1. "Top Ten Favorite Lizzie Quotes"
Posted by njwolfe on Dec-24th-03 at 3:03 PM

10.  "I feel as if something were hanging over me."
9.  "She is not my mother, she is my stepmother."
8.  "She is a mean, good-for-nothing old thing."
7.  "I never eat any breakfast."
6.  "Emma, you have given me away."
5.  "There is a cheap sale of dress goods at Sargent's."
4.  "I am going to burn this old thing up, it is covered with paint."
3.  "Why, is there anybody in this house suspected?"
2.  "Father is dead. Somebody came in and killed him."

and the Number ONE.......is........drumroll.......

1.  "I do not do things in a hurry." 

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL!
  Best Wishes, Nancie 

Very nice Nancie.

How about the famous "O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over. Someone has killed father."

  Very David Letterman, I like it!  One of my favorites has always been: "I had on a navy blue, sort of a bengaline or India silk skirt, with a navy blue blouse.  In the afternoon they thought I had better change it.  I put on a pink wrapper."   

I like them all.  Here's another one I like:
" They call me the Sphinx of Coldness.  I never did show my feelings, and I cannot change my nature now."
And:
"They will not even give me a candle by which to read."  (But she got great restaurant food brought in daily!)
And:
(to Knowlton)  "I don't even know what your name is!"
And, of course:
"I was downstairs ironing ... I was in the kitchen ... I think that I was upstairs ..., etc., etc., etc."

My very favorite:

"I don't know. I think she went back into the spare room, and whether she came back again or not I don't know; that has always been a mystery."

That was a good post, nj, thanks!

Thanks, Nancie. You should send that in to Letterman. Maybe he'll use it.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Good one, Kat. 
How about when the reporter called Maplecroft?  Lizzie:  (CLICK!)

"Oh!, why did you let me do it?"  is another one.

  Good one, Harry.  Heres another:

"It depends upon one's idea of cordiality, perhaps?"

"We are screwed Emma, you have really screwed me this time"

  Hi Kash, long time no read! 

"It wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father."

"I was outside in the back yard eating pears."

Consider what Lizzie is testifying to right after the murders.

According to Henry Trickey:

"Emma, you damn bitch!"

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself"

Actually, that was Franklin D. Roosevelt

Yo Kash, good to see ya!

...whose "right-hand man" was Col. Louis McHenry Howe, husband of Grace Hartley Howe, Lizzie's cousin & heir.

Coincidence? 

Oooh...I actually found Col. Howe!  He thought Emma dunnit.



Cool hat...

More Howe...

From what I gather they lived quite a bit apart, Gace and her hubby!

Lizzie at Inquest :

Q. Where was your sister Emma that day?
A. What day?

  Did you ever get the impression that Knowlton would have glad strangled the woman if he could have?  I have to wonder if she was being deliberately obtuse or what?

Yes, they did seem to live separate lives.

It seems Grace Howe went into politics somewhat herself.  She's listed in the "Political Graveyard" --

http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/howarth-howe.html

Her hubby is NOT listed (unless I haven't looked thoroughly enough).

That is a classic, Kat.  100% Lizzie and it sort of says it all in two words.

Susan is right.  Can't you just see Knowlton turning red and ready to smack her. Grrrrrr.

(Message last edited Jan-6th-04  11:24 AM.)

Hiya Har-how you doing?

"I dreamed of you the other night but I dare not put my dream on paper"
WOOO, Lizz! Still waters running a little deep?

OOO that's a good one, Kash!

-and last night I dreamed I drove an empty school bus to Jacksonville in the rain on the Interstate with a white rabbit on the next seat.
To go swimming.

How about "Shut that damn bird up!" or something like that.

That rabbit didn't happen to be running late, did he??

BTW, my fav --

"I leave it to my counsel to speak for me."

From Lizzie's Will:

"I have been fond of animals and their need is great and there are so few who care for them."

And despite rumors she never said "Can't we all just get along." 

there are so many............

______________________

i like the exchanges with knowlton where the hostility shows:

A. I did not take them from the pear tree.
Q. From the ground, wherever you took them from.  I thank you for correcting me; going into the barn, going up stairs into the hottest place in the barn, in the rear of the barn, the hottest place, and there standing and eating those pears that morning?
Q. I beg your pardon, I was not in the rear of the barn.  I was in the other end of the barn that faced the street.

Q. You called your father father?
A. Always.

Q. So that the affair was serious enough to have you change from calling her mother, do you mean?
A. I did not choose to call her mother.

