Searching for the "Real Killer(s)"

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:49 am

This is a two-part question, I guess. First, is there any evidence/documentation that any of the "major players" in this tragedy - Emma, Lizzie, Uncle Morse, etc - ever set out to try and find out who "really" killed the Bordens? Especially the girls, for whom money would have been no object...they could have afforded the best investigators and could have sustained a lengthy investigation if need be. I believe following the aquittal, Lizzie's lawyer made reference in the papers to Lizzie having her own theories about what had happened, but not knowing what her plans were as to following up on those. I believe Lizzie also had remarked to friends that she had some ideas, but without actual proof was not going to make those public, in light of her own experiences. I got to thinking about this after remembering OJ's proclamation shortly after his criminal trial, I believe, to find the "real killers" and have them brought to justice.

Part two of my question is if no investigation was done, why not? Again, assuming complete innocence. Put in their place, if my own parents were to be murdered, and I was truly innocent of any knowledge behind the deed - and added to that had been ACCUSED and TRIED for the crime myself - I would certainly want to get to the bottom of who killed them and why. Now I know it's not completely fair to compare myself and what I would have done with either Emma or Lizzie, but I can't help wondering...if I was truly 100% innocent of the crime (including any knowledge of it), why WOULDN'T I want to find out who had killed my folks and why? Fear that the same could happen to me if I went "digging" for the truth? I'm sort of at a loss for reasons?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:18 pm

There are two problems in offering rewards for a murder.
The Big One is that murderers may not tell others, so there is no one to collect the reward! The other is that liars may create stories to get this reward. Remember that woman wanted for check fraud who claimed to have seen OJ driving around the time of the crime? She collected $5,000 from a TV Tabloid but was not called as a witness. People who testify for money are not likely to have the truth as a first item on their agenda.

Second, offering a reward can only be collected by those who were accessories before or after the fact. Murderers do not put items in the classified ads.

There are famous cases, like Tom Mooney, where a middle-class cattleman testified to earn this reward, and also gain the fame for doing so. EVERY witness against Tom Mooney committed perjury. Prosecutorial perjury is NOT perjury, prosecution witnesses are never prosecuted unless they go back on their word (Harvey Matusow, "False Witness").

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:09 pm

I guess I'm talking about conducting a private, independent, "no stone unturned" investigation. I'm aware of the various rewards, but what my question is getting at is did any of the major players - especially the Borden girls - ever initiate any type of independent investigation, complete with hired professionals who could help track down clues and theories for them? And if not, why not?

No question where murders and money are concerned, any number of people can come out of the woodwork and say any number of things. However, that's where your professional investigation team comes in, if you're the Borden girls, to help weed out the cranks, follow up on the leads, and to uncover the truth behind the awful deed and those responsible for it. Was any such private investigation ever undertaken? My original question still stands.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:14 am

I can only think of their PI Hanscomb called for maybe as early as Friday, Aug. 5th!

My impression from the papers was that Jennings was more interested in still solving the crime later than the Borden girls were. But maybe they asked him to keep his eyes and ears open?

It's a good question. I want to know if that reward is still in effect!

Locally, there was a 100,000 reward which just today gained a termination date.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:09 pm

sguthmann @ Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:09 pm wrote:I guess I'm talking about conducting a private, independent, "no stone unturned" investigation. I'm aware of the various rewards, but what my question is getting at is did any of the major players - especially the Borden girls - ever initiate any type of independent investigation, complete with hired professionals who could help track down clues and theories for them? And if not, why not?

No question where murders and money are concerned, any number of people can come out of the woodwork and say any number of things. However, that's where your professional investigation team comes in, if you're the Borden girls, to help weed out the cranks, follow up on the leads, and to uncover the truth behind the awful deed and those responsible for it. Was any such private investigation ever undertaken? My original question still stands.

Arnold Brown, who knew more than I ever will, said Jennings wanted the Private Investigator to make sure the police didn't plant evidence against Lizzie. Correct? But when he learned about Lizzie burning the dress, Jennings sent him out of state.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:40 pm

I wonder what became of the PI's files. He was "on the scene," so to speak, so soon after the incident, it would be VERY interesting to know what he'd uncovered. I wonder if such information is governed anything like attorney-client privledge regulations? I would think Lizzie would have had copies of anything the PI uncovered. I wonder where all that research went to?? I always did wonder why, especially after such a publicized start, the PI investigation eventually faded into obscurity?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:17 pm

Anyone care to ask them?

( I am only kidding of course.)

http://www.pinkertons.com/

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:07 am

Hanscomb heard about the dress-burning from Alice Russell on the Monday after the crime and as far as we know he kept it quiet. I can't even say if he told Jennings! He was around a lot in police circles and the newspapers claimed he was listening in.
I believe he was sent to Iowa to check out Morse's reputation, tho some think he left the case rather early.
I'd say, if my memory serves, that he worked on the case an estimated 2 months maybe?

