Somebody's got a photo of that print on the wall, that shows it centered on the wall...but that the sofa is not.
I looked & looked for it in this computor and can't seem to find it.
It's a photo with the couch removed.

Mr. Rebello once wrote us all about the couch and said that the B&B recreated the room from THE PHOTO'S.  So we Still don't know the everyday placement of the lounge.
BUT:  that original lounge was over 7 feet long (was found by a member, in Testimony), so Mr. Rebello stated that we had to take that into account...that a sofa of that size would block the kitchen door, more than we know.

I wonder how long(arm to arm) the replica sofa is...

Oh, also take into account, when you mentally try to rearrange the furniture, that the OLD plans show a closet in the sitting room on the side where the stairs are.  It is "under" the stairs, on the west side of the room, with a door that opened INTO the room...corresponding to the closet on the east or kitchen wall, that also shows a closet door opening INTO the room.

(Message last edited Jul-17th-02  7:48 PM.)

I know I begin to sound like a broken record dear Bordenites but my theory on that sofa is unchanged from earlier this year (if memory serves me) in another thread.

I have been to countless museums here in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and elsewhere and have yet to see any placement of a sofa or lounge ***OFF CENTERED*** like this one. 

Victorian women where quite meticulous about the placement of their furniture in the rooms of their homes.  If the painting on the wall was centered so too would the sofa.  VisaVis...that sofa was for many years centered on that wall and centered under that painting.

As I have suggested previously it is my ascertion that when the police photographer came to take the pictures the sofa was moved to the left (towards the dining room door) and thence caused Andrew's body to shift downward slightly.

Several witnesses, including Dr. Bowen, remarked at trial that they "thought his (Andrew's) body was 'higher' on the sofa".  In a photo of that scene in Rebello you can see the "ghost" image of a man to the right of the sofa standing just inside the sitting room almost in the door way to the kitchen.

The photo looks like a "double image" type since the man's legs are almost invisible.  I think he might be a detective but who knows.

In conclusion...that sofa and the body were moved to the left for the purpose of taking a photo using the natural sunlight shining in from the two windows on the opposite side of the room.

And as always...that's my story...

BC

But, wouldn't that be an important enough fact to bring up in the trial?  If the sofa's regular spot was centered beneath the painting, then the door leading into the kitchen could not be used to go through.  I believe thats a very important point as Lizzie talks as if she could have been in the dining room and Bridget could get from the kitchen to the front of the house without seeing her.  And the only way that is possible would be for the sofa to be in the position it is in the photos.  Why wasn't anyone in the house asked about the normal position of the sofa?  Oh, the things that were left to slip through their fingers! 

I have not been to that house.

I don't know how large the replica sofa is.

Didn't you, bobcookbobcook say that you had moved the couch and taken a photo?
If that is part of *your story* I sure would like to see it!

The Andrew-on-sofa picture has been described to us as out of proportion due to the camera angle.

Would that 16 inches, or so, of space, between that little throw rug at the doorway to the kitchen and the foot of the lounge, ALSO be out of proportion?

It still looks to me, even at 7+ feet, that there is room enough to center that sofa under that picture on the wall (16 " or so) and just bring that sofa foot up against that throw rug.  That may be the familys "demarcation line" as to how close the sofa may MOVE toward the kitchen yet still maintain the use of the kitchen door (even if sporadically).  Remembering  that lounge is on Casters, makes it even more likely, to me.

I'm with you bobcookbobcook.
But I still would like to see it...

(Message last edited Jul-18th-02  2:56 AM.)

Kat, perhaps you are right, but, that still seems to be quite a tight space(think of Abby trying to squeeze through).  Plus, think of Lizzie, Emma and Bridget in their skirts trying to swish through that doorway.  Do we have the exact measurement of that back wall?  That combined with the 7' long sofa, we could figure out what space was left. 

Kat:
  You referred to a photograph of the wall in the sitting room, minus the couch.  I have a copy of that photo in my collection  There is no question about the position of the picture; it is centrally located on the wall.
  If we select a photograph showing the couch with the picture, draw a line through the center of the picture and extend it through the couch, it is apparent that the couch is off center.
  I share Bob Cooks opinion. For some reason the couch has been moved from its central location. Possibly, as has been suggested, for picture taking.

(Message last edited Jul-18th-02  12:42 PM.)

Andrew Borden dead?  I didn't even know he was sick! ;-]

You know how I feel about the integrity of the pictures, that is, on using them as an absolute guide to solving the crime; it can't be done, IMO.  BobCook's "the sofa was moved to take advantage of the light" theory may be quite right; in any case, it reminds us that these pix weren't taken within even an hour of the outcry, but several hours later, after countless declarations of "I believe I'll have another look at poor Mrs. Borden's face" and, of course, "Addy, come in and see/paw Mr. Borden!"

I've always thought the current sofa at The House was smaller than the original, but I may be mistaken.  I'm quite taken with the notion that the sofa would be centered under that print, though, especially after I had to hang two Muybridge prints above our king-size bed last weekend!

It would totally make sense that the sofa was centered under the picture.  But, what doesn't make sense is that no one was ever questioned if the sofa was moved from its original position which would block the kitchen door to the sitting room.  Chances of someone then sneaking through the dining room to get out the side entrance becomes even slimmer.  I have to wonder why Bridget, Lizzie or Emma were never questioned on this?  Its frustrating me, in case you can't tell! 

Susan, I tend to agree with you about the traffic pattern and the kitchen door.  I think the couch might have been off-center for that reason. I'd like to see it up against the smaller rug -- but:

In Porter's 'Fall River Tragedy', his diagram of the lower floor shows the sofa butted up right against the dining room door. (follows p. 51)

During the trial when Bowen is asked if there is any change in the position of the sofa as he saw it he replies:
..."It was even with the door".
Q:(Adams) The door frame?
A: The door frame.

As I posted earlier -- Dolan, during trial, says that the sofa "was up against the jam[b] of the door, the dining room door".

And during the preliminary he is asked if, when the photographs were taken on the day of the murders, anything had been changed. He says: " No sir, probably the furniture, some of the furniture, such as the chairs, BUT NONE OF THE ESSENTIAL FURNITURE." (p.186)
And later, when shown the photograph of Andrew's body says that is as it was found by him in every particular. (p.196)

It really seems to me that the lawyers were trying to determine if the sofa was where it had been originally -- and these are the answers they were getting.

Yes, Diana, that is true, the doctors and police were questioned on the position of the sofa.  But, I still can't help to wonder why no one who lived in that house was ever asked in the Inquest or trial, just to clarify for everyone.  Perhaps at one point in time the sofa was centered beneath the picture, but, was moved because it was impractical not to be able to use that doorway?

And of course my other question still irks me as to why the sofa was put up against that dang wall in the first place since it was right in the way.  I suppose we will never know? 

Floorplan by Nany McNelly.

Notice the dining room.
It has a lounge.
It is placed *centered* on the same wall as the lounge in the sitting room--the common wall--the wall is the same length, both sides...BUT, the dining room has 2 doors opening into the D.R., while the sitting room's 4 doors open out, yet we don't question this placement...

(Message last edited Jul-22nd-02  2:47 AM.)

Isn't it almost as though McNelly leaves that question up in the air?  The lounge in the sitting room is marked with a dark green dot, which according to the diagram's legend "indicates the location of the object is accurate". (i.e. pushed up against the DR doorjamb)

Whereas the lounge in the Dining Room is marked with a yellow dot,   which denotes: "object known to be in room but EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN".

This floorplan was discussed on another board.  It does contain errors.  Another poster pointed out a closet that isn't shown.  I thought it was in the sitting room, but I do see a closet shown there.  I mentioned that coffee/cocktail tables weren't in use in the 1890s, even though the person who drew this thinks the Bordens used them.  I don't wanta get into another sparring match about the "little table nigh the sofa," but I feel sure it wasn't a cocktail table.  I think it was probably the spindly little table that's shown against the wall in some of the pictures, but I'll acknowledge that there could have been another table in the vicinity too.  I just don't think it was a cocktail table.  I'm not at all sure we can rely on this diagram as gospel, though.

(Message last edited Jul-22nd-02  2:06 PM.)

We know Lizzie sat or reclined on a lounge in the Dining Room.
I thought it was interesting to note that regardless of Where that lounge was actually situated, the Designer of this layout Still Put that D.R. Lounge CENTERED on that wall, regardless of doors...

It equates in my mind with what the normal mistress of the house would do in placement of Her furniture.
The tendency to Center a piece of furniture seems species-specific!    "That's my story", etc...

If the lounge in the dining room was placed as shown in the first floor diagram, I don't think that there would be a problem with the doors.  The door from the dining room into the sitting room if opened too much would bump the arm of the lounge.  The dining room door going into the kitchen opens up against the wall and there appears to be enough clearance there to go through with no hindrance.

But, that sofa in the sitting room still bugs the heck out of me! 

Aha!!!!!!!!!  I've answered my question, or that is, Bridget has kindly answered my question.  Trial Volume 1, Page 236/i257, Bridget is on the stand and is being questioned as to what went on after she let Andrew into the house.  Andrew and Lizzie are in the dining room and Lizzie has just told Andrew that Abby had a note and went out:

Q. What is the next thing that happened?
A. The next thing I remember, Mr. Borden went out in the kitchen and come in the kitchen door, come from the kitchen into the sitting room and took the key off the mantel piece and went up stairs to his room.

Now, there is no way that the sofa in the sitting room could have been centered and up against the kitchen door if Bridget is correct!  Andrew came out of the dining room, into the kitchen and then into the sitting room from the kitchen door!!!  So, I gather that for some period of time, the sofa was off-center as it appears in the photos. 

That mantle shelf seems close enough to the kitchen doorway for someone of Andrew's highth, (& reach)  to be able to grab that key easily, w/o even entering the room!

I'll bet he only used that door when Abby wasn't around!

Still, door opening IN to kitchen will always have me wondering about the placement of that sofa.
There's even the photo that seems to show an arc of lighter wallpaper where the sofa (may have) used to be...( I know...it could be a shadow from the sofa arm...)
--Is where the *invisble man* is standing where the kitchen door IS?  Or is that distorted too?

Bobcookbobcook, got a photo?

The little rug in front of the kitchen door. Why is it there? A rug on a rug. Looks like the kind of rug you would see in a kitchen, by a sink. Or by a door leading to the outside---a rug to wipe one's feet on.

Do any of you have rugs on rugs? On the inside of the house, not at a door leading into another room?

Since we know the kitchen door was mostly closed, it should not be to simply cover up a worn area there.

Stefani, I for one do have a rug on top of carpet in my apartment.  I don't care for the carpeting in most apartments as it is usually something from the late 70s, early 80s, and though while still clean and serviceable, it is outdated.  So, I put my area rug in my living room area on top of the carpeting.

That little rug in the kitchen doorway is there because I believe that that door got more use than we think.  Think kitchen, wet floors, food spills, etc. I don't think that Abby wanted all that tracked on her sitting room carpet.  Think back to the 1950s or 60s.....did your parents have plastic on the couch?  Did they have those weird vinyl runners on the carpeting in high traffic areas and in halls?  I think that the elder Bordens were that way, in that what they had, they tried to keep nice.  Just my suppostion here.

Nope, no plastic on the furniture. No rugs on rugs. EXCEPT to cover up a pet stain, maybe.

I don't think the rug was for food stains and such, that would more likely occur going from the kitchen to the dining room, where food would be carried. Perhaps you northerners do it differently than we do south of the Mason Dixon line.

You know what I thought of looking at that little rug, now that you bring it up?  Maybe it is there to hide a poor carpet installation job.  See in the guest room photo, where the carpet line (light line) is starting at the foot of the bureau and extending toward us?
The ShotsInTheDark book shows clearly there, that the carpet was inexpertly pieced. And THIS was the guest room.  Poor Abby was probably mortified by the flaw.

That little piece in the entrance to the kitchen may be there to hide a similiar flaw...especially if that carpet was cut around the fireplace.  ???just a theory...

I'll bet that's why she put a chair there, between the bed and bureau...

(Message last edited Jul-24th-02  1:17 AM.)

