Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Brown completely fabricated some conversations and blatantly distorted some of the inquest chronology to boost his case about the "Mellen House Gang" and overblow the importance of Ellen Eagan (whose name he mispells throughout the entire book, if I recall correctly.)

We've seen some of his correspondence, and it's literally shocking and confrontational. That's why I ask people who have met him what he was like in person.
(But he was no *fake* which the word *sham* implied).
I heard that when he visited the Borden house he was delightful.

The point is that you, Kat, and others (Katfrienderly) have been bashing Arnold Brown for about five at least years. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong but there are many other writers about Lizzie whom you can instantly prove wrong and aren't bashed.
I bought Brown's book when I was at the FRHS and it was labeled "fiction." I thought 'why is this, the other ones are just notions too,' and so I bought it.
I knew Arnold Brown and have expressed the importance of him in his last years. He was the Ernest Hemingway of Lizzie Borden.

arnold brown? I am not familar with him. Can you help me out on this. Not trying to bash him.

Snokkums, honey, you were the one that brought Arnold brown up on this site.

Well, bring me a quote of me bashing him, and I'll see if I agree.

I don't usually bash authors.
Meaning, I don't call them names or liars or consider they did anything untoward on purpose.

Did you meet the man?

sorry john forget there for a moment.
old age creeps in you tend to forget. now take a chill pill.

Prizes galore! You can hold your exhibition in your own chat room.

BTW: I did think of an author who I have disparaged- to be fair:
Arthur Phillips. But only on the Borden case.

Please bring me a quote of me, or take it back.
And did you meet Mr. Brown?

This really has nothing to do with this topic, or me.
Did Arnold Brown work at General Motors Labs in Warren Michigan around 1965?

One thing about his book is that he admits he can't prove his case, given the missing documents from the Taunton (?) State Hospital. Brown speculated that Willy Borden was 'put away' after the death of Bertha Manchester. Certainly Willy's "suicide" was very strange, as documented in his book.

Has anyone else reviewed the life of Willy Borden to see if their research tracked Brown's book? Or is it just a case of armchair philosopy?

Given Lizzie's 'not guilty' verdict, supported by the lack of evidence, there must be an Unknown Subject who did it. You can review fictional murder cases (like Patricia Cornwall's 'Post Mortem' or any real case such as the Marily Sheppard Murder. If the person present didn't do it, then someone else did. It is very foolish to torture the fact to try to prove what a jury didn't believe, then or now.

Yes, Keller did.

"Keller, Jon. N. 'The Mysterious William S. Borden.; Lizzie Borden Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 4/5 (Fall/Winter 1995): 15-18."
From the LAB website:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResear ... oversy.htm

When you click on the link, drop down not quite 1/2 way and there is Mr. Keller's research and opinion.

Kat @ Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:17 am wrote:Yes, Keller did.

"Keller, Jon. N. 'The Mysterious William S. Borden.; Lizzie Borden Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 4/5 (Fall/Winter 1995): 15-18."
From the LAB website:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResear ... oversy.htm

When you click on the link, drop down not quite 1/2 way and there is Mr. Keller's research and opinion.

Thanks, I read this. I am again impressed by Arnold Brown's knowledge.
But I didn't read anything about an independent investigation. I think Brown is really upset by armchair critics who speak from other's works.

FairhavenGuy @ Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:12 am wrote:Brown completely fabricated some conversations and blatantly distorted some of the inquest chronology to boost his case about the "Mellen House Gang" and overblow the importance of Ellen Eagan (whose name he mispells throughout the entire book, if I recall correctly.)

Where is your proof of 'fabrication'? As I remember it, Arnold Brown had the notes from Henry Hathaway regarding his mother-in-law's comments. He could have just paraphrased them for his book.

Since he had to cut back from the original size, using this as a "voice-over" could have summarized many pages in a few sentences.
The comments about the "Mellen House Gang" seems reasonable in describing the actions of your local ruling class. Is anyone saying that Brown invented this phrase? Or was it in common use before, like the rumor about Andy's illegitimate son? Not all rumors are false; sometimes they reflect people's knowledge that can't be printed, then or now.

where is the proof that this amazing notebook ever existed? couldn't we have had just a little bit of it? just a photocopy of a scrap or something? NO--not a damn thing.

take my word for it, the author says. brown is just like so many others -- only worse -- for asking us for so much more "faith".

it's truly idiotic.

for example -- right now, i'm trying to summarize Radin. and i'm having a similar issue with him. well, i can almost see radin getting interviews from rall river locals, etc.......but brown is less believable.

---------

ray, i'll grant the intelligence of an "unknown, secret person as killer" hypothesis -- in consideration of facts and missing facts of the case.

but the brown story really is a pieced together story. all the important points of it...........to start with -- the relation of bastard billy to andrew -- there is no substantiation of that; it is guess work, in other words, ray -- IS IT FICTION. it is not bad fiction in many respects, granted -- again, the hypothesis behind it is intelligent -- i would like to find a missing person myself involved in this....another extremely weak part of this is that it does not tie into lizzie's behavior in any important detail.

Where is the notes from authors such as Radin, Spiering, or Lincoln?
Is that a reasonable question, or one that you know can't be answered by me? Were the notes destroyed after Brown's death? It would have been better if they were donated to some reputable library, NOT the FRHS.

Note that "Todd Lunday" was the first to publish a book in which he said some unknown person did it. Whether as satire or as "fiction". Didn't people at the time say this? "If Lizzie didn't do it why doesn't she tell who did?"

Arnold Brown lists his helpers in his "Acknowledgements". Did anyone ever check them all out? That part can be tested by any local person who has the time and patience to do so.

I'm not going to criticize AB for his book. I have noted the dependency of having Ellen Eagan's recovered memory available years afterwards, and, the story of why she never talked to the police about that "devil" she saw. BTW the word "devil" was common in speech for any strange thing, like the first steam locomotives. AB also has a story for the lack of bloodstains (Willy was skilled as a butcher), or, he wore a duster to hide them. AB has a logically well-contained story to tell. I believe his story, for the same reason people believed the Copernican Theory rather than the Ptolemaic Theory of earth's motions. It best explained the observed facts.

I'm 1000% sure that this will never be accepted by many on this Board, simply because of their personal psychology and preconceived notions. But note that A Brown was the First author to tie Willy to the deaths AND the Bertha Manchester murder. WIlly's "suicide" is also questionable.
SO there you are.

i read AB's book long, long ago, so forgive me, but can someone briefly summarize what "proof" AB had of William's relationship to Andrew? Was there any documentation? What did his theory "hinge" on?

I ask not to fan the fire of "was AB's book rubbish or not," but simply because I'm trying to recall and cannot (and don't own the tome).

i'm not defending other authors. they are all guilty of misinformation and fabrication. brown is no different from the others. that's what i'm pointing out. i give brown credit for finding a "secret person" to explain this. his book was progressive in that sense -- but the "who" is an absolute hole.

As far as I recall, William Borden's link to Andrew was "proved" by the fact that William's last name was Borden and that a birth record of William seems to have been lost.

Brown's theory tries to make one believe that virtually everybody knew William was Andrew's son and that he had killed Andrew and they all covered it up because having an illegitimate son was more embarrassing that getting hacked to pieces. So, to save the family's good name, Andrew's legitimate daughter was put on trial instead, because that was the lesser of two evils. But the trial was fixed in a way that allowed Lizzie to go free. (As well as let a murderous, mentally unbalanced lunatic remain free, too.)

And they all lived happily ever after until William committed suicide years later. And he was buried by the same undertaking firm that had buried Andrew and Abby!!!!!

I understand it was a *fix* to set a *not guilty* person free?

It would be best for "Fairhaven Guy" to read Brown's book for himself.
AS I remember it, the identity of Willy was a hidden family secret, unknown to people (and not even printed in the newspapers).
Lawyer Jennings does bring this up obliquely "a family skeleton, if there was one" in this trial. You can check for yourself.

Ellen Eagan's 'recovered memory' is always questionable. I believe that if she did speak of the stranger to the police they would have tracked it down, or at least have been in the police reports. (Anybody read them?)
Even if this 'memory' was recreated decades later to coincide with Henry Hawthorne's TRUE memory of his youth, it does seem like a coincidence.
Willy's suspicious hanging was first publicized by Brown, and he does draw the connection. Who can do a better job?

FairhavenGuy has read Brown cover to cover. . . twice.

Once, in my pre-forum days, and I found it was a decent enough read maybe three quarters of the way through, then the whole thing collapsed into itself in the end. I felt that there wasn't anything really backing up this story.

Then, after I met you, RayS, back in my early Arborwood days, I reread him again. That's when I realized that not only did he have no proof of his case, but he manipulated the facts and completely made stuff up to boost his very weak case.

And since then, I've read other stuff, too. The more I look into it, the more Brown's case unravels.

I like the part where you say "...Since then, I've read other stuff too."

Kat @ Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:08 am wrote:I like the part where you say "...Since then, I've read other stuff too."

Then the simple refutation of Brown's solution is to come up with another suspect. When? How? etc.
Surely you will admit that Brown's solution best answers the mystery of the murders? Right afterwards Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father..". THAT is the giveaway: Lizzie knew, but wouldn't talk.

You are all welcome to come up with a better solution. Or you could just continue to sit and scoff w/o doing anything.

Has ANYONE come up with a better solution, given teh facts of the case?