The bleedin' hatchet

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:25 am

Are you thinking in terms of two weapons, Catbooks? Because surely, after Andrew's murder, (if this was the one used for that) there wouldn't be enough time to thoroughly clean it (if we are thinking of Lizzie.)
Unless she didn't expect the police to thoroughly search the house, especially for axes/hatchets, and she could have prepared the lye water etc and had a good scrub at her leisure, once Bridget was elsewhere?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:49 am

i was thinking just the one. but no clue how long and involved the process of cleaning it with woodash would be. ha, i don't know! just thinking out loud. but you have to admit that handleless hatchet covered in ash is odd, so it seems like it figured in this whole mess somehow.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:07 pm

Rust (oxidation) is a funny thing. We (wrongly) assume that rust means a lot of time has transpired. It does not. Some things rust very quickly. I have cast Iron fry pans I use. If I scrub them I must put them on a hot burner immediately to evaporate the water or I can watch the rust form. 5 minutes later, I can wipe it with a paper towel, and red rust (iron oxide) has already formed. Humidity, acid, oxygen, and contact with a different metal all cause accelerated rust. If a hatchet was bloody, and it was washed with water, the surface would begin rusting very quickly. To quickly dry it, rubbing it with ash would hide any remnants of blood. My biggest problem then would be that she didn't have much time to hide it...

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:22 pm

PossumPie wrote:Rust (oxidation) is a funny thing. We (wrongly) assume that rust means a lot of time has transpired. It does not. Some things rust very quickly. I have cast Iron fry pans I use. If I scrub them I must put them on a hot burner immediately to evaporate the water or I can watch the rust form. 5 minutes later, I can wipe it with a paper towel, and red rust (iron oxide) has already formed. Humidity, acid, oxygen, and contact with a different metal all cause accelerated rust. If a hatchet was bloody, and it was washed with water, the surface would begin rusting very quickly. To quickly dry it, rubbing it with ash would hide any remnants of blood. My biggest problem then would be that she didn't have much time to hide it...

Good point, Possum. I also use old cast iron which rusts exactly as you describe. My thinking is the hatchet on the roof is the murder weapon, and that the one covered with ash was just another hatchet in the process of being cleaned. If it were dipped in lye and ash solution and then tossed down, the ash would dry and the hatchet would rust. How much money would it take to convince someone to step forward and claim the Crowe hatchet. Then again, I would think that the Family Legend of Lizzie's Hatchet would've been passed down to kin. Do we know if the hatchet claimant had a family for the passing down of stories? Do we know if he was poor? If he had a connection to the Borden family?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:35 pm

So you think, PossumPie, that rust could form on the head of the cellar hatchet as quickly as those hours after the murder when the police found it ? That's remarkable.

I always had the impression that it was an old hatchet with a recently broken handle, not a very new product, such as would have left the gilt in Abby's skull. If it is THE one and she managed to break off the handle in the barn vice then Lizzie certainly took a risk by leaving the head AND the handle there for the police to find.

How did she know the police wouldn't do the wood lyre thing or some other cleaning? What if some blood had remained in some crevice of the handle somewhere? I can't remember whether, in 1892, they could separate human blood from just mammalian blood in testing, but if they could and she'd read about it, that's even more of a calculated risk (supposing she didn't cover the hatchet head in ashes in a complete panic.)

I did wonder, debbie, whether the cellar hatchet head was a red herring, in an earlier post. Do any of you think it could have been? Andrew's handyman didn't testify that he had left the axe head in that state. As far as we know the females of the house didn't chop wood, so either Andrew left it ash-encrusted or .........

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:30 pm

Curryong wrote:So you think, PossumPie, that rust could form on the head of the cellar hatchet as quickly as those hours after the murder when the police found it ? That's remarkable.

I always had the impression that it was an old hatchet with a recently broken handle, not a very new product, such as would have left the gilt in Abby's skull. If it is THE one and she managed to break off the handle in the barn vice then Lizzie certainly took a risk by leaving the head AND the handle there for the police to find.

