Lizzie Borden Society Forum

It is also posted here at this website, along with alot of other valuable information about the case. Sorry I reacted the way I did, you are new, I am old, and I have had enough of Ray.

Jeesh Ray you have really totally insulted* a bunch of open-minded, hardworking, dedicated and professional authors with your comments on the magazine. There are creative ideas, fiction, solid articles and Ph.D's writing there.
How can you possibly judge something you have not ever set eyes on?
I bet you never even downloaded a FREE issue from the website to back up your miserly opinion.

I hope no one *piles on* Ray after I give this opinion. It is mine alone.

*I should say tried to insult- because after this I don't see how you can disguise your narrow-mindedness anymore...
It's sad.

Kat @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:42 am wrote:Jeesh Ray you have really totally insulted* a bunch of open-minded, hardworking, dedicated and professional authors with your comments on the magazine. There are creative ideas, fiction, solid articles and Ph.D's writing there.
How can you possibly judge something you have not ever set eyes on?
I bet you never even downloaded a FREE issue from the website to back up your miserly opinion.

I hope no one *piles on* Ray after I give this opinion. It is mine alone.

*I should say tried to insult- because after this I don't see how you can disguise your narrow-mindedness anymore...
It's sad.

The only reason there will be/might be any 'piling on', is because many/most people here will be in total agreement with you, Kat.





Tracy...

Kat @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:42 am wrote:Jeesh Ray you have really totally insulted* a bunch of open-minded, hardworking, dedicated and professional authors with your comments on the magazine. There are creative ideas, fiction, solid articles and Ph.D's writing there.
How can you possibly judge something you have not ever set eyes on?
I bet you never even downloaded a FREE issue from the website to back up your miserly opinion.

I hope no one *piles on* Ray after I give this opinion. It is mine alone.

*I should say tried to insult- because after this I don't see how you can disguise your narrow-mindedness anymore...
It's sad.

Yes, its sad or bad to criticize any publication I haven't read. I apologize if I have offended anyone with my narrow-mindedness.

But this is not a refereed academic publication, or, a general public magazine like "American History/Heritage" (name?).
Will most of us agree a magazine sold to the general public is better?

RayS @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:41 am wrote:

Kat @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:42 am wrote:Jeesh Ray you have really totally insulted* a bunch of open-minded, hardworking, dedicated and professional authors with your comments on the magazine. There are creative ideas, fiction, solid articles and Ph.D's writing there.
How can you possibly judge something you have not ever set eyes on?
I bet you never even downloaded a FREE issue from the website to back up your miserly opinion.

I hope no one *piles on* Ray after I give this opinion. It is mine alone.

*I should say tried to insult- because after this I don't see how you can disguise your narrow-mindedness anymore...
It's sad.

Yes, its sad or bad to criticize any publication I haven't read. I apologize if I have offended anyone with my narrow-mindedness.

But this is not a refereed academic publication, or, a general public magazine like "American History" (name?).
Will most of us agree a magazine sold to the general public is better?

Hmmm...let's see....The Hatchet is an online magazine, and a very attractive one, I might add. I have not subscribed to it yet, though I want to, but I have seen the Sample copy. However, for the sake of argument, can we all agree that it IS a magazine/publication? There are a couple of magazines available on the newsstands that I read online, even though I can get a print copy. So let's agree that an online publication is still a publication, OK?

Additionally, I believe I would consider myself a member of the general public. So I could classify The Hatchet as a "magazine" that is sold to the "general public".

The Hatchet may be a magazine that would appeal to a certain "group" (Lizzie Borden fans), but so are ALL magazines. They all have a certain "audience".

So, since The Hatchet is a magazine that is sold to the general public, it is completely equal with any other publication.

Yep, Ray insulted a lot of people, AND I, for one, don't agree with him on his view about "better" magazines!!!

SallyG @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:56 pm wrote:...

So, since The Hatchet is a magazine that is sold to the general public, it is completely equal with any other publication.

