Hatchet vs Blood Spatter

[swinell]

Hi there!

I'm staying overnight in the John Morse (Murder) Room this evening and, as such, I've been doing some digging on the case and one thing that I can't quite get over is that, based on the photographs, the blood spatter is totally inconsistent with what a hatchet attack would look like.

Now, we know the photographs were staged (taken around 3:30pm on the day, with the last murder taking place between 10:30-11am). We know that, for example, they put Andrew Borden's boots back on him so as to not photograph him "indecently", and they placed a sheet over Abby Borden's skirt for the same reasons. But one thing that could not have been changed for the photographs is the wallpaper - on which no blood spatter can been seen. Sorry to be graphic here, but if it was, as is often stated, a hatchet (not the handle-less one presented at trial, which Dr. Wood ruled out), that first blow would've been the most difficult. As the hatchet goes in and breaks bone, the bones are tightly pressed up against the blade - that's a lot of pressure - such that when the hatchet was pried out, blood would've spattered everywhere, it would've been on Lizzie, on her clothes, and, more importantly, all over the walls/wallpaper. That's not what the blood did. In Andrew's case, the blood went down, into the couch, off the leather, into the rug, and into the floorboards (the stain can still be seen).

Add to that the nature of the wounds. If it had been a hatchet, we would expect to see relatively neat, vertical wounds, consistent with the blade. While Dr. Wood attempted to show that the hatchet fit within the wounds (in the exhumed skulls no less) at trial, we also know that the wounds were large enough that any large blunt object could have caused similar wounds. Indeed, there's a kind of zig-zag wound in the middle of the back of Abby Borden's head (see the autopsy photograph), one that would not have been able to be made by a hatchet. Upon further investigation, the one object in the Borden household that would've been consistent with that zig-zag wound is the 20lbs cast-iron flat. Add that to the kind of blood spatter seen with Andrew and consider - if someone had taken that cast-iron flat and punched downward, the blood spatter that was seen at the scene would have been consistent. To boot, all that would have to be done to clean the flat would be to place it back on the stove, any traces of blood would've burned away within 10 minutes.

My tour guide at the Borden House also mentioned this theory, and there is a video on YouTube that was uploaded by user Ron Creek found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqV6kIdG2aI that shows the zig-zag wound in question and posits the same theory. That said, I've not found any historians who've written on the case mention this discrepancy in the presented weapon with the blood spatter. Wondering if anyone else has information that either confirms or throws a wrench into this theory!

[camgarsky4]

Swinell -- welcome to the forum!! I'm jealous you got to stay the night at the house.

I've read some analysis of the iron flats idea, but will need to go back and blow off the cob webs and get reacquainted with the idea. That would certainly answer many questions if the iron flats were the murder weapon. If you search this forum (archive version in particular) you will find threads on this topic. That is what I'll be doing over next couple days.

I definitely agree that the blood splatters indicate that the killer would NOT have been drenched in blood, so (in my opinion) the bloody clothes issue is much lessor puzzle than the missing murder weapon.

I had not read that they put Andrew's shoes back on. Where did you pick up that tidbit?

[Steve88778]

Skull bones are stitched together by fissures, that in time are less and less evident - nevertheless the skull is not one solid bone. In both murders the pictures of wall paper splatters would be pretty hard to see given that it was a pattern and photography might not have captured it. But it did on the door of the parlor - that can be seen for sure, on the day of the tragedy. And you see the same door later on and the splatters / spots were cleaned off and gone. So these were not old spots. The ladies of the house were pretty fussy about keeping the house clean. Testimony especially from Dr. Dolan and others prove that there were spots , arched arcs sprayes of blood , big and small spots alike most were countable on woodwork and paper. . Testimony given and pieces of metal were inserted in the wounds that tell the angle and depth of cut as well as the basic blade length. I am sorry I can't buy the theory that someone went in and bashed skulls in with a iron flat. It just reminds me of the Roadrunner cartoons. If that theory was floating around I wonder if anybody tried to smash a small melon with an iron - blood would have shot out of all sides in a horizontal spray. Not making wild patterns on the door and paper. Testimony was given that there were cuts in the bone that fit the idea of a sharp blade entering the head.
Plus I would like to see any iron flat - cleanly slice through an eyeball.

[swinell]

Admittedly, the tidbit about Andrew's boots was picked up on one of the so-called "historical tours" at the Borden House. While I can't find any documentation of this (or much documentation on how the evidence photo scenes were staged at all for that matter), it is in line with photography customs of the time to photograph only what one would present when outside their home - it would've been very indecent for someone to be photographed in their slippers/socks. Then again...they are photographing him with his head split open so...maybe should be treated as circumspect. That said, they did also place a sheet over Abby Borden to not show her skirt having bustled in a strange way, so it's not totally implausible.

Looking over the crime scene photos again and I'm not seeing any spatter (as one might expect) on the door or on the wall - even with the floral pattern being ornate, it's clearly clean repetitions of that pattern without any staining to my eyes. I see a dark-grey dot on the parlor door to the center-left, one on the dining room door on the upper right, and some grey spots along the painting above the couch - which could indicate more spatter than the camera could've captured. That said - no spatter on the wall in front of Abby Borden. There's specs of blood on the pillowcase and some on the bedding, but I would expect less of a pooling and more spraying.

Even with skulls being fissures that meld over time, that is a lot of pressure created with the bones pressing up against the blade, unless the blade coincidentally hit at one of the borders of Andrew's skull fissures...

