Lizzie Borden Society Forum

According to Lizzie, she was in the barn at the time of the murders. She spent approximately twenty minutes searching for iron or lead and eating pears in the hayloft. In order to spend that amount of time there, she had to have left the house almost immediately after Bridget had gone to her room. According to Bridget, Lizzie had told her father that Abby had a note and had gone out, Bridget had overheard the conversation. Lizzie had also told Bridget the same story as Bridget finished the windows and started for her room.

Lizzie neither saw nor heard anything with respect to the house while she was in the yard or barn, according to Harrington, page 5, Witness Statements. From the Trial Testimony, pages 244-245, Bridget said that Lizzie told her that the screen door was wide open when Lizzie returned to the house from the barn. Lizzie had closed the screen door when she went to the barn.

According to both Mrs. Churchill and Bridget, consistently, from the Witness Statements through the Trial Testimony, Lizzie told them that she thought she heard Abby return from her errand necessitated by the note. This implies that she heard someone use one of the doors, either front or rear, but she didn’t see anyone. She did not hear this before she went to the barn, she had just finished telling Andrew and Bridget that Abby was out. She didn’t hear anything from the barn or yard. She could only have heard what she thought was Abby returning while she was going to or coming from the sitting room where she discovered Andrew. Lizzie clearly did not hear Abby return, Abby was dead in the guest room by then. The only thing Lizzie could have possibly heard was an intruder leaving, which she mistook for Abby’s arrival. Officer Allen found the front door locked and the dead bolt lock was in use at the time. It would be impossible for anyone to manipulate a dead bolt lock from the outside, so Lizzie could not have heard the front door. Lizzie must have heard the rear door, which she had just found wide open.

Since Lizzie heard the intruder leaving, the open screen door was the result of the intruder entering. This implies that the intruder left after killing Abby and returned to kill Andrew. Most people find it improbable for an intruder to enter and leave the house unnoticed once, let alone twice. We have to believe this if we wish to avoid the certainty that Lizzie is lying about having heard Abby return. If she is lying about hearing Abby’s return, it means that she had absolutely no reason to prevent Bridget from looking for Abby at Mrs. Whitehead’s house, or anywhere else for that matter. Lizzie had no reason to confine a search for Abby to the house, which she prompted by suggesting that Abby might be found upstairs.

Lizzie’s dilemma stems from her need to position herself as remotely as possible from the house during the murders. She had to be in a position where she could not commit them, and she could not be aware of anyone else committing them. The hayloft was the only place on the premises where this was possible. Her downfall was insisting that she heard Abby return, and the note story in general.

NO, Lizzie was inside the house when she thought the heavy tread indicated the return of Abby. She didn't know Abby was gone!

My surmise was that Lizzie was in fact only in the backyard, when the Secret Visitor left, she knew it was time to go back inside. He Father wanted privacy in his dealings, just like Don Corleone. You don't have to worry about live witnesses, or making them silent.

RayS @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:17 pm wrote:NO, Lizzie was inside the house when she thought the heavy tread indicated the return of Abby. She didn't know Abby was gone!

My surmise was that Lizzie was in fact only in the backyard, when the Secret Visitor left, she knew it was time to go back inside. He Father wanted privacy in his dealings, just like Don Corleone. You don't have to worry about live witnesses, or making them silent.

NO? If you read the post carefully, I stated that Lizzie was in the house when she heard Abby return. If she didn't know Abby was gone, why did she tell both Andrew and Bridget that she was? Why did she insist that she heard Abby return? Return from where if she wasn't gone? What the hell are you talking about?

I agree that Lizzie got herself into a further mess by pretending to have heard Abby return, which is no doubt why she denied ever saying so at the inquest. But, at the time, the alternative must have seemed more unattractive to her.

Lizzie had to invent an explanation for the disappearance of Abby firstly for her father, to prevent any chance of him looking for his wife in the house, and secondly to provide an explanation why Abby had disappeared for nearly two hours before her eventual discovery (Lizzie having no idea that the police would subsequently determine that the deaths had not occurred at around the same time).

But, having invented the story of the note, it’s natural that Lizzie would want to avoid being forced to expand on it. At the time the question would obviously immediately (rather than later) arise, who was it from, where should we go to search for Abby? All of which threatened to highlight the lie. As Lizzie well knew, any household that was approached would deny having sent a note. Added to which it’s reasonable to speculate that Lizzie would have wanted the suspense of waiting for the other body to be found to end as swiftly as possible.

Therefore, it must have seemed easier for Lizzie to add one further lie, the presumed return of Abby, to bring matters to a head and temporarily (or maybe in her mind permanently) divert attention away from the alleged note. The clumsiness of the lies makes it clear she was very much working off the cuff – but then that’s the feature of all her lies, there’s very little careful thought in any of them.

