1. "Masterton & His Map"
Posted by Kat on Sep-10th-02 at 1:53 PM

I was looking at Masterton, Lizzie Didn't Do It! last night and noted that he had the vicinity map included, of the area.


Placing the different people out of doors that day, it seems as if no one would be in a spot to notice an intruder.  (My markings:)


The blue= Crowes yard workers (to the rear)
                   Thomas Bouldes washing carriage/N. side Churchill
                   Lucy Collette around the east side of Chagnon house,
                   the Third Street side.


The brown= Lumber all piled up back there by fence


The purple= Crowe's roof where hatchet found in 1893, 2 choices of location.


How would someone in the Borden yard, with all that lumber and the picket-fenced-in  area with trellis, even get close to the southeast corner of the Borden yard in order to throw a hatchet to land on that Crowe Roof?


And how would anyone SEE anything, considering where they were placed?

(Message last edited Sep-10th-02  2:29 PM.)

One contemporary newspaper account said the hatchet was found on a pitched roof (eliminating the little shed nearest the Borden property) and that the building was the one closest to Third Street.  Of course, we all know how inaccurate the newspapers were.  Nevertheless, it's something more to ponder.

This back yard looks almost impossible to maneuver in, to get to that barn roof of Crowe...in the southeast corner.
There is that huge pile of lumber, the picket-fenced area, the trellis, and barbed wire on top of the 6 foot fence.
Note:  If that rear fence was 6 feet, Lizzie is 5'4" approx., a difference of quite a bit, plus the person flinging the Crowe's roof hatchet would have to be in that corner, ON the lumber, which is nearly as high as the fence.  Why there, anyway?



I have no support for the "pitched roof", but I can give some idea of Robert Flynn's notions in his pamphlet:  Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe, 1992:

"The Crowe property was located just south of the pear orchard on Third Street in the rear of the Borden home.  John Crowe conducted a business there in stonemasonry.  The back of the Crowe property could be seen from the Borden property.  It is obviouse that anyone could have easily climbed on the pile of lumber in the Borden's back yard and flipped the hatchet onto the Crowe barn where it would lay undetected for 10 months in the harsh elements."

I can't picture LIZZIE climbing up there, knowing Bridget's room overlooked this spot and the noise it made to climb up there, AND the sound of that hatchet hitting the roof might just as easily be heard by Bridget if she was in her room (as she says) and the windows open.

(Message last edited Sep-11th-02  7:37 PM.)

But, what if the hatchet was thrown up there at a later date by someone other than Lizzie? 

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:49 PM.)

(Message last edited Sep-13th-02  5:28 AM.)

Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe, by Robert Flynn, 1992, pg.16:

ANOTHER BORDEN HATCHET.

This Just Discovered on the Top of
Crowe's Barn.

(By Associated Press.)

"Fall River, June 15. --- Another Borden hatchet has been discovered.  Last night a boy named Potter, son of C. C. Potter, clerk in the Fall River water works office, while looking for a ball found a hatchet on the top of John Crowe's barn, which is located just in the rear of the Borden property.  Mr. Potter this morning reported his find to the police, and also sought an interview with the counsel for defense, but was unable to find Mr. Jennings.  He still has the hatchet in his possession, and describes it as an ordinary implement with hammer head.  The handle was weather beaten and the blade covered with rust.  Some of the particles of rust being removed a slight coloring of gilt was disclosed, which would either indicate that the hatchet was at one time used as an ornament or was quite new when lost or discarded."
---------------------------
After page 16, among the diagrams, same source:

"THE NEW SENSATION
'I Have Found Lizzie Borden's Hatchet'

Cried a Boy in John Crowe's Barn in Fall River

Discovery Made in Back of the Borden Estate.

Fall River, June 15. -- The Daily News Bulletin this afternoon has the following:
About 7 o'clock last evening a number of boys were engaged in playing ball on Third street, in front of John Crowe's barn which is nearly in the rear of the Borden estate, the north side of the barn serving as a fence between Dr. Chagnon's orchard, which is directly in the rear of the Borden house and the Kelly lot, on which the barn stands.

The barn is a flat roof structure about 18 feet high.  In the rear is an ell, the full width of the main building, but not more than 12 feet high.  Still extending to the west and toward the Borden estate is a narrow flat roofed ell, about 9 feet high.  A six-foot fence runs diagonally and southeasterly from the north line from the first ell, so that it is very easy to scale the roof. 

During the game of the boys, the ball was knocked, or thrown, upon the roof of the main barn, and Master Arthur Potter, 14 years old, son of Caleb C. Potter, of the water works office, scaled the building in quest of it.

Near the northwest corner of the main building -- about six feet from the west and four feet from the north line of the structure -- on the northeast corner of the roof, he found a hatchet of ordinary size, lying with the head toward the southeast, the handle towards the northwest corner.

He forgot the ball and he rushed for the hatchet, and then rang out his salute to the boys below:

'I've Found Lizzie Borden's Hatchet.'

The hatchet is an ordinary shingle hatchet with a blade 3 3/4  inches in length.  It was covered in rust and part of this was scraped off by the boy when found.  It has the appearance of having been comparatively new and but little used.

The handle, which is 13 1/2 inches long, looked weather-worn as if it had been long exposed to air, sun and storm.  The under side of the handle had a few slight stains, but nothing that resembled spots.  Near the head of the hatchet, these stains were more pronounced.

The boys were much excited over the find, and it was given to Mr. Potter, the father of the finder, who now has it in his possession.  He at once notified the police and tried to find Mr. Jennings, but in this was unsuccessful.

If the murderer of Andrew J. Borden and his wife escaped from the Borden premises by the rear, and it was a very easy way for him to so escape, he could easily have thrown the hatchet to the place where it was found.

So far as is known no man has been on the roof within two years.  Mr. Crowe knows of none;  all telegraph, telephone, electric light wiremen, roofers and several photographers agree on this.  The police did not visit it in their thorough search.

The police have been carefully examining the hatchet this morning.  They thought they could tell whether there had been blood on it or not.  They confirm that they are baffled.

But one of them, who has been an important witness in the Borden case, admits that with the new find and the exclusion of the Bence story everything has gone up for the government so far as a possible conviction of Lizzie Borden is concerned.

The defense has opened its case.  Now look for important and vital contradictions of government testimony."

--I could not find a "pitched roof" printed reference in a source.  Also have checked Rebello, SOURCEBOOK and CASEBOOK.
That doesn't mean it wasn't found on the pitched roof we see in the map...which I noticed when I placed the purple mark....just that that particular description is not mentioned in the sources where I looked






(Message last edited Sep-13th-02  8:16 PM.)

Wow, thanks, Kat!  I have read a much scaled down version of this story before, very cool! 

Rebello, pg. 105-6
Fall River Daily Herald, Saturday, June 17, 1893: 8.

"It Was McDonnell's Axe / Alibi Established for the Hatchet on Crowe's Barn:

"The owner of the Potter- Borden hatchet has in all probability been found.  Carl McDonnell, a carpenter employed by William Smith of Second Street, did some work for Dr. Chagnon about the time of the murder or a little later and lost a hatchet of a description similar to this one.

There are so many hatchets of a similar make that it is almost impossible to identify any one in particular unless marked for that purpose.  The axe undoubtedly belongs to McDonnell."

But, was the hatchet his, proof positive, or do we just have his word for it?  The article doesn't seem to say.  I should think that a hatchet found in the vicinity of a hatchet murder scene, even months down the road would be higly circumspect and that more would go into analyzing it than just someone's word? 

Well, you're right to question this account, but that's all the info on it.
It supposedly disappeared...so it's not even sure that the claimant ever got "his" hatchet back...

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:54 PM.)

That the jury "Acquitted for the wrong reasons"...I like that connotation.  That sounds about right to me.  (Whatever reasons those may be, some of the conjectures you gave made sense, as to the times.)

I'm glad somebody can figure out the placement of the Crowe hatchet.  I can change my purple spots for anyone proving the location, or even coming close.  Some of that description in the news article had my eyes crossed.

The article said the police were trying to determine if the spots were blood, but I don't think we have a result published.  The thing is, to me, that since Lizzie's defense had just commensed, and this hatchet was in the papers, her attorneys would have latched onto this weapon for scientific tests if they thought it was important, which we never found they did,
Of course, another reason might be that the defense was happy with their case by then and needed no new hatchet thrown into the *possible weapon* pool.