Some of those flats have some sharp bottom edges, not too difficult to pierce through skin with. But then again I can't find any thorough documentation about Andrew's eye that was split in two ... if the murders were the savage crimes of passion we're meant to believe, why stop to carefully slice an eye? Would there be any symbolic significance to this maybe?

[camgarsky4]

I've been thinking that the Congress slip-on shoes are what Lizzie was referencing when she said she helped make her father comfortable and put on slippers. So I've always presumed they were on during the murders and that is why they made it into the photos.

That said, absolutely possible they were put on Andrew as part of the photo taking process.

Can't imagine either a iron flat nor a hatchet to be sharp & fine-tipped enough to slice an eyeball in half unless one side of the half was smooshed.
So I think that outcome was just an odd random result of the attack, regardless of the weapon of choice.

[camgarsky4]

Swinell -- I found a related thread....."Borden House and Excavations" that has some discussions around the irons as the weapon. I've cut and pasted one particular comment in the thread.

Post by Shelley » Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:52 pm
The problem with flat irons is that they are very heavy and unwieldy. They fall into the catagory of "blunt instrument" and could never have made those sharp cuts in the skulls of the Bordens. I have had a go many times at waving them around and they make an awful weapon.Holding them by the handle, they wobble, and are impossible to swing with any good aim before flopping heavily from side to side. If I were desperate and nothing else was at hand, I suspect the best way to use a flat iron would be to throw it at someone's head with force, and if they were not HOT, I would hold the iron by the triangular bottom, not the handle and chuck it with a fury at the head of my intended victim. A candlestick was also once in the running, and makes a better weapon, but does not deliver the sharp cut- a wedge was actually sliced right out of Abby's skull. That seems to call for a sharp blade attached to a significant handle

[swinell]

Hm...
There was one of four flat irons that had a handle that wobbled as described last night, the rest were quite sturdy, heavy yes, but unstable in that way no. Then again, we don't know if those were *the* flat irons (unlikely) or if they were close to them or if they were just flat irons from the period that would've been consistent with the area.

Interesting also however, is that the suggestion of the murders being done with a hot flat iron comes from a J. Van Elderen, M.D., in a letter written in Newport, R.I., to H. M. Knowlton on Aug. 11, 1892 (HK010):

"2. The crime is committed not with an ax as stated but with a hot ironing iron, in my opinion because this allone would prevent much blood to flow as heat closes the capilary blood vessels." (The Knowlton Papers 1892-1893, pg. 21)

Funnily enough, after the verdict comes in, Knowlton gets another similar letter, this time anonymous, from Cooley Hotel in Springfield, MA, and significantly more perturbed (HK337):

"Dear Sir,
You may remember that I wrote you from here several months ago suggesting the flat iron theory as a probable weapon in the Borden murders (if done by Lizzie). By an odd coincidence I am here again to hear the report of the verdict - 'Not Guilty'. for the reason that you could not make any connection of the hatchet or axe theory, either with Miss Lizzie or with the wounds. Miss Lizzie was inseparably connected with the flat irons by her own words or statement at different times, and by Bridget and Miss Alice Russell when asked on the stand 'What else did you see in the cupboard besides a part of the old dress.' answered 'flat irons'. Flat irons all but spoke to you in this case, but 'having ears you did not hear. and justice is buried with the old people. It only remained for you to connect the flat irons with the wounds to make Lizzie's conviction certain.
The Testimony of those Doctors - the nature of the wounds - the different dimensions of the cuts - the one-sided bevels - the breaking in of the skull - the number of blows, a small percentage of which went through - the triangular cut xc. xc. although this testimony was given by the medical men laboring under the delusion of the hatchet theory and trying to confirm it satisfies me that if the flat iron theory had been given due consideration the veil would have been lifted from the mystery.
Of course it is too late now although there is probably evidence of blood on a flat iron that chemist could find around the Borden House now, and untill it is established there is a danger of some body else being hung for these murders - some crank by confession or other person by force of circumstances to develop." (The Knowlton Papers 1892-1893, pg. 351-352)

Then again, we have no way of knowing for certain whether Van Elderen indeed wrote the second letter (except by handwriting analysis, itself quite a controversial field with respect to its veracity). And it's entirely unlikely that this Van Elderen ever got to examine the scene or the evidence outside of what was reported in the various newspapers....either way interesting to know this theory is as old as the murders themselves!

[Steve88778]

On the subject of Mr. Borden's eye being bisected. I found the following references in the official transcripts -Burts Volume II -pages 527,528,529,596,597,643,645 and 669.
I have attached a picture - you can see spots on the painting / doors - possibly on the camera but when you are photographing a crime scene you don't walk in with a dirty lens.

AndrewBorden.jpg

And this is just my thinking - why would Mr. Borden take off his shoes and still keep his legs / feet on the floor - he could have put them on the couch - he was tall but still. The guy did not want to ruin the sofa or dirty it up. My belief is that he died with his boots on.

On the topic of crushing blows with a hot iron - Dr. Dolan said that Mr. Borden's blood was not clotted and was oozing. Plus nobody talked about a singe or burn on the skin and facial / head hair. As well as the imprint of an iron on the head / face. But anyway that's my take on it. They did find - and I can not remember the source but I think it was Drs Draper and Dolan that found some type of metal stuff on Mrs Borden's skull. It is called (gilt? ? They say this deposit can only come from a new hatchet. But Mrs. Borden was killed first so Mr. Borden's skull would not have this trace of gilt on it.

I can't discount the examinations from the experts at trial today based on a letter from a doctor that I have never heard of and did not give testimony. Anyone can come up with any theory they want any murder weapon as well, just to fit a missing puzzle. Just because the Fall River police department was too lazy in their searches - until they found the magical flying hatchet on Crowes shed.

[swinell]

On the subject of Mr. Borden's legs - we know that the bodies had been moved by the point the photographs were taken, people had been in and out of the house, furniture had been moved, Drs had their fingers inside the wounds. General consensus seems to be that they placed the bodies back in a "it was sort of like this" fashion - best guesses - so on that front I don't see much of a discrepancy.

I'll have to look for the Draper/Dolan testimony or notes on their findings.

No need to discount the expert witnesses based on the letters - merely pointing out that the theory of flat irons had been posited long before by casual observers.

[Steve88778]

I guess there is a thread about hatchet gilt on this site -https://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive7 ... atchet.htm

[MaryM]

Swinell -- I found a related thread....."Borden House and Excavations" that has some discussions around the irons as the weapon. I've cut and pasted one particular comment in the thread.

Post by Shelley » Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:52 pm
The problem with flat irons is that they are very heavy and unwieldy. They fall into the catagory of "blunt instrument" and could never have made those sharp cuts in the skulls of the Bordens. I have had a go many times at waving them around and they make an awful weapon.Holding them by the handle, they wobble, and are impossible to swing with any good aim before flopping heavily from side to side. If I were desperate and nothing else was at hand, I suspect the best way to use a flat iron would be to throw it at someone's head with force, and if they were not HOT, I would hold the iron by the triangular bottom, not the handle and chuck it with a fury at the head of my intended victim. A candlestick was also once in the running, and makes a better weapon, but does not deliver the sharp cut- a wedge was actually sliced right out of Abby's skull. That seems to call for a sharp blade attached to a significant handle

Thank you for pointing that out, numerous people I’ve seen on videos including those, like Cara Robertson giving talks like the one she gave in DC repeatedly referred to their being struck with a blunt instrument and that didn’t make sense to me. I even double checked the definition of blunt instrument to make sure I was sure of it. Since this discussion referenced blood splatter, I wanted to ask for other’s opinions as this has come to my mind over this past week. I can understand blood stains being missed on some patterned surfaces, but when I’ve heard and read dismissals of no apparent blood on Lizzie Borden because she could have worn her father’s coat like a surgical gown and or washed her hands and face, no one mentions her hair, which would have been flecked with blood splatter and possibly related matter. No woman could quickly washed that out, dried and rearranged her hair so quickly. I asked a question of a neighbor of mine who told me of her raising chickens for eggs and the occasional cooking chicken about the slaughter and she told me that just slaughtering a few would make her smell of blood, and she would shower and shampoo afterwards. I simply cannot fathom a woman especially in that period being able to hatchet to death two people and present herself in an extremely short period of time immaculately clean and splatter free.

[camgarsky4]

What if she got some blood in her hair killing Abby, had over hour to spruce up, learned her lesson and covered her head with Andrew? My personal opinion is that there was very little splatter behind the two murderees and little to known got in her hair. But if that is wrong, the first thought might account for her having pristine hair. She had also ‘been up in a barn loft for 15-20 on a humid, summer day with no air circulation. Why didn’t she or her hair show any signs of sweating. How were her hands lily clean?

[Steve88778]

You hear of Lizzie coming from the barn - checking her iron flats then going in the dining room and laying down her hat , then going to find her father in the sitting room dead - was she wearing a hat in the barn ?

[swinell]

You hear of Lizzie coming from the barn - checking her iron flats then going in the dining room and laying down her hat , then going to find her father in the sitting room dead - was she wearing a hat in the barn ?

I'm not sure...Lubinsky mentions seeing a woman moving sluggishly from the barn to the back steps wearing something dark around the time Lizzie claimed to have been coming back from the barn, but he doesn't mention a hat...

[MaryM]

I'm not sure...Lubinsky mentions seeing a woman moving sluggishly from the barn to the back steps wearing something dark around the time Lizzie claimed to have been coming back from the barn, but he doesn't mention a hat...

Here is Lubinsky’s testimony and he said he didn’t see a hat. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... imony.html

[PossumPie]

I've mentioned many times on the forum, that from my medical perspective (4 years of BSN program and 4 years of doctorate nurse practitioner), there just weren't fountains of blood in an attack like this. Sharp head trauma produce a copious amount of oozing blood, but not the spurting-on-the-wall stuff you see in Horror Movies. A sharp object head wound would produce small droplets of blood in an arc up and over the head of the killer, but their dress, shirt, apron, or pants would NOT be covered in blood. This is not to say that there would be no blood, I find that unlikely.
To get the gross "Made for TV" spurts, a murderer has to hit an artery. Arteries have more pressure behind them, and spurt.
I posted a forensic picture a while back of a CSI in a pristine white cotton jumpsuit bashing a forensic head in with a blunt hammer. While there was a small amount of droplets on the shins, none was above the knees except a bit on the wrist of the swinging arm.

As for skull sutures, it IS true that the skull is made of many flatbones that stitch together as we get older, but by the time you are an adult, the sutures are as strong as if there were no sutures. I've held a human skull and it is solid. A blunt object creates a skull depression that may or may not tear the meninges underneath. Looking at the skulls of Mr. and Mrs. Borden, I can say from a medical perspective that they were created by multiple blows with an edged object. It would have caused minimal "splatter" but would have produced arches up the wall and ceiling from the swings of the sharp object.

