Crowe Barn hatchet

[Steve887788]

Within the 20-25 minute time frame, Lizzie COULD have stripped off the dress (or taken off Andrew's coat) washed her face and taken the hatchet out back thrown it, and returned.

She could have just dropped the hatchet on the floor of the sitting room. With Andrew's blood on it - it didn't / doesn't prove a thing, fingerprint technology was not perfected yet. Going outside in a long dress heaving a hatchet in the air and onto a neighbour's roof is tantamount to signing a confession.

[camgarsky4]

Yep, she sure could have.

Wonder why whomever the killer was, that they didn't just drop the hatchet? Your insight would apply to all of them.

[Reasonwhy]

Still think no bloody hatchet + no bloody dress + no bloody hands psychologically = “Nothing to See Here” for others and maybe Lizzie herself. She was canny enough to get the value of appearances, and this could have helped to “disappear” any guilt she felt, too.

[camgarsky4]

In 1892, 100% of the population had never watched a TV crime/police show or documentary.

The segment of the population that were not experienced criminals would have ZERO expertise or context of how to cover up or commit a crime, how police and detectives did their jobs, what happened afterwards in the home of a murdered person or any other aspect of a major crime. Try to imagine that.....the average person had no visual or tangible context for crime.

All actions and reactions would be based on each individuals perspective of common sense. In 1892, I believe common sense to the average non-hitman would be to remove all signs of the murder that one just committed.

Any suspect who carried the hatchet out of the house ran a high risk of being seen or caught. But it appears the murder hatchet was not found in the house. So either the hatchet did go into a secret hiding place or the culprit DID go outside and dispose of the hatchet without being identified.

[Steve887788]

and this could have helped to “disappear” any guilt she felt, too.

I think getting rid of a hatchet could help "make it look like it didn't happen" and possibly get rid of guilt. But judging from her new house on French Street she sure got over any guilt that she might have had in a hurry...

[PossumPie]

To us in the 21st century, a hatchet is a hatchet is a hatchet. BUT to someone in the age of wood stoves, hatchets were unique, some with hammer backs, claw backs, squared off backs, etc. A hatchet would have been recognized as belonging to a family or person, or a store which sold that style. I think the killer didn't leave it because of the fear of it being recognized (I've seen that hatchet in the Borden basement) or (that is the brand I sell and someone stole one just last week). Perhaps we're attributing too much generic-ness to a hatchet.

[mbhenty]

Fleet knew that the hatchet head they had was void of blood. There was no blood in the wood stub in the head of the carpenter's axe. And probably no blood on the actual handle. That is why the handle disappeared. And I believe that Fleet got rid of it. Think the glove being planted at the OJ murder scene. Think the handle being harvested at the Borden murder scene. Think the police the determining factor

[Reasonwhy]

Why, mbhenty, you suspicious man!

Kat or mbhenty, does either of you know how the historical society acquired the handleless hatchet?

[Kat]

A photo of the HH is on the back cover of Did She or Didn't She, with its original wrapper and, I believe, accepted as a donation to the FRHS from Jennings Hip Bath collection. The wrapper is pretty similar to the one that packaged the hair switch of Abbie with that bloody handkerchief, when those pieces were donated together.
This wrapping paper says it was "taken from trunk & placed here."...

[Reasonwhy]

Thank you, Kat! Pictures are great, too, with the writing showing the receipt date into Jennings’ possession.

[Kat]

Oh, you're welcome! I don't know if you have that book? Somehow, I have 2 or 3, I don't know why!

[PossumPie]

I took a long hard look at the handless hatchet photo. If you trace an imaginary line across the break upwards, it doesn't go to the tip of the hatchet, but to the notch in the bottom of the hatchet. The physics of stress on the wood break tells me that the handle was probably broken unintentionally when using it to pry up a nail. That notch has the same function as the claw on the back of a hammer---to pry up nails that bend when hammering them in. Hatchets such as this are mainly used in roofing as the blade can trim shingles, the head on the back can hammer the shingle nails in and the notch can pry up your mistakes.
To be open-minded, the killer could have hooked the notch over a large nail and intentionally broken the handle that way, possible but less plausible than it breaking during normal use.

[Steve887788]

That type of hatchet handle actually just sits in a rough opening in the metal part and has a shim in there to hold it in place and it's oval like the blade.. But this hatchet is not like the hammers and hatchets and other handled tools that are fitted tightly -with no room for movement. Like the ones that we see today.

Having said that ; that hatchet (underhill band ) handle will have a tendency to rock back and forth a little and will not be perfectly straight into the blade part. Actually if you look top down on the hatchet you will see a gap on both sides. I wonder if they used a probe to go down that handle channel and scrape it for traces of blood.

[Kat]

*[edit here- a post was made by Steve while I was composing my response to possum- so, sorry for any confusion, but am replying to possum]

What you describe makes sense to me, possum, pulIing nails- I can picture it.

Also, we need to keep in mind when examining the HH, there is testimony that states there were splinters existing at the break. As time went on,those splinters of wood were lost off the remaining wood handle.

This next part is hard to describe: when I looked it over carefully and very close up, I noted the remaining stub of wood had shims from the top, which were loose, and the 2 paralell "notches" seen on the handle part, actually corresponded with an obstruction inside the head -- like a small defect, something sticking out, so that if the head would have been shoved harder onto the handle, say to tighten it, after use over time it would cause an abrasion on the wood, corresponding to the 2 lines on the wooden handle piece: it would have happened twice, meaning 2 different times, same abrasion caused by the "defect" in the metal head.
I could examine it from the top, down in.
But a lesson learned by me: each implement is going to have its own idiosyncrasies, like fingerprints, and from that I can assume a person could identify their own tool by these "use marks".

Anyway, Harry wanted us to have both sides to view, and saved these pics from the FRHS website: from Harry

[Kat]

That type of hatchet handle actually just sits in a rough opening in the metal part and has a shim in there to hold it in place and it's oval like the blade.. But this hatchet is not like the hammers and hatchets and other handled tools that are fitted tightly -with no room for movement. Like the ones that we see today.

Having said that ; that hatchet (underhill band ) handle will have a tendency to rock back and forth a little and will not be perfectly straight into the blade part. Actually if you look top down on the hatchet you will see a gap on both sides. I wonder if they used a probe to go down that handle channel and scrape it for traces of blood.

Thanks! That's very like what my impression was, as well.

[PossumPie]

I disagree that the handles are supposed to just "sit" in the opening, these handles tapered at the ends and you put the head on the handle and pounded it down until it was very snug, THEN put the shims or wedges in the top to expand it into the hole. You could then trim it all flat with the top of the hatchet, or the lazy way would be leave a piece sticking out. The LAST thing you wanted to happen was to have a hatchet head go flying off when you were chopping.
The further pictures Kat posted show the break NOT lining up with the "claw" notch as in the top picture which may be from the handle piece being removed and replaced between the two pictures, or it being loose in the hole. Often the shims worked lose and as Steve said the handle can rock back and forth. At that point, a smart person would re-hammer in the shim as a hatchet head flying off of the handle during use is very dangerous. The handle may be Ash or Hickory as these were stronger and had less breakage. If someone used that hatchet in the murders, they would need a LOT of force to break the handle off. Since the handle of a hatchet is much shorter than an ax, the force needed to break it would be much greater.

Kat, if I'm remembering correctly, the show you and Stefani were a part of luminoled the floors and basement, but didn't luminol the hatchet...It would be interesting to see, but Luminol reacts with rust (Iron oxide) to give false positives so it may be a waste of time.

[PossumPie]

The "deeper" question that I have is how did the break happen so "cleanly" ? It looks straight, no splintering at all. Here is a picture of a broken handle, see how the wood grain break at different places leaving long "teeth"? The more I look at the Borden hatchet, the harder it is to picture how that clean break could happen...Perhaps if one hit the side of a metal object very hard right at the point of the break. I don't think it could be put in a vise and broken and get that type of break.

[Steve887788]

The lower picture of the handleless hatchet shown above shows 2 little marks on the wood ,almost in the middle of the break and a little higher, going horizontally with a space between the 2 , something a vice or a clamp would make if it was attached. Or it could be 2 pencil marks or marks made over the years. Also you can clearly see the gap that the handle and blade make on the lower end picture closer to the blade end. And you can see how tight the handle fits / rests on the on the hammer side. That means the handle and metal were not perfectly aligned and the handle would shift / wobble and the break would not line up with blade. I realize that over the years the wood would change due to handling and the physical properties of that wood.- but it seems to fit like a puzzle if you place the wood part in the metal part.

