2006-10-25 09:38:41 · 5 answers · asked by silvercomet 6 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Most historians agree that, in all likelihood, she was guilty, but it's impossible to say for sure, given the primitive forensic techniques of the day. Also, she used her social standing AND her femininity to her advantage. Most people of that day refused to believe a woman was capable of murder at all, much less anything as savage as hacking two people to death. From what I've read, though, they both deserved at LEAST a sound beating (Her father beheaded pigeons where Lizzie had tried to raise them, for instance)!
Some of the evidence, from the site below, include: no sign of forced entry, no evidence of an intruder, the fact that Lizzie was the only other resident in the house at the times of the murders and that a servant observed her burning a dress she said was "covered with paint".
2006-10-25 09:54:08 · answer #1 · answered by Gwynneth Of Olwen 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't really believe lizzie had it in her. I'm thinking it was colonel mustard in the parlor with the lead pipe.
2006-10-25 19:57:59 · answer #2 · answered by amuse4you 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do. Nursery rhymes DON'T LIE!!!
Why do you ask?
2006-10-25 16:46:32 · answer #3 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know who else could have done it.
2006-10-25 16:47:07 · answer #4 · answered by synchronicity915 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
GUILTY DEFINATELY
2006-10-25 16:45:40 · answer #5 · answered by ugly_acid_tales 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