Axe what today is the 100th anniversary of...

It’s possible that she did it, but they sure didn’t prove she did it when they brought her to court, and there’s sufficient quantity of strange things not easily explained away by the theory that she did do it that I’d vote for acquittal based on everything I know about it.

The court case presented against her was a spectacularly bad frame-up job. Whether she did or did not do the deed, the case against her was comprised in part of physical and inferential evidence that the prosecution already knew was not valid or relevant; details were presented as if they spelled out a comprehensive description of events only by cherry-picking very carefully among the facts available to them, and this was shown in the courtroom by the defense as they proceeded, making the prosecution look simultaneously incompetent and uninterested in whether she was indeed the murderer.

doublepost

Lizzie did try to buy poison (unsuccessfully) a few weeks before the murders, although she claimed it was to clean a seal coat or something of the sort. The alleged food poisoning that made the whole family sick is something else. Lizzie herself got sick from that, so even if it was the result of foul play, it probably wasn’t she that did it.

“Lizzie Borden”, New Faces of 1952

Crime Library has a good synopsis of the best books claiming Lizzie was guilty and that Lizzie was innocent and a review of the most recent book entitled Lizzie Didn’t Do It. The author of that article seems to leans toward “she did it”.

The irony is that today her guilt or innocence would probably be an open and shut case with modern forensic science, but nothing survives of course. The most damning evidence against Lizzie, circumstantial though it may be, would seem to be

1- her conflicting accounts of her actions that day
2- the oddity of when she chose to burn her dress (which she claimed was stained with menstrual blood)
3- motive (she hated her stepmother, hated her father’s stinginess and stood to gain a ton if he died but might have been disinherited or at least have a much reduced share if he lived)
4- no sign of a struggle or screams would seem to imply that whoever the murderer was they were no stranger to the Bordens

Best evidence in Lizzie’s favor would seem to be

1- there’s a big difference in kleptomania and brutally hacking people with axes, and Lizzie had nothing violent in her past (at least not on par with that), though she did have fits when her father punished her by killing her pet pigeons with, ironically, an ax
2- she was awfully clean that day- if she was the murderess then this was a very premeditated thing because she was able to establish some witnesses and the like seeing her that day and not dishevelled, and yet hacking people to bits with an axe would hardly seem the way a bright lady (or bright anybody) would plot a murder in Victorian Massachusetts, and it would seem to be very very risky as far as not getting caught

It is believed that many of the facts of the case then established are probably wrong. There’s little reason to believe Abby died two hours before her husband as previously established (blood coagulation and body temp were the reasons given for this theory) and he may even have died first. They’re still reasonably sure that the axe blows were what caused the Borden’s deaths, however.

Some of the more crackpot theories in recent years include:

  • Andrew discovered Lizzie and Bridget in a lesbian act and one woman killed him while the other dispatched Stepmom
  • An illegitimate son happened to stop in for the day and axe his dad and then disappear without ever being heard from again or making any claim on the estate
  • The heat caused Lizzie to have a psychotic episode and not even she remembered killing her parents
  • Emma did it, riding like the wind from where she was staying 15 miles away and back so that she could claim she was out of town

But, while certainly not an airtight case, I think Ockham’s Razor would attribute it to “Lizzie Borden took an axe”. She had more motive than anybody else, full access to the inside of the house, as with OJ there’s no other real suspect and none was ever discovered or even much looked for, and her 20+ years of no contact with Emma as circumstantial gravy, plus most importantly at all-

If she hadn’t done it, would Elizabeth Montgomery have really been willing to do a nude scene? It’s just logic. qed

the important bit is: stepmama had to die before papa… money would have gone to step if papa died before her. step’s family would have had a claim even if papa died just a bit before step.

a very important detail in family homicides and the follow the money theories.

note the famous rhyme of the murder…

lizzie borden had an axe… gave her MOTHER 40 whacks.

when she saw what she had done… gave her FATHER 41.

follow the money!

For a good synopsis of the Lizzie Borden affair, no need to go look any farther than the excellent staff report by John Corrado:

Did Lizzie Borden kill her parents with an ax because she was discovered having a lesbian affair? (13-Mar-2001)

His guess: Lizzie Borden and/or the maid Bridget Sullivan are the guilty ones.

I don’t know if she did it or not. But I want those little hatchet shaped earings on the web site.

Does that make me a bad person?

Only if they’re as a gift for your stepmom.

John Corrado needs to check his facts a little more carefully. John Morse was not Abby’s brother - he was brother to Sarah Borden, Lizzie and Emma’s mother.

He was also not visiting his niece that day - John was out with AJ prior to the murders that morning.

The Straight Dope column on the Borden case is my all-time favorite, but this thread is a year and a half old and a 100th anniversary is pretty much a one time thing.

Which is to say, BRAAAAINNSSSSS…

locked.