The Book Lizzie by Evan Hunter

[matt kevin jones]

My name is Matt and I'm a Newbie.
I just finished the Novel " Lizzie" by the Author Evan Hunter.
It is about 50 % fact and 50% fiction.
I found Mr Hunters Fictional so called theory very interesting.
Does anyone have an opinion on the subject of Lizzie having possibly an affair with bridgette Sullivan, and possibly being caught by Mrs Borden on the fateful day of the murders, causing Lizzie to first kill Abby, after She discovered their relationship, and threatining to tell Mr Borden ?? And then killing Her father after his unwillingness to help cover up the Murder. Could Lizzie have possibly used an instrument such as a heavy candlestick to Kill Abby, since the gashes in Her skull were reportedly smaller than the ones on Mr Borden
( If I'm correct about the wounds )
I'm very excited about being a new member, and eagerly await some reply.
I'm also learning how to navigate this website, I hope my post go through.
Thanks
Matt

[1bigsteve]

Welcome aboard Matt!

I have not read Hunter's book myself so can't comment on it. I don't feel Bridget and Lizzie had anything going on. I feel a lot of authors complicate the mystery but I think the reason for the murder was rather basic and simple as most murders are.

I think the same weapon was used in both murders. The Coroner said the weapon was probably a hatchet and I agree with that. The "cut" wounds on Abby were of different lengths indicating that the blade did not strike with equal force on each blow. Some of the wounds did not break through the skull. The length of hatchet edges was 3 1/2" to 3 3/4". Most of these wounds were shorter in length (one was 5 1/2", probably a "racking" wound) so not much of the hatchet entered the skull. After the skull was caved in the blade could have then sunk in much deeper in that area. It is harder to gain deep penetration with a meat cleaver than a hatchet due to shorter handle and lighter blade. It would not surprise me if the weapon was a cleaver. While the police were looking for a hatchet the cleaver could have been "hiding in plain sight."

It's a thought anyway...

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

HI!
Yes read it- thought it was weird.
He's a good writer tho.
Here's a link to an interview with Evan Hunter Stef did:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Write ... Hunter.htm

[Angel]

Welcome aboard Matt!

I have not read Hunter's book myself so can't comment on it. I don't feel Bridget and Lizzie had anything going on. I feel a lot of authors complicate the mystery but I think the reason for the murder was rather basic and simple as most murders are.

I think the same weapon was used in both murders. The Coroner said the weapon was probably a hatchet and I agree with that. The "cut" wounds on Abby were of different lengths indicating that the blade did not strike with equal force on each blow. Some of the wounds did not break through the skull. The length of hatchet edges was 3 1/2" to 3 3/4". Most of these wounds were shorter in length (one was 5 1/2", probably a "racking" wound) so not much of the hatchet entered the skull. After the skull was caved in the blade could have then sunk in much deeper in that area. It is harder to gain deep penetration with a meat cleaver than a hatchet due to shorter handle and lighter blade. It would not surprise me if the weapon was a cleaver. While the police were looking for a hatchet the cleaver could have been "hiding in plain sight."

It's a thought anyway...

-1bigsteve (o:

I've always strongly suspected a meat cleaver was used for the murders and then washed and put back neatly in a kitchen drawer. That's why no weapon was ever found.

[william]

If there is to be any speculation about the weapon used, other than a hatchet, you might consider a flat iron.

1. Lizzie had irons heating on the stove, available and eaxily washed off
2. A type of flat iron called a "sleeve iron" is shaped like a projectile and can be a deadly weapon.
3. Lizzie was using a small ironing board, employed for handkerchiefs, garment sleeves and other fine work
4. The Knowlton papers contain no less than ten letters suggesting that a flat iron was the weapon.
5. It has never been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a hatchet did the job.

[matt kevin jones]

Thank You for the reply
Of course I thought I was an expert about the Borden murders, But after reading some of the post by Seasoned members I realize I'm like a first grader learning my ABC's. I have a lot of respect for all the long time members. I know most of you probably laugh at a Newbie like me.
I do have another question??
I heard and I dont remember where, A story that Bridgette Sullivan, near her death almost revealed some information about the Murders, Either Her involvment or some info pertaining to it.
Does anyone have any info about this, or have an opinion.
Dident She eventually move to Butte Montana, and marry a Man with the last name Sullivan Also, and father several Children ??

[matt kevin jones]

Kat
Big Steve
Angel
William
Thanks for the replies.
Looking foward to all your discussions.
If you all get bugged by me just let me know
Thanks
matt

[Angel]

If there is to be any speculation about the weapon used, other than a hatchet, you might consider a flat iron.

1. Lizzie had irons heating on the stove, available and eaxily washed off
2. A type of flat iron called a "sleeve iron" is shaped like a projectile and can be a deadly weapon.
3. Lizzie was using a small ironing board, employed for handkerchiefs, garment sleeves and other fine work
4. The Knowlton papers contain no less than ten letters suggesting that a flat iron was the weapon.
5. It has never been proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a hatchet did the job.

That's another excellent possibility. Has anyone ever measured the edges of a flat iron to see if one of them could fit the wounds?

