Conspiracy with Hyman Lubinsky

[ddnoe]

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?

[Audrey]

I have not had time to read it yet... But it is next on my list!

[Harry]

I just finished reading the Lubinsky article. As stated in your Author's note, you are not necessarily a believer in the theory yourself. I found the theory itself interesting though not probable.

Lubinsky would have had to stop his wagon somewhere on Second St., get out to either retrieve the evidence or commit the killing of Andrew. Second Street was hardly without people on it that morning as the Witness Statements will attest. No one seen an ice cream wagon stopped on Second St. that morning. I can't believe Lizzie would go out on the street to hand him the evidence.

There is that and a host of other things against Lubinsky being involved.

But it is nice to have articles that offer another point of view or theory. They are the ones that make a person think.

[Kat]

I thought it was an interesting theory too.
It was well-written and well-put together
I wondered about the motive tho.
It's possible there was a motive beyond that of incest tho.
I don't know if that would incite him to do violence against Andrew.

Also, when Sarah died, the remaining Borden family were living together at Ferry Street. So in a big house, with lots of extended family about- would Andrew taking liberties with Emma be something which would go unnoticed?

Motive is where I stumble a bit.

[FairhavenGuy]

I d'noe. . .

I haven't absorbed the whole thing yet, and I'm caught with my Rebello in one place and me in another, but I just don't see it.

Didn't Lubinsky volunteer the information that he saw a woman? But there were no reports of anyone having seen Lubinsky. So if he had been involved, and by all indications got away free, why come back and place himself at the scene of the crime?

Or maybe I have my story wrong.

[ddnoe]

To Fairhaven Guy:
Y'noe, in my article I write that Dickerson believes Lubinsky's coming forward to furnish Lizzie with an alibi was part of their plan. His role was essentially twofold: to carry away the damning evidence and then to provide her alibi.

[DWilly]

To Fairhaven Guy:
Y'noe, in my article I write that Dickerson believes Lubinsky's coming forward to furnish Lizzie with an alibi was part of their plan. His role was essentially twofold: to carry away the damning evidence and then to provide her alibi.

If one of Lubinsky's roles was to provide Lizzie with an alibi than couldn't he have done a better job? He was too vague to have really been much help. Why not tell the police he saw a red haired woman with bulging ice blue eyes carrying a hat or something along those lines. I don't think he gave her much of an alibi. Was he even sure of which house he was looking at?

[FairhavenGuy]

His role was essentially twofold: to carry away the damning evidence and then to provide her alibi.

First: What Dwilly just said. He was lousy at giving Lizzie an alibi. He does little to confirm the time or the day and at one point in his testimony he says he saw the servant and the woman in the yard.

Second: His story came out by his telling Mr. Wilkinson at the store the next day. I don’t find him in the witness statements. He seems not to have appeared at the Inquest or the Preliminary Hearing. How could the defense not know that there was a witness whose role was to provide Lizzie an alibi? Wouldn’t Lizzie have pointed them in Lubinsky’s direction if he was an important part of the plan?

Besides, it’s a really stupid plan to have the guy whose job is to take away damning evidence also be the guy whose job is to give the major suspect an alibi.

[Allen]

I think the article was very good, it was very interesting, and I thought it was well written. It was a great contribution to this issue of The Hatchet. But I agree with FairhavenGuy, Harry, and DWilly on all the points they made. I don't think Lubinski was a likely co-conspirator. There are just too many things that wouldn't add up.

[FairhavenGuy]

Okay, here’s more.

Charles Gardner from the stable testified that Lubinsky showed up a little after the regular 11:00 feeding time for the horses and was told to wait until his horse was done eating. A short time later Gardner himself took his team out, heard of a stabbing, but saw nothing out of the ordinary when he passed the Borden house.

Lubinsky himself testified that he got off to a late start that morning.

So was Lubinsky’s major role to just show up at the Borden house sometime late-morningish to pick up bloody evidence?

If Andrew was killed because he came home early, then Lubinsky wouldn’t have known when to show up, would he? If his job was to pick up the bloody evidence of Abby’s murder, why wait until sometime after 11:00? How can somebody’s role be carrying away bloody evidence when it not clearly known when the evidence is going to get bloody. No cell phones, folks. How could Lizzie say, “When you stop by with your wagon--whenever--I’ll come out and hand you a neatly packaged bundle for you to trot away with.”

If Lubinsky got his wagon from the stable and then was at the Borden house for the killing of both Abby and Andrew, why was his cart not spotted just a short time afterward by Gardner, who heard of an attack but saw nothing out of the ordinary on the street as he passed? Surely he’d remember seeing Lubinsky’s wagon. He’d probably make note of it because Lubinsky hadn’t picked his ice cream up from Wilkinson’s store yet, and had been in a hurry to get going, yet he’s parked right there on Second Street?

[RayS]

This fantastic speculation show that people have more time and less sense. There is NO EVIDENCE that Lubinsky had any prior contact w/ Lizzie. We know this from his testimony (he sold to Bridget and knew her).
It is just a case of good research by the defense to find a witness who could testify in court. It does show that Lizzie was outside a few minutes to 11am. (Don't criticize me for specific times!)

This discussion show what is wrong with this site: foolish speculation that is not worth reading or discussing, except at a put down.

[FairhavenGuy]

Well, RayS, we've dicussed Arnold Brown's foolish speculation here, so why not look at sombody else's, too?

[Angel]

The reason I enjoy this website is because most of the people here are polite, gracious, good humored souls who like to bounce ideas off of others about an interesting and puzzling event. It is lighthearted, as it should be, with open minded views and speculations. But every now and then, someone comes along who feels the need to use words such as "foolish", "little sense", etc. when addressing other people who have different opinions. This is not a website designed to change the galaxy, prevent world hunger, stop mass destruction or whatever; it is simply an entertaining and supportive way to help each other try to solve a little mystery. Those people who cannot see it this way should lighten up, stop taking offense at everything and resist putting down others they feel are not as superior or advanced as they may think they are. Or better yet, join another group where their intellectual magnificance will be more fully appreciated.

[FairhavenGuy]

I’ve been trying to edit my post all afternoon, but keep losing my connection. I wanted to remove the word “foolish” from my description of Brown’s speculation. (But RayS, there’s no proof that Andrew fathered William Borden or that William was known by Lizzie or Morse or anyone.)

All theories must stand up to scrutiny and criticism. The better they withstand that, the more worthy of consideration they are.

Criticism should not stop the proposal of new theories, however.

All we can do is speculate at this point.

[Angel]

I wasn't referring t you, Fairhaven guy. You are a sweetie.

[theebmonique]

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:07 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This fantastic speculation show that people have more time and less sense. There is NO EVIDENCE that Lubinsky had any prior contact w/ Lizzie. We know this from his testimony (he sold to Bridget and knew her).
It is just a case of good research by the defense to find a witness who could testify in court. It does show that Lizzie was outside a few minutes to 11am. (Don't criticize me for specific times!)

This discussion show what is wrong with this site: foolish speculation that is not worth reading or discussing, except at a put down.

RayS...while you certainly have to right to your opinion, I must ask; if you find the discussions here so unworthy, why do you keep hanging around ? I am sure you can put your time and knowledge to better use elsewhere. Yes, there are some intense discussions/arguments here, but when it comes down to it, we want to stay here because we have a passion for all aspects of this case. We don't just want to focus on one, single-minded topic. From some of your posts, it seems that we upset you most of the time because we don't want to necessarily wallow in the theory of Mr. Brown. I am sorry you have to have these feelings for us. Maybe you ought to dump our foolish asses and find a forum more suited to your style and needs. BUT, if you want to play nice...we will welcome you with open arms. (I use the words 'we' and 'our' as general terms. I do not actually presume to speak for everyone on this forum.)


Tracy...

[ddnoe]

I d'noe. . .

I haven't absorbed the whole thing yet, and I'm caught with my Rebello in one place and me in another, but I just don't see it.

Didn't Lubinsky volunteer the information that he saw a woman? But there were no reports of anyone having seen Lubinsky. So if he had been involved, and by all indications got away free, why come back and place himself at the scene of the crime?

Or maybe I have my story wrong.

(Denise) I say in my essay that Dickerson believes it was all part of the plan. Lubinsky had the perfect excuse to be in the vicinity because it was on his rounds. He was to help spirit away evidence but also to provide a much-needed alibi.

[ddnoe]

Okay, here’s more.

Charles Gardner from the stable testified that Lubinsky showed up a little after the regular 11:00 feeding time for the horses and was told to wait until his horse was done eating. A short time later Gardner himself took his team out, heard of a stabbing, but saw nothing out of the ordinary when he passed the Borden house.>>

(Denise) Gardner wasn't looking for anything out of the ordinary even though a crowd had probably begun to gather.

Lubinsky himself testified that he got off to a late start that morning.

So was Lubinsky’s major role to just show up at the Borden house sometime late-morningish to pick up bloody evidence?>>

(Denise) Yes, at the approximate time. It's also possible that Lizzie made sure the wagon was around before dispatching her father.

<<If Andrew was killed because he came home early, then Lubinsky wouldn’t have known when to show up, would he? If his job was to pick up the bloody evidence of Abby’s murder, why wait until sometime after 11:00? How can somebody’s role be carrying away bloody evidence when it not clearly known when the evidence is going to get bloody. No cell phones, folks. How could Lizzie say, “When you stop by with your wagon--whenever--I’ll come out and hand you a neatly packaged bundle for you to trot away with.”

If Lubinsky got his wagon from the stable and then was at the Borden house for the killing of both Abby and Andrew, why was his cart not spotted just a short time afterward by Gardner, who heard of an attack but saw nothing out of the ordinary on the street as he passed? Surely he’d remember seeing Lubinsky’s wagon. He’d probably make note of it because Lubinsky hadn’t picked his ice cream up from Wilkinson’s store yet, and had been in a hurry to get going, yet he’s parked right there on Second Street?

>>

(Denise) I say in my article that the pair made sure the coast was clear. They took a chance on being seen and weren't. Dickerson believes Lubinsky supplied her with an alibi as well as picked up the weapon and blood-stained clothing.

[FairhavenGuy]

(Denise) I say in my article that the pair made sure the coast was clear. They took a chance on being seen and weren't. Dickerson believes Lubinsky supplied her with an alibi as well as picked up the weapon and blood-stained clothing.

The coast was clear with Lubinsky's wagon parked out front? And no one saw it? Or did he keep circling the block until he was the only one on the street? Charles Gardner--the man who places Lubinsky at the stable after 11:00--went down the street himself shortly afterward and saw no sign of Lubinsky or his wagon.

Dickerson needs to explain how Lubinsky knew when to pick up the weapon and clothing. The two victims were killed as long as an hour and a half from each other. Did Lubinsky pick up the hatchet after Abby was killed then bring it back for Andrew and take it away again?

Dickerson suggests that maybe Lubinsky her "male agent" killed Andrew. How does that fit into the timeline if he got his team from Gardner after 11:00?

Dickerson needs to explain why Lizzie and Lubinsky would develop a plan when his method of transportation required getting Mr. Wilkinson's wagon and horse from the stable. If they did, in fact, plan it that way, why didn't Lubinsky pick up the team earlier in the morning, so as to avoid the whole 11:00 feeding thing? Abby was probably dead by 9:30. Why didn't Lubinsky show up at say 9:45 or 10:00? If he was in on the plot, it seems unlikely that he would wait until after 11:00 that morning to pick up the wagon and team.

Dickerson needs to explain why, if Lubinsky was supposed to provide the "outside in the barn" alibi, he first told his story to his boss Wilkinson at Wilkinson's store the next day? How was that supposed to help Lizzie in any way?

Dickerson needs to explain why, if Lubinsky was provided the alibi by prearrangement, he didn't say he actually recognized Lizzie. His shabby description actually led police to produce Ellen Eagan who was, perhaps, in a neighboring yard. And if Lizzie was supposed to be wearing a hat--something in her own story--he screwed that up by saying the unidentified woman was hatless.

The major thing that Dickerson needs to explain is this: How could they have planned any of this in advance? Did they plan that Lizzie would kill Abby and then wait until Andrew came home? Did they plan that Lizzie would need an alibi of being in the barn? Why would they need to plan the whole "twenty minutes in the barn" thing at all? Does Dickerson really think that they would say "Okay, tell 'em you're out in the barn for twenty minutes and to back you up, I'll say I drove by a saw a woman cooming from behind the house?" How does that make sense as a plan?

Sorry. I can't buy any of it. I also don't understand why the incest theory needs to be part of this at all. It does nothing whatsoever to support the idea that Lubinsky was part of the plot. Nothing like throwing in another whole, cloudy possibility to make one already foggy theory even murkier.

[ddnoe]

To Fairhaven Guy:
Y'noe, in my article I write that Dickerson believes Lubinsky's coming forward to furnish Lizzie with an alibi was part of their plan. His role was essentially twofold: to carry away the damning evidence and then to provide her alibi.

If one of Lubinsky's roles was to provide Lizzie with an alibi than couldn't he have done a better job? He was too vague to have really been much help. Why not tell the police he saw a red haired woman with bulging ice blue eyes carrying a hat or something along those lines. I don't think he gave her much of an alibi. Was he even sure of which house he was looking at?

(Denise) Dickerson believes Lubinsky was deliberately vague to lend credibility to his testimony.

[Allen]

Trial testimony Hymon Lubinsky page 1409:

Q. Can you tell about what time it was when you left the stable?
A. It was after eleven.

Q. How much after eleven?
A. Well, a few minutes after eleven.

Q. Was anybody there when you left the stable that you knew?
A. Well, I knew there was Charley Gardner and some peoples: I don't know who they are.

-------------------------------------------

page 1413:

Q. When did you look at the clock, -- at any time during that day?
A. I looked at my watch that time I left the stable.

Q.When was that?
A. A few minutes after eleven.

Q. How many?
A. I could not tell you whether five or ten minutes, but a few minutes after eleven.



Trial testimony Charles Gardner page 1423:

Q. Do you remember anything about what time it was that day when Mr. Lubinsky took his carriage away?
A. I do, yes, sir.

Q. Won't you tell us--- about what time was it?
A. I was ---

Q. About what time was it?
A. When he went out with his team?

Q. Yes.
A.Between five and ten minutes past eleven.

Q. How do you fix the time, Mr. Gardner?
A. I used to feed at noon, or my man used to feed, at eleven o'clock every day, and that day when he came in and ordered his horse I told him his horse was eating ---

MR. KNOWLTON. I beg your pardon.

Q. You need not tell what you told him.
A. The horse was eating, and I told him to wait---

MR. KNOWLTON. I beg your pardon.

page 1424

Q. Never mind. Did he have to wait at all to get his horse.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. For what reason?
A. There was a number of teams ahead of him, ordered ahead of him, and he wanted his team: he said "hurry up" --- he was late, he wanted his team to go right out.

Q. Do you know whether either of those teams went out while he was waiting?
A. Yes, sir; there was one if not two of them.

Q. Do you remember who either of them was?
A. Yes, sir, I remember one of them.

Q. Who was it?
A. George Douglass.

It was already a few minutes after eleven before Lubinisky even left the stable and headed in the direction of the Borden house. This is close to the time that Andrew's body was 'discovered' and Lizzie raised the alarm to Bridget. Lizzie then sent her hurrying for Dr. Bowen. Would she be sending for another potential witness if she was planning to meet Lubinsky?

How would this give him any time to stop at the house and carry off the murder weapon let alone possibly kill Andrew and get out unseen? Mrs. Churchill says she left her house at about 11:00 a.m. and returned a short time later at about 11:15 to 11:20. She didn't report seeing anybody with a team stop at the house or appear to be hanging around. When Mrs. Churchill called to Lizzie from her window Lizzie asked her to come over after already sending Bridget out. If she was supposed to be meeting with Lubinsky why is she calling these potential witnesses to the scene?

Due to the fact that Lubinsky didn't know what time the murders were going to occur, nor could he have known ahead of time that his team would be getting out later than usual that day, I don't see how any plan could've been carried out between the two. He stated that the day before the murders his team was taken out at half past ten. Was that his usual time? If so that fits the time line no better even if he would've gotten his team out on time. Bridget would be in the way as a possible witness, and Andrew would still be alive. I don't see Lubinsky getting into the house undetected by Bridget to kill Andrew.

Him moving into the Borden house 25 years after the murders because he was in a better financial status after Lizzie paid him for helping her with the killings doesn't ring true to me either. It does seem like a coincidence, but it was also 25 years later, why wait so long?

How would he know when to pick up the weapon to spirit it away, and how would he know when to say he saw Lizzie coming from the barn to give her an alibi since he had no way of knowing either when the murders were committed, or that his team would get out late that day.

[Audrey]

The essay was well writen, precise and despite what opinions I may have about the conspiracy, I did enjoy it very much.

Your writing is always interesting and easy to read.

[Kat]

Yes, that is 25 years. I hadn't realized that.

The younger-man/older woman infatuation aspect is not new- it's mirrored somewhat in the David Anthony theory as killer- but this Dickerson may not have known about that and still have devised his scenario as fresh and creative on his own- so I thought that was interesting too.

Emma owned 1/2 that house and would have a say in discounting rents to people, I'd think- but maybe it was handled through their man of business.

I believe Lubinsky died of TB, so maybe his wife left him because he was sick all the time and couldn't work?
Maybe allowing him to live at #92 for a while was an act of charity of the Borden girl's part? I hadn't thought of that.

[ddnoe]

The essay was well writen, precise and despite what opinions I may have about the conspiracy, I did enjoy it very much.

Your writing is always interesting and easy to read.

(Denise) Thank you so very much. How much of my writing have you read?
I've got several stories up at http://www.crimelibrary.com and http://www.crimemagazine.com.

[Allen]

The essay was well writen, precise and despite what opinions I may have about the conspiracy, I did enjoy it very much.

Your writing is always interesting and easy to read.

(Denise) Thank you so very much. How much of my writing have you read?
I've got several stories up at http://www.crimelibrary.com and http://www.crimemagazine.com.

I've read and enjoyed many of the articles at Crimelibrary.com I would be very interested in reading the ones you have written. I may already have read some of them and did not know it. Which ones have you written?

[ddnoe]

The essay was well writen, precise and despite what opinions I may have about the conspiracy, I did enjoy it very much.

Your writing is always interesting and easy to read.

(Denise) Thank you so very much. How much of my writing have you read?
I've got several stories up at http://www.crimelibrary.com and http://www.crimemagazine.com.

I've read and enjoyed many of the articles at Crimelibrary.com I would be very interested in reading the ones you have written. I may already have read some of them and did not know it. Which ones have you written?

(Denise) You can find the list of my Crimelibrary.com stories at http://www.crimelibrary.com/about/autho ... index.html. The Bathory one I didn't write and is there in error. The ones of which I'm most proud are: Sylvia Likens, Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle, Alice Crimmins, Alger Hiss, Baader-Meinhof, John Hinckley, Jr. and Handcuff Man. I better warn you that the Sylvia Likens story is extraordinarily sad and extremely gruesome as it is about a teen girl who was tortured to death.

[RayS]

The reason I enjoy this website is because most of the people here are polite, gracious, good humored souls who like to bounce ideas off of others about an interesting and puzzling event. It is lighthearted, as it should be, with open minded views and speculations. But every now and then, someone comes along who feels the need to use words such as "foolish", "little sense", etc. when addressing other people who have different opinions. This is not a website designed to change the galaxy, prevent world hunger, stop mass destruction or whatever; it is simply an entertaining and supportive way to help each other try to solve a little mystery. Those people who cannot see it this way should lighten up, stop taking offense at everything and resist putting down others they feel are not as superior or advanced as they may think they are. Or better yet, join another group where their intellectual magnificance will be more fully appreciated.

Ha-ha-ha, you little devil!!! Did you spend a lot of time on that???
Do you mean to say that there is no such thing as a "foolish" opinion that makes "little sense"? One of the replies points out explicitly the little sense in claiming that Lubinsky was "an accessory before the fact". A cynic could wonder if his eyewitness testimony was 'too good to be true'.

I think it is foolish to pretend that anyone here can solve this crime, even if not in a court of law. Else what forum? Every adult around that day was dead by the start of World War II, before most of us were even born. All we can do is provide the "Best Evidence" for an objective solution.

I am not a trained professional, etc. in criminal justice, law or medicine. I doubt that anyone like that would even bother with an amateur club like this. BUT my experiences (from reading, not real life) lead me to conclude that Arnold Brown has come up with the final solution to this unsolved murder. (I also reserve the right to change my opinion if anyone should ever come up with a better solution, which they haven't in 15 years.)

You are free to disagree, of course. But William of Ockham long ago came up with a method to pare down opposing arguments: the simplest explanation is likely to be the true one. Don't multiply causes needlessly.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

[RayS]

I’ve been trying to edit my post all afternoon, but keep losing my connection. I wanted to remove the word “foolish” from my description of Brown’s speculation. (But RayS, there’s no proof that Andrew fathered William Borden or that William was known by Lizzie or Morse or anyone.)

All theories must stand up to scrutiny and criticism. The better they withstand that, the more worthy of consideration they are.

Criticism should not stop the proposal of new theories, however.

All we can do is speculate at this point.

I do not take offense at anyone who claims Brown's book was 'foolish' speculation. You can read the book for yourself and form your own opinion without reading any comment here. Brown provides the 'Best Evidence' that solves the many mysteries of this case. For example, a family scandal would explain why Lizzie never told who really did it.

You can read the 'Acknowledgments' in Arnold Brown's book, he explains just who he talked to in writing this book. Then compare the "acknowledgments" (if any) in any of the similar books on this topic.

Unlike Pearson, Radin, Sullivan, LINCOLN, Spiering, et al, Brown was not a professional writer. His background was in manufacturing, and he seems to be MUCH MORE knowlegable about REAL LIFE like local politics. Only Spiering mentions the needs of the local manufacturers to get production moving again after so many workers walked off the job. THAT should send out a warning bell to anyone who understands the real world.

[Correction in CAPs]

[RayS]

I wasn't referring t you, Fairhaven guy. You are a sweetie.

I consider myself to be educated, charming, diplomatic, brave, reverent, kindly, etc. Unless I chose to be otherwise.

Anyone who thinks I am not cultured can just "kiss my ring" (ha-ha).
[typing error corrected]

[Angel]

I rest my case.

[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?

No, I have not read it and don't plan to. Others have pointed out the imprecision in Lubinsky's testimony. But that sounds like the truth to me. An eyewitness who is NOT trained and had NO reason to take notes (like Uncle John did for his return trip) would be suspicious, in my opinion. Thie vagueness is about what you could expect from an ordinary witness who doesn't understand the event until afterwards. IMO

[theebmonique]

I rest my case.

Amen Sister ! I am with you.


Tracy...

[theebmonique]

We all have our theories, and while I may agree/disagree in part with some...I am tolerant of their right to choose their belief...for whatever reason they so chose.

What I have a hard time with is when someone consistently and constantly berates others for not subscribing to what THEY feel is THE answer. From a legal standpoint, the case was not solved to the degree that a specific suspect/killer could be convicted, and is considered unsolved, but definitely not an active case ?

Would this crime fall under "no statute of limitations" for capitol murder ?


Tracy...

[RayS]

Okay, here’s more.

Charles Gardner from the stable testified that Lubinsky showed up a little after the regular 11:00 feeding time for the horses and was told to wait until his horse was done eating. A short time later Gardner himself took his team out, heard of a stabbing, but saw nothing out of the ordinary when he passed the Borden house.

Lubinsky himself testified that he got off to a late start that morning.

So was Lubinsky’s major role to just show up at the Borden house sometime late-morningish to pick up bloody evidence?

If Andrew was killed because he came home early, then Lubinsky wouldn’t have known when to show up, would he? If his job was to pick up the bloody evidence of Abby’s murder, why wait until sometime after 11:00? How can somebody’s role be carrying away bloody evidence when it not clearly known when the evidence is going to get bloody. No cell phones, folks. How could Lizzie say, “When you stop by with your wagon--whenever--I’ll come out and hand you a neatly packaged bundle for you to trot away with.”

If Lubinsky got his wagon from the stable and then was at the Borden house for the killing of both Abby and Andrew, why was his cart not spotted just a short time afterward by Gardner, who heard of an attack but saw nothing out of the ordinary on the street as he passed? Surely he’d remember seeing Lubinsky’s wagon. He’d probably make note of it because Lubinsky hadn’t picked his ice cream up from Wilkinson’s store yet, and had been in a hurry to get going, yet he’s parked right there on Second Street?

The above was good enough to repeat. To be part of the conspiracy, Lubinsky's boss (who told him when to leave) would also have to be part, as well as the horse who was just finishing his meal. Note that his appearance was after the murder was discovered! Sounds impossible to me.

I sort of remembered that Lubinsky's claim was he saw a lady walking from the barn, before the murder was discovered. THAT would mean he left earlier than the 11am time given here. Has the timing been verified, or is it in conflict?
Given that Lizzie was on the back porch before Mrs. Buffington came over and they went inside, Lubinsky's testimony DOES put Lizzie outside before the murder was discovered, as Lizzie never went out again.

[RayS]

We all have our theories, and while I may agree/disagree in part with some...I am tolerant of their right to choose their belief...for whatever reason they so chose.

What I have a hard time with is when someone consistently and constantly berates others for not subscribing to what THEY feel is THE answer. From a legal standpoint, the case was not solved to the degree that a specific suspect/killer could be convicted, and is considered unsolved, but definitely not an active case ?

Would this crime fall under "no statute of limitations" for capitol murder ?


Tracy...

Are you saying that it is wrong to be CONSISTENT with the facts?
Unlike others, I am not making this up, I just read what was available from my library and came to the correct conclusion. Yes, I do happen to own the hardcover copy of Brown's book (bought at book sale) and it is responsible for my interest.

Are you claiming that people should adopt a theory du jour to make up a conversation? All that I'm saying is the known facts, as in those books, lead me to conclude: 1) Lizzie didn't do it; and, 2) Brown has the 'best evidence' for a solution.
I have no 'hidden agenda' for claims (like a personal or proprietary interest).

[theebmonique]

We all have our theories, and while I may agree/disagree in part with some...I am tolerant of their right to choose their belief...for whatever reason they so chose.

What I have a hard time with is when someone consistently and constantly berates others for not subscribing to what THEY feel is THE answer. From a legal standpoint, the case was not solved to the degree that a specific suspect/killer could be convicted, and is considered unsolved, but definitely not an active case ?

Would this crime fall under "no statute of limitations" for capitol murder ?


Tracy...

Are you saying that it is wrong to be CONSISTENT with the facts?
Unlike others, I am not making this up, I just read what was available from my library and came to the correct conclusion. Yes, I do happen to own the hardcover copy of Brown's book (bought at book sale) and it is responsible for my interest.

Are you claiming that people should adopt a theory du jour to make up a conversation? All that I'm saying is the known facts, as in those books, lead me to conclude: 1) Lizzie didn't do it; and, 2) Brown has the 'best evidence' for a solution.
I have no 'hidden agenda' for claims (like a personal or proprietary interest).

Ray...please do not twist my words. You know very well, that what I am saying is that YOU are consistent with constantly berating others who do not feel the same passion for Arnie's theory as you do. Believe him all you want, it's your right to do that...just stop being so damn mean about it, please.

Also, where did you get theory du jour from my post ? If you just want to pick a fight so that you have someone to talk to, even if it's an argument, that is sad. I could be your friend, but if this is how you treat friends, no thank you.

If you believe Arnie has THE answer, 'bravo' to you for taking a stand, whether any of the rest of us agree with you or not. It takes a lot of heart and courage for a person to take a stand and stick with it when many others are thinking "what is he thinking ???" BUT....'boo' to you if you will not allow yourself to be tolerent and respectful of the right of others to believe as they choose about this case.

Ray, I would be glad to continue this conversation, and if you want to as well, maybe it would be best if we take to PMing or email. Thank you for your time.


Tracy...

[Haulover]

i enjoyed this article. i don't buy the theory as it is laid out. but i do, in fact, agree with some of the suggestive points it makes. i don't believe that lizzie herself actually picked up an axe -- but i have tended to believe for quite some time that a man lizzie got involved with was the actual murderer. and that she at least indirectly created the circumstances that brought the murders about. and this was her real secret.

it's also interesting that this article comes about when i only recently realized that lubinsky rented the second street house. i don't think his demeanor as a witness indicates guilt. but i think this type of scenario is close to the truth in some way. i tend to think lizzie's involvement with the killer was sexual -- and this is important in your article, and i lean here too -- that lizzie WAS someone who would get involved with someone who would be considered as socially "beneath her." and this "lower status" would have something to do with motive. the legend has always distracted us from the fact that there were so many people going up and down that street that lizzie, perhaps desperate, would have invited any affection she could get.

[augusta]

Denise - I'll bet you didn't expect your simple little post to explode into some of this.

RayS, dear - Do you think it would be a good idea to dig into Arnold Brown's theory, to research it, and see if you can find some things to back up his theory? Have you just read Brown's book and not read any of the others to expose yourself to what else is out there?

All any of us have are theories. And I think until the crime is solved, one theory is just as equal as the rest.

Tracey - There is no statute of limitations on murder. The Borden case is officially still open. I don't understand why Lizzie's descendants stopped Professor Starr from his research. The reasoning of "all the people involved are now dead" is given when someone is asked this question, so there is no sense in trying to prove anything. I disagree. And I would think that Lizzie's descendants would not have the say so to stop research that may help in solving the crime.

I enjoyed the article, Denise, as I expected I would with you as author. Thanks for posting the other pieces you have out there. I'd like to read them.

As far as the Lubinsky Theory, I just don't see anything to support it. I have to wonder why Mr. Dickinson didn't mention Ellen Eagan at all? I think it may have benefitted the theory somewhat if he had something in there about her - to disprove her presence.

If Lubinsky was late starting out, that kind of blows the theory up right there.

Fairhaven Guy asks why Lubinsky first told Wilkinson. If this scenario really happened, it would make sense for him to mention his story quietly at first. I don't know that yelling it out in the middle of the street would have gained any believers.

I don't know about in 1892, but today cops really suspect a person who wants to get involved in a case - wants to know what's going on, what they've found, and tries to help.

I always thought that Lubinsky was hurried off the stand. The poor guy asks Knowlton to slow down, and he just gets trampled.

As far as a plan with Lizzie, I don't think Lubinsky knew English well enough to comprehend a plan, and if he did I don't think Lizzie would have trusted him to be an accomplice fearing he might accidentally say the wrong thing(s).