How did she know the police wouldn't do the wood lyre thing or some other cleaning? What if some blood had remained in some crevice of the handle somewhere? I can't remember whether, in 1892, they could separate human blood from just mammalian blood in testing, but if they could and she'd read about it, that's even more of a calculated risk (supposing she didn't cover the hatchet head in ashes in a complete panic.)

I did wonder, debbie, whether the cellar hatchet head was a red herring, in an earlier post. Do any of you think it could have been? Andrew's handyman didn't testify that he had left the axe head in that state. As far as we know the females of the house didn't chop wood, so either Andrew left it ash-encrusted or .........

No, I firmly believe the hatchets found on the premises were all old, and not the one that was used. Just pointing out that sometimes our bias blinds us to a possibility...that rust doesn't indicate age. My working theory is that the hatchet found on the neighbor's barn roof was the one. The owner said no one was up there for years, yet someone quickly jumped in and said it was his. As far as I know, a hatchet doesn't walk away by itself climb a neighbor's roof all by itself. It had been there a year in snow, rain, sun, when it was found, so it was no good as evidence of anything. What a coincidence it would be if a hatchet was missing from the murder scene, and one was found 100 ft. away. Too much a coincidence for me.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:43 pm

I've been hoping that the Crowe's barn hatchet was the culprit, so to speak, and the carpenter just scored himself a workable hatchet when he 'claimed' it. Lizzie still ran a risk from nosey neighbours and the workmen in Crowe's Yard observing her tossing the thing, though. What a cunning little ....!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:01 pm

Here is a thread regarding the Crowe Barn Hatchet
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2940&hilit=Crowe%27s

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:13 am

Possum, I just read Twins link. Do you think in looking at the wounds on both Andrew and Abby that a different weapon could have been used on Andrew?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:05 am

I would be really interested in hearing Possum's views too.

While waiting -- the Crowe Barn hatchet had a 3 and one quarter inch blade (bit blurry to read and could be 3 and three quarters.)

Dr Cleaver tested the handleless hatchet for the trial and came to the conclusion after examining the wounds on both skulls that 'the cutting edge to cause these wounds was three and a half inches and no longer....I have tried the handless hatchet on each of the wounds on both skulls and I find that its blade fits accurately.'

The handleless blade was precisely 3 and a half inches.

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:01 am

So glad to see this topic on the Crowe's barn hatchet, come up again!! On 7-5 2010 I brought up my idea ("Time to get the feet wet...") that I thought the Crowe barn hatchet killed Abby and the handle less hatchet killed Andrew. It didn't receive much response then, but now with new members, it is getting looked at again.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:08 am

Hello Bobo, from a newbie! So glad to see older members posting again.I don't know whether I support the theory of two weapons but I have an open mind on it. What do you think about the two hatchets and do you believe Lizzie to be the killer?

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:05 am

Thanks Curryong. I got caught up in the Borden murders about 45 yrs. ago. Before joining the forum in 2010 I read EVERY available post here. I approached each theory with an open mind. That said, I came to believe the Crowe barn hatchet killed Abby. Carl McDonnell came forward and claimed the hatchet. He said that he had been working on Dr. Chagnons (a neighbor to Crowe) roof, and misplaced it. That leaves us with a "jumping" hatchet! It's left on Dr. Chagnons roof, but shows up on Crowes barn roof. There it lays for 10 months!
For reasons unknown, the killer did not want the hatchet left at the scene. IF Lizzie did it, she had over an hour to get rid of it. I believe that is what she was doing when she was seen coming from the back yard. Time was much shorter after the killing of Andrew, hence the handle less hatchet in the cellar.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:27 am

Yes, how irritating it is that the 'jumping' hatchet wasn't found before the trial. A bit of sloppy police work there. I don't believe for a minute that it was the carpenter's and the gilt still on it in patches is very interesting!

It all comes down to time limits doesn't it, after Andrew's murder? Do you think Lizzie would have had enough time to get to the barn and use the vice to wrench the handle off?
Brilliant if she did and then thickly coated the blade with ashes, but, as I've asked in my earlier post, how would she have known the police wouldn't find a way to clean it? Or do you believe it was a spur of the moment thing?

