Five Lies That Fooled the World: The Lizzie Borden Myths That Need to Die

 

The truth about America's most notorious murder case has been buried under 130 years of lies. It's time to set the record straight.

On August 4th, 1892, two people were brutally murdered with an axe in Fall River, Massachusetts. The prime suspect? A 32-year-old Sunday school teacher named Lizzie Borden. You may think you know the Lizzie Borden case, but today I'm going to expose five "obvious facts" that are completely false—lies that have shaped public perception for over a century and prevented justice from being served.

As a registered nurse and true crime investigator, I've spent years examining the evidence with fresh eyes, and what I've discovered will shock you. The story you've been told about Lizzie Borden is built on a foundation of myths, prosecutorial narratives, and outright fabrications. Every documentary, every book, every movie has repeated these same lies until they became accepted as truth.

But the actual evidence tells a completely different story—one where Lizzie Borden isn't the killer, but most likely a terrified witness who knew exactly who the real murderer was.

Myth #1: The Sweltering Heat That Drove Lizzie to Murder

The most pervasive myth surrounding the Borden murders is that August 4th, 1892, was a brutally hot day that drove Lizzie to her breaking point. This narrative has been repeated in every documentary, every book, and every movie about the case. The oppressive heat, the stifling Victorian house, the pressure cooker atmosphere—all of this supposedly exploded into violence.

There's just one problem: it's completely false.

The actual weather records show that the high temperature that day was somewhere between 78 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. For those keeping track, that's not sweltering. That's not even oppressive, not even for New England. That's a perfectly pleasant summer day. Considering Fall River's proximity to the water, there may have been slightly more humidity, but we're still talking about comfortable weather—certainly not the "hottest day of the year" that's been claimed.

So where did this myth originate? The answer reveals everything wrong with how this case was prosecuted. This narrative was created by the prosecution during Lizzie's trial. They needed a motive, a trigger, something to explain why a Sunday school teacher would suddenly commit double murder. The heat became their explanation—it made Lizzie's alleged trip to the barn to look for fishing equipment seem impossible, and it provided the psychological pressure needed for their theory.

The problem is that no one seemed to remember that it wasn't actually hot, or at least not excessively so. The prosecution built their case on a lie, and that lie has persisted for 130 years. It makes for a compelling story—heat-induced madness leading to brutal violence—but it has no basis in meteorological reality.

This fabrication matters because it demonstrates how the entire case against Lizzie was constructed. When the facts didn't fit the narrative, the narrative was simply presented as fact. The "sweltering heat" became gospel truth, repeated so often that questioning it seemed absurd. But question it we must, because if they lied about something as basic and verifiable as the weather, what else did they lie about?

Myth #2: Andrew Borden, the Miserly Father Who Drove His Daughter to Desperation

The second major myth portrays Andrew Borden as a stingy, miserly man who kept his daughters in poverty despite his wealth. According to this narrative, Lizzie and Emma were treated poorly, forced to live like paupers while their father hoarded his money. This supposed financial desperation provided another motive for murder—Lizzie killed for inheritance money she desperately needed.

The historical record tells a completely different story.

Andrew Borden was actually quite generous with his daughters, sometimes to the point that family members thought they were spoiled. Consider the evidence: Andrew sent Emma to college, which in the 1880s was not only expensive but largely superfluous for women. A college-educated woman wasn't expected to work outside the home, so this education was purely for prestige and personal enrichment—hardly the action of a penny-pinching miser.

Lizzie herself took a grand tour of Europe, spending about four months touring various countries with no expense spared. This was paid for entirely by Andrew Borden. The sisters had their dresses made by milliners—handmade, hand-tailored clothing that was the height of fashion. Lizzie was quite a figure in Fall River society, always well-dressed and active in community affairs.

Perhaps most telling is the story of the rental property. Andrew gave Emma and Lizzie a house worth approximately $3,000 to rent out and collect income from.  When the sisters grew weary of  handling repairs and complaints, Andrew bought the property back for 5,000, paying them $2,000 more than it was worth💀💀. They split the profit.

If Andrew Borden was truly the skinflint that history portrays, would he have overpaid his daughters for property he had originally given them for free?

The family lived in the business district rather than the fashionable part of town, but this was Andrew's choice for practical reasons—he could walk to all his businesses. They had indoor plumbing and modern amenities, and while they didn't live in the wealthiest area, they certainly weren't in the poor section either.

Most importantly, there was no financial motive for murder. Lizzie was already set to inherit Andrew's substantial wealth, which would be divided between her, Emma, and stepmother Abby. Andrew wasn't a young man—Lizzie could reasonably expect her inheritance within a reasonable timeframe without resorting to murder.

Family member Mr. Harrington was noted as saying he thought the Borden daughters were a little bit spoiled and overindulged. This hardly sounds like the description of financially desperate women driven to murder by a miserly father.

