1. "Gramma & Ruby Cameron"
Posted by Kat on Feb-16th-04 at 4:40 PM
Rebello, 138+
"Lizzie's Boyfriend, David Anthony Did It
Eighty-four year old Ruby Frances Cameron of Cherryfield, Maine, made national headlines when she claimed that David Anthony, who wanted to marry Lizzie, killed the Bordens. There has been no confirmation to prove David Anthony, Jr., committed the 1892 murders. Miss Cameron died November 18, 1985."
"Profile: David M. Anthony, Jr., was born in Fall River in 1870 (?). He was the son of David M. Anthony, Sr., a native of Fall River and Ruth M. (Horton) Anthony of Rehoboth, Massachusetts. Mr. David M. Anthony, Sr., was founder of Anthony & Swift Company in Fall River, a wholesale meat business, later known as Swift & Company. Mr. Anthony, Jr., a life-long resident of Fall River, was involved in a motorcycle accident near the Durfee Farm in South Somerset, Massachusetts, on November 25, 1924. He died as a result of a fractured skull on December 4, 1924. He was survived by his brother, Harold H. Anthony. Interment took place at Oak Grove Cemetery in Fall River."
"A Solution to the 1892 Crime? : Ruby Cameron Says David Anthony Murdered Lizzie Borden's Parents," The Ellsworth American, Ellsworth, ME, January 2, 1984.
"Ruby F. Cameron, Age 84, Claims That David Anthony and Not Lizzie, Killed Abby and Andrew Borden," The Ellsworth American, Ellsworth, ME, January 3, 1985, Section 1: 11.
"Borden Slayings Blamed on Lizzie's Boyfriend," Fall River Herald News, January 5, 1985: 6.
. . . . .
"Historian Rejects Theory of Slayings," Fall River Herald News, January 6, 1985: 1.
"Nurse: Lizzie Borden's Lover Whacked Her Folks,"Boston Herald, January 6, 1985: 4.
. . . . .
"Discrepancies Don't Totally Discredit Case," Standard Times, New Bedford, MA, January 13, 1985: 10.
"I Knew the Whole Story from an Innocent Woman," Standard-Times, New Bedford, MA, January 13, 1985: 11.
. . . .
"She Named Suitor as the Killer, Friend Says," Boston Herald, January 27, 1985: 119.
--Do these last headlines mean that Ruby told someone and they are the ones who told the newpapers?
Gramma, can you tell us the story?
Good Heavens, no, no one else spoke for Ruby Cameron except Ruby!
The Boston Herald sent a reporter to Cherryfield and the picture taken was at Ruby's home there. Speaking of appearances, I had to laugh at the attempt to make Ruby look like a wild woman with the backlighting. Good photographic trick!
She did mostly phone interviews with the others except the New Bedford Standard Times.
The Providence Journal also ran at least one article.
At first they laughed at Ruby for saying she used to ride on the back of David Anthony's motorcycle to Maplecroft. They didn't believe there were motorcycles then (ca 1910). Then some good investigative reporter found the registration list at the Motor Vehicle department and found David on it. Then they found a picture of him with his motorcycle.
Ruby Cameron was a registered nurse and was "specialing" Lizzie the week before she died.
Gramma
There was one thing I meant to add.
Ruby broke the story to the little, tiny "Ellsworth American" newspaper in Ellsworth, Maine. The larger, more "local to the story" papers were not pleased at all!!!
Gramma
Welcome "Gramma". It's always really interesting to hear from someone with any kind of connection to Lizzie.
Thank you for all the welcomes! It does make me feel good.
Gramma
i'd like to say welcome as well.
also, by some coincidence, i'm looking for any info or even suspicion about this "the boyfriend did it" theory. i was certain i had read somewhere that at some point lizzie had told this to a nurse. i had never heard a thing about the motorcycle. is there anything else you know or have heard about the boyfriend -- any kind of "personal data" at all?
Hi Haulover,
You need to go and read all the newspaper articles that discuss Ruby's claims. Once that you have the "overview", with all the doubts of the press at the time then we can go from there.
