Lizzie Borden Society Forum

There's a new book in town on the Borden Murders. It's called Inadmissible, by Kimbra Eberly. Just published this past November.

Writing non-fiction can be daunting.

I try to stay away from it. I don't have the patience for the utmost research needed or critical investigation that goes into writing factual accounts and getting it right. You must use primary documents and undisputed sources to present the facts. If those cannot be found then one must weigh out multiple sources, find the truth, or come up with a soup of evidence and conclude an anticipated synopsis, hoping you have discovered the truth. Sometimes that's quoting other writers who themselves got it wrong but had best sellers and shiny reputations. Unfortunately there are many pitfalls and mislaid details which eventually are scrubbed by Lizzie sleuths and historians, and revised with unrelenting mercy.

I don't have the book, Inadmissible, yet, but have read a couple of pages in the intro. on Amazon. It appeared well written but it has its clumsy missteps and impulsive presumptions—details that are inaccurate or misleading. This in the first ten to twenty pages. Let's go over the ones I found.

The author describes the Bordens as middle class. Yet earlier in the book she claims that Borden is one of the richest men in town. Revision with unrelenting mercy... remember?

Borden was far from being middle class. Sure, he lived in a middle class neighborhood but in today's money Andrew J. Borden was worth around Twelve million dollars. Not middle class at all.

There is also reference to Rocky Point, a famous amusement park in Rhode Island. In the book it describes Rocky Point as being in Providence. It was not. Rocky Point was ten miles south of Providence, in the town of Warwick R.I.

Silly errors that should have never been made and with a little more prudent research, avoided. Now I don't feel comfortable pointing out errors in another authors book. But simple black and white truths must be amended.

To move on, the author goes on to say, "more importantly, Andrew Borden was NOT an undertaker." But in fact he was.

In the 1870s Andrew Borden was indeed an Undertaker. This was in unison with his business, Almy and Borden Furniture, which was located on South Main Street a block from his home. The author goes on to describe embalming as being a new procedure, which is true. Embalming was relatively new in the late nineteenth century. The practice came about in medical schools, where they needed to preserve the body for study, and during the Civil War, when bodies were transported home for burial. By the early twentieth century embalming was standard procedure for everyone and a new name for the profession was needed to separate the embalmer from the undertaker and his woodworking business. Many referred to themselves with the new term, mortician or funeral director. The term mortician had its birth in the late eighteen-nineties. Yes, Andrew Borden was not an embalmer or mortician with a funeral business, but he was indeed an undertaker—one who took on the formalities of death, including coffins and furnishings, like chairs and tables, whether for funerals or home use. In fact, if you go to a July 1859 Fall River newspaper adds in the Fall River Daily Evening News, it lists Andrew Borden and his business as Undertakers.

In the book the claim is made that the Irish lived in "single family residences". Not true and far from it. The Irish settlement in Fall River was centered in Corky Row, an approximate twenty-five block area just south of the Borden home and bordering or including it. The entire neighborhood was one three decker after another. Single family homes were rare here. Most were three, four, or six family apartment house. If you look at the 1877 birds-eye view map of Fall River it will bear it out. Corky Row was a community of multi-family homes when Lizzie lived on Second Street, after she moved away, and still is today. Though the Irish were up and coming, and some may have lived in single family homes, this was not the norm. Why the author even makes such a claim is strangely puzzling.

And one more thing. And I hope I'm not being picky here, or misinterpreting the information the author is trying to convey.

The writer describes the ethnic complexion of Fall River. She says, "The city was segregated into three areas. Portuguese and French Canadians lived closet to the water and mills." Not an accurate representation of Fall River at the time. Yes many new-arriving ethnic groups lived close to the mills. But that was true anywhere in the city, near or away from the mills and water. Fall River was a cluster of numerous ethic neighborhoods. There were a lot more than three areas. The French enclave was in the East end, better known as the Flint, and centered around Notre Dame Church. They also had a large population in the South End, around Saint Ann's Church and bordering the Irish community. In truth, Irish were splattered all over Fall River. And there was also a French community in the North End—around Saint Matthews Church. All these churches were French with mostly French priests and parishioners. The same was true about the Portuguese. Nearby every French neighborhood there was a Portuguese neighborhood. To make claim that there were only three segregated areas in the city in just not accurate. And though claim is made in the book that the Irish lived above the hill away from the mills or water, this is not true. In fact the Irish also made up a major population of families living in mill homes near mills and by the water. Below is a photo of Borden and Almy furniture company on South Main Street.

On a positive note the title of the book, Inadmissible, is one of the Best Lizzie Book Titles I have ever seen. Right up there with "The Girl from the House of Hate."

On a negative platter, the cover is all wrong. A bizarre fictional portrayal which has no place on the cover of a serious essay. It is real cool and would make a great cover for a novel. But all wrong for this book.

Hopefully Ms. Eberly will go in and revise some of these errors. If this is a print-on-demand publication, the procedure in making changes is a simple one. But perhaps not so simple to uncover the facts.

Since I have not read the entire book, I probably have said too much about it. I will get myself a copy, read it, and try to be less critical. We can only hope.

What a nice, subtle cover. :)

Thanks for the early review...if she is off that bad in the background pages, then I'm anticipating your final review will be even less favorable.

So far I've refrained from buying any of the speculative "non-fiction" Lizzie books. Closest to it would be "Case Against Lizzie Borden", but the author seems to withhold his deductions/theories until the end and clearly notes that is the case. Only found a few errors in that book to-date and none of any substance.

On a completely different note, I'm a Chiefs fan and in a really good mood this morning. Are New Englanders rooting for or against Brady in the Super Bowl?

Who are the other "murderous women" she covers?

Sorry, can't help you with that one, camgarsky4.

I no longer follow sports. Stopped doing so back in 1981 when major league baseball went on strike. Then in 94 or 95 they went on strike again and I was done with sports. I always thought that playing professional sports should be a civil service job. A player would get a decent wage and when the team won all the profit would go to the state it represents and we all get a tax break at the end of the season. It would give something worth while for us to cheer for.

Then I came to believe, "why should a cheer for a guy making ten million a year while I'm struggling to decide whether I can afford Charmin Toilet paper over the generic brand, or cat food over ground beef.

Though, I sill like watching young people, like little league or twilight league play. I have.witnessed some amaizing plays done by average week-end warriors. But most of my friends sons and daughter are adults now so there is no one to root for at the local park any longer.

When I was a child my heros were Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris. Everyone was a Boston fan. I was a Yankee fan. Mickey was a gentleman. Old videos of him corroborate that.

Yes Albanyguy:

I'm not very familiar with "women killers," though I have known one or two in my life... at least when it came to looks.

But here is a summery of her chapters.

.

Yes, Camgarsky4

From what my sports fan friends have been telling me, they are rooting for Brady in the Super Bowl, as long as he's not playing against the Pats'.

On the lighter side.

How about a Lizzie Borden Coloring book.... for adults. Yep

Published and issued this past July.

by Nicole R Kobrowski (Author), Esraa Elesber (Illustrator)

And found one more, in case you are into Mother Goose or the Tooth fairy.... (Such are paranormal accounts of anything Lizzie)

Clever title or should I say Cleaver title.

This title was also released this past summer.

MB -- any more updates on Inadmissible?

Just ordered Pearson's first Borden book "Studies in Murder".......still hoping to hear that the FRHS will republish the Knowlton/Pearson correspondence compilation.

Inadmisible Don't think I'll be reading it anytime soon since I've been busy with my own writing and other books piled and ready for ingestion.. Maybe I'll get to it sometime in the late spring.

At one time I would find such a title in a used book store in good time. Back in the 70s and 80s, my friend Don and I use to go on book excursions every Saturday.... all over New England. Unlike today, there were countless used book stores all over the countryside where hidden treasures could be disinterred, taken to the counter, and bargained for. The bigger the stack the more of discount you would get—including Pearson titles.

Of course, as you may well know, Pearson was an accomplished Librarian and consummate bibliophile, writing essays on murder and book collecting. To those interested in Lizzie, his book, The Trial of Lizzie Borden is a must read. It was published the same year Pearson died at the young age of 57. (Unless you are eighteen, then that is really, really, old.)

