1. "Flat Irons"
Posted by njwolfe on Apr-15th-04 at 3:02 PM

I was just looking at my old antique flat irons (i use as doorstops)
and it sure looks like a handy-dandy little weapon for a girl to use
if in a rage. Like the frying pan over the husband's head.  Fairhavenguy says it is not sharp enough to cut Abby's hair, but what
about Andrew? Someone else (Uncle John, the "boyfriend", nemesis, ....) killed Abby with a sharper weapon?  Andy only got ironed because he came home too early....
Maybe Susan or Kim or anyone good on picture stuff from the Internet
could show a picture here of an antique flat iron, they came in many
sizes and were quite pointy. 

this site on antique flat irons is really good: www.shirbil.com

I agree these could make great weapons, but the doctors all agree the wounds were from a sharp cutting blade of some sort.

Could it have been a case of a whack with an iron first, then "cover it up" with a hatchet? I think not.

Abby was killed first, but she was killed upstairs early, possibly before the ironing stuff was brought out. (It's really unclear from Lizzie and Bridget's testimonies if Lizzie got out the ironing things while Andrew was out or after he returned.)Abby's first wound was the "flap" wound to the face, something that couldn't be made with a flat iron. Then the chops to the back of the head, including one into the neck/shoulder that didn't strike bone. Not the wounds of an iron.

Andrew's later involved cuts, too, though he could have been swatted with an iron first. His death, though, was almost certainly premeditated to some extent after Abby's death. So I doubt he was hit with an iron in a fit of rage. His hair, I think, was cut, too, but I was only certain of having read about Abby's being cut rather cleanly by a sharp instrument.

If Abby or Andrew had been hit by an iron, would the ironing things have been so prominently included in testimony? Bridget and Lizzie are the only two who attest to the ironing being done. I don't think we'd have seen irons lying around if they'd been among the murder weapons. Notice how no one had to chop any kindling that morning to get the fire started. . .

I thought the testimony was "blunt instrument" and Andrew didn't
have much hair did he?  I agree Abby was killed with a sharper weapon,
just separating the two murders.  The possibility of two killers.

I'm reading in another window of my computer the autopsy report in the Crime Library section of the website:

"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."

Somewhere in the trial testimony, at least one of the doctors is asked about whether or not a hatchet could cut the victims' hair as cleanly it was cut. The answer was that a hatchet could.

You can look at the photos at the bottom of the same page to see where Andrew's hair was in relation to his wounds.

I've got one sitting on my kitchen stove -- it isn't
sharp edged at all. It looks like it would do a more
mashy looking job -- not really slice & crush. But I
do have a tall silverplated candle holder that has a
super sharp base. The base is weighted & covered in felt
and it is a perfect weapon.

I can't remember how deep the cuts were -- it seems like
a hatchet would have done more damage than what was done.
As though there wouldn't be anything left at all. Especially
considering how many times they were hit.


http://www.patented-antiques.com/


This one looks like mine except it has a sharper looking
edge than mine has:

Oh, thank you! I was writing for awhile & didn't see that!

are these Andrew's wounds? or Abbys?

thanks Kimberly for the pix, that sort of looks like the ones I have,
mine are different sizes but all have a good point to them.

I haven't seen any with a very sharp edge yet. Some
of them have a sharp point though.......



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13919&item=3286172157&rd=1





http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3631&item=3286177335&rd=1

Damn, you're good at posting those pix!   I wish I could do that,
but please don't tell me how, I'm too old for new tricks, thanks sweetie.

You had it going real good The Privy!

Oh, great, now it looks like we belong to the Flat-Iron Fetishists Society!  

oops I should have posted this in the privy? sometimes I am so
stupid, don't know what I'm doing.  (no excuse)

Were you meaning should you hide the newly-lewd flatiron
fetish that is going around or did you mean me & my saying
that you were posting pictures in the Privy? If you meant
me -- I didn't mean that you should have put the topic
there. I just meant you were doing a good job remembering
the picture codes. These are just as easy to do -- you do
the right click thing & go to properties & that will give
you the picture address & then you use that rather than
saving it on your computer. But sometimes they will
complain & you have to remove them. I was linking gifs
from that Useless Graphics site & they said I was using
all their bandwidth. I don't know what that means.......

Andrew's.

Do you have access to testimony at all?  I think Fairhaven Guy was trying to point you toward that.
Andrew's face, as he says, was the one cut up.  Reading every word, tho it's hard to read- will give you the wounds described which lead you to realize it is Andrew.
A sharp cutting instrument was usually cited, tho in the early first day or so there was specualtion of a razor.  The main controversy was not that it was a hatchet, but what size blade as a weapon and how new and whether it had gilt or had it been honed etc. and how long was the handle.  The HH fit into the wounds and that was why they settled on that.
You can read Dr. Dolan and Dr. Draper.
As a weapon:   the public wrote letters offering a flat-iron as a weapon- but the doctors never entertained that notion, nor a knife or a bayonet or an iron or a candlestick.

Edit here:  I didn't mean a bayonet, I was thinking of a machete.

(Message last edited Apr-16th-04  12:10 AM.)

I was filling a couple of people in on the case the other day and I mentioned the gilt in one wound and none in the other and the one guy just blurted out, "Ah 2 weapons!"
He didn't know about Lizzie Borden if you can believe that!  After I did the ditty he began to recall...

So 2 weapons usually raises the spector of 2 assassins.. and it gets complicated...

Kat,
I've been reading throughout these threads about gilt in somebody's wounds, but I don't see it mentioned in either Andrew or Abby's autopsy reports or in the trial testimony.

Where does this gilt info come from?

It would be interesting to explore the composition of possible weapons such as axes and cleavers to see if any had a coating that might have left the "gilt" behind.
Was chrome used as a coating to cleavers to make them shiny? I know a lot of old knives had platings or coatings when I was growing up. Did they in the 1890's? Could the "gilt" of a new instrument have come off on Abby and then left none on Andrew, thus being the same weapon but "used"?

Gramma

Since Kat is not here at the moment I'll try to answer the "gilt" question.

A letter (on his examination of Mrs. Borden's wounds) that Dr. Draper  wrote to Knowlton contained the following paragraph:

""The other discovery is still more important. On one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull, near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of the gilt metal with which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory. This deposit (Dr. Cheever confirmed the observations fully) means that the hatchet used in killing Mrs. Borden was a new hatchet, not long out of the store. ... The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is situated."

This letter was never introduced at the trial or at any of the hearings which is a mystery in itself.

The full letter can be found in Robt. Flynn's "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe"

Thanks, Harry.

The cooperative spirit around here is really refreshing. I know several "local historians" who hoard their material as though history should not be shared by others.

Thanks, Harry.  Yes, I never understood why Lizzie's defense team didn't jump on that and present it at the trial.  I can see why the prosecuting team didn't want that displayed as they seemed to be trying to push the handleless hatchet as the murder weapon, which looked like its was old, even in Lizzie's day. 

If it's a letter from Draper to Knowlton, maybe the defense never even knew about it.

Neither the prosecution nor the defense acknowledged the discovery of the hatchet on the roof of Crowe's barn, which took place just before the end of the trial.

Harry,

As a point of interest, I once counted ten references (there may be more) to flat irons as the murder weapon in The Commonwealth of Mass. vs. Lizzie Borden (Martins & Binette).

I collected antique irons in all shapes and sizes many moons ago and I can verify that they have the postential of being a very dangerous weapon. A particular type (sleeve iron) has a very sharp point, almost dagger-like in appearance.

For anyone who may be interested, here are the page references:
Page#: 21,44,49,50,55,60,62,63,136,334,351,352.

Regarding the gilt -- I probably shouldn't be joining in here with this. I'm way out of my depth regarding legal stuff and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ...  But Fairhaven's question made me start thinking about rules of discovery in criminal cases. I did a brief on-line search and came up with this definition from the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts glossary of criminal court terms:

"Discovery: When the defendant's attorney meets with the prosecutor and requests disclosure of certain types of evidence against the defendant. The government may then make a reciprocal discovery request of the defendant."

