An Enthralling New Look at the Mystery of Lizzie Borden

While the contemporary notion of sexual abuse of Lizzie by Andrew emerged in recent history, it's inconceivable that the possibility was not on the minds of a good many, "white Christian daughters of powerful scions". It's at once credible, if not provable. The questions that follow write themselves: What if Lizzie had confessed and testified to the abuse? What if she were corroborated by Emma? What if Emma had testified to her own abuse by Andrew? Could Lizzie's dark secret have contributed to her choosing not to marry? Abby's killing would certainly have been a much more difficult sell, though not impossible. The sexual mores of 19th century Massachusetts alone provide many more difficult variables and might have beens. How long until the next serious book on the family?

One wonders what is new in the story since 1893's The Fall River Tragedy, A History of the Borden Murders http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57939

It is interesting that mention of Lizzie and her ax leads us to an argument about whether Islamists or right wing people do more of it. Well right now we can say there has been almost no Islamist terror in the West. It would seem that in the West, Westerners are wielding the ax while in Islamic countries quite naturally it is Islamists who are doing it. It is also clear that in this era it is the right wing that is busiest. There were times when the left were busier but that as not recently been the case and in any case there was never a time when the right just gave up.

There has always been a fascination with this case. it horrifies us because of the violence and we can't hear enough at the same time. People told the story repeatedly, because it was unusual. A woman killer. Tres' horror! Massachusetts was famous for men killing women (the "witches" remember?), not the other way around. My theory: Lizzie and her sister were being interfered with by the ghoulish daddy and the step mum didn't help the girls and then they became women and Lizzie decided to escape the abuse. They were silenced once, so Lizzie silenced the perp and his second wife. What happened to wife number one? Hmm... Or, the step mum was abused as well, physically, by big daddy. I think the first scenario makes more sense. Is murder wrong? of course. But so is abusing your daughters or wife. The fact that it was a woman who committed the crime, was unthinkable by the people of the time. Ladies didn't do that, no matter what. I do like the Suffergette angle too. And whether Lizzie liked men or women is irrelevant. She didn't like poppa, or step mum, that's evident. So the book didn't answer our questions. Leaves it wide open for another book to be written.

You had me until the mention of Lorena Bobbitt and Tonya Harding. Regardless of how awful Bobbitts husband was, if a man had done a similar thing to his wife that she did to her husband, he would have been locked up for at least 10 years on attempted manslaughter charges. And the fact that Tonya Harding could get a sympathetic ear in a piece such as this pretty much destroys the reviewer's credibility. Sexism? You bet. Only reverse sexism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuDBO1rIrb4 There is an older generation that cannot read about Lizzie B without hearing this little ditty by the Chad Mitchell Trio.

Whenver I read anything about Lizzie Borden, I wait to see if the writer mentions the Kingston Trio's song about her. "You can't chop your mother up in Massachusetts"

I remember learning the following ditty when I was a child: Lizzie Borden to an axe, And gave her father forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, She gave her mother forty-one. The Chad Mitchell Trio also did a song about Lizzie.

Lizzie Borden’s case is fascinating for many reasons. First, it gives a lie to the often-repeated claim that women are less violent than men. No, women can be as violent, bloodthirsty and aggressive as our male counterparts but we have less means to carry out our violent impulses (lack of physical strength, socialization, inability to access weapons and so on). Female serial killers often kill children or medical patients because they are easier to subdue. Second, while there is no doubt in my mind that she carried out the murder, her motives remain unclear. Perhaps she was simply bored. But this uncertainty opens up a whole field of speculations. And finally, people are attracted to aestheticized violence, which is why horror movies are so popular. But I’d rather read a horror novel based on the Borden case than another “non-fiction” book that cannot add any new facts and simply rehashes what is already known.

I had the unfortunate experience of meeting Ms. Robertson several years ago in Chapel Hill and she told me she was writing a book on Lizzie Borden. I wondered then and more so even now why one would spend years of their life researching and writing about, well, Lizzie Borden?

