Last week, you heard the prosecution story, a house locked from the inside, two people murdered, and every circumstance pointing towards a bitter daughter.

Lizzie Borden had the motive, years of resentment toward her stepmother Abby, and fear she'd lose her inheritance.

She had the opportunity, too, as the only one home that morning.

So there she was, on trial for murder, facing the incriminating evidence, a hatchet found in the

cellar, the dress she burned days later, and the story of a note police say never existed.

But in the courtroom, there are always two stories, and the defense painted a very different picture.

They said the Commonwealth's version was built for headlines, not for truth,

that investigators, desperate to solve a gruesome crime, built their case on shaky ground.

No eyewitnesses, no confession, no proven weapon, just theory, speculation, and suspicion.

And suspicion, they reminded the jury, is not enough to send a woman to the gallows.

As the defense took the floor, they opened a door the prosecution had tried desperately to keep shut.

And with it, came a question

that still echoes more than a century later. Was Lizzie ever really alone in that house?

This is 13 juror podcast, where we break down real court cases and put you in the juror's seat.

Two sides, the same evidence. You decide what

to believe. I'm your host, Brandy Churchwell. Today's episode is Massachusetts v. Lizzie Borden.

Part two, the defense may The defense began by asking a simple question. What if the state was wrong? From the start,

the defense made it clear this wasn't a story about guilt. It was a story about blindness.

How investigators were so certain they'd found their killer, they stopped looking for anyone

else. They told the jury the prosecution's case was built on assumptions,

and their so-called evidence was a house of cards,

circumstantial, inconsistent, and most of all, incomplete.

...