Lizzie Borden Society Forum

In delving into the archives I read somewhere that Brown at one time admitted in an interview that the illegitimate son was just a hoax. I also read that he may have been so defensive because he suffered and died from a brain tumor. Is this right?

(Just objective opinions please)

Darlin', isn't "objective opinion" an oxymoron? Though I know exactly what you mean.

Bob Gutowski @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:40 pm wrote:Darlin', isn't "objective opinion" an oxymoron? Though I know exactly what you mean.

If you know what I mean, then you know I was trying to be subtle. Pointing it out defeats the purpose, Darlin'.

I'm not sure I'd use the word hoax, but... At any rate, during the interview - or an interview which was videotaped - Mr. Brown admitted that the "William S. to Andrew" connection was merely a theory (or hypothesis) for which he had no proof.

I've not looked for it lately, but at one time Stefani had posted a video clip of Arnold Brown discussing the matter in the blog. It might still be there.

He did suffer a brain tumor, yes.

"Hoax" wasn't my word- it came up this morning when I was reading through the archives. Someone used it when talking about his interview, but I read so much that I can't find it again.

I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

Angel @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:55 am wrote:In delving into the archives I read somewhere that Brown at one time admitted in an interview that the illegitimate son was just a hoax. I also read that he may have been so defensive because he suffered and died from a brain tumor. Is this right?

(Just objective opinions please)

My Objective Opinion is that your message is a hoax. Because you have listed no facts for it, just asking it as if it were true.
You all know how objective I am on this subject.

There was a video posted on ModoLizzie, and it is posted on Youtube.com as well. I don't know if that is what you are talking about though.

Mondolizzie that is, oops......

Angel @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:55 am wrote:In delving into the archives I read somewhere that Brown at one time admitted in an interview that the illegitimate son was just a hoax. I also read that he may have been so defensive because he suffered and died from a brain tumor. Is this right?

(Just objective opinions please)

It seems to me to be a hoax because noone could ever prove that Andy had a soon by anyone.

I guess Stefani has her reasons for letting such a rude, pompous, negative, jackass like Ray continue on this forum, but it certainly has ruined the fun and camaraderie we used to have. It used to be more spontaneous and friendly and everyone seemed to be at ease in discussing anything. There was good information and some carefree joking that made it all the more pleasant, but that's all changed. I now know that whatever I post there will be some snide remark that follows. The others have to either ignore his crap, post around it, or take him to task, which does absolutely no good because he is as dense as a post. I will continue to read the info because I am interested in the subject, but I do not wish to post much anymore because he has such a destructive influence. Maybe I'm not as "scholarly" as some on this forum, but I thought it was open to anyone who had something (constructive) to say. I am very disheartened because he has spoiled a very nice thing that I had looked forward to every day. I'm sure this note won't make any difference, but I felt the need to write it anyway. You win, Ray. I don't exactly know what you've "won", but pretty soon you will be successful at turning away (and off) many more people who would otherwise enjoy this group. Then you can have the whole thing to yourself and write the same thing over and over to an audience of one.

Well said, Ellen. I agree with you totally.





Tracy...

My sentiments exactly!

...or take him to task, which does absolutely no good because he is as dense as a post.

And willfully so, which is more sinister.

RayS @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:50 pm wrote:

Angel @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:55 am wrote:In delving into the archives I read somewhere that Brown at one time admitted in an interview that the illegitimate son was just a hoax. I also read that he may have been so defensive because he suffered and died from a brain tumor. Is this right?

(Just objective opinions please)

My Objective Opinion is that your message is a hoax. Because you have listed no facts for it, just asking it as if it were true.
You all know how objective I am on this subject.

It is not necessary to disprove that which has not been proven.

Angel @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:46 am wrote:I guess Stefani has her reasons for letting such a rude, pompous, negative, jackass like Ray continue on this forum, but it certainly has ruined the fun and camaraderie we used to have. It used to be more spontaneous and friendly and everyone seemed to be at ease in discussing anything. There was good information and some carefree joking that made it all the more pleasant, but that's all changed. I now know that whatever I post there will be some snide remark that follows. The others have to either ignore his crap, post around it, or take him to task, which does absolutely no good because he is as dense as a post. I will continue to read the info because I am interested in the subject, but I do not wish to post much anymore because he has such a destructive influence. Maybe I'm not as "scholarly" as some on this forum, but I thought it was open to anyone who had something (constructive) to say. I am very disheartened because he has spoiled a very nice thing that I had looked forward to every day. I'm sure this note won't make any difference, but I felt the need to write it anyway. You win, Ray. I don't exactly know what you've "won", but pretty soon you will be successful at turning away (and off) many more people who would otherwise enjoy this group. Then you can have the whole thing to yourself and write the same thing over and over to an audience of one.

Mercy Sakes!!! You're beginning to sound a lot like Au**ey!
Thanks again for your very constructive and educational postings.
But calling Brown's solution a hoax really be positive since you admit no evidence for it, and have to ask others to comment? What about all the other writers who have a solutioni but "no documentary proof"?

Brown's Theory works best of all the books, that is why no one has ever written a book with another solution (to my knowledge).

For myself I fnid it intetesting to answer the rightful questions from skeptics. Or comment on others just as they have done unto me.

Arnold Brown says the murders were over the inheritance in a will. But no will was ever found, and Lawyer Jennings says there was no will. All true?
Thanks to "twinsrwe" I gave it more thought (Brown's theory did seem to fall short IMO) and came up with another reason - Part 4.

To recap the story. Part 1 explains why it was an intruder; else you have to concoct a theory why no bloody clothes or weapon was found.
Part 2 explains why it was a 'relative' (to explain Lizzie's actions, and why the Ruling Class did not fully prosecute). There was a case around Boston years earlier where a teenage boy killed younger children - given a life sentence. Think of all the unfavorable publicity for the town!
Part 3 explains why the fix was in, as many have said after the verdict.

I wasn't there with a videocamera, just have to surmise from the published books. I'd recommend this to the others who only seem to want to gossip about 'Legends of Lizzie'. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just should be in another thread.

RayS @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:49 pm wrote:For myself I fnid it intetesting to answer the rightful questions from skeptics. Or comment on others just as they have done unto me.

Arnold Brown says the murders were over the inheritance in a will. But no will was ever found, and Lawyer Jennings says there was no will. All true?
Thanks to "twinsrwe" I gave it more thought (Brown's theory did seem to fall short IMO) and came up with another reason - Part 4.

To recap the story. Part 1 explains why it was an intruder; else you have to concoct a theory why no bloody clothes or weapon was found.
Part 2 explains why it was a 'relative' (to explain Lizzie's actions, and why the Ruling Class did not fully prosecute). There was a case around Boston years earlier where a teenage boy killed younger children - given a life sentence. Think of all the unfavorable publicity for the town!
Part 3 explains why the fix was in, as many have said after the verdict.

I wasn't there with a videocamera, just have to surmise from the published books. I'd recommend this to the others who only seem to want to gossip about 'Legends of Lizzie'. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just should be in another thread.

First you have to prove the necessity for bloody clothing to exist. Then you have to prove that there was or was not any bloody clothing. There was no viable hatchet found as the murder weapon, does that preclude the use of something else as the murder weapon?

Thnaks for asking intelligent questions on the topic. Others can take note.

I haven't read "Homicide Investigation" or other technical books on the case. Note how the testimony about the Nicole-Ron murders applies to this one. "The murderer would have been covered with blood."

The absence of bloody clothing proves there was none on Lizzie or Bridget.
The tesimony then was that an ordinary hatchet was used. Those who invent other weapons must admit they are making it up!

I'm not convinced that there was a great deal of blood spatter from either Abby's or Andrew's murder. Given the severity of the wounds and what appears to have been a frenzied attack, there is remarkably little spatter. What does exist does not seem random, it seems localized. It seems limited to the direction the weapon had taken during the murders. How much blood spatter was on the back of Abby's dress? How much blood spatter was on the front of Andrew's shirt? They were a lot closer to the murder weapon than the attacker was!

This could mean that there was little, if any, noticeable blood on the attacker. Nobody was able to describe Lizzie's dress so nobody was in a position to describe the absence or presence of blood on Lizzie's dress. It could have been there and nobody noticed.

We have absolutely nothing conclusive to support the contentions that the attacker must have blood on their clothing or that there was or was not blood on Lizzie's clothing.

"We have absolutely nothing conclusive to support the contentions that the attacker must have blood on their clothing or that there was or was not blood on Lizzie's clothing."

Amen and Halleluia Brother Yooper. Can I get a witness? Once again, I can tell you - from experts (and I am NO expert on anything medical or forensic but I HAVE asked those who ARE) arterial spurting STOPS when the heart stops. The quantities of blood which show in the photos of the crime scene are seepage long, long after the killings. An attack as rapid and frenzied as the 19 blows to Abby's head,(and this by direct experimentation) can take as little as 20 seconds. You don't have to trust me- try it yourself with a stopwatch. The hatchet is not waved about the head after every stroke, nobody was standing in a shower of blood. And there was speculation on what the weapon was, if you recall. Axes, hatchets, candlestick edge, cleavers, anything with a sharp cutting edge. A hatchet was a real good candidate -why?- because an axe has such a long handle there is not enough swing radius. Stand in a corner and try it yourself and it will become abundantly apparent.

The fact that the weapon was not found does not mean it does not exist- it means that it was carried away , concealed and is still concealed somewhere, or it was found but not proven to be the weapon because it had been cleaned. This was 1892- not 2006 - tests were primitive. No bloody clothing found? Well, I want to know why the police never saw that paint-stained dress on Saturday, and of course the very obvious-how did it pop up Sunday in the kitchen on the shelf and was subsequently burned- 8 yards of smelly, burning cotton in a cook stove. I do not buy the "needing a hook" story. Poor Emma- she tried hard. I nearly failed Logic class, but I did learn one thing or two, you have to know all the factors in an equation before you can make any conclusions. Not finding a bloody dress and proving a weapon does not mean none ever existed.

You go, Shelley!

Let's see - maybe all the sensible theories had been enumerated. And then Brown wrote his. It works best for YOU, Mr. Ray. The lack of any new theories coming to light after the publication of his book is in no way any support for his book as the definitive solution.

The murder weapon might have been a ripping or framing hammer with straight claws. If the claws were used instead of a hatchet they might roughly approximate the same damage.

The claw of a hatchet would leave a double gouge, rather than an incised wound.
In Abbie's case there are incised wounds:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

I'm picturing the part of a *hammer* that removes a nail when you call it a *claw.*

I'm also wondering why, if one had a hatchet they would use the other end, and not the blade: especially when it's claimed the weapon was a sharp blade.

BTW: You guys have an Ignore Button and it really does work.
Since you all know you won't be missing anything that you haven't already read before, it's a good idea to use it. Your blood pressure will go down.

Angel @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:46 am wrote:I guess Stefani has her reasons for letting such a rude, pompous, negative, jackass like Ray continue on this forum, but it certainly has ruined the fun and camaraderie we used to have. It used to be more spontaneous and friendly and everyone seemed to be at ease in discussing anything. There was good information and some carefree joking that made it all the more pleasant, but that's all changed. I now know that whatever I post there will be some snide remark that follows. The others have to either ignore his crap, post around it, or take him to task, which does absolutely no good because he is as dense as a post. I will continue to read the info because I am interested in the subject, but I do not wish to post much anymore because he has such a destructive influence. Maybe I'm not as "scholarly" as some on this forum, but I thought it was open to anyone who had something (constructive) to say. I am very disheartened because he has spoiled a very nice thing that I had looked forward to every day. I'm sure this note won't make any difference, but I felt the need to write it anyway. You win, Ray. I don't exactly know what you've "won", but pretty soon you will be successful at turning away (and off) many more people who would otherwise enjoy this group. Then you can have the whole thing to yourself and write the same thing over and over to an audience of one.

