Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:01 pm**

I was reading through some of the stuff on the website, and had a question. Did Andrew Borden have a illigitimate son?

IN the new research part of this site, I went the the LB Quaterly and found the article reprinted about the controversy over Arnold Browns theory of the Borden murders as detailed in his book "LIzzie Borden: the legend, the truth, the final chapter." His theory is the an illegitimate son one Billy Borden killed him. He came over to talk about his rightful inheritance and ends up killing his father and his fathers wife. Was there an illegimate son? I never heard this before.

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:12 pm**

More than likely Snokkums - well, I seem to recall there's a quote in the archive from Arnold Brown. Someone tried to pin him down as to proof; Brown replied in not so many words that he had no proof at all - it was merely a theory. (You've hit upon a gold mine of forum history there by the way... might even learn a little Latin if you're not careful.

)

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:09 pm**

Just for old time sake:

Posted by rays on Sep-26th-03 at 11:38 AM

AR Brown tells of the difficulties in researching William S Borden. He notes the lack of public records for a birth certificat, and deduces illegitimacy (the rule in Mass, then or now?).

Could the father be someone other than Andrew J Borden? But why did this miser give that Liberty Street farm to WSB? Consider the known facts for AR Brown's book.

And, besides learning Latin, you might get to see Harry lose his cool, as in:

Posted by harry on Sep-23rd-03 at 8:40 PM

I"m talking non-fiction books Rays. His "book" was FICTION. Makes a great doorstop though.

I probably have read 10 times as much as you ever thought about reading about this case and need no advice from you. Try reading somethings yourself and STOP the constant bitching. It's TIRESOME.

I used to LOVE reading this stuff!

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:19 pm**

Hooray for our Harry ! He's the best !

(P.S. Chris...I totally agree with you on "It's WONder damnit !")

Tracy...

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:57 pm**

...and somewhere in there if I remember correctly is the best of the best - again I think from Harry - something very close to "I'm not sure about anyone else, but brown is the something I usually scrape off my shoes..."

Posted: **Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:38 pm**

Dear Snokkums,

I thought I would let you know that you are being mocked in a very rude way. Instead of politely telling you that you're spelling a word wrong and showing you the right way to spell it, someone has decided to openly humiliate you, obviously thinking you aren't intelligent enough to know the difference.

I would like think otherwise, as I always hope for the best and try to see the positive. I know that you're intelligent enough to know when you're being mocked, and I'm willing to bet you're sensitive about this and are trying to avoid confrontation. I'm sure your feelings are hurt, and I'm sorry for that.

I would suggest you start using the word WONDER in its correct context from now on so you aren't an "inside joke" to some people. Actually, it's not even an inside joke; it's an openly audacious comment, glaring with immaturity for all to see.

Here is a comparison of the two words, wonder and wander. I hope this reference will help you acknowledge the difference between the two words.

The man wandered around the desert looking for water. WANDER.

I wonder what will happen at work tomorrow. WONDER.

Sincerely,

Diane

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:11 am**

Pardon us but this is not mocking. Snokkums has been told, reminded, and told again. It is back to reminder stage at this point.
If she pleases to continue to spell wonder as wander, then there is a bit of an inside joke I think, but she is on the inside, obvioulsy, and doesn't care.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:49 am**

FairhavenGuy @ Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:09 pm wrote:Just for old time sake:

Posted by rays on Sep-26th-03 at 11:38 AM

AR Brown tells of the difficulties in researching William S Borden. He notes the lack of public records for a birth certificat, and deduces illegitimacy (the rule in Mass, then or now?).

Could the father be someone other than Andrew J Borden? But why did this miser give that Liberty Street farm to WSB? Consider the known facts for AR Brown's book.

And, besides learning Latin, you might get to see Harry lose his cool, as in:

Posted by harry on Sep-23rd-03 at 8:40 PM

I"m talking non-fiction books Rays. His "book" was FICTION. Makes a great doorstop though.

I probably have read 10 times as much as you ever thought about reading about this case and need no advice from you. Try reading somethings yourself and STOP the constant bitching. It's TIRESOME.

Who says I am bitching, I was just asking a question on as much as I can find. As for the lot of you, if you all want to be like this, then just kiss my ass. It's been real see you all.

I used to LOVE reading this stuff!

