Proof for Arnold Brown's Theory - Part 1 of 5

[RayS]

Proof for Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 1 of 2

My Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “proof” as any effort, process, or operation that attempts to establish truth or fact; a test or trial of the truth; etc. One negative proof of Arnold Brown’s book is that no facts have disproved his theory (a visitor whose presence was kept secret was the killer of Abby and Andrew Borden). This case can never be tried in a court of law, only in the court of public opinion. If anyone could write a new book that outsells Arnold Brown’s book that could be the disproof of Brown’s theory. It hasn’t happened.

The proof of Brown’s theory is how the existence of a Secret Visitor explains the many phenomena that occurred on 8-4-1892, and afterwards.

• Bridget’s difficulty with the locked front door could mean the Secret Visitor fastened all the locks, not just the ones used in the daytime. He entered by the front door.
• The laughter from the top of the stairs is explained by the presence of this Secret Visitor. Lizzie covered this up by saying she had laughed, when Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andrew Borden returned home by the front door.
• Lizzie mentioned the sale to Bridget to get her to leave for an hour, before lunch, so the Secret Visitor could meet with Andrew in private. Lizzie left for the backyard (and escaped being the third victim).
• The Secret Visitor was not seen as he left, just as Uncle John Morse later entered unseen from the back. Did Morse also leave in the evening this way?
• Lizzie first told the police that “it wasn’t Bridget or anyone who worked for Father”. That said she knew who had been there, but refused to give him away.
• Lizzie sent a message to Uncle John; when he returned his first comment was “how did this happen?”, as if he was surprised at the outcome. Uncle John advised the cover-up to prevent any greater family scandal. Uncle John could have been charged as an accessory for arranging this meeting, another good reason.
• Lizzie’s changed testimony (in the backyard, in the barn, up in the loft) puts her further away from being an eyewitness to any visitor. Her perjury signalled she would be part of the cover-up.
• There were no bloodstains on either Lizzie’s or Bridget’s dresses, and no murder weapon found. Both were not guilty of the murder, but didn’t tell all they knew.
• Virginia Lincoln told how the upper class tolerated Lizzie until that shoplifting scandal. That implies Fall River Society knew of the real killer and approved of the cover-up. How many of Andrew’s peers had a similar scandal of an unacknowledged relative?
• Reading the reports in E. H. Porter’s book you will find quotes from lawyer Andrew Jennings about a “madman” or “a skeleton in the Borden closet, if there was one”. This suggests Jennings was laying the ground for an appeal, if it became necessary (“new evidence”)

Edmund Pearson blamed Lizzie, but he could offer no proof. Robert Sullivan did the same. Edward Radin blamed Bridget but could offer no proof. Frank Spiering blamed Emma, but could offer no proof. Only Arnold Brown, who was not a professional writer, honestly admitted he had no proof (contemporary documents), Yet he was criticized for this honesty! Given that no contemporary documents will ever be found and authenticated, then no one can ever prove anything. You just have to consider the known facts and reach your own conclusions. Juries do this every day, and I have done so in this article. Like other circumstantial evidence, these facts may have multiple explanations.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson, All Rights Reserved.

[augusta]

RayS - Interesting post. This is true - there is no proof of anyone doing the crime. But the people accused in writings other than Mr. Brown's at least had the fact that the people they accused were really people. and we know who those people were - their occupations, any ties with the fam, etc. In order for his theory to work, we need to know Wm. Borden really was Andrew's illegitimate offspring. He was a person. But was he what Brown says he was? We will probably never know.

As I've mentioned before, Brown's book contains a theory. It is no better or worse than the other scads of books and articles and their theories. A person can believe it, or not. But until we get past step one - that Wm. was Andrew's son - we have less than other theories give us. You know you can't disprove a negative.

I would think Wm. Borden's laugh would sound different from Lizzie's laugh. I can't imagine Bridget thinking his deep, crazed giggle as being Lizzie's. Bridget must have heard Lizzie's laughter many a time in that house. (Well, in that house, maybe not ... )

I agree that something screwy was going on with the front door. I always thought that someone locked it up really good to insure Andrew not being able to get in while Abby was being murdered. It was usually Lizzie who opened the front door and that day she didn't do it.

Uncle John saying, "How did this happen?" could have been a fake reaction of his. I believe it was.

Victoria Lincoln saying Lizzie was tolerated until the Tilden-Thurber incident does not imply that Fall River knew who Wm. was and that he did it. Fall River thought she did it.

Lizzie saying it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for 'Father' is interesting. She is also said to have said that she stayed in Fall River because she was going to like wait it out until the real killer was found, and the way she said it was like she knew who it was.

There's just nothing to grab onto in Brown's book. Anything is possible, and it's possible it is true. But it would be supported more by Bordenites if he had something to back it up with.

[RayS]

"Part 1" is to prove the murderer was a Secret Visitor (or Unknown Subject). THAT is the obvious conclusion to the mystery. You can read True Crime stories, like the collections of Ann Rule. If the persons living at the murder scene didn't do it, it had to be an Unknown Subject. Examples would be the murderer of Marilyn Sheppard, Jon Benet Ramsey, etc. Pearson's story of a Murder on Fifth Avenue. Pick your own examples.

We know that William S. Borden did exist, his birth certificate is not available, and he died under mysterious circumstances (drank a bottle of poison, climbed a tree then hanged himself with a logging chain!).

Any objective examination of this double murder would come to this conclusion. I also know that few here will accept this, preferring to loop forever in a "Lizzie did it and somehow we can prove it" argument.

But will they admit there is no documentary proof of Lizzie's guilt? If there were, the arguments for anyone else would not exist. QED

[RayS]

...
As I've mentioned before, Brown's book contains a theory. It is no better or worse than the other scads of books and articles and their theories. A person can believe it, or not. But until we get past step one - that Wm. was Andrew's son - we have less than other theories give us. You know you can't disprove a negative.
...
There's just nothing to grab onto in Brown's book. Anything is possible, and it's possible it is true. But it would be supported more by Bordenites if he had something to back it up with.

I think you are reasoning backwards from a suspect to the killings.
First, let us admit that an Unknown Subject committed the crimes. Then we can speculate about just who fit this profile (Part 2 will be posted later).

Arnold Brown's book was based on the unpublished memoirs of Henry Hawthorne plus Brown's own research into the crime. We know that Ellan Eagan did exist, and was questioned by the Police. Certainly no one will deny the existence of Henry Hawthorne!

[RayS]

I would think Wm. Borden's laugh would sound different from Lizzie's laugh. I can't imagine Bridget thinking his deep, crazed giggle as being Lizzie's. Bridget must have heard Lizzie's laughter many a time in that house. (Well, in that house, maybe not

If Wm Borden was a short slight young (?) man then it could be that he had a high-pitched giggle (nerves?).
Too bad Henry Hawthorne never mentioned this (as I remember it).

