Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden Topic Name: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'  

1. "Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-9th-03 at 4:50 AM

The Ubiquitous "Somebody"..

Witness Statements, Harrington&Doherty, pg.12, quoting Churchill, Aug. 8th:
..."Lizzie then said I wish somebody would go up stairs and try to find Mrs. Borden. So Bridget and I started. I think she led the way."...


Inquest, Lizzie,
48
Q. Did you ever know of your father making a will?
A. No sir, except I heard somebody say once that there was one several years ago; that is all I ever heard.
Q. Who did you hear say so?
A. I think it was Mr. Morse.

62
Q. What had you in your mind when you said you were on the stairs as Maggie let your father in?
A. The other day somebody came there and she let them in and I was on the stairs; I don't know whether the morning before or when it was.

65
Q. Had you any knowledge of her going out of the house?
A. She told me she had had a note, somebody was sick, and said "I am going to get the dinner on the way," and asked me what I wanted for dinner.

68-9
Q. Was the ironing board put away?
A. No sir, it was on the dining room table.
Q. When was it put away?
A. I don't know. Somebody put it away after the affair happened.
Q. You did not put it away?
A. No sir.

80
She said she was going out, somebody was sick, and she would get the dinner, get the meat, order the meat.
...........
. She said she had been up and made the spare bed, and was going to take up some linen pillow cases for the small pillows at the foot, and then the room was done. She says: "I have had a note from somebody that is sick, and I am going out, and I will get the din- [sic] at the same time."

82
Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very tender, I said why are these heads off? I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.

89
Q. Your attention has already been called to the circumstance of going into the drug store of Smith's, on the corner of Columbia and Main streets, by some officer, has it not, on the day before the tragedy?
A. I don't know whether some officer has asked me, somebody has spoken of it to me; I don't know who it was.

90
Q. Was you going to tell the occurrence about the man that called at the house?
A. No, sir. It was after my sister went away. I came home from Miss Russell's one night, and as I came up, I always glanced towards the side door as I came along by the carriage way, I saw a shadow on the side steps. I did not stop walking, but I walked slower. Somebody ran down the steps, around the east end of the house. I thought it was a man, because I saw no skirts, and I was frightened, and of course I did not go around to see. I hurried in the front door as fast as I could and locked it.

91
Q. Do you remember what night that was?
A. No, sir; I don't. I saw somebody run around the house once before last winter.
...........
Q. What was you going to say about last winter?
A. Last winter when I was coming home from church one Thursday evening I saw somebody run around the house again. I told my father of that.




2. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Edisto on May-9th-03 at 9:42 AM
In response to Message #1.

Some of these uses of "somebody" can easily be discounted. The first one isn't Lizzie speaking and may not be what she actually said.  When Lizzie speaks of the person whom she supposedly saw lurking about the house, she would have to be vague in her description, because she didn't have much to go on.  However, I've always thought it extremely odd (assuming the story about Abby's note is the truth) that Abby didn't tell Lizzie who was sick.  How many of us would say, "I got a note this morning from somebody who is sick..."?  I for one would say, "I got a note this morning from Maude Frickett.  She's sick and wants me to stop by."  Masterton tries to explain this away by saying that Lizzie misunderstood the content of the note, but I have a hard time buying that.  The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Abby was in the habit of visiting the sick, perhaps as part of some church group, and wasn't well acquainted with the sick person.  In that case, a name would have meant little to Lizzie and might not have been furnished.  Another explanation, of course, is that there wasn't any note.  My problem with that one is that Lizzie didn't need to include the note in her story.  She could have simply said, "Abby said she was going out to get meat for dinner and to visit somebody who was sick." (Oops!  There's that "somebody" again.)


3. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Carol on May-9th-03 at 2:49 PM
In response to Message #2.

I suppose those who think Lizzie is guilty beyond a doubt would say that she had some bodies on her mind.


4. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-9th-03 at 6:52 PM
In response to Message #1.

This was considered by me as a companion piece to the "They" on the other thread.
I thought there would be more I could add, just for evaluation's sake, by other witnesses.  I thought there would be "Somebodies" in Emma's testimonies and "Somebodies" in Morses.
Not so.
Today I was going to check them and add.
Turns out Emma has no mysterious "Somebodies" in her Inquest or Trial testimonies, and Morse only recounts a "somebody" who brought a note as hear-say by him, and the only other somebody he mentions is mainly to repeat that word back to his questioner at Prlim., who keeps referring to the person who came in the front door Wednesday night  while Andrew and he, Morse, were in the sitting room (Abby just having gone to bed) as "somebody."
That's it.
That leaves me so far with only Lizzie's "Somebodies" and I didn't expect that.  Well, well...


5. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by haulover on May-9th-03 at 7:38 PM
In response to Message #4.

i'm not surprised.  it's part of the vagueness.

edisto makes a good point though.  why lie about a note?  "mrs. borden said she was going out to get the dinner, and later when i didn't see her, i thought she had gone."


6. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-10th-03 at 7:15 PM
In response to Message #5.

Jeesh.  I'm unstoppable.
I was continuing to check others to add here.
Just checked Bridget.
All Her "Sombodies" are those she gets from Lizzie.
Somebody was sick & sent a note, and Somebody came in and killed father.
Bridget's one Somebody on her own (I don't include the questioner using that device in their query)was to call Mr. Borden at the front door "Somebody", initially, as in:
Prelim.
Bridget
19
A.  I heard him at the door. I cannot tell did he ring the bell or not, but I heard a person at the door trying to get in; and I let him in.
Q.  What was it you heard exactly?
A.  Somebody trying to unlock the door.
Q.  You was then in the sitting room washing the windows?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  What did you do?
A.  I went and let him in.
Q.  It was Mr. Borden was it?
A.  Yes Sir.
.....

Through this exercise, I note that Lizzie is a big source of "They" and "Somebody".  No one else.  Being ambiguous.  She out of all is clueless and just as haulover calls it, "vague."  That sort of vageness sounds suspicious and slippery...sounds like prevarication.

(Message last edited May-10th-03  7:16 PM.)


7. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Carol on May-11th-03 at 2:13 PM
In response to Message #5.

Justice Dewey was the first to bring up in his charge to the jury
questions about the note that the jury should consider, one of which was why Lizzie would bother telling about a note when all she had to say was that Abby went out.


8. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by diana on May-11th-03 at 3:50 PM
In response to Message #7.

That note really bothers me. 

Lincoln was the first 'Borden' author that I read.  And I remember being struck by her insistence on Lizzie's "reputation for dismal, plodding honesty."

Lincoln said:  "Nobody can study Lizzie's inquest testimony without
being struck by something odd: she manipulates fact, but she cannot invent it. If no note came, it is the only specific object that she mentions that was not later proved to have actual, physical existence. Either a note came, or she told one solitary lie totally out of keeping with all the rest, totally out of keeping with her own style." (A Private Disgrace, p.70-71)

(Note that Lincoln only claims that Lizzie appears incapable of inventing when it involves tangibles.  In other words, Lincoln does admit that Lizzie may have lied about not seeing Morse, for example.)

But, still, why the note?  There was no need for it.  And it gains epic proportions in the testimonies.  According to the Inquest -- it's the only thing Emma can remember asking Bridget about. It's almost the first thing Dr. Bowen and Mrs. Churchill heard from Lizzie. And Morse claims Lizzie told him about the note on the afternoon of the murders.  So Lizzie seemed bent on making sure people knew a note had come for Abby. Why? If she was lying about it, she must have known she couldn't produce it. Must have known people would wonder why she didn't know who it came from. And if she's as cunning and devious as to plan out two murders and get off scot free, then why would she slip on something like that.  Why say there was a note if there wasn't one?  


9. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-11th-03 at 11:03 PM
In response to Message #8.

That's a profound post and well put.

Let me ask you though, as an aside, but related to this main issue about the note:
Is there another tangible object called into question in this case as relates to Lizzie that never appeared?
Or, thinking on it more, was Ms. Lincoln speaking in all-encompassing terms but only about one thing?  Meaning the note was the only thing after all...or is there another example.
Was Lincoln using her dramatic emphasis to make just one point?

Lizzie ended up with no sinkers.
No tangible proven prowler
No pillow slips lying around the guest room
No slippers on Andrew
No pear carcasses
Fill in the blank_______....


10. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-11th-03 at 11:47 PM
In response to Message #9.

BTW:

I think it was as simple as the probability that it was Lizzie's first lie on the murder day to someone.
Abby is lying dead upstairs.
Andrew may have asked Lizzie, where is your Mother?
(But it's not necessary under the circumstances.)
Lizzie is nervous?
Lizzie blurts out in a low/slow voice (sounds as if she did not wish to be overheard) that Abby has gone out because of a note.

