Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Lizzie’s reactions after the discovery of her father’s body have been considered by many odd and suspicious. For me her reactions are all very comprehensible. In this post I will try to explain, 1. Why Lizzie didn’t rush out of the house immediately; 2. Why she didn’t call the police firstly; 3. Why she was so calm and so self-controlled that morning.

1. After having discovered her father’s body, Lizzie, if she were innocent, should have rushed immediately out of the house because she didn’t know whether the murderer was still in the house, her life could be in danger. In the “guiltists” opinion, this is an argument for Lizzie’s guilt. Even though I can agree that this argument is reasonable in itself, but Lizzie’s actual reactions, in my opinion, are comprehensible.

It is generally thought that Andrew was not a beloved man in the town. There is nothing of strange if Lizzie worried for her father’s life. On the night before the murders, Lizzie visited Alice Russell, and told her that she feared that some enemy of her father's might soon try to kill him. She said "I think sometimes—I am afraid sometimes that somebody will do something to him; he is so discourteous to people." (cf. Alice Russell’s testimony). Attention please! Lizzie visited Alice after the entire family had been suffering from mysterious stomach pains and nausea, but what really preoccupied her mind was only her father’s safety! This is a very important psychological point for our discussion. And just the next morning, she suddenly found her father killed. In such a case, Lizzie could have thought, instinctively, that what she feared eventually occurred: someone killed her father (and he wanted to kill only her father). Always instinctively, she thought that Bridget could not commit such a horrible killing, the murderer must have been an intruder. And her father having been killed, the killer – that intruder -, having finished what he wanted to do, should have escaped. That’s why she didn’t think of rushing out (there was no need to do so because there was no danger any longer in the house). Because the killer’s target was only her father, herself didn’t become another victim, so neither did Bridget. Always instinctively, Lizzie thought that Bridget was still, like herself, alive. That’s why Lizzie called Bridget for help: "Maggie, come quick! Father is dead! Someone has come in and killed him!" A while after, Lizzie sent various persons who came to help off on various errands. It could seem strange that a woman would choose to remain alone in a house if she thought a murderer still might be nearabouts on the loose. But if she believed that the killer was no more in the house? In my opinion, all Lizzie’s reactions didn’t mean that Lizzie was herself the killer. On the contrary, I think there was a perfect coherence in these reactions of Lizzie.

2. The Borden affair occurred in 1892, and now we are thinking of and talking about it in 2013. We live in a society very different, I imagine, from that in which lived Lizzie. In the TV we can see the police figures every five minutes; the police siren can be heard at any moment in the street, everyone knows the police urgent telephone number. Not only are there more violence, real or fictional, in our society, but also these violent events are more largely and more quickly reported by the media and known by the people. So, today, if someone were at the Lizzie’s place, his first reaction could be that of calling the police. But Lizzie found her father’s body in 1892, not in 1992, not in 2012. She firstly called Bridget, is it strange? No, Bridget was the only other person in the house. She then asked Bridget to call Mr. Bowen, is it strange? No, because Mr. Bowen was her family’s doctor. Even though Lizzie had judged her father dead according to what she had seen, she probably wanted to see if there was still something to do with her father (a very natural reaction in my opinion), or at least to confirm his death by the doctor. Dr. Bowen was not at home, Lizzie sent Bridget to search Alice Russell, is it strange? No, Alice was Lizzie’s intimate friend, in this tragic moment she needed her moral assistance. Yes, Lizzie didn’t think immediately of calling the police, but I find nothing of strange in all this.

3. Lizzie was too calm, too self-controlled that morning, she didn’t cry at all. Ok. But was she guilty for this reason? No! Lizzie could not be a saint, could not be a perfect woman (indeed she wasn’t). Did she hate her stepmother? Didn’t she really love her father? Ok, let’s accept this theory. Maybe in the depth of her heart, more than one time she thought: “oh, how much I hate her! Why doesn’t she die by a sudden death! I will kill her one day! I will!” And about her father: “Oh, when will he die? I almost can’t wait any more. If he died today, tomorrow I will begin a new life!” Who, in this world, never had at least one time, just for several seconds, the idea of killing someone? And how many people finished by committing really a murder? Lizzie might have had such a criminal idea, but her criminal idea could have been always an idea, nothing else but only an idea. But in that fatal morning, what she wished secretly in her mind for a long time eventually occurred! Someone killed her stepmother and her father! The horror certainly chocked and terrified her greatly, but, beside of this, was it possible that Lizzie felt, in the depth of her heart, a secret satisfaction? “Oh my god, someone killed them! My stepmother was killed! She was dead, finally! The person that I hated so much disappeared forever in front of me. My father too was dead. Tomorrow I can begin a new life that I was dreaming of all time.” With all the thoughts of this kind in Lizzie’s mind, it was not strange for me if there were no tears on Lizzie’s face, it was not strange, neither, that Lizzie, questioned by the police, said: “She was not my mother, she was my stepmother.” In my opinion, only an innocent, in that very special moment, could have enough courage to say such a thing!

I must point out, in addition, that, all those who judge Lizzie’s reactions suspicious maybe thought again and again all the affair’s elements, sitting comfortable in their gardens in flower, a book about Borden case in one hand, a cup of tea in the other, the sun was shining around them, the birds were singing in the trees... What a beautiful and peaceful world! They have plenty of time to find the most reasonable reactions in Lizzie’s case. As a stranger of the case, they are only arguing, but Lizzie, on the other hand, was living personally the most tragic moment of her life. The “guiltists”, please keep in your mind this enormous difference between you and Lizzie when you judge her reactions. Very very few people – fortunately – have the “opportunity” to live such a horrible experience, and in the most cases, only once in all the life. It is really difficult to say how one will react. Some people, even innocent, do react illogically, don’t they? (To be honest, in such a case my first reaction could be not that of calling the police. I could have no idea at all of what to do.) Considering the circumstances above mentioned, I think Lizzie reacted very instinctively and naturally. In her reactions discussed here, I didn’t find nothing, nothing, that could incriminate the poor Lizzie! On the contrary, her instinctive, natural and frank behaviours could demonstrate (I'm not saying prove) Lizzie's innocence.

