"I Don't Like That Girl": The Police Confession That Destroyed Justice

 How documented bias and a mysterious 9 AM visitor prove the Lizzie Borden investigation was rigged from day one

"I don't like that girl."

Those five words, written in a police officer's own handwriting on August 4th, 1892, destroyed any chance of justice in America's most notorious murder case. Not "the evidence suggests" or "her behavior indicates guilt"—just a simple, damning confession of personal bias that would shape the entire investigation and allow a killer to walk free.

We've already proven it was physically impossible for Lizzie Borden to commit those murders. The timeline doesn't work. The Victorian clothing makes it impossible. The human body's physiological responses make it implausible. So if not Lizzie, then who? And why did the police, with all their resources, never truly look elsewhere?

The answer lies buried in police notes that have been hiding in plain sight for 130 years—notes that reveal not just incompetence, but active prejudice, ignored evidence, and a mysterious 9 AM visitor whose presence could have solved the case immediately. This isn't just about a misled investigation. This is about a fundamental failure of justice that allowed the real killer to escape while an innocent woman faced the gallows.

Today, we're pulling back the curtain on one of the most frustrating aspects of this case: the investigation itself. What you're about to read will shock you, infuriate you, and prove beyond any doubt that Lizzie Borden was the victim of the most biased police investigation in American history.

The Morning That Changed Everything: 9:00 AM, August 4th, 1892

Let's set the scene for what should have been the most important lead in the entire investigation—a lead that was documented, filed away, and completely ignored.

It's 9:00 AM on the morning of the murders. John Morse had just left the Borden house. Andrew Borden had probably left or was just leaving for his daily business rounds. Bridget Sullivan was preparing to wash the windows, moving in and out of the house. Lizzie had just come downstairs a few minutes before 9:00, feeling unwell and having only a little coffee for breakfast. Abby Borden was upstairs changing the sheets on the bed where Mr. Morse had slept the night before.

As far as we've ever been told, Lizzie, Bridget, and Abby were the only people in the house. Andrew was gone. Nobody else was there, right?

Wrong. Dead wrong.

Hidden in the police notes—available for anyone to read at lizyandrew.com—is testimony that should have blown this case wide open from day one. Officer John Fleet, part of the early investigation, documented Lizzie's statement about a mysterious visitor that morning. In his direct police notes, Fleet recorded Lizzie mentioning a man who had come to the house several weeks before, gotten into an argument with Andrew, and left angry.

But then, at the bottom of Fleet's notes, are two lines that should have changed everything:

"A man came here this morning about 9:00. I think he wanted to hire a store. Talked English. I did not see him. heard father shut the door and think the man went away."

Read that again. Let it sink in. Lizzie wasn't talking about the man from two weeks prior—she was describing a completely different visitor who came to the house that very morning at 9:00 AM. This had to be before Andrew left for his business rounds. This mysterious visitor spoke with Andrew, and according to Lizzie's account, there seemed to be some tension when he left.

But what if he didn't actually leave? What if he just went outside, walked around the house, circled the block, and came back? What if he never left at all and was hiding somewhere on the property? This visitor was there just minutes—literally minutes—before Abby was bludgeoned to death upstairs.

The Lead That Should Have Solved the Case

Here's what makes this evidence so explosive: this wasn't some random person walking by the house. This was someone with business dealings with Andrew Borden. Someone who had a history of conflict with him. Someone who was angry enough about previous disputes to return for another confrontation.

The earlier visitor Lizzie mentioned had wanted to open a shop that sold alcohol. We know absolutely that Andrew was opposed to this—he and Lizzie were both part of the temperance movement, which was against alcohol. This visitor apparently thought Andrew was such a penny-pincher that he would rent to anyone who could pay, regardless of the type of business. But Andrew did care. He had moral objections to certain types of commerce, and he wasn't afraid to let potential tenants know it.

Could the 9 AM visitor have been the same person who had argued with Andrew weeks earlier? Could this have been someone whose business plans were repeatedly thwarted by Andrew's moral stance? Could this have been someone who saw Andrew as an obstacle to their financial success and decided to remove that obstacle permanently?

These are exactly the kinds of questions any competent investigation would have pursued immediately. This was a potential witness—or suspect—who was at the scene just minutes before the first murder. Even if he wasn't the perpetrator, he might have seen something, heard something, or provided crucial information about what was happening at the Borden house that morning.

Any competent investigation would have made finding this person their absolute top priority. They would have canvassed the neighborhood, checked with local businesses, interviewed anyone who might have seen this visitor. They would have determined exactly who this person was, what they wanted, and where they went after leaving the Borden house.

This isn't rocket science. It's basic detective work—Investigation 101.

The Investigation That Never Happened

But here's the shocking truth: this crucial lead was never properly investigated. The police took Lizzie's witness statement, filed it away, and continued looking exclusively at her. They never seriously tried to identify this visitor. They never followed up on this lead. They never treated it like the smoking gun it was.

Why? Because they had already decided Lizzie was guilty, and in their minds, this was just something she was making up. They couldn't conceive that it might actually be true, that there might actually have been someone else at the house that morning with motive and opportunity to commit murder.

The evidence of this bias isn't speculation or interpretation—it's documented in the officers' own handwriting. In the combined notes of Officers Harrington and Doherty from their first day investigation, one officer wrote about searching the barn where Lizzie claimed to have been. But then comes this absolutely shocking admission:

"It was at this time I made known my suspicions of Miss Lizzy to the marshall. I said, 'I don't like that girl.' He said, 'What is that?' I repeated and further said, 'Under the circumstances, she does not act in a manner that suits me. It is strange to say the least.'"

Let that sink in. A police officer investigating a double murder admitted in writing that he "didn't like" the primary witness because her reaction didn't "suit" him. He found her behavior "strange" and decided she was suspicious based purely on his personal feelings about how she was responding to trauma.

This officer felt strongly enough about his dislike for Lizzie that he made it known to his superior on the very first day of the investigation. From that moment forward, the investigation was compromised. Instead of following evidence wherever it led, they were building a case against someone they had already decided was guilty based on nothing more than personal prejudice.

The Ripple Effect of Documented Bias

Police bias doesn't exist in a vacuum—it shapes every aspect of a criminal investigation. When officers decide early on that they "don't like" a suspect, it affects how they collect evidence, which leads they pursue, and what information they pass along to prosecutors.

Think about how the criminal justice system works: Police conduct the investigation and turn over their findings to the district attorney, who decides whether there's enough evidence to prosecute. The DA relies on the police investigation as the foundation for their case. If that investigation is biased from day one, everything that follows is tainted.

In modern cases, we've seen how police bias can destroy investigations. The O.J. Simpson case was compromised by Detective Mark Fuhrman's documented racism. More recently, the Karen Read case has been shaped by apparent police bias against the defendant. When officers approach a case with predetermined conclusions, they stop investigating and start building a case to support their bias.

But in Lizzie's case, the bias was even more blatant because it was documented in the officers' own handwriting. They decided she was guilty because they didn't like her demeanor, her reaction to trauma, or the way she carried herself. This wasn't based on evidence—it was based on their personal feelings about how a "lady" should behave in such circumstances.

Basically, what the police said became gospel truth for the district attorney. The DA took the police investigation as absolutely accurate because it was supposed to be the result of an unbiased investigation. But in Lizzie's case, it was extremely biased from day one, where these officers decided, "You know what? I don't like her. There's just something about her. She's guilty. She must have done it."

That kind of blatant bias wouldn't fly today—at least not out in the open. But this is what we're dealing with in 1892: documented prejudice that shaped every aspect of the investigation.

The Credible Witness They Ignored

Here's what makes this bias even more outrageous: we're not talking about some random person making things up. We're talking about a credible witness—Lizzie herself—who was actually there, saying that there was someone else at the house that morning.

John Fleet wrote it in his official report that Lizzie said someone showed up that day. Somebody came to the house, talked to Andrew, and left seeming angry. That is a huge, massive red beacon. Any competent investigation would drop everything to pursue this lead. You identify the person, question them, establish their alibi, and find out why they were there.

But what actually happened? The police barely investigated this lead—I would say they didn't investigate it at all. They took Lizzie's witness statement, filed it, and continued looking exclusively at her. They never seriously tried to identify the visitor because in their heads, they didn't like her already and she was guilty. It was just something this woman was making up, not something that could have been true.

They never followed up. They never treated it like a smoking gun. And there are a lot of smoking guns in this case—we're just getting started.

The Grief Police: Judging Trauma Responses

The officers' bias against Lizzie was rooted in their expectations about how she should have reacted to finding her father brutally murdered. When she didn't fit into their narrow definition of appropriate grief, they decided she must be guilty.

As a registered nurse, I can tell you that people grieve in vastly different ways. Some people become hysterical. Some become very quiet. Some people shut down emotionally and appear almost detached. You can't tell if they're grieving at all just by looking at them. It doesn't matter—there's no right or wrong way to grieve or be in a shocked condition after witnessing such a brutal crime in your own house.

But no matter how someone acts, I can tell you one thing: not one of those potential responses indicates guilt.

Lizzie was in shock, dealing with grief, and being medicated from the very first day. Dr. Bowen had started her on morphine immediately after the discovery of the bodies, and she remained on medication throughout the inquest. If someone is medicated with morphine, they might very well appear emotionless or detached.

But in 1892, the police had very specific ideas about how a lady should behave. When Lizzie didn't fit into their little box of expected feminine responses to tragedy, they decided she might be guilty. This says far more about their prejudices than it does about Lizzie's innocence or guilt.

The Pattern of Systematic Dismissal

The 9 AM visitor wasn't the only evidence that pointed away from Lizzie. As a matter of fact, when multiple pieces of evidence came up that would point away from Lizzie, the police systematically dismantled them and ignored them.

From their perspective, from day one, there was one perpetrator and only one guilty person in that household: Lizzie Borden. And that narrative has continued for over 130 years.

But it's high time we decided to really look at the facts and examine how things actually were in 1892. All of the different pieces of evidence are right under our noses. They're in the police notes. They're in the documents that have been studied but never properly analyzed. There are shocking statements that nobody followed up on that would all point to somebody else.

Somebody who was in that house. Somebody who did have a motive and certainly had opportunity. Someone whose alibi was fake and would have easily crumbled if the police had just examined it closely and read their own notes. If they had read their own documentation, they would have found the lies right under their noses, hidden in plain sight.

But because they decided Lizzie was guilty from day one, they never asked the right questions. They never pursued the obvious leads. They never followed the evidence to where it actually led. And that is how the real killer got away with murder.

The Business Connection: Motive Hidden in Plain Sight

Let's return to that mysterious 9 AM visitor and what his presence reveals about potential motives that had nothing to do with family dynamics and everything to do with business disputes.

The police notes reveal that this visitor wanted to "hire a store"—presumably to rent commercial space from Andrew Borden for some kind of business. Lizzie also mentioned the earlier visitor who had wanted to open a shop that sold alcohol, something Andrew opposed due to his and Lizzie's involvement in the temperance movement.

This suggests a pattern of business disputes between Andrew and potential tenants or business partners. Andrew was known to be particular about what kinds of businesses he would support, and he apparently had strong moral objections to certain types of commerce.

Could the 9 AM visitor have been the same person who had argued with Andrew weeks earlier? Could this have been someone whose business plans were repeatedly thwarted by Andrew's moral stance? Could this have been someone who saw Andrew as an obstacle to their financial success and decided to remove that obstacle permanently?

These are exactly the kinds of questions a competent investigation would have pursued. Instead, the police were so focused on Lizzie's demeanor that they missed potential motives that were documented in their own notes.

The Real Killer's Perfect Cover

This police bias provided the perfect cover for the real killer. While officers were focused on building a case against Lizzie based on their personal feelings about her demeanor, the actual perpetrator was free to establish alibis, dispose of evidence, and cover their tracks.

The real killer didn't need to be particularly clever or sophisticated—they just needed the police to be looking in the wrong direction. And thanks to the officers' documented bias against Lizzie, that's exactly what happened.

Someone was in that house that morning with motive and opportunity to commit murder. Someone whose alibi was fake and would have easily crumbled if the police had bothered to examine it closely. Someone whose lies and contradictions were documented in the very police notes that the officers were too biased to read carefully.

The Systematic Failure of Justice

The Lizzie Borden case represents a systematic failure of the justice system at every level. Police bias from day one prevented a thorough investigation. Crucial evidence was ignored or dismissed. Potential suspects were never identified or questioned. And an innocent woman was put on trial for her life while the real killer walked free.

This wasn't just incompetence—it was willful blindness. The officers documented their bias in their own handwriting. They admitted to making judgments based on personal feelings rather than evidence. They ignored leads that didn't fit their predetermined conclusion.

