Borden Murders: What most likely happened
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- The Borden Murders: What most likely happened
Bad Things: True Crime is a channel with all things true crime and mystery! Subscribe to stay updated on the most interesting true crime cases out there.
⚠️ Copyright Disclaimers
• Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
• We use images and content in accordance with the RUclips Fair Use copyright guidelines
Whenever anyone asks me where I was, I always say I was in the attic eating fruit and searching for fishing sinkers...
On a hot day in an uninsulated attic, you cannot remain for longer than 10 to 15 minutes, and even then the body is screaming at you to get out because you're rapidly approaching heat stroke.
@tomlevier3615: In other versions of this story (on YT and elsewhere) Lizzie claimed she was in the barn (not the attic).
😂
Several pears
She was in the barn, not the house.
Also, part of the problem with Lizzie’s police interviews was that the doctor had used a significant dose of morphine to “calm her nerves” after the murders and she was basically stoned out of her mind.
Honestly, I think that is the main point that her lawyers used to get her acquitted.
They said that in the video, too - that’s why her interviews were not allowed in as evidence (plus, she had no legal counsel)
@@tessat338 That and the total lack of evidence. Given the lack of blood on her body and the speed with which Dr Bolton entered the house, there’s simply no evidence that she killed anyone.
She got away with murder !
@@jenniferbrown2586 We don't know that. She got aquitted.
The thing about this case is that it points in two different directions. It’s either impossible for Lizzie to have committed the crimes or it’s impossible for anyone but Lizzie to have committed the crimes.
Who the HELL takes a nap at 11:am ?
@@Ralphie5023 People in the 1890s who rise before 5am that didnt have the internet and a phone to look at....people today who rise before 5am and work from home and take an early lunch hour and don't feel the need to look at their phone or the internet.
Well sais!👍🏻
it was apparently an extremely hot day.
Also, they were recovering from suspected food poisoning. When one is recovering from being ill, they are usually more tired and even possibly more weak than their norm. A nap when considering all possible factors-age, hot day, recovering from food poisoning, and probably early raiser-a nap around midday isn't too abnormal.
I toured this house with my son and two other people. The tour guy told us that a hatch was indeed found many years after the murders on an garage roof adjacent to the property. But was very rusty and no technology for testing was available then. Strange how this fact is not mentioned during documentaries. Did she do it? I truly believe so.
I read somewhere years ago that the hatchet was given (it's handle had been broken) to a servant who was told to burn it with the trash in the back yard (where it was retrieved some years later) I first read about this in Yankee magazine I think Don't know about this version or mine for that matter 🙃
@@kennethstickney8819 interesting!
Never heard that. I know they searched the house many times. I think, if an axe was found it would have been turned over to the police and tested for blood. They could do that then. They could also determine whether blood was animal or human. That was about the limit of forensics at the time.
Guilty. But l believe her Sister was in on it. Motivation was money . The 2 Wemen sponged of there Dad for year's.
Didn't she confess to her sister
Abby came into the family when Lizzie was very small, and they had gotten along like mother and daughter. In fact, Lizzie called Abby "Mother" up until five years before the murders, when the household was thrown into chaos when Andrew gave Abby ownership of the house in Fall River where her half-sister lived. The sisters went wild and demanded Andrew give them an equal amount of real estate, and he did. It did not appease them, and it was then that Lizzie stopped calling Abby 'Mother'. Reading the source materials (Inquest, Witness Statements, and Trial transcript, all which are available today) it shows that Emma was the one who hated Abby more out of the two sisters. A photo used in your video saying it's Lizzie and Emma is a glaring error. The women in that photo are NOT the sisters. There is a lot more to the case, which not many bother to study. After the trial, Lizzie still had a lot of friends and she traveled often to out of town theatres. Before Abby and Andrew's deaths Lizzie also went to the theatres. There are many reasons why Uncle John Morse should be looked on as a conspirator in the case, yet most people just skip right over him without a mention. Lizzie had a life after her acquittal. So many old myths still cling to the case.
The photo your speaking of is Abby and her half sister. NOT Lizzie and Emma. Good call!
She finally got the house she wanted. Emma lived with her for a while but decided to move out. She went to the theater more frequently and actually became friends with some notable actors and actresses of the time and entertained them in her home. She was shunned by the community. When she died Lizzie left her fortune to an animal welfare organization. Her grand home was eventually torn down.
@@pamelasimone5084 you can visist Maplecroft today. Its been turned into a bed and breakfast, just like the house on 92nd street.
@@pamelasimone5084 I already posted to this but don't know where it went, so I'll try again. Yes, Lizzie was a very good friend of the actress, Nance O'Neil, and did have parties for the whole troupe at times. There is no evidence that Lizzie had a gay relationship with Nance, or with any woman. That was lied about in Frank Spiering's book, "Lizzie". He also made up how Emma died - just totally made it up?! There is an article by me in an issue of 'The Hatchet' re the 'gay' note and an excellent article by Ms. Kat Koorey on proving Spiering lied about Emma's death. He did go to the house she died at, and the owner would not even let him in. Emma left Lizzie and Maplecroft in 1905; it could have been because of a huge party Lizzie gave the theatre people or something else entirely. But it's said the sisters never spoke again. Lizzie's will is on Lizzieandrewborden.com, and you can see the persons she left things to. She left nothing to Emma, as Emma had her own money from Father's estate. Lizzie and Emma both left a lot of money to the Fall River Animal Rescue League, or Society. When you walk in there to this day, there is a double framed portrait of Lizzie and Emma to recognize their monetarily gifts. Lizzie I think was one who started the group, or at least an early contributor. No, Lizzie's house was not torn down. She had 'Maplecroft' carved into the top front step, and in Fall River of that era it was considered flamboyant to do. For years writers referred to Maplecroft as a "mansion". It really wasn't. It's a BIG house, but not a mansion. Attempts were made to give tours of Maplecroft but they all fell through. The house was redone to be historically accurate as to when Lizzie lived there, and the plan was to give tours and make it into a B & B. That did not work out, and the last I knew someone not associated with the Borden case at all bought Maplecroft as a home for their family. Read things published by PearTree Press in Massachusetts, who published 'The Hatchet', a magazine on Lizzie published for ten years. The book 'Lizzie Borden: Resurrections' by Sherry Chapman, and published source documents by PearTree Press as well (the entire trial!, the coroner's inquest (the only time Lizzie testified), the Preliminary trial, and I think the Witness Statements may be on their website, Lizzieandrewborden.com. The group of people who worked for PearTree Press dug DEEPLY and many's the time they debunked old myths and cleared away the cobwebs to get down to the truth, which was more interesting than things some writers just made up.
@@lizzieb1106 Thanks. I read about Maplecroft being torn down on a now defunct website. I never believed Lizzie was gay or had an affair. I about died laughing at the theory that she and Bridget were intimate and that was the reason for killing Abby and her father. Lizzie was not a total conformist but she was not that radical. She had an interest in things beyond her life in Fall River.
I am a true crime amateur and this is a case I am interested in because my mom liked the case. I haven’t done as much research as I’d like.
You sound very knowledgeable about the case and thanks for the feedback and posting corrections.
An old maid, with no financial means other than that of her frugal father. A step mother who is in line to receive the wealth, and who's family is getting money and property instead of the daughter. The daughter who "found" the dead father. The only other person in the house. A daughter who burned evidence. A daughter who hated her step mom and resented her dad. A daughter who upon acquittal spends the money on a fancy house and travel. Yeah this is easy .
I think Lizzie did it, but..lots of kids resent a very frugal parent who they think has the income to not be so miserly, and many older kids aren’t thrilled with dad’s new wife.
And once they inherit the money, from a frugal father who died, many would use it to buy a fancier home.
And it was pretty typical for middle-class women back then to not have gainful income, as the few women’s jobs like school teaching or nursing were considered as “summer jobs” before marriage, for younger women.
And lots of families have spats and disagreements, especially on how or how not to spend money.
So except for the dress burning….the rest were common to many women of the time, or overlap.
I read a book that had a theory that her half brother actually murdered them. He was an illegitimate child. He was angry about his father's will. There's much more detail in the book of course. After reading it, it made sense to me and ultimately he was locked up in an insane asylum shortly after the murders. It was really intriguing.
I read that as well, and I believe it, too. He was andrew borden's illegitimate son and he was blackmailing his father. That's why the uncle was in town. Lizzie agreed to stand trial because she knew that if he was discovered, he would have a legitimate claim to the money. I've also read the trial transcripts and the evidence was non-existent. And this illegitimate sons occupation was slaughtering horses with a hatchet. Witness testimony of the neighbors put him in the area at the time. He was noticeable because he was a stranger.
This is an excellent, well-written book. I read it many years ago and it gave me chills. I also believe this man killed Andrew Borden, and get really annoyed at the lazy opinion that Lizzie did it.
