Brown's Book, The Legend, The Truth & The Final Chapter

[matt kevin jones]

Just finished the book
I just cant swallow all the corruption " The Mellen House Organization"
Does it seem to anyone that Brown has picked apart the testimony to make it fall into place with Ellan Eagens story, from Her Son-in- Law
Henry Hawthorne ? Like pushing a size 11 foot into a size 9 shoe?
If Billy Borden was so loopy, that He talked to his Best friend " The Hatchet " could he have had the mental capacity to keep his mouth shut all those years ?

[RayS]

Just finished the book
I just cant swallow all the corruption " The Mellen House Organization"
Does it seem to anyone that Brown has picked apart the testimony to make it fall into place with Ellan Eagens story, from Her Son-in- Law
Henry Hawthorne ? Like pushing a size 11 foot into a size 9 shoe?
If Billy Borden was so loopy, that He talked to his Best friend " The Hatchet " could he have had the mental capacity to keep his mouth shut all those years ?

Then you must know very little about history then or now!!!

Ever read about Sacco & Vanzetti? The world made by Prohibition?

Ever hear how Doris Duke killed her boyfriend then passed it off as an "accident"? She was later shunned by her society, I believe.
Ever hear how the football player shotgunned his limo driver and got a reduced charge? All in Somerset County NJ the "hometown of the rich and famous".

[RayS]

Just finished the book
I just cant swallow all the corruption " The Mellen House Organization"
...

Lincoln Steffens wrote a book about the corruption in the big (and small) cities of America. Has your education censored this entirely (except for a short reference)?
F Lee Bailey's "The Defense Never Rests" tells about a county in NJ (probably Bergen County) where a local weekly newspaper reported on the links between the Prosecutor and organized crime. The Prosecutor arrested the publisher for a murder, and used a witness who was out of state at the time. You can look it up, its usually not something you'll read in the 'National Enquirer' or other newspapers like the "serious press".

Just be glad you only read about it, and not experience first or second hand.

[theebmonique]

Matt,

Just keep reading and exploring as you are doing. Ray is SO DEVOTED to ONLY Arnie's theory that when someone says anything even resembling even microscopic disagreement with that, he gets on his soap box...to put it mildly.

Many of us here disagree with others in a kind and peaceful way...most of the time. Don't worry about expressing your opinions, your thoughts, or your questions. You are doing the right thing. You are educationg yourself about this case. GOOD WORK !


Tracy...

[matt kevin jones]

Tracy
Thanks for your kind words. and supportive attitude.



As far as Ray --- I never claimed to be an expert on the case--- I never claimed to have read the entire contents of the Library of Congress.
I just stated my own opinion
Harsh and uncalled for comments pay me no harm.
Opinions are like rectums, everybody has one. And some have two.

[Kat]

I was watching House on TV Tuesday night and he mentions how a certain doctor tries to look extra smart by asking questions when they never have to answer them themselves.
For myself, I'm tired of that approach all the time.
Just answer plainly, I say.

[Harry]

Just finished the book
I just cant swallow all the corruption " The Mellen House Organization"
Does it seem to anyone that Brown has picked apart the testimony to make it fall into place with Ellan Eagens story, from Her Son-in- Law
Henry Hawthorne ? Like pushing a size 11 foot into a size 9 shoe?
If Billy Borden was so loopy, that He talked to his Best friend " The Hatchet " could he have had the mental capacity to keep his mouth shut all those years ?

Right you are, Matt. IMO the book is fiction sprinkled with a few facts and intended to sell. That's fine from a commercial point of view but as for it being a serious book on the case you will have to look elsewhere. The wholesale indictment of the prosecution and defense as conspirators is simply ridiculous.

Do yourself a great big favor by reading the primary documents before you absorb too many of these unsupported theories. Once absorbed they are hard to shake.

[augusta]

RayS - I thought Doris Duke was killed by her boyfriend, and she lived in one of the big mansions in Newport, RI.

I think Arnold Brown may have had some sort of a brain illness. He was a bit eccentric.

Arnold Brown was not a writer by trade. He worked at General Motors or something. That's a fine occupation, but I don't think he was used to all the research that goes into a non-fiction piece. I think he believed in the theory. I would have been excited to have talked to Henry Hawthorne about Ellen Eagan. But, agreeing with Matt, I think he researched enough to reach his already-formed conclusions. There is no proof anywhere that Brown's book was true. How can anyone say that's what really happened? At best, it's a theory, and one of the lowest ones on the totem pole.

[Angel]

Opinions are like rectums, everybody has one. And some have two.

Amen.

[matt kevin jones]

Thanks everyone for your positive comments
After reading Ray's comment last night I felt that maybe I was so green about everything , that I should just keep quite and not post anything & just read everyone elses post.
But I realize everyone has a right to their own opinion even some that Blast others. this is what makes America such a great place.
I guess if everyone was in total agreement with everyone else, there would be no reason for this forum.
All in all, it makes me just want to dive into my research even harder.

[nbcatlover]

Living in Bristol County TODAY, there are still people of privilege who are untouchable, regardless of what they do. A lot of bad stuff gets swept under the rug if you're from the "right" families.

They don't have a special name for it here, but I know that it's sometimes called Texas Justice.

That's why I like Dominic Dunne.

[RayS]

As a teenager in High School I heard stories about the sons of the well-connected who escaped having their license lifted after an accident or drinking. Haven't you? Or do you live in a small egalitarian town where no one does any wrong, at least judged by the newspapers. But some who live there can tell you about the cover-ups and payoffs.
Ever read about a "zoning change"? Who benefits, and who loses?
Covering up a crime is a little harder, but there is "Pre-Trial Intervention" where somebody with connections escapes a trial.

Raymond Chandler's novel applies this to a rich family whose son-in-law has disappeared off the face of this earth. Remember? Worth reading if you've never read any of his works. They made a movie out of it in the 1940s.

Are there places in town where gambling and prosititution occur? It may not be in the papers, but it goes on in any small to medium town. What do you all say? No scandals in River City?

[RayS]

I think Arnold Brown took the memoirs of Henry Hawthorne, investigated it, and turned it into a very popular book. Commercial success? Not like the professional writers.

My one concern is the story why Ellan Eagan NEVER told about the strange man at the time. It sounds like a 'recovered memory'.

You all know how faulty memory can be after decades?

[matt kevin jones]

If I remember correctly, Ellan Eagen went to the police station & told of seeing Bridget washing windows outside the borden House & according to brown's writing, She did at least try to mention the strange man, but the officer poked fun of her & rushed her out of the station, saying something close to " & let me guess a wild eyed man came running from the yard with bloody clothes & a Axe, dont you have children to care for & if you dont you should speak to your husband "
She then felt scared & vowed to never speak of it again.

[Kat]

This is going to sound lame, because I can't support it, but a friend of a friend knew Ellan Eagan and said she was a boistrous housewife who would drink and yell off the balconey to her friends, husband etc. with some bad language. Uncouth I guess you'd call that kind of behaviour. This is not in judgement- this is just a petite portrait.

[RayS]

As far as Ray --- I never claimed to be an expert on the case--- I never claimed to have read the entire contents of the Library of Congress.
I just stated my own opinion
Harsh and uncalled for comments pay me no harm.
...

Mercy Sakes!!! You seem to be extremely sensitive?
1) I never said you were an expert on the case;
2) I never said you read "the entire contents", or even the book available at your library. I wouldn't advise anyone to become a collector.
3) I know you stated your opinion, and so did I. You got a problem w/ that?
4) I'm not interested in your physical attributes.
Go in peace.

[RayS]

If I remember correctly, Ellan Eagen went to the police station & told of seeing Bridget washing windows outside the borden House & according to brown's writing, She did at least try to mention the strange man, but the officer poked fun of her & rushed her out of the station, saying something close to " & let me guess a wild eyed man came running from the yard with bloody clothes & a Axe, dont you have children to care for & if you dont you should speak to your husband "
She then felt scared & vowed to never speak of it again.

THAT sounds like a "recovered memory" to me. Would the police then or now treat a grown woman like that? I don't think so. Of course, I wasn't there to witness this. It could very well be true, given Ellan's low status (an immigrant?).

[RayS]

This is going to sound lame, because I can't support it, but a friend of a friend knew Ellan Eagan and said she was a boistrous housewife who would drink and yell off the balconey to her friends, husband etc. with some bad language. Uncouth I guess you'd call that kind of behaviour. This is not in judgement- this is just a petite portrait.

Yes it sounds very "lame" (no offense to the handicapped meant by me).
WHAT is the name of that "friend"? WHEN did she tell it to you? Do you have any documentation written at the time? WHAT are the time and date when this allegedly occurred?
I'm assuming that Ellan passed away in the 1940s, SIXTY years ago. Are my assumptions correct? Henry Hawthorne, her son-in-law died in the late 1960s. Pardon me if my memory failed.

[theebmonique]

This is off-topic, but I don' think it needs a new thread entirely.

Ray...is your tag line Fays sce que vouldras intended to mean the same thing as Fay Ce Que Vouldras ?


Tracy...

[RayS]

It depends. Are you quoting from the 17th century French or from modern translation? It stuck in my mind from about 50 years ago.
I wonder when somebody would pick up on this.

[RayS]

Just finished the book
I just cant swallow all the corruption " The Mellen House Organization"
Does it seem to anyone that Brown has picked apart the testimony to make it fall into place with Ellan Eagens story, from Her Son-in- Law
Henry Hawthorne ? Like pushing a size 11 foot into a size 9 shoe?
If Billy Borden was so loopy, that He talked to his Best friend " The Hatchet " could he have had the mental capacity to keep his mouth shut all those years ?

I'll assume you are a young man under 30, and have little personal experience with "politics" as it is practiced in the Real World.
THAT seems like the one part of his book that is above questioning!

What do the Fall River residents say about this historical case of corruption? Didn't Edmund Pearson's book say "Lizzie was builty but paid off people to be found not guilty"?

[theebmonique]

It depends. Are you quoting from the 17th century French or from modern translation? It stuck in my mind from about 50 years ago.
I wonder when somebody would pick up on this.

I was quoting from you. I have a friend who is from France. She thought you had it spelled wrong or a typo perhaps ?


Tracy...

[Audrey]

It depends. Are you quoting from the 17th century French or from modern translation? It stuck in my mind from about 50 years ago.
I wonder when somebody would pick up on this.

If this wasn't so pathetic it would be hysterical.

[mbhenty]

Yes Augusta:

Doris Duke was an interesting and fascinating Lady. Though I think she got a bad rap when she was accused of killing her lover and Interior Decorator Eduardo.

Having friends in Newport while growing up I heard all sorts of stories about Duke.

Duke claimed that Eduardo was driving and got out to open the Massive Iron gate to her home in Newport. She claimed that at that time she moved from the passanger seat into the drivers seat and stepped on the gas while her lover was opening the gate. She crushed him through the gate and against a tree. The Newport Police took heat for it and talk of a cover up by police since they took days before questioning her. Such are the privileges of the rich and powerful.

The truth is that they were probably both drunk and the entire thing was an accident.

But she was a fascinating women. Her Newport home "Rough Point" was only one of her homes. She had homes all around the country with such names as, "Falcon's Lair" and Shangri La," along with "Rough Point."

Rough Point was built for one of the Vanderbilts. She was the 3rd or 4th owner. (?)

DORIS loved animals just like LIZZIE. When she died she left her dog 100,000 dollars. Poor Doris....

[Audrey]

This is going to sound lame, because I can't support it, but a friend of a friend knew Ellan Eagan and said she was a boisterous housewife who would drink and yell off the balcony to her friends, husband etc. with some bad language. Uncouth I guess you'd call that kind of behavior. This is not in judgment- this is just a petite portrait.

