1. "Strike One Against Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Mar-13th-03 at 3:29 AM

"Father forbade our telling it"--all that time Alice never knew the Borden house had been *broken into* until the night before the murders.
If Father forbade, why this night can Lizzie now tell this secret?
Because she knows she no longer has to obey her father anymore?

Trial
Alice  [quoting Lizzie, mostly, from Wednesday evening's visit]
376+

" 'Mr. and Mrs. Borden were awfully sick last night.' "

"...she says, 'I don't know; father has so much trouble.' "

" 'Sometimes I think our milk might be poisoned.' "

" 'I feel afraid sometimes that father has got an enemy.' "

"She told me of seeing a man run around the house one night...."

"And you know the barn has been broken into twice."

" 'I feel as if I wanted to sleep with my eyes half open---with one eye open half the time---for fear they will burn the house down over us.' "

" 'I am afraid somebody will do something; I don't know but what somebody will do something.' "

" 'Well,' she says, 'they have broken into the house in broad daylight, with Emma and Maggie and me there.' "
"And I said, 'I never heard of that before.' "
"And she said,'Father forbade our telling it' "

Thats a good point, I've never looked at that exchange in that way before.  I've always viewed it as Lizzie was pushed so far out of character by what was going on and looking for sympathy from Alice.  Alice pooh-poohs Lizzie's fears and she blurts out the robbery story.

But your idea is such a simple, valid point.  I love it! 

I was about to post the same first sentence Susan did.  Well, it is a good point and I never thought of it that way before.  Yes - she need not fear about Father's approval anymore. 

I had always thought that she just kept yapping at Alice, trying to turn Alice's mundane take on things around. 

Gee, I should have just said, "I agree with Susan."  

i've always considered this incident to be one of the two most damning bits of evidence against her -- in terms of lizzie being DIRECTLY responsible for what happened.  my way of describing it is that lizzie is "planting" evidence, using mrs. russell.  she wants someone to know that she had seen signs of approaching menace and was worried.  it creates a phantom.  it's certainly hard to overlook the obvious timing between this visit and the murder.

btw, the other damning bit i refer to is the poison/prussic acid issue.  i know we went over that pretty thoroughly.  but my current position is that there is just too much talk of poison for poison to just be some figment of someone's imagination.  and eli bence and associates are just two specific and sure of themselves.  part of me wants to resist it because it's so in line with the legend -- but it makes so much sense that lizzie has been trying this and that to poison them and has thus far only made them sick.  so she tries to buy a sure-fire poison, and when she's turned down, she says, ah, to hell with it, i'll just knock their brains out first chance i get, but i'd better make sure someone knows about the break-in.

how much is known about the robbery lizzie is referring to?  a close examination of that might lend a clew to the murder.

""Father forbade our telling it"...if Father forbade, why this night can Lizzie now tell this secret? Because she knows she no longer has to obey her father anymore?"

Not necessarily. Lizzie felt the circumstances she has been fearful of, that so many odd things had happened, had been brought to a head. She felt that she and other members of the household and house were not safe.  In order to let Alice know the full extent and reasons for why she felt this way, and express concern about her fathers welfare in hopes Alice may offer something that might put her mind to ease or help, she breaks her father's confidence and tells Alice "all." 

Judge Dewey even mentioned this in his charge to the jury.  He said, (my summary) he said for the jurors to hold in their minds whether it was reasonable and probable that a person thinking about this crime would predict to a friend the happening of a disaster.

More important is the TIME when this conversation came out. Was it just after the murders, or months later at the trial. Time to "refresh one's memory" as they call it.

My 'possible solution' is that the murder weapon (and dress?) was brought to Alice by Bridget (unknowingly). (They say this is what OJ and Robt Blake did.) Makes perfect sense to get rid of incriminating evidence right after the crime. Then, after a disagreement, Alice snitches on Lizzie, but in a way that leaves her "innocent" and forces Lizzie and Emma to say a dress was burned. That IS a logical solution to the missing weapon, etc.

I still think that AR Brown's solution works better, because he had the statements of contemporaries. I wasn't there at the time. But I hope that you will agree this is a possible solution, especially given Alice's delayed testimony.

When Lizzie arrived home that night, alone and after dark, do you think she was scared?
If she had worked herself up into almost hysteria tring to get a reaction out of Alice, and was thwarted because in what way could ALICE possibly council her as to her fears?  And then why did Lizzie not march right into that sitting room and pour out her story of anxiety to her father and her uncle who were pledged in their manly roles to protect her & the family?
Even Abby was gone to bed;   there was no reason for Lizzie to pour out that threatening story to her girlfriend (who she has seen on & off constantly always and never told all this to her before this ONE night), and upon arriving home Not pour out her fears & feelings of being threatened to her dear father?

It's a set up...and if Lizzie had been smarter she should have leaked these tid-bits in dribs and drabs to Alice over the summer, not all at once.

(Message last edited Mar-14th-03  12:49 AM.)