David did exist. He did have a motorcycle. Ruby did exist. She told me stories of riding with him on the back of the motorcycle at about the age of 8 to Maplecroft and sitting in the kitchen eating the best jelly roll she had ever had and milk while he visited with Lizzie. When she told me of the jelly roll I told my mother who almost flipped. My grandmother's friend who became cook at Maplecroft was famous for her jelly roll. I didn't know this before and neither did Ruby. I call those occasions life's little confirmations.
Gramma
Hi gramma! Thanks for being patient with us and answering questions.
I had heard that there might have been a boyfriend, rather than a girlfriend.
I don't mean to ask you to affirm or deny that - But-
I have not read the news stories, the claims of the aged Ruby Cameron, and probably many here haven't as well.
Could you possibly paraphrase the story they told?
It might take a while to get news copies.
What a wonderful source in information you are gramma!
Thanks for coming here!
The story of the jelly roll is great and certainly backs up other reports that Lizzie was a very lovely hostess and knew the value of hospitality!
It sounds as though if Lizzie knew Ruby loved that jelly roll she would make sure she got a slice whenever she came along with a nice glass of milk..
I like hearing things about Lizzie that involve the side of her most tend to ignore.
As for paraphrasing the newspaper articles, there are too many and it is not a good practice to go by someone else's interpretations. I have my own opinions and they would, no doubt, color my boiling down process. Never trust someone elses brain regurgitation.
However, I will try to find them for you.
There was a great article with great pictures, even if I do not agree with Bernie Sullivan's point of view on everything, in the Providence Journal, published on January 13, 1985. The New Bedford Sunday Standard Times of the same date ran the story front page. I remember being a little put off by what seemed like the disrespect of Ruby's story but I understand reporters have to ferret out the truth. I think New Bedford did the best job of the "local" papers.
Gramma
Welcome, Gramma!
It is fascinating to have someone in here who has even a tangential connection to the case. Did you grow up in Fall River?
--Lyddie
Yes, I did grow up in Fall River. In fact I was looking at the picture of the Little Theater building on the corner of Highland Ave and Prospect and chuckling at you folks guessing if it was a fire station.
Nothing like feeling old! Yes, it was a fire station with engines and all while I was a little girl.
For those of you who want to explore the boyfriend aspect of the Lizzie case, the first hint of such an idea surfaced in the Boston Daily Globe in the article titled "Lizzie's Secret" printed in October of 1892. It was an article they were forced to retract but, you know, once printed it was history! You need to read that article AND the retraction to make a judgement in your own mind if anything of merit exists there. Again, do not rely on boiled down, preprocessed versions. Read the original and make up your own mind.
Well, actually there may have been a hint earlier than that in the local Herald News. There was a wonderful compilation of material published by Joyce Williams containing reprints of Herald News articles. I think it was in one of them that a "depression in the hay" was mentioned, hinting at the possibility of someone having slept there. Joyce met Ruby and they talked after her compilation came out.
Gramma
Sounds worth digging up. Thanks, Gramma!
--Lyddie
My search for the Globe's first article, 10 October 1892,Morning edition, online was fruitless. The one with Andrew Jennings objecting (the evening edition - same day) is on the lizzieandrewborden site along with many other newpaper articles. But the initial article, which they retracted is not there! now, it does exist. I have a copy of it that was obtained from the Boston Public library. if an article is retracted it doesn't just disappear. It has been printed and is forever a part of history. so why have the Lizzie sites chosen not to make that one available. Hmmmmmm,..... I wonder?
My copy is way too dark and the print is way too small to scan in successfully. Wish I could!
Gramma
Gramma, I think Stefani (our host & creator of lizzieandrewborden.com) prob doesn't HAVE the original article. Bet she'd love to get a photocopy of yours tho...
You are probably right, Tina-Kate, but I think Stefani would get a much better copy if she contacted the Boston Publc Library directly and let them send a clear copy. This one is now approaching 20 years old, was done on an old copy machine and I sure have handled it a bit. It is on paper way too large to fit a normal copier.
Come to think of it, this copy is probably almost as old as some of you out there!
The details are:
Boston Daily Globe - Morning Edition - October 10, 1892
Article headline: Lizzie's Secret
It is multiple pages long.
Gramma
Are you talking about the Tricky-McHenry article?
Why is there merit in there?
I have it transcribed in the Privy i believe.
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=172&ut=1014572970
There is commentary on an adjacent thread:
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=167
--Most members are aware of this- they know it by Trickey-McHenry- not as Oct. article, thats all.
Hi Kat,
No, I am not talking about the Tricky mcHenry article. That was October 11, 1892. I am talking about the article the Boston Daily Globe was forced to retract. It was the morning edtion of October 10, 1892. It is important to note the morning edition. In the evening edition of the same day there is Jennings' response to the morning paper. You must get the morning edition to read what they were forced to retract.
Gramma
Dear Gramma,
Who ARE you?
Sincerely,
Bob Gutowski
Bob,
Despite my wanting to remain semi-anonymous Stefani knows who I am. There are enough clues now on this forum to figure out who I am. I know Michael Martins. I have a cherished picture with Mrs Brigham and I standing outside the FRHS and cherished letters from her to my mother often with a note asking about me and my family. I was walked to the FRHS as a child and told what the building was and told I should remember it. My babysitter whe I was a toddler on up to about 8 years old was a member of the Women's Auxiliary. We used to bake on Saturday mornings and deliver to them so they could raise money. It was my babysitter who taught me to make boiled frosting from scatch at the age of 8.
I did not know until recent years that she had been brought to Fall River and hired as a kindergarten teacher by the Women's Auxiliary. By the time I came along she was retired.
I grew up watching Borden scholars chase the answers and discussing them with my mother. Together we would assess each new publication. Victoria Lincoln remains my favorite, even if it is sort of "gossipy" about the family. But until I met Ruby I had no closer clue than anyone else. When I was young I thought Bridget did it. It was the only thing that made sense to me. What didn't make sense was that Lizzie did not simply say it was Bridget. Her word would have been taken above an Irish servant anyday and Bridget really had no defense. So as I grew into a teenager I began to explore the other theories. Uncle John Morse then became my "perp" of choice. But he had an alibi (which I thought was weak, in the very least) and his guilt would still leave some unanswered questions.
Then as I became an adult my standard answer was "I don't know" because I was too busy with family and life to really delve into it any closer.
When Ruby broke her story in the Ellsworth American I had friends who called me immediately. I could not believe it as I was living a mere 45 minutes away at the time. Of course I had to check this woman out in person so I called her and made an appointment to see her. She was very gracious in accepting my word that my grandmother had worked for Lizzie and allowed me to visit. Then, before any of the other papers ran their stories, before the invasion of the world into this little 84 year-old lady's home, she and I exchanged stories. She tested me and I tested her. She was convinced I was genuine and I was convinced she was, too. We became close friends and she shared some things about her life that even the press did not know. Our friendship was way too short and only lasted 6 months. I was devastated when she died because she really was the only one in my entire lifetime who made any sense out of the whole story.
For me it answered discrepancies in testimony, in events, and in tales told afterward. She was sincere, genuine, and with me at least very straightforward. But I saw what the invasion did to her life. Don't get me wrong, she loved every minute of it, but it took its toll.
I attended the 100 year conference and met Andrew Jennings grandsons for the first time in my life. I was invited to eat at a Borden table for lunch one day. I saw the story morphed into unbelieveable subjects, some of which had me in tears. It was three days of incredible intensity for me and I had the chance to take the program with signatures to my mother who could not travel the distance to the conference.
Mr. Dube was kind enough to show me my grandmother's room at Maplecroft and I still owe him a picture of her. I tried to deliver it once but he was not home and my trips to Fall River have been infrequent. I hope he forgives me for not getting it to him sooner.
All in all this story has been with me and in my life all my life. I am not a newcomer nor someone who has just read the books and made up their mind.
I do request anonymity, though, because I have seen what the limelight can do to ones life. I have no desire for that at this time. My personal life is difficult enough without having to deal with the onslaught of curiousity.
