1. "What's He Getting At?"
Posted by Kat on Jul-7th-03 at 4:06 AM

Reading the Witness Statements overnight.  Remembering all the odd little Morse things:

He got the eggs from the farm Aug. 3rd, but was supposed to be making a deal over oxen, which he puts off.  Basically trades 3 pears for the farm eggs and stays 12.5 minutes.

Asks Fleet if the murderer could have been concealed in the house overnight.  Asks him that Aug. 4th.

Wanders around the yawd all afternoon of the murders, planting the idea that the cellar door had been *open*.

Then I recall from his testimony that he implies the front door spring lock didn't always work.

In W.S.'s, Morse says he saw the weapons being removed from the house, put in a bag, and taken away.  (33-Edson says he took them away openly in his hands and what Morse said was "false." [36] ).

--What is Morse getting at?  Is he implying, for one thing, that someone came home with Bridget?  Bridget was the last in and there was more room to hide in the attic area than the pretty occupied front bedrooms.  Also is he implicating Bridget when he claimed the cellar door was open?  That's her baliwick.  Emma says she doesn't go there much, so I wouldn't think Lizzie would either.  I mean she can wash her hankies anywhere...

in these little things he says, he sounds to me like he's trying to deflect suspicion away from lizzie.  looking for scenarios that would explain her innocence.  or is that too simple? 

I think the motive Is to deflect suspicion away from Lizzie, but to imply the cellar door was open and that the murderer might have been secreted in the house overnight, seems to be he is subtly pointing at Bridget.
I don't know why Morse would do that.
Possibly he doesn't yet know that Lizzie will never accuse Bridget?
He has not had a chance to get with Lizzie on how to proceed?

MAYBE these statements reflect what did happen, and not to deflect suspicion away from Lizzie. Isn't that question like "is anyone suspected"?
Or Uncle John is trying to find out if they suspect a hidden visitor (WS Borden), which could make him vulnerable to being an accessory.
Remember, if you were to introduce someone, or bring somebody over, you could be charged as an accessory!
Isn't this what happened to Gov Dean's son? He gave a friend a ride, then was arrested when this "friend" stole from the country club.
Ever give someone a ride? You could be set up this way.

well that's one line of reasoning.    i was just thinking of the possiblity that morse is totally innocent of the whole thing yet knows enough to figure (as the minutes wear on) that lizzie did it and wants to protect her.  not that he is thinking of bridget but that anyone can get in and out of the cellar door.  or maybe trying to find a way for himself to believe how it might not have been lizzie.

Yes I can see that.  That is partly what I mean.  But I also think he is clever enough to figure he can lay blame on the Irish Domestic easily, without openly pointing at her.  Not just anyone could find their way in thru the cellar door from outside and make it up to the guest room to kill someone in particular.
Since Bridget has the whole attic/3rd  floor to herself and the cellar is her furnace room, water heating room, water closet room and laundry room and coal room, these two parts of the house which Morse is implicating in these statements , seem really to yell Bridget!  That she helped someone into the house, And hid them.

Adding the spring lock story later seems like an afterthought.  That was at the Trial.  He had time to think and get with Lizzie by then.
The cellar door open, and the muderer secreted in the house overnight were seeds planted Thursday, maybe before he could even speak intimately with Lizzie.
I just had not noticed this before.

The record says JVM's spoken comments "How in God's Name did this happen?" I interpret that as a shock that the unexpected happened. Shielding Lizzie sounds OK if he knew she didn't do it. Else for what reason? Friendliness? Daughter of his sister? Perhaps.

Does his mention of the cellar door come later in the day when he had a chance to confer in private w/ Lizzie?

The problem w/ the open cellar door is that it leads to the kitchen or back of the house. If it also lead to the front staircase, that would be another thing. A trespasser would have to pass through the kitchen, dining room etc.

what you say got me to thinking about something else that has always bugged me. 

Q. And during that time, as far as you know, the front door was locked?
A. So far as I know.
Q. And never was unlocked at all?
A. I don't think it was.
Q. Even after your father came home, it was locked up again?
A. I don't know whether she locked it up again after that or not.
Q. It locks itself?
A. The spring lock opens.
Q. It fastens it so it cannot be opened from the outside?
A. Sometimes you can press it open.

as you know, lizzie finally decides she was in the kitchen when father came home.  on the first day of questioning, she is very confused and puts herself upstairs when he comes to the door.  but, in the end, in the kitchen.  why?  i've always thought that her reason for saying that had to do with maggie. that as far as she (lizzie) was concerned, she never saw maggie except maybe just fleetingly first thing in the morning.

maybe lizzie is making more sense at least than i had given her credit for -- in terms of implying both ingress and egress for the murderer.  in other words, with or without implicating maggie, lizzie implies that the killer got in through the front door while she was somewhere downstairs or in the cellar. and of course got out through the kitchen door or the cellar door while she was in the barn. 

it's always looked obvious to me that she's struggling with the time differential.  does she want us to believe that the killer came in after andrew was let in?  and did all that damage and got out before she came back from barn?  she tells knowlton several times that it was about 10 when andrew left (andrew himself her alibi during time when abby is killed -- therefore, abby could not have been killed between 9 and 9:30 -- but then we do know better than that.)

i know this gets away from your original point/question about morse -- i just wondered why she threw in that remark about how one can press the door open.



i can't find it right now, but as i remember, lizzie says the locking of the front door was "always her business."  and maggie says she had nothing to do with it.

yes, but isn't lizzie saying that she would have been in the barn when the killer left the house?

