1. "Little Bird"
Posted by Kat on Jun-3rd-03 at 5:35 AM

William had sent over a full-sized facsimile of the "Little Bird" letter written by Lizzie.

It is also in the Galleries, as "A LIZZIE ARTIFACT", LABVM/L.

The significance of William's copy was that it happened to be lying sideways on my dining table as Stef passed by.  I took it up to show her and she took one look and said, "Doesn't that look like hatchet strokes?"  She had a gleam in her eye and I got goose-bumps.  I walked her out to her car and after she left I examined the letter more closely.
Stef, who has studied graphology, had noticed something unique, and walked away with a secret smile.  Thanks Bill!
Here is what was noticed:







(Message last edited Jun-3rd-03  6:12 AM.)

They sure do look like hatchet strokes, but who put them there?  The page with the strokes looks identical to the first page of the letter.  Is it, in fact, a "first draft" that Lizzie herself crossed out and rewrote?

Kat added the lines in order to better illustrate the severity of the angle of Lizzie's handwriting.

Oooo, now thats creepy!  Sure enough, those look like the hatchet strokes to Andrew's face and Abby's head. All of Lizzie's upper loops are almost closed and reach the same angle of slant.  Good work, you two! 

i love it!  this might be the closest thing to proof we ever get.

Sorry Robert Harry.  I was not explicit.  Thank you for asking.
I am not great at drawing straight lines, at all, either.

Someone is bound to come along and say Lizzie was taught to write this way?  (Do you think?)

But it really WAS creepy!

Here's what Victoria Lincoln had to say about Lizzie's handwriting
From "A Private Disgrace", page 126 --

"...she was justly proud of her handwriting, for every scrap of it that has been saved is as bland, inhuman, and void of character as the sample lines that used to be printed at the top of the old Palmer-method copy books."

Methinks the Koorey sisters could have shown Ms Lincoln a thing or two!

This is just one of the many reasons I don't particularly like Lincoln's book.  She is way too petty and even takes digs at Lizzie's handwriting.  Geez, give it a break Vicky.

I find her handwriting quite nice -- and it's readable. 

That note does not appear to be written on lined paper but did you notice how straight across the bottom of the lines are? I have an English aunt who writes very similar, so straight you would swear she used a ruler. But she doesn't.

I'm hoping that since Lizzie is 40 here in this sample, then we can ASSUME
she has adapted it to her own personality, regardless of school-age training.
Unless of course she never grew out of her *girlishness*.?

I have to agree, Harry.  So far I've been pretty disappointed with VL's book.  "Petty" is right!  I couldn't believe how nasty she was while writing about Abby.

(Message last edited Jun-3rd-03  1:56 PM.)

I've loved Lincoln's book for years, and I still think she's right in  a few particulars, but, BOY, does she take liberties!

For example, how does she know that Lizzie was "justly proud" of her penmanship?  A quote?  Okay.  Source?  Nay, methinks novelist Lincoln just thought it sounded good.

Her most outrageous claim may be that "Lizzie could not, in fact, bear to be rebuffed, even by a child."  All of these comments go toward fashioning her depiction of boring, gauche, calculating Lizzie, but she (Lincoln) is skating on very thin ice in terms of any factual back-up.  It's too bad the judges for the Edgar Award (which Lincoln won) didn't have any Bordenologists among them, to question some of Lincoln's claims.   

I too have loved Lincoln's book for years, but, she dragged me out onto that thin ice with her!  I have believed so many misconceptions about this case because of her, ugh! 

Sometimes it feels like we come here to be unbrainwashed by Lincoln and that Legend movie.

Here, here!  I would totally have to agree with that, Kat!  And, I'm still learning and unlearning as I go. 

i thought it odd how she made an issue whenever possible about how fat abby was.  that she "waddled" and so forth.  and that she had no life.  you can do that when you actually don't know someone.

I don't see how anyone as loathesome as V. Lincoln ever
even survived childhood -- I bet she was held down & had
marbles stuck up her nose for being so obnoxious. I hate
that book -- she is appalling in the amount of personal
shots she takes at all the people involved.

Perhaps she was the Kitty Kelly of her day. I remember a few years back picking up her tell-all bio of Nancy Reagan. I'm not a Nancy fan, but even I was offended by that book and put it down after a few chapters. Yuk! 

I love Kitty Kelly.
I don't often believe her tho.
I usually read other bio's on her subject and then read her for amusement.

and how about where she claims to know that lizzie was just not imaginative enough to have a lesbian relationship?

I'm not defending Lincoln, but I knew quite a few men who prided themselves on their fine penmanship. Somewhat rare for most men. Most women seem to naturally do it well, when young at least.

