Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: Kent & the Trial Coverage

1. "Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Nov-28th-02 at 1:49 AM

Looking over Kent, Forty Whacks, last night, for that Knowlton "quote" of Rays.
Found something odd.
Now, most know I haven't read the *authors*in a while.  Have concentrated on primary sources, trying to forget them.

Here's an example of WHY:

Pg. 133
"Of all the mysteries connected to the Borden murders, the most profound was revealed in the first few questions put to Dr. Dolan by Attorney Adams. Discussing the nature of the blows to the heads of Andrew and Abby, Adams put these questions to Dolan:

Q. You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right, don't you?
A. Yes sir.

Page 134
Q.   And all these wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A.   Yes sir.

Q.   That is to say, by a left-handed person?
A.   Yes, by a left-handed person.


Lizzie was right-handed.

The questioning took another turn at this point, and it was never mentioned again, either in examinations, cross-examinations, or in Robinson's summary.

This, it would seem, would have been almost certain vindication of Lizzie, had it been pursued. In none of the accounts of the Borden murders has this astounding point ever been mentioned or speculated on, but the trial transcript is explicit and, by repetition of the question, cannot be regarded as a stenographic error.

Why this specter of a left-handed killer was not seized upon by the defense, we can now never know. One can almost hear Robinson heaping scorn on the prosecution, acting out for the jury a right-handed person clumsily swinging a hatchet with the left hand; ridiculing the idea that such an act could possibly have taken place!

Instead, the left-handed killer remains one of the most baffling of all the Borden mysteries. "

-----------------------
The Actual Trial Testimony as taken down in evidence, pg. 947:

Q.  You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right, don't you?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And all those wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  That is to say, it is a left handed blow?
A.  In what sense left-handed: delivered by the left hand?

Q.  That it strikes the body in a left-handed direction,---from left to right?
A.  Yes, sir, to a certain extent. Those that are most markedly from left to right are those that would come down directly as the head lies there now, and give the direction of a left-handed blow.


--I cannot explain this.  I didn't know it would be this explicetly in error.  I doubt it was done on purpose.  I don't have anything else to say....


2. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Robert Harry on Nov-28th-02 at 12:40 PM
In response to Message #1.

Thanks for this most interesting tidbit.  Is the passage quoted from Kent official testimony, or just his refashioning of the real thing?  In any case, the testimony you quote after the Kent passage still strongly points to a left-handed killer.  This fits in with a new line of thought I've been pondering.  Agreeing with rays (and A.R. Brown), I think now that Lizzie's statement that "It was not Bridget or anyone employed by father," (or something like that) almost "proves" her innocence.  How could she be so sure and so specific?  Also, her famous line "Someone's come in and killed fathuh'" is suspicious in that what is meant to be an announcement already becomes a speculation.  Plus, I am becoming convinced that Lizzie could not have/would not have been able to concoct such a carefully executed plan that would entail immaculate clean-up, complete disposal of the weapon, absolute protection from being seen/discovered without showing signs of panic, exertion, disheveled appearance, and physical exhaustion far beyond what witnesses say of her. I do think she knew something and profitted handsomely from the murders.  But, who knows, maybe she was a total sociopath?


3. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by william on Nov-28th-02 at 1:44 PM
In response to Message #2.

If an assailant stood far enough to the left of the victim, it would produce the same angle as the blow of a right handed killer.

I don't think this hundred year plus theory has any scientific validity. I know of no modern day counterpart.

Some years ago I acquired a honeydew melon and a left handed assistant to explore this supposition. Our experiment did not support the existence of either a left, or right handed killer.


4. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Susan on Nov-28th-02 at 4:23 PM
In response to Message #1.

It took me some time to find, but, I knew we had dicussed Dr. Dolan's findings in the past.

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=161&fid=27&taid=1&topid=563

From what I can recall some of the wounds were markedly from the left to right and the rest were from the right to left, a mixed bag. 


5. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Nov-29th-02 at 1:04 AM
In response to Message #4.

But you see, Kent is misquoting and mistranscribing testimony from the trial and building a conclusion upon it.
How, then, can Kent be trusted, for any other facts, in this book?
Is he taking liberties?
Did some research assistant paraphrase?
Ultimately, though, HE is responsible for this Misrepresentation.
I find this scary.
What else, which we think we know, is wrong?


6. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Susan on Nov-29th-02 at 8:33 PM
In response to Message #5.

