Emma got so roasted

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri May 07, 2010 6:01 am

I was reading an old post and this particular writer (which rebello says was written in Colliers "once a week" by a Julian Chambers in September 1982) was not to flattering to Emma.

To parapharse abit, "her face was without serious expression, even in the serious situation that confronts her sister and the calamity that has over taken the family. She appears to be a woman who has never had a practical idea, her checks are flabby and fat, her lips are full and pouty, her eyes are she and sitrustful -- indeed is on of thouse babyfaces that we sometimes see in a crowd that caused us to wonder what possess there parents to live for. It is very certain that she has never been any use to this world and she has never had much use for it.

He sure wasn't kind to her. Wonder what he said about Lizzie. He probably roasted and baked her!

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri May 07, 2010 2:47 pm

We must Remember.

This writer is being paid for his harmful and biased interpretation. It is easy to fabricate falsehoods when your writing about someone who lived over 100 years ago.....especially when his pocketbook and ego is being made fat and nothing can be proven. (yeah, yeah, there is little money in writing. But there are profits in other ways, like feeding the ego.)

How does he know these things about Emma? Chambers is writhing to the credulous naiveness of his unsophisticated readers.

Who is going to verify his information?

How many photos were there of Emma anyway?

Yes, there was much written about Emma's looks. Most was done by papers who could not get access to the Bordens and could only guess what they were thinking. In doing so imagination was employed and exaggerated. Fodder for the masses eager to believe.

Why write that she had a LONG SLIM BUT ATTRACTIVE NOSE when you can say HER NOSE WAS PAUNCHY, PROTRUDING AND HUNG OVER HER BLUBBERY CRAZING LIPS LIKE A DISEASED CUCUMBER. Which one do you think his editor would find interesting? Who wants to read the truth anyway---right?

Don't be taken in by such pejorative writing and writers such as Chambers.

If you believe or give credence to Julian Chamber's article you may be just the sort of fish which supplements his payroll.........or dare I say containing a GULLIBLE FLABBY BRAIN WITH A SPONGY SIPHONIC CEREBRUM.

Yeah, that's it. That's the better. Sounds good to me....now pay me.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat May 08, 2010 6:47 am

Don't think too much of his writing, just he was real hateful towards her. Does make for some interesting reading.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat May 08, 2010 2:19 pm

Yes, Snokkums, I know you don't.

It's a good example of the sort of writing that's out there. For you and I, and those who study the case closely, we can see through this sort of distortion and depraved discourse.

But as you know, there are those for which this description is the only information they receive and to them it becomes the solemn truth.

As you may know by now, this kind of writing, unless it is fiction, ticks me off and gets the Mr Hyde in me going. (no kidding

)

Of course Chambers is not alone. To me it appears that there is more written that is not true or twisted than anything else.

Thanks for the post Snokkums. It is good to know that this stuff is out there and a need to flush it out.