This is pretty simplistic wording for a very complex legal issue but it seems as though Jennings could try to establish what the prosecution planned to use as evidence against Lizzie and then that would open the door for Knowlton to ask for something in return.

But would Knowlton consider a new hatchet as evidence against Lizzie?  There was no testimony that Lizzie ever purchased a hatchet of any kind.  All the axes and hatchets found in the house showed signs of use. So Knowlton was probably within his rights, even had Jennings asked -- to withold Draper's disclosure -- as the gilt did not bolster the case against Lizzie.  Because digging further, it looks as though it wasn't until 1963 that Brady vs Maryland made it incumbent on the prosecution to provide evidence favorable to an accused in a timely manner. And even today the Federal Rules of Prosecution seem to indicate that Draper's letter would not be subject to disclosure. See Rule 16 on:

http://www.law.ukans.edu/research/frcrimIV.htm

The newspaper clipping about the hatchet with the "slight coloring of gilt" that was found on Crowe's barn on June 14, 1893 says that the father of the boy who found it "sought an interview with the counsel for the defence, but was unable to find Mr. Jennings".  (Flynn,14,15) The article goes on to say that one policeman who "has been an important witness in the Borden case" admitted that this "new find" was not good for the prosecution's case.(Source: copy of newspaper article stapled to end page of Flynn booklet.)     

thank you for that William! It gets more confusing, but if the flat
iron is the picture, the possiblity of two weapons, two murderers is
more likely.  Abby was the "planned murder" and Andrew the spur of the
moment impulse murder because he came home early and perhaps said the
wrong things to Lizzie. I might have one of the "sleeve irons" you refer to, it is pretty sharp and pointy.  and didn't Lizzie say "she
was heating her irons" plural? 

Abby's murder may have been planned or might have been heat-of-the-moment, but it took place more than an hour before the attack on Andrew.

I'm venturing into opinion, here, but it seems likely that Andrew's death was either planned, too, or it developed as a result of Abby's death. If it developed as a result of Abby's, Andrew's killer had a considerable time to premeditate it. I doubt Andrew knew that Abby was dead. There was no sign of a struggle from Andrew. He was either taken completely by surprise or he was napping when he was first struck. If one waits until Andrew's asleep, that's planning. If one prepares to take him by surprise, that's planning.

If either Abby or Andrew were hit by a flat iron, the damage inflicted by the iron was masked with cut wounds made with a much sharper instrument, if that is even possible.

Thanks for all that Diana!

I am now looking at the context of the information Harry posted in regard to Discovery.  I know the 2 sides had *equal* access to the skulls - so there might be a timeline explanation here.  The letters I use here are all prior to the Trial and dates should be noted::

We start at letter HK016
"HK016
Letter, handwritten in ink.

ANDREW J. JENNINGS,
COUNSELOR AT LAW,
SECTION G, GRANITE BLOCK
   Fall River, Mass.             Aug. 18 1892

H. M. Knowlton Esq.
District Attorney
You are hereby notified to produce and have at the trial of the com-
plaint for murder against Lizzie A. Borden at the 2nd Dist. Court of
Bristol on Monday next, the dress, skirt, shoes stockings and any other
article of clothing claimed to have been worn by said Lizzie also any articles of clothing claimed to have been worn by the persons killed together
with all portions of the bodies now in your possession or under your con-
trol including the hair also pictures of the wood work and furniture of the
house of said deceased now in your possession or under your control also
any and all axes, hatchets and other similar instruments taken from the
house of the deceased in your possession or under your control and gen-
erally to produce and have with you then and there any and all instru-
ments and articles which have come into your possession or under your
control which were taken from the house barn or premises where
Andrew J. Borden was Killed.

