Dead Man's Eyes

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Remember reading in The Knowlton Papers a letter sent in by someone who suggested they look into Abby's eyes and the last vision she saw would be imprinted on them, and that might be able to tell them who the killer was?

I came across this in "The Mafia Encyclopedia", by Carl Sifakis, Checkmark Books, NY, 3rd edition, c 2005:

"DEAD MAN'S EYES: Mob superstition

"There is an old belief, said by some to go back to the Old World, that when a person dies, the last scene he sees is forever imprinted on the retina of his eyes. In the case of an underworld hit, that often means the mob killers. Thus it is logical for hit men to shoot out victims' eyes and so remove damaging evidence.

"The superstition was evidently heeded widely in New York City around 1900, a period coinciding with a number of Black Hand and Mafia murders. The origin of the belief, thought by some to be particularly strong in Sicily from where the mafiosi and numerous Black Handers emigrated, is most difficult to determine. But it affected non-Mafia killers as well. Dead Man's Eyes was explained to Monk Eastman, the infamous Jewish gang leader. after he noted that some murder victims were getting their eyes shot out. After his next murder, he recalled the custom, the and, whether or not he believed it, decided to err on the side of caution. He trudged back up three flights of stairs to blast out the eyes of his latest corpse.

Some observers of criminal behavior attribute the increase in eye shootouts around 1900 with the criminals' growing awareness of the miracles of scientific detection. Fingerprinting and other advances had proved effective, so it seemed possible a retina-picture development method might be found.

For many years, doctors at the New York medical examiner's office, explained to the press they had studied and studied the eyes of corpses and found no such image. Evidently the underworld acknowledges the lessons of medical research - eye shootouts have decreased in recent years."

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:32 am

That is so interesting. I always have wondered why the mob, when they shot someone, would shoot the eyes out. But I do wonder if the last thing you saw would be on your mind. Very interesting post.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:51 am

I think one of the doctors testified that Abby probably saw her killer. That must be the most horrible thing. That poor woman, who I don't think did anything to deserve it, gets killed in that way and on top of it sees it coming. Geez ...

I was surprised to read that experts really studied this. I thought nobody ever did.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:42 pm

I've read about that superstition in a few cases dating back to that period. I believe there was some mention of possibly photographing the eyes of one of the victims of Jack the Ripper as well. It is a very interesting subject. Thanks for the post!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:07 am

That's got to be awful to see the person and know you're about to get killed. That's got to be upseting. Reminds me of Sharon Tate. She was the last one killed, watched everyone else get killed, then she got whacked.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:11 pm

It seems like I remember that about one of the Ripper killings also, Allen. It makes sense, since they happened in the same era.

I really can't think of anything that would be worse than seeing your killer and knowing there was no way out of it for you, Snokkums. Sheer terror. Someone's account of the murder (I am sorry, but I cannot remember whose) described how they thought that Abby tried to dodge the blows - thought she did dodge the first blow which caused the flap on her upper back and/or caused her false hairpiece ("rat") to fall off. And how she was basically stuck in the corner.

The Tate killings scare me to this day. I knew a guy who was there - outside the gate the morning it happened (newspaper guy). He never got in. I'd call him lucky.

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:02 pm

Allen wrote:I've read about that superstition in a few cases dating back to that period. I believe there was some mention of possibly photographing the eyes of one of the victims of Jack the Ripper as well. It is a very interesting subject. Thanks for the post!

The rumor that a dead person's eyes recorded the last thing they saw apparently began with the advent of photography. Photography must have seemed like magic to a lot of people, although I think only the uneducated and credulous would have believed such a thing.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:40 am

Chief Crazy Horse never allowed anyone to photograph him. He thought that it would take away one's spirit.

Photography must have seemed like some sort of "magic" in its early years. If someone from 1892 were told that a guy would be walking on the moon some day, they'd probably point them in the direction of the Taunton asylum. What sounds nutty to us today might not sound so much so back then, and vice versa.

I thought this was ridiculous (a person's last image still on the eye) for years until I found that the subject was actually studied by experts.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:36 pm

augusta wrote:Chief Crazy Horse never allowed anyone to photograph him. He thought that it would take away one's spirit.

