Not a lot of female axe murderers over the years. Pretty confident modern experts would have put 2 and 2 together and figured it out regardless especially when they were given the context of the era. No other female axe murderer in the 1800's. Any 'expert' would have pieced it together pretty quick.
The most horrifying part of this entire episode is the mock trial. Some of the jurors admitted to having doubt, yet still chose to go with a guilty verdict. WTF. Imagine being an innocent person and having jurors admit they had doubt, but "uuhhh...What the heck. Guilty works." It actually terrifies me.
Didn't even think of that but your right. Its supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet they all had doubts! I don't get it. Of course it was only in recent years the original house was turned into a bed and breakfast. It would have been interesting to know what the people who purchased the house from Lizzie and her sister thought about moving into a house where such a notorious crime had occurred. Also, is there any acknowledgement of the notorious past resident by the current owners of "Maplecroft," the house where the sisters moved after the trial? Does it still stand?
I am a black boy from the hood , and I know about Lizzie Borden so I refuse to believe no one selected as the jury has no idea about the Lizzie Borden case lol
Just because you paid attention doesn't mean most people have...lol. You'd be surprised the "basic" knowledge that a high percentage of people don't know.
They probably have some new evidence into who killed her stepmother and father. I believe it was Lizzie hopefully this is some new evidence come out. I know this happened over 100 years ago but hopefully this is new evidence. Let’s get them or her.
That is absolutely correct and while trouble had been building up for years with Lizzie conducting other verbal and psychological assaults on both parents she did NOT want that house to be given away and made sure she stopped its transfer.
I cannot believe there were twelve people living in America with access to books, tv, radio and other people who have never heard of Lizzie Borden. Boggles my mind.
So many people are COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to ANYTHING before their time. They see a VHS or rotary phone or even something as simple as an address book and they are mystified. I grew up watching old movies and tv shows...I learned what things before my time were. NOT SURE why no one catches on anymore. No one now ever heard of Jack the Ripper? John Wayne Gacy?
@Lyndsey 79 there's videos of paranormal investigations on CZcams of the teerifyingly skeery haunted bedrooms. They are super duper skeery. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT! LOL
i stayed over at the lizzie borden house b&b and took the evening tour, and the tour guides at the house seem to believe that it was a conspiracy between emma, lizzie, and uncle john. Emma assists as a character witness and destroys evidence, uncle john assists lizzie with the murders while the maid is asleep, emma and lizzie inherit and give john a kick back
It's been pretty well proven that John was nowhere near the house during the time of the crime. He was literally physically present with other relatives for most of that day.
I always suspected that there might have been a 2nd person involved. It would explain the lack of blood on Lizzie, how the doors were locked, and how she managed to be home and not hear a thing.
Head wounds do not spurt horror-movie blood, they leak. Lizzie would not have had any blood on her at all that did not fly off the front of the hatchet during the murders. Try chopping at a pumpkin with a hatchet sometime and see if you get covered in pumpkin juice. The doors were locked because Bridget locked the front door as always after she let Mr. Borden in the house and because Lizzie, after going out to the barn to saw the head off the hatchet, locked the door when she came in. Who says Lizzie "didn't hear a thing?" She never said any such thing; she saw and heard everything about the murders because she was the one who committed them. And decided not to try to fabricate stories about another assassin being involved which someone might catch her on in some lie; instead her bizarre tactic seemed to be to suggest that no one did it at all and if someone would have entered the house she would have seen him do so. This makes NO sense but it confused people enough to sort of stop them in their tracks. So it was either a brilliant tactic or accidentally worked in her favor, depending on how you look at things.
If the" jury" were not told this was about Lizzie Borden but instead a scenario of a crime based on these murders,then the "jury" may have come to another conclusion. Just a thought .
I recommend staying at the Lizzie Borden inn. If you do, you'll quickly be startled by one thing these programs NEVER mention, the acoustics of the house. You could hear guests in the attic while standing in the basement. You could conversations in the parlor in your room (in whispers). They HAD to say the maid was washing windows in order for the story to work, but there is no way Lizzie was at home (as she claimed) and did not hear/see a thing. Once you stay there, the case is closed. Also, if you like that sort of thing, children were murdered next door and psychics go to the Borden estate just to speak to the children in LIzzie's attic who apparently took a liking to the place.
The burning of the dress is curious. It would have been the sort of thing a maid was responsible for not the girls. And if they weren't very well off as a family a dress is a lot of fabric to just burn. From my understanding old clothes would have been reused, even if just for cleaning rags.
@@cyankirkpatrick5194 it wasnt mentioned in the trial. And no one ever says what color the paint was. Who painted there house blood red in those days? If the paint were white, that one thing, but if it was blood red or brown even, thats incrimatating.
@@kellyjacquin715 True but I've been following this for a very long time, I'm just tired of them still pointing a finger at her only the Creator knows who did it and he was a hated man in Fall River MA. A heartless slumlord.
That's about the best verdict anyone could come to with the evidence presented to the jury in 1893. Mind you, it's amazing to me that they found a jury that legitimately had never heard of Lizzie Borden before. It's a famous case that still fascinates people today; you'd think the jury would have picked up at least some peripheral knowledge about her.
Is it really best best verdict? Some of the jurors had doubts about her guilt and still chose to convict her. It's troubling to know that these people live among us and serve on juries.
uh, NO. there was only one person who refused to budge off of not guilty versus 11 on guilty - so they had no choice but to end it on not guilty. that was a hung jury.
I read somewhere that it would have been possible for Lizzie to commit the murders and not get any blood on her clothes if she had no clothes on. Then she could have gone into the cellar to wash off and dress.
My college roommate grew up in fall river mass & we had conversations on this subject. I don’t think anyone will really ever know for sure who committed the murders
I think Lizzie did it she seems like the type to do it considering some factors that played into it her father being wealthy and marrying another woman after their mom died and their father being frugal with his money given his new wife money and not his daughters, Emma disposing the step mother and not getting along with her because I think Emma felt like Abby would take Emma’s role of being a mom to Lizzzie which created some problems between them I think Lizzie wasn’t fond of her either and maybe Emma had Lizzie believe some things about her that weren’t true
She did it. 🙄 Guilty guilty. Blood evidence ? In the 19th century 😂. Claims she was home but heard nothing😂 she did it in the nude cleaned up the blood. Guilty unlike today they had no way of looking for cleaned up blood. If someone else did it would they not have left a dripping blood trail? Further more would have left in a hurry and not cleaned it up. She all but confesses to it at the end of her life anyway 😁
@@joeyjohnson4826 she is in my book have you read the letter between Lizzie when she was in jail and her sister, Emma, Lizzie thought Emma had given her away. She wrote in a letter asking you’ve given me away, haven’t you? To which Emma replied no I haven’t Lizzie thinks she’s giving her away. If you have not read that letter, I suggest you do so. It actually gives you a mental window into the whole thing.
What would have been interesting is if after the trial they had told the jury of the two key pieces of information the judge denied the original jury hearing, the attempt ti buy the poison the day before and the burning of the dress the day after.
This was interesting but very limited with information! In my study of this case , John Morse, the brother of Lizzie’s biological mother, had arrived at their house a day or two before the murders. He was known for just appearing there from somewhere out West. He was also known to arrive with just the clothes on his back. Another interesting detail is that one of his first jobs upon moving West was that of a butcher. I really think he had a lot more to do with this than we currently know. Supposedly he was away visiting relatives at the time of the murders… food for thought!
I wouldn’t put it past him in that Lizzie could have offered him money from her father’s estate. I believe the Dad was giving her biological Mom’s estate to his new wife’s family! That would’ve been John Morse’s sister’s land in Seekonk, MA.
But it's not "doubt" that makes you say not guilty. It's "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning, you can doubt something, but be more convinced something did happen than not.
If it's a reasonable doubt then you should error in that they are not guilty as we have decided its better to let a guilty man walk free then to punish a innocent one.
@@Madamegato I don’t know those jurors were really questioning the case . It seems to me that it was as if they were taking a test in school and they picked the better answer . Pretty scary
How did the writer not come across the other books written in recent decades by researchers on Mr. Borden's extremely angry illegitimate adult son and the possibility of his involvement? And that prosecutor's eager tunnel vision scares me.
The story of the illegitimate son, who’s also described as crazy and someone who talks to the hatchet he always carries, was the work of ONE author and I’ve never seen it confirmed that this “son” really existed. He seems like a horror movie cliche to me. I’ll say this for that author: his solution is the only one I’ve seen which would explain why the WHOLE FAMILY acted guilty afterwards (Lizzie, Emma, Uncle John).
There is also a book by someone named Spiering that says *Emma* did it, because he says *no one checked her alibi*. He posits that she actually had not left town until *after* killing the parents.
@@SafetySpooon No truth to that at all. Emma and Lizzie had left the house a week or so earlier in protest about how much Andrew would leave them in the will and in property. Lizzie stayed away about 3 days then came back to do her dirty work. Emma remained out in Fairhaven until after Lizzie had done it. This is not to suggest tho that Emma didn't know what Lizzie planned. In fact, I would suggest that she did know exactly and that is all the two sisters talked about after they left home. She seems to have decided to just stay clear and let Lizzie do what also benefited her. And then came home and washed the blood spots off the walls.
When the movie came out on television, I was a teenager. It was CANCELED because it was considered too violent. It was shown years later. I’ve know about this story for over forty years.
I believe Lizzie and the maid meticulously cleaned the house before the police were called. Had Luminol been available back then, they would have found the blood.
Bridget had nothing to do with the murders and there was nothing to "clean up" except the hatchet, which Lizzie cut the head off of in the barn then deposited in the cellar, the hatchet handle, which she appears to have burned in the stove, and her dress, which may have had some small blood spots on it. Lizzie concealed that by putting on a "pink wrapper" (robe) over TOP of that dress when the police came and handed them a different dress than the one she had worn (and still had on) when they asked her for the one she'd been wearing that morning. A week later she took the Bedford Cord dress and burned it outside and was seen doing so and tried to lay blame on Emma for not telling her that was something she shouldn't have done. Lizzie later said the dress had brown paint on its train and that's why she burned it, and that was actually true. But it could have and probably did have some small blood spots on it as well. So she had to destroy it. Other than that Lizzie just washed her hands in the sink, which Mrs. Churchill saw her doing, and there was nothing else to "clean up," except the bodies of her two victims.
And they did forget to mention that the reason why Lizzie and her sister fell out with each other was that Lizzie had been bringing a bunch of people, mainly theater people to the house for parties, and Emma just wanted some peace and quiet. There’s also the possibility that Lizzie ended up in a lesbian relationship with an actress and her sister did not approve.
Erin Moriarty and everyone involved in this superbly produced, well-researched show are the reasons that it has deservedly endured for so long. Thanks, 48 Hours, for making these available online.
Her father was still warm & oozing blood when police showed up. Lizzie was completely clean. Did the maid see her in a different dress than in the morning? I believe she killed her stepmother. She had time to wash the blood out of her hair & clean up, after she let her brother-in-law in to wait for the father. They did not want to lose the estate to the stepmother's family. Per the law, at that time, had she not died first, they would have lost it all.
One book I read speculated she may have been naked when she did it. That would certainly eliminate the clothing issue, and nothing to throw away. The burning of the dress though, really seems suspicious. Maybe it was put on over her blood spattered naked body? In order to look o.k. to the neighbor. Then disposed of the next day, because there would be blood on the inside of it.
@@RLU-wt8vi Like I said in my previous comment, maybe she put on a clean dress over her blood spattered naked body in order to look clean for the neighbor. A few drops of blood in her hair could just be wiped away probably. They also said that due to the parts of the victims bodies that were injured, there may not have been a lot of visible spatter anyway. They said there was blood all around the victims of course. Not sure they would have even been able to tell about microscopic particles back then anyway. Plus the crime was so unusual for that time and place, they probably did not do a really good and proper investigation anyway, as they weren't used to anything like that. Even though she was probably guilty, you must remember that when the jury comes back with a "not guilty" verdict, they are not necessarily saying she is innocent. They are required to base their decision on whether there could be a reasonable doubt. And apparently they had just enough of a possible doubt to render the "not guilty" verdict.
Lizzie wore an old Bedford Cord (light corduroy) house dress which actually did have a brown paint stain on the bottom of it when she committed the murders. She gave a dark blue Bengaline silk dress to police, however, when they asked her for what she had been wearing earlier. Both Mrs. Churchill and Bridget had seen her in the Bedford Cord dress, though, so they both knew she was lying to police and was probably guilty of the murders as a result.
The more of these I watch the more I see people convicting people on their emotions rather than facts. Hoe many people have been convicted because the jurors felt like they were guilty? Lizzie may have been guilty but the actual evidence doesn't bear this out.
This is always fascinating me. This particular case. No one takes into account that the girls actually had been to Europe and had read Sherlock Holmes in the strand. They were receiving mail from their friends (whom I'm sure we're sending them the clippings of the latest adventures of Sherlock Holmes). In 1891 scandal in Bohemia was published in the strand. The murders were committed in 1892. Emma was visiting friends out of town.. but missing the entire morning of the murders. She had been out riding a horse. She was a very capable horse rider. One of the neighbors across the street had seen a man pacing back and forth in front of their house but not showing the face. I believe at some point Emma got on a horse switch clothes into a man's clothing got into town. Lizzie let her in. She hid, she killed the stepmother, she hid again and then killed the father. She got on the horse and took off. Would someone have noticed a man on horse riding quickly out of town? Not necessarily especially if they put on a overcoat. A slicker, which was common to protect men's clothes from dust and dirt. It took some time for them to find Emma and when they did she was slightly disheveled. A telegraph was dispatched as soon as the police had gone to the house and they realized Emma wasn't there. They sent the telegraph out to the town where she was but nobody could find Emma. She was still out on her horse ride. After the dust settled from the tria;l there was a great falling out. I think Emma did it to protect Lizzie. As a mother figure she would have wanted to protect Lizzie from becoming destitute. I think she killed them to protect Lizzy and then when Lizzie rebelled against her insisting on hanging out with actresses actors that kind of thing. Emma moved out. With the inheritance they both bought very nice houses and they never spoke again. I think it's because Emma killed the parents to protect Lizzie and Lizzie was ungrateful for it but she held that over Emma's head
I have never been on a jury nor would I want to be on a jury passing judgement on a complete stranger for a crime that I was not there to witness. No way.
The whole reason she wasn't found guilty in the first place wasn't because of lack of evidence, although no "smoking gun" so to speak. It was because the jury, all men by the way, didn't believe that someone with her social standing, rich family verse poor family, could commit such a violent crime.
I used to think it was impossible to not know major historic events in one's own country, but over the years I've encountered way too many people who haven't heard of many even more prominent moments that I'm not surprised at all. This was 130 years ago and lots of people just aren't interested in history.
On the account of lack of blood... it’s more likely that Lizzie would have cleaned it up than a random intruder. Someone had to clean it up, right? And don’t forget, they didn’t have Luminol back then, so to the naked eye it could have seemed there was no blood on the scene and she could have easily changed and cleaned herself up, before she went to the neighbors. It just makes sense that if she didn’t want to get caught she would do that
I saw a documentary a few years ago that had forensics go in to search for blood and they did find it in several places on the walls in the attic. I don't know how people can sleep there!
@Samantha B A lot of sick sexual abuse and incest, including between Lizzie and her own sister. Lizzie killed them both and according to Amy, was a very mentally unstable woman. Extremely manic and disturbed. It was one of the most unsettling episodes I've seen and I'm actually quite the skeptic lol
@@TheFireproofWitch Lizzie was not the one who did it she was found not guilty, I read this article of a woman who says that Emma Borden came to her in a dream and told her that she did it and she said that Emma explained how she did it and told the woman to write down everything she said she did to them and so she wrote a book on it called “I did it”
I remember hearing the "jingle" related to this crime when I was a child? At time not understanding just how gruesome the crime was described by the words of the jingle? It was not until Elizabeth Montgomery ⭐'d in the leading role as Lizzy Borden that I had realized just what the heck we were singing? RIP Ms. Elizabeth Montgomery. Such a gifted, talented, and fine actresses. And even more so a lovely woman with a beautiful soul.
The front door was locked. Lizzie, "eating pears in the barn" would have seen any intruder enter via the latched back door. The maid was cleaning outside rear windows chatting to next doors maid when Abby died around 9am. She was sick in her attic bedroom when Andrew died at around 11am. ( She'd vomited under the pear tree). Uncle John had an airtight alibi. Emma was in Fairhaven. Lizzie was known to be abrupt, to shoplift ( people turned a blind eye & put it on Andrews account) & be loud in her dislike of Abby. The week before, a row over Andrew gifting a house to Abby's relative got so bad Lizzie & Emma moved out for 3 days. On their return Lizzie told friends they were still avoiding Andrew & Abby & staying in their rooms all day. Crime scene photo shows a folded coat next to & half under Andrews crushed head on the sofa, soaked in blood. She either wore the coat to do it or she used the rubberised, wipeable raincoat on the kitchen coat hook. Back then they were called Rain Gossamers. The sofa had cushions: why would Andrew fold his coat under his head? It was a very warm day, he wore a waistcoat & jacket, so why the coat? She used the flat iron she'd been ironing hankies with when Andrew came home. They came in all sizes , weighing anything between 3-7 pounds.The largest wound on Abby's head is pointed like a triangle....flat iron shaped? The wounds are not the long slits you'd expect from an axe , but they are v v deep & all approx 4-5cm max. Trial transcripts & autopsy photos are online.
