Thoughts On Reading John Douglas/Cases That Haunt Us

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:34 pm

John Douglas, in "The caes That Haunt Us," says an intruder would not leave the front door locked because it would hinder his escape!
I was thinking, also, that if the killer had any prior knowledge of that front door, they would want to be sure it was unlocked once they attempted the killing of Andrew. For example- as to how hard it might become as a means of escape- note Bridget's trouble handling the front door locks herself ion Thursday.

--------

I'm thinking that Lizzie wouldn't need to invent a note if Bridget was in on the killings before the fact.

...........

If Lizzie was outside for 20 minutes (she is insistent), then Bridget was upstairs in her room for 20 minutes.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:34 am

This topic was titled "Misc." before but I finshed the Lizzie chapter in John Douglas where he profiles the killer of the Bordens and now I want to put my thoughts here.

I had given a list before of errors, but not really searched out what I considered important aspects of the crime that Douglas might have misunderstood yet used in his profiling.

I will list them here if anyone wishes to comment.
Some may think a few of these issues should not corrupt a profile of the killer.
I will say, however, that it is true Douglas seemed to know the answer before he did the profile.
Some may take issue with that as well.

I've narrowed my interest to the minimum issues:

91+ The dust in the barn. I think Douglas takes for total fact that the dust in the loft of the barn was undisturbed.

That Lizzie did try to buy prussic acid.

A fact that the family made rags of old clothing, therefore Lizzie burning a dress after the murders could be her first act of "defiance", Sunday, against frugality.

That by the inquest Lizzie was "not yet represented by counsel"- and this became a "critical factor" in her later defense. (93, hardback)

Brings in the questions arising from the Manchester murders which happened so close by in time and place- murder by ax- but makes some mistakes in the re-telling.

Information about a will.
"Crucial to the case was the evidence suggesting a motive. Knowlton and Moody called witnesses to establish that Andrew Borden was intending to write a new will...The 'new' will, according to Morse, was to leave Emma and Lizzie each $25,000, with the remainder of Andrew's $500,000 estate going to Abby. Further, Knowlton developed the additional motive of Andrew's intent to dispose of his farm to Abby..."
(98)

Lizzie's kleptomania and her hand in the daylight robbery.

Why Andrew married Abby- and Douglas calls her "socially prominent but unattractive."

Douglas claims as factual information that Emma did not take the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd train to return to Fall River. (108)

[My notes here say that on page 109 our own Len Rebello is quoted!! and then it seems I am wondering why erasers on pencils are so crummy and "What's the point?" of bothering in putting lousy erasers on pencils? Just for "show?"]

That Andrew and Lizzie used to fish together. (110)

And the biggy: That Lizzie felt a victim.
"...in many ways Lizzie saw herself as a victim. Under the section on Staged Domestic Homicide in the Crime Classification Manual, we wrote: 'Post-offense interviews of close friends or family members often reveal that the victim had expressed concerns or fears regarding his or her safety or even a sense of foreboding.' If Lizzie had somehow transposed the roles of attacker and victim in her mind, then the anguished visit to Alice Russell the night before the murders fits perfectly into this emotional context." (111)

I really would like to know what everyone thinks about these points which might have influenced Douglas' profile of Lizzie as the killer. Does he need them- what if his info is debateable or unproven? etc...

william · Post by **william** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:56 pm

From your lips to God's ears - I couldn't agree with you more, Kat.

I also found that Douglas' remarks were self-serving - just another shoddy analysis of the Borden case by another Monday-morning-quarterback.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 4:49 pm

I got the book so I could take his Lizzie Chapter in context.
So far, his treatment of the Jack the Ripper crimes was very interesting, and now, after Lizzie, I am at the Lindbergh kidnapping.
That sarted well- seemed fair- but now he is leading me by the nose to this German connection- and I am feeling a bit manipulated by this now, sensing his strategy.
It might be that the crimes he knows the outcome of, he profiles towards that outcome?

I'm still ready to debate these points, and whether Douglas needs to believe that Lizzie never visited the barn (no dust disturbed- which I believe is still in question?), as an example, or that she unquestionably committed the daylight robbery in order for her to be profiled as guilty of the murders...