Welcome to the forum, IanR! Lizzie's lies tend to evolve, depending upon who she is talking to, and how long she's had to think about them. The best she could do with this one is to simply deny having heard anything, and state that she supposed Abby had left and returned. She had absolutely no reason to suppose that Abby had returned. She had no reason to suppose that Abby was dead, either, from page 11 of the Witness Statements in an interview with Mrs. Churchill, repeated at both the Inquest and at the Trial. In my opinion, Lizzie's prompting the search directly to the upstairs guest room is the incriminating factor. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill walked right past the parlor without opening the door to search for Abby, so they were directed upstairs. Lizzie knew exactly where Abby was, and she knew Abby was dead.

There are many questions that could be posed in regard to Lizzie allegedly hearing Abby come in. If this had been so, then why when Mrs. Churchill and Bridget were instructed to go up to the bedroom of the elder Bordens did she not make any indication of it at that time? She could've instructed them to please look for Abby in her own bedroom. Which is the most logical place she would be found. Instead she asked them to look in the last place Abby was known to have gone that morning. A place that by all accounts she should have been completely done tidying up by then. All she had left to do when she when up there in the first place was supposedly slip on some pillow covers. Then she was going to close the room up in preparation for these visitors whose identity we have never discovered. If she had gone out and come back why would she go back up there?

If Lizzie had indeed heard Abby come in why at no time did she call out to see if she was at home? To make her aware of what happened to Andrew or alert her to danger? To check for her well being?

If Abby had come in then why at no time when the house was filling up with people did she not at least wander down to see what the heck they were doing in her home all the sudden? Why didn't this absense of interest on Abby's part dawn on Lizzie?

Why didn't Abby hear Lizzie calling for Bridget?

Lastly, why didn't Bridget think to call out to Abby at all? They were supposedly fond of each other.You would think Bridget would at least inquire as to the safety of Mrs. Borden. But she did not because Lizzie had told her Abby got a note to go out and was not at home.

We also know from Bridget's offer to look for Abby at Mrs. Whitehead's house that she believed Abby to be out of the house. The bedroom key being on the mantel would have indicated that Abby was not in her room. Lizzie's denial of having heard Abby return at the Inquest, only having supposed that, indicates that she said what Bridget and Mrs. Churchill credit her with, having heard Abby return. Lizzie had said this in front of too many witnesses to deny it outright, she had to modify the reason for the statement, from hearing to supposing. She had no opportunity to hear, and no reason to suppose Abby had returned.

As usual Yooper- I agree with all you have deduced- it is the only logical possibility. I think Lizzie needed to have Abby's body found quickly so as to connect the double homicide as soon as possible. I am not certain that she was smart enough to know just what could be told about time of death, blood evidence, etc.- it was hardly curriculum for young ladies to know these things. I think she was counting on the two homicides being thought to have happened in fairly close order.

It also would have looked bad for Lizzie if nothing had been mentioned about Abby, and the police just happened to stumble across her body whilst searching the house after Andrew's discovery. I can just hear the discussion:

" Hey everybody- guess what we found upstairs! You'll never believe it! And so, Miss Lizzie, did you know your stepmother was lying butchered in the guest room-and you were exactly where all morning?"

It was better for her, and more innocent-sounding to provide some reference to Abby before the body was found. And I quite agree- there was no possible opportunity for her to have heard Abby enter if we are for a moment to believe her testimony on where she said she was during that critical 15 minutes.

Not to mention that Bridget had already been upstairs to Abby's room- a fact Lizzie would have observed, to get sheets to cover Andrew- so Lizzie knew that Abby could not have been upstairs. in her room. Also Bridget had gone upstairs about 10:55 to rest and may have either seen Abby in her room passing the door, or if the door was shut, may have heard her in there if she had been alive and at home. No, the back of the house was certainly off the list -and Lizzie knew that. And to think for a moment that Abby had walked in through the front door was a stretch as well-considering the sofa is in full view of the front staircase and she would have seen Andrew covered with a sheet. None of Lizzie's offered timeline makes any sense and I still marvel how the jury and prosecution did not work this all out and see the "plot holes" in it immediately.

I think the prosecution may have seen this, but thought they needed Lizzie's Inquest testimony to prove it. When the Inquest testimony was excluded, Knowlton pretty well just gives up. He didn't want the case to begin with, he was there as a substitute.

It is doubtful that Abby would have entered the front door even if the deadbolt had not been in use. Abby had a conversation with Mrs. Bowen the Tuesday preceding the murders in which she said that "they" had taken her front door key. The only viable combination for "they" in the Borden household, with respect to "taking" a key, is Emma and Lizzie. Andrew didn't need a second person to demand anyone's key, and Bridget would probably not compromise her job to do so.

