Lizzie's Lies and/or Inconsistencies

[Catbooks]

it would probably be best to do this in chronological order, but instead i'm going to start with something i just found in an old thread and we can add them as we think of or come across them.

lizzie stated to both bridget and mrs. churchill that she'd thought she heard abby return. yooper made an excellent point:

‪ by ‪Yooper » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:50 am
That's my point, Lizzie had to have known that Abby was dead. Lizzie told those present when the question as to Abby's whereabouts came up that she thought she heard Abby return. If she had gone to the barn, she could not have done that. If Abby returned during the activity after discovering Andrew, it is unreasonable to assume she would not be aware of the crime. If Abby returned before Andrew, why tell Andrew that Abby was still out on an errand?

so when would she have had the opportunity to hear abby come in between the time she told her father abby had gone out, and discovering his body? it's a very small window of time.

she said she was in the dining room for a short time, then the kitchen reading while waiting for her flats to get hot enough. very unlikely abby would use the front door, and lizzie would have seen her if she entered the side door if lizzie was in the kitchen. then lizzie says she got her hat and went out to the barn, first stopping at the pear tree. then she's standing for a long time at the upstairs barn window, eating pears. if abby had returned then, lizzie would have seen - not heard - abby come home.

at the inquest lizzie denied saying she heard abby return, so someone's lying, and i don't think it was bridget or mrs. churchill.

[Curryong]

Exactly! There were not only the physical difficulties of Abby coming in the front, through a locked door, but at no time, presuming Lizzie had heard her before Andrew's death, did she (a) call up to her to tell her that a murderous killer was on the loose, or (b) never expressed to Mrs Churchill or others and worries/fears about her stepmother's safety.

She stuck to her 'I was in the barn' alibi until the end, but unfortunately nobody questioned her about this super-hearing of hers during that time. Lizzie seems to have overlooked some of these difficulties, to say the least!

[Catbooks]

abby would have had a key to the front door, but it seems the bordens were in the habit of using the side door.

yes! if she'd heard abby come in, why wouldn't she have called up to abby? even if your stepmother isn't exactly your favorite person, an emergency such as this, and fear for everyone's safety, surely would have trumped the dislike! and if she thought she'd heard abby return, and then thought abby might be dead too, WHY wouldn't she want to grab bridget and get out of there? there'd be every reason to think the killer was still in the house.

not sure where to put this, so will put it here for the time being.

Monday, August 8, 1892, Harrington and Doherty, partial:

Second interview of Mrs. Churchill. Mrs. Churchill. “Must I, am I obliged to tell you all?”
“Well, if I must, I cant be blamed. O, I wish I had not to do this. I do not like to tell anything of my
neighbor; but this is as it is. When I went over in answer to Lizzie’s call, I asked O, Lizzie where is your
father? In the sitting room. Where were you? I was in the barn looking for a piece of iron. Where is your
mother? She had a note to go and see someone who is sick. I dont know but they killed her too. Has any
man been to see your father this morning? Not that I know of. Dr. Bowen is not at home, and I must
have a Doctor. I think I heard Mrs. Borden come in. Will I go and get one or find someone who will?"

From p. 12, Witness Statements.

why was mrs. churchill *so* upset at having to 'tell all' about her neighbors? what was it she was so worried about revealing? if that comment attributed to her is true, about there being one thing she saw that she would never tell, this means she kept something back. she was so distraught about saying anything to begin with, now i'm more inclined to think she really did say it.

[Curryong]

It does sound to me that Mrs Churchill had been thinking and puzzling over some of Lizzie's inconsistencies. (And, of course she did say later, didn't she, that she had seen something she would never speak of even if they pulled her tongue out, or something.)
She may have hitherto quite liked Emma and Lizzie, and even nowadays people are quite reluctant to speak about and certainly possibly testify against long-term neighbours if a court case is involved. I'm sure there was that kind of thing going on in her mind. Possibly being 'cut' by 'the girls' in the future if she testified, etc. Mrs Churchill had been living in her house all her life and the Bordens were probably nice quiet neighbours. Hitherto, anyway!

