Proof for Arnold Brown's Theory - Part 2 of 5

[RayS]

The Proof for Arnold Brown's Theory - Part 2

Here I will describe what is known about the Secret Visitor at the Borden home 8/4/1892.

1) This person was not the average person who could openly visit Andrew Borden at his bank office or home. Any visit of this man had to be kept secret. A note was given to Abby to get her out of the house that morning so she wouldn't be present. Lizzie was trusted with this secret, she tried to get Bridget to leave for shopping before the meeting.

2) The memoirs of Henry Hawthorne say that an illegitimate son, William S. Borden, was this secret visitor. He had been committed to a state asylum years earlier. Given the facts that children resemble their parents, anyone who saw the two together would have remarked on the resemblance of William to Andrew. No documentary proof would be needed. Could William have been prone to fits of anger? Was William skilled in the use of a hatchet for killing? Arnold Brown's book says so.

3) What could have caused an emotional outburst? Arnold Brown speculates about an inheritance and a will. But illegitimate children could not inherit automatically unless acknowledged in a will. Anyone can bequest funds to another. But a murderer can not inherit from his victim. So there was no reason to conceal the Secret Visitor because of a will.

4) The scandal of illegitimacy was quite real in those days, especially for the local ruling society. Keeping it all hid was a good reason for a cover-up. Were there other children?

5) I think the real reason for this meeting and for the cover-up is more prosaic. Andrew Borden lent out money at interest and foreclosed on property if the loan could not be paid when it came due. If dear Abby mocked this visitor about his inability to pay the loan, that could have set him off in a murderous rage. When the meeting with Andrew did not result in an extension of the loan, the anger resulted in an action that canceled the loan by eliminating the lender. (You can recall the debt of Dr. Webster to Dr. Parkman circa 1850.) I think the rolled-up paper burnt in the stove represented the debt papers. Even today some celebrate the payment of a mortgage by Burning it.

I have provided a rational answer based on the known facts by applying logic about the real world. There is no fingerprints or DNA evidence to solve the crime. The only person who was there, Lizzie, never told. Her father must have told her to keep this secret. The presence of Uncle John Morse would have guided her actions in the cover-up. Lizzie's indictment was an unintended consequence of her silence. Note that Victoria Lincoln said Lizzie was not in disfavor among Fall River society until the 1897 shoplifting scandal. They knew and appreciated the cover-up of family scandals. There must have been a few others with a similar secret.

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

[theebmonique]

RayS/Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:55 pm:

Given the facts that children resemble their parents, anyone who saw the two together would have remarked on the resemblance of William to Andrew. No documentary proof would be needed.

So, you are saying that if they 'look' alike...that warrants not bothering to get any documentary proof...as looking alike is enough ??





Tracy...

[FairhavenGuy]

The Proof for Arnold Brown's Theory - Part 2

Given the facts that children resemble their parents, anyone who saw the two together would have remarked on the resemblance of William to Andrew. No documentary proof would be needed.

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

We might need just a bit of proof that anyone ever saw the two together.

[Smudgeman]

A note was given to Abby to get her out of the house that morning so she wouldn't be present.



The story about the note was provided by Lizzie. I don't think a note ever existed, and this was a big screw up on Lizzie's part. So, I really don't think you can include this part into your story, I noticed you have copyrighted it.

[Kat]

Any detail that we know of, that bugs people in any theory or evaluation, is valid, like these points members make.
That's the thing.
The *devil is in the details.*
It's good to bring these up I think.
No theory will be sucessful until all these details are explained.

So I hope these are taken into consideration. It should be interesting.

[Kat]

BostonSunday Herald, July 19, 1992, under headline "Unsolved case prompts plenty of speculation:

"Lizzie did not commit the crime, but she was not unguilty," said [Arnold] Brown.

"She definitely knew who had. She was at least an accessory after the fact."

[RayS]

I have presented as much proof as in the books of Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, De Mille, Spiering, etc. Brown was not a professional writer.
NOBODY was there with a videocamera to record the events. We just have to try to do the best we can with the known facts. Some say that there are left-over facts in any case, statements that don't agree (mystery novels?).

You are welcome to consider the facts or opinion raised by Brown's book. My 'Part 2' varies from Brown (based on a will), but I think that I follow his direction, and, he might have come to this result.