@@leannstriker1147 yeeeeesssssss! Giving me chills recalling that! How he was known to kill the animals with one blow. The other murdered woman found in the tree. Such a great read a shame it's not more well known because it all makes complete sense in every way from the abuse he received to his disappearing into a mental asylum.
@@magiccitymama1620 me too!! I agree excellent work and I 100% agree with you!
@@heatherhauna923 I may need to read it again soon.
You stated that Lizzie Borden was found "innocent". That is never true in a criminal trial in the United States. A person is either found "guilty" or "not guilty". A verdict of "not guilty" does not necessarily mean that they did not commit the crime that they are accused of. It only means that the jury did not find them "guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt" given the evidence, both circumstantial and physical. SO... Lizzie Borden was found "not guilty", although she probably did commit the murders.
There have been many mock trials over the past 100 years. Lizzie always wins. There’s just not any evidence.
@@nbenefiel Not much physical evedence, but plenty of circumstantial evidence, and motive. Mock trials are just that...mock. In a mock trial trere are no real witnesses, or a defendant.
The verdict, available in Scotland, of "not proven" is probably the most accurate one.
You're correct. It also annoys me when procedural error/misconduct causes a case to be dismissed or a guilty verdict overturned but a reporter says the person was "exonerated".
Madeline Smith, another upper-middle class woman, was not convicted of murder because juries could not believe respectable women could commit crimes. Madeline was given the uniquely Scottis verdict of "not proven". The same ambiguous verdict was probably also appropiate for Lizzie,@@Dave11000
Clickbait. At no point does the video show “what most likely happened!” Instead it just gives the background to the case. Waste of my time, as this information is widely known.
This video does NOT describe "what most likely happened"!🤦♀️
Bingo. As is, it's a fine retelling of the history. But with that click-bait headline that is not a part of the actual video...meh...down vote.
oH, no!
He skipped over the fact that Lizzie repeatedly tried to get the maid to leave the house. She only went to lie down at Lizzie's insistence. Giving her time to commit the murders.
Bridget wouldn't have hated the borders enough to kill them lizzie hated her step parents cuz her father gave land to Abby that should have gone to lizzie and Emma so lizzie was only one to have done it but since she was aquitted there you go
@@user-rj5ld7jh7n That's not what I said. Lizzie kept trying to get her to leave so Lizzie could commit the murders.
@garyallen8824 That's not what happened though. Lizzie tried to talk her into leaving and going shopping and when that failed talked her into going to take a nap. Pretty obvious she was trying to get rid of her.
Where did that come from? Abby told Bridget to wash the windows. She was outside the house all morning.
You're right that Lizzie tried to talk Bridget into leaving the house and going downtown to shop for cloth with her. But the reason you suggest isn't correct. Lizzie's intention had been to kill only Abby, then get out of the house WITH Bridget and go shopping so that the house would be left empty but for Abby's dead body and no one there, especially herself, to be blamed for the crime.
Bridget, however, who had thrown up earlier due to Lizzie's half-assed attempt at poisoning probably the mutton soup she'd had for breakfast, wasn't feeling well and wanted to go upstairs and sleep after she was off work at 11.
Unfortunately for Lizzie Andrew came home unexpectedly early at 11, which meant Lizzie could NOT escape, with or without Bridget, and she then realized she had to kill Andrew too. So her plan changed bigtime at that point. The go downtown with Bridget plan was only in effect until Andrew came home and messed that all up.
So you don't answer what most likely happened.
Thank you for saving me 15 minutes and 11 seconds.
I live not far from Fall River and have visited the Borden house. It's been restored to what it was at the time of the murders and is now a bed & breakfast (!). Having been an investigator in law enforcement for decades and living so close to the events I had read a lot about the crime, including a hard to find book written immediately after the trial by a Fall River newspaper reporter. But when I finally had to opportunity to walk through the house it was nothing like what I had imagined. No matter how much you look at floor plans and read descriptions of the house it doesn't prepare you for how sectioned off the rooms are. The rooms on the second floor lead one into the next, there's no hallway at all. The rooms on the first floor are also very closed off from one another. It's easy to see how someone could commit the murders hours apart and have the first body remain hidden, and how they could move throughout the house without being seen.
That said; I believe Lizzy was the murderer, it I'd been investigating the case I would have reached that conclusion very quickly for a number of reasons above and beyond just that fact that she was the only one (other than the maid) in the house at the time.
But she had access to her father's fortune and hired what today would be called a dream team of lawyers, they were far more capable than the lawyers from the DA's office which is usually how it goes in such cases. They had the huge advantage of playing off the morality and stereotypes of the day as well, as said here, no man on the jury could believe a woman, any woman, capable of such violence. So Lizzy got away with it.
Perhaps that is the reason Lizzy and Emma had a falling out.
@@ninaharper6282 That thought has occurred to me as well.
What you also come to consider in being there is that it would have been noisy. August, all the windows open, a busy weekday morning with horse carts in the street, other surrounding activities...
@@ninaharper6282 If Emma believed even partly that Lizzie was responsible, she had to know she'd be at risk if she pissed her sister off while living with her!
@@ellicel Which raises the question of what DID Emma know or believe or convince herself was the truth? And what part did she play in the trial?
A court or juried decision is not necessarily the truth. If the Bordens were people of status, people of power and influence had a stake in the decision.
If interested, a little known murder mystery very similar to Lizzy Bordon, happened in 1903, in Buffalo, NY. Ed Burdick was a wealthy and prominent businessman who was brutally murdered in his den and no one was ever charged. He was filing for divorce from his wife, but she was out-of-town. She was having an affair with a married lawyer, but he and his wife mysteriously died in a car wreck soon after the murder. It was quite scandalous for the time. There is a book written called "Cold Heart" by Kimberly Tilley if anyone wants to try and guess who killed Mr. Burdick.
Thank you for the reference. I'm definitely going to look up the Ed Burdick case.
Great - than you!
I'm going to try to find that book. I love true mysteries. The truth is usually stranger than fiction.
Sounds like a very good read. Thanks for sharing.
Very interesting. I'm going to look it thank you
The enormous effort put into Lizzy's defense was likely to protect the Bordan name from scandal... There were a lot of Borden relatives living in that area at the time. She was basically shunned by everyone after the trail, died unmarried and unmourned, so I think they all suspected her guilt in the end.
My point is to say "someone's killed father" sounds correct, but to say someone's "come IN and killed father" sounds like deflection. Why Even say that?
That definitely sounds very plausible. However, on the unmarried front it may not just have been shunning or people suspecting her guilt. I know it certainly isn't conclusive, but there's a decent amount of evidence to suggest she may have been lesbian and was definitely in active relationships outside the public eye.
Who knows, that may even have been part of the reason the murders occurred - because her father and step-mother didn't approve of her lifestyle. While I know it isn't conclusive, the evidence in this particular case is much more compelling than the evidence I have seen of other supposed gay and lesbian historical figures.
Also, as much as she may have been shunned, she was also extremely private and didn't exactly encourage anyone to get close to her, so it's difficult to tell how much of that shunning was the world/family shunning Lizzie and how much of that was Lizzie shunning the world/family. Plus, even if they thought she was guilty, it doesn't automatically follow that they were right.
And yet in spite of all of this, I still believe you are onto something.
@@hollybigelow5337 Lizzie’s lifestyle was pretty typical for women of that class at that time. She was very active in her church and in her community. She taught Sunday school; she visited friends; she had beautiful clothes; she shopped and worked around the house.
@@nbenefiel Her life before the murders may have been rather typical in some ways. Yes, she did do things like teach Sunday School. However, in many ways her life was atypical for a woman of the time. For one thing, she was unmarried and forced to live with her father at an advanced age compared to most women of the time. She clearly had a taste for a more expensive lifestyle that included finery, travel, and a lavish home, but she had a penny-pinching father who denied her that lifestyle even though he clearly could afford it. Her long history of shoplifting didn’t quite tie with that image of a proper lady who taught Sunday School at church. She was raised from a very early age by a stepmother in an age when it was atypical for women to be raised by a stepmother.
While her father denied her money and life experiences, many of which may have directly contributed to her being an old maid in a society where financially being an old maid was almost a death sentence, her father purchased a home to give to a relative of her stepmother. And if her father happened to die without a will before her stepmother died, her stepmother would inherit everything and leave her estate to her family members. Sure, in her day-to-day life Lizzie publicly dotted all her i’s and crossed all of her t’s of what was expected of a religious lady from her economic standing, but other than in this very superficial way I would hardly describe her pre-murder life as typical of women of the time. She may have been living her life dotting all her i’s and crossing all of her t’s because of genuine religious devotion, etc., but she also may have been doing it because living that lifestyle was literally the only thing keeping her from being disowned and out of the poor house.
When it comes to after the murder, she may have briefly tried to attend church, but when it became clear she wasn’t welcome she abandoned those efforts. Sure, probably a lot of people would have stopped going in those circumstances, but it does start to look like her desire to attend church was more about respect than it was genuine religious devotion. But what makes it more likely is the parties she started hosting for her show biz friends. Lizzie’s sister was so offended by these parties and these inappropriate people that she gave Lizzie an ultimatum that either the unseemly parties needed to stop or she would never speak to Lizzie again. Lizzie chose the parties, and the sisters really did never speak to each other again. While by today’s standards those parties would probably seem mild to us, by the standards of the day they were pretty scandalous. Lizzie clearly didn’t care one bit about the impropriety of having those parties.
Lizzie’s behavior after the murders very much came off as someone who had the financial independence that she always craved, and as long as she finally had the freedom to live the life she always wanted she didn’t really care about anything else. Sure, she did kind things for the children of her servants and for animals, etc. It’s likely she did all of those things from a genuine place since she so clearly cared so little what others thought of her behavior at that point. If her desire to live in her dream house trumped her desire to start all over again in another city under a completely different name, I doubt she was buying ice cream for the children of her servants just to look good.
But to me that also is very flimsy evidence in favor of her innocence. It could also be that she just preferred spending time around children who were too young to understand the charges against her and animals that absolutely couldn’t understand those charges. Since normal society was shunning her, she could easily have been just looking for ways to fill that need for occasional acceptance, which is a selfish motivation rather than a selfless one. However, whether she was innocent or guilty, the fact that she found a way to get her emotional needs met through children and animals does show she was incredibly resourceful.
Regardless of what is true about the murders themselves, the drastic difference in Lizzie’s life before and after the murders indicates to me that it is likely that 90% or more of her reason for her good works and church attendance, etc. was primarily the actions of an older “spinster” who had a taste for the luxuries in life who had no independent way of getting that lifestyle, but who could at least keep the hope alive of one day having that lifestyle as long as her family, and more importantly community, saw her as being a proper lady who was above reproach and who deserved a place in her father’s will, and who also deserved a home with someone else in the same economic tier if she was unlucky enough to be disowned or unlucky enough to lose everything when her father died and her stepmother inherited everything.
Even in today’s society, as a “spinster” myself I very much identify with these pressures. I am keenly aware that there are only two ways for me to safely be myself and buck societal expectations-either become independently wealthy, or have at least one person (a husband, parent, friend, etc.), who is willing to bail me out and let me live with them if my life falls apart. Without these two things, I know I have to rely on the good will and support of church and community members as my safety net if my life ever goes wrong. One of the advantages of being married is that a married couple has diversified their life risk. Even if everything goes wrong for one spouse, odds are things won’t go perfectly wrong for both spouses simultaneously. If one spouse loses a job and goes through a dry spell of failed interview after failed interview, chances are the other spouse either won’t lose a job at the same time or at least will be able to find a temporary bridge job to pay the household expenses enabling the other spouse to hold out for the right job. This is also true for people who have parents who have their back or for people who have enough wealth they can afford to take some time off work without losing their home, etc. Don’t get me wrong, even a person who had to rely on their church community as a back up for hard times can still have genuine religious beliefs. I believe I do have genuine religious beliefs and would attend church even if I were independently wealthy. But I also have to admit there are times when I hold back on my true beliefs specifically because I know I can’t afford to risk losing my only support system. Yes, I believe in God and good works, but I happen to believe that the emphasis a lot of the older members put on “respecting God” through the clothing you wear is ridiculous. I’m not talking about modesty here. I’m talking about the idea that God has all of these unwritten rules about color schemes and how well your clothes fit. Heck, on a scale of 1-10, I doubt God cares much above a 1 if my clothes happen to be wrinkled on Sunday. If I am overwhelmed, I personally believe God would prefer me just to be there and to spend time being kind rather than making myself sick and taking time away from good works to “respect” him by making sure my clothing is free from wrinkles. However, I still make the effort to make myself sick and skip food works to prioritize keeping my clothes wrinkle free because I know how much it matters to members of my congregation. If I ever won the lottery and became wealthy enough not to have to care, I would immediately stop doing any of that, partly to make a point that those beliefs are ridiculous. If I feel those pressures in today’s society where women are actually allowed to work and support themselves, I can’t imagine what pressures Lizzie felt to conform to her local congregation’s idea of the perfect lady who is regularly engaged in what they see as good works.
Like today! Accusations are pretty much a guilty charge in public opinion.
Lizzie did it.
Evil women and female serial killers exist. It's ignorant to think a woman isn't capable of murder. And I believe Lizzie Borden did commit those killings.
Legally no but likely yep
Yes, Lizzie killed her parents.
Absolutely do I think Lizzie killed her parents. She was angry, and probably psychopathic. She had the motive, means and opportunity to do so and a good lawyer.
I do think she did it, but tbf her parents sounded like assholes. Not that that condones murder, but she had legit reasons to hate them.
There was also the fact her father sexually molested her for years, and probably snapped because of it
I believe the uncle helped and the sister at least knew about it
@@DAN-lo5db This was never confirmed so it's not a fact.
I'm reasonably sure that she did it. She may have been found not guilty, but in the court of public opinion, she was convicted. If this case had occurred in Scotland, it may have resulted in a verdict of Not Proven.
She was guilty. I can see her frustration but that doesn't excuse cold blooded murder.
Maybe her uncle somehow set it off the day before when discussing money with her father. Since he was a. miser she may have thought that the stepmother would get most of the money if he died and she and her sister wouldn’t get enough. So to her that was the last straw. Perhaps she’d been thinking of slowly poisoning them but then killed them quicker because she was enraged, especially if he’d have been molesting her .
The only reason Lizzie Borden was found "not guilty" is because it was BELIEVED, at that time, that a woman of wealth couldn't or wouldn't kill...and especially SO BRUTALLY!!!
Women in those days were considered delicate flowers and certainly not capable of swinging a hatchet.
It's somewhat true, but there was evidence that needed to be tried. Most people today still go off the suspicion from 140 years ago...and the cute little rhyme.
Too, nobody at that time wanted to see a woman hanged.
Andrew Borden had a lot of enemies and Bertha Manchester was murdered similarly a few months later. That definitely helped Lizzie's case.
@@soxpeeweewill you please tell me more? Did she have any dealings with the brother in law or the Bordens? Were there suspects or witnesses?
It would have been a lot smarter to kill the stepmother by pushing her down the stairs and making it look like an accident. The father could have been smothered or slowly poisoned a few months later to make it look like he died of natural causes. Even staging a burglary and bashing them over their heads would have made Lizzie seem less suspicious but I think she was too angry to care.
I don’t agree with you 👎
She had crazy eyes.
The fact that she screamed in joy when the verdict was read makes believe she is innocent. OJ Simpson just stood there and didn't react at all when they read his verdict because he was guilty. I think the jury got it right.
I read a book once that suggested Lizzie hid the bloodied hatchet in the bucket with her (used) menstrual rags. In those times no one, especially a man, would have even talked about menstrual rags, let alone searched the bucket.
But the thing that's always intrigued me is that the blows to the father were to his face, obliterating it. There's some deep psychology there.
That was in the movie as well. Everything you just said.
I just bought the DVD and am going to re-watch. It's been so long, and I was young. Still, I remember being ooooh impressed at the likelihood of the scenario as it was presented, through Lizzie's eyes, reliving the crime in her mind.
Even if it was a crime of opportunity, she probably knew no one would believe she cd've done it, given the societal mores of the time.
So impressed, sorry.
@@trishsiprell6996 ohhh I didn't know there was a movie of it! Do you know the title and when it was made? I might look it up...
@@tanyamckenzie8853. I think it was called The Legend of Lizzie Borden. Filmed in 1975
I feel like they actually did make a note of her menstrual rags in the original investigation? Or perhaps I’m just confusing it with the mini series I watched starring Christina Ricci 😂
Weird theory that is grounded in basically nothing: i think her sister did it, or they did it together, or lizzie did it for her sister. But i think its interesting that their relationship became very strained afterwards and the lizzie was waiting for the day everyone realized she was innocent. Something about it feels "we used to live in the castle"
I do believe Lizzy killed her parents.
I always say follow the money when it comes to nefarious crimes. So I do believe Lizzie did it. I look to means motive and opportunity so Lizzie had all three.
The maid ended up in Montana with her own horse ranch and the dress maker got her own house
I agree - in the movie "All the President's Men" ' the advice is "follow the money"
She did it.
No one ever came forward as the "friend" that Lizzie claimed the stepmother had gone to visit and no note was found. Why the lie?
She wanted the maid out of the house.
Lizzie's father had an arrangement with local merchants because she would shoplift. Could have gotten a hatchet that way. There was a two seat "outhouse" in the basement where it could have gone afterwards. Have never heard of anyone searching (the house has been modernized since - they would have removed that cesspool). The handle may have rotted but the blade should remain.
All the evidence and the bodies were left in the house and one of the policemen guarding the place saw Lizzie moving around the house during the night.
She did it and bad law enforcement helped.
Having a hatchet in a house would not have been unusual back then. There could easily have been more than one: basement and in the barn.
Aside from the fact that I can't fathom why anyone would opt to remain in the house with the bodies of two dead people, why wouldn't she have moved about the house if she stayed during the night. If she got hungry or thirsty or needed to go to the outhouse because they had no indoor plumbing, wouldn't that be a reason for her to be moving about the house? Just a theory.
If you like The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, I recommend the episode about Lizzie Borden. Hitchcock put a nice little twist on the story.
@Goldies86, I remember the episode that you speak of and yes it's a dandy little twist at the end.
You repeatedly called the Bordens, "Lizzie's parents," when in fact, it was her father and stepmother. Most do not accept a stepparent as a parent.
The killer knew that 1) Andrew Borden was temporarily away from the home running errands (for at least an hour-and-a-half), 2) live-in house maid Bridgett Maggie Sullivan was assigned a domestic cleaning exercise to clean the exterior windows (from outside the home), and 3) maid Bridgett took a nap around 11:00 a.m. upstairs in her bedroom. Lizzy told Andrew upon his return that "Abby had received a note from a sick friend, and had gone to visit her". Lizzy's statement about Abby visiting a sick friend was a false statement. House maid Bridgett Sullivan likely would have known if Abby had left the residence (for any reason), as she was outside cleaning the home's windows. Abby did not leave the residence on that day. No note from Abby's friend was ever found. Lizzy's lie to Andrew is telling--there is no logical reason for Lizzy to invent a story about Abby leaving, other than to prevent Andrew from trying to communicate with Abby by speaking to her. Lizzy's lie likely prevented Andrew from finding Abby's dead body before he was attacked. Further, Lizzy claimed she heard Abby enter the residence and then ascend the stairs to her bedroom. This is another false statement by Lizzy. There is no evidence that Abby left the residence on the day of the murders. The likelihood of an intruder entering the home for an hour-and-a-half, first killing Abby, and then waiting for Andrew to return home is extremely unlikely. With the home's exterior doors locked (most of the time), the maid would have had to open the door for an intruder. Lizzy had the opportunity, if for only a brief time, to first attack Abby, and then wait for Andrew's return and act of resting (which he probably did on a regular basis after walking to complete his errands). Andrew was probably somewhat tired after having to walk to run his errands. Lizzy did it.
We have only Lizzie's word that she told her father that Abby was out visiting. It is an odd thing to say when no note was found or anyone coming forward to say that Abby visited them.
@@westzed23There was a conversation between house servant Bridgett Sullivan and Lizzy Borden, which Sullivan likely provided an account of to the investigating police. In the Lizzy Borden trial, in his opening statement for the Commonwealth of Masschusetts, William H. Moody, Esq., provided the following as part of his opening statement: "Mr. Borden then took his key, went upstairs, came down again, and as he came down Bridgett had finished the other window and a half in the sitting room and was just going into the dining room to finish those windows. As she was washing the windows in the dining-room the prisoner (Lizzy Borden) again appeared from the front part of the house, went to the kitchen, got an ironing board and began to iron her handkerchiefs. While there she told Bridgett this falsehood about the note. She said, "Are you going out Bridgett, by and by?" Bridgett said, "I don't know, I am not feeling very well today." "Well," she said, "if you do I want you to be careful about the locks, I may go out myself. Mrs. Borden has gone out." "Where is she?" said Bridgett . "I don't know, it must be somewhere in town, because she received a note to go to a sick friend."
@@westzed23 There was a conversation between house servant Bridgett Sullivan and Lizzy Borden, which Sullivan likely provided an account of to the investigating police. In the Lizzy Borden trial, in his opening statement for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, William H. Moody, Esq., provided the following: "Mr. Borden then took his key, went upstairs, came down again, and as he came down Bridgett had finished the other window and a half in the sitting room and was just going into the dining room to finish those windows. As she was washing the windows in the dining-room the prisoner (Lizzy Borden) again appeared from the front part of the house, went to the kitchen, got an ironing board and began to iron her handkerchiefs. While there she told Bridgett this falsehood about the note. She said, "Are you going out Bridgett, by and by?" Bridgett said, "I don't know, I am not feeling very well today." "Well," she said, "if you do I want you to be careful about the locks, I may go out myself. Mrs. Borden has gone out." "Where is she?" said Bridgett. "I don't know, it must be somewhere in town, because she received a note to go to a sick friend."
@@Richard-sc7yq Thanks for clearing that up for me. It has been awhile since I was reading up on these murders. I've never read much of the court documents.
Watching this video it was presented quite well. In the comments I'm seeing more about happened then.
If this father was raping his daughter, and the stepmother was in on it, they deserved what they got on matter who did it. Lizzyy may have dissociated; being raped by her father could cause that kind of trauma reaction. Or there may have been some one who knew what had happened and came in as an avenging angel.
She did it. Good grief
she committed the murders if not she definetly knows who did. Maybe she and Bridgette conspired alone to commit this horrible murder.
Did I miss something? Still waiting to hear what "most likely happened".
This title is misleading, it just repeats a the same basic story without adding anything about "what likely happened" and doesn't mention that the dad gave the sisters a whole rental building but they didn't want to put the effort out to manage it so the greed angle is suspect.
Interesting to note , the autopsy report on Abby shows gashes that are in all different directions, impossible to do with a hatchet. They all would have been similar. An iron would have left the type of wounds found.
I'm related to Lizzie Borden on my father's side of the family. My sister and I visited the house in 2007 - it was strange - my camera worked for a few pictures inside the house but stopped and then started working again once we got outside the house - kind of creeped us out.
I think in modern times with advances in forensics and differences in attitudes the verdict might be different.
It’s been tried. Law schools are always holding mock trials of Lizzie. She’s always acquitted. The most recent one in 2010, ended in acquittal. There was just no evidence, no bloody body, hair or clothes, no weapon. It’s very difficult to convict someone for capital murder without physical evidence.
well, it's obvious she did. look at the facts. the murders took place an hour & a half apart. no one saw anyone coming to or from the house. there were no signs of forced entry & she was the only one in the house at the time. not to mention her alibi was disproven
The maid, Bridget Sullivan, was also there the entire time.
The footage shown of woodpiles and debris in the woods around 2:00 and many other places has no relevance. I've seen that exact footage in many other videos. What's up with that?
These were crimes of passion. Therefore, very violent. Lizzie hated her stepmother and father too. I always thought she was guilty.
I believe the spirit of the time told everyone no wealthy young Christian woman could do such a thing. But we have all heard of crimes of passion by other "upstanding" people.
@@peternolan4107 Yes, like the OJ murders, which happened right down the street from where I live.
I do question the uncle, although supposedly he had an alibi visiting other relatives. If he was a butcher by trade, he would have known how to avoid blood splatter or was wearing something over his clothing to keep blood off himself. Blood splatter would have been bad, and I would think a trail leading to where the killer went after first killing Abby, then later after Andrew. I have never read anything about any blood trail, bloody footprints, etc…. Since Lizzie didn’t appear to have any blood on herself, and I wonder if she was physically strong enough to hack up two people, either she was totally innocent or it was an inside job. Maybe the uncle did it and was paid off. Or a murder for hire. The two sisters stood to gain the most by it, and money could have been secretly funneled to whoever actually killed Abby and Andrew. They were snuck up upon, since I have never read of defense wounds on either. Maybe the maid was involved, or at least helped cover the truth up. I guess it makes the most sense to me that the killer was hidden in the house, and may have been hidden there after Andrew was hacked, until the opportunity to leave opened up. I don’t know if the records indicate how thoroughly police went through the house afterward. I don’t know how long the sisters waited after Lizzie was found innocent before they moved to the mansion on the hill. Did Emma stay in the house while Lizzie was in jail and during the trial?
@@Aroseisarose15 You make some compelling points about no blood trail or blood splatter. I did see a documentary a few years back where investigators went into the house in the present day and sprayed Luminol all around to see if they could find blood and there was a lot of it that had dripped down from Mr. Borden’s sofa into the basement. Of course, we have so many tools now that we can use to investigate these crimes that they didn’t have back then.
Regarding the police, I don’t know how thoroughly they searched the home. Yes, I do believe that Emma stayed in the house while Lizzie was on trial.
There has been speculation that Mr. Borden sexually abused Lizzie, which would certainly contribute to her intense anger, and because these were crimes of passion and “overkill”, it seems logical to me that Lizzie was involved.
I think it’s fascinating that this case is still “open” after all this time since there is no statute of limitations on murder. I guess speculation will go on about this case ad infinitum.
Well, I've passionately hated a few people but have never killed any of them.
I believe she did it and it was motivated by simple greed. Lizzie was tired of living in a house with no indoor privie and with a stepmother that she hated. The burned dress was most likely what she wore to commit the murders therefore she burned it to get rid of the evidence. She was most likely certain that given her reputation of being a good christian woman that her story of an intruder would be believed and she would never be arrested for her crimes.
You have your facts wrong.
Actually there is buried in the trial testimony where someone got on the stand and did say the dress Lizzie had on that morning was a blue dress with a design on the background. Alice Russell or Mrs. Churchill.@@servicedogkyzanna1761
Of course she did. Always thought so.
It's called "The Legend of Lizzie Borden."
From what I've read, the cops didn't believe such a pretty woman could commit such hideous crimes. Neither did the jury.
There are other details I don't want to reveal in case anyone gets to find and watch it. But it's an impressive job by Ms. Montgomery and the writer(s).
What? There's nothing pretty about this woman
@godlygirls62 She's what a lot of women look like without makeup. Scary isn't it?
@Lordoftheswollen Not necessarily. Yo girl was just nothing cute.
Lizzie wasn't very pretty, even by the standards of the time.
Elizabeth Montgomery’s performance was a lot of fun, but bore little resemblance to what happened. For one thing, naked or dressed, Lizzie would have been covered in blood. There was no easy way to wash in that house. When the police came, she was clean, dry, and wearing the dress she had been wearing all day.
You never mentioned that though the sisters were estranged for many years, Emma died just 9 days after Lizzie. I have read everything there was to read about this case including court transcripts, there can be no other conclusion other than Lizzie committed these murders. 90 minutes between the 2 murders says it all. The only common denominator is Lizzie and Bridget, my theory is Lizzie was the murderer but Bridget if not an accomplice to the murders, was paid for her silence making her an accomplice after the fact.
OK, if Lizzie did it, how did she remain blood free and what did she do with the weapon?
Uncle John caught Abby in his room maybe she was snooping around and he didn't like that
If you read everything, then you would know there was never any evidence Bridget received a substantial amount of money . Or Uncle John.
The 90 minutes is not proven- it’s only a theory or a guess that the police said was the amount of time. It. Oils actually have been much, much shorter.
Interesting. Do you know what became of Brigit?
I could never understand all the confusion about these murders. Lizzie is the only one who could have done it. She always resented Abby and just didn’t want her to get any Borden property or money. She lied about a note and Abby going out. And she had to kill her father because he would know full well who had killed Abby. If he didn’t turn her in, he would certainly have disinherited her and held the crime over her head until he did die.
I agree. Lizzie was the killer.
You're correct on all counts. People seem to enjoy making up their own "original" versions of the story which are always fiction. One book said the housekeeper did it to cover up her lesbian affair with Lizzie. Another said an illegitimate brother of Lizzie and Emma did it (never existed). There was no such drama involved in the situation. Lizzie and Emma did not want the property Morse was there to help transfer to go to Mrs. Borden's family and stormed out of the house in protest a few days earlier after an argument with their father about the property. Emma didn't have the guts to go back and do something to make sure that that property didn't tansfer but Lizzie did. She successfully made the transfer not happen and became a self-made heiress at the same time. Emma knew all the time exactly what Lizzie did and Lizzie got angry at her once while she was in jail and was heard to say "You gave me away, Emma!" There's not much else to say about it really, except to counter wild theories about other sorts of fictional drama that people make up as if it's all some kind of write-your-own-soap opera game. What a waste of time.
DID SHE? OF COURSE SHE DID.
Laura here, she didn't just murder them she slaughtered them which shows rage. I think she was very angry and resentful at the treatment by the father. she wanted to live a luxurious life and he was a miser. I think she did confess to her sister what she'd done and they never spoke again. They're could of been other abuse going on but well never know.
She and her sister fought years after the murders. I think it had more to do with Lizzie constantly hanging out with actors and actresses.
She was indeed enraged, that the father would dare to give away property she and her sister wanted BEFORE he died so it would not be in the will.
She hit BOTH parents first directly in the face so yes, that was an expression of hatred.
She was basically an elder abuser and it is not well known but she verbally abused both parents constantly in the time preceding the murders, attempting to kill them both psychologically as well as physically.
One of the last things she said to her father, when he left the house one day, was "I hope when they bring you home it will be in a pine box."
This is how she treated them.
@@serialsquadron the gift of property to Abby’s sister upset Emma and Lizzie so Andrew bought them a house from which they could collect rent. The girls did not like being landladies so Andrew bought the house back from them, paying them more than he had paid for it. The girls both received very generous allowances. Emma was sent to Wheaton College. Lizzie was given a three month trip to Europe. After the murder, Emma and Lizzie lived together at Maplecroft for years. They got in a huge fight over Lizzie’s relationship with actors and actresses. That’s what separated them.
@@serialsquadron How the Ef would you know she was enraged? You weren’t there. Andrew was not a miser. He gave his daughter’s generous allowances. He sent Emma to Wheaton college and Lizzie to Europe. He bought them a house for them to rent out to increase their income. When they disliked being landladies, he bought the house back from them at an increased price. By the accounts of people who actually knew the Bordens, Andrew and Lizzie were exceptionally close. Dr Bolton arrived very shortly after Andrew’s murder. His blood had not even begun to congeal. Lizzie was hysterical with grief. Bolton gave her a large shot of morphine. She was stoned to the gills by the time the police arrived. The jury acquitted her within an hour and a half. Don’t give me that nonsense about the jury not believing a woman could commit this crime. A lot of women were hanged from the dark ages down to when most places abolished capital punishment. We still execute women in some states.
@@nbenefiel Because the two daughters verbally attacked their father shortly before the murders took place, angry that he had announced he intended to give the Swansea house to Abby's relatives before he died, and, in fact was going to do so right then. They were both livid about this and after the screaming fight both sisters decided to leave the house in protest. But then a few days Lizzie went back, with a plan in mind to stop the transfer of that property, which is exactly what she did. Then, afterward, she wasn't angry any more.
My take is Lizzie did it, and was found not guilty because the evidence just wasn't convincing enough to merit a guilty verdict.
Of course she murdered her father and stepmother. The problem with trying to pin the murders on anyone else is that the doors were kept locked. Even Andrew had to have the maid open the door for him. Lizzie also had motive. She wanted a life befitting her father's money and status. At a time when most homes were supplied with gas lighting, the Bordens still used candles. The mutilation on both bodies, but particularly Andrew's indicates extreme rage on the part of the murderer--more than would be expected from workmen, but just right for Lizzie.
The architecture of the Borden house is also interesting. There are no hallways to speak of. Each room is entered through another room including all the bedrooms. Bridget, the maid, had the attic room so had more privacy than the Borden family members.
I have always felt that Lizzie and her uncle did the killings. Her mothers brother had much to dislike. Andrew giving away valuable property left to her daughters to his wife and her family. Andrew was a traitor.
Then one could theorize that Lizzie wasn't in the barn looking for sinkers, but acting as lookout for her uncle while he did the deed. The sinker story was just an excuse.
It was his property to do what he wanted it
@@pattyseverson4956You missed the point. No one is disputing whether Andrew could give his property to his wife's family. It's the "why" his daughter would want to kill her father and stepmother. It makes sense why she would do it.
I hadn't thought of him (I thought the sister was involved in the failed poisoning) however you are correct he'd be easily talked into it.
@@sandygreenleaf6586That makes sense. Also, the amount of physical strength needed to attack a person's face like what happened to Andrew makes one think it could have been a man. Though, an angry woman is capable of many things.
She got away with it just like OJ. Lol.
Compare a picture of Lizzie Borden and Casey Anthony, someone who is known to be crazy in the modern era. You will note a similarity in the stark crazy eye look.
The overkill of the father-facial obliteration- raises certain questions commonly associated with a sexual component in homocides. Totally impossible to researchm at this late date...but Lizzy was a spinster, by that day's standards, living at home, in a very repressed family...interesting.
Lizzie did not "obliterate" her father's face.
There were two wounds on his face, that's all. The first was the first to be struck while he was either sitting up on the sofa and facing her, or actually standing before the sofa in front of her. It is a wound on his forehead above his eye which pushed his eyeball out of the socket.
She was aiming for his forehead but his backing up a bit when he saw what was coming would explain why the blow hit him in the face instead of the forehead.
He then would have moved backward on the sofa while she hit him again, and again, the hatchet didn't quite make it to his forehead, it came down on his upper jaw and broke it.
All other blows to Mr. Borden's head came from the side and DID hit him in the left side of his skull, first from the kitchen side of the sofa, then from the front side after Lizzie moved around the little table in front of the sofa and hit him from the area of the dining room entrance.
There is no evidence that Lizzie or Emma ever had boyfriends and Andrew married Abby for wifely household duties, not sex. And there is absolutely zero evidence Andrew ever sexually abused Lizzie or anyone else. The abuser was Lizzie (duh), who verbally attacked both parents constantly in the attempt to beat the hell out of them psychologically before doing so with the hatchet.
