Conspiracy with Hyman Lubinsky

[Haulover]

i'd just like to clarify what i mean about lizzie involved with a man. i DON'T mean a "proper beau". i don't mean an acceptable -- but an unacceptable choice -- and therefore, the secrecy of it. and nothing that could have ever even existed socially. think of the many people moving through there who would have been considered actually inferior. connect this with the idea (generally believable) that lizzie was desperate for simple affection -- and the chances she might have taken. that's what i'm getting at -- as a speculative explanation for how the tragic situation could have come about. we do know from her later life that lizzie was not afraid to associate or befriend those types who were supposed to be beneath her. this is one thing about her i do like -- individualism (in contrast to emma) -- she apparently did pretty much what she wanted. she did things most women of her age and background would not do, didn't she? she "got down" with show people, it seems to be. she thumbed her nose. emma ran.

that's one perspective that came through in kat's article -- i liked this observation, that emma followed lizzie for as long as she could, and subsequently seemed to follow others. the article was basically an emma bio, but that is one point that resonated with me.

as for this argument with ray, i admit i haven't read it all in detail. i confess some cynicism. i take it -- it's still the same.

[RayS]

The one teeny, tiny problem with Arnold Brown's theory is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that William Borden is Andrew's illegitimate son. And, unfortunately, if that's not proved, there's simply no case whatsoever. All the high and mightly conspiracy simply crumbles into nothing. It has no reason for being at all.

There is ample proof that Hyman Lubinsky was an ice cream vendor for Mr. Wilkinson and that he picked up his wagon from the stable down the road that morning.

Just that alone is more than Brown proved of his case.

Sorry, Ray. Them's just the facts. . .

Sorry guy, but you didn't define "shred of evidence".
Obviously the Hawthorne memoirs gave a clue, and, the fact of Andy selling the Liberty St farm to a young man (impoverished and unable to afford it?) speaks for itself. Also the lack of a birth certificate.

Yes, anyone can make a claim. What impresses me is that Arnold Brown was not a professional writer, and, his information sort of fell into his hands. He then researched it, and found it "worked" to explain the mystery of the Borden murders. Check it out for yourself.

So what do YOU think? Was Lubinsky, his horse, and his boss part of a conspiracy? That's the kind of imagination that gives "conspiracy theorists" a bad name.

[DWilly]

i'd just like to clarify what i mean about lizzie involved with a man. i DON'T mean a "proper beau". i don't mean an acceptable -- but an unacceptable choice -- and therefore, the secrecy of it. and nothing that could have ever even existed socially. think of the many people moving through there who would have been considered actually inferior. connect this with the idea (generally believable) that lizzie was desperate for simple affection -- and the chances she might have taken. that's what i'm getting at -- as a speculative explanation for how the tragic situation could have come about. we do know from her later life that lizzie was not afraid to associate or befriend those types who were supposed to be beneath her. this is one thing about her i do like -- individualism (in contrast to emma) -- she apparently did pretty much what she wanted. she did things most women of her age and background would not do, didn't she? she "got down" with show people, it seems to be. she thumbed her nose. emma ran.

that's one perspective that came through in kat's article -- i liked this observation, that emma followed lizzie for as long as she could, and subsequently seemed to follow others. the article was basically an emma bio, but that is one point that resonated with me.

as for this argument with ray, i admit i haven't read it all in detail. i confess some cynicism. i take it -- it's still the same.

The thing is how many "lower class" men did Lizzie know? How many did she come into contact with? How would she have developed a relationship with this guy? It's not as if she could just go out and have coffee with him somewhere or invite him into the house for tea. Can you really picture her having sex in the barn? Or do you think she would have been bold enough to go to this guys place whatever that might be? Frankly, if you're going to look at someone of a lower class for Lizzie to get involved with then why not look at Bridget? Bridget was right there in the house and she could have easily given Lizzie affection. Also, there's the dress maker. Lizzie was pretty fond of dress makers and we know the dress maker did go up to the guest room with Lizzie. About the only lower class men Lizzie may have really been around were the painters. But, still would she have brought one of them into the house?

[mbhenty]

Please don't accept any of my comments to be pro one way or the other. Though I know enough to comment on the subject, much of it has been bounced off other people's ideas an assertions over the years. Though I do make a stance on what I believe, I must warn you that Santa was once very real to me. Ok not funny:

But, I think that what makes Brown's theory plausible is not what you can prove but what you cannot. And if you subscribe to the idea that an outside party did the crime, that they were known to Lizzie, or possibly to the entire Borden household, then Mr. Brown's story comes to life. In that respect one can make a few tiny pieces fit. If there was such a person as an illegitimate son to Borden, then there is the possibility that it could have been kept a family secret and that Lizzie could even have held some sympathy or brotherly affection for him; enough to plan the murder and use him as an accomplice.

If some one of Lizzie's bold tempermant carried herself in such a manner as she saw fit, then she got it from someone, probably the old man. And if he was just as bold as she was, one can see how easly he could take what he wanted, even another man's wife. And back then these were valued family secrets that everyone pretended did not exist, and rarely left the bounds of intimate family lore.

My mom told me many stories of past relatives that just floored me. (and it took her many years to do so.) "No Mom, not Aunt Hilda?" Though some of these events happened over 60 years ago, she gaurded her words as she spoke and left much blank for me to fill in. But it was quite obvious, from illigitimate sons and daughters to bigotry. These things happened back then as they do today, from Shakesper to Dickens to the Clintons.

And if this illigitamate son was anything like Lizzie or her father, one can imagine the rage he could muster. He would not have been accepted by both his familys and probably cheated out of both inheritances. And if Lizzie carried such a strong desire to live on the hill, who is to know weather his desires were even stronger and never to be realized.

But, what proof is there that he was Andrew Borden's son. Sorry, can't help you with that. But Mr. Brown does a wonderful job putting the scenerio together. But then there we go again with such words as scenario, theory, probablility. What secrets lay beneath the soil in those graves at Oak Grove.

[FairhavenGuy]

Obviously the Hawthorne memoirs gave a clue, and, the fact of Andy selling the Liberty St farm to a young man (impoverished and unable to afford it?) speaks for itself. Also the lack of a birth certificate.

Where'd you get the "fact" Andrew sold Liberty Street to William? It's certainly not in Brown.

Get your copy off the shelf. Turn to page 316, if you have the hard cover.

According to Arnold Brown, the property at 38 Liberty Street, East Taunton, was deeded to Simon and Catherine Hathaway from 1864 to 1872. Brown says “Their relationship to Phebe Hathaway is unknown. . . .” p. 316. In 1872 the property went to Lewis B. Gammons, the father-in-law of William S. Borden. This is the farm where William S. Borden lived.