The guest room door was found open when Mrs. Churchill and Bridget found Abby, but Lizzie testified that it was closed when she went downstairs. Lizzie needed the door to be closed because not only was she in the house when Abby was killed, she was very likely on the same floor, just in the next room. Or, maybe more likely, in the same room!

Not to mention if Andrew needed Bridget to let him in as the front door was triple -locked- then why would Abby not have met with the same situation if she actually did leave the house as Lizzie indicated by saying she heard her return?

Now, with the guest room door being shut (according to Lizzie), just as Abby would have left it when closing up the room to keep the dust out, and with Abby clearly not in her room, with Abby not responding to the shouting and commotion, why in the world would Lizzie "suppose" Abby had returned?

The only time Abby seems to cross Lizzie's mind is in response to a direct question about Abby's whereabouts from someone else. I think Lizzie wanted Abby found right away so she could change her dress or other clothing. She would have had to pass the open door and try to avoid discovering Abby herself.

Didn't Lizzie also say "They thought I should change"- although nobody but she decided to put on her wrapper and closet herself in her room. I am thinking she must have been in her room on that fainting couch in the corner listening to the men huffing and puffing the unwieldy corpse of poor Abby down those killer steep front steps- I wonder if she smiled to herself visualizing it behind the safety of that wall?

That would have sounded better than "I thought I'd better get out of those bloody stockings", wouldn't it?

Shelley @ Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:59 pm wrote:Not to mention if Andrew needed Bridget to let him in as the front door was triple -locked- then why would Abby not have met with the same situation?

IMO Abby never left the house, drawn away by that unfound note.
Masterton's theory was plain wrong in going against the known facts.

If Abby had left the house, she probably would have been recognized by someone. The totality of the evidence, palpable body temperature, blood coagulation, state of digestion, not having been seen or heard since about 9 am, suggests that Abby was killed about the time estimated by the doctors. It seems clear enough that Abby never left the house that day. The existence of a note has little to do with Abby's presence or absence in reality, but it does provide Lizzie with an excuse for not having seen or heard Abby all morning. It also forestalls a premature search of the house by Andrew or Bridget.

I don't think she was in the barn as long as she said she was. And I don't think she was in the barn at the time of murder. I think she was in the house. The reason I say this is because everytime the police asked her where she was at at the time of the murder, she kept giving them different answers. That sure sounds to me like she is trying to cover her behind.

I really hate to repeat myself, and wear my fingers to the bone.

First Lizzie said she was in the back yard. [This is correct, although I was not there as a witness.]
Then she said she was in the barn. [But she could have seen Nobody leave the house and walk towards the front.]
Lastly she said she was up in the barn, where she could see nobody. [This made her part of the cover-up and guaranteed she could not change her story.]

All this to cover-up the presence of the Secret Visitor whose presence could not be admitted. See Part 2 or 4 of 'Proof of Brown's Theory'.

Lizzie had stated from the word get-go that she went to the barn, not the yard. Its what she said to police and to others that were present at the house from their various testimonies. Obviously she did go through the yard to get to the barn and to pick up the pears she allegedly ate. The only instance I can find where Lizzie admits to being in the yard is in her Inquest testimony when she was specifically asked about it. No denial or change of testimony:

Pg. 88

Q. The pears you ate you got from under the tree in the yard?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long were you under the pear tree?
A. I think I was under there nearly four or five minutes. I stood looking around. I looked up at the pigeon house that they have closed up. It was no more than five minutes, perhaps not as long. I can't say sure.

And she floored Knowlton when she told him she was gazing out that front loft window and said could see the view of the side steps for a while.
Granted, I doubt she could see the front door.
Shelley thinks she could also see the cellar door.

Inquest
Lizzie
Q. You observe that fact, do you not? You have put yourself in the only place perhaps, where it would be impossible for you to see a person going into the house?
A. Yes sir, I should have seen them from the front window.
Q. From anywhere in the yard?
A. No sir, not unless from the end of the barn.
Q. Ordinarily in the yard you could see them, and in the kitchen where you had been, you could have seen them?
A. I don't think I understand.
Q. When you were in the kitchen, you could see persons who came in at the back door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. When you were in the yard, unless you were around the corner of the house, you could see them come in at the back door?

77 (34)

A. No sir, not unless I was at the corner of the barn; the minute I turned I could not.
Q. What was there?
A. A little jog like, the walk turns.
Q. I ask you again to explain to me why you took those pears from the pear tree?
A. I did not take them from the pear tree.
Q. From the ground, wherever you took them from. I thank you for correcting me; going into the barn, going up stairs into the hottest place in the barn, in the rear of the barn, the hottest place, and there standing and eating those pears that morning?
A. I beg your pardon, I was not in the rear of the barn. I was in the other end of the barn that faced the street.
Q. Where you could see anybody coming into the house?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you not tell me you could not?
A. Before I went into the barn, at the jog on the outside.
Q. You now say when you were eating the pears, you could see the back door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So nobody could come in at that time without your seeing them?
A. I don't see how they could.

