Lizzie Borden: Not Guilty - Research Paper Example

? Lizzie Borden - Not Guilty Lizzie Borden, who was born in 1860, was charged with the murder of her father and stepmother, Andrew and Mrs. Borden, on the 5th of August 1892. As oddly as it may seem, she was considered not guilty by the legal system, but guilty by the majority of society. It is the purpose of the paper to show that although there was animosity among many members in the house, thus giving reasons for her to want her parents dead, Lizzie Borden did not have the psychological profile to go from anger to rage to murder by social standards. There was a difference in what someone could have had as a profile behind closed doors. Society's perception of the individual was more important for the morality of the situation. All evidence, which was collected before the trial showed that she could have killed her parents as it was circumstantial. She was judged on a legal technicality. The purpose of this paper is to prove you that only one side of this issue can be accepted. Time will be spent explaining the family dynamics, showing the initial interrogation, and the trial. The paper will conclude with the personal assumption that she did not have the psychological profile to be a serial killer. Before 1860 both daughters lived as spinsters in the Borden house. Those who were raised in the rising social and financial class moved out of the area. If a family stayed, their girls only were able to meet working class men, which was a social problem for Victorian women at the turn of the century. Mr. Borden refused to move even though he had risen to the upper classes of society. He had started as an undertaker and moved up to a business owner. His daughters could not find anyone who corresponded to their social status. At 32, it would be impossible for Lizzie ever to get married (Whiteman). There were many spinsters in their neighborhood who they socialized with. Their father contributed to the dynamics by refusing to refurbish their house with the proper amenities. He refused to connect to the sewer or to the water system. He refused to use anything other than kerosene lamps. (Masterson 38). Lizzie complained to her father constantly about the living conditions. Lizzie was quoted as embarrassed to have friends over to the house. It was an oddity that all the doors of the house were locked with keys. They had previously been burglarized on two different occasions. (Lizzie.com) His daughters had their own private entrance to their rooms and often ate by themselves. Their house appeared to be a maze. Lizzie only social life was with the Church's women's group. She also taught at Sunday school. This is somewhat incongruous with her home life. She appeared to be socially accepted because she was allowed to teach at school. She and her sister lived an isolated life without the amenities which they deserved to have. Some say she lived on a yearly stipend but others say she received anything she asked for. Lizzie lived a boring and depressing life with no outlook of it ever improving, a common social problem for New England Upper class women in the 19th century (Roggenkamp 67). Emma also lived under the same roof without any potential for a future. Total frustration was their sort in life. None of them got along with their step-mother or their father. There were always disputes. That particular day, they had all been suffering from food poisoning and the maid had become furious for having to clean the windows in the sweltering heat. More will be said further on about the family dynamics. It was a common social ethic of the end of the Victorian era (19th century) that women could not possibly have the thought, or the strength to do such a heinous crime. Was she hiding for somebody else or for everybody because of the living conditions? If she knew the guilty person, she eventually could say, if she had to. (Brown Interview) Because of this preconception of the marble like statue of women, she was denied with counsel at her first questioning as she was told she did not need it.(Lizzie.com) At the first interrogation, she was inconsistent. Either she didn't have her facts straight, she was distraught or she was trying to hide her guilt. Though it was the weakest link of her legal procedure, it worked for her. The prosecution's evidence was thrown out of court as inadmissible because of lack of counsel. On the basis of this technicality, there was, in essence, no basis for a trial. Her non congruent statements at the initial interrogatory were not taken into account. Just before the trial, there was an axe killing by a Portuguese immigrant. This gave credence to Lizzie as to her not being guilty. (Sullivan) The jury came back with a non-guilty verdict. The defense lawyer had played on her being a proper Victorian lady from a good household. The proceedings of the trial had been properly followed. The defense's argument that a woman from a good religious home could not possibly commit such a crime was the winning argument. The jury was made up of a group of upper class men. (lizzie.com) Though it might seem highly irrelevant, the 19th century saw the birth of the newly Associated Press (Roggenkamp 63). From the time of the crime to the time of Lizzie going to trial, the newspapers had judged her and convicted her .