From Lizzie's discussion with Alice, apparently Lizzie believed discourtesy was grounds for murder according to the argument as presented. Since it was a discourtesy for Abby to insist that Bridget wash the windows when Bridget was not feeling well, why did Lizzie not point the finger at Bridget for Abby's murder, and then logically for Andrew's murder, too? Lizzie wouldn't even call Bridget by her proper name, why do we insist on this absolute, blind trust of Bridget by Lizzie? An innocent person, having just found her father butchered, calls out and determines that there is someone alive in the house with her dead father, apparently the only one. This innocent person then waits for Bridget to descend the stairs without thinking to wait outside, or to run from the house? I don't buy it! Under those conditions, why wouldn't Lizzie run to summon Bowen, or Alice for that matter? Lizzie either had absolute and blind faith in someone she really didn't care about, or Lizzie knew who killed her father.

She also commented that she feared the whole house would be burned-- insinuating with them in it. Therefore, should she be innocent-- she should have no reasonable assumption of her safety.

And another thing-- granted-- he was gruesomely hacked in the face/head-- and was clearly already dead. However, she never called out to Bridget that he was hurt-- but that he was dead. And of course this is merely my opinion and speculation-- but she sure whizzed through those 5 steps of grief in a jiffy.

And-- if she didn't fear her safety, thinking it was merely an enemy of Andrew's with no malice towards her, why didn't she grab something, like a fire place poker or a stick of kindling, etc and search the house for the culprit? If she wasn't frightened at all-- I would think she would have done so.

Lizzie's remarkable calm after the discovery doesn't indicate to me that she was the murderer in an of itself. People react differently. Lets assume she hated him and was even glad he was dead (secretly), human nature is, in the end, human nature. NO mention of Abby until someone else brings her up-- the the whole she's out but I think she came in business... If she really thought Abby had returned, why didn't she call out to her or look for her? Why didn't she declare that Abby may be the murderer?

As I have said before, I WANT Lizzie to be innocent. But there are so many little, circumstantial what ifs that I can't help but doubt that.

I think her reaction can be seen In two ways. The first way is, that if she was innocent, then the coolness and calmness could be looked at as the shock of seeing a dead body. The other way to look at her behavior is that, after she did the deed, she was in shock of what she had done. You know, the "Oh my God, Look at what I just did!" That kind of reaction the I can't believe I did that.

Whether on not she believed that the killer was only targeting her father, if she would have accidentally seen the killer, the killer would have killed her too to protect his/her identity. If I found my father dead, even if I knew he had enemies that wanted him dead, I would not stay a moment in the house until the police arrived. Her calmness about staying there tells me she knew the killer wouldn't attack her...b/c she hired him.

What has always bothered me about her calling for Bridget is how did she know she could call for Bridget in the first place? It is true that Bridget told Lizzie she was going to her room. But if she had just come in to find her father attacked and covered in blood, how did she know the attacker had not gotten to Bridget? Why did she assume Bridget was still safely upstairs in her room? She did not say "Bridget are you alright?" Or even "Bridget what happened? Did you hear anything?" She just automatically assumed Bridget was unhurt and called her down to allegedly go get help. If you had walked into a scene like that, not knowing who the attacker was or why, would you automatically assume everyone else in the house was alright? I don't think I would safely assume anything about anyone else's safety. Especially my own. Lizzie knew Bridget had not been attacked. Because Lizzie had only killed Abby and Andrew.

Good point, Allen! During the time period immediately after "discovering" Andrew, Lizzie seems to know too much, completely inconsistent with innocence.

Hey aamartin, Allen and Yooper. Thank you for your replies. But what you said didn’t convince me at all. Lizzie’s calling Bridget after the discovery of her father’s body, and her calling Bridget in that way, in my opinion, doesn’t prove at all Lizzie’s guilt.

Even though Lizzie feared the whole house would be burned, but in the very centre of her worry was her father's safety. She had in mind an obsession that someone would kill her father. So, when she discovered her father in such a condition, her immediate psychological reaction could be: “oh this someone eventually killed father.” This reaction was instinctive and subconscious. Because what preoccupied mostly her mind was her father’s safety, and now she found her father dead, it was absolutely possible that she, under such a chock, in the very first seconds, didn’t think that herself and Bridget could be in danger, too. (If Bridget didn’t answer immediately, Lizzie, a little restored from the chock, could think that maybe it occurred something either to Bridget, and the life of herself might be in danger, and then, she could rush out of the house).

Allen, I know well that you are very convinced for Lizzie’s guilt. It’s Ok. But you are not Lizzie, in your mind you haven’t Lizzie’s preoccupation for her father’s life, more importantly, you didn’t see that horrible scene before Lizzie’s eyes, you didn’t suffer that incredible chock. Under such a chock, one could lose, for a second, his intelligence, his normal thinking capacity, one could be less alert than usually. Or maybe Lizzie was a person a little slower than you in such a situation.

If I were in Lizzie’s place, I could react as her, and I didn’t kill anyone.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, Franz. It's just a simple statement of facts as we interpret them, you can take it or leave it.

In the first few shock filled seconds, Lizzie thought to summon the hired help and send them to summon the doctor. This seems a bit complex for someone supposedly mentally immobilized due to shock. The very first thing she thought of was to do this, it was her only reason to call Bridget.

Yooper wrote:I'm not trying to convince you of anything, Franz. It's just a simple statement of facts as we interpret them, you can take it or leave it.

You are right, Yooper, everyone has his / her own interpretation and it's great to be able to exchange our opinions in this forum.

