The door thing?....

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:23 pm

Maybe some of you can help me out on this.

I've always doubted the theory that the killer stood behind the sitting room door to dispatch Andrew. I mean, looking at the picture of Andrew's corpse, and the location of the door, it doesn't seem anyone could get enough leverage to use a weapon effectively from that position. You'd have to lean pretty far out, or have exceedingly long arms.

I don't know, does this strike anyone else as odd?..............

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:39 pm

First, Welcome KT72.

I also do not assign much credence to the behind-the-door striking of Andrew.

When I was at the house I looked at that very thing and I didn't think enough leverage could be generated. I don't remember how high the door was but that in itself would restrict a blow coming from that direction. Entering the room would give the killer 2 to 3 feet more swinging room.

I would also assume the killer would want the first blow to be strong enough to incapacitate the victim. More than likely a two-handed blow for greater leverage and accuracy.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:05 am

Hi!
I used to take this kind of thing as gospel- depending on what the *experts* stated at the time as their opinon.
Do you know what the *official* idea was on where the killer stood to kill Andrew- or was the dining room doorway suggested by the questioner?

We did note that the sofa was on casters, which meant it could be moved. If moved toward that doorway, why?
We wondered this because the picture on the wall above the sofa was off center to the placement of the sofa as found, and described.

If an expert deposed that the killer stood in that doorway, why would they propose that, if the killer didn't?

Do you have access to the source documents?
Have you found what there is stated there as to this question?

Also, as another factor to be considered, if a big piece of furniture was behind the dining room door (as now), it wouldn't open very wide and then the position of a killer reaching around the door, using it as a shield, would not be easy- in fact, the door might impede the reach.
...
[I am just back after being away. Excuse me if this question has been addressed elsewhere].

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:44 am

@Kat, Exactly!...............

Since I'm at work at the moment I don't have any source documents in front of me. I'm pretty sure the forensics of the time concurred that the blows that killed Andrew were delivered from behind and above. The door frame theory was advanced to provide an answer to the question of why no blood-soaked maniac was seen anywhere in the vicinity.

But I don't know why no one at the time thought that wielding a short-handled object around a door frame, with the door itself in the way, would be incredibly awkward and inaccurate.....

I'm going to try to find this documentation and get back

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:42 am

I have a question. What does 'with the door itself in the way' refer to? The door is hinged on the left side of the frame, and opens inward to the left. So if it was opened it would not really be in the killers way.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:00 am

It is hinged on the left side of the frame on the diningroom side, and opens inward to the left. This was taken in the diningroom, and you can see the door leading into the sitting room is open on the right side of the photo.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:05 am

(please forgive my hair it's a mess)

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:23 am

Allen @ Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:42 am wrote:I have a question. What does 'with the door itself in the way' refer to? The door is hinged on the left side of the frame, and opens inward to the left. So if it was opened it would not really be in the killers way.

The killer's left side would be against the door. It seems to me that would cause additional awkwardness.........

Thanks for that photo, @Allen. Do you know if the dimensions of the current B&B sofa are equal to the original's dimensions? In the crime scene photos, the door frame just seems further away from the end of the sofa than in this pic. Maybe it's the camera angle in the crime scene photos?...............

Even if the killer stood behind the door, it seems he/she couldn't avoid being spattered with blood. According to the blood evidence there was some blood on the door frame...........and even if the upper body was shielded, surely the killer's arm and head would have gotten soaked? You have to be able to see what you're doing...........

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:30 am

Here we go, see where his head is in relation to the door? Seems like a long way off to me.

Unless..........

1.) He was more propped up when initially attacked; or
2.) Like Kat said, the sofa was moved. But then we have an extra additional time component for the killer to put everything back to normal. (Ehh, makes it even more interesting that Lizzie told Bridget to stay out of the room..........)

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:55 am

Photographs are actually not very accurate when it comes to spacial relationships and distances. This is why even though photographs are taken, crime scene sketches are still drawn in order to show distances after measurements are taken. Do we know for sure the the sofa was moved, or is it just based on the placement of the picture above it? I wouldn't take it as proof just base the pictures placement that the couch was actually moved. Different people decorate in different ways. Maybe they weren't all that concerned with lining the sofa up with the picture, who knows. I also take into account that Dr. Bowen said the body had settled somewhat from the time he had first seen it. In my own mind I take this to mean he could've slipped down a little from his original position.

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:27 pm

Allen @ Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:55 am wrote:I also take into account that Dr. Bowen said the body had settled somewhat from the time he had first seen it. In my own mind I take this to mean he could've slipped down a little from his original position.

Hmm, I had forgotten about that.

So maybe Andrew was more in a sitting posture. I have to say, his final position doesn't look like one that a person would get into on purpose.......

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:37 pm

I have no doubts that the investigators/doctors/etc at the crime scene would have moved the couch before the photos were taken if they do desired. Whether they actually did it or not is the question!

When you look at this photo you can see that if the sofa had been centered under the picture it would probably not been sitting on the rug-- But flush with it.

This photo (and I am sorry for the quality) shows that the caster on the sofa is positioned as if the sofa had last been moved forward/backward versus side to side. Of course this may have been done as well as to allow doctors or the authorities to stand behind the sofa to examine Andrew.

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:44 pm

That's a good point; the sofa may have been moved to examine evidence and look for blood patterns etc. Also, Dr. Dolan fiddled with the coat at one point. So that certainly would have changed the body's position. It's too bad the photos weren't taken immediately, before people started crawling all over the house and messing with things

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:41 pm

This is a picture available on the LABVM site of the sitting room after the sofa had been moved. I don't know if it will shed any light on anything, but I think it's an interesting perspective of the room.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:43 pm

BTW: Thanks for pointing out the position of the casters Audrey.

Elizabelle · Post by **Elizabelle** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:39 pm

I don't believe the davenport was centered on the wall under the framed picture. If it was, there would be very little room for a person to walk through the door! It was pushed over as far away as possible so that the entrance was accessible.

Elizabelle · Post by **Elizabelle** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:40 pm

I don't believe the davenport was centered on the wall under the framed picture. If it was, there would be very little room for a person to walk through the door! It was pushed over as far away as possible so that the entrance was accessible.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:34 am

In the picture Allen posted, do you see the door to the dining room is not all the way open? (Thanks, Allen).
There probably was a piece of furniture there behind it.
Note how that door would impede an attack?
A person would be reduced to using one hand.
Otherwise they would need to stand clear of the doorway.
The door molding might shield the person from blood, but not the door.

I have a section of my family room with just this configuration.
My door will not open wide into its own room because there is a wall right there on the left. As if there was a piece of furniture.
It's very awkward and the door is in the way. I'd have to actually stand full in the doorway.
So there is no benefit of shielding, but can illustrate the position of the attacker.