There is no connection between ANDREW Borden and any of this.

William S. Borden lived on a farm that his father-in-law had purchased from some Hathaways two years before Rebecca Gammons and William S. Borden were married.

What inference can be drawn? NONE, MAYBE?


There is no birth certificate for William S. Borden. Arnold Brown uses this one and only point to "prove" William S. Borden must be illegitimate. (Even though William's marriage record and his death records list Charles Borden as his father)

There are no birth certificates for lots of people in the 1800s. Most of Fairhaven’s original birth records for 1812, 1813, 1814, and 1815 were lost when the record book was washed of a wharf in the Great Gale of 1815, for example. Just because all thos folks don’t have birth records, doesn’t mean they’re illegitimate.

I honestly think, Ray, you ought to read Brown again, because you're propping up his theory with "facts" that he doesn't have himself.

Please explain the Liberty Street farm to me if I don't have it right.

[FairhavenGuy]

Hi, mbhenty,

One thing you have to watch is the "You can't prove it didn't happen that way" line of reasoning, which is a favorite of all conspiracy theorists, whether you're talking assassination conspiracies, the moon landing never happened conspiracies, etc.

You mentioned Santa in your post. In jest. But. . . you can't prove Santa didn't slide down the Borden chimney and murder the folks while no other creatures were stirring, not even the mice. . .

"You can't prove it didn't happen that way is a flawed argument. It's bad science and bad history.

To prove a murder case, or even propose a plausible explanation, there must be something, or better yet, a whole bunch of somethings, that connect your suspect to the scene of the crime and to the victim(s).

There's no proof William S. Borden is Andrew's illegitimate son.

There's nothing that connects William S. Borden to Andrew in any way whatsoever.

There's nothing to show that William S. Borden was on Second Street, or in Fall River, or even in Massachusetts on the morning of the crime.

There's nothing to show that Morse or Andrew or Lizzie or ANYONE had been in any kind of communication whatsoever with William S. Borden. Ever.

There's no evidence of anyone smelling the "William Borden smell" at the Borden house. Ever.

Even when Brown has a "real" fact, he neatly misleads the reader into thinking that maybe it means more than it does. (The Liberty Street farm property mentioned in my earlier post being a case in point. He implies connections that do not exist at all.)



I'm trying to approach this case as a local historian. Historians hold certain standards for verification and authentication of fact. History and criminology are similar in many respects, which is maybe why I'm drawn to both subjects.

Both in history and criminology, you must show your sources so that everyone can double check their validity.

Yesterday, in this Lizzie Borden case, I discovered that a name connected with the case seems to have been misspelled since it first appeared in the record. A search of this site shows me that when the name has appeared in discussions here, it has only appeared in its incorrect form. Therefore, there could be a whole lot about this person that no one has uncovered yet, because we've always had the WRONG name!

This could lead to nothing at all. Or it could lead to something very interesting.

I'm getting of track, here. My point is don't fall for the "You can't prove it didn't happen that way" ruse, because anybody can make up a theory that could stand that flawed test.

[DWilly]

Hi, mbhenty,

One thing you have to watch is the "You can't prove it didn't happen that way" line of reasoning, which is a favorite of all conspiracy theorists, whether you're talking assassination conspiracies, the moon landing never happened conspiracies, etc.

.

I am also new to the Lizzie Borden case and have only recently started reading the books and things posted in the archives. I agree with what Fairhaven has said. I do want to add that in my opinion the "David Anthony did it" crowd also tends to throw in a lot of things pretty much the same way. By that I mean their belief that Lizzie was pregnant and had an abortion.

No proof Lizzie and David were together

No proof Lizzie was pregnant. Some of the "David Anthony" crowd point to of all things the McHenry/Trickey article to bolster their "claim" but won't talk about how Jennings tried to find "Chace" and never did. Some dismiss that by simply saying the person who heard Lizzie and her father fighting used a different name. Why they think he would do that I don't know.

There's no proof Lizzie had an abortion. Just because Dr.Joe Schmoo was caught giving abortions in Fall Rivers doesn't mean Lizzie had one. That is not proof.

So, Brown isn't the only one concocting stories. Also, I noticed both the Brown theory and the Anthony story have a tendency to think half of Fall Rivers was "in on it."

[Erato]

Right on, FHG. I see statements like "But, I think that what makes Brown's theory plausible is not what you can prove but what you cannot" and I cringe. The illogic is mind blowing. And, to top it all off, RayS urges us to apply Occam's Razor to the case.

[mbhenty]

Thanks for the response Rays, Fairhavenguy and Everyone. In my defense to Brown's account I was choosing to play the devils advocate.

When speaking to Mr Brown I walked away with the feeling that he appeared a very honest person. This being so, doesn't mean he knows what he is talking about, and possibly just labels me as a bad judge of the facts. But, until I feel that I do know what I'm talking about, I am prepared to entertain all possible solutions and murderers.

I understand the dangers behind the, "You can't prove it did not happen that way", as a slide rule for measuring the truth. If so the possible scenarios could be endless. Like my sister said, "The Pigeons in the loft did it for revenge". One can come up with any conclusion he wishes and then add, "You can't prove it didn't happen.........etc.

But, Im more than happy to receive the advice. It can only sharpen my understanding behind this crime.

I understand that the impression of not being able to disprove something as a concept to a solution would be bad science and history. I would not have brought it up if I truly believed it without laying out a defense, or if I was an authority on Crime and theory, but alas I'm just an enthusiast. One who is excited about all possibilities. My opinions are open and ideas flow the same. But I do respect everyone's opinon on my input or comments.

I joined this forum to learn, and I appreciate the feedback. Perhaps the less I add to Brown's scenerio the better, at least until I read the book again and give my approach some legs to walk on.

So, once again, to place my credibility on the chopping block, I sitll think that Brown's book a worth while read. Thanks everyone

[Allen]

I think Brown's book is an interesting work of fiction but that it has no basis in fact. I agree with FairhavenGuy on this one as well. I agree with many of the points DWilly made also.

I realize there are some things we may never know about a person after they are gone. There are things that can happen in a person’s life that can be kept behind closed doors, or kept in the closet with the other family skeletons. There may be no documented record that we can look back on to prove it actually happened. You can't keep a record of a person’s whole life, especially things they were trying to keep secret anyway. When there is some mention of it..."so and so told what’s his face"... even though this kind of information cannot be used as concrete proof you can at least trace where the story came from. Such as the secrets that mbhenty said his mother told him. I'm guessing if you were doing research you couldn't find any documented record for some of the stories? Does that make them untrue? Can we know, even if it is true, the story hasn't been distorted in some way in the retelling process?

