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

Re: No Blood

Expand Messages
  • revcoal@mindspring.com
    Message 1 of 25 , Aug 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeffrey Tesch wrote:

      >***my point was that of course Lizzie knew he was dead 
      >she'd just whacked him 10 times. 

      MY point is that one needn't be the murderer to deduce that
      the victim was dead...

      >***If it was MY father, I would have stepped over the body

      >and turned on the TV…

      And therefore, based on your very own logic, we'd be justified
      in deducing that you yourself were his killer...


      >***OK June, time to get down off the fence.  Who was swinging
      >the axe? 

      I really don't know -- but in my "conspiracy theory" I definitely
      hold Uncle John AND Dr. Bowan high on the list of members
      of that conspiracy...

      And I've already raised the question of the mysterious person
      referred to in contemporary reports as "Dr. Handy's man", which
      no one has answered...


      >***menstrual blood from the outside how does that work?

      It was my understanding that the pinprick of blood found on one
      of Lizzie's petticoats (not necessarily the one she was wearing
      the morning of the murders) was found on the INSIDE of the petticoat,
      not the outside...

      And any women past puberty can easily understand how one's own
      menstrual blood can get on the outside of one's garment...


      >And Lizzie admitted taking some clean laundry upstairs that
      >morning.  Good place to hide the weapon as she approached
      >Abby and she never saw that one spot.

      If you ever watched the PBS series "1900 House", you realize how
      difficult doing laundry was in those days; I'm surprised that the women
      of the house undergarments didn't all have more evidence of "flea bites"
      than that one pinhead-sized spot on Lizzie's...

      It doesn't wash, Jeff (and yes, pun IS intended <g>)...someone
      committing 2 messy ax murders should have more than a pinprick of
      blood on one undergarment and absolutely NO blood on the outer
      clothes nor on their shoes nor on their stockings...

      And "the weapon was hidden in the laundry" argument only holds
      ever so slightly for Lizzie getting the murder weapon upstairs without
      it being seen by either Bridget or Abby; it doesn't explain how it was
      hidden AFTER the murders so as to never be found, even after the
      police basically tore the place apart (testimony from some officers
      stated that they actually tore boards from the walls and from the
      fireplace, looking for the weapon)...

      And why would Lizzie even need to sneak the weapon upstairs in the
      laundry if she was the sole perp and presumably had been planning
      the murders some time in advance?  She could have just as easily
      (perhaps arguably more easily) snuck an ax up to her bedroom the
      night before...it was dark when she got home from Alice Russell's,
      Uncle John was keeping Andrew and Abby occupied in the parlor
      (and neither Andrew nor Abby would have had a reason to come
      upstairs by the front stairs that time of night), and Bridget was out
      for the evening...


      >I'll gladly quit posting for good  just name the killer, June!

      No one is asking that you stop posting, Jeff -- rather it seems the
      opposite.  But it is you who is the one calling for censorship on this
      list, which is supposed to be devoted to the DISCUSSION of the
      case, not prosletyzing "Lizzie Was The Sole Killer" dogma...

      I definitely disagree with Muriel's "Bridget Did It Because She Was
      Too Hung Over To Want To Wash Windows" dogma, but I'd never
      dream of demanding that she stop posting to this list...


      June  ;-)
    • Muriel Arnold
      Hi June:
      Message 2 of 25 , Sep 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi June:
        <Who was swinging the axe?>  <...in my conspiracy theory" I definitely hold Uncle John AND DR. Bowen on the list of members of that conspiracy...>
         
        To me, there was no conspiracy.  This was a simple murder case.  Knowlton, with the help of Bridget, turned it into a quagmire.  When Bertha Manchester was killed, Knowlton was too busy with Lizzie to get involved in that murder.  In less than a week, the Fall River police solved the case and arrested Jose Correira for her murder.  The same would have happened with the Borden case.  Please remember that when Officer Doherty went to the Borden house and asked for Bridget, she burst into tears because she thought he had come to arrest her.
         
        I know most of those who believe Lizzie guilty will say those tears were not because the gig(?) was up, but because she felt she was chosen for the simple reason she was the defenseless maid.  Anyone who has Edward Radin's book can reread the section where he gave several examples where the maid killed her employer over something that should not have been sufficient to cause the maid to kill.
         
        <...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...>
        What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham, whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
         
        <...menstrual blood from the outside...>
        The blood, the size of a pinhead, was found to have been on the outside of her petticoat.  That blood could have come from anywhere.  Even Bridget could have accidentally put it there while in the process of ironing that particular petticoat.
         
        As for the murder weapon being hidden after the murders, it wasn't.  Bridget was the only one to leave that house immediately after the murders.  At no time did Lizzie or Mrs. Bowen testify that they sent Bridget for Miss Russell.  It was Bridget's idea.  She had the murder weapon to dispose of.
        FACT:
        By the time Mrs. Churchill got to the Borden house (11:03 or 11:04) the latest, Bridget was already gone.  She should have reached Miss Russell's house no later than 11:06.
        Miss Russell testified Bridget informed her at 11:15.  She changed clothes and went right over.  When she got there, Officer Allen had just left and Lizzie was still standing at the side door.  This put the time of Alice Russell's arrival as 11:22.  (It took about five minutes to change dresses, and two minutes to get there.) 
        Back to Bridget:
        How did Bridget account for those lost minutes (11:06 to 11:15)?  Simple
        1.  She did not know where Miss Russell lived.  She stopped at the corner of Second Street and Borden Street, found where she did live, and went and told her.
         
        2.  To account for this lost time, Bridget claimed that Lizzie entered the dining room while she was washing those windows, and ironed for eight or nine minutes.
         
        3.  I don't know how many times I have stated that no matter what Bridget claimed happened after Mr. Borden came home was impossible.  You people keep saying a killer will lie his fool head off trying to shift the blame from himself.  Isn't that exactly what Bridget did?
         
        4.  What no author has ever mentioned was that Knowlton did not call a Mr. Timothy Sullivan, a conductor of the Globe Street Railway Company.  He'd told the cops less than a week after the murders that he'd spoken to Mr. Borden across the street from the Borden house and saw him enter his house at 10:52.  Knowlton did not call on him to testify.
         
        Okay gang, let's see how this works out:
        1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
        2.  Lizzie helped her father change coat and lie down.  That took two to three minutes.
         3.  Time is now 10:55.  Bridget claimed she went up to her room at 10:55.  Lizzie now went to the barn.
        4.  Lizzie told Mrs. Churchill, Dr. Bowen, Benjamin Buffinton and Hiram Harrington that she was gone not more
             than five minutes. 
        5.  Time is now 11:00.    Back to Bridget:
             She told Mr. Buffinton that she heard the City Hall Clock strike 11:00 just before Lizzie called her downstairs.
             Knowlton did not call Mr. Buffinton to testify.
         
        Knowlton had had the gall to tell the jurors that he had called anyone who had anything to say about this "tansaction", whether for or against Lizzie Borden.
         
        June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most certainly entered my mind.  I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor, it was all hearsay.
        I honestly believe it was having to wash the windows, inside and out, after having cooked breakfast,  doing the dishes, and now Mrs. Borden receiving a note and planned to buy meat for their dinner (lunch) meal. 
         
        What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working her tail off with no break in between.  Had Abby agreed to postpone the window washing, she would not have been killed.  It was as Knowlton told the jurors, there need be no motive, but there was always a cause. 
         
        The cause:
        Bridget was used to being free once the breakfast dishes were done till dinner time.  Now she would be working from the time she got up till after the dinner dishes were done.  That amounted to seven hours of work and she was not feeling good.  As they said, that mutton was cause enough for murder to be committed.
         
        Got to go, my sister just asked me just who the heck I was gabbing with.  Maybe she wants the computer.  She uses it to play games.  I got a program that will be coming on soon.  How's that for a slight reminder that the time was fast approaching.  She crochets a lot and playing games gives her left index finger a break.  The yarn has cut a deep crease in it and after an hour or two, it starts hurting.
        Have a great day.
        Muriel
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:39 AM
        Subject: [40Whacks] Re: No Blood

        Jeffrey Tesch wrote:

        >***my point was that of course Lizzie knew he was dead 
        >she'd just whacked him 10 times. 

        MY point is that one needn't be the murderer to deduce that
        the victim was dead...

        >***If it was MY father, I would have stepped over the body
        >and turned on the TV…

        And therefore, based on your very own logic, we'd be justified
        in deducing that you yourself were his killer...


        >***OK June, time to get down off the fence.  Who was swinging
        >the axe? 

        I really don't know -- but in my "conspiracy theory" I definitely
        hold Uncle John AND Dr. Bowan high on the list of members
        of that conspiracy...

        And I've already raised the question of the mysterious person
        referred to in contemporary reports as "Dr. Handy's man", which
        no one has answered...


        >***menstrual blood from the outside how does that work?

        It was my understanding that the pinprick of blood found on one
        of Lizzie's petticoats (not necessarily the one she was wearing
        the morning of the murders) was found on the INSIDE of the petticoat,
        not the outside...

        And any women past puberty can easily understand how one's own
        menstrual blood can get on the outside of one's garment...


        >And Lizzie admitted taking some clean laundry upstairs that
        >morning.  Good place to hide the weapon as she approached
        >Abby and she never saw that one spot.

        If you ever watched the PBS series "1900 House", you realize how
        difficult doing laundry was in those days; I'm surprised that the women
        of the house undergarments didn't all have more evidence of "flea bites"
        than that one pinhead-sized spot on Lizzie's...

        It doesn't wash, Jeff (and yes, pun IS intended <g>)...someone
        committing 2 messy ax murders should have more than a pinprick of
        blood on one undergarment and absolutely NO blood on the outer
        clothes nor on their shoes nor on their stockings...

        And "the weapon was hidden in the laundry" argument only holds
        ever so slightly for Lizzie getting the murder weapon upstairs without
        it being seen by either Bridget or Abby; it doesn't explain how it was
        hidden AFTER the murders so as to never be found, even after the
        police basically tore the place apart (testimony from some officers
        stated that they actually tore boards from the walls and from the
        fireplace, looking for the weapon)...

        And why would Lizzie even need to sneak the weapon upstairs in the
        laundry if she was the sole perp and presumably had been planning
        the murders some time in advance?  She could have just as easily
        (perhaps arguably more easily) snuck an ax up to her bedroom the
        night before...it was dark when she got home from Alice Russell's,
        Uncle John was keeping Andrew and Abby occupied in the parlor
        (and neither Andrew nor Abby would have had a reason to come
        upstairs by the front stairs that time of night), and Bridget was out
        for the evening...


        >I'll gladly quit posting for good  just name the killer, June!

        No one is asking that you stop posting, Jeff -- rather it seems the
        opposite.  But it is you who is the one calling for censorship on this
        list, which is supposed to be devoted to the DISCUSSION of the
        case, not prosletyzing "Lizzie Was The Sole Killer" dogma...

        I definitely disagree with Muriel's "Bridget Did It Because She Was
        Too Hung Over To Want To Wash Windows" dogma, but I'd never
        dream of demanding that she stop posting to this list...


        June  ;-)


        ---WHODUNIT???---


      • revcoal@mindspring.com
        ... Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the man that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don t have
        Message 3 of 25 , Sep 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Muriel wrote:

          >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
          >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
          >
          >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
          >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
          >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
           
          Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
           
          One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
           
           
          >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
           
          Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
           
           
          >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
          >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
          >certainly entered my mind. 
           
          You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
           
           
          >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
           
          I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
           
          I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
           
           
          >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
          >her tail off with no break in between. 
           
