Lizzie Borden, The Girl with the Pansy Pin Booksigning

[Stefani]

The Fall River Historical Society is hosting the release of Lizzie Borden, The Girl with the Pansy Pin, a new novel by Michael Thomas Brimbau, on Sunday, August 4th, 2013, from 10 AM until 4 PM.

Stop by and chat with the author as he signs your copy. While there, tour the NEW Borden collection exhibit! What better day to explore Lizzie Borden and Fall River than August 4th!


http://lizzieandrewborden.com/MondoLizz ... scheduled/

[Stefani]

Here is a link to the website for the book. You can order the limited edition though this link, but the paperback is being sold exclusively, for the time being, through the Fall River Historical Society.

http://girlwiththepansypin.com

Fall River Historical Society
http://lizzieborden.org/MuseumShop/BordenCase.html

[mbhenty]

Just published this month.

Lizzie fiction.

The only field of Lizzieana worth writing these days, since all new nonfiction is just speculative theory or regurgitated thesis on the crime, and offering nothing new; let alone solving the crime.

Cool cover, although I don't know how "Lizabeth" will play into it. (You can see her written on the cover)

Probably an interesting read for anyone who has visited the murder house.

Although the paranormal theme is not my mug of tea.

Although Lizzie Borden the Girl with the Pansy Pin is fiction based on truth, this account is fiction based on fiction. Its job is to be a fun read. We shall see as all the incompetent Amazon readers rate it.

https://www.amazon.com/Lizzie-Borden-So ... 158&sr=8-2

[camgarsky4]

MB -- sincere question. What is your definition of "speculative theory"?

[mbhenty]

Good day camgarsky.

Well I suppose the term is a little redundant reiteration. Although to speculate means to envision and theory is a conclusion to that speculative hypothesis.

What I was trying to say is some writers speculate or theories or venture with dubious or implausible conclusions, their theory, when in reality it is only speculation. To speculate you are claiming possibilities, and to give a theory you are claiming you know. So you see, I pool them together.

Where by fiction you are given the ultimate pass to speculate, construct, or theorize. Since none of it is real.

Like Victoria Lincoln speculating on the unlikely idea that Lizzie killed her parents while undergoing an epileptic fit and giving us no proof that Lizzie was epileptic.

When you speculate you think you may know

When you theorize, you make claim too knowing. Thus when you have no proof you are really speculating. A "speculative theory", my witty description, is someone who thinks they know and give a resolution, but it is all guesswork.

In Girl with the Pansy Pin I neither speculate or theorize. it is all make-believe. Although I have been asked about certain incidents and affairs in the book as they think it was the truth, when it was all fiction. After explaining myself we all have a good laugh.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks! That helps.

What do you think of the definitions below? Not sure why this is interesting to me, but it is.

Feels like there needs to be another layer before or after speculation that would include folks like Lincoln and Brown. If I had to fit them based on these 4 levels, I'd say both wrote 'historical fiction'. I'd put Radin in the speculation bucket.

Facts - documented and validated to the extent possible.
Deductions - critical thinking/deductive reasoning which 'connects the dots' (dots = facts).
Speculation - extending critical thinking beyond established 'dots'
'historical' Fictional - creative story telling built upon facts.

[mbhenty]

Yes:

I though you were just trying to be sarcastic with your original question, Camgarsky. A friendly poke. Which is OK. I digest sarcasm with dignity and a poke with a shrug. But I see you were serious.

There could be another layer between speculation and theory and that is the labor it takes to research and scrutinize conjecture and opinion and translate it into hardboiled thesis based in factuality, known or unknown. When it comes to the Lizzie case, most factuality has its weight in "alternative facts." Which in itself is theory in error.

Even Bill Spencer, who has written a most worthy summary concludes his study with a theory. That Lizzie did it. I have not read all of Spencers book, which leaves me to wonder how he handles the time line.

Once you develop an interest that borders on passion you tend to abandon speculation and feel that you have spent enough time and study to theorize. You sort of become brainwashed by what you believe are the facts which you translate into an equation with only one solution. That you have solved it And of course, a book is in order.

I have a vague idea on who committed the crime. I still need to climb a few rungs before I can call it speculation. Even though, in writing Lizzie Borden the Girl with the Pansy Pin, the title chosen for me by my editor. (I was going to name it "Lizzie Borden I Love You.) I did not use any speculation or feelings I had about the actual case, and instead began with a completely new and unrealistic approach. If you argue with me about any speculation I may feel I will more than likely agree with you. When it comes to the Borden case to admit ignorance may just be your path to sound insight.

I have been asked if the ending of my book gives any clues to who done it. Or if that is how I see it. Nope Fiction all the way. I chose to cut my teeth on writing my first novel on the Lizzie case because I knew so much about it. Thus events and people were all laid out for me. All I needed to do was mold a story around them. But no speculation was employed. And to translate it into theory and error to the spirit of fiction. Although, and I shall ring my own bell here. There are more facts in my book than any other fictional account. Real people, events, places, etc. Knowing Fall River in and out I tried to be true to the complexion of the city and the times, thus in it are many truths.

(If I have learned anything about writing is that you don't proof read your own narrative. The first issue of the book is littered with typos. They were corrected and rectified.... I hope, in a second edition with a different cover.)

Enough about the book. And my apology for the rant.

Facts and events of the actual case are much too vague for me to conclude who done it. The only sound path one can walk is the path of speculation. I know you are a "Lizzie done it" person. However, with almost 50 years behind me and reading about this case... I haven't got there yet. The time line stumbles me. Always has. Thus, I summarize, or speculate if you like, that Lizzie had something to do with it. Hired someone, helped someone, planned it, etc. Which in today's terms make her more culpable then the actual murder. But I'm not there yet. I may yet need another 50 years to ever establish a scintilla of theory.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks for that great writeup. You might be interested to know that I have opened up my thinking to the idea that Lizzie had someone 'help' her that day. At this point, I'm 50/50 whether she was solo or had a sidekick. But I definitely have some ideas I continue to track down and consider on the co-conspirator theme.

I think almost everyone I've read (books, forum, etc.) over-simplify the movements and complexity of the case. They process the information 'too' black and white. Almost as if what happened, occurred in a little test tube. I think the most informative 'clues' are more subtle than most posters wish to take into consideration and take a little digging to better understand context of statements and character involvement. I'm not stating that very well, but hopefully you get what I mean.

I'm planning to go online and buy a used paperback copy of your book. Really looking forward to it!!

[mbhenty]

To me it comes down to one thing. The timeline.

If Bridget was indeed in on the crime, it could be considered that Lizzie had the time to do the deed, get rid of the axe, and clean up... with or even without her help.

But when you consider the time Bridget saw Andrew Borden alive, took a short nap, then came down a very short time later, at Lizzie's calling, and did not find any blood on Lizzie or signs that Lizzie had committed the crime makes for a huge problem, if you consider that Lizzie in fact wheeled the axe.
Not only is it a short period of time, getting rid of the axe alone would take some doing.

Now if Bridget was in on it, or had lied about her travels at the time of Andrew's murder, then it opens up a whole new variety of circumstance.

[camgarsky4]

I just can't reconcile Bridget being involved. Why mention Lizzie 'laughed', asked her about shopping, contradict the 'note' story, provide a August 4 story that almost completely mismatched Lizzie's version.....

She could have cleared Lizzie by simply telling the police that she saw Lizzie go into the barn from her attic window around 11 a.m. Instead she specifically makes note that she didn't look out her window. She could have 'remembered' that Lizzie was wearing the Bengaline silk dress. Either of these statements would have likely prevented Lizzie being arrested in the first place.

Bridget very proactively attempted to get out of the Borden house post murder, finally succeeding after day 1 of the inquest. Hilliard had to order her be told to stay at the Borden house the night before the inquest.

I think the only indication that Bridget was involved is that Bridget was the only other person at the house besides Lizzie and that Bridget's participation would make it easier for Lizzie to 'pull it off'.

It is interesting that both ladies went out the night before for several hours. Was Lizzie with Alice the entire time? Might have been a perfect opportunity to go over the plan one last time! Inquiring minds would like to know!

[Kat]

I just can't reconcile Bridget being involved. Why mention Lizzie 'laughed', asked her about shopping, contradict the 'note' story, provide an August 4 story that almost completely mismatched Lizzie's version.....
[-partial]
She could have cleared Lizzie by simply telling the police that she saw Lizzie go into the barn from her attic window around 11 a.m. Instead she specifically makes note that she didn't look out her window.
-[partial]
………………
It is interesting that both ladies went out the night before for several hours. Was Lizzie with Alice the entire time? Might have been a perfect opportunity to go over the plan one last time! Inquiring minds would like to know!

Sorry to interject here about Bridget and her bedroom window, but I had been looking for the source citations all day because I remember bringing it up on the Forum with MB earlier, about my scary impression I had while staying in Bridget’s room, while I was looking out her window.


At the Preliminary Hearing, pg163 book format, Bridget is asked, or rather told:
Q. Did you look out the window while you were upstairs, you did not, did you?
A. No Sir.
—so Camgarsky you are right about testimony, in a way- but I think it sounds like she was told to say that

And I also understand this next citation is hearsay by Sawyer, but he was asked what he overheard:

In JJ pg 261 where Sawyer is listening to Medley question Bridget while on the back stairs, he says Bridget told Medley : "She said she went to her room and sat at the window and then laid down. She said she went up to make her bed.” As reasonwhy had commented earlier: it sounds like Bridget was looking out the window…

The last part of yr quote I have a question about: Are you wondering if Lizzie could have met up with someone other than Alice, Bridget or Morse on her way home Wednesday evening to plot or plan a murder Thursday? Who would that be? It’s intriguing! Some of us are interested in considering the idea that someone else was involved.

[camgarsky4]

Something that has stymied me on a number of issues is how one-to-one communication occurred in Fall River, at that time. If someone wanted to meet with someone else, how in the world did they arrange it? Especially if it was relatively spontaneous.

I presume one could stroll to wherever you thought the person you wanted to talk to would be, but that seems very unreliable. So if Lizzie wanted to talk to someone Wednesday evening, seems like it would have been difficult to do so unless the meeting had been previously arranged. Again, how and when. Obviously the world functioned at that time, so they figured it out.

[Kat]

They sent a young boy with a note…
(I’m silly, I know…)

[Kat]

At the Preliminary Hearing, pg163 book format, Bridget is asked, or rather told:
Q. Did you look out the window while you were upstairs, you did not, did you?
A. No Sir.
—so Camgarsky you are right about testimony, in a way- but I think it sounds like she was told to say that

And I also understand this next citation is hearsay by Sawyer, but he was asked what he overheard:

In JJ pg 261 where Sawyer is listening to Medley question Bridget while on the back stairs, he says Bridget told Medley : "She said she went to her room and sat at the window and then laid down. She said she went up to make her bed.” As reasonwhy had commented earlier: it sounds like Bridget was looking out the window…

--partial Moi

I have another citation that implies Bridget looked or was looking out her window while supposedly napping:
Fleet's Notes:

Witness Statements.
Fleets Notes pg 3 - Bridget's statement, partial:
"… Am very sure that I was not up stairs more than ten to fifteen minutes. I did not hear the door opened while I was up stairs, nor did I see anyone from my window.”

It seems like she would rather be thought lazy resting on her bed then actively looking out her window. If she was looking out her window she could have been placed there as lookout towards the back yard, while Lizzie was putting herself at the second story barn window looking out towards the side door and street. The front door would have no lookout. Then, while eating her pear, Lizzie says she shifted the curtain at the window that faced the street... seems like that could be a signal...

[camgarsky4]

I've wondered if there was a connection between the prosecution wanting to make a point during her prelim hearing testimony, establishing that Bridget didn't look out window and her missing inquest testimony. Might she have stated otherwise in the inquest.

If that was the case, that would suggest that Bridget saw something that would damage their case against Lizzie.

That theory, which would imply prosecutorial misconduct, went off the rails when I realized that the defense must have had a copy of Bridget's inquest testimony at the trial, because they read from it.