Having a loan foreclosure hanging over his head (no pun) Willy might be very amenable to do whatever was asked of him. Else he would lose his farm and his life. I also think that Uncle John and Emma helped Lizzie decide on this course.

Lizzie's explanation for the laugh ("it was me") seems like a way to hide the visitor. They did not know of Abby's death, she was supposed to leave. Andy supposedly did not question this (as Lizzie and Bridget agreed?). Lizzie's kind heart was shown by her saying "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father". But this cover-up rebounded in her indictment.

[RayS]

A note was given to Abby to get her out of the house that morning so she wouldn't be present.

The story about the note was provided by Lizzie. I don't think a note ever existed, and this was a big screw up on Lizzie's part. So, I really don't think you can include this part into your story, I noticed you have copyrighted it.

But didn't Bridget agree with this? Was this just her action as a loyal employee? What did Uncle John say? (No reference book available.)

What maybe someone else shoud write is a timeline showing who said what that Thursday. But we only have the words of the survivors.

[Kat]

"An accessory after the fact" makes Lizzie guilty.
And out of the mouth of Arnold Brown.

Knowlton was thinking of explaining the degrees of involvement to a grand jury so as to implicate Lizzie at least before or after the crimes.
(HK097)

He says he did so:
" I then told them what the law was in relation to principals and accessories...to put before them the law bearing upon all possible aspects." (HK#114, dated Dec. 3, 1892).

[RayS]

"An accessory after the fact" makes Lizzie guilty.
And out of the mouth of Arnold Brown.
...

Yes, but that also proves the "Mellen House gang" theory.

They indicted Lizzie for the one crime she was not guilty of, and avoided the charge she could be convicted of.
Given Lawyer Jennings disavowal of Lizzie after the 1897 shoplifting scandal, it means they all knew Lizzie was not guilty of murder. Lizzie at first only tried to shield the family name from a scandal. And she paid dearly for it, in cash and reputation.
The 'Providence Journal' came out against her after the trial, it was not the home town press. Note that most newspapers considered her innocent.

[Kat]

My bottom line, when people hear what I do and what I am interested in- ask me- did she do it?
I think: why not join up and decide for yourself? I have spent so long studying this case, I think, why should I tell what my theory is? So I have a bottom line.
(I think I'm probably asked this more than you, Ray)

My bottom line is first to tell that Lizzie was acquitted. That always surprises people.
Then I tell them if she did not do it she knows who did.
I truly believe that.
She knew who did.

Now, knowing this, (and just between us) she still accepted the money, and lived off of it and never fingered the murderer. She never paid out a reward. She never explained. She shielded someone. There was no justice for the victims.

That makes her guilty. Under law, she might get a plea bargin and no death penalty. But that is still guilt.

No mention of a Mellen House gang. I don't need a Mellen House gang.

[RayS]

Most people only know the jingle "Lizzie Borden took an axe", and don't know she was correctly acquitted! You obviously tested popular conceptions and found it so.

Lizzie and Emma were Andy's daughters; the apples fall near the tree.
Remember what Andy did to the Brayton family over their inheritance?
"Let him be judged by a Higher Authority" was not a meaningless slogan in those days. The "Mellen House Gang" were also accomplices in the cover-up. Learn your history about those days.

J. Anthony Lukas wrote a book "Big Trouble" about events in 1906. Has anyone here read it?

[DWilly]

I'm sure most of the posters on this forum are familar with how political machines ran cities. Most of us have read about Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. My Mother grew up in Chicago under the Daley Machine. She also came from an Irish Catholic family and her Uncle was a Chicago cop. So, needless to say I am well aware of "how things work." My dear old Mom voted a strict Democrat ticket her whole life. It was the way she was brought up. Irish Catholic= vote Democrat=Daley.

Anyway, just because a town has a political machine that does not mean they are some how involved with every single thing that goes on in that town. Brown never connected the Mellen House Gang to anything involving Borden. He never interviewed anyone who verified his theory that they orchestrated the things he claims they did.

[RayS]

... (personal statements redacted)
Anyway, just because a town has a political machine that does not mean they are some how involved with every single thing that goes on in that town. Brown never connected the Mellen House Gang to anything involving Borden. He never interviewed anyone who verified his theory that they orchestrated the things he claims they did.