Photography must have seemed like some sort of "magic" in its early years. If someone from 1892 were told that a guy would be walking on the moon some day, they'd probably point them in the direction of the Taunton asylum. What sounds nutty to us today might not sound so much so back then, and vice versa.

I thought this was ridiculous (a person's last image still on the eye) for years until I found that the subject was actually studied by experts.

I totally agree with you augusta. Some things that do sound strange to us today were quite common at the time. Most people today would cringe at taking professional photo's of their loved ones after they had passed. But back then for a time it was a quite common occurrence. So was making jewelry and other memento's from the dead loved one's hair.

Momento Mori or Victorian Death Photo's.
http://cogitz.com/2009/08/28/memento-mo ... th-photos/

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:04 am

That link is pretty gruesome.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:27 pm

That would be a typical reaction from people today. But back then the practice was pretty common.

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:14 pm

With all due respect, we have no idea how common it was to have photographs made of dead people. We only know that some were taken. Photographs were reserved for very special occasions. They were extremely expensive.

I think a link to pictures of dead people should not be posted without including a very strong warning. We're all pretty used to the death photos of Abby and Andrew, but dead babies and children?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:15 pm

LizbethTurner wrote:With all due respect, we have no idea how common it was to have photographs made of dead people. We only know that some were taken. Photographs were reserved for very special occasions. They were extremely expensive.

I think a link to pictures of dead people should not be posted without including a very strong warning. We're all pretty used to the death photos of Abby and Andrew, but dead babies and children?

I apologize for not posting a warning on these photos. But I figured that anyone who can look at pictures of an ax murder wouldn't be seriously offended by pictures of people that look rather peaceful. I would think that if some of these were posted on a site without any explanation you wouldn't even know they were photo's of deceased. But I do apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. All of the research I have done shows that this was a very common practice in the Victorian era and it was widely popular. I've studied pictures like this and the reasoning behind taking them. And with all due respect all the research I've read shows it was a wildly popular thing. There was a time period when more photo's of this type were taken than of any other type of photo. For one thing the infant mortality rate was very high. Sometimes these were the only photo's a family had of their child. Or of any of the family members that they have the pictures taken of. The reasoning was that once that person is gone there are no more chances to have their photo's taken to remember them by. Copies were made and sent to family members. Mother's kept them in lockets around their neck. It was also a combination of the Victorian customs of honoring their dead, such as jewelry made of the deceased person's hair, and their fascination with photography. But today it would be looked upon as vulgar or taboo. Which was the point I was trying to make in posting it.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:39 pm

Allen, I have been familiar with post-mortem photos for a long time and don't find the subject matter "taboo"...as you said, it was extremely popular. Family photos were taken with the deceased posed in a natural looking position. I'm sure it would surprise most people to know that it's still in practice today...not necessarily posing the deceased in a family photo, but the photographing of them in their casket. Ask any funeral director and he/she will tell you that family members do it quite often. My mother asked the funeral director to take some photos of my father in his casket when he died. My brother asked me to take some photos of his daughter in her little casket when she died at 3 weeks of age. When she died, the hospital asked if they wanted a "last family photo" taken with her...which they did. The nurses said it was done all the time when a baby died...the parents always wanted one last photo holding their baby.

With the advent of photography, many people died without having the opportunity for a formal photo...hence the "post-mortem" photos. And mourning was very complicated...with the length of time one was supposed to mourn for husband, child, parents, grandparents, etc. meticulously planned out. There was "full mourning", "half mourning", etc. Not only the time to be in mourning was strictly spelled out, but also the appropriate clothing to be worn as well. There were stores that sold nothing but mourning apparal and accessories. With the death rate back then, I'm sure some people hardly EVER got out of mourning clothes!!! That's probably why clothing looks so dark in old photos....the people were in mourning.

These days people recoil at the sight of a body in a casket...back then people were more familiar with death; they weren't exactly friends with it, but they were certainly on speaking terms!

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:00 pm

No one said anything about this type of picture being "taboo." I merely suggested a warning notice about content. Pictures of dead people certainly are not pleasant to anyone. I assume children read this board as well, right?

I don't understand why a polite request for a warning about a site that contains pictures of dead people seems so unnecessary.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:46 pm

THIS site also contains pictures of dead people...not only that, but people who have been butchered with an axe! As far as I know, there is no warning that such content is on this website. And the link DID say "Victorian DEATH Photos".

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:16 pm

Oh, that's fine then. Go back to ignoring me.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

O.K. I'm a dummy here. Miss,Lizbeth, who is ignoring you? Is me? If I am, I'm sorry, didn't mean too.

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:56 am

No, you're not ignoring me, but I wish you would. Your constant illiterate idiotic comments are what keep me from posting more, and I'm pretty sure any other intelligent person who is interested in this site is going to be put off by your childish nattering.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:33 am

I am not put off by snokkums. I read Robin's posts just the same as I would anyone else's, and give them just as much thought. Why wouldn't I? She is a member here just as you and I are. And I assume the offer of private messaging was to leave some people out of the loop am I correct? If anyone is put off from reading this site or posting, I assume it would be accomplished by someone posting that they are tired of reading "illiterate idiotic comments" and of the "childish nattering" of one of the other members.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:09 pm

I am not put off by snokkums either! I have the utmost respect for her. She is someone who served her country and she deserves our thanks and admiration..as well as anyone else here with military service. She is someone we can be proud of! Many of her topics are quite thought provoking and garner much discussion. I'm not sure what your problem is, Lizbeth, if that is truly who you really are. Your outburst puts me in mind of another "member"...those of us who have been here for a long time know who I'm talking about.

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:26 pm

Allen wrote:I am not put off by snokkums. I read Robin's posts just the same as I would anyone else's, and give them just as much thought. Why wouldn't I? She is a member here just as you and I are. And I assume the offer of private messaging was to leave some people out of the loop am I correct? If anyone is put off from reading this site or posting, I assume it would be accomplished by someone posting that they are tired of reading "illiterate idiotic comments" and of the "childish nattering" of one of the other members.

Why would you not give some posts as much thought as others? Um, because the questions are stupid? Because the ideas sound like they came from a third-grader? Because trying to wade through the garbled language isn't worth the effort? Those are just a few reasons.

I am so done with this forum. I've had so many private messages telling me to try to put up with Snokkums (who can't even spell her own signature line correctly). Some of those messages have been from people who are now saying how nice Snokkums is. I've been told that everyone makes allowances because it's obvious that there's "something wrong" with Snokkums, etc. And of course it's obvious, and I've tried to ignore it, but really it's just not possible. Either Snokkums is seriouslymmentally defective or he/she is a troll. No one could be that stupid and remember to breathe.

I made no offer of PM'ing to "leave some people out of the loop." Geez, paranoid much? That is creepy. I was suggesting that Snokkums and at other childlike person use private messaging because they were chatting about offtopic stuff. Really, if you're going to misunderstand plain English it is going to feel sometimes like you're out of the loop. Maybe you're used to that by now.

It's clear to me this is just another clique forum. I've spent a good deal of time posting thoughtful messages, because I really was looking for intelligent discussion a subject I am very interested in. Much of the time my messages have been completely ignored, but I persevered. However, it's not worth the effort anymore.

So my search for intelligent life online continues. Goodbye.

LizbethTurner · Post by **LizbethTurner** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:34 pm

SallyG wrote:I am not put off by snokkums either! I have the utmost respect for her. She is someone who served her country and she deserves our thanks and admiration..as well as anyone else here with military service. She is someone we can be proud of! Many of her topics are quite thought provoking and garner much discussion. I'm not sure what your problem is, Lizbeth, if that is truly who you really are. Your outburst puts me in mind of another "member"...those of us who have been here for a long time know who I'm talking about.

I'm not surprised to hear someone else blew their stack here. You people are infuriating. It's as if I thought I was attending a taping of "Meet the Press" and found myself in a daycare facility. Some people - and I am one of them - value thoughtful, intelligent conversation too much to put up with what goes on here. You will never undertand that, I know. Stupid people never do.

