Lizzie Borden took an axe: Or did she?

The idea that Lizzie Borden didn't actually swing

the hatchet is one of those theories that just

refuses to die, even though a jury acquitted

her way back in 1893. When you look at the sheer

brutality of what happened to Andrew and Abby

Borden, it's hard to reconcile that with the

image of a 32 -year -old Sunday school teacher.

It is a massive psychological hurdle. You're

talking about 19 blows to Abby, and 10 or 11

to Andrew. Their faces were literally rendered

unrecognizable. It was so violent that at the

time some people in Fall River were convinced

a monster had been let loose. There were actually

rumors that Jack the Ripper had crossed the Atlantic

and settled in Massachusetts, which sounds like

a Victorian urban legend, but it points to a

very real question. Is it possible we're looking

at the work of a serial killer? Someone who wasn't

family? Someone who had no motive beyond the

act itself? It's a theory that's gained some

traction in recent years, especially with true

crime historians looking for patterns. The most

compelling piece of evidence for an outside killer

isn't a fingerprint or a witness, but another

murder. Just five days before Lizzie's trial

began in June 1893, a woman named Bertha Manchester

was hacked to death in her own kitchen in Fall

River. Wait, the same town? That seems like an

incredible coincidence. Was the method of killing

similar? Shockingly similar. She was struck more

than 20 times in the face with an axe or hatchet.

The level of overkill That frenzied, repeated

striking is a hallmark of a specific kind of

offender. Jurors in Lizzie's trial definitely

heard about it, and you have to wonder if it

planted a seed of doubt. If someone else was

running around Fall River with an axe, maybe

Lizzie was just the easy target for a police

force under pressure. But didn't they catch someone

for the Manchester murder? I thought I read that

a Portuguese immigrant was convicted. They did.

Jose Correa de Mello was convicted of killing

Bertha Manchester in 1894. But here's the kicker.

Investigators eventually determined he wasn't

even in the country when the Bordens were killed

in August 1892. So while the crimes looked like

the work of the same person, the person caught

for the second one had a rock -solid alibi for

the first. This leaves us with two options. Either

Fall River had two independent axe -wielding

maniacs within a year of each other, or there

was a third person responsible for both who was

never caught. That leads into the the man from

the train theory that Bill James wrote about.

He argues that a serial killer was traveling

the U .S. rail system during that era, getting

off at small towns and slaughtering families

with their own axes. Does the Borden case fit

that profile? In some ways, yes. the overkill,

the use of a tool found on site, the daytime

occurrence. James pointed out several murders

in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that

shared these traits, including the famous Villisca

axe murders in Iowa. Those killers were patient.

They'd hide in attics or barns for hours, watching

the family's routine. If you apply that to the

Bordens, It explains how someone could kill Abby

upstairs at 9 .30 a .m. and then just wait, hide

in a closet or under a bed for an hour and a

half until Andrew came home. But that brings

us back to the house itself. It was small, it

was cramped, and there was a maid, Bridget Sullivan,

right there. She was washing windows outside

and then resting in her room. How does a stranger

stay hidden in a house that busy without being

seen by Lizzie or Bridget? That's the strongest

argument against an intruder. The house was essentially

a fortress of locked doors. The front door was

triple locked. The back door was locked. The

only way in was the side door, which was usually

kept latched. For an outsider to slip in, commit

a brutal murder, wait 90 minutes, commit a second

murder, and slip out without leaving a trace

of blood or being seen on a busy street. It requires

a level of luck that feels almost impossible,

unless the outsider wasn't a total stranger.

Some people point to William Borden, an alleged

illegitimate son of Andrew. The theory there

is that he had a history of mental instability

and an obsession with axes. Arnold Brown wrote

an entire book on that theory. He suggested William

was a butcher by trade, which would explain why

he was so comfortable with the gore and why he

might have known how to avoid getting covered

in it. The idea is that Lizzie knew about him

and was covering for him to protect the family

name. Or maybe she was just as terrified of him

as everyone else. It's an inside -outside job.

He knew the layout. He had a motive involving

inheritance, and he fit the profile of a violent

offender. It's interesting you mention him being

a butcher. A lot of the serial killer theories

hinge on the idea that the person had to have

some professional experience with slaughter to

be that efficient. If we look at other serial

killers from that era, like Thomas Piper, the

Boston Belfry murderer, there's a pattern of

using blunt force and blades in quiet, respectable

places. Piper is a fascinating comparison. He

was a church sexton in Boston in the 1870s. He'd

lure victims into the belfry and bludgeon them.

He was a respectable man who was actually a serial

killer and arsonist fueled by a laudanum addiction.

And interestingly, Lizzie was reportedly taking

morphine or laudanum for nerves right after the

murders. which her doctor used to explain her

confusing testimony. It shows that the respectable

Sunday school teacher trope could easily be a

mask. If we move away from the unnamed drifter

and look at people actually in the house, what

about Uncle John Morse? He stayed the night before,

he left that morning, but his alibi was described

as absurdly perfect. He remembered the exact

number of the horse car he took and the names

of the people he talked to. That's usually a

red flag for investigators, isn't it? A memory

that's too good? It definitely raised eyebrows.