Not to disturb anyone here, but there are three points in time for Lizzie's replies.
1) right after the murder
2) the Inquest
3) the Grand Jury

I would think whatever was said closest to the murders was the more accurate. Anything much later would mean some rehearsting.

We might temper that with being under oath.
Maybe they cancel each other out as to reliability?
Also, you have maybe not-well-trained recorders, in the police, and some notes possibly hastily gotten up for the Monday evening when Knowlton came to town.
There are pros and cons to your statement, I think.

I don't think Lizzie was called to the grand jury.

Consistency is the most important factor, and it has little to do with being under oath. If someone says the same thing under oath that they said while not under oath, there is no reason to give the earlier statement less weight. If someone is on trial or going through the legal process before the trial and if that person is guilty of the charge, they might have reason to lie under oath. Some people just don't take the oath seriously. Both Bridget and Emma changed or minimized prior testimony regarding domestic harmony in the Borden household.

I tend to agree, the earlier statement is probably the most accurate. I think the actions immediately after the crime speak louder than the words in any case.

I used to believe that too, but I am giving the benefit of the doubt to these people who were church-going and mostly appeared to be moral people and not as sophisticated as we are. I'm entering into their realm and their thoughts and mores (in my imagination) instead of viewing this from 21st century cynicism.
I think an oath might very well mean more then than it may now. Especially to young womanhood.

Also, I have seen some of the background on how these Witness Statements were compiled and have decided for myself they are not so much necessarily the statements verbatum taken down of *witnesses* who knew everything they were talking about, nor transcribed in a timely fashion, nor by men who were fully trained in taking down statements, nor that what we have inherited had not been added to or embellished in time, let alone redacted.

I expect people still take an oath seriously for the most part. The problem is that some people can forget the seriousness of an oath under fire from an attorney even if they were serious when they took the oath. Take Bridget's statements about domestic harmony for instance. She was a young woman, presumably Irish Catholic, and possibly not well educated. She testified that there was nothing unusual about the relationships within the household. She later refuted the earlier testimony. I think that if someone were trying to help or at least not harm Lizzie, they would try to not tell all they knew. As long as what they said was true, even if it wasn't the whole truth, they thought they had not violated their oath. There may have been several people guilty of this in the Borden case. It is, in a sense, not lying rather than telling the truth.

There was also a servant/employer element to the equation as well. Although servants could sometimes gab (especially the lower servants on the domestic scale) amongst themselves privately- it was not the done thing to publically run down their employer, or to reveal "dirty linen" to strangers or the public. Some servants were protective of their "betters" and were hesitant to speak to police. I loved Bridget's efforts to put the best face on everything that she could, and also to make herself look as dutiful as possible in that revealing interchange about what she was doing in her room at 11 a.m. She tries not to appear lazy at first by saying she was tidying up there. Later testimony from the Prelim indicates that it was not unusual for Bridget to take a rest just before the noonday meal. Of course she was up early and had probably done a day's work by 11 a.m.

The reticience on the part of all the neighbors, relatives, and friends to speculate on the Borden household is indicative of the times. Nowadays we are so accustomed to the airing of the most sordid, shocking tidbits (the Anna Nicole business comes to mind) that the more circumspect, understated and restrained behaviour of 1892 seems odd by today's standards. I also wonder if Bridget may have been just a little intimidated by Lizzie's personality on a daily basis and took care to stay on her good side and out of the way.

Shelley @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:33 am wrote:The reticience on the part of all the neighbors, relatives, and friends to speculate on the Borden household is indicative of the times. Nowadays we are so accustomed to the airing of the most sordid, shocking tidbits (the Anna Nicole business comes to mind) that the more circumspect, understated and restrained behaviour of 1892 seems odd by today's standards. I also wonder if Bridget may have been just a little intimidated by Lizzie's personality on a daily basis and took care to stay on her good side and out of the way.

I think you are very right about that. People were a lot more close mouthed about certain things than they are now, and Bridget, being a servant and from another country, probably felt on shakey ground and was concerned about her position, possible future positions, and how people viewed her lowly status in general. And, from the things that have been said about her wanting to leave the Borden household several times and being urged by Abby not to do so, it would seem she would have had to have a very good reason to want to give up a (from outside views) fairly nice position. She had to have known that she was living in a very unstable environment, seeing day to day interactions with the family members and picking up the tension that had to have existed. And if someone asks what kind of proof I have regarding family relationships in that household, I would think it was obvious that the Bordens did not go from a carefree, Brady-Bunch tra la la existence to blood and gore mayhem for absolutely no reason.

