Your theory that Lizzie wore Andrew's coat to cover herself is a fairly common one, ever since Victoria Lincoln came up with it in her book in the 70s. It's what I believe too. There is no way frugal, careful Andrew, a creature of habit, would have carelessly balled up the coat he wore outdoors and stuffed it under his head the way we clearly see in the photo. His habit was to hang it up in a closet in the dining room, a few feet away from the doorway leading from the dining room to the sitting room, where he rested that day. So then the question of who did put it there and why has to be answered. The only people in the house were Lizzie and Bridget. Bridget the maid wouldn't have done it. A maid would have gotten at least reprimanded if she did such things and not kept on. We know she worked for the Bordens for 2 years and 9 months, and everyone was happy with her. She even wanted to quit once but Abby talked her into staying. If it wasn't Andrew and it wasn't Bridget, it had to be the person who murdered him. We both agree that person was Lizzie. It's a shame the police didn't notice and question anyone about it. It wouldn't have been the norm for anyone to ball up their coat like that and use it as a pillow. What makes it stand out even more is there already were pillows on that sofa. Why didn't anyone notice this before Victoria Lincoln? A minor correction: the parlour was directly below the guest room, not the dining room. The layout of upstairs and down were the same, since the house was built as a duplex. Andrew removed a wall from what became the dining room to make it one large room instead of the two small chambers that remained upstairs. He converted the upstairs kitchen to his and Abby's bedroom. Lizzie's bedroom was directly above the sitting room. It was a warm evening on the 3rd, so it's likely her windows were open, as were the windows in the sitting room. I think her plan was already in place, at least most of it, by that evening when she went to visit Ms Russel, but it's possible she overheard conversation after she got home at 9:00, between Uncle John and Andrew, and possible Abby too, that strengthened her resolve to carry it out.
I also find the fact that Lizzie remembered hearing her mother come in and that she must be upstairs...almost like she didn't want to be the one to find Abby's body so she sent Bridget and Mrs. Churchill to search.
Andrew apparently kept and stayed in that house because it was close to his bank and business dealings to which he could walk to, and the n fact, had made his rounds that very morning. I’ve been to the house many times and stayed overnight once (Bridget’s room). It is a very interesting place with an unusual layout, not affording much privacy despite its actual size.
If you have found Andrew and don’t know if the killer is still in the house or not, wouldn’t you leave the house for safety sake? Why didn’t they all leave and raise the alarm? Lizzie wasn’t scared to stay alone with Andrew because she knew she was perfectly safe.
The coat theory makes a great deal of sense. Great job. Also, as for the theory that she did it in the nude---I find that extremely hard to believe. Not just because of the difficulty of getting in and out of the clothes at that time, but she was a spinster and the idea that she'd walk around her house in the nude or even do anything in the nude is hard way too far out there, IMO. Thanks.
Love it, baby! We jump roped to this song as little girls. You taught me so much about this case, as I love true crime, like you! And you hit it DEAD ON! You cracked the case! Awesome!
Just happened to come across your channel and this is by far the best version i have heard of Lizzie Borden. After hearing the coat theory, I had to go back and take a look. It really looks like someone stuffed it under him and it doesn't belong. Very very interesting 🤔 Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
For whatever reason I watched an old 48 hours video on Lizzie Borden and then more on the subject were suggested and that's how I stumbled onto your video. This was very entertaining and I think you may have nailed it with your theory about the wool coat. Certainly more original thinking than the other videos trying to solve the crime and you are a very good presenter. Videos on Egyptology would be great - I studied a bit of Egyptian art history in college and got just enough exposure to know how interesting it is. HAPPY NEW YEAR:)
I watched that 48hours video yesterday and found your video today and after watching this one I will definitely be watching your other videos about Lizzie (although I will say I wish they were in a playlist to make that easier). I'm from the UK and only heard of Lizzie for the 1st time during lock down when I got into true crime on you tube. I would like to say that yours is one of my favourites. I like your thoughts and the way you explained them. They way you described the situation both with the coat and also the noises in the house and that you couldn't not hear Abby fall if you were in the house makes total sense and much more believable than what I've watched on other videos. I'm so glad I found your video I found it very interesting and look forward to now watching the others you've made.
I agree about not naked, but she couldn't have worn her father's coat when she killed Abby. Andrew was wearing it that morning and left the house while Abby was still alive. But she had plenty of time to clean up after she killed Abby.
I enjoyed your narrative and theory of the crime. I want to contest just one small point - stepmother Abby was only six years younger than father Andrew. I wouldn't consider her to be a "much" younger woman. Thank you for sharing your ideas. This is what keeps the legend of Lizzie Borden alive.
Very true and granted. I always forget that as he just looked so much older. He wasn’t even 70 yet! Due to better nutrition and health care we age so much better in the modern age.
@@bigprettyman3795 I been in that house too...yrs ago...great stuff...I wanna go back and spend the night...would that be cool or what...if I'm addicted to anything it's breathing true crime and horror movies...
Someone here who was rude and had his Troll comment deleted and got blocked from the channel claimed I was wrong and the coat was put there by police. This is PROVABLY FALSE. Dr Bowen, who was the first on the scene within minutes of the murder, testified in court about the coat in the picture, and clearly stated the coat was under the pillow of Andrew Borden's head when he examined the body and scene. Let me once again say that body-shaming, discrimination or other forms of disrespect to any person or group will not be tolerated on my channel. It will get you deleted and blocked instantly. Be a gentleman or Lady or you will be eliminated here.
I think your spot on on the crime, I think the towns people knew she did it, she was found not guilty but a guilty charge back then carried a death sentence she should have hung, and something else to mull over I think her sister figured it out feared for her life and so left town.
