Lizzie Borden Society Forum

mbhenty wrote:
Let me give you a little bit of advise, Mr. rgj.

I may not run this forum, but I am sitting at the administrator's computer, and one finger away from pressing the key and removing you from this assembly. If you don't believe it. Try me. If you persist and continue to name call, insult, and ridicule anyone, including myself, you will be banned from this site.

It is apparent you are without control, even after I offered you the benefit of doubt and was good enough to remove any derogatory slander or mockery of you from this forum. It is apparent you have no understanding of my action or respect for it.

Excessive rudeness and smutty coarse behavior will not be tolerated.

Since I left this forum almost a year ago I have been monitoring it and it has been running smoothly with excellent exchanges of ideas and pleasant talk, along with a wealth of new members . That is why I returned.

And believe me my porn surfing friend, if it comes to me or you, you are gone.

My suggestion to those on this forum is that if you feel uncomfortable by Mr. rgj, his manner of speech, and admission to Porn sites, do not reply to his posts. For I am afraid that Mr. rgj will not be able to control himself and his days may be numbered.

There's enough ugliness in the world. We don't need any of it here.

Take it to some other forum and get "excited" somewhere else.

MBhenty

mbhenty wrote:
There's enough ugliness in the world. We don't need any of it here.

Take it to some other forum and get "excited" somewhere else.

MBhenty

taosjohn wrote:Not that I am sure that the presumably verbal identification of the pale faced guy ...the pronunciation might have been without detectable distinction... spelling too for that matter.

FWIW I think you have an entirely unrealistic trust in the veracity of newspaper reporting of the time too. We grew up in that sort of responsible period between Lindbergh and OJ that Bill writes about. Before and since there was and is a much higher ratio of fiction, inadvertent and fiction, intentional to fact than was common in our formative years.

RGJ wrote:

taosjohn wrote:Not that I am sure that the presumably verbal identification of the pale faced guy ...the pronunciation might have been without detectable distinction... spelling too for that matter.

Well...this conversation doesn't make sense perhaps to the readers now that it has been edited. But that name showing up in two places seem to be pushing the bounds of coincidence. They do come from the same root, and I've even seen census records where the names mutate right in a generation.

FWIW I think you have an entirely unrealistic trust in the veracity of newspaper reporting of the time too. We grew up in that sort of responsible period between Lindbergh and OJ that Bill writes about. Before and since there was and is a much higher ratio of fiction, inadvertent and fiction, intentional to fact than was common in our formative years.

Well, that probably is a valid criticism, but here I am dealing with two straight up documents -- the 1939 letter, and the will probated in 1926. No media (yet :-) )

I've seen three in Fall River identified as "coachman" and "livery" the sort of job the guy they braced for the murder was from. ...so, trying to find more there. I'll PM you some stuff, TJ.

Heck, I've seen 'em mutate from week to week-- 'Murricans aren't always great spellers. And from our own time, the brothers, Iorg say straight facedly that one pronounces it "Erg" and the other "Orj." (Baseball players for the uninitiate.)

Curryong wrote:Your suspect was in his mid-40's when the U.S. entered WW1. Surely they wouldn't have been drafting men of that age? In Britain they began with late teens, early twenties, then late twenties, then thirties and so on with married men next.

Liverymen weren't 'beef salesmen'. He may have been delivering meat around town to customers for Wardell's. That's an old term for the men who transported goods for their employers.

Curryong wrote:I'm sticking strictly to facts here. Mark Chase was a stable hand at Hall's stable over the road from the Borden house. He was very tall and a former policeman. He was several times that Thursday morning between Wade's Store Second St and Hall's stables. Chase at first told the police he saw nothing unusual. Later he said he saw a man eating pears from the pear tree lining the Borden front fence. He said in his witness statement that he saw a man in an open box buggy near the tree at the Borden property at between 10 and 5 to 11 am. The man was wearing a black hat and a brown coat but he couldn't see his full face and so couldn't see whether he was a stranger or not. I thought it was Dr Handy who saw the pale faced stranger, though he later back pedalled on the importance of this.

Curryong wrote:I've just looked it up. There were three registrations in the US between 1917-18. The first two concentrated on 18 to 31 year olds, the third, in September 1918 picked up 18 to 45 year olds so he would have just scraped in. Luckily for him the war ended in the November, so, as he was on the very edge of the age limit and they would have taken the youngest first, he probably didn't even get to train, lucky man!

Curryong wrote: Later he said he saw a man eating pears from the pear tree lining the Borden front fence.

RGJ wrote:

Curryong wrote:Curry and taos, can you PM me and I will send you links?

Curryong wrote:: WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE

Postby Harry » Wed May 04, 2011 3:04 pm
More from the pages of the FR Herald of August 11th. This on "Mike the soldier":

"... He was Michael Graham, better known as "Mike, the soldier," a weaver employed in Border City mill No. 2, and for some days previous to last Thursday he had been drinking freely. The officers learned that Graham was in the vicinity of the Borden house just before 10 o'clock on the morning of the murder and that his physical condition, as a result of his excesses, was such as to render his countenance almost ghastly in its color. He reached the mill where he is employed shortly after 10 o'clock and his condition was at once apparent, and the men in charge there declined to allow him to go to work. The officers found the saloons in which Graham spent Wednesday night and learned there that he drank immoderately, and was feeling badly as a result. The description of Graham corresponded in every particular with that given by Officer Hyde, who furnished more details as to the clothing of the man than could be advanced by Dr. Handy. His trousers were of a peculiar texture and hue, and were rendered extremely noticeable on this account. This in itself was believed to be sufficient identification, but in all other particulars there was an unmistaken similarity, and the authorities arrived at once at the conclusion that the man was identical with the person described by Dr. Handy and the police officer. The explosion of this theory afforded much satisfaction to the authorities."

The incident was looked into by the odd combination of Detective McHenry and Officer Medley

taosjohn wrote:

RGJ wrote:

Curryong wrote:Curry and taos, can you PM me and I will send you links?

Not altogether comfortable with this request?

Can you not post it publicly and just try to hold on to the notion that the standards of polity here are higher than you are used to?

Curryong wrote:The Borden house rear and front. The pear tree at the front is not lining the fence but in full foliage, overhangs it.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/portfolio/images


Just put Masterson, who you place a great deal of faith in aside for a minute, and go to the witness statements of Dr Hardy's, which the police took seriously and certainly followed up, and you will see that a very different picture emerges of Dr Hardy, and his certainties about what he saw and his demeanour when dealing with the police after the murder.

Of course Masterson dismisses him. He's writing a book saying Lizzie didn't do it! And yes, I have read the book.

Dr Hardy himself was seen in his buggy in Second St that morning by one witness, twisting and looking around in what the witness described as a strange manner. He might as well be accused of the deed!

Aamartin wrote:we are very protective of the forum and one another. And although it probably isn't exactly fair-- one really needs to earn respect and credibility here. within the past year we have had long time members leave due to their perceived unkind behavior and rudeness on the forum. I personally, agreed with some and not others in their assessments of what was inappropriate. Mbh is a long time, well respected member here. He deserves the respect you would accord any old member of a club or organization you joined. Please don't make this worse than it already is. I wasn't able to read your post before it was edited, but I will say I have never seen Mb edit a post in my 10+ years here. So I trust it was appropriate for him to do so.

In my experience, pissing contests only serve to make fools out of those participating in them.

Aamartin wrote: In my experience, pissing contests only serve to make fools out of those participating in them.

Aamartin wrote:I for one don't think he needs to come back. He deliberately crossed the line with the Old Wobbly remark-- which was uncalled for and mean spirited and not even remotely applicable.

BOBO wrote:Does declaring yourself an atheist fall under the "no religion" clause? Just asked. I've seen it posted. I know this is your site, but a two person dictatorship should not rule. You can remove me at this time. BOBO

Adminlizzieborden wrote:

BOBO wrote:Does declaring yourself an atheist fall under the "no religion" clause? Just asked. I've seen it posted. I know this is your site, but a two person dictatorship should not rule. You can remove me at this time. BOBO

Oh, don't be silly. I mean debates about religion. Debates about politics. Unless you are debating Lizzie's possible choices, this is not the forum to post diatribes on your own beliefs in these areas. These are the rules that are listed in the top part of this forum under user rules.

Mbhenty is not in charge here. I don't agree with him all the time, and he went away from this forum for a big while over some discord that was happening back then. People do come and go here. That is to be expected. Some abandon the subject of this crime and the people and the city and move on to other pursuits. Others stay and are fascinated by the disparate views that are expressed here by folks such as yourself.

This forum is meant to be a kind of soirée. A social society that comes together in thoughtful kindness and respect for one another. That is the plan. It doesn't always work out that way, that's for sure.

There is a site on FaceBook right now that I read called Threw Up in Fall River, a take on the group called Grew Up in Fall River. Those people let it all hang out. It is liberating to them to be allowed to curse and rant and hate and attack others less fortunate than themselves. It didn't start out that way, but it has ended up being primarily filled with people who enjoy cussing, cursing, and being mean whenever they feel the spirit moves them. It is a closed group now because people there were actually being brought into court for some of the things they posted.

This forum will NEVER get into those types of activities, and the only way to make sure it doesn't devolve is to nip stuff in the bud. I am not on the forum every day, and so I rely on you, its members, to let me know if a situation is getting out of hand and misbehavior is appearing. You help keep this forum safe and sound. And for that, I sincerely thank you.

So, no BoBo, saying you are an atheist is not what I meant, and I am sure you know that. Pretty funny post, actually. Thanks for asking the question.

Cheers,
Stefani

Aamartin wrote:sitting on the fence? IN every photo I have seen of the house circa 1892, that fence has pickets!