Just received my copy of Eric Ethier's book: TRUE CRIME:MASSACHUSETTS, which was just published.
The book is softcover and contains 115 pages which 15 are segregated for the Borden murders.
The publication is part of a series of TRUE CRIME published by Stackpole Books, including 5 other books on states including New Jersey, illinois, Maryland, Penn. and Conn. (www.STACKPOLEBOOKS.COM)
In this issue, MR ETHEIR looks at 7 different True Crime accounts, including Big Dans, Sacco and Venzetti, The Brinks Job, The Boston Strangler, The Stuart Murder, and The Benedict Murder.
The actual Borden section is 20 pages long. Fifteen of them are a narrative of the crime and 5 more are of 7 questions given to Shelley Dziedzic in the way of an interview.
........................................................................................................
But, of course, we here on the forum are interested in the Lizzie Borden Case, primarily. I just received the book in the mail tonight and have only read the portion on the Borden Case.
One of our favorite veins of approach here on LBSF is whether it is a good read and if the author got it right.
Eric Ethier does a decent job with his brief but concise account. He fits in a lot of information in 15 pages. The writing style is direct, coherent, and easy to read. Ethier moves us from one time-line into another quite quickly. At times events appear to run into each other. But, trying to get in as much information as the author did, this probably could not be avoided. But for us Borden scholars, it is easy enough to sort out, and for new readers of the case, does not take away from the account. All-in-all, well written.
......................................................................................
THAT BEING SAID:
Like every other writer on the case, Mr Ethier does subscribe to some popular beliefs and long accepted misnomers.
Now, let's take some of these apart. Let us do what we do best here on LAB.
I do take exception with a few things, and down-right disagree with Mr. Ethier on a couple of others.
......................................................................................
First one: The author describes the mill community in Fall River as a one time "Commercial Fishing Center. Fall River has never been a fishing center. He was wrong about that one. Probably got us mixed up with the trial city of New Bedford.
Second one: He describes Fall River mill workers living in "Brick" tenement mill housing. The majority, if not all mill housing in Fall River was made of Wood, not brick. They could have been made of Brick in R.I., where the author lives or in Lowell or Lawrence, but not in Fall River.
Third one: Author claims that Andrew Borden "worked as a casket salesman for a city company." Selling caskets was actually done while he worked for Borden and Almy. Not a private city company. (?)
Fourth one: That 92 Second Street was cramped. Authors love to spread this one. Ninty two is actually a good size house. It has 4 bedrooms, a dinning room, a parlor, a sitting room, kitchen, and a walk-in closet in the Borden bedroom, to make no mention of the rooms on the third level. If you think 92 is cramped......compare it to where you live now. The only thing wrong with the Borden house was sleeping arrangements between Lizzie and Emma.
Fifth one: Maplecroft was a mansion. Authors love to embellish and call it a mansion which it was not. When she purchased Maplecroft it was a grand big house. Crammed onto a very small lot, no garage. It was about the size of a smaller 3 decker. Maplecroft was not a mansion.
Sixth one: Telephone service was common. Yes it was all over the city, mostly down town area. But if 3% of the population had phone service it would surprise me. The way it is worded by the author is that they should have had a phone because phone service was "common". No it was not. With the exception of business and call boxes and the rich, telephones were still very new.
Seventh one: Neighbors were irritated by Lizzie naming her house. There is no proof of this. Two blocks west is another house that is named and three blocks northeast was another. There were probably more named homes in Lizzie's day. No big deal. I just don't believe it. Someone's assumption or newspaper man's embellishment.
Last one: "Driven to tears Lizzie had denied.........." Here the author reports that Lizzie was driven to tears when asked by Knowlton about poison at the Inquest. Correct me if I'm wrong. But, I can't remember reading anywhere where Lizzie was driven to tears. Especially not under the influence of morphine.
.....................................................................................
Of course this is why this site exists. To debunk confusion and error and to set the record straight. But sometimes one serious mistake or misjudgement can negate the entire narrative. I don't think that is true in the case of Mr Eric Ethier's account. If so, I hope it was made straight here.
And since I live in Pennsylvania, I'll have to check out the volume that covers PA.