Reddit's open forum for discussion of all aspects of actual crimes and their legal processes. Unlike some subs, our community allows videos or links to kick off discussion. Be kind to others and enjoy the true crime conversations.
Text
People who think she was innocent what reasoning convinces you?
People who think she was guilty what reasoning convinces you?
I just finished the LPOTL episodes about her, and I really don't know, all the evidence her seems circumstantial. Even though I'm not sure about her guilt, I do think the decision to acquit her was the right one, but it the prosecutipn didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt she did it.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I liked what Marcus said in the episode: “There’s no way she could have done it, but there’s no one else who could have done it.” Basically the conundrum of the case in a nutshell. I genuinely have no clue. Very odd case.
& its so frustrating bc if the murders would have happened today, there would be like a 99% chance it would be solved (most likely with forensic evidence) 😤
I think she was very, very angry young lady that lived her life with the only people she wanted to see. I've been bordering on agoraphobia for decades. I can assure you she didn't live a fullfilling life.
It’s interesting to note that her life changed dramatically after her parents’ deaths. It reminds me of people who thrive after leaving toxic relationships.
She lived in a time where you were still under your father's rule if you were an unmarried woman. Tensions probably got pretty bad because of that.
Its so sad to have to accept that your own family was holding you hostage, emotionally. It can be even harder to know the best next steps. I don't think anyone has acted entirely rationally after deciding they had to be free.
Absolutely. I don’t know if she did it, but I’m glad she was able to make the best of her newfound freedom.
I feel the same way. I go back and forth on this one. It's one of those cases that will never be solved.
I have always suspected the lurking man.
I haven’t studied this case much, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was another person in the house? A housekeeper or something? Or did she kill her too?
Not sure if Lizzie (not Lizzy) swung the hatchet herself on that Aug 4, 1892 morning. But I do think she at least knew who did and was involved in a conspiracy or coverup or both.
I think Bridget Sullivan, the family maid, and Lizzie's sister Emma (who was out of town) knew or heard more than they ever told; I think it's also possible the suspicious visitor Uncle John Morse was involved. Maybe also the family doctor, Dr. Seabury Bowen.
Either way, there is still plenty of reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's theory that Lizzie acted alone, out of greed. The jury is often accused of acquitting her solely on disbelief that a prim, proper, Victorian-era New England spinster could commit such a brutal time. Surely that played into it, but truth is the known timeline and evidence leave plenty of doubt and unanswered questions around Lizzie's possible guilt.
The Borden House at 92 Second Street was on a busy downtown thoroughfare. Bridget, neighbor Mrs. Caroline Kelly, and local workmen saw Andrew alive near or at home ~10:40-10:45. By 11 or 11:05, while sitting or resting on his couch, his face had been obliterated by blows from a hatchet or cleaver. Bridget recalled Lizzie calling for help shortly after the city clock chimed 11. People saw Bridget running around 11-11:05. Mrs. Adelaide Churchill, a neighbor, entered the Borden home ~11:05-11:10 to help, saw Andrew dead on the couch, then fetched a stable boy to phone police. Fall River police took the phone call at 11:15.
The first neighbors, police, and doctors to see Andrew's body reported his blood was still red, fresh, and flowing. He had not been dead long, unlike Abby whose blood was dark, coagulated, and drying.
I can't get past that within minutes of the second murder, Lizzie was surrounded by multiple people who all reported she had not a hair out place, no blood on her, no wetness to indicate she had washed up, nothing. No bloody clothing ever definitely found, no murder weapon definitively established.
How, if she did it herself alone, could she have pulled off such a brutal, bloody crime and successfully hidden all traces of evidence in 15-20 minutes tops sight unseen? Why would she not have tried to establish a stronger alibi, or attempted to incriminate someone else?
Yet she alone is known to have the strongest motive + opportunity for both murders, committed 1-2 hours apart. (I say "known to" based on known evidence; there are other rational but speculative scenarios involving other plausible suspects). The case is just baffling, a locked-door mystery.
To me it's the ultimate true crime case:
The shocking and iconic crime scene photos
The brazenness and brutality of the crime, committed in broad daylight at a home on a busy street.
The socioeconomic implications, regarding Victorian era repression and subversiveness, exploring the unknown darkness behind respectable family facades.
The unlikely victims and suspect, who is now seen as feminist outlaw in Americana and folklore.
