Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: Axe Me About My Research

1. "Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-27th-02 at 12:48 PM

I just stopped by Ace Hardware (they really ARE friendly!), asking about axes and hatchets.  A big burley good-ole-boy, showed me the several items they had, hanging on the wall, near the shovels.

They didn't look much like the ones in Robert Flynn's Lizzie Borden and The Mysterious Axe, 1992.

They were sleek and modern.  The hatchet did have a sort of "gilding", but it was siver metallic-something, like Paint.  The Ace hardware man said that would be ground off as the blade was sharpened.

He called the hatchet "an axe", so I asked him why, when even the label on the shelf stated it was a hatchet.  He said it was just a term used.  (Some people call a hatchet  "an axe", apparently).

There were two styles of Huge AXES, and three kinds of hatchets,  The one with the shortest handle was called "A Hand Axe"!  It had a blade the same size as the next longest-handeled one, but was all steel.  The next one was called a boy's hatchet.  It was Boy Scout sized, like the rubber ones we used to play Cowboy and Indians--that size.

The "hatchet" with the 24" handle was the most interesting.  It had the "gilding" (of thick paint?), had the right length handle, and the blade measured 3 1/2 " ...BUT...the hardware guy called it a "2 and a quarter" Blade!  I asked why, when it was clearly 3 1/2?  He said that's what's inscribed on the handle!  I think what the discrepency means is that the manufacurer doesn't measure the whole blade in it's specifications, but possibly only the cutting surface:  That center portion of the blade that makes the initial cut!

If so, then we may be confused by the terminology in testimony.

One more thing.  The man lifted down the "interesting" hatchet for me, as it was hanging by it's head, and behind stuff.  (I had told him I "was doing some research"),  He was standing directly to my right, and as he handed it to me I kept it "blade-foreward", hefting it gently.  It was rather heavy, to me., but only 3-5 lbs.  As soon as he actually SAW me holding the hatchet, He Stepped Back--Then He Stepped BACK Again!  This Big Guy!  I admit my long white hair was a little wind-blown but I certainly Don't look maniacal!  Maybe someone holding a 2 foot hatchet is someone to be feared!  Even a little girl-sized person like me!  I thought it was funny.  I would like to say I had felt a "rush of power", but I didn't.  I did not like the big burley good-ole-boy stepping away like that.  I wanted him to trust me.  I suppose I don't have a murderer's heart!


2. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-27th-02 at 2:05 PM
In response to Message #1.

never mind-I can't put a picture here...kk

(Message last edited Apr-27th-02  2:07 PM.)


3. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by harry on Apr-27th-02 at 2:19 PM
In response to Message #1.

Hopefully you weren't wearing your jacket the wrong way!

Do you think you could have raised it and swung it with some force 19 times?

Wow, I just tried banging my hand on the desk 19 times and it took pretty long. I was surprised. To say the least the killer was MAD about something.


4. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-27th-02 at 5:14 PM
In response to Message #3.

I didn't get to experiment in any way.
I had to be VERY careful.
I would have had to buy it in order to play around with it, testing it.
I wonder how that man sells a hatchet or axe to ANOTHER MAN!

He didn't think it was "heavy", but I certainly did!

I could wield a tomahawk 19 times but NOT a hatchet of that weight.


5. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-28th-02 at 1:15 PM
In response to Message #4.

In Robert Flynn's LIZZIE BORDEN and THE MYSTERIOUS AXE, (pamphlet-size), he states his conjecture, page 9, based on Dr. Draper's letter to Dr. Dolan, dated August 12, 1892, that "the murders were committed with a narrow-bladed short-handled hatchet similar to a Lather's tool with a cutting edge of 2 & 1/2 " or LESS."

This letter contradicts the May 31, 1893 letter from Draper to Knowlton, found in the Knowlton Papers.  In the Knowlton letter Draper has conferred with Dr. Cheever and changed his stance on blade edge length to 3 & 1/2".

You can hold of a xerox of this article for your own use through Inter-Library loan.  It might cost a small amount for duplication charges.  Your library will ask you what you are willing to pay, but once they order it for you, they will probably let you know how much exactly (like $3), so you can confirm or deny the request.

