Lizzie Borden Society Forum

At Durfee High School tonight Jane Fiore Bigelow hosted a Lizzie Borden Festival comprised of a panel discussion on the case, a concert by Michael Troy and Bigelow's new Lizzie Borden play NEMESIS.

While there notes were taken.

The panel discussion featured Jane Bigelow, Michelle Corvelo and Jules Ryckebusch.

Michelle worked at 92 when it first opened for business and played Bridget there for 10 years. It was her theory that Morse killed Abby, having come back early, and that Lizzie killed her father "to protect what she started". (?)

Jane Bigelow told the crowd that her grandfather, her father's father, who was named Fiore, was Lizzie's shoe maker. And that here mother's mother was the owner of Smiths Drug Store where Eli Bence worked.

Jules was introduced as the historian of the group and wanted to address Michelle's theory about Morse. Ryckebusch said that we know Morse visited his sister that morning, ?????? And that Morse had memorized the badge of the trolly conductor and knew the number of priests on the trolley which was as solid an alibi as one could have. Remember now, this is Ryckebusch speaking.

Jules broke the case up into 3 parts: the crime, the trial and the mythology. He further said that Lizzie was the only one who had access and motive and he believed that she did it.

He added that from day one of the crime the entire US and parts of Europe knew about Lizzie borden because of the telegraph.. Telegraph booths were set up at the trial and they broadcast the story everyday.

He added that Lizzie and O.J. were similar stories, both had the best lawyers money could buy, both were acquitted, but both were probably guilty. He said Lizzie was a part of American mythology like Billy the Kid and Al Capone. He then asked for questions from the audience.

One lady said, "since Mr Borden was not a nice man, and as a business man had enemies, why would he (Ryckebusch) not look outside the family for the murderer? Jules said that when Andrew died the general feeling was that who ever killed him did the city a favor
He said there were many family secrets that were never discussed outside the family, for instance, lets just say that Lizzie was Daddy's little girl without getting into detail.

He went on to say: Lizzie was a very powerful personality and money was a big issue with her. Never in the history of crime has there been a premeditated murder with a hatchet. It is a crime of passion.

NOW GET THIS: He said the number of blows from the rhyme was incorrect. There were 28 and 19. Both victim faced the killer and saw the murderer. The first blow to Abby took off part of her face that flew onto the radiator in the room. The audience gasped.

He also said that Lizzie wanted to purchase Prussic acid: and that she lied about what she wanted it for. The way Ryckebusch tells it was quite sarcastic, inferring that Lizzie was stupid, and adding that, "Prussic acid would dissolve the seal skin cape."

.........................................................................................................

Now I will leave the information above to be digested by Borden Scholars.

But let me add that Rychebusch is the perfect "poster boy" for, you can't believe everything you hear or read. And just because you have written a book or two does not necessarily endow you with knowledge or credibility. The crowd was somewhat fascinated and appeared to cling to his every word. The man either had no idea what he was saying or made things up as he went along. After all, the attraction was not about Lizzie but Jules.

........................................................................................................

After Ryckebusch's dubious summary there was a mini concert by Michael Troy. The last song was one about Lizzie callled "Lizzie", then after a short intermission the play began.

The play was based in Masterton's book, using his idea that Lizzie did not do it. She created the scenario that someone other than Lizzie committed the crime with two possible killers. One being the man who Andrew refuse to rent a store to, or an embezzler who stole from Andrew. Both people had fictitious names.

As the play unfolds we see the murders enacted 3 times, once by Llizzie, once by the embezzler and the store renter. They are presented in silhouette behind a screen. The last one very bloody, being the embezzler. It was shocking to the audience and the effects were very convincing and well done for a high school play.

It was a cast of 31, high school kids and pretty well done and enjoyable to say the least.

Even the pre-play-fiction by Ryckebusch's was a treat. He failed to call Abby a fat cow this time around but the part about a wedge of her head flying around the room was charming.

How does someone of Mr. Ryckebusch's obvious eminence get invited to a gathering of this sort as an historian? I have to wonder if a referral to Abby as a "fat cow" would have somehow detracted from the otherwise sterling credibility?

Me thinks Jules needs a refresher course on the case. Borden101 perhaps.

If I was in the audience I would have gasped too ... at the errors.

Hey Jules: Don't throw dirt in my face and tell me there was an explosion.

Ryckebusch is now the new Frank Spiering.

There is absolutely no proof that Fall River was glad Old man Borden was dead or that he was hated.

Also, I don't believe he got the number of blows wrong. He just doesn't know.

And yes, what's with the piece of Abby's head flying onto the radiator?

The impression he leaves me with is that he thinks that Andrew deserved to die,

Abby was a fat cow,

and Lizzie was just plain stupid.

Because some hold him in high regard as an authority, he thinks he could just make stuff up...............thus, leaving me to think that he feels I am just a fool.

I believe when someone is considered an expert on a subject and gets it so wrong, that person should be called out onto the mat.

Sorry to those that may feel uncomfortable about it.

(Not you Jules)

He was somehow invited to speak as an authority by someone. That's the other person who needs to be educated.

If memory serves, Jules Ryckebusch was somehow connected to the 1992 conference - presented a paper, something of that nature. I would imagine that's at least in part where his authority derived from. As for the fat cow reference, it sounds as though he may have channeled Joe Howard on that one.

Len had shown us where Jordan Fiore lived and it was across the street from where Morse's sister lived. She had married her and JVM's first cousin and had 2 children.

That might be the sister he refers to, but we have no record of JVM visiting her that day. He is confusing the Emerys with the Morses.

I was just re-reading an old news item about Fiore earlier this evening!! It did not link him to Lizzie tho: about a shoemaker and Smith's Drug Store. I wonder why?

His father was Faust Fiore and "tipped his hat" as Lizzie rode by in her "chauffeur-driven car" and said "That's Miss Borden" to Jordan, who was alive to see her. (FRHerald News 30July1977.)

Anyway, he supposedly had a manuscript that has not been found, since he died, according to Len who asked the family.

That was Mary Louisa Morse who married Joseph L. Morse, son of their uncle Gardner Morse.

They had Ora Morse and Joseph L. Morse. In 1880 they were at 45 Maple Street. ( Hatchet June/July 2004, "The Elusive John Morse" by Joe Carlson).

Kat, what do you mean by the last post? You say, "That was Mary"----who was Mary? Please elaborate your comments as they relate to what another may have said. I can't tell who you are replying to.

BTW, the 'fat cow' comment that Jules uses was in all his videos. Not at the talk on Friday night. That night was his chance to go after Andrew as somehow deserving what he got.

Andrew deserved it because he was not only mean, but super mean and bad, and that he was incestuous with Lizzie. That is according to JR.

He normally picks on Abby. This time he picked on Andrew. But that was because the question was about Andrew and he was replying to it.

The audience literally gasped loudly when he said that a part of Abby's face flew across the room and landed on the radiator. I think something like that is what will more stick in people's minds because it was so graphic. I can't wait to hear it back to me by some person as fact.

Besides running the conference in 1992, and being the publisher of the Lizzie Borden Quarterly for a few years, and publishing the proceedings book, I don't think he wrote much on the case at all. He mostly was a talking head in some of the documentaries.

I am not sure, but I think he talked about the case mostly in the classroom. I heard that somewhere, but can't recall where.

Just goes to show you, if you don't keep up, if you don't expand your knowledge, then your bona fides can get shot when you speak.

I was there that night, sitting with a friend, who kept nudging me to say, stand up, dispute him, fix his facts . . . . . I couldn't. I couldn't embarrass him that way, nor would I. I had never met him before.

Now I sort of wish I had done something. Nicely, if possible, as a question or a comment. But when someone is so far out to sea, how do you let them know in public that they are wrong? It was not going to look good for him or me, so I stayed mute.

What should one do? What would you have done in my shoes? Just curious!

It depends on whether he put himself in the public forum or if he was somehow coerced into it. If he was coerced, maybe question his source for a "fact". If he put himself there, then I would present the fact and the source myself. He somehow or another allowed himself to be in that position, and that's what happens when you do that!

IN another post on another thread Stefani says:


Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:40 am Post subject:
Michael Troy has a truly wonderful voice! It was a joy to hear him play his guitar and sing of Fall River.

At the intermission, I complimented him on his performance. But he said an odd thing to me. He said that when Lizzie died, she didn't want anyone to know where her grave was and it was the city of Fall River that erected the Borden monument. He pointed to the arrows on the road that direct visitors to the graves as part of the city's effort to cash in.


