1. "Movie Alert -- starring Nance"
Posted by Kimberly on Dec-30th-03 at 11:33 AM

She has a small role in the movie Transgression
from 1931. It airs on Turner Classic Movies on
Tuesday, Jan. 13 at 6:00 AM

from the program guide:
When her lover is killed, a straying wife (Kay Francis)
tries to intercept the confession she mailed her husband.
Kay Francis, Ricardo Cortez, Paul Cavanagh. D: Herbert
Brenon. BW 70m. 


If I remember correctly, Nance plays the sister in law
of Kay Francis -- it has been years since I've seen it,
not the best movie ever -- but it is a talkie...

Thanks, Kimberly.  Got it on my calendar.  It's nice to know so far in advance.

Now all I need is cable!
I am up at 6 a.m. tho!
Thanks Kimberly.  I don't know if I have seen a movie with Nance at a time when I knew who she was.

She is wonderful to watch, if only someone had
some home movies of Lizzie.

I think there are more casual photos of Lizzie still out there and those would shed new light on how she lived in the world.
You are right in implying we only have studio portraits and have not seen Lizzie in her real element.
I heard she once took her staff's daughter on a picnic and invited everyone.  And that there are "brownie" camera type shots from that outing.

Isn't the Lizzie post-trial "with the chair" picture posed-but-informal?  I guess this is the closest thing we know that's not a studio portrait --

Don't forget!

Another movie alert-just opened "Monster" the story of Aileen Wournos. Floridians this must sound familiar...

Drat and double Drat!  I forgot.  Why did they have to put it on at 6 in the morning.

I programmed my TV to be on the watch for "Nance" so if this movie or any other surfaces it will tell me.  Naturally I will post the info here.

Maybe Augusta taped it?  She's up at 6.

Definetly want to see "Monster" but will wait until the flu season is over.
Saw a TV movie on "Lee" starring Charlene from Designing Women, her last name is "Smart" I think?

THAT was very good!

Saw all the news coverage throughout, as well, as you predicted.

They call her *rare* as woman serial killer, but I think that there might be a lot of female serial killers who use poison and are so far undetected.

Yes, that is it exactly. A woman is much more likely to use poison than an axe. The history of crime is filled with the examples. The "Encyclopedia of Crime" may be in your library.

i know your view on women poisoning as opposed to axing.  but when people talk about these methods it seems to me they are mostly talking about serial killers.  we read about female killers poisoning WHEN POISONING WORKS FOR THEM.

i was thinking about this today:   sometimes we overlook the obvious because we've been looking and thinking too much.  we get caught up in this problem trying to "explain" the borden murders.  there is the slow poison vs. the bloody axe rage.  with lizzie, we've got a report of poison and the reality of axe murders.  true to form, she seems to introduce difficulty into every detail.

the borden murders themselves tell the truth, do they not?  someone bashed in abby's skull and waited approx an hour and a half and then did the exact same thing to andrew (i'm assuming it's one killer).  between the two murders, SOMEONE made no sound and hid or quietly went about their business.  there was no sound or struggle or anything until lizzie called bridget.  (back up for one minute and look at the crime scenes.  at least one of the doctors wondered why the rooms were not bloodier.  but they were as they were.  meaning:  the murderer stopped the blood flow at first blow - hence, the murderer need not have been blood-splattered.)   now the aforegoing (except perhaps for the parens) is not even arguable, yet we end up somehow trying to understand how an ax-murderer could behave this way or how someone's failed attempt at poisoning could drive someone to do this in just this way.  and we always fall into gender preferences (and i do note gender issues here).

what do you think of my theory that the only way to understand this murderer is to understand that there is such a thing as a basically amoral-in-character person who is able and willing to do whatever it takes to get what she/he wants?  for lack of any other likely suspect, i'm saying the person is lizzie.  lizzie is not a serial killer.  this was a singular event, but for lizzie it necessitated murder.  once murder was decided as the only solution -- she then proceeded in spite of herself, if necessary.  then she said what she thought she had to say, no matter how ridiculous, she stuck to it, she used every available weapon in public opinion, she used her gender, etc...........and got away with it.  think of this:  WHO ELSE could have got away with it?

what i'm saying is...........if i had to bet on it, this is how i would understand lizzie borden.  she knew what she wanted.  she did what she thought would benefit her.  that she looked guilty is something she would simply disavow knowledge of.  she was not mentally ill. she was capable of cruelty.  she was also capable of being nice and generous.

if i'm wrong about this, then she MUST be innocent.  No?  what do you think about my thinking? 

Harry told me about a show he caught that dealt with arsenical poisoning and his description to me if I understood correctly, was that one big dose of arsenic might be what felled the elder Borden's Tuesday night- because one big dose that was not enough to kill- thru inadequet understanding of how arsenic works-
would mimic the symptoms of massive vomiting from a (suspected) bout of bad fish.
If there was one big dose, which their bodies evacuated, then it's not necessarilly considered a *poisoning* in the sense of an ongoing, slow, torturous process, which, yes, would imply a serial killer.
So it might be a weapon used once, like a poker or a knife -or a hatchet, and not need therefore to fit the profile of a vocation in killing.

very thought provoking post Haulover, you make good points that
make me think hard.  Picturing Lizzie so single-minded and stubborn
and determined.  I could go with you except for the perfect blows,
the absence of blood on Lizzie and where was was the hatchet stashed
in that short a time span?  I keep going to Uncle John because he
started his life as a butcher, he lived with a butcher and he was
in the business and knew lots of people in that business.  He could
have arranged this with Lizzie's help very easy.  The butcher took
the axe away with him.  Uncle John's motive? Just that he wanted to
keep his sister's children happy? Lizzie asked him a favor and he
took care of it?   I so much agree with your picture of Lizzie in
her single-mindedness and determination. 

the wounds on andrew are the most "concentrated" -- but an obvious explanation for this is that he was never a moving target as abby was at least part of the time.  i know the defense talked about how well-aimed the blows were and so forth.   but i lean more toward the prosecution's description of the wounds -- that what strikes me the most curious is how they are mixed with "deadly" and "superficial" blows.  then again, i realize this is something i just don't have a "feel for." 

morse is a problem for me.  i don't know how to place him in this.  if it was pure coincidence his being there -- if his stay in the guest room provided lizzie the opportunity for dropping abby where she would not be readily noticed -- if lizzie made her decision because of something she heard wednesday night.

one thing for sure is that lizzie's testimony concerning morse is one of the most screwed-up parts of her performance.  so he must figure in this somehow at least in lizzie's mind.  she seemed to want to downplay her contact with him.

yet i can't see morse being the killer because of the motive issue.  i can't believe he would kill them just to get the girls their money.  i can see him destroying evidence if he knew it was lizzie though.  there's something odd about him anyway.

and when considering bridget, emma, morse as suspects -- i always have to come back to this:  that the one and only truly guilty-sounding testimony in so many ways is lizzies.  if any of the other 3 did it, shouldn't they "sound" guilty in their answering questions?  i don't hear that kind of guilt (i don't mean simple mistakes that have some explanation).  but lizzie -- she's something else altogether.

I've been reading the latter part of the Trial today looking for skulls.  Trying to find if both were brought into court, or only Andrew's.
For this, I am reading a lot of Dr. Dolan's testimony.
The wounds he describes on Abby seem haphazard and they go in diferring directions and when you look at her shaved skull you will see little skill involved.
Some wounds didn't penetrate into the skull.
However, the assailant eventually found the thinest portion of her skull which was presented, over the right ear, and seems to then have pounded away.
A professional would slay with less than 1/2 the blows.

Actually, there was a lot of blood from both victims, just pooled considerably directly below their final head position.


--As to where the weapon was hidden, it was hidden where it couldn't be found! 

(Message last edited Jan-15th-04  3:38 PM.)

OK, a skilled (or lucky) axe murderer could kill with one blow and avoid being blood spattered. But why so many more strokes? And avoid being spattered by the blood which did stain the wall over the couch?
The lack of bloodstains does augment the normal assumption of innocence in regards to Bridget and Lizzie.

But JVM left the house while Abby & Andy were still alive, as far as we and the authorities know. JVM was a few miles away when Andy got whacked. He was not the actor in this drama.

"The murderer carried the bloody hatchet away with him" is the likeliest explanation for its disappearance from the crime scene.

Weybosset Street was a mile and a quarter from the Borden house according to Morse, trial 138.

Previously in the Inquest and Prelim., Morse said it was "a good mile".

I don't think JVM actually got his hands dirty, just that he
set it up and brought the butcher with him. 
Haulover, yes Lizzie really was "something" and her words are the
most confusing.  If we are to believe that exchange at the jail
"Oh Emma you have given me away"..what does that mean? 
Everything points to Lizzie, yet, practically I can't see how she
could have done it without a trace of blood or hair out of place on
her head.  It is just too hard to believe.

Assuming 3 mph walking on a hot and humid day, that's about 25 minutes walking. Faster if by trolley.

That pretty much rules out Lizzie (or Bridget) as the sole actor?
But I believe JVM was also innocent in that he merely set up the meeting. The theory of a crazy individual who went off the tracks is as good then as it is now. A local case had a teenager who killed his father "sharp edged instrument" after what must have been an argument. Known to use drugs, he was diagnosed a "paranoid schizophrenia" (a term used to explain the unexplainable?).

He said he went to the post office and then walked on to Weybosset.
He came back on the car.