The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "The Brown book"
Posted by adminlizzieborden on Jan-8th-02 at 9:37 PM

By davelilly on Wednesday, 11/28/2001 - 11:43 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm about 3/4 of the way through the A.R. Brown book and I find it very interesting, if a bit dull in some of the legal passages, and credible. He claimed to have the cased figured out, due to having access to "never-before-seen" documents. Now for the fun part...I'm wondering what anyone else here thinks of this book, and particulary if anyone has read it and isn't quite convinced of the results of Brown's research...or does anyone like it and think it's pretty accurate? did you find any contradictions in it?

yes, I'm wondering about these things 

David

 
By kat on Thursday, 11/29/2001 - 04:32 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to remember back several years...
When I first read it, I thought THIS IS IT! It hit me hard viscerally (I'm not looking that word up), and for a while I thought it credible, and very satisfying.
As time wore on, the "spell" wore off, and I realized I had witnessed a really good tale told by a master storyteller.
I still salute Mr. Brown, though.

 
By dave on Thursday, 11/29/2001 - 06:05 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From one Dave to another :

Do not be fooled. Almost nothing in Brown related to the Billy story is documented. Furthermore, the latest on the Brown Billy theory is that Hawthorne's notes were largely embellished and that Brown who used Hawthornes notes to write his book made many FURTHER embellishments to make all the puzzle pieces in his story fit. Its a good read tho, but take it for what its worth--as fiction.

I would highly recommend u read Victoria Lincoln's A PRIVATE DISGRACE or if yr more inclined to see Lizzie as innocent, try Edwin Radin's LIZZIE BORDEN: THE UNTOLD STORY. Just some suggestions. There are others. Hope this helps

 
By raystephanson on Thursday, 11/29/2001 - 06:15 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can ANYONE claim AR Brown's book is worse than Victoria Lincoln's book? ARB was not a professional novelist or writer.
Does anyone take VL's account as true, then or today?

VL invented a medical diagnosis that was non-recurring, and base on her imagination.

 
By dave on Thursday, 11/29/2001 - 11:35 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray, I agree with u on that, i dont buy Lincoln's epileptic fit theory about Lizzie. Not documented in any way at all. There are errors in that book too, but its a great read, a very good book, one of the better books on the case. Admit it, u liked it

 
By davelilly on Thursday, 11/29/2001 - 11:51 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, what I'm *hearing* is that there is no one source of accurate information, at least that we know of. Thanks for informing me that Brown embellished to make his story work & to make it interesting.
IMHO, Lizzie (sorry, I meant Lizbeth ) could've done in Abby, had time to clean herself up & hide the hatchet (and even clean it) - which would make it likely that those "brown paint stains" were indeed dried blood. just a basic theory - not saying she did kill Abby.
But I believe she didn't hacked up her dad. who did?

let us ponder...

David

p.s. perhaps Andrew snuck back in and killed Abby and then committed suicide.
my sick/ludicrous sense of humor

 
By kat on Friday, 11/30/2001 - 01:28 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pg.3, Witness Statements, Morse arrives at Emery's "about 9:30 a.m."
If Abby was killed nearer 9 a.m., say 9:05, as she was never seen again alive AFTER that time, who's to say Morse didn't "sneak back in" and still be a mile & 1/4 away in 25 minutes? That's if you're dealing with 2 murderers. Or Andrew could have killed Abby before he left the house, as no one saw him go down street. Again we have 2 murderers. If an "intruder" could have "snuck in", how much easier a member of the household?

 
By dave on Friday, 11/30/2001 - 02:59 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
davelilly--your "sick twisted snese of humor scenario" is at least better than the one about how Lizzie "did it" in the nude! And no, I dont mean sex! LMAO!!!!!!!

If yr really serious about this thing called "Lizzie", go for Rebello. Hey, that rhymes

 
By raystephanson on Sunday, 12/02/2001 - 06:41 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of you may try the Amazon.com reviews of these books.

 
By dnslilly on Friday, 12/07/2001 - 01:01 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
~the latest on the Brown Billy theory is that Hawthorne's notes were largely embellished and that Brown who used Hawthornes notes to write his book made many FURTHER embellishments to make all the puzzle pieces in his story fit. <<<

I gave up my voice too quickly on this. by "embellished" do you mean "fabricated?" or both?
what is/are your source(s) that claim that some of the details in the Brown book are either fabricated or partially factual but embellished? how do you know your source is trustworthy?

for that matter, how does anyone "know" or come to trust in what they read about this case as being the truth? how do you whittle away the "bullshit" and decipher what's "fact?" how do you know - or choose - what/which sources or details to believe?

Dave..who doesn't mean to sound vindictive, but is very curious.

 
By dave on Friday, 12/07/2001 - 01:37 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its from the lips of "Pete" Peterson, who owned Hawthorne's notes. Ray's not interested in the truth, he's just trying to "win an argument". But he cant becuase I'm the one with the facts. Len Rebello interviewed Mr. Peterson and he and I have had a very telling factual discourse on this.

To make myself perfectly clear: Peterson revealed that Arnold Brown borrowed Hathorne's notes for his book; Hawthorne's notes were full of errors about the facts--dates, events, etc. Why? Because Hawthorne made a bunch of stuff up. Brown took what he liked from those notes and fabricated the rest. Pete, who has the notes, verified this. But if u dont want to believe me, u dont have to. U can believe Brown's book. No one can force anyone to believe the truth.

Pls dont mistake my tone, dave L. I have nothing personal against u, or Ray for that matter. But this recent "assault" on me by Ray's challenging everything I say, most of it easy to verify if u have a strong knowledge of Bordenia, is a bit off-putting.

 
By raystephanson on Monday, 12/10/2001 - 04:06 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line is" Arnold R Brown's solution is the "best evidence" for the solution of the crimes. Its parallax view, looking at the facts from the idea of an invited secret guest, answers the questions.

Not all will agree; expecially if they have a vested interest in a particular solution.

I wonder how many will agree with Stephen Knight's or Patricia Cornwell's solution to "Jack the Ripper"?

 
By raystephanson on Monday, 12/10/2001 - 09:00 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold R Brown tells how he found the Hawthorne notes disorganized, and placed them in his order. He certainly wouldn't blame anyone else for his book. He mentions those who helped in his investigations (notes on jacket).