My mother has passed on and Ruby has passed on so there is no one to discuss the story first hand with anymore and this is the only way I have to talk about the subject, share ideas and let the world know if I see anything going in the wrong direction. I do not want to have people believe only me, hence the urging to read and make up your own mind. If I do not have concrete evidence that I can hand to someone, unlike some people, I will say it is personal opinion. However, I was privy to something others on this earth were not and that was the sharing of a dying woman's entire life story.
Gramma
Thank you for that very rich, personal post, Gramma!
The Evening Standard, New Bedford, Monday, October 10, 1892:
"A TISSUE OF LIES." [REprint]
Above-This is Jennings statement to which you allude-- and next follows the "Secret" story which was in the Globe. Are you saying this is not the story upon which you are remarking?
._______________
"BORDEN MURDER
.................
Motive For The Crime Given To The Public
.................
Lizzie's Secret Was Discovered By Her Father
.................
Startling Testimony of Twenty-Five New Witnesses
.................
Miss Borden Said To Have Been Seen At Window
.................
Of The Room Where Her Stepmother Was Killed
.................
Her Head Was Enveloped In A Rubber Cap
.................
Quarrel Of The Sisters in Police Station Detailed
..................
Detective McHenry's Story of How the Case was Worked Up.
...................
THe Boston Globe to-day prints what purports to be a complete revelation of the government case against Miss Lizzie. A. Borden. The Globe says besides those who testified for the government in the preliminary examination of Lizzie A. Borden before Judge Blaisdell fully 25 new witnesses will be called by the State at the trial of the defendent for murder in December. "...
--Thanks for taking the time to respond!
(Message last edited Feb-18th-04 3:28 PM.)
Hi Kat,
You used a reprint from "The Evening Standard, New Bedford, Monday, October 10, 1892"
I am not familiar with the reprint enough to know if it included every detail of the original. I have a photocopy of the original article from "The Boston Daily Globe" morning edition. Not a reprint and so I know nothing has been cut for space or changed for effect. Somewhere I think I have the reprints that were done at the time of the 100 year conference tucked away but I have never compared them for accuracy. Research is better served by using the original and that way you are not tripped up by an error somebody else may have made in transcription.
I am delighted you are so interested.
Gramma
I am so confused here now!
Would you mind clicking on this link within our own archive here where I had spent the time transcribing the article?
And let me know if that is the same article?
Just kind of check it against what you have or what you know?
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=172&ut=1014572970
I have spent part of the day at my local library trying to get any information on the Ruby Cameron story which she told. Did not get anything.
Now I am writing others trying to gain some info on her experience which was in the papers...
Hi Kat,
The article you reference has some of the information that is in the original but it is a commentary on the original.
Did you type the entire article in back in 02? That is dedication!
Do you know why it was declared a hoax and why the Globe was forced to retract it?
Some article references for Ruby's story:
New Bedford Sunday Standard Times (Fall River edition) 13 Jan 1985 pg 1
Providence Journal - same date - Front of Massachusetts page
Boston Herald 27 Jan 1985 page 16
Somewhere packed in a box is the Ellsworth American but I can't lay my hands on it at the moment. The other papers picked it up from the AP.
Gramma
Thanks. I could not access those papers locally. The library here subscribes at an exhorbitant rate to newspaper archives but they don't all go back very far and they didn't have the Boston Herald, the Standard or the Providence papers. I checked all of Massachusetts and then the Northeast.
They only had The Boston Globe.
I tried the Providence paper PROJO online and any article costs money without me knowing if it is worth it from the description. They don't go too far back either.
I got plenty of paper headlines and paper names from Rebello. I just can't get hold of them.
I have writen now tonight to Mr. Robert Flynn and told him the story.
How about from post #5 where it is first person narrative by McHenry?
Isn't that the story?
The hoax was supposedly declared because the story was hurridly printed before verification and further investigation showed the witness names and addresses were false and the reply to that was *Of course they are- you wouldn't expect the true sources, would you?* or something to that effect.