That’s due to a poor case from the prosecution that based it on the paint covered dress, that the inquest testimony was ruled inadmissible ( think she would have rightfully swung had it been admitted) and the all male jury prejudice in the ignorant assumption that women were too delicate to commit violent murder. So no, I don’t see it as an important distinction in determining her innocence or guilt. On the temperature, it does not count the high humidity of August that would make it feel hotter, and even at 80 degrees no man would wear a full winter wool coat when they are already wearing a three piece wool suit.. all the circumstantial evidence and timeline points to one conclusion: Lizzie Borden is the only one that could have committed these two murder, and Lizzie killed her parents. See my other two videos on this subject.
Great commentary sir! I completely agree this makes the most sense. Follow the motive and the money. Why would a random stranger come in and out unseen on a weekend on a semi busy street, hack up 2 people (but not Lizzie or the maid) and leave unseen? No robbery either. Just doesnt make sense any other theories. I think she was pissed her father gave her stepmoms family that house, and she wasnt "living up to her standards" of how she could have been living, may have been sexually abused (possibly) and she hated the stepmother.
I agree. Except for the sexual abuse. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. See my 3rd video on the subject where I talk about these later theories and how society has put there modern issues in the blank slate of Lizzie Borden.
@@bigprettyman3795 Although we don't and can't know, it's not entirely without basis. Andrew always wore the ring Lizzie gave him (not her class ring, as has been said) but not his wedding ring. Most men wore their wedding rings. If they particularly disliked wearing jewellery, they'd have worn none, not a ring their daughter gave them while not wearing their wedding ring. We also know Lizzie was his favourite. A very frugal man, yet he gave Lizzie a fur and what had to have been an expensive 19-week trip to Europe. This was uncharacteristic of him. Incestuous sexual abuse, unfortunately, was as common then as now, but no one would have talked about it. Not the child, and certainly not the abuser, or family members (if they knew). I watched your 3rd video, though, and do think you made some very good points. I'm just not convinced either way on this point, and we'll likely never know.
Could you do a video on the Jon Benet Ramsey case? I see the parallels to the Borden murders. Crimes occurred in the house the victim lived in, only relatives in the house. Case never solved. Even with modern day criminal forensic techniques. It has always bothered me that they couldn't solve the case.
Well! Aren’t you just fantastic! Popped up on my feed because I watched a different Lizzy Borden video. I just love how you present yourself! Definitely subscribing!
The coat theory makes sense, also I heard in one that she wiped the axe head off with a sanitary rag and put it in her period rag bucket, which they said she was having her period at the time.
This is the first time I have seen your videos. This I have to say is the best theory that could have taken place. I believe if they had someone think this way she would have been hung. I also like the fact that you stuck to the facts of the case instead of throwing in how you felt.
I like your presentation. The data you give is researched and studied. With the Lizzie Borden case, time has passed and evidence has been lost. I have a few points that I think affect this case. 1) Lizzie had been given morphine by the doctor to calm her hysterics. This would definitely have clouded any statements that she made. 2) the times of the murders do not seem to have been thoroughly studied. The timing of the blood coagulation could have been misread. A warm room upstairs could have hastened the blood to set. Also, the examination of the stomach contents to set an accurate time may have been misread. Perhaps Abby had eaten earlier than her husband, which would have set the timing differently than what was stated. These things could have put the murder times much closer. 3) The photos are not crime scene photos. They were made a few hours after the discovery of the bodies, and after many people had gone through the rooms. The bodies were put back into position for the photos. Forensic study at that time was not as advanced as now. They had to work with what they could. 4) Another point to be made is the inheritance. For Lizzie and her sister to inherent from her father, Abby would have to die first, because she would inherit first, being the wife. That might be why the murders were timed farther apart. Abby had to be shown to have died before her husband.
Thank you for your praise. I’ll address each of your points in turn: 1.) I did talk about the morphine during the inquest in the video, however after reading the transcript of the questioning I don’t give it much acceptance. Her answer and story is coherent and strong until the Prosecuting attorney starts dissecting it and pointing out her contradictions, it’s then she’s suddenly confused. Very convenient the drug kicks in at those points. No, I don’t think she ever thought they would suspect her as a Victorian age woman and her social status and was thus not prepared to give her alibi. I see more desperation than drug in her testimony. 2.) I’ve read articles on the timing being off and in truth, don’t believe it makes that big a difference. For one, it was not yet hot at 9am by the meteorological record of that day (65 to 70F) so not warm enough to change coagulation of blood. Also, we know from Bridgett and the Uncles statements that the family sat down to b-fast at the same time, being served by Bridgett. Also, the timeline for her death fits. She went up to put pillow cases on the pillows of the guest bedroom around 9am. It doesn’t take an hour to put on pillow slips. So if she wasn’t killed while performing that chore between 9am to say 9:20am, then what the hell was she doing for that hour and a half; standing behind the bed staring at the wall for almost an hr and a half? So logic and circumstance dictates she was killed in that time period. It’s obvious she had been dead at least an hour before Andrew, and even if half an hr would not change the actions that point toward Lizzie, who had been the only person in the house at the time. 3.) yes I know of the late time of the crime photos, and even that Andrews shoes had been put back on his feet for the photo, and Abby may have tried to climb under the bed after she hit the floor. However, it makes little difference. The only thing that gives evidence in those photos is that Andrew was killed likely in his sleep without struggle with his head on that pillow and then that coat possibly stuffed under it, and that Abby had been attacked from behind without any struggle, as in tight space between that dresser and bed none of the porcelain pieces were disturbed or broken. As I stated in that video, it’s apparent she had to see her murderer enter the room and someone she felt no threat to turn her back upon, and Lizzie was the only one in the house. 4.) I completely agree; and Lizzie an intelligent woman who would have known this legal detail. I’d throw n my own point I wish I’d put in this video: if she didn’t do it and walked in after seeing her father alive just 15 mins before and found him hacked to death with blood still dripping, how did she know the killer wasn’t still in the house? That should be the first pan iced thought. Did she scream and run out of the house? No! She called for Bridgett, sent her across the street for the doctor AND STAYED IN THE HOUSE! Mrs Churchill said she was standing inside the screendoor when she saw Bridgett running across the street. It’s as though she knew there was no threat in the house. Why? Because SHE was the threat. Hope that gives food for thought.