Yes, I see the whole sad business starting when Andrew remarried. Emma was at a difficult age for girls- just approaching puberty. There must have been a certain measure of resentment and uneasiness at a new wife usurping her mother's place. I can understand why Emma was close to John Morse- John was what Emma had left of her real mother. Then, only seven years into the marriage, with Emma at the age of 21 -an age when many young women were married and having a family and home of their own, Andrew uproots the whole family and moves into another house on Second Street. All that was familiar and safe to Emma was swept away- all memories of her mother and family home, gone. She may have even thought Abby had something to do with the move.

Emma's influence on the budding Lizzie cannot be understimated. No five year old child automatically despises an adult figure- that must have come from influence from a respected older figure- namely her sister Emma. The bond between sisters, when the mother has died, is very strong- and Emma had ample daily opportunity to nurture feelings of dislike and distrust for the stepmother in Lizzie's mind. Sources say the girls were "inseparable".

So, if you think that Lizzie is guilty- in some regard, so is Emma- the only other person who could have changed things right from the start if she had chosen to do so. I wonder if this had occured to her one dark night at Maplecroft when she realized her possible part in the sad saga of murder and unhappiness.

Yooper @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:38 am wrote:I expect people still take an oath seriously for the most part. The problem is that some people can forget the seriousness of an oath under fire from an attorney even if they were serious when they took the oath. Take Bridget's statements about domestic harmony for instance. She was a young woman, presumably Irish Catholic, and possibly not well educated. She testified that there was nothing unusual about the relationships within the household. She later refuted the earlier testimony. I think that if someone were trying to help or at least not harm Lizzie, they would try to not tell all they knew. As long as what they said was true, even if it wasn't the whole truth, they thought they had not violated their oath. There may have been several people guilty of this in the Borden case. It is, in a sense, not lying rather than telling the truth.

Bridget told the truth as she remembered it. Unless it was rehearsed, stories change with the retelling, that's why the first testimony is ofter better than anything that was "horseshedded" (to use an old term).

Bridget worked in other places before the Bordens, if she says it was about the same I believe her. You just have to understand the effect ot time on the stories. IMO

PS Unless you think all familes are like those in 1950s TV.

Shelley @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:55 pm wrote:Yes, I see the whole sad business starting when Andrew remarried. Emma was at a difficult age for girls- just approaching puberty. There must have been a certain measure of resentment and uneasiness at a new wife usurping her mother's place. I can understand why Emma was close to John Morse- John was what Emma had left of her real mother. Then, only seven years into the marriage, with Emma at the age of 21 -an age when many young women were married and having a family and home of their own, Andrew uproots the whole family and moves into another house on Second Street. All that was familiar and safe to Emma was swept away- all memories of her mother and family home, gone. She may have even thought Abby had something to do with the move.

Emma's influence on the budding Lizzie cannot be understimated. No five year old child automatically despises an adult figure- that must have come from influence from a respected older figure- namely her sister Emma. The bond between sisters, when the mother has died, is very strong- and Emma had ample daily opportunity to nurture feelings of dislike and distrust for the stepmother in Lizzie's mind. Sources say the girls were "inseparable".

So, if you think that Lizzie is guilty- in some regard, so is Emma- the only other person who could have changed things right from the start if she had chosen to do so. I wonder if this had occured to her one dark night at Maplecroft when she realized her possible part in the sad saga of murder and unhappiness.

I agree, Lizzie was the product of Emma's influence, and possibly as much Emma's 'daughter' as her sister. It could be that Emma didn't really want to know if Lizzie was guilty, it would have made her an accomplice in a sense. Emma, and to a degree, Bridget, knew the level of animosity in the Borden family and it may have been acutely apparent to them who the murderer was. Emma especially knew the depth of hatred, she had fostered it.

[quote="Yooper @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:45 pm
I agree, Lizzie was the product of Emma's influence, and possibly as much Emma's 'daughter' as her sister. It could be that Emma didn't really want to know if Lizzie was guilty, it would have made her an accomplice in a sense. Emma, and to a degree, Bridget, knew the level of animosity in the Borden family and it may have been acutely apparent to them who the murderer was. Emma especially knew the depth of hatred, she had fostered it.[/quote]

Maybe that's why Emma left the scene, so to speak. She saw things developing and went into denial about her part in the whole thing; otherwise she would have had to face the fact that she'd "created a monster."

I tend to think Emma's hatred of Abby ran even deeper than Lizzie's did. She remembered her mother more fully than Lizzie did, and as such, would probably be more resentful of the new woman trying to take her place. Though she may not have acted out as much upon it as Lizzie did. Emma stated that things were more cordial between Lizzie and Abby than they were between herself and Abby.

