Hi, I'm new!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:07 pm

I think they elicit testimony in the trial that Lizzie kissed her father. Check testimony?

As to John Wilkes Booth being a *secret visitor* killing and getting away, was he the illegitimate son of Abraham Lincoln? This is my point. Booth is not an invention.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:15 pm

My point on the kiss is WHERE did she kiss him? It could be hands or face. As for John Wilkes Booth, you said a secret visitor. That means anyone not just an illegitimate son but if Booth had gotten away with it then he could have been an invention. Someone sneaked in and killed Abe while you had a cup of coffee Mr. Policeman? Mrs Lincoln, did you kill him? you were the closest to him and could have done it while eveyone laughed at the play line. So you feel the invention is that Billy was Andy's illegitimate son. Maybe so maybe not but if Billy believed he was then his belief and need for revenge for neglect or other imagines slights could cause him to kill if it became obsessive enough. It is a possibility that is valid in my thinking. Just as valid as Lizzie did it, hid all the bloody clothing, weapon etc. To each his own on this. But it is interesting to get other's views, dont' you think?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:23 pm

Other's were commenting on the kiss- not just you.
Did you check the testimony to see if it says where she kissed him after I pointed to where the kiss is?

The inventions of the author Brown are to what I refer, and have been referring. I can't be any clearer.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:12 pm

you call it Brown's invention and I say it is a pretty good theory. he found some information about someone and tied it into the murders. whether he did it convincingly depends on the receiver of the information. I say he makes a good case but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct solution but it is within the realm of possibility. you say it is not a good case. to each his own. I'm sure everyone on the forum has their own pet idea of whodunit. I don't as of yet but am still learning things. So while I can't agree with your ruling out of this possiblity, I appreciate your insight and views very much. I'm still a novice and have not yet taken the veil! ha!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:39 pm

I am not the person to be debating Brown. I only know I have read the book and have discussed him with members for about 5 years. It is not a theory I enjoy. I think the author used suspicious means to sell books. A plot device such as an illegitimate son is too transparent for me. Others may disagree.
However, there is another contributor to the questionable Legend that Brown has devised and that person is Jon Keller. He did take the time to investigate, for himself, what Brown asserted. We are lucky someone did.
At the LizzieAndrewBorden website is a transcription of his findings.
He makes a better case, in my opinion, as to some sloppy work at the least, on Brown's part.
Here is the link and some of his findings.
The asylum record is reproduced at the link, about half-way down.
This all came out in the Lizzie Borden Quarterly:

Keller, Jon. N. "The Mysterious William S. Borden." Lizzie Borden Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 4/5 (Fall/Winter 1995): 15-18.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResear ... oversy.htm

"I have over the last three years tried to research and examine many of the claims in his book. Although I have been able to locate many of the items indicated, such as newspaper articles and certain vital records — even two of which Mr. Brown said either did not exist or that he was unable to locate — I still find the general scenario portrayed in the book as largely unbelievable and unhistorical in nature. Mr. Brown simply does not provide any real credible evidence or proof for most of his assertions, such as his massive conspiracy theory or the orchestration of the court proceedings or his belief that Andrew Borden had an illegitimate son who was the killer of both victims.
. . .
In Chapter 18, Arnold Brown points out his unsuccessful attempts at locating two items of record relating to William Borden. First, he tells us that "there is no death record of Phebe Hathaway, nor is there any marriage record of Charles Borden and Peace" (Brown, 295-296). However, in March of 1992 1 was notified by the Massachusetts Archives in Boston that such a marriage record exists there in the names of Charles Borden and Peace Bassett, dated 1859.
. . .
In July of 1992, 1 decided to investigate Arnold's claim of a possible cover-up at Taunton State as concerns the existence and status of information about William S. Borden in their files. I sent a letter of request to Gary C. Phillips, who is Chief Operating Officer there, for a copy of William's record I then made further inquiries by telephone with the record, department at Taunton State Hospital while lodging in Fall River for the BCC Centennial Conference on Lizzie Borden. They informed me that a record on William S. Borden did, indeed, exist in their attic archives and that they would agree to make a copy available to me. Finally, on August 24,1992, Taunton State Hospital sent me, via FAX, all the information they had on file concerning William S. Borden. Since receiving this data, I can certainly say that I find Arnold Brown's allusions to a cover-up on the part of the state hospital to be groundless, to say the least."