@@bigprettyman3795 Thanks for your response. Of course you couldn't put everything in the video. These were my thoughts and you clarified what they covered. The photos being staged was more for some of the commenters. This crime still intrigues people, including me. I enjoyed your presentation. Thanks again.
@@westzed23 lol. Thanks. Your points were good to point out, show a good knowledge of the crime, and a great launching pad to discuss some issues not covered. So for that, thank you!
I just watched a documentary with the tour guide who said that Abbey didn't come down to breakfast with the rest of them, but didn't state how long after them did she eat. I would love to have access to all the paperwork of the time. Can't believe I only found out about the coat today.... Having home through several docs in a row, it was a comment under the third one that mentioned it. I had never heard of it before but had always noticed what I assumed was a cushion. The father's position doesn't look like a comfortable sleeping position either, I would throw it out there that he had sat up and wasn't initial asleep for the first strike or two. All very interesting.
I really like your theory! I wonder if the coat had any tears in it? I would think it would if it were rolled under his head when he was attacked. It would be interesting to see a reenactment to test this.
The coat wouldn't have been put under his head before the attack. That probably would have woken him. And what would be the point? It was likely she wore it during both attacks to cover herself. Then she put it under him after wards to explain the blood all over it.
Yep, in the 10th grade in 1990, I wrote a story saying exactly the same, with the coat covering her. The idea that she committed these crimes while naked is preposterous in my opinion. I do like the additional back story and info you stated. So many great channels give the identical back story and setup.
What makes this case so compelling to a lot of folks is many think Lizzie did it, but she got away with it due to a lack of hard evidence and a Jury that was predisposed to acquitting a woman. The Prosecution also didn't do a particularly good job IMO, they failed to link circumstantial events in an easy to understand manner that would have pointed the finger at Lizzie. The really amazing thing to me is how she committed two murders without (apparently) making sufficient noise to notify Bridgette. Especially when her father was killed, even if the first blow was telling I find it hard to believe he didn't put up something of a struggle. Seems hard to believe. At any rate, if as I suspect Lizzie committed the murders she had to live with it for 35 more years and that couldn't have been easy. Imagine trying to justify that to yourself with the passing of years?
it was kinda like the West Memphis 3 case but Lizzie didn't have a "friend" like Miskelly who enjoyed confessing. THe state didn't present a very good case it was like "we're sure she's guilty so you should agree with us"
Bridget was two floors away, and Lizzie knew that. Neither Abby or Andrew had any defensive wounds, so they didn't have a chance to struggle. I can't imagine living with having committed a murder. Let alone two, let alone one of them being your parent, and let alone them being so brutal and personal as with a hatchet, or a knife. Nightmare fuel for sure.
Nice! I question Bridget. I know people saw her outside. And I know the house set up is weird so I can say for sure. But how did SHE not see Abby in the guest room when she went upstairs to sleep? What was the path to her room?
There is a back servant stair off the kitchen that she used, which was fitting to her station. It would have been seen as improper for her to go through their rooms. In fact I’m not sure that stair connects to the second floor. I was there but don’t remember. She definitely went up and came down those back servant stairs that day.
@@bigprettyman3795 Ok. I just find it hard that Lizzie did this alone. I think she had to have help. Andrew Borden had his fair share of enemies. And I can't imagine that people were looking that closely to the house all day to see if someone else was around. From what I understand Fall River was a busy town during that time period. I also find Uncle John's sudden appearance fishy, along wit the fact that he too fought with Andrew Borden. I think she was involved but not the sole murderer. And I would still not convict her to this day if this went to court. There is no physical evidence leading to her. And I do believe Bridget could have a motive if she was paid by someone to keep quiet.
@@nancyconnolly8607 Actually we have no evidence that John and Andrew argued. No testimony of anyone in the household made any mention of such an occurrence during that time, and such theories and rumors of an argument between them , as well as the rumors of changed WIlls and illegitimate sons came decades later. John Morris had a rock-solid alibi at the time of the murders. He definitely didn't commit the murders. You are correct, even today using what was used in that trial they couldn't convict her, but that's because the case was based on the dress burning incident, their was no fingerprint or other forensic tools at the time, and her Inquest testimony was ruled in admissible. If this happened today with the modern forensics, Lizzie would fry. As far as 'Andrews enemies" no one was found with such a grudge, and all of his business associates had alibis.It was committed in the time of the work day, and they were at work. As far as people noticing what was going on around the house, lets remember this is the time before automobiles, and the house is in the middle of the business district and the murders occurred between 9:30am and 11am of a work day. Would be lots of foot traffic. Also, the minute Bridgett was sent running out of the house to fetch Dr Bowen across the street, she was immediately noticed by the neighbors, but not someone running from the house covered in blood minutes before? On Bridgett, we know that during the murder of Abby she was outside cleaning windows. She was seen by many witnesses. The only one in that house from approximately 9am- 10:30am was Lizzie. Her entire life Bridgett never changed her story, and no sign she profited from the murders whatsoever. As far as Lizzie needing help, I see no reason why. She had the means and opportunity to kill both parents, and in both cases she was the ONLY one around them at the time of both murders. It doesn't take more than one person to hack a woman in the head with a hatchet with her back turned, or hack to death a sleeping old man. That she did it alone is one reason she was acquitted. With no conspiracy or collusion with others to possibly turn on her later made it less complicated. She is the only one present that morning who had the motive, means and opportunity to commit these crimes. The only thing 'convenient', and the reason why I think she chose that morning was both that John Morris was there to be possibly blamed, and even more, Emma was out of town. Lizzie knew that the only people in that house with an economic motive to kill the Bordens was her sister and herself. With Emma out of town it protected her from any suspicion. Now whether Emma knew something would happen while she was gone, we'll never know. However, even after their falling-out, by which they didn't speak again for 30 years, Emma still defended her sister and seemed to truly believe she didn't do it. If she were involved or knew something, she could have turned Lizzie in once they stopped speaking and would have inherited Lizzie's share of the fortune as her only legitimate heir. She didn't. It all points to the same conclusion: Lizzie Borden killed her parents, and she did it alone.
@@joletty1793 Bridgett couldn't have killed Abby Borden.. She was outside with plenty of witnesses during the time of Abby's murder. She was in the house when Mr Borden came home, but if she had hacked Abby to death( which she provably did not do, as she was outside among many witnesses during the murder) why would she leave her laying on the floor upstairs with Lizzie home? Why didn't she flee, why stay to kill Andrew, why leave Lizzie alive and whats her motive? She stood to gain nothing for this murder except losing her employment, nor does her history before or after the murders display any psychopathic or sociopathic behavior. She had no means , opportunity nor motive for this crime and is provably innocent of one of the two murders, which would mean two separate people killed the Bordens with the same weapon and MO, which is of course beyond the realms of coincidence. So this theory is contrary to the known facts of the timeline and evidence of the case and must be dismissed.
Emma wasn’t in New Haven she was in Fairhaven and she didn’t die in Vermont she died in New Hampshire I’m from Fall River other than that very entertaining I liked listening to your perspective
Yes, that’s why I made a recent follow-up video. As I explained, I did this video ( my first like it) without any notes as I know the crime si well. Staring at a camera makes details fly out of your head. Learned my lesson. See my Lizzie Borden Revisited video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YO313JANwxU.html&feature=share
You are genius spotting the coat!!! I think she more likely covered his head with the coat, without waking him & hacked him to death. This way her upper body/head area would remain clean. If wearing coat, as you said, she would’ve needed some kind of other protection from blood splatter.
I've been researching this for a couple of days now and happened upon your video. Thanks for solving. It's kind of like reading a mystery novel where in the end, something was left out, so you were never going to figure it out anyway. Well, in all of the documentaries etc I watched, and believe me the father on the couch photo is in all of them more than once, not one narrator said one iota about the wool coat. So all of these docs and movies, and the true trial itself, says nothing about this coat.....weird .
I’ve seen only one documentary that mentions the cost. Also, as I’ve stated in my videos, you cannot trust the documentaries for accuracy. Many state rumor as though they were fact. For instance, many say she was a chronic shoplifter; no evidence for that except the incident five years after the murders, and that one looks like it may have been a mistake and charges were dropped. That she tortured animals; no evidence and she left a small fortune for an animal shelter in her Will. Also, the whole eating spoiled mutton broth for several days is untrue. It had been made the day before and they had an icebox. Research for these docs has really become lazy to the point of irresponsible over the last two decades. Go to the transcripts for true accuracy.
Even I have fell victim to accepting rumor as fact that’s in this video that I corrected in my 4th Lizzie Borden video: financial evidence proves Andrew Borden was NOT a miser.
I am one of the few people who will comment on anybody's videos, but I will say I was skeptical at first about how this video was going to conclude, but I think you are absolutely spot on with your theory about the case. You are the second person who has come out with this that I have seen so far. A good video to watch who supports your theory is on RU-vid called Lizbeth: A Victorian Nightmare, it is actually a bonus clip that accompanies it with a lady which unfortunately I cannot recall her name at the moment basically comes around to the same reasoning, the clip should not be hard to find, if interested. I would like to see more videos like this if not by you than by other contributers covering more classic true crime. I like hearing the different points of view on these crimes and comparing notes and see if I agree or disagree with their research and personal opinions on these fascinating cases. Anyway, keep up the good work.
There is me point I wish I had made, and that was her behavior upon supposedly finding her father hacked to death. Now if this was you, and just saw your father alive 10-15 mins ago, and you come in to find him dead and blood still dripping, what would you first assume, and what would be your reaction? Would you not fear and even assume the killer is still in the house? Would you not run out the damn door? Did she do this? No! She called for Bridgett, sent her across the street to Dr Bowen, AND STAYED IN THE HOUSE! Adelaide Churchill said she was standing inside the screendoor when she saw Bridgett run across the street. It’s as though she already knew beyond doubt there was no threat to her safety inside that house. True; people in shock can do irrational things, but under these circumstances I’d think self-preservation instinct would take over when you found a person dead less than 15 mins and you don’t know if their still in the house. Another sure sign Lizzie killed her parents.
I totally agree 💯 percent on that, it always cracks me up when I think about the comment she made to Adelaide Churchill,"Mrs. Churchill, do come over someone has killed father, like what is she going to do I doubt she wanted to look at an obliterated corpse on the sofa. It almost sounds like an invitation for tea with scones while your father is dripping blood on the carpet,😄😄😂😂
Who had the means, motive and opportunity to kill Abbie? Only Lizzie. If Lizzie killed Abbie, she had to be the one of only two suspects (Lizzie and Bridgette) who could have killed Andrew. The prosecution did a terrible job of linking circumstantial events and the timeline to identify the killer. Also, there are theories now that Lizzie used a flat iron rather than a hatchet to commit the murders. Focusing on the broken hatchet in the basement was a mistake and served to make the jury question the prosecution's case. As for the coat, did any of the folks who saw Andrew Borden earlier that morning in town mention him wearing the coat? I agree it's unlikely in that hot weather, but if they could confirm that he wasn't wearing it it would lend credence to your theory.
I agree with you completely. The trial focused on the wrong elements, mostly around a burnt stained dress that was easily knocked out by the defense. Jury had no real choice in a verdict based on what was presented. I’ve heard the flat iron theory and it’s interesting and possible. However an examination of the clothing Abby wore during the attack shows that a standard Hatchet fits the cuts perfectly. As far as Andrew and struggle, it’s apparent he was asleep when he received the first blow and likely the frenzy of the next eleven. A hatchet through one’s temple to the brain would pretty much take the fight out of you instantly. Also, I’ve always noted his feet were on the floor. I don’t think he lay to sleep in the couch like that. Think his feet were up on the couch like a normal nap. Think the first blow through his head brought a reactive spasm, hence he dropped his feet to the floor. One tell-tale I wish I had went over was Lizzie’s reaction to supposedly finding her fathers body. If you were innocent, saw your father alive less than 15 mins before, and walk in to find him hacked to death and still dripping blood, what would you instantly assume? That theirs a killer in the house! The first reaction would be panic and fear that would send anyone running out of that house. But did she? No! She called for the maid, sent her across the street, AND STAYED IN THE HOUSE! Mrs Churchill said she saw Bridgette run across the road and Lizzie was standing inside the screen door. How could she know the killer wasn’t still in the house as logic would dictate? It’s as though she knew their was no danger inside. True, people in shock can react in strange, illogical manners, but one would think pure unknown fear and self-preservation instinct wOuld send anyone running out of that house. To me this speaks tons to her guilt. Yes, I think Lizzie had an interesting way of dealing with the murders she committed. The story she told nurse Ruby Cameron not long before her death about a boyfriend, which is an obvious lie that made no sense, shows a typical pattern. Murderers often create stories for their innocence that border on fantasy. Over time they even come to believe their own lie. It’s the minds way of detachment to deal with the guilt.
On the coat, I haven’t found any statements. Apparently he was prone to wearing a coat. Also there’s some evidence it was a cool morning. However, I don’t think that would rule out my theory, especially when looking at how that coat is stuffed under his head, looking like it was placed there after the fact.
I ❤ you for you're insight to especially old cases. I absolutely believe in your theory on how these murders were committed. I think that Bridget may have covered for her in some capacity.
There is one other curious thing about this photo. If you can find a copy that has not not been cropped so that the feet are visible, you will see that you will see that the victim is still wearing is still wearing shoes. Lizzy claimed that she had helped her father remove his shoes before laid back on the couch. A curious thing, but I cannot reason why she would lie about doing that .Especially if she was as smart about things to do or things not to do when committing a messy murder as you feel she was Like I said, it just makes me scratch my head and say "Hmmmmm"?" Enjoyed ur video
Incorrect. She had been up since 6:30am and was seen downstairs by Bridgette and Abby before 9am. She was fully dressed. Read the actual transcripts of the inquest and trial before concocting a theory.
Great idea. What puzzles me is this; if u 'plan' to murder people, wouldnt u think ahead to ur alibi.....and lizzies was not good...on paper anyways. So she went through with doing it that way...an hour apart and thought she'd get away with it? . Also, didnt her father return home early and unexpectedly....she couldnt have known this...so was she gonna keep Amys absence from everyone, perhaps all day? Till her father got home? It just seems like a plan youd concoct if u found youd killed someone and had to think fast rather than a plan youd think wud worj and u wouldnt hang. I mean, most people wud probably make it look like a forced entry...it just seems odd she went with this plan???
Finally! A sensible consideration. True, her father came home early, but still followed his routine. He was only early by one hour. I think that unexpected early arrival was the reason for the note lie. It was the monkey wrench in her plan. It sounds like a desperate knee-jerk excuse and lie. My question is why she decided to do it that day, and why in the way she did it? What set it off. You are right, The killing of Abby is risky and seems compulsive. I think it likely opportunity. Her sister wasn’t home and out of town. Which frees her from suspicion and also someone that might stop her. Also it was a time when she was alone with her mother with her sister gone and the maid outside. I think that with the four women living there in this narrow house, this was a rare window. Kinda a ‘ now or never’ scenario. Another thing is she obviously knew the routine of that house far more than anyone of the investigators since. I think she knew Bridgett wouldn’t go into that bedroom at the time. Also knew her father would nap before lunch and perhaps Bridget’s siesta was also routine. She used these predictable routine windows for her crime. On her alibi, I think the time and place answers that. She was an Victorian woman from a respectable family. She knew they would never suspect a woman for such a violent crime. women were believed to incapable of such a violent crime. I think she never dreamed she’d even be suspected or even questioned as a suspect. Hence, she gave little thought to an alibi. I think it was a under-estimation based on her cultural norm that took her off-guard and left her unprepared at the inquest. However, what her exact plans and what set her into action that day we will never know. Only she knew, and she never confessed nor explained her application. However, it’s still obvious she did it, no matter the convoluted plan she implemented. Thank you for some great points and questions!
Wicked video. Love the content, look forward to watching more of ya videos. Lizzie Burdens home is a bucket list location for us to investigate. You did a good job. New Sub here. The Paranormal Side
Have you ever looked into the carpenters working on the loft ? When they were there ? Whoever they were , how many , what days , What they were supposed to do , did they get payed ?
Lizzie came off as greedy. She obviously hated the fact that Andrew bought the house for Abby's half sister, and she probably thought he was squandering her and Emma's inheritance, and perhaps feared they were soon to lose more. Since we don't know what conversations took place in that house, we can only speculate what caused her to kill them that day. Maybe she didn't plan to kill them that day, or even kill her father at all. Maybe she thought Uncle John would be blamed since he was the only other male in that house. We can never know. But we do know that Bridgette stated she never took care of the front upstairs rooms, or even the Borden's room, plus she was out doing the windows, so Lizzy obviously saw her opportunity. She had over an hour to get rid of any evidence after that killing, so what she wore or didn't; who knows. But telling Andrew and Bridgette about the fake note is a red flag. She was not on any sedatives at that time, so clearly she didn't want anyone to go looking for her dead step mother upstairs. Andrew received less blows to Abby, so perhaps she knew he would blame her for Abby's death since he knew her feelings towards her and Emma wasn't there. She might have feared being disinherited, so felt she had to kill him. The fact he normally would have been home around 12 tells me she probably wasn't planning on killing him that day or ever. Yes the coat was in a strange position and she did burn a dress which possibly had blood as well as paint on it, so who knows. She apparently slipped into a pink dress that day too. I do believe she did it, but like most who do, just can't prove it.
I agree. I think there was a was a disagreement between her and Abby while Bridgett was outside and she killed her with the iron, not a hatchet. Then she thought of having to confront her father, and decided she would have to kill him too or lose everything and maybe even swing for the murder. She knew Bridgett wouldn’t find the body and her father would nap before lunch. Perhaps Bridgett commonly took a siesta at this time, and she knew she’d have that window to kill him. See my other two videos. on this subject.
@@bigprettyman3795 and if she claimed to have been downstairs yet didn't hear anything, then why say after that she thought she heard her come back and to check up stairs. What made her think she went upstairs. If she could hear her go upstairs, she sure as hell would have heard a thud from the fall
@@bigprettyman3795 and her covering herself to kill her father, she probably realised after killing Abby that she needed to use something to prevent getting blood on her the 2nd time.
I think the injuries inflicted upon her father and step-mother indicated more than just fear that she may lose what she thought was "her" inheritance. I believe that it indicated an emotional fury at something that was done to her that affected her personally in a deep way. Typically it can indicate that she was abused, sexually abused or her life ruined by her father in some way. Apparently Andrew turned away a few suitors because he felt they were only after his money. Just imagine living your life as a spinster with no husband , no family and no children because your father turned away every man that showed in interest in courting you and marrying you. It's a pretty lonely life if you're in that situation.
There still could have been another person that did the actual killing. Mrs. Borden's death is the most interesting because she did have her back to the murder. She knew who entered the room. Could someone had hid under the bed, emerged from the foot of the bed and killed her? Possible. I still think it was Lizzie and Emma's half brother. The one Andrew refused to recognize. I believe a man with a sack was seen near the Borden's house that day. Lizzie could have easily hid him in her room. Andrew's will was never found. How did the killer avoid being drenched in blood when killing Mr's Borden? I do believe the coat was used to cover the killer. I'm not sure when it came to killing Mrs. Borden. She would have thought it odd for whoever it was to be caring a wool coat into the room. I also always wonder how Maggie went up the stairs and never saw Mrs. Borden's body, possibly paid off to keep her mouth shut. She did leave town promptly after the trial. I can't put all the details here but anyone can put together what I am thinking.
See my other two videos on the subject. Bridgett wasn’t allowed upstairs in those rooms by her own testimony. She used the servants stair in the back, as was the proper custom. The ‘ bastard son’ is an unproved rumor. The man with a sack story came decades later.the murders were between 9am-11am on a busy Thursday near downtown. The Maid was working outside on the windows and the next door maid was also in the yard. Neither saw anyone enter or leave the house. Only Lizzie was inside during the murder. After the murder of Andrew everyone in the neighborhood saw Bridgett run to the doctors house, but nobody saw a bloody man running out on a bright busy morning no more than 6 mins earlier. Also, Lizzie was alone for an hour with her step-mother. No need for a coat. She had plenty of time to clean up. The time crunch is the reason for the coat and no blood on her then is the issue. What you offer here is speculation based on rumor and stories, not the facts. The facts say Lizzie was the only one alone with both parents at the time of their death, and the only one present with motive, means, and opportunity. She killed her parents.
Trading the trial transcript they never should have charged her. They didn’t have enough and most of it was circumstantial. There was also a similar Murder in a near by town when she was in jail.
Yes, by a Portuguese man that had not even been in the country when the Borden’s were murdered. Making it impossible for him to have committed the murders. Double check your facts. And all that circumstantial evidence points to only one deductive conclusion: Lizzie killed her parents. See my follow up video on this topic. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YO313JANwxU.html&feature=share
I remember being around 8 or 9..and my Dad got stationed in Louisiana...and the young girls jump roping would sing the Borden song and I asked who she was and told servel different things
When Bridget went upstairs she didn’t see Mrs Borden on the floor of her bedroom from what I know when the lady and another woman went upstairs before they get all the way they saw Mrs Borden in her room on her room floor
I have been in the house at the same time of day and season. Unless you were deliberately looking in the room and really straining your eyes, you wouldn’t see the body. We tested it. Now as for the sound. That’s something else. You did get one thing wrong. The bedroom is not over the kitchen. The kitchen is in the back with Mr and Mrs Borden’s room and a closet over it. There still would be a noise but not really loud. I do think someone on the kitchen would have heard something but if they have critters or fruit falling off trees, you would ignore it. We do all the time.
Correct. It’s over the dining room. Still would have heard it. They saw the body going up the steps where you see under the bed. That’s obvious. Incorrect on the sound. Seismic tests showed it would have been quite loud and jarred the whole house.on fruit and squirrels; I never heard of a 200 pound piece of fruit hitting a house nor seen a 200 pound squirrel, and if either fell on the floor in a 19 foot wide wood house I promise you’ll hear it. What a silly and ridiculous proposal. Thanks for the chuckle.
1) I don’t know how miserly Andrew actually was. He sent Lizzie on a European tour a couple of years before the murders that lasted close to 6 months, and he gave her an allowance that would be approximately $7000 a year today. I’m wondering if him, being a penny pincher was just a mean rumor. 2) It was actually about 74° F around the time of the first murder. Only around 82°F around the time of the second murder. It got up to around 89°F at about 2:00 pm, and then started going down. The humidity could’ve made it seem like it was warmer than that, but they weren’t measuring humidity back then, so we’ll never know.
Because she used the servants stairs in the back. By her own testimony she wasn’t slowed in those rooms. See my other two videos on the subject. I talked about that.
Whoa. A big part of this story has been left out. The maternal uncle is very sus. He coincidentally arrived the night before the murders to stay over - with no suitcase. His alibi was so perfect, the police were very suspicious. When he came back to the house after his visit to other relatives, he saw the large crowds milling around and instead of asking what was going on, he goes to the backyard and casually eats pears. After about half an hour, he made his way through the crowds into the kitchen in back of the house. This was all observed and reported by one of the police officers at the scene. I think he did it and went wherever he had stashed his suitcase (he traveled from Iowa) and cleaned up, changing. I think Lizzie was either in on it or knew he did it.