I take everything with a grain of salt unless it is backed up with credible known evidence or documented proof. Sometimes I still take it with a grain of salt. I don't totally discount everything that can't be, but there has to be some shred of evidence it could at least be plausible for me to take it seriously.

This is an example of what I mean: We have no proof Lizzie was a lesbian. But there were rumors even in her lifetime that she and Nance were lovers. Emma left Maplecroft because she stated things had become unbearable there for her. We don't know what things had become unbearable, only that something caused Emma to leave and she would never set foot in that house again. It has been said Lizzie had certain 'masculine' qualities about her. There is doubt as to whether or not she was ever involved with a man. She became friends with Nance O' Neill who was also rumored to have lesbian tendencies. So at least the theory that Lizzie was a lesbian can be traced to certain known information. There is a way to trace how we got from point A to point B in that theory, even if we can't prove it's true. Speculation is all we are left with at this point anyway.

I don't think there is any plausible way to get from point A to point B in this theory about William Borden for all of the reasons that FairhavenGuy stated in his post.

[Audrey]

Brown's book is definantly worth reading... I think it is a well written work of fiction.

I own each book written about Lizzie and think it is important to read them even if I do not agree with their conclusions.

[mbhenty]

As I mentioned before Audrey, I'm happy you agree that it's worth reading. And, if One wished to bunk it he/she is left with no choice but to read it first, along with anything else published on the case.

But, I remember the first time I read it thinking, "Wow this stuff is so far fetched that it could be true.???" And to someone who knows very little about the case Brown makes a very convincing probability.

But, not remembering enough about Brown's book and having read it almost 15 years ago, I am no authority to comment on it's merits. So if you think it's a work of fiction, sounds good to me. Being new I'm here to learn and as time goes on, perhaps I will have something of value to add or take away. It's what makes this site such good fun......Thanks

[Audrey]

The problem with most of the books written with theories presented is that someone who is initially gaining interest in the case goes to his or her public library or finds a book at a tag sale, etc and reads it-- thinking it is true!

[FairhavenGuy]

To elaborate a bit on Audrey's previous post, many smaller libraries probably only have one or two Lizzie books and the ones they have are usually the more recently published ones.

At our library, the two Lizzie books that circulate are Brown and the very nicely drawn graphic novel. That's it. They might have a couple of older books in the director's office where harder to find books that tend to "disappear" get stored for viewing within the library only.

It's unfortunate that any person in Fairhaven interested in Lizzie is basically going to find only Brown in the true crime section of our library.

[RayS]

It is certainly true that local libraries have to choose and select books, and last in first out. No one has mentioned David Kent's work, which appeared in 1991. It is the One Best Book on the mystery.

Pearson's book may be available in the 1963 edition w/ Gerald Green's comments. In a reply to Radin's theory, he said Lizzie did Abby when Bridget was outside, and Bridget did Andy when Lizzie was outside. This uses the known facts, but is wrong since neither had bloodstains or a murder weapon. [Note my original comment on the POSSIBLE disposition of the murder weapon at the only time possible.]

Lincoln was a novelist, but rating her work as a Biography has preserved it, like some other books from the 1930s. Acid paper kills them off.

Sullivan's book is good, but it relies on Abby Borden Whitehead Potter's reminiscences. OK, but that would validate Ellen Eagan's memories. The MOST important clew in this book is the FACT that little Abby was supposed to be baby-set that day, but it was cancelled Wed night. This tells me that something more important came up for that day, IMO.

Brown was not a professional writer, he knew the value of those handwritten notes from a contemporary. Ellen Eagan never knew William Borden, and Henry Hawthorne was never at the scene that day. BUT that testimony could have convicted Willy IF Ellen told the police about that 'devil'. IMO Ellen's failure to tell at the time is the weak point in that tale. BUT Brown's account best explains the unexplained mystery.

Yes, is can be unfair to say "you can't disprove it". But not really. The article about Lubinsky is simply disproved by the fact Lubinsky could not leave until his boss and his horse allowed him to leave. Lubinsky must have seen Lizzie before the body was discovered, 11am or so. Afterwards there were too many people present. [As I remember it.]

Alas, I do find my recollection of some of these facts slipping away after a couple of years. THAT is the importance to document events right after they happen.

[mbhenty]

That is very true Fairhavenguy: And, for some reason you see Brown's book around alot. I always found that the old standbys such as Radin, Lincoln and even Speiring as good beginings. (Let's not forget old Robert Sullivan, well written.)

But then again, one will be somewhat a little influenced by a specific writer's approach. But that said, Radin, Lincoln, and Spiering are mild in their asserstions, where as Brown lays all the facts out very convincingly, as he sees it, and makes all the pieces come together, weather you believe him or not. To someone picking up Brown's book as a first read on Lizzie, it could "Close the case," for that reader.

I have always been partial towards Radin's book. Perhaps because it was the first I read on the crime. And, when I'm asked which book someone should read, I usually recommend Radin, if for anything, because it's an easy read; (of course placing his biases and opinion on the killer aside, which holds no more credit then all the others mentioned above.)

Some may critique Radin for his attack on Pearson. But I find it a small matter. Radin argues that Pearon overlooked some facts, implying that he did so on purpose to deceive the reader, due to Pearson's prejudice against Lizzie. But if anything, a little criticism of a writers work is a good thing and I think that Pearsons, "Trail of Lizzie Borden" more than ampley stands up to it. All considered, Radin is a light, comfortable read.

Spiering's book will be my next Re-read. I read him nearly 20 years ago, and from what I remember I found a couple of errors, especially about Porter's publication. He claimed that there were only 4 in existance and at the time I had seen 3 copies myself, well before Flynn's publication which came out the following year in 1985. (Wonder if that is what gave Mr. Flynn the idea?) Since then I have seen 6 copies, which I held in my hand and 4 to 5 other copies on the abe and Ebay, one which sold a couple of weeks ago. Lizzie did not get to all of them and that there are 30 copies of the original book out in book land is a good possibility.

I think the easy profit was there and being a writer Mr. Spiering jumped the literary wagon. If so desired, One can even compare Spiering to Arnold Brown in his book, Prince Jack, where he claims that Jack the Ripper was a member of the Royal Family. (I have not read the book, so I leave it up to you weather there's any truth in it.) But again, to any lizzie bibliomaniac Spiering is a must have.

