Arnold Brown’s Theory - Part 4 of 5

[RayS]

Willy Did It, Here's How it Happened
Brown’s Theory - Part 4

In Part 1 I explained how the facts say the murders were done by an intruder. Lizzie and Bridget were not guilty due to a lack of physical evidence (bloodstains and murder weapon).
In Part 2 I discussed the motive for the murder. I think Andy Borden’s moneylending was the likely cause of the crime. There are plenty examples of this in True Crime, such as the Drs Parkman-Webster case. Some who owe money will erase their loan by rubbing out the lender.
Part 3 was unplanned, it notes the unusual facts that say the verdict was fixed as to outcome.
Part 4 deals with the big question: why would Lizzie shield a relative for the brutal murder of her Father? Because of a dark and dirty secret than could lead to jury nullification in any trial of the murderer. Arnold Brown identified Lizzie’s cousin as the real killer whose identity was kept secret. It makes sense to me. My surmise lacks any documentation beyond the facts reported in various books over the years. I only connected the dots.

This story started the year before. Crafty Andy used his economic and political power to cause buyers to avoid William S. Borden’s produce. Uncle John then casually met Willy and suggested he borrow money from his rich uncle. A meeting was arranged, the loan was made, and Willy signed a note promising to repay on August 3 next year with his homestead as security. The next year Andy kept up his dirty tricks. When Willy couldn’t pay Andy would get his homestead. Uncle John arranged another meeting for August 4th so Willy could plead for an extension of the loan. (This trick would put Willy in default on the loan!)

The secret meeting would be at Andy’s house so people wouldn’t comment on the resemblance between Andy and nephew Willy. All went according to plan except for one little hitch. Abby did not leave the house as planned. Abby met Willy in the guest bedroom and told him how sorry she was about this swindle. “It was all a trick to swindle you out of your homestead.” Willy became so enraged at being fooled that he killed the messenger who conveyed the bad news. But now Willy knew what was planned for him, and waited for Andy to return for their meeting. Now he would get even with Andy Borden as many had vowed but none had ever accomplished. You know the rest.

Lizzie and Emma knew of this swindle. This is why Emma didn’t want to be around when this dirty trick was done and went away. Lizzie now had a dilemma. To remain silent and let the murderer of her Father escape justice, or to tell all and besmirch Andy’s reputation even more. I don’t think Lizzie knew of her future troubles when she decided to remain silent and make the most of this turn of events. This swindle could have led a jury to find Willy not guilty of murder, even more of a scandal. An open season on loan sharks? The ruling class supported Lizzie as part of their unity. Others because Lizzie seemed to be persecuted by police who could find no other suspect.

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

[RayS]

If you don't want me to make any harsh replies to your comments, please hold off until Dec 4. Thank You.
I except 'twinsre' who is reading Brown's book, and Kat as the expert with the sources at her fingertips.
Yes, this finishes my treatment of Brown's theory. It is logically consistent with the known facts, as far as I know. I did not spend "two years" in research on this case, like Brown did.
I hope those who will comment have at least read the book.

[theebmonique]

May I please ask the significance of waiting until December 4th ?





Tracy...

[Smudgeman]

Really, who cares? We are all supposed to wait in anticipation for Dec. 4th?

[StevenB]

Sorry, I don't buy it, Yah I would buy it it wasn't for the fact that Willy smelled so bad people couldn't stand being with him. If you remove that fact then yes, Brown's theory is a good one. Somone that smelled that bad wouldn't have been asked to the Borden home, and if he had been it would be obvious that he was in the house. Willy's "smell" is simple an overwhelming truth that makes this theory hold up like a leaky boat!



StevenB

[StevenB]

Maybe thats the day his Social Security check comes in........


StevenB

If you don't want me to make any harsh replies to your comments, please hold off until Dec 4. Thank You.
I except 'twinsre' who is reading Brown's book, and Kat as the expert with the sources at her fingertips.
Yes, this finishes my treatment of Brown's theory. It is logically consistent with the known facts, as far as I know. I did not spend "two years" in research on this case, like Brown did.
I hope those who will comment have at least read the book.

[RayS]

Maybe thats the day his Social Security check comes in........
StevenB

I see you know as much about Social Security pay dates as you know about this case. Next to nothing.
Why don't you call SS and ask them to get reliable information?
Next, if they have a library in town, you can see what books they have on this case.

DON'T bother to complain about my diplomatic tact and finesse.

[RayS]

Sorry, I don't buy it, Yah I would buy it it wasn't for the fact that Willy smelled so bad people couldn't stand being with him. If you remove that fact then yes, Brown's theory is a good one. Somone that smelled that bad wouldn't have been asked to the Borden home, and if he had been it would be obvious that he was in the house. Willy's "smell" is simple an overwhelming truth that makes this theory hold up like a leaky boat!
StevenB

Again about reading a book. WHERE in Brown's book does it say that: "Willy smelled so bad people couldn't stand being with him".
Aren't you quoting from a misquote? How can you justify that?

Let 'twinrwe' talk about those who work in a dairy barn. Today there are no work horses, so that may be strange to most people here.

Why don't you just reread Parts 1, 2, and 4 and compare them to the known facts? Thank you for your attention.

[mbhenty]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, sorry, please forgive, ha ha ha, this is great Theatre, ha ha ha ha...............

[RayS]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, sorry, please forgive, ha ha ha, this is great Theatre, ha ha ha ha...............

Is that the best you can do to contribute to this discussion?

[Smudgeman]

There you go again Rays. See, this is a perfect example of why people DON"T LIKE YOU! Don't tell somebody what to do and how to do it. You just can't take it when your expert opinion on the case is challenged. You haven't read a book on the case in years, and refuse to read the resources that are available to you here, its called TUNNEL VISION, and it is laughable when you try to act like you have the "inside track" on solving this crime. I will be waiting on pins and needles for your reply on Dec. 4th

[mbhenty]

No, no, sorry Ray; it's just that I do find you a great orator, or should I say, communicator. Your convictions are iron clad and your approach, though laced in subtle humor, has a twist of genius in it. You may not get many to agree with you but you sure get them to listen....

But right you are once again. Perhaps I should not speak unless I have something of value to add. But as you once hinted, if one is to throw his hat into the ring and discuss Brown's book the least he/she can do is read it first. Of course I read it when it was first published and had my copy handed to me by Mr. Brown himself. But I must admit-----not enough for me to comment on till I read it once more.

But don't take my chuckle as an insult my friend, the wit you display brings a smile to my face.

Carry on my good man.

[mbhenty]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, sorry, please forgive, ha ha ha, this is great Theatre, ha ha ha ha...............

Is that the best you can do to contribute to this discussion?

You know Ray, I can ask you the same you know. In discussing the Borden case----- Arnold Brown's book----is that the best you can do?

[StevenB]

BROWN, PAGE 25:

.....It was his odor - one that she had never smelled before. It was not not sour, not sweet, not a manure smell, not sweat....not anything she could even imaging! Intent on getting help she ducked into the first yard she came to, gasping, and sobbing. THEn SHE WAS SICK.

BROWN Page 20:

It was that ordor that stunned her her, and when the first horsecar passed, she had an imaginary glimpse of the man in the long coat..... and a lingering, chilling whiff of that forgotten smell.......

Also see BROWN pages 295-296


FROM BROWN WHICh IS SITTING NEXT TO ME!



StevenB

[RayS]

BROWN, PAGE 25:

.....It was his odor - one that she had never smelled before. It was not not sour, not sweet, not a manure smell, not sweat....not anything she could even imaging! Intent on getting help she ducked into the first yard she came to, gasping, and sobbing. THEn SHE WAS SICK.

BROWN Page 20:

It was that ordor that stunned her her, and when the first horsecar passed, she had an imaginary glimpse of the man in the long coat..... and a lingering, chilling whiff of that forgotten smell.......

Also see BROWN pages 295-296


FROM BROWN WHICh IS SITTING NEXT TO ME!



StevenB

You realize you are quoting from an old recollection that was used to identify a probable suspect? There is nothing in Part 1-4 that depend or even mention the word "smell" or "odor". Brown used the memoirs written about 80 years after the crime for his starting investigation.

Nobody says the odor was so horrible (like a skunk smell?).

1) There were many rumors about the solution to this case. One, that "Lizzie paid off the judges" certainly seems probable given the facts.
2) The evidence Brown found about a relative who was shielded from the police certainly is a viable explanantion of this unexplained crime.

Note how this parallax view answers the many questions about the case.

[theebmonique]

BROWN, PAGE 25:

.....It was his odor - one that she had never smelled before. It was not not sour, not sweet, not a manure smell, not sweat....not anything she could even imaging! Intent on getting help she ducked into the first yard she came to, gasping, and sobbing. THEn SHE WAS SICK.

BROWN Page 20:

It was that ordor that stunned her her, and when the first horsecar passed, she had an imaginary glimpse of the man in the long coat..... and a lingering, chilling whiff of that forgotten smell.......

Also see BROWN pages 295-296


FROM BROWN WHICh IS SITTING NEXT TO ME!



StevenB

You realize you are quoting from an old recollection that was used to identify a probable suspect? There is nothing in Part 1-4 that depend or even mention the word "smell" or "odor". Brown used the memoirs written about 80 years after the crime for his starting investigation.

Nobody says the odor was so horrible (like a skunk smell?).

1) There were many rumors about the solution to this case. One, that "Lizzie paid off the judges" certainly seems probable given the facts.
2) The evidence Brown found about a relative who was shielded from the police certainly is a viable explanantion of this unexplained crime.

Note how this parallax view answers the many questions about the case.

So, if we are to quote or believe Brown, we are not supposed to believe certain passages ? Should there be a revised edition of his book with only "highlighted', believable, quoteable material, from the first edition ? A sort of RayS's Brown for Dummies version ? I do mean this in all seriousness. I also apologize for using a terribly long quote.





Tracy...

[StevenB]

BROWN, PAGE 25:

.....It was his odor - one that she had never smelled before. It was not not sour, not sweet, not a manure smell, not sweat....not anything she could even imaging! Intent on getting help she ducked into the first yard she came to, gasping, and sobbing. THEn SHE WAS SICK.

BROWN Page 20:

It was that ordor that stunned her her, and when the first horsecar passed, she had an imaginary glimpse of the man in the long coat..... and a lingering, chilling whiff of that forgotten smell.......

Also see BROWN pages 295-296

Okay so let me get this right.....Even though Brown's book clearly states that the man in the borden yard, who you're saying was William Borden, smelled of horse urine, He didn't smell at all according to you? And because you say he didn't smell then he didn't and what Brown wrote was untrue? Or maybe eberyone who read Brown was seeing something that wasn't really there? Man, Rays, You must be a politician, are you thinking of running for president in 2008?


Steven


FROM BROWN WHICh IS SITTING NEXT TO ME!



StevenB

You realize you are quoting from an old recollection that was used to identify a probable suspect? There is nothing in Part 1-4 that depend or even mention the word "smell" or "odor". Brown used the memoirs written about 80 years after the crime for his starting investigation.

Nobody says the odor was so horrible (like a skunk smell?).

1) There were many rumors about the solution to this case. One, that "Lizzie paid off the judges" certainly seems probable given the facts.
2) The evidence Brown found about a relative who was shielded from the police certainly is a viable explanantion of this unexplained crime.

Note how this parallax view answers the many questions about the case.

[RayS]

...
So, if we are to quote or believe Brown, we are not supposed to believe certain passages ? Should there be a revised edition of his book with only "highlighted', believable, quoteable material, from the first edition ? A sort of RayS's Brown for Dummies version ? I do mean this in all seriousness. I also apologize for using a terribly long quote.
Tracy...

I eliminated your long quote.
Arnold Brown spent two years in his research. Other writers ("Perry Mason") warn against deciding on a suspect before all the evidence is available. I believe in Brown's identification of the murderer. But I think the issue of an unpaid loan is far more likely to cause a murder. Because this is so reported in newspapers and true crime books (Ann Rule's stories).

My version of Brown's theory is that the cause of this crime was a dark and dirty secret that caused Lizzie to withhold the name of the visitor. So too Uncle John (who helped arrange the visit). I think this version stands up best to any honest criticism.

Is there any book on this case that MUST be accepted totally as the author wrote it? Or on any other case?

You are free to criticize me for not following Brown's book w/o thinking. But that's the way it is.

[RayS]

I said it before and will say it again. That horrible smell on young Henry Hathaway was a one-time event. The usual smell of a horse-using farmer who mucked out his barn would probably not be terribly noticeable in those times.

I also said the the recovered memory of Ellan Eagan is suspect, given how memories change over the years. Ellan Eagan's story would be much better if she told about seeing a strange man to the police then.
Henry Hathaway was not at the crime scene that day. Ellan was, but did not know who the man was. Yet many old crimes have been solved when a witness remembers something. (Or so I read.)

Isn't the dramatic series "Cold Case" based on this?

[Smudgeman]

He spent 2 years on studying what? Memoirs nobody can produce? The horrible smell was a one time event? In other words, he only smelled once? Yeah, right, I believe that.

[1bigsteve]

...
So, if we are to quote or believe Brown, we are not supposed to believe certain passages ? Should there be a revised edition of his book with only "highlighted', believable, quoteable material, from the first edition ? A sort of RayS's Brown for Dummies version ? I do mean this in all seriousness. I also apologize for using a terribly long quote.
Tracy...

I eliminated your long quote.
Arnold Brown spent two years in his research. Other writers ("Perry Mason") warn against deciding on a suspect before all the evidence is available. I believe in Brown's identification of the murderer. But I think the issue of an unpaid loan is far more likely to cause a murder. Because this is so reported in newspapers and true crime books (Ann Rule's stories).

My version of Brown's theory is that the cause of this crime was a dark and dirty secret that caused Lizzie to withhold the name of the visitor. So too Uncle John (who helped arrange the visit). I think this version stands up best to any honest criticism.

Is there any book on this case that MUST be accepted totally as the author wrote it? Or on any other case?

You are free to criticize me for not following Brown's book w/o thinking. But that's the way it is.

Rays, I'm curious. I may be mistaken but I don't think you answered Tracy's question above. Let me ask it again this way:

If part of Arnold's book is not to be believed then how can we believe any other part(s)? In other words, how can we say that part "ABC" is true but not part "XYZ" when Arnold has offered no solid proof that ANY parts of his theory is true? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds to me that you are ignoring the "bad smell" part of Arnold's theory while accepting much of the rest of it. If you don't have much faith in part of Arnold's theory then how can you have faith in any of it when Arnold gave no proof at all for ANY of his theory?

Personally I don't believe the killer stunk like a dead goat. If he did, then why didn't Mrs. Churchhill smell the stink, after all he was in the house for 2+ hours? How could the witness say that "that" guy in the yard stunk when there is no way a person (the witness) could identify "that" person as the source of the smell from that distance? That bad smell could have been coming from anywhere. If he really smelled that bad then Lizzie's enclosed house would have been reaking with the stench at the time of Mrs. Churchhill's appearance a few minutes after the killing of Andrew, it would seem. It is so easy for a person to see a man and smell a bad oder and then link these two things together in that persons mind when in fact those two things may not be related at all.

So, If I can't believe the "bad smell" part of Arnold's theory, why should I have faith in any other part when there is no solid proof? Sure, his theory is possible but I see no solid proof that William S. Borden was Andrew's son, no proof that he was in the house at the time of the murders, no proof that he had money on his mind, and no proof that he did the killings. When I mean "solid proof" I mean "beyond a reasonable doubt", as Perry Mason would say.

I think if Arnold brought his theory to Court it would fall apart due to lack of evidence. The Lawyers would shoot it out of the water. Arnold's theory, to me, is no more and no less credible than any of the other theorys out there. Until someone comes forward with the proof that Arnold is right, his theory will remain just another theory to me. I don't believe in blind devotion to anything. I want to see the facts.

What is ticking so many of us off, Ray, is your attempts at passing Arnold's theory off to us as "fact", with no proof, and then treating us all as idiots for having our doubts. On top of that many of your answers are very evasive and I get the feeling that you are playing the old shell game with us. Is that fair? When Perry Mason presented his case he brought the facts to the table. Maybe one day you will uncover some documents that will prove Arnold right. Fine. But in the mean time how about treating the rest of us like we actually have a brain in our heads? I would love to discuss the Borden case with you but not if you continue to treat the rest of us like we just fell out of a tree. I'm not trying to step on your toes but I would expect a man 70 years of age to behave in a better manner. What do you say, Ray?

-1bigsteve (o:

[theebmonique]

Thank you Steve.

IMO, when Ray doesn't want to or can't answer a question posted by a forum member, he simply evades by asking another question. He also did not answer my question about WHY he asked us to wait until Dec. 4, to comment on "PART 4", unless we wanted to receive harsh replies. I tried to be nice/polite in the way I asked these two questions, but still they went unanswered.





Tracy...

[1bigsteve]

I've noticed the same thing, Tracy. Whenever Ray is asked a question he will drag a totally unrelated point into his answer and that just muddies up the issue. It is very hard to understand where Ray is coming from at times.

Me: "Ray, what was the temprature at Lizzie's house on August 04, 1892?"

Ray: "The rotation of the Moon around the stars has an effect on the sex life of the Tsetse fly, does it not? And because of that... yada, yada, flap, blap..."

Me: "Please Ray, please, just answer my question."

That kind of thing. I alway's prefered a straight answer to a straight question. It's often hard to nail Ray down on any point. Maybe he's a lawyer? I don't know what December 04, has to do with anything but maybe he will be away from his computer until then. Let's hope.

Sorry, Ray. Didn't mean to poke fun of you.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Yooper]

I have to wonder what has been copyrighted.

[RayS]

Arnold Brown's book explains the memoirs of Henry Hathaway and his mother-in-law Ellan Eagan. It was an attempt to solve the murders.

Note that there must have been hundreds of other farmers who would smell as sweet. But very few who were relatives. I think that Ellan's story was improved with the telling, like those "Legends of Lizzie".

I assume that what they said was correct. Ellan's weak point is that it was not reported to the police and documented at the time.

In reading any book on this case, you have to act with intelligence to decide what sounds true to you. I wouldn't say that any book on this case is the whole total truth, but the author's views taken from the known facts. I believe Brown's Theory because it sounds reasonable and probable, given the known and unknown facts. It is most likely to be true, or the "best evidence".

You have to think for yourself. That is why the 30 or 40 members of this site will never agree totally, especially since most belong to the "Lizzie dunnit" school (for their own personal reasons).

All I'm trying to do is to present reasonable arguments for Brown's Theory.

[RayS]

Thank you Steve.

IMO, when Ray doesn't want to or can't answer a question posted by a forum member, he simply evades by asking another question. He also did not answer my question about WHY he asked us to wait until Dec. 4, to comment on "PART 4", unless we wanted to receive harsh replies. I tried to be nice/polite in the way I asked these two questions, but still they went unanswered.
Tracy...

Your question was irrelevant and added nothing to the discussion.
I had expected to be away, but other considerations prevented this. I wouldn't want you to think I was avoiding an answer.

Especially since some questions seem posed so as to be unable to be answered.

[RayS]

He spent 2 years on studying what? Memoirs nobody can produce? The horrible smell was a one time event? In other words, he only smelled once? Yeah, right, I believe that.

This is an example of a question that has no answer. It is rhetorical, asked just to make noise and raise emotion in the hearer or reader.

I never mentioned the word smell in Parts 1 to 4. It is NOT used for any proof, just was a lead to a suspect. Brown spent 2 years investigating for his book, much more than any other writer that I know of. DO you know any different?

There were hundreds of other such farmers that would have smelled of horses and barns and "mucking out". Bathing once a week was the accepted norm, then until the 1950s. They had no running water etc until electricity was available.

This person, who was seen by others (w/o any note of smell), did match the person who was a nephew of Andy. And you can read many cases of True Crime where a person who owes wipes out his debt by rubbing out his lender. Just read your local newspapers and see.

[RayS]

I've noticed the same thing, Tracy. Whenever Ray is asked a question he will drag a totally unrelated point into his answer and that just muddies up the issue. It is very hard to understand where Ray is coming from at times.

Me: "Ray, what was the temprature at Lizzie's house on August 04, 1892?"

Ray: "The rotation of the Moon around the stars has an effect on the sex life of the Tsetse fly, does it not? And because of that... yada, yada, flap, blap..."

Me: "Please Ray, please, just answer my question."

That kind of thing. I alway's prefered a straight answer to a straight question. It's often hard to nail Ray down on any point. Maybe he's a lawyer? I don't know what December 04, has to do with anything but maybe he will be away from his computer until then. Let's hope.

Sorry, Ray. Didn't mean to poke fun of you.

-1bigsteve (o:

I think you missed the point. Some questions are rhetorical in nature, and have no simple answer in 50 words of less. They are asked to ridicule me (like your post), not for any serious reason.

All I know about this case comes from secondary sources, the books printed over the last 45 years. WHAT are your books, if any?

I wasn't there with a videotape, or even as an eyewitness. That's all I can say.

[RayS]

...
Rays, I'm curious. I may be mistaken but I don't think you answered Tracy's question above. Let me ask it again this way:

If part of Arnold's book is not to be believed then how can we believe any other part(s)? In other words, how can we say that part "ABC" is true but not part "XYZ" when Arnold has offered no solid proof that ANY parts of his theory is true? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds to me that you are ignoring the "bad smell" part of Arnold's theory while accepting much of the rest of it. If you don't have much faith in part of Arnold's theory then how can you have faith in any of it when Arnold gave no proof at all for ANY of his theory?

Personally I don't believe the killer stunk like a dead goat. If he did, then why didn't Mrs. Churchhill smell the stink, after all he was in the house for 2+ hours? How could the witness say that "that" guy in the yard stunk when there is no way a person (the witness) could identify "that" person as the source of the smell from that distance? That bad smell could have been coming from anywhere. If he really smelled that bad then Lizzie's enclosed house would have been reaking with the stench at the time of Mrs. Churchhill's appearance a few minutes after the killing of Andrew, it would seem. It is so easy for a person to see a man and smell a bad oder and then link these two things together in that persons mind when in fact those two things may not be related at all.

So, If I can't believe the "bad smell" part of Arnold's theory, why should I have faith in any other part when there is no solid proof? Sure, his theory is possible but I see no solid proof that William S. Borden was Andrew's son, no proof that he was in the house at the time of the murders, no proof that he had money on his mind, and no proof that he did the killings. When I mean "solid proof" I mean "beyond a reasonable doubt", as Perry Mason would say.

I think if Arnold brought his theory to Court it would fall apart due to lack of evidence. The Lawyers would shoot it out of the water. Arnold's theory, to me, is no more and no less credible than any of the other theorys out there. Until someone comes forward with the proof that Arnold is right, his theory will remain just another theory to me. I don't believe in blind devotion to anything. I want to see the facts.

What is ticking so many of us off, Ray, is your attempts at passing Arnold's theory off to us as "fact", with no proof, and then treating us all as idiots for having our doubts. On top of that many of your answers are very evasive and I get the feeling that you are playing the old shell game with us. Is that fair? When Perry Mason presented his case he brought the facts to the table. Maybe one day you will uncover some documents that will prove Arnold right. Fine. But in the mean time how about treating the rest of us like we actually have a brain in our heads? I would love to discuss the Borden case with you but not if you continue to treat the rest of us like we just fell out of a tree. I'm not trying to step on your toes but I would expect a man 70 years of age to behave in a better manner. What do you say, Ray?

-1bigsteve (o:

Arnold Brown's solution to the crime was derived from the memoirs of Henry Hathaway, and his own 2 year investigation.
There is nothing about a bad smell in his proof, just the connection of a person seen at the crime scene to a relative of Andy. It was the starting point for his investigation.
I don't expect to find any hidden papers, ever. Do you?

[theebmonique]

Deja vu.





Tracy...

[Smudgeman]

You really CAN'T teach an old dog new tricks.

[RayS]

Some question why Lizzie would go to trial to keep a secret. The answer is that she never expected this to happen (see Brown's book). The grand jury did not indict her until months later, after her friend's story about that week.

My theory about the swindle and loan would explain why no one wanted to bring it up. The Ruling Class would secretly smile at Andy for once getting something he didn't bargain for. They had no wish to provoke a trial that could lead to a non guilty decision. Then is would be open season on the money lenders of Mass!!!

I follow Brown's theory, but like others did not think the story about a will and not being mentioned in it is a strong enough reason. True crime has plenty of stories about people in debt killing their lender. It would provide a good reason for stifling this case, especially if Lizzie and Emma would want it that way.

[RayS]

You really CAN'T teach an old dog new tricks.

What new tricks have you learned this week? Any at all?

[Smudgeman]

Yes, I have learned to be patient with people like you. They tend to need attention, and must be treated as a child would want to be treated. Maybe you should consider an old folks home where you and your contemporaries can converse with your collegiate voices and preach the gospel of Brown. We will bring you treats now and then.

[1bigsteve]

Deja vu.





Tracy...

Amen.

Well folks, no one can say we never tried!

-1bigsteve (o:

[RayS]

Yes, I have learned to be patient with people like you. They tend to need attention, and must be treated as a child would want to be treated. Maybe you should consider an old folks home where you and your contemporaries can converse with your collegiate voices and preach the gospel of Brown. We will bring you treats now and then.

Is this another example of a non-responsive reply that is loaded with insults.
Is there something wrong with you? I hope not. Just learn to handle conflicting opinions as well as I do.

[Smudgeman]

No this is a reply from your ridiculous question "what new tricks have you learned this week?" Be careful what you ask for in the future.

[RayS]

Is there any rational reply to the preceding comment?

[Smudgeman]

Yes, go to hell Rays. I am sick of your shit.

[Kat]

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?

[theebmonique]

While I may not agree with everyone's opinion on every subject here, I strongly feel that if RayS is going to be allowed to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, about whatever he wants, as much as he wants, then others should be allowed that same freedom of speech.

I am saying that for myself (and speculating for others), the lashing out/lashing back at Ray is out of frustration with the repetitive and mundane theory in which he seems to find his lifesource. Though that is his right, many of us are so damn sick of having to put up with his shenanigans, we feel our only recourse is to fight back. We are choking on having Brown shoved down our throats. When we choke and can't breathe...we will fight to get a clear patent airway.





TRacy...

[Kat]

It's his own topic and it's about his own Adaptation of Brown's theory. It says that at the top of the page so why would someone seek this out if they were sick of it?
I'm not generalizing here- I am stating this under these circumstances.
You don't cuss Tracy- no one can cuss here.

[theebmonique]

Kat, I truly apologize if my 'd***' offended you.

Perhaps my comments should have been placed in another thread, but I put them here in response to your post. If Stefani wishes them (and this post as well) to be placed in the privy, she may certainly do that as the forum administrator.

I do not recall anyone else in recent times being openly censored on a mild word like d***, and there have been posts with a mild swear word or two here and there.

Again, I apologize for offending you, Kat.





Tracy...

[Kat]

You aren't offending me. Scott is offending me. The intent is there. It seems purposeful. It is aggression.
I don't think this even belongs in the Privy. It belongs elsewhere.

[theebmonique]

To some of us, RayS is offensive an purposeful in some of his remarks. We have tried to 'play nice', tried to 'ignore', and even have tried to 'befriend', but to no avail.

If RayS is allowed to post in the manner he sometimes does, then others should be allowed to as well. What's the difference ?





Tracy...

[Smudgeman]

To some of us, RayS is offensive an purposeful in some of his remarks. We have tried to 'play nice', tried to 'ignore', and even have tried to 'befriend', but to no avail.

If RayS is allowed to post in the manner he sometimes does, then others should be allowed to as well. What's the difference ?





Tracy...

I couldn't agree more. Rays can do whatever he wants, but others can't? Explain the logic there. He is allowed to post whenever and wherever he chooses, yet this is "his" topic. I am sorry if I offended you Kat, but I am not sorry for what I said to Rays. I am not going to tiptoe around Rays on this forum, and I am tired of playing nice.

[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.

[RayS]

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.

[RayS]

While I may not agree with everyone's opinion on every subject here, I strongly feel that if RayS is going to be allowed to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, about whatever he wants, as much as he wants, then others should be allowed that same freedom of speech.

I am saying that for myself (and speculating for others), the lashing out/lashing back at Ray is out of frustration with the repetitive and mundane theory in which he seems to find his lifesource. Though that is his right, many of us are so damn sick of having to put up with his shenanigans, we feel our only recourse is to fight back. We are choking on having Brown shoved down our throats. When we choke and can't breathe...we will fight to get a clear patent airway.

TRacy...

Isn't that called Freedom of Speech and Good Manners? I admit to only reading the secondary sources on this case. That is why I ask questions.

I wonder if a certain poster is having personal problems at home or at work? That is a well-known cause of angriness.

You can certainly comment about the ideas on this or any topic. I hope that you will at least have read a number of books before you blast Brown's book. I don't think its inferior to all the others. Do you?

[RayS]

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.