RayS, Reporting Posts, and Forum Rules

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:04 pm

It is a fact of life that those who do not share your taste in religion, politics, sports and teams, etc. are usually considered to be more or less inferior.
When I joined the earlier site, most people just laughed at my comments regarding Brown's book. "A work of fiction." Yet the 'Library Journal' said they recommended this book for all libraries. How many other books have that recommendation?
I soon realized that most members were members of the "Lizzie Dunnit" club. So I figured I could learn from what they had to say, IF they had anything that proved Brown wrong. Any book written by one person is likely to contain errors, somewhere.

Upon reading other books, fiction and non-fiction, I believe I came up with a theory that explained why Brown's explanation was correct.
But you are free to question this.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:37 pm

Admittedly I haven't read Brown's book yet. I would like to and then go back over all the posts that have been posted on this site and read through it all.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:13 pm

I believe that the sudden flurry of posts against me were part of a conspiracy. But I have no power to subpoena the Private Messages here.

Note that the individuals, having failed in their mission, have turned silent.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:14 pm

Richard @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:37 pm wrote:Admittedly I haven't read Brown's book yet. I would like to and then go back over all the posts that have been posted on this site and read through it all.

I still recommend David Kent's "Forty Whacks" as the one best book on this case. Then read what is in the library system, saving Brown's book as dessert. The final chapter?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:47 am

Hey Ray I found a book about your life in NY when you were a child. Are you familiar with the author? ha ha ha ha

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:46 am

" believe that the sudden flurry of posts against me were part of a conspiracy. But I have no power to subpoena the Private Messages here.

Note that the individuals, having failed in their mission, have turned silent.
"Geez, Ray. How could it be a conspiracy when it was all out in the open and posted? Mostly it was a plea for some plain courtesy and enough of BROWN being worked into every single thread already! Yeesh- that simple.

As far as voices being silent- well, for heaven's sakes , it is Christmas week and maybe people are BUSY. You can't expect to be the center of attention and controversy all of the time. Nothing sinister in having other things to do. Failure to achieve a mission? Bah- humbug....

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:19 am

Hi Shelley: Heard you were dressed "Period" yesterday? Did some women call to you on the street from her car and ask

where Lizzie was?

Stopped at the house yesterday (No. 92) to do a little research. Only Lee was there. Also roamed the FRHS a while and puchased a couple of Fall River books.

Also found a real nice clean copy of "Nine Pine Street" for 35 dollars. Coul !!!! I needed that one and have not seen one on a dealer shelf, in person, in almost 20 years.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:31 am

Hey! Glad to see you back home MB. I passed by your house on the way to look at the Maplecroft Fallen Maple, which I see is finally sawn in big chunks at last.

Yes, I had on my vintage duds and a few folks drove up to say a few "Lizzie" greetings- which is always fun! Actually my hat was a little too wide to be 1892- more like 1910, but it is always great to play dress-ups. Sorry I missed you at the house- I did not get back until 2 p.m.-hope you had a scone!

Where did you find Nine Pine St.- at the Historical Society booksale?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:00 pm

Yes Shelley, my sister said she saw you and called out to you from the car. LeeAnn described the way you were dressed and from what they both described it sounded like you. Good for you.

Yes, the FRHS has a little "Rare Book Display". The Display is in the room to the left as you come in the front door. There's another book I would like and may go back for it. The History of Assonet, MA.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:31 pm

Shelley @ Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:46 am wrote:" believe that the sudden flurry of posts against me were part of a conspiracy. But I have no power to subpoena the Private Messages here.

Note that the individuals, having failed in their mission, have turned silent.
"Geez, Ray. How could it be a conspiracy when it was all out in the open and posted? Mostly it was a plea for some plain courtesy and enough of BROWN being worked into every single thread already! Yeesh- that simple.

As far as voices being silent- well, for heaven's sakes , it is Christmas week and maybe people are BUSY. You can't expect to be the center of attention and controversy all of the time. Nothing sinister in having other things to do. Failure to achieve a mission? Bah- humbug....

Yes, its all about ME, isn't it? Pardon me.
When a group all seem to post on the same subject, what would you call it? A copycat plague? Its the planning of this action that would make it a conspiracy, since they always have to perform some overt act. IMO
You can look it up.
Not that the missing Au**ey also tried this last summer. It turned out to be the beginning of the end for her. But that seemed to be a coincidence.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:44 pm

This is my last post about you Ray. Frankly I am sick of hearing about Audrey whatever all that is all about- and your conspiracies and Arnold Brownitis. I am here to have fun and learn a few things and share a few things.

I hope you have a lovely holiday, think whatever you like about me and secrets and conspiracies, mustache-twirling evil-doers, dark motives, whatever-I doubt anybody even cares . And I believe I promised -with all good humor and holiday goodwill, a punch if I hear "look it up" so here it is. You bait people to a faretheewell, and so you get what you get.

Happy New Year, Happy Holidays, Good-bye etc. etc. Welcome to my Ignore Button till the end of time.

Moving right along to better times and happier people.....

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:37 pm

Shelley @ Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:44 pm wrote:This is my last post about you Ray. Frankly I am sick of hearing about Audrey whatever all that is all about- and your conspiracies and Arnold Brownitis. I am here to have fun and learn a few things and share a few things.

I hope you have a lovely holiday, think whatever you like about me and secrets and conspiracies, mustache-twirling evil-doers, dark motives, whatever-I doubt anybody even cares . And I believe I promised -with all good humor and holiday goodwill, a punch if I hear "look it up" so here it is. You bait people to a faretheewell, and so you get what you get.

Happy New Year, Happy Holidays, Good-bye etc. etc. Welcome to my Ignore Button till the end of time. Moving right along to better times and happier people.....

Perhaps I have the dreaded, incurable "Brown Brain" disease, more insidious than "Brown Lung" that infects cotton workers like those in the FR mills of long ago. It makes people cranky and cynical about other people's theories. The most obvious sign is the need to say "lookitup", like that disease that causes people to curse at the wrong times.

Happy New Year to you too. I appreciate the positive questions that you have offered in the past. May your News Years resolution include whatever it takes to adopt one of the solutions offered by the various books. If none, you can explain that too.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:33 pm

RayS @ Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:37 pm wrote: Perhaps I have the dreaded, incurable "Brown Brain" disease, more insidious than "Brown Lung" that infects cotton workers like those in the FR mills of long ago. It makes people cranky and cynical about other people's theories. The most obvious sign is the need to say "lookitup", like that disease that causes people to curse at the wrong times.

Your post made me giggle.

Thanks for the laugh I needed one today. I hope you have a Merry Christmas RayS.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:42 am

And a happy and Merry Christmas to you too. And to "all men of good will" as the old song goes.

Yes, I can be cranky at times, it just seems to be part of old age. But I will NOT become another Andy Rooney. (I wish I could make those big bucks.)

I'm serious about one thing: WHAT book do you all think provides the best solution. If none, why is that. I hope we can discuss that w/o personal remarks.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:47 am

I hope that Latin means what I think it means.

Why the "lookitup"? All I know is from reading the books in the library about the Borden murders. No special knowledge from independent investigations. Plus the books I read on True Crime (I prefer the cases that were nationally famous, like Dr. Sam Shepard, etc.). Plus the many mystery books that I've read over the years.

I believe that Arnold Brown's theory (it was an intruder whose identity was kept secret by Lizzie and the others; and; the case was fixed to ensure Lizzie was correctly found not guilty of murdering her father).
But I have a slightly different view of the motive, based on what I read.

In ending I have two things to say: "Lizzie Dunnit?" "Lookitup!".

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:11 pm

I do not really believe that any of the books written by any of the authors provides the "best solution" to the case. I think many of the authors make their own excellent points and provide some very viable explanations for what may have occurred. I think most also interpreted/misinterpreted certain facts of the case in ways that made them fit their own individual theories. I'm one who believes the true story of the murders has never been written because nobody knows it but the killer and the victims.

But if I had to pick a book that I think provides some of the most viable explanations for certain known facts of the case I'd pick Lincoln. I know I will probably run into a lot of disgreements on that score because her book was basically dissected into tiny little pieces here on the site, and she was dubbed with the nickname "Slicktoria". But I think even though the faults attributed to the book she also did provide some very viable solutions, explanations, and insights. Such as Lizzie hid the axe in the slop pail filled with "feminine napkins." That she could've cleaned the blood from herself using these cloth femine napkins so the stains could easily be explained away by saying it was that time for her. What man was going to want to handle these or dispute her claim? Even if they were checked did they check them past the fact that the blood was human? Which of course it would be even if her story was true. Anyway, can you name one author who hasn't taken some liberties with the facts besides Rebello?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:14 pm

Well said Allen !!!!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:19 pm

I agree with you on all points. Victoria Lincoln puts us all on site- and in the place and time. Her prose just flows with detail and rich imagery with details known only to one who has actually lived in Fall River and understands the city, the era, and women. She and Angela Carter opened new doors to my understanding on the case.