I'm beginning to think we have not only not deeply examined Bridget's possible role in this murder mystery, but that we have not really been allowed to.
Your post makes this apparent to me...well, our combined posts on Bridget, Lizzie, doors locked or not etc.
Authors have not seriously considered Bridget, and by that I include those who do find Bridget suspicious but come up with really lame motives.  We've come up with a few doozy's and we are not *published*. Then there is a voice here who I have been hearing since I first started posting and that voice continiously repeats *Lizzie said Bridget didn't do it*.  Well, at this point I want to say that I hope I never read that again.  Because that sort of littany, heard for 3+ years has blocked some of my adventuresome imagination, and it is tiresome to realize this.
AND I want to consider Bridget.  I feel like it, and so I say that yes I think if I read you correctlly, and along the same lines as my Morse post, that without coming out and saying it, Lizzie is very possibly pointing at Bridget too.
What got me was something you just pointed out which I always thought about & considered so odd...that Lizzie claims to never see Bridget anywhere that day....but also the cellar door thing.  In the Witness Statements, in front of police officer Edson, Very early in the morning Friday,7:15 a.m., in the kitchen, 'Miss Lizzie came in. She said 'Bridget, are you sure the back cellar door was fastened?' Bridget said 'Yes marm.'

So Lizzie is questioning the lock on the front door,&  the cellar door as well, says she didn't notice Bridget and leaves Bridget as the last person to have something to do with the front door, regardless that Bridget says Andrew was the last to have his hand on it.  It is also apparent Bridget had her hand last on the unlocked screen door too, by her own admission, during the 9:30 to 10:20 a.m. time frame.  (She is then implicated in the front door, cellar door and screen door, isn't she?)
Possibly Morse & Lizzie are trying to point at Bridget.  Maybe that was why Bridget was so scared.
And Lizzie can appear loyal to her family maid by saying that she could not have done this thing, but again, Lizzie can't Know that, without having guilty knowledge.  And so if Lizzie lied she can lie about thinking Bridget didn't do it, implying just the opposite.  Calling her Maggie can support this idea, because it shows the girls may have taken away Bridget's unique identity early on.

Hehehe...yr post made me grin like Cheshire Cat.  Stubborn horse blinders = tiresome.  Creative thinking = refreshing forward movement.

Yes, methinks (tho mine own tiresome repetition ) those "girls" relished every ounce of control they could get.

Accusations (& they can be subtle) can be a powerful way to manipulate.

Kat, thats a very interesting and refreshing take on things.  Do you have some sort of motive for our Bridget?  I personally can't think of thing at the moment, need to put my thinking cap on. 

We talked about a note.
A real note which really came.
For Bridget.
From a Beau.
And Abby as mistress intercepts this note and says wait until Andrew gets home!  You have been cavorting with a young man!
And Bridget gets mad.
And maybe socks Abby in the eye.
And then goes and gets an implement and stalks Abby into the guest room and kills her.
She needn't kill Lizzie.
But if a lame reason to kill Andrew by Lizzie is because he would find out she had done in Abby, then that same lame reason can apply to Bridget.  That he would know she killed Abby so she kills him too.
Bridget is more visably upset than anyone on the premices that day.
I don't know why Lizzie would stand trial if she knew Bridget did it, but you asked a motive and this one is better than the one where Bridget gets mad because she is ordered to wash windows on a hot day.

Still if Lizzie did it I can see these subtle places where she IS implicating Bridget, just like we would think she should.

(Message last edited Jul-10th-03  3:24 AM.)

Methinks I'm up for the night.  Brain won't shut off.

Kat, this scenario also fits with yr recent comment re Bridget barfing.  Hatcheting someone to death can't be good for keeping breakfast down.

OK let's get crazy -- Liz could stand trial knowing she was innocent & Bridget actually did the girls a BIG favour.  We'll take the fall for it, because we know we can pull it off.  Keep yr mouth shut, Maggie & do as we tell you.  Do a good job, we'll give you a nice cash bonus & we never hear from you again...

(Message last edited Jul-10th-03  4:34 AM.)

That's good.  That fits.
Everybody benefits.
Plus we can have Ye Olde Conspiracy.
Only it is a contract between the girls and Bridget.
That's why Bridget never admitted to sulks and fights in the Borden family.
And I think there is a bit of Gross in this...ie:  The Pearson-Radin Controversy.(see Privy page 7)

Oooo, and Abby told Lizzie that note was from someone sick and she was going to go out, possibly downtown to show Andrew and was cut down before she could.  Yes, I agree with the motive for killing Andrew, thats a double edged sword. 

I can't quite get from Bridget swatting Abby to Bridget hatcheting Abby, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.  Do you realize, though, how close to the Billy Borden-let's keep-our-mouths-shut this scenario is?  That is to say, Bridget starts a chain reaction that ends with the Bordens dead, and Lizzie's FINE with that, and repeatedly mentions that Bridget is innocent, in effect saying "I know; don't worry!"

Also, I don't see Bridget killing Andrew at ALL, though I DO see a frightened servant girl afraid that, as she first thought, "the terrible man" who did this horrid thing might come back to get the rest of them.  In fact, her fear at being in the house and her apprehension at being asked to head upstairs to look for her oddly silent and out of place (guest room = front of the house) mistress is much more convincing to me than Lizzie's willingness to hang out in the kitchen entry all alone after "innocently" finding Papa.     

