Customer Reviews

Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Borden fans should check out this wonderful book which presents "just the facts" of the murder case. As many people know, "Fall River Tragedy" by Porter is considered THE BIBLE as far as Lizzie lore goes...but Kent points out that Porter was a yellow journalist whose book was a re-hashing of his numerous, sensationalized newspaper articles of the day. Furthermore, Porter was one-sided against Lizzie. Let's stop looking to Porter as the definitive text on the case, and give Kent a try...he doesn't offer any solution, but at least he doesn't offer any biases and nonsense either.

The MOST important new evidence is the fact that a fairly new hatchet was used (the shred of gilt paint in Abby's skull) - not reported in the past; the old hatchet found in the basement could NOT have been the murder weapon! The "Harvard Perjury" was the testimony preceded by "I believe that ..." the old hatchet was the murder weapon. The common sense jury knew that the hatchet head was SAWN off, not broken off.

The chapter on rumors carries the full text of the anonymous letter from Albany (most likely Joseph Carpenter?) sent to both the Prosecutor and the Marshall. The misspelled "Bordon" name is just a sample of "plausible denial", in case somebody (with a hatchet) came to talk to him. The letter that was later found on a Rome NY street pointing to J. Carpenter was a way to get even; somebody connected with the case wasn't fooled.

This book is a very good complementary to Arnold R. Brown's "final chapter" on the case - as good a solution as you can find after a century.

Edward Radin's 1961 book re-investigated the case, and talked to some contemporaries who knew Lizzie. He was the first to show Pearson's biased reporting, and had his own solution (based on his own experiences as a crime reporter).

The 1973 book by Robert Sullivan, lawyer and judge, provides another point of view. His opinion that "there was enough evidence to convict" shows prejudgment of the case. His book quotes Judge Justin Dewey's charge to the jury, as true and important today as a century ago. He interviewed Abby Borden Whitehead Potter, Abby's niece (and Godchild?).

The most important thing about this case was the condition of the blood of the victims. Red and liquid for freshly-killed Andrew, black and clotted for Abby (predeceased for over an hour). Think about that in a more recent case!

The through research and impartiality of the author makes this book a must on anyone's booklist who is interested in the Lizzie Borden legend. Mr. Kent provides you with testimonies from all the characters involved in this real-life murder mystery and allows you to judge the facts for yourself. A throughly entertaining book which may leave you with the question -- Who really murdered Andrew and Abby Borden

After recently reviewing this book, I would like to add one other important detail which is the crux of Mr. Brown's argument: what evidence/proof does he have for the existence of the "Mellen (Mellon) House Gang"? All communities have their respective political machines, but if Mr. Brown could substantiate this in more detail, then (along with the geneology documentation of William Borden) he would really make a case for "the final chapter."

I've read most, though not all, of the books on Lizzie Borden and I think that this is easily the best. This is the most complete and unbiased presentation of the facts. Kent looks very carefully at a variety of evidence, including the contradictory. I think that Kent would like to believe her innocent, but this remains very even-handed and presents evidence for guilt as well as innocence. In the end, he concludes, correctly I believe, that this is no way to resolve the matter one way or the other, and he doesn't indulge in wild speculation.

I don't have strong opinions on whether Lizzie Borden was guilty or not, but I agree with Kent that the evidence for a verdict "beyond reasonable doubt" simply wasn't there. This is not to be confused with concluding that she was innocent.

After this book, I would recommend Edward Radin's Lizzie Borden: The untold story (A Dell book), which shares with this book the virtue of an author who actually weighed the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Whether or not one agrees with Radin that she was innocent, he did a lot of valuable research. I would also recommend Robert Sullivan's Goodbye Lizzie Borden, with some reservations. Sullivan apparently never considered the possiblity that she didn't do it. He presents a convincing case that she might have gotten away with it even if she was guilty, but this isn't the same thing as proving guilt.

This very readable book provided new evidence on the life and legend of Lizzie Borden, who was found 'not guilty' of a double murder. The book lists the people involved, and a Bibliography of books, short stories, plays, an opera, a ballet, and articles and essays. It lacks an index. David Kent provides "the essence of historical truth" in this one best book on this topic. DK simply laid out the facts to let the reader come to his own conclusion, unlike other writers. Many are fascinated by that brutal slaying that remains an unsolved crime. The Preface provides a summary of previous books with his evaluations; he omits the books of Robert Sullivan and Arnold R. Brown. E.H. Porter was biased against Lizzie.

