Life after Murder...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:53 pm

Yes, although most people call underpants for both sexes 'undies'. Men's underpants are 'jocks'. Luckily I did know something about beach pyjamas through seeing 30's fashions in books. But don't let's go there again! As for Lizzie, I just love (officially) unsolved crime, wherever it is.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:26 am

and here i thought unisex 'undies' was an american thing! that's what i call them, or underwear.

*laughs* i've been very reluctant to comment any further on the issue of pants or beach pajamas since *that* unfortunate conversation, but the fact is they were invented in the 20s, and many of them were not all that wide-legged or of a matching fabric with a top in a print, so would easily be mistaken as regular pants (which is essentially what they were).

i'm sad that i feel uncomfortable talking about this subject any more here because vintage pants are a great personal passion and interest of mine. as you can imagine, i have few opportunities to talk about them without people's eyes glazing over in utter boredom! but they were so representational of the beginnings of women's freedom, i remain fascinated by the topic. even at the expense of forum controversy :)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:34 am

For myself, I promise I won't fly into a self-justifying rage, and I find the subject of the history of fashion fascinating, so post away!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:42 am

My daughter and her husband and two kids live at Lexington and work in Cambridge. Housing is fabulously expensive but they rent the first floor of their home for close to $2,000/month and live on the second and third floors. Everything costs much more, but they are paid at least three times more than the same positions would merit here in the Midwest. There's an interesting curriculum called Bridges Out of Poverty by Ruby Payne that discusses generational poverty v. situational poverty. My annoyance is directed more the 'rorters' who have seven figure incomes for doing nothing more than manipulating money, stock, bonds or commodities. Don't get me going....:-)

Now back to Lizzie.....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:39 am

Yes, quite agree debbie, people existing at the bottom socio-economically are too often blamed for society's ills, while 'fat-cats' are allowed to get away with an enormous amount. (With all due respect to hard-working taxpayers, of course!)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:50 am

I was trawling around and I got this from the Lizzie Borden Quarterly Vol 1 No 1.

After many years of Lizzie Borden's second cousin and heiress, Grace Howe, remaining silent about Lizzie, a news reporter wormed his/her way into Grace's home in her old age in 1951. She/he noted a beautiful rug in the sitting room from Maplecroft and leather-bound books by Mark Twain, Kingsley and Thackery, once belonging to Lizzie, on the shelves. So Lizzie enjoyed 'Vanity Fair,' featuring the amoral Becky Sharpe!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:50 pm

Curryong wrote:Yes, quite agree debbie, people existing at the bottom socio-economically are too often blamed for society's ills, while 'fat-cats' are allowed to get away with an enormous amount. (With all due respect to hard-working taxpayers, of course!)

I respect a stock broker who can buy and sell shares in companies and make a living--I sure can't. I also respect my garbage collector who makes his living hauling my garbage away. Everyone has skills, and if they work hard, they are respectable.
Overgeneralizing the "well-off" to be evil is just as prejudicial as saying "poor people are lazy." It is true that SOME wealthy buy their way out of trouble, but many contribute huge amounts of money to museums, schools, and children's programs.
Bill Gates donated $28 BILLION to his foundation to help the poor. In 2013, Warren Buffett gave $2.8 BILLION to charity...These two "fat cats" gave over $30,000,000,000 to charity. If every person over the age of 18 in the USA gave $120 to charity, it wouldn't add up to the donations of these two men.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:31 pm

I agree with you about these two men, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, Possum. I enormously respect them. I can only talk from the perspective of a non-American, as I have visited the U.S. but never lived there.

We do not have, here, the enormous wealthy individuals that the U.S. has, with the exception of a couple of mining magnates, though we do, of course, have millionaires and a few billionaires.

I have to say that, although some millionaires have been known to be generous to charities, (one, now dead, was known for it,) we do not have in Australia, and never have had, a tradition of philanthropy, of large scale giving back to the community, among the extremely wealthy, that America has. Ordinary Australians are a very generous people and perhaps that includes very wealthy Australians too. They just keep it very quiet!

This is an egalitarian country and quite classless, in the sense of levels of society. However, we do have high level public servants, members of Parliament and others, who quite contentedly ride the gravy-train for years until they are found out.
I am thinking now particularly of a member of Parliament and ex senior Union official, who, for over five years, used his Union credit card (for legitimate expenses) on expensive restaurants, holidays, prostitutes, home extensions etc. Officials were careless and he was not found out for years.
Because he was a member of a minority Labor government he was allowed to keep his place in Parliament until that government fell, as his vote was important. He is now about to serve a prison sentence and the union is going to sue to get its money back.

On the other hand, several years ago a Liberal government (for political reasons) chose to attack what it called 'dole bludgers', those people who were unemployed long-term for whatever reason, lack of education, laziness, inability, mental illness etc. (bludger means a lazy person who leaches off others.)

The economy was booming and so the attitude prevailed that the unemployed as a whole CHOSE not to work, which was manifestly untrue and unjust (for the majority.) It was these contrasts I was thinking of in my earlier post.
End of rant!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:02 pm

i'm not a fan of bill gates. to me what you do to *make* your fortune matters, regardless of how much someone gives away to charities after the fact, and i don't think gates is/was a very ethical, admirable person. but i do very much admire warren buffett.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:42 pm

I'm with Catbooks on both Gates and Buffett (I like his attitude and advice) along with day traders who produce absolutely nothing of value nor do they provide any service of value. Day traders spend money they don't have on stocks, bonds and commodities they plan never to own for longer than it takes for the price to go up or down, depending on whether they're betting on a bull or bear market. Almost every other transaction in this country is taxed in some way, but these repeated transfers are not. Not only are these traders economic parasites, their actions also serve to destabilize the markets for legitimate investors who are trying to save for retirement or investing hard-earned money that they actually have in the bank.

I know there's welfare fraud, but I see the people who come into our clinics who have five kids under age ten, a stay-at-home mom who lacks the skills to be able to earn enough to pay a sitter, and a dad who works 40 hours a week for less than $20,000 take home pay. I'm not nearly so worried about them getting extra food or fuel assistance as I am about AIG receiving a government bailout of $182,000,000 in 2008 and then paying $165,000,000 in executive bonuses in 2009 to the same people who got the company in such deep financial trouble less than a year before.

There should be no respect there...only shame.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:11 pm

Isn't there great resentment about such behaviour or are 'ordinary' Americans just resigned to it? I'm always amazed too, by the huge role paid lobbyists play in Washington, and the sums involved.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:13 am

Curryong wrote:Isn't there great resentment about such behaviour or are 'ordinary' Americans just resigned to it? I'm always amazed too, by the huge role paid lobbyists play in Washington, and the sums involved.

The average American has NO concept of economics, Supply and Demand, or business. The media picks and chooses what it reports, and loves the "Robin Hood" scenario. Let's rob from the rich and give to the poor. Well, Robin Hood was ....A criminal. To steal from anyone, no matter the moral reason is wrong. The media plays up when big business get's a bailout. I disagree with this also, but we rarely ever hear of the rampant welfare fraud, the free cell phones that are handed out on street corners so people won't feel poor. The majority of which get right into the hands of drug dealers b/c they are untraceable numbers. The "left" is fond of focusing on how awful the rich are, and that they pay no taxes. Well, they do. I have friends who are day traders, and they DO PAY TAXES. A LOT. By day trading, it puts the gains they make in a much higher tax bracket, and they are heavily taxed. The media perpetuates the idea that it is wrong to be successful, but that will be the undoing of this country. Why do people congratulate someone who "hit it big" in Atlantic City by doing nothing other than sitting their fat butt on a chair and pulling a slot machine handle, but criticize people who day trade???? I
Think I need to leave this thread alone for a while. I'm getting my blood pressure up. BTW, Hating Bill Gates is ironic. You are probably typing that statement on a machine with an operating system created by him. If by chance you are using Apple, you at least have Gates technology elsewhere in your life...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:17 am

