Tonight on Investigation Discovery, the series Deadly Women premiered an episode about the Lizzie Borden case titled “Lady of Blood.” I had high hopes for this documentary as I know first hand the amount of research this production company conducted prior to interviewing me and others in Fall River last October.
I really liked the dramatizations of the family, events, and the city of Fall River. The production value is absolutely first rate. The Lizzie they cast in this show was more Lizzie than any other presented in any other show on the case thus far, in my opinion. The accents were right, the clothing seemed to this untrained eye to be accurate, and the repeated insertion of actual scenes of the city of Fall River really worked to make the rest of the interiors and location shots seem quite right.
However, I was very disappointed that the show “went there” with the rumors and innuendo about Lizzie killing cats and birds as a child, that she was in need of money (she was not), or that she was the only person who had the opportunity to commit the crimes. I object to several statements by Fanning, the crime author, who was relied upon much too heavily for background story and timeline sequencing of the case. She obviously knew nothing about Lizzie’s life after the trial and was too quick to assume all sorts of gossip as truth.
So once again, myth reigns supreme and is reinforced in a network presentation of the case.
I am also disappointed with the expert talking head who does all the episodes—Candice deLong. She was so sure of herself, which made what she said doubly believable. Unfortunately, she was also stuck on Lizzie’s guilt and reported as fact some events in Lizzie’s life and the case that were not accurate. For instance, she said that the inquest testimony was ruled inadmissible because Lizzie was on morphine. Not so. It was ruled inadmissible because Lizzie was suspected, a warrant had been issued but not served, and she was not represented by an attorney during the proceeding. Likewise, the druggist’s testimony was not ruled inadmissible. It was not ruled at all. Arguments were heard in open court and then a recess was held. Upon returning from the recess, nothing more was said. There is nothing in the trial record to say why this testimony was not to be heard.
Myself and Michael Martins and Dennis Binette are probably the only three people in this episode who actually knew what they were speaking about. This leaves me to believe, once again, that the controversial, violent, and gruesome theories reign supreme on TV. They don’t seem as interested in the facts.
Lovely show. Factually problematic. A rehash of gossip. And a silencing of the truth, once again.
