Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I bought it, I received it, I read it. Lizzie Borden: the Untold Story; other than contemporary documents, the oldest book on the subject so far for me. An easy read, which I completed in one long session. I don't do that too much anymore, what with eye strain bugging me. Well written, smoothly connecting points, the way it ought to be done.

I can see how influential Radin has been. Some later writers have obviously used his work as a jumping off platform. I get the impression that Radin steered the Lizzie train in a direction it hadn't traveled in decades.

Three general sections: 1. Telling the story. 2. Assailing Pearson. 3. Fingering the most likely suspect.

1. Radin explores at length the weaknesses in the case, and attempts to separate fact from fiction, verifiable evidence from the "legend." He makes the most of flaws in police testimony, sins of both commission and omission, and pokes hard at other witnesses. Did Bridget see Lizzie cry? What dress did Lizzie wear that pivotal day in world history? Did the cops jump the gun, then try to lie their way out of it? Knowlton, fool or knave? You can guess where the author is going.

2. In some respects I found this the most interesting portion, analysis of a prime mover against Lizzie in the literary realm. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to properly judge Radin's argument, since I haven't read Pearson's writings. However, unless Radin is staring into a mirror and describing his own behavior—if half of what he claims is true—then Pearson did a really lousy job of reconstructing history, resorting to rumor and innuendo in place of fact. Perhaps others can tell me more about that. The examples presented in this work are rather heinous.

3. Of course this is always the shakiest part; no matter who gets called to account, the case is flimsy, wholly indirect in nature. Radin collars Bridget as the culprit, citing the familiar discrepancies in her testimony, suggesting more falsehood in her words than most commentators do. Did she do it? Maybe, maybe not, the usual. The story lives because there's nobody worth convicting. To give Radin credit, he does ask the question which, in retrospect, makes good sense: why didn't the police bear down on Bridget the way they did on Lizzie? Nothing might have come of it, surely . . . but we don't know that, do we? Because they didn't try it. Marvelous food for thought. I would enjoy reading a series of books, penned by overly earnest authors, each choosing a different suspect to accuse.

And there you have my initial take on Radin. Worth getting, if you can find it. My copy didn't cost too much. It's kind of ratty, with a tattered dust jacket, but that is protected with Mylar, and the binding is sound. I'm pleased with the purchase.

Vorchek - thanks for the summary.....you've got me interested in reading the book. Maybe a Christmas present to myself!

What motive does Radin suggest for Bridget? That feels like a big hill to climb in considering her as the primary culprit.

A big hill indeed, a thin motive and no more: that Bridget was pushed too far and snapped. Radin acknowledges this problem, citing by way of support cases from his own files in which culprits—including servants and employees—committed horrid crimes for the flimsiest of reasons. He says, "It could have happened this way." Ever so . . .

When purchasing, I checked Amazon and Abebooks. The latter gave me the best information on quality for a price I was willing to pay. Amazon had some cheaper prices, but less info on condition. I came out all right.

I agree...the 'servant snapped' is a very weak motive to buy into.

Bridget was asked to wash windows that morning, something she did 1-2x every month. So nothing unusual. It was only first floor (no high ladders) and in the morning hours when it would not have been oppressively hot. She did vomit that morning, but reading the testimony, it seems like Abby may not have even been aware that Bridget was under the weather. It appears that Abby & Bridget had a pretty decent relationship, so seems like if Bridget had asked to push back the window washing a day until feeling better, Abby would have agreed. Morse doesn't mention that Bridget pushed back when he heard Abby giving her the chore.

Bridget kills Abby around 9:30. For some reason, she goes ahead and washes the windows that drove her to violently kill and then waits an hour until Andrew gets home and kills him. Andrew didn't tell her to clean windows or do anything, why did he have to die? If Andrew was a legit target, why not Lizzie.

If you are going to kill a couple of people because they ask you to clean windows when its warm outside and you don't feel well, then I would think you would feel ok skipping doing the actual cleaning!! :)