Andrew was never asleep and was not wearing his slippers as Lizzie said he was. He was sitting up on the sofa when she gave him his first blow to the front of his face which split his eyeball and upper jaw. He then fell backward and over on the sofa and she walked around to the area in front of the dining room door and hit him more in the side of the skull, then. Standing in that position she could see Andrew's coat on the dining room table where he had placed it when he came home. She picked it up, wiped the hatchet clean with it, and deposited it under his head. The coat was not "soaked with blood," the blood from Andrew's wounds flowed down over his face onto the carpet beneath the sofa. And she did not wear a raincoat or any other sort of protective covering. The wounds she inflicted did not hit arteries and did not spurt blood. Blood leaked from the wounds after the parents were dead, and also of course was on the blade of the hatchet but that's all.
@@serialsquadron what you are saying makes zero sense. There's ALWAYS blood splatter. Arteries or not. She didn't gently smooth his head in. Or whoever did it.
@@MrsWarriorRed33med I strongly suggest you consult the original coroner's report about the scene(s) of the crime which comprehensively lists the location of every blood spot that was present after the murders. No smears of blood were found which would suggest any spurting of blood. Spatter of tiny pin-head sized spots, mostly on the picture behind Andrew's head, yes. Which flew off of the front of Lizzie's hatchet on the backswing. I mapped every spot on the stage when I produced an accurate reconstruction of the case. If you want the correct information, read what the coroner wrote which was published in the Evening Standard newspaper on its own and also as a transcription of the Coroner's testimony made in court. No blood flying all over the place as in the TV movie. Because she didn't hit any arteries. If you were to slice your wrist with a knife and open the artery there, yes, blood would spurt and flow out pretty quickly. If, however, you were to whack the blade of the same knife on the back of your hand where there are no arteries, you would get the same sort of narrow wounds that Lizzie created on her parents' skulls. Slits that would leak, but not shoot blood out of them. Get the coroner's report and read it and that will confirm the truth of matters.
Definitely one of the most fascinating ways to present this crime case, taking it to the 21st century perspective and see what a modern trial and jury would believe, genius.
Ppl are irritating with this comment. It is ignorant to think that literally everyone is the country has heard of a case that happened 100 years ago. OJ? That is something different. Please stop with it. Everyone has different life experiences.
I’ve been to the house and I was amazed at how small it is and how narrow the staircase is. I am surprised and shocked, really, that no one said they heard anything. If Lizzie committed these murders, who all experts have said were violent and rageful in nature, she had to have assistance in some way in disposing of her clothing and the weapon, let alone in cleaning herself up. I want to read Cara Robertson’s book. The most amazing fact is no one can definitively say she is guilty or not.
@@sbnl1214, firstly, the house was too small for the maid to not have heard anything. The stepmother was killed while Maggie/Bridget was cleaning the windows. There is no way she didn't hear at least one strike or the thud of the stepmother's body as it hit the floor. So, if nothing else, Maggie/Bridget served as an "alibi". I honestly think the murders were planned, and I think that Emma, Lizzie, Uncle John and Maggie/Bridget were all players. It was planned that Emma would be away. Uncle John arrived to the house the night before unannounced with no suitcase, not even a toothbrush. Furthermore, when he returned to the Bordens' home after his visit with his other relatives, he was seen as he CASUALLY fought his way through the crowd that had gathered outside of the home, went to the backyard and picked a pear from the pear tree and later said he hadn't noticed anything! Yeah, right, Uncle John! Five years after he murders, Maggie/Bridget had land and money. I believe she was paid, as was Uncle John, for their assistance.
@@sbnl1214 She didn't. There was not much blood at all. What there was were tiny spots on the walls opposite where the hatchet was lifted up and down which came off of the front of the hatchet, that's about it.
I am a native of Austin TX and grew up hearing stories of The Servant Girl Annihilator, also known as the Austin Axe Murderer and the Midnight Assassin, was an unidentified American serial killer who preyed upon the city of Austin, Texas, between 1884 and 1885. I have always hoped these type of shows would take on this case.
They forget the uncle was staying there too and left that morning. He may have gotten into it with the step mom then his brother. He may have had the bloody clothes and quickly changed.
I loved this report, I remembered hearing about this story many years ago, I find it hard that this panel of jurers would not have heard this story to date
I played this vid to my 69 year old husband and was really surprised that he'd never heard of her. I didn't think it was possible but it apparently is.
We visited Fall River all the time when I was a kid. My Dad was born there and his extended family is still there. I wish I’d known, I would have pestered him to go to the Lizzie Borden house before we left the East Coast.
I grew up in Salem Massachusetts. My informative years were filled with stories of our forefathers and "The Witch Trials". However this story did trickle all across Massachusetts. I find it so bizarre that, even though news didn't travel as fast back then, none of the jurors knew of the case. I do find that there was a motive. These women were spinsters, which back then, was not a comfortable position in society. They were not going to be financially secure until the parents passed. And that could take a lot of years. In the meantime all of daddy's riches could all be pulled out from under them or lost. So theres your motive. And one of the most common ones known to man. GREED.
I lived in Fall River. I read the actual trial transcripts. Including the fact that there was an earlier axe killing if a family not far from Fall River and no weapon was found, she was rightfully acquitted. This whole show is just effing ridiculously! BTW, it was her STEP MOTHER. Her real mother had died.
I’m a believer of oft dismissed theory that Liz and her sis were being abused by dad, ignored by mom and without any other solution. Lizzie did what had to be done.
Lizzie went with a cousin to Europe the summer before all this happened and seems to have enjoyed the freedom she had in Europe. Also makes life at home like a prison. After the trial, she and sister moved to Snob Knob with a much larger home, and Lizzie hung out with actors and a “fast” group that Emma detested. I think her motive was to gain her freedom.
@@americaneclectic If she did it, again no one ever checked out no one else's alibi, Again Mr. Borden was the most hated man in Fall River, a lot of people really wanted him dead. Besides he was about to leave everything to his wife and nothing to his daughter's so what does that say. He didn't want them to marry because he had to provide a dowry and him being a cheap skate says a lot.
@@cyankirkpatrick5194 But why would Abby be killed? She was a harmless lady. But Emma and Lizzie hated her with a passion. So Lizzie is the best option for her death.
@@americaneclectic Abby wasn't a good step mother, either she was hateful towards miss Sullivan the former maid she kept calling her the former maids name how disrespectful is that. Besides I always got accused of things just because I was there, and I got so tired of it, but it came to an embarrassing head, I was in Missouri when it happened, the one who birthed me screaming my name saying where did I hide the butter and she even walked into my room and I wasn't there and she went outside and screamed my name again and someone said she's in Missouri, and it finally registered that I wasn't there, after awhile everyone started talking about how she might have been lying after all about me. But she still said I had something to do with it under her breath.
I still don't know watching this whether lizzie was innocent or guilty. Such an interesting case but so extremely sad for all involved. Erin Moriarty brilliant presenter, hope you and all your team keep up the historical crime cases. Watching UK 🇬🇧
@@Makanalii if you watch the movie think it’s Lizzie Borden took an axe starring Elizabeth Montgomery..in the movie they show Lizzie remove her clothes and commit the crimes naked which makes sense IMO
As an older adult, Lizzie Borden would often offer cookies and milk to the neighborhood children. Some of the parents would not let their children enjoy the treats. When one child asked her mother why, the mother said, "She was not very nice to her parents."
I think that if an intruder committed these crimes the blood would still be all over the place so that goes to tell you that somebody in the house cleaned it up and I think Lizzie Borden is definitely guilty of these crimes
That's correct, but no one could have gotten into the house when its doors were locked, as they were. Lizzie was actually careful not to even knock over the small table with books on it in front of the sofa when she killed Andrew. Didn't want to make a mess or anything.
Oh, it was ALL premeditated. She WAITED for her dad to get home. Even her sister was afraid of her on her own way. Lizzie was a sociopath that was an entitled baby adult. Ugh! I think she also had issues surrounding her sexual identity and that played a part in her behavior. No way could she live life as she wanted with her father alive.
She was sexually abused by her father and her stepmother ignored it. Her bio mother was poisoned by her father so he could marry her stepmom, Abigail. Lizzie and her sister remained close and had a good relationship. Lizzie had trauma. When the community ignores victims of abuse, they can react in dark ways.
The reason Lizzie had no blood on her is the dress. Those dresses cover them from high neck, down. Put on some gloves and a hat and all you need to do is clean your face and burn the dress, which is exactly what she did.
Loved this cold case episode, you should make more of these. It goes to show how jury system is not flawless, even today. Good luck to innocent people facing trials :(
So fascinating and riveting! Love this episode. The historical aspect is very engaging especially for combination history, costume drama and true crime buffs like me. I would've loved to sit on a pretend jury too for something like this! hehe And if I were on the jury then yes, she's definitely guilty! Lizzie Borden had the motivation and all the circumstantial evidence was there. She could've covered herself with another dress or changed and she basically cleaned up hence the bloody rags in the bucket in the basement. Finally, the burnt dress days later was the most telling proof that she was burning evidence of her crime. I don't know about her stepmother but her father did sound like a controlling man and most likely why she was resentful of him. Anyway I loved how you ended the episode with the infamous rhyme. hehe Great consultant guests too! Well done!
