The bleedin' hatchet

[debbiediablo]

I would've called it abductive but it's a moot point because the Borden case is always going to be about everything we don't know, not everything we do.

[Curryong]

Your signature is very festive too, debbie. Like it, was going to comment earlier but things got caught up!

[taosjohn]

I would've called it abductive but it's a moot point because the Borden case is always going to be about everything we don't know, not everything we do.

Too true.

As a natural paranoid I think if we ever hit on the right pattern to recognize, it will explain everything and satisfy everyone; but even that will be a matter of guessing things we don't know correctly...

(I'm a product of my education, I'm afraid; my logic professor used to say something to the effect that there's such a thing as abductive reasoning, but there's no such thing as abductive logic...)

[debbiediablo]

We all are products of our educations, and I'd say this forum is almost all about reason and very little about logic. Maybe that's what is so enduringly fascinating about the Borden case: whether innocent or guilty, Lizzie will forever defy logic even though the crime may already have been solved a thousand and one times. As you say....

[Curryong]

What is illogical is sometimes reasonable though, and vice versa.

I suppose all major unsolved mysteries have this fascination, Jack the Ripper, the Black Dahlia, Villisca Axe murders etc. and certainly with Jack there can be huge arguments, and theories that don't involve logic or reason sometimes. If the Borden murders are ever conclusively solved there will be a bit of disappointment mixed with the satisfaction among people who've followed the case for years.

[taosjohn]

Bill James, who has become a crime writer as well as baseball, is completing a book with his daughter; they have apparently identified a candidate for Villisca as well as a number of similar cases over a period of years. They expect to publish in 2016, and the working title is, I believe, "The Man From The Train."

I'm less than an expert on the Ripper, but more of one than Patricia Cornwell, I think; and I quite like James Kelly for it myself...

[twinsrwe]

What is illogical is sometimes reasonable though, and vice versa.

I suppose all major unsolved mysteries have this fascination, Jack the Ripper, the Black Orchid, Villisca Axe murders etc. and certainly with Jack there can be huge arguments, and theories that don't involve logic or reason sometimes. If the Borden murders are ever conclusively solved there will be a bit of disappointment mixed with the satisfaction among people who've followed the case for years.

Curryong, did you mean to say 'The Black Delilah' instead of the 'Black Orchid'? I reason I'm asking is that I've never heard of the Black Orchid.

I agree, if the Borden Case is never solved, it will be a mix of disappointment and satisfaction among people who have spent years studying the case.

[Franz]

After the DNA test, what are Jack the Ripper fans saying in their forum now? What are their sensations?

[Miranda]

What is illogical is sometimes reasonable though, and vice versa.

I suppose all major unsolved mysteries have this fascination, Jack the Ripper, the Black Orchid, Villisca Axe murders etc. and certainly with Jack there can be huge arguments, and theories that don't involve logic or reason sometimes. If the Borden murders are ever conclusively solved there will be a bit of disappointment mixed with the satisfaction among people who've followed the case for years.

Curryong, did you mean to say 'The Black Delilah' instead of the 'Black Orchid'? I reason I'm asking is that I've never heard of the Black Orchid.

I agree, if the Borden Case is never solved, it will be a mix of disappointment and satisfaction among people who have spent years studying the case.

I think Curry meant Black Dahlia. That case sticks in my mind because those were the first crime scene photos I ever saw, and they were unforgettably gruesome. Google will have the photo I'm talking about.

[debbiediablo]

Bill James, who has become a crime writer as well as baseball, is completing a book with his daughter; they have apparently identified a candidate for Villisca as well as a number of similar cases over a period of years. They expect to publish in 2016, and the working title is, I believe, "The Man From The Train."

I'm less than an expert on the Ripper, but more of one than Patricia Cornwell, I think; and I quite like James Kelly for it myself...

Do you know who is the suspect for Villisca?

[Curryong]

I did mean the 'black Dahlia,' twins! Thank you! Unfortunately, since my daughter's twins have been born (and she had to return to hospital yesterday, because of complications) I have been majorly distracted from my determination to solve the Borden case, 'Smile' and posting all sorts of silly mistakes, getting people's names wrong, etc! Hope I will be better soon!

[debbiediablo]

Bill James, who has become a crime writer as well as baseball, is completing a book with his daughter; they have apparently identified a candidate for Villisca as well as a number of similar cases over a period of years. They expect to publish in 2016, and the working title is, I believe, "The Man From The Train."

I'm less than an expert on the Ripper, but more of one than Patricia Cornwell, I think; and I quite like James Kelly for it myself...

More than Lizzie or even JtR, Villisca is my favorite unsolved murder, or series of murders. In part because I live in Iowa and also because Dr. Ed Epperly is the renown Villisca expert and he taught until retirement at Luther College which is my undergrad alma mater. The documentary Villisca: Living With a Mystery is available for $1.99/24 hours on Vimeo, and Murdered in Their Beds is available via Kindle. It's great research and background on the Villisca crimes and Billy the Axeman, too. Unfortunately, toward the end, author Troy Taylor tries to tie up a solution in a paper covered box with a ribbon atop. Ignore the end and read the rest for facts that will make you recheck the locks on your doors, windows and closets forever.... The documentary is quite excellent.

[taosjohn]

Bill James, who has become a crime writer as well as baseball, is completing a book with his daughter; they have apparently identified a candidate for Villisca as well as a number of similar cases over a period of years. They expect to publish in 2016, and the working title is, I believe, "The Man From The Train."

I'm less than an expert on the Ripper, but more of one than Patricia Cornwell, I think; and I quite like James Kelly for it myself...

Do you know who is the suspect for Villisca?

No.

He does want to sell books, after all.

He started a series on 19th century axe murders near train tracks on his website; then suspended it apparently when he thought he had an answer (which he had not expected to find when he started...)

He has also suggested a research process which might find the Butcher of Kingsbury Run; his book "Popular Crime" is quite entertaining, though most folks here won't much like the Lizzie chapter...

[Curryong]

I have Troy Taylor's 'Murdered in their beds', detailing the Villisca killings. Taylor goes through various suspects of the day but Henry Lee Moore looks quite likely to me.

For myself, Jack the Ripper is the ultimate in serial killer mysteries. You're right, Cornwell spent thousands of pounds on her investigations and the best she could come up with was Walter Sickert! Please!

[twinsrwe]

I did mean the 'black Dahlia,' twins! Thank you! Unfortunately, since my daughter's twins have been born (and she had to return to hospital yesterday, because of complications) I have been majorly distracted from my determination to solve the Borden case, 'Smile' and posting all sorts of silly mistakes, getting people's names wrong, etc! Hope I will be better soon!

Like Miranda, I was pretty sure you meant The Black Dahlia. I am so sorry to hear your daughter had to return to the hospital - I hope she is OK. I can understand your distraction; you have a major family thing going on at this time. Don’t worry about making mistakes; we are all humans, and we all make mistakes.

[debbiediablo]

I hope your daughter gets well and home to those babies really really soon!!!

[Curryong]

Yes, thanks everyone. I've just been to see her in hospital, and returned home. She had an emergency at home, loss of blood. We're hoping she's back home tomorrow.

Otherwise had a marvellous day out, lunch in an old restored courthouse in the country for my birthday, with my son. A very pleasant warm day, a glass of sparkling white, couldnt ask for anything better really!

[MysteryReader]

Good news, Curry! She'll be home soon. :-) And Happy Birthday!

[Curryong]

Thanks, yes it has been a bit tough for all concerned, but my daughter's on the mend now.

Franz, to catch up with your earlier request about what the posters on the Jack the Ripper forums think about Kosminski and the shawl business, several challenged Russell Edwards's conclusions from the beginning, also the published DNA conclusions. I think it's fair to say that almost all of the posters do not believe that Edwards has solved the mystery and they are still debating other suspects.

[twinsrwe]

I am so glad to hear your daughter is now recovering, Curryong.

[Franz]

Thanks, yes it has been a bit tough for all concerned, but my daughter's on the mend now.

Franz, to catch up with your earlier request about what the posters on the Jack the Ripper forums think about Kosminski and the shawl business, several challenged Russell Edwards's conclusions from the beginning, also the published DNA conclusions. I think it's fair to say that almost all of the posters do not believe that Edwards has solved the mystery and they are still debating other suspects.

Thanks Curryong. This is comprehensible.

Best wishes for your family!

[debbiediablo]

TJ: Does Bill James have a crime blog?

[debbiediablo]

Curryong - I'm happy to hear your daughter is making recovery...every time I login she comes to mind.

[taosjohn]

TJ: Does Bill James have a crime blog?

Not that I know of. He posts whatever subjects he wants to on billjamesonline.com. It is a pay site, 9.00 per quarter.It is primarily a baseball site, but that is where the "Man From the Train" series is, in the archives. Along with a number of other articles about various crimes-- I think there's a couple about the Zodiac, for example-- he made a very tentative suggestion about a possible candidate who is famous for a different series of killings but was in the right area during the Zodiac stuff.