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:16 am

The time limits have always poised a problem. I believe it is POSSIBLE that the handle was broken DURING Andrews murder. I have read the posts on how hard it is to break a hatchet handle BUT that could depend on several factors.... Prior use, the age of the hatchet etc. That would make the time between Andrews murder and calling for Bridget less than thought. By the way, how much time did Lizzie have between the time she sent Bridget for help and Mrs. Churchill arrived? Did I read somewhere that Mrs. Churchill changed her dress before coming over? Correct me if I'm wrong.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:36 am

There are several articles on the "found hatchet" this one is the most descriptive of the gilding found on it. A few facts about a hatchet wound.

It will NEVER be longer than the entire length of the hatchet blade. A 3 1/2 inch long blade will make wounds 3 1/2 inches long OR SHORTER. Why shorter? If you hit someone perpendicular to their skull, it will be the whole length of the blade, say 3 1/2 inches. BUT If you hit someone at an angle, with the bottom corner and half way up the blade, you would have a wound only 1 3/4 inch long. It may look like a different weapon, a shorter one, but isn't. The guiding is what I am interested in. It was never (that I found) definitely stated as gilding, but it sure sounds like it. Flecks of shiny material found ONLY in Abby's wound. Could be b/c the ferocity of the attack and the skull of Mrs. Borden knocked off the lose bits and the rest was fairly firmly attached to the hatchet. A quick washing in the "menstrual bucket water" and some more bits come off. Now, when the killer strikes Andrew, the gilding that is left is firmly attached and doesn't come off in his wounds. Same weapon, same killer, different looking wounds.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:40 pm

welcome back, bobo

i too think the crowe hatchet is the most likely murder weapon. i'm curious why you think there were two weapons involved.

PossumPie wrote:
Curryong wrote:So you think, PossumPie, that rust could form on the head of the cellar hatchet as quickly as those hours after the murder when the police found it ? That's remarkable.

I always had the impression that it was an old hatchet with a recently broken handle, not a very new product, such as would have left the gilt in Abby's skull. If it is THE one and she managed to break off the handle in the barn vice then Lizzie certainly took a risk by leaving the head AND the handle there for the police to find.

How did she know the police wouldn't do the wood lyre thing or some other cleaning? What if some blood had remained in some crevice of the handle somewhere? I can't remember whether, in 1892, they could separate human blood from just mammalian blood in testing, but if they could and she'd read about it, that's even more of a calculated risk (supposing she didn't cover the hatchet head in ashes in a complete panic.)

I did wonder, debbie, whether the cellar hatchet head was a red herring, in an earlier post. Do any of you think it could have been? Andrew's handyman didn't testify that he had left the axe head in that state. As far as we know the females of the house didn't chop wood, so either Andrew left it ash-encrusted or .........
No, I firmly believe the hatchets found on the premises were all old, and not the one that was used. Just pointing out that sometimes our bias blinds us to a possibility...that rust doesn't indicate age. My working theory is that the hatchet found on the neighbor's barn roof was the one. The owner said no one was up there for years, yet someone quickly jumped in and said it was his. As far as I know, a hatchet doesn't walk away by itself climb a neighbor's roof all by itself. It had been there a year in snow, rain, sun, when it was found, so it was no good as evidence of anything. What a coincidence it would be if a hatchet was missing from the murder scene, and one was found 100 ft. away. Too much a coincidence for me.

they were able to tell the difference between human and non-human blood and hair back then. it was concluded the blood and hair on the handleless hatchet was from a cow.

i still don't know what to make of the handleless hatchet, but it is odd that it was wetted and then rubbed with or in ash.

the crowe hatchet being there is too coincidental for me as well. especially as the carpenter wasn't even on the crowe roof! i wonder how he explained to the police it got up there. they'd have had to have asked him. why is there so little coverage on this, after the discovery of it was reported? were all of the reporters so easily satisfied that it did belong to the carpenter, and were eager to focus their attention on covering the first day of the defense's case?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:44 pm

there's a word i can't read in that article. 'the hatched is described as an ordinary [what?] with a hammer head.' can anyone else make out that word? implement?

Miranda · Post by **Miranda** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:22 pm

Hmmm...

talk of hammer head reminded me of this...

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODk4WDE2MDA=/ ... ~60_35.JPG

hope this link works...

I'm such a dummy, I never pictured the hatchet as a roofing hammer.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:31 pm

hi miranda :) *waves* i can see that photo just fine. thank you!

just found this:

One of the old-timers who taught me the trade had been a butcher in the late 1800’s, and was still a meat-cutter into the late 1950’s. He told me about how he’d hitch his horse up to his wagon at 3 a.m., butcher and skin a steer, take it to his butcher shop and cut it up. He’d then load the meat on his meat wagon and begin his meat-pedaling route. His customers would select what they wanted to cook that day from his wagon, pay him, and he’d be on to the next customer. When he’d sold everything on the wagon, he’d return to the shop, make bologna or sausages, corned beef, etc., and generally end the day when the entire steer, and/or hogs and/or sheep were sold and utilized.

from this page: http://www.meatbasics101.com/about_meatbasics101.htm

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:14 pm

THX Catbooks. There very well could have been only ONE hatchet involved. If so, I believe the Crowe barn hatchet to be the murder weapon, whether Lizzie or someone else threw it up there. The reason I think there MAY have been two, (whether it be the handle less hatchet or not), IF it was Lizzie, is that Lizzie was seen to be coming from the back yard around the time of Abby's murder. I have never bought into the "sinkers" story, but by her own admission she was out there for some reason. The only reason I can think of was to dispose of the hatchet.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 4:49 pm

thanks for your response, bobo.

my thinking is when lizzie was seen coming from the back yard, it didn't have anything to do with the barn (or pears), it was because she was returning from throwing the hatchet up on the roof of the crowe barn. in case anyone saw her, she had to explain why she was out there at that time.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:37 pm

Lizzie wasn't seen 'coming from the back yard around the time of Abby's murder' (quote Bobo) was she, Bobo, unless I've missed something?
What a lovely place that must have been in the summer, with the contents of Andrew's slop-pails on the grass! Why the dirty old thing couldn't have just used the cellar privy to dispose of his waste, heaven knows!
So much about the pears too, that day! Andrew picking pears, Lizzie and Uncle John eating some, Bridget being sick near the pear trees!

Bobo, (in reply to your earlier post) I don't think there was much more than two or three minutes between the time Mrs Churchill, back from marketing, saw a white-faced Bridget running (presumably to get Alice Russell) and her spotting the newly bereaved daughter (sarcasm here) standing inside the screen door of the Borden place.

She (mrs Churchill) didn't change her dress but scuttled over and then there was talk from Lizzie about father being in the sitting room and milk being poisoned and getting sinkers in the barn and hearing her mother come in.

Whereupon Mrs Churchill trotted across the road to the stables to get her yard man as fast as her little high button boots could carry her. (For some reason I always think of her as an elderly widow but of course she was not much older than Emma Borden.)

What Ive always been interested in is Lizzie wanting Bridget out of the house straight after the murder. Quick survey of the crime scene before depositing herself near the screen door, a chance to calm down and get her breath after all her exertions, perhaps.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:13 pm

IF McDonnell used the hatchet while working on Chagnon's roof then why was the gilding still present in amounts enough to be discernible from Abby's boil (makes her sound like a lobster.) And what was he using a hatchet for while working on a roof anyway? Like Possum, I think this is too much coincidence to be coincidence, but my view is McDonnell may have been paid to claim the hatchet as his.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:43 pm

curryong, i think bobo's referring to the hyram in the delivery wagon seeing lizzie (or a woman who wasn't bridget) in the side yard. i believe he said the woman was coming from the barn, but unless he saw her actually coming from the barn door or from very near the barn enough to assume that's where she was coming from, she could have been coming from the back yard. to snack on some slop-scented pears, don't you know ;)

i'll have to go back and check, but i don't think the carpenter was even working on chagnon's roof that day. he was doing some work for him, but i don't believe it involved anyone's roof. he might have been paid off, or given how incredibly closed-lipped the residents of fall river were about lizzie, he might not have had to be.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:23 pm

Sorry Bobo, if I mistook, but Hyram the icecream seller was passing after Andrew's death, wasn't he, about 11:10am?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:37 pm

yes, it was after andrew's death. well, maybe :). at first he said he was passing by at 10:30 a.m.

probably he was telling the truth when he changed it to later, realizing he was running late that day after he'd had time to think about it. but normally he'd have been passing by at 10:30.