          If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
           
          There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
           
           
          June  ;-)
           
           
        • Patricia Stephenson
          I realize that we have been over this ground before, but last night while rereading Goodbye Lizzie Borden I was struck by testimony as if I were reading it
          Message 4 of 25 , Sep 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I realize that we have been over this ground before, but last night while rereading "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" I was struck by testimony as if I were reading it for the first time.
             
            In questioning Mrs. Churchill (as you know one of my favorites), she was asked about the dress that Lizzie had given as the one she wore that day.  Mrs. Churchill reply was "That is not the dress".
             
            She further stated that Lizzie was wearing "a light blue and white-groundwork with a dark navy blue diamond print on it".  Sounds very specific to me, and also does not have a hint of guessing or having trouble remembering the exact dress.
             
            So jumping ahead to Mrs. Russell's testimony about the dress burning incident she describes the dress as follows:  It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord with a small dark figure (diamond???)  on a light blue background".
             
            Now Mrs. Churchill said that it seemed to be "like"calico.
             
            At any rate you have to ask yourself if Mrs. Churchill's testimony is the truth, then Lizzie did not hand in the dress that she was wearing that day.   So then we could take it one step forward and say that she couldn't turn it in because it no longer existed.  It was burned.
             
            It is strange how Miss Russell turned on Lizzie after the dress burning fiasco.
             
            Could it be that she didn't turn it in, not because you could see blood on the outside (because remember nobody could recall seeing any blood on Lizzie), but there was blood on the inside after putting it on over blood stained undergarments.
             
            Patsy

            revcoal@... wrote:
            Muriel wrote:

            >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
            >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
            >
            >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
            >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
            >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
             
            Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
             
            One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
             
             
            >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
             
            Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
             
             
            >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
            >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
            >certainly entered my mind. 
             
            You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
             
             
            >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
             
            I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
             
            I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
             
             
            >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
            >her tail off with no break in between. 
             
            If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
             
            There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
             
             
            June  ;-)
             


            ---WHODUNIT???---



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

          • Muriel Arnold
            Hi June: I m not responsible for what the Fall River police came up with as to it being Michael Graham being Dr. Handy s wild-eyed man sent home for being too
            Message 5 of 25 , Sep 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi June:
              I'm not responsible for what the Fall River police came up with as to it being Michael Graham being Dr. Handy's wild-eyed man sent home for being too drunk for work.  I have not seen where it was proven that Graham was nowhere around 2nd Street at that time.  I do have the "Sourcebook," and will check that out first chance I get, even though his presence there turned out to have nothing to do with the murders.
               
              As for Timothy Sullivan seeing Mr. Borden enter his house at 10:52, it backed up Lizzie's version of events.  Bridget let her father in, entered the kitchen, told her that Mr. Borden had forgotten his key and went upstairs.  Lizzie joined her father in the sitting room, helped him change coats and lie down, This had taken but two or three minutes (inquest testimony) and went directly to the barn.  Time would now be 10:55, the very time Bridget claimed she went up to her room.
               
              As for the woman who saw Mr. Borden returning home, were you thinking of Caroline Kelly whose clock was slow and it made her late for a dental appointment?  It couldn't have been closer to 10:30, as Mr. Clegg testified Mr. Borden and he parted company at 10:29 and Mr. Borden headed towards South Main Street.  Mr. Mather, the carpenter, claimed it was 10:40 when Mr. Borden left Clegg's new store and headed towards Spring Street.
               
              June, I never mentioned what I thought about Bridget having a hangover in my book for the simple reason that I would have been unable to prove it.  The thought had entered my mind.  Especially since she returned home that Wednesday night right around 10:00 p.m.  I don't know where my friend in New Hampshire came across that bit of information of Bridget liking her liquor.  All I know for sure was that it had surprised me that I wasn't the only one to think that.
               
              <If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows==ONLY the downstair windows, mind you--after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.>
               
                  June, you admit that Bridget had it made in the shade so far as her having an easy job working for the Bordens.  Now, here she was, being told Mrs. Borden wanted the windows washed, inside and outside.  Then she hears Mr. Borden invite Morse back for finner.  Then she hears Mrs. Borden tell Lizzie she was going out and would buy meat for their dinner meal.  What did Bridget do?
               
              First, she claimed she drank milk with her breakfast and became violent ill and went outside to throw up for some ten to fifteen minutes.  Second, she re-entered the house at 9:00, and claimed that Mrs. Borden, dusting the dining room, told her to wash the dindows.
               
              1.  No policeman or reporter. nor anyone else, reported seeing any vomit in the back yard.
              2.  Why was Mrs. Borden still dusting the dining room when that is what she was doing when Lizzie first came         downstairs?
              3.  Lizzie testified that on entering the kitchen, Bridget was filling a pail of water because Mrs. Borden wanted her
                  to wash the windows and Bridget went out to do so.
              4.  At the trial, Bridget testified that she got her water from the barn AFTER the first pail was used up.
               
                  June, you don't believe Bridget would have risked her life over such a trivial matter as having to wash the windows.  Trivial?
                  Let's look at it another way.  Bridget was not feeling good.  Everyone in that house had gotten sick from eating tainted meat.  She had cooked breakfast and already done the dishes.  Now it would take her till nearly noon before she got through with the windows.  She had 13 large windows to wash and one narrow one on each side of the front door.  She admitted she used the stepladder in order to wash the top sections.  So now, according to Bridget's testimony, she went out at 9:30.  She completed the washing at 10:20, entered the house for the dipper, returned outside and rinsed them off.  She had eleven windows to wash.  She washed all them.  Along came Lizzie:
              Bridget did not wash the kitchen ones because she'd been there nearly all morning.  Ooops,  Bridget changed her testimony at the hearing.  She now decided that she had NOT washed the kitchen ones.
               
              Please tell me how Bridget could have rinsed off all the outside windows in ten minutes, as she claimed she re-entered the house at 10:30?
               
              June, you claim Bridget would not have risked being accused, arrested, tried and convicted of the murders.  She would have known she would be the first to be accused.  Also, she'd be <risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter....Even if she got away with it, she'd have to be finding new employment, as the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did.>
               
              June, I really do believe that had Mrs. Borden agreed to postpone the window washing, she would not have gotten killed.  Also, that Bridget killed Mrs. Borden while Lizzie was in the cellar and Mr. Borden was still in the house.  Because he was, Bridget had to kill him, as he would have known she was the one who was upstairs with Abby when it happened. 
               
                  You mentioned something that Mrs. Florence Brigham, the former curator of the Fall River Historical Society mentioned to me several times that she would not have risked losing her job.  Why would Bridget have lost her job?  Emma and Lizzie were used to having a maid.  Just because their parents had been killed, they would not have fired Bridget.  On Tuesday, August 9th, when Bridget returned to the house and packed a bundle, Emma asked Bridget if she would be coming back.  Bridget told her no.
               
              I really don't know what it will take to make everyone realize Bridget and Bridget alone did the killings.  Take Mr. Borden's returning home.  Here are some of Bridget's versions:
                 
              Mr. Borden rang the bell (like Lizzie claimed) and she went to let him in.
              Mr. Borden did not ring the bell.  She heard the noise of his trying to get in.
              She saw Mr. Borden crossing the street (Timothy Sullivan said he'd talked to Andrew across the street) and ran across the lower floor to let him in.  (Forget that she supposedly was in the sitting room.  There is no way she could have seen him from there.)
              She had just started the upper part of the first sitting room window when Mr. Borden returned home.
              She was finishing her first window when  Mr. Borden returned home.
               
              She let him in.  Lizzie was in the kitchen.  Mr. Borden went into the sitting room.  (Just what Lizzie had claimed happened.)
              She had trouble unlocking the front door.  Lizzie was at the top of the stairs and laughed as she tried to unlock the front door.  Mr. Borden went into the dining room.  Lizzie came down about five minutes later and joined her father in the dining room.  She told him about Mrs. Borden receiving a note.  She talked real low. 
               
              Wasn't that strange?  She overheard everything Lizzie told her father, speaking real low, while she was on the opposite side of the house washing windows?  Yet, all she knew about the argument between Mr. Borden and Morse the afternoon before, was that Morse was going across the river.  Said argument caused Lizzie to close her bedroom door.  Talk about selective hearing.
               
              It is getting late.  Since I've been here in Florida, I've been going to bed sometime betwee 1:00 and 2:00 instead of 3:00 and 5:00.  Oh, speaking of Florida, my sister took me to get my license plate.  Talk about a shock!!!  There is a $100 for first timers, then the difference between what I'd paid in taxes in Texas and what Florida charges for what I paid for my car, then the plate, anyway, by the time they got through, my bill was $202.60. It's enough to make you go back home, but I no longer have a home in Texas.  It hasn't quite sunk in yet.  Oh well, I'll see what hurricane Frances treats us.
              Have a great day.
              Muriel
               
               
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 10:30 AM
              Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Re: No Blood

              Muriel wrote:

              >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
              >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
              >
              >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
              >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
              >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
               
              Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
               
              One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
               
               
              >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
               
              Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
               
               
              >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
              >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
              >certainly entered my mind. 
               
              You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
               
               
              >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
               
              I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
               
              I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
               
               
              >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
              >her tail off with no break in between. 
               
              If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
               
              There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
               
               
              June  ;-)
               


              ---WHODUNIT???---


            • Muriel Arnold
              Hi Patsy: As for the dress Lizzie wore the morning of the murders, I thought I had it straight about three times over the years and ended up not knowing what
              Message 6 of 25 , Sep 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Patsy:
                    As for the dress Lizzie wore the morning of the murders, I thought I had it straight about three times over the years and ended up not knowing what dress she actually wore.  But, with everyone saying that she was notorious for telling the truth, I see no reason not to believe Lizzie.
                 
                You mentioned that Lizzie could not have turned in the right dress because it no longer existed.  WRONG.  The dress was taken to police headquarters on Saturday, the day before the dress burning.  Also, Mrs. Churchill testified that she thought Bridget had worn a light blue dress that morning.  Bridget testified that she had worn a dark blue dress and changed into a light blue one in the afternoon.
                 
                You mention that Lizzie might not have turned it in because there could have been blood on the inside from the blood stained undergarments.  Gal, you just opened another can of worms.  Now, not only does Lizzie have to destroy her dress, she has to destroy her undergarments also.  The petticoat Lizzie turned in had a spot, the size of a pinhead, on the outside of it.  Seeing it was not smeared, then there would have been no reason to destroy the dress.  Good try.
                Muriel
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:21 PM
                Subject: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited

                I realize that we have been over this ground before, but last night while rereading "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" I was struck by testimony as if I were reading it for the first time.
                 
                In questioning Mrs. Churchill (as you know one of my favorites), she was asked about the dress that Lizzie had given as the one she wore that day.  Mrs. Churchill reply was "That is not the dress".
                 
                She further stated that Lizzie was wearing "a light blue and white-groundwork with a dark navy blue diamond print on it".  Sounds very specific to me, and also does not have a hint of guessing or having trouble remembering the exact dress.
                 
                So jumping ahead to Mrs. Russell's testimony about the dress burning incident she describes the dress as follows:  It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord with a small dark figure (diamond???)  on a light blue background".
                 
                Now Mrs. Churchill said that it seemed to be "like"calico.
                 
                At any rate you have to ask yourself if Mrs. Churchill's testimony is the truth, then Lizzie did not hand in the dress that she was wearing that day.   So then we could take it one step forward and say that she couldn't turn it in because it no longer existed.  It was burned.
                 
                It is strange how Miss Russell turned on Lizzie after the dress burning fiasco.
                 
