1. "Has Anyone Read This Book?"
Posted by Susan on Aug-24th-03 at 4:22 PM

Synopsis
"America's foremost expert on criminal profiling provides his uniquely gripping analysis of seven of the most notorious murder cases in the history of crime -- from the Whitechapel murders to JonBenet Ramsey -- often contradicting conventional wisdom and legal decisions.
Jack the Ripper. Lizzie Borden. The Zodiac Killer. Certain homicide cases maintain an undeniable, almost mystical hold on the public imagination. They touch a nerve deep within us because of the personalities involved, their senseless depravity, the nagging doubts about whether justice was done, or because, in some instances, no suspect has ever been identified or caught.

In The Cases That Haunt Us, twenty-five-year-FBI-veteran John Douglas, profiling pioneer and master of modern criminal investigative analysis, and author and filmmaker Mark Olshaker, the team behind the bestselling Mindhunter series, explore the tantalizing mysteries that both their legions of fans and law enforcement professionals ask about most. Among the questions they tackle:

Was Lizzie Borden truly innocent of the murder of her father and stepmother as the Fall River, Massachusetts, jury decided, or was she the one who took the ax and delivered those infamous "whacks"? Through a minute-by-minute behavioral analysis of the crime, the authors come to a convincing conclusion.

Taking a fresh and penetrating look at each case, the authors reexamine and reinterpret accepted facts and victimology using modern profiling and the techniques of criminal analysis developed by Douglas within the FBI. This book deconstructs the evidence and widely held beliefs surrounding each case and rebuilds them -- with fascinating and haunting results."

I have just currently read it and wonder what anyone else's take is on the Lizzie Borden section.  I would have to give them a C+ for the facts, they have all the correct facts, but, make sloppy mistakes.  For example they talk about how the back of Abby's head was bashed in, but, then in another paragraph talk about how Abby's killer stood astride her and Abby faced her assailant as she was whacked.  Or how Abby's maiden name was Grady.

They go from telling the story of the murders as we know it, to the nature of the crime; domestic homicide, and how disfigurement of the face is quite common in these types of crimes.  From this to victimology where Abby and Andrew are examined to the possible suspects, John Morse isn't one of them!  Its down to Lizzie, Bridget, Emma and Sarah Whitehead!!!

This is boiled down after giving possible motives to each and why they don't think it was possible for them and they come out with Lizzie as the culprit.

They even do away with Arnold Brown's solution of there being a William Borden doing the murders.  They quote from Rebello's Lizzie Borden Past & Present: "No information was located to substantiate Mr. Brown's allegation."

They go on to say if you believe that Lizzie was guilty, could she be made to crack and tell all?  They proceed to give their strategies on how they would have accomplished this; driving a wedge in between the relationships between Lizzie and Emma, and Morse, in hopes that they would crumble and tell more of what they knew.  On to how they would win Lizzie's trust to get her to tell all.

All in all, an interesting read. 

Thanks for bringing this up, and a fascinating post!

I have only read the section on Lizzie.  I had not time to read the whole thing when we had it from the library.
We have the xerox copy of that article.
I did re-read it recently.  My problem with it began with the first error of fact.  I started cringing because I knew Douglas would be basing his profile on the killer upon what he had learned about the case.  So when that part went awy, I wondered how his profile could convince me.  I carried that feeling through that whole chapter which did leave me disappointed.  I found I could,'t put my faith in his analysis because I knew not how much weight he gave to the erronous "facts" in order to reach his determination.

If I had had time to read his other chapters on cases I knew something about as well, I could have compared his accuracy there and that might have given me more confidence in the Lizzie Borden chapter.
Sometime I should get that book back.

Otherwise, could you tell if Douglas needed all his facts straight before he made his profile, or do you think he had enough to work with and it could thus be reliable?

I think Douglas had enough to work with when he was profiling his suspects, as I said, odd, Morse not one of them?  He has his information correct on these particular points even down to Emma not taking the first train back to Fall River.  I will have to read his other chapters as I went to the Lizzie chapter first and give you my impression there. 

That is what I'd like, yes, thank you.  Even just one other.

An old friend of this forum, the late Terence Duniho, took that article apart word by word and wrote Mr. D with his complaints and corrrectins. He never heard back from him. I agree with Kat that the factual errors make me doubt his analysis.

I love John Douglas, by the way. I read every one of his books. I liked his latest on the Internet killing. Kat, I think, thought it not so good. It rambled a bit at the end but all in all a fascinating read. It is called Any One You Want Me To Be.

I also read the new Black Dahlia book this summer. I don't want to go off on a subtopic but has anyone read this one? I would love to comment on it. Black Dahlia Avenger: The True Story by Steve Hodel.

Also, last night on American Justice, they finally cleared Arthur Leigh Allen for the Zodiac killings through DNA. In fact, they just cleared him in June of this year! It was very current and they interviewed lots of the actual detectives and reporters who were involved in the investigation.

Yes, it is aggravating, Douglas is just this close of the facts and then he blows it with one little item.  But, overall, I feel like he really has a grasp on the principal players and possible motives.  I just read his take on the Jon-Benet Ramsey case and the Black Dahlia-Elizabeth Short case.  From what I can recall about the Black Dahlia case, he has his facts straight, but, may have some errors, its been awhile since I've read about this case?  Lizzie does pop again here and there as sidelines in these cases.

Maybe I'm biased, but, his outcome on Lizzie is pretty much what I came up with myself, and I'm not in the FBI, so, overall I think he actually has something of merit to say.  Need to read his take on the Jack the Ripper case and see what he has to say there.  I recently tried to read Cornwall's book, but, couldn't get into it.  I still think its exciting to just happen across a book in the library that I didn't even know existed and find something about Lizzie! 

I've joked in the past how, based on this book, the correct actress to play Abby would seem to be Linda Blair (the head-turning)!

I look past his errors to enjoy the section where he talks about how he'd question the (to him, obviously guilty) Lizzie.  Neat stuff.  Stef, I'm a long-time fan of his work,too, and I was pissed-off at him for years for mentioning that he was going to write about the Borden case, and then not doing it for so long.  

  Boy, our minds work alike, Bob!  I pictured something similar when I read that paragraph about Abby!

This is my first time with Douglas as author, I will have to check our local libraries and see what else they have of his.  I do enjoy his style of writing. 

I still think this chapter on Lizzie is pretty badly done and I will never know unless I ask him, what weight the facts hold in Douglas's determination.
His results mirror common conceptions so I don't find much new here except his description of how he would have conducted the personal questioning.  That was interesting but brief.  And could apply to others in Lizzie's *catagorey*.
I recall wishing he gave points for different aspects of the crime that he would consider.  So I could understand what was pertinent data to his final result.

Here are errors.  When they are removed, what is left?

Douglas, John, and Mark Olshaker. "Lizzie Borden." The Cases That Haunt Us. NY: Scribner's, 2000. 81-118


-1st pg., 81-"He or she gave Borden's father ten plus one."
-82-  "...by bladed weapons that were not found at the scene." [comparing to OJ case]
-"...In fact, the only words both defendants uttered in open court were single sentences proclaiming their innocence." [comparing to OJ case]
-"... [Andrew] ..one of the wealthiest and most prominent citizens in town..."
-83- "...Abby Durfee Grady Borden..."
-"...forty-one year old Emma Lenora..."  [check my math.  I have her at 42 & 5 mos.]
-"...Andrew's father had never made anything of himself.  Everything Andrew had....he'd earned completely on his own..."
-"...owner of several farms."
-"...wealth was estimated as high as a half million dollars..."
-"...[no] indoor plumbing."
-"The simple two-story frame house at 92 Second Street...'
-"Andrew, who according to all available research had never been accused of a sense of humor..."
-84-  "[Morse] had lived in Iowa for twenty years..."
-"...but three years before had returned to the Northeast,,,"
-"...[Abby] was afraid someone was trying to poison them."
-"...the mutton stew the family had been having at various meals for several days in a row..."
-"Bridget ...was convinced the stew had gone bad, but Andrew would not let her dispose of it."
-"Mr. and Mrs. Emery later reported..."
-"Abby had directed Bridget to wash all of the windows, inside and out."
-85- "...Mrs. Churchill...saw [Mr. Borden] leave."
-"When Bridget came back in the house, she overheard Abby and Lizzie talking in the dining room."
-"...Andrew Borden told carpenters he didn't feel well..."
-"...Maggie...had been the name of the previous Borden maid."
--"...Abby, who was shy, plain, short and overweight, normally told [Bridget] her when she was planning to leave the house, which didn't happen all that often."
--This is 5 pages so far out of 38.