[Catbooks]

mrs. churchill sounds very agitated. overly so. i don't believe mrs. bowen or mrs. kelly, also neighbors, sounded anything like that giving their statements, and mrs. bowen had come over to the house, too.

if i think about any neighbors i've had, and being questioned by the police about a murder having happened at their houses, it would naturally be very upsetting, but i wouldn't be wringing my hands and so clearly agitated the way she was, at anything i'd have to say about them. unless there was something i knew or saw that was way out of the norm.

i'd just say yes i knew them, always struck me as nice people, didn't hear or see anything unusual, etc. unless that wasn't the case

[Curryong]

Perhaps she had seen something in the house which she just didn't want to deal with, something which perhaps pointed to Lizzie's guilt? She was an older woman and might have become nervous and just wanted to stay right out of it.

[PossumPie]

Exactly! There were not only the physical difficulties of Abby coming in the front, through a locked door, but at no time, presuming Lizzie had heard her before Andrew's death, did she (a) call up to her to tell her that a murderous killer was on the loose, or (b) never expressed to Mrs Churchill or others and worries/fears about her stepmother's safety.

She stuck to her 'I was in the barn' alibi until the end, but unfortunately nobody questioned her about this super-hearing of hers during that time. Lizzie seems to have overlooked some of these difficulties, to say the least!

Within less than a minute of calling Bridget down, Lizzie said that she was in the yard, heard a moan, and went in to house. There is NO WAY she could have 'mis-remembered' what she did less than a minutes before, and Bridget was the one who reported what Lizzie told her. Later, Lizzie said she was coming from the barn and heard a scraping sound. Later still, she said she was upstairs in the barn, heard or saw nothing. This story is the one she stuck with, even though she and Bridget both agreed that Immediately after finding his body she said she was in the yard and heard a groan. There are definite lies there.

[Catbooks]

Perhaps she had seen something in the house which she just didn't want to deal with, something which perhaps pointed to Lizzie's guilt? She was an older woman and might have become nervous and just wanted to stay right out of it.

that's what it sounds like. there was something big that she saw that she didn't want to tell.

i don't blame her for wanting to stay out of it. it would be interesting to know what her relationship with emma was like after the murders. they were next door neighbors for a year or so afterwards, and had to have seen one another on a regular basis. *awkward*

[Catbooks]

Exactly! There were not only the physical difficulties of Abby coming in the front, through a locked door, but at no time, presuming Lizzie had heard her before Andrew's death, did she (a) call up to her to tell her that a murderous killer was on the loose, or (b) never expressed to Mrs Churchill or others and worries/fears about her stepmother's safety.

She stuck to her 'I was in the barn' alibi until the end, but unfortunately nobody questioned her about this super-hearing of hers during that time. Lizzie seems to have overlooked some of these difficulties, to say the least!

Within less than a minute of calling Bridget down, Lizzie said that she was in the yard, heard a moan, and went in to house. There is NO WAY she could have 'mis-remembered' what she did less than a minutes before, and Bridget was the one who reported what Lizzie told her. Later, Lizzie said she was coming from the barn and heard a scraping sound. Later still, she said she was upstairs in the barn, heard or saw nothing. This story is the one she stuck with, even though she and Bridget both agreed that Immediately after finding his body she said she was in the yard and heard a groan. There are definite lies there.

good point. there's really no way she could have not remembered something that had happened a minute or so after she told about it. a groan sounds nothing like a scraping sound. and then to later deny hearing anything at all?

[debbiediablo]

I don't for a minute think a stranger walked in that house and killed Abby, waited 90 minutes, killed Andrew and walked out unseen and unheard. What makes this case so fascinating is the only two options are Lizzie did and managed to escape without blood splatter and with the hatchet gone forever. Or she had help, either someone she hired or a friend, who got in and out unseen. Either way is sheer luck or incredibly good planning. And the facts we have don't truly support either scenario. But the facts we have are not all the facts.

