Crowe Barn hatchet

[Kat]

Well,here's the other "birds eye view" of the area, and I agree the trees in the empty lot were sparse enough to see through, according to the Phillips photo of the Chagnon house, and not all clumped together as seemingly shown in the other Third St hand drawn view.

[camgarsky4]

Below is Morse PH testimony about the back fence and wood piles. Do you read the 'green' comments to say that the pile of boards started about 4/5 feet from the Kelly fence in the SE corner of the Borden property? Or that the boards went from the fence and ENDED 4-5 feet from fence?

Morse Preliminary Hearing testimony
Q. Did you at the time, or have you since, Mr. Morse, noticed that pile of boards in the back yard?
A. I have.
Q. The pile of boards or timber?
A. I have.
Q. Have you noticed it relative to its position to the Chagnon fence?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Could you indicate it on the plan?
(Mr. Knowlton.) It has been pulled over two or three times to find things.
Q. Assuming that to be the board fence between Mr. Borden’s yard and Dr. Chagnon’s yard, can you indicate about where relative to that fence the pile of boards was?
A. I think over this corner, over here, this way about four or five feet.
Q. From the south east corner, from the south fence?
A. This is Dr. Kelley’s place?
Q. From the south east corner of Mr. Borden’s yard?
A. I think about four or five feet from there right north to the first end of the boards.
Q. There was a pile of boards there down in the south east corner extending about four or five feet from the Dr. Kelley line; about how far was that pile of boards from the Dr. Chagnon fence?
A. Some of them lay against it.
Q. Was there any other pile beside that pile?
A. Another small pile north of that.
Q. How far north?
A. I would not think they were more than five or six feet apart.
Q. How near was that second pile to the Dr. Chagnon fence?
A. It was off two feet I think, I dont know exactly.
Q. How high were those piles up relative to the fence?
A. I think the largest pile was about four or five feet high.
Q. How high should you think the Chagnon fence was?
A. Probably six feet and a half; I dont know anything about it, that is my best judgment about it.
Q. We will assume the Chagnon board fence is six feet high, you think the pile of boards was about four and a half feet?
A. I think so.

[Reasonwhy]

I would agree with this, from Morse’s wording:
‘the boards went from the fence and ENDED 4-5 feet from fence’

The reason is Morse’s answer “from there,” to the question posed “from the southeast corner?”:

Q. From the south east corner of Mr. Borden’s yard?
A. I think about four or five feet from there….

That is, from the corner.

This is also consistent with the drawing from Rebello. That would sure make for an easy toss onto the twelve foot ell, even if Lizzie or another culprit did not scale the lumber pile to its full 4.5 feet. Is this what you’re thinking,too? I also see those treetops as providing a nice screening from view, but not an impenetrable one for tossing purposes.

In addition, Lizzie has some room for the hatchet to land on that ell—it need not land in one particular spot. This helps her, too.

[camgarsky4]

Yes, I am personally satisfied that no physical conditions preclude the Crowe. Hatchet from being the Borden hatchet. The location and condition make it an intriguing fit to be the Borden hatchet.

I’ll share my thoughts on the worker lost hatchet once I have my laptop. Phone typing is annoying.

In my opinion, the coincidental timing of the find is the only strong reason to have doubts and why My confidence factor holds around 60-70% (it’s going up ).

[PossumPie]

Yes, I am personally satisfied that no physical conditions preclude the Crowe. Hatchet from being the Borden hatchet. The location and condition make it an intriguing fit to be the Borden hatchet.

I’ll share my thoughts on the worker lost hatchet once I have my laptop. Phone typing is annoying.

In my opinion, the coincidental timing of the find is the only strong reason to have doubts and why My confidence factor holds around 60-70% (it’s going up ).

What are the implications then? I am willing to accept the moderately strong possibility that the Crowe-roof hatchet is indeed the murder weapon, but I am unclear how that influences who the killer was as a fleeing stranger, Bridget, or Lizzie could all easily have thrown the hatchet on the roof.

[camgarsky4]

Possum, you and I agree 100% that Lizzie lied about the alibi, the note, the burglary and she had a traditional motive.....money. The only hole in the boat is being able to provide a tangible, known answer to the weapon question. Without that explanation, the "lizzie didn't do it' folks have a clear reason to believe in an intruder or accomplice who spirited the weapon away from the Borden's.

A reasonable and tangible explanation of what happened to the murder weapon eliminates the only potent counter point to our contention that Lizzie was the sole murderer.

If you believe Lizzie acted alone and was the murderer, the only other explanation is a secret hiding place. For me, that is too 'vague' and unsatisfactory.

Unless one believes in an elaborate hoax, then the timing of the Crowe barn find is just another bizarre Borden happenstance. The more I contemplate what would have to be believed for this to have been a hoax, the more I don't think that was the case.

So in a nutshell, I realize it isn't conclusive, but it does plug a hole in the case against Lizzie. Hopefully that makes some sense.

[PossumPie]

Possum, you and I agree 100% that Lizzie lied about the alibi, the note, the burglary and she had a traditional motive.....money. The only hole in the boat is being able to provide a tangible, known answer to the weapon question. Without that explanation, the "lizzie didn't do it' folks have a clear reason to believe in an intruder or accomplice who spirited the weapon away from the Borden's.

A reasonable and tangible explanation of what happened to the murder weapon eliminates the only potent counter point to our contention that Lizzie was the sole murderer.

If you believe Lizzie acted alone and was the murderer, the only other explanation is a secret hiding place. For me, that is too 'vague' and unsatisfactory.

Unless one believes in an elaborate hoax, then the timing of the Crowe barn find is just another bizarre Borden happenstance. The more I contemplate what would have to be believed for this to have been a hoax, the more I don't think that was the case.

So in a nutshell, I realize it isn't conclusive, but it does plug a hole in the case against Lizzie. Hopefully that makes some sense.

If Lizzie did it, and if she ditched the hatchet, it must be either in the house in a hidden area, or outside, on the roof, or down a well, etc. It could have been hidden for a while, then retrieved and gotten rid of forever in a pond maybe. I do doubt that if she put it on the roof that she planned to go get it later.

[camgarsky4]

Not sure how to read that response....which seems to be a disappointing trend.

I do not think she hid it in a hidden area of the house which was searched, I do not think she buried in the lawn where disturbed dirt would have been noticed, I do not think she threw it down the well which was searched.

I think she threw it on the neighboring roof where a matching hatchet happened to be found.

[Reasonwhy]

Increasing the odds that it was Lizzie and not Bridget or an unknown who tossed the hatchet onto Crowe’s barn roof are three things:

1. Hyman Lubinsky testified the woman he saw coming from the direction of the Borden barn was not Bridget, that he knew Bridget, and this was not her.

2. Lubinsky also testified that the woman walked slowly. (I will soon add reasons for Lizzie’s “slowness” to the thread I began about that. Sorry that I’ve been so s l o o o w

3. None of Crowe’s workmen saw any unknown leaping the fences on Aug. 4th in an attempted getaway.

For these and all the other persuasive inclusions in this thread, my percentage belief that it was Lizzie who used the Crowe hatchet in at least one, and likely both of the murders, is now up to 99 and 9/10ths percent (Ivory Soap level?)

She sought to distance herself from this weapon by ‘throwing it away.’ Since this action could also make it look like a fleeing culprit had thrown it, the gamble was certainly worth the risk to her. This was one of her smartest moves, in my opinion.

[Reasonwhy]

This “throwing away” fits with a pattern of Lizzie’s for evidence that would (or that she fears would) tend to incriminate her, including
—the burned dress
—all of the items taken in the house robbery, which are never found (The car tickets may be an exception; though even if Lizzie only gave them away, rather than destroying them, she still removed them from her possession.)
—the note, if it existed
—the paper(s), of Andrew’s?, burned in the stove
—Andrew’s “club”—removed, from Lizzie’s possession?, and put into the elder Bordens’ room, where Alice slept

My way of analyzing the case, since there are so many factual gaps, is to look at Lizzie, to see if I can figure out how she would likely have acted. Granted, she too is an enigma; still, if we can discern patterns of behavior, we can reach some kind of satisfaction in our own minds, at least, about whether and why she did it.

Would you say she engaged in magical thinking, Possum? If the evidence doesn’t exist, then in her own mind, she’s innocent…

[Kat]

When we went to the LAB website link to look at Sherry's Tilden-Thurber story assessment, did you notice The Pic Album magazine, 1938?
https://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetO ... essay.html
There was a picture of the time when the barn was being torn down and a hatchet was found...Cool...except it could be anyone's, right? 1938?

