i need your help...

[chrisrenee]

Hi all...
I am doing my highschool senior research paper on Lizzie Borden and i want a new angle on it this is one of the most intresting sites i have found i woul like everyones opinion and facts about what exactly happened... would anyone like to help me??? please give me all the info u have...
thanks Christina

[william]

Cris,

There is a wealth of information on this site - you just have to know where to look for it.

On the opening page, bottom left, under "Links" check
lizzieandrewborden.com

When you get here, go to the bottom of the page. On the right check off
'RESOURCES"

I think this will get you started and keep you busy for quite a while!

[william]

Cris,

There is a wealth of information on this site - you just have to know where to look for it.

On the opening page, bottom left, under "Links" check
lizzieandrewborden.com

When you get here, go to the bottom of the page. On the right check off
'RESOURCES"

I think this will get you started and keep you busy for quite a while!

[RayS]

Hi all...
I am doing my highschool senior research paper on Lizzie Borden and i want a new angle on it this is one of the most intresting sites i have found i woul like everyones opinion and facts about what exactly happened... would anyone like to help me??? please give me all the info u have...
thanks Christina

Your Public or School Library should be your first and last choice.

David Kent's "Forty Whacks" is the one best book on this case. Depending on your time, you can see what other books are in the stacks.

Many writers have produced their own unproved and unproven solutions. The verdict was 'not guilty' for the murder of Andrew, and this is correct. Those who disagree are wrong, moot courts have repeated this verdict.

On vacation, if the Borden Bug bites you, you can read the other books on this case (once you've read Kent). Then just weigh the facts.

Those who wrongly advise reading the Trial Transcript or Inquest may just be overloading a novice with too much material to understand.

I wonder how many will contradict my advice?

[Harry]

Most of the books have errors and the "facts" are either made up or adapted to the theory of the author. Some of these theories are totally unsubstantiated are are designed to sell books.

If you have the time, read the primary documents at the Lizzie Borden library for free. Believe me you will have no trouble following their content. Only those with blinders on avoid them.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm

[theebmonique]

Christina,

You will not get better advice than what Harry just gave...





Tracy...

[twinsrwe]

I agree Tracy.

Harry and William are absolutely correct; the primary documents are the only place to start research for a paper on Lizzie Borden.

[RayS]

Most of the books have errors and the "facts" are either made up or adapted to the theory of the author. Some of these theories are totally unsubstantiated are are designed to sell books.

If you have the time, read the primary documents at the Lizzie Borden library for free. Believe me you will have no trouble following their content. Only those with blinders on avoid them. ...

Can you tell me just what books are NOT designed to sell books???!!! Who is being naive here? Does anyone expect a high-school student to do college level work?

Arnold Brown was the only (?) author who was not a professional writer. Unlike Pearson, Radin, Lincoln, Spiering, etc.
Judge Sullivan was not a professional author, but adopted the theory of some who were. Too bad he didn't do better.

[theebmonique]

click




Tracy...

[Nadzieja]

Hi, I agree with Harry & William. I am fairly new and the information on this site is really unbelievable. You can tell the way everything is put together and what is offered shows that many many hours of research and compiling were put into it. It is truly a gold mine for researchers.

[RayS]

click
Tracy...

Thank you for enhancing this discussion by your incisive and wise remarks. Whatever could we do without you?

Other posters are free to offer suggestions.

[RayS]

I agree Tracy.

Harry and William are absolutely correct; the primary documents are the only place to start research for a paper on Lizzie Borden.

I think your advice is quite wrong for a high school teenager.
Did you follow your own advice at that age?
Even if in undergraduate college "40 Whacks" is still the one best first book. What others are as good?
Pearson's isn't, it is like a literary hoax.
Radin's isn't, his pointing guilt at Bridget was wrong.
Spiering's isn't, his pointing guilty at Emma was wrong.
Lincoln and Sullivan repeat Pearson't mistakes; it wasn't Lizzie either.

I wonder why no one has pointed to Porter's original book?