But the assumed visit of Nemesis was not known prior to Wednesday Aug 3, 1892, so she could not have done this! I suspect Lizzie knew, or could guess, that some passage of money or title was planned.

I suggest that Uncle John tipped off the girls when he saw them on vacation, and may have gone there with that intent. He did care for his sister's girls, didn't he? "You should know this ...."

"My 'possible solution' is that the murder weapon (and dress?) was brought to Alice by Bridget (unknowingly)....Makes perfect sense to get rid of incriminating evidence right after the crime."  I think it not logical for Lizzie to give Bridget a bundle of clothes to take to Alice at that time and not logical for Alice to have accepted such a bundle.  What was Bridget to say to Alice when she gave her the bundle, "Alice, Lizzie's father has just been killed and here, she wants you to have these old clothes that have some blood stains on them and a hatchet they don't need anymore. She also sent me for you to come to the house now." Even if Bridget left off the last 22 words, it sounds odd. 

I am not so sure how much common sense is involved in always wanting to get rid of the weapon. Sometimes it would be purposefully left in the victim to confuse or even point the finger at others.  Did you see Gosford Park, the victim was killed twice, by poison and then by a knife which was left in the victim.

"When Lizzie arrived home that night, alone and after dark, do you think she was scared?"  I think she was at the least very concerned
about the issues she discussed.

"...in what way could ALICE possibly council her as to her fears?"
Just having someone to talk to helps a person gain some perspective. Alice did council her as to the poison, telling her it most likely wasn't so, it wasn't in a food product that was purchased or else the whole population who also bought it, such as the bread or milk, would be affected. 

"...why did Lizzie not march right into that sitting room and pour out her story of anxiety to her father and her uncle who were pledged in their manly roles to protect her & the family?"  If Andrew was my father I wouldn't have had any rapport with a person such as he was and wouldn't have gone to him with such news, maybe Lizzie felt she already knew she wouldn't be taken seriously.  I doubt she felt Andrew or Uncle John were manly, in the sense of family protection.

there was no reason for Lizzie to pour out that threatening story to her girlfriend (who she has seen on & off constantly always and never told all this to her before this ONE night), and upon arriving home Not pour out her fears & feelings of being threatened to her dear father?

"...there was no reason for Lizzie to pour out that threatening story to her girlfriend...and upon arriving home Not pour out her fears & feelings of being threatened to her dear father?"  I disagree with that. Part of the problem Lizzie told Alice about was Andrew's being short with people and his having enemies, so that would have not been a good thing to bring up to Andrew. If Lizzie felt that Andrew was siding with Abby on issues, she might have felt not impelled to confide in him. If Uncle John was in the room when Lizzie arrived home and Lizzie didn't get on with him why should she talk to her father in front of him about such concerns?

The very fact that the house was divided and I think folks there did not get on well would preclude them having confidences with one another, except for Lizzie with Emma.  So it seems reasonable if that was the case, that Lizzie sought an outside person to talk with in her anticipation of sinister events and not the family.

I still submit that in answer to this opinion in this post, that if Lizzie were concerned about her father's welfare and safety, she would tell her father Wednesday night when she arrived home.  Abby having gone to bed, it was the perfect time to discuss her fears for him.  This post says she had *concern about her father's welfare*--so I say Lizzie would have to tell him, or warn him, and that telling or warning ALICE is no help at all.
Instead she comes home, and goes upstairs without even a hello and in 12 hours Abby is dead and in 14 hours so is Andrew.

i get your point, and i would add this.  that she went to alice to unburden herself and get some advice would make sense IF she did it out of frustration in being unable to get through to father about it.  i could believe it if she had said, "i've been trying to tell father that he has an enemy, but he won't listen.  they were sick all night, and mrs. borden is convinced they are being poisoned, but he won't listen.  i've seen strange figures lurking around, and i've told him about it, but he doesn't believe me.  i'm at my wit's end."

Lizzie admits that she didn't tell her father about one of the prowlers.

Inquest
Lizzie
Pg. 91
A. Last winter when I was coming home from church one Thursday evening I saw somebody run around the house again. I told my father of that.
Q. Did you tell your father of this last one?
A. No, sir.

This happened during the time Emma was away.  It was the most recent event of a prowler.

his reaction is a blank.  why is he not interested in hearing about it?

Maybe she just says she told him.  Maybe nothing happened at all.
Lizzie is probably building up to something here as events are escalating.

Her *Strike Two* comes about because of the Bence assertion that she tried to buy poison.  I wasn't going to use another's testimony against her in this line of thread.  I wanted Lizzie's own words to speak for themselves, as guilty or guilty knowledge.  Just as an attempt on my part with feedback from you-all.
I've tried not to hold the poison story against her, but in her Inquest testimony about that same day, Wednesday, she gets her *strike two*:

Inquest
Lizzie
pg. 54
Q. When did he come to the house the last time before your father and mother were killed?  [Morse]
A. He stayed there all night Wednesday night.
Q. My question is when he came there.
A. I don't know; I was not at home when he came; I was out.

Lizzie goes on a bit later to double-back neatly and say she was in her room sick all day.  This happens to be the day Bence swears he speaks to her about poison, and that evening is the time Lizzie states her anxiety about what might happen.
This escalation of odd events cannot be just a coincidence.

(Message last edited Mar-15th-03  2:53 AM.)

Relating to Uncle John's testimony you quoted:
"A. He stayed there all night Wednesday night.
Q. My question is when he came there.
A. I don't know; I was not at home when he came; I was out."
The attorney refers in his question to the "night."  It is possible that Lizzie did not know Uncle John had arrived earlier in the day, had eaten and left right away for the farm if she was in her room at the time. The answer "I was not at home when he came;I was out" then refers to her knowledge of Uncle John's entry into the house, which was when she was out visiting Alice Russell that evening.  

"...she had *concern about her father's welfare*--so I say Lizzie would have to tell him, or warn him, and that telling or warning ALICE is no help at all."  Yes, I think that Lizzie might have had concern about her father's welfare as well as that of the house (it would burn down around us) but that did not necessitate her talking to him about it. 

I don't believe Andrew was an easy person to talk with. He, from what is known, was nasty to Dr. Bowen the day before, seemingly more concerned about not having to pay a bill that wasn't even tendered than his wife's health regarding Abby's thought she was poisoned. He had lots of people in business that had run-ins with him. He no doubt didn't give a twig about those people who had issues with him because of his temperament. In light of this I don't see why Lizzie would go to such a person and warn him of anything EVEN IF she was concerned about him and the house. It would be similar to trying to warn or showing concern for a drug addict, many people love those addicted to drugs or even smoking, but instead of confronting the addict who won't listen, because they have tried that before (like Lizzie tried before to talk with her father about a man hanging about and he didn't respond or show concern) they go to counselors or friends and talk out their frustrations.

And murder wasn't on the list of things that Lizzie told Alice she was concerned about. Would your opinion be different if she told Alice that she thought her father and step-mother would be killed the next day? Would you have required her to go to them and say she felt that they would be murdered soon and beware?  What would have been their response? What would Alice have advised her to do, tell them?
And talking about Alice, why didn't Alice tell Lizzie to go right home and confront her father with her suspicions, or did she and I missed that part?

I think if Lizzie didn't mention murder because she wasn't aware her concerns could be that serious.  She was entertaining suspicions that something odd was going on, that is something she might have sought out someone outside her family to talk with about it.

Did you go read it for youurself?
If so, you wouldn't theorize what you did, which is plainly stated by me as testimony.  You imply I can't read what I myself wrote?
Also, you would not state that Morse ate and "left right away".
If you read it all, I bet you can come up with a better answer than this.
Here's more of it.  You can plainly see, or at least I can, that the question refers to when he first came there.  She is Not asked about a Night, other than her own assertion that she has been out nights, occasionally.  Lizzie changes the direction of the question with her answer.  So the question is restated:*
Inquest
Lizzie
54
Q. During the last year how much of the time has he been at your house?
A. Very little that I know of.
Q. Your answer to that question before was, I don't know because I have been away so much myself.
A. I did not mean I had been away very much myself the last year.
Q. How much have you been away the last year?
A. I have been away a great deal in the daytime, occasionally at night.
Q. Where in the daytime, any particular place?
A. No, around town.
Q. When you go off nights, where?
A. Never unless I have been off on a visit?
Q. When was the last time when you have been away for more than a night or two before this affair?
A. I don't think I have been away to stay more than a night or two since I came from abroad, except about three or four weeks ago I was in New Bedford for three or four days.
Q. Where at New Bedford?
A. At 20 Madison street.
Q. How long ago were you abroad?
A. I was abroad in 1890.
Q.* When did he come to the house the last time before your father and mother were killed?
A. He stayed there all night Wednesday night.
Q. *My question is when he came there.
A. I don't know; I was not at home when he came; I was out.
Q. When did you first see him there?
A. I did not see him at all.
Q. How did you know he was there?
A. I heard his voice.
Q. You did not see him Wednesday evening?
A. I did not; I was out Wednesday evening.
Q. You did not see him Thursday morning?
A. I did not; he was out when I came down stairs.
Q. When was the first time you saw him?
A. Thursday noon.
Q. You had never seen him before that?
A. No sir.
>>>>>>>>
As to this quote of yours:
"(like Lizzie tried before to talk with her father about a man hanging about and he didn't respond or show concern)"
--Where'd you get this?
you're quoting haulover's opinion to me now?
.......
As to the *Supposed scene* with Dr. Bowen, be aware that  Lizzie was UPSTAIRS when Bowen came over , and so what you refer to is Lizzie's tale told to Alice who tells it to us.  You're counting on third hand info here, by a not quite disinterested by-stander.  Not good enough in anyone's book.


(Message last edited Mar-16th-03  3:27 AM.)

Maybe Lizzie did recognize the strange man (William S Borden) but kept quiet about it. Or was she just inventing a story to gain attraction (like some do)?

Continuing along the line of possibility, it could be that the murder was weapon was left there by Nemesis to avoid incrimination? So Lizzie would want to get rid of it as soon as possible even if innocent.
Think about that!!!

i'm glad you went into this, because as i scrutinize it now, i see how this part rivals the questioning about abby's whereabouts and the business of sinkers and lines -- as being astonishingly evasive.  this is very pertinent to what was discussed in another thread about astrology and lizzie's way of communicating.  the only thing that is clear is that she does not want to answers these questions directly.

""Q.* When did he come to the house the last time before your father and mother were killed?
A. He stayed there all night Wednesday night.
Q. *My question is when he came there.
A. I don't know; I was not at home when he came; I was out. ""

my question to lizzie:  if you know he came when you were out, you must know when it was you were out.  you know the difference between leaving the house, when morse was not around, and returning to the house, when he was there. ?  (and as i've mentioned before, knowlton misses opportunities for digging deeper.  his next question should have been, "okay, you were out when he came.  where were you? what did you do that day?  approx. what time did you leave the house?)

"Q. When you go off nights, where?
A. Never unless I have been off on a visit? "

that's really something.  the answer to "where" is "never."  being as fair as i can be, there is one thing i'm reasonably certain of:  she does not wish to discuss this.

The answer to *where* is *never*.  That's really cool insight!
I like that!

"Did you go read it for yourself?"
Yes, I read it for myself.

"...You imply I can't read what I myself wrote? "
What? I imply nothing of the kind.

"...Also, you would not state that Morse ate and "left right away"."
From what testimony I have read Morse arrived Wed., was given something to eat, then went over to the farm all in the early afternoon because he returned later on, and maybe even after Lizzie left to see Alice. Do you know when Morse returned to the Borden house?

"... You can plainly see, or at least I can, that the question refers to when he first came there." The question is an open one, when he came there. If she does not know exactly when he came there (in the afternoon) because she was in her room and unaware he was there, then she can only answer as to when SHE was aware he came there. When she was aware the first time he came there was, acccording to what I read in her testimony, after she came back from her outing to see Alice.

l. "Q.* When did he come to the house the last time before your father and mother were killed?
2. A. He stayed there all night Wednesday night.
3. Q. *My question is when he came there.
4. A. I don't know; I was not at home when he came; I was out."

So, according to what Lizzie says she is being excrutiatingly honest.
She answers question 1 that he came before night and stayed all night Wed. She answers question 2 by giving further definition to her her answer to question 1, i.e., that she didn't know when he got to the house because when he got there she wasn't home. She was out. From what she says then, since she hadn't gone out until she saw Alice, that evening, that as far as she knew AT THE TIME, he came when she was out that evening. Now, maybe Uncle John and Bridget had both informed her LATER that he had indeed come earlier in the day, but she doesn't add that hearsay to her answer.

Lizzie says she only heard Uncle John, she did not see him Wed. and if she returned to the house while Uncle John, her father and mother were in the sitting room, she HEARD Uncle John talking but did not go in to SEE him. She is answering acurately.

In reference to my saying Lizzie had talked about a man hanging about the house: "Where'd you get this? you're quoting haulover's opinion to me now?"  I don't believe I have ever quoted Haulover's opinion to you. Alice Russell's testimony was good enough for the court to accept.

"As to the *Supposed scene* with Dr. Bowen, be aware that  Lizzie was UPSTAIRS when Bowen came over, and so what you refer to is Lizzie's tale told to Alice who tells it to us.  You're counting on third hand info here, by a not quite disinterested by-stander.  Not good enough in anyone's book."  Alice Russell's testimony was good enough for the court. I will have to re-read Dr. Bowen to see exactly what he said about that.

I notice that you failed to answer any of my inquires in paragraph 4 in my message 15.  I hope I have answered positively your message which I don't think succeeded in ripping mine to shreds. We obviously disagree on Lizzie's veracity. If I can further answer you as to how I think, please, ask me more questions.



 

I hope we will be civilized about this.

I believe that "testimony changes over time" as many lawyers have said. And that a discrepancy between accounts is only natural based on a person's background etc. If the testimony is exactly alike, that is suspicious ("horseshedding the witness").

Also, the testimony is the trial is based mostly on the questions the lawyers ask. They may not want to get into minor details, etc. Please try to take a birds'-eye view of these things, and concentrate on events and facts, w/o emphasis on what they said.

One example is this: two cars collide. Three witnesses. One says he saw it, but didn't notice who had the light. Two says the green car went thru an amber light. Three says the green Dodge went thru a red light and hit the white Ford. All different in detail. Is only one right in this case? You can think of other examples. Ever watch a movie with a group? Remember the same things the same way?

When I asked if you had read this portion on your own, before replying, I knew if you had you couldn't be writing what you did write.  And since then, you say you read it, but when?, is I suppose the exact question.
All the answers to what you just asked and all the corrections to  your assumptions are there and you certainly don't need me to lead you to it.

As to Bowen, he was seemingly unconcerned about the whole matter, at least until the Borden's were found slain.

Strike three has got to be the burning of the dress.  The problem with dealing with  THIS issue using only Lizzie's testimony is that her destruction of a dress was not brought up until months later, so it would seem we would have to look at what she did say about her dress she says she wore that day:

Inquest
Lizzie
53
Q. What dress did you wear the day they were killed?
A. I had on a navy blue, sort of a bengaline or India silk skirt, with a navy blue blouse. In the afternoon they thought I had better change it. I put on a pink wrapper.
Q. Did you change your clothing before the afternoon?
A. No, sir.
Q. You dressed in the morning, as you have described, and kept that clothing on until afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.
- - - - - -
pg. 91
Q. Was the dress that was given to the officers the same dress that you wore that morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The India silk?
A. No, it is not an India silk, it is silk and linen; some call it bengaline silk.
Q. Something like that dress there? (Pongee.)
A. No, it was not like that.

We're all probably pretty tired of the dress.  We all probably know the description of the dress she was seen wearing by her witnesses.  It doesn't seem to be this dress.  But we know she destroyed a dress on Sunday, her sister admits it.
THis is strike three. 

Lizzie knew something was about to happen to her family and goes to Alice Wednesday night.  In 12 hours Abby is dead while Lizzie is admittedly in the house.
Wednesday Bence claims Lizzie Borden came into his drugstore to buy prussic acid and Lizzie claims she was out Wednesday.
Lizzie hands to the court a dress that might seem to her to be like the dress she did wear Thursday, but it doesn't match recollections of others.  She burns a dress.  It is not denied that she destroyed a dress.  (She doesn't tell of it.  She leaves the burden and the weight of knowing that info to good friend Alice's conscience).
Three strikes.
This means she is *Out*--out there in the limbo of the Accused.  These are reasons why Lizzie will never be exhonerated.  These are why she must always be included as a suspect, or a person with guilty knowledge.




(Message last edited Mar-18th-03  2:16 AM.)

This dress burning incident is 1 of the things that I can't seem to wrap my brain around.  Alice sez she took it from the kitchen closet.  If there was some kind of evidence stained on that dress, how did the police miss it?  Something I should go over more...the searches & the timing here.

i completely agree.  those are the three that link lizzie directly with the act of murder itself. 

maybe the answer is that it was just as it looked:  that lizzie did it and someone removed all the evidence.

i do know this.  to get to the bottom of something, the question to ask is:  who benefits?  to get at the whys and wherefores, follow the money.

Yes, Morse arrived, then left on an errand for Andy. Was something going on? Did Andy want him to arrange a meeting?
Didn't Uncle John visit his nieces before this, as if to tip them off?

Are you all saying that if Lizzie didn't burn the dress she would NOT be a suspect? But she was arrested before they found out about the dress burning!!!
Please re-read AR Brown's book again on this, if need be.

It has appeared all along that Lizzie would not have been indicted by the grand jury except for the dress-burning incident.
Yes she was arrested, and went thru Prelim. but that grand jury thing is what sent her to trial.
I've recently come across allusions to that grand jury and the other things they were considering.
It turns out that the "Sanity Survey'" was one other important factor in that jury's deliberations.
I don't think it led to the true bill, but they did wait to study it, so they did consider it.

If this forum is to be for open discussion it must include differing views. Isn't being polite something we all adhere to in order to post here? Because another point of view of the testimony or subject differs from yours, it isn't polite to resort to statements such as the following delivered in a tone of irritation:

1. That you believe I can come up with "a better answer than that."
2. Saying rather imperiously, "Your're quoting haulover's opinion to
  me now? when nothing concerning Haulover was ever mentioned by me.
3. That my opinion on the subject is "not good enough in anyone's
  book."
4. Regarding my view of the testimony that "...the corrections to my
  assumptions are there..." (in the testimony) evidently your
  assumptions or evaluations are the only ones valid? 
5. telling me that somehow I have implied you "can't read what I
  myself wrote."

It does not help the open flow of discussion to engage in this type of chatter. I have not done so.  It puts off people who are new to the list.  No one is challenging you by differing in viewpoint.  It would be much healthier to just state differing views than take aim at others on this forum. 

However, I can see now by the way you have ended your last message that the goal from the start of this link was to make your point: which was that because of your conclusions from the testimony "This means she is *Out*--out there in the limbo of the Accused.  These are reasons why Lizzie will never be exhonerated.  These are why she must always be included as a suspect, or a person with guilty knowledge."

I disagree with that statement, especially that Lizzie will never be exhonerated.  She was in law, she was found not guilty. 

There was open-flow discussion and then you disappeared.
When you return there are quotes of me taken out of context, listing 1, 2 3 etc.
That would make anyone sound odd.  I submit that you please not quote me to me anymore.
If you reply to me, please click "reply to" button. That way my whole post is taken into consideration.
Here I am tellingyou what to do again, right?
When it is the use of my own words, I think it is a fair request.

I do like to settle on a theme, give it some thought, maybe ask someone I phone, look it all up and then proceed.
I like to be prepared and I especially enjoy responses which are prepared or sourced.  (Sometimes I have spent an hour on one post.  I try to give my very best).
Anyone with those qualities can discuss, argue an opposite point, or give examples of why they think differently.
I am not real spontaineous...I spend a LOT of time verifying, or sourcing.  I ENJOY it.
I check or double check. 
I even check footnotes in people's articles in print.
I always consider a valid point or opinion.
If I seemed to barrel along with this point in this thread it was because no one differed too much.  They gave points of view and  my ending was still the same, because Lizzie is still a suspect.  I did not call her guilty.
I liked this thread.  People could participate and yes the outcome was predermined as Lizzie was "out" but taking into consideration the other opinions expressed, having her remain, poetically, not free of the shadow of suspicion.

Just learn to live with pointed criticisms on this board. In a small group, one person will always try to show they are more informed.

Be glad you're not with baseball fans who argue over games played before they were born!!!

If a question bothers you, just ignore it, or give a simple answer. Think of her as the "devil's advocate" to test your opinons. They do serve a useful purpose, don't they?

I want to say I appreciate such informed and well researched
information on this site.  I had the day off work and have
been working on my own material, it is so time-consuming to
reaseach different points.  I truly appreciate Kat and Carol and
others who post here, thank you.

Rays says: "In a small group, one person will always try to show they are more informed."

True. I am aware that a person with so much hubris as was shown cannot be expected to take responsibility for not being able to engage in polite discussion.

I will continue to quote whatever I need to to make my points, which are always made without resorting to pouncing on others. What was done on this subject link was not just "pointed criticism" it was deliberate contempt and rudeness and was done because it was assumed people on this forum will just accept such behavior as they have done in the past. I don't. It doesn't live up to the quality that I thought this forum was attempting to promote.

Regarding the subject matter, Lizzie was declared not guilty BY LAW in 1893, and there is NO reason to assume that material won't come forward in the future which will not entirely clear her name or shed new light on the actual culprit(s) from the layman's mind.






      

carol:

i wish the antagonism between you and kat would stop.

both of you have corrected or questioned me, and i think that's fine.  i just go back to the drawing board and re-examine it.

kat strikes me as passionate -- i wouldn't call it "hubris."

just keep making your arguments and let them play out.

Haulover says: "both of you have corrected or questioned me"
Correcting and questioning is not what I am talking about as you know.

"kat strikes me as passionate -- i wouldn't call it "hubris." Being passionate is having emotional zeal for a suject or person, but exhibiting contempt for other views on this forum because you consider your own the only valid ones is called hubris.

"just keep making your arguments and let them play out." And if my contributions play out such as they are attacked in such fashion again, I will speak up again.

forget i said anything.  it's none of my business anyway.

this was about the three things that always point toward lizzie's guilt:

1. her visit to alice
2. the prussic acid accusation
3. the dress-burning

1. this reminds me of a local case a few years ago, where a woman had hired a hit man to kill her husband.  on the night of the murder, she arranges to be with friends, and during this sociable evening, she suddenly is unaccountably disturbed, and tells her friends, "something is wrong.  i feel that ____ is in danger."  apparently she thought it made her look innocent to have a psychic flash about her husband's murder.

2. i won't go into detail about this again, but it wasn't just bence but other employees who remember specific details about the woman who tried to buy prussic acid.   i can't get past this -- especially the statement about the "peculiar expression about her eyes."  after thinking about it and looking at the pictures more -- i think it was the unusually light shade of blue of her eyes together with a kind of lazy or dreamy expression.  the quality of the photos limit what we can see, but i can almost see this.

3. she's getting ready to burn a dress that no one has seen, and it's in a kitchen cabinet.  why is it there in the first place?

This point #1 is very intriguing.  I like to hear of similarities found in other crimes, because there don't seem to be many.
What point 1. reminds me of or suggests to me is an active imagination of someone involved, and that frisson of excitement that shows itself in such a way.  Like the person just has to share this insight or foreknowledge because it is too big and juicy a thing to keep to oneself.  Not realizing how it can reflect back on them when examined under a stong light of suspicion.

I'm not trying to horn in on this discussion.  (I have so little vision at the moment that I couldn't look anything up if I had to.)
Just wanted to say that I agree with Kat about the overuse of the "reply with quote" feature.  It's probably a good idea to ask oneself, "How would it sound if I did this in a live conversation?"  IMHO, it would sound rude.  I had completely overlooked that feature (or didn't realize exactly how it worked)until I noticed that one person who posts here almost always quotes the other person in responding. I'm sure there's no intent to be rude, but it does "sound" that way at times.

I don't know where to put this so I will put this here.

