The note: it’s not so inimaginable as someone might think

[Franz]

Let’s look at the facts firstly:

1. Lizzie testified that Abby told her to have received a note, etc…
2. This note alleguedly received by Abby was never found.

Most of you believe Lizzie was guilty, and therefore she invented the note story to prevent Bridget and her father of looking for Abby. This is certainly possible. (But improbable in my opinion for the stupidity of the lie. But I don’t want to discuss this in this thread.)

Now let’s consider the note within the hypothesis that Lizzie was innocent, then:

1. Most probably the note story in Lizzie’s mouth was a true one: Addy did tell her so;
2. Most probably Addy did receive a note (in other words, Abby didn’t lie);
3. Most probably the note came from the killer (or his accomplice);
4. To this point we might be less certain but we can still say: probably Abby put the note in one of her pockets (Lizzie and Dr. Bowen testified that they searched in the pockets of Abby. Allen tried to argue, inconvincingly in my opinion, that “pocket” might mean “wallet”. PossumPie can certainly enlighten me about the meaning of the word “pocket” in the Fall River’s American English of 1890’s).
5. And then, since the note probably came from the killer (or his accomplice) and Abby was killed, with the note probably in one of her pockets, by this killer, it should be possible that the killer regained the note after his killing, in order not to leave it as evidence in the hands of the police.

Conclusion (mine): within the hypothesis that the killer was an intruder, to some extent, it should have even been a “must” that the note physically exsisted, and then despeared (took away by the killer himself).

Any thoughts?

[PossumPie]

People know each others handwriting. In modern times, we hardly see our friends or loved ones handwriting, everything is typed or emailed. Back in the late 1800's everyone knew the distinctive handwriting of friends, acquaintances, even the butcher's handwriting. I found a stack of old letters 30 years old, and as soon as I saw the handwriting on the envelope, I KNEW It was my grandmother's writing.
The note suggesting Abby should drop everything and run to a friend's aid (WHICH SHE DIDN'T DO) was never found. Abby would have realized the handwriting was strange, NOT the handwriting of her "friend"

I always wonder why Abby was given a "note" which said come help...I'm sick (or my husband, child, etc) and so she just went upstairs and kept cleaning???
There was NO note. There has NEVER been evidence of a note, No one but Abby saw the note, and she only allegedly told Lizzie about the note? Franz's theory entails a killer sneaking in behind Abby while her back was turned, and killing her immediately after she then goes upstairs to get a watch of Morse's. WHEN WOULD SHE have time to tell Lizzie about the note???? That would mean Lizzie was standing right by the front door when the killer sneaked it, and would have seen him. Otherwise Abby would have never been able to tell Lizzie about the note in that very short time between getting it and going upstairs. TOO MANY improbabilities.

[Franz]

[quote="PossumPie"]...
There was NO note.
...

PossumPie, please respect the facts. You just can't say "There was NO note." The fact is that there was no note refound, so two possibilities: 1) the note was a Lizzi'e lie (if not an Abby's lie); 2) the note exsited but lost afterwards.

[Franz]

... Franz's theory entails a killer sneaking in behind Abby while her back was turned, and killing her immediately after she then goes upstairs to get a watch of Morse's. WHEN WOULD SHE have time to tell Lizzie about the note???? That would mean Lizzie was standing right by the front door when the killer sneaked it, and would have seen him.... .

PossumPie, you said you have read my theory many times. In another thread you said that in my theory Morse had three accomplice, but indeed there were two.

And now you are telling me something that I made in evidence in my quotation.

Have you read my theory many times? I don't believe you, or I doubt how you have read it.

[Curryong]

Franz, I'm not getting into the note argument, because, as you know, I don't believe there was one, beyond Lizzie's imagination!

However, as far as 'pockets' go, there is an old English nursery rhyme that begins 'Lucy Locket lost her pocket...'

Pockets were, (in the days before pockets were ready-made in women's skirts,) home-made pouches of strong material, which were meant to hold small items, comb, coins, a handkerchief, sewing items etc..They were worn under the voluminous skirts of the time, hung by tape from inside the skirts' waistline and were accessible through a slit in the skirt near the top of the garment.
They could indeed be used as 'wallets' for holding money. One of the 'Ripper' victims had her 'pocket' rifled and the small contents laid out near her body.

[Franz]

Thank you Curryong, very interesting.

In this case, if I understand well, the "wallet" that Allen wanted to identify with the "pocket" should be still a pocket, an old fashion one of that time.

[BOBO]

Let's say there was a note. Lizzie said that she thought she heard Abby come in. Then why did she yell for Bridget instead of Abby? Even if she only THOUGHT she heard her return, would she not at least TRIED to summon Abby? She must have been fairly certain that Abby had returned because she (Lizzie) voiced concern that Abby might have been killed also.

[Franz]

Let's say there was a note. Lizzie said that she thought she heard Abby come in. Then why did she yell for Bridget instead of Abby? Even if she only THOUGHT she heard her return, would she not at least TRIED to summon Abby? She must have been fairly certain that Abby had returned because she (Lizzie) voiced concern that Abby might have been killed also.

BOBO, I will post another thread (part II) about Lizzie's declaration that she was very positive to have heard Abby return. I anticipate some words here: IMO Lizzie worrried about Abby and she lied, in order that others went to search Abby.

[PossumPie]

... Franz's theory entails a killer sneaking in behind Abby while her back was turned, and killing her immediately after she then goes upstairs to get a watch of Morse's. WHEN WOULD SHE have time to tell Lizzie about the note???? That would mean Lizzie was standing right by the front door when the killer sneaked it, and would have seen him.... .