[1bigsteve]

Thank You for the reply
Of course I thought I was an expert about the Borden murders, But after reading some of the post by Seasoned members I realize I'm like a first grader learning my ABC's. I have a lot of respect for all the long time members. I know most of you probably laugh at a Newbie like me.
I do have another question??
I heard and I dont remember where, A story that Bridgette Sullivan, near her death almost revealed some information about the Murders, Either Her involvment or some info pertaining to it.
Does anyone have any info about this, or have an opinion.
Dident She eventually move to Butte Montana, and marry a Man with the last name Sullivan Also, and father several Children ??

There has been many comments about Bridget's travels and doings after the murders on this site. Some of the others are more knowledgable than I am on this subject. You may want to do an "on site" search. Punch in Bridget or Montana and see what you find. I wouldn't bother doing a Google search. You'll just get sent to some site that have their "facts" coming out of some tabloid, or out of their own nose. There is a lot of fictional crap out there being passed off as fact.

We all start out a newbies, Matt. We all start at the beginning.

As for laughing at you, Matt? Of course not. We are all respectable people here. Here are some of our regulars: . And of course you can see my photo on the upper left side of this post.

So, where did you first hear about the Borden case, Matt?

-1bigsteve (o:

[matt kevin jones]

Big Steve
Thanks for the welcoming feeling.
My interest first was sparked after watching a Movie years ago, about Lizzie Borden, It starred Elizabeth Motgomery. Every since then I wanted to know more about it. Just recently ( a few years ago) I moved to North Carolina ( Asheville ) From my hometown of Miami Beach, and accepted a job as an Innkeeper at a local Bed and Breakfast, Its a Victorian Home built around the late 1880's, Just being in this old home gave fuel to my imagination about what life may have been like in Lizzie's day. since then I just cant seem to get the subject cleared from my mind, I guess you could call it a passion now. I've just ordered from my local library a copy ( to check out ) of Victoria Lincolns novel about lizzie, it's coming in from another library this week. so here I go again reading another book about her. For some reason I have a sympathy for Lizzie, She seemed so unhappy in all the things I've read. If you can suggest some good books on the subject, please do. ( there are many late nights at the bed and Breakfast, waiting on Guest to arrive, and lots of time for reading)
Wish me luck
Thanks

[1bigsteve]

I know what you mean, Matt. Old Victorian houses can lead your mind and imagination back into the past. We have tons of old Victorian homes scattered all over California from the pre-Lizzie period.

I've only read four Lizzie books (Radin's is my favorite so far) so I'm not an expert but many regulars love the "Knowlton Papers" and a few other higher quality books. Most of the books out there are full of fiction to sensationalize the blood and gore side of the case. If you really want to get the real facts on this murder case I would recommend you subscribe to "The Hatchet" from this site. It is a magazine that is written by some of the regulars and contains facts not fiction. You can buy older copies on eBay. I have learned a ton of stuff just by reading through this sites archives late at night. Some of the Lizzie sites I've seen contain falsehoods so big you can drive a Mack truck through, sideways. They don't seem to want to correct the mistakes. That is the sad part.

The Lizzie movie was shot in 1975 and I recently found out it was Elizabeth Montgomery's favorite role. I feel Lizzie lead a sad lonely life. I think deep down Lizzie had a good heart. This case is an enigma.

Good luck with your new job, Matt. I hope it works out good for you.

-1bigsteve (o:

[matt kevin jones]

Thanks for the info Big Steve
The knowlton papers will be my next reading adventure.
By the way do you know of anyone who has stayed at the Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast?
I'm interested in trying to make a reservation, possibly next year ??

[theebmonique]

I think there have been a few members stay at the house. I stayed a couple of times. One night in Lizzie's room, and two nights in the guest room. GO FOR IT !


Tracy...

[Haulover]

matt:

it would be hard for me to leave miami beach if i ever got settled there. i love that town.

but about the hunter book. i don't want to put it down altogether. there's some good work in the trial stuff. but the ending is where the real judgment is made. i cannot buy the candlestick theory. i can believe lizzie had a relationship with someone who actually did the killings (haven't yet formulated a fictional scenario for it myself) -- but i doubt it was with bridget. there is one passage in hunter's last chapter that was at least effective -- that is, i remember it -- the way lizzie deliberately strikes his eye. this seemed to work, at least as a narrative. the stuff where andrew obsessively notices things out of place, etc., which leads to his discovery of abby--i don't buy that. i can't buy this quick agreement between lizzie and bridget there at the end.

these are my impressions.

though fictional, and honestly defined as such -- i recommend angela carter's fall river axe murders. i'm working on a review of her other story about lizzie as lizzie the child who sneaks off to the circus to see the tiger.
(angela carter is a subjective recommendation -- i'm not saying you'll get the true story. at one time, you could download an excerpt of carter from this sight. not sure if that is so now.)

nice to see you,

Eugene

[Richard]

I read the Hunter book about a year ago and I found it to be offensive. Not because of explicit sexuality, but because the theory was so disrespectful to the tragedy and the people who suffered, including Lizzie. I think he had the opportunity to write a very well researched and very intense speculation about Lizzie Borden and he just let it fall into sensationalism.

