Agree/Dicker/Phooey

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:05 pm

Kat--can you give me more details about Ruby's supposed PhD. in Biochemistry from Chapel Hill. What year was she supposed to have received her degree.

This detail is not in the articles I have.

Also, did you just check the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or did you check the Duke University collaborative programs as well?

Thanks.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:06 pm

Donna,

As I have learned as a member of this forum, no one here that I know of would deny anyone's right to challenge or question a theory, but HOW you challenge sometimes does meet with some rebuff. Believe me I know.

We have done some serious discussion on the subject of Ms. Lincoln's (better known as Slicktoria to some members) published thoughts on the case. I don't know if you have had a chance to go throught those yet, or even if you want to. But if you'd like to, here are some links for a discussion we had about A Private Disgrace:

viewtopic.php?t=623&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=644&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=664&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=684&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=722&highlight=
viewtopic.php?t=805&highlight=

What is your opinion about, and what evidence do you believe supports the idea that Lizzie "was more than likely a lesbian" ?

Tracy...

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:14 am

theebmonique @ Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:06 am wrote:Donna,
What is your opinion about, and what evidence do you believe supports the idea that Lizzie "was more than likely a lesbian" ?

Tracy...

I lean toward thinking she was a lesbian. Why?

1. Lizzie not only never married she also showed little interest in men. Oh, she went out on a few perfunctory dates. May have even been arranged dates for all we know but there was no steady man in her life that we know of. Matter of fact in Rebello on page 231, there's a short piece by Julius Chambers, "Who Killed The Bordens" he writes about going to Fall Rivers in 1892, and "...looking up the history of this young woman." Chambers checked Lizzie out and later wrote she had no "desire for marriage."

2. By the time she was in her thirties Lizzie's companions were almost exclusively female. She even showed a slight interest in women's groups such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

3. I'm not big on the "I dreamed..." letter. It does show a somewhat romantic side toward women but not that much. Lizzie may have simply been a gushy letter writer as many women back than were. I will say this, we have nothing even close to something like it being written to a man.

4. Her little " Worcester women moments" . By that I mean the "Mysterious Veiled Lady (Mrs. Elizabeth Annette Stockwell)" pg. 306 Rebello. The story on page 307 Rebello about the man divorcing his wife and charging her with lesbianism and Lizzie being a co-respondent.

5. Her attention to Nance O'Neil. It went beyond the norm. She romanced Nance. Might not have worked but Lizzie tried. Lizzie seemed to have a bit of a thing for actresses.

Now, clearly this is only my opinion. It is not a fact and I know it. I'm only saying it's what I *think* might have been the case. That said I am always amused when people ask "why do you think Lizzie was a lesbian?" What amuses me is I never see them ask other posters, "So, why do you think Lizzie was heterosexual?"

Tell ya something funny. I was looking through the archives and there were some posts on the " I dreamed ..." letter. Well, in these posts some tried to make the letter out to be written to a man. Now, what was funny is when some posters thought it was to a man then they saw the letter as being romantic. One posters even said something along the lines about Lizzie finding romance late in her life or something like that. But, when it was thought the letter was to a woman then the argument was made that the letter was to a friend and it didn't really mean anything.

I guess in the long run we all see what we want to see.

[/b]

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:31 am

Just to be clear...the reason I asked about your position on the possibility of being a lesbian was because you specifically mentioned it in a post. I was not trying to amuse. I was only responding to what you had posted. I was interested in what you thought, but I get the feeling that my question on your theory has ruffled your feathers a bit. Is there another way you would prefer I use in questioning/challenging about ideas that you post ?

Tracy...

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:15 am

theebmonique @ Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:31 am wrote:Just to be clear...the reason I asked about your position on the possibility of being a lesbian was because you specifically mentioned it in a post. I was not trying to amuse. I was only responding to what you had posted. I was interested in what you thought, but I get the feeling that my question on your theory has ruffled your feathers a bit. Is there another way you would prefer I use in questioning/challenging about ideas that you post ?

Tracy...

You did not ruffle my feathers and I didn't mind your asking. I did answer your question. When I wrote about being "amused" I was simply referring to the fact that people rarely ask, "Why do you think someone is straight?"