But to place things in prospective: I have not read most of these books in 20 years or so, and have read very little of the more recent publications. So, perhaps the less said the better, at least until I read Kent and some others. As "Rays", put it: I have alot of catching up to do and in the process hopefully I can add something of value to this site. But, either way you look at it, it's just one man's point of view.

[RayS]

The problem with most of the books written with theories presented is that someone who is initially gaining interest in the case goes to his or her public library or finds a book at a tag sale, etc and reads it-- thinking it is true!

Your assumptions are incorrect. I am not a librarian, but be assured that libraries do not squander money just because a book is published. There is at least one organization (Virginia ???) that ranks books for libraries. Whether or not to buy is a collective decision. They don't want to waste money on anything that would be a farce, like Clifford Irving's autobiography of Howard Hughes (now probably a collector's item).

You can test or disprove my theory by visitng your local library and ask them what measure they use for purchasing books.

[RayS]

Brown's book is definantly worth reading... I think it is a well written work of fiction.

I own each book written about Lizzie and think it is important to read them even if I do not agree with their conclusions.

You have just provem your prejudice. The libraries that I have visited correctly list A Brown's book under "True Crime", not in the Fiction section. Or are you claiming greater knowledge than professional librarians? And what about Victoria Lincoln's 'biography'?

This is an example of prooving by disproving; responsible people all rate Brown's book as "True Crime". Yes, even if he can't prove it in a court of law. Read "Hot Toddy" recently?

[RayS]

Obviously the Hawthorne memoirs gave a clue, and, the fact of Andy selling the Liberty St farm to a young man (impoverished and unable to afford it?) speaks for itself. Also the lack of a birth certificate.

Where'd you get the "fact" Andrew sold Liberty Street to William? It's certainly not in Brown.

Get your copy off the shelf. Turn to page 316, if you have the hard cover.

According to Arnold Brown, the property at 38 Liberty Street, East Taunton, was deeded to Simon and Catherine Hathaway from 1864 to 1872. Brown says “Their relationship to Phebe Hathaway is unknown. . . .” p. 316. In 1872 the property went to Lewis B. Gammons, the father-in-law of William S. Borden. This is the farm where William S. Borden lived.

There is no connection between ANDREW Borden and any of this.

William S. Borden lived on a farm that his father-in-law had purchased from some Hathaways two years before Rebecca Gammons and William

What inference can be drawn? NONE, MAYBE?

There is no birth certificate for William S. Borden. Arnold Brown uses this one and only point to "prove" William S. Borden must be illegitimate. (Even though William's marriage record and his death records list Charles Borden as his father)

There are no birth certificates for lots of people in the 1800s. Most of Fairhaven’s original birth records for 1812, 1813, 1814, and 1815 were lost when the record book was washed of a wharf in the Great Gale of 1815, for example. Just because all thos folks don’t have birth records, doesn’t mean they’re illegitimate.

I honestly think, Ray, you ought to read Brown again, because you're propping up his theory with "facts" that he doesn't have himself.

Please explain the Liberty Street farm to me if I don't have it right.

===
YES, you are right and my memory had a glitch. Page 316 states it "may or may not shed light on the situation", "this may be just a coincidence". Brown is often very careful in stating what he knows, or suspects.
"Bill & Rebecca lived and worked on that farm" as if it was theirs. [No mention of the disposal of that property after Bill's 1901 death.]
I've noticed a few times recently when the death of the husband, 50s or 80s, leads to the sale of the house.

AB does give facts "the man was William Lewis Bassett" that lack an explanantion or citation. But the end justifies the means?

[RayS]

Here's part of "Fairhaven Guy" msg:

To prove a murder case, or even propose a plausible explanation, there must be something, or better yet, a whole bunch of somethings, that connect your suspect to the scene of the crime and to the victim(s).

There's no proof William S. Borden is Andrew's illegitimate son.

There's nothing that connects William S. Borden to Andrew in any way whatsoever.

There's nothing to show that William S. Borden was on Second Street, or in Fall River, or even in Massachusetts on the morning of the crime.

There's nothing to show that Morse or Andrew or Lizzie or ANYONE had been in any kind of communication whatsoever with William S. Borden. Ever.

There's no evidence of anyone smelling the "William Borden smell" at the Borden house. Ever.

Even when Brown has a "real" fact, he neatly misleads the reader into thinking that maybe it means more than it does. (The Liberty Street farm property mentioned in my earlier post being a case in point. He implies connections that do not exist at all.)
===
Your points are not in dispute. Did Brown or any other writer provide the proofs that you are asking for? On this or some other case?

Lloyd C. Gardner is an official historian at a University. He has written a book on the Lindbergh Case. I've yet to read it, but I wonder how this book compares to the others.

When you read a newspaper story, is it filled with citations?

Usually a test for any assertion is the ability to disprove it. "It didn't snow on July 4 because nobody saw such a thing." "Proof" is often in the mind of the beholder, as the assertion that Brown's book is "fiction".
While the FRHS may call it such, they have an obvious commercial interest in this case. Or is it some sort of personal problem?

[RayS]

Another part from "Fairhaven Guy":

I'm trying to approach this case as a local historian. Historians hold certain standards for verification and authentication of fact. History and criminology are similar in many respects, which is maybe why I'm drawn to both subjects.

Both in history and criminology, you must show your sources so that everyone can double check their validity.

Yesterday, in this Lizzie Borden case, I discovered that a name connected with the case seems to have been misspelled since it first appeared in the record. A search of this site shows me that when the name has appeared in discussions here, it has only appeared in its incorrect form. Therefore, there could be a whole lot about this person that no one has uncovered yet, because we've always had the WRONG name!

This could lead to nothing at all. Or it could lead to something very interesting.

I'm getting of track, here. My point is don't fall for the "You can't prove it didn't happen that way" ruse, because anybody can make up a theory that could stand that flawed test
===
Will your work be published in a book?

I agree that a generic "it could've happened that way" is not the best way to solve this mystery. But doesn't that describe the "Lubinsky guilty' article which is the topic of this thread?

The whole point of Brown's proof is the parallax view it brings to a solution to this crime. All the parts of the puzzle now fall into place, given its assumptions. Brown did not make this up, its from someone's notes.

The Hall-Mills murder in New Brunswich is another unsolved mystery. People were tried and found not guilty. Books have been written.

