Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Please.. Correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't Mr. Brown propose that Lizzie attempted to buy the prussic acid so that if things got out of control she could fling it at Billy Borden as a means of self defense?

Really???


(I cannot find my Brown-- even though I know I do own it)

It's been quite awhile since I took out my own copy of Brown and dusted it off so I could read it, but on page 313 I found this reference to Lizzie, prussic acid, and Bill Borden.

Lizzie wisely feared Bill. She knew he would be in or close to the house the evening before the murders, and so she told Alice Russell she would sleep " with her eyes half open in fear somebody would do something." Although she had every reason to fear her half brother, she was convinced, perhaps by ego, that she could control him. Her attempt at buying prussic acid was actually a desire for a strong defensive weapon against Bill should one be required, exactly as Phillips, Jennings' assistant, wrote fifty years later.

I forgot to add, that after reading a little further ahead, I didn't see any reference made to flinging it at him.

Allen @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:58 pm wrote:It's been quite awhile since I took out my own copy of Brown and dusted it off so I could read it, but on page 313 I found this reference to Lizzie, prussic acid, and Bill Borden.

Lizzie wisely feared Bill. She knew he would be in or close to the house the evening before the murders, and so she told Alice Russell she would sleep " with her eyes half open in fear somebody would do something." Although she had every reason to fear her half brother, she was convinced, perhaps by ego, that she could control him. Her attempt at buying prussic acid was actually a desire for a strong defensive weapon against Bill should one be required, exactly as Phillips, Jennings' assistant, wrote fifty years later.

Thanks Melissa.... I think the flinging part came from the forum at one time... What did she think she would/could do with it? IN the middle of the pandemonium was she going to offer him a 'specially spiced' meal?

Let's see what Phillips had to say about the poison:

Lizzie had, however, made statements which were contradicted and had made others which the police considered to be doubtful, so that being suspected from the first she was finally charged with the crime. She was contradicted by Eli Bence concerning her attempt to purchase poison, but at the time of her trial this evidence was excluded as immaterial since there was no evidence that any poison was used or actually purchased. She had sought to purchase it for an innocent purpose.

--“ 'The Borden Murder Mystery: In Defence of Lizzie Borden' is an excerpt from the third fascicle of Arthur S. Phillips' larger work The Phillips History of Fall River, printed by the Dover Press in 1946."

I don't see where he wrote anything about a "defensive weapon."

I imagine that Lizzie would, as a last resort, give the Visitor something to drink. Poison is more in line w/ feminine side, an axe more likely to be used a man, one skilled in its use. IMO
===
IF Lizzie had been the 3rd victim, who would you blame then?

Kat @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:10 pm wrote:Let's see what Phillips had to say about the poison:

Lizzie had, however, made statements which were contradicted and had made others which the police considered to be doubtful, so that being suspected from the first she was finally charged with the crime. She was contradicted by Eli Bence concerning her attempt to purchase poison, but at the time of her trial this evidence was excluded as immaterial since there was no evidence that any poison was used or actually purchased. She had sought to purchase it for an innocent purpose.

Am I reading this right, that a member of her own defense team is, in print, admitting that Lizzie DID buy the poison (however, "for an innocent purpose") ?!?!?!?

What I get from the Phillips article is that they are admitting that Lizzie attempted to purchase poison, but, didn't get any. And since she was attempting to purchase it for an innocent purpose and didn't get any, it really didn't matter. Though how they knew it was for an innocent purpose as fact is beyond me?

Audrey @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:23 pm wrote:

Allen @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:58 pm wrote:It's been quite awhile since I took out my own copy of Brown and dusted it off so I could read it, but on page 313 I found this reference to Lizzie, prussic acid, and Bill Borden.

Lizzie wisely feared Bill. She knew he would be in or close to the house the evening before the murders, and so she told Alice Russell she would sleep " with her eyes half open in fear somebody would do something." Although she had every reason to fear her half brother, she was convinced, perhaps by ego, that she could control him. Her attempt at buying prussic acid was actually a desire for a strong defensive weapon against Bill should one be required, exactly as Phillips, Jennings' assistant, wrote fifty years later.

Thanks Melissa.... I think the flinging part came from the forum at one time... What did she think she would/could do with it? IN the middle of the pandemonium was she going to offer him a 'specially spiced' meal?

Has anyone noted or quoted the exact text in Phillips' work? I couldn't find any reference to a "strong defensive weapon".
But I could be wrong?

Susan @ Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:56 pm wrote:What I get from the Phillips article is that they are admitting that Lizzie attempted to purchase poison, but, didn't get any. And since she was attempting to purchase it for an innocent purpose and didn't get any, it really didn't matter. Though how they knew it was for an innocent purpose as fact is beyond me?

One author who shall be nameless cited errors in Phillips remembrances of the 50 yr old trial. Misspelled names, etc.
They knew it was "for an innocent purpose" because they WERE her lawyers and believed in her innocence.
In one novel a lawyer says he always assumes his client is innocent; it is the job of the prosecution to prove otherwise.
F Lee Bailey notes that Clarence Darrow always fought for his innocent clients. But when they were in fact guilty he made a deal (the McNamara brothers, Leopold & Loeb). Darrow lost the case for Scopes. it was Bryan's last victory.

Has anyone noted or quoted the exact text in Phillips' work? I couldn't find any reference to a "strong defensive weapon".
But I could be wrong?

--Ray

Yes, I did, first thing.
See my post- scroll up to where the pretty flowers are and read, if you are interested.

As for Terence's article about Phillips' work, yes, he cited errors in Phillip's memory and I did an intimate study of Phillips' written work on the Borden case. But there is a unique situation here between the news article and the Chapter in Phillips History of Fall River- The news item was written by Phillips but there are bits of the book chapter that were edited by Phillips brother-in-law with his prior permission, as Phillips was dead when the books came out.

I would have to get out my file of comparisons to see if Phillips actually wrote this phrase (which is odd-sounding) or whether it's a possibility Easton added it.

And it's the Robinson file to which you refer, Ray, I think?
Jennings' notes were *accidently* donated to the FRHS in the Hip-bath collection, but were returned to the family when asked.

There is a reference to prussic acid in Jennings notes:

"b.  Cate Edw.  Brady's Drugstore--been there two years.  says he's sold prussic acid a dozen times, always for the purposes of killing animals.  This drugstore is Dolan and Coughlin's headquarters."

--PROCEEDINGS
The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case[/i]
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
"The Hip-Bath Collection," Barbara Ashton, p211

See Privy:
viewtopic.php?t=37

sguthmann @ Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:38 pm wrote:

Kat @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:10 pm wrote:Let's see what Phillips had to say about the poison:

Lizzie had, however, made statements which were contradicted and had made others which the police considered to be doubtful, so that being suspected from the first she was finally charged with the crime. She was contradicted by Eli Bence concerning her attempt to purchase poison, but at the time of her trial this evidence was excluded as immaterial since there was no evidence that any poison was used or actually purchased. She had sought to purchase it for an innocent purpose.

Am I reading this right, that a member of her own defense team is, in print, admitting that Lizzie DID buy the poison (however, "for an innocent purpose") ?!?!?!?

I'm glad you had that reaction because it made me stop and look and compare!
I knew there was a chance that if it caught such attention, it should be double-checked.

I have looked at my file on Phillips' Chapter from which the quote comes.
I had compared Phillips' news article of May 13, 1934 in the New Bedford Evening Standard to the Phillips Chapter in his History of Fall River.

The phrase :
"She had sought to purchase it for an innocent purpose" does not appear in the news item we know was written by Phillips before his death.

Therefore, the phrase was added by
a. Phillips before he died while he worked on the Chapter in the book
or
b. Easton added it as Editor.

So, RayS, look here. We have a case where Arnold Brown writes something:

Lizzie wisely feared Bill. She knew he would be in or close to the house the evening before the murders, and so she told Alice Russell she would sleep " with her eyes half open in fear somebody would do something." Although she had every reason to fear her half brother, she was convinced, perhaps by ego, that she could control him. Her attempt at buying prussic acid was actually a desire for a strong defensive weapon against Bill should one be required, exactly as Phillips, Jennings' assistant, wrote fifty years later.

And it turns out that what Brown wrote is simply NOT TRUE. Philip's did not write anything close to what Brown says he wrote.

Can you see, now, why some ankle-biters say that Brown distorts and manipulates and in some case outright makes up facts?

FairhavenGuy @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:52 pm wrote:So, RayS, look here. We have a case where Arnold Brown writes something:

Lizzie wisely feared Bill. She knew he would be in or close to the house the evening before the murders, and so she told Alice Russell she would sleep " with her eyes half open in fear somebody would do something." Although she had every reason to fear her half brother, she was convinced, perhaps by ego, that she could control him. Her attempt at buying prussic acid was actually a desire for a strong defensive weapon against Bill should one be required, exactly as Phillips, Jennings' assistant, wrote fifty years later.

And it turns out that what Brown wrote is simply NOT TRUE. Philip's did not write anything close to what Brown says he wrote.

Can you see, now, why some ankle-biters say that Brown distorts and manipulates and in some case outright makes up facts?

Brown, like Phillips, tells it as he remembers it. Cyanide could be a defensive weapon, as it kills so quickly and would never be used in a stealth poisoning (arsenic or other heavy metals).
You are free to condemn Brown for this, but note that he did not (?) provide a QUOTE or a note in reference.
Ever notice how you will sometimes disremember an event when you're older? Maybe even younger.

