Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 4 of 5

[Yooper]

Smudgeman, theebmonique, and Kat, you all make good points and I can't find fault with any of them.

If I understand correctly, Kat's concern is the integrity of the forum, and she's right. I think judicious use of the star key (*) conveys the same message as spelling anything out. Personally, I took no offense to the post in question, but others may.

I haven't noticed either Smudgeman ot theebmonique arbitrarily flaming posts by people other than RayS. They always seem to have the same focus, for some reason, and seem to be in response to a personal attack rather than a difference of opinion. The operative term is "response". I have responded in similar fashion myself.

RayS is allowed to post at will in threads authored by others and the personal attacks seem arbitrary and random, regardless of thread authorship. RayS has the same option to ignore what is offensive to him.

Having to ignore posts or posters tends to interrupt the flow in the exchange of ideas, but if that is the only way to keep the peace, it has to be done. It only makes the forum more awkward for the effort.

I certainly am aware that Part 4 is an attempt to explain the mystery, as per Brown's theory. I am not as expert as others, so I am still waiting for someone to bring up some fact that will disprove it. So far, no one has.

Is there anyone here who agrees with Brown's Theory in his book?
If not, there is the cause for the discord. And so it goes.

A theory without proof is a hypothesis, a guess. It is completely unnecessary to disprove a guess. A lack of response, therefore, proves nothing.

HINT: Brown's hypothesis has nothing to do with the discord!

[theebmonique]

I've reported these comments. I think you should cool down here.
BTW: This is ray's topic- at least he should be able to talk here. You have the choice to stay away from his topic, right?

Thank you for defending the raison d'etre and the integrity of this board.

Yes, this is my addition to Brown's Theory as a way to meet the reasonable objections of 'Kat' and 'twinsrwe' as to motive.
1) Lizzie never expected to find herself in so much hot water by merely keeping quiet about who it was that visited that morning.
2) The motive of an unpaid loan is very common in true crime, since Drs Parkman and Webster down to this year.

I am still waiting for anyone to put up a serious question about this theory. I could have overlooked something, etc. I hope not.

Granted, sometimes you can be reasonable, though those moments seem to be a fleeting things.

The voice of reason ? Ummm...NO.

Just because you may not agree with some of the questions posted to your theory, certainly does not mean they are not serious. Many have asked serious questions which are quickly fired upon with tart response, or are met with another distracting, non-related question, or they just plain go unanswered. All we are asking is for you to play nice and not slather nearly every post with the "B" word.





Tracy...

[RayS]

Thanks for your cooler responses.
Please specify the examples, if possible.
I don't know the definition of hypothesis.

A theory is a way to explain some event that you have not witnessed. ANY explanation of what happened on 8/4/1892 is a theory. A theory is only as good as the facts used. Those who theorize a solution based on a preconeived solution will always have left over facts that don't fit.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Brown's Theory is correct as to the suspect. I have a different idea as to the motive, one that explains why Lizzie kept silent, why the Silent Government went along with the cover up, why Emma went away at that point in time, and why Uncle John also helped to keep the secret. Arnold Brown (alone?) mentioned Morse's activities that evening and the next day (posting letters).
Even if they all had telephones, the operators then liked to listen in, no conversation was secret. [Do you know who is listening in today?]

[RayS]

...
Granted, sometimes you can be reasonable, though those moments seem to be a fleeting things.

The voice of reason ? Ummm...NO.

Just because you may not agree with some of the questions posted to your theory, certainly does not mean they are not serious. Many have asked serious questions which are quickly fired upon with tart response, or are met with another distracting, non-related question, or they just plain go unanswered. All we are asking is for you to play nice and not slather nearly every post with the "B" word.

Tracy...

I know I am not as expert as some others, and do not collect all books on this case. So don't ask me questions that no one else can answer.

Question about a will? Lawyers say Andy never made one. Uncle John said he did, but I don't know what he was trying to suggest. Writing something down has no effect untill properly notarized and witnessed. So I assume that there never was a proper will made.

[Yooper]

Thanks for your cooler responses.
Please specify the examples, if possible.
I don't know the definition of hypothesis.

A theory is a way to explain some event that you have not witnessed. ANY explanation of what happened on 8/4/1892 is a theory. A theory is only as good as the facts used. Those who theorize a solution based on a preconeived solution will always have left over facts that don't fit.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Brown's Theory is correct as to the suspect. I have a different idea as to the motive, one that explains why Lizzie kept silent, why the Silent Government went along with the cover up, why Emma went away at that point in time, and why Uncle John also helped to keep the secret. Arnold Brown (alone?) mentioned Morse's activities that evening and the next day (posting letters).
Even if they all had telephones, the operators then liked to listen in, no conversation was secret. [Do you know who is listening in today?]

A theory begins with a hypothesis. When the hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory. When the proof becomes irrefutable, it becomes a fact.

If Brown offers no concrete proof, all he has is a hypothesis. This is true for other authors as well.

[RayS]

...
A theory begins with a hypothesis. When the hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory. When the proof becomes irrefutable, it becomes a fact.

If Brown offers no concrete proof, all he has is a hypothesis. This is true for other authors as well.

No, you are being deliberately wrong again. Your statement is just a quibble. I think you are either being intellectually dishonest, or compulsively contrary. IMO
Quibble: to evade the point in question, or plain truth, by artifice, play upon words, or any cavil; to trifle in argument or discourse.

Hypothesis: a supposition; a principle which is taken for granted in order to draw a conclusion or inference fro proof of the point in question; something not proved but assumed to account for the purpose of argument.

Theory: a contemplation; an idea of the way to to something; a systematic statement of principles involved ... popularly, a mere hypothesis, conjecture or guess.

Webster's Dictionary doesn't agree with you, and neither do I.

"A theory is a way to explain something that you did not witness" - RayS.

For this reason I will avoid any answer to your comments in so far as possible.
Does anyone else disagree with this judgment?

[theebmonique]

...
A theory begins with a hypothesis. When the hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory. When the proof becomes irrefutable, it becomes a fact.

If Brown offers no concrete proof, all he has is a hypothesis. This is true for other authors as well.

No, you are being deliberately wrong again. Your statement is just a quibble. I think you are either being intellectually dishonest, or compulsively contrary. IMO
Quibble: to evade the point in question, or plain truth, by artifice, play upon words, or any cavil; to trifle in argument or discourse.

Hypothesis: a supposition; a principle which is taken for granted in order to draw a conclusion or inference fro proof of the point in question; something not proved but assumed to account for the purpose of argument.

Theory: a contemplation; an idea of the way to to something; a systematic statement of principles involved ... popularly, a mere hypothesis, conjecture or guess.

Webster's Dictionary doesn't agree with you, and neither do I.

"A theory is a way to explain something that you did not witness" - RayS.

For this reason I will avoid any answer to your comments in so far as possible.
Does anyone else disagree with this judgment?

As a professional in the area of science, I would have gone with Yopper's definitions just fine. Sometimes the definitions from the dictionary are not a true representation of reality.

Ray, your response to Yooper is another great example of why people here have become so disdainful of you. You could have said what you said in a much more congenial, less offensive way, don't you agree ?





Tracy...

[RayS]

...
As a professional in the area of science, I would have gone with Yopper's definitions just fine. Sometimes the definitions from the dictionary are not a true representation of reality.
Ray, your response to Yooper is another great example of why people here have become so disdainful of you. You could have said what you said in a much more congenial, less offensive way, don't you agree ?

Tracy...

As a "professional in the area of science" could you please be more exact in the definitions that are not a true representation of reality?

I think my responses are matched to the tenor and emotion contained in the comments made about my postings. But what do you say? I think Yopper told a Whopper.

How would YOU respond to that posting? Please present an example, or retract your criticism of my response.

[theebmonique]

Read back, Ray.





Tracy...

[Yooper]

...
A theory begins with a hypothesis. When the hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory. When the proof becomes irrefutable, it becomes a fact.

If Brown offers no concrete proof, all he has is a hypothesis. This is true for other authors as well.

No, you are being deliberately wrong again. Your statement is just a quibble. I think you are either being intellectually dishonest, or compulsively contrary. IMO
Quibble: to evade the point in question, or plain truth, by artifice, play upon words, or any cavil; to trifle in argument or discourse.

Hypothesis: a supposition; a principle which is taken for granted in order to draw a conclusion or inference fro proof of the point in question; something not proved but assumed to account for the purpose of argument.

Theory: a contemplation; an idea of the way to to something; a systematic statement of principles involved ... popularly, a mere hypothesis, conjecture or guess.

Webster's Dictionary doesn't agree with you, and neither do I.

"A theory is a way to explain something that you did not witness" - RayS.

For this reason I will avoid any answer to your comments in so far as possible.
Does anyone else disagree with this judgment?

The term "you" when used in a post makes the post personal. If you wish to allow this forum to degenerate to a series of personal attacks, please continue.

As a scientist, I have a good grasp on the concept of scientific method, which I outlined in the previous post and as quoted here. Theory is ALWAYS supported by evidence, otherwise it remains a hypothesis, a conjecture. As a theory is replicated, if the proof remains constant it becomes irrefutable and the theory becomes scientific fact.

A guess is a way to explain something you didn't witness, a hypothesis, in fact! A theory offers hard evidence as an explanation for the guess.

YOU have stated that you would avoid answering my comments. PLEASE DO!!

[theebmonique]

Yooper...your definitions were and are perfectly correct.





Tracy...

[Yooper]

Thank you for your support, Tracy, I'm aware that you know scientific method as well as I do. "Scientific Method" can be found on the internet on any number of websites for anyone else who is interested.

What we have is "Brown's Guess" and nothing more. There is no need to disprove it, nothing has been proven.

[Angel]

...
A theory begins with a hypothesis. When the hypothesis has been proven, it becomes a theory. When the proof becomes irrefutable, it becomes a fact.

If Brown offers no concrete proof, all he has is a hypothesis. This is true for other authors as well.

No, you are being deliberately wrong again. Your statement is just a quibble. I think you are either being intellectually dishonest, or compulsively contrary. IMO
Quibble: to evade the point in question, or plain truth, by artifice, play upon words, or any cavil; to trifle in argument or discourse.

Hypothesis: a supposition; a principle which is taken for granted in order to draw a conclusion or inference fro proof of the point in question; something not proved but assumed to account for the purpose of argument.

Theory: a contemplation; an idea of the way to to something; a systematic statement of principles involved ... popularly, a mere hypothesis, conjecture or guess.

Webster's Dictionary doesn't agree with you, and neither do I.

"A theory is a way to explain something that you did not witness" - RayS.

For this reason I will avoid any answer to your comments in so far as possible.
Does anyone else disagree with this judgment?

"The eccentric may comprehend the standards for normal behavior in his culture, or he may not. He is simply unconcerned by society's disapproval of his habits or beliefs.
Some eccentrics are cranks, rather than geniuses. Eccentric behavior is often considered whimsical or quirky, although it can also be strange and disturbing. American billionaire Howard Hughes, for example, was considered to be very eccentric in his old age. He became a figure of pity when news of his unusual behavior was revealed. It was rumored that he even stored his urine in glass jars and never cut his hair or nails. Despite his strange behavior, Howard Hughes was a brilliant financier and aircraft engineer.
Other people may have eccentric taste in clothes, or have eccentric hobbies or collections which they pursue with great vigour. They may have a pedantic and precise manner of speaking, intermingled with inventive wordplay.
Behavioral eccentricities have often been classically associated with psychological profiles indicating overcompensation, insecurities, unresolved childhood issues, involuntary celibacy and other sexual issues, repressed feelings, social ineptness, monomania, or a variety of other influences, even if the person would not necessarily be classified as insane. Some accepted psychological profiles that are commonly attributed to eccentrics are the Oedipus complex (a primal desire on the part of a young male to compete with his father for his mother's love and affection), Napoleon complex (colloquial term used to describe a type of inferiority complex suffered by people who are short), Peter Pan Syndrome and various forms of autism, most notably Aspergers Syndrome. Drug usage has also been attributed to eccentric behavior.

Many individuals may even manifest eccentricities consciously and deliberately, in attempting to differentiate themselves from societal norms or enhance a sense of inimitable identity; given the overwhelmingly positive stereotypes (at least in pop culture) often associated with eccentricity, detailed above, it would seem only natural that certain individuals would seek to be associated with this sort of character type. However, this is not always successful and the individual in question may simply be dismissed by others as just seeking attention." Wikopedia

[RayS]

Read back, Ray.

Tracy...

So where did you get your definitions? Obviously not from a dictionary, else you would quote them here.
It seems to me that you made them up on the fly in order to justify your contrary opinions.
Again, where did you get them? Name the dictionary. Don't try to weasel out by mentioning some obscure and unproven web site.

Another poster used the word "eccentric", that is one name for people who use words with a meaning that is not in a dictionary. But I won't call you that.

[theebmonique]

My definitions come from a college degree, 15 years of teaching science, and 16 years of working in the hospital lab and operating room. A step up and more applicable I would say, than from just reading a dicitonary.





Tracy...

[RayS]

My definitions come from a college degree, 15 years of teaching science, and 16 years of working in the hospital lab and operating room. A step up and more applicable I would say, than from just reading a dicitonary.

Tracy...

So you admit they are personal definitions that you made up? I suspected as much. The problem is: who else agrees with you? Your co-workers? Who?

Please re-read the definitions take from a Webster's Dictionary again.

[RayS]

PLease read the topic again. This is about the motive for the murder and the cover-up.

Since no one has attempted to answer, I can assume that you all agree with it, and have nothing to say against it.

Anyone who has quibbles will be ignored. Just take it to a relevant topic.
The Dictionary definitions speak for themselves, and show the contrariness of those who disagree. They are makinig things up as they write, IMO.

[theebmonique]

AGAIN, you are twisting what has been said to fit WHAT YOU want to be said to fit YOUR interpretaions. My definitions come from 30+ years of experience...that does NOT mean they are "made up".





Tracy...

[theebmonique]

PLease read the topic again. This is about the motive for the murder and the cover-up.

Since no one has attempted to answer, I can assume that you all agree with it, and have nothing to say against it.

Anyone who has quibbles will be ignored. Just take it to a relevant topic.
The Dictionary definitions speak for themselves, and show the contrariness of those who disagree. They are makinig things up as they write, IMO.

So, if we don't agree with you, you will ignore us ? THANK YOU !!!





Tracy...

[RayS]

PLease read the topic again. This is about the motive for the murder and the cover-up.

Since no one has attempted to answer, I can assume that you all agree with it, and have nothing to say against it.

Anyone who has quibbles will be ignored. Just take it to a relevant topic.
The Dictionary definitions speak for themselves, and show the contrariness of those who disagree. They are makinig things up as they write, IMO.

So, if we don't agree with you, you will ignore us ? THANK YOU !!!

Tracy...

This seems to be an example of a comment that does not deserve a response. Or does someong else agree with "Tracy"?

[theebmonique]

So...quit responding.





Tracy...

[Smudgeman]

edit

[Yooper]

From Merriam-Webster Online:

synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

BROWN'S HYPOTHESIS (GUESS)!

[RayS]

From Merriam-Webster Online:

synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

BROWN'S HYPOTHESIS (GUESS)!

So you have proved your original post wrong. A hypothesis doesn not require "PROOF", it is a working attempt to arrive at truth.
Brown's Theory does involve a greater range of evidence, as he found it after two years of investigation.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[RayS]

My question is: why doesn't anyone here reply to the first post on this topic? It provides a valid theory to explain the known facts.

It doesn't require "magic" in a missing hatchet or bloody clothes, etc.
Like any good theory, it accounts for it all with no left-over parts to ignore.

[Smudgeman]

After reviewing the first post of this thread, I have to say that the lack of physical evidence on Lizzie and Bridget is astounding, no bloody clothes or murder weapon, but there are a number of possible scenarios for this. First of all, I don't think Bridget was involved in the murders, but she could have assisted in some way after the fact. I don't believe Lizzie at all, she is all over the place with her recollection as to what happened that day. She is up to her eyeballs in lies. Everything points to Lizzie in my mind, whether she had help or not. I hardly think Andrew would loan money to William, knowing he would probably never see a penney of it back. He was too smart for that. I also don't believe William would come "armed and dangerous" for a secret meeting. Would Andrew be such a sucker to fall for that scenario? Me thinks not. I also don't think that selfish Lizzie would allow any intruder to come between her and her money.

[Yooper]

From Merriam-Webster Online:

synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

BROWN'S HYPOTHESIS (GUESS)!

So you have proved your original post wrong. A hypothesis doesn not require "PROOF", it is a working attempt to arrive at truth.
Brown's Theory does involve a greater range of evidence, as he found it after two years of investigation.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

There's that "you" term again, designed to provoke people.

Read the original post again, then tell me what I said.

A theory requires proof for all contingencies, no conjecture allowed. Brown offers no proof for his guess, only conjecture.

Learn to recognize a proper proof before tossing "Q.E.D." around. You only cheapen the discipline by doing so, and you demonstrate your ignorance. You have clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of scientific method, including the definitions involved.

All I've seen here is a conjecture concerning Brown's Guess.

Q.E.D.

[Yooper]

My question is: why doesn't anyone here reply to the first post on this topic? It provides a valid theory to explain the known facts.

It doesn't require "magic" in a missing hatchet or bloody clothes, etc.
Like any good theory, it accounts for it all with no left-over parts to ignore.

See the above post.

[twinsrwe]

My question is: why doesn't anyone here reply to the first post on this topic? It provides a valid theory to explain the known facts.

It doesn't require "magic" in a missing hatchet or bloody clothes, etc.
Like any good theory, it accounts for it all with no left-over parts to ignore.

O.K., Ray, lets assume that your theory is actually what took place on August 4th, 1892; following are a few questions that I have...

If William signed a note promising to repay the loan on August 3rd, of the following year, with his homestead being put up as security and he could not come up with the balance of the loan on the 3rd, then he knew full well that he would lose his homestead to Andrew. Are you saying that William was so stupid that he couldn't figure this out?

The way you have it written does not make Andrew the one who swindled William, it makes Uncle John the swindler. It was Uncle John who arranged another meeting for August 4th, so that William could plead for an extension of the loan, not Andrew. Andrew had the terms of the loan in writing, which William was fully aware of since he signed the note; this does not make Andrew a swindler, it makes him a good businessman. Again, are you saying that William was so stupid that he couldn't figure out that a meeting on the 4th would put him in default on the loan?

According to the information you gave us, Abby met William in the guest bedroom and told him how sorry she was about this swindle. Who let William in the house to begin with? Why in the world would Abby meet William, in a bedroom, of all places? No woman, in her right mind, is going to meet any man in a bedroom, unless she is asking for a sexual encounter. If Abby was truly feeling sorry about a swindle, then why in the world would William become so enraged that he not only killed her, but over-killed her? Are you saying that William became so enraged, that he took his anger out on poor Abby, who was showing him her sympathy? If William was enraged at Andrew, then why did Abby receive almost twice the number of blows, as Andrew? Didn't Abby receive 19 blows and Andrew 10? Are you saying that William cooled down to less than half the amount of rage that he felt from the time he killed Abby to the time he killed Andrew? Where was Lizzie, when William 'lost it' with Abby? Didn't she fear he would do away with her too? And, why didn't William do away with Lizzie, as well? Why would he allow an eye witness to live, especially if he was in such a rage as to kill an innocent person?

