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

[RayS]

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.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound in criticizing my attempts to correlate one killing with others that have known solutions? OF course not.

Note how often others will provide examples of similar killings?

[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?

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.

My understanding is that head wounds bleed quite a bit w/o being serious. I'm not talking about a cut like on Abby or Andy.
Blood spatter is the pattern of cast-off drops. There is now a science about this effect. Joseph Bosco wrote a book on how "Blood Will Tell".

[RayS]

In the famouse Sheppard Murder Case the police sequestered the house.
After the trial ended, a famous criminologist went there and inspected the house. He measured the blood spatter evidence, etc. [This could not have been done in 1892, but the conclusions apply.]

The lack of blood spatter evidence on Dr. Sam's pants says he wasn't the murderer. A blood spot showed there was a third person in the room, who was left-handed, and wielded a short blunt instrument (like a metal 3 D-cell flashlight). The lack of blood spatter showed where the murderer stood, and that he was left-handed.

You can compare this and other true crimes to the Borden Murders.
No blood spatter or murder weapon proves an intruder, and Lizzie (or Bridget) didn't do it.

[Kat]

Wasn't he found unconscious in the Ocean?
What has *evidence* in the Sam Sheppard case to do with the Borden case?
There was blood spatter in the Borden house, just not a huge amount.
If you don't find it on a person, maybe they switched clothes or took a dip in the ocean- Was that in the 1950's or early 1960's?

[Harry]

All we've heard is that the jury said Lizzie was not guilty so therefore we are wasting our time with her as being the murderess.

The jury found Dr. Sheppard guilty. But he was later proved innocent.

Hmmmm....what conclusion can I draw from jury verdicts.

[Yooper]

All we've heard is that the jury said Lizzie was not guilty so therefore we are wasting our time with her as being the murderess.

The jury found Dr. Sheppard guilty. But he was later proved innocent.

Hmmmm....what conclusion can I draw from jury verdicts.

I agree, at times jury verdicts can be absolute bull-pshaw.

[RayS]

Wasn't he found unconscious in the Ocean?
What has *evidence* in the Sam Sheppard case to do with the Borden case?
There was blood spatter in the Borden house, just not a huge amount.
If you don't find it on a person, maybe they switched clothes or took a dip in the ocean- Was that in the 1950's or early 1960's?

NO, he chased the intruder and somehow got into the lake. Dr. Sam was struck in the back of the neck, cracking a vertebra.

I read James Neff's "The Wrong Man" last year about this case. I'd recommend it to all of you for backgbround education.

There was not blood spatter on his pants, but blood from Marilyn on his knee when he knelt on the bed afterwards. Dr. Sam had more time than Lizzie did after Andy's death (IF he could have hid evidence). But the police searches found no hidden bloody clothes; also Dr. Sam's T-shirt was missing and never found. (Trusting my memory.)

To those who criticize the jury findings in either trial, you are being very unwise in overlooking The Facts in the case. Dr. Sam's conviction was a "mockery of justice" from the beginning.

OF course if he had been found not guilty, plenty of people would have said he was guilty but got off because of his money. Still true today?