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:27 pm

Hmmm, its been awhile since I read that book, but, from what you have written, it sounds as though he uses these "facts" of his to get Lizzie to fit his profile. Without these "facts", he doesn't have much on Lizzie, so, how could he come up with a solid, honest profile on the woman? We've been studying the case for years and still don't have a solid idea of Lizzie as a person, even with the true facts that we know about her.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:02 pm

Don't forget his Exorcist-like suggestion that Abby was looking directly into the eyes of the killer standing over her!

Len told me he was indeed consulted, but that many of his corrections were ignored.

diana · Post by **diana** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:05 pm

The chapter makes for interesting reading but, for me, there are too many unsubstantiated ‘facts’ in Douglas’s journey to a solution. There’s speculation about a will, a reference to Lizzie’s short-lived relationships with beaux, Lizzie’s frequent fishing trips with Andrew as she was growing up, Bridget not being allowed to throw away stew she was sure had gone bad because Andrew was so cheap, undisturbed dust in the barn, Lizzie’s kleptomania, the prussic acid visit, etc. etc.

In his introduction to the book Douglas says examination of these ‘cases that haunt us’ focuses on three key issues: motive, evolution and development of the criminal, and postoffense behavior. Then the crime and crime scene evidence is used to determine the type of individual responsible and suspects are looked at to see whether they fit this type.

MOTIVE -- Douglas says there were indications that Andrew was planning to draw up a new will leaving the bulk of his estate to Abby -- and tries to plant the idea that Morse testified to this – which is not true. And he talks about Lizzie wanting the finer things in life and how she longed for acceptance into Fall River’s upper echelon of society. But social lines were clearly drawn in those days and I tend to think Lizzie knew her station well enough. It’s still possible that money was a motive – but I really don’t think that Lizzie was naïve enough to think that the taint of a double murder in her family would make her any more desirable to the folks on the hill.

EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRIMINAL -- Douglas says Lizzie and her father had a close relationship and went on frequent fishing trips together. He also claims Andrew was attacked as he slept -- but because Abby’s body was straddled during the attack, the murderer had to look directly into her eyes. He talks about how Andrew was known to make rags out of old clothes and Lizzie was so chafed by this frugality that the dress burning might be interpreted as an act of defiance against her father’s imposed years of living below their means. This is contradicted by Emma's statement in open court that they did not keep a ‘rag bag’ and that it was her suggestion, not Lizzie’s, that the dress be destroyed.

Because I haven’t read anything else by Douglas, I don’t know enough about his theory on postoffense behavior. Does he mean directly following the crime? Or does he mean the way the suspected criminal led the rest of their life? In any case, I have enough trouble with his ideas about Lizzie’s pre-offense behavior. He says that after domestic homicides it is often found that the victim had expressed concern regarding his or her safety. This was certainly true in Abby’s case -- she told Dr. Bowen she feared the family was being poisoned. But Douglas stretches the idea too far for me when he suggests perhaps “Lizzie had somehow transposed the roles of attacker and victim in her mind” in order explain the doom and gloom exchange with Alice the night before the murders. He emphasizes the conversation with Alice Russell where Lizzie said she felt depressed and as though something was hanging over her that she couldn’t throw off -- and seems to say this is an indication that Lizzie felt she was a victim. But depression and a general sense of emotional heaviness is a very common feeling for women to have around their menstrual period and does not necessarily mean either that they view themselves as victims or that they intend to commit homicides.

(I have a side issue with this area of speculation, too. Douglas says that the bloody menstrual cloths could have been potential evidence and were not checked. This is not so. Dr. Dolan testified at the preliminary hearing that the cloths or napkins in the pail in the cellar were taken to the marshal’s office and that Dolan had examined them and was satisfied they had nothing to do with the case.)

So an unnecessarily long answer to your question, Kat! (Hands up -- who really read all of this?) But no, I don’t put much stock in Douglas’s premise that Lizzie fits the profile of the killer because I think he relies too heavily on evidence that is unproven or untrue to bolster his theory.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:16 pm

YAY!
Thanks for everyone's help!
Leaver it Diana to Sum It All Up!

