1. "Screaming Bloody Murder !!!!!!"
Posted by charlie on Jan-20th-04 at 12:50 PM

When I was a kid and someone was yelling and shouting too loudly, some of the older folks would comment that he/she was "running around screaming bloody murder." There's more to that than just an old expression. Again and again, throughout the old crime articles I've read, people under attack, or witnessing an attack, would run into the street screaming "MURDER! MURDER!". It was sort of the ultimate alarm that brought neighbors to the scene and it worked. It was one of those things that was part of life at the time, but today is just not something you do.

It may be understandable that Abby was never heard with such a scream if she was caught off guard, but when Lizzie found Andrew's body, I would have expected her to respond with the MURDER cry. 

Interesting..

I had heard that the phrase came from the sounds a large groups of crows makes...

It is fascinating to unravel things like simple phrases like this.

Oh, our Lizzie thought *father was hurt* and that he had been stabbed.
She could run out yelling "STABBED! STABBED!" but somehow I can't picture "The Sphynx of Coldness" doing that! 
That's a good point, tho!

I recall in the Jack the R. case of Mary Kelly- a low voice was heard calling "Murder!" from the vicinity of her room and yet the neighbor did not check they say because in the East End they heard it often.
I'm with you.  I think a crowd would gather at that phrase!

Is that why it is called "a murder of crows"?

Ha!  You beat me to it, Ray!

My guess is, she walked in, saw Andrew, was about to scream, and then thought "Oh, that's right; I just killed 'im!"

Anyway, there wasn't a law that you HAD to run shrieking into the street; then again, many of us respond to Lizzie's odd willingness to tarry by herself in a house with at least one fresh corpse as somewhat suspect.

"Tarry"?? As far as we know, Lizzie went to call down Bridget, and sent her across the street to Dr Bowen.
David Kent's "40 Whacks" (page 36) lists the timings of all this. WHERE does anyone find any delays?

Here is another one:  "Head For The Hills!"

Actually, it is "head for the hills; the dam has broken."  It comes from the 1889 tragedy at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where on May 30, a massive earthen dam broke releasing a wall of water and debris that was anywhere from 100 feet wide to sixty feet high and traveling as fast a 60 mph as it raced toward Johnstown--a distance of 13 miles from the man-made Lake Conemaugh.  That wave destroyed three entire towns and leveled two thirds of the city of Johnstown which had a population of oveer 30,000.  More than just water, the wave carried hundreds of tons of debris:  locomotives, boulders, livestock, entire buildings, uprooted trees, portions of a massive stone railroad bridge and an estimated 400 miles of barbed wire acquired when the wave destroyed an iron works north of Johnstown.  And, of course, it carried human beings.

The wave scoured the valley to the bed rock and slammed into Johnstown which was in a natural river valley.  Many of those who survived (and there were over 2,500 deaths) ran for the steep hills surrounding the community.  Years later, the community built a funicular (I believe that is what it is called) that would lift people and vehicles right up the side of the mountain and it is still in operation.

The Johnstown Flood is a staggering story of tragedy and heroism but it was also a disaster that resulted in a new phrase, the origins of which most people would never know.  It is an expression based on the terror of the moment.  There are some excellent web sites devoted to this story and to the ensuing scandal when it was learned that the Lake was owned and operated as South Fork Fishing And Hunting Club and included such members as Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick.  The dam was poorly maintained and its structural integrity had been severly compromised in order to accommodate the club members who wished to use its top as bridge to their fifteen room "cottages."

No doubt, Lizze would have known this story and if she actually did travel to the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago or the 1901 Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, she might have visited one of the most popular "amusement" attractions--"The Johnstown Flood," which was evidently portrayed on a stage.  In any event, it was earth shattering news at the time as it would be today.  It was the greatest man-made disaster in American history (with the possible exception of several presidential elections).

The Johnstown Flood Museum offers a remarkable documentary of the same title which won an academy award in 1989.  It is well worth viewing and it contains a powerful lesson:  Just because a person is in a position of responsibility does not, therefore, mean they are behaving responsibly.

Sorry to be so verbose, but that phrase--"head for the hills"--often haunts me.

(Message last edited Jan-22nd-04  6:39 PM.)

wow, good post Jim, I don't see any similarities in Lizzie's case
though. 

That was very enlightening, Jim!
I believe you teach?
You ought to submit something historical related to Lizzie, Fall River etc. to The Hatchet!
The Johnstown Flood is in the collective unconscious of our family heritage.
Even just from 3 generations ago.
Our mother's family is from Williamsport, Pa., ties to State College, and the tale is still fresh in people's mind.
I never knew that was the origin of "Head for The Hills!"

Thank you, Kat.  Yes, I do teach high school history and college English.  While I knew that what I wrote did not pertain to Lizzie, directly, I was struck by the phrase, "bloody murder," and its possible connection to Lizzie's case.  I know there are many phrases in our language the origins of which are often uncertain.  I agree with you that Johnstown and even Lizzie's story are all a part of our collective history--just a few generations removed.  The last Johnstown Flood survivor died just about six years ago.  I also know what you mean when you say the Flood story is a part of the lore of that part of Pennsylvania.  The trauma of the event is still very real.  I wonder when the last person connected with Lizzie's story died.  I'll bet it was sometime in the fairly recent past.  It is all just the blink of an eye.  Thank you again for your comments.  I certainly enjoy reading yours and often marvel at your command of the facts concerning the case.

(Message last edited Jan-22nd-04  11:10 PM.)

I think it was a perfectly wonderful article and very much in keeping with the original intent of this thread.

I enjoy learning about new things and found the article fascinating.

"tarry - to stay in a place (Webster's Desk Dictionary)"

The word itself doesn't mean "delay," Ray, and neither did I.

Lizzie Borden sent the only other living person in the house away, twice, remaining alone where, if she'd been innocent, she might have feared a lurking attacker might creep up on HER with a sharp instrument.

This is simply to clarify my earlier post, which I thought was pretty clear already, actually.  

(Message last edited Jan-23rd-04  12:42 PM.)

The Johnstown Flood has been the subject of one or more books. The total death toll was higher than the official accounts, which only counted those who died on the first day. Many others may have died from cholera (bad water), exposure, etc.

So if you ever wondered why there are so many legal regulations, "Remember the Johnstown Flood!". The many fires that killed people (Iroquois Theater in Chicago?) also resulted in new regulations: occupancy limits, fire doors, fire-proof insulation, etc. But it still happens (Providence RI club).

If you ever found a prone, bleeding body the first thing to do is call First Aid (or Medical Emergency Services, like Firemen). Let them decide what to do. I'll bet Lizzie wet her pants in shock over this. Lizzie did stand outside on the porch, the safer place than either indoors, or in the back yard or barn.

Given the final solution to the mystery (AR Brown's book), it seems like Lizzie knew that the visitor had left and wasn't coming back.

So what about that article that disproved Patricia Cornwell's theory on Jack the Ripper? Where is it, Mister Bob?

Concerning your never-ending Cornwell griping: to put it as cordially as I can,  bite me, Ray.  This is a big non-issue, and you only bring it up to try to provoke me when I point up a problem with one of your posts (this time, your misunderstanding of my use of the word "tarry").

Lizzie Borden stayed in a house in which she had, supposedly, just discovered her father murdered.  "Father's dead!" she shouted.  "Someone came in and killed him!"  She didn't then tell Bridget "I took a gun I had under my bed and searched the whole house to make sure no one was here, so I'll stay RIGHT HERE, gazing out the kitchen screen door, so any killer I failed to find can get me, instead of standing safely outside in the yard, while you go for a doctor or a friend!"

Even if your beloved Brown theory is the truth, and Lizzie knew she had nothing to fear from the murderer, Billy, I still think it was bad form for her not to leave that house.  Luckily for her, no one in Fall River seems to have thought enough about it.

So, as regards this thread, it would've been a good idea for Lizzie to rouse Bridget and rush out of the house with her, screaming bloody blue murder (much as if the house had been on fire), and not tarry, as she did. 
 

Just adding my opinion....

If I stumbled across a hacked and bloody body in my home, (imagining I was a single person with no children, etc about) and knowing there was nothing I could do in the way of first aid.. Being caught TOTALLY by suprise, with no prior knowledge of the incident causing the mutilation....


I would be out of there as if the hounds of hell were nipping at my heels...




(Message last edited Jan-23rd-04  3:45 PM.)

LOL.

Or what about this?

"Run along, Maggie; i've got papa's buford-pusser-style big stick with which to protect me."

hmmmmmmmmm

Maybe she was packing heat...


"This is an ACME brand hatchet..... Trouble is, I do not remember if I took 40 whacks or 41... So you have to ask yourself.... Do I feel lucky?  WELL, DO YOU?"

Lizzie Borden meets Dirty Harry. That would be quite a showdown--a hatchet against a .357 Magnum.

"Go ahead.  Make my day."

THAT was a .44 magnum (paid placement again?). Quite a powerful handgun in its day.
I have a relative that used one for deer hunting in the brush (legal in his state).

I am just reminding you of your obligation to provide proof of your claim, or admit to something.

If not Patricia Cornwell, maybe it could be John Grisham or Scott Turow? Both writers of reality-based fiction, made into movies. Turow was a Federal Prosecutor.

But you have been conditioned by modern times and reading books etc.
What would you do if a teenager or early 20s? [Assuming this.]
...
I would dial 911, as I did when I came over and found my Dad slumped in his armchair. This heart attack wasn't fatal; but the next one was.

(Message last edited Jan-24th-04  1:00 PM.)

I practiced shooting a .357 once.
I came within a few inches , low and in the dirt, of hitting my target which was a hubcap leaning against the bottom of a tree in Micanope, Florida at 60 yards.
Someone had to hold their hands over my ears.
I wouldn't like to even imagine a higher calibre!
I don't know why anyone would want a highr calibre!

(Gee, it sounds like I did a lot of "guy things" now that I look back on it.  Comes from having 3 brothers, a dad, and a boyfriend!  I could golf and shoot pool and shoot guns & rifle and throw a football 25 yards almost on target.  I also once sacked the Quarterback!  He never imagined I would come at him snarling and he froze and I tackled him in the end zone!)

Ray, this coming on to begin to look like harrassment and I wish you'd stop.

For an untrained casual user, a distance of 10 yards is recommended.
60 yards is out there in shotgun or rifle range, that takes a practiced expert. IMO

Somebody recently asked if they should withdraw from this site because they made an error. I said no honest misteak should cause this. I hope you will agree.

So what do YOU recommend if someone gives knowingly false information, for whatever motive? On the old board wasn't someone kicked off because "Billy Bored"? posted meaningless messages?

The difference between a mistake and an error is this: a mistake is corrected, an error is denied. (You've heard this before?)

Rays is correct actually. Dirty Harry's weapon of choice WAS a .44.

But it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The results would still be the same--Borden would have had time to take ony half a step before she got her head blown off.

(Message last edited Jan-24th-04  4:51 PM.)

I don't know of anyone who gives 'knowingly false' information here.  There would be no point.
And it isn't even a Lizzie topic- which is our purpose.
I suggest you connect of-line by e-mail to settle your question as to Cornwell.

on the cornwell ripper subject -- AS the cornwell ripper subject -- i got halfway and lost interest.

my impression (which only got stronger as i read) was that she had had an hysterical reaction to sickert's paintings -- and that's what was really behind the whole thing.

i looked up and really studied many of these paintings she was referring to.  i can appreciate/understand them.  i've seen it -- like when you're sitting in a room with someone late evening and the room full of dark overlapping shadows and the appearance of someone takes on a strange, even sinister quality.  that's what i see, anyway.  they do have  a morbidity, no doubt, and his use of red does insinuate blood.  sickert was obviously going after that effect.  painting about violence and committing violence are two entirely different animals.  and she seemed to admit her "DNA evidence" was weak. 

like understanding poe does not make me a sadistic maniac.  nor was he -- far from it.  the ability to get inside the head of a sadistic maniac and dramatize the psychology of it -- and speaking of poe, that's in conjunction with so many other insights -- this is genius -- not moral depravity.

i think cornwell is just wrong and there is something about all this she does NOT understand -- that's what i pick up from her, why i stopped reading it.  does anyone believe or like this book?  am i wrong to be more irritated than intrigued?

I own that book... And was never able to get interested enough in it to finish it.  It seemed to jump all over the place and I could never get caught up in it.

My humble opinion is that Cornwell has begun to believe her own publicity. 

I agree wth you both and could not finish the book either.
Now, Ray could at least read the book before demanding a duel over it I would think? 

BTW:  I heard the phrase by Danny Thomas today- "Holy Toledo!"
From where does that phrase come, hmmm?

I am glad to see there are more than me who just could not get into the book....

Seldom does a book so totally bore me that I would prefer to read nothing at all to reading it-- But this book did it to me.

I am hardy ever without a book--- and  can easily put 3-4 of them away a week.  When I bought this book I was low on new reading material and had enjoyed Cornwell's  novels -- so I thougt it would be a good read.  I was very disappointed in it and didn't get past the 2nd chapter.  I was also annoyed at her documentary about Princess Diana's accident and thought perhaps I was harboring ill feelings towards her over that.  But after reading Blowfish I was more convinced then ever not to read more of her work.