[Yooper]

The Primary Source Documents are the best reference for an ORIGINAL paper. Anything else is just a book report.

[RayS]

The Primary Source Documents are the best reference for an ORIGINAL paper. Anything else is just a book report.

No one born after 1927 can do an original research paper on Lizzie. It all comes from the records.
Trail Transcipts are not for ordinary people, who have never read one before, or have little legal experience.
I stand by my advice. I could have recommended Arnold Brown's book, if it was more likely to be in a library.

[twinsrwe]

I stand by my advice: The primary documents are the only place to start research for a paper on Lizzie Borden.

Note what Harry said...

Most of the books have errors and the "facts" are either made up or adapted to the theory of the author. Some of these theories are totally unsubstantiated are are designed to sell books.

A high school student is definitely smart enough to follow the primary documents.

[Harry]

Right you are, Judy (twinsrwe).

Every day hundreds of juries are raised and sworn. If they are sequestered the ONLY thing they will get to hear to make a decision on the case is the testimony of witnesses, the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers and the judges charge. In most jurisdictions lawyers or people with legal backgrounds are excluded from the jury selection process.

Since very few of the selected jurors, if any, will have a legal background I guess we should do away with all trials. Certainly ordinary people can't be expected to understand.

But then for some people it is easier to have someone else read it and interpret it for them. Cuts down on thinking.

[1bigsteve]

The source documents that you will find here on this site is the best source of information on the case, Christina. Take ANY book you read about the Borden case with a grain of salt and tongue-in-cheek. Most books have errors big enough to drive a mack truck through sideways.

Get a good education on this case by reading the source documents first. Everything else should branch-off from there. I wish you well with your research paper.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Nadzieja]

The Primary Source Documents are the best reference for an ORIGINAL paper. Anything else is just a book report.

No one born after 1927 can do an original research paper on Lizzie. It all comes from the records.
Trail Transcipts are not for ordinary people, who have never read one before, or have little legal experience.
I stand by my advice. I could have recommended Arnold Brown's book, if it was more likely to be in a library.

Ray, You're kidding about trial transcripts not for ordinary people. I got my library card at age 5 and have been reading ever since. I read War & Peace in High School. Trial transcipts are fine to read, maybe with a dictionery to look up a few words of mouthy lawyers. What do you think people base decisions on when they are on jury duty??

[twinsrwe]

Right you are, Judy (twinsrwe).

Every day hundreds of juries are raised and sworn. If they are sequestered the ONLY thing they will get to hear to make a decision on the case is the testimony of witnesses, the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers and the judges charge. In most jurisdictions lawyers or people with legal backgrounds are excluded from the jury selection process.

Since very few of the selected jurors, if any, will have a legal background I guess we should do away with all trials. Certainly ordinary people can't be expected to understand.

But then for some people it is easier to have someone else read it and interpret it for them. Cuts down on thinking.

Thanks Harry!

I was in a hurry when I posted my previous post, as I had to leave for work, so didn't have time to say much more than I did. However, you are absolutely correct. People who are selected for jury duty are ordinary people. A juror is not required to have a legal background in order to be eligible for jury duty. The only requirement is: a juror must be old enough to vote. Good gravy, a juror isn't even required to have a high school education!!!

Chris' assignment is to do a research paper on Lizzie Borden. Lorraine, said it extremely well (I added the bold highlight)...

... I agree with Harry & William. I am fairly new and the information on this site is really unbelievable. You can tell the way everything is put together and what is offered shows that many many hours of research and compiling were put into it. It is truly a gold mine for researchers.

Due to the fact that Chris' assignment is to do a research paper on Lizzie Borden; I also agree with Yooper...

The Primary Source Documents are the best reference for an ORIGINAL paper. Anything else is just a book report.

As well as with Steve.

... Get a good education on this case by reading the source documents first. Everything else should branch-off from there...

Ray is just being Ray. He is once again attempting to be the 'I am right, everyone else in the world is wrong' guy. As far as I am concerned, his tactics are being wasted on this thread.

