1. "The Record the Axe Left Behind"
Posted by haulover on Oct-25th-03 at 11:08 PM

with the question in mind, "what does the axe tell us about the killer?" -- i re-read the autopsy reports as summarized and presented on the site here.  i won't quote from it, but that's my source.

abby's wounds are more complicated because they include movement by the victim before she is lying face down and the real killing is accomplished (to the back/right of the head).  the contusions on her face are on the left side of her face, indicating that she fell more or less face down but also leftward.  so the right back of the head "offers itself" to the killer.  but the wounds preceding those -- the "flap" wound and the one in the back -- appear to be "accidents" that occur because abby moves.  the deadliest ones, of course, are numerous -- it took many for the killer to completely bash in the skull there.

but looking at andrew's wounds, i noticed something (a tendency, a pattern, on the part of the killer -- that shows here more clearly than in the murder of abby).  all these wounds are more or less parallel.  but not only that.  each strike that effectively penetrates the skull seems to be right next to an almost identical one that does not so effectively penetrate.  in other words, it's as though each one was accompanied by or preceded by an "attempt" at the same wound.   in other words again, the killer's tendency was to make two strikes for one wound.

also, to refute some theories that andrew was struck while sitting up or trying to -- i think his wounds show otherwise -- that he was lying there as found and never moved.  the wounds move one after the other from the left of his nose to the left of his head.  (btw, i also remember when the skulls were examined in court, it was mentioned how thin andrew's skull was.  i'm almost sure this is from the trial record -- i'll check it later.)

so, provided i'm sufficiently accurate in my descriptions -- what does this say about the strength of the killer?   

are these the blows of a strong-armed madman butcher or cattle slaughterer or lumberjack -- or those of an average or modestly strong individual?

this subject was argued both ways at the trial.  knowlton says something to the effect that a strong man would have buried the axe in her brain and finished.  lizzie's defense talks about these blows being well-aimed (or something to that effect).  but you can see how both sides had to address this issue some way -- gender being an inescapable factor at the time.

what i think i'm seeing shows more clearly in andrew's case, but i would generally describe these blows as "awkward" or "tentative" -- rather than "effective" or "efficient."

the way i'm thinking of this is to use this as an alternative to "fingerprints."  the axe blows give us a record of the arms that wielded it.

what do you all think?

Pardon my memory, but I think the position of Andy can be deduced by the pattern of blood spots on the wall. If over the middle, he was sitting up. If over the end of the couch, he was lying down.

Somebody posted these some months ago. Should they be in Kieran's testimony?

Ray, the experts at the time already made their determination.  If we can't change the verdict you can't change the testimony.
....
Otherwise, haulover, I didn't respond because this narrative reads subjectively and I would like some facts to back this up before I can have an opinion.  Thanks.  It's up to you if you wish to persue this.  It's an interesting concept.

(Message last edited Oct-26th-03  5:17 PM.)

the facts i'm looking at are the listing of wounds in the autopsy reports.  there are some factual difficulties in them because some of the descriptions seem incomplete or have a few word errors or are just lacking in explanation.

what i'm trying to do with them is subjective.  it's speculative.

i've spent less time on andrew's wounds, and so i was looking at them.  the doctor makes a distinction between penetrating or deadly wounds and what he calls "superficial" ones.  i wonder if superficial ones being interspersed with penetrating ones is telling of something?  if so, what?  or perhaps not at all?  i can't even tell if i'm looking at the difficulty of smashing a skull or something in attitude or ability on the part of the killer, for instance.

____________________


Fall River, Mass, August 11th, 1892

Record of Autopsy held at Oak Grove Cemetery on body of Andrew J. Borden. Autopsy performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper. Witnesses F. W. Draper of Boston and John W. Leary of Fall River. Clerk D. E. Cone of Fall River. Time of Autopsy 11.15 A.M. August 11th, 1892, one week after death.

Body that of a man well nourished. Age seventy years. 5 feet 11 inches in height. No stiffness of death on account of decomposition, which was far advanced. Inguinal hernia on right side. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. There were no marks of violence on body, but on left side of head and face there were numerous incised wounds and one contused wound penetrating into the brain.

The wounds beginning at the nose and to the left were as follows:

1.   Incised wound 4 inches long beginning at lower border of left nasal bone and reaching to lower edge of lower jaw, cutting through nose, upper lip, lower lip, and slightly into bone of upper and lower jaw.

2.   Began at internal angle of eye and extended to one and 3/8 inches of lower edge of jaw, beginning 4 and 1/2 inches in length, cutting through the tissues and into the bone.

