Eighty One Years Ago Today

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:39 pm

...Our beloved Lizzie left this mortal coil for a greater reward (we hope). Resquiat In Pace, Dear Lizzie.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:24 pm

I actually forgot until you reminded me! Thanks Stuart!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:40 pm

Fall River Globe 2 June 1927, from Terence Duniho Collection. Ter must know the *answer* by now!

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:51 pm

How interesting that the Fall River Globe is more subdued and reverent in its tone than the Providence Journal!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:25 pm

Good catch, stuartwsa. It almost went unnoticed.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:30 pm

Rest In Peace, Lizzie.

Thanks for the reminder, Stuart

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:06 am

stuartwsa @ Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:51 pm wrote:How interesting that the Fall River Globe is more subdued and reverent in its tone than the Providence Journal!

Political correctness, I suppose. She was acquitted. Plus Fall River felt such a shame over the Borden murders. I suppose the Globe still remembered being chastised for the anniversary articles. Their obituary is very tasteful, considering.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:39 pm

Is that all it's been - 81 years ago?? That's not that long, if you think about it. I guess I'm always hearing "over 100 years ago" pertaining to the murders and am used to being beat over the head with that.

DJ · Post by DJ » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:51 pm

That "likeness" of Lizzie is awful-- looks like J. Edgar Hoover in drag.
Wonder what LAB would think of us, should we make acquaintance in The Great Beyond?
("Miss Borden-- pleased to meet you. I always thought you murdered the 'rents.... Say what?!?")

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:32 pm

It's strange how the media rips a person apart while they are alive but when they die the media suddenly becomes civil.

I wonder what the media will do when Sharon Tate's murderer, Susan Atkins, dies from her brain cancer?

-1bigsteve (o:

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:00 pm

That is so true, Big Steve. It's sickening. I'd rather someone stick to what they believe in in their journalism, than to see these turn-arounds when somebody they think is crappy gets real sick or dies. But then, at a time like that do we really want to read something lousy about a person who was picked-on in life after they've died?

Maybe not. But I think the nay-sayers in the news field ought to at least be truthful and stick to their beliefs. The news is supposed to be non-biased, but it isn't. Individual papers are voicing their opinions loud and often, not just delivering us the news.

I think, tho, that if any individual journalists did stick to their guns and say someone was rotten during life, it wouldn't get published.

I hadn't heard Susan Atkins had brain cancer! I don't think the media will do a turn-around on her. She never had a chance at being liked by the public, and rightly so.

Jack Ruby and oh, the guy who shot Martin Luther King - they didn't get any great press coverage when they died.

People would not want to hear glowing things about Susan Atkins. I think the public demands she be destined to always be hated. Again, it comes down to what the media thinks the public wants to hear.

There is a picture online somewhere of Sharon Tate at the murder scene. It just shows her face, but it's so shocking. Plus being pregnant. And the others that were killed. Those crimes were too horrific.

She is lucky to be alive in the first place. They were all sentenced to death, but it was converted to life in prison because the death penalty in CA was revoked as being unconstitutional. I would think that those already under the death sentence would not get theirs revoked, but that new cases being tried would not have the death penalty option.

Anyway, any one in the media who would do a turn-around on her would not survive long at their job.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:24 pm

I know what you mean, Augusta. I remember the day JFK and RFK were killed but I don't remember hearing about Ruby's death when he died and only a smidgen about Ray's death.

Sharon's death was all over the news for about a year I think, with the trial and all. I have color autopsy and crime scene photos of Sharon and the others and they are not pleasant. The photos really bring the murders into the present day and makes us more aware that these were real people with hopes and dreams. It is no longer an "old dusty" case that happened in the "distant past." One of my friends worked with Sharon in a film and a fellow bodybuilder worked with Sharon in another film and they both said Sharon was the sweetest, most down-to-earth person you could ever meet. That makes her murder all the more brutal. I find it ironic that my friend died from the same disease that is now killing Sharon's murderer, Susan Atkins. Strangely ironic, somehow.

The media is very biased, right across the board. I see examples of it every day. They raked Lizzie over the coals while she was alive for a crime she may or may not have committed. I would love to see a media that reports the facts as the facts are instead of omitting details or slanting the coverage to achieve the ends that the media wants us to believe in. They slanted the news to fan the flames of hate against Lizzie and they have done the same against countless individuals ever since.

Whether she was guilty or not, at least Lizzie is at peace. The media sharks can't touch her now.

-1bigsteve (o: