A bit over the top? An axe for a woman?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:08 am

I agree that it looks like either Emma, or Lizzie or BOTH were enjoying giving poor old Abby the "Gaslight" treatment. And I think they may have enjoyed toying with her fears. The break-in of Abby's little room, the missing key- little things like that. Maybe when Emma was away, Lizzie even went further in her subtle cat and mouse game. Both girls had hours of leisure time to devote to thinking up nasty little tricks to unsettle their stepmother.

I am sure we could all give examples of a more dominant personality making the life of a submissive and fearful person a misery. Women are the masters of this sort of manipulation. Horrifying thought though it may be. And I can tell you- "church folks" with "religion" are NOT exempt from this nastiness. I observe it first hand daily.

I am sure the girls gave Abby the "business" when Andrew was out of earshot- so it would always be their word against hers and maybe Abby felt Andrew would believe his daughters over her. And I bet from time to time Bridget caught wind of some of the animosity as she was in the thick of it daily-maybe even witnessed some of it. Women can be deadly cruel to other women- strong men would blanche to know how the "fairier, weaker sex" can devour their own.

Maybe the girls thought if they kept the heat on, eventually Abby would break down- then there might be a permanent vacation for Abby at the Taunton Asylum. That's one way to get rid of an unwanted relative. Insane or incarcerated people would also not be eligible to inherit Andrew's fortune at his death.

I think I realized just how much the girls disliked Abby when I got the full meaning of that locked door between the upstairs bedrooms, and the bed pulled across the communicating door. Abby was made to go to great lengths -in her OWN home to use the bureau and storage in the guest room. I was picturing my live-at-home daughter denying ME the easy access to the front of MY home. You can believe I would pull that little latch right out of that door in a nano-second- right after I booted her royal posterior out the front door! It says a lot about the long-suffering and low self-esteem of Mrs. Borden to allow those two to tyranize her.

I often wondered if the hatchet was upstairs for some innocent purpose such as busting off a lock, pounding in a tack, or something of that nature, and was at the ready to hand. Hatchets around a house at that time were just as common as TV remote controls are to our houses now. Or perhaps a hatchet was hidden in Abby's sewing basket or some other place only Abby would see it as another fright tactic. The girls might have counted on the fact that Abby would never tell Andrew about all these little mean tricks the girls would pull. I bet Sarah Whitehead could have said far more-but then again she knew her home was on the line if she went too far telling all she knew or suspected about the girls to the police.
Human nature has not changed much over the century.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:57 am

Andrew may have tried to keep the peace as best he could by trying to not favor either side. The result of showing Abby a degree of favoritism with the Whitehead residence is well known. That would only tend to undermine Abby's authority and make her more vulnerable. It is possible that since the "poison" affected both Andrew and Abby, perhaps Abby thought he might pay more attention to her complaints. She might have been trying to force his hand in the matter.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:51 pm

It may be that Abby was never accepted by Emma and Lizzie, she was always an intruder. I expect Emma would have taken the lead early on, Lizzie was young and impressionable at the time. Lizzie learned to hate Abby from Emma. Emma and Lizzie only tolerated Abby for their father's sake. Andrew was aware of the opposite factions, but he chose to tolerate his daughters and their treatment of Abby, which tended to set them all as equals. When he showed some partiality with the Whitehead house, it turned into open warfare.

If Emma promised her mother to look after and raise Lizzie, and if Lizzie learned to hate Abby from Emma, and further, if Lizzie murdered Andrew and Abby, then perhaps the murders were partly Sarah's legacy.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:25 am

Yooper @ Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:51 pm wrote:... If Emma promised her mother to look after and raise Lizzie, and if Lizzie learned to hate Abby from Emma, and further, if Lizzie murdered Andrew and Abby, then perhaps the murders were partly Sarah's legacy.