PossumPie, you said you have read my theory many times. In another thread you said that in my theory Morse had three accomplice, but indeed there were two.

And now you are telling me something that I made in evidence in my quotation.

Have you read my theory many times? I don't believe you, or I doubt how you have read it.

1. You don't address my question. HOW DID ABBY TELL LIZZIE THERE WAS A NOTE? I read your theory many times. I tried to imagine it working, and cannot. How can someone sneak in behind Abby, run upstairs, if Abby turns and tells Lizzie about the note before following the killer upstairs to retrieve Morse's watch?

2. You don't know your own theory. THERE WERE THREE CONSPIRATORS...1. Morse, 2. "the distractor" who distracted Abby so that 3. "the killer" could sneak in. 1,2,3...THREE PEOPLE.

The most frustrating thing about your responses is that you conveniently NEVER address the tough questions or comments I make. You quoted me above, then never answered my question. You ignore my handwriting question, MOST of the time, your responses to me ignore my tough questions about your theory.

[irina]

It is one thing to think of what known players may have thought or done but it is very dangerous territory to try to explain what unknown conspirators may have thought if they existed. That's the way authors write sensational books that sell and why Jack the Ripper has been identified positively, absolutely, case solved once and for all; many, many times. If some of these historic mysteries are to be solved it will come from researchers and folks on forums looking at every tiny detail from their own knowledge and expertise.

That said, there are a lot of interpretations for the note. At minimum, if there was a note, there was a fire in the kitchen stove. The Bordens seem to have had a very neat, tidy home. Perhaps it just ended up in the stove.

There is a fancier version of the note arriving in the hand of a "small boy". I can't find that source at this time. Masterton seems to work from that story, theorizing Ms. Whitehead's son had brought a note or simply a verbal message something to the effect that, "Since you are sick today Little Abby won't be coming for the day." He further suggests that Abby repeated this to Lizzie who was half listening and later regurgitated the high spots. Instead of "message" she said note along with "someone is sick".

One argument in support of this idea is why didn't Little Abby come for the day? Is it possible Mrs. Whitehead became afraid of the idea of poisoned milk, bread, cake, and decided her daughter would be safer elsewhere? Did she decide not to send her daughter at the last minute and simply notify Abby via her small son? Masterton thinks so. Why didn't Little Abby come for the day? Good question.

Since I favor an intruder theory I suggested on another thread that as Lizzie was going out the screen door the killer was also working toward the exit. I surmise Andrew was not fully asleep, heard someone and may have said, "Abby?" Another possibility I consider is that the killer tried to exit via the front door and either could not open the door or changed his mind and shut the door. Possibly Lizzie heard this, though Abby was home and it didn't make a big impression in her mind till after the horror set in and when everything she had to say is garbled.

It is a good question why Lizzie called Bridget rather than Abby after discovering her father's body. Possibly Abby's visible absence initially led to Lizzie thinking her still out. If she thought she heard Abby come in I think it was something ill defined and not positive. Another way to understand her calling Bridget first is that maybe Bridget was kind of the go-between in the home. Maybe the parents on one side and the daughters on the other side used Bridget for anything they could in order to avoid interacting with each other. If I was in Lizzie's situation I would call to the person I most depended on. It's hard to put myself in Lizzie's position that way because I was married most of my life and depended on a husband. She couldn't call 911 or anyone. Her first thought was to get a doctor. Bridget would be the one to run for a doctor rather than Abby. Interesting that Lizzie wanted a doctor rather than the police. I'd bet people seldom called police in those days and that they tried to solve a lot of their own issues. Maybe there was a stigma to the police being called. What would the neighbors think?

"Pocket" was a colloquial term for "pocketbook" even when I was little in the 50s and 60s. Some book on the Borden murders said people even went upstairs to search Abby's "wallet". I would assume there were pockets as we understand them in Abby's dress or apron. Going way back and still in the late 1800s a "pocket" could be a bag that was worn usually around the waist. Jack the Ripper's victims had this kind of "pocket" which held all their worldly possessions. Nowadays the homeless have shopping carts.

[Franz]

1. You don't address my question. HOW DID ABBY TELL LIZZIE THERE WAS A NOTE? I read your theory many times. I tried to imagine it working, and cannot. How can someone sneak in behind Abby, run upstairs, if Abby turns and tells Lizzie about the note before following the killer upstairs to retrieve Morse's watch?

2. You don't know your own theory. THERE WERE THREE CONSPIRATORS...1. Morse, 2. "the distractor" who distracted Abby so that 3. "the killer" could sneak in. 1,2,3...THREE PEOPLE.

The most frustrating thing about your responses is that you conveniently NEVER address the tough questions or comments I make. You quoted me above, then never answered my question. You ignore my handwriting question, MOST of the time, your responses to me ignore my tough questions about your theory.

1. PossumPie, you don't need to "imagine it working". I invite you to re-read my thread entitled "My theory: Uncle John was guilty (revised version)", especially the points 6,7, 8. Here is the link:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5191

2. Yes, in my theory there were three consipirators, but with Morse included. But in one of your post, you said that in my theory Morse had three accomplice, that is to say, together with Morse, they were four! (Before posting this present, I tried to find that post of you and my reply, but I failed, I will continue to check them and re post here afterwards).

[Franz]

PossumPie, I just find the thread in question, "From another point of view, always about the note and Morse". Here is the link:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5299

I please you to read it CAREFULLY:

In one of your reply, you wrote (the black letters are mine):

"Franz, I have read and re-read your theory many times. A man working with Morse delivers a note to the Borden house saying a friend is sick. Mrs. Borden puts it in her pocket, tells Lizzie about it, then two more men approach the front door, lure Mrs. Borden outside, one slips behind her, into the house, up to Morse's room. The other tells a tale of Morse wanting Mrs. Borden to go get his watch. Mrs. Borden goes up to get the watch, and is killed by the man who sneaked in. He grabs the note from her pocket, and hides for an hour and a half, sneaks downstairs, kills Mr. Borden, and leaves. That is your theory. "

So, besides Morse himself, you talked about my theory mentioning "A man", and then "two more men", together three men (without Morse)!!!

