1. "Abby's Last Words"
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-22nd-03 at 1:52 AM

How about, "Lizzie, let's bury the hatchet...OUCH! I didn't mean in my head!!!"

That was a good one!  (trying my first smiley face)

Or maybe

"Why is the carpet approaching my face so fast?"

"I'm going to meet your father at the bank - why do you axe?"

"My head is splitting. I think I'll lie here and rest."

"Lizzie you can have whatever you want, lets not split hairs.."

Okay, you axed for it!

http://yamara.com/junk/xl970512.html

"Oh, Lizzie you're so sharp."

"Lizzie, I need you in this room while I am working like I need a hole in the head."

And now to wrap things up here (more 0r less) we have Andrew's last words:

"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"

I got in trouble awhile back for making a comment
about this very subject.

As you may know, I'm not so sure that nap ever occurred.

Therefore, I'll offer:

ANDREW'S LAST WORDS:
Heh, heh...Lizzie, you'll be the death of me yet!

Hey Bob!
Do you think Andrew would have defense wounds if he saw his attack?

Good point. Do we kow if Andrew had wounds any where other then his skull?

Andrew's hands look like they have blood spatters on them to the wrist in a really clear photo, but no wounds were ever described.
I think one of the witness statement people mentioned the blood on his hands.
I'd have to go look.

Here is the link to his autopsy:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary/AutopsyAndrewBorden.htm

(Message last edited Dec-11th-03  1:36 AM.)

Here is what I found.  It seems it was one hand?  singular?
Witness Statements, pg. 22

"Dr. Albert C. Dedrick. 'I was going on a call to Whipple street, when I saw Dr. Dolan drive along Second street like mad, and stop at Mr. Borden’s. When I returned, there was a large crowd there, and I went in. Mr. Borden’s left hand, which rested on his hip, was smeared with blood. I called Dr. Bowen’s attention to it.
I went up stairs, and as I entered, I noticed the basin which was on the wash stand, contained water stained with blood. I called Dr. Bowen’s attention to this, and he said perhaps some of the Doctors washed their hands there. Afterwards I saw Dr. Dolan wash his hands there. I remember this distinctly, for I had put my hands in Mrs. Borden’s wounds, and when I had washed my hands, I took the towel from Dr. Dolan, who had just finished drying his.
I think Mrs. Borden was dead first, for when I took hold of her arm, it was cold, clammy, and very stiff. When I took hold of Mr. Borden’s, to look at the blood on his hand, it bent very easily.
I do not want to get into the case, but I tell you just as I saw and found things.' ”

If that first blow was out of the blue and hard enough, he might've had the fight taken right out of him.  Obviously, if he had been dozing, defense wounds are not an issue.

you know what i noticed the most about his hands in that "clear picture of andrew in the privy" (ha) ?  for one thing, you can see detail in the knuckles of the hand, and look at the gesture -- the way the knuckles are folded up under the hand.  i've read that a tightwad-type will rest his hands that way. 

Or maybe rigor mortis was setting in. Does it go from the limb extremities to the body? (I don't know.)

I've read that rigour starts in the small bones/muscles in the extremities.
I don't know.  By 3:00 pm, when the photo was taken- maybe it had started.
A stif person, un-relaxed I mean, might sleep that way.
Also someone who is cold.

i'm saying he had his fingers folded that way before death.  after-death coldness or stiffness does not move anything. 

Rigour doesn't clench the hands?
I thought the muscles contracted, which would make a fist or at least curl the fingers, where it starts.  Does that only happen in *The Death Grip*?  When someone is holding something?

Let's not rule out arthritis.  I can personally attest that arthritic hands are almost always in a cramped position.

there is no reason for fingers to curl under like that just because of death.  but they stiffen however they are left (this whole subject gets very complicated because circumstances of death can vary so much). 

per william -- i know arthritis can disfigure the hand/fingers in any kind of configuration  you can imagine.  andrew may well have had arthritis.  his hands are not deformed though (apparently he was capable of every ordinary use of the hands

but it looks to me like his own habit of resting his hands.  i've seen it before. 

perhaps (considering the way he died) there was a spasm or tremor through the body and the hands clenched?

but what surprises me still is how "undisturbed" the body looks.