Anyone else know more about Hanscomb?
I know Harry wrote about him for The Hatchet.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:16 am

I would love to know who Lizzie thought killed her parents. I would also love to know what lizzie thought of why the person or persons did it. But I guess we will never know what Lizzie thought. Was there anything written down as to what she thougt on the matter?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:52 am

If you have The Sourcebook now, see page 354-5 "Took 35-Year Hope To Grave."
You may have read it already, but the first couple of paragraphs and the last few paragraphs (after the heading "Charm In Her Laugh," sort of say what supposedly Lizzie thought about the unsolved crime, in relation to herself.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:31 pm

snokkums @ Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:16 pm wrote:I would love to know who Lizzie thought killed her parents. I would also love to know what lizzie thought of why the person or persons did it. But I guess we will never know what Lizzie thought. Was there anything written down as to what she thougt on the matter?

Lizzie KNEW who was the last person to see her father alive. That is why she said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father ...."
Arnold Brown's solution is based on the memoirs of Ellan Eagan (who was there that day but didn't know Wm S Borden) and Henry Hawthorne (who wasn't there that day but knew Wm S Borden). It best fits the known facts and provides the theory behind the solution.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:44 pm

RayS @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:31 pm wrote:
snokkums @ Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:16 pm wrote:I would love to know who Lizzie thought killed her parents. I would also love to know what lizzie thought of why the person or persons did it. But I guess we will never know what Lizzie thought. Was there anything written down as to what she thougt on the matter?
Lizzie KNEW who was the last person to see her father alive. That is why she said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father ...."
Arnold Brown's solution is based on the memoirs of Ellan Eagan (who was there that day but didn't know Wm S Borden) and Henry Hawthorne (who wasn't there that day but knew Wm S Borden). It best fits the known facts and provides the theory behind the solution.

\

There were million upon millions of people who were not Bridget and who did not work for Andrew Borden... Not just one person.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:14 pm

Audrey @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:44 pm wrote:
RayS @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:31 pm wrote:
snokkums @ Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:16 pm wrote:I would love to know who Lizzie thought killed her parents. I would also love to know what lizzie thought of why the person or persons did it. But I guess we will never know what Lizzie thought. Was there anything written down as to what she thougt on the matter?
Lizzie KNEW who was the last person to see her father alive. That is why she said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father ...."
Arnold Brown's solution is based on the memoirs of Ellan Eagan (who was there that day but didn't know Wm S Borden) and Henry Hawthorne (who wasn't there that day but knew Wm S Borden). It best fits the known facts and provides the theory behind the solution.
\

There were million upon millions of people who were not Bridget and who did not work for Andrew Borden... Not just one person.

Ha-ha-ha. Surely you jest. I estimate there were less than 100 people who "worked for" Andy. There couldn't be more than 250,000 people in Fall River and vicinity at that time. Or did you push the wrong button on your calculator?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:33 pm

RayS @ Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:14 pm wrote:
Audrey @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:44 pm wrote:
RayS @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:31 pm wrote: Lizzie KNEW who was the last person to see her father alive. That is why she said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father ...."
Arnold Brown's solution is based on the memoirs of Ellan Eagan (who was there that day but didn't know Wm S Borden) and Henry Hawthorne (who wasn't there that day but knew Wm S Borden). It best fits the known facts and provides the theory behind the solution.
\

There were million upon millions of people who were not Bridget and who did not work for Andrew Borden... Not just one person.
Ha-ha-ha. Surely you jest. I estimate there were less than 100 people who "worked for" Andy. There couldn't be more than 250,000 people in Fall River and vicinity at that time. Or did you push the wrong button on your calculator?

My meaning was clear... When Lizzie said it was not Bridget or anyone who worked for her father-- she wasn't exactly narrowing the list of suspects! Millions of people are on that list. People all over the world!

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:26 pm

ok, rays, i understand that your answer would be "lizzie didn't investigate further because she knew who had done it." even if she did have her theories about who did it, why not go public? forgive me, it's been so long since I read Brown's book, I can't recall why she would still keep the real killer's identity a secret? because she didn't want to split the inheritance 3 ways??

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:55 pm

sguthmann @ Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:26 pm wrote:ok, rays, i understand that your answer would be "lizzie didn't investigate further because she knew who had done it." even if she did have her theories about who did it, why not go public? forgive me, it's been so long since I read Brown's book, I can't recall why she would still keep the real killer's identity a secret? because she didn't want to split the inheritance 3 ways??

Remember those stories about the "Lindbergh Baby" surviving? A few years ago we learned that the Lone Eagle had a girfriend and 3 children n Germany! Wouldn't it be possible that Lindbergh had more than a few groupies in his day? Don't believe that "shy bachelor" story.

SO too Lizzie (and Emma) may have known about a Cousin Henry, a Cousin Clara, a Cousin Susannah, etc. It could be more than a 3-way split. Or am I just being cynical? Don't forget the enduring small-town scandals as well. "Why Lizzie, have you found anymore cousins lately?"

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:50 pm

Better to be thought a murderer and ostracised for the rest of your life than to acknowledge a half brother????

A half brother who has a peculiar, almost unheard of odor that evaporated just in time for Mrs. Churchill NOT to smell it.....