[debbiediablo]

Sorry if this has appeared elsewhere recently:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 629,346636

[Catbooks]

Either way is sheer luck or incredibly good planning. And the facts we have don't truly support either scenario. But the facts we have are not all the facts.

absolutely. given lizzie's terrible statements and testimony, i've got to go with sheer luck versus incredibly well thought-out planning. unless someone else did the planning. but then there's the problem of how did he (or she) manage to get out of the house, unseen?

i've read accounts of ruby before, but not that particular article. trouble with her version is why would lizzie confess all of this to her, someone she only knew for a very short time, but to no one else (that we know of)? also, as she tells it, david flew into a rage, got an ax (or hatchet, although she says ax) from the shed in the back (perhaps means the cellar, i'm not aware of any shed), and then killed them both before 'anyone could say boo!' i'd think an hour and a half between killings would be plenty of time to say boo ;)

so if by some chance it is true, lizzie would have been an accessory to the murder or both of her parents. which certainly would have been motivation for her keeping quiet! but to the point of being arrested, tried, and possibly hung? seems hard to believe.

i believe records of david anthony were later found.

[debbiediablo]

If Lizzie really said this, I'd view it as a deathbed confession. She spent her entire life living with the guilt of knowing who killed her father but protecting him since the crime was committed because they loved each other. Her father and step-mother were already dead. What good would it do to have David Anthony dead, too. She allowed herself to be tried and face conviction knowing he would confess if she were to be sentenced to hang. Otherwise, they'd both walk free. This lends a little credibility to the discredited matron of the jail overhearing Lizzie accusing Emma of giving "us" up which is taken to mean Lizzie and Emma but could mean Lizzie and lover. Like many people with dark secrets, maybe she wanted to unburden herself once before she died. The law holds a special place for these confessions alongside excited utterances. Seems as though David visited Lizzie after the crime while she lived at Maplecroft. So maybe.....

[Curryong]

The main problem I have with the Dave Anthony theory though, debbie, is not only that there is no proof of a dying woman's confession, beyond Ruby's word, but why would Dave Anthony, who presumably loved Lizzie very much, allow her to stay in jail for nearly a year and then go through the ordeal of a trial?
We know it's unlikely, had she been found guilty, that she would have been hanged, but the possibility still existed. There is nothing besides Ruby's word, either, that Dave did visit Lizzie occasionally years later. You would think, after two people had endured that kind of experience together, that they would want to be together for all time, (after the trial,) not just a few visits when they were older.

[Catbooks]

oops, i mean to post this on this thread:

along the lines of the ruby story, here are two old threads on it to pick through:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... ystory.htm

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... maruby.htm

it wasn't a deathbed confession though. lizzie didn't live a whole lot longer afterwards, but she wasn't dying at the time, as i understand it. will have to read through those threads myself later, when i have a chance.

the matron said lizzie said 'emma, you have given me away, haven't you?'

Q. Now, Miss Emma, on that morning did you have any conversation with Miss Lizzie in which she said, "Emma, you have given me away, haven't you?"

A. I did not.

Q. And did you say in reply, "No, Lizzie, I haven't." "You have," she says, "and I will let you see I won't give in one inch." Was there any such talk as that?

A. There was not.

Q. Anything like it?

A. Nothing.

Q. That morning or any morning?

A. No time, not any time.

from emma's trial testimony.

[debbiediablo]

Gall bladder surgery was serious business until laparoscopy came along. I think Lizzie knew she was dying which is more about deathbed confession than doing it moments before death.

Yes, it was 'me' not 'us'. Here's what the New Bedford Evening Standard printed about the conversation, August 25, 1892:

"You gave me away, Emma, did you not?"
"No, Lizzie, I only told Mr. Jennings what he ought to know for your defence."
"That is false. You have given me away and I know it; but remember! I will not give in one inch, never! never! That is all I have to say to you."

