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

[Kat]

You would- because you're brilliant!

[RayS]

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.

It is a simple matter of fact that a male is more likely to use such violence as a hatchet attack. A female is more likely to use poison. Calling this "sexist" only shows your own bias.
Of course, I only know what I read from True Crime accounts. Were they all lying to me? If you are going to use "Frankie and Johnny" as an example for shooting as violence, know well that a firearm is an "equalizer".

Please explain your definition of a "gentlemen" and whether there is a "sexist" approach in this.

[RayS]

...
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.

The identification of the Secret Visitor is Part 2 - in the future.
I have to reread some books, but as far as I know Lizzie never volunteered to be a suspect. She first tried to hide the presence of the Secret Visitor (that was my laugh), and then said "it wasn't Bridget ..." which tells anyone that she saw somebody.
Then the succeeding events jumped up and bit her.

[RayS]

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

Please re-read the first posting for the definition of proof.
There are many definitions in a dictionary.
No one can ever prove this in a court of law. The Court of Public Opinion is another case. Truth (and beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

So I will ask you or anyone else here: WHAT kind of "proof" do you want? Maybe you need to think more clearly about this word.

If neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it had to be done by an intruder.

[DWilly]

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

Please re-read the first posting for the definition of proof.
There are many definitions in a dictionary.
No one can ever prove this in a court of law. The Court of Public Opinion is another case. Truth (and beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

So I will ask you or anyone else here: WHAT kind of "proof" do you want? Maybe you need to think more clearly about this word.

If neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it had to be done by an intruder.

To start with I would like proof that William Borden was in fact Andrew's son. A birth certificate would be nice.

If not that then I would like to see Henry Hawthorne's memoirs so I can read them and see exactly what he wrote.

First person accounts. Such as:

Any letters of Billy Borden's where he might have mentioned that he was or at least thought he was the son of Andrew. Also, any mention of him being angry about it.

Letters from Billy's mother where she might have mentioned that Billy was Andrew's son.

Personal accounts from people who knew Billy, his mother or/and Andrew. I would like to know if anyone else mentioned anything about Andrew supposedly having an affair and having had a son. With all of the reporters crawling around Fall River after the murder I would think someone would have talked about it and told the press.


I would like first hand eye witness accounts of what was said or not said among members of the so called Mellen House gang. I want to know who said it and what they said. Not some nonsense about, "that's how towns are run."

I would like to see citations from papers. I would also like to know who he interviewed and what they said. Footnotes would have been nice in the book.


This is a start.

[RayS]

This is a start.

I think that would be the end of the proof.

If you read Arnold Brown's book you would know that birth certificates for illegitimate children are not available to the public. Or did he make that up?

Surely you jest? WHAT makes you think that what you asked for will ever be available?
When the local politicians get together to plan their doings, is there a reporter with a videotape? Or even a stenographer w/ a notebook?

SO all I can say is: I don't have it and don't know where it is.

Robert Stinnett found the missing 8-point plan to start War with Japan. Without it, would you say it would never be proved? Most of what was done was reported in the newspapers at the time. You can deduce the plans from the actions performed.
I hope this answers your questions.

[Smudgeman]

No Rays, it does not answer any questions. It just validates your devotion to a theory that is basically "hogwash".

[DWilly]

This is a start.

I think that would be the end of the proof.

If you read Arnold Brown's book you would know that birth certificates for illegitimate children are not available to the public. Or did he make that up?

Surely you jest? WHAT makes you think that what you asked for will ever be available?
When the local politicians get together to plan their doings, is there a reporter with a videotape? Or even a stenographer w/ a notebook?

SO all I can say is: I don't have it and don't know where it is.

Robert Stinnett found the missing 8-point plan to start War with Japan. Without it, would you say it would never be proved? Most of what was done was reported in the newspapers at the time. You can deduce the plans from the actions performed.
I hope this answers your questions.

You cannot compare Stinnett's book Day Of Deceit with Brown's book. Stinnett went out and did the research He at least made an effort to make his case and he provided the reader with the evidence. Brown does not do that at all. Brown just makes claims and expects people to take them as is.


