Oh, and about that gun the Crumbleys kept in an unlocked drawer…
…well, maybe not [emphasis added]:
During the arraignment, [the Crumbleys’] attorneys stressed their clients had fully intended to turn themselves in before authorities arrested them Saturday morning, and denied prosecutors’ assertions that their son had unrestricted access to the gun he’s accused of using….
Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald has alleged that James Crumbley on November 26 bought the gun at a store in Oxford, and that the parents gave the weapon to their son as an early Christmas present.
During Saturday’s arraignment, McDonald said, “It’s … clear from the facts that (Ethan Crumbley) had total access to this weapon,” and that the parents “didn’t secure (the gun) and they allowed him free access to it.”James Crumbley shook his head as McDonald made both statements.
One of the parents’ attorneys, Shannon Smith, countered during the hearing that “the gun was actually locked.”
“When the prosecution is stating that this child had free access to a gun, that is just absolutely not true,” Smith said. “This court is going to see … there is far more going on than what this court has been made aware of.”
Sound familiar? We don’t know which version is true, but my guess is that it’s more likely to be the prosecutor who’s blowing smoke.
In addition [emphasis mine]:
At Saturday’s hearing, Crumbley attorney Smith said she and her colleagues “called the prosecutor’s office throughout the day (Friday) and never got a call back,” and that “we were going to make arrangements to have our clients turn themselves in.” Smith also claimed she didn’t know the precise time of Friday’s arraignment.
“They were scared; they were terrified; they were not at home; they were figuring out what to do, getting finances in order,” Smith said Saturday.
By night, the defense attorneys made plans with the Crumbleys to turn them in to authorities Saturday morning, Smith said.
“We did not announce it, because unlike the prosecution, we weren’t attempting to make this a media spectacle,” she said.
McDonald countered that “these defendants did not need my permission” to turn themselves in.
When I wrote my first post about the charging of these parents, I was highly suspicious of the prosecutor and wrote the reasons for that opinion of mine in some detail. Now it’s only gotten worse.
I’d love for McDonald to explain why the office never returned the defense attorneys’ calls on Friday. I have my own theory, which is that the prosecutor wanted to be able to portray the Crumbleys as fugitives.
[NOTE: Today I started to write a big long post tying together some of the threads of the Crumbley story, but it’s gotten quite late and I’ll probably do it tomorrow instead.]
Something fishy is going on. If this is a “warning” to lax parents, I don’t think it’s going to end up that way.
If the DA is going to charge the parents, doesn’t she also pretty much have to charge the school officials?
That would be a big, big deal, to have that wall of immunity tumble down.
Patricia:
No, she does not have to charge anyone else.
The prosecutor says charges against school officials are possible, but gives no details:
https://nypost.com/2021/12/06/school-officials-could-be-charged-in-michigan-shooting/
What can one say other than prosecutors always lie.
And while the story from Michigan is saddening, recall that this goes on week after week after week with minimal media attention.
No outcry is made. No lessons are learned. No solution is proposed.
No. One. Cares.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-violence-shootings-gun/11304977/
Chicago shootings: 32 shot, 9 fatally, in weekend violence across city
If you click through and read the article, note how many of them are kids.
A handgun in a nightstand drawer has one main purpose, in a burglary or home invasion in the middle of the night, it is there for instant access. The only viable alternative to an unlocked drawer is a Small Gun Safe with a Biometric Fingerprint Lock. If there are children in the house, such a Gun Safe should be considered mandatory.
It is stupidity of the highest order to keep a gun in a locked drawer that requires a key to open.
The prosecutor is an immoral, politically ambitious piece of human flotsam.
Kate:
I predict that no one in the school will be charged. The prosecutor isn’t interested in them. She’s interested in gun owners.
Insofar as the corrupt political motivations of the prosecutor goes, you will get no argument from me.
The character, and the potential civil liability of the two parents, is another matter.
The former not yet settled, but looking very repugnant; the latter a matter for lawyers, no doubt.
