The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "Pearson Radin controversy"
Posted by adminlizzieborden on Jan-9th-02 at 9:01 AM

By raystephanson on Sunday, 12/23/2001 - 06:53 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Radin was a professional crime reporter who had covered hundreds of murder cases for his newspaper ('Herald Tribune'?). I would rank him higher than a librarian who reread old cases and recycled them for publication. But that's just me. No reporter is guaranteed more accurate. He did do original research in the Fall River area.

I think Radin's background "disgruntled employee kills employer" is commom enough, then or now.

Bridget's innocence is the same as Lizzie's: NO evidence of guilt! Furthermore, Lizzie says "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father".

 
By raystephanson on Sunday, 12/23/2001 - 06:56 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that reading both books, taking notes on each subject (8.5" X 11" lined sheet) and comparing them will educate anyone who either reads them.

I read a book in 1965; could this be it? Does it have a short biographical sketch of the people involved: one page on JVM, half page on Wm S Borden "some say he was the real killer", and Wm L Bassett? The Eagan-Hawthorne story was said to have been known since the 1930s (AR Brown).

 
By raystephanson on Monday, 12/24/2001 - 01:14 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Edward Radin said Edmund Pearson's editing of the Trial transcript amounted to a "literary hoax" because it was so one-sided.
You may be able to find comparable books on more recent trials. "Fatal Justice" comes to mind?

 
By raystephanson on Friday, 12/28/2001 - 02:27 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot comment fully on E Radin until I get a chance to read his book. Certainly E Pearson REEKS of pride and arrogance in his writings, and has a blood lust for executions (whether you agree with him or not). E Radin once wrote (?) a book on the unjustly condemned, and notes (like others) that there have been many cases of injustice due to mistaken eyewitnesses.

Edward Radin was a reporter who covered hundreds of murder trials for his "Herald-Tribune" (?).

Didn't Judge J Dewy say "eyewitnesses may be mistaken or lying"? How can you tell if any witness is telling the truth?

 
By dave on Friday, 12/28/2001 - 07:56 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kat, i think Victoria Lincoln covers this in her A PRIVATE DISGRACE. The reason Bridget took sides with Lizzie is becuase she had always liked Lizzie and Lizzie wasnt putting the crime on her. Bridget must have realized that if she had sided with Knowlton and Alice Russell, Lizzie's defense team might have built some of their case around the possibility of Bridget doing the crime. Some of the newspapers were already hinting that it may have been Bridget who did it. Remember how afraid Bridget was about having the crime put on her before Lizzie became the official suspect, she was a wreck over it. I think if she had been more neutral, she would have felt free to say more. More about the mysterious note. More about anything she MAY have heard or seen that morning. More about the problems in that house. More about a hatchet in the closet or by the fireplace in the sitting-room. A prominent psychic said that she sensed the hatchet hidden near the couch, if that holds any weight with u. Either way, Bridget was protecting herself, and in turn, protecting Lizzie. I think most of us agree about this, no matter who we think did it.

 
By raystephanson on Saturday, 12/29/2001 - 02:49 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D Radin's book says: there was no need to point suspicion towards Bridget because the case against Lizzie was so weak. Robinson's opinion overruled Jennings.

Radin says Pearson mistook "John T. Cummings, Esq." for Andrew Jennings. Not so; there was such a lawyer who was involved with the prosecution. So Radin isn't perfect either.

 
By raystephanson on Saturday, 12/29/2001 - 02:53 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Abby did not dress up to go on that visit, they thought it was to visit the Whitehead home. But her sister went to the clambake. Abby B W Potter says she was supposed to have gone there that day, but it was cancelled. I think it was because of the family business brought by Uncle John's visit Wed, and the visit by "somebody" on Thursday morning.

Arnold R Brown's written solution accounts for this. And Masterton was wrong in his invented solution; Abby knew no one would be home.

 
By raystephanson on Wednesday, 01/02/2002 - 01:53 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget said she got along well with Abby; she and Andy called her by her correct name. Bridget also moved out of the house after Abby's death, never to sleep or work there afterwards (a week?).

Bridget then worked for the police (sheriff?); she could have turned in the guilty party for the reward. Her next 55 years says she did NOT profit from the crime. She was an "innocent bystander".

Those who accuse her must ignore A R Brown's book.