Reading theories of many authors is a great exercise and soundboard for one's own understanding and insights into this case, but I wholeheartedly agree that one must read all of the source documents and coverage, visit the locale, do some homework and add that to the mix before drawing any personal conclusions.

For one example, the entire theory that Emma rode like a maniac and killed Abby and Andrew and still managed to be back on Greene St in Fairhaven to receive Bowen's telegram was a lack of homework on the part of the author who did not bother to check out which roads were in existence (Route 6, bridge , etc.) out of Fairhaven. Sadly, many, many authors do NOT check facts or do historical research. I give Kent and Rebello FULL marks for fact-finding and checking. Ms. Cheney, who is a lovely lady, failed to do some basic checking which resulted in some nasty attacks. We expect a lot from our authors, and hate to see errors which are easy to prevent with a little work.

It is dangerous to ever assume that any author has thoroughly done their background work, and so many misconceptions, falsehoods, incorrect statements, wrong information, etc. have been perpetuated over time by deifying authors who got it wrong.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:57 pm

I also have trouble with flat-out fabrication in a non-fiction book which is not then labeled as conjecture, but given as fact (for example, Lizzie's theatre leanings as a girl - that one quite made Lincoln look like gospel throughout)!

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:40 am

I learned something from experimenting around with the ignore button. If you are not signed in it does not work. So if you recieve an email about a reply to a topic you have posted on, then if you click the link to directly access that topic without being signed in, it does not work. You have to sign in.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:19 pm

***It is my belief that some of you are extremely sensitive to what others say and overreact emotionally to perceived rudeness, while others are justifiably affronted by bad behavior. Some of you react at the slightest slight, while others let things roll of their backs and go about their merry way. ***
___________

the above is a quote from stefani here in this thread. i repeat it here to say that i agree with it. that's about it.

i think something innocuous has been blown out of proportion. ray is not exactly a diplomat or sensitive to a lot of nuance in conversation -- but that is exactly the way it is among people in life in general. i also agree with something said to the effect that the forum becomes a social experiment -- or something i believe i said to the effect that it becomes a lesson in human psychology.

people naturally get "off-track" from time to time -- that can't be helped -- but look the whole thing over and you see how people will pick out posters or "issues" upon which to take out their general aggressions. and stefani is right that it's not as friendly as it used to be for this reason.

but personally, i resist calling it a real problem because in substance it's much ado about nothing. is this not true? maybe some of us have been busy with other things lately and we've let serious dedication to the discussion slide.

and i don't mean to be presumptuous -- i'm just suggesting everyone recognize the IT for what it is and let it go at that. now everyone should know i'm no authority here, but common sense dictates to us all -- undeniably -- that none of us should ever be conducting personal arguments on this forum. nor should anyone get actually upset by a negative -- even combative -- opinion.

just my little editorial. thank you for your time,
Eugene

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:12 am

sorry- put this on the wrong thread- meant to start a new one

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:36 am

Hi Haulover, hopefully your right and it's because of the season that alot of people haven't spent as much time here as they normally would, I know for me it seems every time I log on, someone call's on the telephone or knocks at the door......not to mention two Christmas parties this week. Angel, did you make those up or find them somewhere? Now I can't stop humming Jingle Bells.......lol

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:43 am

Someone sent it to me, but it came in handy. I also belong to a local neighborhood forum and we are all planning to go caroling tonight. I told them I couldn't go because I am so terribly gifted that if I opened my mouth to sing someone from the mountain would think there was a screech owl loose and come and shoot me off their premises. They told me to come anyway, so I am, but I am bringing my grandchildren so they can drown me out (or drown me, whatever is better for the rest of the group). I sent the "Carols for the Disturbed" to the neighborhood forum because I thought it would give them a laugh.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:18 pm

Good Luck with the caroling! You could just mouth the words, then everyone would think you blended in wonderfully! lol

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:12 pm

Have you ever noticed that many people who think they can sing can't? And the person singing the loudest in a group can't sing either?

