All About Andrew

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:39 pm

I'm greatly learning from and enjoying Curryong's suggestion All About Abby so let's please do one about Andrew, too. Focused on his demise: the conjectures, contradictions, physical evidence, testimony, everything. We've touched on this elsewhere, many times, but putting it all in the same place allows me to think more critically about what everyone offers.

• The position of the body (as I've stated elsewhere) doesn't look comfortable enough to relax much less fall asleep. This makes me wonder if Andrew was sick enough that he couldn't get upstairs. Or napping while awaiting a visitor.

• Lizzie talked about pillows and drafts and helping him get settled. I'm confused as this was hot weather in August, hot enough that a draft would be more like a welcome breeze. This is another of her statements that seem to fly in the face of fact.

• I'm of the opinion this is a classic textbook staged domestic homicide right down to the pillow under his head to 'undo' the act. (She undid it for a final time by being buried at his feet.) Not everyone agrees...food for discussion.

• I also think that her 'finding' him was a reenactment of how she approached him with the hatchet. I know PossumPie isn't fond of psychological analysis but...:-)...I don't think she could kill him until she could do it without his ultimate realization. And i wonder if he knew in those last moments.

• I also wonder if the locked house (was there a club under the bed...some of what I recall is so old I can't remember when and where) indicated he was fearful or paranoid or just behaving like most people during that period. Did he and Abby sleep behind a locked door?

• His fists appeared to be clenched which is not normal for napping. So he either clenched as he died or he didn't cease consciousness at first strike. This leads back to did he know who was wielding the hatchet.

• Whatever happened to the jacket? Did she wear it as a shield for blood splatter? If she did, then why is it under the pillow and not under his head. There was no promise that blood would travel down and disguise the splatter unless it was #1 in the pile. Instead it was #3 under the pillow and a white tidy.

• Didn't he go out the side door in the morning? Everyone seems to have used the side door including John Morse. Why come in the front door? Could he have been expecting a visitor? Or was this regular for his arrival home?

• Somewhere in a less than documented source I read that Lizzie had a high hysterical laugh that popped out at inexplicable times. She laughed at the top of the stairs knowing she was going to kill her father once he got through the locked door. And standing only a few feet from where Abby lay in a pool of congealing blood. This is interesting...and creepy.

Thank you all for providing such thought-provoking comments in all the threads.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:10 pm

This was first posted by me in All About Abby:

"The upper part of Mr. Borden's intestines was comparatively empty. In the upper part of Mrs. Borden's intestines was some undigested food."

We discussed whether Lizzie had any stoic aspects to her character, and the opinion is multiple. Does anyone disagree that Andrew was a stoic sort. This makes me wonder if he was sicker than anyone realized and that he admitted. Was he taking some sort of purge? Did he experience diarrhea-vomiting (out by the pear tree....:-) that caused his bowels to be emptier than Abby's. This should not happen with their times of death separated by 90 minutes give or take.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:34 pm

Yes debbiediablo, I think that's an excellent idea, and we can continue posting anything strictly relevant to their deaths in this, their own threads, too, in the future, so it won't get lost in other threads that might go off on a tangent.

As I've posted on another thread, the sitting room couch was 7ft 1" long, including the arms. The seating area was 4ft 11 inches. Andrew was 5ft 11 inches, so no, I don't think it would have been comfortable at all to sleep on. In Andrew's position in the photograph he'd have woken up with a ricked neck and sore back.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:45 pm

Poor Andrew had been taking bromide powders since his bout of sickness and also some tobacco found in his pocket may have been a home remedy. Apparently chewing tobacco (ugh) was believed to ward off nausea and settle the stomach. He certainly didn't want the ministrations of Dr Bowen.
Goodness knows what he had for Thursday breakfast. Perhaps, in his stubborn Yankee determination to 'waste not, want not,' some of the mutton broth. Or perhaps he restricted himself, wisely, to cookies.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:50 pm

:)

i'm liking these threads a lot. so handy to refer to, and it helps a lot knowing which thread to post which tidbit of information we may come across.

i came across this last night or today:

One of the earliest persons to see Andrew was George Pettee.
He testified at the trial (p645 & p646):

"Q. Now, Mr. Pettee, where were you when you first learned that there had been trouble at the Borden house?
A. I was in Varnum Wade's store.
Q. About what time was that?
A. Well, I can't say: I think it was after eleven o'clock.
Q. At what time?
A. It was after eleven o'clock: I couldn't say exactly at what time.
Q. When you got there, who was there, Mr. Pettee?
A. I saw Mrs. Churchill and Bridget, Frank Wixon and Dr. Bowen. I may have seen others: I don't remember of others."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Q. Now will you tell us anything that you observed with reference to Mr. Borden's body, or the blood upon it?
A. Well, I noticed the position that he laid in. He was lying on his right side, with the left side exposed. His feet was crossed, and one of them rested on the floor. I noticed the condition of his head,---the condition of the blood that came from it."

obviously by the time the photographer, a james a. walsh, arrived, andrew's body had been moved. walsh was requested by the medical examiner to take the shots of the bordens, and i believe also shots of the house.

one of the infamous shots of andrew, for our reference.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:15 pm

i've felt that andrew wasn't asleep, didn't have time to fall asleep. he was just resting. … until he was dead, that is!

- although it was only 11:00 in the morn, and a warm but not overly hot day, i take lizzie's testimony of all that concern for her father's comfort with a large grain of salt. even on a warm summer late morning, surely an open window or draft wouldn't be unwelcome or worth mentioning.

- 'I also think that her 'finding' him was a reenactment of how she approached him with the hatchet.' i'm not getting you on this. 'I don't think she could kill him until she could do it without his ultimate realization.' you mean she couldn't bring herself to do it with him seeing her and knowing it was she? if so, i agree, she didn't want him to see she was his killer. if he did, oh well, she was going to kill him anyway, but i think she waited until he was resting, sneaked quietly out of the dining room door behind him, and started swinging.

- tidies are thin, so no problem with it soaking through that to get on the coat. the pillow would be more of a problem, but she was there (in my opinion) and viewing the flow of blood. also she may not have been thinking every detail out, just wanting to rid herself of the incriminating makeshift cover, and thinking it likely his blood would get on it, disguising whatever blood got on it while she was wearing it. i still think it would be easier for her to tuck it behind his head and the pillow than under his bleeding head, and that it was a way of distancing herself from the reality of what she'd done. also, less potential mess on her hands! literally.

- his clenched fists have always bothered me. as far as i know, no one moved or touched his hands. possibly they were clenched before the killer struck. no way to know, either way.

- don't know if he usually came in through the side door or not. we know he didn't leave by the front door, because it was still latched from the night before.

- lizzie's laugh has always bothered me too. it seems she was laughing at bridget swearing or faux-swearing ('pshaw!') because she had trouble unlocking the door. or maybe laughing at her father's frustration at not being able to get in? or, laughing at something someone up there with her said or did? or, nervous laughter, the way one sometimes laughs at entirely inappropriate times. such as at a funeral.

interesting info about the total length and seating area length of the sofa.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:20 pm

Without knowing, my guess is, a nervous sort of laughter, thinking over what had been and what was to come.

Do hands clench sometimes in death, in a sort of nervous spasm as life departs? I haven't been round enough dead people to know. I think Andrew may well have had his eyes closed when he was attacked even if he wasn't completely asleep.
Perhaps the front door was used for visitors in the Borden household, while family and close friends went to and fro through the side entrance. The front door had three locks on it didn't it, making it a bit inconvenient especially if it hadn't been unlocked from the night before, as happened on that Thursday. After dark might be a bit different, as we know Lizzie used the front door after arriving home from Alice Russell's on the Wednesday night. The maid wouldn't have used the front door, or did she?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:33 pm