Brown claims this Gang made Andy's will "go away" and fixed the trial by only indicting Lizzie on a murder that she didn't do.
"Obstructing Justice" means not revealing knowledge of a crime, as every good citizen is required to do. I'm sure you will all turn yourselves in when you find you have exceeded the speed limt, or parked overtime but did not get a ticket. Right?

[RayS]

"Hot Toddy" tells about the Los Angeles District Attorney's office.
Wasn't "Chinatown" film based on a real event? Remember how New York City destroyed square miles to create a giant reservoir in Ulster county? Or how they eliminated Brooklyn as a separate city?
Do you know what goes on in your own home town?

[Kat]

If I were a descendent of the men in the *Mellen House gang*, I'd be pretty mad at Arnold Brown for his defamation of characters who are dead and can't rebut his wild assertions.
Maybe Brown was a natual paranoid?
Or maybe he was being eaten up by his fatal illness and it came out as paranoia?

[RayS]

If I were a descendent of the men in the *Mellen House gang*, I'd be pretty mad at Arnold Brown for his defamation of characters who are dead and can't rebut his wild assertions.
Maybe Brown was a natual paranoid?
Or maybe he was being eaten up by his fatal illness and it came out as paranoia?

So now who is speaking ill of the dead?
De mortuis nil nihil obstat! Or they will come back and haunt you?

ANYONE who speaks about political gangs and only refers to William Marcy Tweed (and not his political opponents who did much the same) or Richard Daley (who did what any Boss has to do to remain boss: fix things for the rich and powerful people and corporations) must not know about their own county or town, or is afraid to speak out. IMO

[RayS]

Andrew Borden's will - did it exist or was it destroyed?
First, the quotes about Andy's will suggests he did make one. That could be to acknowledge his illegitimate children. Another scandal. (Yes, its my assumption based on human behavior.)

Some say its destruction was based only on the base motives of Lizzie (or Emma) who would inherit more money. But there is another reason for its destruction: part of the cover-up of the crime.

Assume Andy acknowledged his natural children: Susanna, age 10; Margaret, age 16; Robert, age 22 (and tubercular); and William, age 30. Their names in the will would cause the police to question them. Only one of these would stand out as likely suspects. Hence the destruction of the will to cover-up the crime. (Yes, I have "no documentary proof" for this assumption.)

In this case I would like to believe that kind-hearted Lizzie would give a few thousand dollars to the first three names. I surmise that the non-collection of a debt would be reward enough for William beyond the cover-up.
Thanks for listening to this further advancement of Arnold Brown's theory.

Of course, if it never existed then all of the above is inoperative.

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

[RayS]

I'm sure you are all busy.
But if anyone has any questions I would appreciate their posting before Sunday Sept 10.
The proof of the theory is how well it can be defended.

[Harry]

... Assume Andy acknowledged his natural children: Susanna, age 10; Margaret, age 16; Robert, age 22 (and tubercular); and William, age 30. ...

Damn, these are all Andrew's children too? Gotta lay off the Wheaties, Andrew.

Hilarious.

[RayS]

... Assume Andy acknowledged his natural children: Susanna, age 10; Margaret, age 16; Robert, age 22 (and tubercular); and William, age 30. ...

Damn, these are all Andrew's children too? Gotta lay off the Wheaties, Andrew.

Hilarious.

I believe that shredded wheat was the first cold cereal, and introduced at the Chicago Worlds' Fair of 1892.
Trust Andy to stay with cooked oatmeal or corn (the traditional New England meal).
I did not intend it to be hilarious, just to shake up some person's thoughts. You can see the the scandal if this were to happen?

I wonder what movie star has the most children? Mel Gibson or Clint Eastwood? That is one thing usually censored from the news.

[theebmonique]

... Assume Andy acknowledged his natural children: Susanna, age 10; Margaret, age 16; Robert, age 22 (and tubercular); and William, age 30. ...

Damn, these are all Andrew's children too? Gotta lay off the Wheaties, Andrew.

Hilarious.

WOW...Andrew would have to have been a VERY busy boy if all these chidren were his...and poor Abby, with Andrew being so unfaithful.

