An Ax

[Kat]

Modern Marvels, on The History Channel had an hour show on the history of the ax, Friday night. It was fascinating! Anyone see it?

Some descriptive words they used made me think really hard about our killer:
They said it was a *shock weapon.* A *terror weapon.* A *menacing weapon.*
They said when one faces an ax wielded in battle the only thought is "It's over."
It is *brute force.*
They said holding an ax equals "personal empowerment."
That the bottom line is "An ax is all about power."

Any thoughts on our ax as weapon in this case? Does this weapon help define or profile the person who wielded it?

[Allen]

Modern Marvels, on The History Channel had an hour show on the history of the ax, Friday night. It was fascinating! Anyone see it?

Some descriptive words they used made me think really hard about our killer:
They said it was a *shock weapon.* A *terror weapon.* A *menacing weapon.*
They said when one faces an ax wielded in battle the only thought is "It's over."
It is *brute force.*
They said holding an ax equals "personal empowerment."
That the bottom line is "An ax is all about power."

Any thoughts on our ax as weapon in this case? Does this weapon help define or profile the person who wielded it?

In my opinion this would be a weapon chosen by someone with a very strong personality, who wasn't squeamish or easily rattled. Because they first brutally murdered Abby and then bided their time to kill Andrew. A weaker person after going through with the first murder may not have had the stomach for the second. To sustain such a level of rage during the interim between one murder and the next also speaks of someone who knew the victims. To strike over and over even after Abby was dead requires strong personal emotion, and gives me the impression this had been building up to that point for a long period of time. To be able to repeat that act a second time with Andrew after waiting for him to come home leaves me no doubt. The location of the wounds also shows the killer kept some control and the purpose of intent. They didn't take wild swings which landed where ever they happened to connect, all of the blows were to the head with the exception of the wound found on Abby's back. There weren't even any defensive wounds. In my opinion this was someone who was driven to kill Andrew and Abby for some sort of self empowerment.

[Kat]

The *self-empowerment* seems to agree with the experts on the show.
Do people think that the person who used the ax/hatchet as weapon did so because they were used to it- as in someone who had at least been trained in using an ax/hatchet and/or was at least familiar with it?
Do you think it was used firstly to intimidate (psychologically speaking)?

In the TV show they described a personal hand hatchet as being used in the modern wars. Those who had one were taught how to use it, and grew to depend upon it.

That's a good point about the killer not getting so sickened between killings that the wielder eschewed it later as a weapon on Andrew.

[Allen]

The *self-empowerment* seems to agree with the experts on the show.
Do people think that the person who used the ax/hatchet as weapon did so because they were used to it- as in someone who had at least been trained in using an ax/hatchet and/or was at least familiar with it?
Do you think it was used firstly to intimidate (psychologically speaking)?

I'm not sure whether or not the killer was familiar with the ax/hatchet in the sense that they had been trained to use it. I'd be curious to hear what others thought on that issue. I wish I had watched the show you are talking about. It sounds like something I would've found pretty fascinating.

[Kat]

Well, there are stories about Lizzie and a hatchet/ax that came out of Fall River which were told after the crimes.
One was that the letter she wrote the girlfriend in Marion - Johnston I think her name was?- was about buying a new hatchet with which she [Lizzie] planned to cut wood for their camping trip at Handy's cottage. So I was wondering if it's thought that maybe such stories were offered to show that Lizzie had been familiar with the use of such a weapon. This part is a bit of exploration of what we might call *urban legend* at this point. That the stories grew up in the area to explain Lizzie-as-ax-wielder.

As for the intimidation factor- what if Abbie was approached with an ax (hatchet) exposed in order to shock her before killing her? That would show power to the victim before death. It might be a form of terrorism of the victim preceding the actual attack.

[Michael]

I tend to not get philosophical about it. I just think that the axe (actually, hatchet - assuming it was the murder weapon) was the most-convenient weapon around that was assured of handling the task at hand.