..........................................................................................................

This is a perfect example of what happens when an authority on a subject such as Ryckebusch spreads falsehoods and exaggerations. Anyone else Troy told that story to may very well believe it. After all 92 Second Street is on the cover of his album (CD). He wrote a song about Lizzie. He knows what he is talking about.

Don't pass this up Stefani. This is new found information. You should do an article in the Hatchet.

I didn't know that the city of fall river erected the Andrew Broden family monument?

I can't believe that the city exposed the graves to the public when no one knew where they were?

YOU SEE HOW THESE THINGS GO................

The quotes by Ryckebusch are repeated in this piece that was just published in The Spirit. Is the man mad? Or simply mistaken with a strong belief in factual inaccuracies?

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc ... /904020389

Yes Stefani.

We can't really label the man as mad.............

To say he is mistaken is to put it kindly.........

Whether he has his beliefs Strongly tangled with factual innaccuracies can be safely debated, but unlikely.

But what we have here is a character who has been pandered to by audiences and students alike because no one has called him on it.

Arrogant conceit, unassailable and egotistical behavior with sense of proprietorship that for those who know the case can only disdain.

But to add a kind word for Mr Rychebusch, let me say "embarrassing."

Yes: I know some may find me, or at the very least, my writing a little condemning. But, when we have those who are considered leaders guide us off a cliff when they should know better, some of us get a little puffy.

Now we have this small publication called the SPIRIT spreading inaccurately and erroneous information, given to them by a suppose authority to be repeated by readers, adding further injury to the truth.

So you see.................,there is no excuse or allowances to be made for such a person. And though I may sound a little harsh, I have little tolerance for those in authority who are reckless and loose with the truth.

What should one do? What would you have done in my shoes? Just curious!

Don’t you just love hindsight? In essence I think it comes down to this: You found yourself put “on the spot” far more than Jules Rykebush was by exposing himself to a Q&A session in a public forum. For whatever reason – out of respect, a sense of decency, pick any one – you held your tongue and now regret doing so. It was a judgment call, something we all make each day under varying circumstances and for different reasons.

The fact that you’re now questioning that judgment means nothing at all – except that you’re a human being, and as such subject to the same thoughts, feelings, and considerations as the rest of us.

Two questions beg to be asked though: How is Jules Rykebush any different from Karen Elizabeth Chaney? Ms. Chaney wrote and published a book on the Borden case, and was subsequently prodded, poked at, pummeled and pilloried for that effort right here in this very forum – and happily so! She got this wrong, or that wrong - there was quite a thread on that book – and in the end came out looking just about as good as a dog turd looks on a dinner plate.

Why should Jules Rykebush receive better treatment? Were his errors not equally egregious, if not moreso? Hindsight being what it is, it seems to me that a kinder, gentler version of the “Karen Chaney treatment” would have sufficed. Think of it like this: The Titanic wasn’t really done in by a 300 foot gash in her hull as initially thought. The fatal wounds were really only a series of relatively small holes, were they not?

Poking small holes at key points in the tapestry Rykebush wove during his appearance might well have done him in – but left his dignity intact. Know what I mean?

Yes, there's no excuse for allowing misinformation to spread!
However, do be gentle and nonconfrontational in your correx. The person who's "badded" will likely attempt to make a joke of it, or even make you look foolish. But, hey, you've "saved" the audience (and perhaps even he/she who "badded"). Thus is your reward!
One time I was waiting outside the Fox Theatre in Atlanta before a live show, and two senior-citizeny looking ladies were chatting about a tour of the city they'd taken, and that they were now standing where "Gone With the Wind" premiered.
I was flabbergasted that a tour guide would have disseminated such misinformation and approached the pair: "Excuse me, ladies, but I would hate for anyone to correct you later, especially after you took the tour. However, although this theatre was here at the time the film premiered, the event was held at the Loew's Grand, which has since been demolished."
Well, I thought they were going to strike me with their rolled umbrellas.
Still and all, perhaps I saved them from a future gaffe, however small.
Then again, sometimes people believe what they want to believe.

If the proper spelling of Jules' last name is Rykenbush, then I'm as guilty as anyone else of proliferating misinformation!