[Reasonwhy]

Thought I read that there were a number of hoax hatchets planted. Can’t remember where I saw that, now. But yes, if that is not one of the admitted hoaxes, it is intriguing…

[Kat]

I wrote about the Second Street house and the character with the big personality who had the Leary Press, and said he got free drinks by showing a hatchet. Yes, there were hoax hatchets, you're right!

[PossumPie]

Not sure how to read that response....which seems to be a disappointing trend.

I do not think she hid it in a hidden area of the house which was searched, I do not think she buried in the lawn where disturbed dirt would have been noticed, I do not think she threw it down the well which was searched.

I think she threw it on the neighboring roof where a matching hatchet happened to be found.

Sorry Camgarsky4, the entire bottom of my post got chopped off. I was saying that your deductions of the roof hatchet being the murder weapon seem sound and that the alternatives (especially burying it) are less so. I believe that she could have hid it in the house for a few days before getting the chance to ditch it. I think people tend to discount the hiding in the house theory because the police "searched" the house. There have been great debates on other threads over the years as to whether or not a person could hide something from the police. I am in a "police family" with relatives who are street officers, detectives, etc. I KNOW things can be hidden from even a modern tear the place apart search. We did discuss something as simple as taking an upholstery tack out and slipping it in the lining under a couch. The ease of which even large things can be hidden from police is why I guess I'm 50/50 on the roof being the hiding place.

[camgarsky4]

Thanks for clarification Possum! I'm at 70/30, so not too far apart.

What likely drives my 'higher rating' is not very scientific. I think Lizzie killed Andrew hours sooner than she had planned and she was not able to execute her original Plan. My thinking is that she planned to kill Andrew in the afternoon once she had gotten Bridget out of the house shopping. Lizzie would then go shopping and dispose of the hatchet off the premises. Solid alibi and no murder weapon.

Upon learning of Morse's impending arrival for the noon meal, Lizzie had to make an 'on the spot' decision around 10:45am, Andrew was dead 15 minutes later and in her frantic and racing mind, Lizzie had to get rid of the hatchet. After cleaning of her hands, face and the head of the hatchet, she ran outside to the furthest corner of the house and heaved the hatchet onto the Crowe barn.

In a nutshell, I don't think she had the time to think up a good hiding place inside the house. Obviously this is 100% speculation.

The slow walking back to the house seen by Lubinsky is key to this theory.....she was simply composing herself.

[PossumPie]

Thanks for clarification Possum! I'm at 70/30, so not too far apart.

What likely drives my 'higher rating' is not very scientific. I think Lizzie killed Andrew hours sooner than she had planned and she was not able to execute her original Plan. My thinking is that she planned to kill Andrew in the afternoon once she had gotten Bridget out of the house shopping. Lizzie would then go shopping and dispose of the hatchet off the premises. Solid alibi and no murder weapon.

Upon learning of Morse's impending arrival for the noon meal, Lizzie had to make an 'on the spot' decision around 10:45am, Andrew was dead 15 minutes later and in her frantic and racing mind, Lizzie had to get rid of the hatchet. After cleaning of her hands, face and the head of the hatchet, she ran outside to the furthest corner of the house and heaved the hatchet onto the Crowe barn.

In a nutshell, I don't think she had the time to think up a good hiding place inside the house. Obviously this is 100% speculation.

The slow walking back to the house seen by Lubinsky is key to this theory.....she was simply composing herself.

That does sound logical...I think if she knew that morning that she was going to hack them up, she would have thought about where to stash her dress and hatchet for a short while...even if the hatchet ended up on the roof, the dress needed hidden also. Wherever the dress was hidden the hatchet could have been with it. Anyway, either scenario is workable and points to her guilt.

[Kat]

Just to add here...it was asked earlier if Mr Borden knew that John Morse was coming the day he did (Wednesday) and here is his inquest answer:

Q. You do not think you had written announcing your visit at this time?
A. I dont think I did. Let me see, let me tell it as I can think of it. Mr. Borden, when I was over here sometime in July, that I speak of, wanted to know if I knew of a man he could get on his farm, to take charge of it, I told him I did not know, I would see. When I got back I wrote him I knew of a man I thought would suit him, I would send him over. He wrote back to me he had rather I would wait until I saw him. I have his letter in my pocket, if you want to see it.
Q. What was the date of that letter? You may refresh your memory. If you have no objections, I will see it.
(Witness produces the letter dated July 25, 1892.)
Q. Have you any objection to me keeping this?
A. No Sir, I would not like it lost, because it was the last one I ever had from him.
Q. That, then, was the last correspondence before you came over?
A. That is the last.
Q. You did not write him you were coming?
A. No Sir.
Q. You came partially in pursuance of that request?
A. Yes Sir.
99
Q. Was that about ten days before you came?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. So they were not expecting you that particular day, but were looking for you at any time?
A. Yes Sir.

[PossumPie]

Q. So they were not expecting you that particular day, but were looking for you at any time?
A. Yes Sir.

Let's say that Lizzie knew she was going to kill them "soon" Emma was away so one less person in the house. She set up the seeds of danger Wednesday night with the neighbor--Someone is trying to kill them. She knew Morse was coming soon and Emma would be coming home soon, so Thursday seemed a good day. Arriving home after talking up the danger to the neighbor, she heard Morse talking and knew he was there. Why not put it off a day or two? Perhaps she was going to except Morse left early Thursday morning so it was only her and Bridget. Lizzie committed herself to Thursday around 9 AM when Abby was killed. She wanted Bridget out of the way so enticed her with a yard goods sale. Bridget didn't bite. Bridget went upstairs giving Lizzie a chance to kill Andrew.

The reason I'm not 100% convinced Lizzie did it (I'm 90-95% convinced) is that Lizzie could have waited a bit longer and assured a less dangerous situation. Perhaps Friday Morse would move on, Bridget would feel better and Lizzie would be alone with Abby, then alone with Andrew, go establish her alibi. She took such a chance to proceed with it on Thursday when there is no evidence that it HAD to be that day. Some folks invent reasons that it HAD to be Thursday such as impending will changes, etc. but there is no evidence of that. I guess I wonder why she took such a chance not knowing when Morse would get back.

Reasonwhy, you asked about magical thinking with Lizzie. I'm not sure. I think it is logical thinking to get rid of things that could incriminate you. I think her original plan was to poison them and say "some hater of father poisoned them" it's less messy and often the weapon of choice for women. When that fell through, literally the day before the murders, she wouldn't have had much time to fool-proof her plan of a hatchet.

[camgarsky4]

Possum -- very much agree on your final paragraph.

As to why she would "risk" it with Morse visiting and Bridget being ill....if Lizzie listened in Wednesday night or afternoon to the Morse talks downstairs, she would have heard the talk of visiting the Emery's and likely other indications that Morse was visiting for just the single night.

Andrew inviting Morse back for lunch as he was leaving strongly signals that John wasn't coming back, otherwise, why invite him? I find it telling that Lizzie came downstairs within minutes of Morse leaving.

Bridget wasn't sick as of Wednesday, so that wouldn't have been a consideration for Lizzie. I'm not even sure Lizzie knew she was feeling poorly until hearing of Bridget's inquest testimony (if she did). When Bridget went out to vomit, I believe that Lizzie thought she was going out to start washing the windows (as Lizzie testified at the Inquest).

My opinion is that Lizzie was a extraordinarily focused, single minded and determined person who had initiated the kill plan Tuesday and her efforts would not stop until the task was completed.

[Reasonwhy]

Remember, though, Bridget’s work schedule:

1. Thursdays were the only day she cleaned windows. And, Lizzie could not even count on this opportunity to have Bridget outside every Thursday, as Bridget testified she did not clean them every week.

2. Bridget had only Thursday afternoons and Sundays off. So, Lizzie would have had to wait a week until the next Thursday, at least, to find another opportunity to try to send Bridget to a sale. And perhaps Bridget could only be tempted by dress cloth sales? Don’t know how often good bargains were offered. Bridget had little money, remember. Sundays might not work, even if Bridget’s habit was to leave for the whole day, as Andrew and Abby might both be home for much of the day, or have an unpredictable schedule. Tough to kill them both at once!

So, even if you discount Andrew’s possible financial maneuvers as motive for killing on that particular day, Lizzie was constrained by having to work around Bridget’s presence = narrows Lizzie’s window of opportunity. This may be a logistical reason why she felt she could not wait, as that would mean waiting for week/s, not just days.

[Reasonwhy]

partial post of Possum:
“Reasonwhy, you asked about magical thinking with Lizzie. I'm not sure. I think it is logical thinking to get rid of things that could incriminate you….”

