The program on TDC

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:06 pm

Very good!

Congratulations Stefani and Kat. You both made a wonderful appearance on the program and came off as (deservedly) credible.

The show itself was very good-- I have a lot of feelings after seeing it.

First of all--- I never thought of the hatchet being swung single-handedly. I always pictured a two handed over the head swinging motion. Maybe that is because as a woman that is how I can imagine myself swinging it.

The luminol test was very telling.

For me the most dramatic moment was matching the hatchet to Abby's "do rag".

I realize I (all of us) will be watching our tapes over and over again and having a plethora of new topics coming in the next weeks.

To end...

You both have every reason to be proud of your appearance on the show. I am proud to be even remotely connected to it by knowing you through here.

Tres manifique!

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:24 pm

Good Show!

I agree with Mark A's opinion in the "Tonight's the Night" thread that not much new was uncovered here. Their final timeline was somewhat out of whack, too. Actually a lot of their times seemed wrong. And of course lots of nagging little details.

However, seeing Kat, Stef, Bill, Michael and Len in living color and hearing their voices was a treat. Of course, if I'd dragged my butt over to Fall River on Wednesday I could have actually met some of you in person.

I think all of "our" experts were great. The investigators were good, too. The over-dramatic narration was somewhat bothersome, though.

And what was with "John Morse's" beard? It looked like they'd strapped a skein of yarn to his face. . .

keim · Post by **keim** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:31 pm

Hi everyone!
First time poster here.
Just getting used to the format.

keim · Post by **keim** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:35 pm

Hi everyone!
First time poster here.
I thought the show was was a nice, fresh spin on the familiar story. We stayed in the B&B, in the Summer of "02". The luminol test was exciting to see. The basement was clearly the most unchanged portion of the house, and the fact that possible tell-tale signs of the events of "92" could be seen today, was fantastic!

goldenpixie · Post by **goldenpixie** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:14 am

Hi everyone!
Loved tonight's show and it was good to see Michael and Ed as always. Kat and Stefani - was good to see both of you too - I used to be a member of the old forums but got dragged away by work and whatever else life threw my way - but it's good to be back!
So my question....
The detectives on the show did the whole luminal thing with the basin in the dry well at the house. Signs of blood having been in the basin were there....but.....
1. Is that the original basin from when the family lived there?
Hugs all around,
Donna

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:07 am

Thanks you guys.
It was a sort of shock to see oneself on TV.
After 3 hours of interview between Stef & myself, I think they might have pulled a bit more together from us. Not that I wanted more airtime- on the contrary! But it might have given more background to the whole story for people new to the case, as I believe Mr. Lang and the crime-scene re-enactor both were, tho they were very good.

The Luminol didn't prove much that I could tell.
In answer to your thoughtful question Donna, it might be the Borden's bowl or it might be the next people who owned the house. The same for the positive results on the Luminol testing- on the rim and on the brick wall- these marks can't or haven't been dated I don't think- could be from 1945 or something?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:21 am

Yes, Kat and Stef you did us proud ! It was great to see Len again, and it was great to put a face to Bill Pavao. I'll bet we get many new members from this.

Tracy...

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:26 am

Way to go Kat and Stef. You did the forum proud. It was the perfect topping to the week in Fall River and well deserved recognition for both of you.

I thought the show despite a few minor errors was pretty good. It was an attempt at trying something new and that's always a gamble as to it's result.

I think the finding of the blood on the cellar roof was interesting but not important. That goes more to show the effectiveness of Luminol and the durability of blood stains.

As for the water basin and wall, as Kat said, we have no idea when the blood traces might have occurred. If Luminol is that effective and can still find blood traces after 112 years I think if they spayed all over the house they would have found many more blood traces. The causes could have been for many reasons, - nose bleeds, shaving cuts, bruises, etc.

And are we sure it was even human blood? We know Andrew killed pigeons and perhaps a few chickens from his farms.