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Though I am, oddly enough, tiring of the scent of Arnold Brown in so many threads in which his theories are not otherwise being discussed - or am I being cynical?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:44 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:24 pm wrote:Though I am, oddly enough, tiring of the scent of Arnold Brown in so many threads in which his theories are not otherwise being discussed - or am I being cynical?

No..... Just tired of the tediousness.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:32 pm

Well, back to the Sourcebook, pg. 354-55.

Here is the transcription of the few paragraphs I cited earlier.
"Took 35-Year Hope To Grave"

"Lizzie Borden Lived in Expectation of Proving to Sceptical World She Never Killed Kin."
By Ruth Bodwell

" 'I would give every cent I have in the world and beg in the streets, if I could only be proved while I live that I did not kill my father and my stepmother.'

This was the prayer and the hope of Lizzie Borden who died the other day in Fall River after living for 35 years suspected, though acquitted, of having killed her father and her stepmother with an axe.
....
Only once during the freindship of this woman for Lizzie Borden did they talk directly about the gruesome murder. One night the woman who was cleared of the murder but always suspected talked way into the night and early morning.
'She said she had a theory- but- When I know how easy it is to be accused, it ill befits me to accuse in my turn, since I do not know.

Never told theory.

What the theory of the murder was, she never divulged, but she constantly hoped that before she died she would be proven clean-handed in the matter."
...

--I put *Lizzie's quote* in italics because it was a quote within a quote within a quote.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:40 pm

Maybe there should be an entire seperate 'forum' devoted to Arnie's theory. That way those who want to totally submerge themselves in the idea of "Willie did it", can do so in the comfortable company of like-minded thinkers and compadres. A win-win for everyone.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:45 pm

Brown's theory has often seemed to me to be reflected in an original letter in The Knowlton Papers by "Phillip Gordon Reed (Bordon)- who I jestingly refer to as Gordon Bordon.. It sounds so like Brown's story that I can't help thinking he took it from there and spun it a bit. It doesn't prove that Brown was misguided or wrong or writing fiction, but it seems more like he possibly borrowed the idea, without giving credit?

" #HK012
Letter, handwritten in ink.

HOTEL KENMORE

Albany N.Y. Aug 12 1892

District Atty. Knowlton

Fall River, Mass.

Dear Sir:-
Feeling quite safe from all possible arrest, I write you This information regarding the Fall River Mystery. The Killing of old man Bordon and his wife was not perportrated by any immediate member of his family as is generally supposed. But They were put out of the way By an illgitimate Son whom Bordon refused to recognize after the Mother of his off-spring died a number of years ago in a certain Mass. Insane Asylum of a Broken heart. That son is now twenty five years of age. He was not known to any member of the family save the old man and woman. When that sons
Mother was sent to the asylum through Bordon, the Son was put in a New York Orphan Asylum. When he was subsequently bound out to a farmer. When he reached his age he left the farmer and went to Bordon and demanded recognition and some sort of an understanding. We mutually
agreed to a certain contract part orally & part written. What the contract was does not matter here more than to say - He was to be educated at his, Bordons expense. Allowed a certain sum of money a year and when completed course preparatory to College was to be paid a final sum of $5,000 to commence life with and then they were quits. Through the influence of his Wife who disliked the said son because he once insulted her when she made a stinging remark regarding that sons mother in his presence was persuaded to renounce his obligations & promises after he had partly filled them. The son repeatedly thereafter tried to induce Bordon to carry out his agreement as he was abundently able to do so. He wouldn't listen. So to make a long story short the son Brooded over his and his mothers past troubles and resolved upon Vengeance, with the result known to all. One point More Lizzie Bordon my half sister may have heard of me and it is to shield her fathers infamy and good name that she is taking the course she has so nobly with stood. The girl is entirely innocent and it is only that justice may be done her that I write this otherwise I would not have written this for I fairly hate the Bordon name.

The instrument the deed was done with was a Lathers Hatchet and was droped over board from a Fall River steamer at the Dock. Entrance to the House was gained by a front window afterwards fastened egress by side window. The time of Revenge about 11:45 I think.

And the illigitimate who took the revenge is the Writer of this confession. No use to track me for it will be an utter impossibilty to do so. At the hour this letter is mailed I shall take a train for hundreds of miles away.
Yours Truly
Phillip Gordon Reed"

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:56 pm

I find it interesting that the 'author' of this letter misspells the Borden name and vacillates between first and third person during the 'story'.

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:10 pm

theebmonique @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:56 pm wrote:I find it interesting that the 'author' of this letter misspells the Borden name and vacillates between first and third person during the 'story'.

Tracy...

I pointed out years ago that the deliberate misspelling provide a way to deny that the author ever spoke about the "BORDEN"s. That letter was sent to Police Chief and Prosecutor, it would not be release to the general public, and be known only by rumor. Police wouldn't tell.
Brown speaks of the "Robinsky letter" as being forged, and mentions why he says this in his book. Do you agree? or disagree?

