Angel @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:44 am wrote:
Do you think she was given the title "maid" to cover up family secrets and was really there to be a companion to Lizzie just to keep an eye on an emotionally labile daughter? If Lizzie was more unstable than we knew about they may have needed extra help with her. It does look as though Bridget's duties were very light when compared to other maids in that day. And after having been there for a while she may have bonded enough with Lizzie to want to protect her when she was accused of the crime. Just a thought.
Hmm, I should think having another person in the house would endanger the preservation of family secrets. It would be risking exposure to have anyone outside the family let in on the "skeleton closet". How did they know they'd be able to trust Bridget? If I'm not mistaken, servants had a reputation (deserved or not) for gossip back then.
That, or she was really A.J.'s illegitimate daughter from his secret vacation to Ireland in his wild and woolly youth
You know what I've always thought odd, why was Bridget a prosecution witness? Anyone have any thoughts or insights on that?.......
[quote="KT72 @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:10 pm"]
or she was really A.J.'s illegitimate daughter from his secret vacation to Ireland in his wild and woolly youth
And...Bridget was secretly Billy Borden's mistress, and when they found out they were half brother and sister they went beserk.
Angel @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:24 pm wrote:
And...Bridget was secretly Billy Borden's mistress, and when they found out they were half brother and sister they went beserk.
YES! Bridget and Billy were having a secret rendezvous when they discovered the truth, then Bridget killed Abby and Billy killed Mr. B.
Angel @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:24 pm wrote:
And...Bridget was secretly Billy Borden's mistress, and when they found out they were half brother and sister they went beserk.
YES! Bridget and Billy were having a secret rendezvous when they discovered the truth, then Bridget killed Abby and Billy killed Mr. B.
KT72 @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:10 pm wrote:
You know what I've always thought odd, why was Bridget a prosecution witness? Anyone have any thoughts or insights on that?.......
I think it was because many of her statements refuted things that Lizzie had said. She also testified that Lizzie had told her about the sale at sargents to maybe 'entice' her out of the house, that Lizzie was the last one to see Andrew alive, that Lizzie was in the house when Abby was killed, I think there are many reasons why she was a prosecution witness. I don't think it would make any sense for her to have been called by the defense, what defense did she offer for Lizzie?
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
In reference to your post in "Would you like to write for the Hatchet?"
I hope you don't mind, I moved my response to this area in the forum since it does deal with Books.
Please forgive me if I was mis-understood. What I meant was that after you, I, Stef and all the others on this site have long passed, the books we collect will survive into other collections. Some will hold thier own, while others will increase in value.
So you see, when I made my comparison between between Radin, Pearson and the HATCHET, I did so from the direction of a collectable item of value. If I am not mistaken I am interpreting that perhaps you thought that I was comparing all these publications on thier theories.
Brown may very well have solved the crime. That is not the point I was making, whether he was wrong or right or whether Radin, or Pearson had the answer, I don't know. I do know that in the 80's they were the most sort after lizzie books pulished. Everyone wanted a Pearson, Lincoln or Radin, at that time, and that is somewhat still true today.
What I was trying to say is that Radin and Pearson's books have held their own in the last 70 years. (since Pearsons 1937, Trail) They sold very well in the 40's up to the present, and will do so in the future, only becoming more valuable books.
In that sense, the Hatchet, let us say when our great grandchildren are collecting "LIZZIEIANA," the HATCHET will be a must have, and future copies, especially the ones in color, will only increase in value. This is my opinion, one from a man that buys around 12 to 15 magazines a month. The Hatchet impresses me, and reminds me of the old Heritage Magazine from the 70's. Great magazines, both.
Not only in monetary value, but for the many excellent articles which scrape at the bone of the Borden case. I'm excited about reading it, and collecting it. (the Hatchet)
I praise it on it's own merits. It is really saying something when you can keep a publication like it, about a case that happened over 100 years ago, so interesting and fresh.
Publications such as the Hatchet usually have a short life span, and in time, this is usually displayed in its content. But If you read the last issue of the Hatchet, it has held it's own in containing material that is always delivered from a new approach.
Not only the material inside, but the cover graphics to me are collectable on thier own. You almost want to frame it. I love it. And, unless Stef goes over a cliff in her BMW, I am sure it will be around for a good time to come.
Sorry for going on and on, but just did not want to be mis-interpeted. Thanks for your time RAYS. Hope I have explained what I was trying to convey.
To everyone else......................................what say you?
I like coffee. I like it a lot! In fact, I love it. I drink a lot of it. With cream and sugar. Lots of both. To tell the truth even wine comes in a close second to me when it comes to coffee...
My husband prefers OJ in the morning and although he does have an occasional cup of of coffee-- he could easily go his entire life without it.
I decided to try and derail each and every conversation we had into one in which I extolled the virtues of coffee ad nauseam. No matter what he said or what we were talking about, I would launch into a lecture about coffee.
This lasted for about an hour until he told me that he thought I had (finally) gone crazy..... And of course he was right.
Allen @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:47 pm wrote:
I think it was because many of her statements refuted things that Lizzie had said. She also testified that Lizzie had told her about the sale at sargents to maybe 'entice' her out of the house, that Lizzie was the last one to see Andrew alive, that Lizzie was in the house when Abby was killed, I think there are many reasons why she was a prosecution witness. I don't think it would make any sense for her to have been called by the defense, what defense did she offer for Lizzie?
Yes, those are good points. The prosecution must have been disappointed that she didn't quite play along with the family discord motif, though. Apparently, she portrayed the household as pretty normal.
What is really odd is that I like plain old American coffee. I do make it in a French coffee press... The stronger the better..... I literally drink 20 cups of it a day... right up until I go to bed and I never have trouble falling asleep because of it.... Likewise I can have terrible caffeine withdrawal.....
Yes, I too have become a coffee nut. But I use lots of cream and sugar. Guess I'm a taa ta?
I love chocolate covered coffee beans. I remember one year I was sailing back home from Martha's Vineyard where I purchased a BIG box.
I ate the whole box. I was so hyper and came down with such a coffee headache, I thought the top of my head was going to come off. I felt like diving in the water and swimming home. And I can't swim..........
I have nothing to say about the 'collectability' of those books. Rare books is partly in the mnd of the beholder. Pearson't book isn't available in the local library system, but may have been more than 30 years ago.
My question had to do with the plausibility of the solution offered in each book. Lizzie's verdict was 'not guilty', no one has PROVEN otherwise. The alleged guilt of Bridget or Emma (or Uncle John?) are disproved by the results (not a suspect). Suspicion by the uninformed is not proof of anything, then or now.
Arnold Brown, using the papers of Henry Hawthorne and Ellan Eagan's memories, provided a new look at the case. I believe his solution, because it makes understandable what was a mystery.
For example, Victoria Lincoln says Lizzie was well-regarded by the Ruling Class of Fall River until the reported shoplifting episode. I think young Vicky didn't know what her elders did: Lizzie shielded a crazy bastard.
When is last call, is it too late to put in an order? I'd say forget the coffee too. I don't drink coffee I never could, I hate the taste of the stuff. But I think Kahlua and Cream would make it a little more agreeable.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Allen @ Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:22 pm wrote:When is last call, is it too late to put in an order? I'd say forget the coffee too. I don't drink coffee I never could, I hate the taste of the stuff. But I think Kahlua and Cream would make it a little more agreeable.
How dare you deflile coffee? This means WAR!
Despite popular opinion, my people do know how to fight.. So put up your dukes Melissa.....
Coffee just makes sense! Don't you know that Juan Valdez is my hero!?
I demand 22 sources from you citing bad coffee experiences.
Yes Audrey, I love sailing and sail solo most of the time.