Actually, this thread was about 'Life after Murder' and we'd probably better get back to it!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:38 pm

not at all ironic for me. yes, i have a mac, and it's very unlikely i have any gates technology in my life.

but about that life after murder thing!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:19 pm

Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:10 pm

Is that Mac as in Macdonald's hamburgers, deb? Yes, delicious, I go there about once a year myself! Lizzie never knew the joys of take-away, did she?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:45 pm

Lol...it certainly could be. I was thinking in terms of MacBook Pro and MacAir, my two beloved
Apple® laptops. Poor Lizzie. She was stuck with johnny cake and lamb stew gone bad. I wonder if Victorians generally ate cookies for breakfast or if Andrew's household ate what was available. The idea of their final meal makes me want to run right out and get a Big Mac and fries (I'm one of the few people in the United States who live beyond driving distance of any McDonald's so running right out would mean driving 50-plus miles.) Do we know anything about Lizzie's food after murder? Did she continue to eat frugally or did she splurge on fine dining and vintage wines?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:26 pm

I just get the feeling that the Bordens were a very unusual family in their eating habits as in practically everything else. I think I'd be confining myself to molasses cookies if I was faced with mutton broth for breakfast.

I've just been reading a good biography on Dickens. As a young reporter he covered elections all over the country and in one letter he describes how he had to cram a breakfast of ham and eggs and coffee down in order to catch the next coach. That was in the 1830's and sounds a lot more normal and delicious than mutton broth and fried Johnny cakes in the heat. Ugh.

I think Lizzie probably did enjoy fine dining when she was at Maplecroft and visiting New York and Boston. Of course, as a teetotaller that wouldn't have included any wine. Heaven forbid! Bump your parents off but don't allow alcohol to touch your lips!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:21 pm

Curryong wrote: I think I'd be confining myself to molasses cookies if I was faced with mutton broth for breakfast.

Too funny. I totally agree when looking at it from this point of view.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:31 pm

Why on earth didn't Lizzie boil herself an egg for breakfast, or were all Andrew's eggs 'for export only' that is, for sale to others? Did he keep a couple of eggs out of each batch for the use of the household for the week?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:20 am

Some info on Nance including a review of her as Lady Macbeth.

http://lizziebordenwarpsandwefts.com/tag/nance-oneil/

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:11 pm

I've just taken a look at Bridget Sullivan's will, in the above link. She was very precise in that she wanted $600, no more, no less, spent on her funeral, and another $100 for prayers to be said for the repose of her soul. A very simple will, and not much in the way of worldly goods, of course. Was $600 a large sum for funerals at that time?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:35 pm

well, all i can add is that according to the inflation calculator, $600 in 1948 has the same spending power as $5,823.63 in 2014. which doesn't sound like a lot for a funeral, but $600 in 1948 sounds like a lot for a funeral.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:59 pm

Maybe the undertaker did her a deal. "Tell me, in confidence, who killed Mr and Mrs Borden and I'll give you a great funeral for the price!"
Seriously though, that sum was a big chunk out of her personal estate.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:17 am

I didn't know in which thread to put this, but I just wanted to ask a question. Was it usual in American courts for material witnesses to have to post bail? I ask because I have just read that both John Morse and Bridget Sullivan had to post bail of $300 each.
Their bail was paid by a Fall River newspaper, which is surprising enough, considering John Morse's wealth. He was released from it in December 1892 as he had to go and check on his properties in the West.
It never happened historically in Australia or Britain and I'm just wondering about why it was thought necessary.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:08 am

S 620.10 Material witness order; defined.
A material witness order is a court order (a) adjudging a person a
material witness in a pending criminal action and (b) fixing bail to
secure his future attendance thereat.

Hostile witnesses, ones who may be called by the prosecution, but are friends of the accused sometimes need a little "encouragement" to come to the trial and testify. the above is a part of the New York law code...the neighboring state to Massachusetts.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:27 am

Thank you very much for the info Possum, we don't have it here, which is why I asked. I suppose neither Morse nor Bridget had much to keep them in Falls River, hence the inducement!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:26 am

Just note how she longs for the real killer to be found!