Q. What explanation can you suggest as to the whereabouts of your mother from the time you saw her in the dining room, and she said her work in the spare room was all done, until 11 o'clock?
A. I don't know.  I think she went back into the spare room, and whether she came back again or not I don't know; that has always been a mystery.

Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. No sir.
Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. She told me she had had a note, somebody was sick, and said, "I am going to get the dinner on the way," and asked me what I wanted for dinner.

A. They could have gone from the kitchen into the sitting room while I was in the dining room, if there was anybody to go.

Q. If she did would you not have seen her?
A. I don't know.  She might be in one room and I in another.
Q. Do you think she might have gone to work and washed all the windows in the dining room and sitting room and you not know it?
A. I don't know, I am sure, whether I should or not.  I might have seen her, and not know it.

Q. Where was your mother?  Do you prefer me to call her Mrs. Borden?
A. I had as soon you called her mother.  She was in the dining room with a feather duster dusting.

Q. Did you have an apron on Thursday?
A. Did I what?
Q. Have an apron on Thursday?
A. No sir, I don't think I did.
Q. Do you remember whether you did or not?
A. I don't remember sure, but I don't think I did.
Q. You had aprons, of course?
A. I had aprons, yes sir.
Q. Will you try and remember?
A. I had no occasion for an apron on that morning.
Q. If you can remember I wish you would.
A. I don't remember.
Q. That is all the answer you can give me about that?
A. Yes sir.

Gotta go on the list:  "Did I what?"  
Thanks Haulover for that gem.

Knowlton after Lizzie's inquest testimony:

"Why do I get to handle all the smart-asses?"

(Message last edited Jan-12th-04  11:57 AM.)

Can you read into this the growing frustration from the Prosecutor?
"Did I what?" point out that Knowlton is trying to put words into her mouth, but Lizzie will have none of this. You go, girl?

yes, part of what i was pointing out was knowlton's frustration.

perhaps lizzie's masterpiece is how she deals with the sinker/barn fabrication.....or rather, deals with him as he tries to understand it.  he proceeds logically -- lizzie defies logic.  she drags out the conversation by deliberating leading him to dead-ends -- all that about the lines/sinkers/hers/somebody elses/, etc at "the farm" (her family farm) -- all that is irrelevant to what he is trying to get at.  when he realizes it, he is incredulous.

all this, btw, is available here on the site.  unlike kat, i don't have the will to type it all out.

if you want to root for lizzie, that's your choice.  perhaps you see something "semi-noble" in lizzie in light of your faith in the brown theory.  as far as i'm concerned, she might as well be a murderess in the brown theory.  she's "protecting?"  no, she's lying.

So is there something wrong in Lizzie trying to protect herself from from prosecution? Isn't that her Fifth Amendment right? If there is no evidence for her guilt, why should she let a sharp & clever lawyer trick her? Or anyone else for that matter?

she was obligated legally and morally to tell the truth.

Is anyone "legally and morally obligated to tell the truth"? By what religious standards? If you see some crime being done, are you really obligated to become a public witness?

And what is "Truth"?
...
I will offer two examples. In one case you see something like a mob hit. Would YOU like to be the "sole witness" who could convict?
In the other case you see a particular person, say white commit a crime. The newspapers say a "black man" did it. Would you come forward to prevent an injustice? Assuming neither belong to a gang who could "take care of you". Remember Arnold Schuster?

In the first, I think you should take care of yourself first. In the second, you may be morally obligated to "tell the truth".

There is the quote of Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Sacco-Vanzetti case: those two were unfortunate enough to be tried when people's emotions ran high.
(Nobody can guarantee a fair trial by erring humans.)

(Message last edited Jan-15th-04  7:41 PM.)

This message is not about a Lizzie quote.
It's about taking care of animals.
I just finished mopping the floor of my sick cats room.
I have been spot cleaning it 3 times a day for a week and at the end of the week I have to do a minor/major job in there.  Also cleaning litter boxes etc.  and have nursed sick cats and spent money on vets and food etc.

I was thinking of Lizzie's will.
She left no money to her relatives, not even to Emma with whom she had an Agreement.  Lizzie had relatives.  She also had step-relatives.  Why would she leave Andrew's fortune to animals?
I was wondering if it was easy for her to hand over money to an animal fund and look good, or if she ever got down and dirty caring for an animal.

There is a questionable story about Lizbeth out riding in her motor car and her chauffeur running over a dog.  And she had him take up the animal and take it to a vet and gave the money to have it cared for.
But she didn't take it home and care for it herself, you see.
Throwing money at a problem, not really dealing with it herself.
(Like the Tilden-Thurber incident.  It's Likely Lizzie bought her way out of that.)