As for that clean break - no way does a handle break like that, these tools were made to be used hard for it's purpose - Wood will break cleanly but over a long distance, but a one inch distance ? - No, my opinion is this handle was scored before it was placed in a vice or clamp, then it was snapped off. In fact you can see how the wood curves inward toward at the middle of the break. Again this wood piece was handled many times for many years and it's possible to have that break end rounded by handling alone. But the clean break is too perfect to produce without the aid of something holding it and someone giving it 40 or 41 whacks.

[Kat]

As I said, there were splinters at the site of the break when examined at the time of preparation for trial. And the part that has the 2 paralell score marks, I believe, was inside the hatchet head, having been abraded during use, but now shows sticking out. That stub should be inside the head.
I got permission to show the pictures Stef took during our examination. It was at my request, because my theory has been that no vise was used to break the handle, and so did not make those marks.

[Kat]

Here is a pic showing how the stub is now fitting, in 2004. Personally, I think it is displayed with the piece sticking out so it can be seen as part of a handle, otherwise it would normally be inside the head.

[Kat]

Here is opening and closing at trial.
Please allow time for me to gather any more. I have to pause -I'm starving!

Moody opening trial argument
It is the duty of the Government to bring forward all its information upon this subject, and I propose to open it all to you at the present time. Upon the premises that day were found two hatchets and two axes. Upon one of those hatchets spots were discovered which upon view were thought to be blood. It is extremely difficult, impossible in fact,---Dr. Wood, the highest authority on this subject in this country if not in the world, will say,---to distinguish between blood and some other substances. Attention upon the view then was directed to one of these hatchets, it is not important which.

(Holding both hatchets in hand before the jury.)

It is said to be the one I hold in my right hand. These axes, gentlemen, are so far out of the question that I need not waste any time on them. They could not have been the

Page 83

weapons with which these homicides were committed. Upon careful examination neither of these hatchets is seen to contain the slightest evidence of blood-stain. The appearances which were thought to be blood turned out to be something else. You will observe, gentlemen, that there are ragged pieces near and about the entrance of the handle to the blade of this hatchet, that the same appearances [that] exist there in that weapon are also on the outside of the handle, and Dr. Wood will say to you that those weapons could not in all probability have been used for these homicides, and have been washed so as to have prevented the traces of blood from being caught on those ragged surfaces. In that view of the fact, we may well lay those weapons aside as entirely innocent. Upon the day of the homicide another weapon or part of a weapon was found after what was thought to be a bloody hatchet had been discovered and attracted little attention. It was seen by one officer and left where it was. At that time this fragment of the handle was in its appropriate place in the helve, if that is the proper name, of the hatchet, in the place fitted in the head. It was covered with an adhesion of ashes, not the fine dust which floats about the room where ashes are emptied, but a coarse dust of ashes adhering more or less to all sides of the hatchet. Upon the Monday morning this hatchet was taken away, and its custody from that time to the present will be traced. You will observe, gentlemen, that both hatchets are rusty, the hatchet which is innocent, the handleless hatchet now under discussion,

Page 84

but the rust in the case of the handleless hatchet is uniform upon both sides and upon all parts of its surface, such rust, for instance, as might be the result of exposure upon wet grass to the night's dew, such rust as must result from an exposure uniform in its extent upon all parts of the hatchet. Prof. Wood will say to you---he saw this hatchet soon after it was found---that while there were ragged fragments of wood which would detain absolutely no indications of the blood in these other weapons, that if that weapon had had upon it the remainder of its hatchet and was as smooth as he saw, by the application of water soon after the homicide, blood could be readily, effectually and completely removed. Dr. Wood will also tell you that that break which had not the color then which it has now---it has been subjected to some acid process---was a new break and was a fresh break. By that I do not mean to be understood as a break which had necessarily occurred within twenty four hours, within forty eight hours or within a week,---but perhaps a break which might have been a day or might have been a month old. It was a fresh break.





Robinson closing trial argument
Page 1873

What is the end of all this? Did that hatchet do that thing? I am unable to say. There is more to it than that. My associate reminds me, and justly, for I had almost forgotten the most significant thing of it all, that that handle was broken off not as axe handles are splintered---those of you who are carpenters know that---but, as I submit, not with entire confidence, because I am not so sure of my ground, not being used to this business, but I submit it for your consideration, broken off not as accidental, but as by design, that no part of the wood of that handle should be exposed to view.

I may be wrong. Correct me if I am. Do not take it on my submission of the proposition; take it on your own experience. Broken off so that no part of that wood should be seen. A pretty punky piece of wood, as it appears; not a difficult thing to break, but broken so recently. So far as the break is concerned nobody can tell when it was, within a month, two months, three months. But so far as the tell tale ashes and dust are concerned, it had not been there long enough to get the first settling or first sifting that had been put into that ash cellar, not the very first one.

What is the sum of it all? A hatchet head is found in that cellar, despised and rejected of men at first, because a false king was set up for them to worship, and it was only when he was deposed that they thought of trying what there was in this one. A hatchet head which had been

Page 1874

broken off singularly and freshly; a hatchet head which was different in appearance from anything in that box, which is examined by the police officers and afterwards by the eye of science, which disclosed the fact that it had been wet and then rubbed in ashes; a hatchet head which Prof. Wood, with the same honest candor with which he said that could not have been cleaned, tells us could well have been cleaned after having been used; and a hatchet which almost miraculously fits to the dot the cuts that the dead man presents to the eye of those men.

I can do no more. All the language at my command could do no more than to reiterate the well chosen words of my associate. We do not say that was the hatchet. It may have been. It may well have been the hatchet.

[PossumPie]

As for that clean break - no way does a handle break like that, these tools were made to be used hard for it's purpose - Wood will break cleanly but over a long distance, but a one inch distance ? - No, my opinion is this handle was scored before it was placed in a vice or clamp, then it was snapped off. In fact you can see how the wood curves inward toward at the middle of the break. Again this wood piece was handled many times for many years and it's possible to have that break end rounded by handling alone. But the clean break is too perfect to produce without the aid of something holding it and someone giving it 40 or 41 whacks.

I agree completely Steve, possible tool used as The break is too squared off. Kat's wonderful top-down view shows that the break would probably originally been at the hatchet itself as the handle has slid down about the same distance as the break is from the head.

[Kat]

I got to actually hold, smell, touch, examine the HH!
sorry, got carried away! ..not sorry...

[Kat]

Anyway, we would need the handle to be able to tell if it was sawn off or broken or removed or whatever. It can't be determined by the piece that is left...that's my thought on the HH.

[Kat]

Thank you for waiting...

I spared you multiple pages of Wood’s testimony, including here the HH and its description. I only left out all the testing for blood or rust or ashes or dirt- those of you’all who want that may check the trial.

Please note: Wood put the hatchet itself into a vise to drive out the wood piece, not the wood piece itself. I hope we can agree that the story we keep hearing/reading about those lines on the wood proving a vise being used by the perp to break off the handle, is not proven by those marks, and we can lay another myth to rest. Also, I think a vise used on wood would show marks on both sides.

Wood Trial
1008+
Q. You found no blood upon the shoe or stockings?
A. No, sir; and the stockings had no suspicious stains.

Q. That was on the 16th of August?
A. That was the 16th of August, in Boston.

Q. What next?
A. The next was the 30th of August in the court room, at the time of the preliminary hearing in Fall River.

Q. On the day that you testified?
A. On the day and at the

Page 1009

time I testified, while I was testifying or as soon as I got through I received in the court room, by your order, that other hatchet with a handle.

Q. This one?
A. Yes, sir; and that piece of the dining room door frame, and the piece of the guest room mop board. That. The small hatchet I should have mentioned in connection with the claw hammer hatchet, that the edge measures four and a half inches. I omitted that in speaking of it. This hatchet has a cutting edge of three and one eighth inches, and the cutting edge is seen to have a number of reddish brown stains, which, so far as you could tell by looking at that, either with the naked eye or the lens, with a simple magnifying glass, might have been a blood stain. When I received this hatchet the handle was driven into the head to the distance which you see marked here by this line. I have driven the handle out from the hatchet about an eighth of an inch.