Well, Deputy, here's our take on Douglas.

Can you imagine being consulted by Douglas and then having your views about errors dismissed!!
Yikes. That sounds frustrating.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:03 pm

My hand's up, Diana!

--Lyddie

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:50 pm

I have been avoiding posting in this topic....

Criminal profiling began in the late 50's by the FBI.

In order to gain the information they felt they needed to profile other crimes, convicted criminals were interviewed and studied. Obviously the validity of the information gained from these interviews can be called into question.

Criminal profiling is mainly used to assist the police in narrowing down the scope of an investigation when there are few clues. For example-- if profiling points to a 30-40 year old male working in a blue collar situation then the police may begin to interview bartenders in the area of factories, bowling alley employees, etc and show photos of victims or look to see if someone fitting the pattern drives a blue 4 door car that may have been spotted at the scene of the crime, etc. This causes them to further investigate the individual and more often than not-- eliminate him/her as a suspect.

It is generally used in either serial, spree or mass killings. None of which the Borden case can be classified as.

The very lack of physical evidence in the case makes a proper profile of the Borden case impossible. In my opinion to attempt to do so is professionally unethical given the materials one has to work with.

So much of what we base our opinions on about Lizzie is pure conjecture with no documented evidence to back it up.

While I may choose to believe certain "rumors" or conjecture -- I would never attempt to publish using these personal beliefs.

We have photographs and mediocre forensic evidence of the Borden murders. No two professionals seemed to be able to agree on anything! We have a coroner who gauged body temperature by laying his hands on the victims. We have 100+ year old ideas as to digestion determining the time of death of an obese woman who had been ill and who may or may not have been a secret eater. We have a body that no one knows how many times or how seriously was moved. We have several witnesses who can not agree on the color or style of a dress....

What do we have at our disposal to complete a logical and ethical profile of this crime or Lizzie?

That, in my opinion, is the only question worth asking...

diana · Post by **diana** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:18 pm

Good one, Audrey. (And thanks, Lyddie!)

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:31 pm

How true Audrey, I was thinking something new
has to come about to shoot some life into this case.
By reading more into the actual reports of the days
surrounding the crimes, I have researched
for the name "John C. Milne". ( I have always been of the opinion that Morse had something to do with
this.) The Globe said the day of the funerals "Mr.
Morse came out of the house about 10:30 o'clock and in the presence of John C. Milne, an old friend, he told the reporters of his actions....." This same
John C. Milne was the one to post bail for Morse.
He was associated with the FR Daily news and the
Slade Mills. Later, lawyers associated with Slade
took up the defense of Abby's estate. Don't know where I'm going with this..........but just something
different.......

joe · Post by **joe** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:13 pm

I got the Douglas book as a "freebie" last week. Oooo-wah! Super good. I started reading about Lizzie first, then decided to start from the very beginning. Hung up on Lindberg at the moment.
Joe

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 3:27 pm

I've been finding some interesting things in there. How ever much I think he was out of his depth with our mystery, he did do a rather good job at such an inexact "science" on the other cases in there.
I noted today something he said in the Ramsey chapter (I want to see how he can talk his way out of working for them) about the Borden case:
He said that John Ramsey found his daughter's body tho he couldhave/should have (if he were guilty) had Fleet find it (OOO another Fleet! I just realized!)- that offenders try to get someone else to discover the body. He comments why stage the scene, only to run in and unstage it? (I think that question is a bit naive). Anyway, he brings up the fact that Lizzie did everything she could not to find Abby's body! (She did claim the door was shut, but Douglas doesn't bring that up)- But rather, when Lizzie was lolling around saying I wish you would look for Mrs. Borden and Bridget would not go upstairs alone, Lizzie Still wouldn't go up there herself to see- Mrs. Churchill had to volunteer. A neighbor.

Yes, reading it in context is a very good idea, which is what I am doing. I only skipped Zodiac, but I will return for that. It was a choice of that or Black Dahlia, and I had just seen the show on that so I did skip one chapter.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:23 pm

Nancie @ Thu Dec 02, 2004 8:31 pm wrote:How true Audrey, I was thinking something new
has to come about to shoot some life into this case.
By reading more into the actual reports of the days
surrounding the crimes, I have researched
for the name "John C. Milne". ( I have always been of the opinion that Morse had something to do with
this.) The Globe said the day of the funerals "Mr.
Morse came out of the house about 10:30 o'clock and in the presence of John C. Milne, an old friend, he told the reporters of his actions....." This same
John C. Milne was the one to post bail for Morse.
He was associated with the FR Daily news and the
Slade Mills. Later, lawyers associated with Slade
took up the defense of Abby's estate. Don't know where I'm going with this..........but just something
different.......

From Yesterday In Old Fall River, P.D. Hoffman,Carolina Academic Press, 2000- Milne:

"Milne, John C. (1824- ?)
John C. Milne was the editor of the Fall River Daily News. He and Frank L. Almy posted $500 bail for John Vinnicum Morse to guarantee that Morse would appear as a witness at the preliminary hearing of Lizzie Borden.

Milne was born in Millfield, Scotland, on May 18, 1824. He moved to Nova Scotia and was trained in the printing trade as a compositor. By 1845 Milne was a resident of Fall River and that year started the Fall River Weekly News with partner Frank L. Almy. Milne sat for five terms on the Fall River City Council and served in the Massachusetts state legislature from 1884-1888. He married Abby A. Gifford of Fall River in 1849 and had nine children."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:30 pm

Also, in Rebello, pg. 553 and 554:
"April 30
Andrew J. Borden purchased from Charles Trafton for $10,000 a 30 square rod lot on the east side of Second Street in Fall River bounded on the south by Andrew J. Borden, on the east and north by John C. Milne and the heirs of Edward P. Buffinton. (Book 72: 70)

Note: The home in which the murders took place on August 4, 1892, is located on this lot."

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 6:03 pm

I was shocked to see John Walsh speaking in support of the Ramseys. I had not really formed much of an opinion about their innocence or guilt but I think my shock at his verbal support showed I was more in the guilty corner!

Didn't John run and lose a public office election?

Every time I saw an interview with Patsy I wanted to slap her.

I think you have the right idea Kat.... I bought the book for the Lizzie section but haven't been drawn to the other chapters yet. Are they any good? Is it provocative reading?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:14 am

I really probably should have read the whole book as it was designed, front to back. There is method there, and points he builds on which came before.
Yes, it's worth reading because the cases are all so interesting.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:40 am

Thanks kat for additional info on John C. Milne...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:12 am

I watched a 2 hour show on the Green River Killer tonight. MSNBC Investigates at 1 a.m.
It wasn't listed- it was supposed to be an hour on the Boston Strangler.
Anyway, it came out that there were all these errors in police tactics and people who could have ratted him out earlier, but nothing was done and he got his body count up to 48 I think. He escaped the death penalty by a plea bargin and proceeded to run everyone ragged for like 4 months, while he brought them to supposed crime scenes and talked his head off.

A major point made was that the profiling work done on this case way back when, was all wrong.
It was supposed the guy was a loner, for instance, yet this guy had been married 3 times, tho he fantasized about killing his wives. They said he would be unemployed or holding a menial job and yet he was gainfully employed at the same business for 30 years and was known somewhat in his community. I can't recall other discrepancies.
Those of you who have your doubts about criminal profiling- hang on to them!

Here is a quickie review of the program:
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=18750

bullet43 · Post by **bullet43** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:14 am

I think that Lizzie had told Bridget about a sale on clothing material in town-to try & get her out of the way for awhile. I'm just wondering if Bridget went upstairs after Abby's murder & before Andrew's murder-Why didn't she see Abby on her way up the staircase? was the door closed? or was there another way for Bidget to get up to her room in the attic another way?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:18 pm

Abby was up the front stairs and Bridget went up the back. Lizzie said she herself had no key to open the connecting door between her room and Abby/Andrew's.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:25 pm

Tonight on Dateline they had the story of the BTK serial murderer.
He was profiled in the past as well, and it was incorrect.
I guess some of these killers do not fit into the profiling rules, but notice they are the 20 and 30 year old cases!
I suppose profiling was in it's infancy in the late 70's when these killers got started.
Didn't Douglas, or was it Ressler, end up in the hospital almost dying during the big Green River Killer Hunt days, working so hard to (incorrectly) profile him?

