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