JimNorCal
You’re right. But there’s a limit to “care” and if the establishment itself gives no sign of caring and, in fact, seems to enable it, and if the anonymous masses of the inner city keep throwing up these killers, one directs care elsewhere.
Sure, I know family and friends are devastated. But it doesn’t seem to be a matter of interest to anybody else who might be involved in effecting it.
Is there a movement to have fathers in the house? End illegitimate births? Boycott gangsta rap? Consider cops your friend? Ignore race hustlers?
Many years ago, I would occasionally go to a McD’s for lunch, take out a couple of burgers maybe two or three times a month. One of the counter staff was an attractive young black woman who was well-spoken and cheerful, no ghetto accent. Didn’t talk to her much, just kept the line moving.
One day a young black man was in line in front of me. He told her he’d just gotten out of jail and was having a party. She seemed eager to be invited.
The prosecutor’s emphasis that the parents “failed to ask their son if he had the firearm” (when they had no reason to think he would) and “failed to check his backpack” bothered me. These are neither crimes or signs of negligence, and if negligent, then as others note, the school shared culpability in not doing those things. Then there is the prosecutor claiming the negligence to remove the child from school, which again is both on the parents and school. And I wouldn’t classify that negligence as reckless.
As Barnes notes, the prosecutor’s legal theory for these charges would lead to a lot of criminal charges.
“such a Gun Safe should be considered mandatory.”
Sorry my friend. We don’t be needing that.
I don’t have any suggestion as to what we do need, besides good parenting, which may or may not have been lacking here.
But another government restriction on gun ownership isn’t it.
When I think of how many times my phone won’t open to my thumbprint with multiple tries, I don’t want to be calling out to an intruder to wait a minute.
If you voted for either professional kidnap victim Guv. Whitmer or Guv. Groper Cuomo who each ordered active COVID patients to be placed at vulnerable nursing homes, then you are guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If so, you are a ham sandwich and there’s a local prosecutor who has a theory on your case and can indict you . . .
Even if there was a “locked drawer”, try and prove that it was “always” locked or that it was secure “enough”.
This is another Rittenhouse type threat against anyone who would consider resisting the dictates of the ruling class. Good Lord! With weapons freely available, the residents might shoot and kill a robber who was, “turning his life around”. [I think that is in an appendix to “Critical Race Theory”.]
I believe the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 requires all guns to be transferred with a locking device so most likely the manufacturer’s provided lock was used. The most common is a cable lock or a trigger lock. Some handguns have an internal lock and special key.
“This is another Rittenhouse type threat against anyone who would consider resisting the dictates of the ruling class.”
Yep…that right there is some weapons grade truth. White. Wealthy. Lazy perhaps. They are to be made examples in the next white-folks-on-trial kangaroo court.
Not excusing their parenting or their dangerously addled son…but this is a show trial. Be ready for all sorts of prosecutorial shenanigans.
Would the parents of the victims have a case against the School? Schools do have a duty of care.
Here is the Washington law
RCW 9.41.360
Unsafe storage of a firearm.
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(2)(a) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(b) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person’s age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person’s parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
(4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose or would defeat the purpose of the law in question.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “prohibited person” means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored.
[ 2019 c 3 § 5 (Initiative Measure No. 1639, approved November 6, 2018).]
Chases Eagles:
The Crumbly case is in Michigan, not Washington.
I also agree that gun safes should not be mandatory. The purpose of many firearms is self-defense. It does little good to have a weapon locked in one place and the ammunition in another when a gang of burglars is bashing your front door down.
However pinning some degree of criminal co-responsibility on to a careless owner for a resident (and presumably minor) ward’s appropriation of a firearm for the commission of a felony, seems reasonable in outline. I’m not talking about burgled firearms here.
I am talking about their own goddamned wards – offspring, virtually exclusively – living under their own goddamned roofs.
And if the primary parties cannot keep their miscreant offspring out of their nightstand drawers, then, maybe they had better rethink either how they are monitoring their ward, or how they are securing their property.