BTW Brown mentions that Hawthorne had publicized his story in the 1950s. Are there any references in the Fall River newspapers of that time?

[mbhenty]

Yes Ray, I do believe somethings you do. The probability of a third party or outsider known to Lizzie is REAL TO ME.

The idea that Lizzie was trying to push the maid out the door, shopping, to get rid of her is REAL TO ME.

The fact that John Morse wanted to minimize damage to the family and did not volunteer what he knew is REAL TO ME.

The fact that Lizzie was almost admitting she knew who did it, by stating that it was not Bridget or anyone that worked for father, is REAL TO ME.

The only explanation I can come up with about what happen to the ax and the blood splatter is an outside party. Most men in those day's wore very dark clothing. A man with blood splatter on his clothing only need smear it in with a handerchief and it would not look any different then water, wet clothing. The red color of the blood would not show through on a black garment; and he would be free to walk the street unoticed with the ax tucked inside his pants under his coat. This to is REAL TO ME.

Lizzie could have been out by the barn as a "lookout" to make sure the coast was clear as the man jumped Churchills fence? This could be REAL TO ME.

Bridget could have even seen the man in the house and told to keep quite by Lizzie. This also could be REAL TO ME.

But was it Billy.....? NOT AS REAL TO ME.

[RayS]

But was it Billy.....? NOT AS REAL TO ME.

OK, you agree with me so far.
First establish the presence of an Unknown Subject, then the next step is to find a person who fits the profile (Part 2).
In about two months. Stay tuned to this site.

[DWilly]

Proof for Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 1

My Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “proof” as any effort, process, or operation that attempts to establish truth or fact; a test or trial of the truth; etc. One negative proof of Arnold Brown’s book is that no facts have disproved his theory (a visitor whose presence was kept secret was the killer of Abby and Andrew Borden). This case can never be tried in a court of law, only in the court of public opinion. If anyone could write a new book that outsells Arnold Brown’s book that could be the disproof of Brown’s theory. It hasn’t happened.

The proof of Brown’s theory is how the existence of a Secret Visitor explains the many phenomena that occurred on 8-4-1892, and afterwards.

• Bridget’s difficulty with the locked front door could mean the Secret Visitor fastened all the locks, not just the ones used in the daytime. He entered by the front door.
• The laughter from the top of the stairs is explained by the presence of this Secret Visitor. Lizzie covered this up by saying she had laughed, when Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andrew Borden returned home by the front door.
• Lizzie mentioned the sale to Bridget to get her to leave for an hour, before lunch, so the Secret Visitor could meet with Andrew in private. Lizzie left for the backyard (and escaped being the third victim).
• The Secret Visitor was not seen as he left, just as Uncle John Morse later entered unseen from the back. Did Morse also leave in the evening this way?
• Lizzie first told the police that “it wasn’t Bridget or anyone who worked for Father”. That said she knew who had been there, but refused to give him away.
• Lizzie sent a message to Uncle John; when he returned his first comment was “how did this happen?”, as if he was surprised at the outcome. Uncle John advised the cover-up to prevent any greater family scandal. Uncle John could have been charged as an accessory for arranging this meeting, another good reason.
• Lizzie’s changed testimony (in the backyard, in the barn, up in the loft) puts her further away from being an eyewitness to any visitor. Her perjury signalled she would be part of the cover-up.
• There were no bloodstains on either Lizzie’s or Bridget’s dresses, and no murder weapon found. Both were not guilty of the murder, but didn’t tell all they knew.
• Virginia Lincoln told how the upper class tolerated Lizzie until that shoplifting scandal. That implies Fall River Society knew of the real killer and approved of the cover-up. How many of Andrew’s peers had a similar scandal of an unacknowledged relative?
• Reading the reports in E. H. Porter’s book you will find quotes from lawyer Andrew Jennings about a “madman” or “a skeleton in the Borden closet, if there was one”. This suggests Jennings was laying the ground for an appeal, if it became necessary (“new evidence”)

Edmund Pearson blamed Lizzie, but he could offer no proof. Robert Sullivan did the same. Edward Radin blamed Bridget but could offer no proof. Frank Spiering blamed Emma, but could offer no proof. Only Arnold Brown, who was not a professional writer, honestly admitted he had no proof (contemporary documents), Yet he was criticized for this honesty! Given that no contemporary documents will ever be found and authenticated, then no one can ever prove anything. You just have to consider the known facts and reach your own conclusions. Juries do this every day, and I have done so in this article. Like other circumstantial evidence, these facts may have multiple explanations.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson, All Rights Reserved.

Ray, a few things on your post:

I went to the library and did get a copy of Brown's book. A rather well written book but in my opinion not very good history. Why?

1. First off, just like you Ray, Brown relies on the old "Try to prove it didn't happen" tactic. On pg. 14, Brown writes about Henry Hawthorne's account that he "cannot disprove him." It's one of the oldest tricks used by conspiracy buffs and one of the most dishonest.

2. Where is Hawthorne's account? Maybe I'm zipping through the book too fast because I'm not seeing any footnotes or quotes from Hawthorne's writings? I would like to see Hawthorne's account.

3. Brown makes claims and then doesn't prove them. Example, on page 315, he writes, "For whatever reason, at the age of thirty-three, Andrew J. Borden, whose marriage to his first wife Sarah was not an entirely happy one, had an affair with Phebe Hathaway Borden."....Brown has no footnote as to where he's getting that from. Please, do you or anyone else know where I can get the account of this affair?

Brown does that a lot. He makes a statement and then I can't find where the proof of that statement is. He does this again on page, 319 when he writes, " On the day he was murdered, Andrew had an appointment to speak with his son." Again no footnote, so who is Brown using as his source and how did he prove that statement?

You write in your post about Bridget stumbling with the locks and say,

• Bridget’s difficulty with the locked front door could mean the Secret Visitor fastened all the locks, not just the ones used in the daytime. He entered by the front door.


You say "could mean" because you don't know for sure. Brown does that too when he writes on page, 319 that William Borden, " may have entered the Borden house by the front door opened by Uncle John." He uses "may' because he doesn't know.

[DWilly]

Proof for Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 1

• The laughter from the top of the stairs is explained by the presence of this Secret Visitor. Lizzie covered this up by saying she had laughed, when Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andrew Borden returned home by the front door.
.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson, All Rights Reserved.

Is there an eyewitness to this account? I thought Bridget said it was Lizzie?Who are you using to refute that?

[augusta]

Yes, it's possible that an unknown assailant was the murderer. If I didn't say it in my previous post, I thought it went without saying that that is a possibility.