The first time Lizzie makes a stab (intended) at prevarication, she is bound to be rusty.  Unless all the prevarication Wednesday night to Alice (If it was) got her feeling *Hey I can DO this..* gave her false confidence.
This *lie* about a note would be the tangible thing that is never found nor believed.

If Bridget hadn't Heard, I don't think the note would ever have been brought up again.  It was an easy thing to say to waylay Andrew into a false sense of security.  It takes several questions at the Inquest to get Lizzie to admit to a note.  That seems to be after she is given the impression in her questioning by Knowton that Bridget Has mentioned the note to the state at Inquest.
(Even tho it was a curious thing bandied about all that Thursday.)
--Knowlton has to pull that note out of Lizzie under oath.

I get the impression that Emma doesn't believe in the note.
Yes she says it is one of two things she asks Bridget Thursday.  But Emma goes on to say she knows naught about the note, has not seen it nor looked for it, nor had tried to find who sent it. [Inq.113] .

(Message last edited May-12th-03  12:04 AM.)


11. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-12th-03 at 12:22 PM
In response to Message #10.

"...she knows naught about the note..."

Love it!

We may as well discuss these dark deeds with style, if we can.




12. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by harry on May-12th-03 at 12:44 PM
In response to Message #10.

Emma was right.  What note?


13. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by diana on May-12th-03 at 2:22 PM
In response to Message #9.

Regarding your aside, Kat.  Those are good points. I can't speak for Lincoln's intentions.  I was just caught up by how she described Lizzie and her prevaricating. 
But as to the 'tangibles' you mention:
First, the sinkers -- Didn't Lizzie say that she was looking for some lead for sinkers and that there was a box with lead in it near the door?  Officer Medley (witness statements) did see lead in a box in the barn on the 4th which was then confiscated and taken to the station house.

And I'm not sure what 'prowler' you mean.  Do you mean the robbery?  Or do you mean when she thought she sensed someone around the house when she came in late?  Obviously, Andrew also had a fear of 'outside interference' of some sort as he kept a club under his bed, had three locks on the front door, etc.

With reference to the pillow shams -- Joseph Hyde testifies in the Witness Statements on August 4:
"In talking to Bridget Sullivan on the above date I asked her what time Mrs. Borden went upstairs. She said she thought it was a little before nine o’clock in the morning; and sometime after she came down for some pillow shams." So Bridget knew about the shams, too.

As for the slippers.  I thought we resolved that issue in June/02 on the forum.  Didn't we agree that congress boots were probably the comfortable shoes that Andrew used as slippers?  At trial, Dolan (p.864) says Andrew was wearing Congress boots.  And on a current internet site about post Civil War footwear, congress boots are described as having "elastic panels in place of laces and a tab in the rear and sometimes the front as well, to aid in pulling the boot on."  Philip Harrington says in his trial testimony that Andrew is wearing "a pair of laced shoes". -- but Robinson shows him and the jury at trial (page 577) the crime scene photo with Andrew wearing the Congress boots. [It's a bit of mystery to me that Harrington can be so amazingly explicit about the pink wrapper -- to the extent that Robinson asks him if he ever worked in the dressmaking business -- and yet he contends he saw laced up boots even when Robinson shows him the picture. Things like this are what make me wonder as to Harrington's agenda.]

And as for the pear carcasses.  I don't think Lizzie says she left those in the barn.  Is there any mention of someone looking for them?

I don't mean to come across as a staunch defender of Lincoln.  Or sound adversarial here, either.  I'm just mulling over the points you raised.


14. "Resolved?"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-12th-03 at 3:57 PM
In response to Message #13.

Diana, I don't think we can consider the slipper question resolved; it's within probability that the comfy Congress gaiters may have been what Andrew and Lizzie considered slippers, but, then again, maybe not.  Maybe Lizzie honestly did settle Father for a nap, as she'd done many times before, and simply thought she'd helped him with his slippers, as was the usual routine.

However, maybe there was never a nap, and, in asserting there had been, Lizzie went a little too far in describing a ficticious turn of events.

"Resolved", with the meaning of "to settle or solve?"  Not to be disagreeable... but I can't agree!


15. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by william on May-12th-03 at 4:28 PM
In response to Message #13.

Congress shoes/boots were used as shoes, not slippers.
My grandfather and uncle both wore them as their standard footware.
The story(as they tell it) was that Congressmen invented them because they could slip them on and off in a hurry when they were session.
Apparently they liked to rest their tootsies when they were sitting down and they didn't like bending over to tie their shoes....I take no direct responsibility for this story. Congress boots are currently used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have spuirs mounted in the heels(if interested go to Google and type:
"Congress Boots."


16. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by william on May-12th-03 at 4:32 PM
In response to Message #13.

Congress shoes/boots were used as shoes, not slippers.
My grandfather and uncle both wore them as their standard footware.
The story(as they tell it) was that Congressmen invented them because they could slip them on and off in a hurry when they were session.
Apparently they liked to rest their tootsies when they were sitting down and they didn't like bending over to tie their shoes....I take no direct responsibility for this story. Congress boots are currently used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have spuirs mounted in the heels. If interested go to Google and type:
"Congress Boots."


17. "Re: Resolved?"
Posted by diana on May-12th-03 at 5:31 PM
In response to Message #14.

Bob, you're absolutely right.  "Resolved" was the wrong word to use. 

A much better word is the one Kat used in the June 18/02 forum discussion about the slippers/boots.  At that time, after we'd gone back and forth on whether Andrew and Lizzie may have termed boots that slipped on' rather than 'laced up' as slippers -- Kat wrote:
"We can surmise that the "slippers" are the Congress boots, now, unless anyone dissents?"

Somehow I slid that surmise into a resolution.

And thank you, William, for the RCMP info. I had taken my previous quote about the congress boots from:
http://www.shasta.com/suesgoodco/newcivilians/verashoe.htm which shows them as civilian wear (with no spurs, obviously!)

As I indicated earlier, I'm not even sure why I'm championing Lizzie at this point -- or on this point.  But I do continue to wonder about Philip Harrington's reluctance to admit that Andrew was not wearing laced shoes even after he is shown the picture with the congress boots on the body.  Why would he want the jury to think that Andrew had laced shoes on unless the congress boots could be construed as slippers by some -- thus bolstering Lizzie's contention that she saw him take his shoes off? 


18. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-12th-03 at 6:51 PM
In response to Message #13.

This one string of Lizzie's Inquest testimony illustrates my points:
Inquest
Lizzie
90+
Q. Did you tell us yesterday all the errand that you had at the barn?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have nothing to add to what you said?
A. No, sir.
Q. You had no other errand than what you have spoken of?
A. No, sir.
Q. Miss Borden, of course you appreciate the anxiety that everybody has to find the author of this tragedy, and the questions that I put to you have been in that direction; I now ask you if you can furnish any other fact, or give any other, even suspicion, that will assist the officers in any way in this matter?
A. About two weeks ago—
Q. Was you going to tell the occurrence about the man that called at the house?
A. No, sir. It was after my sister went away. I came home from Miss Russell's one night, and as I came up, I always glanced towards the side door as I came along by the carriage way, I saw a shadow on the side steps. I did not stop walking, but I walked slower. Somebody ran down the steps, around the east end of the house. I thought it was a man, because I saw no skirts, and I was frightened, and of course I did not go around to see. I hurried in the front door as fast as I could and locked it.
Q. What time of night was that?
A. I think about quarter of 9; it was not after 9 o'clock, anyway.
Q. Do you remember what night that was?
A. No, sir; I don't. I saw somebody run around the house once before last winter.
...........

Lizzie supposedly went to the barn on a single errand.  To get some lead for sinkers.  It seems that there was lead there but after 20 minutes Lizzie has no lead.  When she returns to the house she has nothing tangible to show for her excursion.

I refer to these sightings by Lizzie (and no one else see's this as far as we know) of an unknown person hanging around, as a *prowler*.  I don't know what else to call this kind of activity.  There is nothing tangible to show these *sightings* ever occurred.

With reference to the Congress boots as slippers, I had recently been converted to the view that they were shoes after all, and not slippers.  I hadn't really thought on it much since last year but something I read recently decided me.

(If we are in a discussion and we cannot proceed iunless we somehow reach a consensus of those posting at the time, then we can agree to go, at the time, with a certain interpretation.  I would not hold anyone to that view later, as I think opinions change.  Also, other's not weighing in at the time may come later--which they have--and make a decent case against a point we may think resolved.  I know I need not explain the fluidity inherent here but this would be a good example to those who pop in to read us or new people just finding us)

As to *pear carcasses* I see Lola has already wondered on another thread (so-named) about why these were not checked as they essentially were Lizzie's alibi.  That was a good point.  I'm not saying Lizzie lied about eating pears, nor is it her fault that these pear remains may not have been investigated, but they still comprise a *tangible* which along with sinkers, do not show up as something in the physical world.  It rather seems that a note could be much more easily fabricated and then forgotten, then a lead sinker or a pear carcass.  A prowler would be harder to verify.

The pillow shams were *padding* to my list.  If Abby was attacked while putting on these fateful shams, I thought there might be some disodered shams lying about the guest room.  I didn't envision the killer waiting for Abby to finish that job before striking.

Are there still any physical objects or persons outstanding that were mentioned by Lizzie that never showed?

This truly is more in response to Victoria Lincoln's assertion that the note was the one thing, and it's good it was brought up.

(Message last edited May-12th-03  7:01 PM.)


19. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by diana on May-12th-03 at 11:03 PM
In response to Message #18.

Kat, I think I may not have been clear in my initial post. All I think Lincoln is saying is that Lizzie is not a very inventive liar.

Lincoln says in reference to the Inquest testimony that:"If no note came, it is the only specific object that she [Lizzie] mentions that was not later proved to have actual, physical existence."

In other words, the pears existed, the lead existed, the pillow shams existed, etc.  Lizzie may have lied about what she or others did with them -- but they did exist. So, Lincoln sees it as out of character for Lizzie to actually invent a physical object to lie about. And she builds on that to suggest that a note probably did exist -- but that Lizzie lied about the contents.

As far as the prowler goes -- I'm going to have to try to slip him by as an intangible. Lizzie did just see his shadow, after all. (Are you buying any of this?)  However, the Borden neighborhood was not a quiet residential area.  They were just a few houses away from commercial enterprises.  Andrew had three locks on the front door and they kept all the doors locked most of the time.  So it's not unlikely that prowlers had been seen in the area.

Incidentally, by quoting your comment regarding the congress shoes, I didn't intend to imply that you, personally, felt that was a closed issue.  Rather that those discussing it on the forum had come to a form of consensus on that point.  But, you're right.  These forum discussions are fluid and what may a consensus at one point can change over time.  Just me trying to hammer at least one of those puzzle pieces into place when, as Bob?, haulover? pointed out, it is a pretty hopeless exercise.









20. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-12th-03 at 11:50 PM
In response to Message #19.

But the note, out of all those things, can most easily be destroyed.

I think I took the idea farther than you or Lincoln intended.
It still was interesting to me tho to find that sinkers may have existed but we never see them.
That the prowler may have existed but no one else ever saw him.
That the pillow shams existed, and they at least are entered into evidence, I just remembered, from making the evidence list available on the other thread.
The pears may have existed but we'll never know if they were eaten by Lizzie unless she had been a victim and her stomach opened for autopsy, or those cores found lying around.

I see the point now, but there are still these things that are questionable, regardless of Lincoln's original message.
(Am I being annoyingly tenacious?  I guess I've set out on a different tack and my record is stuck)


21. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by haulover on May-13th-03 at 12:24 AM
In response to Message #20.

i'll say this about the pillow shams.  apparently none are visible at the scene.  could this be lizzie's way of explaining abby's return to the bedroom after the bed was made?  if so, i don't know what it means.  also i noted how lizzie offers to knowlton at some point that mrs. borden had given her some pillow cases or something to that effect to do. 

and that's the reason i've made something of that "chip" lizzie says she brought back from the barn.  apparently there was nothing there, but i can't even be sure what she's talking about when she says it.  i finally gave up trying to find anything tangible there.


22. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-13th-03 at 12:53 AM
In response to Message #21.

I was thinking about that chip when I posted.

Maybe Lizzie just didn't find anything suitable for a sinker, but she was not too inventive then, cause anything metal and a certain weight will do.  I think she claimed she wanted something with a hole in it?
Lead is easy to mark isn't it?  Sort of soft?  All she needed to do was score around the outside with a knife and wrap the line into that groove several times.
Or am I mistaken about lead?


23. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Susan on May-13th-03 at 2:37 AM
In response to Message #22.

I recall going fishing with my brothers when I was a little girl and they used a type of lead sinker called "split shot".  It was a small lead ball that was split in the middle and you sort of wrapped it around your fishing line and squeezed it shut.  I think Lizzie could have made due with some of the lead sheets she found there, cut it into smaller strips.

Just did a quick search on the internet on lead sinkers and found this site:http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw/dfwloon.htm

Apparently there was a proposal in the state of Massachusetts to ban the use of lead fishing sinkers at the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs.  The sinkers get lost and the nesting Loons eat the lead and get lead poisoning. 


24. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by rays on May-13th-03 at 12:58 PM
In response to Message #23.

If you follow the news, you'd know that lead shot has been outlawed for some years against waterfowl to prevent contamination of waters.
They use a replacement. Steel is too light to carry as far, some other material is used (tungsten?).


25. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by rays on May-13th-03 at 1:00 PM
In response to Message #13.

The example of Harrington's testimony can show that even the best make mistakes of memory after the fact (unless noted down at the time). Ever hear of Pavlovian conditioning? If somebody ususally wears laced up boots, then people will remember that, even if he wore "Congress gaiters". Congress means 'acting together', and may explain the name. Just like a "union suit" has nothing to do with the AFL-CIO or lawyers.

(Message last edited May-13th-03  1:10 PM.)


26. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by rays on May-13th-03 at 1:06 PM
In response to Message #15.

Doesn't the word "slipper" appear in Shakespeare? Who know what that meant then? Except something worn around the house: "slip shod".
"Bedroom slippers" are what you all are thinking about.
The meaning of words does change over the years. One article wrote about a "plane", and did not mean a carpenter's tool.


27. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Carol on May-13th-03 at 1:07 PM
In response to Message #21.


The Jennings hip-bath collection donated to the FRHS evidently contained in part:

"Pillow shams and Bedspread: Taken from the bed Mrs. Borden was making when she was murdered."

Regarding the shoes Andrew had on, perhaps Harrington saw Andrew later in his funeral dress with tie shoes on and thought he had also seen them on him on the sofa earlier.


28. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by rays on May-13th-03 at 1:11 PM
In response to Message #27.

This shows that "twelve heads are better than one" in discussing the minor details. Note that the shams and pear cores are basically meaningless. There may have been others who ate and disposed of the pears in the back yard. Didn't Uncle John do the same when he returned?
...
IF Abby was making the bed, and kneeling down, there would not be much noise when she fell (especially if the blows caused her to stiffen, as when hit on the back). So there is no proof that anyone down in the basement or kitchen could have heard anything, with the traffic in the street. This also removes any question of the height of the killer.

(Message last edited May-13th-03  1:14 PM.)


29. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Carol on May-13th-03 at 1:15 PM
In response to Message #8.

Totally.  Also, why would Lizzie make up the note, it being something Abby (someone else) told her about, whereas in everything else she had some individual cognizance of, i.e., seeing the shadow of the man at the doorway, looking for sinkers in the barn, eating pears in the barn, observing her fathers footwear, etc. She was involved in the other episodes but she was a bystander, a receiver of information, not the recipient nor the viewer of the note Abby received.


30. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by rays on May-13th-03 at 1:28 PM
In response to Message #29.

I totally believe AR Brown's solution: there was a note, it was to get Abby out of the house before Andy's meeting w/ WSB.
Did Lizzie go up into the barn? She certainly knew where things were, just as I know what tools are down in my cellar. I believe LAB's story changed to put her out of eyesight so WSB would know there was no witness to his departure. If LAB was on the south side, the pear trees may have hidden her from view. (My considered opinion.)

(Message last edited May-13th-03  1:29 PM.)


31. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-13th-03 at 4:07 PM
In response to Message #30.

"I totally believe AR Brown's solution..."

Umm, yes, we know! ;}


32. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Kat on May-13th-03 at 9:42 PM
In response to Message #28.

What does anyone think about a kneeeling Abby falling on her face as opposed to an upright Abby falling on her face, as to the damage done to her face?
It was described as *all smashed in* by first witnesses but has been reduced in medical jargon to contusions of a certain size in the autopsy report.


33. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by Susan on May-14th-03 at 1:45 AM
In response to Message #32.

I like the idea along the lines that it would explain why there wasn't a big thud when Abby's body hit the floor to possibly alert Bridget, or, an innocent Lizzie.  Maybe we are looking at Abby's contusions on her face the wrong way, maybe they didn't come from hitting the floor, but if kneeling, from hitting the side board of the bed? 

I went back to Stefani's site and pulled up the Abby photos and I know we can't get everything from them because the crime scenes have been tampered with.  My thought keeps on going to Abby's skirt, if kneeling, she'd have her skirts hiked up so as not to kneel on them.  If she fell from a standing position, her skirts would probably be flat on the floor underneath her.  From the photos it looks like her skirts may be slightly hiked up, which I know doesn't prove anything, tampered with bodies and crime scenes. 


34. "A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-14th-03 at 11:44 AM
In response to Message #33.

THUD!!!

Yup, if it was Lizzie, in the guest room, with the hatchet (sorry, I've been thinking about buying a DVD of the movie of CLUE, a guilty pleasure of mine) and Bridget was outside at her windows, with wagons going by, etc., Abby could've HOPPED off the bed and done a swan dive to the floor and the noise wouldn't have been heard by anyone BUT Lizzie, the only person in the house besides Abby.  That old house is a lot more solid than certain authors would have us believe.

But, if Lizzie was INNOCENTLY downstairs or next door in her room (Wow!  Right next door!  "Think on it," as Knowlton said), I bet Abby would have to have gradually made it to the floor, perhaps from a kneeling position as you've been discussing.  Certainly Lizzie would have to have heard the sounds of a slaughter if she were in the next room, even with the door bolted, and she would very likely (IMO) have heard a very fat woman hit the floor if she was downstairs, if Abby did indeed "hit" it.  

(Message last edited May-14th-03  11:45 AM.)


35. "Re: Lizzie's Ubiquitous 'Somebody'"
Posted by rays on May-14th-03 at 4:31 PM
In response to Message #30.

AR Brown's book IS the Ultimate Solution: no one has written a better book to solve this case. His solution works because it answers the questions about the case.
If Lizzie didn't do it, then who did?
What is the explanation for the differences in testimony?
Was the case fixed to get Lizzie off?

It is also the "Scientific Proof". Science is not cast in concrete, but changes with new discoveries, etc. No one has published a book that either disproves his work, or comes up with a better solution.

The only book since then was Masterton's; he didn't do it either. He suggests any of three suspects. None seem to have been investigated at the time (?).

To solve the case, you would have to explain why it wasn't originally solved by the police at the time with their known facts. What new evidence is there for your conclusions. The letter from Albany NY sent to both the Mayor and Police Marshall shows somebody was suspected.

If anyone can come up with a better solution, let them publish a book, or at least an article in the general press. This forum is just a hobbyist publication w/o any of the usual refereeing etc. in the "real world".

I also suggest David Kent's book as the one best book on the subject. Too bad neither Kent or Brown are with us.


36. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-15th-03 at 2:20 AM
In response to Message #34.

In the Witness Statements, Allen's notes hold this bit of reaction to the sight of Abby's face [pg. 1]:

"The Marshal gave him orders to go right up to Mr. Borden’s house. He was there by twenty five minutes past eleven o’clock A. M. Just before we got there, Officer Doherty was ahead of us. When we went up stairs the Doctor said Mrs. Borden had fainted with fright. Officers Mullaly and Doherty turned her over. Officer Doherty said “My God her face is all smashed in.”

John Fleet, pg. 2:

"August 4, 1892.
Went to the Borden house 92 Second Street at about between 11-45 and 12 M. Found Mr Borden dead on the lounge; head badly cut; Dr. Dolan standing over him. Went up stairs; found Mrs. Borden dead on the floor between the bed and dressing case; head badly smashed, face downward."

Preliminary
Fleet
354
Her head was all smashed, and she was turned face downwards.

Trial
Fleet
471
Q.  You said that you went into the guest chamber.  Describe what you saw there.
A.  I saw Mrs. Borden laid down between the bed and the dressing case, face downward, with her head all broke in or out, and she was dead.


Trial
Dr. Dolan
896+
Q.  Were there any other wounds on the head excepting the cuts?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  What were they?
A.  There were three, what we call, contusions on the front of the face.

Q.  Where were they?
A.  Two of them over the left eye and one on the bridge of the nose, just over the bridge of the nose.

Q.  I will ask you to go back again a moment.  Did you notice these contusions on Thursday?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  They were there then?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Were they at that time fresh?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And so, to leave that subject once for all, those three blue marks indicate those contusions?
A.  They do, yes, sir.

Q.  Was there any cutting about them?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Were they, if I may ask, what we sometimes call black-and-blue marks?
A.  Yes, sir, bruises.

Q.  How were they in reference to the position of the face, assuming that the person in life fell on her face?
A.  They were on that side, on the left side, the side she was lying on.

Q.  Were they where the face would strike assuming it fell in life?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  How severe were they?
A.  Well, it was an ordinary bruise, I wouldn't undertake to---

Q.  Three of them?
A.  Yes.
........
898
Q.  Now then, describe the wounds in detail.
A.  Well, taking the left side of the face, there is this scalp wound. That is where the flesh was cut off, but not separated from the head, in other words, making a flap wound, that is, hinge, so that when it fell there it wound (sic) fall down here. In other
words, it was severed from the front backwards.

......
950+
Q.  Then she lay in about that position?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  On the left side, a little, of her head?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And all the injuries presented to your view at that time, with the exception of the bruises upon the face?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Did Mrs. Borden have considerable natural hair?
A.  Yes, sir, she had a natural amount for a lady of her age.

Q.  Well, that is relative. Whether or not she did have considerable natural hair?
A.  I wouldn't say she had considerable.

Q.  What part of the head was the hair the thickest?
A.  I couldn't tell you that, sir, I didn't examine it.

Q.  Will this photograph help you to observe and state?  Upon an examination of the photograph, which is marked Ex. 16, are you now able to state whether she did or did not have considerable natural hair?
A.  I should say that she had about the natural amount; I wouldn't say---

Q.  A full head of hair?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Where was it thickest?
A.  Well, naturally, where it was knotted. I presume, behind.

Q.  In the back?
A.  Yes, sir, right on the poll.

Q.  Over the back portion and top of the head?
A.  Yes, sir.

--It's beginning to sound as if the *face all smashed in* reaction was maybe misquoted.  If not a misquote by Allen of Doherty, then at the least maybe the flap-wound to Abby's left side of face combined with her contusions (which had to occur Before death) made her face a mess after all, but not smashed in.
The nose is implied when *smashed in* is used, and there are not notes here as to Abby's nose being mashed or mishapen.  If her contusions were above the eye and the bridge of her nose, that sounds like her nose was not the first part of her face to hit the floor.  Therefore Abby couldn't have fallen *flat on her face*.  The bridge of the nose bruise is becoming more interesting.  Any ideas how this got there?  As Susan surmised from hitting the board at the bottom of the bed?  A hatchet handle butted into or above her left eye area?

--I went ahead and added the description of the hair of Abby, so we know she wasn't considered bald or balding by the Doctor.


37. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by rays on May-15th-03 at 12:53 PM
In response to Message #36.

So, "contusions on the face"!!!
These black and blue marks must have come from being punched by Nemesis. There were NO MARKS on LAB's finger or knuckes; another proof of innocence. It appears than Nemesis punched her out, and mayber caught her falling body, so no noises were made that could be heard. Then he finished the job.

Thanks Kat for providing more proof for the presence of Nemesis. This same point was made in the Trial of O J Simpson (no bruises or cuts on his hands, except for one irregular cut on one finger).


38. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-15th-03 at 10:04 PM
In response to Message #36.

Thanks for posting all that, Kat.  So, we have testimony on Abby's hair, no baldness.  I wonder where and when that one got started or if it just originated with Lincoln.  *shudder*


39. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by kimberly on May-15th-03 at 10:24 PM
In response to Message #38.

Boy, that Lincoln had herself a bad attitude. What was
her problem? Maybe she was jealous of Lizzie because she
was world famous for doing nothing?


40. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-16th-03 at 3:47 AM
In response to Message #37.

Well, it might be as well, contusions from the weapon handle, from something she fell against, from a fist?, from the top of the hatchet, etc.  I picture them happening as one blow, a long, intermittent line.

She could have struck her eyebrow/ bridge of nose area on that camp chair that was next the bed.

The flap wound had to be first, as she was facing her attacker.  Then she would spin or cringe or crumple away and probably got the facial bruises before hitting the floor.  Her arms were supposedly up around  her head when first found, supposedly.  Maybe she was trying to protect her face further.
Her first wound being flap-wound, then the next 3 wounds being bruises--all to the face.
Then the blow to the back, or the wounds to the skull, came, in whichever order.


41. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-16th-03 at 4:53 AM
In response to Message #40.

From LABVM/L:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AutopsyAbbyBorden.htm

"Fall River, Mass. August 11, 1892
Record of Autopsy on body of Abby D. Borden, aged 64 years.
Thursday August 11, 1892. at 12.35 P.M. One week after death.

The Autopsy was performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper, and witnessed by F. W. Draper of Boston, and J. H. Leary of Fall River. Clerk of Autopsy D. E. Cone of Fall River.

......SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by one half inch in width.

THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide."



(Message last edited May-16th-03  4:55 AM.)


42. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by rays on May-16th-03 at 11:22 AM
In response to Message #41.

EXCELLENT JOB on this, Kat!!!
...
That looks like she was hit with the blunt end of a hard object. The back of the hatchet?

"Enraged by her comments about his mother and ancestry, William S Borden struck Abby and knocked her down. His rising anger led him to whack Abby 18 or 19 times with the sharp end of the hatchet."
...
(I made up this quote, so sue me.)

(Message last edited May-16th-03  11:25 AM.)


43. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by rays on May-16th-03 at 11:23 AM
In response to Message #39.

"World famous for doing nothing"? I like that!


44. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-16th-03 at 12:25 PM
In response to Message #41.

Wow!  Thanks, Kat!  What a fantastic job!  While I was waiting for the picture to load I thought maybe you had a new autopsy pic to spring on us.  That is so helpful to see being as visual as I am.


45. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-17th-03 at 2:19 AM
In response to Message #44.

Prelim.
Dolan
Pg. 197:
"I am glad you spoke of that chair that is lacking from the photograph. There was a kind of camp chair, you might call it, an upholstered chair between her head and the east wall; and the feet of that were covered with blood."

OR (103-105)
"[the direction of those on the wall] They were lateral first; they were direct, as if spattered directly against it. On the drawers of the dressing case, I presume they were swelled and could not be put in their whole length, on the projection of them, on the uppermost drawer, there were three or four spots. I think on the second one there were six or seven spots, quite large ones, as if they had gone up in the air and had fallen down."

--Harry reminded me of the bureau drawers sticking out.
--Could Abby have hit her head on the drawers or the camp chair as she *fell* over onto her face?
--Susan, do you know how to find an 1880's style camp chair>  A folding chair which I have read is used at funeral's for the seating of the viewers.



46. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-17th-03 at 5:03 PM
In response to Message #45.

Well, I've searched high and low and this is what I came up with.  The Victorians did indeed have chairs that were made just for camping, it looks like our modern version of the director's chair.  The director's chair which I always associate with the 1920s and movie making has been around since at least the Civil war.  Instead of the canvas we have nowadays they would have used pieces of upholstery for the seat and back.


The chair in the guest room was upholstered and was considered a "camp" chair, which may have meant that it folded up and could be easily transported anywhere.

Found this little beaut which can be considered a camp chair as it folds.


Along those lines I found this one also.


I also came across the name of one of leading furniture makers of the time for folding chairs; George Hunzinger.
One of his folding side chairs from 1869:


A folding chair from 1873:


Then there is this pair of folding/reclining chairs from 1875;


Sorry, thats all I could find, wish we had a little more info on that camp chair, it would help. 


47. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by kimberly on May-17th-03 at 6:53 PM
In response to Message #46.

Whenever I need anything Victorian I always go to the
Heritage Photographs site -- I found these two folding
chairs & they sure look a lot nicer than the camping
furniture they have now.

http://www.heritagephotographs.com/


48. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Edisto on May-17th-03 at 8:16 PM
In response to Message #47.

These "camp chairs" were so ubiquitous and so sturdy that it's easy to find them at auctions even today.  However, there were enough different styles that it might be hard to identify one that would match Abby's contusions.


49. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-17th-03 at 9:49 PM
In response to Message #47.

Thanks, Kimberly.  All I could find in the Trial was that they called this chair a "camp chair" and it was upholstered, thats where I got the idea that perhaps it was just a folding chair with cushioning on it. 


50. "Re: A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-17th-03 at 10:22 PM
In response to Message #49.

These are all great examples!
Thanks SO much!

I had read that this chair was probably a remnant of Andrew's Undertaking days.
I can't say where I read that.  But since his furnishings were out-dated, according to visitors, I thought it very well possible that it was a folding padded chair used for seating those at a funeral.  The kind they would rent out to the family at a viewing.  Does that narrow the choice?
And if he was out of the business 20 years before, that chair would at least be from 1872.

I would think it would be rather simple.  Along the lines of the first or second ones you show.
We still will have a problem, tho, as Harry reminds me that Abby's body is supposedly 3 or 4 feet STILL shy of  where the chair would have been located?  (That's not his quote)


51. " A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-18th-03 at 7:15 AM
In response to Message #41.

Trying to pinpoint the major head wound which crushed in the skull of Abby.


I know it's hard to look at, and it's also hard to make out what one is seeing.


Here is the depression in Abby's skull as it looked on Aug. 4th.
It is on the right side behind the ear.


The skull, cleaned and shown here looks like it lost some supporting bits of bone, so it's possible the cavity is larger at the second autopsy, when it is described as 5 inches.


This is an attachment.  Forum members have probably seen these original photo's before.


Caution is given to those who are just dropping in.  Don't look if you don't want to see.

I have only marked the place of the wound on the original pre- autopsy photo.

This is not *difinitive*.  Those who see more or differently please speak up.

This is what Stefani and I could discern last month, when she was here & we could compare insights.

(Message last edited May-18th-03  7:20 AM.)


52. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-18th-03 at 7:51 AM
In response to Message #51.


53. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-18th-03 at 7:52 AM
In response to Message #51.


54. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-18th-03 at 9:17 PM
In response to Message #53.

From my post of April 6th, on Topic named "The Borden's Piano"

The "Partial Autopsy" Found, by Harry, in his rendition of the Evening Standard Articles!  (Kool!)

August 26, 1892, pg.2:
The "Partial" Report.

  "Copy of the findings of the inquest as presented to presiding Judge Blaisdell :
  Bristol ss., to J. C. Blaisdell, Justice of the Second District Court of the County of Bristol.
  In conformity with section 9 of chapter 200 of the acts of the year 1877, I return herewith a copy of my record of an autopsy of the body of Mrs. Andrew J. Borden aged 67 years, found lying in Fall River and supposed to have come to death by violence.  The said autopsy was made by authority of Mayor Coughlin at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of Thursday, the fourth day of August, A. D., 1892, in the presence of W. T. Learned, residing at Fall River, and J. Q. A. Tourellot, residing at Fall River, who were required by me to attend the same as witnesses thereof, viz: The body was found lying upon Second street.  Before proceeding with the autopsy I called the attention of the witnesses summoned by me to the appearance and position of the body, and caused them carefully to observe the same.  The autopsy then proceeded as follows: On the left side of the head over the ear was a wound two and a half inches long by one and a quarter wide.  On the right side of her head was a number of cuts penetrating the brain and so intermingled as to be practically impossible to count, and I further declare it to be my opinion that the said  Mrs. A. J. Borden came to her death from shock, the result of blows from an axe or a large hatchet.
Dated at Fall River, in the county of Bristol, this 8th day of August, A. D., 1892.
  W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner.
The other autopsy was in the presence of the witnesses, and was on the body of Andrew J. Borden.  It states: "The autopsy then proceeded as follows: The left side of the face and head was cut and smashed in by no less than 12 distinct blows of an axe or large hatchet."  In other respects it does not differ from the above copy of the report of the autopsy on Mrs. Borden. "
______________________________________

This is a copy of the partial report by Dolan on the 4th of August, published in the Evening Standard.
The autopsy report we know and love and which is represented at the LABVM/L, is from the Preliminary Hearing.  That record was of the *full autopsy* done at Oak Grove on Aug. 11th, a  week later.  Since we know a bit of bone from Abby's skull was noticed by Chase at the burial in the yard, it seems possible not all pieces of Abby's skull were accounted for by the 5th, and therefore by the 11th this crushed area of skull could seem bigger than it was originally.

Witness Statements, Chase, notes dated Aug. 5th, 1892, pg. 42:

"...one hair braid and several pieces of hair from Mrs. Borden’s head from five to eight inches long, ...

I also found mixed in with the hair of Mrs. Borden a piece of bone, which from it nature I took to be a piece of Mrs. Borden’s skull, it was cut so smooth, that I thought it might be of use in determining what kind of instrument was used, as the bone and hair both had the appearance of being cut with a very sharp instrument; I gave this piece of bone to Dr. Dolan." ....





(Message last edited May-18th-03  10:28 PM.)


55. " A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-20th-03 at 3:57 AM
In response to Message #41.

Do you suppose Abby could have hit her face on the chair as she fell?

She would already have the flap wound which was bleeding.

Trying to figure out what could bruise that deep indentation above the nose.

Something rounded?

The notes were not specific as to which direction the bridge-of-nose contusion ran...sideways or verticle.

Since there was no cut there would not be a mark or residue blood  higher up on the chair to show she had hit her face there.

BTW:  This is Susan's chair.  Not Borden's.


(Message last edited May-20th-03  4:00 AM.)


56. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-20th-03 at 11:53 AM
In response to Message #55.

Just had a thought, it was noted that the bureau drawers were not all closed all the way, was it possible that Abby had a drawer open and hit her head on that?  If I remember correctly, bruising only occurs during life, if that is so, then those marks were made while Abby was still alive.  Were those bureau drawers ever searched thoroughly?  Newspaper article, Rebello? 


57. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-20th-03 at 8:31 PM
In response to Message #56.

Yes, Harry reminded me of the bureau drawers.
My drawers are sharp-edged, and hitting them would cut.
From watching Antiques Road Show, (They always take out the drawers), most are somewhat sharp-edged-- I suppose unless they were some soft wood.

But Abby had no cuts there.

However, these marks ARE to the left side of her face AND that bureau IS to her left...

It seems as if, already having a flap wound, which since it was facial, probably bled a great deal, if she then fell her face against something wouldn't that leave a smear?  The drawers had spots I believe.  (But then so did the camp chair legs).

Do you think it's possible that instead of contusion, this might instead be an area of post-mortem lividity, since they claim Abby was lying somewhat ON the left side of her face, and the doctor misinterpreted what he thought he was seeing?

Any theories welcome, please.
If you all think the drawer's edge did it chime in.
I really would like to figure out the attack on Abby.  And the hardest part is accountig for the wounds she received, within such a small area of attack, by the bed.


58. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-20th-03 at 9:53 PM
In response to Message #57.

The flap wound was in Abby's hair, perhaps the hair contained a great deal of the blood flow from it.  But, Abby's head striking something would cause it to spatter or drip.  Thats why I was wondering if the inside of any of those drawers were checked.  Abby could have been kneeling getting something say from the bottom drawer, she turns to the attacker and receives the flap wound.  She turns back away from the attacker towards the drawer and is struck with a wound to the crown of her head, her head comes down and the bridge of her nose makes contact with the edge of the drawer.  She tries to get away from the attack, lifts her head and starts moving to the right and gets hit again.  Down comes Abby's head and her brow strikes the edge of the drawer with her brow ridge.  Before she can move she is struck again and her brow ridge strikes the drawer edge which causes the parallel bruise.  (Okay, I'm grossing myself out here.)  Abby's weakened and stunned and tries to move away from the drawer to the right and is struck down in the spot she is found lying on the floor.  As the killer stands astride Abby's body whacking away their left leg pushes against the drawer closing it.  Hows that for speculating? 


59. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-21st-03 at 1:15 AM
In response to Message #58.

It's better than anyone else is doing, which is not much.
They may be thinking furiously but we're not getting the benefit.
Don't you think those drawer edges would be sharp?


60. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-21st-03 at 1:31 AM
In response to Message #59.

Hmmm, sharp enough to cut skin or break it?  I don't know, would have to see the actual drawers from that bureau.  From what I recall seeing on Antiques Roadshow, most old dresser drawers had a rather thick piece of wood for their front drawer panel.  If Abby came down and struck the edge of the top, yes, I could see a cut or skin break.  Would her extra weight possibly pad her face at all from that? 

As an aside, my younger brother when just learning to walk cracked his forehead on my grandmother's very sharp edged 1960s era coffee table and split his forehead open!  I don't think I ever saw so much blood come out of one person in my life!  He came down from his standing height to the edge of the coffee table.  With Abby, I'm thinking she was closer to the drawer edge. 


61. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-21st-03 at 1:53 AM
In response to Message #60.

Yea, I see what you mean.
If it happened repeatedly there would be blood smears tho I think.
Also, what do you say to the possibility that those bruises would be horizontal, or a bit diagonal from the horizontal?
Not vertical?


62. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-21st-03 at 2:18 AM
In response to Message #61.

I was thinking that most of the blood would go into the drawer, now I wonder, how bloody was Abby's face outside of laying in the pool of blood?  I realize it would be quite grisly, but, how helpful that would be to see the blood flow pattern on her face in a photograph.  I wonder if any exist?  We might get an idea of what blood came down while she was vertical and/or while horizontal.

Abby would have only had to turn her head a few inches to be on the same plane as the drawer edge to get the 2 vertical bruises, I just tried it out, I know, fun experiments.  But, my inclination if I was to fall at this point would be on my right side, not straight down.  So, I guess I have to give it some more thought. 

(Message last edited May-21st-03  2:19 AM.)


63. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Robert Harry on May-21st-03 at 4:02 PM
In response to Message #62.

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread.  It is most interesting.  However, at the risk of sounding dumb and perhaps making you repeat stuff that was noted before, I have to admit that I cannot fathom what that "flap wound" is--where is it, what is it?  Could someone explain it to me?  Is this the wound that was supposed to have happened first?  And also, those three vertical wounds on Abby's face--beautifully traced by Kat--when do you think they were inflicted? 


64. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by rays on May-21st-03 at 4:36 PM
In response to Message #60.

Wasn't there a fatal blow to Abby's back that wasn't seen until the autopsy the next day? THAT would explain why Abby fell forward and bruises. Or were those bruises on her forhead the first blows? Either could explain it, given the very little evidence and facts here.

For personal reasons, I think the blow on the back (pierced rib?) was first. This would knock the wind out of her, prevent her from calling out, and knock her to the floor. [Personal experience in once getting hit in the  back when young.]
...
A "flap wound" may result from a glancing blow to the skull that only cut loose her scalp.

(Message last edited May-21st-03  4:37 PM.)


65. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-21st-03 at 9:17 PM
In response to Message #63.

No problem, Robert Harry.  The thought is that the flap wound was one of the first wounds inflicted by the killer to Abby and the thought is that Abby faced her assailant when this one was given.  From the autopsy report for Abby on the LBVM&L site:

1.  Was a glancing scalp wound two inches in length by one and 1/2 inches in width, situated 3 inches above left ear hole, cut from above downwards and did not penetrate the skull.  This is the flap wound to which we were referring.

The 3 contusions or bruises on Abby's face are what we are trying to figure out when they happened.  From the autopsy report:

On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body.

SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width.

THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide.

From what I can recall, bruising only occurs during life, so, those 3 bruise were probably made while Abby was still alive.  But when during the assault, hmmmm, still  trying to figure that one out. 


66. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-21st-03 at 11:36 PM
In response to Message #65.



(Message last edited May-21st-03  11:37 PM.)


67. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-22nd-03 at 1:29 AM
In response to Message #66.

Thanks, Kat.  Are those images of Abby copies that you've written on and scanned or is there some sort of program you are using?  Would love to be able to do that sort of thing, its helpful when trying to explain something or point something out to someone. 


68. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-22nd-03 at 1:36 AM
In response to Message #66.



(Message last edited May-22nd-03  1:37 AM.)


69. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-22nd-03 at 1:50 AM
In response to Message #67.

I start a folder with pictures I have gathered all in one place for my project.
I use Adobe Photoshop 5.5
I open the program and then open the file I just started.
Pick Abby.
She's at 66%, which drives me crazy.
So I make her 100%, and make a copy, in case of error.
Then I make a bigger canvas.
I select "new" under "File" and after measuring my pics on my screen (I have a 6" ruler), I create a new frame.
I cut out Abby and paste it into the new frame.  And "SAVE".
Then I opened the doc. to copy/paste the testimony, or type it in.
To do this I click on the "TYPE" tool in my toolbar.
Then I click where I want the type to start.
A box opens which alows me to choose font and color and size.
I type on that box, and click Paste, and that pastes the type into the interior of what I have framed  (Whether I've typed it OR copied by highlighting).  I can always UNDO the last thing, by clicking "Undo" in "Edit" at the top of my screen toolbar.
Then I have to remember to "SAVE" a copy, "Save AS", or "Save For Web."  The last choice lets me make it the correct file size allowable here at Arborwood.

--The main thing is I back-up with a copy each change I make.  So the last stage is always preserved if I mess up.


70. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-22nd-03 at 2:06 AM
In response to Message #68.

These are representations of my own interpretation of Abby's wounds.
Please if someone has an alternate idea of how they look or where they are located, please fill us in.

--Ray, the wound to Abby's back struck no bone and was considered *survivable*.


71. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Robert Harry on May-22nd-03 at 2:24 PM
In response to Message #70.

Thanks a million, Susan and Kat.  Now I understand finally the business about the flap.  And these pictures are incredibly useful for visualizing what happened.


72. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Robert Harry on May-22nd-03 at 2:29 PM
In response to Message #65.

How about those bruises being three preliminary strikes that hit Abby as she turned her head.  Then, the flap wound would be the first that actually cut here.  Something like "bop, bop, bop, BOOM." (with the bops being 3 preliminay feeble attempts and the BOOM being a real cut, though not a serious one). THen, Abby succeeds in turning away and the real attack begins.  Maybe the killer finally learns how to strike forcefully or gains his/her nerve after a squemish preliminary.


73. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Robert Harry on May-22nd-03 at 2:41 PM
In response to Message #72.

What I meant to say was that maybe either the weapon "bounced" three times and then cut.  Maybe the attacker thought he/she could finish Abby off with one big blow right in the center of the face, and then thought better of it, or lost nerve, etc.


74. "Facing it"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-22nd-03 at 4:10 PM
In response to Message #73.

Kat, since you've been so kind as to give us these graphics to chew on, is it possible you could post the Abby "head o'fudge," pre-autopsy shot again, with a traced overlay to show where you think her face actually is?

Thanks so much!


75. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Susan on May-22nd-03 at 9:02 PM
In response to Message #71.

You're welcome, Robert Harry. 

Kat, love the last pic of Abby's big head with a little Lizzie doing the damage, I laughed so hard when I saw that!   


76. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Kat on May-22nd-03 at 11:39 PM
In response to Message #72.

OK Robert Harry, this makes sense.
BUT.
(We have a funny saying in our family about that most annoying word)
But what about the scream?
If there was that much of a struggle surely there would be some grunting at least and disorder in the room?

I do agree about the tentativeness --that seems most apparent.  In fact most of the wounds DO seem tentative after looking at Abby's shaved head.

But was there a yell or a scream or a moan and if so do our favorite suspects lie about that?

--Bob G.--  When I first got ready to unveil here Abby's shaved head, I remembered your first words on the day you were born and it was a plaintive cry of "Yes it is fudge but WHERE are the features?"
So I looked and I looked and tried to recreate the vision Stef gave me as to HER interpretation, and there it WAS!  For an instant I had it again!@  Then in the time it took to open Photoshop it was gone, fleeting vision as it was.
I will try again.
I thought you might forget, but no, you are tenacious.


77. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Tina-Kate on May-23rd-03 at 12:14 AM
In response to Message #76.

It's always possible Abby did make some noise, but if the murder happened with Bridget safely out washing the windows, no one but the murder (& Lizzie, if there were 2 of them) would have heard.


78. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by fredd on May-23rd-03 at 2:08 AM
In response to Message #71.

Hello.  Trying to upload/post some images from a privately published book "The Surreal World of Lizzie Borden" which I bought last summer at a little ecclectic store in Ashland, Oregon.  It's about 150 pages of originally created/altered photos and images.  I was looking at all the newly created photos and it reminded me of the book.

I'm not very good at this but "Harry's" instructions helped.


(Message last edited May-28th-03  8:20 PM.)


79. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by fredd on May-23rd-03 at 2:19 AM
In response to Message #78.

The back of the booklet says "PhayMuss Productions, Portland, Oregon."  And yes, it IS that ebayer, Faye Musselman who created the images and published the book.  Inside the back cover, by author notes, its says "Available through the Lizzie Borden Catalogue and selected bookstores...."  We only paid $35 for the book and it has over 150 images, most in full color.  Here are a few more.


(Message last edited May-28th-03  8:20 PM.)


80. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by fredd on May-23rd-03 at 2:23 AM
In response to Message #79.

There are about a dozen pictures of the inside of Maplecroft - living room, dining room, parlour, foyer, kitchen, upstairs north bedroom, Emma's room, and views of the stairway.  This one looks into the dining room.  Note the image of Nancy O'Neil on the wall.


(Message last edited May-28th-03  8:20 PM.)


81. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by fredd on May-23rd-03 at 2:25 AM
In response to Message #80.

This is the one that makes my wife howel.  She says I look like Andrew here (actually the only thing similar is the hair) as I have that same haircut.


82. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by fredd on May-23rd-03 at 2:26 AM
In response to Message #81.

I'll try it again.

(Message last edited May-28th-03  8:21 PM.)


83. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by kimberly on May-23rd-03 at 4:56 AM
In response to Message #68.

I came across this site a few minutes ago -- I was
trying to find out what kind of a knife I have &
found this poor hatcheted feller:
http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/lacerations.htm


84. " Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-23rd-03 at 5:19 AM
In response to Message #74.



???

(Message last edited May-23rd-03  6:07 AM.)


85. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by Edisto on May-23rd-03 at 8:59 AM
In response to Message #78.

Somebody is actually selling these amateurish-looking things? 


86. "Facing (away from) it"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on May-23rd-03 at 11:06 AM
In response to Message #85.

Thank you, Kat!  Thank you, thank you.

I've been trying to see Abby's face in that shot for a few years, now.  Makes me think of that Freddy Fender song, "Wasted Days and Wasted Nights!"

She's NOT facing the camera, then...

Might I add, bless you and Stef for doing the work!

(Message last edited May-23rd-03  11:34 AM.)


87. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by adminlizzieborden on May-23rd-03 at 11:09 AM
In response to Message #82.

Fredd,

I am afraid you have committed an egregious and possibly illegal act by posting those images here. They are clearly copyrighted as evidenced by the notices on each image. As you say come from a privately published book you purchased. You bought the book but you do not have the right to give the images away by publishing them here.

I know quite a bit about copyright, and I will assume that you do not or you would not have shared clearly copyrighted material.

Please remove the images immediately or provide written proof from the copyright holder that you have her permission to publish her images in this public way.

Stefani Koorey
Lizzie Borden Society Moderator


88. "Re:  A matter of some gravity"
Posted by william on May-23rd-03 at 11:39 AM
In response to Message #78.

Good Lord, Fred.  As I live and breathe it's Judy Garland!


89. "Re:  Facing it"
Posted by Edisto on May-23rd-03 at 2:14 PM
In response to Message #84.

Oh, I'm so glad you 'splained that, because I was thinking, "If Abby's face is toward the camera, then her bangs definitely need a trim."


90. "  Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-24th-03 at 2:50 PM
In response to Message #84.

Do you see the chunks of bone sticking out above her ear?  They look like Chicklets!  Very Bad!

Is anyone of my opinion that after studying these wounds, reading the preliminary partial autopsy report as printed in the Evening Standard, then reading the full report on the autopsy which was carried out a week later on swollen bodies, taking into account that there are probably missing pieces of Abby's skull, per Chase in Witness Statements, and looking upon the skull finally denuded of it's flesh, that the wounds of Abby may never be really accounted for, and it doesn't seem possible to know just what her wounds were, or how many specifically, and that the resultant hole in the skull we see in those contempory photo's by Walsh, is unlikely to be due to only the hatchet wounds, and not rather some deterioration of the evidence?

--Probably my longest sentence so far!

(Message last edited May-24th-03  2:51 PM.)


91. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Susan on May-24th-03 at 3:34 PM
In response to Message #90.

After studying your pic I noticed you can see 2 very distinct cuts under Abby's hair just to the upper left of the red circle. 

I would think that the doctors would have kept all the bone fragments from Abby's skull and tried to piece them together again, they may have had a clearer picture of the wounds.  I'm assuming that today they would do such a thing during an autopsy.  I guess the picture of the back of Abby's shaved head is the clearest idea we will ever get of all her wounds to the back of her head.


92. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-25th-03 at 1:00 AM
In response to Message #91.

Yes.  And if Chase is picking bits of Abby's skull (or a bit) out of objects about to be buried in the yard, I'd think, not being exactly CSI, odds were he missed some pieces.  ANd to have the bulk of evidence buried, resurrected, buried and resurrected, more items could be lost.

And Yes, to the shaved head photo as to wounds.  Her head has no HUGE gaping hole the size of this skull we see now.

The hair picture, with the semicircle looking wound  behind the right ear doesn't equate in my mind with the approach to her attack.  That mark IS confusing.


93. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Susan on May-25th-03 at 5:33 PM
In response to Message #92.