[Steve88778]

While I agree that the cutting into the bone would not create showers of blood in the room, at first - the blood soaked blade of the hatchet is metal and blood will fly off especially when the blade is repeatedly plunged into an already bloody mess. I believe these cuts were made fast and without care, so my opinion is that a hatchet did cause blood to splatter all over that room and the upper body area of the killer. Which would include hair hands / arms.
I think it would have sprayed blood like a whip - similar to hacking away at a watermelon. Not a pretty sight.

[PossumPie]

I wish I could find the old forensic photograph that I had showing cast off and impact splatter from a cleaver. The "first hit is free" meaning there is no spatter after the first impact. After that, it depends on the weapon and body part. a sharp object into scalp, skull, meninges, and brain will create a blood trail, very narrow and linear from impact site to wall opposite the body, up the ceiling, and back upon the next swing. CSI tech students often get the ability to don a white cotton jumpsuit and "whack" at a forensic head. Afterwards, there is usually small high velocity splatter on the assailant's wrists and sometimes forearms, and depending on how quickly they strike, on their back as the instrument goes over their head. To look at them afterwards, there is very little blood on them. They usually use a hammer, but a knife/ax/hatchet would leave even less mess on the assailant. Take a CLOSE look at the famous crime scene photos of Mr. and of Mrs. Borden. I know many copies are grainy, but there are a few very large file photos online that you can blow up large to see detail. While you can see some blood spots on both photos, they are very CLEAN looking crime scenes for the carnage inflicted. It's just not like in the movies. The worst crime scenes I've seen for blood is shotgun to head suicides. Now there you have a mess. but even pistol shot to head leaves surprisingly little mess except the high velocity spatter around the exit wound.

I don't think Lizzie knew any of this at the time, but after attacking Ms. Borden, she may have seen that she was "relatively" clean. She could have washed her hands and wrists and remained in the same clothes until Mr. Borden was attacked. I like the conjecture that Lizzie took Mr. Borden's coat and put it on backwards before whacking him, then bunched it up and put it under his head. He just doesn't seem like the type of man to sleep on a bunched up coat. Either way, she was not dripping with blood. A police detective would have found blood on her dress if given enough time and a magnifying glass, so I believe she discarded that dress before they got there. The copious amount of blood at the Borden crime scene was almost exclusively from blood pooling perimortem/postmortem where there would have been a large blood pool under them from gravity after death.

Here is an computer generated spatter pattern from a crime scene from a forensic journal. Notice how very little blood ends up on the assailant.

McCleary, S., Liscio, E., Brabanter, K. D., & Attinger, D. (2021). Automated reconstruction of cast-off blood spatter patterns based on Euclidean geometry and statistical likelihood. Forensic Science International, 319, 110628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110628

[MaryM]

I rewatched the Smithsonian channel’s The Curious Life and Death of Lizzie Borden on YouTube as I remembered a retired Scotland Yard detective, Brian Hook talking about blood splatter . They had used mock-ups for bodies that gave the same or similar resistance as skin etc and spouted a liquid to simulate the attacks on Abby and Andrew’s bodies and he said there was a lot of splatter and the hooded protective wear he had on was heavily splattered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6VKFYdUrfg

[PossumPie]

I rewatched the Smithsonian channel’s The Curious Life and Death of Lizzie Borden on YouTube as I remembered a retired Scotland Yard detective, Brian Hook talking about blood splatter . They had used mock-ups for bodies that gave the same or similar resistance as skin etc and spouted a liquid to simulate the attacks on Abby and Andrew’s bodies and he said there was a lot of splatter and the hooded protective wear he had on was heavily splattered. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6VKFYdUrfg

Yes, the main problem with most of the "reconstructions" is that they take water, add red food color and decide they can recreate a cast off or blood splatter. As a nurse who has dealt with bleeding people for over 25 years, I can tell you that blood is more like tomato soup than red kool aid in terms of viscosity (thickness). I'm not trying to argue, but cast off blood spatter from a sharp instrument to the head will leave a tell-tale thin line of spatter on a wall that is not noticeable. As I've said, don't take my word for it, Google Andrew or Mrs. Borden death photo, set the setting for Large photo, look at the forensic pictures, and try to find blood drops. I will say to be careful with Andrew's forensic photo, the pattern of the wall paper has dots that look like spatter but a little investigating can see that they are repeating patterns in the wallpaper itself. Mostly the spatter is seen on the glass of the painting over the couch he is on. Anyway, there is NOT a slaughterhouse worth of blood in ANY photo of the crime scene. This is consistent with a sharp edged weapon attack.

[Steve88778]

[camgarsky4]

To the point made, the evidence is the actual blood splatter at both kill scenes. There just isn't very much beyond small droplets, likely sprayed by the murder weapon, anywhere, besides below the bodies where blood pooled. There is certainly no indication of a blood 'spout' that would put an abundance of blood on the killer.

I'm struggling to know what we are debating.....the evidence of minimal blood dispersal is visual in the photos and was well documented by the trial.

That said, that there was likely minimal blood on their outfit applies to all the potential killers. This is foundational not only to believe Lizzie committed the murders, but equally necessary to believe that anyone else killed Andrew. Anyone dripping blood would have been noticed leaving the house and Bridget would have the same challenges as Lizzie to get cleaned up so quickly.

