Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Proof of Brown’s Theory - Part 5

In Chapter 18 Arnold Brown discussed the suspicious death of William S. Borden on April 17, 1901. The Fall River ‘Daily Globe’ said an unknown man drank from a six ounce bottle of carbolic acid, then climbed a tree with a stake chain to hang himself. His feet were four feet from the ground, his head was three feet to the limb above. His clothing was almost new, and he had money on him. Why would a farmer get dressed up in the middle of the week?

Brown believes that Willy had become a threat to “high-placed citizens” who decided to silence him forever rather than risk publicity or pay for his silence. If Willy spoke about how the Trial of Lizzie had been fixed, members of the Mellen House gang would have much to lose. Chapter 19 has Brown’s recreation of the crime of August 4, 1892. Willy’s murder was made to look like a suicide. Brown did not provide a death certificate or an autopsy report (public records). Massachusetts led the nation when it created county Medical Examiners in 1877.

LeMoyne Snyder’s “Homicide Investigations” lists the effects of carbolic acid poisoning. A strong solution produces an intense burning of the mouth, throat, and stomach. Regurgitation from the mouth and nose leaves burns on the skin. Vomiting almost always follows. The tongue may be so swollen as to fill the mouth, the flow of saliva is profuse. Breathing is difficult. Under these circumstances, could Willy have climbed over twelve feet from the ground and then out on a limb to hang himself with an ice chain in the early morning hours? It sounds like a murder to me. The verdict of suicide closed off any future investigation.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson. All Rights Reserved.

What if he'd climbed the tree first and got everything ready, then drank the poison and took the plunge?

shakiboo @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:05 pm wrote:What if he'd climbed the tree first and got everything ready, then drank the poison and took the plunge?

I don't understand why if you were going to hang yourself, you'd also take poison. But stranger things have been known to happen. I guess if someone is really determined to take their life they want to make certain the outcome is the one they are hoping for.

Oh rats! I thought we were going to kill off Billie in this topic!

That was my hope when I first saw the title. Let's exhume a couple of bodies and do some DNA testing. The results will either give the theory some support, or it will prove it wrong.

It does not sound unusual to me when someone gets dressed up, then does themselves in. Who would want to go out wearing dirty shabby clothes? Maybe he wanted to go out dressed up in style.

Fargo @ Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:20 am wrote:That was my hope when I first saw the title. Let's exhume a couple of bodies and do some DNA testing. The results will either give the theory some support, or it will prove it wrong.

It does not sound unusual to me when someone gets dressed up, then does themselves in. Who would want to go out wearing dirty shabby clothes? Maybe he wanted to go out dressed up in style.

You sound like a woman or lady. To dress in your very best to die?
Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I have my viewpoint.

Browsing a library book about the last days of famous people. One is Margaux Hemingway, found w/ just a T-shirt and nude elsewhere. Some said a woman would never kill herself to be found like that, hence Margot did not commit suicide. She was taking multiple medications though. And there is always the problem of interaction among drugs.

I once read a book or article that said suicide by shotgun was most likely for a farmer. Quick, efficient, and leaves quite a mess to be cleaned up (the final revenge?)

PS
Has anyone ever found and published the death certificate for William S. Borden, died 4/17/1901?

Ms. Hemingway suffered from epilepsy for which she took phenobarbitol. Some who knew her well, claim that the 'overdose' was accidental.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-1028.html





Tracy...

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:21 pm wrote:Proof of Brown’s Theory - Part 5

In Chapter 18 Arnold Brown discussed the suspicious death of William S. Borden on April 17, 1901. The Fall River ‘Daily Globe’ said an unknown man drank from a six ounce bottle of carbolic acid, then climbed a tree with a stake chain to hang himself. His feet were four feet from the ground, his head was three feet to the limb above. His clothing was almost new, and he had money on him. Why would a farmer get dressed up in the middle of the week?

Brown believes that Willy had become a threat to “high-placed citizens” who decided to silence him forever rather than risk publicity or pay for his silence. If Willy spoke about how the Trial of Lizzie had been fixed, members of the Mellen House gang would have much to lose. Chapter 19 has Brown’s recreation of the crime of August 4, 1892. Willy’s murder was made to look like a suicide. Brown did not provide a death certificate or an autopsy report (public records). Massachusetts led the nation when it created county Medical Examiners in 1877.

LeMoyne Snyder’s “Homicide Investigations” lists the effects of carbolic acid poisoning. A strong solution produces an intense burning of the mouth, throat, and stomach. Regurgitation from the mouth and nose leaves burns on the skin. Vomiting almost always follows. The tongue may be so swollen as to fill the mouth, the flow of saliva is profuse. Breathing is difficult. Under these circumstances, could Willy have climbed over twelve feet from the ground and then out on a limb to hang himself with an ice chain in the early morning hours? It sounds like a murder to me. The verdict of suicide closed off any future investigation.

Copyright 2006 by Ray Stephanson. All Rights Reserved.

I never looked at the trial might have been fixed .And if Willy did speak out that sure would have rattled some cages. Somebody might have triedto make it look like a suicide or something.

suicides often DO purposefully consider and wear something of personal significance - ie, being "dressed up", or may have on a certain piece of clothing and/or jewelry that is significant to the individual (ie. anne sexton in her mother's fur coat)..anyhow, my point that Wiliam S Borden was "dressed up" when found does not surprise me in the least, and should not be taken as a possible "clue" that he died by means other than suicide.

also let's not forget the guy was nuts, he'd been committed in the past, and admittedly had some "issues"...anything that doesn't add up to a sane mind shouldn't be taken as a clue that he didn't do himself in.

sguthmann @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:30 pm wrote:suicides often DO purposefully consider and wear something of personal significance - ie, being "dressed up", or may have on a certain piece of clothing and/or jewelry that is significant to the individual (ie. anne sexton in her mother's fur coat)..anyhow, my point that Wiliam S Borden was "dressed up" when found does not surprise me in the least, and should not be taken as a possible "clue" that he died by means other than suicide.

also let's not forget the guy was nuts, he'd been committed in the past, and admittedly had some "issues"...anything that doesn't add up to a sane mind shouldn't be taken as a clue that he didn't do himself in.

Just because the guy was nuts and had been committed in the past doesnt mean that something could have happened to him. Anything is possible, and might just had committed suicide as you said.

William Borden's sister died at Taunton Asylum. It was in his family, whatever it was. 2 aunts of his, and another sister had also been committed.
I noticed recently by reading that section in Rebello very closely that Billie's sister had a baby with no father named.
Maybe Brown just borrowed that possibly illegitimate baby idea and put it on Andrew Borden to sell books. No one would buy a book on Billie Borden unless it was tied to Lizzie in some way. IMO
See Rebello, 374.
Ray I think you might consider updating your info- sincerely suggested.

Kat @ Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:42 am wrote:William Borden's sister died at Taunton Asylum. It was in his family, whatever it was. 2 aunts of his, and another sister had also been committed.
I noticed recently by reading that section in Rebello very closely that Billie's sister had a baby with no father named.
Maybe Brown just borrowed that possibly illegitimate baby idea and put it on Andrew Borden to sell books. No one would buy a book on Billie Borden unless it was tied to Lizzie in some way. IMO
See Rebello, 374.
Ray I think you might consider updating your info- sincerely suggested.

In what way? I accept Brown's Theory and Solution to the Crimes.
I also would like to know what the death certificate and autopsy said.
Personal failing like illegitimacy are always with us. So how does his sister relate to this?
Can anyone say Andy's morality would preclude his having an affair? Really?

Arnold Brown says his ideas came from Henry Hathaway's memoirs, loose notes that he studied and reinvestighate on his own. I can't do anything there.

I get my info from the books acceptable to the Library system. Anyone with money can publish a book, it takes quality to meet the standards of the library system. Do we all agree on this?

Around 1930s they started to put iodine in salt, and nicotinic acid (B vitamin) in prepared bread and flout. The lack of this can cause mental retardation. In other words, "its the economy, stupid".

NOTHING PERSONAL MEANT BY THIS QUOTED SLOGAN.

The eugenics movement was flawed science, that's why it died in the 1940s. We all know that the son of a Great Man seldom measures up to his Pa.

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:21 pm wrote:In Chapter 18 Arnold Brown discussed the suspicious death of William S. Borden on April 17, 1901.

On page, 298, of Arnold Brown's book, he wrote: On April 17, 1901, the Fall River Daily Globe reported that an unknown man committed suicide. Then on page 300, Brown wrote: The Globe, the only newspaper to carry the story of the finding of the body, followed up the next day with an article that included its misidentification but did cite the coincidence that this tragedy happened on a site so close to the Manchester farm.

However, when you actually read the newspaper report by the Fall River Daily Globe, on April the 18th, 1901, on page 302, that Brown wrote in his book, it does NOT say anything about a misidentification. What it does say, in part, is: George F. Borden, 38 Liberty street, East Taunton, is the man who committed suicide in the New Boston road woods, yesterday morning. The publication of the description of the dead man in yesterday's paper was a valuable assistant to the police department and early this morning Inspector Shea who figured in the case yesterday, was able to state positively who the dead man was. Brown lead his readers to believe that the Daily Globe misidentified the dead man by stating in the paragraph previous to this write-up of the Globe's report: On the next day, April 18, 1901, the dead man was erroneously identified by the Daily Globe as George F. Borden.

On pages 304-305, Brown wrote: Interestingly, The Hill's own Fall River Daily Herald does make the correct identification on the same day, April 18: The suicide of yesterday has been identified as William S. Borden of East Taunton. From what source did Brown get this statement?

On pages 305-306, Brown wrote: It is highly unusual that the Globe or any newspaper would make such a horrendous error as to misidentify a man found dead by hanging and then not attempt to correct it. Also, on page, 306, Brown wrote: It is doubtful that the error was a deliberate action by the Herald; it was reporting what had been given to it. On page 306, Brown continues with: When you think for a moment about Lizbeth of Maplecroft and the high-placed citizens who wanted to ensure absolute separation between her and Bill Borden, the source becomes a bit clearer. This is clearly an assumption on Brown's part!

No where in Brown's book, did he provide his readers with the newspaper report of a misidentification that the Daily Globe was supposed to have written on April the 18th! Nor did Brown provide his readers with a copy of the actual newspaper reports that he wrote in his book. Without a copy of the newspaper report of a misidentification on the part of the Globe, it is pretty much a toss-up as to which newspaper misidentified the dead man! Apparently, Brown's readers are to just take his word for whatever is written in his book, without giving us anything to back up his claims.

