1. "Emma gets slammed"
Posted by harry on Nov-29th-02 at 2:44 PM

This is from Rebello, page 231.  It was written in Collier's "Once A Week" magazine by a Julius Chambers in September 1892.

"The other daughter, Emma, cannot be much younger. She certainly is thirty. (sic - she was 41) ..... Her face is without serious expression, even in the terrible situation that confronts her sister and the calamity that has overtaken her family. She appears to be a woman who has never had a practical idea; her cheeks are flabby with fat, her lips are full and pouty, her eyes are shy and distrustful --- indeed, hers is one of those baby faces that we sometimes see in a crowd that cause us to wonder what their possessors find to live for it. It is very certain that she has never been any use to this world and has never had much use for it."

Ouch!  That must have made Emma's day.  He didn't think too much of Lizzie either.

Typical gratuitous nasty comments designed to amuse and sell newspapers. Don't they still do it today (if they can get away with it)? Aren't many movie reviewers still like this? A symptom of their own personal faults?

Note how the writer basically invents the story?

I think the author of this magazine article is forming his opinion from looks or rumor only.  He probably never had a word of conversation with her.

Personally I kinda like Emma.  At least she minded her own business.  She stood by her sister, whom she must have at least suspected was guilty, until as she said she "...I could take it no more."

Ouch is right!  Poor Emma.  Her cheeks are flabby with fat.....which cheeks was the writer refering to?    Whats really sad is what he says has a ring of truth to it for all we know of Emma today, what was her daily driving force in life?  After she left Maplecroft and Lizzie, what made her get up every morning? 

"her cheeks are flabby with fat, her lips are full and pouty"
does that sound like Emmer? In her picture she doesn't look
like that. I'd hate to have him sitting in judgement on me, these people were so gleefully cruel, who did they think they were?

GOODBYE LIZZIE BORDEN
Robert Sullivan
Stephen Greene Press
Brattleboro, Vermont
1974:

Pg. 20  [Implies Abby Potter gave desriptions of both girls]

"Andrew Borden's elder daughter, Emma, was forty-two and unmarried at the time of the murders. Although she was ten years senior to Lizzie, she was completely dominated by her. Emma deferred to Lizzie, stood in her shadow-her whole attitude toward her younger sister was one of complete obeisance. Unlike Lizzie, Emma was small in stature, almost frail, with somewhat sharp features about her thin face. She had the shy, drab, quiet, self-effacing personality of a middle-aged spinster of the nineteenth century."

I couldn't help but be impressed with Emma's resolve when she was questioned at trial about the dress burning. (See Kat's post #32 on the 'miscellaneous lizzie mysteries' thread for her responses.)

We must remember that this was still a patriarchal society and Emma resided in a patriarchal household -- so for her to staunchly stand her ground when questioned by a male who, at that moment, could be seen to stand in a position of authority displays real strength of character.

(Please note that I'm not speculating as to motives or whether she was telling the truth.  I'm just commenting on this snapshot of her personality.)

Gee, you're right, when comparing with what Sullivan wrote.
It's a wonder he didn't notice that quality himself.
I did get the impression that lil Abby had given this view of Emma, as it's in the section where he's hanging out with her.  Maybe it is more a *composite*.
But, yes, your description of Emma's resolve seems true.

Now that "thin faced" sounds more like the drawings of Emma. I read that NO pictures of her exist (as an adult; she certainly looks cute in that picture with her Mom).

Perhaps that write was inventing his story from a distance? Not unknown then, or even now? "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."

I watched a *DATELINE* repeat early this morning about Al Roker's gastric surgery.
They had claimed it was for gallbladder if they claimed anything at all (to family).
The press was not to know.
He didn't tell his mother.
Then in about 5 days it was in the ENQUIRER.
And he wondered how they got the story.  He had even used an alias, and the back door.
Anyway, they had the true story, and his wife and he admitted it was pretty true, EXCEPT the reporter claimed it was Roker's WIFE who demanded he get the surgery to lose weight.
She thought that was terrible.. .. that she got to sound like the *bad guy*, but they made no statement to correct any errors.
I suppose if one makes no statement, to control reportage abuse, then one is stuck with what is printed.  Right?

Well put. Emma wasn't the only female trial witness who stood her ground.  When the Chagnon mother and stepdaughter were being questioned the attorney's tried to get them to say the noise they heard was not really coming from the back Borden fence area, but they stood firm in their story.

Perhaps the women didn't feel obligated to defer their intellect to males in the trial testimony because they felt what they said wouldn't be taken seriously by them anyway, so they just spoke out. On the other hand,if they were sworn and "had permission" as such to state the truth as they knew it, they went ahead and did since the permission was from the "male" court. But I think it was more they had guts.

I think EVERY woman who stood through their share of that trial in that witness box had a LOT OF GUTS, yes Ma'am!

Isn't it SOP to question closely or challenge any witness who testifies in a manner disagreeable to your side?
"Just dong my job."

From page 397 of Rebello (abbreviated by me)

".....the reporting of the Borden trial by twenty-two year old Lemuel Ely Quigg for the New York Herald Tribune. ....in his [Quigg's] Borden trial articles ...(he) scrutinized and assayed with regard to outward appearance, apparent inner character, and likely veracity; none was spared his wit ...Quigg wrote, 'Miss [Alice] Russell wears an expression of countenance suggestive of an acid diet. She is not young, and does not create the impression that she ever has been.' "

Whew, they didn't spare no punches in those days.

Well it wasn't a prussic acid diet anyway. 

(Message last edited Dec-18th-02  2:21 PM.)

I've been *collecting* Alice Russell since spring. 
I suppose for every description, there is an equal and opposite one:

Rebello
Pg.63
"The Boston Journal provided a detailed description of Miss Russell: 'a tall and stately built lady about 38 or 40, highly esteemed for her upright life, her honesty and conscientiousness ... has for 18 years, been the confidential bookkeeper for L. D. Wilbur & Co., ... business people speak highly of her gifts and qualifications, she and Lizzie were just friends, often together and attended Central Congregational Church.'  Agnes deMille (Lizzie Borden, A Dance of Death, 1968: 31, 78) described Miss Russell as a 'young, red-headed Miss Alice Russell'  and  'the lovely red-haired Miss Russell ...' "

Kent
Pg. 111
"Joe Howard, the columnist, described her as 'very tall, angular, and thin, with a lofty forehead and pale blue eyes and holds her mouth as though "prism" and "prunes" were its most frequent utterances. With crossed arms, she emphasizes her replies with little taps with a bombazine fan'."



(Message last edited Dec-19th-02  2:15 AM.)

Thanks, Kat.  Joe Howard's account of Alice is the one that I am most familiar with, prisms, prunes?  What are they all trying to say, that our poor Alice is a sour puss?  And once again the question, was Alice a red-head? 

The Red-Heads are Gone.
The main site we visited recently and a link to Notorious Red-heads has passed away...

Ah.  That would explain why I never got a reply to my query how long ago about how they knew that Lizzie was a red-head for sure. 

They "knew" Lizzie was a red-head because she was accused of a horrible crime!!! Just like some people here "know" she was guilty.

Last year I read a number of Dashiell Hammett's books, novels and short stories. It seems that a "red-head" is always a villainess. Did red-heads have more fun in those days? Since fiction is written for the tastes and fashions of the day, what does that tell us? Did A Conan Doyle ever write about red-headed women in his stories? Was this prejudice a 19th century Victorian fashion?

Yes, Ma'am, and if they had to actually stand that took even more guts.

That's what I said.  They Stood.

Offered a seat and still stood.

When I looked for "red-heads" because I couldn't believe they were gone, there were all these Icky sites for Passionette red-heads or "exotic" red-heads, or whatever.  I didn't go there because there's enough of that lame-brained stuff on T.V.  So I can't say exactly truthfully that they were Icky sites, but the titles sounded that way.

The same thing happened when I looked up Google, Paragoric.
Apparently there's some weird association now about that too.  The medical literature was hard to find in between some kind of role-playing weird stuff with that name.

ALL of the women witness stood. Wow, maybe the chair had sticky on it or smelled bad.

I'm thinking that maybe as a woman seated with a man hovering over you, barraging you with questions could be quite threatening, I think I would have stood too.  Then the thought comes to my mind that all of these women were wearing corsets, it may have been uncomfortable to sit for long periods of time wearing one and it may have been easier to breath standing up in one?

Then the vanity question comes to my mind, these women probably dressed to the nines for their court appearances knowing that there were sketch artists on the premises.  What better way to show off your outfit than to stand in it so all could see?  I realize that this wasn't first and foremost on their minds, but, this is their 15 minutes of fame, make a good show of it while you can. 

That was good supposing but I think it was because witnesses were required to stand.  It was protocol.

There are plenty of sketches in Rebello and the Evening Standard newspaper articles of persons giving testimony at either the Prelim or Trial.

Emma, Miss Annie White, Mrs. Dr. Bowen, Mrs. Gifford, Mrs. Holmes, Bridget, Alice, Anna Borden, Dr. Bowen, Prof. Wood, Officers Medley, Edson, Harrington, Matron Reagan, Dr. Draper, men and women, all appear to be standing.

I think Dr. Dolan may have sat but he leaned forward resting on the rail.

I think there would have been a problem with making yourself heard if one sat.

I guess you are correct, Kat.  I checked through the Trial transcripts and can't find any reference as to a chair being offered to any witness'.  That trial went on for hours, you'd think that they would have thought of the comfort of the witness' that had to be on the stand for a long time.  Wasn't there one instance of Bridget being offered a chair that she declines and says that she'll stand or is that something I've muddled from one of the authors? 

Harry, can you post the sketches of people that we've never seen, like Mrs. Dr. Bowen and such?  It would be neat to see who these people were that speak in the trial, I have no mental picture of them. 

Just for you Susan here's Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Gifford.  Both from Rebello courtesy of the Boston Globe and Boston Herald respectively.

Remember these are artists renditions.  If they are as off on these as they were on some of Lizzie they may not resemble the actual person.
Anyway, they're fun.

Thank you, Harry!  Its nice to have some sort of face to place with the name.  I didn't get much with Mrs. Bowen, but, I can visualize Mrs. Gifford in the flesh, very cool!  For some reason she looks to me like someone that would have really chapped lips during certain times of the year.  Weird. 

There is one reference to a witness being offered a seat in the trial. Page 1197, part 2.

Q.  (By Mr. Moody.)  Would you like to sit while you testify or stand?
A.  I will stand.
Q.  What is your full name?
A.  Aruba P. Kirby.

I believe Mrs. Kirby was rather elderly.

Thank you for finding that, I did a search with chair, should have done seat!  I knew someone was offered a seat and declined. 

"Seat" just didn't do it.
"Stand" got so many hits, for me, because it's a part of a compound word, so THaT was useless.
Harry actually got it using "would you".
I tend to search nouns, unless I have memorized a phrase.
Can you believe we CARED enough to look this up?
3 people 24 hours of off & on searching?
I think that's cool that we do some homework.
Personally I enjoy that part!

I coulda sworn it was Bridget, in one of her testimonials.

Anyway thanks you guys!

BTW:  Aruba happens to be one of my favorite "TEAM's of odd or unusual" names":
the husband & wife team of :

Uriah & Aruba Kirby.

"KIRBY, ARUBA P. (TRIPP) 1828 : 1912: born in Westport, Massachusetts, wife of Uriah Kirby. In 1859, she came to Fall River, Massachusetts, where her husband gained a reputation as a fine liveryman. She resided in that city for the rest of her life. A neighbor of the Chagnon family on Third Street, she testified as to her actions and observations the morning of the Borden murders."  (From Knowlton Papers, Glossary A)

From Mr. Moody's statement it looks like the witnesses could either sit or stand.

But there aren't any chairs pictured in the witness box area in the sketches and there is a bar across the area, indicating that this was considered more of a witness stand than a witness box area.

It might be that Massachusetts was one of the states that followed a regular routine, even if it wasn't a written law (maybe it was) of having witnesses commonly stand to testify so any healthy soul would have not wanted to do otherwise unless they were incapacitated by age, health, etc. 

I think today there is one state in New England that prefers people to actually stand to give evidence.

The term witness stand came from it being a place to stand to give evidence, didn't it.  When cases became longer and witnesses had to spend more time there, chairs became the common method.

The purpose of standing, like having a mirror to reflect light onto their face, is to allow the jury to get a good look at the face etc. of the witness to aid in their decision of credibility. IMO.

I also saw somewhere that the reason a person is asked to raise their right hand while swearing in as a witness is because in the old days people were branded there or marked on that palm for crimes, and it was a way of checking if a person was not a criminal, something like that.

Very good, but that practice was English, not American. "Cruel and unusual punishments" covered branding, cutting ears, etc.
Raising a hand is a positive affirmation of the act of witnessing. Sort of like jumping over a broomstick to signify marriage (old Anglo-Saxon custom?). Or like a salute, or shaking hands?

[Defrocked priests were branded in the hand or fingertips, but that may not apply to women. "The good old days?"]

(Message last edited Dec-26th-02  3:37 PM.)