This supports the idea of a killer other than Lizzie. I know Reagan recanted, but so much was said, unsaid, changed, etc. that I'm inclined to at least consider this, especially since the entire quote isn't so damning of Lizzie as just considering the first line. In fact, taking it all into consideration makes me think Lizzie was protecting someone, and Emma was trying to protect Lizzie.

[Curryong]

But debbie, that scrap of conversation, if at all true, could be read another way. Lizzie's passionate "I will not give in one inch. Never! Never!" could instead infer that if things went badly for her in the trial and she was found guilty she would never, ever confess.
We don't know what Emma discussed with Mr Jennings. It could have been something to do with some of Lizzie's odd behaviour and statements in the past. Perhaps she confided that Lizzie may have known a bit too much about the daylight robbery.
It's obvious that all good defence teams plan for all contingencies. The prosecution had a weak case but on the off-chance that Lizzie would be convicted, any Appeal would include mental health issues. Jennings might have jotted down a few things just in case.

[debbiediablo]

This is from another thread, long-ago...interesting:

19. "Re: Gramma"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Feb-18th-04 at 12:31 PM
In response to Message #18.

Dear Gramma,

Who ARE you?

Sincerely,
Bob Gutowski

20. "Re: Gramma"
Posted by Gramma on Feb-18th-04 at 1:38 PM
In response to Message #19.

Bob,
Despite my wanting to remain semi-anonymous Stefani knows who I am. There are enough clues now on this forum to figure out who I am. I know Michael Martins. I have a cherished picture with Mrs Brigham and I standing outside the FRHS and cherished letters from her to my mother often with a note asking about me and my family. I was walked to the FRHS as a child and told what the building was and told I should remember it. My babysitter whe I was a toddler on up to about 8 years old was a member of the Women's Auxiliary. We used to bake on Saturday mornings and deliver to them so they could raise money. It was my babysitter who taught me to make boiled frosting from scatch at the age of 8.
I did not know until recent years that she had been brought to Fall River and hired as a kindergarten teacher by the Women's Auxiliary. By the time I came along she was retired.
I grew up watching Borden scholars chase the answers and discussing them with my mother. Together we would assess each new publication. Victoria Lincoln remains my favorite, even if it is sort of "gossipy" about the family. But until I met Ruby I had no closer clue than anyone else. When I was young I thought Bridget did it. It was the only thing that made sense to me. What didn't make sense was that Lizzie did not simply say it was Bridget. Her word would have been taken above an Irish servant anyday and Bridget really had no defense. So as I grew into a teenager I began to explore the other theories. Uncle John Morse then became my "perp" of choice. But he had an alibi (which I thought was weak, in the very least) and his guilt would still leave some unanswered questions.
Then as I became an adult my standard answer was "I don't know" because I was too busy with family and life to really delve into it any closer.
When Ruby broke her story in the Ellsworth American I had friends who called me immediately. I could not believe it as I was living a mere 45 minutes away at the time. Of course I had to check this woman out in person so I called her and made an appointment to see her. She was very gracious in accepting my word that my grandmother had worked for Lizzie and allowed me to visit. Then, before any of the other papers ran their stories, before the invasion of the world into this little 84 year-old lady's home, she and I exchanged stories. She tested me and I tested her. She was convinced I was genuine and I was convinced she was, too. We became close friends and she shared some things about her life that even the press did not know. Our friendship was way too short and only lasted 6 months. I was devastated when she died because she really was the only one in my entire lifetime who made any sense out of the whole story.
For me it answered discrepancies in testimony, in events, and in tales told afterward. She was sincere, genuine, and with me at least very straightforward. But I saw what the invasion did to her life. Don't get me wrong, she loved every minute of it, but it took its toll.