I do agree with you there, Possum. I was thinking more about Lizzie’s psyche, about whether she had a sense of denial that would help to defend her from feelings of guilt. She seems emotionally removed from the crimes and I wonder if those actions helped her to achieve that emotional distance.

Can someone act in a canny, shrewdly tactical way, and at the same time have that sense of removal from her own actions? This is one source of my “cognitive dissonance” in trying to understand how Lizzie’s mind worked. Have you wondered about that, too?

[Kat]

I think she could feel disassociated from feelings of guilt if she did not kill on her own, but rather had it done. I mentioned before that that would be a different mind-set, a different pathology, to be once removed from murder, and rather the person who directed. That also fits, in a way, a person who would poison. One doesn't just hand the victim poison and watch them take it and die. They can hide it in some food, and kill at a distance. It's "sneaky." I think this could be what we are facing...and then that could include Emma. The poisoner is not the same mindset as the person who attacks personally with a bladed weapon.
If those who are sure Lizzie tried to buy poison, then I would think it would follow that there would be the understanding that 2 different weapons denote 2 different methods= 2 different killers.
People would say about Lizzie that she was not sneaky (in other words, of course), but I think Emma could certainly be sneaky and smarter, and craftier than Lizzie.

[Kat]

Found 4 more Crowe hatchet news items, one was the same content, but rearranged, so am offering 3.
One is a bit redundant, but has a later date of publishing.

[Kat]

Crowe hatchet, more

[Reasonwhy]

Oooh, Kat, your last few posts here are fascinating, because they feel like your theory of how the crimes actually occurred. Please, please tell us more!

[PossumPie]

partial post of Possum:
“Reasonwhy, you asked about magical thinking with Lizzie. I'm not sure. I think it is logical thinking to get rid of things that could incriminate you….”

I do agree with you there, Possum. I was thinking more about Lizzie’s psyche, about whether she had a sense of denial that would help to defend her from feelings of guilt. She seems emotionally removed from the crimes and I wonder if those actions helped her to achieve that emotional distance.

Can someone act in a canny, shrewdly tactical way, and at the same time have that sense of removal from her own actions? This is one source of my “cognitive dissonance” in trying to understand how Lizzie’s mind worked. Have you wondered about that, too?

Firstly, when you mentioned that Bridget only washed windows on Thursdays, something clicked into place. I knew that but somehow didn't factor it in. That makes perfect sense then that Lizzie didn't just wake up and say "today I'll kill them" but probably knew ahead of time that a Thursday would work best.

Going along with that cold, calculating analytical mind, and to answer your question about detachment, Absolutely--but only certain people. I did psychotherapy /counseling for about 25 years. Over that time I saw hot-heads, angry people, impulsive people, greedy people, and just plain mean people. The most fearsome were the analytical, calculating people who used people like chessmen. They "loved" or cared for those close to them but only to the extent that they didn't get in their way. They would steal money from their mothers if they felt that they needed it more, but also bring their mother's flowers on their birthday. Everything was filtered through what they needed or wanted most first, THEN and only then what others needed or wanted. They could be charming, personable, but usually as an act. Once someone was out of their lives, they rarely thought about them. Mark David Chapman (John Lennon's killer) once said that when people were away from him, it was like they were dead. That resonated with me because I've seen that mentality. Lizzie chose her chess move carefully, executed it, knew the suspicion was going to be on her to some degree and planned her defense. I bet if we could have sneaked into Jenning's office it would be Lizzie planning out her defense. Many of the muddled answers that often contradicted each other were perhaps not fumbling, but a plan. Law enforcement will tell you that a person with all of the right answers and alibis that never changes them is more suspicious than someone who contradicts themselves on small details. Lizzie did make a few blunders, she should have never talked about a note, or Abby bringing home lunch, she should have never said that she heard a moan-that first whack prevented any outcry, but overall, her story got her a not guilty verdict. Jennings's own grandson was reported to say that after the last shoplifting charge Jennings said "'I will have nothing to do with that woman." (Brockton Sunday Advertiser, September 13, 1992.) While not completely verifiable, I believe he said it. He was a pawn in the game himself.

