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

[Allen]

I am not sure at that point in history that a birth certificate of an illegitimate child would have necessarily held the real birth father's name. Especially if it was conceived by a married man and woman not married to each other. I don't believe that William Borden was Andrew's son by any stretch of my imagination. But even if there was by some miracle that possibility, I don't think in those days the birth father's name would've had much of a chance of being on the birth certificate of such a child. So looking for a birth certificate may not actually prove or disprove anything at all.

[Allen]

The one thing about this theory is the absolute and total lack of proof. No proof that William Borden knew any of the Borden's at 92 Second or that they even knew he was alive. It's easy to make a theory when you don't have to support it with any facts. So William Borden was a real person. That's about the only thing which can truely established as fact in this whole scenario. He actually existed. I could weave my own little theory and it would be based in just as much fact as Brown's. Does that make in the least bit plausible?

Ok, here is another William Borden theory. William and Lizzie met and they fell in love. William had an intimate and drawn out affair with Lizzie because his wife had been ill. He felt that she was a burden and Lizzie helped to lighten his load, so to speak. Williams father Charles was a Deacon who was heavily active in church activites for many years. Religion figured into Williams life so heavily also that it began to have an effect on Lizzie. She became more active in church activities. She became more up beat and lively due to the association with the church and with William. All of her friends begin to take notice of the change in her demeanor.

Andrew finds out his daughter is playing around with a married man and goes through the roof. William kills him, Lizzie covered it up. Lizzie goes to trial to keep her beloved William a secret. The two have to stop seeing each other because it would be to risky to keep up the affair after Lizzie is thankfully aquitted. But Lizzie will never love another man again. She never marries. He was the love of her life. William loses his mind from the emotional distress. He hangs himself. Then end.

All the elements of this story could be said to explain what happened and fit what we know. But can it be proven? No. It is what really happen? Not a chance in this world.

[Allen]

Out of all the searching I have done for some kind of connection, any kind, between Andrew and his supposedly illegitimate son William, or Andrew and Charles and Phebe, this is all I could come up with.

Rebello pabe 377:

Deacon Charles A. Borden died in Fall River, August 5, 1883, at the age of seventy-one. Burial took place at Oak Grove Cemetery. He was survived by one sister, his widow Peace Borden, and four children: Amanda ( Borden) Taylor, Eliza Ann Borden, William S. Borden ( from his first marriage) and Joseph H. Borden ( from his second marriage). A tribute and obituary provides insight into Mr. Borden's life while in Fall River.

"...Though early and constantly under religious influences, he dates his conversion from July 4, 1833, when, as we often heard him relate, he retired on that anniversary of our country's birthday to the woods, and spent the whole day in prayer on his knees. To him it was ever afterwards, on its annual recurrence, a day of freedom in a double sense. he was baptized July 4th, 1833 by the late Rev. Asa Bronson, who had then just commenced his labors here as pastor of the First Baptist Church, and which Deacon Borden immediately united...To his widow who was so truly a helpmate to him in life, and who with his children, ministered to him so lovingly in sickness, we extend our warmest sympathies./signed/R." Fall River Evening News, August 6, 1883:)

Page 22:

m.2 Abby Durfee Gray, born January 21, 1828, and died August 4, 1892. She was the daughter of Oliver Gray and Sarah Sawyer Gray. Andrew J. Borden married Abby Durfee Gray, June 6, 1865.

"June 6, 1865, by Rev. A. [Asa] Bronson, Andrew J. Borden, Esq. to Miss Abbie D. Gray, daughter of Mr. Oliver Gray of this city." ( June 7, 1865, newspaper has not been identified.)

----------------------------------------------

Note: The Rev. Asa Bronson was a pastor at the First Baptist Church in Fall River and a general member of the school committee in 1835. The First Baptist Church was organized in 1781, located at the Narrows in Fall River. It was then called the Second Baptist Church in Tiverton, Rhode Island, until 1825. It was relocated in Fall River and given the name of First Baptist Church. The building was dedicated on September 16, 1840. Rev. Bronson was the grandfather of Charles C. Cook, financial advisor for Andrew Borden and later, Emma and Lizzie. Fall River Evening News, May 8, 1896:7.