Books are written to sell commercially! Even academic histories are not 1000% true (human error). Lincoln's work came after E Radin's solution, then G Gross' editing(?) of E Pearson's 1935 work.

One factor for commercial sale is length and cost. About 320 pages seems right, check your library and bookstore. Anything over 600 pages will be costly, and not likely to be picked up by general readers. IMO

"Fat" has been out of style for decades. Since the 1920s flapper look? View Rubens and others from the Renaissance. Thin was for poor people, the rich ate enough. Seen the pictures of bustles in mid to late 19th century? Now what about that?
...
Anyone remember Lillian Russell?

(Message last edited Jun-6th-03  3:42 PM.)

Just FYI:

Pearson, Edmund. The Trial of Lizzie Borden. New York: Doubleday, 1937*. Rpt. as The Trial of Lizzie Borden by Edmund Pearson; Notable Trials Library Edition, Foreword by Alan Dershowitz. Delran, NJ: Gryphon, 1991.

*This tome has twice been misstated as to publish date lately here.  Above is the correct cite.

Pearson has publish dates of his various works as:

"Correspondence" with Frank Knowlton, 1923-1930.  LBQ, Oct., 1997+
Studies In Murder, 1924.  Rprnt. 1938, 1961, 1987:  "The Borden Case"   
Murder At Smutty Nose, 1927, Rprnt. 1938:  "The Borden's: A Postscript".
Five Murders , 1928,  "A Postscript: The End of the Borden Case", a condensation reprint also 1928.
Brief mention of Lizzie in "Rules For Murderesses", 1930.
More Studies In Murder, 1936, "Legends of Lizzie".
The Trial of Lizzie Borden, 1937, Rprnt. as The Trial of Lizzie Borden by Edmund Pearson; Notable Trials Library Edition, Forward by Alan Dershowitz, 1991.
And
"The Pearson-Radin Controversy Over the Guilt of Lizzie Borden", Gross, 1963.

--Note, there is no 1934 or 1935 Pearson, the only 2 dates misstated.

(Message last edited Jun-5th-03  9:23 AM.)

Was there no edition of 1963 edited by Gerald Gross? Did I disremember the listing in the Library of Congress?

In another book G Gross gives his interpretation of the Pearson-Radin controversy. <Both Lizzie and Bridget could have done it in concert.> Read this collection of Pearson's stories for details. Ended w/ Mrs Pearson's comments.

G Gross is logically correct: if only Lizzie and Bridget were present, and Bridget was outside at 9:30, then Lizzie did Abby. If Lizzie was outside around 11, then Bridget did Andy. Logically consistent?

the answer is no because of motive.  as someone else has said here, and i agree, WHO BENEFITS? is the first question to answer.  nor do i see how morse of bowen had anything to gain.  except for kat's illustration of the joy of morse as he cheerleaded. 

plus that theory needs so much explanation , and the only way to provide it is to get fictional.

one could speculate that bridget and lizzie were lovers and got caught in morse's bed that day.  but for what?

Serial murderers do not benefit from, or have any prior connection, with the victim. That's why they're so hard to catch. Agree?

Prior to 1960, most murders had a high clearance rate >85%. With the interstate system, and more cars, the rate fell to about 50%. That means HALF of all murders unsolved. What a world!

NONSENSE! Bridget was working her assets off on washing the windows OUTSIDE. Besides, everyone (?) said she liked Abby (like most people) and left her employ soon afterwards. Bridget had an alibi at 9:30!
"If I ever talked about this, maybe the bad man who killed Abby would come after me." [Not an exact quote, Kat.]

Even Radin admits that. He puts Abby's death earlier, before 9:15, when Andy was still at home and could have heard something (unless he was going deaf, like some old timers). Radin suggests Bridget's vomiting was the reaction from killing someone. As a famous police reporter he attended hundreds of murder trials for his newspaper (NY Herald Tribune?).

The book "Masterpieces of Murder" edited by Gerald Gross was published in 1963(?). It is a collection of Edmund Pearson's articles, padded out w/ G Gross's solution, and Mrs Pearson's defense of her late husband. Radin said Pearson's "Trial of LB" has such a one-sided presentation of the Trial as it amounted to a "literary hoax". Does anyone disagree with this description of one-sidedness of that work?

Gross, Gerald. "The Pearson-Radin Controversy Over the Guilt of Lizzie Borden." Masterpieces of Murder: An Edmund Lester Pearson True Crime Reader. Ed. Gerald Gross. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1963. 274-285.
Contains the letter from Mrs. Pearson defending her husband, and Pearson's "Legends of Lizzie," and "The End of the Borden Case: The Final Word." In his essay, Gross defends Pearson's treatment of the case and puts forth his own theory that Lizzie committed the crimes with the help of the maid.

You found a citation.
We happen to have these articles.
What would you like verified?

In 1965 I read a new book in my library; it had this solution at the end (G Gross: they did it in concert). See if this is listed in Library of Congress; I think I saw it there at end of 1999.

Is this book is totally unavailable? Does the 1991 reprint include G Gross' explanation? That is the logical explanation.

Agatha Christie's novel and 1975 movie had a similar solution to the murder of a millionaire. "IF one person couldn't have done it, then the others, acting in concert, did it."
Anyone remember the name of that movie?

In the past some posters doubted my story, because they didn't know about it. What sort of experts could they be?

Well, actually there is only Bridget's word for her washing the windows all that time, inside or out.
She MAY have been talking to Mary Doolan over the Kelly fence about 9:30 but that was never verified in testimony, as to the time.  (Miss Doolan was not called)
Geo.Pettee says he saw Bridget (Trial, 645) out by the front door, standing, at about 10 a.m. with her implements.
Mrs. Churchill saw Bridget throwing water on one window of the parlor about 10 a.m. (Inq. 126).
No one else mentions seeing her, not even Lizzie.

Well, Ray.  I think most posters have bent over backward to try to find the source you were looking for.  I have been trying to help you for a couple of years.  I don't expect your thanks.
If you think people doubted you it was due to not citing your source.
It's not up to us to investigate your source.  We don't work for you.  You have access to what we have access to.  We don't get paid.
If you are so interested in this book then you should find it, don't you think?

I am willing to look in these Pearson articles right now.
It is storming and I will have to go away for a while.
What exactly did you want verified?

I've just re-read "Legends of Lizzie", from Masterpieces of Murder, 1963 (was reprint from More Studies In Murder, originally 1936).
There is nothing about Andrew in that article, 247-255.  Nor of Bridget.
This is the essay in which Pearson proclaims the "peculiarity of what is flatteringly called the human mind"...that announces " 'Give me a big guady lie and I'll believe it;  but as for proved facts, I simply despise 'em!' "

I've just re-read "The Final Word- The End Of the Borden Case", from Five Murders, 1928, reprinted in Masterpieces of Murder.  The article was from the original work, not the reprint, 256 -275.  There is naught of Andrew in there either.
It is a re-telling of the murders, a lot of gossip and legendary stories thrown in as unsupportd, and it's comments about Bridget are that she could have been in the barn not to hear Abby's body fall with a thud, or else a passing wagon obscured the noise, or else (!) Abby simply fell to her knees and then slumped and that's why Bridget did not hear anything.  It goes on to add that Bridget was in her room at 11 a.m. when Andrew was killed.
That's it.
Nothing about one was here when Abby was killed and so it couldn't be her -- or the other was here when Andrew was killed and so it couldn't be Her.
As I recall, tho, Andrew wasn't covered much in these essays by Pearson.  Pearson's thing was Lizzie.  Not:  *why Andrew*?.

That's the end of the line for Gross on Pearson, unless you think this stuff about nasty Andrew is in The "Pearson-Radin Controversy", which we already examined in the Privy.

Could Gross have written this spurious stuff himself and that is what is in "Masterpieces"?  We don't have that "Masterpieces".  We have Goodman's book of that title which has the song, "The Lizzie Borden Song", by Michael Brown..
If anyone here owns that Gross book please check for *nasty Andrew* story.
Then we will be done.

(Message last edited Jun-6th-03  9:00 PM.)

I don't think Lizzie would have been a "Stage Door Johnny"
of sorts just for Nance's friendship. I don't think people
hunt others down to be friends with them.

Now I am looking at a Beginners Guide to what handwriting reveals.
I know some of the basics.  Most of you also probably already have a rudimentary knowledge.
One thing to start with.  That sample was straight-lined like a ruler:
That's called a *Baseline*.
"Considering how much mental control it takes to write perfectly straight across  a blank sheet of paper, it's no surprise that a straight baseline shows someone who is stable and even-keeled."

Considering the content of the letter, where Lizzie complains that she is "nervous" and lacking sleep, I don't quite get the *stable* part.  But anyway, several samples should be examined over time to find out if a certain way of writing is a tendency or a trait.
(Lizzie may have been fibbing about being nervous, or concentrating really hard when she wrote that note.  After all it was to a Brayton).

Kat:

I have the Masterpieces of Murder by Gerald Gross.
Specifically, what are you looking for?

