THE BORDEN BOOK CLUB (Lincoln - Chapter 1 / Sections 1-5)

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:15 pm

OK...here it is. My comments/questions about the first half of Chapter 1 of Lincoln. It's in microsoft word. I hope I haven't made too many faux pas. I put it in word s people could load it if they wanted to, rather that taking up a GIANT amont of space in the form. I can send this in Corel too, for anyone who may be interested. I do welcome all comments, etc. This had been great fun writing this up. It really helped me to focus. I am looking forward to the next one.

PS. in trying to add this as an attachment, I find it is not allowed. So, I am going to add the full thing here. If someone can tell me how to add a msword attachment here, I will re-edit so that it is not hogging up so much forum space.

P.S.S. OK...maybe I have the right attachment now...4 edits...whew. Sorry.

Tracy...

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:16 pm

Great job Tracy... I agree that Lincoln contradicts herself and has little to offer to substantiate a diagnosis of epilepsy.

She seems fond of the word "jowly" --- and she seems to think the Bordens ( and the Irish and the journalists and the crowds and just about everyone else) beneath her. She sure makes the family members sound like a bunch of losers... tight fisted, hopelessly out-of-fashion Andrew, fat, lonely and unmonied Abby (who couldn't even write a check the day she died), mousy, boring and "plain as an old shoe" Emma, and big handed, thick waisted, "lazy as sin", broad shouldered, coarse skinned, sallow, red headed (red hair being considered piteously ugly in her day) Lizzie who didn't know enough to ask for arsenic instead of prussic acid.

Are migraines truly related to epilepsy?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:24 pm

Tracy-- Wow! I can see that you are every bit the professional educator! Your review is very professional!

I can not add much! You did so well!

I do think that "Slicktoria" tried to pull a fast one! I am coming to believe she felt she had a Lizzie book "in her" based solely on who (I really want to say what) she was versus any true knowledge and "inside information" on the case!

Slicky seems to greatly enjoy pointing out her feelings of superiority to Lizzie.... It grows tedious very quickly.

Maybe Lizzie-- who many said was kind to those who were kind to her-- saw some malice in the young Slicky which is why she ignored her? (HC p26)

On page 28 she states that by reading Lizzie's inquest testimony "one can learn just what specific fact the Bordens' maid, Bridget, was paid not to tell" Really??? I have read the inquest and I don't know!

I do think it was rather funny to see her total social gaffe on page 33... She tells us all that her family Chauffeur was a Borden.... Does she not know that the proper word is driver? A Chauffeur is someone you hire for an evening... If you employ someone to regularly drive you-- he or she is called a driver. Period. (Even I, a pretentious French, knows that!)

I did not like on page 36 where she makes it sound as Abby's sister invited her there for dinner every few months out of a sort of pity.... I always had the impression Abby and her sister genuinely loved one another and were happy to spend time together. (Maybe I just want to think of Abby with some genuine joy in her life)

Why does she not source the eminent JH's psychiatrist?

She makes a lot of opinions seem like fact.. a casual reader or newcomer to the case might be easily confused into believing her book to be factual!

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:46 pm

Thank you very much to both of you for responding and for your nice comments.

I really like what you say Terrie, about how she seems to make sure we know everyone ELSE is beneath her. Afterall...she IS from the hill you know...LOL.

Auds...Slicktoria ! That's perfect !

She does seem to want to hold a teasing carrot out there for people to go towards...thinking she is the great and powerful OZ...and has THE answers...THE inside story. It's almost like she wrote a fictional book with enough facts thrown in to technically make it a true story. While I appreciate the work she put into this book, I think she's losing credibility by "Slickafying" her story.

All in all though I think we are off to a great start in the book club ! I hope more people come along with us !

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:00 am

#3
Abby:
"FIRST an incised wound 2 and 1/2 inches in length, and 2 and 1/2 inches in depth. The lower angle of the wound was over his[sic] spine and four inches below the junction of neck with body, and extending thence upward and outward to the left. " = 1 wound.
"On the head there were 18 distinct wounds,..." = 18 wounds
Total, 19
....................
Andrew:
".10. Directly behind this and above it, and running downwards backward 2 inches long superficially.The general direction of all these wounds is parallel to each other."
Total, 10

--Source, Autopsy of Abby Borden and Andrew Borden
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

______________

#6
"I put the available hard evidence - - two sets of police records, the hitherto disregarded evidence of a defense witness, and certain relevant facts dug out by the prosecution - - "--Lincoln transcribed by Tracy

--This refers forward to item #10 and #11B:

"We should forget neither of these case histories as we come to consider the death of Abby Borden. "--Lincoln transcribed by Tracy.

--What are these sets of police records, which defense witness and what facts that lead to Lincoln's diagnosis?
Is she referring to the Sanity Survey, and Alice's testimony? Alice Russell wasn't a defense witness- she was a prosecution witness (if she's referring to the Wednesday night visit...), and we are missing the other set of police records and "certain relevant facts dug out by the prosecution" - unless Alice is the bearer of the *facts* dug out... She's counted twice?

--Also in these sections, I agree with your assessment overall of contradictions. If what would not be done under hypnosis (or while conscious) would not be done while in seizure, then the seizure disorder is not even relevant, as someone pointed out earlier.

#8
"...and not neurotic or simply faked." --Lincoln transcribed by Tracy.
--I recently saw a show on ER where the lady was so afraid she would hurt her new baby she seized when she held it. Self-fulfilling prophesy And neurotic. It turned out she had outgrown a seizure disorder but had had a child die in a freak smothering accident, considered SIDS at the time, and so her seizure was psychological, proven by a brain wave test and they used Sodium Amytal? The truth serum chemical-
Apparently this Jackson noted here includes neurotic and faked seizures in his findings.

#12
" Apparently her seizures came only during the menstrual period, and then only three or four times a year. They were of brief duration, an hour or so at the most. Lizzie was going through a menstrual period on the morning of the murders: this is a matter of court record."--Lincoln transcribed by Tracy

--It is stipulated at the trial by both sides that Lizzie's period was over Wednesday night. 'You can look it up'...

#13 and #14 comments are very good about the "odd incidences" only known "by hearsay...".

Good assessments Tracy. I'm not reading Lincoln but I am reading you.

You are not confused but we are being led astray...

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:56 am

Thank you Kat for your wonderful comments. I hold your opinion in very high regard.

I apologize for not checking Stef's website/crime library to verify the number of wounds. I KNOW that information is there,. I have looked for things there before...I should have checked that. Grrrr....to me.

--What are these sets of police records, which defense witness and what facts that lead to Lincoln's diagnosis?
Is she referring to the Sanity Survey, and Alice's testimony? Alice Russell wasn't a defense witness- she was a prosecution witness (if she's referring to the Wednesday night visit...), and we are missing the other set of police records and "certain relevant facts dug out by the prosecution" - unless Alice is the bearer of the *facts* dug out... She's counted twice? I could not figure out what she meant by these statements. It's like she was dangling a carrot in front of us saying...here it is...the information know one else knows but me...but then she never really reveals her sources or all of the info she 'claims' to be the sole 'proprietor' of. I need to dig deeper and see if I can figure it out.

I thought the 'truth serum' was sodium pentathol...maybe amytal is another version ?

I have read the trial transcripts mentioning the ending of Lizzie's period.

The one thing I am interested in looking up more info on is the familial trait/relationship between epilepsy and migraines. My mom has epilepsy (no seizure or 'spell' for at leats 30 years), and I USED to have migraines, but my hysterectomy seemed to have all but shut those nasty things down. I RARELY have have them now.

I haven't been this excited about reading for years !

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:00 am

Nobody remembers the number of wounds.
The 'You Can Look It Up" is kinda directed at Miss Lincoln- she obviously didn't look it up tho she had access to the material. How can we read what she supposedly read and find she got it so wrong- or is it just so totally her *spin*?

My parents always told us to look it up. Instead of this time giving the trial page number, I thought I'd let your readers find that for themselves if they were interested...

The only legitimate incriminating health issues that I can think of about Lizzie is her talk with Alice the Wednesday night, and the Sanity Survey found in The Knowlton Papers, by Moulten Batchelder. (I love that name), pages 102-106.

I like these subtle points you make.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:21 am

I agree on the first point. There really isn't any overwhelming physical evidence to prove Lizzie's guilt. It was all mostly circumstantial and due to the fact she seemed to have sole opportunity. But, and this is just my opinion, a lot of that evidence is pretty damning.

I think the way she worded this was also a little confusing.

2A. For me, Lizzie is not a legend or a case; she is a woman I remember, a woman with whom I will always have a lot in common.