Oh dear, Mr Flynn will chuckle! When he was going to reprint the Porter book I could not convince Mom to let him use her copy. Ruby wanted me to but Mom said no. I'm rather glad she made that decision now but he wasn't pleased at the time, I don't think. Then, again he may not even remember.
Are you close to New Bedford? The Standard Times used to maintain their own library and had articles going back forever, I think. If you went to them I am sure you could get a copy. I was actually there once.
Gramma
no kidding. let's hold on for a while.
Are you famous or is your mother?
I mean, would we recognize your name?--Like did you give a lecture at the conference?
There is a source dcument of an impression seen in the hay.
It is in The Preliminary Hearing:
Page 437
JOHN DONNELLY.
Q. (Mr. Jennings) What is your name?
A. John Donnelly.
Q. You are a hack driver?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you go up to Mr. Borden's house on the morning of the murder?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. About what time do you think you got up there?
A. I could not just give you the time. I think somewhere around 12 o'clock.
Q. Should you think it was before or after?
A. I could not say positive.
Q. What is your best recollection?
A. I should not want to make it much after 12.
Q. Did you go into the barn at all?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When?
A. I might have been up there ten or fifteen minutes before we went in there.
Q. Do you know whether officer Medley was there at that time, or not?
A. I did not see officer Medley there nowhere.
Q. Did you notice anything about the hay?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Where was the hay?
A. I call it on the north side of the barn.
Q. What did you see in the hay, anything about the hay that indicated anything, except the usual condition of hay piled up there?
A. It looked so to me as though there had been somebody laying on it; I do not know whether there had or not.
Q. Where was that?
A. On the pile this way.
Q. When you say "this way", what do you mean by that, north or south?
A. I should call it north west.
Q. Near the north west part?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Towards the window?
A. Yes Sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Q. (Mr. Knowlton) What was it that looked as though somebody had been lying there?
A. This hay.
Q. What was it about it?
A. It looked as though there was a form of a body on there, that had been sleeping on there, or something.
Q. Do you mean as though somebody had been pressing, or making the impression of their form on the hay?
Page 438
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How long was the form?
A. I could not tell you; I did not measure it.
Q. How wide was the form?
A. I should think about so wide.
Q. Was it the form of a dog or a man?
A. That I could not say.
Q. How deep was the impression?
A. About five or six inches, I should say.
Q. That is the whole width of the space was an impression of five or six inches. Rounding or square?
A. Kind of rounding.
Q. Give the width in inches, if you can.
A. I could not.
Q. You gave the depth of it in inches; cant you give the width of it?
A. About a foot perhaps.
Q. Straight?
A. No Sir. It looked kind of rounding.
Q. Length ways straight?
A. It looked like kind of a round hole right in the hay.
Q. How long was the hole?
A. I cannot give any idea.
Q. Give the best idea you have.
A. Five or six inches I should say.
Q. Five or six inches long?
A. A foot long, I said.
Q. About a foot wide?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. And six inches deep?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That was the impression that you saw?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. That made you think a man had been lying there?
A. I could not say what it was.
Q. When did you first hear of this thing?
A. I do not recollect the time now; I did not take the time.
Q. Where were you when you heard of it?
A. I had just drove into the stable.
Q. Where was the stable?
A. On Fourth street. I board my horses at Archie Holt's stable on Fourth street.
.........
441
Q. Who was the first officer you did see?
A. Officer Doherty.
Q. When did you see him?
A. When we were going through to go to the barn, me and this Charlie Cook.
Q. Who is Charlie Cook?
A. A fellow that works for the Telephone Company.
Q. Did he go into the barn with you?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did he see this round hole in the hay?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you see anythingelse in the hay besides this round hole?
A. No Sir.
Q. That is all that led you to think there had been a form there?
A. Yes Sir. We looked all around to see if we could see any weapon or anything.
Q. Did you report this round hole to any officer?
A. I do not recollect as I did, sir.
Q. When was the first time you mentioned this round hole, or this impression perhaps I ought not to characterize it; when was it you first mentioned this impression that you saw in the hay?