I attended the 100 year conference and met Andrew Jennings grandsons for the first time in my life. I was invited to eat at a Borden table for lunch one day. I saw the story morphed into unbelieveable subjects, some of which had me in tears. It was three days of incredible intensity for me and I had the chance to take the program with signatures to my mother who could not travel the distance to the conference.
Mr. Dube was kind enough to show me my grandmother's room at Maplecroft and I still owe him a picture of her. I tried to deliver it once but he was not home and my trips to Fall River have been infrequent. I hope he forgives me for not getting it to him sooner.

All in all this story has been with me and in my life all my life. I am not a newcomer nor someone who has just read the books and made up their mind.
I do request anonymity, though, because I have seen what the limelight can do to ones life. I have no desire for that at this time. My personal life is difficult enough without having to deal with the onslaught of curiousity.
My mother has passed on and Ruby has passed on so there is no one to discuss the story first hand with anymore and this is the only way I have to talk about the subject, share ideas and let the world know if I see anything going in the wrong direction. I do not want to have people believe only me, hence the urging to read and make up your own mind. If I do not have concrete evidence that I can hand to someone, unlike some people, I will say it is personal opinion. However, I was privy to something others on this earth were not and that was the sharing of a dying woman's entire life story.


Gramma

[Curryong]

It's clear that Gramma has a close connection with Lizzie through her mother, and a longterm interest in the case. She knows Fall River. Gramma has left the Forum, hasnt she?
Do you know who she might be, debbie? You don't have to say any name of course, if you do have an inkling. I remember at one point Gramma hinted she might write a book on the case. Its also very clear that she absolutely believes that what Ruby told her was the complete truth. It's very intriguing.

[debbiediablo]

No. I have no clue other than her absolute sincerity shines through.

[NancyDrew]

I've brought Gramma up many times on this board but been shot down, so I've stayed quiet. FWIW, though, I think there is something to what she said.

[Catbooks]

i do think that gramma absolutely believes ruby. i believe ruby believed what she was saying was the truth. i'm just not convinced it was the truth. but, i like to keep an open mind, so i'll read the old threads about ruby.

[snokkums]

it would probably be best to do this in chronological order, but instead i'm going to start with something i just found in an old thread and we can add them as we think of or come across them.

lizzie stated to both bridget and mrs. churchill that she'd thought she heard abby return. yooper made an excellent point:

‪ by ‪Yooper » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:50 am
That's my point, Lizzie had to have known that Abby was dead. Lizzie told those present when the question as to Abby's whereabouts came up that she thought she heard Abby return. If she had gone to the barn, she could not have done that. If Abby returned during the activity after discovering Andrew, it is unreasonable to assume she would not be aware of the crime. If Abby returned before Andrew, why tell Andrew that Abby was still out on an errand?

so when would she have had the opportunity to hear abby come in between the time she told her father abby had gone out, and discovering his body? it's a very small window of time.

she said she was in the dining room for a short time, then the kitchen reading while waiting for her flats to get hot enough. very unlikely abby would use the front door, and lizzie would have seen her if she entered the side door if lizzie was in the kitchen. then lizzie says she got her hat and went out to the barn, first stopping at the pear tree. then she's standing for a long time at the upstairs barn window, eating pears. if abby had returned then, lizzie would have seen - not heard - abby come home.

at the inquest lizzie denied saying she heard abby return, so someone's lying, and i don't think it was bridget or mrs. churchill.

I have to agree!! Lizzie had to have been lying. Bridget and Mrs. Churchill didn't have a reason to lie.

[Curryong]

Yes, I'm afraid a little book could be written pointing out all Lizzie's lies and inconsistencies, which she made up as she went along, it seems to me. She told Bridget after she discovered Andrew that she had been out in the yard and was returning to the house when she heard 'a scraping noise'. She never repeated that particular little gem again to anybody, and you would think she would tell the police straight away.

[twinsrwe]

… Gramma has left the Forum, hasnt she? …

Gramma is still listed as an active member. However, she hasn’t posted anything since Sunday, July 16, 2006 at 9:01 am.