Harry...I think Andrew should have layed off more than just Wheaties.





Tracy...

[Kat]

I don't see the point in Andrew having a bunch of children not from his wife. It doesn't make sense.

And if he was as stingy as you think, that is more mouths to feed. And how come he wasn't blackmailed his whole life?

Is this an attention-getting device or are you serious?

[RayS]

I don't see the point in Andrew having a bunch of children not from his wife. It doesn't make sense.

And if he was as stingy as you think, that is more mouths to feed. And how come he wasn't blackmailed his whole life?

Is this an attention-getting device or are you serious?

Yes, Kat, I'm sort of playing "Devil's Advocate" here. Has anyone considered that would be one reason for destroying a will? Too many would be a bigger scandal, and could lead to suits from others.
Did you read about the people who claimed to be the missing Lindbergh Baby?

Arnold Brown says Massachusetts Law withheld the birth certificate on any illegitimate child. Isn't that convenient for the father? "You can't prove it, you have no documentary proof!"

[RayS]

To summarize about the Intruder. He was a Secret Visitor whose identity was kept secret even after the murder. Yet Lawyer Jennings would help Lizzie to keep this secret. The D.A. and the Judges would cooperate in seeing Lizzie was found innocent. They all knew who did it, and why Lizzie kept this secret.
An illegitimate son is the likely suspect. His resemblance to Andy meant they could never be seen together in public, or even at Andy's home.
He was likely there to see about a payment on a loan, not about an inheritance. (My interpretation of the known facts.)

Agnes De Mille says the police were sure it was done by an intruder until they could find no evidence for this. Then they began to blame a resident. (Does this remind you of the JonBenet Ramsey murder?)

I don't want my comments distorted by those with an axe to grind.

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

[Angel]

It's not as dramatic as it being those with an axe to grind---it's more like those with a fly swatter trying to shoo away gnats.

[twinsrwe]

In the 1st paragraph, part 2, of your theory, you stated that any visit of this man had to be kept secret... kept secret from whom and why?

In the last paragraph of part 2 of your theory, you stated that the only person who was there, Lizzie, never told. Her father must have told her to keep this secret. And, in the first paragraph of part 2, you stated that Lizzie was trusted with this secret; this implies that Lizzie knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child. Otherwise, why would Lizzie care, one way or the other, about a meeting between Andrew and a man who could not pay his loan? (IMO: I can not image any father telling his daughter about his illegitimate child, let alone a child he does not, himself, acknowledge).

Your statement regarding Abby mocking this visitor about his inability to pay his loan, implies that Abby also knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child. Otherwise, why would Abby care, one way or the other, about a meeting between Andrew and some man who could not pay his loan. Furthermore, why would a note be necessary to get Abby out of the house? What would be the point? It makes no difference if Abby knew about Andrew's illegitimate child or not; there is no point to getting her out of the house just because of an alleged meeting that was suppose to take place between Andrew and William. (I will comment on the resemblance of this two men, later on in this post)

Your statement regarding the presence of Uncle John guiding Lizzie's actions in a cover-up, implies that Uncle John also knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child.

The only person left, that was at the house that day, was Bridget. Again, why would Bridget care, one way or the other, about a meeting between Andrew and a visitor regarding a loan that could not be paid?

Why would a meeting between William and Andrew need to be kept secret if that many people, within the household, that day, knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child?

Furthermore, why in the world would William show up for a secret meeting with Andrew, at least, an hour and a half before this alleged meeting was to take place? Why did Andrew decide to take a nap around the time this meeting was to take place, if he was indeed expecting to meet with William? This action alone, on Andrews part, leads me to believe that he knew nothing about a secret meeting between himself and William.

In your theory you stated that given the fact that children resemble their parents... No documentary proof would be needed. It is true that many children do resemble their parents, it is also true that some children do not resemble their parents at all, and some children resemble a distance relative. In the real world, it is just the way blood lines work. I truly believe that we all have a look alike, somewhere in this world, that we are not in any way related to. Comic actor Richard Mulligan, who won Emmy awards for his roles in television sitcoms 'Soap' and 'Empty Nest', resembles my father so much that it was down right uncanny... I actually did a double take I first time I saw Richard Mulligan. My father was 15 years old when Richard was born; yes my father was old enough to be Richard's father; NO, they are NOT, in any way, related. If someone claimed that Richard was my father's illegitimate child, I would definitely, need written documentation as proof! No question about it. William S. Borden may have been a distance relative of Andrew's who just happened to resemble him, if he did indeed resemble Andrew at all; simple fact of the matter is, we are never going to know, for sure, until we have written documentation as proof.