[Shelley]

I read somewhere where a candlestick was a considered possibility, but the edge I think would not have been sharp enough to leave such pronounced cuts. A meat cleaver would be sharp enough, but would not have the blunt force weight to crush the cranium-Abby's head is proof of that sort of damage. The short handle on a cleaver also is good for short strokes close to the object (mincing onions, separating meat from bone, etc.- but it has drawbacks as to handle length, leverage, etc. I have tried an ax at the head of the sofa and there is not enough swing room. A long handled axe, used for breaking up logs, has a whole different swing radius, and is very head-heavy. No, I think the hatchet was the probable weapon and best bet. I have to wonder if Abby's death was a scenario which was intended as menacing and threatening-but then went too far in the heat of the moment. I often wondered if Abby had said something to Lizzie the day before about poisoning. After all, it was pretty well assumed that the break-in to Abby's room had been orchestrated by "the girls" or Lizzie alone. Lizzie may have been Abby's first suspect when they were all sick. Abby could have accused Lizzie of tainting the food. While Bridget was outside washing windows- who KNOWS what went on between Lizzie and Abby in the house which may have been the lit fuse to a powder keg?

I don't think anyone wakes up one sunny morning and decides to take a hatchet to somebody. I wish we could have heard all the conversation Wednesday in that house- and Thursday morning upstairs! Then, I think we might know the cause for the sudden escalation which went over the edge.

[bob_m_ryan]

Shelley -- I believe the emotions built up over time and the valve burst open that Thursday. Of course, the problem with that scenario is the passage of time between the murders.

[Shelley]

I agree about the build up of emotions over time. The choice of weapon suggests spur of the moment, desperation, or fear of discovery by Andrew. We don't know how far apart the crimes were- but, yes, I think some time elapsed of significance. I always have thought Andrew's death was one of necessity as he would have figured out what had transpired. A hatchet worked once, it was to hand, and it was used to silence a would-be betrayer. In today's world it would be a handgun. Hatchets were handy then.

[Allen]

I think the axe was chosen because her attempts to poison them were unsuccessful. She had to either move on to a plan B, or abandon the idea of killing them altogether. I agree the hatchet might have been a spur of the moment replacement weapon, but I think it takes a person with a pretty strong constitution to think about using such a weapon. Think of what it did to the victims. Andrew's face was a bloody unrecognizable pulp. In my opinion, sustaining that rage level during the time between the murders is actually an indicator this had been building up for quite some time. With that kind of build up of emotion it could have been easy to keep it at a boiling point for the next murder by reliving or remembering whatever it was which drove them to murder in the first place, renewing that anger all over again.

[Shelley]

I believe anger was the driving force for murder #1- fear for #2. Desperation and fear can be just as motivating a trigger. I am just trying to imagine feeling like a cornered rat, no way out, and my crime to be discovered within the hour. Pretty strong stuff. The outcome- hanging by the neck if I did nothing. It was sure one way out for the rat.

[kssunflower]

I agree with Shelley. Andrew was probably not an intended target at first, but Abby might have said they both suspected Lizzie of the poisoning. That would add to the desperation factor.

[Allen]

I have gone back and forth about whether or not Andrew was intended to die that day. In my opinion, if it was an attempt at poisoning and both Abby and Andrew got sick, it would seem he was. Also if Lizzie was going to kill for Andrew's money, why leave him alive? He could've lived another ten years for all she knew. That would leave another ten years of living on Andrew's budget. I don't believe the death of Abby would cause Andrew to become any less frugal. If the underlying motive was indeed to get at Andrew's money it wouldn't make sense to kill Abby and leave Andrew alive to live God knew how long before she would get a chance to enjoy it. And she wasn't getting any younger herself. Something else I was thinking was that even though Andrew was getting along in years, it wouldn't have been completely out of the realm of possibility for him to have remarried again before he died. That would leave another wife to contend with for his money.

[Shelley]

Statistics of the era show THREE in 100 Causasian non-blue collar workers lived to see their 70th birthday. The autopsy showed some disease of one lung. He may have remarried, but probably not- no young ones to need care. Chances were pretty good Andrew might not have lived too many more years.

As far as poisoning- everyone needed to be sick to some degree- or say they were sick. If only Abby and nobody else had been sick- it would have been VERY suspicious. Bowen's testimony indicates to me that Abby seems to have been the most affected.

Agatha Christie uses this plot in many of her poisoning mysteries. It is even possible, by taking minute doses of certain poisons, to develop a tolerance over time to a dose which would kill someone normally.

[Allen]

It's just my opinion, but if Lizzie was not sophisticated enough with poison to get the dosage correct to kill Abby, only causing them to become ill, and then resorted to an attempt at buying prussic acid which would definitely kill as soon as the smallest amount was ingested, then she was not sophisticated enough to have tried to poison everyone but only kill Abby. I also don't see her trusting herself enough with the poison to have ingested any herself. It would've been easier just to fake being sick like the rest of the household.

