What do you think?
Rate this book
Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter
Presenting new evidence on the crime of Lizzie Borden, an expert on the case analyzes the four legal proceedings against Borden and shows how the prosecution and defense conspired to keep the truth from public record
382 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1991
13 people are currently reading
555 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
October 31, 2023
All things considered, this was probably not the best place to start reading about Lizzie Borden.
Arnold Brown was neither an experienced historian nor an experienced criminologist--he was an engineer. This doesn't necessarily mean that he could not have written an excellent book about the Borden murders, but it does help to explain the book's faults.
1. Brown is a man with a New(!)Theory(!), based on a manuscript a friend let him read, written by the friend's father-in-law when he was dying in 1978, about the friend's father-in-law's childhood memories (pre-1901)--and about the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories of the day the Bordens were murdered (told to the friend's father-in-law in the early 1920s). (N.b., Andrew and Abby Borden were murdered on August 4, 1892.) Both the father-in-law and the father-in-law's mother-in-law were dead by the time Brown started researching (and Brown cheats, trying to make the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories seem more immediate by writing sections from her point of view, including her experiences the day of the murder). Also, Brown's theory (this part seeming to be Brown's contribution, not the work of the friend's father-in-law or the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law) is a conspiracy theory.
2. Brown claims that the lawyers for the defense, the lawyers for the prosecution, the judges, and the local and state governments were all complicit in Lizzie Borden being tried and acquitted rather than going after the "real" murderer, Lizzie's alleged half brother William S. Borden, but while he claims Lizzie agreed to this in order to have her father's will suppressed, he gives no reason why the men in power should bother: "Their actions were not for Lizzie or for the Bordens. They acted for themselves and for the monetary reward, and they would have done the same for any of 'their own'" (323). They conspired because they were conspirators. Q.E.D.
3. Ironically, for a book that claims to refute what "everybody knows" about the Borden murders (he goes through and critiques the doggerel Lizzie Borden took an axe line by line for its inaccuracies), he assumes that everybody knows--and agrees about!--Lizzie Borden's selfishness, laziness, cold-bloodedness, and greed.
4. Brown is highly self-congratulatory about having researched the Borden murders for two full years (emphasis his) before writing his book.
5. If one reads the acknowledgments carefully, they suggest that most of the time, other people did Brown's researching for him.
6. Brown insists his book is the "objective, definitive answer" to the mystery of the Borden murders (11), the "true, factual account of an historic event" (13). And then he says things like, "What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense" (182) and "All logic dictates that Miss Lizzie was under the pear trees when the murderer left the house and the property. Proof? There are times when logic is its own proof!" (225). Throughout, he tends to assume that saying something is true is the same as proving something is true.
7. He doesn't know basic things about historical research, e.g., that the most likely reason for two daughters of the same family, born in 1848 and 1850, both to be named Eliza is that the Eliza born in 1848 died prior to her sister's birth in 1850. And he doesn't have any sense of how to contextualize his historical argument. He insists that Lizzie Borden's trial was marked by an unusual degree of legal malfeasance (which he says was caused by his hypothesized conspiracy), but while he shows that the legal malfeasance was pretty rank and rampant by modern standards, he doesn't give any evidence to show that it was unusual. I've read about other nineteenth century trials; I need convincing.
8. He puts his story together badly. Partly, this is because the Borden murders are incredibly confusing. Partly, it's because he's trying to save his best secrets for last, but keeps having to mention them to explain his argument.
9. He ascribes motives and emotions to people based on the transcripts of their testimony, when in fact the transcripts do not reveal anything of the sort. And, on the obverse side, he shows himself fairly deaf to subtext:
Three inquiries were made to the Taunton State Hospital. The first was an inquiry about William S. Borden with no indication as to why there was interest. On January 9, 1989, the following answer was received: "In reference to Borden, (William S.)(W.S.)(William I), we were unable to locate the only file which appeared to be a match." Additional information was received from the same official on February 13, 1989: "A further search of our archives has failed to turn up additional records. However I did learn that William S. Borden's card lists Amanda Taylor and Eliza Borden as sisters."
This response would confirm that William Borden had been committed at some time to the Taunton Insane Hospital. However, on April 6, 1989, the last of three communications was received--all from the same official--which was most peculiar, short, terse, to the point, and reproduced here in its entirety: "We do not have a record of admission to this facility, at all, ever. If he had been here, we would know." (303-304)
Brown, of course, interprets this as somebody having screwed with the files, but I can see a second interpretation, which is this poor "official" identifying Brown as a crank and taking necessary steps to disengage. (There's also a rather snippy bit in the acknowledgments: "Requests for information in city or state public records were met with mixed results. Those who were helpful are: [and then a list]" (8). This is the sort of thing that tells you more about the writer and his subject-position than it does about the people who failed to be "helpful.")
I don't know that Arnold Brown is wrong, but he fails utterly to persuade me that he is right. Mostly, he persuades me that he is a man with a hobby horse.
Arnold Brown was neither an experienced historian nor an experienced criminologist--he was an engineer. This doesn't necessarily mean that he could not have written an excellent book about the Borden murders, but it does help to explain the book's faults.
1. Brown is a man with a New(!)Theory(!), based on a manuscript a friend let him read, written by the friend's father-in-law when he was dying in 1978, about the friend's father-in-law's childhood memories (pre-1901)--and about the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories of the day the Bordens were murdered (told to the friend's father-in-law in the early 1920s). (N.b., Andrew and Abby Borden were murdered on August 4, 1892.) Both the father-in-law and the father-in-law's mother-in-law were dead by the time Brown started researching (and Brown cheats, trying to make the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories seem more immediate by writing sections from her point of view, including her experiences the day of the murder). Also, Brown's theory (this part seeming to be Brown's contribution, not the work of the friend's father-in-law or the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law) is a conspiracy theory.
2. Brown claims that the lawyers for the defense, the lawyers for the prosecution, the judges, and the local and state governments were all complicit in Lizzie Borden being tried and acquitted rather than going after the "real" murderer, Lizzie's alleged half brother William S. Borden, but while he claims Lizzie agreed to this in order to have her father's will suppressed, he gives no reason why the men in power should bother: "Their actions were not for Lizzie or for the Bordens. They acted for themselves and for the monetary reward, and they would have done the same for any of 'their own'" (323). They conspired because they were conspirators. Q.E.D.
3. Ironically, for a book that claims to refute what "everybody knows" about the Borden murders (he goes through and critiques the doggerel Lizzie Borden took an axe line by line for its inaccuracies), he assumes that everybody knows--and agrees about!--Lizzie Borden's selfishness, laziness, cold-bloodedness, and greed.
4. Brown is highly self-congratulatory about having researched the Borden murders for two full years (emphasis his) before writing his book.
5. If one reads the acknowledgments carefully, they suggest that most of the time, other people did Brown's researching for him.
6. Brown insists his book is the "objective, definitive answer" to the mystery of the Borden murders (11), the "true, factual account of an historic event" (13). And then he says things like, "What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense" (182) and "All logic dictates that Miss Lizzie was under the pear trees when the murderer left the house and the property. Proof? There are times when logic is its own proof!" (225). Throughout, he tends to assume that saying something is true is the same as proving something is true.
7. He doesn't know basic things about historical research, e.g., that the most likely reason for two daughters of the same family, born in 1848 and 1850, both to be named Eliza is that the Eliza born in 1848 died prior to her sister's birth in 1850. And he doesn't have any sense of how to contextualize his historical argument. He insists that Lizzie Borden's trial was marked by an unusual degree of legal malfeasance (which he says was caused by his hypothesized conspiracy), but while he shows that the legal malfeasance was pretty rank and rampant by modern standards, he doesn't give any evidence to show that it was unusual. I've read about other nineteenth century trials; I need convincing.
8. He puts his story together badly. Partly, this is because the Borden murders are incredibly confusing. Partly, it's because he's trying to save his best secrets for last, but keeps having to mention them to explain his argument.
9. He ascribes motives and emotions to people based on the transcripts of their testimony, when in fact the transcripts do not reveal anything of the sort. And, on the obverse side, he shows himself fairly deaf to subtext:
Three inquiries were made to the Taunton State Hospital. The first was an inquiry about William S. Borden with no indication as to why there was interest. On January 9, 1989, the following answer was received: "In reference to Borden, (William S.)(W.S.)(William I), we were unable to locate the only file which appeared to be a match." Additional information was received from the same official on February 13, 1989: "A further search of our archives has failed to turn up additional records. However I did learn that William S. Borden's card lists Amanda Taylor and Eliza Borden as sisters."
This response would confirm that William Borden had been committed at some time to the Taunton Insane Hospital. However, on April 6, 1989, the last of three communications was received--all from the same official--which was most peculiar, short, terse, to the point, and reproduced here in its entirety: "We do not have a record of admission to this facility, at all, ever. If he had been here, we would know." (303-304)
Brown, of course, interprets this as somebody having screwed with the files, but I can see a second interpretation, which is this poor "official" identifying Brown as a crank and taking necessary steps to disengage. (There's also a rather snippy bit in the acknowledgments: "Requests for information in city or state public records were met with mixed results. Those who were helpful are: [and then a list]" (8). This is the sort of thing that tells you more about the writer and his subject-position than it does about the people who failed to be "helpful.")
I don't know that Arnold Brown is wrong, but he fails utterly to persuade me that he is right. Mostly, he persuades me that he is a man with a hobby horse.
September 26, 2010
I don't know anyone who's heard of the Borden murders without being a little fascinated with the creepiness of them. The whole scenario is intriguing and not a little creepy. Brown claims to have found new evidence and details his theories and explanations here. While his ideas are interesting, his writing style is not. He decides not to reveal the name of the actual murderer until the final chapters, while trying to highlight the relevant evidence throughout the rest of the book. But he does not lead us deftly enough through the evidence-gathering, so we just end up confused and somewhat bored. By the time I got to the big reveal, I didn't even care anymore. He took a grisly, horrifying double murder and somehow turned it into the driest of crime dramas. It's a shame, too, because the story has great potential for intrigue. I'd like to see someone take his premise and write it in a more interesting way. (Maybe it's already been done -- I didn't really look into it.) I even think there's biopic potential there if done right.
August 11, 2010
I've been fascinated with Lizzie's story ever since I was a kid and saw the 1975 TV movie with Elizabeth Montgomery. I didn't remember much from the movie other than the song, "Lizzie Borden took an axe...", well you know it. Anyway, this is the first book I've read on the subject and it was fascinating from beginning to end. As another reviewer mentioned, there's no flowery pose (a good thing) and the author introduces new evidence or facts in a sometimes confusing manner (not so great). But I can imagine that trying to cram all the facts and evidence from one of the most famous murders of the last 150 years can't be an easy task. Not to mention that the author had the added advantage of source material that wasn't released at the time many of the previous books were written. Mr. Brown brings all the participants to life in page after page of what is one of the truly strangest stories in history. You'd swear you are reading a fictional story, created from the mind one of the great crime writers. But when you stop and think that all these events really happened just 118 years ago, it kind of boggles the mind. I shouldn't make up my mind about Lizzie's guilt or innocence from the writings of just one author on the subject, but Brown makes a compelling case that she didn't do it and a compelling case (at the end of the book) for who he thinks DID do it. At the very least, there is WAY too much reasonable doubt about Lizzie's guilt that even if the trial wasn't rigged worse than OJ's that she would have been acquitted anyway. So if you're a fan of murder mysteries, and it doesn't bother you to read a story of a case that will never be truly solved...give this one a shot. I will probably be reading some of the other books on the case soon, so I'll see how they stack up to this one.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 15, 2009
Brown was the hardest author to keep up with. He talked and introduced evidence in circles. He would be talking about one thing and then introduce a new concept all of the sudden, but then go back to what he was talking about as if by saying, "Keep this in mind for future reference," was going to make it alright. I did, however, like the way he limited the drama and flowery language that current biographies of today have a habit of doing. When I read a biography I want the facts, not one person's view on what may or may not have been said or done for the sake of drama. "Just the facts, Ma'am."
June 5, 2011
Could have read the last chapter and not missed out on anything worthwhile.
October 22, 2010
Horribly boring read on such a facinating topic, but it introduces a very interesting new "character" to the story. Being from a small town, it's easy to see how his "conspiracy theory" (of sorts) could work out. I wish I would have read the ending first, but it was the best evidence I've read on who could have really committed the murders--and a fairly substantial amount of proof to back it up. Loses a star for god-awful boring writing.
January 21, 2011
I found this book very poorly written, with little research as to how the author got his information. Maybe he stuffed it in the appendices but I didn't stick around that long to figure it out Shoddy writing and the murderer at the end... And a boring read throughout. Very unsatisfied. Only reason it got 2 stars is I didn't know much about the case so found some of the background interesting.
March 8, 2011
Well researched, but the writing style was hard to follow. The author seemed to want to style this as a mystery story, only revealing the guilty party at the end of the book, instead of telling the story as it happened. I wouldn't read this again.
Read
August 4, 2008With (above)
April 7, 2013
I abs loved the book! So exited, it gives you chills, I could barely leave it, always kept coming back to it, wanting to know more. Amazing, definitely one of my favorite !!
July 1, 2017
In August 1892 Andrew Borden and his wife were savagely murdered by having their heads repeatedly smashed with a hatchet or axe. Their cold daughter Lizzie was famously accused, arrested and tried for the crime on a suspicion that she was afraid her father was going to will too much of his wealth to her stepmother whom she disliked, but Lizzie was acquitted and no one else was ever arrested for the crime. Many aspects of the crime remain puzzling to this day, such as the lack of blood splatter even though the heads of the victims were pounded to near pulp; several unidentfied men lurking in the area; if Lizzie did do it, how did she possibly clean herself up in the short time between the murders and their discovery; if she didn't do it, who else would and could have and why?
This book is not professionally written. The author is not a professional writer and clearly didn't work much with an editor. The writing is often choppy, remarks are inserted that are not explained, tenses are sometimes wrong; dialog invented and strange musings aired. But it reads like exactly what it is-- a local resident who long heard of the murders, did some investigation of his own, and came up with his own ideas. Despite the bad writing, I found the book to read just like a conversation you might have with a local about the long ago crime, and I found it hard to put the book down!
Despite its shortcomings the author does a good job of explaining the crime, putting forth the evidence, and depicting what happened. At the end though, I simply could not buy his story of a local government/local courts conspiracy in the case to acquit Lizzie nor could I accept his conclusion that an unknown illegitimate child of Mr. Borden who had mental problems actually did the killings.
I could not accept the author's ideas because it just doesn't seem like Lizzie was well enough known or regarded that judges, lawyers, the mayor and a former Governor would go to such trouble to protect her by creating such a conspiracy. It is also not convincing that if a mentally ill illegitimate half brother did this that Lizzie would seek to protect him. If anything, the exposure that a monstrous mentally ill illegitimate child had done this it might have made the community feel sorry for Lizzie and her sister rather than ostracize them!
Despite its peculiar writing style, lack of polish and unconvincing theory, I still enjoyed reading this book and learned a lot about this horrible crime. It just seems doubtful that more than 120 years later the truth will ever be known.
This book is not professionally written. The author is not a professional writer and clearly didn't work much with an editor. The writing is often choppy, remarks are inserted that are not explained, tenses are sometimes wrong; dialog invented and strange musings aired. But it reads like exactly what it is-- a local resident who long heard of the murders, did some investigation of his own, and came up with his own ideas. Despite the bad writing, I found the book to read just like a conversation you might have with a local about the long ago crime, and I found it hard to put the book down!
Despite its shortcomings the author does a good job of explaining the crime, putting forth the evidence, and depicting what happened. At the end though, I simply could not buy his story of a local government/local courts conspiracy in the case to acquit Lizzie nor could I accept his conclusion that an unknown illegitimate child of Mr. Borden who had mental problems actually did the killings.
I could not accept the author's ideas because it just doesn't seem like Lizzie was well enough known or regarded that judges, lawyers, the mayor and a former Governor would go to such trouble to protect her by creating such a conspiracy. It is also not convincing that if a mentally ill illegitimate half brother did this that Lizzie would seek to protect him. If anything, the exposure that a monstrous mentally ill illegitimate child had done this it might have made the community feel sorry for Lizzie and her sister rather than ostracize them!
Despite its peculiar writing style, lack of polish and unconvincing theory, I still enjoyed reading this book and learned a lot about this horrible crime. It just seems doubtful that more than 120 years later the truth will ever be known.
March 18, 2024
Having been born, raised and still residing in Fall River I should know more detail about Lizzie Borden than I do. It's probably similar to many New Yorkers who know little about the Statue of Liberty or Empire State building.
Hearing about Lizzie Borden your whole life you tune it out. I would rather the city be known as the birth place of George Stephanopoulos or Emirel Lagasse but so it goes.
I indeed did learn many details I didn't know and would have rated 5 stars but Brown's conspiracy theories about the local government and police being part of some cabal that had predetermined that they would find Lizzie not guilty while the REAL killer was Andrew's unacknowledged illegitimate son William in cahoots with Lizzie and Uncle John Morse.
This book was written 30 years ago. If there were anything to this theory, which is based on a lot of coincidences and twists and turns to make connections. It detracted from what would otherwise have been a good comprehensive telling of the case.
Hearing about Lizzie Borden your whole life you tune it out. I would rather the city be known as the birth place of George Stephanopoulos or Emirel Lagasse but so it goes.
I indeed did learn many details I didn't know and would have rated 5 stars but Brown's conspiracy theories about the local government and police being part of some cabal that had predetermined that they would find Lizzie not guilty while the REAL killer was Andrew's unacknowledged illegitimate son William in cahoots with Lizzie and Uncle John Morse.
This book was written 30 years ago. If there were anything to this theory, which is based on a lot of coincidences and twists and turns to make connections. It detracted from what would otherwise have been a good comprehensive telling of the case.
January 8, 2018
I really had a hard time getting through this book. I'm not really sure how one takes a legendary double murder and turns it boring, but this book managed it.
This book is nothing but Mr. Brown's conspiracy theory based on information from a friends father and grandmother. Mr. Brown bases his theory mainly on the fact that all sorts of officials were paid off and that the media helped by bending facts to suit Lizzie and to help get her acquitted. He wants us to believe all of this and then writes this paragraph:
"What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense - and much more believable than the story that has been accepted all these years."
I really wished I had heeded the reviews and skipped this one.
This book is nothing but Mr. Brown's conspiracy theory based on information from a friends father and grandmother. Mr. Brown bases his theory mainly on the fact that all sorts of officials were paid off and that the media helped by bending facts to suit Lizzie and to help get her acquitted. He wants us to believe all of this and then writes this paragraph:
"What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense - and much more believable than the story that has been accepted all these years."
I really wished I had heeded the reviews and skipped this one.
September 13, 2021
I really liked the book a lot.
I think this could actually be true.
There were many things not talked about in 1892 that today nobody thinks about to keep hidden. But illegitimate children at that time was taboo. So Lizzie wouldn't want this to come out.
Her Father wouldn't have either.
I thought that what Ellan Eagan
saw and said really sounded true.
I also thought Henry Hawthorne was factual.
Anyone who has ever been "fascinated" with the Legend of Lizzie should REALLY READ THIS!!!
It gives a lot of information that I hadn't read about before.
I think this could actually be true.
There were many things not talked about in 1892 that today nobody thinks about to keep hidden. But illegitimate children at that time was taboo. So Lizzie wouldn't want this to come out.