Mouthing the words is OK, Pam if you are surrounded by others of the same sex. I once got into (don't ask me how) an all female singing group in high school. Well, everyone knew where the bull frog was!

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:24 pm

I believe that many take the wrong approach to this unsolved case. They picked a solution, then tried to fit the facts to prove their case. So there are left-over parts that don't fit.

You should gather all the relevant facts, arrange in order (time line) and see where they lead. No forensics (as we know them today) were available then.

For us armchair detectives, I would recommend reading other true crime cases that are similar. Most murders in the home are done by a spouse or family member, or some friend; if not, it is an intruder. Given the known facts (no bloodstains seen on Lizzie or Bridget, not murder weapon found) then it must be an intruder.

Two possibilities: either Lizzie (and Bridget) knew nothing, or somebody held back information. I believe the known facts, such as the suspicions of the police and people who were there, say Lizzie knew more than she told.

Next, who would she protect? No boyfriend or girlfriend, so it must be a relative. One who the Ruling Class would be amenable to protect. OR was it just the money payoff?

If Andy was NOT killed because someone was not included in a will that they said didn't exist, then look for another motive. Correio killed because he didn't get his pay (still happens today). Also, some are killed so the employer doesn't have to pay them (case in 1982? California).

My Part 4 of Brown's Theory goes beyond Brown's Theory to explain why Lizzie would want to shield Andy's memory (tried to swindle a relative!!!), and save Uncle John for his part in this swindle. Yes, Uncle John was a good undercover agent who could visit and research properties that Andy would like to buy. In My Opinion, but this is based on the known character of Andy.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:44 pm

RayS @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:24 pm wrote:I believe that many take the wrong approach to this unsolved case. They picked a solution, then tried to fit the facts to prove their case. So there are left-over parts that don't fit.

You should gather all the relevant facts, arrange in order (time line) and see where they lead. No forensics (as we know them today) were available then.

For us armchair detectives, I would recommend reading other true crime cases that are similar. Most murders in the home are done by a spouse or family member, or some friend; if not, it is an intruder. Given the known facts (no bloodstains seen on Lizzie or Bridget, not murder weapon found) then it must be an intruder.

Two possibilities: either Lizzie (and Bridget) knew nothing, or somebody held back information. I believe the known facts, such as the suspicions of the police and people who were there, say Lizzie knew more than she told.

Next, who would she protect? No boyfriend or girlfriend, so it must be a relative. One who the Ruling Class would be amenable to protect. OR was it just the money payoff?

If Andy was killed because someone was not included in a will that they said didn't exist, then look for another motive. Correio killed because he didn't get his pay (still happens today). Also, some are killed so the employer doesn't have to pay them (case in 1982? California).

My Part 4 of Brown's Theory goes beyond Brown's Theory to explain why Lizzie would want to shield Andy's memory (tried to swindle a relative!!!), and save Uncle John for his part in this swindle. Yes, Uncle John was a good undercover agent who could visit and research properties that Andy would like to buy. In My Opinion, but this is based on the known character of Andy.

All this is based on the assumption that Lizzie would be willing to shield an illegitimate half-brother and protect Andrew's reputation.

Why would she shield William Borden? I can't think of any reason. If he killed Andrew and Abby, he would be imprisoned or executed. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

Why would she want to protect Andrew's reputation? If he was guilty of any financial irregularities in the past, one more black mark would not hurt him; besides, he was dead. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

Why would she want to protect Uncle John? She barely even spoke to him. Abby and Andrew were dead. Uncle John could go back from whence he came. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

I don't see how anyone could even begin to suspect that Lizzie would do all this to protect anyone IF she was totally innocent of any wrongdoing. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:44 pm

I love your post!
"Lizzie and Emma would get all the money."

Have you seen the William Borden tree I put up?
viewtopic.php?t=2584

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:07 pm

SallyG @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:44 pm wrote:...
All this is based on the assumption that Lizzie would be willing to shield an illegitimate half-brother and protect Andrew's reputation.

Why would she shield William Borden? I can't think of any reason. If he killed Andrew and Abby, he would be imprisoned or executed. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

Why would she want to protect Andrew's reputation? If he was guilty of any financial irregularities in the past, one more black mark would not hurt him; besides, he was dead. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

Why would she want to protect Uncle John? She barely even spoke to him. Abby and Andrew were dead. Uncle John could go back from whence he came. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

I don't see how anyone could even begin to suspect that Lizzie would do all this to protect anyone IF she was totally innocent of any wrongdoing. It makes no sense whatsoever.

