The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "Alternative Weapon? Knowlton Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jan-12th-02 at 8:09 PM

"June 1, 1894 (sic)
Mr. Knowlton
Sir.  I see by the papers that the trial of Miss Borden is to commence the 5th inst.

If the evidence has been published correctly I think that the gov' hav made a mistake on one point that may be an serious injury to their case.

The papers asserted that it was claimed that the murderer MUST have stood astride of the victim and have used a broad bladed axe with a short handle, and have struck downward square blows as a man would in striking on the TOP of a log or low block.

If you believe that a woman can strike a dozen such blows and leave such wounds as have been described in Mrs. Borden's skull, let your wife try it on a thin-barked green log and then peel off the bark and see the result on the log.  No one but an expert axeman could have handled an axe so described with the result described, and he must have been spattered with blood.  But if the murderer had stood BESIDE his victims. and have used a thin bladed sharp axe like a lathing hatchet or a bell faced carpenters finishing hatchet, or what is more probable an ICE hatchet* with a straight stick for a handle perhaps 18" long and ground sharp as many families have about their refrigerators, and if the blows had been given in a hacking manner at arms length using only the front corner of the hatchet, the wounds in the bone would have been as described even to the change of direction of one or two of them, and might have had a tendency to throw the blood away from the assassin and would not have required a great outlay of strength.

The weapon might have been thrown into the water tank or carried away.  ('by Miss Russell' =crossed out).

It seems to me that ('she' =crossed out) if Miss Borden is quilty (sic) she is not alone but that the murders must be a result of a conspiracy of which both sisters are parties and with one or more confederates perhaps both male and female.

I thought that I would drop you these lines as they might assist you.  For it seemed to me that the police were depending more upon the opinions of professiounal men rather than upon those who had any practical knowledge of the handling of axes or hatchets and that you would lose your case in consequence.

Please do not allow the reporters to see this as I do not wish newspaper notoriety.

Yours &c
Chas J Dean
Lunenburg, Mass."

"(-Note:  The content of this letter indicates that the author's date of '1894' is incorrect.)"

* Remember the newspaper-reading public were not privy to the forensic information as to "gilt" found in one of Abby's wounds (pg.212).  It may be unlikely that an ICE hatchet would be gilded....) -kat

From the 1897 Sears, Roebuck Catalogue, here are several images of the "weapons" described above. To view them, please click on the name below and you will see them as attachments to this post.

From the same Catalogue, here is a scan of the various hatchets and their heads. I had no idea there were so many different kinds of hatchets. And what with Andrew being a carpenter in his earlier days, I bet he had all kinds of tools in the cellar!

As regards the ice hatchet, I agree that there would not likely be any gilt.  But the throwing of blood in the opposite direction I think is very important.

Dr. Dolan, in Vol. #2, pages 197-198 testified that when he first viewed Abby's body there were three chairs. These chairs are not in any of the photos I've seen.  One was up between Abby's head and the east wall and another between the dresser and the window.  The third was across from the second apparently near the sewing machine. I have attached a picture, with the bed removed, as to where 2 of the chairs would be.

Here is Dr. Dolan's testimony regarding these chairs:

(Mr. Adams)  At that first view was there a chair by the bureau, and between the bureau and the window?
A.  No Sir. I am glad you spoke of that chair that is lacking from the photograph. There was a kind of a camp chair, you might call it, an upholstered chair between her head and the east wall; and the feet of that were covered with blood.
Q.  What has become of that chair?
A.  It was in the house on Second street the last time I was there.
Q.  It was not taken away?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Whether there was a chair at the end of the bureau between the bureau and the window, when you saw that room the first time?
A.  I think there was a cane seated chair.
Q.  Was there any chair near it?
A.  I could not tell you.
Q.  Was this a chair with ordinary legs, or legs with a rocker?
A.  That I would not say.
Q.  You do not recollect whether it was a sewing chair, or not?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Do you remember any work basket being there?
A.  Yes Sir, immediately in front of this chair.
Q.  What was this work basket resting on?
A.  On the floor---- no, I think it was a rocking chair up against the bureau, and then the basket was sitting on the other ordinary cane seated chair, opposite.
Q.  You mean the rocking chair was up against the bureau at the end of it, between that and the window, in that space?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  The other chair was on the other side of the window in front of it, having the work basket on it?
A.  Yes Sir, and the sewing machine behind it.

Dr. Dolan mentions the feet of the chair against the east wall were covered with blood. Would that not fit the the ice hatchet? Or would her head have been very near the legs of the chair?  It seems to be a fairly narrow apace.

Great post..great picture...Thank you.
I think Stef has had her eye on that "carpenter's adze", in the hatchet listings.  You'll notice that the head faces a different direction, which could change the spot the assailant stood, the angle of the wounds, and yes, you're right, Harry to bring up the direction of blood spatter.
Some of those photo's were too small- printed for me to read blade measuments, which we have to keep in mind.  Better eyes than mine will have to fill me in on that.  (We want 3 1/2 to 4" max.?)
The blades of all these weapons that show a wide edge imply "Gilt", don't they?  I always thought that's how it was depicted in a drawing or photo--that extra wide darker edge to the blade...correct me if that's not true.
Also, I read that the "camp chair" that had been at the head of the bed was a Funeral accoutrement-used in cheap rental seating at funerals.
That chair being there explains why Abby's body is situated so far down the length of the bed that her legs extended beyond.
Isn't there also blood info( in Prelim) about spatters also on that east wall, where the chair legs were?

By the way:
NEW  NEW NEW

If you go to top of main Forum page & click on Web-Site, you can now go directly there.  Added today are larger reproductions of the "weapons" pictures, and other New Things...(even I can now read blade lengths in description)
Go to "HISTORY OF THE CRIMES"....
(..."someone has killed father...")

(Message last edited Jan-13th-02  11:41 PM.)

Wasn't it Prof. Woods from Hah-vahd who pointed out in the prelim hearing that none of the hatchets fit the wounds?  Or do I remember that from the movie?
So, the question IS, which one of those Sears-type hatchets might have been used to smote the Bordens?

Of the two axes and 2 hatchets found in the cellar, only the suspicious handleless hatchet (3 1/2 inch blade) fit the skull wounds, roughly. The Crowe hatchet is also a possibility based on its 3 3/4 inch blade. That fits the skull wounds too. Or maybe there's a THIRD possible hatchet that we just dont know about

That "Crowe's Roof Hatchet" is going to follow me all my life!
I thought that had been de-bunked  almost a year ago, when I explained that it still had Gilt on the edge, after cleaning?  It could have been used on Abby, but not on Andrew:  therefore there would have to be 2 weapons, which is not impossible, but does complicate things.  Since no Dr. reported gilt in Andrews wounds, we have believed there WAS no gilt.  The weapon after Abby's killing would have to be gilt-free, and that doesn't fit the description of the Crowes roof Hatchet.
I'm really glad you brought that up Dave.
Pardon me for beginning to sound like a broken record.

I don't follow that. The Swede at the farm said he had sharpened the hatchet when it was new.  Therefore, all the gilt would have been honed off.  Done some axe and hatchet sharpening in my time.  What the heck is "gilt", anyhow?

The Funk & Wagnal's Dictionary, 1897, defines gilt:
"gilt:--Gilded; covered with gilt; yellow like gold.  the material used in gilding; gold laid over the surface of anything; gilding."

-bronze can also be used.
-it's supposedly done by transfer,( paper- thin sheets?)(I think Edisto told us about this a while back)...
-it's to protect the new edge of the blade as it is stored, or warehoused, waiting for shipment & sale and then use.  Honing or use, would eventually wear off this gilded edge.

In the Witness Statements, pg.36-37, George Seaver interviews Frederick Eddy and Alfred Johnson:

Eddy:  "...I have seen axes and hatchets at Mr. Borden's.  The LARGE HATCHET was comparatively new.  When it was bought, it was brought over here, and ground sharp.  After being ground, Mr. Borden was here, and it was carried out and put on the wall by the gate for him to carry home.  When he went away he said, I won't take the hatchet.  You'll be coming over in a day or two, and you bring it over;  which I did...."

"Swede" Johnson:  "...Mr. Borden had two axes, a single hatchet, and a shop or bench hatchet*.  The bench hatchet has never been used much since it was sharpened.  I ground it over here to the farm in the early spring..."

--*This "shop or bench hatchet" sounds like the "claw-headed" hatchet that figured so prominately in the Preliminary Hearing...before it was decided the blade might be too large to fit the wounds, and the Prosecution fatally went with the "handle-ess hatchet."

--In the Knowlton Papers, pg.212, Dr. Draper writes Knowlton, in part:
"...The other discovery is still more important;  on one of the cuts in Mrs. Bordens skull, near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of the GILT METAL with which HATCHETS ARE ORNAMENTED when they leave the factory;  This deposit (Dr. Cheever confirmed the observation fully) means that the hatchet used in killing MRS. BORDEN was a NEW hatchet, not long out of the store..."

--Therefore my statement about the Crowe's roof hatchet, or any hatchet ever found & brought foreward as possibly being the murder weapon.  Most believe it has yet to be found...

--Well, that was fun, and I'm glad it's all in one place for now, for  future reference!

Joe, I'm scared, u sharpened them axes just cuz . . . just cuz u had to chop up some new firewood . . . right? (gulp) LOL


Hey Kat-chup, I like yr ideas on the possibility of two hatchets. For a very long time now I've been intrigued by that very possibility, but you've expounded on it in more detail. I think the two-hatchet theory is a distinct possibility, especially if Andrew's death was spontaneous and not planned!

If only Abby was supposed to die, then Lizzie or whoever would have hidden or destroyed the first hatchet, and she might've had to get a second hatchet to kill Andrew in an act of spontenaity (sp) when he finally came home.

Yr right, if the Crowe hatchet WERE used in both murders, I believe there should still have been at least a very slight amount of "gilt" in Andrew's wounds too--there wasnt any that we know of. It couldnt have ALL, every last spec, worn off in Abby's murder, IMHO. So maybe Lizzie threw the Crowe hatchet up on the roof after Abby's murder 9:30ish or if/when Bridget was doing the front windows, out of sight. This suggests that at 11 O'clock Lizzie really did go for her little trip to the barn, as seen by Hymen (oops, Hyman)) Lubinsky rather than to throw the hatchet on Crowe's roof, perhaps to put the saw back into the barn after cutting the handle off the handleless hatchet in the cellar (she didnt want the saw to be in the cellar becuase she didnt want it to look like it had been used to saw the hatchet, thus the disguise with coal ash on the blade). BUT no one will ever convince me that Lizzie was in that stuffy barn/loft for 20-30 minutes because I trust the testimony of the officers and Lizzie herself in this case, who said in her inquest that it felt "hot . . close." The officers all said in the prelim and trial that it was really hot in there (the loft) and hard to breathe and looked like nobody had been there for some time. I guess they were just lying and out to get poor Liz, eh?--a police conspiracy LOL!!! j/k

(Message last edited Jan-15th-02  11:02 PM.)

So do you mean 2 hatchets, one killer...Lizzie?  That she ditched the "new" one onto the barn roof, & it's possible she somehow disposed of the handle to the 2nd hatchet?  I am not discounting this, only need a little more explanation...

That's Your theory, & it's interesting....

I've been thinking along the lines of new hatchet, kill Abby, clean and hone hatchet in the interim, removing rest of gilt (per joe), kill Andrew....not necessarily the same assailaint.

PS:  "Edit" 4 hours apart....hmmmmm


(Message last edited Jan-16th-02  6:31 AM.)

How about the Crowe hatchet, a new one (or, at least, unused until that morn) as the instrument of Abby's murder, subsequently disposed of, and then a household cleaver used for the unplanned (?) dicing and slicing of Andrew (there's something about that halved eye that makes me wonder about the choice of weapon there)?  With all due respect to my fellow Bordenians and Victoria Lincoln, I've never been able to make myself believe that Lizzie did any sawing that morning, whether there was a vise in the barn or not.

At this point in my life, I believe the washed and dusted handleless hatchet is weird, but blameless.

Dave R:  Naw, sharpened them for cutting off pigeon and chicken heads when I was in the Boy Scouts.  Those were the good old days

I think I might have a Crowe hatchet down the basement.  Is it a roofing-type hatchet with a broad head and a claw on the other end?

Which one of the hatchets presented at the trial is it?  Or did it surface later.  I can't find a reference to a Crowe hatchet anyplace.

Bob, that half-an-eyeball has me stumped, too.  It had to be something sharper than a hatchet that could do that.  Eyeball might squish, but I think it takes surgical quality sharpening to cut an eyeball, no matter that it is somewhat elastic and cushioned in the back of the eyeball.  I prefer a butcher knife to slice eyeballs and a hatchet to make kindling.  Not sure how high a grade of steel they had in 1890-1900, but it sure wasn't as good as the stuff today.  Couldn't hold an edge for too long.  A lumberjack had to hone several times when hacking down trees.

Boy, you blood-thirsty guys!
Three of you, now, think it's possible there were 2 weapons?
I'm Not discounting it in My mind, but I think it just makes things more complicated.  Maybe "more complicated" is why it was not solved...who's to say.
A "Crowe's Roof" hatchet is a hatchet found just at the time of Lizzie's trial, On the roof of a Man named "Crowe"'s barn, or some outbuilding of his, in the property Behind the Borden residence.  I should have been more explicit (I've been told THAT before) and not assumed everybody knew what that was...Pardon...

I've been wondering, after seeing the ads from Sears, if a "person" could have bought JUST a Hatchet HANDLE, knowing the "handle-less hatchet"'s little bit of wood left in the helve was removable, and knowing that it would never be considered as a weapon because it had no HANdLe!  So they buy a handle ONLy (mail order) and when the time is RIPE, fit the new-bought HANDLE to the handle-less hatchet, and use it to kill (there would have to have been just a little gilt left on it which was removed when it was used to strike Abby 19 times, then rinsed, wiped and honed), then used to kill Andrew (as it fit the wound size to his head more than any other hatchet produced)---THEN, all they need be rid of is the new Handle!  That could be pitched anywhere(as in Thrown as far as possible)--clean the hatchet head, stick that loose piece of wood back in the helve, roll it damp in ashes and VOILA!

Naw, Kat.  Good theory, but once that handle is in the axe head, it's not easy to get out.  Besides, the axe head would have flew (flown?) off if the handle wasn't firm in the axe head when the killer did the deed.

(Pardon me, I've been watching FUNNY GIRL on DVD!)

That's clever reasoning (as usual), Kat, but, IMO, it just makes the whole thing SOOOO complex.  If there's one thing I agree with Ray about (and there's only one thing I agree with Ray about), it's the Occam's Razor thing - the simplest explanation is nearly always the correct one.  I've personally never fathomed why Liz would feel a need to get rid of a blood-stained handle, only.  I can believe in her tossing the newish hatchet onto the Crowe's barn roof, getting rid of the murder weapon in toto, but, as I've said, I just don't see Lizzie having the time or the inclination to snap or saw off the handle and save the hatchet head, either after Abby's death or after Andrew's.  However, as to the time element, as I become less certain that Bridget was NOT involved as, at least, Lizzie's helper after the fact, there may have been much more time to tidy up after Andrew than we know.  I am willing to be convinced and/or dazzled, as always!      

Hey Joe, what kinda badge did the boy scout leaders give u for all those headless pigeons and chickies ? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

I agree about the eyeball. It would take a very sharp hatchet to cut an eyeball in half like that. Theres also that bit about the eyeball hanging from the socket, but enough of such pleasing imagery!

Eric Stedman held the handleless hatchet in the company of Professor and former-LBQ publisher Jules Ryckebusch (hope I spelled that right!) and he told me that even now after over a hundred years the blade is sharp. Whether it was a new hatchet or a newly sharpened hatchet, the handeless hatchet blade had the right length and sharpness to be used.

In court, that little bit of handle left in the helve kept coming out.  I've also seen photo's of the handle-less hatchet Without that little piece, in books, and I believe, the LBQ.  If Sears sold Handles for hatchets, it seems to me that they were replaceable.  (Held in by bent nails or something?) And if they were replaceable, then they could also be "switched."
I also think this is getting too complicated, but if 3 guys entertain the notion of 2 weapons, I figured I'd throw in my little "complexity", too.

Dave, and Bob and Joe:
I've heard, you've heard, we've all heard the "variation" on the Ballad of Forty Whacks...I just saw it again at a web-site Stef sent me to.  Now It's STRUCK me, this may be an origin for a "TWO WEAPON" theory, and have a basis in history....I believe It's at least as old as the "original":

Lizzie Borden took an ax
and gave her mother forty whacks
Then she took ANOTHER ONE
and gave her father forty-one.

Wow!  Now isn't that something?  I've seen/heard that one, too.  Never made a connection to 2 weapons before, though.

I'm RREEEAAALLLYYY glad you replyed---I was beginning to wonder if i remembered correctly...ANYONE ELSE HEARD THIS VERSION?
I coulda sworn it was mentioned in the LBQ at some time (but not discussed-just recognized as a variation) by Mr. Souza, Mr. Bertolet, or Mr. Thibault....

Check out Dr. Draper's testimony. 
When he studied Abby's head, wounds tended from right to left, which suggests a right-handed person (I'm a rightie and this is my chopping direction).  Also, most of the wounds were a lot shorter than 3.25 inches with the longest one, I believe, being 5 in.
But when he did Andrew's head, 3.25 inch wounds and longer were delivered from left to right which to me suggests a left-handed person (my wife is a leftie and she tried this on me).

So, 2 people?  2 weapons? 

Does anyone (except Lincoln) know if Lizzie was right or left-handed? 
If Liz did in Abby, it would go along with the defense that she could not have been strong enough to wield the weapon to penetrate that headbone of Andrew's.  But she may have been strong enough to do it to Abby.

Hello, Joe,

I think you will discover that a four inch hatchet could produce a wound on a skull smaller, or larger, than the size of the hatchet head. I proved this to myself by experimentation with a honeydew melon and a hatchet some years ago. It all depends upon the angle and point of contact. Bob Flynn wrote a great monologue that has become a minor classic on the subject (Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe, Robert A. Flynn, 1992 King Philip Publ. 466 Ocean Ave.Portland Me 04103).

(Message last edited Jan-25th-02  12:43 PM.)

Thanks, William.  I need to find that book.  I realize that a hatchet can make a wound bigger or smaller.  Why is it that Abby had so many smaller wounds and Andrew had so many larger?  Angle of attack, I guess.  I wonder about that lefthand vs right-hand theory?  That, too could be the angle of Andrew's head when he was lying down.

Didja ever look down a 2-holer?  If I was to dispose of a weapon, I'd throw it down that privey hole down in the basement. Or maybe in the disused well in the backyard next to the barn.  I bet the privey was never searched and that well was never looked into.  Maybe the present owners have done that, though.

(Message last edited Jan-25th-02  4:21 PM.)

Joe, the well was searched. This is from the trial testomony, page 675. Policeman Edson is being questioned by Moody.

Q.  Anywhere else you went in the yard?
A.  Yes, sir, an old well.
Q.  What did you see there?
A.  Searched round in there as fully as we could.
Q.  That was all filled up?
A.  Yes, sir, practically
Q.  Nothing in there but dirt?
A.  Nothing but dirt.

Marshal Hilliard also examined the well and possibly the privy. This from Vol. #4, page 416 of the Preliminary. Questioning by Jennings:

Q.  That is what has been called the Crowe yard?
A.  Well, I presume part of it; the other part is Dr. Kelley's I presume. From there we went, or I went to the well, or what was the well, but it has been filled up. From there I went to the rear end of the barn, and looked into a vault that was there. From that I went into the barn, up where they were overhauling the hay. I looked around there, and came down stairs, and helped in the search of the carriage house and the carriages and barrels.
Q.  That is in the lower part of the barn?
A.  Yes Sir, on the west end.
(Mr. Knowlton)  Not a separate building?
(Mr. Jennings)  No.

I believe the "vault" referred to is the privy.

How thorough the examination of the privy was is anybodys guess. I wouldn't want to do it. 

Well, I asked one of the handful of Lizzie-Lore Grand Masters, and he had never heard of the variation of the Axe Rhyme.  If HE hadn't, I probably mis-remembered...
"Lizzie Borden took an axe
and gave her mother forty whacks
then she took Another One
and gave her father forty-one".....NOT

Oh, well, Joe, we probably mis-remembered together.....

however:
http://www.ethicalculture.org/review/women_who_kill.html

(Message last edited Jan-30th-02  2:14 AM.)

Maybe we DID come across that rendition, Kat.  I see that Phyllis Ehrenfeld used it in her review.  Maybe I read it in Alan Dundee's Folklore book that my kid in London "borrowed" about 8 years ago.  I know it is around.  But it probably is a bastardation of the original.

Yea but, she also got the rest of the rhyme wrong...which I didn't notice at first...
I'll look in back issues of the LBQ to see if Mr. Bertolet commented on something similar in the past.

Made a mistake...please see next post


(Message last edited Apr-2nd-02  2:50 AM.)

Bill,
Once again we took your advice and acquired a copy (inter-library loan) of Bob Flynn's "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Ax."
Stef and I were just speaking about it tonight...what *struck* her about it, and what *struck* me.  Good pamphlet!  Thanks!
Here, also thanks to Bill, is  April Fool's (My day late) rendition of two hatchets, for all the "2 weapon " theorists out there...


(Message last edited Apr-2nd-02  2:52 AM.)