I don't agree with the logic of some who say, "It couldn't have been a stranger. Lizzie had to have been in cahoots with him/her. Nobody could have hidden in the house that hour and a half till Andrew came home."

Why not? Of course someone could have hidden. I don't know how they did not trek blood from Abby around, but no one can explain how Lizzie and Bridget had no blood on them either.

I think the killer could have listened to hear where Lizzie and Bridget were and went around the house knowing that info. Remember every room had a door.

There's a downstairs closet that I haven't heard Lizzie or Bridget opening that morning. A person can fit in it, even tho it doesn't look big enough. Andrew Jennings got in it and Phillips took his picture. My daughter got in it, before I had known Jennings had done it, and I was surprised that a person could fit in it.

When I was a kid, I took Lizzie's story at face value. I thought an intruder did hide out in the house and whacked Andrew. Nowadays I think that less likely, tho, than Lizzie, Emma and John Vinnicum getting a 4th party to do it.

What is Brown's theory on why he thinks Wm. was Andrew's son? And why does Brown think Wm. did it? All I remember from the book is that Wm. wanted his share of the inheritance (?).

There is one way you can prove Wm. Borden may have done it. If you got hold of his DNA and then got hold of Andrew's (or their descendants) that would tell you if Andrew was his father or not. You could contact Professor Starrs. Maybe he'd come back to Fall River for this.

[Smudgeman]

Proof for Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 1

• The laughter from the top of the stairs is explained by the presence of this Secret Visitor. Lizzie covered this up by saying she had laughed, when Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andrew Borden returned home by the front door.
.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson, All Rights Reserved.

Is there an eyewitness to this account? I thought Bridget said it was Lizzie?Who are you using to refute that?

I would like to know as well Rays. You have said this over and over on numerous posts, but have nothing to back it up with. I have provided you with testimony that Bridget DID say she heard Lizzie laugh upstairs, yet you twist this fact to assume Lizzie told Bridget to say that, your opinion or Brown's?

[RayS]

Please note that I did not identify anyone in Part 1. I just listed the reasons for this conclusion.
The Testimony given occurred days after the event, it was not fresh and unrehearsed. I so choose to emphasize what I think is the right stuff, just like a prosecutor would pick parts to emphasize to a jury.

Any complaints about "no documentary proof" can be filed in the circular container. The "documentary proof" is: Lizzie didn't do it, and there were no other suspects. Hence anyone who asks for "documentary proof" is rushing into a dead end and will never find what they are looking for.

I would think E.H. Porter's book, based on newspaper articles, would provide a clue to the events (as I remember it). Lizzie never testified at the Trial.

Like Arnold Brown, I also admit I have "no proof". But I do not have the means to do the research that he did about 20 years ago, and never expect to do so. Asking to "disprove" his theory is quite valid, in these and other circumstances. When a prosecutor charges someone with a crime they often ask the defense to "disprove" their charges. A defense attorney who can't "disprove" a charge by pointing to reasonable doubt will lose.

Maybe you ought to read more in general, not specifically. I can recommend "The Final Verdict" by Adele Rogers St. John, or other books on the life and career of Earl Rogers.

[RayS]

... (redacted) ...

Ray, a few things on your post:

I went to the library and did get a copy of Brown's book. A rather well written book but in my opinion not very good history. Why?

1. First off, just like you Ray, Brown relies on the old "Try to prove it didn't happen" tactic. On pg. 14, Brown writes about Henry Hawthorne's account that he "cannot disprove him." It's one of the oldest tricks used by conspiracy buffs and one of the most dishonest.

2. Where is Hawthorne's account? Maybe I'm zipping through the book too fast because I'm not seeing any footnotes or quotes from Hawthorne's writings? I would like to see Hawthorne's account.

3. Brown makes claims and then doesn't prove them. Example, on page 315, he writes, "For whatever reason, at the age of thirty-three, Andrew J. Borden, whose marriage to his first wife Sarah was not an entirely happy one, had an affair with Phebe Hathaway Borden."....Brown has no footnote as to where he's getting that from. Please, do you or anyone else know where I can get the account of this affair?

Brown does that a lot. He makes a statement and then I can't find where the proof of that statement is. He does this again on page, 319 when he writes, " On the day he was murdered, Andrew had an appointment to speak with his son." Again no footnote, so who is Brown using as his source and how did he prove that statement?

You write in your post about Bridget stumbling with the locks and say,

• Bridget’s difficulty with the locked front door could mean the Secret Visitor fastened all the locks, not just the ones used in the daytime. He entered by the front door.

You say "could mean" because you don't know for sure. Brown does that too when he writes on page, 319 that William Borden, " may have entered the Borden house by the front door opened by Uncle John." He uses "may' because he doesn't know.

I wasn't there as an eyewitness with a videocamera. I can only surmise from the known facts. That is what circumstantial evidence is all about.
"Conspiracy theory" is how the world works. You must know this, or be purposely ignorant (in the best sense of that word). Anyone who works for a corporation of gevernment knows that decisions are made in what used to be called "a smoke-filled room".

Elsewhere I read that Arnold Brown's book was originally 1100 pages! That's way too much to be commercially successful. You'll notice most books run about 320 pages (based on the 16-page modules for printing).

I've asked others if they have access to the notes of Henry Hawthorne. Those that do seem to be keeping them secured. Why?
Brown said Hawthorne publicized his theory in the 1950s or 1960s. SO it is not invented by Arnold Brown (who had a high management position at GM and elsewhere and knew how things worked in the real world).

The bottom line is this: Lizzie was found not guilty, there were no other suspects from those who were in the house. You cannot solve this case by investigating a dead end solution.

[RayS]

Proof for Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 1

• The laughter from the top of the stairs is explained by the presence of this Secret Visitor. Lizzie covered this up by saying she had laughed, when Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andrew Borden returned home by the front door.
.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson, All Rights Reserved.

Is there an eyewitness to this account? I thought Bridget said it was Lizzie?Who are you using to refute that?

I would like to know as well Rays. You have said this over and over on numerous posts, but have nothing to back it up with. I have provided you with testimony that Bridget DID say she heard Lizzie laugh upstairs, yet you twist this fact to assume Lizzie told Bridget to say that, your opinion or Brown's?

You certainly know that there are NO EYEWITNESSES available today. You also seem to be accepting the testimony (or cover-up) at face value. That way leads to a dead end.
As I remember reading it (somewhere) Bridget said she heard laughter from the top of the stairs. Then Lizzie said "that was me", to cover-up the presence of a Secret Visitor.
Normal procedure since then is to always question witnesses alone to prevent such contamination. IF the witnesses all agree exactly, that is collusion. Different people will remember things differently and their testimony will reflect this. Or could I be wrong again?

We know that when the police started to question Bridget Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". Good girl, Lizzie!

[RayS]

Proof for Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 1

• The laughter from the top of the stairs is explained by the presence of this Secret Visitor. Lizzie covered this up by saying she had laughed, when Lizzie was in the kitchen when Andrew Borden returned home by the front door.
.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson, All Rights Reserved.

Is there an eyewitness to this account? I thought Bridget said it was Lizzie?Who are you using to refute that?

I would like to know as well Rays. You have said this over and over on numerous posts, but have nothing to back it up with. I have provided you with testimony that Bridget DID say she heard Lizzie laugh upstairs, yet you twist this fact to assume Lizzie told Bridget to say that, your opinion or Brown's?

Whatever I post is my opinion, even if it comes from other's books.
I am an "armchair detective", like Sherlock Holmes older brother Mycroft.
If you limit yourself to one interpretation of the events that was coached and rehearsed before given as testimony, you will get nowhere.
ALL the facts have been chewed, swallowed, regurgitated, and re-processed. They lead to no solution except: Lizzie didn't do it.

[Bob Gutowski]

"Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning!"

Deja vu!

[Smudgeman]

Is there an eyewitness to this account? I thought Bridget said it was Lizzie?Who are you using to refute that?

I would like to know as well Rays. You have said this over and over on numerous posts, but have nothing to back it up with. I have provided you with testimony that Bridget DID say she heard Lizzie laugh upstairs, yet you twist this fact to assume Lizzie told Bridget to say that, your opinion or Brown's?

Whatever I post is my opinion, even if it comes from other's books.
I am an "armchair detective", like Sherlock Holmes older brother.
If you limit yourself to one interpretation of the events that was coached and rehearsed before given as testimony, you will get nowhere.
ALL the facts have been chewed, swallowed, regurgitated, and re-processed. They lead to no solution except: Lizzie didn't do it.

Whatever you post is your opinion - You said it not me!

[RayS]

...
Whatever you post is your opinion - You said it not me!

There is either eyewitness evidence or testimony from a recognized expert (w/ experience). All else is opinion.

[Smudgeman]

My point exactly. You have no eyewitness evidence or expert testimony. It is ALL OPINION.

[mbhenty]

Yes Ray:

You know, in years of studying this case I find that some beliefs and conclusions that I may adopt change. That is to say, sometimes I arrive at the supposition that since Lizzie had a motive and was in the house, it had to be her.

Then someone will bring to light some detail that affects or changes my way of thinking---------suddenly, I am not so sure.

Becasue no weapon was found and proof of blood, the outside party scenario is the assumption that I keep arriving to.

What I am trying to say is that along with many others on this forum, I REALLY DON'T KNOW. My opinion changes, not much, but it does.

Now that being said, it appears that you are unyielding with your conclusion and so positive about Brown and his supposed findings.

Have you never played the devil's advocate about your convictions and looked at the many other sides to this coin???

What if you are wrong??? Do we need to take a poll to see who concurs with your findings and Brown's creditability. I dare say even you would admit to what the conclusion would be. Does that not influence your beliefs on the matter.

[Steveads2004]

I am a very frequent reader, although I never post since you all seem far more serious as researchers than I. But I have to say I enjoy reading the back and forth between many of you and Ray S. I think Ray is very enjoyable to read and I admire him for his convictions and his unbending defense of Arnold Brown and his book. I think his book offers the correct answer as well, but thouroughly enjoy reading all of your ideas and opinions. Lizzie and her family have contributed so much through the awful ordeal that they all endured. We have the interest in history and people who are so long dead, as well as the deserved respect for the historical properties and surroundings. The late players in the drama offer us all a time machine unlike any other and I thank them all. And thank all of you for your wonderful forum. With respect, thanks and admiration.
Steve

[augusta]

Welcome, Steveads2004! I am a little surprised that you agree in Brown's theory as well. May I ask your reasoning?

RayS: Lizzie never said "It was me". Bridget testified that she heard "Miss Lizzie" laugh but could not tell whether it came from the landing or upstairs.

Because a person is acquitted of a crime, it certainly does not mean that they are not guilty. There was just not enough proof for the jury to think so beyond a reasonable doubt. And there wasn't. Even Knowlton knew there was not enough to get a guilty verdict. If I were on the Borden jury, I'd have to vote for acquittal, too.

Ellen Eagan was related to Henry Hawthorne. That part of Brown's story is true and can be proven.

I do think Brown's is an interesting theory, but could it be that he simply believed in the ramblings of an old man?

[RayS]

My point exactly. You have no eyewitness evidence or expert testimony. It is ALL OPINION.

So too the Trial Testimony. The Jury decides what is the facts.
They decided in 1893. Case closed?

[RayS]

...
Because a person is acquitted of a crime, it certainly does not mean that they are not guilty. There was just not enough proof for the jury to think so beyond a reasonable doubt. And there wasn't. Even Knowlton knew there was not enough to get a guilty verdict. If I were on the Borden jury, I'd have to vote for acquittal, too.

Ellen Eagan was related to Henry Hawthorne. That part of Brown's story is true and can be proven.

I do think Brown's is an interesting theory, but could it be that he simply believed in the ramblings of an old man?

Yes, being acquitted does mean they are not guilty, and can never be tried again. Why indict anyone when there is not enough proof? To end the spontaneous general strike! There are political reasons for indicting someone when it can't be proved.
Could Henry Hawthorne's memoirs just be the rambling of an old man? Shame on you! Some 80-yr olds do have sharp memories of their youth, its the more recent times that become cloudy. If you ever get a chance to see this in you relatives, you would know. A few years ago my remaining aunt was put in a home. Her son-in-law said she could remember everything from 30-40 years ago, but kept repeating the same question every ten minutes ("how are things?") She died 2 months later.

PS Brown's Acknowledgements lists the people he consulted with. He was not a professional writer used to creating good stories.

[DWilly]

...
Because a person is acquitted of a crime, it certainly does not mean that they are not guilty. There was just not enough proof for the jury to think so beyond a reasonable doubt. And there wasn't. Even Knowlton knew there was not enough to get a guilty verdict. If I were on the Borden jury, I'd have to vote for acquittal, too.

Ellen Eagan was related to Henry Hawthorne. That part of Brown's story is true and can be proven.

I do think Brown's is an interesting theory, but could it be that he simply believed in the ramblings of an old man?

Yes, being acquitted does mean they are not guilty, and can never be tried again. Why indict anyone when there is not enough proof? To end the spontaneous general strike! There are political reasons for indicting someone when it can't be proved.
Could Henry Hawthorne's memoirs just be the rambling of an old man? Shame on you! Some 80-yr olds do have sharp memories of their youth, its the more recent times that become cloudy. If you ever get a chance to see this in you relatives, you would know. A few years ago my remaining aunt was put in a home. Her son-in-law said she could remember everything from 30-40 years ago, but kept repeating the same question every ten minutes ("how are things?") She died 2 months later.

