MovieChat Forums > The Legend of Lizzie Borden (1975) Discussion > why Lizzie was found not guilty

why Lizzie was found not guilty

posted 16 years ago by mdj1945
16 replies | jump to latest

At that time in Massachusetts the mandatory sentence for pre-meditated murder was hanging. Insanity pleas were unheard of in the court system because mental illness was treated with no respect. With no other choices, the jurors did not have the stomachs to send a well-respected lady and Sunday school teacher to the gallows. There was probably no doubt in their minds that she did it regardless of what they told interviewers in later years. Lizzie probably figured if her life was ever to be happy she would have to make it happen so took a huge risk and it paid off. She was free of her father's domination, her step mother was out of the way, and she inherited all the money she would ever need. If she felt any guilt she might have reconciled it thinking she had liberated her sister as well. As far as the accomplice theory mentioned in some of the Borden books, Lizzie would not have risked confiding her plan to anyone for fear of being betrayed or blackmailed. She had to pull it off on her own.

[–] dnseaman 16 years ago

I think you've got some very good points here, but keep in mind that Fall River was a blue collar shipping town in the late 19th century and hanging was certainly not the mandatory sentence in Massachusetts-something that has been eschewed ever since the hanging's in Salem village of 1691. (In fact the trials at Salem Village- a town that no longer exists) were the very last executions to take place in the commonwealth of Massachusetts.) The city of Boston, though by today's standards very close to Fall River, was a days journey by carriage and as was the case in 1691, the advanced humanism that was Boston (sporting the only original American music to be composed and housing not one but three symphony orchestras)did not travel to either Salem Village or, two hundred years later, to Fall River. The fact was that there was very little evidence that was not circumstantial and to this day it remains a mystery; we may likely think that Elizabeth Borden, who lived out her sad life like a character in a Shirley Jackson story, could have committed the two crimes, but she was not the only oppressed female of those days. And as far as her sexual orientation, a mere thirty-five miles to the north gave a back bay filled with what history refers to as "Boston Marriages", perhaps the most accepting of homosexuality in all of history- including today. If you have an opportunity you should visit Fall River. See the town as it is today and then visit the town hall and the local library
(ask to view their rare books collection and request the Borden Files)
and learn of what the town was like 125 years ago. It really isn't until you've experienced New England first hand that you can begin to understand it. While you're in Fall River, travel to Central Massachusetts where you're likely to find villages and towns that haven't changed much at all since the 19th century. A small town named Deerfild comes to mind. The Fall River Town Hall will have the transcripts, albeit hand written, from Borden's trial but then ask yourself this question: What will people say in one hundred twenty five years about the verdicts of O.J. Simpson or the police officers in the Rodney King case? I stand firm in feeling that unless you're in that jury box, you've no position to make comment on why or how. There are far too many things a jury sees and hears that we do not. And even with the transcripts-no one will ever know what transpired in the jury room.

[–] ActorMan22 15 years ago

Capital punishment was around in Mass. at least until 1927 with the Sacco and Vanzetti case.

[–] Pipeman_Toronto 16 years ago

Although what you say about her gender being a factor in the jury's decision is probably true, it's far more pertinent that there was insufficient evidence to convict her.

[–] ashkanpashakola 14 years ago

as i heard if she convicted she was first woman executed with electric chair and they didnt one a well respected woman be the first one

[–] coxm-1 15 years ago

"At that time in Massachusetts the mandatory sentence for pre-meditated murder was hanging. Insanity pleas were unheard of in the court system because mental illness was treated with no respect. With no other choices, the jurors did not have the stomachs to send a well-respected lady and Sunday school teacher to the gallows."

Also having a respected and well-liked former governor of the state as her defense attorney help her a lot.

[–] matt-282 14 years ago

She was aquitted either because the jury belived the defense claim that Lizzie Borden was the victim of circumstantial evidence, or that the proecution failed to prove their case against her.

After reviewing the court transcripts and depite some inconsistences with testimony in some parts, I think the jury came back with the right verdict.

[–] jcurrie58-1 14 years ago

From what i've read about the case, it seems that the jury never even discussed any of the evidence. They sat chatting (allegedly) for about an hour before delivering their verdict. Maybe the fact that Lizzie was a respectable well-connected genteel spinster had something to do with their verdict. Modern day juries would be far more sceptical.

[–] lroy77 14 years ago

Guilty as sin or not, I think what saved Lizzie was the morphine or stimulant or whatever it was because that changes rationalization and judgment.

She couldn't possibly give truthful and accurate testimony "under the influence" of stimulants.

Not sure if that's the legal way of putting it, but that's what I remember from the movie (which I was prohibited to watch on original airing).

[–] PaladinNJ (20334) 6 years ago

I have a cousin who studied the case in law school. He said a lot of the evidence was thrown out before they got to court because of mishandling and was declared inadmissible.

[–] alextaber1 11 years ago

Because she WASN'T!

Lizzie was asked if she got along with Mrs Borden, and she said yes, it was Emma who was not! Everybody was focused on Lizzie and completely overlooked the obvious. It was Emma, not Lizzie, who killed Abby before she killed her father.
Lizzie was aware of this, so BOTH sisters had to keep quiet.

As for Emma, she had the power, and the money to see that Lizzie went free.
Unfortunately, Fall River din't know this, nor did they care to.

Lizzie was blamed for her sisters crime, and still is.

One thing is correct, had she been found guilty, Lizzie would have been the first woman to die in the Electric chair!

Emma was cold, nasty, and quite capable of this crime, Lizzie was not!

[–] LuvvieHowell 11 years ago

Emma had an air-tight alibi...she had been visiting relatives out of town. She wasn't seen by the maid, by Uncle John Morse, or anyone else, until Dr. Bowen sent a telegram for her to return, and she did, immediately, by horse and carriage.

I've studied this case for years...a great website to visit is www.lizzieandrewborden.com. Take a look at the "Forum" (I'm a member, but under a different name than here.) We pick this case apart bit by bit.

Andrew Borden was seen fumbling with the front door (it had 3 locks) by a neighbor on or about 10:40-10:45 a.m. (He'd been in town on business.) This jibes with Bridget Sullivan's testimony that she heard someone trying to get in the front door, heard Mr. Borden, and went to let him in.

Bridget went up to take a nap (her room was on the 3rd floor; an attic room) and heard the town hall clock chime at 11:00. Lizzie called for her to come down, that her father had been killed a few minutes later. The Fall River police clocked the call at 11:05.

Okay, those are the facts. How would Lizzie have had time to ax murder her father, a messy affair...despite the grisly nursery rhyme about 40 whacks, he actually received 11 blows, all to the face, all to the area of nose and eyes) which would have resulted in blood spatter (from the swinging of the ax/hatchet/meatcleaver) and blood spurting (from the wounds...his eye was severed in two) and then clean herself off, change clothes, or put them back on (or however it would have been done, CLEAN HER HAIR off, dry it completely, and restyle it, etc, etc etc. Do you see where i'm going with this?

There wasn't enough time. AND this isn't even taking into account the fact that Abby Borden had been killed about 1-1 1/2 hours before him...with 18 blows to the back of her head (well, almost...the first blow was on her face...she saw her attacker, and then spun around and fell, dying in the spot where she received the remaining 17 blows.)

Again...the time factor is huge. Multiple people saw Lizzie right after her father's attack (blood was still oozing out of him when police got there) and she didn't have ANY blood on her, not a hair out of place, nothing in disarray, she wasn't disheveled in the least.

This movie had Lizzie stripping naked to do both murders. The film's producers got the idea from an actual letter sent to Fall River police (there were hundreds of people who wrote to the police about their own personal theories) that asked "did you ever think she could have been nude?"