So far Yoop, I've found three different spellings of the name in three diffrent places! The majority vote says no n...

Well, they can't all be rite...ryte...r...rr..right!

Come to think of it, does research imply prior search? Does redundant imply prior dundant? If John Morse had a son, would he have had reMorse? What is the meaning of this?

What is the meaning of this?

I think they call it Life, feller. There is a bright side, though: "Jules" is much easier to spell!

Thanks Doug, I'm glad you cleared that up! I really have to lay off that Five Brothers tobacco on an empty stomach.

I think it may be Rykebusch. Yes, this all is very sad indeed. Jules had lost a much-beloved wife several years ago and was naturally devastated. I spoke to him maybe two years ago, he had been very ill and in hospital in January of 2007. I spoke to him again in April of 2008 and he was doing better. We talked a lot about Bridget and he gave me some book titles to get which he had read- The Butte Irish and the other, Anaconda Montana. He did not put forth any hare-brained theories and ideas at that time.

I am not sure why he gives out such dreadful misinformation now. Maybe someone could or should challenge him on all of this. It is a public disservice to propagate such uninformed material. I am all for challenging such material- and it should be challenged. I suppose there are all manner of ways to go about such a thing. While some prefer an out and out confrontation in a high-profile arena, others might choose a less confrontational route. I think perhaps an article in the Herald might be in order to set the record straight- or some forum where a debate with Jules could happen about some of these "facts". He would be on the carpet to give sources, etc. and rebuttal.

Most unfortunate- and one may wonder if the man is not well. In any event, he did, with much help from faculty and volunteers, organize one terrific 1992 conference where so many of us Lizziephiles met originally- so I do thank him for that. I am truly amazed that, with so many knowledgeable people on the case living in and near Fall River, the panel of "experts" consisted of those that were there when there are more informed and distinguished candidates and authors who could have done a great job.

DJ, I couldn't bring myself to correct the mess of mistakes. It was not my show, not a forum where the audience could do that, and seemed to me to be sort of bad form. I squirmed a lot, though. I was really uncomfortable. I heard such amazing inaccuracies, that it was shocking. This is Fall River, and these folks should know better. But they don't. And it doesn't seem to me like they care to learn, as these were simple factual errors, some of them.

Rykebusch's defaming Andrew was typical of the sort of explosive things he has said on film in the past. I think he must be living in his own reality. Losing a wife, which was now many years ago, and being ill, which was likewise many years ago, is no excuse. He never got it right, even before his mishaps and bad luck. Just watch Hash and Rehash to see what I mean.

Yes, excellent response doug........

To add to the Ryckebusch/Chaney debacle.

Though what Ryckebusch "said" and what Chaney "wrote" can be compared, to me there is a substantial difference.

Chaney did not do her homework. What little research she did do, she got it wrong. But, I think this had it's bases in oblivion, ignorance of the true facts. It is more likely that she read a book by.......or was coached by another expert; one like Rychebusch.

Asked to write the book by her publisher, I believe this professional writer did her best..............sadly, she got much wrong.

I believe that Chaney was a victim of mis-information that she picked up somewhere while doing her research.

As far as I can discover, the book Chaney authored LIZZIE BORDEN NEW ENGLAND REMEMBERS is one of two books she wrote. The other book she authored with someone else and it was about BACKPACKING. (believe it or not).

Now, Rychebusch is a different story. He constantly brags about being an expert on the Borden Case. He is considered the authority, the virtuoso, the keeper of knowledge on the Borden case...............or at the very least, that is the way he loves being referred to. Editor of the LBQ, countless speeches along with a documentary or two, all on the Borden case.

Nope, no excuse. He should know better.

(by the way, the correct spelling is Ryckebusch.

Have you ever met Ryckebusch? Not everyone has had as pleasant experience as Shelley.

I was at BCC when Jules was teaching there. Though I did not have him for a teacher, my best friend Ken did. Ken said that his classes were endless lectures on "the life of Jules Ryckebusch." As Ken put it, " you learned very little in that class. All the man did was talk about himself; awful class.

When speaking to Jules you get the feeling you are made of glass. He rarely acknowledges your presence, but quickly engages you in conversation, mid sentence, and you suddenly become his audience. One becomes the instant student, the ready access conduit to one of his self absorbed lectures. Another friend who just met him recently had that exact experience.

