Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay explaining why lizzie borden is guilty
An essay explaining why lizzie borden is guilty
An essay explaining why lizzie borden is guilty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay explaining why lizzie borden is guilty
Imagine being wrongfully trialled for the murders of your father and stepmother. Well, this was Lizzie Borden’s reality in the notorious 19th century case. In August, 1892, the gruesome murders of Andrew and Abby Borden took place in a small town named Fall River. Because Lizzie Borden was believed to have a lot to gain with the murders of her parents, she was the only one accused of being the murder. With this case, I believe the council was right for pleading Lizzie as innocent. The public and police tried to use theories against her in court to prove she was guilty. With the whole public against her, Lizzie still stood strong and was proven innocent for the murders. First of all, a theory that the public made up to use against her was that …show more content…
In article #2, it explains,” Lizzie Borden cared for her father very deeply. There was a tremendous outpouring of grief in the letters, and that’s a new side of the story.” The letters were from Lizzie’s lawyer’s journal during the trial. The rare journal contained the raw letter’s Lizzie wrote while in her cell. Along with the letters, there were many close family friends that came forward and said that it was highly unlikely for Lizzie to want to kill her parents because they had a good relationship. Some even speculated that Lizzie killed her step-mother because in interviews, she would not refer Abby as ‘mother”. Lizzie used to refer Abby as “mother” but as she got older, it felt wrong. During her interviews, Lizzie showed her grieving side, that many wanted to dismiss and still portray her as someone evil. When really deep down, she was …show more content…
Lizzie Borden lived a pleasant life before the murders. Many believe that because Andrew didn’t buy everything and didn’t waste his money on Lizzie, that he was putting her at a disadvantage. So, it rumored that this was “Lizzie’s drive to kill her father”. In article #2, it explains, “Borden’s father, Andrew Borden, became known as an evil man who did not provide for his daughters. But Martins says the journals and letters paint Andrew Borden differently.” Mr. Borden was a wealthy man, but he did not live in a new modern house or have luxurious household items. Not spending all of his money on brand new appliances would mean that in the end, Lizzie and her sister would inherit a lot more money. Furthermore, this would later on put them at an advantage because they wouldn’t have to worry about money in the later years. Mr. Borden wanted his girls to live a good life throughout it all, so he was saving for their futures. Andrew Borden not providing for Lizzie would not be a lead on why Lizzie would murder him, because he gave her a no money-stress
The Abigail Hobbs trial was one of many of the Salem Witch Trial. People often had to face the court for a crime they did not do commit. Fortunately enough Abigail Hobbs was one of the people accused who was somewhat educated. Her tone and behavior was calm and collected while facing the people who determined her faith. Some people who were charged with these crimes were uneducated and could not defend themselves. Abigail Hobbs went along with court when she was on trial she agreed with them to hopefully save her life.
Lizzie said that she was in the barn during the time of the murders. She had told her Sister, Emma Borden that she was out in the backyard during the time of the murders. In the Hyman Lubinsky testimony he states “Saw a lady come out the way from the barn right to the stairs back of the house, the north side stairs” (1). Hyman Lubinsky had also said that it couldn’t have been the maid because he knew the maid well enough to know if it was her. In the Adelaide Churchill testimony she says that she asked Lizzie where she was during the murders. Lizzie answered “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron” (1). Lizzie had also said that she was on the bottom floor of the barn. She had then switched it up and said that she was on the top floor of the barn. Lizzie had said what she could see from the windows in the barn, and it changed on what she could see. Her story is always changing. There is no way to tell where she was on the day of the murders. The barn was found
Lizzie went through many trials. Lizzie was not the only one who was put on trial for the murders. Lizzie was the one who had the most trials. Every trial Lizzie went to, she was found innocent. The truth will never be known. Lizzie will be the only person to ever know the truth. Lizzie took that truth with her when she died. We can only think we know the truth, but none of us will ever really know the truth.