Ray, I did find a newspaper source to the old saying of yours about that conversation between Andrew & Morse Wednesday night:
Kent, David. Lizzie Borden Sourcebook. Boston: Brandon Publishing, 1992, pg. 331, item dated June 2, 1927:
Partial...

"LIZZIE BORDEN DEAD
Knowlton Made Statement
By way of an aside, it is interesting to recall that upon the death, nine years afterwards, of the prosecuting district attorney in the case, Hosea M. Knowlton, later attorney general for the state, it was revealed that he had said, while waiting for the jury's verdict, and again a few weeks before his death, that if he could have known what Andrew J. Borden had said to John V. Morse, in the long conversation that the two men had had the night before the muder, in which Lizzie had come home and gone to her room, he believed he could have convicted somebody of the murder.  If Mr. Borden had talked of making a new will, it did not appear at the testimony at the trial."

--I'll make no comment, if you can restrain yourself to only an "I Told You So!"


(Message last edited Mar-26th-03  5:04 AM.)

Yes, there is. IF AR Brown was correct, everything that would point to the true murderer would be destroyed after William S Borden was suicided. Keeping it before this could be used as a club to control him.

Is there any other witnesses to this event? I wondered about Alice's later November trip to the grand jury, and had a "possible solution".

Suppose Alice innocently took in a package sent via Bridget that morning. Then she later decided to inform in such a way as kept her skirts clean. She lies about the details, but gives enought to put suspicion on Lizzie. Lizzie MUST agree with this, since telling more would be an admission of guilt!

I believe AR Brown's solution, but after some thought decided on this possible solution. We have heard that OJ Simpson and Robert Blake got rid of the murder weapon, bloody clothes, right AFTER the crime. This is the rational thing to do. No murder weapon could be found if it was disposed of immediately.

I also think there is a possibility that the murderer left the weapon there so he couldn't be tied to the crime. Lizzie, finding it there, immeidately realized she would look guilty if it was found there; so she disposed of it via the servant and her best friend.

Two more possiblities to consider about this unsolvable crime.

Could it be that you mean myself when you say: "one person who posts here almost always quotes the other person in responding."? Regarding your comment about the "overuse of the 'reply with quote' feature," I have NEVER used that button.  May I reply to your message that this is a written forum, not a conversation. Many different messages may go by offered by many different posters before one is selected to answer. In order to insure that people know what comments I am answering I quote the portion of that source I am responding to.  To repeat a whole message is redundant.  A conversation takes place without interruption between two people, so there is no need to repeat or quote.

In fact, I started quoting when Kat pointed out to me that she did not want me to summarize anything from her posts, she wanted only to be quoted so there would be no doubts about what she said, and I have done that. In fact, it is a good idea to do it with everyone and does help with clarity, is in fact an exact mind refresher, and a compliment. It lets others to know exactly what another poster said without others having to trace back to the message I am responding to.

I am sure I don't know why you consider it rude to quote, if you would like to expand on that I would be most interested in hearing it.

"Methinks she doth protest too much."

I think the feeling that the use of the quotations is rude has to do with the out of context part of the posting. Plus, there is a reply to this post button that we have all used to make a response to a particular poster. It has worked rather well in the past.

I realize that you say you don't mean it this way, that you in fact consider it a compliment. For those kind words, I am grateful.

We can't hear your tone of voice, we can't tell if you are angry or frustrated when you post. The use of the quotes actually is device used by those who wish to show others how dumb they are! Really! So if your posts are taken not as you intended, perhaps this helps explain it.

(Message last edited Mar-26th-03  8:10 PM.)

Thanks, Stef.  You said it far better than I did.  I've reread my post, and I'm not sure why anyone would take it as a personal indictment.  I didn't mean it that way, and what I was expressing was my own opinion, not necessarily fact.  There's more than one person posting here whose posts tend to "sound" rude to me.  I usually don't bother to read them in depth nor respond to them.  Those who take offense at what I post might want to consider the same option.

NO, nothing personal meant by this. If you are going to respond to a person, copying their statement means it can't be edited again! It also can save searching for the original posting.

But were there any witnesses who "did not see Bridget with a package"? Would they or anyone notice this? (My speculation, of course.)

I do not consider it "rude to quote" and believe I never said it!

After some more thinking about it, I do not believe that a hatchet was left behind. Because none was after Bertha Manchester's killing.
Anyone who has his initials on a tool will NOT leave it behind.

I have explained why I quote others, it is a normal feature of interactions to insure accuracy.

You said: "The use of the quotes actually is device used by those who wish to show others how dumb they are! Really!" That statement is just a fantastically absurd and false generality.  If you feel you are dumb because you are quoted that is your opinion.  I have never made any comments that I think anyone on this forum is "dumb" nor does the use of quotes indicate that.     

Thanks, Rays, for your sensible comments.

"There's more than one person posting here whose posts tend to "sound" rude to me."  Perhaps you need a tune-up.

Very well written Stef, better than I could have expressed it.