Who assumes that Bridget had no right to receive a note from a friend?
We all know who said "Bridget didn't do it", and implicitly said she knew more than she told. 

This is E Radin's argument. He was a newspaper reporter who covered hundreds of murder trial (NY Herald Tribune?). He also wrote a book on convicted murderers who were innocent; a sense of justice.

The problem is Bridget's being outside around 9:30 when Abby got it. Radin argues for an earlier death, but this conflicts with the departure of Andy (or Uncle John?). [Check the timeline, please.]

Yes, Bridget's actions are consistent with a simple country girl placed in a perilous position. "Blame a disgruntled employee" is very common; read the news from Mississippi yesterday.

i know what you're talking about.  when we worry over the physical evidence seemingly missing -- who was the one person who undoubtedly could have disposed of it?  bridget.

problem is there is no story that makes any sense to me.

this takes me back to radin.  he calls attention to the way in which bridget ran into the guest room when she saw the body.  and that an eyewitness saw her limping across the yard (concealing an axe).  and bridget left that night with a bundle of something to top it off.

i can't see bridget doing much of anything that morning without lizzie's knowledge.  but if they are colluding  -- why are their stories so similar and yet different?  why lizzie not seeing bridget but bridget having no problem seeing lizzie?

it's not just lizzie saying that bridget did not do it -- it's the whole story.

how's this?  lizzie and bridget were secretly lovers (and we know nothing of their relationship) but say it was, and when they thought abby had gone out, they were wrong and got caught in compromising position by abby, who vowed to tell andrew -- bridget, you're out on your ass, lizzie you are disinherited.  i guess  that would do it.  but we soon find ourselves in purely fictional territory.

if bridget killed them either with or without cooperation from lizzie, how does this make sense?

what's going on in mississippi?

I don't think Bridget did it.  But Susan asked me what would be her motive if she did.  I think my motive is better than the Radin motive, or the Evan Hunter one.  [BTW:  The subject title refers not to you, Bob..]
I don't see Abby rushing out to get Andrew, Susan, I see her saying essentially *Wait until Mr. Borden gets home.*  And she would have changed her dress for That, to go downtown.
Ray, I explained a note from a male to Bridget was proof of *cavorting*.  I'm saying what was contained in the note was enough to get Abby angry at Bridget's behavior as a Catholic girl.  Weren't the master & mistress supposed to provide a moral guideline for their servants?
Also, Bob, I'm trying to work in those bruises on Abby's face.  I should get extra credit for that.  That's why she is punched and then Bridget snaps just like Radin has her snap.  I haven't read him in a while but I assume Bridget didn't happen to have a hatchet handy in her pocket when Abby ordered her to wash the windows.  She still had to go get the thing.
She did enter the guest room and stand and stare at Mrs. Borden's body.  That is odd.  Most people, like Churchill TWice, would consciously decide Not to view the bodies.

Anyway, the real reasoning is that Lizzie & Morse were quietly implicating Bridget...at least that's how it reads with this new interpretation, with the locks on all the doors pointing at Bridget.

(Message last edited Jul-11th-03  1:08 AM.)

Bear in mind I don't think this is how it went down, but let's say Bridget did have a nasty argument with Abby that ended in Abby threatening not only to can the girl, but to make sure no one else would hire her, either.

That's the kind of thing that might make a wrung-out servant turn vicious, I guess.  Still, where was Lizzie during all this, then?  Deaf and dumb?  Or, as has been posited, was this a case of "Glad somebody did it!," with Lizzie's support clear, Lizzie perhaps not realizing she herself would be arrested (if this was going to be a matter of "We have to arrest somone, so let's just follow the formalities," would Lizzie have really sat in the jail for so long)?  If Lizzie did hear all that had happened, and let's not even worry about how and why Andrew was killed, and she herself didn't even expect to be brought in, why did she get so stoic when she found out, and not turn and say "I didn't want to say anything before...but I heard Maggie kill Abby!"   

But then, I just can't see the death of Andrew coming out of this version of the situation, unless Bridget did kill Abby, and Lizzie confronted her, basically said, "Yippee!  Here's what we'll do NEXT..." and then provided Bridget with an alibi for Andrew's murder, which Lizzie then committed.       

I realize this is just supposin', but did we ever find out for sure that Bridget could read?  Or were her beaux in the habit of sending her rebuses?  (I hate to think what kinds of graphics might have been employed.)

you know, at any rate, ,this might be worth some exploring in the fictional department.  you have this secret relationship between the two going on.  that morning abby sees or find out something.  while one of the girls is arguing with abby up in the bedroom, the other one runs down to the cellar for the axe.

I really don't want to waste my time.
But there is NO PROOF other than speculation about a friendly relationship between B & L. Others would have noticed it before this.

Can you prove me wrong? Even Radin doesn't suggest this.

Bridget's beau might not know if she could read.*
And he may not have come forward as the sender of the note (I expected this question long ago) because he was getting on a ship back to Ireland and had no news for a month.  By then he was on to other things.

Anyway, I did look in Radin  and found him surmising about Bridget vomitting so close in time to Abby's murder and thought that a killing might cause that  reaction in the uninitiated...