Below, please find the tools Stef found in the Sears catalogue of the time.  Note that the "Handle-less hatchet" is a full-bladed hatchet, whereas the weapon Author Flynn believes to be the one most suited to to the deed, is more like a "half-hatchet", or half-bladed.



6. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-28th-02 at 1:23 PM
In response to Message #5.

Handle-less hatchet. From : http://www.wbur.org/special/strangemuseums/lizzy.asp


7. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-28th-02 at 1:27 PM
In response to Message #6.

Included are the Skulls of Abby and Andrew, respectively:


8. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by william on Apr-29th-02 at 2:53 PM
In response to Message #5.

Hello Kat,

The conclusions reached on page 9 were those of Dr Draper's, not Mr. Flynn's.

Flynn gives his conclusions on page 16.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

Based on this information it is evident that:

1. The "handleless hatchet" was never determined to be the murder weapon.
2. It is impossible to determine the size of the hatchet blade by examination of the skulls.
3. The testimony of Harvard Medical School doctors was inconsistent and falsely presented at the trial.
4. The hatchet found on the roof of the Crowe barn was in all probability the murder weapon.

I believe #2 above, is a key consideration. You could administer a four inch wound with a hatchet blade one inch in diameter, or conversely; you could produce a one inch wound with a four inch hatchet.  This is easily provable - all that is required is a couple of hatchets of the proper size. If a volunteer cannot be located, a honey-dew melon should make an acceptable substitute.


9. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-29th-02 at 4:24 PM
In response to Message #8.

You're absolutely right, William!  Thanks for pointing that out.

I agree about point #2.

I think the autopsy photo of the back of Abby's skull particulary proves this.  It almost looks like all KINDS of weapons did her in, so that conclusion about discrepencies in blade length and wound size makes sense, at least to me.

Edit here:

In Rebello, pg. 111, Fall River Daily Globe, Friday, August 12, 1892: 7
"The Mysterious Box / The Bloody Clothing Once More Dug Up in the Back Yard

...In the station house, Dr. Dolan made another examination, no doubt, with the intention of finding the cut in the back of Mrs. Borden's dress which must necessarily have been made by the hatchet or axe which inflicted the wound discovered in yesterday's autopsey."

Do you suppose that the soft-tissue cut would give more or better information as to blade size than bone cuts that included fractures, even though it was examined so long after the crime?
Would the cut in the dress be the best "pattern" size for blade length, of all?

(Message last edited Apr-29th-02  4:41 PM.)


10. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Apr-30th-02 at 2:45 PM
In response to Message #9.

Does anybody know if the cut to the fabric may have changed the doctors' views on blade length?


11. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by bobcook848 on Apr-30th-02 at 10:41 PM
In response to Message #10.

Not too sure Kat but I have been thinking about that hatchet and the cuts it made.  It would seem to me that the blade on the whacking hatchet of 8/4/'92 ***HAD TO BE SHARP***

Not dull like one used every other day to split kindling or firewood if the blade were dull there would not be such well made incisions in the flesh.  A dull blade would have really "hacked" the flesh and made an even greater mess of things.

I am sure that hatchet was a brandy new one...remember the gilding.

BC


12. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by harry on Apr-30th-02 at 11:50 PM
In response to Message #10.

Good question Kat.

I think the length of the cut or incision would be determined more by the angle of the blade striking the surface. I think a flush blow with the entire blade would result in a cut a bit longer than the blade itself as the skin would probably give a little on each end of the blade. That's just a surmise on my part however.

That may not be true of the cut in the dress which could result in the cut beneath being slightly longer than the cut in the dress.

Am I way off here on my speculations?


13. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on May-1st-02 at 12:48 AM
In response to Message #12.

I think you are right Harry, in that the angle of the blow would mean a LOT in terms of the Distortion value of the mark.

BUT:  Here we do have a single blow...a Single mark, a single hole in a dress.  The rest, on both bodies were intermingled or haphazard-looking.  I think that dress of Abby's would tell a tale!


14. "Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Sep-27th-02 at 6:21 PM
In response to Message #1.

Well, I was passing good ole Ace Hardware again today, and since now I carry a digital camera everywhere I decided to stop in and take some pictures of --you guessed it!


