1. "Borden Case Solved?"
Posted by Edisto on Jun-23rd-03 at 10:47 AM

Here's an item of interest on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3530454533&category=2240

Note that the heading is:  "Real Life Crimes and How They
Were Solved," and one of the cases in the book is the murder of Abby and Andrew Borden, so I assume somebody has solved the Borden case.  Great news!  --But what will we talk about now?

Perhaps someone on this Forum has made a breakthrough and is holding out on the rest of us!

Looks like the seller is in the UK. Those British true crime books are usually pretty bad when it comes to the facts of this case. They contain lucious photographs, but leave out the proper order of facts or repeat gossip from the newspapers.

I thought Arnold Brown solved it. He said he did.

Nurse Nancy even, I like that one!

It sounds too good to be true!  But, I have to wonder if it wouldn't be worth it to buy this book just to read whatever they have written as to solving the crime. 

In the case of the British, as Stefani says, they are not quite on the ball when it comes to American Crime.
I'm sure you, Susan, can come up with a better solution than that book!

I am curious, but, you are right, Kat.  Its probably a load of horse manure. 

YES!! But he said he did not have all the evidence for his claim.
His solution fits the known facts better than any other.
It is an "optimal solution". It explains what Lizzie & family kept hid, and why the judges bent over to get her freed.
Of course, if it was a hired hit it could be possible to pay off the authorities for a "not guilty" verdict.

Anyone KNOW of this happening in their county? Isn't it much more likely that an innocent is framed for a murder (Jose Correia?)?
Anybody read the news this year about the Central Park Jogger?

Are you a believer in advertising? "BUY this book and get the TRUTH"?
We know that even current writings on this case contain the usual "human error". One prevention is to have it reviewed by as many as possible in a limited amount of time.
...
Look at books like this as entertainments for those who know little about most of the stories.

(Message last edited Jun-24th-03  4:32 PM.)

You are speculating that Jose Correia was innocent.
He was held, tried, found guilty and seved 20 years in prison.  You really have something against the justice system in Massachusetts?
Are you now the Manchester jury as well as the Borden jury, and every defendent is innocent after trial?

So can you come up with a better explanation than AR Brown as to why he was treated that way? Guilty, yet unexecuted? If you say he was "guilty", then for the same reason you MUST say Lizzie was "not guilty", since it was the Court Verdict. Are you going to speculate on why one was guilty in contradiction to the popular verdict?

Why did E Pearson AVOID mentioning this case at all? HE should have been to first to castigate this lenient treatment of a murderer. Or would this have raised questions he would rather not answer?

Yes,"I the Jury" (ever read this 1950s thriller?).

(Message last edited Jun-24th-03  11:53 PM.)

My theory is this: even if someone, anyone, somewhere, anywhere where to actually unearth cold, hard, concrete, indisputable evidence that "solves" the Borden mystery and attempted to advance their findings it is my solid belief that NO ONE, that's right, NO ONE would believe them.  We the people of this forum would never allow our favorite indulgence to come to an end....NOW...that's my tail and you know what I'm doing with it....

BobCookBobCook

That will NEVER HAPPEN, any more than the secret archives on the JFK assassination will be revealed to the public in 2037.
About 10 years ago a news show on TV interviewed the woman who was LBJ's teenage mistress then. She said any evidence was destroyed, and all they will find is an empty box.

Remember that "confession" that surfaced in the 1950s?
Remember Clifford Irving's 1971 "Autobiography of Howard Hughes"?
Remember the "Hitler Diaries" of 1984?
Anyone who disagrees is free to comment.

ha ha bobcook are you right-on or what?  Us junkies are
addicted! 

E Radin solved the story of the 1897 confession (appendix in his book). Would anyone here be able to hire a QDE to verify the paper?
...
If it sort of was as good as you say, many people would believe it. More than believe in flying saucers, for example. But there would be some who would never believe it, like E Pearson or R Sullivan etc.

(Message last edited Jun-27th-03  3:37 PM.)

Arnold R Brown said he solved the murders, because he came up with a solution that best fits the known facts. But he couldn't prove WS Borden's guilt, or even get the records for his stay in Taunton Asylum. Since then others have claimed better luck (and sort of back his solution of an angered madman).
Can anyone here PUBLISH a better book (or even magazine article)?
...
Or ANY book?
I believe that Masterton's book is a quickie designed to deny the reality of clotting blood. Who exactly is the murderer? He gives three suspects, but can't choose between them!


(Message last edited Jul-1st-03  6:09 PM.)

"Better" would be, of course, in the eye of the beholder, wouldn't it?

Donald Rumbelow (who is the ultimate authority on Jack the Ripper) once said (and I'm more or less quoting), "When that final Judgement Day comes and St. Peter calls forth the name Jack the Ripper, someone will step forward and all the Ripper-ologists past, present, and future, will look at that person, then one another, and say, 'Who?'" 
I wonder if that would also apply ultimately to the murderer of Andrew & Abby Borden?

GUILTY? And spared the gallows? Was there some extenuating circumstances for this? (I don't know.)
Dr Henry Lee's book tells about the forged evidence in the FAMOUS Sacco-Vanzetti case (I never read much about it). Was that just?

Has anyone read about the book on Dr Sam Shepard (Cleveland Ohio)? Was his conviction accurate? In 1964 F Lee Bailey got him out of jail and eventually freed, and gained a national reputation.

I personally have nothing against the justice system in Mass; but I can't speak for the 19? people hanged as witches about 300 years ago. But if it can make no mistakes, then Lizzie is truly "guiltless". Why could one be guilty if exonerated, and one innocent if convicted? My knowledge is entirely based on AR Brown's book: Correia was convicted as part of the cover-up; did Wm S Borden do it to provide an alibi for Lizzie?