He had witnesses and alibis that he was with relatives during Andrews murder. He gave the number of the trolley operator from the time when Abby was murdered. He had no motive and no profit from the deaths. Impossible for him to have been the murderer. So all this is void and worthless.
@@bigprettyman3795 What about his bizarre behavior upon returning to the house? It was said he and Mr. Borden had a disagreement about money. Just sayin'.
Most of what you talk about here is unsubstantiated rumor and legend. Not a shred of evidence. Stick to the evidence. It doesn’t matter if he came back and danced in a ti-ti in the front yard, because the Evidence shows he could not have committed these crimes.
I enjoyed listening to this video. You had a few good points. I like the coat theory. I do want to share a bit of information that I had discovered.The photos of the bodies were taken after each body had been moved around a bit. So they are not truly how they were found. Remember, this was way before touch, nothing move, nothing, photographing.
Proven not true. In his testimony Dr Bowen stated that the body of Andrew in the photo was exactly as he found him, accept he thought it may have slid down a few inches. He also stated that the coat was under the pillow just as we see it in the photo.It’s right in the transcripts. and he was the first on the scene before police arrived. Also, with the body of Abby, they didn’t move the body for the pic, they moved the bed. That’s apparent in the pic. Also there’s no smearing of the blood on the floor. She’s still lying face down in the puddle of congealed blood she created as she lay there. A myth I’ve heard purported even in documentaries and tour guides that’s patently wrong. I debunked this in my 4th Lizzie Borden video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EqmujgfHJWo.html
That’s what the nurse claimed, but it falls apart on examination in both circumstances and timeline, the nurse wasn’t a reliable source, and she didn’t make the claim until nearly 60 years later. I addressed this at length in my second Lizzie Borden video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YO313JANwxU.htmlsi=9mIAZjcGF1sNniq1
Impossible. she was seen washing windows outside at the time Abby was killed. She had no motive and no opportunity with one of the victims. This isn’t Columbia or Monk. It’s real life.
As a secular (my mother is Jew so I am Jewish by Jewish law and my father was raised nominally southern Baptist), I would love to see a comparative analysis between Christianity and Judaism.
@@bigprettyman3795…..you should perhaps pay closer attention. At 45:18 he says he has a degree and studies comparative religions and if we would like to see something like that, let him know. I took him up on the invitation, proffered at the end of this video, to tell him I would like that and told him why. So, while you are correct, it had nothing to do with Lizzie Borden, it was something the channel creator/host brought up. I mean,if you are going to be judgmental chastise someone, try to make sure you are right first. In this case, you were not. Have a nice evening
lol. I should pay attention to myself. You should pay attention to whom you’re answering and the name of the video host. I’m the one who was talking on the video. I do indeed have a degree in Comparative Religious Studies, but Being Jewish doesn’t have anything to do with Lizzie Borden. However, yes I can see the cultural dilemma, and I will keep it in mind for a future video.
This is very interesting..I think the story of lizzy borden is really intriguing ...in the books I have read ..it was pointed out that it was a left handed person that did this crime and lizzy was right handed it said. I don't know how they can tell that but I guess they can..its understandable if she detested her dad and stepmother .. but that's a gruesome outrageous action if lizzy really did this..
Do you think she was wearing this same coat when she murdered Abby? Btw I agree on the jacket. It just looks suspicious. I guess Andrew too would never had it there if he was wearing it. He would have hung it up. Lizzie also claims to helped her father out of his boots and into slippers yet clearly in photograph we know that to be a lie. He’s wearing his boots when murdered. Why would Lizzie even mention that I have no idea
@@bigprettyman3795 that’s a good point. But she still took a big chance with Bridget right outside. I know she checked at least once to see how long she’d be out there but still!! Brave! But then again she was planning on murdering 2 people so clearly not thinking properly!!
@@bigprettyman3795 that’s a good point. But she still took a big chance with Bridget right outside. I know she checked at least once to see how long she’d be out there but still!! Brave! But then again she was planning on murdering 2 people so clearly not thinking properly!!
My apologies. It was an old window-model air conditioner. It was either that sound or roast. I chose the sound. I’ve moved since and I chucked that old unit.
Will we have the defining evidence to gone absolute proof; no. But The timeline, the scene, the circumstances of the crime make it beyond clear with little room for other possibilities. Lizzie killed her parents and got away with it.
When she told the court that she never tried to buy prussic acid her nose became longer like a Vienna sausage. At the end of the inquiry she had people holding her nose up so it wouldn't drag on the floor on her way out.
What I found impossible to believe is she said she didn't know that pharmacy was there, even though it was literally just around the corner from her house, a 3-4 minutes' walk, and walking was how they got around. Andrew had sold their horse and carriage a year earlier. Lizzie had lived there for 20 years. No way could she have not known about that pharmacy.
Really like this account of the Borden murders...but you keep referring to Emma being out of town in New Haven which is in Connecticut ( 120 miles away ) and Emma was actually in Fairhaven, Massachusetts about 15 miles away.
The state presented a horrible case. I was listening to some trial transcripts. The states "expert" changed his opinion on the stand. Then the prosecution presented the axe "we can't prove this is the murder weapon but it could be. If not it's an axe a lot like this". The closing argument was "You are men of mercy. You do not understand the art of the assassin or the cunning of the sex. But you should not be merciful now" if someone made that argument nowadays it would cause a mistrial and probably get them immediately disbarred. And yes she was guilty but the state did not prove it and set the case up so badly that it was easy for the prosecution to introduce reasonable doubt. Best theory I've see is she used one of her irons to do the killings and wore an overcoat over her dress. After she was done she placed the overcoat under Andrew Border. I think it vanishes between that day and the trial.
I completely agree. I think the iron may well be the murder weapon. A hatchet would have went right through the head. Like a child can drive a nail, It doesn’t take strength due to the wedge-shape focusing the kinetic energy and concentration of the swing in the handle. I’ve chopped a snout off a deer with a hatchet using just a single short chop to give to my hunting dog and it cut through it easy without much effort. Yet the cuts on the Bordens were shallow and more bludgeoning than cutting. Thus I think the heavy iron with the dull edge made those wounds.