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:06 pm

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I said Lizzie was seen coming from the back yard about the time of ABBY'S death. I should have said ANDREW'S death. Hyman Lubinsky testified he saw a woman coming from the back yard around 11:10. MY BAD.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:45 am

Poor old Hyman, as I've posted on another thread, was only 17 or 18 at the time of the murders. He was a defence witness, but, because of his confusion and lack of English, he made an extremely bad witness and Knowlton made mincemeat of him on the stand.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:42 pm

The hatchet head and small piece attached that was found in the cellar seems to have caused a difference of opinion between Officer Mullaly, who actually found the hatchet and Assistant Marshall Fleet who went down into the cellar a little later. Mullaly testified that he never saw ashes or dust on the handle of the handleless hatchet, while Fleet remembered dust on the handle.

Mullaly testified (Goodbye Lizzie Borden: Sullivan Page 113) that he had followed Bridget down into the cellar at the Borden house, and she had taken from a box...

'two hatchets. I saw the hatchet which Mr Fleet took--or the part of the hatchet' (was shown the hatchet head)...'it looked at the time as though it was just broken; it looked like a fresh break. It was covered with dust and ashes or something like that. The handle was broken fresh. Both sides of it were covered in ashes, both sides of the blade, that is.'

In cross-examination Robinson takes Mullaly over the same territory. Mullaly described seeing a pile of ashes in the cellar; he testified that THERE WAS ANOTHER PIECE OF THE HANDLE OF THE HATCHET THAT WAS BROKEN (my emphasis) which he saw, but he did not know where it was now--it was a piece that corresponded with the rest of the handle and it had a fresh break in it, and the other piece did too.

Q. Was it the handle to a hatchet?
A. It was what I call a hatchet handle. It was somewhat shorter than the handles of the other hatchets.

Robinson then asked Knowlton to produce the rest of the handle of the hatchet and Knowlton, no doubt gnashing his teeth, said he had never seen it, or heard of it before.

Q. (Robinson to Mullaly) 'Did you ever tell anyone of this before?
A. No sir. I never did.

Moody questioned Mullaly about the missing piece.
Q. Do you say it fitted into these breaks?
A. I did not try to fit it in...'

Later Assistant Marshall Fleet was recalled and questioned about the missing piece of the handle. He had earlier testified that he had seen only pieces of iron in the box which the hatchets had been in. He was shown the handleless hatchet by Robinson and agreed that was what he had set aside.

Q You did not find the handle --the broken piece---not at all?
A. No sir.
Q You did not see it, did you?
A No sir.
Q Did Mullaly take it out of the box.
A Not that I know of.
Q It was not there?
A. Not that I know of.

What a gift to the Defence case Officer Mullaly was, in showing police carelessness, unless, of course, Fleet was as blind as a bat and did see it, just didn't take any notice. Interesting, though, that the handleless hatchet appears to have been split in two places. And one piece seems to have vanished into thin air!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:19 am

I often say that almost every piece of critical evidence, almost every critical thing said by major witnesses, almost every record of what time something happened or in what order, virtually all are contradicted, denied, or refuted somewhere else. About all we are sure of is that they are dead. I think everyone interested in the case will admit that the police bungled the whole investigation, the prosecutor failed in his duties, and the Judge was a friend of the family and actually pressured the jury at times with leading instructions. She may have done it, but everyone worked hard to make sure she wasn't punished.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:56 am

I agree, I think the Borden case, since I've been studying it in more depth is even more contradictory and confusing that the Jack the Ripper murders, and that's saying something as I've pulled my hair out over conflicting times etc in that case many times!

It's the contamination of the crime scene by so many officers soon after the murders that's so noticeable in the Borden case. For heavens sake it was domestic murder! How hard could it have been to restrict the house to half a dozen officers and Dr Dolan, and ask the sisters and Uncle John to move out to Swansea for a few days.

Knowlton seemed to be fatalistic about trying the case against Lizzie. Public opinion was strongly for her at the time and he knew their case was quite weak.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:25 am

PossumPie wrote:I often say that almost every piece of critical evidence, almost every critical thing said by major witnesses, almost every record of what time something happened or in what order, virtually all are contradicted, denied, or refuted somewhere else. About all we are sure of is that they are dead. I think everyone interested in the case will admit that the police bungled the whole investigation, the prosecutor failed in his duties, and the Judge was a friend of the family and actually pressured the jury at times with leading instructions. She may have done it, but everyone worked hard to make sure she wasn't punished.

I agree, Possum. I've always found Judge Blaisdell's statement at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, very telling:

"The long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say, ‘Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.' But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by that guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden, who was first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers, then he was out in the yard, then he was out for something else. Would there be any question in the minds of men what should be done with such a man? So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be - the judgment of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Superior Court." (Porter, Edwin H., The Fall River Tragedy: History of the Borden Murders, 1893:139140).

Source: Page 162 of Lizzie Borden Past and Present. (Underlining is mine).

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:02 pm

All about this bleedin' hatchet once more!

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:32 pm

debbiediablo wrote:IF McDonnell used the hatchet while working on Chagnon's roof then why was the gilding still present in amounts enough to be discernible from Abby's boil (makes her sound like a lobster.) And what was he using a hatchet for while working on a roof anyway? Like Possum, I think this is too much coincidence to be coincidence, but my view is McDonnell may have been paid to claim the hatchet as his.

Some of the gilt might easily remain on the hatchet for a considerable time after it went into use; probably moreso if it were actually being used for roofing and rough carpentry than lathing. The gilded edge wouldn't necessarily be in use all that much you see.

It would depend some on whether the roof was being leaded or shingled-- no aluminum, Brye or 90 lb in 1892, I think. If it were being leaded, there would be a need for lathlike shims at any parapets, where the lead curves up. If you leave a plenum underneath the curve of the lead, the next guy along is apt to kick or step on it and tear a hole in the lead. This would be a matter of maybe eight or ten strokes per job, and there would be a fair likelihood of leaving it at the last parapet while finishing the overhangs or flashing or the like-- especially if it was approaching dusk.

If it were a shingled roof, one would be splitting shakes to fit from time to time, and there might be something like cleats involved as well; this would involve many more strokes, but they would be mostly on loose grain, soft or brittle wood, and low friction-- a great deal of the gilt might survive several jobs.

A hot mop might not require a hatchet at all; but if you had one you were used to, you still might use it to nail flashing...

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:45 pm

Catbooks wrote:they were able to tell the difference between human and non-human blood and hair back then. it was concluded the blood and hair on the handleless hatchet was from a cow.

i still don't know what to make of the handleless hatchet, but it is odd that it was wetted and then rubbed with or in ash.

Not necessarily, though you'd think someone would know...

When you do break an axe or sledge or hatchet handle, they can be a beast to replace-- because getting the stump of the handle out is often very difficult.

Sometimes you can put them in a bench vise and use something like a bit of dowel or rebar and try to drive the stub out; and sometimes it will move back and forth some without coming out. When that happens, it is worth a try wetting the edges that come out each direction in hopes of lubricating the face enough to move it a little farther each time-- soapy water is better. If the wood is still porous, however, it will just swell and stop what movement you do have.

I have myself resorted to building a nice hot fire and chucking the head in it-- to burn the stub out. If someone tried that approach and rain came and put the fire out early in the process, you could get a head which was both ashy and had been dampened...

Where there are power tools, of course, the answer is to drill it out-- after removing the metal wedge that helps fix it.

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:46 pm

Curryong wrote:All about this bleedin' hatchet once more!

Fank you, masked man.

Edit-- Whoops, that could be pretty cryptic if you don't know either the Lone Ranger or the Lenny Bruce routine about him...

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:59 pm

Three things strike me about the drawings of the neighborhood:

1. The footprint of Crowe's Barn on the map of the neighborhood doesn't match the drawings of it; perhaps the roof was not quite as pitched as drawn, as well?

2. It would not be easy for someone in the Borden household to have swiped the barn-hatchet on the spur of the moment; I had been picturing it as perhaps a matter of reaching through the fence, but that doesn't look possible. Looks as though one would have to circle the block and enter the property.

