The bleedin' hatchet

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Mon Feb 03, 2014 11:16 pm

oh damn. i just saw something on this and now i can't remember where to link to it here. in any event, yes, both doctors saw the gilt.

well, this will do, and probably the bit about both doctors seeing it is earlier in the thread:

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

that's from harry, post, #46

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive70 ... atchet.htm

p.s. i love that harry used the same pun for the thread title that mara used!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:08 am

What a great find! Thank you, Catbooks! So, what are we to make of this? Did the killer go to town with an ordinary hatchet, which apparently WERE ornamented with a gilt stripe. Or was it a decorative, if sharp, hatchet which Lizzie picked up (probably quite literally) from some gift shop. It doesn't really matter now, does it as we now know that ALL new hatchets (those manufactured in the U.S., anyway) were given a gilt decoration.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:34 am

i think an ordinary hatchet, and right now i'm leaning strongly toward it being the hatchet (barely used, with gilt still on it) found on the neighbor's barn's roof, which was right behind and to the right of the borden's house.

as you said in the other thread, it would explain the woman hyram saw walking from the back yard area to the front of the house, as well as why the police never found it. it was august, the pear trees were in leaf and would have covered the roof, so it wouldn't have been visible. the police didn't search the barn roof.

she could have gone to the back fence, stood on the wood pile, and flung it onto the barn roof.

it was found just as or after the prosecution ended their case. seems reasonable anyway they'd feel foolish about introducing yet another 'maybe *this* is the real murder weapon' hatchet into evidence.

i'm having a heck of a time, though, locating any photos of the barn. i want to see how hard it would be to throw a hatchet up there.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:23 am

Yes, there are descriptions of the various buildings on the Crowe property on that site you so helpfully found but no drawings posted. I will have a look as well.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:17 am

I hunted down the actual article

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:25 am

Thank you very much PossumPie. What do you make of this hatchet, discovered so late in the scene?

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:28 am

Perhaps all of my vehement defending of the fact that the cops could miss a hatchet hidden in the house was for naught. The cops missed a hatchet hidden right in the next yard. Blows my mind how they didn't take the time to check roofs in at least the adjoining property. Reminds me of a CSI episode where they found a gun used in a murder in a tree next door to the murder scene a year later...

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:53 am

Yes, of course it could have landed there after Lizzie was arrested, or it could of course have been the carpenter's, who apparently claimed it.This case is like a maze and the threads just go round and round. If it was a Lizzie deposit then she must have been a champion athlete with an extremely strong arm!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:51 am

Curryong wrote:Yes, of course it could have landed there after Lizzie was arrested, or it could of course have been the carpenter's, who apparently claimed it.This case is like a maze and the threads just go round and round. If it was a Lizzie deposit then she must have been a champion athlete with an extremely strong arm!

Even a Victorian woman can heave a hatchet quite a distance to a flat roof. That doesn't impress me. I read and re-read the article...Where did you see that a carpenter claimed it? Of course it could all be yet another wild goose chase, but it is titillating to think about.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:30 am

Catbooks provided a link in the post at the top of this page to a very early (2003) thread in which the posters touch on the gilt, discuss what they think about the finding of this particular hatchet and also about a carpenter who claimed it was his although apparently no-one had been on the roof of the Crowe barn for about two years!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:42 am

yes, thank you, possumpie!

there were four (possibly more) newspaper articles about the finding of the hatchet, but i think that's the best one.

i don't buy the carpenter who claimed it was his. as curryong says, john crowe said no one had been up there for two years. so how did this guy's hatchet just happen to get up on the roof of the barn? crowe didn't hire him. did he just fling it up there, not bother to go up and get it, even though by all accounts it was easy enough to climb up there, and then bother to claim it after it was found? if he truly had lost a hatchet (yet somehow didn't know where, and somehow it flew up onto the barn roof), he'd have long gotten another. why even bother claiming one that had been out in the elements all that time?

okay, maybe to come forth because of the trial, but that still doesn't explain how and why it got up there.

no matter how you look at it, the police missed a hatchet up on that barn roof, a hatchet that just happened to be just a few feet away from the borden's back yard. a new one, that still had some gilt on it.

still having trouble finding photos or drawings that clearly show that area. from what i'm understanding, directly behind the borden's fence was a pear orchard belonging to dr. chagnon, to the left dr. chagnon's house. to the right was john crowe's barn, the north wall of it forming basically a fence between the orchard and the kelley lot. the barn was on the kelley lot.

i found a cardboard scale model someone posted that sort of shows it:

viewtopic.php?p=66845#p66845

i downloaded the photo and am going to attach it here.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:53 pm

just found this:

"The next yard contains a barn, and is occupied by John Crowe, a mason and builder. On the day in
question John Denny, a stone cutter, employed by Mr. Crowe, was working in there all day. He is
positive no one went through the yard. There were other men drawing stone to the yard all day, and they saw
nothing of any suspicious character." - P. Harrington, Witness Tesitimony

not terribly helpful, but if someone were out there cutting stones, i'm assuming there would be a fair amount of noise involved, which lizzie would also have heard. which would have covered the sound of a hatchet falling on top of the barn. no one would have seen her from the street. even bridget up in her room couldn't have seen her even if she weren't lying on her bed, because of the tree foliage. she may have been visible to someone in the kelly household, not sure about that.

also found this, posted by kat:

When Harry and I spent some time examining Borden case photographs held at the FRHS one visit, we saw there is a view of Third street of Crowe's Yard, and the Kelly house back yard behind it. You can see all the stuff lying around, and can even see the Kelly wash on the laundry line to the rear!
You will see for yourself what that piece of property looked like.

It's probable that would be in their upcoming book Parallel Lives. I don't know anything about the book but I do figure case views so far unpublished would likely be included.

that photo sounds like it's just what i'm looking for! has anyone seen it, or does anyone have it? unfortunately i don't have parallel lives to see if it's in there.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:29 pm

from harry:

There are several entries in Rebello (page 105+):

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

And

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

"The owner of the Potter-Borden hatchet has in all probability been found. Carl McDonnell, a carpenter employed by William Smith of Second Street, did some work for Dr. Chagnon about the time of the murder or a little later and lost a hatchet of a description similar to this one.
There are so many hatchets of a similar make that it is almost impossible to identify anyone in particular unless marked for that purpose. The axe undoubtedly belongs to McDonnell."

William R. Smith's shop was at 48 Second St.

if the carpenter were working for dr. chagnon, how and why would his hatchet get on top of crowe's barn?

i wonder if dr. chagnon was ever questioned to pinpoint the time he hired the carpenter. it says around the time of the murder or a little later.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:37 pm

Thank you Catbooks, for all your hard work! I, too, tried everywhere to try to get a photo or drawing or diagram or something, of Crowe's Yard. Very elusive! From what I gathered the Fall River Historical Society have photos, drawings of many of the sites of interest including Crowe's Yard, for sale! Also, apparently there is a drawing of the Yard in the book 'Parallel Lives'. Am going to buy the book but haven't yet! I don't believe Possum has a copy either. Maybe FactFinder? Very frustrating!
Yes, I agree about the hatchet. I don't know about McDonnell's motivations. Maybe he just wanted to have something connected with a famous case. Some people are like that. As you say, what would a carpenter be doing up on that roof? A labourer maybe, but not a carpenter.
The silence from the police, apart from being embarrassed as heck and 'baffled' was deafening. If this is indicative of the searching they did around the Borden place then no wonder Lizzie appeared as cool as a cucumber about it. Of course the trial couldn't have come at a better time for the defence. If the hatchet, (which of course has disappeared, typical of the frustrations of this case,) had been found in 1892, the result could have been very different. It might not be 'the one' but its location and circumstances of its discovery are very strange and I think it is a candidate, at least.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:08 pm

Rebello page 105:

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

"The owner of the Potter- Borden hatchet has in all probability been found. Carl McDonnell, a carpenter employed by William Smith of Second Street, did some work for Dr. Chagnon about the time of the murder or a little later and lost a hatchet of a description similar to this one.