                Could it be that she didn't turn it in, not because you could see blood on the outside (because remember nobody could recall seeing any blood on Lizzie), but there was blood on the inside after putting it on over blood stained undergarments.
                 
                Patsy

                revcoal@... wrote:
                Muriel wrote:

                >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
                >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
                >
                >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
                >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
                >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
                 
                Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
                 
                One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
                 
                 
                >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
                 
                Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
                 
                 
                >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
                >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
                >certainly entered my mind. 
                 
                You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
                 
                 
                >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
                 
                I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
                 
                I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
                 
                 
                >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
                >her tail off with no break in between. 
                 
                If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
                 
                There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
                 
                 
                June  ;-)
                 


                ---WHODUNIT???---



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

                ---WHODUNIT???---


              • Patricia Stephenson
                I guess I am saying that the dress that she turned into the polilce station on the day before the dress burning was simply NOT the dress that she was wearing
                Message 7 of 25 , Sep 4, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  I guess I am saying that the dress that she turned into the polilce station on the day before the dress burning was simply NOT the dress that she was wearing the day of the murders.  So it really doesn't matter what dress she gave them.  As far as Mrs. Churchill goes, she was not focused on what Bridget wore.  It was Lizzie that she ministered to the day of the murders.  Plus, she was not the only one who testified that the dress in question was not the one she had on that day.  I also ask myself why she changed her dress at all into that pink wrapper.   Certainly she had a lot going on that day.  Was she afraid that the police might ask her to remove it at once and hand it over?  I'm thinking that she knew that once they became suspicious that therre had been no outside intruder, all eyes would be focused on her at that point.  By the time everyone got their act together and took a serious look at her clothing, it was too late.
                   
                  Another thing that I would like to point out once again is that Lizzie places herself  in the house for the entire time of Abby's murder (assuming she has a barn alibi for dad).  Let's just say that Lizzie is innocent.  You just can't tell me that someone was chopping up Abby in those close quarters (I've been there), and Lizzie hears, sees, or perceives nothing afoot.  If Lizzie could hear "a groan" from the outisde when her father was killed, how about a slumping 200 lb. woman in the house.  I won't even go into the killer (with an bloody axe coming down the stairs, hiding for the better part of two hours with Lizzie all about.
                   
                  Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer didn't get in that way.  So let's say he/she came in the back door which was unlocked.  How did that killer get by Lizzie downstairs?  What are the odds that the killer came up the stairs at the exact time Lizzie MAY have had the door to her room closed, but if she were upstairs then she really would have heard the carnage happening in the other room. 
                   
                  It just isn't logical.  I too cannot fathom that Brigitte had anything to do with it.  June is right, if they could have nailed an Irish maid for the murders they would have in a skinny New York minute.  Brigitte had nothing to gain, but Lizzie......oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid, the premonition that something was going to happen, the money that she would be getting, the hatred of her stepmother, her personality, her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                   
                  Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid, but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only killer on the loose was herself.
                   
                  Patsy

                  Muriel Arnold <muriella@...> wrote:
                  Hi Patsy:
                      As for the dress Lizzie wore the morning of the murders, I thought I had it straight about three times over the years and ended up not knowing what dress she actually wore.  But, with everyone saying that she was notorious for telling the truth, I see no reason not to believe Lizzie.
                   
                  You mentioned that Lizzie could not have turned in the right dress because it no longer existed.  WRONG.  The dress was taken to police headquarters on Saturday, the day before the dress burning.  Also, Mrs. Churchill testified that she thought Bridget had worn a light blue dress that morning.  Bridget testified that she had worn a dark blue dress and changed into a light blue one in the afternoon.
                   
                  You mention that Lizzie might not have turned it in because there could have been blood on the inside from the blood stained undergarments.  Gal, you just opened another can of worms.  Now, not only does Lizzie have to destroy her dress, she has to destroy her undergarments also.  The petticoat Lizzie turned in had a spot, the size of a pinhead, on the outside of it.  Seeing it was not smeared, then there would have been no reason to destroy the dress.  Good try.
                  Muriel
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:21 PM
                  Subject: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited

                  I realize that we have been over this ground before, but last night while rereading "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" I was struck by testimony as if I were reading it for the first time.
                   
                  In questioning Mrs. Churchill (as you know one of my favorites), she was asked about the dress that Lizzie had given as the one she wore that day.  Mrs. Churchill reply was "That is not the dress".
                   
                  She further stated that Lizzie was wearing "a light blue and white-groundwork with a dark navy blue diamond print on it".  Sounds very specific to me, and also does not have a hint of guessing or having trouble remembering the exact dress.
                   
                  So jumping ahead to Mrs. Russell's testimony about the dress burning incident she describes the dress as follows:  It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord with a small dark figure (diamond???)  on a light blue background".
                   
                  Now Mrs. Churchill said that it seemed to be "like"calico.
                   
                  At any rate you have to ask yourself if Mrs. Churchill's testimony is the truth, then Lizzie did not hand in the dress that she was wearing that day.   So then we could take it one step forward and say that she couldn't turn it in because it no longer existed.  It was burned.
                   
                  It is strange how Miss Russell turned on Lizzie after the dress burning fiasco.
                   
                  Could it be that she didn't turn it in, not because you could see blood on the outside (because remember nobody could recall seeing any blood on Lizzie), but there was blood on the inside after putting it on over blood stained undergarments.
                   
                  Patsy

                  revcoal@... wrote:
                  Muriel wrote:

                  >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
                  >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
                  >
                  >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
                  >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
                  >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
                   
                  Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
                   
                  One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
                   
                   
                  >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
                   
                  Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
                   
                   
                  >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
                  >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
                  >certainly entered my mind. 
                   
                  You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
                   
                   
                  >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
                   
                  I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
                   
                  I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
                   
                   
                  >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
                  >her tail off with no break in between. 
                   
                  If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
                   
                  There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
                   
                   
                  June  ;-)
                   


                  ---WHODUNIT???---



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

                  ---WHODUNIT???---




                  ---WHODUNIT???---



                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

                • Patricia Stephenson
                  I guess I am saying that the dress that she turned into the polilce station on the day before the dress burning was simply NOT the dress that she was wearing
                  Message 8 of 25 , Sep 4, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I guess I am saying that the dress that she turned into the polilce station on the day before the dress burning was simply NOT the dress that she was wearing the day of the murders.  So it really doesn't matter what dress she gave them.  As far as Mrs. Churchill goes, she was not focused on what Bridget wore.  It was Lizzie that she ministered to the day of the murders.  Plus, she was not the only one who testified that the dress in question was not the one she had on that day.  I also ask myself why she changed her dress at all into that pink wrapper.   Certainly she had a lot going on that day.  Was she afraid that the police might ask her to remove it at once and hand it over?  I'm thinking that she knew that once they became suspicious that therre had been no outside intruder, all eyes would be focused on her at that point.  By the time everyone got their act together and took a serious look at her clothing, it was too late.
                     
                    Another thing that I would like to point out once again is that Lizzie places herself  in the house for the entire time of Abby's murder (assuming she has a barn alibi for dad).  Let's just say that Lizzie is innocent.  You just can't tell me that someone was chopping up Abby in those close quarters (I've been there), and Lizzie hears, sees, or perceives nothing afoot.  If Lizzie could hear "a groan" from the outisde when her father was killed, how about a slumping 200 lb. woman in the house.  I won't even go into the killer (with an bloody axe coming down the stairs, hiding for the better part of two hours with Lizzie all about.
                     
                    Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer didn't get in that way.  So let's say he/she came in the back door which was unlocked.  How did that killer get by Lizzie downstairs?  What are the odds that the killer came up the stairs at the exact time Lizzie MAY have had the door to her room closed, but if she were upstairs then she really would have heard the carnage happening in the other room. 
                     
                    It just isn't logical.  I too cannot fathom that Brigitte had anything to do with it.  June is right, if they could have nailed an Irish maid for the murders they would have in a skinny New York minute.  Brigitte had nothing to gain, but Lizzie......oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid, the premonition that something was going to happen, the money that she would be getting, the hatred of her stepmother, her personality, her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                     
                    Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid, but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only killer on the loose was herself.
                     
                    Patsy

                    Muriel Arnold <muriella@...> wrote:
                    Hi Patsy:
                        As for the dress Lizzie wore the morning of the murders, I thought I had it straight about three times over the years and ended up not knowing what dress she actually wore.  But, with everyone saying that she was notorious for telling the truth, I see no reason not to believe Lizzie.
                     
                    You mentioned that Lizzie could not have turned in the right dress because it no longer existed.  WRONG.  The dress was taken to police headquarters on Saturday, the day before the dress burning.  Also, Mrs. Churchill testified that she thought Bridget had worn a light blue dress that morning.  Bridget testified that she had worn a dark blue dress and changed into a light blue one in the afternoon.
                     
                    You mention that Lizzie might not have turned it in because there could have been blood on the inside from the blood stained undergarments.  Gal, you just opened another can of worms.  Now, not only does Lizzie have to destroy her dress, she has to destroy her undergarments also.  The petticoat Lizzie turned in had a spot, the size of a pinhead, on the outside of it.  Seeing it was not smeared, then there would have been no reason to destroy the dress.  Good try.
                    Muriel
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:21 PM
                    Subject: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited

                    I realize that we have been over this ground before, but last night while rereading "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" I was struck by testimony as if I were reading it for the first time.
                     
                    In questioning Mrs. Churchill (as you know one of my favorites), she was asked about the dress that Lizzie had given as the one she wore that day.  Mrs. Churchill reply was "That is not the dress".
                     
                    She further stated that Lizzie was wearing "a light blue and white-groundwork with a dark navy blue diamond print on it".  Sounds very specific to me, and also does not have a hint of guessing or having trouble remembering the exact dress.
                     
                    So jumping ahead to Mrs. Russell's testimony about the dress burning incident she describes the dress as follows:  It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord with a small dark figure (diamond???)  on a light blue background".
                     
                    Now Mrs. Churchill said that it seemed to be "like"calico.
                     
                    At any rate you have to ask yourself if Mrs. Churchill's testimony is the truth, then Lizzie did not hand in the dress that she was wearing that day.   So then we could take it one step forward and say that she couldn't turn it in because it no longer existed.  It was burned.
                     
                    It is strange how Miss Russell turned on Lizzie after the dress burning fiasco.
                     
                    Could it be that she didn't turn it in, not because you could see blood on the outside (because remember nobody could recall seeing any blood on Lizzie), but there was blood on the inside after putting it on over blood stained undergarments.
                     
                    Patsy

                    revcoal@... wrote:
                    Muriel wrote:

                    >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
                    >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
                    >
                    >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
                    >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
                    >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
                     
                    Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
                     
                    One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
                     
                     
                    >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
                     
                    Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
                     
                     
                    >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
                    >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
                    >certainly entered my mind. 
                     
                    You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
                     
                     
                    >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
                     
                    I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
                     
                    I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
                     
                     
                    >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
                    >her tail off with no break in between. 
                     