[Reasonwhy]

“Jennings's own grandson was reported to say that after the last shoplifting charge Jennings said "'I will have nothing to do with that woman." (Brockton Sunday Advertiser, September 13, 1992.) While not completely verifiable, I believe he said it. He was a pawn in the game himself.”
—partial post by PossumPie

I agree with you. What you describe earlier in your post sounds like sociopathic traits. I have not decided what “diagnosis” fits Lizzie best, to me, but she does share characteristics of sociopaths, one of which is exploiting other people. Lizzie used Jennings and many others. I feel sorry for Jennings when he opens the defense with inclusion of a statement about there being no ‘odor of a burning dress.’ Included in the witness statements is a remarkable conversation, overheard by Officer Harrington—while he was hidden in a cabinet!—between Trickey and McHenry, in which one of them calls Jennings “provincial.” (The context of the conversation is the defense paying out to police to get inside information on the prosecution’s case, and how Jennings is more reluctant to pay).

The impression I get is of an ethical Jennings, loyal to all of the family, who never believed (or tried hard not to admit to himself) that Lizzie was guilty. By the time of the statement his grandson says he makes, he sounds disgusted with her. Wonder if, by then, he had doubts about her role in the murders. If he was disgusted, was it just by her difficult personality, or did he think she indeed may have stolen, or even killed? We know he kept his trial notes, etc., to himself, concerned about the possibility Lizzie might yet be indicted as an accessory. Also, look where he stored the hip-bath material: in an old bathing tin, on a back porch, against which lay some other materials. I perceive him not carefully preserving this material as Jennings not feeling proud of his work in the trial, or at least showing ambivalence.

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

[Reasonwhy]

"Lizzie chose her chess move carefully, executed it, knew the suspicion was going to be on her to some degree and planned her defense. I bet if we could have sneaked into Jenning's office it would be Lizzie planning out her defense. Many of the muddled answers that often contradicted each other were perhaps not fumbling, but a plan...."
--partial post by PossumPie

Certainly by the time Robinson is on board, she is reported as eagerly conferring and making suggestions to him, even in the courtroom itself. The muddled inquest answers were primarily due to ignorance of what Bridget had said, as Bridget testified at the Inquest before Lizzie. Lizzie tried to equivocate in her responses to keep them from appearing glaringly different from Bridget's, especially in the area of family harmony: 'it depends upon one's idea of cordiality, perhaps.' But, Possum, you are suggesting her creating confusion intentionally, also. I agree. What a talent for obfuscation! She made Knowlton want to tear his hair out--cunning, indeed.

[Reasonwhy]

"They "loved" or cared for those close to them but only to the extent that they didn't get in their way...."
--partial post by Possum Pie

Your sentence here just chilled me to the bone, Possum. The idea that people are expendable if inconvenient may be caused by damage, sickness, genetics--but actions based upon it emanate the older sense of evil. Lizzie's mind is a frightening place to adventure into.

(I'm sorry for the triple post, everyone, but there is so much in Possum's last post.)

[Kat]

Last we hear of Crowe roof hatchet, but I'll keep my eyes on the lookout! This is at the end of the trial.

[Reasonwhy]

Edit—moved to “John Morse” thread

[Kat]

Edit/moved

[Reasonwhy]

Edit—moved to “John Morse” thread

[Kat]

edit/moved

[Reasonwhy]

Edit—moved to “John Morse” thread

[Kat]

edit

[Kat]

edit

[Kat]

edit/moved

[Reasonwhy]

Edit—moved to “John Morse” thread

[Kat]

Edit/moved

[camgarsky4]

Do we have Anna’s birthdate?

Also, in Morse's inquest testimony (pg 10/103) he mentions that Anna's grandmother had told him Anna was in town. Since Anna's grandmother on John's side would be John's mother, he must be referencing William's (his brother) wife's mother.

Do we know who that person would be? Or perhaps I am misinterpreting his testimony.

[Kat]

edit/moved

[Kat]

Edit

[Kat]

Edit/moved

[Kat]

I added 3 more news items on Crowe roof hatchet, if you will scroll up, this page (pg3)

[camgarsky4]

Kat -- thanks for adding those 3 articles. I knew I had read that Jennings/Phillips had the hatchet last, but was starting to doubt my memory. Can't imagine Jennings would have disposed of the hatchet, so what happened to it?

I've wondered if the hatchet wasn't related to the clue that Jennings tried to run down after the trial. I absolutely can't wait to read the new Jennings Journals. There will have to be new small nuggets to chew on.

Why do you think that Potter chose not to send to New Bedford vs Boston? What was in Boston? 'Forensic experts'? Perhaps Phillips convinced Potter that the police couldn't be trusted and for some reason believed them.

