48 Hours - "Lizzie Borden Took an Axe"

Episode Date: March 29, 2020

Did Lizzie Borden really hack her parents to death? A surprising answer and an inside look at the haunting crime scene. "48 Hours" correspondent Erin Moriarty reports.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can listen to this podcast ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app today. Even if you love the thrill of true crime stories as much as I do, there are times when you want to mix it up. And that's where Audible comes in, with all the genres you love and new ones to discover. Explore thousands of audiobooks, podcasts, and originals, with more added all the time. thousands of audiobooks, podcasts, and originals, with more added all the time. Listening to Audible can lead to positive change in your mood, your habits,

and even your overall well-being. And you can enjoy Audible anytime, while doing household chores, exercising, commuting, you name it. There's more to imagine when you listen. Sign up for a free 30-day Audible trial and your first audiobook is free. Visit audible.ca. In 2014, Laura Heavlin was in her home in Tennessee when she received a call from California. Her daughter, Erin Corwin, was missing. The young wife of a Marine had moved to the California desert

to a remote base near Joshua Tree National Park. They have to alert the military. And when they do, the NCIS gets involved. From CBS Studios and CBS News, this is 48 Hours NCIS. Listen to 48 Hours NCIS ad-free starting October 29th on Amazon Music. It's an amazing story. It really is. It's the story of one very unhappy family in a house. It is a morning like so many other mornings in a small town in New England. A father, a stepmother, living with his two adult daughters.

Lizzie, 32, and Emma, 41. Lizzie was seen by the next door neighbor, and the neighbor asked, what's the matter? And she announces that her father has been killed. Law enforcement personnel arrived and found a gruesome murder. Two bodies, a lot of blood. There is a husband

downstairs, ten wounds to his head. And almost half of his face is obliterated. And just on the second floor was his wife. She was face down with a tremendous amount of injury to the back of her head. It seems like the most likely murder weapon was a hatchet with a three and a half inch blade. When someone is struck multiple times with a hatchet to the head,

that's personal. You know, one of the most fascinating parts of this case is that except for around the bodies, there's no blood found anywhere. You would think that whoever was the perpetrator would be covered with blood, blood spatter, nothing. Suspicion turned to the people in the house. And the only people in the house are his daughter and their housekeeper. It was so shocking for the police to come to the conclusion that the daughter had killed her father and stepmother. You would have to believe that this sweet, seemingly harmless woman did this horrific thing. Women are as capable as men, not only for the good, but for the bad as well.

On August the 4th, 1892, Andrew and Abby Borden were hacked to death in their Fall River, Massachusetts home. Andrew and Abby Borden were hacked to death in their Fall River, Massachusetts home. Every generation has that one really terrible case that we don't have any answers to. There is only one plausible explanation. Who do you believe killed Andrew and Abby Borden? Lizzie.

Lizzie's responsible for these murders. It was Lizzie Borden who intended to murder and did murder Abby and Andrew Borden. It was not until I read about this case that I learned that I was wrong, and all of us are wrong. Lizzie Borden was acquitted, so no one has ever been held accountable for the crimes. But if not her, then who? This is somebody who may have quite literally gotten away with murder.

Lindsay Borden took an ax and gave her mother 41. When she seen what she had done, she gave her father forty-one. The crimes were so violent that many thought that Jack the Ripper had come to America. It was an unspeakable crime, a double homicide that captured the attention of the entire nation. Tonight on a special 48 Hours, we're taking a fresh look at a cold case, a really cold case. It occurred in 1892, and we're presenting it to a new jury to see if they can separate fact from fable. The defendant was a 32-year-old daughter of the victims. Her name? Lizzie Borden.

I began studying Lizzie Borden when I was an undergraduate. Los Angeles author Cara Robertson has been living with Lizzie Borden for a long time. I was interested in trying to find a topic for my college thesis. Thirty years later, her thesis became this, a remarkably detailed look at the accusations against Lizzie Borden and her high-profile trial, published by Simon & Schuster. Fundamentally, the case was about whether or not someone like Lizzie Borden could have committed these brutal crimes. And in 1893, a jury of 12 men agreed she couldn't,

returning a unanimous verdict of not guilty. This was the kind of crime that just could not have been committed by a woman. But despite being acquitted, time and popular culture has forever cast Lizzie as one of America's most notorious killers. So did she do it or not? To help get to the bottom of this mystery, we brought together a team of paid consultants, two extremely experienced lawyers. My name is Anastika Nicolazzi. I was a prosecutor for 21 years at the Brooklyn DA's office. My name is Matthew Troiano. I'm a criminal defense attorney in New Jersey. And equally seasoned investigators. My name is Erin Rubis and I am a crime scene investigator and a former homicide detective.

I'm Andrew Schweikart. I'm a criminalist at the New York City office of the chief medical examiner. I was sucked right in. I was sucked in from the perspective that this happened over 100 years ago. I think it's relevant now the same way it was relevant then, and it's just a fascinating story. That story begins here. Fall River, Massachusetts, 1892. 1892. Prominent local businessman Andrew Borden was wealthy but also frugal, choosing to live here with his second wife, Abby Borden, just a block from the center of town. The house is modest, even by 1890s standards, with almost no indoor plumbing or gas lighting. He was cheap. He was known to be at the extreme end of Yankee frugality.

And we're coming up to the Lizzie Borden house. Wow. You can't analyze the crime without seeing where it all took place. So we brought crime scene investigator Erin Rubis here. What is important? What do you really want to see for yourself? I want to be able to take myself back into the crime scene based on what I've read. I want to be able to kind of put those pieces together that are missing. And she's able to do that because the house, oddly enough, so this is it, is now a bed and breakfast and restored in the style of the time. Complete with actual crime scene photos.

Here it is. And displays. To your left is a replica of Andrew Borden's skull. And to your right is Abby. I would definitely say that whoever did this, this was personal. This was a lot of anger and a lot of rage. Lizzie Borden is a fairly unremarkable woman. She was unmarried.

She was active in her local church. Emma Borden is Lizzie Borden's older sister. Always played a bit of a maternal role with respect to Lizzie. Emma, at the time of the murders, had been out of town for two weeks visiting friends. And Abby Borden, how would you describe Abby Borden? Abby Borden, she's often cast in the story as the evil stepmother. But in fact, she may well have been the nicest person in the house. Which brings us to the late morning of August 4th, 1892.

Lizzie, standing at the side door of the house, tells her next door neighbor, Adelaide Churchill, that her father has been killed. And does the neighbor see any blood on Lizzie? The neighbor comes over directly and sees absolutely no blood. Nothing on her face, her hands, her clothing. Nothing. She seems perfectly presented. And this is how police found Lizzie's father, stretched out on the couch in the sitting room, bludgeoned to death. It's pretty brutal. I mean, his entire face is brutally bashed in. But what of Andrew's wife, Abby?

Lizzie, sitting in the kitchen with that neighbor, Adelaide Churchill, offers an answer. She remarks that she thinks perhaps she heard her stepmother come in. At which point, Bridget Sullivan and Adelaide Churchill, the next door neighbor, go upstairs and find the body of Abby Borden. This right over here is where Abby Borden was found dead, face down. That scene is, if anything, more horrible. Abby suffered 19 blows. She's face down. Much of her, the back of her head has been hacked. the back of her head has been hacked.

You can imagine the pressure that was on the police to come upon a scene like that. The assumption at first was that it must have been a deranged outsider because the crimes were so shocking. But when it became clear that, you know, no one had been spotted in the vicinity, then suspicion turned to the people in the house. The house was triple locked in the front door, and the back door was locked,

and the only door that could have been unlocked was the side door. They had to find a suspect, and they fastened upon Lizzie Borden as an obvious choice. She is the only one that could have committed these crimes. crimes. As a kid growing up in Chicago, there was one horror movie I was too scared to watch. It was called Candyman. But did you know that the movie Candyman was partly inspired by an actual murder? Listen to Candyman, the true story behind the bathroom mirror murder, wherever you get your podcasts. Hot shot Australian attorney Nicola Gaba was born into legal royalty. Her specialty, representing some of the city's most infamous gangland criminals.

However, while Nicola held the underworld's darkest secrets, the most dangerous secret was her own. She's going to all the major groups within Melbourne's underworld, and she's informing on them all. I'm Marcia Clark, host of the new podcast, Informants Lawyer X. In my long career in criminal justice as a prosecutor and defence attorney, I've seen some crazy cases, and this one belongs right at the top of the list. She was addicted to the game she had created. She just didn't know how to stop. Now, through dramatic interviews and access,

I'll reveal the truth behind one of the world's most shocking legal scandals. Listen to Informant's Lawyer X exclusively on Wondery+. Join Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. And listen to more Exhibit C true crime shows early and ad-free right now. On Saturday, August 6th, while Andrew and Abby Borden were being laid to rest, news of their murder was spreading far and fast. The brutality of the murders alone

was enough to make this front page news across the country. At the same time, the Fall River Police Department was beginning its investigation. How would you describe the state of forensics in 1892? It was very primitive.

I think in many ways it was the perfect time for somebody to potentially get away with a crime like this. Besides police, the Borden house was crowded with doctors, reporters, neighbors, and even several passers-by. So anything really that was discovered at that crime scene was seriously compromised because we don't know when or by whom it was deposited. They take up pieces of carpet. They count blood stains. They search for evidence, blood on any clothing. What they find, though, are more questions than answers. One fact is clear. Abby was killed before Andrew. His death was so recent that his injuries were noted to have been oozing wet liquid blood He was also warm to the touch On the other hand, Abby, who was upstairs, had matted, coagulated blood, dark blood on her injuries

She was also cold to the touch Five days later, during a police inquest, Lizzie gives her version of what happened that morning. Five people wake up in the Borden house. Andrew and Abby Borden, Lizzie Borden, the housemaid, Bridget Sullivan, and Lizzie's uncle, John Morse. Andrew's brother-in-law, John Morse, visiting from out of town, was staying in the guest room. This is where John Morse had stayed the night before. We know that John Morse left in the morning to go visit other relatives in a different part of town. And Andrew Borden walked into the center of town to visit some of the buildings that he owned.

Abby Borden went upstairs to clean up the guest room. Lizzie says that she was in the dining room. She was actually ironing. And Bridget Sullivan was outside washing windows when about 9.30 in the morning, police believe Abby Borden fell to the floor, murdered. Abby Borden was a short woman, but she weighed about 200 pounds. And did Lizzie hear anything at all? She claims not to have heard anything. According to Lizzie's testimony, Andrew returned home at 10.45, greeting both the

housekeeper and Lizzie, and then retired to that sitting room to take a nap on the couch. According to the medical examiner, 45 minutes later, Andrew Borden was also dead. That was the opportunity right there. He's on that couch, and he's sleeping. And there was your opportunity. Police were sure they had the when, but there was still the question of why. What was the motive? Lizzie may have given police that answer during the inquest.

Lizzie and her sister, Emma, both really desired to live a way better life, and they really resented their father for not providing that for them. better life, and they really resented their father for not providing that for them. Andrew decided essentially to bail out his wife's half-sibling by buying a house and putting it in Abby's name, and thereafter you find that the house is a scene of a Cold War. Clearly, Lizzie was not happy that that house was going to go to her stepmother's sister. But enough to provide a motive for that kind of vicious killing? They were brutal. Certainly brutal enough to mark the perpetrator with evidence.

I would think that there would definitely be blood on her. And yet... One of the most fascinating parts of this case is that except for around the bodies, there's no blood found anywhere. If, in fact, Lizzie Borden is the killer, how did she not have any blood spatter on her? Her neighbor said she was spotless.

So where was the blood? Police searched the house and only found two instances of blood evidence, a minute spot on one of Lizzie's undergarments and a bucket of bloody cloths in the cellar washroom. Lizzie gave them a very personal explanation for both. She was menstruating. I think that was such a personal issue that, let's face it, who's going to challenge that? If we were to have that today, could we show, okay, is this Lizzie's blood or is it Andrew and Abby's blood? Also puzzling and very suspicious, Lizzie's choice to burn a dress in the kitchen stove the day after her father's funeral. Lizzie and Emma claimed burn a dress in the kitchen stove the day after her father's funeral.

