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

Re: [40Whacks] Lizzie

Expand Messages
  • Muriel Arnold
    Hi June: This was a simple murder case turned into a quagmire by Hosea Knowlton (for political reasons), by Bridget Sullivan to save her own skin, and by Edwin
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi June:
      This was a simple murder case turned into a quagmire by Hosea Knowlton (for political reasons), by Bridget Sullivan to save her own skin, and by Edwin McHenry to make money.
       
      I repeat again.  You need to follow Bridget.  You have to admit that a killer will lie, and tell more lies as the situation warrants.  Lizzie was noted for her truthfulness.  And, Arthur? Phillips, and detective Richards were sent to Newport to check on Bridget.  All they learned was that Bridget had a very hot temper.
       
      Now you people can go back to Maplecroft.
      Muriel
      Muriel Arnold
       
      Author of  Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
      For more information
      muriela@...
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: RevCOAL
      Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:03 PM
      Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Lizzie

      >The epiphanal moment which cause her to decide to contemplate murder.:
      >1.  Mrs. Borden refused to postpone the window washing in the dining room.
      >2.  Mrs. Borden again refused in the kitchen.
      >3.  Bridget's hot temper caused her to pick up the meat cleaver.
      >4.  Bridget followed her upstairs.  Mrs. Borden refused again and before Bridget herself realized what happened, Bridget had let her have it.

      "...before Bridget herself realized what happened..."????
       
      First off, that statement would NEVER be allowed in a court of law...you're assigning thoughts and motive to another that you yourself have no way of knowing with any certainty...but then again you are creating the window-washing-argument scenario out of whole cloth because, you yourself stated, there is no proof that it DIDN'T occur, ergo you contend that is proof that it DID occur....
       
      Second, you can't have it two ways, Muriel...you can't argue that Bridget would "lose it" so badly as to grab a meat cleaver to follow Abby upstairs to continue the supposed argument over washing the windows, and then say she killed Abby "before (she) realized what happened"; the very fact that you have her carrying a meat cleaver upstairs argues for premeditation, if only of a minute or two.   Her supposed "hot temper" can't cause her to grab a meat cleaver to carry upstairs (why else would she do so, if not to use against Abby?), and then say that her whacking Abby 11 or so times was almost an accident.  If you argued that she grabbed a heavy object in the room and brained Abby "before Bridget herself realized what happened", then perhaps we may be persuaded as to Bridget's possible involvement -- but having Bridget carrying a meat cleaver around the house is patently ridiculous...
       
      If Bridget had such an uncontrollable temper (which would be contrary to all statements given by those who knew her, who all said that she was a very nice, sweet, and EVEN-tempered woman), then you still have to explain why she didn't slaughter the whole household, including Lizzie and John Morse...
       
       
      >Bridget's arguing with Mrs. Borden:
      >No one can prove either way whether or not a voiceferous argument occured.
       
      But it's up to the person who is presenting a theory as PROOF of something to provide PROOF, not personal opinion; one could just as easily argue that Bridget and Andrew were having a mad passionate love affair, stating that there is no proof either way that they did or did not; or Lizzie embezzeled money from her father's accounts...no one can prove it either way, so I'll argue that it is the absolute truth...

      (NOT!)

      By admitting that 'no one can prove either way'  if this supposed argument occured, you admit that you have absolutely NO evidence to support your claim; but what there IS, is amply evidence  (based on contemporary accounts) that Bridget got along very well with her employers, including Abby; Bridget's duties in the Borden household were pretty light considering what was the norm for most maids, and washing the windows would have been a fairly minor request, one that certainly wouldn't have prompted Bridget to commit double homocide.
       
       
      >I agree with Benjamin Buffinton, the former homicide detective, who said the first murder
      >was unpremeditated

      Having Bridget carry a meat cleaver upstairs to continue the argument is NOT an 'unpremeditated' act; bringing the cleaver shows that the act was planned, if only for a minute or two before it actually occured...why bring it at all, if one is not planning on using it...?
       
      Actually Buffinton is a buffoon, stating that Abby's murder was 'unpremeditated'; whomever DID do it had to carry the hatchet/axe up into the room, or had deliberately hidden it in the room earlier -- both acts show premeditation...

