Mellen House

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:39 am

I've seen you folks talking about the Mellen House and "Mellen House gang" several times. Could you please fill me in about it?

If I'm correct, the Mellen House was situated on North Main Street, in the business part of town. Was it a private house, boarding house, hotel? Who owned it at the time and did the owners live in the house at the time? How many guests could be accomodated there?

Whom are you referring to when you speak of the "Mellen House gang"? Are you referring to people who stayed there during the Trial in 1893 or to people staying there at an earlier date? Or people not staying there at all? Why got those people to be known as "Mellen House gang"?

Any bit of information or opinion would be appreciated!
Airmid.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:13 am

The Mellen House was a hotel, and, as you say was located on North Main St., at the corner of Franklin St. It opened in October 1888.

Hosea Knowlton did not live in Fall River but in New Bedford. When he first came to Fall River to gather the evidence on the Borden murders he stayed at the Mellen House. Meetings were held there to discuss these findings.

The "Mellen House gang" theory comes from Arnold Brown's book and alleges a vast conspiracy between Lizzie's legal team and law officials to free Lizzie of the charges.

Not that I would recommend Brown's book but you would have to read it to have any chance of following this theory. Howard Brody, who reviewed Brown's bok in the July 1993 LBQ had this to say:

"That leads to Mr. Brown's second major claim: the conspiracy to subvert justice by the "Mellen House Gang," consisting of Knowlton, Hilliard, Coughlin, and Seaver, with Jennings acting as the intermediary for the payoffs. The various officials all agreed to the following plot: suppress or destroy the real will; allow Lizzie and Emma to inherit the fortune (and make the payoffs); allow the real murderer to go free, in exchange for his silence; have Lizzie arrested and held over to the Grand Jury; and then be sure she goes free."

The first major claim was that William S. Borden was Andrew's illegitimate son.

Personally, I do not for one moment take the Mellen House gang claim seriously. But that's just my opinion.

diana · Post by **diana** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:27 pm

Now there's an informative yet succinct overview of the Mellen House affair! Thank you, Harry!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:56 pm

Personally, it makes me sick to read Jennings name pulled thru the mud like that.
But some might say well Lizzie's name is pulled thru the mud too.
But Lizzie was arrested and charged with murder so there was probable cause. Jennings was never arrested or accused of anything until Brown came on the scene.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:10 pm

Just yesterday I read about the fate of the former Governor of Illinois, age 70. Did you read or understand that?
Wasn't Andrew Jennings appointed the next D.A. of the county after Knowlton was promoted? Ever wondered how these deals are arranged?

You could even read some True Crime books that deal with plea bargains and other events KNOWN to occur in today's and yesterday's world.

Arnold Brown says the deal were made in a private meeting room in the Mellen House (the usual name for a hotel in those days).

Jennings was never arrested or accused of anything until Brown came on the scene.

Where in Brown's book does he claim Jennings was arrested? Jennings simply did the best for his innocent client, Lizzie Borden. You got a problem with that?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:19 pm

I'm comparing Lizzie being in a position to be defamed by weight of evidence against her before trial- with Jennings' position and standing in the community, finally defamed by Arnold Brown in his accusation that Jennings would be any go-between in this *conspiracy.*
I am not talking about the Gov. of Illinois.

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:59 pm

Thank you Harry, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for!

Ray, excuse me for butting in, but in my opinion that post you made was quite hostile towards Kat. I appreciate if people voice their opinions in this forum, whether I agree with them or not. I do know you have your own style of writing, which is fine, but because of it, you run a greater risk to offend other people on this forum. Please be careful?

Airmid.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:16 am

That's very interesting Harry. Thanks Do you know if the Mellon house is open for buisness?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:29 pm

Kat @ Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:19 pm wrote:I'm comparing Lizzie being in a position to be defamed by weight of evidence against her before trial- with Jennings' position and standing in the community, finally defamed by Arnold Brown in his accusation that Jennings would be any go-between in this *conspiracy.*
I am not talking about the Gov. of Illinois.

While it is fiction, this Wed show "Justice" does explain and teach how the Justice system works. Or you could read the novels of Erle Stanley Gardner (out of date in parts).
Note that Jennings was appointed D.A. of the County after his exoneration of Lizzie! He could "play ball" with the authorities (political bosses).
Could you explain just what you mean by "defame"?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:31 pm

Airmid @ Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:59 pm wrote:Thank you Harry, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for!

Ray, excuse me for butting in, but in my opinion that post you made was quite hostile towards Kat. I appreciate if people voice their opinions in this forum, whether I agree with them or not. I do know you have your own style of writing, which is fine, but because of it, you run a greater risk to offend other people on this forum. Please be careful?

Airmid.

Yes you are butting in. Its your right to do so. I don't feel kindly to people who attack the one author who solved the crime in his book. Particularly since he can't defend himself. (You can read his letter in the mid 1990s.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 3:30 pm

That's the way I feel about Jennings, ray. Tit for tat.
I happen to have a fondness for the defense attorney.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:46 pm

RayS @ Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:29 pm wrote:Note that Jennings was appointed D.A. of the County after his exoneration of Lizzie! He could "play ball" with the authorities (political bosses).

Jennings was not appointed District Attorney, he was elected and served in that post from 1894 to 1898.

It's in the Glossary of the Knowlton Papers, Rebello and can be found at this site http://history.rays-place.com/bios/bris ... ngs-aj.htm

Jennings was highly respected before and after the Borden case.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:44 pm

Harry @ Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:46 pm wrote:
RayS @ Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:29 pm wrote:Note that Jennings was appointed D.A. of the County after his exoneration of Lizzie! He could "play ball" with the authorities (political bosses).
Jennings was not appointed District Attorney, he was elected and served in that post from 1894 to 1898.
It's in the Glossary of the Knowlton Papers, Rebello and can be found at this site http://history.rays-place.com/bios/bris ... ngs-aj.htm
Jennings was highly respected before and after the Borden case.

Here we go again! And thanks for your information.
Was Jennings the candidate after a primary fight, or was he selected / appointed by the political bosses of Bristol County? Surely most of us understand how politics work in their counties?
IF Jennings never ran for office before or after, it seems like some sort of prize award for his efforts to rescue the Puritna maiden?
We know that the Borden orphans had him appointed to the Board of Directors as a further reward. Any comments?

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:19 pm

The Borden orphans?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:32 pm

RayS @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:44 pm wrote:We know that the Borden orphans had him appointed to the Board of Directors as a further reward. Any comments?

The only place I ever saw that was in Spiering's book. Not exactly a source I would want to place any confidence in. Where he got this "fact" from I have no idea. It's nowhere else that I know of. Page 201:

"In exchange for his defense of Lizzie, Jennings was named by Emma and Lizzie to the board of directors of the Globe Yarn Mill, a company Andrew Borden had owned."

Andrew Borden was a director on the board, not the owner of the company. That Lizzie and Emma, unless they somehow owned 51%or more of the stock, had the power to appoint anybody is beyond me.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:14 pm

Harry @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:32 pm wrote:
RayS @ Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:44 pm wrote:We know that the Borden orphans had him appointed to the Board of Directors as a further reward. Any comments?
The only place I ever saw that was in Spiering's book. Not exactly a source I would want to place any confidence in. Where he got this "fact" from I have no idea. It's nowhere else that I know of. Page 201:

"In exchange for his defense of Lizzie, Jennings was named by Emma and Lizzie to the board of directors of the Globe Yarn Mill, a company Andrew Borden had owned."

Andrew Borden was a director on the board, not the owner of the company. That Lizzie and Emma, unless they somehow owned 51%or more of the stock, had the power to appoint anybody is beyond me.

Surely there must have been other books? Not in Porter, his was published after the trial. Maybe some other? Like Agnes De Mille? But they all draw from the same published sources?

I wasn't there as an eyewitness, but I can assure you that a Lawyer who can get things done is worth having on a Board of Directors. IMO
The next question was: for how many years? Until his death?
Appointing anyone to a Board of Directors is usually accomplished by agreement with the others, and the President and CEO.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:56 pm

If this happened after Andrew Jennings became D.A. of Bristol County, he would be able to control the law and prosecutions. A very powerful person to be on any Board of Directors, then or now.
Current ethical laws may prevent this in your state. Haven't you ever heard of a Congressman being on a Board of Directors, or some other favoritism (like being allowed to buy into an IPO)?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:20 am

Harry has already (patiently) answered this first set of questions.

Surely there must have been other books? Not in Porter, his was published after the trial. Maybe some other? Like Agnes De Mille? But they all draw from the same published sources?

I wasn't there as an eyewitness, but I can assure you that a Lawyer who can get things done is worth having on a Board of Directors. IMO
The next question was: for how many years? Until his death?

When he says that he knows of he has checked all his sources. You will have to start answering some of your own questions.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:40 am

There is a book writen by a lawyer who defended Scott Peterson. He said he worked for the D.A. investigating corruption. When his report was just filed away, he quit and went elsewhere. (Bet that D.A. got funding for his campaign?)
The D.A. has the power to prosecute or not prosecute. That is a powerful political weapon.
Will anyone else disagree with this?
Didn't lawyer Jennings die around 1901, the same year as William Borden? Just a coincidence?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:42 am

Kat @ Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:20 am wrote:...
When he says that he knows of he has checked all his sources. You will have to start answering some of your own questions.

What is the correct answer to a rhetorical question?
Those who compile books may not understand the significance of this fact if they only concentrate on the obvious.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:56 pm

You asked how many years was Jennings' on a Board of Directors.
I wondered if you could find the answer.
It didn't sound rhetorical to me.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:40 pm

Kat @ Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:56 pm wrote:You asked how many years was Jennings' on a Board of Directors.
I wondered if you could find the answer.
It didn't sound rhetorical to me.

I have no such records available to me. That's why I asked.
Didn't Hosea Knowlton die in 1901?
Did A Jennings continue on the Board of Directors after his term as D.A.?
Did he also die in 1901?
Inquiring minds want to know.