1. "Abby crashing to the floor..."
Posted by audrey on Jan-19th-04 at 11:59 PM

Much has been said about Lizzie failing to hear 200lbs of Abby crashing to the floor....  (if indeed she was not on the spot at the time).

Today my eldest son dropped a 100 pound weight in his room.  It shook the whole house and knocked a photo of his (latest) GF from his nightstand nearbye. 

Look at the crime scene photos of Abby.  Notice the "delicate" glass ware and other decorations on the dresser?  They do not seem disturbed. 

To my way of thinking if 200lbs of dead (pardon the pun) weight fell to the floor as near as she is to dresser-- one would think some of that stuff would have fallen off-- or at least been toppled over on the surface of the thing-- ie- the photo frame. 

Ideas?

Abby was making the bed at the time, I believe. I feel she could have been on her knees to possibly tuck in a sheet or something when she was attacked and therefore didn't have very far to fall, as opposed to being struck while standing, which would've caused noise, shaking the house, etc.

I like the "drop & crawl under the bed" theory as
to why no thud was heard. But, if everyone in the house
knew it was going on, they weren't going to say if she
was yelling for help or made a loud thud hitting the
floor. Wasn't that part of the plan? No one (Lizzie or
Maggie) heard anything that would alert them to the
killer & prevent the killing of Mr. Borden later.

I have often thought Abby was on her knees or bending over-- making the bed--tucking in blankets etc.  On the other hand, perhaps the first blow did not completely stun her and she fell and extended her arms as she did so thus breaking her fall.  This would suggest, however, that Abby might have called out for help or screamed and I have not heard any reference to that.  Perhaps the body was moved a bit from where she was first struck.  Is it certain as to where Bridget was when Abby was killed?  If she was outside, it is likely the fall would not have been heard--except by Lizzie, of course.

Dr. Dolan at the Preliminary Hearing, page 144:

Q.  What of these wounds on the head, in your opinion, if any of them, were given while the person were standing up?
A.  I would say the glancing scalp wound, which I spoke of, on the left side, that did not mark the skull; that flap drew right back.
Q.  Now you tell us of a glancing scalp wound on the left side of the head over the left ear?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You think that wound might have been given under what circumstances?
A.  While standing up, and facing.
Q.  That was not necessarily fatal?
A.  No Sir.
___________


Dr. Dolan At Trial
Page 923

Q.  There was a flap cut here?  (Indicating on forehead)
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Cut so it came forward like that  (I am pointing to the right, because that is before the Jury, but really on the left side of the head)?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And it was cut from the front towards the rear?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  With the hinge on the back part of the cut so that it would lift up in this way, as on a hinge?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  When that blow was given, where in your opinion, did the assailant stand?
A.  In front, facing the assaulted.

Q.  That is, the assailant and assaulted faced each other?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Did you entertain the opinion that the bruises and contusions found on the forehead of Mrs. Borden were caused in any other way than by falling?
A.  No, sir.
......
922
Q.  (To the Jury)   You will excuse me, gentlemen.  (Mr. Adams turning his back to show the chalk mark to the jury.)  Now that was the injury you found at the Oak Grove autopsy? [The back wound to Abby ]
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And that was  a wound how deep?
A.  Two and a half inches deep at that time.

Q.  An incised wound?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And could adequately have been caused by the hatchet with the claw head?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Where was the assailant standing in your opinion, when that blow was given?
A.  In the rear.

Q.  In the rear?
A.  Yes, so.

Q.  How was the assailant's face,---towards the rear of the assaulted or the back of the person assaulted,---facing the back of the person assaulted?
A.  I should say so. Yes, you mean the assailant stood?

Q.  Yes.
A.  Yes, sir.

..........
Page 961

Q.  And that the highest part of that wound was on the left side?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Does not that indicate to you that it must have been a left to right blow?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  How otherwise could it have been given?
A.  Let me understand you. You mean left to right as regards the body of the deceased?

Q.  The direction of the blow?
A.  No, sir, I think it was a straight blow.

Q.  What do you mean by a straight blow?
A.  I mean the force was given directly. I did not quite understand,---do you mean the direction?

Q.  I mean a blow struck from left to right.  Was it not that kind?
A.  No, sir, I think not. I think it was struck in a vertical direction, not left to right, but a straight blow.

Q.  Was not one part of that wound higher than the other?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Was it not a slanting injury on the back? And did not one end stand higher than the other?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And that the left end was higher than the right end?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  How would that blow be made by a person standing behind in any other way than striking from left to right?
A.  The question,---the way you put it, a person behind,---you are granting in putting it that way that the person would be, would have to be exactly behind, that is, side to side. I don't say necessarily that would be so.

Page 962

Q.  How would you put the person to strike such a blow as that so that it may be delivered by the right hand?
A.  If you will pardon me, I can very easily give the stenographer that blow.

Q.  That is because he is underneath you?
A.  But I could if he was standing up.  I think it would be the same way.  I don't think there is necessity to put it either way.
________

Dr. Draper at Trial
1069
Q.  You have already given us the position of that wound on the back. I understood you to say---I will ask you to describe it again.
A.  It was a clean-cut wound in the neck, where the neck joins the shoulders, just to the left of the middle

Page 1070

line from above downwards, and with a direction from below upward from the right toward the left.

Q.  In your opinion, was that blow received when Mrs. Borden was lying prone on the floor?
A.  It may have been, or while she was standing.

Q.  Are you willing to make a representation on my back?  I seem to have to bear this.
A.  I will.

Q.  If you will as nearly as you can portray the length, location and direction, and not bear on quite so hard as was done before.  (Witness drew a chalk line on the back of Mr. Adams' coat.) Now you have given the location, the length and the direction?
A.  I have tried to.

Q.  Now you say that proceeded, in your opinion, how?  From below upward?
A.  From below upward and from the right toward the left.  I mean that it proceeded from the left toward the right from below upward.

Q.  Have you any opinion as to the kind of blow that was given when that injury was made, whether from left to right or from right to left?
A.  I think it was given from left toward the right, downward.

Q.  From the left, to the right, downward?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  I understand you to say that your opinion as to its depth and extent is not of value because of the appearance of things at Oak Grove Cemetery when this autopsy was made?
A.  Yes, sir: I do not rely upon the depth.
.....
1073
Q.  Now were there not upon her head blows which appeared to be bevelled in both directions?
A.  There were.

Q.  And if there was a blow this way and a blow that way?  (Indicating).
A.  Precisely.  Rather with the right hand than with the left, I think.

Q.  Rather with the right hand than with the left, in her case?
A.  Yes.

Q.  Assuming that a person was left-handed---in other words, used the left hand as easily as persons ordinarily do the right hand,---there would be nothing in those appearances there inconsistent with its use, would there?
A.  So far as those appearances there, the bevelling and the chipping, nothing.

Q.  Did you find on the back of the head where you described,---did you find any bevelling there?
A.  I think I did.  May I look at my notes?

Q.  Oh, yes, of course.
A.  (Referring to notes).  Two of them showed the bevelling.

Q.  And bevelling in which direction?
A.  The left edge was chipped and the right edge was clean.  That would indicate a bevelling with a blow from the right towards the left.
........
1074
A.  My study of them indicated that they were all given from right to left.

Q.  Are you prepared to say that upon further examination you would not change that opinion?
A.  Speaking now of the head?

Page 1075

Q.  Yes.
A.  No, sir, I am not.  I found none that would be an exception to that rule.

Q.  You have concurred, I believe, in the opinion expressed that the assailant of Mrs. Borden stood astride of her when she was lying down, and over her?
A.  That is to my mind the most natural position in which these blows were given.
......

1081  --[here is where Dr. Draper gives the opinion that Abby's face bruises could possibly be from her face resting on the floor- he might be referring to livor mortis or 'post-mortem lividity'.

Q.  I did omit to call to your attention---I crave my friends pardon---to the three contusions.  Were they of such a nature that you could tell anything about what they were when you saw the bodies?
A.  Yes, sir, they were discolorations without swelling.

MR. ADAMS. I did not understand.

THE WITNESS. They were discolorations of the skin, without swelling.

Q.  How caused?
A.  I think either by the forehead receiving a blow in falling, or by the forehead resting upon some resisting substance as the body lay down.

Q.  Assuming that the contusions were at the point of contact of the face with the floor, would that, in your opinion, account for the existence of the contusions?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And how?
A.  Because it was in a situation corresponding with the resting of the most prominent parts upon the floor, and exposing or developing the right side of the head.

Q.  And that would indicate it was caused by falling, as I understand?
A.  Falling, or the resting of the head there.

Q.  The mere resting would cause it?
A.  Yes, sir, I think so.

Q.  Would you be able to form any better opinion about that if you had seen them immediately, or wouldn't you?
A.  I think I should be better able.

Q.  You did not see them immediately?
A.  No, sir.






(Message last edited Jan-20th-04  1:31 PM.)

The testimony as to the contusions to Abby's face seemed to indicate that she received them as she fell.
Now we see Dr. Draper opine that they might be caused by the face resting on the floor.

Dr. Dolan's Prelim. testimony, early into the case, that same month, August, shows his belief that Abby was standing and facing her assailant when first struck.
We assume this is the first blow because of the angle of attack and later she faces the floor.

The wound to the upper back can possibly be determined to have been given while Abby was standing or falling.  These are the doctors opinions who looked and touched the actual wounds.
It seems as if the back wound is described as a standing-up wound and came from above downward in Draper's final analysis.
Lizzie was 5'4" according to her arrest record and Abby was 5'3" according to her autopsy report.
It might also be a blow delivered from above while Abby was on the floor?
But they don't say that in their descriptions.  I think they would be asked that exactly as their opinion, but I don't find that they do.

(Message last edited Jan-20th-04  1:45 PM.)

First the traffic from Second St (horse and wagons) would tend to distract the casual listener. Don't forget the stone masons banging away from the back yard. Do NOT assume the granite foundation and post-and-beam is the equivalent of modern balloon frame houses.

The undisturbed murder scenes have always been questioned.
What if Abby merely sort of collapsed slowly? I have never sapped an unsuspecting person from the back, so can't answer what happens. Forget about movies; the one shooting I saw had the person flop to the ground immediately (too far to hear the fall).

The ME said the killer of Abby was "a tall man", taller than the 4'11" Abby. About 5'6"?

Could that have been caused by repeated whacks to the back of Abby while her forehead rested on the floor? Blood still flowing from a still pumping heart?

Abby's autopsy says she is 5'3", see my prior post.
Here is the quote:

"Body that of a female, very well nourished and very fleshy 64 years of age. 5 feet, 3 inches in height."
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/AutopsyAbbyBorden.htm

The ME was Dr. Dolan and he didn't testify to the height of the killer.  He did testify as to strength needed, which he termed "Moderate".

I think, after reading the doctors opinions again, that it's possible the bruises were lividity.  Dr. Draper says there was no swelling.  That sounds like it would indicate nothing drastic like a face battering against the floor from the weapon being pulled out and driven in again.
If Abby was still alive and her face hit the floor <bam> or some object on the way down (like the bottom of the chair which was there) then there probably/possibly would be swelling.
If her face hit the floor after death there would possibly/probably be no swelling.

You'd think they would figure out at the time whether the brusing was from the assault on the back of the head?

If the bruises were livor mortis, then the Abby falling <bam> theory might be compromised, and it might seem more likely she slipped to the floor, or *crumbled*.

Actually, the idea of Abby slowly crumpling to the floor has logic.  I suspect that is more the way one would react to repeated blows rather than just crashing like a dropped weight. I don't believe she just dropped "like a ton of bricks."  Stricken people do tend to slowly fall, I believe.  I wish the house could be made available for modern day forensic tests.  Victoria Lincoln suggests that one standing on the street could have heard the sickening thuds of the falling hatchet as it hit Abby's body.  I wonder if that is possible.   Have any tests of possible theories ever been conducted?

(Message last edited Jan-20th-04  6:52 PM.)

I have always thought, from the position of her feet and knees that she more "crumbled" than fell.

All you have to do is look at the photo and see the position she is in-- I would assume she was either on her knees to begin with or fell slowly....

After hearing Alax's weight drop-- I was more convinced than ever that there was more to it.

Casts huge shadows of doubt on the "Lizzie had to have known or been there" theory based on her not hearing A hit the floor...

curiouser and curiouser....

Yes and this all leads back to your observation that nothing seemed to be disturbed on the bureau.
Either the police righted knocked over items or those things there were not jarred or moved in any struggle or fall.

(Which is hard to imagine considering the small amount of space and the large amont of flesh and the amount of activity- that has 'always been a mysetery')

What stymies me the most is the photo frame.

Has anyone else ever used antique photo frames and had nothing but trouble keeping them up?  I do not know if this is because they are old and worn out or just the design of them.  EVERY one I have ever used or had was a pain to keep upright.  I eventually bought cheap frames at walmart and attempted to use the backs-- but to no avail.  They were designed so odly new backs did not work.  I have a piano in my living room covered with family photos in antique frames, 90% of the time they are laying on their backs--- which is all the proof I need that either someone righted things or they were never disturbed.  Likewise--- the police fixing them-- All I can say is that my husband could probably walk past a vortex in the house and not give it a 2nd glance.

PS:

And if they did right them----- more proof of their lack of experience and ineptitude with crime scenes which would then draw almost everything they ever did, reported or observed into serious question.

I think that is a given, that the police force was not real bright
back then. Now we have read so many true crime stories with brilliant
detective work etc but back then I don't think it was something a
policeman thought of, solving a double-homicide, they were inexperienced and inept.  (with no resources like computers etc.)
  Abby crashing to the floor, how kind Dolan was to report Abby as
a well nourished woman, ha he could have said she was a fat pig.
That would have been very unkind, so we know he was a gentleman.
Abby crashing to the floor was probably only heard by Lizzie and the killer.  Bridget was outside washing windows.     
 

It all depends on when Abby was killed and how she was killed before we can determine if Bridget was outside or inside.

I believe Dr. Dolan, as M.E., was using a medical term.
(I'm sorry but I can't abide the term 'fat pig' referring to anyone.)

(Message last edited Jan-20th-04  9:24 PM.)

I agree Kat, what bothered me about the video I got was Jules
saying what a fat worthless blob Abby was.  He was so unkind and
ugly really about it.  So my opinion of him went down, I was just
trying to say that I respected Dolan for being kind towards Abby's
weight. 

Yes, but these things were new then. And probably hung from the wall. I don't remember seeing anything like free-standing frames on that bureau.

"Well nourished" seems to be a code word: "the subject did not starve to death". This euphemism is still being used today by Doctors. Trust me.

You can also be pretty sure that the police noticed all there was at the crime scene. Computers don't solve crimes, police do; then or now.

The police noticed that there were no signs of struggle, upset furniture, etc. No bloodstains or murder weapons found either.

In today's world, who could have done better? Forget about TV dramas.

"FAT PIG"? Ha Ha Ha. You'll never see a "fat pig" in the wild (boars, sows, peccaries). You have to be overfed and under-exercised and kept in a pen for this. Not unlike many people today.

FYI the correct term is "fat sow" or "fat boar".

Picture frame not disturbed  (?)

(Message last edited Jan-21st-04  11:42 AM.)

IMO, as previously stated, the crime scene photos DO NOT SHOW the untouched positions of anything!  If I've heard it right, the knick-knacks aren't even in the same positions in the two Abby photos.

Therefore, looking at the picture to determine how Abby fell, or the disposition of the objects in the room is as useless as playing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and trying to figure out what he had for lunch the day he finished composing it.

Ouch, but something it took me a long time to get comfortable with!

(Message last edited Jan-21st-04  2:25 PM.)

They do appear to be in the same location to me in all the photos I have ever seen....

Furthermore-- Upon closer inspection-- There are other things which seem to me they would have falled or been displaced easier than the photo frame...




(Message last edited Jan-21st-04  1:22 PM.)

I just posted a clear photo on a new thread of Abby from the side view before I read your post.
I hadn't heard the opinion that in the 2 pictures the items did not match in their placement.

There is another picture which was taken by the defence, (Phillips et.al) without a body, and in that photo the items are rearranged or missing.  Maybe it is that one you are remembering?  The one which was taken at a later date.

...I'm just mistaken on that point, as I just availed myself of the resources of this here site and checked out those pictures.

SO, the ditsy little items on the bureau do appear to be in the same place, so I can't use that as back-up. However, the various doctors' testimonies about "turning over" and examining the bodies, along with that one piece of testimony that Andrew's body had slumped from its higher position on the couch arm is enough for me to, sadly, conclude that the crime scene photos, though endlessly fascinating, are more of a souvenir than a tool.   

however....

The mere fact that they may be, indeed, inaccurate make them a tool versus a souvenier...

...go on!

from autopsy:

2.   Was exactly on top of the skull one inch long penetrating into but not through the skull.

3.  Was parallel to No. 2, one and 1/2 inches long, and penetrating through the skull.

--------------
when i last visited this issue, i decided that irregardless of whether abby was standing when she received first blow -- she was at some point on her knees before she got to where we see her now.

i also agree that hips are slightly raised and that is a clue.

i think if she had gone suddenly from standing to flat on her face -- the area would show it somehow. 

killer never would have struck her directly on top of the head had she been felled immediately (this would have been almost impossible, at any rate awkward and "unnecessary").

____________________________________

question:  is it a natural response for someone to sink to their knees when being so struck -- whether in shock or in an inclination to "sink" from the blow?

i forget who wrote the theory that abby is trying to crawl under the bed BUT maybe that theory is a clue.

________________________

i realize both bodies are tampered with or have changed to some degree by the time the photos are made (about 3PM?)  how much/in what ways seems explained well enough by dr. bowen -- he does not in any way claim differences so dramatic as to change the whole story of what we see clearly enough.  No?  bowen's description of difference in andrew's appearance in photo, in terms of describing the effect, etc, was that the photo did not capture how natural the napping position -- due to sinking.

____________________

i ran across something else odd in Dr. Bowen's testimony about andrew that i'll not put here.  it opens up a whole new can of worms.  it's that damn sofa again.  i'll have to go back and check it, i might be hallucinating this type thing by now.

Witness Statements, pg. 1

"Fall River, Mass. August 4, 1892.



GEORGE W. ALLEN
...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.' "...
___

Also, Abby's arms were tampered with, their position changed to what we see.

While you were *availing* (good for you!) I was taking a photo of the Phillips photo of the guest room, taken "at time of Borden Trial".

Phillips gives permission if proper acknowledgement is made.
--The Phillips History of Fall River (Fall River, MA: Dover Press, 1944-6, 3 vols.) betwix pages 96 & 97, Fascicle III.

Look how high the pillows sit.



(Message last edited Jan-21st-04  6:09 PM.)

I suggest that curious onlookers (strangers to the house?) picked them up to look at them, then set them right. If they were upset.

Doesn't this recall the murder scene of Jeffrey McDonald? The first at the scene tidied up the mess, and made it look like there was no struggle. There are two books on this case. One is about the Scandals in the FBI Crime Lab; the other is from the team trying to free Jeffrey McDonald from an unjust conviction. See them in your library.

I only saw one shooting that killed a man, from over 100 yards away and 30 years ago. The flurry of shots was followed by seeing his knees crumple, then he fell over backwards. I couldn't hear anything, but he never moved after hitting the ground.

Seabury the Quack?

Still more or less getting my footing here, but.. I came across what strikes me as a most astounding statement recounted by Officer GW Allen: “When we went up stairs the Doctor said Mrs. Borden had fainted with fright.”

Excuse me?? ‘Fainted’ you say? Isn’t that pooled blood there Doctor, just above the crown of this unfortunate victim’s head? ‘Fainted’ indeed – Hogwash! (The picture I'm looking at is "abbybloody.jpg" by the way.)

Realizing that people do make mistakes, it shocks me no end that Dr. Bowen would have said that without at least a cursory examination beforehand. I think if any of us had seen what Dr. Bowen saw (in glorious color, mind you)  our first thought would have been something in the way of “bloody murder” and certainly not “Oh, she’s fainted in a fright.”

I wonder if Seabury’s boots made quacking sounds when he walked?

Doug

Inquest
Dr. Bowen
118
A.  Yes, went up the front stairs. As I got at the top of the stairs, as soon as I got up on the second story, I could look right over the deb [sic], and I saw her lying there flat, prone. My thought was, that she had run up there and fainted. I went right around the foot of the bed and satisfied myself in an instant that she was not living. I dont know whether I got hold of her pulse, but I satisfied myself some way, I dont know how, that she was not living. I went right down stairs again and told them Mrs. Borden was dead, killed the same instant, I think I said that.

Trial
308
Q.  Did you make any statement to any one that she had died of fright or in a faint?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  To no one?
A.  No, sir.  I will say this in explanation:  My first thought, when I was standing in the door and saw the form over the bed, --- my first thought was that she had fainted: but in a moment afterwards I convinced myself that she was dead.

Q.  What did you do after that, Doctor?
A.  I went down stairs directly, and told the people in the kitchen that Mrs. Borden was dead:  that she was killed, I thought, by the same instrument.

Q.  By the same instrument?
A,  I thought by the same instrument, yes, sir,  and that I thought it was fortunate for Lizzie that she was out of the way, or else she would have been killed herself.
........

Allen doesn't appear in the Inquest or The Preliminary Hearing.
Your quote is from The Witness Statements, page 1.
There was nothing about the early statement in The Standard articles.
It might be in another paper tho.
Can you find it anywhere else?

Hmmm… I see what you mean about Dr. Bowen’s denial, Kat. It’s right there at page 281 of Harry’s transcription of the ‘Burt report’ of Lizzie’s trial (Volume 1) and apparently is not mentioned elsewhere – at least in Volume 1. Not mentioned further in Volume 2 the trial transcript at all.

Unfortunately at the moment, these are all the “official sources” I have at hand… I do see, however that Bowen’s denial is repeated at p. 184 (187 in the copy I have that Harry prepared) of The Fall River Tragedy (Porter).

Porter’s account re: Dr. Bowen…

“As I was going out I met Officer Allen. On my return from the telegraph office I met in the kitchen hallway Mrs. Churchill, and she said they had found Mrs. Borden up stairs in the front room; she said I had better go upstairs and see her; I went through the dining room and sitting room and up the front stairs, stopping a moment at the door of the guest chamber; at that point I looked over the bed and saw the prostrate form of Mrs. Borden; then I was standing in the doorway; I went around at the foot of the bed, placed my hand on her head, and found a wound in her head; then I felt her pulse and found she was dead. I never said to any one that she died of fright or in a faint; but I will say this, my first thought was that she had fainted; I went down stairs and told the people Mrs. Borden was dead; that I thought she was killed by the same instrument with which Mr. Borden was killed and that I considered it fortunate that Lizzie was out of the way.”

Okay now that’s just weird! If in fact Dr. Bowen did not say what Officer Allen recorded in his statement – where did he get that? So far as I can see, Allen would have no reason to make such a thing up…

The most rational explanation, given the apparent inconsistencies (in terms of “he said/no I never”) may be that Bowen did say that, but was in such an agitated state that he forgot? We might make the same argument for Allen though as well I suppose…

At any rate my initial thought was that George Allen heard that – somewhere!

Doug

I have always had a feeling that Dr. Bowen was not exactly great in this crisis and it's possible that he was allowed, in later testimony, to clear up the impression he did leave on Allen, which might have seemed unprofessional.
Just because he was a Doctor, in your original theory.
It could be.
Here is a snippet from the Rochester papers:

Friday, June 9, 1893

NO NEARER THE TRUTH

Yesterday's Proceedings in the Borden Trial - Did Not Implicate
Lizzie - No Evidence Thus Far Introduced Which Tends to Connect
the Prisoner With the Murder of her Father and Mother.

           "At that point I looked over the bed and saw the prostrate form of Mrs. BORDEN. Then I was standing in the doorway. I went around at the foot of the bed and placed my hand on her head and found a wound in her head; then I felt her pulse and found she was dead. I never said to any one that she died of fright or in a faint; but I will say this: My first thought was that she had fainted. I went downstairs and told the people that Mrs. BORDEN was dead; that I thought she was killed by the same instrument with which Mr. BORDEN was killed, and that I considered it fortunate that Lizzie was out of the way."
           Here photograph of Mrs. BORDEN was shown and witness said Mrs. BORDEN was lying nearer the bed when he saw her. As this picture went the rounds and was commented upon Lizzie covered her eyes but there were no tears."

--I like to get around the sources or even authors in this case as you did, to find the fuller story, if possible.
I'll look some more.  I thought there was a more vivid light shown on Bowen somewhere and his strange ealy reaction.

Maybe it's in The Casebook or The Source book?
Do you have those?

Here's more on Dr. Bowen's initial assessment of Abby's condition. 

Patrick Doherty stated that on August 4, 1892 at 11:35 a.m.  
".... I, with Frank Wixon, entered the Borden house 92 Second street. Dr. Bowen met me at the kitchen door, and said “I am glad to see you.” I inquired “what is the trouble?” He said “Mr. Borden is dead.” I went into the next room, and there found the remains on a sofa covered with a sheet. In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before. He followed this by saying “to make matters worse, Mrs. Borden is lying dead up stairs. I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and run up stairs, and died with fright.”
I requested to see her; and on going up stairs found her lying on the floor, face downward, between the bed and dressing case. Several spots of blood was on the bed, and also a large tuft of hair. On examining the body, I found she was lying in a pool of blood. I
informed the Doctor of the fact, and he expressed much surprise." (Witness Statements,4)           

>Maybe it's in The Casebook or The Source book?
>Do you have those?

... Not yet. They are on the "get" list!!

Very good Diana, that's the other one who stated Dr. Bowen said that. I couldn't remember who it was.

There is also an item where Dr. Bowen denies he ever said that but I can't find it right now.  My files are still not the way they should be yet.

is it not probable that abby fell to her knees before falling to her face?  there are blows on top of her head.

I agree, haulover, I've always assumed she was crouched down to tuck in the bedding, etc. That would account for lack of defensive wounds, blows to back of head, and the absence of a crash. 

What I can't figure out with Bowen is that, even once he figured out she had more than fainted, he could touch her cold congealed head and still need to take Abby's pulse to know she was dead. I know a doctor would go through that formality, but he seems to have had real doubts until he took her pulse. Also, is Bowen mistaken to have said "instant" or is this another case of revision? "Instant" would seem to mean "killed at the same time or near the same time as Andrew."

--Lyddie

We have the tears of Dr. Bowen in The Knowlton Papers but they are in Nellie McHenry's letter, page 34, dated August 25, 1892.

"Dr. Bowen came running out from the old gentlemen all
excited with the tears coming down his cheeks saying Oh he is murdered
murdered_________"


In the Preliminary Hearing, 411 he denies the tears.
I think he testified Tuesday, August 30th.
Mrs. McHenry's letter could have been dated any date she cared to put on it, but it sounds like this line of questioning is because of that letter.
This time Dr. Bowen is sure, but his professionalism is put in doubt.

Q.  It was a ghastly sight, was it not?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  It effected you to tears, did it not, Doctor?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  When you came out from that room into the other room, were there not tears streaming down  your cheeks?
A.  I should not think so.
Q.  Would you say they were not, if anybodyelse said so?
A.  I should want more than one to say it, or two or three.
Q.  The eye ball was hanging out itself?
A.  It was cut in two, in halves.
Q.  And lay on one cheek or the other?
A.  No it was not lying on the cheek. It was cut in two, or cut in halves, and remained almost in the natural position.
Q.  You do not remember that you came out of that room with the tears streaming down your face?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  You think you did not?
A.  I think I did not; I am sure I did not.

Harry, is the denial at the trial, 308, my post #36?

That may be it Kat but my mind seems to remember a stronger denial but I may be wrong.

There are articles in the Evening Standard that were printed very early after the crime such as this one on Friday, August 5:

Still Another Ghastly Find.

The officer and the others present then went upstairs to view the remains of Mrs. Borden, whom they supposed to have died from the result of a shock.  Her body was found between the bed and a dressing-case in a spare room, and was lying at full length on the floor.
The physician pointed to it, and the officer and reporter pulled the bed toward the door.  Blood and hair were noticed on her face, and on turning over the body, officer Doherty drew back and exclaimed with horror,

"My God, Doctor, Her Face is Crushed in."

A closer examination of the body of Mrs. Borden showed that the unfortunate woman had been brutally murdered, the fiend probably using the blunt side of the instrument with which the husband had been killed."

Note that is Doherty who states her condition not Bowen.

But then that same day in another article (possibly in an earlier edition of the paper):

".....Dr. Bowen is positive that Mrs. Borden must have entered the room where Mr. Borden sat just as the murderer finished his bloody work, and that the fiend chased her up stairs to her room, where he struck her down, as the blows were inflicted by a person who stood beside her."

This latter article tends to support Doherty, at least the part of Abby being chased up the stairs.  Not the dying of fright part however.

But if Dr. Bowen knew that Abby had been murdered, and not died of fright, why was Doherty so surprised when finding the body? Certainly Bowen would have told him and others of the brutality of the crime if for nothing more than to prepare them for the scene.

I think Allen and Doherty are correct and that Bowen did actually state he thought she died of fright. He admits in his trial testimony he was in a very confused state.

Pearson's report in the Daily Globe, August 4, 1892, re. Dr Bowens comments to him: ". . .upstairs I found Mrs. Borden's body lying flat on her face and behind a bed.  It is my opinion that she had fled from her pursuer and was driven into this corner.  The death blow was dealt from behind and perhaps she did not move after being struck.  Her head was like that of Mr. Borden, terribly beaten. Miss Lizzie told me that she had come downstairs just before 11 o'clock and went to the upper part of the barn in the rear yard to get a small article for some purpose.  She saw her father as she passed out and he was reading the paper.  She was not out of the house more than five minutes when she returned and discovered the dead body of her father."
Dr Bowen thinks the two wounds were inflicted with a heavy hatchet or butchers cleaver.

(Message last edited Feb-21st-04  10:23 AM.)

The Medical Examiner assumed (?) Abby was standing when he testified her killer was a tall man. From the angle of the whack on her head.

IF she was crouched down on her hands the killer would need an awfully long arm to reach her head if striking from behind.
Unless he straddled her kneeling body?
...
Perhaps her body was repositioned for the photograph to hide her smashed in face?

(Message last edited Feb-21st-04  11:09 AM.)

It seems that this hatchet was razor sharp. This is a sign of a professional who keeps his cutting tools sharp every day. IMO

I just checked again Kat... you're right, Bowen's denial is at Vol. 1, pg. 308. It seems to me I had originally cited it as pg. 281, which it would be in my Acrobat at 8.5 x 11.

Funny though...reading that again, Bowen's denial would technically be correct the way the question is put.

"When we went up stairs the Doctor said Mrs. Borden had fainted with fright." (Witness Statements -GW Allen, pg. 1.)

whereas at trial, he is asked and responds

Q. Did you make any statement to any one that she had died of fright or in a faint?
A. No, sir.

The key phrase as I read it being "that she had died..." Which he is never alleged to have said to begin with.

Sakes!!

Not meaning to be picky here -- but Patrick Doherty reported that Dr. Bowen told him Mrs. Borden had "died of fright".(Witness Statements, page 4)

It's George Allen's statement that has the good doctor saying she "fainted" from fright. (Witness statements, page 1)

It's my sense that Bowen did not really examine Abby at all.  The bed was in the way.  I think he looked at her and got the heck out of the room.  He doesn't know if there's still a killer there.
That's pretty smart, but is unprofessional.

It sounds like later he was allowed to save some face.  Even questioning him about the tears could have been for his benefit to explain , as it may have been rumor by then.

Please can you provide the *testimony* of the M.E. that the killer was a tall man?

>Please can you provide the *testimony* of the M.E. that the
>killer was a tall man?

Dr. Dolan? There's no trial testimony from him about a "tall man" -nor for that matter from anyone else.

Interesting... the word tall was not often used in the testimony - only in directly referring to either the victims, or to officers participating in experiments conducted in the home.

Like I said, not a peep from Dr. Dolan during the trial about a tall man..

Hmmm

Even tried variations of "tall man" (ie. big or large) ...nothing in that regard was said at trial.

Thanks Doug.
I clicked on a numbered post and was responding to that of Ray.
Notice in my post55 it says under that:
"In response to message #49".

I am very glad that you took the 'assignment' tho.  I was going to tell Ray it wasn't in there because I know he doesn't look.  Instead I asked him for source.
But you looked.  You've got initiative!
That is good because we can use a lot of *lookers* around here!
Really! 

And if you find me wrong , prove it please- I ask, because I learn more that way.

btw:  if one clicks on the line underneath:
"In response to message #49"
One will go to that message post and can find what the person is replying to.
Then click on the Back button and be back at the new post!
This is info for everone.

(Message last edited Feb-21st-04  11:50 PM.)

Playing Devil's Advocate for Dr. Bowen--
Could he have meant that Abby had fainted from fright before being hacked and bludgeoned to death? I doubt he DID mean it that way, but it might account for the lack of defensive wounds and noise: swoons take women (even stout ones) down to the floor in a slow and fluid motion that would sound less like the felling of a mighty oak than is generally believed. 

Still, I picture her already down and unsuspecting--attending to the sheets, perhaps--when Maxwell's silver hammer comes down upon her head.  (Note to non-Beatle fans:  I am not suggesting a new suspect, just a frivolous reference.)

--Lyddie

Is the tall man reference from the newspapers? It sounds like the stereotypical suggestions they peppered their stories with.

--Lyddie

It's either Kent, Radin or Brown.  We can choose straws..
oops, or it is a reprint in the 60's of The Trial of Lizzie Borden by Pearson.  (Not)

We'd have to envision how the first flap wound was struck face-on, before a faint or while fainting etc.  I see her all twisted if that had happened?
Bowen didn't know about the blood is all.
I really really think he was afraid to go in that room and I don't blame him!

It's in Kent, page 7 and he cites the first edition of the Daily Herald:

"Medical Examiner Dolan, who promptly responded to the call for his presence, made a careful examination of the victims and reached the conclusion that the wounds were inflicted by a heavy, sharp weapon like an axe or hatchet. He found the skull fractured in both instances and concluded that death was instantaneous. As to the blow which killed Mrs. Borden, he thought that it had been delivered by a tall man, who struck the woman from behind."

Good for you, Har!
Do I know Ray or don't I?- my first guess... 


(Message last edited Feb-22nd-04  12:21 AM.)

I'll keep that in mind, Kat - thanks!!
My recollection though (and mind you I could be mistaken) is that I replied to your message after seeing Harry's post that his files were "not what they should be" or something of that ilk...

Well, let's see, in terms of sourcing I'm a bit limited on sources presently but if I find something, I'll certainly provide as much information as possibe. In the old days when I did newspaper work, I used the old "two source" rule whenever possible - although my personal preference was actually 3 sources, just to assure sufficient padding for ye old Glutius Maximus!!

Two should be easy enough though...

>Still, I picture her already down and
>unsuspecting--attending to the sheets, perhaps--when
>Maxwell's silver hammer comes down upon her head.  (Note to
>non-Beatle fans:  I am not suggesting a new suspect, just a
>frivolous reference.)

>--Lyddie


I do too, Lyddie... Quite literally in no position to defend herself.

And here's another thought regarding Dr. Bown and the "faint" comments he made initially(per the witness statements of George Allen and  Doherty.) It could merely be that Bowen was himself a victim of the stress of the moment - that he actually voiced his thought without realizing he was doing so? Speaking the words, and yet having no conscious memory of doing so afterwards...

In that context the whole thing makes sense, as does the sequence in Volume 1, p. 308:

Q. Did you make any statement to any one that she had died of fright or in a faint?
A. No, sir.
Q. To no one?
A. No, sir. I will say this in explanation: My first thought, when I was standing in the door and saw the form over the bed,---my first thought was that she had fainted: but in a moment afterwards I convinced myself that she was dead.

Was anyone with him at the time?

I do get confused as to who was with who, when.
I did a time-line because of stuff like that.

Someone who checks sources!  Hooray!
Check me anyime, feller!  I love it!

"Porter’s account re: Dr. Bowen…

“As I was going out I met Officer Allen. On my return from the telegraph office I met in the kitchen hallway Mrs. Churchill, and she said they had found Mrs. Borden up stairs in the front room; she said I had better go upstairs and see her; I went through the dining room and sitting room and up the front stairs, stopping a moment at the door of the guest chamber; at that point I looked over the bed and saw the prostrate form of Mrs. Borden; then I was standing in the doorway; I went around at the foot of the bed, placed my hand on her head, and found a wound in her head; then I felt her pulse and found she was dead. I never said to any one that she died of fright or in a faint; but I will say this, my first thought was that she had fainted; I went down stairs and told the people Mrs. Borden was dead; that I thought she was killed by the same instrument with which Mr. Borden was killed and that I considered it fortunate that Lizzie was out of the way.”

This account clearly has Dr. Bowen going around the bed and actually touching Abby. I think he would have been expected to check her to see if she was really dead by the people in the house. But your question is a good one......was he faking it?

Gramma

There are many different reports in newspapers, books and in legal proceedings about Dr Bowen's conduct at the murder scene - and isn't this the pattern with the entire case? How is it possible to reach an intelligent conclusion when we have so much contradictory evidence to deal with? What do we accept? What do we reject? If we had only a fraction of this information it would be easier to reach a conclusion, although not necessarily the correct one. If we consider two theorys we can say, "Yes, this is the right one", but what if we are faced with a half-dozen logical choices?  What do we do then?

(Message last edited Feb-22nd-04  10:38 AM.)

You can find it in David Kent's book.
This GREAT book has no index, unfortunately. Providing this would be helpful to many.

"tall" would be relative for a 4'11" Abby.

NO, from David Kent's book. It lacks an index.
Yes, the ME said that but other Doctors may have disagreed.
Just like today.

Thanks Harry. Great minds do think alike! Or read alike.

wow, Harry, Kat and Rays all in agreement? break out the champagne!
But now we throw into the mix from Gramma that Dr. Bowen knew something...and was maybe faking his reactions...

Abby's autopsy:

Body that of a female, very well nourished and very fleshy 64 years of age. 5 feet, 3 inches in height.

At:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/AutopsyAbbyBorden.htm

Please make a note.
She may be 4'11' now but in her physical examination she was 5'3".

He did not say it was a tall man, Ray- not in testimony.  If you want newspapers, how about today I found a reference to physician saying the killings were done by a small person, like an Oriental or a woman.
Members have looked this up.  Please change your notes rather than trot out the old stuff.


(Message last edited Feb-22nd-04  10:16 PM.)

My point is that no one was with Dr. Bowen when he supposedly examined Abby in the room.  I think he felt her hand for pulse and did not see the blood.
Then later when he was up there with officers showing off his bodies he may have mumbled something about a faint...but was allowed to deny this specifically.
When they moved the bed was when they really saw the blood.
Remember there was a camp chair at the head of Abby and a rocking chair near her feet.  there was not much room, and he was scared and shaken- these were his friends.

nancie, I don't see where I possibly agree with Ray here on this topic but I don't think he minds.
I agree more with William that we can find different interpretations according to where we look.
But if we use source documents we are at least on the right track.
I don't know why not everyone is willing to read those and use those when they are readily available...

(Message last edited Feb-22nd-04  10:26 PM.)

I don't necessarily agree that the murderer was tall.  Like several others here I kinda think Abby was kneeling when the first blow was struck.  That would not require a tall person. 

She could have also been struck while rising from a kneeling position.

I have got to agree with you there, William!  Even going by primary sources ONLY, we have people not only contradicting each other but themselves. I am rotten at quoting a conversation verbatim in the best of circumstances; I can imagine how well I would do under these. Another problem I have is with the timeline: how many of these people really know down to the minute when they did or saw something?  I  think many earnest and well meaning people would be likely to make mistakes.  The problem is, it's all we've got to go on, so we can imagine dozens of scenarios based on our choices of which testimony to trust and which to disregard.

I don't think she did swoon, Kat, but supposing she did:  it takes a few seconds to come out of a faint (especially when encased by a corset).  Suppose she begins to come to, lifts her head slightly, turns in horror, and meets her fate? She would have the flap wound AND the bruising as she turns away and has her face slammed into the floor.

(I think she was on her knees and turned to make a casual remark to someone she had no reason to fear. I think the injuries would be the same if inflicted that way.)

--Lyddie

Ray, the reference is in Kent, but from the newspaper, which as we know, is fallible.

--Lyddie

I don't see a swoon myself.  We have to account for the blood by the window behind the chair.  It would seem Abby was closer to the window when first attacked.  She'd have to move from there to where she was found.  I don't know if working on the bed, kneeling, would place her that close to the window.  She could still be kneeling, but maybe for some other reason.

even given her girth-- the first blow may have sent her spinning and therefore could account for her position.

If cornered between the bed and dresser if she was on her feet-- one would think she would do what came naturally....

One would not stop to think "I am too fat to leap over that bed".  If it was me and I had ANY advance warning at all and was on my feet I think I would attempt to slide across the bed in order to get to the door.

If she was kneeling how do we account for the bruising?

Did they account for blood on the axe flying off of it as it was pulled back to strike again?

Her position reminds me of a fetal position...
(especially considering her size and inability to wad herself up so small)

Could she have been struck, not killed, still conscious and either attempted to crawl away or instinctively gotten into a fetal position?

She's flat-out on the floor with her heels showing straight up.
I don't particularly see that as a fetal position. (?)
Of course she could have been moved a bit, straightening her form into what we see in the pictures.
Her rump seems a bit elevated but that could be her normal shape.
I once thought she could have pulled herself forward with her hands, because her dress hem is to her feet and it looks like her apron was bunched up around her waist.

In the Bertha Manchester slaying, they had bloody proof Bertha had pulled herself on her belly and the description there was not like ours at all.
Her dress was up to her knees, for one thing and her leg was bent, and there were blood marks, like drag marks on the floor.

(Message last edited Feb-23rd-04  1:33 PM.)

Exactly. "Not enough is known to come to a firm conclusion."

But would a lady like Lizzie (or even Bridget) have committed this slaughter? No murder weapon, no bloodstains, etc.
It comes down to what you find believable, under the circumstances.

I'll have to look through my Bertha Manchester documents and see if I can find it, but, wasn't there some indication that the killer had tried to sexually molest her?  Or was it simply because her skirts were all up?


I still find that odd that Abby's apron is bunched up, but, not her skirts.  I'm thinking if Abby was on her knees she would have to pull her skirts up a bit in front so there was slack to kneel on them without having them pull at the waistline.  Or, totally get them out of the way and just kneel on the floor.  I would think her skirts would be bunched up under her body too.  Her skirts seem to be entirely down in front under her legs, positioned by the photographer?  The killer?  Dr. Bowen?  Or, was that how she was actually found that day? 