You may be on to something Haulover, I found this for what its worth:

"Cadaveric spasm" refers to a kind of instant rigor mortis. After we die, the muscles of the body stiffen, from using up its oxygen supply and because wastes - carbon dioxide and urea - are no longer brought away from the muscle cells. It also has to do with the depletion of muscle enzymes. So, cadaveric spasm is a muscle phenomenon in which some muscles of the body become stiff instantly, rather than in the usual two to eight hours normal rigor takes to develop. The reason for such rapid rigor mortis, usually, is the extreme exertion of the muscles during the act of dying, especially as can happen during a struggle.

So, for instance, when somebody is in a struggle with another person before dying, the hand muscles may go into instant rigor mortis -- like in a mystery novel, when a button is tightly grasped in the hand of the deceased and is found later when the hand is opened. There are cases of people who have collapsed and died of a heart attack while long-distance running, and rigor mortis set in much faster in those cases, because of the depletion of oxygen and buildup of waste that occurs during such stressful exercise.

From this site: http://www.hbo.com/autopsy/baden/qa_5.html

Do you think its possible that Andrew was awake for his killing, saw it coming and did try to struggle to get away or sit up?  Hmmm. 

Well you certainly answered my *Death-grip* question, thanks Susan!
Andrew may have been holding something, like a newspaper.
But the doctor explained that he felt the hand so maybe he moved it in some way.  Do we know exactly when he was there, Dedrick?  He says when he came (after Dolan came and he himself went somewhere first then returned) a crowd had formed.

(Message last edited Dec-13th-03  8:23 PM.)

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't Andrew reading the paper before he fell asleep?

If he had a newspaper when he reclined on the couch, it wasn't there when he was found, right& we would only have Lizzie's say as to whether he had the paper the last she saw of him as Bridget didn't see him on the couch.  (well, she says. )

I've heard a theory that *the newspaper* was used to shield the killer and burned.  With Dr. Dedrick disturbing the hand, I don't know what the result would be as to Andrew's left hand position by 3 p.m.when the pictures were taken.

Dr. Dedrick is in the Trial, vol.III, but I didn't check there, only The Witness Statements.
This doesn't make sense to me.  The doctor wouldn't *palpitate* the hand and then curl the fingers.  A compassionate relative in a melodrama might take the dead man's freshly killed hand and curl his hand around a locket or something.
Somebody explain this to me?
"I think Mrs. Borden was dead first, for when I took hold of her arm, it was cold, clammy, and very stiff. When I took hold of Mr. Borden’s, to look at the blood on his hand, it bent very easily."
Did HE bend the hand!?? Jeesh..




(Message last edited Dec-13th-03  11:30 PM.)

It sounds to me like Dr. Dedrick is refering to Andrew's arm bending easily as he was just talking about Abby's being stiff.  It does make me wonder if they did check Andrew's hands at all to see if there was anything in them, a bit of newspaper, hair,...?  For some reason that picture of Andrew looks odd, I was looking at his face and I'm seeing the Phantom of the Opera, anyone else?

That's an interesting thought. I've seen that picture of Andrew's body several times and have always been awed by the sheer savageness of the attack. Even in B&W it's horrific, but have never thought much about it beyond that.

Kat, I can't remember where but I read that Andrew had sat down to read the paper and fell asleep. I could very well be mistaken.

There is reference to the "paper" by Lizzie in the Witness statements. Harrington's notes of August 4:

"He asked when she had last seen her father, and she replied, "When he returned from the post office with a small parcel in his hand and some mail. He sat down to read the paper and I went out to the barn. I stayed there for twenty minutes and returned and found him dead."

In Lincoln there is another alleged statement by Lizzie which indicates the paper was in the dining room at one point and she brought it out to the kitchen:

"On the first day, Lizzie said that she had been reading an old magazine from the kitchen closet---where they were, in fact, hoarded. As an afterthought, she added that she also went into the dining room for the newspaper; she did not read it, she said, but she did bring it out there, just to have handy. It was the "only time" she left the side of the stove where she sat in the rocker waiting for her slow-heating flats except for the early trip to the w.c. ("only two or three minutes") and the subsequent trip with the wash ("not more than five minutes")."

 



(Message last edited Dec-14th-03  2:20 PM.)

There's nothing to be mistaken about in whether Andrew fell asleep with the paper or had the paper sitting up on the couch.  We have what Lizzie tells us - and then since there is no paper there, and it's hard to believe Lizzie, we'll never know the truth.  It doesn't matter is all I say.  It would only matter if there was proof he held the paper and proof the paper was removed.  I suppose it's so ephemeral a topic, that's why a theory can be built that a newspaper was used to shield the killer. 

I understand your point Susan.  About moving Andrew's arm.  I don't know why he would do that tho when the hand was so accessible.  At least the wrist.

I just checked Dr. Dedrick in the Trial, pg. 833 and he says he was there at 2 p.m. so he's a bust after all.  There's no point in listening to him.  WHy would he point out things to Bowen and to Dolan, when they's been there already for hours.  He sounds like a know-it-all, and if I were Bowen or Dolan I'd roll my eyes at Dedricks observations.  Apparently he was a *new* doctor in Fall River and 7 years a doctor.

Well, I can't say for sure, but, perhaps he was looking for self defense wounds on Andrew's hands as they would probably be on the palm side and not the backs.  I followed your lead and have been checking out his testimony, I mean really, who is this Dr. Dedrick, he is a blip in the trial and no more?  And what does he mean by his statement when he is describing the condition of the blood; Abby's was of a ropy consistency and had coagulated so that it would not run and Andrew's was more of a cozy character?  What in god/dess' good name does that mean?!  He sounds to me like a young upstart, I couldn't find any age attributed to him, but, I'm sure that Dolan and Bowen looked down at him as the "New generation". 

The very fact that he got to the scene around 2 p.m. (he says), and Andrew's blood was now older than Abby's when she was found, I don't see how he can begin to presume to pronounce upon the blood evidence.  Maybe rigor, but not blood.
I think it's possible that Andrew's arm would bend *easily* after 2.5  hours deceased.  Maybe not those fingers tho.  So suppose he didn't manipulate the hand after all.

Yes, from what I've read, rigor hits the extremities first, the face, the hands and the feet.  I still wonder about his curious statement about Andrew's blood condition. 

I read that too.  Maybe it's a misprint.
We need a 19th century doctor on call here you know! 

Well yes, Mark, you've READ that, but that's Lizzie's story, taken as gospel for years.

The PHANTOM comparison is apt!

I'm not a doctor, though I sell patent medicines, but maybe this needs an interpreter instead.  According to the OED, "cosy" (Brit spelling) is of Scots origin (another Scottish tinge to the case!)and means "full of holes, sheltered, snug, or warm."  Assuming the blood was none of the first three, could it have been warm?

But wouldn't taking a newspaper from Andy cause a problem? Or awake him from his nap (it that was so)? How many Masters of Their Household would allow the newspaper to be taken from them?

i know EXACTLY  what you're seeing.  in fact, this is very strange.  this image seems to come in several different versions -- but i'm pretty sure this is all due to the varying technical qualities of the prints used.  i do wish i could see THE BEST ONE.  i think this phantom of the opera version is the only one i've seen where i can see any indication of a left eye.

That's a good interpretation miss lydia.   Since Andrew was dead from 11:15 to 2 p.m. when Dedrick saw him (supposedly) I can't figure out how he thought the description cozy, would apply.

cozy was "oozy"?  and blood on hand was from several people touching the head wounds and taking his pulse?

i see by 2 p.m. blood was not running, but "wet" on hand because of above statement.

remember that even at 2 p.m the difference between the two bodies would have been apparent -- not the same.  and i don't mean anything complicated, i just mean "degrees" of the same.

My first impression was that he meant cozy, as some archaic medical term.  Then I thought it was a misprint of the transcriber.
I think the blood would be as coagulated and not oozing in either case.  Once the blood comes out and sits there and the heart no longer pumps, I doubt it would be a big enough differation after even an hour.
After the skin forms on the blood and it thickens, it's hard to tell the time the blood was let.  It wouldn't be oozing at 2, but it's a good guess for a substitute word!
Rigour would be more likely a dertermination and body temperature.
I do think falling (or rising) body temperature can be guessed at pretty closely by touch.

Thats a good call, Kat and Haulover!  It very well be a misprint and was meant to be oozy?  I just kept looking at that word cozy and thought that there was nothing cozy or cuddly about Andrew at the time.