[PossumPie]

Correct...the fantasy of a blood drenched, dripping killer trying to run down the street in broad daylight was one of the reasons Lizzie was suspected because of the incredulity of such a dripping killer not being seen. I believe Lizzie guilty, but I also must say that if someone killed them and escaped out into the street, they would not have stood out. The crime scene photos prove that there was not a "bloodbath" on the walls or furniture, therefore we can assume there was not a mess on the perpetrator's clothes. The wounds are consistent with a sharp weapon used from right-to-left as evidenced by the angle of bone slices. "Flat irons" don't figure anywhere in the forensic analysis because there is no fine edge sharp enough to do the damage to Mr. Borden's Zygomatic arch (Left cheek bone) and eyeball. There was so much opportunity for Lizzie to hide or get rid of the weapon as the police were inept at searching immediately and allowed the residents to be present. The whole ax head in the basement thing wasn't until a day after the murders...She had lots of time and opportunity to hide or destroy her clothes and do something with the hatchet.

[Beowulf]

The other night my husband had on Scarface which I never have seen and had it on only for about 15 minutes. The scene that was on was the scene where the guy cuts up a guy in an apartment using a chain saw.

Meanwhile I’m thinking oh how ridiculous. Cut up a guy in your own apartment, and what are you going to do with the body and it’s a little apartment and blood and crap would be all over the place and your name is on the apartment, but hey! it worked for Lizzie Borden...

Also, the guy in Scarface after using the chain saw had no blood on him at all. He must've spoke to Lizzie.

[MaryM]

The other night my husband had on Scarface which I never have seen and had it on only for about 15 minutes. The scene that was on was the scene where the guy cuts up a guy in an apartment using a chain saw.

Eww, my husband was a big Pacino fan, and I remember him watching that film, I was out of the room after not too long as it wasn’t looking to be something I would enjoy. Didn’t see that scene though. Can’t believe my husband who had trouble sleeping for a month after we saw The Shining, could have watched a scene like that and not have been grossed out by it.

[PossumPie]

Movies are entertaining...but again, real life killings' messes are usually much less dramatic. My brother-in law is a detective, my nephew is a police officer, my brother is a paramedic in a major city, my wife and I are both nurses. Blood, tissue, guts, etc. are part of all of our jobs. We've discussed the "grossest" crime scenes or trauma we have seen (usually high velocity gunshot spatter at close range), and we have seen stuff that we can NEVER get out of our minds. Arteries have a pressure of about 120mm mercury (think blood pressure 120/80). This will spurt across a room and leave a trail on a wall or ceiling. Arterial splatter has the most pressure from femoral artery (the crease at your groin, and the carotid artery in the neck. Cutting those can make you messy if you are in the way. Head trauma can leave very tiny dots of blood (high velocity spatter) on things, but they are nearly invisible unless you are really looking.
They theorize Jack the Ripper stood behind his victims and slit their carotid arteries...and probably had no blood on him which is why he could disappear into Whitechapel unnoticed.

[MaryM]

Movies are entertaining...but again, real life killings' messes are usually much less dramatic. My brother-in law is a detective, my nephew is a police officer, my brother is a paramedic in a major city, my wife and I are both nurses. Blood, tissue, guts, etc. are part of all of our jobs. We've discussed the "grossest" crime scenes or trauma we have seen (usually high velocity gunshot spatter at close range), and we have seen stuff that we can NEVER get out of our minds. Arteries have a pressure of about 120mm mercury (think blood pressure 120/80). This will spurt across a room and leave a trail on a wall or ceiling. Arterial splatter has the most pressure from femoral artery (the crease at your groin, and the carotid artery in the neck. Cutting those can make you messy if you are in the way. Head trauma can leave very tiny dots of blood (high velocity spatter) on things, but they are nearly invisible unless you are really looking.
They theorize Jack the Ripper stood behind his victims and slit their carotid arteries...and probably had no blood on him which is why he could disappear into Whitechapel unnoticed.

[shudder] I hadn’t thought of the fact an attack from behind might not get much if any spatter on the assailant. I have seen programs examine the ripper killings where they re-enact one of the killings as you mentioned, from behind and slashing the throat.

[PossumPie]

Movies are entertaining...but again, real life killings' messes are usually much less dramatic. My brother-in law is a detective, my nephew is a police officer, my brother is a paramedic in a major city, my wife and I are both nurses. Blood, tissue, guts, etc. are part of all of our jobs. We've discussed the "grossest" crime scenes or trauma we have seen (usually high velocity gunshot spatter at close range), and we have seen stuff that we can NEVER get out of our minds. Arteries have a pressure of about 120mm mercury (think blood pressure 120/80). This will spurt across a room and leave a trail on a wall or ceiling. Arterial splatter has the most pressure from femoral artery (the crease at your groin, and the carotid artery in the neck. Cutting those can make you messy if you are in the way. Head trauma can leave very tiny dots of blood (high velocity spatter) on things, but they are nearly invisible unless you are really looking.
They theorize Jack the Ripper stood behind his victims and slit their carotid arteries...and probably had no blood on him which is why he could disappear into Whitechapel unnoticed.

[shudder] I hadn’t thought of the fact an attack from behind might not get much if any spatter on the assailant. I have seen programs examine the ripper killings where they re-enact one of the killings as you mentioned, from behind and slashing the throat.

Yea, not to get "off topic" but the ripper killings were most likely done from behind during a sexual act. One smooth cut using a VERY sharp instrument would cut the carotids and the trachea (so no screams would be heard). The first hit from an ax/hatchet on the Bordens from behind would cause unconsciousness and stop a scream. Blood spatter would be front and outward with very little getting on the perpetrator.