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:12 am**

Elizabelle @ Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:38 pm wrote:Dear Snokkums,

I thought I would let you know that you are being mocked in a very rude way. Instead of politely telling you that you're spelling a word wrong and showing you the right way to spell it, someone has decided to openly humiliate you, obviously thinking you aren't intelligent enough to know the difference.

I would like think otherwise, as I always hope for the best and try to see the positive. I know that you're intelligent enough to know when you're being mocked, and I'm willing to bet you're sensitive about this and are trying to avoid confrontation. I'm sure your feelings are hurt, and I'm sorry for that.

I would suggest you start using the word WONDER in its correct context from now on so you aren't an "inside joke" to some people. Actually, it's not even an inside joke; it's an openly audacious comment, glaring with immaturity for all to see.

Here is a comparison of the two words, wonder and wander. I hope this reference will help you acknowledge the difference between the two words.

The man wandered around the desert looking for water. WANDER.

I wonder what will happen at work tomorrow. WONDER.

Sincerely,

Diane

But in my post I didn't ust the word, Iwent back and looked, so what's everyone getting so bent out of shape for? Are you all on the rag and pmsing or something? Just curious.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:28 am**

Kat @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:11 am wrote:Pardon us but this is not mocking. Snokkums has been told, reminded, and told again. It is back to reminder stage at this point.
If she pleases to continue to spell wonder as wander, then there is a bit of an inside joke I think, but she is on the inside, obvioulsy, and doesn't care.

Don't ever recall getting told about any misspellings. In any case, if thats what gets you all upset, and find funny, you all need to see some head shrink. Now get over it, ding-a-lings, and do grow up. It's been real.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:13 am**

Snokkums:

Personally I have a hard time swallowing much of what Arnold brought up in his book. I remember reading a line he wrote: "The answers are out there and together we will find them."

I had the feeling that he was telling the readers that he was going to lead us all to the "Promised Land' provided we, like dutiful children, hang on to his coat tail and don't ask questions or ask for proof. Excuse me, Mr. Brown?

I remember a bad smell coming up into my nose right about then. My shoes were clean.

I just don't buy his theory. It could be true but I would'nt bank on it. I still feel that Arnold was a little too full of something. But that is my view.

-1bigsteve (o:

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:50 am**

The problems with Arnold Brown's book are similar to those I've encountered with Dave Rehak's newer one. Dave subtitled his book: "A New Look at the Woman and the Murder Case." The only problem with that is that I really didn't find anything in the book that was both valid and new. Both authoris seem (past tense in Brown's case) to be trying to sell readers a bill of goods without doing the research needed to bolster their cases. Dave seems to be (among other things) trying to convince readers that a person named "Sharon Sexton" has some inside dope about Lizzie Borden that she may have shared with "a man that knows how to charm a woman," as she supposedly desccribed Dave, but that he chose not to share with readers. What balderdash! Assuming there might be a grain of truth in the material on Sexton, I tried googling her. I was directed to many, many sites, even after I refined my search over and over. None of the ones I looked up seemed to have anything to do with the person Dave describes. Then I noted that he said she had changed her name (to Lizzie, BTW). Possibly she changed her surname too. Possibly we were never given her real name. Possibly she doesn't exist. She sounds like a female Billy Borden to me.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:58 am**

1bigsteve @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:13 am wrote:Snokkums:

Personally I have a hard time swallowing much of what Arnold brought up in his book. I remember reading a line he wrote: "The answers are out there and together we will find them."

I had the feeling that he was telling the readers that he was going to lead us all to the "Promised Land' provided we, like dutiful children, hang on to his coat tail and don't ask questions or ask for proof. Excuse me, Mr. Brown? I remember a bad smell coming up into my nose right about then. My shoes were clean.

I just don't buy his theory. It could be true but I would'nt bank on it. I still feel that Arnold was a little too full of something. But that is my view.

I too had some trouble with his theory. I was reading his statements in lb quaterly, and just had a hard time believing his stuff.Seems that his is alittle hung on himself.

-1bigsteve (o:

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:43 am**

[quote="snokkums @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:12 am"
But in my post I didn't ust the word, Iwent back and looked, so what's everyone getting so bent out of shape for? Are you all on the rag and pmsing or something? Just curious.[/quote]

Oh, goodness gracious! Woe is me for trying to help you if this is the way come to your conclusions!