Wouldn't this also mean Emma was just as responsible, if not more so, than Lizze, for the murders of Andrew and Abby?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:05 pm

Yes, in the moral sense rather than the legal sense, Emma may have been responsible. We would have to adopt the perspective of Lizzie as a "victim" of her upbringing, a Freudian outlook, to excuse her. Emma may have blamed herself for the murders if she thought Lizzie was guilty. It would be easy to explain Emma leaving Maplecroft if Lizzie confessed her guilt to Emma and accused Emma of partial responsibility. Emma might have feared for her life if that happened.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:45 pm

I know Emma claimed that she thought Lizzie was innocent because no weapon had been found, but I have always wondered if she truly believed that, or if she just said it to 'protect baby Lizzie'. Emma may have known Lizzie was the killer, and holding true to the promise she made to her dying mother she went to great lengths to protect her sister. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that Emma carried around a great deal of guilt and she may have felt a deep remorse for the lost life of, particularly, her father. If this is true, then Lizzie could have confessed her guilt to Emma and told her that she held absolutely no remorse for the killings. This may have been the reason Emma had to leave Maplecroft and Lizzie forever.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:49 pm

Emma's statement about believing Lizzie was innocent because no weapon had been found makes absolutely no logical sense. She was equating the lack of a weapon with innocence. Clearly, no weapon was found to be linked positively to the Borden murders. If the lack of a weapon equals innocence, then there could be no murderer or murders because absolutely everyone was innocent. This rules out a double suicide or a murder/suicide also! Using Emma's reasoning, Abby and Andrew were still alive! I think Emma was as bad at making up stories on the spot as Lizzie was !

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:07 pm

I agree, Jeff. Emma's reasoning is

.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:26 pm

I have to wonder for a minute about Emma's motivation in answering the question the way she did. If I recall correctly, by the time she gave that particular interview the case had been batted back and forth annually in the press for several years at least. Putting myself in her shoes for a moment, I might be tempted to think along the lines of "Alright, if you want something to chew on, chew on this! Enough is quite enough." The hounds might still bay at her door, but...

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:43 pm

You may be right, Doug. It does make one wonder why she would made such an illogical statement.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:16 pm

If we consider how many years Emma had to reflect on the murders, she should have come up with something concrete by the time of the interview. At least something with a valid basis, even if not completely logical. I would believe her sincerity if she said she just didn't think Lizzie could have done it, she didn't have it in her. Even a subjective statement such as that would be acceptable. The statement she gave sounds to me like someone who really is not convinced of Lizzie's innocence. It sounds completely contrived.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:51 am

She might have been thinking in terms of the fact that the police were there looking around the house on the day the murders occurred within hours of Andrews death. Lizzie had no opportunity to leave the premises to ditch a weapon, yet one was not found in the house during the searches. Well...at least not one that was proven to be without a shadow of a doubt in court. Lizzie was also confined to the house afterward and under surveillence of the authorities. There was no way to secret it out of the house. Yet one was never found.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:59 am

Maybe, Emma was tired of the "I don't believe my sister, could have done such a thing" and decided a more factual offering would be better and also remind others, that in deed, no weapon was found. Just a thought........

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:31 am

Allen, I think you nailed it in that is what Emma meant.

I should think that if an outsider had committed the crimes, he would have brought it with him and would have taken it away when he left.

An insider would have had little opportunity, without outside assistance, to remove it from the house. They would have had to have a temporary hiding place for at least the hatchet head. The time between Andrew's killing and the giving of the alarm, at least to me, severely narrows the possibility of the hatchet handle being broken off and burned. It would use up a lot of that time taking it to the barn just to break off the handle.

In either case, whether outsider or insider, the hatchet was removed from the scene. This might be because the killer felt the instrument could possibly be traced back to them.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:52 pm

That's a good point Allen, I hadn't thought of that. Because the hatchet was not found and there was no way for Lizzie to remove it, she was innocent. The statement makes a bit more sense from that point of view. However, it addresses the thoroughness of the search as a variable in the equation. The police didn't find the Bedford cord dress, either.

The authorities did find a hatchet. It had the handle recently broken off and it had ashes stuck to it, as though it had been rolled in ashes while wet. Ashes and water create lye, a strong alkaline substance, the active ingredient in lye soap. Lye soap used to be made at hog butchering time; wood ashes, water, and lard were used to make it. Wood ash and water would be the same active ingredient, minus the lard. I don't know offhand what the chemical reaction is between blood and lye, but I'll bet lye would clean blood up pretty well. It might even get into hard to reach crevasses which would be hard to reach by hand cleaning.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:13 am

There was a quote about his being greatly relieved when he heard the results of the poison tests on the stomachs had come back negative.

--Yooper, partial.

Is this to what you refer?