                    If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
                     
                    There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
                     
                     
                    June  ;-)
                     


                    ---WHODUNIT???---



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

                    ---WHODUNIT???---




                    ---WHODUNIT???---



                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

                  • iowababe@moomia.com
                    Hi, I hardly post but thought I would ask this question.  What if Lizzie wore one of Abby s dresses to commit the murder?  She could murder both of them and
                    Message 9 of 25 , Sep 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi, I hardly post but thought I would ask this question.  What if Lizzie wore one of Abby's dresses to commit the murder?  She could murder both of them and then stash the dress in the back of Abby's closet.  iowababe


                      ---------- Original Message -----------
                      From: Patricia Stephenson <patsy751@...>
                      To: 40Whacks@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
                      Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Re:  The Dress Revisited

                      > I guess I am saying that the dress that she turned into the polilce station on the day before the dress burning was simply NOT the dress that she was wearing the day of the murders.  So it really doesn't matter what dress she gave them.  As far as Mrs. Churchill goes, she was not focused on what Bridget wore.  It was Lizzie that she ministered to the day of the murders.  Plus, she was not the only one who testified that the dress in question was not the one she had on that day.  I also ask myself why she changed her dress at all into that pink wrapper.   Certainly she had a lot going on that day.  Was she afraid that the police might ask her to remove it at once and hand it over?  I'm thinking that she knew that once they became suspicious that therre had been no outside intruder, all eyes would be focused on her at that point.  By the time everyone got their act together and took a serious look at her clothing, it was too late.
                      >  
                      > Another thing that I would like to point out once again is that Lizzie places herself  in the house for the entire time of Abby's murder (assuming she has a barn alibi for dad).  Let's just say that Lizzie is innocent.  You just can't tell me that someone was chopping up Abby in those close quarters (I've been there), and Lizzie hears, sees, or perceives nothing afoot.  If Lizzie could hear "a groan" from the outisde when her father was killed, how about a slumping 200 lb. woman in the house.  I won't even go into the killer (with an bloody axe coming down the stairs, hiding for the better part of two hours with Lizzie all about.
                      >  
                      > Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer didn't get in that way.  So let's say he/she came in the back door which was unlocked.  How did that killer get by Lizzie downstairs?  What are the odds that the killer came up the stairs at the exact time Lizzie MAY have had the door to her room closed, but if she were upstairs then she really would have heard the carnage happening in the other room. 
                      >  
                      > It just isn't logical.  I too cannot fathom that Brigitte had anything to do with it.  June is right, if they could have nailed an Irish maid for the murders they would have in a skinny New York minute.  Brigitte had nothing to gain, but Lizzie......oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid, the premonition that something was going to happen, the money that she would be getting, the hatred of her stepmother, her personality, her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                      >  
                      > Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid, but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only killer on the loose was herself.
                      >  
                      > Patsy
                      >

                      > Muriel Arnold <muriella@...> wrote:

                      > Hi Patsy:
                      >     As for the dress Lizzie wore the morning of the murders, I thought I had it straight about three times over the years and ended up not knowing what dress she actually wore.  But, with everyone saying that she was notorious for telling the truth, I see no reason not to believe Lizzie.
                      >  
                      > You mentioned that Lizzie could not have turned in the right dress because it no longer existed.  WRONG.  The dress was taken to police headquarters on Saturday, the day before the dress burning.  Also, Mrs. Churchill testified that she thought Bridget had worn a light blue dress that morning.  Bridget testified that she had worn a dark blue dress and changed into a light blue one in the afternoon.
                      >  
                      > You mention that Lizzie might not have turned it in because there could have been blood on the inside from the blood stained undergarments.  Gal, you just opened another can of worms.  Now, not only does Lizzie have to destroy her dress, she has to destroy her undergarments also.  The petticoat Lizzie turned in had a spot, the size of a pinhead, on the outside of it.  Seeing it was not smeared, then there would have been no reason to destroy the dress.  Good try.
                      > Muriel
                      >  

                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: Patricia Stephenson
                      > To: 40Whacks@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:21 PM
                      > Subject: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited
                      >
                      > I realize that we have been over this ground before, but last night while rereading "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" I was struck by testimony as if I were reading it for the first time.
                      >  
                      > In questioning Mrs. Churchill (as you know one of my favorites), she was asked about the dress that Lizzie had given as the one she wore that day.  Mrs. Churchill reply was "That is not the dress".
                      >  
                      > She further stated that Lizzie was wearing "a light blue and white-groundwork with a dark navy blue diamond print on it".  Sounds very specific to me, and also does not have a hint of guessing or having trouble remembering the exact dress.
                      >  
                      > So jumping ahead to Mrs. Russell's testimony about the dress burning incident she describes the dress as follows:  It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord with a small dark figure (diamond???)  on a light blue background".
                      >  
                      > Now Mrs. Churchill said that it seemed to be "like"calico.
                      >  
                      > At any rate you have to ask yourself if Mrs. Churchill's testimony is the truth, then Lizzie did not hand in the dress that she was wearing that day.   So then we could take it one step forward and say that she couldn't turn it in because it no longer existed.  It was burned.
                      >  
                      > It is strange how Miss Russell turned on Lizzie after the dress burning fiasco.
                      >  
                      > Could it be that she didn't turn it in, not because you could see blood on the outside (because remember nobody could recall seeing any blood on Lizzie), but there was blood on the inside after putting it on over blood stained undergarments.
                      >  
                      > Patsy
                      >
                      > revcoal@... wrote:

                      > Muriel wrote:
                      >
                      > >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
                      > >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
                      > >
                      > >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
                      > >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
                      > >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
                      >  
                      > Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
                      >  
                      > One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
                      >  
                      >  
                      > >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
                      >  
                      > Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
                      >  
                      >  
                      > >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
                      > >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
                      > >certainly entered my mind. 
                      >  
                      > You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
                      >  
                      >  
                      > >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
                      >  
                      > I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
                      >  
                      > I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
                      >  
                      >  
                      > >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
                      > >her tail off with no break in between. 
                      >  
                      > If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
                      >  
                      > There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
                      >  
                      >  
                      > June  ;-)
                      >  
                      >
                      >
                      > ---WHODUNIT???---
                      >
                      >

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

                      >
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
                      >
                      > ---WHODUNIT???---
                      >
                      >
                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      ADVERTISEMENT
                      > click here

                      >
                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >


                      ------- End of Original Message -------
                      Paid advertising Get your free NoTrax toolbar here: http://63.173.226.3/notrax.htmSPAM-PROTECTION KEY: 5n24mk1w29jdja8gbf4c3t3t See http://www.moomia.com/spamcheck.htm
                    • Muriel Arnold
                      Hi iowababe: Never heard anyone suggest this before, but it sounds good. I ll wait till we hear from the others before I say what I think about Lizzie wearing
                      Message 10 of 25 , Sep 7, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi iowababe:
                        Never heard anyone suggest this before, but it sounds good.  I'll wait till we hear from the others before I say what I think about Lizzie wearing one of Abby's dresses.  Have a go at it gang.
                        Muriel
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:26 PM
                        Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited

                        Hi, I hardly post but thought I would ask this question.  What if Lizzie wore one of Abby's dresses to commit the murder?  She could murder both of them and then stash the dress in the back of Abby's closet.  iowababe


                        ---------- Original Message -----------
                        From: Patricia Stephenson <patsy751@...>
                        To: 40Whacks@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
                        Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Re:  The Dress Revisited

                        > I guess I am saying that the dress that she turned into the polilce station on the day before the dress burning was simply NOT the dress that she was wearing the day of the murders.  So it really doesn't matter what dress she gave them.  As far as Mrs. Churchill goes, she was not focused on what Bridget wore.  It was Lizzie that she ministered to the day of the murders.  Plus, she was not the only one who testified that the dress in question was not the one she had on that day.  I also ask myself why she changed her dress at all into that pink wrapper.   Certainly she had a lot going on that day.  Was she afraid that the police might ask her to remove it at once and hand it over?  I'm thinking that she knew that once they became suspicious that therre had been no outside intruder, all eyes would be focused on her at that point.  By the time everyone got their act together and took a serious look at her clothing, it was too late.
                        >  
                        > Another thing that I would like to point out once again is that Lizzie places herself  in the house for the entire time of Abby's murder (assuming she has a barn alibi for dad).  Let's just say that Lizzie is innocent.  You just can't tell me that someone was chopping up Abby in those close quarters (I've been there), and Lizzie hears, sees, or perceives nothing afoot.  If Lizzie could hear "a groan" from the outisde when her father was killed, how about a slumping 200 lb. woman in the house.  I won't even go into the killer (with an bloody axe coming down the stairs, hiding for the better part of two hours with Lizzie all about.
                        >  
                        > Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer didn't get in that way.  So let's say he/she came in the back door which was unlocked.  How did that killer get by Lizzie downstairs?  What are the odds that the killer came up the stairs at the exact time Lizzie MAY have had the door to her room closed, but if she were upstairs then she really would have heard the carnage happening in the other room. 
                        >  
                        > It just isn't logical.  I too cannot fathom that Brigitte had anything to do with it.  June is right, if they could have nailed an Irish maid for the murders they would have in a skinny New York minute.  Brigitte had nothing to gain, but Lizzie......oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid, the premonition that something was going to happen, the money that she would be getting, the hatred of her stepmother, her personality, her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                        >  
                        > Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid, but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only killer on the loose was herself.
                        >  
                        > Patsy
                        >
                        > Muriel Arnold <muriella@...> wrote:

                        > Hi Patsy:
                        >     As for the dress Lizzie wore the morning of the murders, I thought I had it straight about three times over the years and ended up not knowing what dress she actually wore.  But, with everyone saying that she was notorious for telling the truth, I see no reason not to believe Lizzie.
                        >  
                        > You mentioned that Lizzie could not have turned in the right dress because it no longer existed.  WRONG.  The dress was taken to police headquarters on Saturday, the day before the dress burning.  Also, Mrs. Churchill testified that she thought Bridget had worn a light blue dress that morning.  Bridget testified that she had worn a dark blue dress and changed into a light blue one in the afternoon.
                        >  
                        > You mention that Lizzie might not have turned it in because there could have been blood on the inside from the blood stained undergarments.  Gal, you just opened another can of worms.  Now, not only does Lizzie have to destroy her dress, she has to destroy her undergarments also.  The petticoat Lizzie turned in had a spot, the size of a pinhead, on the outside of it.  Seeing it was not smeared, then there would have been no reason to destroy the dress.  Good try.
                        > Muriel
                        >  

                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Patricia Stephenson
                        > To: 40Whacks@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 2:21 PM
                        > Subject: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited
                        >
                        > I realize that we have been over this ground before, but last night while rereading "Goodbye Lizzie Borden" I was struck by testimony as if I were reading it for the first time.
                        >  
                        > In questioning Mrs. Churchill (as you know one of my favorites), she was asked about the dress that Lizzie had given as the one she wore that day.  Mrs. Churchill reply was "That is not the dress".
                        >  
                        > She further stated that Lizzie was wearing "a light blue and white-groundwork with a dark navy blue diamond print on it".  Sounds very specific to me, and also does not have a hint of guessing or having trouble remembering the exact dress.
                        >  
                        > So jumping ahead to Mrs. Russell's testimony about the dress burning incident she describes the dress as follows:  It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord with a small dark figure (diamond???)  on a light blue background".
                        >  
                        > Now Mrs. Churchill said that it seemed to be "like"calico.
                        >  
                        > At any rate you have to ask yourself if Mrs. Churchill's testimony is the truth, then Lizzie did not hand in the dress that she was wearing that day.   So then we could take it one step forward and say that she couldn't turn it in because it no longer existed.  It was burned.
                        >  
                        > It is strange how Miss Russell turned on Lizzie after the dress burning fiasco.
                        >  
                        > Could it be that she didn't turn it in, not because you could see blood on the outside (because remember nobody could recall seeing any blood on Lizzie), but there was blood on the inside after putting it on over blood stained undergarments.
                        >  
                        > Patsy
                        >
                        > revcoal@... wrote:

                        > Muriel wrote:
                        >
                        > >>...the mysterious person referred to in the contemporary
                        > >>reports as "Dr. Handy's man"...
                        > >
                        > >What I've read on that score was that it was Michael Graham,
                        > >whom they called "Mike the Soldier", who was sent home from
                        > >the mill as being unfit to work as he was too drunk.
                        >  
                        > Graham was put forth by the Fall River police as the person THEY claimed was the "man" that Dr. Handy saw, but one of the newspapers (sorry, I don't have The Sourcebook at hand at the moment) quite easily trashes this claim.  Not only did Graham not fit Dr. Handy's description, but it was shown that Graham couldn't have been anywhere near 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy claimed to have seen a suspicious person.
                        >  
                        > One can assume that Dr. Handy, as a trained medical professional, was uniquely qualified to observe physical/mental/emotional characteristics in another person, and definitely more qualified than a general member of the public.  This wasn't a case of just passing someone on the street, Dr. Handy was sitting in a carriage and observed the suspicious "man" for quite a few minutes...
                        >  
                        >  
                        > >1.  Mr. Borden enters his house at 10:52.
                        >  
                        > Based on the unverified claim of only ONE person; while another neighbor claims the time was closer to 10:30, as she looked at the clock on leaving her house and then saw Andrew returning home...
                        >  
                        >  
                        > >June, in my book, I never mentioned the possibility that
                        > >Bridget had a hangover, even though that thought had most
                        > >certainly entered my mind. 
                        >  
                        > You keep claiming that Bridget killed the Bordens because she didn't want to wash windows because she was too sick after a supposed night of drinking -- sounds like a description of a hangover to me...
                        >  
                        >  
                        > >I couldn't find much to show that Bridget liked her liquor,
                        >  
                        > I challenge you to provide proof that Bridget even drank liquor at all!
                        >  
                        > I find it hard to believe that the Bordens, all fanatical teetotalers, would have tolerated employing a maid who even took spirits for medicinal purposes on rare occasions, let alone one who routinely spent her time off every week imbibing....
                        >  
                        >  
                        > >What I am saying is that Bridget was not used to working
                        > >her tail off with no break in between. 
                        >  
                        > If you're backing away from your previous "Bridget did it because she was too sick with a hangover to want to wash windows" claim, you have even less credibility than before.  Bridget had it pretty damn easy for a maid of that period, and it's laughable that she would have slaughtered her employers because the mistress of the house asked her to wash windows -- ONLY the downstair windows, mind you -- after finishing with breakfast and the dishes.
                        >  
                        > There's absolutely no logic to that -- not only would Bridget risk being accused, arrested, tried, and convicted of the murders (with the prejudices of the day, the working-class Irish maid would be considered the more likely suspect than the genteel WASP daughter of the victims), but she'd be risking her liberty and her life over a very trivial matter.  And even if she did it and "got away with it", she'd have to be finding new employment, and the likelihood would be that her new employers would NOT have given her as light duties as the Bordens did...
                        >  
                        >  
                        > June  ;-)
                        >  
                        >
                        >
                        > ---WHODUNIT???---
                        >
                        >

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

                        >
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
                        >
                        > ---WHODUNIT???---
                        >
                        >
                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        ADVERTISEMENT
                        > click here

                        >
                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >


                        ------- End of Original Message -------
                        Paid advertising Get your free NoTrax toolbar here: http://63.173.226.3/notrax.htm SPAM-PROTECTION KEY: 5n24mk1w29jdja8gbf4c3t3t See http://www.moomia.com/spamcheck.htm

                        ---WHODUNIT???---


                      • revcoal@mindspring.com
                        Lizzie wearing Abby s dress and then stashing it in the back of some closet still doesn t get around the problem of ANY dress Lizzie wore if she was the one
                        Message 11 of 25 , Sep 7, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Lizzie wearing Abby's dress and then stashing it in the back of some closet still doesn't get around the problem of ANY dress Lizzie wore if she was the one who committed the murders...
                           
                          Namely, why wasn't it found when police did a thorough search of the house, including all closets?
                           
                          Also, if she wore one of Abby's dresses to commit BOTH murders, then she'd have been prancing about the house for an hour or more in a bloodstained dress that was too big for her -- something I think both Bridget and Andrew would have noticed...
                           
                          Unless you are suggesting that she wore it over her own clothes; it still would raise the question of Lizzie being able to get into her parents bedroom to get one of Abby's dresses, come back downstairs and then up the front stairs without being seen with the dress (no, I don't think one of Abby's dresses could have been hidden in the basket of handkerchiefs and undergarments that Lizzie said she brought upstairs that morning), putting on the dress, retrieving the mysteriously appearing and then disappearing murder weapon, killing Abby, then hiding the ax AND the dress, and being able to come downstair with perfectly clean hands and shoes and calmly iron handkerchiefs as she awaited the return home of her next victim.  Then once Andrew was comfortably situated in the sitting room, Lizzie would have needed to go back upstairs, put on Abby's dress (which would now be damp with Abby's blood) and retrieve the ax, come back downstairs and kill her father, then go back upstairs, take off Abby's bloody dress and hide it PLUS hide the ax, then come back downstairs and lean in the kitchen doorway to call up to Bridget up the back stairs asking her to come down -- all in the space of about 8 minutes...
                           
                          Sorry, I don't buy it; it has the same problem as "Lizzie-Used-Her-Fathers-Coat" theory, it doesn't explain how she was able to keep blood off of her hands and shoes...nor what happened to the murder weapon in so short a time period...
                           
                           
                          June  ;-)
                           
                           
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: iowababe@...
                          Sent: Sep 6, 2004 5:26 PM
                          Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited

                          Hi, I hardly post but thought I would ask this question.  What if Lizzie wore one of Abby's dresses to commit the murder?  She could murder both of them and then stash the dress in the back of Abby's closet.  iowababe

                        • revcoal@mindspring.com
                          ... Assuming that the door was really locked... Turning back to Dr. Handy s observations that morning, he claimed to have seen his small man knock at the
                          Message 12 of 25 , Sep 7, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Patsy wrote:
                             
                            >Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer
                            >didn't get in that way. 
                             
                            Assuming that the door was really locked...
                             
                            Turning back to Dr. Handy's observations that morning, he claimed to have seen his "small man" knock at the Borden's front door and be let in sometime around 10 a.m. that morning...obviously after Abby would have been killed but also obviously before Andrew returned home about half an hour later...
                             
                            But this scenario suggests that *someone* within the house knew who the "small man" was, and for some reason let this person inside -- unless this person was going thru the motions of knocking for entrance, knowing that they'd probably be observed from the street, but perhaps using a key provided to them (or which they already had) to actually gain admittance...
                             
                             
                            >oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid,
                             
                            Which a Fall River cop stated he DID see on an open page of a book of household hints left open in the Borden kitchen, so there IS something to back up Lizzie's claim that she read that prussic acid could be used to clean fur...
                             
                            But which begs the question as to why it seemed so imperative to clean fur the first week of August in the middle of a heat wave...  ;-)
                             
                             
                            >the money that she would be getting,
                             
                            Actually it was Abby who had been going around telling people that "Mr. Borden is going to take good care of me in his will" -- a decidedly ODD thing for her to have suddenly become so chatty with outsiders (NOT her sister, BTW) about...
                             
                             
                            >the hatred of her stepmother,
                             
                            Did she really hate Abby all that much; others testified that they thought Lizzie was rather fond of Abby...
                             
                            It would have been EMMA, who was about 14 when Andrew married Abby, who would have had resentment at least towards Abby, if not outright hatred.  Lizzie was only 2 when Abby arrived on the scene, and the only way Lizzie could have hated Abby would have been if Emma was manipulating her...
                             
                             
                            >her personality,
                             
                            Which was WHAT, exactly?
                             
                              
                            >her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                             
                            Which had happened years before; and Emma apparently was AS upset, if not more so, in that regard than Lizzie...
                             
                            There WAS something going on throughout 1892 regarding the Borden finances, but assigning the Borden sisters' ire to the Whitehead transaction of years before I believe misses the real mark...
                             
                             
                            >Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid,
                            >but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only
                            >killer on the loose was herself.
                             
                            Well hell's bells, dear ol' Uncle John didn't miss a wink sleeping in the very same room that Abby was murdered in, and continued to sleep in that room for weeks afterwards...
                             
                             
                            June  ;-)
                             
                             
                          • revcoal@mindspring.com
                            ... I didn t say that he was nowhere around 2nd Street, but it was shown that the time period when Graham was at 2nd Street wasn t the same time that Dr. Handy
                            Message 13 of 25 , Sep 8, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Muriel wrote:
                               
                              >I'm not responsible for what the Fall River police came up
                              >with as to it being Michael Graham being Dr. Handy's
                              >wild-eyed man sent home for being too drunk for work. 
                              >I have not seen where it was proven that Graham was
                              >nowhere around 2nd Street at that time. 
                               
                              I didn't say that he was nowhere around 2nd Street, but it was shown that the time period when Graham was at 2nd Street wasn't the same time that Dr. Handy saw his strange "man"....so yes, Graham WAS on 2nd Street that morning, and that fact is what the Fall River police grabbed at, but when the newspaper reporter investigated the facts he found out that Graham in no way matched the description that Dr. Handy gave (Graham was way too tall and had a "florid" complexion rather than an extremely pale one) and that Graham wasn't on 2nd Street at the time Dr. Handy said he saw a strange "man"...
                               
                               
                              >I do have the "Sourcebook," and will check that out first
                              >chance I get, even though his presence there turned out
                              >to have nothing to do with the murders.
                               
                              On this we agree; only because I believe the Fall River police were grabbing at straws to explain away Dr. Handy's eyewitness testimony...they had already decided on Lizzie as the one and only culprit, and Dr. Handy's "wild-eyed man" made things difficult for them.  Along comes well-known drunk Michael Graham, who WAS on 2nd Street that morning (only not at the time Dr. Handy saw his strange person), and the police had a ready-made answer by which they could avoid investigating anything beyond the established party line...
                               
                               
                              >As for the woman who saw Mr. Borden returning home,
                              >were you thinking of Caroline Kelly whose clock was slow
                              >and it made her late for a dental appointment? 
                               
                              Nothing was ever shown that the Kelly's clock was slow; what Caroline Kelly said was that when she was leaving her house for her dental appointment she noticed that the clock was just after 10:30, which meant she was an hour late for her 9:30 dental appointment.  Her testimony in no way establishes that the Kelly clock was inordinately slow, only that for some reason she had neglected to even look at it before leaving for her dental appointment; if anything, her testimony suggests that the Kelly clock's time was accurate, as Kelly was surprised to find she was an hour late for her appointment...
                               
                               
                              >June, I never mentioned what I thought about Bridget having
                              >a hangover in my book for the simple reason that I would have
                              >been unable to prove it.  The thought had entered my mind. 
                              >Especially since she returned home that Wednesday night
                              >right around 10:00 p.m.  I don't know where my friend in New
                              >Hampshire came across that bit of information of Bridget liking
                              >her liquor. 
                               
                              The bottom line is, the fanatically teetotalling Bordens would NEVER have employed a maid who drank liquor, even occasionally, even if she didn't get drunk....
                               
                              So WHAT if Bridget returned home Wednesday night at 10:00 pm; there are many things she could do besides drinking alcohol...
                               
                               
                              >June, you admit that Bridget had it made in the shade
                              >so far as her having an easy job working for the Bordens. 
                              >Now, here she was, being told Mrs. Borden wanted the
                              >windows washed, inside and outside. 
                               
                              And you know for a fact that Bridget had never been asked to do that chore before?
                               
