Character Analysis: Lizzie Borden

No Justice in Massachusetts! In the year 1892 in Massachusetts, a young woman was convicted of brutally murdering her parents. Although everyone in the town said she was guilty, at the end of the trial she was dropped of all charges and given the verdict of not guilty. Despite all the evidence against her, she was set free. In the state of Massachusetts, justice wasn 't served in the murders of Andrew and Abby Borden.
Lizzie Borden was born in 1860, when she was two years old her mother Sarah Morse Borden passed away. Only three years later her father remarried Abby Durfee Gray. Lizzie saw Abby as her mother up until the year 1887, when she stopped calling her mother out
of nowhere. Truthfully, she knew all along that Abby was her step-mother but she still called her mother because she was all she knew. I don 't see how someone could see a person like that and then decide that they don 't want them to be seen as what they had always called them. Lizzie is also accused by Abby of stealing jewelry and money, and according to her the only reason she was the prime suspect is because of local merchants accusations.
On the morning of the murders, Maggie Sullivan laid in her bed resting after she washed the Borden 's homes windows.
Around 11 o 'clock she heard the youngest Borden daughter Lizzie cry out that her father had been murdered. Almost half an hour later, Abby 's body was found and she had met the same fate. Killed by being hacked to death with an axe, instead of the 81 whacks the popular children 's rhyme suggests it was only 29. When the coroners came they came to the conclusion that Abby was killed at least 90 minutes earlier than Andrew. Her body was found cold, while his was still warm. The interview notes say that Lizzie insisted quite a few times that Abby was her step-mother not her mother and she needed to be called as such. I understand that Abby wasn 't her biological mother but as stated in the previous paragraph she called her mother until she was 27, not to mention she married Lizzie 's father when Lizzie was just 5 years old. This suggests that she could have started to resent Abby for replacing Sarah(her mother). Also looking through the notes I saw that Andrew transferred a family property to Abby 's sister and Lizzie was infuriated when she found out. This could be her motive for killing him, along with hoping she received all of the property left
behind.
In the article it says that a week before the murders, Lizzie left the home because of an argument. It couldn 't have been a typical family spat if she left town for a week; when she returned she stayed in a neighbors home for a few days. After that tension continuiously rised in the household especially between her and her step-mother she even stated that Abby is "a mean good-for nothing." (Douglas 10). My question is what kind of an argument causes one to leave town for a week? They could have possibly argued about who the property went to if her father was to die, and she could have abhorred the answer. We will never know the truth behind the argument. But we can look at the facts.
The night before the murders, Lizzie visited a neighbor, Alice Russell, and mentions that she thinks an enemy of her fathers might try and harm or kill him. No one would make a statement like this and then coincidentally find her family hacked to death. It seems as if she was planning it while she was away and had to make it look like an outsider killed them. The morning of the murders, the article states Lizzie admitted to a messenger bringing a note for Abby to visit a sick neighbor. Strangely the police never found the note. Despite the fact that she strongly states that she didn 't hear anything, she assumed Abby had left the home. She should have heard a door shut if she did leave.
Also, when they caught her burning an old dress, Lizzy stated "I am going to burn this old thing up; it is covered with paint." (Douglas 12).
If that was the case she could have just thrown it out like a normal person. I could understand if it was red paint and she didn 't want them assuming. But if it was red paint then they could have seen the difference. Seems to me like she had all the opportunity to kill them, the motive behind it, and had all the evidence pointing to her; yet they still said she wasn 't guilty. Truthfully I think they gave her this verdict because she was a woman. Women typically aren 't thought of being capable of something of that degree. They are looked at as kindhearted, and sweet, not cold-heated murderers. The article states that a few days before the murders Lizzie went to a local merchant and sought to purchase prussic acid. Which she stated was going to be used to clean a sealskin cloak. Could she have planned to use this to poison them? Also it stated that when she saw the skulls she fainted. Could she have been feeling guilty? Or sickened by what she had done? Sadly, we will never know, because "In an era when women were considered the “weaker” sex and female murderers were nearly unheard of" (Maranzani
1).
In conclusion, in the 1892 case of the barbaric murders of Andrew and Abby Borden justice was not served, in actuality they let a vicious killer walk free. Lizzie had been accused of stealing jewelry and money by her stepmother, not to mention her father gave a piece of property to Abby 's sister. This is the perfect motive to kill. She was so enraged by Abby getting everything she wanted her out of the picture. And then when she realized that her father was letting her get her way she wanted to get revenge for it. The perfect motive, the perfect weapon and the perfect time frame. Which in her eyes was the perfect murder, and the perfect way to escape her fate from the court.

Work Cited

Linder, Douglas. "Lizzie Borden." Famous Trials. UMKC School of Law, n.d. Web. 11 Dec 2012. .

Douglas, Liner. "The Trial of Lizzie Borden: Chronology." Famous Trials. UMKC School of Law, 13 2012. Web. 11 Dec 2012. .

. "Lizzie Borden." Wikipedia. N.p., 13 2012. Web. 13 Dec 2012.

.