The whodunit aspect, with a colorful and mysterious cast of characters, like the boardgame Clue
And has endless, puzzling plot twists:
Lizzie's alleged but unconfirmed attempt to purchase poison the week of
Uncle John showing up the day before without luggage, and having an alleged confrontation with Andrew over business matters
Abby fetching Dr. Bowen's the night before worried she was being poisoned, and being rebuffed by an angry Andrew
Lizzie's ominous visit to a friend, Alice Russell, warning of danger
Lizzie being cleared as a suspect, until Alice Russell came forward to say she and Emma saw Lizzie burning an alleged paint-stained dress after the murders (if guilty, and if that was the murder dress, why burn it in broad daylight in front of two people?)
Lizzie's dressmaker coming forward during trial to say indeed the Borden house was being painted when she was there making the dress
The prison matron overhearing Lizzie complaining "You gave given me away" to Emma
Lizzie quickly moving to a big home on The Hill after her acauittal, then being ostracized by the same Fall River high society that steadfastefly supported her June 1893 acquittal
Lizzie's alleged but unconfirmed affair with actress Nance O'Neill in the early 1900s
Emma moving away from their new home in 1905, and never speaking to Lizzie again while still always defending her innocence
Emma dying from a fall in 1927 a week after Lizzie died of gallbladder illness
The refusal of the friends who stuck by Lizzie and Emma post-trial to ever discuss the case
Bridget allegedly wanting to make a deathbed confession of new info in the early 1950s, but claiming up when reporters found out
The office of Lizzie's trial lawyer, Gov. George Robinson, still to this day refusing to release his Borden case papers
It's a fascinating, subversive study of the Victorian age WASP culture, and of American stereotypes about gender, class, ethnicity, and family. It's stunning to think Lizzie may have used outdated tropes about femininity to get away with a murderous escape from sexist oppression of women of her place and era. She feels like an outlaw and anti-hero, someone we know we shouldn't cheer for, but do.
Worth noting that recent mock trials based on the case -- with modern juries that know women like Lizzie can indeed kill -- she still ends up acquitted. Just not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Oh, the doctor - never thought of him being involved…
I’m not sure she is guilty. If she had committed such a bloody crime & she cleaned herself up, her hair bothers me. I’m not sure it would be dry by the time the murders were discovered. Surely someone would have noticed it being at least still damp.
They didn't have running water either so hopping a quick shower wouldn't have been possible, she would have had to take a sponge bath, which is anything but quick. To think she cleaned herself fully before getting the maid, only moments after Andrew was killed, isn't fathomable to me.
So you think a stranger brutally murdered both and then was able to just walk away down main street covered in blood and not be noticed by anybody ?
I am not saying that happened, but it could have happened. Strange things have been known to happen. And why would it be a stranger walking away? And not someone familiar with?
You're more likely to be murdered by someone you know. Her parents seemed both well endowed and quite frugal. That may have rubbed anyone the wrong way.
In the late 1800’s if they were dressed as a butcher people most likely wouldn’t even bat an eye
What was she wearing on her head when the police arrived?
That's an interesting detail! Good thinking
My daughter had that kinda hair it was a chore to dry. She had blow dryers & diffusers &&&&. It still took awhile. And I know it was a hot day, so. But even a wet head on a hot day can stay damp, cause it sweats. Also I believe there was a bit of time between Abby & Andrew’s death. Did the murderer just stay a mess? Did they clean up a little? You know there had to be some bloody foot prints. Someone had to do some cleaning. I know John Douglas the profiler feels that Lizzie is guilty. As much as we think we want to know, do we really? It sure would lose a lot of appeal if we truly knew. 🤷♀️
You have to consider not only temperature, but humidity. I have thick, porous hair, and a lot of it. I have it cut over my shoulder and it takes around 3-4 hours to dry completely at around 30°C because where I live has a high % of humidity.
My hair is very thin and reaches my waist and it takes 30-60 minutes to dry in my cold dry climate so this is blowing my mind 😂 I’m so sorry for all you have to endure lmao
OMG, I have chin length wavy hair that is fine, but I have a TON. It can take 8 hours to dry. 8 hours! It is insane and just so annoying.
We have high humidity in MA, so I like your thinking.