Q. That is shown?
A. That is shown by the stains here; in order to examine that rough portion of the handle, to see whether there was any blood on it or not; and every stain which looked suspicious on either the head or handle of that hatchet I examined, and it is simply only partially rusted over. And the handle will be noticed to be very rough on the interior surface close to the head of the hatchet.

Q. I will ask you the same question I did with reference to the other hatchet, whether in your opinion that hatchet could have been used and then cleaned in any manner so as to

Page 1010

remove any trace of blood beyond the power of your discovery, as you examined it?
A. It couldn't have been done by a quick washing.

Q. Why not?
A. It would cling in those angles there and couldn't be thoroughly removed. The coagula would cling. It would have to be very thoroughly washed in order to remove it. It could be done by cold water, no question about that. But it couldn't be done by a careless washing.

Q. And is that the same reason why you gave the answer as to that hatchet?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. On account of the fibers of wood?
A. And the holes between the head and the handle.

Q. In there?
A. No, on the other side.
.................................

1012+
... Q. Is that the hatchet head?
A. Yes, sir. It has been in my possession almost all the time since [Aug 30]. When I received this hatchet this piece of handle was in the head in its proper position, this fractured end of the handle being close up to the iron, that is, it was in that relative position so far as the upper and the lower end of the eye of the hatchet was concerned, this fractured end being just underneath or flush with the lower edge of the hole in the hatchet, or the eye of the hatchet as I have heard it called here. ...

.......
1013
... The fractured ends of this bit of handle, the rough end, had a perfectly white, fresh look, and it was not stained as it is now, and these chips here, these two large chips from the side of this piece, and a little chip from this side also, had not been removed when I had it; and when I drove the handle out from the eye---I placed the hatchet in a vise and drove this wood out, and upon examination with a magnifying glass, that fractured end of the handle was perfectly clean. ...
........
1014+
..... On November 15, the day that I testified before the Grand Jury in Taunton, on the evening of that day, in Cambridge, at my home in Cambridge, I delivered to Officer Seaver by order of Mr. Knowlton, this hatchet head, with the claw hammer

1015

hatchet and the other hatchet. And when he returned them to me, on December 3---he returned all the hatchets to me on December 3---when he returned them to me these two chips from the side of the bit of handle, and a little bit of a---a very small chip from this side, I found had been removed while this piece of wood was out of my possession.
........
1018+
.... Q. Going back to the answer that you gave,---before the handle was broken, and not after,---you have told why it could not be after the handle was broken. Why do you give the other answer, "before the hatchet was broken"? Give your reasons.

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

Page 1019

MASON, C. J . It may be answered.

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

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

MR. ADAMS. What is the question?

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

Q. And what was the difference between that and the claw-hammer hatchet?
A. The claw hammer hatchet does not.
..............................etc................[prussic acid next]..........

I love Wood's scientific response that he "cannot answer for the part which I have never seen."(ie:the rest of the handle)

[PossumPie]

Thanks Kat. Knowing that the handle was manipulated in the hatchet head and pushed down refutes my hypothesis that because it was lined up with the claw notch, it may have broken during the prying up of a nail. The angle of the break is meaningless since the handle piece has been moved. Oh well, a theory refuted is as good as a theory proven.

[Kat]

Well, we have done a good thing, and amongst us disproved a myth associated with those marks on the piece remaining of the Handeless Hatchet. Yes a vise was used, but only on the head, and the piece now exposed was inside the head.
We also solved the gilt issue, so working together we are really getting somewhere! I'd say this is a good team!
Sure, these are peripheral issues, but I think we've accomplished a lot.

Now, if the police had only preserved the handle!.....and now I understand why that missing handle sunk the prosecution's case, especially when there was in-fighting in court over whose fault!

[Kat]

I found an earlier post in the Second Street Second Hand Shop here, and there had been a cache of newspapers from the mid to late 1800's on E-Bay that were available to peruse during a sale.
I had given my question here previously, of what use would there be in finding a weapon after a crime?, and there's my own answer learned from the newspaper, albeit about a different crime...

[camgarsky4]

Ok.....looks like I'm going to be reactivating a few threads I think left a little unfinished business.

