Has anyone read

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:26 pm

Has anyone read "Lizzie The Story of Lizzie Borden" by Frank Spiering.
I have just got it and was wondering if it was any good or if I have wasted my money.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:37 am

I notice nobody answered you.
Try looking in the archives for a topic on Spiering?

Most rate him up there with Victoria Lincoln.
He is a bit fast and loose.
He's bound to mess with your facts.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:32 am

The book is OK, Snokks. Not great but worth reading and keeping. The photos are real clear not fuzzy and hard to see like the photos in some others, like Brown's book. His theory is slightly plausable. It's been years since I read mine so I don't remember how much stretching or breaking of the facts he does.

Have fun reading it and let us know what you think of it.

-1bigsteve (o:

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:33 pm

Put me on the "wasted your money" list. When the book was published, the late Walter Kendrick of the Village Voice took it apart. Spiering steals phrases from other Borden books (notably Lincoln's) and is highly unreliable (like Lincoln, unfortunately, but Spiering's nowhere as good a writer).

Among many of us the book is something of a joke.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:21 am

If you read "The Hatchet", I wrote an article called "The True and Amazing Story of Lizzie's Gay Note" or something like that. Spiering is caught in an outright lie in his book.

In Kat's fabulous article on Emma in the last issue, she unveils some goodies about Spiering that tie in to the type of character I think he is.

I think he is a good writer. And, as I've said before, his "Lizzie" book made you feel like you were right there. But he is discredited by the stuff we are now finding out is untrue, and was, I believe, written by him purposely.

I heard from someone who knows him that does not think well of him regarding the Borden case.

The book, like Victoria Lincoln's - who made stuff up in hers, too - will probably confuse you to read. But if you keep that in mind, that he is not a reliable source, it'd be good to add to your Lizzie library and to read maybe once.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:20 pm

snokkums @ Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:26 pm wrote:Has anyone read "Lizzie The Story of Lizzie Borden" by Frank Spiering.
I have just got it and was wondering if it was any good or if I have wasted my money.

That would depend on the price. An example to check the book in the library before buying, or the reviews.
Spiering has a lot of photos not seen in other books, and much more background materials, as I remember it. Spiering points out the need to keep the cotton works pumping out products, and the effect of most workers walking out. Remember how this happened on 11/22/1963?

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:42 pm

11-22-1963 was the date JFK was assassinated. Did that have anything to do with it?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:42 am

I just watched that show on Kennedy & Oswald over the weekend. It was very good in its recreation with graphics.
I wouldn't mind seeing it again. I caught it 1 and 1/2 times already.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:11 pm

Kat @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:42 am wrote:I just watched that show on Kennedy & Oswald over the weekend. It was very good in its recreation with graphics.
I wouldn't mind seeing it again. I caught it 1 and 1/2 times already.

I saw a show a few days ago called "The Kennedy Assasination, Beyond Conspiracy." It was trying to prove Oswald's guilt by using computer generated graphics. The problem with the graphics is that they can be distorted to support any conclusion they want you to come to.

These "Oswald did it" people never show actual photographs of the assasination to prove their point. They don't show the actual photos of the placement of Connelly and Kennedy in the car. They don't show you the holes in Kennedy's coat, shirt and back that are too low to have been caused by a bullet that could have gone through both men. All of the doctors and nurses in Parkland that saw Kennedy's throat wound said it was a small entrance wound not an exit wound. This information is glossed over, destorted or ignored. They showed the magic bullet and said, "These conspiracy idiots say the bullet is undamaged but look at the damage at the base of the bullet. It's missing metal." The conspiracy researchers (and some of them are idiots) never said the bullet was undamaged. The slight damage is in the base of the bullet caused by squeezing through a soft target, like cotton wadding that Police fire bullets into to check the grooves and lands. The front of a bullet mushrooms when it passes through flesh and bone. The tip of this bullet is undamaged. It is impossible for that bullet to have gone through two men and struck bone in the condition it is in. Impossible. Yet they don't tell us that.

There are many points in the assasination that prove more than one shooter fired; medical, ballistics, autopsy, condition of "Oswald's" gun, the oak tree that block Oswald's first shot, hundreds of eyewitnesses, etc. The evidence that proves multiple shooters, and there are tons, is ignored. At the end of the show they have these "testimonials" from people who say "I used to believe in a conspiracy but now I see the light." They never had an expert on that show that could blow their "Oswald did it" theory out of the water. Talk about one-sided!

I've been studying this case for over 30 years and even though most people believe there was more than one shooter, the media is still trying to put the milk back in the bottle. I guess Washington has not won one in a while. The JFK assasination, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran, Iran-Contra, Clinton affair, Iraq. I guess it comes down to credibility and the younger generations need to be convinced that the Government officials are always truthful. Even the House Assasination Committee said there was more than one shooter. Hello?

I get a kick out of these shows but the lengths the producers go to to prove the impossible makes me shake my head.