Wouldnt her clothing also be damp? Collar of shirt and shoulders from hair drying. Iykyk.
Probably not if she had pinned up. It was a hot day so she may have had it pinned. There’s pros & cons to her guilt, innocence. But at that time women were not always viewed as being capable of such violence. And a gentleman would never vote her guilty. There’s quite a bit interesting on both sides. It sure keeps the story living.
If I were a very angry, hurt young woman then, I'd tie my hair back in a bedsheet or pillowcase that would be laundered, and rinsed them as well as possible. She absolutely could have committed the murders. Other people had motive, but they definitely didn't just leave her there.
I am loving this thread.
I did research about something and I ended up accidentally studying murders of a certain time period in relation, unintentionally. They were axe murders, in the time period right before regular ownership of a gun was common on farms, but just after when news sources were more commonly available, so I had a small chunk of history about mass murders that were just like this case.
Axe murders appeared in the news much more than I expected, and almost always family annihilation cases where many members of a family lived together, and almost always with multiple generations in the home.
Almost 100% of the time there was a male survivor who had been the killer. In the odd cases where not, a male killer had committed suicide by some other method, by hanging, etc. I did find a few cases where a female member of the family was left alive by the male attacker, or a sole child. They were sometimes wounded, sometimes not.
I don't recall any cases where a woman was the murderer, as overpowering male family members would be difficult with an axe unnoticed. I'm sure there are some, just not the ones I came across.
Often an older matriarch or patriarch was killed more gruesomely.
I personally strongly believe these were cases of threats of exposed incest, rape, or homosexuality, or caregiver burnout of elderly family members with dementia. The male killers seemed to be the main adult male responsible for the family, mostly.
In the Lizzie Borden case, there was poisoning first, which is almost always done by women.
It was clear that Abby was likely using Andrew's dementia (he was 72, paranoid about pigeons, and giving away his wealth), to transfer wealth to herself and her family before he died.
As for Lizzie and her sister going in the basement with a slop pail, they could have had their periods and needed to wash their period supplies as was done back then, privately at night, as it was stated she was bent over a sink. Back then the cops wouldn't have been to up-to-par with puritan methods of handling women's hygiene, and already "didn't like her attitude" so were eyeing her on purpose.
To me that sounds like a male case of threatened because the woman is smart in any way.
I think the planted dust on the hatchet-head is an absurd reach. An officer even said the hatchet handle was there and that the other officers were lying, so most of the facts I take with a grain of salt, such as her contradictory statements ever happening in the first place, and so on.
Her memory changes, from what I read, sound just like trauma responses. They aren't elaborately detailed, which is what liars usually do, they sound vague and confused.
Meanwhile, the uncle "had provided an "absurdly perfect and over-detailed alibi for the death of Abby Borden."
The maid's statements were easily influenced (threats) by a bunch of male cops out to target Lizzie.
It sounds to me like the sisters had enough of their step-mother abusing them via their father, and his bad behavior, so called up their uncle, who handled the issue.
I don't think Lizzie killed either of her parents. I think she and her sister knew the step-mother had tried to poison them all in retaliation for the transaction and arguments that week, had considered poisoning the step-mother back, but had the uncle come in to handle it. I do think she and the uncle knew exactly what was going to happen, though, and was planning to protect her sister and herself.
TLDR: The uncle did it, after being called in by the sisters, and Lizzie knew what was going to happen in discussions with her uncle. I think that's why she and her sister had a falling out later. I don't think Lizzie was crazy at all, just traumatized by everything. The stepmother sounds like a piece of work (to Lizzie's family's side), the father sounded like he had dementia, and the maid had 0 motive.
I've always been so intrigued by this part of the story
The house the sisters shared on the hill was recently sold! I think it was on a street called French Place, IIRC?
Maplecroft on French Street.
🙌🏻
This is plausible. I could never understand how a random stranger could have spent so much time in the house anyway. And this is the first I ever read about possible dementia, which was not at all well understood at that time. Thanks for a interesting post.
There is very little actual evidence she did it.
I mean it's not like they had CSI back then.
Back then CSI stood for, Clarance Says Innocent
People are always biased for the guilt of a suspect they have more information about over an unknown or less known suspect.
Its like the case (sorry I can’t remember names, I heard about it ages back on wine and crime while falling asleep haha) where the stepdaughter went to jail for killing her whole family after arguing with her stepfather. Serves her time only for them to discover there was a serial killer with that exact MO in the area at the time, plus based on information we now have about some issues she had she likely would have had a lack of mental capacity to defend herself from the accusations if she even understood them.
Even with all this there are still some people that reckon she must have done it because she went to jail
This is true of almost every case of that era or earlier when compared with modern criminal cases.
"Strong Evidence" is a subjective term that cannot take into account what science doesn't know exists;
In 1892, something as basic as fingerprints were considered esoteric and only fit for fantastical fiction, let alone crime scene analysis and forensics.
I watched Stephanie Harlowe’s YT series on her a very long time ago. If anyone’s interested, I totally recommend it.
I think she did it, but she had help. From both her uncle and the maid. The maid admitted on her deathbed that she lied to help Lizzie.
There was no evidence of an intruder. No one with a motive. Makes no sense for someone to break in, kill Abby, then hide for an hour and a half “in the hopes” of killing Andrew - when he actually had come home early that day because he wasn’t feeling well, and took a nap on the couch.
Lizzie was in the living room all morning before he showed up, why wouldn’t this mysterious intruder kill her too? No one saw anyone come into the house, leave the house, or linger outside the house. The maid was washing windows outside all morning, she was seen by several neighbors. The only one left in the house with her parents was Lizzie. Her sister was out of town.
ETA: The local pharmacist had also advised the police that Lizzie had come in to his store looking to buy rat poison earlier that week, and the family had all taken ill; it was speculated that they were poisoned. This was a day or 2 prior to the killings, and the reason Andrew Borden had come home early still feeling unwell. Lizzie was making whispers to friends about her worry that “something bad was going to happen to her father” just a day before he was murdered.
I think her uncle, John Morse, killed her parents.
From his own testimony, Morse slept in the guest room above the parlor where Abby Borden was found dead the next day. She is believed to have been the first to die and was John Morse's sister. Morse was 60 at the time while Abby was 64.
Morse claimed that he woke at 6am, had breakfast with the victims from 7am to 7:30am, Mr. Borden went to the sitting room where he was later found murdered while Mrs. Borden began dusting and cleaning up the house. Morse claimed to have left for town around 8:45am and visited his Niece until 11:20. During all this time, neither of the Borden children were anywhere to be seen.
My theory is that John Morse asked his sister for money right after breakfast. When she refused, he went into a fit of rage and murdered her in the guest room where he was staying. Then he went downstairs, murdered her husband, hid the murder weapon in the basement and left.
John Morse was not Abby Borden's brother. He was the brother of Lizzie's deceased mother.
Oh, you are right. I misread the question in his testimony. He was asked "Do you bear any relation to the first wife of Mr. Borden?" to which he responded "She was a sister to me". That was my bad.
Still, I think your theory makes sense.
ETA: An ax seems like an unwieldy weapon for a young woman, a woman who had no pattern of violence prior to these murders. Not to mention gruesome.
No worries. I could see him having beef with Andrew, but I just don't think he had much of a relationship with Abby. Why kill her first? The thing about the case that makes me think it was probably lizzie is that Abby was killed significantly earlier than Andrew. This made sure thar Lizzie and her sister were the heirs because Abby died first.
As odd as it may be to us in modern times, people were much more open about death and inheritance back then. People died often. People died unexpectedly because medicine wasn’t advanced. Women of certain social classes were very limited in how they could support themselves. Dowries were not uncommon and were often tied to supporting the wife if she was widowed.
Years ago I scanned letters written during the civil war for my university library, and inheritance was a constant topic of conversation. And not just regarding the soldiers, but their families back home.
Would they have been educated enough to have that understanding, do you think?
John Morse had a pretty indisputable alibi - he was across town on a trolley car where he was able to identify and be identified by multiple people.
Plus, there was over an hour in between the murders.
The murder of Mrs. Borden and Mr. Borden were about 90 minutes apart which is strange. I agree that Morse was involved at the very least. His alibi is way too perfect. His return to the house that day defies logic. He said he didn't notice anything unusual when he returned (yet there were people everywhere around the house due to the crime). What does he do??? He goes to back yard and eats a pear. But the rest of his day was accounted for right down to the minute. Did I mention he was a butcher? I think a modern investigative team would have looked at him much harder.