Goodbye.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:55 pm

Very interesting comments....I believe we can all pretty much figure out what's going on here and who this person probably is. With that said, I need to say something else. I, for one, have never PM'd this person at all, much less with any comments about snokkums. Why in the world does she feel the need to launch such an attack against one person, and to make up such blatant lies? And WE have problems??? I think everyone can see where the REAL problem lies!

It's very obvious that she's trying to manipulate people and stir up hard feelings among other members against each other. If you read her comments since she joined, NO ONE did anything to make her feel ill at ease or ignore her. This seriously sounds like someone who has a vendetta against this particular website. She has not been here long....just over 2 months. I hope that her attempts to cause anger between members does not succeed, because THEN we will be playing into her hands, and that's what she wants. I think we all have a pretty good idea who she is and what her intentions have been all along.

Snokkums, ignore her. She is not worth the time to even give her comments a second thought! This is her typical MO.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:51 pm

Thanks for posting the link on the post-mortem photos, Allen. They are fascinating and a true piece of Victorian history that I think a lot of people don't want to think about.

I came across another site a while ago, and in the photos that they wanted to look life-like, they took string to prop up arms up. It was creepy - I'd never known about photos made to look life-like. But then I didn't live back then, and as you say it was a popular custom.

I don't know how expensive having a photo taken was back then, but even if the person was 20-ish or so they may have never had the occassion to have their photo taken before.

The children and babies are hard to look at. But you sorta gotta figure that there's gonna be pictures of those age groups since their mortality rate was so high.

Today we tend to act as tho we aren't going to die. How many people do you know that say, "If I go, I hope it's in my sleep of old age," or some other wish. "IF". There isn't any "if" about it. Or a person will say to their spouse, "If something happens to me ..." There's that "IF" again.

Death is a part of life. One starts dying as soon as they're born. I think we do ourselves a great dis-service by largely ignoring death until it occurs very close to us.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:01 pm

Photographers even had special equipment they used to pose the bodies. They became very adept at painting eyes on closed lids! It's fascinating.

I know what you mean about the "ifs"...my husband is great for that. If I begin to talk about our more than certain demise someday, he's quick to say "I don't want to even THINK about that right now!". There are some things you just HAVE to make plans for because it's going to happen!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:31 pm

Melissa, I enjoyed the link you posted. I found it interesting and informative. Thank you for posting it.

BTW, the pictures in this site are not at all ‘gruesome’. Death pictures of the Tate-LaBianca Murders, as well as Elizabeth Short, and Bernice Worden are what I call gruesome.

The pictures in the link you posted are pretty mild compared to those.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:38 pm

LizbethTurner wrote:No, you're not ignoring me, but I wish you would. Your constant illiterate idiotic comments are what keep me from posting more, and I'm pretty sure any other intelligent person who is interested in this site is going to be put off by your childish nattering.

How dare you come on this forum and attack Robin in such a manner! I agree with everything that Melissa and SallyG stated regarding your nasty comments about snokkums. The long-term members of this forum, have a great deal of respect for Robin. Her topics produced some of the best discussions you’ll find anywhere on the internet.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:43 pm

LizbethTurner wrote:… Either Snokkums is seriouslymmentally defective or he/she is a troll. …

Well, well, well, what do we have here? "The pot calling the kettle black"?

(Note: The red highlighting is mine).

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:45 pm

Does all this put you in mind of "someone else" who tries to cause upheaval on the forum? And as far as "private messages"...please. It's quite easy to see when someone is telling a bald-faced lie!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:07 pm

Yes, it sure does!

I agree, the "private messages" are a dead given away. No long-term member is going to send a private message to a fairly new member, and tell them “to try to put up with Snokkums”. We all have too much respect for Robin to stab her in the back like that.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:08 pm

LizbethTurner wrote:... Goodbye.

COOL, you just made my day!!!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:43 am

twinsrwe wrote:
LizbethTurner wrote:... Goodbye.
COOL, you just made my day!!!

I second that emotion.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:27 pm

Now, don't read this if you are going to get upset........

