1. "Andrew's Final Moments"
Posted by star angelo on May-24th-03 at 10:33 AM

When the murderer struck Abby, she was in a standing position in the spare room and hit from behind.. is this the general consensus? From the photos I've seen of Andrew, he appears to be in a sitting position on the couch, not lying down having a rest. His shoes are on his feet and are planted on the ground, his fists appear to be clenched, as if in conversation. Also, wasn't his coat found under his head? Why would he rest his head on his coat? When Andrew was struck, did the attacker hit the front of his head or the side by the sitting room door? Is there information about this?

Stef was just getting deeply into this aspect of the attack on Andrew 2 nights ago on the phone with me.
I think there is still question, as to whether Andrew was attacked from the front or from behind over the arm of the sofa.  And whether the blows were left-handed or from a right-handed person. 
I compared it to Jack the Ripper, where for so long it was thought, I believe because of one coronor, that the attacker was left-handed and approached from the front.  I had always maintained that the same evidence (except maybe from a thumprint bruise?) could show an attack from behind by a right-handed person.
It seems there is no paralell after all.  She had convinced me that, with Andrew at least, a left-handed attack would probably look the same, coming from in front OR from behind.
(Those of you who have attempted to re-enact this phenomenon may understand more fully than me)
I know some here think one way and some think along the lines of the testimony of the experts.  Unfortunately, I am one to think the experts of the day are probably upon who I have to rely.  It depends on your vision.  I think a case can be made either way, especially since I can be deflated by the knowledge (From the Knowlton Papers letters) that certain evidence of the attacks was suppressed.

As to Abby, I do have a concerted opinion:  That she and her attacker were at one point face to face, or at least Abby's face was turned enough to the attacker that her first wound was to the side of her face-- that glancing wound which left a flap of skin holding on a good-sized chip off the left side face near her ear.
Authors posit that the blows must have then fallen so fast and furious that she had no time to scream, and some also use this small gap of time to pose the query:  did Abby know her attacker?

It's a provocative first post, and welcome here!...hope to hear your evolving thoughts on this.

(Message last edited May-24th-03  2:09 PM.)

Hi, Star! Welcome to the Forum!  You might want to take a few minutes to go through earlier posts on the subject of the elder Bordens' wounds, Andrew's coat, etc., which are archived here, and also have a look at:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/

Sounds as if you've done some reading already. 

  Hi Star Angelo, welcome to the forum! 

Looking at my edit time, I'd say Edisto & I crossed in the mail!

hello, star angelo.

it was generally believed for a long time that the attacker struck from behind in the doorway.

but other theories maintain that the spray of blood would be in the direction where the axe was raised -- in which case, you would expect more blood on andrew's shirt and legs.  stefani's question about blood on the door jamb also works into this.

you've hit on an important subject though.  the jacket under his head, for example; did the murderer place it there after the deed?  we've talked a lot about that.  were there sprays of blood on that jacket (as if it had been worn)?  answer inconclusive.

i wish i had more to offer on it, but recently i've come to think more and more than the killer faced andrew.  maybe kat knows more about this, but i've never been clear on why it was thought the killer stood in the doorway behind his head based on the blood evidence itself or if there was another reason.

And there is the arguement about who could lay like that
to take a nap -- I myself think it is fine. I'm not a
seventy-something person with a hernia, but, who can
tell -- it may have been the only way he could rest.


And, welcome Star Angelo

Hey Kimberly I'm all for to each their own resting position.. but don't you find it a bit odd that his legs and feet (including the shoes) are indicative of an upright position.. unless he was so exhausted from the chores of an hour or two in town that he just plopped over out of sheer exhaustion!!

That got me to thinking -- what did Lizzie say she did?
She helped him get comfortable or something -- but I can't
remember if she said she left him sitting up or what.
Anybody remember offhand?

I've done The Andy Couch Test myself & passed (or failed) -- it
seemed like it was a normal way to lay down. It looks odd. But he
sure didn't look like he was up fighting with the killer. If
he was laying down when he was hit the killer/weapon would have
probably had to work harder becuase he wasn't on a firm surface.
Does that make any sense? Abby with the floor beneath her would
have been maybe quicker to kill but Andrew would have sunk down
into the couch when he was being hit? Y'all know what I mean?

I don't have much insight as to the attack on Andrew being from any direction.  I just rely on the *experts* at the time, because I figure they know their job, and would be on the spot and therefore have a concerned and informed opinion.  (This I don't have).
Has anyone checked the Undertaker's personal opinion on how Andrew was killed?

I'd always bought the Lincoln "Lizzie, behind the sofa, with the coat" theory until I read about Eric Stedman's research, and Dave Rehak's work, as well.  I have to say I currently believe Andrew was in a sitting position when he was attacked, from the front, though he may or may not have been awake.  I tend to believe Lizzie when she says she heard a groan - I think she caused it.

As far as I know, the whack from the doorway was INVENTED by Robert Sullivan as a way to explain the lack of bloodstains on Lizzie. This is an example of letting theory drive the facts, NOT the other way around. (Refer to Earle Stanley Gardner's intro to "Mostly Murder" by Sir Stanley Smith (right names?)

If you assume somebody is guilty, then you will twist the facts to support the conclusion. Let the facts guide you.

As I recall, Eric Stedman thought Andrew was standing when he was attacked, and I never believed the evidence supported that, especially if Lizzie was the killer.  Andrew was so much taller that I think he would have had an advantage and perhaps overpowered her, even sick as he was.  Eric's forte is stagework, and I think a standing Andrew would probably have had more dramatic effect, for sure, reeling about and clutching his head until he plopped onto the sofa.  I agree with Kat that the police in 1892 were much closer to the case, and I tend to accept their view of things.  However, IMHO, the position of Andrew's feet does look as if he might have been about to get up when attacked.  (I don't recall that the undertaker was asked about the angle of attack, but perhaps he was.)

I think the feet in the photo say Andy was sitting upright when whacked on the left side of his head, the force knocking him over.
But if the body was repositioned before the photo, who knows?

ray:

that's interesting.  i've wondered why, because if he was attacked from behind around that doorway -- why is there little or no blood on his shirt or even further down?  i thought victoria lincoln invented it.

bob:

i've often speculated that lizzie's "groan, distressing sound, scraping sound" had something to do with what she heard as she struck andrew.  or heard the murder as someone else did it.  lately i'm thinking again she's guilty.  as for a hitman theory -- how does one stay inside the house with a hitman and not fear for your life?  and if the whole thing was over with by the time she realized what was going on -- how to explain not hearing abby fall?  there was a thread about abby falling not too long ago -- my sense was it isn't possible not to hear that inside that house.

one fact it is hard for a suspect to get around is this:  who benefits?

Haulover, if she set up the whole thing she wouldn't be fearing
for her life, she knew the hitman that Uncle John brought.

In the Preliminary Hearing, Dr. Dolan bases his opinion on where the assailant stood to attack Andrew, by the blood evidence.  I doubt Sullivan made stuff up on this subject, especially when Radin had access to Jennings notes and the Prelim. as early as 1961, whereas Sullivan wrote in 1974.
In short, the info was available probably to Sullivan.

Prelim.
Dolan
174
Q.  Where in your opinion, taking the case of Mr. Borden, and these spots that you have described on the kitchen door, on the inner frame of the dining room door the farthest from the head, on the semi circular appearance of the more circular range of spots on the wall, and spots on the kitchen door, and on the frame of it farthest from the dining room, together with the direction of the blow, and the place of the blow on Mr. Borden’s head, did the assailant of Mr. Borden stand, or put himself, when he delivered these blows?
A.  I think he stood behind him, behind his head.
Q.  Between the head of the sofa and the parlor door?
A.  Yes sir.
Q.  Whereabouts, right close to the sofa, or some little way from it?
A.  I should judge some little way from it, though I don’t know. It might be right up to the sofa, I would not say that, because his head was in a foot at least from the outside of the end of the arm.
Q.  You put this assailant there?
A.  I should think he stood in a position about midway in the dining room door.
Q.  Midway of the opening of the dining room door, but not in the dining room door?
A.  Not necessarily; but I think is that position.

---
Now, by the time of page 382, Prof. Wood determined that the string of *blood* on the dining room doorframe was probably not blood and then says that stain was what gave him the idea the assailant stood near/at the dining room door:

Q.  Have you formed any theory as to the position in which the assailant stood when the blow was given?
A.  There was only one thing that would throw the slightest light on that to my mind, that was a long stain an inch and 3/4 or two inches long, on the dining room door frame.
Q.  You saw that?
A.  Yes Sir, that looked like a blood stain. It struck me it would have been impossible for that stain to have been made, except from a point somewhere in the dining room. It is only guess work. It occurred to me that probably it fell from the instrument which was used.
Q.  And the person stood in the dining room when they were giving the blow?
A.  Yes Sir, the first blow. That was the only thing which would throw, to my mind, any light on it.
Q.  Do you recall this spot now presented to you on the dining room frame, as similar to the one you saw?
A.  Yes Sir. It looked to me like blood at that time. There is no light here. What I want to get is sky light. (Mr. Wood goes to the window in the next room, and looks at the spot.) It does not look like a blood stain to me now.
Q.  What does it look like?
A.  I do not know.
Q.  Tobacco?
A.  I do not know; it is a yellowish stain.
............
--By 383, Wood is ready to account for the parlour door spots, which again places the assailant near the dining room door.
(Prof. Wood evaluated the D.R. doorway stain on the stand and at that time made his determination).

383
Q.  Did you observe the parlor door, which was the door opposite the head of the sofa?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Were there any spots upon it then?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you examine those spots in a way to get a general notion of their situation and appearance?
A.  I looked at them.
Q.  Would those spots, taking the theory that you have advanced, naturally come from there in consequence of a blow stuck by a person standing inside the dining room?
A.  They might have. They might have come from the position here, on the head of the lounge or sofa.
Q.  Is there anything to conflict with the theory that the assailant, whoever it was that gave these blows, stood behind, and inside the sitting room?
A.  I know of nothing, except of course they could not have passed through the assailant's body. The assailant stood between that and the door.
Q.  That the spots could not?
A.  No, the blood that made the spots.
Q.  Suppose it was lifted, and rained down upon the body of Mr. Borden they might have gone over the head of the assailant, and gone upon the parlor door?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  That would be a natural thing to happen?
A.  Yes Sir, if the assailant stood between the door and the body.
Q.  From your knowledge of the flowing of the blood, would not you think it would be natural and probable that the assailant would receive more or less blood upon his person and clothes?
A.  I should say it was impossible for him not to.
Q.  They would naturally come upon what part of the body? Assuming that the assailant stood in the rear and behind the head of this sofa; what part of the body would naturally be covered by spots?
A.  Any part. I should think any of the upper part of the body.
Q.  Hands, clothes, neck, face, hair, or anything that was exposed about the locality of the head of the sofa?
A.  Yes Sir.

--I think he is saying that the positioning of the assailant CAN be at the head of the lounge, as long as the figure of that person did not block the blood that was flung onto the parlour door.
...............

James Winwood, Undertaker
387
Q.  Can you give us any description of the wounds upon Mr. Borden's face, as to the direction?
A.  Well, I should think they were given from behind; as I looked at them, I judged they were.
........

--These are opinions of experts.  On these people I rely.  However the operative word is "I".  I doubt I could argue anyone out of a belief that Andrew may have been attacked from the front, nor would I try..


(Message last edited May-29th-03  11:33 PM.)

Dr. Draper's trial testimony is that in his opinion Andrew was attacked from the head of the couch. ie: from the dining room door area. (page 1057)

Almost all of Dr. Cheever's testimony is based on that same assumption.

I don't know of any theory that was put forward in the trial other than that. 

Since these are the people (Dolan, Wood, Draper, Cheever) who examined the actual wounds and marks on the skulls I have to go with their opinions.

After it finally dawned on me that it was a big old hatchet
that done it & not a little meat cleaver it makes
sense now that it could have been done over the arm of the
couch like that. Maybe there was two people in the room --
one knocked him down & the other got the hatchet?
And it does seem strange that he didn't clutch or cover
his face if he was awake -- isn't that an automatic thing?
Murder victims are usually covered in arm cuts from trying
to defend themselves. That first blow must have been a doozey.

That's a good point about defensive wounds.
It's a bit odd that Abby had none either but her arms and hands were found encircling, but not touching, her head/facial area.
I can just puicture her reeling around while throwing her hands up to her face, but by then her back was turned and she was from then on defenseless.

Forensic science, of which I know very little, tells us to seek a logical and simple explanation when we assess a crime scene. This seems reasonable to me. I am of the firm opinion that elaborations tend to get us into trouble.

I believe Andrew and Abby were completly unaware of the attacks. The lack of defensive wounds tends to support that theory. I believe Andrew was reclining and sleeping, or dozing, and Abby's assailant sneaked up behind her to deliver the tell-tale blows.

I enjoyed Stedmans scenarios immensely, but I believe they were just that -  good theater.

Where are you Eric? Why don't you talk to us? We miss you.

IMHO, One of the bigger puzzles in the case, and there are many puzzles, is why nobody heard Abby's heavy body hit the floor.  Even if one were outside, but close to, the house, I would think she would have literally shaken it if she had fallen from a standing position.  That's why I think it's worth considering that she might have gone down on all fours and tried to get under the bed.  If I were cornered between the bureau and the bed, already wounded and with with no other avenue of escape, I think that's what I would do, rather than stand there and let the attacker strike me down.  Of course, there wasn't much space under that bed, and Abby's bulk got in her way too.  However, I doubt if someone in Abby's position would get a yardstick and measure the max. headroom before trying it.

Consider this: Nemesis throws something on the floor, and when Abby gets down to pick it up, she is violently attacked w/o warning.

The "Father Brown" method of envisioning the crime?

OK, the only source that I knew about was R Sullivan's 1974 book. I never saw that transcript. Aside from bloodstains and spatter, what are the facts to support this theory?

As Judge Dewey said, the "expert" always present his theory to support the side that hired him. Then or now.

"Nemesis throws something on the floor, and when Abby gets down to pick it up, she is violently attacked w/o warning."

Ha!  Knowing Abby, it was probably a cookie!

I'm fairly confident about the murderer NOT standing at the head of the couch when I read about where the blood stains were found, no matter what Dolan thought about the wounds, actually.  He was not an accredited forensic physician, after all - how many savage murders did he deal with in his career, I wonder?   



(Message last edited May-30th-03  4:53 PM.)

I was wondering if the reason that they gave the direction of the cuts on Andrew's head as from behind is the cuts on his skull, would there be a more pronounced opening in the wound towards where the top of the ax or hatchet would strike first, further away from the murderer's hand?  I just tried a little experiment and looking down on my sofa, striking with a meat cleaver, the end of the cleaver that was furthest from my hand struck first, so that would be the deeper, more pronounced cut than the end that is closer to the handle.  Does that make sense?  Is this what the doctors used to determine the direction the cuts were made from?   

Knowlton Papers, Glossary,( partial )
"DOLAN, WILLIAM ANDREW 1858 - 1922:
...In 1892, he was appointed medical examiner for the Third District in Bristol County, Massachusetts, and as such was the medical officer in charge of the Borden murder case, testifying in that capacity at both the preliminary and final trials of Miss Lizzie A. Borden." ....
.........