As for how long Andrew could've possibly lived, Lizzie would've be working from what she knew to be true within the immediate family and their circle of friends would be my assumption. Prior to posting I checked into the deaths of some of their immediate family members. Andrew had already lived to reach his 70th birthday, and to all outward appearances appeared healthy. If this disease of the lung was only discovered during autopsy, then Lizzie would not have been aware of it. So that really wouldn't come into play in Lizzie's scheme of things.

I don't know that men remarried simply to have someone take care of their children. He might have wanted someone to care for him and provide companionship. Would he have liked the idea of spending his remaining years with just his two daughters, who he seems to have had his share of troubles with, and a maid to care for him?

Ages upon death:

ABRAHAM BOWEN BORDEN (Andrew's Borden's father): died at age 84 years in 1882.

BEBE (WILMARTH) BORDEN (Second wife of Abraham Bowen Borden): died at age 81 years in 1883.

OLIVER GRAY (Father of Abby Durfee Gray): died at age of 77 in 1878.

PRISCILLA (GRAY) FISH (sister of Abby Borden) : 72 at the time of the murders, died at age 74 in 1894.


Just out of curiosity, I also made a brief check of some of the other "cast of characters" to ascertain their ages at their time of death, many of them lived well past their 70th birthday.

EMMA LENORA BORDEN,: 76

JOHN VINNICUM MORSE: 77

BRIDGET SULLIVAN: 86

ADELAIDE (BUFFINTON) CHURCHILL: 77

CHARLES JARVIS HOLMES: 72

DR. SEABURY BOWEN: 78

ANDREW JACKSON JENNINGS: 74

EDWIN AUGUSTUS BUCK:79

ALICE MANLEY RUSSELL: 89

HANNAH B. (HOWE) REAGAN: 76

HIRAM C. HARRINGTON: 77

JANE GRAY (Abby's step mother): died at the age of 89 in 1916.

[Shelley]

I agree Lizzie was faking sickness. Looks like the Borden clan was long-lived- and remarkably so, considering the average lifespan of the times.

As to Andrew's lung, of course I understand Lizzie did not know that, but he may have outwardly manifested some respiratory symptoms. We actually do not know how healthy and vigorous Abby or Andrew were in daily life.

[Kat]

I tend to not get philosophical about it. I just think that the axe (actually, hatchet - assuming it was the murder weapon) was the most-convenient weapon around that was assured of handling the task at hand.

Well, I wasn't being simple in my musings mainly because this part is a bit of a psychological mystery to me.
In the JtheR cases, it's been theorized that bladed weapons were symbolic of lust or symbolic sex- slashers or rippers, actually. Poisoners were said to have a financial motive. These are simple explanations, from those days. Of course it is more complex than that.
But since we have 2 weapons- at least a lot of people think there were 2 weapons- we must account for them both. (I'm also interchanging ax and hatchet, because I intended the topic to include either/or. Of course we know a hatchet was used- that is not in dispute, just to be clear.)
So it's possible there were 2 attempted murderers- the poisoner and the hatchet-wielder... Or there are 2 motives, possibly- sex and inheritance, with one culprit.

[Kat]

I thought the break-in story that pointed at Lizzie came out under the grand jury in the newspaper. Did it come out sooner? I recall the grand jury *leaks,* which we cannot depend upon- they are as bad as the Trickey-McHenry stories.

[Kat]

Thanks for the list Missy! It reminds me of the "Gone Too Soon" list I made for the website. I agree there were some pretty long-lived folks in Fall River! I was thinking something similar.

[Kat]

Oh and sorry for the quadruple posts- but I am behind in my reading of the Forum:

Comment here: The hatchet was not a handy weapon. And if someone had to go downstairs after arguing with Abbie, get it and return, that is not only premeditation, that might very well show a familiarity with hatchets which was my original question.

[Shelley]

I meant handy in the original sense- to hand. It was a potential weapon for everybody at the time, when hatchets were common household articles.
We timed how long it would take to go get the hatchet from the guest room to cellar and back and come back with it. I was stunned to find, even with my bad knees, I could do it in just a hair over 60 seconds. I expect a younger person who was good and mad could have covered the distance a little quicker. We always kept a hatchet right next to our woodstove when I was a kid as kindling sometimes needed a tap to fit it into the stove. I have always wondered if the Bordens did not have a hatchet in the kitchen somewhere and thought better of mentioning that fact.

