MARTHA & LIZZIE

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:38 pm

You don't need to leave your comments as long as you vote your conscience.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:45 pm

Martha?

YES

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:15 am

Yes...&...Yes

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:52 am

Lizzie? No

Martha ? Yes, maybe.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:03 pm

Speaking of Martha and Lizzie this recent article fits neatly:

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satel ... 7645508994

The last line says it all.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:12 pm

Oh Harry...great find ! So true. IF ONLY...

Tracy...

Mark A. · Post by **Mark A.** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:02 pm

Martha got less then what she deserved! She was a stockbroker before she made BILLIONS doing arts & crafts. Not many people know that. She knew the rules and went out of her way to circumvent them. For what? A savings of $48,999? Thats called greed and the court should have tacked on another 6 months just for that.
But alas, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer!

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:23 pm

Mark you obviously know nothing of the life of
Martha Stewart. She has a zillion fans who know all
about her very early life as a stockbroker. She was
not being "greedy" in that stock mishap, just being
a busy woman and dropping the ball on control of
it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:08 pm

Wow Harry!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:53 pm

May I say that if we just examine why we feel the way we do, rather than questioning why others feel they way they do, we each might gain some insight into our own opinions and why we view these women the way we do. The polls really were intended for personal insight.
Of course, it's also giving me an idea of which way members lean as to guilt and innocence, or how they feel about degrees of innocence or guilt!

So thank you to those who contributed.

Mark A. · Post by **Mark A.** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:02 pm

Nancie, is that what they are calling it now? A " Stock mishap"? Thats almost comical.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:28 pm

And Lizzie had a hatchet mishap. . .

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:56 pm

For me, finally realizing that I want Lizzie to be innocent is almost freeing... I can remember that I feel this way and look at things more objectively... My wanting her to be innocent makes me feel sorry for her and what she faced... This has clouded my thinking in this case. Now I am reassessing my opinion of almost everything. I have also accepted that I like Lizzie... Murderer or no!

Martha... I admire her greatly. I also firmly believe that her arrest and the way she was depicted in the media LONG before this scandal came about is one of the saddest indications as to just how far we, as women, have NOT come....

Since Martha has a vagina she has some nerve being tough, stepping on whoever she wanted to on her way to the top and ignoring her husband and child.... Had she had a penis she would still face some criticism but she would receive far more praise for being tough, goal oriented and a real "go getter"....

Was she railroaded??? Of course she was....

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:56 am

Audrey @ Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:56 pm wrote:Since Martha has a vagina she has some nerve being tough, stepping on whoever she wanted to on her way to the top and ignoring her husband and child.... Had she had a penis she would still face some criticism but she would receive far more praise for being tough, goal oriented and a real "go getter"....

Was she railroaded??? Of course she was....

I, as a woman, even missed the part where this was supposed to be exceptable behavior for anyone. If it means we have "come far" to do all these things, then I hope to stay in the dark ages.It can be awfully lonely at the top once you get there that way.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:34 am

I think that for myself and many other Martha supporters, that what makes us feel that Martha was railroaded, was that what has been considered as 'acceptable' behavior for men in the business world for a long time was not considered so for her.

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:41 pm

The only example anyone needs of the unfair treatment towards Martha is Enron...

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:08 pm

The Enron saga has barely begun. Check out this summary of the status of the major figures. Their future is not rosy.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/ ... index.html

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow. Ask Lizzie about her 10 month stay at Taunton awaiting trial.

Martha was given several chances to admit her involvement. If she had originally told the truth she would have walked away with a slap on the wrist and a monetary fine. She CHOSE to lie. That, I believe, is what she was convicted of.

This was not some innocent person unaware of the rules and workings of Wall St. As Mark A. said, she was a former stock broker and if my memory serves me correctly at one time even held a seat on the board of the N.Y. Stock Exchange.

Mark A. · Post by **Mark A.** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:56 pm

Well said Harry Ole chap, well said!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:52 pm

Our votes are almost even.
Very interesting everybody!

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:12 pm

well you OL CHAPS are quite smug and all-knowing,
but you watch, Martha will be Back, and Back in
full swing, she knows she didn't commit any crimes
yet she is paying the dues for your smug and happy
ol chap faces, enjoy for now.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Nancie @ Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:12 pm wrote: Martha will be Back, and Back infull swing, she knows she didn't commit any crimes.

She didn't? Hmm...I think what she did was a crime, I don't care how you look at it. I don't think that she should hide behind the fact that she is female. Either she knew what she was doing was wrong....or she is really stupid...and I don't think Martha is stupid.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:44 pm

Allen @ Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:56 am wrote:
Audrey @ Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:56 pm wrote:Since Martha has a vagina she has some nerve being tough, stepping on whoever she wanted to on her way to the top and ignoring her husband and child.... Had she had a penis she would still face some criticism but she would receive far more praise for being tough, goal oriented and a real "go getter"....

Was she railroaded??? Of course she was....
I, as a woman, even missed the part where this was supposed to be exceptable behavior for anyone. If it means we have "come far" to do all these things, then I hope to stay in the dark ages.It can be awfully lonely at the top once you get there that way.

I think you missed my point... I do not think any of this is acceptable behavior.... What makes me mad is the poor goose is still miles behind the gander in MANY areas... As a woman and a mother of little girls-- it makes me MAD AS HECK!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:56 pm

Nancie @ Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:12 pm wrote:well you OL CHAPS are quite smug and all-knowing,
but you watch, Martha will be Back, and Back in
full swing, she knows she didn't commit any crimes
yet she is paying the dues for your smug and happy
ol chap faces, enjoy for now.

nancie, did you ever stop and think that if Martha made $49,000 on that illegal transaction then SOMEBODY else lost it. That SOMEBODY paid $49,000 MORE than they were supposed to. It's that SIMPLE.

Smug? Sounds like you have a case of it yourself. Why don't you try NOT calling names once in awhile. Makes life a lot easier. People have a right to their opinion without you calling them names.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:14 pm

Sorry Harry. I didn't think "SMUG" (def:highly self-
satisfied) was a "name-calling" kinda word. Also sorry for being so defensive of "my Martha"..I have
been a huge fan for many many years.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:32 pm

Nancie...

Did you see that Martha will return with a new show on NBC?

Despite anyone's opinion of her or this "crime"-- Getting a major network program speaks volumes of her popularity and ability to get high ratings.

Mark A. · Post by **Mark A.** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:21 pm

O.J. is pretty popular too. As is Roman Polanski. I hear Michael Jackon still draws a crowd. If we as a nation based someones guilt or innocence on "popularity" our legal justice system as we know it would cease to exist in a matter of weeks.
Just because your popular and adored by millions doesn't mean your not capable of a crime or above reproach when convicted by a jury of your peers.
If Charlie Manson was released from jail and FOX TV offered him his own " reality" show which became a huge hit, should we forget all he has been convicted of based on Neilsen ratings?

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:10 pm

Oh yes, I often muse on the striking similarities
between Martha and Charlie Manson

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:22 pm

Trust me, Martha is nothing like Charlie Manson

. I wonder if there is a way to scan in his letters. I've been trying to figure out how for awhile now, but they always come out to blurry to read. If anyone has any suggestions I might be able to get them to scan so they are legible.Maybe I just have a scanner that is a hunk of junk.Since I've been trying to figure it out for awhile, and you all mentioned him I thought I'd ask?Sorry for going off topic, but if anyone can help I would appreciate it.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:01 pm

There is a difference between evil and wrong...

Martha was convicted of not being honest with investigators. ie- Stating she was innocent... Shall we add a charge to anyone convicted of a crime for not admitting to it in the first place?

If they plead not guilty and later change it to guilty of a lesser charge---shall this be contingent on a new obstruction charge?

I am NOT commenting on my belief of Martha's innocence of guilt-- Nor am I defending what she did... I am stating that she did not receive fair treatment... If you can give me examples of other people sent to prison under similar circumstances I will be happy to eat my words, as long as they are perfectly prepared and elegantly presented....

As per Michael Jackson or OJ-- forgive the pun but it's apples and oranges.

Charles Manson?

No offfense Melissa-- But I would not even want to see, let alone posses any item he owned or generated.

If you decide to scan his letters and post them here-- please be sure to put them in a special thread, well titled so that I do not accidently open it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:58 pm

Yes I 'm thinking I agree with Audrey about the Manson letters. There's a spirit of chaos and negativity involved with him which I would prefer not to be exposed to.
Thanks anyway.
Who holds copyright? If it's the writer of the letters, which in the Diana, Princess of Wales', letters seemed to prove, then they can't be published anywhere without the writer's permission.
I may not be right about this, but I seem to recall the brou-ha-ha Diana's letters caused when they were threatened with publication.

It's odd how this Martha discussion is sounding so political.
It's odd that she can bring out these diverse opinions the same as Lizzie Borden.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:17 am

Unbelieveable!! There are actually eleven volumes of those letters...in print..... See http://www.mansonarchives.com/

I have to ask...why??

(I'd rather varnish pigeons myself than read those...eeeeegh!!!!)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:22 am

Do you know anything about copyright with letters?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:27 am

I think it is something along the lines about a reasonable expectation of privacy.....

If I was to send a letter to an editor of a newspaper -- I obviously do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy....

If I was to send a personal letter to Kat I would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore it may be illegal for her to publish it in a public forum or for profit in a book, etc.

It is tricky and for me the best rule of thumb has always been that when in doubt... Don't do it!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:35 am

A little... As you said, personal letters are actually the property of the writer rather than the reader, and may not be used without permission of the writer. So far as I know beyond that, the "fair use" clause (which is what we operate under here) would apply elsewise.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:49 am

I have to also agree on not being interested in seeing Manson correspondence. Kat's very apt description of "the spirit of chaos and negativity", expresses my feelings as well.

Anyone has the righ to read/not read whatever they choose. So, I too respectfully request that if some of you do want to discuss that sort of thing, that you put it in, as Audrey put it, a "special thread, well titled".

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:54 am

Well thats no problem, I can't get them to come out anyway. So I will not bother posting them.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:57 am

doug65oh @ Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:17 am wrote:Unbelieveable!! There are actually eleven volumes of those letters...in print..... See http://www.mansonarchives.com/

I have to ask...why?? (I'd rather varnish pigeons myself than read those...eeeeegh!!!!)

What I am guessing is there are some people who find Charlie Manson as interesting as we do Lizzie Borden.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:54 am

Yes, that's true, I think-- And those professionals who study him, like you yourself. Someone has to try to understand the motivations of those such as he. But I must admit, he's in a different category than our Lizzie, and I find him beyond my ability to comprehend. He seems like an ongoing evil.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:38 am

Kat @ Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:54 am wrote:Yes, that's true, I think-- And those professionals who study him, like you yourself. Someone has to try to understand the motivations of those such as he. But I must admit, he's in a different category than our Lizzie, and I find him beyond my ability to comprehend. He seems like an ongoing evil.

When I was in college we talked about Manson and his ability to manipulate and brainwash even those who know of his ability and propensity to do so. He is considered a "profile not" for this very reason.

He believes he is divinely driven. A Messiah of sorts, which may very well be the most dangerous thing about him. Anyone communicating with him at all should be very cautious.

The Borden murder was a crime of passion.... Manson's actions might very well be the yardstick by which modern criminal evil are measured!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:05 pm

Personally, I didn't feel threatened, or that he could've gotten any kind of hold over me. I take him for the utter fruitcake that he is. Some of his ideas are just beyond insane. I also gave a speech about him for my Fundamentals of Speech Communication class. You would not believe how many people just came out and basically said "How could anyone believe any of his bull****?" after I was through and answering questions from the class. I also did a speech about our beloved Lizzie. I went over the time limit given for the speech because I took longer with my visuals than I had planned, but my professor didn't take any points off because she said I made it interesting

. But with Manson I often wonder, is some of it put on for the benefit of his audience? Does he really believe all of his own bull****? Or is it his mechanism for gaining attention and his hold on people? As for Martha, I personally think she is an overbearing control freak with a diva complex.But thats just my opinion.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:25 pm

I agree... Martha is a control freak and often times I think people cross the line from a strong personality to overbearing..

But she turned what most would term as a negative into a positive and based on her "personna" and drive has generated billions.

When you look at it purely in context-- she shows women that we can take the hand dealt to us and turn it into whatever we want it to be... For that alone I will always admire her.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:12 am

I watched some Lizzie videos last night and especially in "Hash & Rehash" I noticed that people tended to project their own ideas and thoughts onto Lizzie and into the case. Jules Ryckebusch squirmed and called Abby a big disgusting lump of flesh or something like that- and I thought wow this man has sunk to a low- he obviously has something against a 200 lb. woman. There was no call to speak of Abby that way.
Then there was Muriel Arnold whose sole purpose, she claims, in researching the Lizzie Borden case for 10 years was because her mother proclaimed flat-out, that Lizzie did it and let it alone. So Muriel Arnold decided to prove her mother wrong and came up with her Bridget did it theory.
I see this often. People project onto this person Lizzie whatever their own agenda is. I think they do that with Martha Stewart as well, because of the responses I see here. There are similarities in these women and I don't understand why people can't see the real person- other than maybe what Stefani said in her lecture- that since Lizzie never talked- we can use her as a blank slate and make her into anything we want.
I don't think people realize they are doing this- like Muriel Arnold spending 10 years trying to prove her own theory without accepting any view which would have her looking at Lizzie in any different way.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:32 pm

Good points Kat, I am guilty of my own agenda
regarding Lizzie's innocence and also Martha's yet
I don't see many similarities in the two females.
(or with Charlie, UGH). Funny it struck me the same
about Jules making those comments about Abby,
"is this the pot calling the kettle black" or whatever that expression is.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:48 pm

I cannot say for sure what type of person I think Lizzie was. I change my mind a lot about that. I do, however, believe she did it.But with Martha, I really have no doubts about the kind of person she is. Neither do her daughter and ex-husband apparently. I don't project any of my opinions onto her, I only go by what she projects herself to be. Which is pretty much what I said in my post above. As for her incarceration, I think its fair.

When it comes to comparing crimes, as with Lizzie and OJ Simpson,
I have always thought that the case that I find the most like Borden
murder is that of JonBenet Ramsey.Not in the actual method used to commit the murder, but in the case that the rest of the family was at home when it occurred.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:25 pm

Poor Martha...

I can relate to her in many ways... First of all.. Although until now I have never really had a job outside the home-- I tend to be a forceful person and strong in my opinions. I may have been well situated and I may have made a good marriage-- But I can say with 100% conviction that if it had been totally up to me to support myself and my family that I would not be sitting in a 20 year old double wide somewhere with car payments to the buy here pay here lot out by the interstate. I admire her verve! The woman has impeccable taste and she is almost the very definition of elan.

Her daughter adores her-- Alexis won't even talk to her father... She blames him for leaving. Andy Stewart in my opinion, seems to be a namby pamby who couldn't keep up or wouldn't keep up. If she had left it up to him Martha would be clipping coupons and driving an Aerostar.

Personally...I'd say that 5 months in federal prison seems worth it.

As far as my agenda? Guilty!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:52 pm

WOW...

Now that I re-read what I wrote I realize it sounds pretty harsh!

MON DIEU!

I do not mean to say that an Aerostar is not a lovely vehicle.... I am just saying that I would probably spend 5 months in federal prison to avoid having to drive one!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:44 am

Mark A. · Post by **Mark A.** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:59 pm

Hilary Cinton should be President, not behind bars!
Oh yeah, thats right, she was president.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:43 pm

Ha Mark, funny! I can think of a lot of people who
should be behind bars for shady dealings, the Clintons and Kennedys come to mind. Martha is the
sacrificial cow paying dues for all the celebraties who have made mistakes, (at least she didn't kill
anyone) (Chappawhatever, remember Ed Kennedy) and many shady Clinton deaths. The corruption of power is so rampant in the political world, yet Martha is in jail. go figure

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

MARTHA & LIZZIE

Do You Think Martha Stewart and Lizzie Borden Were Railroaded?

MARTHA & LIZZIE