I know that many parents have mentally and emotionally troubled offspring, who, for emotional attachment reasons, they will not turn out or disown; but who they also cannot control.
Well, if these offspring only killed the parents, I would not be making such an issue of this.
But there is no reason for victim neighbor’s to shrug at the damage they suffer which has been enabled by negligent or unconcerned or even incompetent parents, because “society” or “we feel for them” or some other shit “reason”.
If there were strict parental liability for directly enabling the homicidal acts of their wards, then, once the jails were full of these parental accomplice eff ups, then there would probably be a more vigilant class emerging from the category of a certain kind of now shiftless parent. Either that, or the state institutions would be full of abandoned emotionally troubled youth.
Either way, it is better than being killed by the psychologically disturbed whelp of the drunken losers down the street.
“Commitment to a shared fate” as per uncle Rawls, is not a conservative principle … or not a libertarian one at least.
The student is being waived into adult court. How then can parents be charged with improper supervision of their child? Here his an adult, but there he is a child?
I recall Rooster Cogburn being asked if the gun was cocked and loaded. Not much good if it isn’t. Weapons for home defense must be available.
My parents bought me a Remington M870 shotgun for my birthday when I was 15. I was then back in the 1970s, and still would be if I wasn’t a 70% disabled veteran, an avid duck hunter.
That isn’t a bid for sympathy. It is to say that even back in the 1970s there were laws. Tens of thousands of laws already. Now many times more. They kept my shotgun locked up until I turned 18. When I went hunting with my “hunting uncle” (back then everyone had one of those) I could use it under adult supervision. Then I gave it back to my parents to lock up for me until I turned 18.
I am not currently in prison for murder because it never occurred to me.
Until I hear more I’m not going to jump to conclusions as to how the parents locked up or otherwise cared for or secured the kid’s gun. This all sounds too perfectly Soviet to me.
Neo, I know. Everyone seems hung up on unsafe storage and the WA law is an example that suggests unsafe storage laws don’t have to mean mandatory safes or inhibiting self defense.
Maybe I’m crazy, but it seems like this is bloody shirt waving on the part of the anti-gun left to make up for the defeat they suffered when Rittenhouse was acquitted. (Not that they suffered a defeat, but they’re so nuts I think they’re taking the acquittal as one.)
@ North > “Maybe I’m crazy, but it seems like this is bloody shirt waving on the part of the anti-gun left to make up for the defeat they suffered when Rittenhouse was acquitted”
They would do it even if Kyle had been convicted.
Their rule is to take every possible* case down the gun-control road, because 2A supporters have to win every time, and grabbers only have to win once – then the leftist courts have a precedent they will be willing to apply.
Look how far they got with just Roe v Wade.
*JimNorCal’s Chicago cases are parallel to the discussion on the other Crumbley thread about mass murderers: Somehow, gang violence doesn’t get counted in that category.
They will NEVER be prosecuted as murders, mass or otherwise, with the same public fanfare (if prosecuted at all), because they don’t serve the gun control narrative.
They either (a) know that prosecution, and even reliable convictions, won’t prevent gangs and other criminals from getting and using guns; or (b) don’t care how many are killed by gangs; or (c) want more people killed by gangs because it destabilizes the rest of the public.
Or (d) all of the above.
I think that an added “advantage” of doing nothing about the proliferation of gang violence in the cities is that it—continuously—“dramatizes” just how racist “America” is…since “America” supposedly isn’t doing anything to stop it(!); i.e., (white) America is perpetuating Black (et al.) suffering, etc., etc.
Never mind that the usual suspects are ALSO advocating defunding the police AND eradicating bail for criminals so that those criminals are back on the streets in no time flat and often victimizing minorities; which same usual suspects are making pretty extraordinary money (and careers) from advocating 24/7 that all this “racism” exists in America, while reminding everyone that all White people are EVIL (and DON’T YOU FORGET IT!)….
IOW, living the American Dream(!) while helping to destroy individuals and institutions, and ultimately the country….
