1. "Blood splatters"
Posted by joe on Feb-12th-03 at 1:45 PM

I watched "Cold Case Files" on A&E last night.  There was a blood expert who testified at a murdewr where the victim was smacked repeatedly on the head with a heavy stick.  Blood guy showed that when victim got hit, the hitter swung the stick over his head and blood spattered on the ceiling.  Also wall.

Is there any evidence that blood spattered on the ceiling?  I don't remember that being discussed in the trial.  Also, got me wondering if not on ceiling, then it must have taken a series of short strokes with the ax such as a butcher with a strong forearm would do.

Does this rule out Lizzie?

The first blow is free.
After that I presume blood can go anywhere except past an immovable object depending on the form of attack.

Prelim.
Dolan
pg.s 93-98--Blood Evidence:
"We saw two spots upon the ceiling immediately above, not exactly above the head of the lounge. I do not think it was human blood; I think it was some insect that had been killed there. There was another spot Mr. Jennings and myself saw that was in all probability human. That would be from the head westward about a foot or eighteen inches westward on the ceiling."

I think  this celing is rather high in the sitting room, or at least higher than they make them as *Standard*  when my house was built--Florida Ranch Style.
Was it Harry who gave the ceiling highth?  Do you remember what it was?

i saw a commercial for that and intended to watch it for just this reason but managed to forget about it.  one thing that caught my attention in the commercial was something about "gender in blood splatters."  anything on that?

When I visited the house, I seem to remember the ceiling in the sitting room was a "normal" 10-12 foot ceiling, i.e. not taller than that.  As for the "gender in blood splatters", I don't recall anything significant.  I think the gender may have been about the killer: man vs woman.  They found evidence to prove that a man and a  woman were present at the murder.  The blood splatter expert testified at the trial.

I thought the ceiling was mentioned as 8 ft. 11" or something?

Around here I think 8 ft. is the norm in ranch homes.

If a  person swung a bloody hatchet over their head, wouldn't the length of the handle, where gripped, height of assailant and height of ceiling, & height of object being struck determine whether blood would go to the ceiling and if so in what size doplets, etc?

i thought of that yesterday.  it explains why there isn't any on the guestroom ceiling.  which is not much, but it's at least something in making a comparison of the two murders in terms of physical evidence.  there may be other factors of this kind where you may reasonably infer something.

I'll tell you one thing.  I am 5'3" and I hefted a hatchet at Ace Hardware and it was considered 5 lb's I think & it was extremely heavy.
A girl might make more short dopping blows rather than lift that thing over her head.  I probably couldn't heft that over my head or TO my head more than a few times, as well as pull the blade out of bone.
Maybe to shoulder height, but not over my head.
(I am used to hefting 7 lbs and 13 lbs bags of litter...)

I saw Survivour tonight (GoGirlz!) and they had machetes.
NOW that was a weapon I could see doing this deed!

haha.  the things lizzie borden fans will do.  like swinging hatchets in hardware stores.  or throwing yourself on the floor to see how it sounded when abby fell.  i guess i'm going to have to devise a way to simulate hitting a head with a hatchet.  i have no idea as to the strength or difficulties involved.  i would think it might at least be possible to determine the likelihood of whether it was done by a 32 year old woman or by a maddened man who was a hatchet expert.  since we do have a detailed reports of the wounds.

If you have relatives on a farm, and they butcher in the fall, visit them (prepare them for your request!) and afterwards, use a sharp hatchet on a pig or calf's head. Don't be squeamish! There will be little blood from a dead animal. The first deadly hack into the skull may stop the heart and blood circulation.

i don't have any such relatives.  have you experienced the opportunity you describe?  for that matter, has anyone?  i'm getting ahead of myself though.  i'm going to read through those autopsy reports tonight.  and i thank you for your suggestion.

Didn't the prosecution experts already make this determination when they signed on to give their evidence?
How can we know more now than the forensics opinions over this very subject when they were there at the time and had the skulls in their hands?

Anyway, good luck.
Ya never know, with this case....
BTW:  I actually like comparing the skulls to the autopsy report rather than the wounded bodies.
Also, since you have that kind of mind, you might consider making your own sketches of the rooms, bodies, blood spots, and where all the furniture was.
This may be as helpful to you as making your own time-line.

Do you have the Prelim?
If not, there is blood evidence info at:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BloodEvidence.htm
and skulls at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AutopsyAndrewBorden.htm
      &
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AutopsyAbbyBorden.htm

--Their skulls are at the bottom of each autopsy page.

yes, i've got all that which you supply as links.  i don't yet have anything new to offer.  but i start with the observation that abby's murder is twice as brutal.  the axe penetrated the brain numerous times -- not so with andrew.  either the killer is not as mad at andrew or the killer has less time to do it and get out.  or the killer's rage is primarily directed at abby.  abby doesn't stop struggling and die as quickly as andrew?

anyway, there is this:  the first murder is the key as far as motive.

i still wonder about this:  regardless  of who the killer is, why strike in so many different places? why not instead strike again and again into the same wound to the point at which the blade enters the brain? (that's the point where you know victim is dead). 

abby has twice the number of wounds compared to andrew.  victoria lincoln explains it this way:  that lizzie killed abby out of rage and killed father out of necessity. 

any theories on this particular issue?  the murders are the same and yet different when you examine specifics.