And talking about "your people" as you put it; in a world where one can make claim to few Heroes, my two heros in life are a frenchmen and a frenchwomen, that being, BERNARD MOITESSIER, the greatest Solo Sailor that ever lived (a tie with Joshua Slocum, anyway.) and the Bravest women I have ever known ISABELLE AUITISSIER.
Yes I would like mine in a Mug please, with 3 sugars. sorry, just had to say it. :lo
Allen @ Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:22 pm wrote:When is last call, is it too late to put in an order? I'd say forget the coffee too. I don't drink coffee I never could, I hate the taste of the stuff. But I think Kahlua and Cream would make it a little more agreeable.
How dare you deflile coffee? This means WAR!
Despite popular opinion, my people do know how to fight.. So put up your dukes Melissa.....
Coffee just makes sense! Don't you know that Juan Valdez is my hero!?
I demand 22 sources from you citing bad coffee experiences.
Would 22 different pictures of me making a horrible face while I drink it be a valid reference? I'm the oddball. Most of my family are also avid coffee drinkes. I just never got the taste for it.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
i spent a long time on radin's book for the last issue of The Hatchet.
he was right to defend lizzie about some particular things.
but his chapter where he argues with Pearson is mostly wrong. if not totally. it's a classic case of making a mountain out of molehills. since we have the source materials, we can see this clearly enough if we take the time to investigate it.
his naming of bridget as sole culprit is unsubstantiated.
however, it is still one of the best-written of the widely-read books.
ultimately, it is a work of high quality that is not going to fade into obscurity.
radin was a very good writer. that's a big compliment.
Yes, Haulover: Happy to hear the good review of Radin. He should really be given more credit than many are willing. As I mentioned many times before, I'm a little bias because It is the first account on the case that I read, sort of like a first love.
But still a good book, well written, and deserving of the priase which you render it.
You know, there is no such thing as the perfect offshore boat. That is a subject that is discussed all the time in books and magazines. All boats are a compromise. Thus, so are the books written on the BORDEN case, they are all a compromise. All add something new, all leave something out. There is no perfect book on the case, when it comes to trying to solve the crime. It that respect, Radin stands up to the best of them.
I hung around a book store in Fall River that always had copies on the shelf of Radin's book. I went into that store, and the one next door to it, at least 4 or 5 times a week, and hung around them for hours on weekends. Believe me, Radin was at the top of the Lizzie Borden book food chain back then, along with Lincoln and Pearson. Pearson was alot more scarce and expensive.
But you do well and are right in praising the book as one that holds it's own and an important publication, one that always will be. You know of what you speak Haulover..
Funny that you mention Radin, after purchasing my first Radin about 25 years ago, I just received the first British Edition in the mail just today. Slight different cover and about quater inch taller. Cool
I like the cross-bred theory of Gerald Gross. I think he collected Pearson into a book just so he could print his own theory!
For transcription see viewtopic.php?t=33
I quit coffee in 1987.
And Audrey's Avatar pic looks like a Martian.
Michael, you weren't there when I posted.
Did you read Eugene's analysis of Radin in The Hatchet?
I'm ashame to admit that I have not read it completely. I read all the articles here and there and will go back and read them again of course. Been spending to much time in this site and raising terror with everyone's ears.
Yes, what is true is that when I read a magazine I read it in fragments, jumping around. Usually start at the back. When I have been thru the entire magazine, I go back pick the one that impressed me the most, or the one I found most interesting, and work my way back wards. Make any sense? I sure don't understand it, it's a Gemini thing.
A new thread should be started for drinking bouts and for discussion of books other than Radin's, specifically his theory on Bridget Sullivan. Actually, there's already a "Best books to read..." thread.
Here is a Final Chapter to the question of Radin's book.
Radin was right to question the legend of Lizzie as murderous witch.
Radin was wrong to accuse Bridget of this crime.