I once read that a giveaway to a forged letter is how they misspell ordinary words and not others in an attempt to sound illiterate. True?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:14 pm

Kat @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:45 pm wrote:Brown's theory has often seemed to me to be reflected in an original letter in The Knowlton Papers by "Phillip Gordon Reed (Bordon)- who I jestingly refer to as Gordon Bordon.. It sounds so like Brown's story that I can't help thinking he took it from there and spun it a bit. It doesn't prove that Brown was misguided or wrong or writing fiction, but it seems more like he possibly borrowed the idea, without giving credit?

" #HK012
Letter, handwritten in ink.

HOTEL KENMORE

Albany N.Y. Aug 12 1892

District Atty. Knowlton

Fall River, Mass.

Dear Sir:-
Feeling quite safe from all possible arrest, I write you This information regarding the Fall River Mystery. The Killing of old man Bordon and his wife was not perportrated by any immediate member of his family as is generally supposed. But They were put out of the way By an illgitimate Son whom Bordon refused to recognize after the Mother of his off-spring died a number of years ago in a certain Mass. Insane Asylum of a Broken heart. That son is now twenty five years of age. He was not known to any member of the family save the old man and woman. When that sons
Mother was sent to the asylum through Bordon, the Son was put in a New York Orphan Asylum. When he was subsequently bound out to a farmer. When he reached his age he left the farmer and went to Bordon and demanded recognition and some sort of an understanding. We mutually
agreed to a certain contract part orally & part written. What the contract was does not matter here more than to say - He was to be educated at his, Bordons expense. Allowed a certain sum of money a year and when completed course preparatory to College was to be paid a final sum of $5,000 to commence life with and then they were quits. Through the influence of his Wife who disliked the said son because he once insulted her when she made a stinging remark regarding that sons mother in his presence was persuaded to renounce his obligations & promises after he had partly filled them. The son repeatedly thereafter tried to induce Bordon to carry out his agreement as he was abundently able to do so. He wouldn't listen. So to make a long story short the son Brooded over his and his mothers past troubles and resolved upon Vengeance, with the result known to all. One point More Lizzie Bordon my half sister may have heard of me and it is to shield her fathers infamy and good name that she is taking the course she has so nobly with stood. The girl is entirely innocent and it is only that justice may be done her that I write this otherwise I would not have written this for I fairly hate the Bordon name.

The instrument the deed was done with was a Lathers Hatchet and was droped over board from a Fall River steamer at the Dock. Entrance to the House was gained by a front window afterwards fastened egress by side window. The time of Revenge about 11:45 I think.

And the illigitimate who took the revenge is the Writer of this confession. No use to track me for it will be an utter impossibilty to do so. At the hour this letter is mailed I shall take a train for hundreds of miles away.
Yours Truly
Phillip Gordon Reed"

Read it; does it sound like someone trying to act like a crazy person? Isn't that rather a well-educated style?
Wasn't this story well-known?

Don't forget how Andy swindled the Brayton over an inheritance. Would the ruling class let it be known that Andy was on their blacklist? Could they seek revenge on a daughter? WHAT is your own experiences?

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:34 pm

?????

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:28 pm

RayS @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:55 am wrote:It could be more than a 3-way split. Or am I just being cynical? Don't forget the enduring small-town scandals as well. "Why Lizzie, have you found anymore cousins lately?"

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that Lizzie chose to have a ruined reputation vs. taking the chance of sharing any of the inheritance with possible "others?"

I just don't know. Especially because "they" could have come out of the woodwork regardless if she kept quiet with what she knew (if anything) or not. I mean, she really didn't have a guarantee that some half-sib wouldn't pop out of the woodwork...unless you're saying that the only challenger she knew of just happened to be the guilty party. ie, "I'll keep your secret if you keep mine..."

However, would a murderous half-brother pose much of a threat to one's inheritance once they were put away for the remainder of his natural life? Also, in that day and age, would an illegitimate child even share in the same inheritance rights as the legit kids?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:59 pm

Personally, I categorically reject Arnold Brown's theory. Selfish Lizzie taking the rap for anyone? HA!

Did they ever rescind the reward offer???

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:48 am

Last night I caught a bit of Court TV Case Files and the detective was giving reasons to suspect the grown son of his elderly parents murder. His main suspicion came over time, because he explained, in his massive experience, families of murder victims virtually camp out on the police dept doorstep- wanting answers, wanting updates, being very emotionally overwrought trying to move the police to a faster resolution, trying to get justice for their loved ones and they are literally tormented and can not release the hold the horror of the murders have on them.

This son did not do that. He did not constantly call and beg for updates. He did not show much emotion- he seemed barely to care. He stayed out of the investigation and stayed out of contact with the police.
That's when the veteran police officer knew the son had done it.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:49 pm

Kat @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:48 am wrote:Last night I caught a bit of Court TV Case Files and the detective was giving reasons to suspect the grown son of his elderly parents murder. His main suspicion came over time, because he explained, in his massive experience, families of murder victims virtually camp out on the police dept doorstep- wanting answers, wanting updates, being very emotionally overwrought trying to move the police to a faster resolution, trying to get justice for their loved ones and they are literally tormented and can not release the hold the horror of the murders have on them.