In your theory you stated that the scandal of illegitimacy was quite real in those days, especially for the local ruling society and that keeping it all hid was a good reason for a cover-up. However, you contradicted yourself when you stated in your 'Proof for Arnold Brown's Theory - Part 1 of 2', that Virginia Lincoln told how the upper class tolerated Lizzie until the shoplifting scandal and that this implies that the Fall River Society knew of the real killer and approved of the cover-up.

What was there to cover-up, if that many people knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child? A scandal? Sounds to me like the scandal was old news for many, many, people; in other words, it was NOT the big secret that you are insinuating.

[Angel]

Excellent post, Twinsrwe.

[Bob Gutowski]

Excellent dissection, and would that it would have some effect!

[twinsrwe]

Excellent post, Twinsrwe.

Thanks, Angel.... I put a lot of thought into that post!

[twinsrwe]

Excellent dissection, and would that it would have some effect!

Thanks, Bob. We are all have the right to believe in a certain theory and state our opinions, whatever they may be. This theory just does not seem logical to me.

[Kat]

I would like to know about this *Massachusetts Law* that witholds an illegitimate's birth certificate please?

[RayS]

It's not as dramatic as it being those with an axe to grind---it's more like those with a fly swatter trying to shoo away gnats.

I never compared some of the posters here to annoying gnats. But I won't argue with that description.

[Angel]

I wasn't referring to the other posters.

[RayS]

In the 1st paragraph, part 2, of your theory, you stated that any visit of this man had to be kept secret... kept secret from whom and why?

From neighbors and the general public.

In the last paragraph of part 2 of your theory, you stated that the only person who was there, Lizzie, never told. Her father must have told her to keep this secret. And, in the first paragraph of part 2, you stated that Lizzie was trusted with this secret; this implies that Lizzie knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child. Otherwise, why would Lizzie care, one way or the other, about a meeting between Andrew and a man who could not pay his loan? (IMO: I can not image any father telling his daughter about his illegitimate child, let alone a child he does not, himself, acknowledge).

Lizzie cared because Andy told her too. Not to mention the manners of that day.
Have you forgotten the stories about a Presidential candidate in the 1990s?

Your statement regarding Abby mocking this visitor about his inability to pay his loan, implies that Abby also knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child. Otherwise, why would Abby care, one way or the other, about a meeting between Andrew and some man who could not pay his loan. Furthermore, why would a note be necessary to get Abby out of the house? What would be the point? It makes no difference if Abby knew about Andrew's illegitimate child or not; there is no point to getting her out of the house just because of an alleged meeting that was suppose to take place between Andrew and William. (I will comment on the resemblance of this two men, later on in this post)

Abby would care because Andy told her to do this. Imaging the gossip!!! Its quite likely that she guessed from the appearance, and knew why people visited Andy at home (private banking).

Your statement regarding the presence of Uncle John guiding Lizzie's actions in a cover-up, implies that Uncle John also knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child.

John Vinnicum Morse was Andy's brother-in-law and trusted confidant.

The only person left, that was at the house that day, was Bridget. Again, why would Bridget care, one way or the other, about a meeting between Andrew and a visitor regarding a loan that could not be paid?

The whole point was to get Bridget out of the house so she would not see the two together. That was the point of a Secret Visitor to a secret meeting.

Furthermore, why in the world would William show up for a secret meeting with Andrew, at least, an hour and a half before this alleged meeting was to take place? Why did Andrew decide to take a nap around the time this meeting was to take place, if he was indeed expecting to meet with William? This action alone, on Andrews part, leads me to believe that he knew nothing about a secret meeting between himself and William.

He may even have arrived at night after dark to avoid being seen (the noise in the backyard). There is no evidence before 11am that Andy would take a nap, only Lizzie's word. Do you believe it? Some may have prior references to Andy's napping around 11am. Andy often conducted business at his home. Just like the doctors in his neighborhood.

In your theory you stated that given that fact that children resemble their parents... No documentary proof would be needed. It is true that many children do resemble their parents, it is also true that some children do not resemble their parents at all, and some children resemble a distance relative. In the real world, it is just the way blood lines work. I truly believe that we all have a look alike, somewhere in this world, that we are not in any way related to.

The gossips of that day would have a good time talking about this resemblance!!!
Is there any documentary proof that your father resembles a TV star?

What was there to cover-up, if that many people knew that William was Andrews illegitimate child? A scandal? Sounds to me like the scandal was old news for many, many, people; in other words, it was NOT the big secret that you are insinuating.

Your word "many" was not defined. Are you talking about the general public, or just the ruling class of Fall River? Even then that would not be shared with children, like Victoria Lincoln. Besides, the knowledge would be after the fact.
Pay attention to Victoria Lincoln's claim that Lizzie was not held in disrepute until after the shoplifting incident!!!

PS Thank you for your questions on this topic. It was your previous question about the alleged inheritance of WSB as a motive that seemed quite valid. Then I thought: why not the obvious reason, a meeting over a loan that couldn't be paid? There are plenty of example of a murder over money.

[RayS]

I would like to know about this *Massachusetts Law* that witholds an illegitimate's birth certificate please?

You can read Arnold Brown's book about his failure to obtain a birth certificate for William S. Borden. He did for the others.
It shows basic detective work to research all the details, unlike Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, De Mille, Sullivan, Spiering, or Masterton. Pardon me if I overlooked someone or something.

[RayS]

I wasn't referring to the other posters.

"Gnats" is plural. You did not name names.

[RayS]

Any speculation about a hired assassin killing both Abby and Andy is ridiculous, given the lack of "documentary proof"!!!
Lawyer Jennings reportedly dropped Lizzie after the shoplifting; he would not have defended a guilty person. IMO
Judge Dewey summed up for the defense; he would not do this if Lizzie was guilty. IMO
The public support for Lizzie would not have happened if she was guilty. IMO Note that disrepute came after the trial.

But an innocent Lizzie shielding an insane relative would have appealed to the male instincts of those days. Besides, there was big money in defending an innocent person.

Clarence Darrow defended his innocent clients with all the power in his body. But if they were guilty, he made a deal.

Don't forget to watch "Justice" on Fox TV (if its as good as last week).

[Kat]

I would like to know about this *Massachusetts Law* that witholds an illegitimate's birth certificate please?

You can read Arnold Brown's book about his failure to obtain a birth certificate for William S. Borden. He did for the others.
It shows basic detective work to research all the details, unlike Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, De Mille, Sullivan, Spiering, or Masterton. Pardon me if I overlooked someone or something.

I figured you would say that, but what about original research of your own, or trying to verify what you espouse from other's own *results*?

[Kat]

Sorry, I can't tell you which video this comes from. Maybe someone will recognize it? It is a comparison made on that video of Andrew and (reputedly) Billy Borden.

[Harry]

The alleged picture of William Borden (no relation to Andrew ) is from the video "Case Reopened", hosted by the late Ed McBain.

This is the video where Bill Pavao performs as William.

The above comparison photo is not the photo used in the video but one I created myself. It is very similar though.

The video also includes and interesting theory by George Quigley, in which he speculates that John Morse hired William Davis to commit the murders.

[Angel]

"Gnats" is plural. You did not name names.

[RayS]

...
The above comparison photo is not the photo used in the video but one I created myself. It is very similar though.

The video also includes and interesting theory by George Quigley, in which he speculates that John Morse hired William Davis to commit the murders.

My editing. Is there any authenticated photo of William S Borden? The guy on the left does not seem similar to Andrew J Borden. IMO There could be a family resemblance to Emma or Lizzie.

Any hired assassin theory fall flat as a pancake given the lack of facts. Why Abby? Andy reportedly had many enemies, like William Brayton (who said he would get even if it was the last thing he did).

Given the Dr Webster - Dr Parkman murder case, and others, the cancelling of a loan by murder is perhaps more common than a quarrel over a will. I intended to reread A. Brown's book, but the idea of an unpaid loan can explain a lot. IMO

[RayS]

I would like to know about this *Massachusetts Law* that witholds an illegitimate's birth certificate please?

