1. "A Time & A Place For Everything"
Posted by Kat on Jun-13th-03 at 7:14 PM

All day I've been wondering WHY those Bordens were slaughtered in the day, in their home, in such a way, and leaving survivors as *witnesses*.
I can think of many different ways to do it, and not cast any suspicion on Lizzie or Emma.
It really was an outrageous undertaking!
I mean, how about at least at night, and a phony robbery?
What kind of mind would hatch a dangerously crude plot such as this?
Is it so unsophisticated because of the mind which anticipated it?
It's not like a copy-cat crime...where one might think a novice killer would get an idea or tips on how to kill and commit this crime.
There were poisonings in the paper in the days preceeding the slaughter by hatchet- you'd think that would be where an idea would be seeded and grow.

(How would you have done it?)

(Message last edited Jun-13th-03  7:16 PM.)

The questions you raise, Kat, have convinced me that, in fact, it was Lizzie who committed the crimes.  You yourself (somewhere else) made the point that Lizzie had just had a birthday prior to the murders--a thirty-second birthday--and this, following upon the Ferry St. affair and a nice, long trip to Europe. Further, there is all of that talk of impending doom that Lizzie engages in the very night before the murders.  I say, "Why not?" Why not execute the crimes in broad daylight, especially if you are intimately familiar with the habits, customs of the inmates. (Who else but Lizzie could have known about all the factors that affected the family members--Emma's absence, Abby and Andrew's recent sickness, the fact that Abby would likely be upstairs in the guestroom because of Uncle Morse's visit, etc.  I know I'm beginning to sound like the yearly anniversary "editorials" now, but there is only one person who could not only have finally decided to act to benefit from the murders (and no one else has been shown to have a sufficient motive, nor proved to have benefitted from the crimes), but who could have successfully pulled this off in midday in broad daylight, having taken everything into consideration (including such things as knowing that no one would hear the thump of Abby falling--and being able to fit into that space where we now know the two chairs were placed)--and that person is Lizzie.

at this time, my thinking is along with yours, robert.  lizzie appears to be at least "supervising" the crimes -- but wait a minute.  if i were lizzie, would i trust anyone who would actually swing that axe?  irregardless of agreements of money deals -- why wouldn't the real murderer, once contact fulfilled, go ahead and axe lizzie in order to get rid of a witness?  how could he have been sure of how it would turn out?  he would certainly have been paid something upfront -- why not take that and call it quits and get out of it as best he could?  the hitman theory is ridiculous when you realize how must control lizzie would have been giving up.

Ah, but there may well have been other people with a motive to kill the Bordens.  It has been suggested that Emma had as much motive as Lizzie.  (Yes, I know Emma wasn't officially home that day!)  Lizzie apparently thought Hiram Harrington, whom Andrew had apparently snubbed, might have disliked Andrew enough to kill him.  There's the mysterious Joseph Carpenter, former employee of Borden & Almy who had "cooked" the books and who was supposedly seen in Fall River about the time of the murders.  (He came up with an alibi, but how airtight was it?)  Clearly the Fall River citizenry found John Morse's conduct after the fact to be suspicious. Could he have been protecting his nieces' interests in the hope of some favor from them?  -- And of course, if the killer was none of the above, we might not necessarily know what his motive was.

Yes, Lizzie had recently had a birthday, but does any particular significance attach to a 32nd birthday?  If it had been her 40th, or even her 30th, that might have been another matter.  Her trip to Europe in 1890 was distant enough in time that I wouldn't consider it an immediate cause of such discontent that a daughter would murder her father and stepmother in broad daylight and in the most grisly fashion imaginable.

These murders have never seemed to me to be carefully thought out.
They seem like the acts of someone who was "cornered" and had to do something extremely drastic to make an escape.  That might describe Lizzie, but I haven't seen enough evidence of that to convince me that she was without doubt the killer.

This is a tough one, but, as stated by others, it makes me think of Lizzie as the culprit.  Why daytime?  I'm not sure, but, it seems as though there was such a rage there, a need to destroy Abby at that particular moment, a moment when Abby is alone.  What was it about? What could have caused someone to do that to someone else in broad daylight and in their own home?  That to me has always been the key to these murders, if we can figure that out, we have it solved.

Personally I would never do that to someone, but, if I had to do it, it would be with a fast acting poison and I wouldn't be around to watch it! 

I think I would wait until the folks were at the farm.
I know they were slated to go...they usually go.
I think their not going this year was because of the lady who couldn't go with them.  Mrs. Vinnicum.
So what I would do is be very very good at home..on my best behavior and make sure that the folks got their vacation.  Whether that meant I had to go with them, or I found someone to go with them, or I offered any assistance to help them go. (Lizzie was rumored to have been pretty thorny that week preceeding the last chance of the elders to go away which gossip says is one reason they did not leave).
So I would encourage that, in any way I could,
The farm was where anything can happen.
Roving bands of gypsie horse traders.  Crazy Davis guys with brain tumors.
Hard-luck tramps.  P'O'd business acquaintances of Andrew's.  Farm accidents.  Poisoned milk or cheese.
I would wait until Abby was alone and bump her off somehow.  Maybe Fake a suicide.  For all we know they had a shotgun out there.
Or pull a Bertha Manchester murder of Abby while Andrew was in town, and bump him off when he comes home on the weekend.
Maybe he walks from the station to the farm on Friday noon.  Jump him and rob him and kill him that way.
I haven't figured out about the chaperone yet...the Mrs. Vinnicum person who would be there.  (She definetly would have to be out of the house, probably sent shopping).  But she would be the "X" factor like Bridget was.
Or the chloroform in the sleep ploy Morse made up.
BUt I would definetly rob them and make sure I had an alibi.
I have to hone my plan a bit more!  This is not easy, is it?

I've always been curious about the Borden farm, what was the big draw to go there?  To get out of the city and into the countryside?  Was there a pond there to go swimming in?  Or fishing?  I'm assuming there was since Lizzie said her fishing lines were there.  I'm wondering why Andrew didn't have some sort of vacation home at the shore, it seems like it would be a nice to place to get away to and close enough that Andrew could commute to town.

Kat, what about the 2 men that work at the farm?  Didn't they live in the farm house?  Wouldn't that be 3 people then to get rid of before doing Abby in?  Sorry, not trying to shoot holes in your idea. 

Oh that's the point of this.  Shoot all the holes you can find!  I appreciate it.
I'm planning my first crime and I'm an unsophisticated (might-as-well-be) 15 year old.
I can't quite get the hang of this planning business, myself.
(But was one man at one farm and one man at the other?  And one had a wife?
I thought possibly they took vacations as well, when the master & mistress came.)

If the men who worked the farms took off, who took care of the chickens and whatever else there was to be done there?  Were there other animals, a cow or horses?  I don't think Andrew and Abby would go to the farm just to do chores for a month or however long they would go for.  Unless the men had their own places on the farm?  I don't know much about the Borden's farms, wish we had more info on it.  I remember seeing a picture of the farmhouse, I think it was Harry that posted it, didn't look like much. 

From LABVM/L, John Clark., Galleries.

I think this painting above the parlour sofa is of one of the farms.

I figured maybe one farm was to produce, and one farm was just a country cottage.  I can't figure out why Abby would need a companion if there were old family retainers at the farm they would stay at.

It's never been my impression that the workers at the Borden farms lived in the same cottage that was occupied by the Borden family during their sojourns there.  Dunno why I had that impression; maybe it's just because there was such a caste system in those days.  The Bordens wouldn't have wanted to share quarters with a "Portuguese" (who was actually a Swede).
Real-estate taxes and such weren't the same in those days.  One could have a second home and spend little or nothing on upkeep except for what was needed when one was actually in residence.  (I know that because of second homes owned by members of my own family prior to World War II.)
My own impression of the Borden "farm" is that the house looked more inviting than 92 Second Street, albeit somewhat smaller.

i've wondered the same and think this may even be a clue.  several things come to mind.  as outrageous as this looks -- how often did an opportunity to kill either one of them come about?

consider:

how often was emma out of town?
how often was lizzie actually alone in the house with abby?
how could she get them at night with their door locked and bridget so near? (and think of trying to do this in the dark)

also this:  these days we think anybody can do anything (and they can).  but at that time, think of how upsetting it is to most people to have to face the fact that a 32 year old church going "lady" could even consider such an act.  and is this something that a cunning lizzie, with her "monthly" cloths here and there, was highly aware of and counted on a great deal?

i've considered that lizzie might have felt pretty certain she would not be a suspect and was truly shocked to find herself arrested.  and this is where we get into the subject of trying to understand her, who she really was, how she felt, how she thought.  i cannot, of course, prove, but i can see a lizzie borden who is truly shallow at heart and is capable of doing whatever she needs to do in order to get what she wants.

Amen, Haulover.  I think Lizzie counted on the improbability that this could ever happen (and actually be done by HER) in order to undertake the crimes.  But, if she thought she'd never be a suspect, was she genuinely scared while in jail? 

I'm trying to plan a crime and I can't.
I suppose if I had hate in my heart and a lot of time I could fantasize my way into figuring out a way to kill someone.
But 2 someones?  That's twice as hard.

If I were Lizzie, and just snapped one day in that guest room, I think I would have strangled and battered Abby.
Maybe taking up a vase or statue and using that to place the killing final blow.
Otherwise, if I enter that room with a weapon, I have been planning this for a while.
And please keep in mind a woman with a hatchet the size of this one, is a fearsome sight to behold.
In fact any sized person within a closed area like a room, would have an anxious reaction to a 2 foot hatchet held by any-sized person, male or female, I believe.

Anyway, if I come back to myself after the killing then I have to think of a way, first, to get out of there without being seen, clean up, then I might think of ransacking the room, pulling out drawers etc., as if a robbery was attempted, if I find there is still time.
Then I would get the H out of there and make sure I was seen somewhere outside.
THEN I would start worrying about Andrew?
This is if it was done by impulse.
This is very hard to imagine.
(We have the ending result and we can go backwards, but I'm trying to be in at the first, conceptual  stage...)

Okay, hows this for an idea.  There was the info from one of the men at the farm that Andrew had left an axe or hatchet at the farm that had been sharpened and he said they could bring it to him next time they came to town.  Uncle John went to the farm and brought back those eggs, could he have possibly brought back that freshly sharpened hatchet too?  Kind of handy to have that lying around the house right around then. 

That has always been my choice of weapon as the true one.
That hatchet is the "claw-headed hatchet", and was found in the cellar and was the weapon which the police decided did the deed, on up through the Preliminary Hearing and then it drops from the case and I don't know why.

What bothers me is that if it were a "crime of passion"
and spontaneous, Lizzie axing Abby in a fit of anger, there
wouldn't be an axe just laying around the guest room.
But yet, an axe isn't positively proven the murder weapon.
I think Lizzie and Uncle John schemed this and he brought one
of his butchers with him, hid him in the hall closet.  The rare
interview with Emma much later in life where she insists Lizzie
didn't do it, Lizzie's composure and cool after the murders,
her clean hands and dress, all these things convince me Lizzie
didn't do the actual deeds. 
  Good question Kat, if I were to do this dastardly deed I think
I would just hire someone.  Things must have been very untolerable
in that household.  Picture it:  4 grown women and skinflint Andrew
in one house. What did they do all day? I love my 2 days off on the
weekend but ugh having everyday off would drive me crazy. 
  Idle minds....

A big question that occurs to me is this:  How could Lizzie (if she was the killer) know for sure that she would be able to actually do in both Abby and Andrew?  I'm sure Lizzie was in reasonably good health, but I don't think she was especially fit, unless that story was true about her working out at a gym before the murders.  Despite her avoirdupois, Abby sounds fairly spry.  She was up and down stairs whenever she felt like it and did her share of housework.  Andrew might have been feeling poorly that day, but the autopsy found him in good shape for a man his age, despite the truss and dentures.  Killing someone with a hatchet is far from a certain proposition.  You might slice off their ears, give 'em a bad concussion, but you couldn't be sure beforehand that you'd actually be up to the task of putting them away for good.  After that initial blow, a desperate Abby might have tackled Lizzie, knocked her down, and gotten the hatchet (or whatever) away from her.  Most of those chops weren't necessarily fatal blows, if one reads the autopsy testimony.  Andrew was probably taken unaware, but even so, he might have been able to mount a defense if the first blow hadn't felled him.
I wasn't cut out to be a murderer either, but every once in a while I fantasize about having someone beaten up while I watch.  You can guess who the candidates might be...
 

haulover writes:
"How often was Lizzie actually alone at home with Abby?"

--This is intriguing.  WHAT does Emma DO all day?  We know Lizzie made an effort to get out and do things.  We know Abby went out just about every day, marketing, visiting, etc.
Bridget had 1/2 Thursday's off and would go out in the evenings as well.
Andrew came and went.
Where was Emma?
If Emma was as hateful of Abby as we hear and as bad as Lizzie, SHE was the one who would often be alone at home with Abby!
And this trip away was the first *visit* Emma made anywhere lately that we know of.  (*Visit* being to stay the night away, at least).
Emma knows the house routines.  Emma says she probably was less cordial to Abby than Lizzie was.
Emma was not considered her father's favorite;  he didn't wear her ring.
Emma seems to have made herself *smaller* in the few years coming up to the crimes.
She doesn't go to Europe.  She takes the smaller room.  She didn't often order new clothes.  It sounds like she was denying herself comforts and plenty, tho she had the same 'means' as Lizzie.
If she was very religious or pious, Emma may have 'sacraficed' these things to assauge a guilty conscience...guilty of wishing Abby and Andrew dead?

Never mind.  Went back and checked through the Witness statements where I got the hatchet idea.  Apparently the new hatchet had made it back to the Borden house already.  But, Alfred Johnson made the statement that since it been sharpened, that hatchet rarely had been used, so, it sounds like it may have been very sharp still.  According to Mr. Eddy from the farm, the hatchet was large.  and according to Mr. Johnson it was a bench hatchet, could that be the claw headed hatchet you are talking about, Kat?  Lizzie did admit to making that 5 minute trip to the basement upon coming down for the day, and according to Mr. Eddy and Mr. Johnson, all the hatchets and axes were in a box by the furnace in the basement.  Could Lizzie have grabbed that super sharp bench hatchet and brought it up? 

Yes, that is the same hatchet.
Maybe sharpening it removed any gilt and we are back to looking for a hatchet which has gilt and not been honed.
I read that a new  hatchet that had been honed was sharper than a new hatchet, as the metal was thinner each time it is sharpened.

kat:

***(We have the ending result and we can go backwards, but I'm trying to be in at the first, conceptual  stage...) ***

i understand that.  what i mean is that no one on earth could have possibly planned that crime exactly as it happened.  though one could envision, anticipate, and have a plan of sorts on hand -- if opportunity were to present itself.

if lizzie did it, she probably had just come up from the cellar when she spoke to bridget at the back door.  meaning:  coast is clear.

you're defining spontaneous or "rage" as a sudden irresistable urge.  i'm suggesting it wasn't that but something more cunning.  after andrew got home, another opportunity presented itself.  (this could not have been planned with certain foresight either -- bridget could have hung around the kitchen, morse might have already come home.)  IF circumstances had made it impossible for her to kill andrew, she probably would have left the house and let someone else discover the body.  (i guess that would have left her with other problems.)

but what i suggest -- does it not fit in with her subsequent behavior and statements -- in fact all the way through the inquest?

it's the stickiness of all this that keeps bringing us back to lizzie as culprit.  nothing about the murders appears to be the result of a well-reasoned plan.  therefore -- who, why, and how?

i don't think lizzie ever for one minute lost her mind. i think it was cunning.

and i know people always want to find a hitman of sorts (supervised by lizzie) -- but as i've asked before -- who is going to risk being anywhere near an axe murderer?  nevermind agreements or payments.  

It would seem obvious that a killing in the house by hatchet was pre-planned.

I have been trying to plan a crime and can't.

I didn't know I couldn't until I tried.

How can this girl's plan baffle us so much?

Yes there needs to be 'opportunity', knowledge of the house and it's inmates, and available at a moment's notice to act when the timing is right, with utter impunity.  I also think the person did not expect to be suspected.

What about Emma?

Let's backtrack a little, and let's suppose, for a minute, that Lizzie was toying with the idea of killing Abby, and the spiel she gave Alice was to set THAT, and ONLY that killing up (enemies, men dashing around the house, burglary).  So, the axe/hatchet murder is not a loss of control, though it certainly escalates into a frenzy of blows.

I would STILL see the slaying of Andrew as an "oops!" event - he's home too soon, she can't go out and putter around Main Street and come back, clean and seemingly innocent (based on her ignorance of how the time of a murder can be approximated).

Or, Andrew's murder stems from words she has with him.  Something doesn't go down right with him about that "note" explanation, and he challenges her, or says something that upsets her enough for her to kill him, whether he's awake or dozy.

(Message last edited Jun-16th-03  3:27 PM.)

There is an optimum or ideal method to sharpen an instrument (ax, knife etc.) It is the best possible edge that can be applied; not too thick, so it doesn't cut nor too fragile where it might break. It is always sharpened with an efficient edge, regardles of the age of the tool. I am assuming that the indvidual doing the sharpening is skilled in the art.

If police procedurals had become an issue in this case, the defense would have had a field day.  This particular hatchet wanders all over the place. Even an elementary stab at 'chain of evidence' doesn't seem to occur to anyone here.

Initially Bridget and Mullaly take the hatchet in question out of the box and Mullaly puts it on the floor.  Mullaly then shows it to Fleet. It looks to Fleet as though it has been freshly washed and wiped clean.(Prelim and trial) So he "put it in between some boxes so [he] could go and put [his] hand on it." (Prelim. 367)

Officer Edson is sent to collect it the next day. (But Fleet says at the Prelim. that he did not know that Edson was going to get it.  So how did Edson know where to look for it?) 

It probably wasn't still between those boxes anyway.  Because in the afternoon, Charles Sawyer was in the kitchen and took a look at the hatchet which was lying on the kitchen table. He'd been aware that Dolan and the others had "examined and criticised" this particular one. (Prelim, 474).  Sawyer rubs the hatchet and gets off a bit of "a dry powder, apparently rust" It looks to him like a dry rust  He doesn't know who took the hatchet away after he laid it back on the table.

When Fleet is shown the hatchet at trial -- he says it looks different.   He says there was a red spot on the blade.
Q: Rust upon it?
A. I think it was.
...
Q: Well, has anybody been scraping or washing that since you got it?
A: None that I know of." (Trial, 533)

My guess is that Fleet's "red spot" was the bit of "dry rust" that Sawyer scraped off in the kitchen on the day of the murders. 






(Message last edited Jun-16th-03  7:08 PM.)

But Abby hasn't an enemy and the spiel to Alice was geared more toward how someone may have been stalking Andrew.
At least that's the minimum impression I get from that.  Lizzie makes sure to tell about these phantoms and also that 'a man came'. .. a man to do business.  A man who had loud words with Andrew.
And she tells a story about Andrew being nasty to Dr. Bowen in his visit to Andrew, Wednesday.
It sounds like she is setting up Andrew more than anyone.
But, that does not nesessarilly negate the possible or probable fact that Abby is her target either after all, or as well.
But it makes Andrew sound a bit less of an 'oops' (so aptly put)-- maybe setting him up as the victim to explain why Abby was killed--because she was there and married to the man.

The thing I'm thinking about now is why the first reports were of Bowen supposedly saying Abby ran upstairs and died of fright, etc.
It may have been Lizzie's first influence on him, and he was so shocked, maybe he did accept that view in the beginning.  (Later realizing how silly that line of diagnosis sounded, and revised his opinion to a more professional one)
That goes along with what you said about Lizzzie was naive to think the experts would not notice the long hiatus between murders.

That's really interesting William.  Is it possible that a new hatchet might be honed even before use the first time?  Maybe someone has a certain standard for the cutting edge and might modify the factory made item immediately to their own needs and usage?

kat:

you know how i'm always wandering around looking for possibilities.  you posit something you maybe did not intend to in the way i thought of it.  when you suggest that lizzie wanted to set up andrew as abby's killer, and failed to do so.  imagine this; this is lizzie thinking:  "i'll kill her and get out before he gets back.  i'll make sure i'm not back until her body is found, and father will be the primary suspect."  i guess i'm just having fun with that.

because that still doesn't answer my old unanswered question of why lizzie could not have gotten out easily enough in time IF THAT WERE HER INTENTION.  i've toyed with the idea that she really did have a hell of a time getting that stove hot enough to burn that dress (that she was, as was recently a bone of contention here, that she was naive about using that stove).  i think victoria lincoln would have it that lizzie needed that time to "recover" from what she calls her "brownout."

Thanks for pointing me there, Diana.  So, reading through the Preliminary Vol. 4 it does indeed sound like the hatchet with the rust spot is the new larger bench hatchet that Andrew had left at the farm to be sharpened.  The officers described it as being clean except for that rust spot.  Could it be clean because of it being new and not subjected to a winter of lying in the basement to get covered with coal ash?  Or, could it be clean because it had been used for murder?  How long does it take rust to form on something like that? 

Oh and Emma is the one that always kept in contact with uncle Morse.

Yes thanks for the extra detail Diana.  That was well done.
Any ideas as to why the prosecution traded the claw-head hatchet for the handleless hatchet, as the weapon?

Prelim.
Fleet
357

Q.  I hope soon to have the hatchet here. I should like to have you describe it, so I shall not have to call you again. Describe that hatchet you say was clean.
A.  It was a hatchet, the blade about as wide as that.
Q.  Give it in inches.
A.  Well, about four inches; and from head to blade, or sharp point, about six inches.
Q.  (Mr. Jennings)  The entire length of the blade?
A.  I mean from the head to the cutting point.
Q.  What kind of head did it have?
A.  A claw hammar. (sic)
Q.  The other one did not have a claw hammar?
A.  I think not.
Q.  It was a claw hammar hatchet?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  About how long was the handle?
A.  I think about two feet.

--This is my hatchet.  It's called a claw-hammer.  I only say that because it is more often referred to as that term, than bench hatchet, for continuities sake and clarity.  It has the right dimensions and I believe a thread was found on the blade, of some cloth.  If any weapon at the house was the weapon, I had always considered this to be the one.
So why would the authorities suddenly lose interest in this one and concentrate on the HH?  That blade was a bit smaller I believe, but do we know the handle length?

Prelim.
Dr. Dolan
150+
Q.  Which one looks as though the blade had been scraped?
A.  The hatchet.
Q.  Pretty sharp?
A.  Very sharp.
Q.  Freshly ground?
A.  Looked as though it had been, yes sir.
Q.  Did you try the edge of it?
A.  On what?
Q.  Any way to give you an opinion as to its sharpness.
A.  I tried my thumb on it.
Q.  It was very sharp?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Bright?
A.  No Sir, I would not say it was bright.
Q.  When you say it was freshly ground, do you mean ground within 24 hours?
A.  I would not say as to that length of time.
Q.  The edge, from the grinding, had that shining fresh look?
A.  Yes Sir, it had a shining look, a fresh look.
Q.  Was it a new, or an old one in looks?
A.  I should say it was a moderately new one. I should say it was bought within a year.
Q.  Did it look as though it had been used?
A.  Not a great deal.
Q.  Have any rust on it?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Where did it have rust on it?
A.  On the blade.
Q.  You mean on this sharp edge?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Where on that, did you see any appearance of blood?
A.  I saw some on the cutting edge, and also some on both sides.
Q.  How far from the cutting edge?
A.  Probably an inch and a half.
Q.  How much?
A.  Probably seven or eight spots in all.
Q.  How big were these spots?
A.  The size of a couple of heads of pins.
...............
154+
Q.  In your opinion, would that hatchet that you saw, furnish an adequate cause of these incised wounds?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  The wounds in both cases?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  So far as you could see in both heads here, was there any different
instrument used in causing these injuries, or was it one and the same instrument, in your opinion?
A.  One and the same instrument could do it.
Q.  Do you mean reasonably could?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Do you think it did?
A.  Yes Sir.

--Pretty confident, huh?



(Message last edited Jun-17th-03  1:54 AM.)

Kat, I grant you that Lizzie's remarks, as reported by Alice, seem to weigh in as a set-up for Andrew's murder - still, maybe Lizzie was only half as odd as we suppose, and she thought she was being "canny" to drag all this out the night before SOMEONE in her house was to be killed.  I don't have much trouble believing that, actually.

And maybe part of Bowen's opinion, later shown to be in error, was due to good ol' misogyny?  Andrew Borden was important, and Abby not-so-much, so he was obviously the primary target!  I'm not married to this idea, but I'm dating it.

It's deliciously ironic to contemplate, but I can't quite believe that Lizzie, if she did kill Abby with malice aforethought, thought to cast suspicion on Andrew.  I think she wanted to waltz in with a few packages, and maybe even lie about how long she'd been out, and act as shocked as everyone when Abby was discovered.  Maybe that walk would also give her some needed time to work out a few answers to the inevitable questions from Father and the police.

I don't have any problem with Lizzie needing about an hour to clean up and compose herself after slaying Abby - I mean, really, who knows what she was thinking and how she was feeling after the deed was done?     

(Message last edited Jun-17th-03  2:19 PM.)

Kat:
Your supposition is not without merit.  Yes, it is entirely possible the new owner would sharpen the blade to his own specifications.

The Bordens employed a professional wood chopper. We must assume he possesed a certain expertise with the use of hatchets/axes, and would sharpen a blade properly when it was required.

I've puzzled over this switch from the claw-hammer hatchet to the handleless one, too.  Perhaps it came about because Professor Wood failed to find any blood on any of the hatchets found at the house?  Maybe that's when they decided Dr. Draper's 'dog and pony show' with the 3 1/2 inch blade on the HH fitting exactly into the wounds on the skull would have to carry the day.

Harry's point about the Mullaly/Fleet testimony is a good one.  It
raises a lot of questions.  Obviously either Fleet or Mullaly lied under oath about the handle. For at least twenty trial pages of cross-examination, Robinson struggles to get Fleet to even mention finding the hatchet head. (Trial 528-548) Fleet stubbornly resists, virtually to the point of perjury, before Robinson drags the admission out of him.

In "Forty Whacks", Kent provides Joe Howard's newspaper account of the dramatic moment when Mullaly follows Fleet to the stand and tells the court that he saw Fleet find, not just the hatchet head, but a hatchet handle.  This handle had a fresh break in it which appeared to correspond to the hatchet head in evidence. He then says that Fleet put both back in the box.

“The feelings of the counsel for the Commonwealth may be imagined. They sat rigid in their chairs like statues. Governor Robinson ordered the witness to stand where he was until Fleet could be found. He was to have no chance to tell the marshal what he had been saying. Mr. Jennings was all over the room at once. He sent his office assistant to the foot of the courthouse stairs to see that no one spoke to Fleet. He sent a shrewd detective from Cambridge to stand at the head of the stairs and see that Mullaly had no chance to say a word to his chief….” (Kent,121)

Fleet is immediately recalled to the stand and firmly answers in the negative to repeated questions from both Robinson and Moody as to whether he saw a handle with a fresh break in the box or anywhere around that area.

Kent says:  "It was obvious to everyone:  Fleet was lying under oath."(40 Whacks,122)

Bob, that idea that someone had that Lizzie might have been trying to implicate Andrew in the killing of Abby is a new one to me, and I haven't weighed it's merits as a viable scheme yet.  I read it here first as well as you.

Thanks William for your opinion about the possiblity of the customizing of a new blade by the farmworker.

Diana, it seems they could have saved themselves a lot of egg on their faces at trial if they had stuck to that claw-head hatchet!  Relying on the HH was poor judgement I believe, but I have a feeling there is something missing from our equation as to why they switched.
For a trial to become such a circus over the competing testimony of those two , Fleet especially, is such a waste, because they couldn't even prove that that line of questioning even had any merit, that that Was the weapon, and the only weapon, plus they had Lizzie on an Indictment which specified no weapon as The weapon.  I know you know all this...but I had to say my frustration with this whole travesty...anyone who followed that claw-head through the Preliminary, only to find it cast aside for a Broken tool, must feel the same frustration when Fleet is in *denial* on the stand at the trial.
For me that is a turning point moment, and it was unnecessary!

Can you find parallels with that 1995 "Trial of the Century"?
When prosecution witnesses changed their stories from the year before?
Or even took the Fifth?

Was the prosecution picking their facts to fit their theory, and not the other way around? Or was there a fatal flaw in your proposal?
I would have to reread Kent's book, the last, best book on this case that just gives you the facts.

i don't know who to direct this to in particular.  to everyone, then.  interesting in the preliminaries how dolan thinks he saw blood.  what blows this apart is that the blood-testing doesn't show anything.  in my opinion, how the HH seems to become the murder weapon is it's curious appearance -- how it appears to be not dusty in the manner of its "peers" but different -- that is, wet and dipped in ashes as opposed to naturally accumulated dust.  and there is something very curious about this i find it hard to overlook.  if their blood-testing was just plain inaccurate in general, and if we may for a moment simply dismiss it -- consider that both weapons were used.  if lizzie did this, using what was available in the cellar, it makes sense.  gilt in abby's wound not found in andrews.  equals not the same blade.  supporting the theory that lizzie hoped she was done after killing abby, but for whatever reason changed her mind and grabbed a different axe, which would be the HH.  why would lizzie make the change?  to make the evidence confusing?

but then i have to backtrack to the axe found on the roof out back -- but we can't say much about that because it wasn't made evidence.

so what we're really missing here is the truth about the accuracy of the forensics of the time.  we're not sure about this, are we?

what's interesting is that if we could find some blood on any killing implement in the house, most of us would convict lizzie in a heartbeat.  the "experts" of the time don't permit us to do this.  so we go off chasing axes. 

did anybody ever provide an example of an axe that DID have blood on it -- human or otherwise?
 

Haulover, I just did a search through all my source documents, the 2 axes and the hatchets that looked like they had blood spots on them when tested were clean of blood, they were soaked in potassium of iodide.  The doctors of the time knew the size of a human blood platelet when under a microscope, if that helps any?  Everything that was taken from the Borden home was tested for blood and with the exception of Lizzie's petticoat and the actual bloodstained effects, no other blood was found. 

It seems to me that it would be harder to clean up 2 weapons so there is no blood found, rather than just sticking to one.
It's an interesting speculation tho.
A lot of people think there may have been 2 weapons.
That Andrew had less blows possibly because the weapon's handle used on him broke.
No one tho, says it was cut off, we note.  They say it was broken.

I would think the handle would/should be longer in Andrew's killing than , say a cleaver, so the killer could stand farther away when the attack starts.
I don't think we know how long that HH handle was since we don't have it?
And Why don't we have it?
There's a good question, too!

The so-called handleless hatchet was not handleless. It had a stub of a handle when found.

That saw-off stub always bothered me. Why would anyone saw off the handle?  If the handle had split, it would seem to me I would remove the entire wood portion and not leave a stub. A simple hammer and chisel could remove the stub. There was a vise in the barn. Professor Wood used a vise to eventually remove the stub. Even easier, toss the hammer and stub in the fire and let the flames consume the stub. 

Why bother going through the trouble of sawing it off and then tossing the head and stub in a box? 

Of course, this assumes the hatchet was "innocent" of any involvement in the crimes.

(Message last edited Jun-18th-03  7:43 PM.)

I think that handle was broken -- not sawed off.  Mullaly, Fleet, and Prof. Wood all refer to it as "broken" at trial. 

I thought it might have been broken during normal use and Andrew (or the man who helped with the wood cutting, etc.)put it aside with the intention of replacing the handle.  I remember my father breaking axe handles when he was clearing brush -- and replacing them later.   

isn't it ironic that knowlton contends that an outsider would have simply left the weapon on the premises?  well, lizzie could have done that.  how much difference would it have made if an axe had been found in the sitting room?   so what?  that still wouldn't prove she did it.

no matter how many times i go over this, i keep concluding that the murder weapon was never found in the house.

but if lizzie did it, why should we be surprised that she managed to conceal it?  she concealed the soiled/stained dress?  how did she do that?

Do you know if it was hard to break the handle?
Or was that something that just occurred- do you know if that is common?

I would think there would be plenty of places to conceal that dress.
Well, she did conceal it yes, so there must have been a place she knew of.  But that place might not hold a hatchet?

I still think that the weapon was one of the 5, maybe.
I mean why bring a hatchet with you when there's plenty there to choose from?
It didn't HAVE to be sharp in order to kill.
it didn't Have to have gilt.
It would not be easy to hide such a thing on one's person to remove it from the house unseen.

IF someone brought a weapon, I would think it was something that the house did not have on hand...like a machete, maybe.  Those have looong handles and the cutting edge could be just about any size you wanted.  It wouldn't have the weight tho, that an ax/hatchet had.

Someone asked me recently how could someone not real used to wielding a long handled hatchet, especially in such a small space, keep from cutting their own foot or leg or whatever?

Wouldn't it have been possible to take the hatchet head to a store and look for one identical to it and just assume the handle of the handleless hatchet was probably the same length?  I would think the length of the handles would be similar for hatchets or axes with heads of a similar size and weight.

Every time I look at the "square" way that handle is broken, I have trouble imagining that it broke that way naturally.  No stick of wood that I've ever seen (hoe or rake handle, broom handle) would break that way naturally.  Wood has "fault lines" in it (places where the fiber is weaker than in other places).  It would almost certainly splinter to some extent.  I have wondered if the forensic specialists in the case sawed if off squarely after they got it and used the small bits of wood to test for blood.  I haven't found any description of that in the testimony, but it seems possible to me.

Are you asking about the axe handles breaking, Kat?  If so, it just seemed to happen.  My recollection is that I saw it happen more than one time.  And I know that, when we were kids, we were always warned that it was a possibility.

The most incriminating part of the testimony about the handleless hatchet is that Mullaly, Fleet, and Prof. Wood all say it appeared to be a "fresh" break in the handle.  The implication being that it was recently broken -- either deliberately -- or by the force of the murderous blows and that the killer then destroyed it. I remember it was suggested by some that the cylindrical roll of burned material that Harrington testified to seeing in the stove may have been the missing axe handle. 

I'm beginning to be a little more convinced as to the HH.  At least I'm getting reasons as to why the authorities settled on that HH.
If no one came forward and explained that *new break*, then yes it seems suspicious.  Combined with the ashes, and the fact that the handle eventually *disappeared*. from the cellar.  (Notwithstanding the fact that the defense finally denied any more access to the house and it's contents when the prosecution wanted to go get that handle.--By then it was gone, most probably?)

A splintered break and sawn off shards during testing later makes sense to me too.

A splintering and a sawing by Prof. Wood does make sense.  The piece remaining in the head looks like it was sawed off. It's way too straight to be broken.

The only possible reason I could see for the killer to saw off the handle was to put the hatchet in a condition as to it not being the murder weapon. Just a harmless hatchet head with a stump.

But the lack of blood trace evidence on the HH pretty much dooms the idea of it being the weapon used.  Even the prosecution never claimed it as such.

the "dipped in ashes" business must have some explanation.  it's too odd to ignore.  i mean, there is no practical reason for it. 

(Message last edited Jun-19th-03  1:40 AM.)

I'd think someone would come forward and explain the new break.

Maybe it WAS Andrew who broke the darn thing...and that's why we don't have anone saying they broke it previously.

But I don't trust the blood-testing done back then.  They still have troubles testing blood now.

I think they soaked an item and then examined the residue.  Real Science, what?

Rebello, pg. 15 + 16, has a bio of Rev. Buck.  Seems he was not very experienced at using an axe when he was a young man!

"...Edwin Buck left home at the age of fourteen for Bangor, Maine, to work as a clerk in a general store. While in Bangor, Edwin suffered a cut from an ax with which he was chopping. During his recovery Edwin gave serious thought about becoming a teacher or a preacher. He decided to enter Phillips Andover Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, to prepare for college. He went to Yale University, graduated in 1849, and studied at Andover Theological Seminary in 1850. Three years later he graduated from Bangor Theological Seminary."....

"Dipped in ashes" suggests a deliberate act.  Maybe it wasn't "dipped" at all but simply fell or was accidentally dropped into one of the piles of ashes that were in the cellar.   Maybe when the head broke off, it went flying into a pile of ashes.  I know it was thought that the metal head was wet when dipped into the ashes, but that unfinished cellar must have been quite a damp place in the Bordens' day.

Every time we get bogged down with more and more details of acts the killer would have had to commit within a very brief time, the less likely it seems that Lizzie was the killer (IMHO).  That's one reason why I don't accept the idea of Lizzie's going out to the barn, putting the axe in a vise, and sawing off the handle.  It seems unlikely she was in the habit of using tools, such as a saw and vise, so it would have taken her longer than it would have taken an experienced person.

Also, this is a grisly thought, but I don't think a human skull would "challenge" an axe or hatchet as much as chopping wood, for example.  Why on earth would the implement break under the force of such a task when it was actually meant for heavier work?

These are good, rational points to question any alleged use of that hatchet. Its non-use was settled at the time of the trial.

Two comments.
If the head broke off while in the cellar (or elsewhere - chopping usually done outside in the air), it could have landed in a bucket of water that happened to be there. If a bare earth cellar then, that could explain "dampness". Ashes awaiting disposal by whoever could be hooked into this task by Andy. (Would ash be a way to keep off rust?)

I think we should agree that the handle was "sawn off", not broken off. It is probably just a re-creation; we don't know for sure if it was really THAT hatchet, or a substitute. Then or now, the hatchet head is more valuable than the handle. Any hardware store will sell ax handle, their breakage seems like normal "wear and tear". You don't have to be Andy to recycle things.

. . . and then again, maybe Lizzie threw the hatchet into the stove after doing the dirty deed. She could have removed the head later on and disposed of it - much easier to get rid of just the head than the entire hatchet - wasn't there something about a "roll of paper" burning in the stove? - maybe it was the handle (?)