Lot of deaths in August here. All of the of them Charles, Andrew, and Abby.

[doug65oh]

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

Kat posed that question, yesterday I believe? I did a bit of nosing around in the General Laws of Massachusetts last evening and discovered the following, presumably that which Brown used as indirect evidence to support his theory:

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE VII. CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 46. RETURN AND REGISTRY OF BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS
Chapter 46: Section 1. Certificates of birth, marriage, death and acknowledgments and adjudications of paternity; contents; residence defined

Section 1. Each town clerk shall receive or obtain and record the following facts, as well as such additional information that may be required under federal statutes or contracts, regulations promulgated pursuant to section 4 of chapter 17, or, as the commissioner of public health may require, relative to births, marriage, acknowledgments and adjudications of paternity and deaths which occurred in the town and for certificates of marriage issued by the town.

In the record of births, date of birth, place of birth, name and sex of child; names, places of birth, and dates of birth of both parents; and residence and birth surname of the child’s mother. In the record of birth of a child born to parents not married to each other, the name of and other facts relating to the father shall not be recorded except as provided in section 2 of chapter 209C* where paternity has been acknowledged or adjudicated under the laws of the commonwealth or under the law of any other jurisdiction.

*The Chapter and Section referred to above (209C) reads as follows:

TITLE III. DOMESTIC RELATIONS

CHAPTER 209C. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

Chapter 209C: Section 2. Paternity; acknowledgment or adjudication; statistical information of parties; transmission to registrar
Section 2. Paternity may be established by filing with the court, the clerk of the city or town where the child was born or the registrar of vital records and statistics an acknowledgment of parentage executed by both parents pursuant to section 11 or pursuant to an action to establish paternity filed pursuant to this chapter; provided, however, that if a judgment or finding of paternity has been issued by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction under the law of another state or foreign country or if both parents executed a voluntary acknowledgment of parentage in accordance with the law of another state or foreign country, such judgment, finding or voluntary acknowledgment shall be accorded full faith and credit and paternity shall not be relitigated. Upon receipt of an acknowledgment of paternity, the clerk of such city or town shall forward the original acknowledgment to said registrar as provided in chapter 46. Upon receipt of an acknowledgment of parentage or upon an adjudication of paternity under this chapter, the court shall transmit to the registrar of vital records and statistics a certified copy of the acknowledgment or order establishing paternity, together with such statistical information as said registrar may require, upon such form and in such format as designated by said registrar, which shall include the name, residence, date of birth, place of birth and social security number of each of the parties and the child, the sex of the child, and such additional information as the commissioner of public health deems useful for statistical and research purposes. Actions to establish support obligations or for custody or visitation rights may also be filed pursuant to this chapter.
--------------
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/46-2a.htm
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/209c-2.htm

What does all this gobbledygook mean? It means that AR Brown, one of his helpers, the tooth faerie, whomever - they did a bit of legwork and found a modern-day legal "hook" on which to hang Billy Borden's hat, as it were. The law is the law - and the above language states the law as it exists at this time, up to 31 May of this year.

It was possibly the law of the Commonwealth when Brown penned his book several years ago - to presume that is entirely reasonable. Beyond that we cannot tell, because we lack any sort of historical indication as to when the above-quoted statutes took effect. (Some states - Vermont for example - do provide at least some legislative history; Massachusetts apparently does not.)

Was it the law in (or before) 1892? We have no idea. Is that a valid presumption? At this point...no, it's not. More research at the very least (genuine research) is needed.

[Kat]

YAY! That was Good! Thanks!

[RayS]

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.

Other than that you know as much as I do.
Why thanks for the compliment! I didn't have time to check, but does that picture resemble a young John V. Morse?
I'll correct this when I can find Morse's photo.

[RayS]

The bottom line is this: there had to be some reason for Lizzie to withhold her identification of the visitor. Unless she saw and heard no one! But she did say "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" and did try to get Bridget away from the first floor after Andy returned. IMO

[Kat]

BTW: Missy, thank you so much for the transcription from Rebello!
Good stuff!

[Allen]

Thanks, Kat. And thanks doug for the transcription of Mass. law.

