The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "is this a spot I see before me?"
Posted by adminlizzieborden on Jan-8th-02 at 9:27 PM

By harry on Friday, 12/14/2001 - 01:55 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting exchange between Adams and Dr. Dolan in the Preliminary concerning the blood spots in the sitting room. (page 175) It's a bit long:

Q. I suppose that would mean that it would be liable to strike the hair, if the person had nothing on the head; that is it would be liable to strike the upper part of the body or person then exposed?
A. Yes sir, but I do not think a great deal in taking that position, the position of Mr. Borden, and giving the position I have stated of the assailant. There were no spots went, hardly, in that direction, that is as far as we could see, and I do not think many went, that we have not seen that is, towards the parlor; so the assailant might not get scarcely any spots, if any.
Q. Do you mean to put yourself on record as saying the assailant could stand there, and not get less than ten spots on his clothes and hair?
A. Not many of them, because it is the other way, towards his feet and on the wall.
Q. Are not they on the wall directly above his head in a semi circle?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Would not that show they followed the direction of the ax as they left the wound?
A. No sir, just the opposite.
Q. Followed the ax after it left the wound?
A. No, those spots on the wall right above his head I think were done by the first blow severing some artery that gave those; I do not think they were done by an ax.

That last sentence intrigues me. If not an ax, then what? As usual the comment is not pursued.

Also I believe the assailant (85% sure its Lizzie) came through the parlor door not the dining room door. The parlor door opens into the sitting room so she could strike more quickly. She could also look or peek into the sitting room ahead of time more easily. I also think the first one or more blows were from the rear but a number were struck facing Andrew's prone body.

 
By harry on Friday, 12/14/2001 - 02:16 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oops, I goofed. The parlor door opens into the parlor not into the sitting room. However, I believe it is still easier to strike from the parlor than the sitting room.

 
By doug on Friday, 12/14/2001 - 11:50 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Dr. Dolan says in his last answer "I do not think they were done with an ax," I believe he is referring to the semi-circle of blood spots on the wall above Andrew's head. Dolan says he thinks the spots were caused by "the first blow severing some artery," not by drops of blood following "the direction of the ax as they left the wound." He does not say the wounds were not caused by an ax; rather that the semi-circle of blood spots on the wall were not caused by the backswing of an ax trailing blood.

 
By harry on Saturday, 12/15/2001 - 12:35 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Doug. Now that I read it with that in mind it makes a lot more sense.

I think it's also significant in that Dolan believes the assailant would have had gotten very little blood upon himself during the attack on Andrew.

 
By kat on Saturday, 12/15/2001 - 02:07 am [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That parlour has ALWAYS intruigued me--no one goes in or out...the doors are kept closed, Bridget doesn't enter it to wash windows...it's like a forgotten room! I think that parlour has a LOT to do with the mystery!

 
By doug on Saturday, 12/15/2001 - 07:58 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea that the assailant was able to avoid being spattered with blood is puzzling to me despite the testimony. Andrew's wounds were substantial and assuming use of a short handled weapon the attacker was very close to him. It would seem that blood spattering, or at the very least smearing, was unavoidable. Which, of course, raises all the familiar questions about stains on the attacker's person and clothing and whether some kind of shielding material was employed.

 
By raystephanson on Sunday, 12/16/2001 - 07:12 pm [Edit] [Reply] [Msg Link]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR Brown's book says the killer put on a duster (a long coat used when traveling on horse or carriage to keep dust off clothes) when he left the house. This may have been so common as to avoid notice (my opinion).

No one (except Ellan Eagan) saw him, or Andrew leaving his home; but there are some people who can walk by without attracting notice. Sort of like an "invisible man" in GK Chesterton's famous story.