Prelim., 88
Q.  (Mr. Knowlton)  William A. Dolan is your name?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You are the Medical Examiner, Doctor?
A.  Yes.
Q.  How long have you been Medical Examiner?
A.  A year last month.
Q.  And you are also a practising physician?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  And have had a good many autopsies?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  And have had some experience in surgery, besides?
A.  Yes Sir.
.............
111
Q.  (By Mr. Adams.)  I understood you to say you had been medical examiner a year?
A.  Yes Sir, about.
Q.  Had you any particular experience in surgery before that time?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  That is, do you make the department of surgery your specialty?
A.  I do not exactly make it a specialty, but I do considerable in that line.
Q.  You do not claim to do any more surgery than any other sort of practice? You do the general physician’s practice?
A.  General physician yes.
Q.  Such things as you did in this case, you did as Medical Examiner?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Your duties in that direction, as you understand it, are derived from the Statute?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  As a Medical Examiner have you ever had an autopsy in a homicide case before?
A.  I do not know whether you would call it a homicide, there was a case here--
Q.  Whether since you were Medical Examiner you have had a case of homicide before?
A.  I would say yes.
Q.  How many?
A.  One.
Q.  What one was that?
A.  Do you mean the name?
Q.  Yes, for the purpose of identification.
A.  It was on the body of a woman named Catherine O’Conner.
Q.  What was the cause of her death?
A.  Concussion of the brain.
Q.  Due to what, in your opinion?
A.  Due to beating by her husband.
(Mr. Knowlton.)  Has that case been tried?
A.  He has been convicted yes sir.
..............

--Info on Dr. Dolan and his experience.  Yes, Susan, apparently here is another murder you can account for, I know you were asking.
--Dolan wasn't the only expert to be of the opinion as to angle of attack.
The undertaker's opinion I  also find interesting.
--I suppose a Medical Examiner has to start somewhere.

Thanks, Kat.  As always, wonderful information.  So, he has one murder autopsy under his belt before he examined the elder Bordens, and a head trauma at that.  What a doozy of a second case! 

More info for you Susan.  Maybe this would help you decipher those arrest records.

Rebello, pg. 61:
"In 1892, Fall River had a diverse population of 83,026. There were at least eighteen ethnic groups and nationalities representing twenty-three countries. At the time, the Fall River textile mills produced 70 percent of the nation's cloth. It was also the year streetcars began operating with electric power.

Fall River police records for 1892 show that most arrests were for drunkenness (1,209), disturbing the peace (429), assault and battery (390), common nuisance (189), and neglecting to support the family (109). Occupations of those arrested included weavers (425), laborers (195), housekeepers (195), saloon keepers (176), and spinners (171). It was also the year when three violent murders were recorded, two of which were Abby Durfee Gray Borden and Andrew Jackson Borden, August 4, 1892.

Sources
'Fall River Census,' New Bedford Evening Standard, June 27, 1893: 1.
'Annual Report of the City Marshal for the Year Ending December 31, 1892,' City Documents, No. 45, Fall River, Massachusetts, 1892, 250-251.
Fenner, Henry M., History of Fall River, New York: Smiley Publishing Co., 1906, 146."

Thanks, Kat.  So, it appears there was only 1 other violent murder that year that may have possibly made front page news.  I wonder who it was?  Bertha Manchester's murder happened the following year, didn't it? 

I still can't decipher that one with Bridget in it, can't make out that one word.  Maybe it was "Assault on wife, Bridget"  added as she may have been the one to make the complaint? 

I know a good upholsterer, but unfortunately she doesn't live in your neck of the woods.

The murder rates can be found in "World Almanac" at Public Library or bookstore. A murder rate of about 3 per 100,000 is about what it is today's world. "Your rates may vary."

Thanks, Edisto!    I've been using one of those styrofoam wig heads as a stand-in, still haven't actually given it a whack yet.  So, the sofa is safe for now.