[Beowulf]

JTR wounds were as follows:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ ... ounds.html

I worked as a nurse for about 20 years. Nothing bothered me and I did see a lot of horrific wounds. I once did a wound from the back, all open and you could actually see the heart beating from the back the wound was so deep, another nurse and I together did the wound care. Purulent drainage so wound clean up first, then packing with silvadene smeared on with a tongue depressor to tissues and onto some of the gauze dressings and then the final packing. We discussed what to eat for lunch that day as we did all this. Didn't bat an eye and later both discussed the fact we did that. We did not think of it at the time as 'cold' or odd. We had both seen so much.

Even though Lizzie during her murder spree didn't get sprayed or messy she must've seen the trauma as she did it, which to me is a lot for a person who was not seasoned into it as we were. That's cold. Murdering a person like that. I could not be immune to that sort of thing.

[Steve88778]

[PossumPie]

Beowulf, You bring up a great point. One of the main reasons Lizzie was acquitted was the fact that most people couldn't believe a woman capable of such a horrific act. Women were "the weaker sex" who swooned over everything. This lent Creedence to the idea that she couldn't possibly do it. Fast forward to the 21st century where women demand equal billing for everything, and we perhaps don't hold such Victorian ideas that she couldn't have done it. But what of the idea that most people couldn't have psychologically held themselves together? The viciousness of the attack, over-kill of both of them, and Lizzie's calmness afterward seem to point to an antisocial personality disorder if she indeed did do it. If, as she contended, she didn't kill them, she still had a very strong emotional disconnect. Immediately after the killings, it could be explained as shock-some people get hysterical, others shut down emotionally. But, weeks/months later she still was emotionally detached from the killings (except when she saw the skulls in court).

[Steve88778]

[Beowulf]

My point is that when we look at the photographs of the crime scene I think it's possible people forget that the end sight of those bodies is although horrific to look at they do not compare to the scene that preceded them in the act of the murders. The blood splashing is only a part of it. There would be the sounds, the motions, the personal interaction of a human being to another human being in the act of murder. A murder that took time to do.

The number of strikes completely unnecessary to accomplish murder. The need to continue with those strikes beyond one or two because the victim after the first strike would be in such a state of extreme injury it would result right then in near death or unconsciousness. At least certainly unable to defend oneself. Mrs. Borden was struck from the front, therefore saw her attacker. That attacker was not moved to a normal human reaction, pity, did not stop. Continued on for a hellish number of unnecessary violent strikes. During which time experienced what most of us do not imagine, the sounds, the visceral emotion as one does it, the sights of wounds suddenly opened, the feel of what is happening as the weapon strikes bone, the sounds the victim makes as they gasp, groan, scream, fall, pant, and the murders own sound of their weapon hitting the body over and over. Their own breathing, panting, gasping, perhaps letting out an unnatural sound or two, grunting, the sound of the head of the weapon making contact. These things don't happen soundlessly. The hottest day of the year and to do work on one of these days makes one hotter, sweat, usually make one want to stop and cool down. Get a drink of water? Patricia Krenwinkel, one of the Manson family murderers, complained of how badly her hand hurt from hitting bone with her knife repeatedly as she stabbed Abigail Folger. Surely this murderer felt something physical in their muscles, their hands after this very physical act. All lost to thought over time by us. But it did take place.

That murderer waited for the next opportunity to murder again, having time to consider the previous murder and possibly regret their actions, waited an hour and more. Without going into where did they wait for that amount of time, unseen, what would be their motive or how did Lizzie alone in the house be completely unaware and not be the victim an attack herself.

Did they not compare the hatchet size to the wounds vs using an axe? I think I've seen that before, that the head of the hatchet was more the fit of the size of the wounds in the skulls and if it was a hatchet the handle is shorter, the murderer would maybe find it easier to use if they were a woman, and it would place them closer and that distance wouldn't that make it even more of a personal space to experience all of this lost and forgotten moment.

Personally I wonder how many times Lizzie remembered it. Was it a savored memory or did she let go of it entirely?

[PossumPie]

Beowulf, I agree completely. The "personal fury" that the killer took was way beyond what was needed. It was (nearly) as furious an attack on Mr. as it was on Mrs.
I often wondered about sexual abuse by Mr. Borden (although Emma probably would have gotten the worst of that). Money may have caused Lizzie to kill, but with that furry? Unless years of pent-up frustration about living like lower middle class while the banks were full of dad's money could have finally caused her to snap. A stranger who had a beef with Mr. Borden may have chopped him multiple times out of fury, but in all likelihood wouldn't have even killed Mrs. Borden- or just a few whacks to make sure there were no witnesses.
All of my arguing and scientific discussions about not much blood on the killer is ONLY to disprove the dripping wet wild person who would have been spotted a mile away. The fury and gore of the act itself would have stuck in one's mind and come back in one's dreams. I am a nurse, but I also have a master's degree in psychology. I've seen true antisocial personality disorder people and they honestly feel no guilt, fear, remorse, or shame. They are the type of person who would kill an 80 year old grandmother for $5 in her wallet. If Lizzie was guilty, then she must have had antisocial personality disorder, or perhaps severe reactive attachment disorder.
"Reactive attachment disorder is a rare but serious condition in which an infant or young child doesn't establish healthy attachments with parents or caregivers. Reactive attachment disorder may develop if the child's basic needs for comfort, affection and nurturing aren't met and loving, caring, stable attachments with others are not established." (WebMD.com)

[Steve88778]

[MaryM]

If Lizzie was guilty, then she must have had antisocial personality disorder, or perhaps severe reactive attachment disorder.
"Reactive attachment disorder is a rare but serious condition in which an infant or young child doesn't establish healthy attachments with parents or caregivers. Reactive attachment disorder may develop if the child's basic needs for comfort, affection and nurturing aren't met and loving, caring, stable attachments with others are not established." (WebMD.com)

But wouldn’t that have been more than a one off? Enough so that talk would have been rife about her in church, or town, among neighbors before the killing and certainly afterwards when she was notorious?? I tend to discount the shoplifting talk as I can’t believe that wouldn’t have gotten around. I tend to wonder if that wasn’t just gossip that was spread about her by those who didn’t like her.

