Navigation Home Galleries Crime Library Resources Paranormal Writer's Corner Diversions Research Visiting FR Site Map Site FAQ Contact Thanks About Me PearTree Press LB Forum Borden Gifts The Hatchet

 

 

The Arnold Brown Controversy
courtesy of the Lizzie Borden Quarterly

 

Due to the overwhelming interest in Arnold Brown's theory of the Borden murders as detailed in his book, Lizzie Borden: The Legend, The Truth, the Final Chapter, this editor has received permission from The Lizzie Borden Quarterly to reprint here the entirety of the reviews of Brown's book and his correspondence with the LBQ that appeared from 1993 until 1997.

Mr. Brown passed away on May 1, 1999, leaving us with many unanswered questions regarding the documentary evidence for his claims that an illegitimate son of Andrew's, one Billy Borden, was the actual killer of his father and his father's wife.

Articles reproduced courtesy of the Lizzie Borden Quarterly, Maynard F. Bertolet, editor.

---

Having noted this fatal bias, one must still give the author credit for what he did not do in this book. Alone among the authors who regard Lizzie as innocent, he has avoided the trap of trying to identify the guilty party, and therefore has not spun out any hard-to-swallow theories of the sort that have been the downfall of previous Borden authors like Frank Spiering and Arnold Brown. At least in that regard, Mr. Kent has refused to go beyond the provable facts of the case.

To the editor: “Bias” is a word used by narrow-minded people to cover their own mental blindness. In his use of the word as a slur against the late David Kent, Mr. Brody exposes himself as being a graduate of the Lizdunit School for Lazy Non-thinkers. This is fully understandable; your publisher is the school’s principal.
Lizdunit students never allow themselves to consider other possibilities that may better fit the facts of the Borden Murders. They would rather preach that their own legally disproved particulars are THE GOSPEL and snipe at all others who dare offer more probable solutions.
Brody did praise Mr. Kent for not going “beyond the provable facts of the case” while condemning me for, I assume, having ventured beyond by not accepting his Superior Court disproved dogma.
To Mr. Brody: Unlike David Kent who is dead and bemoaned as “even sadder that the author is not alive to respond,” I AM ALIVE AND READY TO RESPOND! Does that scare you?
Trust me, my book has not led to my “downfall.” At the last audit, over 20,000 total copies have been sold. Those blessed with other than a Corky Row mentality understand its message.
Three nameable cowards in the greater Fall River area have refused to point out “errors” in the book. One branded me, publicly and libelously, a liar and the other two made stupid, well-publicized statements and ran.
I suspect from your article that you will dismiss me as “one of those who is not of our school.” IF you are NOT gutless, challenge me! Prepare ten questions you feel I did not address publicly in the book and allow me the courtesy of a chance to answer them with logic, if not stone-chiseled fact. The Quarterly can be our forum.
If you would rather not, I understand that Judge (Robert) Sullivan, too, is dead. It’s safe, review his book next.
Arnold R. Brown
Seminole, FL