This son did not do that. He did not constantly call and beg for updates. He did not show much emotion- he seemed barely to care. He stayed out of the investigation and stayed out of contact with the police.
That's when the veteran police officer knew the son had done it.

Basically, THAT is an ANECDOTE, a story that has no scientific authority behind it. I suppose if the son was all broken up they would then claim he is acting to avoid suspicion? Merely copying something from a dramatic show on TV isn't likely to prove anything to me. What about anyone else?
Lizzie wasn't broken up, but what about Emma or Uncle John?
What about Bridget or the next door maid. What about those who worked for Andy? Or the neighbors.

I hope you never have the occasion where a parent has a long lingering illness. When their death occurs, you may not be broken up.

william · Post by **william** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:05 pm

You indicate that Lizzie wasn't broken up over the death of her parents, but pose a question regarding the demeanor of Emma and Morse.

There were several reports of Lizzie being reduced to tears, but I cannot recall a single instance where this occurred to her sister or uncle

Can you?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:34 pm

RayS @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:49 pm wrote:
Kat @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:48 am wrote:Last night I caught a bit of Court TV Case Files and the detective was giving reasons to suspect the grown son of his elderly parents murder. His main suspicion came over time, because he explained, in his massive experience, families of murder victims virtually camp out on the police dept doorstep- wanting answers, wanting updates, being very emotionally overwrought trying to move the police to a faster resolution, trying to get justice for their loved ones and they are literally tormented and can not release the hold the horror of the murders have on them.

This son did not do that. He did not constantly call and beg for updates. He did not show much emotion- he seemed barely to care. He stayed out of the investigation and stayed out of contact with the police.
That's when the veteran police officer knew the son had done it.
Basically, THAT is an ANECDOTE, a story that has no scientific authority behind it. I suppose if the son was all broken up they would then claim he is acting to avoid suspicion? Merely copying something from a dramatic show on TV isn't likely to prove anything to me. What about anyone else?
Lizzie wasn't broken up, but what about Emma or Uncle John?
What about Bridget or the next door maid. What about those who worked for Andy? Or the neighbors.

I hope you never have the occasion where a parent has a long lingering illness. When their death occurs, you may not be broken up.

Ray... You wouldn't be nearly as tiresome and tedious if each and every one of your posts didn't have some suggestion that we try some experiement or think about our own lives or wasn't aimed at supporting Brown's theory....

How ill mannered of you.... You have been a member of this or the past forum for how long? Kat took care of her mother while she was ill and infirm. She has posted about it and never made a secret of it. Shame on you.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:07 pm

Audrey @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:34 pm wrote:
Kat took care of her mother while she was ill and infirm. She has posted about it and never made a secret of it. Shame on you.

This same thought occurred to me when I read RayS post.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:49 pm

william @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:05 pm wrote:You indicate that Lizzie wasn't broken up over the death of her parents, but pose a question regarding the demeanor of Emma and Morse.

There were several reports of Lizzie being reduced to tears, but I cannot recall a single instance where this occurred to her sister or uncle

Can you?

But some of the posters claim that Lizzie was stone-faced and cold.
I wasn't there to witness this myself. I do know that Lizzie was given sedatives, so she MUST have been upset.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:51 pm

I know nothing about Kat's tragedies, don't remember anything. I don't read every topic or thread. YOU are assuming no one else had this in their family.

I apologize to Kat if I have offended her. It wasn't deliberate.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:49 pm

Pertaining to the insensitivity of someone towards a loved one is something that I have experienced in the past.

At times while caring for a loved one who may be dying, especially if it takes months or years, some of us seem to acquire an insensitivity that is totally contributed to our denial.

I had two friends who died young. One I was close to and one not so close. The one I was close to, when he died, I shocked myself by the little grief I seemed to contain for his death. While the one I was not so close to, I fell apart and was devestated for some days after.

Today when I look back on these two friends I find that the friend I cried about, I feel at ease with the death, (which will come for us all) but the other friend, the one who's death I took so lightly, I still grieve for a little every day, and It doesn't seem to go away.

From this "I think," I discovered that I was, and am still in denail about that one friend that I never cried for. And, everyday I grieve a little, instead of all at once. Does it mean that I cared for one friend more than the other? No.

It's just that death effects us all differently. We all handle death in various ways, and it should be that way.

Whether Lizzie shed countless tears behind closed doors could be very possible, and the fact that she showed little grief around the public does not mean that she is a cold "B". But when someone shows no emotion, especially to an emotional person, they can be precieved no other way but cold.

Another friend who's mother just died recently talks about her and laughs about the times and the things they did, as if she is still alive. He appears to have "as a matter of fact" attitude about her death, almost like he did not really care. Now, I don't pry, but who is to know how he handles such things when he is alone with himself. Or, let us believe that he never cried, does that mean that he is a bad person. He has always apeared to me to be insensitive in many such matters. But, other actions speak for themselves, and tell a very different story; as he works in soup kitchens and gives seniors rides, some complete strangers, to the doctors etc. Yet when his brother died I saw almost no emotion from him. But again who am I to judge how he handles such a personal thing as death?

Yes, death is very subjective and all of us should be allowed to grieve as we see fit, without persecution from anyone around us, be they, stranger, friends or family members.

Someone close may die and you may surprise yourself by how many or how little tears you may shed. But many of those tears are usually shed for our selves; and again, can be/have very positive long term results.

But, if you don't grieve as you should, when that close friend or Mother, brother, or sister dies, you may be in denial, which is normal. Many people in denail desplay a persona of being cold and insensitve. Also you may find that you will pay for it later.

Denail, always demands payment. It can be short term and hard, or long term and very slow. The second much more painful.

Enough of my sermon, I've got to go, Dr Phil is on!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:37 pm

I have lost both of my parents....

Both deaths were extremely difficult for me.

I did my crying in private.

When my father died, most of the arrangements naturally fell to my mother and the decisions were made before I even arrived home.

When my mother died, my brother and I had to make the decisions and deal with all of the arrangements.

I stood there in the house receiving 'guests' during the wake which was held at home and later after the service I was forced to preside over the luncheon which was served.

I hated each and every moment of it and personally think funeral customs are barbaric. Merci Dieu we did not have to parade into the church after all those attending the funeral are seated as they do in America!

Women are different from men, and especially strong women. We are taught to not cause trouble and above all, be polite. It would not have been appropriate for me to be seen weeping and wailing, so I simply did not do it. My mother would not have wanted me to sit slumped over in my seat crying and sniffling.. She would have wanted me to sit up straight and poised and appear serene so again, I simply did it.

People grieve differently. Usually our behaviour at a time like this is influenced by what we experienced growing up-- or what our examples were. I do not think the Borden household was ever an overly emotional or demonstrative one.

Lizzie was a product of her environment-- we all are.

Perhaps her 'Sphinx of Coldness' was merely her general demeanour.

I also contend she would have been criticized no matter what she did.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:04 am

Edit here: Audrey- I didn't see your post there while I composed mine. Sorry.

Michael, Dr. Phil is off Thursday and Friday this week due to March Madness Basketball.
Caught ya! I do watch Dr. Phil.

That was a interesting perspective.
I also believe that when people cry they are crying for themselves. I can't believe you said that. I don't ever remember anyone else agreeing with that!

Quite a few of us here have lost loved ones in the very recent past: Augusta, William, Audrey. Others have very old and ailing parents they are struggling to deal with.
Yes it's good to keep in mind respect for each other and things which might be going on behind the scenes.
~~~~~
~~~~~~

Basically, THAT is an ANECDOTE, a story that has no scientific authority behind it. I suppose if the son was all broken up they would then claim he is acting to avoid suspicion? Merely copying something from a dramatic show on TV isn't likely to prove anything to me."

--Ray

When I brought up the case from TV, I was posting about Murder- and a seasoned, professional police officer who trusts his instincts, his gut. Of course the son "did it." It wasn't a dramatic show, it was a true case which the guy investigated. The catch was he was given a psychic to help when things got cold. The psychic independently confirmed what the gut of the officer told him.
I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone by telling the anecdote. I just put it out there and people take it or throw it away.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:55 am

Yes KAT: I have some odd beliefs about many things. I truly believe that many of us do cry for ourselves. I have always been facinated by how I precieve death, life, love, and constantly find that I am asking "Why."

It's the same about love. This is a perfect example of crying for one's self. We are in love, our lover finds another, and we climb under the sheets and cry and cry. For who???? Not our lover, he/she has moved on. (As a matter of fact I just seen him painting the town last night.) Thus my four little lines below, by the Moody Blues.

So, in that case we are crying for "Self." I asked the same question about someone who dies. Why do we grieve so? Not to be crude, but to see someone suffer we can say we are crying for them, and that could be so. After our loved one is gone, they feel no pain, so why do we continue to greive? Are we really grieving for ourselves? I really can't say. And let me add, I may be wrong. But it is part of my belief structure, and maybe behavior that pertains only to me. I believe that when I grieve I do so for myself.........

As I mentioned, everyone grieves in their own way. I have had countless people die around me, including my father, a brother, a best friend, etc. But I never have seen death, never went to any of thier funerals, never seen a dead person.

You are right Audrey, myself, I have always found funerals bizarre, and the money made off the grieving, somewhat a perversion.

I remember my father's best friend comming up to me after my father died, getting in my face, and calling me a coward for not attending my father's funeral; and my mother cutting between us and looking him in the eye and saying, "Let him be, we all grieve in our own way." Thanks Mom............and with that, I must add you are right Audrey. My mom was always the the stronger of all when death visited our family.

Boy........no easy way, or happy way of talking about such things, without sounding so depressed.

So please allow me to close with a trivia question..........yes that's right, about death.