[Allen]

I have two questions about your experiment Shelley, were you assuming that Lizzie already knew where the hatchet was kept when she went down cellar, and was your attire similar to Lizzie's? By this I mean long gown and the shoes.

[Shelley]

Yes on the long skirt and tie oxfords. Here's another thought. I think it may have been possible for the confrontation to have occured when Bridget went outside-downstairs in the front hall, dining room, sitting room area. Abby stalks upstairs to the guest room, Lizzie broils and seethes- stomps to the cellar, with the intent to shake the old gal up but good. This would seem a more natural progression than following Abby upstairs, altercation occuring upstairs, then running downstairs to the cellar to get the hatchet, back up the front stairs and full-throttle attack. It would also lop off some seconds not having to go up and down the front stairs again.

At one point I had even considered Abby had made a point of asking Bridget to wash those windows because after the menfolk had left, she had something she wanted to say privately to Lizzie-about poison.

[Kat]

It could have happened that way, yes. But Bridget did not go outside until about 9:30 so where was Abbie in the meantime and why doesn't Bridget tell us where Abbie was and that Lizzie stomped downstairs to the cellar and came back up with a hatchet? Bridget was in the kitchen. Timing doesn't matter- proximity to any weapon does, with this question.

It also still doesn't matter that (if) Lizzie went down to get one in the cellar, or where she was before she went- it only matters (for my question) that Lizzie was familiar with a hatchet enough to forgo any other weapon more *handy* in order to terrorize with a hatchet specifically, that day.

[Shelley]

I thought Bridget was outside from 9:15-to about 10:15? I don't think Bridget was especially paying any attention to where Abby was as she had gotten her work orders for at least the next 2 hours. The problem is , of course, is that we don't know precisely when Abby was killed. I would be pretty sure that it was after Bridget went outside, not before. I have always placed Bridget over the Kelly side of the house talking to Mary around 9:20 or so, after getting all of her equipment from the barn and sinkroom.
We know Lizzie went down the cellar about 9 or a little before, and that she went upstairs one time. Maybe she had had "words" with Abby prior to her going down the cellar, and that is the time when she got the hatchet. John was gone and would not have been a witness, by 9ish Andrew was out the door too and Bridget was vomiting in the back yard. Nobody would have heard any altercation between Abby and Lizzie then. The weapon could have easily been smuggled in that pile of laundry Lizzie carried upstairs and she could have caught Abby by surprise, at about 9:20 or so.

[snokkums]

I wish I would have seen it. Sounds like it was interesting.

[Kat]

Bridget at the Preliminary Hearing is asked (pg.13):
Q. The next time you went down to the cellar was when you went down to get the pail?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Did you get the water in the barn?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Have you any idea how long that was after Mrs. Borden told you to wash the windows?
A. Half and hour I should judge.

Q. During that half hour you were engaged in cleaning up your kitchen?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. What was Miss Lizzie doing?
A. I could not tell.

---That is "half an hour" after she was given the order. She last saw Abbie in the dining room around 9 am. So she is getting her stuff together to go outside and wash windows around 9:30.

(pgs.9,10)
Q. Where in the yard were you?
A. Out near the pear tree.

Q. You went out there to vomit?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Morse went off at that time or not?
A. He was gone off then.

Q. How do you know?
A. I know he was.

Page 10

Q. When you came back, did you see Mrs. Borden?
A. No Sir.

Q. Did you see her after you came back?
A. Not until nine o'clock.

Q. When you went out in the back yard, was it before Mr. Morse went off?
A. No Sir, after he went off.

Q. How soon after he went off?
A. Maybe ten or five minutes; I cannot tell.

Q. When you came back again, where did you go then?
A. Into the kitchen.

--Morse left around 8:45, and so Bridget implies she went outside to vomit maybe 5 or 10 minutes later. That is before 9 am. Then she saw Abbie. Then she says she didn't see Abbie alive again after that. She was fixing her kitchen until around 9:30.

Some think Bridget was vomiting because Abbie had been killed. It's hard to place Abbie anywhere after 9 am.
Anyway, the question is psychological, not relating to 5 minutes here or there.

Snokkums, the show was good, but this is better. Fascinating really, to discuss this case.

[Shelley]

Abby must have asked Bridget to wash the windows about 8:45 or earlier, right after breakfast, because Morse recalled Abby telling her to do it. He was long gone by 9. Prelim:

Q. Do you recollect whether there was any directions given by Mrs. Borden to Bridget about what she should do that day?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When was that?
A. While we were at breakfast.
Q. What was it?
A. That she was to wash the windows.
Q. Can you recollect the conversation, the substance of it, between the two, when she gave that order?
A. I think in the first place she asked her what she was going to do, or some thing of that kind.
Q. Who was that?
A. Mrs. Borden asked Bridget what she had got to do. Bridget said I have nothing more than common work; I think something them words.
Q. Then what was said?
A. Well, she says, will you wash the windows. She said that she would.
Q. Did she name what windows, say anything about whether outside or inside?
A. I do not know that she did.
Q. Had Bridget begun to wash to windows, so far as you know, before you went away?
A. I do not know.
Q. Where was Bridget when you went away?
A. In the kitchen.
Q. Do you know what she was doing?
A. I do not.

[1bigsteve]

Modern Marvels, on The History Channel had an hour show on the history of the ax, Friday night. It was fascinating! Anyone see it?

Some descriptive words they used made me think really hard about our killer:
They said it was a *shock weapon.* A *terror weapon.* A *menacing weapon.*
They said when one faces an ax wielded in battle the only thought is "It's over."
It is *brute force.*
They said holding an ax equals "personal empowerment."
That the bottom line is "An ax is all about power."

Any thoughts on our ax as weapon in this case? Does this weapon help define or profile the person who wielded it?

I doubt it, Kat. I think the hatchet was used because it was a quite weapon. I doubt Lizzie had a gun and it would have raised eyebrows if she had been seen buying one. The rest of the descriptions for the ax is right on I think. With an ax coming at you the thought that you could get your leg or arm chopped off is probably in the forefront of your mind. Ever see the movie, "The Trap?" The girl has to chop off Reed's leg with a huge ax!

An ax does represent power but if someone were to come at me with one I'd back them into a corner and wedge it up somewhere so far they would never lose it.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Shelley]

I guess a short-handled axe might have been a possibility but a regular wood-chopping axe is pretty unwieldy. The handle is maybe 30-32 inches. I picked up one in my garage yesterday (we live in the woods and cut our own woodstove logs so axes are everywhere here)- and tried a few swings. Personally, I find an axe head-heavy, and it takes a wide radius to swing it. It also needs some skill and practice to contact with just where you want the blade to impact. I would still vote for a sharp hatchet first, there is excellent control of the stroke with it- or at the outside chance- a short-handled axe. You can try these experiments at home.

[Allen]

I guess a short-handled axe might have been a possibility but a regular wood-chopping axe is pretty unwieldy. The handle is maybe 30-32 inches. I picked up one in my garage yesterday (we live in the woods and cut our own woodstove logs so axes are everywhere here)- and tried a few swings. Personally, I find an axe head-heavy, and it takes a wide radius to swing it. It also needs some skill and practice to contact with just where you want the blade to impact. I would still vote for a sharp hatchet first, there is excellent control of the stroke with it- or at the outside chance- a short-handled axe. You can try these experiments at home.

I agree with you Shelley. My vote would go for a sharp hatchet. I've been wondering a lot how Lizzie could've disposed of the hatchet after the killings to keep it from being discovered. There are so many possibilities. One thing about the bucket of bloody rags down cellar is even if we give Lizzie the benefit of the doubt that it did contain menstrual rags, this would also give her the perfect place to dispose of any rags she might have used to clean herself or the weapon with. Just dump them in right along with the contents. But where did she hide the weapon? Lincoln's idea of hiding in the slop pail has always fit best for me. But, where else could she possibly have kept it?

[Shelley]

Oh yes, I quite agree and have been thinking for years that the hatchet may have well been hidden in that slop pail with the soiled napkins. I have tried a regular -sized hatchet in a slop pail and it fits perfectly. I never read anywhere that th epolice emptied out that pail of soaking napkins and searched it. Lizzie went to the basement that second time Thursday night and went over to the sink where the soaking bucket was. I always thought that was significant going again after Alice was occupied elsewhere.

