Lizzie Borden Society Forum

There is plenty of discussions on the internet and I saw a youtube video of one of these historians that is convinced that Lizzie and Bridget were caught in bed by Mrs. Borden and that this is what caused her to attack her parents? In those days homosexuality was not accepted. Has anyone wondered about this theory?

Welcome LizzieMoonlight!

I am not sure if I've come across this theory. I know there are theories that Lizzie may have had male suitors that her dad didn't approve of. I'll be interested in what others have to say.

I assume you are talking about the YouTube video of Ed McBain’s theory: http://tinyurl.com/hsh9was

I have several issues with Mr. McBain’s theory; here are a few of them:

1. Abby left the house and was not expected back for some time. (Abby never left the house on the morning of August 4, 1892.)

2. Lizzie and Bridget were in the house alone, when they decided to take this opportunity to be together. (Bridget had vomited that morning because she was not feeling well, so I highly doubt she would have been up for a sexual encounter with anyone. Furthermore, there is no documented proof for Lizzie or Bridget being lesbians.)

3. Lizzie and Bridget get together in the guest bedroom. (Why that room, when Lizzie's room was a couple of steps away. Wouldn’t Lizzie’s room have been a safer place to be in case someone walked in on them?)

4. Abby comes home early, because it was a hot day and the dress she had on was too hot; she goes into the guest bedroom to change and discovers Lizzie and Bridget in bed together. (Why in the world would she go to the guest bedroom to change her dress? Why not her own bedroom?)

5. Lizzie used a candlestick with a bevelled head to kill Abby. (It is a well known fact that the murder weapon was a hatchet.)

6. Bridget was still in the room when Abby was killed. (At the time Abby was killed, Bridget was outside washing windows.)

7. Lizzie is covered in blood; she washes herself off, changes her dress and takes the bloody rags down to the kitchen and puts them in the slop bucket for menstrual clothes. (The slop bucket used for menstrual cloths was kept in the basement.)

Need I go on? I don’t agree with his theory, at all. It is obvious that Mr. McBain completely ignored the known facts of the Borden murders. McBain’s theory is nothing but a conjecture, for which there is no documented proof, whatsoever. IMO, Mr. McBain’s theory is even more far-fetched than Arnold Brown’s theory!

Not to squash everyone's little shinny bug. But we must be careful not to label a novelist as an historian. Ed McBain, better known as Ivan hunter, and born Salvatore Lambino, and using countless other pseudonyms in books he wrote, was not an historian. His main occupation was making money by writing fiction. His scenario and knowledge about the Borden murders is laughable.

His synopsis is totally based on fiction. Whether or not he tried to sell it as fact, in conclusion it is all bunk.

We can talk about Ed McBain's plot or storyline in the context of fiction but we should not do it as a workable or even a somber topic. Not that we should not talk about it. By all means, lets. But we must not give him the title of historian.

Ed McBain was a very successful writer. HIs main success was in the movie world, with such titles as The Birds, and the The Blackboard Jungle. He wrote countless screenplays, most for TV. And of course the famous novel Lizzie.

But that was all it was. Fiction!

twinsrwe wrote:I assume you are talking about the YouTube video of Ed McBain’s theory: http://tinyurl.com/hsh9was

I have several issues with Mr. McBain’s theory; here are a few of them:

1. Abby left the house and was not expected back for some time. (Abby never left the house on the morning of August 4, 1892.)

2. Lizzie and Bridget were in the house alone, when they decided to take this opportunity to be together. (Bridget had vomited that morning because she was not feeling well, so I highly doubt she would have been up for a sexual encounter with anyone. Furthermore, there is no documented proof for Lizzie or Bridget being lesbians.)

3. Lizzie and Bridget get together in the guest bedroom. (Why that room, when Lizzie's room was a couple of steps away. Wouldn’t Lizzie’s room have been a safer place to be in case someone walked in on them?)

4. Abby comes home early, because it was a hot day and the dress she had on was too hot; she goes into the guest bedroom to change and discovers Lizzie and Bridget in bed together. (Why in the world would she go to the guest bedroom to change her dress? Why not her own bedroom?)

5. Lizzie used a candlestick with a bevelled head to kill Abby. (It is a well known fact that the murder weapon was a hatchet.)

6. Bridget was still in the room when Abby was killed. (At the time Abby was killed, Bridget was outside washing windows.)

7. Lizzie is covered in blood; she washes herself off, changes her dress and takes the bloody rags down to the kitchen and puts them in the slop bucket for menstrual clothes. (The slop bucket used for menstrual cloths was kept in the basement.)

Need I go on? I don’t agree with his theory, at all. It is obvious that Mr. McBain completely ignored the known facts of the Borden murders. McBain’s theory is nothing but a conjecture, for which there is no documented proof, whatsoever. IMO, Mr. McBain’s theory is even more far-fetched than Arnold Brown’s theory!

Yes, you are absolutely correct! I am new to the case of Lizzie Borden. Not as knowledgeable as all the members here in this forum. So the theory of lesbians is a gonner. I am surprise that it still in Youtube. I have always been curious about New England. I guess being a woman that whole history of Salem, and then this case in Fall River made me even more curious. There is also a youtube about the bastard son of Andrew Borden, have you heard about this? It is so hard for me to believe that a daughter could kill her own father, the stepmom I can even see a strong resolve in it, but her own father.

And I read that she was probably being molested by her father. I watched the movie made in 1975 with Elizabeth Montgomery and in that movie the stepmom was trying to outdo the daughters out of their Will. Still to kill her own father to me is so difficult to believe she would do that. Maybe when I come back to the US, I will swing by Fall river and see the house, I could never spend a night in that house. I am not superstitious but I could not have the morbid interest in staying there. I hear even the breakfast is done like the day of the killings. Jonny cakes, have no idea what that it. I saw it in the internet is done with corn meal.
Have you gone to the house?

mbhenty wrote:Not to squash everyone's little shinny bug. But we must be careful not to label a novelist as an historian. Ed McBain, better known as Ivan hunter, and born Salvatore Lambino, and using countless other pseudonyms in books he wrote, was not an historian. His main occupation was making money by writing fiction. His scenario and knowledge about the Borden murders is laughable.