They still be fresh enough that you get blood splatter. It takes a couple hours for the onset lividity (gravitational blood pooling in the body), and even then you still have some splatter. Being dead doesn't instantly stop a body from being squishy bags of fluid.
I worked with a guy named Borden and he came in with cigars announcing the birth of his daughter, Elizabeth. It never even occurred to him. I said nothing.🤐
I find it hard to believe that she wouldnt be covered in blood. Plus, I believe that they had no running water at the time either. How could she clean that up so fast without running water? I do think the bloody rags could definitely be from her period, and that would also explain the small amount of blood on her underdress. And if she did meticulously clean everything up, she for sure would've gotten rid of the rags, too. The only thing that bugs me is that she was in the house the whole time, and I find it hard to believe that she didn't hear something. Perhaps she was in on it, but didn't do the physical killing? This case always bugged me, not knowing who did it. There are other sources that I've looked at, and an episode by law and lumber that dive into the details of the case that will definitely give you doubts that lizzie did it.
This type of episode was a great idea. I agree with a bunch of other people and would love to see more of these episodes. Just for the history and informational piece but also with the new technology we have today.
I literally live about 2 blocks away from lizzys house in Fall River Massachusetts....a little fun fact in elementary school the 3rd grade field trip is to the Borden house where they showed us the graffic crime scene photos n the ax she used ..I'm still traumatized
Where is the cast off blood with each swing? If the father was freshly killed and still oozing, that doesn’t seem to give her enough time to wash herself clean and change. Was the uncle examined and questioned? So many questions.
You have skipped over important evidence. The floor plan of the house was crucial. Two of the three doors to the outside were locked leaving only the side door (where Bridget Sullivan was washing windows) for anyone to enter the house and Bridget said no one entered. That left only Lizzie inside, although Bridget could have gone inside but, there was no apparent motive for Bridget to commit the murders. Another salient fact was that Lizzie had killed the stepmother’s cat with a hatchet in the recent past. She hated Abbie and hated Abbie’s cat. She sounds like a woman who was seething with hatred and resentment. There is a very good book written by a judge in that district in the 20th century. He studied the trial transcript and analysed the case concluding that no one but Lizzie could have killed the victims. I cannot remember how he eliminated Bridget Sullivan. I think the book was entitled simply Lizzie Borden.
Not just on you, but every where. Hacking someone lying down, standing above them, with an axe with enough force to shatter the skull as much as was done, would throw castoff onto the wall and on the ceiling (as the perpetrator brought the axe back between blows). In the timeline as laid out in the original case, I don't think it could have been a lone perpetrator. Not enough time to do both murders, change (women's clothes in that era was not quickly changed), clean blood splatter (as suggest by the bucket of bloody rags), and dispose of the dress and axe. Investigators missed a lot, I think.
Click here to watch more full episodes of "48 Hours": czcams.com/play/PLcFHkKbd_jTJiRmfUfLX2Ay_hnf5j3cxH.html
🤟🏻 Tuesday date
I was in Mass from 1960 to 1968. I remember that I went to Salem. IDR ever being around the Borden House?
You think people will care in another 130 years?
Nolittle house on the prime
Like to awe Nellie haven't baby
What would have made this even better would be to have modern experts hear the details of the case WITHOUT knowing that it was the Lizzie Borden case.
Yes, and without the moderator inerfearing in the deliberation.
I thought the same thing!
Not a lot of female axe murderers over the years. Pretty confident modern experts would have put 2 and 2 together and figured it out regardless especially when they were given the context of the era.
No other female axe murderer in the 1800's. Any 'expert' would have pieced it together pretty quick.
There's little kids in China who jump rope to that little diddy. 🎵Lizzie Borden took an🪓🎵
True
The most horrifying part of this entire episode is the mock trial. Some of the jurors admitted to having doubt, yet still chose to go with a guilty verdict. WTF. Imagine being an innocent person and having jurors admit they had doubt, but "uuhhh...What the heck. Guilty works." It actually terrifies me.
Ditto
It should terrify you!
Because they were being paid, of course there going to side withe the money
Me too!!! you have to have evidence, wtaf
Didn't even think of that but your right. Its supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet they all had doubts! I don't get it.
Of course it was only in recent years the original house was turned into a bed and breakfast. It would have been interesting to know what the people who purchased the house from Lizzie and her sister thought about moving into a house where such a notorious crime had occurred. Also, is there any acknowledgement of the notorious past resident by the current owners of "Maplecroft," the house where the sisters moved after the trial? Does it still stand?
I am a black boy from the hood , and I know about Lizzie Borden so I refuse to believe no one selected as the jury has no idea about the Lizzie Borden case lol
Do you think she killed them?
Why is your thinking so limited? I’m not sure how being Black and from the hood is a prerequisite for not being exposed to history.
Just because you paid attention doesn't mean most people have...lol. You'd be surprised the "basic" knowledge that a high percentage of people don't know.
*...that no one selected to be on the jury had heard about the case.
I liked the episode better on deadly woman
Wow, I never expected 48 hours would cover such an old case like this. I like it though, I’d love to see more like this one in the future.
I'm surprised as well. It was a good episode and I hope that they will do other cold cases as well.
They probably have some new evidence into who killed her stepmother and father. I believe it was Lizzie hopefully this is some new evidence come out. I know this happened over 100 years ago but hopefully this is new evidence. Let’s get them or her.
Covid content..that's the first thing that came to mind
Her father giving the house to the in-laws was the final straw. They had to go.
The in-laws is who I think did it Lizzie Borden didn't
@@bamaangel7146 yes they were trying to get rid of Lizzie . They didn't want to keep her there
.
@@bamaangel7146 That makes no sense.
I think it was John Morse
That is absolutely correct and while trouble had been building up for years with Lizzie conducting other verbal and psychological assaults on both parents she did NOT want that house to be given away and made sure she stopped its transfer.
I cannot believe there were twelve people living in America with access to books, tv, radio and other people who have never heard of Lizzie Borden. Boggles my mind.
They lied to get on tv 😂
So many people are COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to ANYTHING before their time. They see a VHS or rotary phone or even something as simple as an address book and they are mystified. I grew up watching old movies and tv shows...I learned what things before my time were. NOT SURE why no one catches on anymore. No one now ever heard of Jack the Ripper? John Wayne Gacy?
I am sure they could have found thousands.
@@SilverBokoblin NObody is 2000 years old and yet 95% of people have heard of the Bible.. the rest are infants 🤦🏽♀️
This is my first time hearing of her and Im 50 years old. I know now. :)
What I find surprising is the people picked for the jury never heard of Lizzie Borden.
Thats the type of jury every court wants 🙄
@@ginacampbell8766 That's understandable I'm just saying it's hard to believe people have never heard of Lizzie Borden.
Why? First time I hear this case. She's that much of ''a legend''?
I was as surprised as you. I’ve heard that phrase all of my life!!!
My kids know who lizzy Borden is!
This was so good. I hope they do this with more historical cases
I was thinking the same thing I really enjoyed this one I ran across it earlier today and I've been locked in very very good!!!
Just what I was thinking. It was so interesting.
This case may be in a class by itself
@Lyndsey 79 there's videos of paranormal investigations on CZcams of the teerifyingly skeery haunted bedrooms. They are super duper skeery. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT! LOL
Click the pinned link provided by
48 Hours you pine cone. 😆😂🤣
i stayed over at the lizzie borden house b&b and took the evening tour, and the tour guides at the house seem to believe that it was a conspiracy between emma, lizzie, and uncle john. Emma assists as a character witness and destroys evidence, uncle john assists lizzie with the murders while the maid is asleep, emma and lizzie inherit and give john a kick back
I wasnt thinking john was in on it but I did entertain the idea the maid helped Lizzie.
It's been pretty well proven that John was nowhere near the house during the time of the crime. He was literally physically present with other relatives for most of that day.
Add the illegitimate son and that is something to believe.
@@luminousmoon86 He easily could have killed Abbey who WAS DEAD...HOURS...BEFORE ANDREW CAME HOME.
Definitely 👍 I believe John played a huge part.
I always suspected that there might have been a 2nd person involved. It would explain the lack of blood on Lizzie, how the doors were locked, and how she managed to be home and not hear a thing.
I believe it was her uncle John Morse
Head wounds do not spurt horror-movie blood, they leak. Lizzie would not have had any blood on her at all that did not fly off the front of the hatchet during the murders. Try chopping at a pumpkin with a hatchet sometime and see if you get covered in pumpkin juice.
The doors were locked because Bridget locked the front door as always after she let Mr. Borden in the house and because Lizzie, after going out to the barn to saw the head off the hatchet, locked the door when she came in.
Who says Lizzie "didn't hear a thing?" She never said any such thing; she saw and heard everything about the murders because she was the one who committed them. And decided not to try to fabricate stories about another assassin being involved which someone might catch her on in some lie; instead her bizarre tactic seemed to be to suggest that no one did it at all and if someone would have entered the house she would have seen him do so. This makes NO sense but it confused people enough to sort of stop them in their tracks. So it was either a brilliant tactic or accidentally worked in her favor, depending on how you look at things.
Sort of surprised that they found people who hadn’t heard of Lizzie Borden!
No internet in the 1800’s
If the" jury" were not told this was about Lizzie Borden but instead a scenario of a crime based on these murders,then the "jury" may have come to another conclusion. Just a thought .
I recommend staying at the Lizzie Borden inn.
If you do, you'll quickly be startled by one thing these programs NEVER mention, the acoustics of the house.
You could hear guests in the attic while standing in the basement. You could conversations in the parlor in your room (in whispers).
They HAD to say the maid was washing windows in order for the story to work, but there is no way Lizzie was at home (as she claimed) and did not hear/see a thing.
Once you stay there, the case is closed.
Also, if you like that sort of thing, children were murdered next door and psychics go to the Borden estate just to speak to the children in LIzzie's attic who apparently took a liking to the place.
Murdered next door?
Did it seem haunted ?
What children.? When? Why?
@Rebecca N that’s what I’m wondering. My hearing is so bad…someone could be slaughtered in my home and I wouldn’t hear it. 😩
@@spitfire3984 my Aunt is the same way. I have bad vision and I know it bothers me so much. I have to get eye injections every other month
The burning of the dress is curious. It would have been the sort of thing a maid was responsible for not the girls. And if they weren't very well off as a family a dress is a lot of fabric to just burn. From my understanding old clothes would have been reused, even if just for cleaning rags.
In the trial, the dress has paint on it rendering it ruined.
@@cyankirkpatrick5194 unless the entire dress was dunked in a vay of paint there would have been salvageable fabric for cloths.
Exactly!
@@cyankirkpatrick5194 it wasnt mentioned in the trial. And no one ever says what color the paint was. Who painted there house blood red in those days? If the paint were white, that one thing, but if it was blood red or brown even, thats incrimatating.
@@kellyjacquin715 True but I've been following this for a very long time, I'm just tired of them still pointing a finger at her only the Creator knows who did it and he was a hated man in Fall River MA. A heartless slumlord.
That's about the best verdict anyone could come to with the evidence presented to the jury in 1893. Mind you, it's amazing to me that they found a jury that legitimately had never heard of Lizzie Borden before. It's a famous case that still fascinates people today; you'd think the jury would have picked up at least some peripheral knowledge about her.
Is it really best best verdict? Some of the jurors had doubts about her guilt and still chose to convict her. It's troubling to know that these people live among us and serve on juries.
Please note the original jury was not a hung jury but unanimously declared her not guilty.
Because they were all men and they were too sexist to believe a woman was physically capable of committing such a brutal crime.
uh, NO. there was only one person who refused to budge off of not guilty versus 11 on guilty - so they had no choice but to end it on not guilty. that was a hung jury.
@@spikebloodworth1 He should’ve just stuck to his guns.
If it’s a mistrial then let it be, don’t let others pressure you.
@@RB01.10 he did stick to his guns. the other 11 had no choice but to accept it.
@@spikebloodworth1 Hold up, I thought it has to be an unanimous decision?
I read somewhere that it would have been possible for Lizzie to commit the murders and not get any blood on her clothes if she had no clothes on. Then she could have gone into the cellar to wash off and dress.
That was the theory of the 1975 TV movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery as Lizzie. Obviously, it's still unknown, but that is one theory.
Move over.....Sherlock! 🫠🫣
The burning of the dress is very very suspicious.
I agree! Especially the quality of dresses back then and just to burn it???
My college roommate grew up in fall river mass & we had conversations on this subject. I don’t think anyone will really ever know for sure who committed the murders
I think Lizzie did it she seems like the type to do it considering some factors that played into it her father being wealthy and marrying another woman after their mom died and their father being frugal with his money given his new wife money and not his daughters, Emma disposing the step mother and not getting along with her because I think Emma felt like Abby would take Emma’s role of being a mom to Lizzzie which created some problems between them I think Lizzie wasn’t fond of her either and maybe Emma had Lizzie believe some things about her that weren’t true
She did it. 🙄 Guilty guilty. Blood evidence ? In the 19th century 😂. Claims she was home but heard nothing😂 she did it in the nude cleaned up the blood. Guilty unlike today they had no way of looking for cleaned up blood. If someone else did it would they not have left a dripping blood trail? Further more would have left in a hurry and not cleaned it up. She all but confesses to it at the end of her life anyway 😁
@@joeyjohnson4826 she is in my book have you read the letter between Lizzie when she was in jail and her sister, Emma, Lizzie thought Emma had given her away. She wrote in a letter asking you’ve given me away, haven’t you? To which Emma replied no I haven’t Lizzie thinks she’s giving her away. If you have not read that letter, I suggest you do so. It actually gives you a mental window into the whole thing.
Well there was definitely a motive that's for sure, and people getting murdered for money is a tale as old as time. I think she did it.
What would have been interesting is if after the trial they had told the jury of the two key pieces of information the judge denied the original jury hearing, the attempt ti buy the poison the day before and the burning of the dress the day after.
This was interesting but very limited with information! In my study of this case , John Morse, the brother of Lizzie’s biological mother, had arrived at their house a day or two before the murders. He was known for just appearing there from somewhere out West. He was also known to arrive with just the clothes on his back. Another interesting detail is that one of his first jobs upon moving West was that of a butcher. I really think he had a lot more to do with this than we currently know. Supposedly he was away visiting relatives at the time of the murders… food for thought!
I've always suspected Uncle John.
John's alibi was a little TOO perfect
I wouldn’t put it past him in that Lizzie could have offered him money from her father’s estate. I believe the Dad was giving her biological Mom’s estate to his new wife’s family! That would’ve been John Morse’s sister’s land in Seekonk, MA.
What is scary about this is that there were several jurors who had doubt but they still said guilty
But it's not "doubt" that makes you say not guilty. It's "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning, you can doubt something, but be more convinced something did happen than not.
If it's a reasonable doubt then you should error in that they are not guilty as we have decided its better to let a guilty man walk free then to punish a innocent one.
@@Madamegato I don’t know those jurors were really questioning the case . It seems to me that it was as if they were taking a test in school and they picked the better answer . Pretty scary
@@Madamegato Their doubts were reasonable. They should have come back with not guilty.
To be tried by a jury of your peers is a terrifying prospect.
Based on all what was said, I cannot believe they came back guilty. No direct evidence whatsoever. I am glad they weren't on a live case!!
How did the writer not come across the other books written in recent decades by researchers on Mr. Borden's extremely angry illegitimate adult son and the possibility of his involvement? And that prosecutor's eager tunnel vision scares me.
The story of the illegitimate son, who’s also described as crazy and someone who talks to the hatchet he always carries, was the work of ONE author and I’ve never seen it confirmed that this “son” really existed. He seems like a horror movie cliche to me. I’ll say this for that author: his solution is the only one I’ve seen which would explain why the WHOLE FAMILY acted guilty afterwards (Lizzie, Emma, Uncle John).
That supposed person was entirely fabricated and never existed
Totally AGREE! I have always thought she was innocent of committing the crime, but felt she knew more then she said.
There is also a book by someone named Spiering that says *Emma* did it, because he says *no one checked her alibi*. He posits that she actually had not left town until *after* killing the parents.
@@SafetySpooon No truth to that at all. Emma and Lizzie had left the house a week or so earlier in protest about how much Andrew would leave them in the will and in property. Lizzie stayed away about 3 days then came back to do her dirty work. Emma remained out in Fairhaven until after Lizzie had done it.
This is not to suggest tho that Emma didn't know what Lizzie planned. In fact, I would suggest that she did know exactly and that is all the two sisters talked about after they left home. She seems to have decided to just stay clear and let Lizzie do what also benefited her. And then came home and washed the blood spots off the walls.
When the movie came out on television, I was a teenager. It was CANCELED because it was considered too violent. It was shown years later. I’ve know about this story for over forty years.
That's not true, the movie was shown the year it was made, I saw it broadcast.
i actually liked this case. please do more historical cases! :)
I went to high school with an Elizabeth Borden. She didn’t like it when people called her Lizzie
Oh man her parents should have named her that! Oi!
I believe Lizzie and the maid meticulously cleaned the house before the police were called. Had Luminol been available back then, they would have found the blood.
Same thoughts exactly
I don't belive that luminos was available back in that time
@@bajramielika2990 Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I believe the blood had been METICULOUSLY cleaned.
