Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I think one of the wildest conspiracy theories that I have read about the Borden case is that the Masons were involved and somehow helped to conceal the identity of the killer and get Lizzie out of the murder rap. After doing the research into the Borden and Morse families, I can see how this theory might have gotten started. I'm not saying that I believe in it anymore than I did before. But I have run into a baffling number of family members who were indeed members of the Masons. Daniel L. Emery also belonged to the Masons.

KGDevil wrote:I've stumbled across the archives of a newspaper during my recent research called The Fitchburg Sentinel of Fitchburg, Massachusetts and have been reading through the August 1892-1893 post trial issues, so far. There are several articles that I found interesting. The first is an article from August 13, 1892 that details Lizzie's arrest and subsequent arrival at the jail. I find the descriptions of the cell, and her day to day life interesting, but also the fact that Dr. Bowen seemed to have accompanied her, along with other family and friends, to bid her an affectionate fairwell. Does this seem odd to anyone? I'd expect the Reverend Buck, Emma, her friend Mrs. Brigham, and probably even John V. Morse. But why Dr. Bowen?

I think it speaks well of her. So many people saying mean things in such a sensational murder trial goes without saying. You get people saying she was "odd", she was "distant". I mean, none of that can be taken with more than a grain of salt. But the people that lived across the street and had a close relationship with the family, how they acted so kindly towards her speaks volumes about what kind of a person she was.

We've also heard that Lizzie and Dr. Bowen attended church together at least once. A church he never normally attended.What I find odd is the only mentions we hear are of Dr. Bowen himself. Where is his wife? If she thinks so highly of Lizzie why does she not include herself in these outings? What volumes does it speak that Mrs. Bowen stays out of the picture? She showed up the day of the murders but she didn't stick around very long. And I never see her presented any further after that day. Except at trial.

The day before the murders Andrew Borden told Bowen to get away from his front door. Which doesn't suggest a 'close relationship with the family'.

But he's a doctor living opposite. First thing Lizzie does is send for the doctor living opposite. It's not so weird. What about the man who phones the newspapers instead of the police!

There's a site authored by a rather ubiquitous Bordenite who posted an excellent newspaper illustration which she said showed the main female protagonists en route to the Trial of a morning. No source. It looked a little too late to be 1893 but she's the Borden expert. One of the portraits was identified as Phoebe Bowen. I was crestfallen to discover these were the site-owner's own identifications - annotations, with which she literally defaces the thing - and how elsewhere she adds gaily that the illustration has nothing to do with the Borden trial. She 'just likes it'.

Amazing posts! Thank all of you very much!

Reviving topic

I have been looking for the “missing” portions of “The Armchair Solution” of Fritz Aldiz published in the LBQ. Found part 4 and “Conclusion” in 2 issues but not the earlier parts. (Nov and April 1996)
On the first page of this topic- there are the links! Yay!

Plz check him out, if you are interested in Davis and Morse- these 3 pages of discussion, I also missed, and will have to review it- lots of info here.

We also worked with him on The Hatchet, where he has his incest theory.
https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... stery.html

This was quite an interesting paper. However, I think the incest claim is far fetched. Just because Andrew allegedly had a domineering personality does NOT suggest he raped his own daughters. Here is another example of cruel surmising that insinuates that Andrew and Abby deserved to be killed. Mr. Aldiz's " solution" is based on speculation, just as everyone else's is.

Fritz cobbled together an entertaining story. He does a pretty good job of incorporating a large number of know components of the crime. But too much of his theory is based on pure conjecture. Not deductions built off facts.....conjecture & speculation.

Beyond pure conjecture, there is no basis for the incest theory. Pulling Emma into the conspiracy was also based on pure conjecture. For Fritz's story to hold together, the incest aspect was not even necessary. It sort of felt forced into the storyline.

If William Davis had nothing to do with the butcher business, we probably would never have even heard of him. But because butchers chop things, then of course, he had to be involved with murders that involve chopping people.

Davis was a butcher and he knew John Morse. That is the complete case against William Davis and, therefore, Howe.

Fritz also loses credibility when he tossed in random fabrications to strengthen his narrative. To our knowledge, William Davis and his father never had a substantive business deal with Andrew prior to the killings. Much less a transaction involving Andrew behaving in such a way that generated extreme anger in the Davis's....so much so that William wouldn't mind killing Andrew over it.

That said, I was a bit saddened to read Fritz describe the sleepy man on the steps on third street and his hat. I actually thought I had made a fresh, keen observation with that situation, but alas, it wasn't such fresh, new discovery.

I completely agree, camgarsky!

This is a copy paste of ”twinsrwe”post I alluded to earlier in this thread.
If you click on the first link she gives, it takes you to the earliest issues of LBQ (***)by connecting you to “Fritz’s Armchair Solution” 1st installment of his article.
But if you drop your eyes to the bottom of the essay, you find those *four square boxes* (bottom right) and by clicking there you will be able to see the issues of that time period that I could not find.
LBQ started January 1993, so still missing a year at the beginning.
These issues start year January 1994.

For those of you who would like to read his earliest published copy of his theory, you may follow the remaining links (provided by twinsrwe) specifically to the segments of his essay.
(By 2003 when we published with him in The Hatchet, his theory was more thoughtful and organized, he states.)

***Part one of ‘An Armchair Solution to the Borden Mystery’; page 11: http://tinyurl.com/kgwksml

Part two, page 12: http://tinyurl.com/n2odcwl

Part three, page 4: http://tinyurl.com/k3gf7zg

Part four, page 7: http://tinyurl.com/khtkp4c