RE: Lizzie's will: she DID give a great deal to relatives, to
her cousin Grace Howe and other cousins (Robinsons).  To say "she
left her estate to the animal shelter" is not right, she left
30,000 which was quite a bit but still just a drop in bucket considering the value of the whole estate. 
  I see your point though, I wonder why she didn't have a dog or
cat at Maplecroft? Maybe she did but we don't know about it.  Seems
she liked feeding her squirrels and birds though. 

I'm sorry, but I didn't say she left her estate to the animal shelter.
You're right to say she did leave money to relatives.  My mistake.
And to be clear she did leave it to more distant relatives than closer ones.
But I suppose maybe she outlived most of them?

I also was thinking, (but nobody can read my mind) that she could have helped her close relatives in their lifetime, like Hannah Gifford (who shared a great-grandfather in common with Andrew and who worked, making Lizzie's cloaks before Lizzie inherited) with Andrew's money, and Hiram & Lurana Harrington and any Morses and Abby's struggling family members.

No, you said she left her "fortune" to the animal shelter.
I think Lizzie's will speaks volumes about her and is a very
important piece of her puzzle.  All those people in Washington,
who are they?  What was Lizzie's life in Washington like? 
Seems to be a lot of Washington connections. 
 

I'm sorry again, but I did not say that.
See post #40.  I really don't mean to quibble but when I am quoted I would like the quote to be accurate.

"Why would she leave Andrew's fortune to animals?
I was wondering if it was easy for her to hand over money to an animal fund and look good, or if she ever got down and dirty caring for an animal."

I seem to recall something about Lizzie having bulldogs, 2 or 3 of them, but, can't remember where I saw or read that.

I checked in Lincoln on the off chance and the only thing I could find about Lizzie's pets was this, page 309:

"I see the Nance business only as another instance of the same nature that led Lizzie [b]to bury her pets int he local pet cemetary around a central monument that bore the tender inscription Sleeping Awhile-in other words, as the sort of sentimentality to which my mother used to refer mildly as 'sort of sickening.'"

Found this in an old post of Harry's in the archive:

DEDHAM, MASS.

Pine Ridge Cemetery
238 Pine Street.

Laddie Miller, Lizzie Borden's dog.
Royal Nelson, Lizzie Borden's dog.
Donald Stewart, Lizzie Borden's dog.
Lizzie buried all three dogs in one grave with a single headstone with the dog's names and the words "Sleeping Awhile." The name Borden is at the bottom.

I found the wee doggies' graves described and photographed in Rebello, pp. 357-58. Interestingly enough, she purchased the stone a year before their interment.  Nothing like planning ahead.

In her defense, though, if the dog in the accident was badly injured, she probably did better to seek professional veterinary aid than to trust to her own nursing skills.  

Hear about Joan Kroc's bequest last week? THAT was certainly better than stray dogs and cats. (You may complain about my attitude, but I don't care.)

I wasn't there as part of the Lizzie - JVM - Emma conspiracy.
I beleive AR BRown's theory because it best fits the known facts.

Do we all agree that Lizzie wasn't telling all she knew? And JVM was involved?

Who then could it be? An ex-boyfriend who was turned down by Andy? A planned murder? I think the known facts say this was unplanned by anyone, even the killer (who just blew up - see your local crime news for similar events today).

I don't think a spur-of-the-moment crazed killer could get in the house twice and butcher people w/o help from within.
Todd Lunday illustrates this point.

Besides, Lizzie and Bridget would be dead, too.

I'm imagining an initial vet visit and then the long after-care period where the animal is home and needing nursing 4 or 5 times a day.
I also wonder at the expertise of a vet in the early 1900's.
A person somewhat skilled with their own animals may be as good , but I don't know the standards back then.

Thanks Kat for reminding me of that great little book by
Todd Lunday, it was so well written. And am I wrong about
thinking (remembering) it was written by an "insider" who
gave a ghost-name?  I wonder who the real author was?

I think it sounds like someone in the legal profession because of the way the argument is structured- like a trained mind.

I think the only thing that saved Lizzie & Bridget is that they were not around or out of sight when the murders occurred. My opinion from the way it happened.
Imagine this: you left your Dad alone when he had business to discuss. When the secret visitor left, you found your Dad dead. Your Uncle, who was completely trusted by your Dad, advised you it would be best to say nothing. What would you do?

