What was missing from the Lizzie Borden case?

Answer 1

Jennings was refering to a lack of phyisical evidence against his client Lizzie Borden. The broken hatchett could not be absolutely determined to be the murder weapon. Lizzie's lack of blood on her person should exonorate her, theory being that the killer would have had to have been covered in blood. Jennings declared that Lizzie had no motive to murder her parents. These were the most important points made by the defense.

Answer 2

Most notably absent from the Borden case was the murder weapon. Found after the killings in the Borden's basement was a broken and bloody hatchett assumed to be the weapon used to kill the elder Bordens. Lizzie claimed the blood was that of a chicken that was beheaded for the Borden's dinner table. In 1892 forensics were almost nonexistant, so whether it was or wasn't was hard to prove. It was also said to be rust, once again, it was a hard point to prove.

Also missing was a viable aliby for Lizzie. Her somewhat disjointed and slightly rambling account of her whereabouts on the morning of the murders took many twists and turns, not all of them making much sense. Her version of events would change and take on different forms from her first interrigation with police to her days on the witness stand at her trial.

But most conspicuously absent was the jury's common sense. Had Lizzie Borden been a man, the outcome of the trial would most likely have been very different. In Victorian-era America, women, especially women of Miss Borden's class, were gentle and incapable of violence, and these steriotypes were what ultimately won an aquittal for Lizzie.

Answer 3

Evidence