I don't mind taking wild leaps. I'm working on a piece of fiction right now that is so parently absurd that I didn't just take a wild leap, I fired myself out of a canon. But that's all done for fun. We aren't really loving Lizzie unless we can have a sense of humor about it. But Hunter's speculation was just sheer exploitation of the Borden tragedy. IMHO.

Personally, I'd like to see a well researched and intense novel about Lizzie that DOESN'T try to solve the case, that draws its strength from the same energy that draws us to study Lizzie Borden: the mystery and unsolvability of it all.

[1bigsteve]

Thanks for the info Big Steve
The knowlton papers will be my next reading adventure.
By the way do you know of anyone who has stayed at the Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast?
I'm interested in trying to make a reservation, possibly next year ??

Be careful with buying the "Knowlton Papers." I hear that some sellers jack the price up through the roof. Do a search on this site and get a feel for what a fair price would be. It's not cheap. I admit I'm not an expert on Lizzie books but you will find all kinds of good info about them all in the archives. In fact you can find about all the facts you'll ever need about this case in these archives. However, if you want to learn how to make a living in stock trading I can send you to heaven...

There has been much talk, and photos, about some of the regulars' nice experiences at the B&B. I think you will have fun. So like Tracy said, Go for it! I'd love to go and stay but it's too far to walk. Bring me back a rubber hatchet.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

When we speculate upon a different weapon, we have to disregard the experts who were there and discount the gilt found in Abby's wound, at least.
They didn't gild cleavers and probably not irons - it could too easily get into the food or on the fabric, couldn't it?

As for Andrew, I think anything is possible (because no gilt was mentioned in his wounds), although experts agree at the time a hatchet was used there too.

If the gilt story is phoney, then who knows?
By phoney- it must be understood that the gilt was not found until the skull of Abby was examined, close to time of trial, by the defense. It almost makes it sound possibly planted. But why? That makes it all the more complicated- which is probably the wrong way to go. (That includes the candlestick).

BTW: The Knowlton Papers are hard to get hold of- very few people have them. The source documents, as you probably know, are the best foundation. They can be downloaded at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary.htm
At "Key Documents."

[snokkums]

Welcome aboard Matt!!

Yes, I have heard that theory too, but it has pretty much been debunked. Also heard the theory of being pregant, but thats bee debunked.

Think I need to get that lizzie book. Right now I am reading the "Did Lizzie Axe For It"; this one might be of interest to you too, as might be the "Lizzie Source book".

[1bigsteve]

When we speculate upon a different weapon, we have to disregard the experts who were there and discount the gilt found in Abby's wound, at least.
They didn't gild cleavers and probably not irons - it could too easily get into the food or on the fabric, couldn't it?

As for Andrew, I think anything is possible (because no gilt was mentioned in his wounds), although experts agree at the time a hatchet was used there too.

If the gilt story is phoney, then who knows?
By phoney- it must be understood that the gilt was not found until the skull of Abby was examined, close to time of trial, by the defense. It almost makes it sound possibly planted. But why? That makes it all the more complicated- which is probably the wrong way to go. (That includes the candlestick).

BTW: The Knowlton Papers are hard to get hold of- very few people have them. The source documents, as you probably know, are the best foundation. They can be downloaded at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/CrimeLibrary.htm
At "Key Documents."

Personally I've leaned toward the idea that the guilt particals were probably knocked off the hatchet blade during Abby's killing so there was none, or very little, left for Andrew's wounds. After 19 whacks I doubt there was much left. Of course the question should be, "How thorough was the examination of Andrew's wounds?" If the Examiner noticed guilt in Abby's wounds and noticed that the type of wounds were the same in both victems he could have assumed the weapon was the same in both killings so, being human nature the way it is, he may not have been as observant with Andrew's wounds.

I think the candlestick can be eliminated as a weapon due to the long skinny nature of the wounds. It would not have made thin cuts into the skull. I feel the same way about the clothing Iron. Too blunt. I don't think there was ever any "planting" of anything and I hold little faith in any Melon House goings on. I feel the killings were very simple in nature it's just that we don't have all the facts yet or some of the facts were changed or overlooked or whatever. I don't see a conspiricy here unlike the JFK killing.

Personally I don't feel there is any reason to spend money on the Knowlton Papers when there is so much info her on this site. I may buy it later.

I doubt the law would have allowed guilt to be applied to a cleaver or knife due to that stuff getting into someone's food. But, no one cuts up their sunday steak with a roofer's hatchet. I think it was most likely a hatchet. My mind is open though.

-1Bigsteve (o:

[Harry]

The gilt found on Abby's skull is not mentioned until it is discovered by Dr. Draper (assisted by Dr. Cheever) in a letter to Mr. Knowlton, dated May 31, 1893. This is some 9 months after the crime.

To quote Draper's letter (HK203, page 211, Knowlton papers):

"... Perhaps this is not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

According to the Evening Standard of Aug. 27, 1892, Dr. Dolan had the flesh removed from the skulls by boiling. So any doctor who examined the skulls from that time forward had the opportunity to notice the gilt.

Could someone else have experimented with Abby's skull during this long period by trying to fit different size hatchet blades into the cuts? If so they could have inadvertently left a trace of gilt.

[Angel]

The gilt found on Abby's skull is not mentioned until it is discovered by Dr. Draper (assisted by Dr. Cheever) in a letter to Mr. Knowlton, dated May 31, 1893. This is some 9 months after the crime.

To quote Draper's letter (HK203, page 211, Knowlton papers):

"... Perhaps this is not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

According to the Evening Standard of Aug. 27, 1892, Dr. Dolan had the flesh removed from the skulls by boiling. So any doctor who examined the skulls from that time forward had the opportunity to notice the gilt.

Could someone else have experimented with Abby's skull during this long period by trying to fit different size hatchet blades into the cuts? If so they could have inadvertently left a trace of gilt.

Well, that puts a whole different slant on this gilt thing. If the skulls were boiled, then how on earth could anything like gilt have remained on them? If the gilt was not seen until 1893 then it seems to me that something was used to examine them later and left it there at that time. Which opens up the possibility again that the weapon could have been anything, not just a hatchet.

[diana]

Could someone else have experimented with Abby's skull during this long period by trying to fit different size hatchet blades into the cuts? If so they could have inadvertently left a trace of gilt.

That's an interesting conjecture. Certainly the prosecution seemed bent on showing a hatchet blade fitting into the cuts -- so it's not out of the question that there was on-going pre-trial experimentation along those lines. Good point, Harry.

[matt kevin jones]

Thanks everybody for the Tips
Yall really amaze me
Everybody has been very helpful
Matt

[Kat]

Yes the prosecution had those skulls all that time yet the gilt was found after the defense was closeted up with those skulls in a private room, by the prosecution. He might have been looking to see what they might have seen? After that visit, the gilt was found. That's why I have wondered if the defense put it there. How could it have gone unnoticed for so long?
But why would they?
If Harry's speculation, or thesis is considered, it's possible, maybe, that after trying out different hatchet heads, gilt was deposited, and no one noticed because they were done examining it? They were no longer looking, so to speak? Whereas the defense had that one shot at examining the skulls and used *fresh eyes*?

Wouldn't the prosecution figure that out?
It's interesting- it's something that has always bothered me.

[Yooper]

The timing for finding the gilt on Abby's skull seems rather odd. I can't see why it would remain after boiling the skull to remove the flesh. It came off of whatever instrument put it on the skull readily enough, why would gilt metal be more tenacious when adhered to bone?

The defense would likely take any opportunity to point out something the prosecution had missed in an attempt to discredit the investigation, even if it was done privately.

[diana]

I'm being lazy here (it is the weekend, after all) -- but does anyone remember if the defense even knew gilt was found on the skulls? Draper reported it to Knowlton. Did it go any further?

[augusta]

I read Evan Hunter's novel "Lizzie" when it first came out. I am in the minority here, but I really liked it. I did not like that ending. I don't think Lizzie and Bridget were 'carrying on'. When Abby was killed, she was putting pillow shams on the pillows in the guest room. It's possible when the murderer first came in she was on her knees by the bed.

I enjoy reading fiction about Lizzie, because it opens our minds up to what she, and the other Bordens, could have been like. There is so little about their characters.

I thought Mr. Hunter wrote an excellent book. His writing of lesbianism I thought was quite sensitive, and it made me think, "Okay. I can sorta understand why a woman might be homosexual."

I loaned the book to a Lizzie buff, and she enjoyed it as well.

Matt - if you read Victoria Lincoln's book, there are a lot of things in it that are not true. It is supposed to not be a novel. It is classified as 'non-fiction'. But reading the book may really confuse you on the real facts. Same with Spiering's book "Lizzie". They are both good reads, but please take them with a grain of salt.

'The Knowlton Papers' is good, but try to wait for a good price. Radin's book is real good, but I don't agree with his theory. He was a true crime writer and I have at least one of his anthologies. He actually went to Fall River and interviewed people who were still alive at the time that had first, or second-hand, knowledge of the case. Agnes DeMille's "Dance of Death" is good for that reason, too. She has a lot of anecdotes about the case in her book. The book shows up on eBay frequently and is affordable.

Leonard Rebello's "Lizzie Borden - Past and Present" is a must-have. It's like the Lizzie Bible. Again, watch the prices, tho. $150 is probably about right today.

Hoffman's "Yesterday in Old Fall River" is basically a list of who did what in the Borden case. It is a good reference book, tho.

Masterton's book "Lizzie Didn't Do It!" is good. I don't agree with his murder theory, but his book is humorous in parts and well researched.

"The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook" by David Kent is still out there for under $30. It has excellent reprinted old newspaper articles about the murders.

I would check out the newspaper articles on the case available on CD on this website. Every reporter caught something different, and you can find some real gems in them.

The Witness Statements are great. It would be good to read those first. Then read the Coroner's inquest. Then the Preliminary Hearing (a new edition is out and runs less than $40, put together by Kat, Stef and Harry and available at Lulu.com). Then the trial. (Also available in three volumes from Lulu.com.)

Subscribing to 'The Hatchet' is a good move. We are still finding out new stuff, and we've had photos of stuff that's never been seen before. It's a very professional publication. And a good investment. Those will probably go up in value and be much sought after.

Visiting Fall River is a must. I never understood how horrible the inside of the Borden murder house was until I toured it. I had heard how the rooms were - no hallways, and one door opening right into another room. But I didn't really understand it until I saw it. And you can see how close Andrew lived to the downtown district. Previously I had read he bought 92 Second Street so he could be close to his businesses, but I never imagined HOW close. And don't forget the other 'Lizzie towns' nearby. Like Fairhaven, New Bedford, Marion. In New Bedford, the courthouse Lizzie was tried at is still there and the courtroom they tried her in still has the original pieces of furniture in it (most of them). Newport is only about 25 minutes from Fall River. And Providence is about the same distance.

It is an addicting case. The more I read, the more I want to read. And this Forum is full of good people and good conversation! Welcome aboard!

[matt kevin jones]

Hey Agusta
Thanks for all the Book info
I just got a copy today of Victoria Lincolns book
I will start it tommorow, I will as you say, take it with a grain of salt.
I hope that my next reading adventure will be the Knowlton papers.
Instead of buying it I'm trying to have the Library search it down for me from other Librarys in the area. I plan on reading all the material that has been suggested to Me. I'm sure it will take a year or two.
I'm planning a trip to Province Town next summer, and I will definately visit Fall River since they are relatively close. and of course visit the Lizzie Brden B&B & Museum.
My goal one day is to be as good as you guys.
Yall should have your own television show. You could call it "The Lizzie Borden Theory Busters"
matt

[Kat]

I'm being lazy here (it is the weekend, after all) -- but does anyone remember if the defense even knew gilt was found on the skulls? Draper reported it to Knowlton. Did it go any further?

No wonder you felt "lazy." It was hard! Here's what we have on Draper from The Knowlton Papers:

Attributed to Dr. Draper in a news clipping sent to Knowlton (?), Sept. 1, 1892, from The Knowlton Papers, pg. 56, excerpt:

..."I do not know what causes coagulation of blood. Within very
narrow limits the opinion of the time of death by coagulation of
blood that has flowed from a wound or found near it, I should say
that it would not be safe to form any opinion after 15 minutes."

This demolishes any opinion as to the time of death of either of
the victims, as by Dr. Draper's testimony after 15 minutes has
elapsed it is impossible to tell how long the person has been
dead. This places it beyond determination by medical means
when Mrs. Borden died. Dr. Draper in reply to a question said:
"I would not want to determine within an hour the actual time of
a person's death by the condition of the contents of the stom-
ach as determined by a chemical analysis. A different standard
of estimates are employed, and in a degree any opinion must
be conjecture.”...



Page 61, excerpt from letter to Knowlton, from A.G. Pillsbury, Sept. 3, 1892:

...”I have cautioned Wood several times, and am afraid he rather
resents it. But they all leak to their intimate friends, even Draper, the
most cautious man ever I knew, who, as I learned from Adams, on the way
up Thursday, had talked the matter over fully with him before he was put
upon the stand; having been sent for by Adams to be used by him for the
defence the same night that Dr. Dolan's message was sent.”


Page 204, Knowlton writes A.G. Pillsbury, May 27, 1893:


”The defense have asked for two experts, one on
each branch, presumably the chemical and the anatomical. They are to
designate their names as soon as they have selected them, probably early
next week. This makes it of great importance for us to decide whether we
want additional experts, and if so whom. Both Dr. Draper and Wood will
take it kindly to be fortified, especially in view of the above fact.

Moody and I will probably be very much occupied from now until
the beginning of the trial. Will it be too much to ask you to think over
the matter, so that when we call upon you sometime next week you can
give us your views both upon the employments of experts, and if so whom
to employ.

Dr. Draper is coming round on our side in great shape. All doubts
he may have has as to the time of death are now fully dispersed.
Yours Truly,
H. M. Knowlton
per E.”

Then a BIG letter from Draper to Knowlton:


HK200
Letter, typewritten, accompanied by memoranda.


304 Marlboro Street,
Boston, May 28th, 1893
H. M. Knowlton, Esq.
Dear Sir:

I beg leave to submit the accompanying memoranda in
fulfillment of your request of Friday relative to the anatomical proofs of
the priority of Mrs. Borden's death.
One matter has occurred to me about which I venture to make a
suggestion although it may be impertinent. It is this. Would it not be
wise,in the presentation of the medical testimony to the jury, to avoid
points which are not essential to the case, but which offer an opportunity
for medical disagreement and contradiction? There is much in these two
homicides about which a medical difference can scarcely be possible. For
example, it is indisputable,
1. That both victims came to their death by fracture of the skull
and injury to the brain by blows on the head.
2. That these blows were given with a hatchet.
3. That Mrs. Borden was killed before Mr. Borden.
4. That the bodies were not moved after the killing.
5. That there was no resistance to the assault in either case
These are bottom facts which are definite and beyond controversy
and they must so impress the jury.
On the other hand, there are certain incidental questions, which are
very fascinating in themselves, but which afford ready opportunity for dis-
agreement among the medical witnesses and as they do not touch closely
the real problem of the cause and manner of the deaths, they might much
better, I think, be left out of sight, to the end that the chance of contradic-
tions would be avoided. At the best, these collateral questions are specula-
tive only and cannot be proved demonstratively. As instances of this sort, I
name the following (and I am myself responsible for suggesting some of
them at our conferences of the 24th and 26th instant) :

1. Which was probably the first blow in each of the two cases?
2. What was the relative position of Mrs. Borden and her assailant
when the first blow was struck?
3. What was the probable effect of that blow on Mrs. Borden as to
her loss of consciousness at once, her ability to scream or to resist?
4. As to the "instantaneousness" of the death in each case.
Unless these and other such matters affect the relation of the
accused to the crime charged, are they necessary and expedient to intro-
duce? Do they not in some measure give a chance for medical disagree-
ments and for an argument by Gov. Robinson thereon? Do they not
interpose a little dust between the eyes of the jury and the main question,
namely, what was the cause of the deaths and who was the guilty agent?

Two of the medical experts for the defence, by the way, have made
their appearance. They are Dr. Thomas Dwight and Dr. Maurice H.
Richardson. Both are Boston men and both are connected with the
Harvard Medical School, the former as Professor of Anatomy and the lat-
ter as Assistant Professor of Anatomy. Dr. Richardson is also a surgeon of
wide reputation and fully acknowledged ability and skill; he is one of the
surgical staff of the Massachusetts General Hospital and has had much
experience in court as an expert. Dr. Dwight has had less experience in
medico-legal matters; he is a highly accomplished anatomist. Both these
gentlemen studied the skulls and the bony fragments at my office, while I
sat in a room near by within easy call, but not where I could hear conversa-
tion when their door was shut. They did not require any information and
we had no communication during their study of the corpora delecti.
This appearance of the defendant's medical experts opens anew the
question of the desirability of more medical help on the side of the gov-
ernment. Although those two skulls tell their own story most eloquently
and thus greatly narrow the need of much doctors' talk it may seem best
to you and to Mr. Moody to have some other help in the line of experts.
If such be the case, I do not know anyone who would give you better
assistance than Dr. D. W. Cheever, of Boston, or anyone who would better
offset Drs. Dwight and Richardson. Dr. Cheever is the Professor of
Surgery in Harvard Medical School, has been for twenty-five years a visit-
ing surgeon at the Boston City Hospital and was formerly for many years
the Demonstrator of Anatomy in the Medical School. To wide knowledge
and experience, he adds a peculiarly cool and impressive manner, and is
reckoned here a model witness. If he can be secured, I am sure that the
prosecution would be very materially strengthened on its medical side.
Pardon a personal matter in conclusion. Will you kindly put me in
communication with a New Bedford host or hostess who will take care of
my animal wants as to eating and sleeping during my visit to your city? If
you will be good enough to give me the name and address of the individ-
ual I will make my wants known to him. I take the liberty of asking this
indulgence this early, as I have an impression that good accommodations
will be at a premium presently, and I am always upset and good for noth-
ing if I am deprived of sleep.
I am very truly yours,
F. W. Draper.

MEMORANDA RELATING to the PRIORITY of MRS. BORDEN'S DEATH.

I. As to the condition of the blood in the two cases. At about 11:45
o'clock, fluid blood, from Mr. Borden's wounds, was "dropping" from the
sofa to the floor; there was no clot in sight.
A "few minutes later", the blood on the carpet on which Mrs.
Borden's head lay was observed by Dr. Dolan to be clotted.
"In man, blood when shed, becomes viscid in about two or three min-
utes and enters the jelly stage in about five or ten minutes. Coagulation is
generally complete in from one to several hours. The time will be found
to vary according to the condition of the individual, the temperature of
the air and the size and form of the vessel into which the blood is shed."
Foster Physiology, p.38.

II. As to the retention of the body heat in the two cases. Mr.
Borden's body when first inspected was nearly as warm as in life. Mrs.
Borden's body was cold to the sense of touch at nearly the same time.
The difference in temperature was a matter of sensation as tested with the
hand only; in the absence of accurate observations with the thermome-
ter, the measure of the difference cannot be expressed in definite terms.
The average rate of cooling of the dead human body, lightly cov-
ered, and in a temperature of about 70 degrees, has been determined by
the use of the thermometer to be one and three-fifths degrees per
hour, being subject however to many modifications.
The most that can be said in the two cases under consideration is
that the temperature of the two bodies showed that Mrs. Borden had
been dead longer than Mr. Borden.

III. As to the state of the contents of the stomach in the two case
Mr. Borden's stomach was found to contain a little fruit pulp with some
clear fluid (water). there was nothing remaining of the breakfast meal
(mutton, &c.)
In the lower bowels were normal fecal masses.

Mrs. Borden's stomach was found to contain the partially digested
remains of the food (meat, &c.) taken at breakfast.
In her small intestines was the usual material (chyle) found there in
healthy digestion going forward naturally. Some pieces of fruit skin also
were found here. The large intestine was empty, not yet having received
any refuse from the morning digestion.
In neither Mrs. Borden nor Mr. Borden was any evidence found of
any disease about the digestive organs or of any condition, except their
death, that had interfered with their healthy activity.
The difference in the stage of digestion reached in the two cases was
evidence of the priority of Mrs. Borden's death.

IV. As to the interpretation of the three preceding data. All these
data taken together prove that Mrs. Borden died before Mr. Borden died.
It is impossible to state accurately in minutes the period that elapsed
between the two deaths.
But it is correct to say that these data, studied either separately or in
their associated relation, are consistent with the view that about an hour
passed between Mrs. Borden's death and that of Mr. Borden.
Of the three data, the condition of the digestive process in the two
individuals is the most significant and reliable.

May 28th is the date of the previous letter where Draper informs the prosecution that defense experts had been
closeted alone with the skulls for examination.
By May 31st he was writing, warning of the gilt found. Draper says he doesn’t know if their own people knew about this.


F. W. DRAPER, M. D.
304 MARLBOROUGH STREET,
BOSTON,
May 31, 1893
My Dear Sir: -
Dr. Cheever and I have had a conference to-day with the Borden pho-
tographs and skulls before us. We are in entire accord and he will testify
1. That the cause and manner of the deaths were the same in both cases,
namely, fracture of the skull and injury to the brain by blows on the head.
2. That the weapon was an edged tool of some weight, like a hatchet.
3. That the length of the edge of the weapon was about 3-1/2 inches.
4. That Mrs. Borden was killed by blows inflicted from behind, the
assailant standing astride the body.
5. That Mr. Borden was killed by blows given by the assailant stand-
ing at the head of the sofa just within the door.
6. That the assailant was right handed and used his right hand, or, if
using both hands, that the left hand was foremost, or in front of the right
hand, on the handle.
7. That Mrs. Borden died first, and that the supposition of an hour's
interval is not inconsistent with the facts relating to the stage of digestion,
the body temperature and the condition of the blood in the two cases.
8. That the deaths were not instantaneous.
9. That a woman would have sufficient physical strength to inflict the
blows, assuming that she was of normal adult vigor. I write especially to
inform you of two important discoveries which I made upon a careful
examination of the two skulls. On Mr. Borden's skull I found that the
blow just in front of the ear left its mark on the base of the skull within
the cavity, that its depth was 1-7/16 inches and that it cut directly
through the internal carotid artery; this wound was necessarily and imme-
diately fatal from hemorrhage.

The other discovery is still more important; on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull,
near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of the gilt metal
with which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory; this deposit (Dr. Cheever
confirmed the observation fully) means that the hatchet used in killing
Mrs. Borden was a new hatchet, not long out of the store. Perhaps this is
not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and
seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The
shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with
the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated.

I see by the morning papers that killing people with hatchets is a Bristol
County habit. I am sorry that this latest homicide comes just now when you
and Dr. Dolan are so much occupied with other matters.

Very truly Yours

F. W. Draper
Mr. Knowlton.

--I don't think this is the first time a new hatchet was opined to be the state of the weapon.
Dr. Dolan would have to be checked for his opinion, and Dr. Wood.

[Harry]

Dr. Draper is questioned at the trial, vol. II, page 1048+:

"Q. Are you able to say whether that hatchet head (showing witness handleless hatchet head) is capable of making those wounds?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Have you attempted to fit that in the wounds?
A. I have seen the attempt made."

It would seem very logical to me that if they tried fitting the HH blade they tried others as well. They were after all trying to determine the size of the blade of the weapon used.

In any case the value of the gilt is compromised as evidence since it wasn't found earlier. It doesn't mean that it has no value but it does mean that another explanation can be offered for the presence of the gilt.

[william]

Bob Flynn's book, "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe," points out that while Dr Draper's letter mentions the gilt deposit, he did not make any reference to the gilt in his testimony at the trial. Why would this be?
Even if he was not questioed on this matter it seems reasonable to assume he would volunteer this significant fact.

In his book, Mr Flynn also offers the information that it is impossible to determine the size of the hatchet blade by an examination of the skulls; a point the doctors seemed to have completely missed.

While only twenty-five pages in length, the book is an invaluable resource. Unfortunately it is not obtainabe for any price. The few copies recently offered were priced at a figure in excess of one hundred and fifty dollars.

[RayS]

Bob Flynn's book, "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe," points out that while Dr Draper's letter mentions the gilt deposit, he did not make any reference to the gilt in his testimony at the trial. Why would this be?
Even if he was not questioed on this matter it seems reasonable to assume he would volunteer this significant fact.

In his book, Mr Flynn also offers the information that it is impossible to determine the size of the hatchet blade by an examination of the skulls; a point the doctors seemed to have completely missed.
...

There was no "Brady Rule" before the 1970s, where exculpatory evidence must be presented to defense attorneys. The Prosecution's experts support them, it is bad form to help the other side.
Nowadys a trial is a search for TRUTH not Victory for one side.

I expect that only the force of a blow would deposit gilt on a skull, just placing the hatchet end in the skull would not do it. But I could be wrong?

[diana]

That's great input, everyone. And wonderful to have all that T.O.D. information in one place, Kat!

I'm still not convinced that the defense was even aware of the gilt in Abby Borden's wounds. I can see how the proximity of Draper's note to Knowlton and date of the examination by the defense experts might suggest the doctors for the defense had also seen the gilt -- but do we know they did?

Although Draper and Cheever were aware of the gilt and and thought it pointed to a brand new hatchet as the killing instrument, as Robert Flynn points out: "completely missing in their testimony was any mention of the reference to gilt deposit and the theory that the murder weapon was a new hatchet as was so clearly stated in the May 31st letter". (Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe, p. 13)

The defense experts who examined the skulls (Dr. Dwight and Dr. Richardson) were never called to testify. Surely, if they reported finding gilt in the wounds and the defense thought this exonerated Lizzie in any way, her lawyers would have called attention to it?

As Knowlton said in his closing: "it is customary in the trial of a cause for murder to afford to those who represent the defence an opportunity on their side to select such men of reputation and eminence as they see fit, who are accorded the privilege of examining the facts and the evidence and the exhibits, and the various things that are put in the case, and see if they have any different conclusion to draw. These things were put into the hands of Dr. Draper, and no less eminent men than Doctors Dwight and Richardson, whom some of you know to be the equals of those who have been called here, have examined them to their hearts' content, and it is not for my distinguished friend to challenge the conclusion to which these gentlemen came, when their own experts are silent in reply." (Trial, 1764)

I agree with Harry's premise, however, that the presence of gilt might have been the result of experimentation by either side.

Perhaps this was even discussed at one point and the defense said: "Yes, we tried to fit a hatchet in there. Did we leave some residue? Sorry." And the whole issue became meaningless.

You never know ....

[Kat]

I agree that it is curious. I think if the gilt was found by the defence in their exam they either did not care to deal with it at trial, thought nothing of it, or agreed with the prosecution not to bring it up as it might get too complicated too late in the game.
I think the same thing about the prosecution: either they thought it was planted, realized they had deposited it there unknowingly, decided to wait and see if the defence brought it up as an issue, or it was agreed upon early to trial not to deal with it at all.

[diana]

I've found something more to bolster the theory that the gilt was deposited by the defense. I know it's dangerous to give too much credibility to Arthur Phillips' recollections as they were published so long after the fact -- but in his third fascicle of his History of Fall River which deals with the Borden case, and with his participation as a member of the defense team -- he writes:

"Mr. Adams was about to claim to the jury that the cutting must have been done by a weapon of very unusual make, and was so confident of his position that he went to a nearby hardware store and purchased a hatchet which seemed to be of correct size and planned to exhibit it to the jury and compare it with the notches as an illustration of his claim. . . . He was urged by Governor Robinson to make a private test first and reluctantly did so, only to find that the fit was perfect, so that it became clear to us that an ordinary new style of hatchet was used by the murderer."(p. 21 of the abstract copy).

[Kat]

That's a good source.
Do you know the time frame? Didn't the prosecution find the gilt prior to trial, because this sounds as if the defence did their experiment during the trial? I wouldn't put it past Phillips to exaggerate the timing!

[diana]

I looked at this in context again and although the words, "Mr. Adams was about to claim to the jury ... " make it sound as though this happened during the trial -- Phillips then goes on to say that "After many conferences and after debates between themselves at which differences of opinion were plainly expressed, argued and concluded, the defence determined to offer no conclusive evidence as to the manner in which the murders were committed ..."

But no, the timing really is not made clear by Phillips (at least not to me).

I guess I was really just focusing on the claim that a brand new hatchet had indeed been fitted into the wounds.

[snokkums]

You can also go to the barnes and noble website and find all kinds of books on lizzie. if your wallet is short cash, then you can click on the used and out of print books, and you can get the book you want for a whole lot cheaper than the regular price.

[RayS]

...
"Mr. Adams was about to claim to the jury that the cutting must have been done by a weapon of very unusual make, and was so confident of his position that he went to a nearby hardware store and purchased a hatchet which seemed to be of correct size and planned to exhibit it to the jury and compare it with the notches as an illustration of his claim. . . . He was urged by Governor Robinson to make a private test first and reluctantly did so, only to find that the fit was perfect, so that it became clear to us that an ordinary new style of hatchet was used by the murderer."(p. 21 of the abstract copy).

This shows how Trial Testimony is coached, rehearsed, and studied before it is presented like a show in a theatre. It may not be Unvarnished Truth all the time.
Did you read the news report on the banning of evidence from people who were hypnotized to "recover" their memories?

[Smudgeman]

You can also go to the barnes and noble website and find all kinds of books on lizzie. if your wallet is short cash, then you can click on the used and out of print books, and you can get the book you want for a whole lot cheaper than the regular price.

Thanks Snokkums, you are right! I checked out the Barnes & Noble website, and in the used and out of print book section, there are some good selections that are alot cheaper than you would normally pay. Thanks!