Welcome to the Arnold Brown discussion forum

[Harry]

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.

[twinsrwe]

Harry, you are absolutely right! I truly apologize, because I have been, one of the members, submitting a great deal of the posting regarding Brown and his theory. It is very sad that, almost, everytime an attempt is made to post anything relevant regarding Lizzie, the poster gets beat over the head with "Brown" stuff.

[Harry]

Oh No, Judy, please! I was absolutely not referring to you or your posts. It was just a general statement. Please continue your discussion. Please.

It just so frustrating to see so many posts about this one book.

I'm not in the best of moods. My DSL connection is down. I talked to 7 Earthlink technicians (and barely understood a word they said as they were all over seas) this morning and I am now waiting to hear from the telephone company. I am using dial-up at the moment. Grrrrrrr. Where's my hatchet!

[theebmonique]

I agree Harry...too much of an already bad thing, is TOO MUCH. Ray needs to start his own forum. A healthy and logical disdussion is one thing...but they way some seemingly unrelated threads get twisted until they turn BROWN...is becoming most tiresome.

Judy, your discussions/explanations have been informative and enlightening. Thank you.





Tracy...

[twinsrwe]

Oh No, Judy, please! I was absolutely not referring to you or your posts. It was just a general statement. Please continue your discussion. Please.

It just so frustrating to see so many posts about this one book.

I'm not in the best of moods. My DSL connection is down. I talked to 7 Earthlink technicians (and barely understood a word they said as they were all over seas) this morning and I am now waiting to hear from the telephone company. I am using dial-up at the moment. Grrrrrrr. Where's my hatchet!

Thank-you Harry. I do put a great deal of thought into my post(s) before submitting them. Hopefully, my posts are making a valid point regarding the holes I am finding in Brown's theory.

I can certainly appreciate your frustration when it comes to seeing so many posts about this one man and his book. Last evening I went to check my e-mail and received 6 messages, all from the forum, and all regarding Brown. Good gravy! The 3 posts that I submitted early this morning on the "Trial being fixed" thread, I'd written, and sat on, for a couple of days before actually posting them.

I'm sorry to hear you are having such a bad day. I hope it turns around for you soon.

[twinsrwe]

I agree Harry...too much of an already bad thing, is TOO MUCH. Ray needs to start his own forum. A healthy and logical disdussion is one thing...but they way some seemingly unrelated threads get twisted until they turn BROWN...is becoming most tiresome.

Judy, your discussions/explanations have been informative and enlightening. Thank you.

Tracy...

Thank-you, Tracy. My intent has been to post informative information - it is a real bonus when a member finds them enlightening.

[RayS]

Now I know how General Custer must have felt on the banks of the Little Big Horn. Outnumbered, but they fought on. General Custer won every battle he was ever in except for his last one.

My New Year's Resolutions and my schedule will limit me somewhat this month. I'm glad you are all enjoying this topic as much as I am.

Some people just love to complain!!! This doesn't mean YOU.

[RayS]

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.

So what book do you want to concentrate on?

Edmund Pearson's book was said to be literary hoax.
Edward Radin's book was good, but wrong to accuse the innocent Bridget.
Victoria Lincoln's book was wrong as well, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Robert Sullivan's book was wrong, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Frank Spiering's book was very wrong to accuse innocent Emma of the crime.
William Masterton's book did not solve the crime, but correctly said Lizzie Didn't Do It.
Arnold Brown's book provided the best logical solution to the crime. IMO

If I've missed any other books, please feel free to add to this list.

[RayS]

Harry, you are absolutely right! I truly apologize, because I have been, one of the members, submitting a great deal of the posting regarding Brown and his theory. It is very sad that, almost, everytime an attempt is made to post anything relevant regarding Lizzie, the poster gets beat over the head with "Brown" stuff.

You are always free to comment favorably or not on Brown's book.
The best way to test any thesis is to question it.

Brown alone admitted "he couldn't prove it". Note how sure the other writers about this case were!!!

[snokkums]

Sorry if I seem to be posting stuff on browns book. Sometimes I answer a thread if I think it is a good one, not because of any perticular book or author.

[DWilly]

Harry, you are absolutely right! I truly apologize, because I have been, one of the members, submitting a great deal of the posting regarding Brown and his theory. It is very sad that, almost, everytime an attempt is made to post anything relevant regarding Lizzie, the poster gets beat over the head with "Brown" stuff.

You are always free to comment favorably or not on Brown's book.
The best way to test any thesis is to question it.

Brown alone admitted "he couldn't prove it". Note how sure the other writers about this case were!!!

Well, if Brown said he couldn't prove it than what makes you think you can? Do you have any new information which confirms anything Brown claimed?

[sguthmann]

I think that Brown's book was good in that it did offer some thinking outside the proverbial box, however, theories based loosely on facts and without any concrete or public proof to back them up simply don't hold much water. In reading Brown, I felt more entertained than enlightened, but that's not entirely negative. Since no one can say with 100% how and by whom this crime was committed, theorists do your worst! (And some literally do just that.) But I can't help but feel that having an exchange of ideas, opinions, and theories is healthy in the long run. And it certainly keeps things interesting!

I enjoy this forum for its diversity. RayS and Brown's book are part of that diversity, so long as comments are kept at a cordial level (perhaps more "cordial" than dear Lizzie took the word to mean, eh?) And I think that theories that get people talking (posting) and perhaps stir up a little emotion in the process are good for the discussion as a whole.

Re: Brown, his theory, and RayS's comments, my only other opinion is that I wish more energy went into new research attempts rather than banter about who's right about what. If you believe in what Brown proposed, good - go forth and try to corraborate it. If not, fine, and do the same. Overall, it would be more productive, and not the "same ol', same ol'."

On a side note, perhaps the greatest frustration I have with this wonderful forum is that topics, once begun, seem to quickly wander from their intended subject matter. IMO, talk about whatever you want to, just do it under the appropriate topic (or start your own). Sometimes it seems that a thread has no more than just started, and suddenly its off-track or personal comments are coming into play. I just don't see either behavior as condusive to our discussions, especially in this unique "message board" format.

There! My 2 cents, and then some!

[snokkums]

I think that Brown's book was good in that it did offer some thinking outside the proverbial box, however, theories based loosely on facts and without any concrete or public proof to back them up simply don't hold much water. In reading Brown, I felt more entertained than enlightened, but that's not entirely negative. Since no one can say with 100% how and by whom this crime was committed, theorists do your worst! (And some literally do just that.) But I can't help but feel that having an exchange of ideas, opinions, and theories is healthy in the long run. And it certainly keeps things interesting!

I enjoy this forum for its diversity. RayS and Brown's book are part of that diversity, so long as comments are kept at a cordial level (perhaps more "cordial" than dear Lizzie took the word to mean, eh?) And I think that theories that get people talking (posting) and perhaps stir up a little emotion in the process are good for the discussion as a whole.

Re: Brown, his theory, and RayS's comments, my only other opinion is that I wish more energy went into new research attempts rather than banter about who's right about what. If you believe in what Brown proposed, good - go forth and try to corraborate it. If not, fine, and do the same. Overall, it would be more productive, and not the "same ol', same ol'."

On a side note, perhaps the greatest frustration I have with this wonderful forum is that topics, once begun, seem to quickly wander from their intended subject matter. IMO, talk about whatever you want to, just do it under the appropriate topic (or start your own). Sometimes it seems that a thread has no more than just started, and suddenly its off-track or personal comments are coming into play. I just don't see either behavior as condusive to our discussions, especially in this unique "message board" format.

There! My 2 cents, and then some!

I think he does go outside the box too, and I do to think he is more enlightend than right than anything else.

I know I answer posts that I think I can contribute too not necessararily whether or not it is a brown book or not. You need to get over whether or not it's a brown book or not. Who cares? I post something when I have a question on something, even if it does come out of one of his books. Some of you are more knowledgable than I am on Lizzie, that's why I ask. I mean who cares if it came out of Browns books? If you don't like it go to another forum or get over it.

[theebmonique]

Harry is one of THE most knowledgable persons on this forum. I may not agree with him on everything, but this time I do.

I believe that diversity is a good thing too. However, overdosing on a particular topic is not. Brown does NOT have to be inserted into nearly every thread.

It's not a matter of just "getting over it". I suggested Ray have his own Arnold Brown forum so that he (and maybe others) would possibly find a community more amenable to his thoughts and ideas. It's not like people are forced to leave this forum if they have their own or visit other forums.





Tracy...




Tracy...

[RayS]

I think that Brown's book was good in that it did offer some thinking outside the proverbial box, however, theories based loosely on facts and without any concrete or public proof to back them up simply don't hold much water. In reading Brown, I felt more entertained than enlightened, but that's not entirely negative. Since no one can say with 100% how and by whom this crime was committed, theorists do your worst! (And some literally do just that.) But I can't help but feel that having an exchange of ideas, opinions, and theories is healthy in the long run. And it certainly keeps things interesting!

I enjoy this forum for its diversity. RayS and Brown's book are part of that diversity, so long as comments are kept at a cordial level (perhaps more "cordial" than dear Lizzie took the word to mean, eh?) And I think that theories that get people talking (posting) and perhaps stir up a little emotion in the process are good for the discussion as a whole.

Re: Brown, his theory, and RayS's comments, my only other opinion is that I wish more energy went into new research attempts rather than banter about who's right about what. If you believe in what Brown proposed, good - go forth and try to corraborate it. If not, fine, and do the same. Overall, it would be more productive, and not the "same ol', same ol'."

On a side note, perhaps the greatest frustration I have with this wonderful forum is that topics, once begun, seem to quickly wander from their intended subject matter. IMO, talk about whatever you want to, just do it under the appropriate topic (or start your own). Sometimes it seems that a thread has no more than just started, and suddenly its off-track or personal comments are coming into play. I just don't see either behavior as condusive to our discussions, especially in this unique "message board" format.

There! My 2 cents, and then some!

Actually, First Class mail is now 39 cents, the "2 cents" in that saying goes back to around 1932. IMO.

"Proof" has many meanings. There is the proof of a legal verdict that resists appeal. THAT will never happen in this case.
There is the scientific proof of repeatibility in a laboratory experiment. Never will happen in this unsolved murder.
"Proof" is also defined as a rational argument for a certain thesis. THAT is what I meant in my topics. No one can prove Brown's theory, but it can be disproved by some new uncovered fact. This will never happen, either. IMO.

So what is left? Its like arguing over what could have happend in a 50 years old World Series game if something had happened. You might have known some who do talk about this. Could Graziano have defeated Mohammed Ali? Blah, blah, blah.

At least Brown, who was not a professional writer, found new evidence (the memoirs of Henry Hathaway) and reinvestigated the Legend. He came to a conclusion that I believe best explains the mystery.
For the reasons given in Parts 1 to 5.

[theebmonique]

If Brown found those memoirs...then where are they now ???





Tracy...

[Bob Gutowski]

I know a great book! It's called The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker, and it explains the stalker mentality. You know, those people who get an idea in their heads that overshadows all others, one they simply cannot let go of? According to de Becker, any attention shown a stalker is encouraging to him or her.

[Richard]

I just got the Brown book in the mail from eBay and read the first 30 pages or so.

I do have the same question: Where is the Hathaway memoirs? Do we have the original manuscript? Wouldn't the existence of these papers be part of a serious evaluation of the evidence?

[Kat]

This is Ray quoted from what he posted, above:

So what book do you want to concentrate on?

Edmund Pearson's book was said to be literary hoax.
Edward Radin's book was good, but wrong to accuse the innocent Bridget.
Victoria Lincoln's book was wrong as well, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Robert Sullivan's book was wrong, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Frank Spiering's book was very wrong to accuse innocent Emma of the crime.
William Masterton's book did not solve the crime, but correctly said Lizzie Didn't Do It.
Arnold Brown's book provided the best logical solution to the crime. IMO

If I've missed any other books, please feel free to add to this list.
_________________

There is a misconception here and I aim to elucidate this.
This is the 21st century. We are using computers to reach out and discuss this case from myriad points on the compass.

These authors are valid works but they are de trop at this point, here and now.
No disrepect toward any of these people who have invested time and effort into writing a book. A popular book at that.

But, in this age of self-publishing, and on-demand publishing, we all can be authors.

I think personally Ray, singling you out here, that you are a Library Book Snob.
This is evident. You've said as much, yourself. I think this a major clashing point.
We have so much more material nowadays at our fingertips and are trained by our more recent schooling to think for ourselves.
It may be a clash in cultures.

But we can know as much if not more about this case than any of the authors you cited.

That is the bottom line.

Just because an author is published doesn't make them the holy word on the Borden case.

I am a published author on this case.
Others here are published authors on this case.
You give no respect to these modern, and current authors.
You say they must be in a Library.
Well, our Hatchets are in the library. They are also in the FRHS.
Have you attempted to aquire any of these? Have you ever updated your reading?
Have you even ever read an LBQ, which retired in the last century?
Have you used your local Library to get online searches of old newspapers?
Have you ever downloaded the Source documents from the website, For Free? And read them?

That is what I personally object to. I object to the lack of any initiative on your part to update your understanding of the case. That might tell me you are stubborn, maybe close-minded? If so, why bother here?
You are pushing a theory that is out-of-date and not very germaine. This case does evolve. Our understanding does evolve. You ask where is the new research? It is there. It is here - if you pay attention- it is in any single back issue of TILBA, The Lizzie Borden Quarterly, The Hatchet, Len Rebello's reference work. Until you unbend and get acquainted with what's new, you are being left behind. I think that is why you are perceived as having circular thinking.
There is plenty of free stuff on the website to get you more current.
If you don't take advantage of it and get some new info, you will be consigned to the past as an anachronism.
This is sad to explain to you. Sorry.

These books named above can have their own topics started to discuss them. They are a good foundation. But they don't have a place in every discussion because we are past that.
We are not set up to be a Libary book discussion round, only.
We want to move forward.

[Nadzieja]

I'm new to this forum and have asked for book references etc..... After I get through these books, and I've also subscribed to the Hatchet I'll have more of an idea of what really went on as far as we can possibly know. Please be patient with the questions which I'm sure I'll have. I was able to log into the Boston Public Library and read some of the old papers. I've been writing down the important dates so I can look more of them up. I just wonder about the sensational headlines and what was printed. How much did they print to sell papers and how much did they print to tell the truth. Did anyone ever interview or get any quotes from any of the jurors? Thank you all for your patience.

[sguthmann]

I'm new to this forum and have asked for book references etc..... After I get through these books, and I've also subscribed to the Hatchet I'll have more of an idea of what really went on as far as we can possibly know. Please be patient with the questions which I'm sure I'll have. I was able to log into the Boston Public Library and read some of the old papers. I've been writing down the important dates so I can look more of them up. I just wonder about the sensational headlines and what was printed. How much did they print to sell papers and how much did they print to tell the truth. Did anyone ever interview or get any quotes from any of the jurors? Thank you all for your patience.

Aw, you'll be just fine! You're already taking the right approach, IMO, by seeking out a variety of references and source documents, not to mention researching some of the contemporary paper articles on your own. Bravo! And as others have correctly pointed out, take advantage of all the resources available through this great website and forum. Don't worry about asking questions. We're receptive!

[Kat]

I have made a mistake as to when the LBQ stopped publishing.

I believe it was October, 2003. That is this century!

[Shelley]

Harry! Were you calling out for a hatchet?
Dial-up is motive for murder,- Here, borrow mine. Sorry it's ..uh... brown.

[Kat]

Somewhere around here I posted info on a juror from the newspaper, who supposedly spoke up with details.
Others are better at searching this site than I am- I rely on that!

[Kat]

I have a strange little hatchet Stefani gave me.

Maybe it is a salesman's sample?

It's about 9" long from the top of the blade.

[Harry]

Thank you ladies for the offer of the hatchets! Had I had them yesterday there might be 7 less Earthlink technicians.

Welcome, Nadzieja!

[snokkums]

Thank you Harry. Hope I didn't offend you with my remarks. I always ask a question on anything, even if it did come out of browns book. You are more knowlegdeable on lizzie than I am.