There was a remark made about the BTK by someone being interviewed. I think it was the journalist who had once been personally contacted by BTK.
He said this guy could have had a heart attack any minute- and knew it-- meaning the killer- and that he's been getting letters from AARP and probably wanted to be known before he died- his last chance to be famous, as he's 60 by now.
Odd.

bullet43 · Post by **bullet43** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:50 am

Thx KAT! for letting me know that. I wish i could visit the Borden House,or had a better idea of the layouts.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:00 am

I guess I am going to ruffle some feathers when I say that I believe the Ramsey's are innocent. I believe Bruno Hauptmann was innocent as well. Seems pretty interesting to me that the nanny committed suicide after being questioned by the police, and caught in a lie about where she was. Not even a good lie. Also seems interesting to me that the Lindbergs were not supposed to even be staying at that house during the time the baby was kidnapped, and yet someone knew their plans well enough to know they had indeed decided to stay longer.I think it was an inside job.

bullet43 · Post by **bullet43** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:39 am

I think Lizzie liked the finer things in life.She wanted Prestige,Huge Mansion & Lots of Jewelry & Pretty clothes.& she wasn't going to get married any time soon-& not getting any younger.I think that worried her.She probably figured that maybe Andrew & Abby may live well beyond their years,& she didn't want to wait any longer to live the way she saw fit. So she had to Hack them up! Plus all the control that Andrew had over Lizzie,she was taking it back.
I read her Will & she it seemed to me that she liked the power she had over people.She willed alot of money to certain people,property & some jewelry. and she enjoyed giving it to people but at the same time that was her power over them too-just like Andrew did to her.
It's funny because when she gets to her housekeeper,she lets her have all the contents of her room.WOW!!

Pippi · Post by **Pippi** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:13 am

BTK- somewhere it was mentioned animals being good judges of character and since the animals liked Lizzie...she was prob. innocent.

This is yet another example, while I believe animals are often good judges this is another example of animals thinking in the moment, if you aren't butchering someone in front of them they may still wag their tail.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:11 am

I personally think animals will love anyone who shows them affection and spends time playing with them etc....no matter who that person is. I can think of alot of purely evil people who had pets.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:42 pm

I am seriously beginning to change my mind about the Ramseys as well. After lots of new inside information has come out, especially from their own investigator. The films I saw showing evidence which pointed to someone outside of the house, and probably outside of the family is convincing me. Stefani and I have discussed this turnaround- it seems shocking!

THis little girl missing in Florida now- her father was put through a voice stress analyzer and a polygraph and it shows no deception. He just looks like a Florida Cracker with bad teeth and bad hair with a ball cap, suspicious- but he passed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:47 pm

Natalie, can you picture Lizbeth telling her legatees they are in her will and itemizing their gifts and holding sway over them with info like that? That I can picture, if she was lonely and needed attention.
I think if she stole those pictures from Tilden-Thurber in 1897 it may have been another attention-getting ploy - but I'm not sure.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:49 pm

I personally think animals will love anyone who shows them affection and spends time playing with them etc....no matter who that person is. I can think of alot of purely evil people who had pets.

Speaking of animals...If you believe, even a TINY bit in the "pet psychic" Sonya Fitzpatrick, animals can sense some good in just about everyone. However, if my dogs don't lke somebody...I should heed that warning. I know that when I have taken my dog Tequi (short for Tequila Rose) to school with me, that sometimes she really seems to gravitate toward the 'naughtiest' kids....she seems to sense something good in them...and her connecting with them really does make a difference.

www.sonyafitzpatrick.com

http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/pe ... sonya.html

Tracy...

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:25 pm

Tracy, my fiance had a reading done by Sonya over the phone, it was quite expensive from what I remember for the hour. But, anyway, she was right on with everything she told him about his animals, it was incredible! Including how one dog had an eating disorder, which we were aware about, but, not quite to the extent that it affects her. I will hand feed her her kibble when I see that she hasn't been eating properly and she seems quite grateful for it. I wish Sonya's show was still on, it was fascinating what she came up with on it.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:10 pm

Oh Susan...That is too cool ! I would LOVE to have her do a reading for me. If you happen to remeber the details of how to get her to do a reading and how much it is...PM me or email me ? Sometimes I wish I could just pack up my dogs and fly to Houston where she lives...and get a 'live' reading. I am sure that would be a pretty penny or two...or three..or...

Tracy...

bullet43 · Post by **bullet43** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:26 am

Yes-Kat that is true! People steal for many reason's & Lizzie was probably very lonely. I think People can Adore animals, but Hate People. Usually a Killer has abused animals at some point.But Lizzie was Extraordinary-she loved animals & liked people alot-& had a good heart-but somehow was neglected emotionally or some kind of abuse.Something was missing. Andrew obviously wasn't very nurturing kind of Father-something Lizzie was needing-I think. Lizzie was a Cancer ( horoscope) very childlike & sensitive-Intuitive. Psychic abilities.
Did she already know she'd be found innocent? Maybe?!
I also think if you have alot of $.You can almost buy your way out of anything.Look at OJ!
I wonder if Lizzie had been poor-would she still be found innocent?
I thought Ramsey's were cleared because DNA didn't match up to the skin under Jon benet's fingernails? John Ramsey's Oldest Son I've wondered about-they found a Dr. Zeus book in his luggage.Is that strange or not?

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:39 pm

I have a question. I keep seeing people write about how much Lizzie loved animals. I also heard she beheaded a cat that was bothering someone who was visiting the house. Is this just a myth about her killing the cat, do we know if it's true? Also quite a few years ago I read quite a bit on the Lindberg kidnapping. After reading there were certain things brought out that I truly believe Richard Hauptmann was innocent. I don't know if his widow is still living but I know for years & years she claimed that he didn't do it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:27 am

I think that 'Lil Abby Potter told that story, maybe in her 80's? She had an ax to grind with Lizzie because (I think) she always believed her family should have inherited more. I think she had a misunderstanding of the Massachusetts laws of inheritance at the time. They were entitled to nothing.

This case is about money and property- I'm getting that solid impression. All these people- Grays, Whiteheads, Bordens, Harringtons- seemed to define their relationships with each other through money.

For those of you who are new and interested:
viewtopic.php?t=1352

I had to read this at least 3 times to understand it.

Even if Abby Potter told that cat story her whole life I think it says more about her than it does about Lizzie, because we don't know that it happened.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:08 pm

Hi Kat, Forgive me but who is Lil Abby Potter? She spread the story about the cat? Was she a relative? I read the link and wow it sure was confusing. One thing I do know is it is very important who dies first where wills are concerned, especially if you have no heirs. (my husband & I have no children) Because of this our first article was leaving all our possessions to the surviving partner. So it's real important for that to be established. I think when it is impossible (like both going down in a plane) they will automatically say the wife died first. I think it's the wife, I'm not 100% sure. But it is written somewhere in the law that it would be settled in that manner.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:32 pm

I have read, and enjoyed, John Douglas's "The Cases That Haunt Us" from cover to cover. I have also read several of Douglas's other books on criminal profiling, and I believe that there is something to it. I happen to generally agree with Douglas's "take" on the Lizzie Borden and "Jon Benet Ramsey" cases. I do not put much stock in the notion that Lizzie was innocent because animals liked her. An animal (particularly a dog) will generally "bond" with the person who cares for the animal: witness prisoners around the country training guide dogs for the blind, playing with cats to ease the tension found in prison, etc.

Regarding Andrew Borden's unemotional treatment of Lizzie and the rest of his family: first of all, no one can definitively say that this is true; secondly, even if it is true, it's no excuse for putting a hatchet through his head and that of his wife; thirdly, accusations of incest between Andrew and Lizzie are just that: accusations...unproven accusations.

