MovieChat Forums > Lizzie Borden Took an Ax (2014) Discussion > Do you think Liz was guilty or innocent?...

Do you think Liz was guilty or innocent? Why?

posted 9 years ago by Simplythebest11962
27 replies | jump to latest

I say hands down GUILTY.

First off, what was she doing between those 2 hours when her stepmother & father were separately mutilated?

Additionally, the fact that her story kept changing certainly didn't help her case for innocence.

The MOST damaging evidence supporting her guilt was the trip to the pharmacist to buy a product you don't use for normal, everyday use.

Let's NOT forget too that Lizzie Borden moved to the rich side of town and bought a mansion along with her sister.

Is that how normal, grief-stricken adult children would react to their dad's & stepmother's passing? No, of course not.

They'd either sell the house & leave town if Liz was innocent, or they'd remain in town & buy another house, but they wouldn't go out & buy a huge mansion on the hill.

All of these factors combined lead me to believe she was guilty.

"It's a good thing!"--Martha Stewart



[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

I fully understand that you're asserting she's innocent, but guilty people have been tried as innocent in the past ONLY to discover later on when more evidence came to light proved they were actually guilty.

I'm NOT being hateful towards you, so please don't take it that way, but in all honesty, you and I disagree about whether she was guilty or innocent.

That's okay, though, we're both entitled to our own opinions.

"It's a good thing!"--Martha Stewart



[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

yea, I know. 

"It's a good thing!"--Martha Stewart



[–] kelliemurray 9 years ago

Casey Anthony and OJ were both found not guilty but neither were found innocent....both are guilty as hell. They are both lucky I wasn't on their juries.

Eat some makeup because you are so ugly inside - Olivia Blois Sharpe

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

by Simplythebest90210 » Sun Nov 23 2014 00:38:51
IMDb member since May 2004
I say hands down GUILTY.

First off, what was she doing between those 2 hours when her stepmother & father were separately mutilated?

Additionally, the fact that her story kept changing certainly didn't help her case for innocence.

The MOST damaging evidence supporting her guilt was the trip to the pharmacist to buy a product you don't use for normal, everyday use.

Let's NOT forget too that Lizzie Borden moved to the rich side of town and bought a mansion along with her sister.

Is that how normal, grief-stricken adult children would react to their dad's & stepmother's passing? No, of course not.

They'd either sell the house & leave town if Liz was innocent, or they'd remain in town & buy another house, but they wouldn't go out & buy a huge mansion on the hill.

All of these factors combined lead me to believe she was guilty.

I say hands down INNOCENT.

Here's why; http://www.amazon.com/Lizzie-Didnt-Do-It-Volume/dp/0828320527/ref=cm_c r_pr_pb_t

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

blueghost,

you assert liz is innocent.

why? proof? please explain further.

thank you! 

Happy Valentine's Day!



[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

I think I mentioned that professor Masterson did extensive research on the matter, and wrote a book to publish his findings.

I believe I posted a link to the book at Amazon.

In brief, there was an eye witness, a farmer, who stated that a man dressed in a black suit, with bloodstains, possibly with a full beard and mustache (matching the description of a local visitor who was known to have mental problems), I think sat next to a small stone wall and quietly ranted to himself about how he had to kill two people.

Additionally, an ax matching the kind that was used in the killings was found on the roof of the house behind the Borden's.

Additionally, the wounds on both parents came from blows from someone who was at least taller than the mother. The individual I described matches that of a taller person.

Mister Masterson ignores what I'm guessing a lot of women like to think about; emotional motivations. Trying to guess what people are thinking or feeling is not evidence. Masterson also makes a "Miss Marple" kind of conclusion, but he's actually wrong on that account.

I could go on, but I think if you really want to know what happened, I would recommend reading his book.

I hope that helps.

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

BG,

Have you read the 1961 book, "Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story" by Edward Radin?

He alleges it was the maid!

Happy Valentine's Day!



[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

Impossible. Mister Masterson looks all of the suspects.

It was someone of tall stature. It was someone who had excessive zeal to deliver the blows. And someone who had the physical capability to deliver repeated blows who could overpower both persons.

The maid does not fit that description.

A Greek Hoplite, a Roman Centurion, a medieval warrior of either the knight class (or higher), or who was a professional soldier or mercenary, was taught to make a quick kill. Therefore the person who did this crime was probably mentally unbalanced.

The person who killed Liz Borden's parents delivered repeated multiple blows that penetrated deep into the cranial area; thick bone material.

There is a cottage industry defaming this poor woman who lived quietly and even played games with local children by giving them cookies.

She did not have the height, she did not have the physical strength, nor was she invigorated enough to commit an act of madness.

Why would it be the maid?

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

I don't know why it would be the maid.

Ask him. LOL

Happy Valentine's Day!



[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

I don't understand. Then why bring it up?

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

I brought it up because he wrote a book about Lizzie Borden & he claimed the maid did it.

It's pretty self-evident why I'd ask you if you read his book or not.

We're discussing the Lizzie Borden case.

He argued the maid did it, and your reply was that you didn't believe the maid was guilty.

Hence, the relevance of the question. 

Happy Valentine's Day!



[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

I described the physicality of the layout. You can go to any source and research it for yourself, but speculation about who might have done it must with what was found in the wake of what happened.

I just don't get why females are so fascinated by this event, and then when presented the facts let their imaginations go wild on theorizing about sexual abuse, sibling rivalry, the maid ... I'm just surprised no one's suggested Martians.

Liz Borden did not kill her parents. It was not the staff. It was not her sister. It was not a murder suicide. It was a male who was off his rocker.

End of story.

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

Perhaps!

I honestly don't know. Liz seems the MOST likely suspect because why would she buy poison from the local pharmacist back in the 80's?

I'm NO Angela Lansbury, but it certainly seems something is fish in Paradise Cove!

Happy Valentine's Day!



[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

I honestly don't know

Apparently.

If you really are that interested, then it would help you to read the police report and take a class in physics.

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

Ok.

Happy Valentine's Day!



[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

Are you flirting with me now?

No.

[–] raecheer 9 years ago

Let's NOT forget too that Lizzie Borden moved to the rich side of town and bought a mansion along with her sister.

Is that how normal, grief-stricken adult children would react to their dad's & stepmother's passing? No, of course not.

They'd either sell the house & leave town if Liz was innocent, or they'd remain in town & buy another house, but they wouldn't go out & buy a huge mansion on the hill.

Well both of the sisters did that and supposedly where they moved to was where wealthy people lived, which was not the side of town they lived with their parents. And given that Andrew was frugal, perhaps his children never liked that they had to be frugal without indoor plumbing. And they may have moved to a different part of town to get away from some of the whispering.

And I hate when people say "this isn't how someone that is grieving should act' - everyone reacts differently to different events. And perhaps Lizzie was hardened by the fact that she was accused/tried for their deaths.

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

by raecheer » 3 hours ago (Sat Jan 17 2015 09:56:12) Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since October 2006

Well both of the sisters did that and supposedly where they moved to was where wealthy people lived, which was not the side of town they lived with their parents. And given that Andrew was frugal, perhaps his children never liked that they had to be frugal without indoor plumbing. And they may have moved to a different part of town to get away from some of the whispering.

And I hate when people say "this isn't how someone that is grieving should act' - everyone reacts differently to different events. And perhaps Lizzie was hardened by the fact that she was accused/tried for their deaths.

They moved to The Hill. I can understand that simply because they grew up rich, but didn't grow up rich in their surroundings doesn't evade the fact that it was suspicious that Lizzie went to the local pharmacist to get cyanide.

Why did she go to get cyanide? If she didn't have a devious plan in mind?

Furthermore, if they REALLY wanted to get away from "...some of the whisphering," then they could've just as easily left town for NYC or elsewhere since they had the means.

Of course everyone grieves differently;however, it's highly abnormal NOT to grieve for the loss of your parents when they were recently deceased at the time in the 1800's. 

Her reaction was NOT the typical grieving reaction of a grieving daughter.

And perhaps Lizzie was hardened by the fact that she was accused/tried for their deaths.

That's always possible too.

In summary, however, I think she's guiltier than sin; unless, other proof is discovered that dismisses her guilt.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

I agree with you on that point too.

Sometimes something seems to be true because of all the evidence, but it's wrong.

So, you never know.

I know (this is a goofy example, but definitely a true one) when I was in the 9th grade, this girl who sat across from me in the cafeteria spilled her pink lemonade. She didn't even bother to clean it up & I wasn't going to clean up her mess. Well, the jerk of a coach that inspects the tables BEFORE we were allowed to leave the tables inspected it & said, who spilled that? I immediately retorted, it wasn't me and without bothering to listen, he told ME to clean it up saying I SPILLED it. I was LIVID.

Had I been the one who spilled it, then I would've immediately cleaned it up, but that stupid idiot girl didn't confess and instead, allowed ME to take the blame for her stupid mistake.

I was honestly mad. LOL

I still haven't forgotten that stupid incident. LOL

So, simply because it looks like Lizzie was guilty doesn't, by default, mean she is guilty.

Happy Valentine's Day!



[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IsoldeJaneHolland 9 years ago

I've always been inclined to think her innocent, - and I've read at least four books on the case. For one thing, the day after the murders, the sisters hired a contractor to fit all the ground floor windows with iron bars; obviously to keep someone dangerous out. I always thought William was a more likely suspect.

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

What I don't get are people who are fascinated by this case, and then look at all the motivations in the world of who might have wanted to do something, but then ignore things like the weapon (or lack of one), the layout, the kind of wounds that were inflicted, the kind of posture or strength the attacker must have had, and all the other physics and chemistry.

That's how investigations are done, even back then with primitive science.

But it seems like people let their goddamn brain get sucked out of the skull, and immediately think about sex and greed, and because they think about sex and greed they therefore think that their thinking about sex and greed somehow make those theorized motivations fact.

That's what's so goddamn absurd to me about this "case". I even have an aunt with a doctorate who, even though she's a trained doctor, is dumb as dirt when it comes to thinking about this double murder, and takes it on faith that the initial investigation was careful, complete and thorough, which it was not.

It's not just her, but a whole slew of morons, idiots and imbeciles who let gossip decide a person's guilt.

Imagine you and your accountant didn't get along. But someone murdered your accountant. By these moron's logic you're guilty because you and he disliked one another. And it's worse when the police use that kind of thinking to solve cases.

[–] Simplythebest11962 9 years ago

who's william?