Lizzie Didn't Do It! [Paperback]

"Early accounts of the crime were loaded with factual errors" (p.18). This is a warning against using unverified newspaper records (p.8). Did Andrew Borden prosper handsomely (p.24)? The truth is that Andrew induced grieving customers to sign up for loans, then called these loans to foreclose on the homes. Andrew got rich by swindling widows and orphans! He became richer by buying into banks and factories, and real estate in growing Fall River. If one of his tenants received a higher salary, Andrew raised his rent. Andrew sold products from his home (p.25); he bought spoiled apple cider and sold it as vinegar. Page 34 quotes Bridget on the murders: "I'd be afraid to say anything at all. If I did, that terrible man that killed poor Mrs Borden might come back and kill me too." What did she know and when did she know it?

Page 94 asks why Lizzie didn't burn that dress before the police searched the house. That would have left a residue in the stove. Page 107 talks about the three doors, but says nothing about cellar windows being used to get into the house. Page 124 says the assassin could go upstairs to the guest room to hide, but be discovered by Abby. The jury found Lizzie not guilty. The same lack of evidence also applies to Bridget, and Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget ...." Robert Pinkerton says "an innocent person is more likely to make conflicting statements than is a guilty on." (His firm was hired by Lizzie.)

Chapter 21 discusses the missing note. Could this explain why Abby went to the second floor guest room? AR Brown has a better explanation for this note. Her discovery of "Nemesis" led to her unplanned murder. Then this rage must have been directed to Andrew after he turned over that white box. The opinion of Dr Abbot (pp.200-1) seems to be political, not medical. JV Morse's answer (p.202) seems like a way to answer without saying anything. Chapter 14 questions the time of death for Abby. The fact is that Abby was last seen alive about 9:15am, her body was discovered around noon. Since she had been killed earlier than Andrew, the 90 minute estimate is dead accurate. The charts on page 205 are meaningless without indexes for time and temperature. The unscientific studies on page 206 are contradicted by Dr. Dolan's tests on the bodies. The trial testimony quoted on page 210 really means that if a stomach empties between "two or three hours" there is no estimate possible after this time. Nicole's empty stomach would put her death 3 hours after her 8pm supper. Ron's stomach should show eating between 10:30pm and 11pm (my estimate).

Chapter 16 has one of his solutions: an embezzling bank clerk who played the stock market But a white collar crime like this rules out a double murder? Was it JW Carpenter, who embezzled from Andrew's funeral business? Or maybe J Clegg? Masterton didn't solve the crime! Arnold R Brown's book provided the final solution in theory, because no one has come up with a better one.

Central to his thesis, though, is the belief that the Bordens were actually killed at about the same time and Mr. Borden first. This goes against a hundred years of tradition. I've actually wondered myself whether the doctors may have been wrong at the time -- but it still seems to me that the likelihood is that they were killed some time apart, with Mrs. Borden having been killed first.

It's interesting that practically all the books that have come out in the past ten years about the case have pointed at people other than Lizzie. That may be a good thing. Despite the legend about the case, there were plenty of people at the time of the trial who thought Lizzie was innocent. Her notoriety may not be deserved.

Of all the books on this case, the one I've thought best-written (though not without its flaws) is Edward Radin's 1961 book Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. Radin's theory is that the maid, Bridget Sullivan, did it. Radin points out that there have been many cases when servants killed employers, and Bridget did have opportunity. (She also may have had it in for Mrs. Borden.) Masterson doesn't buy into this theory. But I've always wondered why people have not considered Bridget more seriously as a suspect. The fact that we don't know a motive may just be a red herring that people have been staring at for a hundred years.