Now, I should point out people usually don't go around saying things such as, " I think so and so was straight" that's because they more or less assume it. They don't feel a need to out and out say it. When a poster posts about Lizzie being involved with David Anthony they are assuming first she was straight. They don't have to say, "Well, I think she was straight" It's just there and it usually goes unchallenged/questioned.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:48 am

Thank you for the clarification.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:35 am

nbcatlover @ Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:05 pm wrote:Kat--can you give me more details about Ruby's supposed PhD. in Biochemistry from Chapel Hill. What year was she supposed to have received her degree.

This detail is not in the articles I have.

Also, did you just check the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or did you check the Duke University collaborative programs as well?

Thanks.

Would you consider getting the Hatchet issue? If you are into the Ruby/Anthony story, there are 3 articles in that issue on the subject.
Oct/Nov, 2004, Vol. 1, Issue 5.

Gramma · Post by **Gramma** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:28 pm

DWilly,

Women in that day had to have companions if they travelled in public. If you did not have a husband or gentleman to escort you you hired what was called a travelling companion. They were domestics like a housekeeper, cook, or driver. My grandmother was that domestic for Lizzie aouund 1912. She (my grandmother) was definitely "straight" as we would say today. I also know she would not have stayed working for Lizzie if she suspected anything different for Lizzie.
The younger generation today do not understand how things worked back then. When I was growing up it was perfectly normal for girls who were friends to hold hands in public, hug and even kiss. It had no sexual overtones at all. It was merely an expression of closeness among friends. It seems to me the newer generation has lost its ability to separate sexuality from physical touch in a general manner ( I am not speaking of intimate touching which is a different thing altogether).
Do not confuse simply being around women, which was the manner of the day with intimacy on a sexual level.
From everything I know from my grandmother, Lizzie was very much a "straight", kind woman who enjoyed reading the classics in the evening. It was Lizzie who introduced my grandmother to some of the greatest literary works available at the time. Her library and the access to the books was one of the things my grandmother loved most about living at Maplecroft.

Gramma

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 5:02 pm

Gramma @ Fri Nov 25, 2005 2:28 pm wrote:DWilly,

Women in that day had to have companions if they travelled in public. If you did not have a husband or gentleman to escort you you hired what was called a travelling companion. They were domestics like a housekeeper, cook, or driver. My grandmother was that domestic for Lizzie aouund 1912. She (my grandmother) was definitely "straight" as we would say today. I also know she would not have stayed working for Lizzie if she suspected anything different for Lizzie.
The younger generation today do not understand how things worked back then. When I was growing up it was perfectly normal for girls who were friends to hold hands in public, hug and even kiss. It had no sexual overtones at all. It was merely an expression of closeness among friends. It seems to me the newer generation has lost its ability to separate sexuality from physical touch in a general manner ( I am not speaking of intimate touching which is a different thing altogether).
Do not confuse simply being around women, which was the manner of the day with intimacy on a sexual level.
From everything I know from my grandmother, Lizzie was very much a "straight", kind woman who enjoyed reading the classics in the evening. It was Lizzie who introduced my grandmother to some of the greatest literary works available at the time. Her library and the access to the books was one of the things my grandmother loved most about living at Maplecroft.

Gramma

Being a lesbian is also something women back then would've tried to hide at all cost. And, even though your grandmother knew her, how would she have known for sure if she was gay or not? Would Lizzie have told her so? Would someone know from simply working for me and talking to me about things like classic books whether or not I was a lesbian? I'm sure there were women who were homosexual back then were also very adept at acting like proper ladies, and I'm sure they could also read classic books.

Something drove her own sister Emma from that house, and they never spoke again. Emma vowed never to set foot in that house as long as Lizzie was alive. I think there are many things about Miss Lizzie she kept hidden very well except from those who knew her intimately well.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:32 pm

The question of sexual orientation has cropped up many times and the question has been asked : Would it make a difference in the murder case?

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:44 pm

Kat said:

Would you consider getting the Hatchet issue? If you are into the Ruby/Anthony story, there are 3 articles in that issue on the subject.
Oct/Nov, 2004, Vol. 1, Issue 5.

