2006-06-07 04:40:46 · 17 answers · asked by Rick 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
Lizzie was the prime suspect, she was acquitted following a sensational trial that included some of the most horrible abuses of evidence law in history.
Among the evidence withheld from the jury—Lizzie had purchased poison from the local pharmacist the day before the murders; Lizzie and her mother had fought violently on many occasions; Lizzie’s having disposed of bloody towels (covered with paint) in the days following the murder, and the prosecution theory that Lizzie’s clothes had no blood on them because she killed her parents in the nude.
2006-06-07 05:01:04 · answer #1 · answered by ToYsTeMpTer 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Lizzie Borden took an Axe....
and gave her mother 40 whacks....
When she saw what she had done....
she gave her father 41....
The thing is, they could never prove anyone else did it. Back then most people didn't think a woman could do something like that so she got off on a sympathy vote.
2006-06-07 04:50:48 · answer #2 · answered by Striker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because it was recorded that she kept changing her alibi. I watched a segment about the Lizzie Borden house on the Travel Channel show "Weird Travels." Some of her excuses ranged from "in the barn, eating" to "cooking." It doesn't look to good to keep changing your story like that. So she was obviously guilty, trying to grasp at straws to keep herself from being officially charged with murder.
2006-06-07 09:54:19 · answer #3 · answered by cassicad75 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't recall every last detail of the case, but from what I remember, she did seem awfully guilty. I'd be very interested to see how that case would play out in today's court, now that we're not so incredibly shocked by the idea of a woman committing murder. If she got a good lawyer, she'd probably get off on some sort of "I've been abused" type of clause... Battered Woman Syndrome or something like that... Not sure that that was really the case, but you know how it goes in court...
2006-06-07 04:44:30 · answer #4 · answered by Jinx U 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She was acquitted because the prosecution couldn't prove their case.
It doesn't matter if I think she's guilty or not. It was a hundred years ago. I didn't sit on the jury and I haven't seen all the evidence. A cursory glance would suggest her guilt.
2006-06-07 04:43:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does it matter any more? In 100 years people will ask the same thing about OJ. It is done and it is in the past.
There was evidence pointing to her doing it but the case was handled pretty badly.
2006-06-07 09:00:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Convicted. What happed to her father and stepmother was completeley brutal and disturbing. All the evidence lead to her and possibly to the maid. I think she did it and her parents souls are still out there tiring to get the truth told.
2006-06-07 06:55:02 · answer #7 · answered by amethystdragonfaerie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't care how much mutton her mom made her eat, if she took and ax and gave her mother 40 whacks then, after seeing what she had done, turned around and gave her father 41, then she should have been convicted.
2006-06-07 04:43:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have heard that the wounds to her fathers head and face might indicate that If Lizzie did kill him it was an indication that he was abusing her sexualy. T
2006-06-07 09:39:15 · answer #9 · answered by Rich 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that she should have been convicted, however, because of how she killed her family she pretty much lived out the rest of her life as leper.
2006-06-07 04:43:32 · answer #10 · answered by Roni 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