Hatchet hiding

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:43 pm

What's this newspaper article all about? Hatchet Found in Borden Barn???

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LIZZY-BORDEN-MU ... 2eddfba256

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:34 pm

From what I remember reading, it was a Cooper's hammer which was supposedly discovered when they tore the Borden 2nd Street barn down in 1929. Cooper's hammer has a regular hammer head on one end and a chisel or narrow hatchet head on the other. The blade of the hatchet side is not in line with the handle but shaped more like the ears of a claw hammer.

I believe that later the Herald News reported that the hammer/adze was a hoax.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:16 am

There were hatchets/axes found all over the place, weren't there?
' Is This The Murder Weapon?' the Press kept asking.

One, in 1981, was discovered in a second floor partition during the demolition of the Andrew J Borden building. It measured 16 inches long.

Providence Journal-Bulletin Oct 21st 1981.
Quoted in Rebello: Page 108.

Hey, it could have been left by one of those Temperance ladies with hatchets who used to meet in the building!

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:12 am

A good friend of mine from the Fall River History Club (I am president!) found this in the paper here. He sent me these for my files. I share them with you here. We know this happened, nothing new here. Just thought the actual Fall River newspaper article would be interesting.

The first world of the headline is REVIVE.

FrontPage.jpg

Pagetwo.jpg

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:42 am

That's interesting Stef. I remember reading where it was a Cooper's hammer, and I had described it on another post, but I was wrong. Well, I was right that it was a Cooper's hammer but not the kind I described. There are several Cooper's hammers. I described the one with the hammer on one end and an adze on the other. But it was one with a small blunt axe head on one end instead of an Adze.

It looks like the one they found was a hoop hammer, just like the one in the first photo below.

Interesting! We are always learning.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:57 pm

Thank you, Stefani, for sharing this newspaper article with us!

Do you think the Cooper's hammer that fell from the loft, could be the actual instrument used to killed the Bordens?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:01 pm

Thank you for the pics, MB. Nasty looking things, aren't they?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:19 pm

They are nasty-looking things. I wonder what Andrew, or later tenants, used this one for? Did Andrew make a lot of barrels? I know he had vinegar casks in the cellar.

However, it isn't likely, is it, that the doctors and police of the day would mistake hammer blows,even from a hoop hammer, with those from a hatchet?

pld0128 · Post by **pld0128** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:51 am

I wonder if the present owners of Lizzie's house would be interested in or be willing to have the house laser-scanned as is being done with Mt. Vernon! Also the idea that the weapon used could be a kitchen tool, is interesting. And why is it, that an intact hatchet wasn't found on the property anywhere? Wasn't that a basic tool that each family would have and use?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 5:38 pm

Yes,pld, that is a very intriguing question. Arthur chopped the kindling for the household but you would think Andrew would have one of his own (useable) hanging about in the cellar.

It would be easier if the weapon used was a kitchen implement. Didn't the doctors, police, of the time make up their minds, because of the depth, shape of the victims' wounds that the weapon was almost certainly a hatchet, though?

pld0128 · Post by **pld0128** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:25 pm

Yes, but as someone here pointed out…could there have been a hatchet-like tool in the kitchen, used in food prep?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:47 am

It's intriguing, isn't it? The police conducted various searches of the house, including one on the day of the funeral while the family weren't present. They presumably went through each room with a fine tooth comb and yet I can't remember reading that they checked the household's cutlery drawers and cupboards. You'd expect them to, and I am almost certain that they must have, and yet they took nothing away except a box of mouldering elderly hatchets, hatchet heads and part-handles.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:40 pm

The timeline is critical and I don't believe Lizzie had 15 minutes to clean up, if she commited the crime. Start counting now! Bridget says she went upstairs a little before noon. She remembers laying down and hearing the City Hall clock chime 12 (I like to use the City Hall clock as a reference point). Now, someone committed the crime and then here is what happened after that we know: Lizzie called up to Bridget and says to come down. Bridget gets out of bed and comes down from the third floor to the first. She is told to go get Dr. Bowen. She gets her shawl and hat and heads out. Mrs Churchill sees Bridget heading up the street, toward Borden Street (which means she has already gone to Dr. Bowen's house, spoken to Mrs Bowen and returned to Lizzie, who then tells her to go fetch Alice Russell (who lives on Borden Street). Mrs. Churchill comes into her house and goes to her kitchen. puts down her groceries and goes to the side window where she sees Lizzie standing in the doorway. The brief conversation happens ("Oh, do come over, Mrs. Churchill. Someone has killed Father") and Mrs C. goes back through her house, out her front door and around to Lizzie's side door. She speaks briefly to Lizzie and then goes in search of help. Her houseman is hanging out at the stable down the street. She finds him and tells him Mr Borden has been hurt. As she is speaking with him, a newsdealer passes by and overhears her. He then goes to the paint store, where there is one of the few telephones on 2nd Street and, first, calls the FR Globe and THEN calls the police, who log the call in at "12:15". If Lizzie can commit the crime, clean up and hide the weapon in what is probably somewhere in the 6-8 minute range, well, bless her little well organized heart!!! The time frame is critical!!!!! The mystery to me is not who commited the crime but HOW did they do it in so little time!!!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:19 pm

It was actually before 11am! Mrs Doctor Kelly, (on her way to a dental appointment) saw Andrew at the front door at what she calculated was 10:35am but was more likely around 10:40am. (Her kitchen clock was wrong, apparently.)

Andrew came inside after the trouble with the locked door, and went into the dining room to take off his coat. It was always put there after he had been out.

There was a short conversation in that room in which Lizzie asked about the mail and told her father about Abby's note. I believe he told her Uncle John would be home for lunch. Bridget, who was washing the sitting room windows while they were in the dining room, testified to them having a conversation, of which she heard bits and pieces.

Andrew went upstairs to his bedroom briefly then came down again.
He had papers with him and sat on the rocker for a few minutes in the sitting room which was dimly lighted and then read them near the sitting room window. Lizzie stated that she saw him take his shoes off. He lay down on the couch to sleep somewhere around 10:50 to 10:55am.

Lizzie was in the dining room with hankies and iron, having a conversation with Bridget. Bridget was feeling seedy. She went to wash out her cloths in the pantry room sink. It was then about 10:53. It was her afternoon off and Lizzie spoke of the sale at Sargents. Bridget expressed interest but went up to her room at about 10:55.

Andrew was killed between 10:56am and 11am by eleven blows to the head. Upstairs in her room lying on her bed Bridget heard the City clock strike 11am and checked her clock.

At that time Mrs Churchill left her next door home to go shopping she neither saw nor heard anything strange or suspicious. Mrs Bowen, who had been looking out the window of her home for her daughter, didn't either.

At between 11am and 11:10 am ice cream seller Hyman Lubinsky, an ice-cream peddler, saw a woman in the garden of the Borden property.

Just before 11:10 am Lizzie called up to Bridget and told her that Andrew had been killed. Bridget tried to go in the sittingroom but was stopped by Lizzie and told to go for Dr Bowen (who didn't happen to be in.) Lizzie moved to the side door, where Mrs Churchill, back from her marketing, saw her a couple of minutes later.

Lizzie stated that she had spent 15 to 20 minutes in the barn looking for sinkers and eating pears. That's plainly ridiculous in my view.
She had between 10 to 15 minutes (ample time if you hurry) to cover herself with Andrew's coat, which would cover arms etc, and reach between the door and the door jam of the sitting room, perform eleven quick and savage blows to her father's head. The door frame itself would help protect her from any splashes. I believe Lizzie wore the paint-splashed dress she was so keen to burn the next Sunday.

Lizzie could then have quickly rolled Andrew's coat up under his head and and hidden the hatchet and washed her hands in the pantry room sink. (The hatchet may have gone on Crowe's barn roof, hence Lubinsky's sighting.) Her hands were noted as being clean and lily-white by witnesses. Strange after grubbing about in a dusty barn. Lizzie then called Bridget.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:14 pm

Awesome summary, Curry!!!

Curryong wrote:... I believe Lizzie wore the paint-splashed dress she was so keen to burn the next Sunday. ...

We know that the actual hatchet and paint-stained dress were not found by the officers who search the premises. We also know that three days after the murders occurred, Lizzie pulled the paint-stained dress out of a cupboard in the kitchen and burned it.

I believe Lizzie wore the paint-splashed dress during the time she killed Abby. I believe she wore Andrew's coat during the time she killed him, and then stuffed it several layers beneath his head because she didn't want to touch her dead father's head nor get more blood on her hands than she already had. I believe she then hid the hatchet in the folds of the paint-stained dress and placed them in the kitchen cupboard.

mspitstop · Post by **mspitstop** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:26 am

You are correct. I misspoke by an hour but I stand by everything else. Mrs. C. testified she saw Bridget heading toward Borden St. when she was returning from shopping. Which means Bridget had already been to Dr. Bowen's house which means the murder had already been discovered. It is not germaine when she went to market, just her return. When you put Bridget's testimony together with Mrs. C I think you have a very tight timeline. Little details back up Lizzie's stories of her whereabouts (the sunhat was on the dining room table along with the hankies and board) but I agree with you that she is mistaken about how long she took in the barn. But I don't think she was paying attention to her every move that morning. She didn't need to account for her time until later that day and she had no reason to specifically remember just when she did what. But even by your summary you have Andrew alive at 10:56, so how do you figure Lizzie had 10-15 minutes for the murder when we have Mrs C. taking us through her actions in seeing Bridget, coming into her house, seeing Lizzie, going to the Borden yard and then hither and yon to find help. Again, I say the police logged in the first call at 11:15 (not 12:15!). So I still maintain that whoever did the crime only had maybe 5-8 minutes to do so and cover up (or skeedaddle out of the house). Did you calculate the time it took Mrs. C to do all of her actions from the time she came home until she returned to Lizzie after speaking with her handyman. She had no reason to lie. I would think it would have taken her at least 5-8 minutes to do all that she did. What do you figure?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:17 pm

Thanks twins!!

Bridget was in her bedroom several minutes before she heard the town clock chiming out eleven. It didn't do so the minute she entered her room. Bridget, like Lizzie, didn't have a wrist-watch (not invented yet!) . So much easier if everyone had timed their actions that morning to the minute, I agree! I gave the approximate time of ABOUT 10:55am to Bridget as she gave testimony that she was doing things in her room (a bit of tidying up, probably) and then laid on the bed for a while.

I disagree about the irrelevance of what time Mrs Churchill left her home to go to the store that morning. Everything is important in this case, including the fact that no neighbours saw or heard any disturbance or saw anyone entering or leaving around 11am.

William Sullivan, a clerk at the store on South Main St where Mrs Churchill shopped, testified that Mrs Churchill left his store at between 11:05 and 11:10am. On returning, coming down 2nd St. Mrs Churchill saw Bridget running from Dr Bowen's. It would have had to have taken Mrs C. some minutes to have walked from South Main St to Second St, don't you agree?

Bridget then returned to No 92 and snatched her hat and shawl when told by Lizzie to go to Alice Russell's house. By that time Mrs Churchill was home and looking through her kitchen window, seeing Lizzie at the side door. She spoke to her, then (according to some witnesses who observed her) tore across to Hall's Stables babbling about Mr Borden being killed.

She wanted her manservant to go for a doctor but John Cunningham was one of the bystanders and slithered off to Gorman's paint store as soon as he could, calling reporter friends first, then the police (at 11:15am.) There were a lot of things happening at the one time, as there generally is when a murder has been discovered. For instance Dr Bowen went over to No 92 after returning home, when his wife and one Thomas Bowels (Mrs Churchill's groom) told him about the murder, at about the same time.

I stated that I believe that Bridget left the sink-room and made her way upstairs to her room at about 10:55am approximately. Lizzie did not call Bridget down until about 11:10am. (I've just checked Rebello, the bible as far as I am concerned, on the Borden case ; 'joke'!) Also Sullivan's 'Goodbye Lizzie Borden' gives the same timing for Lizzie calling Bridget down from her room. Considering Mrs Churchill and the clerk both gave testimony that she was out shopping between 11am and 11:5am and then had to return home, put her parcels down and look out her window to see Lizzie, I think that works out.

If Bridget went up to her room at approx 10:55am, give or take a minute or two, and wasn't called down until 11:10 approximately, that gives about 10 to 15 minutes to commit murder and clean up, doesn't it?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:07 am

I've always wondered why they never found the axe. Did the police just not look for it? Or, did they know what to do, how to run a crime scene or what? I mean, they had never had a double murder on their hands. They might have not known what to do.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:32 pm

You're welcome, Curry!

pld0128 · Post by **pld0128** » Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:14 pm

If the axe found on the barn roof WAS the murder weapon…that doesn't necessarily point to Lizzie, unless there was a witness/witnesses that would testify to the axe belonging to the Borden household. And even then, it could not be ruled out that an outsider had grabbed the Borden axe and used it themselves in the murders.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 12:37 am

The police were too embarrassed at the time it was found to ask those sort of questions, as it showed they hadn't searched neighbouring roofs in August 1892. Lizzie's trial was nearly over and it was considered best to let sleeping dogs lie, I think.

I'm primarily interested in the Crowe's Barn hatchet because it was apparently still bearing signs of gilt when found, showing it was a fairly new weapon.
Remember, gilt was found deep in the wounds on Abby's skull by Dr Draper, who wrote to Knowlton about it.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:32 pm

Curryong wrote:The police were too embarrassed at the time it was found to ask those sort of questions, as it showed they hadn't searched neighbouring roofs in August 1892. Lizzie's trial was nearly over and it was considered best to let sleeping dogs lie, I think.

I'm primarily interested in the Crowe's Barn hatchet because it was apparently still bearing signs of gilt when found, showing it was a fairly new weapon.
Remember, gilt was found deep in the wounds on Abby's skull by Dr Draper, who wrote to Knowlton about it.

Somewhere along the line I missed the traces of gilt on the Crowe hatchet...where does that information come from, Curryong?

pld0128 · Post by **pld0128** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:17 pm

Under the the discussion here "Poll… Was the Crowe hatchet the murder weapon?", it talks about a newspaper article at the time describing the gilt on the hatchet. Gives as source "Waco Evening News, 6/15/1893"

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:00 pm

Here are some newspaper articles regarding the Crowe hatchet that Kat posted:

NewsItemCrowe'sRoof1.jpg

NewsItemCrowe'sRoof2.jpg

NewsItemCrowe'sRoof3.jpg

NewsItemCrowe'sRoof4.jpg

Source: http://tinyurl.com/k9dgktb

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:55 pm

Possum posted a lot from local newspapers as well about the Crowe's Barn hatchet in a couple of threads. I'll have to look them up.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:45 pm

Wouldn't it have been particularly creepy if the blows were delivered with the ringing of the clock bell? 11 blows, 11 rings.

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:14 am

Angel wrote:Wouldn't it have been particularly creepy if the blows were delivered with the ringing of the clock bell? 11 blows, 11 rings.

Great! Angel.

I never linked the 11 blows with the 11 rings of the bell, but I did think that the attack could have taken place coincidently --- intentionally --- with the ringing of the bell in order to cover better the sound of the attack (including that of the victim).

pld0128 · Post by **pld0128** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:11 am

I've considered that ringing of the 11:00 clock bells and syncing the hatchet blows with them. It's not a far-fetched idea!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:51 pm

No, it isn't, great, Angel! Not so much perhaps to cover the noise from Bridget, way up in the top of the house, but from the neighbours for sure.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:51 pm

I tend to vacillate on lots of Borden theories, but my mind is pretty much made up that the hatchet on Crowe's barn was not the murder weapon for the simple reason that it was claimed by someone who had to be sure it was not the murder weapon before owning up to it. The only way to be absolutely sure would be to be the rightful owner. Claiming it for any other reason (being paid off, as a joke, simply needing another hatchet, whatever) could open the door to murder charges if the hatchet were later found with human blood or hair on it. How may of us would bear witness to one of the most heinous crimes in the nation's history and then step forward to claim what might be the murder weapon unless we were 100% sure it wasn't?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:15 pm

It probably isn't I suppose, but what if he could prove that he'd lost it before the murders, had groused to his wife, workmates, a neighbour, about losing
the hatchet at the time? He'd be in the clear then, wouldn't he, especially if he could prove he was working elsewhere that Thursday? His employer would have records, surely, even if he couldn't remember. He may have felt a bit strange about claiming it anyway, and checked with his boss.

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Wed Nov 25, 2015 4:31 pm

Is it an inevitable assumption that the recovered hatchet is hurled or thrown onto the Crowe barn roof? I read the building was only some eight feet high. Could not a man climbing upon and traversing this roof, as in escape, simply discard the hatchet once atop?

So far all I can find by way of image is the well-known little illustration (surely contemporary)... How does one see precisely where the Crowe barn was situated? How far was it from the rear premises of the Wade's Store, please? I look at Google Street View but am not in hopes that anything of it still exists.

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:27 am

Do we know what type shingles were on the roof at the time? It would be somewhat difficult to get an ax or hammer, etc. to 'stick' on a roof of slate if tossed up there. Now, 'placing' it there I could believe.

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:55 am

I've been reading round Forum posts all day trying for a better visualisation of this 'barn' on Crowe's plot, to no real success. And when the workmen are testifying, one even disputes that he is being shown the barn's correct position on the plan, he answers they've marked the brick-shed instead... Which makes it all smudgier...

The 1893 newspaper articles specifically state the Crowe axe is found near the edge of the roof.

Temperance axes, come as a surprise to me - they're far heftier than I would've imagined. (Being British I needed to Google to see Temperance axes, contemporary prints of genteel maidens wielding axes which look anything but ornamental, Corrie Nation etc.) On the scale of daftness a ceremonial Temperance axe seems no worse than some conjectural tomahawk left about by Morse (hardly the gift-giving type).

P.S. and to Bob, Just found some dimensional facts about the Barn and rooftops here on this thread
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5329&p=85595&hilit=crowe#p85595

(Unsure how to do this as yet & hoping this works)

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:43 pm

Of course the neighborhood where the Crowe barn once stood has changed dramatically since 1892. The house behind 92 Second and the house where the Crowe barn once stood, which today would have an address of 255 Third Street, did not exist when the murders occurred. Historically, where the Crowe barn once sat there is a Victorian Queen Ann which was built in 1899.

The crow barn was approximately 8 feet from the Borden properties back fence. The south-east corner of the Borden Property. Or if you are facing the Borden house, the corner off to the right, over the fence in the back. It would have been easy to toss a hatchet up there. The rear portion of the barn was only one story high, with a 4/12 pitch. (approx.) An axe or hatchet thrown onto the roof would rest easily along such a pitch. And more than likely the roof had a cedar shingle roof. An implement, such as a hammer or axe, would not slide but instead rest quite comfortably on such a roof. Weather it was a brick building or wood is something I could not verify. (Not that it would make any difference.)

If a the murderer made his escape this way, it would take very little effort to toss the axe up onto the Crowe barn roof. This writer is of the assumption that it was a hoax, or left there by a workman, who indeed made ownership to it.

But no IntrestedReader.... little exists today and it is a minor miracle that 92 Second Street is till standing.

Now for the Wade Store. The fellow's name was Vernon Wade the Grocer. In 1892 Fall river directories have the store about 100 feet to the south of the Borden house, at 98 Second Street. Now, let's look at the modern map below. The red tear-drop is over the Lizzie Borden B&B. In 1892, according to Fall River directories, the Wade store was just to the lower left where that clearing of grass exists, on the same side of 2nd Street as 92, and on the corner of Second and Spring or on the other corner, the one where the parking lot exists, about a half block away.

Hope that helps.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:40 pm

Ok:

Here's another view. This is a street view. You are looking west and standing on Third street. You can see the back of the Borden house. (The green building). In the foreground is a small house, which was once a garage. To the left of it is a white fence. That is where the Crowe barn stood. The small house in the foreground is in line with the Borden side (south side) and back yard. The back of the borden property lines up with this small garage/house.

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:46 pm

Oh wow. Thank-you so much, mbhenry. I'm really delighted. It's kind of you to share your knowledge of the city.

My delay in reply was due to a tangle of plans, maps and screenshots - I'm learning about this case from scratch & dropping down rabbit-holes of enquiry. But now you can be spared the orientation attempts - I scrambled to the right spot

Have they rebuilt the Borden Barn precisely where it stood before? and in relation to the house?

Yes this area does seem viciously obliterated - though of course I haven't yet looked very far about the city, virtually speaking.

New England holds a strong fascination for us from the old thing.

You see how on this Fall River Map of 1883 the entire plot of adjacent land is owned by Mrs J B Chase? The whole tranche from Second to Third Street. Maria Borden Chace is currently into her second marriage; she's not widowed. Why should property be denoted in the wife's name? Because it is she who inherited it?

image.jpg

Thanks again!

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:47 pm

Yes:

Thanks greatly, InterestedReader.

I have lived in fall river, (small 'f' small 'r' for the small minds that live here) all my life. For 30 years I had a job that zig-zagged me all over town and took me inside homes all over the city. In that time one of my hobbies was collecting books about fall river. So I got to know the place. (and still stuck here)

The Borden barn is situated just where it was in 1892, but not in the same relation to the house. In 1892 the barn was closer to the house and street. When the new owners built the new barn they set it back some so cars could park in the back yard.

I know that parking is a large issue for the old Borden murder house. But I always thought that the yard should have been returned to the way it looked in 1892, including the pear trees, the old well, and wood pile along the back fence. To me this is vital if you are going to call the place a "museum". And a tar driveway, though neat and clean, is ugly.

I have the original map you picture above. Gud knows where it is. But I never noticed that the Kelly property and the Crowe yard were all one property at one time. Hmmmm! Interesting.

Yes. The listing names on the map are probably taken from city deeds. When a husband died his wife inherited what was his and her name would go onto the deed. So when Mrs. J. B. Chase remarried the property ownership/deed remained in her name.

I can see how old New England can be very interesting to you. After all, Fall River was basically an English town. Old English protestants ruled. Under foot were the Irish, French, and Portuguese, along with others. Class warfare was not an issue, since everyone knew their place. And the old English made certain that they stayed there. When fall river lost all it's mill industry they all left. Very little Bordens, Chases, Durfees, and Barytones remain. And those that do are working class like everyone else. Today fall river is run by mostly Portuguese and French Canadian sons of immigrants. In many respects that is a good thing, and in others, not a good thing at all.

Kevin Luna · Post by **Kevin Luna** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:41 am

snokkums wrote:I've always wondered why they never found the axe.

They did find the axe. It was the one without a handle.

MysteryReader · Post by **MysteryReader** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:59 pm

It's not agreed upon whether the axe without a handle was the murder weapon or not.

Kevin Luna · Post by **Kevin Luna** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:01 am

MysteryReader wrote:It's not agreed upon whether the axe without a handle was the murder weapon or not.

Right, but it's pretty obvious that it is. Why was Lizzie ironing right before she killed Andrew? To have an excuse for why the stove is on. Why does she need the stove on? To burn up the handle. Why does she stay in the house while she sends Bridget looking for help? To guard the stove until the handle burns up.

Kevin Luna · Post by **Kevin Luna** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:43 am

Franz wrote:Lizzie being guilty or innocent, I personally never think that the murder weapon was hidden in the Borden property.

I have no knowledge about the architectural structure of the houses in Fall River at the end of the 19th century. Maybe in such a house there were many places to hide "a dozen hatchets and they would probably never be found", as Miranda said in her post above. This could be true, but I think it is just too easy saying such a thing for US. For Lizzie (if she did it), it would have been a question of life and death, how could she have been so certain, 100% CERTAIN, that the murder weapon -- if hidden by her somewhere in the house -- would not ABSOLUTELY be found afterwards by the police? --- she was not playing a cache-cache game with Alice!

Exactly. Lizzie was very intelligent. She can't assume that the police won't search every inch of that house, and if they do, and they find the hatchet, it's pretty much game over for her. Instead, she disguised the evidence. She broke the murder weapon and burned the blood-stained handle in the stove. She wore the paint-stained dress while committing the murders so she could paint over the blood.

PattiG157 · Post by **PattiG157** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:46 pm

I was under the impression that several intact hatchets were found in the Borden home, but that only the "handleless hatchet" was considered the potential weapon. I thought they found stains on one of the hatchets that was later found to be rust, or cow's blood, something like that. Am I mistaken?

PS - I personally don't believe the handleless hatchet was the actual murder weapon!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:27 pm

You are correct, Patti. There were two axes and two hatchets, found in the Borden house, that were intact. One of those hatchets did have a hair on it, which was determined to be a hair from a cow. It was determined that the handleless hatchet could have been the murder weapon, but only if it had the broken off handle still intact. It was never determined that the handleless hatchet was the actual murder weapon.

Kevin Luna · Post by **Kevin Luna** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:40 am

twinsrwe wrote:You are correct, Patti. There were two axes and two hatchets, found in the Borden house, that were intact. One of those hatchets did have a hair on it, which was determined to be a hair from a cow. It was determined that the handleless hatchet could have been the murder weapon, but only if it had the broken off handle still intact. It was never determined that the handleless hatchet was the actual murder weapon.

And Lizzie "could have been" the murderer. It was "never determined" that Lizzie was the actual murderer.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:05 am

Kevin Luna wrote:
twinsrwe wrote:You are correct, Patti. There were two axes and two hatchets, found in the Borden house, that were intact. One of those hatchets did have a hair on it, which was determined to be a hair from a cow. It was determined that the handleless hatchet could have been the murder weapon, but only if it had the broken off handle still intact. It was never determined that the handleless hatchet was the actual murder weapon.
And Lizzie "could have been" the murderer. It was "never determined" that Lizzie was the actual murderer.

You are absolutely correct. That is why the Borden murders are still an unsolved mystery.

Kevin Luna · Post by **Kevin Luna** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:01 pm

twinsrwe wrote:
Kevin Luna wrote:
twinsrwe wrote:You are correct, Patti. There were two axes and two hatchets, found in the Borden house, that were intact. One of those hatchets did have a hair on it, which was determined to be a hair from a cow. It was determined that the handleless hatchet could have been the murder weapon, but only if it had the broken off handle still intact. It was never determined that the handleless hatchet was the actual murder weapon.
And Lizzie "could have been" the murderer. It was "never determined" that Lizzie was the actual murderer.
You are absolutely correct. That is why the Borden murders are still an unsolved mystery.

Right, except not really.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:45 pm

Kevin Luna wrote:
twinsrwe wrote:
Kevin Luna wrote:
And Lizzie "could have been" the murderer. It was "never determined" that Lizzie was the actual murderer.
You are absolutely correct. That is why the Borden murders are still an unsolved mystery.
Right, except not really.

Explain, please.

Kevin Luna · Post by **Kevin Luna** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:35 pm

twinsrwe wrote:
Kevin Luna wrote:
twinsrwe wrote: You are absolutely correct. That is why the Borden murders are still an unsolved mystery.
Right, except not really.
Explain, please.

The murders were solved, the murderer just got off.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:05 pm

Really? This is news to me.