[snokkums]

Oh, almost forgot, welcome to hte forum Nadzieja.

[diana]

Somewhere around here I posted info on a juror from the newspaper, who supposedly spoke up with details.
Others are better at searching this site than I am- I rely on that!

Kat, I think what you're referring to here is posted in the Privy under "Was Lizzie Eccentric, Witless or Cunning". It's on page 2 of that thread.

[Kat]

Thanks a bunch! I'll go get it.

[Kat]

This is for Nadzieja:

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:43 am Post subject:
I figured I'd better back up what I posted.
This is from the Fall River Weekly News- hand-dated June 28, 1893, but I'm not sure that is correct. The date might be closer to the closing of the trial. [Edit here now, Jan 5: I noted this is a Weekly so the date is correct]

"Juror Cole's Story"
"Juror Frank G. Cole, of Attleboro, said an agreement had been made not to tell how many ballots were taken, and he did not wish to break it. It was learned from him, however, that, after entering the jury room,they waited a few minutes for some photographs which were to be seen. When these came they looked them over; then the foreman asked how they better proceed. Some one suggested an informal ballot, and one was taken. Mr. Richards passed slips of paper, and each man marked guilty or not guilty; not guilty had it. There was really no need of the jury leaving their seats, for each man had his opinion fixed beforehand. As one of the jurors put it, it was only an act of courtesy to the district attorney.

After the informal, a formal ballot was taken, and that was unanimous for acquittal. Then the jury waited a while longer talking over and criticising evidence which had been presented. When it was thought sufficient time had been taken word was sent out that the jury was ready to report. The judges were not present, and there was more waiting until they returned.

The work of reaching a verdict did not occupy more than ten minutes. The decision was reached on the evidence, for the government had a very weak case and nothing to connect Lizzie with the murders. As to her real guilt the jurors held various opinions, but, of course, they had nothing but the evidence presented to them on which to base a verdict.

Mr. Cole said that in his opinion the same verdict would have been given if the defense had not put in any evidence.
.....
'I do not consider that the government presented the slightest evidence connecting Miss Borden with the murders, and I am convinced she is wholly innocent, and in this opinion, I believe I am agreed with the rest of the jury.' "

[Nadzieja]

Hi, That's a neat hatchet, I have never seen one like that before. except in the pictures in the Lizzie Borden books. Is it an antique? My question is why is there a notch on the bottom part of the blade?

[Nadzieja]

First of all, Thank you everybody for such a nice welcome. Kat I can't thank you enough for keying out that article about Juror Cole. I'm going to try to connect to the Fall River Library (like I did for Boston) and try to read the old newspapers on the internet. Hopefully they have this service available. I must say that (remember I don't have the knowledge you all have now) it just sounds so strange to me how this was decided so fast and not one ounce of debate or question. The only thing I can think of like you wrote was that the evidence was so weak. It makes me wonder what was excluded from the trial. I guess I better get going on these books.

[Nadzieja]

Hi, That's a neat hatchet, I have never seen one like that before. except in the pictures in the Lizzie Borden books. Is it an antique? My question is why is there a notch on the bottom part of the blade?

[Kat]

You're welcome. I think stories about the jurors are interesting too.

I think the notch is to remove nails.
We have a couple of people here who know about hatchets, bigsteve comes to mind, but he seems to be MIA.

I don't know if my little sample is an antique. I would think it might be.

[snokkums]

This is for Nadzieja:

Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:43 am Post subject:
I figured I'd better back up what I posted.
This is from the Fall River Weekly News- hand-dated June 28, 1893, but I'm not sure that is correct. The date might be closer to the closing of the trial. [Edit here now, Jan 5: I noted this is a Weekly so the date is correct]

"Juror Cole's Story"
"Juror Frank G. Cole, of Attleboro, said an agreement had been made not to tell how many ballots were taken, and he did not wish to break it. It was learned from him, however, that, after entering the jury room,they waited a few minutes for some photographs which were to be seen. When these came they looked them over; then the foreman asked how they better proceed. Some one suggested an informal ballot, and one was taken. Mr. Richards passed slips of paper, and each man marked guilty or not guilty; not guilty had it. There was really no need of the jury leaving their seats, for each man had his opinion fixed beforehand. As one of the jurors put it, it was only an act of courtesy to the district attorney.

After the informal, a formal ballot was taken, and that was unanimous for acquittal. Then the jury waited a while longer talking over and criticising evidence which had been presented. When it was thought sufficient time had been taken word was sent out that the jury was ready to report. The judges were not present, and there was more waiting until they returned.

The work of reaching a verdict did not occupy more than ten minutes. The decision was reached on the evidence, for the government had a very weak case and nothing to connect Lizzie with the murders. As to her real guilt the jurors held various opinions, but, of course, they had nothing but the evidence presented to them on which to base a verdict.

Mr. Cole said that in his opinion the same verdict would have been given if the defense had not put in any evidence.
.....
'I do not consider that the government presented the slightest evidence connecting Miss Borden with the murders, and I am convinced she is wholly innocent, and in this opinion, I believe I am agreed with the rest of the jury.' "

I think you must of had me in mind too Kat! I have always wondered if any of the jurors spoke up after the trial. And what they said. That was some interesting reading.

[RayS]

Hi, That's a neat hatchet, I have never seen one like that before. except in the pictures in the Lizzie Borden books. Is it an antique? My question is why is there a notch on the bottom part of the blade?

It may be used to hang a hatchet. You could try this at home, see if it will hang by a nail. I wonder if it could be used to remove a nail, because of the size of the head. Note the usual claw hammer.

[RayS]

First of all, Thank you everybody for such a nice welcome. Kat I can't thank you enough for keying out that article about Juror Cole. I'm going to try to connect to the Fall River Library (like I did for Boston) and try to read the old newspapers on the internet. Hopefully they have this service available. I must say that (remember I don't have the knowledge you all have now) it just sounds so strange to me how this was decided so fast and not one ounce of debate or question. The only thing I can think of like you wrote was that the evidence was so weak. It makes me wonder what was excluded from the trial. I guess I better get going on these books.

I think there is a David Kent book that contains clippings from the newspapers of 1892-1893 on this case. Any others?

You should know that newspapers then or now are not reliable. That is why jurors are told to avoid them during a trial.

[1bigsteve]

Harry! Were you calling out for a hatchet?
Dial-up is motive for murder,- Here, borrow mine. Sorry it's ..uh... brown.

That is a "broad axe", Shelley. It is designed to square-up a timber. That is why the hatchet head is flat on one side with the handle being off-center. It is not designed to split wood, just shave it off. But, Harry could really do some damage with it!!

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

I have a strange little hatchet Stefani gave me.

Maybe it is a salesman's sample?

It's about 9" long from the top of the blade.

That is a "full" shingling hatchet, as oppossed to a "half-hatchet" that roofers use today and also used in Lizzie's day. At 9" it's about as long as my hand. Too small for use so it is probably a salesman's sample or a boy's toy (got to help dear old dad). It looks like it is a better quality sample than the ones I've seen on eBay.

I don't think the "full" hatchet is made anymore and probably hasn't for many years. Its hard to nail into a tight corner. A half-hatchet has the top of the blade cut-off so the poll can drive a nail into those tight corners.

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

Hi, That's a neat hatchet, I have never seen one like that before. except in the pictures in the Lizzie Borden books. Is it an antique? My question is why is there a notch on the bottom part of the blade?

Welcome aboard, Nadzieja!


That is an old-style "full" shingling hatchet, no longer being made as far as I know. Vaughan makes a small one but it is called an "Oyster hatchet." Probably for knocking oysters off the rocks, not for shingling a roof.

The gap at the bottom is strictly for removing nails. Lizzie's HH full shingling hatchet had a cutting length of about 3 1/2". I have one just like her's that has an edge of 4 1/2". I've never seen another one that big. It's big enough to take someone's arm off. I love pulling it out at a construction site. It freaks the guys out. I'll bet you will never guess what I named it.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

You have Nine Inch Hands??!

[1bigsteve]

You have Nine Inch Hands??!