Would you mind directing me to the source of the theory that the murder weapon was one of Lizzie's flat irons? I've read it a number of times recently, and it's new. I'd love to know the source and check it out for myself. Personally, while it's an interesting and compelling theory to explain why the murder weapon was supposedly never found, too many experienced police and other professionals who examined the wounds, said they were made with a sharp cutting instrument, and a flat iron doesn't have that. Either way, I'd really like to read about why the flat irons are a candidate.
@@Catbooks those old flat irons have edges , not quite like an axe but it's got a point and the flanged edge. A hatchet/axe would have chopped right through someone in a few blows. In other words an actual axe murder would have been much worse.
@@Dragonette666 Remember, these were times when most households had hatchets and axes, so police would have been very familiar with what wounds from a hatchet or another tool with a sharpened edge, would look like. I don't think they got that wrong. Neither would just chop right through, like a knife through butter.
you said *andrew jackson* xo i got a giggle. Lizzie, Emma and the maid had means motive and opportunity. All 3 were committed and that's how they all got away with murder.
His name was Andrew Jackson Borden. An insupportable assumption of both the maid and Emma. It appears that Bridgett received no monetary benefit from the murder, she was outside when Mrs Borden was murdered, so she had no opportunity with Mrs Borden, and no proof or sign of a motive to kill either one, and there’s no evidence of her involvement whatsoever. We have no reports from her before or after of having any issue with the Bordens, and considering the discrimination against the Irish she risked unemployment and a high likelihood of getting caught. Plus, Lizzie could have accused Bridgett and being a Borden from a powerful family and the prejudiced against the Irish at the time, she would have likely went down and hung for the crime. But Lizzie didn’t. I see no signs she had anything to do with the murders. All circumstantial evidence points to Lizzie acting alone. Obviously Emma didn’t commit the murder as she was definitely out of town that day. If Emma was involved via collusion by conveniently being out of town that day, we’ll never know.
Could have been a well paid hit man they hired and aided. Lizzie’s uncle, even though he had an alibi, could have been in on the plan. A lot os $ to inherit and share. The sisters also continued to invest wisely afterwards.
No. I don’t know who ‘they’ are, but they apparently know nothing of this case, the blood of the mother had already began to dry and congeal when found and it’s estimated she died approximately 1.5 hours when discovered. However the fathers wounds were fresh and still dripping when the doctor neighbor arrived. He had been dead less than half hr. Re-check your sources.
😅new subscriber here. You pointed out some facts that i haven't heard before. I do however think that it was right that her early testimony should have been thrown out as she was high on morphine a lot. I'm going to check out the other segments on lizzy that you've do
I think everyone in the home was in on it, including the uncle , the maid, and the other sister. I think the other sister was out of the house for an alibi, but I think she was in on the planning of it.
Was it a hatchet? I’ve come to doubt that. See my last video on the subject. I think it was an old-fashion clothing iron. The wounds are to bludgeoning yet the cuts too shallow for a husky girl to be swinging that many times to be a hatchet. It would have left the heads nothing but sliced up mush.
No, they couldn’t tell the difference between people’s blood at the time. Also, there’s no reason for Lizzie to wear the coat with her mother. She had an hour to clean up.
Lizzie likely used 2-4 of her handkerchiefs to fashion a pulled low head covering and bank robber style mid face covering while wearing the overcoat. Then burned them in the stove.
Mostly minor infections, viruses and of course injury. Amenhemat I and Ramses iii from assassination, and Tutankhamun likely from an infected knee injury turned septic along with malaria. Ramses II lived to be 90 and likely died of a serious tooth abscess that turned septic.
Not in its configuration, no. Andrew has done lots of renovation beforehand. Since then heating and electricity were of course added. The barn out back is of course now long gone and they have a small gift shop back there.
Wrong. According to the weather reports It was 83 degrees F that day and doesn’t count the humidity, which could well have made it feel like 93, which would be typical of a August day in Massachusetts. The humidity level was not recorded. Everyone spoke of the heat that day. It was a common theme in many of the testimony's both in court and otherwise recorded, so it was obviously a hot day to the feel of the skin.. So this is one little fact that has become exaggerated. See my follow-up video on this topic.
@@bigprettyman3795 I live in Massachusetts, so I get what you’re saying about August and humidity. And their clothing certainly didn’t offer much in the way of ventilation and surely amplified the heat. It might have been 83° that day, but not in the morning. But, as you say, the temperature that day has often been exaggerated…and beaten to death in books (no pun intended) as the tripwire for the murders. I’ll check out your follow up video on the topic, as you suggest. Thank you for your efforts and insights. Fascinating topic, isn’t it? New subscriber here. I’ve been aware of Lizzie Borden and this case since I was about nine years old. Surely from the jump rope doggerel.
Exactly. Even the lady who first wrote about the temperature admits it likely felt hotter due to humidity. I thought of this recently when it was 81 degrees but walked out and swear it felt hotter than the week before when it was 92. I live in Philadelphia so we share the East coast weather. I’m like you, I became interested as a young child. I even remember the library book in which I first read about in around the 4th grade. It was a kids book but had the Andrew death scene photo in it. You won’t see that today in a kids book!
I did believe & do she had a big hand in it. But I think that the maid looked the other way bcuz Lizzy was nice to her & the father was disgusting to her! But how coincidentally the sister is away & John Morse, her uncle, her mothers bro from CT. He decided to sleep over w/no overnight bags etc Mrs. Borden was killed making his bed in guest bedroom. I believe they were involved & Lizzie one uptd him & burnt the will!
Wrong on all counts. Alibis, evidence and the timeline contradict all you’ve proposed here. It’s the result of watching one documentary and thinking you’re an expert. It’s a belief based on incorrect information. Dismissed.