As you were not there, and don't know the mindset of Lizzie, can you really say for sure Lizzie didn't do that?
Don't quote that to me, since I can only go by the reported facts: Lizzie knew more than she told. Given that, there must be a reason.

While there were plenty of rumors about Andy's business practices, this presumed swindle would put everything on the official record.

While I follow Arnold Brown's solution, I tried to keep my answers generic. It could be another relative that Andy was trying to swindle out of his property. It just seems like Willy was the plausible suspect.

And no, this is not from a Father Brown mystery story either.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:30 am

RayS @ Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:07 pm wrote:
SallyG @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:44 pm wrote:...
All this is based on the assumption that Lizzie would be willing to shield an illegitimate half-brother and protect Andrew's reputation.

Why would she shield William Borden? I can't think of any reason. If he killed Andrew and Abby, he would be imprisoned or executed. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

Why would she want to protect Andrew's reputation? If he was guilty of any financial irregularities in the past, one more black mark would not hurt him; besides, he was dead. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

Why would she want to protect Uncle John? She barely even spoke to him. Abby and Andrew were dead. Uncle John could go back from whence he came. Lizzie and Emma would get all the money.

I don't see how anyone could even begin to suspect that Lizzie would do all this to protect anyone IF she was totally innocent of any wrongdoing. It makes no sense whatsoever.
As you were not there, and don't know the mindset of Lizzie, can you really say for sure Lizzie didn't do that?
Don't quote that to me, since I can only go by the reported facts: Lizzie knew more than she told. Given that, there must be a reason.

While there were plenty of rumors about Andy's business practices, this presumed swindle would put everything on the official record.

While I follow Arnold Brown's solution, I tried to keep my answers generic. It could be another relative that Andy was trying to swindle out of his property. It just seems like Willy was the plausible suspect.

And no, this is not from a Father Brown mystery story either.

I agree that Lizzie knew more than she told. However, I look at it this way...lets say that the whole scenario happened according to Brown's theory, and your additional theory. Lizzie has two dead bodies on her hands and William Borden is long gone. What to do?

She COULD have decided, while Bridget was scurrying around trying to find help, that she was not going to divulge what was going on that day, and hope it looked like an intruder did it.

However, once the usual suspects were eliminated and she was starting to look guilty, why would she remain quiet? Why not just tell what she knew about what happened? Sure, the police would be a bit annoyed that she had not been truthful from the start, but at least she would not be accused of a crime that she didn't commit. They could round up William Borden, arrest him, and try him for murder.

Could Lizzie really have been so determined to protect Andrew's reputation? And what was she really protecting? He was already known as a "shrewd businessman". If the fact came out that he was trying to swindle an illegitimate son, would anyone really be surprised...and would they really care? If Lizzie had the IQ of a housefly, she would know that.

Why would Lizzie care about protecting William Borden. If he WAS her half-brother, obviously they didn't have any kind of a relationship, so why would she hesitate to turn him in? Better that people found out that Andrew engaged in a bit of philandering when he was younger and produced an illegitimate son, than for Lizzie to go to jail to protect that information. Chances are, people probably knew anyway.

No, Ray, I wasn't there, and I don't know Lizzie's mindset that day. But I do know that unless Lizzie was a total idiot, she would have told the truth and not worried about whose reputation might be tarnished.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:46 pm

If we all agreed on everything, there would be no need for a site like this.

I think Arnold Brown, not a professional writer, solved the mystery (more or less). If you think not being mentioned in a will is a good enough motive for murder, that's ok. I surmised the swindle as a way to implicate Uncle John and make this very real scandal reason enough for Lizzie's silence on what she knew. If she had lied to the police, then she could be arrrested as an accomplice after the fact. But smart enough to turn State's Evidence at the trials.

I also believe that such a swindle against a crazy bastard could be argued as leading to a lesser charge than First Degree. "This clever and ruthless man used his family relationship to swindle a trusting nephew." You know how that goes.

We don't know Lizzie's mindset, but we do 'know' she didn't tell all she knew. So we have to reason what she knew and why she didn't tell all.
I hope I've done a creditable job, based on the Arnold Brown book.

PS You are also assuming that a person in a highly stressful situation will always react in a normal rational manner. Is that your experiences?

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:16 pm

RayS @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:46 pm wrote:If we all agreed on everything, there would be no need for a site like this.