Witness Statements
p19
Fall River. Sept. 25, 1892.
. . .
Dr. Bowen stopped me on the street, and was very anxious to know what Mr. Knowlton meant when be referred to having found another agent of death. He was very nervous when talking of this I told him I did not recollect of any such statement in his plea.--Harrington/Doherty

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:33 am

Shelley- your remarks were very well put! Thank you for elaborating upon what I had said. It does describe a scene more wicked and more thoroughly diabolical than I did. You are a good and effortless writer!

Yooper, are you (in an earlier comment) theorizing that Abbie might have made herself and Andrew sick to get his attention put on those girls? If not- it's an interesting possibility. If so, it's an interesting possibility - and I had not really thought of it!

As for Emma's interview in 1913, the fact that the weapon was not ever found is not really the only reason Emma gave for believing Lizzie did not do the deed. She does also talk about Lizzie's kind heart ("a heart like that") toward animals as more proof.

For those who want to know more:
We are referring to the article transcribed in The Hatchet called "Guilty No! No!" -starting page 15- that can be downloaded for free (you sign in to download it) at The Hatchet site here:
http://www.hatchetonline.com/HatchetOnline/index.htm
Under the heading on the left: "Free Trial Issue!"

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:44 am

Thank you Kat, that was the quote I had in mind.

I wasn't suggesting that Abby made herself and Andrew sick, but it is a possibility. I meant that Abby may have gone to Andrew with complaints of mistreatment, and he was certainly aware of the robbery. If Andrew would do nothing about it, perhaps Abby needed to involve someone else, or at least make Lizzie think she would. I don't think Abby's visit to Dr. Bowen on Wednesday had as much to do with medical treatment as it had to do with theatrics.

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:37 pm

Is it possible that Lizzie dropped the hatchet into the outdoor privy? Surely, it would never be found down there amongst the excrement.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:23 am

Hi!
The privy vault was searched as far as I know. But when was it searched?

. . . . .
As for histironics, maybe Abbie did make her and Andrew ill to blame Lizzie. And maybe she contrived the *daylight robbery* to throw suspicion on the girls too? Maybe she was not balanced near the end?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:21 am

Abby might have made up the story about the note herself if the idea was to rile Lizzie up. If Abby leaving the house for something other than a trip to the market was unusual, Lizzie may have wondered what she might be up to. Especially if it came on the heels of a trip to Dr. Bowen's to complain about a deliberate poisoning. Who knows who Abby might complain to next; maybe the police?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:43 pm

Just looking at the title of this thread- it is pretty certain an axe was NOT the weapon. It is a very unwieldy thing inside and requires a wide swing radius. As a veteran of many mock hatchet murders at the house, I can tell you a short 13 inch handle hatchet is an easy weapon to wield- it is balanced, light-weight and no more trouble than wielding a large wooden rolling pin. Grasped with both hands, the aim and delivery can be refined and will fall right on target without needing much force or strength behind it. Nobody would have been in the least amazed had it been a sharp meat cleaver from the kitchen-a cleaver, however lacks the heavy head which can crush and shatter bone and the blade is thin-it is an ideal cutting tool, but not as good for battering in dense bone.

I had a little chat with my butcher, who showed me a number of different types of cleavers used in butchering cuts of beef. There are various widths of blade and the motion to chop through gristle and ligaments and muscle is a powerful short chop. The grip on a hatchet handle is far more adapted to repeated motion and has a steadier and more substantial feel in the hand.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:31 pm

You know, I think a lot of people who haven't had any experience with axes and hatchets probably don't know there is a difference. I, for one, until I got on this forum, thought an axe was just another name for a hatchet. I also didn't know anything about the sizes of either. So when someone talks about the weapon he probably is thinking a small axe or hatchet is the same. The poem "Lizzie Borden had an axe---" probably doesn't help differentiate either.

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:32 pm

I have a tool that would be considered a hatchet. The funny thing is I had been told it was a 'hand axe'.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:28 pm

I think bigSteve has the differences down pat. When he shows up, maybe he'll describe the differences again.

When I went to Ace hardware to look at hatchets they gave me this little thing they called a boy's hatchet, or boy scout hatchet as closest to what I had explained to them, with the right weight head. Some do call it a hand axe too, I think.

Some picture a *tomahawk* type weapon.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:36 pm

The weight in the blade area that crushed bone, is a good point, Shell- vs. a cleaver.