You can read Arnold Brown's book about his failure to obtain a birth certificate for William S. Borden. He did for the others.
It shows basic detective work to research all the details, unlike Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, De Mille, Sullivan, Spiering, or Masterton. Pardon me if I overlooked someone or something.

I figured you would say that, but what about original research of your own, or trying to verify what you espouse from other's own *results*?

If your memory is as good as mine, you would remember going thru this about 3 years ago. WHAT research? Going to Fall River to go through dusty records? Many have already down that.
In any case, NO ONE has questioned Brown's comment on Mass law. Did he make a mistake? No one has claimed this. Brown alone researched the William S Borden character.

Does Mass have birth certificates available on-line? If not, where is the repository? Do you think I have nothing else to do, and the money for it?

My "original research" is in "Proof of Brown's Theory - Parts 1 & 2". I was not born and raised in FR, or have relatives who could put me up. 50 yrs ago Agnes De Mille told about the clannishness of New Englanders. I think you would find a similar attitude most everywhere when a stranger started to poke around in an old local scandal.

Take the Hall-Mills case. An unsolved murder. Yet the same family is still very powerful in New Brunswick NJ. 30 yrs ago they commanded the municipal authorities to destroy a few city blocks so their business could be expanded. Not even the "eminent domain" argument! The rich know how to neutralize their enemies, and anyone who snoops around iin old scandal is an enemy.

[Harry]

... Is there any authenticated photo of William S Borden? The guy on the left does not seem similar to Andrew J Borden. IMO There could be a family resemblance to Emma or Lizzie.

According to the video the photo of William was supplied by Henry Hawthorne to Arnold Brown, who in turn lent it for use in the video.

[RayS]

... Is there any authenticated photo of William S Borden? The guy on the left does not seem similar to Andrew J Borden. IMO There could be a family resemblance to Emma or Lizzie.

According to the video the photo of William was supplied by Henry Hawthorne to Arnold Brown, who in turn lent it for use in the video.

But Henry Hawthorne died in 1978!! And Arnold Brown started his book around the mid-to-late 1980s (to be published by 1991 w/ fact checking). I wondered about the 'chain of evidence'. I see no similarities.
Note the similarities in the eyelids of Andy and Lizzie.

I wonder if anyone else has researched this? The invention of Kodaks in the late 1880s led to many photographs being taken, not just on a special occasion.

[Harry]

Well, Arnold Brown in the video sure seemed to think it was him.

Check with the maker of the video. You can purchase a copy at Amazon.

http://tinyurl.com/pyscp

[RayS]

Well, Arnold Brown in the video sure seemed to think it was him.

Check with the maker of the video. You can purchase a copy at Amazon.

http://tinyurl.com/pyscp

I do not wish to contradict Arnold Brown w/o having seen the evideo. Nor will I make any comment about his cancer (of the brain?). I'm sure we all know that aging (over 60 or 70) does affect people.
I just wonder how this lack of similarity would affect his theory.
Does the video say where the picture came from? We've seen those "pictures of Lizzie" advertised for sale.

[Harry]

As for the Kelly maid, Mary Doolan, she was summoned to appear at the trial on the first day, June 5th 1893, but was never called as a witness. Page 185, document HK183

In Glossary "A", page 428, in the back of the Knowlton Papers it shows Mary Doolan living at the Kelly residence from 1893 to 1896. She does not appear in the 1892 City Directory. She does in the 1896 oneas boarding at 240 Second, the Kelly residence. The 1892 Directory does show a "Mary Quinn" boarding at that address. (page 477 of the Directory)

The Directorys however are not on a strict calendar year. For instance the 1893 Directory would include part of 1892 and 1893.

Mary Doolan may have replaced Mary Quinn as the Kelly servant. There is a Miss Mary Quinn listed in the 1896 Directory as boarding at 532 Ferry St.

[Harry]

Does the video say where the picture came from? We've seen those "pictures of Lizzie" advertised for sale.

Yes, as I stated in original post:

"According to the video the photo of William was supplied by Henry Hawthorne to Arnold Brown, who in turn lent it for use in the video."

Other than that you know as much as I do.