[Curryong]

Thank you, twinsrwe. Wonder why she left? Maybe she was going to write a book about Ruby and Lizzie and then decided not to.

[Curryong]

I don't mean actually left, just not posted for such a long time!

[twinsrwe]

You’re welcome, Curryong.

As far as I can tell, Gramma submitted 171 posts from Apr 23, 2004 to July 16, 2006. I also wonder why she stopped posting; she was such a delightful lady. Stefani may know why she stopped posting, but she may not feel it is appropriate to say why.

[Mara]

Sorry if this has appeared elsewhere recently:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 629,346636

The main issue I have with this account of how the murders took place is that Anthony went into a rage and killed both the Bordens. This is contradicted by the evidence separating the murders by an hour and a half.

Edited to add: I see that the more complete story in Kat's comprehensive post accounted for that. But there are so many other things to question. It's tempting to try to make it work, though, so I can see why so many have done just that.

[Curryong]

Yes, if he 'destroyed both of them before anybody could say "Boo!" then that exclamation must have lasted an extraordinarily long time! It's clear I think, that Gramma believed Ruby's story implicitly. I don't know about Ruby's motivations. She kept quiet about it all until everyone connected with the case was long dead and that is always suspicious.

[debbiediablo]

I can see an elderly woman in her 80s not recalling to exactitude what was said to her over 50 years earlier. Barn could be shed; went into a rage could be correct even though the murders were separated by 90 minutes. I can hear my father-in-law who will be 91 in another week sounding pretty much like Ruby. My first choice for what happened is Lizzie killed Andrew in a textbook staged domestic homicide. The facts we know fit the forensic profile to a T. I'm not so sure about Abby. That could've been more spontaneous although the effort to purchase prussic acid would indicate otherwise.

My second choice (which clears up all the issues with choice 1: blood splatter and how the hatchet disappeared) is David Anthony. I can understand Lizzie protecting him. She really didn't wield the hatchet, and Emma's inheritance put together the best legal defense (including one of the judges) money could buy. It's a fair conclusion to think if she were acquitted, no one else would ever be charged. I she were found guilty, David would step forward to admit his guilt. To do so otherwise would be a guaranteed trip to the gallows.

IF this is what happened, then Lizzie Borden was both fearless and willing to make the calculated wager of her life and her reputation within the community to save the man who butchered her parents. That's an interesting bargain.

As for waiting until everyone was dead, that's exactly what I would do. There's no statute for murder. David Anthony could've been hung anytime up to when he died in 1924. In 1927 Lizzie told Ruby in the final weeks of her life. Then Ruby tells the world in the final months of her life some 50 years later. If I were either Lizzie or Ruby, I'd do the very same thing as both of them.

[Curryong]

Sorry debbie, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you on the David Anthony/ Ruby/ Brown theory of Dave Anthony being the killer of either Abby or Andrew. As we discussed on another thread, there is nothing that shows that Lizzie and David, a decade apart in age, had any interest in each other, whatsoever. (Apart from a much later story coming from a woman, Ruby, who said she knew David herself.) Lizzie and David may have known each other by sight and that would be it. Without any contemporary evidence of a love affair or relationship between the two, that particular theory just falls flat for me.

[debbiediablo]

Right here is where I wish Gramma were still posting. I have a lot of questions for her...

[Curryong]

Yes, Gramma, come back and post!

[Aamartin]

Gramma was a very interesting poster. But I think many may have dismissed her because she was so set in the Ruby Cameron theory. Too bad, she was a great asset to the forum.

If you do an advanced search under author for 'gramma' you can read all her old posts.

[NancyDrew]

Has anyone thought to ask Mark Martins or Stefani if Gramma is still alive? If she lives in the area, I'm willing to go talk to her..if she'll have me. I hope this doesn't sound too morose, but I assumed she had passed away.