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=y9y ... on&f=false

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:06 pm

Interesting about her laugh because somewhere else, and I have no clue where, I read that her laugh was decidedly odd.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:44 am

The article was very favourable to Lizzie all round really, wasn't it? And people's laughs are sometimes strange. For instance I cackle like an old hen! Lizzie's laugh at Bridget struggling with the door is certainly more than a bit weird, unless it was the sort of laugh you emit when you're nervously excited, as she was!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:44 am

Curryong wrote:The article was very favourable to Lizzie all round really, wasn't it? And people's laughs are sometimes strange. For instance I cackle like an old hen! Lizzie's laugh at Bridget struggling with the door is certainly more than a bit weird, unless it was the sort of laugh you emit when you're nervously excited, as she was!

There are inconsistencies in Lizzie's story that can be chalked up to confusion about small details. NO ONE can remember everything in every order. BUT, there are two things that to me are deliberate lies. First Lizzie immediately after discovering the murder of Andrew told Bridget that she had just been in the back yard, heard a groan, and come inside. Then she changed her story to she heard a noise from the barn, then she changed it to she was out in the barn and heard nothing. These cannot be confusion about the situation, you know if you heard a groan in the yard, or you heard nothing from the barn.
Secondly was the stairs. She first said she was on the stairs, and heard Bridget let her father in. Bridget confirmed this with her testimony, adding Lizzie's laugh. Then the very next day of testimony Lizzie denied being upstairs, and even denied saying she had been upstairs. The questioner reminded Lizzie that she had just said she was upstairs the day before, and I believe he re-read to her what she had said. She denied saying it. That is the other big lie.
Lies don't prove guilt, but they sure make me suspicious.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:28 am

It's just irritating, Possum, that she wasn't put on the stand at her trial, although, when you consider her performance at the Inquest, it's really no wonder that her defence team decided not to chance it. Explaining all those little and large inconsistencies in her earlier evidence would have really finished her off, literally as well as figuratively (though I don't think she would have swung.)

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:32 pm

Posting this under "Life after murder" thread that took off in a different direction...lol. This from the Mower County transcript. (Lansing, Mich.) Jan. 23, 1895.... "Borden Jurors' Reunion"... "Ten of the 12 jurors who acquitted Lizzie Borden of the murder of her father and stepmother in June,1893, held their second annual dinner and social reunion in Fall River on Wednesday." First I ever heard of a reunion by the jurors. Does anyone know how long they kept this practice up?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:45 pm

The New York Post of November 2nd reported a November 2nd reunion at Revere House in Boston for ten of the Lizzie Borden jurors in 1898. Supposedly they all got on so well together that they had annual reunions for about ten years after the trial. Don't know whether that is true though.

They were quite an old jury, average age about 53 in 1893, so I suppose as the years went on several of them dropped off the perch! They were almost all country tradesmen and farmers ('Goodbye Lizzie Borden' Robert Sullivan: Page 74.)
I know that one of them, a blacksmith, was so overcome by the gory evidence given when Andrew and Abby's skulls were brought into court that the court had to recess for a while to allow him to recover!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:49 pm

Curryong wrote:The article was very favourable to Lizzie all round really, wasn't it?...

I agree, the article was very favorable toward Lizzie; it is almost unrealistically favorable. If Lizzie lived such a ‘bitterly unhappy’ and reclusive life in Fall River, but had so many friendly encounters in Boston, New York and Washington, then why in the world did she stay in Fall River? Her life would have been much more enjoyable had she lived anywhere but Fall River.

I thought it was weird that she would give every cent she has in the world and beg in the streets, if it could be proved while she lives that she did not kill her father and step-mother. What a selfish statement! Why wasn’t she willing to give every cent she has in the world and beg in the streets, if the real killer of her father and step-mother was found and convicted?

Another thing I found interesting, was that she had a theory to the murders, but didn’t divulge what her theory was. Well, if all she had was a theory, then the story she supposedly told Ruby Cameron of David Anthony being the killer, was nothing but Lizzie’s 'theory'.