Hi Lydia Pinkham, welcome to the forum!  Thanks for that description, if it is indeed meant in that way, it makes more sense.

I just said I didn't think cozy warm blood at 2 was viable nor could Andrew's blood look *oozy* at 2 p.m., so I guess I disagree.

Yes, I see what you mean, I was just complementing you two on coming up with that idea, it never occured to me that it might be a misprint.  I'm just trying to figure out a way to put that word into a context that makes some sense to our modern ears, a warm or oozy character, makes more sense, but, really can't be as to the time constraints.  Anyone else have any ideas? 

Yes, I agree those are good choices for interpreting what Dedrick was saying, if only he had said it at 11:30 a.m.!  I think that's our problem and I guess we're stuck with it.
So many doctors, so little information we can use. 

I would imagine room temperature at the indicated time would be somewhere around 75 degrees.  The orignal temperature of Andrew's blood was 98.6, so if the doctor said it was "cozy" (warm), it would have been somewhere between these two temperatures. Yes?

i think too much is being made over this. 

if you look at the obvious difference the doctor is indicating -- he's simply saying "thicker" and "thinner" blood.  yes, at 2 pm andrew's blood should appear to be about like abby's was when she was first discovered.  but abby is still drier at 2 than she was at 11.  i understand about an outer skin forming. but it doesn't stop there.  i think what we're missing is that these doctors are "digging around" in the wounds and with their fingers they would "feel" a difference between the two bodies.

let me put it another way.  had andrew not been discovered until 2 pm -- would they still have been able to tell which one was killed first?  yes.  if not by looking, by feeling.

the stiffness factor is hand-in-hand part-in-parcel with the "dryness" or "wetness" factor.  the stiffness and the wetness are both gradual.

i don't see how that word could be anthing but "oozy."

i think this is actually simple.

i think you're saying that by 2 pm both bodies are virtually the same as least where blood condition is concerned?  i dont' think so.  there's so much of it, for one thing. 

p.s. on my above post:

i don't mean to make difficult "technical" arguments about this.  i'm going by what i remember from my apprentice mortician career (long ago, age 19/20).  i've handled all kinds of dead bodies.  i've seen and touched this stuff we're talking about -- that's all i have to go on.

another curious fact rarely stated but true is that different dead bodies "behave" differently.  one dead body will "cool" quicker than another, or rigor mortis will set in more or less quickly.  i know that "techies" on this have lots of theories but there is really no explaining it beyond the general principle. 

all i think i know with certainty is that the longer a body is dead -- the less moisture there is -- the simple  process of evaporation -- and the more it dries the stiffer it gets.

Great!!!  We may not have a doctor, but we've got the next best thing to a coroner in here!  That experience has to be invaluable to an understanding of the coroner statements.  I don't understand the assumption that a well sharpened weapon was used--the wounds seem more bludgeon than carve in photos and descriptions. What say you?

Didn't Dedrick inspect the bodies earlier, as well?  Could he be (rather unprofessionally, but then, we think he was a rookie) recording those first impressions with those he noted in the afternoon?

no, no, don't give me credit i don't deserve.  and i don't question the type of weapon used.  i just get a sense sometimes that many people have not even seen much less touched a dead body and don't know what it feels like.  i want to remind people that there are "simple" as opposed to "complex" principles at work in that area.  moisture evaporates in time.  mountains made of molehills don't lead anywhere.  that's all i meant to say.  i've said about all i have to offer on that.  i thank you for reading it though, and i do hope you get the gist of my point.  i assisted in an autopsy once but i have no education in it --  please don't compare or "substitute" me for a coroner.  i learned to embalm and other related things -- but i know nothing of forensic science (some people here do know a thing or two whereas i don't) -- i want to make that clear.

i don't know.  since this has come up this way, i'll have to read that part again.  i was thinking he was there "after the facts were known" mainly to serve as another witness --  as opposed to someone who was going to shed new light.

The most important fact of that 111-yr killing are: blood clot and blackens after about 30-40 minutes; and, the stomach contents can estimate times of death.

Compare that to Nicole and Ron: their red liquid blood was trickling down the sidewalk at 12:15am; and, Nicole's stomach was empty (and discarded) while Ron's stomach showed he had eaten something earlier.
If workers are not allowed to eat at their restaurants, this means he went someplace after 10:15pm to dine.