Morse was a butcher too, coincidentally. He had

the skill set. But police tracked his movements

and found his alibi actually held up. He was

seen by multiple witnesses miles away. Could

he have hired someone? Maybe. But then you're

adding more people to a conspiracy in a house

where everyone was already on top of each other.

The more people involved, the more likely someone

talks. Then you have the maid, Bridget. Some

theories suggest she snapped because it was a

sweltering August day. She was suffering from

food poisoning, and Abby ordered her to wash

the windows. But that only gives her a motive

for Abby. Why kill Andrew? He didn't give the

order. Exactly. And Bridget had no history of

violence. She actually stayed in the house for

several days after the murders before leaving.

The idea that she and Lizzie were in it together

is popular in fiction. This idea of a shared

hatred for the parents, but there's zero evidence

of a secret pact. If a serial killer did it,

They'd need to be someone who could bypass those

locks, or someone Lizzie purposefully let in.

So if we look at the serial killer angle, we're

really talking about a person who might have

been stalking the house. You mentioned Villisca.

In those cases, the killer often covered the

mirrors and the victim's faces with cloths. Did

that happen at the Borden house? Not quite. Andrew's

face was hacked beyond recognition. and he was

covered with a coat, but that was likely done

by Lizzie or the neighbors after the discovery.

However, the coolness required to stay in that

house between murders is very characteristic

of a serial offender. Most crimes of passion

involve a person fleeing immediately. To stay

for 90 minutes while a maid is moving around

the house and a daughter is in the next room?

That's the behavior of someone who finds thrill

in the risk. It's also worth noting the poisoning

incident. The whole family was violently ill

the week before the murders. Abby was so convinced

they were being poisoned that she went to a doctor.

If a serial killer was targeting them, maybe

the hatchet was just plan B because the poison

didn't work fast enough. The prosecution actually

tried to use that against Lizzie. They had testimony

from a local pharmacist, Eli Bents, who said

Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid, cyanide, the

day before the murders. The judge ruled that

testimony inadmissible because it wasn't directly

linked to the murders, but it's a huge piece

of the puzzle. If she was trying to buy poison,

the outsider theory starts to look a lot weaker.

Why would a random serial killer try to poison

them first? then switch to a hatchet, then disappear.

Unless the illness was just bad mutton, which

was another theory at the time. The 1890s didn't

have great refrigeration, but let's go back to

the physical evidence, or the lack of it. Lizzie

was found spotless just minutes after her father

was killed. No blood on her hair, her face, or

her dress. Even if she was a mastermind, How

does a non -professional commit two bloody ax

murders and stay clean? That's the million -dollar

question. It's why people keep coming back to

the nude theory or the cloak theory. But if you

have a serial killer, someone like a butcher

who knows how blood spatter works or someone

who has done this before, maybe they had a method.

Or perhaps the killer simply wore a raincoat

or one of Andrew's own coats. and then hit it.

A hatchet head was found in the basement with

the handle broken off and covered in ash. The

police thought the handle was broken because

it was soaked in blood. But a chemist from Harvard

tested those tools and found no blood. It seems

like the more you dig into the evidence, the

more it contradicts itself. It's almost like

the crime was designed to be unsolvable. It's

the ultimate Rorschach test. If you want to believe

a woman could never do this, you look at the

foreigner or the drifter. If you think the family

was a pressure cooker of resentment, you look

at Lizzie. The serial killer theory is attractive

because it removes the uncomfortable idea that

a daughter could butcher her parents for a better

life. But when you look at the specifics, the

locked doors, the timing, the lack of an escape

route, It's very hard to put anyone but Lizzie

in that house. And the fact that no other similar

murders happened in Fall River after she was

acquitted? If there was a serial killer, he just

stopped? Well, some argue he didn't stop. They

point to the man from the train continuing across

the country. But for Fall River specifically,

the violence ended. Lizzie stayed in town. bought

a big house on the hill called Maplecroft, and

lived out her days as a social pariah. She never

spoke about it. She never defended herself beyond

that first inquest. That silence is heavy. It's

a silence that has allowed every possible theory

to rush in, even the Jack the Ripper one, despite

the fact that the Ripper's M .O. was completely

different. He was about evisceration and throat

-slitting, not blunt force trauma with a hatchet.

Right, the Ripper label was just 19th century

shorthand for, this is too violent for a normal

person to have done. It was a way for the public

to process the gore. But the reality of serial

murder in the 1890s was much more mundane and

often much more domestic than people wanted to

admit. Most people were killed by those they

knew, in the places they felt safest. So while

a serial killer is technically possible, especially

given the Bertha Manchester murder and the Drifter

theories of the era, the logistical walls of

92 Second Street make it a very tough sell. It

requires an intruder who is not just a killer,

but a ghost. A ghost who knows exactly when the

maid is in the backyard and when the father is

coming home for his nap. It's a compelling story.

But in the world of forensics and logic, the

simplest explanation usually has the most weight.

Whether we want to admit a maiden lady could

do it or not, she was the one with the keys to

the fortress. The mystery of the Borden murders

continues to haunt us, because it challenges

our assumptions about who is capable of what.

Whether it was a calculating daughter or a shadowy

figure from the rails. The events of that August

morning remain a chilling reminder of how quickly

a quiet home can turn into a crime scene. If

this exploration of one of history's most famous

cold cases sparked your curiosity, share this

episode with someone who loves a good mystery.

And that's the way I heard it.

The Story