Terrific gig…if you can get it…
I read that a teacher was the one who first referred Ethan to the office. He or she followed the protocol exactly. Why Ethan’s backpack and weren’t searched immediately is the mystery.
As a teacher, I do notice students who seem different and try to offer my support. However, until a student breaks a rule or displays red-flag behavior, there’s not much else I can do.
If there are children in the house, such a Gun Safe should be considered mandatory.
My father’s shotguns were kept in an odd cupboard in the pantry, bar the one’s with dedicated carrying cases, which were kept in the front hall closet. Don’t know how we survived.
If the DA is going to charge the parents, doesn’t she also pretty much have to charge the school officials?
You mean display logical consistency and integrity? She’s a prosecutor, a Democratic prosecutor.
I say let’s allow the facts to come out. What bothered me the most about the charges against the parents is that they were filed so quickly – less than three full days after the shooting. I’m not intimately familiar with how a prosecutor’s office works. I find it very difficult to believe, however, that this prosecutor made a thorough investigation of the facts and performed adequate due diligence on a completely novel legal theory between a Tuesday afternoon shooting and a Friday morning filing. It was too fast. It smacked of politics rather than good lawyering. And it’s almost guaranteed to make potentially persuadable people see the whole process with a jaundiced eye, which I do.
I think the same goes for the parents though. They say that the gun was secured. Sure. Every defendant in this situation would claim that (albeit typically in a civil suit rather than a criminal suit). I want to see their evidence (and the prosecutor’s evidence) before forming an opinion.
On securing guns, sure, a locked gun may not be quickly available if an intruder enters the house. An unlocked gun could absolutely fall into the hands of a child, though, who may use it to harm others (as this kid did) or to harm themselves (which is far more common). That risk tradeoff has to be taken into account. Something could absolutely go wrong, one way or another. If something goes wrong and someone else is hurt by it, the individual responsible for the harm can absolutely be liable civilly to make the injured party while. (I’m skeptical of criminal liability for the parents here unless the facts are very egregious.)
Also, I don’t buy the “raise your child right and that won’t happen” argument. I’d love to raise my kids in the time when hunting rifles were kept in the cupboard and kids didn’t think twice about it, but I don’t. I have to raise my kids in the here in now. (I find that many people who make this argument raised their kids some time ago.) Parenting now is much more difficult than parenting 20 or more years ago when the culture didn’t actively undermine personal responsibility and actually reinforced it sometimes. I’m sure we would all love to believe that our kids would be responsible around unlocked guns, but are we willing to bet their lives and other lives in the community on it? That’s really the question.
If we’re going to take this route, then why not charge Brooks’ mother in Waukesha? She owned the car he was driving. He had just used it a short time before to commit assault, for which he was criminally charged. In fact, based on his known prior conduct, the case for “involuntary manslaughter” is actually stronger against Brooks’ mother than it is against the Crumbleys. My feeling is that the state is working overtime to make clear we’re SUPPOSED to hate these people. I refuse.
Except the parents knew the kid had a gun, the school did not.
And the parents, upon seeing that insane drawing with the words “the thoughts won’t stop. Help me” with drawings of bullets and bodies and blood on it. Told the school to send him back to class? Where was the parental compassion for their child? Are you kidding? Who wouldn’t pull their kid and talk with him? What, did they have a meeting or lunch they had to go to??
Also, if the parents had secured the gun, how did the kid get it?
Further, upon hearing there is a shooter at their child’s school, neither parent went to the school. Mom texted the kid “Ethan don’t do it”. And dad, upon hearing the news went home to look for his gun, not to school to protect his son or anyone one else. How do you not see at least some culpability here?!
Milwaukee – “The student is being waived into adult court. How then can parents be charged with improper supervision of their child?”
Is that the charge? I thought the charge was basic involuntary manslaughter. In that case, the family aspect is almost irrelevant. With the in mind, my answer to your question is: the prosecutor needs to prove they “contributed to a situation where there was a high chance of harm or death.” That doesn’t require a parental aspect, and I would think the parental aspects are part of a reasonable defense.