*The nurse at my Dr's office may be slow in writing English.  She has worked there a year but I had to write down the name of my vitamin which needed a refill Rx.  It's her second language.  Maybe Bridget's *problem* was English as a second language?

The same problem: where is the note? Didn't Bridget get along best with Abby? (Abby seems like a very nice person; but she could still get nasty w/ Andy's bastard.)
WHAT is your own experience in these cases?

Don't forget the virtual general strike going on (F Spiering's book). THIS ALONE would want the rulers to come up with an arrest to quiet the prople. Check w/ your own experiences.

ray:

i know of no evidence showing much one way or the other about lizzie and bridget's relationship.  i didn't mean to say i believed my little story was true.  it's just that some of us write poetry, fiction, speculative things, etc.  i know that's a different subject from trying to solve the crime.

I think it's valid to explore differing combinations of relationships within that household.  All the *authors* have done that.
I have read many times, when an author or poster is considering Bridget, that there is always a statement to the effect that if Lizzie could be phisically on the premises to kill than so was Bridget phisically on the premises to kill.  The difference is in the motive.  So finding motive becomes very important and therefore studying the potentials of the characters. 

--We just can't dismiss someone who was actually there.  That is not good investigative method, Ray, and only taking Lizzie's word for things is also not the best method in solving a crime.

Okay, hows this for a motive for Bridget, she wants to leave the Bordens, "Here, Mrs. Borden, I'm handing in my papers, I'm leaving.  I can't take the doings in this household any longer."  Abby pathetically whines and clings to Bridget, "You can't leave me, I shall be all alone in this house.  The girls don't like me and Mr. Borden hardly talks to me at all anymore." 

Bridget starts seeing she has no way of leaving, shes trapped.  She doesn't want to leave Abby, but, starts thinking of her future, day upon drab day in the Borden's employ.  The arguing, the twice served meals, Andrew's teeth in the kitchen sink.  No, she must go and Abby won't let her, and now the woman is starting to blubber.  Bridget snaps and slaps Abby across the face, "Let go of me, you old cow!  I'm out of here!"  Abby is stunned, but then an evil grin spreads across her face, "Fine.  You leave.  But mark my words, girly, you'll not find another job as a housekeeper.  I will make sure of it!"  Thats when Bridget realizes how trapped she really is, theres no other way, Abby has to die.......now. 

Does anyone else consider this other than speculation?
Is there ANY evidence for this? I thought that Abby alone was Bridget's best friend. Was Bridget's pay a compensation for the job?

Rays, it is just speculation on my part, trying to see if there is any way to find a motive for Bridget to be the killer as Lizzie and she were definitely known to be on the premises when the murders happened.

Bridget had girlfriends she hung out with, I would imagine one of them was most probably Bridget's best friend.  In the Borden house I kind of see Bridget as Abby's ally.

Ray, if you don't want to play this particular game, just butt the hell out - there are plenty of other threads for you to post on.  The rest of us seem to clearly understand that we're speculating (i.e., "makin' up stuff") on THIS thread, simply because we can, because it's enjoyable, and because, sometimes, a flight of fancy will take you someplace that makes something fall into place.  If you, with your A. R. Brown/Frank Spiering-loving soul, can't understand that, I'm sorry for you, and, frankly, irked by your interruptions.

One of these books you revere contains a well-intentioned but radical theory, to which you've whole-heartedly susbscribed, as you've, ad nauseam, let us know; the other is a lazy, plagiaristic piece of offal, and yet you continue to bring it up like it was The Holy Gospel.  Why?

(No, Stef, I'm afraid this wasn't very cordial, was it?)
 

There are less than a dozen non-0fiction books on this case. Each will rate them differently. If this is speculation then the "stay for tea" or "privy" is the spot, IMO.
F Spiering's book does give more background or local color to the times. It is worth reading, but not for the "Emma did it" conclusion.
So what do the others think?

Did somebody miss their anger management class this week?

i think there are fictional elements in every author's "solution."  i honestly think that brown is about as fictional as victoria lincoln, when you get right down to it.  they both have to speculate to tell the story in detail, they have to invent scenes that no one witnessed, etc. 

we reject that bridget did it (i've never been able to really believe she did it) primarily because it does not "explain" the human motivations that we think must have been involved.  does not explain based on anything we know or can glean in any way.  on the one hand, the bridget-did-it theory gets pretty outlandish quickly -- as we've demonstrated.  you can make up about anything you want.

yet i thought kat made a true statement sometime back that we have disallowed ourselves from seriously suspecting bridget -- which is odd in that a lizzie/bridget collusion would explain the troubling absence of physical evidence, since bridget undoubtedly had the best opportunity for disposing of damning evidence.

let me finish up susan's scenario.  lizzie is downstairs eating a pear, reading a magazine (i'll go ahead and give her that for fun).  she overhears the commotion upstairs, runs up, to find bridget just finishing up with abby.  lizzie is amazed and exclaims:  "good lord, maggie, what balls you have!  i've been wanting to do that for years.  and since it's done......"  so they decide to lie in wait for andrew.  they feign some window washing and ironing.  basically lizzie is blackmailing maggie to off father (or i'll run and tell on you now).  the part about maggie going upstairs and all that is a story.  and maggie hides evidence under her shawl while she runs around the neighborhood, and disposes of it somewhere along the way.

sorry, i couldn't resist.

now i don't say this is the solution.  but it is interesting to look at this, considering that i could make it more plausible than one might think, especially if i use secondary sources.  (radin talked to someone, he says, who remembered seeing maggie limping across the way as though hiding something under her skirt.)  what you would have then is a fictional story that nevertheless "explains" perfectly the missing physical evidence.  and as i say, ALL the solutions are lacking -- which is why we keep doing this.  (i can provide the quote from radin, but it's secondary anyway, really hearsay, and sort of beside my point.)  see what i mean?  but personally i wouldn't get attached to brown anymore than i'd get attached to lincoln.

i wouldn't be surprised if someone did write a book expounding a bridget/lizzie plot, backing it up with "discoveries" from all sorts of sources claiming he said/she said, etc. 

