Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Below are a few comments posted on a different thread. They've been on my mind since reading them and I thought a good topic for a separate thread.

Assuming Lizzie was actively involved in the Borden murders, then something sparked her to take action to end their lives. I agree that the primary driving force was lifestyle dissatisfaction. That said, it would be safe to say that a huge majority of humans throughout history have longed for bigger and better. While most will handle this desire by trying to get a better job, accepting reality or wallow in jealousy and envy; a very very small fraction take criminal action to better their lot in life. Embezzlement is bad, but no one has their life ended. Killing to accelerate an inheritance or to receive life insurance proceeds is pure evil and is a strong indication that the killer is extremely self-centered. They decide that their happiness is more important than someone else's life. That is why I think Lizzie had to have had a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Since John Morse had previously and inappropriately told the sisters about AJB's Last Will & Testament, I imagine it was John that also told Emma & Lizzie about the Fourth St. purchase. AJB shared his business dealings with Morse. I think Emma always despised and resented Abby and used her sisterly influence to convince Lizzie that the transaction was wrong and that Abby was a bad person. With the seed planted, Lizzie spent the next five years becoming more and more dismissive of Abby. Along with that emotional transition, I suspect Lizzie also became emotionally detached from Andrew.

In my opinion, Abby, trying to make sure her half-sister didn't lose her home was appropriate and not worthy of criticism. Lizzie's opinion of the arrangement didn't and shouldn't have entered Abby's thinking when she made her request to Andrew.

Same goes for AJB. To our knowledge, he never engaged in physically hurtful conduct towards his daughters. He enabled them to live a worry free life with no responsibilities. He was almost 70 years old. His father lived to 80 years. So if they just waited another decade if would all be theirs. But Lizzie didn't want to wait. If she was the killer, she owns 100% of the blame and responsibility.

Lorcan wrote: Mon Apr 20, 2026 8:25 pm I blame Andrew for not spending less than 1% of his money on upstairs bathrooms, valuing his Yankee Puritan ego over his daughters' comfort and dignity. I blame Andrew for not buying a house like Maplecroft and leaving it in his name, if ego needs be, (just 4% of his money - a simple real estate investment and he could have let 2 middle-aged women live there without a man of the house. I do not buy the social convention argument - there were many widows of the civil war and wealthy unmarried women in that neighborhood at that time, including Emma and Lizzie just months after the crime). Andrew chose to live by his rules. Andrew chose to dole out a $4 per week allowance. Andrew chose to never let Lizzie have the dignity of a private door. Andrew chose to not tell his daughters what he had done when he bought the half-share of the house for Abby's half-sister.

I blame Abby for advocating for Sarah to get a house when Lizzie's bedroom was the size of Abby's closet. I blame Abby and Andrew for the humiliation, betrayal, and loss of influence Lizzie felt when an outsider told her that her parents bought half the house for Sarah, a woman 2 years younger than Lizzie.

I think a lot of us, especially early in their research into the Borden Mystery, psychologically have to try to make sense of such a violent murder and the most natural common reason, which would be they must have done something to inspire such a personal violent outburst when we think it was someone who never did something like that before nor after.

The type of blame seems to be influenced on the era or our personal experiences. I think we have some clues. Abby was struck face to face, was struck wildly to the upper back likely as she fell, then straddled and pummeled 17 more times. To me, that says rage.

We can't be sure Andrew was an original target, but we can guess that whoever killed Abby thought Andrew was a threat at the time he was killed. His wounds were also brutal, but they were delivered while he slept and if the first blow was the hardest, the one that passed through his eye, he likely never fully realized what was happening.

Assuming rage was involved, only Lizzie and Emma have any motive I can comprehend. I think Emma has a very strong alibi for not being the one to physically swing the hatchets. Lizzie not only has no alibi, but there is a continuous flood of circumstantial evidence against her, most notably her own words, actions, and the layout of the house and surrounding neighborhood.

Do I think the motive was greed?

No.

I think it was profound loss, resentment, betrayal, and fear - fear of the future, fear of a loss of identity, status, and any hope of controlling her future.

The words of Lizzie's friends and relatives are pretty consistent: she had a strong will, she was blunt, she felt her class position, and all that entails, was an intrinsic part of her identity.

Threats to the very core of the one's ego, one's identity, often result in fear and then either anger pushed outward or self-loathing pushed inward, depending on the personality. Lizzie leans toward anger pushed outward, I think.

What is this threat? The role of father or her being his special girl, I think was represented by the ring she gave him. He wore no wedding ring, only Lizzie's ring. I think it was Lizzie's assurance that she was his special daughter. They went fishing together. Lizzie said she was never denied something she asked of him, although sometimes she had to ask two or three times. I think her perceived influence over Andrew gave her a sense of safety as a child and that influence faded as she got older. But what of Abby's influence over father? Was that growing or fading? Is the hierarchy changing? We have three adult women whose only source of income was Andrew, whose main source of power and status was their influence on him and his decisions. Abby's power was growing and Lizzie's was fading. That causes the pressure to build, the tension to rise, but I think there was a trigger for that rage and I think there was a deadline.

Andrew used money as a tool. He leveraged his willpower into a business. He leveraged a bit of profit, through frugality into investment. He leveraged one investment into another, with discipline and determination. That Puritan, Yankee work ethic and frugality served him well in his goal, but it put his daughters onto an island, socially far above the working class immigrants who surrounded their house and far below their cousins and peers by surname, if not by social standing.

Lizzie and Emma could not live their lives, as debutante Bordens, if Andrew would not separate his personality and perspective from theirs. Andrew made a series of choices that I think lead to the unjustified, but perhaps understandable, murders.

1. Andrew chose to live close to his businesses for his own convenience to the detriment of his daughters.

2. Andrew chose to not have running water and bathtubs on the second floor.

3. Andrew apparently chose to give Lizzie a bedroom without a private door, roughly the same size as Abby's clothes closet, a room smaller than the guest room, which had a private door, a room smaller than the servant's quarters, also with a private door.

To put things into perspective, the entire cost of the Maplecroft house was less than 5% of Andrew's net worth. Andrew was a carpenter and owned a carpentry business. He could have remodeled the house completely for a tiny fraction of 1% of his net worth and chose not to. He deliberately chose to remove the water from the second floor. He spent money to remove the water from the second floor. Why? The only reason I can think of is he thought he didn't need it and since he was not going to extend it to the entire second floor, then nobody gets running water up there. Frugal and fair, right?

All of this contributed to the underlying tension, but what triggered the violence. Here is what I currently think.

Why did Lizzie go from calling Abby mother to calling her Mrs. Borden. I think it was literally the shift Lizzie saw in Abby's role. Abby treated Sarah Whitehead like a daughter, or granddaughter, being two years younger than Lizzie. Abby babysat her kids. Abby successfully advocated for Sarah to have a paid off house, albeit in Abby's name, but still, at the time, Lizzie was in a bedroom with no private door, the size of Abby's clothes closet and Abby influenced Andrew to ensure she had the safety and dignity of a paid off house.

A step-mother's half sister has so much more than daddy's special girl? That is a dagger to the heart. But that's not the worst of it.

Daddy and mother decided to keep it secret. Were they ashamed? Or did they think it was none of Lizzie's business? Which is worse from Lizzie's perspective?

What did Lizzie feel the moment an outsider, maliciously or not, broke the news to Lizzie?

The pain was not about money, which is why money never healed it. It was the secrecy. The loss of status. The getting put in your place.

The animosity was stewing, the pressure was building, but it wasn't enough to push Lizzie over the edge, assuming she was the killer.

What would push Lizzie over the edge? Andrew and Abby were fully aware of the pain they had caused Lizzie and Emma by not only buying the house for Sarah while not giving in to any of the daughter's requests, such as for a bathtub. A bathtub, Andrew. Buy the bathtub, you stubborn man.
What would cause the rage of August 4th?

What if they chose to do it again, knowing full well the pain they had caused their daughters?