Don't let anyone get you down, Ellen. The more we respond to those who behave in a disrespectful manner the more power we give them. As I like to say, "Don't feed the animals." Why stoop down to someone else's level and sling mud? Just use your ignore button and tune out the hot air. I have. Don't worry about not seeing some retaliatory remark made about you behind your back. We can't control small-minded people and their opinions are not worth getting a rash over.

You make some very good comments, Ellen. Keep it up!

-1bigsteve (o:

While the ignore button is a nice option, some feel we are forced to use it because one person is allowed to run amuck with ridiculous rantings and hurtful postings. No one else here conducts themselves in such a 'rude, pompous, negative, jackass' manner. Several people have voiced their displeasure, yet this lack of good manners and respect for others is allowed to continue.

Also, using the ignore button sometimes messes up the flow of conversation/postings. It would be nice if we didn't HAVE to use it.





Tracy...

theebmonique @ Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:23 am wrote:While the ignore button is a nice option, some feel we are forced to use it because one person is allowed to run amuck with ridiculous rantings and hurtful postings. No one else here conducts themselves in such a 'rude, pompous, negative, jackass' manner. Several people have voiced their displeasure, yet this lack of good manners and respect for others is allowed to continue.

Also, using the ignore button sometimes messes up the flow of conversation/postings. It would be nice if we didn't HAVE to use it.





Tracy...

So true.

I find it helpful to just skip over that person's post and then if it breaks the continuity I'll go back, grit my teeth, and quickly scan the post to get their point (if he has one) before moving on. I don't like to respond to it. When one person is being rude to someone on this forum then that person is being rude to all of us. I've left several forums because of that kind of treatment. I expect to see that kind of thing at a zoo but not among grown people.

Maybe if we stop feeding the animal he'll go away?

-1bigsteve (o:

I doubt he will go away, he seems quite amused with himself. It is a shame we all have to step around the troublemaker who has made this forum alot less enjoyable to visit. Even if you tell him you are ignoring him, he feels compelled to answer all of your posts and throw in a good insult here and there. I don't see any other members here insulting, attacking, annoying, or harrassing other members except for Rays. Why is this behavior allowed? I wish there was a magic "delete" button.

I'm reading him so you guys don't have to. It's just blowing smoke and no substance. I really don't think jumping over a post interrupts the flow because we have read it all before.
I've heard that the button works.
You won't be missing anything at all.
Have you'all given it a try?
Give it a week, as Dr. Phil would say...

Kat, your efforts are very much appreciated, however, the fact is that you are having to deal with something you should NOT have to deal with.

I know that ignoring SHOULD make it better, but it DOES NOT. At least it hasn't so far.

Like many others, I have to wonder WHY this cruel, inane, childish behavior is allowed to continue, seemingly unrestricted ? WHY ???





Tracy...

Actually, Dr. Phil says give it a month, when he suggests an alternative behaviour.
Have you used the ignore button?

If you are asking me...yes.





Tracy...

Thank you Tracy.

Angel @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:46 am wrote:I guess Stefani has her reasons for letting such a rude, pompous, negative, jackass like Ray continue on this forum, but it certainly has ruined the fun and camaraderie we used to have. It used to be more spontaneous and friendly and everyone seemed to be at ease in discussing anything. There was good information and some carefree joking that made it all the more pleasant, but that's all changed. I now know that whatever I post there will be some snide remark that follows. The others have to either ignore his crap, post around it, or take him to task, which does absolutely no good because he is as dense as a post. I will continue to read the info because I am interested in the subject, but I do not wish to post much anymore because he has such a destructive influence. Maybe I'm not as "scholarly" as some on this forum, but I thought it was open to anyone who had something (constructive) to say. I am very disheartened because he has spoiled a very nice thing that I had looked forward to every day. I'm sure this note won't make any difference, but I felt the need to write it anyway. You win, Ray. I don't exactly know what you've "won", but pretty soon you will be successful at turning away (and off) many more people who would otherwise enjoy this group. Then you can have the whole thing to yourself and write the same thing over and over to an audience of one.