3.   Began at lower border of lower eye lid cutting through the tissues and into the cheek bone, 2 inches long and one and 3/8 inches deep.

4.   Began two inches above upper eye lid 1/2 inch external to wound No. 3, thence downward and outward through middle of left eyebrow through the eye ball cutting it completely in halves, and excising a piece of the skull one and 1/2 inches in length by 1/2 inch in width. Length of would 4 and 1/2 inches.

5.   Began on level of same wound superficial scalp wound downward and outward 2 inches long.

6.   Parallel with this 1/4 inch long, downward and outward.

7.   Began 1/2 inch below No. 5, 3 inches in length downward and outward, penetrating cavity of skull. On top of skull was a transverse fracture 4 and 1/2 inches in length.

8.   Began directly above No. 7 and one inch in length downward and outward.

9.   Directly posterior to No. 8 beginning at ear and extending 4 inches long, 2 inches in width, crushing bone and carrying bone into brain. Also crushing from without in.

10.   Directly behind this and above it, and running downwards backward 2 inches long superficially.

The general direction of all these wounds is parallel to each other.

HEAD. Right half of top of skull removed. Brain found to be completely decomposed; and in fluid condition.

CHEST. Chest and abdomen opened by one incision extending from neck to pubis. Right lung glued to ribs in front. Left lung normal. HEART normal.

ABDOMEN. Spleen normal, kidney normal, liver and bladder normal. Stomach and portion of liver had been removed. Lower part of large bowel filled with solid formed feces. Feces also in lower part of small bowel.

William A. Dolan, Medical Examiner

D. E. Cone, Clerk

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/AutopsyAndrewBorden.htm
From the LizzieAndrewBorden website, Crime Library, Andrew borden Autopsy.

Since we don't know the sequence of wounds, nor will a Doctor commit to that, I have tried to stay away from an assumption as to blows, as I was called on that before.  My stance was one blow had to be the first blow, why not that?  (whatever) and was not accepted here.
I think you have an interesting subjective theory and I wish the doctors who were studying that corpse and later that skull, had been more definite.

Given the complete lack of blood stains and upset furniture, the first blow either killed or knocked them out so they couldn't struggle.

I would like to read just where the blood spots were on the wall from the original text. I know of no published book that lists this (constraints of space and money), and it is immaterial to the fact of the deaths.

Remember I had posted that several times before?
Once for you and another time for someone who was at work and wanted it *now*.  And again for you.
See the Preliminary Hearing notations at LizzieAndrewBorden.com
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/BloodEvidence.htm

Crime Library, Blood Evidence.
What Kieran found was negligable and not worthy of testimony as he was there much later,August 16th
See Trial, Kieran, 119.

(Message last edited Oct-28th-03  6:10 PM.)

i did not mean to neglect this thread -- but what you see right there tells me something.  i understand.

but there is still a valid question -- deadly wounds interpersed with superficial ones -- this does mean something.  i don't know if it says something about a skull or a killer.

"it takes two to break through" or "i'm weak after every time i strike as hard as i can."

We also must remember that this hatchet is long-handled, according to Dr, Dolan, about 18' to 24", and the full weight is 5 lbs.*  That's not a tomahawk.  That's a long-handled weapon.
The way a person uses this effectively is to let gravity or inertia pull the blade down.  The weight is such that the head/blade falls, cuts the object, then the exertion is pulling the blade out.  If the weapon was used properly, at least somewhat properly, the action is kind of the reverse that you may be envisioning.

*[Edit here:  3 -5 lbs.]

(Message last edited Oct-31st-03  1:32 AM.)

Given the lack of any struggle in either whack, and the lack of blood spatter, HOW could this have happened? You can't put that axe in a shirt pocket? Could it have been hidden behind the back, and done in a coldly calculated manner? I don't think so, but the lack of any video or audio tape prevents me from proving it.

Haulover, I think what you refer to as "attitude" in this post is more significant in both killings than is physical strength/ability. A robot could be programmed to perform the mechanical tasks required to beat a person to death; these killings were performed by a human being who needed some kind of emotional motive power to do the deeds and the ability to visualize and think about what happened before, during, and after without going to pieces. Of course, ordinary physical strength is necessary but attitude is key.

well, the "attitude" is what i was think of in the first place.  but in regard to the "emotional" hurdles one would have to get over in order to do it -- is there such a thing as the ability to actually "turn all that off" in order to see it through?  or perhaps conscience is lacking in the first place -- in many people who seem perfectly normal.  about lizzie i'm tending to think selfishness and narcissism -- that for her these victims were "about lizzie's problems", they were hers to deal with as she needed and it was nobody else's business.

The BIG question is how the killer could effortlessly whack Abby (no struggle or blood spatter), wait for 90 minutes, then do Andy the same way. Emotion or madness?

And for those who say Lizzie, why didn't she EVER repeat her actions?
Reading a book on true crime, various cases: some of the killers were caught, did time, came out, and killed again. I'm not talking about a "serial killer" here, just somebody who applied the same solution to a problem that worked in the past.

Perhaps that was the reason for Emma leaving Maplecroft?  Perhaps she felt her life threatened by Lizzie and possibly knowing that she had killed her parents, she had to get out? 

There is NO EVIDENCE for this claim. Just the fact of two sisters living together w/ differing interests could be enough to explain the split. Or something personal here?

Well, you were asking why Lizzie never applied this "solution to a problem" again.  Who else was there that was a relative and lived with Lizzie that might get in her way of something?  Emma.  Everyone else that came into Lizzie's life or house was by choice, so I don't think there would be any problems with those people. 

Susan, you've got a fun idea, but maybe it's in reverse?  Following the "Emma Did It" theory, maybe she took a swing at Lizzie and Lizzie sent Emma packing!  That could by why Emma left Maplecroft and refused to speak about it.

after reading the latest newsletter, maybe we should keep our
ideas about why Emma left to ourselves, we could win the contest!

The simple fact is that neither Emma or Lizzie did the murders.
AR Brown suggests that WS Borden did in fact kill again (Bertha Manchester). Could it have been done to provide an alibi for imprisoned Lizzie? If so, what sort of collusion was there? Only Uncle John could have been involved, in my opinion, since he covered up the first two murders: "You owe me big time."

you have a good point Rays, I'm with you on Lizzie and Emma.
Uncle John defintitly had something going on I think. It is good
to have you keeping us on our toes about alternate solutions, not
just Lizzie did it. 

One author from the 1960s? said "only Lizzie or Bridget could have done it, but they obviously didn't" (assumed that there was no one else there). THAT is the simple puzzle of this case. Neither could have done both, and there is no evidence that they worked together (but some speculate this).

AR Brown's solution, from the written notes of the man who lived on WS Borden's farm, and whose stepmother passed the house that day, came up with the correct logical solution. It was somebody else whose identity was hidden all these years. There was rumors about this, but nobody ever put it into writing.

Consider a more apt and important case: the murder of JFK. If LH Oswald couldn't have done it, then who? Assume at least one criminal hidden in another office building that faced the back of the car. He would have a clear shot at the back of the car. Far fetched? No, there really was such an individual there at the time (you can research this). Since he had no record under the false name he was using, the police let him go. Around the time he attracted public attention, he soon died.

Yes, but this is an interesting (to me) but academic question. When it ceases to be fun, I will stop posting (like the many others).

I KNOW that AR Brown's solution is best, and enjoy matching wits and knowledge about the case. But nobody can prove this in court, EVER!

I just want to see what anybody else has to say.

Either Bridget or Lizzie *could have done both* and both together *could have done both*.  It's obvious there is no absolute alibi for either one for either crime.
It's beyond belief that one or the other was in the house or even right outside the house, touching the house and not see an intruder or hear anything.
This is pretty much their story and they have to be lying.
That's obstruction of justice and a jail offence.

I don't think the killer's attitude of remaining in a calm composure and planning this out is a viable option.  My point is the person, if they were schizophrenic perhaps, would probably kill without a conscience and therefore probably didn't need to calm down at all since they probably didn't think much of killing someone as being any different than sewing a button on a shirt.  In other words, they are numb to any feelings AT ALL in regard to killing someone.  It's no big deal to them.  Now if the person was also a skilled butcher in addition to being insane they wouldn't splatter the blood and make a mess either.   Bill fits all of this.  He was in and out of the asylum and was known for butchering with very little blood mess because he abhored blood.  I don't think it was planned either.  From the numerous blows it was an act of passion which seems to erupt at the slightest provacation and not given to much "planning out" ahead of time. 

I hope you continue to post on this sight Rays, as I value your opinion highly and find myself on the same thought process as you many times. 

I think Emma left because she didn't like Lizzie's lifestyle.  Perhaps the rumors of Nance and Lizzie being lesbian lovers is true and Emma didn't like being around them and was disgusted by it.  Who knows?

Hi!
Are you going to enter the "Emma-leaving-Lizzie" Contest?

I have a little problem with Emma.  I don't think she was any goody-two-shoes, and if she was , might be a hypocrtite.
She was *Mother* to Lizzie, supposedly, and therefore can take credit for some of Lizzie's attributes, good and bad.
I also think she was retiring but was the brains behind Lizzie...meaning she pushed Lizzie to become what she did, whatever that is.
In some ways I think of Emma as stronger than Lizzie with a lot of influence in the family and after the family was gone.
Whatever reason she left, she still paid (*rent* )so it must have been a serious breach.

Hmm... interesting theory.  Why do you think she was a strong person pushing Lizzie rather than the mousy person so many have characterized her to be? 

Well, I must admit, it definitely must have taken some strength to leave Lizzie.  Women, I don't think, typically moved out on their own to a great distance away from family in that day and age. 

Just about every contest I've entered I've never won so I gave up entering anything years ago. 

You can still come in at second or third and start a winning streak!
The prizes are all fun, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd!.

I think Emma had to be strong;  I think she promised her dying mother, and according to her  *Personolgy Profile* that she was an extremely loyal individual, almost to her own detriment.**
She would be sturdy and steadfast.  I think Lizzie was an *up-and-downer*, hot-and-cold, with divided loyalties, divided between herself and her wants and needs and her love for Emma.  I think she finally chose herself over Emma, which can be understandable.  And yes, you're right, Emma was strong to finally leave Lizbeth and go out on her own!  (Good point)
Sometimes the woman behind the woman (or man) is really the stronger personality.

**Transcribed for you here if interested:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Diversion/AstrologicalBordens.htm#eb

I found the psychic information at this sight very funny and extremely inaccurate.  Not very good psychics I would say.

Did you read the Personology Profiles of the Bordens and partial Morse?

"...partial Morse."   What's a 'partial Morse'?  Wouldn't that be called a 'morsel'?

  Very good, Benjamin!  Thanks for the laugh. 


Emma's profile is something, I wonder how like that description she was?  If so, Lizzie must have had a love/hate relationship with her. 

It means my one finger I type with got tired!

Kat, that conjures up images of you sitting in the wee hours, tapping away at your keyboard with splints on your two index fingers.


The image that comes to mind while reading Emma's profile is a stage mother, idolizing Lizzie and pushing her to do more and become more to be more wonderful. 

i've been meaning to tell you i'll teach you to type if you'll teach me to play pool.

A thousand thanks. But: I figure I've spent about 3 hours a week on this site alone. That's about 150 hours a year, or One Man-Month a year. That is a lot of time for an amateur hobby.

I also feel I've said it all, and do not have much more to say. We seem to be chewing the same old fat, over and over, like leftovers from a meal you don't love.

"Turkey again?" I have a favorite flavor of ice cream, but have to switch after 2-3 weeks. How about you all?

Of course, since neither Emma or Lizzie ever married, there would be rumors about either one nowadays. Once they were rich, they would certainly have a pick of younger men willing to work for them. Or am I being cynical and Continental? (Think about the phrase "petticoat petitioners" by Engels.)

Since Emma was 14 when her Mom died, and Lizzie was 2, I just wonder about the psychological aspects of this. Any comments?

And just what was "feminine congestion"? Is this a eupemism for something scandalous? Didn't Uncle John say Abby deserved more than a widow's dower because she was :more thrifty and FAITHFUL" than Lenore?

I've also thought that perhaps a reason why Emma & Lizzie never married was because their mother died when Lizzie was so young (after having three children) and they didn't want to risk dying in childbirth or from later complications?  A married woman would be expected to provide heirs and in those days it was simpler for a woman to stay a spinster.  And since they had their own money they didn't need a man to provide income.
 

(Message last edited Nov-6th-03  1:15 PM.)

Then there is the story of Alice Roosevelt Longworth. She married a rich man who lost his money (and hers?) in the Great Depression. A married woman would lose control over her money, according to English Law. Its different under Roman Law (the Continent, south western US states).

The death was partly attributed to "Uterine congestion" which sounds like a misscarriage but maybe not.
There was no Lenore and there was no source ever found, and we looked the last few times you reported this , that *Uncle John said Abby was more whatever* than Lenore, who you mean, Sarah.

Thats a good point.
Plus if Lizzie or Emma married they'd be right back under the domination of a man, and I think they might have thriftily escaped that fate handily...so why do it on purpose?

YES, I do mean Andy's first wife. (I recalled this name somehow.)

Well, Ray, since you didn't recall the right name, how can we be sure of anything you've ever said on the website?

Payback's a b*tch, ain't it?

(Message last edited Nov-13th-03  3:17 PM.)