Bluff, hearty, and never without an opinion, Wallace Arnold was the main reason I kept up my subscription to the Spectator - and now they've let CB loose on the diary, I may renew it yet again. If you're up to literate touch-in-cheek teasing, WB is your man; otherwise, hound the publishers anyway to bring him back into print and buy 6 for emergency gifts in case any wits suddenly swim into your ken. (Go on, even you ... even in America.)

One would probably be better served by reading other accounts in order to get the facts of the case in mind before taking on this author. Brown jumps around in his narrative to some degree, and he never really lays out a timetable for what happened when on that fateful morning. We learn the accepted facts of the case from him in a rather piecemeal fashion. Along the way, his own conviction almost teases the reader. Remember this, he tells the reader, for it will be important later. Further along, he begins to make bold statements, holding off the proof of them for some later chapter. As he begins describing the inquests and trial, he contaminates the valuable evidence of fact he has with a conviction that seems unwarranted. He proclaims that local government officials planned every aspect of the case from inquest to trial for the sole purpose of charging and acquitting Lizzie Borden in a way that allowed no possibility of the real murderer's identity becoming known. He never presents a good enough argument for why the town leaders should prostitute the law in this manner. Brown alleges that virtually every principal in the trial's proceeding knew who the murderer was and worked conspiratorially to produce the result that indeed came about'namely, Lizzie's acquittal. Even undeniably honorable men on the prosecuting team and behind the judge's bench were all active performers in a farcical drama. While I can't buy all he is selling on these points, Brown does do a very good job at pointing out many extraordinary aspects of the trial, especially many mysterious aspects to the prosecutor's case and the exceedingly strange decisions and pronouncements from the bench. His words are convincing, but I cannot objectively accept everything he pronounces as truth without more evidence.

After building up interminably for the big finish, the moment when he will announce who in fact killed Andrew and Abby Borden, Brown seems to let his excitement get away from him in the concluding chapter. His evidence can simply not be proven, even if he is correct. Brown makes the situation worse by putting forth a timeline in which he ascribes definite actions to a number of players without offering any proof whatsoever'his summary contains information he never even mentioned elsewhere in the book. He names Lizzie as a conspirator after the fact, one who knew the murderer but did not know he had rewritten everyone's plans for that morning by actually killing the elder Bordens. I found Brown's argument as to why she quickly decides to cover up the murderer and allow herself to stand trial for the heinous crimes somewhat problematic and unsatisfactory'materialism and a desire to save the Borden name from embarrassment don't seem to do it for me, and Uncle John Morse's purported role in the central events strikes me as even harder to justify in Brown's scenario.

This is a fascinating book that all armchair detectives interested in the Borden case should read. One great strength of Brown's book is his inclusion of the long-lost testimony of Lizzie Borden from the original inquest, evidence that was not allowed during the actual trial. He relies heavily on information from this inquest to build his case, but many of his discoveries are perfectly capable of being twisted in different directions by other sleuths. Arnold Brown is simply too sure of himself; he has contributed useful information and speculation into the Borden murder mystery, but he allows himself to lose objectivity. It may well be that he is correct, and many of his ideas certainly deserve intense thought and investigation, but his theories simply cannot be proven, and his overzealous attempt to explain why each actor in this drama did what he/she did actually damaged some of his credibility in my eyes. Brown would have us believe that every halfway important man in Fall River knew the truth about the case and worked together to turn the trial into a mockery of justice for reasons that simply are not convincing, especially when you allow for the obvious public danger posed by the madman Brown dubs the actual killer.

A R Brown was born and raised in Fall River. He retired to Florida, and met Lewis Peterson (also from Fall River). When the subject of Lizzie Borden came up, Lewis said his father-in-law Henry Hawthorne knew the real killer. Hawthorne's mother-in-law Ellan Eagan passed by the Borden house that morning.

Before Henry Hawthorne died in 1978 he left notebooks filled with his memories of that event. A R Brown read them, then checked those facts for historical verification. His book is the result of his investigation. The "Acknowledgments" list the many people who helped with the book, which provides the "best evidence" for its solution to this famous unsolved mystery.

Little or no documentation is available, as the author stated, for any further proof. He noted that there was a work stoppage, which put pressure on the local establishment to find a solution. The Mellen House Gang would not leave documents for their actions in 1892, as with most current politicians. (We still don't have an official legal solution to the JFK assassination.)

The book "Forty Whacks" provides complementary information on the events of the time. Note the "anonymous" letter from Albany (Joseph Carpenter?) who seemed to know something about the crime. Like today, people may know things but do not wish to get involved with powerful authorities who have their own agenda.

I think there may have been more information left out of the book.

One important but little known fact mentioned in this book is the condition of the blood for a freshly killed body (red and liquid) compared to one dead for over an hour (black and clotted). Think about that in a more recent double murder case.

The solution works by implicitly explaining why Bridget Sullivan was paid to leave the country: she knew too much (but didn't know it). Bridget must have seen William Borden visiting. She didn't know that he worked as a butcher, was skilled with a hatchet, had a violent temper, and spent time in a mental hospital. She would have found out that he was more than a cousin. Bridget's testimony was not favorable to Lizzie, so there was no pay-off here.

AR Brown's book alone discusses the actions of the local ruling class, and the politicians who do their bidding. The spontaneous halt in working, a virtual general strike, had to be ended. There were no labor leaders to be jailed and oppressed. There was a great need to resume production. Somebody had to be arrested for the crime to quell the restless natives. Lizzie was picked to try to break her so she would talk; it didn't work. Lizzie kept her mouth shut, and the family secret.

AR Brown says that such official corruption is always possible when the price and conditions are right. You can review your own local history, and judge for yourself. (One author compared the guiltless Lizzie to the innocent OJ.)

The title is misleading, and most people who buy this pamphlet misrepresented as a book are going to be very disappointed. This a 40 page stream of conscious review of various categories of life that lacks footnotes, a bibligraphy, or an index.

Based on my own broad experience and friendship with futurists of note, I consider this specific paper to be interesting if you don't read a lot and want a very shallow overview of numerous areas in the time it takes to fly from one state to another, but I find it very disturbing to read randomized references to ideas that I have seen developed and documented by others in a much more thorough fashion over the past 25 years or so.

It is obvious to most that the future will lead to a shift in what and how people do things along with what their focus is. This book offers an optimistic view that this shift will lead to more jobs, a shift to customization of services, increased growth in financial planning services, more emphasis on personal security and safety, and a rise in commitment to religion and spirituality.

The authors offer a useful and insightful comparison between the four eras: Agricultural, Industrial, Post-Industrial, Emotile. It is interesting and useful to make the comparison between such characteristics of the ages as the nature of "The Boss", "Retirement", or "Education" and this book does a nice job of comparing these as well as nine other areas of society.

The book offers some valuable scenarios for planners, business leaders and futurists, to ponder and examine. Many of the authors' insights could help the savvy investor or entrepreneur.

Overall, the book made me think and consider what impact the Emotile Society would have on future economies and behaviors.

Weiner and Brown's description of the relationship between the economy and society and how we are shifting from a post-industrial to an emotile era was insightful.

Should be required reading for everyone in business, future entrants into the workplace and those considering re-inventing themselves.

There were many "wows" in the book for me, but two stand out; revisioning must take place before reengineering, and the "never owned" product concept.

I plan to re-read this book as many times as I can stand it. Thank you Edith and Arnold for a great read!