I think the ONLY alternative to the Crowe roof hatchet being the murder weapon is if it was part of an intentional hoax. Presume the Chagnon carpenter did indeed lose a hatchet. Did it fly on top of the roof a couple lots away? Of course not.

I think the carpenters hatchet loss is only relevant to the Borden case if part of a hoax or if it was purloined by someone who then used it to commit murder.

Perhaps I am crazy, but I don't think a pre-teen dreamed up the hoax without adult guidance. So then whomever was the adult plotter had to have induced the boy to be part of the hoax. If the boy was part of the hoax, then I believe his father would have been aware. If his father and boy the were in on the hoax, what about the other boys playing ball? Were they innocent stooges? That 11ish year old boy sure could keep his mouth zipped and not brag about his caper with his friends. I view this scenario as a pretty big stretch.

Or do we think the carpenter or one of his fellow laborers thought, hmmm, let's snatch 'Billy's hatchet' and toss it on that roof and maybe somebody someday will randomly find it. Isn't that fun! This scenario feels ludicrous to me.

What other plausible hoax scenarios are there? To they have much merit in the world of common sense?

Remember, the hatchet physical condition, location and timing are perfect matches to have been the murder weapon. The location also matches up with the idea that Lizzie was not returning from visiting the barn loft when Lubinsky saw her, she was returning from the SE corner of the property.
Also matches up with the police not searching the roof. Really it matches up with most everything except that it was found after the trial had started.

[Father Jack]

On the Crowe barn hatchet, the late Robert Flynn published an interesting booklet on the hatchets and axes of the period including the Crowe barn one. It seems that he believed that was the murder weapon.
If I may be permitted a non sequitur, I always wondered about Dr. Bowen. He came and went freely from the house on the day of the murders....with his doctor's bag. Might he have secreted and removed the murder weapon? Within the Witness Statements there are insinuations that he may have had a certain fondness for Miss Lizzie. Did he know the score and act to protect her? Anyway, it's something I've long wondered about.

[PossumPie]

Ok.....looks like I'm going to be reactivating a few threads I think left a little unfinished business.

I think the ONLY alternative to the Crowe roof hatchet being the murder weapon is if it was part of an intentional hoax. Presume the Chagnon carpenter did indeed lose a hatchet. Did it fly on top of the roof a couple lots away? Of course not.

I think the carpenters hatchet loss is only relevant to the Borden case if part of a hoax or if it was purloined by someone who then used it to commit murder.

Perhaps I am crazy, but I don't think a pre-teen dreamed up the hoax without adult guidance. So then whomever was the adult plotter had to have induced the boy to be part of the hoax. If the boy was part of the hoax, then I believe his father would have been aware. If his father and boy the were in on the hoax, what about the other boys playing ball? Were they innocent stooges? That 11ish year old boy sure could keep his mouth zipped and not brag about his caper with his friends. I view this scenario as a pretty big stretch.

Or do we think the carpenter or one of his fellow laborers thought, hmmm, let's snatch 'Billy's hatchet' and toss it on that roof and maybe somebody someday will randomly find it. Isn't that fun! This scenario feels ludicrous to me.

What other plausible hoax scenarios are there? To they have much merit in the world of common sense?

Remember, the hatchet physical condition, location and timing are perfect matches to have been the murder weapon. The location also matches up with the idea that Lizzie was not returning from visiting the barn loft when Lubinsky saw her, she was returning from the SE corner of the property.
Also matches up with the police not searching the roof. Really it matches up with most everything except that it was found after the trial had started.

