1. "Radin's theory"
Posted by njwolfe on Oct-24th-03 at 2:48 PM

I just re-read the Radin paperback this morning (how wonderful
to have a weekday off!)  and had forgotten his Bridget-did-it
theories.  One thing that jumped out of the page at me was that
on Wed. night Bridget got home last, she had been out with friends,
and let herself in the side door.  The other occupants of house were
already retired.   
  She could have sneaked someone in the house then.
Maybe she was in cahoots with Morse? (Lizzie too?)  Radin makes some good points regarding Bridget I had overlooked. Len R. also alluded to some things about Bridget he could not disclose.  Maybe Bridget
was the key to solving this mystery?  I still don't think either
Lizzie or Bridget physically did the deed though. 

I'm not really a Radin fan as far as Maggie doing the deed but I have often wondered if indeed she could have brought someone in with her to hide in the attic with her. I believe that she was the last one in at around 10:05 PM so what was to prevent her from bringing someone to hide in the attic with her to wait until morning to do the dispiciple deed? Who would check her attic room? I doubt that either Miss Lizzie , Emma, or anyone else for that matter would even consider going "all the way up" to the lowly servents room for any reason. I thought that I remember Maggie testifying that she did'nt know that J.V. Morse had slept over until the next morn at breakfast & that she wasn't sure which room he had slept in but she thougt that she heard a noise in the attic that night (aug. 3). If she didn't know anyone was sleeping over then why didn't she investigate the noise that she had heard that night?
Then again, the same holds true for our beloved Miss Lizzie. What was to prevent her from sneeking someone up to hide perhaps in Emmas room to lie in wait? She made it a point NOT to stop in the sitting room on her way in that night at about 9:10 PM. She could have just as easily as Maggie hid someone til' morning to carry out their plot. Maybe it was Billy Borden that was brought in from the outside!  Ha  Ha  Ha    Mark

(Message last edited Oct-24th-03  4:22 PM.)

Obviously there is not enough known facts to solve the crime, then or now. But at least AR Brown brought in a likely suspect.

I do not believe this was a premeditated murder by a hired killer, but an "accident" from an easily angered madman. Who was then shielded by his cousins to avoid a family scandal. But if you have the facts to suggest otherwise, bring them out (not speculations).

BTW, could it be that Emma & Lizzie spent time with their cousin, and also felt sorry for him? Others have mentioned how families sheltered their unfortunate relatives, then or now.

Yes Rays but have you read anything but Brown?  There are other
things to consider.  One thing Radin's book brings out is the
prejudice Pearson had in writing his book. Brown wrote his book with
his own prejudices.  Each author seems to leave-out things that
are not complimentary to his own viewpoint.

Motive, opportunity, means. How does this apply to Bridget?
The same lack of evidence against Lizzie also applies to Bridget.

I think E Radin wrote this to contradict the Pearson theory (Lizzie did it). Reporter Radin covered hundreds of murder trials, certainly the ones where "disgruntled employee kills employer". Note how many of those workplace shootings involve this scenario? Or from a swindled investor.

I think this is mainly correct but I'm not sure about Bridget hearing a noise in the night.
It's true that Bridget found out at breakfast time Thursday that Morse stayed over, and if she did not note that the spare room in the attic was in use then she wouldn't know Morse was in the guestroom, which he was.  She would only know he was not in the attic area.
What if Morse had stayed in the attic that night?
She couldn't know that ahead of time, I don't think.
Unless Bridget was in with Morse then if she did bring someone home after everyone had retired, it wouldn't matter where Morse stayed that Wednesday night.
Maybe the memory of the source of the noise heard in the night was the Chagnon's story about the fence?

can you remember the source for maggie hearing something in the attic that night?  i'm not saying it doesn't exist, but i don't recall it.

radin did not actually offer a solution.  his objective, as it appears to me, was to show that bridget "could have" done it.

he makes one very very good point though.  if anyone had the opportunity to take evidence out of the house that day -- it was bridget.

i recall his interview with someone who remembered seeing someone fitting bridget's description -- limping across the yard (axe concealed underneath skirt).

and i don't remember if it was the same guy -- but there was A LOT of memories about the boys stealing PEARS from the borden place and how they would ask lizzie if they could get some, and she would say yes if you pick them up from the ground, and then they would shake the tree, and they could tell by her expression that she knew they were doing it but allowing them to do it anyway.  of that, i think PEARS PEARS PEARS.  was there every a time when pears was not a major topic at the borden house?

