why didnt andrew wake up?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:46 pm

If abby was killed first, and she was upstairs, why didnt andrew wake up at sounds screams and someone in his house that shouldn't have been in there?

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:12 pm

because he was not home.

Kashesan · Post by **Kashesan** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:08 am

Woooo Hooooo!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:42 am

I thought he was home taking a nap.

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 10:43 am

I didn't need to sound sharp, and I don't want to discourage you, snokkums.

It's well documented that Andrew left the house, and it is generally accepted that from Abby's long absence from others and the coagulation of her blood that she was killed first. Most people believe that the 20 minutes or so that Andrew had returned home was not enough to account for the difference in the body conditions.

Though the more I read, the more confusing the timeline becomes.

A good place to start is with the Witness Statements that Stefani has available. They are a quick read and will start to give you an overview of where everyone is supposed to have been.

Again, sorry if I sounded like I was being a smart alec--NB

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:58 am

I feel that the fact that no one, Bridget and Lizzie, saw her after about 9:00AM indicates to me that Abby was upstairs dead. If she had been alive when Andrew got home I feel she probably would have greeted him. I don't see how Abby could have stayed up in the guest room from 9:00-11:00AM. There was not enough work to be done that would have occupied that much of her time.

-1bigsteve (o:

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:22 am

NB, you weren't being a smart-aleck. I think someone was baiting us a wee bit.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:01 pm

Oh Bob...say it isn't so !

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:13 pm

I think snokkum's question might be based on something she read on the internet. I believe she was mislead, IMO.

I have heard/read of a theory that has Abby killed while Andrew was still home and had not yet left for downstreet.
However, he wouldn't be napping, but might be getting ready to leave. If Abby died around 9 o'clock, and Andrew left around 9 o'clock, the question might be *Why didn't he hear the murder of Abby?*

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:56 pm

I can't put my hands on Masterton at the moment, so feel free to correct me....

Didn't Masterton suggest that Abby was killed after Andrew (that she went out and returned home too soon)?

Sometimes I think Andrew, then Abby, makes more sense to me, too. While the medical evidence of that period says Abby died first, I do not have a high regard for the science they used.

Medical problems or even extreme dehydration could cause thickening of Abby's blood. The food that was undigested seemed to be fruit from the peels found (I suspect she ate some pears after breakfast) and there is no one who can prove that she didn't eat something after Andrew left.

Today, unless someone witnesses a death, a coroner usually approximates the time withing a 2 hour range because they cannot be more precise withouth witnesses.

So I believe for every theory of murder, we must reconsider who died first--until someone confesses to the crime (joke).

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:11 pm

As for my take on the science of it: Abby...coagulated pool of blood. Andrew...oozing blood.

It wasn't all that long bewteen the discovery of each body. So 'science-wise', and my experience in hematology, tells me Abby died first. I agree the investigative technique was not as thorough as it maybe could have been. However, maybe they did all that they knew to do at the time.

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:36 pm

What if Andrew was a hemophiliac? As long as we are throwing out theories, there is a theory for why Andrew's blood may have still been oozing, but he could've still been killed first. I honestly haven't put forth much effort in researching it, but...it's something to think about.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:57 pm

I think there is no doubt that Abby did die first, not just by the blood evidence but also by the fact that no one saw Abby after 9:00AM. I feel if she were alive when Andrew came home then she would have greeted him when he came through the door.

It look's to me that someone killed Abby at 9:00ish then hung around two hours to kill Andrew. That's my view on it.

-1bigsteve (o:

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:02 pm

1bigsteve @ Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:57 pm wrote:I think there is no doubt that Abby did die first, not just by the blood evidence but also by the fact that no one saw Abby after 9:00AM. I feel if she were alive when Andrew came home then she would have greeted him when he came through the door.

It look's to me that someone killed Abby at 9:00ish then hung around two hours to kill Andrew. That's my view on it.

-1bigsteve (o:

How do we know she didn't? The only testimony we have that she didn't comes from Lizzie and Bridget, and one or both of them could be lieing. There was no one else around to track Abby's movements. Andrew certainly couldn't testify as to whether or not she did. Again, I'm not saying I believe it, just turning things over in my mind.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:16 pm

Good question. I think it would have been to Lizzie's benefit to say that Abby "did come down, greet Andrew, Lizzie went to the barn, someone came in and killed them both." I think that is more believeable than Lizzie being in the house with a dead woman, and a killer, for two hours and never knew it.

But I guess it is possible that someone came in with Andrew, went up stairs, killed Abby then came down and killed Andrew. Thin, but I think it is possible. I feel that the most logical way was that Abby died first and Andrew two hours later.

I do feel that both Lizzie and Bridget knew more than they told in court. I would love to know what it was. Wouldn't we all!

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:55 am

I think Andrew being hemophiliac would have shown up at autopsy. Also, people would have known about it his whole life. He'd be bluish- or short of breath and easily bruised, correct? Subject to nosebleeds? I don't know that they live to be 70 in the rough and tumble days of yore.
That was really reaching!

As for Abby's stomach contents, there was enough food in there, other than fruit peels, that Dr. Masteron has her eating a mince pie at Mrs. Whitehead's and falling into a snooze.
That would give her a lot of stomach content- I think the snooze retards digestion even further.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:15 am

Well I don't know about the bluish in color, unless you are talking about black and blue from bruising. I don't think shortness of breath comes into play from what I have read, because it's a disorder that only affects the clotting mechanism of the blood. I looked up the signs and symptoms of hemophilia, just out of curiosity because I really didn't know too much about it. I'm always interested in learning more about things

.

http://www.hemophilia.ca/en/2.1.5.php

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hemophilia/symptoms.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is Hemophilia Diagnosed?

Doctors diagnose hemophilia by performing a set of blood tests. Coagulation studies involving many tests are performed if the person tested is the first one in the family to have a bleeding disorder. Once the defect has been identified, other family members will need less testing to diagnose the disorder.

http://www.mamashealth.com/hemophilia.asp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hemophilia

Exams and Tests

A family history of bleeding disorders aids in diagnosing hemophilia. But certain tests help quantify the disease.

Pronounced bruising at childbirth or bleeding with circumcision may suggest a case of severe hemophilia.

A moderate case of hemophilia may become apparent during the toddler years when falls are common.

A mild case may not become evident until adulthood when you need surgery.

Blood tests can be performed if you have any reason to suspect hemophilia.

Blood may be checked directly for certain factors.

Test results will be low depending on which form of hemophilia you have.

In either case, your activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), a measurement of the clotting of blood, will be prolonged.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/6481-5.asp

Would the doctors have even thought to have checked for something like this? From what I have read it doesn't seem it would be readily apparent unless you suspected the patient may have suffered from it and ran tests to diagnose it. But, it does seem that with all the problems associated with it, there would've been indicators before August 4, 1892 unless Andrew had never been seriously cut and had never had to have surgery. I wonder how much medical knowledge they had about it back then? Just my curiosity at work again

(please forgive the edits, I'm not fully awake I had a long night)

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:55 pm

Hemophilia is rather easy to detect. I do not know any person who makes it to 10 years old without a bump, bruise or cut of some nature, let alone 70!

Hemophilia was rampant in the Royal families of Europe, specifically those descended from Queen Victoria.

Many say the Russian Revolution can be partially attributed to the disease-- and a mother's desperation to find any cure or treatment she could.

Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna, the wife of Czar Nicholas II was a carrier of the disease and passed it on to her son, Alexei, The Tsarevich.

It was apparent early on that he suffered from the disease and Alexandra eventually turned to Grigori Rasputin, believing he held mystical powers of healing--- We all know how that ended!

If Andrew had been a hemophiliac he would not only have bled more-- from lack of clotting-- he would have experienced easier bruising and even suffered from painful, internal swelling.

Doctors did not know how to effectively treat the disease in when the Imperial family was executed in 1918--therefore they didn't know how to treat it in the late 1800's either.

Hemophilia is not a disease that goes undetected....

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:24 pm

Well, look who's back! I was beginning to think you had fallen off a ladder, Audrey. How is your ear feeling? I had ear trouble when I was a kid and I know what it is like. It's no fun!

I hope everything is going well for you. Hang in there!

-1bigsteve (o:

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:29 pm

there are so many witnesses to the dead bodies -- as to which had been dead longer -- it was something everyone noticed. it doesn't take a medical professional to see it. anybody can question anything they want to as far as i'm concerned, but if this is to be doubted, we might as well find reasons to discount all the physical evidence. or strain a gnat and swallow a camel. anyone can search the trial for the word, "blood" and see this.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:50 pm

Haulover @ Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:29 pm wrote:there are so many witnesses to the dead bodies -- as to which had been dead longer -- it was something everyone noticed. it doesn't take a medical professional to see it. anybody can question anything they want to as far as i'm concerned, but if this is to be doubted, we might as well find reasons to discount all the physical evidence. or strain a gnat and swallow a camel. anyone can search the trial for the word, "blood" and see this.

I agree with you. I have never really doubted that Abby died first. Just who would have the gall to hang around the house for two hours for Andrew to come home is what I can't figure, unless it was a member of the house.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:07 am

Well, I meant blue-looking- probably around the lips.
It's my understanding that blood carries oxygen and if there is a blood disorder this interferes with the normal carrying of oxygen to the organs in circulation. That can mean the lungs are not getting oxygination- the levels can be checked nowadays- but a blue tinge can result if a person's not getting enough oxygen.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:38 am

I believe Victoria was the carrier, correct?
Ironic, that.

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:19 am

Blow flies! That's how they do it on television. Look for the bugs, little eggs, little larvae. Lots of Blow flies.

Of course, they'd have had to let the bodies sit there for a few days...exactly how long were they lying out on the dining room table?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:52 am

Actually, I'm glad you brought up Ye Old Dining Room Table.
The bodies of Andrew and Abby were not laid out on the table. They both ended up stored in the dining room on undertaker's boards, until Late Friday when I believe they were prepared for Saturday's gathering. It could be early Saturday morning, even. They were not specific in testimony as to when the bodies were actually prepared.
I guess that entailed washing them and getting them into clothing or shrouds and put into coffins. Eventually the coffins were brought into the sitting room where the gathering was to take place Saturday morning.

What's this about flies? Do you mean T.O.D?
How soon do they come, d'ya know?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:07 am

Kat @ Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:07 am wrote:Well, I meant blue-looking- probably around the lips.
It's my understanding that blood carries oxygen and if there is a blood disorder this interferes with the normal carrying of oxygen to the organs in circulation. That can mean the lungs are not getting oxygination- the levels can be checked nowadays- but a blue tinge can result if a person's not getting enough oxygen.

I would think this depends on what type of blood disorder it is? I didn't find that listed anywhere in the list of symptons. Every other theory has been thrown out there, no matter how ridiculous, or how much the evidence points against it, and they have been seriously discussed and debated ever since the day of the murder. I thought I'd just throw another one into the mix.

It's one I have actually never discussed before, at least there was that.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:13 pm

I think what it is that I am asking is how could abby have been killed and not have the other two people in the house, lizzie and bridget, not hear. Thats what i am having problem with. NOone heard or saw anything.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:46 pm

snokkums @ Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:13 pm wrote:I think what it is that I am asking is how could abby have been killed and not have the other two people in the house, lizzie and bridget, not hear. Thats what i am having problem with. NOone heard or saw anything.

My opinion as to why Bridget didn't hear anything is because she was outside during that time. I have a bigger problem with why Bridget didn't hear anything when Andrew was being murdered. But then again, I've never experimented with how sound carries from the first floor to the attic of the house either. Lizzie heard and saw plenty of what went on I think, because I think she did it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:29 pm

The only thing that inhibits such a theory is that the ME's autopsy report said most of Andrew's organs were normal:
"CHEST. Chest and abdomen opened by one incision extending from neck to pubis. Right lung glued to ribs in front. Left lung normal. HEART normal.ABDOMEN. Spleen normal, kidney normal, liver and bladder normal. Stomach and portion of liver had been removed."

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

Plus there would be anectdotal material on a health issue like that.
Isn't that a big deal, that blood disorder?
Plus it would be passed thru the family.

I admit I don't know how "normal" Andrew's kidneys and liver could look after a week decomposing. But in the initial autopsy these would have shown "normal" and it was the same guy looking into Andrew both times.