127 Years Later: Legend Hunter! Lizzie Borden

The other night I caught a show on the channel-that-formerly-covered-travel-but-now-is-all-about-paranormal-stuff...channel. Legend Hunter: Lizzie Borden innocent? (pay to watch) is kind of a wannabe Destination Truth and Expedition Unknown, crossed with Ghost Hunters and Finding Bigfoot. The first two shows I heartily endorse simply for the fun factor. The next two are...whatever. However, back to Legend Hunter. The premise of this episode was that host, Pat Spain, read The Man From The Train, saw the brief blurb about Lizzie Borden, then ran with it. Basically, Spain really, really, really wants to believe that Lizzie was just misunderstood and was innocent. First, Spain attempts to debunk some already established facts (i.e. Emma Borden's alibi) and fails.  He then tries to prove a serial killer could have been responsible for the murders of the Bordens. He specifically brings up Villisca! Although he never gets around to the "real" connection between the Borden murders and Villisca.  The show is essentially 45 minutes of Spain proposing alternate hypotheses in order to absolve Ms. Borden and swing the case to focus on anyone else. Particularly, a serial killer.

Legend Hunter host Pat Spain

It basically boils down to the following:

Spain: I think this is what happened. Let's ask some experts!
Expert #1: Yeah, that's not at all likely.
Expert #2: No. Probably not.
Expert #3: lol no
Spain: I'm not convinced.

Now to be fair to Pat, in his closing monologue, he finally admits defeat and acknowledges that his desire for Lizzie to be misunderstood was hard for him to overcome. The problem is, his "confession" at the end of the episode makes up roughly two minutes of of a 45 minute show. And he is still rather ambiguous about whether or not he believes Lizzie was the killer (she WAS!). Now I'm not mad about anything; the show was interesting and I'm glad he brought in actual criminal investigators to debunk things. But, man, why are we even discussing the possibility that a serial killer did this? Lizzie Borden obviously did it. She was the only one with means, motive, and opportunity. Serial killers don't kill one person in a house, then hide from other people in the house for an hour and a half, then kill another person before running off. And why is anyone comparing this case to Villisca?

Unnecessary Headaches: Wikipedia

Click the pic to go to the article

Wikipedia can be a great tool to initialize a research project but I would strongly encourage anyone writing a term paper to never quote Wikipedia directly (if ever).  You see, the problem is that the same person who might have written an article about cancer treatment also wrote the episode guides for ALF, which is okay if it just happens to be an oncologist that also is a big fan of ALF but I would guess that isn't the case.  Over the holiday I decided to look at the Wiki entry for the Villisca case, just to see what was written there; big mistake.

Problems with Profiling …

Profiling is the double edged sword of criminal investigation. On the one hand it can be beneficial in building a strategy for interrogation and investigation of suspects but on the other hand it can create false leads and throw off investigations. John Douglas, one of the FBI detectives who helped create the discipline of criminal profiling, has stated that profiling is just one tool an investigator can use to apprehend a killer. It is through hard and tireless work of detectives that crimes are solved. Historic crime hobbyists, me included, often reach for modern concepts to gain insight into crimes of the past. This can be both fun and yield some new avenues of investigation. The problem comes when people watch TV shows like CSI and Criminal Minds which tend to portray psychological profilers as some kind of warlock looking through layers of time to see the murderer. Can modern profiling be useful in historic crimes? Yes but I think there are problems when context isn’t considered.

Warlocks (and a witch) with dramatic Sunglasses of Omniscience!

Context can be a major problem when profiling a historic crime. Robert Ressler offers a profile of the killer based on the Villisca crime scene in the excellent documentary Villisca: Living with a Mystery. In his opinion the killer was a “mixed typology.” Okay, Inspector, so what? You say the same thing. Well to answer my own hypothetical (and slightly schizophrenic) question I have to point out a couple of those elements which make the crime scene disorganized.