I did not intend to review this book. However, I was so incautious as to include in my review of David Kent's Forty Whacks (LBQ, January 1993) a single word which was critical of Mr. Brown's volume. Mr. Brown then replied with a letter to the Quarterly (April 1993) attacking me in a rather impolite way and challenging me to support my criticisms with specifics.
My first reaction was to ignore him, both because of the rude tone of his letter and also because of the rather transparent motive of using this exchange as an excuse to sell more books. I then reflected that readers of the Quarterly would be ill-served by silence upon these points; and besides, the book is interesting and deserves to be read by Borden devotees Hence, this review.
Trying to put the matter in a nutshell: Mr. Brown (a Fall River native and retired General Motors executive) makes two major claims. One is that the Bordens were murdered by William Borden, an illegitimate son of Andrew's. With Lizzie's and John Morse's knowledge and connivance, Bill Borden had come to the house that day to argue with Andrew about his proper inheritance. Lizzie was around the house at the time, and did not at first realize that murder had been committed, but she knew immediately afterward that Bill was the guilty party.
Lizzie then had several very strong motives to suppress what she knew. First, she did not want the existence of an illegitimate son made public. But more important, the will that Andrew had drawn up was relatively favorable to Lizzie and Emma, who stood to inherit the entire fortune if no will were discovered. Bill could thus be presented with an offer he couldn't refuse: either be hanged for the murders, or keep quiet both about the murders and about the existence of the will.
That leads to Mr. Brown's second major claim: the conspiracy to subvert justice by the "Mellen House Gang," consisting of Knowlton, Hilliard, Coughlin, and Seaver, with Jennings acting as the intermediary for the payoffs. The various officials all agreed to the following plot: suppress or destroy the real will; allow Lizzie and Emma to inherit the fortune (and make the payoffs); allow the real murderer to go free, in exchange for his silence; have Lizzie arrested and held over to the Grand Jury; and then be sure she goes free.
The snag developed with Alice Russell's testimony before the Grand Jury, leading to an unplanned indictment; and so the "gang" then had to fix the trial also to assure an acquittal. Some years later, Bill started to act as if he might do something embarrassing, and so the "gang" provided a further service by killing him and having it appear to be suicide.
According to the author, this theory explains many of the otherwise inexplicable occurrences in the case, not the least of which is the obvious favoritism shown by the judges to the defense, and the fact that at times Robinson seemed to be conducting the trial rather than the judges.
Strengths
Mr. Brown's book is well written and handsomely printed. He is also appropriately modest in stating his case (which is based on a manuscript written before his death by Henry Hawthorne, who as a boy lived on Bill Borden's farm, and whose mother-in-law, Ellan Eagan, claimed to have seen Bill Borden in the Borden yard on August 4):
"While there may be a minimum of objective evidence to prove it is true, there is no evidence that demonstrates it is not true. And it is more consistent with all the testimony and evidence presented at every public hearing and at the trial than any other explanation I know."
Mr. Brown also wins points by relying a good deal on the transcript of the Preliminary Hearing in Fall River in August, 1892, which all previous investigators (since Porter have down played. Finally, while I think I detected a few errors of fact (for instance, the author is certain that Morse was staying at the Borden house during the feud over deeding the half-house to Abby, during the daylight robbery of Abby's dressing room, and during the slaughter of Lizzie's pigeons, when the dates of his visits can be reconstructed only approximately, at best), they do not impinge upon any of the main issues. Mr. Brown does occasionally give himself too much credit — for instance he claims to be the first to find John Morse's testimony about his return to Second Street at noontime hard to believe; while Victoria Lincoln devotes pages and pages to discussing the same issue. But he is also very generous in acknowledging all of his research assistants.
Weaknesses
The first problem with Mr. Brown's hypothesis is his heavy reliance on a rather massive conspiracy to obstruct justice, involving many people and lasting for many years. Now, there is not space here to delve into all the ins and outs of conspiracy theories generally. I personally am put off by such theories, but I suspect that many Lizzie devotees would tend to be rather drawn to them.
However, Mr. Brown ignores some bits of evidence which to my mind tell strongly against this theory. Knowlton's oft-quoted letter to Attorney General Pillsbury (stating the former's conviction that Lizzie either did it or knew who had done it) was presumably never intended to be made public, and is inexplicable on any conspiracy theory unless one assumes it to be a peculiarly subtle and prescient bit of extra coverup. Brown himself admits that Moody was "angry" when the court disallowed the prussic acid testimony; why should he be, if a "not guilty" verdict had already been bought and paid for?
I would rather, however, say less at this juncture about the conspiracy theory, because it has been reported that many private papers of both Knowlton and Hilliard are soon to be published. Anyone wishing to study this purported conspiracy in more detail would be well advised to wait until that new evidence is at hand. (Of course, if you are a die-hard conspiracy theorist, this won't matter, because if the evidence is not favorable to your theory, you'll simply say it was all faked; but we can't resolve that here.)
Now we come to the Bill-did-it-and-Lizzie-kept-quiet part of the theory. If there is no direct evidence against the theory, why do I find it implausible? Since Mr. Brown in his letter challenged me to provide a list of questions he had failed to address, I will summarize my case in that form.
I . Why would Lizzie agree to go forward as the principal suspect? How could she be sure that she'd be acquitted? (According to the conspiracy theory, the Grand Jury would let her go; instead they unexpectedly indicted her.) She had no great love for Bill Borden, and presumable a much greater love for money. Since, according to this theory, she did not hate her parents enough to want to kill them, she might also have wanted the murderer punished.
Assuming she had a lot of money to invest in fixing legal proceedings, why not just suppress Andrew Borden's will, or have it set aside in the probate court on the grounds of "undue influence" or something? Why place herself in such jeopardy? (If Bill Borden had been arrested and had then protested about the will, they could simply have attributed his statements to the ravings of homicidal mania.)
2. A good deal of trouble was purportedly spent getting everyone else out of the way so that Andrew Borden could have a confidential chat with his illegitimate son — including Emma's leaving town and Abby supposedly being lured away with a note. (Actually, contrary to Mr. Brown's theory, they did not succeed in getting Bridget out of the way; she could have reappeared at any inconvenient time.) Why go to all that trouble when it was customary for Andrew to leave the house on business every day, and when he could have met Bill privately at any number of places (including Hiram Harrington's shop, assuming that the latter was so obliging) without inciting any. comment at all?
3. Mr. Brown states that Bill's half-brother, William Bassett, accompanied him that morning to Second Street; his role was to deliver the note that would lure Abby from the house. The half-brothers then planned to rendezvous later at Harrington's shop. Why then was there any reason for Bassett to hang around in front of the Borden house, inviting suspicion and being seen, according to Brown, by numerous witnesses?
4. John Morse was "in the know" and was an active intermediary in setting up the interview. Why then should he leave the house that morning; why not just stand outside with Lizzie eating pears during the interview, especially if (as Brown argues) he was disposed to look out for Lizzie's interests? (Brown's theory requires that no one know in advance that the murders would occur; but 'it seems to require that various people act in ways that are only explainable if they knew in advance that the murders would occur.)
5. Lizzie presumably tried to buy prussic acid as some sort of defensive move, since she didn't completely trust Bill. How is a young woman supposed to use a bottle of prussic acid in defense against a large man who is known to take a hatchet with him everywhere he goes? (Pop the cork in his eye?)
6. The theory requires that Lizzie, who is taken totally by surprise at the discovery of the murders, soon thereafter communicate something secretly to Dr. Bowen, who then went to the residence where Morse was visiting and communicated the same thing to Morse. Morse then went immediately to Harrington's shop and communicated will Bill Borden and William Bassett. As a result of this, Borden and Bassett were supposed to have been told exactly what the lay of the land was, what would happen to them if they were discovered or if they came forward, and why it was in their best interests to keep quiet (even though Bill thereby would lose his bequest under the will).
This would seem to have required a minimum five- to ten minute conversation between Lizzie and Dr. Bowen, and equal conversation between Bowen and Morse, and at least a half-hour of haranguing between Morse and the half-brothers. There was simply no time in the events of the morning, however, for any more than a minute or two of conversation at each of those places. How could these communications have take place without advance knowledge of the events that occurred that morning?
7. Brown supposes that Bill spent the previous somewhere about the Borden property. Why was this in any way necessary, assuming that the interview wouldn't occur until nearly 11:00 next morning? Bill could have snuck in the back way anytime with no more risk of being seen than when he fled the yard after the murders. Brown suggests that he might have spent the night in Emma's bedroom, which communicated directly with Lizzie's and had no separate entrance. If Lizzie was -scared enough of Bill to have tried to purchase poison with some ill-formed idea of defending herself, how could she possibly consider letting him sleep in the house all night, let alone practically within her own bedroom?
8. Speaking of Bill's risk in sneaking out through a hole in the back fence, and of John Morse's later entrance by the same route: the testimony at the trial showed that the adjoining yards were under observation that morning by a number of people. Was all that testimony pure fiction? If not, why were neither Bill nor Morse seen? How could they be so sure they would not be seen?
9. If Lizzie was out in the yard during the interview between Bill and their father, and then spoke to Bill after he came out (not knowing then that a murder had been committed), why did Ellan Eagan on passing the side yard see Bill but not Lizzie?
10. Brown feels pretty sure that Andrew Borden would not have laid down to take a nap during this probably heated interview with his illegitimate son. He therefore takes pains to suggest that Andrew had been felled with a hatchet sitting upright, and the body had later slid (or been pushed) onto its side. Why, then, are the positions and directions of the wounds (according to all the medical testimony) such as to make it virtually impossible to have inflicted them upon a person in an upright posture?
11. Mr. Brown's theory requires that John Morse was a solid friend and advocate for Lizzie, and that Hiram Harrington was kindly enough disposed toward both Lizzie and Andrew to offer his shop as a rendezvous that morning. How then did it come that all other investigators of the case (including Victoria Lincoln, who claimed an extensive knowledge of Fall River inside gossip) have concluded that Lizzie hated Morse and that both Lizzie and Andrew hated Harrington? (For that matter, if the Bill/Andrew Borden relationship were as well known as Brown claims, how did Lincoln come to be ignorant of it?)
12. Brown makes a big deal (as did Lincoln) of the parcel Andrew was seen carrying home on August 4, and which was then never discovered in the house. He assumes in the end that it was some set of deeds or papers that bore on the interview with Bill. Why was it necessary to do up these papers into a wrapped rectangular parcel?
13. Soon after the murders were discovered, the police were scouring the roads outside of Fall River, looking for a homicidal maniac with a bloody hatchet. According to Brown, Bill Borden fit this description to a "T." How did Borden and Bassett successfully escape the dragnet? (This was far too soon for any police coverup /conspiracy to have been placed into motion.)
14. Bridget Sullivan had lived nearly three years in the Borden household. Hearing a laugh on the stairs behind her, how could she possibly mistake it for Lizzie if it had actually come from a strange man?
15. According to Mr. Brown, Andrew's will, which was suppressed by the conspiracy, left some money to Emma, Lizzie, and Bill, but also made a number of charitable bequests. Exactly when, where, and how did Andrew suddenly become infected with philanthropy?
Mr. Brown, in his letter to the Quarterly, challenged me to provide him with 10 questions. I hope he doesn't mind a few extra.

