Heart Starts Pounding: Horrors, Hauntings, and Mysteries - Bonus: The Dark Psychology of Lizzie Borden (feat. Women & Crime)

Episode Date: June 6, 2023

Let's take a modern, scientific lens to last week's Lizzie Borden case, and try to understand why someone would commit this crime. Dr. Amy Schlosberg and Dr. Meghan Sacks, professors of Criminology at Fairleigh Dickinson University, join me today to break down the case with what we know today about criminology. Together, they host the Women & Crime podcast. You could have gotten this episode early by subscribing on Patreon. There, we have more long form content, under the Rogue Detecting Society tier. Follow on Tik Tok and Instagram for a daily dose of horror. Heart Starts Pounding is written and produced by Kaelyn Moore.  Music from Artlist

Welcome to a bonus episode of Heart Starts Pounding. I'm your host, Kaelin Moore. In this episode, I'm going to speak with professors of criminology, Amy Schlossberg and Meghan Sachs. Together, they host the podcast Women in Crime and have a wealth of knowledge about well, why people commit crimes. I'm going to be honest. The more I read about the Lizzy Borden case, the more questions I had. To me, it felt like she was guilty, but with the lack of physical evidence, how could we ever be sure? Well, it turns out, if we knew then what we know now, the trial would have looked a lot different. In this episode, Amy and Megan helped me understand what we know today about why people commit

crimes, and how that applies to what probably happened that fateful morning of August 4th, 1892. I learned so much from talking with them, and I hope you do too. Amy and Megan, welcome to Heart Starts Pounding. Hi, Caitlin. Thanks so much for having us. Thank you so much for having us, Caitlin. So for those of my listeners that don't know women in crime, what is the show about? Women in crime looks at a different case each week.

A case in which a woman is either an offender, a victim, often they're one in the same or a trailblazer in the field. And other than telling the story, we like to talk about whether the system got it right or not. And also what criminal logical theories can help us understand why that event happened to begin with. That's awesome. I think that's a great lead in to the episode

that I just did about Lizzie Borden. I think one of the things that stuck out to me the most about that case were really the theories that people had about women and crime at the time. And really the belief was that a woman could not have committed this crime. And I think that's a big reason as to why she was never convicted. What do you think about that? A lot of people believe that this type of crime could only have been committed by a man hence why I believe the jury probably did acquit her, but you know what we're talking about is more in contemporary times is known as the gender gap in criminology. And the fact is

that men do commit more crimes than women do. And this holds true across cultures, across time, just to give some you know know, numbers to this. About 15 to 20% of all crime is committed by females, but when you look at murder, women only make up 5 to 10%. So it is rare for a woman to murder. It's also rare for a woman to murder someone in such a brutal method, the way in which Andrew Borden and Abby were murdered. Usually when you have women offenders, they'll tend to smother or poison. Sometimes it's fixing it. It's interesting because, you know, for a long time, it wasn't believed that women could commit crime or even these types of crimes. But, and so in the field of criminology, women were not considered at first,

but when they were considered the very early theories, women were not considered at first, but when they were considered, the very early theories, they were targeted at lower-class minority females who were represented in the poorest light. Cesar Lombroso, who was very famous in our field, as being the father of what we call positivistic criminology, he was kind of the first to explain crime through biology. Now, there's a biological component that we understand now about crime, but his early theories were the idea that criminals were born. It was the born criminal and criminals, you know, we don't say criminals, we say offenders usually, but he said criminals were throwbacks.

He said savages. They were primitive. And he described females as being the worst. They were the least evolved, the most masculine like, and this is why they committed more crime. He was saying female offenders possessed masculine traits. And so this was what drove them to commit more crime. And you know, it evolved to Freud's theory, which I'm sure most listeners have heard, the theory of penis envy that women were, so this moved from biological to psychological, that women were so inherently envious of males, that they acted out in masculine ways, which was considered criminal ways because of this jealousy.