Andrew Jackson Borden was the president of a Fall River bank and on the board of directors of three others. He owned substantial properties and was a director of three major textile mills. Fall River was famous for its cotton industry since the Civil War. DK quotes the 'Daily Herald' for the first news of the murders. There was a farm hand who wanted money from Mr. Borden (see Bertha Manchester?). There were imprints of two men in the hay (when?). The Medical Examiner said Mrs. Borden was killed by a tall man who struck from behind. A suspicious man was seen in the morning. The police searched high and low for any suspicious strangers. Lizzie said she had dressed to go shopping; after the murders she changed out of her morning dress. The 'Daily Herald' of August 5 sums up the problems for a concealed murderer (pp.25-30). Only two people were left alive that morning. Bridget was not a suspect after the first day. The jury said Lizzie wasn't guilty. Who was left?

Chapter 4 tells of the problem in timing from 10:45 to 11:15. DK suggests falsified testimony from Bridget and Lizzie (p.36). That Friday evening Morse sneaked out of the house, unseen by the crowd in front or the police guarding the property. Could another have done this Thursday morning? What was the motive? Was the survivor the real killer (p.56)? Knowlton admitted he expected a not guilty verdict (p.78)! Chapter 8 tells of the crank letters and confessions, mostly anonymous (note the one from Albany NY). Reporter Henry Trickey was set up with a hoax story. Chapter 9 tells of the media circus and the beginning of the trial. Lizzie could not have done it unless she were insane, but there was not evidence of insanity or that she committed the murders. The house was searched room-by-room, each garment was examined on the outside, then turned inside out. ME Dolan said the killer was left-handed; Lizzie was right-handed.

Chapter 12 mentions the cover-up by the Harvard Doctors who were prosecution witnesses; they withheld exculpatory evidence. There was no weapon, no bloodstained clothing, no hard motive, no eyewitnesses. Chapter 15 had the defense summation, still valid and valuable. In Chapter 16 Knowlton says there was a skeleton in the Borden household! At the end of the trial Justice Dewey addressed the jury that quickly acquitted Lizzie (Chapter 17). After the verdict a crowd of 2,000 gathered at the murder scene, but Lizzie and Emma stayed away (Chapter 18). The Epilogue tells us that a 'not guilty' verdict was not accepted by the masses; the stigma of the indictment and trial remained. "Verdict first, then the trial" is not just from 'Alice in Wonderland'. Can this happen again?

Lizzie Borden took a hike,
After Mother got nineteen strikes,
While she was out of doors,
Her Father took eleven more.

The name of Lizzie Borden is ranked high in the pantheon of American criminal history. Few know the true story and assume Lizzie, who was in her 30's at the time of the event, was found guilty of double murder. In line with this, few realize no person was ever convicted for the murders of Lizzie's father and step-mother.

In writing "Forty Whacks", David Kent makes a thorough effort in setting the record straight including accounts of the event that were omitted from other works. Even in the words of District Attorney Hosea Knowlton, Lizzie likely had some knowledge of the murder, but was unlikely to be the murderer (p. 79). In Kent's account, it seems to show that Fall River needed vengence for the murders and Lizzie was an easy target for prosecuters. In reading the case against Lizzie, the glaring flaws make bringing the case to trial somewhat baffling as jury deliberation was brief.

Because Lizzie Borden did not spend the rest of her adult life behind bars, the final chapters' look at her reclusive life after the trial was revealing. Kind to animals and frequently donating her wealth, she hardly maintained the exterior of a hardened murderer.

Perhaps the aspect of the book that I most appreciate is that Kent allows the reader to decide Lizzie's guilt in his/her own mind. A lifetime of research made Kent equipped to present the case to the public in his book. Despite his knowledge, the leanings of Kent are difficult to perceive.

I was very disappointed. The "new evidence" was extremely minor, and as contradictory as most of the other evidence in the case. The author is completely convinced of Lizzie's innocence,and points the entire book to that viewpoint. He does not present the inquest testimony, saying it all comes out in the trial.

Kent is very biased in favor of Lizzies innocence...was he serious when he wrote early in the book that Lizzies accusers cast her as intelligent and cunning...if so extremely lucky, or manical and crazy walking through a minefield and again being lucky...WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! OK, so an intruder is supposed to be even luckier with TWO possible witnesses!!! Let us be for real! Victoria Lincolns book is far superior...and I don't even buy her claim of epilipsy. (Victoria Lincoln can be forgiven for trying to give Lizzie an excuss...) Kent stated early on that he would let the facts lay where they may and let the reader decide...as long as they don't decide that Lizzie was the one...we are constantly reminded...Read Lincoln's account, it's facinating!