After the discovery of her father’s body, Lizzie sent various persons who came to help off on various errands. The “guiltists” think that it seems strange that Lizzie would choose to remain alone in the house. In my post I have already argued that Lizzie probably thought instinctively that the killer had escaped after his killing - because he had finished what he wanted to do - killing (only) her father. Here I want to add another observation: those various persons sent by Lizzie to somewhere, if I am not mistaken, none of them worried for Lizzie’s safety, none of them asked her: “It’s Ok for you, Lizzie? Are you sure that you can remain alone in the house?” The “guiltists”, I invite you for another time to consider this: those persons, Lizzie in the first place, were living personally the tragic event, but we are all strangers to the affair, please keep in our mind this enormous difference when we consider the Borden case.

Franz,
Why would Lizzie "probably think instinctively" that the killer escaped after the murder? It is one thing to simply say we think so, quite another to provide something to support that thought. So far, all we seem to have is unsupported conjecture concerning Lizzie's innocence. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill were hesitant about going upstairs alone when Dr. Bowen requested a sheet to cover Andrew. The two of them went together. This happened again when Lizzie told them where Abby was. What in the world makes you think that because someone believes Lizzie was guilty, they can't realize a difference between then and now? Or a difference between first hand and second hand information? Everyone here is aware that some of us believe Lizzie to be innocent, some believe Lizzie to be guilty, and some are undecided. There is no need to make the distinction in every post. The forum is not going to divide into two camps and begin throwing stones at one another!

Hey Yooper,

1. When I was saying "Lizzie probably think instinctively that the killer had escaped after his killing", I was certainly suggesting a conjecture. I have expressed my reason more than one time: Lizzie had been having in mind the fear that someone would kill her father, her father’s safety was in the very centre of her worry, so when Lizzie found that the unknown murderer had accomplished the killing (he killed her father), she, probably, could think instinctively that the murderer had escaped (I hope that I explained well enough what I wanted to say). I repeat, this is certainly my conjecture.

2. To be honest, I was unhappy after reading the second part of your reply. Unhappy, because it seems that what I said offended someone, if so, I apologize for this, but I had no intention to offend anyone. We are in this forum to exchange our ideas, to discuss the Borden case, it’s normal that there are opposite opinions. I used more than one time two words “guiltist” and “innocentist”, maybe doing so I underlined somewhat the division of the opinions about Borden case. I used them for two reasons: 1) to simplify my words (instead of saying: “those who believe that Lizzie was guilty”); 2) it’s true that I am discussing with all the members of the forum (including the “innocentists”), but because I am myself more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence, and it seems that the “innocentists” are very very few in the forum (please correct me if I am wrong), my posts, in most cases, are addressed especially (not exclusively) to the “guiltists”, but this word has absolutely no offensive meaning in my mind (I was once a “guiltist” indeed).

3. You asked me: “What in the world makes you think that because someone believes Lizzie was guilty, they can't realize a difference between then and now?” I can make an example here, already mentioned in my post: some people suspect Lizzie because (among other reasons) Lizzie didn’t think of calling the police immediately. I think (I may be wrong) that if we consider enough the difference between then and now in this case (concerning the different relationships between the public and the police in the two societies), Lizzie’s reaction (not calling the police) should not be considered suspicious. Making such an observation, it could seem that I was making a criticism towards someone. I think the forum needs the criticism and we don’t need to be afraid of the criticism made with good and positive intention. I could be wrong in making such an observation, but I don’t think I was throwing stones at anyone (the word “ridiculous” was used to comment one of my posts, this word, for me, is a criticism, but I didn’t consider it a stone thrown at me, even though I will never use such a word to comment others).

4. You said: “So far, all we seem to have is unsupported conjecture concerning Lizzie's innocence.” I wonder: what kind of conjecture we seem to have concerning Lizzie’s guilt?

Franz,

You're right, the conjecture about an intruder killing Lizzie's father is indeed supported by her conversation with Alice Russell.

From the Inquest, Mrs. Churchill, p.128:
Q. Crying?
A. No Sir. I put my hand on her arm, this way, and said “Lizzie, where is your father”? She says “in the sitting
room”. I said “where was you when it happened?” She said “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron.” I said
“where is your mother”? She says “I dont know, she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this
morning, but I dont know but they have killed her too.” She said “father must have had an enemy, for we have
all been sick, and we think the milk has been poisoned.” The she said “Dr. Bowen is not at home, but I must
have a Doctor”. I says “shall I go and try to find someone to go and get a doctor”?

Since we know it wasn't raining hatchets in Fall River that day, Lizzie clearly thought Abby was in the house and had come to some harm. This increases the consideration for harm to both Abby and Andrew, and since no location for Abby was mentioned at that moment, it means an intruder may still be on the premises. So, any attempt to limit the focus to Andrew goes out the window, and Lizzie should have considered that she might also come to some harm, the danger may not have passed.

Why not simply set forth an opinion, regardless of belief in guilt or innocence? There is no need to express a foregone conclusion about what "them folks" think, just express yourself and state the basis for the belief.

As far as a discrepancy about societal relationships with the police, why not support the idea with proof? Why did people hesitate to call the authorities when a murder had been committed? Did they actually do that? Why would they recognize the need for and go to the expense of maintaining a police force and not use them? Why were the police summoned at all if people didn't think they should be called? Apparently someone thought the police should respond immediately, and it sure wasn't Lizzie!

What we have is ordinarily well supported conjecture concerning Lizzie's guilt. As I just demonstrated concerning calling the police, the contention that Lizzie was somehow excused from thinking of calling the authorities due to the fact that people just didn't do that in 1892 is absurd.

Yooper, you said that “Lizzie clearly thought Abby was in the house and had come to some harm”. But according to Mrs. Churchill’s testimony, I can’t at all conclude as you did, because, just before the phrase you underlined, Lizzie said, clearly: “I don’t know (where my mother is), she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this morning”. From this phrase I can only suppose that Lizzie, at that moment, believed still that her stepmother was out of the house, somewhere in the town, but she ignored where exactly. So the next phrase, the underlined one: “but I don’t know but they have killed her too” , I can only understand in this way: “but I don’t know if they have killed her too, (somewhere in the town)”.

