The sensational trial of Lizzie Borden

Listen to this article

On the morning of August 4, 1892, in Fall River, Massachusetts, a neighbor saw Lizzie Borden standing just inside her front door. When Lizzie saw this neighbor, she asked her to come over, as someone had killed her father, Andrew Borden, with an axe. The police were called and Chief Marshal Rufus Hilliard responded. It was subsequently discovered that not only was Lizzie’s father viciously murdered, but also her stepmother suffered the same fate, brutally murdered with an axe, apparently before her father. The Fall River Police Department promptly began its investigation to identify the culprit.

The police soon focused their attention on Lizzie because of her inconsistent recollection, her generally calm demeanor, and the fact that she had previously attempted to purchase poisonous medicine, which the pharmacist refused to sell to her. Local citizens were in an uproar about the incident. They were horrified by the murders and marched on the streets near the Borden residence.

Lizzie Borden was ultimately arrested and indicted by the grand jury for the double murder, with the trial taking place in the Superior Court in June of 1893. Three judges presided over the jury trial. Throughout the trial, the courtroom was overcrowded with spectators, as was the outside.

Andrew Jennings and George Robinson, a former governor of Massachusetts, represented the defendant, while District Attorney Hosea Knowlton and William H. Moody argued the case for the prosecution. Moody presented the opening statement on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Moody began by acknowledging the seeming impossibility of the crime and perpetrator but then stated that on that fateful summer day in August, the defendant’s parents, in the light of day and in their own home on a popular street, were brutally murdered. He acknowledged that Lizzie was a woman of unquestioned character and an active member of the church, adding that Andrew Borden was a man of considerable property who chose to live modestly. He pointed out that, years before the murders took place, there was a controversy over a certain property between Lizzie and her stepmother, and from that point, Lizzie never again referred to her stepmother as mother. She once remarked: “Don’t refer to her as my mother. She is a mean thing, and we hate her.”

Moody set the stage for the crime by telling the jury that the doors in the house had locks and bolts on them and were used by her stepmother. He pointed out that Lizzie, before the murders, went to the drugstore to purchase poison medicine, telling the pharmacist it was for cleaning a sealskin cape. The pharmacist refused to sell her the poison. On the morning of the murders, Mrs. Borden was the first person to come downstairs. The only people in the house were Lizzie Borden, Mr. and Mrs. Borden, and Lizzie’s uncle, John Morse, who was visiting the family. Jurors were given information about the layout of the house and shown skulls of the deceased, much to the shock of those in the courtroom, including Lizzie, who fainted.

Jennings presented the opening for the defense. He emphasized the evidence would show the very good character of the accused. She was charitable and involved in community affairs. He emphasized the presumption of innocence. Moreover, he stated there is no evidence that Lizzie committed the crime, just mere speculation. He pointed out that the alleged weapon had disappeared and that it was the burden of the prosecution to produce it and connect it to the alleged crime.

Counsel took many days to present their evidence on direct and cross-examination. The court even permitted the jurors to visit the Borden home and tour the neighborhood.

At closing, Knolton argued that the commonwealth’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, which was more than sufficient based on police investigation.

Robinson presented the closing argument for the defendant, again emphasizing Lizzie’s character and the presumption of innocence and that the evidence against her was mere speculation. He argued that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of producing the alleged weapon and connecting it to the alleged crime. He also reminded the jury that there were other people in the Borden house during the morning of the crime, implying that someone else could be responsible for the crime.

The jury’s verdict was not guilty, which was greeted by great public outcry. Moreover, the verdict of history is in stark disagreement with the not guilty verdict in the courtroom. Consider the popular rhyme that took hold after the gruesome murders:

Lizzie Borden took an axe,
And gave her mother forty whacks,
When she saw what she had done,
She gave her father forty-one.

Sources: Edmund Pearson, “Trial of Lizzie Borden” (Leslie B. Abrams, 1989); Cara Robertson, “The Trial of Lizzie Borden” (Simon & Schuster, 2019).

Paul Mark Sandler is retired from the firm of Shapiro Sher. He can be reached at [email protected].