What Led You To Lizzie?

Elizabeth Ann · Post by **Elizabeth Ann** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:57 am

My husband saw me reading the forum and asked why I was interested in something that happened over 100 years ago. I had to think for a moment, what did draw me to her?

Perhaps seeing the movie as a teen and then wanting to find out more, so I went to the library and read up on her there. My interest was pushed to the side as I married & raised my family. Now I am back to exploring my interests and yep, there was Lizzie! I guess the main reason is that we still can't say 100% what the truth is. Everyone here has theories and I love reading all the aspects of them. But no on knows for sure. It really still is an "open case" in our minds!

What drew you to Lizzie?

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Well I', the kind of person who likes murder stories and I used to dream of being a Homicide detective, that and I thought the idea of killing your parents was cool. That was yrs ago.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:51 am

The pictures of the bodies of Andrew and Abby, I think, were the first dead bodies I had seen pictures of in a book. We knew about Lizzie Borden like we knew about JtheR at the time. The fact that we could finally examine a crime scene photo with bodies really got my interest!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:41 am

As for me I was just looking for a book to read on a commutor train and there it was - Radin's book. Having an interest in true crime and a love of history how could I resist.

Its always astonished me just how many people know the name Lizzie Borden. Not many had a depth of knowledge of the case but it's still fascinating that so many knew of it.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:28 am

I had heard the story as a kid, so maybe that's what prompted borrowing a book from the library on the subject. Some time after that, the TV movie aired and I read another book about the murders, but I can't recall the author of either one. I was fascinated by the case at the time, probably because I like to solve puzzles. Recently, I was looking up famous trials on the internet, which brought me here.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:25 am

What led me to Lizzie is that I have always been interested in someone who kills. And Lizzie felt a reason to kill her parents. Did she feel like she was wronged because her father was giving property to her stepmothers family, did she feel she wasn't getting what she deserved because of the wealth, what led her to do it? Thats what got it for me. What was her motives? Or did she really do it?

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:07 am

I wish that I could figure out why Lizzie is so fascinating to me! I am a totally non-violent person; I can't even watch horror movies anymore, and yet I'll never forget reading Frank Spierling's book when it first came out in the 1980's. I couldn't put it down. Of course I remember the TV movie; that must have started it all.
I have a co-worker whom I've hooked on the story of Lizzie. Which book would you recommend for a first time read? (Besides Rebello's that is) Thanks!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:35 am

Two things happened in 1997. I found a copy of Arnold Brown's book at a Library Sale, browsed it, and found it very interesting (from the pictures and the jacket). Also, there was a local case that solved a 40-yr old murder when the sister of the unknown killer confessed about it. Wow, what a coincidence?
Then, finding myself in "early retirement", I had more time to look it up in Yahoo. Found the site, and then joined to see if anyone had any facts that could contradict Brown's solution. I wondered about the solution because of the 'recovered memory' of Ellan Eagan.
And so here I am (for now), but will not be around forever.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:48 pm

(No, not if there's a merciful heaven.)

Anyway, it was Agnes de Mille's book on her ballet of the case (yes, a ballet, a fictional retelling, from which certain of us are sure we can learn nothing) and its amazingly clear reproductions of the crime scene photos (she borrowed the originals from the hip-bath cache, which was still privately owned, and which she got to see when she was in Fall River with lawyer Joseph Welch) which set me off.

"Facts" to disprove a shadowy theory concerning a crime which occurred over a hundred years ago. I'll never get tired of that reasoning - no, wait, I just did.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:01 pm

Your manners are certainly a credit to your (whatever).

Any theory can be disproved by finding facts to the contrary.
We know the moon is NOT made of 'green cheese' because there are no cows on the moon. Human landings merely verified this proof.
The same for Ptolemy's theory about the sun circling the earth (the best they could do with their primitive instruments). It lasted until it was disproved. You can look this up.