Re: fetal position, upended rump, and wadded apron.
I have to say, Kat, that I can see her position as fetal--not on her side as we generally think of, but fetal in the way some babies sleep rump up, slightly on knees, but still curled up for security. When people are attacked, that is frequently the position they assume: instinctively trying to protect the head (hands encircling) and vital organs, taking (or trying to take) the bulk of the blows with the back. I don't recall any sign in the pictures or descriptions of the scene to indicate that she crawled anywhere.  The blood seems to have pooled and congealed, not to have been smeared as it would be with crawling.  The window splash could come from the weapon or from the killer during cleanup.  About the smoothed dress and wadded apron, I think the killer might have tucked the skirt round her but have wadded the apron when using it to clean self or weapon. Although I can imagine a reverent photographer preserving Abby's modesty by covering her legs, I think one of the investigators would surely have included a bunched skirt in the crime scene description, because it might have indicated rape. (And they did include it in the Manchester case.)

--Lyddie

(Message last edited Feb-23rd-04  11:48 PM.)

Dr. Dolan Testifies

Guest Room
Abby Borden


Pg. 103-105
Under her head, and pretty well down on her breast, she was lying in a pool of clotted blood, quite dark, as if it had been there sometime. It was not in the fluid condition that Mr. Borden’s was.
...
The front of the clothing was very much soaked, that is, down to the chest, and also the back, down about half way, of course going right through to her underclothing.
...
On the moulding, the piece of moulding east of the north window, that is the moulding that caps the mop board, about five or six inches from the casing, there was a spot of blood.
....
On the moulding that caps the mop board. Above that, about two feet, there was a spot on the paper.
From the head they would be between six and seven feet at an angle, that is, the dressing case formed an angle, the body lying here, the spots were over here.
...
There was a straight line, but the dressing case intervened [No uninterrupted straight line].

from:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/BloodEvidence.htm

I don't think Abby crawled.  Of course she is lying in her blood from her head wounds.  It's something to toss out to speculate how her skirts were flat to her shoes, and her apron bunched.
Also to speculate how that spot of blood got near the window.  It's not a 'window splash'- that's why I bring in the testimony.
It's behind a chair and on the mop board and on the wallpaper and it would have to turn a corner to apply itself where it did.  It might indicate Abby was attacked nearer the window.  She still can turn and step and fall.
I don't know how the blood got there- but it's a mystery to me

I don't see the rump up as that extreme.  But I know some do.





(Message last edited Feb-24th-04  12:48 AM.)

Blood soaked on the front of her bosom? THAT implies she was upright, or sitting, when struck. (I'm not an ME.)
This implies that the body was moved by somebody. To arrange for the photo? To hide the gore?
So we can't even trust what our eyes tell us from the photo?

I might first assume it was 'the wick effect' from the kind of carpet upon which Abby lay.
There is a photo which shows quite a bit of carpet removed from the spot, not just around her head.
It could be the other way, but also more probably the back/neck wound was given before death and that wound would bleed down around her prone or slightly moving body to soak her front.
It's not impossible.

(Message last edited Feb-24th-04  6:36 PM.)

Abby's corpulence has been exaggerated.  As I understand it, Abby weighed just over 200 pounds and was five feet three.  This is hardly morbidly obese.  At this weight, you do not "waddle," as Victoria Lincoln puts it.  Nor do you fall to the floor with all that much of a crash.  (I know.  At about five feet seven, I have weighed considerably more and neither waddled nor crashed, though I did fall occasionally.)

I have 2 friends who are 5'6" and 200 lbs.  Female.
They really don't seem that large to me.  Not fat, solid.
Otherwise, I think the noise would be there, if Abby fell from standing.
Wood floors, even covered by carpet, reverberate.

I can hear my own thuds as I walk barefoot thru my house and I average 116 lbs.  I have terrazo floors.

There is a big difference between a weight being dropped on the floor and something of the same weight that is already on the floor toppling over.  It is likely to be the difference between a crash (shaking the whole house) and a thud (audible on the floor below and in adjacent rooms).

If Abby sunk to her knees first and slowly slumped over there would have been little noise. If she was on her knees and slumped forward from that height there would have been next to no noise at all. If she were sitting on the chair and was in the process of rising, did not actually get to full height, but slid to her knees, then slumped to the floor the noise would have been minimal. It the latter scenario I can see her trying to rise in anger or surprise. Then as the ax fell her arms would have already been on their way to cover her face, not quite getting there in time. It is that scenario that makes the most sense to me. She may have been seated, talking to David and/or Lizzie.

Kat, the thud you here when you walk is telegraphing back through your own body, bones and tissue, back to your inner ear. In other words you get double the noise due to the vibration.

Gramma

As a matter of curiosity, has anyone ever gone in with Luminol to see if anything lingers of the scene. If the original wood is still there it is possible something might turn up.

Gramma

The thing about Abby that I wondered about during my stay at the house was her agility.  My fiancee is 5'2" and found it challenging to climb the steep narrow back stairway (her legs are short).  She found it easier to climb the steps one at a time.  That is, she would step up and wait till she got her other foot on that step before she climbed the next step.  I imagine Abby would want to minimize her trips up and down, and therefore probably had to plan her trips around the house accordingly (considering the locked doors which necessitated circuitous pathways).

Don't overlook the fact that a big belly on a person (male or female) should absorb the force of the fall. Like falling on a bean bag?

Luminol, as in the case of OJ's front seat, also shows up gravy stains, etc. A lot of false positives.

Raymond,

Since we know the position of the bodies after the murders and would agree, I think, that they were not moved much, ie. to another room, it could be used to search the exact spots. Then if more was found in the immediate area it might add to a pattern that could be analyzed. I'm just "supposin'" here, letting my thoughts ramble on the page.

Gramma

Oh yes I have had lot's of gravy in my front seat.  I bet those Borden girls, and all those people who lived there before & after, all left gravy stains in the NW front upper room. 
HUH?  Where does this come from please?
I'll be glad to read it.

Kat, are you tattling about our late night, drunken trips to KFC in the Packard?

Yes, that would be interesting. Best done by an experienced investigator, etc. After 112 years?

Raymond

I would think a VERY experienced investigator without ANY Lizzie connection or prior knowledge beyond the basic. Does such a person exist?
I am  told it would still be there. Whether enough DNA could be gathered to be tested is doubtful, though.

Gramma

It would have been interesting if someone had used Luminol in the Borden home, though I wonder how much would show up on the painted woodwork if its been repainted many times?  It might show areas that had been cleaned up at the crime scenes if any.  I imagine the hardwood floors under the carpets would tell a tale though?

I found out this interesting bit about Luminol:

Just because it can trace minuscule amounts of blood at an efficient manner, does not mean that it does not have any drawbacks in crime scene investigation.  Because it can detect other chemicals and compounds, further testing is almost always required to determine if the reactant is blood.  If so, then the process begins to establish the type of blood, and if it is the victim’s blood.  If luminol is used, it can break down and cause a loss to several genetic markers used in genetic testing as well as destroy other important properties of the blood.  While it can detect even small amounts of blood, the disadvantage is often that the small amount identified is diluted further by the luminol solution.  For these reasons, luminol is encouraged to be used as a last resort in crime scenes to protect what little physical evidence there already is.

From this site:http://members.aol.com/profchm/luminol.html

Hi Susan,

Do you think we are at the last resort stage here?

Gramma

  Yes, Gramma, I would have to agree there!  Just thought it was interesting as I didn't know that about Luminol tampering with blood evidence when used.  Since there were no other murders in those 2 rooms of the house we can safely assume that any blood found is Andrew's or Abby's.  It would still be an interesting experiment to see how much blood is still visible with Luminol if at all. 

Susan,
I am so glad you caught the humor there. After I posted it without a smiley I thought you might take it the wrong way! I was just playing with absurdity.
Your post was incredibly interesting and I was not aware of Luminol's capacity to damage evidence either. I was told, though, that if the blood was painted over with latex it may have been destroyed. If there were some cracks in the paint originally and it got a chance to soak into the wood, though.......
I honestly don't know how much of the original wood is still there. How about the cellar.....under the sink? I think I am getting carried away!

Gramma

What might be worthwhile is to check the floor boards around Lizzie's wash basin.  If you got any positives in high quantities, it might mean something.  But who knows how many times those floors could have been sanded, waxed, or given a good rub-down with gravy?

--Lyddie

(Homer Simpson)

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......gravy

Thanks for the info on luminol.  I would think it would degrade the blood specimen, but I wonder what other compounds react to it.
Do you think it's possible there is other blood in the room?
There could be the killer's blood, there could be anyone who had lived there's blood from nicks and cuts - just not gravy!

I mean me and Audrey never ate KFC there together ever.

(Message last edited Mar-19th-04  12:35 AM.)

Well, thats true, there may be minute traces of blood from other occupants of the house, but, I was thinking of the areas of Andrew's and Abby's murder.  If you sprayed the current wallpaper, I don't think the old blood would show up, but new blood of any kind would.  I was thinking if you pulled up the carpets in the guest room and sitting room, you might get the old blood puddle stains as well as any drips that may have soaked through the old carpet.  Just don't spray that Luminol in the kitchen or dining room, I'm sure theres invisible gravy stains in abundance! 

Don't forget the slurpy drool at the end:  AAAAADDDDDLLLLLLLLSSSSSS!

--Lyddie

You know what?  Stef took a picture of the cellar view of the kitchen floor.
That has me thinking they could check the ceiling below the sitting room north wall in the cellar?  They probably would only find Andrew's blood but it seems it might be there.

Oh I take it back.  That wall shares with the dining room!  Now there is a place where there might be gravy!

Oooo, thats a good thought, I never thought of that! That would be creepy if there was still a big stain in the wood where the blood may have seeped through the floor into the cellar!  Can you see anything there? 

I just thought of it when I posted.  I didn't look.
You know, my motto is "Always Look UP'.
But I didn't always look up.  The lights were out in that part.
I just had my little flashlite and my measuring tape- which you can see in the pic of me on the couch. 
The next visitor can Look Up...and report back...

Yes, it did look rather dark in that cellar even with the lights on.  What is in that part of the cellar now directly beneath the sitting room?  I can see from the house diagram that the part of the sitting room where Andrew's body was is directly over the big open area.  I'm trying to pinpoint where that is at from the photos I've seen of the cellar.

Kat and Susan,
I visited the basement in broad daylight and I didn't look up either.  As I recall, that open area under the sitting room had boxes and such in it.  I was trying to locate where the privy was, and think I did so.  I will be happy to do more snooping on my next visit (May 1).  If you guys suggest search tasks, I will be happy to do what I can.

The water closet's position was made very clear to us.  It was bigger than I thought.  It was also set up on a sort of platform with a boardwalk leading to it, as the cellar floor had been dirt.
I had a really good tour of everything and did my own searching as well.
Pictures of the cellar windows and the ceilings of the cellar, are what I missed.
But if there are no light bulbs, there might be a reason?

I did forget to look out of the east windows.  I looked out of the north ones, but not the east.  I have wondered what that view looks like.

(Message last edited Mar-23rd-04  8:01 PM.)

Thanks, Robert Harry.  I guess if the ceiling in the cellar is uncovered, you should be able to look up and see the floorboards overhead.  I guess if you can bring a strong flashlight and see if there was any blood seepage in the area beneath the sitting room sofa, that would be cool.  I guess it just depends on how well finished those floorboards were beneath the carpets in the 1890s? 

Kat,
Please remind me which direction is which.  I keep getting mixed up in that darn house!!
And Susan,
I'll bring a flashlight and see what I can see. This time, we'll have much more time to explore. Our first visit was kind of rushed.

Churchill is NORTH and from there all points flows easily.

For me- I had trouble with compass points...but I am lucky in that I have a big airport SOUTH of me.  And if I look out my front door, I can see (or used to see) space shuttle launches due East.
That taught me one thing.  That north is opposite to the airport, and if I face North , my left arm points WEST.

At the Borden's if I face CHURCHILL, my left arm points WEST- out the front door of #92.

I'm doing this for school in Hesser College.  I'm the only deaf student there...anyway..I checked the photos.  You're right...nothing seemed disturbed, and yet, Abby was brutally murdered.  I did an experiement with a friend.  He's almost 200 pounds.  I had him do both, fall from standing up.  Not only did he make a racket, but things that were standing on tables and counters, etc. were being knocked down.  When he fell from a kneeling position, nothing seemed disturbed. They only shook and then stopped.  Nothing was moved otherwise.  Hmmm. Very curious.

may i see that picture??? I would like to see it. for some reason the picture isn't coming up in the forum.  Is there a way u can email it to me?

Thanks, Kat.  Got it!!

Hello!
Arborwood delets the photos after a month or so.  When you first see it, save it.
I clicked on "Reply With Quote" in my own message to read the name of my picture!  In order to find it in my mass of files!
Poor Abby.  Here is "the Invisable Man", as well, off to the right!




(Message last edited Mar-25th-04  4:48 PM.)

The house on Second Street faced west. The backyard was in the east. The north side was sheltered by the house that next to the back entrance. The south faced the Kelly house.

The significance is this: in the hot august morning that side of the street would be in the shade, and attract a passer-by like Ellan Eagan. The other side of that street would be in the hot sun. That part of the story checks out.

Thanks for your experiment and the results. I hope nobody was hurt.

Which side would be in the shade on an August morning?

The side next to the Borden home. Its shade would extend onto the sidewalk. You can look at the pictures w/ trees in leaf.

Which side of the Borden home?  Would it be particularly shady on a Side of the Borden home?
There being a tree in the street right in front.

How could Lubinsky see a person standing at the east side of the side steps?



(Message last edited Mar-25th-04  5:28 PM.)

nah.  Just a lil dizzy from the falls, although the neighbors did scream at us to knock it off.  now in regard to the picture, that bed looked unmade.  unless it's the lighting that makes it look that way...

that looks impossible to see anyone standing there.  Even if you did look closely (unless from a picture or something), you wouldn't see anything and you'd miss out on the clues.

THIS is doubly dishonest. IF of the Borden home, it was taken late in the afternoon when that side was shaded. No mention of date and time!
The human eye can resolve about 256 levels of shade. Film prints only 32. THAT is why digitally enhanced photographs are used.

Please show a print of this area at 11am on August 4th. Why didn't you use a print from that time of day? Did you really expect to fool anyone?

oooh....I didn't think of that!!!  That IS true...hmmm I wonder...but isn't it still possible that a person can't be seen in the shade in the pictures or otherwise?  Has anyone experimented with that issue to see if it's possible that someone can't see anyone in the shade??? Just curious.

That is one awfully contrasty photo. I agree with Raymond that it doesn't illustrate what a human would see when standing there in person.

Right now, there is extremely bright sunshine outside, although no trees in leaf. There's no way anyone can be hidden simply by standing in the shade. Beside being able to adjust to lights and darks in a manner that no photo film can, the human eye would be seeing this IN COLOR. The world was not black and white in 1892. No, they might not show up in a circa 1890s black and white photograph, depending on the type of film used and the length of the exposure, but they wouldn't be out of sight to the human eye.

Basically, in the morning, the sun would be rising behind and to the south of the Borden house, throwing shadows into the street and toward the north. Since the sun is shining on the front of the house in the photo, this is an afternoon shot.

I'm almost tempted to say. "Look outside. What is YOUR EXPERIENCE?"

Beats me... I just enhanced the thing, and the only thing I can make out at or near the east side of the side steps is shadowcast from the trees; it's not shaped like any human I've ever seen!

Doug

Shame on you Ray for speaking to me that way!
I am not dishonest. 
I asked you what side of the house might be shaded, and was interested in the shading you were explaining.
That's the only reason I posted thast picture, to find out if this is Right or Not.
You assume too much.
I'm not speaking to you anymore today nor asking you anything.

BTW:  folks, there is not anyone in the picture.  It's an example of shade, but I did not know what time of year or time of day.
See the Galleries at the Web-site.

Hi, deafandsmart!  I had a roommate years ago who was very deaf and very smart. She, too, was the only one on campus.  But she lip read better than I could hear.  Is that Hesser in NH?  I may be your neighbor.  Welcome to the forum!  It's a great place to hang out with some very congenial folk.

--Lyddie

You're right, Smart, it does look unmade.  The biggest problem with the crime photos is that things got moved around by investigators, neighbors, doctors, you name it.  We're not positive that the photographs were not righted before the photos were taken either.  The photos were very advanced forensics for the time, but those in charge may not have fully realized how much could and should be preserved just as found. Pity.

--Lyddie

Gotcha, Kat.  I think most of us know what you were trying to do.  You, of all people, do not deserve to be accused of hoaxing!  Double shame, Ray!

--Lyddie

It has been my experience that "stirrers" generally get thrown out then the cocktail is finished.

How very civilized.



(Message last edited Mar-26th-04  5:45 PM.)

I'm glad you responded to deafandsmart about the bed.  I got waylaid.

I think I have read (in testimony?) that the bed covers were taken off, or pulled down, and the bed examined, and then the covers pulled back up around the time of the photos or before the photos (the photos were c. 3 p.m.).  i've not been able to find that tho, if anyone can help look?

Kat, I just looked through all of the source documents, couldn't find anything about anyone disturbing the bedding in the spare bedroom until August 9th, when they were taken away by the police.  Thats in Trial 1, page 877.  The only bed I could find that was pulled apart in any of the docs was Lizzie's. 

Robert Harry,
I guess we will be crossing paths on May 1st.  My niece and I are staying the two nights just before you.  Is there a chance you and your girlfriend will be in Fall River the day before ?  It would be great to meet up with another Lizzie afficienado from the forum !  I will see what I can see from the cellar up to the sitting room floor as well.  It seems that when I was there last, there was 'stuff' stored on that side of the cellar, but I can't remember for sure.  Let me know if we all can meet up somewhere.

Tracy

I hope we can meet!! I'm not sure what time we plan to arrive, but I know you can't check in until 4:00 pm.  Chances are we will arrive before 4.  I would love to meet someone from this forum!! If you check out the night before we arrive, will you be hanging around Fall River for a while? If so, maybe we could meet at Maplecroft, or the cemetery or something. If you don't mind, we could exchange personal email addresses if you'd like. I'll try sending you a message through your Lizzie Borden forum inbox.

What Lubinsky saw as he drove by 92 Second Street was once covered in depth on this forum. Would these messages still be in the archives, Kat?

At that time it was determined that Lubinsky only had a window of opportunity to view anyone by the side steps for only a second or two, as he rode by in his wagon (speed of 5 or 10 mph?)

It must be kept in mind that Lubinsky never identified Lizzie as the woman he claimed to have seen.  He said he saw a woman who WASN'T Bridget

William,

Maggie, perhaps?

Gramma

You can test this any summer day, when the side of a house is in the shade. You can seel well, but a phote will not have the range of contrast to show the same details as your eyes. Try it and see!

Good point about the leaves. You can see they look sparse, as if early fall?

Robert,  you have a message in your forum inbox.   Tracy...

I think it was not "determined" but "assumed". Walking speed for a horse is about 5mph (assumed). Running a horse in hot weather is a way to wear it out or kill it. Horses are not machines.

You can try this at home. Have someone stand in a back yard. Have someone drive by at 5mph while you, the passenger, look into this back yard. Try it agains at 10mph. Then tell us the result of your experiment, not speculation.

Whether anyone can be seen in the late afternoon (the time of that photo), my original statement was that Ellan Eagan would be walking on that side of the street on late morning to be in the shade.
Does anyone have a photo from the morning?
You can try this at home for any similar street; the houses will provide shade from the sun from the east.
11am should show the sun almost directly overhead, unless Fall River now used standard time (after 1888). Did they?

Hey Rays you could earn some brownie points here by apologizing to
Kat for your insensitive remarks? I am no one to talk, I shoot off my
mouth and then have to apologize all the time.  People are forgiving of us types and are kinder than we desearve. 

I haven't been around here long enough to know much about any of you, but having read nearly everything in this forum I'd say that I find it amazing that Kat could be truly upset by a comment made by Rays/Raymond after all the time you folks have been discussing this case.

Just for the record, I, too, commented regarding Kat's post. She seemed to be asking "What could Lubinsky see?" and illustrating that question with a particularly bad, contrasty B&W photo that has no relation to what a person may or may not have been able to see. It was a poor combination of question and photo.

Sorry if I, too, may have offended Kat.

(Message last edited Mar-27th-04  6:18 PM.)

You also have not accused me of dishonesty nor gotten your knickers in a pucker at me for 5 years  ...or is it 4?  Seems like 5, with Ray...
Thanks nancie, but if he just stops being rude for about a week, that's enough to ask.)

(Message last edited Mar-28th-04  1:58 AM.)

So what time of day and what time of year, do You think that picture was taken?
That is really my original intent/question.
We have a limited number of pictures from which to choose.

I would to ask this of all the exterior house photos.  I'm asking because I would like to know.

Being from the area you would know the lighting.
I would think my idea of it would be influenced by my Florida/Southern view of light at certain seasons.

[edit here:  Since scanning the Phillips photos I see he claims these were taken in June, 1893... there's one answer]

(Message last edited Mar-28th-04  2:49 AM.)

Hopefully here is a better picture.. I just scanned it for us here. 
This was Defense Attorney Phillips' effort to record the crime scene.  He must have had a reason:  each picture taken was an "illustration" of something.  He was satisfied with these pics.
BTW:  the one on the right was his statement as to Mark Chase's view of a team outside the Kelly-Borden property line.



(Message last edited Mar-28th-04  2:45 AM.)

Much better view - Bless ya for savin' my eyes!!

Doug

hesser in nh it is!  I'm in the manchester, nh campus! smile. thanks for welcoming me.  I appreciate it.  I do both, sign language, speak, and read lips (lip-reading isn't as easy as it looks, to be honest) lol

This is an unfortunate thing.  Today, people who investigate a crime at the scene don't contaminate the scene and evidence as much anymore as they did then.  The crime scene, it looks to me, was VERY contaminated because everything was moved around, and it shouldn't have been.  I've been wondering...had they known anything about fingerprints back then?  If they hadn't, then that would definately explain why they hadn't found the killer (well, partial of the reason).  Forget DNA.  That was a long time later.  Speaking of DNA, can't they exume the bodies, look for a relative, and then see if the dna "matches"?  Perhaps we could get a clue that way????  My ex-fiancee's interpreter is a distant relatve!

maybe i didn't get too far into the case as I'd hoped.  but who is lubinsky? 

Kat -- I just have Flynn's facsimile abstract of Phillips History.  Does Phillips give the date of those photos as June 1893 in his full history?

If so, he contradicts himself -- because on page 15 of the abstract he says: "I am showing herewith a photograph of Second Street taken that same fall.  I took it at an hour corresponding with the hour of the murder. It shows the normal travel on the street at that hour.  It was taken from the stable door where Mark Chase, a witness, was sitting during the murder period." The two photographs you scanned are reproduced on the next page. 

It is hard to be sure that he means the front, side yard and barn photo was taken on the same day -- but the inference is there. 

[b]A bit about fingerprints...

http://www.law-forensic.com/impression_evidence_5.htm

This link may answer some of your questions about fingerprinting, deafandsmart.

"The first conviction in the United States occurred in New York in 1906 ... and the first appellate decision in Illinois early in the twentieth century."



Doug

When Phillips wrote that "Defense" he was barely using his notes.  He re-wrote some history there in that chapter!
The caption is exactly as from the photo page.  I cut and pasted it because I didn't show the bottom of the page where were two other pictures.  We are attempting to get his article from the paper.  It is an involved process.  We've gotten it once copied from a copy from Ter, and we tried to get it ourselves in New Bedford early this month.  Well, we did get it, but the quality is terrible.  (If they can put a man on the moon..etc.  as someone recently put it...).
We have ordered a better copy which will take a bit of time.

The book was published after Phillips died, (he died in 1941, but the third Fascicle looks to be published in 1946)- however it implies that Phillips had worked on the content which he had already devised himself, and someone, Easton, cleaned things up a bit or added things according to Phillips wishes.
So, I don't know if the caption to the picture is original to Phillips or Easton had that written.
Either way, I would not necessarily believe either one to be correct as to when those defense photos were taken.
I didn't want to get deeply into this subject of discrepancies in Phillips.
I have my own opinion about him.
Needless to say, after all I have said/written, that no caption in the book,  or sentence by Phillips describing when these pictures were taken, can be relied upon to be wholly accurate.  The intent is there, but not the pure facts.
(Which people will notice when re-reading the whole of Phillips on the Borden case- For instance, the article claims that the Preliminary Hearing started Monday, August 22nd).

I'm interested in that my instinct was to use a cruddy picture (they are all cruddy) to ask about shade and thus so did the defense (well, I don't know to what use this was put), but at the least I got up and got a source for Ray and Fairhavenguy and scanned them the proof/provenance of it.  To Phillips, these pictures were "evidence" and so they are valid to use in this case.

Maybe the "shade" guys can put a better time and month here.
June 1893 or August/September, 1892? 
William , Harry, may also opine.

(Message last edited Mar-28th-04  3:41 PM.)

Thanks Kat.  You're right -- Phillips was putting this together almost 50 years after the fact -- so his recollections would be vague at best.  When this thread on the shade etc. started, I remembered  reading there was a picture taken at the same time of day -- and I guess this is the one.  But if the Phillips/Easton notes don't agree as to whether it's even summer, or fall -- then we probably can't rely on it being the same time of day, either. Darn!

The photo of the front of 92 Second Street was most certainly NOT taken at about the same time of day as the crimes. The shadow of the tree is running nearly straight back toward the east and the front of the house is in full sun. It seems to be taken during the later part of the afternoon. It could be taken in late summer, but it's tough to tell precisely, because I don't know the exact orientation of the house with regard to north, south, east, west.

Here in the north, the sun stays lower in the southern sky, casting the shadows somewhat longer to the north. In the summer, though, the sun shifts higher in the sky and sets a little more northwest. My own house, about fifteen miles east of Fall River, faces roughly the same way the Borden house faces, but It doesn't mean the tree in front of my house is going to throw its shadow the same way, because my house and the Borden house may be out of alignment by a considerable amount.

The shadow would be cast in a different direction in May at 3:30 p.m. than it would be in August at 3:30 p.m.

In any event, mere shade, no matter how dense, would not have made a person impossible to see. Veiwing a person from a moving wagon, though, with dappled shade and sun on the subject, would made that subject harder to identify.

Thank you for that, Christopher.  Input from those living in the area is so welcome.  So it looks as though Phillips must have misremembered when he wrote that he took the photo "at an hour corresponding with the murder."   

Hyman Lubinsky was The Ice Cream Man.
He was still in his teens with not much English, when he was late to gather his employer's wagon and team from the stables at Second Street on the day of the murders.
He testified at the trial that he saw a woman, not Bridget, standing as if she had come from the barn (he inferred), a few steps east of the side stair entry, outside about 5 or 10 after 11 a.m.
We studied the angle of his view, which diferring angles were measured by Kieran, the engineer, and figured out how slowly or quickly Lubinsky moved past the Borden house, with a freah team, going downhill, from south to north, and what would be his "window of opportunity" to see that figure of a woman, with the tree out front in full leaf at  just after11 in the morning.  William, our senior member, figured it would be a mater of one second or two, and I had thought Lubinsky would have had to turn in his seat to see anybody there, as he passed the tree.

Yes, that is the sort of description I do like.
Thanks FairHaven guy.

diana,

I just realized that the streetscape photo on the right DOES seem to be taken in the morning. In that one the front of the house is in shadow and the shadow of the chimney is cast to the west, so the sun is rising behind the house.

Maybe Phillips knocked off for a very long dinner between photos.

Thanks for that re-check.  The photo on the right is the only one that Phillips specifies in his text as being around the same time of day as the murders.

And now that you've pointed out that the side yard/ barn/ etc. picture was taken in the afternoon, we shouldn't be using that one to determine Lubinsky's view. This is all very helpful. 

Phillips:

"Since Miss Borden’s death, I have been importuned from many sources to make public some of the photographs which I personally took and have privately shown, but which were not used at the trial, and also to point out the relevancy of certain facts which were then produced in evidence with relation to certain other facts which were never disclosed,-- in order that a better balanced criterion for public judgment might be furnished, even though thereby certain sensational features of the case might be mitigated and some of the mystery surrounding the case be removed."


We may not ever know when all the photos were taken.
Do you think it is prudent to assume they were taken on the same day?  That might account for the different shading and light.  Phillips claims he took these pictures personally.  Another exterior shot is of the back yard and side of the barn and the side steps shot are all his, apparently.  He added them to his news article.

I figured a guy from that area would know the seaons and shadows.  Thanks FairHavenGuy.  I hope that is right.  If so, it may illustrate just what Phillips intended in his speech, above.

Here are two of Phillips' exterior pictures:




This I lightened by  abbt. +38 and gave contrast at about +48.






(Message last edited Mar-29th-04  5:22 AM.)

This is the bad copy of a copy of the article- that rear of the house shot from the viewer and then the copy machine.



(Message last edited Mar-29th-04  5:27 AM.)

Thanks for the clarification kat.  Hmm that does sound interesting.

Both views from the rear indicate morning, because the back of the house and the facing surfaces of the side steps are lighted. That means the sun is in the east. It's probably summer, too, because there's not as much shadow cast on the north side of the house as there would be in the winter.

If the screen door side of the house is facing just about due north, that side will never have sunlight shining on it directly. The seasonal difference would only be in the width of the shadow thrown on the ground. With the sun higher or in a somewhat more northern position in the summer, the shadow would be pretty narrow as it seems to be here. In the winter, when the sun is lower, or more southward, the shadow on the north side would be wider.

When I get a chance, I'll sketch something to illustrate this more clearly.

The top view here (the clearest one) I just noticed at page 557 in Phil Harrington's New Bedford testimony

Q. Where did you go first?
A. I went in the front gate, walked along the yard front of the house to the north side,
along the north side to the north door on the side.
Q. Whom did you see at the north door?
A. Mr. Sawyer.
***
The door here, is this the one where Harrington met Sawyer?


Doug

June sounds right, given cold weather(?) to slow the full growth of the leaves. I estimate around 5 to 6 pm from the shade from the lowering sun. Scientists could be much more accurate as to time.
My experience in rural NY & Penna is that the trees have all their leaves by early May. (Your results may differ.)
I would bet $1,000,000 (which I don't have) that the phote was NOT in the morning. Would you?

It could be fall with the tree losing leaves. But then the leaves would be on the ground, unless swept up. In rural areas they don't sweep up leaves until the tree is bare, circa 1980s.

The fact that the late morning sun would have shone on Lizzie's back, highlighting her for a passing teenage boy. Ever see this?

The photo on the right shows the cloudy sun directly overhead the tree; see the shadows of the leaves. Sparse leaves on the tree.
I believe these were not taken in the same hour.

Okay, here is a COMPLETELY NON-SCIENTIFIC drawing which ROUGHLY indicates how shadows might fall on the Borden house at different times of day and in different seasons.



(Message last edited Mar-29th-04  11:45 AM.)

The first photo shows a bright sun almost directly overhead. An astronomer could define this 100%, giving latitude and longitude.
The second one show less contrast, but it too seems to show an overhead sun from the shadows.

That pipe (?) going up to the second floor must have been the old drain to the sink on the upstairs kitchen.

WOW!  I'm impressed!  That's a picture I will save.  It's very informative!  Thanks!

It occured to me the these two pictures of the north side of the Borden house might illustrate Phillips' view of "Line of Sight".
If I reversed where I would stand to take each pic, in my mind, I think they show a very similar view- one west, one east, from a similar standpoint.  I tried to accomodate, in my mind, a tall conveyance such as Lubinsky drove.  If I look from the street (The crummy picture) from the level the photo is taken, I cannot show the figure he may have seen, because at ground level, the post to the fence is right there..  "She" would be behind that, I think.  Of course, from a higher vantage spot, she might just be visable.  But the tree, and fence post, means the view is incredibly hindered.

See photo shot from east to west, encompassing the side steps.  The person might have been 2 steps more southerly of those steps and there would be the jog in the path.  From this view it is really hard to imagine what the driver could see, even if the tree looks somewhat sparse of leaves- the trunk is still there.  Stef had once pointed out to me that this picture seems to show a horse and "buggy" going by.  It is a good view to imagine one there, anyway.









(Message last edited Mar-29th-04  4:25 PM.)

Good Work, as usual Kat, and makes you wonder "who looks" who even
looks in yards when they are driving?  If anything, only a quick glance.  Thanks, good posts here all.

Wow, we are practically neighbors!  Did you grow up without hearing or lose it later?  I've had two friends who can barely remember hearing, and I think they picked up the lipreading when they were little.  At that age, kids pick up languages easily; I wonder if it is the same with lipreading.  I do remember that my roommate used to go nuts in one class, where the teacher had a mustache and kept his lips tense when he talked.  She found his lectures impossible to follow!
Great to have you in here!

--Lyddie

Hi, Fairhaven!  It may not be thoroughly scientific, but it looks pretty damn close to me.  When I first move out to New Hampshire, I was amazed at the difference in sunset times, which affect shadows throughout the day.  I think your diagram captures it pretty well!

--Lyddie

I've learned some things in this thread.
The shading in seasons of the Borden house.
And just which photos of the house and Second Street were by Phillips.
It will cost Stef, but she has contracted to get 2 copies of photos we've not seen, which are in that article.  Well, we've seem them but they are not recognizable.
They are taken from Third Street, Chagnon's yard and a view, I think of Crowe's yard.  She had to commission them.  I hope it's not much longer...

Hmmm, I can't view it, all I see is a white box with a red "X" in it and when I click on the link it says I'm not authorized to view the page.  I don't have anything to add to the post, but, would still like to keep up with whats going on. 

I was born with most of my hearing, then my dr. warned my parents that I will lose it all by the time i turned 18.  18 rolls around and i was still hard of hearing.  Just last november (2003) my audiologist certified as profound deaf, meaning no hearing whatsoever in either ear.  I picked up lipreading when i was very little, however, that's a talent i'm soon losing (i'm trying to work on it to improve it again)  i have a hard time lipreading because of mustaches, tight-lipped people, and soft speaking people.  It's hard.  I was forced to live a "hearing" life, as you would. it would be the same with lipreading.  But harder.  It's harder for a hard of hearing or deaf person to learn to talk because of this disability (quite obvious).  I hadn't said my first voice word until I was five.  I have a teacher who has an african accent and he's sooooo impossible to understand.  I have to have a friend to translate. and she said even us hearing people can't even understand him, so don't feel bad. lol

where u live??? Maybe we'll meet sometime???  I'd love to have u as a friend.

Obviously someone looking to sell ice cream will be looking into yards and sidewalks. IMO

Anyone here can buy a disposable camera, then take two pictures once a month. Around 8am and 4pm to view these changes.

(Message last edited Mar-30th-04  11:31 AM.)

The sun is lower in the southern sky in winter (tilting of earth's orbit). Fall River's northern latitude prevents the sun from being directly overhead (?).

Yes. Seventh grade science.

Susan, I downloaded the thing to my desktop, and the file size was 172.  I made it 72, and here it is for you.  Sorry it wasn't fixed.  I was hoping you would look at it! 



(Message last edited Mar-30th-04  9:48 PM.)

I just have a question:
Earlier you said you weren't sure which were the compass points in reference to the Borden House?  Does this example of your's show the street as West?
Thanks.

Cool!  Thank you, Kat!  Thats helpful to see, gives us an idea of when and what time that photo was taken of the Borden house. 

I know roughly, both from everybody's testimony and from having been to the house, it faces west, with Second Street running north and south in front of it. However, to tell more exactly how shadows would fall at a certain time, etc., one would need to know precisely to what degree it faces west.

To be like Ray, for a second, and propose an experiment, put a shoe box on a table. Now shine a flashlight straight at one end. Without moving the flashlight, turn the box. You'll see that by shifting the direction the box faces, the shadow on the table changes and the surfaces of the box that are lighted changes.

In an earlier post, I said that the north side of a building would never have sun shining directly on its surface. That's true if it is facing absolutely, exactly north. If, however, the wall faces slighly northeast, the sun might hit it in the morning. If it faces slightly northwest, it might get a bit of sunshine in the late afternoon.

When I look a a photo that shows a face-on view of the Borden house, I don't know if I'm looking due east or slightly northeast or southeast.

Don't they teach Boy Scouts to figure out directions from the moss growing on the north side of trees? Does this still work?
I know that you can see green stuff growing on the brick in the back yard where the sun don't shine.

As an ex-Eagle Scout I can attest that they teach Boy Scouts that moss can grow on ANY side of a tree that is shaded from the sun. Currently, they also instruct soldiers in the Armed Forces of this fact.

That "moss grows on the north side of a tree" is an old wives tale that was discredited many, many years ago.

Sort of like the tale that William Borden did it. . .

Yeah, sort of like that.

--Lyddie

No such t hing as William Borden....he's just a made up dude.

Moss growing only on the north side of the tree was a HUGE conspiracy encompassing dozens of well placed and otherwise well regarded people who, wishing to cash in on the great value of moss, held clandestine meetings and cooked up the entire story.

Moss agreed to go along with the whole thing-- basically to save face.  Moss didn't want everyone knowing it was as immodest as it was... growing willy nilly on any side of a tree! 

Later, Spanish Moss (A bastard relative of regular moss), which had originally gone along with the cover up became somewhat of a loose cannon and it was feared that the cat would be let out of the bag.  Spanish Moss was, as this time, hung in a tree.  As you clearly know... Spanish Moss remains in trees to this day. 

Obviously this is all true. 

Bless you Audrey for makin' me laugh out loud so near to midnight!!


Doug

don't forget that it is all a matter of common sense.

thanks for that picture.  i love spanish moss.  is that your spanish moss?  i remember seeing a lot of it near the gulf coast.  it doesn't seem to grow in south florida (or maybe it does more inland in more dense areas?).

Geeez, and I thought Moss was Lizzie's uncle!

Gramma

My, what a BIG Accent you have, Gramma! 

No I only have a little ball of moss.  That moss is from the next county, across the street<<shudder>>>

Okay, I'm dyin' here Reading this thread, I've just been listening to a 30 year old interview with Mel Blanc - he did some eons-old bits from Jack Benny's radio show. So as I read "...is that your spanish moss?" what do I hear but Mel Blanc's answer: "Si.."




Doug

that's funny doug!

From the book MOSS The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter:

During the questioning, he subtly alluded to Moss in the following exchange. "You were busy, weren't you?" he asked. "Going from place to place. Rather like a rolling stone, would you say?"

"Yes, sir"

"Did you gather anything?"

"I don't recall that I did?"

"Nothing at all?"

"No, sir."

"Now if anyone were out in the yard, eating a pear perhaps, is there any side of any tree where he might stand and not be seen?"

I remember that.  I didn't pay too much attention to it.  Now that you have brought that up, I wonder if some one did go to that tree where they can't be seen?

That is true. The original story reflects the type of growth in the east, where there is no dense overgrowth or undergrowth. Just try it at home. You need shade from the north for this to happen; a lone tree will not show this. Its been many years since I was in a denser treed forest.
Thank you for your wise comments on this, and a happy April One to you all too!

same to you raymond.  Happy April Fools day too.  Unfortunately my birthday is next friday ....and my bf's birthday is sundy two days after.

O Gawd help me!    First I'm dying over Audrey's Moss conspiracy, Kat's picture of poor Moss hanging in the tree, Gramma's deft adaptation of Morse via southern accent, and now YOU take us all the way south of the border with Mel Blanc's deadpan "Si." Have mercy, guys, I'm in pain here! (So much pain that I misspelled it the first time!)

--Lyddie

(Message last edited Apr-1st-04  5:00 PM.)

I went out to my back yard to look at the sole remaining tree near the fence (open sky to north). There was a thin green growth on the north side, nothing on the east, south, west side where the sun does shine. ERGO, this fact is well-proven.
But I could not cross the road to look at the many trees there. They were fenced off decades ago by the property owner. It could make a difference if in a tall grove where all the inner trees were shaded.

From a Fall River map, 1891:
Here are the compass points in relation to #92 Second Street.  There is a disclaimer with that directional guide- saying there may be  __% "variation", but I can't read it.



(Message last edited Apr-2nd-04  6:58 PM.)

That map seems to say that the Borden back yard was in the North.
Just from my gardening experience, a fruit tree or most flowers
will only produce in full sun, South sun.  Any one of our Fall River
posters could tell us if the Borden house backyard is in the North or
South?  

I put a red Z at #92 because that was straight lines, parallel, like someone would build a house.
It appears to anyone looking that the house is situated with the rear (which was called East in testimony) as east, with a bit of a north spin on it.
The information given by those who were in the house at the time was seemingly in reference to sort of east and sort of west, to make it easier to describe.

Do you see that straight line which comes out a little ways from the compass point "V"?
The back of the Borden house falls within that line and east.
That means it is more east than north.  (the back)

(Message last edited Apr-2nd-04  9:55 PM.)

Compass Variation ...

If you and I are seeing the same thing, Kat, the stated variation there on the map appears to be "40'[degrees] 40"[minutes] Westerly..."

Doug

60 minutes is equal to one degree I believe...

Doug

i'm not good at this.  this means that the front door of the borden house was facing more northwest than due west? 

as a result of this discussion, i noted that the front door of my house faces almost due west with a slightly southward angle.  the rising sun behind my house is almost due east with a slight inclination to the north.

the photo i've seen of the borden house from the backyard between the borden house and the churchill house -- it appears to me the sun is rising almost directly behind the house.

do you understand that map?  i guess if that map is true, there would be more shadows toward the kelley side as the sun rose?  i don't know.  i may very well misunderstand the diagram that indicates the sun's path in terms of how it impacts the borden house.  maybe i oversimplified or overspecified that the front door faces west?

If you are refering to my diagram of how the sun might hit the Borden house, I must repeat, as I have before, that it was rough and non-scientific. I was not using a map like Kat has now posted and I was not doing any kind of precise measurement. I was merely trying to illustrate how we might determine whether or not certain photos were taken approximately at the time and/or season of the crime.

The map won't even help us to any exact degree of certainty.

The only real way to compare would be to actually take photos of 92 Second Street on a sunny August 4 at regular intervals throughout the day from the same positions that the original photos were taken.

Eugene, you and I have been as specific as the officials at the scene and for all intents and purposes, except for shadows and what can or can't be seen outside due to shading, it is still proper.  Yes, the front faces mostly west .

I'm just trying to simplify our earlier discussions by providing an illustration.
Giving more information is always useful.
Of course these cannot take the place of scientific experiment with camera on site but I think it is close enough.

(Message last edited Apr-2nd-04  11:33 PM.)