing to believe Lizzie innocent.

She was, by default, an equal beneficiary of her father's wealth resulting from the murders. It is one thing to have that happen as a result of an outsider's actions but another when it is a family member. This is especially so with Lizzie as Emma played an important role in her upbringing.

Associating Lizzie's innocence with the inability to find the murder weapon makes no sense to me. If I remember correctly Emma's statement doesn't mention the inability to find a bloody dress. But just maybe she knew where that went.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:02 am

Good input, all. I agree, perhaps Emma "needed" to believe Lizzie was innocent in order to go on with her own life.

In any case, her stated reason for believing in that innocence - at least from what she said in this interview - is very interesting, I think, precisely because of what she says (and what she doesn't), and the manner in which she words it. I think it can give us some insight into that complex and enigmatic relationship between the two...

dasdeeboot · Post by **dasdeeboot** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:22 am

Yea, that seems pretty shady to me.... very suspicious

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:15 am

That's a good point about the money, Harry.
They both inherited and Emma probably could never take the money if she believed Lizzie had killed for it.
She may have accepted a living from it and lived austerely if Lizzie had been proven guilty in her own mind.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:01 pm

I think it was a strange thing to say. I wander what she had said if they did have the axe. I think that if she said that plus they didn't find bloody dress, and other things then I don't think that it would have been an odd statement.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:22 pm

As I remember it from years ago, somebody questioned the authenticity of that interview. Don't remember the details.

Reporters then got the story, even if they had to make it up.
Stephen Crane wrote "The Red Badge of Courage" which was praised by many. Even though he was born after the Civil War and learned from other's stories.

Note that Emma fully supported Lizzie in her Trial. Emma would be the sole heir if Lizzie was convicted. How very nice of Emma!!! Shame on Frank Spiering?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:16 am

Susan @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:04 am wrote:It sounds like Emma is subscribing to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". I too think her argument is weak, unless she included herself in the mix of people who looked for the weapon. Emma would know of all the hidey holes in that house, do you think she searched at all during the time that she lived alone at the Second Street house? As Kat posts, I too think it may have just been Emma's coping mechanism. I think Emma needed to believe that Lizzie was innocent in order to go on in life.

I think that Emma probably knew that Lizzie was guilty, but just didn't want to believe it. She probably did look in all the hiding places, butprobably not hard enough. She might not wanted to know that Lizzie was guilty.

joe · Post by **joe** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:28 am

Emma was more of a "mother" to Lizzie than anyone else. Mom's tend to believe their child is innocent and I think Emma was no exception..

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:52 pm

snokkums @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:16 am wrote:
Susan @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:04 am wrote:It sounds like Emma is subscribing to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". I too think her argument is weak, unless she included herself in the mix of people who looked for the weapon. Emma would know of all the hidey holes in that house, do you think she searched at all during the time that she lived alone at the Second Street house? As Kat posts, I too think it may have just been Emma's coping mechanism. I think Emma needed to believe that Lizzie was innocent in order to go on in life.
I think that Emma probably knew that Lizzie was guilty, but just didn't want to believe it. She probably did look in all the hiding places, butprobably not hard enough. She might not wanted to know that Lizzie was guilty.

You have jumped to a conclusion, then selected the facts to support it.
How can you justify that?

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:59 pm

RayS, we can only surmise and hypothesize on this one, as Emma isn't very well around for us to ask what she really meant by her statement (and even if she was, would she give us a straight answer? I think not!)

Therefore, as long as it's an intelligent, thoughtful, and logical discussion of the topic - in this case, a very odd statement made by Emma, and the motivation and meaning behind it - for our purposes, I am satisfied.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:27 pm

sguthmann @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:59 pm wrote:RayS, we can only surmise and hypothesize on this one, as Emma isn't very well around for us to ask what she really meant by her statement (and even if she was, would she give us a straight answer? I think not!)

Therefore, as long as it's an intelligent, thoughtful, and logical discussion of the topic - in this case, a very odd statement made by Emma, and the motivation and meaning behind it - for our purposes, I am satisfied.

You are right. We may not even know if this article is the whole truth.
Some years ago on an earlier site somebody questioned the accuracy of this article, as if it was made up. Because Minister Buck? had left the area?

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:49 pm

I'm not aware of the specifics regarding scrutiny of Maguire's "Emma interview," but I'm not too surprised that there would some over such a piece. I also readily admit that I don't know much about Mr. Edwin Maguire of the Boston Sunday Post. Anyone know, was he a reputable reporter? Did he do any other "notable" interviews? Did he have a long career? Was he a Boston Sunday Post reporter for the majority of his career, or did he go on to other papers/ventures? Controversial?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:25 am

Here I go again:
Please see my Hatchet article, Aug/Sept 2005, which considers this question. I found my own answer and it was not what I thought it would be.
"Actions Speak Louder Than Words: The Borden Sisters, 1913."

I even researched that news writer.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:10 pm

Kat @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:25 am wrote:Here I go again:
Please see my Hatchet article, Aug/Sept 2005, which considers this question. I found my own answer and it was not what I thought it would be.
"Actions Speak Louder Than Words: The Borden Sisters, 1913."

I even researched that news writer.

Thanks for the info, but please provide a summary here for others.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:38 pm

emma's statement (if she in fact made it, etc.) -- shows a huge gulf between them. on some other thread, someone gave the statement that was handed down that lizzie was somehow "retarded." i actually consider this very helpful in my efforts to figure out who she was. of course, she was not retarded in terms of IQ or practical sense -- but something was missing in her makeup that would create problems when dealing with others. that's what i get from it. i'm inclined to consider this a valuable clue when painting her portrait and in trying to understand her attitude and actions. it's an instinctual thing worth a pursuit.

i've been thinking about what this thing was that was wrong with her. a density or thick-headedness or ignorance about just what people, in their human nature, were composed of? has anyone else had a similar impression of her?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:22 pm

My understanding is that killers will kill again since it previously worked for them. Yes, Lizzie had no other chance to inherit, if that was the motive.
But True Crime stories tell of others who do kill again until they are caught. "The Wrong Man" by James Neff tells of one such example.
Poisoners seldom stop with the first victim, that's how they are caught.