Lizzie Borden Society Forum

My book that I ordered "LIzzie didnt' do it" just came in and I got it. Have already started ready it. It is making for some good read.

And I got and read my copy of David Rehak's lovely book. I think this must be one of the most entertaining books on the case yet, with so many issues addressed, and so many points of view explored. Bravo, Dave!

I agree with you, Bob. I read it last week and enjoyed it thoroughly. It's nice to find someone who explores all the possibilities, rather than giving his own theory of what happened and twisting the facts to suit his idea.

I bought and read it too. The section on Sharon Sexton was a revelation, if true. And the picture of Alice Russell - never seen before. Only know of one other that the Fall River Hist. Soc. has. Seeing the photo of Charles Cook was a new thing too. Never seen one before. Very entertaining book and unlike any other on the case.

Great!! Another book!! Something else I can read!!!!

I agree that Masterton's is one of the best reads on the Borden case. You don't have to agree with the fairly lame-brained theory underlying it; his writing style is wonderful!

I haven't read Dave Rehak's book yet. I tried to order it and ran into some sort of snag. I'll try again, since it seems it's worth reading.

Edisto: if you are Annette Weeks Baker, you are in the book.

Ugh, I'm still waiting for mine to show up. Though I am reading Radin right now, which is one of the other books I purchased on Amazon.


Edit here, well today I received my book by Dave Rehak! Haven't read it as of yet, but, am looking forward to doing so. Though, I can't say I am happy about the quality of the photos that are reproduced in the book, they look like copies of Xerox copies. The one of Alice Russell is cool, wish it was clearer, was trying to imagine her younger with red hair.

I've sent a PM to Adam, since he mentioned that I'm in Dave's book. I assume he'll respond when he gets it. In the meantime, can anyone else tell me in what context I'm mentioned in the book? I ask because I recall having denied Dave permission to use some of my work. I'm certainly hoping he abided by my request, because I really don't like lawsuits!

Edisto: Only mention is in the Acknowledgments included in a long list of other names. Just your name. I recognized some others from around here as well and of course the legendary Mr. Rebello. It's a fun read. A different kind of Lizzie book. A couple of new revelations never in print before.

In my case, I'm not sure what he's acknowledging, because I declined to have any of my work used in the book. I have this quaint idea that people who "write" books should do their own work! Thus far, I haven't identified anything in the book that's mine, which is comforting. However, I don't have a copy of it to comb through.

Since the book contains novel revelations, I'm curious as to whether actual sources are cited and whether, for example, there are footnotes explaining where the novel revelations came from.

Edisto: Then you've seen a copy? I mean you said: "Thus far, I haven't identified anything in the book that's mine, which is comforting."

Yes, he does cite sources.

If you write the author and express how you feel maybe he will leave your name out of the Acknowledgements in future editions? I think most authors will comply with people's wishes to that effect when they were "acknowledged" without the acknowledgee's permission. (smile)

edit


Tracy...

No, I haven't seen the book. Amazon has a feature whereby a customer can peruse some pages without actually buying the book. I've also asked a couple of people who own a copy to go through it for anything that might relate to me. I'm happy to say that thus far nothing has been found, which makes it all the more puzzling that I'm "acknowledged." I must say I wasn't terribly impressed with the pages available on Amazon's site. For example, the "cat beheading" story seems to have been given a credence it doesn't deserve. There are lots of books that provide misleading information on the Borden case; what we need is one that divides the wheat from the chaff.

I just started reading Dave Rehak's book and was surprised and tickled to find my name in his list of acknowledgements. Can't think for the life of me what I may have given him info-wise or otherwise, but, cool all the same.

Good grief! Hasn't anyone else noticed all the errors in Dave's book? I've finally managed to get hold of a copy, courtesy of an anonymous friend. To be fair to Dave, I found nothing in it that had my fingerprints on it, so I'm as surprised as Susan to be acknowledged. Given the quality of the book, I'm not especially flattered.

For openers, even though "sources" are cited at the ends of the chapters, very few "factoids" have attributions. In other words, it usually isn't possible to tell which source applies to which item.

A minor matter, but I noticed immediately that the Frank E. SARGENT Dry Goods Company is described as "Sargeant's." on page xix and then as "Seargent's" on page 12. I fear two wrongs don't make a right. Rebello seems to have good sources for the "Sargent" spelling, so I tend to accept his versiion. A person who isn't careful about spelling, grammar and punctuation gives the impression he mightr be sloppy about other things as well.