I have every issue since Aug/Sept 2004. I just don't know what you are referring to in the Oct/Nov 2004 issue. I thought it was the June/July 2004 I needed to buy, and though it is now available on the Hatchet site, it was not when I first checked.

ERROR--Kat is always right!

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:45 pm

What is with these "hiccups" for posts?

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:45 pm

Hic! Hic! Hic!

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:46 pm

This message got the hiccups so bad...I don't know what my computer's been drinking!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:53 pm

Fall River in the snow can't be Oct/Nov. There wasn't that much snow then.
I have the issue in my hand, which Stef had created for me as a gift, before LuLu. It's Oct/Nov, 2004, Vol. 1 Issue 5.
"What Did Ruby Know?" by Diana Griffiths

"The Real David Anthony: Did Ruby Tell a Fib?" by Joe Carlson

"Impressions of Ruby" by Kat Koorey

The Premiere article is by Tim Evans called "A TV Producer Has an Axe: A Look Behind the Scenes of the Lizzie Borden Special."

June/July 2004 is the John Morse issue.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:14 pm

If your question is about where did Ruby refer to her educational background then the answer is in The Ellsworth American, Jan.3, 1985.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:36 pm

I'm sorry I didn't answer sooner but since my hard drive melt down, I had to recreate my info.
Luckily JOE sent me the stuff I lost on the Anthony/Ruby news articles.
I had to find it again.
I wasn't especially pushing back issues.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:50 pm

Kat @ Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:32 pm wrote:The question of sexual orientation has cropped up many times and the question has been asked : Would it make a difference in the murder case?

It might. On the one hand it would put one more hole in "The boyfriend did it" theory and on the other hand it might bring into question Lizzie's having a tryst with Bridget. Bridget may have kept quite about things she saw or heard that hot August day because of it. Maybe.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:53 pm

Kat @ Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:32 pm wrote:The question of sexual orientation has cropped up many times and the question has been asked : Would it make a difference in the murder case?

Would her sexual orientation have had anything to do with the murder case? Well it could have, but we will never be able to know for sure. No one will ever be able to prove who did it or why. But I have seen that alot of people are perfectly willing to believe that Lizzie had a boyfriend that Andrew did not approve of, and the boyfriend killed Abby and Andrew out of frustration, or revenge, or whatever. The boyfriend theory has cropped up quite a few times. So I'm thinking, yes, it could have something to do with the murder case. Because if Lizzie was a lesbian, there was a WHOLE lot more to disapprove of than a boyfriend. At least a good for nothing, or low class/no class boyfriend would've been of the right sex in victorian eyes. But if maybe they found out she was interested in women? Would Abby and Andrew have ever approved of a girlfriend?

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 10:03 pm

i don't know whether lizzie was a lesbian or not.

i have noted this in general -- people speculate unwisely about the sex lives of people in a previous era. the use of a word or a phrase or a living arrangement, or something to that effect, of the past, of a previous era -- if translated directly into the terms of today can mislead very easily.

lizzie was not an anomaly because she was a spinster. forget lizzie and emma for a minute. what of miss russell? what do we know of their sex lives? nothing, apart from speculation and imagination and innuendo, etc. today, we would know more than we wanted to know, probably. but my point is -- were victorian women so fundamentally different from women of today that if they never married, they were heterosexual virgins or secret lesbians? their sexual experiences would be secrets anyway--it would not be front page on newspapers. most 32-year-old women today who have never married are not virgins -- were they more likely virgins in 1892, or did they just take a vow of silence about their sex lives?

certain people on the board know more about the victorians than i do -- but i gather that this was a society constructed around keeping private matters out of the public -- but it was never true that the intimate aspects of people's lives did not exist.

the bottom line is that we don't know about lizzie's sex life at all, much less who she was doing it with. i personally don't mind who. but for example, that letter that has been referred to does not reveal anything of this nature. and it would have been easier for her to go about publicly with women than with men -- but that still doesn't show her sex life.

but her sex life could be a factor in the case IF the murders were precipitated by her intimacy with a dangerous person who would kill under certain circumstances for certain reasons.

i don't mind if lizzie was a lesbian. but actually i don't know for a fact that she wasn't doing it with morse (desperation?) -- or with tatro at maplecroft. not to mention the most likely candidate, who is nobody anybody ever even heard of.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:38 am

Thank you Haulover. I agree with much of what you say. I only want to add a few things.