[RayS]

Right you are, Judy (twinsrwe).

Every day hundreds of juries are raised and sworn. If they are sequestered the ONLY thing they will get to hear to make a decision on the case is the testimony of witnesses, the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers and the judges charge. In most jurisdictions lawyers or people with legal backgrounds are excluded from the jury selection process.

Since very few of the selected jurors, if any, will have a legal background I guess we should do away with all trials. Certainly ordinary people can't be expected to understand.

But then for some people it is easier to have someone else read it and interpret it for them. Cuts down on thinking.

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. Aside from the Lizzie Dunnit Cult, the facts are that a legal trial is more limited than what was printed in the newspapers of the time. There is no other place to easily get this information than from some books.
Given the constraints of time for this student, "40 Whacks" is the one best book for her and everyone else here (if they haven't read it).
Unless that Rappaport book for teenagers would be better.

The Trial Transcript recorded that Lizzie was Not Guilty. Case Closed.

[Yooper]

Right you are, Judy (twinsrwe).

Every day hundreds of juries are raised and sworn. If they are sequestered the ONLY thing they will get to hear to make a decision on the case is the testimony of witnesses, the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers and the judges charge. In most jurisdictions lawyers or people with legal backgrounds are excluded from the jury selection process.

Since very few of the selected jurors, if any, will have a legal background I guess we should do away with all trials. Certainly ordinary people can't be expected to understand.

But then for some people it is easier to have someone else read it and interpret it for them. Cuts down on thinking.

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. Aside from the Lizzie Dunnit Cult, the facts are that a legal trial is more limited than what was printed in the newspapers of the time. There is no other place to easily get this information than from some books.
Given the constraints of time for this student, "40 Whacks" is the one best book for her and everyone else here (if they haven't read it).
Unless that Rappaport book for teenagers would be better.

The Trial Transcript recorded that Lizzie was Not Guilty. Case Closed.

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black!! When was your last original thought Ray? Was there a first one? Brownnnn...Brownnn...Brownnn...

[Nadzieja]

Right you are, Judy (twinsrwe).

Every day hundreds of juries are raised and sworn. If they are sequestered the ONLY thing they will get to hear to make a decision on the case is the testimony of witnesses, the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers and the judges charge. In most jurisdictions lawyers or people with legal backgrounds are excluded from the jury selection process.

Since very few of the selected jurors, if any, will have a legal background I guess we should do away with all trials. Certainly ordinary people can't be expected to understand.

But then for some people it is easier to have someone else read it and interpret it for them. Cuts down on thinking.

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. Aside from the Lizzie Dunnit Cult, the facts are that a legal trial is more limited than what was printed in the newspapers of the time. There is no other place to easily get this information than from some books.
Given the constraints of time for this student, "40 Whacks" is the one best book for her and everyone else here (if they haven't read it).
Unless that Rappaport book for teenagers would be better.

The Trial Transcript recorded that Lizzie was Not Guilty. Case Closed.

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black!! When was your last original thought Ray? Was there a first one? Brownnnn...Brownnn...Brownnn...

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. I had to put that in my post because I couldn't highlight it. I wouldn't say that to anyone; that's why I'm explaining myself. Ray, I think that you are being extremely judgemental of people you don't even know. (which includes myself) It show me that if you are challenged your own closemindedness has to say something nasty because you seem to feel that you have to be right. Calm down Ray, it's not good for your blood pressure.

[theebmonique]

Right you are, Judy (twinsrwe).

Every day hundreds of juries are raised and sworn. If they are sequestered the ONLY thing they will get to hear to make a decision on the case is the testimony of witnesses, the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers and the judges charge. In most jurisdictions lawyers or people with legal backgrounds are excluded from the jury selection process.

Since very few of the selected jurors, if any, will have a legal background I guess we should do away with all trials. Certainly ordinary people can't be expected to understand.

But then for some people it is easier to have someone else read it and interpret it for them. Cuts down on thinking.

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. Aside from the Lizzie Dunnit Cult, the facts are that a legal trial is more limited than what was printed in the newspapers of the time. There is no other place to easily get this information than from some books.
Given the constraints of time for this student, "40 Whacks" is the one best book for her and everyone else here (if they haven't read it).
Unless that Rappaport book for teenagers would be better.

The Trial Transcript recorded that Lizzie was Not Guilty. Case Closed.

click





Tracy...

[twinsrwe]

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. I had to put that in my post because I couldn't highlight it. I wouldn't say that to anyone; that's why I'm explaining myself. Ray, I think that you are being extremely judgemental of people you don't even know. (which includes myself) It show me that if you are challenged your own closemindedness has to say something nasty because you seem to feel that you have to be right. Calm down Ray, it's not good for your blood pressure.

Very well said, Nadzieja. As I stated the last time I posted in this thread: "Ray is just being Ray. He is once again attempting to be the 'I am right, everyone else in the world is wrong' guy." Apparently, I was wrong in stating that "his tactics are being wasted on this thread". Ray, has once again succeeded in putting himself in the center of attention. Congratulations, Ray.

It surprises me that Ray is being consistent in recommending David Kent's book, "Forty Whacks", in this thread. The thing that is surprising to me is that Ray is not recommencing Arnold Brown's book, then Christina would have not only the Legend, but, the Truth, and, best of all, the Final Chapter. Unfortunately, if she chooses either one of these books, all she would have (as Yooper pointed out) is a book report, not a research paper.

However, the thing that is most surprising to me is that Ray is not recommending his very own 'Proof of Arnold Brown's Theory' series, parts 1-5!!! Then, Christina would have the best and only solution to the Borden murders! Granted, she would not have anything regarding documentation for the proof for Ray's theory, but, apparently, according to the content of this series, that is an insignificant point. All she would end up with is a report on Ray's personal opinion, not a research paper.

The only thing that is going to guarantee that Christina ends up with an actual research paper on the Borden murders are The Primary Source Documents.

I sincerely apologize for bringing up Brown's book (again), but I needed to bring it up in order to make my point. Please accept my apology.

[theebmonique]

Christina,

How is your paper coming along ? Do you outline first to get a framework of what you want your final 'project' to be/look like ? Did you find the 'new angle' you were looking for ?




Tracy...

[1bigsteve]

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. I had to put that in my post because I couldn't highlight it. I wouldn't say that to anyone; that's why I'm explaining myself. Ray, I think that you are being extremely judgemental of people you don't even know. (which includes myself) It show me that if you are challenged your own closemindedness has to say something nasty because you seem to feel that you have to be right. Calm down Ray, it's not good for your blood pressure.

Very well said, Nadzieja. As I stated the last time I posted in this thread: "Ray is just being Ray. He is once again attempting to be the 'I am right, everyone else in the world is wrong' guy." Apparently, I was wrong in stating that "his tactics are being wasted on this thread". Ray, has once again succeeded in putting himself in the center of attention. Congratulations, Ray.

It surprises me that Ray is being consistent in recommending David Kent's book, "Forty Whacks", in this thread. The thing that is surprising to me is that Ray is not recommencing Arnold Brown's book, then Christina would have not only the Legend, but, the Truth, and, best of all, the Final Chapter. Unfortunately, if she chooses either one of these books, all she would have (as Yooper pointed out) is a book report, not a research paper.

However, the thing that is most surprising to me is that Ray is not recommending his very own 'Proof of Arnold Brown's Theory' series, parts 1-5!!! Then, Christina would have the best and only solution to the Borden murders! Granted, she would not have anything regarding documentation for the proof for Ray's theory, but, apparently, according to the content of this series, that is an insignificant point. All she would end up with is a report on Ray's personal opinion, not a research paper.

The only thing that is going to guarantee that Christina ends up with an actual research paper on the Borden murders are The Primary Source Documents.