In my opinion (and that's all it is, my opinion), Lizzie is still, by far, the best candidate for being the murderer. But I may be wrong. I was not there, but, then again, neither was any one of us.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:22 am

Thanks for your considered opinion, Michael.

I'm going to jump ahead and answer Nadzieja's question:
"Lil Abby Potter was Abbie Borden's 1/2 sister's daughter.

She was the child of Sarah Whitehead and she says she is Abbie's *namesake.*
She married a man named Potter when she grew up.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts probably has different inheritance laws than other states- I think Commonwealth states are all like that.

Anyway, if one reads that Boston Globe article several times it will become more clear.

From Judge Sullivan's book, Goodbye Lizzie Borden:

"If the resentment which Lizzie Borden admittedly harbored for her stepmother did not begin with the incident of the Whitehead house, by all accounts her ill will definitely reached a high plateau on that occasion. Two stories told me by Mrs. Potter---and to my knowledge never before published---amplify the various reports from disinterested persons concerning Lizzie's feelings toward her father's wife.

The first describes an incident apparently recounted by Abby Borden on one of her visits to her sister's home, and these are Mrs. Potter's words as recorded on tape for me in 1972:

Page 23

Lizzie Borden had company and my aunt had a tabby cat and the cat was trained so that it would touch the latch---you know, it was [sic] latches in those days---she'd touch the latch and the door would open. So the cat went in where Lizzie was entertaining and she took it out and shut the door again, and it came back so this is what she told Aunt Abby and Abby told my mother . . . Lizzie Borden finally excused herself and went downstairs---took the cat downstairs---and put the carcass on the chopping block and chopped its head off. My aunt . . . for days wondered where the cat was---all she talked about. Finally Lizzie said, "You go downstairs and you'll find your cat." My aunt did.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:52 am

Kat-Thanks so much for your answer.I think the story is gruesome in the fact I would have been hysterical if I found my pet cat beheaded in my cellar. I just aquired a copy of the book "Good Bye Lizzie Borden". I haven't read it yet, any opinion of the book? I've been collecting books on Lizzie whenever I see a title on a posting so I can have reading material on hand and when something is referenced I can look it up. I also just purchased The Cases that Haunt Us. Another question--Did Emma ever talk to anyone about the case. Was she ever interviewed by the press or anyone that you know of? I know this probably doesn't belong in this forum, but wasn't sure where to post---Is the Fall River Historical Society ever going to have The Knowlton Papers reprinted. I've been searching alot of places but have had no luck getting a copy.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:50 am

Nadzieja,

Probably your best best for a copy of the Knowlton Papers is to check eBay. Occasionally one shows up there. Sometimes you can actually get a copy for under $100.

Tracy...

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:21 am

Hi, Thanks Tracy, I don't go to ebay very often but if there is a chance I can get it there a daily check wouldn't be a bad idea. I've seen that alot of people reference that book so I would really like to get a copy. Why won't the Society reprint? Was this a very special anniversary printing? Again thanks for the lead I'll surely keep on looking. I didn't think I could get so interested in one case, but I'll tell you, now I'm hooked.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:50 pm

Allen @ Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 am wrote:I guess I am going to ruffle some feathers when I say that I believe the Ramsey's are innocent. I believe Bruno Hauptmann was innocent as well. Seems pretty interesting to me that the nanny committed suicide after being questioned by the police, and caught in a lie about where she was. Not even a good lie. Also seems interesting to me that the Lindbergs were not supposed to even be staying at that house during the time the baby was kidnapped, and yet someone knew their plans well enough to know they had indeed decided to stay longer.I think it was an inside job.

Most books (?) printed over the last 30 years question Hauptmann's conviction. The advantages of a long view.
One thing is certain: Hauptmann had a record in Germany. He also seemed to live well. Good investments? Maybe. Or he was dealing in hot money or other white collar crimes. We know his friend Fisch was a con man who defrauded people of money.