We all have many theories about the Lizzie Borden Case. But we all need to be fair in listening to the different theories. In other words. If I may be so bold:

1. If you think there's enough evidence to place Lizzie into a romance with David Anthony/ Dr. Bowen/Morse/Tatro then give the same weight to whether she was involved with Nance O'Neil. Don't differ because of gender.

2. If you think the " I dreamed of you..." letter doesn't mean anything then please, don't change your view once you think maybe it was written to a man.

3. If you ask a poster why they think Lizzie Borden was a lesbian then please, ask the David Anthony people why they think she's straight.

4. If you think Lizzie was "fond of boys" then keep in mind she showed just as much fondness toward girls.

5. If an author says they have proof Lizzie Borden wasn't a lesbian then ask yourself do they have proof she was straight?

Now, back to wondering about Dr. Bowen and that note....

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:13 am

I hope this isn't too off topic Donna, but again I get the sense that you are upset about the way things sometimes go on this forum. My intent is not to cause grief with this post, but to let you know my perception of what you posted above.

I honestly feel that we do listen to different theories fairly. There has been a zillion theories about various aspects of the case discussed here on this forum.

When you say "don't change your view...", I have to say that I am not sure Lizzie 'did it', and my view changes CONSTANTLY as I learn more.

Maybe I am already aware of why the "David Anthony people" think she is straight, so I don't need to ask them again.

I was not picking on you when I asked you why you thought Lizzie was a lesbian, but since this is the second time you bring it up, I can tell it must have bothered you. When it came up in one of your posts...I wasn't sure of your position, so I asked. I guess I need to be more careful about how I ask.

I honestly believe that because we all may not ask a question...for both sides...all at the same time, does not mean we are ignoring one of the sides of an issue. I am NOT ready to settle on one side for every question or issue about this case. We all have our own questioning and researching styles. Just because we don't all ask questions the way you like to, does not mean, as I said before, that we are ignoring some aspect of the case.

I have a thousand questions in my head about this case. I don't have them filed in my head in any certain order, I don't always plan it out when/what to ask...I just ask when I ask.

I agree with some people on this forum and disagree with others, and they with me. Being able to discuss the issues...no matter what a person's position on a particular issue is...is the beauty of this forum.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:20 am

Our posts passed each other Tracy- So I am editing mine.

Lizzie could have been gay and still had a boyfriend kill for her- that's possible.
If Morse was gay or Lizzie was gay,could this possibly influence some of the facts in the crime? I'm not sure how, tho.
Would the method of attack have been any different?

Is it true or possible that abuse can turn someone away from the gender of the person who abused them?

It's OK to remind us there is this other way to look at things. As Tracy says tho- it's not like we haven't discussed it before. So if there is not a lot of response, I can see how it might not seem *fair.*

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:59 am

Well I believe Lizzie was probably a Lesbian, but it is just my opinion. The polite society back then found it okay for women to be companions, touching, kissing. But a law passed in 1885 made it illegal for two men to have sex, however the law did not touch on the subject of two women. Women probably used the ignorance of societel niceities to express their love. They didn't have to hide it so much as two men would have.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:56 pm

5. The egg story. First off, I don't even know this whole story. I first heard about it over on the Lizzieandrewborden.com site and later I found a post that went into more detail about it. So, do you really think Lizzie bet Hannah Reagan she could break an egg? If that is the "egg thing." I'm still not clear on that story.

--DWilly

Trial
Hannah Reagan- questioned by Jennings
1221

Q. Can you tell us anything that you recollect about that day except what you have already related?
A. No, sir, only that Miss Borden looked more excited---

Q. Never mind. ---What is that?
A. Only that Miss Borden was more excited when you left the room than she was before you came into it.

Q. Now let me go a little further and see if I can refresh your recollection. Don't you remember that Mrs. Holmes was there that afternoon and you had some conversation about an egg?
A. About what?

