Unintelligent conclusions derived from poorly thought out assumptions clumsily strung together. IE., To decide the maid could conclusively hear the murder from outside on the far side of the house is ludicrous, not knowing other contributing sounds that might have been involved, including her own cleaning activities... much less, even if she had heard a nondescript thump to expect that she would conclude it was anything untoward or suspicious. That's only if it could be shown beyond doubt that Abbie actually fell to the ground in a dead fall... she could have dropped to her knees first and slowly been beaten to the floor, hit the bed first and slid to the floor, broken her fall with her hands, significantly deadening the impact... sounds like they wanted to present a specific outcome despite easily considered circumstances... I find this kind of writing to be present in many shows of this kind.
4 Reviews
Using modern forensics for a century old crime
nellybly-311 August 2007
Tends to be a bit graphic at times but there is an advisory before the program commences and coming back to it from each break.
Tom Lange, who headed the investigation in the O.J. Simpson case and who is now retired, brings police logic to the crime. He's assisted by many experts in various fields of forensics including that of psychological forensics.
They find physical evidence and get a chance to "reunite" (if, indeed, they'd met before) the hatchet head with the scarf worn by Abby Borden, Lizzie's stepmother.
The actual home, now a B & B, was used for the various conjectures on how and by whom. The reenacts really got into their roles.
By the way, I wonder why, on other films recommended, "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" which starred Elizabeth Montgomery, wasn't one of them.
Tom Lange, who headed the investigation in the O.J. Simpson case and who is now retired, brings police logic to the crime. He's assisted by many experts in various fields of forensics including that of psychological forensics.
They find physical evidence and get a chance to "reunite" (if, indeed, they'd met before) the hatchet head with the scarf worn by Abby Borden, Lizzie's stepmother.
The actual home, now a B & B, was used for the various conjectures on how and by whom. The reenacts really got into their roles.
By the way, I wonder why, on other films recommended, "The Legend of Lizzie Borden" which starred Elizabeth Montgomery, wasn't one of them.
Great Premise Poorly Done.
myk775324 June 2012
I just watched this again last night, and I have to speak up.
First I agree with another reviewer, Kat and Stefani Koorey are about as knowledgeable on the Borden Murders as anyone alive and should have had the spotlight instead of cameos.
The reenactment with the cantaloupe and the blood filled glove was truly laughable and proved nothing. As the hatchet came down, the man pulled the hatchet to him causing the cantaloupe to roll backwards and splatter his coat. Of course the splatter went back, not forward! Then he proceeds to mash the remains of the cantaloupe, and each time the hatchet gets pulled backwards. If that level of professionalism was used by this Detective in the OJ Simpson case, no wonder OJ walked! Then when the actress portraying Lizzie is shown doing the deed, she's standing in FRONT of "her father", not behind him. I've always understood it was assumed Mr. Borden was attacked from behind. They did the cantaloupe test (as it were) from behind...yet they show Lizzie attacking from the front?
That was just one of many nonsensical tests and theories presented. Nothing I've ever read in any of the various Lizzie books ever mentioned that Bridget took offense at being called "Maggie". Also, when this was filmed, there was a printing business next door and the building was attached to the side of the Borden house where Bridget, in 1892, was washing windows that morning. In order for the sound test to be preformed to see if Bridget lied about not hearing anything when Abby Borden was attacked, they had to do the test from INSIDE the home. (That printing business building has since been removed and the Borden home has been restored back to it's original state.)
And who's to say Abby fell? Abby most likely turned away and went down to her knees on her own accord trying to protect herself, as the first blow was from the front. Or maybe she was leaning or kneeling down when the first blow hit, after all she was making up the bed and very little blood splatter was on the bedding.
This was a stellar idea, an opportunity to apply forensic science to an enduring Victorian mystery and possibly come up with some new information. Instead it was turned into a joke...a real hatchet job even Lizzie would laugh at. Keystone cops indeed!
First I agree with another reviewer, Kat and Stefani Koorey are about as knowledgeable on the Borden Murders as anyone alive and should have had the spotlight instead of cameos.
The reenactment with the cantaloupe and the blood filled glove was truly laughable and proved nothing. As the hatchet came down, the man pulled the hatchet to him causing the cantaloupe to roll backwards and splatter his coat. Of course the splatter went back, not forward! Then he proceeds to mash the remains of the cantaloupe, and each time the hatchet gets pulled backwards. If that level of professionalism was used by this Detective in the OJ Simpson case, no wonder OJ walked! Then when the actress portraying Lizzie is shown doing the deed, she's standing in FRONT of "her father", not behind him. I've always understood it was assumed Mr. Borden was attacked from behind. They did the cantaloupe test (as it were) from behind...yet they show Lizzie attacking from the front?
That was just one of many nonsensical tests and theories presented. Nothing I've ever read in any of the various Lizzie books ever mentioned that Bridget took offense at being called "Maggie". Also, when this was filmed, there was a printing business next door and the building was attached to the side of the Borden house where Bridget, in 1892, was washing windows that morning. In order for the sound test to be preformed to see if Bridget lied about not hearing anything when Abby Borden was attacked, they had to do the test from INSIDE the home. (That printing business building has since been removed and the Borden home has been restored back to it's original state.)
And who's to say Abby fell? Abby most likely turned away and went down to her knees on her own accord trying to protect herself, as the first blow was from the front. Or maybe she was leaning or kneeling down when the first blow hit, after all she was making up the bed and very little blood splatter was on the bedding.
This was a stellar idea, an opportunity to apply forensic science to an enduring Victorian mystery and possibly come up with some new information. Instead it was turned into a joke...a real hatchet job even Lizzie would laugh at. Keystone cops indeed!
Don't bother
phaye21 August 2007
Of all the documentaries and specials titled "In Search of This", "In Search of That", "Most (fill in the blank" features - this documentary is the absolute worst. The only engaging thing about it was the house model of 92 Second Street - something never seen before...that was cool. And I was pleasantly surprised by the voices of the two spinster sisters, Correys. They got all dressed up and traveled a thousand miles to be interviewed resulting in about 2 minutes viewing after all the editing. It would have been to the project's advantage and resulted in a better documentary if the director had engaged THEM in more case conversation instead of Lang and the other guy who was, as proved by my lack of recall here, forgettable, because those sisters were ten times more informed than they were. If all the Borden case documentaries were rated 1 to 10, 10 being the best.... This gets an unequivocal ZERO.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