Ray, you crack me up, you can't get out of the one and only mode
you are in, yet there is no proof of it.  I also could go your way
and believe a stranger came in and did it, William B or whoever.
But the fun of it, the mystery of it is that we just don't know, there
is no proof.  In the early LBQ's there was big debate about Brown's
theory, very good proofs explained to disclaim it.  I think once before on here I made the effort to research and list those reasons.  And you "blew me off" or didn't respond, whatever so I felt my effort was wasted.  I am one who thinks that Lizzie did NOT do it, so I am
mostly on your side, but I could go the other way in a heartbeat if
some new proof were shown.  Ray, we have all (i think) read Brown plus
the other books and trial documents.  There are big question marks
all over and AR Brown did not solve this case! 

Hear, hear, Nanci!  If the case were (as if it could be) solved, it would lose half its fascination.  This way, we can keep trying on theories to see how they look in the mirror.  Beats shopping for me!

Bridget and Lizzie were around when the muders occurred.
You know Judge Davis?  He wote about the Law & Lizzie:

pg. 3+

" 'It is on the other hand of a conclusive nature and tendency when the probability in favor of the hypothesis exceeds all limits of an arithmetical or moral nature.' In this case two important elements or matters of enquiry were practically eliminated at the outset. These homicides were neither the acts of a robber nor of a raving maniac. They were acts showing plan and intent. There was no evidence of any motive of any stranger to murder the victims, and especially a quiet, inoffensive woman of domestic habits. And they were not acts of homicidal spasm or mania, of a wild man, in as much as the prisoner was neither harmed nor made cognizant of his presence. The question was not alone 'What are the chances that any murder should be committed by a stranger in the middle of the forenoon, with more or less windows open, in a city, in a dwelling-house, on a frequented street, with workmen on adjoining lots and a servant girl outside washing windows.' Nor, 'What are the chances that such a murder should be committed unknown to a person in possession of the house at the time?' Nor, 'What are the chances that two homicides should be committed an hour or more apart, on different floors of such a dwelling-house, by a stranger, with another person in possession, without knowledge or alarm?' Nor, 'What are the chances in such a house, of all others, more guarded by locks and bolts than was the general custom?' Nor, "What are the chances that, with one victim an hour before felled to the floor by a thumping fall, the second homicide shou1d be committed when the only person in possession had gone to the barn on a trivial errand, and returned in time to hear a groan in the yard of a man who must have, been stunned by the first blow upon his head!' Nor, 'What are the chances that the person in possession in the middle of a hot forenoon should go to ironing a few pocket handkerchiefs and leave them unfinished at the very moment of the second murder to go to the barn, under a broiling sun, to get a piece of metal for a screen, or lead, for a sinker for a fishing line without hooks, for use upon a contemplated excursion, when she might have bought the sinker for a cent when she purchased the hooks?'

These were not the material questions alone to be considered. The popular mind and the court seems to have considered that if each one of these facts were possibly consistent with innocence, or possible by another, there could be no conviction. But the material question was whether a jury could find that all the circumstances, with others to be alluded to hereafter, with such others as may suggest themselves, could concur and happen at the same time, and whether the probability of the happening of the coincidences did or did not 'exceed all limits of an arithmetical or a moral nature.' ...
...
...It is a rule of law that the possession of property recently stolen and unaccounted for is sufficient for conviction. This was the role when the prisoner could not testify and when certain larcenies and robberies were capital offences; and many a man has thus been convicted and dragged upon the hurdle to his place of execution. This rule was not exceptional. It was in conformity with common sense, and a severe logic, as all rules of evidence are. It was but the expression of the principles of all criminal evidence applied to certain robberies.

But the same law which then and now convicts of robberies, applies to capital crimes. Here was a person who had in possession the bodies of two victims robbed of the precious jewels of their lives. Does anybody think that if this evidence had been applied to a case of robbery or of mere property the law administered, or the verdict would have been the same?" ...
--CONDUCT OF THE LAW -THE BORDEN CASE- with SUGGESTIONS OF CHANGES in CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE By
JUDGE CHARLES C. DAVIS
PLYMOUTH, MASS.
(1894)

--No one saw Bridget outside other than approximately 9:30 by the Kelly girl, Mary (and we have no testimony or sworn statement of this), and at 10 a.m. by Mrs. Churchill while Bridget threw water upon one parlour window.
There were numerous people about and a couple were looking out windows, yet no one else (besides Pettee, around the same time as Mrs. Churchill) saw Bridget, and Bridget says she saw no one (we include here that she saw Mary).
Lizzie was possibly glimsed very quickly by Lubinsksy who was driving by, 5 to 10 minutes after 11.
(Trial, 1413)
I really don't see these encounters as alibis.

--These timings are facts in the record.  I don't know if it's you or Brown who needs to update their notes, but since Brown is beyond caring, I suggest you do.
When you post this again, I will refer you to the testimony, again.

(Message last edited Jan-31st-04  10:17 PM.)