Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [40Whacks] Digest Number 298

Expand Messages
  • Jay Selberg
    Now, Now, JT, don t get testy with Murial. I enjoy her passion for her point of view, as much as I have enjoyed your posts. To be fair to Muriel, too, she
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Now, Now, JT, don't get testy with Murial. I enjoy her passion for her
      point of view, as much as I have enjoyed your posts. To be fair to Muriel,
      too, she doesn't push her book for sale. She just mentions it at the end of
      her post. As for your question as to whether we believe her theory or not,
      I think she puts forth a good case, but I still am not swayed. Like most, I
      believe Lizzie did it.

      Play nice! And don't go away mad.

      Jay, who wants to hear more about your Bundy article.
    • Jeffrey Tesch
      Jay: Sorry if I got testy. And Muriel, peace to you as well. I too respect your passion and insight about this case. Bridget is the only other logical
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Jay:

        Sorry if I got testy. And Muriel, peace to you as well. I too respect
        your passion and insight about this case. Bridget is the only other
        logical suspect with means and opportunity. It's the motive that
        doesn't fly, and your reconstruction doesn't fit the logistics of the
        house.

        Of course Lizzie did it. Like my wife says, "It's the only answer that
        makes sense."

        Jay - I will post the stunning conclusion to the Bundy piece this week!
        STAY TUNED...

        JT

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Jay Selberg [mailto:jselber1@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:03 PM
        To: 40Whacks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Digest Number 298

        Now, Now, JT, don't get testy with Murial. I enjoy her passion for her
        point of view, as much as I have enjoyed your posts. To be fair to
        Muriel,
        too, she doesn't push her book for sale. She just mentions it at the
        end of
        her post. As for your question as to whether we believe her theory or
        not,
        I think she puts forth a good case, but I still am not swayed. Like
        most, I
        believe Lizzie did it.

        Play nice! And don't go away mad.

        Jay, who wants to hear more about your Bundy article.


        ---WHODUNIT???---

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Muriel Arnold
        Hi Jay: I m really not mad at JT, it s just that he can sort of get my goat some when he puts so much faith in what Victoria Lincoln wrote. My mother had a
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Jay:
          I'm really not mad at JT, it's just that he can sort of get my goat some
          when he puts so much faith in what Victoria Lincoln wrote. My mother had a
          copy of her book in her bookcase. I tore that book apart and JT would have
          turned red if he had read what amounted to nearly a chapter when I got
          through with her. It went only to my mother and I didn't bother mentioning
          Lincoln in my book.

          But thank you Jay for coming to my defense. All I plan on doing is wait for
          you people to come out with something that my research can show is hogwash
          and you'll hear from me.

          Right now I have only two books left on Lizzie (over the last five years, I
          got rid of about 15). One is the Knowlton Papers (he was a son of his
          mother. See how nice I am?", and the other is Rebello's.

          All I can say for Bridget was that she aimed to please. You tell me what
          you want the answer to and I'll give you the answer, even if it takes me
          four tries, says Bridget.

          Rebello has it that Knowlton knew nothing about the first arrest warrant.
          Chief Hilliard claimed that was true. But sometime after this occurred,
          Hilliard told reporters that Lizzie was arrested at the instigation of
          Knowlton. So you see, all was not kosher between Hilliard and Knowlton.
          Take McHenry:

          Hilliard told reporters McHenry was paid till the end of August only. If he
          was in anyone's employ, it was the mayor's. The reporters found the mayor
          who claimed he was not paying McHenry and if anyone was, it was Knowlton.
          And that's what makes this case so interesting, finding the truth.
          Muriel

          Muriel Arnold

          Author of Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
          For more information
          muriela@...
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Jay Selberg <jselber1@...>
          To: <40Whacks@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:03 PM
          Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Digest Number 298


          > Now, Now, JT, don't get testy with Murial. I enjoy her passion for her
          > point of view, as much as I have enjoyed your posts. To be fair to
          Muriel,
          > too, she doesn't push her book for sale. She just mentions it at the end
          of
          > her post. As for your question as to whether we believe her theory or
          not,
          > I think she puts forth a good case, but I still am not swayed. Like most,
          I
          > believe Lizzie did it.
          >
          > Play nice! And don't go away mad.
          >
          > Jay, who wants to hear more about your Bundy article.
          >
          >
          > ---WHODUNIT???---
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.