 

From LABVM/L
Bibliography, by Stefani Koorey, Ph.D

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BibliographyCase.htm

PRIMARY SOURCES

Burt, Frank H. The Trial of Lizzie A. Borden. Upon an indictment charging her with the murders of Abby Durfee Borden and Andrew Jackson Bordon. Before the Superior Court for the County of Bristol. Presiding, C.J. Mason, J.J. Blodgett, and J.J. Dewey. Official stenographic report by Frank H. Burt (New Bedford, MA., 1893, 2 volumes). (Micro- text, Boston Public Library: 1971)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

Inquest Upon the Deaths of Andrew J. and Abby D. Borden, August 9 - 11, 1892, Volume I and II. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society.
Witnesses: Eli Bence, Emma Borden, Lizzie A. Borden, Dr. Seabury W. Bowen, Adelaide B. Churchill, Hannah H. Gifford, Hiram C. Harrington, Frederick B. Hart, Frank H. Kilroy, John V. Morse, Alice M. Russell, Charles S. Sawyer, Augusta D. Tripp and Sarah B. Whitehead. Lizzie Borden's testimony is reprinted from the New Bedford Evening Standard as both hers and Bridget Sullivan's testimony is lost.

The Knowlton/Pearson Correspondence, 1923-1930. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society.

Preliminary Hearing in the Borden Case before Judge Blaisdell, August 25 through September 1, 1892. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society.

The Witness Statements. Fall River, MA: The Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast/ Museum, 1997?.

BOOK LENGTH STUDIES -- NON FICTION

Adler, Gabriela Schalow. "Our Beloved Lizzie: Constructing an American Legend." Dissertation. University of Rhode Island, 1995.

Arnold, Muriel. Lizzie Borden: Pictorial and Historical - The Hands of Time. Nashua, NH: Tri Flag Press, 1999.

Axelrod-Contrada, Joan. Lizzie Borden 'Axe Murder' Trial: A Headline Court Case.Berkely Heights, NJ: Enslow Pub., 2000.

Brown, Arnold R. Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1991.

Davis, Judge Charles G. "The Conduct of the Law in the Borden Case." A Collection of Articles concerning the Borden Case. Boston: Boston Daily Advertiser, 1894.

de Mille, Agnes. Lizzie Borden: A Dance of Death. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1968.

Flynn, Robert A. Lizzie Borden & the Mysterious Axe. ME: King Philip Publications, 1992.

Geary, Rick. The Borden Tragedy: A Memoir of the Infamous Double Murder at Fall River, Massachusetts, 1892. NY: NBN Pub., 1997.

The Genealogy of the Borden Family Living In Fall River and Its Vicinity, 1876. Sold and printed by the Fall River Historical Society. 19 pages.

Hoffman, Paul Dennis. Yesterday in Old Fall River: A Lizzie Borden Companion. Carolina Academic Press, 2000.

Jeans, James W. Classics of the Courtroom, Vol. XIII: Highlights from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie Borden. 1988.

Kent, David. Forty Whacks: New Evidence in the Life and Legend of Lizzie Borden. Emmaus, PA: Yankee Books, 1992.

Kent, David. Lizzie Borden Sourcebook. Boston: Brandon Publishing, 1992.

Lincoln, Victoria. A Private Disgrace: Lizzie Borden by Daylight. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1967. Rpt. NY: International Polygonics, 1986.

Lizzie Borden: Did She? . . . Or . . . Didn't She? Verplanck, NY: Historical Briefs, Inc., 1992.
Reproduced pages from New Bedford's Evening Standard from August 4, 1892 through June 21, 1893. 11" x 14", 196 pages.

Lunday, Todd. The Mystery Unveiled: The Truth about the Borden Tragedy:Fresh Light That Must Be Convincing to All Readers. Providence: J. A. & R. A. Reid, 1893. Rpt. Portland, ME: King Philip Pub. Co., 1990.

Marshall, John David. Lizzie Borden and the Library Connection. Tallahassee, FL: School of Library & Information Studies, Florida State University, 1990.

Masterton, William L. Lizzie Didn't Do It! Boston: Brandon Pub., 2000.

Pearson, Edmund. The Trial of Lizzie Borden. New York: Doubleday, 1937. Rpt. as The Trial of Lizzie Borden by Edmund Pearson; Notable Trials Library Edition, Foreword by Alan Dershowitz. Delran, NJ: Gryphon, 1991.

Phillips, Arthur Sherman. The Borden Murder Mystery: In Defence of Lizzie Borden. ME: King Philip Pub., 1986.