To the Editor:
Anyone in journalism knows that Freedom of the Press is for the people who own the press. The First Amendment says nothing about fairness, equal time to balance a challenged, featured article, or common decency. Permit me to tell you a story.
An editor (with fourteen years of experience) of a Midwest publishing house called me one day and said:
"We would like to publish your book. The manuscript you submitted is 1,086 pages. Agree to cut that down to a final 350 pages and the contract is in the mail."
"That impossible," I replied.
"Find a way to make it possible if you want us to be your publisher."
[Note: I won that argument; the final count was 382 pages, not 350.]
Had this editor had but ten years experience, he might have said: "We published a 2,423 word scathing attack of your book written by a knowledgeable Cow College professor. We, through him, challenged you to reply. You did. Your reply is 7,623 words. That's not fair. Cut it down to 2,423 words and we will honor our agreement.
"That's impossible," I would have replied.
"Find a way to make it possible," that editor might have replied, "but only if you want us to publish it. After all, fair is fair."
But this second editor did not do this. Rather, his boss, the owner of the press, the one with all the freedom, wrote his first article for publication. In it he addressed my submitted, as-agreed-to-by-them reply by labeling it a "literary hoax." Then, without asking me if I would share my new evidence, perhaps even consider a prior-to-publication of it in his periodical, he demanded I "honestly present what (I) claim,"
My certified, undeniable reply to him (as yet unanswered, as I am certain it win remain) is a simple: TO WHOM?
Should I submit it to him? Is he the Pope's new designated infallible expert? Or, should my priceless material go to the basement of the Fall River Historical Society? Or, how about the group who have taken almost fifty years examining the Dead Sea Scrolls without offering any viable conclusions?
Hear this! My material has been examined by experts in the field of historic documents. They found that the paper and the ink match the document dates, as does the handwriting style and the phraseology. The signatures are not traced. I suppose, for example, we could ask the surviving relatives of Andrew Jennings if samples of signatures submitted to them match their memory of Mr. Jennings' signature as he wrote it a hundred-plus years ago. Will everyone agree that, in this case, their memory would be living proof?
In the summation he made at Miss Lizzie's trial, Judge Justin Dewey cast aside all experts for all time when he said:
"Now the government has called as witnesses some gentlemen of scientific and medical knowledge and experience, who are termed experts. Expert testimony constitutes a class of evidence which the law requires you to subject to careful scrutiny. It is a matter of frequent observation to see experts of good standing expressing conflicting and irreconcilable views upon questions arising in a trial. They sometimes manifest strong bias or partisan spirit in favor of the party employing them. They often exhibit a disposition to put forward theories rather than to verify or establish or illustrate facts."
Of course, there are those who believe that Judge Dewey was in the employ of Andrew Borden's estate when he made that statement. I do not claim that he was; I have no evidence that would support that charge.
My experts had every reason to be neutral. Regardless of Judge Dewey's caveat, I have asked Julie (Jules Ryckebusch) to name his "expert." To date, as I stated above, he has refused. So, please, let's check the facts:
1) Each of my replies to his fifteen questions made mincemeat out of both (Howard) Brody and the Borden legend.
2) Only two of these fifteen replies alluded to new evidence which your (publisher), libelous per se, saw fit to label, sight unseen, as a literary hoax. These two replies could have been made using hypothetical facts and they would have carried the same weight. Perhaps, people being what they are, hypothetical facts would have carried even more weight.
So let's cut the crap. There is just one reason why your publisher killed my reply. We both know what it is — it exposed him for what he really is.
Arnold R. Brown
Seminole, FL