Before reading historian Marilynne K. Roach’s Six Women of Salem: The Untold Story of the Accused and Their Accusers in the Salem Witch Trials, it must be clear that I hadn’t known much about the Salem Witch Trials besides what knowing they were in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692-93. I only recognized that there were a few unfortunate women who had been accused of being witches, sentenced to their deathbeds, and brutally burned in front of the whole town. After reading Roach’s book, I’ve found out that this thought alone was false because none of the accused were meant to be burned at all but instead the whole town was called out to watch these women being hung. It created an example for the town and explained to them the consequences of being convicted of witchcraft. What I’m now recognizing is what I did ignore: how it came to be and how it all ended, who was accused, and was giving these accusations out.
and she made sure people knew it. But was this merely a mask to cover a cowardly
lectured she was often booed and hissed at. She suffered much at the hands of
Imagine that someone is accused of doing a crime and went to jail and died there, but then new evidence came up and that person was proven innocent. The people in the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller, would have the same fate. The play takes place in Salem, Massachusetts during the 1700s, during the witchcraft trials. People were being convicted of being a witch, just like what happened to John Procter during the Salem witch trials. Injustice of the courts is shown in Miller's The Crucible as well as in the unfortunate case of Robert “Bob” Doyle.
Some scholars attempt to make the claim that she was the turning point of the trials due to the fact that people began to wonder if someone as devout as Rebecca could be accused, what’s to say that any other innocent person could be thereafter accused? However this has been very difficult to prove as trials went on long after her death, and Martha Corey, another accused, can be considered for that role in the following trials (Smith). Surely her family had been jumping for joy at that verdict, but the happiness did not last long at all, when the public demanded a reconsideration on the jury’s decision, consequently ending in an overturning of the non-guilty result (Hansen 128-129). While this is considerably the worst possible situation for Rebecca, it did seem to be the wake-up call for the judges and priests, though this reaction was not instantaneous. Why did so many of these professional judges and jury members ignore their responsibilities by overturning their original judgement when she was so clearly
Patty Hearst was a normal 19 year old girl, living in an apartment with her fiance and attending university in Berkeley, California, until one day her life, and the lives of everyone around her changed forever. On the evening of February 4, 1974, some members of the left-wing radical group called the Symbionese Liberation Army barged into Hearst’s home armed with guns, and beat up her fiance before kidnapping Hearst and bringing her to their house where she was kept blindfolded in a closet for 59 days. While locked in the closet, Patty Hearst was verbally and sexually abused and she was denied the use of even a toilet or toothbrush if she didn’t tell them that she agreed with the group’s ideas and beliefs. It is believed that while being locked in the closet like this, Patty was being brainwashed by the SLA and that she may have even developed Stockholm Syndrome, a condition in which a person who was kidnapped starts to empathise with their captor, and even starts defending them. This is how the Symbionese Liberation Army convinced Patty Hearst to join their group. They released an audio tape to the public in which Patty Hearst said she was changing her name to Tania and that she had decided to join the SLA. She then helped the SLA rob a bank and steal an ammunition belt from a sports store. After this, she started travelling around the country with two members of the SLA named John and Emily Harris, to try avoid being captured by the police. During this time, the police found a house where some members of the SLA were hiding out. Attempts to make the SLA members surrender ended up in a massive gunfight, ultimately ending up in the deaths of 6 SLA members. The FBI eventually found and arrested Patty Hearst on September 18, 1975. T...
...already had a predetermined verdict. They were automatically determined to be guilty, even though there was a lot of evidence that they were innocent including one of the victims (Ruby Bates) eventually defending the Boys. Besides all the problems this case revealed, it also showed that there was good in society. Facing the possibility of death, Samuel Leibowitz still defended the Boys as much as he could. The second judge that presided over the case actually followed the law and prevented any harm from coming to the Boys.
excused it on the pretense that her views reflected the past times in which she
In 1915, an unjust tragedy occurred. Leo M. Frank was lynched because he was thought to be guilty for the murder of 14-year-old Mary Phagan. However, was he actually guilty of the crime he was convicted for? More or less, Leo Frank was a victim of press influencing public opinion, the need for Hugh Dorsey (the prosecutor) to have a successful case, and racial prejudice of the time. Contrary to public opinion, Leo Frank was not guilty for murdering Mary Phagan.
In conclusion to the defending of Margaret Atwood scapegoating really is not the right way to experience success because you should not make someone else take the blame for what you have done you should take your punishment and move on with your life. Therefore in the “Crucible” and “Half-Hanged Mary” there happened to be a lot of scapegoating going on so that others could stay out of trouble which made people that did not do what they got scapegoated for to have to take the blame and get someone else's
Abigail Williams did what she did so her and her friends could harvest attention from the people of Salem. Judge Danforth was ignorant of the fact that verbal evidence is very unreliable just because he wanted to be correct about every decision in the trials. Thomas Putnam accuses several people in Salem of personal gain of land and money. Many people were charged as guilty but in reality they were innocent, the only people who were actually guilty are Abigail Williams, Judge Danforth, and Thomas Putnam.
was raised by an upper-class family who resented her and did not want her, therefore