POLL: Was Lizzie On Drugs During The Killings?

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:01 pm

A degree in philosophy...a B.S. ?

B.A. For historical reasons, I don't know of any college that would grant a B. S. in philosphy.

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:04 pm

Yippee, he has a college degree.

I'm so impressed.

Ad hominem.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:05 pm

Robert please...we all make mistakes on this board. But like I stated earlier, Harry IS one of the most learned members of this forum. You are more than welcome to express whatever opinions you have...however you have come by them. But if you continue to make strong comments, (seemingly unprovoked) against a beloved member, you will have to expect a rather terse response. We all agree to disagree here, but expect the disagreements to be civil.

Tracy...

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:07 pm

It's more of an etiquette thing than anything personal to do with you, Mr. G.

What etiquette do you refer to?

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:14 pm

Robert please...we all make mistakes on this board. But like I stated earlier, Harry IS one of the most learned members of this forum. You are more than welcome to express whatever opinions you have...however you have come by them. But if you continue to make strong comments, (seemingly unprovoked) against a beloved member, you will have to expect a rather terse response. We all agree to disagree here, but expect the disagreements to be civil.

Please point out to me where I was uncivil? Did I call someone a "freaking idiot"? I have no interest in being a "beloved member". I expect to anything I post to be evaluated based on logic, and not who I am.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:19 pm

Making a personal comment to someone specifically.
For instance, I would try not to point to you secifically and impune your logic.
That is my idea of etiquette- you offered that freedom to do that with you, but it is a bit familiar, where it could be taken wrongly.

Nona · Post by **Nona** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:26 pm

In refrence to Mr. G.

I've been reading many of your posts and every time you write something..you have to "put down" someone else's theory or ideas. It seems to me you believe you are the only one with only "logic" and I will be frank this ticks me off greatly......everyone here is willing to share thoughts but your "tone" in EVERY post is sooooo "Andrewish!"

Just by who I "read" you are I can't imagine you have many friends. Can at least pretend to tonedown your distaste for everyone else's ideas?

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:28 pm

Making a personal comment to someone specifically.
For instance, I would try not to point to you secifically and impune your logic.
That is my idea of etiquette- you offered that freedom to do that with you, but it is a bit familiar, where it could be taken wrongly.

Feel free to callenge my logic. Why assume I could not make a logic error? Questioning my logic is not an ad hominem.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:33 pm

Lizzie schizophrenic?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:34 pm

OK...here is some info on the word/phrase of the day ad hominem:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

2 entries found for ad hominem.
ad hom·i·nem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).

Tracy...

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:41 pm

In refrence to Mr. G.

I've been reading many of your posts and every time you write something..you have to "put down" someone else's theory or ideas. It seems to me you believe you are the only one with only "logic" and I will be frank this ticks me off greatly......everyone here is willing to share thoughts but your "tone" in EVERY post is sooooo "Andrewish!"

Just by who I "read" you are I can't imagine you have many friends. Can at least pretend to tonedown your distaste for everyone else's ideas?

Challenging ideas is a bad thing? Is this not the basis of phiilosohical argument? ANYONE can question my arguments. You must come from a different background than I do. In philosophy, the whole idea is to challenge arguments.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:41 pm

I don't think Lizzie could function back then as a schizophrenic personality. We would know about it because she was studied so much in the papers the rest of her life. That only gets worse if untreated.

But maybe the "Emma you have given me away* comment was when/if Emma did tell Jennings Lizzie's secret *habit?*
It possibly is why Emma finally left Lizzie. Maybe Lizzie got bored and took up recreational drugs again?
Emma surely would not approve.
Earlier in their lives, Emma may have enabled Lizzie in an addiction , as it kept her from growing up. Emma may have preferred a dependent Lizzie, when younger- which might not be so attractive a proposition once they were independent women living together.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:42 pm

"Feel free to callenge my logic. "

May I callenge your spelling?

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:50 pm

The "emma you have given me away" scene has
always been one of my favorites, another mystery.
Fairhavenguy, only 3 tag lines per customer, you are going to have to choose your favorites too.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:53 pm

Robert, I don't think anyone here resents a good challenge, it's just that a bristling approach is just not the general style around here.

For instance, I KNOW I make damn fine chicken soup, but I would never say mine was better than Audrey's without at least sitting down to dinner and having a genuine taste of hers. Then, if I still thought mine was better, I would never insult my friend by telling her. I would have my recipe...she would have hers...we would both be happy.

There is an answer to the Borden case, but I am willing to bet we won't understand until we have our own plots at Oak Grove. Until then however, we are going to have fun and learn of the many possibilities surrounding our favorite enigma, as we continue to discuss this confounding case.