On page 306, Brown wrote: Without the aid of the Herald's contribution, it is likely that the people who were acquainted with Bill Borden (such as Henry Hawthorne) might have missed the connection between Lizzie and Bill and that - if we might speculate - was the point. It was not an error. The newspapers were reporting what had been given to them, yet their reports differ. The misidentification of the dead man, spiked with just enough truth, created confusion and directed attention away from the details of the death, which was murder, not suicide. I can offer no concrete evidence for this statement. The people that committed the crime were professionals and left no evidence. But this assumption makes sense of the strange coincidences and answers the unanswered questions.

On page, 306, Brown wrote: William Borden was the killer of Abby and Andrew Borden and was the probable killer of Bertha Manchester. Quite possible he was also guilty of more serious crimes, such as making impossible demands of the wrong people. Making impossible demands of the wrong people is more serious than killing two and probably three people??? Brown must have considered his readers to be a bunch of idiots to buy that line! Not only that, what would have been William's motive for killing Bertha Manchester? Brown goes on and wrote: He may have grown greedy, If nothing else, he represented a major threat and a serious danger, not to Lizzie who had been acquitted of the only crime of which she was ever accused, but to certain members of the Mellen House gang who had so much to lose. They had William Borden killed, and the public accepted the murder as suicide. Brown made it quite clear that he had no concrete evidence for murder, and that it was an assumption on his part.

IMO: If the information that Brown gives us regarding the contents of the newspaper reports, are actually true, then Brown chose to believe the write-up in the Fall River Daily Herald. Why? Because it fit his theory. On page 305, of Brown's book, within the newspaper report from the Fall River Daily Herald, he wrote: No excuse for the act could be offered until the identification which came this morning at about 7:30 o'clock when the body was viewed by Mr. Meachim, and by W. W. Coolidge, who is a distant relative. A distant relative to whom, Mr. Meachim or the deceased? Brown gave us no proof, whatsoever, that the Daily Globe misidentified the dead man, nor, did he provide his readers with a copy of the actual newspaper reports that he wrote in his book.

Without the actual newspaper reports how do we know that the reports written in Brown' book are, in fact, what was actually written in the Daily Globe and the Daily Herald, or, if these reports were made up by Arnold Brown; his readers are to just take his word for, and not question, what is written in his book? Brown blew it, big time, when he failed to provide his readers with all of the actual newspaper reports, including the newspaper report regarding the misidentification of the dead man! Brown tends to 'plant seeds' of his own speculations and assumptions, throughout his book, in order to lead his readers into believing that his theory, is the only theory that provides a solution to the deaths of Abby and Andrew Borden.

FYI: Anything directly quoted from Brown's book is in a blue font; the bold highlighting and underlining within those quotes are mine.

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:21 pm wrote:Why would a farmer get dressed up in the middle of the week?

According to the Fall River Daily Herald newspaper report that Arnold Brown wrote, on page 305, of his book... The suicide of yesterday has been identified as William S. Borden of East Taunton. He was a farmer, with a wife and apple orchard which yielded him many barrels of cider yearly which he peddled through the country. It was the errand on which he came to Fall River on Tuesday night. His canvass for customers found him at the home of William Meachim, Meridian street, late that day where he was accommodated with food and lodging.

If this newspaper report is true, why wouldn't Bill have gotten dressed up? He was peddling cider through the country, and stayed overnight as a guest in the home of William Meachim. I would be much more surprised and a lot more suspicious if he were not dressed up. In other words, why would a farmer peddled cider to his customers and stay overnight as a guest in the home of William Meachim, while wearing his work clothes? Yuck!

FYI: Anything directly quoted from Brown's book is in a blue font.

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:21 pm wrote:Brown did not provide a death certificate or an autopsy report (public records).

IMO: Not providing his readers with a copy of William's death certificate just creates another hole in his theory.

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:21 pm wrote:Lemoyne Snyder’s “Homicide Investigations” lists the effects of carbolic acid poisoning. A strong solution produces an intense burning of the mouth, throat, and stomach. Regurgitation from the mouth and nose leaves burns on the skin. Vomiting almost always follows. The tongue may be so swollen as to fill the mouth, the flow of saliva is profuse. Breathing is difficult. Under these circumstances, could Willy have climbed over twelve feet from the ground and then out on a limb to hang himself with an ice chain in the early morning hours?

Suicides are not always logical. People who are determined to commit suicide manage to do all kinds of strange things in order to accomplish the deed. Since there was not an eye witness to the actual procedure the dead man used to accomplish drinking carbolic acid and hanging himself, it is only speculation on anyone's part as to what really happened. Did he drink the acid then climb the tree, or did he climb the tree then drink the acid? Your guess, is as good as mine.

Score!
Happy New Year that was a good argument. Thanks for the entertainment. Finally I enjoyed reading about Brown

It is quite possible that he could've taken the acid after he had already climbed up into the tree. I have heard of suicide victims who had both slashed their wrists and hung themselves. I haven't ever heard of someone who decided to take poison and then hang themselves, but it is within the realm of possibility. I just wanted to say that I have sent for both copies of William S. Borden's death certificate, the one filed in Fall River and the one filed in Taunton. I am anxiously awaiting their arrival.

That's great! Good going. That's investing in the truth.

Allen @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:51 am wrote:It is quite possible that he could've taken the acid after he had already climbed up into the tree. I have heard of suicide victims who had both slashed their wrists and hung themselves. I haven't ever heard of someone who decided to take poison and then hang themselves, but it is within the realm of possibility.