A. I mentioned it that day.
Q. Who to?
A. Some outsiders.
Q. To any officer?
A. No Sir.
Q. Ever to any officer?
A. No Sir. As I did not disturb the hay at all, I thought let them see it themselves.
__________
468+
ALFRED CLARKSON.
Q. (Mr. Jennings) What is your name?
A. Alfred Clarkson.
Q. You are a plumber?
A. No Sir.
Q. What is your business, steam fitter?
A. Steam engineer.
Q. Were you at the Borden house on the morning of the murder?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. At what time, as near as you can recollect?
A. About 11.40.
Q. Did you go into the barn at all that morning?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. About how soon was it after you got there before you went in?
A. I should say about seven or eight minutes.
Q. Did you go up stairs in the barn?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did you observe up there, in the upper part of the barn, if anything?
A. I noticed that the door on the south, where they put the hay in stood open about seven or eight inches, and there was considerable hay there that extended from the south west corner to the north.
Q. Extended across the barn?
A. Yes Sir, mostly on the north west corner.
Q. Most of the hay was on the north side of the barn?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you notice anything about the hay, except that; whether it appeared to have been disturbed at all, or not?
A. In two or three places it looked as though it had been stepped in. In one place west of the window, it looked as though a man had laid there.
Q. In what direction from the window?
A. North of the west window.
Q. Did you disturb anything there?
A. No Sir.
Q. Was anybodyelse up there at the time that you recollect?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Who?
A. There were three gentlemen that I did not know.
Q. Any of them officers?
A. No Sir.
________
Trial
Clarkson
1406
Q. Did you find anybody up in the barn when you went up there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. There were three gentlemen. I don't know who they were.
Q. And you don't know Donnelly, you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Donnelly was one of them?
A. Donnelly wasn't one of them.
______
Trial
Stevens
1388
Q. So that all of Mr. Medley's movements you know is that at one time while you were there you saw him going into the kitchen?
A. Yes.
Q. Where he had been before that you don't know?
A. I don't.
Q. Where he went after that you don't know?
A. I don't.
Q. And when he went into the barn you don't know?
A. I don't
Q. Nor whether he was one of three that went into the barn you don't know?
A. He was not.
Q. You saw who they were?
A. I saw who they were, although I couldn't recall afterwards. He was not one of them.
Q. Can you tell me who they were?
A. I don't know exactly. I have an idea that I know one of the men.
Q. Who do you think that is?
A. John Donnelly.
Q. The others you don't know?
A. No, sir.
(Message last edited Feb-19th-04 12:39 AM.)
Witness Statements
20
"Charles H. Cook, No. 36 Borden street. 'Was with John Donnelly in the barn. Saw nothing that looked like the imprint of a man. Donnelly had been drinking.' "
No fame here! I was brought up in a very low key household. But now that I think of it, I was brought up in the time of "We don't talk about that". The time from the murders then was only about half the time now. In other words when I was a growing girl the event was only about 50-60 years old. We are now over a hundred years from the event and those who might be directly hurt by the truth have mostly passed on. When I lived in Fall River they were still alive and all around me.
Gramma
"Clarkson
1406
Q. Did you find anybody up in the barn when you went up there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who?
A. There were three gentlemen. I don't know who they were.
Q. And you don't know Donnelly, you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Donnelly was one of them?
A. Donnelly wasn't one of them. "
Think:
So, he did not know any of the gentleman present, he did not know Donnelly, but he says Donnelly wasn't present......huh??? Does that make sense to you?
Witness Statements
20
"Charles H. Cook, No. 36 Borden street. 'Was with John Donnelly in the barn. Saw nothing that looked like the imprint of a man. Donnelly had been drinking.' "
Think:
What in the world was Charles Cook doing in the Borden barn with the police???? Didn't he have close ties to Lizzie later???????
Gramma
Your answer to why the article was retracted is 100% correct. The names were changed to protect the innocent! Newspapers today would not be so quick to retract on that basis!