Emma had been by her own admission the one who spent the year away from home, though we cannot be completely certain where she was and why. All we know for certain is she spent a year away from home. We can speculate it was to attend school but speculation is all it is. Lizzie had called the second Mrs. Borden "mother" clear up until just five years before the murders when the whole affair took place with Andrew buying the property for Abby's family. I think this had been the straw that finally broke the camels back and brought Lizzie fully around to Emma's side when it came to Abby. When speaking about the purchase of the property Emma stated they believed that what Andrew did for Abby he should also do for his children. This is a rather petty sentiment.

Lizzie, in my opinion, was just more outspoken with her dislikes and resentments. I also find it interesting that it was Lizzie who took a trip to Europe after the incident with the property. Why didn't Emma go as well? We know she took a trip to Scotland later in life so she was not adverse to oversea travel. Was it an attempt to pacifiy Lizzie and rectify what there had been of the family harmony?

Kat @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:56 pm wrote:I used to believe that too, but I am giving the benefit of the doubt to these people who were church-going and mostly appeared to be moral people and not as sophisticated as we are. I'm entering into their realm and their thoughts and mores (in my imagination) instead of viewing this from 21st century cynicism.
I think an oath might very well mean more then than it may now. Especially to young womanhood.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "not as sophisticated as we are"?

My e-mail dictionary defines sophisticated as:

knowledgeable about the ways of the world, self-confident, and not easily deceived.

complex, advanced and very up-to-date.

Angel @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:16 am wrote:[quote="Yooper @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:45 pm
I agree, Lizzie was the product of Emma's influence, and possibly as much Emma's 'daughter' as her sister. It could be that Emma didn't really want to know if Lizzie was guilty, it would have made her an accomplice in a sense. Emma, and to a degree, Bridget, knew the level of animosity in the Borden family and it may have been acutely apparent to them who the murderer was. Emma especially knew the depth of hatred, she had fostered it.

Angel:
Maybe that's why Emma left the scene, so to speak. She saw things developing and went into denial about her part in the whole thing; otherwise she would have had to face the fact that she'd "created a monster."[/quote]

I think we need to be careful about portraying Lizzie as the victim of Emma's influence, it's probably true up to a point. She was 32 years old and should have been capable of making her own choices. The polarity problem was probably Emma's doing, unless Abby was the stepmother-from-hell, which doesn't seem likely from the available resources. It may have appeared necessary for Lizzie to choose sides as a child, but as an adult she was responsible for herself.

I think to a certain extent your right Yooper,
BUT, even in today's world there are alot of adults that have been terribly messed up by their parents. Emma (who was a child herself) had most of the responsibility of Lizzie when she was young, could have even then passed on her resentment of Abby to Lizzie. She could have even resented having to take care of Lizzie and let that show in small ways. Andrew, didn't seem to be the jolly loving, father either. and what little girl doesn't want and need the hugs and kisses, and acceptance of their fathers? And even though Lizzie called Abby mother, she surely knew that Abby wasn't really her mother. So any affection she might have and should have felt for Abby, I'm sure would have been undone by how Emma felt. So, I wonder, how big a difference it would have made if Emma hadn't been there. If Abby would have had the total care of little Lizzie without the anger and resentment of Emma to deal with. Even at the age of 32 Lizzie was really screwed up emotionaly.

I can understand the argument that while Lizzie chose to remain in the same household which had fostered her resentment of Abby or hate for Abby, she didn't necessarily have to grow out of that mold. Lizzie could not choose her parents or her family. She was stuck with what she had. She did have the choice to either learn from or imitate a bad example. She was only a helpless victim to a certain degree. At the age of 32, Lizzie can only blame Lizzie for what Lizzie did. Her reaction to Alice Russel's comment about having burned the dress, "why did you let me do it?" is very telling, Lizzie was prepared to play the irresponsible part, or was in fact irresponsible. She was the 'youngest child' to an extreme degree!

Allen @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:30 pm wrote:I tend to think Emma's hatred of Abby ran even deeper than Lizzie's did. She remembered her mother more fully than Lizzie did, and as such, would probably be more resentful of the new woman trying to take her place. Though she may not have acted out as much upon it as Lizzie did. Emma stated that things were more cordial between Lizzie and Abby than they were between herself and Abby.

Emma had been by her own admission the one who spent the year away from home, though we cannot be completely certain where she was and why. All we know for certain is she spent a year away from home. We can speculate it was to attend school but speculation is all it is. Lizzie had called the second Mrs. Borden "mother" clear up until just five years before the murders when the whole affair took place with Andrew buying the property for Abby's family. I think this had been the straw that finally broke the camels back and brought Lizzie fully around to Emma's side when it came to Abby. When speaking about the purchase of the property Emma stated they believed that what Andrew did for Abby he should also do for his children. This is a rather petty sentiment.