Those who were there at the time, the Police & detectives, never suspected Bridget after the first hours. Bridget was seen outdoors around 9:30 am by the Kelly's maid and Ellan Eagan (and others?). Hence she could not have killed Abby, the one person who was her friend.
Briadget's alibi was that she was upstairs "resting" when Andy got whacked. No official has ever challenged that, except as speculation from a writer (Radin).
"Todd Lunday" was the first to publish a book suggesting an Unknown Subject as the murderer, even if it was meant as satire.
Yet that fits the known facts that neither Lizzie or Bridget had bloodstained clothes or a bloody hatchet. (I won't repeat the other known facts.)
At times Satire is the only approach one can use with a public that is convienced otherwise. Lunday's book would be used against him right after the trial, since most of the public were happy with the outcome at that time. Of course if he had published under his own name, history would have seen him as sort of a visionary. Who knows, Lunday could have been one of the 3 jugdes? (please understand, I say this in jest)
And that Copperfield shirt is a photo of me. Now! (I wish)
Writing about actual people could result in charges of libel, slander, commercial libel, obscene literature, etc. Beware of powerful people who can control the officials.
It is often better for a write to write "fiction" (ripped from the headlines) to handle a subject. Think of "Winter Kills" by the author of "The Manchurian Candidate".
The best example that I know of is "Spooky 8", which is fiction; else the author would be admitting to murder!!! (Your library may have it.)
Hi KT72- did you read the transcription of "The Pearson-Radin Controversy" by Gerald Gross, which link I provided?
It's very good. It is a theory based on Radin but it's less extreme, I think.
Usually when Radin is discussed, the Gross article is considered an extension of that.
What did you think?
Strictly on a literary basis, Radin authored a splendid book. He doesn't need my endorsement - he is the only writer who has won two Mystery Writer "Edgar" awards - a much deserved tribute from his peers.
Because he wrote a good book doesn't necessarily imply that his premise was correct - Bridget didn't murder the Bordens. She didn't have a valid motive. The testimony we have gives no indication that she harbored ill feelings towards her employers, quite the contrary.
However, I do believe she was involved after the fact and assisted Lizzie, the true culprit, in the clean up and the cover-up of Andrew's murder. In the little time alloted to her, I don't think Lizzie could have pulled it off on her own.
Kat @ Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:59 pm wrote:Hi KT72- did you read the transcription of "The Pearson-Radin Controversy" by Gerald Gross, which link I provided?
It's very good. It is a theory based on Radin but it's less extreme, I think.
Usually when Radin is discussed, the Gross article is considered an extension of that.
What did you think?
Haven't had a chance to look it over in depth yet, Kat. I'll let you know.
I reread the transcription myself and still am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea of Lizzie asking Bridget to help her out with the murders. That would imply that there was a huge amount of trust between Lizzie and Bridget, yet, Bridget wasn't allowed as a servant to go up and clean in Lizzie's bedroom. And that Lizzie would think to ask Bridget for help makes me think that Lizzie knew that she would be implicated for the murders and would need to destroy or get rid of evidence. Personally, I don't think that Lizzie thought she would be the prime suspect.
The only way I could see it was if Lizzie had something on Bridget, something to blackmail her with, something to use against her. In that way Lizzie could be sure that Bridget wouldn't flake or squeal to the police. But, how could Bridget put that much faith and trust in Lizzie, that she wouldn't turn while on the stand at the inquest and implicate Bridget as the murderess?
And if Bridget was an accomplice, and she got rid of the hatchet and a bloodstained dress, why did Lizzie choose to destroy one her own dresses a few days after? And if Bridget was in on the murders, why did she try to get out of that house as quickly as she could, why not stay and continue working there for Lizzie and Emma? I'm sorry, too many questions come to my mind.
“Sometimes when we are generous in small, barely detectable ways it can change someone else's life forever.”-Margaret Cho comedienne