DO NOT FORGET that all drawings can reflect the ideas of the artist!
Even photographs can be retouched, even in those days (but not likely in this case: who benefits?).

I'm not going to get involved in what Aristotle said. From what little I know, I doubt that Aristotle would tell people to judge by appearances and not reality. He wouldn't have been popular for so many centuries.

Confucius said: Beware of friendly well-dressed strangers, especially if they try to sell you something. This is still true today!!! Just watch TV.

Common sense, and the law, says you should judge people "by their appearances" (more or less). If somebody has led a crime free life, you could assume, without any contrary evidence, that this probably means they are innocent. (I may not be stating this exactly.)

As a member of a jury, the law says that if you are not decided on guilt, then a person's prior reputation should sway you towards innocence. Or why you should have one or more ministers testify in your favor as character witnesses. Ask a lawyer.

Remember, there is such a thing as "planted evidence". You can look beyond the Trial of OJ to the Tom Mooney case of 1916? Knowingly false witnesses were used to convict this labor organizer.

The book "False Witness" from 1955 (censored today?) went into many details. The author was prosecuted and convicted for telling the truth. He spent the rest of his life banished to Europe.

If you want to know why a jury came to its conclusion, talk to them. Or read the news reports (if accurate). I understand some of the OJ jurors wrote books, but they did not sell many. And its "old news" to many newspapers.

I think the one hour verdict meant that they didn't prove the case. My own very limited experience says the same thing. If 9 jurors say "not guilty", and the others aren't convinced of guilt, then in 2-3 hours its all over. (You never heard of this case from the 1970s.)

If you want to know why a jury came to its conclusion, talk to them. Or read the news reports (if accurate). I understand some of the OJ jurors wrote books, but they did not sell many. And its "old news" to many newspapers.

I think the one hour verdict meant that they didn't prove the case. My own very limited experience says the same thing. If 9 jurors say "not guilty", and the others aren't convinced of guilt, then in 2-3 hours its all over. (You never heard of this case from the 1970s.)

If you want to know why a jury came to its conclusion, talk to them. Or read the news reports (if accurate). I understand some of the OJ jurors wrote books, but they did not sell many. And its "old news" to many newspapers.

I think the one hour verdict meant that they didn't prove the case. My own very limited experience says the same thing. If 9 jurors say "not guilty", and the others aren't convinced of guilt, then in 2-3 hours its all over. (You never heard of this case from the 1970s.)

I was wondering why I couldn't post my Inquest research to answer your conjecture on the other thread!("On the Stairs")
Your post hiccupped!
I finally copy n pasted my post into my mail program, and quit this site from 3:30 till now, and watched some football & had fried Chicken!!!!!!!
Just got back and pasted my post...

If you live in the country (no neighbors) you can experiment by tossing a hatchet onto a roof from 40 feet.
It will make a noise, and the velocity will carry it off the roof.
If thrown in a high arc, it may not slide off the roof. But even more noise to attract witnesses. What about it flashing in the sunlight?

I do not believe that Lizzie (or Nemesis) threw it away. If a weapon is brought into a house, the murderer will take it away since it can point back to him. Men do still put their initials or marks on tools.

Hopefully not a pitched roof as the hatchet could slide down and hit you in the head!!!

Didn't the Chagnons testify to regularly hearing thumps and bumps in the night from the ice house nearby?  And this may be a really far reach, but, when they testified to the night before the murders of hearing pounding on the Borden fence, maybe it was someone practising throwing a hatchet up on the roof? 

Practising in the night?  The Chagnon's had a big dog, albeit rather lazy and maybe old.
It seems that would be more noticeable than during the day when the noise levels were highest.  Methinks that if someone disposed of a weapon that way it would be spontaineous. (sp?)
Pitch it and run....

As I said, a veeeeeeeeeery far reach.  But, it sounds as though the area was not oh so quiet at night.  A hatchet thunking up onto a neighbor's roof might not attract much attention from anyone, except possibly the neighbor who's roof it landed on.

Methinks it might have been after Lizzie was incarcerated, a family member may have come across the murder weapon and tossed it over the fence to keep the police from finding it on the property? 

In a way it sounds plausible to me that a family member ditched a weapon after the searches died down.  But what about dumping it in a pond, or burying it?
Can you speculate where it might have been in the interim?

It will be in my Emma story, don't want to give away everything! 

Isn't is quite possible that the weapon was hidden in
the bundle of bloody clothes that Uncle John was so 'eager'
to bury? They laid on the washroom floor for days, didn't they?
I wonder if the clothes would have been un-earthed
when they were tearing down the barn? Did anyone ever find
what was left of their clothes? I know being bloody & natural
fibers they probably wouldn't have lasted too long, but what
about shoes & belt buckles & such? 

A hatchet IS an irregularly-shaped object.

Though I don't know how I feel anymore about the idea of Lizzie/Nemesis tossing the murder weapon on the roof, the notion that the thing MUST slide off the other side and/or make a noise that would draw everyone's attention on a busy summer day is surely only one man's opinion, don't you think?

(By the way: I finally found a neat little rubber stamp of a hatchet while we were in Santa Fe - I'd been looking for years!)

(Message last edited Sep-18th-02  5:26 PM.)

Would anyone have a reason to ever be up on a roof with a hatchet?
Is there anything you could really fix with one?
Wouldn't a saw work better for roof repairs? Someone might
have stood on a roof & chopped branches off an overhanging tree.
I think a saw would work better for that also, doesn't a hatchet require a bigger motion than a hammer? I would be afraid to be
a story or two up & lose my balance trying to swing a hatchet.

That's a good question as to those long handled hatchets which still look like axes to me.
They do have lathing hatchets and clawhammer hatchets and implements for roofing work and nail removal...But as you lead me to speculate, maybe these had shorter handles?
Included below is a representation of each, plus a "Shingling Hatchet" which all sound like roofing tools to me.  Note:  The handle length is not in the description:
[from LABM/L ]




HI BOB!

(Message last edited Sep-18th-02  7:17 PM.)

I have one of those short axes & I weighed it & it is 1 1/2 pounds,
I could have sworn it was more than that, it seems much heavier. I've never used it to chop anything because it is rather ungainly, if
I needed to do something on a roof I sure wouldn't mess with it.

The hatchets in the ad are about the same weight, some weigh even more, I don't know if I would be able to throw it & have it land
where I wanted it to. And I wouldn't get close up to a building & risk getting conked with it. If Lizzie threw it up there & had it
land back on her she could have said that the killer took a poke
at her & she got away & so did they.

(Message last edited Sep-18th-02  11:12 PM.)

It still seems like an awful big thing and shiny too to have just forgotten it like that on the roof.  I believe that those roofing hatchets were for cedar shakes or shingles, you cut with the hatchet head and then use the hammer head to nail them in place, pretty ingenious. 

Another reason I always thought she didn't do it is because
she didn't have a boogeyman the way people like Susan Smith
did, she didn't try to cover for herself very much, did she?
There could have been a manhunt for a generic looking killer.
She fumbled/lied about her doings that morning but she never said
she saw anyone, that would have made her look much less guilty,
for a while at least. Wouldn't most people have said they were
the only victim who survived? She could have said anything she
wanted to, nobody was going to tell the truth.

I don't think it was odd that she found her father murdered &
didn't go in & check on him, I think that alot of people would have fled in horror or terror, didn't one of the police run off when he saw him? I know that Jacqueline Kennedy changed her story several
times when President Kennedy was shot, I think some things just
leave you unable to recall much of anything. Other times when
something bad happens it makes it so that you can remember the
smallest detail.

(Message last edited Sep-18th-02  11:11 PM.)

Maybe it is like people being operated on & the
doctors find scissors & sponges from prior operations.

The sponges, maybe, but, scissors and clamps and such?!  Unbelievable!  The sponges get so soaked with blood that they probably blend in, but, shiny metal objects?  Yikes! 

Some of the hatchets I've seen were shaped roughly like a boomerang.  Wouldn't it have been funny if the murderer had slung the hatchet up on the roof, only to have it come back and conk him/her?  (Well, it wouldn't have been funny to the murderer, I guess.)

Oh, Edisto, I can just imagine your poem on the subject:

"I tossed a hatchet into the air,
It came right back, and parted my hair..."