Before I post, I run my rants across my girlfriend's desk and she tells me, (with the emphasis on "tell") whether I should post it. I'm very opinionated and at times my thought can be unkind. Not intentionally. Just a case of misjudgment.

One such post I omitted early in this thread was the posting of dead baby pictures.

I have always been fascinated by people's behavior about certain things in life like war, death, illness, etc. We all have our means and methods by how we see life and other people. The secret to getting along with another's ideas and beliefs is to exercise a modicum of understanding, if not tolerance.

Me: "I think I'll post some of these postmortem baby pictures I found on ebay. They are interesting. I'd like to collect them, if the were not so expensive."

Her: No you don't. Don't you dare put does photos on the forum. You're going to upset a bunch of people on there."

Me: Why. They're interesting? What's more disturbing than photos of Borden's face crushed in?"

Her: If you must, just supply the link to ebay, with a warning. You must post a warning."

Me: Hmm? I never thought of that. I guess I wasn't thinking."

Her: Can I borrow fifty bucks, please"

Me: Now your not thinking."

And so it goes.......................

Now, Some of the baby pictures look quite normal. The babies look like they are just sleeping. Some are very endearing. Some, I dare say, are probably babies just sleeping and the seller is trying to sell it as a postmortem photograph. Either way, I am fascinated by them. Some are very expensive. And there's a very robust market for them.

Some are quite bizarre. Though I find them interesting I would never take a photo of my own child, myself, never!.....and, I must add, I don't have kids.

Some are posted with the baby's eyes open and sitting up in a chair, looking more like a life size doll. Others display the poor departed one year old sitting in the lap of her/his mother, with a desperate look of despair on her face.

Now, if I was a woman, perhaps I would feel different. Perhaps not. I wouldn't be surprise if you told me that most of these collectors were women. But, either way you think about it, there are huge differences between fathers and mothers. Mothers brunt the greater part of birth along with the pain, both physical and mental. Thus, someone who may have witnessed the loss of a child at a very young age would be very offended by such postings.

To me, I find photos of mutilation far, far, more disturbing than the baby photos on ebay. When watching news about war on TV, and the news caster gives a warning that "the scenes you are about to see may be disturbing".........I usually change the channel.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:11 pm

mbhenty wrote:
Before I post, I run my rants across my girlfriend's desk and she tells me, (with the emphasis on "tell") whether I should post it. I'm very opinionated and at times my thought can be unkind. Not intentionally. Just a case of misjudgment.

An unintentional, perhaps unkind, opnion is one thing. We all say things that perhaps in retrospect we should not have said, or said differently. Deliberately attacking someone, who had done nothing to you at all, and in a vile and vicious manner, is something altogether different. It is totally uncalled for. Not to mention the hurt the victim feels at such words. These are exactly the sort of attacks that cause people to go over the edge and commit suicide. We never know what is going on in someone's life and how such words may affect them. There is absolutely NO excuse for such an attack!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:15 pm

I'm not surprised to hear someone else blew their stack here. You people are infuriating. It's as if I thought I was attending a taping of "Meet the Press" and found myself in a daycare facility. Some people - and I am one of them - value thoughtful, intelligent conversation too much to put up with what goes on here. You will never undertand that, I know. Stupid people never do.

Goodbye.

Good riddance. You obviously had other intentions. Me thinks you are not who you say you are, been there done that. Snookums does not deserve your ugly words, and I thought Allen's link was interesting and not at all morbid. You are on a forum about murders after all.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:37 pm

Yes SallyG, that statement I made about tolerance and misjudgments etc. and the portion that you quoted me on, etc.

When I made that comment, I was really talking about myself and not about anyone in particular on this thread.

My comments were not made in defense or condemnation of anyone on here. Just myself. I guess you can say I saw a reflection of myself here, or reminder of some of the squabbles I have been in on this forum in the past. Most of which I regret.

So, even though I did make some sort of comment. I was more interested in talking about the collecting aspect, photographs, ebay, etc.

One comment I can make about snokkums. Whether you can relate to her posts and questions or not, she has done more to stimulate, trigger or inspire more conversation on this forum than any other member. Many times it may be an uncommon inquiry, but indirectly it would lead to other topics and some engaging conversation.

I would like to add one thing, if I may?

And again, this in not in defense or an attack on anyone here.

On the intellectual characteristic or make up of this forum or people who engage in it. I find most of the contributors who post to be very intelligent. In the field of crime there are some pretty insightful folks on here.

So, how about those PATRIOTS this past Sunday, Huh?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:34 am

On another subject, altogether.

I was doing some research for a project I'm engaged in—to do with the case, and in doing so, I often refer to the mainstay writers on the subject.... including Radin, Kent, Rebello, Porter, etc.

I was trying to discover what Dolan did with Andrew and Abby's heads once he lobbed them off.

Edward Radin, David Kent, and Agnes de Mille all mention that the heads were sent out of town or sent to Harvard, to Prof. Wood.

Once I went searching elsewhere I discovered that was not true.

Edwin Porter said:

"In addition to this the doctors severed the poor, mutilated heads from both the bodies, and Dr. Dolan took possession of the ghastly objects. They were taken to a suitable place and the flesh and blood removed from the bones. The glaring white skulls with great rents, where the murderous axe had crushed, then were added to Dr. Dolan's collection of evidence which could not properly be called “circumstantial.” The skulls were photographed."

.............................................................................................................................................

Nowhere in the witness statements, or trial transcripts could I find where it mentioned that the heads were sent to Harvard. In truth the heads were probably kept in Dolan's possession. After all, cutting the heads off was not part of the autopsy, but part of the prosecuting evidence. The order to cut them off probably came from the prosecuting attorney Knowlton.

Interesting, none the less.

Was the heads sent anywhere once they were removed? Or did Dolan keep them? And if he did, where did these writers come up with the information they supplied in their books, that the heads were sent to Prof. Wood at Harvard?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:53 am

From the trial. p. 989+:

EDWARD S. WOOD, Sworn.
Q. (By Mr. Knowlton.) Edward S. Wood is your name?
A. Edward S. Wood.
Q. You live in Boston?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At present time what is your occupation?
A. I am a physician and chemist,---professor of chemistry in the Harvard Medical School.
Q. How long have you held that position?
A. As assistant professor of chemistry from 1871 to 1876 and professor of chemistry since 1876.
Q. What was your medical education as far as schools are concerned?
A. Physician and surgeon.
Q. Where?
A. At the Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital.
Q. How long were you connected with the Hospital?
A. One year, and one year with the Chelsea Marine Hospital.
Q. You graduated also at the Harvard Medical School?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you engage in general practice for a time?
A. I did not, except in the Hospital.
Q. Have you given special attention to any particular branch of science?
A. To medical chemistry.
Q. Does that also include what is also called physiological chemistry?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Inclusive of that term?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For how long time did you give attention to medicine or physiological chemistry as a specialty?
A. Since I graduated and before I graduated, as a student.
Q. Have you had experience in that sort of work, in medical or physiological chemistry?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To what extent?
A. To a very great extent in medico-legal cases, poison and blood stain cases.
Q. Have you been called upon as to that branch of science in the trial of cases?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To what extent?
A. I don't know, sir,---several hundred, I should think.
Q. Several hundred cases?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Including capital cases?
A. Yes, sir.

It seems that Dr. Wood's expertise was in physiological chemistry, although he was also a physician. He had charge of the chemical analyses of the stomach contents of Andrew and Abby Borden, as well as examining the handleless hatchet for the presence of blood. I doubt that there was any necessity to chemically examine the heads in any way, so they were not likely sent to Dr. Wood. I imagine the writers in question made the assumption that since he had examined the stomachs, he must have examined all of the physiological evidence, including the heads. I expect Dr. Wood was as close to a forensic pathologist as they could find at the time.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:24 pm

YES: Thanks Yooper for the information:

Edwin Pearson does not mention where the heads were sent, nor does Rebello, Sullivan, Lincoln or even Spiering.

I'm willing to bet that they must have uncovered much of their info from contemporary newsprint.