Here is my reply that immediately followed the yours. I quote my reply here:

"PossumPie...

And, you said that you have read and re-read my theory many times. I wonder how did you read and re-read my theory. I don't want to offend you. But in my theory Morse had only two conspirators: one is the false messenger, the other one the real killer. Now let's read what you said about my theory:

"Franz, I have read and re-read your theory many times. A man working with Morse delivers a note to the Borden house saying a friend is sick. Mrs. Borden puts it in her pocket, tells Lizzie about it, then two more men approach the front door, lure Mrs. Borden outside, one slips behind her, into the house, up to Morse's room. The other tells a tale of Morse wanting Mrs. Borden to go get his watch. Mrs. Borden goes up to get the watch, and is killed by the man who sneaked in."

So, according to your understanding of my theory:

1) "A man working with Morse delivers a note to the Borden house" --- first conspirator;
2) "then two more men approch the front door...one slips behind her..." --- second conspirator;
3) "The other tells a tale of Morse wanting Mrs. Borden to go get his watch..." --- third conspirator.

I wonder: I said clearly in my theroy that Morse could have had two conspirators to help him, but why did you find three and from where did you find the third one?"


I underline for another time, in your post you said in my theory there were three men to help Morse (and so together with Morse they were four!) But in my theory I myself I conjectured that there were only two men to help Morse, they were three only when Morse himself is included!

PossumPie, if you are a gentlman, I would very much appreciate that you could admit your error, instead of insisting that "You (here means Franz, me) don't know your own (of Franz) theory"!

[irina]

Lots of things could have happened. That's a complex conspiracy idea, Franz. It could have happened but I'm hard put to convince anyone Lizzie didn't do it, that one stranger did it. While I can see some facts that point to one intruder I don't see them pointing to more than one.

Anyway I came back with a better illustration about the note. (I don't think Lizzie was an early riser and neither am I. Could be wrong about her but this is from my perspective.) Say I get up and my husband says he HEARD from an old friend and they plan to have lunch together that day. When he is gone a friend asks me where my husband is and I reply that an old friend CALLED and they went to lunch together. In fact there are many ways to contact people and by making something definite of something indefinite, mistakes can be made. What if my husband got murdered on the way home and I told police he had received a CALL and there is no call in the phone records? What if for some reason the rest of my re-telling doesn't look honest? Somebody would point to the non-existent phone record first. 99% of the time this sort of thing doesn't matter. Once in awhile it does.

[Curryong]

Maybe it's the fact that I'm not American, irina, but if I was told somebody had 'called' I would automatically assume the person had called in, in person (to the house, office etc.) if told that somebody had rang, however, I would, of course, think 'phone'. It's funny how language gets caught up sometimes, especially among people from different places. Perhaps you'd have to hope when you were questioned for an English or Australian inquisitor! Seriously though, you would undoubtedly explain the mix-up as you have here!

The question of how, when neither the Bordens nor the Whiteheads had a phone, little Abby's baby-sitting arrangements were changed on that Thursday, is an interesting one I think, and we discussed it on a thread somewhere! It could be as simple, I suppose as Abby, fresh from her Tuesday night purging, writing a little note to her sister on the Wednesday, apologising and putting her off. Bridget could have posted it for her on the Wednesday morning but it just didn't come up in the questioning.

PS. Don't give up about your theory. I've been told that from the beginning 'Lizzie dun it ' posters have tended to predominate among Forum members, but look at what vigorous and enjoyable debates have been had over the years!


Incidentally, curiousmind, please keep posting and develop your theory!

[irina]

I have always felt a journalist could solve some of these things. I'm a journalist. BUT I know from forums it's going to take a lot of bits and pieces from all over to solve any of these things. Of course my eyes are always wide open and curious about antiques and things. I look through a lot of antique books for clippings, notes, signatures, etc. Could find a love note from David to Lizzie planning an elopement on Thursday at noon. (Just joking, Franz. Not a theory. ) Never know when memorabilia will turn up. Like I say I figured out something special about a non-crime mystery and I'll write an article about it pretty soon. I think it's important. Maybe not but nobody else ever figured it out.

The way I feel about Lizzie is the time frame is too short re her father's death. It just doesn't work out. If she was a different sort of person, quick witted, quick in motion, quick tempered and determined I could MAYBE see it. I think she was slow in most of the above. A very average person. SO, if she didn't do it she lived the rest of her life in a terrible way and she is still synonymous with terrible things. If her innocence could be really proven a great bit of justice would be done. And/or there is a lot more to the story and maybe that needs to be told. There are hints about things but without more to go on they rank right up there with conspiracy theories. IF she did do it I'd bet the reason was a lot deeper than simple greed. I don't mean all the modern sex abuse and Lizzie was a lesbian theories either. That's chicken manure stuff. There are other possibilities but no scraps of proof to start with so best to keep them in the back of the mind.

[Curryong]

I'm glad to see you are sticking to your guns, irina! How intriguing about your forthcoming article. Please post a link when it comes out.
Incidentally, debbie would kiss your feet, I'm sure, if an authentic love letter or message between Lizzie and Dave Anthony appeared!

[Franz]

PossumPie, in order to give you a more clear idea on my theory, I copy here a part of my theory (The Herald News' version, because in a better English than the thread in the forum; the content is the same). I please you to read it CAREFULLY, and to find how many accomplice Morse had in my theory, and when Abby told Lizzie the note story:

...
9:25 a.m. – Both Morse and Andrew had left the house. The two conspirators of Morse, as they had planned, went together towards the Borden house and were at the point of arrival. Meanwhile, after exchanging a few words at the side door, Bridget went to the barn to get the handle for the brush, and Lizzie went to her own room.

9:26 – The two conspirators reached the Borden house. One of them, the executive killer, hid himself behind the corner at the south side of the house. The other one, the false messenger, rang the front door. Fortunately for them, it was Abby who opened the door. She saw a stranger standing nearby the fence which separated the house from the street.
Abby: “What’s the matter, young man?”
Messenger: “Good morning! Are you Mrs. Borden? Here is a note for you, from Mrs. X.” He handed the note to Abby, without moving his feet. Abby did not perceive anything suspicious or strange, because she considered the behavior of the stranger as a sign of respect for her private property. She went downstairs towards the young man to get the note.
Meanwhile, the killer stepped up the parapet from the corner and went into the house. He went upstairs and then into the guest room as they had planned. He did all this as silently and as quickly as possible.
At that moment, Bridget was in the barn searching for the brush handle, and then, fetched the water with the pail. Lizzie closed herself in her room, but she didn’t notice anything.

9:27 – The conversation between Abby and the messenger continued.
Abby: “Do you know Mrs. X?”
Messenger: “No. I just went by her house, and a gentleman, I think he is her husband, asked me if I could do him a favour to send this note to you. Because I was coming this way, I agreed.”
Abby: “Thank you. It’s kind of you.” While speaking, Abby read the note, and then put it in one of her pockets. “Good-bye” she said, and was set to return to the house.
Messenger: “Mrs. Borden, another moment please. When I was coming here, I ran into Mr. Morse, an acquaintance of mine. He was walking in the same direction, too. He asked me what I was doing, and I explained him the story. He said: “I am so fortunate. I slept last night in the Borden house but I forgot my watch in the room and I am going back there to fetch it. Would you please ask
Mrs. Borden to find my watch in the guest room and bring it to Mrs. X’s house? I will go there to meet her and to get my watch. I might need it this morning. My watch might have dropped on the floor, near the headboard of the bed.”
Abby: “I will. Good-bye.”
“Good-bye.” The messenger disappeared.

9:28 – Bridget came out from the barn and was to wash the windows of the sitting room; Mary, Mrs. Kelly’s girl, appeared. Bridget and Mary engaged a conversation at the fence.
Meanwhile, Abby entered the house and closed the front door, and saw Lizzie, who was just going downstairs from her room. They had their last conversation in the hall.
Abby: “Lizzie, I have had a note from somebody that is sick and I am going out, and I am going to get the dinner on the way. It’s less hot today, right?”
Lizzie: “Yes, Mrs. Borden, it’s less hot than two days ago.”

9:29 – The conversation ended, Abby began to lock the front door, and Lizzie went downstairs into the cellar to use the water closet..
After having locked the front door, Abby went upstairs and then into the guest room where the killer was waiting her, behind the door. Abby thought that she would change her clothes for the visit and give some indications to Bridget for the household chores after she would have found Morse’s watch in the guest room.
...

PossumPie, you have all your right to discuss, challenge, oppose, my theory, but please don't misrepresent my theory. This is one of those "Logical Fallacies" that you discussed under the same title (here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5373. I invite you to re-read this thread of your own), and here is the number 4:

4.Straw Man Fallacy: A straw man Fallacy is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.

PossumPie, when you stated in that post of you that in my theory "A man... then two more men"(so three; together with Morse they were four), and when you said in another: "WHEN WOULD SHE (Abby) have time to tell Lizzie about the note???? That would mean Lizzie was standing right by the front door when the killer sneaked it, and would have seen him.", ignoring what I wrote in my theory about this detail, you were committing the "Straw Man Fallacy". Please stop it with me, I can't stand it no more.

[PossumPie]

I'm not arguing your theory anymore. OK, maybe I was misunderstood. JUST 3 MEN. ONLY 3 MEN. Doesn't matter. You're jousting at windmills. You have a wild fairy tale account. Nothing in it is IMPOSSIBLE, yet there are so many improbabilities that it is implausible. You couldn't get everyone to orchestrate those moves even if they practiced them. Have you seen the front of the house? No where to hide. Have you seen the inside stairs? you can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard. Then Lizzie came out at EXACTLY the right moment to miss the intruder but catch Mrs. Borden??? Give me a break. You couldn't get all that to happen and no one see each other even if you practiced it. It is wildly far-fetched.

If you must insist on Morse being the killer of his two close friends...I'd rather believe he sneaked away from his visiting, came home, killed her, and sneaked back. At least that is somewhat plausible if Morse MUST be the killer.

[BOBO]

PossumPie, in order to give you a more clear idea on my theory, I copy here a part of my theory (The Herald News' version, because in a better English than the thread in the forum; the content is the same). I please you to read it CAREFULLY, and to find how many accomplice Morse had in my theory, and when Abby told Lizzie the note story:

...
9:25 a.m. – Both Morse and Andrew had left the house. The two conspirators of Morse, as they had planned, went together towards the Borden house and were at the point of arrival. Meanwhile, after exchanging a few words at the side door, Bridget went to the barn to get the handle for the brush, and Lizzie went to her own room.

9:26 – The two conspirators reached the Borden house. One of them, the executive killer, hid himself behind the corner at the south side of the house. The other one, the false messenger, rang the front door. Fortunately for them, it was Abby who opened the door. She saw a stranger standing nearby the fence which separated the house from the street.
Abby: “What’s the matter, young man?”
Messenger: “Good morning! Are you Mrs. Borden? Here is a note for you, from Mrs. X.” He handed the note to Abby, without moving his feet. Abby did not perceive anything suspicious or strange, because she considered the behavior of the stranger as a sign of respect for her private property. She went downstairs towards the young man to get the note.
Meanwhile, the killer stepped up the parapet from the corner and went into the house. He went upstairs and then into the guest room as they had planned. He did all this as silently and as quickly as possible.
At that moment, Bridget was in the barn searching for the brush handle, and then, fetched the water with the pail. Lizzie closed herself in her room, but she didn’t notice anything.

9:27 – The conversation between Abby and the messenger continued.
Abby: “Do you know Mrs. X?”
Messenger: “No. I just went by her house, and a gentleman, I think he is her husband, asked me if I could do him a favour to send this note to you. Because I was coming this way, I agreed.”
Abby: “Thank you. It’s kind of you.” While speaking, Abby read the note, and then put it in one of her pockets. “Good-bye” she said, and was set to return to the house.
Messenger: “Mrs. Borden, another moment please. When I was coming here, I ran into Mr. Morse, an acquaintance of mine. He was walking in the same direction, too. He asked me what I was doing, and I explained him the story. He said: “I am so fortunate. I slept last night in the Borden house but I forgot my watch in the room and I am going back there to fetch it. Would you please ask
Mrs. Borden to find my watch in the guest room and bring it to Mrs. X’s house? I will go there to meet her and to get my watch. I might need it this morning. My watch might have dropped on the floor, near the headboard of the bed.”
Abby: “I will. Good-bye.”
“Good-bye.” The messenger disappeared.

9:28 – Bridget came out from the barn and was to wash the windows of the sitting room; Mary, Mrs. Kelly’s girl, appeared. Bridget and Mary engaged a conversation at the fence.
Meanwhile, Abby entered the house and closed the front door, and saw Lizzie, who was just going downstairs from her room. They had their last conversation in the hall.
Abby: “Lizzie, I have had a note from somebody that is sick and I am going out, and I am going to get the dinner on the way. It’s less hot today, right?”
Lizzie: “Yes, Mrs. Borden, it’s less hot than two days ago.”

9:29 – The conversation ended, Abby began to lock the front door, and Lizzie went downstairs into the cellar to use the water closet..
After having locked the front door, Abby went upstairs and then into the guest room where the killer was waiting her, behind the door. Abby thought that she would change her clothes for the visit and give some indications to Bridget for the household chores after she would have found Morse’s watch in the guest room.
...

PossumPie, you have all your right to discuss, challenge, oppose, my theory, but please don't misrepresent my theory. This is one of those "Logical Fallacies" that you discussed under the same title (here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5373. I invite you to re-read this thread of your own), and here is the number 4:

4.Straw Man Fallacy: A straw man Fallacy is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position, often used in debates with unsophisticated audiences to make it appear that the opponent's arguments are more easily defeated than they are.

PossumPie, when you stated in that post of you that in my theory "A man... then two more men"(so three; together with Morse they were four), and when you said in another: "WHEN WOULD SHE (Abby) have time to tell Lizzie about the note???? That would mean Lizzie was standing right by the front door when the killer sneaked it, and would have seen him.", ignoring what I wrote in my theory about this detail, you were committing the "Straw Man Fallacy". Please stop it with me, I can't stand it no more.

[Franz]

I'm not arguing your theory anymore. OK, maybe I was misunderstood. JUST 3 MEN. ONLY 3 MEN. Doesn't matter. You're jousting at windmills. You have a wild fairy tale account. Nothing in it is IMPOSSIBLE, yet there are so many improbabilities that it is implausible. You couldn't get everyone to orchestrate those moves even if they practiced them. Have you seen the front of the house? No where to hide. Have you seen the inside stairs? you can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard. Then Lizzie came out at EXACTLY the right moment to miss the intruder but catch Mrs. Borden??? Give me a break. You couldn't get all that to happen and no one see each other even if you practiced it. It is wildly far-fetched.

If you must insist on Morse being the killer of his two close friends...I'd rather believe he sneaked away from his visiting, came home, killed her, and sneaked back. At least that is somewhat plausible if Morse MUST be the killer.

PossumPie, I beg your pardon, you said that "maybe I (you, PossumPie) was misunderstood". By whom, please? by me? by another member of the forum? Please explain why and by whom you felt misunderstood.

The probability or improbability of my theory have nothing to do with my last reply. By posting my last reply I would like to know if you admit that you have misrepresented my theory, by saying"A man... then two more men", and by asking: "WHEN WOULD SHE (Abby) have time to tell Lizzie about the note???? That would mean Lizzie was standing right by the front door, etc. etc....". And by doing so, if you have committed the so-called "Straw Man Fallacy".

PossumPie, would you like to be gentle enough to answer me? You will be very aappreciated if you would.

[Franz]

...
Have you seen the front of the house? No where to hide. Have you seen the inside stairs? you can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard. Then Lizzie came out at EXACTLY the right moment to miss the intruder but catch Mrs. Borden???...

If you must insist on Morse being the killer of his two close friends...I'd rather believe he sneaked away from his visiting, came home, killed her, and sneaked back. At least that is somewhat plausible if Morse MUST be the killer.

1. In my theory I said the real killer might have hidden himself behind the south side of the house, not somewhere of the "front of the house". You are still misrepresenting my theory!!!

2. You said: "you can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard." Why are you so sure, please? Do you know where Lizzie might have been in that moment (within the hypotehsis that Lizzie was innocent, obviously)? Do you know by what activities Lizzie's attention was absorbed at that moment? How could you be so sure that one "can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard"? Do you know with what maximum caution that the killer might have gone upstaires?

3. You said: "Then Lizzie came out at EXACTLY the right moment to miss the intruder but catch Mrs. Borden?" Oh really? this could be so astonishing and inbelievble for you? If so, I would be very very sorry for you.

4. PossumPie, let's be serious. If you say that my theory is even less possible than that Morse "sneaked away from his visiting, came home, killed her, etc. etc.", if you think so, PossumPie, IMO you are not objective.

[PossumPie]

...
Have you seen the front of the house? No where to hide. Have you seen the inside stairs? you can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard. Then Lizzie came out at EXACTLY the right moment to miss the intruder but catch Mrs. Borden???...

If you must insist on Morse being the killer of his two close friends...I'd rather believe he sneaked away from his visiting, came home, killed her, and sneaked back. At least that is somewhat plausible if Morse MUST be the killer.

1. In my theory I said the real killer might have hidden himself behind the south side of the house, not somewhere of the "front of the house". You are still misrepresenting my theory!!!

2. You said: "you can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard." Why are you so sure, please? Do you know where Lizzie might have been in that moment (within the hypotehsis that Lizzie was innocent, obviously)? Do you know by what activities Lizzie's attention was absorbed at that moment? How could you be so sure that one "can't sneak up them and into the room NEXT to Lizzie's without being heard"? Do you know with what maximum caution that the killer might have gone upstaires?

3. You said: "Then Lizzie came out at EXACTLY the right moment to miss the intruder but catch Mrs. Borden?" Oh really? this could be so astonishing and inbelievble for you? If so, I would be very very sorry for you.

4. PossumPie, let's be serious. If you say that my theory is even less possible than that Morse "sneaked away from his visiting, came home, killed her, etc. etc.", if you think so, PossumPie, IMO you are not objective.

1. I've been to the house...there is no place to hide south, north or front of the house where Abby wouldn't see someone leap over the "parapet" and sneak in behind her very back.
2. I've been to the house. Even in stocking feet you can hear someone walking up and down the steps right outside Lizzie's room from in her room...even with the door closed.
3. I've been to the house. For someone to sneak up the stairs, turn left, into the spare room and hide, then Lizzie to come out and down the stairs and catch Abby coming up, be told of the note, then Abby to pass her and go into the spare room to be killed with Lizzie still nearby is ridiculous.
4. Yes, I am serious. If I knew for a fact Morse was the guilty one, I would quicker believe he sneaked in and did it himself than to believe your wildly implausible fictional account. Members here have gently tried to show you that it is wildly speculative and implausible, but I have to hand it to you...you stick by your theory like your incredibly cute dog sticks to his chew toy!!!

[Franz]

1. I've been to the house...there is no place to hide south, north or front of the house where Abby wouldn't see someone leap over the "parapet" and sneak in behind her very back.
2. I've been to the house. Even in stocking feet you can hear someone walking up and down the steps right outside Lizzie's room from in her room...even with the door closed.
3. I've been to the house. For someone to sneak up the stairs, turn left, into the spare room and hide, then Lizzie to come out and down the stairs and catch Abby coming up, be told of the note, then Abby to pass her and go into the spare room to be killed with Lizzie still nearby is ridiculous.
4. Yes, I am serious. If I knew for a fact Morse was the guilty one, I would quicker believe he sneaked in and did it himself than to believe your wildly implausible fictional account. Members here have gently tried to show you that it is wildly speculative and implausible, but I have to hand it to you...you stick by your theory like your incredibly cute dog sticks to his chew toy!!!

1. "there is no place to hide south"? No comments!!! (Can any other member tell me if someone can hide behind the south corner of the house?)

2. We know that sometimes even if there is some noise, but if we don't listen, we might not hear. In my theory I conjectured that Lizzie, at that moment, closed herself in her room for her menstrual matter (The Herald News' editor cancelled this phrase). Even the killer might have produced, despite his caution, some noise, Lizzie could have not paid attention. She could not know that some killer was going upstairs and therfore said to herself: "oh there is killer there, I must listen carefully."

3. In my theroy I conjectured that, after entering the house, Abby met Lizzie in the hall on the ground floor, and they had their last conversation there, "The conversation ended, Abby began to lock the front door, and Lizzie went downstairs into the cellar to use the water closet." And when Abby was being killed, Lizzie was in the cellar. But you said:"Abby coming up, be told of the note, then Abby to pass her and go into the spare room to be killed with Lizzie still nearby is ridiculous.". What you said has nothing to do with my theory. How did you read my theory many times, please? The ridiculous words are those said by you, who misrepresented so many times my theory, committing the "Straw man fallacy".

4. No, you are not serious. While you said that "Nothing in it (my theory) is IMPOSSIBLE", you are saying now that "there is no place to hide south, north or front of the house where Abby wouldn't see someone leap over the "parapet" and sneak in behind her very back", and you are saying that you prefer the absolutely impossible "Morse sneaked back from the visiting, came in, killed Abby, etc." theory than the mine. You are not serious. you are not objective. I don't appreciate at all your joke at the end of your reply.

[Aamartin]

Those people were door lockers. Whether it be by distrust of one another or warding off intruders.....

People like that can be hyper vigilant. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that anyone sneaked around that house unnoticed. However, we have to base our final opinions on facts, evidence and what we know to be true. The evidence doesn't support Lizzie's guilt, but-- it also doesn't support her innocence.

If indeed, the murders were done by anyone other than Lizzie, I would like having their luck!!!

[PossumPie]

Franz, The Borden's lived in paranoid fear of strangers. They locked EVERYTHING. I just don't see it as plausible that a stranger could lure Abby, an elderly woman outside her house enough that another stranger could sneak in behind her back. Knocking on the door, then running back down to the sidewalk to shout up at her would be so suspicious she wouldn't leave the safety of her doorway. People just don't "Respect her property line" and stand down on a sidewalk if they have business with a homeowner. It makes no sense. I live in a very safe rural area, but when strangers come to my door, I am Hyper-vigilent as to their behavior. If they were shouting up at me from the edge of my property, I'd slam the door.

I know you've seen the pictures, there was no where for a stranger to hide and be close enough to sneak into the house. The neighbors saw people coming and going all morning, a person lurking in the corner sneaking in would have raised alarm...If just one person saw them sneak in, the killer would have been trapped. The police summoned, and the person arrested. Would they chance that?

I was not making a 'joke' about you dog. I think he is very cute. It was a "metaphor" not a joke.

[Franz]

PossumPie, even though you can judge my theory extremely improbable, you have absolutely no right to say, while talking about my theory, something like: "A man... then two more men", "WHEN WOULD SHE (Abby) have time to tell Lizzie about the note???", and Abby's being "killed with Lizzie still nearby". I considere all this as a lack of respect for my theory and for me.

[irina]

Aamartin says it all: The evidence doesn't support Lizzie's guilt, but~it doesn't prove her innocence. That's the core of the mystery.

Franz: You got an article published. Next step could be an historical novel. Like Truman Capote wrote "In Cold Blood". He had access to the admitted and convicted murderers yet the book has always been listed as fiction and I am not sure why. Anyway, develop your idea, put faces on the conspirators, develop personalities, add lots of historic deatils...and go for it!

[Franz]

Irina, many members have published books, articles, essays. I haven't even really begun with the case...

If we consider the murder within the hypothesis of an intruder, and if we conjecture that there was indeed a note, then, I can hardly imagine that the murder was not a conspiracy.

[irina]

I see your reasoning. As with the rest of us, for example my deep feeling that Lizzie didn't do it, the proofs are nonexistent at this time. That's where the historical novelist comes in. Theories can be developed and presented. If down the line the proof comes along then the author is considered a genius. If nothing else happens, if the book is well written, the author is recognised for his skills.

[Aamartin]

There certainly is a market for more books on the case-- even with theories unsupported by the evidence.

[twinsrwe]

You're right, Anthony; Arnold Brown's book is a good example.

[twinsrwe]

There are two new Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter (Mass Market Paperback) by Arnold R. Brown, which can be purchased at Amazon. One sells for $1,635.77; the other one sells for $2,007.73!!!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... w&sr=&qid=

It’s very sad that people are still buying this horrible book, and sellers are asking these outrageous prices.

[Aamartin]

Good Lord!

[twinsrwe]

Those prices took your breath away, didn't they Anthony? I know I was flabbergasted!

[Aamartin]

I'd practically give my Brown away!

[Curryong]

There is obviously a market for these things. I have to say that I think 'Lizzie Borden Past and Present' is quite expensive, but it is meticulously researched and doesn't peddle rubbishy theories, unlike Brown.

[Franz]

I'm not arguing your theory anymore...

Thank heavens!!! Please stick to your promise!!! Thank you very much!!!

[PossumPie]

I'm not arguing your theory anymore...

Thank heavens!!! Please stick to your promise!!! Thank you very much!!!

What you want Franz, is for everyone to listen to your theory and not criticize it. The forum is here to allow people to theorize on what happened, within a community of knowledgeable peers who can critique how something may or may not have been the solution.
I welcome any new theories, but understand that if they entail wild far-fetched unprovable ideas made up out of thin air, I WILL criticize them.

Your flaws are NOT factual, but are flaws calculating human nature. I have a Master's degree in Counseling Psychology. I have a Nursing degree. I'm no expert, but human nature and medical things I DO have knowledge. Your flaws are in calculating human nature. Would a man who pops in once or twice a year and talks almost exclusively with Andrew and Abby have them killed? Unlikely. He didn't care for them enough to visit more why would he care enough to have them killed??? Also, to believe that a stranger could lure a scared old woman out of the safety of her home, onto the sidewalk while another man sneaked in behind her back...I will indeed criticize that. In order to knock on a door, one must approach the door. Why then would the person, who has a note to hand to them, retreat back to the sidewalk? You don't think Abby would find that odd? She is the owner of the house, she would say "Well, bring it here!" You are saying on one hand that she was so scared and paranoid that she RELOCKED the night lock after she opened the door, and on the other hand, that she would allow a stranger to lure her away from the house instead of saying "bring me the note."

[Franz]

PossumPie, please don't avoid the problem!

The criticism for my theory have been and will be always welcome. But you, you misrepresnted my theory many times! . I have posted here several posts to explain to you this problem. It seems that every member here has read my posts and has understood me, except you!

Now, I copy here a phrase in one of my posts (this post was quoted entirely by BOBO), and this is tha last time I tell you:

PossumPie, you have all your right to discuss, challenge, oppose, my theory, but please don't misrepresent my theory.
PossumPie, you have all your right to discuss, challenge, oppose, my theory, but please don't misrepresent my theory.
PossumPie, you have all your right to discuss, challenge, oppose, my theory, but please don't misrepresent my theory.

Stop it!!!

[PossumPie]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
A former member once private messaged me that she felt like you were a "troll" purposely making crazy unprovable statements and then trying to get other members to quit the forum. I disagreed at the time, but she is gone, and I'm beginning to wonder...I took a few days off to distance myself, but it didn't work. I think I need an extended break from the forum. I'll re-evaluate my return at a later date.