And it means nothing to me that when she told her neighbor that her father had been killed there was no blood on her either.
Bridget had nothing to do with the murders and there was nothing to "clean up" except the hatchet, which Lizzie cut the head off of in the barn then deposited in the cellar, the hatchet handle, which she appears to have burned in the stove, and her dress, which may have had some small blood spots on it. Lizzie concealed that by putting on a "pink wrapper" (robe) over TOP of that dress when the police came and handed them a different dress than the one she had worn (and still had on) when they asked her for the one she'd been wearing that morning. A week later she took the Bedford Cord dress and burned it outside and was seen doing so and tried to lay blame on Emma for not telling her that was something she shouldn't have done. Lizzie later said the dress had brown paint on its train and that's why she burned it, and that was actually true. But it could have and probably did have some small blood spots on it as well. So she had to destroy it. Other than that Lizzie just washed her hands in the sink, which Mrs. Churchill saw her doing, and there was nothing else to "clean up," except the bodies of her two victims.
And they did forget to mention that the reason why Lizzie and her sister fell out with each other was that Lizzie had been bringing a bunch of people, mainly theater people to the house for parties, and Emma just wanted some peace and quiet. There’s also the possibility that Lizzie ended up in a lesbian relationship with an actress and her sister did not approve.
Total speculation, all.
I find it hard to believe that they were able to find people who had never heard of Lizze Borden.
I didn't know who she was.
@@glasshalffull4061 If you aren't American, I understand. If you are, then there is no excuse.
@@jennifercordova7229 I was born and raised in the USA. I had no clue who she was.
I only heard of her on a podcast recently. From the US.
Erin Moriarty and everyone involved in this superbly produced, well-researched show are the reasons that it has deservedly endured for so long. Thanks, 48 Hours, for making these available online.
I think it was the uncle. How do we know exactly what time he left that morning? He could have had time to commit the murders and leave.
I think Lizzie could have asked him to.
Ok but what reason it was a Brother of the father ?
No the uncle was the bio mom’s brother not the father’s.
Her father was still warm & oozing blood when police showed up. Lizzie was completely clean. Did the maid see her in a different dress than in the morning? I believe she killed her stepmother. She had time to wash the blood out of her hair & clean up, after she let her brother-in-law in to wait for the father. They did not want to lose the estate to the stepmother's family. Per the law, at that time, had she not died first, they would have lost it all.
Lizzie claimed she had to burn a dress due to a stain on it.
One book I read speculated she may have been naked when she did it. That would certainly eliminate the clothing issue, and nothing to throw away. The burning of the dress though, really seems suspicious. Maybe it was put on over her blood spattered naked body? In order to look o.k. to the neighbor. Then disposed of the next day, because there would be blood on the inside of it.
@@Dion-rz3fz I have read that also. But, what about blood spatter? Have you read/heard anything about that?
@@RLU-wt8vi Like I said in my previous comment, maybe she put on a clean dress over her blood spattered naked body in order to look clean for the neighbor. A few drops of blood in her hair could just be wiped away probably. They also said that due to the parts of the victims bodies that were injured, there may not have been a lot of visible spatter anyway. They said there was blood all around the victims of course. Not sure they would have even been able to tell about microscopic particles back then anyway. Plus the crime was so unusual for that time and place, they probably did not do a really good and proper investigation anyway, as they weren't used to anything like that.
Even though she was probably guilty, you must remember that when the jury comes back with a "not guilty" verdict, they are not necessarily saying she is innocent. They are required to base their decision on whether there could be a reasonable doubt. And apparently they had just enough of a possible doubt to render the "not guilty" verdict.
Lizzie wore an old Bedford Cord (light corduroy) house dress which actually did have a brown paint stain on the bottom of it when she committed the murders.
She gave a dark blue Bengaline silk dress to police, however, when they asked her for what she had been wearing earlier.
Both Mrs. Churchill and Bridget had seen her in the Bedford Cord dress, though, so they both knew she was lying to police and was probably guilty of the murders as a result.
The more of these I watch the more I see people convicting people on their emotions rather than facts.
Hoe many people have been convicted because the jurors felt like they were guilty?
Lizzie may have been guilty but the actual evidence doesn't bear this out.
This is always fascinating me. This particular case. No one takes into account that the girls actually had been to Europe and had read Sherlock Holmes in the strand. They were receiving mail from their friends (whom I'm sure we're sending them the clippings of the latest adventures of Sherlock Holmes). In 1891 scandal in Bohemia was published in the strand. The murders were committed in 1892. Emma was visiting friends out of town.. but missing the entire morning of the murders. She had been out riding a horse. She was a very capable horse rider. One of the neighbors across the street had seen a man pacing back and forth in front of their house but not showing the face. I believe at some point Emma got on a horse switch clothes into a man's clothing got into town. Lizzie let her in. She hid, she killed the stepmother, she hid again and then killed the father. She got on the horse and took off. Would someone have noticed a man on horse riding quickly out of town? Not necessarily especially if they put on a overcoat. A slicker, which was common to protect men's clothes from dust and dirt. It took some time for them to find Emma and when they did she was slightly disheveled. A telegraph was dispatched as soon as the police had gone to the house and they realized Emma wasn't there. They sent the telegraph out to the town where she was but nobody could find Emma. She was still out on her horse ride. After the dust settled from the tria;l there was a great falling out. I think Emma did it to protect Lizzie. As a mother figure she would have wanted to protect Lizzie from becoming destitute. I think she killed them to protect Lizzy and then when Lizzie rebelled against her insisting on hanging out with actresses actors that kind of thing. Emma moved out. With the inheritance they both bought very nice houses and they never spoke again. I think it's because Emma killed the parents to protect Lizzie and Lizzie was ungrateful for it but she held that over Emma's head
May or may not be true but one thing is certain.You are very smart ma'am.
Great story. Lacks only one thing: any evidence at all.
I have never been on a jury nor would I want to be on a jury passing judgement on a complete stranger for a crime that I was not there to witness. No way.
The whole reason she wasn't found guilty in the first place wasn't because of lack of evidence, although no "smoking gun" so to speak. It was because the jury, all men by the way, didn't believe that someone with her social standing, rich family verse poor family, could commit such a violent crime.
You know this...how? Did the jury give interviews to Harvey Levin later?
It's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that anyone in this country has not heard of Lizzie Borden. 🤔
I used to think it was impossible to not know major historic events in one's own country, but over the years I've encountered way too many people who haven't heard of many even more prominent moments that I'm not surprised at all.
This was 130 years ago and lots of people just aren't interested in history.
@@ghostlight-explores I’m worried for the future then, since History repeats itself, when you’re grossly unaware if it.
@@buffalojill4839 there are a lot of unsolved murders and missing people.
Ugh I love history! ❤️
From South Africa and I’ve known of her and this case for a while.
@@TakingPhotosAlongtheWay I love History too. If I had to pick a major in college again, I would pick History. :)
On the account of lack of blood... it’s more likely that Lizzie would have cleaned it up than a random intruder. Someone had to clean it up, right? And don’t forget, they didn’t have Luminol back then, so to the naked eye it could have seemed there was no blood on the scene and she could have easily changed and cleaned herself up, before she went to the neighbors. It just makes sense that if she didn’t want to get caught she would do that
Monika Thomas
Luzzie would have to be extremely calm when she went to the neighbor.
I saw a documentary a few years ago that had forensics go in to search for blood and they did find it in several places on the walls in the attic. I don't know how people can sleep there!
And someone so cold and meticulous could easily be as cool as a cucumber !!
The maid was there. The maid would have seen blood, would have seen Lizzie clean it up.
She has super crazy eyes. I remember when Amy Allen from The Dead Files did an episode on her, it was so creepy.
I keep wondering what color they were.
What did Amy say happened?
@Samantha B A lot of sick sexual abuse and incest, including between Lizzie and her own sister. Lizzie killed them both and according to Amy, was a very mentally unstable woman. Extremely manic and disturbed. It was one of the most unsettling episodes I've seen and I'm actually quite the skeptic lol
@@TheFireproofWitch Lizzie was not the one who did it she was found not guilty, I read this article of a woman who says that Emma Borden came to her in a dream and told her that she did it and she said that Emma explained how she did it and told the woman to write down everything she said she did to them and so she wrote a book on it called “I did it”
I really love hearing about this case for years. But I don't think I could ever sleep in the Lizzie Borden house that would creep me out.
I did, it was weird for sure
@@KellyDFlynn tell me more. What happened in your experience there?
I remember hearing the "jingle" related to this crime when I was a child? At time not understanding just how gruesome the crime was described by the words of the jingle? It was not until Elizabeth Montgomery ⭐'d in the leading role as Lizzy Borden that I had realized just what the heck we were singing? RIP Ms. Elizabeth Montgomery. Such a gifted, talented, and fine actresses. And even more so a lovely woman with a beautiful soul.