Thanks Bill.
Ray repeats that he read a Gross edited thing about Pearson's "Trial" and it has a couple of things he remembers fondly and repeats repeatedly:
That Andrew forced carpenters to work on his Second Street house or he would foreclose on their loans or something.
And that Andrew foreclosed on the Second street property and that's how he gained it.
And that he foreclosed on widows and orphans...you know...you've heard this stuff for years from him.
Also that the logic behind the murders, that neither Bridget nor Lizzie "did it" was because one was one place when Abby was killed and the other was another place when Andrew was killed and I thought if I heard That Again one more time without source I would ...well, never mind what I "would"...

So, bottom line.  Is there an essay in there by Gross or edited by Gross that is not Pearson (because I checked the 2 Pearson's in there) that maligns Andrew to the point of being sickening?

Thanks a bunch.
This may prove once and for all that it is not the book Ray thought he read all this nasty Andy stuff in so long ago.

this thread is good!

Do you suppose that Lizzie could be menopausal at 40?
Were the ladies of an earlier era more likely to get that sooner than modern women?
I recall a couple of times in Rebello, (news background items) where Lizzie is a *wreck* or *nervous*.

If you read "Masterpieces of Murder", collected stories of E Pearson, you will find the essay of Gerald Gross. This is the logical conclusion of the known facts. If only Lizzie and Bridget were in that house that morning, then either could have done it (after E Radin's 1961 book). If Bridget was outside around 9:30, she didn't do Abby. If Lizzie was outside around 11am, she didn't do Andy. Therefore Lizzie did Abby, and Bridget did Andy.

The facts are that the same lack of evidence against Lizzie applies to Bridget (less motive?). Note how the presence of an unknown person whose identity was hidden provides the factual solution to the murders. In 1999 I found the 1963 edition of "Trial of LB" listed in the Library of Congress catalog. I cannot say why this book was withdrawn from circulation, or censored, or what. Maybe Bridget's survivors threatened legal action? But the gist of the reasoning is in "Masterpieces of Murder", long out of print. Can this essay be placed on the site? After E Radin, and before AR Brown. Unless you believe in the books of R Sullivan or F Spiering.

I put out a call for help and got a nice response.  Two people took the time to give me information.  Thanks both of you.

Here is info from a member who does have that book:

Masterpieces of Murder edited by Gerald Gross, Hutchinson of London, first published 1964.

The following chapters contain references to Lizzie Borden:

1. The End of the Borden Case; The Final Word by E. Pearson
2. The Pearson-Radin Controversy over the Guild of Lizzie Borden
     A Postscript to the "Final Word" by Gerald Gross.
3. A postscript to the Pearson-Radin Controversy by Mrs. E. Pearson

The only reference to any of the citations you offered is in Item 2, above.
Rather than take certain parts out of context, included here is the complete paragraph.

"Radin includes a marvelously detailed timetable of the morning of the crime in his book. Side by side he states Lizzie's story as to her whereabouts on the morning of the murder together with Bridget's story There are great discrepancies where Lizzie said Bridget was, and where Bridget said Lizzie was.  But is it any wonder?  Those two women together had killed, in he most fiendishly possible way, two elderly people, the parents of one of the women.  Might not their emotional states have been disturbed?  Their sense of time and chronology and detail completely befuddled?  And what if the discrepancies add up only to the probability that Lizzie was not a good planner, or else that she and Bridget could not remember their lines?  One fact, despite all the inconsistencies, stands out: EACH PLACED THE OTHER AWAY FROM THE MURDER AT THE TIME OF EACH OF THE CRIMES.  Yet the house was so small that, even away from the actual murder room, one or both would have heard the third person committing the crime.  Possibly even seen that person.  But neither Lizzie nor Bridget accused a third party.  In short, might they no have been saying to the world as large: It's one of us, you figure out which one it is!"

------------

Ray, this does not sound like what you've been saying.  How can Bridget place Lizzie somewhere else during either crime when she didn't see her probably exactly at 9:30 or at 11?  How can Lizzie place Bridget somewhere else if she never saw her exactly at 9:30, and didn't see her at 11?


(Message last edited Jun-9th-03  6:58 PM.)

(Sorry; a little late reading the posts recently.)  I read someplace a few years ago that the age at which a woman reaches menopause relates to the time of menarche (first mestruation).  In other words, each woman gets so many periods in her life, and then menopause begins.  I'm sure there's not really a finite number of periods, and of course there are lots of things that might interfere with the menstrual cycle, such as pregnancies and illnesses.  The same article (can't remember the source) said that a girl's age at menarche is less a factor than her weight.  Overweight girls are likely to begin their periods earlier than skinny little shrimps.  So if they began earlier, they would hit menopause earlier too.  With the epidemic of obesity we're now seeing, many girls are probably beginning to menstruate earlier and hit menopause earlier too. Even though we think of Victorian women as full-figured, in reality they were likely smaller than the women of today and may actually have been older when menopause set in.

That's a great reply.  I do thank you.
I never knew if *things were different back then*, because supposedly people didn't live as long.  I guess I wondered if things were sort of speeded up.

I suspect the 1963 reprint of Pearson's "Trial of LB" was concluded with the chapter by G Gross on the logical solution of the crime.
You should find the statement about Andy forcing carpenters to work for free around page 40, if I remember correctly of a 300+ page book. Or other sources?

The quotes placing the other away at the time of the crime is G Gross' words. I don't recall either giving an alibi for the other explicitly; it just worked out that way. Others saw Bridget outside around 9:30 to after 10am. The ice cream man saw Lizzie outside around 11am. That's good enough for me! (Also, the jury.)

I'm not a physiologist, but the onset of menarche (sp?) is related to temperature as well as diet. Central American girls are younger (length of day?); and the well-fed girls of today's America are younger than a century ago. Boys reach their full height sooner.

No, Kat, I don't have any citations for you. You are free to check for yourself.

It is not in there.  3 people have been checking.
It's not in there.
People have checked.
It's not in there.
It's not in there.
It's not that book.
It is not in that book.
Pretend this rhymes
Andrew did not foeclose
on widows and children or whomever you've chose
At least not in that book.
Why don't you take another look?
In another book?
This investigation is closed.

well, i don't have it.  i just got started on the preliminaries.

but i'd like to see the old man make me work for free.  he might foreclose if i couldn't find a job, but i'd prefer unemployment to slavery.

i don't know where it was exactly, but there was some talk about morticians and coffins and cutting off legs and so forth.  i was an apprentice mortician for a year.  on a VERY rare occasion someone might be a bit too long for it.  but it's easier to simply turn and bend the legs to make them fit.  even if the knees have to be broken -- this is much easier than sawing off people's feet.
 

But that's how I remember it. I have no axe to grind.
AR Brown says Andy encouraged mourners to order more expensive funerals, and got them to sign a note. When they couldn't pay next month, he'd foreclose. He was OPENLY ACCUSED of billing customers for work never performed. Ever hear of a "mechanic's lien"?
Does any get rich quick by honest work? Really??

Wasn't this covered in an earlier conversation?
Did AR Brown mention that Andy's ownership of a bank alerted him to foreclosures? That would before they became public notice?

Brown, pg. 42:
" Andrew's initial fortune was made from his partnership in an undertaking business, and his reputation in that profession was widely cited as an example of the need for extensive reform. His favorite ploy was overselling, convincing the grieving spouse or surviving family that the departed loved one should have a sendoff more grand than their economic situation could possibly handle. He then offered to hold his charges as a simple lien against their property and, in too many instances, ended up "buying" the property at a fraction of its actual value. He was openly charged with billing the bereaved for amounts far in excess of the services furnished, and he is credited with having purchased coffins shorter than normal at a price that had been trimmed accordingly and then fitting his too-tall clients into these in a manner that would not show when they were viewed in the usual waist-up fashion. His fees, however, were not cut to match."

--So did you ever wonder what was Brown's source?
On a nearby page, after much maligning, Brown says Andrew, upon moving into #92 had the upper floor water shut off.  Water from the city wasn't even available in 1872.  Within  a short time of it's availabilty Andrew had the Kitchen and cellar sinks fitted with faucets for the running water.  Probably a flush toilet then too.  Truth on one page error on another?  The error can be proved but the maligning is not proved.

Errare humanum est. It also depends on the quality of your resources.
I'm sure AR Brown did the best he could with the time available.

Ahem...I'd say it was your serve, Kat.

Brown in paperback,
Page 64,

"During this time, Andrew Borden met the same fate as had his wife.
While Lizzie placed herself inside the house and Bridget placed herself
outside when Abby was murdered, Lizzie said she was outside the house
and Bridget said she was inside when Andrew was murdered."

--I thought you said this was Pearson-Radin-Gross-Masterpieces?

(Answering my own post deliberately this time.)  Well, I said women were smaller in Victorian times, and here's the proof.  This is from an eBay listing for an antique doll:

"IT WAS MY GREAT GRANDMOTHERS. SHE IS 5 1/2 BY 3 1/2 INCHES IN SIZE," 

  I guess that is when that saying started, when guys would talk about their wives at home and refer to them as the "little woman"?