Lizzie Borden Society Forum

My dear friends and colleagues, you will all age before your time trying to get RayS to see the point of any other theory but Arnold Brown's.

There, I said it and I'm glad.

Oh, and concerning how the library lists a book as "proving" its essence: because it's easier for the manufacturers of both original cast albums and movie soundtracks to store, catalog, and spray-ink the side labels of products of both types as "soundtracks," does that make the original cast recording of, let's say, CATS a "soundtrack?"

No, it does not.

Bob Gutowski @ Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:21 pm wrote:My dear friends and colleagues, you will all age before your time trying to get RayS to see the point of any other theory but Arnold Brown's.

There, I said it and I'm glad.

Oh, and concerning how the library lists a book as "proving" its essence, because it's easier for the manufacturers of both original cast albums and movie soundtracks to store, catalog, and spray-ink the side labels of products of both types as "soundtracks," does that make the original cast recording of, let's say, CATS a "soundtrack?"

No, it does not.

Amen and halleluja Brother!

WHAT other theory? The other contenders are Pearson & Sullivan (Lizzie did it), or Radin (Bridget could've done it), or Spiering (Emma did it).
The lack of bloodstains and murder weapon say neither Bridget or Lizzie did it. Uncle John and Emma had alibis, and were never suspects (altho investigated).
Brown's book (from the notes of Henry Hawthorne and Ellen Eagan) does 'solve' the crime by suggesting an unknown subject did it. You did read Todd Lunday's book, didn't you? Same suggestion, if as a satire.

I sure hope some others would read up on this subject, and do more than just criticize. I do not regard Lubinsky as a possible subject.
In the real world, the police often lock in on a subject and drop any other investigation. Was Lizzie meant as bait to distract the police? You decide.
Spiering notes how there was a work stoppage, the rest of you don't understand the implications of missing a shipment date.

Frank Spiering at least has the quote (accurate?) of Grace Ann Howe (Lizzie's heir) as saying it was really Emma. Can you believe it?

Rebello, 310
"Pearson, Edmund, 'Legends of Lizzie,' The New Yorker, April 22, 1933: 20-22."

"Pearson reported on the many legends of Lizzie after her acquittal including Lizzie's week-long house-party for Nance O'Neil and the entire theatrical troupe. Lizzie sent newspaper clippings to Att. Moody with a note that she thought Mr. Moody would like to have the clippings and pictures as souvenirs of an interesting occasion.

Colonel Louis McHenry Howe, the husband of Lizzie's cousin Grace Borden Hartley Howe, claimed Emma killed the Bordens."

Kat @ Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:25 am wrote:Rebello, 310
"Pearson, Edmund, 'Legends of Lizzie,' The New Yorker, April 22, 1933: 20-22."

"Pearson reported on the many legends of Lizzie after her acquittal including Lizzie's week-long house-party for Nance O'Neil and the entire theatrical troupe. Lizzie sent newspaper clippings to Att. Moody with a note that she thought Mr. Moody would like to have the clippings and pictures as souvenirs of an interesting occasion.

Colonel Louis McHenry Howe, the husband of Lizzie's cousin Grace Borden Hartley Howe, claimed Emma killed the Bordens."

Is there ANY documentary proof for this allegation?
Does it sound too good to be true?

Frank Spiering at least has the quote (accurate?) of Grace Ann Howe (Lizzie's heir) as saying it was really Emma. Can you believe it?

--Ray

I'm only clearing up the name thing and the fact that it was Col. Howe who believed it was Emma, not his wife's belief, per se.

You know, supposedly Mr. Fish, Priscilla's husband, thought "Lizzie and Morse" *did it.*
He was a brother-in-law of Andrew.
Andrew's other brother-in-law, Hiram Harrington, was Lizzie's only named *suspect.*
Some dysfunctional extended family here...

The Family seems to have kept their suspicions within the family- see Col. Howe, as well.

RayS @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:44 pm wrote: Is there ANY documentary proof for this allegation?
Does it sound too good to be true?

A lot of folks have asked the same questions about Arnold Brown's/Pete Peterson/Henry Hawthorn's allegations. . .

FairhavenGuy @ Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:45 pm wrote:

RayS @ Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:44 pm wrote: Is there ANY documentary proof for this allegation?
Does it sound too good to be true?

A lot of folks have asked the same questions about Arnold Brown's/Pete Peterson/Henry Hawthorn's allegations. . .

As far as I know, it is from the Hawthorn papers that were given to Brown, plus his own investigation. It says so in Brown's book.

NOTE that the story of newspaper clippings seems to have no proof aside from being a legend. Like the story of beheading a cat. Telling a story does not make it a fact.

RayS @ Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:10 pm wrote: Telling a story does not make it a fact.

I agree!

***As far as I know, it is from the Hawthorn papers that were given to Brown, plus his own investigation. It says so in Brown's book.***
____________

ray:

i know you like to skirt this, but i still want to see this damn notebook.

i'd also like to see the stuff that was supposedly cut out of the brown book. and i'd also like to know what happened to the follow-up book that was rumored--or at least some of the material for it.

that's not unreasonable. what brown says is just like what anybody says.

