1. "Another twist on the poison theory"
Posted by harry on Dec-26th-03 at 3:10 PM

This is part of a paragraph in Joyce Williams' Casebook of Family and Crime in the 1890's, page 60:

"DEAD BEFORE THE BUTCHERY.

A New Bedford Man's Theory of the Small, Flow of Blood.

Josiah A. Hunt, keeper of the house of correction, who has had an extensive experience as an officer of the law in this city, in speaking of the tragedy advanced a theory which has thus far escaped the notice of the police, or, if it has not, they are putting the public on the wrong scent.
Said Mr. Hunt: "It is my opinion that both Mr. Borden and his wife were dead before the murderers struck a blow, probably poisoned by the use of prussic acid, which would cause instant death. The use of a hatchet was simply to mislead those finding the bodies. I believe this to be the real state of the case, for if they had been alive when the first blow was struck, the action of the heart would have been sufficient to have caused the blood to spatter more freely than is shown from the accounts furnished by the papers. There was altogether too much of a butchery for so little spattering of blood."

That's an interesting theory.  I can't see by what means Lizzie, assuming she's the killer, would administer the poison.  It would account for the relatively low amount of blood. 

I can't accept it though since I believe it was Lizzie who tried to buy the Prussic acid the day before and was unsucessful.

*** It was Hunt who had Bridget in his charge awaiting the trial.

I think this is also in Rebello's "Past & Present".  It is interesting.  But she never got the prussic acid, whether it was or wasn't Lizzie going around town trying to get it (I think it was her, too).  As soon as the fatal blow was struck, the heart would have stopped and caused less blood to spurt, right?  That's why I vote for someone like a butcher doing it.

I think Lizzie tried to poison them with arsenic like on Tuesday night and wasn't successful, for whatever reason time was running out, and she had the deed done. 

My notes in my copy show the date of this article as August 8, 1892, Fall River Daily Herald.  That's Monday right?  I don't think Bridget went to Hunt's yet, she was still working days as of Monday at the Borden's wasn't she?  (She only missed Sunday so far).
That only means that Hunt's opinion probably wasn't based on, as yet, knowing Bridget.  He might have got it from the newspapers?
I wonder how many early letters to Knowlton mentioned their writers belief prussic acid was used?

Both victims hearts were exposed to the killer who chose instead to hit them on the head/face.  Probably both Andrew and Abby's first blows were facial.  That is more *personal* than a butcher.  That is even more *personal* than poison.  And not practical first blows, because they didn't kill instantly.

I had read a lot about poisoners and remarked earlier that their main motive does not seem to be death, either instant or otherwise:  It is to enjoy the victim's suffering.  A poisoner is a different breed of character than a person who slashes a face and kills within a minute or two.

That is why Lizzie cannot be a poisoner and a hatchet-wielder.
So if one believes she tried poison, that is usually long-term commitment- and no hatchet job.
If Lizzie wielded the hatchet and obliterated their mien- no poison.

The Friday, August 5th New Bedford Evening Standard, which I'm sure Hunt must heave read, had the headlines:  ASKED FOR POISON. Druggist Identifies Miss Borden as the Person.

I mentioned Hunt only in the context that he was Bridget's eventual keeper, certainly not that he formed any opinions from her, then or ever.

However, the theory itself is interesting.  That was my point.

F Lee Bailey's "Defense Never Rests" explains why a conviction based on eye-witness testimony alone is likely to be in error.

"Look-alikes" often exist in the mind of the beholder! (Ever read of the descriptions of eye-witnesses to any crime?)

That is odd because the article of the 8th states it's a poison theory which so far seemed to elude the police.
Then thanks for the newer cite as to the papers reporting a possible poison connection on the 5th.
I wonder why they would feature Hunt's opinion, if he was as yet unacquainted with Bridget?  See, I was confused.  sorry

I have had food poisoning twice very badly in my life and I recall that it came upon me very quickly almost exactly 12 hours after ingestion of the suspicious food.  Maybe minus an hour.
So I was looking at Bridget's Prelim testimony to find out what the Borden's ate Tuesday morning.  I can't find what they ate.
Dr. Bowen, in Inquest 115, says Abby told them they started vomitting around 9 p.m.  To me, that might mean what they ate around 7 - 9 a.m. would be the suspicious food, rather than the fish they had at noon meal or later,again, for supper.
They would be weakened and dehydrated on Wednesday, that's for sure.  In an older man, in the city heat, walking on Thursday, Andrew may have been a tad still woozy or even disoriented.