1. "Where does the blood go?"
Posted by redfern on Dec-4th-02 at 5:32 PM

What is everyone's theories on where the blood went? Obviously even on the burned dress there wasn't close to enough blood for there to have been two bloody ax murders in? Do you think really in her state of distress she would have stripped naked in order to conceal herself, seeing as how, she obviously wasn't too great at hiding any of her other crimes, of stealing, and breaking and entering, provided they are actually all true. You would think that in order to do a murder, if she was going to think that far ahead, she would have also thought of a less messy way of doing it too. But seeing as how it was messy, and it is doubtful that she would have thought far enough ahead to cover herself in some way, and even if she did, had the time to clean it, or dispose of it, before everything transpired that day.
  I would like to hear opinions on this one, because that part does leave me baffled.
  RedFern

I think this mystery of "where did all the blood go?" either points to Lizzie's extreme shrewdness or to the reality that someone else really did "come in and kill father"--and Mrs. Borden.  Maybe Lizzie (or the murderer) did not use an axe--maybe it was a meat cleaver, or some other household item that was not even examined (I saw a pretty scary picture of a sleeve iron--a "flat" that was thin and narrow--elsewhere in this forum).  I don't know, maybe cleavers cut so cleanly that they don't splash that much blood.  Could be that people back then were much more used to using cutting implements and perfected ways to hack or cut that minimized the messiness.  Could be that Lizzie accomplished the murders in such an unusual way that she rested comfortably knowing that the murder implement would never be found.  Or, as AR Brown says, maybe "someone" was a real expert with axes and knew how to cut real cleanly.  Also, as discussions elsewhere in the forum suggested, maybe Lizzie wore an  apron or even (as the Ouija board said) her father's clothes.  I still think that one of the keys is the rolled-up coat under Andrew's head.

The thing in Favor of using a cutting instrument , like a hatchet or ax, as opposed to another one, like a cleaver, is that the handles of the former weapons provides distance from the victim.
In that 2 to 3 foot distance may fall a lot of blood before it travels farther to get on the attacker.
Apparently when using a hatchet one lets the natural weight of the blade fall into the object to be cut.  The handle is even designed with this in mind.  Inertia, or is it gravity, or both?

That distance can only be achieved in another way that I can think of (and still be in the same space as the victim)  and would be to use a gun or a poker or a bayonette.

(I wonder that this case would be so beguiling if it were death-by-poker?  doubt it...)

If blood got on a dress, how would someone burn something WET like that in the time remaining.  That includes a handle of a hatchet.  How would someone burn a dress paper-pattern wet with blood?  Or newspapers?

It must be either something hidden succesfully or else in plain site, like in with the bloody clothes Thursday night or that coat of Andrew's.  That could include a suspect from within the house or coming from outside, but who knew the family.

It almost seems like the raincoat or *gossamer* theory that permeates the Knowton Papers, and the Trickey-McHenry article of fake witnesses, could be more of a solution than any other.
A girl of the times would probably be more likely to put on MORE items to safeguard her appearance than to think of taking OFF articles.
I know, in the past I have said that if Lizzie coud KILL then she could have the gumption to kill Naked...and I still think that, but if we are to examine what was *more likely*, I'd say a raincoat, hood etc. than naked.

I've always wondered why that coat was not examined more carefully.  It seems to me that if it had been worn during the murder and splattered with blood, it would have been fairly easy to determine.  As opposed to blood that got on it after it had been folded.  In the forensics reports I've read, I don't recall it being mentioned anywhere.  does anyone know if anyone actually unfolded it and examined it for blood stains?

Well, it;'s 12 hours since your question, so maybe we can assume no one has an answer...unless someone shows up later who was out-of-power today...

I have no answer to this either.  I hope there's something in the Hilliard papers about evidence when that collection gets published!
He was in charge of the investigation, after all, except for the Mayor.  But I have a sneaky suspicion that it is a collection of letters from the public TO him...I sure hope there's More than that.

I'm reading the Patricia Cornwell book about her solution to the Jack The Ripper murders and she does relate the dismaying and disappointing truth about the laxity of investigative technique back then.  Police were not trained as *detectives* and their *smarts* they had to learn through experience on the streets.
It's not that these cops were bad at their jobs on purpose, just not well-trained.

kat:

the coat is odd.  the way it's folded or wadded up.  what is interesting is that it would solve the murder garment question.  it could have been used in both murders.

but then there is this:  i don't remember the source, but one writer disputes victoria lincoln's idea that lizzie did put it on for andrew's murder, saying that the coat would have been too heavy and confining for lizzie to have weilded an ax.

and so it is with this case.  for every good idea--there is another that credibly disputes it.