I purchased a couple of Pearson titles at the time. These included: The Voyage of the Hoppergrass, Books in Black, Red, Queer Books, Masterpieces in murder, and of course the titles in the photo below. Most of the others are stored away someplace in boxes. But the Lizzie titles below sit on my "Lizzie Shelf".

Sadly, I never got around to reading most of them or perhaps I have and have forgotten since most were purchased forty years ago.

I did read Smuttynose. Will have to read it again since I have forgotten most of it. It was the first Pearson book I purchased. Even before The Trial of Lizzie Borden. Smuttynose, the copy I purchased, was in rough shape. It was originally blue cloth. It was ragged and it had it's spine missing. I had it rebound long ago into what you see below, and as a collectable item, is one of my favorite "Lizzie genera" books.

As soon as the Knowlton/Pearson book is published by the Historical Society I will post it on here.

Just finished reading the Borden chapter in "Studies in Murder". I bought it off Amazon for $6....hardback 1935 edition. Compared to most of the other Borden books, that seemed weirdly low cost!

Anyway, I enjoyed Pearson's writing and telling of the murder story. I also got a lot insights from reading Professor Wigmore's paper on the case (Pearson references frequently, so I googled and found the full transcript). Wigmore provides a lawyers view of the strategic approach of the prosecution and defense.

Both Pearson and Wigmore included a few random errors, but nothing that I view as opinion shifting. Just ordered the Radin book so I can see how he goes about challenging Pearson's interpretations and views of the case.

Radin was the first account I ever read on the life and times of Lizzie A Borden and friends.

Edward Radin wrote many books about murder and crime and had been a crime reporter early in life just like Edwin Porter.

You will find that he is Pearson's nemesis and heavily criticizes Pearson's attack of Lizzie and cuts up the prominent librarian's precis

Though Lizzie Borden the untold Story is a worth while read, his presumption of Bridget's guilt is a little much, though he did come to Fall River and had done his homework.

When some of his works made it into the world of popular pulp rags they had great covers.

MB -- besides visiting the Borden house and gaining the huge benefits of actually getting a good grasp of the size and space aspects of the case, what are other advantages of visiting Fall River (pertaining to this case)?

Are there records that the Historical Society allows research visitors to the museum to study that are not readily available otherwise?

For example, would the society allow a researcher to study the Jennings Journals? Or the Hilliard papers?

Yes, one can handle primary sources at the historical society once the information has been released or published; such as Jennings. Of course this is done under appointment. The Society has a small research library. Some material, such as old newspapers, are in dire condition and they are not allowing the public to handle them. But if assistance is needed in getting to some of this material I believe it is possible for a fee, since conservators at the Society would need to handle the material themselves and assist.

Now as for Radin.

After Pearson's book, The Trial, books about Lizzie withered. Pearson's concise study appeared to cover all the bases and satisfied the public. There were a couple of well known publications some time after, such as The Girl from the house of Hate in 1953, I believe, by Samuel and Louise Samuels and Marie Belloc Lowndes sought-after title, Lizzie Borden; A Study in Conjecture.

Then there was Radin's Lizzie Borden, The Untold Story. The first critical look at the crime since Pearson.

He started a fresh look at the crime, one that became very popular amongst other writers—to blame someone other than Lizzie but not excluding Lizzie. He opened the door for Frank Spieling, Victoria Lincoln, Agnes de mille, along with the father of Lizzie fiction, Evan Hunter.

Radin had an advantage in visiting Fall River since he got to talk to people who were alive when the crime was committed or adults when Lizzie was alive.

I'm sure you will find Radin a worthwhile read if not an important one, even with his cockamamie Bridget accusation. It's one of my favorite reads.