Once again, we see how a prosecutorial narrative became accepted fact. The prosecution needed a motive, so they painted Andrew as a miser and his daughters as desperate. The truth—that Andrew was generous with his daughters and they had no financial motive for murder—didn't fit their case, so it was ignored or twisted to support their predetermined conclusion.

Myth #3: Lizzie's Hatred for Her Stepmother Abby

The third myth claims that Lizzie harbored deep hatred for her stepmother Abby, providing the emotional motive for murder. This narrative suggests that years of resentment and animosity finally exploded into violence on that August morning.

The reality is far more nuanced and, frankly, quite normal for blended families of that era.

When Abby first came to the Borden household, Lizzie was around four years old and Emma was about fourteen. Emma had made a solemn promise to their dying mother that she would care for Lizzie, so in Emma's mind, Lizzie was essentially her child. This created a complex family dynamic where Abby, who had no children of her own, struggled to find her place as stepmother to two girls who already had strong bonds with each other.

Initially, there was some distance between Abby and the girls. Abby didn't seem particularly interested in them, and perhaps not knowing how to be a stepmother, she remained somewhat aloof. However, when Emma went to college, Lizzie and Abby actually grew much closer.

Lizzie called Abby "mother" for most of her childhood and young adulthood. This only changed about five years before the murders, following a family dispute over money. Andrew had given a house to Abby's sister, which upset Lizzie. To smooth things over, Andrew then gave Lizzie and Emma the rental property mentioned earlier. After this incident, Lizzie began calling Abby "Mrs. Borden" instead of "mother."

However, it's crucial to understand the social context. In Victorian society, it was actually customary for children to refer to their parents as "Mr." and "Mrs." in public settings as a sign of respect. Even wives often referred to their husbands as "Mr." in formal situations. Lizzie's use of "Mrs. Borden" wasn't necessarily a sign of disrespect or hatred—it was often simply proper etiquette.

When questioned during her trial, Lizzie admitted that she still called Abby "mother" sometimes, but used "Mrs. Borden" more frequently. The prosecution tried to make this seem sinister, but it was actually quite normal for the time period.

All testimony from household members, including maid Bridget Sullivan, indicated that there were no screaming fights or unkind exchanges between Lizzie and Abby. Were they the best of friends? No. But they weren't mortal enemies either. Their relationship exhibited the normal friction that exists in many blended families.

The prosecution and media seized on this ordinary family tension and transformed it into murderous hatred. They needed an emotional motive to complement their financial motive, so they exaggerated normal stepfamily dynamics into something sinister. The truth—that Lizzie and Abby had a typical, if somewhat distant, stepmother-stepdaughter relationship—didn't provide the dramatic motive the prosecution required.

Myth #4: John Morse's Airtight Alibi

Perhaps the most dangerous myth of all is that John Morse, Lizzie's uncle who was visiting the Borden house, had an airtight alibi that completely cleared him of suspicion. This myth suggests that because John was a man with the physical strength to commit such crimes, investigators would have thoroughly examined his whereabouts if there had been any doubt about his innocence.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Not only did John Morse not have an airtight alibi, but his story was riddled with lies, contradictions, and timeline impossibilities that should have made him the prime suspect. When examined with any scrutiny, his alibi completely falls apart.

Morse claimed he left the Borden house around 8:45 AM and didn't return until 11:45 AM or thereabouts. However, there are significant cracks in this timeline. An innocent statement by his niece completely broke his alibi. She mentioned that John Morse and Dr. Bowen had not crossed paths—meaning they weren't at her house at the same time. If this is true, it completely destroys Morse's timeline. He would have had to leave much earlier than the 11:20 AM departure time he claimed.

Additionally, there are witness statements that police overlooked or ignored that further contradict Morse's account. The man who should have been the obvious suspect—a male visitor with opportunity, means, and a suspicious timeline—was given a pass while investigators focused obsessively on Lizzie.

The lies and contradictions in Morse's statements are so numerous and blatant that they read like a manual on how not to provide an alibi. He fabricated stories about phantom murder weapons, gave conflicting accounts of his breakfast timing, and provided false information about key witnesses. Some of his lies were so obvious that police records actually document them as "false statements."

Most tellingly, Morse eliminated crucial witness, officer George Seaver, whose testimony about the morning's events would have exposed Morse's deceptions. When someone lies repeatedly about their whereabouts during a double murder, changes their story multiple times, and actively works to silence witnesses, they're not acting like an innocent relative—they're acting like a guilty killer.

While Lizzie maintained consistent statements throughout her ordeal, Morse wove an increasingly complex web of lies that should have made him suspect number one. Instead, the myth of his "perfect alibi" allowed the real killer to escape justice while an innocent woman faced trial for murder.

Myth #5: Lizzie's Cold, Emotionless Response

The fifth and perhaps most damaging myth portrays Lizzie as showing no emotion after the discovery of the murders—an "ice queen" whose lack of visible grief proved her guilt. This characterization was catastrophic for public perception and played a significant role in making her a suspect.

The problem is that this portrayal is completely false.

Multiple witnesses testified to Lizzie's emotional state immediately after the murders, and their accounts paint a very different picture. Dr. Seabury Bowen, the family physician who arrived shortly after Andrew's body was discovered, testified that Lizzie was "very much affected and crying." She was so upset that he gave her medicine not only for her headache but started her on morphine that very day, continuing the medication throughout the inquest.

Think about that for a moment. If someone is "doped up" on morphine, they might very well appear emotionless or detached. The very medication given to help Lizzie cope with her trauma likely contributed to the perception that she was unfeeling.

Bridget Sullivan, the family maid, testified that Lizzie was "crying and moaning" when she first saw her after the discovery. Alice Russell, Lizzie's friend, stated that Lizzie was "much affected and weeping." Multiple witnesses described Lizzie as crying, distressed, and clearly affected by the tragedy.

So how did these firsthand accounts of grief and distress get twisted into evidence of cold-blooded guilt? The answer lies in the predetermined narrative and the misunderstanding of trauma responses.

As a registered nurse, I can tell you that trauma affects people differently. Some people express wild, dramatic grief. Others, like Lizzie, go into shock and shut down emotionally. You cannot judge how a person feels by the emotions they display in the immediate aftermath of trauma. Some people cry, some people become hysterical, and some people dissociate and appear calm or detached.

Lizzie's completely normal trauma response was twisted into evidence of guilt by people who had already decided she was guilty. The prosecution and media needed her to appear cold and calculating, so they ignored witness testimony about her emotional state and promoted the narrative of the unfeeling killer.

This myth is particularly insidious because it reveals how gender expectations and misunderstanding of trauma responses can be weaponized against innocent people. Lizzie was expected to grieve in a specific, socially acceptable way, and when her trauma response didn't match those expectations, it was used as evidence against her.

How These Myths Became "Truth"

The persistence of these myths reveals something troubling about how narratives take hold and resist correction. Once a story is established, it becomes incredibly difficult to change, even when presented with contradictory evidence. People see what they expect to see and interpret new information through the lens of what they already believe.

In Lizzie's case, the narrative was set early by the prosecution and media. Every piece of evidence was interpreted to fit this predetermined story, even when the evidence actually contradicted it. The myths became so entrenched that questioning them seemed absurd—after all, everyone "knew" these facts about the case.

This is how innocent people get convicted and how the guilty escape justice. When investigators decide on a suspect early in the process, they often stop looking for the real perpetrator and instead focus on building a case against their chosen target. Evidence that doesn't fit is ignored, minimized, or twisted to support the narrative.

The Lizzie Borden case is a perfect example of confirmation bias in action. The prosecution had their theory—that Lizzie killed for money and out of hatred for her stepmother, driven by heat and desperation—and they made the evidence fit that theory rather than following the evidence to its logical conclusion.

The Real Story Emerges

Now that we've cleared away these lies and myths, we can start looking at what actually happened on August 4th, 1892. When you examine the real evidence—the timeline, the physical impossibilities, the overlooked testimony, and the lies told by the person who should have been the prime suspect—a completely different story emerges.

This is a story where Lizzie Borden isn't the killer but most likely a terrified witness who knew exactly who the real murderer was. It's a story of prosecutorial misconduct, investigative bias, and a justice system that failed spectacularly. Most importantly, it's a story where the real killer got away with murder while an innocent woman was put on trial for her life.

The evidence that proves Lizzie's innocence has been sitting in plain sight for 130 years, ignored or misinterpreted by investigators, prosecutors, and historians who were too invested in the established narrative to see the truth. The timeline alone makes it physically impossible for Lizzie to have committed these murders, and when you add the lies and contradictions in John Morse's statements, the case becomes clear.

Justice was not served in 1892, but it's not too late to set the record straight. The truth about the Borden murders has been buried under more than a century of lies, but the evidence remains. It's time to stop repeating these myths and start examining what really happened on that August morning in Fall River.

The real story of the Borden murders is far more shocking than the myth—because the real story reveals how an innocent woman was nearly convicted of murder while the actual killer walked free, protected by lies that have persisted for over a century.

It's time for the truth to finally come to light.

This is the first in a series examining the evidence that proves Lizzie Borden's innocence and identifies the real killer. In the next installment, we'll examine the timeline of that morning and explore why it was physically impossible for Lizzie to have committed these murders—evidence so clear and undeniable that it should have ended this case 130 years ago.

To see the WHOLE, TRUE story, check out "Lizzie Borden: The Lies Behind The Legend"