The piece I am writing is fiction, so the facts are not that important. If one makes an error writing fiction, he can always claim that it was intentional. After all, it's fiction.

But, in nonfiction there is very little excuse not to go to trail, witness, or inquest testimony and try and get it right.

EDWARD RADIN:

Dr. Dolan, acting upon the request of Dr. Wood, entered the vault with several physicians. The heads of both victims were severed and the grisly relics were sent to the Harvard professor. The news was withheld from the family.

DAVID KENT:

The following Thursday, Dr. W. A. Dolan, assisted by Dr. F. W Draper, with Dr. J. H. Leary and autopsy clerk Dr. D. E. Cone as witnesses, entered the vault, conducted a formal autopsy, and severed the heads of both victims, dispatching them to Harvard University for examination.

AGNES de MILLE

. Later the heads were removed and shipped out of town where they were added to the evidence which Porter characterizes as "not properly circumstantial." The decapitation was withheld from the daughters.

diana · Post by **diana** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:59 pm

Don't know if this is of any help but I did find a bit in the trial where it indicates the skulls were sent to Dr. Draper. Draper was a Professor at the Harvard Medical School so maybe that's why the authors say the skulls were sent to Harvard? The following is from his testimony.

Q. Have you at any time had those skulls in your possession?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you had them in your possession?
A. They were with me from the 26th of May to the 2nd of June, just a week.
Q. Under instruction from the district attorney?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Acting under those instructions, have you exhibited the skulls to any person sent there or purporting to be sent there by the counsel for the defendant?
A. I have, sir.
Q. To whom?
A. Dr. Thomas Dwight, and to Dr. Maurice H. Richardson, both of Boston.
(Trial testimony of Frank W. Draper, page 1059)

And then it looks as though they were returned to Dr. Dolan because, although much of the trial testimony regarding blows to the skull was done with the aid of plaster casts, at one point Dolan is asked to bring in the actual skull.

Q. Would the skull itself be of assistance in pointing out such things as occur to you to be important?
A. It would.
MR. KNOWLTON. Then in that case, although I regret very much the necessity of doing it, I shall have to ask Dr. Dolan to produce it. (Dr. Dolan retired from the Court room and returned with the skull of Mr. Borden.) (Trial, page 1047)

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:45 pm

Yes, Thanks for that diana.

I read that portion myself earlier....but not as well as I should have. I knew that Draper worked with removing the skulls with Dolan, and figured that he did his inspection here in Fall River. But, I take it that when he claims that the skulls were in his (Draper) possession he must have meant at his place of practice in Boston.

Thus, the skulls were probably sent to Boston after all.

With further research, I discovered that Dr. Draper mentions a couple of his colleagues in connection with the skulls, but there is no mention of Dr. Wood.

Very interesting.

So, though we can not find any testimony that the skulls were sent to Boston, we do have Draper stating that he had them in his possession. Though that may be true it does not mean they were sent to Harvard. I know that he testifies as graduating from Harvard, but did he in fact work there? I didn't think so. He claims to be a medical examiner for Suffolk County, which probably had his office in Boston.

In conclusion, we must agree that it was very probable that the skulls were shipped up to Boston. Unless Draper spent that week with the skulls in his hotel room at the Mellen House in Fall River. Now would that not be strange?

In my fictional piece, I will keep the skulls with Dolan, just to simplify my story. (A precipitous liberty only bestowed to the writer of fiction)

Still, to a student of Borden Studies, it's important to me to get it right when it comes to talking FACT. What you do with it when you incorporate in fiction is up to the writer.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:52 pm

I did find this bit in a book entitled The American Journal of Medical Sciences volume 82. written by Charles S. Black in 1881. It is on page 292 of the book.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:01 pm

And this book The Medico Legal Journal was written in 1891 by Clark Bell, Alfred Waldemar Herzog, Medico-Legal Society of New York, Society of Forensic Medicine, National Association of Coroners. This appears on page 420.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:50 am

Re the skulls. From the Winter edition of the 1995 LBQ in an article by Kenneth M. Champlin:

",,,, It has been confirmed on good authority that both Mr. And Mrs. Borden were buried without heads. These were denuded of flesh and the shattered skulls were sent to Harvard for forensic study. After having been to Harvard, the skulls were later presented at the trial as evidence. What became of the skulls after the trial is a matter of local legend, forming the basis for boundless inquiry. Were the bodies exhumed and the skulls refitted in their proper places? Were they each interred in their own little casques? Did Andrew and Abby wander through eternity in search of their heads while their skulls were discovered as playthings by the children of the coroner's family?"