ETC.
~~~~~~

I do not intend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, even with Brown's *theory.* I would not do that. So please be assured that a reasonable theory that meets the burden of evidence and proof would not be dismissed by me.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:44 pm

Thank you for the link. Very interesting. However I must say I am open so far on whodunit. I must say a reasonable theory that meets the burden of evidence and proof is still subject to interpretation and personal outlook. This is shown in that 14 people can read the same Bible scripture and you can have 14 different interpretations. Also if someone is disposed not to believe certain evidence or evidence that does not go along with their idea or preconcieved notion then the evidence is discounted. We see that in politics today where people support one politician and some refuse to support that same politician while one believes something against the politician and another discounts the same information. I am not saying you are doing this but am only saying that evidence can be deceiving sometimes. You've seen this in old movies where someone discovers a dead body and picks up the gun or knife right before someone else comes in and discovers them holding the weapon over the dead body. Then they claim he is the murderer when in fact he is not. So many interesting mysteries in life. The Bordens, Grand Duchess Anastasia, Amelia Earhart, Louis XVII of France, JFK assassination, the Titanic etc. Thanks for your views and again for the link.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:53 pm

Here is the kiss. And yes you are correct to ask what part of him was kissed. . . and why not Abby.

Do you have the trial?

Trial
Mrs. Holmes
1504
Q. Now, tell us, Mrs. Holmes, anything you can about Lizzie's conduct at the funeral, more particularly in relation to the dead body of her father?

MR. KNOWLTON. I pray your Honors' judgment.
The WITNESS. Please state your question again.
MR. JENNINGS. I will withdraw the question.
. . .

Page 1505

Q. Before the funeral began did Miss Lizzie go down to see her father's remains?

MR. KNOWLTON. Wait a minute. I pray your Honors' judgment.

MASON, C. J. Assuming the question to be preliminary only, it may be answered.

A. She did.

Q. Where were they?
A. In the sitting room.

Q. Were they in the casket?
A. They were.

Q. Prepared for burial?
A. They were.

Q. Both bodies in the same room?
A. They were.

Q. What did Miss Lizzie do after she went down into the room?

MR. KNOWLTON. Pray your Honors' judgment

(Question excluded)

Q. Now, Mrs. Holmes, just pay attention to the question which I ask you, and do not attempt to answer anything else except that particular question. At this time when she was viewing her father, did she shed tears?
A. She did.

MR. ROBINSON. Your Honors, the stenographer will write out our offer.
. . .

1511
(Five minute recess)

The following is the offer of proof made by the defence in connection with the evidence of Mrs. Holmes:

"The government in its direct case having shown conduct of defendant up to and including the morning of Sunday following the murder, the defendant offers to show by a witness that on Saturday morning after the murder she came down stairs into the room where her father's body was lying prepared for burial, and went to the casket with the witness and kissed her father."

--Mrs. Holmes' testimony is very interesting as to what was done that day, and inference about an aspect of daily life- especially the slop pail. The sense of what she says is that there would be water in the bottom of the overnight pail, after dumping the contents and rinsing it out.

--As an aside- you've managed to mention both religion and politics in your last post and we prefer not to do that here. Thanks!

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:14 pm

As for religion and politics, I used them generically as examples to make a point not to degrade anyone's beliefs or prostelize but to show with modern examples. I hope everyone looked at it in that way. But thank you for the heads up as I didn't realize these example bordered on the forbidden. No offense was meant to anyone. I shall be more circumspect in the future.
As for the trial, no I do not have a personal copy. I have a couple of books I own from used book stores or library sales and have read others from the public library on the Borden murders. Most of the books in my personal library are on Tudor England and the Tudor Monarchs and I do have a number of Nancy Drew Mysteries. I also love Agatha Christie's Miss Jane Marple and Bertrice Small's spicy historical novels.
As for the kiss it seems from your information that Lizzie kissed her father but no one mentions where. Some could say it was genuine grief while others could say it was done for theatrical effect and still others that it was like the child who was caught with her hand in the cookie jar. Not sorry for the deed but sorry for getting caught. Or in this case sorry for the finality of the deed and the necessity for it if she was truly guilty. Interesting to be sure. Thank you for playing devil's advocate with me. It's nice to have things challenged and having it make you think.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:44 pm

I agree. And it's much more interesting as well!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:46 pm

If you can take a download, here are the documents, at the website:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:37 pm

Yooper @ Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:55 am wrote:One reason to park a carriage in a seemingly awkward spot relative to a house might be shade for the horse. The shadow from the tree in the photo is cast to the north, so a horse standing south of the tree might not get any benefit from the shade. The photo was taken somewhere near three o'clock in the afternoon, at eleven am the shadow would be cast slightly past the curb and to the north, probably directly in front of the Borden front entrance.

Reading the Perry Mason novels tells how to evade a backtrail. If you read any of those stories you would recognize the instructions given to Bob Woodward to evad a shadow. Go out the back stairs. Walk a few blocks away, take a cab to a hotel, then pick another cab to drop you off a few blocks from the destination. Then walk to the meeting.
If by car, park on the next block so as to avoid suspicion. Etc.

But I think parking in the shade is the most likely reason, given that the murders were unexpected.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:46 pm

Davo @ Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:12 pm wrote:you call it Brown's invention and I say it is a pretty good theory. he found some information about someone and tied it into the murders. whether he did it convincingly depends on the receiver of the information. I say he makes a good case but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct solution but it is within the realm of possibility. you say it is not a good case. to each his own. I'm sure everyone on the forum has their own pet idea of whodunit. I don't as of yet but am still learning things. So while I can't agree with your ruling out of this possiblity, I appreciate your insight and views very much. I'm still a novice and have not yet taken the veil! ha!

Arnold Brown was not a professional writer. He found some memoirs, investigated them, and wrote his conclusions.
1) The first part is rock solid. If neither woman in the house did the murders, it had to be an Unknown Subject whose identity was kept secret (given the circumstances). Not Emma or Uncle John.
2) The second part about Wm Borden is, we agree, without "documentary proof". And no one can ever prove anyone else did it. But if is the best fit.
Suppose we do find the birth certificate and it has Andy's name as the father. No proof of murder.
Suppose we find that Wm Borden owed money and couldn't pay - the rolled up paper in the kitchen stove was the bond. Remember the Dr. Parkman and Dr. Webster meeting? If we found out that Andy did have a loan out to Wm that would not be 'documentary proof' of the murder.
BUT if Lizzie squealed that she saw Wm leaving the house, and Uncle John said he arranged the meeting, and Wm Bassett said he was supposed to drive him away that morning, any Prosecutor would win given a hatchet with human blood on it. Agree? These are the missing links.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:51 pm

In July of 1992, 1 decided to investigate Arnold's claim of a possible cover-up at Taunton State as concerns the existence and status of information about William S. Borden in their files. I sent a letter of request to Gary C. Phillips, who is Chief Operating Officer there, for a copy of William's record I then made further inquiries by telephone with the record, department at Taunton State Hospital while lodging in Fall River for the BCC Centennial Conference on Lizzie Borden. They informed me that a record on William S. Borden did, indeed, exist in their attic archives and that they would agree to make a copy available to me. Finally, on August 24,1992, Taunton State Hospital sent me, via FAX, all the information they had on file concerning William S. Borden. Since receiving this data, I can certainly say that I find Arnold Brown's allusions to a cover-up on the part of the state hospital to be groundless, to say the least."

But if the records were made to disappear, they would not exist. Even today we hear about shredding (Watergate and CREEP) or at Enron.
Brown speculated that Wm Borden killed Bertha Manchester because the ME said the same method was used. This gave Lizzie an alibi.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:59 pm

Personally I don't believe in any one book, never have and probably never will. Each of us, hopefully, interprets the information for themselves.

If I did believe whole heartedly in one theory I wouldn't be here and wasting my time. I have no desire to try to change other's opinion.

And most of all, do not like theories repeated over and over as if they were Gospel. That's BORING.

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:22 am

My husband and I have been going over and over this case. He just finished reading the new book by Karen E. Chaney, (his 3rd); I just ordered a used Untold Story by Radin, (will be my 7th). We still feel like we know so little, but my husband questions why the front door was locked?!, and I still feel that John Morse is somehow involved. Why did he hesitate outside and not notice hundreds of people, and eat a few pears?! Any thoughts?
Thanks for your response Dave!