After Sheppard vs. Ohio there have been restraints, mostly holding off a trail until about a year has passed so its cold news. Then waiting about 10 years before executing a convicted murderer so there's no overlooked evidence.
IMO

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:52 pm

Kat @ Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:27 am wrote:I think that 'Lil Abby Potter told that story, maybe in her 80's? She had an ax to grind with Lizzie because (I think) she always believed her family should have inherited more. I think she had a misunderstanding of the Massachusetts laws of inheritance at the time. They were entitled to nothing.

This case is about money and property- I'm getting that solid impression. All these people- Grays, Whiteheads, Bordens, Harringtons- seemed to define their relationships with each other through money.
For those of you who are new and interested:
viewtopic.php?t=1352

I had to read this at least 3 times to understand it.

Even if Abby Potter told that cat story her whole life I think it says more about her than it does about Lizzie, because we don't know that it happened.

My highlights. Welcome to the Real World of the Rich and Famous.
They are only in it for the money.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:43 pm

Not everyone who is rich and famous is in it for the money. Here is one fine example (a couple of different articles on the same topic):

http://andreajaeger.com/
http://www.people.com/people/article/0, ... 84,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 264239.ece
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16949194/

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:17 pm

Nadzieja @ Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:52 am wrote:Kat-Thanks so much for your answer.I think the story is gruesome in the fact I would have been hysterical if I found my pet cat beheaded in my cellar. I just aquired a copy of the book "Good Bye Lizzie Borden". I haven't read it yet, any opinion of the book? I've been collecting books on Lizzie whenever I see a title on a posting so I can have reading material on hand and when something is referenced I can look it up. I also just purchased The Cases that Haunt Us. Another question--Did Emma ever talk to anyone about the case. Was she ever interviewed by the press or anyone that you know of? I know this probably doesn't belong in this forum, but wasn't sure where to post---Is the Fall River Historical Society ever going to have The Knowlton Papers reprinted. I've been searching alot of places but have had no luck getting a copy.

For the only Interview with Emma in the newspapers, you can go to The Hatchet page and download the FREE ISSUE. In there is a 1913 interview, and also a long story about Lizbeth in 1913 and also a roundup and overview of the Tilden-Thurber incident. Among other goodies.

http://www.hatchetonline.com/HatchetOnline/index.htm

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:00 am

I understand, from reading John Douglas anyway, that the marked money was found on Hauptmann, as well as part of the ladder that was used to climb through Lindberg's window.

Seems unlikely to me that he would be innocent...Of course, he could very well have known about it or worked with someone else...but, then again, that's just my opinion.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:36 am

I had thought Hauptmann was railroaded, and I've read maybe 3 books on the crime. But that most recent TV show where they investigated the handwriting (that's the part I most remember- that and matching the wood from his attic to the ladder)- that show convinced me otherwise.

Some of us read only the Borden Chapter and that one is pretty bad because it really does seem like Douglas had his mind made up and tailored the info he had on the case to match his result. Profiling after the fact is not that hard.

But other parts of the book were pretty interesting.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:30 pm

Hi, My grandparents were the first to come to this country. Because of knowing how they didn't trust too many people except their own culture I understood when Bruno hid the box of money. Hauptmann--his german friend asked him to keep the box, he said he didn't look into it. I believe he didn't only because if they were friends he wouldn't have. Also his wife wouldn't have if Bruno told her not to, because all of this is a matter of honor of keeping your word. Bruno was also a carpenter, do you think he would have been so sloppy in his work in the attic? He also had a son the same age as Lindbergh. I wish I could remember what book this was, but I read it so many years ago. After I read the arguments I truly believe he was set up because the government had to find the person responsible for hurting one of American's heroes. Of course this is only one persons opinion.

bobarth · Post by **bobarth** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:48 pm

I thought he was right on with his profiling on the Ramseys being innocent. I have always believed an intruder who knew them did this crime.
I think he got Lizzie wrong and seemed to have one-sided information which pointed to her guilt.
I really had not read much on the others. So wont comment on those. However, on the Lindberg kidnapping. I have a hard time getting past Hauptmann having the marked ransom money hidden. I enjoyed that book though.