Looking back over my "Crowe roof hatchet" posts from the past 8 years I can see my opinions have changed based on learning more. I think we all know now that any guilding in the wound tract of Abby's skull was a contaminant from after the tissue was boiled away. I think that it was much harder for someone to randomly look out of their 2nd/3rd-floor window and see the hatchet on the roof than I first imagined...though not impossible. Remember, everyone in Fall River had heard by mid-August that "Lizzie Borden took an ax..." The hatchet was the most famous weapon in Massachusetts that year and anything looking like a hatchet was carted down to the police I'm sure.
I was thinking, my parents have pear trees and you pick pears from a ladder. With the Borden's orchard location, it would be nearly impossible NOT to see the hatchet from a ladder in the Borden orchard. Pears were in season August-early Sept. depending on the varieties, right after the crime someone should have been up on a ladder back there. Did they not look East or South while on a ladder? Perhaps the murders meant that nobody picked pears that year? I don't know. Lastly, did Lizzie really have the fortitude to walk out into the yard in the middle of town with windows everywhere, heave a hatchet up onto the roof, and walk back? My (limited) experiences living "in town" is that very little gets by nosey neighbors. I wouldn't have chanced a daylight toss. The proximity to the murders does make it tantalizing, but the coincidence of being found 10 months later at trial-time makes it suspicious. I guess I'm still 50/50...

[Reasonwhy]

Perhaps I am crazy, but I don't think a pre-teen dreamed up the hoax without adult guidance. So then whomever was the adult plotter had to have induced the boy to be part of the hoax. If the boy was part of the hoax, then I believe his father would have been aware. If his father and boy the were in on the hoax, what about the other boys playing ball? Were they innocent stooges? That 11ish year old boy sure could keep his mouth zipped and not brag about his caper with his friends. I view this scenario as a pretty big stretch.

—partial post by Camgarsky

The only hoax I can think of which might be possible is by the boy’s father, without telling his son or the son’s friends (because I agree with you, teenaged boys would be likely to boast if they were involved in planning this).

What if the dad wanted to see their names in the paper, or get some attention during the trial. He may have thrown that hatchet onto the Crowe barn roof, then suggested the spot to his boy as a good place for he and his friends to throw their ball around in. Son might then innocently have found hatchet when retrieving their ball.

Still a stretch, as how could dad have known ball would get stuck on roof and need retrieving? Especially in an area where the boy would find the hatchet? Also, wouldn’t boys have thought it odd if a father suggested they go mess around on someone else’s property? (Comments among the boys about this weird recommendation might well have surfaced after the hatchet was found). So, I think this hoax possibility barely meets the level of the possible.

If some other person, who may have hoped to cause a sensation, thew the hatchet there, he must have been a mighty patient fella. For how likely is it the hatchet would ever have been spotted, let alone during the days of the trial?

Possum, I see your point about the harvesting of the pears making sight of the hatchet more likely. But I think the hatchet may not have visibly stood out; also, as you suggest, pear-harvesting may have been neglected in the weeks after the murder.

So, I agree the timing is uncomfortable, but find it likeliest that this was the murder hatchet. The key testimony convincing me is Lubinsky’s, seeing Lizzie in the yard headed toward the barn, shortly after 11 a.m. How ironic, given the defense welcomed his comments as proof Lizzie was coming out of the barn, where she’d said she had been.

[Reasonwhy]

On the Crowe barn hatchet, the late Robert Flynn published an interesting booklet on the hatchets and axes of the period including the Crowe barn one. It seems that he believed that was the murder weapon.
If I may be permitted a non sequitur, I always wondered about Dr. Bowen. He came and went freely from the house on the day of the murders....with his doctor's bag. Might he have secreted and removed the murder weapon? Within the Witness Statements there are insinuations that he may have had a certain fondness for Miss Lizzie. Did he know the score and act to protect her? Anyway, it's something I've long wondered about.

Hi, Father Jack! Nice to read you posting with your thoughts. I agree that Robert Flynn believing the Crowe roof hatchet is the “one” lends this theory gravity.

Also, I can see your wondering about Bowen and the hatchet. He certainly did have opportunity, with he and that doctor’s bag almost ever-present! And indications are he did feel protective sympathy for Lizzie. Yet my view of Lizzie is that she was secretive, suspicious to the point of paranoia (certainly in her jealousy of Abby, and in her fears of having enough money when her father passed), and untrusting of almost everyone. I do not think she would have relied on Bowen to hide her guilt.

(I can’t see her relying on anyone else’s will as being as strong as her own. This is my main doubt about the existence of a conspiracy in the murders. Emma and Morse would at least have had that blood thicker than water, but Lizzie at times showed mistrust of both of them, too.)