I strongly recommend buying his book, "Popular Crime" first though-- it will function as background material for the articles, and I'm not sure they will all make all the sense they should without it. Plus if you should hate the book, you might not want to join the site. It is usually available used at Amazon for a couple of bucks, and is pretty entertaining. He is in the not-Lizzie camp.

[debbiediablo]

I see Lizzie got 20 out of 100 on the guilt scale. Some reviewers accuse James of taking as a fact what may be highly questionable and then extrapolating from there. Which makes me nuts so I might not like him. Plus my sport is college football (so watching the Tide roll is also making me nuts... ) My interest in James is in Villisca and what he might have learned about it. Those railroad murders are among the most psychologically charged crimes I've ever read about.

[taosjohn]

I see Lizzie got 20 out of 100 on the guilt scale. Some reviewers accuse James of taking as a fact what may be highly questionable and then extrapolating from there. Which makes me nuts so I might not like him. Plus my sport is college football (so watching the Tide roll is also making me nuts... ) My interest in James is in Villisca and what he might have learned about it. Those railroad murders are among the most psychologically charged crimes I've ever read about.

You won't get that out if the archived articles; he started out describing, one or two at a time, a list of rural murders along a reasonably narrow timeline, all in close proximity to a railroad and all involving the use of found weapons, mostly axes.

He was clearly drawing parallels and building up to the suggestion that most or all of them were the work of the same person or people; but he stopped the series, and then later apologized, saying that he and his daughter had uncovered something that made it clear that there was a book to be written. A bit later came the news that he had a publication date sometime in 2016. We are waiting eagerly.

I don't think he is taking anything questionable and extrapolating, particularly; I mean at points in the book he does, but overtly and self-confessedly, pointing out that he is speculating rather than making any claim.

He does presume that Lizzie would not have had time to clean herself up from Andrew's murder: but that seems to be a sticking point for many others as well...including me...

[Curryong]

Not if Lizzie had covered herself well, with Andrew's coat, for instance.

[taosjohn]

Not if Lizzie had covered herself well, with Andrew's coat, for instance.

Sounds good in theory, but if you do any experimenting I think you'll find it ain't that easy. You have to be sufficiently covered, yet be able to see and move to do the dirty work, then you have to be able to remove the coverage quickly without transferring the blood to yourself, and without transferring it to something that will give you away anyway; then you have to dispose of whatever it was, all while dealing with the bloody weapon as well, and avoiding tracking blood everywhere. You get one shot at it, and getting it wrong sends you to the gallows.

You can get lucky of course; but the fact that you are covering up indicates that this is premeditated, and who premeditates a capital crime and includes "getting lucky" as a major part of the plan?

As against that the photos, such as they are, suggest that the weapon was sharp enough and light enough to have spread less blood than might be expected; and the dimness of the house would make it harder than we, in our electric age, might think to see anything the killer failed to wipe off face or hands. You might get away with the initial interactions, as long as you could count on a chance to be more thorough before someone else was. Not sure Lizzie had that.

Police work in general was still in its preadolescence, and in Fall River probably in its infancy; but I imagine even those police were clever enough to look closely at her face, hair, hands, shoes, before she was allowed privacy.

[debbiediablo]

I see the coat under Andrew's head as act of undoing, a way of making comfortable the victim who was both loved and hated, first depersonalized and by that act repersonalized. IF Lizzie did it which I lean toward. But if she didn't, then the coat was either used as a means of covering the murderer's clothing and then hidden in plain sight or Andrew placed it there to support his head. Or the murderer handled it, perhaps searching the pockets, and then placed it there to hide blood transfer. Splatter was not as extreme as one might think (both due to scientific testing in recent years and also supported from medical testimony) however, I do agree. Not leaving a drop here or there on the way to clean up would be a challenge. Then again, the police weren't coating the house with luminol and those dark floral carpets hide a lot. Once the crowd gathered, it would be difficult to attribute tracking to Lizzie unless it was noted someplace only she had been (like her bedroom).

[Curryong]

There is no testimony at the prelim or trial that any police before Hilliard and Harrington arrived looked at Lizzie's appearance closely. By the time they arrived she had changed into her pink and white wrapper, though nobody had suggested that she do so. As for her face and hands, this was a woman who, by her own statements, had been grubbing about for iron and tin in a dusty barn. Yet her hands were spotless, according to her friends! Work that one out!

[Kevin Luna]

An extremely organized killer, such as the one that killed Andrew and Abby, doesn't get rid of the murder weapon just by throwing it on top of a next door neighbor's roof. Any intelligent person would assume that the police will find it, so why risk being seen? Might as well just leave the weapon right on the sitting room floor. No, Lizzie was more clever than that.