Yes, I know, sloppy mistakes.  What we have left is that despite the errors, Andrew and Abby were still hacked to death on August 4th and his finger seems to point to Lizzie. 

But didn't the book say they had an expert review the article?
Books are mostly written to make money, or push some agenda.
You can learn about this book by reading its reviews.

Look upon it as primarily entertainment (very good) but not a "final solution" of the crime. Arnold R Brown did that.

Again, these books (like most "true crime" are written for those who live in suburban safety. I doubt that they are popular in high-crime urban cities. (You are welcome to dispute this.)
The book is certainly entertaining, and somewhat educational. Just what is educational may be disputed.

I did see a TV story some months? ago, that cleared a suspect. Does this mean anything to the other members of this site?

The NUMBER ONE rule that I learned here is: NEVER talk to anyone w/o your lawyer present. To prevent some ambitious prosecutor from making up a story: "she confessed to me, but I don't have it on tape".
It also prevents that third degree method of keeping a suspect awake for 48 hours until they confess to ANYTHING to get some sleep. The movie "Boomerang" displays this, as does "The Darkness at Noon".
...
Can T Doniho's article be copied or available here?

(Message last edited Aug-26th-03  7:06 PM.)

I wonder if these mistakes exist in the mind of the reviewer?
First a "bladed weapon" (usually "sharp force insturment"?) was used in both examples.
2) Andy was one of the most prominent and wealthy citizens, etc.
Compare for yourselves.

So WHO did review his chapter?

Len Rebello was given the chapter for review, and he gave Douglas the corrections, and then Douglas didn't use them.

Commercial writers of books and articles ALWAYS face the deadline of schedule, and budget. You have to work for a corporation to realize this. An independent contractor can (and will?) go over schedule often (ask somebody who had a new home built).

Amateurs have the luxury of taking all the time they want or need. Certain people excepted, of course.

Did anyone substantiate the claim of a 'Vanity Fair' article knocking P COrnwell's book on Jack the Ripper? Will they ever do it?

I read that a popular monthly magazine has an article on OJ Simpson, in which he tells all. Hurry and buy one before they sell out; this may become a collector's item. Unless your Library has it and lets you make copies.

The point of that sentence broken out was not a bladed weapon, but that (in the Borden case) he says the weapon was never found.  I can't say that, we can't say that, nobody knows that.

About Andrew being the wealthiest etc, , I don't think so.  He wasn't even near the league of prominent wealthy businessmen in Fall River.  The kind who traveled, owned collections, ran huge estates and owned other huge estates in Florida or Newport, etc.

To Ray:

Ray, your posts are an absolute delight to me.  I "COL" (chuckle out loud) at most of them.  However, I must say I really don't know which is the more baffling endeavor:

         Trying to solve the Borden case
                       or
         Trying to figure out how your mind works.

This one's a corker, Ray!  I read it three times, then I called over a friend and had him read it!

Oh god, Ray, you make my days!! 

Gotta love that mind of yours!   (still howling)

Ah, excuse me...would you like to introduce yourself?  There is no info on you.  Thanks.

That referred to the (well known?) fact of mystery readership. I could be wrong, but does this kind of book appeal to certain classes and genders? Those old cowboy tales from early 20th century were mostly male, the flowery romance stories mostly female.
My guess is that adventure and mystery is about 75% male. Don't suburban housewifes (an extinct class?) make up the majority of "Book of the Month Club" sales? What is the breakdown for Oprah's book club?

