Lizzie Borden Had an Axe was Not a New Theory

by Eugene Hosey

a review of the October, 2004, Discovery Channel Special

First published in February/March, 2005, Volume 2, Issue 1, The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies.

High expectations were set for this documentary among the Lizzie Borden Society Forum members and other interested parties for several reasons. There is not enough Lizzie Borden on film anyway. And how happy we were that the Koorey sisters were involved in the project and would be making their debut on a major television broadcast! For this alone I, for one, could hardly wait. But beyond that was the word that this show would be something new and different in the application of modern forensics to the scene of the crime, and we could at least hope for a revelation.

The October/November 2004 issue of The Hatchet featured an insider’s view of the then-upcoming show in an article by producer Tim Evans. A highlight in this article was the record of his reaction to an experiment deemed too vulgar for television, yet too revealing to remain unreported. He took an axe to a real pig head from a local butcher, and discovered a simple fact of nature about bashing in a skull:

And suddenly, I was in Fall River, in a bedroom, with a prone body before me, and I realized why the murderer gave Abby Borden 19 whacks, and gave Andrew 10. It’s got nothing to do with familial rage or maniacal fury – it’s simply not easy to whack open a head with a hatchet. You need to do it multiple times to be sure the job is done right. And the skull I whacked was just sitting there, not screaming or running or begging for mercy!

With so many debates on the controversial subject of the motive and physical strength of the killer among those steeped in the crime, this matter-of-fact reportage on a personally conducted test has a refreshing authenticity about it. But another experiment substitutes for this one in the actual documentary. A melon stands in for the dead animal head, and the murderer is splattered with a blue dye and melon juice. So perhaps the butcher of the Bordens was indeed blood-splattered. But the difference between a melon and a human head (dead or living) would seem to be quite a large variable. An on-camera discussion about the more informative off-camera experiment would have been more engaging and added serious value.

Perhaps the most objective approach to an evaluation of this program is to acknowledge firstly that it may have two distinct audiences: those new to the Borden case, on the one hand, and the Borden enthusiasts (somewhat or very knowledgeable) on the other. There may be informative entertainment here for some, but there is much to frustrate many who have a working knowledge of the case.

The documentary’s format is really a three-layered structure, consisting of the forensics experts and their experiments, the re-enactments of the crimes, and the interview snippets with the Borden case experts. The three layers do not support and work together toward deeper understanding. They rather overlap in such a way that to try to follow the whole becomes tedious. The intent may have been to work progressively with some suspense toward the Luminol testing for blood evidence, but it doesn’t work that way. It plays more like a broken record, using a different scenario for each re-enactment (or is it?) and another forensics test with more statements from the Borden scholars, followed by another collection of narrated images with the specific connections among them generally in doubt. Simply put, the information is not laid out straightforwardly or sufficiently enough at any one time to generate constant interest. It lacks coherence and focus. In a sense, it may be overly ambitious in skirting so much and concentrating on so little. A spiral narrative style as opposed to a linear one can work, of course, but this is not Citizen Kane, and that would be an inappropriate comparison anyway.

It is more likely that the marketing and editing constraints and requirements of a mass-market television production are more difficult than any audience has occasion to consider. It must have been a strange experience for whoever shouldered the burden of accommodating and synthesizing so much material coming from so many different places. There was a huge amount of material to be edited down to fit well within an hour. Perhaps members of the seasoned niche Borden market will find their way into powerful media positions — and practice that old adage — “If you want it done right, do it yourself.” 

The foregoing realism aside, however, two specific critical suggestions come to mind – the after-the-fact status of “Lizzie Borden Had an Axe” notwithstanding — the first one concerning the re-enactment segments. Do these have any value whatever? The real problem with them is not just the amateurish quality in the presentations — indeed, this is generally more or less expected and considered in context — but the scripting is so marred with misinformation as to be seriously misleading to those new to the case. Consider just three examples: The curious idea that Bridget opens the front door for Andrew while holding the axe behind her back; the manufactured hostility surrounding Bridget’s sobriquet, Maggie; the verbal exchange between Lizzie and Bridget when the latter catches the other in the act of killing Andrew. “Oh, Miss Lizzie, what have you done?” Lizzie: “Oh, Maggie, somebody has killed father.” Then Bridget says something about getting Lizzie changed or cleaned up. The unintentional humor of this last bit may remind The Hatchet subscribers of Sherry Chapman’s “Badgering Bridget,” a parody of Bridget as accessory and an example of the form wherein this sort of story actually works. Carefully considered, multiple point-of-view camera work at the crime scenes with voice-over would be more informative and save time. And instead of a narrator reading from a script, why not use the actual words of the scholars?

Another weakness — the obvious disconnect between the case scholars and the forensics experts — seems to actually suggest an inherent, albeit unexplored, strength. A more powerful documentary would have begun immediately with the experiments conducted by Tom Moriello, a criminalistics professor, and Tom Lange, a former LAPD detective, and stayed squarely on that particular course of research — while at the same time, working into it the reactions and insights of the case experts — in such a way that the modern scientific findings and the learned historical facts (and of course the implications) are unfolding in tandem. For instance, at some point during or after the sequence describing the sound experiment conducted on the house (the question was whether Abby’s fall would have been heard by someone washing windows on the south side of the house) — it would have been most helpful for one of the case experts to have presented a concise explanation about the probable/possible whereabouts of Bridget. Instead, there was the puzzling assumption that Bridget was at that particular window when Abby fell — not further toward the back of the house, at or near the barn, or closer to the Kelly fence. In one scene discussing the handleless hatchet, the forensics team seems to be under the impression that no blood testing was done at the time of the crimes. 

It might have been, for all practical purposes, impossible to effectively develop the documentary through the complementary teaming of researchers of different fields and qualifications. On the other hand, it would be ironic if something quite near to it ended up on the cutting room floor. My desire for “something new” and my critical reaction to the film quickly leads my thinking in that direction.

The anticipated highlight of the forensics, the Luminol testing, was frankly disappointing. In case someone actually doubted where Andrew bled, there is now some new proof. It is at least interesting to see the substance in action. But no blood trail was discovered. Of course, not just any or every place in the house could be sprayed. The most interesting scene shows a head scarf supposedly worn by Abby when murdered; it evidently has clean cuts that match the infamous hatchet head; it may be bloodstained but does not appear soiled. This, together with reference to bloodstained sheets (not the bedspread, apparently) — has generated some interest and need for clarification, since these items were not widely known and would seem to be lacking documentation. Last year in a thread on the Forum, someone put one thing and another together from testimony and offered convincing evidence that the guest room bed was overhauled before the August 4^th, 3:00 p.m. photos were taken to a much greater extent than generally thought. Since these items relate so directly to the murder in the guest room, they are, needless to say, important to all enthusiasts, and their introduction into the case merely leaves us in confusion.

I am not sure if this documentary was seriously advertised as having found a new theory, but I am reasonably sure it did not offer one. Perhaps there was something like one or a part of one somewhere. Perhaps there are differing definitions of the word.