[Kevin Luna]

'On August 30th I received the hatchet head or the handleless hatchet and it has been in my possession ever since. My examination revealed that both sides of the hatchet head were uniformly rusted, that there were several reddish spots upon the head, although I could not determine that these were blood stains.....

When I received it there was white dirt, like ashes, clearly visible with a magnifying glass, which covered both sides of the hatchet head. This substance resembles ashes and was, and continues to be at this time, strongly adherent to both sides of the blade. It resisted rubbing.

The hatchet, in my opinion, had been wet when placed in, or in contact with the white material, and this white material had permeated the many crevices of the blade's surface and had stuck very tightly.'

Wood later came under cross-examination and, while he admitted he could not determine how freshly broken the hatchet handle was, he responded to Adam's suggestion that the head could have fallen into a pile of ashes, by stating that in his opinion (Page 128) 'the hatchet head had been forcibly rubbed with ashes, for the crevices in the head or blade, were tightly packed with the white substance.'

Wood didn't say that at trial, so it's meaningless.

[twinsrwe]

'On August 30th I received the hatchet head or the handleless hatchet and it has been in my possession ever since. My examination revealed that both sides of the hatchet head were uniformly rusted, that there were several reddish spots upon the head, although I could not determine that these were blood stains.....

When I received it there was white dirt, like ashes, clearly visible with a magnifying glass, which covered both sides of the hatchet head. This substance resembles ashes and was, and continues to be at this time, strongly adherent to both sides of the blade. It resisted rubbing.

The hatchet, in my opinion, had been wet when placed in, or in contact with the white material, and this white material had permeated the many crevices of the blade's surface and had stuck very tightly.'

Wood later came under cross-examination and, while he admitted he could not determine how freshly broken the hatchet handle was, he responded to Adam's suggestion that the head could have fallen into a pile of ashes, by stating that in his opinion (Page 128) 'the hatchet head had been forcibly rubbed with ashes, for the crevices in the head or blade, were tightly packed with the white substance.'

Wood didn't say that at trial, so it's meaningless.

Kevin, I disagree. All of the information Curryong posted from Robert Sullivan’s book, Goodbye Lizzie Borden, was said by Professor Wood, at the trial. Mr. Sullivan simply condensed Professor Wood’s testimony, but he did not add or embellish anything Professor Wood stated.

Following is the testimony of Professor Wood regarding the handleless hatchet. Please note: The blood spots Mr. Knowlton is referring to in the very first question below, are not in regards to the handleless hatchet. Those blood spots are in regards to a piece of mop board from the guest chamber, which had two very small spots of blood on it. Professor Wood answered Mr. Knowlton’s question, and then he followed it by a sentence in which he changed the subject to the handleless hatchet.

Testimony of Professor Wood at the trial, questioned by Mr. Knowlton, Volume II, page 1011:

Q. But both spots are blood?
A. Yes, sir. After leaving the court room, in the city marshall’s office, I received from City Marshall Hilliard the hatchet head.

Q. What day was that sir?
A. On the 30th of August.

Q. That was the day you were testifying in court?
A. Yes, sir; after I left the court room, when I went down stairs to the marshall’s office.

Q. And who handled it to you, Professor?
A. City Marshall Hilliard

Q. Where?
A. In his office.

Q. Is that the hatchet head?
A. Yes, sir. It has been in my possession almost all the time since. When I received this hatchet this piece of handle was in the head in its proper position, this fractured end of the handle being close up to the iron, that is, it was in that relative position so far as the upper and the lower end of the eye of the hatchet was concerned, this fractured end being just underneath or flush with the lower edge of the hole in the hatchet, or the eye of the hatchet as I have heard it called here. Both sides of the hatchet were uniformly rusty, as they are now; and it will be noticed that on the cutting edge here there are a few smooth places in the rust, which I made myself by scarping the rust from the bevelled edge.

Q. You mean there?
A. Yes. Those smooth spots were done by me in scraping the material with my knife for chemical testing in order to determine whether there was any blood mixed with the iron rust or not. There were also several suspicious spots upon the side of the hatchet, one of which is plainly perceptible here, three-fourths of an inch from this little notch in the lower edge of the head. That is a shiny spot which can be easily seen now, and which is not a blood stain. It is a stain of some varnish of some kind.

There were several other reddish spots upon the side of the hatchet which might or might not contain blood. So far as I could determine by inspection, and which I proved not to be blood stains. The fractured ends of this bit of handle, the rough end, had a perfectly white, fresh look, and it was not stained as it is now, and these chips here, these two large chips from the side of this piece, and a little chip from this side also, had not been removed when I had it; and when I drove the handle out from the eye---I placed the hatchet in a vise and drove the wood out; and upon examination with a magnifying glass, that fractured end of the handle was perfectly clean. There was no dust and no dirt, no fragments of dirt which could be seen in the angles on this fractured end by means of a magnifying glass, and they cannot be seen there today. It is as clean, so far as coarse dirt is concerned, now, as it was then. In soaking---in order to determine where there had been any blood upon this handle between the hatchet head and the handle, I placed this to soak in water containing a little bit of iodide of potassium, which removes blood pigment in my experience better than plain water itself, and allowed it to soak there for several days; then I tested that solution, after taking this piece of wood out of it---tested that solution for blood pigment by chemical tests which I need not detail, and found that there was no blood removed from the handle, but that soaking that bit of wood in the solution darkened the fractured end some what so that it came out a darker color than it had when I placed it in the solution, and that is probably due to some of the discoloring matter being soaked off from the outside and absorbed by the wood.

When I received this hatchet it contained more of a white film upon both sides than it does now, but it still contains, adherent tightly in little cavities here in the rusty surface, which can easily be seen with a small magnifying glass, white dirt, like ashes which is tightly adherent and which have resisted all of the rubbing which this hatchet has had since it came into the Court room, and it is still viable there and gives the side of the hatchet, as you can see, a very slight grayish appearance here in this round part. That was far more marked on the hatchet on both sides when I first received it than it is at the present time, and that coating there looks as if it might be ashes. I do not know: I have not tested it to see whether it is ashes or not: I could not do that. It might be any white dirt, so far as I could see, so far as I know. I think I have already mentioned that this hatchet is uniformly rusty on the bevelled edge as well as on the sides---both sides of the head.

On November 15, the day I testified before the Grand Jury in Taunton, on the evening of that day, in Cambridge, at my home in Cambridge, I delivered to Officer Seaver by order of Mr. Knowlton, this hatchet head, and the claw hammer hatchet and the other hatchet. And when he returned them to me, on December 3---he returned all of the hatchets to me on December 3---when he returned them to me these two chips from the side of the bit of the handle, and a little bit of a---a very small chip from this side, I found had been removed while this piece of wood was out of my possession.

Q. You were before the Grand Jury yourself that same day?
A. I was before the Grand Jury myself that day.

Q. So that was when the Grand Jury were in session?
A. Yes, sir. And the difference in the color of this unsoaked wood and the soaked wood can be very readily seen now, although these fresh chips have darken somewhat since they were freshly made, owning to so frequent handling. I may as well say now, in connection with the blue dress skirt and dress waist, I delivered those on May 30 to Officer Mahoney and received them back from him on June 2, by order of Mr. Knowlton.

Q. Officer Mahoney of the Fall River police?
A. Yes, sir; he has already testified to it.

Q. To finish up that subject, now we are about it, with the exception of those two occasions when you gave them up to Seaver and Mahoney under my directions, they have been in your custody ever since?
A. They have been in my possession ever since under lock and key, except when they have been delivered here in the Court room from time to time.

Q. Did I understand you to say that that white substance was adherent that you find there now?
A. It is very tightly adherent there now. I suppose it might be scraped off with a pin or something of that sort, but it resisted the rubbing.

Q. How was it as to the part that has come off: what was the nature of that?
A. The same as that that is left.

Q. Adherent?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What would cause it to be adherent?
A. It is in the cervices there, and if the hatchet had been when wet placed in that material, it would stick more tightly and permeate those angles there more closely.

Q. How much of the hatchet was marked with rust?
A. All of it.

Q. How much of it when you first saw it had the appearance of being marked by this adherent film of white matter which looks like ashes?
A. Both side, One side you can hardly see now, and the other side you can see: more in the middle of the hatchet, not near the edge,

Q. Did it appear to you to be the sort of covering that would result from being exposed to ordinary dust flying in the air?

Mr. Adams. We object to that question.

Mr. Robinson. It is very leading, at any rate.

Mr. Knowlton. I see no reason why I should not put the question, unless your Honors decide that I should not.

Mason, C. J. Excluded.

Q. Professor, what is your opinion, as the results of the examination which you made, as to the question whether this hatchet could have been used to inflict the wounds which you have heard described and then subjected to any cleaning process to removes the traces of blood, as to the question of whether or not you would be able to find them upon the hatchet?

Mr. Adams. Well we pray your Honors’ judgment.

Mr. Knowlton. I do not think that question is very happy.

Q. Assuming this hatchet to have been used for inflicting the wounds which you have heard described and then subjected to some sort of a cleaning process, whether or not that could be reasonably possible to have occurred without your having discovered traces of blood upon the hatchet or the handle that you found?

Mr. Adams. We object to that question.

Mason, C. J. He may answer.

Mr. Adams. We would like to have our rights saved, may it please your Honor.

(Question read).

A. Before the handle was broken, not after.

Mr. Adams. I think the question must be answered as put, if it can be answered.

The Witness. If by the question is meant the hatchet head as it is---

Mr. Knowlton. I beg pardon, Professor Wood, I don’t think my brother has a right to catechise the witness yet.

Mr. Adams. I have not catechised him.

Mr. Knowlton. Yes, but you were getting into a colloquy with him, which I do not think is proper. Mr. Stenographer, will you read the answer.

(Answer read)

Q. That is to say, the condition I named could have existed before the handle was broken off. Why do you make that difference, Professor?

Mr. Adams. All of this goes under our objection, may it please your Honors.

A. Because it would be very hard to wash blood off that broken end.

Q. A little louder.
A. It would be almost impossible to quickly wash blood out of that broken end. It have been done by thorough cleaning, but that would also stain the fracture.

Q. Any why practicable before?

Mr. Adams. Your Honor understands that we object to this portion of the inquiry and ask to have an exception saved.

Mason, C. J. If you ask an exception you should do it clearly.

Mr. Adams. I mean to do it, sir; I mean to rise in my place and object.

Mason, C. J. Counsel for the government are not bound to understand an objection to mean and exception. The two things are very distant.

Q, Going back to the answer you gave,---before the handle was broken, and not after,---you have told why it could not be after the handle was broken. Why do you give the answer “before the handle was broken”? Give your reasons.

Mr. Adams. We object to this, may it please your Honor, and ask that an exception be saved.

Mason, C. J. It may be answered.

A. That hatchet handle fitted very tightly into the head, and was a smooth handle---the part remaining,---so far as I can see from the part remaining. I cannot answer for the part which I have never seen.

Q, Was there any difference---of course it is now removed---in the way in which that handle occupied the head of that hatchet, from the claw hammer hatchet, for example?
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Adams. What was the question?

Q. Was there any difference between the way the handle fitted into the hatchet, and the claw-hammer hatchet?
A. It fitted very tightly.

Q. And what was the difference between that and the claw-hammer hatchet?
A. The claw hammer hatchet does not.

Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... orden2.pdf


Trial cross-examination of Professor Wood, by Mr. Adams, volume II, page 1023:

Q. This handleless hatchet, I understand you say you first saw after the trial at Fall River?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. It was not produced in court then so far as you know?
A. It was not. I did not know anything about it.

Q. After you left the witness stand and went down stairs into the Marshall’s office you saw it for the first time?
A. Yes, sir, it was shown me there.

Q. Was it shown you or did you see it?
A. It must have been shown me.

Q. Where did you see it?
A. I think the City Marshall handed it to me and said “here is the other thing”.

Q. How was it done up, or was it open when he handed it to you?
A. I don’t remember.

Q. Don’t know where he took it from?
A. No, sir, I did not observe that.

Q. Did you have some talk with him?
A. I did not ask him what it was, There seems to have been a conversation at the time.

Q. There was a conversation at the time.?
A. Yes, sir, there must have been.

Q. This slot on the inner edge of the head furnishes a good refuge for any blood to gather?
A. Yes, sir, on its face.

Q. And it would be quite a place to clean, assuming any blood got on it?
A. It would, and there is white dirt in there, and there is dirt there now.

Q. When rust gathers on any iron or steel like this, is it first somewhat moist?
A. Iron rust requires moisture for its formation.

Q. When it first begins to gather, is it moist to touch?
A. Not necessarily.

Q. Have you ever seem the experiment of a scythe left out over night and the next morning some moisture gathered on the back of it and the hand being rubbed over it to find if it was rusty?
A. Yes, sir, moisture is required for it.

Q. I want to know if when rust first appears, it is not a trifle damp?
A. I don’t think it is if you should first feel it.

Q. Would it not more readily rub off when it first begins to form than after it had formed some time?
A. Yes, sir.

Q, When it first attaches would not dust get into it more rapidly?
A. It does naturally when it is moist as in any rusting.

Q. Assume that a hatchet like this handleless one fell into a pile of ashes that were lying upon the floor of a cellar where it was somewhat damp. Would that appearance that you would see afterwards be consistent with what you saw upon the face of this hatchet, namely as dust adherent to its surface?
A. The question is not stated clearly enough in regard to the dampness of the hatchet head for me to answer.

Q. My question is this: If it fell into ashes which of themselves were damp and lying on a damp cellar, would the appearance of this hatchet which you see be consistent with such a fall?
A. Yes, sir, if the ashes were damp.

Q. Assuming that that the head of a hatchet like this lies upon a shelf or bricks in a cellar where it is somewhat damp and dust from the ashes of a furnace gathers upon it, would not the appearance that you saw on this be consistent with the gradual accumulation of rust and dust upon the face of the hatchet under those circumstance?
A. I hardly feel competent to answer that really, that is so tightly adherent in the corners.

Q. When you say corners, you refer to what?
A. I will show you in those little gray places. In this gray portion on the side of the hatchet, in the little semi-circular notches where it is tightly adherent.

Q. Below on the eye of the blade?
A. Yes, sir, right there.

Q. Where there is an apparent roughness in the casting?
A. Yes, sir, in those rough patches, I cannot say whether the dust would do that or not.

Q. Did you form any opinion as to the kind of wood this hatchet was made of?
A. I think it was oak.

Q. Have you ever seen the piece of the handle corresponding to the other part of the handle of that hatchet?
A. No, sir.

Q. And therefore you are not able to form an opinion as to that?
A. I know it must have been a handle of the same wood.

Q. You don’t know whether rough or smooth or had knots on it. You don’t’ know whether it was rough or worn or whether it was smooth?
A. No, sir, nor whether there was a blade to it.

Q. I understand you have already said that the appearances of the fibres of the wood where the break is at the time when you received it is as light as the place where it is chipped off on the side?
A. Even lighter, more clean.

Q. Do you desire to express any opinion as to the freshness of that break?
A. No, sir, not into any limited time.

Q. Within two or three months or six months?
A. Yes, I should say it could not have been broken any number of months, certainly because the fractured end there would be dirtier.

Q. You mean by that darker?
A. Darker and dirtier in a dusty place.

Q. There is a piece of wood (showing piece) that appears to be broken?
A. Not in the same way, it appears to be chipped. That is split. It is chipped.

Q. There is a break on it so that there is a different appearance between the outside and inside?
A. Yes, sir, it is fresher.

Q. Can you form any opinion on seeing that as to when the break was made?
A. No, sir.

Q. Would you dare to say that was within one year, two years, or six even?
A. I should want to know where it was,---in a place having a clean floor or a dirty one?

Q, Assuming it was kept in a clean place?
A. I would not dare to form an opinion.

Q. Even within years?
A. No, sir.

Q. And if it was broken transversely, across the grain instead of with it, how would it be?
A. It would be the same.

Q. With reference to your opinion?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Isn’t that oak?
A. I do not know oaks very well.

Q. But you said it was oak?
A. I said I thought it was.

Q. What do you think?
A. It looks to me like an ash piece. I do not know whether it is or not, though.

Q. Well, upon reflection, do you think you will stick to your opinion of the time of the braking of this handle, it being within a few months of when you saw it?
A. If kept in a dirty cellar?

Q. If kept in a fairly clean place?
A. If done up?

Q. Oh, not done up,---exposed to the ordinary wear and tear of time?
A. I should say it would be darker than after the lapse of several months on account of moisture and other things,---atmospheric conditions generally.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

Q. (Mr. Knowlton) If that had fallen into an ash heap and got what came on it, could that have been so after the handle was broken?
A. No, sir.

Q. The cutting blade? Anybody can show it. Have you measured it?
A. I have.

Q. What is its measurement?
A. Exactly three and a half inches, and I think I mentioned the other, three and one-eighth inches.

Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... orden2.pdf

[Kevin Luna]

I've read Wood's testimony. I was under the impression that when a person puts something in quotes, it's what the person actually said, unless specified otherwise.

[twinsrwe]

I've read Wood's testimony. I was under the impression that when a person puts something in quotes, it's what the person actually said, unless specified otherwise.

I’m glad to hear that you have read Professor Wood’s testimony. You are correct; when a person puts something in quotes, it's what the person actually said. However, Curryong did not use quotation marks ( “ ), she used apostrophe marks ( ‘ ). You will find there are several forum members who use apostrophe marks instead of an italic typeface, when posting something from a source that is not a direct quote.

[Kevin Luna]

upon examination with a magnifying glass, that fractured end of the handle was perfectly clean. There was no dust and no dirt, no fragments of dirt which could be seen in the angles on this fractured end by means of a magnifying glass, and they cannot be seen there today. It is as clean, so far as coarse dirt is concerned, now, as it was then.

Q. (Mr. Knowlton) If that had fallen into an ash heap and got what came on it, could that have been so after the handle was broken?
A. No, sir.

So the break occurred after the hatchet was coated with ash. This probably means that the break was intentional, because if it were broken during use, the ash would come off during use, right? So this means that the hatchet was wet, rubbed with ash, then intentionally broken. Hmmm....

[twinsrwe]

So the break occurred after the hatchet was coated with ash. This probably means that the break was intentional, because if it were broken during use, the ash would come off during use, right? So this means that the hatchet was wet, rubbed with ash, then intentionally broken. Hmmm....

Yes, I agree that the break occurred after the hatchet was coated with ash, and that it was intentionally broken. However, I highly doubt there would have been ash on the handle during the killings, because blood would have soaked into the ash, and Professor Wood would have discovered the blood when he soaked the hatchet head in water containing a little bit of iodide of potassium. Right?

Assuming Lizzie was the killer and she used the handleless hatchet to kill Abby and Andrew, then she would have had to thoroughly wash the hatchet, dry the majority of water off, then rub it down with ashes, and break the handle off. I wonder why she felt the need to rub the hatchet down with ashes and then break the handle off in the first place?

Something else that has always puzzled me is: Professor Wood testified that on August 10th, he received from Dr. Dolan , at the police station, a trunk which contained the claw-hammer hatchet and the two axes, among other items (Trial page, 998). On August the 30th, he received the another hatchet with a handle, while in the court room at the time of the Preliminary Hearing that was held in Fall River (Trial, page 2008). Also on August 30th, after he left the court room he received, from City Marshall Hilliard, the head of the handleless hatchet (Trial, page 1011).

Why was Professor Wood given the two axes and claw-hammer hatchet to examine, 20 days before he was given the hatchet with a handle and the head of the handleless hatchet? Why weren’t the two axes and all three of the hatchets given to him at the same time?

Professor Wood testified that the white matter which looked like ashes was adherent tightly in little cavities in the rusty surface, and he supposed it might be scraped off with a pin or something of that sort. I wonder if anyone has attempted to scrape the adherent white matter out of the cavities and then tested it with Luminol to see if there was blood detected under the white matter.

[Kevin Luna]

So the break occurred after the hatchet was coated with ash. This probably means that the break was intentional, because if it were broken during use, the ash would come off during use, right? So this means that the hatchet was wet, rubbed with ash, then intentionally broken. Hmmm....

Yes, I agree that the break occurred after the hatchet was coated with ash, and that it was intentionally broken. However, I highly doubt there would have been ash on the handle during the killings, because blood would have soaked into the ash, and Professor Wood would have discovered the blood when he soaked the hatchet head in water containing a little bit of iodide of potassium. Right?

When I wrote "during use" I meant during normal use, not murderous use. The way I see it, the only realistic way for the handle to accidentally break would have been while someone was using it, but if that were the case the ash on the cutting edge of the blade would have rubbed off. As far as I'm aware, there was ash all over the cutting edge of the blade, therefore, the break must have been intentional.

Assuming Lizzie was the killer and she used the handleless hatchet to kill Abby and Andrew, then she would have had to thoroughly wash the hatchet, dry the majority of water off, then rub it down with ashes, and break the handle off. I wonder why she felt the need to rub the hatchet down with ashes and then break the handle off in the first place?

To make it look innocuous, and she was successful because the police disregarded it at first.

[twinsrwe]

So the break occurred after the hatchet was coated with ash. This probably means that the break was intentional, because if it were broken during use, the ash would come off during use, right? So this means that the hatchet was wet, rubbed with ash, then intentionally broken. Hmmm....

Yes, I agree that the break occurred after the hatchet was coated with ash, and that it was intentionally broken. However, I highly doubt there would have been ash on the handle during the killings, because blood would have soaked into the ash, and Professor Wood would have discovered the blood when he soaked the hatchet head in water containing a little bit of iodide of potassium. Right?

When I wrote "during use" I meant during normal use, not murderous use. The way I see it, the only realistic way for the handle to accidentally break would have been while someone was using it, but if that were the case the ash on the cutting edge of the blade would have rubbed off. As far as I'm aware, there was ash all over the cutting edge of the blade, therefore, the break must have been intentional.

OK, I see what you are saying, and I agree, the handle had to have been intentionally broken off.

Assuming Lizzie was the killer and she used the handleless hatchet to kill Abby and Andrew, then she would have had to thoroughly wash the hatchet, dry the majority of water off, then rub it down with ashes, and break the handle off. I wonder why she felt the need to rub the hatchet down with ashes and then break the handle off in the first place?

To make it look innocuous, and she was successful because the police disregarded it at first.

That makes since.

[Reasonwhy]

I hunted down the actual article

Here you were in 2014, Possum, with one of the four articles.
The whole thread is worth a skim—lot of good thinking there:

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... id%5B%5D=1