Yep, Ray insulted a lot of people, AND I, for one, don't agree with him on his view about "better" magazines!!!

Sorry, that magazine does not have a long pedigree like a historical review, or a mass-circulation magazine. Not that its not invaluable for those who read or subscribe it. Constraints of time.

Some magazines will always be more equal than others. Based on paying subscribers and the money from advertising. Yes, that's the way it works.

Now if they were able to disprove Arnold Brown's theory, or come out with a better solution, I would be interested.

Will I be called a snob again?

RayS @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:10 pm wrote:

SallyG @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:56 pm wrote:...

So, since The Hatchet is a magazine that is sold to the general public, it is completely equal with any other publication.

Yep, Ray insulted a lot of people, AND I, for one, don't agree with him on his view about "better" magazines!!!

Sorry, that magazine does not have a long pedigree like a historical review, or a mass-circulation magazine. Not that its not invaluable for those who read or subscribe it. Constraints of time.

Some magazines will always be more equal than others. Based on paying subscribers and the money from advertising. Yes, that's the way it works.

Now if they were able to disprove Arnold Brown's theory, or come out with a better solution, I would be interested.

Will I be called a snob again?

It is unnecessary to disprove Arnold Brown's hypothesis, we don't need to disprove that which hasn't been proven.

Haven't you read the definitions of "hypothesis" and "theory"?
Mine came from a published, hard copy Webster's Dictionary.

RayS @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:28 pm wrote:Haven't you read the definitions of "hypothesis" and "theory"?
Mine came from a published, hard copy Webster's Dictionary.

I know, first hand, the difference between hypothesis and theory. I have many reference books which explain the difference in minute detail. What do you know about it other than what you've heard?

RayS @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:28 pm wrote:Haven't you read the definitions of "hypothesis" and "theory"?
Mine came from a published, hard copy Webster's Dictionary.

The definition of hypothesis versus theory is really irrelevant. Brown did some research (allegedly), came up with his own idea of what might have happened based on his research, and wrote a book. His theory cannot be proved.

Personally, I think the idea of Lizzie taking the rap for some "illegitimate brother" is pretty far fetched. Lizzie probably didn't give a rodent's backside about Andrew's reputation once he was dead. She would have blown the whistle on Willie and collected her inheritance. I know I would have.

SallyG @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:52 pm wrote:The definition of hypothesis versus theory is really irrelevant. Brown did some research (allegedly), came up with his own idea of what might have happened based on his research, and wrote a book. His theory cannot be proved.

Personally, I think the idea of Lizzie taking the rap for some "illegitimate brother" is pretty far fetched. Lizzie probably didn't give a rodent's backside about Andrew's reputation once he was dead. She would have blown the whistle on Willie and collected her inheritance. I know I would have.

I agree, Sally.

I have always found it unbelievable that Lizzie was at all concerned about Andrews's reputation, when he obviously couldn't have cared less about his own reputation, when he was alive.

Lizzie had nothing to lose by blowing the whistle on an alleged illegitimate brother, who, it is my understanding that, Andrew Borden's family did not acknowledge or ever speak of. According to Brown's theory, there were an awful lot of people who apparently knew about this "illegitimate son". So, who was Lizzie supposed to be keeping this secret from? The general public? No, too many people were already in the know.

SallyG @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:52 pm wrote:

RayS @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:28 pm wrote:Haven't you read the definitions of "hypothesis" and "theory"?
Mine came from a published, hard copy Webster's Dictionary.

The definition of hypothesis versus theory is really irrelevant. Brown did some research (allegedly), came up with his own idea of what might have happened based on his research, and wrote a book. His theory cannot be proved.

Personally, I think the idea of Lizzie taking the rap for some "illegitimate brother" is pretty far fetched. Lizzie probably didn't give a rodent's backside about Andrew's reputation once he was dead. She would have blown the whistle on Willie and collected her inheritance. I know I would have.