[PossumPie]

Look, belief in this Gramma theory has flawed logic...I know, some of you are sick of hearing me say that.
JUST because someone says they know someone who knew someone...that gives NO more credence than the actual witness accounts of people who were there. We THINK it does b/c there is a tangible person alive today who knew someone who SAYS they had contact with Lizzie.
There is no evidence that the person actually knew Lizzie, that Lizzie actually told them things about the case, or that Gramma actually is telling the truth. Heck we can't even agree to the actual witness sworn statements as to their validity. And we KNOW that they were real, and actually there.
She "sounds sincere" I agree, but that means exactly nothing. We have no facts that anyone in this chain is telling the truth. It SOUNDS plausible b/c we may have a person actually tied to the case. Gramma sounds like a sweet old lady but she never swore before a jury, and neither did any of the supposed people in this chain. It is just one more wild theory, and one with even less evidence than some others.
Sounding sincere does not equal being truthful. Knowing someone who knew Lizzie is at best 3rd hand information.

[Curryong]

Yes, Possum, I do agree. In my opinion the Ruby Cameron theory has no leg to stand on. The trouble is, I think, and this is only my opinion, that at the moment most posters on the board are people who, in varying degrees, believe Lizzie did murder her parents or at least had a hand in murder. Therefore, for the most part, in the absence of a viable alternative theory, or suspect, we are chasing our tails sifting through evidence/testimony that has been gone through many, many times before.
Don't get me wrong. As a newbie I thoroughly enjoy this forum and have learned so much about the Borden murders and Victorian America. Nevertheless, many longterm posters, especially those who have alternate theories, have for various reasons stopped posting and some of it may have been because those who believed that Lizzie was innocent have felt very much in the minority.
You must admit there was a certain zing to threads like Franz's with his murderous Uncle John conspirators and Lizzie masturbating in the barn! I'm not having a go at any posters, past or present, just pointing outbreak a certain lack of balance which can't be helped.

[Catbooks]

i plan on doing a search on gramma's posts and reading them all. i've come across quite a few of them, but would like to read them all, and in sequence.

nancydrew, why don't you pm stefani and ask her? it would be wonderful if gramma is still alive and you could go talk with her!

actually there is evidence that ruby knew lizzie, and was a nurse to her for about a week, in either 1926 or 1927. ruby had ties to the borden's - or rather, her family did - so it's possible that in talking about those ties, lizzie trusted ruby enough to finally tell her the truth.

i was just thinking, i'm quite certain that emma lied under oath, and bridget too. just because we have sworn testimony doesn't mean it's true. and just because a statement isn't made under oath doesn't mean it's not true. but i do need some verification in order for me to accept it. so far, i'm not there.

for one, if david anthony was spirited away in a wagon, why did no one see it in front of the borden's? and didn't they think a wagon parked in front of a house where a double murder had just been committed, and would soon be discovered, would draw attention on a busy street?

there had to have been a lot of people living in fall river at the time who knew a lot more than they ever said. there was a tradition of 'we don't talk about such things,' which certainly helped obscure the truth of what really happened, making it very difficult for us to now figure it out.

[Catbooks]

unfortunately most of gramma's posts were on the old forum. i can't find any way to search out her old (and early) posts using the forum search. anyone know if there's some way to search the archived threads from the old forum?

[PossumPie]

Yes, Possum, I do agree. In my opinion the Ruby Cameron theory has no leg to stand on. The trouble is, I think, and this is only my opinion, that at the moment most posters on the board are people who, in varying degrees, believe Lizzie did murder her parents or at least had a hand in murder. Therefore, for the most part, in the absence of a viable alternative theory, or suspect, we are chasing our tails sifting through evidence/testimony that has been gone through many, many times before.
Don't get me wrong. As a newbie I thoroughly enjoy this forum and have learned so much about the Borden murders and Victorian America. Nevertheless, many longterm posters, especially those who have alternate theories, have for various reasons stopped posting and some of it may have been because those who believed that Lizzie was innocent have felt very much in the minority.
You must admit there was a certain zing to threads like Franz's with his murderous Uncle John conspirators and Lizzie masturbating in the barn! I'm not having a go at any posters, past or present, just pointing outbreak a certain lack of balance which can't be helped.