Perhaps you have something there, Kat.  The guest room carpet does indeed look like its pieced wrong.  So, the same thing may have happened down in the sitting room?  I was also thinking that perhaps it was that whole Victorian idea of layers, stuff on top of more stuff and more clutter.  Have you ever seen photos of some of the more opulent homes during the Victorian era?  There will be like 4 to 5 different oriental rugs, one on top of the other.  In the windows there would be a roller blind and then lace curtains and then heavy drapes over that.  But, I don't see any evidence of that in the rest of the Borden house, so, I dropped that train of thought rather quick!  So, the little rug in the doorway of the sitting room may have been there to hide an inexpert piecing of carpet afterall.

But, I still can't help to think that the door between the kitchen and sitting room got alot of use.  Its the most direct way into the front of the house from the back(Lizzie and Emma)and the most direct way from the back of the house into the sitting room. 

I too use rugs on rugs.  I have some nice orientals, and my house is carpeted.  So I just have my orientals over the carpets.  I also have lots of little throw rugs in high-traffic areas.  I'm with Susan on traffic through the sitting room and into the front hall and upstairs.  The dining room was a mite out of the way and certainly full of furniture.  Why not traipse through the sitting room, even with the sofa in the way?  I have wondered on another board if this wasn't the door Lizzie opened to discover Andrew dead.  She never says it was the door from the dining room into the sitting room, but many have surmised it was.  I realize she claimed she entered the dining room and put her hat down, but she might have simply flung it in and then opened the most convenient door, which would be the one opening out of the kitchen.  She would have actually gotten a better view of the damage to Andrew that way.

Kat, your picture is an example of what happens to so many
photographs of the Borden saga.  It's cropped.  The photograh I possess from the FRHS shows a mustached policeman/doctor/whatever, leaning against and obscuring part of the door jamb.  If the couch was centered it would be partially blocking the doorway.

I have wondered that also, Edisto, if Lizzie meant that she put her hat down in the dining room and went into the sitting room via the kitchen.  In her Inquest testimony she makes a strange statement:

Q. When you came in from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.

Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.

Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched.

Now the door from the dining room into the sitting room opens into the dining room, the door from the kitchen into the sitting room opens into the kitchen.  How does one push a door open that needs to be pulled towards you?  Very strange.  Every door that opens on the sitting room opens out of the room. 

So, William that's what I wanted to know, Thanks...although it's disconcerting finding out over & over that the photo's as well as the bodies have been tampered with or are misleading.
SO that man is standing where the door to the kitchen would be? 
If he IS THE DOOR (And due to a fluke of exposure it looks like he is IN Front of the door) then, yes, I now see there would be no room.

Susan:  That is too weird what you wrote.!
I must have read that a hundred times and knew there was something odd about it but not WHAT!
Is this a slip-up?  Is she referring to another door entirely?
The guest room door, for instance?...

I'm with Kat.  This is a really interesting find.  I'd always realized the dining room/sitting room door opened the wrong way for Lizzie to have pushed it, but it never hit me till now (though the diagrams show it clearly) that the kitchen/sitting room door was the same way.  "Pushed" would be the wrong term in either case.  I guess there could be many explanations for the error (even that the steno got the word wrong), but it's very interesting, nevertheless.  Just one more hole in Lizzie's inquest testimony?

I notice weird stuff like that and mull it over.  Is it me?  Is it something odd that I found?  I just happened across that weird bit searching the Inquest for something else and it struck me!

I would have to bow out to you, Edisto, as you seem to be our resident Steno expert.  Would it be possible to flub a word like "pull" into "push"?  Do the 2 words look similar enough written in shorthand?

Lizzie lived in that house quite some years, even lying, I should think that she would know the difference? 

Well, if we worry about Steno mistakes we'll never GEt anywhere.

Let's say Lizzie had a time-lapse moment.
Even if she didn't kill Abby, maybe she HEARD (as the bare Minimum, of what EVERYBODY thinks!) the attack or the body falling.
Cowering in her room with the door locked...
Waits until it seems the coast is clear, opens her door to peek out...catches a glimpse of Someone She Knows leaving, sneaks up to the almost closed guest room door and s l o w l y pushes it o p e n ...["it was not latched"] only to see.........

Yeah, but the hat thing is wrong too. There wasn't a hat. So if she said she put her hat on the table, then pushed the door in, well she is on opium! Neither thing happened or could have happened.

I sound much too sure of myself here. That is my first mistake!

Jeesh, I was hoping you'd forget about the HAT

I was having a *Melodramatic Moment*.

O.K., which way does the screen door open?  Maybe that's the door?  ("It wasn't latched"...)

The screen door opened out of the house, the kitchen door opened in, it could be pushed open if it wasn't already.

Theres that darn hat again!  I just did a search through the Inquest volumes 1 and 2, Trial volumes 1 and 2, Witness statements, etc. and the only person who originally said anything about the hat was Lizzie.  And it seems that it was just taken for granted that it was there on the dining room table.

If I remember correctly, Alice Russell brings up the un-ironed handkerchiefs and puts them in Emma's room.  But, nothing about her bringing up Lizzie's hat! 

Does anyone have a source that definitely says the hat wasn't on the table (or elsewhere in the dining room)?  As I recall, there were some hooks near the entrance on which to hang things.  Might someone have simply hung it up?  Of course, if it was that convenient to do so, we might wonder why Lizzie didn't do that herself on the way in.  It always seems to me that Lizzie told lies that would actually hurt her, not make her look better.  Why on earth would she do that?  Did she want to spend the rest of her life in the slammer (or worse)?

In the autopsy photo of Andrew (see Stefani's Gallery) we view Andrew on the autopsy table. In the background is a chair, a table with some books and a hat.  I had always assumed this belonged to Andrew or perhaps one of the doctors on the scene. Is it possible that this was Lizzie's hat? I am not an expert on Victorian clothing, but we are fortunate to have someone in our group who is - - How about it, Edisto?  Is this a man's or a woman's hat?

(Message last edited Jul-26th-02  12:45 PM.)

While I can't answer for Edisto, I studied the autopsy photo of Andrew.  I noticed something strange in the photo, there is one of those wonderful little rugs in front of the door.  In fact, it seems to be up against the door, which made me think that Andrew's photo was taken in the sitting room and was flip-flopped.  I flipped it, but, then Andrew's wounds are on the wrong side of his head, therefor, it must be the dining room.  Since that door opens into the dining room, it would be difficult to open with that rug in the way!  And, if it is the dining room, lo and behold, the lounge is up against the wall, between the 2 doors!



As for the hat, it appears to be a Homberg or Fedora, which I'm not sure was available during the 1890s.  But, whatever the case, it appears to be a man's hat.  Women's hats of the period tended to be small and very decorated.





But, then I found this, from what I can see of the woman's blouse or suit coat, it appears to be the 1890s to the early 1900s.  But, the hairstyle looks to me to be from the 1880's.  It looks to be some riding hat to me.

More on the furniture in the dining room. 

During the trial, Bridget is asked:

Q:"Did you see what Mr. Borden did when he went in to the dining room?"
A:"He sat down in A CHAIR AT THE HEAD OF THE LOUNGE".

A few minutes later, she says:

"I was washing my windows.  I went out into the kitchen after something; I see the man sitting on the lounge, and the CHAIR AT THE HEAD OF THE LOUNGE".
Q: "In the dining room?"
A: Yes.
[I take her second statement to mean that Andrew had moved from the chair to the lounge -- not that he was sitting on both the chair and the lounge -- or that there was another mysterious man sitting on the lounge.  But, then again,.......]

Susan, I am confused (a regular state with me in this heat, I am afraid). Are you thinking that the door in the picture of the autopsy/andrew is the dining room? I don't see that at all. I see the kitchen door. And that is THE very rug we were speaking of before. See the couch arm there?

Am I misreading your post?

I've always thought the hat shown in the autopsy photo belonged to a man.  It's a little hard to see the details of it, but it definitely looks like a man's plain,  brimmed hat of some sort.  As to Susan's claim that women wore little delicate-looking hats - yes, they did.  However, that type of hat was mainly for indoors and very dressy occasions.  If one was going to be outdoors, as Lizzie claimed she had been, one would wear a brimmed hat.  The idea was to protect the complexion from the sun.  The gazebo and porch pix in the Gallery (possible Lizzie pix) show ladies with different types of hats, although the Lizzie wannabe is the only one wearing hers.  Judging by the fashions, I think that picture was probably made in the 1880s, not many years before the Borden murders.  The lady in the gazebo (Lizzie?) is wearing a small, brimless toque.  It's probably designed for traveling, because it's not convenient to wear a brimmed hat when sitting in a high-backed seat on a train, for example.  The other ladies, who probably aren't planning to travel, have hats with brims but have removed them because they're not in the sun.  Parasols were also used as sunshields, but they couldn't be used while doing anything else with the hands.  As strange as it seems, form often does follow function, even in ladies' fashions.

Stefani, I've looked and examined that picture from so many different angles.  Now, I could be totally mistaken on this, but, look at the arm of the sofa that projects out over the little rug.  Is it me, or is there a door behind the sofa arm, on the same wall as the sofa?  Thats what I am seeing.  I could be way off, but, if I'm right, the only configuration in the house with a door like that by a sofa or lounge would be the dining room. 

I have consulted my expert and that hat on the table , with the books is a "Staw Boater" , upside down.

The sources have implied that at that TIME, straw boaters were not particularly a Gentleman's hat, certainly not a prosperous or important one.  More a hat for a reporter...A devil-may-care type, or spiffy man-about-town.

I too am confused as to your post Susan.  That is the kitchen door, I believe.  [Edit here:  However, after visiting the house just now, do we know if the kitchen door (facing the sitting room) was painted white, or was it that dark wood color, like plain varnished wood?]
BUT:  There was designated blood spots on the jamb in Dolan's tesrtimony and I always wondered if the "Shadowing" on that door & frame might not be blood, in this view.

(Message last edited Jul-26th-02  10:11 PM.)

Oh, now I think I understand you. But still, the door is the kitchen door. What you see beside the sofa is the baseboard and  the door frame to the kitchen----at least in my mind's eye.

That is one high baseboard however. Hmmm. Where is all the blood?

Gosh, after staring at that photo again, does anybody see what I see? Is that Andrew's Congress shoe over there on its side by the rug beside the couch? Oh, that is creepy. I don't know why, just is.

Am I imagining this?

That's a jar or tankard of some kind with a handerchief or small towel draped over the top.

On the floor? By the door? A jar? I don't see that at all. I need new glasses.

You can't see it merely because I HAVE ALL THE GOOD SOURCES for the photo at MY house right now--haha!

Knowlton Papers, and Shots In The Dark.
I even have the full-sized glossy a fellow Bordenite contributed.
I be GREEDY.
Also, that is why I know that hat is a "Straw Boater".
My expert was really me--

I think this is a clearer picture.

Here are two more pictures. The first is a zoom of the table, the second a zoom of the corner by the sofa and door.

(Message last edited Jul-27th-02  1:17 AM.)

Thanks Harry!
In your Post #83 that item on the floor looks like a tankard with a slip of material over the top.

In zoom #84, att. #2 it DOES look like a boot with a sock over it!
Well, what do ya know?

Yup, I'm eating my words too, it is the sitting room!  That picture I posted from the LAB site wasn't very clear, now with Harry's help I can see it is just the corner next to the kitchen door.  Funny how a slightly clearer photo can clear things up for you.  Thanks, Harry!!!

I think that does look like a shoe or boot with a sock hanging out of the top, and from what I can see in the Andrew murder photo, there seems to be a small bit of light or white colored sock visible!  Strange, I thought that most people, men and women wore black hosiery as a standard?  And, I couldn't see this in the unclear photo, but, is Andrew opened up from stem to stern (or sternum)?  I assume it was after his stomach was removed? 

Oh, it's really a tankard or jar, take my word for it.
I have the clearest picture here at home.  So does Bob G. and anyone with the original or the SHOTS book.

I think that is bare leg showing above the boot but I don't know for sure.  (Are these pictures coming from the web-site?  Are the photo's coming from there bad or is it your computer?  I guess I'd better ask Stef)
Yes he's been opened and unexpertly re-sewn.