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:42 pm**

I was just trying to see where I had misspelled something, since everyone wants to jump all over spelling. couldn't find anything, so what's everyone bitching about? I am just trying to get questions anwsered. If noone wants to anwser them, I can always go find info somewhere else. Makes me no never mind.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:06 pm**

I'm not sure what all the fuss over spelling is about. At times I've wondered whether one has to be a lousy speller to be interested in Lizzie, because there are quite a few of us posting here who make spelling (and grammatical) mistakes. While I'm a fairly good speller myself, it matters little, because I'm such a crummy typist that it's hard to tell whether I can spell or not. To make things worse, my vision is so poor that I can't find the mistakes I've made. (The other day I noticed I had spelled "probably" as "probaby," but I never could find the error again to correct it.) I read recently that the ability to spell has little to do with intelligence. Good thing, because I just misspelled "intelligence." (This time I fixed it.)

Unless this has turned into the "Ask Miss Spell" Forum, maybe we should just ignore the spelling mistakes of others and hope they'll overlook our lapses of one kind or another. I guarantee we all have some to be overlooked!

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:42 pm**

I agree with that. Sometimes I get to rolling on a topic or statement, that I am even forget to capitalize at the begining of a sentance,and I know I have had a few run on sentances, but I still like lizzie.

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:38 pm**

The topic of misspelling, grammar, etc., has come up before. At the time, it was my interpretation that while most of us accept that we will all make mistakes now and then, we as a 'public forum', wanted to put our best face out to the world. Several good suggestions as to how to do grammar, spelling, and various other 'checks' were offered up.

The members of this forum are higher-level thinkers, and I believe that our serious postings should reflect that. We are discussing a case which in all likelihood will never be solved. Yet...we continue to dig and dig and dig for ANYTHING that may give us better insight as to what happened on THAT day...and WHY. If we want people to take our discussions as 'quality', it's nice when they can presented that way as much as possible. Stefani has provided us with place that is of a very high caliber, unlike many other public forums.

Yes...we do have some topics which lean to the lighter side. That is such a wonderful thing ! It is nice to be able to relax and get some yucks in with our forum brothers and sisters now and then no doubt. It is so much fun to send birthday greetings in STAY TO TEA. It's so comforting to be able to share painful moments with fellow members of our forum family in the PRIVY. Sometimes even when we stray off-topic...it's ok.

I guess in the end, it's not really the mistakes that bother me. It's when people know they are making them, yet don't seem to care.

Tracy...

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:02 pm**

AND...as you can see from the post above...there is always (lucky for me) the wonderful "edit" option.

Tracy...

Posted: **Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:27 pm**

snokkums @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:58 am wrote:
1bigsteve @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:13 am wrote:Snokkums:

Personally I have a hard time swallowing much of what Arnold brought up in his book. I remember reading a line he wrote: "The answers are out there and together we will find them."

I had the feeling that he was telling the readers that he was going to lead us all to the "Promised Land' provided we, like dutiful children, hang on to his coat tail and don't ask questions or ask for proof. Excuse me, Mr. Brown? I remember a bad smell coming up into my nose right about then. My shoes were clean.

I just don't buy his theory. It could be true but I would'nt bank on it. I still feel that Arnold was a little too full of something. But that is my view.

I too had some trouble with his theory. I was reading his statements in lb quaterly, and just had a hard time believing his stuff.Seems that his is alittle hung on himself.

-1bigsteve (o:

That makes two of us Snokks.

After reading Brown's book I always had the image of Brown dressed in a nice evening robe sitting in front of his fireplace in his favorite horse hair chair on a cold winter night with his favorite dog by his side and smoking on a pipe stuffed full of Old Toad Tobacco, reading his own book and thinking he had us all hood winked with his "final chapter."

I much rather prefer Radin's book even though I don't believe Bridgett did the killing and don't buy into Bridgett running across the street with that hatchet between her legs. Where was she going to hide it? In Bowen's front yard? I like the way Radin treated Lizzie. He seemed to be kind to her.

-1bigsteve (o:

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:38 am**

Brown was dying and probably knew it.
I doubt he was sitting by a fireside in Seminole, Florida, with a pipe chuckling over his book.
He fought for his book until the bitter end, and then his widow fought some more.
There was a lot of nasty acrimony and some suffered for it.

Sorry, snokkums, there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:41 am**

Just to be clear.
Here is what Harry said, what snokkums said, and what FairhavenGuy said. These are included in snokkums post as all said by Harry, 2 years ago. I've broken them out- to be fair- not meaning to rake it all up again:

Posted by harry on Sep-23rd-03 at 8:40 PM

"I"m talking non-fiction books Rays. His "book" was FICTION. Makes a great doorstop though.

I probably have read 10 times as much as you ever thought about reading about this case and need no advice from you. Try reading somethings yourself and STOP the constant bitching. It's TIRESOME."

Then, this is snokkums
"Who says I am bitching, I was just asking a question on as much as I can find. As for the lot of you, if you all want to be like this, then just kiss my ass. It's been real see you all."

Then, this is FairhavenGuy:
"I used to LOVE reading this stuff!"

I hope I have the tags right!
Harry was talking to Ray in 2003, not snokkums in 2005.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:20 am**

1bigsteve @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:27 pm wrote:
snokkums @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:58 am wrote:
1bigsteve @ Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:13 am wrote:Snokkums:

Personally I have a hard time swallowing much of what Arnold brought up in his book. I remember reading a line he wrote: "The answers are out there and together we will find them."

I had the feeling that he was telling the readers that he was going to lead us all to the "Promised Land' provided we, like dutiful children, hang on to his coat tail and don't ask questions or ask for proof. Excuse me, Mr. Brown? I remember a bad smell coming up into my nose right about then. My shoes were clean.

I just don't buy his theory. It could be true but I would'nt bank on it. I still feel that Arnold was a little too full of something. But that is my view.

I too had some trouble with his theory. I was reading his statements in lb quaterly, and just had a hard time believing his stuff.Seems that his is alittle hung on himself.

-1bigsteve (o:

That makes two of us Snokks.

After reading Brown's book I always had the image of Brown dressed in a nice evening robe sitting in front of his fireplace in his favorite horse hair chair on a cold winter night with his favorite dog by his side and smoking on a pipe stuffed full of Old Toad Tobacco, reading his own book and thinking he had us all hood winked with his "final chapter."

I much rather prefer Radin's book even though I don't believe Bridgett did the killing and don't buy into Bridgett running across the street with that hatchet between her legs. Where was she going to hide it? In Bowen's front yard? I like the way Radin treated Lizzie. He seemed to be kind to her.

-1bigsteve (o:

I do to. It's like, I know eveything you need to follow me,etec,etc. Like HOw dumb are we. Also, how is Bridget going to run across the street with the hatchet between her leg(?). And you are right, where was she going to hide it.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:36 am**

Thank you very much for the clarification Kat. I know you have given some very helpful and informative "how to quote/cite a post" lessons here on the forum in the recent past. Maybe a repeat engagement is in order ? I apologize to all for being so off-topic. Maybe this is subject would be more appropriately placed in STAY TO TEA ?

Tracy...

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:43 am**

Kat @ Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:41 am wrote:Just to be clear.
Here is what Harry said, what snokkums said, and what FairhavenGuy said. These are included in snokkums post as all said by Harry, 2 years ago. I've broken them out- to be fair- not meaning to rake it all up again:

Posted by harry on Sep-23rd-03 at 8:40 PM

"I"m talking non-fiction books Rays. His "book" was FICTION. Makes a great doorstop though.

I probably have read 10 times as much as you ever thought about reading about this case and need no advice from you. Try reading somethings yourself and STOP the constant bitching. It's TIRESOME."

Then, this is snokkums
"Who says I am bitching, I was just asking a question on as much as I can find. As for the lot of you, if you all want to be like this, then just kiss my ass. It's been real see you all."

Then, this is FairhavenGuy:
"I used to LOVE reading this stuff!"

I hope I have the tags right!
Harry was talking to Ray in 2003, not snokkums in 2005.

Thanks for clearing that up. Was wondering whom everyone was talking to. Now that we have gotten off on that tangint, back to Lizzie.!!

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:08 am**

i appreciate kat's clarification of the misleading quotation.

i'm impressed with the innovative method behind the quoting technique, simply because i had never even considered it myself. i would think that this approach would be exactly what is not productive in detective work -- but then, what do i know? i suppose almost nothing is impossible.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:17 am**

guess now we can now go and have some tea and cake now. Who's in?

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:20 am**

Yes, Kat, thank you for the arrangement and clarification.