Lizzie and Emma claimed that the dress had been stained with paint and it needed to be burned, and they thought that was as good a time as any. For me, the most valuable piece of evidence is the dress that Lizzie burned. If she's responsible for this, it would have blood from the victims on it, and that would be very difficult for Lizzie to explain. And with no dress, there was nothing to explain. It seemed the more they looked, the less investigators found, until down in the cellar. It's in here that the hatchet was found. A particular hatchet head was found in a box of abandoned tools. It became known as the handleless hatchet and would be a subject of debate for years to come. It only had a piece of a handle, and according to the police, it was a fresh break.

And according to the police, it was a fresh break. This particular hatchet head almost looked like it had been deliberately covered with a layer of ash. It's about three and a half inches of a cutting blade. And that seemed consistent with the wounds on Andrew and Abby's body. She could have quickly rinsed off that hatchet head, thrown it in a pile of ash to obliterate any lingering blood, and then just tossed it in the cellar to make it look like an old piece of junk. I mean, there are endless places in this house to hide stuff.

If it was the murder weapon, police later discovered it might not have been Lizzie's first weapon of choice. Someone who was identified as Lizzie Borden tried to buy prussic acid the day before the murders. In 1892, prussic acid, a lethal poison, was only available with a doctor's prescription. The woman said that she needed it to put an edge on a seal skin cape. And we know that Lizzie Borden did in fact have seal skin capes. But the pharmacist said he never heard of it used that way and refused to sell it to her. And then because she was unable to get the poison, she turned instead to a readily available household implement. The hatchet. That's right. It would seem the police came to the same conclusion.

At the close of the inquest, the chief of police placed Lizzie Borden under arrest for murder. Tonight's 48 Hours will continue. On June 5th, 1893, ten months after her arrest, Lizzie Borden sat in the Superior Court in New Bedford, Massachusetts, in this very chair on trial for murder. The first day of Lizzie Borden's trial attracted a massive crowd. Reporters were detailed from around the country. People waited for hours online. Reporters were detailed from around the country. People waited for hours online.

It was called the trial of the century, the 19th century. What I think is striking is that many of the people most interested in the case were women. But why? Why are these women willing to put aside their lives to attend the trial? This was the trial of a woman who seemed to have transcended the limits of her sex in such a violent way. The women, I think, were curious to see the monster. While they were welcome to watch, at the time, women were not allowed to sit on the jury. There won't be, in fact, women jurors until 1951 in Massachusetts. Despite the rigid standards of the times, the proceedings of the trial were surprisingly familiar

to our consulting attorneys. From what I've read, you could take this trial transcript and put it into 2020, and it would basically be the same. Both the prosecutors and the defense attorneys came in with a lot of the same arguments that I would imagine today. In front of a panel of three judges and a jury of 12 men, the prosecutor began his opening statement with a simple premise. That Lizzie Borden is the only person with the opportunity and the motive to have committed the crimes. But it was how he wrapped up his open that stunned the courtroom. He alludes to the fact that he has the skulls of the victims. The actual heads of the victims

in the courtroom. Yes, and Lizzie Borden responds by fainting. Over the next week, the jury hears from a parade of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution works very methodically and lays out the evidence. Evidence of who was killed first. If Andrew had been killed first, then automatically Abby's family will get part of the money where she's killed first.

Everything is just for the girls. Evidence matching the skulls to the suspected murder weapon. To show that the dimensions of the injuries on the skull aligned with the dimensions of the most probable murder weapon, which was the hatchet. And testimony of Lizzie's ability to wield that hatchet. The medical experts all said that a woman of ordinary build and ordinary strength could have committed the murders. But there is one thing the judges don't allow the jury to hear.

Some of the prosecution's best evidence is kept from the jury. Most notably, her alleged attempts to buy prussic acid before the murders. If she's out there getting poison, that is absolutely something the jury should consider when two people in her home were found dead the next day. Was it right to keep that out? As a defense attorney, sure, right? Hugely prejudicial, not really relevant. After nine days, the prosecution rests,

and Lizzie's defense team goes to work. The defense is much more interested in telling a story, that she's just an ordinary person caught in this unbelievably horrible situation. Clearly there's a lack of evidence, and then there's a second part of, hey, we just don't think that she did this. The defense needed only two days of witness testimony to make its case, and it's a case for reasonable doubt. You cannot answer the questions that have to be answered here, and that's reasonable doubt. What was perhaps the

most powerful defense? The most powerful witness in her defense was her sister Emma. Emma testified that it was her idea rather than Lizzie's to burn the dress, which makes it seem like it was a much more innocent thing to do. Lizzie Borden never testified, and after three weeks the trial ended with closing arguments. But before the jury was charged, Lizzie did have the last word. And she says, I am innocent. I leave it to my counsel to speak for me.

