1. "Do you think being a "victim" may help you understand Abby?"
Posted by audrey on Mar-18th-04 at 2:57 AM

Take a look at this!

http://www.supernaught.com/crimefiles/topshelf.htm

MON DIEU!

Audrey, that one nearly left me speechless... WOW!!

It may leave some poor dupe penniless!

I remember stuff from here a long time ago.
Can you figure out a date they have updated the site?
Thanks for finding the link!

(Message last edited Apr-16th-04  2:54 PM.)

Yes, I believe Bob G. submitted this site a while back.  I've always found the hand painted tray from Lizzie of special interest. I believe it says "Merry Christmas Mama, from Lizzie, 1874" the date is very fuzzy and I am not at all sure that is correct. If it is 1874, Lizzie would have been 14. Assuming it is genuine it does indicate some sort of relationship between the two at some point. 

There is also the engraved cup marked "Lizzie from Abbie, 1868" shown in Rebello, page 12.  Of course Lizzie would have been only 8 years of age at that time.

(Message last edited Mar-18th-04  12:32 PM.)

A signature in pencil can not be dated chemically like an ink signature. Caveat Emptor (buyer beware)!!!
...
Merci, Audrey

(Message last edited Mar-18th-04  3:54 PM.)

De rien....



(Message last edited Mar-19th-04  12:32 AM.)

I remember years ago there was a booth set up at the Illinois State Fair that was hawking seven dwarf pictures by Gacy.  People were snapping them up to the last--they got shut down for tastelessness, amazingly enough, and I believe they used legislation to prevent any further such souvenir sales.  It may have been just for Illinois, or it might have just become a prison rule.  The whole thing was repulsive--it was early in Gacy's tenure in prison and the wounds and outrage were still pretty fresh. I can imagine how the families must have felt.  To think people were collecting mementos of their tragedies.

--Lyddie

If I'm not mistaken - and I could be - it's against the law in most states for prison immates to make any sort of profit off of their crime(s). That should have been enough to bring the Gacy enterprise to a screeching halt.



(Message last edited Mar-19th-04  5:08 PM.)

THAT is a quite modern law. If they don't get the loot, they can't be sued by the victims next of kin. (Would the lawyers get their share?)
I think that the person who sells the "art" is the one who profits.

A murderer cannot inherit from the victim; long established law. But it seems picky to not allow writings & such.

Good point about a murdered not being able to inherit from his victim..... Was this a law in 1892?

The nonprofit laws would not stop it by themselve.  Others were still able to profit by it in the beginning.  I think the money at Gacy's end went to the prison, but that wasn't the end that made the money; it was those fine enterprising souls who snapped them up cheap, then sold high.  I still get chills thinking about that guy--completely changed a lot of people's views of clowns.

--Lyddie

(Message last edited Mar-19th-04  10:04 PM.)

I think we did eventually ascertain that Lizzie could not inherit if she was found guilty.
However, the extarordinary thing was that Emma shared the wealth the whole time Lizzie was in prison.
I'm not sure of the particulars.  Someone here may recall the circumstances...

I recall the law is rather new and may be because of Gacy and his ilk.
Didn't there recently occur a buy-up and a mass burning of all his stuff?

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this goes back centuries, maybe even to Roman Law (in most of Europe). What's the law in France?

I do not know the laws in France regarding general wills and inheritances.  I never have researched it.

My family is bound by primogeniture and when my father died, only his personal assets were affected by his will.  My mother and I were (legally) dependant on my brother (3 years younger than me) for our "fair share" of things.  Luckily, he is an honest and generous sort...

Ray... Would you mind explaining  your position as to why you believe so strongly in Brown's theory if this law, indeed would have prevented the killer from inheriting?

Lizzie certainly did not benefit from keeping quiet if avoiding scandal was her main reason for keeping quiet. 

If Bill did indeed murder A&A he would not have been able to claim any inheritance.

If she did it out of respect for her father's reputation-- then she got royally screwed!  He was not well loved to begin with!  Personally, if she loved him enough to protect his reputation even after death one would think she would have wanted to see his killer brought to justice.





