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

Re: [40Whacks] the rhyme

Expand Messages
  • Muriel Arnold
    Okay Jeff: As females insist in having the last word, here it is and we can call it quits. 1.
    Message 1 of 8 , May 27, 2005
      Okay Jeff:
      As females insist in having the last word, here it is and we can call it quits.
      1.  <***Duh...Abby feared she was being poisoned the day before the murder.>
          Lizzie Borden was not overly bright, but she wasn't stupid either.  Abby went to see Dr. Bowen early on Wednesday morning.  He put it down as summer complaint.  He went to the Borden house and left her some medication before starting his rounds.
          This means Lizzie must have been either stupid or exceedingly brilliant.  What this tells us is that Lizzie must have already administered poison to them on Tuesday (they threw up that night), and having failed in that, tried to buy more poison Wednesday morning,  even AFTER Mrs. Borden went to the doctor complaining of having their having been poisoned.  Yeah, right.
      2.  <...Hart and Kilroy were student drug clerks and very credible eye-witnesses.  They weren't "taken" to the inquest, they testified there.>
          I looked it up.  It was Frank Kilroy, the medical student, who was among the reporters at the foot of the stairs.  The police asked him if it was not Lizzie Borden,  who was leaving the upstairs courtroom, the woman he had seen in Smith's drugstore. 
      3.  <...they were on deadline and pressured to create new angles.  Every true crime writer worth his salt knows you can't relay on the accuracy of newspaper accounts during the initial investigation phase.  They're always rife with errors.  Which is why your "research" is so flawed...>
        Excuse me, seems to me even your Precious Victoria Lincoln was very much surprised at the accuracy of their reporting.
      What I did was made sure that what I had was what was not only in quote on such and such a day by several reporters, I also made note of any changes (denials) by the participants, and what they testified to at the hearing and again at the trial.  MY RESEARCH IS NOT AS FLAWED AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE.
      As for Bridget's testifying of being told by Mrs. Borden about the note in the sitting room, I can no longer go back and locate that because it was shipped to New Hamphire some two to three, maybe four years ago, maybe it was Mrs. Churchill who testified as to Bridget saying she was told about the note in the sitting room.  It doesn't matter.  A note had come and Bridget had said it had several times during August.  AND, I DO NOT JUST MAKE STUFF UP.  I DID MY VERY BEST TO HAVE TWO OR THREE SOURCES BACK UP MY RESEARCH.
      Before criticizing me, think about your having Lincoln's book holding a place of honor on your shelves.  Four of her books landed in my house (no cost to me).  What cost me was shipping them out.  Then I ended up going to the library, they didn't have a copy and had to borrow one from the Forth Worth Library.  I now have 60 pages of notes.    Just because she won Book of the Year for Non-fiction, doesn't mean she knew what she was talking about.  It just reads like she does, until you do your own research.  Instead of comparing me Arnold Brown, try comparing Lincoln with Brown.  You'd get the same result.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 11:55 PM
      Subject: FW: [40Whacks] the rhyme



      Muriel, I feel sorry for you.  Your credibility is shot.  You sound just like Arnold Brown when he defended his”illegitimate son Billy Borden as the killer” theory.  Complete tunnel vision and cantankerous denial of any fact that doesn’t fit the contrived hypothesis. And yes, no one was convinced of that one either…


      1.  <As I said, Robinson never denied Lizzie tried to buy poison--he merely argued that it had an innocent use.>

         What lawyer would deny his client tried to buy poison.  Had he failed to get Bence's testimony kept out, maybe then he would have done his damnest to get the jury to discount his testimony or cast doubt on his credibility.


      ***Duh…  Abby feared she was being poisoned the day before her murder.


         2.  Frederick Hart and Thomas Kilroy testified at the inquest and hearing that it was Lizzie who attempted to buy prussic acid.

          I don't remember if it was Fred Hart or Frank Kilroy who was taken to the inquest where Lizzie was pointed out to him as she left the courtroom and asked if she wasn't the one who had been in Smith's drugstore trying to buy prussic acid.  How's that for a line-up?


      ***Hart & Kilroy were student drug clerks and very credible eye-witnesses.  They weren’t “taken” to the inquest, they testified there.  


      1. FACT:  The reporters had no time to behave like hack reporters.  It was all they could do to keep pace with the trial.


      ***they were on deadline and pressured to create new angles.  Every true crime writer worth his salt knows you can’t rely on the accuracy of newspaper accounts during the initial investigation phase.  They’re always rife with errors.  Which is why your “research” is so flawed…


      Jeff, I disagree with you about anyone being able to tell when a "wood break" is fresh or not.  I"ll stick with the wood dealers back then who claimed you could not.


      ***disagree all you want – a fresh wood break is easy to spot.


      <...You wake up! And read the FREAKIN TRANSCRIPT!  Here is what Bridget testified about the note...>

      Jeff, when are you going to wake up to the FACT that Bridget was an adroit and chronic liar?

          a)  Bridget claimed Lizzie told her about the note as she, Bridget, was washing the dining room windows.

          b)  Bridget did testify that Mrs. Borden told her about the note in the sitting room.

          c)  Bridget told reporters a few days after the murders that a note had come shortly before 9:00.

          d)  I'm not going to find Lizzie's inquest testimony, but I'm pretty sure she did not testify to telling her father                  about Mrs. Borden receiving a note, as Bridget claimed Lizzie had.


      ***Memo to group:  I have cited Bridget’s testimony regarding the note.  I challenge Muriel to cite the testimony she claims Bridget gave in b) above.  Problem is that she can’t – because Bridget never testified that Abby told her about the note.  When Muriel says she did she is either lying or mistaken – which casts all her other assertions in doubt.


      Why can’t Muriel just admit she’s wrong here?  Or that she’s confused Mrs. Churchill’s testimony with Bridget’s.  Bottom line – we cannot accept anything Muriel says at face value.  I personally think she just makes stuff up…


      I hope the group is getting as tired of this as I am.  It’s a waste of time and keystrokes, and JT won’t play if anymore after this.


      I’ll have a rather huge announcement for the group sometime in June regarding my Maplecroft project.







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