Maybe he was given a price break from 'the girls' when he lived in the murder house. Lizzie was very kind to her supporters, and he was a defense witness, wasn't he?

His lateness to his job might speak something of his character, unless this was a day when something out of the ordinary happened. Maybe he was not the most reliable person. His telling the liveryman to "hurry up" when there were other horses ahead of him tells us he may have been pushy, anxious, maybe demanding. Or very concerned about keeping his job.

It's a theory, though. Who's to say it's absolutely wrong? There's a Dr. Bowen theory out there. My gut feeling, tho, is that the Lubinsky Theory is not a particularly strong one. Just my opinion. - Interesting post, Haulover.

[Angel]

I guess I'll never believe that Lizzie was involved in any way with a man. There's just too much that seems to contradict that. I think the family was so dysfunctional in so many ways that she was way too repressed.

[Allen]

I guess I'll never believe that Lizzie was involved in any way with a man. There's just too much that seems to contradict that. I think the family was so dysfunctional in so many ways that she was way too repressed.

I don't think there is any evidence to show that Lizzie was ever involved with a man either. I do think she may have had infatuations, but I think they remained just that, and that the feelings were not reciprocated. In fact , there was at least one statement made by someone who knew her that Lizzie never had a beau, and that the hostesses of parties had a hard time finding her an escort. Back then it was considered good etiquette for a hostess to try and arrange an escort for a girl she had invited who was without one. This was so that no girl at her party would feel left out, lonely, or ignored. But that also hinges on finding a willing male to agree.

[RayS]

I rest my case.

I believe your kind thoughts about me illustrate an old, old saying.
"Those who can do, those who can't criticize."

I hope you all will take this as a final solution to those who criticize my belief in Arnold Brown's solution.

[RayS]

I guess I'll never believe that Lizzie was involved in any way with a man. There's just too much that seems to contradict that. I think the family was so dysfunctional in so many ways that she was way too repressed.

Edward Radin's book on this case has the remembered testimony about Lizzie. She was an avid fisher, a trait that even now could make her popular with some men.
Arnold Brown's book gives Lizzie's problem. Any man who would want her would probably be poorer, and regarded as a fortune-hunter by Andy. (Remember, you marry the whole family, even if you move out of state.) Any man from 'the Hill' would find a better match than a self-made man's daughter. Remember how Andy cheated that family out of an inheritance?

Didn't Brown's book also mention the many daughters of the rich who preferred to remaining unmarried and independent (English common law let the husband take his wife's property, unlike Spanish civil law)?

[RayS]

I guess I'll never believe that Lizzie was involved in any way with a man. There's just too much that seems to contradict that. I think the family was so dysfunctional in so many ways that she was way too repressed.

I don't think there is any evidence to show that Lizzie was ever involved with a man either. I do think she may have had infatuations, but I think they remained just that, and that the feelings were not reciprocated. In fact , there was at least one statement made by someone who knew her that Lizzie never had a beau, and that the hostesses of parties had a hard time finding her an escort. Back then it was considered good etiquette for a hostess to try and arrange an escort for a girl she had invited who was without one. This was so that no girl at her party would feel left out, lonely, or ignored. But that also hinges on finding a willing male to agree.

This tells me you NEVER read Edward Radin's book. Edward Radin had exposed the typewritten forgery, and re-investigated the case around 1960.

[RayS]

We all have our theories, and while I may agree/disagree in part with some...I am tolerant of their right to choose their belief...for whatever reason they so chose.

What I have a hard time with is when someone consistently and constantly berates others for not subscribing to what THEY feel is THE answer. From a legal standpoint, the case was not solved to the degree that a specific suspect/killer could be convicted, and is considered unsolved, but definitely not an active case ?

Would this crime fall under "no statute of limitations" for capitol murder ?


Tracy...

Are you saying that it is wrong to be CONSISTENT with the facts?
Unlike others, I am not making this up, I just read what was available from my library and came to the correct conclusion. Yes, I do happen to own the hardcover copy of Brown's book (bought at book sale) and it is responsible for my interest.

Are you claiming that people should adopt a theory du jour to make up a conversation? All that I'm saying is the known facts, as in those books, lead me to conclude: 1) Lizzie didn't do it; and, 2) Brown has the 'best evidence' for a solution.
I have no 'hidden agenda' for claims (like a personal or proprietary interest).

Ray...please do not twist my words. You know very well, that what I am saying is that YOU are consistent with constantly berating others who do not feel the same passion for Arnie's theory as you do. Believe him all you want, it's your right to do that...just stop being so damn mean about it, please.

Also, where did you get theory du jour from my post ? If you just want to pick a fight so that you have someone to talk to, even if it's an argument, that is sad. I could be your friend, but if this is how you treat friends, no thank you.

If you believe Arnie has THE answer, 'bravo' to you for taking a stand, whether any of the rest of us agree with you or not. It takes a lot of heart and courage for a person to take a stand and stick with it when many others are thinking "what is he thinking ???" BUT....'boo' to you if you will not allow yourself to be tolerent and respectful of the right of others to believe as they choose about this case.

Ray, I would be glad to continue this conversation, and if you want to as well, maybe it would be best if we take to PMing or email. Thank you for your time.


Tracy...

I AM NOT TWISTING your words, my dear. I never quoted anyone. It seems that way too many will jump on the current fantasy, even though that publication is NOT PEER-REVIEWED.
You know what I mean?

[mbhenty]

I'm very new to this forum, (or any forum) so perhaps I should not be posting as much as I have been so early in my tenure. But just wanted to add something about Mr. Brown's book.

Compared to most of the members on this forum, I know close to nothing when it comes to the Borden case. I find everyone so informed.

I met Mr Brown at a book signing here in Fall River back in Aug. of 91. In what little conversation we had, I found him to be a very gentle person, with a sincere mission to solving the Borden case. I read the book back then, and would have to read it again to make any serious comment on his findings. But that said, I remember it being one of the best reads that I had read on the case. I remember thinking to myself, "Wow, he solved it, How can everyone have missed all these facts, etc." As time went on I was surprised that no other scholar on the case investigated Mr. Brown's findings.

But, to this day, I still have admiration for the man and his book. Brown's theory deserves just as much validation as any other. Though I had mentioned in another post that Brown's work was one of fiction, I meant that in the sense that all theories, Radin, Spiering, Lincoln, are all fiction. Only becasue no one is able to prove the truth. Perhaps I should have used the term "conjecture".

Not sure if Mr. Brown is still with us, (I think he passed on some years ago) but last I heard he was working on a second book. Would be fasinating to read what he had compiled. Weather you subscribe to Mr. Brown's narrative or not, if you have not read it, do so, either way it's a great read on the case.

[doug65oh]

Oh, you're just fine mb - although I would take small issue with your assertion that nine posts is a huge number. (I wear size 9 shoes...err well, that's another story entirely.) Welcome to our little corner of the zoo - and please remember to always allow the ride to come to a full stop before exiting.

[Allen]

Oh, you're just fine mb - although I would take small issue with your assertion that nine posts is a huge number. (I wear size 9 shoes...err well, that's another story entirely.) Welcome to our little corner of the zoo - and please remember to always allow the ride to come to a full stop before exiting.

Maybe keep the seatbelt fastened too?

[RayS]

I'm very new to this forum, (or any forum) so perhaps I should not be posting as much as I have been so early in my tenure. But just wanted to add something about Mr. Brown's book.

Compared to most of the members on this forum, I know close to nothing when it comes to the Borden case. I find everyone so informed.

I met Mr Brown at a book signing here in Fall River back in Aug. of 91. In what little conversation we had, I found him to be a very gentle person, with a sincere mission to solving the Borden case. I read the book back then, and would have to read it again to make any serious comment on his findings. But that said, I remember it being one of the best reads that I had read on the case. I remember thinking to myself, "Wow, he solved it, How can everyone have missed all these facts, etc." As time went on I was surprised that no other scholar on the case investigated Mr. Brown's findings.

But, to this day, I still have admiration for the man and his book. Brown's theory deserves just as much validation as any other. Though I had mentioned in another post that Brown's work was one of fiction, I meant that in the sense that all theories, Radin, Spiering, Lincoln, are all fiction. Only becasue no one is able to prove the truth. Perhaps I should have used the term "conjecture".

Not sure if Mr. Brown is still with us, (I think he passed on some years ago) but last I heard he was working on a second book. Would be fasinating to read what he had compiled. Weather you subscribe to Mr. Brown's narrative or not, if you have not read it, do so, either way it's a great read on the case.

OK, you have some work ahead. The first book is Kent's "40 Whacks" for an overall review of the case.
You can read Pearson (Lizzie did it), Radin (Bridget did it), Lincoln (Lizzie did it), Sullivan (Lizzie did it), and Spiering (Emma did it) (historical order). Brown's solution is based on the facts that came to his notice after he retired (see his acknowledgments etc). Masterton didn't add much, I haven't read Rehak.

Brown does NOT wrap things up perfectly. He admits he didn't get info on William Borden's stay at Taunton. Brown took someone else's notes and did his own investigation. A resident of Fall River has a built-in advantage over those who are hundreds of miles away. I read that his original work was 1100 pages, cut down to 300+ for publication. Maybe there was more that should have been available.

Nobody here has commented on 'Todd Lunday' book, which first noted in print the existence of an 'unknown subject', if only as satire.

The fact is that after 113+ years NO ONE will be able to solve this case. Nobody can go back and check William S. Borden't alibi, etc. But I think Brown has the best working solution so far. Can you do better?

[RayS]

Denise - I'll bet you didn't expect your simple little post to explode into some of this.

RayS, dear - Do you think it would be a good idea to dig into Arnold Brown's theory, to research it, and see if you can find some things to back up his theory? Have you just read Brown's book and not read any of the others to expose yourself to what else is out there?

All any of us have are theories. And I think until the crime is solved, one theory is just as equal as the rest.

... deleted for space constraints

No one theory can be just as equal as the rest if they differ a lot.
THAT is elementary logic and common sense. Don't you agree?

You are making an incorrect assumption about my reading; just review the archives from the old site.
I no longer have the time, even today is too much. "Been there, done that."

A theory is a way to explain what happened when you were not around to see it. Just as the Copernican theory replaced the Ptolemaic theory, so Brown's theory has become the final solution to this unsolved mystery.
Or so I believe. Nobody has ever come up with a better theory, have they?

[FairhavenGuy]

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. . .