O.J. Simpson and Lizzie Borden: Gender or Greed?

Discussion in 'Women's Issues' started by anonymousgurl21, May 31, 2006.

  1. "lizzie borden took an axe,
    and gave her mother forty whacks.
    when she saw what she had done--
    she gave her father forty-one."~unknown

    o.j. simpson murdered nicole (IMO). plus the other unfortunate soul, that just happened to be there at the wrong time. period. o.j. had the opportunity, motive, and delusional right to entitlement. yet he got away with murder. how come? because he had the money to do so. an expensive lawyer can accomplish much in this country. in the same way that miss lizzie borden did so (she killed her father and stepmother), and got away w/murder more than 100 years ago (IMO). so what does this honestly tell us? are men more evil than women? ummmm, i don't think so. is money the root of all evil? yes, more than likely. i mean, when o.j. and miss lizzie can stay out of the american prison system (thanks to their wealth)--what does that honestly say about america? i think it says that money talks, huh?

    but never underestimate the wisdom and power of "the people". o.j. and lizzie might have bought their "not guilty" verdicts? but many (if not most) folks in the community saw through the farce. and treated them like pariahs accordingly. so perhaps it's really not an issue of gender after all? but how money and power corrupt? and how o.j. simpson and lizzie borden are only 2 examples of that? (don't get me started on the more recent ones! lol.)

    much peace and love to you all,

  2. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    The two crimes had little in common, and were separated by nearly 100 years. I don't see the connection. There have been a million murders, with the perps found guilty or not guilty, between the two. I don't see any connection at all.
  3. Inquiring-Mind

    Inquiring-Mind Senior Member

    Money is power.
  4. well, apart from the whole gender issue (i took a peek at the "men are evil" thread in the men's issues section), and did not agree that most men are evil. in the same way i don't agree that most women are evil. so the point i was trying to make is this: women can also murder a family member in an especially brutal (evil) way. and it's not a recent thing.

    in addition, both murderers were wealthy. both court cases got world-wide media attention (and made o.j. simpson and lizzie borden infamous. if not famous). both murderers were found not guilty (by the american judicial system). yet judged as quite guilty by many in the public. and treated like pariahs. so women are just as capable of evil acts (lizzie killed her father and stepmother (IMO) because she wanted to inherit most of the considerable family fortune). so she was motivated by greed. i guess i just don't see men as being exclusively "evil". and wanted to give an example of a woman that killed family members (like o.j), and got away with her crimes. simply because she could afford to do so. so perhaps it's not a gender issue at all. but money and power?

    much peace and love to you,

  5. yes, sad but true. and power can corrupt.

  6. sugrmag

    sugrmag Uber Nerd

    So, are you saying OJ killed them because he was greedy, too? I don't see the connection, either. There are a lot of factors that contributed to both acquittals. The cases aren't similar in any aspect whatsoever.
  7. DancerAnnie

    DancerAnnie Resident Beach Bum

    O.J. got off because he was famous...plain and simple. It had nothing to do with him being a man.
  8. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    IF you beleive that Lizzy Borden was guilty. I am a bit of a Victorian Crime buff, Jack the Ripper that kind of thing. From what I have researched, I don't think she did it. She and her sister inherited the money equally, and her father had an "illegitamate" son, who not only had good reason to commit the crime, but was seen in the area in the hours that it may have taken place.

    Whether she was guilty or not, I still don't get how this is a womyn's issue.
  9. yes, i think she was guilty. and i am a bit of a victorian crime buff myself. i'd still like to know the true identity of jack the ripper. especially since it involved violent crimes against women.

    if you take a peek at the court transcripts from the case (they are available): you will see that lizzie constantly changed her story about what she was doing on the day of the murders. why the need to fib? also, she was seen burning a dress w/red stains on it. not even a few days after the murders. and she claimed it was paint stains (not blood). hmmmmm. rather curious, huh? in addition, lizzie openly despised her stepmother, and her father was on the brink of changing the family will (so that lizzie and emma--her sister--got the least of the family fortune. and the stepmother the most.) then suddenly the murders occurred. rather odd, that, huh?

    i'm convinced she did it. and i am not alone in my opinion. several books and articles have been published on the subject. yes, some say everybody from the maid to an escaped mental patient was actually the killer. but several authors believe lizzie did it. and so do i. based on motive and the evidence. and i see this as a women's issue, because i am trying to be fair, and give an example of how women can be just as "evil" as men. and become motivated by greed. and commit violent crimes accordingly. and quite frankly, i am not the first person to notice how similar the cases are. no matter the fact that a hundred years separated the two:

    1. simpson and borden both were wealthy.
    2. they murdered family members.
    3. they were able to afford "exclusive" lawyers that bought them their freedom.
    4. both cases became a world-wide sensation (lizzie borden's case is the 19th century equivalent of the o.j. simpson case.) everybody was talking about it. and many people were dubious about the "not guilty" verdict.
    5. both lizzie and o.j. were/are suspected of still being guilty by the public. despite the verdict.

    and so my point is that women can be just as evil as men. just as greedy. and feel insanely entitled. although simpson was outraged that nicole no longer wanted him. whereas lizzie borden was outraged that her stepmother ( a woman she could not stand) was to receive the bulk of the family fortune (in the event of her father's death). the illegitmate son did not profit from the murders. but lizzie and her sister certainly did. hugely. lizzie bought an enormous mansion not even a year after the murders. also, a pharmacist identified lizzie as a known customer that had been trying to buy arsenic (to clean a seal skin cape?), a mere couple of months before the murders. she became outraged when he refused to give her what she wanted. and she began circulating rumors that somebody was trying to kill her and her family. just a few weeks before her father and stepmother were brutally killed. yet lizzie (although in the same house), did not have a scratch on her.

    oh, she conveniently claimed she was in the "quite dusty" barn. out in back. looking for lead "sinkers" for a future fishing trip? huh? during one of the hottest days of the year? (the murders happened in august.) as odd as her answer was, what was even more odd is that no footprints were found in the upper part of the barn. where she claimed she had just been. despite years of dust. so she changed her answer to: "i was eating pears out in our yard." yet the maid (cleaning the outside windows) never saw lizzie eating any pairs in the yard. but did see lizzie "inside" the house. all day long. when the murders took place.


    ps. emma was able to prove she was not in the house on the day of the murders. she was, in fact, not even in town. given that this was during Victorian times, and travel was a slow thing at best, it is not likely at all that emma was the killer. the opportunity was just not there. in addition, both sisters were not even speaking to each other, not long after the crimes. and emma lived a very humble and "invisible" life. while lizzie was forever living the life of a woman of great wealth. off of her dead father's money:

    lots of servants and such. and expensive gowns, and going on trips around the world. she seemed to enjoy it. even if many townspeople felt she was behaving inappropriately. (her "mourning" period did not seem to be a lengthy thing at all. and why should it?) she was caught shoplifting (with her many millions?!) later in life. and when a book was eventually published about the borden murders, she attempted to buy all copies, and have them destroyed....
  10. ihmurria

    ihmurria fini

    if that sums up the point of this thread, I don't think anyone is gonna disagree with you

    feminism/women's movement (in my eyes at least) was trying to promote gender equality, not subjucate men. To realize that both men and women have equal potential for help and harm. I don't think that's a debateable point, really
  11. i agree.


Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice