1. "A gilty hatchet?"
Posted by harry on Mar-2nd-03 at 7:15 PM

This is a condensed article from the June 15, 1893 Evening Standard on the discovery of the hatchet on the Crowe shed.

"....Last night a boy named Potter, 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.  ...[He] 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."

Hmmmm...what are we to make of that?

Wow, what a find!  Too bad the police or doctors didn't try to match it up with the piece of gilt found in Abby's skull.  Could you imagine if it did match?! 

i've wondered if that was the real murder weapon.  i don't see how we'll ever know.

but what i have been thinking about is this:  if bridget's testimony is reasonably accurate, then the murderer has 5 minutes to kill andrew and dispose of the weapon.  i'm not convinced they found it in the cellar.  is 5 min. time enough to do it and throw the axe on that barn roof? 

this is where lizzie starts looking innocent.  even granting her that 15 to 30 min. in the barn -- how does she destroy  all physical evidence connecting her?  this is by no means a new argument, but think about it.

if you believe bridget, then andrew was literally murdered as she ascended the stairs. 

yet concerning available evidence:  lizzie is speaking to and parting company with bridget just before each murder.

if lizzie herself did not swing the axe, then who the hell did?  i've never believed in  conspiracy theories, yet you need one to find her innocent, don't you?  and even then, she's not innocent, but who is  with her in that house that day?

How can that hatchet hack Abby and leave gilt and then hack Andrew and leave no gilt, yet still have some gilt after being exposed on a roof for 10 months?

As to your timelines of the deaths, haulover, are you putting Andrew's death at 11 and Abby''s at 9:30?
My figures differ, but if those are your times, then some authors agree with you.

I just finished reading Lizzie Didn't Do It by Will Masterton.  He refers to that article in his theory of Nemesis killing the Bordens.  He also has some convincing scientific and medical "proof" that Emma and Andrew could have been murdered within minutes of each other.  Great book, by the way!
joe

Kat, I would believe that after hacking Abby any loose gilt from the cutting edge of the hatchet would have come off.  So, no gilt for Andrew.  The rust may not have taken all the gilt finish off of both sides of the hatchet head. 

Didn't a man who had been working nearby come forward a few days after this weathered hatchet was found on Crowe's roof and claim it, saying it was a hatchet he lost? I believe this man was identified in at least one of the many books about the case.

This is the clipping that Robert A. Flynn refers to in "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe" (1992). Flynn concludes that:"The hatchet found on the roof of the Crowe Barn was in all probability the murder weapon"(p. 16).

He also says that, regarding the weapon used: "The testimony of Harvard Medical School doctors  was inconsistent and falsely presented at the trial". (16)

Dr.Draper told Knowlton that he and Dr. Cheever were in agreement as to seeing an "unmistakable deposit of gilt metal" in Mrs. Borden's wounds; and that the weapon used was a NEW hatchet not long out of the store. [emphasis Draper's]
However, their testimony at trial made no mention of gilt deposit or of the theory that the murder weapon was a new hatchet.

A very good answer!!!
Gilt for the goose should be gilt for the gander!!!
(I thought it was funny.)

That should be gilt paint, not metal IMO. Too expensive for anything but this.

Excellent response!!! I'll bet that workman was from somewhere else, as few people lose tools in their own backyard. IMO
But did he lose it before or after the murders? Could he just be claiming it to get something for free? My speculations.

Is this the relative of Abby Borden Whitehead Potter? Or just another coincidence from 19th century when people didn't move much?
Like those coincidences in the Charles Dickens novels?

I strongly recommend you read ALL the books on the murders, in historical order as published. Then you will appreciate the final solution in AR Brown's book.

(Feel free to differ, Kat.)

Very good!!! You have just refuted Masterton's argument.

I am not of the opinion that the hatchet on the roof was the murder weapon. It's possible but I have my doubts. I was aware of the man who claimed the hatchet but there were several people who said nobody had been up on that roof for two years. I can find that reference if need be. Believe it was in a newspaper article reporting the finding.

I am not sure of the process of applying the gilt but it does seem possible that the adhesion would not be uniform.  It may have been stronger in some spots than others and thus not necessarily come off all at one time. It may have even survived an attack on Andrew.

Pure speculation though. 

I had always assumed that the "gilty" hatchet was found on the flat roof of the little shed that sat nearest the Kelley yard, but on Crowe's property.  I had, in fact, wondered if the police could have actually seen the hatchet from the Borden attic, assuming they looked in that direction.  However, many months ago when I was posting on the LBMB, I read something (I believe it was a newspaper article) that indicated the hatchet had actually been found on the roof of the large structure closest to Third Street.  If you look at the drawing on page 47 in Rebello (same drawing that I think was recently posted in connection with the "mysterious building") the number "2" is used to designate the building where the hatchet was found.  That number is on the largest of the three Crowe buildings.   Since that building has a pitched roof, I don't know how a ball  would have landed on it and "stuck" there.  I would think it would have rolled off!  It doesn't seem to have a very steep pitch, so maybe a hatchet could have landed there and stuck, however.  Of course somebody in the Borden yard would have had to have quite a pitching arm to throw the hatchet onto THAT roof.  I'll try to locate the article to which I refer.  Of course, we all know better than to trust anything from a newspaper story, and I believe that's the only source of information about the "mysterious axe" (as Bob Flynn calls it).

kat:

yes, i tend to think abby at 9:30 and andrew at 11:00.  i'm sure you've studied that in more detail than i.  when do you place the murders and why?

one thing i do think is that each murder corresponds to when lizzie observed bridget.  bridget is washing windows outside, bridget has gone upstairs -- coast is clear.  i realize there is curious descrepancy between the two in timing both murders.  if bridget is honest and reasonably accurate, then andrew's murder is easier to pinpoint.  what lizzie has to say is so unreasonable -- how does one pick out something to trust?  you backtrack from andrew's death around 11 according to difference in condition of bodies in order to estimate abby's -- which seems to correspond to bridget going out to wash the windows.  so many vexing details have been brought into it; one writer (i believe, radin) who wants to cast doubt on bridget, has it that the town hall clock was known to be inaccurate.  i'm not willing to give any credence to that theory that they were murdered within minutes of each other.  it's a matter of common sense, it's obvious, abby is cold and blood is largely dried.

and about the weapon.  (and/or the dress.)  you have to choose between two extremes.  either lizzie is extremely clever.  or it is as it looks -- that the evidence was removed from the house.  i know it's been suggested that someone removed it before police could find it; but when i look at who this person would have been -- morse, dr bowen, bridget -- i just can't find sufficient motive or inclination to do so.

the handleless hatchet is something i give up on for now.  as curious as it is that it appeared covered in ashes (different from the other dusty items)-- there is still the problem with time in cleaning the blade and the confusion about whether a handle was also found there.  no trace of blood found on the blade, but traces of dirt were found.  victoria lincoln must have that wrong -- there must be more evidence supporting it as murder weapon to name it such. 

and so lizzie is innocent.  but then examine lizzie's behavior and what she says, and she's clearly guilty.  you know, i could believe that an unidentified person was involved, and lizzie's behavior is indicative of something "shameful" she's unwilling to reveal.  it's possible she knows someone else is in the house the whole time, but doesn't realize what has happened until she discovers andrew.  but the whys and wherefores seem hopelessly speculative. 

none of the above offers anything new, i've merely described the riddle, but that is the one thing i consistently return to.  it is a problem of "missing information.

I never knew why the claw-head hatchet no longer was considered the weapon after the Preliminary Hearing.
I thought it sounded pretty close to being our weapon.
Especially if it's been proven that a particular hatchet cannot necessarily be discounted due to blade length compared to wound size.

It fit our requirements, it was fairly new and had just been sharpened (see Witness Statements), it belonged to the house, and it WAS suspect from the beginning.

The time of death is something I think can be manipulated somewhat.  Either direction...so that really no one is wrong about the times they choose to believe.  I think support can be found and argued for a small variation in the times.
I do subscribe to 9:05 for Abby's death.  Mainly because the guest room is finished and Abby goes back up there at around 9 (after giving directions to Bridget to wash windows).  I give her 5 minutes to get up there and get busy and then *Curtains* for Abby.  This is because she is not seen ever after alive again.  There's not a reason that we know of that would have her loiter up there where she normally doesn't hang out.  No reason then to return downstairs and then go up AGAIN to be killed, filling that 1/2 hour time-slot where she is never seen.
It was mentioned to me today that Lizzie would wait until Bridget was outside which I agree makes sense but I submit that the attack on Abby can happen right away without worrying about where Bridget is placed in the house because she never enters the front entry or has a reason to except to sweep and that is what?  Every other Friday, I think?  And no reason to go into the parlour that early (and yet she never DID go in the parlour that day to wash windows, she says), and so no reason to go past the confines of the kitchen & diningroom.  Ensconced in *cleaning her kitchen* she takes an inordinate amount of time, so maybe she is a slow worker and always takes her time.  I don't think Lizzie would necessarily have to wait for Bridget to be outside.  So I get the 9:05 time slot.  I don't know why, other than Bridget's timeline is seriously off, and I also am not convinced she could read a clock face.
I can still, tho, rely on Bridget for the timing of Andrew's death, I think, because the amount of time is about 1/2 and I believe if she goes by hearing the clock strike she can more easily estimate the timing at the 11 o'clock quarter hour period.

As to Andrew's murder-- that gets tricky but it could happen at 5 of 11, and include 12 to 15 minutes total.  This one we need to squeeze out every minute we can for the murderer and yet it still fits the parameters, because it DID happen.

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

(Based on the Preliminary Hearing Testimony of Bridget Sullivan).

10:55 a.m. -- "4 or 5 minutes to 11" a.m., Bridget went upstairs- knew by the length of time she was upstairs when "it struck 11 o'clock." (pg. 25).

11:10 a.m. -- Lizzie "halloed" to Bridget . . . "so loud . . . Come down quick", that her father was dead. (pg. 27).

"I might be upstairs ten or fifteen minutes, as near as I can think, after I went up stairs." (pg. 27).

--I didn't mean to reply only to haulover, but if I notice the time on MY computer clock, I am off to bed but I do want to read everything here again tomorrow.



(Message last edited Mar-4th-03  6:10 AM.)

abby's murderer would have wanted bridget out of the house for fear of being HEARD.

of the evidence gathered, the physical evidence identifying the murderer is so questionable, so fraught with difficulty and confusion -- how does one actually believe it?

lizzie's inquest testimony is full of lies, but where is the hard evidence against her?  is lizzie that clever, or are we missing information we may never get?

lack of evidence is what strikes me.  if lizzie in fact burned a bloody dress that day in the kitchen, where was it when the police searched?  and if you look at that record, you see nothing but contradictions as to whether the police searched thoroughly or superficially.

Yea, I think about the heard but if Abby was kneeling that might not be too loud.
Also if Bridget heard and was paid off that eliminates the need to worry about Bridget later wandering too close to the crime scene.  But if Lizzie is a naive killer and doesn't anticipate the noise and Bridget hearing and it's really only the result of Bridget's hearing that Bridget gets paid, it's still the same difference.  There would be odds that the maid would hear while inside and odds that she wouldn't.

Hilliard said something odd at the Prelim. and I was going to go back over this thread but I will put that here now since you brought up the search:

Prelim.
Hilliard
pg. 421+

A.  Saturday, I should say somewhere about half past 12. That search was made from something that came to my knowledge, in fact, was handed to me; and I went there after the funeral procession left the house, and made a partial search of three rooms.
Q.  This was about half past 12?
A.  Somewhere in that vicinity; it was soon after the procession started.
Q.  Now what three rooms did you search Saturday afternoon?
A.  I looked in what I was told was Miss Lizzie's room, the room to the northward. We went from that room, and looked into the spare or front bed room, up stairs.

(Examination of Marshal Hilliard resumed.)
Q.  (Mr. Jennings)  Then if I understand you correctly, you examined the room that is called Miss Emma's room, and Miss Lizzie's room, and the guest room?
A.  I examined partially the three rooms that I have spoken of. I do not know about Miss Emma's room; I do not know where that is.
Q.  You know where Miss Lizzie's room is?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  I understood you to say you examined the room that opened out of that?
A.  Yes Sir, opened out of that to the north.
Q.  This being Miss Lizzie's room on the south of the house, you examined that room, with the door opening directly out of it to the north?
A.  Partially, the whole three.
Q.  What do you mean by partially?
A.  I did not go through the bureau drawers, and such as that, but looked at the beds, looked at this bed that stood here, and that one there.
Q.  What do you mean by looking at, tore them to pieces?
A.  Yes sir, lifted the bed, and took the clothes off.
Q.  Took everything off of it, so you could see if anything was concealed in any part of the bed or any part of the bedding?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You did not examine the bureau drawers in any part of the room?
A.  No Sir. There was this lounge here, a sofa. I looked back of it.
Q.  You looked back of the sofa in Lizzie's room?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  When you went into the spare room, or guest room, what did you do there, in the north west corner?
A.  Nothing at all, just merely looked at it.
Q.  That was when?
A.  Saturday noon, somewhere between 12 and one o'clock, probably half past 12. I left the office at noon

--This has me wondering if there was some tip to check the lounge specifically (and the 3 other beds?) in Lizzie's room.  She was on that lounge and in that room, as far as we know from a bit after 12 noon to the time Lizzie went down cellar at 9? [Trial, Hyde, 835, as to time of cellar visits]  And maybe whatever tip the Marshal got concerned something secreted in the lounge and which Lizzie may have transferred to the cellar Thursday night?


(Message last edited Mar-5th-03  2:23 AM.)

LABVM/L:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/PossibleWeapons.htm

"According to Robert Flynn in his Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe (King Philip Pub. Co., 1992), it 'is impossible to conclusively determine the size of an axe or hatchet head by measuring the width of marks and incisions.' Further he states, after a careful analysis of the evidence and testimony that 'the hatchet found on the roof the Crowe Barn [June 14, 1893] was in all probability the murder weapon.' "

"From the Emery Scrapbook, owned by Mr. Flynn, we are shown this news item, dated June 15, 1893:'

Doug remembers:
Rebello, pg. 105+

"Note: It was eleven year old Freddie Potter, son of Caleb C. Potter, who found the axe at Crowe's barn while playing ball on Third Street. Two days after the axe was found, The Fall River Daily Herald, June 17, 1893, reported the axe as belonging to Carl MacDonnell, a carpenter who had been working in the area. He lost an axe similar to the one found at Crowe's barn."

"It was McDonnell's Axe / Alibi Established for the Hatchet on Crowe's Barn," Fall River Daily Herald, Saturday, June 17, 1893: 8.

"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 anyone in particular unless marked for that purpose. The axe undoubtedly belongs to McDonnell."

Robert L Shapiro (like other lawyers) says stories tend to change with time and retelling. If it never changes, it was well rehearsed, and probably made up.

"I recognized Lizzie by her eyes."

This riddle is why AR Brown's book works. Lizzie knew far more than she told; why? To hide some shameful family secret. Revealing the killer would only add to the shame, and solve nothing. Uncle John may also have frightened her by saying she could be blamed as well (goodbye Andy's money). You can decide for yourself.

Thanks, Kat. I didn't have time the other day to look up the particulars of Carl McDonnell who claimed the Crowe's roof hatchet as his.

(Message last edited Mar-5th-03  3:21 PM.)

So doesn't it look like Robt. Flynn didn't have access to the June 17th article?  Either that or he discounted it for some reason.

Rebello's section on the hatchets (pp 104-8) provides an opinion by Dr. Thomas F. Gunning, who is described as "the lone survivor of the group of witnesses at the autopsies". He is not mentioned in the official autopsy reports.  Was he at the first autopsy at the house, maybe?  Anyone remember him?

Diana, you must have read my mind. That's exactly what I was thinking about Flynn.   He states pretty positively that in his opinion (in "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe") that it was the murder weapon.

I wonder if he has an e-mail address where I could ask him that question.

I'm sure Bob Flynn probably does have an email address, because he sells on eBay.  I don't seem to have it in my address list though, although I've dealt with him.  You can contact him through one of his eBay listings by clicking on "ask seller a question." I think I noticed that he has a couple of Lizzie items up now.  His business is FlynnBooks.  I don't think he has a website of his own.  I've always found him very nice to deal with.

Oh,(not in response to you, Harry, but just to keep the number of posts down) the clipping that Kat posted is the one I recalled that says the hatchet was found on the "main" barn in Crowe's yard.  I don't think that would be the little shed next to the Kelley yard.  I still wonder how the boys' ball got "stuck" on a pitched roof, but that's not the only mysterious aspect of this case.

(Message last edited Mar-5th-03  8:44 PM.)

Here is the reference to which Diana cites.  This later barn axe was found in 1929:  (highlighted for easy reference)

Rebello, pg. 106+

"Denies Barn Axe Used in Murders / Dr. Gunning, Lone Survivor of Borden Slaying Autopsies, Hits Latest Discovery / Police Also Skeptical / Former Fall River Medical Examiner Says Weapon Just Found Could Not Have Made Deep Cuts," (newspaper unknown)

"Dr. Thomas F. Gunning, the lone survivor of the group of witnesses at the autopsies, said, 'I distinctly remember the appearance of the wounds inflicted upon the bodies of both Mr. and Mrs. Borden. The head and back of Mrs. Borden, yes, Mr. Borden, too, were deeply cut by the weapon used. These wounds were five or six inches long. They could not have been made by any such hatchet or axe as that found in the old barn. Not even a giant wielding that tool could have inflicted wounds like those which killed the Bordens.' "

"Note: The above article was found in a copy of Edmund L. Pearson's book, Five Murders (1928). The owner's name inscribed inside was Arthur B. Glravrs.

Dr. Thomas F. Gunning died in Fall River on March 17, 1931."
........
Hoffman has this:
"Gunning, Thomas  (?-19310
Dr. Thomas Gunning assisted Medical Examiner William A. Dolan and Drs. Albert C. Dedrick, John W. Coughlin, John H. Leary, Emanuel C. Dutra, J.Q.A. Tourtellot, Anson C. Peckham and Seabury Bowen in the first autopsy of the Borden's on the dining room table (sic) at 92 Second Street at 3:00 P.M. (sic) on the day of the murders. He was the last survivor of the physicians who were present at the Borden autopsies."

--not much more info, is it?
________

Victorian Vistas (1886-1900) has a cite to a news item of June 14, 1895 where the headlines read:
FOUR PERISHED.

FATAL BOILER EXPLOSION AT
LANGLEY'S HARNESS FACTORY

APPALLING SCENE OF DEATH
AND DESTRUCTION

30 people were at work inside and the explosion made the roof cave in.  A half-dozen were wounded  and the four killed included ADELA DUBE, of 13 Eastern Avenue, age 20.
"Ambulances, physicians and clergymen (were) on the scene".
Including Dolan, DR. GUNNING, and PIERRE A.A. COLLETT.  (my emphasisi.)
"The Star Music Hall has been made [into a] morgue..."
.........
There is one more cite for him, Victorian Vistas, Feb. 29, 1896:

"CATARACT OF BODIES.

CASINO GALLERY RAILING GIVES WAY,
THROWING THRONG OF MEN AND BOYS
TO FLOOR BELOW.

ONE DEAD, MANY BADLY HURT.

SPECTATORS RUSHED FORWARD
TO WATCH A CONFLICT AMONG POLO
PLAYERS ON RINK SURFACE.

CROWD BEHAVED WITH FORTITUDE.

HORRORS OF A PANIC AVERTED
BY COOL HEADED CITIZENS."

"...Doctors GUNNING, Synan and Eagan, who were present at the time, climbed over the railing and promptly commenced the work of relief for the sufferers.  It was a most sickening and revolting spectacle;  a mass of unconscious, bleeding forms, how many of whom might be dead, no one can say."

Officers Desmond & Edson were there, as well as the Mayor Greene;  Doctors Dolan & Collett quickly arrived to help along with 11 other physicians.



(Message last edited Mar-5th-03  8:54 PM.)

All drawings that I have ever seen of the Crowe yard show a 3-building structure. From Third St. The first building is the tallest and peaked. The second building is shorter and also peaked and the third, the closest one to the Borden yard,is still lower and flat.

I took the newspaper article and re-typed it as it appeared in the Evening Standard on June 16th, 1893.  The newsprint is too hard to read for these weary eyes.

"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 nine feet high.  A six-foot fence runs diagonally and southeasterly from the north line of the first ell to the second 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.
......
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.
......
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 confess that they are baffled."

After reading this I am now totally confused as to the layout vs. the drawings.  Is ANYTHING in this case simple?


(Message last edited Mar-5th-03  9:53 PM.)

Kat -- thank you for the Dr. Gunning info.  That clears up which autopsies he attended.  I thought it had to be the ones at the house, and the Hoffman piece clarifies that point.

Ya mean I cooda stopped at Hoffman?  I had a feeling I could.
But Don't those 2 "sic's" bother you?

BTW:  There's a lot going on in this thread but what does anyone think the thing might be that tipped off Hilliard to look in Lizzie's bed and Emma's bed (of which Lizzie was in sole possession with her door being locked & Emmer away), and Lizzie's lounge?
What do you think he hoped to find?
Fleas?

(Message last edited Mar-6th-03  2:32 AM.)

Yeah, I've always wondered which of the three structures was the one where the hatchet was found in '93.  (The "other" hatchet to which Kat has referred was, I believe, found when the Borden barn was dismantled much later.)  At first I thought the hatchet was on top of the little flat shed next to the Kelley yard.  I wondered if it could have been seen from the Borden attic or if Deputy Wixon could have seen it when he scaled the fence to talk to the men in the Crowe yard.  Once I tried to estimate Wixon's height and the height of the "stringer" on which he was standing (lower than the six-foot height of the fence).  I decided it was a toss-up whether he could have seen the shed roof.  It doesn't matter, because I'm now convinced that's not where the hatchet was found.  The "main barn" near Third Street does have a pitched roof, but the pitch doesn't appear to be nearly as steep as that of the other roofs in the vicinity.  I think it's very likely a hatchet could have been thrown up there and remained for some time.  (A ball is another matter. I wonder what those boys were really up to.)  It is a puzzle how the workman who claimed the hatchet could have lost it up there, however.  (I also wonder why the police didn't take a close look at him.)  If that was the structure on which the mysterious gilty axe was found, it seems unlikely that Lizzie was the person who put it there.  That would probably have required her to scale the fence in her heavy skirts and petticoats, saunter through the pear orchard or Crowe's yard with a bloody hatchet, and sail it onto the roof like a boomerang.  When it landed, it would have made a loud "thunk," probably alarming the workmen in the yard.  Then she would have needed to get back home, by either circumnavigating the block or scaling the fence again.  If that happened, it would certainly explain why she felt the need to burn her Bedford-cord dress.  Think how sweaty and torn it would have been!  (Incidentally, I was amused to note that Hoffman refers to the Bordens' back fence as a "six foot high wire fence."  Unfortunately, there are many such errors in his book.)

According to my memory of some books, Andy had a 6' high wooden fence with barbed wire on it. Keeps the kids from climbing over to steal pears.
(I remember one like this when I was growing up; barbed wite does keep the boys off.)
...
I think that it would be difficult to throw it there after Andy's murder. The noise could attract attention, and the lady next door observed Lizzie the whole time on the back stairs.
Didn't we discuss this point over a year ago?

(Message last edited Mar-6th-03  7:21 PM.)

Good reasoning Edisto.  From the description in the paper it would seem to be the barn roof nearest Third Street. No way could a hatchet have been tossed to that roof from the Borden yard. The ball may have been on the small flat shed roof and the boy once up there decided to go exploring to see what else he could find. 

Of course that's sheer speculation but it sounds like something I would have done.

"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."

How does McDonnell, working for Mr. Smith of Second Street and that work was contracted to Dr. Chagnon, end up on the roof, himself of Crowe's barn to leave a roofing hatchet?

Are all these sources implying that hatchet was LOST somewhere on the job for Chagnon and later found ON a Roof, 2 lots over?



(Message last edited Mar-6th-03  8:43 PM.)

Could this be a case of theft?

Thats what I was thinking this morning, but, didn't post.  Was it possible that Lizzie, or whomever you want as murderer, perhaps wandered by the Chagnon's and found the hatchet lying in the yard, possibly forgotten by the worker and decided to put it to another use?  Tossed back into the general vicinity it came from it wouldn't raise too many eyebrows.  Hmmmm. 

(Message last edited Mar-7th-03  8:41 PM.)

Good points Kat. 

He would have had to been up on Crowe's roof to lose it there and John Crowe said nobody had been up on the roof for two years.  It's his barn so he ought to know.

Also, why wouldn't McDonnell have gone back for it when he noticed it was missing?  It had to be one of the main tools he used in his work. Unless he owned more than one of them.

Another Borden mystery. 

Looking at the Evening Standard reprints called Did She ..or...Didn't She?", I find a notation in the text of an article dated Aug.5, 1892, pg. 2 and also again on pg. 8 where both claim the wounds to Mrs. Borden's head were probably caused by the wielding of the "blunt end" of the weapon.  Page 8 adds Doherty's comment "My God, doctor!  Her face is crushed in!"

In the Witness Statements we read something similar about the state of Abby's face:

Witness Statements
Allen
Page 1
"Just before we got there, Officer Doherty was ahead of us. When we went up stairs the Doctor said Mrs. Borden had fainted with fright. Officers Mullaly and Doherty turned her over. Officer Doherty said 'My God her face is all smashed in.' "

How come those little bruises described at the autopsy, at first examination at the scene, were deemed *A crushed face" ?  This sounds more like Abby fell her length & weight onto her face...from standing?

Also if we just consider the early descriptions of a blunt end of a hatchet causing those marks on Abby's head, do they appear to us as blunt force?
If so, this may solve the hatchet "gilt" problem.

In Flynn's (Has he replied yet Harry?) article on the Mysterious Axe, illustrations seem to show gilding not necessarily on the BLADE, but rather on the haft, or head, where the handle meets the metal--on the metal part at that point.  The gilding states the manufacturer's name.
Therefore, if we can find that Abby's wounds are possibly consistent with a blunt end attack, or even partly, that might deposit gilt into her wound...whereas a blade attack on Andrew might not. (?)  Same weapon, differing uses.

Yes Kat, Mr. Flynn was kind enough to reply and gracious enough to allow his reply to be posted.  This is the heart of his reply:

"If the carpenter was working for Chagnon and lost an axe on Chagnon's property how did it get on Crowe's Barn?
Note the location of the Chagnon house and the pear orchard and then Crowe's barn.  It would be quite a coincidence if the carpenter had just bought a new axe and then it disappeared from his tool box and somehow landed on Crowe's barn unless he was the murderer or someone stole it from him and was the murderer."

This is almost exactly what Kat said in posts 36 and 37. Good thinking Kat.

I have another problem with the hatchet being tossed from the Borden yard onto the roof and it involves the trial testimony of Patrick McGowan (pg 1194+). McGowan was the fellow in Crowe's yard who decided to help himself to a pear.

Q.  Never mind about what you said. The only thing I want to call your attention to is, did you go anywhere near the Borden yard at that time?
A.  Yes, sir; I went over as far as the fence.
Q.  What did you do there?
A.  I went up on a wood horse that we used to have for staging, for Mr. Crowe, and I got a few pears off one of the trees.
Q.  From whose trees was that?
A.  Mr. Borden's.

This would have to be the S.E. corner of the Borden yard as Crowe's yard only borders the Borden yard briefly there. This would strongly indicate to me that a pear tree in the Borden yard over hung the fence between the Borden and Crowe yards. That would certainly complicate, or even make it impossible, to toss an object up and onto the roof. Of course that would depend upon the size of the branches and their density.  Since it was August they would be in full bloom and at their densest.

I have got to re-read exactly where the hatchet was found and get that straight in my mind. The description is quite convoluted.


(Message last edited Mar-9th-03  7:37 PM.)

As much as all the credit given me is such a special accolade and I really do appreciate it, I would say that you, Harry, being the one to actually step up to the bat and verify by an expert, are the true hero of the day.
And though my post preceeded that expert's answer I must submit my feeling that, in this instance, anything I wrote could have been written by another (Susan was on the track as well), and also that since this topic has arisen before, in the 3 years we have been posting to this case here and away, I would guess that if I thought of it, others may have also.
This is a good example of our audience reading us here and maybe saying to themselves that they as well, thought of that, but because they do not choose always to participate, that may never be known by others.  It is gratifying to have such support from all my friends here.  I submit that those who lurk, and have an opinion on this case could have come up with a similar  interpretation and they would be just as welcome to!
Also, being as this topic has been discussed somewhat, as I said, I may have been influebnced by posters who I have interacted with in the past, and we may have come to some such conclusion as a group working toward a better understanding of this topic.
So, in deferrence to those old friends who used to be *outed* Bordenites--who used to participate, I would say it was all of us, and give as much credit there as possible.

I hope this doesn't sound annoyingly hokey...but that's what I think.
At least that's what I was thinking when I cleaned litterboxes Sunday night as I usually do.

My experiences as a one-time manual laborer says this sounds like the sort of practical joke played by rude men. There are even grosser example of horseplay at work.

Does anyone who has studied the autopsys and wounds of Abby (Bob G?  haulover? Doug? Harry?) think it's possible that the crushing, cumlative blows to Abby's head may be the result of a battering by the blunt end or the side of the hatchet?
That is where the gilt is embossed, as far as the Flynn illustrations are concerned.



An example of where the gilded manufacturer's mark may be on different implements.  from LABVM/L
(These are not Flynn's examples--Sears)

(Message last edited Mar-10th-03  9:15 PM.)

From the description of Lathing Hatchet No. 12724 it sounds as though the cutting edge (the bit?) was bronzed.  When I've seen that term applied to metal paints and such in the artworld, bronze is a darker, more orangy type of gold.  How strange. 

In Dr. Draper's memo he describes the finding of the gilt: "...on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull, near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of gilt metal which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory....".

The autopsy itself doesn't seem to indicate any blunt blows but there is a huge cavity in Mrs. Borden's skull in that area caused by the repeated  blows. It would seem to me if there had been a blunt blow in that area it would have been obliterated by the skull being crushed. It is also possible if the gilt was on the blade (as in one of the Sears items) the blow might have been deep enough to scrape off a piece of the gilt.

That's a good picture to put up here, because it does show the hole and we might ask how do they know for certain that one or two blows weren't from the blade?

I'm trying to get away from a *blade blow* in this instance, because she has gilt and Andrew doesn't.  So I want a blade which is not gilded at all.
If the side, where some manufacturers gilding is located giving the name of the company, came in contact with a wound of Abby, and NOT the blade, just in that one or 2 blows, that might be enough to explain Abby's gilt and the absence of it in Andrew, and still be the same weapon?

that's such a hard question to answer.  if after repeated blows in the same area from a blade edge -- could there have been one blow from the blunt end to crush the pieces inward?  but the damage is in the amount of energy exerted, whichever way the axe was turned. 

what is the nature of your question?  as to whether that huge hole was done with one shattering swing -- or with numerous lesser powerful strikes?

and this would tell us what?  a female lizzie vs. a male wood chopper or butcher?

This is hard to explain, but I really am glad you all are trying to understand my *point*.
If you have Flynn's "Mysterious Axe" , you will see in a weapon example which he gives as a picture, the gilded label.
Pg. 3:
"It is very important to note that the illustrations clearly show that all implements of this type [shingling, claw etc.] had labels on the heads and handles.

The labels were quite elaborate and usually printed in gold and gold leaf."

What this means to me is that some hatchets have gilding on the head but maybe not on the blade.  If we are dealing with a hatchet, one single weapon for both murders, we have to account for the first victim having a deposit of gilt in a wound, and the second victim having none.  We have talked about some gilt being left in Abby's wound and then maybe a washing of the blade afterwards or even a re-sharpening, would remove the rest of the gilt, and therefore there would be none left for Andrew.
But if, say, Flynn, thought that Crowe's roof hatchet was THE weapon, how would he account for there STILL being gilt on it after months of exposure on a roof, yet he maintains that is the weapon, though there is no gilt in Andrew?

Pg. 14, a clipping from the Emery collection, newspaper unknown, partial, dated June 15, 1893:
"ANOTHER HATCHET FOUND
...the blade 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."

So if we look at the examples and the gilt is really the printing of the label on the side of the head, not  on the blade at all, then it makes sense that if the weapon turned when in use on Abby,  the label came into contact with the wound that was found to have the deposit of gilt, and that is what left the mark, not gilt on a blade which we cannot account for in Andrew's wounds.  The lack of gilt in Andrew's wounds can thus be explained.  It was a straight facial attack with blade, not much turning of the weapon, therefore no gilt.

Abby doesn't necessarily need to be conked with the side of the weapon to crush the skull, but really more like a turning of the hatchet so somehow that labeling on the head came into contact with her wound.

We thus can still consider a new hatchet that still has gilt on it, as long as that gilt is not ornamenting the blade.

Some may have, all along, not even entertained the idea that the blade was the part that was gilded, but that's what I had always seen and thought.  It's a revelation to think it can still be a weapon with gilt, but not on the blade, but elsewhere, and was more of an accident that that deposit was left in Abby.

Then, and frequently now, the edge of the blade was painted with gold (gilt) paint to prevent rusting. I can remember, too many years ago, shopping for an "Official Boy Scout Hatchet." The type of the steel in these hatchets was subject to rust if stored unpainted. Very often, the upper part of the blade was also painted (red). If the edge of the blade had rusted it would have damaged the steel and could not be sold. The rationale was, once purchased, the owner would prevent the blade from rusting by frequent use or lubrication.

Only a very small amount of gilt was found in the wound. It is conceivable that only one hatchet was used and the gilt deposited in just one person's skull, . . .

. . . or there could have been two hatchets!

Okay, hows this for a gruesome thought.  The hatchet went so far into Abby's skull, blade first, so that the gilded label actually scraped along the bone on the way out, thus depositing gilt in the wound? 

**In Dr. Draper's memo he describes the finding of the gilt: "...on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull, near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of gilt metal which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory....".**

i see what you're getting at now.  but in seeing it, now i wonder at this:  is there significance that the wound where the gilt is found is probably the first wound?

I think it would depend on the depth of penetration, and the presence of enough skull bone to scrape off the gilt.

Axes and hatchets are normally sharpened at the end. This would leave the gilt brand mark on for a longer time than the first sharpening.

The blade being painted or gilded  like a boy scout hatchet is EXACTLY what I always had pictured in my mind.
Therefore it was very hard to dislodge that impression by following Flynn's logic or opinion.
But the Crowe barn hatchet was found still with gilt, so if Flynn puts forth his case that that was the weapon, I had to figure out why he could think that knowing there was no gilt in Andrew's wounds.
Flynn hands us a gilded hatchet and tries to make us understand how it can kill Abby and leave gilt and kill Andrew and NOT leave gilt and then still have gilt when found 10 months later.
I think Susan is close to the picture I have in my mind (which I got from Flynn) that even a very deep blow, deep enough to scrape that gilt off the SIDE of the head, would yes leave that mark.  I'm not sure, tho, from the autopsy descriptions as to whether she did have a wound that deep tho.  But, still since Abby's wounds are every which way, maybe there was some movement by Abby's head and the blade turned.

haulover, that scrap of info doesn't tell us it is the flap wound to the front of her face.  It does say skull wound and the back of her head sustained skull wounds.  I'm under the impression the flap wound is like a *superficial* or *non-lethal* wound and the skull was not involved?  Since most of her wounds were clustered near the right ear, in the back, they could mean one of those--that's what I am assuming.

The smaller weapon is a current-day hatchet with *gilding* or metalic silver paint that protects the  cutting edge of the blade
--This is like what Bill describes



(Message last edited Mar-13th-03  4:06 AM.)

I do not think that that no gilt being found in Andrew's wounds is a problem. As I stated in a previous message, I don't think the gilt would come off uniformly. Some may adhere very tightly and be extremely difficult to remove. Paint is not all that easy to remove from any surface. 

The gilt found on the hatchet discovered on the Crowe barn is described as a "...slight coloring of gilt...". That would indicate to me that most, but not all, of the gilt was gone.  Again, not uniformly removed.

If we believe Lubinsky seeing a woman coming from the direction of the barn this could be Lizzie.  But not necessarily coming from the barn.  He could not see anyone until the person rounded the "jog' in the path.  That person could have been coming from anywhere in the back yard.  That includes the southeast corner after flinging a hatchet onto the roof. None of the back yard can be seen from the road where Lubinsky said he was.

Not that it pertains to the blows inflicted on the Bordens, in the Bertha Manchester murder this description was given in a newspaper of the time about the blows inflicted on her:

"In the Borden case it was argued that none but a woman would have so hacked her victim, yet the appearance of Miss Manchester, due largely to the great flow of blood, was fully as revolting as the appearance of either victim in the Borden tragedy.  While the pounding was repeated with the back of the ax a number of times, at least five blows were struck with the edge."

So it seems that her killer used both blade and hammer parts not just the blade.

I've gotten the impression from research offered here previously by a member, that gilding is more of a metalic overlay and is not applied like a paint (Tho my current Ace hatchet does have a sort of paint) and the process can be somewhat delicate, because the gilding is designed to be temporary.

Personally,I have not been able to accept a gilded blade that could kill both person's and leave no trace on one.  After 10 blows, even if the application of gilt was uneven, it seems to me some would come off on the second victim if it came off on the first, if it was on the blade.  AND if it was found later with gilt.

My only assertion here now, is that the blade must not have had gilt on it.  That covering must have been somewhere else on the hatchet.  (I'm trying to follow Flynn's theory here..I'm struggling)
What is an "ornamental" use of a hatchet, anyway?  I can't imagine what that is?

BTW:  I was changing channels several nights ago and there was passing by a bit of The Odd Couple. the movie, and I pauseed long enough to see Felix leave with his suitcase all feeling sorry for himself because Oscar didn't like his idea of a *Luau* theme for the next poker party or something, and as Oscar followed Felix down the apartment house interior hallway to the elavator they passed a long wall with this HUGE FIREMAN'S AXE just mounted there!  Just hanging right there in a well-lit hallway of an apartment house for anybody to grab!  Anyway, it seemed gigantic and then I marveled at my timing and changed the channel probably to Shipmates.

No manufacturer, then or now, would use real gilt (gold leaf) on such a humble utilitarian object as an axe. Gilt paint, certainly, This color was often used as trim on black painted items in those days.

(No Kat, I do not have anything from the Trial Testimony on this. You just have to "trust me".)