Lizzie’s reactions could be those of an innocent

[Allen]

I believe for Allen is has been solved.

Yes, Aamartin. I have already arrived at my conclusions. I've spent about 20 years acquainting myself with the known evidence of the case. I've read the source documents too many times to count, gathered my own documents involving the case, gathered my own newspaper accounts outside of the Sourcebook, and spent the night in the house so I had a better understanding of the lay out than any floor plan could give. And what was possible, and probably impossible. Much of my time was wasted wading through information trying to decipher the fact from the fiction. So I really don't want to lend any weight to anymore purely hypothetical theories not based in any fact. I don't see a reason to change my mind after spending all of that time coming to my own conclusions based on facts.

[Allen]

I even managed to solve a real mystery surrounding the case. It was nothing Earth shattering that was going to solve it. But I did discover the origins of the poem on Lizzie's mantle at Maplecroft. When I did find it the feeling was pretty exhilarating whether or not it solved who had done it. Others have made some truly amazing new discoveries surrounding the case. Such as where Emma had gone away to attend school. Never before seen photo's of the Borden family were found. New information was provided about Bridget Sullivan. We are never going to solve this case. But I would rather devote my time to actively studying things that are grounded in fact. Theories based on opinion do nothing but add more myth to the legend and at the end of the day are a waste of time. You can't prove them. Sure, it's fun to say what if and anything is possible. But it also proves nothing. I did not start out convinced Lizzie was guilty. The evidence brought me to that conclusion. And with outrageous theories others also take it and run with it and before you know it things are being stated as fact.

[mbhenty]

We are never going to solve this case. But I would rather devote my time to actively studying things that are grounded in fact. Theories based on opinion do nothing but add more myth to the legend and at the end of the day are a waste of time. You can't prove them.

Yes: True. It is difficult to write anything new on the Borden case and make it interesting. Most books are just over-fried bacon. Unless there's a noteworthy or significant discovery, one narrative just reiterates the last.

As you said Allen, Sure, it's fun to say what if and anything is possible is true, and to many, very satisfying. Thus, unless some miraculous information is unearthed the only medium left is a simple one. Fiction. In the agency of making up a story, the avenues one can take is limitless.

Sadly, to be appreciated you must reach those who like to read fiction. Most of my friends only read nonfiction, if they read at all.

But, fiction is one of the few methods left by which one can keep the Borden case alive with a new and fresh approach. But, emphasis must be placed on a good story. Not trying to solve the case. Fiction is a modus operandi by which fantasy creates and thrives. It is the mother of fabrication of ideas, truths, and exaggeration, not to mention, gratifying falsehoods. Fun reads.

But be aware. If you are a sole reader of nonfiction and don't care much for reading fiction... and are serious about the Borden case, don't read fiction. You may be left disappointed if not confused or discontented.

The only writers who have a chance of coming up with anything new on the Borden case are the curators at the Fall River Historical Society. So stay tuned for something all new. Namely, the Jennings Journal. It very well may be the next big discovery in print, and I expect that Michael Martins and Dennis Binette are working on it as we speak.

So, like Richard Brehrens' excellent approach, the Lizzie Borden Girl Detective Series, if you want to write on the Borden Case, and be fresh and creative, write a traditional old world page turner. Write Fiction.

[Allen]

I have written a fictional account of the case. It was published in an issue of the Hatchet. I do enjoy writing fiction. But I also don't enjoy reading it much. Sounds strange I know. But I'd rather write it than read it. In my account Dr. Bowen carried the hatchet away in his doctor bag. I let a friend read my copy later on. She read it and said, "You know, I never thought of that. Maybe he did. It's possible." So I planted that seed in her head when all I did was write a fictional account because I enjoyed it and thought it would make a good story. To this day she still claims it could have happened that way.

[mbhenty]

Yes:

Thanks for the feedback on that issue, Allen. I know just what you mean. I like writing fiction. Writing factual accounts or narratives if very boring to me, if not hard work. Especially getting it right. Today, I read very little fiction. When I did, some of my favorite writers were Ray Bradbury, Rex Stout, Robert B. Parker, John Dunning, and countless suspense crime novels by unknown authors of the 30s and 40s.

You're story is very telling. Many years ago there was an account in the Fall River newspaper about someone that was writing an account about the Borden crime, and who claimed to have proof that Seabury Bowen had a hand in the crime. It was suppose to all come out in a new book. I never heard anything about it since.

Seabury Bowen, huh? I'll have to spread the truth, then.

[Allen]

I enjoy writing fiction and poetry. But I think my fictional subjects will stay purely fiction. I enjoyed writing the story. But the end result made me a little uncomfortable. I wondered how many others seriously believed Dr. Bowen could have carried the hatchet away in his doctor bag.

[PossumPie]

I'm going to jump in to this 2-sided discussion for a moment. I also have done much research. Of course no one has the answer, but consider this: It would be more exciting for most people to find that some colorful theory of someone other than Lizzie being the culprit. The mundane answer would be "Lizzie was found to be beyond a doubt the murderer for her fathers money." No bastard children, no mysterious foreigners...just a very greedy woman. I am open minded to both sides, but if someone pressed me, the factual evidence that we have is pointing to Lizzie. Motive? only Lizzie or Emma. Opportunity? Lizzie. I read between the lines of Lizzies Attorney's office saying they will NOT release any of the documents that they have BUT they will say there is no smoking gun in the documents. I take that to mean we already have all the evidence that Lizzie was guilty, but since the jury found her innocent, the attorney's did their job and that is that. We like colorful conclusions to mysteries, but most of the time the mundane is the truth. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[Yooper]

I would really like to have a look at the documents retained by the Robinson firm. While they say there is no smoking gun, it is only an opinion. What do they mean by that? No confession, or no eyewitness coming forward? What do they consider a smoking gun? I don't know how thoroughly they have researched the case, so it might mean anything. They have an interest in deterring any examination of the documents, so I can understand why they might say that in order to discourage people.

[snokkums]

I think she might have been aloof for two reasons. One New Englanders do give off an air of aloofness. And second, with the shock of two dead bodies, she might have been trying to separate herself from the whole situation, and also, didn't the doctor give her some medication? She might have seemed out of it because of being doped up.

[PossumPie]

It irritates me to no end that the law firm that holds the records refuses to open any file on Lizzie to the public. EVERY ONE IS DEAD. There is no reason not to release the data. EVEN the US GOVT. has released highly classified information after a number of years. Heck they just released info on Area 51...These lawyers think this is more important than National Security????That is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

[Yooper]

I'm having trouble finding a reason for retaining records which will never be released, unless there is some benefit to the law firm for doing so. I was thinking the files might contain something which somehow jeopardizes the firm, but then why not destroy the records?

[NancyDrew]

Everyone: I agree 100%. In fact, I think the whole thing stinks (not releasing the files). It's a part of history, it is significant from many angles: legally, in terms of gender roles, sociologically, the growth and development of the town, forensically, I could go on and on. he Bordens are dead; there is no one whose rights would be violated. To withhold such an important part of history is arrogant.

Anyone up to calling the firm? I'll do it. But I"d like to support and advice as to what I say. I am also willing to go there in person.

[Harry]

You may find this 1999 article interesting.

Also, one of our former members, the late William,did write the law firm and received essentially the same reply.

[NancyDrew]

So the owners (at the time) of the Borden B&B didn't want the Robinson files released because it would cost them business? I have a reaction to that, but I can't use that kind of language on this board.

I would hope the current owners wouldn't put profit before truth. Besides, no matter what is in those files, the murders were still committed in that house, and that is what people flock to see.

The possibility that the papers would be destroyed is a tragedy....there must be some way to file a motion that, should Robinson go out of business, the papers would e preserved...even if they are kept private in a trust...I don't know about these things, but I'm game to try..anyone with me?

[Yooper]

The files appear to be the property of the law firm at this point, there was no relative or heir referred to for permission to review them, so the client (Lizzie) and her next nearest relative at this time are not a consideration. The argument that the client bought and paid for them no longer applies, if it ever did. If the files were the client's property then they should have been destroyed when the client died.

[PossumPie]

I think there is a balance between privacy and historical interest. I would not have released any of the information either while any of the involved people were still alive. I think 100 years is a fair amount of time before releasing information. Scotland Yard Released information on the Ripper case 100 years later. There is an obligation to history to allow the facts to be known, and at well over 100 years later, no one is around to violate their privacy. This is an overly-prudish response by an ultra-liberal law firm who (I think) believes that if they release anything, it may hurt business b/c people may say that they 'can't keep a secret'

[Franz]

If I understand well, the documents in question have been being kept secret as well to the personal of the Law firm, right?

In the White House website there is a rubric created for all American citizens (more than 13 year old) to propose suggestions for the benefits of the country (you certainly know much better the matters of this kind). Is it possible to suggest to the government to intervene somehow? It should not be an exaggeration saying that the Borden case has a national interest: the justice for two American citizens brutally murdered, the American history... Certainly, the law firm, being a private institution, could refuse. But if it agrees to open the documents, in my opinion, its credit would not be damaged; on the contrary, the firm could gain more appreciation.

