Has anyone read this book?

[snokkums]

Just ordered a book thru Barnes and Noble called: "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" Has anyone read it" Any good?

[Nadzieja]

I bought the book, but have not read it yet. Let me know what you think.

[mbhenty]

Yes Snokkums, Nadzieja.

I read Sullivan's book almost 25 years ago and would need to read it again to give a better review, but I remember it as a straight forward read and a good introduction to the case.

During the late 70s and 80s, Sullivan's book was well respected by Fall River book dealers. It was written within judicial light, somewhat like Pearson's Trial Book, but with more narrative about the entire murder story.

Goodbye Lizzie Borden is no way as sensational as Victoria's book, and less spontaneous and somewhat more sober than Radin's, who were both contemporaries of Sullivan. The book deals mostly with the trial, adding in Lizzie's inquest at the end.

It has it's little errors, such as announcing that only 3 copies of Porters books exist in print, and making assumptions that lizzie purchased most published copies. But, inaccuracies aside, one still walks away with the feeling that it is an honest read which touches on most aspects of the crime, especially those which deal with the trial itself.

Though Sullivan's chronicle supplies no surprises, it is worth a read, especially for new readers to the case. But, as far as his approach, I can not remember any aspect of the book which was controversial or which added new light.

[Nadzieja]

Thanks so much for the review. It helps when someone familiar with the case gives the review because you know more of the facts & can look at it more objectively. It just moved up my "to read" list ahead of a few others.

[william]

Michael:
I am in complete agreement with your appraisal of Sullivan's contribution.

I have always believed it to be the best "no frills" book on the Borden murders.

[mbhenty]

Thanks for the thumbs up WILLIAM Nice to hear from you again......



My favorite is Radin, though he tries his best to put a twist on things and play up the "who dun-it" angle. But, I am partial towards Radin only because it was the first book I read on the trial.

All in all, Sullivan's book is a better, less skewed account.

With all respect to Edward Radin, there was very little out at the time in the realm of a casual read about the murders when his account was published.

Believe it or not, in the early eighties Sullivan's book sold for a premium in Fall River Book Shops. I am embarrassed to admit that I paid a hefty 50 bucks for a first edition, fine copy of Good-bye Lizzie Borden. At that time his book was difficult to find in Fall River.

Of course today you can get a reading copy for a couple of dollars and a collectable copy of the Greene Press American First Edition in fine condition for 25 dollars and up.

Yes, NADZIEJA: Even for those well versed in the case, Sullivan's book is worth a "refresher read."

[Kat]

Watch out for 'Lil Abbie! Sullivan is the first author to dig her up and let her talk.

[Nadzieja]

Lil Abbie is the half sister to whom? Was it to Emma? I heard about her but can't remember the relation.

[doug65oh]

"Little Abbie" was Abbie Borden Potter, Nadzieja - the daughter of George & Sarah Whitehead. Mrs. Whitehead was a sister (half-sister if I remember correctly) to Abbie Durfee Gray Borden. Photos of the gravesites (and a bit of the family history) can be found at http://sanctaflora.wordpress.com/catego ... neighbors/

(Way to go, Shelley!)

[mbhenty]

Hey Kat ! What did you mean when you said that Sullivan was the first to "let her talk' (Lil Abbie)

[mbhenty]

OK KAT I found it.

Boy! I forgot that Sullivan interviewed Lil Abbie I remember that Trickey mentioned her in his story but that was all. (That Andrew Borden had written the little girl into his will)

To tell you the truth, I can't even remember reading about Lil Abbie talking in Sullivan's book. I didn't realize that Mrs Potter and Lil Abbie were the same person. Not only that, but he uses her as an opening to his book. I remember thinking that Mrs Potter was just a next door neighbor?????? Well, Must read Sullivan again........

Those 70's took a bigger toll on my brain than I thought

[mbhenty]

In reading Sullivan's account of his interview with Lil Abbie, we must keep in mind that Abby Gray was Lil Abbie's Aunt; that she was only 10 years old when the murders happened, thus, her sentiments on Lizzie's guilt would be somewhat tainted.

One interesting note: After Sullivan interviewed her, it is doubtful Lil Abbie (Mrs. Potter) ever seen a copy of his book. Sullivan published his book in 1974. She died in 1973, right after Sullivan's interview..........

[mbhenty]

I recant, somewhat, the statement that Sullivan's book does not add new light to the case. I just "re-read" the first chapter which deals with Lil Abbie's remembrances. (after all, she did view the body of Abby on the day of the wake)

Very interesting and worth acquiring the book for. (of import is the discription Sullivan gives of a photo of Abby in her wedding gown which hung in Mrs. Potters home in 73. Not the Abby we came to know in books and papers)

[mbhenty]

...............

WELL! All in all, when you think you know it all you find you know Notin

And there you have it.

[Harry]

The trouble with little Abby's story, if I remember correctly, is that she was interviewed about 80 years after the crimes occurred.

That's a looonnnnggg time! I would imagine much of what she said was a blend of memory, biases and outside influences. It would be hard not to have that kind of mixture.

Now let's see if I can remember what I had for supper last night..... nope.