                               
                              >Then she hears Mr. Borden invite Morse back for finner. 
                              >Then she hears Mrs. Borden tell Lizzie she was going out
                              >and would buy meat for their dinner meal.  What did Bridget do?
                               
                              Probably gave thanks that they wouldn't have to eat the 4-day old mutton any more...  ;-)
                               
                              The other week my local PBS station broadcast a multipart documentary called "The Manor House" -- think "The 1900 House", but this time set in an Edwardian mansion with "upstairs/downstairs" reenactors...
                               
                              Now granted, the Bordens hardly lived in a manor house, but a maid's duties in a rich household or a middleclass household would have been rather similar, and in fact the maid in the middleclass household would have had MORE duties, since the middleclass household wouldn't also have a cook, an upstairs maid, a ladies maid, etc.  All those duties would have fallen on the one maid in the middleclass household...
                               
                              In this show they had a real problem holding onto the girls who took on the role of scullery maid -- she had to get up by 6 a.m. to stoke the kitchen fires (they tried to get her to wake up earlier, but she refused), and then spent the next EIGHTEEN HOURS scrubbing pots and washing floors, etc.  The upstairs maids spent 18 hours a day just dusting, doing laundry & ironing, etc.  In a middleclass household all these duties, including prepping and cooking a meal (and very often shopping for it, too) would have been the duty of the one maid.
                               
                              In this show the 1st 2 girls they took on as scullery maid each left after 2 days -- as modern women they had the freedom to do that, but it was pointed out to each of them before they left that if they had really been scullery maids in that era, that they wouldn't have been able to just up and quit, since they wouldn't have been able to get any references, and without any references no respectable household would employ them.  Their only option would be to go back to a life of poverty if they had any family who would be willing to take them back; find a job in a factory, if possible; or turn to prostitution (which the modern reenactors who quit found a hilarious choice)...
                               
                              Bridget only had a few hours of work a day, work that was pretty damn easy; Abby did the dusting, changed the sheets, etc.  Lizzie (and presumably Emma and Abby) obviously did ironing.  I suspect that Bridget did the actual laundry, as it was hard physical labor in those days, and if she had no problem doing the laundry, washing windows would have been a piece of cake...
                               
                              No, you still haven't come up with a good reason why being asked to wash windows would cause Bridget to suddenly become homocidal; she had it better than most maids in that household, and killer her relatively generous employers would NOT have gotten her a better lot.  The best she could have hoped for is to not be arrested and convicted of the murders, she would still have needed to get another job, which would have been difficult for an Irish maid suspected of killing her previous employers -- and even if she COULD find another job as a maid, it would have been highly unlikely that her new employers would have given her such light duties as the Bordens' had...
                               
                               
                              >Bridget did not wash the kitchen ones because she'd
                              >been there nearly all morning.  Ooops,  Bridget changed
                              >her testimony at the hearing.  She now decided that she
                              >had NOT washed the kitchen ones.
                               
                              Who cares whether she did or did not wash the kitchen windows?  She DID wash the other windows, which invalidates your theory that she murdered both Abby and Andrew because she didn't want to wash windows...
                               
                              And she WAS seen washing those windows...
                               
                               
                              >Also, that Bridget killed Mrs. Borden while Lizzie was in
                              >the cellar and Mr. Borden was still in the house. 
                               
                              Andrew left around 9 a.m., and Abby was killed anywhere from approx. 9:30 a.m. to a little after 10 a.m.  Andrew couldn't have been in the house at the time -- and if he had been, and had heard Abby's murder, why would Bridget have even let him leave?  Why wouldn't she have also killed Lizzie, who would have to have known that it was Bridget who did the murders?  Why would Lizzie have allowed herself to be arrested, imprisoned for almost a year, and brought to trial for a murder she would have known only Bridget could have committed?
                               
                               
                              >Why would Bridget have lost her job?  Emma and Lizzie were
                              >used to having a maid. 
                               
                              Oh, I don't know -- if I were either Lizzie or Emma and knew that Bridget had snapped and killed her employers over a trivial matter as washing the windows, I know that *I* would be hesitant to become her next employer...
                               
                               
                              >Oh, speaking of Florida, my sister took me to get my license
                              >plate.  Talk about a shock!!!  There is a $100 for first timers,
                              >then the difference between what I'd paid in taxes in Texas and
                              >what Florida charges for what I paid for my car, then the plate,
                              >anyway, by the time they got through, my bill was $202.60.
                               
                              At one time here in CT one saw almost as many FL plates on cars as CT ones -- what the deal was back then, people could get FL plates even if they owned a timeshare, anything to show "residency".  They avoided having to pay CT's high sales tax and high property taxes that way...
                               
                              Then about a decade ago I noticed all those FL plates disappeared -- obviously that must have been the time when FL started instituting those fees you mention above...
                               
                              Now it's VT plates that one sees on at least half the cars in CT -- again, I suspect that people are buying undeveloped land cheap up there just to establish "residency" and avoid having to pay CT's high taxes...
                               
                               
                              June  ;-)
                               
                               
                            • Patricia Stephenson
                              Hi June, This is in response to the points that I was making: Door locked: It was locked when Bridget opened it to let Andrew in assuming that Bridget s
                              Message 14 of 25 , Sep 8, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi June,
                                This is in response to the points that I was making:
                                 
                                Door locked:  It was locked when Bridget opened it to let Andrew in assuming that Bridget's testimony was truthful.  Yes, Lizzie could have opened (and subsequently relocked) the door to allow someon in.  Theoretically, the "small man" could have been Emma in disquise (or Dr. Bowen, JVM or anyone we are not thinking of).  This second person then murders Andrew thereby sharing the guilt and by the way carrying away any blood evidence.
                                 
                                I would like to say that in all the Borden books, I did not know that Dr. Handy's wild eyed man actually knocked on the door and was let in.  I thought that he was just seen on the street.
                                 
                                Prussic Acid:  Lizzie could have been checking to see how dangerous it was, how long it took to kill, how much was needed to kill, how detectable it would be in a post mortem or looking to find a benign reason to give for wanting to buy it.
                                 
                                Money:  Enough has been said about that. 
                                 
                                Emma:  I have posted before regarding my thoughts on Emma.  I have always held that Emma was the catalyst for Lizzie's dislike of her step mother.  Emma probably stoked her like a furnace over the years.  Lizzie herself testified that she "always went to her sister".  Emma must have resented this woman who was taking her mother's place and then usurping her position in the home.  Let's face it, Abby never had a prayer.
                                Having said that, we also know that Lizzie made those disparaging about Abby on her return voyage from Europe and also to the dressmaker.
                                 
                                Whitehead transaction:  I believe the Whitehead transaction to only be a small factor regarding the finances.  It was an indication however that Andrew was willing to be generous with his wife.  Actually, it was quite kind to put Abby's mind to rest regarding her sister's security.  Put that together with Abby shooting her mouth off, and many episodes that we no nothing about, and clearly, someone had to put a stop to this.  We don't know what Lizzie heard her father and JVM talking about the night before the murders.
                                 
                                Lizzie's personality:  I guess that was a little vague, huh?  I was thinking of what I recently read regarding her being "an unpleasant spinster".  I was also remembering the cat murder, and the robberies.
                                 
                                Well as far as JVM sleeping in the guest bedroom, he is someone that I have always been suspicious of with all his annoying little details of his whereabouts during the murders.  I didn't like his pear eating either. 
                                 
                                I believe that Lizzie is a murderer.  Whether or not she had help, I am open to suggestions.
                                 
                                Patsy


                                revcoal@... wrote:
                                Patsy wrote:
                                 
                                >Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer
                                >didn't get in that way. 
                                 
                                Assuming that the door was really locked...
                                 
                                Turning back to Dr. Handy's observations that morning, he claimed to have seen his "small man" knock at the Borden's front door and be let in sometime around 10 a.m. that morning...obviously after Abby would have been killed but also obviously before Andrew returned home about half an hour later...
                                 
                                But this scenario suggests that *someone* within the house knew who the "small man" was, and for some reason let this person inside -- unless this person was going thru the motions of knocking for entrance, knowing that they'd probably be observed from the street, but perhaps using a key provided to them (or which they already had) to actually gain admittance...
                                 
                                 
                                >oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid,
                                 
                                Which a Fall River cop stated he DID see on an open page of a book of household hints left open in the Borden kitchen, so there IS something to back up Lizzie's claim that she read that prussic acid could be used to clean fur...
                                 
                                But which begs the question as to why it seemed so imperative to clean fur the first week of August in the middle of a heat wave...  ;-)
                                 
                                 
                                >the money that she would be getting,
                                 
                                Actually it was Abby who had been going around telling people that "Mr. Borden is going to take good care of me in his will" -- a decidedly ODD thing for her to have suddenly become so chatty with outsiders (NOT her sister, BTW) about...
                                 
                                 
                                >the hatred of her stepmother,
                                 
                                Did she really hate Abby all that much; others testified that they thought Lizzie was rather fond of Abby...
                                 
                                It would have been EMMA, who was about 14 when Andrew married Abby, who would have had resentment at least towards Abby, if not outright hatred.  Lizzie was only 2 when Abby arrived on the scene, and the only way Lizzie could have hated Abby would have been if Emma was manipulating her...
                                 
                                 
                                >her personality,
                                 
                                Which was WHAT, exactly?
                                 
                                  
                                >her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                                 
                                Which had happened years before; and Emma apparently was AS upset, if not more so, in that regard than Lizzie...
                                 
                                There WAS something going on throughout 1892 regarding the Borden finances, but assigning the Borden sisters' ire to the Whitehead transaction of years before I believe misses the real mark...
                                 
                                 
                                >Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid,
                                >but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only
                                >killer on the loose was herself.
                                Well hell's bells, dear ol' Uncle John didn't miss a wink sleeping in the very same room that Abby was murdered in, and continued to sleep in that room for weeks afterwards...
                                 
                                 
                                June  ;-)
                                 
                                 


                                ---WHODUNIT???---



                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

                              • Patricia Stephenson
                                P.S. Regarding Lizzie s personality, I also meant to add that during her inquest testimony, she was characterized as defiant , and this was confirmed by Mrs.
                                Message 15 of 25 , Sep 9, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  P.S.  Regarding Lizzie's personality, I also meant to add that during her inquest testimony, she was characterized as "defiant", and this was confirmed by Mrs. Abby Potter, Abby's neice.Patricia Stephenson <patsy751@...> wrote:
                                  Hi June,
                                  This is in response to the points that I was making:
                                   
                                  Door locked:  It was locked when Bridget opened it to let Andrew in assuming that Bridget's testimony was truthful.  Yes, Lizzie could have opened (and subsequently relocked) the door to allow someon in.  Theoretically, the "small man" could have been Emma in disquise (or Dr. Bowen, JVM or anyone we are not thinking of).  This second person then murders Andrew thereby sharing the guilt and by the way carrying away any blood evidence.
                                   
                                  I would like to say that in all the Borden books, I did not know that Dr. Handy's wild eyed man actually knocked on the door and was let in.  I thought that he was just seen on the street.
                                   
                                  Prussic Acid:  Lizzie could have been checking to see how dangerous it was, how long it took to kill, how much was needed to kill, how detectable it would be in a post mortem or looking to find a benign reason to give for wanting to buy it.
                                   
                                  Money:  Enough has been said about that. 
                                   
                                  Emma:  I have posted before regarding my thoughts on Emma.  I have always held that Emma was the catalyst for Lizzie's dislike of her step mother.  Emma probably stoked her like a furnace over the years.  Lizzie herself testified that she "always went to her sister".  Emma must have resented this woman who was taking her mother's place and then usurping her position in the home.  Let's face it, Abby never had a prayer.
                                  Having said that, we also know that Lizzie made those disparaging about Abby on her return voyage from Europe and also to the dressmaker.
                                   