Curryong wrote:… And people's laughs are sometimes strange. For instance I cackle like an old hen! Lizzie's laugh at Bridget struggling with the door is certainly more than a bit weird, unless it was the sort of laugh you emit when you're nervously excited, as she was!

I know a lot of people believe that Lizzie laughed at Bridget struggling with the locks on the door, but I have to wonder if her laugh wasn’t due to knowing that Abby laid dead just as few feet from where she was standing on the stairs.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:19 pm

Maybe emotional lability, anxiety manifesting in laughter, or maybe Bridget looked positively funny fighting and muttering expletives. I laughed when one of my kids super glued her hand to a bed sheet. It was awful...along with awfully funny.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:22 pm

twinsrwe wrote:
Curryong wrote:The article was very favourable to Lizzie all round really, wasn't it?...
I thought it was weird that she would give every cent she has in the world and beg in the streets, if it could be proved while she lives that she did not kill her father and step-mother. What a selfish statement! Why wasn’t she willing to give every cent she has in the world and beg in the streets, if the real killer of her father and step-mother was found and convicted?

If Lizzie really did not commit the crimes then she is not selfish; she is seeking justice and redemption.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:49 pm

Talking about inappropriate laughter, the sister of a friend of mine has stopped going to funerals because the sight of solemn people and all the paraphernalia connected with the ceremony causes her to have a fit of the giggles. She can't stifle it. Strange, isn't it?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:18 pm

debbiediablo wrote:
twinsrwe wrote:
Curryong wrote:The article was very favourable to Lizzie all round really, wasn't it?...
I thought it was weird that she would give every cent she has in the world and beg in the streets, if it could be proved while she lives that she did not kill her father and step-mother. What a selfish statement! Why wasn’t she willing to give every cent she has in the world and beg in the streets, if the real killer of her father and step-mother was found and convicted?
If Lizzie really did not commit the crimes then she is not selfish; she is seeking justice and redemption.

That's true. However, I was coming from the view point of her committing the crimes herself. My apologies, I should have stated that in my comment.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:29 am

Curryong wrote:It's just irritating, Possum, that she wasn't put on the stand at her trial, although, when you consider her performance at the Inquest, it's really no wonder that her defence team decided not to chance it. Explaining all those little and large inconsistencies in her earlier evidence would have really finished her off, literally as well as figuratively (though I don't think she would have swung.)

The accused in any crime, especially homicide rarely takes the stand. It really can't help their cause, and can end up hurting them immensely. A defense attorney will beg the defendant not to take the stand in part because when a defendant voluntarily takes the stand, he waives the right to "plead the Fifth," and he will be compelled to answer the prosecution's questions.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:41 am

We don't have the Fifth, of course, or any other Amendment for that matter, but it is the same here and in Britain. Sometimes vanity, a belief that they can make the jury believe in them, impels a defendant to go into the witness box, but most forego that pleasure. Judges, of course, aren't allowed to allude to a defendant's silence.

I don't know if U.S. News channels have been following the trial of Oscar Pistorius, the ParaOlympian runner? His South African trial is being decided by judge and two civilian associates, as there are no juries in the South African legal system. I have to say, in spite of what happened with Lizzie, I'm a great admirer of trial by jury!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:51 am

In the USA, trial by jury had turned into whoever has a good enough lawyer to persuade the jury to acquit will win. There are many cases of guilty people going free b/c they could afford a lawyer good enough to convince a jury. Perhaps the most notorious is O.J. Simpson. His lawyer was slick, and got him off, but later in a civil case, he was found guilty, and had to pay restitution to the murdered victims' families. He was guilty, but will never go to prison for the murders.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:26 pm

I remember waiting up for the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial (came in the middle of the night in Australia) and being surprised at the verdict, though I forget some of the details of the case now. It is true that O.J's 'dream team' won over the jury in that case, though there were, I believe, other things in play, the (maybe) planted sock, race, doubts about the DNA evidence, Mark Fuhrman's evidence etc. that probably swayed that verdict.

