I believe that Lizzie rescued a monkey from a local carnival. She brought it home hid it in her closet and tried to convert it to Christianity, but it rejected Lizzie and her teachings. On the morning in question it broke out of the closet ran into the spare bedroom and killed Abby with the accordion that it played in the carnival. It then climbed up on the roof and escaped jumping from roof to roof and swinging through the trees. When Andrew came home, Lizzie set him down and attempted to tell him what happened, but he couldn't take it. His head literally exploded. I know this sounds pretty silly, but so does the theory in the video.
Why would they be in the bedroom that Uncle John was using while in town? Knowing he was coming back for lunch? How did Abby get in the position of head facing the wall if the women were in the bed? That wouldn’t be practice for her to fall forward when there wouldn’t have been room for someone to stand in front of her between the dresser and bed and wall. Someone would have had to get out of the bed and go behind Abby while Abby faced the opposite direction? It just doesn’t add up to me. But more so, why didn’t they use Bridget’s room on the 3rd floor where no one ever went other than Bridget? Why would they go to a used bedroom by a guest that opens up to the stairs where anyone walking up could see them?
An interesting take on the murders that I haven't heard before. It does answer some of the nagging questions we still have. Bridget did seem to be involved in some way, from being an accomplice to aiding Lizzie in cleaning up. Since Bridget and the rest of the Bordens did not have a decent relationship, instead of getting the police she may have thought "good riddance". The theory that more than one weapon was involved is very interesting. Was it ever proven that Abby was killed with blows from an axe? That seems to be automatically accepted. Would have been interesting to have compared the blows on the skull. How similar would the blows have been? Wouldn't be that similar, IMO. I'm just throwing some questions out after watching this excellent clip. There are many reasons why this story will always remain fascinating. Good job. The only negative comment is a personal one--I believe that just because a woman doesn't marry or show any romantic interest in sex with a male or female doesn't automatically make her a lesbian. Simply someone uninterested in sex.
I've also seen some interesting theories that posit it wasn't a hatchet in either murder, that it was one of the iron-flats, but there are as many holes in that theory as their are in the hatchet theory. While the clip is certainly entertaining (I believe the reenactments are filmed in the real Borden house, or a very good replica of it), it's not based in fact. With respect to your final comment - one problem... Lizzie did show 'romantic' interest in Nance O'Neil (even changing her first name to the pet-name Nance had given her, 'Lizbeth') and was devastated when O'Neil broke off the relationship in 1906. To boot, O'Neil did go on to have a confirmed lesbian relationship before marrying in 1916 - their intimate letters were published in 1965. Too many Borden historians dismiss this as "oh it wasn't a lesbian relationship, they were just really close friends who wrote love letters to one another and gave each other pet-names [note: not the ultra-common-for-the-time practice of calling people by diminutives - Margaret to "Daisy", Mary to "Mame" but wholly different names, from Lizzie to "Lizbeth", from Nance to "Daphne"] and Lizzie financed multiple parties both at Maplecroft and at O'Neil's estate in Tyngsborough but because they never wrote 'I love you as I do a husband' in those explicit terms it couldn't have been a lesbian relationship." When I encounter this kind of illogic (or rather, an inability or unwillingness to read between the lines) in Borden historiography I can't help but think of the same kind of platonizing of Achilles and Patroclus, Khnumhotep and Niankhknum, Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West, Anne Lister and Ann Walker, Ethel Collins Dunham and Martha May Eliot, Michelangelo and Tommaso dei Cavalieri...just to name a few. That said, the work done by Borden historians to date is invaluable and (Queer theory notwithstanding) exhaustive. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the owner of this channel is one of the most prominent Borden historians whose website remains *the* internet's place for people interested in vetted facts on the Borden case or on Lizzie in general - so major kudos to Dr. Koorey!
@@elenawinellcomposer One investigator checked a hatchet head that was found by the original police investigators by inserting the hatchet head into the slits in Abby's shawl. It was a perfect fit.
The novel Lizzie was utterly believable, tragic, terrible. But then the author was Evan Hunter who never wrote a dull sentence or a disappointing book. His alter ego Ed McBain was possibly even better.
The obvious flaws in Ed McBain's theory of the Lizzie Borden case are (1) the evidence is that Abby Borden never left the Borden house that morning - Lizzie Borden's claim that Abby received a note from a sick friend of Abby's and went out to tend to her sick friend was obvious b.s., especially when one considers the fact that no such note was ever found or ever turned over to the Fall River police by Lizzie Borden or Bridget Sullivan and (2) the evidence is that Andrew Borden after he came back to the house after going into town, layed down on the couch to take a nap when he was attacked after he fell asleep. So McBain's theory that Andrew Borden saw a candlestick on the mantle piece in the first floor sitting room and decided to take it up to the second floor guest room and then discovered Abby Borden's body is rank speculation without a single shred of evidence to support his theory!
This is what happens when you twist facts to match your theory instead of developing the theory based on fact. Why did I waste 2 minutes and 48 seconds on this ??
This is wrong. Bridgett testified that the front door was locked and she had to let Andrew in when he came home. I want to know where Bridgett was during Andrews murder. She was supposedly outside for Abby's murder.
Maybe, but the mother’s murder . . . I find it hard to believe her Dad would go upstairs and discuss things downstairs
Step mother
I believe that Lizzie rescued a monkey from a local carnival. She brought it home hid it in her closet and tried to convert it to Christianity, but it rejected Lizzie and her teachings. On the morning in question it broke out of the closet ran into the spare bedroom and killed Abby with the accordion that it played in the carnival. It then climbed up on the roof and escaped jumping from roof to roof and swinging through the trees. When Andrew came home, Lizzie set him down and attempted to tell him what happened, but he couldn't take it. His head literally exploded. I know this sounds pretty silly, but so does the theory in the video.
Brilliant. Love your comment.
Why would they be in the bedroom that Uncle John was using while in town? Knowing he was coming back for lunch? How did Abby get in the position of head facing the wall if the women were in the bed? That wouldn’t be practice for her to fall forward when there wouldn’t have been room for someone to stand in front of her between the dresser and bed and wall. Someone would have had to get out of the bed and go behind Abby while Abby faced the opposite direction? It just doesn’t add up to me. But more so, why didn’t they use Bridget’s room on the 3rd floor where no one ever went other than Bridget? Why would they go to a used bedroom by a guest that opens up to the stairs where anyone walking up could see them?
An interesting take on the murders that I haven't heard before. It does answer some of the nagging questions we still have. Bridget did seem to be involved in some way, from being an accomplice to aiding Lizzie in cleaning up. Since Bridget and the rest of the Bordens did not have a decent relationship, instead of getting the police she may have thought "good riddance".
The theory that more than one weapon was involved is very interesting. Was it ever proven that Abby was killed with blows from an axe? That seems to be automatically accepted. Would have been interesting to have compared the blows on the skull. How similar would the blows have been? Wouldn't be that similar, IMO.
I'm just throwing some questions out after watching this excellent clip. There are many reasons why this story will always remain fascinating. Good job.
The only negative comment is a personal one--I believe that just because a woman doesn't marry or show any romantic interest in sex with a male or female doesn't automatically make her a lesbian. Simply someone uninterested in sex.
I've also seen some interesting theories that posit it wasn't a hatchet in either murder, that it was one of the iron-flats, but there are as many holes in that theory as their are in the hatchet theory.
While the clip is certainly entertaining (I believe the reenactments are filmed in the real Borden house, or a very good replica of it), it's not based in fact.
With respect to your final comment - one problem... Lizzie did show 'romantic' interest in Nance O'Neil (even changing her first name to the pet-name Nance had given her, 'Lizbeth') and was devastated when O'Neil broke off the relationship in 1906. To boot, O'Neil did go on to have a confirmed lesbian relationship before marrying in 1916 - their intimate letters were published in 1965. Too many Borden historians dismiss this as "oh it wasn't a lesbian relationship, they were just really close friends who wrote love letters to one another and gave each other pet-names [note: not the ultra-common-for-the-time practice of calling people by diminutives - Margaret to "Daisy", Mary to "Mame" but wholly different names, from Lizzie to "Lizbeth", from Nance to "Daphne"] and Lizzie financed multiple parties both at Maplecroft and at O'Neil's estate in Tyngsborough but because they never wrote 'I love you as I do a husband' in those explicit terms it couldn't have been a lesbian relationship." When I encounter this kind of illogic (or rather, an inability or unwillingness to read between the lines) in Borden historiography I can't help but think of the same kind of platonizing of Achilles and Patroclus, Khnumhotep and Niankhknum, Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West, Anne Lister and Ann Walker, Ethel Collins Dunham and Martha May Eliot, Michelangelo and Tommaso dei Cavalieri...just to name a few.
That said, the work done by Borden historians to date is invaluable and (Queer theory notwithstanding) exhaustive. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the owner of this channel is one of the most prominent Borden historians whose website remains *the* internet's place for people interested in vetted facts on the Borden case or on Lizzie in general - so major kudos to Dr. Koorey!
@@elenawinellcomposer One investigator checked a hatchet head that was found by the original police investigators by inserting the hatchet head into the slits in Abby's shawl. It was a perfect fit.
@@gooberclown I saw that too. It was a perfect match! th-cam.com/video/2yIlZUYBXFk/w-d-xo.html
The novel Lizzie was utterly believable, tragic, terrible. But then the author was Evan Hunter who never wrote a dull sentence or a disappointing book. His alter ego Ed McBain was possibly even better.
This theory is incorrect.
How can someone's theory be incorrect? Everyone has different theories on the case.
Seems likely tho.
The obvious flaws in Ed McBain's theory of the Lizzie Borden case are (1) the evidence is that Abby Borden never left the Borden house that morning - Lizzie Borden's claim that Abby received a note from a sick friend of Abby's and went out to tend to her sick friend was obvious b.s., especially when one considers the fact that no such note was ever found or ever turned over to the Fall River police by Lizzie Borden or Bridget Sullivan and (2) the evidence is that Andrew Borden after he came back to the house after going into town, layed down on the couch to take a nap when he was attacked after he fell asleep. So McBain's theory that Andrew Borden saw a candlestick on the mantle piece in the first floor sitting room and decided to take it up to the second floor guest room and then discovered Abby Borden's body is rank speculation without a single shred of evidence to support his theory!
I think this rendition of events is basically correct.
Sorry. Not even close.
Oh really? What great insight do you have?
Yeah some of this Some might be correct ie Lizzie / Bridget almost of had to of worked together
It's all about the narrative 🙄
Oh Please! Poor Lizabeth
Oh you knew her?
This is what happens when you twist facts to match your theory instead of developing the theory based on fact. Why did I waste 2 minutes and 48 seconds on this ??
Absolute bs
This is wrong. Bridgett testified that the front door was locked and she had to let Andrew in when he came home. I want to know where Bridgett was during Andrews murder. She was supposedly outside for Abby's murder.