(Roggenkamp 59) It had passed across the wires within hours of her being put in prison awaiting for 10 months to go to trial. Her every move was documented and criticized. (Roggenkamp 69) She would suffer social pressures from the day she died. She lived in social isolation after the trial. The most crucial part of the case was lost during the initial indictment. She gave conflicting evidence, she was indifferent and incoherent. Her alibi would not hold up that she was in the barn eating pears. (Schofiel) The prosecution had a weak case and a weak team. Lizzie Borden was referenced to have had a powerful legal team. Her principal lawyer's main argument was based on the virtues of the Victorian upper class woman. A Sunday school teacher from a good family and a church devoted person could not have committed a murder. The prosecution had circumstantial evidence that there was a hatchet, a burnt dress and motivation. The skull could have been so damaged by the time it was brought to trial that any hatchet would have fit into the scull. The burnt dress was confirmed to have had paint on it. The prosecution had said it was blood. Her motivation was her lack of affection towards her step-mother, Mrs. Bordon (Trial Transcript1682), her lost inheritance and her fall-out with her father. The defense argued that one did not kill a step-mother because of lack of feeling to her and kill someone’s father because he did not like him. This is not consistent with killing both parents. If we go back to the family dynamics there are other people in the house which have been documented as having motive and being able to murder the parents. Lizzie was acting as a cover up. Maggie was enraged by having to work outside in 100° weather and being sick with food poisoning (Lizzie.com). Emma could have come back from the town just for the purpose of killing her parents and Lizzie covered for her. (Spiering 1984) The Uncle could have been a suspect. Another theory is the illegitimate son, William, who was mentally retarded and could come to threaten his father. He was furious that his father would still not recognize him as his son. He killed his wife and his father out of rage. (Brown Interview) They grouped together to hide the fact that their father had been in an affair. (Masterson) In each case, Lizzie was guilty by association or by the act itself. Brown said that William took the will with him when he left. In this will, all Mr. Borden's money would be left to charity leaving the children with nothing. Lizzie kept quiet, because had she said anything she would have lost everything. (Brown Interview) The prosecution was horrified when they realized that they had lost the case when all their evidence from the initial meeting was thrown out of court. Had the evidence been kept, Lizzie Burden would have had a hard time explaining all the incongruent evidence she gave in pre-trial investigations. Controlling anger was a Victorian technique of the male monarchial system. A man was the king of the house. A woman was not allowed to express her emotions in public. In the trial transcripts, she was accused of never showing facial expressions. "Have you any patience with a man who says she stood there like a marble statue" (Trial, 1693). The jury gave their final verdict after deliberating only for one hour. "A woman would not have the strength or inclination to kill." Many questioned if Lizzie Borden had health problems, but no witnesses came forward as indicated in the trial transcripts. She had a shoplifting problem. She had already been arrested. She hated everything about her living conditions. She had a strange relationship with her father. It is difficult to confirm if there were signs of mental problems as all Victorian women lived two faced lives. She had her pigeons as an adult woman. Though she cried when she saw them dead, she showed no feelings when her parents were killed. Had she become that marble statue as stated in the trial scripts? These all contradict to her activities with the Church. To be a Sunday school teacher and to be cold and manipulating is impossible. She was active with other groups, which shows she was a functional part of society. (Masterton 29) In the 21th Century, we would be talking about two types of women or personalities. Had she had a secret affair with Maggie, much of her personality would be explained. (Masterton). In the 19th century, she would be complemented on her complacent attitude. What happens behind closed doors was never discussed in society. Society's perception of the individual was more important than the morality of the situation. They never found who killed the Bordens, but it was accepted because the rules of justice were upheld. No one ever continued looking for anyone else. What went on in the house was less important because it was more important how society perceived the home. Lizzie Borden was unhappy and angry but she was not locked up in her house. Two summers before she had been to Europe. (Masterton 28) She got out often. No one ever had ever been able to establish that her anger crossed the boundaries into rage, thus murder. Other people have been shown to be angry. These murders were not an impulsive act. They were planned as shown by the timing. A planned murder shows a deranged and desperate person. As shown in this paper, she did not have the psychological makeup of someone who reacted impulsively nor did she plan the crime. She was not impulsive or deranged. She had no idea of the arrival of neither her father nor the other time variable. Lizzie Borden did not commit the murders. She did know the murderer. Works Cited Brown, Arnold R. 1991. Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1991 Brown, Arnold R. 2006. Video Interview "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" Hilton Orway. (rev.) “Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story by Edward D. Radin.” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Nov. - Dec.,1961), pp. 434-435 Lizzie Borden Website. 2007. Web. Masterton, William L. 2000. Lizzie Didn't Do It. Boston: Branden Publishing Comp Roggenskamp, Karen S.H. “A Front Seat to Lizzie Borden: Julian Ralph. Literary Journalism, and the Construction of Criminal.” American Periodicals, Vol. 8 (1998), pp. 60-77. Ohio State University. Web. Schofiel, Ann. Lizzie Borden Took an Axe: History, Feminism and American Culture American Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), pp. 91-103. Spiering, Frank. 1991. Lizzie The Story of LIzzie Borden. New York: Random House. The Trial of Lizzie Andrew Borden. (n.d.). Web. Whitman, Ruth. “The Passion of Lizzie Borden”. The Massachusetts Review, Vol. 13, No. 1/2. Read More