I do think, though, that in spite of slick lawyers, most of the time jurors get it right. There will always be exceptions. In Britain and to a certain extent in Australia, judges tend to come from a certain type of background -- elite, fee-paying, single sex schools then university, followed by, in Britain, the Inns of Court, to be admitted to the Bar.

In both countries barristers appear in Courts, (in wigs and gowns) while solicitors handle day-by-day legal matters. The top barristers then take what is called 'silk' and become Queen's Counsels, and then sometimes judges.

In many cases, being tried by a jury of your peers is preferable to being judged by a single person of restricted life experience on the bench. The only possible exceptions I would think would be cases involving complicated high finance which ordinary juries might be flummoxed by.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:44 pm

I totally agree re: tried by peers unless it's an obscure point of law or some other flummoxing question.

In the 1700's Sir William Blackstone said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and I totally agree. DNA is getting people released from prison, some of whom were convicted on eye witness testimony, following decades of incarceration. After reading all the Lizzie material, I better understand why eye witnesses are totally not reliable. People do not see what they're looking at!

OJ was guilty and every attorney in the country knew it when Howard Weitzman withdrew as his attorney. All my lawyer friends agree on this, and lawyers hardly ever agree on anything! If there are 99 lawyers in a room, there'll be 99 different opinions

Which is a take off on an old joke –

Q: If there are 100 lawyers in a room, how can you tell which one isn't lying?
A: He's the one whose lips aren't moving.

From what I've read about Pistorius, he's making up sh*t. Who shoots through a bathroom door at an unknown person, intruder or not, when they can wait 'til the door opens and then shoot them. If they need shooting.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 6:03 pm

Oscar Pistorius is indeed full of crap. Australian news outlets have been following the murder quite closely. Since the trial he has wept in the dock every day, vomited at the evidence presented of his girlfriend's injuries, and, through his family, repeatedly stated how distraught he is. Yes, I expect he is, as even on a lesser charge, he's facing twenty years.

He is a gun nut, absolutely fascinated by them, has quite a collection. I agree with you. South Africa is a dangerous place but surely you'd phone the police, AFTER you had checked that your girlfriend was safe, before grabbing your gun. The 'burglar' wouldn't be going anywhere.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:10 am

Maybe one of you more knowledgeable about the Pistorius case can explain to me why he didn't notice that his girlfriend wasn't in the bed when he became alarmed by a noise in the bathroom and thought there was an intruder. Wouldn't that be the first thing you'd check out before opening fire: make sure it isn't your friend? It seems to me, on that basis alone, that the man's story is not only a lie, but a remarkably weak one.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:40 am

In the 'amusing if it wasn't so tragic' is the defence counsel's suggestion that the anguished screams heard by Pistorius's neighbours on that night were from Oscar not his girlfriend! As for not noticing his girlfriend wasnt in the bed good luck convincing the judge of that!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:47 am

I always wondered what happened with John Morse. Did he ever keep a relationship with Lizzie and Emma?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:17 pm

As far as I know, Snokkums, he stayed for a while with Emma following Lizzie's arrest, went away in the December of 1892 to look after his various business interests in other parts of the country, was back in Massachusetts for the trial, but after it was over, although he went on to lead a comfortable life, he apparently never visited Emma or Lizzie or spoke to them again.

He was always closer to Emma than to Lizzie, I believe. He testified at the Inquest that he received letters from Emma several times a year. He didn't say that about Lizzie. Also, when on a previous visit to Fall River, (he testified,) Emma had accompanied him on a drive to Swansea. Don't know if Emma continued to write to Uncle John in later life, though!

By the way, what has happened to this board!?? Went away for a week, came back and it's as dead as a door-nail! Please, people! Post!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:26 pm

Just a quick reference to the Pistorius trial again. Dramatic actor Oscar apologised to the Steenkamp parents in court. Very noble! June Steenkamp, the dead Reeva's mother, said that apart from the weeping and vomiting when the cameras are on him Oscar spends most of his time reading papers, scribbling notes and on his cell phone! Cell phone? Strange system that allows a defendant that privilege, in court or out of it!