Sure, they can sew you up with just about anything.
My aunt had a car accident & the glass cut her face &
they sewed it up & about twenty years later she started
having pieces of glass cutting thru the skin. They had
left some in her cut and it was working its way to the
surface.  

19th century practice (so I read) was for a carpenter to use a knife, hatchet, and drills to build. Traditional post and beam construction. Said to be still used by the Amish for their barns. NO NAILS which rust and eventually weaken.
They also used "shakes" wooden shingles on roofs. That was a carpenter's hatchet. See a catalog?

Well, we know there was at least one nail in that house once; the "ten-penny" nail Lizzie said she found in the lock the day of the burglary. 

Cut me some slack Ray, I never knew the difference
in an axe and a hatchet before. Still don't.

Those claw-headed hatchets look like they are designed to pull nails.  Also the HH , with that "nick" in the side...that is also to pull nails I believe.

A hatchet has a smallet head than an axe, and a smaller handle.
A hatchet is usally used w/ one hand, an axe needs two hands.
Note the size of a shingling and a lathe hatchet? The size of the wood to be cut? Wood shingles are pretty much extinct (cost?). But they are still used in areas with heavy hail; nothing else stands up to this. Maybe galvanized iron, but it has other problems?

A sharp hatchet could also be used as an adze or plane to smooth rough wood, or to make it fit. Could that "nick" be used to hang it on a nail? In the Boy Scouts, it was used to lift up hot cooking pots by the wire handle.

The hatchets with a hammer head was used to hit nails, etc.

(Message last edited Sep-19th-02  7:24 PM.)

Yea, but what if they were killed with a candlestick?

Can a candlestick slice an eyeball in half, or cause a flap wound to the face, or an incised wound to the back?

I've never bought the candlestick as murder weapon idea.  If it was sharp enough at the rim to do so much damage it wouldn't be usable as just a candlestick, you'd cut the heck out of your hand anytime you picked it up.  And can you imagine the damage it would do to your furniture? 

I guess it would depend on the base, I'm sure there have
been flat-ish based candlesticks made. I have a rather tall
silver candlestick & it has a fairly sharp edge around the bottom,
but then it curves as it forms the base itself. It is really
heavy also, I think silver & silverplated things are filled
(with? cement?) because they are softer metals. I think if
you were in a rage about something you could kill someone with
anything, even your bare hands. I don't think you would plan to
kill someone with something like a candlestick or an iron,
but if you needed something quick just about anything could work.

The bottom line would be a weapon that could slice an eyeball in half AND had some gilt on it at some point,{edit: if the same weapon was used for both murders.]
Otherwise grabbing the nearest thing to bash someone would be indicative of an unpremeditated murder:  Using a weapon near to hand, and leaving it at the site.

A Premeditated murder would occur with a weapon Brought to the site And carried away...(likely) or by someone who had to know the house and where their choice of weapon would be found, and then the assassin could leave the weapon at the scene...

(Message last edited Sep-21st-02  2:49 AM.)

It seems like it would take so much emotional effort to
crush someones head in, you would have to witness it, and
not know how long it would take for them to actually die
once you started. I have never killed anyone or anything,
and I could not even begin to imagine it, if I had to
kill my own dinner I would far prefer to do it with a
gun rather than in a slaughterhouse.

I don't think I could deal with killing something 'up-close'.
Does that make sense as to Lizzie? I am not a murderer but
I am a woman, I think she would have to had something
go-off in her to have killed them this way, but I do think
she would have been able to poison them. I still don't
know if that makes any sense to anyone but me.

I think what I mean is if she did it, they are so 'violent'
that it would seem unpremeditated, I don't think she would
have planned to kill them this way, it is just too much.
And you might not get the job done, someone might get away.

But I think she could have tried to poison them,
it would be less messy and not so 'personal'. I'm not
bringing up this subject just to bring it up, but
I think it is like the difference in having an abortion &
dumping and un-wanted newborn in the garbage. One thing
is like this & the other is like that. You might poison
someone but you wouldn't crush their head in with an axe.
You might have an abortion but you wouldn't strangle
your un-wanted newborn. You might shoot an animal but you
wouldn't cut its throat. Am I any making sense at all?

My edit: I had a mouse in the house a few years ago & tried
traps (live & non-live both), didn't work, then I bought
poison & it remained un-eaten, finally I asked at the home
improvement store what to do about stubborn mice & they said
get a 'glue trap' they walk thru it & get stuck & then you
dispose of it with them stuck in there. But I just could not do it, I
could poison it, I could kill it with a mousetrap, but I could
not allow it to die in the glue trap. I'm quite maddening, right?

(Message last edited Sep-21st-02  5:03 AM.)

I have no personal experience at any of this.
But I think of women who kill, and yes, they ARE capable of eliminating a person just about any way they can.

The method may indicate something psychological about the woman, but they may be the only one to ever know what that is.
There is Lee Wournos, here in Florida who killed *at a distance* by using a gun.  But here was a woman who was a self-confessed prostitute--what other occupation on the planet gets one closer to a subscriber?  So she killed almost by remote control...she presses a button and bang someone is dead or dying.  And she says she would do it again.

There was a female slaughterer on Texas death row:  Carla Faye (Tucker?), who got high and used a pick-ax on her ex-boyfriend and his new sweety.

There is Susan Smith and other mothers who knowingly kill their children for superficial reasons.

These are some of the *cold-blooded* ones.

Then there are the poisoners.  They kill at a distance.  That is even MORE cold-blooded to me...
But I'll say this...poison is probably pretty messy and the MOST painful way to kill someone...agonizingly, sometimes over days, weeks... EEWWW.
Bonking someone several times mght be more cathartic for the muderer (more satisfying?), than poison, where, if the person was not of the household, they can then only Imagine the death throes, not be there on the spot and experience satisfaction from witnessing it.

It seems that your major objection would then be to the blood, not really the method...as to Lizzie?

Not the blood so much as the up-close & personal killing.
Poisoning is not foolproof & you might have to listen to
the folks heaving all night, but, I'm going to say this
and I hope someone understands it, you might
want to kill someone, but you wouldn't want to hurt them.

That is what I've been trying to come up with. It is quite
complex, I had to stop and think what killers must be like,
I can understand(?) that people might desire to kill someone,
but I cant imagine dealing with the pain
that you would inflict. I know that most killers enjoy that
part the most. I had another thought about things being entirely
different, executioners kill people but if they did it on their
days off it would be wrong. Would anyone live in fear if
their next door neighbor was an executioner? Would you be afraid they would kill you? Oh man, I'm just bringing up everything.



(Message last edited Sep-21st-02  12:15 PM.)

I also just basically think that people who kill others
are crazy, that is what allows them to disregard the brutality
of what they are doing, they don't have the capacity to care
who they hurt. I still think there is a good sized leap
between poisioning Andrew & Abby & hacking them over & over.
Lizzie didn't go around getting into brawls & she was never
charged with killing anyone else, so if she did it she stopped
with them. Be it for money or not, I would assume if she did
it she was insane, would anyone crazy or just plain mean enough
to kill their parents never bother anyone else? I'm sure
someone probably ticked her off.


(Message last edited Sep-21st-02  9:54 AM.)

I understand perfectly what you are trying to say, kimberly!  You would want someone dead, but, not want them to suffer in the process.  I had a few mice come into my old apartment and had to put out the good ol' mousetraps.  I heard one *snap* one day in the kitchen and went to investigate, it had caught the mom or dad mouse and one baby.  The adult mouse's back end was all moving and scrabbling to get out, nerves I imagine, but, I was so grossed out!  I had the heebie-jeebies for the rest of the day!!!

I think the only other person in Lizzie's life who may have ticked her off may have been Emma.  Emma knew more than she let on to the world at large which may have scared Lizzie and she may have threatened Emma in some way that caused her to flee Maplecroft for her life!  Just my supposition. 

Thank you Susan! I'm so glad you understand, I was starting
to wonder if I sounded like a serial killer in training!
I think I would be the most maternal, gentle, compassionate
killer there ever was.

And if I were to be murdered I think I would prefer poison,
I know it would hurt as much as anything, but I cannot
imagine what it must be like to be stabbed or beaten to death,
being shot is the quickest, but usually they like to see victims
suffer & they wont get it over quick. Don't spies have
poison they are to take if they get caught? Is that just
in the movies?

