Good morning!
Teen (and others), what are the reasons that there are doubts of Lizzie's guilt of participation in the murders.
I've started the list with a couple obvious issues.
1) No definitive murder weapon found on the property
2) Roughly 10 - 13 minutes between chatting w/ Bridget in kitchen and calling Bridget down.
Enough time to kill and, then, make oneself presentable and composed to Bridget?
That is pretty much all I can come up with, but I'm sure there are other aspects that cause doubt in others opinions.
ps. 10-13 minutes is my interpretation of the available information. Please add to post if you have differing view of the time lag.
Reasons to doubt Lizzie's guilt
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
-
TeenaBee
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2025 2:32 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Teena Booth
Re: Reasons to doubt Lizzie's guilt
Wonderful question! It would be a challenge to come up with a concise list exactly of why I doubt Lizzie's guilt. It's less that I have a list of particulars, other than ones you listed: The lack of a definitive weapon, yes. The no blood on her person, which would have been challenging to make to disappear in such a short time window. (I agree with your assessment of that window, 10 to 13 minutes)
It's more that I have been looking at each piece of evidence that historically has been accepted as proof of guilt and I so often come up with signs of "spinning" or exaggeration or just plain speculation by the prosecution. Such as Lizzie's supposed seething hatred of Abby, which in court at least was based on a few fairly mild comments that are no different than any kid might make about a stepparent, but in Knowlton's closing it becomes this malignant force of evil. So to my list I would add, lack of believable motive.
Or, the burning of the Bedford cord, a dress that Emma says she saw in the clothes press the night before, but which Knowton insists was concealed. One has to either believe Emma either perjured herself and helped cover up a murder (least likely to me) or that Fleet and Seaver just didn't notice a dress with "drab" paint stains (more likely to me, as they weren't looking for paint stains).
I think you already know how I believe her demeanor has been unfairly judged as some kind of sign of guilt. And then there's her inquest testimony, which so many people regard as damning, and it is, on first reading it made me cringe how much she seems to be lying her face off. But as I have gone over it several times, I find it not very reliable because of the way it was handled. I see Knowlton literally refusing to let Lizzie say "I don't know," he keeps pressing her to answer things she clearly says she doesn't know or doesn't remember, so she tries her best to come up with answers, say about the fishing sinkers, but her answers only seem to infuriate him, so he badgers her some more, mocks her, makes her repeat her story over and over, playing "gotcha" with every small variance. It is not a great way to get helpful information from a witness (the supposed reason to hold the inquest) but turns out to be a great way to make a suspect look like a guilty liar.
So your list is short, and your point very valid that there is not a lot that points specifically to innocence over guilt. For me, it's more that the many things that point to guilt often seem manufactured to me through that initial rush to judgement in 1892, or through being locked in as "givens" from the long cultural assumption of her guilt since that time. There are only a few pieces of evidence that I cannot find any good way to explain outside of her guilt, like the story of the note, for example, or the eyewitness testimony about the prussic acid. There was clearly no spinning or exaggeration in those instances. But how it looks to me is that because the police had Eli Bence and friends pointing at Lizzie from that very first evening, they were pretty sure they had their murderer. Add that to her poor showing at the inquest and there you go, they were completely sure they had their killer, and everything they learned afterward was interpreted and shaped by the prosecution through that lens.
So more than any one particular thing making me doubt Lizzie's guilt, it's more the way so much was interpreted through the lens of guilt, perhaps rightfully so. BUT. What if Eli Bence and friends were mistaken in their identification of Lizzie? (Both Abby and Bridget believed she was home sick all morning). Mistaken identity does happen, as hundreds of DNA exonerees can tell you. Then the foundation on which the case was built starts to crumble for me...
I had never put all this in words for myself before, about why I somtimes feel so uneasy about how the case was prosecuted, and so often doubtful of guilt, so thank you for asking that question!
It's more that I have been looking at each piece of evidence that historically has been accepted as proof of guilt and I so often come up with signs of "spinning" or exaggeration or just plain speculation by the prosecution. Such as Lizzie's supposed seething hatred of Abby, which in court at least was based on a few fairly mild comments that are no different than any kid might make about a stepparent, but in Knowlton's closing it becomes this malignant force of evil. So to my list I would add, lack of believable motive.
Or, the burning of the Bedford cord, a dress that Emma says she saw in the clothes press the night before, but which Knowton insists was concealed. One has to either believe Emma either perjured herself and helped cover up a murder (least likely to me) or that Fleet and Seaver just didn't notice a dress with "drab" paint stains (more likely to me, as they weren't looking for paint stains).
I think you already know how I believe her demeanor has been unfairly judged as some kind of sign of guilt. And then there's her inquest testimony, which so many people regard as damning, and it is, on first reading it made me cringe how much she seems to be lying her face off. But as I have gone over it several times, I find it not very reliable because of the way it was handled. I see Knowlton literally refusing to let Lizzie say "I don't know," he keeps pressing her to answer things she clearly says she doesn't know or doesn't remember, so she tries her best to come up with answers, say about the fishing sinkers, but her answers only seem to infuriate him, so he badgers her some more, mocks her, makes her repeat her story over and over, playing "gotcha" with every small variance. It is not a great way to get helpful information from a witness (the supposed reason to hold the inquest) but turns out to be a great way to make a suspect look like a guilty liar.