One fictional example.
Suppose I was at some meeting and I found someone who told me his grandfather knew who did it. "Bela" was out hunting (w/o a license and out of season). Being on parole for rum-running, he was not allowed to possess a gun. But he was present and observed the murder. He never told anyone. Before he died he told this to his son, who later wrote it up in a compostion book, as he remembered it. After his and his wife's death, the son found this wrapped up, and read it. Now I could read this and compare it to the known facts. How good would this be as an article?

That wealthy and poweful family still rules New Brunswick. When they needed space to enlarge their factories, the city council tore down blocks of land, throwing homeowners and business out of the city. Do YOU know what they could also do to someone who disrespected their family?

Or maybe you heard about Doris Duke, who killed her boyfriend? While it was covered up, she was shunned by society (like Lizzie B.).

[DWilly]

The problem with most of the books written with theories presented is that someone who is initially gaining interest in the case goes to his or her public library or finds a book at a tag sale, etc and reads it-- thinking it is true!

Your assumptions are incorrect. I am not a librarian, but be assured that libraries do not squander money just because a book is published. There is at least one organization (Virginia ???) that ranks books for libraries. Whether or not to buy is a collective decision. They don't want to waste money on anything that would be a farce, like Clifford Irving's autobiography of Howard Hughes (now probably a collector's item).

You can test or disprove my theory by visitng your local library and ask them what measure they use for purchasing books.

For the last two years I have been doing research on Alice Marble a tennis player from the 1930s. In 1991, after her death, a book came out called Courting Danger. Supposedly Marble wrote the book along with co-author Dale Leatherman. The book is at the Sahara Library here in Las Vegas. I also know a copy is at the public library in Palm Springs. The book is filled with lies. Alice was a wonderful tennis player and she did do many good things. But, later in life she became an alcoholic and told tons of tall tales. Many of which made it into the book. Yes, there are books on library shelves across this country that are filled with lies and half truths. I wonder how many libraries picked up Frey's memoirs?

[mbhenty]

Since we are mulling over various publications on the Lizzie case, just wanted to add:

Edwin Porter's book, "THE FALL RIVER TRAGEDY", is it to be reissued this March. The publisher being: Lawbook Exchange LTD. The bad news is that it suppose to be close to hundred dollar book.

ALSO: Not sure if anyone has heard: Rumor has it that the greatest work ever accomplished, the bible on the Lizzie genre is to be published and reissued in paperback in the near future; That is Mr. Leonard Rebello's, LIZZIE BORDERN PAST AND PRESENT.

[Audrey]

The problem with most of the books written with theories presented is that someone who is initially gaining interest in the case goes to his or her public library or finds a book at a tag sale, etc and reads it-- thinking it is true!

Your assumptions are incorrect. I am not a librarian, but be assured that libraries do not squander money just because a book is published. There is at least one organization (Virginia ???) that ranks books for libraries. Whether or not to buy is a collective decision. They don't want to waste money on anything that would be a farce, like Clifford Irving's autobiography of Howard Hughes (now probably a collector's item).

You can test or disprove my theory by visitng your local library and ask them what measure they use for purchasing books.

I most certainly do know how Public Libraries operate fiscally. I am the President of my local library board. Do you think we sit about voting on each individual book purchase?

It is also worth noting that after "The Smoking Gun" exposed James Frey's 'A Million Little Pieces" as a FARCE that the book had an immediate waiting list.

I realize you accept Brown's theory as absolute. Good for you. I do not.
Good for me.

Let's not mire ourselves in the tediousness of this debate any longer.

[doug65oh]

hey mb... i have good news, and it has nothing to do with saving money on car insurance. Porter's book The Fall River Tragedy - well, why spend $100 when there's no need? You can download a pdf copy from this site (http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... dBooks.htm) gratis.

(Have a look...your wallet will love ya for it.)

[FairhavenGuy]

One fictional example.
Suppose I was at some meeting and I found someone who told me his grandfather knew who did it. "Bela" was out hunting (w/o a license and out of season). Being on parole for rum-running, he was not allowed to possess a gun. But he was present and observed the murder. He never told anyone. Before he died he told this to his son, who later wrote it up in a compostion book, as he remembered it. After his and his wife's death, the son found this wrapped up, and read it. Now I could read this and compare it to the known facts. How good would this be as an article?

It would be fine to write a book or an article based on that information. But, of course, if you introduce a "new" suspect to the case, you would still need to build a story in which the facts can be checked and verified if you want anyone to believe your solution is true. The story of "Bela" alone cannot be the final word without further material to back it up. If Bela says "D. Butler" did it, you still need to show that D. Butler was in the vicinity at the time, that there's a connection between D. Butler and the victim. You might also have to prove that Bela doesn't have a personal grudge against D. Butler that would cause him to make the whole thing up.

In the Lizzie case, a man actually went into the Fall River police station and confessed to the crime. (For some odd reason, this happens a lot in cases that get lots of publicity.) Even though he said he did it, the police showed that it couldn't really have been him.

Using the same material Brown used, I could probably develop a scenario in which a member of Ellen Eagan's family was really the murderer (working with Hyman Lubinsky. . .) and that Henry Hawthorne and Pete Peterson were just trying to throw people off track to clear the Eagan family name!

[mbhenty]

Thanks for the site doug65oh: now if I can only save money on my car insurance>>Ha!

[Haulover]

to at least part of fairhaven's point -- almost anything is possible and can be constructed, etc. and so fiction is fiction. and i give up on what ray calls "known facts" vs. other facts.

but what i find so interesting is that even when you approach the problem with a fictional ambition -- you first realize it must be a plausible one, and then you will see how difficult that is. i've never been able to come up with anything good enough in my judgment using what i am able to comprehend as known facts.

that's why i'm open to this notion of the amount, the extent of traffic around and in and out of the house, day and night -- people we know nothing about, perhaps were hardly ever known. but even with full freedom of imagination -- it seems very difficult to me. correction: i know it's difficult.

my biggest problem with the billy borden theory is that it does not sufficiently explain lizzie's whole attitude and demeanor regarding the thing. plus, i've since realized that brown's reasoning about the legalities of inheritance and that whole area of insanity/guilt/inheritance -- that's complete bunk. i don't mean to argue with you on it, ray -- but why not just stick a different person in billy's place just for the fun of it and see if that fits the known facts?

example: we can't prove whether one of churchill's boarders did it -- and this would fit the known facts of the difficulty of the murderer getting in and out and away. to go one step further, i dare anyone to prove who was inside churchill's house on august 4th, 1892.

[FairhavenGuy]

Mrs. Churchill was in there, at least some of the time.

[mbhenty]

Yes, Haulover: Lizzie's attitude and demenor is one that is difficult to understand but perhaps easier to explain. To explain, I mean that she was a strange girl even in the best of circumstance. So her behavior was probably not that much out of character to those around her.

But, if an outsider, whether it be Billy or whom ever, had to have Lizzie's loyalties. I say this because Lizzie never really pointed the finger at any particular individual through out the whole ordeal.

And of course, if there was an accomplice he would have to be somewhat ardently faithful to Lizzie; keeping her secret till her/his death. But, if there was anyone that could hold a poker face through out the trial, it was Lizzie.

Whether she did it or not, I don't think that she was calculating or that even much planning went into it. I think she was surprisingly lucky. Every step the killer took there was a stroke of luck, a series of fortunate circumstance. And we can view her demeanor and attitude as a display of guilt under pressure negotiated with grace as only Lizzie could do it.

[RayS]

FairhavenGuy @ Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:34 pm:
It would be fine to write a book or an article based on that information. But, of course, if you introduce a "new" suspect to the case, you would still need to build a story in which the facts can be checked and verified if you want anyone to believe your solution is true. The story of "Bela" alone cannot be the final word without further material to back it up. If Bela says "D. Butler" did it, you still need to show that D. Butler was in the vicinity at the time, that there's a connection between D. Butler and the victim. You might also have to prove that Bela doesn't have a personal grudge against D. Butler that would cause him to make the whole thing up.

In the Lizzie case, a man actually went into the Fall River police station and confessed to the crime. (For some odd reason, this happens a lot in cases that get lots of publicity.) Even though he said he did it, the police showed that it couldn't really have been him.

Using the same material Brown used, I could probably develop a scenario in which a member of Ellen Eagan's family was really the murderer (working with Hyman Lubinsky. . .) and that Henry Hawthorne and Pete Peterson were just trying to throw people off track to clear the Eagan family name!
===
Yes, the police could DISPROVE an allegation, being there and having the resources. A writer has only limited time and resources to investigate. Or why plain fiction is more prolific than 'true crime'.

Using Occam's Razor, WHAT is the most believable solution to the crime,
(given that all those involved were dead by 1941 or earlier)?
Doesn't Brown's story, taken from the notes of Henry Hawthorne, best fit the known facts?
It does IMO. Those who differ are welcome to offer a better solution.

[RayS]

As I remember it, Brown says Henry Hawthorne had publicized his recollections many decades ago. The 1950s? But he was ridiculed and threatened in the small town of FR.
If anyone can locate the (assumed) newspaper article(s) that covered this controversy, THAT would be a good subject for the Quarterly IMO.

[Kat]

Lizzie pointed at uncle Hiram Harrington as one who had a bad relationship with Andrew and with whom Andrew did not get along.

Inquest
50(7)
Lizzie
Q. Beside that do you know of anybody that your father had bad feelings toward, or who had bad feelings toward your father?
A. I know of one man that has not been friendly with him; they have not been friendly for years.
Q. Who?
A. Mr. Hiram C. Harrington.
Q. What relation is he to him?
A. He is my father's brother-in-law.
Q. Your mother's brother?
A. My father's only sister married Mr. Harrington.
Q. Anybody else that was on bad terms with your father, or that your father was on bad terms with?
A. Not that I know of.

[Haulover]

has anyone seen the Henry Hawthorne notebook? i wish i could see it, since i don't take anyone's word for it.

_____________

this is old argument and hardly worth a re-run.

what i'm saying is that i've reached a few conclusions, and i'm looking for anything plausible.

let me state this again: to anyone who thinks a plausible fictionalization is easy -- just try it. i'm very interested in this.

that lizzie pointed at hiram -- she must have disliked him herself. and knew him as andrew's enemy. but, motive. i haven't dwelled on this. is hiram her best effort at a scapegoat?

[Kat]

Yes there is a background story by Pete Peterson. I've read it. It is disjointed and doesn't seem to shed much more light on the *mystery*. There are second-hand accounts in there.
Stefani will try to get permission to reprint it.

......
Earlier in this topic there were statements to which I'd like to reply:
"...lizzie was not afraid to associate or befriend those types who were supposed to be beneath her."(Eugene)
--I agree with this. In fact, Stefani and I recently had talked about this aspect of Lizzie's character. Stefani thinks Lizzie was democratic in her acceptance of people: actress, servants, etc.

"Also the lack of a birth certificate."(Ray)
--For new members, there is a resource at the website LABVM/L on the Brown controversy from the LBQ:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResear ... oversy.htm

"...only lower class men Lizzie may have really been around were the painters."(DWilly)
--There were her Sunday School pupils, and the farm hands and maybe neighboring farm workers in Swansea. Also, Lowndes theorizes a boyfriend Lizzie met in Europe, in her fictional treatment. There were workers at Crowe's yard, the ice house, Mrs. Churchill's boarders. If we use our imaginations we can think up sources of lower class men, if we need to.

"Pearson's book may be available in the 1963 edition w/Gerald Green's comments."(Ray)
--A small mistake: it's Gerald Gross. Masterpieces of Murder An Edmund Pearson True Crime Reader, Edited by Gerald Gross, Bonanza Books, NY, 1963.

--I had heard that Peterson was very upset at the treatment Brown gave to his story. Maybe that's why Peterson made sure his version got out?
It's a good point that Christopher makes about a lot of people not having bith certificates, and reasons why.

Also, I'd like to ask mbhenty when they found out Rebello was going to release another edition of his book?

Sorry this is out of proper sequence. I was away during this discussion. Just now catching up.

[Haulover]

***Earlier in this topic there were statements to which I'd like to reply:
"...lizzie was not afraid to associate or befriend those types who were supposed to be beneath her."(Eugene)
--I agree with this. In fact, Stefani and I recently had talked about this aspect of Lizzie's character. Stefani thinks Lizzie was democratic in her acceptance of people: actress, servants, etc. ***


the bottom line i find to this is that lizzie was an individualist.

[RayS]

Yes there is a background story by Pete Peterson. I've read it. It is disjointed and doesn't seem to shed much more light on the *mystery*. There are second-hand accounts in there.
Stefani will try to get permission to reprint it.

......
Earlier in this topic there were statements to which I'd like to reply:
"...lizzie was not afraid to associate or befriend those types who were supposed to be beneath her."(Eugene)
--I agree with this. In fact, Stefani and I recently had talked about this aspect of Lizzie's character. Stefani thinks Lizzie was democratic in her acceptance of people: actress, servants, etc.

"Also the lack of a birth certificate."(Ray)
--For new members, there is a resource at the website LABVM/L on the Brown controversy from the LBQ:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/NewResear ... oversy.htm

"...only lower class men Lizzie may have really been around were the painters."(DWilly)
--There were her Sunday School pupils, and the farm hands and maybe neighboring farm workers in Swansea. Also, Lowndes theorizes a boyfriend Lizzie met in Europe, in her fictional treatment. There were workers at Crowe's yard, the ice house, Mrs. Churchill's boarders. If we use our imaginations we can think up sources of lower class men, if we need to.

"Pearson's book may be available in the 1963 edition w/Gerald Green's comments."(Ray)
--A small mistake: it's Gerald Gross. Masterpieces of Murder An Edmund Pearson True Crime Reader, Edited by Gerald Gross, Bonanza Books, NY, 1963.

--I had heard that Peterson was very upset at the treatment Brown gave to his story. Maybe that's why Peterson made sure his version got out?
It's a good point that Christopher makes about a lot of people not having bith certificates, and reasons why.

Also, I'd like to ask mbhenty when they found out Rebello was going to release another edition of his book?

Sorry this is out of proper sequence. I was away during this discussion. Just now catching up.

YES, after a few years away from these books my memory is becoming impaired. Gerald Gross's edition of Pearson is the one I read circa 1965 and piqued my interest in this unsolved mystery. But I do have other things to do. I'm sorry if my faulty memory (Wm. Borden's alleged ownership) has made me stumble.

[RayS]

People seem to be trying to slander Arnold Brown by calling his work "fiction". It is not so listed in any library that I know of.
The biography section of one library has "Landru", a fictionalized biography of this famous French lover and husband, by a Frenchman.

Honestly, isn't Victoria Lincoln's "biography" of Lizzie more of a work of "fiction" than Arnold Brown's book? Not that it isn't worth reading.

Somebody wrote of a tennis player whose book is "all lies". The TRUTH is that it is the memoirs of that tennis player (never read it, never will). I read another book that used tape-recorded interviews for its source. When it was published one of the persons complained to the author that "I never said that". But it was on tape!!! People's minds do play tricks on them.

I remember V-J Day, or at least that's what my parents said it was.

[DWilly]

"...only lower class men Lizzie may have really been around were the painters."(DWilly)
--There were her Sunday School pupils, and the farm hands and maybe neighboring farm workers in Swansea. Also, Lowndes theorizes a boyfriend Lizzie met in Europe, in her fictional treatment. There were workers at Crowe's yard, the ice house, Mrs. Churchill's boarders. If we use our imaginations we can think up sources of lower class men, if we need to.
.

I thought Lizzie's Sunday School pupils were little boys and later girls? I know she taught an older Chinese man English. Although, how old I don't know.

Why would you include Lowndes fictional account of a boyfriend? Wouldn't it be better to just stick to actual possible people?

[Allen]

This is what I found on the Sunday School class in Rebello on page 12:

"She was given a class of rough, untutored boys and labored with them until her courage was almost gone and then she was given some girls to teach. Also connected with the church is a Chinese Sunday school and Miss Lizzie took one of the men to instruct. She had good success and her pupil has since left Fall River.

[DWilly]

Somebody wrote of a tennis player whose book is "all lies". The TRUTH is that it is the memoirs of that tennis player (never read it, never will).

I'm the one who mentioned the tennis player. The book is listed as an autobiography co-written with another writer. And I spent two years researching the book and filing numerous Freedom Of Information Acts AND inteviewing other women tennis champions who knew her.Keep in mind, Frey also wrote his memoirs and we now know how accurate they were. I don't know who you're trying to convince more that the Arnold book is true me or you.

[Kat]

Why would you include Lowndes fictional account of a boyfriend? Wouldn't it be better to just stick to actual possible people?

-DWilly

Because it's a decent "Lizzie" book by a good writer who I admire.

Here is a citation from the website, in case anyone is interested:

Lowndes, Marie Belloc. Lizzie Borden: A Study in Conjecture. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., Inc., 1939.
"Lowndess theory is that Mrs. Borden discovered that Lizzie had a European lover, necessitating Lizzie committing the murder to quiet the possible scandal."

--Actually, the (fictional) lover was an American in Europe.

[RayS]

Somebody wrote of a tennis player whose book is "all lies". The TRUTH is that it is the memoirs of that tennis player (never read it, never will).

I'm the one who mentioned the tennis player. The book is listed as an autobiography co-written with another writer. And I spent two years researching the book and filing numerous Freedom Of Information Acts AND inteviewing other women tennis champions who knew her.Keep in mind, Frey also wrote his memoirs and we now know how accurate they were. I don't know who you're trying to convince more that the Arnold book is true me or you.

I think I should copy the 10 questions by Brody and the answers by Brown for further study. Arnold Brown's book is TRUE in the sense that he did not create Hawthorne's notes or the information he gathered from sources. Brown admits there are things for which he has no proof.

Brown can SURMISE the unknown from the known facts. There are plentyof other "mellen house gangs" or "courthouse gangs" that control politics in the towns and counties of America. Haven't you ever heard of this before? THAT is another thing that rings true to me.

[Haulover]

ray:

wouldn't you have to say that the brown book is still a fiction -- ultimately -- as they all are? it is a construction of some data with presumptions connecting one thing to another. it is a creation -- a stringing-together of data to make a story. you can't say the brown book is different in this way -- it's just another edition. i don't believe any of the authors have got it right.

[RayS]

ray:

wouldn't you have to say that the brown book is still a fiction -- ultimately -- as they all are? it is a construction of some data with presumptions connecting one thing to another. it is a creation -- a stringing-together of data to make a story. you can't say the brown book is different in this way -- it's just another edition. i don't believe any of the authors have got it right.

Absolutely not, as far as I know. This book is placed in the "True Crime" section, where it belongs (like "Hot Toddy" or Curt Gentry's "Frame-Up").
Brown mentions that he "can't prove" things, and he got help from others. Brown was not a writer like Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, and Spiering. Sullivan was a retired judge, and his info came from Abby Borden Whitehead Potter mostly. One question: is little Abby was supposed to be cared for by Aunt Abby, WHY was this cancelled Wed night? Does Brown surmise that some visitor would be there and his presence kept secret?

The PROOF of any assertion lies in part on whether it can stand being questioned. Like some universitly examinations (orals?).

If NONE of the authors have got it right, what about Todd Lunday?

[RayS]

Would any of you call "Hot Toddy" or "Eight Men Out" fiction? They quote unnamed sources for their input; and maybe surmise from known facts.
Fiction is created, surmise is taken from known facts.

Assume you have a bag with a 300 piece jigsaw puzzle. About 50-60 pieces are missing. Can you put it all together to figure out the picture that would be there given all the pieces? Yes, it can be done in many cases. IMO

Now take a known murder case from over a century ago. Given certain facts that you have uncovered, can you surmise the missing pieces to get the Big Picture (even with missing pieces)? I think you can, at least in Arnold Brown's book. I stand ready to change my opinion given any better book; but none have been written.

[RayS]

In this issue of "The Hatchet," I developed a theory by one David Lee Dickerson that ice cream vendor Hyman Lubinsky conspired with Lizzie Borden in the murders. Has anyone read the essay? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

I think it is a HOAX!

[RayS]

Yes, Haulover: Lizzie's attitude and demenor is one that is difficult to understand but perhaps easier to explain. To explain, I mean that she was a strange girl even in the best of circumstance. So her behavior was probably not that much out of character to those around her.

But, if an outsider, whether it be Billy or whom ever, had to have Lizzie's loyalties. I say this because Lizzie never really pointed the finger at any particular individual through out the whole ordeal.

And of course, if there was an accomplice he would have to be somewhat ardently faithful to Lizzie; keeping her secret till her/his death. But, if there was anyone that could hold a poker face through out the trial, it was Lizzie.

Whether she did it or not, I don't think that she was calculating or that even much planning went into it. I think she was surprisingly lucky. Every step the killer took there was a stroke of luck, a series of fortunate circumstance. And we can view her demeanor and attitude as a display of guilt under pressure negotiated with grace as only Lizzie could do it.

The first recorded statement of Lizzie was "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". By honestly pointing away from the innocent Lizzie revealed she KNEW! Any second guessing a century later is nonsense, we did not grow up in that household. Remember how shameful insanity or a child born out of wedlock was before the 1970s?
Your results may vary.

[mbhenty]

I have always felt that Lizzie, along with everyone that was in that household that day, knew who the murder was. As you say, we did not live in that house, and to comment on it a century later can be taken as, or appear as, nonsense.

Fortunately though, we have a site such as this one where we can voice all our nonsense and ideas, no matter how far fetch; and in doing so, some clever assumptions and observations are made by some very ordinary armchair observers.

And with a little research and some literary licence, I dare say, many on this site can write their own account in a book and be just as creditable as, let's say, a Radin or Spiering.

I am sure, (in my own mind, for what that's worth) that Lizzie more then likely knew who committed the murders. As you implied, a declaration of the innocent given to those close to lizzie, by Lizzie, can easily be used as a slide rule in measuring that she knew more then she was willing to volunteer.

I always believed she was not completely innocent, and in her silence, an indirect finger of guilt can be pointed her way. Even if she was just guilty of making her presense scarce while the murder did the deed, whether a boy friend, relative, or Billy Borden......(?)

This being said, I can see how easy it is to work in Brown's theory and make it very workable. I found Brown a great read, and do not agree with or dispute its findings, and must read it again and weigh the information supplied by Brown with a little closer scrutiny. But, to label it as a work of fiction or truth, is not my purpose here.

The ideal study would be to follow in Mr. Brown's footsteps and verify all his findings, thus giving it a vote of confidence by anyone who may have serious doubt. But, that would probably need to be done by an impartial party with an open mind and access to Fall River HS or city records; someone well respected, such as a "Mr. Rebello", in which everyone would agree has the proper credentials. Would make a great little book. But then again, would probably not solve or prove anything of value a century later.

Thanks Rays, good observation.............

[RayS]

I have always felt that Lizzie, along with everyone that was in that household that day, knew who the murder was. As you say, we did not live in that house, and to comment on it a century later can be taken as, or appear as, nonsense.

Fortunately though, we have a site such as this one where we can voice all our nonsense and ideas, no matter how far fetch; and in doing so, some clever assumptions and observations are made by some very ordinary armchair observers.

And with a little research and some literary licence, I dare say, many on this site can write their own account in a book and be just as creditable as, let's say, a Radin or Spiering.

I am sure, (in my own mind, for what that's worth) that Lizzie more then likely knew who committed the murders. As you implied, a declaration of the innocent given to those close to lizzie, by Lizzie, can easily be used as a slide rule in measuring that she knew more then she was willing to volunteer.

I always believed she was not completely innocent, and in her silence, an indirect finger of guilt can be pointed her way. Even if she was just guilty of making her presense scarce while the murder did the deed, whether a boy friend, relative, or Billy Borden......(?)

This being said, I can see how easy it is to work in Brown's theory and make it very workable. I found Brown a great read, and do not agree with or dispute its findings, and must read it again and weigh the information supplied by Brown with a little closer scrutiny. But, to label it as a work of fiction or truth, is not my purpose here.

The ideal study would be to follow in Mr. Brown's footsteps and verify all his findings, thus giving it a vote of confidence by anyone who may have serious doubt. But, that would probably need to be done by an impartial party with an open mind and access to Fall River HS or city records; someone well respected, such as a "Mr. Rebello", in which everyone would agree has the proper credentials. Would make a great little book. But then again, would probably not solve or prove anything of value a century later.

Thanks Rays, good observation.............

The fact that Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget ..." tells me Lizzie was innocent before the fact, and decided to keep the family secret (as Andy would wish). IMO

I don't know who Pearson talked to in 1927 or later. Radin tells how he went to Fall River to personally investigate, like the reporter he was.
Lincoln used "class gossip" for her book or stories. Sullivan did interview Abby Borden Whitehead Potter for her memories (which can justify the decades later memories of Ellen Eagan). I don't know if Spiering ever spent more than a day in FR. Brown, like Lincoln, grew up there.

Two problems w/ your proposal. First it requires a "neutral" investigator. Who is going to pay for that??? Then, it requires someone else to do the work (the mice that wanted to bell the cat).

Brown works it both ways, quoting from different parts of the hardcover library (bought surplus at a library). He admits he can't prove it, and neither did the state at the time with all its men and money.

Note how Brown dances around the fact that Ellen's testimony was NOT given to the police at the time. THAT's one drawback to me. Yes, he tries to justify it. But it is a weakness. IF Ellen told the police about it, and they did nothing (because they might have believed it was someone who had an alibi, etc.) then that would be fact for Brown's theory.

David Wrone's book "Zapruder Film" tells how he found a photo of the co-worker who was said to be in the doorway for Altgeld's photo. He was dressed diffetently, so IT WAS OSWALD in the doorway when the first shot was fired. Now THAT is proof that is tangible!