Tracy...

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:53 pm

ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).

Basically, and ad hominem argument is an attack on the person who made the argument, and not their logic. For example, if I post the Earth is a sphere, and cite numerous sources indicating that it is so, it would be an ad hominem attack to say "what degree do you have in astrophysics?" The proper argument would be to challenge my sources, and not that I lack a degree to say the world isn't flat.

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:55 pm

May I callenge your spelling?

Perhaps. However, this would just be a typo flame.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:57 pm

I think Chris should have as many of those clever signature lines as he can come up with !

Tracy...

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:00 pm

OK...I know what a 'typo' is, but I am not sure what a 'typo flame' is. Robert, would you mind enlightening me please ? Thank you.

Tracy..

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:07 pm

Robert, I don't think anyone here resents a good challenge, it's just that a bristling approach is just not the general style around here.

For instance, I KNOW I make damn fine chicken soup, but I would never say mine was better than Audrey's without at least sitting down to dinner and having a genuine taste of hers. Then, if I still thought mine was better, I would never insult my friend by telling her. I would have my recipe...she would have hers...we would both be happy.

There is an answer to the Borden case, but I am willing to bet we won't understand until we have our own plots at Oak Grove. Until then however, we are going to have fun and learn of the many possibilities surrounding our favorite enigma, as we continue to discuss this confounding case.

Never take posts on an Internet message board to seriously. I come from Usenet. On Usenet, arguments are quite frank. Absent a comment like "you are too stupid to live", there would be no presumption of an ad hominem attack. The "general style around here" apparently is atypical of the Internet at large. Please don't confuse any attack I make on an argument as indicating any presumption about the poster.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:08 pm

NO Tracy, only 3. It is in the lawbook of this forum
and don't mess with me, ha ha what fun, you didn't
take me seriously I hope.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:13 pm

Of course I didn't take you seriously Nancie !

Tracy...

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:14 pm

OK...I know what a 'typo' is, but I am not sure what a 'typo flame' is. Robert, would you mind enlightening me please ? Thank you.

A typo flame is attacking the poster based on something that is obviously a keyboard entry error. If I post I am from the "United States of Amreica", it is far more reasonable to assume I in error hit the "r" key before the "e" key. Absent numerous spelling errors in my post, no reason to think I don't know I live in "America".

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:17 pm

Tracy, I must give credit where credit is due. Two of my three signature lines have been quotes of Harry, which is why his copyright notice appears at the bottom.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:22 pm

Chris, I remember when/how you got your first 'Harry' tagline ! I think they are great ! An homage of sorts.

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:33 pm

Mildred, Eunice, and Elaine met last Saturday in downtown Lancaster for lunch at the Chat and Chew café. all hell broke loose when Elaine started choking on an asparagus tip. Mildred got her emergency procedures screwed up and began mouth to mouth. well, you can imagine the rumors that started.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:45 pm

Back to the original topic... "Was Lizzie on drugs ?" Maybe when she was out in the bahn, she whipped out her Yankee bong...smoked a bowl..ate some pears...whacked her family. THE END.

Tracy...

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:50 pm

Back to the original topic... "Was Lizzie on drugs ?" Maybe when she was out in the bahn, she whipped out her Yankee bong...smoked a bowl..ate some pears...whacked her family. THE END.

This is the problem. Maybe she did to that. Or, maybe she didn't. There is no good evidence either way. We don't even know if Lizzie did the murders. Let alone her state of sobriety when they happened.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Apr 15, 2005 11:03 pm

YIPPEE! It's letting me post again! I have gotten nothing but errors all day. I had some things I wanted to post earlier, but it seems they might be moot at this point. Thank you Nona. Yes it is hard to deal with,and not just for me but for those around me, but I have a great support system in my family.I am not the only one in my family who has this disorder. My moods can change very quickly and very aggressively at times. I've heard my husband say they can change at the drop of a hat. But I've never thought of harming someone else. I have had such urges in the past to do self destructive things, or things like cutting off all of my hair in my most depressive states. I have not had feelings like this for quite some time now. Sorry for the late post, but I've been trying to post since earlier today

.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:26 am

That must have been very frustrating for you today!

Well, you are back- and have sort have confirmed my thought that someone in depression might more likely have thoughts of suicide before they might have any thoughts of murder.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:40 am

Kat @ Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:26 am wrote:That must have been very frustrating for you today!

Well, you are back- and have sort have confirmed my thought that someone in depression might more likely have thoughts of suicide before they might have any thoughts of murder.