      Abby was murdered by a weapon that had to have been brought into the room, either immediately before the murder was committed, or it was hidden in the room some time before.  A hatchet/axe, or even a meat cleaver, was not usually kept in that room, so whomever killed Abby had to have planned it, if only for a few minutes before the murder occured...
       

      >and Mr. Borden's was the removal of someone out of the way.
       
      Then why not also kill Lizzie, who would have been as much 'in the way', especially after Andrew was murdered; even if Bridget could come up with an alibi for the time Abby was killed, Lizzie surely would have suspected the maid of killing Andrew...
       
       
      >The murder weapon had to have been a cleaver.
       
      Testimony described Abby's wounds as showing traces of gilt, a substance put on NEW hatchets and axes, but not on meat cleavers; an old, used meat cleaver definitely wouldn't have had gilt on it.
       
       
      >Mr. Borden intervening.:
      >If the "argument had gotten out of hand, he would have. 
      >Maybe we should change "argument" with pleading.
       
      Oh, so now instead of letting her supposed 'hot temper' get the better of her, we have Bridget 'pleading' with Abby -- all the while hiding a meat cleaver in her apron pocket, a cleaver she 'just happened' to grab before following Abby upstairs...
       
      You have Bridget expending more physical and emotional energy in her supposed argument/pleading to get out of the window washing chore than would have been needed to actually DO the chore...

      >Bridget let Mrs. Borden have it.:
      >I agree with the doctors who claimed the first blow came from the front and Mrs. Borden
      >whirled and fell between the bed and the dresser, causing the bruises on her face.

      WHAT doctors said this?

      The location of the body when it was found and the angle of the blows argues that Abby not only was facing away from her attacker when the first blow occured, but that she was probably on her knees between the bed and dresser.  It is a pretty tight fit between the bed and dresser, and Abby's body could not have lain as straight and neatly as it did unless she was already halfway to the floor and just slumped down instead of falling; either that or the murderer took time to neatly arrange to body, which is hardly likely...
       
      One does not just 'whirl' when a large cutting object is wedged into one's head with great force....if one retains any modicum of consciousness one may turn and try to stumble away from one's attackers, but the pattern of blood spray in the room (what little there was) argues against such a scenario in this case...there was just a little blood found, mostly on the window frame of the window closest to Abby; if she had been attacked while facing her attacker and then 'whirled', there would have been more blood, and a greater blood spray pattern...
       
       
      >Abby was caught off guard.
       
      This we agree on; but there was no argument, the killer just snuck up behind Abby while Abby was performing some activity on the far side of the bed, an activity that had Abby on her knees facing away from the door (which suggests that she was looking for something in one of the lower drawers of the dresser, or perhaps was looking under the dresser...she may have perhaps been looking under the bed, which would suggest that she knew not only that someone had entered the room but who that person was, but was not alarmed by their entrance to stop whatever activity she (Abby) was in the process of conducting...
       

      >The impression I got was that Bridget had done something similar in the
      >past and Abby had relented.
       
      "The impression" you got?  Over WHAT?
       
      Bridget may indeed have asked in the past to be excused from a chore, and she may indeed have asked to be excused from washing the windows that morning; but you have no proof that Abby's supposed not relenting on the matter strangely turned Bridget into a homocidal maniac...
       
       
      >Can't believe Andrew wouldn't have said something to make sure
      >Abby's and Bridget's differences had been resolved:
      >Why?  Andrew took care of the money making.  The house problems
      >were in Abby's domain.
       
      Again, we have no evidence for this pro or con -- but based on everything else I've read about Andrew, it DOES seem like he took an active interest in household matters, and he definitely wasn't someone who would have tolerated his household being put into an uproar by an employee acting in an insubordinate manner...
       
       
      >A meat cleaver was specifically EXCLUDED.:
      >By whom? 

      By the testimony that indicated that gilt was found in some of Abby's wounds; gilt was only put on hatchets and axes, not on meat cleavers...

      Later on various weapons were used to measure against the wounds of the skulls -- only a hatchet or axe, with a fatter but shorter blade could have caused the types of wounds found on both skulls, a meat cleaver would have been too long and thin of a blade...
       
       
      >I  claim Lizzie went down to the cellar between 8:50 and 8:52.  She was there not more than
      >five minutes.  She then took up some of her clean clothes up to her room, where she stayed
      >basting a loop on one of her dresses for about two minutes,

      Do you know what 'basting a loop' IS?  How could Lizzie perform this chore in only 2 minutes?  It would have taken her 2 minutes just to get her sewing kit, measure and cut the tape, thread the needle, put on a thimble, and get the item to sew the loop on; if she was a particularly talented sewer she could have then perhaps spent only 2 minutes in actually basting the loop, but then there would have been more time spent in putting the needle, scissors, thread, and thimble away in the sewing kit and putting the sewing kit away, and then putting the petticoat away.  This also doesn't take into account the actual time involved in Lizzie coming upstairs, and then in leaving her room to go downstairs....
       
      If, as you contend, Lizzie went down to the cellar between 8:50 and 8:52 (one wonders how you can narrow the time down so precisely to a 2-minute leeway), then spent about 5 minutes there, that put's the time at between 8:55 and 8:57; where were her clean clothes?  In the cellar?  If so, you have her spending only 5 minutes to both wash out her sanitary napkin and then retrieve clean clothes.  That's cutting it pretty short -- one would think that it would take at least 5 minutes for Lizzie to wash the sanitary napkin.  But for sake of argument I'll concede that perhaps Lizzie only dropped the napkin into the bucket of water reserved for such items, and then gathered up her clean clothes and headed back up to her room...
       
      Of course this scenario does NOT take into account Lizzie having a cup of coffee and leisurely noshing on a cookie and chatting up Bridget and her father when she first came downstairs, as testimony had her doing -- if she came down at 8:45, she'd have had to gulp down the coffee and scarfed the cookie to get down into the cellar between 8:50 and 8:52...
       
      Add a minute or two to climb the cellar stairs with an armful of clothes (or a basket), then cross the first floor and climb the front stairs, and we have Lizzie getting to her room at around 9 am....as I showed above, it would have taken her a minimum of 5 minutes, probably more, to perform the chore of 'basting a loop'; one would presume that she also spent time putting the rest of the clothes she'd carried upstairs away...
       
      Which puts Lizzie just a few feet away when you contend Bridget rushed upstairs with a meat cleaver and either 'argued' or 'pleaded' with Abby about washing the windows; even if for some reason Lizzie couldn't hear the actual act of murder being committed, it is hard to understand why she failed to hear the 'discussion' that preceded it...
       
      So now you contend that Lizzie went downstairs and never went back upstairs; she HAD to have noticed that Bridget was nowhere around...even if she thought Bridget was outside washing windows, she had to have noticed after a few minutes that the windows were NOT being washed...
       
       
      >Carrying the cleaver upstairs showed she already planned on Killing Abby.:
      >NO.  Bridget gave Abby one last chance to change her mind.
       
      Why else carry a meat cleaver upstairs, unless you are planning on using it?  If one accepts your scenario then perhaps Bridget DID give Abby 'one last chance', but the fact then would be that Bridget WAS planning only 'one last chance', or else she'd let Abby have it with a meat cleaver.  Again, Bridget wouldn't have carried a meat cleaver upstairs unless she had in mind to use it...what, are you saying that she just accidently put it in her apron pocket a minute before continuing the argument, and when Abby wouldn't relent she only then thought "Gee, I have a meat cleaver in my pocket, I guess I'll kill my mistress with it because I don't want to wash windows"...?
       
       
      >Can't see Andrew allowing an alcoholic in his employ.:
      >He wouldn't have had Bridget been incompetent due to her drinking.
       
      They were adamant teetotallers -- unless you've had someone of that ilk in your family, as I did (one of the last members of the WCTU), you can't begin to fathom just how fanatical they are regarding having a drinker in their household; my WCTU great-aunt actually changed doctors because she was highly insulted when her original doctor of long standing suggested she alleviate the symptoms of a bad chest cold by quaffing a few tablespoons of whiskey every couple of hours; she stormed out of his office in high umbrage, never to return....