I agree, Allen, anything is within the realm of possibility. As I have posted in another topic, I grew up on a dairy farm. When I was in high school, our neighbor committed suicide. His farm was located across and appropriately a quarter of a mile down the road from our farm. It was easily within walking distance. Prior to his taking his own life, he and his father lived and worked the farm together. Unfortunately, his father had passed away, leaving him alone on the farm. This man had lived his entire life on this farm. He felt that the farm was too much for him to run by himself, so he decided to sell it so that he could move into town. My father bought the farm from him. After the death of his father, this neighbor hired my older brother to help with milking his cows and doing all of the other chores involved with dairy farming. On the morning that this neighbor killed himself, he and my brother had finished the milking and before doing the chores, decided to have breakfast. During the time my brother was at home eating his breakfast, our neighbor committed suicide by throwing a rope over a beam which ran across the roof of his pig house, then stepped upon the top of an empty 5-gallon bucket, put the rope around his neck, then shot himself in the head. My brother found him when he returned to do the chores. No suicide note was left, nor was there any indication from him that anything was wrong; he did not show or say anything to my brother during milking time that lead my brother into believing that things were not normal. Why was he so determined to take his own life? We could only speculate: the morning he took his life was on the day he was to move into town; this man had been a recluse all of his life, perhaps the thought of moving into town overwhelmed him and consumed him to the point of being unbearable for him. If a person is determined to end it all, they will find a way. Suicides are not always logical.

Allen @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:51 am wrote:I just wanted to say that I have sent for both copies of William S. Borden's death certificate, the one filed in Fall River and the one filed in Taunton. I am anxiously awaiting their arrival.

Thank-you Allen! It will be quite interesting to see, for ourselves, what the death certificate(s) of William S. Borden actually indicate is the cause of death. It would also be interesting to see the death certificate of George F. Borden. The other missing piece of this puzzle is the newspaper report of the misidentification that the Daily Globe was supposed to have written, according to Brown, on April the 18th. Unfortunately, I live in Wisconsin, therefore, it is a bit difficult for me to obtain these documents.

It is very interesting to compare the newspaper reports, that Brown wrote in his book, of April the 18th, from the Daily Globe and the Daily Herald: The Daily Globe report can be found on pages 302-303 of Arnold Brown's book, and The Daily Herald report can be found on page 305.

Daily Globe:
George F. Borden, 38 Liberty street, East Taunton, is the man who committed suicide...
...Borden conducted a profitable farm...
...he was a son of the late Deacon Charles Borden of ninth street.
Two sisters of the suicide are in a Taunton institution.
He has a half brother living in the person of William Lewis Bassett, a farmer of Westport.
...he was a lodger at the house of William Michen...

Daily Herald:
The suicide of yesterday has been identified as William S. Borden of East Taunton.
He was a farmer...
The late Deacon Charles Borden of seventh street was his father.
The deceased has two sisters in the Taunton asylum.
William Lewis Bassett, of Westport, is his half brother.
His canvess for customers found him at the home of William Meachim...

I find it interesting that in the newspaper report by the Daily Globe, dated April 17th,1901, page 298, where Brown wrote: The inspector believes the man to be about 50 years of age... and, on page 305, the newspaper report by the Daily Herald, dated April 18th,1901, Brown wrote: His age was about 50 years. Yet, on page 296, Brown wrote: William's death certificate gave his age in 1901 as forty-five... Granted, no one can guess the exact age of a person, just by looking at them, but, it seems to me that a 5-year difference in age would be noticeable, to some degree, especially on a farmer. IMO: Farmers tend to look older than they actual are due to spending so much of their time out of doors, in the elements of nature.

I, also, find it interesting that the two newspaper reports, dated April 18th, are the same except the victims' name, the father lives on different streets and that George stayed at the house of William Michen, and William stayed at the house of William Meachim. Is the person whose house was used for lodging William Michen or William Meachim? Are these two different people or did one of the newspapers misspell the last name?

In between these two newspaper reports, on pages 303-304, Brown 'plants a seed' of doubt and/or suspicion regarding the victim's name printed in the Daily Globe's report; Brown wrote: This edition of the Globe tells us the name of the man found hanged in the woods: George F. Borden of East Taunton. Let's see, a man named William S. Borden lived on Liberty Street in East Taunton (same number, come to think of it, as "George F." Borden). Where did Brown obtain this information? William's house number is not indicated in the report by the Daily Herald, nor have I found it indicated anywhere in Brown's book; the Daily Herald simply states that William lived in East Taunton. Brown goes on to say: Is it possible that George was related to William? Same address, same father listed (Deacon Charles of Ninth Street in Fall River). Again, Brown states that George and William live at the same address. Brown does not provide his readers with a source for this statement. According to the newspaper report by the Daily Herald, that Brown wrote in his book, Deacon Charles Borden lived on seventh street, not ninth. Brown goes on to say: George's family is listed; yes, he did have a half brother, but his name is William L. Bassett of Westport. To my knowledge, Brown does not provide his readers with a list of George's family;I have not found anything regarding a family list for George Borden in entire Brown's book. Furthermore, Brown states that George has a half brother, but his name is William L. Bassett of Westport. Is Brown trying to tell us that William L. Bassett of Westport and William Lewis Bassett of Westport, are two different people? Am I missing something here???

FYI: Anything directly quoted from Brown's book is in a blue font; the bold highlighting and underlining within those quotes are mine.

There is no indication of the amount of carbolic acid ingested nor the state of it's dilution. Without that it's hard to determine it's possible effects.

I found this interesting incident of an 1886 accidental intake of carbolic acid at http://users.netconnect.com.au/~ianmac/odd.html

"[From Williamstown Chronicle, 9 October 1886, p.2] A very distressing occurrence took place on Wednesday last, on board HMCS Nelson when the boatswains's mate, Joseph Overdon, died from the effects of swallowing, by mistake, a quantity of carbolic acid. It appears that he had several beer bottles in a locker in his room, in one of which was some beer, while another contained about an equal quantity of carbolic acid, there being no mark or label to distinguish one form the other. About two o'clock on Tuesday afternoon he took a bottle from the locker, and, raising it to his lips took a draught therefrom thinking it was beer, but he soon found he had swallowed carbolic acid instead. He at once, went to the ship's chemist, and informed him of what he had taken . . . "

Obviously it wasn't instantly fatal since Overdon went to the ship's chemist to inform him of what he had taken. Again we have no record of the quantity or dilution.

Judy, you may know of this tragic case which occurred in Wisconsin in 1908. See:

http://www.foust.org/arabella/

Harry @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:55 am wrote:There is no indication of the amount of carbolic acid ingested nor the state of it's dilution. Without that it's hard to determine it's possible effects.

I totally agree, Harry. We don't know that amount of carbolic acid that Bill Borden took nor the state of it's dilution, therefore, we don't have a whole lot to go on, do we?

Harry @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:55 am wrote:Judy, you may know of this tragic case which occurred in Wisconsin in 1908. See:

http://www.foust.org/arabella/

I have heard of this case - it is quite interesting. Thanks for the link that you provided. I really enjoyed reading about this case, again.

twinsrwe @ Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:33 pm wrote:

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:21 pm wrote:In Chapter 18 Arnold Brown discussed the suspicious death of William S. Borden on April 17, 1901.

On page, 298, of Arnold Brown's book, he wrote: On April 17, 1901, the Fall River Daily Globe reported that an unknown man committed suicide. Then on page 300, Brown wrote: The Globe, the only newspaper to carry the story of the finding of the body, followed up the next day with an article that included its misidentification but did cite the coincidence that this tragedy happened on a site so close to the Manchester farm.

However, when you actually read the newspaper report by the Fall River Daily Globe, on April the 18th, 1901, on page 302, that Brown wrote in his book, it does NOT say anything about a misidentification. What it does say, in part, is: George F. Borden, 38 Liberty street, East Taunton, is the man who committed suicide in the New Boston road woods, yesterday morning. The publication of the description of the dead man in yesterday's paper was a valuable assistant to the police department and early this morning Inspector Shea who figured in the case yesterday, was able to state positively who the dead man was. Brown lead his readers to believe that the Daily Globe misidentified the dead man by stating in the paragraph previous to this write-up of the Globe's report: On the next day, April 18, 1901, the dead man was erroneously identified by the Daily Globe as George F. Borden.

On pages 304-305, Brown wrote: Interestingly, The Hill's own Fall River Daily Herald does make the correct identification on the same day, April 18: The suicide of yesterday has been identified as William S. Borden of East Taunton. From what source did Brown get this statement?

On pages 305-306, Brown wrote: It is highly unusual that the Globe or any newspaper would make such a horrendous error as to misidentify a man found dead by hanging and then not attempt to correct it. Also, on page, 306, Brown wrote: It is doubtful that the error was a deliberate action by the Herald; it was reporting what had been given to it. On page 306, Brown continues with: When you think for a moment about Lizbeth of Maplecroft and the high-placed citizens who wanted to ensure absolute separation between her and Bill Borden, the source becomes a bit clearer. This is clearly an assumption on Brown's part!

No where in Brown's book, did he provide his readers with the newspaper report of a misidentification that the Daily Globe was supposed to have written on April the 18th! Nor did Brown provide his readers with a copy of the actual newspaper reports that he wrote in his book. Without a copy of the newspaper report of a misidentification on the part of the Globe, it is pretty much a toss-up as to which newspaper misidentified the dead man! Apparently, Brown's readers are to just take his word for whatever is written in his book, without giving us anything to back up his claims.

On page 306, Brown wrote: Without the aid of the Herald's contribution, it is likely that the people who were acquainted with Bill Borden (such as Henry Hawthorne) might have missed the connection between Lizzie and Bill and that - if we might speculate - was the point. It was not an error. The newspapers were reporting what had been given to them, yet their reports differ. The misidentification of the dead man, spiked with just enough truth, created confusion and directed attention away from the details of the death, which was murder, not suicide. I can offer no concrete evidence for this statement. The people that committed the crime were professionals and left no evidence. But this assumption makes sense of the strange coincidences and answers the unanswered questions.

On page, 306, Brown wrote: William Borden was the killer of Abby and Andrew Borden and was the probable killer of Bertha Manchester. Quite possible he was also guilty of more serious crimes, such as making impossible demands of the wrong people. Making impossible demands of the wrong people is more serious than killing two and probably three people??? Brown must have considered his readers to be a bunch of idiots to buy that line! Not only that, what would have been William's motive for killing Bertha Manchester? Brown goes on and wrote: He may have grown greedy, If nothing else, he represented a major threat and a serious danger, not to Lizzie who had been acquitted of the only crime of which she was ever accused, but to certain members of the Mellen House gang who had so much to lose. They had William Borden killed, and the public accepted the murder as suicide. Brown made it quite clear that he had no concrete evidence for murder, and that it was an assumption on his part.