Whether it was a will or the Swansea Farms, if Andrew and Abby chose once again to alter the daughter's future without discussing it with them first, that pain, that final break in trust, that is what I think swung the hatchet.

"He (Andrew) deliberately chose to remove the water from the second floor. He spent money to remove the water from the second floor."

Until 1874, the Second St. house, as did all homes in Fall River, had a well for its water supply. The water would be manually brought to the sink rooms for use cleaning dishes and washing laundry. Afterwards, the 'used' water would be drained using the downspouts still visible in 1892 photos of the back of the house. There is a water tank in the attic which would indicate that the 2nd story sink room may have gotten water from that source using gravity, but that would mean another set of steps to climb to manually fill the water tank.

Borden Second Street well The sink rooms are on top of each other allowing for a single downspout for drainage.
That all changed in 1874 when Fall River made city water available to residents. Andrew took advantage of this new home comfort and had running water installed at Second St. within a few months of its availability.

Fall River Historical Society Report. Vol 9. No. 1 Winter/Spring 1997
At Andrew Borden's Second Street home, the connection for city water (applied for under Account No. 223) was made on June 19, 1874, by Cook and Grew, plumbers. The house was outfitted with not one, but two, faucets. Water rates as published by the Fall River Water Board were $5.00 annually for one faucet and $2.50 annually for each additional faucet, thereby resulting in a $7.50 water charge for the Borden residence.
So much has been said about the stinginess of Andrew Borden but this discovery causes him to be perceived in a different light, not only because he had city water, but when he had it installed. According to the Report of the Watuppa Water Board to the City Council of Fall River, in a brief history of the Water Works published in 1875, it is stated that "the engine was started on the 5th of January 1874; and on the 8th the water was in the mains as far as Main Street. On May 8, 1874, about twelve miles of cast iron water pipes had been laid, and 100 service connections had been attached." Andrew Borden's application and subsequent installation in his home were done not six months after the convenience was first made available to the residents of Fall River.

The two faucets installed in 1874 were in the kitchen and cellar. At a subsequent point, a faucet was added in the barn.

The second story of the house never had running water and, therefore, Andrew did not have it removed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Andrew and Abby were fully aware of the pain they had caused Lizzie and Emma by not only buying the house for Sarah while not giving in to any of the daughter's requests, such as for a bathtub."

I was unaware of any known requests Lizzie or Emma made regarding the home. What is the source?

For the second time in 24 hours, and about the fourth time in a week, I spent an hour writing a big thoughtful post about this subject that is very interesting to me, and somehow I touched the wrong key, I don't even know what, but my window snapped shut again and all is lost. I know enough to cut and paste to a document before I hit submit because of time-out issues, but I don't know what to do about the whole thing disappearing in the middle of typing it. So I am tapping out of posting here for awhile to go lick my frustrated wounds, but I will continue to read all your interesting thoughts, you people who better know how to correctly operate a message board ha, you give me excellent food for thought. What is most ironic to me is that all the things the guilty-side offers to justify guilt somehow just pushes me more stubbornly toward thinking her innocent, and I would imagine the reverse could also be true. So it has probably been for the Lizzie-obsessed for 130-whatever years. Thank you! Teena

It comes from Knowlton's closing argument in the preliminary hearing - I trusted him on this one based on what I think all of Lizzie's and Emma's perceived social peers had on The Hill and Maplecroft's very nice bathrooms (for the era) and Lizzie's additions, later.

Hosea Knowlton
“The first obvious inquiry is, who is benefited by that removal. God forbid I should impute that motive, but what have we before us? I don’t know what was the cause of it. I have discovered the fact that she has repudiated the relation of mother and daughter. I knew once two boys who in growing to be men discovered that their father had committed a crime and called him Mr., but I never heard of another case of that sort. We’ve got the terrible fact. She has repudiated the name of mother. Has Your Honor, as I have, ever learned that no more lasting hatred ever springs up than between step-parents and their children? We have seen that he didn’t provide the house with gas, that he hadn’t in the house what those daughters very much wanted, a bath tub, and that they quarrelled about property. Do you suppose that was a sufficient motive? I grant that that is not an adequate motive for killing her. There is no adequate motive for killing her. But I have found the only person in the world with whom she was not in accord.”