Radin, Edward. Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1961.
and reprint, paperback, Dell.
pg. 69 or 73:

"One of the earliest spectators outside was Dwight Waring, a young boy then, today a retired cotton broker. 'Not long after I got there,' he recalled recently, 'I saw a woman come out with a shawl over her head. I always thought it was Bridget Sullivan, although it could have been Mrs. Bowen. She hurried across the street. I noticed that she was sort of limping.' In her testimony, Bridget mentioned wearing a shawl each time she left the house. She had made four trips that morning: first to Dr. Bowen's home, then for Miss Russell, again to the Bowen home, this one to summon the doctor's wife, and later to a Mrs. Miller, who also lived across the street.

By coincidence, Waring later married the daughter of Andrew J. Jennings, who had been Borden's lawyer and was one of the defense attorneys for Lizzie Borden. Waring never discussed the case with his father-in-law."....

--I don't think Bridget took the shawl that first trip across the street.  I think she did take it to go farther, to Alice.
Bridget did leave 4 times, but once was on "errands" and she is not specific as to where, other than to Mrs. Millers.  Then she left a 5th time, for the night.

Trial
Bridget
245
Q.  Did you have anything more said between you at that time?
A.  No, sir, not at that time. She wanted to know if I knew where Miss Russell lived, and I says, "Yes." She says, "Go and get her. I can't be alone in the house." So I stepped inside the entry and got a hat and shawl that was hanging inside the entry and went down to Miss Russell.
.......

337
Q.  Well, I don't mean whether you were generally about the house, but did you go out of the house at all?
A.  I don't remember. I went out on errands in the afternoon.
Q.  Where did you go?
A.  I went over to Mrs. Miller's.
Q.  Which is just across the street?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And of course you went over the street and then came back?
A.  Yes, sir.


 

In the autopsy photograph of Andrew Borden, there is a straw hat on the table adjacent to the autopsy board.  The ladies of this day often wore summer straw hats, or "katys" as they were often called.  I've often wondered if this hat belonged to Lizzie or one of the other female members of the Borden household? Somehow I can't vizualize Andrew wearing a straw hat; too sporty and undignified for a crusty old business man. Besides, this is high crown hat, more indicative of female headwear.

Good question Bill.  I don't know about that particular hat but there is a comment in Rebello (pg 25) that was in the Aug. 5, 1892 Boston Globe describing Andrew: 

"... He was famous for wearing shocking bad hats, and retained a tie until it was almost thread-bare."

DeMille in her book, Dance of Death (pg 38+), mentions Bowen as wearing a straw hat:

"Lizzie wanted Emma wired for, and Dr. Bowen put on his straw hat and left in his buggy to send the telegram without ascertaining where Mrs. Borden was or if the murderer was still around."

But my favorite comment has to be on the reporter Joe Howard.  This from Spiering, pg. 114:

"....Red-bearded, with his wide-brimmed straw hat perched at a flippant angle, Howard entered the courtroom accompanied by the unusual presence of a curvaceous blonde stenographer. He sat so that he could face the defendant at an angle, his roving eye taking in the large number of women present...."

That was how I understood Radin's book. He offered an alternate solution. BUT, if neither L or B did it, and alibis for JVM and Emma, then it HAD to be someone else, whose presence was hidden by Lizzie. "It wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father."

Please carefully consider what that last sentence says.

"It could have been Mrs. Bowen"? To a small young boy all adult women look more or less alike? Doesn't limping imply an older lady than one about 30 years old? (You can argue this.)

Hey Harry, good research, maybe it was Doc Bowen's boater!

Harry:

Apropos of our discussion: On page 310 of the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, there is a sketch of the trial showing two ladies wearing straw boaters.

(Message last edited Oct-26th-03  3:03 PM.)

Per William:



(Message last edited Oct-26th-03  5:05 PM.)

Thanks Kat and William.  Don't have that book.  Have to read that and Masterton yet.

Here's the reputedly lovely Martha Chagnon in her straw hat from Rebello, page 220 along with her step-mother.  She doesn't look all that pretty to me but maybe the artist had a bad day. 

There is also a drawing of Porter on page 219 showing him in a straw hat.



(Message last edited Oct-26th-03  5:44 PM.)

Ooops!

(Message last edited Oct-26th-03  6:36 PM.)

I have read that those straw men's boaters at that time were not the headgear of a gentleman but more of a man about town.  I thought of a reporter when I read that.
Those straw hats the ladies are wearing seem flatter than the hat in the sitting room.  That hat, if I accounted for the whole thing and not accidently added a book nearby, seems deep to fit a man's head.

I agree, Kat.  The hat in the sitting room looks more like a man's hat to me.









(Message last edited Oct-27th-03  8:12 PM.)

The more I think about this point the more I think that it is really possible that Bridget may have smuggled someone in.
She would have to have a motive, and I've not yet found a convincing one, but Muriel Arnold, in The Hands Of Time, gave as motive to involve Bridget, money.
That Bridget was helping Morse retrieve some important papers from Andrew's pocket or hand (?)
If Bridget was in with Morse, then it wouldn't matter where Morse slept Wednesday night, as she would know ahead of time where he would be.
Some posit the theory that Morse did come to stay in the guest room specifically, so that Abby would have a reason to go there Thursday morning.

Mark, have you read The Hands Of Time?
I think I may have liked it more than most here.
I didn't buy it though, I got it from the library.
The motive for killing Abby I think was weak, but for Andrew kind of interesting.

Back to Bridget.
She was out the same time Morse was out and Lizzie was out, all of them  Wednesday night.  There is time unaccounted for in each of their descriptions of their movements Wednesday night.
Bridget's account may be lacking because we don't have her precise explanation, as she either was not asked more fully, or it is lost in her Inquest testimony, or may show up in statements in the Hilliard Papers.
Otherwise, Morse took too long to complete his errands that day, IMO, and Lizzie got home later than she said.

Kat, I did read "The Hands of Time" I think that it was the 2nd worse Lizzie book I've read besides "The Dark Side Of Lizzie Borden". It seems to me that the writer just waved off whatever testimony  didn't fit her theory (sort of like AR Brown).I don't consider myself a "learned reader" by any strech of the imagination but i can usually tell if I'm going to like a book within the first few pages. Maybe the 1st chapter at most. I knew that The Hands of Time would be a waste of my valuable reading time when I read the introduction & it read that the District Atty. turned the Borden case from a simple murder to a Grand fiasco!! Or words to that effect. A SIMPLE MURDER!!!!  That's what the Borden case was to the writer. A SIMPLE MURDER. Two of the best known citizens of the city of Fall River get savagely bludgeoned to death in their own home on the 2nd busiest street in the city in broad daylight and the strongest suspect is their own daughter who just happens to have a character "above reproach" but this is just a SIMPLE MURDER that the D.A. turned into a grand affair! This writer is as we say at work "smoking crack". I'm just glad that I borrowed the book from the library & didn't buy it.

Gee, it's been a while since I read that book!  Did I miss all that?!!
I did borrow it too, but twice!
I wonder what I saw in it?  Maybe it was the Bridget/Morse theory.  And I recall I started counting widows like a crazy person after reading that book.
Thanks for the reminder!

Oh, BTW:  What about the part where she has Bridget disposing of the weapon in the river as she was going to Alice's?
Did that seem possible?

Sounds like an interesting book. I'll see if I can find it.
My earlier theory of Bridget BEING USED to get rid of the axe is based only on the facts of the case: she alone left the house.

Morse left the house and recall, Alice left the house.
So did Dr. Bowen and Mrs. Dr. Bowen and Mrs. Churchill (tho I don't know how good friends Mrs. Churchill was with the Bordens to carry off a hatchet)...

The fact that Lizzie didn't even see or speak to Uncle John
while he was there must mean something?  Was she avoiding him
because she hated him and just didn't want to speak to him...
or because she couldn't bear to admit what she was involved in with
him....or....?  That house was small and she had to do some planning
to avoid running into a houseguest in the very next room!

I always found it really funny that Dr. Bowen just happen to be at Morses niece's house paying a sick call when Morse had just left then it seems that when Bowen does get to lizzie's, he rearranging ripped up notes & rushing out to wire Emma & God knows what else he's doing. As far as Maggie disposing of the weapon or other evidence in the Quequechan River, I'm sure it's possiable but highly unlikely. I think that Miss Lizzie made it a point to get Maggie & Dr. Bowen out of the house for some reason. If she was so afraid to stay in the house alone then why did'nt she go to Miss Russells while Maggie stayed put?  The Hands of time was just a comical stab at the crime that left a bad taste in my mouth. Am I saying don't read it Rays? No, not really. I read it only because of my insatiable appitite for anything Lizzie. I'm like a shark who stops swimming, he'll die. If I stop reading, I'll die!!
Rays, please try to get it at your library 1st before you plunk down any cash for it. If anyone is interested, I know that the Fall River Historical Soc. has a feww new copies of it, I'm not sure of the cost but I can check.  Mark

on this isolated point, i'll have to back rays.  i can't see bridget having anything to do with this -- yet i can't get around the FACT that bridget left the house FIRST before anyone knew of a murder.  IF anyone could have pulled off taking evidence from house in this early stage, it was bridget.

this is a stretch but i'll consider it:

lizzie to bridget:  take this bag, don't look in it, don't ever say anything about it, but dispose of it, and that's an order.