The tragedy isn't just that Lizzie was wrongly accused—it's that the real killer got away with murder because the people charged with finding the truth were more interested in confirming their prejudices than following the evidence.

The Evidence That Could Have Changed Everything

The 9 AM visitor represents just one piece of evidence that could have changed the entire trajectory of this case. If the police had properly investigated this lead, they might have identified the real killer within days of the murders.

But this visitor wasn't the only evidence pointing away from Lizzie. The police notes are full of leads that were never followed, witnesses who were never properly questioned, and alibis that were never thoroughly checked. All because the officers had decided on day one that they "didn't like" Lizzie and she must be guilty.

The evidence has been sitting in plain sight for 130 years, hidden in police notes and court transcripts that few people have bothered to read carefully. When you examine this evidence without the bias that corrupted the original investigation, a very different picture emerges—one where Lizzie Borden is clearly innocent and the real killer's identity becomes obvious.

Modern Parallels: When Bias Destroys Justice

The problems we see in the Lizzie Borden case aren't relics of the 1890s—they're patterns that continue to plague criminal investigations today. When police officers decide early in an investigation that they "don't like" a suspect or that someone's behavior seems "strange," it can derail the entire pursuit of justice.

Police bias is huge in determining whether a case goes to trial and what the evidence actually says. Because the prosecutor—and let's be honest, it's hard to find a completely honest attorney—if you are an honest attorney and you're just taking information from the police investigation, they're telling you that Lizzie Borden is guilty, that she's the only possible person who could have committed this crime, while they're hiding from you all the other evidence.

This was a travesty from the very beginning. And despite everything we've already discussed, this is just the beginning, because there are boom after boom revelations when it comes to one person and all of his lies and fake alibis.

The Real Investigation Begins Now

For over 130 years, we've accepted the narrative created by biased police officers who decided on day one that they "didn't like" Lizzie Borden. We've allowed their prejudices to override clear evidence of her innocence and the real killer's guilt.

It's time to conduct the investigation that should have happened in 1892. It's time to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without bias or predetermined conclusions. It's time to examine the alibis that were never properly checked and the lies that were documented but never pursued.

The 9 AM visitor is just the beginning. The evidence that has been hiding in plain sight for 130 years points to someone who was in that house, someone who had motive and opportunity, someone whose fake alibi would have crumbled under proper scrutiny.

Someone who got away with murder because the police were too busy building a case against an innocent woman to notice the guilty man right in front of them.

The Truth Hidden in Plain Sight

The shocking truth about the Lizzie Borden case isn't just that an innocent woman was wrongly accused—it's that the evidence proving her innocence and identifying the real killer has been available all along, documented in the investigators' own handwriting.

The 9 AM visitor could have been the key to solving this case 130 years ago. Instead, that visitor became a symbol of everything wrong with an investigation corrupted by bias from its very first day.

The police officer who wrote "I don't like that girl" destroyed any chance of justice with those five words. His documented bias shaped the entire investigation, allowed crucial evidence to be ignored, and enabled a killer to escape while an innocent woman faced the gallows.

But the evidence is still there, waiting to be examined by anyone willing to look past the prejudices that blinded the original investigators. The truth about the Borden murders has been hiding in plain sight for over a century. It's time to finally give this evidence the attention it deserved and follow it to its logical conclusion: the identification of the real killer who got away with the perfect crime.

Justice was denied in 1892, but it's not too late to set the record straight. The real killer may have escaped earthly justice, but history can still render its verdict. And when all the evidence is examined fairly and thoroughly, that verdict is clear: Lizzie Borden was innocent, and the police bias that prevented a proper investigation allowed a murderer to walk free.

The 9 AM visitor, the documented bias, the ignored evidence—it all points to one inescapable conclusion: the wrong person was accused, the right person escaped, and the truth has been waiting 130 years for someone to finally pay attention to what the evidence actually says.

This investigation is based on actual police notes and court transcripts available at lizzieandrewborden.com. The documented bias and ignored evidence revealed in these primary sources demonstrates how prejudice can corrupt criminal investigations and deny justice to both victims and the wrongly accused. The evidence that proves Lizzie Borden's innocence and identifies the real killer has been hiding in plain sight for over a century—it's time to finally examine it without the bias that blinded the original investigators.

Want the whole story?  Check out "Lizzie Borden: The Lies Behind the Legend"