I did a test in the Privy.  There might be someting wrong with the photo...

(Message last edited Jul-27th-02  5:03 AM.)

Yes, the pictures are from the website, Kat.  And thats what they look like on the site when I pull them up.  So, that isn't a boot with a sock coming out of it?  I don't know why, but, I got the same chill that Stefani was talking about!  A small jar with a rag in it, hmmm?  I wonder what was in it?  Andrew's stomach? 

See, in Harry's clear photo I suddenly could see things I couldn't in the fuzzy one.  I thought that that strange looking line and fold may have been long johns on Andrew, I don't recall seeing anything about them being buried in the yard with the rest of the bloody clothing, so, I don't know what kind of underwear Andrew had on?

Thanks, Harry!  Good clear pictures make all the difference.  That hat does resemble a man's straw boater, but there's something odd about the crown of it.  It looks kind of bulbous and not straight up and down like boaters usually are.  (I have some wonderful pix of my Dad at the New York World's Fair in 1939 in his natty straw boater.  A true classic!)  I'm kinda glad I wasn't having a snack when I pulled up that very clear autopsy photo of Andrew.  Yuck!

Isn't life(or in this case death)odd?  For some reason -- after all the years I've spend poring over photographs and reports of the murders -- that clear picture of Andrew on my screen gave me such a pang of sadness.  Maybe just the vulnerability of the posture? -- or imagining how he would have despised it if he could ever have known anyone would see him like that? ... Strangely enough, I think that picture humanizes him to an extent that nothing else we know about him does.

Andrew was old enough for support hose, don't you think. While I have to say I don't have the cleanest image of this "thing" by the door, so far, from what I have seen, it STILL looks like a shoe and and now a sock over the top--or support hose rather.

I love finding odd things in pictures that I have viewed a thousand times before. Like when I saw the casters for the first time, all by myself. I realize that others may have seen this well before me and took it to be an ordinary fact, but I had never heard of it and when I saw them I just got all excited!

I am tardy getting back into this conversation but for what it is worth I think the sofa placement shown in the crime scene photo of Andrew is accurate. Andrew at least and perhaps Abby, too, were practical people. Presumably they made or assented to most of the decisions regarding furnishing and decorating the common areas of the house. When the picture on the wall above the sofa was hung they centered it there because it could be centered. When the sofa was placed along the north wall of the sitting room they chose not to center it because 1) doing so would have made access between the sitting room and the kitchen at least inconvenient if not nearly impossible and 2) if the sofa was centered a person sitting at its east end near the kitchen door would have been "lost" almost behind the mantelpiece in the corner of the room, in relation to where people would be sitting in other parts of the room.

I also think the statements of witnesses, for example Dr. Dolan's testimony regarding the location of the body and sofa, carry weight.

That's the fun part, trying to spot little things. You never know where they're going to lead.

In the zoom picture of the table, is that a plate standing on top of the books or what?

Mr. Rebello had signed in, previously on this subject, and as he has been helping recreate the room for authenticity he had information as to room furnishings.  He commented that that *dish* looking object, is a glass globe to a kerosene lamp, maybe set there after removal so as not to be broken with all the people in the room--[and that possibly the lamps had been lit for more lighting-?-me thought]
If we saw it in spatial context we would probably see it's rounded shape...

Its funny, I noticed that lamp globe and thought nothing of it.  I know that the Borden's used kerosene lamps to light the house.  But, it is in an odd location and you're probably right, Kat, about the lamps being used to light the room up for the autopsies.  I can't imagine those rooms being all that bright without electric or gas lighting.

Where is Rebello recreating the sitting room, on paper or in the LB B&B?  It would be interesting to see dioramas of the house. 

This is what I have decided (for now!).

The rug is the demarkation line----the sofa legs are to stay to the other side of this. If this is so, and I realize I am only hypothesizing here, then the couch has been moved over from where it is ordinarily, which in my opinion was closer to the kitchen door.

Since the couch has casters, it is entirely possible that the couch moved during the attack. The movement of the couch towards the dining room door would indicate that Andrew was either 1. attacked from the front and he pushed the couch back with his recoil from the onslaught, or 2. the attacker stood over the left arm (facing) of the couch and got him from the area of the dining room door, but the blows caused the couch to roll TOWARDS the killer, perhaps when the hatchet was stuck in the head and had to be removed with force, thereby dragging the couch a little ways towards the murderer.

If we attempt to explore all scenarios that would have moved that couch, then, we can add that it may have been moved previously to Andrew's sitting on it, for whatever obscure reason.  A stage set for murder?
Also , since it's on casters, anyone THROWING themselves onto it would make it move.  If the person did this over several days, it might be NOW at it's limit, where then it would be pushed back into it's Original position...only to start the process over again.  If there had been a T.V. in the room, I can picture a person throwing themselves onto the couch and picking up the remote.

I also had an odd sight in my imagination...of the girls WHEN THEY WERE girls, fighting and tickling and throwing themselves on the couch...roughhousing...even if it doesn't look very comfortable.

That just made me wonder, has anyone sat on anything that was covered in horsehair as the Borden sofa is reported to be?  Its supposed to be a very hard wearing material and lasts forever.  I would think that it was itchy and scratchy, but, apparently it still is in use even today!  Found a great site that weaves horsehair fabrics.

http://www.johnboydtextiles.co.uk/

I had an aunt who was an antique dealer in Charleston, SC, and she really went in for authenticity.  She would get old pieces reupholstered in horsehair.  Once she gave my mother a chaise and asked if Mother would like it done in horsehair.  Mother rolled her eyes and said, "Noooooo."  We got red damask instead.  I have sat on the horsehair, though.  As I recall, it has a slick feeling, almost like a modern synthetic of some sort.  Maybe that's part of the reason Andrew's body had slumped further down after his death.  It slid.  I guess that wouldn't account for the entire sofa moving, though.

Thanks, Edisto!  I've been laboring under that misconception for years!  Whenever I think of the Borden sofa, I almost break out in prickly heat.  But, yet what you've told me, its a slick material.  It doesn't sound as uncomfortable as I imagined, just slippery. 

Thanks for the interesting site, Susan.  It's funny that they may have assumed we knew it was the UK they were talking about.  I only found a refernce to Britain in the ADDRESS.

I also never knew that horsehair could be woven into such delectable designs!

Isn't it fascinating what they can do with horsehair?  Leave it to the UK with all its history to be one of the few places in the world to still be manufacturing horsehair fabric.  And hows this for a coincedence, horsehair fabric is made by weaving horsehair over cotten threads, Lizzie's Bedford Cord dress was made with silk woven over linen. 

---

103. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Jul-30th-02 at 3:04 AM
In response to Message #90.

Diana:  I felt strange seeing that photo posted here, I must admit.  I can't say as it's never been done before, though.
All the characters--the little people--had no choice in the matter of the public's intense bright spotlight gaze on them. 
A Murderer's Hand wrought this....
---------------------
Susan, I have comments about posts #62 & 69.
I've been trying to find out how you know the screen door opened out, so I'll stop looking and just ask...where do I find this info, please?
While looking, it was recalled to me that Lizzie told Bridget that when she came back to the house, the screen door "was open".
I suppose whichever way it opened, Keeping it open might take one of those Hydraulic? spring-back tube thingys?  Or PROPPED open?

The other thing that you wrote which was so intriguing was at post #62, where Lizzie describes PUSHING a door open, "It was not latched", to find Andrew's body.
I've been looking at Rebello houseplans, and if she were in either closet in the sitting room the door could be pushed open.  Same if she tried entering the parlor from the entryway or the sitting room.  Same if she entered by the front door.  Leaving the sitting room, would necessitate pushing open a door--also leaving the kitchen to enter the dining room, or leaving the kitchen to go through the back hallway.  She would also push open a door to enter the pantry.
--These remarks are not aimed directly at you, but please...anyone may weigh in with their thoughts on what Lizzie may have meant..(?)  (These doors depicted here, are downstairs only.  You all get the idea)

(Message last edited Jul-30th-02  3:06 AM.)

---

104. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Jul-30th-02 at 4:09 AM
In response to Message #103.

Kat, I will take you by the hand and try to walk you through this.  Nowhere in any of written info of the Borden case is there any reference that I know of as to how the side door and screen door opened.  That said, I have studied architecture and have learned some things about houses.  Exterior doors of a home as a rule open in, the side the hinges are on.  If they open out, the hinges of the door would be on the outside of the home and a thief could come along and tap out the hinge pins, and locked or not, take the door off and have access to the house.  So, if the side door opened in, the screen door would have to open out, in other words, if the back door was closed and locked, you couldn't push the screen door in to access the locks on the wooden door to get in.  Plus, hook and eyes are used on the insides of doors, opposite to the side that they are pulled to.  Does that clarify it any for you?  Plus, here are some pics of the Borden house, I realize that they are recent, but, I don't think that the direction that the doors opened would have changed over time.



The Borden side door, look towards the top right of the door and you can see the hinge up there, plus, if the door opened out, there would be a door stop (the thin wooden molding strips that the door hits to stop it from going all the way through the doorway) on this side, the inside of the door.



The Borden screen door, note the hinges on the outside so that the door opens out, plus the handle that is meant for "pulling" the door and not pushing it in.  Does it make some sense now?  Sometimes I'm not good at explaining things that I know to make them clear to others. 



(Message last edited Jul-30th-02  4:11 AM.)

---

105. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Jul-30th-02 at 7:28 PM
In response to Message #104.

That was an excellent explanation and perfect visual accompaniment.  Thanks.
However, you now have peanut butter on your hand, dear.

---

106. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Jul-31st-02 at 12:56 AM
In response to Message #105.

Peanut butter?  I'm lost...oh, you had peanut butter on your hand?    I was hoping I didn't get all long winded in my explanation and sound too lofty?  As I stated, sometimes I'm not good at explaining technical things, its why I didn't go into teaching. 

---

107. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Jul-31st-02 at 2:46 AM
In response to Message #106.

I had been eating my trademark peanut butter & jelly sandwich when I read your post.
I do mean thank you!
BTW:  Have you figured out what Lizzie meant, yet, when she says she pushed open the door?

---

108. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Jul-31st-02 at 3:07 AM
In response to Message #107.

No, not yet.  And you know me when I get something stuck in my craw!  I've been turning this one over and over in my mind and still can't fathom it.  The only door that keeps popping up in my mind is the cellar door, it could be "pushed" open if it wasn't latched or bolted as the case may be.  But, it wouldn't open into the sitting room.

Its almost as if Lizzie is mentioning one of the sitting room doors by accident.  I killed Andrew then "pushed" the dining room door as it wasn't latched.  Went out to the barn, hid the hatchet, came back in and then called for Maggie.  You know, something like that.  Like she thought it all out and flubbed one of her lines, thats all I can come up with on this one.  Its going to drive me crazy, why didn't Knowlton catch it at the time?  Or question it later? 

BTW, I love peanut butter and honey sandwiches!!!

---

109. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by bobcook848 on Jul-31st-02 at 10:45 PM
In response to Message #108.

Remember that this is August weather in New England...hot, humid, sticky weather.  The wood of the screen door may have been "swollen" with humidity and therefore required being "pulled" shut (just before being latched with the hook and eye) and "pushed" open or "out" when doing the reverse.

When I first bought my house in Attleboro it was 1910 construction and both the front and rear doors had wooden screen doors on the exterior.  When the weather got hot and humid both doors would get "stuck" when you closed them tight.

It was a pain in the bumsky until I replaced them with modern aluminum doors.

Just adding me two cents dearies....

BC

---

110. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Jul-31st-02 at 11:10 PM
In response to Message #109.

Yes, I totally hear you Bob Cook!  I grew up in New Jersey, which isn't exactly New England, but, we did suffer some tremendous hot sticky summers.  The house I grew up in was built in the late 1800's and came with all the problems of older homes that hadn't been built particularly well or updated.  Windows and doors that would swell with the humidity and stick, etc.  Our back screen door had been remodeled or at least, remuddled.  Someone had taken out the screen, filled in the lower opening with wood and then put screening in the small opening that was left.  It also had a storm window to put in the opening for the fierce winters, though, it rarely did any good against the cold.  Sorry, I'm rambling, memories. 