Well, they're good for a laugh anyway.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:01 am

That's the show! I liked it. I liked the new graphics. I'd like to see it a few more times.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:16 am

Kat @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:01 pm wrote:That's the show! I liked it. I liked the new graphics. I'd like to see it a few more times.

I'd like to learn how to program computer graphics. That would be fun. I could do a recreation of the comings and goings of the Bordens on that August morning.

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:00 pm

The Big Problem with 'graphics' is that it is cartoons, not reality (even if it looks real). I saw that a few years ago? and noted they did not discuss the tree in that area. Witnesses said the branches prevented a clear shot.

Wrone's book "The Zapruder Film" may be the final chapter on clearing Oswald. There is a famous photo showing what looks like Oswald on the front steps of the entrance at the time of the first shot (Altgeld?). They said it was a look-alike (eyewitness?), but Wrone found photos of that other guy who was wearing a larg checked shirt buttoned to the neck.
In fact, Oswald was on the front steps watching the parade go by!!!
Two people were taking moving pictures from across the street. They show that neither Oswald or anybody else was at the 6th floor south-east window at the time of the shooting. You can read this book for yourself.

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Fri May 12, 2006 10:23 am

The most definitive version seems to be Robert Sullivan's book published in 1974. Being a lawyer he was able to comment knowledgably on how the Prosecution and Defence handled the case.

joe · Post by **joe** » Fri May 12, 2006 5:09 pm

I've been trying to contact Judge Sullivan for a couple of years now. Anybody know of his whereabouts? Anyone connected with Suffolk U?
Joe

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri May 12, 2006 6:22 pm

Not to start any rumors, but I would almost swear to having seen a small squidge from an obituary for Judge Sullivan - somewhere - within the past six months. Was that in the Hatchet perhaps, a scanned image? I know I've seen it...but where? There wasn't much to it as I recall, just the headine and a small bit from the lead paragraph and a few lines more visible. The publication date would have been approximately 1975 or '76, as the age of the deceased given in the visible portion of the obituary was 59 years.

Judge Sullivan was born in Boston in 1916 according to my copy of Goodbye, Lizzie Borden.

Drotted lint trap of a brain anyway!

I'll forage back thru what I've got and see if I can turn that up.

His name is not listed as among the faculty of Suffolk University; I checked that just a minute ago also.

joe · Post by **joe** » Fri May 12, 2006 6:47 pm

I checked with Suffolk U. and they told me they had no idea where he was. Got some dweeb in the office, however. Checked with Boston and Cambridge, too. No luck. I checked SSI index, but there are ten gazillion Robert Sullivan names in the death index.

If you could find that article.... Kat? Calling Kat. Hello?

Joe

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri May 12, 2006 7:12 pm

I'm still looking...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 13, 2006 2:41 am

Isn't there a New York Times OBIT?
Missy? Harry?

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:20 am

Joe, I'm pretty sure that Judge Sullivan passed away some years ago. I've tried to "google" him but his entry only mentions him in connection with his Lizzie Borden book and another murder case he wrote about. Would he be in Who's Who? do you think?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu May 18, 2006 8:25 am

This is an announcement of his death.
New York Times. It was collected without a year attached.
I've got the impression that it was in the latter 1970's.
We need a year!
Maybe it's in Wiki?

Edit: Oops! Doug figured out the year- see next post!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu May 18, 2006 8:29 am

doug65oh @ Fri May 12, 2006 6:22 pm wrote:Not to start any rumors, but I would almost swear to having seen a small squidge from an obituary for Judge Sullivan - somewhere - within the past six months. Was that in the Hatchet perhaps, a scanned image? I know I've seen it...but where? There wasn't much to it as I recall, just the headine and a small bit from the lead paragraph and a few lines more visible. The publication date would have been approximately 1975 or '76, as the age of the deceased given in the visible portion of the obituary was 59 years.

Judge Sullivan was born in Boston in 1916 according to my copy of Goodbye, Lizzie Borden.

Drotted lint trap of a brain anyway! I'll forage back thru what I've got and see if I can turn that up.

His name is not listed as among the faculty of Suffolk University; I checked that just a minute ago also.

Sounds like 1975 for sure! Good detective work!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu May 18, 2006 9:22 am

Good work Doug65oh and Kat!

Sherlock Holmes badges for you both. Or would you prefer a deerstalker hat?

joe · Post by **joe** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:42 am

Thanks Doug and Kat! That's what I needed. What would I ever do without you guys!
joe

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu May 18, 2006 3:24 pm

Ha! There it is, the very thing. Thanks! (It's always nice, just when you think you've gone completely crazy, to be reminded that...maybe you're not such a nut after all.)

Actually Joe, I had the same notion you did - until I crossed paths with that obituary!

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Has anyone read

Has anyone read

Re: Has anyone read

Sullivan Death notice