Not quite 9" but close. Lifting weights produces a strong grip and I have to be very careful when shaking hands with people. Big hands can be a royal pain at times. Ever notice the hands of some actors? Clint Eastwood has real long hands so did Walter Matthau. Watch him in "his" office talking with Audrey Hepburn in Charade. Chris Weber had the biggest hands in the NBA at one time at 10 1/2" long. Vivien Leigh had big hands she tried to conceal with bracelets and long sleeves. Maria Callas had big hands. Barbra Streisand has big hands too.

Big paws come in handy when wrapping them around a hatchet, axe or pick handle. I sometimes wonder if Lizzie had any trouble hanging onto her hatchet, if she did the killings herself. Anyone know her glove size?

-1bigsteve (o:

[RayS]

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.

Are we not free to discuss what we want to discuss?
Ever notice how there seems to be a style or tide in discussing various topics? Some are hot, then cool off.
Is there anything wrong with that?

SO why are you so prejudiced against Arnold Brown? I'll bet you never met him in person in your life!!!

Won't you admit he had the first new theory in decades on this old unsolved murder?

[Smudgeman]

This is Ray quoted from what he posted, above:

So what book do you want to concentrate on?

Edmund Pearson's book was said to be literary hoax.
Edward Radin's book was good, but wrong to accuse the innocent Bridget.
Victoria Lincoln's book was wrong as well, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Robert Sullivan's book was wrong, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Frank Spiering's book was very wrong to accuse innocent Emma of the crime.
William Masterton's book did not solve the crime, but correctly said Lizzie Didn't Do It.
Arnold Brown's book provided the best logical solution to the crime. IMO

If I've missed any other books, please feel free to add to this list.
_________________

There is a misconception here and I aim to elucidate this.
This is the 21st century. We are using computers to reach out and discuss this case from myriad points on the compass.

These authors are valid works but they are de trop at this point, here and now.
No disrepect toward any of these people who have invested time and effort into writing a book. A popular book at that.

But, in this age of self-publishing, and on-demand publishing, we all can be authors.

I think personally Ray, singling you out here, that you are a Library Book Snob.
This is evident. You've said as much, yourself. I think this a major clashing point.
We have so much more material nowadays at our fingertips and are trained by our more recent schooling to think for ourselves.
It may be a clash in cultures.

But we can know as much if not more about this case than any of the authors you cited.

That is the bottom line.

Just because an author is published doesn't make them the holy word on the Borden case.

I am a published author on this case.
Others here are published authors on this case.
You give no respect to these modern, and current authors.
You say they must be in a Library.
Well, our Hatchets are in the library. They are also in the FRHS.
Have you attempted to aquire any of these? Have you ever updated your reading?
Have you even ever read an LBQ, which retired in the last century?
Have you used your local Library to get online searches of old newspapers?
Have you ever downloaded the Source documents from the website, For Free? And read them?

That is what I personally object to. I object to the lack of any initiative on your part to update your understanding of the case. That might tell me you are stubborn, maybe close-minded? If so, why bother here?
You are pushing a theory that is out-of-date and not very germaine. This case does evolve. Our understanding does evolve. You ask where is the new research? It is there. It is here - if you pay attention- it is in any single back issue of TILBA, The Lizzie Borden Quarterly, The Hatchet, Len Rebello's reference work. Until you unbend and get acquainted with what's new, you are being left behind. I think that is why you are perceived as having circular thinking.
There is plenty of free stuff on the website to get you more current.
If you don't take advantage of it and get some new info, you will be consigned to the past as an anachronism.
This is sad to explain to you. Sorry.

These books named above can have their own topics started to discuss them. They are a good foundation. But they don't have a place in every discussion because we are past that.
We are not set up to be a Libary book discussion round, only.
We want to move forward.

I hope you don't mind kat, but in his haste, I think Ray failed to respond to any of this.

[RayS]

Actually, my time is limited, even more at this season. Sorry to miss it.

[Smudgeman]

Of course, you are busy......, my mistake.

[RayS]

This is Ray quoted from what he posted, above:

So what book do you want to concentrate on?

Edmund Pearson's book was said to be literary hoax.
Edward Radin's book was good, but wrong to accuse the innocent Bridget.
Victoria Lincoln's book was wrong as well, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Robert Sullivan's book was wrong, given Lizzie's acquittal.
Frank Spiering's book was very wrong to accuse innocent Emma of the crime.
William Masterton's book did not solve the crime, but correctly said Lizzie Didn't Do It.
Arnold Brown's book provided the best logical solution to the crime. IMO

If I've missed any other books, please feel free to add to this list.
_________________

There is a misconception here and I aim to elucidate this.
This is the 21st century. We are using computers to reach out and discuss this case from myriad points on the compass.

These authors are valid works but they are de trop at this point, here and now.
No disrepect toward any of these people who have invested time and effort into writing a book. A popular book at that.

But, in this age of self-publishing, and on-demand publishing, we all can be authors.

I think personally Ray, singling you out here, that you are a Library Book Snob.
This is evident. You've said as much, yourself. I think this a major clashing point.
We have so much more material nowadays at our fingertips and are trained by our more recent schooling to think for ourselves.
It may be a clash in cultures.

But we can know as much if not more about this case than any of the authors you cited.

That is the bottom line.

Just because an author is published doesn't make them the holy word on the Borden case.

I am a published author on this case.
Others here are published authors on this case.
You give no respect to these modern, and current authors.
You say they must be in a Library.
Well, our Hatchets are in the library. They are also in the FRHS.
Have you attempted to aquire any of these? Have you ever updated your reading?
Have you even ever read an LBQ, which retired in the last century?
Have you used your local Library to get online searches of old newspapers?
Have you ever downloaded the Source documents from the website, For Free? And read them?

That is what I personally object to. I object to the lack of any initiative on your part to update your understanding of the case. That might tell me you are stubborn, maybe close-minded? If so, why bother here?
You are pushing a theory that is out-of-date and not very germaine. This case does evolve. Our understanding does evolve. You ask where is the new research? It is there. It is here - if you pay attention- it is in any single back issue of TILBA, The Lizzie Borden Quarterly, The Hatchet, Len Rebello's reference work. Until you unbend and get acquainted with what's new, you are being left behind. I think that is why you are perceived as having circular thinking.
There is plenty of free stuff on the website to get you more current.
If you don't take advantage of it and get some new info, you will be consigned to the past as an anachronism.
This is sad to explain to you. Sorry.

These books named above can have their own topics started to discuss them. They are a good foundation. But they don't have a place in every discussion because we are past that.
We are not set up to be a Libary book discussion round, only.
We want to move forward.

This very long posting made the point that a self-published or "fanzine" is equal to the normal published hard copy book. It is not, IMO. Publishing a book requires time and money. Some people do publish propaganda for a point of view, or make errors (in the mind of the reader, of course). But the high costs for a revealed hoax make this less likely. An exposed writer will not likely be published again, or even go to jail (like the 1972? author who claimed to have Howard Hughes autobiography.
Remember James Frey?

I've heard about Wikipedia, but never tried it. What do others say?

Of course, a book must be able to attract a paying audience to be published. That does limit some new potential books, and the reprinting of old books. So it goes.

Most of all, all the people involved died before WW II, about the time I was born. IT CAN NEVER BE SOLVED IN A COURT OF LAW! We are merely showing off our knowledge and expertise, in some cases. In other cases people are just showing their prejudices and contrariness.
I maintain that Brown's Theory is the correct solution to this unsolved murder, and have so written my postings that way.

If I ever say someone else's views are wrong merely because it is not Brown's theory, you can complain about it. But the many postings here seem to show a frivolous and novel treatment of this case.

Was the murder done for hire? By a secret boyfriend of Lizzie? No one can ever prove it, no matter how many people here happen to believe it.

Just keep the propler perspective on this case, as I have done.
Your contrary comments will undoubtedly disagree.

[rgreen4411]

Will someone please provide a quick version of Brown's theory? Refresh my memory?

[Smudgeman]

You Have Got To Be Kidding Me? Sorry rgreen, but just read ANYTHING posted by Ray.