2B. Lizzie was of my parents generation, but if she had been of mine, we could have never been close friends. In mind and temperament we had next to nothing in common.

I think what she meant is, they would always have a lot in common because they came from the same social background being raised in the same society.Same social values and structures. But when it comes to personality they did not have much in common.

16."You can see why the daylight robbery, that modest prototype of the second crime committed in that house under like conditions by a similar ghostly hand, is always so meagerly or incorrectly reported by those who wish to prove Lizzie innocent. The murder of a father by his youngest daughter is a notion we may reject in horror or seize upon with macabre delight;but it is not one that we think about dispassionately. Petty theft on the other hand, is only too easy to consider from an objective point of view."

I took this to mean that a murder is a much more passionate crime. It raises a much deeper emotional response than that of a theft.Our passion and emotion may get in the way of our viewing a murder objectively. But not so much when viewing the facts of a robbery or a theft.

The rest of it what has been commented on I pretty much agree with.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:36 am

I like when I have to look things up...

I am not sure that Lincoln intended to lead us astray, but I think her 'from up on the hill' attitude ended up clouding over what could have been a very unique and and interesting perspective. As Terrie suggested, she just got too full of herself.

Thanks for the info on where to find the Sanity Survey...I will read it tomorrow during my break at school, and thank you for all of your help in general.

I am really learning so much just in this short time we all have been discussing this book club thing. I hope Aaron gets back to us soon, so he can see how his idea has blossomed !

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:44 am

Oooo, Alice is in there too. Everything in one place!
See page 227, letter #HK212, from Alice to Mr. Moody, dated June 2,1893, just before trial. Alice put in writing for the prosecution Lizzie's visit to her Wednesday and what was said.

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:44 am

Here's my take on the first section -- for what it's worth...

Victoria Lincoln draws readers in by suggesting she has an advantage when it comes to telling Lizzie’s story because the two shared a similar background. She says “Lizzie and I grew up in the same provincial mill town" and claims to know Lizzie and her family because her own family came from "a part of the world that was once old Fall River, ‘up on the hill’”.

Lincoln refers to “insiders” and “outsiders” and says “I was born an insider”. She says her “parents, of course. knew Lizzie and her circle” and Andrew “belonged up on the hill, for he was a Borden”.

But her claim that she and Lizzie “belonged to the same stratum of [Fall River's] highly stratified society” is completely misleading. Victoria Lincoln may have been born an insider. But according to Michael Martins, curator of the FRHS, who is presently working on a book about Fall River Society, Lizzie was an outsider -- she would never have been accepted into the echelon that belonged on 'the hill' – and Lizzie probably knew that as well as anyone.

A Private Disgrace is studded with lore that Lincoln implies she knew first hand. She says Abby was friendless and her sister invited her to dinner 3 or 4 times a year out of pity. She claims Lizzie could never stand rebuffs. She remembers Anna Borden well and recounts how Lizzie told Anna “night after night” on the voyage home from Europe of her hatred of Abby and her miserable homelife. (Yet at trial Emma Borden stoutly denied that Anna Borden had ever visited 92 Second Street -- the implication being that Anna was not someone Lizzie would confide in. And if Anna Borden was Lizzie’s age – she would hardly be an intimate of Lincoln’s – so it’s highly unlikely that Victoria heard about Lizzie's carping directly.) Note that although Lincoln trades on the fact that she and Lizzie were neighbors, she lived at 116 French Street (two blocks from Maplecroft) for just three years -- between the ages of 12 and 15. Lizzie would have been 56 - 59 years old at that time. (Source: Rebello, p. 367)

Lincoln further suggests that Lizzie committed the first murder in an epileptic ‘brown-out’. She tries to support her theory about Lizzie’s epilepsy with hearsay such as the “popular Fall River opinion that poor Lizzie was always sort of crazy” and suffered from “spells”. She claims this hearsay evidence is given substance by “previously unnoted evidence in the court documents” and even provides a footnote here citing Mrs. Raymond’s trial testimony. But there is nothing there. Somehow Lincoln takes the testimony of the dressmaker and weaves a tale about Lizzie and a private detective having a long conversation three months prior to the murders. But close reading of the trial shows Mrs. Raymond was talking about the detective visiting her, not Lizzie, and further -- that he came after the murders and not three months before. A fabrication like this provides no support for her theory.

So – based on the evidence presented so far, I’m not buying either Lincoln’s lure that she and Lizzie were ‘sisters under the skin’ or her premise that an ‘epileptic fit gone horribly wrong’ resulted in murder.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:06 am

THANKS KAT !

Thank you Diana for your wonderful perspective on Lincoln.

It is sounding more and more like we are agreeing that while Lincoln had some of the things right, that her twist on the story pretty much ruined how good of a story she COULD have had. Maybe her intent was not really as much for accuracy, but for getting the reader's attention long enough to make a few $$...?

Tracy...

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:17 am

*gasping in horror at the implication that our Slicktoria would deign to pour out her insiders heart on paper for the benefit of the rest of us outsiders for something as vulgar as...dare I say it....MONEY?* :-)

Thanks Kat --- I, as ever, regard you as an LB genius... and Diana --- I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. Bravo! Sorry --- that is another case alltogether

Shall we set arrangements for the next installment... where perhaps we will learn the events of 8/4/1894 a la Victoria?(OK ---I looked ahead a bit)

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:05 am

Sounds good to me Terrie. If there are no objections, should we finish book 1/chapters 6-11...by say....Friday-ish ? ...and I would think that if anyone wants to make additional comments on/about things we have already covered...please feel free to do so. I know that sometimes after having time to think about things, I may come up with new ideas, etc. Ok, fellow Bordenians...onward we go !

P.S. I would like to personally say thank you to everyone for participating in the book club. I am getting so much from what you all have to say.

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:31 pm

I kind of got an idea that when Victoria's book came out, people in Fall River at the time were not very happy with her for writing it. Even that many years after the murders.I got this from a conversation I had with Dave, the cook at the B&B. He made the comment that when the book came out, his mother was not very happy about it. I do not remember the exact comment but I think it started with "The nerve of that woman..". That she did not think very highly of her for writing it was the over all conversation.Especially since she was from Fall River.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:37 pm

I will have to catch up later on this thread as now
I am immersed in "the black Dahlia" books (another
thread) but I've read Lincoln several times and have always enjoyed her, even though I know some of her facts to be wrong. You just can't take it
away from her that she was there, she knew the
place and people, and she was a damn good writer.
I would love to see a picture of her too, any luck anyone finding one?

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:26 pm

i've reviewed lincoln to debunk her solution to how lizzie got away with it, which involves primarily the dress mystery.

but i have a different take on this statement:
"The case has always held its honest students spellbound, because the factual evidence of her sole opportunity and her guilty is so overwhelming, yet the bare idea of her guilt is so humanly incredible, so absurd. Ever since she was acquitted, Lizzie the legend, Lizzie the case, has fascinated writers; she has to be made plausible."

i think this is one of lincoln's most insightful statements. the way i read it -- she's trying to get at the heart of our fascination -- that while it appears that lizzie must be guilty, it is at the same time difficult to believe because it is so incredible in terms of either luck or cleverness. she's pointing at the paradox. that way i read it -- i'm not parsing her words in any way -- but i think i do get her point -- and i think it's true. (most of lincoln is not true if you dedicate yourself, if you insist, on the evidence. but i will say this much -- that lincoln has a real working imagination. you can see, when you get to her solution, that there is a point where she seems to have convinced herself that she SEES--it's at that point, where she throws away testimony and just uses what she needs for her story.)

"she has to be made plausible." i think right there she states her goal -- she uses a lot from knowlton in his closing argument, and uses her imagination to fill in what puzzles him. (for example, lizzie uses the coat as a shield--something knowlton only suggested.)

(btw, i realize i'm not in sinc with the reading of the book. i'm not reading it now. i'm just reading the observations here.)

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:25 pm

Thanks for your input Eugene.

Nancie, I honestly do not mean to take away the fact that Lincoln was there, nor do I mean to critique her literary skills. I am just questioning some of her 'reasons' for things she says about this case. I cannot always make a connection between what she 'claims', and the truth.

Yes, you'd think with all the technology in this world, we could google up a picture of old Slicktoria huh ?

Tracy...

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:48 pm

So well-stated Eugene, I agree with your comments. I think the heart of Victoria Lincoln
was sincere and she conveyed a valuable contribution. Tracy I somehow feel offended by the
term "slicktoria"? it is so disrespectful. She was a
woman I believe in her 60's when she wrote this
book after a successful life and marraige. I don't
believe her intentions were to be slick or tricky.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:54 pm

Many apologies Nancie. I did not mean to offend you. Honest. Maybe I will eventually change my opinion about Victoria Endicott Lincoln. Again, many apologies.

Tracy...

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:23 pm

no problem Tracy, I also have questions about
VL's book but I respect her and her contributions to
this mystery we all love. Someday us sleuths may
solve it! (and then what we would do? lol)

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 pm

I am still working on my responses for Chapter 1/sections 6-11. SHould have them ready by tomorrow. It was a hellish week at school...I need to drink tonight.

Tracy...

terrie · Post by **terrie** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:21 pm

I am relieved that I am not the only one who has had a rough week and isn't quite caught up...lol.

So far, reading this section has reminded me why I couldn't stand VL in college and still don't like her. It isn't that she doesn't have anything worth noting --- she certainly does, and she has every right to her opinions --- but I tire very quickly with her judgmental attitudes and smarmy, catty cut downs, especially of Abby, whom she did not know. The line that really drives me crazy is on page 67 --- "...the problem was, in essence, Abby's fat; if she had weighed thrity or fourty pounds less, Andrew Borden might well have died in his bed..." Maybe I am misreading this, or do not understand VL's tone... but what in the world is she suggesting? That AB would have been better off if he could have been butchered in his own bed (vs) the horsehair couch, but his fat slob of a wife was too big to allow him this one grace? How does Abby become the victimizer and not the victim?

I do not, generally, care for psuedo-factual books that promise analyses but deliver opinions. VL is not the only writer who does this... but she does do this. And then she writes of Lizzie (p. 71) "...she manipulates fact but she cannot invent it"... to me, this describes VL. I guess it is a pet peeve of mine, and that shows in my unhappiness with VL's book.

I may as well state, too, that to VL I would be an underdone suet pudding of a woman or whatever she calls Abby... and it grates on me to hear her constant judgments of Abby's weight. So... I, too, have an axe to grind....so to speak.

On the positive side (hee hee) I am intrigued by some of her suggestions. Did Lizzie really hide when JV Morse was around? I wonder what that was about? And I do appreciate VL expressing concern that the beheaded pigeon situation was not given proper merit. I agree that it is a very powerful part of the whole case. Although, I do wonder at her characterization of LB's love for animals as "... almost pathological..." I think (and, again, I am borrowing from my own life here) that LB was in a very painful situation and the unconditional love and companionship of "dumb animals" (as they were known in her day) was of great counsel to her. The pathology, to me, is in the Borden household, not in LB's great devotion to animals.

I do appreciate, too, VL's discussion of the so-called wrapper LB was said to have worn that day. Here, I think VL does show invaluable insight . The idea of two similarly colored dresses and LB changing from one to the other... and being surprised by Andrew coming home early before she could slip out the door in the second dress... makes me wonder....hmmmm....

And her theory of LB's motive for murdering Abby and Andrew seems sound to me... pathological hatred of the one, and a near-obsessive adoration of the other, so much as to want the one dead... and being unable to bear losing the esteem of the other... so that he must die before he sees her differently....

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:17 pm

I have said it before... And I will say it again..

Although it may have offered an insight to FR and it's way of thinking, I found the Lincoln book to be little more than a 317 page self assurance of her and her families' social position.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:42 pm

Terrie that was well written, thanks for your
thoughts. I agree VL was a snob but she was a
product of her generation.."but the background that I rejected and to which she remained loyal is still
a stubborn feature as it was hers." (page 20)
VL couldn't change the way she was, the way she
grew up, any more than any one of us can, it is a permanent in-concrete fact for all of us. VL understood she couldn't change the way she was brought up in Fall River. So she wrote about it! I think she did a wonderful job and I'm thankful we have her book. Sure, us so-called experts who have disected this case can make mince-meat out
of her theory, but let us at least give the woman the
respect she desearves.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:02 am

Well said Nancie. I agree with that. Victoria Lincoln was a product of the society she grew up in, as was Lizzie. Which is why I think she may have a little more insight into how Fall River society viewed the murders. Sure there are some things she gets wrong, and some of her facts seem to come out of thin air, but you can never take the fact away that she was there, and that she actually knew Lizzie, and was bred in the same society that bred Lizzie.