Crowe Barn hatchet

[camgarsky4]

As I noted in the %'s thread, I give >50% odds that the Crowe hatchet was the murder weapon. But my confidence is shaky, so I'm just barely above the Mendoza line. That said, since I slightly favor this to be the murder weapon, I'll respond to MB's logical points.

MB - I am writing this post in the spirit of 'debate', contrariness not intended.

Post by mbhenty » Tue Nov 02, 2021 12:44 am
The Axe on the Crowe Barn was discovered almost a year after the murder. The trial of Lizzie started on June 5th 1893. Less than two weeks later an axe is found on the Crowe Barn roof. What are the odds. For the axe to spend 10 months without being seen from the windows of nearby homes was unlikely. What are the odds that Lubinsky would rent the Borden house? What are the odds that Morse would pick up the eggs, thus avoiding the farm help from showing up at the Borden house at about the time Andrew was being killed? What are the odds that Abby would choose that very morning to tidy up the guest room? This case is full of oddities and coincidences....that is one of the main reasons we are still talking about it 130 years later.

Again, as I have mentioned in another post. I have lived in countless 3 decker apartment houses in Fall River, a couple on the 3rd floor. Looking out a window it is very easy to see the top of lower buildings. The view of the Crowe barn would have been very visible from 3 deckers in the area and from the Borden' attic where Bridget had her bedroom. Bridget's bedroom overlooked the Crowe property. (taking into account the growth of trees in the yards which could block the view. But the axe supposedly was on the roof through the winter of 92/93 when there were no leafs on the trees.) And also, with all the police and spectators in the area the day-week of the murder, I believe that someone would have looked out the window or from a fair distance and seen it. After all, someone did ten months after the crime. To my knowledge, Bridget and Morse were the only occupants of the Borden house from September until the trial. Seems highly doubtful either slept in Bridget's bedroom and equally doubtful they would just mosey up to the attic and look out the windows to study neighboring rooftops. I would presume that branches and leaves were on roofs then, just like today.

Using the neighborhood drawings in Rebello pg 46 & 47, it appears to me that the surrounding homes would not have had clear visibility to the Crowe barn roof. The Kelly's and Chagnon's top story roof pitch is 'perpendicular' to the Crowe barn. So no windows from either home high enough and facing the barn. Already noted that no one likely occupied Bridget's attic window, which based on the Rebello book drawings is the only likely window that could see down on the Crown barn.

Also the police did not make much of it when it was found by a young boy who was looking for his ball and found the rusty axe.
We really don't know what the police made of the finding since they never said. My hope is that this issue might get better clarity once the Hilliard papers are published. My perspective is that neither the defense nor the prosecution wanted the Crowe hatchet introduced since it really didn't answer any questions and the prosecution had already stated their murder weapon theory in the early portions of the trial. Its important to keep in mind that an escaping intruder could have tossed it up there just as likely as Lizzie.

And Finally.......

There was a later newspaper report about a workman that reported loosing a similar axe in the area. Also in the newspaper report it was mentioned that "Another axe was found". So others were turning up. One could see how.... with the start of the trial and all the hoopla there must have been.
Since there are no police or newspaper reports of Lizzie purchasing a hatchet, why couldn't Lizzie have acquired a hatchet using a 5-finger discount. Perhaps that is how the workman lost his hatchet."

My primary point is that while we might have differing points of view on this piece of the mystery, we definitely do not have definitive answer for if the Crowe hatchet was or wasn't involved in the murders.


(Click below to make Big)

[mbhenty]

Yes camgarsky.

How dare you question me. Who do you think you are?

Just kidding

Of course this site is constructed with the building blocks of opinion. Each with its own grounded and rational discovery and only disputed by someone else's rational and plausible findings.

Some of these building blocks are quite heavy and wield substantial validity. As you have mentioned, that is why this case is so popular.

As a child we had these puzzles with hundreds and hundreds of pieces. Some looked like they fit where they didn't belong. And we would argue that we found the correct puzzle piece when in fact there was a slight variance that we couldn't see until the correct slice was found and fit perfectly. In the Borden case that correct piece has yet to be found. So we argue that we have found the correct piece even though the color is somewhat different. (OK Socrates )

One study I never looked into was Mister Crowe. Who was he. Can't remember is I ever knew since I probably forgot more than I retained about this case. Getting old is no help. But in Fall River in 1892 there were three or four Crowe families in the city. One was a mason by trade who lived on Spring street. Spring street is under two hundred feet away from the Crowe Barn today but did not exist in 1892 (at least that portion did not exist). And Mr. Crowe the mason lived on Spring but down by the river a long way off. So who was Mr. Crowe. The Crowe Barn was really the Kelly Barn. An earlier map shows this, as does the illustration in Person's and Rebello's books. The Kelly property was much larger back then than it is today, and the back yard emptied onto Third Street. The Crowe Barn property belong to the Kelley's. So who was Crowe? Did he rent the property from the Kelleys? Though someone here may have he answer, I for one would need to do a little research.

But the illustration of the houses around the Borden place is a rudimentary drawing. Though we can get a general idea, Many buildings are missing, especially along Third Street, many which may be three levels high. So it is my contention that the police and public would have scrubbed the neighborhood for proof and the Crowe Barn also. The reason to me that nothing big was made about the axe being found could have been due to the fact that some police person climbed up onto the Crowe Barn at the time of the search. I don't know. We don't know. To me it is highly unlikely that someone, no matter who, would have missed it. After all, back in the 1800s windows were the TVs of the world. And if you read my post on another thread you will find that I gave it 1%.