Finally, you entitled this thread "Proof For Arnold Brown's Theory Part 1of 2 and now you make it clear you have no proof.

[RayS]

...
To start with I would like proof that William Borden was in fact Andrew's son. A birth certificate would be nice.

If not that then I would like to see Henry Hawthorne's memoirs so I can read them and see exactly what he wrote.

First person accounts. Such as:

Any letters of Billy Borden's where he might have mentioned that he was or at least thought he was the son of Andrew. Also, any mention of him being angry about it.

Letters from Billy's mother where she might have mentioned that Billy was Andrew's son.

Personal accounts from people who knew Billy, his mother or/and Andrew. I would like to know if anyone else mentioned anything about Andrew supposedly having an affair and having had a son. With all of the reporters crawling around Fall River after the murder I would think someone would have talked about it and told the press.

I would like first hand eye witness accounts of what was said or not said among members of the so called Mellen House gang. I want to know who said it and what they said. Not some nonsense about, "that's how towns are run."

I would like to see citations from papers. I would also like to know who he interviewed and what they said. Footnotes would have been nice in the book.

This is a start.

Thank you for clarifying the points that you think are needed. Just what do you want to finish it?

Could you tell me where these records are located? You can't? Then you can't expect me to find what you don't even know about.

I would like to follow the well-recognized rule of business where the person who suggests the project is given the responsibility of doing it. Do you accept your assignment? If not, why not?

(This cuts through the BS in may cases.)

Have I handled this question efficiently?

[RayS]

...

You cannot compare Stinnett's book Day Of Deceit with Brown's book. Stinnett went out and did the research He at least made an effort to make his case and he provided the reader with the evidence. Brown does not do that at all. Brown just makes claims and expects people to take them as is.

Finally, you entitled this thread "Proof For Arnold Brown's Theory Part 1of 2 and now you make it clear you have no proof.

Your claims are rejected with prejudice.

Arnold Brown tells about his research, see the Acknowledgments. You must not have read his book.
Visit your local library, and take notes.

The beginning of my post defines the word "proof". The facts prove it: if neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it had to be an Intruder. QED

PS If you read the reviews in Amazon, you'd know that many people do not accept Stinnett's proof. Even if you don't know that there were many who said something like this in 1942, and in 1945 after the war ended.

One biographer of FDR titled it "The Lion and The Fox", after the famous quote in Machiavelli about a ruler's conduct.
Lions fear no other animal, but can be trapped by nets.
Foxes fear other animals, but can't be trapped.
So the conduct of a ruler must vary according to the conditions.

It is better to be loved by the people than feared. But if you can't be loved you had better be feared. (Still true today?)

[RayS]

No Rays, it does not answer any questions. It just validates your devotion to a theory that is basically "hogwash".

Can you even define your term "hogwash"? Why not?
The success of this book speaks for itself.
Why can't you prove otherwise? You will just be negative again.
Simple logic says that if it wasn't Lizzie or Bridget then it had to be someone else. A secret intruder is the usual suspect in True Crime.

I read Ann Rule's volume #9 last year, you can find examples.

[RayS]

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.

Even if I had open-ended Govt finances there is no way I could go back in time to find out what really happened.
All I can do is surmise what happened. Any objections?

To "disprove" Brown's theory you would have to prove that either Lizzie or Bridget did the crime. Can you or anyone else do it?

[RayS]

I now consider this discussion closed. I don't want to waste time answering comments that do not accept these facts.
But you are free to post whatever you please.

[DWilly]

...

You cannot compare Stinnett's book Day Of Deceit with Brown's book. Stinnett went out and did the research He at least made an effort to make his case and he provided the reader with the evidence. Brown does not do that at all. Brown just makes claims and expects people to take them as is.

Finally, you entitled this thread "Proof For Arnold Brown's Theory Part 1of 2 and now you make it clear you have no proof.

Your claims are rejected with prejudice.

Arnold Brown tells about his research, see the Acknowledgments. You must not have read his book.
Visit your local library, and take notes.

The beginning of my post defines the word "proof". The facts prove it: if neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it had to be an Intruder. QED

PS If you read the reviews in Amazon, you'd know that many people do not accept Stinnett's proof. Even if you don't know that there were many who said something like this in 1942, and in 1945 after the war ended.

One biographer of FDR titled it "The Lion and The Fox", after the famous quote in Machiavelli about a ruler's conduct.
Lions fear no other animal, but can be trapped by nets.
Foxes fear other animals, but can't be trapped.
So the conduct of a ruler must vary according to the conditions.

It is better to be loved by the people than feared. But if you can't be loved you had better be feared. (Still true today?)

I read Brown's book. As a matter of fact I still have the book and I will quote from a few of the pages that bother me:

On page 191, Brown writes this, " As part of the Mellen House Agreement, the Silent Government had agreed that Andrew Borden's last will and testament would never see probate. They had the power to make this guarantee, and they conspired and agreed to commit an illegal act and a felony. This was no problem for them. They were the law."


On page 109, Brown writes this, "Step one of the agreement called for Lizzie's arrest on the charge of murder. While potentially dangerous, this step was tempered with firm agreements on the groundwork that must laid to guarantee that she would go free. However, unplanned events created unexpected problems."

On page 111, "One thing is certain. In the private room at the Mellen House, Lizzie Borden's defense and the court's ultimate verdict were agreed upon, signed, and sealed; and full payments were pledged--all within twenty-four hours of the murders."

Brown writes all of this but never proves these events happened. He quotes no one and gives no footnotes or citations. Where did it come from? Could not have been Hawthorne because Hawthorne was a small child at the time.

My favorite part of Brown's book is Chapter 19, page 315. Brown writes:

" What follows is supposition. While there may be a minimum of objective evidence to prove it is true, there is no evidence that demonstrates it is not true."

[DWilly]

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.

Even if I had open-ended Govt finances there is no way I could go back in time to find out what really happened.
All I can do is surmise what happened. Any objections?

To "disprove" Brown's theory you would have to prove that either Lizzie or Bridget did the crime. Can you or anyone else do it?

Brown is the one who had to prove his theory. He did not. As I said earlier in this thread Stefani posted a short video on Brown and he admitted he had no proof.

I do like it that you admit "...there is no way I could go back in time to find out what really happened. All I can do is surmise what happened."

[Oscar]

Brown's book was the first Lizzie book I read. I think it is a well written and thought provoking book about the case. It has some great insights into Lizzie and all involved. It's one of my favorites. But, that said, I think that it is more a novel than a work of non-fiction. Brown has no proof that William Borden had anything at all do with Andrew or his is lineage. Unless someone is able to ever obtain DNA from either of them, this question will probably never be answered.

I have chosen to loan out my copy of Forty Whacks by Kent to people who have shown an interest in the case because I feel Kent did try to be objective, was not out to prove anything, and still kept the mystery alive.

[RayS]

I too have no documents other than the published works.

The answer is based on simple logic: if neither Lizzie or Bridget did the murders, then it had to be an Unknown Intruder.
You can disprove Brown's theory by proving Lizzie or Bridget did it. QED

The second part, naming a likely suspect, is not that simple given the lack of Official Reports.

Those who call it "fiction" prove they are biased. It is stored in the True Crime shelf of all the libraries I visted. Wm S Borden is not a work of fiction; he lived and died (mysteriously).
Using the facts that he could find, and surmising the rest (based on the real world) Brown came up with a solution that no one else has surpassed.

A poster asked for a "letter written by a mother to her son"!!! Really? Is this how it works in family life? That claim is not based on any proof that such a letter exists, so it must be imagined (fiction). That's how I see it.

[twinsrwe]

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

Please re-read the first posting for the definition of proof.
There are many definitions in a dictionary.
No one can ever prove this in a court of law. The Court of Public Opinion is another case. Truth (and beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

So I will ask you or anyone else here: WHAT kind of "proof" do you want? Maybe you need to think more clearly about this word.

If neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it had to be done by an intruder.

I read your definition of proof; I don't need to re-read it. My Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "proof" as (1) the evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact; (2) a process or operation that establishes validity or truth: test.

What evidence do you have that proves these murders were done by William S. Borden, your so called 'secret visitor' or 'unknown intruder'? I want you to show me the evidence you have that validates Arnold Brown's theory; in other words where is your 'proof'. Arnold Brown could not prove his theory was valid, and so far neither have you. Perhaps you should think more clearly about the word "proof".

I agree with your statement that if neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it had to be done by an intruder. Fact of the matter is - it has not been proven that Lizzie, or for that matter Bridget, did not do it. It is not up the members of this forum to disprove Brown's theory by proving that Lizzie or Bridget did it. You are the one who started this thread and tiled it 'Proof for Arnold Brown's Theory - Part 1 of 2', I didn't... the burden of proof is yours, not mine or anyone else's.

[RayS]

Will you accept this proof?
Bridget was not a suspect after the first day.
Lizzie was indicted, but found not guilty (correctly).
Therefore it had to be done by a Secret Intruder.
That part is obvious, the identity of the Intruder less so.

I believe that Arnold Brown, based on the Hawthorne memoirs, solved the crime in a reasonable manner. His theory has 2 parts. #1 it was an intruder (obviously true), and #2 it was a crazy relative (open to question).

Somebody said there was another suspect. But no book ever published. I'm not saying that claim is worse, I never read it. Those who believe that can start their own topic and explain why.
PS
Secret means unknown to the authorities and public (w/ or w/o collusion).
Intruder meand someone who did not live at that house.

[Smudgeman]

No Rays, it does not answer any questions. It just validates your devotion to a theory that is basically "hogwash".

Can you even define your term "hogwash"? Why not?
The success of this book speaks for itself.
Why can't you prove otherwise? You will just be negative again.
Simple logic says that if it wasn't Lizzie or Bridget then it had to be someone else. A secret intruder is the usual suspect in True Crime.

I read Ann Rule's volume #9 last year, you can find examples.

I am quite sure you know the meaning of the word "hogwash" as I have challenged alot of your ridiculous statements in the past. You can not rely on "simple logic" for everything, because you are often NOT simply logical.
I am also sure you know the word in question also refers to garbage feed for hogs.............

[Smudgeman]

I now consider this discussion closed. I don't want to waste time answering comments that do not accept these facts.
But you are free to post whatever you please.

So I guess you really didn't mean it when you said you considered this discussion closed.

[Jory]

I have read Arnold Brown's book. When I fist read it I thought "wow, this must be it" and I think that is a trap many fall into.

Anyone of us could just as easily write a book saying that The Kelly's maid did it and no one could really disprove it.

Brown reminds me of someone who knows he has done something wrong (wrote a book full of crap) and then stands there looking at you with a smug look on his face daring you to "prove it".

[Oscar]

Ray, There are many ways to look at things, many different realities in the universe, no one has all the answers, even Arnold R. Brown. It's not black and white. Arguing his theory is like arguinig religion and politics, it can lead to no where but bad vibes here. Believe what you want or need to believe or go read another of the many Lizzie books out there. They all have different takes on the same story, all have different biases and insights. That is the great fun of all this, it's an unsolved mystery, it can never be solved because of the time and distance of it all. The players are all gone, lost to history.

I am a fan of Brown's book too, but I don't need to believe that it is the final word, it's a thought provoking and enjoyable read. I do question his overzealousness in trying to have the final word and prove anything. What's the point now, everyone involved is dead and gone? There is no justice to be served now. Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, etc. all fell into this literary trap, maybe it sold more books.

I respect David Kent's work for havig tried to focus on the known facts and allow the mystery of the story to remain intact, although he did seem to favor Lizzie to some degree. I think his intensions were noble.

Len Rebello deserves loads of acclodes for all the compilation and research he put into his book. It is an amazing piece of work which has made available information that was previously inaccessable for most of us.

[DWilly]

Will you accept this proof?
Bridget was not a suspect after the first day.
Lizzie was indicted, but found not guilty (correctly).
Therefore it had to be done by a Secret Intruder.
That part is obvious, the identity of the Intruder less so.

I believe that Arnold Brown, based on the Hawthorne memoirs, solved the crime in a reasonable manner. His theory has 2 parts. #1 it was an intruder (obviously true), and #2 it was a crazy relative (open to question).

Somebody said there was another suspect. But no book ever published. I'm not saying that claim is worse, I never read it. Those who believe that can start their own topic and explain why.
PS
Secret means unknown to the authorities and public (w/ or w/o collusion).
Intruder meand someone who did not live at that house.

It is true that Lizzie was found not guilty but I still think she did it and that's where you and I differ. Lizzie was not the first guilty person to be found not guilty and she will not be the last. Now, I can't prove Lizzie is guilty but then again you haven't proven that William Borden did it either. We each have our theory as to who did it and that's all we have. All we can do is kick around our various views.

Now, please, keep in mind I am open to other views and of course I could be wrong about Lizzie. Would not be the first time I have been wrong about something. That said, I still need proof that someone else did it. To start with you still need to show that William was in fact Andrew's son and that he was upset with Andrew enough to kill him and Abby. So, far I still think only Lizzie and Emma had a motive that I can see. Namely money. But again that is my opinion.

[RayS]

It is a fact that Lizzie was found not guilty. The mock trial held in Stanford came to the same conclusion circa 1997 (two Supreme Court Justices). Given the evidence introduced and the charges, Lizzie was and always be not guilty of killing her father. Case closed?

There were stories about pay-offs to the authorities. No documentary proof then or now. BUT if Lizzie had been charged with concealing the identity of the killer (accessory after the fact), then I think the verdict may have been different. But nobody wanted to go there.

Now given the lack of evidence (no bloodstains or murder weapon), the fact of not guilty of the killing remains. Hence the logical answer of a secret intruder. You can read other true crime stories for similar examples. Use your common senses on this.

Since I'm relying on secondary sources, I will tell you now that the identity results from logical analysis of the crime (and the solution of Arnold Brown from the Hawthorne memoirs).

[Roy Nickerson]

Arnold Brown's book is a part of my Lizzie Borden library, but I have no particular wish to revisit it just now, so Ray, I would deem it a favor if you would refresh me as to how he accounts for the hour and a half or so between the murders and where Billy Borden managed to secrete himself in that house during that time without being seen or heard.

My own opinion is that Lizzie probably did it, but that there are sufficient doubts to admit of other possibilities. Brown's hypothesis is not one of those possibilities. Again, just my opinion so you need not castigate me for being an Arnold Brown apostate.

[RayS]

Off hand, I don't remember anything that can answer your question.
Obviously, WSB must have been upstairs in the spare bedroom, and waiting for a meeting with AJB. Logical?
PS
I haven't read any books on this case for over 2 years. Other priorities.
But I expect to review for 'Part 2' of the proof.

[RayS]

...
I read your definition of proof; I don't need to re-read it. My Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "proof" as (1) the evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact; (2) a process or operation that establishes validity or truth: test.
...
I agree with your statement that if neither Lizzie or Bridget did it, then it had to be done by an intruder. Fact of the matter is - it has not been proven that Lizzie, or for that matter Bridget, did not do it. It is not up the members of this forum to disprove Brown's theory by proving that Lizzie or Bridget did it. You are the one who started this thread and tiled it 'Proof for Arnold Brown's Theory - Part 1 of 2', I didn't... the burden of proof is yours, not mine or anyone else's.

Please quote the remaining definitions for the word "proof" just for completeness and honesty.
The failure to regard Bridget as a suspect is PROOF of her innocence.
The verdict of 'not guilty' is proof that Lizzie didn't do it.
What else can a reasonable person ask for?

[DWilly]

It is a fact that Lizzie was found not guilty. The mock trial held in Stanford came to the same conclusion circa 1997 (two Supreme Court Justices). Given the evidence introduced and the charges, Lizzie was and always be not guilty of killing her father. Case closed?