  The most maternal, gentle, compassionate killer...
You crack me up!

I would think, to some point, if you are being murdered and see it coming you would have so much adrenaline in your system that your body might be numbed to the pain at the moment.  Have you ever had something scary going on or traumatic and after its over realize that you cut or scratched yourself on something, but, didn't feel it at the time of the incident?

There must be some poisons that work instantaneously as opposed to ones that you would have to suffer through before you died.  I think prussic acid is one of them and it doesn't take much.  Just ask those moths in Lizzie's sealskin cape! 

If you had to choose would you prefer to get what the
moths were going to get or get what the seals got?

In regards to having been hurt & not knowing it,
I had a car accident a few years ago & hit the back
of the front seat face first & cut my temple on the
seat belt hook & never felt a thing, the lady who was
the witness said 'you cut yourself' I said 'where?'.
Is everyone thinking, 'Oh, that explains a lot'.

E Porter makes this point: the crime was that of a mad man, or a woman from the "lower classes" (used to butchering). NOT the crime of a lady. But if they had died of arsenic or ?, that would be more likely that a lady did it. Do we agree on this?

There are some interesting comments on this topic in the medical area. They used to believe that sharks had some kind of venom that prevented pain from their bites, because people just felt a tug on their legs. (See the books on sharks.)
The theory is that the bite creates so much pain as to overload the nerves so you don't feel a thing!!! You have seen those documentaries of lions attacking animals and devouring them alive; no screams from the victims. Does anyone have a better explaination?

Once I fell and hit my leg; it just felt like a bruise. Until I felt the wtness of the blood streaming down my leg.

I don't know exactly how ladies kill people, but of all
the methods of killing, poison seems like it would be detached,
no physical struggle with a victim, you could almost forget
that you did it & pretend it was just from bad swordfish.

From a woman's point of view, I cant watch something suffer,
it seems true with most women, not all by any means, but
men can hunt & kill & think nothing of it, I doubt there
are very many women who would work in a meat packing plant.

And I really cant stand to watch those nature shows, I feel too
sorry for what animal isn't fast enough. I'm a big sissy.
If I was forced to kill my own food, I'd become a vegatarian,
buying meat at the grocery I didn't have to watch cows
being butchered. I like to be removed from the unpleasant
action. That way I can pretend nothing happened.

Its physiology, not psychology!
If the other person is stronger than you, you must use the "cunning of the sex" (as Knowlton says).
When growing up I heard about a case (newspapers). A woman was beaten by her man on a daily basis. One day, as he slept, something happened so he would never beat her again. I'll spare you the details.

I can imagine the details! And I have known some really
rotten, mean women before. I also don't understand girls
in gangs, and I wouldn't want to run into any.

I would think that "ladies" don't kill people at all.  (Women, however, are another matter.)  I recently read a review of a relatively new book about the Nazis and their methods of dispensing with people they wanted to get rid of (Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.).  Although we tend to think of the Nazis as being brutal sadists and not caring about their victims, apparently many of them did suffer pangs of guilt -- so much so that methods had to be devised of separating them from the suffering of those they tortured and killed.  The author of the book (whose name I don't recall) mentioned that duties in a slaughterhouse are usually separated into several tasks, so that no one employee has to feel responsible for actually killing the animals.  The same is true of an execution by firing squad.  One member of the squad has a gun with blank ammunition, so that each of them can imagine that his own weapon had nothing to do with the killing. Even Susan Smith, who killed her two sons, did it in a manner that somewhat separated her from their actual deaths.  There are exceptions to this "rule" of course, such as that mother who drowned her children in the bathtub.  (I still wouldn't care to work in a slaughterhouse or be a member of a firing squad.)

Don't you wonder if it has anything to do with us as female animals and instinct?  Genetically we are supposed to be mothers, create life, not destroy it.  And thats not to say that there aren't bad women, bad mothers, crazies, etc.  But, watch a mother dog or cat give birth and they just pretty much know what to do and how to care for their offspring.  I wonder if its built into us; care for things, don't kill them? 

Well, Andrea Yates IS an exception because she WAS crazy.
Susan Smith seperated herself from the killing of her children by leaving them strapped into a car as it sank...I suppose that could be viewed as her rationalizing that they might have survived, or that she merely put them into a dangerous situation and let nature take it's course... sort of like parking  her car on a railroad track and leaving.  A train would then be the cause of their direct death, not she...SO I do think what you said makes sense, Edisto.

It's the rational behind poisoning I have a problem with:  that it is somehow cleaner or neater or less cruel or invasive,or violent.
It's a cowardly way to kill.
It's a lengthly process.
It's agonizing for the victim.
It's slow TORTURE.
Especially if the poisoner is not adept at their *craft*.
It actually takes experimentation and experience to kill *properly* with poison.
If the poisoner was taking time to kill the victim, and was part of the household, they might even conceivably have to Help Care For The Dying Victim over a period of time!  Who would want to do that?  A sado-masochist?
A bunch of bonks on the head is the AMatures way...but at least it's over shortly.

I think the objection is to the blood.
A physical girl would consider killing physically i think.
"At a distance" could have been the objective by using a LONG-handled implement...16", 18", 24" all Remove the killer two feet or so from the victim...much more so than, say, a knife.

We also have profiling which hints to us that overkill, as in these murders, is a method of a person who is extremely emotionally attached to the victim.  And blows to the FACE which both victims experienced are usually delivered to obliberate/abolish the identity of the victim.  It is meant to cancel them out, as if they never existed.  It would naturally cast suspicion on a very close personal part of the family community.

Aren't all murderers cowards? Are they not trying to
deprive their victims their power? 'I'm the one in control,
I'll decide if you even get to live'.
I wonder if Susan Smith would have shot her boys the way
Diane Downs did years ago? Smith also seems like someone
who would do one thing but perhaps would not the other,
she wanted them dead, but to do hands-on, face to face injury,
I think they said she ran away screaming or crying after she did it,
could she have beat them to death? Or drowned them more
personally, in the bathtub? Had she tried or planned on doing it
any other way? (I don't follow current murders much)
Killing is killing, but it seems like some like
to avoid--??--the look in someones eyes perhaps? I don't think this
can be said of serial killers, of course. Evil people aren't going
to care.


I was indeed being facetious when I said I didn't know
how ladies kill people.

I think that is it exactly, but like with the PMS thing,
people get upset if you mention a genuine difference in
the sexes. I don't see as pointing it out makes women
less than men. I'm trying to remember what got this
started? I think I said poisons & axes were very
different methods of killing & if someone would do one
would they do the other.


(Message last edited Sep-22nd-02  7:03 PM.)

I don't think it makes any less than men either!  I just think that we, as women, are wired a little differently.  We have centuries of being nurturers bred into us, though some women don't have it or exhibit it.  Some of it is learned behaviour, the rest I think we may be born with. 

Sometimes people act like women haven't survived
for millions of years also. If women were 'less' than men
we would have died off before now. With or without a males
protection.

This time I'll spare everyone and click reply to Kim, when I am actually bringing this thread full circle to arrive back at the map of the "vicinity".
I realized that the coloured marks i painted on that map only represented the possible witnesses to an escape through the back yard or easterly area, neglecting the people hanging around at certain times out front. (Other than Mrs. Churchill's Tom.)
At some time or other between 9 a.m. and Mrs. Kelly's sighting of Andrew returning about 10:40, there were several people out front loitering or looking around, to also be accounted for on that map:
-Mrs. Kelly's girl, who was supposedly also washing windows, south.
-Mr. Pettee walking around down there...he used to live at #92.
-Mrs. Dr. Bowen looking sporadically out her window toward the north for her daughter's return.
-Mrs. Manley & Mrs. Hart.
-Mr. Cunningham, the newspaper guy collecting from the businesses.
-Charles Gardner at the stables a few doors down the street.

The men on a firing squad are professionals: they do it for the money. The 1977 account in Utah mentioned this.
And so do the butchers in an abattoir, or your local rural farmer.

Did you read about that Medical Doctor in England who killed over a hundred of his patients w/ injections?
"Most murders are done for sex or for money. To get it or to keep it." was what I read recently. This leaves a trail of insurance claims or inheritance, or some personal relationship. Read your big city newspaper. A small local newspaper may censor the details.