The number of hits

[Allen]

Rebello page 33:

The Shutters

The inside white folding shutters were made of solid board [wood] and covered the entire windows. The shutters were split so the lower half coud be opened or closed and the top half opened leaving the bottom closed. ( Trial 319-321)
Victoria Lincoln, in her book A Private Disgrace ( 1967,93,154,178) made three references to the color of the house.(1) " It [Lizzie's dress] had been , they claimed, so stained with brown paint at the very time it was made ( in May when the house was painted) as to be useless." (2) "Brown paint, the hue of dried blood, as I only learned from the housepainters evidence when I finally got my hands on the final thousand pages of the trial- Vol. II. The sheep was lost and was found." and (3) The slop pail and the brown-stained dress that was burned were enough."

[diana]

I wonder where Lincoln found testimony that the paint on the burned dress would have been brown?

"Brown paint, the hue of dried blood, as I only learned from the housepainters evidence when I finally got my hands on the final thousand pages of the trial- Vol. II. The sheep was lost and was found."

The house painter John W. Grouard is questioned at trial:

"Q. What was the color of the paint?
A. Kind of dark drab.
Q. The same that is now upon it?
A. The same color, yes, sir.
Q. Was that the last time it was painted, so far as you know.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the trimmings? Was there any difference in the color of the trimmings?
A. A little darker." (Trial, 1349)

According to present owners of the B&B, the current color (as depicted in mbhenty's present day photo of the house) was thoroughly researched and established as the 'drab' it was at the time of the murders -- and it is a lot greener than the "hue of dried blood".

[Allen]

This is a picture of the house from 1968. I found it in the LABVM site.

[Allen]

Pictures of the demolition show the paint underneath. Does anyone know if the McGinn's painted the house, or if any of the previous owners had?

http://www.lizzie-borden.com/html/photos1.html

[mbhenty]

Thanks for the Photo Allen:

I noticed that there is an air conditioner in the window; someone must have been living there? Three or four years later I was inside the house and it was vacant.

[Smudgeman]

I wonder where Lincoln found testimony that the paint on the burned dress would have been brown?

"Brown paint, the hue of dried blood, as I only learned from the housepainters evidence when I finally got my hands on the final thousand pages of the trial- Vol. II. The sheep was lost and was found."

The house painter John W. Grouard is questioned at trial:

"Q. What was the color of the paint?
A. Kind of dark drab.
Q. The same that is now upon it?
A. The same color, yes, sir.
Q. Was that the last time it was painted, so far as you know.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the trimmings? Was there any difference in the color of the trimmings?
A. A little darker." (Trial, 1349)

According to present owners of the B&B, the current color (as depicted in mbhenty's present day photo of the house) was thoroughly researched and established as the 'drab' it was at the time of the murders -- and it is a lot greener than the "hue of dried blood".

Do we know what color the dress was that Lizzie burned? Color may be important, because old, drab brown paint might look like old dried blood on certain fabric colors. The contrast of the paint and the fabric would vary from sample to sample.

[Susan]

I searched around for a good example of a historic Drab paint, here is a good example:



And here are some examples of Bedford cord material, I think the blue might be close to the light blue color of Lizzie's dress.



Just from my own personal experience, blood on light blue fabric tends to look very dark. And a thought came to mind, if Lizzie's Bedford cord was starched, would the paint and/or blood have sat more on top of the fabric as opposed to soaking in? Wish we knew for sure if Lizzie had gotten the lighter Drab color of the body of the house on her dress or the darker trim version of the Drab.

[Allen]

Wish we knew for sure if Lizzie had gotten the lighter Drab color of the body of the house on her dress or the darker trim version of the Drab.

That's a very good question Susan. There were two shades of paint on the house but we can't be sure which Lizzie stained her dress with. That sort of makes it harder to determine how it would have appeared against the fabric of the dress. Thank you for the color examples also. Another thing I wonder is would the soap used to wash the clothing affect the appearance of the stain? Would it change in color anyway from the washing process, and with the dress also said to be faded on top of that.

[Kat]

As a little side-trip:
Something interesting which needs some research?
In the 1859 City Directory I find John E. Grouard as an artist (not Diana's John W. tho) along with R.S.Dunning- there was a prominent Dunning Fall River artist, wasn't there?
Is this the same man or are they both fathers to our housepainter Grouard and to the 1892 Dunning?
Anybody know?

[diana]

Here's a bit about Dunning.

http://www.newportart.com/Robert_Dunning.html

It mentions that he started an art school in Fall River with John E. Grouard in 1870. I 'googled' John E. Grouard but although his style seems very much in line with Dunning's works, he is consistently listed with a birth year of 1859. This obviously doesn't dovetail with your directory listing -- and would also make him 11 years old when he started up the school with Dunning. So I'm wondering if the John E. Grouard born in 1859 is the son of the Grouard who partnered with Dunning in the school? I say this because I found a site saying that Bryant Chapin was born in 1859 -- and he was a student at the school.


I'm guessing the John E. Grouard in the 1859 City Directory is the one who partnered with Dunning -- but can't help you with a relationship to John W. Grouard, the housepainter. Sorry...

[Kat]

That's good of you my dear. Thanks a bunch!

[Richard]

Can it also be that the murderer was inexperienced and had never hit a human head with a hatchet before? Perhaps the killer (possibly Lizzie?) didn't know how many times was sufficient to make sure the person was killed. Perhaps she applied a large number of whacks "just to make sure." I know that this is a long shot, but people think in strange ways when they are doing something extraordinary. And if the killer was Lizzie, we can assume:

a) She had never killed anyone before
b) She had never hit anyone in the head with a hatchet before

So the killing of Abby was not just her first killing, but the first time she hit someone in the head with the intent to kill. The first blow struck that day was an awkward one, hitting Abby in the side as she was presumably turning around. At that split second, the killer (Lizzie?) who was inexperienced must have been thinking, "This is the point of no return! Nothing will ever be the same after this!" and then went on to find out for the first time what it is like to hit someone in the head with a hatchet.

So perhaps by the time he/she got around to Andrew, he/she had already experienced what it felt like to kill someone, and the number of blows was less.

[RayS]

Can it also be that the murderer was inexperienced and had never hit a human head with a hatchet before? Perhaps the killer (possibly Lizzie?) didn't know how many times was sufficient to make sure the person was killed. Perhaps she applied a large number of whacks "just to make sure." I know that this is a long shot, but people think in strange ways when they are doing something extraordinary. And if the killer was Lizzie, we can assume:

a) She had never killed anyone before
b) She had never hit anyone in the head with a hatchet before

So the killing of Abby was not just her first killing, but the first time she hit someone in the head with the intent to kill. The first blow struck that day was an awkward one, hitting Abby in the side as she was presumably turning around. At that split second, the killer (Lizzie?) who was inexperienced must have been thinking, "This is the point of no return! Nothing will ever be the same after this!" and then went on to find out for the first time what it is like to hit someone in the head with a hatchet.

So perhaps by the time he/she got around to Andrew, he/she had already experienced what it felt like to kill someone, and the number of blows was less.

Interesting speculation. But the testimony in the Trial Transcript may have covered this, rendering such guesses as useless.
From my True Crime reading experience, etc. it seems the 'overkill' is a sign of hatred, not inexperience. This is not speculation.
How many have read the books of Ann Rule? But she doesn't go into clinical details much.
I hope that "Richard" will try to read as many books as possible before posting. Not that this posting is wrong in itself.

[Audrey]

Can it also be that the murderer was inexperienced and had never hit a human head with a hatchet before? Perhaps the killer (possibly Lizzie?) didn't know how many times was sufficient to make sure the person was killed. Perhaps she applied a large number of whacks "just to make sure." I know that this is a long shot, but people think in strange ways when they are doing something extraordinary. And if the killer was Lizzie, we can assume:

a) She had never killed anyone before
b) She had never hit anyone in the head with a hatchet before

So the killing of Abby was not just her first killing, but the first time she hit someone in the head with the intent to kill. The first blow struck that day was an awkward one, hitting Abby in the side as she was presumably turning around. At that split second, the killer (Lizzie?) who was inexperienced must have been thinking, "This is the point of no return! Nothing will ever be the same after this!" and then went on to find out for the first time what it is like to hit someone in the head with a hatchet.

So perhaps by the time he/she got around to Andrew, he/she had already experienced what it felt like to kill someone, and the number of blows was less.

Interesting speculation. But the testimony in the Trial Transcript may have covered this, rendering such guesses as useless.
From my True Crime reading experience, etc. it seems the 'overkill' is a sign of hatred, not inexperience. This is not speculation.
How many have read the books of Ann Rule? But she doesn't go into clinical details much.
I hope that "Richard" will try to read as many books as possible before posting. Not that this posting is wrong in itself.

Ray, please share which trial testimony specifically renders Richard's questions useless.

Richard... Do not be put off by Ray. Anal openings come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them appear as full grown men and can be quite large.

[Richard]

Well Ray, I was definitely taking a guess, but I don't see how any trial testimony could prove or disprove what I suggested. I mean, the only way to "render it useless" is to show who did it and how. As for the overkill being more a symptom of hatred, that is probably true. I was only speculating, for as you may very well know, none of us really know what happened and we're all speculating.

As for reading books before posting, this forum should be open to people of all levels of Lizzie-experience. If someone says something naive, you can gently point it out and if the person lacks any knowledge that is common on this forum, you can help bring that person up to speed. Or refer them to a thread on this forum where it has already been discussed.

I believe that speculating, no matter how far fetched (and I don't think my suggestion was far fetched) is part of the fun process of tossing an idea out to the group and getting some creative constructive feedback.

I do conceed that the "overkill"/"hatred" idea you referred to has validity. Hopefully one day we'll all find out the truth.

[Smudgeman]

Very well said Richard. Rays - I think you have "tunnel vision" when it comes to your opinion on ANYTHING. Please try to keep an open mind, and realize that others are NOT always going to agree with you.

[Allen]

Can it also be that the murderer was inexperienced and had never hit a human head with a hatchet before? Perhaps the killer (possibly Lizzie?) didn't know how many times was sufficient to make sure the person was killed. Perhaps she applied a large number of whacks "just to make sure." I know that this is a long shot, but people think in strange ways when they are doing something extraordinary. And if the killer was Lizzie, we can assume:

a) She had never killed anyone before
b) She had never hit anyone in the head with a hatchet before

So the killing of Abby was not just her first killing, but the first time she hit someone in the head with the intent to kill. The first blow struck that day was an awkward one, hitting Abby in the side as she was presumably turning around. At that split second, the killer (Lizzie?) who was inexperienced must have been thinking, "This is the point of no return! Nothing will ever be the same after this!" and then went on to find out for the first time what it is like to hit someone in the head with a hatchet.

So perhaps by the time he/she got around to Andrew, he/she had already experienced what it felt like to kill someone, and the number of blows was less.

I have often speculated that Lizzie was an inexperienced killer, and this is why there was all the overkill. Once she hit that point of return, once she made that first swing of the hatchet, the only thing to do after that was make sure that Abby was dead. She may not have known how many hits this took, and could have been really scared on top of all of it about what she was doing. I agree with this 110%.

[Richard]

It certainly seems possible that the killer's inexperience and fear explains the number of whacks. Ray, I'm not disagreeing with the "overkill/hatred" scenario that's been documented by crime experts. I just think we need to explore all possible ideas here. None of us can really draw any solid conclusions.

I've also wondered about whether it was a different experience killing Abby in the upstairs room that opens up onto a landing where the only other doorway was into Lizzie's room (Emma was away), then from killing Andrew in a room that had doorways opening up into almost every room on the first floor. The second killing must have been more a risk.

But of course the first killing was a risk if the killer wasn't Lizzie, simply because the killer would only have the front staircase (leading down to a front door that was locked from the inside) to escape from the house. but if the Killer hid in the house in between murders, where would he had gone? If the killer was Lizzie, then not only could Lizzie have escaped into her bedroom to "tidy" herself up before going back downstairs, but she wouldn't have to "escape" from the house.

I always wondered what would have happened if Abby's body had been discovered before Andrew came home, or even before he left (some people believe Abby was killed before Andrew even left home). Would the killing had been as famous if it had just been Abby?

[Yooper]

Hatred could explain the 19 wounds on Abby, but Andrew had 11 wounds. We could put hatred on the relative level and say that she hated Andrew about half as much as she hated Abby. If the murderer is experienced with a hatchet, the argument could be made that anything over one hit is overkill.

Another inconsistancy is the time between the killings when Lizzie greets her father, asks about the mail, seems to go about her ironing as though nothing is amiss. That seems to be quite a leap from intense hatred to quiet domestic chores. She must have been quite an actress! And she did it twice! The murders may have been committed in the same matter-of-fact way as any other household chore, which tends to remove hatred from the equation.

[Audrey]

I also think that swinging a hatchet (even at a human target) can develop an entire 'momentum' thing that may explain the # of blows.

[Yooper]

I hadn't thought about momentum, that is a good point. Is there a way in which a murderer "separates" themselves from the act, even momentarily? By this I mean separation mentally from the physical act. If her original intent was to kill with poison, which seems a more "remote" method, then the switch to the "up close and personal" hatchet might have been a little more than she bargained for. If she momentarily "separated" from the act, the momentum of motion would have been necessary.

[Kat]

Andrew had 10 blows. If you think about it, both Abby and Andrew got it in the face.
That's a bit odd if you think about it.
Why go for the head/face- first thing?

If I were killing for the first time, I'm not sure that I wouldn't be swinging that hatchet every which way- almost like a self-defense type frenzy.

[Yooper]

Abby is certainly more likely to have put up a struggle than Andrew. There is also a difference between wanting to kill them and wanting them dead. The former emphasizes the act, the latter emphasizes the result. Hate might focus on the act, while simple frenzy with inexperience would tend to focus on the result.

I wonder if modern forensics could determine anything from the descriptions of the blood evidence to narrow down the possibilities.

[Kat]

If you put it in those terms and I had to choose, my thoughts would be that someone wanted to kill Abby and someone wanted Andrew dead.
The frenzy is in the overkill of Abby. The completion of the total combined act was in the getting dead of Andrew. More workman-like maybe is a phrase I might use, in his case?

[Yooper]

That could well be correct, that's a good assessment. I don't know why, but I have it in mind that the focus was Abby. This is based upon a "need" to remove her. The opportunity also just happened to present itself with Andrew.

The possibility of Andrew making a will favoring Abby might have been a possibility for the motive. By removing Abby, the perceived threat was removed, which was not necessarily Abby herself, but her family. If we also kill Andrew, we can have a chance at what we want right now. Once Abby was dead, the risk was taken and we can only be hanged once. How much more is left to lose?

The level of desperation must be accounted for from Lizzie's perspective. If Lizzie had aspirations far greater than she could provide herself with the means to attain, killing Abby and Andrew may have seemed like the only way to get there. A trip to Europe might have been the worst thing Andrew could have done for her! She may have figured she was better off dead than living in poverty.

[Wordweaver]

I've also wondered about whether it was a different experience killing Abby in the upstairs room that opens up onto a landing where the only other doorway was into Lizzie's room (Emma was away), then from killing Andrew in a room that had doorways opening up into almost every room on the first floor. The second killing must have been more a risk.

Interesting thought! You're asking good questions.

I know Lambertville, by the way. How is spring coming along out there in the East?

Lynn
(Pennsylvanian by birth; Californian for the past five years)

[Angel]

I started thinking about the small amount of blood, the hits, etc. and began wondering if maybe Lizzie lost it with Abby upstairs and hit her with something else (hence the bruises on the face) and then, when Abby went down, Lizzie thought she had gone past the point of no return. If Abby was still alive and regained consciousness Lizzie knew she would tell everyone what had occurred. So, at that point, she made the decision to get a hatchet to finish the job. Maybe that's why there was so little blood splashed around, but just a big congealed glob around the place Abby was hit while she was lying there unconscious. A lot of whacks to make sure Abby was dead. Then, same thing with Andrew. She was past the point of no return, so she felt she had to get rid of dad too to prevent him from realizing she had killed Abby.

[Audrey]

What is she missed a time or two and 'clanged' poor Abby with the blade sideways?

[Angel]

That's certainly possible, but I was thinking that (because a lot of people have a difficult time seeing a little Victorian lady swinging around an axe like Paul Bunyon) Lizzie used the axe out of desperation to finish off Abby only after things were set in motion and she had to end things quickly, with little time to think.

[RayS]

I started thinking about the small amount of blood, the hits, etc. and began wondering if maybe Lizzie lost it with Abby upstairs and hit her with something else (hence the bruises on the face) and then, when Abby went down, Lizzie thought she had gone past the point of no return. If Abby was still alive and regained consciousness Lizzie knew she would tell everyone what had occurred. So, at that point, she made the decision to get a hatchet to finish the job. Maybe that's why there was so little blood splashed around, but just a big congealed glob around the place Abby was hit while she was lying there unconscious. A lot of whacks to make sure Abby was dead. Then, same thing with Andrew. She was past the point of no return, so she felt she had to get rid of dad too to prevent him from realizing she had killed Abby.

I understand that a head wound will bleed copiusly, so don't understand "the small amount of blood". Was this an actual fact? If a person is dead (heart stopped) there would be little blood; if the first blow killed 'immediately". Others with more forensice experience can say more.

I've read that many strikes are a sign of frenzy and hatred, like that case in the news recently. I'm not sure where it was (only read headlines), but the victim had 78 stab wounds.

[theebmonique]

The amount of blood in a human body is the same whether dead or alive(10-12 pints/average). The amount which exits a wound under arterial pressure, of course decreases significantly when there is NO arterial pressure, ie; no heart beat, ie; dead/dying. It would still exit, just not with the pressure it had previously. Venous blood has some, but not a lot of pressure behind it. So, the amount would be the same, but it seems logical to say that any 'splatter' (from pressure at least) would be less once the victim is dead.


Tracy...

[Angel]

Right. I'm saying that the amount of blood spattered was not as much as one supposed there would be. I'm thinking if Abby was killed with blunt blows to the head and then had her head split open, the blood would have oozed out rather than splattered a lot. Which would explain why there was such a big almost "sculptured" blob of blood by her head, as someone described it at the scene.

[Allen]

I think once the heart stopped pumping the only real Spatter would come from the weapon itself during movement. Then blood coagulation would account for why she didn't bleed out more. I tihnk the contusions on her face show that someone may have tried to knock her out first. Or they could've been sustained when she fell.

[RayS]

I think once the heart stopped pumping the only real Spatter would come from the weapon itself during movement. Then blood coagulation would account for why she didn't bleed out more. I tihnk the contusions on her face show that someone may have tried to knock her out first. Or they could've been sustained when she fell.

I havene't seen any color photographs, or a written description.
I wonder if the bruising on her face was post-mortm lividity?
If not, why not? Blood settles on a dead body.

[Allen]

I just called the Allegheny County Coroner's Office to speak to someone because I had a question. I wanted to know how quickly blood would actually begin to clot enough to prevent the body from bleeding out any significant quantities of blood after death. I was informed that once the blood had stopped circulating it can begin to happen pretty rapidly, because the blood becomes stagnant in the veins. Which is pretty much what I figured anyway. But I was told there are other factors that can make this estimate of time a little more variable. Such as the size and location of the wounds, blood pressure of the victim, the temperature, whether or not a major artery was damaged, position of the body, and a few others. But I was told that the process generally begins pretty quickly.

Post mortem lividity generally doesn't happen in just one or two random locations on the body. Post Mortem lividity is the blood settling in the veins, it's the pull of the blood downward by gravity. It settles in the lowest parts of your body after death. Since I already had the ME on the line for one question, I asked him exactly where you could expect to find post mortem lividity on a body that was found lying face down. He said in the face, stomach, and the front of the legs. Whatever parts of the body are lowest to the ground. I told him I was sorry that I had called to ask him so many morbid questions.

[Yooper]

It could be that the skull limited the amount of spatter if there was a pooling effect in the wound. Striking with a narrow hatchet blade would probably minimize the "splash" as opposed to a broader or flatter implement. It could well be that most of the blood other than that beneath the head was caused by swinging the weapon.

[DWilly]

I just called the Allegheny County Coroner's Office to speak to someone because I had a question. I wanted to know how quickly blood would actually begin to clot enough to prevent the body from bleeding out any significant quantities of blood after death. I was informed that once the blood had stopped circulating it can begin to happen pretty rapidly, because the blood becomes stagnant in the veins. Which is pretty much what I figured anyway. But I was told there are other factors that can make this estimate of time a little more variable. Such as the size and location of the wounds, blood pressure of the victim, the temperature, whether or not a major artery was damaged, position of the body, and a few others. But I was told that the process generally begins pretty quickly.

Post mortem lividity generally doesn't happen in just one or two random locations on the body. Post Mortem lividity is the blood settling in the veins, it's the pull of the blood downward by gravity. It settles in the lowest parts of your body after death. Since I already had the ME on the line for one question, I asked him exactly where you could expect to find post mortem lividity on a body that was found lying face down. He said in the face, stomach, and the front of the legs. Whatever parts of the body are lowest to the ground. I told him I was sorry that I had called to ask him so many morbid questions.

I wonder if there is someway of making a computer SIM of Abby? By that I mean have a program on your computer where you can create a 60+ year old short woman, over weight and possibly having high blood pressure. Then create the scene in the guest bedroom. I wonder if you could recreate her fall on a computer by matching the photos? Is that possible?

I have another question. Was there any blood found on the ceiling of the guest room? If so, would the height of the killer explain why or why not blood was found on the ceiling? I'm thinking of the first hit to Abby's head while she was still standing. I'm picturing the killer hitting her and then raising her/his hand up high holding the hatchet and getting ready to hit her again.

[Kat]

The first hit is *free.* That's what they say. The weapon will not be flinging blood from the first hit. It is the hits afterward which throw the blood.
There was no blood on the guest room ceiling and maybe a spot in the sitting room.

I've wondered, in comparing Abby's killing to Bertha Manchester's, why would someone with a hatchet hit someone with a non-blade part of it?

Thank you Missy for calling and doing some research on this!

[theebmonique]

I am not sure if I have all my ducks in a row on this thought, but here goes.......

Would what the C.C. said apply to just the smaller vessels (maybe even as small as capillaries), but not enough to prevent the major bleeding that would have to have occurred consistent with the extent of Abby's injuries. Even if it did happen almost immediately, couldn't the physical impact of the continuing 'whacks' possibly dislodge whatever small clots that were beginning to form ?

I think Abby must have bled out VERY quickly due to the location and size of her wounds. Since she was probably already dead or very close to it when the attacker started in on her head, I would think that the shear amount of blood 'exiting' her head, due to the number of vessels in that area, would not be seriously diminished enough by whatever coagulation was occurring before all the blood that could come out did come out.

And...how long after death/ceasing of circulation does the clotting cascade (Vit-K, fibrin, fibrinogen, platelets, etc.)actually continue/remain effective in the coagulative process ?


Tracy...

[RayS]

I just called the Allegheny County Coroner's Office to speak to someone because I had a question. I wanted to know how quickly blood would actually begin to clot enough to prevent the body from bleeding out any significant quantities of blood after death. I was informed that once the blood had stopped circulating it can begin to happen pretty rapidly, because the blood becomes stagnant in the veins. Which is pretty much what I figured anyway. But I was told there are other factors that can make this estimate of time a little more variable. Such as the size and location of the wounds, blood pressure of the victim, the temperature, whether or not a major artery was damaged, position of the body, and a few others. But I was told that the process generally begins pretty quickly.

Post mortem lividity generally doesn't happen in just one or two random locations on the body. Post Mortem lividity is the blood settling in the veins, it's the pull of the blood downward by gravity. It settles in the lowest parts of your body after death. Since I already had the ME on the line for one question, I asked him exactly where you could expect to find post mortem lividity on a body that was found lying face down. He said in the face, stomach, and the front of the legs. Whatever parts of the body are lowest to the ground. I told him I was sorry that I had called to ask him so many morbid questions.

What an excellent exercise in learning more about this subject! You set an example for the rest of us.
BTW, the short time needed for blood to congeal (about 40 minutes?) does say that Nicole and Ron were killed after 11:30pm. The ME who did the autopsies said it happened after 11pm. Who agrees with this?

[Kat]

Allen/Missy just finished researching the Nicole Brown Simpson murder case for her class project and did a crime scene re-enactment and received an *A*. So do you really want to know what her results were?

[theebmonique]

I am sure we could all learn something from the results of Missy's research. Congratulations on the *A* Missy !


Tracy...

[Harry]

Excellent post, Missy. Good for you in going to an official source.

Masterton's book "Lizzie Didn't Do It", page 203, has a summary of blood coagulation (my highlighting):

"Coagulation of Blood

Recall (Chapter 13) that several witnesses at the trial said that Abby
Borden's blood was coagulated to a greater extent than Andrew's. This
was taken to indicate that she died some time before her husband.
However, Dr. Draper testified at the preliminary hearing that the extent
of coagulation of the blood tells nothing about the time of death after
fifteen minutes have passed.
Searching through textbooks and journal articles on forensic science, I
found nothing dealing with the relationship between coagulation of blood
and time of death. There's a simple reason for this. Draper was right;
coagulation is usually complete within 5 -15 minutes, as you may have
noticed when you cut yourself. ..."

He goes on in the same page to say:

"Often, when a person dies suddenly and violently, as Andrew did,
the blood becomes uncoagulable shortly after death. No one knows
exactly how this occurs or why it happens with some people but not
others."

Of course Masterton is trying to prove his theory and pointing to factors favorable to it but that doesn't mean he is incorrect regarding the blood.

[theebmonique]

Thank you for the Masterson info Harry.


Tracy...

[theebmonique]

He goes on in the same page to say:

"Often, when a person dies suddenly and violently, as Andrew did,
the blood becomes uncoagulable shortly after death. No one knows
exactly how this occurs or why it happens with some people but not
others."

This may be what Masterson refers to:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 000573.htm

Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC)

Alternative names
Consumption coagulopathy

Definition
DIC is a disorder of the "clotting cascade." It results in depletion of clotting factors in the blood.

Causes, incidence, and risk factors
DIC is when your body's blood clotting mechanisms are activated throughout the body instead of being localized to an area of injury. Small blood clots form throughout the body, and eventually the blood clotting factors are used up and not available to form clots at sites of real tissue injury. Clot dissolving mechanisms are also increased.

This disorder has variable effects, and can result in either clotting symptoms or, more often, bleeding. Bleeding can be severe. DIC may be stimulated by many factors. These include infection in the blood by bacteria or fungus, severe tissue injury (as in burns and head injury), cancer, reactions to blood transfusions, and obstetrical complications (such as retained placenta after delivery).

Risk factors are recent sepsis, recent injury or trauma, recent surgery or anesthesia, complications of labor and delivery, leukemia or disseminated cancer, recent blood transfusion reaction, and severe liver disease.


Tracy...

[Allen]

The ME who did the autopsies said it happened after 11pm. Who agrees with this?

I do not agree with this. The testimony given during the trial gave an estimated time of death. That initial estimate was between 9:40 pm on June 12 and 12:13 am on June 13 at around the time the bodies were discovered. By the contents of Nicole's stomach, it was further approximated that she died somewhere between 10-10:30 pm. She had completed her last meal between 8- 8:30 pm. Nicole's dog was heard to start barking (some neighbors described it as a wail) and acting aggitated at around 10:15-10:20. This is when I would estimate the time of the murders to be taking place, if it was me.

[Kat]

This sounds like a disease process?

Maybe if Andrew just took aspirin every day it could lead to bleeding/uncoagulation after being cut.

Did they have aspirin in 1892 and does Masterton talk about that?

[theebmonique]

I am not sure if it can be labeled as a 'disease' per se, but as a disorder. I have seen several incidences if it happening during trauma cases in the Emergency Room and in the Operating Room. There are also times when it occurs during childbirth.

Here is a great resource from the Bayer Aspirin Company. It is a timeline on the discovery/development/usage of aspirin.
http://www.bayeraspirin.com/questions/h ... spirin.htm

I don't have my Masterson with me, but I will look at it as sonn as I get home today.


Tracy...

[Haulover]

i wish everyone could see the photo of abby we saw at the FRHS.

it appears that a huge flow of blood came out of her head and almost solidified there -- somewhat like rubber or glue. i was struck by the mass of it.

___

BTW, is harry W.C. Fields now? i just saw that today.

[RayS]

This sounds like a disease process?

Maybe if Andrew just took aspirin every day it could lead to bleeding/uncoagulation after being cut.

Did they have aspirin in 1892 and does Masterton talk about that?

There is a small amount of clotting agent produced by the liver. That is what stops small cuts. Any severing of an artery or vein would be too much for the small amount of anti-coagulant. Medical personnel can speak w/ more authority.
Alcohol is the substance that prevents blood from clotting. (Remember Bill Holden?) Quoting someone from 1892 is quite out of date (as Masterton does). The real danger from aspirin is internal bleeding and stomach ulcers. So beware if you take "too much". Your doctor will tell you.