I sincerely apologize for bringing up Brown's book (again), but I needed to bring it up in order to make my point. Please accept my apology.

-1bigsteve (o:

[RayS]

Hi all...
I am doing my highschool senior research paper on Lizzie Borden and i want a new angle on it this is one of the most intresting sites i have found i woul like everyones opinion and facts about what exactly happened... would anyone like to help me??? please give me all the info u have...
thanks Christina

Note the above first sentence, again.
If you truly want "a new angle" then read Arnold Brown's book (assuming you read Kent's "40 Whacks" to learn the basics about this case.
Given the constraints of time for highschool students, this is your Best Solution to your problem.

Please respond as to what you decided, and why. Inquiring minds want to know.

PS Nobody here will do your paper for you. But I could be wrong.

[twinsrwe]

The big problem for many here is the inability to think for themselves. I had to put that in my post because I couldn't highlight it. I wouldn't say that to anyone; that's why I'm explaining myself. Ray, I think that you are being extremely judgemental of people you don't even know. (which includes myself) It show me that if you are challenged your own closemindedness has to say something nasty because you seem to feel that you have to be right. Calm down Ray, it's not good for your blood pressure.

Very well said, Nadzieja. As I stated the last time I posted in this thread: "Ray is just being Ray. He is once again attempting to be the 'I am right, everyone else in the world is wrong' guy." Apparently, I was wrong in stating that "his tactics are being wasted on this thread". Ray, has once again succeeded in putting himself in the center of attention. Congratulations, Ray.

It surprises me that Ray is being consistent in recommending David Kent's book, "Forty Whacks", in this thread. The thing that is surprising to me is that Ray is not recommencing Arnold Brown's book, then Christina would have not only the Legend, but, the Truth, and, best of all, the Final Chapter. Unfortunately, if she chooses either one of these books, all she would have (as Yooper pointed out) is a book report, not a research paper.

However, the thing that is most surprising to me is that Ray is not recommending his very own 'Proof of Arnold Brown's Theory' series, parts 1-5!!! Then, Christina would have the best and only solution to the Borden murders! Granted, she would not have anything regarding documentation for the proof for Ray's theory, but, apparently, according to the content of this series, that is an insignificant point. All she would end up with is a report on Ray's personal opinion, not a research paper.

The only thing that is going to guarantee that Christina ends up with an actual research paper on the Borden murders are The Primary Source Documents.

I sincerely apologize for bringing up Brown's book (again), but I needed to bring it up in order to make my point. Please accept my apology.

-1bigsteve (o:

Thanks, Steve!

[twinsrwe]

Hi all...
I am doing my highschool senior research paper on Lizzie Borden and i want a new angle on it this is one of the most intresting sites i have found i woul like everyones opinion and facts about what exactly happened... would anyone like to help me??? please give me all the info u have...
thanks Christina

Note the above first sentence, again.
If you truly want "a new angle" then read Arnold Brown's book (assuming you read Kent's "40 Whacks" to learn the basics about this case.
Given the constraints of time for highschool students, this is your Best Solution to your problem.

Please respond as to what you decided, and why. Inquiring minds want to know.

PS Nobody here will do your paper for you. But I could be wrong.

Ray, you are so predictable. If you read Christina's entire post she is looking for "a new angle", "everyone's opinion" and "facts about what exactly happened". Brown's book does not contain any of the information she is looking for. Brown's book has a copyright date of 1991; it is 16 years old - I hardly call his theory "a new angle". Brown's book does not contain "everyone's opinion"; it contains only Brown's opinion. Brown's book does not contain the "facts about what exactly happened"; Brown admitted he had no documentation as proof for his claims. There is no way that Christina is ever going to find all of the information she is asking us to provide in the books by Brown and Kent. As a matter of fact, Christina is not going to find all of the information she is looking for anywhere.

Christina, you need to decide what focus point your research paper is going to be on. We can provide you with all kinds of new angle's as well as everyone's opinion, however, no one can provide you with the facts about what exactly happened. If we knew the facts about what exactly happened, there would not be a Lizzie Borden Society forum. The Primary Source Documents are the only place you are going find the facts that we know about, unfortunately, Lizzie took the "facts about what exactly happened" to the grave with her.

The decision is yours to make, Christina. Good luck in finding what you are looking for.


NOTE: I find it interesting that Christina has not responded, at all, to this thread. Hmmm.

P.S. I must apologize, again, for zeroing in on the Brown stuff.

[Bob Gutowski]

Like deja vu from the old Borden site!

"please give me all the info u have..."

Good for you, Bill, for telling her to look for it. From time to time on any site there are these "do my homework?" requests. Feh. Only these days, they're more than ever replete with bad typing and those "cute" e-mail abbreviations.

[RayS]

Hi all...
I am doing my highschool senior research paper on Lizzie Borden and i want a new angle on it this is one of the most intresting sites i have found i woul like everyones opinion and facts about what exactly happened... would anyone like to help me??? please give me all the info u have...
thanks Christina

If you want opinions and facts you certainly came to the right place!!!
There being no videotapes of that house at that time (my alphamax machine broke down and can't be fixed), you will have to pick and choose, just like everyone else. So pick and choose wisely.

Or else the spirit of Arnold Brown will haunt you!!!

Actually, the Facts are pretty well know. Its the unknown (and unknowable) that has the most emotions and opinions.
If only the mere Facts were enough then David Kent's book will do nicely.

BTW are there any other sites devoted to the Borden Murders? I think not.

[RayS]

...Note the above first sentence, again.
If you truly want "a new angle" then read Arnold Brown's book (assuming you read Kent's "40 Whacks" to learn the basics about this case.
Given the constraints of time for highschool students, this is your Best Solution to your problem.

Please respond as to what you decided, and why. Inquiring minds want to know.

PS Nobody here will do your paper for you. But I could be wrong.

Ray, you are so predictable. If you read Christina's entire post she is looking for "a new angle", "everyone's opinion" and "facts about what exactly happened". Brown's book does not contain any of the information she is looking for. Brown's book has a copyright date of 1991; it is 16 years old - I hardly call his theory "a new angle". Brown's book does not contain "everyone's opinion"; it contains only Brown's opinion. Brown's book does not contain the "facts about what exactly happened"; Brown admitted he had no documentation as proof for his claims. There is no way that Christina is ever going to find all of the information she is asking us to provide in the books by Brown and Kent. As a matter of fact, Christina is not going to find all of the information she is looking for anywhere.

Christina, you need to decide what focus point your research paper is going to be on. We can provide you with all kinds of new angle's as well as everyone's opinion, however, no one can provide you with the facts about what exactly happened. If we knew the facts about what exactly happened, there would not be a Lizzie Borden Society forum. The Primary Source Documents are the only place you are going find the facts that we know about, unfortunately, Lizzie took the "facts about what exactly happened" to the grave with her.

The decision is yours to make, Christina. Good luck in finding what you are looking for.


NOTE: I find it interesting that Christina has not responded, at all, to this thread. Hmmm.

P.S. I must apologize, again, for zeroing in on the Brown stuff.

FIRST, I admit that I am as predictable as the weather. Agree?
SECOND Arnold Brown alone has a new angle, no one has come up with anything better. Masterton correctly states "Lizzie Didn't Do It" but he could not name the killer of Abby and Andy.
Neither do I (see my Proof of Brown's Theory Part 1 to 5). For all I know, there could have been another close relative who fits the profile.

SO who are you apologizing to for zeroing in on the Brown solution?

Note that all earlier solutions pointed to someone known to have been in the house: Lizzie, Bridget, or "poor dear innocent Emma".

PS Many books have been written about this case since Edward Radin's 1961 "The Untold Story". NONE have a proven solution; the solution is unprovable in any Court of Law.