Mrs Dr Kelly, hurrying to a late dental appointment at about 10:40 on that Thursday, saw Andrew coming round to the front of the house, having returned home and presumably rattled on the side door, (which was hooked up,) in vain. Bridget was inside, finishing off the inside sitting room windows, at that time I believe, and didn't hear him. She then admitted him through the front door.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:32 am

The laughter bothers we a lot...there's a term 'emotional lability' or 'dysregulation' that is a symptom of neurological disorder or brain injury. I've known a number of people with this condition (I used to be a team that evaluated persons with brain injury) and thinking about Lizzie standing somewhere near Abby's body with this hysterical laugh makes me cringe. Laughing in the minutes between murdering a stepmother and a father is outright creepy crazy and 'creepy crazy' is not a diagnosis! I wonder if Lizzie's laugh foreshadowed bizarre behavior in other instances. I wonder if it scared or even concerned Andrew or whether he was so inured to it that he hardly heard it. I'd love to know what Bridget really thought of Lizzie's laugh. And Abby. Did she laugh when she attacked Abby?

Okay, with regard to reenacting how Lizzie approached Andrew to kill him: it's fairly established that the killer came into the sitting room via the dining room door and attacked from behind the sofa. I suspected Lizzie would then 'find' her father's body via the same route, to the sitting room via the dining room door even though the direct route would be from kitchen to sitting room. Her story was she put her hat on the dining room table except the noonday meal was rapidly approaching, and I'm betting everyone in that house was taught to put away clothing. I think she took the long way around because she was reenacting the killer approach to her father, the approach that didn't involve going through the door from the kitchen and looking directly into his obliterated face.

Q. When you came down from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door and went into the sitting room; or pushed it open. It was not latched.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I found my father and rushed to the foot of the stairs.
Q. What were you going into the sitting room for?
A. To go upstairs.
Q. What for?
A. To sit down.
Q. What had become of the ironing?
A. The fire had gone out.
Q. I thought you went out because the fire was not hot enough to heat the flats.
A. I thought it would burn, but the fire had not caught from the few sparks.
Q. So you gave up the ironing and was going upstairs?
A. Yes sir, I thought I would wait till Maggie got dinner and heat the flats again.
Q. When you saw your father, where was he?
A. On the sofa.
Q. What was his position?
A. Lying down.
Q Describe anything else you noticed at that time.
A. I did not notice anything else, I was so frightened and horrified. I ran to the foot of the stairs and called Maggie....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:20 am

Record of Autopsy held at Oak Grove Cemetery on body of Andrew J. Borden. Autopsy performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper. Witnesses F. W. Draper of Boston and John W. Leary of Fall River. Clerk D. E. Cone of Fall River. Time of Autopsy 11.15 A.M. August 11th, 1892, one week after death.

Body that of a man well nourished. Age seventy years. 5 feet 11 inches in height. No stiffness of death on account of decomposition, which was far advanced. Inguinal hernia on right side. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. There were no marks of violence on body, but on left side of head and face there were numerous incised wounds and one contused wound penetrating into the brain.

The wounds beginning at the nose and to the left were as follows:

1. Incised wound 4 inches long beginning at lower border of left nasal bone and reaching to lower edge of lower jaw, cutting through nose, upper lip, lower lip, and slightly into bone of upper and lower jaw.

2. Began at internal angle of eye and extended to one and 3/8 inches of lower edge of jaw, beginning 4 and 1/2 inches in length, cutting through the tissues and into the bone.

3. Began at lower border of lower eye lid cutting through the tissues and into the cheek bone, 2 inches long and one and 3/8 inches deep.

4. Began two inches above upper eye lid 1/2 inch external to wound No. 3, thence downward and outward through middle of left eyebrow through the eye ball cutting it completely in halves, and excising a piece of the skull one and 1/2 inches in length by 1/2 inch in width. Length of would 4 and 1/2 inches.