Just couldn't resist giving my opinion, NJ.

I don't think Lizzie was really on "speaking terms" with anyone @ the time; or at least, as little contact as possible.

It wasn't so hard for her to avoid him, seeing as their daily routines were so different.  No early-to-rise for Lizzie.  As time goes on, I think more & more Lizzie considered JVM just another relation she really didn't want to have in her life.  I'm also thinking JVM was just in the wrong place @ the wrong time...but his presence was yet another stroke of luck for Lizzie, casting more "reasonable doubt" on the mystery.

AR Brown says Lizzie sent Dr Bowen to recall Uncle John. Lizzie needed his advice and help on this unforseen catastrophe.

Aside from being gallant, Dr Bowen felt sorry for Lizzie, just like it could happen today. <Poor girl, how she must be mistreated by Andy and Abby.> Haven't we seen such things in our lives?

AR Brown  also suggests that the indifference between Lizzie and JVM was a way to hide their collusion in keeping a lid on the scandal. That sounds OK to me. "Conspiracy? Why we hardly ever talk to each other!"

I wanted to ask you, since you said you had lived in a very similar house, did it seem as small as you just described the Borden house?
Or is that just in relationship between those two bedrooms upon which you were remarking?

As a kid of course I thought our house was "huge" but looking
at old photos I see the reality of how small it was. I'm going
to try to attach this pix in kitchen, you can see part of the
old stove

Once you moved away for some years, your old house and neighborhood WILL look small. Now you are looking at it like an adult, no longer as a child. I also noticed this decades ago.

That's really neat!
And you did a good job, scanning.

The Borden house kitchen, however, had a sort of hall leading to the sitting roiom, bbecause the stove was set back more into the kitchen with a corresponding space in the sitting room, jutting out into the room which was the fireplace & mantle.
If the doors to the dining room and sitting room were closed they made a hall with the stove.

I see what you mean Kat. Our house had a pantry where that
door on the right is, also another opening next to it leading to the "sink room"
and to the dining room that way.  

Not good quality pix but i'm going to try to scan another one,
from the "parlor" looking to front entry.  Funny we hardly used
that room either, it was always kept spotless for company, no
dog hairs even.  Our dog was trained not to go in that room, he
would lay "on the line" there in entry. We hung out in the "sitting
room" where the TV was (and Andrew was murdered!) 

(Message last edited Nov-1st-03  2:58 PM.)

So that's the stairs at the top of the pic in the hall, and a closet under the stairs is that little door straight ahead?  Is the front door around the corner to the right?  And that open doorway on the left, directly outside the room you're in, is the door to the sitting room?

Thats right Kat.  another door you can't see to the left of my
Mother in flowered chair goes to dining room, and another door
to sitting room from dining room immediately on right.
So many doors!  So the dining room had doors to parlor, sitting
room, and sink room leading to kitchen.   I can't wait to get to
the B & B inside, so I can see for myself how the house compares
to the house I grew up in, in size etc.  I had planned to get there
this summer, but family emmergency kept me home. Maybe next year!

Aha!  A Reporter's Hat to be sure! 
Straw Boater-
Probably not considered, at that time, as a *Gentleman's Hat*.



(Message last edited Nov-7th-03  1:44 AM.)

I kind of thought that the hat from this pic was some sort of Panama hat? 

They were made of straw or felt, in style in the late 1800s.

Your post on the straw boater reminded me that I had looked into trying to find out what kind of hat it was, that was the closest I could get. 

Do you have an example of a "Panama" from that time period?  I haven't looked at that yet.  Thanks.

Heres a modern example of a Panama hat:


And the same company's modern example of a straw boater:


I've been looking, but, can't find any examples from the 1890s.  Which is odd because from what I've read, that was their heyday. 

Thanks so much!
Please don't go to any trouble.
You did well with those.
Don't you think, in comparison, the straw boater is more like the upsidedown hat at autopsy?

I keep looking at the crown of the hat(or whatever its called), it seems much taller than the straw boater, thats why I thought maybe it was a different type of straw summer hat.  The Panama type of hat has that taller crown to it.  One of the other hats that I found was very popular in the 1890s was the fedora, but, that seems to have a pinched top to the hat, not perfectly round like the hat in the autopsy pic.  Yes, I know it won't help solve the crime, but, you know me, Miss Curiosity. 

I thought the "Panama"hat really comes from Ecuador, and came into fashion in the early 20th century when the Panama canal was opened (or my mistaken memory).

Yes, Ray, the hats originated in Ecuador, heres what else I could find out about them:

Panama hats are the most famous Ecuadorian handcrafts in the world. This trade name was created in the mid-1800s by American gold miners, who stumbled upon these hats in Panama markets and quickly became fashionable when brought back to the United States.

The Hispanic American War of 1898, when fifty thousand panama hats were used by the soldiers that sailed to the Philippines and the Caribbean, allowed Ecuadorian artisans to conquer the American market. The panama hat industry remained strong through the following sixty years. 1946 was one of the most memorable years of the panama hat industry; five million hats were exported, accounting to 20% of the value of all Ecuadorian exports for the year.

From this site: http://www.vizcayahat.com/codigo01/panama/history.html

And this:

Frenchman Philippe Raimond, who had been living in Panama, exhibited the toquilla hat at the 1855 World Fair in Paris and sold out of his considerable stocks. Ecuador was not mentioned as a participating country at the fair and the hat was soon christened the 'Panama Hat' thus beginning the misnomer which persists to this day. An example of a Monticristi Fino was presented to Emperor Napoleon III who took the hat with him when in exile on Saint Helena.

From this site: http://www.panamas.co.uk/hist_19c.htm

To me, I keep seeing the same proportions.  Here is an example from the pic you kindly provided.



(Message last edited Nov-11th-03  3:35 AM.)

Susan, you have an artist's eye:  Is that perimeter of the brim totally round in both hat examples?

Susan, have you decided about the hat?
The Panama is not round I don't think...

I've seen examples of old Panamas that are rounder, I couldn't copy and past them here.  That pic is looking head-on at the Panama and not from the side, both hats are ovoid in shape, but, seen from the side appear rounded.  My jury is still out with this one, have to do some more digging. 

OK that's fair, thanks for responding.

One thing that I've always wondered about is why Bridget went up to her room and put on a shawl to  go across the street to get Bowen.  Granted those were more formal times, but in the first place, it was hot that day. Second of all, this WAS an emergency situation.

I don't think Bridget took the shawl that first trip across the street.  I think she did take it to go farther, to Alice.

Trial
Bridget
245
Q.  Did you have anything more said between you at that time?
A.  No, sir, not at that time. She wanted to know if I knew where Miss Russell lived, and I says, "Yes." She says, "Go and get her. I can't be alone in the house." So I stepped inside the entry and got a hat and shawl that was hanging inside the entry and went down to Miss Russell.

Oh, okay. I thought I read that she had worn it to Bowen's in FORTY WHACKS. I must've remembered wrong. Sorry.

I don't think you remembered wrong.

It was Radin who implied that, see post #9.

Mark, as far as I know, Radin was one author* who had access to the Hip-Bath Collection and that contained Jennings copy of the Preliminary Hearing, and the Trial was at the Boston Public Library, if nowhere else.
I think in that case it's a bit irresponsible for such an author to not vereify a scene such as Bridget limping accross the street with shawl and possibly a weapon hidden.
All I'm saying is bring your memory here and hopefully we each can find out what really happened, as far as we can.

*de Mille was another author who had access (prior to 1968)

E Radin merely passes on the story of a youth who sees a woman limping across the street. There is NO WAY to verify this statement. You must evaluate it for yourself - You, the Jury.

"Eyewitnesses can be mistaken or lying, and there is (often) no way to corroborate their statements" - Judge Justin Dewey.
...
Added (often).

(Message last edited Nov-19th-03  1:46 PM.)

He could compare what young Dwight Waring said with what Bridget said.
Wouldn't you?

So, did Bridget ever say she was limping when crossing the street?
Would that even come up in the Trial Testimony?

She had no head covering, nor a shawl, so the question is moot.
Either he saw someone else, or he had *clothes amnesia* like everybody else that day.

So that story about a woman limping can never be verified?
That "limping" sounds more like an elderly woman to me.

just in case the interest is still alive, i'll post that part from radin's book.  he says he interviewed a bunch of people.  he had a whole bunch to support lizzie virtues.  you can't verify any of them.

"Trial testimony shows that Bridget not only stayed away Thursday night and then the weekend; she also left the house four time during the morning of the murders.  It was during one of those trips that Bridget may have been seen by Dwight Waring.  When I  interviewed Mr. Waring he recalled vividly the excitement of that morning.  One incident was still fresh in his mind, so many years later, because it had always puzzled him.  As he stood outside he saw a woman wearing a shawl come out of the Borden house and go across the street.  Bridget, testifying about her four trips, mentioned that she had put on her shawl before leaving the house.  Three of her four trips that morning were to houses across the street.  Waring said he thought the woman he saw going across the street was Bridget Sullivan, but this woman was limping somewhat as she walked and he knew Bridget had no limp.  As pointed out earlier, neither the murder weapon nor a bloodstained dress has ever been found.  If Bridget did have the murder weapon concealed under her skirt, it might account for Bridget's unusual manner of walking.  If Bridget murdered the Bordens, she had more opportunities than any other suspect to destroy evidence against her."

Do you have the page number?
That is very similar to my post #9- is Radin repeating himself?

that's interesting.  i'll check on that when i get home tonight. it's from the dell paperback.

Can "eyewitness accounts" that were not recorded at the time by the Police really be valid after SEVENTY YEARS? I doubt it, because memories often get changed in the retelling. Again, any corroboration?
"War stories"?

Then how can you believe in Brown's book?  It is supposedly based on Henry Hawthorne's notes which he wrote in his late 80's of his remembrances as a boy on William Borden's farm.

in this dell paperback i've got, it is from page 214.

anyone else who has this edition, please check.

kat, your quote i dont' find in it.  are you sure that is literally from radin's book?

i don't put much stock in any of these interviews radin says he conducted.  all he does is cast doubt on lizzie's guilt.  where he tries to take pearson apart -- he just blames him for where he failed to include ALL available evidence.  the eli bence story, for example -- if radin had just stuck to the evidence himself, he would have had no fault to find with pearson about it.  he objects that pearson says bence "identified lizzie by her voice only."  well, this isn't true anyway.

funny how brown couldn't show those notes, isn't it?  we would all love to see them. 

I think I gave both page numbers, hard and soft?  Post #9

what i quoted from my book is page 214.

Yes.  Here is part of my post #9.  It gives both page numbers for my citation:
(So you can find it in your book-)

Radin, Edward. Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1961.
and reprint, paperback, Dell.
pg. 69 or 73:

"One of the earliest spectators outside was Dwight Waring, a young boy then, today a retired cotton broker. 'Not long after I got there,' he recalled recently, 'I saw a woman come out with a shawl over her head. I always thought it was Bridget Sullivan, although it could have been Mrs. Bowen. She hurried across the street. I noticed that she was sort of limping.' In her testimony, Bridget mentioned wearing a shawl each time she left the house. She had made four trips that morning: first to Dr. Bowen's home, then for Miss Russell, again to the Bowen home, this one to summon the doctor's wife, and later to a Mrs. Miller, who also lived across the street.

By coincidence, Waring later married the daughter of Andrew J. Jennings, who had been Borden's lawyer and was one of the defense attorneys for Lizzie Borden. Waring never discussed the case with his father-in-law."...

(Message last edited Nov-22nd-03  1:29 AM.)

Kat I am going to send you a copy of an old Yankee mag article
about the Borden case, I have your address and I can't scan it
for some reason it comes out so small.  You can judge if it is
worth posting, it sticks in my mind somehow, you will see when
you read the piece.  

your quote is from page 73 in my edition.  yes, radin was repeating.  to your original question, i meant to explain where my quote came from.  had i paid close enough attention to your source, i should not have needed to ask if someone could identify your source.  you caught me dense. i assumed you were reading from a different edition (a hardback, for example) -- now that i think of it, BECAUSE i couldn't see WHY he would repeat.  it's in the way he structured the book.  this is something he wanted to emphasize -- that, of course, is the answer. duh.  the pertinent point of this is that he wanted to get lizzie off (not literally, i hope) and cast it in bridget's direction -- this was the agenda -- together with taking pearson apart.  in fact, i thought about this last night -- all the lizzie books, through time, have gotten more and more "agenda-oriented."  and flaky.  pearson's is probably the best -- in spite of some objections i have, for example, he has lizzie disparaging step-parents, calling them "steppies."  he cites no source for that; where in the world did it come from, you know?  and i know you don't like lincoln's book; but compare it to what radin did; isn't lincoln closer to the truth....in all probability?  for what it's worth, lincoln is right in line with knowlton.  but rather than getting closer to the truth, my judgment is that the trend is to "stray" from it.

I was thinking something similar, about authors etc.

I have had a chance to look at The History of Fall River by Arthur Phillips, and particularly the one page on the Manchester murder of 1893, and this is a factual presentation with no agenda and it's wrong.
The newspapers did a better job than this man's memory 40 years later.
My point is that now I hold news accounts in more regard than I ever did, because they have a chance to cross-reference themselves on a certain topic and eventually they may be more correct in facts than these *authors*.

