Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:48 am**

OH YES !!!

Tracy...

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:54 am**

I have found my people!!!!

I will be in the back snickering in the seat cushions with ya'll.

Geesh thought I was the only one!!!!!

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:57 am**

Allen @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:13 pm wrote:I have been wondering how one man can so successfully take half the members which post regularly and are intelligent, articulate, well read people and reduce them to this level. How does this happen?

Taking on one-half of the members successfully is a definition of a fair fight. Plus he can pick and choose as to what he replies to.
Sun Tze remarked "Never attack unless you can win, and if you can win never fail to attack". But what did he know?
Nec plus impar.

Perhaps its because that one man is better read than the others?
Also, following the facts automatically makes a better argument than following gossip or fiction. But you are free to disagree.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:04 am**

Shelley @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:04 pm wrote:My suggestion that maybe Billy Borden could have bumped into our hypothetical "intruder" was purely a light-hearted bit of humor underlining a point. The point we were having such a good time mulling over was how difficult it is to believe that anyone could have hidden and not been seen by the inmates of the house. The Mystery Unveiled has the same tongue-in-cheek approach obout "X" the mysterious unseen villan, and makes plenty of good points about how many holes appear in some of the testimony and how ludicrous is the idea of "someone" stealing in to do away with Andrew under the circumstances in that house on August 4th.

I don't read Ray anymore, but his multiple posts today following my own usually say the same old things, so I wanted to make clear that all of the intruder speculations we were enjoying did not reference Billy Borden or Brown in any way. I don't subscribe to Brown's theory-but there are plenty of other threads in which to harangue that theory to death on this forum- you will never see me in any of them, but no doubt plenty of folks enjoy Brown and Co.so they have a spot to chew that rag. It is too bad though, that sooner or later any discussion gets railroaded onto the Brown track. And when that happens, humor is as good a safety valve as any.

Personally, ...

Now, did anybody find out what the button on those old lockplate does? Inquiring minds need to know.

I remember old-fashioned locks on the outside of doors. They had a sliding button that would withdraw the latch so the door could not be locked. Easy to open by pushing.

Yes, the idea of 3 stooges running around the Borden house without seeing each other would be a comic laugh. Would anyone volunteer to test out this theory?
I can't speak for Arnold Brown, but he seemed to think that Willy was let into the house for a conference. Pardon me if I am wrong, but I do say it. That is the simplest explanation why someone got into a locked house without showing signs of forcible entry.

I posted my theories about the Proof for Brown's Theory, Parts 1 to 5. Can anyone else do the same for theit theories? If not, why not?

Don't waste time on Lizzie Dunnit thories. The jury cleared her of her Father's murder (the trial was fixed, says contemporaries and Arnold Brown explains it all). But you won't listen to me anyway.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:05 am**

I suppose being a funeral florist for so many years, delivery and creating displays for the 4 surrounding "parlors" does put things into perspective. I realize we are getting off-topic here- but picture if you will, a poor young man who tragically died from jumping off his fishing boat, then being "laid out" in his casket with his rod and reel in hand with one end attached to a giant carnation fish, and the little sign, "Gone Fishin'" -only to be topped by a large floral telephone with "Jesus Has Called". Yes, it tends to develop a broad sense of sometimes dark humor.

Sort of makes Abby's white rose with sweet peas and Andy's ivy wreaths seem tame.....

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:06 am**

Harry @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:28 am wrote:Yes, Shelley, your description of Second Street that morning is right on and funny! A drawing would be fantastic.

When you read all the witness statements for that morning it was like someone kicked a fire ant hill. My street doesn't have that much activity (except for cars) in a month.

Any such cartoon would be false. Those people were not all there at the same point in time.
You need a timeline to show who was where when.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:08 am**

Shelley @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:00 am wrote:I think we would have to draw the cartoon with the roofs off the houses so we could see inside, and probably that great line drawing with the roman numerals on various places we are so familiar with would be the ideal template. Heck, I can see a whole series. How about Officer Allen racing down the side steps, eyes bulging at what he has seen, Mr. Sawyer ambling up the street, Bridget dragging a white-faced Alice up the hill, Bowen dashing in the side door while Manning is screeching to a halt in his carriage (the horses should also have googly eyes) - old Addie fanning Lizzie furiously, Cunningham out on the street trying to cut a deal with the newspapermen for his exclusive scoop (he should look a trifle squinty and shady) "Brownie and Me" jumping up and down in the hayloft, John lounging under a pear tree looking dazed and munching a pear -oh, the possibilities are endless.