That's what the reply button is for or am I missing something?  I personally do NOT like my posts pulled apart.  Since the reply button tells you the original thread number what's the problem?

Carol, you missed my point and insulted me at the same time. Wow, that was a twofer! 

I didn't say that the person quoted feels dumb. I said that the devise of quoting is a way used by others to show how dumb they think the person they are quoting is. That has been my experience. That is the experience of others on other boards. I have seen misunderstanding arise from the quoting of posts this way. What you have recently chosen to do CAN have the opposite effect from what you are intending. I was passing along that insight to you for what it was worth.

See how taking me out of context changed the meaning of what I said?

If I were told that my manner was making anyone feel uncomfortable or that I was insulting or being too abrupt in my posts, I would take it as constructive criticism. If you don't think anyone is dumb but people may think you think that because you quote them out of context, shouldn't that mean something to you? Shouldn't that make you be more sensitive to others instead of dismissing the idea as absurd and false?

If one person felt insulted by the quoting and asks you to stop and you refuse, what does that say? It says that that person's feelings don't matter. That is a heavy thing to lay on somebody, don't you agree?

I am hopeful we can come to a meeting of minds on this in the near future. I am hopeful that you will take all of my words in the spirit in which they are intended. They are intended with an open heart.

Pax.

Thanks to Harry, we have more info about the Manchester crime.  Here is the part about the hatchet, last line:

Evening Standard

Wednesday May 31, 1893  Page 1

THE MANCHESTER MURDER.

Details of the Horrible Memorial Day
Crime in Fall River

(By Associated Press)


..."...As yet the police have no decidedly strong opinions as to who could have committed the murder.  In the Borden case it was argued that none but a woman would have so hacked her victim, yet the appearance of Miss Manchester, due largely to the great flow of blood, was fully as revolting as the appearance of either victim in the Borden tragedy, while the hacking was repeated with the back of the axe a number of times, and at least five blows were struck with the edge.
On the other hand it has been claimed by friends of Miss Borden that a murderer always has a horror of being connected to the crime by means of finding the instrument and will take it with him to avoid all risk.  This they think is why no hatchet has been found by the police.  Yet in this fresh tragedy the bloody axe is left exposed upon the wood pile near the house.".....

this is good to know.  i have read that but did not know it was about that murder.  i wonder if anyone knows any details about the condition (or anything in particular) about that weapon which was found.

speaking of weapons.....  i think i'll search the forum cellar and make sure there are no hatchets or flatirons and cleavers lying around....

Stefani:  Let's just hold on here for a moment. I did not miss your point. I said in answer to your complaint and I quote myself, "I have never made any comments that I think anyone on this forum is "dumb" NOR DOES THE USE OF QUOTES INDICATE THAT." You said quoting does indicate that. We disagree.

Your opinion of assigning negative motives to others about their intentions regarding quoting is unmerited especially when you say it is the "truth." Newspapers, magazines, books, lecturers, teachers, TV moderators, broadcasters, students, other forums, etc., even the LBQ, quotes others in portion and in entirety. It is almost a national pastime and you are the first one I know of who has assigned a negative motive to the quoter. Whole books are written about quoting, it is common, it is necessary, it is even REQUIRED. What I quoted was not out of context, as the issue was laid out as to what the quote referred to. If a person does not want to be quoted then they have no reason to complain that anyone got what they have said wrong.

If someone does not want to be quoted that is a different story. That is a legitimate request or desire.

But you have not said that. No, you have gone far beyond that.  You have assigned a blanket negative motive to anyone who quotes, saying their motives are to make the other appear dumb, and that the quoter is insulting and abrupt and insensitive to others.  I don't accept that.  You simply cannot speak for all members of every forum that that is their experience too. Why cannot you accept or even entertain the idea that quoting is a method of providing accuracy, etc.?  

I could say, following your way of thinking, that it is a truth that anyone who contantly uses the funny faces glyphs in their posts are really irritating, that they do that deliberately to goad and mock other people, are being superficial, insulting and insensitive to others. But I wouldn't say that because it would be assigning a negative motive to their choice of expression that they didn't have and I wouldn't expect them to stop their use of such glyphs because of that false opinion. Perhaps by giving you this example you can see how false your assignment of negativity to quoting appears.

Why not let your desire for a poster's acceptance of constructive criticism extend to those posters who appear to know it all and denigrate others interpretation of testimony, etc.  

i agree with your point about quoting.  but in regard to your last statement -- i don't think there is anything wrong with de-constructing or criticizing an interpretation.  that's just part of the investigative process, and all is fair.  if we stick to what we're talking about, everything should be fine.  we have to be willing to unlearn as well as learn.  these discussions (which are difficult anyway) should not be taken as personal insults.  i find that sometimes someone is sincerely trying to understand what someone is saying, and diplomacy is not first and foremost in the mind.  i think we need to accept this as par for the course.  i think i've been "rude" a few times out of frustration, but i've always known my interest was sincere.