But: bad teacher, self-love, a bad host, these are not character flaws to be critical about here on the forum. I'm sure some of my faults and weaknesses go beyond greeting people and talking about myself, Why, I am doing it right now. (?)

The problem with Jules is: you shouldn't be a fighter pilot, buzz over my head and then try to convince be that the clouds are really vanilla marshmallows.

Below is a short film of Ryckebusch speaking about a piece of Abby's head flying under the radiator.

Now I have looked but could not find anywhere where this is recorded. Is there something we have overlooked here?

Has anyone ever read the bit about Abby's head flying around the room and under the radiator?

Have I missed something here? Ryckebusch sounds so convincing in the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPYtoePy7y8

Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe the point Doug was making was that spreading misinformation should be dealt with in a like fashion. What's good for one is good for the other. It applies all the more to someone who really should know better. If Chaney inadvertently erred and Ryckebusch blatantly erred, why would Chaney be pursued immediately and Ryckebusch ignored immediately and pursued after the fact? Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your intention, Doug.

Yooper, it all has to do with the face to face situation. Karen Chaney was a person who joined this forum, went away, wrote her book without asking anything of anyone here (which is her right and no big deal if she produces quality work), and then came back to push her publication.

We all bought it, as we do with all things Lizzie. She made her money off of us, and we were sorely disappointed that she had done such sloppy research when her degree from Harvard is in History! That is inexcusable. She was criticized for this here, as you know, and then decided she couldn't take the heat and got out of the kitchen.

JR, on the other hand, was at a personal face to face event. To criticize or correct him in that place would have been inappropriate. It would have turned an evening of entertainment at a high school, into a battle of facts. The outcome would not have been pleasant for anyone. It would have embarrassed the hosts as well.

If the discussion panel had been open to debate, if they spent more structured time with this portion of the show, it WOULD have been a good thing to do, nicely. However, we were not invited to dispute the facts. Merely to ask questions of JR and they only had time for two.

It was in response to the first question that he attacked Andrew.

JR hasn't written a thing on the case. He is merely mouthing off about things he knows not of. It is more slippery when a person speaks incorrectly than when they write incorrectly. One can always adjust one's verbal output, but with Chaney, the book is in print forever. It is essentially locked in stone. Future generations will assume her facts correct.

The people who heard JR that night, and read that story in the paper, were a much smaller audience. And they were mostly family members of the large 31 member cast.

It is like in the classroom. If you think a teacher is wrong, do you challenge them in public? Risk embarrassing them and getting a bad grade and a reputation as a troublemaker? Or do you ignore it and move on. Most do the latter. It is easier and more polite.

My point is that JR touts HIMSELF as an expert, has done so to people's faces, announced to folks he is "The world's leading authority on the Lizzie Borden Case" (yes, he actually said that!!!), and then disappointed when we all found out that he didn't really know squat.

With JR, I am afraid, it is all bravado. So it was sad, really, to hear him speak. And it was not a nice thing to beat him up with the truth in public when he was so obviously out of his mind. I am not a medical doctor, but I have to say that I found him completely out of it that night. He didn't seem grounded in reality.

I introduced myself to him, never having met him, and he started speaking to me about things as if in mid sentence. He didn't make any sense. My first impression was that he was not quite on the same planet I was. So if I hadn't met him first, saw his confusion/inability to engage in normal conversation, I might have spoken up. But since I had, I just didn't think it a good idea to try to address his errors.

Does this make sense?

I think making errors in print is an even more disturbing offense because books linger long after people are dead and gone. In fifty years the Chaney book will still be floating around for a new Lizzie generation to read, paperbacks even worse because they are inexpensive and many people will buy them instead of say, the Rebello book. Chaney's mistakes will go on well into the future.

I am not defending Professor Rykebusch. We are barely acquaintances. I listened to the youtube posted above- and he has taken some facts and embellished them with his own spin and added some fabricated stuff for good measure. He also has the first blow over the wrong ear. What I am suggesting, and apparently too obliquely is that perhaps age and infirmity have taken a toll on the "little grey cells".

I agree the ego of this individual was and may still be extremely healthy, and Lizzie certainly catapulted him into the limelight. Jules was and is best one- on-one. I think a crowd of attentive listeners produces a negative effect on some people- bravado and showboating at the cost of good historianship and the Truth. I imagine Jules must be in his 70's now. Hopefully he will not be allowed to speak to a large public forum again. I think the face-under-the-radiator will probably be the big thing people who heard him will remember. Sadly. And in time I would wager most people at the play will have soon forgotten Jules-or they may pick up a cheap Lizzie paperback- by Karen Chaney.

Stef- looks like we were thinking and typing the same thing at the same time.

Shelly, I do agree with you to a point. Yes, print is more permanent and since you have notes and research and sources at your disposal, choosing words properly is your job as a writer. Sourcing yourself at every turn is the job of the historian. Chaney can't be called an historian if she makes beginner mistakes like she did. She really isn't a presence, however, in the Borden community. She hasn't written anything else really. It was her one shot at the case.

JR is full of flowery rhetoric. He knows that his words will resonate if he makes them dramatic. He was a teacher. He knows how to wow a crowd. But truly, Shelley, you must admit, he has ALWAYS been like this. His age, his wife's death, his fall off the mountain, are no excuses to bad facts. He never got it right.

You say "he has taken some facts and embellished them with his own spin and added some fabricated stuff for good measure."

That is not what he did. He made stuff up. Plain and simple. Why be nice about this when he never got it right all the way through? Why cut him any slack at all? He does not deserve it.

He is guilty of believing in himself and his omnipotence over source. His egoism is what you see, and from what I hear, what he has always been about.

When he spoke about the part of Abby's face landing on the radiator, the audience literally GASPED! As you say, they will remember that one! It has all the drama of a visual memory---a gruesome story to retell to delight and scare the young. He has repeated it, apparently, on the video. It is now in his basket of facts.

This is not innocent blathering of an old man. This is someone who is sadly craving attention and doing it the wrong way. There is enough truth about this case that can do the same thing.

When I was asked to be a talking head on the last documentary on the Discovery Channel, I was scared to death. What if I said the wrong thing? What if I got a simple fact wrong? What if I made a big mistake? How much would my words about the case then be worth in the future if I was recorded as being inaccurate. It was nerve wracking! I was totally stressed out. I didn't want to look or sound stupid.

JR, on the other hand, makes stuff up for effect. Always has, from what I hear and see. tsk tsk tsk.

Well, the ego has not much changed in a crowd situation apparently- the stories have, however, gotten even loonier. The only GOOD thing I can say at this point is that he was very humble when he spoke of Len's book- and heaped praise on someone deserving.

Word will get around I think, and I have to wonder if JR will be asked again for a repeat performance. I also wonder at the selection of Michele Corvelo, the one time office manager at #92 and the annual "Bridget" on re-enactment day. Jane Bigelow does not ring any bells- who is she? Should we have heard of her?

I must be out somewhere in left field. Ryckebusch can be excused due to infirmities in order to save embarrassment. It is OK to let misinformation pass under the circumstances. He is subsequently blasted here for spreading misinformation, which I believe was the point of the original post. If it was a harmless evening of storytelling, why is it now a problem? Has anyone ever confronted him directly with the discrepancies, either publicly or privately? It may be time to do so if he is unaware of the problem, and especially if offense is taken at how he represents himself.

As far as challenging instructors in a classroom setting, I never missed the opportunity! I figured the truth to be of greater value than someone's feelings. My own feelings were at risk at the same time, I might have been wrong. But everyone present had paid for the seat they occupied and they were entitled to the truth.

Jane's play was really really good! Presentational plays are not my thing, but she did a very nice job of including a lot of characters, telling an interesting story, and creating a production that was interesting and well acted.

Jane Fiore Bigelow is the wife of Gary Bigelow. He is the brother of City Councilman Brian Bigelow.

If you see the first page of this discussion, you can see that Jane says her father's father was Lizzie's shoemaker and her mother's mother owned Smith's Drug Store.

Her father is Faust. Her father's brother is Jordan who supposedly was writing a book on the case and had interviewed all the living people during his life and had tons of stuff on the case. When he died, they didn't find a thing. The story is that either he made it up, and never had a book, or that he had accumulated so much stuff in his life, it all was overlooked by relatives who didn't know what they were looking at and thrown out. Sad really.

He was likewise a professor. I think his name was Jordan.

Jane is the theater director at Durfee.

Oddly, the program listed JR as Rykenbush. She said his name that way many times that night.

His name is Ryckebusch. The name thing was entirely odd. He never corrected her. So I was wondering if he told her the spelling in the first place.

Oh I am not making up excuses for him, Jeff- I am trying to figure out a REASON. The only thing which could explain such bizarre pronouncements must be mental confusion (deterioration)- whatever you want to call it. Not being a doctor, I don't know the terminology but I sure have met older folks (in my family included) who have developed a very sad disconnect from reality in their declining years. I hope I am not babbling rubbish in my 70's about things I spent a great deal of time studying in my lucid years. If I do, somebody lock me in my room please.

Yooper @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:26 am wrote:I must be out somewhere in left field. Ryckebusch can be excused due to infirmities in order to save embarrassment. It is OK to let misinformation pass under the circumstances. He is subsequently blasted here for spreading misinformation, which I believe was the point of the original post. If it was a harmless evening of storytelling, why is it now a problem? Has anyone ever confronted him directly with the discrepancies, either publicly or privately? It may be time to do so if he is unaware of the problem, and especially if offense is taken at how he represents himself.

It isn't that his infirmities excuse his words. It is that it was not the forum to do so. It was a high school play. It was not a good time to disrupt things. Truly. If you had been there, you might have felt differently. I would have loved it if someone had spoken up. I couldn't bring myself to do so because I didn't know how he would react or if it would totally screw up the evening for the group who was there to see their kids in a play!

I think it would have been about me, or perceived to be about me, if I had. It was about the play. This panel discussion was not a good idea, in the long run. It wasn't given the attention or organization to make it work properly.

I imagined myself standing up and yelling, "Hey, that's not right!" but then the fantasy passed.

Shelley @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:33 am wrote:Oh I am not making up excuses for him, Jeff- I am trying to figure out a REASON. The only thing which could explain such bizarre pronouncements must be mental confusion (deterioration)- whatever you want to call it. Not being a doctor, I don't know the terminology but I sure have met older folks (in my family included) who have developed a very sad disconnect from reality in their declining years. I hope I am not babbling rubbish in my 70's about things I spent a great deal of time studying in my lucid years. If I do, somebody lock me in my room please.

Shelley, I don't think you are listening to me. I said he has always been like this. There are no explanations. No excuses of being old now that explains this. If anything, he is more like himself than ever!

I totally agree. The audience was probably the friends and parents of the kids there in the performance- schoolmates,etc. - and the person standing up for Truth would have been regarded as a disruptive smarta** who craved attention. I could not have done it either in that venue. The defense against such ignorance is a better offense- get the good and right stuff out there in the best possible way. Maybe JR was invited because he was at one time on staff there. That's all. Maybe a discreet letter to the BCC prez might not be a bad idea, couched in diplomatic but firm tones suggesting a list of speakers, and detailing the inappropriate and inaccurate responses of JR.

Yooper, by the way, Karen Chaney came here to tout her book and wanted us to read it and give her feedback. And that is what she got.

JR didn't ask for feedback. He never answered the two questions presented to him, but used those questions to wow and delight the crowd with his rhetoric.

When the lady who had worked at the house and played Bridget, Michele, started talking about playing Bridget, a few people around me said, "Who's Bridget?" It was never explained by anyone that Bridget was the Borden's maid. So the audience was full of family of the cast. They weren't there to learn anything about the case, I am sure. The people speaking assumed the audience knew some things they did not. No big deal, just an observation.

Shelley @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:33 am wrote:Oh I am not making up excuses for him, Jeff- I am trying to figure out a REASON. The only thing which could explain such bizarre pronouncements must be mental confusion (deterioration)- whatever you want to call it. Not being a doctor, I don't know the terminology but I sure have met older folks (in my family included) who have developed a very sad disconnect from reality in their declining years. I hope I am not babbling rubbish in my 70's about things I spent a great deal of time studying in my lucid years. If I do, somebody lock me in my room please.

I didn't take your comments as making up excuses, Shelley! Sorry if it seemed that way! My point is that it is one way or the other. Either he is suffering some form of dementia and has no control over what he is saying, or he is suffering a bloated ego and is deliberately spouting rumor. If the former, then the topic should be how sad the situation is, and if the latter, then he should be blasted for it. Opinions seem to vary quite a bit.

