Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Nor were those we knew of by hearsay, except for the ludicrous, persistent myths that we have heard from outsiders and laughingly discounted, myths such as that as of her shooting a horse in a fit of sudden rage because it had thrown her." (p 25)

Note that this is correctly described as a myth.

Is there any evidence that Lizzie (1) was a horsewoman (?), and (2) owned and used a pistol?

Maybe she means the Pearson book?

Snokkums, the Pearson books are compilations of several true crime stories, and I produced an excerpt. He put a "Lizzie Chapter* in several of his books- he was famous for his *Lizzie stories.*

I think that maybe she is referring to the "Lizzie Borden And The Mysterious Axe," which is selling quite high, now that it's out of print.

I'm guessing it's Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe too, although according to the listing I found for it, it's even less than 28 pages - more like 16 pages - and $125. At roughly $62.50 per ounce (gold, mind you used to sell for about $35 per ounce) I'd agree that is indeed a wee bit steep!

Thank you Stuart and Doug. You guys are probably right. I guess I missed that particular book being mentioned in this thread.




Tracy...

It was mentioned in one of the threads, but at the moment, I'm too lazy to go looking for it!

Yes, it has been mentioned in other threads. Maybe thoughts and threads just got mixed up this time.





Tracy...

OK...speaking of books at an outrageous price...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0042693200

WHEW !





Tracy...

Yup, that one qualifies too! Poor Knowlton would have a fit if he saw that.

I guess she was thinking *aloud.*
I thought maybe a Pearson chapter because one was 31 pages which was close enough to 28.

Could be... I never have much luck myself at thinking aloud because of those nasty creaking sounds!

Hmmm.......Amazon says 'mysterious axe' only has 16 pages. Whew...must be some damn fine paper it is printed on huh ?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096148 ... F8&seller=





Tracy...

vellum, embellished with gold leaf, scrolls and hand-painted cherubs wielding cherub-sized hatchets most likely.

wow! you don't find books like that everyday!!

RayS @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:59 am wrote:

Kat @ Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:49 am wrote:The splinters were coming off during the trial. It sounded like they were trying to keep them together with the piece of wood tho.
The hatchet head was handed out without the piece of wood in at all.
It really is very short- shorter than it looks because about 1/2 of that showing belongs up inside. That's the only thing you do not see. Otherwise, it seems pretty simple to me that splinters would degrade and come off over time. No conspiracy. No lying. Just the effects of age and handling.
IMO. I have had my eyeball up inside there after all.

album_personal.php?user_id=5

Speaking from experience, no one would believe a hatchet with a loose head could be the murder weapon. Striking anything would cause the loose head to fly loose. Don't try this at home, since you could be held responsible for any injury or damage caused by such a misuse of a tool.

I'm bringing this back up because in the trial testimony we find that the hatchet head of the one without a full handle [the HH] was not loose. I don't know why you assumed it was- IMO your comment was misleading.

Trial
Prof. Dr. Wood

Page 1019

MASON, C. J . It may be answered.

A. That hatchet handle fitted very tightly into the head, and was a smooth handle---the part remaining,---so far as I could see from the part remaining. I cannot answer for the part which I have never seen.

Q. Was there any difference---of course it is now removed---in the way in which that handle occupied the head of that hatchet, from the claw hammer hatchet, for example?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. ADAMS. What is the question?

Q. Was there any difference between the way that handle fitted into the hatchet, and the claw hammer hatchet?
A. It fitted very tightly.

Q. And what was the difference between that and the claw-hammer hatchet?
A. The claw hammer hatchet does not.

If the head of the hatchet was handed out w/o any wood in it, that would imply it was loose (or taken out).
I remain with that interpretation, given the reliable quotes from the poster.

Prof. Dr. Wood drove the piece of wood out to check it for blood. It now is loose, but wasn't then.

Kat @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:48 pm wrote:Gee I wonder where Pearson got his *story?*
At least his came out after Lizbeth died.

US Law says you can't libel the dead. Different in England and Europe?
That is why you should be credulous about any story about the recently deceased. Alive, Lizzie could have sued for defamation of character, and Pearson knew this. His writings are similar to a weekly scandal sheet.

Bear in mind that since the 1950s there is more latitude in telling stories about the live. They know how to use words to say more than is written. Also, it costs a lot to sue for defamation, and, the countersuit had the right of discovery: research into the subject's private life. The cure is worse than the disease.

If I were to write that somebody is familiar with a string of brothels, barrooms, and gambling joints in Florida, what then? Note the weasel word "familiar with". I didn't say this person was an owner or employee of the place, and familiar could mean they read a newspaper story.
Mabye its not a good example, but you can read the latest scandal newspaper for a better example. "Bush involved with defeat of Republicans" makes a good headline, but what does the rest of the story say? Or use your own example.

I hope I'm not rambling like an old geezer.

Well, if Lizzie didn't sue for defamation after the Trickey/McHenry article, or after the Tilden-Thurber affair, or after it was claimed in the papers she was to wed her cousin, or after years of scandalous local anniversary stories on the crimes, or after Gertrude Stevenson wrote about her problems with her neighbors- I don't think she was in a position to sue.
By that I mean she may have had more to hide than a regular person who has been maligned in the papers.

Pearson wrote about the crimes in at least 2 chapters (probably) before Lizbeth's death.

Kat @ Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:20 pm wrote:Well, if Lizzie didn't sue for defamation after the Trickey/McHenry article, or after the Tilden-Thurber affair, or after it was claimed in the papers she was to wed her cousin, or after years of scandalous local anniversary stories on the crimes, or after Gertrude Stevenson wrote about her problems with her neighbors- I don't think she was in a position to sue.
By that I mean she may have had more to hide than a regular person who has been maligned in the papers.

Pearson wrote about the crimes in at least 2 chapters (probably) before Lizbeth's death.

Arnold Brown opines that the reason they didn't sue the 'Boston Globe' is that it could result in unwanted publicity. Plus extra time from the trial preparation.

[quote="Angel @ Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:53 am"]I was rereading some previous posts about axes and meat cleavers and ice axes, etc., and I saw someone mention Robert Flynn's book "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe." I looked it up on Amazon because I thought it would be a good book to read and saw that it is going for $125.00 and up. Needless to say, I will not be getting the book. Why is it so expensive? Has anyone read it? It was given five stars, so it must be good.[/quote]

OMG! I think I own that book! It's in storage............. What about the Hatchet found in the barn when it was torn down? Was that a hoax? I remember the axe on the roof, it was out there like for a long time, right? I have a bunch of books I bought for a dollar each from a book sale and I think the Flyn one about the axe is one of them, Great investment!


Steven

[quote="RayS @ Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:20 pm"][quote="Kat @ Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:51 am"][quote="shakiboo @ Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:37 pm"]Hello everyone, I thought I remembered somebody coming forward to claim the ax found on the shed roof....??? a carpenter or something[/quote]

Yes that's right. It was in the newspapers.
Rebello, 105:
[i]Note: It was eleven year old Freddie Potter, son of Caleb C. Potter, who found the axe at Crowe's barn while playing ball on Third Street. Two days after the axe was found, The Fall River Daily Herald, June 17, 1893, reported the axe as belonging to [b]Carl MacDonnell[/b], a carpenter who had been working in the area. He lost an axe similar to the one found at Crowe's barn.[/i][/quote]
My hunch is that this was a practical joke played on him by one of his co-workers. If he threw it there, he would know where it was.

I thought Flynn determined that the axe on the roof had been new when it was thrown up there and that it would have had gilt on it........but I don't have the book handy to check.

Steven
Were there any initials on this tool? Many do that to prevent substitution.[/quote]