To the Editor:
I'm writing in reference to "From the Publisher's Desk," which appeared in the October issue of The Lizzie Borden Quarterly. As it happens, Arnold Brown was kind enough to send me a copy of his response to Howard Brody's criticism of his book, which appeared in the July issue. I can understand your reluctance to publish undocumented material such as that you cite in your note. I further agree that a 26-page response would take up an inordinate amount of space.
However, it is grossly unfair to not publish Brown's response to Brody. Quite possibly, it was a mistake to start this exchange, but you can't quite now. This is particularly true since, in my opinion, Brown pretty well demolishes nearly all of the arguments raised by Brody.
Let me suggest a way out of this impasse: agree to publish Brown's article provided he
— cuts out all reference to "new evidence" which has not yet appeared in print. My guess is that this material was included in large part to advertise his new book. By citing these items in your note and referring to that book (The Trial of Billie Borden), you have given him the publicity he was looking for. Hence, Brown should readily agree to this condition.
— reduces the length of his response to Brody's questions by about 50 percent. My calculations suggest that his response would then be about equal in length to Brody's critique, which ran 2500 to 3000 words. My general impression is that both Brody and Brown were rather long-winded, but turn about is fair play.
William L. Masterton
Storrs, CT

To the Editor:
When, two years ago, you announced the planned publication of what is now the LBQ, I was thrilled beyond words. Here, at last, would be a public forum from which century-old legend could be exposed for what it is — manipulated lies. Alas, I was hood-winked. The truth is ignored in your publication; the perpetuation of the Legend is its primary objective.
When I last attempted to present the truth to your readers, your publisher crawled out of his sinecuric woodwork and did a noteworthy impersonation of Joseph Goebbels. Regardless of the futility inherent in speaking up, I can no longer remain silent.
Of your contributors, Edward Thibault strikes me as being sincere and basically knowledgeable, a rating none of your other contributors has earned as yet. In his "It Ain't Necessarily So, Part 2" in the Spring issue, he concluded with:
"I will stand ready to be corrected in the future."
Mr. Thibault, please read the transcript of the Borden murders Preliminary Hearing. A copy of this is available from the Fall River Historical Society for a huge, excessively exorbitant sum. Because of copyright restrictions, I cannot offer you copies of my copy, but I can suggest you read my first book. On pages 65 and 66, you will find a condensed account of (Eli) Bence's testimony as he offered it, under oath, at the Hearing. His testimony (more revealing when it is read in tot) is straight-forward and unmasking.
Reading his testimony, you will learn that Bence's identification of Miss Lizzie was done by SIGHT, NOT BY VOICE, despite the lie the legend has spawned and you fostered.
What Bence (and Kilroy, and Harte) said at the Preliminary Hearing was not allowed at the Carnival in New Bedford the "WHY" for this is there for all to read, too. Contrary to the Legend, the primary reason was NOT allowed to testify was for Andrew Jennings' protection, NOT Miss Lizzie's. If Bence had repeated his report of Jennings' attempt at witness tampering as suggested to Bence by Jennings' agent, (Arthur) Phillips, Jennings would have faced possible disbarment.
Secondly, if Mr. David Salvaggio will give me his bonded pledge of confidentiality until such time as the California court relaxes its binding restraining order, I shall happily inundate him with proof of the existence of Andrew Borden's illegitimate, mentally ill son — chapter, verse, city, county, Commonwealth, and out-of-state vital statistic records, asylum records, church records, and a studio photograph. Yes, David, there was a William S. Borden, and he was LEGALLY established as the illegitimate son of Andrew J. Borden years before the 1892 murders.
Please, Mr. Editor, at the very least, ask your contributors if they have studied the now available inquest testimony (not just Miss Lizzie's overworked portion of it) and the available Preliminary Hearing testimony. This will protect you from publishing parroted Congregational Church catechism dating from the turn of the century. The answers found in these still-ignored transcripts were given freely short hours after the murders. The words are truth, uncontaminated and unaltered by the Mellen House Gang. Remember, what was said at the inquest and Preliminary Hearing was buried deep for many decades; thus, one hundred years later, it is NEW evidence. To date, I am the only published author who has reported any portion of what these transcripts reveal.
The truth, I learned when I attempted to submit it to you previously, is repugnant to your publisher. Do yourself a favor; try truth for one issue. It may surprise you to learn that truth is not repugnant to your subscribers. If nothing else, truth would be a welcome change from the decades-old pap you are serving up with all the taste, grace and splendor of a Borden household, pre-murder, spoiled-mutton soup.
Sincerely,
Arnold R. Brown
Seminole, FL

To the Editor:
Being in close proximity with Arnold Brown geographically now, as are our home towns, I have had the pleasure of playing phone tag with him, exchanging letters and info on the century-old crime.
He kindly sent me information and photos, along with a copy of his response to the 15 questions posed to him by Howard Brody.
Though some of his answers are long and drawn out, as is his initial opening of his letter, his answers satisfy and all too often amuse. He answers the additional five questions Dr. Brody threw in as well as two others he says his readers ask often.
Since the questions have been printed, I feel it is only fair to your readers that you also print Arnold's reply.
I, myself, am still open to all ideas, theories and new information. I am at present awaiting my copy of The Knowlton Papers to arrive, and my dog is still waiting for me to confess.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Plourde
Clearwater, FL