As I mentioned above Radin got to interview a host of Fall Riverites. One such person was a Mr. Putnam. An excerpt from the book is written below. Spoiler information included. So if you are going to read Radin and don't want to spoil it for yourself stop here. (though I know you wont be able to help yourself)





.
"Father died in 1949," said James Putnam. "The picture he gave me of Lizzie Borden is not the one you usually read. He described her as a nice girl, fond of outdoor activities, one who was fun to be with. He said she was a very pleasant companion and he enjoyed her company. I believe they went to church together on Sundays when he was visiting in Fail River. I got the impression from him that Lizzie was a gentle girl, well liked, highly respectable, and Father was certain that it was psychologically impossible for a person of Lizzie's character to have murdered those elderly people, particularly with an ax. Nothing he read or heard after that ever caused him to change his mind and he died still firm in his belief in her innocence."

MB -- been meaning to ask....I read an article that Stefani wrote a few years ago where she was researching Bridget and the Irish immigration to Montana. In the article she reported finding the likely post-murder ocean liner voyage Bridget took back to Ireland and that Irish law at that time did not allow the Bridget's of the world to purchase land.

Stefani mentioned she was just in the beginning stages of her research and was planning to publish on the topic. Did this project keep traction and is there additional information on Bridget's post-murder activities?

Thanks
Steve

Yes:

Land ownership in Ireland in the 19th and early 20th century was a complicated bag. There were four or five land acts between 1870s and 1920s or so that addressed the problem of land ownership. Most of the actions were put forward to deal with land distribution. It was not that it was against the law to purchase land, but that 97% of the land in Ireland in the middle 19th century was owned by the rich, most of who were British. And at the time most of the land in Ireland was farm land.

Could Bridget purchase a small piece of land for herself in the old country? I suppose she could. If she could find some and had the money. Of this I am not certain.

...................................................

Stefani has left the Bridget issue simmering on the back burner while other more pressing works have come her way, as she manages her publishing company. She hopes to get back to investigating more about Bridget, but at the moment I can't really say when.

I am surprised that over time Bridget did not circulate more gossip about what real went down at the Borden House. I'm certain she had knowledge and certainties about things, even if she could not prove it. But talk is talk and unless you record it or publish it, possible truths get lost with time. Did Bridget have a good idea about who committed the crime? I think she had to. But who knows.

Well, that didn't go very well.

Stefani saw my post and vehemently disagreed with it... basically telling me I didn't know what I was talking about.

Ok.

She has done her research and has books on the subject of Irish Land ownership. Of course I stood my ground. Things are very boring around here with the snow and Covid, and a good squabble every once in a while is a distraction if not fun.

Yes, we both agree that Bridget did visit Ireland—and that there is no proof that she was paid off by Lizzie or purchased a farm. And that land barons owned most of the land, with a strangle hold on the population, and further compelling their lust for power. And that there was even a LAW which stated that the common man could not buy or own land.

But if I returned to Ireland with enough money back in the 1890s, my argument is that one of these land barons would be happy to sell me an acre or two for an exorbitant fee. That there were exceptions. My friendly advisory contends that it was not lawful for the average Joe to purchase property. I disagreed. At the moment I am sitting on the vacuum cleaner and hiding in a small closet to escape her common sense theory or expertise on the matter. Must hurry. It's dark in here, there's a shoe stabbing me in the back, and my computer power is waining.

I would imagine that if Lizzie really paid off Bridget that part of the deal would be that she leave the country. No proof anywhere, or even a hint, that she was paid-off.

But I will continue my quest on the "Land Issue in Ireland", do a little research, and nurture my quest to prove my partner wrong. Then I will voyage to Venezuela on my sailboat, overthrow the government, and return democracy to that impoverished country.

Wish me luck.

MB -- Amazon delivered "The Untold Story" late yesterday and I dove right in. Haven't gotten to where he critiques Pearson's writing approach, but unless there is a huge cache of family insights that I've missed (ie.not in Parallel Lives, on the forum, in any of the original documents, Knowlton Papers, etc), then he is making stuff up and a lot of it.

Ok.....I feel better, now back to the book.

Yes< I think Radin takes an honest approach to the crime even if he falls short of the "unknown truths" as they happened.

At least he is not like Frank Spieling who was just a sensationalist and should have stuck-to fiction. Old Frankie made stuff up even though he knew the truth. I don't think Radin makes stuff up. But the last time I read The Untold Story had to be north of forty years. Though Radin does have a skewed way of looking at the facts.


I remember a short time after Spiering's book came out I was at the Boston Antiquarian Book Show and spoke to a book dealer from Patterson Smith Booksellers, a booksmith from New Jersey specializing in true crime literature. He said that Spieling had contacted him and picked his brain about the rarity behind Edwin Porter's book The Fall River Tragedy. Paterson Smith informed Spiering that there were many around and that Porter's book was not as rare as some would think—which has proven to be true, since Stefani and I alone have owned five or six copies and so does the Fall River Historical Soc.. But Spieling choose to ignore the book dealer and write in his book that:

_______________________________________________________________________
*The Fall River Tragedy by Edwin H. Porter, printed privately in 1893, was the first book published about the murders. Only four copies are known to exist. A copy which was originally in the Library of Congress has vanished, one is kept at the State House in Boston, one is in the archives of the Fall River Historical Society and one is in my possession. Lizzie bought off the printer and had all the other copies destroyed before they reached the bookshops. Her reasons for doing so will be explored later.

He knew better.

As I read Radin's take on things, I kept feeling he was missing key pieces of information that is part of the source documents. Then it hit me that his views didn't seem to take into account the Witness Statements. He does specifically mention the Inquest, Prelim Hearing and Trial transcripts and newspaper articles.

When did the Witness Statements become available to the public or for someone like Radin? Is it possible he didn't have that information in 1961?

No, Radin did not have access to the Witness statements.

The preliminary information and inquests, along with the trial was made accessible to the public through newspaper accounts. However, the Witness statements were part of police investigation and never released. It was some time much later that the Historical Society received the information through the Hillard Papers.

The Hillard Papers were donated to the Historical Society back in 1989. (You remember 1989 The A's won the World Series over the Giants. )

The witnesses statements were secure with the Hilliard family and worked themselves down throught siblings until they became the property of a Donald Bradbury who married a Hilliard Gal. He donated the paperwork to the FRHS in 89 in memory of his wife. Until then no one had access to them.

Thanks! That explains so much......as I was reading I kept getting a frustrated sensation because he was leaving out key information and coming to conclusions that were just lopsided to me. Well, good reason.....he left out what he didn't know! :)

Makes you wonder what new info will pop up in the future that will change all the brilliant ideas we have now!

I must say I have found this book fascinating. I think Ms Eberly is the first person to suggest that Lizzie could have used her father's coat to shield her from any blood splatter. This makes more sense than Rebecca Pittman's suggestion that Lizzie wore two dresses that day, then burnt the soiled one. All that Lizzie would have to do is wash her hands and then call Bridget from upstairs. I think there is no way that Andrew Borden would have used his coat (wearing it that day in 90 degree heat!) as a pillow. He was by all accounts a very meticulous man in his appearance.

Another revelation in the book is the number of people in the Borden faI was inmily who had been convicted of murder over the last 300 years. In 1673 a man called Thomas Cornell was executed for his mother's murder. He had a daughter called Innocemt ((!) who married a Richard Borden, a direct descendant of Andrew Borden. Does this mean that there was a degree of insanity in the Borden family? An interesting theory.

I was interested in the other women in Ms Eberly's book who had committed murder, especially Madeleine Smith. Actually Ms Eberly is wrong about the verdict. She was not acquitted, but her case was found "non proven". This is a unique Scottish verdict. Translated, this means that the court are saying: "we think you're guilty but unfortunately there is insufficient evidence to convict". So Madeleine got away with murder.

Jcurrie -- the murderer using the Prince Albert coat as a blood shield has been espoused on numerous occasions on this forum over the past 20 years.

I agree that there is a very strong logic case to support that point of view. The coat was kept in the dining room closet which was less than 5 feet from where it was found on the sofa.

I am staying away from books that are being churned out with the same information PLUS the author's comments , especially the author's comments and artistic flare. Lizzie Borden was basically an unknown until after the tragedy. In my humble opinion there are just a handful of books out there that are of any value , and I do mean not many - starting with Edwin H. Porters book then Victoria Lincoln.