I was interested in your remark that Abby didn't stop struggling, as a reason to keep hitting her (and include the extra rage).
The wounds, as Bob G. once pointed out, are all over the place on Abby's head--every which way.  There is even almost a *Mark of Zorro*--sorry, i was raised on Westerns--anyway, these wounds are more like glancing blows and might infer Abby was moving her head all around, or else the killer kept changing positions?
Yet, the biggest mystery here is that there are not signs of a struggle.  At least that we can see in photo's and in testimony.

So if Abby dodged a bit while on the floor, why not some upheaval in the room.  This was a very small area for 2 people to be *fighting* in....(one fighting a somewhat moving target and the other trying to get out of the way?)

It's a crime scene with contradictions.

(Message last edited Feb-16th-03  1:29 AM.)

I guess a machete wouldn't have gilt on it?



I want to know:  WHY a hatchet?  Why would a girl use a hatchet?
Distance is the only reason I can think of.  But a long poker might provide distance?  A machete is also long...

(Message last edited Feb-16th-03  2:35 AM.)

Good question.  A girl might use a hatchet because she didn't want to get caught, the hatchet was viewed as a masculine murder tool, and perhaps she knew that it would be.  A girl might use a hatchet as symbolism, Andrew possibly killed the pigeons with a hatchet, may have chopped off their heads.  Or, a girl may have seen her father or someone else do in an ailing animal with a hatchet blow to the head, the hatchet with the cow hairs on it?

Or, a girl may have got up one morning and spoke to one of the victims and decided, thats it, I can't live with this mean old good for nothing one more minute, she needs to be eradicated.  The girl visits the basement WC and comes out still seething and her eye falls upon a hatchet in the basement. 

A hatchet is the usual tool for slaughtering chickens, and even sheep. Maybe a strong and experienced hand could use it for cows and horses as well (rather than an axe). What is in the history books?

Certainly the 18-19 blows on Abby suggest extreme hatred, or from a madman. How many wounds on Bertha Manchester? I know they were similar. The wounds on Andy were fewer, but more terrible.
Could AR Brown's theory fit the facts here?

why would you say andrew's wounds are more terrible?  just in his being hit in the face?

what interests me about the difference in the number of blows is that it is a significant difference which must signify something.  for about half the wounds in abby's skull, the blade entered the brain.  possibly one or two penetrate andrew's skull -- and then the killer stops.

my idea that abby was moving her head is a stretch.  but i'm deliberately stretching, guess.  here's another stretch:  it's psychologically more difficult to strike someone in the face (and seeing the grotesque disfigurement) than it is to strike at the back of someone's head?

thus far, i think the most likely explanation for this difference is that the killer is more concerned about time.

my current thinking on "why a hatchet?"

if lizzie had been trying to poison them but could not get the stuff that would do the trick -- what does she turn to?  she doesn't want a confrontation/fight on her hands, but needs something that will knock them out quickly.  a poker could have knocked them out but a hatchet was more deadly.

i'm about ready to dismiss my notion of abby moving her head around.  look at andrew on the sofa.  except for the head wounds, he appears "undisturbed."  as though he never knew what hit him.  there are injuries on abby's face.  the fall to the floor probably knocked her out if the first strike didn't.

I agree Haulover that the time factor was critical in the attack on Andrew. Your observation about the frontal vs. rear attack is also interesting.

Just being on the first floor exposed the killer to more danger than being on the second floor. Assuming it was Lizzie, she would have known that Bridget had no duties in the guest room and no reason to go there. That in itself would have given more isolation and more time since there was no other person in the house.

Consider this idea: Lizzie never went to the barn, or even left the house after killing Andrew but returned to her own room and somehow hid the weapon and bloody clothes. Then returned to the back hallway to summon Bridget.  Just an idea which I don't really believe myself but worth a thought or two.

Back in the old days, when I was much younger, I went with my dad and uncle to a farm where they slaughtered beef cattle.  The cattle would enter the barn through a narrow passage.  A guy with a sledge hammer would stand on top of the sides of the passage and bonk the steer on the head with the hammer and then another guy would slit the poor creature's throat.  And on with the butchering.

[I'm responding to several posts here:]

I was thinking of a hammer too.  If Lizzie stumbled across a weapon in the cellar, why not a hammer?
A man's weapon.
Anyway, if she just happened to come by a hatchet, then she wasn't too prepared.
To be prepared and to have a hatchet handy and ready is different.
Maybe girls had more expertise then with farm implements than we can comprehend in this day & age..(or just me?)

I can't think that Lizzie would figure to use a man's tool to divert suspicion, if she had already thought of and might have tried poison, which is totally the opposite...a woman's weapon.  (Or a Doctor's).

One theory was that the way Abby lay in the photo's suggested to the writer that she had tried to get away by climbing under the bed, after being cornered.
The lack of defense wounds on either corpse seems to show that both were pretty much knocked out soon into the attack.

Bertha Manchester had, what, 5 or 6 wounds incised?  And a few clobbers with the back of the instrument.
How does that happen?  Does someone attack with the back, not the blade and then the implement gets slippery and turned around and then the blade comes into play?
Or does the attack start with a blade and then turn into a clobbering?  Why would someone switch, as in Bertha's murder?
Anyway, SHE crawled a bit and had defense wounds and left a trail of blood.  She did fight for her life.  Too bad the dogs couldn't save her...