                                  Whitehead transaction:  I believe the Whitehead transaction to only be a small factor regarding the finances.  It was an indication however that Andrew was willing to be generous with his wife.  Actually, it was quite kind to put Abby's mind to rest regarding her sister's security.  Put that together with Abby shooting her mouth off, and many episodes that we no nothing about, and clearly, someone had to put a stop to this.  We don't know what Lizzie heard her father and JVM talking about the night before the murders.
                                   
                                  Lizzie's personality:  I guess that was a little vague, huh?  I was thinking of what I recently read regarding her being "an unpleasant spinster".  I was also remembering the cat murder, and the robberies.
                                   
                                  Well as far as JVM sleeping in the guest bedroom, he is someone that I have always been suspicious of with all his annoying little details of his whereabouts during the murders.  I didn't like his pear eating either. 
                                   
                                  I believe that Lizzie is a murderer.  Whether or not she had help, I am open to suggestions.
                                   
                                  Patsy


                                  revcoal@... wrote:
                                  Patsy wrote:
                                   
                                  >Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer
                                  >didn't get in that way. 
                                   
                                  Assuming that the door was really locked...
                                   
                                  Turning back to Dr. Handy's observations that morning, he claimed to have seen his "small man" knock at the Borden's front door and be let in sometime around 10 a.m. that morning...obviously after Abby would have been killed but also obviously before Andrew returned home about half an hour later...
                                   
                                  But this scenario suggests that *someone* within the house knew who the "small man" was, and for some reason let this person inside -- unless this person was going thru the motions of knocking for entrance, knowing that they'd probably be observed from the street, but perhaps using a key provided to them (or which they already had) to actually gain admittance...
                                   
                                   
                                  >oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid,
                                   
                                  Which a Fall River cop stated he DID see on an open page of a book of household hints left open in the Borden kitchen, so there IS something to back up Lizzie's claim that she read that prussic acid could be used to clean fur...
                                   
                                  But which begs the question as to why it seemed so imperative to clean fur the first week of August in the middle of a heat wave...  ;-)
                                   
                                   
                                  >the money that she would be getting,
                                   
                                  Actually it was Abby who had been going around telling people that "Mr. Borden is going to take good care of me in his will" -- a decidedly ODD thing for her to have suddenly become so chatty with outsiders (NOT her sister, BTW) about...
                                   
                                   
                                  >the hatred of her stepmother,
                                   
                                  Did she really hate Abby all that much; others testified that they thought Lizzie was rather fond of Abby...
                                   
                                  It would have been EMMA, who was about 14 when Andrew married Abby, who would have had resentment at least towards Abby, if not outright hatred.  Lizzie was only 2 when Abby arrived on the scene, and the only way Lizzie could have hated Abby would have been if Emma was manipulating her...
                                   
                                   
                                  >her personality,
                                   
                                  Which was WHAT, exactly?
                                   
                                    
                                  >her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                                   
                                  Which had happened years before; and Emma apparently was AS upset, if not more so, in that regard than Lizzie...
                                   
                                  There WAS something going on throughout 1892 regarding the Borden finances, but assigning the Borden sisters' ire to the Whitehead transaction of years before I believe misses the real mark...
                                   
                                   
                                  >Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid,
                                  >but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only
                                  >killer on the loose was herself.
                                  Well hell's bells, dear ol' Uncle John didn't miss a wink sleeping in the very same room that Abby was murdered in, and continued to sleep in that room for weeks afterwards...
                                   
                                   
                                  June  ;-)
                                   
                                   


                                  ---WHODUNIT???---



                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

                                  ---WHODUNIT???---


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

                                • revcoal@mindspring.com
                                  ... I tend to lean more to the small man being a woman in disguise; Dr. Handy seemed to think the small size of the man noteworthy. Also he noted the
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Sep 9, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Patsy wrote:

                                    >Theoretically, the "small man" could have been Emma in
                                    >disquise (or Dr. Bowen, JVM or anyone we are not thinking of). 
                                     
                                    I tend to lean more to the "small man" being a woman in disguise; Dr. Handy seemed to think the small size of the "man" noteworthy.  Also he noted the strange shoes this "man" was wearing which, based on the description, sound like some sort of Victorian version of a sneaker/tennis shoe.  If a woman were trying to put together a diguise to pass as a man, her hardest item would be to get shoes that fit; it would be obvious if she went into a mens' shoe store and tried to get regular, leather shoes in her size; but I would guess that sneakers/tennis shoes of those days were probably relatively unisex in look, much as they are today...
                                     
                                    They'd also be the type of shoe to not be out of place at a holiday excursion at the shore...  ;-)
                                     
                                    But IF the remarkably pale small "man" seen by Dr. Handy was really Emma, how then was she able to get away from Fairhaven without being missed by her friends, and return in time to receive the telegram right after lunch?
                                     
                                     
                                    >This second person then murders Andrew thereby sharing
                                    >the guilt and by the way carrying away any blood evidence.
                                     
                                    If this person DID exist (and there is no reason to doubt the integrity and veracity of Dr. Handy), and IF they indeed had something to do with the murders that morning, then one of the questions would be if this person committed either or both of the murders.  I have to go back and verify the time that Dr. Handy said he saw this person, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Abby was murdered around that time, since the estimate of her time of death always had a fairly wide window, the modern "she was killed between 9 and 9:15 notwithstanding).  Reading the testimony of those who analyzed the stomach contents (always as much an art as a science), Abby could have been killed as late as 10 am, give or take a few minutes. 
                                     
                                    But this person (and the carriage waiting for them) were seen to depart the scene BEFORE Andrew returned home, so this strange "small man" could NOT have been responsible for Andrew's murder, nor have taken the murder weapon with them.  But if this person IS the one responsible for killing Abby, it would explain why neither Lizzie (nor Bridget, for those who insist that she is the killer) got blood upon themselves. 
                                     
                                    Of course the killer would still have gotten SOME blood upon their person when killing Andrew (even if we accept Jeff's theory that Lizzie put Andrew's own coat on as a coverall, and then wadded it up under his head afterwards -- how could she have avoided getting blood on her hands and sleeves of her own dress in doing so?), and we still have the pesky question of what happened to the murder weapon?
                                     
                                     
                                    >I would like to say that in all the Borden books, I did not
                                    >know that Dr. Handy's wild eyed man actually knocked
                                    >on the door and was let in.  I thought that he was just seen
                                    >on the street.
                                     
                                    I'll have to dig out my copy of The Sourcebook -- I believe Dr. Handy stated that there was a carriage waiting outside the Borden house from which the "man" exited to which the "man" returned upon leaving the house. 
                                     
                                     
                                    >Prussic Acid:  Lizzie could have been checking to see how
                                    >dangerous it was, how long it took to kill, how much was
                                    >needed to kill, how detectable it would be in a post mortem
                                    >or looking to find a benign reason to give for wanting to buy it.
                                     
                                    Or she could have really just wanted to kill moths in a fur cape...
                                     
                                    Based on what the policeman said that was in the book, it didn't sound like it gave any strong warnings regarding the potential hazards to humans, just gave directions on how to use it on fur to kill critters of the insectoid type...
                                     
                                    But I believe that it was fairly common knowledge in that day and age that prussic acid was quite lethal, just as today we all know cyanide and arsenic are lethal; we could read an article regarding using an arsenic preparation to kill moles in one's yard and not have to have the article spell out how much was needed to kill a human to understand the dangers of using the preparation to kill moles...
                                     
                                    The prussic acid issue is a red herring; we'll never know for sure whether it was really Lizzie attempting to make the purchase or not...the pharmacy clerk had never seen her in the store before that time, and the ID process conducted by the Fall River police was laughable and would be disallowed in any court today...
                                     
                                     
                                    >Money:  Enough has been said about that. 
                                     
                                    Actually I disagree; the issue of money seemed to be raised to an inordinately high level in the Borden household for at least all of 1892, and perhaps the year before that.  *Something* seemed to be going on that was different, and brought everything to a boil when it had only been on a slow simmer in the past...
                                     
                                    It is my contention that getting to the root of that *something* would go a long way to providing the real motive for the crime.
                                     
                                     
                                    >Whitehead transaction:  I believe the Whitehead transaction
                                    >to only be a small factor regarding the finances.  It was an
                                    >indication however that Andrew was willing to be generous
                                    >with his wife.  Actually, it was quite kind to put Abby's mind
                                    >to rest regarding her sister's security. 
                                     
                                    I think this is a hint that Andrew wasn't as tight-fisted a cold fish as he's been painted to be...
                                     
                                    I think when it came to Abby, that if he didn't have (or ever have) hot passion for her, he at least had warm feelings...
                                     
                                    Let's face it -- she was a sweet woman who was a good mother to his daughters (even if his daughters didn't appreciate it) and who didn't rock the boat (and probably supported her husband in most, if not all, of his decisions)...what was there NOT to like about Abby, from Andrew's perspective, that is...?
                                     
                                     
                                    >We don't know what Lizzie heard her father and
                                    >JVM talking about the night before the murders.
                                     
                                    It doesn't matter what they talked about the night before the murders -- the murders had been planned long before that night.
                                     
                                     
                                    >Lizzie's personality:  I guess that was a little vague, huh? 
                                    >I was thinking of what I recently read regarding her being
                                    >"an unpleasant spinster".  I was also remembering the cat
                                    >murder, and the robberies.
                                     
                                    There is no basis for the "cat murder" allegation; considering how much Lizzie was an animal lover, I doubt that she would ever have killed a cat, no matter how much she may have hated Abby...
                                     
                                    Now EMMA on the other hand -- passive/aggressive as a believer her to have been, I can believe that SHE wouldn't hesitate to kill Abby's cat....
                                     
                                    We also don't know if the previous robberies were Lizzie, or Emma...no reason to rule Emma out.
                                     
                                    As for being "an unpleasant spinster", well many of her friends and acquaintances raved about how nice they thought she was.  Also her Sunday School students all were fond of her...
                                     