But the ankle-biting of little insects will go on. They can't disprove the facts from the Hawthorne memoirs, but only whine about it. So sad!
Given the judicial trial that acquitted Lizzie, who is left? Bridget was not a suspect after the first day. Uncle John and Emma have waterproof alibis.
So who is left? A suspect whose identity was unknown, that's who.
Todd Lunday's book makes this point, as the suspicion of others.
You should provide real facts or stop criticizing the best solution to date.
The best that could be done (Gerald Gross) was to split the blame between Lizzie and Emma. But the same lack of evidence applies!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:06 pm

Joy @ Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:07 am wrote:I wish that I could figure out why Lizzie is so fascinating to me! I am a totally non-violent person; I can't even watch horror movies anymore, and yet I'll never forget reading Frank Spierling's book when it first came out in the 1980's. I couldn't put it down. Of course I remember the TV movie; that must have started it all.
I have a co-worker whom I've hooked on the story of Lizzie. Which book would you recommend for a first time read? (Besides Rebello's that is) Thanks!

The one best book on the Borden Tragedy is David Kent's "40 Whacks". It should be available in your county library system. Then borrow and read the books in historical order. At the end read Arnold Brown's "...Final Chapter". Others can not deny the wisdom of this approach. Or can they?
It worked for me.
Frank Spiering did not introduce any 'new evidence'. But his book has many pictures and articles about that era which are not found in other books. The simple fact is this: Emma was miles away, and was never a susupect. Writers can make up stories that sound good until you find out what the facts are.
Edward Radin's book was the first to question the Legendary Guilt of Lizzie. Aside from casting suspicion on poor Bridget, it is pretty good.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:09 pm

Aristotle had a theory on 'catharsis' (purging?) of people's emotions from watching violent dramas. Very popular in his day, as Shakespeare to later ages.
Given the same human nature, it is still popular. Any local murder will make front page news in a small town. Tsk, tsk.
Those who read more in this area can explain Aristotle's comments.
I will be watching so don't try anything funny.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:15 pm

RayS @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:01 pm wrote:Your manners are certainly a credit to your (whatever).

Any theory can be disproved by finding facts to the contrary.
We know the moon is NOT made of 'green cheese' because there are no cows on the moon. Human landings merely verified this proof.
The same for Ptolemy's theory about the sun circling the earth (the best they could do with their primitive instruments). It lasted until it was disproved. You can look this up.

But the ankle-biting of little insects will go on. They can't disprove the facts from the Hawthorne memoirs, but only whine about it. So sad!
Given the judicial trial that acquitted Lizzie, who is left? Bridget was not a suspect after the first day. Uncle John and Emma have waterproof alibis.
So who is left? A suspect whose identity was unknown, that's who.
Todd Lunday's book makes this point, as the suspicion of others.
You should provide real facts or stop criticizing the best solution to date.
The best that could be done (Gerald Gross) was to split the blame between Lizzie and Emma. But the same lack of evidence applies!

I am not sure how you compare a theory like Ptolemy's with some fairy tale about the moon being made of green cheese. Also...cheese is not just made from cow's milk...

Besides the factual evidence to disprove or revise a theory, time is another factor to be considered.

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:31 pm

Ptolemy's theory was an advance over the theory of being supported by a giant Atlas or turtle. The story about "green cheese" (uncured cheese) is just a fable like those of Aesop. A way to explain something in 'rational' terms.
Why is the sky blue? Because blue is a heavenly color. QED

So too if none of the people who slept in that house were guilty of the murders, then it would have to be someone whose identity is unknown.
Maybe you need to read much, much more of True Crime or even detective novels.
Example: Altgeld's photo shows what looks like Lee Harvey Oswald in the front door of the school depository building. If in fact it was him, then he could not have been the assassin. It was an unknown suspect(s) who fired the shots.
David Wrone's book "The Zapruder Film" contains more information than in this post. Two people took movies from across the street. They do not show Oswald, or anyone else, at that 6th floor southeast window.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:40 pm

Her's a rational thought for you...the sky is blue because of a combination of atmospheric gases, nitrogen in particular. That is a fact. 'Heavenly' as you use it is a subjective term.

Tracy...

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:39 pm

can't remember exactly what led me. can't remember when i first learned of lizzie. it was long long ago. i guess the idea that this woman could do this and get away with it. most people are attracted initially because they think she did it a la legend.

i've since modified that. it is cryptic, locked room. i think there is a story there we don't know; doubtful we can prove it. i honestly think a certain intuitive fiction can get closer to the truth than anything. i don't believe lizzie's hands picked up an axe and struck anyone. she kept her secret. that's what i think now.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:59 pm

The Gerald Gross treatment combines Lizzie and Bridget, not Lizzie and Emma.
viewtopic.php?p=118&highlight=#118

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:43 pm

Like a locked-room mystery, yes, Eugene.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:15 pm

I studied Lizzie in college and was interested enough to continue to do so for pleasure when the course was over.

