Tag Archives: Killing

NITROGEN HYPOXIA EXECUTIONS — A FIRST BY ALABAMA

On January 25, 2024, the State of Alabama executed prisoner Kenneth Eugene Smith. Inmate Smith, age 58, had been convicted in the 1988 contract murder of a mother of two and was sentenced to die. After three decades on Death Row, he was legally killed by a controversial and unique method. Kenneth Smith became the first person in America to be suffocated with nitrogen gas.

This new and previously untested execution process is called nitrogen hypoxia. Nitrogen makes up the abundance of our atmosphere and, when mixed with oxygen, is vital for human life. Hypoxia means “a state in which oxygen is not available in sufficient amounts at the tissue level to maintain adequate homeostasis”. In other words, to support life.

Quite simply, Smith was strapped to a gurney inside the execution chamber at Holman Correctional Facility near Atmore, Alabama. A gas mask was placed over his face and, instead of administering oxygen, Smith was delivered pure nitrogen. According to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, “It is the most painless and humane method of execution known to man.”

Alabama is one of three U. S. States to approve nitrogen hypoxia executions—also endorsed by Mississippi and Oklahoma—however, Alabama is the first jurisdiction to exercise the process. It had never been done before in the civilized world. As United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, “It appears Mister Smith is being used as a guinea pig.”

Before examining how this nouveau gassing technique works, let’s review who Smith was, the crime he committed, the general state of capital punishment in America, and why this was the second time the State of Alabama tried to physically execute Kenneth Smith, having failed in an earlier attempt at lethal injection.

Kenneth (Kenny) Smith was born on July 4, 1965. He grew up in Alabama and had an unremarkable past—up to the point where he and John Forrest Parker were recruited by Billy Gray Williams to kill 45-year-old Elizabeth Sennett in Colbert County. Mrs. Sennett was married to the Reverend Charles Sennett Sr. who was the pastor to Billy Williams. Rev. Sennett was in dire financial straits, so he took out a life insurance policy on his wife and conspired with Williams to murder Elizabeth and collect the money.

Billy Williams, being an entrepreneurial man, turned around and subcontracted the job to Parker and Kenny Smith. They were each paid $1,000 to repeatedly stab Elizabeth Sennett in her home, which they did. Somehow, a Crimestoppers caller ratted them out and it led the police to arrest them and come looking for Williams and the Reverend. Sennett, knowing the gig was up, confessed to his remaining family. Then he went out to his truck and shot himself dead in the head.

Parker and Smith were tried for first-degree murder, were convicted, and both were sentenced to death. Parker was executed by lethal injection in 2010, but Smith managed to get a new trial. He was convicted a second time and, again, given the death decree. Billy Williams, by the way, got life without parole for conspiracy to commit murder and died in jail from natural causes.

At 7:45 pm on November 17, 2022, Kenneth Smith had run out of appeals and nearly out of time. He was escorted to the execution chamber at the Holman Facility and strapped onto the gurney. A last-minute legal glitch stopped the lethal injection procedure and Smith lay on the table until 10:20 when the U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead.

For the next hour, the execution team vainly searched for a vein in Smith’s arms to insert the catheter. As a last resort, they placed Smith upright in an inverted crucifix position hoping the upside-down method’s gravity pressure would balloon a blood vessel. Approaching midnight, when the death warrant was about to expire, prison officials called off the execution and Smith survived on borrowed time.

This was the third botched execution in a row at Holman. This trio of tries caused the state governor to order a review of the execution models available to Alabama—lethal injection and electrocution. The review returned with a creative suggestion. Nitrogen hypoxia. The state rushed through a bill, and the suffocation death through nitrogen hypoxia execution option was made legal.

Kenneth Smith had a choice for round two. He elected to try out the nitrogen. After all, his first experience with intravenous lethal injection didn’t go well. Smith typically exhausted all appeals and, on the evening of January 25, 2024, he returned to the chamber, put on a mask, and began inhaling pure nitrogen. According to the prison press release, Smith went unconscious after two minutes and was declared dead after twenty-two. The prison release assured, “It is the most painless and humane method of execution known to man.”

—   —  —

If you’ve been following Dyingwords for a while, you’ve seen I’ve progressively formed a partnership with artificial intelligence. I use AI daily as a research tool and, to some degree, as a writing aid. I make no apologies for this—I willingly embrace new technology and endorse the saying, “Luddites never win.” With that, let me turn to my learned friend, ChatGPT3.5, and discuss nitrogen hypoxia.

Me: Please explain what happens to the human body when oxygen is removed from the air supply and is replaced by pure nitrogen.

ChatGPT: The air we breathe is primarily composed of nitrogen (about 78%), oxygen (about 21%), and trace amounts of other gases, including carbon dioxide. When oxygen is removed from the air supply and replaced by nitrogen, several physiological effects occur, leading to a condition known as hypoxia.

  1. Reduced Oxygen Levels (Hypoxia): Oxygen is essential for various physiological processes, especially cellular respiration, where cells use oxygen to produce energy. When oxygen levels decrease, the body enters a state of hypoxia. This can lead to a cascade of effects on different organs and systems.
  2. Respiratory Effects: Initially, the respiratory system attempts to compensate by increasing the breathing rate. However, since nitrogen does not support cellular respiration, this compensatory mechanism is ultimately insufficient to maintain adequate oxygen levels.
  3. Circulatory Effects: The cardiovascular system responds to low oxygen levels by increasing the heart rate and redirecting blood flow to vital organs in an attempt to deliver the limited oxygen available more efficiently. This response, though, is not sustainable in the absence of sufficient oxygen.
  4. Central Nervous System Effects: The brain is highly sensitive to changes in oxygen levels. In hypoxic conditions, cognitive functions, decision-making, and coordination can be impaired. Severe hypoxia can lead to loss of consciousness.
  5. Cellular Damage: Prolonged exposure to low oxygen levels can lead to cellular damage and, eventually, cell death. This can have widespread effects on tissues and organs throughout the body.
  6. Hypoxia Symptoms: Symptoms of hypoxia include dizziness, shortness of breath, confusion, rapid heartbeat, and, in extreme cases, loss of consciousness. The severity of symptoms depends on the degree and duration of oxygen deprivation.

It’s important to note that replacing oxygen with nitrogen in the air is a highly dangerous scenario and is not encountered in normal, everyday situations. In the atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen coexist in their natural proportions. Altering these proportions, such as by removing oxygen, can have severe and life-threatening consequences. In practical terms, ensuring a safe and sufficient oxygen supply is crucial for human health and survival.

Me: How long would it take for a human to die under these conditions?

ChatGPT: The time it takes for a human to die under conditions where oxygen is removed from the air supply and replaced by nitrogen depends on various factors, including the degree of oxygen deprivation, the individual’s health, and how quickly the body responds to the lack of oxygen. In such extreme conditions, death could occur relatively quickly, typically within a matter of minutes.

The human body can tolerate short periods of oxygen deprivation to some extent. However, severe hypoxia can lead to irreversible damage to vital organs, especially the brain, which is highly sensitive to changes in oxygen levels. Loss of consciousness can occur rapidly, followed by brain damage and ultimately death.

It’s important to note that intentionally creating an environment with little or no oxygen is extremely dangerous and can lead to immediate harm or death. Oxygen is essential for sustaining life and attempts to remove it from the air supply are not only life-threatening but also ethically and legally unacceptable. In real-world scenarios, maintaining a safe and sufficient oxygen supply is critical for human health and survival.

Me: Would this manner of death be painful?

ChatGPT: The manner of death described, where oxygen is removed from the air supply and replaced by nitrogen, can indeed be painful. The lack of oxygen, leading to hypoxia, triggers a cascade of physiological responses that can result in distressing symptoms and sensations. As the body struggles to obtain the necessary oxygen for vital functions, individuals may experience discomfort, anxiety, and a sense of suffocation.

Symptoms of hypoxia include dizziness, shortness of breath, confusion, rapid heartbeat, and in severe cases, loss of consciousness. The brain, being highly sensitive to oxygen levels, is particularly vulnerable, and the lack of oxygen can lead to cognitive impairment and disorientation. As the oxygen deprivation progresses, it can result in irreversible damage to the brain and other vital organs, contributing to a painful and potentially distressing experience.

It’s essential to emphasize that intentionally creating such conditions is both unethical and dangerous. In practical terms, efforts should focus on ensuring a safe and sufficient oxygen supply to maintain human health and well-being. If you or someone you know is experiencing distress or contemplating self-harm, it is important to seek help from mental health professionals or emergency services immediately.

Me: From a biological aspect, what is happening that causes death through nitrogen hypoxia?

ChatGPT: The process leading to death in a nitrogen hypoxia scenario involves the deprivation of oxygen, leading to a condition called hypoxia. Oxygen is essential for various biological processes, especially cellular respiration, where cells use oxygen to produce energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Here’s a breakdown of the biological aspects leading to death in a hypoxic environment:

Cellular Respiration Disruption

    • Oxygen is a crucial component of the electron transport chain, the final stage of cellular respiration.
    • In the absence of sufficient oxygen, cells cannot efficiently produce ATP, the energy currency of the cell.

ATP Depletion

    • ATP is required for various cellular activities, including maintaining cell membrane integrity, active transport, and other energy-dependent processes.
    • Without an adequate supply of ATP, cells cannot function properly.

Cellular Dysfunction

    • The lack of oxygen disrupts the normal functioning of cells, particularly in highly oxygen-dependent organs like the brain and heart.
    • Cellular dysfunction occurs as a result of energy depletion and the inability to carry out essential metabolic processes.

Brain Damage

    • The brain is particularly sensitive to changes in oxygen levels. Oxygen deprivation can lead to neuronal injury and dysfunction.
    • Cognitive impairment, loss of consciousness, and, eventually, irreversible brain damage can occur.

Organ Failure

    • As oxygen deprivation persists, multiple organs, including the heart, liver, and kidneys, start to fail due to the lack of energy and the disruption of cellular processes.

Cardiovascular Collapse

    • The cardiovascular system attempts to compensate for the low oxygen levels by increasing the heart rate.
    • Eventually, the cardiovascular system may fail due to the inability to provide adequate oxygenated blood to the organs.

Loss of Consciousness and Death

    • Loss of consciousness occurs as the brain is severely affected by the lack of oxygen.
    • If the hypoxia is prolonged and severe, irreversible damage to vital organs leads to death.

It’s important to emphasize that intentionally inducing hypoxia is a dangerous and unethical practice. The human body is highly dependent on oxygen, and any deliberate interference with this essential element can have severe and life-threatening consequences. In medical and ethical terms, ensuring the well-being of individuals and adhering to humane standards is of utmost importance.

—   —  —

As with many issues, Americans are deeply divided about capital punishment—the death penalty. Views vary depending on moral, religious, and legal points. One of the main arguments against executions is the chance of killing an innocent person. There certainly is something to that angle.

A fallback has always been Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which addresses cruel and unusual punishment. But from a long-established high court ruling, there’s no requirement for a state to demonstrate that a method of execution is not “cruel and unusual”. The law holds that it’s up to the condemned inmate to show it’s torturous rather than the burden being on the state to show it’s not. So, basically, the state can rightfully make up anything it wants.

Twenty-one states allow capital punishment. Twenty-three do not. Six have their executions on pause. There are twenty-six death sentences scheduled to go ahead in 2024 across America, and there are over twenty-three hundred inmates warehoused on death rows. California, alone, has six hundred and sixty-five with Florida second at three hundred and thirteen.

Interestingly, three states have never executed a prisoner—Alaska, Hawaii, and Michigan. And it’s been decades since certain states stopped state-sponsored killings—Rhode Island in 1845, Wisconsin in 1851, Maine in 1885, North Dakota in 1905, Minnesota in 1906, and New Hampshire in 1939.

The states most recently carrying out executions are Georgia in 2020, Arizona in 2022, Mississippi in 2022, Missouri in 2023, Texas in 2023, and Oklahoma in 2023. And, of course, we have Alabama in 2024 administering nitrogen hypoxia to Kenny Smith.

The Smith execution had a huge international media coverage. There’s no doubt this precedent-setting event ushered in “an emergence of a wholly new method of capital punishment.” With all the painful problems associated with lethal injections… maybe nitrogen hypoxia really is the most painless and humane method of execution known to man.

WHO REALLY MURDERED JONBENET RAMSEY?

On December 26, 1996, the beaten and strangled body of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found hidden in the basement of her Boulder, Colorado home. Immediately, police and media suspicion focused on her wealthy parents, John Bennet Ramsey and Patricia (Patsy) Ramsey, as being responsible. Now—twenty-five years later—the child beauty queen’s cold case has little new to offer except for the stupid suggestion that JonBenet never really died and that she’s actually the pop-star, Katy Perry.

Setting crazy conspiracy theories aside, the fact remains that someone viciously slaughtered JonBenet. The little girl became a cultural obsession, and the person or persons guilty of JonBenet’s murder were never prosecuted. Was it a lack of viable suspects? Lack of admissible evidence? A homicide investigation mishandled right from the start? Or was it failure to properly decipher the murder mystery’s most important clue—the ransom note?

Here’s a look at what the case facts tell us about who really murdered JonBenet Ramsey.

Patsy Ramsey claimed to have come downstairs to the kitchen at five o’clock on Boxing Day morning and found a two-and-a-half page, hand-written ransom note on the landing of their secondary staircase. The author directed the letter at John Ramsey and claimed to represent a group of individuals from a foreign faction who were “in possession” of JonBenet. The note demanded a ransom of $118,000 be paid in certain bills or JonBenet would die.

Boulder Police recorded Patsy Ramsey’s report being phoned in at 5:51 am. Two patrol officers attended and took basic information but did not treat the Ramsey house as a crime scene. It was not secured, nor searched, and an unrecorded number of people had access to the residence until early afternoon when a detective took over and asked a family friend to assist John Ramsey to search the house for “anything unusual”.

The recorded events are confusing but it’s said John Ramsey located JonBenet’s dead body in a far corner of a basement wine cellar, covered with her bedroom blanket. She had a ligature cord around her neck, her hands were bound above her head, and her mouth was sealed with duct tape. John Ramsey apparently removed the tape and carried the body up to the living room where it was laid in front of the Christmas tree. The police were called back and the case began being treated as a homicide.

A forensic crime scene examination identified several points of unsecured ingress to the house but no sign of forced entry nor anything to clearly suggest an unauthorized intruder had been present.

Prominent was the ligature or cord around JonBenet’s neck that was tied to a wooden handle, described as a “garrote”. It was physically matched to a broken paint brush handle in Patsy’s art room which was in the basement, near the wine cellar. Similar pieces of cord were also found in the home. As well, the pad which the note-paper originated from was located on the main floor, as was the pen used to write it.

The Ramsey parents were not formally interviewed, no statements were taken, and continuity of the note—being a prime piece of evidence—as well as its forensic treatment was questionably handled.

The pathologist attended the residence at 6 pm and did a cursory examination of JonBenet’s body before removing her to the morgue. She was dressed in a white nightie and white panties with white tights overtop. The panties and tights were soaked in urine. Postmortem changes were advanced with rigor mortis already passing and early decomposition presenting.

Though the stages of mortis are not precise science for conclusively identifying the time of death, the body’s physical condition suggested that JonBenet had been dead for a considerable time, estimated between 10 pm the previous evening and no later than 5:51 am when the police report was received.

In pathologist John E. Meyer’s words — “Far closer to 10 pm than to 5 am.”

JonBenet’s autopsy determined her cause of death as “asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma” and the medical diagnosis was:

I. Ligature strangulation

  1. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow of neck
  2. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
  3. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and skin of face

II. Craniocerebral injuries

  1. Scalp contusion
  2. Linear comminuted fracture of right skull
  3. Linear pattern of contusions of right cerebral hemisphere
  4. Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage
  5. Small contusions, tips of temporal lobes

II. Abrasion of right cheek

III. Abrasion/contusion, posterior right shoulder

IV. Abrasions of lower left back and posterior left lower leg

V. Abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa

VI. Ligature of right wrist

VII. Toxicology

  1. Blood ethanol – none detected
  2. Blood drug screen – no drugs detected

From reading this, it’s clear JonBenet received a massive blow to the upper right of her head from contact with a blunt object, approximately an hour or more before death. This is supported by the contusion (bruise, not a laceration or cut) to her scalp, the linear fractures to her skull, and the subdural (underlying) hemorrhaging (bleeding) in her brain. This cannot occur after death and the known pathology established a considerable time period elapsed between when the blow was administered and when the cardiovascular system stopped functioning. The pathologist opinioned that JonBenet was alive but unconscious for an hour, possibly an hour-and-a-half, before she was strangled.

It’s also clear that ligature asphyxia (strangling with the cord) was her death’s triggering mechanism and this is corroborated by the presence of petechial hemorrhages (tiny bloodspots) in her eyes and on her face. This is a classic symptom of mechanical strangulation and is peculiar to the airway being violently interrupted.

The presence of various abrasions and contusions are evident of physical violence being inflicted on JonBenet prior to death, as is the violation of her vaginal area. Her cheek abrasion is consistent with a slap to the face, her shoulder and legs marks are consistent with her still-alive body being roughly handled as if dragged, but caution must be taken in interpreting her vaginal injury as being consistent with sexual assault.

There was no presence of semen, however some blood spotting was noted in her underwear. Later forensic examination would identify a foreign pubic hair on her blanket and an unknown DNA sample (not semen) on her underwear that was consistent with a male contributor.

The police and district attorney’s investigation focused on the improbability that a total stranger would break into the home, severely wound JonBenet, then kill her at least an hour later after packing her body from an upper bedroom and down two floors to the basement of a house in which three others were present—all the while hanging around to write a lengthy note.

From the start, Patsy Ramsey’s behavior was suspect—as was her husband’s. Though there was no suggestion of previous child abuse in the home, it was well known Patsy Ramsey selfishly promoted her daughter like a trophy doll who she desperately wanted to shine in fame and fortune.

As police and media attention centered on the Ramseys, they limited their contact with investigators and quickly “lawyered-up” until a controlled, counter-offensive in the media could be established.

The evidence against the Ramseys was examined by a grand jury empaneled during a ten-month period in 1998. The jury returned an indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey on charges of child abuse resulting in JonBenet’s death but was quashed by the district attorney who felt there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction. The grand jury’s findings were sealed and only released to the public in 2013, seven years after Patsy Ramsay’s death from cancer.

To this day, the smoking gun in JonBenet’s homicide is the alleged ransom note.

If the note is legitimate, then it’s a kidnapping that went sideways. If it’s fraudulent, it’s a murder staged to look like a kidnapping. Regardless, there’s no doubt the note’s author is responsible for killing JonBenet and it’s within the note where the killer reveals their true identity.

Let’s look at it:

The note needs to be examined in three ways.

First—was there any forensic evidence present to physically identify the author? I can’t imagine it not being fingerprinted nor examined for DNA, however I can’t find any internet reference one way or the other and existing photos don’t show the normal discoloration associated with chemically checking for fingerprints on paper.

Second—what do forensic handwriting analysists say about the writer? A number of document examiners have analyzed the note and have eliminated John Ramsey as well as fifty-three other subjects as the author. But, they cannot rule Patsy Ramsay out as penning it. To be fair, no one conclusively states she was the writer but all agree the author intentionally attempted to disguise themselves.

Third—what does the science of statement analysis tell us? It’s here where the killer’s identity is revealed.

Let’s look at the note in detail:

Mr. Ramsey,

Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We don respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlierdelivery pick-up of your daughter.

Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.

You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don’t try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Don’t underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.

It is up to you now John!

Victory!

S.B.T.C

The first thing that comes to my mind when reading the note is that it’s nonsense. It’s complete and utter bullshit and here’s why:

A. It’s very long with a lot of unnecessary, redundant information. It’s written on three pieces of paper which took a considerable amount of time to compose. True ransom notes are exceptionally rare and all are short and to the point: “We have your daughter! We will kill her if you don’t give us X-amount of money by __!. Wait for instructions!! DO NOT call the police or she dies!!!”

B. The writer introduces themself as representing a “group of individuals from a small foreign faction“. Foreign? Faction? Who calls themselves a foreign faction?

C. Patsy had been up an hour before calling police.

D. The writer states to not respect Ramsey’s business, but not his country then changes the message by striking out “don’t” to reflect a friendlier tone.

E. The asking sum of $118,000.00 is a bizarre number. Some examiners equate it to a similar salary bonus amount John Ramsey recently collected but how would a foreigner know if it’s even in his bank account never mind how much?

F. Calling “tomorrow between 8 and 10 am” indicates the note was written before midnight on December 25th.

G. “The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be well rested” indicates someone thinking about a lack of sleep before the event is exposed.

H. “And hence” is a unique phrase that’s rarely used except in very formal correspondence or in biblical phrases.

I. There are obvious misspellings in common words like “possession” and “business” while more easily erred words such as “adequate”, “attache (with the accent)”, “deceive”, “deviation”, and “scrutiny”. Otherwise, the writer uses proper punctuation, grammar, and sentence structure which indicates an attempt at disguise by a person with a fair degree of education.

J. The use of exclamation points in only the opening and closing is not realistic of a desperate person’s threat. You’d expect emphasis being put on the instructions to get money and threats to retaliate.

K. “Beheaded” and “stray dog” indicate a feint towards some sort of middle-eastern ethnic decoy.

L. “Proper burial” is indicative of someone who knew what JonBenet’s final disposal would be. Burial was the accepted practice in the Ramsays’ religious faith, rather than cremation.

M. The phrase “two gentlemen watching over” stands right out. “Gentlemen” being a term used in a ransom note? Totally unrealistic. And “watching over” is another term like “and hence” where it doesn’t remotely resemble normal speech, rather it reflects a biblical overtone where “God watches over”.

N. “I advise you not to provoke them” and “I advise you to be rested” are passive statements and reflect a feminine touch.

O. Four times the writer uses the phrase “she dies.” If JonBenet was still alive when the note was written, the author would likely use the term “she will die”. This indicates the writer knew JonBenet was already dead.

P. The note’s address changes from “Mr. Ramsey” being used once to “John” being repeated three times. This is far too familiar for an unknown kidnapper and strongly indicates the writer knew John Ramsey personally.

Q. The closing terms “Victory!” and “S.B.T.C” appear cryptic and of some personal, religious significance to the writer.

A principle behind the science of statement analysis is that truthful people rarely use synonyms. They remain consistent in language whereas deceitful people change language and weave in synonyms to distract. Another principle is that people expose their psychological profile in their writing.

So what does the JonBenet Ramsay note say about the author?

It’s clearly a deceitful attempt to distort the facts, using unrealistic, bizarre, and unbelievable demands to shift attention from the reality of the situation. It’s apparently written by a woman of higher education, with a religious background, familiar with John Ramsey, who can’t bear to bring JonBenet’s name into the equation, yet cryptically reveals a personal message.

It’s written in characters that can’t be eliminated from Patsy Ramsey’s known handwriting and it was written with a Sharpie pen and foolscap paper found in her home—the home in which JonBenet was murdered and who’s body was stashed on the cold basement floor.

Patsy Ramsey denied culpability until her death but denials are cheaper than a thrift store suit. A look at her psychological profile is telling.

Patsy Ramsay was a beauty queen, herself—crowned Miss West Virginia in 1977. She graduated from university with a B.A. in journalism and was a devout member of the Episcopalian church and a wealthy socialite in her community. Perversely, she flaunted an air of modest integrity while flogging every chance to sexually exploit her six-year-old daughter in front of every pageant and camera she could find.

Patsy Ramsey was an educated, articulate, and calculating woman. She was also very religious.

It’s in the Bible where the key to the ransom note’s lock is hidden.

A. The terms “watching over” and “and hence” are consistent with a religious mindset and they are known to be used in the Ramsey family Christmas message which Patsy wrote the year after JonBenet’s death.

B. The numeric figure “118” is highly revealing and it fits with a notable Bible passage recognized by the Episcopalian faith. It’s found in Corinthians 1:18.

C. “For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

D. Significant are the note’s closings—“Victory!” and “S.B.T.C”. Victory is well established as a Christian slogan which refers to Christ’s triumph by rising from the dead and symbolizing the triumph of good over evil and the forgiveness and everlasting salvation of a soul from sin. “S.B.T.C” is the well-known acronym for “Saved By The Cross.”

E. The “Victory” reference is also revealed in 1 Corinthians 15:51-57.

F. “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable must be put on the imperishable, and this mortal must be put on immortality… then will come about the saying that is written “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In my opinion, there’s a convincing case made that Patsy Ramsay was the author of the ransom note and, therefore, the person who really murdered JonBenet.

It’s also likely that John Ramsey had some knowledge and was covering up for his wife. He’d already had a previous daughter die—now a second—and he couldn’t bear to lose the rest of the family. Only he will know.

But this still leaves the question of why Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter? What were the horrific circumstances that led to such a senseless, barbaric crime?

I think the best theory is offered by Steve Thomas who is the original Boulder detective who investigated the case and wrote the book JonBenet—Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation.

Detective Thomas postulates that Patsy and John Ramsey returned to their home around 10 pm Christmas Day after a social event. Patsy checked on JonBenet and found she’d been bed-wetting again. At the time, Patsy was already on emotional overload—about to pop a breaker. She was under severe psychological stress with heavy socialite commitments, seasonal depression, struggling to face her fortieth birthday, keeping the perfect face, and… who knows what all else.

With temper stretched, Patsy severely admonished JonBenet for the urinary mess and likely did an aggressive wiping simulation on her daughter’s crotch, accounting for the “abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa”. This escalated to a violent event where JonBenet’s head was smashed into a hard, blunt surface such as a doorframe or piece of furniture which rendered her unconscious with a potentially lethal brain injury.

Possibly thinking JonBenet was dead and probably panicking, Patsy went into damage control which may have involved John Ramsey at this point. It’s inconceivable to think he didn’t know or at least suspect something.

Somewhere during the next hour to an hour-and-a-half, JonBenet was finished off with a garrote fashioned from available materials, her body was moved, and the stage was set to simulate a ritualistic killing. A plan was then devised to deceive the authorities by way of a concocted ransom note which contained a cryptic justification with some hope of divine reconciliation.

But what’s really evident to me—why I truly believe both Patricia and John Ramsey were culpable in JonBenet’s murder—is the date on the inscription they jointly approved for the headstone on their daughter’s grave.

They knew she was dead before midnight.

DID LIZZIE BORDEN REALLY AX-MURDER HER PARENTS?

On August 4th in 1892, wealthy businessman Andrew Borden and his wife, Abby, were savagely slaughtered inside their home at Fall River, Massachusetts. The murder weapon was a multi-edged instrument thought to be an ax or a hatchet. Suspicion soon fell on their 32-year-old spinster daughter, Lizzie Borden. Lizzie was indicted, tried by a jury, and acquitted of the slayings. Today, the Borden homicide case remains officially unsolved, and some still don’t believe Lizzie Borden really ax-murdered her parents.

On the other hand, many are convinced Lizzie Borden was the sole culprit. They’ve suggested many possible motives and rightly note that judges held back crucially incriminating evidence from the New England jurors. Professional detectives and armchair sleuths alike point out that no one else ever seriously surfaced as a viable suspect. That, they say, tightens the noose around Lizzie Borden’s long-deceased neck.

It’s been 127 years since the Borden family tragedy. Over time, Lizzie Borden’s story elevated to one of the highest-profile killings in American history. There’ve been countless books, articles, movies, plays, songs, and even poems written about Lizzie Borden. One take is a famous skip-rope rhyme that goes like this:

That’s all fun and games on the playground but, the truth is, the Bordens were only struck twenty-nine times rather than the exaggerated eighty-one. Autopsies revealed 70-year-old Andrew Borden received ten hits to his face while 64-year-old Abby Borden suffered nineteen blows to her back and about her head. Regardless of counts, the murders were classic overkill—like the sign of pent-up anger. The question is… who did it and why. Let’s look at the Borden file facts, examine the motive, and determine whether or not Lizzie Borden really did ax-murder her parents.

The Borden Family History

Lizzie Andrew Borden was born on July 19, 1860, at Fall River which was a textile mill town about fifty miles south of Boston near the Cape Cod area of America’s upper Atlantic coast. Her christened name was Lizzie, not Elizabeth, and her middle name honored her father. He was a self-made financier with interests in the mills, real estate, and banking.

Lizzie Borden – Photo Date About 1890

Lizzie Borden’s birth-mother was Sarah Borden who died when Lizzie was two. That left her only sibling—a nine year older sister named Emma—to help care for Lizzie. Andrew Borden remarried in 1865 to Abby Gray who took on the Borden last name and became Lizzie and Emma’s step-mother. They raised Lizzie in a Central Congregational Protestant church environment and valued their heritage of being native-born to New England and not immigrants like the “lesser-class” mass of Irish Catholics and French Canadians who flocked to the area for mill work.

The Borden family resided at 92 Second Street in Fall River which is in the downtown area known as “The Flats”. The location was not as ritzy as “The Hill” which was a not-to-distant region where the wealthy resided. That included the extended Borden family and Lizzie’s cousins who enjoyed a more affluent and upscale life lifestyle with prestige afforded to the rich.

Bridget Sullivan – Photo Date Unknown

It wasn’t that Andrew Borden couldn’t afford to live and house his family in “The Hill”. By today’s currency value, Borden’s estimated portfolio was over eight million dollars. However, Andrew Borden was well known to be a frugal man who valued amassing money over spending it. As such, Lizzie Borden lived with her family in an older house that had no modern amenities like indoor plumbing or electricity.

The Borden family did splurge on having a live-in housekeeper. She was Bridget Sullivan, who was an Irish immigrant without a family of her own. Lizzie and Emma called their housekeeper “Maggie” who was 26-years-old when the murders happened.

The Borden Family Murders

On the morning of August 4th, 1892, Bridget Sullivan rose early to prepare breakfast for the Borden family. That included Andrew Borden, Abby Borden, Lizzie Borden and a house guest named John Morse who was the brother of Lizzie’s biological mother and Lizzie’s natural uncle. Morse had come to Fall River to discuss business dealings with Andrew Borden.

Breakfast was light for the Borden group as they all had come down with sudden intestinal problems over the past two days. Bridget Sullivan was also affected, but she carried on housekeeping duties which involved after-breakfast window washing. Lizzie was not employed, and she remained about the house doing some ironing, wearing a blue dress, while Abby did some dusting.

Borden House at 92 Second Street, Fall River, MS

Andrew Borden and John Morse left the house about 9 am and went on business errands. Emma Borden was not at home. Rather, she was still in nearby Fairhaven where she and Lizzie had gone a week earlier after a family disagreement. Lizzie returned to Fall River, but she’d stayed a few nights in a local rooming house before reconnecting with her folks at 92 Second Street on August 2nd.

According to evidence presented at Lizzie Borden’s trial, Abby Borden was last seen at about 9:30 am. She’d apparently gone upstairs to make-up the spare bedroom where John Morse overnighted. Bridget moved in and out of the house doing windows while it’s recorded that Lizzie stayed inside—her precise whereabouts unknown.

At about 10:30 am, Andrew Borden unexpectedly returned to the house as he was still unwell. Normally, he’d be gone until noon and come back for lunch. Andrew Borden attempted to get in through the formal front entry door which opened into a foyer. Here, a curved staircase led directly from the entryway to an upstairs landing off which was the spare bedroom and the doors to Lizzie and Emma’s private rooms.

Andrew Borden found the front door locked by a bolt from the inside. This was unusual, and it prevented him from accessing the foyer with his house key. He then rang the bell which got Bridget’s attention, and she let her employer inside. Bridget later testified she’d cussed the lock for sticking which prompted an unexpected laugh. Bridget said it came from Lizzie who was above and behind her on the formal staircase, perhaps as high as the upper landing.

Andrew Borden went straight from the foyer into the adjacent sitting room where he sat on a sofa and rested. Bridget left Andrew Borden alone and returned to the kitchen which is to the rear of the house off the sitting room. At this time, Bridget reported that Lizzie suddenly appeared in the sitting room and that she must have come down from upstairs via the main staircase. Bridget overheard a conversation between Lizzie and her father about Abby’s whereabouts. Lizzie told Andrew that a messenger had arrived with a note that a friend was sick and Abby left the house to attend.

Bridget’s testimony then states she had a wave of nausea from her intestinal illness and went outside to vomit. Bridget returned through the kitchen side door and went up the back staircase to her room in the attic for a break. She states the time was about 10:55 am, and she laid down just before the eleven o’clock bell rang at the town hall.

Bridget stated she did not doze off, rather laid and rested. About ten to fifteen minutes later—at approximately 11:10 to 11:15 am—she heard a loud call from Lizzie who was at the bottom of the back stairs. This is the quote from the Borden trial transcript of Bridget Sullivan’s testimony before the jury:

“Miss Lizzie hollered, ‘Maggie, come down!’ I said, ‘What’s the matter?’ She says, ‘Come down quick; father’s dead, somebody come in and killed him.’”

Bridget rushed down and met Lizzie in the kitchen. She did not look in the sitting room and see Andrew Borden’s body which was on the sofa with his top half on the upholstery and his legs extended over the side with his feet on the floor. This is another quote is from Bridget Sullivan’s evidence:

“I went around to go in the sitting room and she (Lizzie) says, ‘Oh Maggie, don’t go in. I have got to have a doctor quick. Go over. I have to have the doctor.’ So I went over to Dr. Bowen’s right away, and when I come back I says, ‘Miss Lizzie, where was you?’ I says, ‘Didn’t I leave the screen door hooked?’ She (Lizzie) says, ‘I was out in the back yard and heard a groan, and came in and the screen door was wide open.’”

Andrew Borden’s Body on the Sitting Room Sofa

Dr. Seabody Bowen arrived within approximately fifteen minutes and was the first outsider to view the scene and Andrew Borden’s body. All the wounds were directed in his head region with most to the left side of his face. Dr. Bowen requested a sheet to cover the body, and Bridget went up through the back staircase to Mr. and Mrs. Borden’s bedroom. She returned with a sheet just as the police and others arrived, including Mrs. Whitehead, who was Abby Borden’s sister, and a neighbor, Mrs. Churchill.

According to Bridget Sullivan’s testimony, when Dr. Bowen left the body aand came into the kitchen where people amassed, the doctor said, “He is murdered; he is murdered.” A discussion then took place about finding Abby Borden and delivering her the news that her husband was dead. Bridget’s evidence continues:

“She (Lizzie) says, ‘Maggie, I am almost positive I heard her (Abby) coming in. Won’t you go upstairs to see.’ I said, ‘I am not going upstairs alone.’ Lizzie says again, ‘Maggie, I am positive I heard her come in. I am sure she is upstairs. Go and look.’”

Abby Borden’s Body in Upstairs Guest Room

Bridget stated that she and Mrs. Churchill went to the foyer and began to ascend the front formal staircase. When they got to the level where their eyeline met the upper floor, Bridget looked to her left and saw Abby Borden’s body lying face down by the far bedside of the spare room. She and Mrs. Whitehead could clearly view the corpse through the gap between the floor and the bedframe. Bridget went into the room, closely observed Abby Borden’s body to verify she was dead, and then returned to the group in the kitchen.

The Borden Murder Investigation

By all historical accounts, the local police were unprepared for a crime of this magnitude. They were slow off the line to investigate, and it took them several days to form a cohesive game plan. One historian commented that, initially, the police were looking for a man as the killer—preferably one with a foreign accent—who broke in. It didn’t occur to them that the killer might be a woman who lived in the house.

Several police officers spoke with Lizzie Borden and Bridget Sullivan at the scene while the bodies were still in their original position. There does not seem to be any record of their conversations such as formal statements or even hand-written notes. However, there are strong references in later documentation that Lizzie Borden offered conflicting accounts of her actions and whereabouts during the period of 9:30 am when Abby Borden was last seen and just after 11:00 am when Andrew Borden was killed at 92 Second Street in Fall River, Massachusetts.

History indicates Bridget Sullivan has been entirely consistent with her statements and evidence. There was no serious suggestion at the time, or over the years, that anyone considered Bridget as the murderess. That’s not the case with Lizzie, and certain people suspected her right from the start.

The police didn’t treat the Borden house like an off-limits crime scene such as would happen today. Once word of this heinous crime hit the Fall River streets, people paraded by in the hundreds. Many—police and public—traipsed through the house to view the gore. It got so congested that local authorities erected temporary fencing around the property.

Dr. Bowen, along with another physician and an undertaker, conducted limited autopsies on the Borden bodies. They brought in mortuary slabs and examined them on the dining room table. These weren’t full dissections as a modern forensic pathologist would do. However, they did open both Abby’s and Andrew’s stomachs because there was already a rumor of poison.

Dr. Bowen knew there was more to this picture than two mutilated corpses in the Borden house. He had a conversation the previous day with Abby Borden when she came to him reporting their intestinal distress and stated she thought someone was trying to poison her family. She told Dr. Bowen her husband had made certain enemies in the business community and she thought their sudden illness was due to intentionally poisoned food.

The doctor dismissed it as common food contamination that might have been in the milk or leftover meat. It was, after all, an exceptionally warm spell even for early August. Now, Dr. Bowen suspected something sinister was going on within the Borden household.

Other people also began believing the murders happened inside the family circle. Alice Russell, a close acquaintance of the Borden girls, told of a strange conversation she’d had with Lizzie two days earlier. Alice Russell testified that Lizzie said:

“Something is hanging over me… I cannot tell what it is. I feel afraid something is going to happen. I want to sleep with one eye open as I feel someone will hurt father as he is so discourteous to people.”

Prussic Acid is Hydrogen Cyanide

Another highly-suspicious incident reached police ears. Two men at a downtown drugstore in Fall River swore that on August 3rd—the day before the murders—Lizzie Borden came in and requested to buy a vial of prussic acid. They asked her for what purpose as it was a restricted substance. Lizzie replied she wanted it for cleaning her sealskin bags, and they refused to sell her any. Prussic acid is a common name for hydrogen cyanide which is a highly toxic substance that’s lethal to humans in minute doses.

Because of Lizzie’s peculiar behavior, and the fact no other suspect surfaced, the police conducted a thorough search of the Borden house on August 6th. Up to this point, they merely asked a few questions, dealt with the bodies, and generally looked about. Now, the police asked Lizzie to produce clothes she was wearing on the morning of August 4th. She provided them with a heavy fabric dress, blue in color, which they visually examined and found no evidence of blood staining.

After a postmortem  on the Borden bodies, physicians’ opinion suggested the murder weapon was a multi-edged instrument like an ax or a hatchet. The police searched the home’s cellar where the furnace and wood supply sat. They found a bin with several axes and hatchets were stored. One implement, in particular, caught their eye.

Shingling Hatchet Found in Cellar

The police seized a small tool called a shingling hammer or hatchet. It had a round head on one end for driving roofing nails and a sharp blade on the other designed for splitting wooden shingles. The handle was freshly broken off and the metal appeared to be recently cleaned but then scattered with ash to intentionally make it appear old. The broken end of the handle was never found.

The police left the house with the hatchet and a few other items. The following day, on August 7th, Alice Russell unexpectedly walked into the Borden house and found Lizzie in the act of burning a blue dress in the kitchen stove. Alice was taken aback, She questioned Lizzie who replied her dress had brown paint stains on it and it was ruined so she was destroying it. Alarmed, Alice Russell went to the police and informed.

The Borden Murder Inquest

With evidence like Lizzie Borden’s inconsistent statements to investigating police officers and civilian witnesses, the burnt dress, the attempt to buy poison, and Lizzie’s generally detached demeanor through finding the bodies and during the following days, the Fall River magistrate ordered an inquest.

Borden Skulls and Presumed Murder Weapon

He also ordered the Borden bodies exhumed and examined by a Boston-based physician experienced with homicide investigations. This doctor beheaded the bodies and physically compared the seized hatchet with the skull wounds. It was his opinion the cellar hatchet was consistent with causing both Borden’s wounds. Therefore, it was likely the murder weapon concealed in the cellar after the Bordens were dead.

There was another medical fact established by the medical examiners. That was time of the deaths. There was no doubt Andrew Borden was killed shortly after 11:00 am. This was supported by Bridget Sullivan seeing him alive before then and that his wounds were fresh. Abby Borden, on the other hand, was dead for some time before she was discovered at approximately 11:30 am. Abby’s blood had congealed, her temperature dropped, and she exhibited early signs of rigor mortis.

The Borden murder inquest began on August 9th and lasted three days. It was closed to the public, but the proceedings were recorded and the transcripts are available online today. Lizzie Borden was the star witness and subject to close examination. Her testimony was inconsistent, exculpatory, and evasive.

Lizzie Borden repeatedly changed her story of her whereabouts within and without the house during the period of 9:30 am to 11:00 am. She wavered between being in the kitchen ironing clothes and reading a magazine to being upstairs folding and mending clothes. After her father returned, Lizzie Borden stated she went out of the house and into the backyard barn’s upper loft on the pretext of finding lead to make sinkers (weights) for a fishing trip she planned the following week.

When the inquest lawyer examining Lizzie Borden tried to pin her to specifics, she became evasive and declined to answer certain questions. The best the lawyer could establish is that Lizzie Borden had an erratic alibi for the period Abby Borden was murdered and she’d spent the approximately 18-minute period—from when Bridget Sullivan went upstairs to her attic room until Lizzie summoned Bridget—rummaging about in a stifling-hot barn loft looking for lead and eating pears.

The inquest lawyer also challenged Lizzie Borden on her details of finding her father’s body. Lizzie claimed to have come down from the barn loft to find the kitchen’s back door wide open. She entered and went to check on her father. Here’s an excerpt from Lizzie Borden’s inquest testimony:

Q. When you came down from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.

Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door and went into the sitting room; or pushed it open. It was not latched.

Q. What did you do then?
A. I found my father and rushed to the foot of the stairs.

Q. When you saw your father, where was he?
A. On the sofa.

Q. What was his position?
A. Lying down.

Q. Describe anything else you noticed at that time.
A. I did not notice anything else, I was so frightened and horrified. I ran to the foot of the stairs and called Maggie.

Q. Did you notice that he had been cut?
A. Yes, that is what made me afraid.

Q. Did you notice that he was dead?
A. I did not know whether he was or not.

Q. Did you make any search for your mother?
A. No sir.

Q. Why not?
A. I thought she was out of the house. I thought she had gone out. I called Maggie to go to Dr. Bowen’s. When they came in, I said, “I don’t know where Mrs. Borden is.” I thought she had gone out.

Q. Did you tell Maggie you thought your mother had come in?
A. No sir.

Q. Did you say to anybody that you thought she was killed upstairs?
A. No sir.

Q. You made no effort to find your mother at all?
A. No sir.

Q. Who did you send Maggie for?
A. Dr. Bowen. She came back and said Dr. Bowen was not there.

Q. What did you tell Maggie?
A. I told her he was hurt. I says, “Go for Dr. Bowen as soon as you can. I think father is hurt.”

Q. Did you then know that he was dead?
A. No sir.

Q. You saw him? Saw his face?
A. No, I did not see his face because he was all covered with blood.

Q. You saw where the face was bleeding?
A. Yes sir.

Q. And with those injuries you couldn’t tell he was dead?
A. No, sir.

Q. But you told Maggie, “Come down quick; father’s dead, somebody come in and killed him.”
A. No, sir. I said he was hurt, not dead.

When the Borden murder inquest wrapped up, the magistrate was satisfied of sufficient grounds to believe Lizzie Borden killed her father and step-mother. The issue of motive never came up in the proceedings. However, establishing motive is not an elemental fact in pursuing murder charges. The inquest magistrate ordered Lizzie Borden arrested and held in custody for trial.

Lizzie Borden’s Murder Trial

Lizzie Borden’s prosecution ran according to Massachusetts law of the time. First, a grand jury impaneled. They returned an indictment on December 2nd, 1892, and a preliminary hearing followed where the evidence against Lizzie Borden was found suitable to withstand a jury trial. At no time during the investigation or legal procedures was there any suggestion Lizzie Borden was mentally ill and not suitable to be tried. Even during the trial, neither the defense team nor the prosecution ever raised a sanity issue.

Lizzie Borden could afford the best legal defense possible, and she got it. Because her father had no will and his wife was also dead, the Borden estate immediately fell to the sole survivors—Emma and Lizzie Borden—and they evenly split it. In today’s value, Lizzie Borden had about $4 million in assets to work with.

She hired ex-three times Massachusetts governor, George Robinson, who later billed Lizzie today’s equivalent of a half-million dollars. The District Attorney’s office also put out a heavy-hitter with William Moody leading the prosecution team. Moody went on to be a United States Supreme Court judge. The dueling balance was offset by three panel judges sitting on the Borden trial. One was Justin Dewey—personally appointed to the bench by then-governor George Robinson.

There was a change of venue for the Lizzie Borden trial. To ensure fair and impartial jurors, the trial took place in New Bedford, Massachusetts instead of Fall River. It convened on June 5th, 1893 and ended on June 20th.

Lizzie Borden’s defense team scored two vitally important legal victories. One was having Lizzie’s inquest testimony discarded which they argued was involuntary and taken without legal representation. The other defense win was getting the prussic acid—hydrogen cyanide—evidence ruled irrelevant and inadmissible.

This left the prosecution with a purely circumstantial case. They had no established murder weapon, no eye-witnesses, and a reasonable doubt raised by an unlocked back door. The prosecution did not offer any motive as to why Lizzie Borden ax-murdered her folks, and the defense convincingly argued that a hatchet was a man’s weapon—something a fine upstanding Victorian woman of class would ever use to commit such gruesome crimes.

Lizzie Borden never took the witness stand. She sat in the dock impeccably dressed in flowing black clothes with a fan and a handkerchief. Lizzie stayed stoic when proper, teared at the right time, and fainted when Andrew and Abby Borden’s skulls were brought into the courtroom for a hands-on demonstration of how the handle-less hatchet fit.

At the trial’s conclusion, the defense summed the prosecution’s case as such:

“There is not one particle of direct evidence in this case from beginning to end against Lizzie A. Borden. There is not a spot of blood, there is not a weapon that they have connected with her in any way, shape, or fashion. The state has utterly failed to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The trial judges were also sympathetic towards Lizzie Borden. As one reporter at the time put it, Judge Dewey acted like the senior defense counsel when he told the jury:

“You must take into account the defendant’s exceptional Christian character which she is entitled to every influence in her favor. If the evidence falls short of providing such conviction in your minds, although it may raise a suspicion of guilt, or even a strong probability of guilt, it would be your plain duty to return a verdict of not guilty. Seeking only the truth, you will lift this case above the range of passion and prejudice and excited feeling, into the clear atmosphere of reason and law.”

The jury was out for an hour and a half before returning with a not guilty verdict. Jurors later reported they’d decided fate on the first ballot but stayed out long enough to make it look like they’d fairly deliberated. Lizzie Borden walked out of the courtroom a free woman. That didn’t absolve a cloud forming over her in the public arena.

Lizzie Borden’s Later Years

Within two months of her acquittal, Lizzie Borden changed her name to Lizbeyh Borden. She used her father’s estate inheritance to buy a modern mansion in the heart of “The Hill”. Her impressive home came with all conveniences money could buy as the Guilded Age in America approached the twentieth century. Lizzie Borden now had indoor plumbing with flush toilets and running hot water. No longer did she have to empty a chamber pot or light a wood stove to burn a dress.

Lizzie Borden’s new abode, which she elegantly named Maplecroft, had electric lights and central heating with individual room radiators. She had servant quarters and a dedicated suite for her older sister. Lizzie had an art room for her crafts and a drawing room to entertain friends. However, her one-time friends on “The Hill” and in “The Flats” shunned Lizzie one-by-one.

Maplecroft – Mansion in “The Hills” bought by Lizzie Borden after her Parents Death

Her welcome in the Central Congregational Protestant church dissipated as people talked and realized Lizzie Borden probably got away with murder. She was ostracized and left to sit in a pew of her own. Lizzie’s service groups shut their doors and shops discouraged her visit. Bit-by-bit and little-by-little, she became a social outcast—a moral leper.

Lizzie, or Lizbeyh, retained her magnificent Maplecroft home on “The Hill” but she spent most of her time away in Boston and New York where Lizzie lavishly entertained the Bohemian theater crowd. Eventually, her older sister had enough. Emma moved out and refused to speak to Lizzie for the rest of their lives.

Lizzie Borden died of pneumonia in 1927. She was sixty-six years old and still a spinster—truly an old maid. She bequeathed what was left of her money to animal welfare.

Did Lizzie Borden Really Ax-Murder Her Parents?

The question whether Lizzie Borden really did ax-murder her parents teased public fascination since the day the murders went down. Like a Greek tragedy, or a Victorian melodrama, the Borden murders had all the right elements of intrigue, suspense, and mystery. It was a true who-dunnit that sparked a sensational spectacle not paralleled in United States history.

Lizzie Borden’s case put the Victorian concept of a well-bred and virtuous woman of white Protestant class on trial for its life. The notion that a daughter—anyone of upper society’s daughter—could commit the unspeakable act of ax-murdering patricide was unthinkable. Lizzie Borden’s defense team knew this, and they deprived the prosecution of proving premeditation by suggesting jurors were to foolishly believe the accused before them—facing the death penalty—somehow magically metamorphosed into a maniacal murderess.

Lizzie Borden Trial Jurors – Twelve Good Men

The twelve good men on the jury sympathized with the pious prisoner in the docket holding a flower bouquet. Although she was described by the press as the “sphynx of coolness”, Lizzie had been carefully coached to silently suggest innocence. The jury never directly heard from Lizzie Borden. She exercised her right not to take the stand.

Given what the jurors heard and saw, it’s no surprise they chose acquittal. But, that doesn’t excuse the court of ages from independently assessing Lizzie Borden’s guilt or innocence. A big factor indicating murder-culpable is her inconsistent statements to the police and at the inquest.

Lizzie Borden sometimes places herself upstairs while her step-mother lay dead on the floor beside her and sometimes does not. It’s inconceivable Lizzie was on the upper landing without seeing Abby’s body. Lizzie Borden’s alibi for being in the barn while her father died is nonsense. By any rational acceptance, a woman dressed in Victorian clothing would not stay fifteen minutes in an environment exceeding well over one hundred degrees in Fahrenheit.

But, the jury never heard Lizzie’s alibis or conflicting statements. They never heard about the poison. And, the jurors were never offered any motive why a daughter would cold bloodily hatchet her family members to death.

Lizzie Borden’s Motive For Murder

On the balance of probabilities and totalitarian of evidence, logic proves Lizzie Borden ax-murdered her parents. To think otherwise defies common sense. Lizzie had exclusive opportunity and immediate means to commit the crimes, and there simply was no one else there to do it. But, what motive did she have?

During Lizzie Borden’s trial, her defense cleverly maneuvered around a story that, if known, would have shaken their very foundation. That was the reality of the Borden household being a dysfunctional cold war of family unrest. Lizzie was barely on speaking terms with Abby who, for years, she referred to as Mrs. Borden. Tension in that home was tight.

Andrew Borden was aging fast. He had no legal will and last testament, and he made no provision of setting forth how his estate would divide upon his death. Massachusetts common law dictated that wealth should flow from the husband to the wife and then accordingly down as the immediate benefactor sees fit. Should Andrew have died first, his estate would naturally have gone to Abby. It would be entirely up to Abby to bequeath Andrew’s wealth as she desired. Lizzie might not have been in Abby’s sights a designated recipient.

In the weeks before the Borden murders, Andrew Borden seemed to be making plans of disposing property outside Lizzie’s entitlement. He’d already awarded a house to one of Abby’s family members. Some historians speculate the reason for John Morse’s visit on the eve of the murders was to secure a piece of Andrew Borden’s holdings. Undoubtedly, Lizzie would have been in tune with this.

There was a family blow-out a week before the murders. Lizzie and Emma left the Fall River house and went to New Bedford to cool off. When Lizzie returned on August 2nd, Andrew Borden, Abby Borden, and Bridget Sullivan suddenly became sick from something foul in their food.

That contaminant only made them ill. It can’t be a coincidence that the next day Lizzie went looking for cyanide. When that poison plan fell through, it was time for Plan-B. One way or the other, Lizzie knew Abby Borden had to die before she cut into Lizzie’s inheritance which Andrew was giving away. Once that was done by hatcheting Abby’s head with an ax on the morning of August 4th, 1892, it was a sensible step for Lizzie Borden to finish-off the old man and cash in.

There’s no longer reasonable doubt. Lizzie Borden ax-murdered her parents, and her motive was pure greed. It was all about entitlement and change—from precariously surviving in “The Flats” to securely thriving high on “The Hill”.

*   *   *

Post Note of 07 August 2020: Dark Zone Productions of Los Angeles is doing a 4-Day Live Streaming program on the Lizzie Borden case from August 28-31, 2020. Here’s their press release:

https://wm-no.glb.shawcable.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en&id=523805&part=2