I find this report strange, very strange indeed. If the prosecution pointed to evidence of a 'feminine' hand in the killings, that would be straightforward forensics, not male prejudice, as this article suggests. If indeed the question was asked in court, that would be in reply to the defense's main argument (once Lizzy's alibis were disproved), that "this lovely society lady could not possibly commit such a crime!" In other words, her lawyer played the race and gender cards to drown out court forensics. Yet this report suggests that the court played them to contrary ends. Also, Lizzy had an established intimate relationship with a woman, an actress. Said actress moved into the house when the case was 'settled', which so upset Lizzy's sister that the latter moved away. It has also been argued, elsewhere, that Lizzy was about to be written out of her father's will, which establishes a financial motive. Also, the father and Lizzy could have had an incestuous relationship, not a 'child-abuse' one. And yet, none of this is mentioned here?

My husband's mother, Faith Adams Griefen, told of her father, C.P. Adams, saying that his mother, a widow (and suffragette who chained herself to the White House fence,) had gathered her five sons and said, "Boys I have invited Miss Borden to live with us." C.P. Said his mother believed Miss Borden had been framed for her suffragette sympathies. Miss Borden never came, but that's the family story.

Tip-toeing around the obvious is odd after spending so much time on a subject. The only other possible suspects were eliminated from serious consideration after diligent investigation. The all-male jury that acquitted Ms. Borden was apparently being deferential in a guarded way, suspecting a defense that was not tendered. The word on the street in Fall River was that (a) she surely did it, and (b) she had her reasons. Still, no matter what happened to Ms. Borden, murder was not the answer.

Have you ever seen photographs of Mr. Borden? BEFORE his ghastly murder, he certainly looks every inch the dour, strong-willed, puritanical patriarch. Do I remember rightly--was he wearing a beard? Beards were fairly common in the 1890's (despite clean-shaven President McKinley a few years later). But AFTER the murder! That corpse is the stuff of nightmares. Nightmares did I say? My wife (this is Norm, not Susan)--my wife had a dreadful nightmare about that very case. AMERICAN HERITAGE did a feature on Lizzie Borden and her stifled, unhappy life. There he sits on the sofa--right hand side. Stiff--leaning slightly to one side. His face is hardly recognizable as a human face. Whoever wielded that axe--my! that person was animated by a Satanic fury. The story was--a tramp was seen lounging about the property. Who could give no good account of himself. I'm not sure that anyone besides Ms. Borden SAW the tramp. So it goes. And the "coffee stain" on her dress. They had no DNA testing at that time. So it goes. Ever hear Morton Gould's "Fall River Legend"? I have. Mr. Gould wrote delightful, personable music--no question!-- --but what a subject for a BALLET? How on EARTH--would you go dancing about, being an axe murderer? But then--how on EARTH would you hack an old man to death? AND--his young wife. And KEEP hacking--long after they were dead? Beats me. Any thoughts, Ms. Robertson?

Lizzie Borden the evergreen "true crime" drama is resurrected for the umpteenth time. I was made aware of the story via my high school library in the late 1950s. Now pushing 80, I have seen the story come to the fore perhaps a dozen times aided by cable TV. In the last decade, the evening news has gotten thinner and thinner. In the 10 minutes not devoted to thunderstorms, lava, and forest fires. true crime has become a major component. First, because it fills time and also it serves to direct the viewer to a later prime time show of an hour or two. I am confident that centuries from now, Lizzie's story will be told and retold.

Another review—book, film, theater--mostly devoted to story line, asking little of critic or reader. Ms. Sehgal primarily shares details from the Borden household and the murders themselves, with glimpses of Ms. Robertson’s thinking but fewer than a dozen sentences of analysis. The book's observations about various lenses through which crimes by women have been seen surely deserve more attention, as does the reviewer's assessment of Ms. Robertson's research, writing and story-telling. Sometimes, more is more.

There are so many recent-ish books on Lizzie Borden and this review does not tell me why I should read this particular one. Furthermore, the title of the book suggests it is about the trial but much of what makes Lizzie Borden interesting is what she did after she inherited her father's wealth.

Why would you want speculation and imagination in a work of non fiction? Thats what fiction is called.

I am struck by the fact that I turned to an article about Lizzie Borden as a relief from the rampant violence in the world right now. (Most of it perpetrated by the right wing.) In what world is an axe murder case a respite from the world?