Not being at the play, I don't know what other zingers JR dropped- but just going back to JR's talking head days on various documentaries, and conversations at the Expos, and phone chats here and there- it sure seems like what was hammy and "inventive interpretations" has declined significantly . Stef, I say we take the guy out to lunch and see what is going on in that head. My treat.

Stefani @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:48 am wrote:Yooper, by the way, Karen Chaney came here to tout her book and wanted us to read it and give her feedback. And that is what she got.

JR didn't ask for feedback. He never answered the two questions presented to him, but used those questions to wow and delight the crowd with his rhetoric.

When the lady who had worked at the house and played Bridget, Michele, started talking about playing Bridget, a few people around me said, "Who's Bridget?" It was never explained by anyone that Bridget was the Borden's maid. So the audience was full of family of the cast. They weren't there to learn anything about the case, I am sure. The people speaking assumed the audience knew some things they did not. No big deal, just an observation.

Does this imply that Karen Chaney's book would not have been criticized if she hadn't asked for it?

My only point is we can either fix something on the spot while we still can, or enjoy it the way it is. The arguments in the case of Chaney's book were along the lines of "why didn't you consult us first if you were confused?" If there was no opportunity to do likewise with Ryckebusch, then why agonize over it now?

No it isn't about hurt feelings of wondering why she didn't use us as a source. It is about her position as a professional historian with a degree in it from Harvard.

Her book would have been criticized had she not stepped forward, yes. But the discussion started, did it not, by her asking for feedback? And wasn't it only really one person who let her have it with both guns?

The sources on this case are almost entirely free for the user, thanks to Harry and Kat and me. To not use the primary sources when you are an historian, and merely rehash the false assertions of others is not good history making, I am sure you would agree.

I have written reams of letters to websites of some renown when they get the case wrong. They don't care to fix the facts. They really don't.

I have spoken up before, in private, to people when they have an assumption that is not grounded in fact. It can be effective, but then I get that look----who are you to try to teach me anything. I swear, this city is insanely adverse to being corrected! They don't have a respect for education, for the most part (as evidenced by the huge dropout rate and the latest stat that shows that only 9% of the folks over 25 have a college degree!). It isn't that they don't get educated, it is just that once they do they leave.

I am not agonizing over it. I am merely relating the experiences I had. But if I can be totally honest, the type of blather that JR was spouting was worse than anything I had ever heard anyone say in my life about this case. That is what has my ire up.

In criticizing Chaney there were a variety of methods, some more pointed than others, but the theme was the same. She was correctly being criticized for a lack of research for which there was no excuse, given her education. The variety in the amount of finesse used to convey the point is to be expected, we all have our own methods of self expression. Who the hell am I to complain about a lack of finesse anyway?! All were correct in their intent.

If Ryckebusch is represented as an authority, the same applies to him because while Chaney should have known how to better research any topic, Ryckebusch should be more familiar with this specific topic, regardless of education. Maybe Shelley has a good idea in taking him to lunch and discussing it!

I had a funny thought of being sucked into JR's universe and not being able to find my way out . . . .

JR is represented as an authority by JR. Go ahead, Shelley, take him to lunch. Let us know how it goes!

Stephani, you'll only be sucked into his universe if you take him seriously, and you'd have to buy the BS in order to do that!

I am afraid I give myself over to people to be themselves without criticism at first. I turn off the critic in social situations, mostly. Otherwise, I have to plan what I am going to say---which never works. I try to find the good in Lizzie things I see and read. I did that with the show at Durfee too. I thought the play was first rate. The other parts were sideshow.

I probably would get lost in planet JR. If only to try to understand him from the inside. I would have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to find my way back . . . .

YES, we have now put Jules through the wringer, fluff dried him in the dryer and hung him out in the back yard.

But, what are the facts at hand.

Please, prove me wrong.

Let us give Jules creditability where creditability is due.

In the little film I posted above Jules said that a piece of Abby's head flew under the radiator. At the talk at Durfee High School he said that it flew on top of the radiator.

Which is true?

With all the scholars here on the forum I am sure someone knows which.

How big was the piece of Abby head?

I want to give Jules a chance to be redeemed here.

Which it true?