I will be here forever--- mainly because I get younger and more beautiful every day!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:46 pm

Yes you do!

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:09 am

I agree with Kat, Audrey--you do, indeed! Now, if you could just bottle and sell your secret to the rest of us, you would not only be incredibly gorgeous, but wealthy beyond your wildest dreams!

I grew up in a household with an older brother that aspired (and, became) a folk singer. The Chad Mitchell Trio first attracted my attention to Lizzie, with Michael Brown's song "Lizzie Borden."
Folksingers were always singing about mysterious lights ("Brown Mountain Light") or ghosts (With Her Head Tucked Underneath Her Arm") or other subjects that always got me hooked.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:09 am

I have no idea why this posted twice, but it did! (Of course, any discourse on Audrey's beauty deserves to be posted twice)

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:16 pm

Kat @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:59 pm wrote:The Gerald Gross treatment combines Lizzie and Bridget, not Lizzie and Emma.
viewtopic.php?p=118&highlight=#118

You are 1000% rights. Another typing error; it truly was Bridget.
"What a drag it is getting old."

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:18 pm

There are photo-editing progarms that can age a person; or make them younger. The easiest way to do this is to start with current age photos, then introduce photos taken earlier. An old trick in photograpy?
Best regard from a slightly damp blanket.

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:48 pm

I was led to Lizzie, I think because I like to learn & read about strong willed & underdog people
Lizzie seemed to be strong & determined, and kept her head held high.
I admire that in people.
Like Scarlett OHara, even though She was Fictional, She got what She wanted out of life, ( except Ashley of Course ) regardless of what stood in Her way.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:10 pm

RayS @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:18 am wrote:There are photo-editing progarms that can age a person; or make them younger. The easiest way to do this is to start with current age photos, then introduce photos taken earlier. An old trick in photograpy?
Best regard from a slightly damp blanket.

Ray.. you silver tongued devil you! With such charm-- I am constantly amazed that some man or woman hasn't snapped you up!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:20 pm

I was led to Lizzie after watching The Elizabeth Montgomery movie in the 1970's when it aired on TV. After I watched the movie, I went to the library at school and checked out as many books on Lizzie I could find. I have been mesmorized every since.

Elizabeth Ann · Post by **Elizabeth Ann** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:42 pm

Exactly how I got hooked!

We know now the movie had it's flaws, but it did the trick to catch our attention!
Thanks for sharing folks, was interested to know how others came to be here.

Joy · Post by **Joy** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:47 pm

Thanks RayS! I am coincidentaly just finishing the "Forty Wacks" book by David Kent, and am intriged by the fact that although most of the visiters to this site think that Lizzie did it, this book is very pro Lizzie's innocence. I still think that she didn't do the murders. Just a gut feeling. Let's also remember that Andrew Borden was not well liked, and yeah, she didn't get any blood on her clothes, etc...........
PS: I loved that TV movie from the '70s with Liz Montgomery; wish I could find it on video!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:27 am

Hey Scott! What is that plucked chicken and ashtray and lighter fluid Avatar?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:46 am

Kat,

I was just playing around, and found that pic which I thought was funny. It is actually a puppy laying on it's back asleep. Someone added a cigarette to its paw along with an ashtray, and a liquor bottle so it looks like it is passed out. I think I will change it though..................

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:59 am

Audrey @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:10 pm wrote:
RayS @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:18 am wrote:There are photo-editing progarms that can age a person; or make them younger. The easiest way to do this is to start with current age photos, then introduce photos taken earlier. An old trick in photograpy?
Best regard from a slightly damp blanket.
Ray.. you silver tongued devil you! With such charm-- I am constantly amazed that some man or woman hasn't snapped you up!

I've found the perfect one!

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:37 am

I think the enduring appeal of Lizzie to us Bordenphiles are several things. It is the manner in which she killed her father and stepfmother; the fact that she was an outwardly respectable Victorian lady; her household and the tensions therein and, of course, the fact that she got away with it! (I've just read Frank Spiering's book in which he makes out a very unconvincing case that Emma did it). A friend of mine who studied the case in college sent me an article called "she couldn't have done it even though she did" in which it states that nobody in 19th century New England could actually believe that a upper-class lady was ever capable of committing murder because of her innate gentleness and good breeding.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:32 am

Jan @ Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:37 am wrote: "she couldn't have done it even though she did" in which it states that nobody in 19th century New England could actually believe that a upper-class lady was ever capable of committing murder because of her innate gentleness and good breeding.

She may have been an upper class lady, but I think a lot of people tend to want to romanticize her in retrospect. She may have very much wanted to be an upper class lady, but, in fact, she has been described as a rather solid, big shouldered, plain person with a large jowl and unpleasant voice. People saw her as "odd", sometimes ill tempered or abrupt. Lizzie probably saw herself lacking in the idealized Victorian traits of daintiness, softness, etc., and may have tried to make up for it by dressing well, reading, and doing whatever ladies of that time did, but I don't think she felt natural in the role. I read somewhere that she may have been coached by her lawyers to play the part during the trial with the right dress, hats, flowers, fans, etc. to encourage other's perception of her as a frail female, but I don't think it was in her nature. In later years she may have had more practice to control the way she was perceived and came across as a more gentle lady to those that knew her.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:42 pm

Whenever I consider that "Facts to disprove a theory" wheeze, I think of Criswell's narration at the end of that lovable turkey of a film, PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE.

For the better (?) part of and hour and a half we've been watching outer-space visitors revive the dead, with one of the "risen" played by Ed Wood's chiropractor with a cape hiding his face, doubling for Bela Lugosi. who died before the film was more than a gleam in Ed Wood's eye, and five minutes of footage of Lugosi emoting. Anyway, thanks to American know-how and a good right cross, the aliens are sent off in their craft, which explodes. The dead return to, well, being dead.

Then comes the famous actual TV psychic, Criswell, who reminds us that the story we've just seen was based on the "testimony of the miserable souls" who lived throught these events.

After a beat, he adds, challengingly, "Can you PROVE it didn't happen?"

I place our "professor" and his "If you can't disprove it, it must be the truth" just below PLAN NINE, because he's not nearly as entertaining, and is frequently insulting.

karental · Post by **karental** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:24 pm

I'm a newbie. This is my first post. I've been fascinated with this case since we used to say that poem as kids. As an adult my sister got into real crimes and pulled me back into the Borden case. We disagree as to who the perpetrator was. I won't post much, but love reading everyone's ideas. Thanks