Well, a wet bloody hatchet, rinsed or not, would certainly get covered with ashes if put in the stove.  And if it was hot enough to burn, then the searchers might not have looked through the stove.
But the small broken part didn't look burned, did it?  Does anyone know?
Would Wood have known this?

At trial Prof. Wood says: "The fractured ends of this bit of handle, the rough end, had a perfectly white, fresh look." (p.1013)
So it doesn't sound as though the part of the axe that Wood  examined had been burned.

Phillip Harrington testified that when he looked in the stove:
"There had been some paper burned in there before, which was rolled up and still held a cylindrical form.

Q. Now will you describe that roll of burned paper by measuring it with your hands, please?
A. Well, I should say it was about that long. (Indicating)  Twelve inches, I should say.

Q. And how large in diameter?
A. Well, not over two inches." (Inquest, 568)

Some thought this was the missing hatchet handle.  Some thought it was the papers Andrew brought home.  Some thought it was the missing will.... 

I just noticed that on September 9, 1892 -- Knowlton wrote to Pillsbury and asked "what has become of the fifth hatchet?" (Knowlton Papers,p.74)]
 

Very good, thanks.
The Fifth hatchet was the HH, was it not?
So by Sept. 9th, a bit more than a week after the Preliminary, they were already looking at, or wondering about the HH...that's after pushing the claw-head.

That's right.  Yes, I think the 5th hatchet reference is to the HH.  Technically the other four implements were two axes and two hatchets.  But they made up the four that were taken away initially.

you've swerved into something i tried a while back.  what does lizzie do in a pinch?  shove the whole thing, hatchet and handle, under hot coals?  who is going to look there?  (at least it will keep there a while until she can figure out what to do with it.)

but your other question -- the bit of remaining wood, was it charred?  No.  so she did NOT do that with the HH.

irregardless, i haven't seen where the stove contents was ever searched.  nor am i sure what it is composed of in there.  i don't know that a blade could not have been in the stove indefinitely.  here's an idea:  hidden in the stove?

i'm haunted by something that ouija (that you transcribed) said when asked why they didn't find it:

"Too sharp."

we can't even decide how clever lizzie really is.

but not one ever described her as anything like hysterical or irrational in her behavior.  i think we agree she did not go off her rocker or fly off the handle (pardon the pun) that day and jump on abby. 

but we may be wrong to take for granted as truth some key things lizzie has to say about her conversation with abby that morning.  a bitter argument may have preceded the murder, for example.  (picture this scene in the parlor or the foyer:  abby says, "and now i'm going to finish up that room and i'll take this up with your father when he gets back."  lizzie thinks, "oh no, you won't.  i know where those hatchets are, and i'll get you before you can finish up there.")  that of course is imagination, but often it is good for stimulating the mind if nothing else.

it's always interested me how lizzie deals with the questions put to her about her conversation with abby that morning -- perhaps this is where knowlton is most determined and unrelenting.  i get the picture of lizzie answering this as one is forced to answer a stupid question, rolling eyes, etc.  "she asked about dinner, the grocer, had a note, going out, pillow covers, somethig about the weather."  in other words, "who gives a rat's ass?" 

_________

btw, i forget where the post is.....but you had an amusing one about where best to determine abby's death place in the house.  i think it's obvious enough abby was not killed somewhere else and put there by the bed in the guest room.  it looks as though someone determined to get her at some point and cornered her there -- and in what better place if the killer wants a little time?  try to imagine abby being killed anywhere else in the house and we would have a totally different story today, wouldn't we?  or would we? 

So the postulation is a 6th hatchet and hidden in the stove?
There were probably a few places Lizzie knew about  to hide something, not in the stove.
I think the clue was when Emma said Lizzie could never have hidden the weapon so that it could never be found.  (If you believe Emma was *Interviewed*)

When I was at my friends office Monday, I was asked quite a few good questions.
One was why would Abby say to Lizzie that she (Abby) need not change her dress to go respond to the note, when Lizzie claims Abby also was going to the grocery to *get the meat*?  And why would Abby claim she was going to get the meat, if dinner instructions had already been issued to Bridget?
And why invent a note when all Lizzie had to say was Abby was gone to get the groceries, as usual, prior to dinner?
We talked about how long that might take for Abby to be gone, when she might usually leave the house, depending upon what was for dinner? Could Abby be expected to be back at a certain time, say 11 a.m. so Bridget had time to fix the food brought home?
I'm just realizing that if that was Abby's habit several times a week, she might have been expected to go out around 10:30 or 11 a.m., like Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Emery.

Kat, I think you hit the nail on the head.  Lizzie had to invent the note about Abby going out because Bridget knew that Abby wasn't going out that day for meat for dinner.  Bridget would have known something was up if Lizzie had suggested to Bridget earlier in the day that Abby went out to the market to buy the dinner. 

That's right, Kat. I'm postulating the existence of another hatchet.
Placing the hatchet into the stove would accomplish three things:
A temporary hiding place, a reduction in size (easier to hide when retrieved) and most importantly, destruction of the blood evidence.

The answer is quite simple: No such conversation ever took place, IMO.  These are all examples of Lizzie scrambling to fill in the gaps--like, she knew people would wonder why Abby had on old house clothes if she were planning to go out (Answer: "Oh, these are good enough," she says, says Lizzie).  To me, the whole inquest business shows Lizzie at her weakest--everything else about the crime resulted in a "perfect murder," but the cryptic answers Lizzie gives at the inquest show some confusion/nervousness/hemming and hawing.   When she tries to "reconstruct" or "invent"  her dialogue with Abby and their interactions, she really is grasping at straws.  Something very important to remember (that Kat brought up a while back) is the ORDER of testimony--who went first?  did Lizzie have to wait to see what Bridget would say before she answered questions?  Or did Lizzie try to anticipate objections raised further down the line, etc.? Did they try to rehearse their stories and then got tongue-tied on the stand, etc.??  In any case, sure sounds like Lizzie (if she did do it) lost it at times (morphine?)

To avoid being taken in by any later reconstruction of testimony, just give weight to the statements made in the first few hours.
Did someone say that Lizzie told about that note because she was not imaginative to make it up?

That note fits in with the other things: why Abby would be called away that morning (secret meeting of Andy and WSB), the waiting buggy outside the house (or maybe for someone else, there was a stable near by), or why Abby would go up to the front closet or guest room.

You may disagree, of course. I accept AR Brown's solution (unless someone ever comes up with a better one, which I doubt).

(Message last edited Jun-20th-03  4:17 PM.)

Abby would have changed her dress to go shopping.

Even Alice changed her *at home* attire before hurrying to Lizzie's summons that someone was very ill or dead at that Bordens.  And they had been close friends and neighbors.

The odd thing is that maybe Abby was going to go out to get some supplemental groceries, like bread, because she thinks the bread was bad from Tuesday.
Noting the time which these other ladies rush to the store, Churchill is around 11 and Mrs. Emery is a bit later than she liked because Morse had been lingering there.
So it may have been the custom for the ladies of the houses to do this daily, even.  So a killer would have to account for this in their plan.
That maybe why Abby was killed so early.
If she WAS the main victim, and not knowing exactly when she would go out.
That would then have to be included in the killers plan, and Abby dispatched before she could leave.
THAT would be why there was a necessity to wait that *hour and a half* between kills.  To accomodate Abby's *schedule", not Andrew's.

--A 6th hatchet, hidden in the stove, burning off the blood evidence makes a kind of sense, William, because Lizzie did turn automatically to the stove to get rid of the Bedford cord dress Sunday.  She might have a proclivity for that stove and destroying evidence?

all the posts along here are so good i don't know which to respond to , and they all overlap anyway.

okay.  the stove could not have been THE hiding place or the dress miss russell saw would have already been burned.  but i see something very intriguing, a connection, or what is it?  axe, handle, stove, fire, ashes. 

i've always thought the stove itself holds secrets.  lizzie claims to have spent most of her time trying to get it to stay lit (you may recall the recent brawl between two of our distinguished members) hehehe sorry..anyway, that's how lizzie accounts for most of her time (except for the pear she ate and the magazine WHILE she waited for the fire) [i keep interjecting myself here -- that inquest of hers only gets more amazing to me.  it's a classic.  i believe if the case is ever truly solved it will be that someone "cracks her code"] 

anyway, i can't decide whether to think that lizzie was lying about struggling to get the fire hot enough for her hankerchiefs to account for her boring and oddly innocent time , or

if she really needed and used the stove for something.

if bridget is to be believed, lizzie brought out the ironing board and started after mr borden had come home, while she (bridget) was washing dining room windows.  a few were ironed -- not all of them.  this has an appearance of lizzie ironing the stupid hankies for show, to occupy herself and keep an eye on bridget.  (if bridget is to be believed, then it must have been a lizzie lie that that damn fire kept going out and her iron kept gettting cold.)  most probable is lizzie stops this ironing nonsense as soon as bridget goes up stairs -- at that point consider her story, it suddenly dawns on her that she might need a sinker next week and it will take forever to get that iron hot again, so.     but just as i noticed about the axes, stove, and ashes, etc...........look at her story at this point; i can't  resist seeing something almost artful:  flats, irons, lead, sinkers.  then back again at the stove, that fire didn't burn after all (this will explain why all hankies are not ironed.) 

what we're missing is a secret hiding place?

It is most likely that there was a sixth hatchet -- Professor Wood claimed that none of the axes or hatchets that he examined showed any trace of blood.  And then there's always Robert A. Flynn's theory that the shingle hatchet found on Crowe's barn in June of 1893 was the murder weapon. (Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe) 

But if you're looking for a connection between the stove and and hiding the hatchet -- someone wrote to Knowlton and asked if the detectives had searched the air chambers around and beneath the oven in the stove.  Dorcas Bell said: "The slides are easily traversed, and there is always a slide in the bottom of the oven which is removed to clean it out.  It is a fine hiding place, and just at hand." (Knowlton Papers, 73)

Actually, Attorney General Pillsbury didn't seem to feel the hatchet was critical to the case.  At one point, he tells Knowlton that he doesn't think that finding the weapon will necessarily go towards finding the murderer.

Here's something that puzzles me.  What does it mean when Knowlton writes Pillsbury and says: "Of course, Wood is going to stiffen up the defense:  for it is expected he will swear to blood and hairs."(Knowlton Papers, 43)?  Why does he think Wood testifying to blood and hairs would be of benefit to the defense?

I don't know, but didn't Knowlton complain that Wood had a big mouth and was already talking to the defense like old friends, like over lunch or something, and that these doctors were leaking all the prosecution info?
I may be not remembering this correctly.
I suppose I should look it up.
If Wood blabbed, that may be what he meant.  Meaning our witness might as well be their witness.
(Seems like in a fair trial, the evidence would still be the truth, but I can see where it could be slanted or given a spin.)

As to the searching of the stove, When might be the critical answer.
And Even tho Pillsbury apparently didn't think a definite weapon was critical, it obviously was and so he was misguided in that thought, wouldn't you say?

(Message last edited Jun-20th-03  4:07 PM.)

The invention of a "secret hiding place" shows imagination. The people of that time would be expereinced with wood & coal stoves, and know of their mechanism; they would search there!
The same way today's police would "toss" the back seat (and other places) in a found car connected with a crime.

But wasn't AG Pillsbury looking for a reason to get off the case? Wasn't he suffering from a disease that limited his career?
Or maybe just smart enough to NOT get caught in a contoversial case. Whatever the outcome, there would be dissatisfied voters.

While generally a DA who gets a conviction and death penalty wins hundreds of votes, there are exceptions to this rule.

I found it.
Dated September 2, 1892, the day AFTER the closing of the Prelim.
Knowlton Papers:

"#HKO51
Letter, typewritten.

COMMONWEALTH OF.MASSACHUSETTS,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.
       New Bedford, Mass., Sept. 2, 1892
Hon. A. E. Pillsbury,
Dear Sir,
Do you think it best to have the evidence all typewritten? I have
assumed that you desired it. It seems to me it better be done so that you
can read it over and form a more accurate judgment of the whole matter.

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.

What do you think of a circular like the enclosed sent to the grand
jury both as a matter of practical politics and as to its possible effect in
case the matter should ever come to trial?
Yours truly,

H. M. Knowlton.
per M. H."

--However, Diana's reference is to Wood, dated August 29, 1892, during the Prelim.

Good memory, Kat! I see what you mean about Wood's relationship with Adams.

Aren't the Knowlton Papers wonderful.  They are a treasure trove of the prosecution's trial strategy.  But so frustrating at the same time.  Wouldn't you love to see the "enclosed circular" Knowlton thought of sending to the members of the grand jury? 

I was just wondering if that earlier comment of Knowlton's about Wood may have had a different meaning in those days.  If "stiffen up" the defense may not have meant to 'bolster' them as we would think -- but rather to catch them by surprise?  Just a thought.

ok Im not sure I understand everything you are talking about but it all sounds very interesting. I am lisayour sister.

okay,  now go read.

Oh What Fun!  Hello Lisa!

That's along the same lines I was thinking.  Possibly the words "stiffen up" (applied to the Defense) didn't mean "support," but rather "put them on their guard," or "cause them to redouble their efforts."  I too would love to see that circular; however it sounds like something that would have been quite ill-advised, if the grand jury was supposed to be objective in its deliberations.

This topic was covered over a year ago. If someone has a dictionary from 1890s or 1900s, they could look it up. Or a slang dictionary?
"Stiffen Up" could have so many meanings.

Funk & Wagnall, 1897, Stiffen:
I.  to make stiff
to make unbending or inflexible
to increase in thickness or viscousness of; inspissate
to make stubborn
to make torpid; as, stiffening cold
to make formal or constrained
deprive of natural ease.
II,  to become stiff
to become less limber or lithe; grow rigid
....to increase in force or steadiness; figuratively, to increase as in vigor, resolution or efficiency
to be less yielding, grow more obstinate.

--This sounds to me, in the context of the letter, that "stiffen up" might refer to "to make stubborn", "Grow more obstinate".

The letter in it's entirety:

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.

"HK034
Letter, handwritten in ink.

HOSEA MORRILL KNOWLTON,
NEW BEDFORD, MASS.

My Dear Mr. Att. Genl.

The pencilled letter requesting a Sunday interview was written
before I got your telegram from Plymouth & its subsequent arrangements
for an interview Friday night. I intended to tell you so, but it escaped me.

What do you think about reading Lizzie's inquest testimony?
Telegraph me. I confess I am inclined to use it. I can't well get the
"Sinker" story in any other way; for it was to Hilliard & Coughlin that she
made that statement: and I don't want to put them on now.

I don't believe we will be playing into their hands very much: and
for the story she told was evidently prepared with care & she will stick to
it. It is her manner and the trace's of ill-feeling between her and her step-
mother that crop out, that make it bad for her; as well as the numerous
contradictions.

Telegraph me your opinion as soon as you can. I shall reach it
tomorrow noon, probably. I have put in a good deal of my case. Have
not put in the Medley barn-dust story, nor anything about bad state of
feeling. The case looks strong as it stands.

Of course, Wood is going to stiffen up the defense: for it is expected
he will swear to blood & hairs.
Yours in haste
H M Knowlton
Monday evening
Aug 29 1892".

.......