Does anyone know where the axiom: SAVED BY THE BELL was derived?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:06 am

It comes from the bells that used to be put on graves. The bells were attached to strings, and the strings went down inside coffins so that the person could pull the string and alert someone they had been buried alive. It was the terror that people held of being buried alive that started this tradition. I've read about it many times, and I found it bizarre. But what I found even more bizarre are reports of the bells being used.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:25 am

YES: Right you are Allen>>>>>>give that little lady a balloon!

I always got a kick out of that. But of course, today that would be difficult with your insides torn out and placed in a baggy....

Thanks Allen, I needed a laugh after that morbid post I left.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:44 pm

As far as I know, "saved by the bell" refers to boxing. When the round ends and saves a boxer from a further beating.
In the 19th century, before the Marquis of Queensbury Rule, a round ended not by time but whan a boxer was knocked down (or took a dive).
There are at least one book in the library on the origin of familiar expressions.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:51 pm

Allen @ Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:06 am wrote:It comes from the bells that used to be put on graves. The bells were attached to strings, and the strings went down inside coffins so that the person could pull the string and alert someone they had been buried alive. It was the terror that people held of being buried alive that started this tradition. I've read about it many times, and I found it bizarre. But what I found even more bizarre are reports of the bells being used.

Definitely NOT!!!
The idea of a bell on a string into the coffin originate with the cholera epidemics of the 19th century. There were cases when the "dead" came back to life before being buried. Medical science was not that advanced then. It may also explain the miracle of raising Lazarus from death. A skilled observer, like Dr. Joseph Bell, would have noticed something.

I once read of the cholera epidemin in 1850s New Orleans. The master of the house died, and his body was deposited in the street for pick-up. (Like they did in Philadelphia during the Great Flu Epidemic of 1918.) His body was picked and thrown into the cart, then brought to the graveyard. But being dark, the bodies were just thrown into the grave. He came to during the night, got up, and walked back to his home, and knocked and yelled to be readmitted. This scared his family witless, as they thought he had returned to haunt them!!! Finally the police and priest were summoned, and all learned an unusual lesson. (As I read in a book; I wan't an eye-witness so don't accuse me of "fiction").

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:57 pm

Kat @ Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:04 am wrote: That was a interesting perspective.
I also believe that when people cry they are crying for themselves. I can't believe you said that. I don't ever remember anyone else agreeing with that!

Quite a few of us here have lost loved ones in the very recent past: Augusta, William, Audrey. Others have very old and ailing parents they are struggling to deal with.
Yes it's good to keep in mind respect for each other and things which might be going on behind the scenes.

Basically, THAT is an ANECDOTE, a story that has no scientific authority behind it. I suppose if the son was all broken up they would then claim he is acting to avoid suspicion? Merely copying something from a dramatic show on TV isn't likely to prove anything to me."
--Ray

When I brought up the case from TV, I was posting about Murder- and a seasoned, professional police officer who trusts his instincts, his gut. Of course the son "did it." It wasn't a dramatic show, it was a true case which the guy investigated. The catch was he was given a psychic to help when things got cold. The psychic independently confirmed what the gut of the officer told him.
I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone by telling the anecdote. I just put it out there and people take it or throw it away.

FIRST, thanks for not insulting me for my honest comments. Yes, I too had a sad funeral in 2004, just about 16 months ago. It wasn't unexpected. (comments censured for personal reasons)
I would caution everyone, myself included, for watching "cases ripped from the headlines" as they distort the actual facts for dramatic needs.

I assume this wasn't the real persons, only actors reading the line prepared for them. In real life crimes are not committed, detected, and solved in less than 60 minutes.

If we've learned ANYTHING in the past century it is that "hunches" are not reliable when compared to scientific evidence. Do you all agree?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:27 pm

Yes RAYS: Right you are about "Hunches." Hunches can be very bad science, and very dangerous when used by police, who have no clue, just a hunch, and follow it up as fact. When it came to lizzie the police ran on a hunch and a lot of circumstantcial evidence.

When it comes to hunches; a hunch is just a hunch is just a hunch.

But one question about what you have learned in the last "CENTURY" RAYS.

How old are you anyway???? (Just joking Rays.)

Pippi · Post by **Pippi** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:44 pm

I have to say that since joining this forum and all the talk of how one should appear during mourning has left me rather anxious about how others perceive my own grief. I lost my mother in the summer 2005 (hence my absence), before her death she was very ill in the ICU for a couple of months. When I showed up I did not cry and made up my mind there would be no crying in her room-that I needed to be strong for her. I asked a lot of questions etc. and didn't seem very rattled. When I went home at night I often spent time with friends having "fun". When it was determined my mother's condition was terminal I pushed for information on choices etc. Again, no tears...I often wondered what they thought of me, did they understand I had to be the strong advocate or did they think I was cold and wanted her dead? I practically complained that she wasn't dying fast enough (she was in pain but refused to let them unplug her which even seemed to bother THEM). All the hub bub about grieving and various trials flooded me repeatedly and perhaps I even allowed it to cripple me emotionally a bit.