The segment on Bridget as a suspect was weak. Neither Andrew nor Abby ever called her "Maggie" per Bridget's own testimony. Like Radin they could not come up with a valid reason for Bridget to kill.

Enjoyed seeing Len, Bill and Michael Martins. I've always believed what Len had to say. The victims and the killer knew each other. The crimes are way too violent to be otherwise. But as Stefani said the only thing we know for sure was that 2 people were brutally murdered in that house on August 4, 1892.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:14 am

Does anone know what that "scarf" was they tested the handleless hatchet against?

Bob G. tells us of a silk handkerchief in the "Collection", but wasn't that stained with blood?
This maroon-coloured "scarf" had not blood that I could tell on the TV.

Can anyone figure out it's significance?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:33 am

Very true-- no blood.

There were questions about Abby's head rag....

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:15 am

Yes, I wondered about the do rag also, if that was supposed to have been on Abby's head while being murdered and chopped up, wouldn't it have had blood stains on it? If it was the one she wore, sans bloodstains, it only showed that a hachet with that particular size cutting edge was used as the murder weapon. Which we already know was the reason that the handless hatchet was suspect as it had a cutting edge that fit in the wounds of the victims to begin with. I guess that brings about that question again of how many handkerchiefs there were found by Abby's body.

LBFallRiver7 · Post by **LBFallRiver7** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:18 am

This is my first post, but I have been involved with the Lizzie Borden saga for over 20 years. And it does still fascinate me.

Stefani and Kat - you have done such a wonderful job on this message board and the web site. Truly, truly fabulous. I am one of the old gang from Dark Rose and before.

Please keep up the GREAT job!!! And it was so wonderful to see you both on the new Lizzie Borden special. It is great to see one of our own! And it was a very interesting show.

I am looking forward to re-connecting with everyone again.

Sue

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:40 pm

Welcome keim, goldenpixie, and LB! The rag confused me too. Why would the hatchet have sliced it blood free? Also, even if it fit (assuming said fit is germaine to the case), what's the big deal? The hatchet is a standard size. Any hatchet that size could be used.

--Lyddie

Sally · Post by **Sally** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:18 pm

Hello, Everone...
This is my first post, although I have been reading this forum for quite awhile, and have studied the Lizzie Borden case for well over 30 years. I enjoyed last nights show, although there were quite a few discrepancies in the story. Nevertheless, it was a very interesting program. Being a professional photographer, I was interested in the fact that the Borden murders were one of the first where crime scene photography was used. I don't believe I had ever read that before. They also brought up the theory that Lizzie may have been a victim of incest. I remember first reading that in an issue of American Heritage many years ago. While some may not believe in that theory, I feel it has some merit. As a high school graduate in 1974 (ok, I'm telling my age), I walked down the aisle on graduation night with a classmate I had known casually for many years, and whose father was one of my fathers best friends. Three months later, the entire town was shocked when this same classmate was arrested for killing both her mother and father as they slept. She was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Her defense during the trial was that she had been sexually abused by her father for many years; finally she couldn't take it anymore and killed both parents. It was not a new story presented for her defense; most people had heard the rumor for years. About 5 years ago she was released from prison because not only had she been a victim of many years of incest, but it was found that social workers had known of the situation from the time she was 12 and had made no attempt to help her. All in all, a very tragic story. But to me, it gives merit to the theory that Lizzie may also have been a victim of sexual abuse. Could Bridget have known of the situation and been willing to help Lizzie during the trial? Could Emma have been a victim of the same thing as well prior to Lizzie? Is it possible Abby knew what was going on? We will never know what really went on in that household prior to the murders. Something triggered Lizzie's rage that day. If Bridget had committed the murders, I seriously doubt Lizzie would have taken the blame for her. But if Lizzie committed the murders, and Bridget had an idea of what caused her to snap, I think it very likely she would try to help her. By all accounts, Bridget was fond of Lizzie.
Well, sorry this post is so long. Just throwing out a few ideas that I find interesting. Again, great show last night and it was wonderful to actually SEE people whose posts I have read for quite awhile.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:58 pm

Hi Sally, welcome to the Forum! I thought that was interesting on the show how they had Bridget as Lizzie's ally. The Lizzie incest theory always makes me wonder, if it happened, was there ever a pregnancy, or was it more along the lines of just inappropriate touching? I realize at this point in time we will never have closure on that theory, just wish we had a little more to go on, one way or the other.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:28 pm

HI Sally!
It does make sense for a victim to hold both parents accountable, not only destroying both, but obliberating their identities by attacking their faces. That is sort of a woman's signature, I hear.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:03 pm

Welcome, Sally! How sad about your classmate.