For some reason that just fits!

Even in Brown's book-- when he is writing about Ellan's 'thoughts' as she allegedly walked past the Borden house-- she comes off as crude and unenchanting.

[Kat]

Yes, even second-hand portraits of the characters in the case are fascinating to me.
I can't name names, tho I hear a lot! Thus, my *lame* introduction to Ellan here.

[1bigsteve]

I was watching House on TV Tuesday night and he mentions how a certain doctor tries to look extra smart by asking questions when they never have to answer them themselves.
For myself, I'm tired of that approach all the time.
Just answer plainly, I say.

There is an old saying in the business world, "He who is asking the questions has the power!" The one answering the questions is on the hot seat holding the short end of the stick.

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

Just finished the book
I just cant swallow all the corruption " The Mellen House Organization"
Does it seem to anyone that Brown has picked apart the testimony to make it fall into place with Ellan Eagens story, from Her Son-in- Law
Henry Hawthorne ? Like pushing a size 11 foot into a size 9 shoe?
If Billy Borden was so loopy, that He talked to his Best friend " The Hatchet " could he have had the mental capacity to keep his mouth shut all those years ?

There are a lot of things in Arnold's book, and others, that just don't ring true. I look at his book as no better and no worse than any other. Most authors try to pass their theories off as fact but they seldom provide the proof, and without proof you have nothing but an unproven theory. Time may prove Arnold right, but until I see some documentation his theories will remain just that, unproved theories. If he is one day proved right, I will be the first one to take my hat off to him.

I have always had a hard time swallowing the Mellen House stuff too. I think the murders were just two simple murders that Arnold has spun into a big web. I guess if you sling enough mud at the wall some of it is bound to stick, at least in some peoples minds. I agree with what Harry said when he said that it is best to look through the documents here in the archives before reading many of the books out there on the Borden case. Once that fictional crap gets into your mind it is very hard to get it out. I still find myself confronting facts that prove the fiction I had been hearing for years, that I thought was true, wrong. So I speak from experience.

You made some very good points, Matt.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Audrey]

Gangs have been big problems in metropolitan areas for years....

Actually-- Lizzie's Mellen House Gang may have been the first of the 'bloods'......

[RayS]

The "Mellen House Gang" is just what people would call it. Most people refer to the "Courthouse Gang" of professional politicians and their hangers-on. This should be the least questionable part of Brown's book!

Edmund Pearson't book repeats the story that "Lizzie was guilty but paid off the judges". Robert Sullivan talks about the "incorruptibility" of Judge Dewey. I would not expect a judge to take a bribe to free a murderer, but would expect a judge to take a bribe to free an innocent defendant (she didn't commit the murders). What is your experience and outlook?

Corruption goes on in all countries in all times, more or less. "It's who you know not what you know."

[RayS]

I would NEVER advise anyone to "read the documents" by which you must mean the trial record. That is meaningless; Lizzie was found not guilty and the records would not be used in any appeal.
We know the newspaper records are about as reliable as newpapers are today. It depends on the writer, and you hope he or she is reliable.
Unless you want to major in an uncommercial area, just read David Kent's "40 Whacks" for the best overall treatment. Edward Radin's criticism of Edmund Pearson remains true. Just keep note on what they are trying to "prove" and see where the evidence is.

I'm assuming we (mostly) agree that Kent's book is the most objective account of the murders? If not, please explain why not.

[RayS]

This is off-topic, but I don' think it needs a new thread entirely.

Ray...is your tag line Fays sce que vouldras intended to mean the same thing as Fay Ce Que Vouldras ?


Tracy...

I believe the current phrase is: "fais ce que voudras". Correct?
Note the spelling.

PS Extra points for those who can identify the author and his work.

[theebmonique]

This is off-topic, but I don' think it needs a new thread entirely.

Ray...is your tag line Fays sce que vouldras intended to mean the same thing as Fay Ce Que Vouldras ?


Tracy...

I believe the current phrase is: "fais ce que voudras". Correct?
Note the spelling.

PS Extra points for those who can identify the author and his work.

It looks like the "correct" spelling is as I previously mentioned. I may keep looking but so far I have found nothing with fais

Rabelais is the author ?

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Fr ... s_Rabelais


Tracy...

[Audrey]

'Fay Ce Que Vouldras'

(OFTEN misspelled, like poorly educated people who confuse the various spelling of there/their)

Basically means 'do what you want/wish/will'

In modern times, it is MOSTLY associated with 'going wild'.... Alcohol, sex and drugs wild.

it's original intent was meant to convey pretty much the same thing...

Nowadays, it is the type of thing I would expect to hear in more 'common' circles.

[theebmonique]

Thanks dear sister...I knew you would KNOW.


Tracy...

[Kat]

I would NEVER advise anyone to "read the documents" by which you must mean the trial record. That is meaningless;

--ray

Excuse me? Ray you are in the wrong place if you are not prepared to read the source documents. Pushing authors with an agenda over these documents is irresponsible. We promote the study of these over and above anyone or anything else.
Besides, no one can advise what not to read if they themselves have not read it

[Harry]

I would NEVER advise anyone to "read the documents" by which you must mean the trial record. That is meaningless; Lizzie was found not guilty and the records would not be used in any appeal.
We know the newspaper records are about as reliable as newpapers are today. It depends on the writer, and you hope he or she is reliable.
Unless you want to major in an uncommercial area, just read David Kent's "40 Whacks" for the best overall treatment. Edward Radin's criticism of Edmund Pearson remains true. Just keep note on what they are trying to "prove" and see where the evidence is.
I'm assuming we (mostly) agree that Kent's book is the most objective account of the murders? If not, please explain why not.

I try (very hard) to ignore posts like this and I also try (very hard again) to not make negative comments about other's posts but this is perhaps the most harmful post I have ever seen on this forum.

Don't read the primary documents? Don't read the newspapers? Instead read certain authors (who just happen to agree with the poster). Wow, what else can you say. How's that for broadening your knowledge.

Gee, I wonder where the authors get their facts. I know at least one who made a LOT of them up.

[Yooper]

[quote=...

I'm assuming we (mostly) agree that Kent's book is the most objective account of the murders? If not, please explain why not.[/quote]

Please explain why before asking for explanations as to why not.

[RayS]

David Kent's book is the Most Objective and the One Best Book because:
it builds upon the work of others (prior to 1990);
it discusses the various theories without choosing one over the other;
the author correctly points out that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Lizzie (or Bridget);
most of all, it covers the case in about 300 pages.

Borden Murders 101

I hope these facts will be generally agreed upon by all except those with an axe to grind (no pun intended).

[RayS]

I try (very hard) to ignore posts like this and I also try (very hard again) to not make negative comments about other's posts but this is perhaps the most harmful post I have ever seen on this forum.

Don't read the primary documents? Don't read the newspapers? Instead read certain authors (who just happen to agree with the poster). Wow, what else can you say. How's that for broadening your knowledge.

Gee, I wonder where the authors get their facts. I know at least one who made a LOT of them up.

Please don't misquote me or quote me out of context. WHY is it "the most harmful post I have ever seen on this forum"?
You are asking a new beginner to start out with what should be the 'graduate level course' on this topic. One that is NOT needed by most people to understand the mystery of this unsolved murder.

Who should read the trial transcript?
A law student who has this as an assignment.
Someone who is writing another book or a magazine article and needs to look up some points.
Someone who needs to check the quotes made by another book. Edward Radin correctly pointed out that Edmund Pearson's quotes were so one-sided as to amount to a "literary hoax". That is still true, isn't it?
Anyone who has more time than what they know what to do with it.

As far as I know, nobody here is a lawyer. They may be confused by certain points that will not be explained in the trial transcript. I would caution anyone from imagining they will discover the Holy Grail of overlooked evidence in this record. Trial transcripts are done to record the judge's decisions in order to support an appeal (where the judge made a mistake). You must know late 19th century Mass. law for this.

Some will quote one lawyer's blame of Judge Dewey; but he wasn't there. I heard that many more lawyers agreed with Judge Dewey's decisions. English Common Law allows a judge to sum up the case in favor of one side or the other. This has been banned in many states to prevent chicanery and poor judgment. For example, in the Bruno Hauptmann trial the NJ judge could sum up for the Prosecution, dooming Hauptmann. The NJ 1947 Constitution made drastic reforms in the judicial system. (Marshal Houts book on the Sir Harry Oakes murder trial mentions this.)

[RayS]

...

I'm assuming we (mostly) agree that Kent's book is the most objective account of the murders? If not, please explain why not.

Please explain why before asking for explanations as to why not.

Because that is the way it is. Once you've read the available books, you should agree with my objective statement.

[Yooper]

...

I'm assuming we (mostly) agree that Kent's book is the most objective account of the murders? If not, please explain why not.

Please explain why before asking for explanations as to why not.

Because that is the way it is. Once you've read the available books, you should agree with my objective statement.

"Because I said so", of course! The epitome of objectivity!!

[RayS]

But isn't "objectivity" defined as what the majority says? Or do you expect a a Supreme Court decision on "objectivity"?
Some won't answer because of subjectivity (they don't want to agree) or because they haven't read the book. Note how some people's comments seldom contain substantive facts about the case?

OK, just what do YOU say about this book? Once you've read it. Unlike other books available in the County Library system, it does not pick a guilty person. WHO would say Pearson's book is the best?

[Yooper]

But isn't "objectivity" defined as what the majority says? Or do you expect a a Supreme Court decision on "objectivity"?
Some won't answer because of subjectivity (they don't want to agree) or because they haven't read the book. Note how some people's comments seldom contain substantive facts about the case?

OK, just what do YOU say about this book? Once you've read it. Unlike other books available in the County Library system, it does not pick a guilty person. WHO would say Pearson's book is the best?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Objectivity is not the result of a majority decision, it is not the RESULT of anything! It is a method of analysis which implies impartiality, scientific method, in fact! A scientist does not need a Supreme Court ruling to determine validity.

What I say about the book is far less important than what either I, or the book, say about the case. I'm not here for the book reviews!

[RayS]

ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Objectivity is not the result of a majority decision, it is not the RESULT of anything! It is a method of analysis which implies impartiality, scientific method, in fact! A scientist does not need a Supreme Court ruling to determine validity.

What I say about the book is far less important than what either I, or the book, say about the case. I'm not here for the book reviews!

So HOW does a scientist test the many books on the subject?
Given human error and typing misteaks?

[Yooper]

RayS
First explain the statement "But isn't 'objectivity' defined as what the majority says?"

[Angel]

I'm lovin this.

Yooper, you're the best.

[RayS]

RayS
First explain the statement "But isn't 'objectivity' defined as what the majority says?"

Whether you accept it or not, if the majority believe Lizzie did it, that's what they will say. One important fact is that they were more evenly divided circa 1893 (according to Spiering's book, and I believe this since it goes against the expected assumptions).
I've heard people write that "Reagan cut taxes", but does the objective record bear this out? (Don't mean to drag in politics, but that's the way it is.)

[RayS]

RayS
First explain the statement "But isn't 'objectivity' defined as what the majority says?"

So HOW does a "scientist" test various books "objectively". By sales?

[Yooper]

RayS
Since you are unable to support your contention, I will support mine.

A scientist tests hypotheses, not books, by experiments. The results either support or refute the hypothesis. Continued replication over time by independent analysis creates a theory from a hypothesis. At no time is the majority of scientists sufficient to prove a hypothesis, in fact, if it can be refuted under any conditions, it is disproven given those conditions. The Supreme Court does not determine the validity of scientific fact, though they might determine how it can be used in court.