Re: that coat--It would be good to know if Andrew had been wearing it that day (I can't understand those 19th century people wearing heavy, long and often black clothing in the heat and humidity).  If Andrew had it on when he went out, it couldn't have been used for Abby's murder--could it?  If Andrew did have it on that day, why would he have rolled it up on the couch?  Is there some way to find out  what his normal routine was?  Would it occur to  him to use that coat as a pillow?  If in fact it was extremely out of character for Andrew to roll up his coat like that, why wasn't  more made of it than that--even by less-than-perfect cops?

i can't recall the source, but my sense is that he was not wearing that heavy coat that day.  i'm confused about whether the coat normally hung on a rack in that room or somewhere else.

robert harry: good points.  it makes no sense for andrew to use the coat that way.  you can see in the photo that it is not folded neatly, but wadded up, part of it sticking out at the bottom.

apparently it was discarded with the rest of the bloody clothing.

I think Bridget testified that when Andrew came downstairs the first time before breakfast he didn't have his coat or collar on. He went back up and put it on later. He did have to be wearing some coat because he wouldn't have gone downstreet in shirtsleeves.

Perhaps the folded up coat, which was described as his outdoor coat, was so drenched with blood that any spatters would have been covered over with the later soaking it got from the head resting on it. I have wondered about that one for years too.

Depending on who you read, there either was or wasn't much blood around the victims. Doctor Dolan did say that there was lots of blood that dripped down into the couch onto the carpet from Andrews position.  And Abby had a great deal of blood around her head that dripped into or onto the carpet upstairs. As for the spattering, the murderer no doubt was covered with it, either their bare body (which I find preposterous) or their clothes.  A man going out of the house with dark clothes wouldn't be very visible as to blood on them unless he drew attention to himself by waving the hatchet.

Henry Lee would be a good person to ask about the spattering from such a horendous crime, wonder if he has an interest in period cases.

i guess the way to frame the question about the coat is this:  does it appear to be splattered from andrew's head wounds or not?  if not, then it was not there when the murder was committed.  blood soaked through the pillow and into the coat would not appear the same as splatters.  something else to be looked for was this:  was the arm rest of the sofa, beneath that coat -- did it show splatters, drops, etc.?  if so, the coat was not there when the murder was committed.

As to Andrew's routine (which is probably a good way to phrase it):

Prelim.
Bridget
Pg. 6
Q.  Was he dressed when he came down?
A.  In his shirt sleeves.
Q.  Have his coat with him?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did he put his coat on?
A.  No Sir. He had his dressing coat, a short coat, hanging in the kitchen.
Q.  He put it on there?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did he have his collar and neck tie on when he came down?
A.  No Sir.
.................
Pg. 9:
Q.  Did he do anything about his coat when he came down that time?
A.  I did not see him. He went in the sitting room.
Q. Where did he keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A.  In the dining room.
Q.  Did you see him with that on?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  So the last time you saw him before he went out, he had his house coat on?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You say you did not see him go out?
A.  No Sir.

--Isn't the Preliminary Hearing neat?  Thanks Harry & Stef!
--I thought while I was reading this thread that maybe someone thought Andrew had 2 outdoor coats?  One that could be worn to kill Abby while Andrew walked to town wearing the other?
Anyway, if I am confused about that which was posted, at least we might begin to wonder if Andrew did have more than one *Prince Albert*.  I don't think we entertained that idea before.
If Lizzie had 10 outfits, why not Andrew 2 coats?
--I don't know what this would mean to the case.
--It's been postulated that a 5'4" female would have trouble wielding such a weapon as a hatchet wearing the long (It was long) heavy coat that was meant to fit a man 5'11".
--If his routine was to hang that coat in the dining room during the days he is going out, then when he returned that was probably where he would put it.
BUT...

Preliminary
Bridget
22
Q.  Did he bring the key back when he came back?
A.  Yes Sir, and put it on the shelf.
Q.  He sat down with a book or a paper near the window in the sitting room?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  In a rocking chair?
A.  An easy chair I guess.
Q.  Had he then put on his house coat?
A.  I could not tell you.
Q.  What was you doing then?
A.  Started to wash the first window in the dining room.

--Since this was window washing day, and Andrew didn't seem to feel like noticing or being around Bridget while she worked, that routine may have been disrupted that day?
But he DID go into the dining room first and hung around until he later ended up in the sitting room  (Whether he went upstairs or not is totally open to question).
I'd say then he had ample chance to change his outer garmet and put it in it's usual place.