Thank you very much, I am always flattered by your gracious thanks. You are a welcome addition to my fan club.

(Don't try to bluesheet a bluesheeter!)

Yes, Ray just knocks me out, too.  How old do you think he/she is?  Seventeen?  Fifty?  Eighty-three?  Eleventy-six?

As I've posted, the article was in VF, Dec '02.
As I've said, my memory is that this is the article which knocked Cornwell's sloppy, naive research.
As I've posted, if it turned out the "knock" was actually in THE NEW YORKER or THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, I apologize for my mistake.  There was definitely an article in that VF, however.

I won't post it again, unless you persist in trying to blow this little side issue out of proportion.

I am re-posting here my commentary on the Douglas book with the list of errors.  I am continuing to process this article, and below this first section is today's offering:

Kat
5758 posts Aug-26th-03  1:29 AM
   

9. "Re: Has Anyone Read This Book?"
In response to message #7

     
I still think this chapter on Lizzie is pretty badly done and I will never know unless I ask him, what weight the facts hold in Douglas's determination.
His results mirror common conceptions so I don't find much new here except his description of how he would have conducted the personal questioning.  That was interesting but brief.  And could apply to others in Lizzie's *catagorey*.
I recall wishing he gave points for different aspects of the crime that he would consider.  So I could understand what was pertinent data to his final result.

Here are errors.  When they are removed, what is left?

Douglas, John, and Mark Olshaker. "Lizzie Borden." The Cases That Haunt Us. NY: Scribner's, 2000. 81-118


-1st pg., 81-"He or she gave Borden's father ten plus one."
-82-  "...by bladed weapons that were not found at the scene." [comparing to OJ case]
-"...In fact, the only words both defendants uttered in open court were single sentences proclaiming their innocence." [comparing to OJ case]
-"... [Andrew] ..one of the wealthiest and most prominent citizens in town..."
-83- "...Abby Durfee Grady Borden..."
-"...forty-one year old Emma Lenora..."  [check my math.  I have her at 42 & 5 mos.]
-"...Andrew's father had never made anything of himself.  Everything Andrew had....he'd earned completely on his own..."
-"...owner of several farms."
-"...wealth was estimated as high as a half million dollars..."
-"...[no] indoor plumbing."
-"The simple two-story frame house at 92 Second Street...'
-"Andrew, who according to all available research had never been accused of a sense of humor..."
-84-  "[Morse] had lived in Iowa for twenty years..."
-"...but three years before had returned to the Northeast,,,"
-"...[Abby] was afraid someone was trying to poison them."
-"...the mutton stew the family had been having at various meals for several days in a row..."
-"Bridget ...was convinced the stew had gone bad, but Andrew would not let her dispose of it."
-"Mr. and Mrs. Emery later reported..."
-"Abby had directed Bridget to wash all of the windows, inside and out."
-85- "...Mrs. Churchill...saw [Mr. Borden] leave."
-"When Bridget came back in the house, she overheard Abby and Lizzie talking in the dining room."
-"...Andrew Borden told carpenters he didn't feel well..."
-"...Maggie...had been the name of the previous Borden maid."
--"...Abby, who was shy, plain, short and overweight, normally told [Bridget] her when she was planning to leave the house, which didn't happen all that often."
--This is 5 pages so far out of 38.
.........................................................above, prior post.....below, new post:

-86-  “...[Bridget] fell into a doze until she heard the city-hall clock strike 11 A.M.”
-  “ ‘Where is your father?’  [Mrs. Churchill] had to ask several times before Lizzie finally responded...”
-  “Mrs. Churchill went into the sitting room and beheld the carnage...”
-  “...[Mrs. Churchill] asked Lizzie where she had been...Lizzie replied she had been in the barn...to find some iron to use as fishing weights for an upcoming trip.”
-87-  “...Adelaide Churchill went out in search of Dr. Bowen herself...”
-  “...George W. Allen, a young and relatively inexperienced officer...”
-  “...[Andrew’s] head resting on [his] carefully folded coat, used as a pillow.”
-  “...they could see [Abby], lying facedown in the guest room, propped on her knees as she had fallen.”
-88-  “One misdirected blow had struck the back of her head, almost at the neck, cutting off a chunk of scalp.”
-  “As with her husband, the first blow was probably sufficient to cause death.”
-  “Officer Mullaly asked Lizzie if there were any hatchets in the house.  ‘Yes’, she said.  ‘They are everywhere.’  Later at the coroner’s inquest, she testified that she did not know if there were any hatchets in the house.”  “...first of...troubling inconsistencies...”.
Here I will explain this as it sounds a bit confusing if one were to look this up.  The testimony shows that Lizzie admitted to Mullaly that there was an axe, of which she knew, in the cellar.  She said she didn’t know of any hatchets, but that Bridget would show ”it” to him.  Of course Lizzie never said “They are everywhere.”--Prelim., Mullaly, 346, and see Lizzie’s Inquest.
-  “...he found...a rusty claw-headed hatchet.”
-89-  “...for [Lizzie’s] planned fishing trip after she joined Emma in Fairhaven.”
-  “...[Dr. Bowen] took Lizzie upstairs...”
-  “(The next night he administered the first of what would be a series of injections of sulfate of morphine...)”
-  “Police found a small spot of blood on the sole of one of Lizzie’s shoes.....”
-  “At 3 P.M. the bodies of Andrew and Abby Borden were carried into the dining room and placed on undertaker’s boards, like a folding table.  Dr. Dolan performed autopsies there...”

           At this point, I can’t forgive the errors as some of you can.  Why should Douglas be any different from any other author whom we discount as to their summation or theory, because we find they did not do their homework?  This clearly reads as though one of his sources was the “Legend” movie!  There are 29 pages left.

Thanks, Kat, this is great, not that you are annoyed by this writer, but, that you are sharing your take on him.  Boy, at this rate, we may end up reviewing every author there is, might be good to include on the LABVM&L site. 

Thanks Susan.  You know with some encouragement I will keep on working the article.  I'm mad, but beginning to enjoy it somewhat.
Coming up:  Luana & the *fact* that Mrs. Whitehead did not go out of town that day.

BTW:  I think one of my favorite's so far is the "young and relatively inexperienced officer" Allen, who was 54!.

(Message last edited Aug-29th-03  12:51 AM.)

Well, I for one think you are doing a fantastic job!  I guess I may have been too hasty with my higher grade, theres more wrong than I thought!  But, I did still enjoy it and I pretty much agree with his final outcome.  Do you feel at least like he made a pretty good presentation of why he thought it was Lizzie or is it all bunk to you at this point? 

So far, I can tell you that I think Douglas phoned in this chapter.
Also, his conclusions are accepted *party line* so of course it will be a hit.
The thing is, it seems as though he had his suspect already and just plugged her into the puzzle picture.  As I said before, she fits into his *category*.  That's why profiling has been successful in the past because the behaviorial scientists have already figured these people out.  At least generally.  All that's needed is to modify their take on the "unsub" (yea, like he seriously considered an unknown subject as assailant), to suit an individual, because we all are individuals.
I'm not saying his conclusions are wrong, I'm saying this sloppy preamble makes this chapter seem like a party trick, entertainment-- when his serious work is usually pretty deeply investigated and heartfelt.

I don't know!  I've answered so many questions, I don't even know what your name is.      I should say I've read so many Lizzie chapters from anthologies I do not know one from another.  I might have, and I might not.  Sorry - must be all the morphine. 