Q. About an egg.
A. I remember about the egg, but I couldn't tell you whether it was that afternoon or not, sir.

Q. What was it about the egg?
A. The breaking of an egg.

Q. Well, what was said or done?
A. We were talking in the afternoon, me and Lizzie Borden, and I says, "I can tell you one thing you can't do," and she says, "Tell me what it is, Mrs. Reagan." I says, "Break an egg, Miss Borden," and she says, "Break an egg?" I says, "Yes." "Well," she says, "I can break an egg." I says, "Not the way I would tell you to break
it." She says, "Well, what way is it, Mrs. Reagan?" So I told her that she couldn't break it the way I wanted her to break it, and I said I would bet her a dollar that she couldn't, and she said she would bet me a quarter, and in the afternoon some one fetched Lizzie an egg, and Miss Emma Borden was sitting down beside her, and I
told Miss Emma Borden to get a little ways away, "because," I said, "if she will

Page 1222

break the egg the wrong way it will destroy your dress," and she did get the egg, and she got it in her hands, and she couldn't break it, and she says, "There," she says, "that is the first thing that I undertook to do that I never could."

Q. Was Mr. Brigham there that afternoon?
A. Yes, sir. There were parties in the room that afternoon.

Q. Didn't you have quite a pleasant time that afternoon, all of you?
A. Yes, sir. We laughed about the egg, the breaking of the egg.

Q. Had quite a pleasant time all the afternoon, didn't you?
A. The day of the breaking of the egg we did, laughed and talked.

Q. If it was that afternoon, why, you had quite a pleasant afternoon that afternoon, didn't you?
A. The day of the breaking the egg, we talked it over, sir.

Q. Well, the afternoon of the breaking of the egg you weren't very much disturbed, were you?
A. No, sir.

Q. Had quite a pleasant afternoon that afternoon, didn't you?
A. Well, I don't know as it was very pleasant, not to me.

Q. Weren't you talking and laughing about that a good deal?
A. Well, yes, talking about the breaking of the egg.

Q. Wasn't that afternoon of the egg episode about as pleasant an afternoon as you had had while Miss Lizzie was there?
A. I can't answer that.

Q. Didn't Miss Emma take part in it?
A. No, sir, Miss Emma didn't take part in it.

Q. Wasn't there at all?
A. Miss Emma was sitting in the room when Lizzie had the egg in her hand.

Page 1223

Q. Did she take part in the talk about the egg?
A. I can't tell you, sir. I don't remember.

Q. The day that this conversation took place that you have repeated, was it a quarrel between Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie, this consultation which you have repeated?
A. On the 24th of August?

Q. Yes.
A. I don't know. I can't tell you any more than what I heard, sir. I couldn't tell you whether it was a quarrel or it wasn't a quarrel.

--It sounds like maybe Lizzie had a crush on Mr. Jennings?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:37 pm

How so Kat? It just sounds like Lizzie having some fun with an egg and some guest? Silly, stupid foolery? I don't get the connection.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:01 pm

Kat @ Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:56 pm wrote: Page 1222

break the egg the wrong way it will destroy your dress," and she did get the egg, and she got it in her hands, and she couldn't break it, and she says, "There," she says, "that is the first thing that I undertook to do that I never could."

Talk about confidence. No wonder Lizzie was able to sit in a jail for almost a year and never give in. She was a tough egg to crack herself.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:05 pm

I get the impression that Jennings is trying to show that Lizzie was in a good mood and rather playful that day. It doesn't sound like Lizzie and Emma would have just had a major quarrel that day.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:14 pm

How so Kat?

--Smudgeman

Q. Can you tell us anything that you recollect about that day except what you have already related?
A. No, sir, only that Miss Borden looked more excited---

Q. Never mind. ---What is that?
A. Only that Miss Borden was more excited when you left the room than she was before you came into it.

--I'm joking. But Jennings asked a question- heard the beginnings of an answer- then heard the word "excited" and asked "what?" to complete the thought which he had interrupted, and we wind up hearing that Lizzie was more excited after seeing him.
He wasn't a bad looking guy and better looking than Dr. Bowen.