Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Will this case ever be solved

Aw Shoot!!!!!

Was trying to do a poll.

it actually worked - take a look there, up top...

ALRIGHT
Yeah Hooray and Happy Dance!!!!
Did not see it at first!!!!

It would be great to finally know the truth, but on the other hand, the withdrawls from no more mystery and no more contemplating would be terrible!! I don't see how it could really ever be, unless there's some diary or a confession written somewhere that hasn't been found yet.

don't think the case will ever be sovled. I mean there is always speculation as to who did it but it will never be proved.

I voted no.
But it's interesting to know that we have about what the jurors had to make a determination.
We have the Knowlton Papers, some Hilliard papers (Witness Statements), Jennings' stuff, the inquest and prelim and trial testimonies and some, if not most of the physical evidence.
And the crime scene!
We are pretty lucky.
You'd think it could be solved with all that material!

I did not vote as I have no idea. Want to hear something funny. I was in the mood for a good murder mystery and after seeing this website and all the trial information available thought I would just print it out and give it a good read and solve it over the weekend. The more I learn, the more I know there is just that much more to learn. I agree we are very fortunate to have this much info available and online. What a messy little mystery Ms. Lizzie has left us.

It has been solved in the Court of Public Opinion.
Either Lizzie did it, or Arnold Brown uncovered the long-lost secret.
Or some of the other opinions were correct, even if there is no evidence for it (Bridget, Emma, or?).

In other true crime cases the lack of a murder weapon and bloody clothes say it was an intruder (or secret visitor).
Love (sex) or Money are the most likely causes of murder. The first can be ruled out (IMO), leaving just the second.
You know my opinion.

***Either Lizzie did it, or Arnold Brown uncovered the long-lost secret. ***

no, that's not correct. brown's concept of a secret person is probably correct, but you can spin that tale in a number of ways.

i think the best way is to apply imagination to the facts. but you've got to figure out who this person is to lizzie and why she cannot talk about it AND you have you explain exactly what lizzie was doing during the murders.

but i don't see how proof is possible.

also, it is extremely intriguing how difficult it is to fabricate something that fits known facts.

i don't consider this form of imagination easy -- but what other route is there? facts alone DO NOT tell a story.

knowlton created the legend, it's full of holes. brown did the same thing, it's full of holes.

what is a solid, realistic scenario? that's the challenge.

Yes Haulover: I concure completely. To Late, to much time has gone by, too long ago.

Also the possibility of the "secret person" scenario is one I run with. But, as you have said, it can be twisted in many ways and the guesses are many to whom and why Lizzie would have kept quite.

Will it be solved, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and NO....

Your turn Rays.

No. I highly doubt it. Too much time has passed.

-1bigsteve (o:

Also the possibility of the "secret person" scenario is one I run with. But, as you have said, it can be twisted in many ways and the guesses are many to whom and why Lizzie would have kept quite.

Of course it can't be solved in a court of law.
The 1893 judgment still stands: Lizze was Not Guilty.

But looking at the Big Picture and you can see the anomalies in this case. It took 3 months to get an indictment, then 7 months for the trial! That's asfully slow for justice in those days. Something was going on.

Given that Lizzie didn't do it, then somebody else must have. Lizzie's actions are best explained as keeping secret the name of the visitor. An action that was acceptable to the FR ruling class. (I don't think it was just a pay off.)

The actions of the FR ruling class are also implicit in this. Agnes De Mille quotes the unnamed daughters of a doctor close to Bowen who said "there was a secret unknown to the public". Can I mention the "secrets" of the JFK assassination?

Arnold Brown basically stumbled on the secret based on the memoirs of Henry Hawthorne. You don't believe this? I do, and I also found the postings of a former member here to be suspicious, n'cest pas?

Those who continue to blame Lizzie are like those who would search a coal mine in midnight without a lantern for a black cat that isn't there.

RayS @ Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:11 pm wrote:

Also the possibility of the "secret person" scenario is one I run with. But, as you have said, it can be twisted in many ways and the guesses are many to whom and why Lizzie would have kept quite.

Of course it can't be solved in a court of law.
The 1893 judgment still stands: Lizze was Not Guilty.

But looking at the Big Picture and you can see the anomalies in this case. It took 3 months to get an indictment, then 7 months for the trial! That's asfully slow for justice in those days. Something was going on.

Given that Lizzie didn't do it, then somebody else must have. Lizzie's actions are best explained as keeping secret the name of the visitor. An action that was acceptable to the FR ruling class. (I don't think it was just a pay off.)

The actions of the FR ruling class are also implicit in this. Agnes De Mille quotes the unnamed daughters of a doctor close to Bowen who said "there was a secret unknown to the public". Can I mention the "secrets" of the JFK assassination?

Arnold Brown basically stumbled on the secret based on the memoirs of Henry Hawthorne. You don't believe this? I do, and I also found the postings of a former member here to be suspicious, n'cest pas?

Those who continue to blame Lizzie are like those who would search a coal mine in midnight without a lantern for a black cat that isn't there.

Did someone say "JFK?" I love that case.

Of course there was a secret unknown to the public. Two of them actually. Who did it and where did the the hatchet go.

I agree that someone other than Lizzie could have committed the killings, and probably did, no doubt with Lizzie as a lookout. That would explain where the hatchet went.

Arnold Brown may or may not have stumbled onto the "secret" and Henry Hawthorne may or may not have been my Aunt Louise. I want proof and until I do Arnold's theory is just that.

If you are talking about the person I think you are, I had that person's gender nailed late last May.