Lizzie, in my opinion, was just more outspoken with her dislikes and resentments. I also find it interesting that it was Lizzie who took a trip to Europe after the incident with the property. Why didn't Emma go as well? We know she took a trip to Scotland later in life so she was not adverse to oversea travel. Was it an attempt to pacifiy Lizzie and rectify what there had been of the family harmony?

WHERE is Emma's hatred of Abby documented in the original records? Emma seems like the "mousy" type of person, strongly repressed over her lifetime. IMO
Emma had been raised by her mother Sarah. Lizzie mostly by Abby.
(Corrections?)

Yooper @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:56 am wrote: At the age of 32, Lizzie can only blame Lizzie for what Lizzie did. Her reaction to Alice Russel's comment about having burned the dress, "why did you let me do it?" is very telling, Lizzie was prepared to play the irresponsible part, or was in fact irresponsible. She was the 'youngest child' to an extreme degree!

I have sometimes wondered if Lizzie's acting out was an attempt at getting a show of attention from Andrew. He strikes me as being the type of parent who was not only undemonstrative with his own feelings, but extremely strict and indifferent to the feelings of his daughters. Sometimes children will seek attention from a parent even if it is has to be negative because, at the very least, they are actually showing some kind of an interest if only to exact punishment. Even a punishment involves some form of a show of emotion and acknowledgement for the child. I have been thinking of the ring Lizzie gave to Andrew. I have been pondering all the possible reasons she would bestow him with a ring which had formerly been worn on her own finger. It could be construed as a plea for acknowledgement of Andrews affection for her. She may have believed if he chose to wear the ring it did show that he held some affection for her. I've also been thinking of the "daylight" robberies. If the all speculation over the years that Andrew knew Lizzie committed them is true it could put a whole new light on it if looked at in this way. Not only would it have gained Lizzie attention, but it seems Andrew called off the police investigation and covered it up.

There were also the rumors that Lizzie was known to have stolen things and Andrew privately took care of the matter so no charges were pressed. What excuses would she have given Andrew for her actions? The same sort of fumbling alibi's she gave for the murders? There appears to be no evidence to back up these rumors of course unless we take into account the alleged Tilden Thurber theft. In which instance Lizzie would ultimately not have been legally held accountable for her actions. But they are interesting points to ponder. If she was not held accountable for her actions in any of these situations was Lizzie used to getting away with things? How would this apply in the situation of the murders?

For 'Legends of Lizzie': did they predate August 4, 1892?
IF after, they are less reliable IMO.

PS "rumors" and "gossip" are not always reliable, are they? Especially when they deal with a person in the news.

I hope this doesn't make me too skeptical. But I remember the rumors about that little girl murdered in Boulder Colorado ten years ago.

edit

RayS @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:57 pm wrote:

Allen @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:30 pm wrote:I tend to think Emma's hatred of Abby ran even deeper than Lizzie's did. She remembered her mother more fully than Lizzie did, and as such, would probably be more resentful of the new woman trying to take her place. Though she may not have acted out as much upon it as Lizzie did. Emma stated that things were more cordial between Lizzie and Abby than they were between herself and Abby.

Emma had been by her own admission the one who spent the year away from home, though we cannot be completely certain where she was and why. All we know for certain is she spent a year away from home. We can speculate it was to attend school but speculation is all it is. Lizzie had called the second Mrs. Borden "mother" clear up until just five years before the murders when the whole affair took place with Andrew buying the property for Abby's family. I think this had been the straw that finally broke the camels back and brought Lizzie fully around to Emma's side when it came to Abby. When speaking about the purchase of the property Emma stated they believed that what Andrew did for Abby he should also do for his children. This is a rather petty sentiment.

Lizzie, in my opinion, was just more outspoken with her dislikes and resentments. I also find it interesting that it was Lizzie who took a trip to Europe after the incident with the property. Why didn't Emma go as well? We know she took a trip to Scotland later in life so she was not adverse to oversea travel. Was it an attempt to pacifiy Lizzie and rectify what there had been of the family harmony?

WHERE is Emma's hatred of Abby documented in the original records? Emma seems like the "mousy" type of person, strongly repressed over her lifetime. IMO
Emma had been raised by her mother Sarah. Lizzie mostly by Abby.
(Corrections?)

Here is the testimony that I have referred to in my posts. It goes on to explain how Lizzie stopped calling Abby mother right around the time of the property purchase. Emma states that Lizzie had mostly called Abby mother from childhood up until that point.