The incest theory does have possibilities. I have read that kleptomania can be a form of acting out in cases of incest victims, and Lizzie may have been subject to the compulsion; she was certainly behind the burglary of the previous year. The wounds do indicate a rage that goes beyond greed. They are not only blows to the head: Andrew's eye was sliced, and the back of Abby's head was caved in. The eyes are frequent targets of those who have seen the forbidden (the Papin sisters); maybe Abby's wounds indicate that she turned her back to ongoing abuse. . .

--Lyddie

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:20 am

While I was more than delighted to see our Stef and Kat, as well as my Fall River buddies Len and Bill...and that handsome Michael Martins, I thought the show was very weak. True, it was valuable to have the reenactments performed in the actual house, of course. But it struck me (ha!) as "dumbing down" to have the maid roaming around with a hatchet BEHIND HER BACK murmuring "It's Bridget, not Maggie." Oh, please.

I thought the Luminol tests proved nothing. So what if Andrew's blood seeped into the floorboards? Was anyone disputing that he bled? And I wonder about that basin being the same basin that stood there 112 years ago!

I was baffled as to why the program insisted that Andrew was approached from behind, as they then proceeded to show him being hacked from in front. And then, the melon-test had the lab assailant chop from behind, with the unsecured cantaloupe rolling all over the place. This was just plain dopey, IMO.

And they have Michael stating unequivocally that the photographic evidence shows that Andrew was autopsied in the room where he'd been killed, even as the reenactment incorrectly showed the doctors examing the corpses in the dining room.

The way the narrator announced portentously the that "crime scene had been compromised" was rather misleading; the concept of a crime scene is a
modern one, which could have been explained. However, watching the show for a second time, it was obvious the tone they were going for was dramatic and blood-chilling. Incidentally, did anyone else wince when the rather hunky Italian-American forensic expert used the phrase "had went?"

And does anyone think Abby would've been wearing that scarf draped over her head like a Madonna? Michael Martins himself told me at the FRHS that the hairpins were still in the cloth. Therefore, that the handleless hatchet happened to match a split in the fabric when it was laid out flat proves nothing at all.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:05 pm

Bob G, haha, that's so blunt and true! i'm laughing. that's very sagitarian of you! thanks for saying all that. i must say i agree.

i'll have to re-watch it. mostly i was watching for kat and stefani -- i felt the other stuff was pointless while i continuously waited for them to appear and vanish so quickly i could just ascertain who i was looking at. they should have constructed the show around their interviews, anyway. well, i hate to go too far, but frankly, it was "dumbed down" -- it was not for us. i recently said this to someone on this board privately, but the sagitarius just inspired me to go public. haha! thanks. (flesh that out a bit and submit for next hatchet)

____________

Eugene

goldenpixie · Post by **goldenpixie** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:51 pm

They seemed to have made a lot of comments in the beginning of the show that they never quite covered during the show. Like the comment about Bridget's "dark past" that was never again mentioned, they also (if I'm remembering correctly) made reference to the fact that the Lizzie case was very similar to the OJ case. Uh? How's that? Other than not being able to find more than a spot of blood on either her or OJ, where are the similarities? I don't recall Lizzie's "dream team" standing up with Andrew's skull in hand, hatchet in the skull's gaping hole and announcing to the jury "if the hatchet doesn't fit you must acquit!"!!!!!!
I wish they would have followed up on the opening statements rather than just leave them hanging...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:41 am

About that scarf, Bob-O...
What do you know and when did you know it??