---

111. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Stefani on Jul-31st-02 at 11:25 PM
In response to Message #110.

Susan, Bobcookbobcook, I find that some of the MOST interesting posts are those that contain personal recollections of events and practical matters that relate in a sidewardways to this case. Who was it now that once told of using the stove in the kitchen for the trash can?  When Edisto talks of her Victorian dresses and undergarments (Victorian I mean), I always glean some much needed new insight.

Your memories of the doors sticking is perfectly appropriate to this discussion. Please continue. I find it immensely fascinating.

I was born and raised in Florida. Spent almost my entire life here in the same town. I need to hear what it was like in the north, houses and stoves, weather and social attitudes, to understand anything about this case. So I say thank you for the images you have put into my mind. And Susan, I agree, your explanation of doors opening in and out was wonderful! I think you would make a fine teacher----you use visuals so well!

---

112. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-1st-02 at 12:40 AM
In response to Message #111.

Thank you, Stefani!  I just don't want to come across as little Suzy know-it-all.  Sometimes I just don't know the technical terms or the best way to put them so its easily understandable.  I guess I did okay this time? 

---

113. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-2nd-02 at 12:33 AM
In response to Message #112.

O.k. Suzy...
We're about to lose this thread.
Anybody figure out why Lizzie would say she pushed the door open, "It was not latched"? (to find the Body of Andrew)
????

---

114. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Stefani on Aug-2nd-02 at 12:42 AM
In response to Message #113.

Ok, here is a stretch. The door to the guest room where Abby was done in pushes in. And latched may just refer to the fact that the door was not closed, and she didn't have to turn the handle. Maybe she got her dead bodies mixed up?

---

115. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-2nd-02 at 1:54 AM
In response to Message #114.

That makes sense to me, and also what Susan was trying to convey also was worthy.
I'd really like to see every body weigh in with a theory, no matter what it may sound like....
maybe reach a consensus  ?

---

116. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-2nd-02 at 3:23 AM
In response to Message #115.

The only other thing I can come up with on this is that when Lizzie said that the dining room/sitting room door wasn't latched, she meant it was partially open.  She put her hand on the sitting room side of the door and pushed it open the rest of the way, I still think it would be easier to grab the doorknob and pull it.  Kind of a anti-climax, but, thats all I can come up with, I've racked my brains for days on this one! 

---

117. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-2nd-02 at 4:34 AM
In response to Message #116.

MMMM!
Wracked brains with tripe and sherbert!

---

118. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by diana on Aug-2nd-02 at 2:01 PM
In response to Message #116.

Susan, I think that might be it.  I tried it with some of my doors in different rooms -- and it seems to depend on how much the door is ajar when you get to it.  If it's open 50% or more -- the tendency is to PUSH the other side of it, rather than reach for the doorknob.

---

119. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-2nd-02 at 10:28 PM
In response to Message #118.

Thats as far as I could take that one, thanks, Diana.  Anyone else have an idea?  I realize its not the biggest thing in the world, but, it is a strange statement. 

---

120. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Aug-3rd-02 at 1:13 PM
In response to Message #116.

In the olden days (over 90 years ago?) the door locks had a switch on them that would retract the tongue (right word?) that latches the door to the frame. Then the door handle would not have to be turned to open the door. (Remembered from 50+ years ago.)

---

121. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-3rd-02 at 10:06 PM
In response to Message #119.

It seems if we practice on the smaller things we may become experienced enough to solve the bigger questions.  It's really *training*, but it's also an interesting undertaking, to train ourselves in the discipline of *reasoning*.

---

122. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-4th-02 at 2:20 PM
In response to Message #121.

Well, that sounds like a good way to look at it!  I just don't want to get bogged down examining minutiae that may not be important.  But, you know how it goes, something jumps out at you and you have to pick it up and examine it from all angles before you can let it rest. 

---

123. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-4th-02 at 8:42 PM
In response to Message #122.

I was thinking about the doors all night last night.

I went around today looking for a left-hand door...meaning one that opened the way the dining room door did, out of the sitting room.  (BTW:  Any room I tried, I always seemed to use my left hand to pull the door open...)

I found that the door out of my den had the hinges on the left and so I stood in the room with the door ajar, and then tried to leave the room.

I did grab the EDGE of the door, not the handle, but I can still only describe the motion as *pulling TOWARD*.

The oddest thing, though is what I SAW when I opened that door.

I saw into my family room, and directly to my left the arm of a big chair that was right up close to the door moulding, and I could envision a head lying there on that arm, even if sunk down a bit.

I didn't have to ENTER the room to see perfectly.  I then stepped back instinctively and shut the door.  (Part of the *instinct* was because that's typically what Lizzie said she had done [steppedback] and the other 50% *instinct* was because my various cats are so curious about that room that I can never enter it without shutting the door firmly in their furry faces.  (They'd Break In there if they knew HOW!).

I talked to Stefani soon after and told her what i had seen.  She responded with the querry as to If I had Seen My Father's Head There Bleeding, Wouldn't I Then Enter The Room, rather than step back and AWAY?
I had to answer yes.

---

124. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-5th-02 at 2:19 AM
In response to Message #123.

Ooooo, that post gave me chills!  I was living it as I read it and all imagined I saw a dead body there!  Creepy!

Is the family room a "kitty free" zone? 

---

125. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Edisto on Aug-5th-02 at 10:55 AM
In response to Message #123.

Maybe I'm a devout coward, but I don't think I would have gone into that room.  Presumably Andrew was making no noise and was motionless -- either dead or nearly so.  The killer might still have been in there with him, although that thought didn't seem to bother Lizzie later.  I would have figured I could do him very little good and that I should send for a doctor or go after one myself.  Lizzie might have done herself several favors by actually entering the room.  It would have made her sound more sympathetic toward Andrew, and it could have explained any blood later found on her person.  Even if she didn't go in, she could have said she did.  But she didn't do that.  At least some of the "lies" Lizzie told made her look worse, not better.

---

126. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Aug-5th-02 at 12:24 PM
In response to Message #125.

I've read that you can smell blood (in a case like that).
Does anyone have experience with this?

---

127. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-6th-02 at 12:05 AM
In response to Message #126.

Yes, when there is a quantity of blood in a given area it tends to smell like copper, think old pennies, yuck! 

---

128. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Stefani on Aug-6th-02 at 12:13 AM
In response to Message #127.

Considering that the murder had only occurred minutes before she discovered the body, in a hot house, she might have heard the dripping of the blood onto the floor too. sights and sounds of death.

One thing though. Weren't he blinds closed for the nap? Wasn't the room rather dark? How could she see anything?

---

129. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-6th-02 at 12:24 AM
In response to Message #127.

Do we know how long that "sofa" wall is?

Because, upon retiring last night, I realized, from re-creating that view I had from the inside of the den OUT, that I have in a small area of my family room, the EXACT same set-up as that small area in Borden's house.

I have the shortish wall there, where we A:WAYS had a LARGE COUCH, and that obstructed somewhat passage to the back bedroom hallway(corresponds to Borden kitchen), where there is a DOOR (which we had installed to keep out the T.V. family room noise from those bedrooms).  The only difference is that THAT door opens into the hall with HINGES on the Left, doorknob on the right.
The den door opens the same, tho, as the Borden dining room door.
I never noticed this until last night.
That is creepy. 

The OTHER side of the room is mostly sliding glass door to the patio.

---

130. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-6th-02 at 10:58 PM
In response to Message #129.

Wow, Kat, sounds like you could do some serious Borden experimenting right in your own home!!!

From studying the Andrew on sofa photos, my guesstimate is a 10' long wall behind the sofa.  Could you imagine sending someone to the B&B to measure the rooms?  Maybe it could be someones pet project next time they go there and post the findings on the LAB site? 

---

131. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-7th-02 at 1:43 AM
In response to Message #130.

I'll bet it was in Kieran's report.
I'll bet Ms. McGinn knows, and those who helped recreate the furnishings.
I'd take a referrence of 10 feet as a *probable*.
Now, I'll have to measure my wall.  I wish I could scan a photo...this area of mine is unique.

---

132. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-8th-02 at 12:11 AM
In response to Message #131.

Any luck with the photo scan? 

---

133. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-12th-02 at 11:59 PM
In response to Message #132.

This thread kind of fizzled.  Thats why I'm posting, hoping to get it up and running again!  Is this the longest thread that has been going on this forum?

So, Kat, any more news on your room?  Could someone in your area scan a photo for you?  And, have you done any more experiments in reference to the room? 

---

134. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-13th-02 at 1:20 AM
In response to Message #133.

Stef's the scanning expert & she and I are keeping different hours right now.
My A/C has been out and my cat was very ill.
So, no.

---

135. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-13th-02 at 1:58 AM
In response to Message #134.

Oops, I'm sorry!  Didn't realize you had so much on your plate right now.  I hope things go better for you soon!

---

136. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-13th-02 at 2:09 AM
In response to Message #135.

Thanks, and yes things as of today, are getting back to normal..

---

137. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-13th-02 at 2:12 AM
In response to Message #136.

Thats great to hear!!! 

---

138. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-13th-02 at 2:19 AM
In response to Message #137.

It was like a MIRACLE, with the cat, who is 20 years old on Sept.17.knockonwood

And when it so hot, in Fla. with no A/C, you just loll around with no gumption.  THAT was finally fixed at noon.

---

139. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-13th-02 at 2:31 AM
In response to Message #138.

Yay!!!  No more HotKat, or was that Hot Kat on a Tin Roof? 

---

140. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Aug-13th-02 at 5:04 PM
In response to Message #131.

Kieran the engineer made a detailed report on the measurement of the house, and its location. VEL skips over it in her book.
Didn't he support Lizzie by saying that he could not see his assistant from the doorway when he lay in the same position as Abby? And, when going DOWN the stairs (most people look down ahead) he could not see the body except if he turned his head on one step?
Also, that a man could have hidden in the small closets by the front door?

---

141. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-13th-02 at 8:18 PM
In response to Message #140.

The experiments Kieran did showed:
a) that someone standing at LIZZIE'S bedroom doorway could not see Abby's body lying on the guest room floor.
b) That the body could be discerned as *something* (depending on the light level in the guest room), minimum, while on a certain stair.  (Probably depending on the person's height?)
c) That someone could hide in the downstairs hall closet if they were unmoving while there was a witness.  If the person hiding MOVED while there was a witness in the hall, the *hiding person* could be noticed right away.  (At least in Kieran's experience...but he did KNOW there was someone in there...)

BTW:  I noticed an original Kieran cellar floorplan, white on black, in the Knowlton Papers.  (At least that's the color it was as printed).

---

142. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Aug-14th-02 at 6:01 PM
In response to Message #141.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I usually look ahead when going down the stairs, unless its at the steps.
Have you noticed what you do when you walk down stairs?

I think its more likely to look around when going UP the stairs. This was how they (Mrs. Churchill or Bridget) found Abby.

---

143. "Re: A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-15th-02 at 3:52 AM
In response to Message #142.

Lizzie went up the stairs.
Lizzie went down the stairs.
Lizzie stood on the stairs.

Take your pick...Lizzie said she covered all the bases....

---

144. "I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-16th-02 at 2:38 AM
In response to Message #133.

Stef reminded me to measure that wall tonight.
It's almost exactly 8 feet from door moulding to door moulding.

Maybe that Borden sitting room wall is 10 feet, as Susan guess-ti-mated.

I suppose I'll E-mail the B&B for a measurement, unless someone here can confirm the guestimate?  Ball-Park figure is O.k. by me as a starting point...

(Message last edited Aug-16th-02  3:12 AM.)

---

145. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by harry on Aug-16th-02 at 8:39 AM
In response to Message #144.

The lot plan on page 45, Rebello, shows the house to be 47 feet in length. Allowing 2 feet for the walls (2 exterior, 2 interior) that leaves 45 feet.  The house is roughly divided in thirds on the first floor which would make each approx. 15 feet. (Rebello, page 49)

This same floor plan Rebello, shows the sitting room a little smaller and the kitchen a little bigger. So lets say the sitting room was 14 feet.