A week before the murders Mr. Borden visited a friend and with tears in his eyes said he could not understand why his daughter was so terribly mean to him and treated him as she did.
The whole Borden family was completely asexual. Which may explain why the daughters were so damn uptight all the time.
If we knew who ordered the windows washed that day, we might know whether Lizzie is guilty. Hard to believe anybody would order a sick woman to wash windows in 90+ degree heat. But then again, they insisted on calling Bridget ‘Maggie’. Such a telling detail about their level of humanity!
I think Andrew probably was a horrible human being. I feel much more sympathy towards Abby.
If you would bother to read the trial transcript, you would know Abby was overheard telling Bridget to wash windows.
Mrs Borden ordered her to do it in spite of the heat
And Abby was a gold digger.
The safety and comfort of domestic servants (or indeed, workers in general) were not even remote concerns for employers in 1892. You did as you were told or you were out on your behind.
I think both Lizzy and the maid were involved. I even think the maid killed mrs. Borden , and Lizzie her father.
I am a distant relative of Lizzie Borden's. She was a 2nd or 3rd cousin of my great-great grandmother's. While this video is unequivocal in its condemnation of Lizzie Borden, the case isn't as cut and dried as this video purports. I've read several books on the case, and there are other viable theories about who could have been responsible. While Lizzie herself is still definitely a leading suspect, her guilt is not definitive.
I believe she was innocent, as acquitted.
@@barbaraedgley2634 I don't think there's enough evidence to say for sure one way or the other.
@dmnemaine yes, so not enough to convict her. I always felt Mr Borden SA is daughters
Agreed - and very cool that she’s in your family tree!
@@merricat3025”not guilty” does not mean “innocent,” and what OP said doesn’t contradict what you said.
One of the problems with the case is that the 90 minute gap between the Borden's deaths was based on 19th century forensics which has since been debunked. It seems clear that Abby died before Andrew, but the exact time frame couldn't be pinpointed so precisely. Maybe it was 90 minutes; maybe it was much shorter. We can't know.
Considering that Lizzie told the house maid to go get the doctor, which would've required her to go on foot, this would have added a fair bit of time to the timeframe. And any medical evidence would've been subject to science of the which was still in its infancy. Whether she did it or not, the verdict was right because they didn't have enough real evidence on her.
Great points! I also don’t trust the reliability of their forensics regarding the murder weapon
That's not true at all. Who "debunked" it? Nobody. You're just making that up.
The truth is Lizzie wanted to make it LOOK like both parents had been killed at the same time and people who were at the crime scene assumed that had happened but Mrs. Borden's blood had begun to coagulate and Andrew's was still flowing, indicating that Abby had been killed over an hour beforehand. Period. Read the medical examiner's report, don't just make things up.
It is significant that Abbie died before her husband. If Andrew predeceased her by even a few minutes, Abby and her heirs would be able to share in Andrew's fortune. Although forenscis was not fully developed at the time, experts were able to determine that Abbie died before Andrew, If Lizzie knew about an emotionally unstable brother, she may have goaded him to kill their father while maintaining her own "innocence".
@@anthonytroisi6682 There was no such person. The idea that there was is just fictionalizing and storymaking, not any kind of attempt to get at the truth.
I think Lizzie confessed to her sister that she did it, and that caused her sister to abandon her. According to all accounts, they never spoke again.
They lived together for a long time. The fight seemed to be more about Lizzie’s social life.
Lizzie liked to spend most of her time with actors, post murder, who were considered to be very immoral people. They were basically outcasts, like Lizzie. I think Emma was far to proper to put up with the partying and further social demotion.
I believe that if Emma knew about Lizzie murdering their parents, she likely knew before it actually happened.
More likely it was because Lizzy spent a lot of money on actress Nance o'Neill with whom she may have had a lesbian relationship.
I do believe that Lizzie killed them both. She had means, opportunity, and motive. I do feel that the maid knew that Lizzie did it but stayed silent because the Bordens were unpleasant people to work for. Her motive was money and hatred of her stepmother. I also feel that there was probably some incest occurring between father and daughters. She had an excellent lawyer because he created reasonable doubt when there was clear evidence against her.
Like OJ 102 years later, people didn't WANT to believe he did it...and so they didn't.
Incest ? how could you know that to be true .
I think the uncle knew and helped too
Very difficult to murder someone with an ax and not get covered with blood. Lizzie had no access to a shower but she was clean. She was wearing the same dress she had worn all day. Her hair was clean. No murder weapon was found despite repeated searches. Lizzie never left the premises. She had no place to hide a weapon.
Multiple mock trials have repeatedly acquitted her. There simply wasn’t enough evidence, still isn’t.
Lizzie did it. I'm Convinced of that.
So Lizzie Borden had her own version of a Dream Team.
My mother told me she read the account of a reporter who interviewed Borden late in life. (True? Fictional?) Borden repeated her narrative in perfect detail and the reporter found it convincing. He was leaving the room having bid farewell to the lady. By then it was late afternoon and the school boys were coming home and they started their daily chorus and you-know-what that was. Behind him the reporter her Lizzie Borden mutter, "She was *not* my mother."
Not saying this is impossible but there's no record of Lizzie Borden ever giving an interview about the case to anyone at all. I have one story written by a reporter for a magazine in which he describes the scene at the house after the murders in pretty thorough detail but that's as close to a first-hand account I've ever seen. Lizzie had no reason to want to speak about the murders and when she did before it landed her in jail. I doubt the story is true.
Two things: One, the weapon. It may not have been a hatchet. It may have been one of those heavy, old fashioned irons. Lizzie had been ironing handkerchiefs. They have very sharp edges. Two, what was Lizzie wearing? A huge piece of evidence has been in plain view for 130 years. Andrew Borden's coat at his head in the sitting room. He hung it up religiously yet on the day he's murdered, it's at his head in the sitting room, covered in blood obviously. Lizzie wore his coat. Abby had to die because Andrew's estate would have gone to her as the surviving wife.
Wow, I've always been fascinated by this case and don't think Lizzie was guilty without reason. I've never thought about Andrew's coat. That's very cool observation.
Except Lizzy wasnt the oldest to have directly inherited anything. Plus, even if she was wearing the coat, the extreme violence of the murders would have sprayed blood everywhere. It is far more likely that her Uncle, who was down on his luck, a butcher, and was staying with them at the time of the murders. His where-abouts are unaccounted for during the time period of the murders.
Makes sense!
Two roofing hatchets were used. The one on the roof of the neighbor's shed was used to kill Abby and the handleless one in the cellar to kill Andrew. The head wounds were made by a hatchet.
Lizzie wore a light blue bedford cord dress with dark blue trim, which she later hid under a pink "wrapper" or robe when the police were there. She gave them a DIFFERENT dress when they asked her to give them the one she wore that morning. Which was still on her.
It would not have been possible or necessary for Lizzie to put on Andrew's coat to kill him as she knew not much blood would result from a head wound. That's why she hit him in the head and nowhere else.
It was high summer. Andrew would not have been wearing the kind of coat that could cover a whole floor length dress. It also would not have shielded her hair, face or hands
You don’t have to blur the images. They are all over the internet and in multiple documentaries.
I hate blurred images!
On YT. You want to be monetized, you play by the rules. That includes not saying r@pe - you say SA (for sexual assault). You don't say "domestic violence " you say DV. So. Yes. We will be given blurred images and be babied with silly short names for things we all hear on TV and in the news.😂
I will always believe that Lizzie killed her father and step mother. I just don't see how anyone can doubt that she did it. All of the evidence points to her. And she had plenty of motive.
I don't like the terminology "her parents". It was her father and stepmother; her mother had died some years before. Her father and her mother were her *parents*; Abbie was just a stepmother.
Of course she did. Who else could it be?
Who else? Uncle? Illegitimate bordon son? Angry maid? Someone the older sister paid to do it while she was conveniently away? Angry customer/enemy of mr. Borden?
While seems evident pointed to Lizzie Borden, no one, the Attorneys, the Press, her other relatives nor Police questioned the Uncle. Where was he during murders. And why did he disappear even before trial started.
Actually, he was questioned and found to have an impeccable alibi. Some have theorized that it was s little *too* impeccable, like he went out with the deliberate intent to give himself an alibi. He remembered his street car number and could describe some of the passengers riding it, on top of having the relatives he visited attest to his presence. But either way, he physically could not have committed the murders.
Now, as an accomplice... John Morse was the brother on Lizzie and Emma's mother. He might have had Feelings about Andrew trying to transfer significant amounts of wealth and property to his second wife at the expense of his nieces's inheritance. It's an intriguing theory.
The uncle was not present in the house when the murders took place. He was with others who provided his alibi and he had no reason to kill the old folks anyway. I am surprised Lizzie didn't try to kill him too as he was there to transfer property to Abby's family that Lizzie and Emma didn't want to see in their possession.
I would suggest that the only thing worth discussing about him is that, especially since she killed Abby in the room Morse had been staying, her plan was to try to incriminate him for her murder. Her initial plan was to kill Abby while everyone was out of the house, which she accomplished, then try to get Bridget OUT of the house with her and go shopping before Andrew came home. But thanks to her slipping homemade rat poison in his soup the night before, he didn't feel well and neither did Bridget so she was unable to clear the house except for Abby's body and ended up realizing she would have to kill her father too. So did so in improvised fashion.
The original plan, though, was to leave the house with Abby's body to be found by others while she and Bridget were out, and possibly see Morse suspected of the crime which had been committed in "his room."
Things didn't work out that way, though.
I think Lizzie did the murders. Nobody knows what went on in that house, and why two relatively wealthy women were never married. In that time, a wealthy daughter was married to a monetarily promising young man to further the family fortunes. But neither was married, or ever had a serious boyfriend (that was documented, anyway). In that day, that time, it makes me wonder what Andrew Borden’s relationship was with his daughters. Because if you drive a hatchet into someone’s face 11 times, that’s not anger-that’s rage. I think there may have been some kind of abuse, and perhaps the distain for the step mom was that she did nothing to stop it or protect the girls. This wasn’t just greed- they would have found someone who would marry them for the promise of Andrew’s money that they could easily manipulate. And think who Liz ie befriends after the murders “theater people” from New York, people used to playing a role and hiding who they truly were and what they did.
I agree. Lizzie may have done it in a dissociative state, or the uncle may have done it and Lizzie may have kept this secret. I know someone who was repeatedly raped by her father from the time she was 9 years old. He father died a natural death - but his behavior ruined her life. Forced incest is a terrible, terrible experience.
@@XiaoGuanYin104 I've read the theory that Andrew was/had molested at least Lizzie. Then I've heard that Lizzie & the maid were in a lesbian relationship and Abby caught them.
They had money. No need to marry for it. Many women chose to remain spinsters to protect their independence. Marriage was very much an economic proposition and children almost an inevitable consequence. There were many reasons a woman of means might choose to be single, as in our times. The development of the uncle is rather interesting. These crimes are exceptionally gory for a first-timer and breaking a skull with repeated blows requires considerable strength. Serial killers usually work up to it with incidents of cruelty to animals etc. I’m thinking the butcher did it. What a great cover for why one might be covered in blood.
@@XiaoGuanYin104
Look at her empty fish eyes.
Psychopathy can summon rage without motive(or hardly any motive,to a normal person).
@@maya8627 I've always thought the same. Her photos reveal that she was a psychopath.
YES!!!! 100% she killed them & got off!!!!
More recent theories identify a flat iron and not a hatchets as the murder weapon. Lizzie was using an iron to press handkerchiefs that morning, it was readily available and matched the wounds-particularly on the back of Abby's head.
Have any of you ever seen the movie done in 1975 about the murders?
Elizabeth Montgomery plays Lizzie Borden. (TV movie)
I saw it, and it was VERY good. It's quite plausible, told from Borden's viewpoint. Incest is indeed implied, albeit subtly. Obviously, I was impressed bc it holds together and I still remember it all this time later.
I don't know if it's out anywhere, but it's worth a watch.
After Montgomery’s death in 1995, it was discovered that she and Lizzie Borden were distantly related.
Elizabeth Montgomery was Lizzie Bordens sixth cousin
I remember that movie! Elizabeth Montgomery did such a good job in portraying Lizzie. It plausibly portrayed the scenario of Lizzie being guilty. I'm not saying she is necessarily guilty, though.
@@AnastaciaInClevelandAgreed, and the ending where her sister asks if she did indeed kill father and Lizzie just looked at her was a brilliant ending. It left it up to the viewer to make up their own mind.
This case like so many such as the Lindbergh kidnapping, were so mishandled that the truth will never be known.
I loved Elizabeth Montgomery's portrayal. She was an amazing actress and I have an autographed photo of her.
She did it just like o.j. did it….
What a pair....too bad of the time gap her and O.J. could have married Elizabeth Borden Simpson.
Why would she "someone's COME IN and killed him"? Sounds like deflection. Also, forensic examiners proved she was physically capable.❤
Actually a lot of people hated Mr. Borden because he had turned dowm their loan applications causing them to loose their homes and property.
@Torgo-and-the-Lucifer-Cat: IF she really WAS innocent then it would be natural to assume that someone else had "come in and killed him".
I am "physically capable" of many things I have never done. It means NOTHING.
@@damesaphira9790 my point is is that she was basically not convicted because she was a woman and that a woman wouldn't be capable of it but now we know that she was there was no slide on the back that a negative can't prove another negative
You suggested that the jury may have been “influenced” by their culture. Did it even occur to you that they could have been influenced by the complete lack of evidence presented against her? The prosecution’s case came down to nothing more than “who else could’ve done it?” That is not a strong enough argument to convict someone of a crime in a just society.
Media publicized it to get more newspaper sales & media decided lizzie did it & publickly urged police to arrest her. They reluctantly did so to save face & appease outraged public. Media is powerful & dangerous.
Have you read any of the books that give more details than this short video?
The media made a big deal of it to sell newspapers & publickly urged the police to do their job & arrest Lizzie. In effect, the newspaper tried her, convicted her: their opinion. There was tension betwen english middleclass long time residents & the new poor irisg immigrants. They didnt want any irish or immigrant convicted or it would cause a political uproar. More convenient to convict 'rich' Lizzie. No evidence! So unfair.
@@dorothywillis1
DR can't read.
A lot of those books are based more on fiction than facts. Read the court documents. The original poster is correct.
As Dr. Grande, examining the case so astutely commented.- we STILL are fascinated by that hot day in Fall River because Lizzie doing it is so improbable and with all the evidence Lizzie NOT doing it is so improbable.
Yesterday in old Fall River, Mr. Andrew Borden died
And he got his daughter Lizzie on a charge of homicide
Some folks say she didn't do it, and others say of course she did
But they all agree Miss Lizzie B. was a problem kind of kid
The way Andrew Borden's face was completely destroyed leads me to wonder if it was the face Lizzie had to look into when he was performing incestuous acts on her. The fact she remained unmarried for her entire life leads me to believe her father completely ruined her being able to have any kind of relationships with men without dredging up bad memories. I've read that Andrew was not liked nor the Bordens in general.
I think she absolutely had been a victim of sexual abuse by him, and her sister likely was too
When I watched the movie, I thought she destroyed his face, particularly the eyes, so he cd never look at her that way, or any way, ever again. To feel so trapped, violated and desperate....I felt compassion for her, even though the crime was gruesome. So is molestation/incest.
And he was prominent, wealthy and male in the 19th century. No one wd've believed her. Women were viewed as property, inferior, weaker, not as intelligent, "less" than men then.
It doesn't justify murder, but it explains why she felt she had no choice.
And ironically, the same mindset got her an acquittal.
I think it's why Lizzie was so gracious to those that she deemed trustworthy and loyal. Perhaps she shared a dark secret with this inner circle that felt what she'd possibly done was justified. I think she simply snapped after years of abuse. She took it out on her stepmother for knowing about it and being complicit with Andrew Borden over it and refusing to help Lizzie.@@trishsiprell6996
Yes I agree I always found it Strange that all the bedrooms were attached ( no main hallway) Also, that two young fairly attractive women weren’t married, and we’re still living at home at that time was pretty uncharacteristic- I do think the uncle had something to do with it, but only after one of the sisters or both told him what was going on - as I believe, that was their biological mother’s brother- because to hit someone in the face that many times is a very personal attack
Andrew would not let them socialize and ladies married very young then and Lizzie was 32!!!! a spinster!
Her activities before and after the crime, her behaviour under investigation and interview, her language, coupled with the fact she had the means, the motive and the opportunity scream guilt to me.
Lizzie adored her father. No way would she have killed him. There was simply not enough evidence to convict her.
I read that Ms. Borden was Rx-ed Laudanum by her doctors. That could explain her behavior.
Her actions before the crime were perfectly normal. The first thing Dr. Bolton did when he arrived was to give Lizzie a strong shot of morphine because she was hysterical. She was stoned to the gills when questioned by the police.
I have fixed feelings but a part of me says guilty....
@@nbenefielWere you there to witness that?
I find it strange that Lizzie and Emma never seemed concerned about solving who killed Abby and their father, nor were they worried about their own safety, with a murderer on the loose. They could have hired a private investigator, made pleas to the local community and police for help to solve the case or offered a reward. All of this among other things, makes believe Lizzie was guilty. Emma may have been an accomplice or knew Lizzie was guilty but kept quiet.
These historic cases are some of the best episodes! I never knew most of the details of the Lizzie Borden murders.
She did it , if her dad passed away his wife would get everything, and if she just killed her step mom the father would most likely cut her out of will so they both had to go , i just wonder if the sister had a part in it too ? a i see why Lizzie was frustrated living in a house with no modern conveniences when they had plenty of money , is no excuse, she planned this out cold and calculated.
Abby would inherit everything if Andrew died first is only a myth. The law was very clear back then, if in fact the husband died first, then his wife would inherit 1/3 of his estate, his children would inherit the remaining 2/3.
Andrew Borden was very generous to his daughters. No way would he have left them in financial difficulty.
Some question still exist: why was front door locked when normally not locked during the day? Does the odd layout of the house contribute to the likelihood that only she had the opportunity to kill them? What was the reason for the Uncle’s visit to the Bordens? Why did Lizzie say that Abby received a note to visit a sick friend when she was still in the house upstairs, most likely already dead? Why did Andrew have a heavy winter coat under his head while he napped when he obviously had not worn it as it was a hot day? Why was Lizzie not soaked in blood if she used a hatchet to kill Andrew and Abby? Did she cover her hair and face with a scarf? Why were the personal affects of Lizzie like her dresser not searched for the weapon? Or were they? I think the weapon may still be in that house.
Do some reading on the case. The house was one of the most locked-up houses I've ever heard of, including the front door. And the coat under Andrew's head was the suit jacket he had worn that morning.
@@dorothywillis1 it was locked up that day. The difference was Andrew’s key did not open the front door because it was locked from the inside. Bolted? He obviously expected his key to work or he would not have tried it. Bridget opened door. I’ve read plenty on this case. It’s the filtering out the rumors that takes so much more time. It’s in the details that the case might reveal more clearly a preponderance of evidence leaning to the identity of the murderer.
@@dorothywillis1 Andrew took off his coat when he got home and probably didn’t sleep on it as there was a pillow there but perhaps Lizzie put his coat on and then killed Andrew and she put the coat under his head -that might be the reason she had no blood on her clothing.
@@skylark1250 What is your source for saying the front door was not normally locked and that Andrew tried his key, expecting it to open the door? I don't remember reading that anywhere. Of course it is an unimportant detail unless one subscribes to the theory of a murderer tiptoeing into the house.
@@skylark1250 One can say "perhaps" to anything. Having been raised by a frugal mother, I always assumed Andrew put his coat -- probably turned inside-out -- under his head to protect the upholstery of the furniture from being marked by his sweating head. In my opinion the bloodstained clothing was that dress Lizzie burned. The killer stood behind the victims. Both were killed by the first blow, so later blows would not produce a great gush of blood. Just lots of little specks. That would dry to look like brown paint. A charitable lady would not burn a paint-stained dress. There is a lot of perfectly good fabric in it which might be made into a child's dress, or a child's shirt, or used with other fabric to make a new garment. In the frugal Borden family, I can't imagine all that fabric being burned just because of some paint.
There's a big problem with the "official" account - No blood. Andrew didn't bleed despite multiple blows to the head and face. There should have been tremendous amounts of blood and cast off on the ceiling. Police found a single drop of blood on the ceiling. I believe that he was already dead before the first blow. Andrew was not feeling well that morning, and had returned early. My theory is that he died on the sofa and slumped to his right side. Lizzie discovered her father dead and, now realizing that she would be forever under the thumb of her hostile step-mother, decided to kill Abby. Also, it was a very hot day, and the house was closed up. So determining time of death would be difficult. After killing Abby, she returned downstairs and gave her dad a few chops. Also, look at the photos of Andrew. His feet are on the floor. He was sitting up when he died. If he were under attack with a hatchet, there would have been defense wounds.
The walls was splattered with blood. What you talkin'bout? 😂
No. No blood around Andrew. @@ibkristykat
@@doyledean2763 maybe the memory I have of reading the book about the murder 1 hour at a time is wrong. (I thought it was written by the same guy who wrote THE DAY LINCOLN WAS SHOT & if not done in that style then at least). Coulda sworn he said blood was splattered across the wall and on his front a bit.
Hi. I obsessed over this case for a while some years ago. One of the mysteries was "how could the killer not be covered in blood?" The area around Andrew was free of blood. One spot of blood was found on the ceiling. Multiple blows to the head should have produced tons of cast off. Abby's murder was much more bloody. But she was wearing a wig, and there was no cast off. I would love to read the post mortem notes, but I have never seen them published.@@ibkristykat
What had Lizzie recently painted that she would’ve had paint all over the blue dress?
In court testimony, a seamstress said Lizzie brushed up against a recently painted stair railing.
Yep she did it. Probably overheard the talk between Andrew and John about money/property. Most likely was the last straw.
This channel is very. Much underated
This didn't tell me anything I didn't know from watching the Elizabeth Montgomery TV movie in 1975. Today they would have searched the property more thoroughly; the police would have used the media to call forth the "sick friend."
I am trying to understand why this video keeps panning to a modern, color photo of garbage, complete with a twisted fence, a backseat of a vehicle, etc. What does that photo have to do with the famous Borden case? Nothing.
LMAO that has me confused as well
I believe whole heartedly Lizzy Borden was the killer. The movie with Elizabeth Montgomery portraying Lizzy Borden, I believe is how it happened was she took her dress and under garments off and killed them, then washed her self off and got dressed.
I recently visited, toured the house and even slept in the room where the step mother was killed.
What's with the back yard garbage pit for the default background shot???
7:50 Kaiser Wilhelm interviewing suspects.
Why are you blanking out Mr Borden’s face? We’ve all seen it heretofore.
She was as innocent as OJ Simpson
There was evidence and rumors that it was OJ'S son that killed his mother.
Ed McBain offered his opinion that Lizzie had committed the murders. His theory sounds right to me. Also, it seems mighty odd that Lizzie was standing at the top of the stairs, laughing, as Andrew Borden entered the house. She undoubtedly knew all about his personal habits and was likely laughing at him for walking into her well planned double homicide.
Actually the laughter was nervous laughter, intending to try to convey to her father that there weren't any dead bodies just a few feet to her right in the guest room. Nope, nope, everything was hunky dory and Mrs. Borden went out to see her friend. Right?
@@serialsquadronShe was laughing at Bridget fumbling with the lock on the front door as her father was waiting to be let in. Bridget uttered an ‘expletive’ (actually it was just “Pshaw!”) and that’s what set Lizzie laughing. However, from where she stood on the staircase as this occurred, she could’ve easily seen Abby Borden’s body in the guest room, just as it was discovered by Mrs Churchill and Alice Russell later.
@@slacktoryrecords4193 Well, she could have seen the bloody cloth she had wiped the hatchet off with and tossed on the bed, since the door to the guest room was open and that is why she placed herself in the defensive position she did at the top of the stairs so if Andrew tried to come up there she'd be in the way. She would not have seen Abby's body on the floor but that's irrelvant to anything since she knew it was there, because that's where she'd seen her fall after bashing her head in.
People could see under the bed from the top of the stairs, though, while ascending, and, since the door to the guest room was open, saw Abby dead that way before they were all the way up the stairs.
Also, "Pshaw" is the polite version of "Shite," which is probably what Bridget actually said.
She done it all by herself, she had more than enough hate, no one else was in the house but her
I’m from the area. Few doubt she did it. Personally I think she did it but not so much for the money. If a crime happened today as this, the murders would be assumed to have been committed by someone that knew the victims well, and deeply hated them. People have to remember, child rape has always happened, but was not talked about openly until more recently. The father was not a fan of people being around. He had two daughters and both probably knew things they could never discuss in those times. Lizzie simply,,, in the end, defended herself and her sister.
What moronic WOKE conjecture!
i agree i also think the jury thought of incest the thought she was guilty but couldnt hang her for the trauma of rape.
this scenario seems highly plausible.
This was not a random killing by a stranger. A stranger caught stealing would have cracked Borden on the head and run. This was the result of long pent up rage. Ever see Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte with Bette Davis? Same kinda thing. Of course Lizzie did it. Only the conventions of the day saved her from the gallows. Serious miscarriage of justice.
It wasn't conventions of the day. The evidence was entirely circumstantial and you can't convict on that even today.
She probably did it, but the trial probably would have the same result even today.
Would they likely be able to have obtained more evidence with the forensic sciences we have today?
Perhaps, but that would be the only thing that could change the outcome - hard evidence.
For those who got most of their info from movies, there are many rumors included in them, one being incest but that is just a rumor which was put forth in one of the movies.
How could she possibly have cleaned up well enough to not be covered in blood after such brutal attacks? They didn't have running water and there was no blood on her, no bloody clothes found, no blood on the supposed murder weapon. Also as for the barn there were workers in that attic a day or two before and there were no footprints from them. AND as for the time of death difference this was very early days of any sort of forensics and one of them was in a much warmer room that was being hit by the sun.