According to the information you gave us, William would now get even with Andrew as many had vowed but none had ever accomplished. Who are the many who vowed, but never accomplished, to get even with Andrew??? William stayed in the house and waited for Andrew to come home. Are you saying that, Lizzie allowed William to stay in the house to wait for her father's return, knowing that he was out to get Andrew? I have always wondered why William showed up at the house to meet with Andrew, at least, an hour to an hour and a half before Andrew came home? Didn't Andrew come home earlier than usual on the 4th?

According to the information you gave us, Lizzie and Emma knew of the swindle; Emma went away and Lizzie was faced with a dilemma... To remain silent and let the murderer of her father escape justice, or to tell all and besmirch Andrew’s reputation even more. Are you saying that Andrew's reputation was already blackened? If so, then what is the difference if his reputation is a bit more tainted? Andrew didn't appear to care if his reputation was tainted or not, as it is my understanding that he cut corners when ever possible. That is, Andrew cut off the feet of corpses so that the corpse would fit in a coffin that was too small for the body. Is this not true? IMO: If I were in Lizzie shoes, the blackening or tainting of my father's reputation would be a lot easier to live with, than knowing I allowed and did everything possible to help my father's killer escape justice. Wasn't Lizzie suppose to have loved her father? If so, why in the world would she have allowed his killer to go free? Are you saying that, the love Lizzie felt for her father meant less to her, or was less important to her, than seeking justice for his murderer? If this is so, then Lizzie was indeed one sick puppy!

According to the information you gave us, this swindle was a dark and dirty secret, which could have led to jury nullification in any trial of William. Perhaps, this may be true in the murder of Abby, which I highly doubt, but certainly not the murder of Andrew... Andrew's murder was definitely premeditated! According to your theory, William waited for Andrew, with the intention of getting even with him, didn't he? After all, he had just killed an innocent person, therefore, killing was already on his mind. I call that premeditated murder.

IMO, losing one's homestead, due to being swindled by the brother-in-law of the lender which led to a default of one's loan, is not as dark and dirty of a secret as you make it out to be. It is not a strong enough motive for murdering two people.

I'm not saying that your theory is wrong, Ray, I'm just questioning the points I have stated above.

[twinsrwe]

Ray, I have a couple of more questions, regarding the following two sentences...

Uncle John then casually met Willy and suggested he borrow money from his rich uncle.

Are you saying that William was not Andrews illegitimate son? The same thing is insinuated in the next sentence...

The secret meeting would be at Andy’s house so people wouldn’t comment on the resemblance between Andy and nephew Willy.

The way in which these two sentences are written, clearly insinuate that William is not Andrews illegitimate son. This is totally against Arnold Brown's theory. Is this not correct?

I also have to question, as well as wonder, why this topic is titled "Brown's Theory - Part 4", when, in fact, it is not Brown's theory, at all. This theory clearly states that it is...

(C) Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson. All Rights Reserved.

Shouldn't this topic, as well as the previous topics regarding Arnold Brown's Theory, be re-titled as 'Ray Stephanson's Theory", due to the copyright information you have posted?

[RayS]

Amazon.com contains the reviews for its books. They often print comments from other places about the books.
The "Library Journal" says this about Arnold Brown's book: Recommended for public library collections.

I wonder how many other books on the Borden murders have this recommendation?

I can explain why so many here 1) say they are disgusted by my postings, and 2) want my comments on their postings. But that would probably just set them off again.
Please have a nice day!

[RayS]

Ray, I have a couple of more questions, regarding the following two sentences...

Uncle John then casually met Willy and suggested he borrow money from his rich uncle.

Are you saying that William was not Andrews illegitimate son? The same thing is insinuated in the next sentence...

The secret meeting would be at Andy’s house so people wouldn’t comment on the resemblance between Andy and nephew Willy.

The way in which these two sentences are written, clearly insinuate that William is not Andrews illegitimate son. This is totally against Arnold Brown's theory. Is this not correct?

I also have to question, as well as wonder, why this topic is titled "Brown's Theory - Part 4", when, in fact, it is not Brown's theory, at all. This theory clearly states that it is...

(C) Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson. All Rights Reserved.

Shouldn't this topic, as well as the previous topics regarding Arnold Brown's Theory, be re-titled as 'Ray Stephanson's Theory", due to the copyright information you have posted?

No, not at all. I only know what the books contain. Brown says he believed Willy was illegitimate, but had "no documentary proof". It really doesn't matter if Andy was trying to swindle a nephew, does it?

Brown's theory was that Willy did it. I follow that. But his reason of not being in a will (which didn't exist) sounded poorly as a motive. (You were the one who questioned it.) Then I thought: what was Andy famous for? Making loans to people then foreclosing on them! THAT is a well known reason for murder, then or now.
Thank you for your prior questions, it helped me to formulate the Final Motive for the Murders.

The use of a copyright is to prevent anyone from copying and distorting what I said, in order to mock or misrepresent me. It is SOP, isn't it?

[theebmonique]

Can something be considered as being copyrighted when in a legal sense no copyright exists ?





Tracy...

[Yooper]

If guess can be considered theory, anything is possible.

[RayS]

Can something be considered as being copyrighted when in a legal sense no copyright exists ?

Tracy...

Ever hear of Common Law Copyright?

[RayS]

My question is: why doesn't anyone here reply to the first post on this topic? It provides a valid theory to explain the known facts.

It doesn't require "magic" in a missing hatchet or bloody clothes, etc.
Like any good theory, it accounts for it all with no left-over parts to ignore.

O.K., Ray, lets assume that your theory is actually what took place on August 4th, 1892; following are a few questions that I have...

If William signed a note promising to repay the loan on August 3rd, of the following year, with his homestead being put up as security and he could not come up with the balance of the loan on the 3rd, then he knew full well that he would lose his homestead to Andrew. Are you saying that William was so stupid that he couldn't figure this out?

The way you have it written does not make Andrew the one who swindled William, it makes Uncle John the swindler. It was Uncle John who arranged another meeting for August 4th, so that William could plead for an extension of the loan, not Andrew. Andrew had the terms of the loan in writing, which William was fully aware of since he signed the note; this does not make Andrew a swindler, it makes him a good businessman. Again, are you saying that William was so stupid that he couldn't figure out that a meeting on the 4th would put him in default on the loan?

According to the information you gave us, Abby met William in the guest bedroom and told him how sorry she was about this swindle. Who let William in the house to begin with? Why in the world would Abby meet William, in a bedroom, of all places? No woman, in her right mind, is going to meet any man in a bedroom, unless she is asking for a sexual encounter. If Abby was truly feeling sorry about a swindle, then why in the world would William become so enraged that he not only killed her, but over-killed her? Are you saying that William became so enraged, that he took his anger out on poor Abby, who was showing him her sympathy? If William was enraged at Andrew, then why did Abby receive almost twice the number of blows, as Andrew? Didn't Abby receive 19 blows and Andrew 10? Are you saying that William cooled down to less than half the amount of rage that he felt from the time he killed Abby to the time he killed Andrew? Where was Lizzie, when William 'lost it' with Abby? Didn't she fear he would do away with her too? And, why didn't William do away with Lizzie, as well? Why would he allow an eye witness to live, especially if he was in such a rage as to kill an innocent person?

According to the information you gave us, William would now get even with Andrew as many had vowed but none had ever accomplished. Who are the many who vowed, but never accomplished, to get even with Andrew??? William stayed in the house and waited for Andrew to come home. Are you saying that, Lizzie allowed William to stay in the house to wait for her father's return, knowing that he was out to get Andrew? I have always wondered why William showed up at the house to meet with Andrew, at least, an hour to an hour and a half before Andrew came home? Didn't Andrew come home earlier than usual on the 4th?

According to the information you gave us, Lizzie and Emma knew of the swindle; Emma went away and Lizzie was faced with a dilemma... To remain silent and let the murderer of her father escape justice, or to tell all and besmirch Andrew’s reputation even more. Are you saying that Andrew's reputation was already blackened? If so, then what is the difference if his reputation is a bit more tainted? Andrew didn't appear to care if his reputation was tainted or not, as it is my understanding that he cut corners when ever possible. That is, Andrew cut off the feet of corpses so that the corpse would fit in a coffin that was too small for the body. Is this not true? IMO: If I were in Lizzie shoes, the blackening or tainting of my father's reputation would be a lot easier to live with, than knowing I allowed and did everything possible to help my father's killer escape justice. Wasn't Lizzie suppose to have loved her father? If so, why in the world would she have allowed his killer to go free? Are you saying that, the love Lizzie felt for her father meant less to her, or was less important to her, than seeking justice for his murderer? If this is so, then Lizzie was indeed one sick puppy!

According to the information you gave us, this swindle was a dark and dirty secret, which could have led to jury nullification in any trial of William. Perhaps, this may be true in the murder of Abby, which I highly doubt, but certainly not the murder of Andrew... Andrew's murder was definitely premeditated! According to your theory, William waited for Andrew, with the intention of getting even with him, didn't he? After all, he had just killed an innocent person, therefore, killing was already on his mind. I call that premeditated murder.

IMO, losing one's homestead, due to being swindled by the brother-in-law of the lender which led to a default of one's loan, is not as dark and dirty of a secret as you make it out to be. It is not a strong enough motive for murdering two people.

I'm not saying that your theory is wrong, Ray, I'm just questioning the points I have stated above.

If I had the time I would answer point by point. Just believe me that what I said is what I think is the solution to the mystery.
Neither Lizzie, Bridget, or Andrew knew about the dead body on the second floor. IMO
My solution is based on he known facts, and an attempt to correlate the known facts with the mystery of this case. You are free to accept or reject it, in part or in whole.
But won't you agree that it is logically consistent with the known facts?
You are asking about the mental state or thinking, which no one here can state what it was then.
"Good God, how did this all happen?" was Uncle John's recorded comment. That tells me he didn't expect the results.

Lizzie was in the WC at the time of the murder. She knew who was in the house, but not what happened. Noise from busy Second Street.

PS
I think the known facts say Uncle John worked as an agent for Andy, visiting farms, giving his independent objective advice on properties.
My solution is based on the known facts about Andy (made loans, then foreclosed on property). There is no magic needed (bloody clothes that disappear or don't exist, a hatchet that mysteriously is hidden in the house, etc).

I also admit I have no documentary proof, but neither do Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, Sullivan, Spiering, etc. I only have the incomplete facts, and a mind that tried to come up with the Final Explanation that resolves this case.

[RayS]

Ray, I have a couple of more questions, regarding the following two sentences...

Uncle John then casually met Willy and suggested he borrow money from his rich uncle.

Are you saying that William was not Andrews illegitimate son? The same thing is insinuated in the next sentence...

The secret meeting would be at Andy’s house so people wouldn’t comment on the resemblance between Andy and nephew Willy.

The way in which these two sentences are written, clearly insinuate that William is not Andrews illegitimate son. This is totally against Arnold Brown's theory. Is this not correct?

I also have to question, as well as wonder, why this topic is titled "Brown's Theory - Part 4", when, in fact, it is not Brown's theory, at all. This theory clearly states that it is...

(C) Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson. All Rights Reserved.

Shouldn't this topic, as well as the previous topics regarding Arnold Brown's Theory, be re-titled as 'Ray Stephanson's Theory", due to the copyright information you have posted?

The first 2 questions are yours to answer, you asked them.
Arnold Brown mentioned the rumors, and that his investigation could not pin it down beyond the missing birth certificate. He didn't know, and neither do I.
The Theory of a nephew killing Andy IS Brown's theory (not a Law). I follow that explanantion, but came up with a better reason (to my mind) for the murders. No one has even quibbled with that reason.

It explains why no bloody clothers or hatchet were in the house, why Lizzie (and Emma and uncle John) acted the way they did. And why the Silent Government (or Ruling Class) went along with the cover up and fixed the Trial so LB would be justifiably be acquitted of a murder she didn't do.

Did I leave anything out? I hope not.

[DWilly]

Ray, I have a couple of more questions, regarding the following two sentences...

Uncle John then casually met Willy and suggested he borrow money from his rich uncle.

Are you saying that William was not Andrews illegitimate son? The same thing is insinuated in the next sentence...

The secret meeting would be at Andy’s house so people wouldn’t comment on the resemblance between Andy and nephew Willy.

The way in which these two sentences are written, clearly insinuate that William is not Andrews illegitimate son. This is totally against Arnold Brown's theory. Is this not correct?

I also have to question, as well as wonder, why this topic is titled "Brown's Theory - Part 4", when, in fact, it is not Brown's theory, at all. This theory clearly states that it is...

(C) Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson. All Rights Reserved.

Shouldn't this topic, as well as the previous topics regarding Arnold Brown's Theory, be re-titled as 'Ray Stephanson's Theory", due to the copyright information you have posted?

The first 2 questions are yours to answer, you asked them.
Arnold Brown mentioned the rumors, and that his investigation could not pin it down beyond the missing birth certificate. He didn't know, and neither do I.
The Theory of a nephew killing Andy IS Brown's theory (not a Law). I follow that explanantion, but came up with a better reason (to my mind) for the murders. No one has even quibbled with that reason.

It explains why no bloody clothers or hatchet were in the house, why Lizzie (and Emma and uncle John) acted the way they did. And why the Silent Government (or Ruling Class) went along with the cover up and fixed the Trial so LB would be justifiably be acquitted of a murder she didn't do.

Did I leave anything out? I hope not.

I noticed in this thread you stopped using the word "Proof" in your title. I think even you now realize that Brown's theory is just that a theory. There is little if any proof to it. Nothing that shows Billy was his son. No one has seen the so called Hawthorne memoirs. Brown claims he used them for his book but I guess we can't check that out now can we? There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged meetings of the "secret government." Etc.

[twinsrwe]

The first 2 questions are yours to answer, you asked them.
Arnold Brown mentioned the rumors, and that his investigation could not pin it down beyond the missing birth certificate. He didn't know, and neither do I.
The Theory of a nephew killing Andy IS Brown's theory (not a Law). I follow that explanantion, but came up with a better reason (to my mind) for the murders. No one has even quibbled with that reason.

It explains why no bloody clothers or hatchet were in the house, why Lizzie (and Emma and uncle John) acted the way they did. And why the Silent Government (or Ruling Class) went along with the cover up and fixed the Trial so LB would be justifiably be acquitted of a murder she didn't do.

Did I leave anything out? I hope not.

