The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "92 Second Street Video"
Posted by Susan on May-17th-02 at 2:11 AM

Does anyone on the board have this video?  If so is it any good, worth buying?  What sort of stories are told on it?  I have heard something about ghostly children playing marbles in the back hall of Lizzie's old house.  Please share. 

(Message last edited May-17th-02  2:12 AM.)

I have the video but haven't viewed it in some time.  I'll look at it again and let you know what I think.  I do recall that I enjoyed it and thought it worth having.  I believe it's especially good for people who haven't been able to visit the Borden house, because it shows the house as it is now.

I viewed my copy again tonight.  My previous impression is correct.  The video runs about 25 minutes and has three sections.  The first contains a brief history of the Borden case.  The second has to do with supernatural happenings in the house.  The third is a tour of the house.  IMHO, the third segment is by far the best.  The photography is really quite good, and the colors are especially vivid.  It shows what a cheerful place the Borden house really is these days (and what a cheerful place it probably was in Lizzie's day too).  Actually, I enjoyed going into the kitchen again and seeing about where Lizzie was standing when she burned that dress.  I also noticed some changes in the spare room, which is where we stayed when I was there.  The soundtrack music is a bit overpowering, but very appropriate.  Jim Harrington, who did the video, narrates it and does an excellent job.  However, the "denizens" of the house (for want of a better word) are hardly experts on the Borden case.  It's kinda fun to count all the errors in the first segment. I don't recall anything about ghostly children playing in the house, but Martha mentions unidentified ghosts, and Michelle says the house is definitely "active," whatever that means.  (I fear I don't believe in ghosts, but if I ever meet one, I hope it's Lizzie's!)  I don't recall what I paid for my copy.  If anyone needs the address, it's Jim Harrington Productions, P. O. Box 12944, Pittsburgh, PA 15241-0944.  The label has an email address: jim@harringtonproductions.com.
I realize this probably belongs in the "Secondhand Shop," but I'm responding to an earlier post.

Thanks, Edisto!  As I had said, I heard briefly about the video and was curious.  And, yes, now that you mention it, this probably should have been posted in the Second Street Second Hand Shop. 

I just saw it last week myself, from a loaned copy.

I didn't think it was anywhere near worth the 20 bucks it is going for.  Mostly it is Manager Michelle Corvelo's theory about the crimes: that Morse left and came back around to the front door, Lizzie let him in, he went upstairs and killed Abby then split. Andrew came home early and that is why Lizzie had to kill him. Makes no sense to me, but she was pretty sure of it from her years studying the case.

Mistakes:
1. Narrator Harrington says in his intro that "by all accounts an excessively hot opressive day."

2.  Manager Michelle Corvelo states that Lizzie went next door and said, "Someone's killed father."

3.  Corvelo also sates that it was Andrew's habit to come home at noon, that he came home early that day unexpectedly and that is why he was killed.

4.  That the dress that was burned on Sunday was "hanging in the closet in the kitchen."----wasn't it in the cupboard?

5.  Martha McGinn states that the handleless hatchet had blood on it and it was tested and proved to be chicken blood.

One thing I disagree with Edisto about is the narratior's voice. I didn't think that his monotone fit the sensationalized version he presented. He uses these super odd video transitions, like the screen splitting into four segments and then with blood dripping from the seems, the next section begins.

They also do not show the attic or the basement on the tour, two very important areas of the house.

The haunting stuff is weird too. Kind of just thrown in. Standard fare.

Hmmm, maybe I should just save my money to update my book collection.  I'd like to see it, but, don't want to waste money on a stinker of a video. 

Michelle Corvelo has been studying the case?  Well, she was certainly animated enough to make up for Harrington's "monotone."  I agree with you about the oddball transitions; they didn't add anything.  After I watched that video (which I did enjoy despite its faults), I began watching that "Century of Fascination" one, and I decided that there are some really odd (or at least odd-looking) people who are interested in the Borden case.  Let's just say some of 'em don't have to waste money on costumes when Halloween comes around!  (And yes, I'm only too happy to include myself in the group.)

Stef said something similar to me yesterday...and that we're included!

The scary stuff Martha talked about was strange indeed. 
--Her dog (Alsation?) would NEVER go up the front stairs...always went the *long 'way 'round*.
--When she was younger and staying with her grandparents at one time her father had his bedroom in the dining room.  He castigated her for making so much noise in the night moving the furniture above his head, so he couldn't sleep.  Martha's room was the little room of Emma, just above.  He didn't believe that she not only Didn'T move anything, she didn't hear anything from her floor, but heard furniture moving ABOVE her, as well!
--Someone saw the outline of a body as if it had lain in the guest room bed.

Anything else?

I want to apologize to the people who appeared in that "Century of Fascination" video, if any of 'em drop by here.  I later watched the "Hash & Rehash" one, and it was apparent some of those same folks look a whole lot better when they're properly lighted.  I hope that's true of all of them!  I think the lighting used in "Century of Fascination" was borrowed from the FRPD.  You know, the old naked lightbulb effect.  I myself tend to look like a gargoyle in photos, so I ought to be more sympathetic!

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  9:57 PM.)

I've been looking at Alice and Emma's testimony at the trial , as to the burning of the dress.

Firstly, Lizzie gives a *dress* to the authorities, on Saturday.
Then about 9 pm. Saturday night Emma claims she supposedly can't find a nail for her own dress in the clothes closet and *suggests* Lizzie get rid of that *old dress*.
If there's alreadty one dress gone from the closet by that night, that we can account for, why all of a sudden does Emma need a nail?

Now, the testimony never states that "Emma" removed that dress, or put it in the kitchen.

There also seems to be a discrepency as to Alice's story of the cupboard and where Lizzie stood in the kitchen, compared to Emma's.  Alice's questioning and answers on the stand are extensive compared to just a few lines from Emma, but they still tend to confuse.

Emma says (1542) (Lizzie) "...was standing at the foot of the stove, between the foot of the stove and the dining room door.   This dress was hanging on her arm...did not see her burn it...about 9 a.m."

Alice (391) says "I went into the kitchen, and I saw Miss Lizzie at the other end of the stove and she had a skirt in her hand...I left the room.  (When returned) Miss Lizzie stood up towards the cupboard door,--the cupboard door was open ...she stepped just one step farther back towards the cupboard door...I saw a portion of this dress up on the cupboard SHELF (inside the cupboard)...The door was wide open."

--This implies, as Alice ENTERS, that Lizzie is AT THE OTHER END of the stove.  This would be where the floorplans all show a CLOSET ...but Emma claims Lizzie was nearer to the dining room, where we don't know if there were any *cabinets or cupboards*.  There never seemed to be room there, to the north of the stove, for cabinetry...

--Then to confuse the issue, Alice points to a diagram in court:  "The stove is HERE, The firepot in the stove is HERE, HERE is where she stood (Lizzie)."  !!  She stood "RIGHT AT THE CORNER".  (417)
--In questioning : "What was that CUPBOARD, AS YOU CALL IT, USED FOR?"   Moody wants to know is it a food closet or a clothes closet.
--He seems to interchange the words closet and cupboard.
--The closet was used for coal, flat irons and kitchen utensils.  (418 & 419)
--So in a photograph from the website of the kitchen, is this a new stove, or the original?  And if the original, which part is the "firebox"?
--BTW:  Sunday Lizzie burns a dress, so Emma now has a surfiet of nails upon which to hang her clothes!  I hope she's HAPPY!

Kat, that looks like a newer model stove to me.  Look on the right hand side of it, there is a gas line and hook-up, Andrew never had the house connected to the gas main.  And if I remember correctly, the fire box is in the center door.  I think that the door on the left was the bread oven and the door on the right was the regular oven.  This is from memories of my one grandmother who told me about when she was a little girl and how her mother cooked on a coal and wood burning stove.  There was some sort of metal or stone sheet under it to catch the cinders as they fell out and the cat, Thigadus(Lithiuanian for Tiger), would sleep under the stove and get his tail burned by falling cinders.  Hope it helps. 

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  9:58 PM.)

Thanks for the info, David!  My memories are vague in some of these instances, some things stand out better like the one of the cat.  Didn't gas stoves come about in the 1910's or 1920's?  I'm sure alot of women then considered them some sort of new fangled contraption and were probably loathe to give up their old cookstoves. 

I thought if we could determine WhERE the FIREBOX was, we could figure out where Lizzie stood when the dress was supposedly burned.
Thanks for the input.
Sorry that message leaked over too long...didn't know it would do that...

So, each burner had it's own "firebox"?  That's nicely confusing of Alice.

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  9:59 PM.)

Thanks Kat for doing all that research for me!

In the video the camera shows the sink room door which is to the right of the back hall as you look out the side door while standing in the kitchen. They show this shot when talking about the dress that Lizzie burned in the stove on Sunday and says this is where she stored it.

I knew this was not the correct closet, and I must admit I am very confused by the closet/cupboard interchangability here. I have heard each word used to describe the location of the dress. My 20th C. mind only sees a cupboard when that word is used. I can see how someone back then would use that word for closet. It is good to know I was at least half right here.

Thanks for the link!  I "captured" some photo's.
It's amazing that the B&B paid so much $ if they did replace that stove.
How does one "date" a stove like these?

EDIT:
Prelim., pg. 73, Bridget:
Q: Where did you keep the flat irons?
Q: In a little closet, back of the stove in the kitchen.

Translation?

And, pg. 75:
Q: Now this small ironing board which you say they were in the habit of using was kept where?
A: In the kitchen closet, behind the door.
--(I think someone once gave the opinion that the little ironing board was kept somewhere else, like where it is kept Now...)
--There's so many doors, wonder which she refers to?

(Message last edited May-23rd-02  5:03 PM.)

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:00 PM.)

Your reading of the testimony is probably correct, David. That darn video showed the sink room and said the dress was kept there. It can be confounding that the owner of the place can't even get the facts 100% straight. Oh well.

Yea, I agree David.
I was hoping that was the correct interpretation.