IMO: If the information that Brown gives us regarding the contents of the newspaper reports, are actually true, then Brown chose to believe the write-up in the Fall River Daily Herald. Why? Because it fit his theory. On page 305, of Brown's book, within the newspaper report from the Fall River Daily Herald, he wrote: No excuse for the act could be offered until the identification which came this morning at about 7:30 o'clock when the body was viewed by Mr. Meachim, and by W. W. Coolidge, who is a distant relative. A distant relative to whom, Mr. Meachim or the deceased? Brown gave us no proof, whatsoever, that the Daily Globe misidentified the dead man, nor, did he provide his readers with a copy of the actual newspaper reports that he wrote in his book.

Without the actual newspaper reports how do we know that the reports written in Brown' book are, in fact, what was actually written in the Daily Globe and the Daily Herald, or, if these reports were made up by Arnold Brown; his readers are to just take his word for, and not question, what is written in his book? Brown blew it, big time, when he failed to provide his readers with all of the actual newspaper reports, including the newspaper report regarding the misidentification of the dead man! Brown tends to 'plant seeds' of his own speculations and assumptions, throughout his book, in order to lead his readers into believing that his theory, is the only theory that provides a solution to the deaths of Abby and Andrew Borden.

FYI: Anything directly quoted from Brown's book is in a blue font; the bold highlighting and underlining within those quotes are mine.

I HATE THESE LONG POSTS!!! !!! !!! Too difficult to edit out redundancies.

Given the actual body of William S. Borden, any mention of another name is indeed a misidentification.

For myself, as I've said before, Arnold Brown's theory works. "It was a relative of Andy that killed him." Brown names William S. Borden as the culprit based on the Hathaway memoirs and his two year investigation.

Of course if anyone should ever write another book good enough to be selected by the Public Library system I will read it and see if it is better. So far, none have done so. Correct?

twinsrwe @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:07 pm wrote:

Harry @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:55 am wrote:There is no indication of the amount of carbolic acid ingested nor the state of it's dilution. Without that it's hard to determine it's possible effects.

I totally agree, Harry. We don't know that amount of carbolic acid that Bill Borden took nor the state of it's dilution, therefore, we don't have a whole lot to go on, do we?

Harry @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:55 am wrote:Judy, you may know of this tragic case which occurred in Wisconsin in 1908. See:

http://www.foust.org/arabella/

I have heard of this case - it is quite interesting. Thanks for the link that you provided. I really enjoyed reading about this case, again.

In many books, textbooks and novels, we read about the mistakes made in classifying a murder as a suicide (or a suicide as a murder). The authors argue for a better forensic legal system than was available in the past (before the 1950s). You can look it up.

My own diagnosis in this case is: murder most foul. Carbolic acid poisoning leaves its marks. There were none on the body or in the grass. I suspect Arabella was slipped chloral hydrate (Mickey Finn) to kill her and eliminate any disappointment or danger (the unwritten law for a suitor who rejects a pregnant fiance). I think an empty bottle of carbolic acid was placed there to make it look like a suicide, and she was killed elsewhere. The missing cork!
It is more difficult to solve a murder when the body was moved.

PS
Note the tattoo!!! It was very rare for a decent girl to be tattooed then, or maybe even now. (Watch the Jerry Springer show for the proof.)

Harry @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:55 am wrote:There is no indication of the amount of carbolic acid ingested nor the state of it's dilution. Without that it's hard to determine it's possible effects.

I found this interesting incident of an 1886 accidental intake of carbolic acid at http://users.netconnect.com.au/~ianmac/odd.html

"[From Williamstown Chronicle, 9 October 1886, p.2] A very distressing occurrence took place on Wednesday last, on board HMCS Nelson when the boatswains's mate, Joseph Overdon, died from the effects of swallowing, by mistake, a quantity of carbolic acid. It appears that he had several beer bottles in a locker in his room, in one of which was some beer, while another contained about an equal quantity of carbolic acid, there being no mark or label to distinguish one form the other. About two o'clock on Tuesday afternoon he took a bottle from the locker, and, raising it to his lips took a draught therefrom thinking it was beer, but he soon found he had swallowed carbolic acid instead. He at once, went to the ship's chemist, and informed him of what he had taken . . . "

Obviously it wasn't instantly fatal since Overdon went to the ship's chemist to inform him of what he had taken. Again we have no record of the quantity or dilution.

Judy, you may know of this tragic case which occurred in Wisconsin in 1908. See:

http://www.foust.org/arabella/

There is a known danger from putting poison in a bottle meant for human consumption. (Could it have really been a murder?)
NOTE that it was not a suicide attempt, or maybe he changed his mind?
HOW could anyone mistake the smell of carbolic acid for beer? Did he have too much to drink? Could someone have played a fatal trick?
I've heard of playing such tricks at work, but not with poison.

Those citations would be better if there was more provenance. "Chemist" bespeaks of English, not American.

twinsrwe @ Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:36 pm wrote:

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:21 pm wrote:Lemoyne Snyder’s “Homicide Investigations” lists the effects of carbolic acid poisoning. A strong solution produces an intense burning of the mouth, throat, and stomach. Regurgitation from the mouth and nose leaves burns on the skin. Vomiting almost always follows. The tongue may be so swollen as to fill the mouth, the flow of saliva is profuse. Breathing is difficult. Under these circumstances, could Willy have climbed over twelve feet from the ground and then out on a limb to hang himself with an ice chain in the early morning hours?

Suicides are not always logical. People who are determined to commit suicide manage to do all kinds of strange things in order to accomplish the deed. Since there was not an eye witness to the actual procedure the dead man used to accomplish drinking carbolic acid and hanging himself, it is only speculation on anyone's part as to what really happened. Did he drink the acid then climb the tree, or did he climb the tree then drink the acid? Your guess, is as good as mine.

Yes, my guess is as good as yours, since neither of us is Arnold Brown who was born and raised in Fall River, and spent two years investigating this case. Brown was retired and undoubtedly had the time and money for his original research.

I remember Brown saying Hathaway had publicized some information years earlier, so there may be some newspaper with this. 1960s?

sguthmann @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:30 pm wrote:suicides often DO purposefully consider and wear something of personal significance - ie, being "dressed up", or may have on a certain piece of clothing and/or jewelry that is significant to the individual (ie. anne sexton in her mother's fur coat)..anyhow, my point that Wiliam S Borden was "dressed up" when found does not surprise me in the least, and should not be taken as a possible "clue" that he died by means other than suicide.

also let's not forget the guy was nuts, he'd been committed in the past, and admittedly had some "issues"...anything that doesn't add up to a sane mind shouldn't be taken as a clue that he didn't do himself in.

I have no personal experience of any suicide of a relative or known person.
And you can't believe everything you read in a newspaper, then or now.

twinsrwe @ Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:34 pm wrote:

RayS @ Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:21 pm wrote:Why would a farmer get dressed up in the middle of the week?

According to the Fall River Daily Herald newspaper report that Arnold Brown wrote, on page 305, of his book... The suicide of yesterday has been identified as William S. Borden of East Taunton. He was a farmer, with a wife and apple orchard which yielded him many barrels of cider yearly which he peddled through the country. It was the errand on which he came to Fall River on Tuesday night. His canvass for customers found him at the home of William Meachim, Meridian street, late that day where he was accommodated with food and lodging.

If this newspaper report is true, why wouldn't Bill have gotten dressed up? He was peddling cider through the country, and stayed overnight as a guest in the home of William Meachim. I would be much more surprised and a lot more suspicious if he were not dressed up. In other words, why would a farmer peddled cider to his customers and stay overnight as a guest in the home of William Meachim, while wearing his work clothes? Yuck!

FYI: Anything directly quoted from Brown's book is in a blue font.

I think the point was Willy was a producer and likely to sell wholesale. Not a retailer with a shop and dressed-up. Even today most farmers are wholesalers, not retailers.
You are taking the newspaper reports as Gospel. Isn't that wrong, then or now?

Miscellaneous Notes:
Misspelling of names is/was common in those days. The lack of a house number may mean that there were no house numbers in those days.
You don't need a house number if there is no mail delivery! Not even an RFD box number?

RayS @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:52 pm wrote: Those citations would be better if there was more provenance. "Chemist" bespeaks of English, not American.

The citations are just fine as they are. The Overdon article is from an Australian newspaper which you would have noticed had you taken the time to go to the URL.

The Arabella article, when you go to the URL, is clearly marked as being from the Milwaukee Daily News.

If only Brown had cited his sources as well. But I guess it's easier to bitch about what others post.

RayS @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:00 pm wrote:

sguthmann @ Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:30 pm wrote:suicides often DO purposefully consider and wear something of personal significance - ie, being "dressed up", or may have on a certain piece of clothing and/or jewelry that is significant to the individual (ie. anne sexton in her mother's fur coat)..anyhow, my point that Wiliam S Borden was "dressed up" when found does not surprise me in the least, and should not be taken as a possible "clue" that he died by means other than suicide.

also let's not forget the guy was nuts, he'd been committed in the past, and admittedly had some "issues"...anything that doesn't add up to a sane mind shouldn't be taken as a clue that he didn't do himself in.

I have no personal experience of any suicide of a relative or known person.
And you can't believe everything you read in a newspaper, then or now.

RayS, you do not need to have any type of personal experience concerning the subject of suicide to know that subjects frequently do include significant elements in the act (ie, dress, staging, note, choice of place, etc). I don't have any "personal" experience with the topic, but I have read about a number of people who have attempted/committed suicide.

And I agree, you cannot take everything you read in a newspaper as gospel truth, but I believe it's been additionally documented that Billy Borden and several siblings/relatives were committed at various times. I believe even Brown would have no quabble with the fact of the committals...in fact, doesn't that play centrally into his belief a "semi-insane/homicidal" Billy committed the Borden murders?

RayS @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:05 pm wrote:I think the point was Willy was a producer and likely to sell wholesale. Not a retailer with a shop and dressed-up. Even today most farmers are wholesalers, not retailers.
You are taking the newspaper reports as Gospel. Isn't that wrong, then or now?

Ray, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

I find no need to take the newspaper reports that Arnold Brown wrote in his book as "gospel". You asked the question: "Why would a farmer get dressed up in the middle of the week?" - I simply answered your question.

It makes no difference, whatsoever, if a farmer sells his produce wholesale or retail. No farmer is going to peddled produce to his customers and stay overnight as a guest in the someone's home, while wearing his every day work clothes; he is going to dress-up a bit. Farmers do take pride in their appearance, especially when they are out in public.

RayS @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:37 am wrote:I HATE THESE LONG POSTS!!! !!! !!! Too difficult to edit out redundancies.

Given the actual body of William S. Borden, any mention of another name is indeed a misidentification.

For myself, as I've said before, Arnold Brown's theory works. "It was a relative of Andy that killed him." Brown names William S. Borden as the culprit based on the Hathaway memoirs and his two year investigation.

Of course if anyone should ever write another book good enough to be selected by the Public Library system I will read it and see if it is better. So far, none have done so. Correct?

Ray, you missed the entire point of my post, perhaps you should go back and re-read it, or better yet, re-read Brown's book.

Kat @ Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:56 pm wrote:
Score!
Happy New Year that was a good argument. Thanks for the entertainment. Finally I enjoyed reading about Brown

Thanks, Kat. Sorry I haven't responded to your post before this. I am finding a great deal of interesting things that do not tie together, while in the process of 'picking apart' Brown's book.

twinsrwe @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:31 am wrote:

RayS @ Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:05 pm wrote:I think the point was Willy was a producer and likely to sell wholesale. Not a retailer with a shop and dressed-up. Even today most farmers are wholesalers, not retailers.
You are taking the newspaper reports as Gospel. Isn't that wrong, then or now?

Ray, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

I find no need to take the newspaper reports that Arnold Brown wrote in his book as "gospel". You asked the question: "Why would a farmer get dressed up in the middle of the week?" - I simply answered your question.

It makes no difference, whatsoever, if a farmer sells his produce wholesale or retail. No farmer is going to peddled produce to his customers and stay overnight as a guest in the someone's home, while wearing his every day work clothes; he is going to dress-up a bit. Farmers do take pride in their appearance, especially when they are out in public.

Its funny that you should say this. I used to have a relative who ran a dairy farm (and other produce). He would put the milk cans in the pickup truck and run down to the collection site (a middleman). NO dressing up.

Do you know how they do this since about the last 30 years? NO dressing up, ever.

RayS @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:53 am wrote:

twinsrwe @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:31 am wrote:It makes no difference, whatsoever, if a farmer sells his produce wholesale or retail. No farmer is going to peddled produce to his customers and stay overnight as a guest in the someone's home, while wearing his every day work clothes; he is going to dress-up a bit. Farmers do take pride in their appearance, especially when they are out in public.

Its funny that you should say this. I used to have a relative who ran a dairy farm (and other produce). He would put the milk cans in the pickup truck and run down to the collection site (a middleman). NO dressing up.

Do you know how they do this since about the last 30 years? NO dressing up, ever.

Ray, I did not say that farmers dress up every time they leave their farm. A farmer delivering milk cans to a collection site is a totally different situation than a farmer who is going to peddled produce to his customers, AND stay overnight as a guest in someone's home. We are talking about why Bill Borden would have been dressed up the day he died, not some relative of yours putting milk cans in his pickup truck and running down to a collection site.

I hope your point of view is not derived from a need to contradict me.
Yes, a farmer would dress up to go visiting. But what was the reason for this? To meet important people? If it was social, why not take his wife? Was this a relative, or strictly business? Why stay away when he was close to home? There are a lot of unanswered questions about this.

Allen @ Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:51 am wrote:It is quite possible that he could've taken the acid after he had already climbed up into the tree. I have heard of suicide victims who had both slashed their wrists and hung themselves. I haven't ever heard of someone who decided to take poison and then hang themselves, but it is within the realm of possibility. I just wanted to say that I have sent for both copies of William S. Borden's death certificate, the one filed in Fall River and the one filed in Taunton. I am anxiously awaiting their arrival.

Excellent idea!!!
IF the death certificate says death by hanging only, what was the purpose of talking about carbolic acid? As some sort of warning to Wm Bassett?

Only strychnine is a more horrible poisoning, it paralyzes the victim to suffer a painful death but leaves him/her conscious. There are usually signs of carbolic acid, vomiting, a smell, etc.
Yes, this comes from a book, no personal knowledge. A. Conan Doyle's novella tells about a strychnine poisoning (don't remember title).

RayS @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:35 pm wrote:I hope your point of view is not derived from a need to contradict me.
Yes, a farmer would dress up to go visiting. But what was the reason for this? To meet important people? If it was social, why not take his wife? Was this a relative, or strictly business? Why stay away when he was close to home? There are a lot of unanswered questions about this.

No, Ray, it is not my intention to contradict you with my point of view; I have better things to do. Sorry to disappoint you.

It appears that you had a problem with the following statement, which I posted in a previous post: Farmers do take pride in their appearance, especially when they are out in public. I was simply clarifying what I wrote in my previous post as to a reason of why Bill Borden would have been dressed up on the day he died, and that your relative who did not dress up to deliver milk cans to a collection site had nothing to do with the subject of discussion.

I have no idea who are you referring to with the questions you asked in the above quote. As far as I am concerned, these questions are irrelevant to the discussion.

Thanks for your clarification. I can only tell what I had noticed.
From the 1950s to the 1990s I noticed no one "dressing up" for family meetings, like on a Sunday. But people are more casual today.

About 11 years ago at a family gathering saw a working farmer come by in his stained working clothes for the meal. One person criticized him after he left for that, even though this person returned to his job after the meal.
I saw nothing wrong with that myself.

When will we see a copy of the death certificate?