PS Brown's Acknowledgements lists the people he consulted with. He was not a professional writer used to creating good stories.

As most of us on this board already know "not guilty" does not mean Lizzie was "innocent." The State couldn't prove she was guilty but that doesn't mean she didn't do it nor does it mean some of us cannot still suspect her. Just look at the case of Emmett Till. The two men charged with his murder were found not guilty and after they were let go they sold their story to a magazine. In it they told how they committed the murder.

[DWilly]

...
Because a person is acquitted of a crime, it certainly does not mean that they are not guilty. There was just not enough proof for the jury to think so beyond a reasonable doubt. And there wasn't. Even Knowlton knew there was not enough to get a guilty verdict. If I were on the Borden jury, I'd have to vote for acquittal, too.

Ellen Eagan was related to Henry Hawthorne. That part of Brown's story is true and can be proven.

I do think Brown's is an interesting theory, but could it be that he simply believed in the ramblings of an old man?

Yes, being acquitted does mean they are not guilty, and can never be tried again. Why indict anyone when there is not enough proof? To end the spontaneous general strike! There are political reasons for indicting someone when it can't be proved.
Could Henry Hawthorne's memoirs just be the rambling of an old man? Shame on you! Some 80-yr olds do have sharp memories of their youth, its the more recent times that become cloudy. If you ever get a chance to see this in you relatives, you would know. A few years ago my remaining aunt was put in a home. Her son-in-law said she could remember everything from 30-40 years ago, but kept repeating the same question every ten minutes ("how are things?") She died 2 months later.

PS Brown's Acknowledgements lists the people he consulted with. He was not a professional writer used to creating good stories.

Here is what Brown wrote about Hawthorne's memoirs on pg.13-14,

"When the materials arrived, my first reading invoked smiles. What I had was a collection of disconnected ramblings with events choreographed backwards, with simple timing wrong, and with major characters totally ignored or, at best, moved from their traditional locations."

I still find it interesting that many who support Brown have never read Hawthorne's memoirs. So far I haven't seen where Brown even quotes from Hawthorne.

[RayS]

Lizzie was not guilty of committing the murder of her Father. Then the other two chareges were null prossed (dropped). The lack of evidence still says this.

I believe that she was guilty of covering up the crime. But only because it was the right thing to do (Andy must have told her to 'never speak of your cousin'). I believe that Uncle John also advised her to do this.
But I have no documentary proof.

Chad Millman's "The Detonators" is about a case that lacked "documentary proof" for the guilt of arson and murder. Has anyone here read it? Not the greatest book, but one about terrorism in America 90 years ago.

[RayS]

I still find it interesting that many who support Brown have never read Hawthorne's memoirs. So far I haven't seen where Brown even quotes from Hawthorne.

Arnold Brown used this information as the basis for his own investigation into the Borden Murders. I think he did a credible job in solving this case.

There are two parts.
1) It was done by an Unknown Subject, not a resident of the house.
2) Arnold Brown uses the Hawthorne memoirs to point to Wm S Borden as the perpetrator.

#1 is pretty rock solid, #2 is less firm. IMO

[SallyG]

Lizzie was not guilty of committing the murder of her Father. Then the other two chareges were null prossed (dropped). The lack of evidence still says this.

I believe that she was guilty of covering up the crime. But only because it was the right thing to do (Andy must have told her to 'never speak of your cousin'). I believe that Uncle John also advised her to do this.
But I have no documentary proof.

Actually, Ray, William Borden would have been Lizzie's half brother, not her cousin. What bothers me most about Brown's theory is why all the cloak and dagger activities in setting up a meeting between Andrew and William Borden? I'm sure there are several places they could have set up a meeting other than Andrew's house. And why would Lizzie have been so accommodating regarding the meeting. Surely she would have known it was in reference to an inheritance, and I can't imagine her having any desire to share in the inheritance with him. And if the town DID in fact know that William Borden was Andrews son, why would she try to cover up the crime and his existence to prevent a scandal. If everyone knew William's paternity, she had nothing to lose by blowing the whistle on him and everything to gain. They could lock up William and throw away the key, and Lizzie and Emma would have the entire inheritance to do with as they pleased. Perhaps Andrew having an out-of-wedlock son was not as much of a scandal as we might imagine. As many have stated, there is no proof that William Borden was Andrew's son, and Fall River seems to have been teeming with Bordens. Why are we to assume that William was Andrew's son? What proof is there of that?
Finally, why would Uncle John have arranged the meeting between William and Andrew? He had no interest in it, and I can't see Andrew summoning him back to Fall River for no other reason than to set up a meeting. If William was supposed to meet Andrew at 11 a.m., why would he have come as early as 9 a.m., and who let him in? He obviously didn't just stroll in, since the house was locked up tighter than Fort Knox.
If William was indeed there to discuss his inheritance, what did he have to gain by killing Abby? It seems to me that would have put a crimp in his interitance. If he HAD met with Andrew and Andrew told him he was not getting a dime, I can see him tomahawking both Andrew and Abby after the fact, but he had absolutely no reason to kill Abby before the supposed meeting.

[augusta]

Good posts. Valid questions on the book.

RayS: If you believe Brown's is the answer, do you consider Ruby Cameron's answer? It's much the same - an elderly woman giving her story of the Borden murders with a solution.

I in no way said that all elderly persons 'ramble'. I was only referring to Henry Hawthorne, and was not saying that he definitely rambled. I didn't know him.

Why would William Borden get any inheritance if Abby and Andrew were knocked off? He had no proof he was Andrew's son.

[twinsrwe]

Lizzie was not guilty of committing the murder of her Father. Then the other two chareges were null prossed (dropped). The lack of evidence still says this.

I believe that she was guilty of covering up the crime. But only because it was the right thing to do (Andy must have told her to 'never speak of your cousin'). I believe that Uncle John also advised her to do this.
But I have no documentary proof.

Actually, Ray, William Borden would have been Lizzie's half brother, not her cousin. What bothers me most about Brown's theory is why all the cloak and dagger activities in setting up a meeting between Andrew and William Borden? I'm sure there are several places they could have set up a meeting other than Andrew's house. And why would Lizzie have been so accommodating regarding the meeting. Surely she would have known it was in reference to an inheritance, and I can't imagine her having any desire to share in the inheritance with him. And if the town DID in fact know that William Borden was Andrews son, why would she try to cover up the crime and his existence to prevent a scandal. If everyone knew William's paternity, she had nothing to lose by blowing the whistle on him and everything to gain. They could lock up William and throw away the key, and Lizzie and Emma would have the entire inheritance to do with as they pleased. Perhaps Andrew having an out-of-wedlock son was not as much of a scandal as we might imagine. As many have stated, there is no proof that William Borden was Andrew's son, and Fall River seems to have been teeming with Bordens. Why are we to assume that William was Andrew's son? What proof is there of that?
Finally, why would Uncle John have arranged the meeting between William and Andrew? He had no interest in it, and I can't see Andrew summoning him back to Fall River for no other reason than to set up a meeting. If William was supposed to meet Andrew at 11 a.m., why would he have come as early as 9 a.m., and who let him in? He obviously didn't just stroll in, since the house was locked up tighter than Fort Knox.
If William was indeed there to discuss his inheritance, what did he have to gain by killing Abby? It seems to me that would have put a crimp in his interitance. If he HAD met with Andrew and Andrew told him he was not getting a dime, I can see him tomahawking both Andrew and Abby after the fact, but he had absolutely no reason to kill Abby before the supposed meeting.

Very well put, SallyG. I also wonder why....

If William Borden did indeed do the killings, why would Lizzie not speak up and point her finger at him? Why would she have put herself through the whole ordeal of being arrested, spending time in jail, being tried for murder and subjecting herself to being ostracized for the rest of her life if she didn't do it AND knew that it was William who did?

If William Borden did murder the Borden's, because Andrew was not going to give him a dime, then why in the world didn't he go after Lizzie and Emma once the trial was over with and claim his "part" of the inheritance? As far as that goes, why not just kill Lizzie and Emma, as well, and claim the entire inheritance? What did William gain out of killing two people?

Assuming that William is indeed Andrew's son... Arnold Brown expects us to believe that he (William) killed two people so that Lizzie and Emma could claim their father's entire inheritance? OH, PLEEEEASE!

[SallyG]

Lizzie was not guilty of committing the murder of her Father. Then the other two chareges were null prossed (dropped). The lack of evidence still says this.

I believe that she was guilty of covering up the crime. But only because it was the right thing to do (Andy must have told her to 'never speak of your cousin'). I believe that Uncle John also advised her to do this.
But I have no documentary proof.

Actually, Ray, William Borden would have been Lizzie's half brother, not her cousin. What bothers me most about Brown's theory is why all the cloak and dagger activities in setting up a meeting between Andrew and William Borden? I'm sure there are several places they could have set up a meeting other than Andrew's house. And why would Lizzie have been so accommodating regarding the meeting. Surely she would have known it was in reference to an inheritance, and I can't imagine her having any desire to share in the inheritance with him. And if the town DID in fact know that William Borden was Andrews son, why would she try to cover up the crime and his existence to prevent a scandal. If everyone knew William's paternity, she had nothing to lose by blowing the whistle on him and everything to gain. They could lock up William and throw away the key, and Lizzie and Emma would have the entire inheritance to do with as they pleased. Perhaps Andrew having an out-of-wedlock son was not as much of a scandal as we might imagine. As many have stated, there is no proof that William Borden was Andrew's son, and Fall River seems to have been teeming with Bordens. Why are we to assume that William was Andrew's son? What proof is there of that?
Finally, why would Uncle John have arranged the meeting between William and Andrew? He had no interest in it, and I can't see Andrew summoning him back to Fall River for no other reason than to set up a meeting. If William was supposed to meet Andrew at 11 a.m., why would he have come as early as 9 a.m., and who let him in? He obviously didn't just stroll in, since the house was locked up tighter than Fort Knox.
If William was indeed there to discuss his inheritance, what did he have to gain by killing Abby? It seems to me that would have put a crimp in his interitance. If he HAD met with Andrew and Andrew told him he was not getting a dime, I can see him tomahawking both Andrew and Abby after the fact, but he had absolutely no reason to kill Abby before the supposed meeting.

Very well put, SallyG. I also wonder why....

If William Borden did indeed do the killings, why would Lizzie not speak up and point her finger at him? Why would she have put herself through the whole ordeal of being arrested, spending time in jail, being tried for murder and subjecting herself to being ostracized for the rest of her life if she didn't do it AND knew that it was William who did?

If William Borden did murder the Bordens because Andrew was not going to give him a dime, then why in the world didn't he go after Lizzie and Emma once the trial was over with and claim his "part" of the inheritance? As far as that goes, why not just kill Lizzie and Emma, as well, and claim the intire inheritance? What did William gain out of killing two people?

Assuming that William is indeed Andrew's son... Arnold Brown expects us to believe that he (William) killed two people so that Lizzie and Emma could claim their father's intire inheritance? OH, PLEEEEASE!

Correct. And as long as William was in a killing frenzy, why not just hack up Lizzie as well, locate Bridget and silence her, and go on his merry way. Leaving witnesses to a murder is just not good protocol. Emma was not even in town, so she could not rat him out. Once the murders were discovered, the wheels of justice went into motion, and the usual suspects were rounded up, William could just sit back and wait.

When the time came for Andrews estate to be settled, and Emma put in her claim for Andrews fortune, William could stroll in and put in HIS request for a rightful inheritance. IF he was Andrews son, he may have had proof of paternity, or credible witnesses that knew he was Andrews son. He and Emma shared the wealth, the police never figured out who committed the murders...case closed.

I don't think Lizzie would risk her freedom or even her life to protect Andrew's out-of-wedlock son, or to conceal the fact of Andrews indescretion in fathering an illegitimate child. I doubt anyone would, for that matter. Spend my life in jail or face execution...or tarnish the family name. Not a real hard choice.

[Stefani]

For you Ray.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/MondoLizz ... rden-case/

[twinsrwe]

I don't think Lizzie would risk her freedom or even her life to protect Andrew's out-of-wedlock son, or to conceal the fact of Andrews indescretion in fathering an illegitimate child. I doubt anyone would, for that matter. Spend my life in jail or face execution...or tarnish the family name. Not a real hard choice.

Bingo! Pretty much a no brainer. Arnold Brown's theory and Lizzie's actions just don't add up.

[DWilly]

What bothers me is in the video that Stefani has on the Mondo site, Brown makes it very clear that he has no proof for his theory. Yet, when you read his book he tries to come off like he has proof. For example, when he writes about the Mellen House gang he writes as if he had some sort of inside knowledge as to what they were doing. But how and from whom? Brown wasn't born yet, and Hawthorne was only a child at the time he couldn't have supplied Brown with information from the Mellen House gang and what they agreed to or didn't agree to. I doubt very much their alleged agreement was in the paper. So, how does Brown know what those men were doing?

[RayS]

I'm not going to make remarks about "reading comprehension".
Part 1 ONLY deals with the fact that a Secret Visitor (call him "Nobody") was the guilty murderer. Anyone who went there to visit is not an Intruder.

The jury found that Lizzie was not guilty. Hence it was done by "Somebody". No one else was known to be a suspect. That proves the Secret Visitor.

The rationale for determining this Visitor is going to be Part 2. I'll need some time to start writing, and I want to see if I can obtain Porter's work. It contained the press reports. I may be away from this board for that.

A jury determines the facts in the case from opposing testimony that was presented in court. The Court of Public Opinion is not so limited.
I, the Jury, find that the Bordens were murdered by an "intruder", someone who was not of the household. I hope you will mostly agree with this decision.

To decide on a likely suspect will take time to do some research. Anyone who says "Trial Transcript" is going down a dead end; its result is still and always will be "not guilty". See the mock trial held in Stanford in 1997?

[RayS]

What bothers me is in the video that Stefani has on the Mondo site, Brown makes it very clear that he has no proof for his theory. Yet, when you read his book he tries to come off like he has proof. For example, when he writes about the Mellen House gang he writes as if he had some sort of inside knowledge as to what they were doing. But how and from whom? Brown wasn't born yet, and Hawthorne was only a child at the time he couldn't have supplied Brown with information from the Mellen House gang and what they agreed to or didn't agree to. I doubt very much their alleged agreement was in the paper. So, how does Brown know what those men were doing?

Arnold Brown died in 1999. I will try to answer this, but you should read his book for his answers. Take notes in a bound book for reference.

Brown says he could not obtain the birth certificate of Wm S. Borden. He says Mass law keeps this private for all illegitimate births. Has anyone else succeeded in finding this document?

The "Courthouse Gang" is a well-known term for the politicians who control local county politics. How much do you know about this?
I don't know if he found this in one of the local newspapers, or just from the fact that the Mellen House private meeting rooms were rented for meetings of the authorities. That is an apt description for any machinations among the high officials of the city and county.

Does any other book mention the meetings held by officials in a private meeting room? THAT alone suggests something that could not be discussed in a public building.

Did the Boulder officials hold meetings in a private room, or the public offices? (I'm reading a book on this case.)

[RayS]

I don't think Lizzie would risk her freedom or even her life to protect Andrew's out-of-wedlock son, or to conceal the fact of Andrews indescretion in fathering an illegitimate child. I doubt anyone would, for that matter. Spend my life in jail or face execution...or tarnish the family name. Not a real hard choice.

Bingo! Pretty much a no brainer. Arnold Brown's theory and Lizzie's actions just don't add up.

Yes they do!!! Lizzie never asked for a trial that risked her freedom. She merely said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". Yes, the disgruntled worker theory still held true in those days as well.

Things don't always go as planned. Brown suggests the arrest of Lizzie was to quell the spontaneous general strike (Spiering covers this well). Then the charges would be dropped for lack of evidence. Ever notice this in your county?

I'm sure that if Lizzie could do it over again she wouldn't make these two mistakes: 1) saying she was the one who laughed on the stairs (No, I was behind Bridget and heard nothing); and 2) I didn't see anyone around the house, I was in the backyard (Bridget would never do anything like that).

So now you know what I think about this case. Don't you think it is reasonable?

[RayS]

When the time came for Andrews estate to be settled, and Emma put in her claim for Andrews fortune, William could stroll in and put in HIS request for a rightful inheritance. IF he was Andrews son, he may have had proof of paternity, or credible witnesses that knew he was Andrews son. He and Emma shared the wealth, the police never figured out who committed the murders...case closed.

OK assume WSB did have proof of paternity!!! This would justify Lizzie's calculated risk in getting rid of his claim in return for shielding him. After all, a murderer could not inherit from the victim. Let's make a deal?

So far your statment seems to agree with Brown's theory, doesn't it?
There is also the chance that others could also put in a claim as an heir or heiress. Now that would really be a mess!

Lizzie seemed to feel that since she was not guilty, she would be safe. How little she knew of the Law! F. Lee Bailey speaks of this in this book "The Defense Never Rests". Being innocent is no bar to conviction.

[RayS]

Good posts. Valid questions on the book.

RayS: If you believe Brown's is the answer, do you consider Ruby Cameron's answer? It's much the same - an elderly woman giving her story of the Borden murders with a solution.

I in no way said that all elderly persons 'ramble'. I was only referring to Henry Hawthorne, and was not saying that he definitely rambled. I didn't know him.

Why would William Borden get any inheritance if Abby and Andrew were knocked off? He had no proof he was Andrew's son.

I have not read any book from the Public Library that has that solution.
There are two hurdles here. First, publish a book (tens of thousands of dollars). Then get it accepted in the Public Library (they review books as to suitability). Why would Lizzie, Emma, and Uncle John (?) shield this other person?

In truth, I never read anything here about this. I did see the reference to it around 1985; did that start Arnold Brown on his research?

[SallyG]

When the time came for Andrews estate to be settled, and Emma put in her claim for Andrews fortune, William could stroll in and put in HIS request for a rightful inheritance. IF he was Andrews son, he may have had proof of paternity, or credible witnesses that knew he was Andrews son. He and Emma shared the wealth, the police never figured out who committed the murders...case closed.

OK assume WSB did have proof of paternity!!! This would justify Lizzie's calculated risk in getting rid of his claim in return for shielding him. After all, a murderer could not inherit from the victim. Let's make a deal?

What????....if a murderer could not inherit from the victim, why would Lizzie even bother shielding him??? All she had to do was finger him as the murderer, and her problem would be solved. He would be out of the picture, the inheritance would be hers and Emmas, and she would not have to have gone through a trial.

[SallyG]

[quote="RayS @ Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:00 pm"]I'm not going to make remarks about "reading comprehension".
Part 1 ONLY deals with the fact that a Secret Visitor (call him "Nobody") was the guilty murderer. Anyone who went there to visit is not an Intruder.

The jury found that Lizzie was not guilty. Hence it was done by "Somebody". No one else was known to be a suspect. That proves the Secret Visitor. quote]

Sorry, Ray, but I don't see how that proves anything. The jury found Lizzie not guilty because the prosecution could not produce enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Can we agree that there are a lot of people out there who have committed crimes, but there was not enough evidence to convict them? If you can agree on that, then it's a possibility that the same thing happened in Lizzie's case as well. They could not prove she did it. Doesn't mean she didn't do it, just that they could not prove it.

[RayS]

I'm not going to make remarks about "reading comprehension".
Part 1 ONLY deals with the fact that a Secret Visitor (call him "Nobody") was the guilty murderer. Anyone who went there to visit is not an Intruder.

The jury found that Lizzie was not guilty. Hence it was done by "Somebody". No one else was known to be a suspect. That proves the Secret Visitor.

Sorry, Ray, but I don't see how that proves anything. The jury found Lizzie not guilty because the prosecution could not produce enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Can we agree that there are a lot of people out there who have committed crimes, but there was not enough evidence to convict them? If you can agree on that, then it's a possibility that the same thing happened in Lizzie's case as well. They could not prove she did it. Doesn't mean she didn't do it, just that they could not prove it.

When even the prosecutor admitted there was not enough proof, you have to wonder what was the purpose in this show trial. Making an accusation is NOT the same as proving it.
You need to take a deep breath and relax. We still don't live in a perfect world, and never will.

[RayS]

...
Sorry, Ray, but I don't see how that proves anything. The jury found Lizzie not guilty because the prosecution could not produce enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Can we agree that there are a lot of people out there who have committed crimes, but there was not enough evidence to convict them? If you can agree on that, then it's a possibility that the same thing happened in Lizzie's case as well. They could not prove she did it. Doesn't mean she didn't do it, just that they could not prove it.

If neither Lizzie or Bridget commited the brutal axe murder, then it follows as does the night the day that is was an Secret Visitor.
Secret because his identity was not revealed to the public.
Visitor because his admission to the house was with permission (IMO).

[SallyG]

...
Sorry, Ray, but I don't see how that proves anything. The jury found Lizzie not guilty because the prosecution could not produce enough evidence to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Can we agree that there are a lot of people out there who have committed crimes, but there was not enough evidence to convict them? If you can agree on that, then it's a possibility that the same thing happened in Lizzie's case as well. They could not prove she did it. Doesn't mean she didn't do it, just that they could not prove it.

If neither Lizzie or Bridget commited the brutal axe murder, then it follows as does the night the day that is was an Secret Visitor.
Secret because his identity was not revealed to the public.
Visitor because his admission to the house was with permission (IMO).

Ok, I agree on that point. If neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it was a Secret Visitor. However, what proof do we have that it was William Borden?
<Deeeeep Breath> Ok, I'm better now. Actually, I don't feel comfortable debating William Borden because I have not read Browns book. Once I read it, I can form a better opinion of what he has to say.

[twinsrwe]

I don't think Lizzie would risk her freedom or even her life to protect Andrew's out-of-wedlock son, or to conceal the fact of Andrews indescretion in fathering an illegitimate child. I doubt anyone would, for that matter. Spend my life in jail or face execution...or tarnish the family name. Not a real hard choice.

Bingo! Pretty much a no brainer. Arnold Brown's theory and Lizzie's actions just don't add up.

Yes they do!!! Lizzie never asked for a trial that risked her freedom. She merely said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". Yes, the disgruntled worker theory still held true in those days as well.

Things don't always go as planned. Brown suggests the arrest of Lizzie was to quell the spontaneous general strike (Spiering covers this well). Then the charges would be dropped for lack of evidence. Ever notice this in your county?

I'm sure that if Lizzie could do it over again she wouldn't make these two mistakes: 1) saying she was the one who laughed on the stairs (No, I was behind Bridget and heard nothing); and 2) I didn't see anyone around the house, I was in the backyard (Bridget would never do anything like that).

So now you know what I think about this case. Don't you think it is reasonable?

No, they don't!!! Arnold Brown's theory and Lizzie's actions may add up in your world, RayS, but they don't in mine.

As I stated in an earlier post: Why in the world would Lizzie have put herself through the whole ordeal of being arrested, spending time in jail, being tried for murder and subjecting herself to being ostracized for the rest of her life if she didn't do it AND knew that it was William who did? William Borden or a Secret Visitor it doesn't make any difference. Lizzie had no way of knowing for sure that the charges against her would be dropped for lack of evidence.

And, NO, I don't think your way of thinking it is reasonable. So far, you haven't proved anything.

[Allen]

All I have to say on Brown's theory is that it never made any sense to me at all. There isn't any proof to back up anything that is in the book. There isn't even any proof that William Borden personally knew any of the key players.

I don't believe Lizzie would've let herself be arrested and tried for murder if she was innocent and knew who had commited the crime. Even if William Borden WAS the illegitimate son of Andrew, and I'm not saying I think he was, that doesn't mean he'd get any share of the estate after killing Andrew. I'm sure Lizzie would be aware of this. It also doesn't mean that anybody would have to take him at his word just because he claimed he was. Where was his proof? They did not have the benefit of DNA back then for him to take any blood tests. There were many many Borden's in and around Fall River. Having no proof Lizzie could've argued he was just insane. It would've been a very convincing argument given the circumstances.

[Kat]

When Knowlton wrote Pillsbury about the "disposition" of the case, I think it was his personal and professional opinion that he would at the least get a hung jury. It seems more likely that Pillsbury was the one who had doubts. The interpretation of this is in Knowlton's wording - it seems he is trying to appear to be agreeing with his boss, who has just recently bowed out of the prosecution.
Knowlton Papers, letter #HK150, page 158+

. . . "Personally I would like very much to get rid of the trial of the case, and fear that my own feelings in that direction may have influenced my better judgment. I feel this all the more upon your not unexpected announcement that the burden of the trial would come upon me.

I confess, however, I cannot see my way clear to any disposition of the case other than a trial. Should it result in disagreement of the jury there would be no difficulty then in disposing of the case by admitting the defendent to bail: but a verdict either way would render such a course unnecessary.

The case has proceeded so far and an indictment has been found by the grand inquest of the county that it does not seem to me that we ought to take the responsibility of discharging her without trial, even though there is every reasonable expectation of a verdict of not guilty. I am
unable to concur fully in your views as to the probable result. I think it may well be that the jury might disagree upon the case. But even in my most sanguine moments I have scarcely expected a verdict of guilty." . . .

Also, we have the benefit of Lizzie's inquest testimony and earlier we have Bence's identification of Lizzie as attempting to buy prussic acid on Wednesday- these issues were not presented to the jury. Therefore, by just dismissing the trial as a whole as never being the vehicle to prove Lizzie guilty is disingenious. We have more than the jury had and so we take into account more than the jury had. That is to our benefit. Because one has not read the trial or other primary sources- that is not a reason to dismiss these.

When Blaisdell pronounced Lizzie as "probably guilty" he told her if she were a man, there would be no question as to a presumption of her guilt- under the more casual standards of a preliminary hearing.

It's almost sexist of you Ray to force the thought that a female could not do this killing- you protect Lizzie and Bridget so forcefully.
If only you were such a gentleman in your posts to real live females in discussion.

[Kat]

My post above was in response to Ray who said:

"When even the prosecutor admitted there was not enough proof, you have to wonder what was the purpose in this show trial."

And

"Anyone who says 'Trial Transcript' is going down a dead end; its result is still and always will be 'not guilty.' "

[doug65oh]

I caught that..but thanks for the clarification.