Inquest testimony of Emma Borden page 112:

Q. Were the relations between you and your step mother cordial?
A. I don't know how to answer that. We always spoke.

Q. That might be, and not be at all cordial.
A. Well, perhaps I should say no then.

Q. Were the relations between your sister Lizzie and your mother, what you would call cordial?
A. I think more than they were with me.

Q. Somewhat more than they were with you, but not entirely so, you mean perhaps? I do not want to lead you at all. I judge from your answer you mean that, or don't you mean that? You say somewhat more than your relations were, or do you mean they were entirely cordial between your step mother and Lizzie?
A. No.

Q. Can you tell me the cause of the lack of cordiality between you and your mother, or was it not any specific thing?
A. Well, we felt she was not interested in us, and at one time father gave her some property, and we felt we ought to have some too; and he afterwards gave us some.

Q. That, however, did not heal the breach, whatever breach there was? The giving the property to you did not entirely heal the feeling?
A. No, sir.

Q. That was sometime ago?
A. Yes sir, sometime ago.


Trial testimony of Emma Borden page 1557:

Q. Did that make some trouble in the family?
A. Yes.

Q. Between whom?
A. Between my father and Mrs. Borden, and my sister and I.

Q. And also between you and your sister and your step mother?
A. I never said anything to her about it.

Q. If you will observe the question: I did not ask you that; it is a very natural answer, I find not fault with it. Did it make any trouble between your step mother and Lizzie and you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you find fault with it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did Lizzie find fault with it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in consequence of your fault finding did your father also make a purchase for you or give you some money?
A. Not--- I don't think because of our fault finding.

Q. Did he, after the fault finding, give you some money?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How much?
A. Grandfather's house on Ferry Street.

Q. And was there some complaint that that was not an equivalent?
A. No, sir. It was more than equivalent.

Q. That it wasn't so productive of rent as the other?
A. I don't know what the other house rented for, but I should think that ours rented for more than hers.

Q. Were the relations between you and Lizzie and your step- mother as cordial after the occurence of the house that you have spoken of as they were before?
A. Between my sister and Mrs. Borden they were.

Q. They were entirely the same?
A. I think so.

Q. Were they so on your part?
A. I think not.

Allen @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:13 pm wrote:

Yooper @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:56 am wrote: At the age of 32, Lizzie can only blame Lizzie for what Lizzie did. Her reaction to Alice Russel's comment about having burned the dress, "why did you let me do it?" is very telling, Lizzie was prepared to play the irresponsible part, or was in fact irresponsible. She was the 'youngest child' to an extreme degree!

I have sometimes wondered if Lizzie's acting out was an attempt at getting a show of attention from Andrew. He strikes me as being the type of parent who was not only undemonstrative with his own feelings, but extremely strict and indifferent to the feelings of his daughters. Sometimes children will seek attention from a parent even if it is has to be negative because, at the very least, they are actually showing some kind of an interest if only to exact punishment. Even a punishment involves some form of a show of emotion and acknowledgement for the child. I have been thinking of the ring Lizzie gave to Andrew. I have been pondering all the possible reasons she would bestow him with a ring which had formerly been worn on her own finger. It could be construed as a plea for acknowledgement of Andrews affection for her. She may have believed if he chose to wear the ring it did show that he held some affection for her. I've also been thinking of the "daylight" robberies. If the all speculation over the years that Andrew knew Lizzie committed them is true it could put a whole new light on it if looked at in this way. Not only would it have gained Lizzie attention, but it seems Andrew called off the police investigation and covered it up.

There were also the rumors that Lizzie was known to have stolen things and Andrew privately took care of the matter so no charges were pressed. What excuses would she have given Andrew for her actions? The same sort of fumbling alibi's she gave for the murders? There appears to be no evidence to back up these rumors of course unless we take into account the alleged Tilden Thurber theft. In which instance Lizzie would ultimately not have been legally held accountable for her actions. But they are interesting points to ponder. If she was not held accountable for her actions in any of these situations was Lizzie used to getting away with things? How would this apply in the situation of the murders?

Lizzie may well have been used to getting away with things. More conjecture: Lizzie was aware of a polarization within the household, with Abby one one side, and Emma on the other. She would have soon learned to play one against the other in order to get her own way, most children do, and at a surprisingly early age. When the incident with the Whitehead house occurred, Lizzie made a permanent choice to ally with Emma.

Would Lizzie have wanted Andrew to defend her? I'm thinking if he covered her indiscretions, if there were any, perhaps this would have been some sort of reaffirmation of security? I have no experience as a youngest daughter, only as an eldest son, so someone (anyone!) else might be able to confirm or deny this! I remember people picking on my younger brother as a kid and having to set them straight. I found that once my brother realized this would happen, he began to take advantage and provoke others, knowing I would cover for him. When I figured out what was going on, he learned how not to do that, real quick!