I think Arnold Brown, not a professional writer, solved the mystery (more or less). If you think not being mentioned in a will is a good enough motive for murder, that's ok. I surmised the swindle as a way to implicate Uncle John and make this very real scandal reason enough for Lizzie's silence on what she knew. If she had lied to the police, then she could be arrrested as an accomplice after the fact. But smart enough to turn State's Evidence at the trials.

I also believe that such a swindle against a crazy bastard could be argued as leading to a lesser charge than First Degree. "This clever and ruthless man used his family relationship to swindle a trusting nephew." You know how that goes.

We don't know Lizzie's mindset, but we do 'know' she didn't tell all she knew. So we have to reason what she knew and why she didn't tell all.
I hope I've done a creditable job, based on the Arnold Brown book.

PS You are also assuming that a person in a highly stressful situation will always react in a normal rational manner. Is that your experiences?

While I realize that it was a highly stressful situation, to say the least, Lizzie also had plenty of time to think things over. While she might not have told everything that happened at the time the murders were discovered, she had time to assess the situation afterwards.

So if I accept Browns theory, Lizzie had the choice of either keeping her mouth shut to prevent Fall River from learning about the family dirty laundry, even if it meant she would be charged with two murders she did not committ. OR...she could confess what she knew, Fall River would find out that Andrew had some underhanded dealings going on, as well as an illegitimate son, BUT she would not be blamed for the murders, and would probably be seen by Fall River as having suffered a terrible tragedy and would have everyone's sympathy (as well as the money).

Not a tough choice. I just don't see Lizzie being that stupid.

I'm not trying to change your mind, Ray, because I know you are convinced that Brown solved the case. I just see too many unanswered questions with his theory.

BTW, I think for some people, not being mentioned in a will might be a very good reason for murder.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:31 pm

Lizzie first shielded the innocent (it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father), then said little later. Hours later it was too late to change her story (as I understand it). Ever watch TV crime dramas when a witness starts to change his/her story? They become a suspect. And in real world?

How much longer are we going to play this ping-pong tennis, just banging the ball from one side of the table to another.
I'm convinced that Arnold Brown solved the case (not Lizzie, not Bridget, not Emma, not Uncle John). BUT if any new book gets published with a new story, then I reserve the right to modify my judgment.

That's reasonable, isn't it? Letting the facts decide the decision.

BTW in the film Scarlett marries Wilkes, who dies in the war; then she takes up w/ Brett. In the book does Wilkes just go off to war, and then what does Scarlett do? I want the Executive Summary.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:35 pm

RayS @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:31 pm wrote:Lizzie first shielded the innocent (it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father), then said little later. Hours later it was too late to change her story (as I understand it). Ever watch TV crime dramas when a witness starts to change his/her story? They become a suspect. And in real world?

How much longer are we going to play this ping-pong tennis, just banging the ball from one side of the table to another.
I'm convinced that Arnold Brown solved the case (not Lizzie, not Bridget, not Emma, not Uncle John). BUT if any new book gets published with a new story, then I reserve the right to modify my judgment.

That's reasonable, isn't it? Letting the facts decide the decision.

BTW in the film Scarlett marries Wilkes, who dies in the war; then she takes up w/ Brett. In the book does Wilkes just go off to war, and then what does Scarlett do? I want the Executive Summary.

Ok, Ray..you asked for it!! Scarlett never married Ashley Wilkes...she was infatuated with him, but he was married to Melanie. He didn't get killed in the war; he came back home. It was CHARLIE Hamilton that Scarlett married, to spite Ashley who was marrying Melanie. Charlie died of the measles in boot camp 2 months later. A few years later, Scarlett married Frank Kennedy, who was killed a couple of years later in a Ku Klux Klan raid. THEN she married Rhett Butler. In the meantime, she was still chasing Ashley Wilkes. But I'm not gonna tell you any more, because I don't want to spoil the book for you. Good book, Ray. I recommend it if you like reading. It's in the Library!!

I might even take a break from the book I'm writing and read Brown's book!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:09 pm

YES, its coming back to me once you jogged my memory.
Wilkes showed good sense, the movie made Scarlett appear somewhat self-cengtered, the kind of person who spends hours looking in a mirror.

I'm sure its a famous book, but its low on my list.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

RayS, Reporting Posts, and Forum Rules

Another Cranky Reply?

Apologia pro vita sua