I was wondering anyone has any thoughts about the case. If so what are they and why.
Do you think Lizzie really took an ax to stepmom and dad???
Why do you think she did it?
How did she get rid of the blood and bits of matter?
What do you think happened to ax?
From my understanding, she gave her mother 40 whacks. Or so has been reported. Not sure what happened to her father.
Lizzie Borden took an axe, and gave her mother forty wacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty one.
Or so the saying goes.
See
It could have been the housekeeper, at least from what I read.
They found the axe that was used, the defense attorney had it hidden in his basement.
I think I’ve made my opinion clear.
Ficer67- from whence the info that the defense attorney had it in his basement? As far as I knew, the prosecutor had the ax in question, but the confused testimony by the police officers raised questions as to whether it really was the murder weapon.
John, you appear to have made a minor error is saying that John Morse was Abby’s brother. He was not related to her at all - he was the brother of Lizzie’s mother (Andrew’s first wife).
Also, for your statement that:
Here’s what I’ve found:
Not much to go by, of course, but this is probably the source of the rumor.
As compared to what I’ve read, your article is most lacking in that it leaves out the most damning evidence against Lizzie; that being her attempts to purchase poison in the week prior to the murders, and her inconsistent statements at the inquest. Both of these were not admitted at the trial which helped her beat the rap, but in considering who really did it these are of paramount significance.
Yes, she did!
She did, she did, she did!
She dyed her hair!
None of this “only her hairdresser knows for sure” stuff for the Straight Dope, nossiree!
I still think it was the half brother.
In their book The Cases That Haunt Us , John Douglas and Mark Olshaker conclude that Lizzie most certainly did it.
Why? She had motive, and her relationship with the fam wasn’t too good at the time. They give a much more detailed account, of course.
Got it. Thanks for the catch.
Good find- I wasn’t able to find that reference previously. Still, it’s one person making a statement with no corroboration. Great gossip, but not anything we can really consider proof.
On the poison- really, it’s circumstantial at best. Yes, the Borden family was very ill immediately before the murders… but no evidence of poisoning was ever found, either by the autopsy or by the local doctor who had been summoned. The fact that she was trying to buy rat poison a week before her parents were butchered by an ax-murderer is not a really strong connection.
Perhaps not in much depth, but I do cover her inconsistent story. Keep in mind, I was trying to write a Staff Report- there’s only so much I can say before the reader starts glazing over.
[grumble] And I did say that the evidence points to her as the most likely candidate, dagummit.[/grumble]
I don’t agree… again, the poison doesn’t prove a thing. And her poor testimony… several police officers and witnesses also gave confused, contradictory testimony. Does that mean that they did it?
There’s less to this than meets the eye. The “local doctor who had been summoned” did not run any medical tests to see if Abby was being poisoned. The symptoms of food poisoning are similar to those of arsenic poisoning, and the normal response is to assume that a person showing such symptoms is suffering from the former (this also appears to have been the assumption of Andrew Borden). It is only in retrospect, with the knowledge that Abby was right - there was someone out to kill her - and Lizzie’s attempted purchase, that the illnesses become significant. But the doctor’s judgement in the absence of this knowledge is meaningless.
The autopsy might mean a bit more, but not much, IMHO. The autopsy did not find prussic acid, but Lizzie was unsuccessful at purchasing it (the day before the murders). The suggestion is that she might have been previously attempting to poison them with some other poison, say arsenic, which was apparently widely available. The arsenic would no longer have been in their stomachs by the time of the murders in any event.
(It is a bit misleading to refer to the prussic acid as “rat poison” - it’s not like it was being sold as a prepackaged rat poison - best I can tell it was sold as plain prussic acid. Lizzie said she needed it to get rid of moths from some article of clothing she had.)
In any event, Lizzie herself seemed to think it was significant, as she specifically denied at the inquest having attempted to purchase it. (This was contradicted by several witnesses). The fact that she apparently gave inconsistent versions of her whereabouts on the morning of the purchase does not help her case either.
Of course, this is not conclusive in and of itself. (This is true of all evidence in the case.) Still, the most likely explanation is that Lizzie resolved kill her parents with arsenic, but only succeeded in making them ill and arousing Abby’s suspicions. Then she turned to the stronger prussic acid, but was stymied in her attempts at acquiring it. Thus frustrated, she took a more direct approach.
Understood. But there’s inconsistencies and inconsistencies. Standard procedure in trials is for the lawyers to pick at inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses. How successful they are is crucial in determining whether the witnesses are unreliable, liars, or merely failing to remember relatively insignificant details. In the case of Lizzie, her testimony at the inquest was apparently inconsistent enough - about matters such as her motivation for going up to the barn (her alibi) and her whereabouts when her father came home - to be one of the causes of her being prosecuted. Keeping this testimony out of the trial was one of the key victories of the defense.
I should also add with regard to your article that while you note that some neighborhood boys said the loft was very cool, Lizzie herself agreed at the inquest that the loft was the hottest place on the premises. So either the prosecution theory (Lizzie opened a window) is correct or Lizzie had no idea how hot it was in the loft, having never been there in the first place.
Again, there’s no one piece of conclusive evidence in this case. But if you add everything up, it all points in one direction.
Hijack, but has anybody stayed in the bed & breakfast? I’m thinking of going there this summer.