Ray, it is not up to me to answer my own questions. This is your topic, not mine. I asked you two simple questions, which deserve an answer on your part. Arnold Brown made his theory very clear in his book; his theory is that William was Andrew's illegitimate son, not his nephew.

I am not trying to be difficult or cause trouble, but, I am at a lost as to why you titled this thread "Brown's Theory - Part 4", when in fact the things you have stated in this thread, as well as all of the previous topics you have posted regarding Brown's theory, are not a part of his actual theory at all. The contents of this thread is really your theory, not Arnold Brown's. It is your name that is indicated in the copyright information provided. Am I not correct?

[RayS]

...
I noticed in this thread you stopped using the word "Proof" in your title. I think even you now realize that Brown's theory is just that a theory. There is little if any proof to it. Nothing that shows Billy was his son. No one has seen the so called Hawthorne memoirs. Brown claims he used them for his book but I guess we can't check that out now can we? There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged meetings of the "secret government." Etc.

I dropped the word "Proof" so the topic wouldn't be too long to fit.
My dictionary has one definition of "proof" as any reasoned attempt to explain something. Brown's Theory is a "proof".

Refer to "Part 1". Thank you!

[RayS]

...
Ray, it is not up to me to answer my own questions. This is your topic, not mine. I asked you two simple questions, which deserve an answer on your part. Arnold Brown made his theory very clear in his book; his theory is that William was Andrew's illegitimate son, not his nephew.

I am not trying to be difficult or cause trouble, but, I am at a lost as to why you titled this thread "Brown's Theory - Part 4", when in fact the things you have stated in this thread, as well as all of the previous topics you have posted regarding Brown's theory, are not a part of his actual theory at all. The contents of this thread is really your theory, not Arnold Brown's. It is your name that is indicated in the copyright information provided. Am I not correct?

1) William was Andy Borden's nephew. No doubt about it.
2) The inferred illegitimacy could likely mean that he was also Andy's son.

QED

Your question seems rhetorical, one posed with no meaningfull answer. It sets up a false dichotomy: was he a nephew or a son?
The correct answer could be that he was both.

This is comparable to that famous question "have you stopped beating your wife"? Either a simple Yes or No is the wrong answer.

Have you stopped cheating on your income taxes? You and the others don't need to answer that.
Don't take offense at the word "you", there is no other way to ask it.

[snokkums]

"Part 4 deals with the big question: Why would Lizzie shield a relative for the brutal lmurder of her father? Because of a dark and dirty secret than could lead t ojury nullification of any murderer. Arnold Brown identified Lizzies cousin as the real murderer whose identity was kept secret."

But if there was that kind of mess going on, wouldn't it make more senxe that Lizzie would kill to top the abuse? And if Andy was up to his dirty money tricks, and LIzzie couldn't stand it anymore, makes more sense to me that she would do the killing. May be the relative approved of it. Who knows?

[RayS]

"Part 4 deals with the big question: Why would Lizzie shield a relative for the brutal lmurder of her father? Because of a dark and dirty secret than could lead t ojury nullification of any murderer. Arnold Brown identified Lizzies cousin as the real murderer whose identity was kept secret."

But if there was that kind of mess going on, wouldn't it make more senxe that Lizzie would kill to top the abuse? And if Andy was up to his dirty money tricks, and LIzzie couldn't stand it anymore, makes more sense to me that she would do the killing. May be the relative approved of it. Who knows?

I know that it seems unlikely that Lizzie would kill because of a debt. You can read plenty of cases in True Crime where a debtor erased his debt by rubbing out the lender. Plenty! Such as Drs. Parkman and Webster.

I know of no cases where not being included in a non-existent will would cause a murder. Do you know of any? I follow Arnold Brown's theory, just disagree over the cause. My knowledge comes from secondary sources, not from "two years of research" (more than any other author).

Andy's moneylending put a roof over their heads and food on their table. They may not have liked it, but they benefitted from it.

I believe this theory of the crime best holds up and explains what happened. Note no one has objected to it. even to say "it was made up", which it was. It is a surmise to best explain the known facts.

[theebmonique]

I believe this theory of the crime best holds up and explains what happened. Note no one has objected to it. even to say "it was made up", which it was. It is a surmise to best explain the known facts.

I am thinking maybe you owe your opthamologist a visit Ray...not only have several members objected to both your theory AND Mr. Brown's, but detailed explanations have been given as to WHY.





Tracy...

[RayS]

I believe this theory of the crime best holds up and explains what happened. Note no one has objected to it. even to say "it was made up", which it was. It is a surmise to best explain the known facts.

I am thinking maybe you owe your opthamologist a visit Ray...not only have several members objected to both your theory AND Mr. Brown's, but detailed explanations have been given as to WHY.

Tracy...

Thanks for your friendly advice.
I have seen no facts that would disprove my theory of a killing over a debt that couldn't be repaid. It is quite common in True Crime stories, and in your newspapers.
My eyesight is good enough to read books and newspapers. Agree?