And then it moved on to autopolix theory of the criminal woman as women being inherently deceitful during menstruation. We had to pretend to act. And so we were so used to being deceitful that we had an inherent deceitfulness that allowed us to be criminal. So all of these theories were so, there's so dated now, but they were so obviously sexist. It's interesting that you bring that up,

because actually one thing that I didn't get into a whole lot in the episode, but when you look at Lizzie Borden and all of the descriptions of Lizzie Borden, she has a really wide set square jaw. She was broad shouldered, she was strong. She had these kind of inherent masculine qualities that the prosecutors kept trying to bring up and her defense when you read the defense in the court transcripts. It's all about how small she was. They're really trying to paint her as this petite frail woman. And so the idea of could a woman of ordinary strength. That's what they kept saying. They tried to paint her as a woman of ordinary strength because they didn't want to paint her as this woman of extraordinary strength that

could have committed a crime typically committed by a man, which is so so interesting. And I think really plays into what you were saying about the masculine qualities of committing crime. Yeah. So the prosecutors trying to frame her as a more masculine type saying only masculine type women can commit these crimes. So I'm not surprised to hear that at all. It reminds me like recently, have you seen, have you guys seen killer Sally on Netflix about Sally McNeil, the wrestler?

I mean, it's an interesting comparison because she's framed in this way. She killed her husband and, you know, her claim was self-defense. The prosecution's claim was that she was inherently violent and jealous, but one of the things in court, she was a bodybuilder herself. So one of the things they did in court, her attorneys, right away, they covered it up, they put her in huge jackets, they did not want the jury to see her as possessing

a bigger physique or any masculine qualities. They wanted her to appear, you know, as petite and demure as small as possible. So, you know, we're still seeing that transcend through time. Another thing I wanted to ask was not only was this an axe murder, but it was patricide. If Lizzy was the one to commit this crime, it was the murder of her father and stepmother. One thing I can't wrap my mind around, I guess, is if Lizzy did this, it was the first crime she ever committed and it was so brutally violent and towards a beloved member of her family is that even typical

in the pattern of I guess committing crimes. Yeah, so I'll take that last part and then I'll let Megan talk about the patricide part a little bit. So you know, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. And from what we know, this would be Lizzie's first violent act, but we actually don't know that for sure. We don't know if she was harming animals, which is a predictor of violent behavior, but let's just assume that this was her first violent act. When you see a crime of passion, which I believe this was, a crime of passion given the injuries and the injuries to the face, so being that's a crime of passion, you don't always see a

history leading up. So when you look at career criminals, they'll build up to murder. So they might start with, you know, well, actually you often see these chronic career offenders starting with juvenile behavior, a fascination with fire, harming animals, stealing things, right? And that escalates through someone's life trajectory, and usually it all kind of peak at a point of murder. But again, when you see these crimes of passion, there's not always a lead up.

So it's not that surprising if this were her first crime. But who knows what her past behavior was? Interesting. I'll take the patricide part of that. Patricide is the murder of one's father, but parasite is the murder of one's mother or father. So parasite is what would apply here, even though Lizzie did not regard her stepmother as

her mother. It's still a parental figure. And so, parasite is extremely rare. Only about 2 to 5% of all homicides involve parasite. And when you look at, so it's hard to even say typical because it's such a rare event. I will say when parasite is involved, it is usually perpetrated by a male, a younger male, not necessarily teenage, but a little bit older than that. So younger, 20s, often middle class and with no criminal history.

So I will say that no criminal history when it comes down to parasite. So Lizzy would not fit the mold in terms of being a female, but certainly there are other female offenders who have committed parasite. We know Jennifer Pan arranged for the murder of her parents, and we do know a couple of other offenders. But in the regard that it's usually male, she doesn't fit that. in the regard that the way she did it, that's not as surprising for, let's say, a female. And it's surprising for anyone to commit an axmer, or let's be honest.

However, crimes of parasite often involve what looks like overkill, or very violent crime scene. There is usually a perceived anger. People who commit parasite usually fit a couple of different molds. They either have severe mental illness, severe trauma inflicted by that parent, so history of abuse or some other serious trauma, or they are very anti-social, and have extreme anti-social traits. So I don't know that it's completely shocking that the crime is so violent in nature. It's shocking, yes, but not completely.

I also think a lot of the cases that we've covered that would fit into this category, Megan, you'll see a male partner along with the female. So like a boyfriend or a love interest. And even with Jennifer Pan, I believe there was so some cone conspiracy. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy-frozen. A boy I would think the male. So this is very situational though. I want to say this is, so when you look at serial offenders,

when you look at like serial killers, and there's a team, there's a male and a female, it's usually almost entirely driven by males. However, I don't know. When you look at these parasite cases, I think that the females plant the seed and need the males to help execute or perceive that they need the males to help execute.

So even if it was, let's say, the males idea to commit the crime, I think the females in these duos are the one planting the seeds and kind of watching them grow as it comes specifically to parasite. And what tend to be the motivating factors for someone to commit parasite? Well, as I said, either it's a very, very often, it's a serious family discord. So it's either really they've been traumatized, abused. They are mentally ill and perceive their parents

as part of the problem, or they're extremely anti-social and motivated by so greed and also, you know, not wanting their parents to obstruct what they want to do. Do you know the Christopher Porco case? So Christopher Porco committed parasite. He killed his father and he attempted to kill his mother similar to Lizzie Borden. He used an axe. It was an extremely violent scene.

His mother survived, but she's extremely disfigured in the face because he had an axe. He put an axe to her face. And what was revealed about Christopher Porco was that he was kind of a spoiled kid who got his way a lot. And all of a sudden, he found himself really deep in trouble. He was going to school, but he actually lied because he was suspended.

He was in trouble with his father. And his father said, that's it. You're done. You know, he was caught, and he was trouble with his father, and his father said, that's it, you're done. You know, he was caught, and he was about to get caught for something much bigger. So his motive was that he really needed to, you know, get his parents out of the way, and so he could get their fortune

and basically didn't have to answer to anyone. Yeah, it's interesting you bring up the greed, because I think, you know, this crime happened over a hundred years ago. It's also like New England, it's interesting you bring up the greed because I think, you know, this crime happened over a hundred years ago. It's also like New England, it's of the time, it's very closed doors, family units, only know, you know, they're not sharing with the world what's going on within like

the walls of their home. But the way that she's been painted over the years from what we do know is that her dad had a lot of money, her and her sister definitely wanted to live a little bit fancier of a life than they were being allowed to live. And so maybe it was money motivated. And that would fit in with what you're saying to commit parasite. Um, I think it's part of the story.

I think most people attribute it to greed. I was just going to say something similar, Megan, you know, it It is possible she was the victim of abuse at the hands of her father. It's also possible she was angry at him for some reasons. Maybe she was sick of the strict, the rigid ways around money. She wanted to inherit his wealth. She also wasn't fond of her stepmother. There were a lot of potential motives here. But at the end of the day, I think that's one of the many reasons people are so fascinated

with this case is because nothing could really be proven, so it just adds to the mystique of it. Totally, totally. Yeah, I talk about it in the episode, there's no physical evidence. Even the one hatchet that they thought could have been used to fit the crime. You know, later on it was kind of revealed that it wasn't really the right size. It didn't have any matter on it.

You know, not that there was any like analysis that could be done back then of DNA or blood splatter, anything, but it was a stretch, you know, tying that to this crime. So yeah, it all we have is like circumstantial evidence, but it's interesting because during her trial, it was never her father's wealth was never really brought up. Like they were really just going based on, you know, her standing in the community and like really how like masculine they thought she was and if she could have been capable

of committing this crime and how much her story changed as she was telling police, you know, because she was never really in the same place depending on when she was telling the story. Caitlin, I actually think, you know, if you think about her size and whether she was capable, I think people forget the possibility of a blitz attack in which, you know, in which she came from behind and it was a surprise attack. So she was able to incapacitate her victim. So her victim wasn't able to fight back. So sometimes people are quick to say,

oh, they're too small, they could have never hurt that person. Well, no matter how big an individual is, if they are taken off guard and smacked in the head with a blunt object or an axe, then, you know, they're not gonna be able to fight back and it doesn't matter what your size is at that point. You have the weapon. You have the power.

Totally. And we know that Andrew was asleep. Obviously, he's not going to fight back. There actually is question, it seems, as to if Abby, the stepmother, was actually facing whoever did this or turned around. There is some thought that she could have been facing the person. She was hit across the left side, which caused her to spin around to the right

and then fell over and then was hit from the back or she could have just been hit from the back the entire time. But obviously, I think that also, and you can speak to this more, but that also could speak to the type of criminal this was. If you're just attacking someone because you know they're turned around

and they're not gonna see you or if you walk up to someone's face and square off with them and attack them, that to me kind of feels like a different, not a different crime, but that's a very different situation to be in. Yeah, whether or not she wanted her victims to know that she was the one who was attacking them, I think part of the psychology of that is super interesting because as you said, you're dealing with a very different offender, one who doesn't want, they're potentially assuming she did it,

doesn't want her father, stepmother, knowing that she's the one murdering them. But if she wanted them to see her then, yet we're talking about a totally different psychological profile. Before I was thinking, we're talking about the hatching, the blood, where's the lumenol, right? Like lumenol would have solved.

Modernization could solve these problems. Now, where's the blood spatter analysis in the lumenol? I know. I, unfortunately, obviously before times, you know, this would have been a whole different case. But I don't think based on the fact that Andrew was sleeping, and I feel like Abby was, I think both, Amy's right, I think they're both blitz attacks. Sleeping, back turned, whatever. I don't think that Lizzie's, if Lizzie's guilty, I don't

think it was really her intention or like she needed them to know like this is coming from me per se. Yeah, yeah, and that's interesting. That kind of like feels, it reads like guilt. I don't know what the pure motivation is, but it kind of adds this like, I'm a little bit ashamed of what I'm doing, and I don't want you to see that this is what I'm doing. I guess like a question that kind of hangs over the case still is, there was the potential that she was trying to buy poison the first day, the day before the crime was committed, she did go to biopristic acid. She said she needed it for a cape. Everyone kind of universally agreed that it's not really what it's used for. But that also, like you, Megan, you brought this up earlier. That's a little bit more consistent with like female crime poisoning.

But to pivot within 24 hours and be like, you know what, I've made up my mind. I decided they were going to die today. I just am going to do it no matter how it needs to be done. And just to change to such a brutal type of murder feels like a big leap. Is that, I don't know, do you have thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, women do tend to be poisoners. And for the reason why, especially when a perpetrating a crime among a male, it's because of the physical differences, and the worry that, you know, a female might not be able to physically overpower a male. So, poisoning is usually a preferred choice among female perpetrators.

However, if she really wanted to get this done and the poison didn't work, she's limited on access. So I say this is just opportunity at the time. You know, there's no firearm, there's no, there might be, you know, knives, but she doesn't think that's gonna get the job done. So I think her original intent, I think sometimes when people panic,

it just becomes a crime of opportunity based on what's available to them. I think that makes a lot of sense. She just made up her mind. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe that was just like type of person she was. If she just decided she was going to do it that day, she was just going to stick to the plan no matter what. That would also make a big difference too, because that would imply that it was premeditated, where that's totally different than a crime of passion. And then we're looking at a different type of

offender profile as well. I guess with blitz attacks do they tend to be premeditated or are they also just like pure in the moment passionate? I don't think Megan correct me if you feel differently, but I don't think it actually matters a blitz attack could be either premeditated or a crime of passion. Correct. But I think the big difference here is if she did get the poison, then clearly this was premeditated. If she didn't get the poison, then I would lean towards crime of passion, maybe even though her father was sleeping, maybe they had gotten in a fight that morning, maybe her and her stepmom got in an argument about something. Right.