What are the odds? Yes the odds indeed.

The reason the killer got away with it was not that she/he was a master executioner but a matter of luck. All the pieces fell together for her/he. It was not because the police were incompetent. They had a feel for who was involved, Lizzie, but could just not prove it. That is why we have cold case files today. The police were very thorough. The same was true about finding the bloody dress. It is highly unlikely that the police would have missed it or the axe. They actually climbed up on the roof of the Borden house looking for it. Now that is a birds eye view of the neighborhood and the Crowe Barn. (Or was that tree in the way? )

And true. Much went unsaid when the Crowe axe was found. And it would have been too late to introduce it at the trial. The prosecution had built their case and when the axe was found there was only like two or three days left before they found Lizzie not guilty.

(No Your Honor, that is not the axe, this is. No...wait, that is, I mean?)

What a field day the defense would have with that. And we can't eliminate pranksters.

So your 50% as to whether the Crowe axe was the murder weapon is quite valid. Difficult to dispute... but just as impossible to defend.

So I have spoken. Don't make me mad or I'll take my ball and go home

No. The Crowe Barn axe was not the murder weapon. That is my two cents. And today you can't buy much with two cents.

[mbhenty]

Now here's a diversion.. ah, I mean, a supplement to the previous post.

Fall River is unique in its residential architecture.

With many older New England cities or towns, many examples of Early American and even Colonial Architecture still exist. Most of these buildings in Fall River were wiped out to make room for mills and the families which would work in them. It is likely that the Second Street of the 1820s was full of small Cape Cods, Two Story Colonials, and quaint gambrels. As the area got popular the affluent moved in and demolished these places to build bigger homes, etc. Such is change.

In the map below, if you study it closely, you will find the Borden House along with the Kelly house. You can see where the Crowe Barn once stood and before its time there was a large two and a half story building there. In time this was demolished and the Kellys acquired the property and built their barn (either the Kellys or the previous Bordens?)

Below that is a map of the neighborhood circa 1880s. You can see how the Kelly house, now owned by Chase, went all the way to Third Street and how Spring street was not put through yet.

Interesting, no less.

(CLICK ON PHOTO TO MAKE BIG, for those like me who have no idea. We are a dying breed, you know.)

[wall59]

How do you lose an axe on the roof of a barn? Absurd!

[mbhenty]

Yes Wall59:

It has been surmised that after the murder Lizzie had flung it up there. The southeast corner of the Borden property was very close to the the Crow barn. It could easily be done. Now I throw like a girl, if that's a thing. Was Lizzie more proficient at flinging the axe? With the possibility of being exposed by the neighborhood's prying eyes, this would have been a daring maneuver.

Below is an illustration of the neighborhood. The Crow barn is displayed as the Kelly barn. Why they call it the Crowe Barn is something I would need to investigate. But John Crowe was a mason by trade. He lived in the North End of the city and had his shop or office on Bedford Street. Perhaps he also had a shop on Third street at the "Crowe Barn."

Though I speculate that it is highly unlikely that the axe on the Crowe Barn is the weapon, with this case, anything is possible.

[Reasonwhy]

There you were in 2014, Possum, with one of the four articles.
The whole thread is worth a skim—lots of thoughts:
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... id%5B%5D=1

[mbhenty]

There was a a later report in the newspaper which gave a description of the barn and the boys playing ball.

I will go look for it.

I remember that it reminded me of me and the lads when we use to play stick ball in the middle of the street. Sometimes the ball would end up in someone's yard or on top of the roof of someone's garage. We would scale the building for the ball. At times, steal a ladder from someone's back yard to do so.

We had this pinkish red ball. Smaller than a baseball. We called it a pinky. Very bouncy. And we used a broom handle for a bat and metal trash lots for bases. Not many computers or cells phones to speak about.

[Reasonwhy]

But to the recent posts—and mbhenty, thanks for such a thorough reply to my question, I appreciate it—:

1. Agree with wall 59 that losing the hatchet on top of the barn is not possible unless he or a borowee were working up there. Crowe says no one working on roof of that barn within last two years.
2. Newspaper articles say that Arthur Potter, 14, climbed up onto the roof (this is roof of main barn, 18 feet high) after ball was thrown. So, that is how he came in sight of hatchet. None of the boys claimed to have seen it from the ground, or from elsewhere.
3. Agree with Camgarsky that Emma and John would not have been up on that 3rd floor peering out windows much, so makes sense they did not see it after murders. mbhenty, do you know of any then-existing three deckers with barn roof sight lines? Even had there been, odd viewing angles, leaves, then tree branches, could have obscured view of hatchet.
4. A Lizzie bold enough to doubly hatchet-kill would have been bold enough to throw one onto a near, relatively low roof.
5. Constant stone-cutting from Crowe’s workmen would have nicely covered the sound, and leaves, that summer day, the sight.
6. Lubinsky witnessed her in the yard; she could have been out there on just that errand.
7. Gilt on hatchet is provocative, given gilt in Abby’s wounds.
8. Hatchet could have been purchased, shoplifted, or even found by Lizzie, from the workman who said he had lost one.
9. We suspect Lizzie intended to be the wood chopper on her upcoming trip to Marion, though we do not have Elizabeth Johnston’s actual letter from Lizzie to that effect. IF true, reason to think Lizzie may have had a nice new hatchet in her room, all ready to pack.