1) Weapon left at the crime scene

2) Lots of forensic evidence (fingerprints as far as I know) left at crime scene

First of all, you have to understand the difference between criminal investigation in 1911 and criminal investigation in the 1970’s (when these typologies were proposed). Aside from the awesome soundtrack of a 1970’s investigation, there also needs to be consideration for what tools were available to an investigator at the time. The organized killer plans out the crime in large part to conceal his/her involvement. By 1970 fingerprint, fiber and blood analysis were common ways a crime was investigated. By the time the typologies of Organized, Disorganized and Mixed entered into investigations (1992) forensics had advanced geometrically in ways that a serial killer in 1911 would never have imagined. An Organized offender today would take steps to ensure no finger prints, hairs or blood (or other body fluids) was left behind at the crime scene because these are all things which modern forensics can trace back to the killer.

In 1911 the organized offender didn’t have to worry about these things at all. Investigators could barely tell if blood found at the scene was human, let alone a blood type. Fingerprint analysis was in its very early stage and it had not been used to solve a crime in the United States yet (with the exception of Bertillon anthropometry). A killer in 1911 could wipe his forehead with a handkerchief, throw it on the floor then spit and there wasn’t anything an investigator could glean from, what today would be, very damning evidence.

This leads me into the weapon being left at the scene of the crime. Organized offenders tend to not do this because often the murder weapon rolls into the fantasy being played out and also the whole forensics argument again. In 1911 discarding the weapon would have been the most effective means of concealing involvement in the crime. And it wasn’t like the killer was disposing of something relatively valuable, like a gun, it was just something he’d stolen (untraceable to him) and had no value to him at all because the next time he felt the urge to kill he could just steal another. Discarding the weapon in another spot would have also been riskier then leaving it at the crime scene. The killer wasn’t throwing the weapon into the trunk of his car and driving away, he was walking (running) to make his getaway. Carrying an axe, lead pipe or pick while doing so would slow him down and if he was stopped and questioned, that was it. He was sure to swing. One could argue that leaving the weapon at the scene was a trait of the Organized killer in 1911.

P.S. ~ The Halloween season is upon us. For those of you who found this place Googling “axe murder” or “serial killers,” welcome. Look around and leave a comment.

Rich, steamy bowls of justice to be served

Murder of the innocent is senseless but it takes a particular kind of asshole to commit a crime like this.  In December of 1959, Cliff, Christine, Debbie and Jimmy Walker were shot to death in their family home by a still unknown intruder. Christine had been sexually assaulted and Debbie, who was 23 months old, had been shot and later drowned in the bathtub. It happened in Osprey, Florida and shook up the quiet little farming community. DNA found at the scene has finally been processed and a profile developed that may finally solve the case. Laura James at CLEWS has the scoop.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has an excellent walkthrough of the crime as well.

Pardon me while I get up on this soapbox but reading through the links provided by Ms. James I was taken aback. Friends and family of the Walkers are alive this very day and can remember their warm smiles. Their memories are of people who will forever be young and never had the chance to grow old with friends and neighbors. For those who are alive the solving of this case may mean closure or vindication. This isn't the case with the crimes I, and a handful of others, are persuing.

The people most closely associated with the crimes of the Midwest Axeman are long dead. If the crimes in Colorado Springs, Monmouth, Ellsworth, Paola and Villisca are ever solved, it won't really benefit anybody. So why do we do it? With a case that is almost 100 years old it is easy to forget that the victims were innocent people too. It isn't hard to draw a parallel between young Debbie Walker being drowned in the bathtub and little Nellie Burnham being struck down as she desperately scrambled over her mother's legs. We can often disassociate ourselves from adults we do not know but, at least in my case, we have a hard time doing the same when it comes to children and more children than adults fell victim to the Midwest Axeman. The children of Ross Moore never had the chance to grow up with their cousins, Herman and Katharine. Blanche Stillinger had to live the rest of her life knowing she was the one who let her two little sisters stay with the Moores on the night of June 9, 1912, a fact which effected her raising of her own daughter.

While the principal players may all be gone the lack of justice still lingers for the victims. Most who study historic crimes know the names of the victims in Villisca but very few know the Dawson family. The Hudsons are rarely mentioned in the same sentence as the Moores and they died only four days earlier. Has anyone bothered to locate the graves of Henry, Blanche and little Lulumay Wayne? Don't get me wrong, I would like to solve these crimes because seriously, how cool would that be, but sometimes I do have to step back and remind myself the victims aren't just names on a gravestone but real people with real families and friends who mourned for them almost 100 years ago.

P.S. My apologies to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for uploading the thumbnail but the linked picture was just too big.