At least they actually knew Lizzie Borden and lived during her time. Of course the Lizzie Borden sourcebook is nice - basically a collection of articles, but they are all in one place.

And one that I am just starting is the one by Rebello which is informative as well, because it looks like he really did his research and compiled the news articles and made them read more like a book than something from a newspaper. That's about it. What I would like to see is a whole book on some of the "players" from birth to death. Example - Bridget Sullivan & Co. Everybody of notable importance. Maybe they are out there and I haven't discovered them yet.

Pretty much agree. I find it frustrating when an author (ex. Lincoln and/or Radin) make a statement as a fact, but provide zero sourcing information. That fits into what you call "artistic flair".

The books I lean into are Knowlton Papers, Parallel Lives, Case Against Lizzie Borden (W. Spencer) and Rebello's book. When the historical society republishes the Pearson/Knowlton Correspondence booklet, I'll definitely buy that. Anticipating some good tidbits from that publication.

If you are looking for birth to death on the major players, this forum is the best source I've found. There is much on Bridget and Morse's histories. Parallel Lives is the best source to get a broader view of the Borden sisters and the folks that knew them (ex. Elizabeth Johnston, Holmes & Bingham families, etc).

Yep - There was one that I downloaded as an e-book I think it was titled:
The Fall River Murders: and the Trial of Lizzie Borden
What a bore IMO. The Artistic Flair was too much - I promptly returned it.

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:02 am Just ordered Pearson's first Borden book "Studies in Murder".......still hoping to hear that the FRHS will republish the Knowlton/Pearson correspondence compilation.

Your wish has been granted. BECAUSE of you, seriously, because you brought this up, it made the FRHS wonder if it would be time for a new edition, and lo and behold, it has been published and is available for sale!

Through the FRHS, their site, or on Amazon.

That is great news! My copy will be on order tonight. Thanks for helping make this reprint happen.

Stefani, I’ll take this opportunity to ask, besides the witness statements, any other Lizzie case insights come from the the Hilliard papers? I’m only aware of the statements, but maybe there are other tidbits available. Thanks.

mbhenty wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:37 pm Yes:

Land ownership in Ireland in the 19th and early 20th century was a complicated bag. There were four or five land acts between 1870s and 1920s or so that addressed the problem of land ownership. Most of the actions were put forward to deal with land distribution. It was not that it was against the law to purchase land, but that 97% of the land in Ireland in the middle 19th century was owned by the rich, most of who were British. And at the time most of the land in Ireland was farm land.

Could Bridget purchase a small piece of land for herself in the old country? I suppose she could. If she could find some and had the money. Of this I am not certain.

...................................................

Stefani has left the Bridget issue simmering on the back burner while other more pressing works have come her way, as she manages her publishing company. She hopes to get back to investigating more about Bridget, but at the moment I can't really say when.

I am surprised that over time Bridget did not circulate more gossip about what real went down at the Borden House. I'm certain she had knowledge and certainties about things, even if she could not prove it. But talk is talk and unless you record it or publish it, possible truths get lost with time. Did Bridget have a good idea about who committed the crime? I think she had to. But who knows.

In one of the videos on YouTube that delve more into Bridget Sullivan, ie mention her ending up in Montana they mention her returning to Ireland first, that Lizzie and Emma had given her $5,000. but her not being able to buy land eventually returning to the US and working then marrying in Montana

To my knowledge there is zero documentation the bordens gave her any money and same with her trying to purchase irish property.

So much of what is told is all over the place. This is like untying knots

I got lucky and read the primary documents and "Case Against Lizzie Borden" when I first got interested. So when I read Lincoln and Radin I knew immediately to read just out of topic interest and to absorb as fact nothing that wasn't sourced. I always verified the sources in those books.

I encourage you to not read Lincoln, Brown, Radin, or Spiering until you have become much more versed with the official documents of the case. You'll find it is strangely fun to try to verify tidbits by cross referencing and triangulating other documentation and news stories. But also beware of news articles, many of them have errors and do their share of rumor mongering.

I enjoy this case because it is a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. We know what the completed puzzle looks like....two dead people. But figuring how the pieces fit together is what everyone has and are trying to do!