[Reasonwhy]

mbhenty, how does it feel for strangers to be discussing these events of your town? I feel you have more of a ‘right’ to do so, you know…a feeling of ‘fools rush in, where angels fear to tread,’ with such as me being the fools. When you post these memories, as of when you were a boy playing ball, or when you lived in a three-decker, or any of the photographs of work you’ve done on your houses and of the other houses in Fall River—that’s when the case comes most alive for me. I’ve been reading about the case for decades: I’m still an outsider. It’s generous of you to hold the curtain up to let us take these many peeks. As for me, I feel rather apologetic about my intense curiosity about what is not my town, and really not my business (the case).
Do you ever feel protective?

[PossumPie]

There you were in 2014, Possum, with one of the four articles.
The whole thread is worth a skim—lots of thoughts:
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... id%5B%5D=1

WOW, a walk down memory lane...I read through my posts from back then. I doubt that that was the actual murder weapon, but it's possible. The fact that it turned up a year later, by kids makes me skeptical. I like the discussion about gilting. I've owned my share of hatchets and as I said in that thread 7 years ago, Hatchets rust VERY quickly if not taken care of...a wet hatchet edge will rust in minutes not months. The gilting that was supposedly found in Abby's head wound may have been gilting or may have been the machine-edge from a new never-used hatchet. A farmhand from Andrew's farm said that he took care of all hatchets and the broken handled one he had never seen before. Lizzie could have shoplifted or purchased the actual murder weapon right before the murder, possibly in New Bedford. She did go out one time without anyone else and was alleged to have asked for Prussic acid. She was gone 1 and a half hours, enough time to buy the dress pattern, try to buy poison, and giving up, buy a hatchet. In her defense, nobody came forward and said that they sold a hatchet to a 30-something-year-old woman though...

[mbhenty]

Yes Reasonwhy:

Being Fall River doesn't make me more of an authority but it does give me a feel for the place.

I try not to pretend like I know more because I was born in Fall River and lived there for over 65 years, but it may come across that way at times. After all, I am always complaining about Victoria Lincoln who's family had a prominent place in the city and how that does not make her an expert on a very private Lizzie.

But the Lincolns were upper crust. There's actually a picture of her grandfather, Leontine, showing President Taft around the city. Her Great Grandfather J.T. Lincoln was co-founder of Kilburn and Lincoln. I think they built Looms. He was president of a Mill here and there and President of a bank, etc. Her father, Jonathan T was author of The City of the Dinner Pail, about working the mills in Fall River and director and official on the boards of several mills. So yes she carries some weight. The Lincolns lived four or five blocks from Lizzie, I believe. So I can give her that. But not credit for making things up in her book.

My family on the other hand lived on the other side of the tracks, sort-of-speak. Where Victoria's people owned the mills and ran the banks, my people toiled in the mills and begged the banks. Fall River today is soooo different from when I was a a child. And when I was a boy lots of Lizzie's contemporaries were still around.

What gave me a feel for the city was working for a telecommunication company which took me into countless attics and basements. At a time when many of the big homes in Lizzie's Highlands were being abandoned as old families died away and their kids moved away. It was a sad time for me to witness as they cut up these large homes into apartments, and destroying wonderful raised panels and ripping away rooms to build kitchens and bathrooms... and none of it having anything to do with the Crowe Barn.

But thanks for reading my post Reasonwhy

[Reasonwhy]

Not at all, mbhenty. Thank you for writing them, all through the years. And your book about Lizzie, and your play about Lizzie. I own both, and both I have enjoyed. They helped me to imagine her and to consider your and her town and its people.

[mbhenty]

Yes Reasonwhy:

Thank you kindly. Very nice of you. I'm very happy you enjoyed the books. Yes very...

I am somewhat reluctant and uncomfortable talking about my books or ringing my own bell, but any-who, here goes:

Like D. H. Lawrence, I felt I went out a little on the limb for making Lizzie a sexual creature. But that had a purpose. It was not about the carnal exploits that Lizzie engages in but about a strong woman exercising power, control, and intimidation. Presenting her as a controlling and domineering personality. Not that she doesn't enjoy engaging in it. After all she is human.

And dare I say, it is the most historical account wrapped in fiction that has ever been written. Lots of real people and places. And unless one is a Fall River historian most of it falls by the wayside. Even the chat that Lizzie has with Oscar Wilde. There is actually like 40 quotes of his written into his dialogue. A fun chapter to write. And unless you are familiar with Oscar Wilde quotes you would never have guessed that they were quotes. Just conversation. And yes, though Lizzie did see Paris, she never met Oscar Wilde. The character is real but the scene is fiction. Again, a fun chapter to write. Especially since Henri de Toulouse Lautrec was in on it. Wilde and Lautrec were in fact friends. Below is a painting of Wilde by Lautrec.

But forgive me if I make comparisons with D. H. Lawrence, who I have always confused with T. E Lawrence, comparisons with myself. It would be ridiculous to do so. But I too received negative, heavily worded, and discouraging criticism and reviews from some who thought I had written smut. The sexual content in the book is minuscule, but nonetheless, a key factor in how the story unfolds and in building character. Though there is very little, I found it vital to make Lizzie a sensual if not fleshy soul, in reality I was very surprise by some of the thumbs-down reviews about it, since none of the eroticism was anywhere over the top.

