How wonderful to find a new podcast in the series on Lizzie Borden and the Borden murders. I’m heartbroken to have found out, however, that author Richard Behrens died in 2017. He was an excellent host for these podcasts.
Good to see the return of these. I was so sorry to hear of Richard Behrens' death- he was a very good presenter/interviewer. Looking forward to more of these
Glad to hear the newer podcasts! Sorry to hear of the passing of Mr. Behrens, the earlier podcasts helped me through the pandemic. Will you cover recent books such as ‘Look What I Have Done’ or Cara Robertson’s book, The Trial of Lizzie Borden’? I’ve read both and would love your perspective!
Great show! I would like to comment that Sawyer's behavior that day was a bit odd, IMO, in that he followed Bridget back to the house peppering her with questions that she refused to answer. He followed her all the way to the gate. This is not some kid, but a 49 year old man. It's unusual. No, lol, not saying "aha!" But any unusual behavior is worth noting in an unsolved case. He had been in the house several times before to buy vinegar. His obituary says he was the first man inside the house after the murders, so apparently the nervous cop let him go in first. He must have arrived moments before Bowen. Would he have seen Mrs. Churchill on the street before he saw Bridget returning from Alice Russel's? He didn't testify that he did. If I recall accurately, he testified he saw Bridget and knew something was wrong from her demeanor or something. Don't you find it odd for an older man to hound a young woman like that and following her all the way to the gate? To me, the heart of this case is two contradictory facts. On the one hand, the murder weapon was never found, and it was nearly impossible for Lizzie to hide it in such a way that multiple determined, rigorous searches wouldn't find. On the other hand, it was nearly impossible for an intruder to get into and out of that house unseen by Lizzie or Bridget or a neighbor. People tend to ignore one of those facts, depending on what side they fall on. I think it's great that you are in a position as a kind of referee to debunk falsehoods on either side. I do, however, think that for us in the public there IS a value in speculating. Because there is a great benefit in learning. And not just about this case. Digging hard into this case, which people won't do if they don't attempt to speculate, leads to insights. And not just about crime, but about ourselves and our own families. For example, the way we try to understand Andrew can be applied to people in our own lives. Was he the cold-hearted Ebenezer Scrooge he is portrayed as? When we look closer, we see a lot of evidence otherwise. And that's how people are. They can be thrifty and generous at the same time. They can be hard and unrelenting in some situations, yet compromising and thoughtful in others. Enjoyed the episode, thanks!
Excellent discussions. Thanks for presenting. I’m only recently looking at the Borden murders. True crime was never my thing until the Golden State Killer case in which the murderer preyed on women in my neighborhood. That scariness and his recent years ago capture made me interested in how murderers get caught, arrested, brought to trial, and convicted. So when I saw the book “The Trial of Lizzie Borden” I was fascinated by all the details I didn’t know. I remember the jump rope song and thought that was creepy as an 8 year old. But I didn’t know who Lizzie was. I read a lot of history, American history, and enjoy learning the details of what went on in the old days. And I like to look at architecture from that Victorian era. Not all sources I’ve looked at have meaningful information; yours does! Congratulations on your great work and thanks for sharing. I go back and forth on whose guilty for the murders of the Bordens. I think the floor plan of the 2nd street house can tell us a lot about who did it. And who didn’t. Motive is key as well. I may never get to the Fall River Historical Society but I’m glad you’ve put together so much insight into this fascinating and sad case.
Loved listening to this episode and Michael Martins’ cool Massachusetts accent. I’m still mystified and disappointed by the decision (made by whom, I don’t know) to dispose of the clothes Andrew and Abby were wearing. First they get buried in the backyard (!), then dug up and …?
If they were reluctant to consider a bucket full of bloody rags, then they also would’ve been reluctant to observe a woman in her petticoats. I never believed she did it in the nude, but I don’t see why she couldn’t have just removed her outer dress, and easily put it back on after. What other things were they reluctant to do for modesty sake?
How wonderful to find a new podcast in the series on Lizzie Borden and the Borden murders. I’m heartbroken to have found out, however, that author Richard Behrens died in 2017. He was an excellent host for these podcasts.
Delighted this podcast lives on. Thank you
Glad you enjoyed it!
Good to see the return of these. I was so sorry to hear of Richard Behrens' death- he was a very good presenter/interviewer. Looking forward to more of these
Glad to hear the newer podcasts! Sorry to hear of the passing of Mr. Behrens, the earlier podcasts helped me through the pandemic.
Will you cover recent books such as ‘Look What I Have Done’ or Cara Robertson’s book, The Trial of Lizzie Borden’? I’ve read both and would love your perspective!
Great podcast. Interesting. Thanks for posting
Great show! I would like to comment that Sawyer's behavior that day was a bit odd, IMO, in that he followed Bridget back to the house peppering her with questions that she refused to answer. He followed her all the way to the gate. This is not some kid, but a 49 year old man. It's unusual. No, lol, not saying "aha!" But any unusual behavior is worth noting in an unsolved case. He had been in the house several times before to buy vinegar. His obituary says he was the first man inside the house after the murders, so apparently the nervous cop let him go in first. He must have arrived moments before Bowen. Would he have seen Mrs. Churchill on the street before he saw Bridget returning from Alice Russel's? He didn't testify that he did. If I recall accurately, he testified he saw Bridget and knew something was wrong from her demeanor or something. Don't you find it odd for an older man to hound a young woman like that and following her all the way to the gate?
To me, the heart of this case is two contradictory facts. On the one hand, the murder weapon was never found, and it was nearly impossible for Lizzie to hide it in such a way that multiple determined, rigorous searches wouldn't find. On the other hand, it was nearly impossible for an intruder to get into and out of that house unseen by Lizzie or Bridget or a neighbor. People tend to ignore one of those facts, depending on what side they fall on.
I think it's great that you are in a position as a kind of referee to debunk falsehoods on either side. I do, however, think that for us in the public there IS a value in speculating. Because there is a great benefit in learning. And not just about this case. Digging hard into this case, which people won't do if they don't attempt to speculate, leads to insights. And not just about crime, but about ourselves and our own families. For example, the way we try to understand Andrew can be applied to people in our own lives. Was he the cold-hearted Ebenezer Scrooge he is portrayed as? When we look closer, we see a lot of evidence otherwise. And that's how people are. They can be thrifty and generous at the same time. They can be hard and unrelenting in some situations, yet compromising and thoughtful in others.
Enjoyed the episode, thanks!
Excellent discussions. Thanks for presenting. I’m only recently looking at the Borden murders. True crime was never my thing until the Golden State Killer case in which the murderer preyed on women in my neighborhood. That scariness and his recent years ago capture made me interested in how murderers get caught, arrested, brought to trial, and convicted. So when I saw the book “The Trial of Lizzie Borden” I was fascinated by all the details I didn’t know. I remember the jump rope song and thought that was creepy as an 8 year old. But I didn’t know who Lizzie was. I read a lot of history, American history, and enjoy learning the details of what went on in the old days. And I like to look at architecture from that Victorian era. Not all sources I’ve looked at have meaningful information; yours does! Congratulations on your great work and thanks for sharing. I go back and forth on whose guilty for the murders of the Bordens. I think the floor plan of the 2nd street house can tell us a lot about who did it. And who didn’t. Motive is key as well. I may never get to the Fall River Historical Society but I’m glad you’ve put together so much insight into this fascinating and sad case.
Loved listening to this episode and Michael Martins’ cool Massachusetts accent. I’m still mystified and disappointed by the decision (made by whom, I don’t know) to dispose of the clothes Andrew and Abby were wearing. First they get buried in the backyard (!), then dug up and …?
Too bad Mr. Martin’s audio is faint.
sounds fine, maybe they re-mastered it since?
I thought the same thing when listening on my phone speaker, but with headphones it’s mysteriously more even. Great interview thanks!
I would love to know the history of the (brownels). Where emma lived out the rest of her life after leaving maplecroft.
Oh this lady, lord let the guy speak for Christ's sake
Make your books available on audible
So broken up about the death of her parents by an ( intruder ) she went mansion shopping as a coping mechanism.
if lizzie did not do it then who did
It would've been either Bridget Sullivan or an intruder.
If they were reluctant to consider a bucket full of bloody rags, then they also would’ve been reluctant to observe a woman in her petticoats. I never believed she did it in the nude, but I don’t see why she couldn’t have just removed her outer dress, and easily put it back on after. What other things were they reluctant to do for modesty sake?