And with that, the case went to the jury. The courtroom is packed. People are also standing out in the corridors and around the front of the building, waiting for some kind of word. They didn't have to wait long. The jury took less than two hours to reach a verdict. The foreman, it's reported, almost can't contain his excitement. And just says, not guilty. Just blurts it out? Blurts it out, yeah. And at that point, Lizzie

Borden falls into her chair as if shot and puts her head on the rail. Meanwhile, the courtroom erupts into cheers, and there are cheers outside that could be heard a mile away. Maybe this is the prosecutor in me, but I was shocked she was acquitted. It is so clear to me, as much as it can be, that she is guilty. Now, whether or not they thought it was not guilty or innocent, who knows? But they certainly didn't think she was guilty. And I think at the end of the day, they just didn't want to believe that such a terrible, horrific crime could have been done by somebody like Lizzie Borden.

But now, in 2020, would a jury of men and women come to the same conclusion? There is only one person who reasonably could have committed this crime, who did commit this crime, and that is the defendant, Lizzie Borden. Do you think there was enough evidence to convict Lizzie? Take a closer look at what investigators saw on Facebook at 48 hours. Tonight's 48 hours will continue. In the Pacific Ocean, halfway between Peru and New Zealand, lies a tiny volcanic island. It's a little-known British territory called Pitcairn, and it harboured a deep, dark scandal. There wouldn't be a girl on Pitcairn once they reached the age of 10 that would still have heard it.

It just happens to all of them. I'm journalist Luke Jones, and for almost two years, I've been investigating a shocking story that has left deep scars on generations of women and girls from Pitcairn. When there's nobody watching, nobody going to report it, people will get away with what they can get away with. In the Pitcairn trials, I'll be uncovering a story of abuse and the fight for justice that has brought a unique, lonely Pacific island to the brink of extinction.

Listen to the Pitcairn Trials exclusively on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Have you ever wondered who created that bottle of sriracha that's living in your fridge? Or why nearly every house in America has at least one game of Monopoly. Introducing the best idea yet, a brand new podcast from Wondery and T-Boy about the surprising origin stories of the products you're obsessed with and the bold risk takers who brought them to life. Like, did you know that Super Mario, the best-selling video game character of all time, only exists because Nintendo couldn't get the rights to Popeye? Or Jack, that the idea for the McDonald's Happy Meal first came from a mom in Guatemala?

From Pez dispensers to Levi's 501s to Air Jordans, discover the surprising stories of the most viral products. Plus, we guarantee that after listening, you're going to dominate your next dinner party. So follow The Best Idea Yet on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to The Best Idea Yet early and ad-free right now by joining Wondery Plus. It's just the best idea yet. In 1893, Lizzie Borden was found not guilty by a jury of 12 men who couldn't believe a woman was capable of such acts of extreme violence. But how would a jury of men and women vote today in 2020?

To try and answer that question, we hired a jury recruiting firm to find us a panel of men and women who had never heard of Lizzie Borden and then paid them to decide the case. This is not a retrial, but a presentation argued by our consulting attorneys in their own words without any guidance from us. This is the case of Lizzie Borden. The rules are simple. Only evidence presented in the original trial could be presented here, and all facts should be presumed to be true. Good morning, everyone.

Prosecutor Anastasia Nikolasi and defense attorney Matthew Troiano Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. deliver their opening statements. This case is about bitterness, resentment, and fear. Greed was what drove Lizzie Borden to do what she did. Just one night before these two innocents are bludgeoned in their own home, the defendant goes to see a friend. She out of nowhere volunteered. She'd been feeling

depressed and so worried about many nameless, faceless enemies that her father had. And she left with this, I'm afraid something's going to happen. Lizzie Borden is guilty of her parents, her father, and her stepmother's murder, and the evidence by the end will prove that to you beyond any reasonable doubt. Thank you. This is a woman of 32 years old who is accused of the most vicious and heinous murder that one could imagine. What would you expect to see around the person and on the person that did this? Blood? A lot of blood, right? There's no blood on her at all.

There's no blood on her hands. There's no blood on her face. There's no blood anywhere her hands. There's no blood on her face. There's no blood anywhere on her. The reality here, ladies and gentlemen, is the evidence is lacking. The story's good, but the evidence is lacking. And if you are going to come back and convict somebody of this crime, you better get a little bit more than a story. Thank you. Next, Prosecutor Nicolazzi calls on her experts. People call crime scene detective Aaron Rubis. To explain the evidence, the locked doors, the hatchet, the pail of bloody rags, and that burned dress. But it's the blood evidence,

or rather the lack of it, that is her biggest challenge. It is my belief that this was done from someone facing him and directly almost over top of him. And it's fair to say that even with that number of wounds, there was not a whole lot of blood. That's correct. With Abby Borden, how many wounds were observed on her body? There were 19 wounds observed on Mrs. Borden, 18 to the back of her head on the right side, and one at the base of her neck.

Possible to commit those murders and not get a lot of blood on you based on the type of wounds that we had. Absolutely. Did he have any defensive wounds? None that were observed. And why wouldn't the victims fight back? If someone sees someone who is familiar, could that contribute to lack of initial defensive wounds?

Possibly. Did they recover anything in terms of any possible weapon? A hatchet head. Is there anything about the size of the actual hatchet that was recovered that would preclude a woman from using it? No. No matter the size? No matter the size. I have nothing further.

For the defense's cross-examination, Troiano again focuses on that lack of blood. So you would agree that at the point that obviously the object hits that source of blood, there's going to be blood that comes out from it. Is that correct? Yes, I think that does depend on the specifics, but yes. But certainly, as far as you know, there was no dress that was found that would have had blood spatter on it. Is that correct? Correct. The only blood that is on an article of clothing was a 1 16th inch size pinhead spot of blood on an underdress underneath an outer dress. That's correct. That was the only piece of blood that was detected.

Any blood on that hatchet? Not that was observed. And in 1892, with no scientific testing available, observation was the best and only tool at hand. No other apparent blood anywhere else or quite frankly anywhere in the house, is that correct? Other than blood in the immediate two areas of the two homicides and potential blood on the pail in the cellar, there was no mention of blood elsewhere in the case record. I think that's all I have. Thank you.

And then both lawyers make their final arguments to the jury. I think what you've heard over the course of the last couple hours are questions, but not proof, and not proof beyond the reasonable doubt. This case is very much like a jigsaw puzzle. But I suggest that when you look at all those pieces, it's not one that is overly tough to solve. You are not

here to find a solution to the puzzle. But you are here to decide if a crime was committed and if this person, the defendant, Lizzie Borden, committed it. And all the pieces of evidence say yes. There is no direct evidence here, right? And the circumstantial evidence is so very weak that it can't be enough. So think those things through. I know you will. So thank you very much. The evidence is all there. When you use all of it and use your common sense, it is proof of one thing. Lizzie Borden, the defendant, bludgeoned her stepmother and her father to death. And for that, you should find her guilty. Thank you.

And with that, once again, Lizzie's fate is in the hands of a jury. I feel like it has to be somebody familiar with the house. But what's different this time is that these lawyers get to hear the jury deliberate. Think of the murder weapon, the hatchet. You chopping at someone, there's no blood whatsoever. More than a century after Lizzie Borden went on trial for murder, this jury of eight people have been asked to wrestle with many of the same questions.

It's an unheard of opportunity to be in the room for an actual deliberation, but it quickly becomes clear that there are no easy answers for our jurors. Frank, James, Michelle, Amy, Michael, Jarell, Larissa, and Jennifer. One of the big concerns here, the prosecutor said resentment, bitterness, and greed. It just seems like overkill if she wasn't going to lose everything. Either she's a sociopath or possibly not guilty. And that's my only question. I feel like to go for first degree murder of both victims, there has to be malice of forethought. And I don't believe that was proven. You know, you could, I mean,

these are two different counts. So if you wanted to, you could decide that she's guilty of one and not guilty of the other. Abigail was struck 19 times. Like you said, that is overkill. But there's still a lot of, like I said, unknowns in terms of how do they clean that up? I can't figure out how she could have done it and been standing there with nothing on her house and everything normal.

