Character Analysis: Lizzie Borden

No Justice in Massachusetts! In the year 1892 in Massachusetts, a young woman was convicted of brutally murdering her parents. Although everyone in the town said she was guilty, at the end of the trial she was dropped of all charges and given the verdict of not guilty. Despite all the evidence against her, she was set free. In the state of Massachusetts, justice wasn 't served in the murders of Andrew and Abby Borden.
Lizzie Borden was born in 1860, when she was two years old her mother Sarah Morse Borden passed away. Only three years later her father remarried Abby Durfee Gray. Lizzie saw Abby as her mother up until the year 1887, when she stopped calling her mother out
Around 11 o 'clock she heard the youngest Borden daughter Lizzie cry out that her father had been murdered. Almost half an hour later, Abby 's body was found and she had met the same fate. Killed by being hacked to death with an axe, instead of the 81 whacks the popular children 's rhyme suggests it was only 29. When the coroners came they came to the conclusion that Abby was killed at least 90 minutes earlier than Andrew. Her body was found cold, while his was still warm. The interview notes say that Lizzie insisted quite a few times that Abby was her step-mother not her mother and she needed to be called as such. I understand that Abby wasn 't her biological mother but as stated in the previous paragraph she called her mother until she was 27, not to mention she married Lizzie 's father when Lizzie was just 5 years old. This suggests that she could have started to resent Abby for replacing Sarah(her mother). Also looking through the notes I saw that Andrew transferred a family property to Abby 's sister and Lizzie was infuriated when she found out. This could be her motive for killing him, along with hoping she received all of the property left
If that was the case she could have just thrown it out like a normal person. I could understand if it was red paint and she didn 't want them assuming. But if it was red paint then they could have seen the difference. Seems to me like she had all the opportunity to kill them, the motive behind it, and had all the evidence pointing to her; yet they still said she wasn 't guilty. Truthfully I think they gave her this verdict because she was a woman. Women typically aren 't thought of being capable of something of that degree. They are looked at as kindhearted, and sweet, not cold-heated murderers. The article states that a few days before the murders Lizzie went to a local merchant and sought to purchase prussic acid. Which she stated was going to be used to clean a sealskin cloak. Could she have planned to use this to poison them? Also it stated that when she saw the skulls she fainted. Could she have been feeling guilty? Or sickened by what she had done? Sadly, we will never know, because "In an era when women were considered the “weaker” sex and female murderers were nearly unheard of" (Maranzani