I got out the measuring tape and measured the doors in my place. The bedroom doors were 32", the main door 36". I have 2 small closets off the living room which were 24". The other closets were double wide doors. 

So if that wall was 14 feet and we allow 2-1/2 feet for the door (From the dining room) that leaves 11-1/2 feet. Subtracring the 7 foot couch leaves 4-1/2.  There is a length of wall from the left side of the door to the west wall. If we allow 1-1/2 for that, that leaves 3 feet from the end of the couch to the kitchen door assuming the couch is right up to the door frame as shown in the photos.

---

146. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-16th-02 at 10:28 PM
In response to Message #145.

I didn't think to measure the doors..
Thanks for all that info!

I assume if anyone knew different, we would have heard by now.
So that 3 feet clearance to the kitchen door sounds just sufficient to get through unobstructed.
I have an 8' wall, but, the door to the *kitchen* (my back hall) opens a different way, the knob on the right.  I suppose that would make all the difference?
There is no sofa there now, but for years there was a huge sofa, and I recall always making a *jog* around the edge of it.  We used that door MUCH more than the Borden's, I would think...  Our picture situation was also different, in that we had massive amounts of collage photo's framed there hung in all different ways.
Abby should have tried that technique of decoration, then it would not matter if the sofa was centered.  I'm surprised, after finding out more about the *fussy* Victorian, that she provided just one picture on that whole wall, which was not in sync with the placement of the couch.

---

147. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-17th-02 at 3:45 AM
In response to Message #146.

I've always been surprised by that also, given that the description of the sitting room is that it was filled with useless small tables loaded with bric-a-brac.  The room was actually pretty subdued.

So, it sounds like my guesstimate was pretty much on the money?  How bizarre that you have a Bordenesque room in your house, Kat!  Do you find yourself shying away from it or strangely drawn to go in it now? 

---

148. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-17th-02 at 4:12 AM
In response to Message #147.

It's only part of a room.
And the only time it was creepy was when I peeped out the den door into my *sitting room* and saw that view.

From any other angle, it is not threatening.
I don't know what that signifies.
I also don't know of any experiment I could do, other than to concentrate and imagine   (?)

---

149. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-17th-02 at 11:13 AM
In response to Message #148.

Well, one thing you have shown is that people can and will put a sofa in an awkward area and just live with it and move around it as they have to.

Now, you can put yourself in the killer's shoes, Andrew is on the sofa.  Do you sneak in from your "kitchen" entrance?  Do you sneak in from your "dining room" entrance?  Or, do you just flat out confront the man and start whacking?  Which would be the least awkward area in that space to do that?  In front of the sofa?  At the head of the sofa?  Or at the foot?  I realize anyone could do these experiments, but, you have that neat little area to try it out in! 

---

150. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by harry on Aug-17th-02 at 11:30 AM
In response to Message #148.

Susan, you hit the number right on the head (IMO). I don't think we could be off by more than a few inches either way.

Good Sherlocking! Your Fall River detective kit is attached.





(Message last edited Aug-17th-02  11:31 AM.)

---

151. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-17th-02 at 11:54 AM
In response to Message #150.

Hear Hear!
Good guesstimate, Susan!

I see the approach from that den.
The den in my house = dining room.

Especially if there was access to cellar or outside, BEHIND me.

Not from parlour, or kitchen.
Nor from in front, if there was a table and I had big skirts, and Andrew had no defense wounds.
The dining room approach is just exactly sneaky enough.

BUT:  What about the door Lizzie says she *pushed open*?

This is just my IMPRESSION, and is my own opinion, (for now...)

---

152. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-17th-02 at 6:27 PM
In response to Message #151.

Thanks guys!  It helped knowing the size of that sofa.  But, the blows from left to right bother me still as Lizzie is reported to be right handed.  I did a little experiment using both hands on an imaginary hatchet and started out on the the left, but, I gradually shifted over to the right; right to left blows.  Do you think that Lizzie was ambidextrous? 

---

153. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by harry on Aug-17th-02 at 6:38 PM
In response to Message #152.

Susan, when your were raining blows down upon this poor creature from the rear of the couch did you have the urge to go around to the front and strike from there?

I believe the first few blows were struck from the rear, either from the parlor or dining room door. Then the assailant went around to the front or side and continued.  Just a hunch on my part, but it seems the natural thing to do especially if you were right handed.

---

154. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-17th-02 at 7:18 PM
In response to Message #153.

Actually, I moved from the head of the sofa to slightly in front of it, in front of the left arm where Andrew's head would be.  That would make horizontal gashes though instead of the vertical that were found.  There was something about the blows being "fan" shaped, a common starting point and the tops of the gashes spreading out like the ribs of a fan.  I would think that where the common meeting point would be is possibly the direction the blows came from.  Where was this common point where the gashes all met, the upper portion of Andrew's face or lower? 

---

155. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Aug-17th-02 at 7:30 PM
In response to Message #154.

The position of blood spatters would tell where the blows came from.

I think a right-handed killer hit Andy while he was sitting up. Then the blood would spatter over the middle of the sofa up the wall to that picture. But if a left-handed killer hit Andy while he was lying down then the blood spatter would be on his body and the couch.

You can try this with a wet rag tied around the end of a 14" stick. Just shake it as if you were hitting someone. Be sure to use a water soluble colored liquid. NOT grape juice.

---

156. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by harry on Aug-17th-02 at 7:38 PM
In response to Message #154.

The further you moved down the sofa, toward his legs, the more vertical the cuts would be.  Maybe one or two were struck from this position. I think the number of blows would be an indication that the assailant wanted to be sure he was dead. Coming around more to the front would be natural to verify this.

Offhand I'm not aware of the angles of the cuts only that they were on the left side of the face.  I'll have to go back and re-read the autopsy report.  I know the testimonies of some of the doctors covered it in depth at the trial.

---

157. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-18th-02 at 12:43 AM
In response to Message #155.

PRELIM.
Dr. Dolan
Pg. 91

"There were ten wounds in all on the face and the head, all parallel, all ranging from four inches to two and a half inches and an inch and a half; that is, the largest was four and a half, as I cam remember now, and from that down to an inch and a half; they were all sizes, that is, lengths. Right here, above the left ear"---

Pg. 93
"A.  There was very little blood on his clothing, except on his bosom, his shirt bosom, and of course the back where the blood ran down, that is, the back of his cardigan, and his clothes were soaked, where it had run down from his face to the lounge, as it lay on the lounge."
--info for Ray

--I hope this helps.  I realize not everyone has the Prelim., but for me it is INVALUABLE.  It recounts the events closer in time to the acts, rather than a year later.  It's also more manageable. and easier to find things in...[Thanks Stef & Harry!]

(Message last edited Aug-18th-02  1:19 AM.)

---

158. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-18th-02 at 3:56 PM
In response to Message #157.

Thanks for the info, Kat!  I went through Dolan's trial testimony, pretty much the same ground is covered.  From what I can gather from his testimony, if someone killed Andrew from the head of the sofa, by the dining room door, the person would be left handed.  If, Andrew was killed from in front of the sofa and towards his feet, they would be right handed.  Interesting stuff! 

---

159. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-19th-02 at 3:46 AM
In response to Message #158.

I'm having trouble with this interpretation. (above)
I'm not relying on myself , because I have no expertise with the examination of the wounds, and sometimes I also find it hard to form the picture in my mind, as to what Dr. Dolan is describing.
I've spent this evening in Dolan's testimony at the Prelim., and I don't find him saying this, about right and left handed, according to where the assailant stood to deliver the blows.  Please can you help me out here and give your page numbers?
(I think you said you are using the trial?)

In the Prelim., Dolan's main determination, when asked, was that the assailant stood at the head of the sofa to deliver the blows to Andrew, and possibly in the doorway to the dining room.

Part of the problem may be that at the time of the Prelim, he was not aware yet that the threaded stain on the dining room door was not blood.  Wood finds this out later.
BUT, also there is a problen in that now Morse says there were more than 40 spots of blood on the bottom 1/2 of the parlour door, whereas Dolan says 7 or 8, but is quoted by Knowlton as saying 10.  There's a big difference between 40 and 10!  AND, these spots seem to be the very ones Emma cleaned off without any authority to do so...

---

160. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-19th-02 at 11:35 AM
In response to Message #159.

Kat, I will delve into it when I get home from work tonight, don't have the time to do it right now.  But, it was in reference to a statement that Dr. Dolan makes about that the blows came from the left at the head of the sofa.  I could be way off on this, but, it was my understanding of his statement. 

---

161. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Aug-19th-02 at 3:46 PM
In response to Message #160.

How many blood spatters on the wall behind the sofa, and where were they? Above the middle and towards that picture would say Andy was sitting when whacked, then his body fell to his right. A right handed killer? Blood would fly off the head of the hatchet when struck after the first time. IMO.

---

162. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-20th-02 at 4:08 AM
In response to Message #159.

Dr. Dolan on the stand, Trial Volume 1, page934/i960:

Q. Will you indicate upon the cast as it now lies the angle which that hatchet would have taken in making that injury?
A. You mean this one that bisects the eye?

Q. Yes.

(Witness indicates.)

Page 935/i961

Q.Was that from left to right?
A.Yes, sir.

Q. And at a good deal of an angle?
A. No, sir; not markedly so.  About the position I have it.

Q.What other injury there was from left to right?
A.This one over the eye.

Q. And that is made by a larger mark and a continuation of No.3?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the angle at which that was made?
A. I think that was more markedly so than this one.  About that position, I should say.

Q.More markedly from left to right?
A.Yes, sir.

Then, they go on to question Dr. Dolan as to where he thought that Mr.Borden's murderer stood as they did the deed:

Trial Volume 1, page 946/i972

Q. Have you an opinion as to where the assailant of Mr. Borden stood, taking into account the spots which you saw?
A. I have.

Q. From the appearance of things, where did the assailant stand?
A.Stood close behind the head of the lounge, that is, between the parlor door and the head of the lounge.

Page 947/i973

Q. You no longer, if you have ever put him there, make him stand in the dining room door?
A. I never put him there.

Q. Did you ever have an opinion that one or more of these blows might have been given by a person reaching around the jamb of the dining room door and striking the head?
A. Well, to stand even behind the dining room door you would not have to reach around.

Q. How do you account for the fact, if it be a fact, that there are no spots upon that small table that stood very near the front of the sofa and had books and other objects upon it?
A. In the first place, I don't think the assailant swung the instrument in that direction.

Q.You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right, don't you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And all those wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A.Yes, sir.

Q. That is to say, it is a left handed blow?
A. In what sense left-handed: delivered by the left hand?

Q. That it strikes the body in a left-handed direction,---from left to right?
A. Yes, sir, to a certain extent.  Those that are most markedly from left to right are those that would come down directly as the head lies there now, and give the direction of a left-handed blow.

Page 948/i974

Q. And those blows made quite as severe injuries as any?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the strongest left-handed blow, in your opinion, was the blow upon the eyebrow where that bone was chipped out?
A. Yes, sir.

So, from Dr. Dolan's testimony, I get that the killer was left handed and stood at the head of the sofa and swung the hatchet from left to right, or left-handed.  The blows came from the direction of the wall behind the sofa and down towards the room.  But, switch the killer's position, put them in front of the sofa and towards the foot and the same blows that came from the left, from the sofa wall out to the room can't be made by a left-handed person!  They would have to be right-handed to do that!  If they were left-handed, the blows would come from the room towards the wall.

So, Kat, do you see where I'm coming from?  Does it make any sense? 

---

163. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-20th-02 at 7:25 AM
In response to Message #162.

Trial
Dolan
Pg. 935

Q.  Was it a glancing blow which shaved off a piece of the eyebrow?
A.  Yes, sir

Q.  Was there any other injury there which you discovered that had a left to right tendency?
A.  Not that I recollect, sir, at the present time.

--He has only at this point admitted to 3 of the blows being left-to-right, and one of those "not markedly so" at an angle.
-----------
Pg. 945
Q.  Taking all these spots now which you have described, those upon the wall, those upon the picture, those upon the kitchen door and those upon the parlor door, in what direction do you think they came?
A.  They came in different directions.
---------------
Pg. 947
[This is left out, between "Did you ever have an opinion...?  &  "How do you account for...")
Q.  I asked you if you ever had that opinion?
A.  No, sir, I never had.

Q.  Did the stringy spot enter at all into your theories of the position of the assailant?
A.  It did at that time, yes, sir.

--This is what was confusing about the Prelim. statement.  Dolan did not know this in late Aug. '92.
--------------
Page 947
Q.  That is to say, it is a left handed blow?
A.  In what sense left-handed: delivered by the left hand?

--At this point Dr. Dolan finally asks the big question:  as in "Are you asking me was this delivered by a LEFT HAND?"  The question is re-phrased, and we get no direct answer as to left-handed-ness.  Up until now the questioning is as to blows being made from left to right, as a direction, not as to handedness.  Why else would Dolan ask this clear question?
------------------
Pg. 948
(Continuation...to include 'one-handed" comment.)

Q.  And the strongest left-handed blow, in your opinion, was the blow upon the eyebrow where that bone was chipped out?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  In your opinion, would a strong and crushing blow not have been necessary to have made that?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  A light blow, in your opinion, could have done that?
A.  Not a light blow; no, sir.

Q.  A fairly strong blow?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Was it a one-handed or a two-handed blow, in your opinion?
A.  I could not tell you.

Q.  Have you any opinion about that?
A.  I think one-handed could do it.
------------------
--I was under the impression that Dolan admitted to 3 blows being left to right, with only 2 of them distinctly so. 
--The direction of the wounds still does not show me a left-handed person, even approaching from the head of the sofa.
I admit I am right-handed, but when I proceed to rain down a blow, 2 fisted, upon a face turned on it's right cheek, my instrument bears down from the left (the portion of the weapon in my hands) to the right (the end of the weapon points out toward the right.)
So, isn't this a "left-to right" movement?  From above and behind?
--If we believe there is one assailant maybe we should compare these wounds of Andrew's to Abby's?  As to left or right handedness...as opposed to left-to- right  WOUND paths...

[Edit here:  I had to "edit" to close a parenthesis!!!  JEESH!]






(Message last edited Aug-20th-02  7:29 AM.)

---

164. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-20th-02 at 11:44 AM
In response to Message #163.

Kat, not to further muddy the waters, but, I recall reading that Abby's wounds have the same left to right status, Dr. Dolan's Trial Testimony. 

---

165. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Tracie on Aug-20th-02 at 11:46 AM
In response to Message #163.

Hi folks,

I wonder if the ax got stuck in any of the wounds and had to be pulled out with force---kinda morbid huh?  Just a passing thought.

PS:  I can't blame Emma for wiping up the blood stains, even without permission.  Seeing the blood stains had to be unsettling.

---

166. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-20th-02 at 5:25 PM
In response to Message #165.

Is there a good definition of a left-to- right wound pattern being indicative of a left-handed assailant?  When the attack is from behind?
Not being left-handed I can not imagine the definition.

To qualify my opinions on this Dolan testimony we have covered so far, I would first say that the Preliminary Hearing was more prosecution orientated, whereas theTrial was more defense orientated.  That Adams got away with medically based questions that should have been objected to by the prosecution, in their form we have experienced, is my opinion.  Adams was essentially leading a witness.

Defense questions are not testimony, nor are they fact.  The emphasis, or highlight should be on the expert Answer.  The attorney for the defense, in Cross (Adams) is not qualified as an expert, yet his questioning comes across as Testimony, as surely he would like it to seem to the jury.

His questions are designed to blow smoke, to Lead, to Imply.
His advocacy is Not to discover the 'real' assailant, nor to 'prove' where that assailant stood, or the situation of the attack (frontal standing or sitting, or lying down from behind).  It is merely to show or prove that his CLIENT didn't do it, not How it was done, or by Whom.

The answers by the expert witness are what are important here--and these answers can only be made clear within the framework and Restrictions of the Question, which is by a Defense Attorney.

---

167. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-20th-02 at 5:33 PM
In response to Message #165.

Hi, Tracie

I think you're right in that a weapon such as a hatchet or axe Would get stuck in bone and have to be jigged or jogged to release it.  A wound that is larger than the blade's cutting edge might be indicative of that.

That kind of imagining doesn't seem 'morbid' to me.  It seems creative.

(Message last edited Aug-20th-02  5:34 PM.)

---

168. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-20th-02 at 11:23 PM
In response to Message #167.

I don't think that Tracie's thought was morbid either, I thought that what came to my mind after it was morbid though.  If the hatchet stuck in Abby's skull I can see the hatchet being pulled up and Abby's head coming up off the floor with it!  Then reaching a point and falling off and thumping back to the floor again before being struck again.

Kat, I started off with my little Andrew chopping experiment where I held an imaginary ax or hatchet, two handed, and started with the left to right movements at the head of my sofa.  After about 2 strikes with my hatchet, my left arm weakened and I switched to a right to left attack, I am right-handed.  I had also at that point found myself drifting from the head of the sofa where Andrew's head would have been, to just in front of the arm of the sofa and right in front of where Andrew's head would have been.  If I had continued whacking, the cuts would have been horizontal on his face instead of the vertical cuts that were found.  I would think to make those kind of cuts you would have to stand at the head of the sofa, or in front down towards the other arm and Andrew's feet.  I tried doing this experiment without forcing what I was doing and trying to let what was natural for me to come out.  I realize that it doesn't prove anything, but, you know my findings on the left-handed or right-handed chopping going on and where I think that person stood.

  http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/autopsyassets/autopsyred.jpg

---

169. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-21st-02 at 4:00 AM
In response to Message #168.

When you tried your experiment, were you mindful of not getting splashed or spattered with the victim's blood, which Might have cautioned you as to where you stood, or continued to stand?  Would that enter into the assailants equation, of necessity?

I was hoping you were left-handed.
I know there are many Bordenites who subscribe to a similar interpretation as you, and I really am trying to see it from that point.
Is anyone else willing to wade in with their interpretation?
Even privately, as in letterbox or Privy?
This is an effort at understanding evidence...we are not claiming who is right & who isn't.
Thanks Susan for the debate!

---

170. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-21st-02 at 6:18 AM
In response to Message #169.

A view of the skull wounds: Abby on the left Andrew on the right

---

171. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Edisto on Aug-21st-02 at 11:04 AM
In response to Message #169.

I don't try to argue this point or weigh in with my own theory because I recall that some of the best forensic minds in New England (which may well mean in the world) were involved in this case.  While science wasn't as far advanced as it is today, I don't think physics (for example) was all that primitive.  No, DNA evidence couldn't have been collected and analyzed, but the actual physical wounds would have been subjected to thorough analysis.  It seems hard for me to believe that these experts were so totally incorrect in their assumptions that I, more than a hundred years later, could come up with a better theory.  We're not talking about the Fall River police here!

---

172. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-21st-02 at 4:21 PM
In response to Message #169.

Exactly, Kat!  I'm not trying to say I'm right, all I'm stating is what I get from the information at hand.  The one hole in my theory is that from Dr. Dolan's testimony in the trial is that Abby's wounds had the left to right cut also.  I would think in order to do this right-handed, someone would have to have sat in the camp chair at Abby's head and whack her from there.  So, I'm left with the impression that the person was left-handed.

In my experiment I imagined that I was a woman in a time period without blow-dryers, I would have worn a do-rag or handkercheif on my head.  If it was heavily starched, I don't think it would have been quite so absorbant and therefor would have protected my hair from blood spatters.  The artist in me came out in that I imagined I was wearing some sort of smock or coverall to protect the upper and some of the lower portion of my body.  Lizzie's hands were said to have been very white and looked freshly scrubbed and clean to all who had seen them, maybe she washed her hands off in the barn after killing Andrew.

That just made me think, perhaps thats why the dress handed over to the police had the slightly different skirt.  Maybe when Andrew was killed the original skirt received some blood spatters and had to be destroyed and another skirt substituted?   

---

173. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-22nd-02 at 4:18 AM
In response to Message #172.

While I don't think anyone mentioned Lizzie's hands as freshly scrubbed, they were considered white.  How does she explain her barn visit & subsequent clean hands? 
She says she pulled over some lumber out there in the barn.  She should have Said she'd washed!  THAT would have covered some bases for her...

The handkerchief to cover her hair which you hypothesize, could be that large man's handkerchief found near Abby's head, and seen further down her body in the photo.
An apron of Abby's, or any apron, may suffice to cover Lizzie, as 2 "aprons" are accounted for in the soiled & bloody clothes tub.
(Lizzie is a bit surprised & caught off guard when this question is put to her as a sudden change of subject at the Inquest, 81)

The rumors and the fake McHenry story and letters to Knowlton offer a hood, or a waterproof, as hair covering for the person who did the deed.  (also Newspaper, or paper?)  This leads one to believe there MIGHT be an element of reality there to base a head-covering on...a liklihood...(my pun intended...)

---

174. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-22nd-02 at 9:54 PM
In response to Message #173.

Its funny, I'm rereading Lincoln at the moment and she seems to think that because Lizzie's hair is red that if it got blood on it or in it, it would take very little wiping with her menstrual cloths to clean it out and any no one would notice.  I'm sorry, has any of you ever had a head wound or specifically, a scalp wound?  I have, and even with wiping at the blood with a wet cloth, your hair still drys kind of hard and crunchy.  I would think that someone would notice that about Lizzie, as Mrs. Churchill testifies in the trial, if Lizzie's hair was diarrayed, she thought that she would notice it.

So, thats why I feel that if Lizzie did it, she would have covered her head with something.  What, I don't know, but, something. 

---

175. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kimberly on Aug-22nd-02 at 10:14 PM
In response to Message #174.

When my grandmother was a young'un she was chopping
wood & managed to crack herself right in the forehead with
the axe, I asked her if she knocked herself out &
she said no but "I was bleeding like a stuck pig",
so some head-wounds must spurt pretty good.

---

176. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-22nd-02 at 10:28 PM
In response to Message #175.

The fact that everyone see's that bloody handkerchief by Abby's body, yet no one can place it on Abby's head that Thursday, means it was there for some reason we can only surmise.

If it WAS used as a hair covering, as Dolan surmises, and if Lizzie DID wear an apron for both murders, then she would have had to make a trip up the front stairs immediately after killing Andrew to deposit these items (*) in the guest room.

Would that mean the weapon would have gone upstairs, too?

*trying to figure out WHERE the 2nd bloody apron was found, to have ended up in the tub with the rest of the clothes.  Imagine maybe, after use, it was tied around the waist of Abby, so she had on 2 aprons.  The photo shows some twisted material at her waist.  This may really be reaching...but I can't figure out where that 2nd apron came from... ? ?

---

177. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-23rd-02 at 11:46 AM
In response to Message #176.

Kat, I've wondered where the second bloody apron came from myself!  What I came up with is maybe one of the doctors used it while performing their mini autopsy?  Somehow I can't see them coming to Second Street 100% ready to perform surgery. 

Hmmm. Lizzie lifting Abby by herself?  If Uncle John was there to help, I can see it, by herself, no.  200 lbs of dead weight, even just to roll Abby over, must have been tough. 

---

178. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-23rd-02 at 1:41 PM
In response to Message #177.

That's a good surmise about using an apron at the autopsy.
I wonder why it's not registered anywhere in testimony.  That would have been a good fact to bring out, even in the papers.

I think it's certainly possible, and a good answer.
[edit here: 2 sentences] Lizzie WAS specifically asked, tho, if she wore an apron on Thursday, to which question she reacted.  I was hoping to account for this question, and her reaction, in My surmisings...

I have had my share of hoisting "dead weight"...I thought of that problem of moving such a large body as Abby.
At one time in my life I was 140 lb.s myself, for maybe a 3 year period-- and I hoisted up to 180 lbs. up off the floor, nearly-dead- weight, onto a low stool, then up higher onto a hassock (the second stage of lifting), then into a wheel chair.
If one grabs a good hold of clothes, a strong 140-150 lb. girl CAN move a body, maybe in the 175-185 range, eventually, just about anywhere.  Rolling it would be much less of a problem.

(Message last edited Aug-23rd-02  2:03 PM.)

---

179. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-23rd-02 at 9:29 PM
In response to Message #178.

Well, I guess if you don't have a choice and have to move someone or a body, I guess you find a way to do it.  Was Abby's apron a bib type apron or one that just went around her waist?  For some reason I think its a bib type, but, have no evidence to back this up.  Thats where I got the idea that the doctors borrowed it to do the autopsy work. 

---

180. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-23rd-02 at 11:54 PM
In response to Message #179.

Sorry, this is non-responsive to your last post, Susan...but I was glad to say I found the "Fanning wound track" statement in the trial.  I was confused by that reference.  Now I see where it was Dr. Draper describing Abby's several wounds on the right side of her head
Pg. 1043;
A: The next was a group of twelve cuts above the right ear which had a distribution as shown in the cast----
Q: Those here?
A: Yes,--like the ribs of a fan or like the fingers on the hand.  They were above a crushing of the bone which laid open the brain on that side, and left a large crater in the skull, the dimensions of that break being four and one- half from below upwards and five and a quarter the longer way from before backward.
Q: That crater, as you call it, comprised the entire amount of those cuts?
A: Yes, sir.

---

181. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-24th-02 at 4:19 PM
In response to Message #180.

Kat, thanks for finding that!  See, I remember stuff, just not where I picked it up which would be oh-so-helpful!  With Abby's killing it seems pretty cut and dried where the murderer stood as they delivered the blows, I was wondering if there was a similar cutting pattern on Andrew?  Checked Draper's testimony and didn't find any.  Thanks again for finding that! 

---

182. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-24th-02 at 4:36 PM
In response to Message #181.

Well, I've been thinking about this...and picturing that skull, which gives a good representation of her wounds, but not as good as the downstairs autopsy photo which I will spare everone here from looking at  (see Museum Link, middle photo)
The majority of wounds are to the right of the meridian, and seem to come in at different angles...
..
Anyway, her first wound was to her face...and not only to her face but to the LEFT side of her face.  Even wound edges, flap in the middle.  Denotes a person maybe the same height, as in eye-to-eye if standing, because the flap had no *angle*...and if the perpetrator was right handed or right-dominate, they would naturally attack the left side of the face (as left as you can get-- near the ear) while facing each other, or while the head was turning.  (The head could be turning looking UP and have the weapon come straight down, and possibly making the same kind of flap wound)

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AutopsyAbbyBorden.htm

I just tried it on my fuzzy pink flamingo head and yea, as it turned I aimed to my right and got it at the ear...(tho it really did not have an ear...)
--I am going to take a nap now.  See  you later...

(Message last edited Aug-24th-02  4:39 PM.)

---

183. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-24th-02 at 5:43 PM
In response to Message #182.

Your new post just made me wonder, when Dr. Dolan is on the stand and testifies that Andrew's wounds, well, at least 3 of them came from the left, would that be facing Andrew and the killer's left or from the left side of Andrew's body? 

---

184. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-25th-02 at 3:55 PM
In response to Message #183.

Wanna get MORE confused?

Trial
Dr. Draper (on Andrew)
Pg. 1035+

..."The next wound was parallel with the two just preceding, and was two inches in length, and was also a scalp wound which did not penetrate beneath the outer table of the skull. It was directed from the  front backward, rather than in the other directions described, which was from the back frontward. But this went from before backward.  Q.  Won't you hold your hand in the direction?
A.  That is to say, the posterior, the back portion of that cut in the bone, was tipped up. The anterior or front portion was clean."...
--HUH?
.................
Pg. 1051

Q.  Will you illustrate the position of the instrument making that out by means of your diagrams that you have here, and put them in the place where the cut is?
A.  (Showing the position.)

Q.  Now where is the upper edge of the cut?
A.  About here (showing) where the point would come out like that.

Q.  What shows it there?
A.  That.  (Indicating)

Q.  That is the edge of the cut, there, is it?
A.  Yes, sir.

--Is it getting any clearer?

---

185. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-25th-02 at 4:27 PM
In response to Message #184.

  About as clear as mud!  Don't know if I'm on the right track here, but, it almost sounds as though after a whack with the hatchet, the killer began to pull it back towards them and made another cut on Andrew's head, 2 inches and not deep.  Made by dragging the hatchet across his head?  Does that make any sense?

(Message last edited Aug-25th-02  4:28 PM.)

---

186. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-25th-02 at 6:25 PM
In response to Message #185.

Yea.
Sure
Why not?

But how you got that from the gobbeldy-goop I posted, I'll never know!

(Seriously, what YOU just described makes more sense than what HE just described...)
or am I beginning to hallucinate from these 6 mosquito bites I just got?

---

187. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-25th-02 at 10:45 PM
In response to Message #186.

Or, from rereading it, the wounds came down and from the back of Andrew's head, this one came down from the front and went towards the back of his head.  Maybe the hatchet bounced on his skull? 

---

188. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-25th-02 at 11:15 PM
In response to Message #187.

I Know A Lefty! I Know A Lefty!
Just found out!
More later, gator!
Watch This Space...

---

189. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-26th-02 at 3:30 AM
In response to Message #188.

  Okay.....

---

190. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Tracie on Aug-26th-02 at 10:52 AM
In response to Message #189.

Hi folks,

Just this past weekend I had a funny thought---what if the ax turned out to be a meat cleaver?  I was looking at my Joyce Chen cleaver and a vision appeared before my eyes.....if the Borden's had a cleaver, it could possibly have blood on it because chopping meat and then washed and cleaned and perhaps no one thought to look at the kitchen utensils.

My cleaver has a curve on the blade so that it rocks when put down on the cutting board.  So the whole length of the blade doesn't touch the surface.  The cleaver could make medium to large gaping wounds.

Plus, after reading the Inquest most people thought that the Borderns had been stabbed so maybe it was not an ax.  Ideas anyone?

T

---

191. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by edisto on Aug-26th-02 at 11:20 AM
In response to Message #190.

Good thought!  Originally, a good many people thought the weapon might have been a cleaver, but I don't recall reading that anyone looked at the kitchen implements for a possible weapon.  That might be because all of the police were male, and they probably thought of male-oriented tools.  (Don't mean to be sexist, but such things do happen.)  A cleaver would be a more female-oriented tool.  I too have wondered if that could be the answer.  I don't think any of the wounds were necessarily inconsistent with the use of such a weapon.  Of course, there is that finding that there was gilt in Abby's wounds (one of them, anyway)consistent with the use of a new hatchet.  I wonder if cleavers had gilding on them...

---

192. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-26th-02 at 11:38 AM
In response to Message #191.

Hmmmm, interesting idea, Tracie!  Never thought of that.  Why didn't they check out all the kitchen implements at the Borden house that day?  It would have saved Lizzie a trip to the mercantile! 

---

193. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-26th-02 at 12:07 PM
In response to Message #191.

Gosh, I'm so used to EDIT-ing my posts I hit "EDIT" for my reply...
I got a statement saying I had no business trying to "Edit" Edisto's POST!
Well, I should SAY NOT!

Have you read Flynn's "...Mysterious Axe"?

He believed the weapon was the Crowe's Roof hatchet, right?  Well, he is so respected & well-informed, why would he settle on that object when it proved to still have gilt on the side of the blade that was not exposed to the weather on that roof, and could, therefore, not have been used to kill Andrew (At least so far as we know that no gilt was found in Andrew's wounds)...so I get confused about this.
If there were 2 weapons, a kitchen cleaver, like the guys say on here, would probably be their choice to have cut that eyeball in half...
Now what if the gilt *found* in Abby's wound was a lie...
Or what if gilt WAS found in Andrew's wounds but not reported to US?  Would there be a point in that?

There was a weapon Stef posted from the Sears catalogue that  was a kitchen utensel called a freezer pick?  It was one of other weapons listed that the public wrote to Knowlton about.

A kitchen utensil would be doubtful due to that pasky gilt.
However, noted in The Mysterious Axe is the description of some hatchets etc. having the gilding on the side that spelled out the manufacturer's name, so maybe it wasn't the blade that was gilded after all?

-Oh, can William comment?

---

194. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-26th-02 at 9:13 PM
In response to Message #193.

A thought just occured to me; did Abby have barrettes or hair pins or both in her hair?  Could the hatchet have shaved off a small portion of the metal of one of these items and deposited it in one of the wounds?  Wasn't it only one wound that this "gilt metal" was found? 

---

195. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by icefishcat on Aug-26th-02 at 9:17 PM
In response to Message #191.

i have read that a possible weapon was a candlestick, the round bottom edge.

---

196. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-26th-02 at 11:58 PM
In response to Message #195.

I remember that from somewhere...where?
Today reading Knowlton letters everybody wrote in about a FLAT-IRON.
They said it was SHARP.
They said it would, if hot, cauterize the wounds so there wouldn't be much blood...BUT the public never Knew about that Gilt.

People have speculated that even a piece of necklace caught in the weapon and forced into the wound might leave gilt.

it just seems to me, the experts would have thought of all that.
I think there either was hatchet gilt, or there was no hatchet gilt.

---

197. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-27th-02 at 2:33 AM
In response to Message #196.

Well, if we take Lizzie's stance on it, Not Gilty! 

---

198. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-27th-02 at 12:22 PM
In response to Message #197.

Not Gilty
Would make it so much easier...

Do you remember where that candlestick theory came from, anyone?  Oh wait a minute, is that Lizzie by Evan Hunter?  That's listed as fiction...
Forgive me if I'm wrong that that was from the Ed McBain guy...

---

199. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-27th-02 at 8:33 PM
In response to Message #198.

Kat, you are correct, Lizzie A Novel by Evan Hunter, pg. 402

Unseeingly Lizzie reached for the candlestick on the dresser's marble top, her hand closing familiarly around the stem, the base turning up, the taper toppling from its pricket.

  "No, don't," her stepmother murmured, and Lizzie struck her.


That must be one sharp bottomed candlestick to do that much damage, even imaginary! 

Oh, and sorry about the Not Gilty, its not punny, is it? 

(Message last edited Aug-27th-02  8:34 PM.)

---

200. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-27th-02 at 9:39 PM
In response to Message #199.

I thank you for finding that.
Well, icefish, that's one less weapon to worry about?
I can't believe I remembered that....Like from 15 years ago...

BTW:  I take puns any way I can get them!

---

201. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-29th-02 at 3:00 AM
In response to Message #200.

It does tend to stick in one's mind, a candlestick used to murder someone.  And wasn't there talk for a time that Lizzie's flat iron was the weapon or checked on?  I would think from the nature of the wounds it would be pretty apparent from the beginning that the flat iron wasn't the culprit.

---

202. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by kimberly on Aug-29th-02 at 10:53 PM
In response to Message #194.

Wouldn't she have used something to hold her hairpiece
on? I have one of those antique flat irons & it is really
heavy, I think by the time you got it up in the air & hit somebody
with it they would have time to take it away from you. And being
heavy & not knife sharp wouldn't it just mash rather than cut?
From the pictures the wounds on Andrew & Abby look, well, neater than
what I would think something heavy would cause.
The candlestick sounds better, I think in a fury you could pop
somebody good with one.

(Message last edited Sep-1st-02  3:11 AM.)

---

203. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-30th-02 at 12:23 AM
In response to Message #202.

We also have an antique flat-iron, and yes, it is very heavy...
probably the weight of a hatchet the experts estimated at 5 lbs.  The difference is it is squat with no leverage (as Kim points out), whereas a hatchet has that long handle (16"- 18" ?) and inertia in it's favor, plus the "distancing" aspect the killer probaby needed as an advantage.

A candle holder could possibly make some of the non-penetrating wounds on Abby's head, but not those long slashes, especially the one isolated wound in her back.
The wounds overall, on both victims, I believe, are considered "incised", which I think means a wound as deep as it is long.
I would probaby rule out a candle holder, unless it is believed there were 2 weapons used on Abby and Andrew.  (The crushing blows to the brain cavity maybe, on Abby...but why strike Abby in the face with an hatchet to make the "flap" wound, and when she spins around and falls on her face, hack her some more and then finish her off with a candle-holder?).  Just my considered opinion.

---

204. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by kimberly on Aug-30th-02 at 12:38 AM
In response to Message #194.

In this picture: http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/crimesceneassets/abbybloody.jpg
are those hair barrettes on Abby's head or is it the wounds?