Andrew's progress:  (So I'm not confused) [Prelim., Bridget, 21-22]
Came home
Let in by Bridget
Goes into Dining Room
Lizzie talks to him there
Bridget is finishing the Sitting Room windows
Andrew goes into the kitchen (Where that short coat is kept)
Steps from the kitchen into the Sitting Room to get his bedroom door key from the shelf.
Goes back into kitchen and then upstairs.
Andrew comes down and goes to sit in the sitting room
Bridget goes into the dining room to finish the windows there.
-[It is not known from which door Andrew entered the sitting room..from .kitchen, or dining room door?]
-Anyway, so far all his time has been spent, upon his return, in the 2 rooms in which he keeps his coats


(Message last edited Dec-7th-02  3:56 AM.)

In those days, w/o automobiles or even bicycles, and most people living very close, there were few city crimes that involved complete stranger (?). And eyewitnesses for crimes "I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus" (the dirty old man?).

In My Opinion, but I'm not that old.

Blood will dry in about an hour; so it could be burnt then. Or sooner, in a hot fire.
A hatchet bow to the head, into the brain, may kill instantly. Once the heart stops beating, blood pressure drops. No exsanguination then.

Didn't they used to kill cattle with a "pole-axe" then? One whack does it, and they drop dead. AR Brown has a story about killing a horse by Wm S Borden. No eyewitnesses, but it seems like the kind of story that gets repeated.

[If they lie still, w/o movement, the bystander will assume instanteneous death.]

(Message last edited Dec-8th-02  3:44 PM.)

That forensic expert in Corning NY is THE current expert in blood spatter (forgot his name); mentioned in one book (Baden?).

He was the white haired man among the OJ Simpson defense team. Was he the one who testified about the blood drops? Drops from a moving person show "teardrop" shapes, not the round shape that comes from somebody standing with an eyedropper.

Again, science had not discovered or used fingerprints in those days. The Bertillon system was still new.

[Herb MacDonnell is the name of this expert.]

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

Thanks for this, Kat. When I have time, I want to search for the account of Lizzie "doting" over Andrew in the sitting room (offering to help him settle in the sofa, getting him an afghan,etc.)  I know I read this somewhere, but have forgotten who reported it (Was it Lizzie herself?)  This could be crucial re: the coat.  If Lizzie rolled up the coat after the crime and placed it under Andrew's head, wouldn't she be inclined to worry that the presence of the Albert coat would be unusual given Andrew's daily routine?  If, however, someone ignorant of the family customs committed the crime, they might just grab something off a hook to wipe blood and prop under Andrew's head to make it look like he was napping.  I am inclined to suspect that the items bunched up at the end of the sofa represent a clumsy attempt to make it seem as though Andrew was napping (when in fact I think he was not reclining).

It's probably Hiram Harrington's statements and his *Interview* in the papers you're thinking of.  He says he talked to Lizzie and states what she told him, supposedly.
I think Lizzie says she didn't touch the sofa before she went out.
Yes, we could use that here...

It could be someone ignorant of customs in the house
It could be Lizzie & Bridget had a *deal* about certain statements...& maybe only a "if you're not ASKED, don't TELL..." deal.
It could be a naive, amature killer, not looking at the consequences?

The items at the arm of the sofa, I believe were usually there, other than the coat.
This would include the pillow, antimacasser and afghan.
If you want me to double-check, I will.

I thought it very interesting when it was brought up that if the officials removed that coat and found no blood (where the coat would have protected the arm of the couch), then the coat was probably there during the murder.
And if the arm was found to be saturated upon removing the coat
then the coat was NOT there during the murder.  haulover, post#10-- That was good!

--Ray, in post #13 the phrase is used * may kill instantly*, but I've just been reading in the new Jack the R. book that there really is no such thing.  "Exsanguine" is correct.  Bleeding out as the heart is stopping...loss of blood pressure, then shock etc.  Can litterally take minutes to die, usually.

IF Lizzie touched her Dad, shouldn't she get some blood on her sleeves or hands? No mention by anyone.
Most people say "bleed out" rather than "exsanguination" (the same thing).

I would think she would get some blood even neatly doing it. They did wear long sleeves and such. The dress that was burned had a few spots, I just find it hard to believe that a murder like that would leave very little or possibly no blood on the murderer due to the fact that, you know some major bloodshed took place. A dressed person would have some sort of trace on their clothes. Unless totally sheilded somehow, but then where would they have put that. Too many questions.
     RedFern

The story in AR Brown's book says Wm S Borden tried to kill a horse with one whack of his hatchet; he missed and bespattered himself. It must be that his prior experience led him to believe he could do it. I don't think bars were open on a Sunday, but as a cider merchant he had his own stock. Read that story, and consider what it tells you.
And about how mad he got when he failed!

I see what you mean.
Even a waterproof or raincoat or gossamer or whatever they called it, might drip blood around the floor, being as it's *wet-proof*, and probably slick.
And an apron wouldn't necessarily protect the whole clothing, even if someone Lizzie's size wore one of Abby's size.  Maybe that would even wet through to what was worn underneath?

Yes, if trained butchers can still get a decent amount of blood on their aprons, I imagine that killing someone who is alive, to death, by hacking at them with a sharp object would definately lead to some serious squirtage.
  RedFern

Dr. Dolan testified (page 854, Trial) about the coat.  Q's by Knowlton.

Q.  Now as to the position of the body when you saw it, looking at exhibit 17 (photograph), how does that correspond with your remembrance of the position of the body when you saw it?
A.  That is right. The only difference possible, the only thing that I am not quite sure of, is that possibly I may have pulled that coat up a little to get to his inside pocket. I am not quite sure of it.
Q.  Which is the coat, sir?
A.  This is it: His Prince Albert coat.
...
Q.  You pulled that up a little, did you: otherwise is the position the same as you found it?
A.  Yes, sir.
...
Q.  What was the head resting on?
A.  The head was resting upon a small sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion in turn, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there, and that, I think, rested upon an afghan or sofa cover,---a knitted affair.
Q.  The lowest of the three was the doubled up coat?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  Was the---?
A.  Afghan.
Q.  Then came the coat?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And then the sofa cushion?
A.  Yes, sir.

So far I have not been able to find anything as to whether the coat was examined for blood stains.  Will keep looking.

thanks, harry.

i thought i had read all of his testimony, but somehow i had missed that.  so the coat under his head is the prince albert.

is there another coat?  is that the coat he likely wore out that morning? 

From Bridget:

Q. Did you notice what he did after he brought his key down and put it there?
A. He came out into the kitchen; he put a dressing coat on, as far as I think, and went outdoors.

Is this the same coat?

OOO That was really good, Harry.
I didn't notice that before.
I never had the picture of that in my mind.
I wonder what the good Dr. Dolan found in those pockets?
& wouldn't he have checked at least two?

haulover:  The short dressing coat Andrew wore around the house was apparently the one he died in.
The long "Prince Albert" coat was his going-out coat.

okay.  thanks.  it's starting to make sense.  the coat he died in was also what they called a "house coat."  so he would have worn the prince albert when he went out.

i don't know why these people were wearing coats in hot weather, but i guess that's the mentality of a different era.

so......... what is the likelihood that andrew himself folded the coat to use as an extra pillow?

First, the cold bloodedness of the elderly is too well known to comment on. When you pass sixty, you may notice this. Especially if sick from vomiting, etc. Since the house was inland, no cooling breezes possible from the river or bay.

Second, it could be that the house was still cool from the night. Coolness is a relative thing. Relatives in southern TX think 50F is cold; and 30s unbearable. If you're not used to it?

Back in the 1950s hot summer weather on Sunday would be followed by the deaths of elderly men who walked to church in their ties and winter jackets. More rational dress has seen an end to this. Plus riding in air-conditioned cars. Its not the heat, its the humidity.

(Message last edited Dec-13th-02  3:06 PM.)

It was the dressing of the time. Men hardly wore regular t-shirts. Women, well they wore a corset, petticoats, large slips under these thickly made long sleeve dresses. It was just what they wore in those times. They were never into comfort, it was all in how proper your dress attire was. Women who wore any less were considered scandleus, and men who wore any less just had to be poor.
   RedFern

they were hiding some good stuff.  haha.  i ran across a site about victorian women's lingerie.  it suddenly occurs to me:  is there a connection between "victorian" and "victoria's" secret?

seriously, though, i was surprised at the creativity.  you might think that since modesty was so important it wouldn't matter what was on underneath, but that doesn't appear to be the case.  i forget the site, btw, i don't know if i could find it again.

I wish I could remember where I read it but somewhere in the testimony, I think Bridget's, there is mention that what he died in was a cardigan jacket of sorts.

Carol, Dolan testified on page 864 of the trial:

Q.  What did the body of Mr. Borden have on?
A.  On the outside, a cardigan jacket, that is a woolen jacket, black vest and black trousers, and a pair of Congress shoes.