The store was not stocked with the same items as last time.
This trip I settled on the 18" handled axe, with a 4" blade.  The measurement from tip of handle, taking into consideration the curves, to the very top of the steel was 24".  It was called "A Boys Hand Axe."  It weighed about 3 1/2 lbs., supposedly.*
(*The first guy I saw there in April said that was the blade length, but it was really the weight...so disregard my comments as to blade length not being measured the same as "cutting edge.")


The longer axe they had was a blade also of 4", and a handle measured to the metal was 30", and abt. 36" to top of head of metal, full length.


The Ace man said that the way to use the axe was with inertia.  That the heavier the axe the more effiecient.  A person who knew how to weild such an implement would merely let it "FALL" onto the object to be cut, Give direction of course, and the weight of the thing would carry it through...that's how they are designed to be used.
A person not knowing this would try to "chop" at something and end up with making glancing blows.


The method of use the proper way would leave the axe imbedded in the object and there would then be required a pulling action to remove the blade and raise it to let "FALL" again
There would not be a chopping-at motion.
A chopping motion, which would indicate misuse of the weapon, would result in missed blows, part blows and glancing blows


Either way, he did not see any blood being FLUNG from the blade as a result of use.  He said there would be spatter only, down near the ground level, if hitting a body on the ground.


Apparently, if used correctly, letting the weight carry the blow full force, it would not tire out a person, as much as chopping or hacking improperly would.


I just happened to ask him, also, why or IF he thought a woman would USE that kind of weapon, and he replied, "Because it wouldn't be expected of a woman.  It would be considered a man's weapon, and that would throw everyone off..."
I wondered if Lizzie was conniving enough to figure this out.


One other thing...the "10 Penny Nail":  (Turns out a "6 or 8 penny nail" was found, but I suppose the principle is the same)
I picked out what I thought was one and I was only off by one size.  BUT, the real one was half the diameter of my choice, about the same length:  3 1/2 inches.
I asked why that might be found in a lock of a door, and he said that nail could pick an 1890's lock...it could be inserted, jiggled and push the tumblers all up (?) and the lock would be picked, and the door could be opened.  I didn't imply this to him.  I merely asked what significance the finding of a nail that size in the lock of an old door would mean.


Included please find attachments as to 2 photo's of axes.  

(Message last edited Sep-27th-02  6:22 PM.)


15. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Susan on Sep-27th-02 at 8:53 PM
In response to Message #14.

Thanks for sharing, Kat!  Great read!  Those are some mighty big axes there!  I like how you were able to ask this guy questions about the weapons and the nail and he didn't step back from you like you had something in mind. 


16. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Sep-28th-02 at 12:17 AM
In response to Message #15.

This was a different kind of guy altogether.

BTW:  On that smaller axe, that grey area near the cutting surface is like silver paint.  I think that might be where the "gilding" was located on hatchets of the early last century...

I'll tell you something else...
That smaller axe had a really raw wood handle.  I thought at the time that if I had used that 29 times I would end up with splinters or maybe even a blister...if my hands were not used to it.
Of course I could wear Gloves...

(Message last edited Sep-28th-02  12:21 AM.)


17. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by William on Sep-28th-02 at 9:56 AM
In response to Message #14.

Hello Kat,

I'm betting the Ace Hardware salesman made it a point to keep the counter between you. Next time you're there, ask him if he knows where you can purchase ten cents worth of prussic acid.

"A hatchet is a short handled axe, but an axe is never a long handled hatchet."

(I think I got that right . . .)


18. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by rays on Sep-28th-02 at 10:48 AM
In response to Message #14.

Very good for research, but it ASSUMES that they are the same as 110 years ago. From the few that I've seen, the quality and finish are not what they were 40-50 years ago. And no gilding!!!

This is a problem in trying to research simple household facts from a century ago. EG what kind of soap did they use and buy? Same quality as today?


19. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Sep-28th-02 at 6:55 PM
In response to Message #18.

I really wasn't assuming anything.  Sorry if my post implied that.  I did make sure to include that the head's were made of completly different material/metal than 100 years ago.  One would be longer lasting, one might need more honing than another...I leave it up to the good judgement of the members to know that things were different then...

What I wanted to show was the relative Size of a weapon...those Sears catalogue pictures of 1900 can't help us there.

I would say that the silver paint on the edge of the smaller axe was similar to "gilding" as it would flake off under use, or honing.
The larger one's blade was protected by a rubber mask.

(Message last edited Sep-28th-02  6:57 PM.)


20. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Susan on Sep-30th-02 at 2:19 AM
In response to Message #19.

But, yet, isn't it amazing that despite the different materials used in construction that you are still able to buy tools (or murder weapons) that were available over 100 years ago?  That you can pretty much walk into a Home Depot or Ace Hardware and there they are, axes and hatchets for the taking.  I guess it would be like going to Sears and being able to buy sad or flat irons still.  Pretty cool! 


21. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by kimberly on Sep-30th-02 at 5:02 AM
In response to Message #20.

You are right, the axes & hatchets in the Sears catalog from 1900
don't look any different than the new ones, I took a
picture of one of the pages, it isn't as good as a scan
but I'm still without the other computer, scanner & all.

(Message last edited Sep-30th-02  5:06 AM.)


22. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by kashesan on Sep-30th-02 at 7:06 AM
In response to Message #21.

Speaking of axes-I can't come across what, if anything, ever happened to the hatchet found on top of Crowe's barn. Would love to have been able to examine that one a little more closely... Any thoughts? (Lubinsky saw her crossing the yard just after she discretely tossed it?)


23. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Susan on Sep-30th-02 at 11:35 AM
In response to Message #22.

Kashesan, we were discussing that not too long ago on Kat's post; Masterson and his Map. 


24. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Oct-1st-02 at 2:52 AM
In response to Message #22.

Technically, Lubinsky only saw 1 and 1/2 seconds of a woman "not Bridget" a few steps from the back stairs, that looked to him as if she had come from the barn area...meaning her back was to the barn and she was maybe 3 or 4 feet from the east side of the steps.
(If he really saw anyone that day at all.)


25. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by kashesan on Oct-1st-02 at 6:46 AM
In response to Message #23.

Thanks Susan and Kat. I'll scroll back


26. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Susan on Oct-2nd-02 at 2:23 AM
In response to Message #24.

Kat, hows this for a far reach, this popped into my head as I read your post;  what if Lubinsky didn't see a woman coming along the side of the house there, what if it was a man instead, Andrew perhaps trying to get in the side door and starting to come up front?  A odd, possibly ridiculous thought, but, wasn't it stated that Lubinsky didn't speak english very well. 


27. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Oct-2nd-02 at 5:24 AM
In response to Message #26.

If he saw anyone it would have been at about 11:10 a.m. as Lubinsky was late that day, according to the stable owner, Gardner.
If he saw anyone, it would have been within seconds (or a minute) of Andrew's murder.  How that fits what you mentioned, I don't know.
I think Lubinsky has been impeached, and is no longer believable.
See "Lubinsky" thread
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=1&topid=333


28. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by rays on Oct-2nd-02 at 11:06 AM
In response to Message #27.

So we can agree that Lubinsky passed by around the time of Andy's murder, and saw a woman ("not Bridget") at the side door. Certainly not Abby, either. His testimony rings true for me.
The fact (?) that his horses were fresh and in a hurry says something about his testimony. "Only 1 or 2 seconds" sounds about enought time to see what he saw.

I find his testimony VERY CREDIBLE, and so did the jury. Lizzie was outside at the back door around 11AM. "And that's the way it was."


29. "Re: Axe Me About My Research"
Posted by Kat on Oct-2nd-02 at 5:29 PM
In response to Message #28.

Well, you've managed to shave 10 minutes off the time *Lizzie* (?) was outside. (Or a woman not Bridget)
If this female was seen at the back steps at 11 then Andrew could possibly still be alive and there are 10 more minutes for her to go in and kill.



 

Navagation

LizzieAndrewBorden.com © 2001-2008 Stefani Koorey. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice.
PearTree Press, P.O. Box 9585, Fall River, MA 02720

 

Page updated 12 October, 2003