Victoria Lincoln's book is based on her remembrance of class gossip. Maybe a young girl would not have been privy to the whole story, like about a rumored illegitimate child or the Brayton swindling?
Pearson's book was termed a "hoax" because of its one-side reports on Lizzie's guilt. Radin was a newspaper reporter and they do have higher standards than a true-crime writer, then or now. Agree?
Want more?

RayS @ Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:19 pm wrote:
Brown, like Phillips, tells it as he remembers it. . . .

You are free to condemn Brown for this, but note that he did not (?) provide a QUOTE or a note in reference.

Ever notice how you will sometimes disremember an event when you're older? Maybe even younger.

Brown was writing a book he was purporting to be factual. If he says "exactly as Phillips, Jenning's assistant, wrote fifty years later," didn't he expect anyone would check to see if Phillips did, indeed, write that? Shouldn't he, as the presenter of this theory, have had Phillips' words right there in front of him when he wrote that?

I guess Brown thought that 95% of his readers would never bother to double check anything he put in his book. It turns out many folks HAVE double checked Brown's "facts" and found them to be outright falsehoods.

"I'm writing it from memory" is not something that someone presenting non-fiction or history should use as an excuse for shabby research or outright fabrication.

I personally do misremember dates or facts from time to time, but when I commit something to paper and publish it for others to read, I make darn sure I look up every fact, and have them handy in case somebody questions a source.

In this particular case Brown said "Phillips wrote this," when Phillips had not, in fact, written that. Brown lied. There is nothing, RayS, that excuses that sort of behavior.

I'm not going to waste space by repeating the previous msg. It is a question of interpretation. Brown says that, but does not use quotes.

Last year I read the Phillips book as downloaded from this site. I could not find anything there, except that Phillips, the youngest lawyer on the defense team, said it was for an innocent purpose. Yes, Phillips admitted that Lizzie did try to buy it, in spite of denials. BUT, some said this book was finished by another, so maybe it wasn't Phillips words, and maybe he remembered wrongly. ANYONE who has the complete book can easily find the quotes, given an adequate index. (But who wrote them?)

I wonder why no one criticizes Lincoln or Sullivan for their lack of cited sentences? While these books are no longer available, didn't Spiering's book have plenty of citations and footnotes? Like about the 1897 "confession".

I've recently been awash in articles written from memory- and unabashedly so. They are all -every one of them- Terrible. Thay are laughable they are so wrong.
I think it is ego.
I think anyone here knows better than to try and get away with that stuff.
If we can have such scruples and do our homework, why shouldn't any author on the Borden case keep to that same high standard?
If nothing else, we here, in discussion, have raised that bar of research integrity and writers can no longer get away with that crap, no matter how these authors are defended.
They dropped the ball, no doubt about it, and they did it for money.
There is no defense for shoddy research.

Kat @ Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:33 am wrote:I've recently been awash in articles written from memory- and unabashedly so. They are all -every one of them- Terrible. Thay are laughable they are so wrong.
I think it is ego.
I think anyone here knows better than to try and get away with that stuff.
If we can have such scruples and do our homework, why shouldn't any author on the Borden case keep to that same high standard?
If nothing else, we here, in discussion, have raised that bar of research integrity and writers can no longer get away with that crap, no matter how these authors are defended.
They dropped the ball, no doubt about it, and they did it for money.
There is no defense for shoddy research.

"To err is human" (pardon me if I forgot the Latin phrase). There is always the limit of time and expense that will cause errors.

Well, these people are making money, or their estates are. We're not making money here on this Forum, yet we have higher standards than other Lizzie authors, excepting a few, who we know of.

It doesn't seem fair to posterity.
I'm not naming any names.

sguthmann @ Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:38 pm wrote:

Kat @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:10 pm wrote:Let's see what Phillips had to say about the poison:

Lizzie had, however, made statements which were contradicted and had made others which the police considered to be doubtful, so that being suspected from the first she was finally charged with the crime. She was contradicted by Eli Bence concerning her attempt to purchase poison, but at the time of her trial this evidence was excluded as immaterial since there was no evidence that any poison was used or actually purchased. She had sought to purchase it for an innocent purpose.

Am I reading this right, that a member of her own defense team is, in print, admitting that Lizzie DID buy the poison (however, "for an innocent purpose") ?!?!?!?

NO, and this explains things. Lizzie "sought", she did not actually do it.

We do not know for sure if she just sought it or actually obtained it, could go either way. Maybe she did, and maybe she did not. I happen to think that she probably did, what else did she have to focus on, basting a piece of tape on a garment?

Lizzie has an alibi for some of Wednesday. Have you all checked into that?