[doug65oh]

Exactly, Harry. We'll take what we can find - but myself I'd feel just a little better if she'd given the interview say thirty years earlier. Know what I mean? The biases would still be there, but the recollections might have been a tad clearer. Still though, it is fascinating to think that she was among the very last who saw, knew of, or was directly affected by events of the 4th of August 1892. A child she may have been, but to think that she's only been dead for roughly thirty-three years, and all those little incidental things she almost surely knew...the sorts of things that might tend to humanize and make real the stuff of legend.

[Fargo]

Goobye Lizzie Borden was the first book I read about Lizzie ( except for books wuith short stories in them )

Sullivan does say that he believes Lizzie to be guilty but for the most part the book is non biased.

Sullivan said he interviewed Abby's niece lil Abbie on tape recorder. It makes me wonder if the tapes still exist and if there might be more we can learn from them that is not already in Sullivan's book.

[augusta]

I have Sullivan's book but haven't read it yet. Radin's is a favorite of mine too, mb. He couldn't stand Pearson, being so of the opinion of Lizzie's guilt. Radin was the first one to go to the primary sources (documents and people still around). I think his book came out in 1961. I paid $20 for a first edition.

I paid eight bucks for a paperback of Sullivan's book online.

Did Radin interview Little Abby? He was really digging in Fall River.

I'll have to read about what she said in Sullivan's book. She started the story about Lizzie killing a cat in the cellar while she was visiting Aunt Abby. I was always of the opinion that she was either nutz or lying.

[Kat]

I think Pearson's Trial in 1937 was the *first* to go to primary source- or no?

Anyway, sorry to arrive so late to your question MB, but I see you have answered yourself.

Hearing about old taped interviews have always sparked my interest too, Fargo, but I'm not sure what the legalities are.
I know a person who has taped info of another sort to do with the case but they feel they are private. I know another who has correspondence with someone who *knew* Lizbeth and those letters will probably disappear after the receipient's demise. I'm not sure who owns the rights to taped interviews and letters, especially if both are deceased. I've wondered that.

[doug65oh]

Whomever ended up with Judge Sullivan's papers might also have control of any tape recordings, etc., or at the very least could tell you who does, I would think.

[mbhenty]

No KAT:

Edmund Pearson's TRIAL OF LIZZIE BORDEN, published 10 years after Lizzie's death, only touches on the trial itself and ends with the inquest testimony of Lizzie. Most of Pearson's narrative deals with testimony at the trial.

The TRIAL OF LIZZIE BORDEN was not the first time Pearson visited the Borden murders. In 1924, while Lizzie was still alive, he wrote STUDIES IN MURDER including a chapter on the Borden murders and again in 1926, covering the Lizzie saga in MURDER AT SMUTTY NOSE AND OTHER MURDERS.

Pearson was one dude with a mission.................

[Kat]

"No?" she asked MB.
You usually start with "Yes."
Even when "No" is forthcoming...

The comment I was responding to was that Radin (1961) was the first to use source documents in his book - I'm thinking Pearson did use source documents 1937- trial and inquest are source documents, yes?

I guess the final question really is: did Pearson use newspaper coverage transcriptions or actually source documents like we have today.

[mbhenty]

SORRY KAT.........

Yes, I misread your post above. I thought you said "preliminary".

I was wrong, you said "primary". Yes, you are right, he was the first to get to the marrow of the case.

[mbhenty]

Pearson's biggest source was Frank W. Knowlton, Hosea M. Knowlton''s son. The two men were friends and Frank lent Pearson his father's papers on the case. Imagine that!!!!

Along with that, Pearson had the help of a couple of other Attorney Generals in Massachusetts, along with some newspaper men from the Fall River, New Bedford, and New York Newspapers, along with others.

Pearson also used Porter's book to a great extent. He held a deep admiration for Edwin Porter....

[Kat]

Yes, Pearson and Frank Knowlton were responsible for the Collection we now know of as The Knowlton Papers. And their correspondence can be read in a series of LBQ back issues. It'd be neat if we could resurrect these and re-publish them.

[mbhenty]

Yes AUGUSTA:

The difference between Pearson and Radin was that unlike Pearson, Radin did not have the same sources and was almost 25 years into the future. Also much further from the crime's time line.

Also, Radin went to the Streets. He tried to interview the common "man on the street." No one of great interest if you remember. There was old man Kirby who was 12 when the murders happened and a James Putnam, who remembers his father's stories of pal'n around with Lizzie. Along with a hand full of other "nobodies"

Radin also consulted newspapers, court documents, the trial minutes etc.

I like to think that Edward D. Radin was one of us, in that he had the courage to point the compass of guilt away from Lizzie and/or to open the door to other possibilities, to ask, what if Lizzie did not do it, and to be brave enough to point a finger towards another.

[Nadzieja]

Kat, The info that was published in the LBQ, (The Knowlton Papers), is that the same as the book that was published by the Historical Society?

[Kat]

The LBQ had published the series of letters between Frank Knowlton and Pearson.

If you visit this link to the "Resources" part of the LABVM/L you will find an annotated listing of the LBQs contents. You can do a WORD search to find which issues of the LBQ has the correspondence.
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... QIssue.htm

The content of The Knowlton Papers is not in the correspondence, but these 2 collected Knowlton's correspondence, due to Pearson's asking and Knowlton helping with names for him to contact- and the material that was collected this way was eventually donated to the FRHS and was edited and researched by them and they published those papers as Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.