Lizzie Borden Society Forum

RayS @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:32 pm wrote:

Yooper @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:15 pm wrote:Right or wrong is not determined by what can be "gotten away with". If a king or president has to intellectualize over whether something is right or wrong, then he or she is not a moral person. While a king or president may get away with having someone killed, it's still murder. They may have someone killed under the guise of protecting others, but unless they would be directly affected, it's still murder.

In times of war, the rules change. It is understood to be a matter of self-defense. Those in harm's way are well aware of it. They should also be well aware of the potential harm they bring to others (civilians) when they continue to fight among them.

You haven't answered the question. If Andrew Jackson or Adlai Stevenson had killed somebody, what would you say about them?

Read the third sentence very carefully.

Yooper @ Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:59 am wrote:

RayS @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:32 pm wrote:

Yooper @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:15 pm wrote:Right or wrong is not determined by what can be "gotten away with". If a king or president has to intellectualize over whether something is right or wrong, then he or she is not a moral person. While a king or president may get away with having someone killed, it's still murder. They may have someone killed under the guise of protecting others, but unless they would be directly affected, it's still murder.

In times of war, the rules change. It is understood to be a matter of self-defense. Those in harm's way are well aware of it. They should also be well aware of the potential harm they bring to others (civilians) when they continue to fight among them.

You haven't answered the question. If Andrew Jackson or Adlai Stevenson had killed somebody, what would you say about them?

Read the third sentence very carefully.

Nothing personal about a knowledge of American history.
Andrew Jackson did fight duels and did at least kill one man.
Adlai Stevenson, while son of the Governor, had an unfortunate accident while playing with a rifle and killed his cousin.
Do they still teach this in school or is it censored (as with Adlai)?
We all know about Ted Kennedy and his accident at Chappiquiddick. Less well known is Laura Bush's accident as a teenager. "Stuff happens."
I implicitly was not talking about war-time. Was Adlai in WW II?

Kat @ Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:03 pm wrote:Well, violent behaviour as moral or legal (medical) is still debated in courts throughout the land. But if the murder is horrible juries usually convict, whether the accused is mentally ill or not. See Andrea Yates- killing methodically, all her children. But morally she thought she was sending them to her Lord above. Saving them by killing them. Is that moral or medical? I don't know. It's just very sad.
She's getting a new trial.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/yates/

I really haven't read much about Andrea Yates. Her act of murdering her children does suggest a deranged mind. Was she on certain medications that sometimes make a person murderous or suicidal? Paxil?
I think the correct verdict was guilty and insane at the time. Years in a mental hospital?
Anyone remember the Harry Shaw case? I found a book in the True Crime section last week.

She didn't get "guilty but insane." If you are suggesting she should have gotten that, then that's your opinion. It didn't read that way tho:

I think the correct verdict was guilty and insane at the time. Years in a mental hospital?

--Ray

She was depressed, suicidal and was post-partum. I think she was medically insane- an imbalance of hormones that she never got over after each successive birth. She had been treated prior to the murders but that stopped.

It is a very sad case. I believe she was very mentally ill, however, as the prosecutors pointed out, she methodically planned the events to her children's deaths. She waited until nobody was around, prepared the bath mat so the children would not stuggle, and one by one drowned them, even chasing the oldest boy down who struggled the most to kill them. There is "some" responsibility in that. She claims the demons were in her head, but she had enough rationality to realize how she had to go about carrying out the hainus crime.

Smudgeman @ Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:03 pm wrote:It is a very sad case. I believe she was very mentally ill, however, as the prosecutors pointed out, she methodically planned the events to her children's deaths. She waited until nobody was around, prepared the bath mat so the children would not stuggle, and one by one drowned them, even chasing the oldest boy down who struggled the most to kill them. There is "some" responsibility in that. She claims the demons were in her head, but she had enough rationality to realize how she had to go about carrying out the hainus crime.

I believe in the theory that a mother who kills her children is functionally insane. Under some strange pressure, etc. Criminally culpable, yes.
Wasn't there some Classical Greek play about this?
Dr. Sidney Smith's 1958 book has an article on a man who drowned his sons. Found guilty and hanged. There was also the case of a woman who killed a neighbor's daughter, and tried to make it look like a sex crime. She was caught and punished (don't remember the details). Smith's book was a best seller in those days, listed as "adult" and not available to teenagers.
PS Was it Medea?

A blanket statement of "a mother who kills her children" is not called for here, I don't think. I'm going case by case. I think that's fair.
I'm thinking of Maunchausen Syndrome By Proxy now. That is an attention-getting disorder. That one stinks, big time!

Kat @ Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:12 pm wrote:A blanket statement of "a mother who kills her children" is not called for here, I don't think. I'm going case by case. I think that's fair.
I'm thinking of Maunchausen Syndrome By Proxy now. That is an attention-getting disorder. That one stinks, big time!

Reading "Today's Health" or some other newspaper circa 1969 was when "Munchausen Syndrom by Proxy" was discovered / documented.
I'm sure there are real cases, if not many. Its when a mother damages the child to fill some need for attention (like giving wrong medicine).
Thankfully it is rare.

Then there is Susan Smith who wanted freedom from her children.
Her motives have never made much sense to me.
And the woman in Small Sacrifices.
You can look it up.

Kat @ Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:50 am wrote:Then there is Susan Smith who wanted freedom from her children.
Her motives have never made much sense to me.
And the woman in Small Sacrifices.
You can look it up.

I didn't read the book, but saw the TV movie. As I remember it, the woman wanted to marry another man but he didn't want her children. So somebody killed her children and only wounded her?!
There was that case in Boston 20 years ago when a "holdup man" killed a very pregnant woman and only wounded her husband. They figured that one out, and the husband killed himself.
Susan Smith was sexually abused by her Stepfather (politically connected) and wanted to dump her children. Don't remember much from this 12 yr old? case.
Personally I don't believe Andy abused Lizzie; but some have speculated about her older sister Emma. Any comments?

PS I try to break my messages down into modules that deal with one comment or subject. I once did a long one when the computer froze and I lost everything. So 30-40 lines and its 'Submit'. I hope you can accept this. You know the difficulty in referencing long messages?

The verdict was announced on the radio: Andrea Yates Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

I have been following an area murder trial that has many parallels to the Borden case. A young man was accused of murdering his father and attacking his mother with an ax, while they slept. The motive apparently was money. With only circumstancial evidence, the prsecution managed to get a conviction this week.
One local TV station ran a trial blog, and the last entry was written by one of the family members.
One can almost hear the same words being spoken about Lizzie. And indeed, one can even wonder if this might have been Emma's opinion when she moved from Maplecroft.
Here it is:

"You’d think after living through this for nearly the past two years, writing a post about the outcome so many of us desired would come easily, but it does not. Obviously I am pleased with the verdict, but frankly I didn’t need 12 strangers to tell me that Chris was responsible for all of this.

I was talking to another family member tonight (yes, I am a member of Chris’s family- more on that later) and her comment to me was, “what a waste.” I couldn’t agree more. Seeing the picture of that Jeep abandoned in the parking lot in Goshen really drove it all home. What a waste of life- of Peter’s, of Joan’s, even of Chris’s. What a waste of education, of time, of money, of talent. And for what? Some stupid Jeep and tuition to an overpriced college? To impress who? Some superficial frat brothers and sorority girls? That’s what you were willing to trade Peter and Joan in for, Chris? You see now they’d have given you everything they had, don’t you? But if it wasn’t a beach house or a trust fund, then it wasn’t good enough to brag to your rich college buddies about I suppose.

What a waste of resources. McDermott, Rossi, the BPD, the State Police, and all those witnesses- they all had better things to do with their lives than chase Chris’s lies. I’m ashamed (but obviously appreciative) that so much money was spent investigating and prosecuting this case. Most of all, what a waste of Joan’s money. The jury took less than six hours to negate $200K+ in defense fees and expenses. Joan didn’t know it at the time, but yesterday she took the world’s most expensive nap. Ridiculous.

So to be honest, there is no pleasure in this verdict other than the knowledge that Chris will no longer be allowed to roam the streets freely when Peter cannot. It won’t bring him back or turn Joan back into Joani- the great cook with the warm laugh. It won’t allow us to have another dinner at Brockley Drive or enjoy a holiday where we don’t have to think about why we’re not all in one place.

I hope you all understand that none of us WANTED Chris to be behind this. We’d sooner see the crime go unsolved than let anyone, especially a family member, be wrongfully accused. But as the months passed after the attacks, facts continuously came to light that we each could not square with things that Chris himself had told us or with what we knew Joan and Peter had believed. As McDermott said, Chris was either responsible or he was the unluckiest person on the planet. Actually to believe the latter you’d have to make him the unluckiest liar on the planet, and that was something a lot of us just couldn’t accept.

As for Terry and Laurie, please leave Joan alone for a bit. I know you can’t wait to appeal, but Chris has already taken so much from her- please don’t help him fleece any more. She will need everything she has left to put a roof over her head and pay her mountainous medical bills. I’m sure there are plenty of public interest lawyers and law students who would love to write briefs on Chris’s behalf. Just please, no more money from Joan, ok? You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that people wracked with unbearable guilt will do anything, say anything, and spend anything to make that feeling go away. The elixir you offer her won’t correct the root of the problem, and by now I’m certain you both can see that.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this blog. Your comments, good and bad, helped me to feel connected to a larger community observing this Greek tragedy play itself out. I’ve tried not to speak for anyone but me, but I think everyone in the family appreciates the kind words and prayers we read on this forum- I know I do.

Finally, I’ve tried to ask myself what the lesson in all this is. There is supposed to be a lesson, isn’t there? The truth is I haven’t found one yet. A boy who was raised with all the advantages we bestow on American children these days grew up to be the most selfish, narcissistic person I personally will ever know. In one selfish act he took from this earth one of the most giving people I will ever know. And he leaves in his wake a mother who will forever wear her undying pride in him as the scars on her face. If there’s a lesson in there, I’m sorry, I can’t find it.

So as not to leave you all on a down note I will say that if anything good has come from this it’s that much of our family is as strong as or stronger than we have ever been. I personally hale from Joan’s side of the family, so even though I considered Peter one of my favorite relatives, I was related to him only by marriage. But through this experience, I, and many other family members, have had the opportunity to grow closer to the extended Porco family, and especially Peter’s sister Patty. If one person has guided all of us through this time it has been Patty. Because of her, I am proud to say that even in Peter’s absence, our two families will remain connected. If there’s a silver lining here, that has to be it."

Interestingly enough, none of the media covering the case ever got the similarity to the Borden case. Only two bloggers mentioned it.

If you want to read mor about the trial (and the blog), go to the address below and click on "Porco Trial Blog."

www.wnyt.com

Thanks for the link, Stuart!
I'm glad you used a TV station because they have pics!
I think, after chatting to you today where you mentioned this case, that the axe angle is very fascinating.

Here's the guy, from the news link:

Kat, I'm posting more on this case, but am moving it to the "Stay to Tea" section...

There is the famous case of Dr. Parkman, who lent money to Dr. Webster (both of Harvard in the late 1840s). The first murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
A book by E.J. Wagner tells of a woman who killed her children because the man she wanted didn't want another man's kids.

Love (lust) or money, to get it or to keep it, is the source of most murders. No, I didn't read it in Arnold Brown's book, but from the many others I've read over the past decade. What have you read?

Interestingly enough, none of the media covering the case ever got the similarity to the Borden case. Only two bloggers mentioned it.

I know nothing about this case. There have been similar murders over the years, mostly in NY city. (The case in California w/ two sons doing the killing?)
First, Lizzie did not have a drug or gambling habit where she needed money. Lizzie did not have a boyfriend or girlfriend who needed support. These are often found in such murders, based on True Crime stories.
Someone mentioned that the suspect knew how to get rid of bloodstain evidence. I'm 100% sure that Lizzie knew nothing of this; she reportedly did not watch "CSI" on CBS television.
My condolences to anyone affected personally by this. Was it really a complete surprise to learn of this? Usually there are some warning signs, as far as I know, even if most people don't know about them.