I didn’t say that people (of Lizzie’s time) hesitated to call the authorities when a murder had been committed. I said that at that time the notion of police in the people’s mind was (should have been) more less strong than it is in our mind. I didn’t say, neither, that Lizzie hesitated (or didn’t want) to call the authorities. I only supposed that, immediately after the discovery of her father’s body, under such a chock, there was probably no room in her mind for the thought of contact the police. If she called the police, it would be a normal thing; but if she didn’t, as it occurred actually, instead, she called Bridget, then she sent her to search Dr. Bowen, and then, Alice, all this was very normal as well in my opinion. For me it doesn’t seem suspicious, it doesn’t imply, neither, that Lizzie was the murderess.

Why in the world would Lizzie think Abby had come to some harm if she was away from the house? Was this a conspiracy? Did someone follow Abby to wherever she was summoned by the note? Were people being arbitrarily hacked to death randomly in Fall River that day? There is absolutely no reason for Lizzie to think that Abby had been killed unless Lizzie thought Abby was in the house.

And I said show some proof to support the contention that police were less in people's mind back in 1892. Lizzie had the presence of mind to perform the complexity in the mental sense of summoning someone to summon someone else, hardly an indicator of shock. The physical manifestations of behavior speak infinitely louder than testimony, and Lizzie failing to fear for her own safety is very telling. She did not leave the premises and she did not recognize any apparent danger worthy of summoning protection. A perfectly normal reaction for anyone, then or now, would be to run like hell from the premises and call the cops! All the excuses in the world won't change that.

Yooper wrote: As far as a discrepancy about societal relationships with the police, why not support the idea with proof? Why did people hesitate to call the authorities when a murder had been committed?

Dear Yooper,

I have no proof. I didn’t do a scientific research before posting my topic. I have neither time nor conditions to do such a research, and, to be honest, I haven't the willing to do it, because I don’t think I have to do it before posting a topic in this forum. Sometimes the good sense can permit us to say something. To whoever wants to do such a research, there is a suggestion: 1) to check out the total actions of the police, of all kind, in 1891 in Fall River; and then, to do just the same thing for the figure in 2012 in Fall River, and then, compare the two figures; 2) to check out how many times the police was mentioned (in written form and in pictures) in all the newspapers available in 1891 in Fall River; and then, to check out how many times the police was mentioned (in written form and in pictures) in all the newspapers, all the radio stations, all the TV channels (including local, national and the satellite ones), and all the video games, and all any other media forms in Fall River in 2012, and then, compare the two figures (of 1891 and 2012). Even though I didn’t do such a research, but can I imagine that the difference between the two figures, especially in the second case, could be enormous?

I repeat here, I never said the Lizzie (or any other person of that time) hesitated (or didn’t want) to contact the police (please don't put under my name whatever words that I didn't say), what I said is that Lizzie, in the very first minutes after the horrible chock, could have no room in her mind to do such a thing, because in that time, the people (including Lizzie) probably didn’t have the police conception as strong as the people of today do. In saying so, do I pronounce something, for another time, absurd, ridiculous, laughable?

I repeat here, too, that if I were Lizzie (in 1892), I could do just the same things: to send Bridget to call Dr. Bowen, because he was our family’s doctor, and then, Alice, because she was my intimate friend, I needed her moral assistance. If Lizzie contacted the police in the first time, it would be a very normal thing; but the fact that she didn’t do so doesn’t mean, in my opinion, that what she actually did must be considered as suspicious.

PossumPie wrote: If I found my father dead, even if I knew he had enemies that wanted him dead, I would not stay a moment in the house until the police arrived.

Yes, Possumpie, you have plenty of reasons to react as you said, and probably most people would react just as you do. But could anyone react differently, as Lizzie, being innocent as well?

Franz wrote:

Yooper wrote: As far as a discrepancy about societal relationships with the police, why not support the idea with proof? Why did people hesitate to call the authorities when a murder had been committed?

Dear Yooper,

I have no proof. I didn’t do a scientific research before posting my topic. I have neither time nor conditions to do such a research, and, to be honest, I haven't the willing to do it, because I don’t think I have to do it before posting a topic in this forum. Sometimes the good sense can permit us to say something. To whoever wants to do such a research, there is a suggestion: 1) to check out the total actions of the police, of all kind, in 1891 in Fall River; and then, to do just the same thing for the figure in 2012 in Fall River, and then, compare the two figures; 2) to check out how many times the police was mentioned (in written form and in pictures) in all the newspapers available in 1891 in Fall River; and then, to check out how many times the police was mentioned (in written form and in pictures) in all the newspapers, all the radio stations, all the TV channels (including local, national and the satellite ones), and all the video games, and all any other media forms in Fall River in 2012, and then, compare the two figures (of 1891 and 2012). Even though I didn’t do such a research, but can I imagine that the difference between the two figures, especially in the second case, could be enormous?

I repeat here, I never said the Lizzie (or any other person of that time) hesitated (or didn’t want) to contact the police (please don't put under my name whatever words that I didn't say), what I said is that Lizzie, in the very first minutes after the horrible chock, could have no room in her mind to do such a thing, because in that time, the people (including Lizzie) probably didn’t have the police conception as strong as the people of today do. In saying so, do I pronounce something, for another time, absurd, ridiculous, laughable?

I repeat here, too, that if I were Lizzie (in 1892), I could do just the same things: to send Bridget to call Dr. Bowen, because he was our family’s doctor, and then, Alice, because she was my intimate friend, I needed her moral assistance. If Lizzie contacted the police in the first time, it would be a very normal thing; but the fact that she didn’t do so doesn’t mean, in my opinion, that what she actually did must be considered as suspicious.

Since you admittedly have no proof, how can you possibly get to "....because at that time, the people (including Lizzie) probably didn't have the police conception as strong as people of today do."? How can that be "probable" if you have no proof?

Yooper, with the word "probably" I mean: "it might be possible that..."

Yooper, with the word "probably" I mean: "it might be possible that..."

There is a big difference between probable and possible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what seems to be happening here is; beginning with the outcome as a premise, the facts are rationalized to fit. The premise is that Lizzie is innocent. Since Lizzie is innocent and since Lizzie didn't think of calling the police, it must be that the police were not thought of in 1892 as they are today. Am I correct in that analogy? If so, the error is inductively beginning with the desired outcome, that of Lizzie's innocence. Everything else becomes subjective at that point. It is far better to examine the facts objectively and scientifically without presupposing an outcome.

Yooper,

I hope I can explain well what I want to say. I am discussing a subject so delicate not in my native language.

Regardless Lizzie’s guilt or innocence, I made a statement (a conjecture), imaging the society in which she lived, that the people of that time could have a police conception not as strong as the today people do. I have no proof to support my statement (the proof may exist), but, to be honest, I don’t think I could be wrong very much, at least I don’t think the contrary could be true.

The title of my posting is “Lizzie’s reactions could be those of an innocent”, instead of being somethng like:"Lizzie's reactions were all normal because she was innocent". It’s true that I am more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence, but my opinion expressed in the posting can be independent from my “innocentist” idea. I could be even convinced for Lizzie’s guilt, but, considering the fact that Lizzie didn’t call the police immediately, I don’t think as well that this behaviour is suspicious. In another word, I find her not calling the police a normal thing even if I believed in her guilt. Lizzie could actually kill Andrew and Abby, and then, called the police after hiding all she must hide (she had plenty of time to do so), why not? So Lizzie’s calling or not calling the police, in my opinion, couldn’t prove neither Lizzie’s guilt nor her innocence. So with my posting I wanted to say that I am against the idea that Lizzie was suspected because (among other reasons) she didn’t call the police immediately. I don’t know if Lizzie were innocent, but an innocent, in my opinion, could react as her – not calling the police in the very first minutes after the discovery of the body.

Am I clear enough?

I would like to rewrite here my posting in another way:

1. Lizzie didn’t rush out of the house immediately after the discovery of her father’s body. Is it possible that Lizzie reacted in this manner because she was the murderess? My answer: yes, it’s possible, the reasons are obvious. But on the other hand, she could react in this manner, being innocent as well.

2. Lizzie didn’t contact immediately the police. Is it possible that she reacted in this manner because she was the murderess? My answer: yes, it’s possible, the reasons are obvious. But on the other hand, she could react in this manner, being innocent as well.

3. Lizzie was very calm, very self-controlled that morning, she didn’t cry for her father’s and her stepmother’s horrible death. Is it possible that she reacted in this manner because she was the murderess? My answer: yes, it’s possible, the reasons are obvious. But on the other hand, she could react in this manner, being innocent as well.

Ok, now I continue.

Even though I am more convinced for Lizzie’s innocence (I never said that I am absolutely convinced), I admit that there are a number of circumstantial evidence against her (how many innocents have been accused? And how many innocents have been convicted or even executed? There should have been always some “evidence” against them, right?). I repeat the three points of my posting in still another way:

1. Lizzie didn’t rush out of the house immediately. Could this behaviour be considered as a circumstantial evidence against Lizzie? My answer: No, it couldn’t. Because an innocent could react as well in this manner.

2. Lizzie didn’t call the police immediately. Could this behaviour be considered as a circumstantial evidence against Lizzie? My answer: No, it couldn’t. Because an innocent could react as well in this manner.

3. Lizzie was too calm, too self-controlled that morning. Could this behaviour be considered as a circumstantial evidence against Lizzie? My answer: No, it couldn’t. Because an innocent could react as well in this manner.

I have in my mind two lists, one “pro”, another “against”, Lizzie. These three points, for the reasons I explained in this posting, don’t figure on the list “against” Lizzie. Certainly, they don’t figure on the list “pro”, neither.

The three points under discussion all occurred simultaneously, more or less at the same time.

1. Lizzie didn't leave the house immediately. Most people would. It is a probable response to do so. It is possible, but improbable not to.

2. Lizzie didn't think of the police. Most people would. It is a probable response to do so. It is possible, but improbable not to.

3. Lizzie was calm and self controlled. Most people would not be. It is a probable response to be visibly upset. It is improbable to be calm and self controlled.

Let "x" equal the relative improbability for each separate point. Then the chance of all three occurring simultaneously is:
(1/x)*(1/x)*(1/x)= 1/x^3, a very small fraction, indeed. It becomes more inconsistent with innocence as more improbabilities are compounded. Since guilt and innocence are mutually exclusive, the probability for guilt is 1-(1/x^3) expressed as a percentage, a relatively large number.

The police began suspecting Lizzie in part because of her seemingly calm and collected behavior. She didn't appear traumatized at all.

Harrington, Witness Statements, p.5-6:

During this conversation with Lizzie, I cautioned her about what she might say at the present time.
I said owing to the atrociousness of the crime, perhaps you are not in a mental condition to give as clear
a statement of the facts as you will be tomorrow; and also by that time you may be able to tell more
about the man who wished to hire the store. You may recollect of having heard his name, or of seeing
him, and thereby be enabled to give a description of him, or may recollect of something said about him
by your father; so I say it may be better for you not to submit to an interview until tomorrow, when you
may be better able to recite what you know of the circumstances.” To this she replied “no, I think I can
tell you all I know now, just as well as at any other time.” This conversation took place in Lizzie’s
room, on the second floor, in the presence of Miss Alice Russell, who sat in a chair by the door which
leads to the front hall, by which I entered Lizzie’s room.
Miss Russell was very pale, and much agitated, which she showed by short sharp breathing and
wringing her hands. She spoke not a word.
Lizzie stood by the foot of the bed, and talked in the most calm and collected manner; her whole
bearing was most remarkable under the circumstances. There was not the least indication of agitation,
no sign of sorrow or grief, no lamentation of the heart, no comment on the horror of the crime, and no
expression of a wish that the criminal be caught. All this, and something that, to me, is indescribable,
gave birth to a thought that was most revolting. I thought, at least, she knew more than she wished to
tell.

Lizzie didn't appear to Harrington to be the least bit traumatized, while Alice Russell seemed quite agitated. Harrington had every reason to be aware of and looking for behavior patterns that day, it was his job. Mrs. Bowen had to be excused, she went home early. Mrs. Churchill seemed visibly upset when she reported the discovery of Abby. Dr. Bowen seemed completely disconnected. Both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill expressed apprehension about going upstairs alone, not once, but twice. These are friends and neighbors, not family members. This is what was recorded for posterity and we are not privy to all of the nuances and body language expressed on that day. Something gave the investigating officers pause, and they were there. We were not.

Lizzie was not in shock. I have seen people immobilized by shock, but this was not the case here. Lizzie had the presence of mind to summon help. Not only that, but she had the presence of mind for the additional complexity to summon someone to summon someone else for help. She did this three times, Bridget twice and Mrs. Churchill once. At no time did she ask that the police be summoned, which implies that she sensed no danger.

For Lizzie's being too calm, too self-controlled, I have stated my point of view in my original posting, I copy the passage here:

3. Lizzie was too calm, too self-controlled that morning, she didn’t cry at all. Ok. But was she guilty for this reason? No! Lizzie could not be a saint, could not be a perfect woman (indeed she wasn’t). Did she hate her stepmother? Didn’t she really love her father? Ok, let’s accept this theory. Maybe in the depth of her heart, more than one time she thought: “oh, how much I hate her! Why doesn’t she die by a sudden death! I will kill her one day! I will!” And about her father: “Oh, when will he die? I almost can’t wait any more. If he died today, tomorrow I will begin a new life!” Who, in this world, never had at least one time, just for several seconds, the idea of killing someone? And how many people finished by committing really a murder? Lizzie might have had such a criminal idea, but her criminal idea could have been always an idea, nothing else but only an idea. But in that fatal morning, what she wished secretly in her mind for a long time eventually occurred! Someone killed her stepmother and her father! The horror certainly chocked and terrified her greatly, but, beside of this, was it possible that Lizzie felt, in the depth of her heart, a secret satisfaction? “Oh my god, someone killed them! My stepmother was killed! She was dead, finally! The person that I hated so much disappeared forever in front of me. My father too was dead. Tomorrow I can begin a new life that I was dreaming of all time.” With all the thoughts of this kind in Lizzie’s mind, it was not strange for me if there were no tears on Lizzie’s face, it was not strange, neither, that Lizzie, questioned by the police, said: “She was not my mother, she was my stepmother.” In my opinion, only an innocent, in that very special moment, could have enough courage to say such a thing!

Calmness and self control by themselves are not proof of guilt, certainly, but apparently they are more indicative of guilt than of innocence under the circumstances. There is no need to accept my word on the subject, look at the evidence. Apparently the police thought it was true, they found Lizzie's apparent lack of emotion odd. Taken as a part of all the evidence, the totality was enough to make Lizzie the solitary suspect in the murders.

So, Lizzie secretly wished for the deaths of her parents, and suddenly, as if by magic, they were both killed on August 4th, 1892? Really? Was that because Lizzie needed to appear calm and collected after the murders?

Yooper, the Borden case is not a commun one, but an extraordinry one in the history. I believe that the least possibility could be (I am not saying must be) the truth.
According to the mathematical calculation you did in you reply, I imagine that you don't think so. I like the differences between us.

Reactions differ greatly among people. I have seen some people wail, scream and holler at the scene of a death of a loved one. I have seen the Police have to physically remove relatives so Paramedics and ambulance people could work. AND I have seen people quietly stand and stare in disbelief at loved ones bodies. Neither indicates guilt or innocence. I said earlier in the thread that I wouldn't stay in the house if I believed the killer could still be around, and that is true. BUT I guess some folks may not think of their own danger at that time. The one thing that always struck me about this case is if it were me instead of Lizzie, I KNOW I wouldn't have shown any/much emotion either. I grew up in a home where that was the norm. I guess I would have been a suspect also.

While Lizzie may not have cared for her own safety, she was also putting others in danger by inviting them into the house. Both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill were apprehensive about going upstairs alone on both occasions.

Yooper wrote:While Lizzie may not have cared for her own safety, she was also putting others in danger by inviting them into the house. Both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill were apprehensive about going upstairs alone on both occasions.

I agree. While not showing emotion doesn't concern me, Not having any worry about the killer still being around does. One of two things happened: Either she knew she was the killer, so had no fear of 'a killer' OR she knew she was NOT the killer, so a killer was still out there either still in the house or fled the scene, she wouldn't have known which.

If I am not mistaken (please correct me if I am), neither Bridget nor Mrs Churchill asked Lizzie: “It’s Ok for you, Lizzie? Are you sure that you can remain alone in the house?” It means that at that moment, as Lizzie, they didn’t think, or there was no room in their mind to think that the killer could be still in the house. The fact that “both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill were apprehensive about going upstairs alone on both occasions” is very comprehensible: even though they thought the killer was no more in the house, they, two women, could be reluctant as well to go upstairs alone.

Neither Bridget nor Mrs. Churchill asked about anyone else being in the house. However, both of them were sent from the house immediately after talking to Lizzie. Apparently Lizzie showed no apprehension for her own safety, so neither Bridget nor Mrs. Churchill showed any for themselves, at least while being in the kitchen hallway for a few seconds with Lizzie. Neither of them had seen Andrew so they had nothing concrete to base a fear upon, only Lizzie's words and she didn't seem concerned. Both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill asked about Abby which is something else Lizzie wasn't concerned with, Abby's whereabouts.

