Borden Heads!
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
DoGeeseSeeGoD
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:46 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Washington State
Borden Heads!
Where are the heads? Ive read Andrews is in the fall river historical museam? I'm not sure where Abby's is. Why are they not with thier bodies? The examinations were made, return them to the buried dead. We cannot learn any more from the skulls. Its not that I think it should be done for religion, or anything other than just the proper respect and honor that we, the living bestow upon those of our family ancestry. It seems there is enough in Fall River of historical places and objects to keep an interest and tourism without the skulls for spectacle. Am I the first to express this wish to return the skulls?
-
SteveS.
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:01 pm
- Real Name: Steve
- Location: born and raised in Fall River, Ma.
- Contact:
-
DoGeeseSeeGoD
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:46 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Washington State
-
SteveS.
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:01 pm
- Real Name: Steve
- Location: born and raised in Fall River, Ma.
- Contact:
I agree with you jeff. I also think it is disrespectful not to have put the skulls back in with the rest of the body. If I was Lizzie or Emma and that was my father or mother I'd have insisted they do just that.
In memory of....Laddie Miller, Royal Nelson and Donald Stewart, Lizzie Borden's dogs. "Sleeping Awhile."
-
DoGeeseSeeGoD
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:46 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Washington State
The text that had me beleive that the bodies were still headless is "Lizzie- The Story of Lizzie Borden" by Frank Spiering. Published 1984.
It definately speaks of headles bodies being buried, and I thought it mentioned the Fall River Historical Society in possesion of A.J. Bordens head.
What year were the heads put into the ground above the bodies? Its still absurd even so, with heads not even being together with the body.
They should be back where they belong (above the necks).
Mayby it was just the era, but I get the feeling that in 1892, doctors and scientists were eager for a chance to see and "play" human heads, skulls and such. Its not like they had computerized images, MRI's and everything at the touch of a button. Here was an excuse for working with real body parts.
It can be sure that a murder trial in this age would not even consider surprizing the court room by yanking out actual skulls of the deceased to play with in the court room.
I am fairly sure grave desecration is a crime. We are not allowed as free people to just go fooling around with graves and human remains. If removing the heads was felt to be of extreme importance , than I would have fully supported that. But afterwards, the heads should have been put back to as much a normal condition as allowable.
It definately speaks of headles bodies being buried, and I thought it mentioned the Fall River Historical Society in possesion of A.J. Bordens head.
What year were the heads put into the ground above the bodies? Its still absurd even so, with heads not even being together with the body.
They should be back where they belong (above the necks).
Mayby it was just the era, but I get the feeling that in 1892, doctors and scientists were eager for a chance to see and "play" human heads, skulls and such. Its not like they had computerized images, MRI's and everything at the touch of a button. Here was an excuse for working with real body parts.
It can be sure that a murder trial in this age would not even consider surprizing the court room by yanking out actual skulls of the deceased to play with in the court room.
I am fairly sure grave desecration is a crime. We are not allowed as free people to just go fooling around with graves and human remains. If removing the heads was felt to be of extreme importance , than I would have fully supported that. But afterwards, the heads should have been put back to as much a normal condition as allowable.
-
Jeff
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:29 am
- Real Name:
- Location: Somerset,MA
I believe they made paster casts of the skulls to use at the trial. So I
believe they were buried right after they finished that gruesome deed.
It's quite disturbing on how people used to mess around with corpses
years ago. People were trying to hold Lincoln's body for ransome
back in 1876 I think the year was. There is a special on that on the history
channel later this month
believe they were buried right after they finished that gruesome deed.
It's quite disturbing on how people used to mess around with corpses
years ago. People were trying to hold Lincoln's body for ransome
back in 1876 I think the year was. There is a special on that on the history
channel later this month
-
Harry
- Posts: 4061
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
The heads of Andrew and Abby were removed at the August 11, 1892 autopsy in Oak Grove cemetery. The flesh was removed leaving just the skulls and they remained in the possession of Dr. Dolan until the trial.
Andrew's skull was used as a trial exhibit. Kent describes the scene in his book, page 140+:
"Dr. Draper took the stand next. At first, he used plaster casts of the two skulls and verified the marks that showed the wounds upon them. In the dock, Lizzie put her head down almost on the back of her defender, the ex-governor. Not satisfied with the plaster casts, Knowlton apologized to the court but insisted that the skull itself be brought in for the witness to use.
Columnist Joe Howard described the macabre scene:
It was Mr. Borden's skull. It was done up in a white handkerchief and looked like a bouquet such as a man carries to his sweetheart. A pile of law books was arranged high on the table in front of jury and made a stand for the skull to rest upon. The professor uncovered the skull and put it on this heap of learning, but the jaw came separately in his hand. When the doctor put it in its place by lifting the rest of the skull, he moved the two parts so that the mouth opened and shut like the silent jaws of a ghost. To see that jaw wag made the spectators wonder what it would say if it could talk.