I would be with Amy on that one if we didn't know about the poison, I would say. But we also don't know, you know, is it just that she made a Permined and then she grabbed the axe because it's what I do think she used the axe because it was what was readily available, but we don't know, like Amy said, was there also something else going on in the household? Was her father, you know, threatening her in some way, were they having this divide? Did she just learn something about him changing his will? Like, there's so many factors. Unfortunately, so much of this happened behind closed doors that we just don't know everything that was going on in that household.

We know there was a divide from everything you read, even though it was reported that Lizzie was her father's favorite, but there was still this divide where the sisters never ate with their families. They kind of divided the house up into sections. So there's a serious division. We just don't know, I think, to what extent that division really was.

And as you're giving all this information to, I'm thinking about her sister because her sister was 10 years older than her. And when you were saying there's usually a male counterpart that encourages or assists in these kinds of crimes, what we know about Lizzie, Abby was the only mom Lizzie ever knew because Lizzie was so young when she died but her sister Emma was about 14 when Abby and Andrew remarried and her sister carried a lot more resentment from personal experience having a like fully formed

relationship with their birth mother, watching her die, then seeing her father remarry. And it seems like Emma actually carried a lot more resentment towards Abby than Lizzie did. And Emma really always refused to call her mother or anything resembling that. And so now you got me thinking, was Emma in her ear, like was Emma really the one?

You know, did she have another person kind of that was encouraging her or assisting her in this crime? Could have been, I think if that's the case though, the fact that Emma was not even there though, I mean, if you're gonna convince your sister to do something and then you're not even gonna be there to provide any support, I don't see why. If I was Lizzy, I would say, well, I need your help.

You need to stay here. I don't know, but it's an interesting theory. It's a perfect alibi. Emma was the more resentful one. If she had Lizzy's ear and she was influential and she planted the seed and then she has to get out of town, but it's got to be done, you know, she could be telling Lizzie the walls are closing in on us. Here's what's happening.

I've heard that theory before, so I think it's interesting and I think it's entirely possible without knowing it. And again, it's a good alibi to get out of town. So do you think that if this were to happen today, there would have been a different outcome? I do. Yeah. This would have happened today. There would have been a different outcome. I do. Yeah, I mean, I think if you look at just that evidence alone, you know,

that there would have been biological evidence, right? We would have been able to either find that the DNA or the blood that a match, Lizzy, or it didn't, and that would have made this a less question, there would be less question marks hanging over this. I think they would be a clearer resolution if this happened today. As far as would, I think that the views towards women

have changed. At this point, it was thought that women could not commit a crime like this. I don't think that's no longer the case, because also we have the media now. Back then, this was like one of the first cases that was like a media sensation. But now we hear about women doing things that we could never imagine. We hear about people living in quote high society doing the unimaginable. So now it's it's not as unlikely as it seemed then.

You have different juror composition now. You have females on juries now. You have the acceptance that females could do something like this. I think also, you know, everyone talks about how this was such a circumstantial case. Guess what? Most of them are and jury still convict. I think a jury would have leaned towards conviction. In fact, I could swear there was a show. I think it was like a 48 hours recreated the Lizzy Board in trial. I'm not sure if either of you saw this. And if I'm not mistaken, and they were only allowed to use like the evidence that was presented, and if I'm not mistaken, most of those mock jurors voted to convict. So I think even just looking at that kind of anecdotal type of scenario,

I do think it would have been a different outcome today. Well Amy, Megan, thank you so much for being on Heart Starts Founding. I feel like I've learned so much, but I can't thank you enough for being on. Thank you for having us. It was super fun to talk to you. We appreciate it. Thank you. We're super grateful for the great conversation about this case. Definitely. Yeah. Anyone that's interested in hearing true crime from like an actual expert angle can check out women in crime, streaming everywhere you get your podcasts. Yeah. This has been a bonus episode of Heart Starts Pounding. Thank you so much to

Megan and Amy and check out Women in Crime when you have the chance. We'll be back Thursday with our regularly scheduled programming. Until then, stay curious! you