      Andrew would NOT have tolerated an alcoholic in his employee, whether it affected her duties or not; also, Lizzie was quite active in the WCTU, and she wouldn't have had such a friendly relationship with Bridget had Bridget displayed an obvious drinking problem...
       
      And you're arguing that Bridget was so set against washing windows due to a hangover that she'd kill; it seems to me that that suggests her drinking affected her competence, since presumably you're saying that if she didn't have this supposed hangover she'd have gladly washed them...
       
       
      >Moving heavy furniture.:
      >That is what I suggest to account for any noise Andrew might have heard
      >as Bridgset struck Abby another 18 times.
       
      Yes, but you're expecting us to believe that Andrew would have accepted that explanation, which would have been patently ridiculous, that right after hearing Bridget arguing or 'pleading' to not wash windows, that she's meekly accept moving heavy furniture...
       

      >Why hadn't anone noticed Bridget splattered in blood and how was she able
      >to reengage the INNER lock on the front door.:
      >Like I said, most people would have given Bridget just a glance and she was
      >wearing a dark blue dress.

      You're forgetting that apron that you say Bridget hid the meat cleaver under...
       
      And blood on dark blue leaves a very dark, very noticable purplish/maroon stain...
       
      Unless you're expecting us to believe that witnesses would have believed that part of Bridget's duties included slaughtering livestock, a disheveled and blood-stained maid would have been highly noticable to the many passers-by on the busy street...
       
       
      >Bridget re-locked the front door when she came in from "washing" the outside
      >windows.  That is what made Lizzie think her mother had returned.
       
      How did Bridget get to the front of the house without Lizzie noticing?  According to her account, after Bridget came back into the house via the back door and never went to the front foyer until Andrew got home...there would have been no opportunity for Bridget to relock those locks before Andrew returned home...
       

      >It would have been a cinch to go after Mr. Borden as he walked away from
      >Bridget as he headed towards the back door.:
      >NO.  Bridget knew Lizzie was downstairs.  She would have had to kill both
      >of them.  Instead, she waited for him to return home and take his usual morning
      >nap before dinner.
       
      This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever; in your scenario, there's absolutely no reason for Bridget not to kill Lizzie, too, so why wait? 
       
       
      >Why didn't Bridget kill Lizzie who for sure would have had Bridget's name
      >on the ip of her tongue as the prime suspect:
      >Why would she?  Lizzie knew Bridget had gone upstairs [she hadn't]

      You're trying to cover the time for Andrew's murder...I'm referring to the time of Abby's murder, Lizzie would have known that Bridget definitely could have done THAT one, and automatically surmised she also did Andrew in.  In your scenario it makes absolutely no sense that Bridget would kill both Abby and Andrew and not also kill Lizzie...
       
       
      >For sure Lizzie would have known that Bridget was upstairs with Abby.
      >WRONG.  Lizzie believed Bridget was outside washing windows.

      Bullshit.  After a couple of minutes it would have been obvious to Lizzie that Bridget wasn't washing windows, she would have been able to see and hear Bridget performing that chore, and after only 5 minutes she'd wonder why she wasn't seeing or hearing anything being done with the downstairs windows; she'd definitely be wondering after half an hour...
       
       
      >>What ladder?:
      >That's what I read in more than one newspaper.

      Give us the names of the papers, please, and quote the relevant passages...
       
       
      >How else could Bridget have gotten blood on the outside parlor window. 

      WHERE are you getting THAT from?  Who says that any blood was ever found on the outside parlor window?
       
       
      >It stayed on Dolan's mind, as he testified at both the Hearing and the trial about
      >what looked like blood but was rubbed and found to be dirt as it was impossible
      >for blood to have gotten there.  I say it was blood and it came from Bridget's skirt.
       
      Oh, so an expert witness determined that it was NOT blood, but you have decided, with absolutely NO supporting evidence, that everyone else was wrong and that it in fact was blood...?
       
       
      >>And again, why didn't Bridget kill Lizzie?
      >She did not kill Lizzie because Lizzie had been good to her.