Once someone has a sound foundation in the Primary Sources, then let the newspapers have a chance, and only after, the Authors with their *Agenda*.

My belief is--with a few exceptions, the Bible amongst them--all books are works of fiction, because writers are people too. They cannot keep their personal opinions from influencing their writing. This seems to be especially true in the cases of LAB and the JFK assassination. There are numerous books on Kennedy's death, the majority of them promoting the various conspiracy theories, just as there are quite a few "who dunnit" books on the Borden murders as almost all of you guys know.

i'm glad you bring up the newspapers.  victoria lincoln used them a lot for the dramatic effect in what she's writing.  for example, when a reporter writes that on this day when so-and-so was testifying and he/she said such-and-such, lizzie turned purple and hid behind her fan -- i suppose there may be something to it?  there is an immediacy?  someone captures a moment in time -- they see that expression, her body language, etc.  this may have incomparable value, actually.  of course, you have to account for the fact that the reporter wants an "interesting" story -- assume the reporter has a bias one way or the other.  and sometimes this does reach a point where two different reporters just cancel each other out and you can't use the "insight."  i encountered this when i was looking for something from eli bence.  in one place, i read that when eli bence took the stand, lizzie grew noticeably aggitated.  in another, i read that when eli bence took the stand, lizzie was unruffled and stared him down.  on the face of it, one or the other is true perhaps but not both.  well, to contradict what i just said, perhaps both reporters were honest -- and then it's up to us to complete the picture.  just what was it?  indignation -- fear -- anger?  but i have learned something about the authors -- that they have suprisingly little to go on at times -- they have less source material than we do -- they pick and choose for subjective reasons -- and they all "invent."  lincoln wanted to convince that she had an "insider's" knowledge -- then she tells us AS FACT that which she herself would have had to have been there to know.  it's ridiculous as truth -- the value of it is that she found a story to tell. then all the way to arnold brown -- who found a way to reconstruct the whole thing (agenda:  destroy the legend).  we're asked to believe it -- why?  just as rays always reminds us -- because it explains all the mysteries of it, answers the questions.  then we don't have to worry any more about the weapon or the dress, etc.  so the accomplishment there is to put to bed the puzzles.  but then in the long run, it just raises twice as many questions.  the author has been very clever in many ways -- but this kind of thinking is not the way to the truth.  i think "the way to the truth" is what i'm trying to figure out.  i think the first step toward it is to figure out who lizzie borden is -- that's hugely difficult, that's what i keep an open mind about.  but i can see how it is the accused herself -- her success as a sort of conundrum -- that the authors are always glancing off of and THEN looking.  that's why i place (perhaps undue) importance on such witnesses as eli bence (who remembered those peculiar eyes) and mrs. churchill (who remembered that diamond pattern).  or even that officer who watched lizzie and alice go down to the cellar and than saw lizzie go back down alone -- that's lizzie's behavior. people typically lie about or are mistaken about all sorts of facts they are asked about -- but a particular observation remembered in my opinion has a special value.

thoughtful posts here. I was thinking the same thing about how
each author gives us something...their agenda you call it. Lincoln
gave the view from a Fall River native who was an outsider, her
mother was not a native. That perspective is keen because of the
fierce loyalty we have seen in the native Fall Riverites at the time.
Haulover I so agree that we have to get to know the real Lizzie and
from snipets of newspapers from the time is about all we have.  Nobody
talked back then!  I don't have a favorite Lizzie book, they all
pretty much say the same things, must be frustrating for an author
to have so little to work with. Something new is what we need, Brown's
book gave us something new but who believes it?  Kat, I got the
Yankee pieces in the mail to you, feel free to share if you think
worthy.

Is the Warren Report a work of fiction? Or the 1977 Congressional Committee that re-investigated the facts?
Such a widespread accusation is absurd!

VERY SIMPLE!!! His theory, based on recollections of long ago, best fits the known facts.
Why Lizzie et al kept quiet about WHO really did it, etc.

AR Brown was NOT a profesional author, but a seeker after truth that no one else wanted to work on. Brown also list his contributors in the Acknoledgments.

One of the problems with the drugstore cowboys is that their testimony was so similat. Among witnesses (Lizzie & Bridget) there is the natural differences that show NO COLLUSION.

E Radin's book reopened the case against the near hoax of E Pearson's one-sided quotes from the Trial. He succeeded 1000%.

Eearlier Radin exposed the supposed 1897 typewritten confession as a modern forgery. That alone makes him stand out among authors. I believe his accusation against Bridget was as "devil's advocate" to show maybe it could have been someone else known to be there.

true Rays, Radin could have just been playing devil's advocate
to get thing stirred up!