The Boston papers tended to have a less biased view as the story was not as "local" and influence on them was harder to bring to bear. But there was influence brought to bear in a hurry when they published that Morning editon!
Gramma
So, if I'm following, we should consider the story to be true? This is a MAJOR revision to the canon, if it's what you're suggesting.
The paper printed false names for the witnesses, but their accounts were true (rubber hoods, pregnant daughters, lasses in windows waving hatchets)?
Or, am I misinterpreting? Didn't Trickey approach Bridget later and try to bribe her into backing up the story? Why would he do that if it all was true? And why wouldn't it have been used in the trial?
As I said, if I'm misinterpreting your point, please tell me. Otherwise, though, I'm going to have to have a very big bowl of mutton broth to swallow this, especially as, with all due respect, you're remaining anonymous and we're taking a lot on faith.
I've been working on this case for near 30 years, so I can't take such major revisions casually.
I just can not accept that the Trickey article is based on any facts whatsoever.
I also have huge problems accepting that anything as "red hot" as some of the theories masked as information coming out now about the murders and are claimed to have been part of a massive conspiracy at the time of the murders/trial to be anything other than speculation. Heresay is just that..... Heresay.
Hi Bob,
Lizzie was not guilty of the crime. I think the jury found correctly through instinct or believing some very unbelievable testimony. gramma was right in saying "She was acquitted." That does not mean Lizzie was innocent of any wrongdoing and she would have to be careful for the rest of her life that none of the truth really surfaced. Double jeopardy only applies to being retried for the SAME crime. It does not apply to a different charge! The public being convinced of her guilt on the murder charge served her well in a way. It kept people away and allowed her reclusive existence. The less contact with the public the better.
Yes, taking a different road in ones mind is a shocker after years of exploring the case. Before Ruby I had never let my mind go in such directions. I did grill her mercilessly and she loved every minute of it. She encouraged good clear deductive reasoning. You have to remember that when I first met her I was a real skeptic. The idea that anyone in Cherryfield, Maine could know anything much about the Borden case was absurd in my mind.
I am suggesting that when there are errors made in newspapers you do not throw everything out. Just the errors! Then you read the testimonies to see if they have any merit......not all of them at once....one by one. There is nothing that says if you discredit one you have to discredit all. Nor does anything say if you believe one you have to believe them all! Look for the golden thread of truth and disregard the embellishments. Look for hard facts like, Was there a man noticed in the neighborhood that morning? Was anything strange noticed about the hay? The details about each occurence will change with the witness, that is a given and still happens today. People notice and remember things differently within the context of their own experience. I was told once by a reporter that sometimes they deliberately make mistakes in an article to hint that a closer look may be in order.
I guess what I am trying to say is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. How many people do you know who have ever read a copy of the original morning edition of The Boston Daily Globe October 10, 1892? I bet you can count them on one hand if you can count any at all. Most people just read the evening rehash and outrage.
Yes, Mr Trickey got himself into real hot water on both sides of the fence. Not too clever! Do you know what happened to him? Before I explored his part in the story all I knew was that he died in Ontario, Canada. I did not realize he was under indictment from the same Grand Jury that indicted Lizzie and that he was, in fact, fleeing. Was he fleeing indictment or silencing? He sure was a loose cannon.
I don't expect you to take this lightly, Bob, just seriously. These are not things I have made up out of thin air.
Gramma
You are right Audrey. Heresay is Heresay! But hearing the daughter of one of the players tell you of her firsthand experiences is not heresay! It then becomes a possible explanation of a myriad of things. A point of view worthy of exploration and verification. When you are a hundred years down the road the verification part becomes difficult.
Again, just because one witness may have been in error or embellihsed while they were being interviewed does not mean it is all erroneous.
Gramma
"What in the world was Charles Cook doing in the Borden barn with the police???? Didn't he have close ties to Lizzie later???????"
*********
Not the same Charles Cook. The man on the scene was Charles H. Cook of Borden Street.
Charles C. Cook (financial advisor) made his home in Rhode Island.
(Message last edited Feb-19th-04 2:02 PM.)
[edit here: Seems we passed each other in the mail, TK!