(Message last edited Aug-30th-02  12:40 AM.)

---

205. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Aug-30th-02 at 9:16 PM
In response to Message #204.

They sure look like it to me, thats why I asked my question about the hatchet possibly shaving some of the gilt metal off of one and depositing it in the wound.  But, is gilt on barrettes different from hatchet gilt? 

---

206. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Aug-31st-02 at 7:17 PM
In response to Message #205.

I don't think anyone is going to answer this one.
I thought someone on here mentioned hair pins saved with the hair piece at the FRHS.  Not known if they were from the body of Abby, or retrieved from her personal effects in her dressing room.  That part wasn't clear.

The Experts were in agreement (Knowlton Papers, pg. 212) that the gilt was from a new hatchet.

However, it has come to my attention that the many references to flat-irons in that same book, by the curious public, may compel us to look at such an item more thoroughly.

Apparently there are such things as gilded irons, and a sleeve iron in particular would be slim, sharp and gilded...fitting most of our requirements, including the ability to slice an eyeball.  (Martini, anyone?)

The wounds of Andrew were not included in the letter as to gilt in the wounds.  This is one stumbling block.  It could be possible it was suppressed?   Or not found...or worn off of the weapon by the time it was Andrew's turn to die (??)  [Iron, or no, we will always have this factor nagging us whatever weapon is decided upon!]

--Thank you Master Bordenite for your input...

---

207. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by kimberly on Sep-1st-02 at 3:31 AM
In response to Message #205.

In this picture of Abby's braid: http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/crimesceneassets/abbyhair.jpg
you can see a pin is still on it. I don't think she would have
had gold/gilt pins holding on a hair piece, I don't think she would
want to call attention to it being pinned on.

---

208. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Sep-1st-02 at 5:08 PM
In response to Message #206.

Well, flat iron or hatchet, I would assume after the murder of Abby, it had received a workout!  Any gilding that was loose or going to come off would have done so by then, I think.  I'm thinking of bone grinding and grating against the metal surface would scratch and scrape what gilt there was to come off, off. 

---

209. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Sep-2nd-02 at 3:15 PM
In response to Message #208.

>
Something I'd never seen before...site recommended by a friend of the forum.

---

210. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Sep-2nd-02 at 5:26 PM
In response to Message #209.

Is that a sleeve iron, Kat?  I've never seen one of those things before.  It looks like you could stab someone to death with one of those things! 

---

211. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Sep-2nd-02 at 7:46 PM
In response to Message #210.

Yes, sleeve iron.
Apparently there is a device that has been invented to do just about any specific task.
LovethoseinovativeVictorians!

---

212. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by kimberly on Sep-2nd-02 at 8:50 PM
In response to Message #209.

That is a great site! I found out that if I had the child size
swan iron to go with the trivit I have it would be selling for $185.
Now I know what to look for.

---

213. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Sep-7th-02 at 5:52 PM
In response to Message #212.

When reading the blood evidence from the trial, I've always found it confusing.  Something to me sounded wrong with the way the doctors determined which way the blood came from.  From Dr. Dolan's testimony:

"All the others were spots, were real spots, you could tell from the way they struck.  They drew down just as a spot of water on a piece of paper would do where it struck.  It made a larger spot and pressed downward and made a neck." 

In other words, an upside down pear shape or upside down teardrop shape.  I did some experimenting to clarify this for myself once and for all.  I did it in my bathroom which is painted with high gloss oil paint, please don't try this at home in a room with anything less!!!  I taped up a piece of art paper to simulate wallpaper and used beet juice for blood.

My findings were exactly as described by the doctors in the Borden case.  Blood(or beet juice) that has gone in the air and comes down on the wallpaper makes an upside down pear shaped drop.  Blood that goes up onto the wall makes a right side up pear shaped drop.  In layman's terms, where the blood hits is the biggest spot and the direction it is going to will leave a little tail on the spot.  Very interesting findings to me.  I, for some reason, thought that it would be the other way around.  Don't know if anyone else ever had a question with the findings or not, but, they are correct!   

---

214. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by kimberly on Sep-7th-02 at 10:36 PM
In response to Message #213.

Susan, you explained that perfectly, even I understood it!

---

215. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Sep-7th-02 at 11:59 PM
In response to Message #214.

Thank you. 

---

216. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Sep-8th-02 at 1:30 AM
In response to Message #213.

You did a better job of explaining that blood spatter than Dr. Henry Lee.
Thanks for the benefit of the experiment.
Now, it turns out we have a left-handed Forum member who is willing to attack her hubby on the sofa...if I'll just keep reminding her!

---

217. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Sep-8th-02 at 3:41 PM
In response to Message #216.

(Message last edited Sep-8th-02  3:43 PM.)

---

218. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Susan on Sep-8th-02 at 3:42 PM
In response to Message #216.

You're welcome!  Now, whom might that leftie or southpaw be? 

---

219. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Sep-9th-02 at 2:15 PM
In response to Message #213.

Blood will likely to clot, so its stains may be different from a liquid like beet or grape juice. Both hard to remove!!!
I wonder how detailed the descriptions were of the actual wall?
Does your library have any text books (like Herb McDonell's?) on this? His course is usually given to govt officials.

---

220. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Sep-9th-02 at 3:01 PM
In response to Message #219.

Ray, if you are wondering about the descriptions of the spatter on  the "actual wall"-- as in the Borden's wall-- I have transcribed that info on 2 message boards several x over the last year and a 1/2, just FOR you and once for someone else who was at work, and couldn't get to their primary source document.
Do you have any primary source documents?
They can be downloaded at the Museum/Library, but the blood evidence is also transcribed There.
You can read it again, for yourself and decide what you want....

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BloodEvidence.htm

It's located at:  Crime Library......Evidence.....Blood Evidence

---

221. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Sep-9th-02 at 5:06 PM
In response to Message #220.

THANKS for the information. The tiny picture makes it look as if most of the blood spots were above Andy's head as in the famous picture.
That means a left-handed person whacked him from the door frame, or, a right-handed person whacked him from in front of the couch.

Did Kerwin (?) measure the height and distance from the door for all of the bloodspots? That would settle the question of whether Andy was sitting when first struck.

---

222. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Sep-10th-02 at 1:27 AM
In response to Message #221.

I think some of the blood had been cleaned up by the time Kieran got there to do his experiments and measurements.
It's in the trial, though, I believe.  Here it is:  Pg. 119, He says he was there on the 16th of August.

He is only asked about 2 or 3 blood spots, that had been pointed out to him by Dolan.  One was on the kitchen door and the other 2 were on the dining room door, I believe.  The ones on the dining room door, though, had  been discounted later by Prof. Wood.  So that only leaves the kitchen door measurements, 12 days after the murders.

He does give some interesting SOFA info, tho. (T., 114)
overall length= 7' 1"
width= 2' 3"
seat above floor= 18"
from floor to top of arm= 28"
*SEATING area= 4' 11"

--I think I misunderstood your form of questioning, Ray.  I believe now you may have been asking a rhetorical question about the blood as a way to inform others on what to look for...
--So I suppose my answer is to anyone who needs easy access to the "Blood Evidence" from the Preliminary Hearing.

---

223. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Sep-10th-02 at 2:49 AM
In response to Message #222.

An interesting aside:  Apparently Jennings & Phillips were really INTO that downstairs closet!  Jennings hid in there, Phillips hid in there, and Phillips went on to write a newspaper article about it, and provide a picture!

TRIAL, pg. 116, Kieran:
Q.  I will not ask you to do that. By the way, who was it, or with whom was it that you made these experiments with reference to the closet in the front entry?
A.  With Mr. Jennings.

Q.  I did not understand you.
A.  With Mr. Jennings.

Q.  Is there any ventilation whatever to that closet except by keeping the door open or partially open?
A.  I did not see any.

Q.  How long did Mr. Jennings stay in there with the door shut?
A.  Mr. Jennings did not go in the closet.

Q.  Then you misunderstood my question.
A.  I mean that he did not go in the closet at the time to which I refer. He called my attention to the experiment.  Mr. Phillips went in the closet.

Q.  Mr. Phillips, associate of Mr. Jennings?
A.  Yes, sir.  Mr. Jennings went in the closet but not at the time when I made my experiment.

Q.  Then I will ask the same question with respect to Mr. Phillips: How long did he stay in the closet with the door shut?
A.  Oh, I don't know, not more than a few minutes, I think.



They obviously didn't Prove anything by all that experimentation with the closet!  BTW:  Photo was from Phillip's news article, May 13, 1934.

---

224. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Sep-10th-02 at 4:38 PM
In response to Message #222.

I seem to recall reading that Kieran measured the location of about 70 blood spots on the wall. I don't remember the book, and no time to research it. Could I be wrong again?

---

225. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Sep-10th-02 at 4:43 PM
In response to Message #223.

The "proof" is that someone (nemesis?) could have entered thru the front door (always locked?) and hid in the closet there. Reasonable doubt, especially if somebody left the door unlocked.
I don't believe this, but a good lawyer will not overlook anything to get an innocent client off.

Did anyone else recently read F Lee Bailey's "Defense Never Rests"? He has some interesting and comments on trials as a defense lawyer.
He did get Dr. Sam Shepard out of prison for a crime he never committed. What have YOU done by your 30s? 

(Message last edited Sep-10th-02  4:44 PM.)

---

226. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Sep-10th-02 at 4:47 PM
In response to Message #222.

No, it was NOT a rhetorical question. The spatter of blood spots should provide a history of where the blows struck from the back splash of the blood on the hatchet blade.

Dr. Henry Lee's "Cracking Cases" has some good examples of this. A man's wife is accidentally run over and killed (he said). But there are no wounds on the body as would come from being struck by a car. And the pattern of blood spots inside the van tell what really happened.

Would a police officer or detective be able to create the perfect murder? Read these true crime stories and find out.

---

227. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by Kat on Sep-10th-02 at 8:15 PM
In response to Message #226.

My definition of "rhetorical question" is Asking Something You Already Know The Answer To.
Aren't most of your posts rhetorical?
This is not meant as any critisism...just that I thought I had noted your writing style.

---

228. "Re: I Don't Have A blood stained sofa"
Posted by rays on Sep-11th-02 at 2:56 PM
In response to Message #227.

A "rhetorical question" is one to which the answer is obvious, IMO.
"Do we want to elect a crook who will raise your taxes?" Obviously not, even if the asker is a bigger but unknown crook!

Asking a question to shich you know the answer is sometimes called "sandbagging" (from poker terminology. But don't all teachers do this? (A rhetorical question?)

My sincere thanks if you are saying I am not a simple minded believer who has only read AR Brown. I've read others, but Brown ALONE seems to have more experience and wisdom than the others. (When I first signed on some criticized me for using Brown's book as the solution.)

R Sullivan was a retired judge; he said "there was enough evidence to convict Lizzie"!!! Which is why some people are against the death penalty. Has he never heard of verdicts bought and paid for?

You are free to agree or not with this.

---

229. "Okay, you want blood?"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Sep-19th-02 at 11:16 AM
In response to Message #220.

Blood isn't going to clot in mid-air.  I have done some experiments with actual blood drops (don't worry - it's my blood, and it's only after I've pricked my finger for a blood glucose test; I'm diabetic) and I've seen the same result.  Where the drop first hits is larger than the little "tail" that is formed in the direction in which the blood was travelling.

It was all in the name of research!

By the way, Webster's says that a "rhetorical question" is one that is asked for effect, not to elicit an answer.  Doesn't say anything about the answer being obvious.

(Message last edited Sep-19th-02  11:24 AM.)

---

230. "Re: Okay, you want blood?"
Posted by Susan on Sep-19th-02 at 11:41 AM
In response to Message #229.

Bob, where were you when I was doing my experimenting?  I could have used your blood instead of beet juice! 

---

231. "Re: Okay, you want blood?"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Sep-19th-02 at 3:06 PM
In response to Message #230.

There's always next time! ;]

---

232. "Re: Okay, you want blood?"
Posted by Susan on Sep-19th-02 at 10:29 PM
In response to Message #231.

Okay, I may just hold you to that next time I come up with one of my little experiments! 

---