Errors in Borden Materials

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:04 pm

Here are a couple I found, one each in Radin and Sullivan (just to show I'm not prejudiced).

Radin, page 32:

While cross-examining Emma, the prosecutor went on a fishing expedition about this change in rooms, [the exchange of bedrooms between Lizzie and Emma] hoping it had been made to appease Lizzie. Emma testified that Lizzie had not requested the change nor had it been made because of anything Lizzie said or did. "I offered it to her," Emma said with such obvious sincerity that Knowlton immediately dropped the subject and never referred to it again.

The only trouble is that this is Jennings' direct examination.

Sullivan, p. 170, on Knowlton's closing statement:

Then came this incredible statement from the prosecutor: "I should be slow to believe Lizzie Andrew Borden killed her father. I hope she did not."

Knowlton:

There may be that in this case which saves us from the idea that Lizzie Andrew Borden planned to kill her father. I hope she did not. I should be slow to believe she did. I should be slow to ask you to believe she did.
But Lizzie Andrew Borden, the daughter of Andrw Jackon Borden, never came down those stairs. It was not Lizzie Andrew Borden, the daughter of Andrew J. Borden, that dame down those stairs, but a murderess, . . .

I'd be interested if any of you could direct me to similar posts, of which I am sure there are one or two (five or six of which I have already read).

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:23 pm

You must have an awful lot of time on your hands to correlate the varying quotes in those books.
Could it be that the aim of the author affects his quotes?
Radin correctly said Lizzie was not guilty, and offered up Bridget as the killer. But Bridget was seen outside around the time of Abby's death.
Sullivan simply or naively assumed the state's case, even tho he is troubled by the "incorruptibility" of Judge Davis. But Lizzie was seen outside around the time of Andy's death.

Neither could have committed both murders. Hence?

SO what is the one best book on this case?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:08 pm

click

Tracy...

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:43 pm

theebmonique @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:08 pm wrote:click

Tracy...

Tracy, we might consider forming a sub-group of "Ray Button" aficionados, we could call it the Click Clique!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:56 pm

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:07 pm

(BIG SMILE)

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:19 pm

But Bridget was seen outside around the time of Abby's death.

--Ray
Oh? What time was that?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:25 pm

No one on the planet can transcribe testimony or opening or closing arguments with 100% accuracy.
It does sound like each had an agenda but that's to be expected in a book , or a prosecutor..

Between Sullivan and Knowlton, it sounds like the real difference is in the word "planned."

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:32 pm

You must have an awful lot of time on your hands to correlate the varying quotes in those books.

Well excu-u-u-u-use me!

Radin correctly said Lizzie was not guilty, and offered up Bridget as the killer. But Bridget was seen outside around the time of Abby's death.
Sullivan simply or naively assumed the state's case, even tho he is troubled by the "incorruptibility" of Judge Davis. But Lizzie was seen outside around the time of Andy's death.

Neither could have committed both murders. Hence?

SO what is the one best book on this case?

It seems to me that neither has an unshakeable alibi. They were both in the ballpark and, particularly in the case of Abby, it is impossible to pinpoint the exact time of the murder. "Around" the time of Andy's death does not clear Lizzie.

I don't think there is anything simple or naive about Sullivan's "assumption." Having read the primary sources, it seems to me that, while one or two circumstances could be explained, taken together, the facts strongly implicate Lizzie (e.g., the note, the contradictory stories of where she was when Andy came home and when he was killed, the dress burning, the "premonitions," the thinly-veiled-when-veiled-at-all hostility to her stepmother).

I don't think Sullivan is "troubled" by Davis's "incorruptibility. He just realizes that he is a human being who is not above letting his emotions sway him, as who is not?

Of those I've read, I vote for Sullivan, despite his slightly supercilious tone. (Reminds me of someone I know, except that he is not so extreme.) He offers a clear outline of events that is a good jumping-off point for further study.

william · Post by **william** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:28 am

I agree.
Sullivan is the man to beat.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:02 pm

Kat @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:19 pm wrote:
But Bridget was seen outside around the time of Abby's death.
--Ray
Oh? What time was that?

The 3 doctors came up with varying estimates of ranges. But "9:30" is the consensus.
We know Abby's blood was dark and clotted, and her body was cold.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:05 pm

william @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:28 am wrote:I agree.
Sullivan is the man to beat.

That's easy!! While he did locate and read the Trial Transcript (etc), the bulk of his case seems to be the conversation with Abby Borden Whitehead Potter.
Hope I got the last names right.

His book was written 80 years after the events.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:47 pm

"RayS @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:05 pm"]
william @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:28 am wrote:the bulk of his case seems to be the conversation with Abby Borden Whitehead Potter.
It doesn't seem to me that he devotes excessive space to her at all.

His book was written 80 years after the events.

What do you want? That's when he lived.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:10 pm

It never ceases to amaze me how many errors I've seen in Lizzie material written over the years. It would seem that authors would check the facts before puting something in print. I like to advise new comers to study the source material in the archives before believing too much of what they read else where.

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:05 pm

Its been said before I was born, and will be said after I'm buried.
Humanum errare est.

Now for extra points, what is the best or funniest translation?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:14 am

There's no "Borden" in Abby Whitehead Potter's name.
Otherwise it's OK.

Judge Sullivan said she was 90 years old in 1973. He published in 1974. But she had been telling that story for a while.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:22 pm

Kat @ Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:14 am wrote:Judge Sullivan said [Abby Whitehead Potter] she was 90 years old in 1973. He published in 1974. But she had been telling that story for a while.

If you mean the cat story, even Pearson repeated that. (Even though he was a firm believer in Lizzie's guilt, he didn't believe it. So am I and nor do I.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:45 pm

That's easy!! While he did locate and read the Trial Transcript (etc), the bulk of his case seems to be the conversation with Abby Borden Whitehead Potter.
Hope I got the last names right.

His book was written 80 years after the events.

--Ray

I replied that Abbie Potter had no blood link to the Borden name and thought it was a mistake.
Since then, I have seen the gravestone Shelley has a photo of and it does say "Abbie Borden Potter, 1884- 1974."

Diana reminds me that in Rebello it states her name as Abby B. Whitehead before her marriage! I suppose she gained the *Borden* with no real blood claim to it as Abbie Durfee Gray acquired her *Durfee* name with no blood claim we could find so far.
Also note tho- on the gravestone it says "Abbie." Abbie Potter used to say she was named after her 1/2 Aunt.

Sorry, Ray.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:56 pm

That's the point. A person her age telling any story over and over sets it in stone and there's not much chance she would change it before she died.
I thought I meant her idea that her family should have inherited more money. I don't recall referring to the cat?

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:58 pm

Sorry. That's the story that stuck in my mind in relation to her.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:58 pm

I think it made her bitter and probably ate at her.
It's a shame she grew up under a misapprehension.
But then, it's also a shame she had to grow up without her Aunt Abbie.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:59 pm

Oops! Sorry! I sent it too soon. (Nothing special. I was just agreeing with you.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:10 am

Isn't that weird we responded at the same time!
Sorry about that!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:53 pm

Kat @ Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:45 pm wrote:
That's easy!! While he did locate and read the Trial Transcript (etc), the bulk of his case seems to be the conversation with Abby Borden Whitehead Potter.
Hope I got the last names right.

His book was written 80 years after the events.
--Ray

I replied that Abbie Potter had no blood link to the Borden name and thought it was a mistake.
Since then, I have seen the gravestone Shelley has a photo of and it does say "Abbie Borden Potter, 1884- 1974."

Diana reminds me that in Rebello it states her name as Abby B. Whitehead before her marriage! I suppose she gained the *Borden* with no real blood claim to it as Abbie Durfee Gray acquired her *Durfee* name with no blood claim we could find so far.
Also note tho- on the gravestone it says "Abbie." Abbie Potter used to say she was named after her 1/2 Aunt.

Sorry, Ray.

Who's sorry now?

Little Abby was named for her aunt, Abby Borden. Aside from any blood relations (which she did have to Abby Borden), did Andrew Jackson Borden have any blood relation to Andrew Jackson, the President when he was born? (What a quibble?)

When did they stop naming babies after the President? In Harry Truman's time? I don't know that's why I asked.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:26 pm

william @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:28 am wrote:I agree.
Sullivan is the man to beat.

Why? What new proof or evidence did he offer?
As I remember it, he merely retold what was told before, and commented on the Trial Transcript.
I think Agnes De Mille's book is far more important, it tells about some secret that was well hidden and lost.
Arnold Brown discovered new evidence about the killings, based on the recalled memories of Ellan Eagan and Henry Hathaway.
Ellan passed by that day and said she saw someone, but she never knew Willy.
Henry knew Willy but was not present that day.
But that is the best we have to go on.

Constantine · Post by **Constantine** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:48 pm

RayS @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:26 pm wrote:
william @ Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:28 am wrote:I agree.
Sullivan is the man to beat.
Why? What new proof or evidence did he offer?
As I remember it, he merely retold what was told before, and commented on the Trial Transcript.
I think Agnes De Mille's book is far more important, it tells about some secret that was well hidden and lost.
Arnold Brown discovered new evidence about the killings, based on the recalled memories of Ellan Eagan and Henry Hathaway.
Ellan passed by that day and said she saw someone, but she never knew Willy.
Henry knew Willy but was not present that day.
But that is the best we have to go on.

Sounds like hearsay to me.