I think the key prosecution argument is the purchase of the firearm as a gift just days before the shooting. For that to work reasonably to me, it would require evidence that the parents had reason to believe it could possibly be used inappropriately and acted carelessly in face of that belief. So far, the prosecutor has missed the mark on that argument.
Not sure how getting to the school after the shooting would protect anybody. Finding the gun missing would tell the father something and he told the cops. Didn’t make much difference afterwards except to make it clear there was probably only one shooter which may have enabled faster medical response.
Do we know what triggered Mom’s message? And what else should she have done? Where was she that something more immediate might be done? You can text somebody who’s in your contacts. It takes time to get a new number–the school’s, possibly–to warn them.
I live hear Muskegon which has its down sides. Hard to recall any such interest in the shootings there. Funny, that.
I expect the parents will soon be compared to those who are challenging local school boards, and Garland’s DOJ will begin checking the home firearm status of the school board challenging “domestic extremists” who are on the lists being compiled by the FBI.
I read somewhere that a former neighbor had called child protective serves about the parents several years ago. She said the parents used to go out drinking late at night and leave Ethan home alone without even a phone. It sounds like screwed up parents, who would naturally produce a screwed up child.
The gun lock that comes with a gun purchase and the locking gun storage cases are, like the lock on your house door and garage, not there to keep a determined thief out. They stop the casual one and provide evidence of the intent of the determined one. A determined thief can breach any barrier depending on just how determined they are.
I’ll add that the nightstand gun is there to provide an absolute barrier to a determined thief or other intruder.
Lisa Hauge. Knew a Hauge at Benning, 69. Might be a relation?
This school shooting was a disaster and there are several components to it that I would like to know more about. The first is the mental condition of the 15 year old and his history, I find it hard to think his destructive behavior and killing people just appeared recently and we know he was planning his attack for days. I do know that prosecutors are political and I don’t know all of the laws in Michigan however if I were the prosecutor I would charge the parents with every law possible if laws were broken. Buying a pistol and giving it to the boy who could not legally purchase it was a terrible decision and because of the public postings on social media we know that occurred and people are dead.
I am a gun guy and I have taught my kids and grandkids how to safely use guns under adult supervision, when one of my grandsons was 20 going to college and wanted to borrow one of my pistols my answer to his request was “Hell no, wait a year until you are 21 and buy your own pistol because there is no way I would ever let you use one of mine unless we are at the gun range.” To me the law is that plain and simple.
Also,,, was the pistol locked up by the parents? Not well enough to keep the boy from killing people, I do keep my firearms secured and it is not easy to get around the locks.
Parenting now is much more difficult than parenting 20 or more years ago when the culture didn’t actively undermine personal responsibility and actually reinforced it sometimes.
https://alchetron.com/cdn/pugsley-addams-c3bce0b2-5a1d-4fc0-9965-651ccac23d3-resize-750.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrSY6w7kXI0
I expect the parents will soon be compared to those who are challenging local school boards, and Garland’s DOJ will begin checking the home firearm status of the school board challenging “domestic extremists” who are on the lists being compiled by the FBI.
You got it.
I am not currently in prison for murder because it never occurred to me.
As it does not occur to 98% of the young men in this country. At any time. Ever.
Old TExan:
What the parents did is not against the law. So although to you the law is “plain and simple,” what you are suggesting charging them with is not the law. It is an emotional reaction, because the crime is bad and you think they were irresponsible.
So far there has been zero evidence of any emotional problem or aggression from this kid prior to shortly before the shootings. So although many people have trouble believing that, it is apparently the case. As I’ve said before, psychopaths often are very good at hiding their violent impulses until they commit a crime. In addition, sometimes teenagers and people in their 20s have sudden psychotic breaks.
Basically, reports are still emerging, and the full picture of what this shooter’s mental state was, and the conditions of his home, are not yet clear. The prosecutor appears to have charged the parents with insufficient information and with the intent of attacking gun laws rather than looking carefully at the circumstances and charging according to Michigan law.