[Kat]

BTW2: I really liked your instant theory and think it's almost wasted here in this topic!
Sounds like a winner.

[twinsrwe]

Awesome posts, Allen and doug65oh! Thank-you.

[twinsrwe]

The one thing about this theory is the absolute and total lack of proof. No proof that William Borden knew any of the Borden's at 92 Second or that they even knew he was alive. .

Bingo! This has been my thinking throughout this entire topic - parts 1 and 2. No theory is plausible without the proof to back it up.

BTW: Love your new William Borden theory!

[twinsrwe]

In the record of birth of a child born to parents not married to each other, the name of and other facts relating to the father shall not be recorded except as provided in section 2 of chapter 209C* where paternity has been acknowledged or adjudicated under the laws of the commonwealth or under the law of any other jurisdiction.

This is still true today; fathers of an illegitimate child will be listed as 'unknown', especially if the mother, for varies reasons, does not want the name of the father to be public knowledge.

[RayS]

The one thing about this theory is the absolute and total lack of proof. No proof that William Borden knew any of the Borden's at 92 Second or that they even knew he was alive. It's easy to make a theory when you don't have to support it with any facts. So William Borden was a real person. That's about the only thing which can truely established as fact in this whole scenario. He actually existed. I could weave my own little theory and it would be based in just as much fact as Brown's. Does that make in the least bit plausible?

Ok, here is another William Borden theory. William and Lizzie met and they fell in love. William had an intimate and drawn out affair with Lizzie because his wife had been ill. He felt that she was a burden and Lizzie helped to lighten his load, so to speak. Williams father Charles was a Deacon who was heavily active in church activites for many years. Religion figured into Williams life so heavily also that it began to have an effect on Lizzie. She became more active in church activities. She became more up beat and lively due to the association with the church and with William. All of her friends begin to take notice of the change in her demeanor.

Andrew finds out his daughter is playing around with a married man and goes through the roof. William kills him, Lizzie covered it up. Lizzie goes to trial to keep her beloved William a secret. The two have to stop seeing each other because it would be to risky to keep up the affair after Lizzie is thankfully aquitted. But Lizzie will never love another man again. She never marries. He was the love of her life. William loses his mind from the emotional distress. He hangs himself. Then end.

All the elements of this story could be said to explain what happened and fit what we know. But can it be proven? No. It is what really happen? Not a chance in this world.

Great synopsis for a novel. Engstrom, McBain, etc watch out!

But there is the fact that A. Jennings defended Lizzie, but reportedly dropped her after an alleged shoplifting incident. Therefore he would not have defended someone part of a murder plot. Also, I doubt if Judge Justin Dewey would have summed up for the defense, as he did.

Another fault is that it is not based on contemporary records.
At least you are not the contrary persons who say WSB never existed. I think it is quite likely that a cousin (?) would have known about his rich relatives. WSB seems to have been institutionalized at age 21. I don't see that makes him desirable. And what about his personal habits? Lizzie, like others today, may not have like a husband who spent a lot of time in a cow barn.

[twinsrwe]

The bottom line is this: there had to be some reason for Lizzie to withhold her identification of the visitor. Unless she saw and heard no one! But she did say "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" and did try to get Bridget away from the first floor after Andy returned. IMO

The statement made by Lizzie of "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father" also points to Lizzie Borden herself; she was not Bridget and she did not work for father. It's true that Lizzie did try to get Bridget away from the house, but then, Lizzie may have wanted to make sure that Bridget could not possibly be a witness when Lizzie killed her father. 'Lucky Lizzie' just happened to get her wish when Bridget decided to take a nap.

[RayS]

The one thing about this theory is the absolute and total lack of proof. No proof that William Borden knew any of the Borden's at 92 Second or that they even knew he was alive. .

Bingo! This has been my thinking throughout this entire topic - parts 1 and 2. No theory is plausible without the proof to back it up.

BTW: Love your new William Borden theory!

The proof is inferred from the hidden history of this case. The true facts were kept hidden, what was known was not the Whole Truth. In short, it was a cover-up (as per A. Brown).

Note that after serving a wealthy person (and losing a case) Hosea Knowlton was promoted and appointed State Attorney General! Then Andrew Jennings was appointed D.A. for the County!! If this doesn't suggest some conspiracy, you are not intelligent enough to follow Brown's Theory.
I apologize for my frankness if it offends you.

BTW did you read about the jailing of the former Governor of Illinois?

[RayS]

The bottom line is this: there had to be some reason for Lizzie to withhold her identification of the visitor. Unless she saw and heard no one! But she did say "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" and did try to get Bridget away from the first floor after Andy returned. IMO

The statement made by Lizzie of "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father" also points to Lizzie Borden herself; she was not Bridget and she did not work for father. It's true that Lizzie did try to get Bridget away from the house, but then, Lizzie may have wanted to make sure that Bridget could not possibly be a witness when Lizze killed her father. 'Lucky Lizzie' just happened to get her wish when Bridget decided to take a nap.

No blood spatterd clothes, socks, or shoes. No murder weapong. Lizzie was not guilty then, and she is not guilty now.
I suppose you are one of those who think the lack of evidence is proof of guilt?

[RayS]

The one thing about this theory is the absolute and total lack of proof. No proof that William Borden knew any of the Borden's at 92 Second or that they even knew he was alive. .

Bingo! This has been my thinking throughout this entire topic - parts 1 and 2. No theory is plausible without the proof to back it up.

BTW: Love your new William Borden theory!

So just what is your definition of "proof" in this case? A crime that was covered up by the authorities!
Those who lived in the same county would know quite well about rich relatives. Mayber even one county away?
PS
You do know that the police operated on an intruder theory until they came to a dead end (no pun). Then they began to look at Lizzie.
A lack of evidence is not proof of guilt.

[twinsrwe]

The one thing about this theory is the absolute and total lack of proof. No proof that William Borden knew any of the Borden's at 92 Second or that they even knew he was alive. .

Bingo! This has been my thinking throughout this entire topic - parts 1 and 2. No theory is plausible without the proof to back it up.

BTW: Love your new William Borden theory!

The proof is inferred from the hidden history of this case. The true facts were kept hidden, what was known was not the Whole Truth. In short, it was a cover-up (as per A. Brown).

Note that after serving a wealthy person (and losing a case) Hosea Knowlton was promoted and appointed State Attorney General! Then Andrew Jennings was appointed D.A. for the County!! If this doesn't suggest some conspiracy, you are not intelligent enough to follow Brown's Theory.
I apologize for my frankness if it offends you.

BTW did you read about the jailing of the former Governor of Illinois?

I didn't say there wasn't a conspiracy - just because I don't fall all over every word you say, and worship the ground you walk on, doesn't mean I am not intelligent. On the same hand, just because I don't believe every word Arnold Brown wrote, just because he wrote it, does not mean I am not intelligent. Don't apologize for your frankness - if you were truly sorry, you would have re-stated your sentence in a more tactful way before submitting your post. Now, be sure to insult me again.

[twinsrwe]

The one thing about this theory is the absolute and total lack of proof. No proof that William Borden knew any of the Borden's at 92 Second or that they even knew he was alive. .

Bingo! This has been my thinking throughout this entire topic - parts 1 and 2. No theory is plausible without the proof to back it up.

BTW: Love your new William Borden theory!

So just what is your definition of "proof" in this case? A crime that was covered up by the authorities!
Those who lived in the same county would know quite well about rich relatives. Mayber even one county away?
PS
You do know that the police operated on an intruder theory until they came to a dead end (no pun). Then they began to look at Lizzie.
A lack of evidence is not proof of guilt.

I have already given you my definition of "proof" in your topic which you tiled Proof of Arnold Brown's Theory Part 1 of 2 - Look it up.

[twinsrwe]

The bottom line is this: there had to be some reason for Lizzie to withhold her identification of the visitor. Unless she saw and heard no one! But she did say "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" and did try to get Bridget away from the first floor after Andy returned. IMO

The statement made by Lizzie of "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father" also points to Lizzie Borden herself; she was not Bridget and she did not work for father. It's true that Lizzie did try to get Bridget away from the house, but then, Lizzie may have wanted to make sure that Bridget could not possibly be a witness when Lizze killed her father. 'Lucky Lizzie' just happened to get her wish when Bridget decided to take a nap.

No blood spatterd clothes, socks, or shoes. No murder weapong. Lizzie was not guilty then, and she is not guilty now.
I suppose you are one of those who think the lack of evidence is proof of guilt?

You missed my point, didn't you? My point is: It could have been anybody - anybody who was not Bridget or worked for Andrew, which means any resident of Fall River, and/or surrounding areas; this would include LIZZIE. (IMO): Just because Lizzie was found not guilty does not means she didn't do it - it just means there was not enough evidence to convict her. If nothing else she was guilty of not telling who the killer was when according to her statement she knew who it was. So far, you have not given us any evidence for your theory either.

[RayS]

I now feel better after eating lunch. I guess I shouldn't post here on an empty stomach? Too grouchy?

Just because Lizzie was found not guilty does not means she didn't do it - it just means there was not enough evidence to convict her. If nothing else she was guilty of not telling who the killer was when according to her statemnt she knew who it was. So far, you have not given us any evidence for your theory either.

Does anyone else agree with that statement (bold)?
Does it make any sense?
Was there enough evidence for an indictment? Brown mentions that the Grand Jury sat for a week, then paused. Only after Alice Russell told her story was Lizzie arrested.

Note that the Grand Jury heard John and Patsy Ramsey, then did not indict them.

[RayS]

I have already given you my definition of "proof" in your topic which you tiled Proof of Arnold Brown's Theory Part 1 of 2 - Look it up.

I have read a number of books on this case. My "proof" is as good as theirs: merely saying "it is so". (!)
Isn't that true of Pearson (unread since 1965?), Radin, Lincoln, De Mille, Sullivan, Spiering, and Brown? So why are you so picky? I have provided a proof (one definition from the dictionary). All you have to do is to provide a disproof. By that I mean any claim that is obviously false.

The simple fact is that arguing from circumstantial evidence almost always has more than one interpretation. Ex: Lizzie mentioned to Bridget about a sale on cloth. Was this to get her out of the house for the secret meeting w/ Andy, or so she could commit a murder of her Dear Father?

I do like being tested by your questions. But I wonder how much of your homework have you done?

PS I wonder in what part of Wisconsin you live in? And your age? I'll assume you are over 30, based on your questions.

[Kat]

Oh Lizzie was arrested all right!
She just had to wait to December to be indicted.
If the dress burning grand jury testimony got her indicted, then you just have to accept that as part of the evidence against her.

Blaisdell said if Lizzie had been a man there would have been no question about an arrest and a probably guilty verdict in a prelim.
Probably a guilty verdict in trial as well, in my opinion.

In reply to:

Does anyone else agree with that statement (bold)?
Does it make any sense?
Was there enough evidence for an indictment? Brown mentions that the Grand Jury sat for a week, then paused. Only after Alice Russell told her story was Lizzie arrested.

--ray

[RayS]

I have quoted a definition of "proof" from my dictionary. There are multiple meanings. Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
You can lead a horse to water (or truth) but you can't make them drink (or believe). Or am I wrong?

[RayS]

First I would like to thank Kat for being less touchy than some others. Thanks again!!

Oh Lizzie was arrested all right!
She just had to wait to December to be indicted.
If the dress burning grand jury testimony got her indicted, then you just have to accept that as part of the evidence against her.

Brown says the plot was to arrest someone to get the workers back to their jobs. Most writers do not understand the importance of that! Brown's job experience would make him very very understanding of lost production.
While I pretty much follow Brown's theory, you can see how I think for myself. I'd like to think Brown would agree that a visit over a loan coming due would avoid the complexities of a will.
My Dad and Mom make their will w/o their children present. (Basically, we knew it would happen, but we didn't want to talk about it.)

[RayS]

...
Blaisdell said if Lizzie had been a man there would have been no question about an arrest and a probably guilty verdict in a prelim.
Probably a guilty verdict in trial as well, in my opinion.
...

I believe you meant to type "Inquest" not Preliminary Hearing.
Most states east of the Mississippi use a Grand Jury (prosecution's case is kept secret until the trial), while west of the Big Muddy they use a Preliminary Hearing (famous in most of the "Perry Mason" stories).
A Preliminary Hearing exposed the Prosecution's case, and gets it on the record. There can be no coaching or rehearsing etc to build a better case. The Defense is prewarned. Nowadays the Brady Rule says exculpatory evidence must be made available to the Defense.

But the state can still use a Grand Jury (as in OJ Simpson or the Ramseys). When the Grand Jury reportedly was refusing to indict OJ, they went for a Preliminary Hearing (or so I read).
PS
The Grand Jury did not indict the Ramseys.

[Kat]

No not a mistake. I'm kind of an expert on the Preliminary Hearing. Working with Harry and Stefani we have put out an impressive edition of it.

Here is what i call a Legal Chronolgy. It can be found at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/
ChronologyLegal.htm

Crime Library

Legal Chronology


AUG. 4, 1892    Murders of Andrew and Abby Borden

AUG. 6     Graveside Service

AUG. 6     Accusation Made By Mayor- Lizzie "suspect" 

AUG. 8    Warrant Issued- not served

AUG. 9-11   INQUEST

AUG. 11   Lizzie Borden Arrested

AUG. 12   Arraigned- "probable cause"- pleaded "not guilty" - sent to Taunton

AUG. 25-SEPT. 1    PRELIMINARY HEARING*

NOV. 7-21    GRAND JURY- Taunton (also heard other cases)

DEC. 1     GRAND JURY- reconvened (Alice Russell testimony)

DEC. 2    INDICTED

MAY 8, 1893   Arraigned- Superior Court- New Bedford

 JUNE 5-20    TRIAL- acquittal 


*--At the end of the Preliminary Hearing, Lizzie was judged "Probably Guilty" and that statement was pulled from Porter's book.

Judge Blaisdell: “The long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say 'Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.' But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by that guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden; was the first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers; then he was out in the yard; then he was out for something else; would there be any question in the minds of men what should be done with such a man?
“So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be-the judgment of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Superior Court.”

[RayS]

Yes! I acknowledge the completeness of your records. Now lets look at the Big Picture.
BOTH a Preliminary Hearing and a Grand Jury??? Something is going on in the background here! Usually you only need one.
Brown says they were cooking up something, the failure of the Grand Jury to indict Lizzie (not enough evidence to convict, which is certainly true) would have ended her ordeal. But somebody decided otherwise. (I wonder who provided legal advice to Alice Russell?)

Note the length of time. Murder in August, Inquest, then Preliminary Hearing, then Grand Jury in Nov-Dec. Then a trial in June. I believe that justice was swifter in those days. Any ordinary case would see the trial and conviction the next month, the execution the next month (3 months). Those w/ better references can speak up. Wasn't this long time lapse unusual?

Hence I believe that the idea of a Mellen House Gang cooking up this case is very likely.

[Kat]

Don't forget 2 arrest warrants and 2 arraignments!

[RayS]

Don't forget 2 arrest warrants and 2 arraignments!

That speaks of some confusion about what to arrest her for.
Is this found in Arnold Brown's book? I thought the first warrant was suppressed and is not public record?

[RayS]

Arnold Brown spent TWO YEARS on his research into this case. He believes the murders occurred because William S. Borden was upset over Andrew Borden's will which did not acknowledge his parentage. I won't disagree, since he did identify a likely suspect.

I think it may be more likely over a loan coming due. The bottom line in either case would be these headlines around the state and country.

Andrew Borden Murdered by Nephew!
Dispute over a Loan (or Inheritance)

Many may have decided that Andy fooled the wrong person at last. There may have been some sympathy among the likely jurors, but they would find the facts in this case. I think you can understand why Lizzie would prefer to hide this scandal?

[Kat]

Is that part, that you have written in bold, a fake headline, that you made up?

BTW: Here is a reference to a nephew in the Jennings' papers called The Hip-bath Collection:

m.  Brigham Mr.--told Phillips that one Follett, 25 Calender St. Prov. R.I. told him that Mr. Borden had nephews in Providence--one of them resembles Dr. Handy's description and is capable of committing such a crime, the other nephew was killed in a road house 2 or 3 years ago.

viewtopic.php?t=37

[Harry]

Here's a Borden which might be new to y'all - Felix Borden.

From my collection of obscure Borden murder newsclips:

"Manitoba Morning Free Press, Tuesday, June 20, 1893 - Page 2

MYSTERIOUS MATTER.
A Strange Story Connected With
The Borden Murder.

New York, June 19. – The World's special from Baltimore says: Mrs. Ramsey, who keeps a boarding house at No. 333 St. Paul street says that previous to the Borden murders a boy came from New England and boarded with her. He told her that he was the adopted son of Lizzie Borden's uncle, and that his name was Felix Borden. He said that his parent's name was Desroches.
From all accounts he did not live happily with the Bordens, and as a result of a disagreement with them he left home suddenly. Felix told Mrs. Ramsey that his home was in New Bedford or Fall River. He spent his money freely. He did not pay his board bill and left, saying he was going to his home in Massachusetts to get money to settle. A few days after Felix left, the Borden murders were committed. He returned to Baltimore. On one occasion Mrs. Ramsey spoke to Felix about the murders. She says that he replied: "Oh, Lizzie did it."
Asked if the young man was ever heard to make any threatening remarks about the Bordens of Massachusetts, Mrs. Ramsey said: "During the two years Felix lived here he spoke frequently of the Bordens, and judging from his remarks I didn't think he cared very much for them. He referred, I remember, on one occasion to some old woman up there and did not speak very complimentary of her. I judged from his remarks that he had a quarrel with his people before he came here, although he (garbled at this point).
[Asked to] describe the young man, Mrs. Ramsey said he was a medium sized fellow, with dark hair, and when he left was 21 years old. His description, it is said, tallies with that given by several witnesses on Thursday, who said they saw a strange young man at the Borden gate the morning of the murder. Young Borden left Baltimore last fall and has not been heard of since."

I love this stuff!

[doug65oh]

Harry, you're a gold mine!

[joe]

I checked Ancestry, NEGS, LDS and census. Couldn't find any Felix Borden or Desroches anywhere. I came across a FELIS, however in the 1910 census for Little Rock, Arkansas. Here is the exact info from that record:
Name: Felis Booden
[Felix Borden]
Age in 1910: 37
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1873
BirthPlace: Massachusetts
Relation to Head of House: Son-in-law
Father's Birth Place: Massachusetts
Mother's Birth Place: Massachusetts
Spouses's Name: FlorentinoL
Home in 1910: Little Rock Ward 3, Pulaski, Arkansas
Marital Status: Married
Race: White
Gender: Male

[Harry]

Thanks for trying, Joe. I think Felix is just another name created by the "cranks" who loved to write letters.

Knowlton received a ton of them. So did Hillard. Apparently Jennings received some as well as evidenced by the "Robinsky" letter.

[RayS]

Thanks for trying, Joe. I think Felix is just another name created by the "cranks" who loved to write letters.

Knowlton received a ton of them. So did Hillard. Apparently Jennings received some as well as evidenced by the "Robinsky" letter.

I thought the rules for reporting was to get two independent sources for any alleged fact. One person and a confederate could just be making up stories or legends. Like the story of Lizzie and the cat (which ever you choose). Newspapers then were less reliable, some say.
You can see the play or movie "The Front Page" to get an idea of this.

[RayS]

Is that part, that you have written in bold, a fake headline, that you made up?
BTW: Here is a reference to a nephew in the Jennings' papers called The Hip-bath Collection:

m.  Brigham Mr.--told Phillips that one Follett, 25 Calender St. Prov. R.I. told him that Mr. Borden had nephews in Providence--one of them resembles Dr. Handy's description and is capable of committing such a crime, the other nephew was killed in a road house 2 or 3 years ago.

viewtopic.php?t=37

For shame!!! I did not quote from any newspaper headline!!!
I said that was what the headlines would be if Andy was killed by a nephew. Nobody here expected this of a niece?

The fact of a nephew who resembled the person described could be more than a coincidence. Dr. Handy could not be part of a conspiracy. IMO

The problem is this:
1) the murderer would have to be a close relative who would be shielded by Lizzie. Lizzie had no known boyfriend.
2) The local ruling class would go along with this cover-up. We know they dropped Lizzie over that 1897 shoplifting incident, which was not over family honor.

[Kat]

Of course you did not quote from any real headline.
Just wanted it verified that you made it up. So people know.
It can confuse people the way you put it.

[RayS]

Of course you did not quote from any real headline.
Just wanted it verified that you made it up. So people know.
It can confuse people the way you put it.

Did anyone get the wrong impression? I hope not.

[RayS]

I interpret the varying stories told by Lizzie about her presence at the time to be part of the cover-up. Not that she knew nothing.

First in the backyard, second in the barn, third upstairs in the barn. Each put her farther away from the back door, and seeing whoever left that way.

Who would she cover-up for? And why would the Mellen House Gang agree to the cover-up? I believe the answer is a relative, someone whose mental condition would make a diminished capacity plea likely.

There was a teenage child murderer in the Boston area circa 1880s. When caught and convicted he got a life sentence.

[RayS]

No Weapon ever proven or found ! No blood evidence where it should have been. Questionable circumstantial evidence? Investigation most likely botched by police. Jury's hand were tied. Case closed..........not guilty. Simple as that.

The absence of the murder weapon and lack of bloodstains tells me it was an intruder. So why did Lizzie clam up? Because she saw nothing?

Suppose Ellan Eagan told the police about seeing a stranger and describing? I'll bet the crime would have been solved then.

Or maybe she cleaned herself up, with help from Brdiget. But, even if it was an intruder, there is going to be blood somewhere. Maybe sloopy police work? As for LIzzie not seeing any thing, someone in the house had to let the intruder in. Bridget Lizzie or Abby had to have let the person in, so that would lead be to ask why didn't the intruder kill everyone in the house. He left two living witnesses.

You are making an assumption that only one of the living let the Visitor in. I think it is most likely that Andy let him in for the visit (my surmise).
Everyone here (?) believes that Bridget played no part in this. Lizzie knew what Andy would do, meet with a relative about a loan (as he often did business at home).
I believe that the Visitor was let in the unlocked front door while everyone was saying goodbye to Uncle John at the back door. Seems logical to me.

[theebmonique]

Ray...may I ask why you are quoting and responding in THIS thread to posts from OTHER threads ? Maybe you have a valid reason why you would not respond in the original thread ?





Tracy...

[Kat]

Did ray copy a post from another topic and paste it here?

Tracy you certainly are on the ball.

Usually you can move your own posts around, but not move others without their knowledge and consent.

BTW: Bridget and Morse know who was at the side door to see Morse out that morning and it was Andrew.
That would leave Abbie and Lizzie to open the front door.
Does that fit your theory ray?

[theebmonique]

Did ray copy a post from another topic and paste it here?

Yes, Ray's above quote of Snokkums is from the Trial Being Fixed thread.





Tracy...

[RayS]

It seems to me my topic on Fixing the Verdict was hijacked by another.
So I just put that train of thought back on the rails.

[Nadzieja]

Forgive my ignorance I am new to this forum. I have been fascinated by this case for many years. However I am not sure who Arnold Brown is, I am assuming he is an author. So could someone please send the name of the book. thanks. Nadzieja

[twinsrwe]

Forgive my ignorance I am new to this forum. I have been fascinated by this case for many years. However I am not sure who Arnold Brown is, I am assuming he is an author. So could someone please send the name of the book. thanks. Nadzieja

Welcome to the forum, Nadzieja! I hope you will find it enjoyable, as well as informative.
Arnold Brown is the author of the book titled: Lizzie Borden, the legend, the truth, the final chapter.

[RayS]

I would recommend reading David Kent's "40 Whacks" to gain knowledge of this unsolved murder. The first half of William Masterton's book is OK, but Kent's book is better.
Then read whatever pleases you. At the end read Arnold R. Brown's book on the murders, and test it against what you know.

The 'Library Journal' recommends Brown's book for each library system, as quoted in the Amazon.com reviews. Does any other Lizzie Borden book have this recommendation?