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:18 am

Hi Jan!
I Googled that title because I think it is on-line somewhere.
I will keep looking.

`````````````

But I ended up at an Amazone review of Dr. Masterson's book Lizzie Didn't Do it.
The odd thing is this review by "Acute Observer" sounds just like Ray S.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/custom ... irect=true

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:08 am

You may be looking for the article by Kathryn Allamong Jacob, “She Couldn't Have Done It, Even If She Did: Why Lizzie Borden Went Free,” American Heritage, vol. 29, no. 2 (Feb./Mar. 1978).

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:08 am

Hi Kat!

Thanks for the reply. See Harry's posting below yours. The name of the article certainly sounds familiar and I'm pretty sure that's the one. Ms Jacob's article is an interesting theory and probably accounts for the jury's verdict, who were all men of a certain age.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:16 am

Kat,

It was interesting reading those reviews. There was another review by "no name" that seemed very similar to the one you mentiioned...author wise anyway.

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:41 am

Joy @ Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:47 pm wrote:Thanks RayS! I am coincidentaly just finishing the "Forty Wacks" book by David Kent, and am intriged by the fact that although most of the visiters to this site think that Lizzie did it, this book is very pro Lizzie's innocence. I still think that she didn't do the murders. Just a gut feeling. Let's also remember that Andrew Borden was not well liked, and yeah, she didn't get any blood on her clothes, etc...........
PS: I loved that TV movie from the '70s with Liz Montgomery; wish I could find it on video!

"Forty Whacks" is the title of David Kent's summary of the murders.
"Forty Wackos" could be a reference to many of the posters here.
Next look up (by subject) "Borden" or "Lizzie Borden" to see what else they have.
The first half of Masterton's book is generally accurate. He violates the known facts by claiming Abby was killed after Andy!!! This is to deny the reality of the Nicole Brown Simpson - Ron Goldman murders, whose liquid blood say they were murdered just before midnight ("after 11 pm" said the Medical Examiner who did theautopsies).
Frank Spiering's book had good backgrouind material, don't believe his blaming Emma.

You can read True Crime, like the books of Ann Rule. Or some mystery novels. The rule is this: if the persons known to be around at the time of murder didn't do it, it had to be someone who was not known!

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:06 pm

The rule is this: if the persons known to be around at the time of murder didn't do it, it had to be someone who was not known!

This is NOT known as "The Ann Rule," however. Sometimes, reading this board makes me feel as though I've taken a mild hallucinogenic.

Anyway, speaking of PLAN NINE, I just bought a new colorized DVD with optional commentary by Mike Nelson of MST3K fame. There's a lovely moment in the flick which reminds me of the quote above: one cop turns to another and proclaims "Inspector Clay's dead - murdered - and SOMEONE'S responsible!"

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:55 pm

Now, Bob, how can any movie directed by Ed Wood be bad?

Plan 9 has Vampira and Tor Johnson - now there's a pair.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:44 pm

If only they'd been my parents...maybe they WERE. It would explain so much!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:06 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:06 pm wrote:
The rule is this: if the persons known to be around at the time of murder didn't do it, it had to be someone who was not known!
This is NOT known as "The Ann Rule," however. Sometimes, reading this board makes me feel as though I've taken a mild hallucinogenic.

Anyway, speaking of PLAN NINE, I just bought a new colorized DVD with optional commentary by Mike Nelson of MST3K fame. There's a lovely moment in the flick which reminds me of the quote above: one cop turns to another and proclaims "Inspector Clay's dead - murdered - and SOMEONE'S responsible!"

No, that is just common sense. Just like saying who was picked up by a limo driver at 11 pm for a plane ride could not have committed any murder after 11:30. Or is common sense not that common?
I understand "Plan 9" has the reputation as the "worst movie ever made". I saw it once on PBS?; it is an obvious below-ground budget, made for exploitation in the summer of 1957? Made to be laughed at, not laughed with. Those who buy a copy tell something about their tastes.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:14 pm

My dictionary defines "wacko" as a person who knows that Lizzie was found not guilty but believes her to be guilty and admires her for the murders.
Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:22 pm

As always Professor, from your mouth to God's ears, as I feel sure the Almighty is the only entity with enough patience to put up with you.

Your opinion of PLAN NINE, et. al., is just that: YOUR opinion. And while we're on the subject, your opinion concerning who slaughtered the Bordens is, similarly, JUST your opinion, and doesn't need to be shouted at all of us in every thread.

PLAN NINE is sublimely wacky.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:51 am

I have a copy of that article but I thought it was available for download or there was a link to it for other members to read if they wanted.

I next would have to search my Net addresses. I have a huge amount of online articles saved as web addresses.

Who the heck around here thinks Lizzie did it in all their blood and glory and gory mess and no remorse and lied through her teeth and took the money and also feel *more power to her* as ray suggests? I can't think of anyone offhand.
Raise your hand if you think Lizzie chopped up these people and admire her for it?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:23 pm

There were a number of people on the predecessor board who said that.
Which they are free to do, of course.
I only question their intellectual pretensions. If Lizzie was found not guilty, how can anyone say she was guilty without any documentary proof?
This is the sticking point for some people here, Brown only started with the memoirs of Henry Hawthorne, plus his own investigation.
Brown mentioned the people who helped in his acknowledgements. How many authors did this?
Did Pearson or Sullivan or Spiering provide any proof for their solutions? Sauce for the gander ....

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:07 pm

RayS @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:23 pm wrote:There were a number of people on the predecessor board who said that.
Which they are free to do, of course.
I only question their intellectual pretensions. If Lizzie was found not guilty, how can anyone say she was guilty without any documentary proof?
This is the sticking point for some people here, Brown only started with the memoirs of Henry Hawthorne, plus his own investigation.
Brown mentioned the people who helped in his acknowledgements. How many authors did this?
Did Pearson or Sullivan or Spiering provide any proof for their solutions? Sauce for the gander ....

I admit I am not as up on this whole A. Brown things as others on this board are. Could someone, please, explain exactly what investigation Brown conducted? Who did he interview? How did he prove that Andrew was Billy's father? Are Brown's notes available?

Btw, if I am not mistaken, a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the person was innocent. Only that the State failed to prove its case.