Me too. I was born almost 100 years after but grew up hearing this jingle
The front door was locked. Lizzie, "eating pears in the barn" would have seen any intruder enter via the latched back door. The maid was cleaning outside rear windows chatting to next doors maid when Abby died around 9am. She was sick in her attic bedroom when Andrew died at around 11am. ( She'd vomited under the pear tree). Uncle John had an airtight alibi. Emma was in Fairhaven. Lizzie was known to be abrupt, to shoplift ( people turned a blind eye & put it on Andrews account) & be loud in her dislike of Abby. The week before, a row over Andrew gifting a house to Abby's relative got so bad Lizzie & Emma moved out for 3 days. On their return Lizzie told friends they were still avoiding Andrew & Abby & staying in their rooms all day. Crime scene photo shows a folded coat next to & half under Andrews crushed head on the sofa, soaked in blood. She either wore the coat to do it or she used the rubberised, wipeable raincoat on the kitchen coat hook. Back then they were called Rain Gossamers. The sofa had cushions: why would Andrew fold his coat under his head? It was a very warm day, he wore a waistcoat & jacket, so why the coat? She used the flat iron she'd been ironing hankies with when Andrew came home. They came in all sizes , weighing anything between 3-7 pounds.The largest wound on Abby's head is pointed like a triangle....flat iron shaped? The wounds are not the long slits you'd expect from an axe , but they are v v deep & all approx 4-5cm max. Trial transcripts & autopsy photos are online.
Andrew was never asleep and was not wearing his slippers as Lizzie said he was. He was sitting up on the sofa when she gave him his first blow to the front of his face which split his eyeball and upper jaw. He then fell backward and over on the sofa and she walked around to the area in front of the dining room door and hit him more in the side of the skull, then.
Standing in that position she could see Andrew's coat on the dining room table where he had placed it when he came home. She picked it up, wiped the hatchet clean with it, and deposited it under his head.
The coat was not "soaked with blood," the blood from Andrew's wounds flowed down over his face onto the carpet beneath the sofa.
And she did not wear a raincoat or any other sort of protective covering. The wounds she inflicted did not hit arteries and did not spurt blood. Blood leaked from the wounds after the parents were dead, and also of course was on the blade of the hatchet but that's all.
@@serialsquadron what you are saying makes zero sense. There's ALWAYS blood splatter. Arteries or not. She didn't gently smooth his head in. Or whoever did it.
@@MrsWarriorRed33med I strongly suggest you consult the original coroner's report about the scene(s) of the crime which comprehensively lists the location of every blood spot that was present after the murders. No smears of blood were found which would suggest any spurting of blood. Spatter of tiny pin-head sized spots, mostly on the picture behind Andrew's head, yes. Which flew off of the front of Lizzie's hatchet on the backswing.
I mapped every spot on the stage when I produced an accurate reconstruction of the case. If you want the correct information, read what the coroner wrote which was published in the Evening Standard newspaper on its own and also as a transcription of the Coroner's testimony made in court. No blood flying all over the place as in the TV movie. Because she didn't hit any arteries.
If you were to slice your wrist with a knife and open the artery there, yes, blood would spurt and flow out pretty quickly. If, however, you were to whack the blade of the same knife on the back of your hand where there are no arteries, you would get the same sort of narrow wounds that Lizzie created on her parents' skulls. Slits that would leak, but not shoot blood out of them.
Get the coroner's report and read it and that will confirm the truth of matters.
Definitely one of the most fascinating ways to present this crime case, taking it to the 21st century perspective and see what a modern trial and jury would believe, genius.
Virtually impossible that ANYONE in the country has never heard of Lizzie Borden. IMPOSSIBLE
I haven't...
Ppl are irritating with this comment. It is ignorant to think that literally everyone is the country has heard of a case that happened 100 years ago. OJ? That is something different. Please stop with it. Everyone has different life experiences.
If she didn't do it, who did? She's guilty.. who burns dresses the day after the funeral, weird.
I’ve been to the house and I was amazed at how small it is and how narrow the staircase is.
I am surprised and shocked, really, that no one said they heard anything. If Lizzie committed these murders, who all experts have said were violent and rageful in nature, she had to have
assistance in some way in disposing of her clothing and the weapon, let alone in cleaning herself up.
I want to read Cara Robertson’s book.
The most amazing fact is no one can definitively say she is guilty or not.
I would love to go spend a night at the house . I know they allow folks to do that . The entire case is extremely interesting
Why would she need help doing those things?
@@sbnl1214, firstly, the house was too small for the maid to not have heard anything. The stepmother was killed while Maggie/Bridget was cleaning the windows. There is no way she didn't hear at least one strike or the thud of the stepmother's body as it hit the floor. So, if nothing else, Maggie/Bridget served as an "alibi".
I honestly think the murders were planned, and I think that Emma, Lizzie, Uncle John and Maggie/Bridget were all players. It was planned that Emma would be away. Uncle John arrived to the house the night before unannounced with no suitcase, not even a toothbrush. Furthermore, when he returned to the Bordens' home after his visit with his other relatives, he was seen as he CASUALLY fought his way through the crowd that had gathered outside of the home, went to the backyard and picked a pear from the pear tree and later said he hadn't noticed anything! Yeah, right, Uncle John!
Five years after he murders, Maggie/Bridget had land and money. I believe she was paid, as was Uncle John, for their assistance.
@@sbnl1214 She didn't. There was not much blood at all. What there was were tiny spots on the walls opposite where the hatchet was lifted up and down which came off of the front of the hatchet, that's about it.
@@LYBismI've always suspected Uncle John.
Never gets old. Seen it about 9 times by now. Great job to Erin F. Moriarty!
So Moriarty, we meet again!! Did you think I wouldnt track you down here, on youtube comments??
En' gaurde!🤺
She was evil 👿
What’s REALLY scary is: they found Americans who have never heard of Lizzie Borden.
I am a native of Austin TX and grew up hearing stories of The Servant Girl Annihilator, also known as the Austin Axe Murderer and the Midnight Assassin, was an unidentified American serial killer who preyed upon the city of Austin, Texas, between 1884 and 1885. I have always hoped these type of shows would take on this case.
thank you so much for this video I really enjoyed it can’t wait to see more like this ❤
They forget the uncle was staying there too and left that morning. He may have gotten into it with the step mom then his brother. He may have had the bloody clothes and quickly changed.
Yes ! No one ever mentions that
what i’m really curious about is how they could assembly a jury of people today that had never heard of her!
God I hope my life is never in the hands of a small group of ppl. What a nightmare
I loved this report, I remembered hearing about this story many years ago, I find it hard that this panel of jurers would not have heard this story to date
I played this vid to my 69 year old husband and was really surprised that he'd never heard of her. I didn't think it was possible but it apparently is.
We visited Fall River all the time when I was a kid. My Dad was born there and his extended family is still there. I wish I’d known, I would have pestered him to go to the Lizzie Borden house before we left the East Coast.
I grew up in Salem Massachusetts. My informative years were filled with stories of our forefathers and "The Witch Trials". However this story did trickle all across Massachusetts. I find it so bizarre that, even though news didn't travel as fast back then, none of the jurors knew of the case. I do find that there was a motive. These women were spinsters, which back then, was not a comfortable position in society. They were not going to be financially secure until the parents passed. And that could take a lot of years. In the meantime all of daddy's riches could all be pulled out from under them or lost. So theres your motive. And one of the most common ones known to man. GREED.
If they voted not guilty because they believed a woman was not capable of such violence , they were wrong.
I think her neighbor and sister totally covered for her because they knew the rest of the story, whatever that was.
Imagine Lizzie didn't do it. They've been making money off her name for years.
technically she was found not guilty so same thing
Lizzie was acquitted- NOT bc she was a woman- but bc there was NO EVIDENCE!
I lived in Fall River. I read the actual trial transcripts. Including the fact that there was an earlier axe killing if a family not far from Fall River and no weapon was found, she was rightfully acquitted. This whole show is just effing ridiculously! BTW, it was her STEP MOTHER. Her real mother had died.
It such a ridiculous episode
They said she was her step mother at least a couple of times.
The script is available online 🙄
I’m a believer of oft dismissed theory that Liz and her sis were being abused by dad, ignored by mom and without any other solution. Lizzie did what had to be done.
Step mom
Lizzie went with a cousin to Europe the summer before all this happened and seems to have enjoyed the freedom she had in Europe. Also makes life at home like a prison. After the trial, she and sister moved to Snob Knob with a much larger home, and Lizzie hung out with actors and a “fast” group that Emma detested. I think her motive was to gain her freedom.
@@americaneclectic If she did it, again no one ever checked out no one else's alibi, Again Mr. Borden was the most hated man in Fall River, a lot of people really wanted him dead. Besides he was about to leave everything to his wife and nothing to his daughter's so what does that say. He didn't want them to marry because he had to provide a dowry and him being a cheap skate says a lot.
@@cyankirkpatrick5194 But why would Abby be killed? She was a harmless lady. But Emma and Lizzie hated her with a passion. So Lizzie is the best option for her death.
@@americaneclectic Abby wasn't a good step mother, either she was hateful towards miss Sullivan the former maid she kept calling her the former maids name how disrespectful is that. Besides I always got accused of things just because I was there, and I got so tired of it, but it came to an embarrassing head, I was in Missouri when it happened, the one who birthed me screaming my name saying where did I hide the butter and she even walked into my room and I wasn't there and she went outside and screamed my name again and someone said she's in Missouri, and it finally registered that I wasn't there, after awhile everyone started talking about how she might have been lying after all about me. But she still said I had something to do with it under her breath.
OLE LIZZY outsmarted the good ole boys of the Jury by fainting when the skulls were brought into court.
One of the most stunning Document-Series i saw in my life, I am 57...
I was always so intrigued with this story. I thinks she did it.
I still don't know watching this whether lizzie was innocent or guilty. Such an interesting case but so extremely sad for all involved. Erin Moriarty brilliant presenter, hope you and all your team keep up the historical crime cases. Watching UK 🇬🇧
I don’t think she did only because the house was being watched by someone day before
When they say that she didn't have any blood, yet burned her dress the day after, I kind of wonder.
@@Makanalii you have a good point
@@Makanalii if you watch the movie think it’s Lizzie Borden took an axe starring Elizabeth Montgomery..in the movie they show Lizzie remove her clothes and commit the crimes naked which makes sense IMO
@@itzAngie81 then there would be no need to burn a dress
Remember the French maid twins who killed their owner and her daughter viciously
As an older adult, Lizzie Borden would often offer cookies and milk to the neighborhood children. Some of the parents would not let their children enjoy the treats. When one child asked her mother why, the mother said, "She was not very nice to her parents."
I don't believe for a minute anyone has not heard of Lizzie Borden. What a ridiculous idea.
I think that if an intruder committed these crimes the blood would still be all over the place so that goes to tell you that somebody in the house cleaned it up and I think Lizzie Borden is definitely guilty of these crimes
Yes!!!
That's correct, but no one could have gotten into the house when its doors were locked, as they were. Lizzie was actually careful not to even knock over the small table with books on it in front of the sofa when she killed Andrew. Didn't want to make a mess or anything.
Oh, it was ALL premeditated. She WAITED for her dad to get home. Even her sister was afraid of her on her own way. Lizzie was a sociopath that was an entitled baby adult. Ugh! I think she also had issues surrounding her sexual identity and that played a part in her behavior. No way could she live life as she wanted with her father alive.
My exact thought too
She was sexually abused by her father and her stepmother ignored it. Her bio mother was poisoned by her father so he could marry her stepmom, Abigail. Lizzie and her sister remained close and had a good relationship. Lizzie had trauma. When the community ignores victims of abuse, they can react in dark ways.
PLEASE DO MORE HISTORICAL CASES!!!!!!!!
She may be guilty, but I still feel like there's a piece of the puzzle missing somewhere.
A video about a notorious and dastardly crime from the 1890's, I should have known Moriarty was behind it the whole time!
Remember they said that the house didn't have in doors pipes. So how did she wash out the blood on her image all that blood she must had on her.
I live near Fall River, Massachusetts and this story is legendary. I did all kinds of reports in school on this case. I'm glad to see you covering it.
I absolutely love going back to these reeeeeeeally cold cases
Nice! An episode about H.H. Holmes would be much apprecited.
The reason Lizzie had no blood on her is the dress. Those dresses cover them from high neck, down. Put on some gloves and a hat and all you need to do is clean your face and burn the dress, which is exactly what she did.
But when the detectives came to interview her she was still wearing the dress. She burned it three days later.
Loved this cold case episode, you should make more of these. It goes to show how jury system is not flawless, even today. Good luck to innocent people facing trials :(
I don’t feel that good now watching this
So fascinating and riveting! Love this episode. The historical aspect is very engaging especially for combination history, costume drama and true crime buffs like me. I would've loved to sit on a pretend jury too for something like this! hehe
And if I were on the jury then yes, she's definitely guilty! Lizzie Borden had the motivation and all the circumstantial evidence was there. She could've covered herself with another dress or changed and she basically cleaned up hence the bloody rags in the bucket in the basement. Finally, the burnt dress days later was the most telling proof that she was burning evidence of her crime. I don't know about her stepmother but her father did sound like a controlling man and most likely why she was resentful of him.
Anyway I loved how you ended the episode with the infamous rhyme. hehe Great consultant guests too! Well done!
Agree... She is guilthy... The proof is she bought an expensive house after that. Her motive was money. She want live comfortably and elegant
We're the bodies checked for death by poison? If they were dead when the hatchet was used, that would explain the lack of blood splatter.
They still be fresh enough that you get blood splatter. It takes a couple hours for the onset lividity (gravitational blood pooling in the body), and even then you still have some splatter. Being dead doesn't instantly stop a body from being squishy bags of fluid.
The Trial of Lizzie Borden by Cara Robertson talks about that in her book
I worked with a guy named Borden and he came in with cigars announcing the birth of his daughter, Elizabeth.
It never even occurred to him.
I said nothing.🤐
Love their intro music.
Always something about the sound of the cello or violin that creates amazing suspense and intensity
I find it hard to believe that she wouldnt be covered in blood. Plus, I believe that they had no running water at the time either. How could she clean that up so fast without running water? I do think the bloody rags could definitely be from her period, and that would also explain the small amount of blood on her underdress. And if she did meticulously clean everything up, she for sure would've gotten rid of the rags, too. The only thing that bugs me is that she was in the house the whole time, and I find it hard to believe that she didn't hear something. Perhaps she was in on it, but didn't do the physical killing? This case always bugged me, not knowing who did it. There are other sources that I've looked at, and an episode by law and lumber that dive into the details of the case that will definitely give you doubts that lizzie did it.
Not only that their house was being watched a few days prior
Supposedly she commited the act in the nude & washed up in the basement.
@@samanthab1923 never thought about that. Interesting.
@@aprilsnyder5721 they never found out who the person was but said they walked to the back of their house
Lizzie claimed she had to burn the dress due to some stain on the dress.
This type of episode was a great idea. I agree with a bunch of other people and would love to see more of these episodes. Just for the history and informational piece but also with the new technology we have today.
The standard is "convince me beyond reasonable doubt" not "is the evidenced good enough to convict"
I literally live about 2 blocks away from lizzys house in Fall River Massachusetts....a little fun fact in elementary school the 3rd grade field trip is to the Borden house where they showed us the graffic crime scene photos n the ax she used ..I'm still traumatized
Of course, according to all defense attorneys, no defendant is guilty.
Where is the cast off blood with each swing? If the father was freshly killed and still oozing, that doesn’t seem to give her enough time to wash herself clean and change. Was the uncle examined and questioned? So many questions.
Agreed. The investigation feels lacking.
> Was the uncle examined and questioned? So many questions.
Yes. He supposedly had an airtight alibi, as did Emma.
You have skipped over important evidence. The floor plan of the house was crucial. Two of the three doors to the outside were locked leaving only the side door (where Bridget Sullivan was washing windows) for anyone to enter the house and Bridget said no one entered. That left only Lizzie inside, although Bridget could have gone inside but, there was no apparent motive for Bridget to commit the murders.
Another salient fact was that Lizzie had killed the stepmother’s cat with a hatchet in the recent past. She hated Abbie and hated Abbie’s cat. She sounds like a woman who was seething with hatred and resentment. There is a very good book written by a judge in that district in the 20th century. He studied the trial transcript and analysed the case concluding that no one but Lizzie could have killed the victims. I cannot remember how he eliminated Bridget Sullivan. I think the book was entitled simply Lizzie Borden.
Guilty. Especially because she had no concern with who really killed her father.
As a group of neighborhood kids in the 70s, I remember us repeating that quote about Lizzie Borden killing her parents.
You take an ax to 2 people- you’d absolutely have blood on you. Not Guilty
Not just on you, but every where. Hacking someone lying down, standing above them, with an axe with enough force to shatter the skull as much as was done, would throw castoff onto the wall and on the ceiling (as the perpetrator brought the axe back between blows).
In the timeline as laid out in the original case, I don't think it could have been a lone perpetrator. Not enough time to do both murders, change (women's clothes in that era was not quickly changed), clean blood splatter (as suggest by the bucket of bloody rags), and dispose of the dress and axe.
Investigators missed a lot, I think.
They were doing like 140 years ago , no DNA no Luminol .
Interesting- makes a good conversation
Always was fascinated by this crime
Thanks for the video 48 hours, what a great video ❤️🌹
Both of these women are very well spoken. This was a good watch!
I don’t believe none of those people had no clue who Lizzie Borden was….