STROUDSBERG, PA - One of the most brutal double homicides in American history occurred on a warm summer day in 1892. Between the hours of nine and eleven o'clock on the morning of August 4, Andrew J. Borden, a wealthy banker, and his second wife, Abby Durfee Gray Borden, were violently hacked to death in their home by an as yet unidentified assailant or assailants. This elderly couple resided on busy Second Street in the heart of downtown Fall River, Massachusetts — a cotton mill city near the Rhode Island state boundary.
Also sharing the house were Andrew's two daughters by his first marriage, Lizzie and Emma, the maid Bridget Sullivan, and John V. Morse, Lizzie's uncle from Iowa who oddly enough, just happened to be visiting them that fateful week.
Lizzie, the 32-year-old daughter of Andrew and Sarah Morse Borden, was promptly arrested and accused of killing her father and stepmother. However, in June of 1893, she was tried and acquitted by a jury in New Bedford, Massachusetts. After spending ten months in jail, Lizzie returned to Fall River to live out the rest of her life as an heiress to her father's fortune. Now rejected by many of her former friends, she resided in the fashionable hill district at Maplecroft until her death in 1927.
The Borden murders have, since that day, achieved the status of America's most famous murder case and Lizzie Borden has become as famous in our folklore, with her mythical axe, as George Washington has with his mythical axing of a cherry tree. One thing is virtually certain: interest in this case will probably never die out.
Over the last century countless theories have been put forth attempting to explain how the murders were committed and who committed them. For the question must be asked, and with good reason, if Lizzie did not commit these crimes as the jury said, then who did? Two people were brutally murdered and its importance has not really diminished any more than if it had happened yesterday. The cause of and search for the truth and justice demand an answer to this historical riddle.
In 1991, one of tile most fascinating attempts to solve tile puzzle appeared oil the book market. This almost 400-page tome is titled Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter. Its author is Arnold R. Brown, a retired General Motors chief and Lizzie buff who lives in Seminole, Florida. Mr. Brown's story seems to draw chiefly upon the alleged notes of an 89-year-old Fall River man named Henry Hawthorne as related by his son-in-law, Lewis Peterson of Florida — Hawthorne having died in 1978.
Arnold Brown acquired this material about ten years later and describes it as "a collection of disconnected ramblings with events choreographed backwards, with simple timing wrong, and with major characters totally ignored or, at best, moved from their traditional locations" (Brown, xiv). It is difficult for me to see how these notes form a reliable basis for research or how they can represent actual historical recollections, since they are so discombobulated.
My best guess is that author Arnold Brown has somehow reworked these notes resulting in the creation of a new and complex myth, or legend, surrounding the case. However, as many legends and myths contain a kernel or kernels of truth, perhaps Mr. Brown's account does also.
I have over the last three years tried to research and examine many of the claims in his book. Although I have been able to locate many of the items indicated, such as newspaper articles and certain vital records — even two of which Mr. Brown said either did not exist or that he was unable to locate — I still find the general scenario portrayed in the book as largely unbelievable and unhistorical in nature. Mr. Brown simply does not provide any real credible evidence or proof for most of his assertions, such as his massive conspiracy theory or the orchestration of the court proceedings or his belief that Andrew Borden had an illegitimate son who was the killer of both victims.
Much of Mr. Brown's account concerns a man named William S. Borden. It is this man that the author alleges, without proof, to be the half-brother of Lizzie Borden and the illegitimate son of Lizzie's father, Andrew. While certain things are known about him from vital records (two death certificates and a marriage certificate) and 1901 news accounts of his alleged suicide, no evidence was forthcoming in my research showing any relationship to the Andrew Borden family.
In Chapter 18, Arnold Brown points out his unsuccessful attempts at locating two items of record relating to William Borden. First, he tells us that "there is no death record of Phebe Hathaway, nor is there any marriage record of Charles Borden and Peace" (Brown, 295-296). However, in March of 1992 1 was notified by the Massachusetts Archives in Boston that such a marriage record exists there in the names of Charles Borden and Peace Bassett, dated 1859.
Perhaps Peace Bassett is related to William Lewis Bassett of Westport. He is the half-brother of William S. Borden, according to Mr. Brown and the 1901 newspaper accounts describing William Borden's death. Brown alleges that it was William Bassett who was seen loitering outside the Borden home on "murder morning." How he knows this, or how Henry Hawthorne, who was only two or three years old at the time, would have known this — along with many other details of the case — is not indicated in the book.
Even Ellen Eagen, Henry's mother-in-law -and Mr. Brown's alleged key to the mystery, who probably did not know the Bordens, the Bassetts, or even the Hawthornes in 1892, would not likely have been privy to such information either. In addition, I find it extremely unlikely. that William Borden or William Bassett would have ever, had they been partners in crime as Brown supposes, confide these details of their exploits to anyone — let alone Ellen Eagen or Henry Hawthorne, a child of under ten years of age in the 1890's. Brown's main information sources certainly appear to have a major credibility problem.
The second item of record concerning William Borden has much more significance as touching upon the issue of murder. Brown has this to say: "The same article noted the death of William (referring to Taunton Daily Gazette of April 20, 1901), commenting that he 'was undoubtedly insane. He spent a period in our asylum some years ago.' Based on that report, it would seem that Bill had been committed to the asylum at least once. If so, official records should be available to verify this and tell us more about him. They are not, but there is every indication that they once were" (Brown, 297). Mr. Brown then goes on to inform the reader how he made three inquiries to the Taunton State Hospital and received back from them three inconsistent replies ending with a terse denial on their part that they possessed any such record which documented William's admission and stay at their facility. Mr. Brown then concludes from the denial that "it appears on the surface that at some time someone had reason to play fast and loose with records on file concerning William S. Borden, on both the city and the state levels" (Brown, 298).
In July of 1992, 1 decided to investigate Arnold's claim of a possible cover-up at Taunton State as concerns the existence and status of information about William S. Borden in their files. I sent a letter of request to Gary C. Phillips, who is Chief Operating Officer there, for a copy of William's record I then made further inquiries by telephone with the record, department at Taunton State Hospital while lodging in Fall River for the BCC Centennial Conference on Lizzie Borden. They informed me that a record on William S. Borden did, indeed, exist in their attic archives and that they would agree to make a copy available to me. Finally, on August 24,1992, Taunton State Hospital sent me, via FAX, all the information they had on file concerning William S. Borden. Since receiving this data, I can certainly say that I find Arnold Brown's allusions to a cover-up on the part of the state hospital to be groundless, to say the least.
The information does indeed establish that William Borden was in the asylum at one time prior to the April 20, 1901 news article. However, the time of his stay at the facility is recorded as December 8,1874 to December 2,1875. That is almost 20 years before the date that Arnold Brown supposes that Bill was committed to the asylum. Arnold says: "We do not know who ordered the commitment of William Borden to the Taunton State Hospital or when it was done. Like the contents of Andrew's safe, the hospital records would tell us much, but they are missing" (Brown, 316). However, on the very next page of his text, referring to his belief that William also murdered Bertha Manchester in May of 1893, Brown states: "If Bill's file were available at the Taunton State Hospital, it would be a cinch bet (assuming the file had not been 'officially' revised) that he was placed in confinement soon after Miss Manchester's murder" (Brown, 317).
Sorry to disappoint, Mr. Brown, but as we shall see, the record is certainly missing and does not appear to have been tampered with either. Further, it shows that William was never in Taunton during the 1890's as Brown supposes, but rather in the 1870's an therefore his treatment there seems to have had no relationship to either the Borden or Manchester murders. The file clearly shows no admissions for Bill between the date of discharge on December 2, 1875 and the last curious entry in the record dated May 15, 1901, which concerns his alleged suicide in Fall River.
Now I present, for the readers' convenience of reading, a transcript of the contents from the one-and-a-half page document concerning William S. Borden's association with the Taunton mental facility:

5821——William S. Borden Act. 19 Married Fall River Labour.
F.——Taunton 4 weeks Hereditary. 2 Sisters and 2 Aunts insane.
Dec. 8th——Sister no. 4822, Loss of employment had a depressing effect.
1874——Melancholy, Suicidal. Went into the pond this a.m.
Prob. Ct.——Wil. S. was married eight weeks ago. Temperate. at entrance
quick-depressed.
Wife——Dec. 2nd 1875. Patient was quite depressed and very quiet through the
East——winter. Towards spring he began to wake
Taunton—up and become very active. Early in
Mass.——March was at work in the laundry. In April was allowed his parole of the
Father——grounds. he went everywhere, and was
Charles—— up to all sorts of mischief When shut in
hall he became quite troublesome and
Fall River——destructive and was secluded in a screened room for a fortnight. In May
Sister——he eloped, and was gone 24 hours —
Eliza A.——went to Fall River and New Bedford. —
Borden——returned voluntarily — sent to rm. 8
#10,232 R—— Early in August he was up to all the
#12,310 R—— mischief possible — breaking glass,
#13,570—— tearing off window casings, digging off mortar etc.
Tried belts, straps, seclusion
Sister—— etc. with little avail. Learning that an
Amanda—— iron crib was being constructed for his
Taylor—— especial benefit, he desisted — saying he
#4822—— did not want to get into anything that he
#11,255—— could not get out of. Oct. 20th. he eloped,
was gone a week and then brought back
on the 27th of Oct. has been doing very
well, Has worked out some. Always
inclined to get into trouble striking with
very little provocation. Was discharged
to go by himself
Dec. 2nd 1875. Discharged Recovered p. 286
5821 (p. 287) William S. Borden Act. 19 Married
May15-01 A few days ago the above patient Wm. S. Borden
committed suicide by taking carbolic acid, and afterwards
hanging himself to a tree by the roadside.

In closing, I must point out that the above record clearly establishes a profile of violent type behavior and severe mental problems for or William predating the Borden murders by many years, thereby making him a possible candidate for Arnold Brown's suspected killer of Andrew and Abby Borden. In addition, it a so establishes a history of suicidal tendencies predating his alleged suicide in 1901.
This fact was unknown to the writer in the Fall River Herald for April 18, 1901. He states: "It is established that Mr. Borden was very erratic, though it is not known here that he ever before exhibited suicidal tendencies" (Brown, 305). Arnold Brown insists that William's death was murder. While I tend to agree that his manner of death was very strange, to say the least, the official verdict of suicide by hanging has not been convincingly overthrown and indeed is supported by William's psychiatric history.
The final entry in his hospital record does raise interesting questions for further research. The entry is dated May 15, 1901. This is almost a whole month after the news accounts describing his death. These clearly indicate that this sad event occurred on April 17, 1901. The hospital would have one believe that this happened only a few days before May 15. Why this discrepancy exists between records, I cannot say. It would appear that someone supplied false information to the hospital for some reason.
Possibly this data came from one of two death certificates that exist for William. I must credit Jules R. Ryckebusch for this insight. He informed me that one certificate is filed in Taunton and dated May 1901. Perhaps it is from this strange second death record that Taunton State received their false information. I leave this for the readers to ponder the possible significance. The markings of a cover-up and conspiracy, a-la Arnold Brown, could certainly be found here.

Dear Mr. Bertolet:
After a full half-dozen court mandated rewrites, my follow-up book (The Trial of Billy Borden) has, apparently, and with fervid hope, cleared all the questioned ownership hurdles. If the crick don't rise again too soon, it should be on your dealer's shelves next August, approximately on the 4th. Thinking people will love it.
All best wishes,
Arnold R. Brown

December 20,1995
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your continued publication of the Lizzie Borden Quarterly and welcome aboard as its new editor.
Thank you, too, for Fritz Adilz. It is a pleasure reading the works of someone willing to think rather than simply mouth the age-old pap. Thinking is dangerous; it often leads to truth. Uncle John was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a before-the-fact conspirator with Miss Lizzie. Their collusion was not to do murder most foul, but to insure the temporary removal of Mrs. Abby Borden from the house on Second Street.
Mrs. Borden, it is written in many accounts, seldom left the house beyond trips to shops located just around the comer. The "conspirators" needed Mrs. Borden out of the house for an extended period of time to provide Andrew's son, William Borden, with sufficient time for a meeting with his father. Billie had demanded, and was granted, a problem-discussion audience.
On a recorded previous occasion, Mrs. Borden disrupted a meeting between them. This angered William Borden, provably unstable mentally, to a fever pitch. For the meeting, the "conspirators" had devised a plan that insured there could be no possibility of Mrs. Borden interfering and disrupting. Abby Borden fervently hated William and all that William, by accident of his birth, symbolized to her.
On what became the murder morning, Mr. Morse's attribution was completed. Abby would accompany William Bassett to nearby Westport on a mission of mercy. When Uncle John left the house, he was headed for the Old Colony Depot to catch the departing-at-noon train back to Fairhaven. In 1892, this depot was located within 500 yards of his nephew's house on Weybosset Street. Quite naturally, Mr. Morse allotted sufficient time for a short visit With his relatives before catching the train.
As a perfect example of the Lizzie-Lore Legend clouding the facts, while Miss Bridget did, in recorded fact, testify that she overheard Mr. Borden invite his brother-in-law back for noon dinner that would-be murder morning, NO ONE, Miss Bridget included, testified that she or he heard John Morse either accept or decline the invitation. Because acceptance of the invitation fits the legend as snugly as an Isotoner leather glove made in the Philippines, Lizzie-Lore says he accepted the invitation and planned a return to the house. In provable fact, he did not accept it; he declined it.
After the murders, Miss Lizzie pressed Dr. Bowen into service as a messenger whose assignment was to go as quickly as possible and find Uncle John who was either at the Emery house or walking to the depot. He was to tell them what had happened and stop him from taking his train. Want proof? Easy. First read my account depicting the murder day actions of Dr. Seabury W. Bowen beginning on page 163 of Lizzie Borden - The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter, (available at your local Public Library free of charge), and then read HK113, Page 117 of The Knowlton Papers (available at the Fall River Historical Society).
Successfully intercepted by Dr. Bowen and told Andrew Borden had been slain, John Morse returned to the house on Second Street and entered the yard IN SHOCK. Provably, as I pointed out in my book, the crowd assembled there when he arrived may not have registered in his muddled mind. His first recorded question asked of Miss Lizzie is most revealing, "For God's sakes, how did this happen?"
Tell me, is that the question of a man who helped plot the brutal murders of two friends or is it the question of a man who helped plan a perfectly innocent action that, in his mind, must somehow, have gone tragically wrong.
Need more? Keep thinking and ask questions.
Sincerely,
Arnold R. Brown

ONE FACT - ONE BOOK
On rereading the various tomes on the Borden case I find facts asserted in only one book, and not repeated in any other. For instance, Agnes de Mille writes on page 35 of her book that, "the city hall clock was known to be out of kilter -- off by ten minutes." This is not repeated elsewhere, but if that truly was the case it throws off the general understanding of the times on that fateful morning. Most authorities say that Bridget heard Lizzie's alarm at eleven o'clock when City Hall tolled the hour. But if Miss deMille had the facts right Spiering's assertion that Bridget heard the alarm at ten minutes after eleven o'clock, and not on the hour, is correct.
I question that Lizzie would have had the strength to break the hatchet handle in half. After all, the wood for such a tool is especially selected for hardness. Now, however, Colin Wilson, a respected British writer introduces a vise, in his Mammoth Book of True Crime 2, as follows: "Then she went to the barn and washed the hatchet, smashed off its bloodstained handle in a vise, which she burnt and rubbed the blade in ashes." Nowhere, in the trial testimony or in other books and articles have I seen a vise mentioned.
Frank Spiering had the Fall River Line of steamships zigzagging up and down the Quequechan River. That bit of knowledge is, of course, unique. The Quequechan River is eminently unnavigable for such palatial steamers. Not only is it a narrow stream in places, but it is filled with rocks and waterfalls.
Aside from his main (an illegitimate son was of the awful crime), Arnold Brown's book affords a plethora of fact and fantasy not found elsewhere. Here are some examples:
When Abby went to see Dr. Bowen on the Wednesday before the murders, she "underlined her own illness by ungraciously vomiting in his office." I wonder where Mr. Brown picked up this juicy bit -- it is not mentioned in any other writing that I know of.
On page 19 of the book the assertion is made that Andrew Borden controlled all the banks in Fall River. In 1892, there were in town seven National Banks, four Savings Banks, one Co-operative Bank, and one Trust Company. According to City Directories, Andrew Borden was connected with only two of these thirteen institutions. He was President and Director of the Union Savings Bank (which shared the same offices with the National Union Bank), and a Director of the B.M.C. Durfee Safe Deposit & Trust Company.
On page 174 we learn for the first time that soon after the trial, Dr. Bowen retired and spent the rest of his life as a gentleman of leisure.
In another instance, Mr. Brown seems to contradict himself. He tells us on page 41 that Emma "never in her adult life had been away from home for as long as overnight." However, see page 112 for a report of her visits out of town of several nights duration.
I don't mean to be picking apart the Brown book, and I'm sure Mr. Brown has a logical explanation, but I wonder where he got the impression that Harrington, "in spite of his Irish in me was accepted by the Hill," or that he lived on Turner Street (page 118) since the City Directory lists his address as being on Franklin Street. (Both locations are "below the Hill").