The point is, a theory can always be proved. Something which can't be proved is a hypothesis.

I've read better theories by Fritz in our first magazine issue, and I also liked the one by Jefferey which was somewhat similar but different.
I also like the David Anthony theory- just because he's a real person whose life and times and genealogy can be verified.

BTW: Ray, your idea of an unpaid loan is not new- I've just been reading about that in an old newspaper. Everything old is new again.
BTW2: I don't think you read that theory and took it for your own.

Thanks SallyG.

I'm not real crazy about the Brown theory. Not only did Brown fail to prove it, he also appears to have made up things to try and make his theory work. By that I mean the whole Mellon House Gang thing. And, yes, Ray, I know how governments work. I am familiar with the Daly Machine and Tammany Hall. But just because it's shown that a city has a political machine in place that does not prove that it was involved in a murder cover up.

Now, as for other theories, well, I'm not so crazy about them either. For example, in the David Anthony Theory you also see a lot of lying and making things up to try and make it work. Some of them are as bad as Brown in what they do. Poor old David, accused of murder and he can not defend himself. I'd love to know what he thinks about people going around saying he murdered defenseless Abby in cold blood.

Personally, I'm still going with Lizzie as the one. That's my favorite theory. I don't know about anyone else being involved. I'm still curious about Dr. Bowen and Bridget and what they might have known.

DWilly @ Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:04 pm wrote:I'm not real crazy about the Brown theory. Not only did Brown fail to prove it, he also appears to have made up things to try and make his theory work. By that I mean the whole Mellon House Gang thing. And, yes, Ray, I know how governments work. I am familiar with the Daly Machine and Tammany Hall. But just because it's shown that a city has a political machine in place that does not prove that it was involved in a murder cover up.

Now, as for other theories, well, I'm not so crazy about them either. For example, in the David Anthony Theory you also see a lot of lying and making things up to try and make it work. Some of them are as bad as Brown in what they do. Poor old David, accused of murder and he can not defend himself. I'd love to know what he thinks about people going around saying he murdered defenseless Abby in cold blood.

Personally, I'm still going with Lizzie as the one. That's my favorite theory. I don't know about anyone else being involved. I'm still curious about Dr. Bowen and Bridget and what they might have known.

I don't like browns theories either. Makes for interesting reading thou. And you are there are some pretty far out theories too that I am not thrilled about. Seems like with some of them you about have to jumped throu hoops to prove them.

Kat @ Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:20 am wrote:I've read better theories by Fritz in our first magazine issue, and I also liked the one by Jefferey which was somewhat similar but different.
I also like the David Anthony theory- just because he's a real person whose life and times and genealogy can be verified.

BTW: Ray, your idea of an unpaid loan is not new- I've just been reading about that in an old newspaper. Everything old is new again.
BTW2: I don't think you read that theory and took it for your own.

The FACT of an unpaid loan can be read in many true crime stories, or the latest crime news in your local newspaper.
People get killed to cancel a loan, or if they refuse to pay.
Wasn't Bertha Manchester killed because her father refused to pay a workman? Correct me if I am wrong, this came from Brown's book.

DWilly @ Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:04 pm wrote:...
Personally, I'm still going with Lizzie as the one. That's my favorite theory. I don't know about anyone else being involved. I'm still curious about Dr. Bowen and Bridget and what they might have known.

But the BIG problem is: she was found not guilty by a jury!!!

Many believed she knew who did it but refused to speak out.
You can read this in contemporary news accounts.

If Lizzie did the murders did she premeditate or kill in a moment of passion or PMS? The amount of overkill is atypical of the way females kill, is it not? Except when the woman fears for her life and over-reacts. The bashing was quite a bit of physical labor. A simple minded man might commit this kind of crime but it is unlikely he would be able to keep the secret to himself.

SallyG @ Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:52 pm wrote:...
Personally, I think the idea of Lizzie taking the rap for some "illegitimate brother" is pretty far fetched. Lizzie probably didn't give a rodent's backside about Andrew's reputation once he was dead. She would have blown the whistle on Willie and collected her inheritance. I know I would have.