She was wearing a navy blue silk skirt (floor length, of course...these were Victorian times) a matching long sleeved navy blue blouse, a corset, bra, petticoats, silk hose and button up boots. Her hair was neatly pulled back in a bun. There is no way she would have had time to strip twice, cleaning up after each, and put on that outfit.

My theory is that someone else did the murder's, but Lizzie knew who. I've posted this in another thread, but anyone interested should read "the Ruby story." Ruby Cameron was a 25 year old nurse who cared for Lizzie during her last week of life..(she had not recovered from gall bladder surgery and was dying of pneumonia.) Ruby lived until 1985, in Maine. In the last year of HER life, she revealed a secret she'd been hiding for 60 years...the things Lizzie Borden told her, knowing she was going to soon meet her Maker.

I won't spoil it on by revealing on here what Ruby Cameron told a small newspaper in Maine, but it makes more sense than all the other theories I've heard.

Thanks for reading this!

[–] preppy-3 11 years ago

You're right--Lizzie Borden didn't kill her parents. I read in an old book of New England mysteries and such that a woman who lived on the same street as the Bordens saw a "vagrant" (her words) wandering around in the woods with blood on him around the same time as when the Bordens were murdered. It was found in a letter she wrote to her sister.

[–] PaladinNJ (20334) 2 years ago

You are aware that Emma's alibi wasn't airtight. She actually had plenty of time to get back to town on a horse and still show up at the relative's time. But I don't think she was the murderer either. There was another suspect. A half brother whom Andrew had disinherited.

The thing that always seems to point to Lizzie is that Mrs. Borden was confirmed dead first. If Andrew had died first, Abby's will would have disinherited all of them in favor of her own family.

[–] bpollen 10 years ago

Emma was out of town at the time. She had a corroborated alibi.

What I've read of Emma is that she was not cold and nasty. She was quiet, but involved in the church, was domestic, and had friends. In fact, she went to stay with a friend in need at the time of the murder. It's been speculated that she went at that time to clear the way for Lizzie to do the dastardly deed, since Emma, or either sister, rarely went out of town.

[–] dollvalley 10 years ago

Just saw the movie on dvd. Great movie, great performances.
Lots of things don't really make sense for me as well. What about the maid? She hated the Borden parents, yet spoke as a saint when questioned, and all the looks between her and Lizzie. Why would she not speak up? Just for fear she might be thought guilty?.
The theory of the stripping naked, cleaning herself and the hair is also quite surreal, and how about dumping the axe in the toilet? Or not wiping the bloody water off the side of the toilet? Did the police do no searches of the kind back then?
Hey it's a great movie, but obviously as usualy, Hollywood took a lot of liberties to make it entertaining. One thing's for sure, Montgomery did a great job, so much that I am buying all her tv movies on dvd now. And will definitely look for this Ruby Story. And I'd love to visit towns that still look like the 19th Century!!

[–] LuvvieHowell 7 years ago

I know this is an old post, but I thought I'd answer it:m

1. There is no evidence that the maid, Bridget Sullivan "hated the parents." In fact, she testified that she wanted to quit several times, but Mrs. Borden talked her into staying. Also, the maid had NO motive to kill the Bordens. She was of Irish descent, had a decent paying job with a roof over her head. Killing her employer would only mean that she would be unemployed.

2. There were no toilets in the house. In fact, there was no running water. Each person had a chamber pot in their bedroom and there was a water closet in the basement. The ax used to murder the Bordens was never found and its whereabouts remains a mystery to this day.

3. The police did search the house, and a lot. They tore up the carpets, took every ax found in the basement, and went through every closet, drawer, trunk, suitcase, etc. However, there is one thing they DIDN'T search, and that was a pail of bloody menstrual cloths (I know, gross, but this was before disposable sanitary items.) Victorian policemen were too squeamish to examine it, and this does pose a possible hiding place for the ax, or for any bloody rags that might have been used to clean up after the murders. Just a thought.