I don't know if that will completely answer your question. But, I cannot say with certainty that someone else suffering from a clinical depression may or may not have thoughts of harming others. I can only be an expert on my own condition.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:10 am

Allen @ Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:15 am wrote:I do not believe she was on any drugs. I already posted some of my feelings about it in the other thread. If she was addicted to any opiate, there definitely would've been withdrawal symptoms...some pretty severe symptoms. I do not see anything in what we know of Lizzie's life that leads me to believe she was addicted to drugs.

Yes, there are some definite withdrawal stymptoms with opiates, but it is possible that someone could have slipped her some drugs. After all, she was from one of the most prominent families, and maybe one of the gaurds could have gave her some. Besides, drugs get into prison all the time now. Back then it would'nt have been any different. Besides, she was a lady from a very good family.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:23 am

Kat @ Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:13 pm wrote:"That's why I asked about her checkbook and banking records. It could be very revealing.

Lynn
__

Lizzie showed her bankbook to Mrs. Brigham, according to Jenning's notes in the book Proceedings, chapter called "The Hip-bath Collection."

"l. B. Brigham Mrs. George--After murder L. showed her her money and bank book and said 'Why should I do it?' "
........

We have pages from a stock divedend book which pops up on E-bay occasionally which shows the amount of Emma and Lizzie's dividends paid to them.
........

We know Andrew gave the girls the Ferry Street property and they began collecting rents in 1887.
.......

She got an allowance as well.
.......

We know somewhat of her bank balance from Emma & Mr.E. Cook at trial, I believe, but it seems to include her share of the proceeds of the girls selling the house back to Andrew recently.

Emma at trial, 1529:

Q. Do you know what property Miss Lizzie Borden had at the time of the murder?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you produce the evidences of it, if you have them with you?
A. (Various vouchers produced)
.... ....

MR. JENNINGS. Deposit, subject to check, of $170 in B. M. C. Durfee Safe Deposit and Trust Company. Deposit, subject to check, of $2000 in the Massasoit National Bank, Fall River. Deposit in the Union Savings Bank, Fall River, $500. A deposit of $141 in the Fall River Five Cents Savings Bank. Two shares of the Fall River National Bank, April 3, 1883. Four shares of Merchants' Manufacturing Company stock, date of certificate March 8, 1880. Five shares of Merchants' Manufacturing Company stock, date of certificate December 22, 1881."

Letter supplementing Cook's testimony at trial, where he had said he didn't know of Lizzie having any deposit at "The Trust Company":

Page 500

"MR. KNOWLTON. .....
'First National Bank,

'Fall River, Mass. June 7th, 1893

'Hon. H. M. Knowlton,

'New Bedford, Mass.

'Dear Sir: ---

'I hasten to correct a statement made by me in Court this morning.

I was asked if Miss Lizzie A. Borden had any money on deposit in the 'Trust Co.', to which I replied, I did not think she had; but I find upon consulting Mr. Arthur W. Allen, Treas. of the B.M.C. Durfee Safe Deposit and Trust Co., that she had an account in said 'Trust Co.' Aug. 4th, 1892, and that her balance at close of business to-day'---meaning that day, I presume,---'is $172.75.

'Should you desire my presence in Court to testify to the same, will come over.

'Very respectively yours,

'Everett M. Cook

'Witness:
'Arthur W. Allen' "

____________

I found the stock dividend book which has been on sale on E-Bay for the signatures.
This will show maybe a *typical* stock dividend for Emma and Lizzie. The dates which were included in the sales pitch are 1889-90-91.
Take the dollar amount and x18 for inflation to todays money comparison.
(Is that Abbie our Abby?)

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:00 am

What are the numbers in the column before the dollar amount, is that the amount of shares that were owned by Lizzie and Emma? So they each made about $90.00, not bad. Thanks for posting that, Kat.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am

If Lizzie was on drugs, the person she might (and likely) have been getting them from was Dr. Bowen.
I'm not sure that medications were as regulated in 1892 as they are today. A friend of mine was a medic and he'd go by the half for you, half for me philosophy, so they are really impossible to completely regulate even today.
If Lizzie was a dopie Bowen could have lied about her prescribed meds to cover himself and her.
It's interesting what Kat said about their being in her room to perhaps douse the stash.
This would be all secondarily information though, because if Lizzie accomplished her mission, she would have had to be thinking about it for a long time and to have waited until the time was rightly.
If Lizzie had nothing to do with it - well - in true crime there are no coincidences.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:58 am

I think you are right John. If she would have gotten any it would have been from the doctor. But then, knowing how easy it is to get drugs into prisons today, back then any body could have gotten them into her.