Lizzie did NOT take the rap. At first she only refused to tell all that she knew [obstruction of justice, accessory after the fact].
If she later told all she knew, then Uncle John would be implicated [for setting up the meeting, and not telling either].
In any similar case a person could be charged with the crime to get them to talk. [As per the dramatic shows on TV.]

The problem of reputation is for the living, not the dead. Imagine that Andy was killed by his nephew after he tried to swindle him out of his farm!!! How would that play in the newspapers and gossip of that day, or even now? Justifiable homicide in those days?

I'm sure you know that the cover-up can be worse than the crime (Watergate).
PS
Note that this would apply to any close relative, its just that Willy was the person who best fits the known facts.
Allthough Henry Hawthorne wasn't at the house that day, and Ellan Eagan never met William S. Borden. "Its close enough for government work."

rgreen4411 @ Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:43 pm wrote:If Lizzie did the murders did she premeditate or kill in a moment of passion or PMS? The amount of overkill is atypical of the way females kill, is it not? Except when the woman fears for her life and over-reacts. The bashing was quite a bit of physical labor. A simple minded man might commit this kind of crime but it is unlikely he would be able to keep the secret to himself.

"Lizzie Didn't Do It"
Such physical violence is out of character for a Puritan maiden.
Poison, or a gun, would be different. IMO

Harry @ Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:15 am wrote:Seems like every recent post is about Arnold Brown's work of fiction. No matter what the topic starts out with it ends up Arnold Brown, Arnold Brown. Arnold Brown.

What a shame that this forum has been reduced to this level. When I logged on this morning there were 6 different threads all discussing this nonsense theory.

No sense posting anything worthwhile as it will surely end up being about Arnold Brown. Let me know when it doesn't.

Its what is in fashion this month. Next month, who knows?

I think the Fall River Police Department desperately needs a copy of Brown's book so they can close the Borden case.

I agree, should we alert the media?

Oh Yooper...You are right ! How could we have not thought of that before ?! Silly us.





Tracy...

RayS @ Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:16 pm wrote:

DWilly @ Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:04 pm wrote:...
Personally, I'm still going with Lizzie as the one. That's my favorite theory. I don't know about anyone else being involved. I'm still curious about Dr. Bowen and Bridget and what they might have known.

But the BIG problem is: she was found not guilty by a jury!!!

Many believed she knew who did it but refused to speak out.
You can read this in contemporary news accounts.

Ray, just because someone is found not guilty that does not mean they're innocent of the crime. It only means that the State was unable to prove the guilt. There are cases where a guilty person is found not guilty. Case in point is the murder of Emmett Till. His murderers were found not guilty and after their trial they sold their story to a magazine and in the article they admitted their guilt. We also know that sometimes an innocent person is found guilty.

Yooper @ Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:21 pm wrote:I think the Fall River Police Department desperately needs a copy of Brown's book so they can close the Borden case.

By golly, I think your right... We can get a copy, real cheap, through e-bay!

This is in response to Roberta, on the previous page.

I think a woman could kill Abbie or Andrew with a hatchet with that many blows, but one or the other- not both.

There is a true story of a killing in self-defense with an axe by a woman, killing her neighbor. There's a book and movie:
Evidence of Love is the book, and A Killing in A Small Town is the movie.

The movie is almost as good as the book. Barbara Hersey.

She is attacked by a woman with an axe in a confined space, gets it from her and beats the attacker to death. I think all her quiet, seething, unconscious rage came out so this meek, mild woman became like a monster defending herself, with elements of overkill. She was found not guilty on the charge, altho she did it.

And yes, this is modern, and maybe Texas, I think? But I believe the age of the woman was similar to Lizzie.
The thing is tho, again, there was not 2 killings and no big time gap between. She did methodically clean up and go fetch her children in car pool. (Or something mundane like that). She was acting in a fog and reverted to doing what she always did. I think Lizzie's statements might more be a reflection of what she usually does than of what she really did that day: ie, that *fog*.