You also win for the most "Edits!"
It was between me & FairhavenGuy, until now!

Actually, Donna, I think that phrase (or something close to it) was used in the Stanford Re-Enactment video.
There are a lot of similarities between the cases (I don't know that it's relevant) but I can list some which have been published, if anyone cares.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:16 am

That dark colored handkerchief has me confused also. Was it the same handkerchied referred to by Dr. Dolan at the trial? This is from Part 1 of the trial (page 857+):

Q. Did you find any article of clothing there that you took away?
A. Yes, sir; I found a handkerchief, and old silk handkerchief.
--------
Q. For convenience of talking new, it is the handkerchief that has already been introduced in the case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You sent it up once to be looked at anyhow?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you find the handkerchief, near the head?
A. Almost touching it, nearer the wall than the head.
Q. Was it knotted or loose?
A. Loose.
Q. Describe the handkerchief?
A. It seemed to be an old silk handkerchief, in some places shredded from wear.
Q. Did you notice whether the handkerchief was cut or not?
A. I did not see that it was cut.
Q. It was a dark colored handkerchief?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there blood on the handkerchief?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How near her head was the handkerchief? Perhaps I have already asked that.
A. It was quite near. The hands were in there between the head and the handkerchief.
Q. I will ask now before I come to the measurements, how far in your estimation, if you observed it, was the head of Mrs. Borden from the west wall. That would be the west wall, would it not?
A. The east wall.
Q. Is that the handkerchief? (Showing dark tattered handkerchief)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that in the condition so far as the entirety of it is concerned, as it was then?
A. Yes, sir, I think so.
Q. Did you take charge of it then?
A. No, sir, not at that particular time.
Q. When did you take it, if you took it, that day?
A. No, sir, I didn't take it that day.
Q. Was anything done with it that day, if you know?
A. Yes, sir, buried it with the rest of the clothing.
------
Q. The clothing was afterwards dug up?
A. Yes, sir, it was dug up with parts of the clothing."

The photo of Abby shows a light colored cloth object just below her right elbow. It certainly doesn't resemble the cloth (in color) that was used on the show.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:18 am

i watched it again last night.

of course i'm also baffled about the hankerchief -- what they showed could not have been the bloody hankerchief.....i guess someone knows.

another oddity: there is some mention of a lie bridget told. what lie was that?

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:48 am

Bobby G. has his credits,
But he really likes his "edits..."

I had posted about that conversation with Michael about two summers ago. I had just used the rest room in the FRHS, and it hit me that I had a question about the dust scarf, as we had been discussing it on line before I left on my vacation. So, I looked around and thought "and you're HERE, stupid - and it's right downstairs!" So I washed my hands, and ran out and collared MM before he had a chance to vanish into the archives.

Also, how about the dollhouse of the Borden manse? I loved it! Still, it was rather disingenuous of them to state that "Bridget was only 36 feet from Abby" at the time of her murder. True, but there were also walls, a floor, and a window between them (and a window that was being washed certainly wasn't open).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:16 am

??
This message was lost thru an <Edit> way back when.
I noticed it recently when I re-opened the topic.
Forget the question marks. Who knows what I wrote- I sure don't!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:17 am

Kat-Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:28 pm"HI Sally!
It does make sense for a victim to hold both parents accountable, not only destroying both, but obliberating their identities by attacking their faces.

I would quote you directly Sally, but it's sort of long.
So I am continuing upon your theme in this way:

I am reading Dominick Dunne, Justice, 2001, chapter title "Nightmare On Elm Drive", page 112. On the Menendez killings:

"Los Angeles District Attorney Ira Reiner stated on television that one motive for the murders was greed. Certainly it is possible for a child to kill his parents for money, to wish to continue the easy life on easy street without the encumbrance of parental restrictions. But is it really possible for a child to kill, for merely financial gain, in the manner Kitty and Jose Menendez were killed? To blast holes into one's parents? To deface them? To obliterate them? In the fatal, coup de grace shot, the barrel of one shotgun touched the cheek of Kitty Menendez. You wonder if her eyes met the eyes of her killer in the last second of her life. In this case, we have two children who allegedly participated in the killing of each parent, not in the heat of rage but in a carefully orchestrated scenario after a long gestation period. There is more than money involved here. There is a deep, deep hatred, a hatred that goes beyond hate."