And by the way, it is "A blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there."

-1bigsteve (o:

I voted yes. If there is no hope at all then why would I be here? Don't we all want to be here when it is ever solved? I thought that was the point.

I think we've already solved it. We must have discussed every possible theory here, and one of them was likely to be The One. But which?

I think that somewhere, in someone's attic, some descendant of Lizzie or a Borden family friend will be found to have something really hot in their possession. Something they either didn't know they had, or something someone cleaning out the house after the person's death will find and make public. It is known that such things exist. There are still people who will not make some Lizzie things in their possession public.

Maybe the answer lies in those sickening Robinson files that won't be made public. There are some theories that come really close, but we are missing a piece. Maybe that one missing piece is in those files. "No smoking gun," they say in there. But would they, at the office, recognize the missing piece if they saw it? Do they know the case like we do?

There's also hope in the Jennings' hip bath collection. Part of it was not given to the FRHS. Jennings had something he never wanted revealed - in a notebook? - that he kept close to his chest because it could incriminate Lizzie and get her arrested on another charge having to do with the murder.

Oh, God. Watch it turn out to be William Borden ...

This is the part where Phillips' refers to what Jennings would not or did not reveal about his defense in latter years.
It may not mean there were things hidden that were needed to defend her in future.
It could mean that - but it could also just mean an attorney-client privilege:

The
Borden Murder
Mystery
In Defence of Lizzie Borden
By
Arthur S. Phillips

Pg 7
I entered into a study of the evidential details and of defence preparation under the leadership and direction of Mr. Jennings with all that energy which youth possesses and with all the enthusiasm which exists when a man is released from his preparatory studies, has passed his admission tests, and attempts success in his chosen profession. Yet during all this period of over forty years, public consideration has been limited to such facts as were evidenced at the trial plus those disclosed by the prosecution and those revealed by press investigation. The mass of documents and other evidence collected by the defence have never been disclosed or discussed, due to the fact that until the recent death of Miss Borden their secrecy was, in the opinion of Mr. Jennings, important to her defence. He considered that reservation of such facts as would meet any new phase of police investigation was necessary, and that during her life it was improper to disclose or to discuss facts which were gathered in her interest, and which might by any possibility be important if crime should be reconsidered by the District Attorney.

Kat @ Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:30 am wrote:This is the part where Phillips' refers to what Jennings would not or did not reveal about his defense in latter years.
It may not mean there were things hidden that were needed to defend her in future.
It could mean that - but it could also just mean an attorney-client privilege:

The
Borden Murder
Mystery
In Defence of Lizzie Borden
By
Arthur S. Phillips

Pg 7
I entered into a study of the evidential details and of defence preparation under the leadership and direction of Mr. Jennings with all that energy which youth possesses and with all the enthusiasm which exists when a man is released from his preparatory studies, has passed his admission tests, and attempts success in his chosen profession. Yet during all this period of over forty years, public consideration has been limited to such facts as were evidenced at the trial plus those disclosed by the prosecution and those revealed by press investigation. The mass of documents and other evidence collected by the defence have never been disclosed or discussed, due to the fact that until the recent death of Miss Borden their secrecy was, in the opinion of Mr. Jennings, important to her defence. He considered that reservation of such facts as would meet any new phase of police investigation was necessary, and that during her life it was improper to disclose or to discuss facts which were gathered in her interest, and which might by any possibility be important if crime should be reconsidered by the District Attorney.

Arnold Brown says a dead client had no fear from the law. Only those still living would fear any disclosure of secret facts. Brown suggests that the letter from "Robinsky" was concocted to provide reasonable doubt.

That trick may indeed have been legal (but ethical?) in those days. Reading stories about lawyers says its not just enough to show reasonable doubt, you must provide a suspect to convince a jury to acquit.

EG: "The prosecution's chief witness admits to being involved in a theft with the victim, and had a motive so the loot wouldn't be split. That is more motive than from my innocent client who has no prior record."
PS
You can find examples in the film "Goodfellas" (based on a true crime) or Dashiell Hammett's "The Big Knockover".

Thanks for the Phillips post, Kat! I think - to me anyway - it looks like he is saying both things you and I said. I'm sure I read this paraphrased in other writings that spelled it out even more clearly that there was a danger to Lizzie in Jennings' papers should another trial come up.

I would put more stock in what Phillips says, since he was actually working on the defense team.

But he didn't finish his book - it's said that his brother-in-law probably did. That was phrased so carefully. It sounded like an attorney!

It has been solved in The Mind of The Inappropriate Capitalizer!

I had to vote "no." Do I believe Lizzie did it, or was involved? Oh, yup.

YES, it has been SOLVED for many decades.
Just ask anyone about Lizzie, and they will tell you that she murdered her parents and was hanged for the crime.
They get their news from POPULAR CULTURE, like TV & such.

Try it and see, said Theophrastus Von Bombast.

augusta @ Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:23 pm wrote:Thanks for the Phillips post, Kat! I think - to me anyway - it looks like he is saying both things you and I said. I'm sure I read this paraphrased in other writings that spelled it out even more clearly that there was a danger to Lizzie in Jennings' papers should another trial come up.

I would put more stock in what Phillips says, since he was actually working on the defense team.

But he didn't finish his book - it's said that his brother-in-law probably did. That was phrased so carefully. It sounded like an attorney!

Some say Arthur S. Phillips died before his book was published, and someone else may have edited it. If so, how reliable is it as a source?

Thanks for your comments, was really interesting to get opinions from people who have researched Lizzie and gang for years to see what they thought.