When I was in 5th grade, I went through a phase of violent drawing and writing in creative school assignments. Blood, knives, stabbed hearts strung out on a clothes line. I believe it was the backwash of living with my stepfather. I wasn’t a happy camper.
One of my teachers noticed and asked some gentle questions. By then I knew better than to talk about my home life to teachers.
I was harmless. I wouldn’t have done anything, but I was deeply angry for years of my young life.
I don’t know what anyone could have done or should have done. Thank God for good friends and, in a few cases, their parents.
That started to heal when I got away from home, went to college and became a hippie.
As weird as it might sound here, becoming a hippie was a born-again experience for me. It helped me to let go, trust and enjoy life and people. Which is why I still speak of that time and that movement with such fondness.
–Melanie – Carolina In My Mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brSTmDjg8JQ
Here’ an interesting article about a neuroscientist who was examining brain scans for psychopaths, looked at his own from a different pile, and discovered his scan showed all the signs of being a psychopath!
___________________________________
It wasn’t entirely a shock to Fallon, as he’d always been aware that he was someone especially motivated by power and manipulating others, he says. Additionally, his family line included seven alleged murderers, including Lizzie Borden, infamously accused of killing her father and stepmother in 1892.
But the fact that a person with the genes and brain of a psychopath could end up a non-violent, stable and successful scientist made Fallon reconsider the ambiguity of the term. Psychopathy, after all, doesn’t appear as a formal diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in part because it encompasses such a wide range of symptoms. Not all psychopaths kill; some, like Fallon, exhibit other sorts of psychopathic behavior.
…
Why has Fallon been able to temper his behavior, while other people with similar genetics and brain turn violent and end up in prison? Fallon was once a self-proclaimed genetic determinist, but his views on the influence of genes on behavior have evolved. He now believes that his childhood helped prevent him from heading down a scarier path.
“I was loved, and that protected me,” he says. Partly as a result of a series of miscarriages that preceded his birth, he was given an especially heavy amount of attention from his parents, and he thinks that played a key role.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/
Bingo!
Firearms are not toys. Grown up and responsible men know that and convey the seriousness of that to their offspring.
What some kid does on his 18th (or as you say 21st) birthday – like picking up a black powder pistol and blasting away at bottles and cans on a woodpile in the north country, is legally his responsibility.
You tell a minor ward who cannot according to the law be presumed legally responsible, that a gun is his and make it available to him, then you are responsible.
I think that’s interesting, huxley, on sociopathy/psychopathy. As my reading (not too extensive on the subject) indicates, medical and psychiatric experts cannot really put their finger definitively on what makes people behave like this. It runs in families, but that could be either behavioral, genetic, or a combination thereof.
Kate:
I’m convinced genetics counts for quite a lot, but not everything. Dr. Fallon believes that the love and attention he received from his parents made a big difference between him and, say, his relative, Lizzie Borden. (Who remembers her these days?)
I don’t believe I was in danger of going that way myself, but I would be a different and worse person today without the love and kindness I experienced from various people along the way.
It’s something to consider — there are always people, particularly young ones, watching for signs of love, kindness and sanity because they aren’t sure how to make those happen for themselves, but they would very much like to learn.
You could help make that difference without even knowing it.
Well, I can’t resist:
___________________________
Yesterday in old Fall River
Mr. Andrew Borden died
And he got his daughter, Lizzie
On a charge of homicide
Some folks say she didn’t do it
And others say of course she did
But they all agree, Miss Lizzie B
Was a problem kinda kid
‘Cause you can’t chop your
Papa up in Massachausetts
Not even if it’s planned
As a surprise (a surprise)
No, you can’t chop your
Papa up in Massachausetts
You know how neighbors love to criticize
–Chad Mitchell Trio, “Lizzie Borden” (1962)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuDBO1rIrb4
Pingback:Interesting Items 12/13 – Interesting Items