Porter, Edwin H. The Fall River Tragedy. Fall River, MA: George R. H. Buffinton, Press of J. D. Munroe, 1893. Rpt. with new introduction by Robert Flynn. Portland, ME: King Philip Pub., 1985.

Radin, Edward. Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1961.

Rappaport, Doreen. Be The Judge, Be The Jury, The Lizzie Borden Trial. NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

Rebello, Leonard. Lizzie Borden: Past and Present. Al-Zach Press, 1999.

Ryckebusch, Jules R., ed. Proceedings: Lizzie Borden Conference. Portland, ME: King Philip Publishing Co., 1993.

Sams, Ed. Lizzie Borden Unlocked! Yellow Tulip Press, ONLINE (08-18-01) http://www.curiouschapbooks.com

Samuels, Charles and Louise. The Girl in the House of Hate: The Story and All the Facts of the Lizzie Borden Murders. New York: Fawcett Publications, 1953, 1962. Rpt. as The Girl in the House of Hate: Being an Exact and Faithful Account of the Trial of Lizzie Borden. Mattituck, NY: American Reprint Co., 1989.

Senate, Richard and Debbie. Psychic Solution: The Lizzie Borden Case. Ventura, CA, 1998

Spiering, Frank, Lizzie: The Story of Lizzie Borden. NY: Random House, 1984.
.
Sullivan, Robert. Goodbye Lizzie Borden. Brattleboro, VT: Stephen Greene Press, 1974.

Williams, Joyce G., J. Eric Smithburn, and Jeanne M. Peterson. Lizzie Borden: A Case Book of Family and Crime in the 1890s. Bloomington, IN: T.I.S. Publications Division, 1980.

= 37 = 3 Dozen!




(Message last edited Jul-15th-03  11:54 PM.)

  Thanks, Haulover.  See as outlandish as our speculation starts, it does kind of all work out in the end.  Great addition to the story! 


Thanks, Kat, for the list.  Thats alot of nonfiction to sift through to find out what parts are indeed still fiction! 

Since the rest of us on the thread seem to be happy speculating, I'd say you were outnumbered, and whether or not you think "Privy" or "Stay to Tea" is the proper place for this discussion, it really doesn't matter one whit.  If it had been the case, I'm sure Stef would've jumped in to ask us to move the discussion.

Besides, that's not what you first posted.  It wasn't until I pressed you on your dissenting posts that you voiced an opinion the thread should be located somewhere else.  Until I did that, you were just performing your usual "reminding" us that Bridget didn't blah, blah, blah, and A.R. Brown told us blah, blah, blah..., etc.

And, frankly, your habit of ending your posts with questions designed to show us how open-minded you are or, as is more usual, shifting the burden of research to someone else is rather transparent and tiresome.

Do yourself (and me) a favor and don't write back immediately; give this a think before you respond, if you choose to.

 

The solution to the missing hatchet is obvious. Either WS Borden carried it away (as per AR Brown's book based on the recollections of Henry Hawthorne and Ellan Eagan). Brown depends on the written notes from people of that time (althought memory decades later can play tricks). Or Bridget, innocently, carried it away when she visited Alice. No one has named anyone else.

Gerald Gross's essay (after E Radin's book) splits the difference, since both L & B have an alibi for one of the murders. You MUST accept this based on the jury's verdict. Unless you, a century later, claim to know more than the jury. Refer to L Nizer's comments on this: anyone can read the transcript and come up with a contrary verdict, but THEY were not present to hear the voice, tones, and demeanor of the witness. A jury isn't perfect, but it is what it is.

Any testimony decades later can be corrupted by memory ("Bridget limped"). Maybe she didn't, it was just a bad memory?

A listing is not a book. It also omits Gerald Gross's essay (which I remember as the ending for the 1963(?) edition of E Pearson's "Trial of LAB". By a "book" I meant something listed in my county library system, which preserves many out-of-print books. Legal briefs that are not readily available are not counted.

The one fault in this list is the lack of ratings. Yes, this is partly personal judgment. But no one will claim they are all of equal quality. You could categorize them by legal documents, full-length books, chapters in a book, etc. That would be a job, but useful for anyone first looking into the subject. Maybe an article in itself?
...
The published books that I know of (but haven't read all since some are out of print or obsolete):
E Porter 1893 from his newspaper articles; LAB "guiltless".
E Pearson 1937 novelist one-sided, says LAB was guilty.
E Radin 1961 newspaper reporter researched and said it could've been Bridget.
V Lincoln 1967 novelist who wrote from "in-group gossip" LAB did it but we don't care!
R Sullivan 1974 retired judge said LAB was guilty, but the judge was "incorruptible" (how did he know?).
F Spiering 1984 novelist claimed Emma did it; accepted debunked confession.
AR Brown 1991 Final Chapter, tells who really did it.
Masterton 2000 said LAB didn't do it, suggested others, but doesn't really know.

I've omitted all novels, books with a short chapter, or a condensed, popularization. Isn't that politically correct?

Your serve, Kat.

(Message last edited Jul-16th-03  7:11 PM.)

Why don't you try reading some of them?

ray:

i don't disagree with the jury's verdict.  but the case was never solved either.  the jury was under instructions to disregard quite a bit of testimony.  we are under no constraints, however.  do you acknowledge that difference?

let me ask you this.  i believe (i may be mistaken) that brown prints lizzie's inquest in his book, so i assume you've read it.  do you think that brown's theory adequately explains lizzie's discrepancies and various oddities?  on a printout of lizzie's inquest, i highlighted what i thought obviously needed explanation, and it seems to me that this encompasses at least half the whole thing.  what do you say about this?  we've been over so much of it, i'd rather not pick out particular passages for this question to you.  but what is your opinion of lizzie's inquest performance?

