Lizzie Borden Society Forum

you've got my attention. more?

oh and i'd "kill" to know who you think the true JTR was....

Maybe Steph is interested in a deal on something absolutely new about the Ripper.
I've been working on Lindbergh, and how about something new about Lindbergh too - a dual.

***Actually, Haulover, there are people who believe that Poe did kill a woman, and some evidence of that. More if you're interested.***

i guess i have to ask. what evidence?

Mostly in a story he wrote similar to an abduction and slaying - I'll get back to you with more, but busy now. Girl's name was Mary Rogers or Rodgers - been a while. Cya.

He wrote that story about a girl that was murdered. It's called the Murder Mystery of Mary Rogers, but the girl's name was actually Marie Roget. Am I right?

Har, you read the Geary on that!

Yes, Kat, thanks to you.

I also have a half hour "Suspense" radio show made in 1960 titled "The Mystery of Marie Roget".

Back, Haulover. Yes they have the incident right. Poe didn't fit the description of who could have done that crime, but observations can be questionable. Poe wrote about it and suspiciously edited his story, deleting portions. It was at a time when Poe was having problems with himself and with his wife. Probably nothing to it, but it was an accusation that I thought you should know about.

i'm aware of the story. the real girl's name was rogers. poe made it french.

the murder happened in new york, body thrown in the hudson, i think.

Haulover @ Mon May 09, 2005 4:34 am wrote:i'm aware of the story. the real girl's name was rogers. poe made it french.

the murder happened in new york, body thrown in the hudson, i think.

I've heard the Poe theory before, but I doubt it. I incline toward the theiry that she died after a botched abortion.

Lynn

Did anything ever come of this idea of using modern forensics such as luminol? I guess it'd cost big bucks and unless some television producer was willing to pick up the tab it'd be too much for regular people. I did see a special the other day on TV where 2 men - one some sort of forensic scientist looked at Abby's blouse or neckerchief and they fit the so-called hatchet in the tears perfectly. They were wearing white gloves but they didn't do any blood tests at all. I was disappointed it was such a minor inspection.

As I stated in my account of my first stay at the house, there is a tape or DVD (I forget which) at the house about two modern forensic experts and their examinations of parts of the house and surviving objects involved in the case. If I understood correctly, their efforts seem to confirm the handleless hatchet as the murder weapon and to indicate that someone washed up in the basement after the murders. (See my account on page six of Headed to Lizzie's under Fall River Gatherings.)

Constantine,
Thank you for your reply but I cannot find the place you referred me to? I can only find 2 or 3 pages rather than the 6th page. I've tried and tried and can't come up with anything, could you possibly provide me with a link? My apologies, Suzie

That is the video that Stef and I were invited to be a part of: "Lizzie Borden Had an Axe." Stef has remained in contact with the Prof. and I interviewed him for my Hatchet article on the bloody handkerchief. (Aug/Sept 2008), "On the Trail of the Bloody Handkerchief."
We (and Harry) examined the thing in person, with our eyeballs, with permission of the Asst. Curator of the FRHS last trip up to Fall River.
It didn't seem to have blood on it.
Our member here, Augusta, started a Topic hereabouts recently asking about that item. I posted a reply there a couple of days ago.

Those experts did use Luminol and Stef was contacted the day they were using it! and asked if she or I had any places to suggest! That was so exciting. They had tested the ceiling of the cellar under where the sofa had been- we thought of that as they had thought of that as well. I suggested the threshold of Lizzie's room, because any blood there might show she lied that her room had been locked. But they didn't want to pull up carpet or mess up any exposed woodwork in the house proper, in that upper foyer. I think they were pretty interested in the cellar sites that reacted, and felt that was enough.

The Prof told me that the hatchet head was not proven to show it interacted with the handkerchief. He said it made good TV but they were unconvinced due to such a cursory examination. He said they should have tested the handkerchief for blood, but couldn't- it is in too delicate a shape- tattered silk already old in 1892.

That's like a Catch 22, they want to do forensics testing but are afraid of messing up the evidence so they don't. Very frustrating

Suzie:

Here is the link. Sorry if my directions weren't clear. (It's the seventh message down on the page):

viewtopic.php?t=74&start=125

Kat:

Thanks for the clarification.

Well, it's sort of new/insider info- no one would be expected to know any of this because the video is edited to make the program into what they want to present.

The Prof wanted to tell what he thought of that examination because he knew it looked like he and Tom Lange thought the HH was the weapon, but they thought no such thing~ it didn't prove anything and didn't disprove anything~ he wanted that clear.

Once you sign off on a TV show they can do what they want with the material they film.

Btw: sorry if I repeated myself on this topic from earlier- I did not go back to the beginning of this thread to even check my own memory!
I didn't realize this was a *resurrected topic*! I'm trying to catch up here after being away from the forum almost a month!

Angel wrote:Patricia Cornwell used her forensic talents to try to figure out the Jack the
Ripper thing. Has any professional ever done that with the Lizzie Borden case recently? It would be very interesting.

The only new thing I know of is William Masterston's : Lizzie Didn't Do It! and he corroborates with Laddie Berka who knew more about forensics than the author does. I haven't gotten to that chapter (think it's next, though!).