I have been half wrong by saying simply that Lizzie was too calm, too self-controlled that morning. Several persons testified her appearance in those minutes immediately after the discovery of Andrew’s body, and that of Abby’s. (The bold and underlined texts are mine.)

1. Mrs. Churchill (Inquest testimony, p. 128)
A: …At the screen door, standing by the screen door I saw Lizzie as if she was in great distress.
Q: How did she show that?
A: Perhaps she rubbed her head. I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance…

2. Mr. Sawyer (Inquest testimony)
Q: What was Miss Borden’s appearance?
A: Miss Borden…seemed to be considerable excited I thought, as though she was apparently grief stricken, or something, although I might not be a judge n that respect. She seemed to be considerably excited and very uneasy, and the ladies seemed to be ministering to her, that is bathing her face. (p. 137)
...
A: …When they came down and reported that her mother had been killed, she apparently went off into some kind of a swoon or hysterical fit, I dont know exactly what, and Dr. Bowen said she better be carried up to her room. (p. 140)

3. Dr. Bowen (Inquest testimony, p. 121)
Q: What was Miss Lizzie’s appearance and manner?
A: Well, she was excited, and, --- well it is hard to describe it she was somewhat excited, in a hurry for me to come.

4. Miss Alice (Inquest testimony, pp. 147-148)
A: …She (Lizzie) seemed to be very much overcome.
…
Q: What did you find Lizzie’s appearance and condition to be, when you got there?
A: Dazed.

In reading these testimonies, I can’t conclude that Lizzie was too calm, to self-controlled. Such behaviours were noticed only afterwards by the policemen who questioned her (cf. Witness statements, Doherty & Harrington, pp. 5-6). Suspicious? In my opinion, no. Lizzie could have forced herself to appear before the authorities in a manner that she thought more adequate to her upper-class social status. And when she was questioned by the police, the most shocking moments had past. Her changing dress that same morning could have had the same purpose.

Well, at least you've been reading the source documents.

And I think even women of social standing would have been expected to show emotion after both of their parents were brutally murdered. Women were thought to be fragile creatures that were easily excitable back then also.

If Lizzie had just finished murdering her father, she might have appeared as described immediately afterward.

Allen wrote:Well, at least you've been reading the source documents.

Oh my dear Allen, please believe that it's not the first time I read them.

Allen wrote:And I think even women of social standing would have been expected to show emotion after both of their parents were brutally murdered. Women were thought to be fragile creatures that were easily excitable back then also.

You are right, Allen. But I said: Lizzie could have forced herself to appear in that manner, before the authorities. Please notice that, when she was standing by the screen door, (as if) she was in great distress, she could ignore that she was being seen by somebody (Mrs. Churchill), so she liberated her emotion in a natural and spontaneous manner.

Why would anyone force themselves to give an unexpected unnatural response? She was expected to have been emotional. It was the most natural response. Why would she force herself to suppress the emotion that everyone else expected her to show, even the police? Social standing didn't call for her to be unaffected by two double murders. That makes no sense. The most shocking moments had passed? Her parents had been dead for a couple of hours.

Allen wrote:Why would anyone force themselves to give an unexpected unnatural response? She was expected to have been emotional. It was the most natural response. Why would she force herself to suppress the emotion that everyone else expected her to show, even the police? Social standing didn't call for her to be unaffected by two double murders. That makes no sense. The most shocking moments had passed? Her parents had been dead for a couple of hours.

1. The persons are different. In view of the body of a beloved person, someone can cry like the Trevi Fountain, but another can have no tears to give. If Lizzie was of this type, what can i do? I can only accept the diversity of the human being. I don't suspect Lizzie for her absence of tears. Some people, in some circumstances, do force themselves to maintain the calmness, don't they?

2. I certainly think the most shocking moments had passed. These moments are those of the discovery of the bodys and the very first minutes that followed immediately. When Lizzie was questioned by the police, she could have recoverd herself, at least to some extent, from the shock she suffered.

If we give Lizzie enough credit as an actress to force herself out of grief for the benefit of police, then she was also a good enough actress to have feigned the relatively minor signs of grief mentioned in the quoted testimony.

Yooper wrote:If we give Lizzie enough credit as an actress to force herself out of grief for the benefit of police, then she was also a good enough actress to have feigned the relatively minor signs of grief mentioned in the quoted testimony.

All could have been very natural for her, including her forcing herself to maintain the calmness could have been natural because of her character.

This does not strike me as someone grief stricken, especially when compared to Alice Russell who was in the same room providing contrast.

Witness Statements, Harrington, pp.5-6:

During this conversation with Lizzie, I cautioned her about what she might say at the present time.
I said owing to the atrociousness of the crime, perhaps you are not in a mental condition to give as clear
a statement of the facts as you will be tomorrow; and also by that time you may be able to tell more
about the man who wished to hire the store. You may recollect of having heard his name, or of seeing
him, and thereby be enabled to give a description of him, or may recollect of something said about him
by your father; so I say it may be better for you not to submit to an interview until tomorrow, when you
may be better able to recite what you know of the circumstances.” To this she replied “no, I think I can
tell you all I know now, just as well as at any other time.” This conversation took place in Lizzie’s
room, on the second floor, in the presence of Miss Alice Russell, who sat in a chair by the door which
leads to the front hall, by which I entered Lizzie’s room.
Miss Russell was very pale, and much agitated, which she showed by short sharp breathing and
wringing her hands. She spoke not a word.
Lizzie stood by the foot of the bed, and talked in the most calm and collected manner; her whole
bearing was most remarkable under the circumstances. There was not the least indication of agitation,
no sign of sorrow or grief, no lamentation of the heart, no comment on the horror of the crime, and no
expression of a wish that the criminal be caught. All this, and something that, to me, is indescribable,
gave birth to a thought that was most revolting. I thought, at least, she knew more than she wished to
tell.

This was what Lizzie displayed the day of the murders. It is partially why she was arrested for the murders. Nearly everyone else was stymied to some degree, so I'd have to agree with their testimony about confusion, etc. They were just being honest in that the murders threw them for a loop. Not Lizzie, though.

The fact that Lizzie was calm and not hysterical really doesn't tell us much. It could very well have been her nature. She could also have been innocent of the killings, but secretly jubilant they were dead.

Inconsistent statements aside-- I find it impossible to believe the whole 'I think I heard her come in' nonsense about Abby. It was stupid, plain and simple. If she thought Abby was indeed out-- and even if Abby had lied about a note-- and Lizzie truly believed her to have gone out-- this cannot make any rational sense to me.

Coming in at a close 2nd is her total lack of fear or concern that, moments after she saw her father alive-- and even giving her the benefit that she went to the barn-- that finding him hacked about the head and face on the sofa didn't strike any type of fight or flight emotions in her. She didn't pick up a fireplace poker or other 'weapon' and search the premises, she didn't run babbling into the street-- or even calmly stroll over to Mrs. Churchill's house. No-- instead she invited the woman over.

Why was Bridget the only one who seemed afraid to remain in the house? Granted, it was guarded by the police-- did she know/suspect it was an 'inside job'?

Fine-- Lizzie may have been remarkably able to compartmentalize her emotions and actions following any mental trauma, slight or otherwise. We could hypothesize that she had MPD or fell into the Autism spectrum disorder.... We could guess she was out masturbating in the barn- or that she did it all in a fugue state and really did have no memory of it... This list is nearly endless.

The facts remain, to solve a murder-- we need motive, opportunity and means. Lizzie meets all three-- and no one else can be tied to the house on that day.

Conspiracy theorists-- a secret can be kept only as long as everyone but one of the secret keepers is dead.... Melon gang? Please. In any of these cases, someone would have told someone something!

Someone involved tells his wife or a friend-- they tell someone, etc--- and pretty soon, it's all blown open-- or someone else is murdered to shut them up. This is why I pooh-pooh most conspiracy theories. ie- I think Oswald acted alone-- and there isn't much to the whole Roswell business. Oh-- and Jesse Ventura is nuts.

I agree, the "hearing Abby return" silliness is the most damning piece of evidence against Lizzie. For all I know Lizzie might have been a good actress, but it works from either perspective, guilty or innocent, and it's a pretty bad idea to expect to act your way through a police investigation. That is, unless it is somehow necessary.

Aamartin and Yooper,

1. For Lizzie’s curious statement (hearing Abby’s return), I hope I can post something soon.

2. For Lizzie's lack of fear after the discovery of her father's body, I have explained my opinion in my original post: her obsessional worry about her father's life could have made her think instinctively that the killer (an intruder), after having accompliched what he wanted to do (to kill only Andrew), had escaped.

3. I think it's a normal thing that a woman like Bridget had no courage to sleep still in that house where two persons had just been killed. Emma and Lizzie remained because the Borden house was their home. Bridget could have even suspected that Lizzie was the murderess, who knows? But this could have been only her speculation, it doesn't mean that Bridget had seen or known something implying Lizzie's guilt.

4. Aamartin, why did you say: "no one else can be tied to the house on that day"? I think if it had been proved that "no one else can be tied to the house on that day", it would have been proved at the same time that Lizzie was the murderess. But the reality is just the contrary: we can't exlude the possibility of an intruder.

I exclude the possibility of an intruder using common sense. Lizzie was acquitted yes. That does not mean she was absolutely without a doubt innocent. Her acquittal means nothing.Guilty people get away with murder all the time. They even get acquitted after a trial. The reasons are varied but it happens. There was no way anyone got into that house and hid out for over an hour without being seen. After going over all of the known evidence for years, gathering my own documents surrounding the case, and visiting the house, I see how improbable it is that anyone got into that house. There simply was no opportunity. There was no way someone could hide out in a house full of locked doors and other members of the household and not be seen for over an hour . Let alone overnight. The idea of that is just completely implausible. My common sense tells me I can exclude it. It also serves no purpose to argue the merit of a theory that has absolutely no proof. It was all made up in someone's head and has nothing to back it up except opinion. They make up their own facts as they go. Like Lizzie being out in the barn masterbating. There is no proof what so ever of this. There is more proof to the contrary. But this is a main idea of this theory. And that John Morse let someone spend the night in the house. There was nowhere for that someone to hide at all. Because Abby had already been upstairs to that guest room, and Bridget had already been down cellar.But this is still argued that John Morse let someone in the house that night.Reading the source documents does not show an understanding of what the information implies. Unless it can be twisted to fit the theory. So I am through arguing the whole idea that John Morse let someone spend the night in the house to murder Abby in the guest room, after he sent a note knowing she'd go right up to that room (for the second time that day), and if she didn't it was OK to kill Lizzie and Bridget, when the murders were committed so Lizzie and Emma could have the money in the first place, all done while he knew that Lizzie would be in the barn masturbating and Bridget was washing windows so nobody would hear the murder, then the killer luckily found the note in Abby's pocket and took it, then slipped downstairs to kill Andrew because he could hear from a second floor bedroom with the door closed that it was ok to come down. Then Lizzie couldn't remember anything an hour after the murders, or show any emotion, due to morphine she was not taking, already knowing she was a suspect before anyone else, and social standing. Arguing a constantly changing theory with no proof is an exercise in futility.

I recently just saw a rerun of the television show on the case that implied Lizzie and Bridget were lovers. There is no evidence of this either. Or that Andrew molested Lizzie. But national television shows can run it and not even call it fiction. I get disgusted with baseless theories being introduced on the premise that just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. I'm here for a serious discussion on the case.

The strength of an argument stems from the quality of the evidence proving it true, not from the lack of evidence proving it false.