Andrew J. Jennings
Atty. for Lizzie A. Borden"
______

Letter HK038, From Pillsbury to Knowlton During the Preliminary:

"...Boston, Aug. 30, 1892.
....I still favor holding back all that can be prudently held back espe-
cially as I now think that what you have absolutely determined to put in
will make the case about as strong to the public, as if everything went in."
_______

HK051, Knowlton to Pillsbury:

"New Bedford, Mass., Sept. 2, 1892

...If you see Wood give him a little caution about disclosing anything,
particularly with reference to the broken hatchet. Some of my Fall River
friends have a feeling that Adams and he are too thick. This is partly
caused by Wood's frankness in saying that he was a special friend of
Adams, and was also his client."
_____
Partial of a Letter #HK054 from Pillsbury to Knowlton, Sept. 13, 1892:

"I have cautioned Wood several times, and am afraid he rather
resents it. But they all leak to their intimate friends, even Draper, the
most cautious man ever I knew, who, as I learned from Adams, on the way
up Thursday, had talked the matter over fully with him before he was put
upon the stand; having been sent for by Adams to be used by him for the
defence the same night that Dr. Dolan's message was sent."
_____
HK198, May 27, 1893, to Pillsbury from Knowlton:
"...The defense have asked for two experts, one on each branch, presumably the chemical and the anatomical.  They are to designate their names as soon as they have selexted them, probably early next week.  This makes it of great importance for us to decide whether we want additional experts, and if so whom.  Both Dr. Draper and Wood will take it kindly to be fortified, especially in view of the above fact."
_____

HK200, dated May 28, 1893, from Dr. Draper to Knowlton:

"Two of the medical experts for the defence, by the way, have made their appearance.  They are Dr. Thomas Dwight and Dr. Maurice H. Richardson.  Both are Boston men and both are connected with the Harvard Medical School, the former as Professor of Anantomy and the latter as Assistant Professor of Anatomy....Both these gentleman studied the skulls and the bony fragments at my office, while I sat in a room near by within easy call, but not where I could hear conversation when their door was shut.  They did not require any information and we had no communication during their study of the corpora delicti."
____

Then what Harry provided:

HK203, dated May 31, 1893, Dr. Draper to Knowlton, written after a consultation with Dr. Cheever where they went over the evidence of "the Borden photographs and skulls":
"The other discovery is still more important; on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull, near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of the gilt metal with which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory; this deposit (Dr. Cheever confirmed the observation fully) means that the hatchet used in killing Mrs. Borden was a new hatchet, not long out of the store. ... The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

source:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

(Message last edited Apr-16th-04  10:58 PM.)

David Kent's book "Forty Whacks" reproduces the page of Dr. Draper's handwritten letter in which Draper refers to the gilt deposit he saw on Abby's skull. This reproduction is part of the illustrations section of Kent's book.

I have wondered about this gilt deposit. It appears that Draper (and Dr. Cheever) discovered this evidence not long before the trial began. This would be well after the skulls of both Abby and Andrew had been "prepared." I don't know the steps of this preparation process but surmise they would include removing/scraping the flesh from the bone, washing the skull, and perhaps treating it with a chemical(s). Such activity could remove traces of foreign matter (such as gilt) clinging to the flesh and bone; perhaps there was more gilt in or around Abby's wounds (and Andrew's?) that was removed during the cleaning process without being noticed. Dr. Draper seems convinced what he and Cheever saw on Abby's skull was gilt; perhaps it was the only deposit remaining.

(Message last edited Apr-17th-04  10:04 AM.)

The cleaning of bones was and still is generally done by insects, believe it or not.

http://www.skulltaxidermy.com/

(Message last edited Apr-17th-04  10:30 AM.)

This important information was withheld from the defense. No "Brady Rules" back then!!! Exculpatory testimony can't be withheld from the defense.

thanks fairhavenguy, that is a good reason for cremation instead
of....ugh

Once you know how skulls are prepared for exhibit, one understands why Dr. Wood (or Draper)is basically asked to skip over the explanation as to how he prepared them.

I can't find the exact exchange in the trial testimony at the moment, but one of the doctors seems about to launch into an explanation of how the skulls were prepared and one of the lawyers says, in effect, "Uh. . .skip that. Let's just say they were prepared."

Ah, so every well equipped homestead (or medical examiner's office) should have a colony of voracious dermestid beetles and a kit of skull whitening chemicals! If this was the process used to "clean up" Abby and Andrew I wonder if the beetles consumed any gilt. Or if any additional gilt deposits just flaked off and disappeared. Another of those intriguing little Borden mysteries we will never have the answer to!

Besides the beetles, we really can't be certain how carefully the skulls were handled. These folks were handing evidence around the courtroom, the were shoving pieces of tin into the holes on the skull to guess how wide a blade might have caused them. (Since "tin" is usually tin plated iron sheet metal, it's even possible that somebody's experimenting resulted in the "gilt" mark on Abby's skull.)

We've recently seen a photo of Kat wearing white cotton gloves to hold the hatchet in the FRHS, which is more caution than was used by any of police, doctors or lawyers involved in the case.

Dolan prepared the skull.  I am recalling it was boiled, but so far I can't find it.
In the Trial, pg. 893:
Q.  What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? I will ask you this question. Perhaps my friends will know the reason I ask it in the form I do just now. What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? Does it in any way affect the integrity of the bone?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  What is the thickness of the skull at the point where those four wounds went through into the brain?
A.  About one sixteenth of an inch.


I think he is referring to the findings of both sides.
I noticed that Draper did not write the letter to Knowlton about finding the gilt, until after the defense experts had examined the skulls.
I picture the good doctor going in there with a maganifying glass to check the wound marks and see it through the defense's eyes.
Not only that, but we haven't asked why did the defense not call these witnesses?  I mean:   Have any of you ever heard of these guys, Dwight & Richardson!?

I don't know when was the first time anybody tried to fit a piece of metal into the wounds, but I think it was much later.  Phillips said that a demonstration with a new hatchet failed but wasn't tried until trial?

Phillips, pg 11
"The skull of Mr. Borden was an exhibit before the jury—a gruesome sight for Miss Borden to face[sic] during this long trial. Many cuts appeared within its bony structure, and at one place the hatchet cut was plainly nitched on both sides of the inner part of the skull. Mr. Adams was about to claim to the jury that the cutting must have been done by a weapon of very unusual make, and was so confident of his position that he went to a nearby hardware store and purchased a hatchet which seemed to be of correct size and planned to exhibit it to the jury and compare it with the notches as an illustration of his claim. I doubt very much whether such an experiment would have been allowed but one can never tell what a doubtful ruling will be. He was urged by Governor Robinson to make a private test first and reluctantly did so, only to find that the fit was perfect, so that it became clear to us that an ordinary new style of hatchet was used by the murderer. If Mr. Adams had, while claiming that no ordinary hatchet could have been used, tried such a hatchet and found that it fitted perfectly it would have created what I term an anti-climax."

(Message last edited Apr-17th-04  8:47 PM.)

This was in the Aug. 27th Evening Standard:

"The evidence given by Dr. Dolan yesterday in regard to the cutting off of the heads of Mr. and Mrs. Borden, and boiling them to remove the flesh and then preserving the skulls, although the order came from the high authority of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, has led to a strong feeling of opposition to the course of the government on the part of many people in this city."

In the Preliminary, Dolan is being questioned:

"Page 185

Q.  Did you remove anything from those bodies, or either of them?
A.  Yes sir, I removed the skulls, the heads.
Q.  The skulls?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  When?
A.  The day of the autopsy.

.........

Q.  What did you do with them?
A.  I cleaned them.
Q.  You cleaned them?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Do you mean to say these bodies are now buried without the heads?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Where are these skulls?
A.  In my possession.
Q.  Where?
A.  At my office."

Thanks Har! 
I had the feeling that the state was in kind of a hurry.
Another question might be:  Why did Dr. Dolan wait until the 11th to finish the autopsy?

That was one of the first questions I asked myself, seeing the dates on the post-mortem reports. Haven't found much of an answer to that at this point, but did come across an interesting little item that at least corroborates the cirumstances under which the initial autopsies on the Bordens were done. An article, actually a book review which appeared in the London Daily Telegraph earlier this year - the reviewed volume was Poisoned Lives - stated that: "Before the 18th century, the evidence at inquests was largely medical and even when doctors were prepared to give an opinion in court they could find themselves outclassed by a clever attorney. Autopsies were usually held on a table in the victim's house while family members and friends were present."
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/01/25/bowat18.xml&sSheet=/arts/2004/01/25/bomain.html

The nearest thing I've ever seen to it in terms of time relevancy is the autopsy report of President Lincoln in 1865. That report is actually a memorandum (4 paragraphs exactly,) addressed to Army Surgeon General Barnes.

Another oddity: It doesn't appear that the Bordens were embalmed at all judging from the condition of the bodies a week later... even more ironic because - do I recall that Andrew in earlier years had been a mortician??

Doug

(Message last edited Apr-18th-04  12:48 AM.)

No we don't think they were embalmed but we had wondered if they had been, at least, on ice.
Andrew was not a mortician that we know of- more a furniture dealer/undertaker- the definition being one who *undertakes* to plan or prepare a funeral or a showing.  They rent out the chairs, maybe the bunting- Andrew and William Almy a couple of times would show bodies in their storefront by necessity.

Can you find this for me?  Thanks.

I guess neither side wanted the gilt to come out in testimony if  even the defence didn't call their experts.  I don't know what that indicates...
I think it's quite odd.  I wonder more now about those notes of Jennings and Robinson's papers because there is evidence which was examined and no conclusion made public.

(Message last edited Apr-18th-04  2:00 AM.)

Adam's efforts to match the hatchet size against the head wounds was an exercise in futility. A variety of hatchet-head sizes could have created the fatal wounds.

The fallacy of Adam's theory was demonstrated in Robert A. Flynn's tract. "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe." 1992, King Philip Publishing Company.

Mr. Flynn writes, "Using a shingling axe similar to the one in the Fall River Historical Society, the writer experimented with various materials (other than skulls) by striking hard blows, soft blows, high level, low level, glancing, sliding and angle blows, resulting in some cuts being NARROWER and other cuts being WIDER than the three inch hatchet head that I used.  My conclusion:

     'IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE THE SIZE OF AN AXE OR HATCHET HEAD BY MEASURING THE WIDTH OF THE MARKS AND INCISIONS.'"

I have personally confirmed Mr. Flynn's experiment to my own satisfacton by using various size hatchet heads.  In my demonstration the victim was a cantaloupe.


(Message last edited Apr-18th-04  4:57 PM.)

"We've recently seen a photo of Kat wearing white cotton gloves to hold the hatchet in the FRHS, which is more caution than was used by any of police, doctors or lawyers involved in the case."

Or, for that matter, any people visiting the FRHS for many years. When I was small those things were handled barehanded routinely . The white gloves are recent history in the public world of archival material. In most institutions they used to be reserved for only the most valuable things that the public never touched anyway.

Gramma

William has explained there is no proof of a definite weapon.  I don't understand why everyone rejects the possibility of a flat iron.
If there was gilt (questionable) on Abby's wounds, why not on Andrews?
There is NO evidence that the killings couldn't have been done with
a flat iron. 

William explained that the size of the particular hatchet, axe, cleaver can't be determined. The wounds involved cuts with a sharp instrument, which was heavy enough to break through the skull in places. An iron would produce a lot more crushing/mashing. The very first words on the street regarding Andrew's death were of "stabbing," "cutting," and folks were talking about cleavers and even razors. I think the doctors examining the skulls could tell the difference between an implement that makes sharp cuts and a flat iron.

If the wounds were similar to something like an iron, virtually any blunt object with a point and straight edges could be suspected--a brick, a pointed rock, probably a whole bunch of stuff lying around in the barn or the cellar. They were looking for hatchets or axes!

Kat, I'll look for that exchange when I'm on my other computer to which downloaded the trial testimony. Since it was Dolan who prepared the skulls, the questions must have been asked of him. It was a very similar exchange to what Harry quoted from the Preliminary, but I read it in the Trial. I had the sense he was cut off out of respect for the sensibilities of the public.

(Message last edited Apr-18th-04  8:06 PM.)

We've been struggling with just this question for years.
There was gilt in the one's wound and none reported in the other's.
Two weapons?  Two murderers?
A newish hatchet and gilt came off, the very last gilt , so none left for Andrew?
The weapon had gilt but was cleaned and/or honed between murders, eliminating any remaining gilt?
If it was imbedded in the bone so well that it survived the cleaning of the skulls, that is a pretty hard cut.

Maybe the defense manipulted the evidence and put that gilt there and that's why they never brought it up, and why the letter informing Knowlton of it came several days after the defense had access to the skulls?  I'm surprised a conspirascy was never started about this...

Is a flat-iron gilded? I have one but it's decorated.


Have you read the Witness Statements, Inquest, Prelim. and Trial?

I've been adjusting my idea of gilt.  I thought it was gold-colored.  Now I think it was silver. 
These hatchet blades I've seen have a silver edge and then the blade- and the hatchet head is honed down past the silver --and the blade itself, the cutting edge, is thinner yet, and usually pretty sharp.

Another attribute of the mysterious hatchet (the weapon) is that it had a Handlle, which provided leverage.  The experts did specify this.
Now, as to the length:  it might be 12-14-24-36" - that is controversy.

Thanks FairhavenGuy.  I was looking up skulls and how they were prepared and my search words were lacking.

(Message last edited Apr-18th-04  6:42 PM.)

Webster's says that gilt  is... that which has or is "covered with gold or gilt : of the color of gold." I know what you mean about the silverish hue tho Kat - altho for the life of me there's another odd word for that - and I cannot think of what it is. It is (or was) it seems as I recall, an archaic term for a silver coating.

Doug

I vote for it being from her bobby pins.

Kat:

Although I have never collected, nor seen, a gilted flat iron, I do have a photograph of such an iron.  I believe, however, that they are uncommon.

(The next time you're at the FRHS, tell Michael you would like to examine "the" hatchet again - you know, jist for old times sake. After you've donned your archival gloves ask him to obtain a magnifying glass for you to aid your examination. While he is out of the room temporarily, take a pen knife from your purse and lightly scrape the edge of the blade).

How much do you think gilt scrapings from "the" hatchet will bring on eBay?  Shhh!

One more idea....as if we needed one......did the gilt come from a knife used to clean the skull, digging into the crevice to get the bone as clean as possible?

Gramma

Dolan prepared the skulls.  
In the Trial, pg. 893:
Q.  What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? I will ask you this question. Perhaps my friends will know the reason I ask it in the form I do just now. What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? Does it in any way affect the integrity of the bone?
A.  No, sir.

.........

William!
Yes!
But we were left alone with the HH.
After about 15 minutes I noticed there was no Dennis or Michael and I mentioned that to the Interviewer!  Oh gawd we both got a gleam in our eye!
But Dennis showed up shortly. 
(We are eminently trustworthy!)

I just gave Stef a 1910 C&O RR hatchet and she can give it a scrape.  Just to see if some of that silver at the tip is gilt or just bare blade from honing.
Harry told me it was useless unless THE weapon was found and known to be the one, and then THAT was tested....

Are you ready, Doug? The secret woid is "silvered."  However, I think they meant silvered when they said "gilded," because all the cutlery seems to have been the former.  Golden hatchet sounds like something out of a Wagnerian opera, don't you think.

Of course, in the case of the handleless hatchet, it was gelded.

--Lyddie

Kat,
The "meat" and flesh are boiled off, but have you ever cleaned meat bones for a stew (oh no! more recipes, I can see it now!) ?
I have often used a knife to get the pieces stuck in crevices. Of course I wasn't preparing forensic evidence but it would be very important to have no flesh left at all and if there was some stuck in the wounds it would be hard to get out otherwise.

Gramma

(Message last edited Apr-20th-04  12:50 PM.)

Kat, Harry, et. al.

I seem to be misremembering some testimony I thought I had read during which it seems as though one of the doctors is being steered away from what might turn out to be a gruesome description of how the skulls were prepared.

What Harry and Kat have posted is just about all there is about it, I guess.

The flesh removal is only described as flesh removal or skull preparation from what I can see after reviewing the testimony.

I believe an acid bath would be the most efficient way to remove all of the flesh from the skulls.

(UGH!)

Thanks FairhavenGuy!
Sorry to put you through that, but it is helpful to know.
I had Harry helping me look because his search words are better than mine.
I told him "Uh oh what if it was from some Author!"
He did find a bit about it looking in his Evening Standard paper.
That said the bodies were autopsied (the second time) in "The Ladies Waiting Room" at the Oak Grove Cemetary.  Who knew? 

"[By Associated Press.]- [from Harry]
Fall River, Aug. 11. --- A second autopsy was held in the ladies’ waiting room at Oak Grove cemetery this morning.  Mrs. Borden's body was examined first. The new fact discovered was a bruise on the back near the left shoulder, about the width of an axe and shaped like the head of an axe.  It gives another clew to the exact position held by Mrs. Borden when the deed was committed.  At 2:05 o'clock the examining physician's were at work on Mr. Borden's body.  The physicians at work were Dr. Draper of Boston, and Medical Examiner Dolan, Drs. Leary and Cone of this city"

BTW:  The clothes were dug up again after they found that new wound in Abby's back.  That cut which was made in the flesh was irritated and swollen, but the cut made in the fabric would probably have given them the best idea of blade size than anything done to the heads.

Hey William, that reminds me of Dahmer!
(He went to the same high school as my cousins- but not at the same time).

Don't worry, I wouldn't quote an Author that way. I haven't read many anyway. I'm part way into Porter right now and I've read Brown 1 1/2 times. I've read other things in the past, too, including some of the fiction. I also have a borrowed copy of the Evening Standard repro LIZZIE BORDEN Did she?. . .or. . .Didn't She?

Most recently, though, thanks to the free downloads, I've read the Witness Statements, Inquest testimony and most of the Trial testimony.

To explain my misremembering, I guess when I read:

Q.  What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? I will ask you this question. Perhaps my friends will know the reason I ask it in the form I do just now. What is the process of removing the flesh from the bone? Does it in any way affect the integrity of the bone?

I was thinking, "He asked him what is the process, but then he doesn't actually let him answer." Since I knew it would have been prepared either with insects in a "bug room" or by boiling, I figured that that was why he skipped right on to the "does it. . .affect the integrity of the bone?"

Another thing to consider is if they boiled too long it WOULD compromise the integrity of the bone. That may be what he was trying to get without  going into detail.
Sorry if I have been too graphic but I know someone would have to do the gruesome task and having some medical training in my background I know you can do some things in the performance of duty that would not ordinarily be a part of your life. The techniques back then were not blessed with the high tech solutions we have today. There were many things in life then that were not talked about.

Gramma

Do you guys realize I just sat down with a bowl of beef and mushroom stew, and THIS is what I found myself reading.  The scary part is, I haven't thrown up! 

--Lyddie

I had already decided soup and stew was off my menu for some time to come!
At nursing school I soon got over being squeamish at the dinner table as we would discuss all our endeavors of the day in the cafeteria. I think that is why most medical people sit together in hospital cafeterias, so they won't gross others out with their conversations.

Gramma

I was worried that my memory of boiling as the preparation was from an author.
Luckily the Evening Standard was the source.  Several years ago my sentiment would have been reversed.

I have pretty much put the authors out of my mind, other than Brown & Lincoln which are always quoted.

Every day I read more "on Lizzie."  Stef gives me articles she has requested or I have requested from her college.  (She reads them too).
In the last couple of days I have re-read The Watters section on Astrology and Lizzie, and The Fate magazine article of the haunted B&B.  And I've read "Lizzie Borden Took An axe', Representations of American Culture in Plays about the Lizzie Borden Murders and Trial", by Scott W. Webster, of the Univ. of Maryland, from PROTEUS:  A Journal Of Ideas (no date!), and "New England Gothic by the Light of Common Day:  Lizzie Borden and Mary E. Wilkins Freeman's 'The Long Arm.' "  By S. Bradley Shaw, from the New England Quarterly, 1997.  Now I've gotten out that story to re-read after this review.  I am in the midst of reading a scholarly take on the cultrual aspects and expectations of Lizzie's trial, and just recently viewed 3 videos on the case.
Whew!  I don't remember the authors anymore- just Rebello!

did you ever figure out how they missed the back wound in the first place?
i cant' remember anything about cuts in fabric from testimony...