Blood on the Hatchet

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:06 pm

sounds like a Bob Dylan album, doesn't it?

I’ve read so much about the blood on the hatchet that “turned out to be cow’s blood.”
Does anyone know how they determined it was cow’s blood? How would they test that in 1892? Would there have been a chemical test? If so, how accurate could it have been back then?

In the Arnold Brown documentary on YouTube, they talk about the blood on the hatchet being on the handless hatchet found in the basement. There was a picture of the handelless hatchet on the screen while they talk about the blood being found on the "murder weapon." Wasn't it another hatchet that the blood was found on? Was this just a mistake of the documentary filmmaker?

Just a thought.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:03 pm

Richard, I may be wrong but I thought it was determined that it was a cow's hair found on the hatchet, not that the blood was. Dr Wood's testimony about the hair from page 1002:

"Q. Then we will dispose of the hair, if you please.
A. The envelope marked "Hair taken from the hatchet" contained when I opened it two pieces of paper, this one, which was sealed and which contained a short hair,---it does not now; it is empty now, but that is the paper in which the hair was enclosed, contained a short hair one inch long, and containing both root and the point of the hair, and when they had been examined under the microscope, it was seen to consist of almost entirely of the central medullary cavity, which is unlike human hair, and it had a red brown pigment, and is more similar to a cow's hair than any other animal whose hair I have ever examined. It was sealed between those two glasses, and can be readily seen if the glass is placed upon a piece of paper. It is animal hair, there is no question of that, and probably cow hair"

Dr. Wood also testified at the trial about how he determined human blood. It appeared to be strictly by the size of the blood corpuscles. Here he is discussing the pin-spot of blood found on Lizzie's dress (p1004+):

"... This blood spot was about one-sixteenth of an inch in diameter, about the size of the diameter of the head of a small pin, not a large pin nor a medium size pin, but a small pin, and it appeared to me to be a little bit more extensive and plainer on the outside of the skirt than on the inside. I don't know as that could be detected now because it has been rubbed so much, but at that time it was perceptible when the stain was whole. That I examined and found it to be a blood stain, and the blood corpuscles when examined with a high power of the microscope averaged in measurement 1-3243 of an inch. That is the average measurement within the limits of human blood, and it is therefore consistent with its being a human blood stain.
Q. With the blood of what other animal would it be consistent?
A. There are some other animals, mostly of the---not domestic animals, which have the same diameter within the human limits, like seal and opossum, and one variety of guinea pig. The rabbit comes pretty near and the dog comes pretty near."

He uses this same method to analyze other blood samples he examined. 1/3243 of an inch is mighty small.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:26 pm

Here ya go Richard. I knew I had transcribed info on the scientific evolution of determining blood as animal or human blood somewhere around here. I found it. I have the book next to me but was hoping to not have to transcribe the info again.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... esting.htm

That's good stuff on the blood by Woods you have from the trial, Har!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:29 pm

The cow hair found was on the claw-head hatchet that was supposed to be the weapon at the Preliminary Hearing. That hatchet was located on the chopping block in the cellar near the furnace.
They only found ashes on the HH.
There was no blood found on any weapon from the Borden house.
There were cotton fibres found tho. Again, on the claw-head hatchet.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:48 pm

I never heard that one before. Cows blood? Thats different. I am like you are, I wouldn't know how they would determine what kind of blood it is.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:22 pm

That's just it snokkums- there was no blood found on any hatchet or axe that was tested from the Borden house. There was cow hair, but not blood.
So that might mean the video was wrong- but I hesitate to say because I don't know if I've seen that show Richard is referring to.

There was a very small spot of blood on Lizzie's petticoat and that is what Prof. Dr. Woods was checking when he instructed the court about corpuscle size.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:27 pm

The documentary I saw definitely mentioned "cow's blood" and showed the handle less hatchet. I knew the handle less hatchet was found with ash on it, but had forgotten the other hatchet had hair on it, not blood. That was my mistake for posting to this site from a location where I can't run to my bookcase!!!

This shows you how wrong the Arnold Brown documentary was just about that one simple fact. But Arnold Brown didn't make the doc...he was just interviewed for it, and it preached his version of the killings.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:47 pm

Well we are here just for that reason! To help explain or remind while the questioner is otherwise busy!

Over the years we've had countless can't-wait-another-minute-for-an-answer inquiries from members at work who are going crazy because they can't get at their info!

Can you tell the name of the show? When you say "YouTube" I don't know what that means? That's why I didn't comment on the show itself.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:03 pm

Oh sorry. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjPheZblQL4

Actually it was originally posted by Stefani in response to RayS.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:53 pm

I wonder if a textile expert would be able to examine the cotton fibers found on the claw headed handle to the clothing that Abby and Andrew were wearing at the time of the murders.

But then again, I'm not sure that it would be a possibility because I don't recall where the fibers and clothing ended up?? I remember the clothing items had been buried on the property, but then had been ordered dug up again.

Bordenphiles, were the clothing items "reburied?" What became of them? Were they even kept "above ground" while the trial was going on? And I don't suppose that the fibers that were found on the hatchet have been perserved and stored to this day in some collection somewhere. How would one even find that out? What became of the trial exhibits/evidence following the trial? Anyone?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:23 am

THe clothes and rug piece and such were buried yes and dug up, reburied in a box and dug up again.
The trial exhibits ended up in the Hip-Bath Collection in the possession of Mrs. Waring, daughter of Lawyer Jennings.

This is in the Privy:

viewtopic.php?t=37

We don't know what happened to the fibre. I was convinced, during the prelim, that the claw head hatchet was the weapon.
I think they changed their minds tho because of the blade size.
It was even newish. It's the one the farm man said was left at the farm.
( I think it's in the Witness Statements?)

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:26 am

I can see a little blood on the petticoat, if there was blood on the floor and such. They wore long dresses with petticoats under them, so I would have to have more than that to think that Lizzie is guilty, which I do.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:07 pm

Just to be clear, they were discussing a spot of blood up from the floor level hem, on the underskirt.

Wood
Trial
1004
The white skirt, this one, contains a small blood spot on a line---it is 16 inches to the left of this line from the placket hole to the bottom of the skirt, and six inches from the bottom of the skirt.