Bowen and his actions have always seemed to me to be lacking in judgment. He seems too quick to have diagnosed Abby’s illness as “summer complaint.” Granted, poisoning may have seemed far-fetched, but he did not do any testing to rule that out (although perhaps he did not have the means to test any of her stomach contents/waste products). I think he worried, once he learned of the murders, that he hadn’t taken Abby more seriously, and thereafter was a nervous wreck.

He fails to observe Abby’s wounds, and thinks she fainted and died of shock. He leaves the women alone to post the telegram to Emma without even a policeman in the house. He tears up that note and burns it, seemingly unthinkingly (of course, he could have intended to do so to protect Lizzie somehow). His subsequent testimony in several instances—in one, involving when he saw Lizzie the previous morning, when she may have been out trying to buy poison—is all over the map.

I think Lizzie did rely on Bowen, principally to give her cover for the bloody rags in the basement bucket, and for drugs after (and maybe before?) the crime. But I don’t think Lizzie would have judged Bowen as of stern enough stuff to rely on him to hide that hatchet. Just my take, Father Jack. Please feel free to take my argument apart

[PossumPie]

On the Crowe barn hatchet, the late Robert Flynn published an interesting booklet on the hatchets and axes of the period including the Crowe barn one. It seems that he believed that was the murder weapon.
If I may be permitted a non sequitur, I always wondered about Dr. Bowen. He came and went freely from the house on the day of the murders....with his doctor's bag. Might he have secreted and removed the murder weapon? Within the Witness Statements there are insinuations that he may have had a certain fondness for Miss Lizzie. Did he know the score and act to protect her? Anyway, it's something I've long wondered about.

Thanks for posting Father Jack. It's nice to have your insight. I had to laugh seeing your username-I'm a huge fan of British comedy and "Father Jack" was a main character on the "Father Ted" show. He was a retired priest who was a bit too enamored with "the bottle".

Anyway, while there are many suspicious little things about Dr. Bowen's behaviors after the murders, I think perhaps he was just protecting a family friend. After all, he was friends with Andrew and Abby as well. To see Lizzie under suspicion, he probably felt protective. His taking her to church a few years before the murders sure raised suspicion and idle gossip but he did it so publicly that I doubt that there was any nefarious reason behind it, unmarried ladies usually had chaperones to public events back in that day.

Witness Statements
Sept 25, 1892
Mrs. Jane Grey, No. 215 Second street. “Dr. Bowen’s character is al least suspicious. Four years ago, while the Borden family were summering over the river on the farm, Lizzie remained at home. One Sunday evening during this time, she and Dr. Bowen came to church together and sat in the Borden seat. I myself saw them this evening. At the time, and since, there was much comment on this act. Some remarked how courageous she was to remain in the house alone; but others replied in a knowing way, perhaps she has very acceptable company.
About the robbery, I think Mrs. Fish or her daughter in law of Hartford knows more or less about it, if they wish to tell

[Father Jack]

Possum, you nailed it! I took Father Jack from the Father Ted series. He is one of my favorite characters. I am a teetotaler, but in the distant past I was a Benedictine monk at Glastonbury Abbey in Hingham MA for 3 1/2 years. I knew a "Father Jack" or two when I was there.

[PossumPie]

Possum, you nailed it! I took Father Jack from the Father Ted series. He is one of my favorite characters. I am a teetotaler, but in the distant past I was a Benedictine monk at Glastonbury Abbey in Hingham MA for 3 1/2 years. I knew a "Father Jack" or two when I was there.

DRINK!

Father_Jack.jpg

[PossumPie]

Camgarsky, I agree that it probably wasn't a hoax, and Reasonwhy, I don't think Dr. Bowen secreted the hatchet away. At the time of the murders, things were chaotic, nobody (publicly) suspected Lizzie, and unless she pulled him aside and said "help me" and gave him the hatchet, why would he remove evidence? One thing about physicians, they spent 4 years in college, a grueling 4 years of medical school, and 4-7 years of residency. To risk all of that to help a family friend seems unlikely.
I do think his tearing up the piece of paper he had and throwing it in the fire was incredibly stupid, but not being a detective, he probably didn't know the implications of that act at the time. In fact, the same could be said of Lizzie and the dress burning. I'm not saying that it wasn't the 'bloody dress' but only that if it was an innocent act, she not being in law enforcement didn't see the suspiciousness of it.