(Message last edited Mar-20th-04  4:27 PM.)

Everything I read is that "primogeniture" was abolished by the French Revolution of 1789, and the Third Republic (?). It is Gt Britain that has primogeniture (the first son inherits all). De Tocqueville explaind that the US eliminated primogeniture with the "law of division" splitting up the family assets among the children (still the law in France as when Somerset Maugham's assets were given to his natural child?).

In the late 19th century the lawyers "fixed" this by saying if a child was left "$1" that would not be disinheriting the child.

The thing about reputations (as we all know) is that the sins of the father (or mother) ARE visited upon the children. You can check this out for yourself with any generation. Remember the slander against Andrew Jackson because he married Rachel before her divorce was final? Remember what they said about his mother? Remember the stories about FDR and Eleanor? Bill Clinton's parents? These libels can affect a person's reputation even thought they themselves are blameless. People just love to gossip about other people.

I believe AR Brown's theory because it is the optimal explanation for the puzzle. If neither Bridget or Lizzie did it (the same lack of evidence) then SOMEONE else did do it. Then why did Lizzie (& Uncle John) keep quiet? A family scandal is the explanation. It sounds good to me; but you can read all the other books and decide for yourself. Self-interest IS the best explanation for any person's actions, as they understand it. Don't forget the effects of a scandal on Andy's businesses (see the current example of Martha Stewart)!!!

To repeat myself, the only loophole in Brown's book is the explanation of why Ellan Eagan told nothing about the man to the police. Brown gives an explanation that sounds reasonable. If Eagan did mention seeing a man, and it was recorded, then that would clinch it. Ever read about some cases where the testimony of the witness did not match what the investigating police officer wrote down? (If you read about the investigation into the Assassination of JFK there examples where witnesses statements were changed.)

An illegitimate child can not inherit under English law, certainly in those times. There are also restrictions on disinheriting in some states. Surely you heard of cases when the son married an actress, etc? Also, see Amdy's swindle of the Brayton family. Maybe the ruling class just wanted to wash their hands of the affair and not investigate too deeply? (Like that guy in Missouri?)

Lack of evidence is not proof of innocence though. It only means that Knowlton, et al were not able to convince the jury to convict.

IMO, none of the theories on the case make Lizzie look all that innocent. Or, to put it another way, They ALL atmit to some degree of knowlege on her part, and therefore at least make her guilty of perjury and obstructing justice, which are all felonies, if I am not mistaken.

Certainly primogeniture was abolished in the case of regular inheritances and wills.  However-- with real estate holdings and various antiques and art work which date back to the 1400's there are certain tax laws set up which benefit the family from being taxed to the poorhouse over the years and allowing nobility to keep articles of value which can not truly be priced.  This is what is affected-- not my father's personal assets. 

BTW-- QEII abolished primogeniture stating the first born to inherit the throne would inherit-- male or female.

Yes she did do that for the next generation of Royals, but not for Ann, who would make the next best monarch, IMO.
Did that only affect the Royal Family tho?  Are the Nobleman titles bound to this new rule as well, do you know?

(Message last edited Mar-22nd-04  2:25 AM.)

I think it only had to do with the ascension of the throne....

And-- You are right.  Ann would make the best Monarch.  She works tirelessly for her charities.

William will make a good King one day-- But Charles?  I am not so sure.  He certainly has changed a lot since Diana's death, but I wonder just how much of that is PR.

 

(Message last edited Mar-22nd-04  2:41 AM.)

This law was passed in the late 1970s, the "Son of Sam" law to prevent a murderer from profiting from his writings.
OK, but then the victim or his familty can not sue for damages.

Actually, the English ban on "Salic Law" (preventing a woman from inheriting the throne) goes back to the time of Queen Mary or Elizabeth in the 16th century. France had Salic Law, other countries did not. That English law may have given males precedence over females.

You might want to look this up on I-net.
...
Kitty Kelley wrote a book on the English royalty.
Ever read "Royal Babylon" about the 19th century royalty?

(Message last edited Mar-22nd-04  11:23 AM.)