I feel like it has to be somebody familiar with the house. Also familiar with the victims because they're clearly familiar with the attacker. I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she's guilty. I don't buy it. But I don't think the standard is completely convinced. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. But that doesn't mean completely. Unlike the original jury, this panel has no trouble believing a woman could kill. The question is, was it this woman? If she does know how to kill a pig or livestock, then she knows how to do it right. They believe she had the motive.

She hated her stepmother. But there were still questions. Why leave Bridget alive? Why leave the bloody rags just hanging out? Listen, let's forget about our accomplices or her motivation. The question is, did she do it? After more than an hour of deliberation... So do you want to, you know, take a vote from everybody on two different counts?

The vote. On the charge of first degree with the death of Abby Borden. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Borden.

Guilty. I keep going back to she looks guilty, but I'm not convinced. So I'm back to not guilty. You're the last one, Daryl. Guilty. Yeah, guilty. You're the last one, Jarell. Guilty. Yeah, guilty. You're sure? Yes, positive on that one.

On the charge of first degree with Andrew Borden. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Not guilty.

Not guilty. While Jarell was confident Lizzie had planned to kill Abby, he believed the murder of her father was purely spontaneous. I just, I don't know if that premeditation factored in with dad. And with that, the foreman published the jury's verdict. Norman published the jury's verdict. On the charge of first-degree murder of Abby Borden, we are a hung jury. And on the charge of first-degree murder for Andrew Jackson Borden,

we are also a hung jury. Thank you. There's still something profoundly unsettling about the idea that a woman who seems normal committing a crime like this. We heard most of these jurors vote to convict her, but you heard a lot of doubt there still. Yeah, there was a lot. There were a number of them that were expressing doubt. And, you know, you wonder, is that a misunderstanding of the standard or is it just they're making a call?

Right. It was fascinating, but at the same time troubling at times. I think if you really broke it down, those that voted for guilty at the end really did express that they did think it was her and that the evidence had proven it, while they may not have expressed it that clearly in that one thought. So is it fair to say that we've not solved the mystery of Lizzie Borden and it will be argued for another 120 something years. I feel like we've solved the mystery of Lizzie Borden. We just haven't solved whether she should have been found guilty or not because it's a very different question. I think that that's the best way to say it and maybe that's the beauty of

of the system and maybe it's not. Clearly Lizzie Borden didn't care what people thought of her. After her acquittal, she wasted little time getting on with her life. She stayed in Fall River, just not in this home. She and her sister Emma promptly vacate the cramped family house that was a source of some dissatisfaction. Inheriting almost $350,000 from their father's estate, which would be $10 million in today's money, Lizzie and Emma bought the house they always wanted at the top of the hill in the wealthy part of town. She changed her name from Lizzie to Lizbeth, and she named her house Maplecroft. It seemed, well, unseemly to many in the community. Very soon, there are people who start to wonder, if it wasn't Lizzie Borden, then who was it? Lizzie Borden finds herself unwelcome at the church where she had spent so much of her time

and which had provided the foundation of her support during the trial. Twelve years later, even Lizzie's sister Emma turns her back on her. Emma was deeply troubled by something that was going on in the house such that she felt it was necessary to sever all ties with her sister. Lizzie, who never married, finished out her life as a recluse, alone in her home with her dogs, until her death in June of 1927. Did Lizzie ever talk to the press?

Did she ever give her side of the story? No. Lizzie Borden remained silent. Coincidentally, Emma, living in New Hampshire, died just nine days later. They were both laid to rest here, alongside their father and their stepmother. Today, Fall River, Massachusetts, embraces the woman who brought so much notoriety to the town. Lizzie Borden took an axe. And gave her mother 40 whacks. When she saw what she had done.

She gave her father 41. Could you stay overnight at the scene of a crime listen to erin's podcast on her stay at the borden home at 48 hours.com for 48 hours fans a new podcast i'm erin moriarty 48 hours and this is my life of crime revisit the lizzie b Lizzie Borden murders. Lizzie Borden took an accident. Go behind prison walls. What was the crime that brought you here? Hear a horror story that hits close to home. Aaron, there is no excuse to give your home address to a serial killer.

And much more. My Life of Crime. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.