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:18 am

Harry, please accept my apologies but if we bore you and are wasting your time, then please go on to another topic in the forum. No one forces anyone to read other people's contributions. I thought this forum was to freely exchange information and ideas not to belittle others pompously when disagreeing with them. The same theories will be bandied about for decades here unless the murders are solved, which is hardly likely, as new people join everyday and may not be as well versed in the specifics as you who have studied it for years. This is where you who have studied for years can shine and share your knowledge to grateful recipients.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:24 am

Thanks for the download link, Kat. I can't do it now but will see if the new external drive my daughter gave me as a gift will hold it. I'll save the link.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:27 am

Davo, my comments were NOT directed at you. We have had on this forum and the two previous ones an individual who repeats the same mantra over and over again. Why? I don't have the slightest idea.

Nothing is ever said that is new. Brown is right, Brown is right ... repeat another 100 times. Anybody that convinced is wasting their time being here.

And I am hardly what anyone would call pompous. Don't be hurling names at people without looking in the mirror first. I need no instructions from you.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:36 am

Harry I found the Brown comments quite interesting. If someone thinks he is right about certain facts they have a right to say so as as many times as they want just as anyone else has the right not to read them. I will agree with you on one thing: I don't need you to instruct me either and I find your attitude most offensive.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:36 am

This forum is getting weirder and weirder all the time. I'm beginning to wonder if Lizzie's spirit has infiltrated and her pent up craziness has spilled over. Pretty soon everyone will be running around with hatchets and coats and pears and starting a huge bonfire of dresses and ax handles.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:48 am

Harry @ Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:27 am wrote:Davo, my comments were NOT directed at you. We have had on this forum and the two previous ones an individual who repeats the same mantra over and over again. Why? I don't have the slightest idea.

Nothing is ever said that is new. Brown is right, Brown is right ... repeat another 100 times. Anybody that convinced is wasting their time being here.

And I am hardly what anyone would call pompous. Don't be hurling names at people without looking in the mirror first. I need no instructions from you.

Talking about repeating over and over again?
So whose book solves the crime? None of them? Then why bother?

Here are clews for any of you.
IF none of the people known to be in the house that morning did the crime, it had to be an Unknown Subject.
IF Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" then it had to be someone whose identity or description was withheld by her. Bridget didn't know (but probably suspected something).

So now you can create a matrix to see who best fits that profile.
Somebody whose identity would be kept secret from the public.
Somebody who could hate and kill Dear Abby (no known enemies).
Somebody who could hate and kill Andy (loanshark and predator).
Somebody who would be shielded by Lizzie (and Uncle John).
Anyone have any other rules?

Maybe its my fault for reading many True Crime (part of history) and mystery novels, and trying to apply what I learned to this case.
Notice how the Unknown Subject solution applies to the Ramsey killing?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:53 am

Davo @ Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:36 am wrote:Harry I found the Brown comments quite interesting. If someone thinks he is right about certain facts they have a right to say so as as many times as they want just as anyone else has the right not to read them. I will agree with you on one thing: I don't need you to instruct me either and I find your attitude most offensive.

Your comments are true. I think that Harry (like Arnold Brown) has studied the case long enough to believe in what he believes in.
I personally wouldn't blame an old guy for being a little crotchety (word?).
You will find out what it's like soon enough (past 62).
I believe that Arnold Brown's solution is the Final Chapter; no one has written a book with any other or better solution. Correct?

The fact of an Unknown Subject is 1000% right, given the lack of evidence against Bridget and Lizzie. Nobody believes Emma did it, do they?
I recognize the limitations in the accusation against William S. Borden, and so did Arnold R. Brown ("I can't prove it").

Aren't we all her for education and entertainment?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:54 am

That same info available as a free download is also available for purchase on CD and/or in nicely bound, soft-cover print.

Tracy...

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:55 am

Davo @ Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:36 am wrote:Harry I found the Brown comments quite interesting. If someone thinks he is right about certain facts they have a right to say so as as many times as they want just as anyone else has the right not to read them. I will agree with you on one thing: I don't need you to instruct me either and I find your attitude most offensive.

Good.

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:01 am

Yes Ray, I have read a lot of crime stuff and my father was a policeman. I appreciate your comments. Thanks to Tracy for the heads up on the CD etc. Will see what the budget allows.

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:04 pm

Joy, I hope you and your husband are thoroughly enjoying your dip into the Lizzie Pool. (By that, I mean reading books and learning about the case.)

Books about the Borden murders are usually what piques people's interest in the case -- and they do provide a good overview. But each author has a particular take on what happened and consequently will highlight certain incidents and leave others out entirely. There are also so-called facts born of rumor that are perpetuated when one author uses a previous author as a source and then that author is used as a source for a third and so on ...

So once you have the 'gist' of the case in your head -- it's time to go to the primary source documents to see what the actual participants had to say when they described the day or were faced with tough questions. Then you'll see what was omitted, or incorrectly reported in the books you read.

I know Tracy already provided you with the url for the downloads of the witness statements, the inquest (including Lizzie's testimony), and the trial -- which are all available through this site. But here it is again:

www.LizzieAndrewBorden.com

Just click on the green Lizzie icon -- then on 'resources' -- then on 'official documents'.

These are a veritable treasure trove and we are all very grateful to Harry, Kat, and Stefani for making this information so accessible.

This whole affair can become an addictive and frustrating exercise because so many of the witnesses contradict each other and themselves during the process. Yet some of us continue to find it endlessly fascinating sifting through the details to try to find a new angle on this very cold case.

I've been studying the Borden Murders for decades and still have only half-formed theories as to what happened. Each time I think I've found the key -- I realize the flaws in my theory and have to start again.

Happy Hunting!

NewBlueGirl · Post by **NewBlueGirl** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:28 am

This is my first post and probably the wordiest one because I will try to describe the way I gradually became involved with Ms Lizzie. Many years ago, during a vacation in the Eastern US we -- just happened! -- to be in Fall River and I, a museum buff, saw a sign that said, 'Fall River Historical Society' in front of a Victorian(?) house and went inside. Since I had not yet had my Lizzie Borden consciousness raised, I wandered about among exibits, many of which could actually be touched! None of this really registrered and we went on our way.

A year or so later, in a small branch library, I found Victoria Lincoln's novelized treatment of the Borden murders entitled, "A Private Disgrace", and this book started me on my hunt for everything Lizzie Borden! (And I regretted my lack of real attention to the little Fall River museum!)

"A Private Disgrace" is like an elaborate cake, yummy, sweet, fruity -- a cake you can eat and have, too. Is it all frosting or is there cake in there somewhere? Endlessly entertaining to think over when unloading the dishwasher.

While one of my grandchildren was having an EEG I had a chance to bring up Lincoln's theory that Lizzie committed the murders during an epileptic seizure and about the relationship of frontal lobe epilepsy and migraine headaches. The nurse administering the test had some opinions on the subject and a story about one of her patients.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:02 am

Hello NewBlueGirl, welcome to the forum!

Your message ends suddenly and I hope you will continue with what the nurse told you.

Many of us have the same opinion of Ms. Lincoln's book. Well written and entertaining but a little weak in certain areas. IMO, she presumed too much and repeated a lot that was rumor as fact.

Again, welcome.

NewBlueGirl · Post by **NewBlueGirl** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:29 am

I thought that someone would correct that frontal lobe statement because I believe that should be temporal lobe. Oh, well, as Detective Eames said, "Half a lobe is better than none".

The nurse said that one of her patients had temporal lobe epilepsy and had on one or two occasions found himself in a place he couldn't remember going to. She worried that some day he would get hurt. I don't remember exactly what she had to say about migraine headaches being the 'cousin' to T.L.E., but she didn't reply in the negative -- I think I would have remembered that!

Lizzie is endlessly fascinating--at least in death. What would she have thought of that, I wonder?

Davo · Post by **Davo** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:37 am

The epilepsy theory is interesting but I don't think viable. We still have the problem of no blood on Lizzie. Also, did she have TWO separate epilepsy seizures on the same morning with an axe nearby? I'm afraid I'm one of those who believes Lizzie innocent of the crime but that she knew who did it.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:33 am

Harry @ Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:31 am wrote:That's a possibility, Yooper. Another reason could be to disguise which house the carriage was stopping at.
down the street by me.”

Backing up in the thread a little bit, I had an idea. The only other possible explaination I can come up with for a carriage being parked there at that time was the idea that maybe someone stopped to see the Bordens, leaving a driver awaiting their return outside. When the person didn't return, the driver may have had reason to suspect something happened, or may have had some indication of some sort, and got out of there leaving the visitor behind.

NewBlueGirl · Post by **NewBlueGirl** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:46 pm

The epilepsy theory might be Victoria Lincoln's alone. I'd like to know if she borrowed it from any previous source. Lincoln believes that Lizzie might have killed Abby during a seizure but by the time Andrew came home, she was again 'normal'. However, because of her close relationship to Andrew she 'couldn't bear' to let him see what she had done to Abby and murdered him, too.

Unless Lizzie could bring on a seizure at will, this sort of conflicts with the notion that she killed Abby out of anger, jealousy and pure avarice.

Chasing this epilepsy theory is fun but it doesn't really lead to the meat-and-potatoes of the case.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:59 pm

Allen @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:33 pm wrote:
Harry @ Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:31 am wrote:That's a possibility, Yooper. Another reason could be to disguise which house the carriage was stopping at.
down the street by me.”
Backing up in the thread a little bit, I had an idea. The only other possible explaination I can come up with for a carriage being parked there at that time was the idea that maybe someone stopped to see the Bordens, leaving a driver awaiting their return outside. When the person didn't return, the driver may have had reason to suspect something happened, or may have had some indication of some sort, and got out of there leaving the visitor behind.

Yes, Arnold Brown interprets this as someone waiting to pick up William S. Borden. Brown researched the newspapers and found this person's daughter died later in the year. Brown surmises that this was the reason to get Abby out of the house. I think that was pretty good!
Pardon me if I don't remember the name of this cousin right now (no book handy). [William Bassett, his half-brother.]
Or maybe it was someone who came to see Dr. Kelly? But would his clients come by private carriage?

The novels of Erle Stanley Gardner "Perry Mason and the Case of ..." often mention the means to drop a tail. Parking 2 block away from the place you are going is one way to avoid a shadow. But why in this case?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:23 am

Joy @ Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:32 am wrote:My name is Joy, and I've been lurking about this site since my husband sent me the link a few weeks ago. I must say that I thought I knew quite a bit about Lizzie, but I am awed and humbled by you guys, and your knowledge of the case.
I would like to start by asking a couple of questions to whomever may be interested. I actually am one of the many now who believe that Lizzie did not commit the murders, but may have been involved. I always wondered though how, firstly, she could have stayed in the house after the fact, and also, how she could have kissed her father's mangled face. I must say that I would have RUN from that house, and could not look at my father's face in that condition.
Secondly, a friend of a friend once pointed out to me that not only were the parents murdered, but the fact that the father's face was totally obliterated may point to incest. Any comments on that issue.
I have read 5 Lizzie books in my day, and just ordered a used copy of "A Private Disgrace". (I always thought that her ideas sounded so far fetched, but heard the book was very well written, so here goes). My favorite so far, has been "Lizzie didn't Do it", by William Masterton. It reads like a mystery novel, and he makes his case sound very possible.
Thanks for listening.
PS: To the person who has an Opossum. I love all animals, and recently found a suffering opossum on the road, called the police, and the officer actually waited with me a whole hour re-directing traffic until the ACC came to humanely put him to sleep. I also work in an animal hospital where we have a wildlife rehabilitator.

Welcome aboard Joy. I believe like you do that somewhere she was invovled. I think Emma might have been involved too. I think that she was smart enough to be out of town at that the time of the murders. I think that she was smarter of the two sisters and just knew how to slip away.

I think that it was posted one time that maybe she might have been molested or some incest involved, but I don't think it was ever proven whether it happened or not. I think there might I have been something going, but that's just my thought.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:31 am

NewBlueGirl @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:46 pm wrote:The epilepsy theory might be Victoria Lincoln's alone. I'd like to know if she borrowed it from any previous source. ...
Unless Lizzie could bring on a seizure at will, this sort of conflicts with the notion that she killed Abby out of anger, jealousy and pure avarice.
...

Raymond Chandler's "The Big Sleep" used the idea of an "epileptic attack" to explain the murderous rage of a young girl. Realistic? I don't think so. This may have influenced Victoria Lincoln in her invented explanation of Lizzie's guilt. Her book is worth reading for background info.
But David Kent's "Forty Whacks" is still the one best book on this case.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Hi, I'm new!

I'm new, too!

Re: Hi, I'm new!