Douglas, John, and Mark Olshaker. "Lizzie Borden." The Cases That Haunt Us. NY: Scribner's, 2000. 81-118

-90-  "...Sergeant Philip Harrington continued questioning Lizzie."
-  "Bridget left to stay with Dr. Bowen's maid..."
-  "...Andrew's only sister, Luana."
-91-  "...Sarah Whitehead...turned out not to be ill or even out of town that day..."
-92-  "Bence explained he couldn't sell [prussic acid] to her without a prescription, at which point she became visably annoyed..."
-  "Later, another witness stated that Lizzie had tried to buy the poison from a different pharmacy on an earlier date."
-  "The service was conducted by the Reverends..Buck and...Jubb..."
-  "That day [Saturday] Emma and Lizzie published their offer of a reward..."
-  "On Sunday morning, Miss Russell and Emma observed Lizzie burning a dress..."
-  "Alice said, 'If I were you, I wouldn't let anybody see me do that, Lizzie', then added, 'I'm afraid the burning of the dress was the worst thing you could have done, Lizzie.' "
-93-  "The Borden family was so frugal that they made rags out of clothing that could no longer be worn."
-  "An inquest was held...during which Lizzie testified...At that time she was not yet represented by counsel..."
-  "And on August 22, six days of premiminary...hearings..."
-94-  "When...Knowlton completed his presentation [to the grand jury], he invited Jennings to present a case for the defense...unheard of...the two attorneys were conducting a trial before the grand jury."
-  "...Lizzie was in Taunton Jail for nine months before that date [June 5,1893] arrived."

At this point there are two questionable statements which I am only including because I believe they would be important to Lizzie's case.  I have no proof if they are true or false:
-95-  "Emma and Lizzie Borden had inherited their father's estate.  So together they had plenty of money and lined up the best defense that money could buy."
-  "...she could face a sentence of death by hanging, although no woman had been executed in Massachusetts since 1778."
If anyone can give a source to dispute any of my examples, please give them in this thread, thanks
-to be continued...

From what I read in the book Women Who Kill by Ann Jones, Bathsheba Spooner was the last woman hanged in Massachusetts in 1778.  Spooner "pleaded her belly" in court, meaning she was pregnant and killing a fetus who had "quickened" was considered a sin in the eyes of the church.  An examining jury of 2 male midwives and 12 "discreet matrons" was appointed to determine whether Spooner was actually pregnant and if the child had quickened or not.  Their verdict came back that Spooner wasn't pregnant.

She was hanged and in keeping with her last request, an autopsy was performed on her body.  It was found that she was indeed pregnant with a 5 month fetus, male.

28 women had been executed in Massachusetts before her, but more than half a century would elapse before another jury summoned the hardihood to convict a Massachusetts woman of murder-and only after the compulsory death penalty was replaced by the option of a prison term.

Thanks for that info. 
My concern with Lizzie's case was that if she was convicted, would she have faced a death penalty by hanging?  The part you posted pointed out it was *50* years after 1778 that a women could get a life term instead.
It's been discussed here as to whether a reason the all-male jury  acquitted Lizzie was because they could not envision sending her to the gallows.  I don't think it was ever properly determined that hanging would have been her fate?
(if so, it makes sense not to convict -as you cite Ms. Spooner's condition and the horror that caused...)

It doesn't sound likely to me that Lizzie would have been hanged, from what I've been reading.  More than likely if she was found guilty it would have been a prison sentence that she faced.  I found this little blurb here from this site: http://psych.mckenna.edu/mcostanzo/death_penalty/chapter.htm

"Of course, there is a difference between laws authorizing capital punishment and actual executions. Throughout U.S. history, the number of death sentences and executions has always been small when compared with the number of murders. Individuals convicted of murder are rarely executed. The rate of execution peaked in 1938, when there were 2.01 executions per 100 homicides in states with the death penalty. Even for capital homicides -- the murders the legal system considers the most abhorrent -- the execution rate is less than 10 percent. The annual number of executions was highest during the 1930s and reached a record high in 1935 when 199 people were put to death. Following the 1930s, the number of executions declined steadily for 27 years until they halted for nearly a decade. Between June 3, 1967, and January 17, 1977, no one was executed in the United States. This moratorium was aided by low levels of public support for capital punishment, and there was presumably little political will to carry out executions when the future of capital punishment was in doubt."

That's good info.  The question would be what the jury understood to be the outcome of a guilty verdict.  It seems we should know this but do we?  Is it part of the trial record or did the state just get to decide the sentence after the verdict?
Does anybody know?
Is this in Sullivan or Davis or Wigmore?

Robinson, in his closing argument certainly made the jury aware that the penalty of death would result if convicted. Of course it was to his advantage to do so as to appeal to the mercy of the jury.

Page 1621: "You are trying a capital case, a case that involves her human life, a verdict in which against her calls for the imposition of but one penalty, and that is that she shall walk to her death."

Page 1629:  "Now you have sat in criminal cases before; very likely you have had a man before you on trial who had stolen five dollars, or something of that kind, and the same rule applies. And you are told that you must not convict him unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. ..... In the one case you are perhaps dealing with a man who will be subjected to a penalty of a fine, or a brief imprisonment at the most. Here the same rule applies, and you are dealing with a woman whose life is at stake, and nothing else."

Page 1709, referring to the differnt testimonies of the Doctors: "We do not usually hang people upon the testimony of experts. It is not safe."

That does not mean that Lizzie would have been executed even if convicted. More than likely she would have been either jailed for life or confined to an institution.

Thanks, Harry.  They sure did play up that death penalty angle.  I wonder if Lizzie was aware of this, had it explained to her or not?  Even if she knew she'd get life imprisonment, it must have been galling to think about!  She just got out of one prison of sorts, Andrew's house, and then might spend the rest of her days in another! 

Yes, why would she do that?  She had waited 32 years, what was a few years more?  Was she really that greedy that when Andrew died naturally, she would not have been content with 1/3?
Surely Lizzie knew she was gambling with a death sentence?
And if she so wanted to be admired in the social world of Fall River, wouldn't she realize that once there was a murder scandal, she would then, especially, never be accepted or acceptable?!  It would defeat her purpose to be rich but an outcast, wouldn't it?

I don't think Lizzie ever really thought she would be caught or convicted.  I think in her mind she thought she would be portrayed as the poor little orphan girl whose parents were slaughtered by some madman.  She probably thought she would be pitied, but, accepted by her peers, poor thing.  It did all blowup in her face, didn't it?

Even if innocent, the "breath of scandal" had touched her, Lizzie was no longer viewed in a pure light.  Her name had been splashed through the papers over and over.  I think with time it would have died down some, but, the papers kept it alive, Lizzie lived large and loud, that was probably the final nail in her coffin. 

And the Tilden-Thurber affair certainly didn't help her rep!

Lizzie must not have had much conception of how much money it would take to *live large*.
She and Emma both died, each leaving about the amount that they totally inherited from Andrew's estate.  Lizzie had spent about $100,000.00 more than Emma.
That's why I wonder about that 1/3.
If Andrew died naturally without a will, the girls may not want to stay with Abby but surely they still would have enough to start their own household, travel, buy goodies.
What would Abby have done ?
(Probably have been convicted for killing Andrew!)

Judge Robert Sullivan's book covers this episode in one chapter. Bathsheeba was examined by doctors and midwives, as I remember. Can we always trust "technical experts"?

Abby probably would have moved in with and become benefactress for the Whiteheads.  I can't see her staying on at the Second Street house by her lonesome, not even with Bridget there. 

What I had read, Ray, was 2 male midwives and 10 discreet matrons.  Apparently, from what I've read elsewhere on the internet, in these cases a woman was usually assigned 12 discreet matrons to do the checking.  I guess the assumption is that these married woman had children and knew about pregnancy?

From Ann Jones' book, she also goes on to say in Bathsheba Spooner's case, the 2 male midwives and 1 matron had changed their minds after a second examination.  The judge still ruled that she should die.

Midwives were probably far better judges than doctors in those days.

(Message last edited Sep-3rd-03  5:11 AM.)

This sounds like a political judgment: "not pregnant" so she could hang for the murder. "Pleading her belly" was part of English Law, and often used by women involved in piracy, or other crimes.
But I wonder if this just delayed hanging for a few years?

I would think more like a few months, at least until the baby was born, after that the baby could be cared for by a wet-nurse and the mother dispatched. 

I remember reading about an 18th cent pirate (named Anne ?) who "pleaded her belly" and escaped hanging. Maybe they figured a woman with a nursing baby was no longer a threat when kept in jail?