After her death again, I at times felt guilty for laughing and having normal conversations with people.. "am I suppose to be endlessly sorrowful and speak of nothing? What will they think of my laughing?" None the less I did plenty of crying and haunted daily with the the cruelty I saw. For the most part most people didn't see me grieve and still don't...but I DO and I AM. I wondered what the docs though of my perhaps morbid curiosity that had me staring into her lifeless eyes 4x longer and harder than the dr. who examined and pronounced her dead...did they understand that I wanted to understand and KNOW she was gone or did they think I was a sicko? I don't think I portrayed the "norm" when I sat with her body for hours waiting for them to take it away chatting on my cell phone about shallow everyday life but that's how I dealt with the hospitals lack in coming to get her I had to do SOMETHING and I didn't want to keep lifting the sheet (which I was also drawn to do I couldn't believe it was all happening after all)

Still, I find it all quite "normal" for the grieving process, thank God my mother wasn't murdered or perhaps I'd be suspect JUST because I couldn't believe it and wanted to understand.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:55 pm

(...)
[Deleted as it was too personal.]

It is good policy to call others to clear any decision. I know of a cousin who told them to shut down the machine for her father. BIG problems in the family afterwards. One brother had his lawyer send a letter telling her she would be prosecuted if she ever went on his property!!!

But I guess you all heard about the problems that arise after a parents die, even if the will specified the property division?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:57 pm

Audrey @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:34 pm wrote:
RayS @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:49 pm wrote:
Kat @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:48 am wrote:Last night I caught a bit of Court TV Case Files and the detective was giving reasons to suspect the grown son of his elderly parents murder. His main suspicion came over time, because he explained, in his massive experience, families of murder victims virtually camp out on the police dept doorstep- wanting answers, wanting updates, being very emotionally overwrought trying to move the police to a faster resolution, trying to get justice for their loved ones and they are literally tormented and can not release the hold the horror of the murders have on them.

This son did not do that. He did not constantly call and beg for updates. He did not show much emotion- he seemed barely to care. He stayed out of the investigation and stayed out of contact with the police.
That's when the veteran police officer knew the son had done it.
Basically, THAT is an ANECDOTE, a story that has no scientific authority behind it. I suppose if the son was all broken up they would then claim he is acting to avoid suspicion? Merely copying something from a dramatic show on TV isn't likely to prove anything to me. What about anyone else?
Lizzie wasn't broken up, but what about Emma or Uncle John?
What about Bridget or the next door maid. What about those who worked for Andy? Or the neighbors.

I hope you never have the occasion where a parent has a long lingering illness. When their death occurs, you may not be broken up.

Ray... You wouldn't be nearly as tiresome and tedious if each and every one of your posts didn't have some suggestion that we try some experiement or think about our own lives or wasn't aimed at supporting Brown's theory....

How ill mannered of you.... You have been a member of this or the past forum for how long? Kat took care of her mother while she was ill and infirm. She has posted about it and never made a secret of it. Shame on you.

I resent this accusation and think you are being deliberately insulting.
Please apologize.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:02 pm

RayS @ Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:57 pm wrote:
Audrey @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:34 pm wrote:
RayS @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:49 pm wrote: Basically, THAT is an ANECDOTE, a story that has no scientific authority behind it. I suppose if the son was all broken up they would then claim he is acting to avoid suspicion? Merely copying something from a dramatic show on TV isn't likely to prove anything to me. What about anyone else?
Lizzie wasn't broken up, but what about Emma or Uncle John?
What about Bridget or the next door maid. What about those who worked for Andy? Or the neighbors.

I hope you never have the occasion where a parent has a long lingering illness. When their death occurs, you may not be broken up.

Ray... You wouldn't be nearly as tiresome and tedious if each and every one of your posts didn't have some suggestion that we try some experiement or think about our own lives or wasn't aimed at supporting Brown's theory....

How ill mannered of you.... You have been a member of this or the past forum for how long? Kat took care of her mother while she was ill and infirm. She has posted about it and never made a secret of it. Shame on you.
I resent this accusation and think you are being deliberately insulting.
Please apologize.

Sorry, RayS...I have to agree with Audrey on this one. You are many times tiresome and tedious, and remind me of my former father-in-law, who had no tolerance for anyone else's opinion on anything and always shouted them down while banging his fist on the table! I'm sure you have many good ideas, but your attitude at times leaves a lot to be desired.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:15 pm

This is obviously a touchy subject and we should be kinder to each other. People are putting their grief on the page here.

As to Pippi, I do understand what you are asking about people's perception of your ordeal.
I'd say that a lot of medical persons would not see anything odd at all in your demeanor , because they themselves seem to be trained to have their emotions under control in such circumstances and they themselves can appear even aloof. My experience of the assistants and nurses tho, is that they are relieved when one maintains a sort of equanimity- one less person acting out is one less huge stressor for them as well, though they are genuinely sorry for your loss.

Personally, I think there are times when a surviving family member can feel relief, especially if the loved one was suffering.

Everyone, get your DNR and Living Wills in order- save your loved ones a peck of trouble at a most trying time, is my advice. (I haven't done it yet).