Sentence by sentence, Knowlton led Draper through a detailed description of each gash in the skull, what damage it had done, its width and length. Mercifully, Lizzie, on the point of collapse, was escorted from the courtroom and allowed to sit where she could not be seen but could hear whatever she chose to hear. ..."
The Fall River Historical Society never had the skulls. They do have the original photographs of them which they received as part of Jennings' "hip bath" collection.
I'm not sure when the skulls were buried in the graves but it was after the June 1893 trial.
It should be noted that Dr. Dolan also removed the head of Bertha Manchester who had been killed with an axe
Andrew's skull was used as a trial exhibit. Kent describes the scene in his book, page 140+:
"Dr. Draper took the stand next. At first, he used plaster casts of the two skulls and verified the marks that showed the wounds upon them. In the dock, Lizzie put her head down almost on the back of her defender, the ex-governor. Not satisfied with the plaster casts, Knowlton apologized to the court but insisted that the skull itself be brought in for the witness to use.
Columnist Joe Howard described the macabre scene:
It was Mr. Borden's skull. It was done up in a white handkerchief and looked like a bouquet such as a man carries to his sweetheart. A pile of law books was arranged high on the table in front of jury and made a stand for the skull to rest upon. The professor uncovered the skull and put it on this heap of learning, but the jaw came separately in his hand. When the doctor put it in its place by lifting the rest of the skull, he moved the two parts so that the mouth opened and shut like the silent jaws of a ghost. To see that jaw wag made the spectators wonder what it would say if it could talk.
Sentence by sentence, Knowlton led Draper through a detailed description of each gash in the skull, what damage it had done, its width and length. Mercifully, Lizzie, on the point of collapse, was escorted from the courtroom and allowed to sit where she could not be seen but could hear whatever she chose to hear. ..."
The Fall River Historical Society never had the skulls. They do have the original photographs of them which they received as part of Jennings' "hip bath" collection.
I'm not sure when the skulls were buried in the graves but it was after the June 1893 trial.
It should be noted that Dr. Dolan also removed the head of Bertha Manchester who had been killed with an axe
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
DoGeeseSeeGoD
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:46 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Washington State
Spiering's book makes the case that Emma is the murderess. Its one thing to try to propose such a possibility. Its another, as he did, to state it as a simple fact that should be so obvious that anyone should have understood this. I am a little surprized about a faulty fact about something like the heads. It isnt relative to anything Spiering is trying to prove in his book, just a piece of faulty info.
I think Dr. Dolan just had a thing for the macabre. From what Ive read of the Manchester murder was that she was really hacked at while she defended herself. An obvious cause of death, and the skull was of no more importance than all the other wounds. Not the lethal blows to the skulls like the Borden case.It should be noted that Dr. Dolan also removed the head of Bertha Manchester who had been killed with an axe
-
Kat
- Posts: 14784
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
That's a good point about why Dolan took Bertha's head. I still am not sure why he did that, unless it was as you propose- just because he could.
We have a topic hereabouts about Prof. James Starrs. He used ground-penetrating radar to check if the heads had been returned to each grave. He also wanted to dig the Bordens up- I've lots and lots of news items on that.
Maybe someone can find a link to the discussion here.
We have a topic hereabouts about Prof. James Starrs. He used ground-penetrating radar to check if the heads had been returned to each grave. He also wanted to dig the Bordens up- I've lots and lots of news items on that.
Maybe someone can find a link to the discussion here.
-
Shelley
- Posts: 3949
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:22 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: CT
- Contact:
Prof. Starrs is convinced that the two anomalies he scanned beneath the sod over the spot where the heads of the coffins would be- are indeed the small boxes containing the skulls. They are not very deep down- maybe 2 1/2 -3 feet. I spoke to him about this last summer and although he does show the scans at lectures and in his classes, he had not published them to the general public yet. The last I heard, he had retired in May 2006.
-
Harry
- Posts: 4061
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
Partial quote:
"The murderer or the Bordens of Fall River hacked the bodies of his victims badly enough, but his cold-bloodedness is far excelled by that of the commonwealth's officers. They have had a dozen doctors hacking away at the remains. The bodies have been made sausage meat of. To crown these slashing exploits, the government officers have cut off the heads of the victims, and got the skulls ready for exhibition. There is no necessity for this mutilation of the bodies of the Bordens. The parties who have been conducting the postmortem examinations and finally severed the heads acted more from a sickening love of the loathsome and ghastly than from a sense of scientific duty – Holyoke Democrat."
Dr. Dolan at the Preliminary hearing testified he removed the skulls at the order of the Attorney-General (Pillsbury), page 185:
Q. Did you remove anything from those bodies, or either of them?
A. Yes sir, I removed the skulls, the heads.
Q. The skulls?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When?
A. The day of the autopsy.
Q. For what purpose?
A. Because I was instructed so to do.
Q. Were you, at the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. By whom?
A. By the Attorney General.
Q. Was he there?
A. No Sir.
Q. Where did he give you that instruction?
A. Fall River.
Q. When, was it at the time he gave you the instructions with reference to this autopsy?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did not you say yesterday you could not remember whether it was he or the District Attorney that gave you that instruction?
A. Both gentlemen were together.
Q. Did not you say yesterday you could not remember which one gave you the instruction?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Do you recollect since yesterday afternoon that it was the Attorney General?
A. No Sir, I have not thought of it at all since.
Q. You are sure it was the Attorney General?
A. I am not quite sure now, sir.
Q. Was it a verbal instruction?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. He told you to remove the skulls?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. The Attorney General?
A. The Attorney General of this state, yes sir."
One newspaper at the time took the prosecution to task:DoGeeseSeeGoD @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:09 am wrote: Mayby it was just the era, but I get the feeling that in 1892, doctors and scientists were eager for a chance to see and "play" human heads, skulls and such. Its not like they had computerized images, MRI's and everything at the touch of a button. Here was an excuse for working with real body parts.
It can be sure that a murder trial in this age would not even consider surprizing the court room by yanking out actual skulls of the deceased to play with in the court room.
"The murderer or the Bordens of Fall River hacked the bodies of his victims badly enough, but his cold-bloodedness is far excelled by that of the commonwealth's officers. They have had a dozen doctors hacking away at the remains. The bodies have been made sausage meat of. To crown these slashing exploits, the government officers have cut off the heads of the victims, and got the skulls ready for exhibition. There is no necessity for this mutilation of the bodies of the Bordens. The parties who have been conducting the postmortem examinations and finally severed the heads acted more from a sickening love of the loathsome and ghastly than from a sense of scientific duty – Holyoke Democrat."
Dr. Dolan at the Preliminary hearing testified he removed the skulls at the order of the Attorney-General (Pillsbury), page 185:
Q. Did you remove anything from those bodies, or either of them?
A. Yes sir, I removed the skulls, the heads.
Q. The skulls?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When?
A. The day of the autopsy.
Q. For what purpose?
A. Because I was instructed so to do.
Q. Were you, at the time?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. By whom?
A. By the Attorney General.
Q. Was he there?
A. No Sir.
Q. Where did he give you that instruction?
A. Fall River.
Q. When, was it at the time he gave you the instructions with reference to this autopsy?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did not you say yesterday you could not remember whether it was he or the District Attorney that gave you that instruction?
A. Both gentlemen were together.
Q. Did not you say yesterday you could not remember which one gave you the instruction?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Do you recollect since yesterday afternoon that it was the Attorney General?
A. No Sir, I have not thought of it at all since.
Q. You are sure it was the Attorney General?
A. I am not quite sure now, sir.
Q. Was it a verbal instruction?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. He told you to remove the skulls?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. The Attorney General?
A. The Attorney General of this state, yes sir."
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
DoGeeseSeeGoD
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:46 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Washington State
I beleive I have read that the doctor across the street, who undoubtedly was on very familiar terms with the family seemed to have a great fascination with the results of the hacking up of Andrew Borden. To such an extent as to call to the women present (was it Mrs. Churchill?) to come and "see Mr. Borden!" Most people these days would be telling others not to even look into the room, especially anyone who might be emotionally upset by the horrific scene. It must have been even more a spectacle than our modern garden variety car crash!
Perhaps we are all de-sensitized to such things in our modern world. If even slightly curious after all the violence & gore depictied in the media and entertainment fields, anyone can get a few pics from browsing the web for horrible images of actual brutality, blood, guts, and death.
Perhaps we are all de-sensitized to such things in our modern world. If even slightly curious after all the violence & gore depictied in the media and entertainment fields, anyone can get a few pics from browsing the web for horrible images of actual brutality, blood, guts, and death.
-
Shelley
- Posts: 3949
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:22 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: CT
- Contact:
Yes, it seemed odd- and her reply was unusual - "I saw him this morning and he looked so nice" or something like that. Why would anyone want to remember someone hacked up like that is beyond me. I just returned from a funeral and I guess some people need the closure of seeing the body in a casket, to make it real. I guess if I were a glamorous young thing, I would want heaps of flowers and a glorious negligee and fabulous acoutrements, - but I think now I would opt for a closed lid- seems like many obits in the paper show a younger version of the deceased.