There are so many hatchets of similar make that it is almost impossible to identify any one in particular unless marked for that purpose. The axe undoubtedly belongs to McDonnell. "

Also from Rebello on page 47 a diagram of where the hatchet was found in Crowe's yard.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:23 pm

Page 46.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:32 pm

Page 569:

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:38 pm

Thank you so much, FactFinder, as usual you have come up with the goods! Memo to self to buy 'Lizzie Borden Past and Present' and 'Parallel Lives' immediately!
If there are so many similar hatchets about, how come the Fall River Daily Herald is so sure that McDonnell is the owner of that particular one? Because it's convenient for them to believe that? Mustn't disrupt the court proceedings. I'm not saying that this hatchet was 'the one' but surely its appearance on the roof of the barn could have been investigated a bit more.
From the line drawing a strong throw from the top of the Borden wood-pile could have done it. I believe there was barbed wire on the Borden back fence to deter pear thieves (pear thieves! If only Andrew had known!) however, if Lizzie had leaned to the side while throwing it would have taken some manoeuvring and a whole lot of luck with noise etc but I believe she could have done it and reached the flat roof.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:34 pm

factfinder to the rescue!! thank you so much for posting those images. it was driving me up a wall being unable to find anything but that scale model. curryong, i found that page where the frhs had a photo of crowe's yard for sale and it was sooo frustrating to not be able to see it! i'd still love to see it.

the roof of crowe's main barn has a less steep pitch in the drawing in robello than in the scale model. (much more detailed though.) i wonder which is more accurate. this also shows the back fences, which is very helpful. i didn't realize the borden's back fence extends beyond the back fence of the kelly's property and onto crowe's, so those buildings are even closer than i'd thought.

that map of the area is great! not just for this issue, but it makes the whole area so much clearer to me. particularly just how close smith's drug store was. impossible that lizzie could have lived there for so many years and not know it was there.

yes, it's possible the carpenter just wanted something from the trial, which was making such big news. i can see a carpenter being up on a roof to make repairs, but he wasn't making repairs on that roof! or any roof, as far as we know. i agree, if the hatchet found was one that was so common, how did anyone have any way of knowing it was his? how would he know it was his, except he was working in that general area at the time?

judging by that drawing, looks to me like lizzie could have simply gone to the back fence and easily tossed it onto either the small flat roofed shed, or the next larger one. maybe even the large barn. also looks unlikely anyone from the kelly's would have seen her from inside the house, only if they were out in the yard.

but unless the pear tree had a lot of foliage to cover her (any photos of that back corner of the borden's, with the pear tree??), she'd have risked someone walking past on 2nd street and seeing her throw it.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:55 am

If you are to believe the kids who found it, it was on the FLAT part of the roof, the part closest to the Borden yard. From the upper windows of the Borden home, police may have mistaken it for a small piece of tree branch.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:31 pm

that's the thing, it's contradictory. the article says the front barn *and* flat-roofed. it can't be both. as the front barn (as well as the middle one) has a simple pitched roof, i can't see how a ball would do anything except roll back down one side or the other, so the flat-roofed building would be the logical one.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:34 pm

i just thought to google the date of the newspaper articles and the trial.

the boy found the hatchet the evening of 6/14/83, the newspapers reported it next day, 6/15/83. by 10:30 a.m. on 6/15/83 the prosecution rested its case, with the prussic acid testimony having just been excluded. the defense opened its case that same day.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... ews10.html

i thought this part of the article particularly interesting:

The Commonwealth Rested.

Rested?

Yes, rested, without connecting the prisoner with ax, hatchet, blood, or anything whatever, save an unmotived opportunity to kill her stepmother, with whom, according to the evidence or the prosecution she had no quarrel or disagreement discernable to the quick eyes of Bridget Sullivan, during her service of nearly three years, and also of brutally assassinating- her father, with whom she had ever been on terms of affectionate intimacy.

so at that point, with the prosecution's case over, this reporter clearly thought they'd failed to make their case against lizzie.

back to the crowe barn hatchet article:

About 7 o'clock last evening a number of boys were engaged in playing ball on Third street, in front of John Crowe's barn, which is nearly in the rear of the Borden estate, the north side of the barn serving as a fence between Dr. Chagnon's orchard, which is directly in the rear of the Borden house, and the Kelly lot, on which the barn stands.

The barn is a flat roof structure about 18 feet high. In the rear is an ell, the full width of the main building, but not more than 12 feet high. Still extending to the west and toward the Borden estate is a narrow flat roofed ell, about nine feet high. A six-foot fence runs diagonally and southeasterly from the north line of the first ell to the second ell, so that it is very easy to scale the roof.

During the game of the boys, the ball was knocked, or thrown, upon the roof of the main barn, and Master Arthur Potter, 14 years old, son of Caleb C. Potter, of the water works office, scaled the building in quest of it.

Near the northwest corner of the main building---about six feet from the west and four feet from the north line of the structure---on the northeast corner of the roof, he found a hatchet of ordinary size, lying with the head toward the southeast, the handle towards the northwest corner.

it's poorly written and unclear. but i think what happened is the boys were playing ball on third street in front of the crowe barn when the ball was thrown or hit on top of the main barn. not that it landed and stayed there (obviously it couldn't), but rolled west along the top of the roof towards the borden's, and disappeared from the boy's view.

he then went to go find it, going to the back of crowe's yard, where he climbed the 6' fence dividing the kelly and crowe property, up onto the 9' flat-roofed shed. what's unclear is on which structure he found the hatchet.

he'd have been standing on the 9' tall building, looking for the ball. doesn't say if he found it or not. obviously it wouldn't be on the roofs of the main barn or the structure next to it, because they both had pitched roofs. so, no point in even looking for them there, if he hadn't found the ball on the flat-roofed shed.

he could have easily seen anything on the roof of the 2nd structure, right next to him, as it was only 12 feet high. but the main barn was 18 feet high, a full 9 feet higher than the one he was standing on.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:35 pm

When he found it Master Arthur must have been extremely excited. Virtually the whole of Fall River were probably talking about Lizzie's trial, then in progress, discussing how it was all going and whether she would be acquitted, and now here is another hatchet. (Apart from the rather pathetic axe-head the police had put forward as the murder weapon, of course.) A whole one this time and one that had obviously been out in the elements for some time. Wonder what ball game they were playing? Probably baseball I suppose, as soccer would have been virtually unknown in the U.S. at this time.
Of course. this hatchet was never introduced as evidence, played no part in Lizzie's trial and unfortunately disappeared shortly after it was found. (It probably went (back ?) into McDonnell's possession.
Nevertheless, it's strange how things work sometimes. There was a famous 1980 case in Australia, the Azaria Chamberlain case, in which baby Azaria was taken by dingoes to their lair, but Azaria's mother, Lindy, was convicted, (on some very spurious evidence) of her murder. It was only in 1986, after Lindy had spent more than three years in jail, that a vital piece of evidence turned up.
A German tourist unfortunately committed suicide leaping from the top of Uluru, a huge sandstone rock formation (and popular tourist attraction) in the middle of the desert near to the camping site where the baby was last seen. As a result of the tragic suicide a search was made near the area where his body had landed and a very weathered and torn baby's jacket was found. As a result of that find Lindy was released. Getting right off topic from Lizzie and the hatchet here, sorry, but fate works in some mysterious ways sometimes.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:24 am

If there's a kernel of truth in the story that Lizzie supposedly told Ruby Cameron shortly before Lizzie's death then the boyfriend purchased the hatchet and either entered the house that morning or secreted himself in Lizzie's room when she came home late the night before (Emma was gone and Morse wouldn't have ventured there) lying in wait for Andrew in the morning. Maybe he surprised Abby which caused her to flee around the bed and attempt to crawl under, or maybe she was first on the morning's agenda. Either way, this explains how the hatchet got in and out and the lack of blood splatter on Lizzie. If the abortion of their child were part of the true story then the overkill is entirely understandable. So is Lizzie's guilt. Like all children she was ambivalent about Andrew: she both loved and hated him. On that morning her hate was fueled by rage. By her death, her guilt was fueled by love and she was, at her request, buried at his feet.

DebbieDiablo

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? — SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE, The Sign of Four

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:56 am

Welcome Debbiediablo, to our lovely Forum. I too am a newbie. I hope you enjoy yourself here. What do you yourself think of the Dave Anthony story?

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:45 am

Welcome Debbidiablo. I am always happy to see new people posting. I have two problems with a person secreting themselves in Lizzie's room. The first one is that when she came in that night everyone was in the sitting room. Which looks directly out into the front hall at the front door. There were no lamps in the sitting room, but there is testimony that there was a light in the front hall. John Morse might not have seen who came in that night (Lizzie), but Andrew and Abby might have. Too bad they aren't around to ask. My other problem with that is that John Morse slept with his door open all night. So it would have been risky to go down later and let anyone in.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:06 am

Hi everyone. It's fun and interesting to be here. Regarding Dave Anthony, my guess is that if there's some truth then there's also some embellishment. Dave with hatchet in hand clears up several huge problems with Lizzie's guilt: 1) the source of a new hatchet 2) how it got in and out of the house 3) lack of blood splatter on Lizzie. What makes it less believable for me is that he seems to have escaped public notice as having serious connection with Lizzie at the time of the murder although there certainly could be one of which I am unaware. Or they could have been sly given the age difference and Andrew's disapproval. As for the probability of sneaking in either the previous night or sometime the following morning, it's no less probable than Lizzie killing both Abby and Andrew with an unknown never-found weapon and totally avoiding the blood splatter. Whoever did it was enraged at Andrew; destruction of the face is a very personal crime.

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:34 am

What makes the intruder theory, or conspirator if you so call it, less probably for me than Lizzie doing the deed is that Lizzie didn't have to sneak around and hide. She had every right to be there and move about as she pleased. Not so for an outside killer. Lizzie coming in the door the night before after visiting Alice would be natural. An outsider walking in the door with the inmates of the house sitting right there in the sitting room not so natural.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:22 pm

curryong, i've heard of the chamberlain case, but didn't know the details of it. it is strange how things work out sometimes. imagine, if that german tourist hadn't decided to commit suicide, and right on that spot, the woman would still be incarcerated.

i would think the boy would have been *very* excited about finding that hatchet! i wish we had access to the police's notes about it - witness statement from the boy and so on. and also the hatchet itself. it probably exists still, somewhere. still in possession of the mcdonnell family?

welcome, debbie! i too am a newb here.

i've thought of the possibility of ruby cameron's story being true, or partially true. from all accounts she was quite lucid and not given to telling tall tales, so at the least i believe lizzie probably did tell her that. but, was it true? does seem odd lizzie would keep quiet all of those years, and then choose to tell this to a nurse she had only known for a week or so. plus, no other compelling evidence to back the story up.

i'd wondered if her laugh on the upstairs landing while bridget was letting andrew in the front door was about her laughing as a result of what someone upstairs with her did or said. if she did have someone else helping her, or even doing the murders themselves, it would have to be someone she was intimate with, trusted (literally) with her life, and vice versa.

but the problem with this - or any outsider - is how would the intruder have escaped the house unseen by anyone? with a hatchet.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:18 pm

although i'm going against my own current and pervasive theory that lizzie did it, one thing i have wondered about is how it is lizzie would have been so adept with a hatchet as to not miss her targets even once, as far as we know.

i've never read anywhere that the combined 29 or more blows dealt fell anywhere except on abby and andrew, and only one of abby's was elsewhere than on her head, which was the target. so she was capable of aiming at and striking perfectly, for 29 blows.

i've stood up and brought down an imaginary hatchet 11 times onto an imaginary victim. holy cats, without even having anything in my hands, by 8 or so, i'm tiring. a hatchet weighs what, 3-4 pounds?

granted, i have no fear/hate adrenalin going, no desire for anyone to be dead, as lizzie or the killer obviously did. still, to deliver all of those blows on abby, then an hour and a half 11 more on andrew, all delivered pretty precisely, that takes some skill and physical strength, in addition to the fear, hate, and adrenalin.

if lizzie were a farm girl, or even did any physical activities on a regular basis, such as bridget, it would make more sense. but she wasn't and didn't.

not to say it's impossible for lizzie to have done this, it just puts doubt in my mind and seems to point to a male killer.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:50 pm

Lizzie did practise at a town gym, presumably with weights and clubs. We discussed it in another thread in January and PossumPie raked up testimony from detectives that Lizzie had 'boasted of her strength', so it was gossip in the town.

Unfortunately, as we know, examination and reporting of crime scenes in 1892 wasn't anything like as rigorous as it is today. The investigators/ doctors don't seem to have put anything in their reports about 'false strokes' chipping a bit off the sofa or slashing a bed cover, for instance, but it may have been because they were more interested in recording blood splatter and the state of the bodies. I think there is some testimony about a couple of tentative strokes or something like that in the evidence about the wounds on Abby and that's it.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:03 pm

About Lizzie and her possible strength. It's discussed in two early threads, 'Lizzie working Out' and 'What did Lizzie do in her spare time' as well as this January, 'Lots of Questions'. An Advanced Search should bring them up.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:28 pm

oh that's right, i remember reading about her going to the town gym. not the part about her boasting about her strength though.

well, that does complicate things. thanks for bringing it up!

i would think even back then there being mis-strikes would have been mentioned - either by the prosecution or the defense - if there were any. they removed bits of the door frame and entered it into evidence, and recorded the blood splatter. they were smart enough back then, just didn't have the technology we have for a csi type of investigation. the hatchet sinking into the floor or bedspread, or the couch, those things would have been obvious and worth noting.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:44 pm

Maybe Lizzie practised by smashing coconuts with her Indian clubs out in the barn. If anybody had said anything she could have just said she was doing rhythmical exercise like gym-work!

FactFinder · Post by **FactFinder** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:53 am

If Lizzie had really been working out a gym, it would have been easy enough for the police to get the information. Instead of passing on town gossip they would have just gone to said gym and inquired about it. Or the prosecution could have done that. It would have underlined the fact that this dainty little Sunday school teacher was stronger than they thought. Since nothing of this sort was ever brought up in public record I am more inclined to pass it off as just that...gossip.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:53 pm

Yes, the gym was probably gossip, as the police didn't follow it up. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, if the killer was Lizzie, the fact that there don't appear to have been 'wild' strokes, clipping nearby furniture etc, and few if any tentative strokes among the 29 struck, does show some muscle power.
Even though she was undoubtedly fuelled by adrenalin, hatred etc, what she presumably did was some feat! Then, after Andrew's eleven strokes, (no rest for the wicked, literally in this case) she had to quickly clean herself up, dispose of the weapon somehow, fold Andrew's coat up under the body perhaps, check herself over to make sure of no blood on face, hair, hands etc and then call Bridget. I know she probably had ample time to do all that, but, golly, it makes me feel exhausted even thinking about it!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:06 pm

I've used a hatchet for fireplace kindling and taking out voluntary trees in my yard for over 40 years, and it doesn't take exceptional strength. What we see in videos – Lizzie raising the hatchet high over head with a two-handed grip – is so not how it's really done. Hatchets are not always two-handed instruments like an ax. One-handed action is primarily with the elbow followed by the shoulder, and missing a stationary target the size of a head from less than three feet is unlikely. Plus women of that era had experience with kindling. If there were several errant wounds on Abby the more probable reason might be that these were initial blows while she was still attempting to escape. I see the killer balancing on Abby's shoulder with left hand and swinging the hatchet from shoulder height with the right. Chop! Chop! Chop! Two or three strokes will dispatch kindling or saplings, but the killer might not have been able to tell when Abby was dispatched from that position. That said, I've never been totally enraged at the kindling!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:58 pm

Yes, I'm sure you're right about the action, from behind and straddling, perhaps , in the latter stages. I thought the family had a man come from Swansea to cut wood, do odd-jobs. I can't imagine Miss Lazybones chopping kindling. She did hardly anything around the house if she could help it.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:39 pm

Cutting wood and preparing kindling are not the same, but I'm sure you're correct that most of this was done by hired help. I'm old enough to remember as a small child my mother cooking with a wood stove. No matter how well prepared, kindling sometimes needs a little more chopping depending on the condition of the fire versus what's cooking or baking. Lizzie may not have used a hatchet on a regular basis, but I doubt the experience was totally foreign to her. Nor did I get the impression that Lizzie, Emma or Abby were lazybones in comparison to other women with a live-in maid. The girls took care of their own rooms. Abby took care of the master suite. And she was killed neatening the guest room. Bridget did the heavy work, but even so, she liked her job because the work load was lighter than it might have been.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:02 pm

Oh, I don't think Abby, who did the marketing and housekeeping was lazy, Emma did most of the other light stuff, but I don't think Lizzie did very much. Bridget did like it at the Bordens and she wasn't overworked. There wouldn't have been too many maids in those days who didn't have any tasks at all in the bedrooms of the houses they were employed at.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:08 pm

good point about bridget not having to do a thing when it came to emma and lizzie's bedrooms. that's undoubtedly what was meant when it's been said bridget's work at the borden's was light.

yes, next to bridget, abby was the next in line of household workhorses.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:26 pm

I've read contradictory viewpoints about Abby's social isolation – that she was shy, isolated and hardly ever ventured beyond the house to she went out everyday to do the marketing. We know she was close to her sister. It's nothing to do with the murders but I'm curious as to the truth about her.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:06 am

i don't see those viewpoints as being contradictory, rather that she was all of those things, and was also in charge of going to the market for the family's needs.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:28 am

i just found this post:

Re: Do I think Lizzies guilty?
Postby RichardX » Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:01 am

I seem to recall reading in the "Knowlton Papers" about a "glint" like material being found in Andrew's wounds. The prosecution apparently never revealed this at trial because it was evidence that the murder weapon was a new or unused hatchet and not the broken one that they offered as the potential murder weapon. If the murder weapon was new and not something found lying around the house or barn, it might be some evidence of planning on Lizzie's part. For example Lizzie might have stolen it from a local store for that purpose. If so, it's likely she would have given some thought to the means of disposal beforehand. […]

it makes sense that the prosecution didn't want to introduce into evidence the gilt found in the skull (i believe it was only in abby's skull, not in andrew's), as they had no hatchet new enough to have any traces of gilt on it, and had already entered the handleless hatchet into evidence as the murder weapon.

i'm not even sure why they did that, because the blood and hair found on it had already been identified as belonging to an animal, or cow. unless they thought they had to have the murder weapon to get a conviction. there is that mysterious fresh break from the handle being removed, so perhaps they were banking on that looking suspicious enough to the jurors.

in any event, i think for these reasons, and the fact that the crowe hatchet was discovered the day the prosecution rested is why it was never properly followed up on, or introduced into evidence.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:26 pm

In Sullivan's 'Goodbye Lizzie Borden' Page 127, Professor Wood, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard, had this to say about the interesting broken- off hatchet head.

'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.'

So, good one, killer, no way (in those days) of properly examining the hatchet head's surface! However, IF this is THE weapon though, (and I'm still an advocate for the Crowe barn one) how DID Lizzie separate handle and head successfully, (presumably in the vice in the barn,) in the time she had, as well as do everything else? Yes, I know a lot can be done in ten to fifteen minutes, but still...?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:07 pm

Curryong wrote:In Sullivan's 'Goodbye Lizzie Borden' Page 127, Professor Wood, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard, had this to say about the interesting broken- off hatchet head.

'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.'

So, good one, killer, no way (in those days) of properly examining the hatchet head's surface! However, IF this is THE weapon though, (and I'm still an advocate for the Crowe barn one) how DID Lizzie separate handle and head successfully, (presumably in the vice in the barn,) in the time she had, as well as do everything else? Yes, I know a lot can be done in ten to fifteen minutes, but still...?

thank you! i don't believe i've ever read prof. wood's testimony before.

so it was uniformly rusted on both sides. there wouldn't have been enough time for it to rust, between the murders and it being discovered and analyzed, so either it was used for the murders while rusted (doubtful; no remnants of oxidation or rust was mentioned), or it simply wasn't the murder weapon.

if the hatchet head was tightly packed with the ashes, that indicates it was rubbed with them. but why? forget for a moment the murders, still, why would anyone do that?

right, if lizzie did it, alone, how would she have separated the head from its handle? hatchets were made to be very durable, and the head to *not* come apart from its handle. if there were an odd flaw in the manufacturing, that could account for it but would also be an anomaly - not something lizzie could depend upon to hide her evidence. she'd have had to have used a vice or something similar to separate the two (in the barn, perhaps) and even still it wouldn't have been easy, unless there were some manufacturer's flaw, which she couldn't count on.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:09 pm

Maybe the killer had seen someone doing something of that kind before, ie wetting the axe then forcibly rubbing ashes onto it. Perhaps somebody had done it as an innocent trick years before, and it was remembered.
I'm sure the hatchet head and handle was separated by using the vice in the barn but it would have taken some minutes, as well as the risk of nosey neighbours seeing her clutching something and going into the barn so close to the time her father was murdered. I know nobody did but she didn't know that.

Just had a quick thought. Do you think that Lizzie (and this would be Lizzie, not an intruder, for obvious reasons) could have been so cunning or planned things so minutely that the hatchet-head was placed in the cellar as a red herring? She gets hold of this old hatchet with rust on it, thinks 'Rust, red, they might think blood', splits the hatchet the day before when everyone was nursing their stomach afflictions, and treats the hatchet-head to a nice thick crumbing with ashes. In the meantime, the real weapon is concealed elsewhere. Or is that too complicated?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:55 pm

Here's an interesting piece of ash trivia:

Wood ashes can be used to polish metal. Cigarette ashes can be used to polish silver.

from http://permaculturenews.org/2012/04/21/ ... -wood-ash/

Polish, abrasive cleaner:

Dry ash can be used to remove embedded dirt, for instance the glass inside a stove’s door, or a frying pan.

After preparing wood ash lye water (see below) the solid humid residues make a perfect polishing agent. If careful sieving was done before preparing the lye water, you won’t need to fear damaging or scratching metal surfaces. As you start to clean you will think you’re only making everything dirtier, but you’ll get surprising results after rinsing the ash off.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:12 am

Goodness, debbie, that's interesting. So perhaps we are all (as did the police at the time) regarding this poor old hatchet head with suspicion when all that was happening was ( before the handle was broken off) Andrew's handyman preparing it for a good clean, presumably to remove the rust! Why didn't Prof Wood or any of his cronies at Harvard know this? Typical academics!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:41 am

funny how our minds went in different directions. mine went to 'so someone wanted to thoroughly clean that hatchet, hmm, can't imagine why ;)'

except they didn't clean it thoroughly, because the cow blood and hair was still on it, but no human blood or hair.