English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-06-21 03:36:40 · 15 answers · asked by eastgate 2 in Arts & Humanities History

I've read some pretty convincing books that lean both ways. I can't decide...sometimes I think a lot of it had to do with Victorian ideals for women. For example, the press pounced on her for saying Mrs. Borden was not her mother, but she really wasn't - she was her step mother! Plus, there was another visitor in the house who left that morning, disappeared, and the police never went after him. It seems to me that there wasn't enought time to have killed them that way and cleaned up all that blood in the short time period she's unaccounted for.

2006-06-21 03:47:57 · update #1

15 answers

I have studied this case since 1991, trying to figure it out, including reading old newspaper clippings about the murder and trial. I have read the trial and pre-trial transcripts, as well as numerous books on the subject, including the book that Lizzie allegedly bought all the copies of and had burned by Edwin Porter in 1893. I admit I haven't done much research in recent years, but one book I read, though I can't remember the title, made a lot of sense. It talked about Lizzie's illegitimate half-brother, Charles, who apparently helped Lizzie kill her father and step-mother for revenge and money purposes. I don't know if Charles was involved or not, but I am certain that Lizzie was behind the killings, either she actually killed them herself, or she manipulated or bribed someone else to do it. In either case she is guilty. She had the most to gain from the murders, and in fact went out and almost immediately bought herself a mansion with her inheritance, where she hosted elaborate parties. All accounts state that she was not allowed to socialize in the Borden home, and that she felt stifled, on top of the fact that she was afraid her step-mother's family was being written into the will which she could not tolerate. I also think her sister Emma knew about Lizzie's plan and wanted nothing to do with it which is why she was conveniently out of town when the murders took place. And then of course there is the mysterious Uncle John Morse who was staying at the house during the time of the murders, but who was out running errands at the time of the murder. Did he have something to do with the murders. Again, I think he knew about them, and that Lizzie discretely gave him his cut. As far as time frame is concerned,if Lizzie had even just one accomplice, they could easily have taken evidence away from the crime scene with them. It's possible Lizzie was out in the barn as she says when the murders took place, but I believe she had a front row seat. Did she lift the hatchet herself, most likely, but on the other hand her accomplice could have done it so that she could keep herself clean for appearance sake as soon as the police arrived and play the innocent daughter. Another thing to consider, the maid was also home apparently taking a nap in the 3rd story of the house. The point is that yes, Lizzie was guilty. She was the mastermind behind the elder Borden deaths. She had motive, opportunity, and means.

2006-06-23 12:51:00 · answer #1 · answered by finderoftruth 2 · 1 2

Borden, Lizzie Andrew


1860—1927, American woman accused of killing her father and her step-mother, b. Fall River, Mass. The elder Bordens were hacked to death with an ax on Aug. 4, 1892. Although Lizzie Borden claimed that she was out in the barn at the time, she was accused of the murders and tried. The trial, which aroused great public interest, ended with a verdict of not guilty. The case was never solved.

See E. D. Radin, Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story (1961); V. Lincoln, Private Disgrace (1967); R. Sullivan, Goodbye Lizzie Borden (1974).

Sounds like she did!!

2006-06-21 03:42:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You'll need to wear a late 19th century dress and carry around an axe. Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her mother 40 whacks When she saw what she had done she gave her father 41

2016-03-26 23:49:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I do not.

She was acquitted. I grant that at the time there was less belief that women were capable of commiting violent crimes, but rules of evidence were also not as strict at the time. Neither was forensic science.

There is a marvelous book by William L Masterton, Lizzie Didn't Do It!, which dismantles all the evidence in the case.

2006-06-21 03:51:03 · answer #4 · answered by blueowlboy 5 · 0 0

Yes I do! And it infuriates me that she got off the hook. small children still sing: Lizzie Borden took an axe, and gave her father 40 whacks. When she seen what she done, she gave her mother 41.

2006-06-21 04:10:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Absolutely.

2006-06-21 07:53:14 · answer #6 · answered by ndtaya 6 · 0 0

Who knows? The girl got the name for and now clearing her name will be hard even if she was innocent.

2006-06-21 04:05:01 · answer #7 · answered by smile4763 4 · 0 0

Of course.

2006-06-21 03:39:49 · answer #8 · answered by MK6 7 · 0 0

The girl was guilty!

2006-06-21 03:40:49 · answer #9 · answered by Tayles_100 2 · 0 0

Of course not.

2006-06-21 03:41:45 · answer #10 · answered by James 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers