Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Tell me your theories please I want to know just what kinds are out there.


That means every body




:bigcrowd:

Is this so you can put us in your book ?


Tracy...

Right!

yes. Problem? but I will keep you as (Jane Doe) if you like its just to show the world the kinds of theories that people have come up with

It was small, pear-shaped aliens.

What kind of financial cut are we going to get if you make some money on the book ? I asked you sometime back about proofing for you...for grammar, spelling etc., you want help ? Do you have a publisher ?


Tracy...

Sure and no don't have one I'm still writing it

FairhavenGuy @ Mon May 09, 2005 10:00 pm wrote:It was small, pear-shaped aliens.

Trying to find one theebmonique know any?

I would think that a 16 year-old girl's extraordinary feat of a 500+ page book on Lizzie Borden would attract all kinds of local offers. Where have you looked so far ?


Tracy...

Publish America, lulu, authorhouse, random house, tradfford, rose dogs, book publisher.
\

Have any of these publishers seemed interested on your take of the Borden case ? What are they telling you their requirements are ? Oh, and what about a connection through your high school...maybe through the English department ? Have you had a chance to check with them ?


Tracy...

There's the theory that Lizzie did it.
There's the theory that Emma did it.
There's the theory that Bridget did it.
There's the theory that Morse did it.
There's the theory that Billie Borden did it.
There's the theory that William A. Davis did it.
There's the theory that ____ did it.
(Fill in the blank)

They did not say anything about it, they have not mentioned anything but formats,and no there is not one i checked.

They did not say anything about it, they have not mentioned anything but formats,and no there is not one i checked.

Liz,

Maybe I am just an old fogey, but your use of punctuation and capital letters here makes it rather unclear as to which answer goes with which question for sure. Would you mind clearing it up for me ? I am interested in your answers.

Thanks,
Tracy...

Sorry I asked about the english deal and there is no help there. My publishers did not ask or say anything about the topic. And other than the formats they did not say anything about requirements.

Thank you.


Tracy...

Anytime

Kat @ Thu May 12, 2005 2:52 am wrote:There's the theory that Lizzie did it.
There's the theory that Emma did it.
There's the theory that Bridget did it.
There's the theory that Morse did it.
There's the theory that Billie Borden did it.
There's the theory that William A. Davis did it.
There's the theory that ____ did it.
(Fill in the blank)

There's the theory that Dr. Bowen did it.
There's the theory that it was committed by two killers.
There's the theory that Lizzie's unknown lover did it.....


I know there are more theories but I can't think of any at the moment....

I think Kat and Stefani masterminded the whole thing and used time travel and plan to make a fortune using the members of this forum on a new reality type show where Melissa and I have a knock down drag out Krystal-Alexis style fight and fall into a fountain...

oh... and of course I will win!

I used the characters which had real books or big articles written about them. That's what they had in common. I did leave out the conspiracy of Davis, Morse and Lizzie.
I don't think there is a Dr. Bowen book or major article...
Clegg was mentioned in Masterton, so was (is it?) Carpenter?
But they are just thrown in at the last minute- it's not about them.
Jennings' notes include Andrew Borden's nephews, one who was dead!
Lizzie thinks it's Hiram Harrington.
But none of these have any published support.

I dived into a fountain once - and police asked me and a friend if we wanted a ride - we said "no thanks."

Everyone knows who did it , the reason this case fascinates the public is how she got away with it and why did she do it.

What made a wealthy, educated , genteel and demure 32 year old woman bash the brains out of her parents, then con the judiciary into believing her innocent and denying the hangman his wages.

Prove her guilt please

Prove her innocence. There's the rub. Neither can be proved to a degree of certainty. That's what keeps this mystery going.

Hello, prussicacid!
(That was a first- writing that!!)

"Prove her guilt", Liz- you know it's not that simple.
You are writing a book?
Why don't you try?

< Prove her guilt please >

Just a few thoughts,

Opportunity , Means and Motive, Lizzie had the lot. The three criteria that the prosecution failed to put across forcibly to the jury, due in no small part to crucial evidence that pointed to Lizzie's intent to poison her family , being disallowed in court. Motive ? 32 years old , unmarried , bored and frustrated at having to wait for her Dad to kick the bucket before she got the inheritance and even then she would have to share that with the hated stepmother.


Opportunity?
Apart from Bridget, ( no real motive) , or an intruder ( who murders Abby, then hangs about for 90 mins then kills Andrew, without being seen by Lizzie or Bridget), Lizzie is the prime suspect for both slayings.

Kat @ Thu May 19, 2005 4:33 pm wrote:Hello, prussicacid!
(That was a first- writing that!!)

"Prove her guilt", Liz- you know it's not that simple.
You are writing a book?
Why don't you try?

I know it's not that simple that's why I axed

I don't want her proven guilty I want
INNOCENCE

Thank You

:littleangel:

Even in modern day 'retrials' of the Borden case, Lizzie has been found 'not guilty', right ?


http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/09 ... 1lo238.htm


Tracy...

theebmonique @ Thu May 19, 2005 9:17 pm wrote:Even in modern day 'retrials' of the Borden case, Lizzie has been found 'not guilty', right ?


http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/09 ... 1lo238.htm


Tracy...

I think it's because they still have to use the same "evidence" that was available back in 1892. Which is, they cannot use her inquest testimony, or Eli Bence's testimony about the poison, and they don't even have the dress or any of the other physical evidence readily available to them. It's more a mock trial is what I believe.

Yes, the article says it was a mock trial. I wonder if there are 'transcripts'...and if so, are they available ?


Tracy...

Liz Crouthers @ Thu May 19, 2005 5:14 pm wrote:

Kat @ Thu May 19, 2005 4:33 pm wrote:Hello, prussicacid!
(That was a first- writing that!!)

"Prove her guilt", Liz- you know it's not that simple.
You are writing a book?
Why don't you try?

I know it's not that simple that's why I axed

I don't want her proven guilty I want
INNOCENCE

Thank You

I think you think Lizzie did it and it's OK because they deserved it?
Is that true?

Liz Crouthers @ Wed May 11, 2005 2:25 pm wrote:Publish America, lulu, authorhouse, random house, tradfford, rose dogs, book publisher.
\

Liz, I published through Dog Ear Publishing (http://www.dogearpublishing.net/). After considerable research, I found them to be the best, especially if you want to hang on tho the copyright. For heaven sakes, stay away from PublishAmerica.

Kat I think she is Innocent and well I fight with all who disagree.

I blame Emma

Didn't you once say they deserved it?
I'm just asking. I've actually heard that before.

I've also seen people come and go who thought Lizzie was just plain innocent, but once they find out more, they pretty much know she had to have known something about it- so it depends on what degree of innocence or guilt.
But under the law knowledge before or after is still guilt.
She could plea down her complicity if she never touched the weapon, probably and told the truth.

Surely Emma has a cast iron alibi by being miles away at the time of the slaying.

I'm noticing a bit of Sisterhood Solidarity on these boards where certain female posters portray Lizzie as a poor , fragile and fragrant damsel maligned and mistreated by a 19th Century Male-Centric society rather than a calculating, vicious and remorseless double murderer.

Explain yourselves?

I've also seen people come and go who thought Lizzie was just plain innocent, but once they find out more, they pretty much know she had to have known something about it

Kat, I have to say this applies to me, as I SO WANT Lizzie to be innocent, but the more I have read and have seen posted here, the more I have to feel that she HAD to know something. However, I still don't feel she was the wielder of the axe.


Tracy...

Kat I did say it but Emma has more motive she started it.

And P.A. her alibi was never established.

Lizzie was probably fairly normal. I think she was simply bathtub deprived. Unusual to see two reclusive girls in the same family, usually if one is introverted, the other will want to get away from her, but Emma and Lizzie had the same problems.

True very true, but their probs had names

I've also seen people come and go who do stop to take the time to get their position softened somewhat so that they are not all black and white as before.
I could name a few people who I think have come a long way, pretty quickly by remaining open-minded.
I laud these people, I really do.

It can't have been easy being a young woman back then, even from a wealthy family, voluminous dresses and whalebone corsets plus the stiflingly hot weather , basic washing and toilet facilities ( did they even have a plumbed in bath or sink in the whole house ? ) and the lack of any personal ambition or even the desire to earn a living .


A lady was supposed to wait for Mr. Right to come along and marry her, and if he didn't then what was her prospects ?

When Andrew Borden purchased the house, it had been a two-family dwelling with cold running water both upstairs and downstairs. Andrew removed the upstairs running water but a sink with running water remained in the kitchen. There was a toilet in the cellar but all the rooms also had chamber pots that everyone emptied each morning. Remember Lizzie took her “slop” pail to the cellar that morning? Bathing usually took place in the kitchen in a large washtub where water could be warmed on the stove and poured into the tub, or while standing at the kitchen sink. (On the morning of the murders, Andrew is said to have "washed up" at the kitchen sink.)

Yes, women wore corsets, etc., but clothing was made primarily of cotton, not the synthetic fibers of today and, therefore, not as hot as we imagine. Also, people who have never known anything else, wouldn’t have considered the clothing or less-than-perfect bathing/bathroom facilities a problem.

Lizzie's guilt was never proven. As for what she said, or didn't say, people are often misquoted or their words are taken out of context. She may have known "something" was going to happen, but mere knowledge that a crime might be committed does not make one guilty. Furthermore, if she learned the identity of the killer after the murders, this does not make her an accessory after the fact. In such a situation, the only charge that could be brought against Lizzie would be perjury for lying under oath when she said she did not know who committed the murders.

Welcome to our forum Lenore ! What got you started in being interested in this case ? We have a great bunch of folks here. Again...welcome !


Tracy...

Thanks, Tracy. I've long been interested in the Lizzie Borden case and life in times past. I actually signed up on this forum last year but misplaced the website and had all but forgotten about it until I received a notice that my name was going to be purged for never having posted anything.

Hi Lenore. I'd like to ask your source for Andrew removing water from the second floor?
We used to have a member Ray who said the same thing and he had read a couple of books- by authors, and I guess that's where he got that info?

There wasn't any running water on Second Street when Andrew bought the place. City water was not yet available.

Why is Lizzie not an accessory after the fact if she knew who killed the Bordens? Isn't that aiding and abetting, and obstruction of justice, at least?

Anyway, she saw a prowler and was so worried about her father in danger but she admits she didn't tell him?
And Wednesday night she is running over with reasons as to why the house could burn down around them to Alice, and she doesn't mention anything to Andrew? What good is it telling Alice? Andrew is the one who needs to know.

I think if you knew of a looming threat you would tell your father.

Kat, as I mentioned in another thread, I believe municipal water was available in Fall River as early as 1869. The water in the Andrew Borden House at the time he purchased it was provided by hand-pumps. He had the upstairs pump which was located in what was later called the “sink” room removed. The second floor sink was still there when the printing company owned the building. Gas was available, primarily for lighting, yet, Andrew Borden relied on kerosene lamps and he refused to install a telephone. The stove was also antiquated for the day and had no reservoir for hearing water so water had to be heated on top of the stove.

Knowing and “aiding and abetting” are two different things. A person cannot be charged as an accessory simply because he/she knows something. As for obstructing justice, the state or commonwealth would have to prove an individual on the witness stand was concealing information and that would be next to impossible.

Perhaps the reason Lizzie did not tell her father about her fears is because he already knew. There is some evidence he acted “strangely” in the days leading up to the murders.