However, in my next two novels, the Emily White stories, they were written with young people in mind. And the love making never goes beyond kissy-face. And I'm more comfortable with that. Though I believe and understand the importance of love in a story, whether it is emotional, physical, or both.

This year Lizzie Borden the Girl with the Pansy Pin has gone through a cover change and second edition. Along with that came lots of corrections missed by proofreaders previously. Image of the cover is below.

Oh yes, and there is nothing about he Crowe Barn in the book.



Hmm? Looks more like it was done by Modigliani

[PossumPie]

I've never read Pansy Pin. I love fiction, and I love non-fiction, but mixing the two can be a bit like finding a trout in your milk (to misuse a Thoreau quote). I think I switch on/off different parts of my brain when I read non-fiction especially mysteries. I'm not opposed to it, I once played a PC game called Titanic where they took the facts of the sinking and built a mystery of spies and intrigue around it. At first, I kept thinking "There is no proof that happened" but finally got both sides of my mind to cooperate and completely enjoyed it. When I get some free time I may give Pansy Pin a whirl! After all to quote Wilde: "Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life."

[mbhenty]

Yes PossumPie.

Mixing fiction and fact together can be quite tricky and in some cases confusing. Nowhere in the book's description or cover does it say the book contains any fact. It is meant to be read as absolute fiction. And it is fiction. The facts are thrown in so that those who are familiar with them get a bit of realism.

One of the complaints I received was: "Hey, it didn't happen like that." and "I thought this was suppose to be a real account?" Well, it does say "Novel" on the cover. Perhaps the realism was too real

But I understand what you mean. Especially fictional accounts based on truth. The Girl with the Pansy Pin is truth based in fiction. Like all other fictional accounts. Just not whacky. No vampires, you understand.

An example:

In the book Lizzie meets Edwin Booth at the Academy of Music Theater in Fall River. Yes, it is a fact that Edwin Booth appeared there and that the building does exist. And though it is possible that Lizzie could have seen him at the Academy, (the theater was only a block or two from her house) it is highly unlikely that she would have been introduced to Booth. However, it was another fun chapter to write. But totally fiction. And if read with that appreciation, it should read fine.


Thank you PossumPie for taking interest. And I appreciate your constructive point of view.

[PossumPie]

Yes PossumPie.

Mixing fiction and fact together can be quite tricky and in some cases confusing. Nowhere in the book's description or cover does it say the book contains any fact. It is meant to be read as absolute fiction. And it is fiction. The facts are thrown in so that those who are familiar with them get a bit of realism.

One of the complaints I received was: "Hey, it didn't happen like that." and "I thought this was suppose to be a real account?" Well, it does say "Novel" on the cover. Perhaps the realism was too real


Thank you PossumPie for taking interest. And I appreciate your constructive point of view.

Years ago I read some "fan fiction" online. A budding author would take a TV show such as CSI: Las Vegas and write new episodes using the characters (and already established character development) in order to continue the then defunct show. Some were incredibly good. I also read a "new" Winnie the Pooh book by another author who had permission to use Milne's characters. That one fell flat as I felt it didn't adequately reflect the old characters. I'm intrigued by your painting a fictional story on the canvas of factual people and places. I'll certainly read it.

[mbhenty]

Yes PossumPie:

That is funny. "Trout in your milk." Is that like pineapple on my pizza I have been know for placing bacon bits in my ice cream or grapes over my swordfish. Though experimenting in writing is much more digestive than trail by food.

Love Oscar Wilde and the way he writes. Though I am ashamed to say that I have only read Dorian Gray. Life imitated art, etc. How clever

What an honor to be given the rights to continue Winnie the Pooh. There are a host of writers in literature who have continued the exploits of certain fictional characters. Like Rex Stout in the Nero Wolfe series, continued by Robert Goldsborough. I once had a large collection of Stout first editions. I have sold most of them but have retained a handful. Very dry and dated plots, still I enjoyed Stout's work. Nero Wolf reminds me of Perry Mason, though it's Archie that does all the work, like the Paul Drake character in Mason. All Nero Wolfe had was the brains. Though that must count for something?

Other fictional characters that were give life long after the author had died were: Sherlock Holmes, P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves, and James Bond, to name a few.

Interesting, no less.

Below are the Stouts left in my library. The ones with the dustaackets with a Parker and Carr for good measure.

[Kat]

Hopefully, this will help, to put all my news items on the Crowe roof hatchet in one place, as a reference- here are 5 out of 6--plz check the dates for continuity

[Kat]

(#6)

You should be able to download these news items for your own files to keep.

[Kat]

This offering from the Evening Standard may duplicate one I have already posted, in newspaper format:


Evening Standard
June 15, 1893 Page 3, col. 6.

"ANOTHER BORDEN HATCHET.

This Just Discovered on the Top of
Crowe's Barn.

(By Associated Press.)

Fall River, June 15. --- Another Borden hatchet has been discovered. Last night a boy named Potter, son of C. C. Potter, clerk in the Fall River water works office, while looking for a ball found a hatchet on the top of John Crowe's barn, which is located just in the rear of the Borden property. Mr. Potter this morning reported his find to the police, and also sought an interview with the counsel for defense, but was unable to find Mr. Jennings. He still has the hatchet in his possession, and describes it as an ordinary implement with hammer head. The handle was weather beaten and the blade covered with rust. Some of the particles of rust being removed a slight coloring of gilt was disclosed, which would either indicate that the hatchet was at one time used as an ornament or was quite new when lost or discarded."
--------------------------------------------------------

June 16, 1893 Page 8, col. 6.