[Kat]

There may be a misconception here that the discussion is between an axe or a hatchet. Please let me not confuse anyone- I am using the words interchangeably, as most people would who are modern and don't know the difference. I did explain this earlier, but maybe it was missed. It's a bladed weapon- like an axe or hatchet- that is being discussed. The finer points of the differences is not in question. Thanks.


In response to:

Abby must have asked Bridget to wash the windows about 8:45 or earlier, right after breakfast, because Morse recalled Abby telling her to do it. He was long gone by 9. Prelim:

Q. Do you recollect whether there was any directions given by Mrs. Borden to Bridget about what she should do that day?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. When was that?
A. While we were at breakfast.
Q. What was it?
A. That she was to wash the windows.
Q. Can you recollect the conversation, the substance of it, between the two, when she gave that order?
A. I think in the first place she asked her what she was going to do, or some thing of that kind.
Q. Who was that?
A. Mrs. Borden asked Bridget what she had got to do. Bridget said I have nothing more than common work; I think something them words.
Q. Then what was said?
A. Well, she says, will you wash the windows. She said that she would.

--partial

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yes it was earlier, according to Morse. Bridget says differently. Timeline on website (based on Prelim):
7:05- 7:25 a.m.

Ate breakfast "I think about 7, it may have been a few minutes after." (Morse, Mrs. Borden, Mr. Borden). Did not see Lizzie.

The servant came "in and out." (pg. 240).

". . . we were there not more than 20 minutes." (pg. 242).

"While we were at breakfast", Bridget was given directions ". . . That she was to wash the windows." (pg. 251).

As for Morse being "long gone" by 9, he has *missing time* here. He didn't get to the Emery's until 9:20 - 9:30 (the latter time is in Evening Standard, Aug. 5th), although when questioned as to getting there "about 10?" he replies "It must have been earlier." (Inquest 103)
He says it is a mile and a quarter walk and he stopped at the post office to "get a car" (sic- probably a card).
But that is 35 minutes. That's a lot, in this case.

[Kat]

Thanks for your input bigsteve. So you don't think the weapon of choice profiles the killer? If it were poison would you first think woman or doctor?
It has been, at times, supposed that a hatchet/ax was used because it is a *man's weapon* and would throw suspicion onto a man, before Lizzie herself might ever be accused.

[Kat]

That TV show, "History of the Ax" is on at 8 pm tonight on The History Channel.
Modern Marvels is the series title.

It's not great, but it is interesting.
Just found out- sorry for so little notice. Maybe it will repeat again.

[1bigsteve]

Thanks for your input bigsteve. So you don't think the weapon of choice profiles the killer? If it were poison would you first think woman or doctor?
It has been, at times, supposed that a hatchet/ax was used because it is a *man's weapon* and would throw suspicion onto a man, before Lizzie herself might ever be accused.

No, I don't feel that the hatchet implies that a man did the killing. Men and women use all weapons in various percentages. If poison was used I would not feel that that lead more to a woman as a killer than a doctor as a killer or visa versa. To me the type of weapon doesn't lean much toward one sex more than another.

In this Borden case I feel that the hatchet was the most convenient weapon and that is why it was used. I don't think the hatchet had anything to do with "power" as much as it did getting the job done. If Lizzie was the killer I think she probably looked at the hatchet as the best weapon. It may have increased her physical ability to kill but I doubt she used it, or thought of it, as a sign of power. A knife would have made her more vulnerable to a counter-attack. Andrew probably didn't own a gun she could use and I doubt she would have been dumb enough to use it. If she did try getting poison and was not able to then I think her logical choice would be the hatchet (or possibly a meat cleaver).

I have the feeling that Lizzie had that hatchet hidden under her bed while she was lying on it during the police search. I don't know if she would put it at the bottom of a bloody slop pail. Too easy for the police to pour it out.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Shelley]

A knife is a dicey business- it can be turned fairly easily against you in a struggle, and it will not crush bone like the cold hard steel of a hatchet head. Your victim might also live long enough to cry out or worse yet- tell whodunnit! A cleaver has similar problems, and the handle is so short- it also is not as effective in pulverizing a cranium. A hatchet is ideal, the power and weight of a blunt instrument plus the deadly sharp edge of a knife. Yes, I too think she well may have been lying on the weapon in the afternoon and sneaked it downstairs later that night in the slop pail . I would surely love to run a metal detector over that cellar floor and walls. That dirt floor was never dug up as far as I know.