OTOH a workman pulling a prank on another would only have to pick it up and walk through the orchard lot to throw it onto the flat roof-- but it would be tricky to get it to where it is reported to have landed-- you are throwing from the wrong angle whichever hand you use, assuming you are throwing it like a Frisbee...unless the drawings are not at all accurate. And throwing it any other way risks the business end sticking in the roof and leaving it visible and obvious...

3. Lizzie on the other hand, would be at the correct angle throwing it-- but taking an ungodly risk whether she knew Bridget was up in her room, which clearly would overlook the approach and throw, or, if she didn't know Bridget was up there, in which case B could have come or looked out from anywhere and seen her guilt.

The hatchet would almost have to have stayed in the room until Bridget was sent out of the house, in which case Lizzie would have had to hustle to get out there, make the throw and get back-- and still might have been seen by someone else in the neighborhood... I'm not all that convinced that this is any more reasonable than that an intruder brought in and left with their own weapon.

On the barn-hatchet-and-Lizzie theory's side, though, the jacket may have concealed the hatchet while Bridget was in the room, and then been folded up under Andrew after the sprint, to explain/conceal any blood on it? Would sort of explain that oddity?

The boys finding the hatchet--keep in mind that the ball is not going to be the resilient orb of today; if it was a baseball it would be pretty soft, just yarn wound around a pebble or cork and with hand tightened horsehide wrapped and stitched around it. They went out of round quite easily, and hitting one 200 feet with a bat was a manly achievement for a professional with the best balls available. The flat part of the roof could conceivably have been unfinished, which might have meant something like oilskin stretched over it and held down with cleats-- thin strips of wood, laths if you will. A soft ball softly hit could easily settle against a cleat without rolling off.

If they were playing at punt-about we are talking about a rubber bladder inflated with lung power and also prone to go out of round; again a softly punted ball might settle just so and not roll off. (The "Boston game" had not yet driven the English games from these shores-- they might well have played with a soccer ball or a rugby ball...)

Oh-- and I refuse to believe that Lizzie was so effete as to be unused to hatchets and kindling; no one in 1892 was so boundfoot inactive as to be unable to rekindle a fire without help from a servant. They'd have died of puhnominee the first cold snap, they'd have been unable to fry an egg or heat broth, or wash dishes-- which last these girls are known to have done, no?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:46 am

A whole post of mine seems to have goooorn into the ether. It was a long one too!

Shortened version! The roof in Crowe's Yard that the ball (of whatever shape) fell onto until rescued seems to have been that flat-roofed shed-like contraption at the back of the pitch roof barn. I don't think the roof was unfinished or surely that would have been mentioned in the Press reports at the time the hatchet was found. Mr Crowe said nobody had been working on the barn roofs for two years.

It certainly wouldn't be easy to pinch any workman's tool from the Chagnell property. However, if you look at Rebello, Page 46 there could be a bit of an opportunity IF the plans are drawn correctly, if a person was at the back of the Borden barn and the hatchet had been left invitingly near the Chagnell fence. A lot of ifs and buts, but it could be done.

Yes, Lizzie would have been taking an almighty risk of being seen when throwing it if she put it on the roof, but then, murderers do take tremendous risks, and sometimes they win out against the odds. She knew Bridget went upstairs to rest after the window cleaning. Bridget just rinsed her cloths in the sink room and went up.
Lizzie could have concealed it under the coat, but Bridget never went into the sitting room after she was called downstairs. She wanted to, but Lizzie wouldn't let her and instead sent her over to the Bowens.

I don't think Lizzie was incompetent in a practical sense. She had chopped kindling. The letter to her friend at Marion about bringing down a nice sharp hatchet this time shows that she and her friends chopped kindling for picnics etc. It's just that she didn't do that much of it. At no 92 the farm hand from Swansea chopped wood for the household among his other odd jobs. If they ran out I expect Andrew would chop some. Bridget didn't seem to know anything about the axes in the cellar, or, because she was scared, pretended she didn't!

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:05 pm

I do not accept that Bridget didn't know anything about axes, hatchets, etc. in the cellar. I can't believe she never used one to refine a bit of kindling or something. Her claim of total ignorance on the matter doesn't sound right to me.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:23 pm

No, I don't accept it either. However, she was probably terrified of the policemen coming into the house and traumatised by what had happened, so I suppose her amnesia was understandable in the circumstances! (I still think the women in the household wouldn't have done too much of the chopping of kindle though, only on rare occasions.) The Swansea man and Andrew (even if he grumbled) would have taken care of it.

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:55 pm

Curryong wrote:No, I don't accept it either. However, she was probably terrified of the policemen coming into the house and traumatised by what had happened, so I suppose her amnesia was understandable in the circumstances! (I still think the women in the household wouldn't have done too much of the chopping of kindle though, only on rare occasions. The Swansea man and Andrew (even if he grumbled) would have taken care of it.

Oh sure; but it has been suggested that Lizzie wouldn't have been able to kill someone with a hatchet due to unfamiliarity with that sort of tool... and it isn't a particle accelerator-- or even a chainsaw.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:02 am

taosjohn wrote: On the barn-hatchet-and-Lizzie theory's side, though, the jacket may have concealed the hatchet while Bridget was in the room, and then been folded up under Andrew after the sprint, to explain/conceal any blood on it? Would sort of explain that oddity?

Placing Andrew's jacket under him was an act of undoing the crime, commonly found in domestic homicides. If it were used to disguise splatter then it should've been placed directly under his head to catch all the blood.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:33 am

Was Lizzie, in a strange and bizarre sort of a way, making her father 'comfortable' on the couch by placing his folded coat under him?

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:59 am

debbiediablo wrote:
taosjohn wrote: On the barn-hatchet-and-Lizzie theory's side, though, the jacket may have concealed the hatchet while Bridget was in the room, and then been folded up under Andrew after the sprint, to explain/conceal any blood on it? Would sort of explain that oddity?
Placing Andrew's jacket under him was an act of undoing the crime, commonly found in domestic homicides. If it were used to disguise splatter then it should've been placed directly under his head to catch all the blood.

Very likely you are right-- but it is a good idea to keep in mind that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, isn't it?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 12:26 pm

Sometimes, but not in this case. There are too many other indicators that point directly to domestic homicide. Taken individually they can be explained away; as a group they're more like a flashing neon arrow pointing at Lizzie. And yes, an act of undoing can be placing a pillow or something else under the victim's head, covering or wrapping with a blanket, dressing them, cleaning their wounds, placing them in a position of rest. A caring act following deadly violence. There was no 'undoing' for Abby. Somewhere on this site I copied and pasted the entire chapter on domestic homicide from the Crime Classification Manual.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:40 pm

I agree, Debbie. There are several indicators which point directly to domestic homicide.

Here is the link the to Crime Classification Manual thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5330&p=85609

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:50 pm

debbiediablo wrote:Sometimes, but not in this case. There are too many other indicators that point directly to domestic homicide. Taken individually they can be explained away; as a group they're more like a flashing neon arrow pointing at Lizzie. And yes, an act of undoing can be placing a pillow or something else under the victim's head, covering or wrapping with a blanket, dressing them, cleaning their wounds, placing them in a position of rest. A caring act following deadly violence. There was no 'undoing' for Abby. Somewhere on this site I copied and pasted the entire chapter on domestic homicide from the Crime Classification Manual.

Even in this case, possibly?

Was it one of BTK's where a picture of the victim was taken and led everyone down the wrong path because it wasn't his type of trophy? Turned out he took a trophy, which they missed, and took the picture because he wanted the frame for a picture of his dog or something?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:11 pm

I do think serial killers are different, though. The Yorkshire Ripper, for example, changed his M.O. several times. I post on both Jack the Ripper sites, where the changing methods of other serial killers are discussed as well, even when they kill indoors. Domestic murder is very different.

taosjohn · Post by **taosjohn** » Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:19 pm

Curryong wrote:I do think serial killers are different, though. The Yorkshire Ripper, for example, changed his M.O. several times. I post on both Jack the Ripper sites, where the changing methods of other serial killers are discussed as well, even when they kill indoors. Domestic murder is very different.

Sure; but the point is the same-- something that seems very characteristic, may actually mean something else entirely. They are indicators, not sacraments.

The logic involved is inductive, not deductive.