Or do you mean a film cartoon? (see previous reply)

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:08 am**

RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:57 am wrote:[Taking on one-half of the members successfully is a definition of a fair fight. "Never attack unless you can win, and if you can win never fail to attack".

See, now there is the problem in a nutshell. Why is Ray the only one in this group who considers everything in terms of "attack", "taking on", and "fight"?

The rest of us here all appreciate each other's input and give each other respect. We are comrades and fellow sleuths. We support each other.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:13 am**

Angel @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:08 am wrote:
RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:57 am wrote:[Taking on one-half of the members successfully is a definition of a fair fight. "Never attack unless you can win, and if you can win never fail to attack".
See, now there is the problem in a nutshell. Why is Ray the only one in this group who considers everything in terms of "attack", "taking on", and "fight"?

The rest of us here all appreciate each other's input and give each other respect. We are comrades and fellow sleuths. We support each other.

I find the definition of "success" very telling.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:23 am**

I'm not quite sure why Ray would feel he has to "take on" everyone in a "fight". It's not a matter of winning of losing....just discussing an interesting case. We all have different ideas and theories...and all are free to share them. I learn a huge amount just by sitting back and listening to others.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:23 am**

Angel @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:08 am wrote: See, now there is the problem in a nutshell. Why is Ray the only one in this group who considers everything in terms of "attack", "taking on", and "fight"?

The rest of us here all appreciate each other's input and give each other respect. We are comrades and fellow sleuths. We support each other.

Agreed.

Tracy...

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:32 am**

Angel @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:08 pm wrote:
RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:57 am wrote:[Taking on one-half of the members successfully is a definition of a fair fight. "Never attack unless you can win, and if you can win never fail to attack".
See, now there is the problem in a nutshell. Why is Ray the only one in this group who considers everything in terms of "attack", "taking on", and "fight"?

The rest of us here all appreciate each other's input and give each other respect. We are comrades and fellow sleuths. We support each other.

Ha ha ha, you are quite the comic. As Sam Spade said, "when did you ever respect and support me?"
I did not use the expression 'taking on' if you first read what you quoted.
THe question was: why did one unnamed man be able to hold off the attacks of half the members. The answer is he has the best ammunition (the facts in this case). You will support and respect me this time, won't you?
Maybe you should ask why the one best solution is attacked by many?

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:33 am**

SallyG @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:23 pm wrote:I'm not quite sure why Ray would feel he has to "take on" everyone in a "fight". It's not a matter of winning of losing....just discussing an interesting case. We all have different ideas and theories...and all are free to share them. I learn a huge amount just by sitting back and listening to others.

Pls rd prvs cmnts.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:40 am**

RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:32 am wrote:
Angel @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:08 pm wrote:
RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:57 am wrote:[Taking on one-half of the members successfully is a definition of a fair fight. "Never attack unless you can win, and if you can win never fail to attack".
See, now there is the problem in a nutshell. Why is Ray the only one in this group who considers everything in terms of "attack", "taking on", and "fight"?

The rest of us here all appreciate each other's input and give each other respect. We are comrades and fellow sleuths. We support each other.
Ha ha ha, you are quite the comic. As Sam Spade said, "when did you ever respect and support me?"
I did not use the expression 'taking on' if you first read what you quoted.
THe question was: why did one unnamed man be able to hold off the attacks of half the members. The answer is he has the best ammunition (the facts in this case). You will support and respect me this time, won't you?
Maybe you should ask why the one best solution is attacked by many?

The original question was more along the lines of "why are half the members 'attacking' one person?".

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:46 am**

Yooper @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:40 pm wrote:
RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:32 am wrote:
Angel @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:08 pm wrote: See, now there is the problem in a nutshell. Why is Ray the only one in this group who considers everything in terms of "attack", "taking on", and "fight"?

The rest of us here all appreciate each other's input and give each other respect. We are comrades and fellow sleuths. We support each other.
Ha ha ha, you are quite the comic. As Sam Spade said, "when did you ever respect and support me?"
I did not use the expression 'taking on' if you first read what you quoted.
THe question was: why did one unnamed man be able to hold off the attacks of half the members. The answer is he has the best ammunition (the facts in this case). You will support and respect me this time, won't you?
Maybe you should ask why the one best solution is attacked by many?
The original question was more along the lines of "why are half the members 'attacking' one person?".

The simple answer is: he does not believe the Lizzie Dunnit solution. He has the strange idea that the jury verdict was correct.
What is the matter with that person? Or is the problem with the others?

PS May this interesting conversation go on until there is 1000% agreement among all it past, current, and future members.
I won't hold my breath.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:53 am**

Time for my nap.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:57 am**

Nap? Make sure the screen door is locked, Angel, check the parlor, avoid the sofa, and make sure the maid is in the kitchen starting your lunch. Then there's this sale of yard goods down at Sargent's. . . .

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:09 pm**

You're right... I think I'll burn some old papers, put on my hat, get some ice cream from Hymie and run down to the drug store. Eli's a bit stuffy, but I think he's kind of cute. I'll get him to notice me somehow. The poison thing didn't work. Maybe I'll try some mascara.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:10 pm**

Hey no napping!!!!

We are trying to solve a murder case here!!!!!

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:25 pm**

RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:46 am wrote:
Yooper @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:40 pm wrote:
RayS @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:32 am wrote: Ha ha ha, you are quite the comic. As Sam Spade said, "when did you ever respect and support me?"
I did not use the expression 'taking on' if you first read what you quoted.
THe question was: why did one unnamed man be able to hold off the attacks of half the members. The answer is he has the best ammunition (the facts in this case). You will support and respect me this time, won't you?
Maybe you should ask why the one best solution is attacked by many?
The original question was more along the lines of "why are half the members 'attacking' one person?".
The simple answer is: he does not believe the Lizzie Dunnit solution. He has the strange idea that the jury verdict was correct.
What is the matter with that person? Or is the problem with the others?

PS May this interesting conversation go on until there is 1000% agreement among all it past, current, and future members.
I won't hold my breath.

The correct jury verdict in a rigged court case, imagine that. Incredible!

Is your answer as accurate as your interpretation of the question?

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:03 pm**

Angel @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:53 am wrote:Time for my nap.

Don't forget, before you lie down, to get some pears from the backyard and some sinkers from the bahn.

Tracy...

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:17 pm**

theebmonique @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:03 pm wrote:
Angel @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:53 am wrote:Time for my nap.
Don't forget, before you lie down, to get some pears from the backyard and some sinkers from the bahn.

Tracy...

Don't forget to batten down the hatchets.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:30 pm**

and baste a piece of tape on a garment to make yourself sleepy

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:43 pm**

Yooper @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:25 pm wrote:...

The correct jury verdict in a rigged court case, imagine that. Incredible!

Is your answer as accurate as your interpretation of the question?

So what is YOUR explanation of why the court case was rigged?

Why would the Ruling Classes of FR allow a patricidal and matricidal murderess go scot free? Was it only for the money? Or to protect some secret?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:55 pm**

RayS @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:43 pm wrote:
Yooper @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:25 pm wrote:...

The correct jury verdict in a rigged court case, imagine that. Incredible!

Is your answer as accurate as your interpretation of the question?
So what is YOUR explanation of why the court case was rigged?

Why would the Ruling Classes of FR allow a patricidal and matricidal murderess go scot free? Was it only for the money? Or to protect some secret?

Inquiring minds want to know.

You haven't answered my question.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:54 pm**

Yooper @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:55 pm wrote:
RayS @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:43 pm wrote:
Yooper @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:25 pm wrote:...

The correct jury verdict in a rigged court case, imagine that. Incredible!

Is your answer as accurate as your interpretation of the question?
So what is YOUR explanation of why the court case was rigged?

Why would the Ruling Classes of FR allow a patricidal and matricidal murderess go scot free? Was it only for the money? Or to protect some secret?

Inquiring minds want to know.
You haven't answered my question.

My first answer is that I wasn't there as an eyewitness. Does money talk, then or now? What about some cases in the 1990s or 2000s?

Brown says the indictment was a way to quiet the concerns of the FR people about an axe murder running loose. The appearance of Alice at the Grand Jury prevented freeing Lizzie for lack of evidence. Next, they either had to convict an innocent (not guilty of murdering Andy) or put on a show trial. The rich can buy a good defense, then or now. (See the guilty freed based on new DNA evidence.)

IF the jury was rigged, who rigged it and why? I go by Brown's book. What do you believe?

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:45 pm**

The indictment of either an innocent or a guilty person would quell the fears of the public about a murderer running loose. Lizzie was found probably guilty twice before the Grand Jury convened, and based upon evidence before the dress burning became known. They could put on a show trial, convict an innocent person, or convict a guilty person, don't forget the third option.

As far as the trial is concerned, buying an attorney who had appointed one of the judges trying the case is always a good bet. Almost as good as buying an attorney who can buy you a good jury. While there is no evidence to support the jury having been bought, Robinson had appointed Dewey to the bench during his tenure as Governor, this is documented. Dewey's charge to the jury speaks volumes (literally!).

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Another look at Bridget