TeenaBee - we don't want to lose your input. Please use a word processor and then just paste into the message board when your document is fully ready and safely saved. You're the only one actively on the board who posts, that I know of, that believes Lizzie was more likely than not, innocent. I know my investigation benefits from seeing your perspective and thinking about where my weak points and assumptions are. Camgarsky gives me great feedback and he knows that as a true fan of Sherlock, I welcome the feedback and never take it as a personal slight. My favorite Sherlock quote is:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". -Sherlock Holmes, Silver Blaze

Lorcan (aka Mr. Techie), look away so my message to Teenabee doesn't make you scream!!

Teenabee, I often lose more complex posts just like you describe. The 'trick' I use now is to open a new email and use that as my drafting board. Once completed I just copy and paste to the forum.

If its a really long post and you need to take a break or do something else, all you need to do is send the email to yourself. Then when you have time to go back to the post, just open your email, forward to yourself and you can edit.

Thanks. Maybe Knowlton knew something that escaped the rabid newspaper people looking for every little tantalizing tidbit.

I think Lizzie wanted the life of Anna and Carrie Borden, so if they had tubs near their bedrooms, Lizzie would have wanted the same.

Sometimes , similar to Lorcan’s words,I wonder if Emma (self admittedly) not getting along with Abby as well as Lizzie, had unknowingly over time influenced Lizzie.
If true and Lizzie being the one who did the deeds, would leave Emma in a precarious situation upon her return.
She had no choice but to support Lizzie.
When Emma left Maplecroft, had she come to her limits although harboring guilt for her words against Abby, and knowing Lizzie took them literally?

I'll risk straying off topic a bit, because it's just the four of us. Inspector, here's my theory to answer your question. It may be just me trying to give Lizzie a bit of redemption and a bittersweet ending, but until I find proof I'm wrong, I want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I have a theory that Emma really was upset with Lizzie’s parties and her relationships, but I think after one of the arguments, Lizzie may have had a moment of clarity and said something like, "Emma, I finally have the freedom to live the way I want to at Maplecroft, but you are once again living in a house that prevents you from being truly happy. The only way you will get accepted back into society is if you publicly and convincingly shun me, so shun me."

"Start with the Reverend Buck, and let people know you can’t abide my lifestyle. Make it believable. Once you are sure the relevant people believe you, let’s make a big show of you leaving. We will only be able to speak to each other over the phone at our lawyer's offices or when we are assured of privacy, but we will both finally be free to live our lives as we see fit."

"Thank you for being a mother to me and protecting me all these years. You fulfilled your promise to mother. Baby Lizzie is gone, only Lizbeth remains, and I want you to have peace and happiness the rest of your life, but the only way that is possible is if the world thinks you shunned me."

Reasons I can harbor this hope for Lizzie and Emma:

1. She lived with Lizzie at Maplecroft for 12 years after the murders.

2. She knew whether or not Lizzie lied about the dress and other things. I am 99.999% sure Emma knew whether Lizzie was guilty or not long before she left Maplecroft.

3. She only moved 3 / 10ths of a mile away, and within sight (3 doors down) from Andrew Jennings. If trees were not in the way, Lizzie would have been able to see where Emma initially lived after moving out of Maplecroft.

4. They still owned joint property until their deaths and didn't split ownership to fully divest from each other.

5. Their lawyers and real estate manager(s) certainly communicated about these investments.

That’s a plausible theory, and one I quite enjoyed reading.
I thought you were heading in a different direction, but I like your thought process and their 12 years together is good indication they got along well.
I hope Emma wasn’t as bad as I was theorizing , and she didn’t say things that drove Lizzie to kill.
I don’t like the thought she’d have to live with that .

Even though she defended her sister, I for some reason have always thought she was somewhat of a decent person, and wouldn’t be involved in the crimes.
Being she was like a mother to Lizzie, it’s hard to imagine she didn’t know more than she told.