Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I've always been curious about how murderers (and I believe Lizzie committed the crime) rationalize their actions after the fact. Do they blank it out? Or do they somehow believe their actions were justified or prompted by the victim to such an extent that the crime was actually the fault of the victim (i.e. they got what they deserved). Or do they fully understand what they have done? It just seems as though someone who could take a hatchet to their father/stepmother and then go on about their lives is a different bird than most of us. It's not clear that she was a psychopath incapable of empathy or remorse. At the very least, Lizzie showed compassion for animals and strong friendships with certain people. There are indications that she was secretive and impulsive, but nothing that would lead you to conclude she was capable of such extreme violence.

I've known a couple of pathological liars (one was diagnosed, and one should have been diagnosed). They lied so much, they don't know when they are lying at a certain point. (This verified by my questions to a psychologist on the subject.) I think it is entirely possible that if Lizzie did it, she could have convinced herself that she didn't or justified it.

I watch and read a lot of true crime, trials, and the ID channel. I think that nobody is above suspicion. I think men make up the highest percentage of murderers, but women and even children can and do carry these crimes out.

My personal opinion re the Borden murders is that I think she, Emma and Uncle John were in cahoots. I think Uncle John got one of his butcher pals to actually do it.

Maybe Andrew wasn't supposed to be killed. There are a hundred ways to look at almost every moment of That Morning. Whatever the truth is, I wouldn't be surprised. Somebody had to have done it.

Two things I can think of that could help see into the case more is 'Parallel Lives' and, maybe more so, the files locked in Robinson's office. I know, I know. People who have read those files (and who were not Lizzie's lawyer themselves, so isn't that a breach of the client/attorney privilege?) have said there is no "smoking gun" among the papers. However, I don't know if the persons in the office today have studied the case as many others have. There would be a fair chance of someone more familiar with the case than them perhaps spotting just one piece to the puzzle that would complete the picture.

Also finding out what Andrew Jennings did not want disclosed to anyone because, he said, it could cause Lizzie to be tried again on a different charge (I assume her knowing who did it and maybe assisting, conspiring). Was that in the little red notebook a descendant would not turn over to anyone?

Sorry. Double post.

Sorry. Triple post.

Perhaps in this case we can say that whatever rationale brought about the murders carried over as justification after the murders. I don't think we can generalize this to all murders and all murderers, but it might apply here. This also presumes Lizzie was the murderer or someone else with a similar motive. If she regretted it afterward, then she was not convinced of her motivation beforehand and acted impulsively. If she was resolute in her motivation, then it became an objective process, something necessary, just another chore finished when it was over. While this may seem reasonable and objective, to declare oneself judge, jury, and executioner might be psychopathic, I don't know for certain.

I th
ink Lizzie didn't think she did anything wrong/

RichardX wrote: It just seems as though someone who could take a hatchet to their father/stepmother and then go on about their lives is a different bird than most of us.

There isn't a way to know what goes on in anyone else's mind, but I've had occasion to meet several people who committed horribly violent crimes, and these people seemed entirely normal. Most of us can justify what we do.

I would imagine that Lizzie felt little or no remorse over Abby's death. She probably rationalized it to herself by repeating over and over "She drove me to it...it was all her fault...I had no choice...I did what I had to do...it's over and done, I can't go back and undo it even if I wanted to". In time, it probably seemed less and less real to her.

But Andrew's death, now that's another story. I think Lizzie felt tremendous guilt over killing Andrew while he slept. As exasperating as Andrew may have been as a father, I think that she did love him and that she never plotted his death as she plotted Abby's. I think the hasty decision to kill him was an agonizing one and that she did it because the only alternative was to let him wake up, discover Abby's death and realize what she had done. I think that when she had nightmares in her bedroom at Maplecroft, it was Andrew's ghost who tormented her, not Abby's.

I think she could rationalize both murders. Andrew was a tight wad and Abby was her step-mom. I think she felt like that Abby was stepping in on the inhiertance that Lizzie thought was hers and Andrew wasn't spending enough money.

Assuming Lizzie was the culprit, she seemed to think that murdering Abby was a viable solution to her problem. Killing Andrew was done to cover her butt, he would have known Lizzie was the murderer immediately, which implies she thought killing Andrew was a viable solution to this subsequent dilemma. It also implies that she intended to get away with it. She wasn't going to sacrifice herself or be content with a draw, she was out to win. How many of us think killing someone is a viable solution to our problems under ordinary circumstances?

Lizzie was involved with charitable work and was kind to animals, this is undeniable, but what was her motivation for those activities? I've known people to get involved in charitable work in order to make themselves look good, not because they were charitable people to begin with. If Lizzie thought cold blooded murder was justifiable, how seriously can the rest of her judgments be taken? Lizzie had friends and seemed to be kind to animals both before and after the murders, I don't know why that would necessarily change as a result of the murders. Attempting to correlate charitable works and friendships with the lack of an ability to commit murder is futile. Not all murderers lack friends before and/or after the fact, nor are all those who are devoid of friendships necessarily murderers. Not being involved in charitable work does not make someone a murderer, nor does the involvement with charities negate an ability to murder. The concepts are not black and white, they are not mutually exclusive.