Quoting can be dangerous when it is out of context.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:15 am**

For the record, I was responding to the following, posted by dou65oh:

doug65oh @ Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:12 pm wrote:(You've hit upon a gold mine of forum history there by the way... might even learn a little Latin if you're not careful. )

To illustrate this "forum history," I went back to a thread in the archives that contained many typical exchanges between former member rays and, among other people, Harry, who is utterly quotable in nearly everything he writes. (I want to be Harry when I grow up.)

It was only my intent to show a tiny bit of the long-running, bone-headed feud between rays any anyone who questioned Arnold Brown's theory.

Sorry if this wasn't clearly understood by all.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:22 am**

LOL, good grief Chris, that would be a step down for you!

Chris, do you know if there are any plans to repair the front steps on the Green St. house? I should think they would be considered a safety hazard as well as being an eyesore in what else is a pretty neat neighborhood.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:13 am**

Harry,

I'd like to get out there with a few boards and a hammer myself. Until relatively recently the house, now numbered 132 Green, was the home of a very elderly gentleman--in his nineties. A son, who I think may be living there now, is said to be reclusive and perhaps disabled in some way.

It's private property, so I'm not sure what might be done. The Building Commissioner could maybe condemn the steps themselves, but it doesn't mean they would be repaired.

It probably won't be too long before the property changes hands, although it's not on the market right now, as far as I know.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:44 pm**

There is a certain person who occasionally posts here (under various pseudonyms) and who always manages to spell Bridget's name wrong. If you do that, please raise your hand so we'll all know we're not dealing with "Ms. Nomer." (Or maybe we'll think you need to be excused.)

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:43 pm**

I raise my hand for being a quick and hasty typist
who may get a name misspelled once in a while,
geeesh. Edisto I think I hear your local soup kitchen calling for volunteers.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:41 pm**

I am not Ms. PhNomer, nor am I Andrew's illegitimate son.

Tracy...

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:33 pm**

to be clear -- i wasn't criticizing fairhaven's post (which i understood)

___________________

as for what i was referring to -- at this point, i'll say, "nevermind." i may have misjudged snokkum's way of communicating. looks can be deceiving.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:07 pm**

Yes, somehow we have been run rings around.
I doubt it was intentional.

Hey snokkums can you not use the quote feature anymore, and maybe just reply? Or put quotes around what you extract, and use copy-paste? I don't mean to single you out- not everyone understands how to use that feature.

FairhavenGuy, thanks for putting your quote in order. I left it in snokkums original order tho I understood where yours belonged.
I thought it would be one step too complicated to move it at the time.

Speaking of steps- those steps are more of a mess than an intentional horror film!

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:44 am**

Nancie (or whoever you are):

I'm 'way too busy with my four children, five grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, assorted pets, large house and lot, several hobbies, occasional travel, work as an appraiser of antiques (some of it as a volunteer for local charities), huge extended family, friends of all ages, and various other interests to volunteer at the soup kitchen. Thank you for thinking of me, though.

I'm not sure why you've gotten your knickers in a twist, because you're not the person to whom I referred. Maybe you're the one who needs to get a life.

Posted: **Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:50 pm**

let's face it. a ray eulogy is about the best this topic is going to yield.

perhaps the topic is jinxed -- cursed by ray himself.

maybe we should just drop this thing -- whatever it is -- as i'm sure it's beneath us all. (i acknowledge my own contributions to this inanity.)

Posted: **Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:14 pm**

OMG! After reading all this Brown crap again, where is Rays to defend his position of Arnold B. being that mastermind of all time when it comes to Lizzie theories?
(Oh, I don't mean for you to come back to the forum, Rays! Shudder.)
Joe

Posted: **Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:53 pm**

Personally I prefer wander.

Posted: **Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:40 pm**

I was in communication with Brown shortly before he died and he never related to me that he felt his work was bogus, as I've seen someone say he felt on this site.
He had several swatches against him. He was a particularly gruff man, not one to take ANY criticism. His writing style was non-non-fictional. He was along way from home in his last days to do any more research. He was very unusual - thinking, I believe, that in his mind he had solved the enigma.
He had more to say, and that wasn't meant to be.
He said his piece, and I don't think calling him a sham does this forum or anyone or anything any good.

Posted: **Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:12 pm**

john @ Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:40 pm wrote:I was in communication with Brown shortly before he died and he never related to me that he felt his work was bogus, as I've seen someone say he felt on this site.
He had several swatches against him. He was a particularly gruff man, not one to take ANY criticism. His writing style was non-non-fictional. He was along way from home in his last days to do any more research. He was very unusual - thinking, I believe, that in his mind he had solved the enigma.
He had more to say, and that wasn't meant to be.
He said his piece, and I don't think calling him a sham does this forum or anyone or anything any good.

I, for one, enjoyed Brown's book. It may not have been fully fact, but it was well done, IMO. I've read and re-read. Reason I brought up RayS is because he was fanatical about Brown.
I admire you for having met Brown! Must have been quite a thrill.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2005 3:24 pm**

Joe,

Within the last couple of weeks a "new member" named RayS joined us and posted a couple of messages in other threads. He hasn't been back since, though.

One of which was about Brown's theory.

The posts I read seem too much like RayS not to actually be him. One of them was in the "very long theory" thread.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2005 4:14 pm**

FairhavenGuy @ Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:24 pm wrote:Joe,

Within the last couple of weeks a "new member" named RayS joined us and posted a couple of messages in other threads. He hasn't been back since, though.

One of which was about Brown's theory.

The posts I read seem too much like RayS not to actually be him. One of them was in the "very long theory" thread.

Cool! Rays is back!

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:31 pm**

Without going all over this topic again, did anyone call Brown a "sham?"
And did john meet Brown, or correspond only?

Just some final questions I have out of curiosity.

Posted: **Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:48 pm**

I just did an advanced search for sham. I found 20 references. Nearly all were in reference to "blood on the bedspread/pillow sham". None were in reference to anyone calling Brown a sham prior to john's post from 12/24/2005.

Tracy...

Posted: **Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:52 am**

Aha! The pillow was just a sham!

Posted: **Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:36 am**

Whenever I meet someone who had met Brown I always ask them what they thought of him.
I've been told they liked the man. Not necessarily likeable, but they liked him. He was smart, and very convinced he had solved the case.
My impressions of what I've heard is that on that one subject, he would not listen to reason.
That sounds to me like someone who really believed in what they wrote.
But on the flip side, I had heard Brown knew his shennanigans were for publicity sake- to sell books.- and he did court controversy.
I don't think anyone ever told me he was a sham.

Posted: **Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:01 pm**

I think Arnold Brown was a Director in the company he worked for (GM?).
If you have experience in Corporate Life you would know how dangerous it could be for an employee to question the statements of a Director (2nd or 3rd level management).

Those who have spent years researching a subject and believe 1000% in it are not likely to welcome questions. Aside from being an old man w/ one foot in the grave. (Brown doesn't look sick, but that picture was from 1991.)

Posted: **Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:37 pm**

He was the head of the Vehicle Development Group of GM in Germany.

Every author needs thick skin and an open mind. I know what it is like to be right about something and have everyone else tell me I'm wrong only to find out later that I was right after all. I also know what it is like to find out I was wrong and everyone else was right. Very humbling!

I bought Arnold's book in 1992 and still have it. I find it is interesting reading but his ideas just seem too far fetched. Arnold could very well be right and I would be the first to take my hat off to him if he is. It would be nice if it were true because that would explain Lizzie's blood-free dress and the missing hatchet. However, until I see some proof, his book will remain a "possible explaination" for the murders in my view. I have read too many books on this case and Emelia Earhart and so many others, with every author claiming to have the "final chapter", to put my full faith into any idea until I see the proof.

I think Arnold was so sure of his theory that he closed his mind off to the idea that he may be wrong. It seems to me that he was trying to get the public to believe he was right about his solution without showing the documentation. If he had just come out and said that his theory was only an un-proven theory which may or may not be true, instead of implying that it was "fact", I don't think the public would be riding his horse.

His book is very interesting but I can't take it to the bank. At least not yet. But it will remain on my shelf.

-1bigsteve (o:

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Andrew Borden's illegitimate son?

Andrew Borden's illegitimate son?

andrew borden an illegitimate son

andrew borden an illegitimate son

andrew borden an illegitimate son

andrew bordens illegitmate(?) son

Re: andrew borden an illegitimate son

Re: andrew bordens illegitmate(?) son

Re: andrew bordens illegitmate(?) son

Rays! Where are you?