If you went to the link you would have your question answered.
(Sounds like the message out of a Fortune Cookie, doesn't it?)

(Message last edited Jul-17th-03  12:51 AM.)

Thank you for your polite request.
AR Brown prints the part that is usually eliminated in other books, because the authors missed the point of the question. It does seem like meaningless chatter UNLESS you know the clue behind it.
...
Q. "How many children has your father?"
A. "Just two".
Q. "Just two?"
A. "There was one who died."
...
AR Brown (from the notes of H Hawthorne & E Eagan explains just what this innocent passage really means.

As for Lizzie's performance, you all can draw your own conclusions. How well can any do given the sudden turmoil in her life, her medicine, AND the need to keep her Father's secret?

I believe Andy told Lizzie to "NEVER tell anyone about Willy"; and, another heir would reduce her inheritance. I think highly of Lizzie because she shielded Brdiget and her father's workmen; she didn'[t have to do it.

Message noted, and thanks for the reference.
Do you agree that there are just about a dozen books available?

I'm pretty sure when Lizzie mentions the "one who died", she is referring to Andrew's second daughter, Alice Esther Borden, who was born May 3,1856 - and died March 10, 1858. (Ref. Rebello,page 7)

Yes, Alice Esther...unless you subscribe to Brown's theory.

You are making a false assumption. I hope this is not your habit.
And how many did you read?

Yes, that is correct, Diana. But the question was "has" (present tense). AR Brown explains this as Knowlton knowing about William S Borden ("they know it but they can't prove it"), and implicitly part of the cover-up.

So what is YOUR experience in similar trials? On the local or federal scene? Could this have happened then or now?

Why was Knowlton rewarded with a higher position? Because he "played ball" with the rich and powerful (ex-Governor Robbinson)? Do these things go on today? Ever read "Compromised" by Terry Reed? Know about Wbster Hubble (Dept of Justice in Clinton's first term)?

i have a problem with conspiracy theories in general.  i think they are usually fictional.  usually there is an agenda behind it, someone wants to prove something.  so they back track, picking out what data they need to make the case until they've got something plausible.  what makes it tricky and unreliable is that no one is ever able to gather ALL information and account for everything.  just like a novelist constructing a plot, you take what you can use, you disregard what you don't need, and stay away from what you can't explain at all.  also, something of human nature gets overlooked -- how difficult it is for people to be truly discreet, to keep their mouths shut, to coordinate, to stay on the same page. 

I too have a problem with conspiracy theories.  They are too complicated and the answer is usually more simple than that.
I also cannot see the sense in the State of Massachusetts spending the equivelent of $2 million on a fake case against Lizzie Borden.  For why?  She was a nobody before the murders.  Not a Princess or an Infamous Mistress.

Nowadays a conspiracy could probably be proven in days.  Back then I'd think they could be proven in a few months.

This is a good question that requires an answer.

Yes, Virginia, there are conspiracies even if you don't know about them. For instance, Watergate was one prime example. The Killing of JFK (or RFK or ML King) was another; if they're not caught we can only speculate.

You can read the long book "Compromised" by Terry Reed for another example by a contract agent who lived to tell all. The events of Mena Ark involved the state Governor (WJ Clinton), the Federal Vice President (GHW Bush) and his sons, and other High Officials (read how dirty money found its way into Atty Genl Edwin Meese's personal bank account). Democratic Party Boss Clark Clifford was tagged for taking drug money into his bank (First America).

You may watch Tom Clancy's film "Clear and Present Danger" for a "fictional" story based on TRUE FACTS. Ever hear of "Contragate"?

Some 16th century philosopher said a conspircay that is too widespread is alway found out, but if too narrow may not work (or words to that effect). Anyone who disputes conspiracies probably also believes in the Easter Bunny, or other childish things. Agree?

Remember this, while state money is spent, it doesn't come out of the Official's pockets!!! In fact, they profit from these cases (a larger budget etc.). Placing a false charge against somebody may seem strange unless you realize somebody will profit from it. Haven't you seen legislature propose laws that adversely affect some business group, only to let it lapse when the "campaign contributions" come rolling in? When will you learn that "politics" is NOT altruism?

I never watched "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" but read it tells about thing you will NEVER read about in your grammar school history class.

"Anyone who disputes conspiracies probably also believes in the Easter Bunny, or other childish things. Agree?"

No, I don't agree.  How, in the name of logic, did you possibly make THAT leap?  Or have I missed something?

i think my main point about it you missed.  i doubt the ABILITY of a number of people to successfully COORDINATE without leaks.  generally speaking, i am not impressed with people's ability to plot a course and fool.  this sounds course, but people are stupid.  a conspiracy theorist has an unrealistic advantage in the first place -- the ability to manipulate a choice of facts while ignoring or never knowing other facts.  someone with a different MOTIVE would construct or fictionalize a different story.  i've noticed you like the concept of "common sense."  actually, i respect common sense which, in this case, frankly, is that lizzie borden did it and got away with it.

can you acknowledge or address the fact that brown has to fictionalize or invent details concerning that grim day in order to make his story work?  for example:  it was not lizzie who laughed upstairs, it was crazy billy.  in fact, we have only bridget's testimony regarding it.  it cannot be anything more than speculation -- just like victoria lincoln's opinion of how that pinhead spot of blood got on the outside of lizzie's slip.

but i suppose it is true of this case that any theory designed to de-mystify really does require a certain percentage of fiction?