I just flipped through that book. No time for this at present.
ANYONE who tries to solve a century-old crime has two problems:
1) no witnesses available to testify; the suspect can't be tried;
2) you would have to demonstrate why you could solve the crime when the police could not (especially Scotland Yard, among the pioneers of the time).

I just doubt the honesty of anyone who says they "disproved" what is a theoretical solution. If it leaves out evidence that goes against their conclusion.

Proof: who here can disprove A.R. Brown's solution? What alibi do they have?

You may learn by reading about the Lindbergh kidnapping (fairly recent), or the more importance assassination of JFK. Who did it?

I am not a defender of that one book or a reader of Patricia Cornwell's novels. Seeing those big diamond earrings tells me she's done well as a novelist.

I just know that a "puff piece" in a magazine is usually due to its ownership of the publishing house, and unlikely to attack it later.

"I just doubt the honesty of anyone who says they "disproved" what is a theoretical solution. If it leaves out evidence that goes against their conclusion.

Proof: who here can disprove A.R. Brown's solution? What alibi do they have?"


if you're still on cornwell, i can say this much about it: SHE fell short of proving her case.  and that's about it.  it isn't everybody else's responsibility to prove that she could not possibly be right.  it's rather hard or impossible to PROVE somebody WRONG when evidence is so much speculation that cannot be proved or disproved.

if i say i killed the bordens by way of a time-travel mechanism, you can't exactly PROVE me wrong.

JUST LIKE WITH BROWN'S SOLUTION:  i can't prove it wrong, but i can reason at length about the unlikelihood of it.   how do you draw the line between fact and fantasy?  you like to speak of common sense.  along that line, i'll give you two major reasons to discount the brown theory:  1) there is nothing in the trial evidence to support it and 2) it requires us to believe in documents that do not exist.  beyond that, you could get into particulars regarding lizzie's inquest performance, for example.  but the first two are sufficient for disbelief.

i don't know if you've noticed in what i've said about this before, but i think the brown theory is rooted in psychology, where the author is attempting to substitute a son for a daughter -- with the result that the lizzie borden legend is pretty much the truth with the exception that it was a bastard son as opposed to a hateful daughter.  can you disprove this theory?

for the record, i think the jury was right to find her not guilty.  BECAUSE of the obvious importance and sanctity of the "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" precept.  it is ludicrous but not impossible that someone else did it under her very nose without her knowledge.  i do not -- i cannot -- find her innocent.  this is one fact about which i first approached her case with total naivete.  now i don't see how anyone can find her actually innocent -- whatever the details may be.  why?  if for no other reason, because i listened very carefully to the woman.  of course, i realize that according to your theory, this either/or approach i just summarized is a murk of conspiracy.

i don't hold with these conspiracy theories because people are just not that focused or disciplined.

i did not intend to go this far, but while i've got the time, have you ever considered the superficial inanity behind the theory that lizzie acted as she did because father told her to never say a word about that bastard maniac?  this is to make her seem strong and loyal and "principled."  just try to imagine lizzie as andrew drums this into her head:  "never say he ever existed, even if you are accused of murdering me and you know he did it, accept being the scourge of fall river, accept being known as one of the most (if not the most) famous murderesses in history, and an icon of parricide."  how could anyone accept or deal with this?  and nevermind the importance of money, either--as some have alluded to - as if exposing the bastard killer would have left them penniless. i would have done everything possible to bring about justice. but that's just me.  i still don't know lizzie borden.  but i've got enough of what you call common sense to know better than that.

YOU have been proven wrong simply by your failure to produce the "time travel machine", which is fantasy from writing words. Agree?

New facts, or ignored facts, are the way to disprove any theory. It is what works. Just like the Copernican-Gallilean theory "disproved" the Ptolemaic theory of the planets circling the earth. The latter theory led to a simplified explaantion.

Just like this: only Bridget and Lizzie were KNOWN to be in that house during the murders. Bridget was not a suspect after the first day. Lizzie was found 'not guilty'. So WHO was left? An unknown subject?

P Cornwell's book is an essay, an attempt to come up with a solution. The general reader is the judge. A best-seller speaks for itself.

"Its not the principle, its the money."

PS I've already written what the fault is in Brown's solution. H Hathaway was never at the scene, E Eagan was, but didn't know WSB, and most importantly, NEVER mentioned it to the police at the time. If she did, maybe the murders would have been solved. We do know about the effect of time on memories; remembering it as we would like it to be, in some cases.

AR Brown says the Trial and Transcript were to hide the true actor of the events of 8/4/1892. Lizzie kept her mouth shut, this made her vulnerable. If you think there is no such "greenmail" today, read your newspapers. Indicting someone will punish them financially and ruin their reputation even if found not guilty; POLITICS!

As someone who loves, for example, the movie SE7EN, I looked forward to reading one of Cornwell's grisly thrillers. 

I couldn't get more than a quarter into THE BODY FARM.  Grisly it was, but I'm also a fan of good writing, and it weren't it, IMO.

(If you haven't been following, I took exception to Cornwell as a writer some time ago, and named an article I believed had been in VANITY FAIR which demolished her Jack the Ripper theories.  I may have been mistaken; that article may have simply discussed her "findings," and it may have been The NY SUNDAY TIMES which took her apart.  In any case, Ray tried to argue that my error called everything I've written here into question, peeved at me as he is, with my frequent calling into question his seeming need to foist the Brown/"Billy" theory on us in nearly every thread.  I have since supplied the volume and number of the VANITY FAIR issue in question (and will not do so again), but whenever I cut too close, Ray brings up my "Cornwell conspiracy" yet again.)     

I went to the Library to look at the back issue of 'Vanity Fair'. There was no such article debunking the book. That seems to be either dishonest or sloppy on an important point. Note there is no specific date given for his latest story of the New York Times Sunday magazine.

If I were to mistake a name (Lorena or Lenora or Laurena for Sarah), I would acknowledge and correct my error. You may follow my example, if you can.

The "body farm" exists in Tenn?. It is a walled enclosure where dead bodies are left to rot under various circumstances to provide scientific experiments. The book "Stiff" explains it in a chapter.

You may go back in the posts to find the volume and number of the VANITY FAIR.  You may remember that I've admitted I may have mistaken the profile of the author in that issue (which certainly exists) for a "debunking" that may have been in another article I read.

You can't seem to get past that, can you?  Well, you are a funny old codger, after all, needing to see the shadow of Billy Borden behind every facet of the crime we discuss here, no matter how wearing that may be for the rest of us.

Good day, sir.

Ellen Eagan was called to the Inquest by either Doherty or Harrington, according to the Witness Statements (pg 14), on Wednesday the 10th.
She is listed as "Allen Eagan".
The papers said that she was dismissed after just a bit of testimony.  I don't think it was useful.  It wasn't recorded.  And I recall *laughter* or *smiles* when she was briefly on the stand.
See the Evening Standard.
(And ammend your notes)

But doesn't this reflect the racism or sexism of the time? Imagine a poor immigrant talking to the Court? Wasn't this true of Chaim Lubinsky as well?

There is a "Crime and Justice" message board that has a lot about Cornwell and her JTR theory.  I don't know if the Dec 2002 issue of Vanity Fair is cited.  You can check it out at http://pub165.ezboard.com/fcrimeandjustice13552frm59.showMessage?topicID=40.topic. 
A word of caution, there are several pop-up ads.
Joe

They had some interesting postings. But this can never be proven in a court of law using warring advocates. All any writer can do is to come up with a "best evidence" argument: it sounds better than the others. There is no "official court" to prove or disprove any book.
It is all "works of art" (show business selling entertainment). IMO

I think it's because Eagan didn't have anything to contribute.
Bridget's words were accepted in all the courts, and was *never under suspicion*, according to your philosophy.
You are changing your Irish tune to suit yourself.

Ellan Eagan, according to AR Brown, testified as to the time she saw Bridget out in the front yard. Hence, could not have murdered Abby at 9:30am.
Please note that the qualification "after the first day". AGREE?

There is not surviving testimony of Ellen Eagan, in any official court document, of which we are aware.
There might be some statement in The Hilliard Papers, supposedly due out from the FRHS.

Item dated August 10, 1892:
"There was a witness at to-day's inquest whose name was not given out by the police when the usual bulletin was issued.  It was MRS. EGAN (sic) who was seen to enter the BORDEN yard before the murders, mistaking it for DR. KELLY'S property adjoining." - Rochester News, Thursday, August 11, 1892.

Please ammend your notes.
Unless someone can show testimony?

(Message last edited Jan-29th-04  1:42 AM.)

Obviously if it was well known that Bridget was in the front yard when Abby was killed, there would be no reason to call in a witness to something that was not challenged or stipulated by both sides.
Once Bridget was not a suspect, she needed no alibi. Agree?

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean? 

If there was no controversy, there is no need for a witness.