Don't let the door hit your back on the way out. Thank you!

You haven't answered my question about your relation to Au**ey.

Yooper @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:01 pm wrote:

RayS @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:49 pm wrote:For myself I fnid it interesting to answer the rightful questions from skeptics. Or comment on others just as they have done unto me.
...
I wasn't there with a videocamera, just have to surmise from the published books. I'd recommend this to the others who only seem to want to gossip about 'Legends of Lizzie'. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just should be in another thread.

First you have to prove the necessity for bloody clothing to exist. Then you have to prove that there was or was not any bloody clothing. There was no viable hatchet found as the murder weapon, does that preclude the use of something else as the murder weapon?

But if there were no bloodstains why did those who were around that day believe there were bloodstains?
What were the comments and questions from the lawyers at the Trial?

While a single blow to the skull can kill, death may not be instantenous and blood could still spurt out. Certainly the victim would become unconscious. I wonder what Lemoyne Snyder or other experts would say?

Angel @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:46 am wrote:I guess Stefani has her reasons for letting such a rude, pompous, negative, jackass like Ray continue on this forum, but it certainly has ruined the fun and camaraderie we used to have. It used to be more spontaneous and friendly and everyone seemed to be at ease in discussing anything. There was good information and some carefree joking that made it all the more pleasant, but that's all changed. I now know that whatever I post there will be some snide remark that follows. The others have to either ignore his crap, post around it, or take him to task, which does absolutely no good because he is as dense as a post. I will continue to read the info because I am interested in the subject, but I do not wish to post much anymore because he has such a destructive influence. Maybe I'm not as "scholarly" as some on this forum, but I thought it was open to anyone who had something (constructive) to say. I am very disheartened because he has spoiled a very nice thing that I had looked forward to every day. I'm sure this note won't make any difference, but I felt the need to write it anyway. You win, Ray. I don't exactly know what you've "won", but pretty soon you will be successful at turning away (and off) many more people who would otherwise enjoy this group. Then you can have the whole thing to yourself and write the same thing over and over to an audience of one.

I'm with Ellen on this one... Enough is enough, Ray; give it a rest.

RayS @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:18 pm wrote:

Yooper @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:01 pm wrote:

RayS @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:49 pm wrote:For myself I fnid it interesting to answer the rightful questions from skeptics. Or comment on others just as they have done unto me.
...
I wasn't there with a videocamera, just have to surmise from the published books. I'd recommend this to the others who only seem to want to gossip about 'Legends of Lizzie'. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just should be in another thread.

First you have to prove the necessity for bloody clothing to exist. Then you have to prove that there was or was not any bloody clothing. There was no viable hatchet found as the murder weapon, does that preclude the use of something else as the murder weapon?

But if there were no bloodstains why did those who were around that day believe there were bloodstains?
What were the comments and questions from the lawyers at the Trial?

While a single blow to the skull can kill, death may not be instantenous and blood could still spurt out. Certainly the victim would become unconscious. I wonder what Lemoyne Snyder or other experts would say?

I can't quite remember who thought there were bloodstains that day. As to why they would believe there were, I haven't a clue. No one could remember the presence of them in testimony.

I would like nothing better than expert testimony about bloodstains based upon the spatter patterns from the Borden case! We might put the question about the absence or presence of bloodstains to rest.

On the matter of the nature of the murder weapon and what became of it, it's interesting to note in the Knowlton Papers how many people wrote to the good prosecutor suggesting a flatiron as the device of choice. And wasn't Lizzie heating up some of those?
Personally, I subscribe to the hatchet theory; and my number one suspect for having removed it from the premises is Seabury Bowen. In that chaotic and hopelessly compromised crime scene, it would not have been difficult for Bowen to secrete and remove a weapon such as a hatchet in his bag. The matter of the note about which he was so evasive suggests to me that he may have been of a mind to assist Lizzie for whatever reasons he may have had.

On the matter of the nature of the murder weapon and what became of it, it's interesting to note in the Knowlton Papers how many people wrote to the good prosecutor suggesting a flatiron as the device of choice. And wasn't Lizzie heating up some of those?
Personally, I subscribe to the hatchet theory; and my number one suspect for having removed it from the premises is Seabury Bowen. In that chaotic and hopelessly compromised crime scene, it would not have been difficult for Bowen to secrete and remove a weapon such as a hatchet in his bag. The matter of the note about which he was so evasive suggests to me that he may have been of a mind to assist Lizzie for whatever reasons he may have had.

[quote="Angel @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:55 am"]In delving into the archives I read somewhere that Brown at one time admitted in an interview that the illegitimate son was just a hoax. I also read that he may have been so defensive because he suffered and died from a brain tumor. Is this right?

(Just objective opinions please)[/quote]

There was HUGE flaw in Brown's book/theory that I am surprised no one picked up on it. At least in all my readings I haven't seen it pointed out. Brown claimed William Borden reeked of horse urine and that the smell was so bad that allegedly it made a woman sick when she passed by him while he was standing in the Bordens yard. (I'm not saying this is true, just quoting Brown's book). If he smelled that bad he could not have hidden in the Borden house for any length of time undetected, because he'd be noticed from the smell. AND If he hid in the house for over an hour between the murders not only would someone notice, but the smell, being that strong, according to Brown, it would have lingered esp. on a hot August day............ For me, that killed Brown's theory the minute I read his book! I'm really surprised no one picked that up and I've read dozens of book reviews on Brown's book trying to see if anyone caught that.

Steven

I had always heard that there was no proof that Willaim was any relation to Andrew. That of course doesn't mean that he isn't, they just haven't found the connection yet, if there is any.

Use the ignore button if you all don't want to pay attention to Ray, now everyone try to get along.

Roy Nickerson @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:00 am wrote:On the matter of the nature of the murder weapon and what became of it, it's interesting to note in the Knowlton Papers how many people wrote to the good prosecutor suggesting a flatiron as the device of choice. And wasn't Lizzie heating up some of those?
Personally, I subscribe to the hatchet theory; and my number one suspect for having removed it from the premises is Seabury Bowen. In that chaotic and hopelessly compromised crime scene, it would not have been difficult for Bowen to secrete and remove a weapon such as a hatchet in his bag. The matter of the note about which he was so evasive suggests to me that he may have been of a mind to assist Lizzie for whatever reasons he may have had.

WHAT possible motive would an MD have for becoming part of a murder conspiracy? It doesn't compute. Has any reponsible author ever suggested this? It seems like some sort or wild guess.
You are free to do so, but don't complain about being questioned.

snokkums @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:09 pm wrote:I had always heard that there was no proof that Willaim was any relation to Andrew. That of course doesn't mean that he isn't, they just haven't found the connection yet, if there is any.

You are quite right. Brown admits the Mass birth certificate does not list the father. This supports the claim of an affair with someone. The legends about this case in some quarters, usually suppressed in the past.
Could anyone find this official document?

StevenB @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:48 pm wrote:

Angel @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:55 am wrote:In delving into the archives I read somewhere that Brown at one time admitted in an interview that the illegitimate son was just a hoax. I also read that he may have been so defensive because he suffered and died from a brain tumor. Is this right?
(Just objective opinions please)

There was HUGE flaw in Brown's book/theory that I am surprised no one picked up on it. At least in all my readings I haven't seen it pointed out. Brown claimed William Borden reeked of horse urine and that the smell was so bad that allegedly it made a woman sick when she passed by him while he was standing in the Bordens yard. (I'm not saying this is true, just quoting Brown's book). If he smelled that bad he could not have hidden in the Borden house for any length of time undetected, because he'd be noticed from the smell. AND If he hid in the house for over an hour between the murders not only would someone notice, but the smell, being that strong, according to Brown, it would have lingered esp. on a hot August day............ For me, that killed Brown's theory the minute I read his book! I'm really surprised no one picked that up and I've read dozens of book reviews on Brown's book trying to see if anyone caught that.
Steven

I believe that many people then neither used deodorants (invented in the 1930s) or bathed daily. Clothes were seldom washed, no dry cleaners.
The real fallacy is to suppose that the sensitivity of one woman would be matched by others. Ever live on a farm? Visit the cow barn or pasture. Yes, the air is fresh, but if you spend time in a cow or horse barn you might become inured to this smell. (Don't ask me to prove this to you.)

Does anyone take notice of the smell of car exhaust? Its so common as to not be noticed. I think you are making up a reason to reject the solution.

Arnold Brown's theory is correct as it leads to a reasonable solution to the crime.
But as I mentioned before, it is based on two people's recoverd memories. (Trust them?). Ellan Eagan never knew Wm S Borden. Henry Hathaway did, but was not present at the scene. I believe that if Ellan did tell the police about the stranger they would have wrapped it up in a couple of day once they learned about that cousin of Lizzie's. IMO

Roy Nickerson @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:02 am wrote:On the matter of the nature of the murder weapon and what became of it, it's interesting to note in the Knowlton Papers how many people wrote to the good prosecutor suggesting a flatiron as the device of choice. And wasn't Lizzie heating up some of those?
Personally, I subscribe to the hatchet theory; and my number one suspect for having removed it from the premises is Seabury Bowen. In that chaotic and hopelessly compromised crime scene, it would not have been difficult for Bowen to secrete and remove a weapon such as a hatchet in his bag. The matter of the note about which he was so evasive suggests to me that he may have been of a mind to assist Lizzie for whatever reasons he may have had.

Those who suggested a flatiron merely showed their ignorance of the case. Those who were the authorities knew what the murder weapon was.
Those who fantasize about an "ice axe" and somesuch merely show their own bentness of mind. IMO
Ignore me if you please, but I won't ignore you.

twinsrwe @ Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:44 pm wrote:

Angel @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:46 am wrote:I guess Stefani has her reasons for letting such a rude, pompous, negative, jackass like Ray continue on this forum, but it certainly has ruined the fun and camaraderie we used to have. It used to be more spontaneous and friendly and everyone seemed to be at ease in discussing anything. There was good information and some carefree joking that made it all the more pleasant, but that's all changed. I now know that whatever I post there will be some snide remark that follows. The others have to either ignore his crap, post around it, or take him to task, which does absolutely no good because he is as dense as a post. I will continue to read the info because I am interested in the subject, but I do not wish to post much anymore because he has such a destructive influence. Maybe I'm not as "scholarly" as some on this forum, but I thought it was open to anyone who had something (constructive) to say. I am very disheartened because he has spoiled a very nice thing that I had looked forward to every day. I'm sure this note won't make any difference, but I felt the need to write it anyway. You win, Ray. I don't exactly know what you've "won", but pretty soon you will be successful at turning away (and off) many more people who would otherwise enjoy this group. Then you can have the whole thing to yourself and write the same thing over and over to an audience of one.

I'm with Ellen on this one... Enough is enough, Ray; give it a rest.

WHO really needs a rest? WHAT is to be accomplished by attacking a person who believes in what he says? Because you can't refute my reasoning? Anger is no substitute for truth and facts.

I'll give it a rest after Part 4 is posted. You will be free to comment on it.

Hello, StevenB, welcome to the forum!

I don't know whether you are referring to the forum or to the books on the crime about references to the smell.

We have in the past, on this forum, discussed the lingering effects that would permeate the house. A stay of over an hour and a half would certainly leave its mark. It is one of the many holes in Brown's book.

Again, welcome.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, it is obviously untrue that Arnold Brown ever said his book was a hoax. That letter from circa 1992 is not a hoax either. Righteous anger permeates it.