"THE NEW SENSATION.

'I Have Found Lizzie Borden's
Hatchet'

Cried a Boy in John Crowe's Barn
in Fall River.

Discovery Made in Rear of the
Borden Estate.

Fall River, June 15. --- The Daily News Bulletin this afternoon has the following:
About 7 o'clock last evening a number of boys were engaged in playing ball on Third street, in front of John Crowe's barn, which is nearly in the rear of the Borden estate, the north side of the barn serving as a fence between Dr. Chagnon's orchard, which is directly in the rear of the Borden house, and the Kelly lot, on which the barn stands.
The barn is a flat roof structure about 18 feet high. In the rear is an ell, the full width of the main building, but not more than 12 feet high. Still extending to the west and toward the Borden estate is a narrow flat roofed ell, about nine feet high. A six-foot fence runs diagonally and southeasterly from the north line of the first ell to the second ell, so that it is very easy to scale the roof.
During the game of the boys, the ball was knocked, or thrown, upon the roof of the main barn, and Master Arthur Potter, 14 years old, son of Caleb C. Potter, of the water works office, scaled the building in quest of it.
Near the northwest corner of the main building---about six feet from the west and four feet from the north line of the structure---on the northeast corner of the roof, he found a hatchet of ordinary size, lying with the head toward the southeast, the handle towards the northwest corner.
He forgot the ball and he rushed for the hatchet, and then rang out his salute to the boys below:

I've Found Lizzie Borden's Hatchet.

The hatchet is an ordinary shingle hatchet with a blade 3-3/4 inches in length. It was covered in rust and part of this was scraped off by the boy when found. It has the appearance of having been comparatively new and but little used.
The handle, which is 13-1/2 inches long, looked weather-worn as if it had been long exposed to air, sun and storm. The under side of the handle had a few slight stains, but nothing that resembled spots. Near the head of the hatchet, these stains were more pronounced.
The boys were much excited over the find, and it was given to Mr. Potter, the father of the finder, who now has it in his possession. He at once notified the police and tried to find Mr. Jennings, but in this was unsuccessful.
If the murderer of Andrew J. Borden and his wife escaped from the Borden premises by the rear, and it was a very easy way for him to so escape, he could easily have thrown the hatchet to the place where it was found.
So far as is known no man has been on the roof within two years. Mr. Crowe knows of none; all telegraph, telephone, electric light wiremen, roofers and several photographers agree on this. The police did not visit it in their thorough search.
The police have been carefully examining the hatchet this morning. They thought they could tell whether there had been blood on it or not. They confess that they are baffled.
But one of them, who has been an important witness in the Borden case, admits that with the new find and the exclusion of the Bence story everything has gone up for the government so far as a possible conviction of Lizzie Borden is concerned.
The defense has opened its case. Now look for important and vital contradictions of government testimony."


[Kat]

Once all the "witnesses" from Crowe's yard statements are looked at, one may or may not decide if Lizzie could have disposed of the weapon on that roof, according to what they saw or heard.
The jury was actually taken to Crowe's yard on Third St., but maybe to see the environs of the neighborhood and maybe also to see the Chagnon house and fence which figured in the testimony as well.

[Reasonwhy]

What do you think, Kat?

[Kat]

Previous post by me...just an offering that has always mystified me

[Kat]

Plz pardon the method I used to reply, in previous post. I am trying out (teaching myself) how to take a screen shot and cutting out the section I want, using my iPad. It worked!

[PossumPie]

My two cents worth: There were no asphalt shingles in the 1800s only wooden shingles or metal roofs. After infamous nor'easters, residents frequently checked roofs for loose shingles or metal panels. I believe that roofs were more closely watched back then than today. The Crowe "barn" roof was relatively low and easily accessible as evidenced by kids climbing up and finding a hatchet. Anyone looking out of their 2nd or 3rd-floor window in the general direction of the building would have seen the unmistakable shape of a hatchet. While not impossible, it seems unlikely that with all of the talk of hatchets in 1892-93 someone seeing a hatchet shape on the roof would ignore it. It has been argued that the leaves on the trees would have obscured it from view, but within 3 months of the murders, all of the leaves were off of the trees, and the winter winds howling.
Next, coincidences happen all of the time and we humans HATE them. We try to put some supernatural spin on them but coincidences do happen. It may have been a huge coincidence that 14 days after the trial started and 10 months after the murders a hatchet happened to be found. OR it may have been that talk of a hatchet in June caused some mischievous kids to invent the story to gain some fame.
Lastly, this may be an unpopular statement, but since the now-infamous Crowe hatchet could have been thrown up there by Lizzie, or a fleeing madman, its tie-in to the murders seems fairly inconsequential. Even if proven beyond doubt that it was THE hatchet, so what? No tie to Lizzie, it could have been anyone who killed the Bordens who heaved it up there while fleeing. I'm not saying it's not worth discussion, just that its existence doesn't push Lizzie closer to guilt.

[camgarsky4]

Completely disagree that studying what might have happened to the murder weapon to be 'fairly inconsequential'. Can't speak for anyone else, but I am curious in recreating what happened that day, not pushing Lizzie closer to guilt.

I have studied the available information and I'd like someone to specifically identify the neighborhood window that would have enabled a viewer to readily see a dull colored hatchet on a dull colored roof.

Photos and diagrams show us that the Chagnon and Kelly roof lines ran perpendicular to the Crowe roof. So no windows. No one was staying in the Borden attic that winter (to our knowledge).

From 2003-2018, my master bedroom was in a converted 3rd story attic. I looked out those windows for basically two reasons. If I heard the door bell, I would glance out to see who's car had arrived and second reason would be to check out the weather....was it raining or had it snowed. I don't recall EVER studying or noticing what was on anyone's roof. Maybe a giant bright beach ball would have caught my eye.

If those young boys cooked up this hoax, they sure were clever and fortunate to have a hatchet available that matched up so well with the characteristics, location and conditions necessary for this to be the murder weapon.

To my way of thinking, the ONLY reasons to doubt that the Crowe hatchet is legit is the timing of discovery and that the source are newspaper articles. That is it. I keep my fingers crossed that the Hilliard Papers will reveal more to dispel or enhance the possibility of this hatchet being the weapon.

[PossumPie]

Completely disagree that studying what might have happened to the murder weapon to be 'fairly inconsequential'. Can't speak for anyone else, but I am curious in recreating what happened that day, not pushing Lizzie closer to guilt.

I have studied the available information and I'd like someone to specifically identify the neighborhood window that would have enabled a viewer to readily see a dull colored hatchet on a dull colored roof.

Photos and diagrams show us that the Chagnon and Kelly roof lines ran perpendicular to the Crowe roof. So no windows. No one was staying in the Borden attic that winter (to our knowledge).

From 2003-2018, my master bedroom was in a converted 3rd story attic. I looked out those windows for basically two reasons. If I heard the door bell, I would glance out to see who's car had arrived and second reason would be to check out the weather....was it raining or had it snowed. I don't recall EVER studying or noticing what was on anyone's roof. Maybe a giant bright beach ball would have caught my eye.

If those young boys cooked up this hoax, they sure were clever and fortunate to have a hatchet available that matched up so well with the characteristics, location and conditions necessary for this to be the murder weapon.

To my way of thinking, the ONLY reasons to doubt that the Crowe hatchet is legit is the timing of discovery and that the source are newspaper articles. That is it. I keep my fingers crossed that the Hilliard Papers will reveal more to dispel or enhance the possibility of this hatchet being the weapon.

I perhaps shouldn't have used "Inconsequential". The hatchet debate is fun and a very real part of what may or may not have happened, I meant that The fact that it WAS or WAS NOT the murder weapon won't make it more or less likely that Lizzie was the murderer. Had someone sneaked into the house, killed the Bordens, and run out back, hopping the fence at the woodpile, thrown the hatchet on the roof so as not to be caught with it, and disappeared down the street, that would be just as likely as Lizzie running outside to the back of her property, throwing it up there, and running back inside. Think of it this way: If that hatchet were found on the roof, so close to the Borden home, wouldn't that be just as incriminating as finding in Lizzie's room? Hide it somewhere close by until nobody was watching, then dispose of it in a pond, woods, etc. far from home. If she threw it on that roof, wouldn't she be out there later retrieving it to hide better? Reading through the threads about the Crowe barn hatchet, Someone made the point that Lizzie would have had to throw it up there noisily while Bridget was in her third-floor room and workmen were in the next yard over. Risky. I also discovered that back in 2014 I believed that the Crowe hatchet WAS the murder weapon! I don't know what ultimately changed my mind, I think the timing of the kids finding it and the workman claiming that it was his.

The Crowe barn is in the upper left of the picture. the roof is flat on the right side of the barn. The Churchill house next to the Borden house is bottom right of the picture. ANY rear second-floor window would see onto the 8ft flat roof of the Crowe barn. As I mentioned, people kept an eye on shingles on houses, barns, and sheds as wind-damaged shingles led to water damage inside so peering at a roof may have been more prevalent. Lastly, a workman claimed the hatchet as one he had lost and the hatchet took on less significance. The police SHOULD have taken it more seriously and at least examined it, but after 10 months, there was no blood or hair left to find if it were the murder weapon.

[camgarsky4]

We've had enough tit for tat on this, so we'll just need to chock this one in the "we strongly disagree" column.

But I must ask, between the murders and her arrest, when would Lizzie have climbed up on that barn roof to retrieve the hatchet to properly dispose of it?

[PossumPie]

We've had enough tit for tat on this, so we'll just need to chock this one in the "we strongly disagree" column.

But I must ask, between the murders and her arrest, when would Lizzie have climbed up on that barn roof to retrieve the hatchet to properly dispose of it?

Probably not. It may be the actual murder weapon-- I just don't have enough evidence to say for sure. In the era before fingerprints and DNA, the only thing that would have tied Lizzie to a weapon would be proximity. I just get the hair on my neck raised when I hear it was discovered during the trial. If they had found it days/weeks after the murders, I probably would be much more convinced. As I've stated before, If it was the actual murder weapon, it could be put there by the psychopathic murderer fleeing the scene. A 100% proof that it was the murder weapon wouldn't prove it was Lizzie so I guess I don't put much energy into its authenticity.

[Kat]

Well, what do the workmen in the yard on Third St. say about what they saw or heard or didn't see or hear on Thursday? Maybe there was no chance of it happening if there's a guy sitting on the fence eating pears? Witness statements, timeline anyone, or maybe that has already been established?

