1. "Today In History - August 4"
Posted by rays on Aug-4th-03 at 4:21 PM

1892: Andrew and Abby Borden were axed to death in their home in Fall River, Mass. Lizzie Borden, Andrew Borden's daughter from a previous marriage, was accused of the killings, but acquitted at trial.

This says it all?

No, because the weapon was never definitively identified as axe, hatchet or cleaver (or what-have-you).  Therefore, "axed" is supposition.

YES, because a hatchet can be called an axe (as in the battle-axe favored by the Gauls in Caesar's day, and the Vikings in the Dark Ages). Definitions vary over the millennia. Somebody can review the testimony of the Prosecution's experts.

Aren't you being contrary? Do not expect a reply.

Ray we are all careful to say *Hatchet* which was the determination of the Medical Examiner finally.
But there is not a weapon cited in the Indictments, so no weapon is certifiably The one.

Well, SOMEBODY can also tell you you're full of horseapples, Ray.  A hatchet isn't an axe, the precise weapon was never determined, and the reference to the Gauls was reaching, I'd say.

Was I being contrary?  No, I believe I was merely picking out a flaw in your precis.

Shame on you and your crabapples. The testimony of the Harvard Doctors was that the Borden hatchet "COULD" have inflicted the wounds on Abby & Andy. I surprised that Kat didn't catch this!

"Could" isn't "did."

I referenced the Medical Examiner which was Dolan.
Prelim. 98:
Q.  What were the character of these wounds on Mr. Borden’s face?
A.  Incised, sharp wounds, made by a sharp instrument.
Q.  Taking all you have observed of the character of the wounds, the size of them, and position of them, did you form any opinion as to what sort of an instrument the wounds were made with?
Q.  I should say it was done with a hatchet or a small ax.
A.  Why?
A.  Because the wounds were sharp, necessitating a sharp cutting surface. They were long, some of them four and a half inches. And the force required in breaking the skull, which was a crushing blow would necessitate something that would give you leverage, that is a handle.

--Not *could* have been done, but was done.  Later, the Bulk of the testimonies singles out a hatchet, and the axes drop away from consideration.


(Message last edited Aug-6th-03  2:13 AM.)

Trial
Dr. Draper
1055

Q.  Can you express it so we can understand it, in common language?
A.  I should think that where this skull in its thinnest part is a mere shell, in the same part of Mrs. Borden's skull it would measure a sixteenth part of an inch. In the thicker portions I think there was not a material difference.

Q.  What in your opinion, doctor, was the cause of these wounds?
A.  Blows upon the head with an edged instrument or weapon of considerable weight, supplied with a handle.

Q.  Whether a hatchet would be consistent with the description that you have given?
A.  Yes, sir.
.......
--Draper is then asked:
Q.  In your opinion could the results you found have been produced by the use of an ordinary hatchet in the hands of a woman of ordinary strength?
A.  In my opinion they could, sir.
..................

It seems uncomfortably as though you are baiting me Ray, and I wish you would reconsider.  Thanks

(Message last edited Aug-6th-03  2:14 AM.)

No, I am just throwing the ball to you. You do have the complete transcripts handy, and love to look these things up.

Didn't David Kent call this the "Harvard Perjury" in saying the hatchet found in the cellar "COULD" have been used when they new a fairly new hatchet (gilt paint) WAS actually used?

THANKS AGAIN for your wonderful researching skills.
Some people have ideas, others can check up on them.

I think you might have an unusual idea of what I do around here.  I'm not necessarily your personal researcher when you neglect to look things up yourself.
I just happen to like people to do their own work or help others who hit a snag.  That is my preference.  I also enjoy comraderie and the chance to learn from others as well as guide people to sources.  This place is a great way to experience the discipline of research.  It may not be wholly original, but our ideas are.
I am trying to guide you to sources.  I have been asked by a few that are curious...do you have or have you read the source documents?
Since they are as available to you as they are to anyone, why not try them and update your info?
If you refuse to avail yourself of them, what does that say about you, or what does that mean?
I would like to know how you perceive your role here.
Is it to learn and to share?  Or do you believe you are teaching us something?
I would write you personally but I don't think you would reply and I am really curious.

ray:

not to get in between anything if someone was misunderstood, pissed off, or whatever -- but (and this is without any prior rancor between the two of us that i can recall) -- i'm not asking through kat, or for her or because of her -- but after extensively going through the archive here on the brown theory -- unless i missed something (and i wouldn't be surprised) i gather that there is the flimsiest bit of "maybe something" in the actual case records to get the brown theory off the ground.  (is the guy who pops up in the witness statements trying to rent a coach, or seen near the house has a red face, seen in woods with a hatchet saying poor mrs. borden -- does he have anything to do with it?)  i'm not being sarcastic.  i'm serious.  did mr. brown ever have the written statement from the mr. hawthorne he refers to?

if the answer to the above is no or perhaps -- why are you only interested in defending the brown theory?  and why are you disinterested in the trial transcripts, the inquest, the witness statements -- that are all here free of charge?

i don't personally have anything against anyone being devoted to a particular theory, by the way.

Thank you for your kindness to a total stranger.
I became interested in this case when I found AR Brown's book while looking for a more recent case. The most important thing was the condition of the blood of the victims: black and clotted for Abby (dead over 2 hours), red and liquid for Andy (dead less than 30 mintes).
The OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE was to the Nicole S Brown and Ron Goldman murders. When the police found their bodies at 12:15am, their blood was trickling down the sidewalk. Killed after 11:30, I deduced.
I later found that the long censored testimony of the Medical Examiner who did the autopsies "forensic evidence puts their death after 11PM".
I started on this site over 3 years ago. I wanted to find out if AR Brown's book arguments could be refuted. None could. Yes, there are and will be differences about the weight of facts and deductions. But his theory (from H Hawthorne and Ellan Eagan) best matched the known facts and explained the known discrepancies. IMO

I like to think of myself as AR Brown's advocate. I hope I have been able to suggest insights into this case. I would really like to have read AR Brown's original 1100 page book, before truncated for popular publication.
Note the Inquest and Trial Transcript say little about things not introduced into the trial. Andy's buying of that house, his character, etc. Wouldn't somebody like that have enemies?

Kat does seem to have a lavish set of documents. But nobody has found that 1963(?) edition of "Trial of LB". It split the decision and was a response to the Radin and Pearson books.
Feel free to do what you want with my postings, reply or not. But if you find "testimony" to back up, or contradict, that is educational.
Posting the comments her allow others to comment as well. I believe that a dozen amateurs can do more than one "professional writer" who has a budget and schedule to keep.

This is a good example of having others in the conversation. IF the Inquest and Trial Transcript tell everything, it is that Lizzie was unjustly accused, and was innocent (or not guilty) of killing her father and step-mother. Case Closed!!!
But we do know that what seemed a closed case (Oswald shoots JFK) can be questioned when more information if available afterwards.

AR Brown had the handwritten notes of Henry Hawthorne. Then did his research with others from Fall River: "Acknowledgments".

My comment is this: Henry Hawthorne lived on Wm S Borden's farm, and knew him. Henry never visited the Bordens. Ellan Eagan passed by the house that murder morn, but didn't know Wm S Borden. These facts could be enough to get a conviction in many courts.

The weakness in Brown is the fact that Ellan never told about that man at the time. IF she did, the case may have been closed. Brown sort of dances around Ellan's failure to communicate; but I believe it. Some of you may not. But that's what makes this interesting.

Arnold R Brown was NOT a professional literary writer. Like Pearson, Radin, Spiering, etc. His was the "home-town boy makes good" story. I believe his was that of a hobbyist, not a professional.
Masterton is similar, but his work seems to be aimed to deny the reality of the black clotted blood of Abby, because of its relevance to the Simpson-Goldman murders. A hatchet job, in my opinion.

(Message last edited Aug-8th-03  2:41 PM.)

seems to me all the writers who insist they have "solved" it have to use hearsay or the equivalent to explain crucial factors such as motivations, etc. 

i've been thumbing through victoria lincoln's book lately, for example.  she asks us to believe that lizzie's motivation that morning was knowledge that andrew was signing over the swansea farm to abby (former property incident all over again).  her evidence?  that her family knew about it, they were connected to the bank, "everyone" at the bank knew about it -- meaning, she knows but no one else would because you had to be "in" to know these local facts.

radin doesn't try to solve it, he just tries to clear lizzie by pointing at bridget -- merely to say, that she "could have" as well.  he interviewed people who had been alive at the time.  but then he was very selective.

as far as the condition of the two bodies -- i'm sure that would have been obvious to anyone there to see it at the time -- the difference, i mean.  it's also obvious that if lizzie didn't do it, she knew who did (which makes her guilty anyway, basically).  if she was covering up for the bastard son (regardless of reasons one may speculate about) -- it is something i don't believe i would have done.

have you seen this from witness statements?  is this william borden?

August 18, 1892.  8:30 o'clock P.M. Joseph Lemay of North Steep Brook reports that about 5:30 o'clock this afternoon, while in the woods about a mile from his house, he heard somebody say "too bad about Mrs. Borden."  Looking around to his left, he saw a man sitting down on a stone.  Mr. Lemay asked him if he was tired.  The man made no reply, but took up a small hatchet and commenced to grind his teeth.  Mr. Lemay says that "he had some spots of blood on what was once a white shirt, three drops."  His coat sleeves were pulled up, so that the wrist bands of his shirt could be seen, and there was some blood on both of them.  They looked at each other for some minutes, when the man got up, jumped a wall, and went in a northerly direction.  Description:  30 or 35 years of age, height about five feet three inches, 140 pounds weight, brown mustache, quite good size, face looked as though he had not been shaved in two or three weeks. Dressed in black coat, dark pants, laced shoes, black derby hat, torn on top.  Looked as though he had been having hard times recently, as he was a hard looking customer.  Investigated by A. Perron, August 17, 1892, and finds it as reported as above.

there are several witnesses to who could be the same man.  i've thought of posting them all together, but i don't know what we could do with them as they don't connect with incident at the borden house that morning.  general description:  sunburned, "red" face, derby hat, dark clothes, limped leaned to left, (bad impression in general). 

i guess "leap of faith" is phrase i'm looking for -- all the writers who "solve" it have to use it.

I would imagine that after any murder there are people who "saw" the murderer. The job of the police is to interview them and weight their statements against the known facts.

I once saw this on either the original "Dragnet" or another police show in the 1980s. They are looking for a suspect. They ask one guy if he saw a "tall red-headed man going by". "No, but I did see and average looking man with brown hair and a mustache go by." This latter WAS the correct description; the question was deliberatly misleading to rule out false clues. Or, as another fictional policeman said "we may act stupid to see if you are trying to outsmart us". Not to mention other simulations.

How much weight to give to these eye-witnesses? That's your choice as a jury of one. But I wonder about the physical description: did it match William S Borden?

AR Brown also talks about the "suicide" of Wm S Borden. Doesn't this suggest he really put some time and thinking into his book?