                                    Lizzie was obviously a woman of strong will -- something that was not appreciated in the Victorian era; a term of "an unpleasant spinster" was the genteel way of calling a woman a bitch...  
                                     
                                    Which is NOT necessarily an insult...   ;-)
                                     
                                     
                                    June  ;-)
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                  • Muriel Arnold
                                    Hi gang: What I was hoping to hear was what Bridget did from the time she got up til she went across the street to spend the night with the Miller s maid.
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Sep 9, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi gang:
                                      What I was hoping to hear was what Bridget did from the time she got up til she went across the street to spend the night with the Miller's maid.  Most especially, her time sequence.
                                       
                                      Patsy, which cat murder were you referring to?  There seemed to have been at least two or three.  Off hand, I can remember two of them.  Off hand, I'd say they came from McHenry.  He was notorious for coming out with outrageous stories.
                                      Muriel
                                       
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:36 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited

                                      P.S.  Regarding Lizzie's personality, I also meant to add that during her inquest testimony, she was characterized as "defiant", and this was confirmed by Mrs. Abby Potter, Abby's neice.Patricia Stephenson <patsy751@...> wrote:
                                      Hi June,
                                      This is in response to the points that I was making:
                                       
                                      Door locked:  It was locked when Bridget opened it to let Andrew in assuming that Bridget's testimony was truthful.  Yes, Lizzie could have opened (and subsequently relocked) the door to allow someon in.  Theoretically, the "small man" could have been Emma in disquise (or Dr. Bowen, JVM or anyone we are not thinking of).  This second person then murders Andrew thereby sharing the guilt and by the way carrying away any blood evidence.
                                       
                                      I would like to say that in all the Borden books, I did not know that Dr. Handy's wild eyed man actually knocked on the door and was let in.  I thought that he was just seen on the street.
                                       
                                      Prussic Acid:  Lizzie could have been checking to see how dangerous it was, how long it took to kill, how much was needed to kill, how detectable it would be in a post mortem or looking to find a benign reason to give for wanting to buy it.
                                       
                                      Money:  Enough has been said about that. 
                                       
                                      Emma:  I have posted before regarding my thoughts on Emma.  I have always held that Emma was the catalyst for Lizzie's dislike of her step mother.  Emma probably stoked her like a furnace over the years.  Lizzie herself testified that she "always went to her sister".  Emma must have resented this woman who was taking her mother's place and then usurping her position in the home.  Let's face it, Abby never had a prayer.
                                      Having said that, we also know that Lizzie made those disparaging about Abby on her return voyage from Europe and also to the dressmaker.
                                       
                                      Whitehead transaction:  I believe the Whitehead transaction to only be a small factor regarding the finances.  It was an indication however that Andrew was willing to be generous with his wife.  Actually, it was quite kind to put Abby's mind to rest regarding her sister's security.  Put that together with Abby shooting her mouth off, and many episodes that we no nothing about, and clearly, someone had to put a stop to this.  We don't know what Lizzie heard her father and JVM talking about the night before the murders.
                                       
                                      Lizzie's personality:  I guess that was a little vague, huh?  I was thinking of what I recently read regarding her being "an unpleasant spinster".  I was also remembering the cat murder, and the robberies.
                                       
                                      Well as far as JVM sleeping in the guest bedroom, he is someone that I have always been suspicious of with all his annoying little details of his whereabouts during the murders.  I didn't like his pear eating either. 
                                       
                                      I believe that Lizzie is a murderer.  Whether or not she had help, I am open to suggestions.
                                       
                                      Patsy


                                      revcoal@... wrote:
                                      Patsy wrote:
                                       
                                      >Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer
                                      >didn't get in that way. 
                                       
                                      Assuming that the door was really locked...
                                       
                                      Turning back to Dr. Handy's observations that morning, he claimed to have seen his "small man" knock at the Borden's front door and be let in sometime around 10 a.m. that morning...obviously after Abby would have been killed but also obviously before Andrew returned home about half an hour later...
                                       
                                      But this scenario suggests that *someone* within the house knew who the "small man" was, and for some reason let this person inside -- unless this person was going thru the motions of knocking for entrance, knowing that they'd probably be observed from the street, but perhaps using a key provided to them (or which they already had) to actually gain admittance...
                                       
                                       
                                      >oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid,
                                       
                                      Which a Fall River cop stated he DID see on an open page of a book of household hints left open in the Borden kitchen, so there IS something to back up Lizzie's claim that she read that prussic acid could be used to clean fur...
                                       
                                      But which begs the question as to why it seemed so imperative to clean fur the first week of August in the middle of a heat wave...  ;-)
                                       
                                       
                                      >the money that she would be getting,
                                       
                                      Actually it was Abby who had been going around telling people that "Mr. Borden is going to take good care of me in his will" -- a decidedly ODD thing for her to have suddenly become so chatty with outsiders (NOT her sister, BTW) about...
                                       
                                       
                                      >the hatred of her stepmother,
                                       
                                      Did she really hate Abby all that much; others testified that they thought Lizzie was rather fond of Abby...
                                       
                                      It would have been EMMA, who was about 14 when Andrew married Abby, who would have had resentment at least towards Abby, if not outright hatred.  Lizzie was only 2 when Abby arrived on the scene, and the only way Lizzie could have hated Abby would have been if Emma was manipulating her...
                                       
                                       
                                      >her personality,
                                       
                                      Which was WHAT, exactly?
                                       
                                        
                                      >her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                                       
                                      Which had happened years before; and Emma apparently was AS upset, if not more so, in that regard than Lizzie...
                                       
                                      There WAS something going on throughout 1892 regarding the Borden finances, but assigning the Borden sisters' ire to the Whitehead transaction of years before I believe misses the real mark...
                                       
                                       
                                      >Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid,
                                      >but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only
                                      >killer on the loose was herself.
                                      Well hell's bells, dear ol' Uncle John didn't miss a wink sleeping in the very same room that Abby was murdered in, and continued to sleep in that room for weeks afterwards...
                                       
                                       
                                      June  ;-)
                                       
                                       


                                      ---WHODUNIT???---



                                      Do you Yahoo!?
                                      Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

                                      ---WHODUNIT???---


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

                                      ---WHODUNIT???---


                                    • Patricia Stephenson
                                      Dear Muriel, I was referring specifically to the cat incident that was in the book Good By Lizzie Borden by Robert Sullivan. Patsy. Muriel Arnold
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Sep 9, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Muriel,
                                        I was referring specifically to the cat incident that was in the book " Good By Lizzie Borden"  by Robert Sullivan.
                                         
                                        Patsy. 

                                        Muriel Arnold <muriella@...> wrote:
                                        Hi gang:
                                        What I was hoping to hear was what Bridget did from the time she got up til she went across the street to spend the night with the Miller's maid.  Most especially, her time sequence.
                                         
                                        Patsy, which cat murder were you referring to?  There seemed to have been at least two or three.  Off hand, I can remember two of them.  Off hand, I'd say they came from McHenry.  He was notorious for coming out with outrageous stories.
                                        Muriel
                                         
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:36 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [40Whacks] Re: The Dress Revisited

                                        P.S.  Regarding Lizzie's personality, I also meant to add that during her inquest testimony, she was characterized as "defiant", and this was confirmed by Mrs. Abby Potter, Abby's neice.Patricia Stephenson <patsy751@...> wrote:
                                        Hi June,
                                        This is in response to the points that I was making:
                                         
                                        Door locked:  It was locked when Bridget opened it to let Andrew in assuming that Bridget's testimony was truthful.  Yes, Lizzie could have opened (and subsequently relocked) the door to allow someon in.  Theoretically, the "small man" could have been Emma in disquise (or Dr. Bowen, JVM or anyone we are not thinking of).  This second person then murders Andrew thereby sharing the guilt and by the way carrying away any blood evidence.
                                         
                                        I would like to say that in all the Borden books, I did not know that Dr. Handy's wild eyed man actually knocked on the door and was let in.  I thought that he was just seen on the street.
                                         
                                        Prussic Acid:  Lizzie could have been checking to see how dangerous it was, how long it took to kill, how much was needed to kill, how detectable it would be in a post mortem or looking to find a benign reason to give for wanting to buy it.
                                         
                                        Money:  Enough has been said about that. 
                                         
                                        Emma:  I have posted before regarding my thoughts on Emma.  I have always held that Emma was the catalyst for Lizzie's dislike of her step mother.  Emma probably stoked her like a furnace over the years.  Lizzie herself testified that she "always went to her sister".  Emma must have resented this woman who was taking her mother's place and then usurping her position in the home.  Let's face it, Abby never had a prayer.
                                        Having said that, we also know that Lizzie made those disparaging about Abby on her return voyage from Europe and also to the dressmaker.
                                         
                                        Whitehead transaction:  I believe the Whitehead transaction to only be a small factor regarding the finances.  It was an indication however that Andrew was willing to be generous with his wife.  Actually, it was quite kind to put Abby's mind to rest regarding her sister's security.  Put that together with Abby shooting her mouth off, and many episodes that we no nothing about, and clearly, someone had to put a stop to this.  We don't know what Lizzie heard her father and JVM talking about the night before the murders.
                                         
                                        Lizzie's personality:  I guess that was a little vague, huh?  I was thinking of what I recently read regarding her being "an unpleasant spinster".  I was also remembering the cat murder, and the robberies.
                                         
                                        Well as far as JVM sleeping in the guest bedroom, he is someone that I have always been suspicious of with all his annoying little details of his whereabouts during the murders.  I didn't like his pear eating either. 
                                         
                                        I believe that Lizzie is a murderer.  Whether or not she had help, I am open to suggestions.
                                         
                                        Patsy


                                        revcoal@... wrote:
                                        Patsy wrote:
                                         
                                        >Considering that the front door had three locks....well the killer
                                        >didn't get in that way. 
                                         
                                        Assuming that the door was really locked...
                                         
                                        Turning back to Dr. Handy's observations that morning, he claimed to have seen his "small man" knock at the Borden's front door and be let in sometime around 10 a.m. that morning...obviously after Abby would have been killed but also obviously before Andrew returned home about half an hour later...
                                         
                                        But this scenario suggests that *someone* within the house knew who the "small man" was, and for some reason let this person inside -- unless this person was going thru the motions of knocking for entrance, knowing that they'd probably be observed from the street, but perhaps using a key provided to them (or which they already had) to actually gain admittance...
                                         
                                         
                                        >oh, Lizzie consider the prussic acid,
                                         
                                        Which a Fall River cop stated he DID see on an open page of a book of household hints left open in the Borden kitchen, so there IS something to back up Lizzie's claim that she read that prussic acid could be used to clean fur...
                                         
                                        But which begs the question as to why it seemed so imperative to clean fur the first week of August in the middle of a heat wave...  ;-)
                                         
                                         
                                        >the money that she would be getting,
                                         
                                        Actually it was Abby who had been going around telling people that "Mr. Borden is going to take good care of me in his will" -- a decidedly ODD thing for her to have suddenly become so chatty with outsiders (NOT her sister, BTW) about...
                                         
                                         
                                        >the hatred of her stepmother,
                                         
                                        Did she really hate Abby all that much; others testified that they thought Lizzie was rather fond of Abby...
                                         
                                        It would have been EMMA, who was about 14 when Andrew married Abby, who would have had resentment at least towards Abby, if not outright hatred.  Lizzie was only 2 when Abby arrived on the scene, and the only way Lizzie could have hated Abby would have been if Emma was manipulating her...
                                         
                                         
                                        >her personality,
                                         
                                        Which was WHAT, exactly?
                                         
                                          
                                        >her anger at the Whitehead transaction....
                                         
                                        Which had happened years before; and Emma apparently was AS upset, if not more so, in that regard than Lizzie...
                                         
                                        There WAS something going on throughout 1892 regarding the Borden finances, but assigning the Borden sisters' ire to the Whitehead transaction of years before I believe misses the real mark...
                                         
                                         
                                        >Brigitte couldn't even stay in the house she was so afraid,
                                        >but Lizzie could sleep like a baby knowing that the only
                                        >killer on the loose was herself.
                                        Well hell's bells, dear ol' Uncle John didn't miss a wink sleeping in the very same room that Abby was murdered in, and continued to sleep in that room for weeks afterwards...
                                         
                                         
                                        June  ;-)
                                         
                                         


                                        ---WHODUNIT???---



                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

                                        ---WHODUNIT???---


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

                                        ---WHODUNIT???---




                                        ---WHODUNIT???---


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

                                      • PatriciaLu@aol.com
                                        I don t usually watch Jeopardy, but for some reason, I was watching it one day this week where Lizzie was an answer. The category was something like subject
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Sep 9, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I don't usually watch Jeopardy, but for some reason, I was watching it one day this week where Lizzie was an answer. The category was something like "subject of the book" and the Jeopardy answer was "A Private Disgrace and 40 Whacks" and the guy who is the current long-time champion rang in right away with "Who is Lizzie Borden?"
                                           
                                          Pat
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.