I think that if the person male or female is in a big enough rage there would be no problem going after 2 people with any type of weapon. The amount of blows shows its personal. If the anger was stored up for a very long time, this would be the time it shows itself.

DWilly @ Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:07 pm wrote:...
Ray, just because someone is found not guilty that does not mean they're innocent of the crime. It only means that the State was unable to prove the guilt. There are cases where a guilty person is found not guilty. Case in point is the murder of Emmett Till. His murderers were found not guilty and after their trial they sold their story to a magazine and in the article they admitted their guilt. We also know that sometimes an innocent person is found guilty.

Yes, but those are general statements that don't quite match your specific example. You do know that many murders are never solved, because the police can not find the evidence for a suspect. Gangland murders are the most likely.
Who killed Jimmy Hoffa? Or Judge Crater? Or the Reverend Hall and Mrs. Mills?
If a person is found not guilty and acquitted, it means the jury did not find the evidence persuasive, for whatever reason. We don't live in a perfect world.
But we know that moot trials of Lizzie have come to the same conclusion.
Thank you for a polite reply.

Nadzieja @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:29 am wrote:I think that if the person male or female is in a big enough rage there would be no problem going after 2 people with any type of weapon. The amount of blows shows its personal. If the anger was stored up for a very long time, this would be the time it shows itself.

And that is another reason why I have doubts about Lizzie.
Her contemporaries were mostly for her; Spiering talks about the controversies. But after the 'Providence Journal' editorial asked why she didn't tell all that she knew, public opinion turned against her.
Or so I read in the best books on this case.

[b]The case Kat referenced about a woman who killed in self defense was a young mother named Candace. She was terrified because a much larger enraged female came after her with an ax. Candace killed in fear and self defense, not rage. Does that compare to a planned murder of two people? By the way, during the killing Candace also whacked her own foot. That wound was part of what led to her arrest. So doing a task like that is no simple matter. [/b]
I think a woman could kill Abbie or Andrew with a hatchet with that many blows, but one or the other- not both.

There is a true story of a killing in self-defense with an axe by a woman, killing her neighbor. There's a book and movie:
[i]Evidence of Love[/i] is the book, and [i]A Killing in A Small Town[/i] is the movie.

The movie is almost as good as the book. Barbara Hersey.

She is attacked by a woman with an axe in a confined space, gets it from her and beats the attacker to death. I think all her quiet, seething, unconscious rage came out so this meek, mild woman became like a monster defending herself, with elements of overkill. She was found not guilty on the charge, altho she did it.

And yes, this is modern, and maybe Texas, I think? But I believe the age of the woman was similar to Lizzie.
The thing is tho, again, there was not 2 killings and no big time gap between. She did methodically clean up and go fetch her children in car pool. (Or something mundane like that). She was acting in a fog and reverted to doing what she always did. I think Lizzie's statements might more be a reflection of what she [i]usually does[/i] than of what she [i]really did[/i] that day: ie, that *fog*.[/quote]

I saw that movie, and I think she kills her in the Laundry Room. It was over a man. Yes, she went about her daily routines after the rage, and was calm, cool, and collected.

I'm sorry- I cannot disengage what you wrote Roberta and my quote.

Yes the woman defending herself had rage. There was adultry in the mix. It was almost premeditated on the attackers part- I mean she did get a weapon.

Nadzieja, the time gap between the Borden killings is problematical. I don't know if an enraged woman can sustain that state for 90 minutes twiddling her thumbs and then attacking her own father.
I can only picture that as someone on drink or drugs.

Hi Kat, Being that I haven't read as much as you all have, I wasn't that sure of the timeline. What if (and this is pure speculation) she did kill Abby out of rage, but then for that amount time, she realized and I'm sure feared very much, what would happen when Andrew found out. Because he was home early it was as if she realized how am I going to explain a dead body upstairs. If she thought they might be planning to put her away already this probably would have put him over the top and would have done that or worse. If he was gone as he was suppose to be then she could have said anything about someone coming in or even maybe had plans to somehow hide the body? Sorry, it's early 4:30am & I'm getting ready for work so I guess you can say my mind is sort of wandering. Hope everybody has a good day!