      So had Abby...and Andrew, for that matter; Bridget was paid a much higher salary than was the norm for a housemaid, and she had much fewer duties and more time off than her peers...
       
       
      June
       
       
       
       

      ____________________________________________________
        IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here


      ---WHODUNIT???---

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • George Dargus
      To tell you the truth, Donna, I m at a loss to form an opinion. I ve read three or four books on the subject and know the fundamentals of the case. But it
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        To tell you the truth, Donna, I'm at a loss to form an opinion. I've read three or four books on the subject and know the fundamentals of the case. But it seems it's like a "she must've done it" vs a "she couldn't have done it" case. It reminds me of the current Blake's case. I cannot be certain of Robert Blake's guilt either, however strongly I suspect him.
         
        I have a hard time believing in Lizzie's alibi, that she was in the barn looking for sinkers for her fish lines. When interrogated, she said she hadn't fished in 5 years. As for Bridget, who was supposedly washing the windows, I haven't  formed an opinion about her. All I know is it seems Lizzie had a very good reason to kill her parents: the money. She always complained that her father was miserly and that she wasn't living the "life on the Hill" that she deserved. But a motive is not enough to convict a person. There was no hard evidence. So I guess the jury did the right thing in letting her walk: they gave her the benefit of the doubt.
         
        If she did the crime, I think, by being ostracized for the rest of her life, in a way she was punished.
         
        George
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Donna D
        Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:51 PM
        Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Lizzie


        George,
         
        This case has always fascinated me for as long as I can remember.  What theories do you have about who killed the Bordens?  I think Lizzie did it but that she had help, not sure who it was though.  But I know Bridget had to know something since she was home all day. 
         
        Donna

        George Dargus <argus1000@...> wrote:
        All I know is I joined this group a couple of weeks ago. I am interested in discussing the Lizzie Borden's case, but, if I receive one more advertisement about DVDs, or argument about those DVDs, I'm unsubscribing. Those sellers have NO business here! It's a shame they are not decent enough to know they are disrupting this group.
         
        George
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Donna D
        Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 5:35 PM
        Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Jeffrey Tesch!

        I don't know what you think you are accomplishing, but do you know it is illegal to post someones personal information like that?  He could press charges against you and at the very least he could have Yahoo ban you.  I used to enjoy this group and especially JT and Muriel's posts.  I don't know if everyone will just leave now since it is obvious the group owner is not around. 

        tlolb <tlolb@...> wrote:



        Jeffrey,

        I hope your craptape with that crap TBS recording on it is very bad
        so you can't see The Legend Of Lizzie Borden anymore, you can go to
        hell and I will never send anything to you and your address below!
        You are a huge asshole and talk alot of bullshit, you are a moron
        and everybody who wants to see this moron, visit Jeffrey at:




        Jeffrey K. Tesch

        233 Ritchie Avenue

        Cincinnati, Ohio 45215

        513-761-3411


        Jeffrey K. Tesch

        233 Ritchie Avenue

        Cincinnati, Ohio 45215

        513-761-3411


        Jeffrey K. Tesch

        233 Ritchie Avenue

        Cincinnati, Ohio 45215

        513-761-3411


        Jeffrey K. Tesch

        233 Ritchie Avenue

        Cincinnati, Ohio 45215

        513-761-3411















        ---WHODUNIT???---




        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

        ---WHODUNIT???---



        ---WHODUNIT???---




        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

        ---WHODUNIT???---

      • Jeffrey Tesch
        Muriel wrote several weeks ago: I honestly believe Lizzie thought evil of no one. As far as Lizzie was concerned, Bridget was upstairs in her bedroom and
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment

          Muriel wrote several weeks ago:

           

                      “I honestly believe Lizzie thought evil of no one.  As far as Lizzie was concerned, Bridget was upstairs in her bedroom and thus could not have killed her father, and outside washing windows when someone killed her mother.  Had Lizzie been guilty, she sure as hell would have tried to implicate Bridget.  All Lizzie had done was what she was noted for doing; telling the truth.”

           

          Now JT would like to put this to the group:  Does anyone else really believe that an innocent Lizzie would not suspect Bridget, and a guilty Lizzie would have implicated her?

           

          This dog don’t hunt!  And this is my main problem with Muriel’s theory – she degrades Lizzie to a bit player, a mere cameo in this wicked little family homicide.   Muriel has no real grasp of Lizzie’s character:  I submit what she wrote last month:

           

                      “I must admit I loved your describing Lizzie as a sullen, moody, repressed, implacable, possessive, petulant, frustrated, seething, vengeful, melodramatic and prophetic actress with the motive, means and opportunity… JT, most of those nasty things attributed to Lizzie came from her uncle, Hiram Harrington”

           

          I never considered the Harrington interview when I wrote that, but thanks for the bonus corroboration.  Lizzie was an infamous person, and many who knew her went on the record regarding her persona.  And Lizzie certainly didn’t help herself by venting to her friends after the half-house “treachery” went down.    

           

          An innocent Lizzie would have every reason to suspect Bridget – looking out the barn loft window she could see a killer enter and leave the side door (the front door is locked).

           

          A guilty Lizzie would do everything to exonerate Bridget – she would lie for self preservation only, but would never sacrifice an innocent servant (or creepy Uncle) to protect herself.  And since she was guilty, that is exactly what happened!

           

          But leave JT and Muriel out of it.  I want the group to weigh in – Would a guilty Lizzie have blamed Bridget?

           

          JT

        • Patricia Stephenson
          I just can t resist taking a stab at this one. Would a guilty Lizzie try to implicate Bridget? My gut feeling tells me that Lizzie felt absolutely justified
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I just can't resist taking a stab at this one.  Would a guilty Lizzie try to implicate Bridget?  My gut feeling tells me that Lizzie felt absolutely justified in killing Abby and then her father, and that they got exactly what they deserved.  However I think that in her lopsided sense of morality, she considered Bridget an innocent that she wouldn't think of blaming .  It was much easier for her to go on and on about an encounter her father had had with irate man that he would not rent space to in his building.  The other thing is that if she tried to throw direct suspicion onto Bridget with lies, then Bridget would know that, and it would make a real mess of things.  I think the opposite happened.  I think that Bridget knew more than she let on....not actually eyewitnessing anything, but maybe knew of small (possibly relevant) tidbits regarding Lizzie and her behaviour.
             
            Patsy
            Jeffrey Tesch <jtesch@...> wrote:

            Muriel wrote several weeks ago:

             

                        �I honestly believe Lizzie thought evil of no one.  As far as Lizzie was concerned, Bridget was upstairs in her bedroom and thus could not have killed her father, and outside washing windows when someone killed her mother.  Had Lizzie been guilty, she sure as hell would have tried to implicate Bridget.  All Lizzie had done was what she was noted for doing; telling the truth.�

             

            Now JT would like to put this to the group:  Does anyone else really believe that an innocent Lizzie would not suspect Bridget, and a guilty Lizzie would have implicated her?

             

            This dog don�t hunt!  And this is my main problem with Muriel�s theory � she degrades Lizzie to a bit player, a mere cameo in this wicked little family homicide.   Muriel has no real grasp of Lizzie�s character:  I submit what she wrote last month:

             

                        �I must admit I loved your describing Lizzie as a sullen, moody, repressed, implacable, possessive, petulant, frustrated, seething, vengeful, melodramatic and prophetic actress with the motive, means and opportunity� JT, most of those nasty things attributed to Lizzie came from her uncle, Hiram Harrington�

             

            I never considered the Harrington interview when I wrote that, but thanks for the bonus corroboration.  Lizzie was an infamous person, and many who knew her went on the record regarding her persona.  And Lizzie certainly didn�t help herself by venting to her friends after the half-house �treachery� went down.    

             

            An innocent Lizzie would have every reason to suspect Bridget � looking out the barn loft window she could see a killer enter and leave the side door (the front door is locked).

             

            A guilty Lizzie would do everything to exonerate Bridget � she would lie for self preservation only, but would never sacrifice an innocent servant (or creepy Uncle) to protect herself.  And since she was guilty, that is exactly what happened!

             

            But leave JT and Muriel out of it.  I want the group to weigh in � Would a guilty Lizzie have blamed Bridget?

             

            JT



            ---WHODUNIT???---


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • Muriel Arnold
            Hey gang: I m watching Court TV and they ve been announcing that next Wednesday, at 9:00 p.m., they will be covering the Lindburgh kidnapping on Court TV.
            Message 5 of 11 , May 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey gang:
              I'm watching Court TV and they've been announcing that next Wednesday, at 9:00 p.m., they will be covering the Lindburgh kidnapping on Court TV.
              Muriel
               
               
            • Muriel Arnold
              Hi Gang: This should make JT happy. I just received an article on Lizzie in the Fall River Heral News dated Sunday, August 6, 2006. A psychic, Glenn Tezza
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 15, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Gang:
                This should make JT happy.  I just received an article on Lizzie in the Fall River Heral News dated  Sunday, August 6, 2006.
                 
                A psychic, Glenn Tezza went to 92 Second Street on August 4th, Friday, and spent the night in the cellar.  Then on Saturday, he slept in the attic. 
                 
                Those who went on Friday, watched a costumed murder reenactment, participated in a seance and readings, and glimpsed the famous murder scene.
                 
                For Tezza, this was his third visit.  He came with various spirit-detecting equipment and cameras.  Tezza claimed that:
                "The father is the one who haunts the place."  "It's not Lizzie."  Tezza claimed Lizzie and Abby also roam around the house.  He claimed he ran into Lizzie in the basement in 2005.
                 
                Tezza claims that "Lizzie did it.  She did it and the maid (Bridget) helped her cover it up,"  "It was a combination of everything coming to a head.  She did it in a rage."  [I agree with Tezza about the murder (s) being committed in a rage.]
                Tezza's reasoning was that she found out that her father, a very frugal man, was giving a piece of her inheritance to her uncle and stepmother.  Tezza  also believes Lizzie and Emma were sexually abused by their father and uncle.  And that Bridget help Lizzie clean up after the murders.
                 
                Tezza said:  "The murders that day left an imprint of rage on the Borden house that still exists today"
                Faye Mussellman of Arizona, wrote a screen play which tells about the murders, though it does not show who actually committed the crime.  She is working with the owners [Donald Woods] to find an agent to produce the piece as a movie or mini-series. 
                 
                Tours are from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
                Muriel
              • Rev COAL
                I would take with many big grains of salt any psychic who attempts a reading after both a reinactment and a seance were held in their presence.... I also would
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 17, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I would take with many big grains of salt any psychic who attempts a reading after both a reinactment and a seance were held in their presence....

                  I also would be hesitant to accept ANY readings done in that house -- no way to tell whether one is picking up vibes of what actually happened, or the thoughts of the hundreds of visitors over the years who have projected their own beliefs into the ether....

                  I doubt Lizzie's ghost would be hanging around the 2nd Street abode, if she was supposedly so desperate to get out of it when she was alive...

                  Now Maplecroft may be another matter....'twould be interesting to have a qualified psychic or two do a reading of that house.....


                  June  ;-)

                  From: Muriel Arnold
                  Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:31 AM
                  To: 40Whacks@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [40Whacks] Lizzie

                  Hi Gang:
                  This should make JT happy.  I just received an article on Lizzie in the Fall River Heral News dated  Sunday, August 6, 2006.
                   
                  A psychic, Glenn Tezza went to 92 Second Street on August 4th, Friday, and spent the night in the cellar.  Then on Saturday, he slept in the attic. 
                   
                  Those who went on Friday, watched a costumed murder reenactment, participated in a seance and readings, and glimpsed the famous murder scene.
                   
                  For Tezza, this was his third visit.  He came with various spirit-detecting equipment and cameras.  Tezza claimed that:
                  "The father is the one who haunts the place."  "It's not Lizzie."  Tezza claimed Lizzie and Abby also roam around the house.  He claimed he ran into Lizzie in the basement in 2005.
                   
                  Tezza claims that "Lizzie did it.  She did it and the maid (Bridget) helped her cover it up,"  "It was a combination of everything coming to a head.  She did it in a rage."  [I agree with Tezza about the murder (s) being committed in a rage.]
                  Tezza's reasoning was that she found out that her father, a very frugal man, was giving a piece of her inheritance to her uncle and stepmother.  Tezza  also believes Lizzie and Emma were sexually abused by their father and uncle.  And that Bridget help Lizzie clean up after the murders.
                   
                  Tezza said:  "The murders that day left an imprint of rage on the Borden house that still exists today"
                  Faye Mussellman of Arizona, wrote a screen play which tells about the murders, though it does not show who actually committed the crime.  She is working with the owners [Donald Woods] to find an agent to produce the piece as a movie or mini-series. 
                   
                  Tours are from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
                  Muriel
                • PatriciaLu@aol.com
                  Anybody else watch the show called Haunting Evidence on Court TV? They take two psychics and a paranormal expert to the scene of an unsolved crime and try to
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 17, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Anybody else watch the show called Haunting Evidence on Court TV? They take two psychics and a paranormal expert to the scene of an unsolved crime and try to recreate it. It's pretty much on the level...no hokey drama typically. It's amazing what they pick up on, knowing nothing about the case, or even the destination of where they're going.
                     
                    This past week, it was a girl who was murdered on a beach and the killer cut off her hands and the one female psychic immediately started rubbing her own wrists and picked up on that.
                     
                    I was thinking it would be interesting to bring them to Second Street... and I agree with Muriel that Lizzie would be much more likely to hang around Maplecroft!
                    {Pat
                  • Patricia Stephenson
                    Hi June, I think you make a very good point regarding Maplecroft. Patsy Rev COAL wrote: I would take with many big grains of
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 17, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi June,
                      I think you  make a very good point regarding Maplecroft. 
                       
                      Patsy

                      Rev COAL <ynrchyldzwylds_hobby@...> wrote:
                      I would take with many big grains of salt any psychic who attempts a reading after both a reinactment and a seance were held in their presence....

                      I also would be hesitant to accept ANY readings done in that house -- no way to tell whether one is picking up vibes of what actually happened, or the thoughts of the hundreds of visitors over the years who have projected their own beliefs into the ether....

                      I doubt Lizzie's ghost would be hanging around the 2nd Street abode, if she was supposedly so desperate to get out of it when she was alive...

                      Now Maplecroft may be another matter....'twould be interesting to have a qualified psychic or two do a reading of that house.....


                      June  ;-)

                      From: Muriel Arnold
                      Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:31 AM
                      To: 40Whacks@yahoogroup s.com
                      Subject: [40Whacks] Lizzie

                      Hi Gang:
                      This should make JT happy.  I just received an article on Lizzie in the Fall River Heral News dated  Sunday, August 6, 2006.
                       
                      A psychic, Glenn Tezza went to 92 Second Street on August 4th, Friday, and spent the night in the cellar.  Then on Saturday, he slept in the attic. 
                       
                      Those who went on Friday, watched a costumed murder reenactment, participated in a seance and readings, and glimpsed the famous murder scene.
                       
                      For Tezza, this was his third visit.  He came with various spirit-detecting equipment and cameras.  Tezza claimed that:
                      "The father is the one who haunts the place."  "It's not Lizzie."  Tezza claimed Lizzie and Abby also roam around the house.  He claimed he ran into Lizzie in the basement in 2005.
                       
                      Tezza claims that "Lizzie did it.  She did it and the maid (Bridget) helped her cover it up,"  "It was a combination of everything coming to a head.  She did it in a rage."  [I agree with Tezza about the murder (s) being committed in a rage.]
                      Tezza's reasoning was that she found out that her father, a very frugal man, was giving a piece of her inheritance to her uncle and stepmother.  Tezza  also believes Lizzie and Emma were sexually abused by their father and uncle.  And that Bridget help Lizzie clean up after the murders.
                       
                      Tezza said:  "The murders that day left an imprint of rage on the Borden house that still exists today"
                      Faye Mussellman of Arizona, wrote a screen play which tells about the murders, though it does not show who actually committed the crime.  She is working with the owners [Donald Woods] to find an agent to produce the piece as a movie or mini-series. 
                       
                      Tours are from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
                      Muriel


                      Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.