A Conjecture on Lizzie Borden, is the title of this criminology student's paper on the Borden case. It examines several reasons why Lizzie may have done the deeds. The article is in PDF format.
http://web.mala.bc.ca/crim/Student/Lizz ... 20Lamb.pdf
No Love Lost
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Harry
- Posts: 4061
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
-
Tracie
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:48 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Tracie Fagan
- Location: Taunton, MA
Interesting read Harry. Her paper brings up the idea that Lizzie may have been a lesbian because no males asked for her hand in marriage and it was known by the community. Andrew Borden's daughters should have been sought after and pursued. What was wrong with Emma? Has anyone read of any romantic interests? The more I think about the two of them being old maids makes me wonder, if they were so crazy or odd that the whole city of Fall River avoided them except for business deals. Andrew could have arranged marriages with other prominant families to increase his empire, so what was happening in that household? Did the citizens of Fall River chuckle behind the morning newspapers about this weird family and tell their children to beware of the Bordens?
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:14 am
- Real Name:
Perhaps they did lack social standing, but the Nouveau Riche marry all the time--- oftentimes into established old families who have run out of money. Tit for Tat so to speak.
I think Emma and Lizzie did not have the proper tools to find a husband. Does anyone think Abby ever sat them down and instructed them as to the bewitchment of men? Did Abby have friends come to call who may have had sons at home near to their ages?
Abby was not a charmingly gloved and hatted matron with the cunning or resources needed to place the "girls" in situations where they would meet eligible men.
I doubt Andrew cared......
I think Emma and Lizzie did not have the proper tools to find a husband. Does anyone think Abby ever sat them down and instructed them as to the bewitchment of men? Did Abby have friends come to call who may have had sons at home near to their ages?
Abby was not a charmingly gloved and hatted matron with the cunning or resources needed to place the "girls" in situations where they would meet eligible men.
I doubt Andrew cared......
-
diana
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:21 pm
- Real Name:
Regarding the "will"
That was a very well-written paper. She did an excellent job condensing the resources she used but I wish she'd used some primary source documents.
Something that jumped out at me in view of our ongoing discussion about Andrew’s intentions as to a will was her quote from Radin: "Jennings then stated for the trial record that he had been Borden's lawyer for many years and the banker never had asked him to draw up a will nor had he ever discussed making a will. Knowlton accepted Jennings' statement as uncontested fact." (Radin, 133+)
Radin says this happened during the testimony of Abraham Hart. If you read Hart's trial testimony, he says nothing about a will. BUT as Moody asks him:
Q. Did you notice where he went after he left your bank?
A. I did not, except that he turned to the right, as I remember.
Q. Is there any other bank in the building in which your bank is?
A. There is the National Union bank, a separate organization from the savings bank."
they are interrupted by the following exchange:
"MR. KNOWLTON. It is agreed, if your Honors please, to save calling a number of witnesses---
MR. ROBINSON. I will state what we agreed to. For the purposes of this trial, your Honors, it is agreed that the defendant, having no knowledge in regard to a will or otherwise, so far as is now ascertained, the deceased was intestate. Also, without any further inquiries, that the amount of property in the name of Andrew J. Borden at the time of his death may be taken to be from $250,000 to $300,000.
MR. KNOWLTON. That is agreeable to us. That saves calling a number of witnesses." (Trial 163+)
It sounds from this that:
1. Hart was going to be asked about a will.
2. Prosecution and defense previously agreed to some details involving the will that were verified by “a number of witnesses”.
Does anyone know offhand if this discussion Robinson refers to as "what we agreed to" appears somewhere else in the trial? Although it may have been conducted ‘in chambers’ or off the record.
We have Charles Cook’s denial about Andrew’s discussion of a will on record -- but it would be interesting to know if Jennings also testified in court that Andrew had never talked to him about a will.
Something that jumped out at me in view of our ongoing discussion about Andrew’s intentions as to a will was her quote from Radin: "Jennings then stated for the trial record that he had been Borden's lawyer for many years and the banker never had asked him to draw up a will nor had he ever discussed making a will. Knowlton accepted Jennings' statement as uncontested fact." (Radin, 133+)
Radin says this happened during the testimony of Abraham Hart. If you read Hart's trial testimony, he says nothing about a will. BUT as Moody asks him:
Q. Did you notice where he went after he left your bank?
A. I did not, except that he turned to the right, as I remember.
Q. Is there any other bank in the building in which your bank is?
A. There is the National Union bank, a separate organization from the savings bank."
they are interrupted by the following exchange:
"MR. KNOWLTON. It is agreed, if your Honors please, to save calling a number of witnesses---
MR. ROBINSON. I will state what we agreed to. For the purposes of this trial, your Honors, it is agreed that the defendant, having no knowledge in regard to a will or otherwise, so far as is now ascertained, the deceased was intestate. Also, without any further inquiries, that the amount of property in the name of Andrew J. Borden at the time of his death may be taken to be from $250,000 to $300,000.
MR. KNOWLTON. That is agreeable to us. That saves calling a number of witnesses." (Trial 163+)
It sounds from this that:
1. Hart was going to be asked about a will.
2. Prosecution and defense previously agreed to some details involving the will that were verified by “a number of witnesses”.
Does anyone know offhand if this discussion Robinson refers to as "what we agreed to" appears somewhere else in the trial? Although it may have been conducted ‘in chambers’ or off the record.
We have Charles Cook’s denial about Andrew’s discussion of a will on record -- but it would be interesting to know if Jennings also testified in court that Andrew had never talked to him about a will.