
Yes:
As some many well know, I am very wary of stories about the Borden Case without rock solid proof. Some topics may be, Lizzie's sexuality, Andrew Borden's money grubbing behavior towards his daughters, (though in business, it was probably true) even the definite guilt of Lizzie Borden.
With this I am compelled to add, show me the proof. There are many such assumptions and accepted misconceptions, truths, and untruths.
Ok, I know, get to the point........
I have been doing a little research on one, Joseph W. Carpenter. You know, the guy who supposedly embezzled money from Andrew's firm back in the late 1870s. Supposedly he took upwards of 6000 dollars. Now, I believe that the fact is that the incident happened and that there is probably enough proof to prove it. But, what were the particulars, the amount, and where can this information be found?
I was surprise how little I could find about it. There is little or no mention of it in Lincoln, Pearson, Porter, Spiering, Sullivan, Rebello, Phillips, and DeMille. The only one which really expounds on it is Radin. He is the only one who mentions Dollar amounts, also (good research Eddy)
But, is that dollar amount correct? Is the story of Borden making a deal correct? Is it true Carpenter had something on Borden, forcing him to drop charges, or make no charge at all, or was Borden just trying to be fair? Was there public stock exchanged from Carpenter to Borden to make up for restitutions which turned out bogus? Etc., etc.
Where did all this information first appear, and how much weight does it carry on the side of truth.
Of course, this little project I have done my research for is not important to the truth. It is based in fiction so any misinformation may be easily excused and made to fit.
Still, where did this information come from. After all, it was private business between the accused and victims.
In PARALLEL LIVES it is mentioned the same as in Edward Radin's account.
PARALLEL LIEVES give it sources as newspapers. Which compels me to ask: How much of it is true, reliable, typos, trustworthy.
Who did the paper speak to (lawyers?). How do we know the person they talked to spoke the truth. Can we really praise the press not to embellish. How many times has the story gone around the classroom before it has gotten to our ears.
Of course, when writing fiction, the stronger and more bizarre the legendary accounts of a case the more interesting. After all, fiction is no less than a glorious and promising commodity of lies.
Ater all this talk, the question is, what is the primary, reliable and cardinal truth, with emphasis on the "reliable"?