On page 11, we're given the startling information that Lizzie claimed she herself had burned Abby's "sick friend" note. I've reread Lizzie's inquest testimony several times and haven't come across this admission.

On page 15, the claim is made that (according to Emma's trial testimony), Lizzie's Bedford-cord dress had a belt and skirt that were darker blue than the top. It's also asserted that the "figure" on the dress was only on the front of it. I could find no testimony from Emma or the dressmaker, Mrs. Raymond, that supports these views. Dave also says that everyone who was around Lizzie on the fateful day (except for the Bowens) gave a description of her dress that matched the Bedford cord. But Alice Russell, who was certainly in proximity to Lizzie during that period, couldn't describe her dress. In fact, Alice testified that she had seen the Bedford cord when it was new and on the Sunday morning when Lizzie burned it, but never in between those events. That means she didn't see it on August 4.

One of the most laughable claims in the book is that the mysterious "Sharon Sexton" (about whom I'll have more to say) had seen Lizzie's diaries for every year of her life! One wonders how Lizzie kept a diary during her baby and toddler years when she couldn't write. Oh --I know! She used a tape recorder! Even Dave has to admit Ms. Sexton's claims are "unsubstantiated." I can't help wondering why he made so much of unsubstantiated claims from a person who seems at best a trifle unstable. (My apologies to Ms. Sexton, if she does in fact exist.)

The "purported" photograph of Alice Russell as an older woman appears highly questionable. My major reason for saying this is that the Lizzie Borden Quarterly of October 2002 published a photograph of Alice Russell that was taken at 3:46 p. m. on September 4, 193l, in her room at the Fall River Home for Aged People. (Miss Russell would have been 79 years old in 1931.) That photograph was donated to the Fall River Historical Society by a distant relative of Miss Russell and has an excellent provenance. The two photographs don't appear to be of the same woman, even though they depict women of a somewhat similar age. There are differences in the texture of the hair, the shape of the face, and the size and placement of the ears, for example. (While straight hair can be curled or crimped, it's difficult to change face and ear shape.)

These are only a few of the errors I found and the questions that are raised by this book. I certainly don't find it a very valuable addition to the Borden literature. Pity!

I think I would just be tickled to have someone acknowledge me in thier book, even if I didn't let them use any of my material.

Well, Snokkums, it's interesting that you'd be "tickled" to be acknowledged in any 'ol book. I wouldn't be. That's probably one of the many differences between us. For example, I wouldn't be at all happy to have my name "acknowledged" in a tome called "Pedophiles in the United States." That's jsut an example, of course.

Several days ago, the Washington Post had an item about a man who has just begun publishing a new magazine in D. C. Apparently in an effort to beef up circulation, the publisher listed many prominent local people on his masthead, with such titles as "Contributing Editor." Surprise, surprise -- most of those people (who hadn't given permission for use of their names) weren't at all happy about it, even though the magazine itself wasn't especially objectionable. I guess I'm not alone in my feelings.

There are several possible reasons for including in a book the names of people who weren't involved in its writing or publication and don't figure in its content. Among them:

1) The author sincerely believes these people were helpful in his/her effort.

2) The author figures to sell books to all the people whose names are included. They might even buy extras for their friends.

3) The author wants to give the impression he/she used more sources than were actually used.

4) name dropping

This explanation is not coming from any negative intent, but merely to inform any of you who might be interested in the content of the website, LizzieAndrewBorden.com

There are and were several articles and works of fiction published there which made it into this Rehak book.
If you have read the website, in the past 2 years, then you have already read:
-At least 2 articles by Rehak, which have lately been removed
-2 fiction pieces by Tina Kate Rouse
-1 article by Terence Duniho
-1 article previously published in the June issue of The Hatchet, submitted by Rehak.
-Lizzie's Will
-some pictures (John Clarke, Stefani Koorey, and a cartoon by Bill Kelly)

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Write ... untain.htm
by Rouse
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Write ... sChild.htm
by Rouse
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResearch/Swift.htm
By Duniho

"Lizzie Borden's Will"
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm

"The Robinson Papers" by Rehak, published Hatchet, Vol. 2, Issue #3, pg. 42.

Ooooh! I hadn't thought of "name dropping." Now I am flattered. Just think -- my name might be worth dropping.

Another reason for the inclusions:

5) To spread the blame around.

I don't think i would want to be in the book of pedaphiles either, but I still would be grateful that someone acknowlegded me. The auther probably just put you in there because he went to you to see if he could use your stuff, whatever you wrote. Or he found a way to use it and you can't find it in the book.