1. "Can anyone tell me abote this?"
Posted by Jimmy Windeskog on Nov-14th-02 at 4:39 AM

In the text "Suspects" i saw this:

"NOBODY  -- Todd Lunday.  The Mystery Unveiled: The Truth About the Borden Tragedy: Fresh Light That Must Be Convincing to All Readers, 1893:  Since Lizzie is acquitted, attempts to prove that "Nobody" committed the crimes."

Anyone who knows anything about this ide?

I would also like to know what is written about Lizzies "innocent" in the book "Lizzie dídn´t do it". I cant find the book i Sweden.

you could download a copy of that here:

www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CaseRelatedBooks.htm

Thanks!

Hello Haulover!

Thanks for giving directions to the Virtual Library downloads!
It's really nice to know that they are useful, and people actually go there and know to send others!

This is Masterton's book, "Lizzie Didn't Do It!"

I think, If I remember correctly, that he is a chemist and his theory revolves around a supposition that Abby did not die an hour or more before Andrew, but that her death could be contemporary to his, if it could be proven that she ate again AFTER breakfast, sometime later in the morning.  If she did eat again (he cites her gluttony) her stomach contents would be as full as Andrew's and not because she died first with her digestion stopping at that point, say 9 a.m., but because she snacked later on.

Masterton has Abby receiving a note (? is this right, people?), and going to her 1/2 sister's house Sarah Whitehead, that morning.   Sarah is not there, (she went on the picnic to Rocky Point) and Abby sits down and has some meat pie or pasty or something, and falls into a doze, and then awakens, goes home only to be murdered along with Andrew.

Do you want to know why or who?  Maybe another here can fill this in?

Kat:

Those downloads were a great find for me.  I was finally able to go through the inquest, the testimonies, the witness statements, etc.  I've been reading here for a long time.  I spoke up today for the first time.

Could you shed some light on something?  I've heard that due to some court ruling, there are documents on the case, kept hidden by lizzie's lawyers, that now may never be seen?  Some seem to think there is a solution in them.  Then I heard that someone did read them somehow and said "interesting but not earth-shattering" (or something to that effect).

that Masterson theory is the perfect example of someone's "cleverness" drowning out common sense.  it was obvious without an autopsy that abby (cold body, thickened, drying blood) had been dead longer than andrew (still dripping).  as far as i know, all who were there attest to that.  i've always wondered if lizzie (if she's guilty) was naive enough not to realize that the timing of the murders would be obvious.

You're right, Kat.  I'm always blown away by how people can remember all this without having the reference right there.  Masterton has his Ph.D. in Chemistry and retired as a full professor at the University of Connecticut. 

He says that Abby was to baby-sit for Abby Whitehead when her mother Sarah, went to the picnic at Rocky Point. (This has been backed up by Abby Whitehead, herself.) But when Sarah found out that Abby Borden had been sick she sent her little boy with a note to 92 Second Street saying that she thought it would be too much for her 64 year-old aunt to have the little girl visit.

Masterton suggests that Abby Borden thought this was foolishness and decided to go over to Sarah's and get the little girl before the Whitehead's left for the day.  

He further surmises that Abby told Lizzie about this note, but that Lizzie was not really interested or listening closely.  Consequently she remembered vaguely that Abby had said "someone was sick" ..."little boy brought the note" ... and "visit"..

Then we go to the part you talked about.  Where Abby goes to the house, finds some mincemeat pastries, has a snack, and dozes off.

The tough sell with this premise still revolves around the note; and the fact that no one came forward to claim authorship.  Masterton asks us to suspend disbelief a little, here, I think.  He suggests that there was sufficient animosity between Sarah Whitehead and Lizzie to prevent Sarah from admitting there was a note. 

He supports this with Sarah's statement to Doherty and Harrington in which she discusses the famous sale of the property on 45 Fourth Street and says: "This the girls did not like; they showed their feelings on the street by not recognizing me." (Masterton, 190)  And then, in her inquest testimony, when Knowlton suggests that they were "not on particularly friendly terms"  with Lizzie and Emma, Sarah replies: "Well, I don't know as I was. I never thought they liked me. .....I always thought they felt above me." (Masterton, 190) 

And remember the story that Lizzie killed the cat came from Abby.  And although there doesn't seem to be any other evidence that this incident happened -- just because Abby Whitehead puts it forth suggests that Sarah Whitehead may have had something to do with her daughter's almost pathological dislike of Lizzie.

Yet I have trouble believing that, if Sarah really had written the note, she would let Lizzie go to trial without coming forward.  

If you have the issue of LBQ, July, 1988, the letters about this and the news article are in there.
Otherwise, I will transcribe one of them that might answer you...please watch this space...

That was a great addition to my measley "Masterton" post!  Thanks so much, Diana.  kk

(Message last edited Nov-15th-02  1:07 AM.)

LBQ, July, 98

"SPRINGFIELD, Mass.  (AP) -
No they didn't lock up Lizzie Borden for the hatchet murder of her parents.

But they did lock up her lawyer's papers.

Even now, 105 years later, the papers remain hidden from public view, even though they are probably the last great body of fresh historical evidence on one of the most sensational  episodes in legal history.

The papers are in a locked room inside a file cabinet on the 16th floor at the Springfield law firm founded by George Robinson, Borden's lawyer.

Some of today's researchers and enthusiasts of the trial believe the claims of history override the obligation of confidentiality the long-gone lawyer had to his long-gone client.  In particular, they want to know whether the files contain a confession.

'Certainly client-attorney confidentiality is valuable, but I think 100 years is a fair amount of time', said Jules Ryckebusch, a Bristol Community College professor, who publishes the Lizzie Borden Quarterly newsletter.  'They're a very important part of history.'

John Corrigan, who teaches at the law schools at Harvard and Roger Williams University in Bristol, R.I., said. ' At some point, the legitimate claims of history outweigh embarrassing somebody 300 years after his death.'

However, Arnold Rosenfeld, a lawyer for the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, has cautioned the firm about making the papers public.  The board forces ethical standards among lawyers.

'The duty to protect confidential information survives death in Massachusetts,' he said in a recent interview.  'That's clear.  There's case law.'

Borden was charged with hacking to death her father, who was a wealthy businessman, and her stepmother at their Fall River home in 1892.

A jury acquitted her in about an hour, but many still believe she got away with murder.

Jeffrey McCormick, a partner at the firm of Robinson, Donovan, Madden & Berry who has browsed through the two drawer's worth of papers, refused to say what the files hold.

'Historically, they can be interesting to read,'  Mr. McCormick said.  Then, with a faint grin, he added, 'I'm not saying that there's some smoking gun in there.'

The firm considered releasing the papers in 1992, on the centennial of the murders.  But it backed away after seeking advice from the Board of Bar Overseers.

Borden, who lived out her days as a social outcast of high means, died in 1927 without ever marrying.  Thus, the Springfield firm has no direct descendants who might advise it on the future of the papers."

--2 notes here:  Jules Ryckebusch has since retired from the postion of publisher of the LBQ, but contributes funding.
Mr. Corrigan ,you may remember, is in all those Lizzie video's...actually so is Jules Rychebusch...

So, all they need is the say-so from a close Borden relative?  AUGH!!!  There must be someone close enough in blood and willing?! 

kat:

thanks for posting that article.  i knew i had read some reference to it.

You're welcome.
There are other letters, and another article in there about it and Michael Martins is quoted as saying:
"I'm sure it's an interesting collection...but I doubt there's anything that is going to prove the case."
   &
If the law firm ever wanted to donate the papers to the Historical Society, "Martins would be happy to accept them, but added. 'We wouldn't go after them.' "
  &
"Martins thinks the privilege should be extended even to long-dead accused ax murderesses.  'Personally, I think Lizzie Borden bought and paid for her defense,'  he said.  'Isn't it important that they protect the documents of their former clients?  I think it's important that they do that.' "

-Susan, "Rosenfeld explained that two principles guard the contents of a client's file:  lawyer-client privilege and lawer-client confidentiality.  The first is what protects a lawyer from being ordered to divulge what is in files.  The second requires that lawyers not divulge to the public material that might be embarrassing or damaging to a client."

And even before the Supreme Court ruled in the Vince Foster case, which many thought would influence the decision in this case, Rosenfeld said that "it may have no affect on the Borden file.."  McCormick says that even that ruling "doesn't necessarily mean we'd do it."  (LBQ, July, 1998, pg.7)

--Remember when Prof. Starrs wanted to exhume the bodies and relations were found who, I believe, said no?

But, if it is true that the papers contain no smoking ax and are just an interesting bunch of documents, I can't see why they wouldn't let them be published and perhaps make some sort of tidy profit from them?  I wonder if a Borden relative could get access to them to just look at them?  Its maddening, so close and yet so far! 

This has been going on for YEARS, and people have tried...OUR people have tried!
CAROL could tell you all about her attempt!
It was righteous!

Susan: I don't think it is a question of legality, but I do believe the law firm feels it is still one involving their integrity. They don't want to initiate an action that might be perceived as a disservice to a client, even a dead one - and isn't this the kind of lawyer we all wish for?
When it comes right down to it, are you SURE you would like to know the contents of that file?  Suppose we discover there is nothing to it after all - how would we occupy these quiet Sunday afternoons?

PS Smoking hatchet? Love it!

You do need a better reason than the idle curiosity of people who don't have enought to otherwise keep them busy. What 'standing' do you have to go into court? Can anyone look into YOUR records just because they are curious?

Weren't the papers from lawyer Jennings published some years ago?

Yes, while I don't like the law firm's decision, I would have to agree with their integrity.  Whats in those papers may change Lizzie's legal standing of innocent; she may have told Robinson she did it(I don't think she did!) or she knew who did and wouldn't say, get me out of this mess!  But, change the public's opinion of Lizzie?  I don't think the papers would do that.  I'm sure if we took a poll right now of people most people would say Lizzie got away with murder.  Everyone I've ever asked about Lizzie would say, Oh, isn't that the woman who chopped up her parents with an ax?

If those papers did give us the solution to the crime, I'm sure we would find another case to study thats still unsolved, there are so many gruesome, yet interesting murders out there, but, maybe not with the charm or our Lizzie's.  Glad you liked the smoking hatchet. 

Andrew Jenning's papers and artifacts are a collection referred to as "The Hip-Bath Collection."
There is information on it in the PRivy of this Forum, listed under Topic heading PROCEEDINGS.

Barbara Ashton, past president of the Fall River Historical Society, had access to this collection and wrote about it in a news article in the Standard Times. Oct. 20, 1968, and a follow-up essay in the book, Proceedings, The Legend 100 Years After the Crime, Bristol Community College, Fall River, Mass., 1993, pg. 211+.

..."The hip-bath collection is an assortment of material collected by Lizzie Borden's lawyer, Andrew Jennings, for her defense.  It includes evidence presented at the trial, handwritten notes concerning the case, minutes of the preliminary court hearing and other items considered important for Lizzie's defense.  The entire collection was sequestered by Andrew Jennings immediately after Lizzie's trial in 1893, and it was not seen publicly until it was given to the Fall River Historical Society in 1968.  Jenning's personal notebooks and other material (I am not certain how much) were returned to their donor, Mrs. Dwight Waring, Jenning's daughter, when it was discovered they had been delivered by mistake..  A Jennings grandson inherited that part of the collection when his mother died.  The rest, with the exception of some macabre photographs, is on display at the Fall River Historical Society, 451 Rock St."

..."Two authors, Edward S. Radin and Agnes de Mille (with Attorney Joseph Welsh), described seeing the collection under the watchful eye of Mr. and Mrs. Waring before it was delivered to the Historical Society by mistake....a thorough study of the still-sequestered notebooks is essential for a clear understanding of the Borden murder case.  What Andrew Jennings decided to sequester may turn out to be as important as what he decided to reveal."

--This is the cache from which we all benefitted by the addition of the Preliminary Hearing to our primary sources, though it is not complete.  If one reads Porter, or Mr. Bertolet's fine article about this, one will find that arguments of counsel are missing from Jenning's copy which we have inherited.

-("Bertolet, Maynard. 'Preliminary Trial Witness Sequence.' Lizzie Borden Quarterly VIII.4 (October 2001): 19-22.
'Important article that answers the complicated question as to who testified at the Preliminary Hearing in the Lizzie Borden case and when.' "--from The LABVM/L.)

--Porter, pg. 125+, begins arguments of counsel in the Prelim., before Judge Blaisdell, probably paraphrased, but still interesting, for further reference.

I don't know if your mother and dad instructed you in matters of civility and proper behaviour when communicating.
I must assume they didn't, since it is not evident in your posts.

In 2001 about 16 members of the message board signed a letter we all wrote and agreed on, which was directed to the firm of Robinson, Donovan, Madden & Barry, P.C., Springfield, Mass. in which we asked if would be possible to get the release of the undisclosed Robinson papers.

We did receive a short response back, which was I am told an unusual thing to happen as most requests go unanswered.  Here is what the firm told us, letter dated June 19, 2001:

"Thank you for your letter of June 3. Regretfully, I must advise that the firm's position as to the release or discussion of any documents regarding the Borden case has been set for some time.  None of the documentation is going to be released or discussed.  Further, we are unwilling to allow for the review of any of the documentation by any individual."  Very truly yours, Jeffrey L. McCormick

So, they are pretty definite as to their position.  On one hand I see that they have to protect their position, seeing as they are wanting new clients and have present and past clients who might feel not quite so trustful if they felt their own correspondence might be released sometime after they die "for historical purposes." 

On the other hand, wouldn't I just love to look at that information and I also feel American history would be served by it being released.
Maybe the Bridget inquest testimony is there!!

I am wondering if really that client-attorney relationship is carved in granite because the Knowlton papers and the Jennings information (he was also one of her lawyers) have been published.  Maybe it is a matter of option, the option of the lawyers who have material. Maybe there needs to be some real clarification as to the TIME which pertains to client-lawyer relationship...do all such relationships survive the death of everyone concerned with the case?

Even if there is no smoking gun, perhaps there is something there to use as a jump-off for someone coming up with the real solution to the crime.  By the way, Patricia Cornwell has just come out with a book called, Portrait of a Killer, in which she says she has solved the Jack the Ripper crimes....she got access to material others hadn't considered important evidently.

We can dream on.

Thanks, Carol!  Well, it sounds like you tried and at least got a reply, thats something!  We can dream, who knows, perhaps they may change their minds or the ruling in the near future? 

Does ANYONE believe that those legal documents would provide conclusive evidence of anything? Suppose Lizzie did "confess" something; would her lawyer put it in writing? For what purpose?
This seems like a dead-end driveway in the search for opinion (not truth!). If really explosive evidence, the more likely they would suppress it?

OK, so maybe in the rush I didn't express myself well enough. But I know that this is just "idle curiosity" for me, since it doesn't earn me money etc. It's just a hobby. And that law firm knows the same.

Given the 39th anniversary of the removal of JFK from the Presidency, maybe some of you could help solve this mystery? Hundreds of books have been published, too many to read in one working lifetime. Only a dozen on the Borden Murders.

The question for this or any other law firms is: is it legal and ethical? Will it advance or degrade the firm's business? Will it make money? If you could buy up this firm you would then earn the secrets (assuming they wouldn't shred it first).

[Note the policy of Enron and others to shred "obsolete documents". This is not just done by crooks; business have to need to sit on piles of old records. A government might, but they can always raise taxes. And there are laws regarding this, too.]

(Message last edited Nov-19th-02  1:30 PM.)

Didn't Jennings write that their records were being kept secret at the time (1920s)? Because of possible police action? I think it means they created the letter from "Samuel Robinsky" to create another suspect.
F Lee Bailey (or Earle Stanley Gardner's "fictional" Perry Mason) said it just isn't enough to show a defendant innocent, you must also point at a possible guilty person to get a (naive) jury to find your defendant 'not guilty'.

Rays, this site may be just idle curiosity for others as well as yourself, we aren't all researchers, but it's always pleasant for people to communicate with each other in a way so that each one knows what they express is valued. You seem to know that your posts sometimes do not accomplish this end. You have interesting opinions and information that would be better received if you didn't sound so contemptuous of others here and their devotion to penetrating into the Lizzie case? 

     

IS there a Borden relative?  not from andrew.  did he have nephews?  i doubt that anyone who could trace their ancestry back to being related to lizzie would want to go public over it.

a funny thought.  whether or not they are related -- are there any bordens in the fall river phone directory?  haha

There are actually several websites about people
who are related to Lizzie, and they have them where
you can trace your own history back & see if you are
related to her. Not really such a shameful thing---after all,
she was found not guilty..........

how are they related to lizzie was my main question.  just curious. 

Since she was childless most of the relations are
very distant cousins, I don't know how related you
have to be to actually count in regards to giving
the ok to have the Bordens dug up & things of that
nature. Does anyone know anything about the laws
that cover such things? I have no idea myself.



http://www.buffnet.net/~srsimon/

(Message last edited Nov-20th-02  12:37 AM.)

http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/lizzieb/index.html?Welcome=1037770979



Surname List:
Borden, Bowen, Briggs, Brown, Cooke, Cornell, Cory, Davenport, Earl, Earle, Felker, Fowle, Freeman, Gifford, Morrison, Morser, Perry, Reeder, Ricketson, Savage, Vinincum, Walker, Wood 

Thanks, Kimberly.  Boy, thats scary, they didn't even get Lizzie's name right; Elizabeth?  And they forgot about Lizzie's mother's brother, Uncle John. 

[{Edit Here:  Excuse me guys...posts 31-34 inclusive, were not up when I started this one]

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/archives/cover/1998/cover0313.html
Prof. Starrs article, Bone Hunter, 3/13/98"

..."As an armchair historian and former military engineer, Cheverly resident Robert L. Haworth resents Starrs' Lewis quest. 'It's a waste of resources' all funneled into 'a vanity quest by a hobbyist in forensics,' he says. 'I hope that Starrs doesn't find himself on the wrong end of the shovel one day.'

'This is our national heritage he's playing with,' Haworth says. 'Meriwether Lewis and some of these other people are national heroes...in U.S. history, and they deserve to just have their mysteries and secrets be buried with them.'

That's just the kind of romantic notion that puts a bee in Starrs' bonnet. Six years ago, he abandoned one of his favorite causes after receiving dozens of letters from relatives of the deceased protesting his investigation. Starrs had wanted to look into the notorious Lizzie Borden case and probe the charges that Borden had murdered her parents with a pickax. 'The worst part about it,' Starrs laments, years later, 'was that [the relatives] also said that they liked the mystery--the mystery being that even though she was acquitted, that everybody else thought she was guilty. They liked that. They were happy with that.' Starrs says he has no patience for living with mystery, even though his digs usually do little to actually resolve the debate.

One of the descendants who wrote a protest letter is an Alexandria resident named Douglas Borden. Although he refuses to comment, his wife, Joan, remembers Starrs well: 'He was extremely accusatory toward Douglas. He thought he was some sort of ringleader or something.' Both she and her husband still want nothing to do with Starrs. 'Let the dead lie in peace, regardless of who they are. Just let 'em lie,' she says.

Starrs says he wouldn't mind being exhumed one day. 'In fact, it might be a credit for some reason as to what I've done or I haven't done,' he says."......
-------------
Source:
THE GENEALOGY OF THE BORDEN FAMILY
                   LIVING IN
FALL RIVER AND VICINTY, 1876
                   FROM
FALL RIVER AND ITS INDUSTRIES

Atlantic Publishing and Engraving Co., New York;  Benjamin Earl & Son, Fall River, Mass., 1877

Sold in binder format, FALL RIVER HISTORICAL SOCIETY


"RICHARD BORDEN (No. 1) came from England about 1635, and went to Rhode Island early in the spring of 1638 [his wife's name was JOAN]...JOHN BORDEN (No. 5) stands pre-eminent among the sons of Richard and Joan Borden.  His descendents greatly outnumber those of his brothers who settled in New England...we must regard him as the common ancestor of a very large portion of the living Bordens in America.  This John Borden was extensively known among the FRIENDS at a distance as John Borden, of Quaker Hill, Portsmouth, R.I...."

"WILLIAM BORDEN (448) lived in the vicinity of Fall River, and brought up a numerous family.  His descendents are now widely scattered, and many of them are inaccessible and unknown to their own relatives.  Those already found number between 300 and 400.  Probably the whole number, could they be ascertained, would reach at this date (1876) nearly or quite a thousand persons."        ...[12 children listed as Fifth Generation under WILLIAM--]

--Though these Borden's are barely related to our Borden's they do make up the highest percentage of Bordens known.
Andrew had no nieces or nephews living, after 1867, when his only nephew, George Harrington died.
He apparently did have first cousins, children of his father's siblings:
From PROCEEDINGS, http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=202

"m.  Brigham Mr.--told Phillips that one Follett, 25 Calender St. Prov. R.I. told him that Mr. Borden had nephews in Providence--one of them resembles Dr. Handy's description and is capable of committing such a crime, the other nephew was killed in a road house 2 or 3 years ago."

--Phillips is Jenning's assistant newly out of law school, acting as his investigator.
When they use the term "nephew's" they mean the nephews probably of "the old gentleman" which was the term used in the newspapers to denote Abraham, Andrew's father.  These would be Andrew's cousins.



(Message last edited Nov-20th-02  1:30 AM.)

Does this reply set a high standard in civility?
I guess we all have our off days.

My apologies for my opinions etc. But I think if anyone doubts my opinion on this, they should get a lawyer and try to bring a civil suit to force Robinson et al to turn over those documents.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems amusing for some people to think that a firm would do that for strangers. Not even for customers. You can consult a lawyer.

Its like that attempt to dig up the Borden bodies. No official reason for this. Dr Cyril Wecht, talking about the Mary Jane Kopechne case, says it is very difficult to get a court order to exhume a body.
[And this came from some sort of official investigation.]

In the past some said that some of the visitors to this site were authors or would-be authors. Even then, no one will be able to exhume a body because they're writing a book.

(Message last edited Nov-20th-02  4:40 PM.)

I think if the Robinson files contained anything sensational they long ago would have been leaked.

A disgruntled employee is usually the culprit.  Hell, neither the government nor the royal family in England can keep things quiet forever in these money-mad times.

Yes, that sounds about right to me too, Harry.  I don't think that there is anything sensational in the Robinson papers, but, I'm sure for us whatevers in there would be interesting reading!!! 

Oh I agree Susan, they're probably fascinating reading.  I should think they would contain a lot of personal thoughts of the lawyers especially what they thought of witnesses and what they considered important.

I would think Emma would have sat in on quite a few of the meetings between Lizzie and her lawyers.  We might learn something more about her as well.

You know, I never thought of that before!  Emma was Andrew's child too and I'm sure while more reserved than Lizzie she wasn't a pushover.  I can just see her going over the finer points of Lizzie's defense with Robinson and Mr. Jennings at her side.  Ooooo, we can dream, I won't give that up!  I may be old and gray before those papers ever see the light of day, but, it could happen! 

It depends on your meaning of "sensational". Maybe there's no smoking gun of an admission of guilt, but maybe something that could lend credence to AR Brown's solution. (Or maybe not?)

What about other cases? Do the defense lawyer's notes ever see the light of day? "Work product", like outtakes from a TV show that are private and confidential?

On the continuum of importance, wouldn't the Dream Team's notes be even more important? Didn't some of the lawyers write books on this?

One television special on Lizzie I taped, which has interviews with the Borden housekeepers, told of one older woman who visited the Borden B & B (92nd St. house) every year, stayed over night there.  So there is at least one person who has an active interest in her relatives.

Reading a bit of Sullivan last night I realized that ABBY had family too.
So it's not necessarilly a matter of BORDEN'S having the only say-so as to exhumation.
Sullivan was mentioning interviewing that Abby Potter (admittedly a 1/2 niece of our Abby) and she had "a nephew George Whitehead"...of her brother?
Is that too distant? 
Abby Potter's brother would be 1/2 nephew of Abby, and His child would be even more distant?
Did Lil Abby ever have children? 

Good point, Kat!  I never thought of that before.  But, in Abby's case since she was married and a Borden, would you need signatures from both sides of the family or just Abby's family?  Wish we had a lawyer on the forum.

I don't know if Lil Abby ever married or not, I guess we could try to check those genealogy lists and see if they have anything? 

Well that dang Lil Abby married a POTTER...because she is called "That Dang Lil Abby Whitehead Potter."  at least by me.
Maybe HARRY Potter?