[irina]

I'm encouraging Franz to write a book on his theory. He got an article published. None of us completely accept all points of his theory so he should write it, publish it and let the world check it out!

Don't give up PossumPie. I raised an idea under whether, when, how much Lizzie lied and your expertise could be very much used. Like I stated on that thread I will certainly defer to your knowledge in the area of PTSD, shock, etc.

[twinsrwe]

There is obviously a market for these things. I have to say that I think 'Lizzie Borden Past and Present' is quite expensive, but it is meticulously researched and doesn't peddle rubbishy theories, unlike Brown.

At Amazon a new Lizzie Borden: Past & Present (Hardcover) by Leonard Rebello, sells for $199.99 up to $338.06. It contains 642 pages of facts surrounding Fall River and the Andrew Borden family.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/ ... dition=new

I find it incredible that the price of a hardcover, 642 page, factual book, is so much less than a paperback, 400 page, non-factual book!!!

I’m sure that Arnold Brown’s book sells, because he had it published as non-fiction, and people who are not knowledgeable about the case think Arnold has found the real solution; although there are also people who are knowledgeable about the case who think the same thing. It should have been published as fiction, because that is what it is.

[twinsrwe]

I'd practically give my Brown away!

I would give mine away, but I don't care to be a part of spreading half-truths, unproven and out right false information around.

I found a forum thread, titled "Lets Dissect Arnold R. Brown!", which you, and other members, may find interesting:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... /brown.htm


BTW, something I found interesting while reading through the Customer Reviews for Arnold Brown’s book.

There are a couple of reviews that the members of this forum may find interesting. Scroll down to the second review on the link provided, you will find it is written by Melissa Allen; forum name Allen. Scroll down to the fourth review listed on this page, and you will find a review written by Acute Observer; forum name RayS. If you go into the comments link under Melissa’s review, you’ll find 7 comments, of which RayS submitted 5 of them.

http://www.amazon.com/Lizzie-Borden-Leg ... Descending

[Franz]

I have no idea what you are talking about.
A former member once private messaged me that she felt like you were a "troll" purposely making crazy unprovable statements and then trying to get other members to quit the forum. I disagreed at the time, but she is gone, and I'm beginning to wonder...I took a few days off to distance myself, but it didn't work. I think I need an extended break from the forum. I'll re-evaluate my return at a later date.

1. PossumPie, if you have really no idea what I am talking about, I can't help you no more. I have tried my best with my, certainly, bad Chinglish. I think all other members have seen, testified what happened between us in the last days and I think they have all understood what I have been trying to explain to you. I don't want to repeat for another time what I have repeated. And then, why must I?

2. You, by quoting what an ex member said to you in a private message, that I was "a "troll" purposely making crazy unprovable statements and then trying to get other members to quit the forum", by doing so you are indirectly but publicly accusing me in the forum for such a thing. Your statement doesn't even deserve a comment. I know myself and I know why I decided to register in the forum, I am serene with me and with my conscience. I have no other words to add. I don't know if your making pubulicly such a statement is correct or not, I don't want to judge, because this is not my duty, this is not my right either. This is of the Administration of the forum.

3. I wish you a hilarious retirement and I hope your break of the forum is only for short time.

(P.S.: I am sorry, twinsrwe, I think I understand your kind intention, but I just can't help myself replying for anothoer time to PossumPie. I can't keep silent before what he said.)

[irina]

Franz: All of us are here to share and enjoy a subject that fascinates us. I come here to relax. I have lurked at various forums and some I would never join because people really fight with each other. Please don't do that here.

I am actually serious when I suggest you should write a book. You are passionate in what you believe. Prove it to us and the world. The next step as I understand your theory, would be to find a couple more names to further define the conspirators. I am most sincere.

[Curryong]

Franz, I also enjoy my time here. Please don't fight with Possum or put down ultimatums! Just cool it now you've put your point across and everyone gets it! There are only a few of us. I don't want you to leave, I don't want Possum to leave. Just let us all relax, deep breaths now...... Smile

[Franz]

1. Irina and Curryong, I have not been fighting with PossumPie (or any other memebrs), I have been trying to explain to him that he several times misrepresented my theory and I have just been trying to ask him to stop to do so. It seems that I failed.

2. I said "I wish you (PossumPie) a hilarious retirement,", by saying so I absolutely was not asking him to leave the forum, How could I do such a thing? I said so because PossumPie himself sadi that: "I think I need an extended break from the forum." I hope that there was no misunderstanding.

[irina]

Thank you!

[twinsrwe]

Well, Franz, irina and Curryong were not the only ones who took the exchanges posted here, as you fighting with Possum.

I am here to discuss and learn the facts surrounding the Borden case, and I find it is a fun forum most of the time. As Curryong pointed out, there are very few members who post anymore, and I would hate to lose any more members, due to frustrating circumstances.

[twinsrwe]

... 2. I said "I wish you (PossumPie) a hilarious retirement,", by saying so I absolutely was not asking him to leave the forum, How could I do such a thing? I said so because PossumPie himself sadi that: "I think I need an extended break from the forum." I hope that there was no misunderstanding.

Franz, I want to say this in the kindest way I can. In America, when someone retires, it is an action of permanently leaving one's job and ceasing to work. So, when you stated, to Possum, “I wish you a hilarious retirement”, what you basically said, by American definitions of the words ‘hilarious’ and ‘retirement’, was, “I wish you a hysterically funny permanent leave as a member of the forum”.

I believe you did not mean it that way, but that is basically what you posted. Hopefully, Possum will know that you meant no harm.

I also hope Possum does not permanently leave the forum; it would be shame to lose him.