[Beowulf]

Regarding blood splatter I thought this interesting: Because of a lack of blood splashes on nearby walls or furniture, it became common conjecture that Abby died from the first blow; her heart stopped pumping blood, thereby resulting in very little blood spatter for such horrific wounds”.

http://crimemagazine.com/how-lizzie-bor ... y-murder-1

[PossumPie]

If Lizzie was guilty, then she must have had antisocial personality disorder

But wouldn’t that have been more than a one off? Enough so that talk would have been rife about her in church, or town, among neighbors before the killing and certainly afterwards when she was notorious?? I tend to discount the shoplifting talk as I can’t believe that wouldn’t have gotten around. I tend to wonder if that wasn’t just gossip that was spread about her by those who didn’t like her.

Actually antisocial personality disorder (formerly called psychopath) can be very successful and charming. Certain politicians and multi-millionaires have exhibited traits of it since to some extent if you don't care about anyone else's feelings and you can step on people to get what you want, you will be successful. The less intelligent or more impulsive people with antisocial personality disorder tend to get caught and do have a reputation of being "ruthless" but the more intelligent and less impulsive tend to be very successful. Ted Bundy was smart, charming, and able to lure attractive women to their brutal deaths. He did this over and over, even escaping from jail to continue in other states. I believe the Lizzie shoplifting stories as there seems to be collaborating evidence of Mr. Borden agreeing to pay for anything stolen when Lizzie was seen in the stores. He also kept his room locked after the mysterious disappearance of items from their room. Quoting Kat from a post a few years ago:

"Mr. Borden was a director in the street railway company, and the tickets stolen were those issued only to directors. Consequently, being of such limited issue, it was comparatively easy to trace the thief the minute the tickets were presented. The amount of money taken was not large.
A watch was kept on the street cars for several weeks, but just what the detective's work disclosed will not be known before the trial, for suddenly, Mr. Borden told the officers to drop the case. It is said, however, that the tickets were traced to some person. It does not appear that anything else was taken from the house at this time, nor were any other of the houses in that neighborhood robbed."--Fall River Daily Herald, May 26, 1893: 7."

The house seems to have been kept obsessively locked all of the time, inside and outside, even the Bedroom of Mr. and Mrs. Borden. This would imply it was to keep someone living in the home from stealing things. It could be argued that Maggie might have been a thief, but why keep her on if that was even slightly suspected? Kleptomania is a crime of excitement not of necessity. Look at the wealthy movie stars and singers who have been shoplifters. Even those who believed Lizzie innocent remarked at how calm and non-emotional she was after the murders, during her imprisonment, and during the trial. It's impossible to know without interviewing her personally, but it is consistent with antisocial personality disorder. Any personality disorder forms very early in life, and is virtually impossible to correct. She could have easily fit in at church and social functions by knowing how she was supposed to act.

[camgarsky4]

Very much agree that Lizzie had some type of anti-social disorder and she demonstrated it on a consistent basis.

I'm compiling and segregating Lizzie's various social groups (close family, extended family, neighbors, hired help, adult friends, childhood friends).
The common theme is that she didn't have good success maintaining positive long term relationships. The potential exception might be her hired help....people she had authority over. I include her servants, drivers, business manager, nurses and doctors in this bucket.

If one put Helen Leighton and Grace Howe off to the side, it is really fascinating how poorly she maintained relations. Emma proved to be far more successful maintaining long term friendships.

Another big clue that Lizzie 'had a different way of thinking' was the decision to remain in Fall River. There is no rational reason for her to have made this decision....it had to have been made in the context of "I deserve to live on the hill and no one is going to keep me from it!". To describe Lizzie as head strong would be a gross understatement.

[PossumPie]

Excellent post Camgarsky4. A sociopathic person can maintain a relationship if they are getting something out of it such as prestige or favors. In Victorian times, women who were assertive were not respected. Women were still subservient. Being in charge of groups, or being able to have authority over someone working for them gave them more power without "upsetting the Victorian apple cart". Kleptomania can be caused by the thrill of getting caught, but it can also stem from the knowledge that you have power over the shop-keepers by taking what you want. While there is no concrete evidence that Lizzie stole items, there is enough circumstantial evidence which was known both before and after the killings, that she most likely was stealing items. Stealing the watch, tickets, etc. from her own family certainly shows a lack of empathy and points toward antisocial traits.

[Kat]

Regarding blood splatter I thought this interesting: Because of a lack of blood splashes on nearby walls or furniture, it became common conjecture that Abby died from the first blow; her heart stopped pumping blood, thereby resulting in very little blood spatter for such horrific wounds”.

http://crimemagazine.com/how-lizzie-bor ... y-murder-1

Just found this thread...
Here is the link to Dolan's testimony as to the blood evidence
https://lizzieandrewborden.com/evidence ... idence.htm

There was a camp chair at the head of the bed, in the guest room, and also a rocker near the foot, beyond the bureau, near the window, which were removed to access Abbie's body. Also, there were blood drops on the bottom of the bureau, besides the bed sham and other places you'all mentioned. The furniture creates voids, as we would all be aware. Also, first blow to Abby was delivered "standing facing" and we all also know the old rule "first blow is free"--meaning no spray or spatter, and she survived that. If Abbie then twisted away in that tiny congested area and fell, then the next blows to the head are when the blood would start spraying, or leaking, depending on the second blow (there was a blow to the upper back/neck area, and not certain when that occurred).
Plz be careful reading any article about the crimes as they may be similar to quoting newspapers.
After reading the source documents, you will probably know more about the facts of the case than anyone writing anything, anywhere. Hopefully someone here will write the definitive case history!

I'm including a photo of the sitting room without the sofa. I've wondered if that "arc" mark on the wallpaper, below the left edge of the framed art, IS the blood Dr Dolan described? (Also, note carpet cut out near dining room door where Andrew's head would have leaked blood.)

But next, I will provide a photo comparison between the last owner's sofa and Andrew on the actual sofa...and after re-reading Dolan, does it seem that arc mark on the wallpaper isn't where Dolan described- then what is it?

Dolan
Prelim
...
A. Taking first the wall behind the sofa, there were in one cluster of spots, as it were, radiating, describing the arc of a circle, there were seventy eight blood spots.
Q. Where were they?
A. Those were immediately behind his head going and dropping towards the east on the wall.
Q. Above the sofa?
A. Yes.
Q. How far above?
A. I can tell by looking at my notes.
Q. Certainly. I guess they have got over objecting to that. When did you make the notes?
A. I took the notes I could not tell you what day, but not the same day.
Q. Did you take them right from the examination?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Are those the original notes you took?
A. Yes Sir. I said seventy eight; I believe there were eighty six spots. The highest of those of that particular cluster I think were three feet seven inches from the floor.
Q. Now describe where they were, Doctor.
A. They were over the back of the lounge eighty six of them, in one cluster, as I say, describing the arc of a circle from the west, east, that is, from the parlor door towards the kitchen door.
Page 95
Q. Beginning how far from where his head was, as you found it?
A. I do not think I took that.
Q. Estimate it?
A. I should say not over three or four inches east of his head.
Q. That is, beginning within three or four inches of his head and describing a semi circle?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Eighty six in all?
A. Yes Sir, in one cluster.
Q. How large?
A. Some very minute, some the size of a pin head, others were the size of a pea, and varying from that. Those will probably illustrate the two limits.
Q. That is on the wall paper?
A. Yes Sir.

[Kat]

Note positioning of sitting room sofa, newer B&B one vs the actual one Andrew died on. I wanted to compare size, and where it is placed in relation to the room and doors, and figure out if the arc on the wallpaper (previous post) is blood, or something else (this collage was done by me in 2003).
Also, how far down did Andrew sink after being hit in the head 10 times? Maybe he started up in a higher position and was driven down?
And did Lizzie (or the murderer) push that sofa (on casters, BTW) closer to the doorway for easier access to Andrew Borden's head? (These are not necessarily new conjectures, but after 18 years we can look at the question again, I would think)

[wall59]

Thomas Kieran Trial Testimony

A. The seat of the sofa was 18 inches high, and the top of the arm 28 inches. (from the floor)

Dr. Dolan (from above)

A. The highest of those of that particular cluster I think were three feet seven inches from the floor. (43 inches)

Don't know if that helps.
Comments in parentheses are mine.

[Kat]

Thanks! Are there any other sofa measurements available?
Can you see that same "arc" mark on the wallpaper there with the sofa in place? It's very faint...just peeking out above the highest middle section...I just noticed that...

[PossumPie]

My biggest regret about the sloppy police work done that day is that they didn't take close-ups of the blood patterns. Even with the grainy pictures we do have it's obvious: The killer wasn't covered in blood as even the wall 6 inches from his head isn't dripping in blood. Most blood that day was under each of their heads, on the couch, and into the carpet. It is gravity pulled from wounds.

[camgarsky4]

While they didn't take close up photos, they do describe all the splatters , spots and drops, and that testimony/documentation supports your position that the killer might have been sprinkled with some blood drops, but that would be the extent of it.

[Steve88778]

I may not be a forensic expert but I am not a slob either - neither were the Bordens...
You can see AJ Borden's picture all over the internet and you will see spots on the walls and paintings.

[camgarsky4]

First, your circles prove the point that only splatter and drops went flying. No one has or is saying differently. We are saying at most the killer had random blood drops on them. Those doors are pure white and still only spotted.If the killer was wearing a covering with any degree of color, it would require a conscience effort to see them. Second, if you read the blood testimony, the dining room door slab did not have blood on it. Likely because the door was open at the time of the killings. so not sure what spots those circles are around.

[PossumPie]

While they didn't take close up photos, they do describe all the splatters , spots and drops, and that testimony/documentation supports your position that the killer might have been sprinkled with some blood drops, but that would be the extent of it.

I know camgarsky4 but pictures would be more dramatic to counter the claim that the killer would be covered in blood and Lizzie wouldn't have enough time to "clean up". I have read the reports and see that the spatter is consistent with a swinging weapon striking human tissue. There will always be people who believe that she would be covered head to toe with blood AKA a B-rated horror movie, actual crisp photos of the lack of such a mess around the bodies would sure help persuade people.

[camgarsky4]

Gotcha and good point. Not sure why such a debate on this particular subject.