--We all know what their line of defense was- abuse.

donj · Post by **donj** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:27 pm

I am courious about bridegt's lie too. what lie?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:38 am

From the Charlie Crowell collection of unsourced news items transcribed by our Harry:

Unknown newspaper, June 9, 1893

DRESS AND AXE IN
THE BORDEN CASE

Damaging Testimony Against the
Prisoner Again Brought Out.

BURNED HER BLUE GOWN.

It Was an Old Thing and "Soiled"
With Paint." So the Prisoner Said.

MARSHAL FLEET'S DISCOVERIES.

The Handleless Blade Covered With Ashes
Found in the Cellar -- Probable Speedy
Termination of the Trial.

Special Despatch to The Press.
New Bedford, Mass., June 8.
....
..."Allen was asked about the condition of Lizzie at the time. He said she appeared cool. Witness was asked if he noticed any article of clothing near Miss Borden and said that he saw a handkerchief lying in a pool of blood near Mrs. Borden's feet.

Mr. Moody exhibited a colored handkerchief with squares of black lines which was badly torn. The Government will endeavor to connect this handkerchief with Miss Borden if they can. The senior counsel for the defense examined Officer Allen as to the time he went there and as to a small table with books upon it in the sitting room upon which the witness said he saw no blood."

--I can't tell if the "Miss Borden" is Lizzie or Abby. They get the "Mrs. Borden" right in the preceeding paragraph. It sounds like they want to connect the handkerchief with Lizzie? Notice they say it was found at Abby's feet?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:32 am

I checked Allen's Trial testimony (page 439) and the news article is substantially correct. However, his testimony doesn't list as complete a description of the handkerchief as the article.

"Q. Did you notice any article about the room anywhere near Mrs. Borden?
A. I noticed a handkerchief covered with blood.
Q. Can you tell us where that was?
A. It was lying from Mrs. Borden's feet toward the window.
Q. Could you identify it, do you think?
A. Yes, sir, the border is cut. (A ragged handkerchief was shown the witness.) Yes, that is the handkerchief."

Apparently the detailed description was added by the reporter. That description does sound like the handkerchief that was shown on the TV show.

Kat's post rightly has a question mark after ".. they say it was found at her feet?" That's a mystery by itself. Allen goes into a detailed description of where it was, so it is probably true.

Abby, standing, may have been using it as a dust cloth and when struck dropped it as she fell. The handkerchief's location is hard to explain if she was kneeling at the time of the attack.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:43 am

Does it sound like they are attempting to trace the origin of the handkerchief- as to whether it was Miss Borden's (Lizzie's?) Or Abby's? You'd think they would try to find out if it was the murderers.
Morse says he doesn't think Abby had a kerchief on her head when he last saw her enter the front hall- tho she had been dusting around downstairs before he left. Why would he say that if she did? And why would she don a kerchief to fix the room upstairs if she hadn't one on before?
Abby supposedly had a feather duster in her hand, too.

Supposing he left the room a wreck so that Abby would have to spend more time in there?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:14 pm

Then, of course, theres Dr. Dolan's testimony on the handkerchief:

Trial volume 1 page 857:

Q. Did you find any article of clothing there that you took away?
A. Yes, sir; I found a handkerchief, and (sic) old silk handkerchief.

Q. Where is that? Is it here?
A. Yes, sir; it is down stairs in the satchel.

Q. Well, I want it, if you have got the key?
A. It is not locked, sir; it is right on the desk in your room.

(Mr. Moody went for the satchel)

Page 858

Q. For convenience of talking new, it is the handkerchief that has already been introduced in the case?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You sent it up once to be looked at anyhow?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you find the handkerchief, near the head?
A. Almost touching it, nearer the wall than the head.

Q. Was it knotted or loose?
A. Loose.

Q. Describe the handkerchief?
A. It seemed to be an old silk handkerchief, in some places shredded from wear.

Q. Did you notice whether the handkerchief was cut or not?
A. I did not see that it was cut.

Q. It was a dark colored handkerchief?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was there blood on the handkerchief?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How near her head was the handkerchief? Perhaps I have already asked that?
A. It was quite near. The hands were in there between the head and the handkerchief.

Is it possible that the handkerchief was picked up and moved from its original location only to be found near Abby's feet later on? Or, were there possibly two hankies? One on Abby's head with the hair pins still in it and one that was used for dusting?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:24 am

Yes, Harry posted that earlier in the thread tho it's worth repeating, being on another page. The thing obviously was moved. It had to have been. But where did the hair pins come into the picture?

This might be a different object altogether than the white blob we see at Abby's waist in the death photo. You know how that photo *whites out* near her feet. Maybe it is lost in that light, on film.

In my experience, one would not use silk for dusting. And Abby had a feather duster that day.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun May 22, 2005 6:03 am

We are getting our videos soon from the production company!

We still need to bug someone about that handkerchief! I had the chance at the beginning of the month when I phoned MM and forgot about it, because I was so troubled over the Prof. Starrs treatment of certain aspects of the case in his new book.

Nona · Post by **Nona** » Wed May 25, 2005 4:40 pm

Oh my gawd! I missed a show with you all in it? How can I get a copy? Happy to pay for it!!! I really would like to see it:)!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed May 25, 2005 11:29 pm

We are just now going to get our release forms which I think means it would become available soon, but I'm not sure.
Stefani was the one in contact with the company this week.
If we find out it's date of being ready for sale, I guess we would let you know?!

I thought the response here would be about the new Prof. Starrs book, actually!
Anyone read it?
It's not very complimentary towards certain people involved with the case.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Thu May 26, 2005 2:35 pm

I'd be interested in hearing about that Starrs book. I just read John Douglas's *The Cases That Haunt Us* while sick & lazing on the sofa this past weekend. I remembered you reading that a while back, Kat & I found it at my library. Altho it had the usual amount of annoying errors, I was overall very impressed with his take on the case. I enjoyed the whole book, -- esp Ripper, Lindbergh Kidnapping, & Ramsey cases.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu May 26, 2005 3:34 pm

viewtopic.php?t=506&start=0
Here is a discussion on the Douglas book.

Also, the new information coming out on the Ramsey case is worthwhile to weigh against or for Douglas' theories in his book as well.

I read the Lizzie stuff in Starrs out of context, but I don't think it matters. He does have good close-ups of the Borden skulls and I finally can see other hatchet strike marks, especially to the very back of Abby's head.
I don't reccommend the book as something to buy, but maybe a person's local library would get it for them. Otherwise you can read the section on Lizzie pretty fast in the bookstore, but take a look at the skull pictures.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Thu May 26, 2005 8:57 pm

Thanks for the link, Kat. Good to see other people's opinions after having just read the book. I did have the impression his research was very flawed, having noted all the errors. I had the impression he had talked to people rather than doing the research on his own. (How anyone can ignore Len Rebello gives me pause!) I do think overall his opinions were sound. However, he did not have to use the "profiling" to reach those conclusions, just common sense. I thought he gave a good objective view. Re the Starr's book, think I'll check it out @ one of those big bookstores where you can sit in a chair & read.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu May 26, 2005 11:03 pm

That's a good idea TinaKate!
It's in the back section of the book, "The Unheard Voices of the Dead."
You will want to check the index.
(It was odd to only find her in the index, rather than as a chapter title!)
I'm reading the book now- Stef lent it to me.
He is kind of full of himself.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

The program on TDC

The program on TDC

The basin in the dry well

The show and its problems

Yeah, I revise (and correct spelling!)