His synopsis is totally based on fiction. Whether or not he tried to sell it as fact, in conclusion it is all bunk.

We can talk about Ed McBain's plot or storyline in the context of fiction but we should not do it as a workable or even a somber topic. Not that we should not talk about it. By all means, lets. But we must not give him the title of historian.

Ed McBain was a very successful writer. HIs main success was in the movie world, with such titles as The Birds, and the The Blackboard Jungle. He wrote countless screenplays, most for TV. And of course the famous novel Lizzie.

But that was all it was. Fiction!

I had no idea that he was the contributor to THE BIRDS. I joined the forum because none of my American friends like to discuss Lizzie Borden, and here in Brasil, if you mention it, people are all squirmish, so I felt pretty isolated. Although, many people down here believe she did kill her father. We have a little diddy here that sings..when it comes to money, relatives turn into serpents...

twinsrwe wrote:I assume you are talking about the YouTube video of Ed McBain’s theory: http://tinyurl.com/hsh9was

I have several issues with Mr. McBain’s theory; here are a few of them:

1. Abby left the house and was not expected back for some time. (Abby never left the house on the morning of August 4, 1892.)

2. Lizzie and Bridget were in the house alone, when they decided to take this opportunity to be together. (Bridget had vomited that morning because she was not feeling well, so I highly doubt she would have been up for a sexual encounter with anyone. Furthermore, there is no documented proof for Lizzie or Bridget being lesbians.)

3. Lizzie and Bridget get together in the guest bedroom. (Why that room, when Lizzie's room was a couple of steps away. Wouldn’t Lizzie’s room have been a safer place to be in case someone walked in on them?)

4. Abby comes home early, because it was a hot day and the dress she had on was too hot; she goes into the guest bedroom to change and discovers Lizzie and Bridget in bed together. (Why in the world would she go to the guest bedroom to change her dress? Why not her own bedroom?)

5. Lizzie used a candlestick with a bevelled head to kill Abby. (It is a well known fact that the murder weapon was a hatchet.)

6. Bridget was still in the room when Abby was killed. (At the time Abby was killed, Bridget was outside washing windows.)

7. Lizzie is covered in blood; she washes herself off, changes her dress and takes the bloody rags down to the kitchen and puts them in the slop bucket for menstrual clothes. (The slop bucket used for menstrual cloths was kept in the basement.)

Need I go on? I don’t agree with his theory, at all. It is obvious that Mr. McBain completely ignored the known facts of the Borden murders. McBain’s theory is nothing but a conjecture, for which there is no documented proof, whatsoever. IMO, Mr. McBain’s theory is even more far-fetched than Arnold Brown’s theory!

You seem very knowledgeable about the Borden case. I have a question for you: Since the people from her town acquitted her, why is it that later on they ignored her and did not seem to want her back into their social lives? I wondered if the people fell sorry to see her hang, but still did want to punish her. What do you think?

Yes lizzieMoonlight:

McBain was very proficient and popular in the movie world. Mostly behind the scenes, writing screenplays.

I had no idea that people in Brazil (Brasil) were familiar with Lizzie Broden.

I have spent time in Brazil. In Niterio. I have family who live in Rio and across Guanabara Bay. We get little news out of Brazil here in the US, unless the new is big, like the Olympics or the presidential problems the country has been going through right now.

Things are scary in Brasil right now. I came only to see about family, but I am single woman and intend to go back to the USA, I am an American citizen, educated in the USA, left Brasil as a teenager. It saddens me to see what is happening here and have to leave my two brothers and 3 nephews here. Although they are all university students and will hopefully leave when they are done with engineering schools. Not to change the object of this forum, but Lizzier Borden is known only to brazilians that speak English and lived in the USA and the ones I speak about, believe that she is the one who committed the crimes. The brazilians believe that she was angry at her father for feeling abused by the old man and that she feared being left without anymoney to survive once he died. I do not know enough about the case to come to that conclusion , specially that the case still unresolved by the experts.

It is so difficult for me to believe a daughter would kill her own father.

Ok to go off topic every once in a while Lizziemoonlight.

When I went to Brazil it must have been around the early 90s. While there I could not get over the contrast between the haves and the have nots. My family were middle class. They had moved there from the island of Madeira in the 40s and 50s. My cousin Rick is a University professor and his sister a lawyer. My other cousin ran a private middle school and her husband is an engineer with Petrobras.

While there, every time I went out I was coached about which streets to avoid, how to walk, talk and who not to talk to. I was not allowed to roam Rio by myself at all. But Niterio was pretty safe, though most apartment houses were on lock down. They even dressed me so I would not look like a foreigner. And I was coached to not wear a watch, carry a wallet, and never carry a camera. Being of Portuguese heritage, I had no problem fitting in.

Even so, one night at a night club a 10 year old boy came up to me selling flowers. My cousin and her husband were dancing so I thought I would buy some and surprise her. I asked the little boy, how much? He said a dollar. When my cousin came off the dance floor she was so upset that she spent the next half hour looking for the little boy to get my money back. Apparently I should have not paid more than 5 cents since most of the flowers grew wild in the fields. Though she was upset I found humor in the young lads adventure. I am certain he had made his money for the night and made sure to disappear.

Like I said, I met a lot of poverty. But everyone was pleasant, kind, and generous, rich or poor.

But that was just about 20 years ago. I suppose much has changed.

LizzieMoonlight, I agree the things going on in Brazil right now is scary, even for someone who is not in the mist of it all. This report from The Wall Street Journal just came in a hour ago: http://tinyurl.com/zyp6oul

I also had no idea that people in Brazil were familiar with Lizzie Borden. Thank you for giving us some insight into how the English speaking Brazilians believe Lizzie was the killer of both Abby and Andrew. Very interesting. I know it is difficult to believe that Lizzie could have killed her own father, but I think a woman is very capable of killing a loved one under certain circumstances. Lizzie had a lot to gain by the death of her father.