I almost feel a need to apologize sometimes. I don't much offer theories or ideas, I find myself offering logic and scientific tidbits to show why someone else's theory may not work. It seems pessimistic, but that is my strength, logic and science, so I end up being the 'spoiler'.
I agree, I liked when Franz posted, he drove me crazy with his lack of fact or logic, but he persevered. We won't solve the mystery, we are here to use our deer-stalker caps, and be arm chair detectives. I don't believe the "Lizzie is innocent" people leave b/c they are in the minority, I think some realize their theory wouldn't work, and many people come for awhile, get tired of the mystery, and move on. In fact, the two most "public leavings" lately were both in the "Lizzie did it camp."

[Mara]

unfortunately most of gramma's posts were on the old forum. i can't find any way to search out her old (and early) posts using the forum search. anyone know if there's some way to search the archived threads from the old forum?

Catbooks, you can try going here: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/archive.htm Scroll down to the collection of archived posts from the old forum, sorted by years going back to 2002. The little boxes containing the links are hard to read, unfortunately, but once you get through that, they work. I guess there's no way around having to go to each group to search for posts by a particular member, but it does work. There's lots of meaty stuff in there to reward your efforts. :)

[Curryong]

Please don't feel the need to apologise Possum. Your posts are very, very valuable and level-headed. I just get a little worried sometimes about the fact that few posters have alternative theories. It's true, the latest to leave have had temper tantrums for other reasons. Also, the old complaint on specialised forums like these, is basically, we need more members posting, whether old or new, for a greater variety of opinions! I think that's what I was really getting at!

[Catbooks]

i don't mind that most if not all of us currently posting are in or lean strongly towards the lizzie dunnit camp. i think most of us can entertain alternative theories anyway, because it's fun and a good way to exercise our brains.

[Catbooks]

unfortunately most of gramma's posts were on the old forum. i can't find any way to search out her old (and early) posts using the forum search. anyone know if there's some way to search the archived threads from the old forum?

Catbooks, you can try going here: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/archive.htm Scroll down to the collection of archived posts from the old forum, sorted by years going back to 2002. The little boxes containing the links are hard to read, unfortunately, but once you get through that, they work. I guess there's no way around having to go to each group to search for posts by a particular member, but it does work. There's lots of meaty stuff in there to reward your efforts. :)

thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! *happiness*

[Curryong]

Yes, thank you so much, Mara, fascinating stuff here! One of the threads was on the watch stolen in the daylight robbery, which was never seen again. It didn't emerge during the police search, which does make me wonder, if Lizzie was the thief, whether she had some secret stash away from the house, perhaps, and this is a far-fetched theory, I know, somewhere on the Swansea farm. On little trips to the farm she could have retrieved the watch and gloated!

[twinsrwe]

Here is a newspaper article from, The Evening News – January 6, 1985:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 629,346636

[Curryong]

Thanks very much, twinsrwe!

[twinsrwe]

You’re welcome, Curryong.

[debbiediablo]

i don't mind that most if not all of us currently posting are in or lean strongly towards the lizzie dunnit camp. i think most of us can entertain alternative theories anyway, because it's fun and a good way to exercise our brains.

I totally agree, Catbooks. Awhile back I posted a link to ten incredibly important discoveries that occurred while the researcher was trying to develop something else. That was primarily for PossumPie's scientific consideration... Looking at everything with curiosity and as little a priori judgment as we can is fun if nothing else...and you never know, one of us might actually happen onto something of value about David Anthony or a totally unrelated surprising and important fact. My guess is the police exhausted their search for suspects and evidence about the Borden's about same way Boulder police searched for JonBenet's killer and evidence. Perhaps not much has changed in 100 years.