Haulover @ Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:21 pm wrote:***As far as I know, it is from the Hawthorn papers that were given to Brown, plus his own investigation. It says so in Brown's book.***
____________

ray:

i know you like to skirt this, but i still want to see this damn notebook.

i'd also like to see the stuff that was supposedly cut out of the brown book. and i'd also like to know what happened to the follow-up book that was rumored--or at least some of the material for it.

that's not unreasonable. what brown says is just like what anybody says.

And so would I! But Brown's mortality may have prevented this, just as the info in Jennings papers kept by his successor law firm.

I will make this assertion: Lizzie did NOT pay off Bridget to leave the country. But I think Jennings papers contain a contract for a loan. Lizzie lent Bridget $5,000 to finance her trip to Ireland, which would have to be repaid with interest when Bridget returned to America. That is why Bridget sailed to Canada, went across country to arrive in Butte Montana.

This was NOT a pay-off no matter what it smells like. Bridget's testimony did not aid Lizzie; her only action was to NOT contradict Lizzie's statement that Lizzie was up on the staircase and laughed. If Bridget said "No, Miss Lizzie, you was in the kitchen when Mr. Borden came home" then that would tell everyone about the Unknown Subject hiding in the house. IMO

I'm sure the ankle-biters will respond with lots of sarcasm and few facts.

"that's not unreasonable. what brown says is just like what anybody says."
But Brown is NOT just like anybody else. He is the sole author who came up with a viable solution to this long unsolved mystery.

Never mind that "he can't prove it"; neither can anyone else, even the authorities of that day. His solution WORKS by providing a person who could have done the murder and so explain the unexplained.
Neither Lizzie or Bridget had bloodstained clothes, no murder weapon, etc. But only Lizzie benefitted from Andy's death.

BTW, nobody has ever solved the murder of Marilyn Sheppard, either. And that was more modern. Who do you think did it?

I'm sure the ankle-biters will respond with lots of sarcasm and few facts.

RayS...I find this remark very offensive. I feel that name-calling does not promote free and open discussion, which is the whole point of having this forum.


Tracy...

RayS @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:41 pm wrote:
BTW, nobody has ever solved the murder of Marilyn Sheppard, either. And that was more modern. Who do you think did it?

Richard Eberling, that's who I think did it.

"Nevermind that he can't prove it."

At this point nobody could prove anything concerning the case. Not unless we found some long lost handwritten signed confession. That would even be in doubt if found after all this time. But anyone could come up with a viable suspect if they are given the rule that they don't have to prove what they say is true, or operate within the boundaries of common sense.

Arnold Brown's book might be a good piece of writing, but it has often been pointed out that even he said he can't prove it. Anybody can claim anything if they don't have to back it up with proof. Like the fact that I'm from an old and very ancient line of Royalty, who had to go into hiding many years ago because of persecution. I can't prove it, but I am.

I'm sure the ankle-biters will respond with lots of sarcasm and few facts.[/quote]




Ray-
I think I've found the perfect avatar for you.

theebmonique @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:30 pm wrote:

I'm sure the ankle-biters will respond with lots of sarcasm and few facts.

RayS...I find this remark very offensive. I feel that name-calling does not promote free and open discussion, which is the whole point of having this forum.


Tracy...

In WHAT way do you find this offensive? I believe an "ankle-biter" refers to a tiny dog that is no threat but an annoyance.
"Those who can do, those who can't criticize" - an old, old saying.
Note how my critics disagree but quote NOTHING from any book.

Since those notes were Pete Peterson's property, wouldn't they have been returned to the owner? Or what? Brown says the original notes didn't make sense until he did more research (see 'Acknoledgments") for his story.
Thanks for paying attention.

Allen @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:56 pm wrote:

RayS @ Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:41 pm wrote:
BTW, nobody has ever solved the murder of Marilyn Sheppard, either. And that was more modern. Who do you think did it?

Richard Eberling, that's who I think did it.

"Nevermind that he can't prove it."

At this point nobody could prove anything concerning the case. Not unless we found some long lost handwritten signed confession. That would even be in doubt if found after all this time. But anyone could come up with a viable suspect if they are given the rule that they don't have to prove what they say is true, or operate within the boundaries of common sense.

Arnold Brown's book might be a good piece of writing, but it has often been pointed out that even he said he can't prove it. Anybody can claim anything if they don't have to back it up with proof. Like the fact that I'm from an old and very ancient line of Royalty, who had to go into hiding many years ago because of persecution. I can't prove it, but I am.

NO, you will never (I hope) make that claim about royalty.
The fact is that the murder will never be solved as the only suspect is long dead. BUT that widow who he killed had the identical fractured vertebrae that Dr. Sam suffered (the same MO).
Of course, this comes from James Neff's book. Will anyone whine about him?

Angel @ Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:50 pm wrote:I'm sure the ankle-biters will respond with lots of sarcasm and few facts.

Ray-
I think I've found the perfect avatar for you.[/quote]

I am sure you did your very best in that handsome picture. Ha-ha-ha.