Now to reply to your previous questions...

lizzieMoonlight wrote:Yes, you are absolutely correct! I am new to the case of Lizzie Borden. Not as knowledgeable as all the members here in this forum. So the theory of lesbians is a gonner. I am surprise that it still in Youtube. I have always been curious about New England. I guess being a woman that whole history of Salem, and then this case in Fall River made me even more curious. There is also a youtube about the bastard son of Andrew Borden, have you heard about this? It is so hard for me to believe that a daughter could kill her own father, the stepmom I can even see a strong resolve in it, but her own father.

And I read that she was probably being molested by her father. I watched the movie made in 1975 with Elizabeth Montgomery and in that movie the stepmom was trying to outdo the daughters out of their Will. Still to kill her own father to me is so difficult to believe she would do that. Maybe when I come back to the US, I will swing by Fall river and see the house, I could never spend a night in that house. I am not superstitious but I could not have the morbid interest in staying there. I hear even the breakfast is done like the day of the killings. Jonny cakes, have no idea what that it. I saw it in the internet is done with corn meal.
Have you gone to the house?

Please don’t feel intimated because you are new to the Borden Murders Case and don’t have the knowledge that some other members have. All of us have been where you are; just hang in there and over time you will also become just as knowledgeable when it comes to this case. I give you a lot of credit for going through the older threads, and posting your comments and questions. Kudos to you! You will find that there is a vast amount of information from current members as well as previous members as you work through the threads. I would highly recommend that you read the primary documents first, which you can find here (Wait for the page to load): http://tinyurl.com/hqn28c5

There are two books which I also highly recommend: Leonard Rebello’s book titled, Lizzie Borden: Past & Present and Parallel Lives: A Social History of Lizzie A. Borden and Her Fall River, by Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Both of these books are pricey, but worth every penny, and then some.

Yes, Ed McBain’s theory is still on YouTube; it is a video that is valuable in its own right, because it is a theory which keeps coming up, and Mr. McBain believes in his theory. Everyone has a right to believe in whatever theory they wish.

You are correct, there is also a video regarding Andrew Borden’s alleged illegitimate son. That theory was popularize via Arnold Browns’ book titled, Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter. Here is the video you referred to: http://tinyurl.com/q55hnxt There are several threads on the forum regarding Mr. Brown’s theory; as you know, we have a very recent thread regarding Bill Borden titled, Lizzie paid Billy(William) to do the deed. Have you seen the last post I submitted on that thread? ( Here is the link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/gqh96or ).

I have not been to the Second Street House, but I hope to do so one of these days. If I did decide to stay overnight, I’d definitely want to stay in Bridget’s room. I really don’t believe I could stay in the Guest Bedroom where Abby was killed. I have also heard that breakfast consist of the same foods that were served on the day of the murders.

lizzieMoonlight wrote:You seem very knowledgeable about the Borden case. I have a question for you: Since the people from her town acquitted her, why is it that later on they ignored her and did not seem to want her back into their social lives? I wondered if the people fell sorry to see her hang, but still did want to punish her. What do you think?

This is a good question, Moonlight. (I hope it is OK to refer to you as Moonlight.) I think the citizens of Fall River may have ignored or ostracized Lizzie for several reasons. After her acquittal each individual citizen most likely believed she was either innocent or guilty; just like we do today, 123 years after the murders. I think most of their personal opinions were formed through gossip and rumors. Furthermore, I don’t imagine Lizzie’s actions after the murders, during her trial and after her acquittal helped to convince people that she was innocent.

Actions after murders: Lizzie sent, Bridget, the only other living person out to find Dr. Bowen, while she stayed in the house. She couldn’t keep her story straight when questioned by the Fall River Policemen. She didn’t show any emotion, or least not the kind of emotion the officers had expected. She burned a dress with ‘paint’ on it, the day after she was told by the Mayor and City Marshal that she was a suspect. (Note: Emma and Lizzie did place a $5,000 reward notice in the Fall River Daily Globe on August 6, 1892, but no one came forward at that time.)


Actions during the trial: She arrived at her trial carrying a bouquet of pansies. Early in the trial, one reporter noticed that she had replaced her "cheap enamel pin, A Gaudy Hued Pansy" with an expensive pin inscribed "with the innocent face of a child."' Similarly, others painstakingly noted her reactions to witnesses and her general demeanor during the recesses. Reporters commented on her bored reaction to two insignificant witnesses: "Miss Borden yawned and looked on listlessly." Source: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... ntext=yjlh

Actions after acquittal: Instead of using the money from their father’s estate to hire investigators to pursue finding the killer(s) of their parents, Lizzie and Emma used the money to purchase a 13-room Victorian house on “The Hill”, which was one of the city’s most fashionable neighbourhoods. After they moved in Lizzie named the house Maplecroft, and even went so far as to have “Maplecroft” carved into the top step leading up to the front door. Lizzie spent a considerable amount of her time travelling to Boston and New York to indulge in her love of theater. Lizzie’s reaction to the inspection of the Borden Grave Marker may be another tell tale sign of a guilty person; if nothing else her reaction appeared to be mysterious. A person’s reactions, as well as their actions, tell a story which leads us to believe in a person’s guilt, or innocence. Perhaps Lizzie’s reaction to the Grave Marker was one more reason why many of the citizens of Fall River believed that, in spite of her acquittal, she was the killer, and therefore shunned her for the rest of her life.

The Semi-Weekly Democrat. ?/?/1895:


We also need to keep in mind that the people who supported Lizzie during her trial, and then shunned her after she was acquitted, knew her on a personal basis, which is an advantage that we don’t have. It is very possible that with the gossip, rumors and circumstantial evidence presented at the trial, people felt she was unjustly acquitted; perhaps they felt that she may have been innocent of actually killing her parents, but knew who the perpetrator was, which would mean she was guilty of being an accessory to the crime. Lizzie’s conviction or acquittal hinged upon the jury’s acceptance or denial of her gender and class defied role as “ a lady”; although the all-male jury held the power of life or death over Lizzie, her power was contained in her role as a woman.

Yes Twins:

It is as you say: "her power was contained in her role as a woman." That would make quite the difference in 1893.

But it would not fly today. Though all said may be true, if she were tried today the outcome would probably be the same despite he gender of the jury. Remember, no weapon, no blood evidence, no witnesses, to proof.

I totally agree, MB. Without the physical evidence, there really is no other verdict than 'Not Guilty'.