Kat @ Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:28 am wrote:I'm sorry- I cannot disengage what you wrote Roberta and my quote.

Yes the woman defending herself had rage. There was adultry in the mix. It was almost premeditated on the attackers part- I mean she did get a weapon.

Nadzieja, the time gap between the Borden killings is problematical. I don't know if an enraged woman can sustain that state for 90 minutes twiddling her thumbs and then attacking her own father.
I can only picture that as someone on drink or drugs.

NO, that Unknown Subject, Intruder, or Cousin Willy was waiting for an appointment with Andy. That is why he stayed secreted until Andy came back with whatever he brought back from the bank in that white box.

Drink and drugs had nothing to do with it. People on heroin or some drugs are mellowed out and passive. PCP or Methamphetamines are another thing.

Personally, and I can't explain it, but the theory I have heard that Lizzie killed Andrew because he would know it was she who killed Abbie (and she just couldn't face that) does not seem like a serious motive to me.
I've heard this before, and I try to think of another case where that was tendered as a motive, and I can't think of one.
Maybe someone can?

If I think of the Menendez killings I see that both parents were hated enough to each be a target in their own right.
Those *Vampire Cult* slayings here in Florida were both parents killed equally. Maybe when parents unite and the *child* sees them as a unit against them, they become as one person and both have to be killed.
Maybe it is a kind of paranoia.

Is that called proof by conjecture?
If Lizzie did that, why was she so seemingly overcome by emotion afterwards? If the reports are accurate.

RayS @ Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:42 pm wrote:Is that called proof by conjecture?
If Lizzie did that, why was she so seemingly overcome by emotion afterwards? If the reports are accurate.

Overcome by emotion? The Sphinx? I think not

Does not Dr. Masterton argue in his book that the time of the two deaths was much closer together than previously thought?

Does he argue that the murders necessarily were, or does he argue that they could be, closer in time?

I saw that movie, and I think she kills her in the Laundry Room. It was over a man. Yes, she went about her daily routines after the rage, and was calm, cool, and collected.

We all know that Hollywood history is never quite accurate. Drama rules, not accuracy. That 1975 movie on Lizzie totally erased Uncle John?

Yooper @ Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:17 pm wrote:Does he argue that the murders necessarily were, or does he argue that they could be, closer in time?

As I remember it, Masterton was "talking through his hat" to be polite.
Once the alarm was sounded at 11:15, Abby could not have returned secretly and been killed without anyone noticing it.

Masterton's book seems derived from a need to deny the scientific truth about the Nicole-Ron murders, whose blood was still dripping down the sidewalk when the police arrived at 12:15. The ME who did the autopsy said that the facts led him to say the murders occurred after 11 pm.

Did you notice the remarks about OJ Simpson? Why were they there?

I will re-read Masterton's book. He argues the deaths may have been closer together in time.

RayS @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:25 pm wrote:

I saw that movie, and I think she kills her in the Laundry Room. It was over a man. Yes, she went about her daily routines after the rage, and was calm, cool, and collected.

We all know that Hollywood history is never quite accurate. Drama rules, not accuracy. That 1975 movie on Lizzie totally erased Uncle John?

The movie we were talking about on this thread was "A Killing in a small town". A woman kills another woman with an axe. We were discussing the similarities of a woman killing with an axe.

I don't find it helpful to bring up all these other cases to help with the evidence in this one!
If you are going for motive Ray, and can show similarities, that would be helpful. But evidence- no! Please spare me any more OJ, Sam Sheppard correlations.

Actually, Masterton had the credentials to talk all he wanted on an alternative TOD theory- certainly more credible in things he proposed than Brown ever was!