Her Father wouldn't have either.
I thought that what Ellan Eagan
saw and said really sounded true.
I also thought Henry Hawthorne was factual.
Anyone who has ever been "fascinated" with the Legend of Lizzie should REALLY READ THIS!!!
It gives a lot of information that I hadn't read about before.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 13, 2023
This seems to be largely opinion based . Some of the info about the stranger lurking outside the Borden home on the day of the murders could be true but I’ve never heard of it in any research I’ve done. I read a view from a FBI profiler that states Lizzie did it and suffered from a mental disorder that was brought on by years of abuse. I tend to believe that one more.
December 29, 2018
A really well-researched book. The writing itself is not the absolute best, but serviceable. There are some dry points that might be difficult to get through without dozing off, but it really does introduce an interesting theory. Worth giving a try.
May 18, 2024
Very interesting. Not sure if it's true or not, but there are so many weird things about this case that I don't think we'll ever really know the truth. Is an interesting read though for anyone interested in the Borden murders.
October 2, 2017
Too many characters entered in no clear order.
June 11, 2018
Interesting, but dry, analysis of the infamous Borden murders. Some things I never knew, plus a theory as to the real killer.....
February 1, 2021
I thought Brown's theory made a lot of sense.
March 18, 2021
A lot of good information, I read the book faster than I thought I would, not as grizzly as I thought it would be. Would recommend it to anyone to read.
November 13, 2023
It's been too long since I read this to write a specific review, but I own it, and I know I read it.
April 6, 2025
Last 3 chapters were the best
June 26, 2025
I never heard of this one but I'm not q true crime girlie
August 9, 2025
new theory I'd never heard before
Want to read
November 7, 2023Good book to read.
October 30, 2013
Interesting. The author claims that he knew a man who swore that the Bordens were killed not by their daughter Lizzie but by Mr. Borden's illegitimate son William. Lizzie agreed to take the blame but paid off the officials in Fall River so that she wouldn't go to jail for the crime but would be acquitted instead. She knew William had committed the murders, but because her father didn't claim William as his son, she didn't want the scandal to ruin their family (as if the murders hadn't, eh?).
Like I said, it was interesting. It makes sense, too, when so much of the story behind the murder and the trial does not.
Like I said, it was interesting. It makes sense, too, when so much of the story behind the murder and the trial does not.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 20, 2015
I've always been interested in the Lizzie Borden story so I was glad when I came across this book. (It's the first I've read on the subject.) The author takes a lot of information and testimony and attempts to present it in a logical manner. One can't help but be somewhat confused. The writing is dry and boring, which is the fault of the author, not the information being presented. As other reviewers have pointed out, the so-called guilty party isn't revealed until the end, this results in some beating around the bush, which doesn't improve the story line. If the murderer's identity was revealed sooner and if the author were a better writer, this book would've been top notch.
September 29, 2015
It started off decently. And then started getting into shadow governments and conspiracies, and "coded" statements that only the author seemed to be able to properly understand. When it got to the point (about 1/3 in) where it stated claiming that Lizzy was a willing player in the conspiracy and that she agreed to take the fall, I decided that the book was beyond stretching credulity, was trying too hard, and tossed it aside.
Oddly enough, much of the evidence he sites for conspiracy in reality builds a stronger and more damning case against Lizzy; and I believe now, more than ever, that she was responsible.
Oddly enough, much of the evidence he sites for conspiracy in reality builds a stronger and more damning case against Lizzy; and I believe now, more than ever, that she was responsible.
January 1, 2009
I remain intriqued by the story of Lizzie Borden. Partly because I grew up in and around Fall River, MA. Probably what keeps me most interested is that I need solutions to crimes. Consciously, I recognize this one can never be solved, but sub-consciously I keep seeking more versions of her story to help me decide if she was the perpetrator. This is a well-done version of the events. It includes more factual detail and background than any other I've read. . . . still doesn't solve it, though!!!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews