The Murder of Abby Borden

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:17 pm

When I look at that picture there are three separate wounds that are actually horizontal. One off the to the right, and two directly in the middle. I agree with the observation that it looks like the Mark of Zorro there in them middle of her head, althought I am unsure as to who made that observation at this time. I think it was Kat? But I'm not sure.

To my mind the killer would've had to be standing off to one side to have been in the position to make those horizontal cuts. I cannot see the killer standing over her after she was on the floor, twisting their wrist and arm at such an angle, and still being able to swing with enough force. Plus I would think if the killer were standing directly over her, say at about her shoulders, they would have had a pretty wide stance, and the backswing would've been coming back a little to closely in the direction of their own body.So they were standing probably at about her waist. Which still probably means they had to have a fairly wide stance, because the autopsy report states that Abby was a very fleshy woman.

The other wounds that are slanted in direction seem like they could've been made while the killer was standing over her after she as on the floor. That wound at the very bottom, the one close to the neck, troubles me because it's shape is a little more irregular.

The one directly below and to the left of, well I guess I'll call it the Z figure, troubles me as well because it is small and appears to be going in an upward angle to the right. Unless the killer was left handed I see that as being a little harder to achieve while standing over her. This indicates that the killer could've been standing to the left of Abby at that time in order to be in a position to make that cut. The shape of that wound is odd to me also, it's almost but not quite triangular, now that could just be a trick of the photography. Maybe just the very front most tip of the axe made contact on this one?

Many of these cuts were small.

Number two = 1 inch long and did not penetrate all the way through the skull.

Number three = 1 and 1/2 inches long.

Number four = 1 and 1/2 inches long.

Number 5 was = 1 and 1/4 inches long.

Number 10 = 1 and 3/4 inches long.

Number 11 = 1/2 inch long.

Number 13 = 1 and 3/4 inches long.

Number 16= 1 inch long.

Number 17 = 1/2 inch long.

Now if the hatchet that was used was about 2 and 1/2 inches long, which I'm going to check on because I'm not sure of the average size, why were so many of the cuts so small?? This to me speaks of someone who doesn't possess a lot of strength, or that the angle they were swinging the weapon did not permit full contact. But then again one of the wounds was listed as being 5 inches long. This would be longer than the weapon.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:39 pm

We had a discussion quite some time back about the possibility that the killer came from across the bed once Abby was on the floor, and possibly before. We also mentioned the possibility that killer was lying lengthwise on the bed and the possibility that either of these two 'approaches' could lead to the various positions, depth, etc. of the wounds inflicted upon Abby.

Just for clarification Melissa, was there a particular reason that you listed those specific wounds in the order that you did ? Is it because you consider those measurements to indicate 'small' incised wounds (cut = incised wound) ? I do not want to misinterpret your intent.

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:01 pm

I listed those cuts in the order that I did because I thought those cuts to be rather small. If the weapon were say, about 2 and 1/2 inches long, why were most of the cuts less than 2 inches? Some of them were less than in inch. This would indicate to me that either the killer did not possess the strength to cause the weapon to embed further into the skull making a larger wound, or that the position in which the killer stood did not permit them to swing the weapon with enough force, or that the position in which they stood did not allow for the weapon to make full contact with the skull.

I remember the discussion about coming across the bed, and I don't agree with that scenario. Because that bed was sitting up a little too high in my opinion for the killer to be stretched out across it and be able to reach Abby while she was laying on the floor. Add the fact that Abby seemed to have been laying close to the bed and that it was the right side of Abby's skull, the side which was closest to the bed, which was crushed in I find that unlikely. I think if the attack would've come from across the bed the left side would've sustained most of the damage, because that would've been more within the killers reach.

"On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows"

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:23 pm

Allen @ Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:01 pm wrote:
"On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows"

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

I do understand that this comes from Abby's autopsy report on the LABVML website. I have read it a time or two, and will probably read through it many more times.

When I mentioned 'mapping', I should have been more clear in that what I was hoping to find a diagram (map) of where ALL the wounds were located...exactly. Maybe an exact pattern of size, location, and depth would give another clue as to the possible identity of the killer(s).

I think the 'over the bed' idea is very plausible with the majority of the wounds being on the right side. If the whacking started with the back wound, then the left side of the head wounds, then the right side head wounds, this would IMHO, suggest that the 'whacker' narturally started out with much more strength...this strenth then decreased as their arm(s) tired (even to the point of switching hands). The hand switching/tiring could possibly even explain the variation in direction/depth of the wounds.

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:08 pm

theebmonique @ Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:23 pm wrote:
Allen @ Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:01 pm wrote:
"On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows"

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm
I do understand that this comes from Abby's autopsy report on the LABVML website. I have read it a time or two, and will probably read through it many more times.

When I mentioned 'mapping', I should have been more clear in that what I was hoping to find a diagram (map) of where ALL the wounds were located...exactly. Maybe an exact pattern of size, location, and depth would give another clue as to the possible identity of the killer(s).

I think the 'over the bed' idea is very plausible with the majority of the wounds being on the right side. If the whacking started with the back wound, then the left side of the head wounds, then the right side head wounds, this would IMHO, suggest that the 'whacker' narturally started out with much more strength...this strenth then decreased as their arm(s) tired (even to the point of switching hands). The hand switching/tiring could possibly even explain the variation in direction/depth of the wounds.

Tracy...

I would think that once Abby was on the floor, it would've been very hard to hit her in the right side of the skull with her head being so close to the bed. The rigth side of her head was closest to the bed. I'd think it would be hard for the attacker to actually swing an axe at the right side. I am counting the backswing as well. I'd think to reach the right side of her head, they would have almost have to be hanging off the bed in order to see what they were swinging at.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:26 pm

If the attacker were coming from perpendicular/across the bed, it would indeed be hard for some of the wounds to have been incurred. However, if the attacker(s), came from a position of lengthwise on the bed (head to foot or foot to head), it seems they would have had a much better angle and leverage for the wounds which were incurred.

In a previous discussion, I believe it may have been mentioned that it could have been a possibility that a combination of positions of the attacker(s) and/or switching hands which could have rendered said injuries with their variations. The same idea could also possibly be a reason why there were no visible, bloody foot prints leading away from the crime scene, and why the attacker(s) had little to none of Abby's blood on them.

Tracy...

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:28 pm

I think the killer hit her face to face the first blow while entering the room, then Abby probably fell down on her stomach and then the additional blows to her back and head followed. Who is to know how a person is going to fall after being attacked with an axe or hatchet. I would tend to turn away and get face down, or maybe she justed started writhing in pain and shock in any direction. I think the killer had to be in the room as she entered or came after her from the hall. I think the bed was probably in the way of the killer.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:34 pm

I Did make the notation of the *Mark of Zorro.*
I Did Not ever map out which wound might be sustained in what order. I don't think I've ever seen that kind of visual aid.
I know because we are delicate about such things here that we are at a bit of a disadvantage because we are not illustrating our points with the actual picture.

It's an interesting observation that so many cuts are like nicks. These do seem to be possibly like *gouges* from the tip of the hatchet.

The hatchet blade is usually decided by experts at the time to have been 3.5" long.

How many *gouges* might be due to the head moving?

Also, as to an attack over the bed- I don't think it can be totally discounted due to the fact there is thought to be not much room- mainly because the neck and head area took up the least space of any part of Abby. There was more room around her head than anywhere else.
However, it is thought that Abby's hands were first found up around her head/face area, like in a circle. To not hit those hands, they probably weren't moving. But also one would be hard pressed to miss those hands or arms if hitting blindly or haphazardly, wouldn't they?

I think the attack was amateur, due to the wounds we see. I think what killed her finally was the aggregate of the combined blows on the right side which broke her skull.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:34 pm

Do we know for sure the body wasn't moved by the killer after death or debilitating injury?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:38 pm

BTW: Audrey- thank you belatedly for the really clear cleaned up partial pictures of Abby and the guest room!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:43 pm

No problem...

If anyone wants ANY photos cleaned like that, send me a PM

** back on topic**

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:17 pm

Audrey et al, no we don't know that Abby's body was not moved after the fatal blow(s)...in fact, logic tells me it WAS moved by the killer shortly after the final blows. With the majority of blows falling on the right side of the head, and looking at the space between the bureau and bed where the body was found, supposedly in situ, it's not the most convienent nor effective place to be whacking away at the right side of Abby's head. I also cannot but someone whacking away at her head over the obstruction of the guest bed. The most logical scenario, to me, seems to be that she was likely attacked near to where she was found, but not "as found."

I wonder, when the carpeting was replaced, did anyone ever mention "cuts" in the carpet or the underlying floorboards? Or other blood stains, for that matter? I can see that they might not have been caught immediately. I wonder when and who replaced the carpet? Anyone?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:28 pm

Kat, I apologize for insinuating you may have illustrated a head wound diagram. I swear I have seen one, and I figured it may have been you who did it because you are so good at details like that. Maybe I just THINK I have seen one. I do apologize for the confusion.

IMHO, if the body was moved, I don't think it was that much, or that the head was moved much at all. Or maybe if it was moved, it was like it was 'rolled' over then rolled back, as the pools of clotted blood around the head in the pictures seem to be rather undisturbed.

I am thinking too, the THE first blow to Abby was to the front of her head, thus knocking her out...as she turned away and fell to the floor.

Tracy...

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:32 pm

This is just a thought but, is it possible the killer not only swung in an up and down motion hitting the right side of Abby's skull but also may have brought the hatchet up over their left shoulder and hit in sort of a backhand motion to produce the vertical marks? This of course while they're sitting on top of Abby.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:44 pm

I am thinking if the attacker were sitting on Abby, or even standing over her, then there would more than likely have been a great deal of blood on the attacker, including their feet with which to leave bloody footprints ?

Tracy...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:17 pm

I think that if Abbie was moved prior to the discovery of her body-- it was very little, if at all.

No offense to her-- but she would have been a load, plain and simple.

Someone may have been able to drag her a bit-- but the reports of the crime scene, and the photos do not support that. No blood smears, etc.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:42 pm

My sentiments exactly, sister dearest.

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:17 pm

theebmonique @ Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:44 pm wrote:I am thinking if the attacker were sitting on Abby, or even standing over her, then there would more than likely have been a great deal of blood on the attacker, including their feet with which to leave bloody footprints ?

Tracy...

In the crime scene photos if there were enough blood below Abby's waist for the killer to be standing in, I would think it would be enough to show up in the pictures like the pool of blood around her head. I do not even see any blood on the waist of Abby's dress in the back.

Maybe it's possible the killer did leave a trail, but that the droplets they left were just too small and weren't noticed. Maybe the carpet soaked them up. Why does the killers feet had to be saturated with blood to actually leave what would be termed "footprints" when there wasn't even a great amount of blood in the crime scene? How do we know for sure there weren't any traces left behind by the killer? I think it's highly probably that some things were overlooked or misinterpreted. I mean after all they overlooked Abby's back wound at first.

Or it's possible the killer didn't leave any blood trail because her own dress soaked it up on impact and it didn't drip or splash. She was wearing a dress and how many layers of cloth underneath? And maybe she did not get any blood on her shoes, or below the waist, at all.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:52 pm

I do not think the attacker was sitting on Abby. My comments were in regards to Donna's post. However, if the attacker stood above Abby's waist...more chance of getting bloody, but the angle of attack would be so restricted.

I think there is probably more blood than what we see in the b/w photos.

When I mentioned leaving bloody footprints, I was thinking of rather 'visible' prints. Maybe the carpet was too dark...or there is always the chance of the 'not really visible to the naked eye without using luminol' kind.

Melissa, are you still going to cop school ? What do your instructors think of/say about the scenario we are discussing ? You have a wealth of investigative information at your finger tips no doubt !

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:09 pm

I'm still a Criminal Justice major yes, but I've never really discussed the case with my professors. They aren't really all that interested in the Borden case. One instructor did, however, find my Manson letters very interesting. But I can ask tomorrow as I have classes and see what opinions I receive about this scenario.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:58 pm

Just read through all the fascinating posts of this thread, and the haggling over definitions - don't we have fun?

I'd just like to drop in again that the pictures are not of untouched corpses but, if you will, "fiddled-with" bodies. We can't even be sure that someone, before the photographer showed up, didn't straighten up the dresser for propriety's sake, just like Abby's skirts!

In other words, as regards the items on the bureau, we may be quibbling about non-evidence; nothing is as it first appeared. Furniture and murder victims have been moved, beds unmade and remade, etc.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:10 pm

Anyone have any info on when and who replaced the carpeting following the murders? Were any of the floorboards ever replaced?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:51 pm

Well I spoke to one of my professors and he is going to look at the crime scene photo's of Abby and get back to me with his opinions. I'm very curious to see what he has to say it should be really interesting.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:59 pm

It will be interesting indeed ! What is the name of the university you attend ?

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:26 pm

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Emma had the carpet replaced? I believe Lee-ann showed the group or told the group there this summer that there were bleach marks on the floorboards of the guest room. I don't think those boards were ever taken- but I think some boards were taken, according to the newspaper- maybe from the sitting room?
Does anyone recall reading about the floorboards in either room?

Ad · Post by Ad » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:21 pm

Yes Kat, I just read an article in the archives the other day that said pieces of the floorboards from both murder scenes were removed.
I've looked for about an hour but I've yet to find it again. I'll keep looking.

I remember the article mentioned that there was blood splatter on the boards. It may be in with the info on the rug(s) removal.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:05 pm

Physical evidence given to the jury to deliberate over:

"The following articles which had been offered in evidence during the progress of the trial were selected from among the exhibits in the case by counsel and sent to the jury:

Pages 1927-1928
Plans and photographs marked as exhibits in the case.
Skulls of Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Borden.
Bedspread and pillow shams.
Handkerchief found by Mrs. Borden's body.
Piece of doorframe taken from inside of dining room.
Piece of moulding taken from guest chamber west of dressing case.
Piece of plaster.
Two axes.
Claw-hammer hatchet.
Hatchet with plain head.
Handleless hatchet and bit of wood.
Blue blouse and dress skirt.
White skirt.
Magnifying glass.

Pages 1608+

LIST OF EXHIBITS.

1. Large plan, showing main street and other streets.
2. Plan of Borden premises, and surrounding estates.
3. Plan of Borden premises, including ground floor of house.
4. Plan of Borden premises, including second story.
5. Plan of sitting room.
6. Blue print of Exhibit 3.
7. Blue print of Exhibit 4.
8. Blue print of Borden premises and surrounding estates.
9. Plan of cellar.
10 - 14. Photographs of Borden house.
15 - 19. Photographs of bodies.
20 - 21. Carpets.
22. Tag attached to jar containing Mr. Borden's stomach.
23. Tag attached to jar containing Mrs. Borden's stomach.
24 - 43. Small photographs of Borden premises.
44. Pin produced by Mr. Adams for comparison, in connection with testimony of Professor Wood.
(All item numbers inclusive.)"

From
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... ceList.htm

--Also, in relation to the carpet in the guest room:
Fall River Daily Herald, Wednesday, Aug. 24, 1892
excerpt:

"There is a great spare space where the blood-stained carpet under Mrs. Borden's crushed head has been cut away. The paper underneath shows the awful discoloration where it soaked slowly through. There are a few dark splashes on the edge of the bureau before which she was struck down. The space between the side of the bed and the bureau is only a little over two feet wide. A narrow rug fills it now."

--This doesn't sound like the boards were taken. It sounds like the carpet was taken, but not even the paper underneath the carpet was taken- and this shows in the photo posted.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:21 am

Hmmm, that just brought to mind Emma's comment at the trial:

Q. Will you answer the question? (The last question was read.)
A. He told me the search had been as thorough as the search could be made unless the paper was torn from the walls and the carpets taken from the floor.

Granted, whole carpets were not taken from the house, but, sizeable pieces were. Surely Emma saw those pieces of carpet missing, it makes that statement sound odd to me in that context.

Ad · Post by Ad » Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:43 am

Sorry, I was thinking moulding, not floor boards. Beg pardon!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:57 pm

Susan @ Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:21 am wrote:Hmmm, that just brought to mind Emma's comment at the trial:

Q. Will you answer the question? (The last question was read.)
A. He told me the search had been as thorough as the search could be made unless the paper was torn from the walls and the carpets taken from the floor.

Granted, whole carpets were not taken from the house, but, sizeable pieces were. Surely Emma saw those pieces of carpet missing, it makes that statement sound odd to me in that context.

That is odd and I don't understand it.

Maybe she meant *at the time*?
The second search, Saturday?
Is Emma being asked by Jennigs what he said to her [Emma], at this point? Was he somehow getting his own opinion into testimony thru Emma- because he did do that at one point? Who is she referring to, do you know?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:42 am

But the room looks staged to me. It seems to clean and neat for to have someone just axed to death, they could have cleaned things up after they moved her.

Ad · Post by Ad » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:19 pm

snokkums @ Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:42 am wrote:But the room looks staged to me. It seems to clean and neat for to have someone just axed to death, they could have cleaned things up after they moved her.

Regarding Abby being moved. Is there blood patterns elsewhere to suggest that the body landed somewhere other than where they found her? (other than the blood splatter on the moulding)

Have you ever tried to move 200+ pounds of dead weight at floor level?
Not all that easy to do. Not to mention, in this case, messy!

Not impossible with your adrenalin up I know, but still a bit of a task.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:10 pm

[quote="Kat @ Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:57 pm'] That is odd and I don't understand it.

Maybe she meant *at the time*?
The second search, Saturday?
Is Emma being asked by Jennigs what he said to her [Emma], at this point? Was he somehow getting his own opinion into testimony thru Emma- because he did do that at one point? Who is she referring to, do you know?[/quote]

Yes, if I read it correctly, Jennings is trying to get Emma to say what he (Jennings) had repeated about what Marshall Hillard had said about the search. Its all very convoluted, a very odd line of questioning. The carpet pieces were there as evidence for the jury, so, I believe they got the idea that the search for evidence was quite thorough.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:49 pm

Whew-that was from memory! Thanks!
I always thought that was odd evidence to be allowed in court- what Jennigs told Emma- and then re-stated by her - sworn- and Jennings allowed to question her on what he said- yes it's all very odd.

There might be reference made to the Boards in the newspapers. I'm not positive there's not. In fact, I was wondering something similar to you, Ad. But maybe it's the sitting room, because the photo seems to show the guest room floor intact.

IF any sitting room boards were removed, there goes the Luminol test done in our recent Lizzie video!

It's still a good question!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:23 pm

I just purchased a copy of The People's Commonsense Medical Adviser By R.V. Pierce. It was published in the year 1892. I can't wait to read the whole thing through. But while just flipping through it, I did find this on page 896:

Wounds.

Wounds may be classified as incised, punctured, contused, lacerated, or poisoned.

Incised wounds are those which are made with a sharp, cutting instrument, and are characterized by their extent of surface.

Punctured wounds are made with a pointed instrument, and distinguished for their depth rather than their breadth.

Contused wounds are those produced by bruises.

Lacerated wounds are those in which the flesh is torn and mangled.

Poisoned wounds are made with a poisoned instrument, or by some poisonous reptile or insect or rabid animal.

In all cases of wounds, the immediate danger is in the shock produced upon the nervous system, and in the liablility to hemorrhage.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm

I've done a lot of flipping because I just like to get an overview of what all is included in a book before I sit down to read it sometimes. I'm odd like that I guess.Another thing I came upon while flipping through the book on page 243 +:

Digestibility of Food. Unless an article of diet can be digested it is of no value, no matter how rich it may be in nutriuent. The quantity of food taken, will influence to a considerable extent, the time consumed in its digestion. The stomachs of all are not alike in this respect, and the subject of time has been a difficult one to determine. The experiments of Dr. Beaumont with the Canadian, St. Martin, who accidentally discharged the contents of a loaded gun into his stomach, creating an external opening through which the process of digestion could be observed, have furnished us with the following table, which is correct enough to show relatively, if not absolutely, the time required for the digestion of various articles:

Since I can't reproduce the table I'll just type out some of the information contained on it below. I'll give the article of food, the mode of preparation when provided, and the estimated time of digestion given for it.

Mutton, fresh.....3 hours
Mutton, Boiled....3 hours
Mutton, Roasted.....3 hours and 15 minutes

Soup, mutton.....3 hours and 30 minutes

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:12 pm

Page 310-311:

Anodynes

Anodynes are those medicines which relieve pain by blunting the sensability of the nerves, or of the brain, so that it does not appreciate the morbid sensation. An anodyne may be a stimulant in one dose, and a narcotic in a larger one. The properties of different anodyne agents vary, consequently they produce unlike effects. The size of the dose required, differs according to circumstances and condition. An adult, suffering acute pain, requires a much larger dose to produce an anodyne effect than one who is a chronic sufferer. An individual accustomed to the use of anodynes, requires a much larger dose to procure relief than one who is not. Doses may be repeated, until their characteristic effects are produced, after an interval of thirty or forty minutes. When the stomach is sensitive and will not tolerate their internal administration, one- sixth of a grain of Morphia can be inserted beneath the skin, by means of a hypodermic syringe. Relief is more quickly experienced, and the anodyne effect is much more lasting than when taken into the stomach.

Opium ( Papaver Somniferum) Opium is a stimulant, anodyne, or narcotic, according to the size of the dose administered. Dose - Of the dry powder, one-fourth to one grain; of tincture (Laundanum), Five to fifteen drops; of camphorated tincture ( Paragoric), one-half to one teaspoonful; of Morphine, one -eighth to one- fourth grain; of Dover's Powder, three to five grains.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:03 pm

Ad @ Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:19 pm wrote:
snokkums @ Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:42 am wrote:But the room looks staged to me. It seems to clean and neat for to have someone just axed to death, they could have cleaned things up after they moved her.
Regarding Abby being moved. Is there blood patterns elsewhere to suggest that the body landed somewhere other than where they found her? (other than the blood splatter on the moulding)

Have you ever tried to move 200+ pounds of dead weight at floor level?
Not all that easy to do. Not to mention, in this case, messy!

Not impossible with your adrenalin up I know, but still a bit of a task.

Good Point!!! We really can't imagine things that are not part of the known record. Can a 135 lb 30 yr old woman NOT used to heavy work drag 210 lbs of dead weight? NOT in my opinion. Does anyone know of any cases from True Crime that say otherwise?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:04 pm

I will always belive that that andrew and abby knew there killers

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:34 pm

snokkums @ Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:04 pm wrote:I will always belive that that andrew and abby knew there killers

I think it is most unlikely that the killer was a stranger off the street.
It had to be someone who was allowed into the house (or lived there).
But Bridget and Lizzie had no bloodstained clothes when the police came to investigate. The murder weapon was never found.

The murderer must have carried the weapon away, and either there were no bloodstains on his clothes, or covered up by a duster, or would not have been noticed (a butcher walking home for lunch).

Note that Abby Borden Whitehead Potter was supposed to be there that day, but it was cancelled the day before. This clue suggests that something was expected where they would not want her there.

It was not Colonel Mustard in the Dining Room with the meat cleaver!!!