Golaszewski · Post by **Golaszewski** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:22 am

john @ Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:40 am wrote:If Lizzie was on drugs, the person she might (and likely) have been getting them from was Dr. Bowen.
I'm not sure that medications were as regulated in 1892 as they are today. A friend of mine was a medic and he'd go by the half for you, half for me philosophy, so they are really impossible to completely regulate even today.
If Lizzie was a dopie Bowen could have lied about her prescribed meds to cover himself and her.
It's interesting what Kat said about their being in her room to perhaps douse the stash.
This would be all secondarily information though, because if Lizzie accomplished her mission, she would have had to be thinking about it for a long time and to have waited until the time was rightly.
If Lizzie had nothing to do with it - well - in true crime there are no coincidences.

Opiates and cocaine were totally unregulated back then. Bowen could have dispensed them to Lizzie as easy as a doctor could dispense aspirin today. I can easily see Bowen not mentioning it for doctor/patient confidentiality reasons. These drugs back then weren't associated with violence usually. And of course to cover his ass. Is there any record that Bowen was ever questioned about what drugs he prescribed for Lizzie?

john · Post by **john** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:27 am

Oh, it just so happens, Dr. Bowen, that you happened to come home shortly after this crime was committed?
Oh, it just so happens Dr. Dolan, that you happened to be driving by the Borden house shortly after the crimes were committed?
Oh, Officer Fleet, it just so happens that you had the Policeman's Picnic on the day of the murders and the policemen were out of town.
Oh, Bridget, it just so happens that you were washing windows on the day of the murders and were outside the house.
Oh, Bridget, it just so happens that on the day of the murders you closed all the windows in order to wash them surely a coincidence for letting noise escape from the house.
Oh, Mrs. Borden, it just so happens you were fixing up the guest room that morning because Uncle John just happened to be there last night.
Oh, Andrew, it just so happens that you had to go out the morning of the murders (to mail Lizzie's poatcard) in spite of feeling sick.
Oh, Uncle John, it just so happens that you remember the number on the conductor's cap that morning when you took the train.
Oh, Emma, it just so happens that you are away for your first extended visit from home on the day of the murders.
Oh, Lizzie, it just so happens that on a hot day you went out looking for lead in the loft of the barn while your Father was killed.
Oh, Dr. Bowen, it just so happens that you brought back the wrong keys from the murder room in order to find the Borden's room key to get a sheet while there are sheets laying right in front of you from Bridget's wash.
Oh, Dr. Bowen, it just so happens that you left a legal crime scene that you had become a part of.
Oh, Dr. Bowen, it just so happens that you visited Uncle John's neice shortly after the murders.
Oh, Lizzie, it just so happens that according to Bridget's testimony the only time you ever suggested to her going to a store was the day of the murders.
Oh, Mr. Morse, it just so happens that you visited you neice again, after spending time with her the day before, on the day of the murders.
Oh, Mr. Morse, it just so happens that you wandered through about 200 people without noticing them to get to the pear tree.
Oh, Mr. Morse, it just so happens that you needed to get to the post office so badly that you risked lynch mobs and went.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:00 am

Again, like your pic snookums. Did you that "scream" was stolen? They got it back.

joe · Post by **joe** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:28 am

I voted it was possible because there were opiates available in several OTC products back then. Lizzie was not an "addict" in my opinion, but she may have taken addictives for a number of reasons.
Joe

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:49 am

joe @ Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:28 am wrote:I voted it was possible because there were opiates available in several OTC products back then. Lizzie was not an "addict" in my opinion, but she may have taken addictives for a number of reasons.
Joe

I agree with that Joe. What I do not think is that she deliberately purchased drugs for some sort of "high". There simply is not a scintilla of evidence for that supposition. None.

There is no way you can disprove that she did not as you simply cannot disprove a negative. Until I see some evidence FOR her deliberate use of drugs, it is just another unsupported theory of which there are already too many of.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:45 am

Is there any record that Bowen was ever questioned about what drugs he prescribed for Lizzie?

Robert, do you mean BESIDES what Dr. Bowen testified about concerning the morphine he gave to Lizzie right after the discovery of the murders ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:33 pm

"Oh, Dr. Bowen, it just so happens that you brought back the wrong keys from the murder room in order to find the Borden's room key to get a sheet while there are sheets laying right in front of you from Bridget's wash."

--Bridget said in the preliminary hearing that Andrew took his clean clothes on Wednesday, but under more questioning she says he took his clothes Thursday morning which she had put on the kitchen table. (74/75).

"Oh, Dr. Bowen, it just so happens that you visited Uncle John's neice shortly after the murders."

--This is unprovable, but Mrs. Emery is quoted in one news article that Dr. Bowen was her physician and had called there Thursday just as Morse left. (E.S., Aug.5th). I don't think the info appeared anywhere else, or ever again that I know of. However, if Bowen was there just after Morse left, it would be after both murders.

"Oh, Mr. Morse, it just so happens that you visited you neice again, after spending time with her the day before, on the day of the murders."

--Wednesday Morse left New Bedford about 12:35, came to Fall River to the Bordens around 1:30 p.m. (Inq.98) Then he ate there and went to Swansea, coming home about 8:45 p.m. He visited Andrew's farm and William Vinnicum, bringing back the eggs, stayed up until about 10 talking with Andrew, and then retired. (Inq.99, 100).
As far as we know, Morse did not see his niece at the Emery's house on Wednesday.

That was a very interesting litany and pretty creative, too!

john · Post by **john** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:14 pm

Thank you, Kat.
Your comment makes me think of something. When I was young people considered me "dumb" because I was a street guy. So I studied mostly English.
Anyway, I noticed that if people considered you to be "dumb," they would tell you to use bigger and more interesting words, but if you used "bigger and more interesting words," that they would consider you obfuscatious, or dumb in street term.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:17 pm

john @ Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:27 am wrote: Oh, Andrew, it just so happens that you had to go out the morning of the murders (to mail Lizzie's poatcard) in spite of feeling sick.

Oh, Emma, it just so happens that you are away for your first extended visit from home on the day of the murders.

Has it ever been established this was Emma's first extended stay anywhere?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:23 pm

We don't officially know of any other- at least any extended stay anywhere. She did say she went away to school a long while back.
I would think she visited friends. And I believe she went to Swansea with the folks, as Lizzie did, until lately.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:23 pm

Who was epictetus? Sounds like something they do to you in a hospital against your will.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:43 pm

Kat @ Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:23 pm wrote:We don't officially know of any other- at least any extended stay anywhere. She did say she went away to school a long while back.
I would think she visited friends. And I believe she went to Swansea with the folks, as Lizzie did, until lately.

And there was a trip to chicago, and at least one trip out west? Though these were all trips probably made with her parents, and not made on her own. I would think if she was not prone to making extended trips on her own at least a few times in her life, she would never have had to courage to move away from Lizzie. Not just move away, but STAY away.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:50 pm

Kat @ Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:33 pm wrote:"Oh, Dr. Bowen, it just so happens that you brought back the wrong keys from the murder room in order to find the Borden's room key to get a sheet while there are sheets laying right in front of you from Bridget's wash."

--Bridget said in the preliminary hearing that Andrew took his clean clothes on Wednesday, but under more questioning she says he took his clothes Thursday morning which she had put on the kitchen table. (74/75).

Sorry for posting twice in a row, but I'm feeling a bit sluggish today. This did not occur to me until after I had already submitted the first post. The testimony did not say anything specifically about sheets on the table?
Just clothing? Even if there had been sheets more readily available from Bridgets wash, wouldn't this reflect on Bridget who knew full well they were there?

john · Post by **john** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:05 pm

I knew everyone would, instead of looking for clues, which is the reason everyone is supposed to be here, try to pick everything that I say apart.
If I'm so stupid with my postings how would I know that Dr. Bowen, according to as good of testimony that is readily accepted on many other issues by this group, had visited Morse' neice shortly after the murders?
Did you know that Vincent VanGogh was "voted" into an insane assylum by the members of his community? That was in about 1887, when we think of people just doing their own thing. VanGogh scared people because he truly was mad, but stories of his violence towards others came only from a painter name Gaugain (sp?). VanGogh had a history if we can believe the stories, of self mutilation. That scared people, and he eventually killed himself. When he was in the assylum, however, he created masterpieces that are worth many millions, if not even billions on the market today.
I'm not, certainly, trying to couple myself with Vincent.
There is an answer to the question that you are seeking an answer for. You have to find it, but you have to consider all angles. For example, how do you know that Mr. Morse was not at his neice house the day before the murders? Do you accept what is being told to you? Does it matter? If checking into that thing is important to you then you should really find out. I believe he was at his neice the day before the murders - it's perhaps a small thing, maybe it isn't, but you prove me wrong.
I have sources that prove that he was there that are as valid as the sources that say he wasn't.
Lets just take another issue that seems stupid - why would Andrew keep the barn locked?
Another issue - if Bridget had really planned to wash the windows that day, and known she would be doing that ahead of time, why not start washing or preparing while Andrew was still there to show her industriousness? Nothing to lose.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

POLL: Was Lizzie On Drugs During The Killings?

Could Lizzie have been on drugs before and during the killings?

lizzie on drugs