There were stories about pay-offs to the authorities. No documentary proof then or now. BUT if Lizzie had been charged with concealing the identity of the killer (accessory after the fact), then I think the verdict may have been different. But nobody wanted to go there.

Now given the lack of evidence (no bloodstains or murder weapon), the fact of not guilty of the killing remains. Hence the logical answer of a secret intruder. You can read other true crime stories for similar examples. Use your common senses on this.

Since I'm relying on secondary sources, I will tell you now that the identity results from logical analysis of the crime (and the solution of Arnold Brown from the Hawthorne memoirs).

You have three major problems with your theory:

1. No proof that William Borden was Andrew's son.

2. You have no real idea what Hawthorne's memoirs say or do not say. Brown for whatever reason never released the memoirs. For all you or I know Brown could have exaggerated things or even made things up. I for one still want to see the actual memoirs. Show me the memoirs! I want to read them and check them out myself.

3. No proof of any Mellen gang agreement about Lizzie. You need to show they did something in regard to her and her trial. Paper trail? Eye witness?


These are not just minor things missing but major things missing in attempting to prove Brown's theory. Again, even Brown admitted he had no proof.

[RayS]

...
You have three major problems with your theory:

1. No proof that William Borden was Andrew's son.

2. You have no real idea what Hawthorne's memoirs say or do not say. Brown for whatever reason never released the memoirs. For all you or I know Brown could have exaggerated things or even made things up. I for one still want to see the actual memoirs. Show me the memoirs! I want to read them and check them out myself.

3. No proof of any Mellen gang agreement about Lizzie. You need to show they did something in regard to her and her trial. Paper trail? Eye witness?

These are not just minor things missing but major things missing in attempting to prove Brown's theory. Again, even Brown admitted he had no proof.

Note that the solution of an Intruder does not depend on any family relationship. Suppose Andy wanted a meeting with a debtor, and the debtor decided to cancel the debt by cancelling Andy. Remember the Dr. Parkman - Dr. Webster case? (I'm giving away part ot Part 2).

I can't look up everything, but I believe that Brown admitted he had no proof refers to the WSB birth certificate. Surely any Mellen House agreement can only be inferred or deduced from what happened later. Just like that 8-point memo found by Robert Stinnett.

The proof for Arnold Brown's theory is that it explains the previously unsolveable murders. Note that this is 2 parts: #1 it was a Secret Visitor (rather than an intruder), and #2 Lizzie etc kept it secret. I will try for a reasonable explanation in part 2. I am not going to reason backwards, from the reason of the existence of an illegitimate sone. I may have another reason, based on historic examples and that roll of burned paper in the stove. Of course, I wasn't there and can only surmise.

My proof is common sense, knowledge of how the world works, etc.
I stand on my track record here, and elsewhere. I would welcome anyone who can honestly investigate the memoirs of Henry Hawthorne to present their results. Or anyone who has that 1985 solution (Grandma?).

Around 8:45 on Tuesday 9/11/2001 I heard the radio say "a small commuter plane accidentally flew into the WTC". When they said another plane flew into WTC about 10 minutes later I KNEW it was not an accident.

PS I can also point out my previous comments on the identity of "she who must not be mentioned". No, I had no documentary proof, just my good old common sense.

[Kat]

You've mentioned the *Mock Trial* with the 2 Supreme Court judges a few times now.

Have you seen the video?

[patsy]

Hi, All. I'm a new poster here who had already forgotten her password right off the bat, so I question my competency for remembering things correctly. Thinking that if I plead senilty you may put up with me now and then. Haaa.

I've lurked since your old boards, and also have read most of the books out there. I'm rereading some now in order to refresh my mind. I did like Brown's book and had to force myself to keep in mind that it was mainly a theory.

What really peaked my interested was the Blister Beetle aspect. If it's true that Ellen Eagan was overcome by a strong stench coming from a mysterious man, and that Billy Borden did indeed work with a concoction made of horse's urine -- I have to admit that I would lean toward he being the mysterious intruder.

[DWilly]

My proof is common sense, knowledge of how the world works, etc.
I stand on my track record here, and elsewhere.