The Inquest was a fishing expedition for the District Attorney, Knowlton.  He was just finding out particulars and also meeting these people for the first time.  I don't think he was even in Fall River before Monday and Tuesday started the inquest into the murders.  At that early stage, I can believe that Lizzie was suspected but still the inquiry would go forward to gain as much preliminary information as possible.
I don't think anyone's mind was made up Tuesday, so of course the witnesses called were still supplying the pieces of a puzzle.
If we go by your theory, than Eagan was no use as a witness at all because she had no useful information whatever.

Doesn't it sound to you as if Ellen Eagan embroidered her story considerably over time?  Surely, they would have called her as witness if she had the later story from the beginning. But, of course, maybe "they" faked her original statement, then conspired to keep her off the stand. That makes much more sense. (One would think, considering the Trickey-McHenry affair, that some enterprising journalist would have written her up, though. . . .)

--Lyddie

(Message last edited Feb-1st-04  1:14 AM.)

See, this is just the sort of thing Brown does, which is dangerous because it is misleading.
He can take that letter from the Knowlton Papers (#HK012- Phillip Gordon Reed) by the claimant that he is the illegitimate son of "Bordon"- and some missing testimony of Eagan, add a person called William Borden who had been in the asylum (but misrepresents When), and says the officials covered all this up and poof! he has a working fictional theory which cannot be proved or disproved!
I'm sure there are other aspects of which I am not cognizant at this time, since it has been many years since I read his book.
But I believe Brown was around Fall River about the time the FRHS was working on The Knowlton Papers.
Knowlton Papers donated 1989.  Published 1994.  Brown's book published
1991.
The elements are all there, the people are real, but there is no clear path to follow in attempting to prove his story.
If we are constantly being asked : "Can we disprove Brown's theory?"  I will forever answer, "Can you prove it to be true?"  And that should be the end of that Pleazzzeeee?!

I've written last year about the weaknesses: Hathaway knew WSB but was not at the crime scene; Eagan was but didn't know the stranger.
The big loophole is that Ellan Eagan never told about this stranger. But AR Brown sort of talks about the reason why. We do know that the passage of time affects memories; Brown mentions this about the notes he received from Peterson (name?) about his father-in-law.

The bottom line is that it is the best explanation for the crimes. It provides an optimal solution. I can believe Lizzie & Uncle John keeping quiet, but would the trial be fixed IF it was a planned killing? Would the three judges go along with it?

Yes, money talks then or now.

(Message last edited Feb-1st-04  4:24 PM.)

The whole point of THEORY is to provide a reasonable explanation of things that can not be directly observed.

AR Brown lists the people who helped in his Acknowledgment.

The name "Bordon" provides 'plausible denial'. If somebody found out about this letter by word of mouth, the sender could swear on a stack of Bibles that he never wrote about the Bordens. Agree?

Its like those rumor columns that tell about somebody but don't use the name. Remember the talk about the Profumo scandal in 1963? England wasn't the only place where a High Politician was involved with a call girl. It takes time for the truth to filter out.

Ray, the thing is, The Knowlton Papers are Filled with crank letters and
it's a gold-mine for someone with a vivid imagination!
When The Hilliard Papers come out that will probably be more fodder for the rumor mill and more legends created.

(Message last edited Feb-2nd-04  2:29 AM.)

Have I missed something, or are Rays and Raymond not the same poster?

Yes, Bob.  Check "handleless hatchet" #40 on for details and the latest feud.  (It's all legit on his part, but makes an amusing read.)

--Lyddie

Lyddie, dear,

Where is that thread?  I can't find "Handless hatchet," unless I'm not looking in the right area.  Well, if it were a snake, it'd probably bite me as Mother...I mean, Mrs. Gutowski used to say.  She used to say a lot of things until I followed her up to the guest room.  The funny thing is, now she's REALLY "got the floor!"

Bobbo

You forgot to check the privy, Bob!  #40 is only a couple of days
old, and the whole topic started about a week ago with Harry's photos of both sides of the handleless ax.  You might want to just read straight through to catch all the flying sparks going on around here--might help to explain postings in other topics too.

--Lyddie

But wouldn't the Jennings papers be even more potentially useful?

Jennings claimed Andy was a "boyhood friend", and did everything he could to protect his daughter from the murder charges. Did he later avoid Lizzie? Maybe the publicity wasn't worth it any more?

I saw Johnnie Cochran on TV interview last month. He said he doesn't do criminal cases any more. (Civil cases are always more lucrative, once you've got the high profile from a criminal case. IMO)