[Angel]

A knife is a dicey business-

Good choice of words. lol






I would surely love to run a metal detector over that cellar floor and walls. That dirt floor was never dug up as far as I know.

That's what I've been thinking for a long time.

[Harry]

The use of an axe or hatchet is certainly not the normal weapon of choice and from the few cases I'm aware of not a very efficient one. The proverbial "blunt instrument" is usually the instrument mentioned in cases of head trauma.

There was such an instrument available in the barn. In Officer Medley's notes of August 10th in the Witness statements, p32, he writes:

"... Found a piece of lead pipe about 4 or 5 feet long laying on the ground floor of the barn; distance from the door about five feet. This lead was in full view, and could readily be seen by anyone. I saw this lead also on the afternoon of August 4th."

The use of the hatchet has always puzzled me as there were other things that could have been used to cause death such as the pipe mentioned by Medley. One does not carry a hatchet (unless your Billy Borden) or lead pipe around with them so in either case they would have to go and get one. Why the choice of a hatchet?

And in my own personal opinion, a hatchet would more likely be used by a male than a female. But that may be my chauvinistic side talking.

[Shelley]

Well, coming from a chicken farm background, where my Grandfather used a hatchet very efficiently to dispatch the weekly chicken order, I can say, in the right hands a hatchet is most efficient. My granny was an ace with her kindling hatchet and many is the time I have watched her splinter kindling wood to just the right size to fit in the old woodstove which she heated up to make Granddaddy's breakfast. Grandpaw would lay that hapless old hen on the chopping block and with one swift blow decapitate that bird before the creature knew what hit it. I must have seen hundreds of chicken executions in my childhood. England had a real thing for the axe and the executioner as Anne Boleyn could attest to!

Those Victorians had to be pretty handy with common house tools-women and men alike. Living on a farm, my granny could hitch up a horse and carriage, split kindling, manhandle ice tongs and a block of ice, hoist a 50 pound bag of grain on one shoulder, and managed to cook for the farm hands, raise 4 kids, work in the fields and sew all our clothing and cook and can food like there was no tomorrow. She was 4 ft. 10" and 100 pounds soaking wet. For fun she did embroidery work in between chores and until the light failed at night.I never saw her hands idle- and she was typical of most farm wives in the country. She lived to be 96 and would have made it to 100 if she had not smoked cigarettes for so many years.

The past three generations have becoming increasingly SOFT and now everything is power tools! No, I do not find the choice of a hatchet (under the circumstances) at all unusual or surprising-it is a marvelously well-balanced and deadly tool, requiring no great strength or muscle as a murder weapon-and there were several kept razor-sharp in most households. One could have been sitting right in the coal hod or in the cupboard by the stove in the kitchen without arousing the slightest suspicion. Actually- I am a pretty deft hand myself with a hatchet, Harry.

[Harry]

I don't think of Lizzie as a farm girl proficient with farm tools. Physical labor of any type seems to be unknown to her. She didn't even help around the house much less chop wood, kill chickens, etc. Even Bridget said that she (Bridget) didn't have to chop the wood. Lizzie couldn't even start the stove.

There are many cases of people surviving hatchet or axe attacks. It is not an infallible weapon. Nor is a lead pipe but both can be deadly when used for that purpose. The number of blows in this case and others suggest it is not so quick or sure a killer as imagined. In the Manchester case, 23 blows were used, and this by a male farm hand, Jose Correiro.

I am not saying a hatchet wasn't used. IMO, it seems an unlikely weapon for Lizzie. Yes, it may have been a convenient choice but there were other choices available.

[1bigsteve]

There are a lot of cases of people surviving attacks committed with all types of weapons; guns, knives, pipes, boards, bats, rocks, forks, etc. I think Lizzie would have looked foolish if she had been seen carrying around a 4' long pipe. "Excuse me dad, can you hold that position while I knock your block off?" A pipe would have been to obvious I think. OK for killing a sleeping person though. I don't see Lizzie dragging a long pipe around the house. A hatchet could have been easily hidden until the instant it was used.

So in my view, of all the potential weapons there at their house, a hatchet was the most likely weapon for Lizzie. If I were in her position and wanted to kill my folks I would have used a knife. A knife would not have been the best weapon for Lizzie but for me I wouldn't have any trouble over-powering Abby and Andrew. A hand over their mouth and they are history. I would then scrub the knife clean, dry it and put it back in it's place. With no weapon to hide, the police may suspect a killer got in and left with the knife.

It's amazing how little strength many people have to swing a pipe or bat with enough force to kill a person. I think Lizzie was calculating enough to figure out which available weapon would do her the most "good" in getting her parents killed. Of course we are talking from the stand point of Lizzie being the killer. If she wasn't, then all bets are off.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Shelley]

By age 32 she seems to cultivate and project a more ladylike exterior, but she was a seasoned veteran of summers on the Swansea farm and probably had plenty of exposure to farm equipment and how it was used-not to mention being the daughter of a carpenter and a farmer-a combo which would have all manner of tools in the barn and cellar. Despite the corset- gals were in pretty good shape compared to today with plenty of stairs to climb and in the absence of horse and carriage- lots of walking to do up and down the hills of Fall River. Lizzie has never seemed frail and willowy to me-at any age-that's a sturdy little torso and hefty forearm displayed in that photo of her in Newport. I always wondered why she did not just shove Abby down those breakneck front stairs-accidents are easier to explain! What would be some surefire household weapon? It needs to be heavy and should have something to grasp while inflicting the blows- candlestick? Iron skillet? I think the heavy was more important than the sharp. Nothing beats the classic blunt instrument. The flat iron is a no-go, I tried it and it is unwieldy, heavy in one hand, and wobbles all over the place. Fireplace poker is an old standard. I would want to be sure it worked the first time with no hitches!

[doug65oh]

It’s pure speculation on my part but I wonder what if anything the selection of a sharp instrument over and above the “classic” blunt object (which as Shelley suggests could be virtually anything in the household) might say of the killer? Crack someone on the mellon with the right instrument, they're dead after one or two thumps. Know what I mean?

The question applies no matter who the killer was.

[Harry]

That's precisely my point, Doug. There were many things around the house that could have been used. IMO, the hatchet is a curious choice especially for a woman. There goes that chauvinist side again ...

No one is saying that the 4 to 5 foot pipe in the barn has to be the instrument used. I simply used that as an example for other objects being available. Who knows what else was in the barn or the cellar beside the axes and hatchets.

If Abby was approached from behind, which many people feel she was, the object used would not need to be hidden. We know Andrew was struck from behind.

[snokkums]

Yes, I saw it, too. I thought it was facinating too. You know me, I'll watch anything on Lizzie.

[1bigsteve]

It’s pure speculation on my part but I wonder what if anything the selection of a sharp instrument over and above the “classic” blunt object (which as Shelley suggests could be virtually anything in the household) might say of the killer? Crack someone on the mellon with the right instrument, they're dead after one or two thumps. Know what I mean?

The question applies no matter who the killer was.

I think the hatchet had an advantage over a blunt object because not only is the hatchet heavy but it is also sharp and could split a melon open. I think there is more of a "fear factor" with a hatchet because of the sharp edge. I think about all these horror movies where the killer is stalking his prey with a, blunt object? No, a knife or an ax of some sort. The idea of getting cut open is a big fear we all have. When a victim sees a blunt object coming they put their hands up to block it but when they see a ax coming they often don't react that way. Their reaction is to get their whole body away from the edge, to "pull back." The problem with using a blunt object on someone is that if you miss the target with the first blow you could have a fight on your hands. An ax or hatchet has more of a "fear factor" associated with it. The victim is intimidated and will cover-up. A victim seeing a blunt object coming will usually fight back.

If Lizzie was the killer I think she could have used the hatchet both as a "symbol of power," or dominance over her parents (seeing a hatchet coming throws fear into a victim), as well as a means of increasing her "physical power" with the leverage and cutting edge so she could get the job done.

However if it was a man, someone Lizzie or John hired, then the hatchet would still be looked upon as an efficient weapon that wouldn't alert the neighbors like a gun would. The only problem I have is the blood factor. How the killer kept his/her clothes and hair spotless.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Yooper]

I have to agree with Steve, a hatchet is the most lethal choice available. It is the least likely to be successfully defended against by the victim. It is the most likely to inflict severe trauma when used by a person smaller than the victim, which was the case in both murders if Lizzie was the culprit. A person does not need to be an expert to use one to the desired end.

The psychological inferences are whatever they are, but the simple answer is the hatchet was the most efficient choice of weapon.