I have no doubt you have those qualities. So does everyone else on this board. The thing is I do worry about people who buy into a theory without checking it out first. Blind faith is not always a good thing. The Internet is swamped with people buying into theories. Everything from just how did the World Trade Center come down to was the Pentagon hit by a missile. Some believe AIDS was a man made virus etc. These theories take on a life of their own because those that fall for them do not demand evidence. They have no standards. They like a theory because it either supports their preconceived ideas or prejudices.

[twinsrwe]

Will you accept this proof?
Bridget was not a suspect after the first day.
Lizzie was indicted, but found not guilty (correctly).
Therefore it had to be done by a Secret Intruder.
That part is obvious, the identity of the Intruder less so.

I believe that Arnold Brown, based on the Hawthorne memoirs, solved the crime in a reasonable manner. His theory has 2 parts. #1 it was an intruder (obviously true), and #2 it was a crazy relative (open to question).

Somebody said there was another suspect. But no book ever published. I'm not saying that claim is worse, I never read it. Those who believe that can start their own topic and explain why.
PS
Secret means unknown to the authorities and public (w/ or w/o collusion).
Intruder meand someone who did not live at that house.

I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this as proof, and this is why...

Lizzie did receive a verdict of 'not guilty', and she was acquitted; she was discharged completely or set free from the charge of the offense. The complete definitions for the words acquitted and acquittal can be found online at: http://www.m-w.com/.

IMO: It is quite possible for a person to be 'guilty' and still receive a ‘not guilty’ verdict. As far as I know, the reason for Lizzie's acquittal was because the prosecution could not provide the evidence needed in order to convict her beyond reasonable doubt.

[Kat]