From the day of its publication, my book, LIZZIE BORDEN, The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter has faced criticism. My defense enjoys an overwhelming success ratio. Let me test your mettle,
In the July Quarterly five items were questioned.
1) Abby's (some insist Abbie) Wednesday morning's visit to Dr. Bowen.
My source for this "juicy bit" was included in a family collection of private papers salvaged from the estate of Dr. Seabury Bowen. These were shown to me during the research phase of the book's conception. In these, Dr. Bowen stated that Abby vomited. Dr. Bowen's words at the inquest were:
"At that time she had a sort of eructation of vomiting, slightly. I was afraid she was going to vomit there, I rather got ready for her." (From the Stenographer's Minutes: "Inquest upon the deaths of Andrew J. Borden and Abby D. Borden," page 116.)
At the Inquest Dr. Bowen did not volunteer graphic details beyond "eructation of vomiting, slightly." (The transcript of the Inquest testimony was published by the Fall River Historical Society and made available to the public more than two years after my book's publication.)
Later, at the Preliminary Hearing (transcript page 407), he softened this a step further. He testified,
"At the time, during the time, she very nearly vomited, so much so, that I was getting something ready for her. Whether she did in her handkerchief (sic), or not, I could not say ..."
In testimony he testified she may have vomited. In the reference material shown to me early on he was far more graphic. She vomited and he praised Heaven for his preparation.
2) The reference to page 19 in my book:
On page 19, Mary Eagan is introduced who, admittedly, controlled no Fall River banks whatsoever. On page 50, 1 stated that Andrew "owned one of Fall River's banks and had four fingers and at least one foot in three others." That is different from what is claimed I wrote on page 19.
3) The reference to page 174:
Yes, Dr. Bowen DID spend the remainder of his life as a well-to-do gentleman of leisure. I do not understand the point of the reference.
4) The reference to page 41:
My disclaimer was omitted from the reference, ". . . as far as can be determined." And, I cannot find where on page 112 1 made ANY reference to Emma's visits away from home other than what I outlined as her only visit. However, on page 113, 1 did quote a newspaper account that said,
"She will be required to tell about her prolonged visit [Note the singular form] to friends in Dartmouth and Fairhaven
The newspaper's reference here is to Emma's ONE AND ONLY known stay away from home, as outlined on Page 41. During this ONLY visit, her father and her stepmother were murdered. A thinking person would label that singular happening as an amazing coincidence, if not something far more sinister.
5) Hiram C. Harrington's residence:
Allow me to quote my source (copy upon request):
"Hiram C. Harrington died on January 30, 1907 in his home at 266 Franklin Street, age 77 years, 11 months and 4 days. It was his blacksmith shop that was on Fourth Street, at number 30. In 1891 and 1892 he lived at 12 Turner Street, moved to 54 Franklin Street in 1893." [Underlining mine. Here is yet another astonishing coincidence!] "In 1896 all numbers in Fall River were changed but I believe he was at the same locations but the shop was number 76 Fourth and his home was 266 Franklin Street."
The above information came to me on Fall River Historical Society stationery over the signature of Mrs. Florence Brigham. I did not question her information.
For the record, Harrington's new home on Franklin Street abutted THE HILL on the north which made it a far better location than his Turner Street house. There, just feet away, his neighbor to the west was Fall River's main railroad station and a third-class commercial section of North Main Street on the east. Some might find it questionable that, in the very year when Miss Lizzie's fate had been signed and sealed in her favor, Uncle Harrington could suddenly afford a much finer home in a much finer neighborhood. I wonder what his silence might have cost her?
There was an error that was overlooked and not corrected in any of the book's first four printings. On page 126, "Patty" should be "Paddy."
I do have logical explanations for each and every claim apropos to the case. I welcome every opportunity to defend the book.
Best personal regards,
Arnold R. Brown

An Apology
Arnold Brown did not ask for an apology, but one is due and is herewith given. My comments about Mr. Brown's book in the July Quarterly were flawed and his comments and corrections in the ensuing issue are well taken and appreciated.

In the event you are not the least bit concerned or don't give a fig as to what Hiram C. Harrington's home address was in 1892, please read the included reproduction of a Daily Globe article dated August 6, 1892.
Uncle John Morse's first sojourn out of the Borden house on the Friday evening following the murders has been cited repeatedly in almost all accounts of the Borden murders. His second journey of the evening has been totally overlooked and ignored by all as being of no importance whatsoever. It is, in actual fact, of tremendous significance. That evening he broke his house parole twice. The first outing was to POST a letter or letters (the "official" poppycock attempts to cover up this most germane fact by saying he went to the Post Office to GET the household's mail). His second recorded trip was to visit with someone who lived on Turner Street.
In that era, two houses stood on Turner Street, wedged between the extremely busy major railroad depot and North Main Street. Unless Mrs. Brigham's information is incorrect, one of these two was the home of Uncle Hiram Harrington. WHY would Morse go there? I'm a skeptic by nature but, had I been the beloved and venerated Hon. Hosea M. Knowlton, Esq., I would have asked either or both of these gentlemen why there was a pressing need for conversing together that evening. For some reason, in any or all of the four hearings or trials in which Morse and Mr. Harrington testified, this question was never asked.
The Mellon House gang did their wondrous works in a most mysterious. highly successful and highly profitable way.
From The Fall River DAILY GLOBE - August 6, 1 1892
INTENSE EXCITEMENT
Three Thousand People Follow Morse to the Post Office.
The greatest excitement since the first announcement of the tragedy was manifested last night when Morse made his appearance shortly after 8 o'clock. He came out through the front door, passed through the gate and started down Second Street.
Word was passed to Officer Minnehan who was guarding the rear of the building and he immediately started to shadow Morse. The crowd, seeing the officer starting off somewhat hurriedly, made a grand rush after him and in a few seconds a howling mob of nearly a thousand people were rushing after Minnehan and Morse and the amusing part was that not one in fifty knew what they were running for.
Morse walked steadily down Second Street, seemingly ignorant of the presence of the crowd; he crossed Pleasant Street passing along the east side of Market square. Near the Post Office he met a lady with whom he passed a few words and then mounted the steps and walked through the corridor.
The crowd had by this time increased until there mug have been three thousand people crowded about the building and all asking 'what's the matter?' Morse's reappearance was not a signal for a demonstration, as so few knew him, and when he started on the return trip the mob was still holding their eyes fast on the Custom House and but few followed him
He returned to the house with the mail and shortly after nine o'clock reappeared and walked down to Main Street who. he boarded a Bowenville car. Officer Minnehan was also an the car and shadowed the man to the house on Turner Street He made but a short stay and returned again directly to the Borden house.

Mr. Brown graduated from the General Motors Institute and was employed 30 years by General Motors Automobile Engineering. During the course of his employment, General Motors sent him to Germany in 1966 for three years to assist in the development of the Volvo for production. His retirement years allowed time for him to study, research, and pursue the legend of Lizzie Borden.
Originally a Fall River native, Mr. Brown grew up with the Lizzie Borden story and later became interested after a friend of the family produced a letter about the case. He spent four years researching his theory and in 1991 his book Lizzie Borden: The Legend, The Truth, the Final Chapter was published. The book's premise was rooted in the belief a conspiracy had prevented the truth from being established. This concept was new to the Borden community and met with mixed reviews.