How can any of the authors be trusted?  You know I already duked it out with Lincoln, she even had the audacity to put in her book and I quote:  "The memories were consistent and detailed, so detailed that I must assure you in advance that I am not inventing as I write.  If I quote, if I describe a look, act, gesture, or even tell what someone was thinking about, I am always quoting a witness's memories or making a running digest of actual evidence given in court."  Yet, she can give no source for a majority of these facts.

Every one of the authors misrepresents the case in one way or another, some is from just quoting legend, and then there is far worse, the twisting of facts to suit their purpose. 


7. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Nov-29th-02 at 11:26 PM
In response to Message #2.

I don't know about the left-handed-ness or right-handed-ness.
Really, I don't.  It confuses me.
I don't know how any one could PROVE handed-ness...and maybe the killer Faked Handed-ness.  So I think a person is entitled to their theory.  Makes it more interesting too.

As to Kent,  my stumbling on that opened my eyes wider than they've been before on this case. 
I've said before and will re-iterate:  Question Everything.  Even The Photos!

Oh... I do want to find the source of the *Bridget didn't do it or anyone who worked for father* saying we've been treated to all year.
Is it in the Witness Statements?

I've just been talking about this *socio-pathic Lizzie* VS. a *naive girl who profited by knowing Something but keeping her mouth shut-Lizzie* with Stefani and she is not convinced of any sociopathy.  I admit I lean in different directions on this.
It would seem, to MAKE Lizzie fit the sociopathic *mold* other's have had to include formal belief in her shoplifting, cruely to animals, and anything short of setting fires or bed-wetting or having been bonked on the head when she was little.
Since I don't necessarilly subscribe to the shop-lifting and the cat killing, I'd think Lizzie was more along the lines of a melodramatic Miss, maybe tantrums, giving the cold-shoulder, more likely *juvenile* behavior...maybe impulse control issues, but not sociopathy.
I think she lived in her own world and did not have too much empathy for others----self-absorbed.  I can't quite yet find a *killer* in her.


8. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-1st-02 at 6:18 AM
In response to Message #7.

The closest I can get to that statement:  *It was not Bridget or anyone who worked for father* attributed here several times to Lizzie speaking as authority that she knew WHO didn't do it...(a la Brown?), is Lizzie in the Witness Statements, pg. 2 & 4, to 2 different officers...one surmise about MORSE to Fleet, and one  surmise about the farmhands, to Doherty.  Not anything about Bridget:

..."Who is this Mr. Morse?" He is my Uncle; he came here last night, and slept here, but went away before nine o'clock A. M. and did not get back until after the murder; he could not know anything about the murder." ...

AND:

..."Miss Lizzie had no suspicious (sic) on the farm hands."

Can it be proved in a primary source that Lizzie included Bridget in this *statement* as to who it couldn't have been?  Or is it known which author *quotes* this spurious remark?  It might have been confused with Lizzie saying  that it couldn't have been MORSE?


9. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-2nd-02 at 4:20 AM
In response to Message #8.

Trial
Robinson
Defense Closing Argument
Pg. 1744

..."Yes, it was the impulse, the outcome of an honest woman. Were she a villain and a rascal, she would have done as villains and rascals do. There was her uncle, John Morse, suspected as you heard, followed up, inquired about and she is asked and she said, no, he did not do it. He went away from the house this morning at nine o'clock. Some one said Bridget did it. Now there were but two persons around that house as we now find out, so far as we can locate anybody, and the busy finger was pointed at Bridget Sullivan,---Bridget Sullivan only an Irish girl, working in the family, working for her weekly pay, been faithful to them, been there two years and nine months, lived happily and peacefully with them and they have had no trouble and Lizzie spoke right out determinedly, as you know, and promptly, Why, Bridget did not do it. Then somebody said: Why, the Portuguese on the farm. No, says Lizzie, he is not a Portuguese; he is a Swede, and my father has not any man that ever worked for him that would do that to him. Not Alfred Johnson that worked for them, not Mr. Eddy, another farmer that worked for them, no assistant,---I cannot believe it of any of them.

How do you account for that except in one way?  She was virtually if she were a criminal,---virtually putting every body away from suspicion and leaving herself to stand as the only, one to whom all would turn their eyes. "....

--I guess I'm looking for this by myself.  I had been checking Kent and Brown, but decided to try the trial.
So here Robinson pretty much says what Ray has been repeating all year.  BUT, where does Robinson get this supposed quote from Lizzie about Bridget?  Does anybody know?
OOO  Deja-vu

(Message last edited Dec-2nd-02  4:24 AM.)


10. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-2nd-02 at 4:52 PM
In response to Message #1.

Anybody who rewrite history has to take short cuts to produce a salable product. Who would buy a 1,000 page book? Or even 600 pages?
These are mostly academic exercises from a subsidised press. IMO.

Or get the condensed, digested report. Isn't that what we see on TV and in newspapers every day?

[Could the story come from Porter or another contemporary newspaper?]

(Message last edited Dec-2nd-02  8:42 PM.)


11. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-2nd-02 at 4:55 PM
In response to Message #3.

Maybe this experiment was to find out what the testers wanted?
I did not try this myself, I would like to SEE the photos and read the reports, if possible. But I'll have to take the word of others.


12. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-2nd-02 at 4:57 PM
In response to Message #6.

Again, the author's privilege. Remember, she was a published author who writes to make money by selling books. Just remember that NONE of the book authors were witnesses, or even interviewed witnesses. Except Porter, and his book was bought up and censored.


13. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-2nd-02 at 5:00 PM
In response to Message #8.

Various books that I read reported this quote. Maybe without considering its significance. If nothing else, it was the first thing that popped into her head, without any consideration or planning. I think it is the truth.


14. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-2nd-02 at 7:18 PM
In response to Message #9.

"Lizzie spoke right out determinedly, as you know, and promptly, Why, Bridget did not do it."(Robinson)
--This began to sound familiar, as to the quote Robinson was trying to get out of the Mayor at trial, as to his visit to the Borden house Saturday evening.  He pushed and pulled and got Coughlin to say Lizzie spoke up "earnestly and promptly".  I couldn't ever figure out why Robinson spent so much time and repetition on this small bit of testimony.  I realize it would have major significance because of the timing of the warrant & the Inquest, but this taffy-pull with Coughlin seems more like one of those Johnnie Cochran (sp?) sayings that he wanted people to remember.
Well, I remembered it:



Trial
Mayor Coughlin
Pg. 1166+

Q.  What did you say?
A.  I said, "I regret, Miss Borden, but I must answer yes, you are suspected."

Q.  What did she say?
A.  She said, as I now recall it, "I am ready to go now."

Q. "Or any time", didn't she?
A.  I cannot recall that; she may have said it.

Q.  Spoke up earnestly and promptly then, didn't she?
A.  It would depend altogether what you mean by "earnestly" and "promptly".

Q.  I mean what you know the words mean?
A.  She replied in a manner you can call earnestly and promptly. There was no hesitation about it.
                                          
Q.  That is, promptly, no hesitation, isn't it? You understand that, don't you?
A.  I do, yes, Sir.

Q.  Now did she speak earnestly?
A.  Well, I would not say she did not speak earnestly.

Q.  What is that?
A.  I should say I would not say she did not speak earnestly.

Q.  I know you say so. Did she speak earnestly?
A.  Well, I should say yes, she spoke earnestly so far as the promptness of the question goes.

Q.  Do you know any difference between promptness and earnestness?
A.  There is a difference between promptness and earnestness.

Q.  Keeping that distinction in mind, you say she answered you, did she, earnestly?
A.  She did, as far as I am---

Q.  What is that?
A.  As far as I would be able to determine by her action, she was earnest.

--etc.....The same language used.  I think it's possible that Lizzie never said that about Bridget.  Her words are taken down as evidence in the Witness Statements and the Inquest.  If it is not in there then we have no authority to suppose she said them.  "It was not Bridget" should be put to rest now, unless someone can find a new reference (which is fine with me).


15. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-2nd-02 at 7:27 PM
In response to Message #12.

It is probably a legend that Porter's book was bought up and censored.
There has been a lot of research done in the last 10 years (including by a Forum member) that no such thing happened.  Please update your notes on this incident.

From LABVM/L
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BibliographyLBQAuth.htm#s

Schley-Ulrich, William. "Porter's Fall River Tragedy: How Rare?" Lizzie Borden Quarterly IV.4 (October 1997): 3, 17-19.
Essay that disputes the popular tale that Lizzie purchased and burned all but twenty-five copies of The Fall River Tragedy after it was published, showing well over 40 copies present and accounted for.
 


16. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by harry on Dec-2nd-02 at 7:45 PM
In response to Message #15.

I never thought it possible for ALL the copies to be purchased and destroyed. I'm sure copies were shipped to other places than Fall River. It would have had to have been stopped at the publishers or nearly immediately after. 

I think I remember reading some Fall River stores would not carry the book in deference to Lizzie.

If I was the publisher and saw ALL the books were sold I think I would re-issue it ASAP.  Not too many books sell completely out. Unless Lizzie paid them off too. 

Boy, Lizzie's fortune is disappearing fast.  Robinson, Jennings and Adams, Bridget, all the people she allegedly paid off according to Brown and now the publishers and book stores.

I just think it's another Lizzie myth.



(Message last edited Dec-2nd-02  8:07 PM.)


17. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-2nd-02 at 8:41 PM
In response to Message #16.

Victoria Lincoln said Fall River stores did not stock this item. You had to go to another town, like the dry counties in some states. She DOES say the book was suppressed. Obviously by buying up all the copies, then paying off the reporter to not print any more. And since AR Brown says the same, like the other authors, we can all believe it.

Since I didn't read the article, I can't comment on it. But I would assume a lot of doubt how anyone today can definitely speak on something minor from over a century ago.

One report says that half of all book published today are pulped after being unsold. That's a high rate?


18. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by harry on Dec-2nd-02 at 9:37 PM
In response to Message #17.

Lincoln and Brown are hardly two I would put much trust in. Period.

(Message last edited Dec-2nd-02  9:41 PM.)


19. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-3rd-02 at 3:31 AM
In response to Message #17.

Oh Ray.  Please believe it when I say "a lot of research."
I'm talking about William, and others.  If you searched the LBQ archive at the Museum/Library you would see how many have investigated this "legend".  The editor of the LBQ also put out an APB on copies and has been receiving lists from rare book dealers still.

"More About Porter's Book." Lizzie Borden Quarterly V.4 (October 1998): 3.
In response to William Schley-Ulrich's article in the October 1997 issue of the LBQ where he traced all known copies of the original 1893 edition of Edwin Porter's book The Fall River Tragedy, a Mr. Ross submitted a page from the Peter L. Stern and Company Antiquarian Bookseller rare books catalog that indicates yet another copy.
 
Bounds, Benny. "A Letter About Porter's Book and the Robinson Papers." Lizzie Borden Quarterly VI.1 (Jan. 1999): 3.
Letter to the editor in which Bounds relates his discovery on the Internet of six copies of the original edition of Porter's The Fall River Tragedy, ranging in price from $750 to $1500.

Also see Rebello, pg. 359-361, as to how this misrepresentation probably occurred.
[ transcribed & posted by me Oct.17]

Rebello
pg. 359
"Edwin Porter Served Notice by Andrew J. Jennings"

Edwin H. Porter, a reporter for the Fall River Daily Globe, published his book, The Fall River Tragedy, in 1893 and was sold by subscription.  The subscription copy, bound like the original, included 48 pages of the book, a photograph of Andrew J. Borden, and order form listing the names of subscribers.  (Fall River Historical Society Archives).  Victoria Lincoln, in A Private Disgrace (1967), wrote, 'Lizzie bought off the printer, a local, and the books were destroyed before they hit the shop.'  It has been rumored Lizzie bought all the books and burned them.

It is known that Lizzie, through her attorney, made an attempt to cease publication of Porter's book if it was published before the trial, contained any false statements and photographs she did not want published.  Local newspapers, except the Fall River Daily Globe, reported on January 31, 1893, that Edwin H. Porter, George H. Buffinton and John D. Monroe had been served with a formal notice by Lizzie's attorney, Andrew J. Jennings.  Jennings objected to the use of any pictures of Lizzie Borden, Emma Borden, John V. Morse, Andrew J. Borden or himself.  It was thought by Jennings that Porter's book was to be published before the trial and would prejudice his client's case.
     
'You are therefore hereby notified that you will be held directly accountable for all statements published in such book or pamphlet, and for any false statements or colorful description you will be promptly prosecuted;  and you are also hereby forbidden to publish or print any likeness or pretended likeness in any form, or to reproduce any photograph or portrait of said Andrew J, Borden or of said Lizzie A. Borden or of Emma L. Borden, of John V. Morse, of myself or any attorney connected with the defense, and that in case of any publication an injunction will be promptly applied for, and such other legal proceedings taken as may be deemed expedient.'

The notice was sent to Porter, Buffinton and Monroe by Deputy Sheriff Samuel Hadfield.  Curiously, Abby D. Borden's name did not appear on the list of photographs.  According to the Fall River Daily Herald, Mr. Porter met with Att. Jennings on Monday and explained to him that his book would not be published until after Lizzie's trial.  The photographs were not used in the book."

Sources:  Fall River Daily Herald, January 31, 1893: 7
New Bedford Daily Mercury, January 31, 1893: 2
New Bedford Evening Journal, January 31, 1893: 3  [etc]




(Message last edited Dec-3rd-02  3:34 AM.)


20. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-3rd-02 at 1:02 PM
In response to Message #19.

Because I'm skeptical of those who believe they can find "truth" that eluded the 1892 investigators. Has their claim been proven in an adversarial procedure, like a court of law? Where others can review their facts, as in Academic Journals?

Do not confuse a hobbyist publication with the more academically robust journals!

I'm not an historian either, but if this were to be published in some University Journal, it would be more believeable. But not necessarily perfect, like that Emory history professor who published and perished (his book was found to be either fraudulent or faulty). He also claimed that all previously known facts were wrong!!!

[That injunction certainly showed the power and influence of the Bordens. So who can claim there wasn't govt influence there?]

(Message last edited Dec-3rd-02  1:04 PM.)


21. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by diana on Dec-3rd-02 at 1:25 PM
In response to Message #20.

There are four 1st editions of Porter's book (1893) currently for sale at the site below. They range in price from $750.00 - $1500.00.  (The King Phillip Publishing facsimile (1985) is also being offered on the same site for $125.00.)

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearch


22. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-3rd-02 at 8:57 PM
In response to Message #20.

The truth was not that Porter's book was published in 1892, but that it was sold by subscription in 1893.
It seems to me the Borden name could threaten an injunction Soley Because the PRESS had blown this case into a HUGE deal...all because of some key elements and the timing involved as to the advent of yellow journalism, the wire services, etc.
That works both ways.
It gave the Borden name Clout, by making it infamous.

Anyway, there is an EXACT list, that is ongoing of WHERE every copy so far found resides!  If you subscribed you could see for yourself.  That's a Lot of time, people and effort involved just to bring this Legend into the 21st Century.  And it is in a much minor form, what we try to do here, for FREE!
I doubt some other famous books have been given such attention by "hobbyist" journels.
(Every copy of Gone With The Wind, found, maybe?)

I understand your stance on our finding *truth* about the crime anytime After 1892, but quoting Lincoln and Brown denies that stance, because they both proclaim they *know* things that were NOT known in 1892, and you believe Them?


23. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-4th-02 at 2:44 PM
In response to Message #22.

I suspect that a very rich and powerful wealthy family today could also block publication of any book. They could spend thousands, a poor hack of a writer could not. Suits are still used today to cripple organizations; but this is not widely known (I only read about it in a liberal weekly magazine in the library last year).

Note how the so-called "campaign finance law" prevents organizations from educating and advertising in political campaigns. The ACLU, NRA, and many other groups objected to this law, which only took effect after the Nov elections. It is now before the courts.

Given the passage of time, events that become uncovered, and the perspective of decades, it is possible for some to know more now than in 1892. AR Brown had the Hawthorne-Eagan notes. Lincoln used in-group gossip. You can decide which was better.

Note that the LBQ is NOT a "referenced journal" where articles get reviewed by others (with an axe to grind?) before publication. But that's what makes it fun? Its not a dry journal.


24. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-5th-02 at 12:23 AM
In response to Message #23.

I think neither Brown nor Lincoln were *better* than the researched information being acquired today.
Just because not everyone can see it, doesn't mean it's not ongoing.
That's the thing.  A person can be left behind if they don't keep *current*.  That's why the LBQ is such a worthy periodical.

Brown & Lincoln have written fiction, disguised as fact...and that does a disservice to the educated public who are trying to find some facts to hang Their OWN opinion on.  I think, with all the material available today, anyone conversant with it can pretty much be equal in their attempts to solve the crime to their OWN satisfaction...be equal to the judge, equal to the juryman, be equal to Lincoln...
That is a gift that this treasure trove of material brings and that is important.


25. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by redfern on Dec-5th-02 at 12:27 AM
In response to Message #24.

(((CLAP CLAP CLAP))) Standing Ovation Kat. I do read them all that I can get my hands on, only because I have formed my own opinion, know the facts, but still like to read others opinions. And that's what I think of alot of them as unless they have the facts all the way down, and prove themselves as making an educated guess. Boy that was a mouth full wasn't it?
      RedFern


26. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-5th-02 at 1:57 AM
In response to Message #25.

Thank you!  And Stefani is the catalyst.
She has made a lot of this possible.


27. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Carol on Dec-6th-02 at 3:51 PM
In response to Message #24.

I think the Brown and Lincoln books aren't either pure fact or pure fiction but a combination of both plus their own thought, insights, detective work and opinion.

Anyone researching the Lizzie case can evaluate these works in the light of what they themselves have researched and make their own judgments as to the percentage of fact or fiction resides in each book.

Unless you think these books were deliberately written to deceive they each only give the "author's" point of view on the subject studied and the way they viewed the material they researched. Since readers can read with a "willing suspension of disbelief" when they finish the book it is their job to review what has been said with more objectivity.

Some authors stay on the edge of deliberate deception but generally an author wants to maintain their reputations so they are guilty generally speaking at most for being persuasive to their viewpoints. Maybe Porter falls into that end more than Brown or Lincoln. 

Having written my 1998 piece on Lizzie for my class work at college with only one term's worth of research, which was subsequently published in the LBQ, complete with a few mistakes and which was no effort to set any record straight but merely an attempt to prove a thesis which was our assignment, (we have covered in another link rather thoroughly), I can tell you that it is almost impossible for any person to write with l00 percent accuracy even if we keep current because we are humans and not computers

The problem with writing or speaking on tape is that what is said is immortalized forever. This is why we have books that come out as "revised," editions, etc. to update, change, alter or add information.

You can read or watch any of the books and videos on the Lizzie case and someone is bound to make some minor mistake in them, even the most reputable people who have studied for years, even those representing the FRHS. It is easy to go back over something and find the errors and pick at authors, but adult readers with background knowledge are able to distinquish between deliberate deceit, persuasive argument, embellishment of the facts and opinion.   


28. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by Kat on Dec-7th-02 at 2:02 AM
In response to Message #27.

I would never wish to imply that any published author has in any way deliberately misstated facts for their own purpose.  I would never even assume such a thing.  I don't think that way.

When I introduced the topic of "Change of Mind", I was speaking to the thought that these people who had a courage to be interviewed, or publish an article or a book may find, as time passes and more is known, that they may in some instances have made errors or even been edited into "error."  That is my stance and I would hope they COULD benefit from a "revised" edition, but sadly, no, not many get that chance.
Yes, putting an idea out there and a whole theory, is riskey, because then it is set in stone (typeset, or whatever), and that follows a person around, always.
That author can't take it back.

But the beginner who starts with Lincoln or Brown or the Legend movie, has a LOT to Unlearn, before they can proceed.  That's why I consider it fiction.  Of course it is not wholly fiction, etc., that's understood-- but it is detrimental to a fair and balanced view, as these works ARE so well-done as to influence people.
Even Pearson, whom I love the best, is guilty of gossip and rumors.  They were his stock and trade.

These sensationalized works can be bewildering.

The basic resources such as the Inquest, etc. would be the ultimate foundation for a person learning about this case, then hopefully go on to the *authors* where they can then determine their own-selves what is to be disbelieved.


29. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-7th-02 at 12:09 PM
In response to Message #24.

Fiction, not fact? Not in my county library system, or anywhere else.
Maybe you're just learning not to trust other people's ideas?

V Lincoln used "in group gossip" (read her book) for her source.
AR Brown used the Henry Hawthorne notebooks, plus the help of many others to research this event.
Anyone who uses "fiction" can't be taken seriously! Or how many books dealing with the past have YOU read?

[AR Brown was NOT a professional writer or journalist. He describes about how he happened upon the Hawthorne notebooks. I wonder how many others in the prior decades had the chance to read them? Only because he was from Fall River did he undertake the chore, IMO.]

[I only became interested in the Borden Murders while looking up books on the Trial of OJ Simpson, and found AR Brown's WONDERFUL book. I read whatever was available first.]

(Message last edited Dec-7th-02  12:17 PM.)


30. "Re: Kent & the Trial Coverage"
Posted by rays on Dec-7th-02 at 12:13 PM
In response to Message #27.

E Porter's book was based on his newspaper reporting, from an anti-Lizzie newspaper. (If you think the owner doesn't affect the reporting of the news, think again.) I'm sure Porter went along with this viewpoint; the anti-Hill populace did buy this paper. Most newspapers are so controlled as to present one point of view (after money-making).


31. "Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Fleet"
Posted by Kat on Jan-27th-03 at 4:04 PM
In response to Message #9.

Well, i finally found it.
Stumbled over Fleet in the Prelim., while I was looking for "windows".

The hard part was finding the exact thread to post it to.
Plus I was almost wrong, mea culpa, but here I am trying to fix it.  Beg your pardon.

Prelim
Fleet, speaking about his talk with Lizzie
355
. "She said Bridget, the work girl, she did not say Bridget, she said Maggie, the work girl, was there this forenoon. She said Bridget had been in the house in the forenoon. Well, I says 'do you suspect Bridget?' She says 'no, I dont.' I says 'where was Bridget during the time that your father---that is, at any time this morning?' She said she had been outside washing windows, and that she came in, and after her father came in, she went up stairs, as she thought, to fix her room, or make her bed; but she did not think that Bridget had anything to do with it. She said after she went up stairs, that she went up in the barn."


32. "Re: Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Fleet"
Posted by rays on Jan-27th-03 at 5:04 PM
In response to Message #31.

Nothing convinces me so much of Lizzie's goodness as her refusal to cast suspicion upon Bridget or those who "worked for Father". Even tho this made her more of a suspect. Do you agree?

Radin pointed at Bridget. He was a newspaper reporter who covered "hundreds of murder trials", many with a "disgruntled employee". Isn't that often true nowadays? Going postal?

(Message last edited Jan-27th-03  5:06 PM.)


33. "Re: Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Fleet"
Posted by Kat on Jan-27th-03 at 5:23 PM
In response to Message #32.

It's odd that it was Fleet, who made a mess of the hatchet handle testimony at the Trial.
Plus what he says here was not repeated anywhere else, because I had looked.
AND what he says is not strictly true of what Lizzie said at Inquest.  She says she did not see Bridget wash the windows, and that she doesn't remember seeing her, and that Bridget went upstairs BEFORE her father came in.
So did Lizzie really say that, or is Fleet wool-gathering?

Inquest
Lizzie
67+
Q. A large portion of that time, the girl was out of doors?
A. I don't know where she was, I did not see her. I supposed she was out of doors, as she had the pail and brush.
Q. You knew she was washing windows?
A. She told me she was going to. I did not see her do it.
Q. For a large portion of the time you did not see the girl?
A. No sir.
Q. So far as you know you were alone in the lower part of the house, a large portion of the time, after your father went away, and before he came back?
A. My father did not go away I think until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember; he was with me down stairs.
Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.
Q. After he went out, and before he came back; a large portion of the time after your father went out, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were the only person in the house?
A. So far as I know, I was.


(Message last edited Jan-27th-03  5:25 PM.)


34. "Re: Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Fleet"
Posted by Carol on Jan-29th-03 at 3:23 PM
In response to Message #33.

"Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs."

This is interesting. Since Bridget wasn't supposed to be in the front upstairs, the assumption is she would have gone up the back stairs.
Maybe Bridget did go upstairs sometime between coming in from doing the outside windows and when she went up for her nap. Then again maybe Lizzie is not understanding the question. He asks her the question three times so from her answers it seems as if she is confused about it. The questions and answers lead me to believe that she didn't think she heard Abby come in then until after her father came home so if she really did think she heard Abby come it it must have been after Andrew settled on the couch and she left for the barn??


35. "Re: Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Fleet"
Posted by haulover on Jan-30th-03 at 11:28 PM
In response to Message #32.

i've been looking for the quote you refer to, that lizzie said, "it wasn't bridget or anyone who worked for father."  do you know where it is from -- outside of the radin book?


36. " Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Robinson Closing"
Posted by Kat on Jan-31st-03 at 12:39 AM
In response to Message #35.

Post #9 here on this thread.
I had looked and this is as close as it gets.

Trial
Robinson
Defense Closing Argument
Pg. 1744

..."Yes, it was the impulse, the outcome of an honest woman. Were she a villain and a rascal, she would have done as villains and rascals do. There was her uncle, John Morse, suspected as you heard, followed up, inquired about and she is asked and she said, no, he did not do it. He went away from the house this morning at nine o'clock. Some one said Bridget did it. Now there were but two persons around that house as we now find out, so far as we can locate anybody, and the busy finger was pointed at Bridget Sullivan,---Bridget Sullivan only an Irish girl, working in the family, working for her weekly pay, been faithful to them, been there two years and nine months, lived happily and peacefully with them and they have had no trouble and Lizzie spoke right out determinedly, as you know, and promptly, Why, Bridget did not do it. Then somebody said: Why, the Portuguese on the farm. No, says Lizzie, he is not a Portuguese; he is a Swede, and my father has not any man that ever worked for him that would do that to him. Not Alfred Johnson that worked for them, not Mr. Eddy, another farmer that worked for them, no assistant,---I cannot believe it of any of them.

How do you account for that except in one way?  She was virtually if she were a criminal,---virtually putting every body away from suspicion and leaving herself to stand as the only, one to whom all would turn their eyes. "....