Because the police ruled out Bridget as a suspect in a few days.
Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father".
THIS says she knew who did it but would never squeal.

i don't think you see my point at all, but i wonder why you can't -- for just once -- put aside your admiration of that brown book.  i don't say that pearson did not "invent" -- i've noted several places where he does -- you just about have to to write a book.

my point is that as time passes the truth becomes more and more obscure -- or more difficult to stay in line with.  the reason being that more facts, scattered info, become available and therefore "ways" of linking one thing to another.  the brown book is the ultimate fictionalization.  it's based on gossip and speculation that exists completely outside the context of the case as we can know it according to the facts of the case. 

the key is in the way you are fond of saying that "the brown theory explains everything" (i'm paraphrasing you).  but of course.  but that's not the truth.  that's the PLOT of his story.  brown wrote a story that "explains" why lizzie was not physically contexted to the murder even though she was there when they happened and also why she refused to explain and messed up so badly trying to answer questions.  hurrah for brown for doing that, but it is his creation, his truth.

Good point Haulover, like Radin, Brown, Pearson, they all have
their stories and they are all great.  Bottom line, no proof, still
a mystery.  (we like it that way don't we?)

I went back and re-read Haulover's message #76.  You make an excellent point about the recent books becoming more and more agenda orientated. That may be true with most historical events.

I have spent, over the years, a great deal of time studying the Lincoln assassination and the same pattern of books exists.

Somehow the original facts were all wrong, officials made blunder after blunder, a conspiracy here, a conspiracy there, the doctors were all wrong, the newspapers wrong, etc., etc.

Then the authors try to spin the facts to their theory and that just  confuses the mystery even further.  Got to sell those books.

 

(Message last edited Nov-25th-03  9:42 PM.)

i'm glad to see you have a site now. 

i've studied the civil war.  i wrote a piece on lincoln -- but it was sort of a character piece on the myth.  i did something similar with grant and lee, and jackson.  then i did the battle of fredericksburg.  but i've had an unwritten essay in my head for about ten years about the whys and wherefores of the conflict itself---i take it up and put it down---i haven't dared try to write it yet.  to tell you the truth, i was absorbed in it at one time and it finally got so painful, i was relieved to get out of it. 

i do remember one of your quotes on lincoln, how eerie he was about his own death--well, he's enigmatic and eerie in general, isn't he?

i'll read your work on that when i get a chance to do it carefully, and i'll be happy to give you my reaction for whatever it's worth.

 

I can't comment on the books about Lincoln that I didn't read.
"Blood on the Moon" is a short book that explains how the conspiracy against Lincoln arose. Read it; what will you say?

After the Ulric Dahlgren raid against the Richmond VA government failed, they discovered that his mission was to KILL the Confederate Government if he couldn't capture them. "Never put that in writing!"

JW Booth's plan was first to simply capture Lincoln when he rode out to his weekend home and bring him to Richmond as a hostage. Once the Confederates lost, Booth (on his own, and not as an order) then decided to kill Lincoln and other members of the Government. Since the war ended, that was murder rather than a military action or affair of state.

JW Booth was a paid Confederate agent. There are probably longer books that deal with this conspiracy. (You do accept that it was a conspiracy?)

(Message last edited Nov-26th-03  3:51 PM.)

I read in one book that the eerie predictions were developed as a cute story. Maybe "Blood on the Moon" or Mike Wrigt's book on the Civil War ("What They Didn't Teach You About ...").

Do these stories remind you about the Lizzie Borden legends? "Too good to be true".

The letter from AR Brown quoted in the LBQ said he originally wrote about 1100 pages; this is much too long to be salable!
I do assume that a longer book would have explained many of the "short cuts" that may irritate others.

Like saying the man waiting outside in the buggy was William S Bassett, a step-brother (?) of Wm S Borden. No notes or anything! It comes down to trust, given the good job ARB did on deciphering the mystery. It explains much that was uncovered previously. Maybe I'll read it again.

Received the Yankee Mag. stuff today!
Thanks a bunch.  Will reply soon.

Funny, there is one entry in the Maid's diary I'm reading
"Willie Borden" came to visit. Her best friend was named
Lizzie even. 

PS Kat my sisters dogs are Newfoundlands, huge monsters.  Jefferson
and Merriweather are of good temper, Byron is not as "pure bred" I
guess, he is bad, although my sister paid a lot of money for him, she
got a lemon, he was from the same breeder but not the same stock as
the others.  I have a great pix I want to post of those three monsters
but this site won't accept it, too large!