So your list is short, and your point very valid that there is not a lot that points specifically to innocence over guilt. For me, it's more that the many things that point to guilt often seem manufactured to me through that initial rush to judgement in 1892, or through being locked in as "givens" from the long cultural assumption of her guilt since that time. There are only a few pieces of evidence that I cannot find any good way to explain outside of her guilt, like the story of the note, for example, or the eyewitness testimony about the prussic acid. There was clearly no spinning or exaggeration in those instances. But how it looks to me is that because the police had Eli Bence and friends pointing at Lizzie from that very first evening, they were pretty sure they had their murderer. Add that to her poor showing at the inquest and there you go, they were completely sure they had their killer, and everything they learned afterward was interpreted and shaped by the prosecution through that lens.
So more than any one particular thing making me doubt Lizzie's guilt, it's more the way so much was interpreted through the lens of guilt, perhaps rightfully so. BUT. What if Eli Bence and friends were mistaken in their identification of Lizzie? (Both Abby and Bridget believed she was home sick all morning). Mistaken identity does happen, as hundreds of DNA exonerees can tell you. Then the foundation on which the case was built starts to crumble for me...
I had never put all this in words for myself before, about why I somtimes feel so uneasy about how the case was prosecuted, and so often doubtful of guilt, so thank you for asking that question!
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Reasons to doubt Lizzie's guilt
Teen - thanks for sharing your thoughts....they've got me thinking and I'll follow up soon.
For other readers who might not be familiar with Bridget's testimony, she stated in her testimony that she did not know if Lizzie left the house between breakfast and the noon meal. Lizzie's attorney tried 3x to get Bridget to provide Lizzie an alibi for the pharmacy visit, but each time Bridget was consistent in her response.
The three men at the pharmacy testified that the female customer who requested the prussic acid visited the shop around 10:30am. I find it compelling that they identified a time which fits precisely within the window of time that Lizzie was not seen (to our knowledge) by a member of the Borden family.
Bridget Preliminary Hearing. Defense doing the questioning. Page 55
Q. Wednesday morning was the morning they came down stairs, and had all been sick?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You had the pork steak and something for breakfast?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And Lizzie complained of being sick?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Lizzie stayed in her room all that forenoon, did not she?
A. I suppose so; I did not see her until she came to dinner.
Q. You knew she was upstairs. They were all sick and ailing that day?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. She did not go out at all that day, did she, so far as you know?
A. Miss Lizzie? I did not see her.
Q. So far as you know she did not go out?
A. I could not say whether she went out or not.
Q. That Wednesday morning they came down and had all been sick during the night?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They had breakfast, and they looked pretty badly, or rather Mr. and Mrs. Borden did?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And Lizzie complained?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They ate a little breakfast, and Lizzie went back up stairs to her room?
A. I suppose so. She went out of my sight, I do not know where she went.
For other readers who might not be familiar with Bridget's testimony, she stated in her testimony that she did not know if Lizzie left the house between breakfast and the noon meal. Lizzie's attorney tried 3x to get Bridget to provide Lizzie an alibi for the pharmacy visit, but each time Bridget was consistent in her response.
The three men at the pharmacy testified that the female customer who requested the prussic acid visited the shop around 10:30am. I find it compelling that they identified a time which fits precisely within the window of time that Lizzie was not seen (to our knowledge) by a member of the Borden family.
Bridget Preliminary Hearing. Defense doing the questioning. Page 55
Q. Wednesday morning was the morning they came down stairs, and had all been sick?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You had the pork steak and something for breakfast?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And Lizzie complained of being sick?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Lizzie stayed in her room all that forenoon, did not she?
A. I suppose so; I did not see her until she came to dinner.
Q. You knew she was upstairs. They were all sick and ailing that day?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. She did not go out at all that day, did she, so far as you know?
A. Miss Lizzie? I did not see her.
Q. So far as you know she did not go out?
A. I could not say whether she went out or not.
Q. That Wednesday morning they came down and had all been sick during the night?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They had breakfast, and they looked pretty badly, or rather Mr. and Mrs. Borden did?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And Lizzie complained?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. They ate a little breakfast, and Lizzie went back up stairs to her room?
A. I suppose so. She went out of my sight, I do not know where she went.
-
TeenaBee
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2025 2:32 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Teena Booth
Re: Reasons to doubt Lizzie's guilt
Yep, can't argue with you there, it is like you say, very compelling that the three men claimed to have see Lizzie saw her at a time when Bridget did not have her eyes on Lizzie between breakfast and the noon meal. That's why I consider the prussic acid story one of the things that stop me from going overly far into the "doubt Lizzie's guilt" direction. But Bridget and Abby did apparently believe, at the time anyway, that Lizzie was up in her room sick all morning and they didn't see or hear her go out or come back in, so seems to me its not possible to prove that she was or wasn't in her room one way or the other. Well, except for the eyewitness testimony of the three men at the drug store. Hard to refute for sure! But Lizzie did refute it, and there reamins for me the haunting possibility, however small, that those men could have misidentified her.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Reasons to doubt Lizzie's guilt
The lack of a clear cut murder weapon and the narrow window of time for Andrew's killing give me pause. I am starting to lean towards the possibility that Lizzie had an accomplice.
-
TeenaBee
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2025 2:32 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Teena Booth
Re: Reasons to doubt Lizzie's guilt
Ooo, an accomplice, that made me perk up, that is not an option I have often entertained, I do get stuck in the binary of "she did it/she didn't do it", and haven't thought far outside that particular box. Hope you will expand on that sometime!