How would he have left the house after the murders? The front door was locked and Bridget said the latch was on the screen door in the back. He left and if he came back Lizzie or Bridget would have had to let him in. I will agree he had a oddly specific alibi but I can't make it work in my head
There are two possibilities. He mentioned in his testimony that he left through the screen door and Andrew Borden latched it behind him. But that could be a lie. He also mentioned that the spring lock on the front door would not catch unless you shut the door hard. Otherwise it could be opened normally and the lock would only catch if you shut it hard enough.
It is possible that he left through the front door or tampered with it at some point and ensured the door remained unlocked. It is possible that he went through the back door and nobody latched it behind him.
If the testimony from other witnesses is factual, Andrew Borden left the house shortly after Morse to run errands and then returned home. It is possible that Morse's alibi was a lie, that he doubled back after Andrew left and went inside through one of the two doors. After which, he killed Abby Borden for whatever reason.
Then, when Andrew returned, Morse killed him in the sitting room. After which, he went outside to eat pears until the Borden children discovered the bodies.
I think this is much more possible, as a butcher he would have been aware of how messy the crime would be, and all the places he’d need to clean up, even the inner ear. He could have been wearing black, which blood would have been harder to see on. I don’t think people can correctly imagine just how messy bludgeoning them to death would have been. Large to minuscule chunks of skin, brain matter, bone, all the blood (a significant amount of blood) to wash off. In addition, hide the multitude of clothing women had to wear, and get back into different clothing, after washing every speck of debris away, including washing and redoing hair, then get back into all those layers of clothes, by one’s self! I just can’t see it happening.
Didn't the family he went to see give him an alibi? Dr. Bowen saw him at the families house
That is not correct. Dr. Seabury Bowen made no such claim in any of his testimony. But the niece of John Morse did claim Morse visited her. Coincidentally, he left her all of his silverware in his will, which is also odd.
I think it's strange he showed up right before a double murder. It could be a coincidence and probably was, but it's still kind of mysterious. A mob tried to attack him, but he claimed he was out of the house in town and knew nothing. He was cleared. I think Lizzie alone did it, maybe uncle John suspected Lizzie afterwards, who knows. At any rate, that pic of her Uncle John is super creepy lol. Same with her pic. But with how cameras worked back then, it's hard to judge.
And nobody saw him covered in blood?
He had time to change and clean up. He claimed he didn't bring any luggage when he suddenly showed up at the house, but there is no way to know if he was telling the truth.
The thing that it really weird is that Abby was killed first then about 90 minutes later the father was killed. Why kill Abby? The father was out of the house. Surely Abby would have been dead by the time he returned. Then he is killed. A lot of anger around these killings. If the uncle did it, what did he get? Can understand that he may have wanted to kill Andrew but what about Abby.? Who kills someone, leaves the house and comes back 90 or so minutes later to kill another person that I believe (might be wrong) wasn’t even supposed to be home around that time? Follow the money. Who profited from their deaths and not just monetarily? I can definitely see Lizzie either killing one or both with some assistance.
A conspiracy between Uncle John and Lizzie and/or Emma has always seemed the most plausible theory to me. Maybe Uncle John did it, or maybe they hired someone. But Lizzie swinging the hatchet herself and acting alone does not make sense with the timeline and evidence.
Of course, that same timeline and evidence strongly points to Lizzie's involvement.
‘One August Morning’ is a good book to read if you’re interested in this case, it goes into just how much bullshit was published in the press at the time. Made me lean towards innocent.
Modern investigations have recreated the crime and the timeline she would have to have doesn’t work.
It doesn’t work for her to have physically killed them, or that she couldn’t have been involved at all? I lean towards the uncle did it but that she was involved in the planning/coverup
Oh, I'm sure she did it, they made a rhyme about it. You can't make a rhyme about things that didn't happen, it's a law.
Totally. It’s just like the Internet. They can’t put stuff that didn’t happen on the internet either.
Meet my new boyfriend. He’s a French model.
Uh…. BON-JOUR.
Sometimes I can be a bitch, when I wake up tomorrow I’m gonna be super rich!
Just thought I would try it just in case. 🤷♀️
They also made that Christina Rocco show where she’s a straight up serial killer.
Ricci^
I’ve heard it both ways.
You know that’s right.
It’s the rules
They also sang about the Salem witches… does that make them witches?