Moonlight, hello and belated welcome to LAB. I'm a middling longtime member away from the forum for a few months due to illness. Here are two academic articles that deal with research-based study on some of the questions you have posed. I had #3 but it must be in the laptop that bit the dust when faced with a spilled glass of orange juice! I hope you enjoy this forum and the people who make it work as much as I have. I won't say that we don't deal in conjecture on occasion, but that conjecture is almost always based on the established facts of the case. I changed the names of the articles to fit them into OS 10 protocol. The real titles are Lizzie Borden Took an Axe: History, Feminism and American Culture by Ann Schofield and The Fall River Tragedy: The Borden Murders of 1892 as a Representation of the Gender and Social Separations in American Victorian Society and the Emergence of a Social and Cultural Phenomenon Afterward by Rachel Sherman. Again, welcome!!

Deb, thank you for posting the two downloadable links. The first one, I found to be quite interesting. However, the second link has a lot of errors in it.

Lol Twins...that would be because it is not the one I intended! What I meant to post is the link that Irina and I stumbled onto several years ago, so it's here somewhere in the archives. I'll see if I can find it in a less foggy moment...:-) The article was about the male viewpoint of women in Victorian society, how to convict Lizzie would be for the all male jury to admit that their own gentle daughters might someday take a hatchet to their own families. This kind of behavior by females was (supposedly) confined to the lower classes - the Irish and Portuguese, servants, etc. To imagine a young woman of good breeding and middling wealth bludgeoning both of her parents to death before lunch stretched the fabric of Victorian society well past the ripping point. The onset of the Roaring Twenties forever changed this perception.

I'm happy to be back; my memory is improving but not as good as it used to be.... I had a terrible time remembering Irina's name!

PS I love the clock avatar!

debbiediablo wrote:Lol Twins...that would be because it is not the one I intended! What I meant to post is the link that Irina and I stumbled onto several years ago, so it's here somewhere in the archives. I'll see if I can find it in a less foggy moment...:-) The article was about the male viewpoint of women in Victorian society, how to convict Lizzie would be for the all male jury to admit that their own gentle daughters might someday take a hatchet to their own families. This kind of behavior by females was (supposedly) confined to the lower classes - the Irish and Portuguese, servants, etc. To imagine a young woman of good breeding and middling wealth bludgeoning both of her parents to death before lunch stretched the fabric of Victorian society well past the ripping point. The onset of the Roaring Twenties forever changed this perception....

Deb, as soon as I read your post, bells went off in my head. In the first download, there is something very similar to this.

Page 98-99 (Highlighting is mine.):

Following an inquest a week later Lizzie Borden was charged with the crime and was brought to trial on June 5,1893. The substance of the trial consisted in trying to discover where Lizzie was at the time of the deed—she claimed to be either eating pears in the garden or searching for fish sinkers in the barn—and why, if she were guilty, neither her bloody dress nor the murder weapon had been found. Despite these very concrete issues, both the prosecution and the defense of Lizzie Borden revolved around less tangible questions of class and gender.

The prosecuter, Hosea Knowlton, well-expressed the centrality of these concepts to the case in his summation to the jury:

The prisoner at the bar is a woman, and a Christian woman, as the expression is used. It is no ordinary criminal that we are trying today. It is one of the rank of lady, the equal of your wife and mine, of your friends and mine, of whom such things had never been suspected or dreamed before. I hope I may never forget, nor in anything that I say here today lose sight of the terrible significance of that fact... I am obliged to tread now upon a more delicate ground. The prisoner is a woman, one of that sex that all high-minded men revere, that all generous men love, that all wise men acknowledge their indebtedness to. It is hard, it is hard, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, to conceive that woman can be guilty of crime but I am obliged to say, what strikes the justice of every man to whom I am talking, that while we revere the sex, while we show our courtesies to them, they are no worse than we. If they lack in strength and coarseness and vigor, they make up for it in cunning, in dispatch, in celerity, in ferocity. If their loves are stronger and more enduring than those of men, am I saying too much that, on the other hand, their hates are more undying, more unyielding, more persistent?'35

The jury, twelve middle-aged, middle class New England gentlemen, proved unable to accept Knowlton's radical reinterpretation of nineteenth-century sex roles, unable to accept the notion that women might be like men, and perhaps, most importantly, unable to envision the possibility that if Lizzie Borden could commit parricide might not their own wives and daughters be capable of the same act? Within an hour they returned a verdict of not guilty. In a strangely ironic way the constraints of her role as a nineteenth-century lady may have pushed Lizzie Borden to her crime but that same role saved her from the gallows. Lizzie, once cast in the role of lady, and she played this role to the hilt every day of the trial, could have no acceptable motive. Her acquittal was as determined by her role as the guilt of the fictional Lizzie is determined by the roles in which Beeson, de Mille, Carter and others cast her. The murder of Andrew and Abby Borden was, as one can tell from the description of the bodies, a crime of great passion, and ladies in Fall River in 1892 were known to be "passionless."36

Is the above information what you are referring to or is there still another article?

debbiediablo wrote:… I'm happy to be back; my memory is improving but not as good as it used to be.... I had a terrible time remembering Irina's name!

I am thrilled that you are back. Hopefully your memory will continue to improve. Hang in there, my friend, you are a huge asset to this forum.

debbiediablo wrote:PS I love the clock avatar!

Thanks, Deb. I have always loved Grandfather Clocks. Until the early 20th century, pendulum clocks were the world's most accurate timekeeping technology, due to their superior accuracy, served as time standards for households and businesses. The first grandfather clock was created around 1680 by British clockmaker William Clement.

http://tinyurl.com/j4zawxa

twinsrwe wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:12 pm I totally agree, MB. Without the physical evidence, there really is no other verdict than 'Not Guilty'.

I'm replying to a four year old post, but I just went back and listened to the Generation Why podcast on the Borden case from 2014, and Aaron, one of the two hosts, states the opinion that the jury actually got it wrong, because he doesn't see how anyone else could have done the killings without Lizzie knowing or being a target.

People have been convicted for murder without physical evidence linking them to a crime. All a prosecution needs to do is convince a jury that it's unreasonable anyone else could have committed the murders without Lizzie knowing or being a target. Of course if she has a good defense team like she did in 1892, that makes it a much harder sell. But you never know.

I do think it's unreasonable that anyone else committed the crime given what is known, but probably not in a legal sense when deciding someone's fate.

debbiediablo wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:31 am Lol Twins...that would be because it is not the one I intended! What I meant to post is the link that Irina and I stumbled onto several years ago, so it's here somewhere in the archives. I'll see if I can find it in a less foggy moment...:-) The article was about the male viewpoint of women in Victorian society, how to convict Lizzie would be for the all male jury to admit that their own gentle daughters might someday take a hatchet to their own families. This kind of behavior by females was (supposedly) confined to the lower classes - the Irish and Portuguese, servants, etc. To imagine a young woman of good breeding and middling wealth bludgeoning both of her parents to death before lunch stretched the fabric of Victorian society well past the ripping point. The onset of the Roaring Twenties forever changed this perception.

I'm happy to be back; my memory is improving but not as good as it used to be.... I had a terrible time remembering Irina's name!

I am stunned that the social construct DIVIDE was almost as bad in 1892-3 as today. The crowd cheered when Lizzie's Juror Foreperson said "Not Guilty" and most of that crowd, from what I have read so far, was mostly women of elite status. Women did not have the Vote back then, and were NOT regarded as Men's Equals. However, once Lizzie was acquitted, most of those same cheerleading ladies in lattice patterned dresses ostracized Lizzie as the purpose had been met: get rid of the 36 extra Telegraph lines because of the trial, get rid of the Media 24/7, and wipe away any stain that may have befallen Fall River, MA. You see this today with " My angel did not do that( insert crime here)". When I was a Security Guard at a Mall near Wash. DC in the 1980's( before crime REALLY broke the charts) almost every mother that was called to the Police Station all had that same line. " We don't act like that". In 1981 there was no in-store hidden cameras back then. 1982 they were installed. So when those same mothers repeated that throw-away line " My honor role student did not shoplift" we sat them down and played the tapes. EVERY time it was " I gotta call my's Lawyers" and that was that. Not one time did they ever admit that there was a problem that needed correcting.

The same is linked here wit this horrific Lizzie Borden case. Paraphrasing a bit here: " We can't let the world know that one of our own 'lost it' over father's money!"; "only the lower scum classes act like that". I do think people respected Law Enforcement more back in the 1890's in a far better way than today. Not even a contest.

Don't think that the Elites of any Era do not stick together. Look at our Congress.

I have a strong opinion on this case but will gather more credibility before. revealing that conclusion and HOW I reached that conclusion.

Mr. Jack Remington

I believe Lizzie COULD have been a lesbian but we'll never know for sure. But I don't believe she ever had anything going with Bridgett. She may have been involved with Nance O'Neill. I still wonder about that one.

PattiG157 wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 8:06 pm I believe Lizzie COULD have been a lesbian but we'll never know for sure. But I don't believe she ever had anything going with Bridgett. She may have been involved with Nance O'Neill. I still wonder about that one.

I don't know of evidence that points to poor Bridget being anything other than what she seemed--a scared servant girl from abroad who did NOT want to get caught up in this kind of drama. I don't think she had any involvement in the murders, either--altho it's hard to believe she didn't have at least strong suspicions about Lizzie's actions that day. I do think Bridget may have seen/heard/intuited a lot more than she was willing to admit. Does that make her some kind of accessory to murder? Dunno. But I can't see her being involved in anything very nefarious, unless she was a lot more jaded than she seemed.

As for Nance, I'd almost forgotten about her! You do have to wonder about her relationship with Lizzie.

I agree. I also believe she knew who committed the crime but maybe she learned about it later, because didn't she leave the Borden home on the day of the murders and never came back because she was scared the murderer would come back? Anyway, I do agree that she had nothing to do with the murders. And I don't believe she and Lizzie were ever romantically involved. But these are just my opinions and nothing else!

As a lesbian woman I'll throw in my 2 cents. Ha. 1st, as a gay gal growing up in the Bible belt south in a religious home, I can relate pretty well to a closeted religious Victorian woman. It really gives me a unique advantage of reading between the lines. #2, omg I absolutely hate the Ed McBain theory. It's "a bain" on my argument! Ha. The mere fact that a heterosexual man openly admits that he wrote lesbian sex scenes (which were cringe worthy, in my opinion) because "sex sales" is wildly offensive, and also then somehow makes plp disregard any validity to Lizzie possibly being gay. Which, I agree we can't know 100%, but the fact that some dude wrote a book to be salacious gets to shut the case is annoying. Ha. Sorry. Strong feelings about McBain. (Ps I also don't agree w his gay panic snapped theory.) Anyhoo... we also have to remember being gay at this time was considered a crime and could very well put a young lady in a lunatic hospital for her "mental illness". Its not the sort of thing she was going to make a public announcement about... though I think her actions w Nance was close. I knew all about "best friends" before I came out. Ha. But it's not only the Nance thing for me. Its a lot of little ones. At the end, I just think she has a lot of gay smoke... for it to turn out to be a heterosexual fire. And in the Victorian Era, you really have to earn that. It wasn't anyone's 1st assumption back then. Oh and PS.... I suspected Lizzie might be gay way before I ever stumbled into McBain's theory, simply from my own research and interpretation. BUT this is only my opinion and I respect everyone's thoughts. I think it's a fun topic

Lizzie may indeed have been gay. But all the theories around motive based on being caught with Bridget, Uncle John, or incest and abuse from Andrew Borden are pure speculation. We don't have evidence for any of that. And it's not needed. If Lizzie did it, there was plenty of motive that we do have evidence for. She and Emma didn't approve of her stepmom, their father was unwilling to use his financial means to move up in society, and Lizzie was an independent woman stuck in that house. Also, it seems relations inside the house between Lizzie and Abby and Lizzie and Andrew were deteriorating over time.

As to why Lizzie was able to go on and live a normal life, outside of being ostracized and having a bad rep, it's because the situation was dealt with and she got what she wanted, with the small setback of being on trial first. You don't need to be a crazed axe murdering serial killer to do bad things. In the Hinterkaifeck axe murders, if the killer was indeed the neighbor who had a serious financial and personal paternity dispute with the murdered family, then this person continued living their normal life in the same place after the horrific murders, while townspeople remained suspicious.

