The note: it’s not so inimaginable as someone might think

[twinsrwe]

... (P.S.: I am sorry, twinsrwe, I think I understand your kind intention, but I just can't help myself replying for anothoer time to PossumPie. I can't keep silent before what he said.)

Franz, I’m confused. I don’t know what you are apologizing to me for, nor do I know what you mean by, “I think I understand your kind intention...”

[Curryong]

Thanks, twinsrwe, for posting about the reviews for (the now incredibly wealthy) Brown's book!! Good to see that Allen and RayS are keeping their hands in as far as Lizzie is concerned. It's a pity that Allen won't come back to join us.

[Franz]

Franz, I want to say this in the kindest way I can. In America, when someone retires, it is an action of permanently leaving one's job and ceasing to work. So, when you stated, to Possum, “I wish you a hilarious retirement”, what you basically said, by American definitions of the words ‘hilarious’ and ‘retirement’, was, “I wish you a hysterically funny permanent leave as a member of the forum”.

I believe you did not mean it that way, but that is basically what you posted. Hopefully, Possum will know that you meant no harm.

I also hope Possum does not permanently leave the forum; it would be shame to lose him.

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize to PossumPie and other members for having expressed in an unapprioriate manner. I hope there is no misunderstanding, because immediately I wrote: "3. I wish you a hilarious retirement and I hope your break of the forum is only for short time."

[Franz]

... (P.S.: I am sorry, twinsrwe, I think I understand your kind intention, but I just can't help myself replying for anothoer time to PossumPie. I can't keep silent before what he said.)

Franz, I’m confused. I don’t know what you are apologizing to me for, nor do I know what you mean by, “I think I understand your kind intention...”

Because after the exchange of some replies between PossumPie and me, you posted twice that had nothing to do with our "fight" (if you wish to definite so), you talked about the Brown book. I thought that maybe you wanted to turn our attention and the attention of other memebrs to other subjets. That's why I said "your kind intention". Maybe by doing so you had no such an intention in mind, but anyway it seems to have this effect (at least this was my impression.)

[Curryong]

I'm sure it was, Franz. twinsrwe is very kind.

[twinsrwe]

Thanks, twinsrwe, for posting about the reviews for (the now incredibly wealthy) Brown's book!! Good to see that Allen and RayS are keeping their hands in as far as Lizzie is concerned. It's a pity that Allen won't come back to join us.

You're welcome, Curryong. Although Allen submitted her review in December of 2004, and RayS submitted his review in March of 2002; both reviews are interesting to read. I agree, it is a shame that Allen canceled her membership; I wish she had just stopped posting instead.

[twinsrwe]

Franz, I want to say this in the kindest way I can. In America, when someone retires, it is an action of permanently leaving one's job and ceasing to work. So, when you stated, to Possum, “I wish you a hilarious retirement”, what you basically said, by American definitions of the words ‘hilarious’ and ‘retirement’, was, “I wish you a hysterically funny permanent leave as a member of the forum”.

I believe you did not mean it that way, but that is basically what you posted. Hopefully, Possum will know that you meant no harm.

I also hope Possum does not permanently leave the forum; it would be shame to lose him.

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize to PossumPie and other members for having expressed in an unapprioriate manner. I hope there is no misunderstanding, because immediately I wrote: "3. I wish you a hilarious retirement and I hope your break of the forum is only for short time."

You're welcome, Franz. I know you also stated, and I hope your break of the forum is only for short time, but when I read that particular part of it, I thought it was a strange thing for you to say, especially after the first part of the sentence.

A lesson to learn: We are all human beings, and we all make mistakes.

[twinsrwe]

... (P.S.: I am sorry, twinsrwe, I think I understand your kind intention, but I just can't help myself replying for anothoer time to PossumPie. I can't keep silent before what he said.)

Franz, I’m confused. I don’t know what you are apologizing to me for, nor do I know what you mean by, “I think I understand your kind intention...”

Because after the exchange of some replies between PossumPie and me, you posted twice that had nothing to do with our "fight" (if you wish to definite so), you talked about the Brown book. I thought that maybe you wanted to turn our attention and the attention of other memebrs to other subjets. That's why I said "your kind intention". Maybe by doing so you had no such an intention in mind, but anyway it seems to have this effect (at least this was my impression.)

OK, I now understand; thank you for explaining what you meant. Actually, my intension was two fold; I was attempting to carry on a discussion with Anthony and Curryong regarding the books written by Arnold Brown and Leonard Rebello, as well as hopefully get you and Possum involved in something besides your differences. Unfortunately, it didn't work.

[twinsrwe]

I'm sure it was, Franz. twinsrwe is very kind.

Thank you, Curryong; I appreciate this.

[Curryong]

As I've said before, I don't know why members of the public have become so interested in the tale Brown was trying to plug. There's no evidence that William was Andrew's illegitimate son at all, or that they ever even met. He was obviously depressed/ mentally ill, poor man, later in life. Like so many conditions in the 19th century it seems to have been untreated or untreatable and William ended up committing suicide. I don't see what he has to do with the Borden murders at all.

It reminds me of a very sensational book on Jack the Ripper written in the 1970's and put forward by the author, Stephen Knight, as 'The Final Solution'. Well, it wasn't! It gathered together a lot of half-truths, suppressed some evidence (as many Ripper authors are wont to do) and was manipulated by an eccentric, who said he was a son of the painter Walter Sickert's.

I keep saying I'm going to buy 'Lizzie Borden:Past and Present' as I think it is a valuable book for students of the case. The trouble is I resent paying the heavy freight costs involved in sending it to Australia! I'll get round to it one day!

[PossumPie]

Unfortunately, books that are wildly speculative, contain little factual evidence, and are full of exciting but inaccurate statements sell, while long rather boring but highly accurate books go out of print or are never printed. People want smear and smut, even if it is full of unsubstantiated lies. I have no doubt that a well written book describing how the Pope orchestrated the whole murder scheme would get published, same with a book full of unsubstantiated and unprovable ideas about Uncle Morse. The real tragedy is that while those who have read up on the murders could differentiate between factual and speculative, the average reader could not.

[irina]

The mass of the people want a story that gets solved. Then there are people new to a case that want to have the whole thing with a tidy answer at the end. I have lived a lot in medium sized towns where folks have dubious literacy skills. I have known people who had relatives named Gillis, who seriously discussed whether or not they were related by blood to Dobie Gillis! (Curryong, etc., Dobie Gillis is a fictional TV character.) So if one is a clever writer and pushes his book just right, it will be very popular.

For those of us who really want to solve these mysteries, research is the only way and we must be able to go without answers or solutions, however long it takes. We also have to be flexible enough to accept what comes along. If Lizzie could absolutely be proven guilty for example, then my inquiring mind would want to know more about motive as I don't think she was just plain greedy.

[Aamartin]

The speculative books do have merit-- they attract people to the case in general where they can learn facts and make up their own mind. They are entertaining to read and do cause us to question our beliefs. I have waffled from Lizzie being innocent to guilty. Honestly? The only reason I think she did it-- nothing else makes sense. However, I do remind myself that the evidence was not enough to convict her-- then and now.

[Curryong]

Yes, a book, especially in a saturated market like the 'Ripper' murders for example, has to have 'a hook', if you don't want to write anything well-researched, like Philip Sugden. Publishers demand it. Of course, it's much better if the writer concerned is able to tell a story. After that, a basic knowledge of the facts of the case and a new protagonist and you may well have a best-seller!

[twinsrwe]

oops, wrong thread.

[irina]

Franz: Answering your questions on the note thread, I hope. I made a long and thoughtful reply then couldn't post it. Everything locked up and I barely got back on. I'm going to see if this will even post before I spend a lot of time making a longer reply.

[irina]

Franz: My whole system went haywire* last night & I couldn't reply. (*Haywire is an American expression referring to hay baling equipment, when the wire that is wrapped around bales clogged up the machinery.)

Back to the note. I tend to favour Masterton's opinion there was no note but Lizzie thought there was because she only half paid attention to something Abby said about a message.

But in reply to your questions to me Let us assume the note was a lie concocted by Lizzie. Is it a stupid lie or an intelligent lie?

What is the basic purpose of the lie? Abby isn't home and this is why she isn't home.

So what? Abby had a habit of doing the marketing in the morning. Considering the time of day the simple explanation or lie if one was desired, would be Abby is doing the marketing and she mentioned she got a late start and she'd be back a little later than usual.

If we contemplate a brilliant and complex lie about a note we have to ask, for what purpose? Some writers have suggested Lizzie wanted time to get away downtown so she would not be home when Abby's body was found. I don't see that holding together. If Lizzie killed Abby why not just leave immediately? If Lizzie planned to kill Andrew anyway, what purpose does the note serve? Once he was dead there was no purpose. What purpose does the supposed lie fulfill that it was told to Bridget? I don't see much if any gain there either.

One line of questioning I think in the inquest and one comment from Lizzie to Bridget seems to imply the story of the note served to announce that Abby was going to be out a long time and past dinner. If so, why mention anything about Abby getting items for dinner on the way? Anyway Lizzie admonished Bridget that if she went down town to the fabric sale, to lock the door as Lizzie herself planned to go out and Mrs. Borden was also out because of the note and sick friend, etc. Again, so what? Shortly after Andrew's body is found Lizzie asks people to look for Abby. She does not persist in the supposed lie about a note. If a brilliant lie about the note was part of a bigger plot, it seems Lizzie would have used this to her advantage. Instead the whole note thing just hangs there meaning nothing and making Lizzie look like a bungling liar.

Since the story of a note was not used effectively by Lizzie, to her advantage, I would have to say if she created the note as a lie it was a pretty stupid action which in the end served no purpose. By floundering with the story I see no sign of brilliant intelligence.

As I write something else occurred to me. If the note was a lie, who might it have best served? It could have served Abby herself if she wanted time alone or time to get away and do something on her own. What if anything could this have had to do with her murder?

[Curryong]

irina, I know your post was mostly addressed to answering Franz's questions, but I have to butt in and say

Lizzie seems to me to have been an impetuous and impulsive person (we'll leave aside the signs of a sullen temper that was sometimes observed.) Emma had more of a 'still waters run deep' kind of personality, in my opinion. There is something enigmatic about Emma.

It's been observed by masses of people who have been on the Forum over the years that this (impulsive) person, Lizzie, seemed to be making up stuff as she went along, telling one person one thing and another person something else again. The fact that she couldn't get her story straight has been long discussed.

Some have said that she was being deliberately obtuse, that she was muddying the waters so that no-one could get to the truth. I don't believe that, in fact. From the first time she told Bridget that tale about the note, Lizzie was 'flying by the seat of her pants'.

She had to stick to the basic version of the note, (with added bits and pieces about Abby marketing etc.), because that was what she had told Bridget when she was ironing. Lizzie knew, when she was being questioned by Fleet, that Bridget was also being questioned and would tell the police about the note. Lizzie did at various times try and veer off the note business but she was pulled back to it especially during the Inquest.

She didn't say anything about the note earlier when she was at the side door, because in my opinion, she hadn't thought of that particular elaboration yet. On that occasion she just said Abby was out because she didn't want Bridget coming in wondering where she and Abby were. Remember she said at the side door "I may go out,too." In fact, Lizzie had some things to do upstairs.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Lizzie was a 'Napoleon of crime' or indeed a brilliantly clever woman.

In my opinion she killed Abby because she was in a rage (about what we don't know) and Andrew out of necessity, after that. She got off, in my opinion, partly because of the primitive police investigations (why weren't her clothes taken from her, etc) partly because she was treated with kid gloves by the authorities that Thursday, by blind luck and by expert defence lawyers, by a weak prosecution case because of no viable weapon and no blooded clothing, (allied to my point about the police) partly because she did not give evidence at her trial (which would have exposed her lies and evasions) and partly by the social attitudes of the time, which had the notion that no Church-going middle-class spinster of respectable antecedents could ever possibly have committed such a crime. It had nothing to do with the brilliance or otherwise of her mind.

As I've said, Lizzie made up bits and pieces of alibi/ explanations etc on the run, from the time of the first murder, which fits into my theory that although she hated Abby and no doubt often fantasised about killing her, that first murder was an impulsive act.

Lizzie was a poor liar, she became muddled and mired in those lies, half-truths and evasions. She was also a very lucky woman. Very lucky, not very intelligent people have been found 'not guilty' in courts of law since time immemorial and no doubt will again. That doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime of which they were accused.

[irina]

And so Franz, we have Curryong's opinion in the matter which, though I disagree on some points, supports my contention Lizzie was of average intelligence and was not a brilliant criminal mastermind.

In considering a motive for Lizzie to have become extremely angry, one part of her remembered conversation with Abby does bother me. She asked Abby if she was going to change her dress before going out (marketing?) and Abby said she didn't need to, that what she had on was good enough. What an odd thing to remember. IF Lizzie did it I could imagine an argument wherein Lizzie told Abby she shouldn't embarrass the family that way; indeed that she would never again embarrass the family........

[Aamartin]

I don't think Lizzie was a scholar-- but she was crafty and probably possessed above average intelligence.