There were 3 "Cooks".
Knowlton Papers
Glossary A has 2:
COOK CHARLES H. 1836 - 1911: born in Rhode Island, son of Darius and Louisa P. (Francis) Cook. Spending his youth in Fall River, Massachusetts, he enlisted as a private in Company C, 3rd Massachusetts Volunteers, serving a nine-month term beginning in 1862. Following his term of service, he returned to Fall River, where he was employed as a driver. He was one of the individuals who went inside the Borden barn the day of the murders. Employed in various occupations in his later life, he spent several years working as a coachman. He died in Taunton, Massachusetts. Although he gave a statement to the Fall River police, testified at the preliminary trial and was summoned as a witness, he was not called upon to testify.
COOK, EVERETT M. 1855 - 1931: born in Fall River, Massachusetts, son of William and Esther Cook. Educated in the Fall River public school system, he was employed at the First National Bank following graduation and remained there until his retirement. In his capacity as cashier at that institution, he transacted business with Andrew J. Borden on the morning of August 4, 1892, a fact to which he testified at the preliminary and final Borden trials. A prominent figure in banking circles, he was a member of several business clubs. He was married to Miss Mattie L. Brightman. He (lied in his native city.
--Charles H. Cook is the "Cook" in the barn.
Are you familiar with the rest of the 'cast of characters'? Have you read the source documents to know the facts of the case which is our foundation?
If not, a collaboration can ensue here as you fill us in and we fill you in as well.
Like my posting testimony about the mark in the hay- not suppressing it, and not getting it out of the newspaper etc. but a legitimate source. But we can't jump to the conclusion that it was The Charles Cook, family advisor/businessman. We can help in that way.
(Message last edited Feb-19th-04 6:22 PM.)
Thanks for straightening me out that one Kat! I wonder who he was actually?
Why would he be in the barn?
The reason for my attention on the Cooks is my grandmother and grandfather had very close friend, Henry and Emily Cook who also worked for Lizzie at one time. Emily was a cook (it's all in the name!) and her husband Henry was a chauffer.
I have photos of them. They were probably about ten years older than Gramma. Mom once said they had a son Charles but didn't know whatever became of him. When I was little I was told to be really good when we visited because they weren't too fond of children. Nothing like laying the fear of God on you! It turned out I was the only child they didn't mind having around. Gee, I wonder why?
Gramma
OK, Kat...whose ESP was tuning into who here?!
With everyone dead before WW II, you only have second or third hand information. Just do the best you can, and let the Court of Public Opinion decide.
And why not? AR Brown certainly provided a parallax view into the mystery of the Borden Murders. An unknown killer who was shielded certainly makes the story explainable.
Both Lizzie and Bridget have an outside alibi for one of the murders. "Somebody else" is the explanation for this.
Reminder: AR Brown says the story was a hoax, but parts of it were true or did not require close examination. THAT is why Jennings did not sue for slander (Lizzie could have owned that newspaper).
As I remember, one charge was that Lizzie went to see a lawyer in Providence RI. No one could be found that admitted to this. I think that Lizzie did the smart thing: buy a round trip ticket to Providence, then another round-trip ticket to New Haven to see that NY lawyer. Anyone investigating would not know about the second leg of the trip. (Always a good method to avoid surveillance!)
So maybe Lizzie wasn't as ignorant of the law as she later appeared. Some knowledge can be dangerous, like finding a book on poisons in a home with a suspicious death.
But "conspiracy" is often how the world works!!! (A group that determines some policy in secret for later implementation.)
When the Federal Reserve changes rates, do they telegraph this in advance? When some Congressmen plan some laws, do they do it in the town square? There is a lot of "smoke-filled room" discussions ongoing.
That's my opinion (like Brown, I have some experience working for a corporation).
Perhaps you could do this group a favor by getting this reprint and posting it here? Assuming no copyright violation.
I second that!
I have gained some information and I will compose a new topic.
Give me a bit of time: thanks!
Thanks Kat, there are so many snipets on many different threads,
I'm not able to get this new story straight so I can even think
about it.