[mspitstop]

Please keep in mind that Lizzie was not IN the house. After calling up to Bridget, she stood in the doorway of the back porch with the door opened. That's where Mrs. Churchill saw her as she came home from shopping. If Lizzie needed to take flight, she could immediately.
I agree, Franz, that Lizzie's reactions could have been ones of an innocent person. When I first read her inquest testimony, I was struck more by the questions than the answers. Stop and think, if on what appears to be an ordinary dull morning, by the afternoon, after a great shock, you could account for every minute of that morning; where you were and what you were doing. Could you do it without faltering? I doubt it. Add to that being sedated, before the questioning began. I would think that a guilty person would have a much more thought out alibi than she did. Plus there were a number of little details that bear out her story. She said she came in from outside, went into the dining room and put her hat down on the table. By testimony of others, they saw a hat on the dining room table. That's just one thing that comes to my mind. This case is full of a gazillion details like that which is what makes it endlessly fascinating and subject to argument.

[Franz]

Please keep in mind that Lizzie was not IN the house. After calling up to Bridget, she stood in the doorway of the back porch with the door opened. That's where Mrs. Churchill saw her as she came home from shopping. If Lizzie needed to take flight, she could immediately.
I agree, Franz, that Lizzie's reactions could have been ones of an innocent person. When I first read her inquest testimony, I was struck more by the questions than the answers. Stop and think, if on what appears to be an ordinary dull morning, by the afternoon, after a great shock, you could account for every minute of that morning; where you were and what you were doing. Could you do it without faltering? I doubt it. Add to that being sedated, before the questioning began. I would think that a guilty person would have a much more thought out alibi than she did. Plus there were a number of little details that bear out her story. She said she came in from outside, went into the dining room and put her hat down on the table. By testimony of others, they saw a hat on the dining room table. That's just one thing that comes to my mind. This case is full of a gazillion details like that which is what makes it endlessly fascinating and subject to argument.

Hello mspitstop, very happy to read you (for the first time).

Yes, the Borden case is just fascinating. After so many years, so many questions still remain without a certain answer. I will be very happy to exchange our ideas with you and other members.

[Allen]

Preliminary Hearing Testimony of William Dolan.

Q. Taking into account the fact that there were eighty six, or the largest number of spots that you have told of, above the head, on the wall in the semi circular range, do not you think that the person who delivered these blows would have received more of the spots upon the upper part of the body than in the lower part?
A. Not in that position, no.

Q. How could the spots, when they stood at the head of the sofa, or near the head of the sofa, have struck their feet or below the waist even; how could as many, as would have gone to the upper part of the assailant’s body?
A. I do not see how hardly any could go below the waist, standing in that position.

Q. That is to say, in your opinion, if the assailant got blood upon him, he would receive more blood from the waist up, than he would from the waist, below?
A. Yes sir, you are speaking of Mr. Borden, yes sir.

Q. I suppose that would mean that it would be liable to strike the hair, if the person had nothing on the head; that is it would be liable to strike the upper part of the body or person then exposed?
A. Yes sir, but I do not think a great deal in taking that position, the position of Mr. Borden, and giving the position I have stated of the assailant. There were no spots went, hardly, in that direction, that is as far as we could see, and I do not think many went, that we have not seen that is, towards the parlor; so the assailant might not get scarcely any spots, if any.

Q. Do you mean to put yourself on record as saying the assailant could stand there, and not get less than ten spots on his clothes and hair?
A. Not many of them, because it is the other way, towards his feet and on the wall.

Q. Are not they on the wall directly above his head in a semi circle?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Would not that show they followed the direction of the ax as they left the wound?
A. No sir, just the opposite.

[Franz]

Yes Allen.

But I think a professional butcher should know much better than anyone else in avoiding blood spots.

[Allen]

Way too much is made of the fact that John Morse learned the butcher's trade when he was in his early 20's. He worked for two years as a butcher. He did not work in the slaughter house as far as I know where the animals were actually killed. And when a butcher gets the meat...it's already dead. Blood doesn't splatter when you butcher dead meat. The blood has already been drained.

[Franz]

Way too much is made of the fact that John Morse learned the butcher's trade when he was in his early 20's. He worked for two years as a butcher. He did not work in the slaughter house as far as I know where the animals were actually killed. And when a butcher gets the meat...it's already dead. Blood doesn't splatter when you butcher dead meat. The blood has already been drained.

One who kills alive animals, if I understand well the meaning of "butcher", is a bucther as well.

It doesn't matter if Morse worked or not in the slaughter house, because I believe that Morse didn't kill (with his own hands) the two victims, his alibi was there. But I think it should be leggitimate to speculate that, thanks to his butcher's training, Morse could have made some acquaintance who had experiences in a slaughter house.

Indeed I think the subject is not of extreme importance, because the killer, even if it were Lizzie, might have successfully cleaned himself (herself) up, without having experiences of being a butcher.

But the butcher remains a possibility, I think. In addition, if we consider that the weapon could have been a cleaver...