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

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:29 pm

It would depend on WHAT one thing you are trying to test. Scientific (objective) testing shows the most accurate results when the variables are elimnated down to the one thing you want to test...with all other characteristics/consderations being equal. Generally having a control/control group may help s well.......a standard to compare with. When you introduce/allow other characteristics to be tested, your results may not be accurate.

ANYONE can be a scientist. Anytime you are discovering and investigating, you are a scientist.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:38 pm

Personal opinions on books (and other things) are not really testable with enough accuracy to determine which one is 'best', scientifically.

I love the book Gone With the Wind. I read it 4 times. I think it is one of the greatest books ever. Not everyone does. That's ok.

Yooper you are correct in your description of scientific testing. Also, a scientific theory can become a scientific law with even further testing, ie; Newton's Laws of Gravity.

Tracy...

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:23 pm

Tracy,
When a theory can never be refuted, then it becomes scientific fact. This can be brought about by continued testing, so you're absolutely right!

Quite often the irrefutable part of an original hypothesis is less than the original which eliminates the subjective part of the original.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:38 pm

Yes...and I believe the scientific method of problem solving/testing, etc., is one of the cornerstones of learning. That is why I use it in my classroom as our first unit of the year. It IS the beginning.

Tracy...

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:46 pm

As I said before and will continue to say, the best way to start off reading about this case is with the primary documents.

This is not brain surgery nor rocket science. The primary documents are EASY to read and understand. They consist mainly of questions and answers by the people who were actually there and not filtered through the theories of authors.

You don't get any made-up illegitimate sons, paying off of lawyers, juries, judges, mayor, attorney general, prosecutors and Lord knows who else.

Don't let anyone discourage you from reading them. You will find very few cases where there is this much original information available.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:55 pm

Harry is correct...

And..

When you read the source documents you are not easily led to belive that the books are true...

ie--- "I get it now! Willy did it!"

or--- "It was those seizures!"

or even--- 'So Emma did it after all!"

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:42 pm

In my thoughts on the value of books, I did not in any way mean to say that the source documents were of value based on opinion. I apologize if it came out that way. I DO believe the source docs are vital to understanding this case...they are THE MOST factual information we have.

Tracy...

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:16 pm

theebmonique @ Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:42 pm wrote:In my thoughts on the value of books, I did not in any way mean to say that the source documents were ofvalue based on opinion. I apologize if it came out that way. I DO believe the aource docs are vital to understanding this case...they are THE MOST factual information we have.

Tracy...

TRUE!

The questions that were asked by the police, lawyers, and investigators and the answers given by the various witnesses, to those questions, is what makes the source documents so valuable. This information came right from "the horses mouth" so to speak, from the git go, BEFORE authors could twist, manipulate, distort or ignore for their own pet theories, to sell books. The source documents are the foundation of the whole Borden case.

People new to the case have already been polluted with the "40 and 41 wacks with an axe" stuff, so I feel it would be a good idea for a serious beginner to start off right with the source documents. After a good study with those he can then read whatever book for amusement and be able to seperate the fact from the phony baloney. I wish I had these documents 32 years ago. If I had I wouldn't have had to spend so much time weeding the fiction from the facts. I read all kinds of "facts" that I found out later are not facts at all. Reading books for entertainment is OK but I would rather get the facts into my head first.

That is my take on it.

-1bigsteve (o:

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:30 am

"But isn't "objectivity" defined as what the majority says?"

That is rich. I may have to have t-shirts and mugs made up with THAT quote.

You mean, all this time, if we had simply defined "objectivity, " we wouldn't have had to wade through lakes of Billy Bordeniana? Boggles the mind.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:52 am

Bob,

Will you accept PayPal as a form of payment ?

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:48 pm

Harry @ Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:46 pm wrote:As I said before and will continue to say, the best way to start off reading about this case is with the primary documents.

This is not brain surgery nor rocket science. The primary documents are EASY to read and understand. They consist mainly of questions and answers by the people who were actually there and not filtered through the theories of authors.

You don't get any made-up illegitimate sons, paying off of lawyers, juries, judges, mayor, attorney general, prosecutors and Lord knows who else.

Don't let anyone discourage you from reading them. You will find very few cases where there is this much original information available.

I assume you mean the Inquest and the Trial Transcript. These were not readily available until quite recently (1990s?). Therefore your advice about them depends on the times. Do we really have the authenticated Inquest minutes? Or just a newspaper report? Who copied and published the Trial Transcript? Any errors or omissions?
Most of all, you cannot guarantee that an inexperienced reader will understand all the eleven days of testimony w/o getting bored. If you want to turn off anyone to this case, that's a good way to do it.

There are only about six books readily available to any reader. Pearson's was last printed in 1965. Radin's in 1961. Lincoln's in 1967. Sullivan's in 1973. Spiering's in 1983. Brown's in 1991. All pin blame on a person, altho nobody had 'documentary proof'. David Kent's book alone gives an overall view in about 320 pages.

The verdict of the Trial Transcript is that Lizzie was not guilty. End of case. Nobody can find anything new in this 110 year old document. But you may find overlooked facts.
Edwin Porter's book is scheduled for reprinting next month. Shouldn't anyone read this first (historical order)?

The Trial Transcript fails to give any background to this case. What about any coaching of the witnesses? Is it all the whole truth?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:51 pm

theebmonique @ Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:42 pm wrote:In my thoughts on the value of books, I did not in any way mean to say that the source documents were of value based on opinion. I apologize if it came out that way. I DO believe the source docs are vital to understanding this case...they are THE MOST factual information we have.

Tracy...

While the actual words are recorded for ever, the particular meanings of words will change over time. EG "slippers". So there is no guarantee that one reading will be the right one.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:13 pm

RayS @ Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:51 pm wrote:
theebmonique @ Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:42 pm wrote:In my thoughts on the value of books, I did not in any way mean to say that the source documents were of value based on opinion. I apologize if it came out that way. I DO believe the source docs are vital to understanding this case...they are THE MOST factual information we have.

Tracy...
While the actual words are recorded for ever, the particular meanings of words will change over time. EG "slippers". So there is no guarantee that one reading will be the right one.

My hell Ray..would you mind just making comments which are clear ? I realize that this post will probably just have you making more nonsense (IMO) responses, but if you have something to say, it would be nice to know what it is. You seem to like to disguise what may be a decent comment, liking to cover it up with a lot of fluffity fluff (IMO).

I am sorry that you seem (IMO) to want to be so down/negative about things. What can I do to help you know that there is a positive and happy world out there and that you too can have a positive and happy attitude if you want ? Just a spoonful of sugar...

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:04 pm

does anyone happen to know just exactly what the words to "Mack the Knife' mean?????

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:24 pm

"Mack the Knife" describes victims of Mack Heath, who is apparently a hit man or knife murderer. The part about the tugboat and cement bag might indicate a hit man. I don't know if the song has any historical significance.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:35 pm

Yooper @ Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:24 pm wrote:"Mack the Knife" describes victims of Mack Heath, who is apparently a hit man or knife murderer. The part about the tugboat and cement bag might indicate a hit man. I don't know if the song has any historical significance.

Is this your objective opinion?

I will get over to wikipedia at once and record this for all time.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:38 pm

As long as that's the consensus, then it is my objective opinion. If it's not, then it isn't. Huh? ...Hello!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:42 pm

Yooper @ Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:38 pm wrote:As long as that's the consensus, then it is my objective opinion. If it's not, then it isn't. Huh? ...Hello!

I make up the rules as I go in order to be right in my own mind.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:46 pm

Just remember, if it isn't right, it's what's left. I need some more coffee...

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:34 pm

Audrey @ Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:55 pm wrote:Harry is correct...

And..

When you read the source documents you are not easily led to belive that the books are true...

ie--- "I get it now! Willy did it!"

or--- "It was those seizures!"

or even--- 'So Emma did it after all!"

Yea, and don't forget Bridget,

and the guy two blocks over who knew a man who saw a shadow on the month before that was witnessed by a woman who sat down in the neighbors ya... Hey, I think I have solved this case! I'll write a book!! I don't need to review the source documents, they may just bore me...

-1bigsteve (o:

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:12 pm

Order in the court!!!

Your Honor, I object to the objective of the objection.

Over ruled, sit down.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:35 pm

Discussing Brown is a lot like discussing Vonnegut.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:09 pm

Pardon me Bard, BUT...

"To discuss or not to discuss, –Now, what is the question ?:--
Whether 'tis nobler at 92 2nd St. to suffer
The limits and restrictions of a rarely-used fortune
Or to take axes against a Father and Step-mother troubles,
And by whacking, end them?

Tracy...

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:50 am

Zounds! Well-met by mid-day!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:21 pm

Audrey @ Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:04 pm wrote:does anyone happen to know just exactly what the words to "Mack the Knife' mean?????

Are you talking about the original German version (based on an 18th century English opera) or the English translation?
"Mackie Messer" translates as "Mack the Knife".
In the story he is a robber-murderer, perhaps to symbolize predatory capitalism or ultra self-interest. But I've never seen it.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:23 pm

Yooper @ Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:35 pm wrote:Discussing Brown is a lot like discussing Vonnegut.

Who is Vonnegut? I've never read his books.
Brown uses the Trial Transcript as part of his story.
Masterton VIOLATES the facts of the Trial Transcript by claiming Abby was killed later. He has no facts, only supposition.

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:04 pm

According to the Bobby Darin Website, Mack The Knife was..

"Written in 1928 as “Moritat” or “Theme from the Threepenny Opera” aka “The Beggar’s Opera” and introduced in that production by Weill’s wife, Lotte Lenya"

Note: Lotte Lenya is one of the names in the song...Here's the link if anyone is interested. It has the complete lyrics..

http://www.bobbydarin.net/macklyrics.html

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:15 pm

Ray...here is some info to help you learn about Kurt Vonnegut. I am sure you could get some of his books at your local library.

Kurt Vonnegut:
http://www.vonnegutweb.com/

Mr. Vonnegut's works:
http://www.vonnegutweb.com/vonnegutia/biblio.html

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:21 pm

myk7753 @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:04 pm wrote:...
Note: Lotte Lenya is one of the names in the song...Here's the link if anyone is interested. It has the complete lyrics..

Actually the very interesting Lotte Lenya was Kurt Weil's widow by then. She played the part of the Smersh General in the 1964 film "From Russia With Love". I think her name was NOT in the original German song. It was added as a joke by Darin. Lenya, like her husband, was black-listed during the McCarthy times. But I could be wrong. Even whild an old lady, you can see she had good looks.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:23 pm

theebmonique @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:15 pm wrote:Ray...here is some info to help you learn about Kurt Vonnegut. I am sure you could get some of his books at your local library.
...
Tracy...

Thank you for your help. I read a selection from "Slaughterhouse Five" circa 1968, didn't think much of it. Wasn't he taken prisoner during the Battle of the Bulge and this his memory of those hard times?
I try to avoid fiction. There's enough in history.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:34 pm

RayS @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:23 am wrote:
Yooper @ Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:35 pm wrote:Discussing Brown is a lot like discussing Vonnegut.
Who is Vonnegut? I've never read his books.
Brown uses the Trial Transcript as part of his story.
Masterton VIOLATES the facts of the Trial Transcript by claiming Abby was killed later. He has no facts, only supposition.

Gee Ray...it sounded like you didn't know who Vonnegut was...now you seem to have an idea. I should have recognized the bait. Silly me.

There is nothing wrong with fiction. It's nice to have a place to escape to now and then.

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:40 pm

theebmonique @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:34 pm wrote:
RayS @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:23 am wrote:
Yooper @ Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:35 pm wrote:Discussing Brown is a lot like discussing Vonnegut.
Who is Vonnegut? I've never read his books.
Brown uses the Trial Transcript as part of his story.
Masterton VIOLATES the facts of the Trial Transcript by claiming Abby was killed later. He has no facts, only supposition.
Gee Ray...it sounded like you didn't know who Vonnegut was...now you seem to have an idea. I should have recognized the bait. Silly me.

There is nothing wrong with fiction. It's nice to have a place to escape to now and then.
Tracy...

I apologize for this. I meant "who was Vonnegut in relation to the Borden Tragedy", not as a means to tempt anyone to answer my seeming stupid question. You have done nothing wrong!
PS IF he had written a fictional work on the Borden case, that might be different.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:03 pm

RayS @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:23 pm wrote:
theebmonique @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:15 pm wrote:Ray...here is some info to help you learn about Kurt Vonnegut. I am sure you could get some of his books at your local library.
...
Tracy...
Thank you for your help. I read a selection from "Slaughterhouse Five" circa 1968, didn't think much of it. Wasn't he taken prisoner during the Battle of the Bulge and this his memory of those hard times?
I try to avoid fiction. There's enough in history.

Yeah, I know what you mean, Ray, I try to avoid fiction, too.