I think it might be useful to print the whole letter, at this point.  At least those of you who don't have the book, can determine for yourselves if the whole letter matters in the scheme of the question raised as to the meaning of "stiffen up the defense".

I believe the words words were used in the context that they would "reinforce" the defense.

In addition to the sources for the definition cited by you, I also checked the O.E.D. I found nothing of an esoteric nature in any of the definitions it offered; you seemed to have covered them all.

So are we back to square one, now? ... Certainly Prof. Wood's testimony did seem to bolster the defense position.  He said the hair found on the hatchet appeared to be animal hair rather than  human hair.  He also could find no trace of blood on the hatchets -- and only a spot of blood the size of a pinhead on Lizzie's underskirt.

Did Knowlton know Wood's findings at the time he wrote the letter to Pillsbury?  It sounds like it.  And certainly he would have been aware of them before trial.

So if Professor Wood's testimony "reinforced" the defense, I wonder why Knowlton called him as a witness for the prosecution?  (I'm assuming here that 'direct examination' is performed by the side calling the witness -- and 'cross' by the opposing side.)

That's an interesting observation William, because I figured we should also look to any correspondence that came just before or soon after this one with the reference to Wood, to find a larger context.

Please note letter  #HK038:

"HK038
Letter, typewritten.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING,
Boston, Aug. 30, 1892.

Dear Mr. Attorney:-
If you learn that Lizzie is sure to testify, please let me know it in advance, I should be strongly tempted, if sufficiently at leisure, to look in and see how she appears.

I have read Lizzie's evidence carefully, and agree with you that it is
better to put it in than to call her. If I knew she was to be called by the
defence, I should incline to withold it, and put it in afterward for contra-
diction, if any contradictions appeared; and if not, let it stand upon her
evidence as they themselv put it forward.

I think the general impression is gaining that it is a serious matter
for Lizzie; but I have no doubt that when Wood testifies, and it appears
that no weapon is found, and no blood on or about Lizzie's clothing,
there will be a recoil again. Still, I think the public and the press have
about come to the conclusion that she will be held for the grand jury, and
that she ought to be.

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.

Your letter of last evening just received while dictating this.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General.

Hon. H. M. Knowlton,
District Court Room,
Fall River," (sic-comma)


--
OOPs, Diana, you weren't there while I was composing this post.


(Message last edited Jun-22nd-03  2:51 PM.)

Interesting that Pillsbury says: "I have read Lizzie's evidence carefully, and agree with you that it is better to put it in than to call her."  I sounds as though they think Lizzie might handle herself quite well if she was put on the stand at trial.  (No morphine this time thank you, doctor?...)

But that larger picture does help with the meaning of that word 'stiffen'.  It seems obvious from this letter that Pillsbury thinks public opinion is against Lizzie at this point (the end of August/92) but that it could turn around, or as he terms it "recoil" once they hear Prof. Wood's blood and hair testimony.

So I still don't understand why Knowlton called Wood to testify.

This is just surmise, but I would think ego's were involved (at least with the Doctors who are not used to having their opinion challenged), and specific ego's, at that.  (Dolan being kind of prickly when questioned as to his experience and expertise - and just generally prickly over-all to the cross exams).
Once Wood was *hired* they had to use him.  He was probably expecting to testify, and wanted to testify.  His thing may have been to be an expert witness, if you see what I mean.
Also, maybe, it was too late to back away from Wood and get someone else, plus that would *look* worse to their case if they did do that.  They HAd to have an expert evaluation of what evidence they had and they were stuck with him.  Also budget constraints, possibly, as well.  It would seem that with anyone they hired who was the calibre of Wood, they would run up against the same wall, because of the nature of the evidence itself.

This is in response to post #67 on this thread and the comment about the inquest showing "Lizzie at her weakest".  It made me start thinking about what we really know about Lizzie's personality?

Other than her Inquest testimony, the letter to her neighbor about the bird, the letter to the unnamed friend, and (to a degree)the contents and wording of her will -- everything else is based on the opinions of other people, right?

And those opinions are certainly polarized -- starting with the day of the murders.  For example, Officers Fleet and Phil Harrington describe her as cold and unfeeling on the morning of the tragedy.  Yet Charles Sawyer, who was pretty much the first outsider on the scene, says she was "apparently grief-stricken" and that "when they came down and reported that her mother had been killed, she apparently went off in some kind of swoon or hysterical fit..." (Inquest testimony)

Mrs. Churchill describes her as "distressed" and Alice Russell found her "dazed" and said, "we intended ... not to leave Lizzie. We knew the state she was in". (Inquest testimony)

And, if we examine statements by various friends and relatives, these extremely contradictory reports on Lizzie's demeanour, deeds, etc.  continued throughout her lifetime and even after her death.

Of course, if most of us believe that she is guilty of either murdering -- or of conspiring to murder her parents -- that belief naturally colors our opinion as to what kind of person she was.  But, I guess my point here is just that we're really working with a very small bank of what might loosely be termed first person information about Lizzie.

(Now I see that I jumped over you, Kat.  Those are all good points about Wood and make a lot of sense.  He would have been "hired" before they knew what he'd say.  I'm sure they had high hopes for those rust spots and that hair on the hatchets.  Isn't there an accounting [in Rebello maybe?] as to how much he was paid?)

(Message last edited Jun-22nd-03  5:06 PM.)

Kat got me thinking about medical experts and fees for testifying.
None of the following advances the case at all but just thought I'd share something that is confusing to me. 

I found that accounting of Professor Wood's fees for the trial.  It's in Rebello on page 274. Wood appears to be the most expensive medical expert they had at trial at $1400.  

But I'm just not clear on the way Rebello has listed the fees. Under "Trial Expenses" -- Dolan is shown as receiving $760 and $643 for the "First/Second Hearing in 1892". What is the First/Second Hearing in 1892?  Could that be the Grand Jury?  Did Dolan testify at the Grand Jury? And if so, why list it under trial expenses?

Especially because, previous to this, on page 273 Rebello says Dr. Dolan and Dr. Coughlin each received $80 (or $10/day) at the Preliminary Hearing.  Yet this doesn't jibe with the figure in the column beside that info -- which is $240. That figure would be right, however, if it included an $80 fee for Dr. Wood's testimony.  But then where does that leave Dr. Draper or Dr. Learned, for example, who also testified at the Prelim.?

Trial fees for Draper are shown as $549.30; for Cheever, $422.45; while Drs. Richardson and Cone received $100 each.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out why Dolan's trial fee is designated that way and if that amount is his trial fee alone -- or includes a fee for testifying the previous year -- so I can determine if Wood's testimony was the most expensive.


  

I wouldn't think a person got paid to appear before the grand jury.  I think a person answers a soponea (sp), even if they are an expert.  It would smack too much of paid witnesses, because it's a prosecutorial event.

It sounds like the Inquest might be *first hearing* in 1892?
At least in Dolan's case.
And the Prelim., 2nd hearing.  It's interrsting he is paid for all 8 days, tho he doesn't tstify for 8 days...I suppose he is *On Call*?

I know you have grand jury questions.
I can find you some grand jury info if you like.  I think there were *leaks*.

I didn't think Dolan testified at the Inquest?

Oh Gosh! You're right.
No cops
No Doctors but Bowen.
And Sawyer spoke for the outside *establishment*.

Dr. Dolan didn't testify at the Inquest but he was present.

Yes that's true & I had just been studying the sequence of Witnesses and Dolan was there...that's why I pictured him.
Wood came to town as well.  He was there a little bit Wednesday with Dolan and left town with a trunk of evidence.

Seaver, Hilliard, Dolan, Knowlton, some Coughlin Tuesday, and Wood was there Wednesday morning, as well as the rest, and the stenographer and Lizzie.