[twinsrwe]

Ray, you are so predictable. If you read Christina's entire post she is looking for "a new angle", "everyone's opinion" and "facts about what exactly happened". Brown's book does not contain any of the information she is looking for. Brown's book has a copyright date of 1991; it is 16 years old - I hardly call his theory "a new angle". Brown's book does not contain "everyone's opinion"; it contains only Brown's opinion. Brown's book does not contain the "facts about what exactly happened"; Brown admitted he had no documentation as proof for his claims. There is no way that Christina is ever going to find all of the information she is asking us to provide in the books by Brown and Kent. As a matter of fact, Christina is not going to find all of the information she is looking for anywhere.

Christina, you need to decide what focus point your research paper is going to be on. We can provide you with all kinds of new angle's as well as everyone's opinion, however, no one can provide you with the facts about what exactly happened. If we knew the facts about what exactly happened, there would not be a Lizzie Borden Society forum. The Primary Source Documents are the only place you are going find the facts that we know about, unfortunately, Lizzie took the "facts about what exactly happened" to the grave with her.

The decision is yours to make, Christina. Good luck in finding what you are looking for.


NOTE: I find it interesting that Christina has not responded, at all, to this thread. Hmmm.

P.S. I must apologize, again, for zeroing in on the Brown stuff.

FIRST, I admit that I am as predictable as the weather. Agree?
SECOND Arnold Brown alone has a new angle, no one has come up with anything better. Masterton correctly states "Lizzie Didn't Do It" but he could not name the killer of Abby and Andy.
Neither do I (see my Proof of Brown's Theory Part 1 to 5). For all I know, there could have been another close relative who fits the profile.

SO who are you apologizing to for zeroing in on the Brown solution?

Note that all earlier solutions pointed to someone known to have been in the house: Lizzie, Bridget, or "poor dear innocent Emma".

PS Many books have been written about this case since Edward Radin's 1961 "The Untold Story". NONE have a proven solution; the solution is unprovable in any Court of Law.

Well, Ray, I don't know as though I agree that you are as "predictable as the weather"; Wisconsin's weather is very unpredictable, at times. Let's just say we both agree that you are predictable, and leave it at that. O.K.?

Arnold Brown came up with an unusual angle in his theory, however, his unproven solution to the Borden murders is not "a new angle". As I mentioned before, Brown's book has a copyright date of 1991, which means it is now 16 years old; when something is 16 years old, it is not "new" anymore. The newest angle, that I am aware of, is in the topic titled, Was Andrew gay? submitted by rgreen4411, on January 08, 2007. Now, THAT is definitely "a new angle". As a matter of fact, the forum member's can direct her to all kinds of new and different angles. Just because a person's theory is not in the form of a published book does not mean it is not a new angle. I agree with you, in that, "NONE have a proven solution; the solution is unprovable in any Court of Law."

Christina's post states that she is looking for "a new angle", "everyone's opinion" and "facts about what exactly happened". If indeed she plans to have her research paper contain all of these things, then she is looking at years, and years, and years of research, which, in the end, her research paper is going to be incomplete because no one knows the "facts about what exactly happened". As I previously stated, Christina, needs to decide on a focus point for her research paper. Once she gives us the focus point, then we can better advise her on where to find information to do her research with. Personally, I don't think there is much more we can do until we hear from Christina, that is, if we ever hear from her.

FYI: I apologize to all of the forum members who are sick and tired of having Brown shoved down their throats, in almost every thread that you submit a post in. Sorry, Ray, but, you asked.

[theebmonique]

How is your paper coming along ? Do you outline first to get a framework of what you want your final 'project' to be/look like ? Did you find the 'new angle' you were looking for ?

Judy...you are so right about picking A focus point for writing this kind of paper...particularly with this case. There are SO MANY angles. That is why I asked Christina about outlining. Hopefully we will hear back from her at some point.





Tracy...

[RayS]

David Kent's "Forty Whacks" is the one best book on the Borden Murders, then or now. Some have criticized it for its objectivity (he doesn't try to pin the murders on Lizzie), but that is its strength.

One problem is that Kent died before it was published, and did not have the chance to read Arnold R. Brown's book. Whetther he agreed with the solution or not.

I wonder what his review of that book would have been?

[RayS]

How is your paper coming along ? Do you outline first to get a framework of what you want your final 'project' to be/look like ? Did you find the 'new angle' you were looking for ?

Judy...you are so right about picking A focus point for writing this kind of paper...particularly with this case. There are SO MANY angles. That is why I asked Christina about outlining. Hopefully we will hear back from her at some point.

Tracy...

The Trial Transcript is best read for mining info for writing a book or article IFF you are familiar with the books and other writings.
That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.

[twinsrwe]

How is your paper coming along ? Do you outline first to get a framework of what you want your final 'project' to be/look like ? Did you find the 'new angle' you were looking for ?

Judy...you are so right about picking A focus point for writing this kind of paper...particularly with this case. There are SO MANY angles. That is why I asked Christina about outlining. Hopefully we will hear back from her at some point.

Tracy...

Thanks, Tracy. (I hope you don't mind that I took out a couple of blank line spaces in your quote, just to save some space.) You are also right in saying that there are so many angles to this case; the Borden's murder case is not a simple open and closed case, is it? I was pretty sure you were looking for a focus point when you asked Christina about outlining.

We have given her more than enough information to go on; I really don't think there is much more we can do until we get a response from her. I do hope we hear back from her, although, I am beginning to have serious doubts that we will hear back from her, as it has been 10 days ago since she submitted her post. Maybe she gave up on writing a research paper on the Borden case. If she did, it would have been a simple courtesy, on her part, to let us know that. Even a thank-you would have been nice. I hope I am not putting the horse before the cart, but any response from her would be appreciated.

[RayS]

Three reasons:
1) 'chrisrenee' is busy doing her homework
2) she gave up after being snowed with advice to read Trial Transcript
3) it was a hoax to stir up controversy.

What do you believe?

[twinsrwe]

Three reasons:
1) 'chrisrenee' is busy doing her homework
2) she gave up after being snowed with advice to read Trial Transcript
3) it was a hoax to stir up controversy.

What do you believe?

Ray, who are you directing your question to? Since you did not specify...

IMO: There are, at least, seven reasons:
1. She is busy doing her homework.
2. She is indecisive as to what she wants as a focus point for her paper.
3. She is overwhelmed by the entire project due to the complexity of the this case.
4. She gave up after being inappropriately as well as irrelevantly advised to read Kent's book.
5. She gave up due to the discrepancies in advice that was given by the members of this forum.
6. She has obtained permission from her teacher to choose a less difficult subject for her research paper.
7. The original post was a hoax to stir up controversy.

At this point in time, I am not going to speculate as to why we have not heard from Christina. As far as I am concerned, this thread is a closed subject, until we hear from her; that is, if we ever hear back from her.

[mbhenty]

The reason we have not heard from Christina is quite simple and characteristic of someone her age. Common, typical and routine---as it should be. Taking this prospect into consideration we can conclude that:
(since we are making lists)

1. She's out washing her car, playing tennis, practicing her fast ball for the big game.
2. Out meeting friends at the mall.
3. Busy watching American Idol.
4. Out discovering night life.
5. Out with her boyfriend.
6. Or just "chill'n" with her pals.

For someone Christina's age this wonderful planet and it's wondrous possibilities are just starting to unfold. Whether we choose to see it or not, to someone her age one event is just a stepping stone to another and hopefully better event. The lack of observance or regard we see in her is justified by the license given her by her age. As it should be; as it was with all of us, and I dare say, as it still is for me.

Now that I have studied and diced poor Christina like she was some sort of species we are studying, let me say to her that there is no place better to learn about Lizzie Borden than this site, so don't even bother checking other sites. So, if you have a question about the Borden murders, or any other murder in history, someone here has the answer. And if they don't they will find it for you.

So Christina, if you are there join us, and WELCOME. I'm sure you will not regret it, and in a short time teach us a thing or two.

mbhenty