Then in an October 1993 LBQ Dennis Bass writes concerning his trip to the 1992 conference:

"... All the graves are flat. You wouldn't know Andrew and Abby were buried
without their heads. They disappeared after the autopsies. A hundred years later, a forensics expert at the conference scanned the graves with underground radar. The skulls are sitting on top of the coffins.""

I assume he is referring to Prof. Starrs

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:31 am

Yes, great find Allen. Outstanding research. Thanks.

So we would not be wrong to assume that the skulls did indeed end up at Harvard, and that Draper was not only a medical examiner, but he was on the staff at Harvard.

Thanks for the find Harry. I've received more than I expected about the "Wandering Heads."

This is a perfect example of an intellectual exchange of ideas and support, which substantiates what I have always believed. If there's a question about the Borden murders of 1892 in Fall River, Massachusetts there will be more than one person on this forum with the answer. Someone here will soon uncover a suitable if not the correct response.

I remember back a while when Karen Chaney was writing her book on Lizzie Borden, namely, Lizzie Borden New England Remembers. She came here for a while and was soon put off by one of the forum members and left. (upset, if I remember correctly) I remember urging her to stay and do some of her research with us. That she could not go wrong looking for information about the case on LizzieAndrewBroden.comForum.

But she choose not to. The result was a book with many errors. Though, I don't think it was a labor of love as much as it was a paid assignment. I believe she rushed it and ended up publishing an inferior account.

I met Ms Chaney and she appeared to be very knowledgable and a sweet person. That must count for something. But, not much when trying to get it right.

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:13 pm

Thanks for those, Allen.

Although Draper is listed as an instructor at that time (1881-82), the following exchange with Knowlton indicates Draper was still on the faculty of Harvard at the time of the trial and had become Professor of Legal Medicine in 1890.

Q. And I suppose, of course, your business has led you to a consideration of the causes of death and a consideration of wounds?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. As a specialty. And you also, I think are a lecturer or professor in one of the institutions?
A. I am a Professor in the Harvard Medical School.

Q. Professor of what?
A. The title is Legal Medicine. The older title was Prof. of Medical Jurisprudence.

Q. How long have you held that office?
A. Since 1890. I have been lecturing since 1888 in that department.
(Trial, 1032)

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:43 pm

Note that Dr. Draper testified that the skulls were in his possession from May 26th until June 2nd, under instruction from the district attorney. This implies that the district attorney had ultimate possession and control of the evidence. It also implies that the skulls were in someone's possession other than Dr. Draper until May 26th, likely Dr. Dolan. I think we can safely infer that for Dr. Draper to have responsibility for the skulls, they would have to be in his possession in Boston because otherwise, if they had been kept in Fall River, the district attorney or Dr. Dolan would have retained possession of them with Draper there only to examine them. In other words, for Dr. Draper to have possession of and responsibility for the skulls, they had to be somewhere other than Fall River.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:20 pm

I thought it is interesting to note that in the 1891 book, Dr. Draper of Harvard is listed as giving lectures on legal medicine and toxicology. One of the subjects listed is "Medical Expert Testimony." This was in 1891, and of course the murders occurred in 1892. It appears Dr. Draper was truly considered an expert on giving medical testimony during trial even before the Borden murders.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:38 pm

Dr. Wood also had considerable experience in court, "several hundred cases" at the time of the Borden trial, some of them capital cases. The more I think about it, if these experts collaborated, it was probably most easily done at Harvard. There is also a point to be made about security, keeping the evidence away from souvenir hunters, etc. I imagine Harvard had better facilities for storing evidence than a private residence or office would.