--I guess I'm looking for this by myself.  I had been checking Kent and Brown, but decided to try the trial.
So here Robinson pretty much says what Ray has been repeating all year.  BUT, where does Robinson get this supposed quote from Lizzie about Bridget?  Does anybody know?
OOO  Deja-vu

(Message last edited Dec-2nd-02  4:24 AM.)

--This whole upper portion is from December
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors, as well as the defense attorneys as well as the newspapers just seem to say whatever they want?

I was looking at Sullivan today and he paraphrases Lizzie's Inquest testimony!  Now I know he is doing that but when I read Lizzie said she had the secretaryship of the CES and "had to remain over till the 10th", whereas she told Alice Russell she would go Monday after all (the 8th)...  I thought AHA better look this up!
Sullivan had it wrong.
Paraphrasing....
Goodbye Lizzie Borden, pg.s 213 & 216

(Message last edited Jan-31st-03  12:47 AM.)


37. "Re:  Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Robinson Closing"
Posted by Susan on Apr-22nd-03 at 3:06 AM
In response to Message #36.

Didn't know where else to post this interesting link for George Robinson, but, he was president of the Chicopee Savings Bank until 1878.  Go to link and look under Our Historyhttp://www.chicopeesavings.com/Default.asp?LINKNAME=ABOUT#History


38. "Re:  Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Robinson Closing"
Posted by Tina-Kate on Apr-22nd-03 at 10:39 PM
In response to Message #37.

Governor, lawyer, bank president.  Rebello also sez he started out studying medicine.  Must have been a very smart man.  I wonder if finishing out in banking was like a game to him?


39. "Re:  Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Robinson Closing"
Posted by Kat on Apr-22nd-03 at 11:07 PM
In response to Message #37.

Rebello, 198:
"George Dexter Robinson (1834-1896), age 59 at the time of the Borden trial, was born in Lexington, Massachusetts, January 10, 1834. He was educated in local public schools, attended Lexington Academy and Hopkins Classical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He graduated from Harvard University in 1856. Mr. Robinson first studied medicine, then became a teacher, and later, principal of Chicopee High School, Chicopee, Massachusetts. He married his first wife Hannah E. Stevens on November 24, 1859.  A son, Walter Stevens Robinson, was born in 1861. His second marriage was to Susan E. Simonds in 1867. A daughter, Annie Florence Robinson, was born in 1869. He studied law with his brother, the Honorable Charles Robinson, in Charlestown, Massachusetts. In 1867, Att. Robinson was admitted to the bar at the age of thirty-three. He soon became involved in politics. He was a member in the State House of Representatives where he served on the select judiciary committee along with Albert Mason, who later, as Chief Justice, presided over the Borden trial. Robinson was a senator and congressman. From 1883-1886, he was Governor of Massachusetts. While governor, one of his later appointments was that of Justin Dewey to the Superior Court in 1886. Justice Dewey delivered the charge to the Borden jurors.
Amherst College and Harvard University awarded Mr. Robinson an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. Upon completion of his public service in 1887, he returned to his private practice in Chicopee and Boston, Massachusetts...."

--The office of Governor, I believe was successive 1 year terms.
1883-4 = 1 year,  1884-5 =  1 year, and 1885-6 = 1 year.
3 one-year terms.
Apparently the Bank President job came 1875 to 1878.


40. "Re:  Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Robinson Closing"
Posted by Susan on Apr-23rd-03 at 1:28 AM
In response to Message #39.

I think that Jennings and Lizzie chose wisely, or was it the other way around, Robinson chosing to defend Lizzie?  Sounds like this guy was one smart cookie, so many different irons in the fire.

Thanks for listing all that, Kat.  I was on a Lizzie search and his name and hers popped up with the bank name, something I had never seen before. 


41. "Re:  Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Robinson Closing"
Posted by rays on Apr-23rd-03 at 12:51 PM
In response to Message #38.

Aren't there many politicians today who take a bank directorship? That's more honest than money under the table.


42. "Re:  Bridget Didn't Do It-According To Robinson Closing"
Posted by Kat on Apr-23rd-03 at 1:46 PM
In response to Message #41.

It looks as though the bank presidency came BEFORE the politics and may be where he got his contacts to BEGIN.

There is a cousin, George Robinson, in Lizzie's will!

(Message last edited Apr-23rd-03  11:12 PM.)



 

Navagation

LizzieAndrewBorden.com © 2001-2008 Stefani Koorey. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice.
PearTree Press, P.O. Box 9585, Fall River, MA 02720

 

Page updated 12 October, 2003