Lastly, it is curious that the Knowlton Papers never reference the crowe hatchet, but if you buy into this article, Knowlton was looped in and some correspondence about the hatchet would be expected.

[Kat]

Maybe Hilliard Papers would have more info, in future?
Did you note that the one item intimated that the hatchet was lost after the murders?

[camgarsky4]

Yes did note that comment.

With the full sentence being "at the time of the murders or a little after", my takeaway is he lost a hatchet very near the time of the murders. His lack of clarity I interpret as indicating around 10 months earlier...give or take a few weeks. To your point, maybe the Hilliard papers will reveal if the police asked Chagnon when this home repairs project occurred. Sure wish those papers would get published...seems like that reveal is being handled in super slow mo.

That he recalls losing the hatchet any time in proximity to the murders is another crazy Borden coincidence (or not!).

Here are a few tantalizing questions this thread surfaces.....
- If a hoax driven by young Potter, was the carpenter in on it too? Seems highly unlikely, which casts considerable doubt on the hoax
perspective (to me) since the combination of the location, condition and description of the hatchet and then someone claiming to lose a
like hatchet around the time of the murders is a bit much to orchestrate for any 'normal' hoaxer.

- How about this brain twister....from the 'raw theory' that the hatchet was stolen from the carpenter and used in the murders, consider
the fact that Bridget's 'friend' lived on 3rd street, same as the Chagnon's. Sure wish we knew the street address to see if she would walk
by the Chagnon's to get to the friend.

- If Lizzie stole the carpenters hatchet, I've yet to come up with a plausible reason she would be walking by the Chagnon's, giving her the
awareness and opportunity to snatch it. Sure wish we could think of something that feels valid. Any ideas?

[PossumPie]

One question that must be answered is was Lizzie savvy enough to think it unwise to just use one of the Borden hatchets? Remember this was before CSI.
The night before the murders Lizzie (apparently) was still considering poison. If she had no backup plan but just said "no poison, so a hatchet will do the job nicely" I think she would have headed down the basement to find one.
A more paranoid Lizzie would have purchased/stolen a hatchet-perhaps in Fairhaven and just ditch it after the murders. This would include Camgarsky's idea that perhaps it was stolen from the carpenter used for murder, then thrown on the roof.
I still can't get past the rationale for getting rid of the hatchet at all. Kill Andrew, drop the hatchet on the floor, and leave it. No knowledge of fingerprints in 1892, no way to trace WHO used it, the only deduction police could have made would have been 1. if it were a Borden hatchet, the murderer didn't come to the house prepared to murder or 2. if it was not a Borden hatchet, the murderer could have come to the home prepared for murder (premeditation). Since most of us here believe Lizzie to be the killer, why did she bother to hide it? Maybe she thought if it were gone the police would believe the killer to be an outsider who took their hatchet with them when they fled...or maybe she just took it without much thought. I know coincidences occur, but I think it too coincidental that Lizzie just happened to find a hatchet before the murders and used it. I'd be more inclined to believe that the Crowe roof hatchet wasn't ever the lost one from the carpenter. Who loses a tool on a roof they were never on?

[camgarsky4]

The aspect that connects Lizzie having possession of a hatchet before deciding to use it for nefarious reasons was the Marion hatchet letter. Based on Elizabeth Johnston's reaction to the police inquiry, I strongly believe that letter contained suspicious information and the speculation (which Knowlton shared w/ Pillsbury) before Medley talked to E. Johnston is that the letter contained reference to a new sharp hatchet for fire wood duty in support of the Marion 'girls' outing.

My 'reconstruction' of August 3rd is that Lizzie failed at acquiring the originally planned murder weapon (prussic acid @ Smith's pharmacy) and made the decision Wednesday afternoon (before she headed to Alice's) to shift to the hatchet since it was at hand. If Lizzie was inclined to be a kleptomaniac, seeing and snatching a hatchet that she was already considering acquiring is possible, if not plausible. Leaning into her klepto tendencies to acquire a hatchet may have had nothing initially to do with her plans to kill...more into her desire to impress her friends and be 'important' (aka cool).

This would be an additional strong indication that the timing of the killings was driven by a strong sense of urgency. For whatever reason, Lizzie felt the need to act before the weekend. Personally I feel it had something to do with the elder Borden's plan to visit the Swansea farm and Lizzie's upcoming trip to Marion.