Thats interesting.  My understanding of "pleading one's belly" got them off for a short while, it didn't exempt them entirely from their death sentence.  Perhaps there were cases where the judge(s) were more lenient? 

From:
Edward Rowe Snow,"Lizzie Borden", Boston Bay Mysteries and Other Tales, New York:  Dodd, Meade & Company, 1977, pg. 259:

"If Lizzie had been found guilty, would she have been hanged for her crime?
Probably not, for the last recorded incident of such a fate was the subject of a clever broadside circulated through the streets of Boston the day Rachel Wall was hanged on Boston Common, Thursday, October 8, 1789."

Beat out Spooner by a decade.
Can this be confirmed?
--Special Thanks to Diana.

(Message last edited Sep-6th-03  7:52 PM.)

Found this info on Rachel Wall:

"Pirate Biographies

Rachel Wall

Rachel Wall (1760-1789) was born Rachel Schmidt in 1760 on a farm near Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Around the age of 16 this blue eyed brunette took a trip to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to attend the funeral of her grandfather, Joseph Kirsch. While wandering the docks in this comparatively large city, she met a shady gentleman by the name of George Wall. Against the wishes of her mother she married the man, and the two of them went to live in Boston, where Rachel took a job as a maid, and George found work as a fisherman.

Upon his very first voyage, George found some partying friends, and he and Rachel and these new pals partied away what little money they had. Left without money to pay the rent, our trouble hungry couple borrowed or stole a ship at Essex, and began a pirating career off the Isle of Shoals. They lured in passing ships by pretending to be in distress, but when their would-be rescuers arrived they found only death at the hands of the Walls and their unsavory crew. Once all valuables were removed to their own ship, the pirates would then sink the captured ships and all those aboard.

Their villainy came to an end in 1782, when George was washed away in a storm. Rachel herself was rescued and taken back to Boston, where her thieving ways continued on a smaller scale. She kept her hand in by creeping aboard ships docked in the harbor and raiding the cabins for theft worthy goods, and in this she was fairly successful. In 1789, however, she was captured, tried and convicted of highway robbery. On the stand she confessed to piracy, but claimed she had never killed anyone. Regardless, she was sentenced to death and hanged with two other criminals on October 8 of the same year."

http://www.aschulze.net/pirates/bios/bio70.htm

Hey Har!  Blasted another Legend, huh?
Thanks.  That was really interesting!
A Pirate, well wadda ya know?

(Message last edited Sep-7th-03  12:07 AM.)

Thanks to Diana.  I just found the website.  There's quite a few that mention her. Who would have thunk?

Thanks, Harry.  Good stuff, so, she was afterall the last woman hanged in Massachusetts.  Ann Jones' book Women Who Kill makes the briefest of mentions of her:

"Peachie Wiggin's crime is not unique.  There have always been some female armed robbers, from Rachel Wall, who was hanged in Boston in 1789, to Bonnie Parker." 

William found an interesting web-site called "The American Female Hanged 1608-1900".
(A Link provided this info -"The Espy File, 1632 to 1962")
http://users.bestweb.net/~rg/execution/FEMALES.htm
Since Spooner:

Hannah Piggen, for "concealing birth", hanging, 1785, Middlesex, Mass.
Abigail Converse, murder, hanging, July 6, 1788, Suffolk, Mass.
Rachel Wall, robbery, hanging, Jan.8, 1789.


The  "Hanged" site gives some info on "concealing birth":
"Women were often executed for the murder of their illegitimate children - it was a great stigma to have a baby outside marriage and this was why some of them decided to risk killing these unwanted children. Concealing the birth of a child was also a capital crime and five women were to hang for it. It did not need to be proven that the baby was murdered, they could be convicted even if the baby had actually been still born or had died of natural causes in the first hours of its life."
http://www.geocities.com/trctl11/femhang.html

(Message last edited Sep-7th-03  5:14 PM.)

"Concealing birth" sounds like a catch-all crime to cover any child that did not survive birth. It didn't matter if it was "natural" or stillborn. The State did not have to prove a murder.