[camgarsky4]

I was scrolling thru the witness statements a few minutes ago gathering info for the "Missing Parcel" thread I'm hoping to kick off tomorrow.

The pear eating gentleman was on the fence/wood pile around 10-10:30 The Crowe yard mason workers didn't see anyone come thru that yard. No mention or comment about hearing or not hearing anything odd.

[Kat]

Thanks!
Lucy Collette...? while Cam is researching a pkg, does anyone have the written words or timeline?

[Reasonwhy]

I’m going to continue on Lizzie’s “slowness,” next up…

[camgarsky4]

Kat - below is Lucy's prelim hearing testimony. She arrived at the Chagnon's around 10:50, so she would have likely been there when anyone might have tossed the Crowe hatchet. Earlier in the testimony, Jennings gets clarity that the Piazza faced 3rd street. (at least that is how I interpreted it....the back and forth is a bit confusing).

Q. So if anybody came over that fence at the back yard there, and down the carriage drive, you would
not have seen them, would you, unless they had made a noise?
A. I would not have seen them, but I would have heard the noise.
Q. How do you know you would?
A. I might, and I might not.
Q. You might, and you might not; is that so?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Unless there was some noise, made, you would not have seen them, would you, unless it caused you
to look around? You would not have seen them unless you had looked around?
A. No Sir

[Kat]

Thanks!
I just found the guys in the Third St. yard, and Lucy, too.
I'm just interested in whether any noise was heard of a heavy metal object hitting a roof.. .(or a scream?)

Witness Statements
Doherty & Harrington
Crowe’s Yard, pg 38
“...Dr. Collet’s daughter Lucy was sent up to Dr. Chagnon’s to await callers. She could not gain entrance, for the door was locked, so she remained in the yard from 9.45 A. M., or thereabouts, to 12 M, when the assistant returned. She is positive no one could go through the yard without being seen by her. She heard no noise.

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

Patrick McGowan is the man who was eating pears on the pile of lumber, and said to have been on the fence. He is employed by Mr. Crowe, and left the yard about 10. A. M.

The next house is occupied by Mrs. Crapo. She and the girl were at home all Thursday August 4th, but heard no noise; neither did they see any person go through their yard. "

[Kat]

I looked at the trial, Derosier, Denny and McGowan from Crowe's yard but they didn't see or hear anything.
Depends on whether one thinks a hatchet being tossed to a roof would be heard...but also, no scream...

[Reasonwhy]

In a working stone yard, seems that noise could be easily drowned out, I think. Thanks to you and Camgarsky for digging!

[camgarsky4]

A hatchet hitting a wood roof would create a single “thump”. Human ear is likely to miss that sound if not listening for it.

If galvanized metal sheeting used on barn, then the noise would have been ‘clangy’ and more likely noticed by the workers.

MB - any opinion on what roofing material might have been used on an out building in Fall River in 1890?

[PossumPie]

A hatchet hitting a wood roof would create a single “thump”. Human ear is likely to miss that sound if not listening for it.

If galvanized metal sheeting used on barn, then the noise would have been ‘clangy’ and more likely noticed by the workers.

MB - any opinion on what roofing material might have been used on an out building in Fall River in 1890?

I agree. A metal roof would be a louder noise. It seems from the testimony that at various times that morning people were coming and going near the back of the Borden property. In considering the noises of the street, a thump no matter how loud probably would have been ignored. What I'm wondering is would Lizzie, in broad daylight with second-floor windows in homes on all sides looking down into her yard throw something up on the roof? That seems a bit too risky.

Here is an interesting question: In the years before "CSI" why wouldn't Lizzie have just left the hatchet on the floor next to Andrew's body? There would have been no risk to do that, It wasn't until 1902 that the first fingerprint was used to convict someone so she wouldn't even have known what a fingerprint was. Someone might have said, "isn't this your family's hatchet?" To which Lizzie could have answered, "Yes, how horrible that they killed him with his own hatchet." She would have known that she had to dispose of the dress, it could be directly linked to her but the hatchet?

[camgarsky4]

Fair question....and it could apply to any potential killer.

I think Lizzie was forced to accelerate her game plan and was acting 'free form' and not taking the time to think thru each step. She was in a reactive mode. "I need this hatchet out of sight"....ran outside....glanced around frantically, ran to the furthest corner from house and tossed it. "I need an alibi", so I'll lean into having just been outside. Survival mode took over.

That said, if she was in this read & react mode, it might have made more sense if she tossed the hatchet in the old well which would have been right in front of her when she ran out the side door. The police searched the well, but didn't note if it was securely covered. Be a nice luxury if we knew those kind of details.

[Kat]

Some of what ya'll are discussing reminds me of the Bertha Manchester case. Finding the ax close by the house made no difference in the apprehension of a suspect. At that time, the very same police and M.E. were involved as well.
It's interesting, also, to note, that later news coverage gave a theory of how the crime was committed, saying that the culprit came into the house to rob it, Bertha heard him, and grabbed the ax to defend herself and property, and it's implied the weapon was taken away from her and then used against her. She had been in the kitchen, tho, where that ax would have been at hand.

I apologize that the PDF did not include the source, now that I download it. It is from the NYT, May 31, 1893, just before Lizzie's trial started.

[camgarsky4]

Kat - go watch the Chiefs! They just scored!

[Kat]

Thanks! I had the wrong channel on!

[mbhenty]

Yes PossumPie.

We can all speculate how much noise would be made by flinging an axe up onto a metal roof. I surmise, not much, or enough to steal someone's attention in a busy neighborhood. Unless you were flinging an anvil up there. That roof was reported to be around eight feet high. (the reason the boys who found the axe were able to scale it.). If lizzie is around five feet tall, it would not take much to toss an axe up there. And if in fact the roof was tar, it would make little noise.

Now I would need to do a little research to place my John Hancock on it, but a metal roof on a barn-like building may, I say may, be unlikely. Metal was still a little expensive in the nineteenth century, though it was being used in the South quite a bit.

Most roofs were sheathed in cedar shingles, white or red; in wood shakes. If you lend weight to illustrations of the Crowe barn, which seems to be three small buildings, one attached to another, it appears that the smallest and one closest to the Borden yard was a low-roof building with a flat roof.

By the middle of the nineteenth century buildings with flat roofs (all which still had some level of pitch to shed water) were covered in a felt material with tar over it. Tar was smeared over the felt with a broom type mop. It is possible that was what covered the eight to nine foot tall roof at the rear of the Crowe barn, if history has anything to say about it.

[mbhenty]

Of interest.... or not.

But when I was a little boy we played on this abandoned property across the street from our house. It was an old barn still full of hay. And this was right in the middle of the city, in the east end of Fall River, better known as the Flint section, and less than a block from the Hargraves Mill and just behind the Weybosset Street house where Morse spent some time on the day of the crime.

The dilapidated barn must have dated back close to the 19th century, and this was in the 50s. It had an old rusty corrugated steel roof. But I couldn't tell you how old it was or when the steel was placed on the roof, or if it was native to the building. (what I can tell you is that Tommy bit half of my chocolate fudge sickle right out of my hand when I wasn't watching.)

Now the Crowe axe was rusty. But it doesn't take much time for bare steel left out over night to rust. And who is to say that the axe on the Crowe barn was not thrown up there when it was already rusted. Like a murder when the body was found but the killing happened somewhere else.

[Kat]

Some of what ya'll are discussing reminds me of the Bertha Manchester case. Finding the ax close by the house made no difference in the apprehension of a suspect. At that time, the very same police and M.E. were involved as well.
It's interesting, also, to note, that later news coverage gave a theory of how the crime was committed, saying that the culprit came into the house to rob it, Bertha heard him, and grabbed the ax to defend herself and property, and it's implied the weapon was taken away from her and then used against her. She had been in the kitchen, tho, where that ax would have been at hand.

I apologize that the PDF did not include the source, now that I download it. It is from the NYT, May 31, 1893, just before Lizzie's trial started.

My position on the Crowe roof hatchet, now, since you asked, Reasonwhy, is that after reading the statements of the men working in the Third St yard, Lucy Collette, those of you here who have reasonable speculations, finding that no sound was heard and no one was seen, and after noting that in the Manchester case, an ax still bloody was found near her house that made no difference in her case, that we don't need a weapon, found or otherwise. And unless Lizzie is caught with a hatchet in her hand, even that is not proof because she could just say well, it was embedded in fathers face and I thought I should remove it I was so shocked!
No disrespect to Mr Borden intended.

[Kat]

I do understand there are those who are assiduously examining Lizzie's timeline of her version of events and that can be important too, of course!

I just think, as I mentioned, that because of the times, 1892, a weapon is not too important.

[PossumPie]

I do understand there are those who are assiduously examining Lizzie's timeline of her version of events and that can be important too, of course!

I just think, as I mentioned, that because of the times, 1892, a weapon is not too important.

Agreed. Further up the thread, I said that it was "inconsequential" meaning it would be great to prove it was "the hatchet" but inconsequential to proving her innocence or guilt. 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.

11 whacks, 2 seconds each, 60 seconds to get up to her room, 10 1/2 min. to undress, clean up and hide the dress, 2 min. to come downstairs and get out back, 2 minutes to throw the hatchet and come back in, 5 minutes to look around for any incriminating evidence and straighten her hair...20 minutes.

[Reasonwhy]

I just think, as I mentioned, that because of the times, 1892, a weapon is not too important.

—partial post

I agree, to the extent that it cannot be dispositive in our attempts to understand if she was actually guilty of one or both of the murders, since fingerprint evidence is not available. Also, it is not impossible to think of ways she could have disposed of it, hidden it, or broken it and left it in plain sight (the handle-less hatchet).

But, as to whether she should have been found guilty or not guilty by the jury, it played a hugely determinative role, I’m convinced, for this reason: a missing weapon is like the missing blood from Lizzie’s person. It psychologically removed Lizzie from any means to have committed the crime. No way to convincingly tie in any of the on-site hatchets left her hands as weapon-free as they were blood-free: why, the real murderer must have carried the weapon away with him.

Remember Emma’s 1913 interview where she said she believed Lizzie innocent because there was no place she could have hidden the hatchet? Emma was presenting Lizzie’s best defense to the world (and to herself?).

[Kat]

Can my memory be refreshed, please? In opening or closing statements by prosecution or defense at trial state that no weapon taken from the premises can be proven (or not proven) to be the implement of death, and therefore Lizzie must be found "Not Guilty?" Thanks!
I'm just tired...but curious, and interested!
If no one is available, I can look tomorrow.