In the trial transcript, the Foreman of the jury proclaimed Lizzie Borden "Not Guilty."
The Clerk verified the verdict as "not guilty" and several jurors and then the Foreman assented. Page 1929.
~~~~~~~
Hi Patsy!
We have no statement on oath by Ellan Eagan for any of this.

[RayS]

Henry Harthorne's memoirs kicked off Arnold Brown's independent investigation. We should all be thankful for that (some more than others).
I have stated that Ellan Eagan's recovered memory sounds fishy to me. It would have been better for her story to be part of the police investigation.
Memories do get tangled after say 20-30 years. People sometimes remember it as they want it to be.

I've written why the presence of a Secret Intruder is the solution to the crime. You can read other True Crime books for other examples.

Note that Henry Hawthorne knew Willy but was not at the scene. Ellan saw somebody there but did not know Willy. There is some reasonable doubt. We do know that cousins can resemble each other. Was it William Borden or his cousin who was seen there. (No description or background on the person Arnold Brown says was with a carriage.)
I believe in Brown's solution, but I can consider anyone with a better solution.

[RayS]

Since Arnold Brown's book, only William Masterton wrote "Lizzie Didn't Do It" to correctly say the truth. But he could not name a sole suspect.
I assume that the police did in fact investigate all known suspects base on all reported leads.
I'm thinking that if Andy did acknowledge his illegitimate children, there may have been more that one, an added scandal and reason to destroy his will (if in fact that is what happened). Andy's lawyer Jennings said there was no will, but maybe some would doubt his word.

[Kat]

Now "Andy" has more than one illegitimate child? I suppose they are all boys?
Boys can be murder!, can't they?
Aren't you going to *copyright* that?

[RayS]

Now "Andy" has more than one illegitimate child? I suppose they are all boys?
Boys can be murder!, can't they?
Aren't you going to *copyright* that?

I will answer this in 'Part 2', where it belongs.
PS
The main reason for a copyright is to prevent anyone else from revising and distorting what I wrote. Its not going to make me rich and famous.

[RayS]

I believe that the police immediately looked for an intruder as the murderer. It was only after none could be found that they concentrated on Lizzie. Any honest(?) book should tell you this.
Given the lack of blood spatter on Lizzie or Bridget, that is the obvious solution. I wonder who will be the first to contradict this?

[RayS]

Now "Andy" has more than one illegitimate child? I suppose they are all boys?
Boys can be murder!, can't they?
Aren't you going to *copyright* that?

I forgot to mention that Agnes De Mille's book on Lizzie mentioned that the police first sought an intruder. Only after drawing a blank, and no other suspects, did they concentrate on Lizzie.
If true, doesn't this say Lizzie was NOT an obvious suspect?

What do the various authors say about the police seeking a intruder?

[Kat]

While the *various authors* may be entertaining to read, they are sort of useless here. We try to talk with facts to back us, and work out a theory within the parameters of the sworn testimony.
I don't know why you place such emphasis on authors? The only author worth reading for this discussion group is Rebello.

It's like you're stuck in the last century tho you use a computer.
Authors repeat each other- that stuff goes in circles.

[RayS]

While the *various authors* may be entertaining to read, they are sort of useless here. We try to talk with facts to back us, and work out a theory within the parameters of the sworn testimony.
I don't know why you place such emphasis on authors? The only author worth reading for this discussion group is Rebello.
It's like you're stuck in the last century tho you use a computer.
Authors repeat each other- that stuff goes in circles.

I emphasized your comments.
Can you explain why this limited edition book (not in any public library that I know of) is the sole authority? Didn't he just try to quote from other sources?
One problem for any one person operation is the likelihood of undiscoverd errors. Haven't all authors made some kind of unconscious errors?

We try to talk with facts to back us....

But don't all authors get their information from the "facts" as they found them? The exception may be E. Pearson, who gleefully repeated the 'Legends of Lizzie'. Any story that does not name a date, time, and place is likely a fairy tale.

[Kat]

As long as you're open to the idea and not quick to shoot it down as impossible, I'm happy. Maybe...someday?
And yes, Rebello has been in the Librarys up north.
In fact, when I have called Librarys up there with a Borden research question guess who they turn to first?

[RayS]

The facts are that no bloody clothes or weapon were found. This is the proof of an intruder.
You can read other True Crime (like from Ann Rule) to see this absence says it was an intruder.

Does anyone know of any similar case where the police showed up within an hour to safeguard the murder scene and found no evidence?

[StevenB]

RE" Brown, parts 1,2,3, and 4................

"There is an old, old logical fallacy of "petitioning the principle" or "begging the question" where you assume the conclusion you want to read is in fact the real thing."


Need I say more?



StevenB

[RayS]

RE" Brown, parts 1,2,3, and 4................

"There is an old, old logical fallacy of "petitioning the principle" or "begging the question" where you assume the conclusion you want to read is in fact the real thing."

Need I say more?
StevenB

Yes, please explain yourself and why Brown committed this logical fallacy.
If you read the book you'd know that Brown says he had little interest in this old murder until Peterson gave him those memoirs. I believe him.

[RayS]

I have often wondered that. With the overkill that took place blood would have been everywher. They couldn't have possibly got all the blood up, and then what happened to the rags that they used to clean? Did they burn them?

This is part of the reason and facts that say an intruder did the killing. Don't forget the missing murder weapon as well!!!

Mark Felt's book tells about a young man hired to drive an elderly couple. He was so upset by their back seat comments that he drove to a secluded spot, got out a hatchet, and killed them both. He kept the hatchet, as it was a useful tool. Or a souvenir of the murders (as serial killers often do).

No, I don't know his name, if it was mention in Mark Felt's book.

[Smudgeman]

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? My god, your answer to every posts is with an "example" from another book about another murder that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


Sorry everyone, I "had" to say it.

[sguthmann]

I have often wondered that. With the overkill that took place blood would have been everywher. They couldn't have possibly got all the blood up, and then what happened to the rags that they used to clean? Did they burn them?

That's actually not altogether true. It's logical to assume that would be the result of a hatchet murder, but there are actually many instances of a not-so-bloody crime scene, especially by hitting the subject in the back of the head (Abby). Also keep in mind there were bloody rags found in the cellar (assumed to be menstrual blood) and there was also a wash bowl on the main floor or upstairs that one of early persons on the scene mentioned had blood in it, prior to his arrival.