Well, for some reason I can't pull up the shaved head picture of Abby, something about not being able to view it with the credentials I've supplied?  I think it would be helpful to have it in my face.  I was thinking that as the killer stood astride Abby they would strike down at her head facing the bureau to hit that spot, but, looking at the small version of the pic, there are two cuts that look like they were delivered with the killer looking towards the bed.  The wounds around the hole look like they describe the circumference of that hole in the skull, almost like connect the dots, strange. 

Yes, I agree, they were not exactly CSI.  I still wish they had saved the pieces of skull and tried to piece it and photograph that.  I don't think seeing the wounds on the skin show all that went on underneath, the magnitude of the damage. 


94. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 1:37 AM
In response to Message #93.

oops

(Message last edited May-26th-03  2:50 AM.)


95. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 1:52 AM
In response to Message #94.

oops

(Message last edited May-26th-03  2:50 AM.)


96. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 1:55 AM
In response to Message #95.

Basically, my conjecture have a choice:

All this skull damage was done by the attack, and therefore, yes, there is a lot going on under the skin.

Or

There were pieces lost

Or

If all that skull was damaged in the attack HOW could the Doctor determine the exact number of blows. ?


97. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by haulover on May-26th-03 at 2:23 AM
In response to Message #96.

frankly i've never understood this.  you end up with a huge hole in a skull that was supposedly struck a certain number of times.  especially where abby's skull is concerned, how can one count the wounds?  i guess by the time you see a skull, that whole area has been removed.  this is just like how the killer approached andrew.  where is the expert opinion and what is it based on?  obviously it's time for me to research and read some more, but intuitively-speaking, i don't think they knew much.


98. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 2:53 AM
In response to Message #96.

This was posted at #94, prior to haulover's response.
I made a change.

(Message last edited May-26th-03  2:56 AM.)


99. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 2:57 AM
In response to Message #98.

This was posted as #95.  I made a change.


100. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Susan on May-26th-03 at 4:11 PM
In response to Message #96.

My thought is that most of the skull pieces would have still been there, contained in Abby's head by the connective tissues.  Once the doctors took Abby's head and stripped the tissue off the skull they would have had a great many pieces that would then be loose.  I'm thinking that their doing the autopsy didn't make the hole bigger, it probably was already there, but, they disturbed the pieces that filled that hole.

What would be helpful would be if we had some sort of overlay of the skull with the wounds placed over it to see how they jibe with the hole.  Looking at the shaved head pic of Abby's head, they don't look like they line up with the hole.  Except maybe those 4 wounds that look like holes instead of cuts which describe a semi-circle, the connect the dots I had posted about earlier.

I guess the doctors just counted the visible wounds to Abby's skin to get a count of blows, but, its all the damage that went on underneath that tells the tale. 


101. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-26th-03 at 10:04 PM
In response to Message #100.

My question is basically, where are the pieces?
I think we are meaning the same thing.
Cause if there was connecting bone - bridging some of this gap - and now we don't have that to recreate the bridging, then how can we know Abby's wounds thoroughly?
It's the pieces I think are missing.
Do you think there are skull pieces missing?


102. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Susan on May-26th-03 at 10:40 PM
In response to Message #101.

Oh, I see what you are saying.  I would think that whatever pieces of skull that didn't come out of Abby's head and get buried with the bloody clothing would have still been in Abby's skull and the doctors would have still had them.  Maybe they did piece them together?  I'm assuming since it looks like they would have been fairly big size chunks of skull that they got buried along with the skulls in the coffins when the doctors were done with them.  Unless whats left of those bodies can ever be exhumed and examined, we may never know. 


103. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-27th-03 at 2:11 AM
In response to Message #102.

I wish they had had superglue back then to stick the pieces back so we could see what the doctors saw upon first denuding the flesh from the skull bone...but then maybe not...

I picture now-a-days, a plastic baggie with a tag identifying the pieces which fell out, affixed forever to the evidence.


104. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Edisto on May-28th-03 at 9:36 PM
In response to Message #102.

When Professor Starrs went to Oak Grove Cemetery with radar equipment in the early 90s, didn't he determine that the skulls were in the graves, but not in the coffins with the rest of the remains?  I can't seem to find such a statement in Rebello, but I thought I'd read that somewhere.  If the skulls were buried in smaller containers (hatboxes?) it might be relatively easy to disinter them, but the Professor wasn't permitted to do so.


105. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by harry on May-28th-03 at 10:20 PM
In response to Message #104.

You sent me digging for that one Edisto as I remembered something similar. I did locate the following:

"These skulls mysteriously vanished shortly after the trial, never to be seen again. Recently, forensic scientist James E. Starrs claimed to have discovered the whereabouts of the skulls. Using radar, he has located what appears to be the missing skulls "about three feet above the rest of the remains of the Bordens," in Fall River's Oak Grove Cemetery (Stuart, A-8). Whoever stole the skulls remains a mystery."

That's from this web page:

http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/cntnts/LB-10/body_lb-10.html

Another article I found on the web, written in March 1998 I thought was of interest. This is a small part of a rather lengthy article on Starrs. A unique individual to say the least.

"Six years ago, he abandoned one of his favorite causes after receiving dozens of letters from relatives of the deceased protesting his investigation. Starrs had wanted to look into the notorious Lizzie Borden case and probe the charges that Borden had murdered her parents with a pickax. "The worst part about it," Starrs laments, years later, "was that [the relatives] also said that they liked the mystery—the mystery being that even though she was acquitted, that everybody else thought she was guilty. They liked that. They were happy with that." Starrs says he has no patience for living with mystery, even though his digs usually do little to actually resolve the debate.

One of the descendants who wrote a protest letter is an Alexandria resident named Douglas Borden. Although he refuses to comment, his wife, Joan, remembers Starrs well: "He was extremely accusatory toward Douglas. He thought he was some sort of ringleader or something." Both she and her husband still want nothing to do with Starrs. "Let the dead lie in peace, regardless of who they are. Just let 'em lie," she says."

As I said the article is LONG but worth browsing to see what Starrs is like.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/archives/cover/1998/cover0313.html


106. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Susan on May-29th-03 at 1:30 AM
In response to Message #105.

Thanks, Harry.  After reading Edisto's post I recalled something similar about that.  I wonder if Starr's was able to tell if there were bone fragments in there with the skulls or not?  If his equipment was strong enough?  It would be interesting to see the pics of his x-rays or sonograms or whatever over the Borden's graves, I seem to recall seeing pics of him going over the ground with his machine somewhere.  Could it have been on TV on some Lizzie show? 


107. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Kat on May-29th-03 at 4:54 AM
In response to Message #106.

When I phoned MM at the FRHS about the Borden display, he mentioned the skulls.  He said contrary to a lot of people's belief otherwise, their exhibit never had the Borden skulls OR the plaster casts.
He said it was his opinion only, that the skulls were most probably in the graves.  He also said the family of Dolan appeared to have claimed that they had the plaster casts.  I'm not sure as to the time they may have claimed this.

A couple of CSI shows ago they used one of those scanning devices to find a buried body.  I don't know if they *enhanced* the result for more dramatic television, but the clarity of the shape and size of the physical body was exceptional!  Very interesting.  I'll bet that gizmo (or is it a gadget?) is more sophisticated NOW than it was in the 90's when Prof. Starrs was using his!


108. "Bit's of Abby"
Posted by Kat on May-30th-03 at 7:22 AM
In response to Message #103.

Rebello, 110:

"The clothes worn by the deceased persons were buried near the house. Yesterday afternoon, under the direction of Officer [Albert E.] Chace, the blood-stained clothes, which the family were anxious to dispose of, together with portions of skull which had been cut from the head of Mrs. Borden, were buried near the house. Just what Medical Examiner Dolan will say when he hears of this is not known. Earlier in the day he had forbidden any such interment. "

--"That Mysterious Box / The Bloody Clothing Once More Dug Up in the Back Yard," Fall River Daily Globe, Friday, August 12, 1892: 7.




109. "Re:   Facing it"
Posted by Edisto on May-30th-03 at 11:53 AM
In response to Message #105.

Oh, yeah.  I think I read that CityPaper article a long time ago.  That's probably where I remember this tidbit from.  O' course, given the newspapers' habit of inventing things, I suppose this isn't totally reliable.  The "CityPaper" IS a newspaper, even if not much of one.  It seems odd that the living relatives of the Bordens are so organized in their opposition to disturbing the graves.  My living relatives and I probably couldn't agree on what color the sky is.  (If you live in Northern Virginia, it's uniformly gray.)