I absolutely agree about all the "getting caught with ___" speculation, marchesk. And I def agree one doesn't have to be a crazy maniac to do something bad. Circumstances can play a very big role in why an otherwise normal person might kill.

LABRhush wrote: Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:30 pmCircumstances can play a very big role in why an otherwise normal person might kill.

Which is unsettling. And I'm not immune to speculation, but sometimes I've seen people comment in various places as if speculation was evidence. Was just responding to the thread title as far as speculation goes, because I don't believe there was any indication that Lizzie and Bridgett had a thing. They were in a different social classes for one thing, although that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

One interesting relevant detail I did forget about in my random mention of the Hinterkaifeck murders was that the police searched the property extensively and couldn't find the murder weapon, and even used dogs, but then when the house was torn down, it was found in a false door by the fireplace. Which makes one wonder about the Borden house. Someone living there would know of any really good hiding places.

Adding on to this thread a good while after its latest post (June of 2020)

McBain's "theory" is infuriating and lacks even a basic understanding of the known facts of the case. That said, what I find interesting and certainly noteworthy is the idea that Lizzie was Queer. Despite rumors spread after the murders, there is no evidence that Lizzie ever showed interest in men or sex in general (not that such interests would be openly expressed in ways contemporary readers might expect). Something else we know that is mentioned all too infrequently is that we know there was a significant disruption in Lizzie's female role-model with the death of her mother and the animosity between her and Abby Borden. Yes, Emma stepped in to act as a mother, but she was also a child - the blind leading the blind...I just don't buy that Lizzie had a stable female role-model in either Emma or Abby Borden. With respect to Bridget, there's no evidence to suggest that her and Lizzie were romantically involved. The evidence often used to suggest this is the $5000 paid to Bridget by Mr. Jennings on behalf of the Borden sisters to return to Ireland and never come back. This seems to be alluded to in the inscription outside the house of George Winston in Anaconda, MT (for whom Bridget worked and where she spent the rest of her days after returning from Ireland post-trial) that says "The maid never spoke of the crime, but reportedly confessed on her deathbed in 1948 that Lizzie, who was acquitted, paid Sullivan for her evasive testimony." There's also a strange anecdote that I cannot source from the so-called "historical" tours of the Borden house that Sullivan got a bad case of pneumonia about a year before she died (so around 1947) and was told to prepare her final goodbyes. According to the anecdote, she wrote to a friend from Fall River telling her that she had to reveal a terrible secret before she died. The friend high-tailed it out to Montana only to discover that Bridget had made a full recovery and dismissed her letter as "I was just being dramatic." That has no independent source outside of what a tour guide of the Borden House said so take it with a grain of salt. But then again, the inscription outside the Winston home has no source listed, and as far as I can find nobody has been able to track down the source of this claim.

Someone here pointed out that Lizzie and Bridget were of different classes which they said was further evidence against this theory - that said, we know now of one of Lizzie's female servants at Maplecroft who underwent significant health problems, treatment for which Lizzie financed. Some read more into this to suggest that maybe Lizzie wasn't so class-obsessed in this respect, especially considering how subversive queerness would have been for the time in the first place. Then again, we know she was generally very generous and affectionate with her house staff and virtually everyone who remained loyal to her after the trial. The strongest evidence we have of Lizzie's queerness are the deeply affectionate letters between her and Nance O'Neil as well as their highly-publicized outings and parties - I believe it was Nance who gave Lizzie the pet-name 'Lizbeth' with which she was buried ('Parallel Lives' by Michael Martins & Dennis Binette pg. 727-729, at the very least, Nance's inscription in this book dated in 1904 is the first known instance of Lizzie being addressed as 'Lizbeth' which she subsequently used everywhere).

Perhaps even more infuriating than McBain's speculation is the way other Borden historians (many of whom I have a deep respect for and, as such, will redact their names) dismiss the idea of Lizzie as Queer out of hand, and often without much care for what they express when dismissing this idea. For example, one historian in a lecture, mentioning the letters between Lizzie and Nance, said "People use this to suggest that Lizzie was something different from you and me." ("something"? why some "thing"? "different from you and me"? was it a convention of explicitly heterosexual Borden history fanatics? NOTE: I am not suggesting this historian is actively hateful by any stretch. I am simply noting the general lack of care when talking about Queer people in this context on the part of virtually every Borden historian I've read/listened to).

In another interview with a different Borden historian, they mentioned "People like this theory because it ties up a few loose ends, but I think just because a woman shows no interest in men or in sex that that doesn't automatically make her a lesbian." I'll note this historian is heterosexual and, as far as I'm aware, is not literate in Queer theory, and thus would have absolutely no tools with which to read between the lines. I can't help but point out how odd it is that this someone is more inclined to deem Lizzie asexual than they are to deem her lesbian...despite the not insignificant evidence to the latter. When dealing with people of the past, we have to understand that if anything was written down on something that was meant to be kept (not burned or otherwise disposed of), it would not be admissions of something that would send you to the asylum or to prison. We wouldn't be expecting to read a 50 Shades-type letter, but we might expect something Byronic, flowery, something beyond what one would expect to hear between two platonic friends. Sure enough, we have the handwritten "Flower and Thorn" poem in the volume of Aldrich poetry dedicated to "my dear Lizbeth with love from Daphne" first published in 'Parallel Lives'. Martins & Binette go on to mention that pet names and diminutives were quite common in this era, but Lizzie didn't just have a nickname like the other examples they give (Margaret into "Daisy", Mary into "Mame", etc). She, here as in virtually every other aspect of her life, broke with convention by not just changing her name without having married, but by publicly changing her first name. The fact that Lizzie and Nance felt strongly enough about each other to give one another pet names, that Lizzie undertook an action commonly associated with marriage but with an almost literary subversion of the trope by changing her first name to the very pet name believed to have been given to her by Nance O'Neil, a woman who is known to have had a lesbian relationship after leaving Fall River (more explicit love letters surfaced after her death in 1965 between herself and a female friend), suggests something a bit more intimate than these Borden historians seem to want to admit. No, there are no letters in which they give detailed descriptions of their intimate feelings/intimate knowledge of one another. We wouldn't expect to read such letters from the Victorian era - go back even to Karl Heinrich Ulrich - the first man to publicly declare himself homosexual in Germany of 1862 - he never got into it beyond stating the nature of the attraction.

Speaking of late 19th-century Germany - we know that Lizzie passed through Germany in her 19-week tour of Europe of 1890, specifically Nuremberg, Cologne, and Munich, followed by a stay at Innsbruck, Austria. It is not wholly unreasonable/unlikely that if she passed through Berlin she would have seen the initial murmurings of Magnus Hirschfeld and his Scientific-Humanitarian Committee (considered the founding of Queer studies and rights advocacy in the modern period) unless very specifically shielded from it. We know she was deeply affected by this trip - preserving cards and photographs of the famous scenes/artworks she'd witnessed in two well-bound scrapbook volumes (parts of which were reproduced in 'Parallel Lives'). I mean, hell, kids today who do a one-week exchange program can't shut up about their trips to "Bar-the-lona" for years afterwards so imagine the impact this would've had on someone without the advent of the internet or air travel....Then again, the idea is pure speculation as I have no idea whether she would have passed through Berlin or whether she would've been able to encounter Hirschfeld's Committee (not officially established until 1897, but first began to meet as early as 1888) or any of their published works.

Also interesting to note in a podcast interview with Michael Martins and Dennis Binette they mentioned a reticence on the part of Borden-affiliate descendants to share the information they had with anyone. They talk about how many Fall Riverites who had connections to Lizzie were "disgusted" by the common portrayals of Lizzie Borden...regularly bemoaning the ax-wielding maniac portrayal, yet stopping short at mention of anything Sapphic. Martins went on to lambast Victoria Lincoln saying "I think she was a traitor to her class by writing [A Private Disgrace], she should have known better." He waffles as to the book's contributions to Borden/Fall River history, saying that she elaborated on social relations with Fall River (the part with which he seemed to take most issue), that she was the first to provide a glimpse into the relationship with Nance O'Neil and the potted palms, the orchestra, and such at Maplecroft, but that a good portion of the book was fully fabricated by Lincoln, who was a novelist by trade, not a historian. At first, I disregarded that comment about being a "class traitor" but then he says - "The Lincoln Family, although somewhat progressive, were well-connected and lived up on the Hill." This made me perk up - "progressive" how? Would this progressiveness have precluded the Lincolns from being accepted in "polite society", if so, how? Are we to understand this progressiveness in the contemporary political meaning of the term or in an unmentioned and more obscure meaning? And then of course it begs the question what "class" did Victoria Lincoln betray? ...It just opens up a rabbit hole that I don't think has been satisfactorily explored.
(link here: https://youtu.be/hpq73Jym7zA)

That same podcaster brings this idea up in a few episodes and dismisses it by suggesting that the nature of the relationship between Lizzie and Nance may have been more intimate than a regular friendship but that it would have been "more complicated" than "simply a lesbian affair." This strikes me as the same kind of nonsense and illogic used to platonize the relationships between Achilles and Patroclus, Michelangelo and Tommaso dei Cavalieri, King James I and the Duke of Buckingham - even to totally sanitize all of Sappho's poetry as "expressions of a chaste woman" (Henry T. Wharton is the latest proponent of that nonsense). In short, it strikes me as deeply homophobic. Those who first leveled the charge against Lizzie did so to demean her. Those who dismiss this charge out of hand tend to admit they do so out of either deep sympathy for Lizzie or a belief in her innocence and, because they see her in that light it would be anathema to them to see her as a lesbian - it might even be easier for them to believe she was asexual. (NOTE: It does not wash with me that people who profess their belief in Lizzie's innocence and promulgate her status as a tragic and sympathetic figure outright dismiss the idea of Lizzie as Queer because they have hard evidence to the contrary [they don't] or have genuine, Queer-informed interpretations of the same evidence that leads them to other conclusions [if any such interpretations exist, I've not found them]. The only *reason* considering Lizzie as Queer would be wholly anathema to people who wish to promulgate her innocence and perpetuate her story as a tragic figure would be if they believed the idea of Lizzie being Queer would negate the idea that she was either innocent or a tragic figure...which...uh...yeah that's just homophobic I hope I don't have to explain further)

I actually found one take on this that was perhaps most perplexing - that because homosexuality was not acceptable in Lizzie's lifetime and she might not have known of the concept, that she could not have been a lesbian. It struck me as the same non-argument that Deleuze made against a popular theory about the death of Tutankhamun being caused by tuberculosis (a theory later disproven by better technology) - that because tuberculosis was not a known pathogen to the ancient Egyptians (much in the same way staph infections weren't known as such), it could not have been tuberculosis. Basically, that because they wouldn't have called it tuberculosis, it could not have been tuberculosis. In this case, that because Lizzie would not have known about lesbianism in that terminology that she could not have been a lesbian...patently absurd, at least to me.

I've not found someone who writes eloquently and accurately on the subject who suggests that she might have been a lesbian *and* that her guilt or innocence is *not* further illuminated by this potential insight. In part, thanks to "McBain" or whatever his real name is, the idea of Lizzie being condemned by her stepmother and father for her sexuality as a new motive for the murder is in the aether, and has tainted subsequent investigations into this question. I think a lot of Borden historians dismiss this idea out of hand because they don't want to investigate it thoroughly, either because of prejudice or because they think they'd be feeding into McBain's unfounded nonsense and want to avoid that at any and all costs...even the cost of a simultaneously accurate and fresh perspective - the idea that she might have been Queer *AND* that that had no real bearing on her guilt or innocence, her potential motives, or her relationship with Emma. It certainly *could* provide more context and *could* make some things make more sense, but I would also be cautious to treat it as the key to the whole case as McBain suggests. Just to give an analogy from my primary field in the music world - we know that Franz Schubert was gay, and we know he had a horrible relationship with his father. For nearly a century, discussions of Schubert were limited solely to his harmony and consideration of texture. After this revelation, Schubert literature was dominated by all these catchy narratives of "this song is actually about Schubert's sexuality" and "this symphony actually represents Schubert's father" - all with far less substantive evidence than can be found in this case. It's only recently that a new take on this has started getting published - that Schubert was gay, that he had a horrible relationship with his father, that in *some* instances these things showed up in his work but that in most instances, they did not, because people are multifaceted and no one aspect of them can explain all others.

Just to add my own experiences into this, when I first went to tour the Borden House, I went on a whim last Sunday, I wore what to me is normal clothing for the summer (for context, I'm a gay man): a white shirt and a pair of shorts. Apparently my shirt's wide collar was enough to identify me as an outsider - one worthy of turned heads, non-plussed stares, low murmurs. We Queer folk are no strangers to this kind of behavior, but I can say it was rather palpable to me. It's not so outlandish to conclude that there might be some prejudice still at work here with respect to this aspect of Lizzie's life.

Yes this post took me around five hours to write to make sure I wasn't taking anything out of context or being overly harsh. I think Lizzie as Queer is still an open question, much like her guilt/innocence, and I wish that someone with the time/expertise (i.e. knows some Queer theory enough to be able to read between the lines without distortion or fabrication) would comb over this case and the biographical information we have of all the key players...sadly, I don't think that's coming down the pipeline anytime soon

As far as I can tell, There is no more or less evidence that Lizzie was a lesbian than if she was molested by her father, had a half brother or a boyfriend. I tend to ignore all of these storylines since they seem less like deductive speculation and more like theories to gain attention. I doubt lizzies sexual orientation had anything directly to do with the murders.

camgarsky4 wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 10:09 pm As far as I can tell, There is no more or less evidence that Lizzie was a lesbian than if she was molested by her father, had a half brother or a boyfriend. I tend to ignore all of these storylines since they seem less like deductive speculation and more like theories to gain attention. I doubt lizzies sexual orientation had anything directly to do with the murders.

Let's unpack that a little bit please:

As far as I know, the only "evidence" of Billy Borden as Andrew's illegitimate son and then having something to do with the murders is a book by mid-twentieth century novelist.

As far as I know, the only "evidence" of Andrew Borden molesting Lizzie is that he didn't wear a wedding ring, but that he wore a gold band given to him by Lizzie. There was briefly a rumor that he was wearing her class ring but first, Lizzie didn't graduate high school, and second, the school didn't give out class rings - they gave out pens.

With Lizzie as a lesbian we have -
1. That Lizzie was deemed a "spinster", there's a whole field of Queer theory and sociology that examines the nature of "spinsterhood" in relation to Queer identities. There's a not-insignificant overlap between women deemed "spinsters" and women who demonstrated attraction toward other women. It's not uniformly the case, but it's nothing to sneeze at.

2. The 1896 letter to Mrs. Cummings, "I dreamed of you last night, but I do not dare put my dream on paper." This was written when Mrs. Cummings had taken ill shortly after a nasty newspaper spread a rumor that her and Lizzie were romantically involved, for which Lizzie wrote a letter previously profusely apologizing. Some have interpreted above quote to be sexual, I interpret it more as her having had a dream that Mrs. Cummings died or something grievous like that in the context of the rest of the letter. Still, worth submitting as evidence.

3. The 1904 Aldrich poem written by Nance O'Neil gifted to Lizzie - "my dear Lizbeth with love from Daphne." Bolstered by Nance O'Neil's lesbian relationship with a close friend after leaving Fall River. Bolstered further by the fact that this is the first known instance of Lizzie being addressed as "Lizbeth", and that she subsequently went by Lizbeth publicly (when not incognito as Mary Smith Borden, that is) - even being buried with that name.

As I stated above, I don't think that if Lizzie was a lesbian that that has any bearing on her guilt or innocence. It's simply another potential facet of her life. The evidence for Lizzie as Queer is far stronger than either of the two other theories you'd mentioned. It's by no means conclusive, but I can't help but find it a bit disingenuous that this basic premise of Lizzie might have been a lesbian is thrown in with the likes of Frank Spiering despite the evidence just stated vs the total lack of evidence the other theories have. Does it necessarily follow that if Lizzie was a lesbian that she was either innocent or guilty? No. Not in the slightest. But it is worth examining seriously if we want a better understanding of her life.

To make sure I’m tracking, are u saying I was disingenuous?

As I said in the previous post:
"I think a lot of Borden historians dismiss this idea out of hand because they don't want to investigate it thoroughly, either because of prejudice or because they think they'd be feeding into McBain's unfounded nonsense and want to avoid that at any and all costs...even the cost of a simultaneously accurate and fresh perspective - the idea that she might have been Queer *AND* that that had no real bearing on her guilt or innocence, her potential motives, or her relationship with Emma. It certainly *could* provide more context and *could* make some things make more sense"
And in the post to which you're referring:
"I can't help but find it a bit disingenuous that this basic premise of Lizzie might have been a lesbian is thrown in with the likes of Frank Spiering despite the evidence just stated vs the total lack of evidence the other theories have."
Nothing personal about it. It's extremely odd (to say the least) that Borden historians and Borden history fanatics lump the idea of Lizzie Being Queer in with the likes Frank Spiering or the molestation angle or the Billy Borden theory despite the fact that there is significantly more evidence for Lizzie Being Queer than all of those theories put together.

Lol wow. Swinell, you and I are 100% on the same page! I don't know if you've seen my previous posts but... 100%. I can't wait to go through all your post when I have more time. I've written a book, shopping it now, that, though will shelf at historical fiction, hits SEVERAL of your points. I do have to say I love the... she didn't know any better theory. Even when there's no specific language for it, you know. Ask one Miss Anne Lister about that. I think it comes from a good ol takes one to know one aspect sometimes. Not always, but with historical figures, def sometimes. I will say everyone on the forum has been wonderfully respectful of me and my opinions. And in regards to Lizzie’s letters to ladies you referenced, I really connected to a podcast referencing the letters between Emily Dickinson and Susan Huntington (Dickinson)... "if those letters were between Emily and a man not one person, then or now, would question the romantic relationship." People just assume other people are heterosexual, and unfortunately it has erased much of our queer history. And visibility can mean the world when you're a scared, closeted queer kid.