I stumbled across Carolyn Gage's article today, & thought you all might be interested in another Bridget argument. 

As usual, there are factual errors --

http://www.feminista.com/v4n1/gage.html

That article by Gage is several years old now. She and I have been reworking it and cleaning up errors getting her essay ready for her presentation on June 14th of this year at the University of New England. She presented her paper at their Conference on Guilt.

The reworked version will be published in August on the Lizzie Borden Virtual Museum and Library. It is now called, "LIZZIE BORDEN AND BRIDGET SULLIVAN:  A QUESTION OF DEVIANCE."

Tina-Kate you are psychic to have mentioned this essay now!

  Yeah, Stef.  I hear that a lot.

Well, I look fwd to the new essay!

Can I assume that this is mostly speculation? And it tells more about the authors than the subjects?

To cover up the Borden Murders, only a few people are required: JVM, LAB, and Emma overtly, the Williams Borden and Bassett, Hiram Harrington, etc covertly. JVM mailed his letters to keep the latter quiet (see AR Brown's long letter on the main site). We know this by ARB's investigations, and the deduction that this best explains the mystery.

"Common sense" is rarely if ever defined; it varies according to the person making the decision, based on their experiences. Agree?

AR Brown's theory provides the "parallax view" that makes the events make sense: Lizzie's story was to cover up the murders by Wm S Borden. For example, at first Lizzie says she was in the sitting room when Andy returned (Bridget washing windows in DR or sitting room? - pardon my memory). AFTER Bridget tells of hearing laughter from upstairs, Lizzie changes her story to say "it was me there". So too her alibi: first, it was in the backyard. When she realized this made her a witness to whoever passed out the back, she changed it to "in the barn", then "upstairs in the back of the barn". She claimed to see nothing and hear nothing (her first story of hearing a "groan" tells me she was in the backyard). David Kent's "40 Whacks" tells of his timeline for going up into the back of the barn.

AR Brown had to DEDUCE (not invent) and put flesh on the skeleton of his explanation. That's what makes a book salable to the general audience; just a list of sentences from the Inquest or Trial Transcript does NOT make a salable book. ARB's letter tells of original 1100 page book; this HAD to be cut to 320 pages to make it salable. (Just look at the length of books in a library or store.)

AR Brown also tells of just where JVM went that evening; it wasn't just to the Post Office, as so many said.  Anybody here read the 1963 version of E Pearson's "Trial of LB"?

Also, I mentioned weeks ago that I would be limiting my time here. So don't expect anything close to instant messaging.

Did somebody count the errors in this article, if there were any?
Wasn't Lizzie arrested a week after the murders, not in November when Miss (not Mrs) Russell went to the Grand Jury?

From the first half, it seems like a good summary. Remember, earlier (?) E Radin exposed the forged typewritten confession of LAB.
...
I have previously commented on these topics, so I won't repeat them. But I think the windows were washed that morning to provide a cover story for their being closed when Andy met Willy (the practice was to keep them open in hot weather). No, I don't have a videotape for this.

(Message last edited Jul-21st-03  11:19 AM.)

You've named 6 people in the conspiracy:
It seems like less people when only initials are used.
Jonn Morse, Lizzie Borden, Emma Borden, William Bassett, *William Borden*,
Hiram Harrington...and you left out Dr. Bowen who sent a message.  And you left out the *Mellon Gang* which comprises how many members?  4 more?  or 5?  or 6?
Has Brown now named 12 people at least?

That many people and you would have to include spouses in some cases, dying declarations in others where they were promised not to tell, some children?... the list has grown. 

All because Andrew Borden & wife were murdered.  What makes them so special that this conspiracy existed?  It is out of proportion.

I use the word "conspiracy" to mean those who KNEW who did the murders, but did not speak out. It wasn't in their interest to do so. There were no eyewitnesses either, just the DEDUCTION from knowing who was visiting at the time the murders happened. Murders seldom happen in public. Most violent deaths in the home are suicides.

The "Mellen House Gang" is just a synonym for the wider term "Courthouse Gang": the politicians who control justice in your county. By choosing who gets to be judge, and who then owes favors to politicians. This usually means giving lucrative legal work to favored lawyers. Or arranging convenient judicial decisions after political pay-offs. (See "Miracle on 92nd Street" for a fictional example; I think this got the film banned for years.)

I seriously doubt if ANY man would tell his wife, then or now. Dr Bowen merely relayed an important message to recall JVM. (I think JVM intended to return to his home, not the Bordens. Lizzie needed his advice on what to do.) Remember, Lizzie's first answers were generally correct: "I was in the backyard" or "I was in the sitting room". Only afterwards, with the medicine, did her story change. I think every change in her story was to wipe away evidence of a visitor. That's why AR Brown's theory of "The Legend" works. First, it didn't do Andy or Abby any good' second, the truth would only embarass Lizzie and Emma (not to mention another heir).

Lastly, you can read up on "Iran-Contra" and the MANY people who were involved, yet denied everything. Terry Kent Reed's "Compromised" will give you an education on this!