5. Began on level of same wound superficial scalp wound downward and outward 2 inches long.

6. Parallel with this 1/4 inch long, downward and outward.

7. Began 1/2 inch below No. 5, 3 inches in length downward and outward, penetrating cavity of skull. On top of skull was a transverse fracture 4 and 1/2 inches in length.

8. Began directly above No. 7 and one inch in length downward and outward.

9. Directly posterior to No. 8 beginning at ear and extending 4 inches long, 2 inches in width, crushing bone and carrying bone into brain. Also crushing from without in.

10. Directly behind this and above it, and running downwards backward 2 inches long superficially.

The general direction of all these wounds is parallel to each other.

HEAD. Right half of top of skull removed. Brain found to be completely decomposed; and in fluid condition.

CHEST. Chest and abdomen opened by one incision extending from neck to pubis. Right lung glued to ribs in front. Left lung normal. HEART normal.

ABDOMEN. Spleen normal, kidney normal, liver and bladder normal. Stomach and portion of liver had been removed. Lower part of large bowel filled with solid formed feces. Feces also in lower part of small bowel.

William A. Dolan, Medical Examiner

D. E. Cone, Clerk

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:15 pm

• Whatever happened to the jacket? Did she wear it as a shield for blood splatter? If she did, then why is it under the pillow and not under his head. There was no promise that blood would travel down and disguise the splatter unless it was #1 in the pile. Instead it was #3 under the pillow and a white tidy.

looking at the photo of andrew, specifically the pillow and coat, the coat actually is partially underneath his head and behind his head. unless there was another white tidy on top of the pillow, and there may have been, the tidy is on the arm of the sofa.

i've always wondered about lizzie claiming she put on her hat, when all she said she was doing was going out into the barn to find sinkers or metal to fix her screen. it was a warm day. she went upstairs in the barn and testified it was very 'close,' and hot. i can maybe see her putting something on her head to shield it from dust and such. *maybe*, but probably not. she never said she took it off during the whole 20 or so minutes she was upstairs in the very hot barn, eating pears while looking out the window, and afterwards rummaging in a dusty box.

i would not want to be wearing a hat to do that.

also she says she came directly back from the barn, heard a groan (later she said another sound) which brought her into the house (stopping first in the dining room to remove her hat??) and sitting room, where she found her father. no time to tidy herself up.

if she'd been in the barn, moving lumber off of the box with the metal stuff so she could better see what was in there, why were her hands so spotless? she'd been eating pears, which would have left her hands sticky with the juice. then she rummages in the dusty box and moves the wood. why were her hands so spotless? and her dress hem would have been dusty, and quite likely a few small bits of straw caught in the fabric as well.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:04 pm

debbiediablo wrote:The laughter bothers we a lot...there's a term 'emotional lability' or 'dysregulation' that is a symptom of neurological disorder or brain injury. I've known a number of people with this condition (I used to be a team that evaluated persons with brain injury) and thinking about Lizzie standing somewhere near Abby's body with this hysterical laugh makes me cringe. Laughing in the minutes between murdering a stepmother and a father is outright creepy crazy and 'creepy crazy' is not a diagnosis! I wonder if Lizzie's laugh foreshadowed bizarre behavior in other instances. I wonder if it scared or even concerned Andrew or whether he was so inured to it that he hardly heard it. I'd love to know what Bridget really thought of Lizzie's laugh. And Abby. Did she laugh when she attacked Abby?

...

I've always taken the laugh to be directed at Maggie. It was about an hour since Mrs. Borden was killed, Lizzie was on the steps standing (probably to see if it was her father coming in the front door) Bridget didn't know the 'night lock' was still locked and fumbled with it, letting out an explative (probably a mild curse) Lizzie caught off gaurd at this, giggled. She later denied it and denied even being on the stairs.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:34 pm

Was it common to wear an overcoat over a suit jacket in 84º weather. I can't imagine being queasy, much less having diarrhea and vomiting, and then covering myself with layers of black clothing.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:22 pm

Thibault, Edward. “That Sticky Weather Issue.” Lizzie Borden Quarterly I.4 (October 1993): 2, 10.
After reviewing various sources and court documents regarding the temperature on 4 August 1892, Thibault details his mission to “find a definitive answer to the weather conditions.” Quoting newspaper sources, the article concludes that while there was a heat wave the week before the murders, the temperatures on the day of the murders were not higher than 80 degrees.

from here:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/resources ... qissue.htm

so 80 degrees or 'not higher than' was the high for the day. it would have been a bit cooler in the morning.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:39 pm

Yes, the temperature was not as hot as many people believe (somewhere I read the high for the day was 84º) and I'm still wondering about the suit coat Andrew is wearing. Every image I can find of a Prince Albert jacket shows it being worn over a vest-waist coat and shirt, not with another coat underneath. So did he have on two coats that day? Or is the second coat under his head from somewhere else? This may be a very dumb question.....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:06 pm

I think, and this is only my opinion of course, I believe what Andrew was photographed in was his 'lounging jacket', what Dr Dolan described as 'a cardigan' in his notes. Victoria Lincoln in her book emphasises that Andrew in his Prince Albert was a well-known figure around town. So it might well be that, smoking hot or icy cold, Andrew wore his Prince Albert topcoat whenever he went downtown, traditional creature of habit that he was.
When Andrew arrived home he would have hung his coat on its hook in the dining room and put on his 'lounging jacket'. Now, on that Thursday Andrew was, in theory, only going downtown to post a letter for Lizzie. Bridget says he changed into shirt and tie from his dressing gown that morning so I think you can bet your bottom dollar that he would have, in those much more formal times, have put on a work jacket of some kind under the Prince Albert. Bridget didn't see him leave as she was otherwise occupied under the pear trees.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:25 pm

The question of Lizzie's hat has always intrigued me. Not because she wore it in the garden, I've studied the Victorian era since my teens, and it was extremely rare for women in that era to go anywhere outdoors, even in their own gardens, without a hat to protect their delicate complexions from the sun.
If it was a gardening hat hanging on a hook in the kitchen for the purpose, fair enough. If it was, in reality, a dress hat retrieved from the closet upstairs to go with the dark blue silk Lizzie SAID she wore on that Thursday morning, then the intriguing possibility comes up that at one stage she may have thought of establishing an alibi of being out between 9:30 and 10:30. "Oh my, I was down the street and I don't know what happened to Mrs Borden!"
Didn't she say to Bridget during the conversation at the side door "I may go out, myself." For some unknown reason she didn't go through with that possible plan, and the male detectives wouldn't even have looked at the hat she said she left on the table before 'discovering' her father.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:34 pm

Curryong wrote:The question of Lizzie's hat has always intrigued me. Not because she wore it in the garden, I've studied the Victorian era since my teens, and it was extremely rare for women in that era to go anywhere outdoors, even in their own gardens, without a hat to protect their delicate complexions from the sun.
If it was a gardening hat hanging on a hook in the kitchen for the purpose, fair enough. If it was, in reality, a dress hat retrieved from the closet upstairs to go with the dark blue silk Lizzie SAID she wore on that Thursday morning, then the intriguing possibility comes up that at one stage she may have thought of establishing an alibi of being out between 9:30 and 10:30. "Oh my, I was down the street and I don't know what happened to Mrs Borden!"
Didn't she say to Bridget during the conversation at the side door "I may go out, myself." For some unknown reason she didn't go through with that possible plan, and the male detectives wouldn't even have looked at the hat she said she left on the table before 'discovering' her father.

oh, i hadn't thought of that! that she was considering going out as an alibi. yes, she said she was wearing the navy blue silk bengaline (too formal just to wear around the house), and she did say to bridget 'i may go out, myself,' when she told her about the sale on the fabric going on that day. hmm.

about the hat, i could buy it being a gardening hat, except the barn was very close to the house, and all she'd planned on doing was going to the barn to look for lead for sinkers (or something to fix a screen), and then going back into the house. or so she said ;)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:13 pm

I began to wash the window next to the front door. Had not seen anyone since I saw Lizzie at the screen door. Then I heard like a person at the door was trying to unlock the door but could not; so I went to the front door and unlocked it. The spring lock was locked. I unbolted the door and it was locked with a key; there were three locks. I said "pshaw," and Miss Lizzie laughed, upstairs. Her father was out there on the doorstep. She was upstairs.

She must have been either in the entry or at the top of the stairs, I can't tell which. Mr. Borden and I didn't say a word as he came in. I went back to my window washing; he came into the sitting room and went into the dining room. He had a little parcel in his hand, same as a paper or a book. He sat in a chair at the head of the lounge.

Miss Lizzie came downstairs and came through the front entry into the dining room, I suppose to her father. I heard her ask her father if he had any mail, and they had some talk between them which I didn't understand, but I heard her tell her father that Mrs. Borden had a note and had gone out. The next thing I remember, Mr. Borden took a key off the mantelpiece and went up the back stairs. When he came downstairs again, I was finished in the sitting room, and I took my hand basin and stepladder into the dining room. I began to wash the dining-room windows. Then Miss Lizzie brought an ironing board from the kitchen, put it on the dining-room table and commenced to iron. She said, "Maggie, are you going out this afternoon?" I said, "I don't know; I might and I might not; I don't feel very well" She says, "If you go out be sure and lock the door, for Mrs. Borden has gone out on a sick call, and I might go out, too." Says I, "Miss Lizzie, who is sick?" "I don't know; she had a note this morning; it must be in town."

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:08 pm

One of the main things people argue about in the Andrew Borden murder is the small window of opportunity to set the scene, kill, clean up, (if we presume the killer is Lizzie.
So, at about 10:40 am we have Andrew seen (by Mrs Dr Kelly) coming round to the front door of his home. He is then let in by Bridget with some difficulty. This is witnessed by Lizzie, who apparently laughs/chuckles. Andrew gaining entry wouldn't have taken more than a couple of minutes, surely.

Andrew goes into the dining room. Bridget doesn't say why, but he may have hung up his Prince Albert on its hook. Bridget observes Lizzie going into the dining room to her father. She asks him about mail. He answers (rather rudely I think) "None for you!" There is some other quiet conversation, and he obviously asks about Abby. Lizzie tells him the story of the note.

He then sat in a chair in the sitting room, perhaps to catch his breath. I am not one who thinks there is anything actually relevant to the murder in that parcel he had in his hand. I think it was the 'Providence Journal' or another newspaper, purchased to read when he arrived home.

Andrew doesn't settle however, but goes up to his and Abby's bedroom. We don't know what for. Perhaps, in spite of Lizzie's statement he expected to see Abby returned home and performing various tasks. At some point Andrew puts on his 'lounging jacket' (perhaps upstairs in his room) and returns downstairs to the sitting room.

The time must have been about 10:50 by then. In the meantime Lizzie has set up her iron board in the dining room and had a conversation about a sale, practically begging Bridget to go down the street. She repeats, for Bridget's benefit that Mrs Borden is out, and she may go out herself. Bridget, however, is worn out, probably feeling unwell, and doesn't take the bait. She goes into the kitchen, rinses out her cloths and departs for her attic bedroom.

This is a very tight window of opportunity. According to Lizzie, (after Bridget's departure to her quarters) she goes into her father (who may be reading) and suggests a nap and makes various kind suggestions about his comfort. My suggestion is, none of that occurred.

Lizzie knew she had to act before Bridget comes downstairs, before John Morse comes home, before Andrew becomes curious about Abby. So she quietly opens the dining room door to see what her beloved father is doing. Lo and behold, he has moved to the couch, perhaps his head is lolling, he has decided to take a nap. It is only a matter of moments for Lizzie to don the Prince Albert and grab the hatchet (which she has deposited in the dining room closet since she decided Andrew and to die.) She then very quietly opens the dining room door, reaches around the doorframe and....
Whack, Whack!
It is now about 10:52 or thereabouts. We can't be sure of any of the times, of course.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:31 pm

just found this:

October 1, 1892, Harrington, partial, Witness Statements, p.22:

Dr. Albert C. Dedrick. “I was going on a call to Whipple street, when I saw Dr. Dolan drive along Second street like mad, and stop at Mr. Borden’s. When I returned, there was a large crowd there, and I went in. Mr. Borden’s left hand, which rested on his hip, was smeared with blood. I called Dr. Bowen’s attention to it.
I went up stairs, and as I entered, I noticed the basin which was on the wash stand, contained water stained with blood. I called Dr. Bowen’s attention to this, and he said perhaps some of the Doctors washed their hands there. Afterwards I saw Dr. Dolan wash his hands there. I remember this distinctly, for I had put my hands in Mrs. Borden’s wounds, and when I had washed my hands, I took the towel from Dr. Dolan, who had just finished drying his.
I think Mrs. Borden was dead first, for when I took hold of her arm, it was cold, clammy, and very stiff. When I took hold of Mr. Borden’s, to look at the blood on his hand, it bent very easily.
I do not want to get into the case, but I tell you just as I saw and found things.”

andrew's left hand was smeared with blood? would love to know when dedrick arrived on the scene. was the blood smear on andrew's hand the way he was found, or did it happen after his body had been moved around?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:21 pm

Apparently, according to another bit of his testimony, Dedrick just happened to be passing the borden residence when Dr Dolan arrived and followed him in, as it looked as if something was up.
Goodness knows where the blood on Andrew's hand came from, one of the doctors, police, pawing him with their bare hands, perhaps. Its not mentioned by anyone but the helpful Dr Dedrick, I believe.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:17 pm

I was going on a call to Whipple street, when I saw Dr. Dolan drive along Second street like mad, and stop at Mr. Borden’s. When I returned, there was a large crowd there, and I went in.

does he contradict this? here we have him saying he was going on a call, then saw dolan speeding along second street and stopping at the borden's, apparently carrying on to his call on whipple street, and then returning to the borden's.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:27 pm

not sure where else to put this, but it seems to relate more to andrew's death than abby's, so.

we need to do the same thing with andrew re: blood evidence as we (or rather curryong!) did with abby's. anyone up for it? curryong, mebbe?

anyway, i just read something and am shocked to learn there was blood on the parlor door.

by Kat » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:32 pm

It always seemed odd that Emma cleaned the blood off the Parlour door but not from anywhere else- and against Dr. Dolan's orders and she was expecting a funeral in the sitting room on Saturday. The implication is that Emma did not clean up anywhere else until she was given permission.

Why the parlour door? The parlour was the best room? Kept locked by Abby? Was Emma of the same possessiveness of that parlour? Did it stand for something?

i knew there was blood on the wall behind the couch, and i think also on the door between the sitting and dining rooms, and on the floor of course.

now i've just read (via a post, not source material) that there may also have been blood on the door that lead from the sitting room into the kitchen.

by Susan » Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:24 am

Yes, Kat, I too have always found that strange that in Morse's Trial testimony he is asked only about Emma washing the bloodstains from the parlor door. I can't for the life of me figure that one out. There was the one stain on the jamb of the sitting room door going into the dining room, unless, was that the one that was removed by the police, the piece of doorjamb? And I believe there were a couple of spots on the sitting room door into the kitchen.

on another note, it does seem a bit odd that emma was cleaning up her own father's blood. i sure as heck wouldn't have wanted to! being as well to do as the borden's were, i'd have hired someone to do it. i guess maybe i could understand if it were just a spot or two, and bridget was gone, but still …

also, i didn't know abby kept the parlor locked. on that house plan that indicated all of the doors that were kept locked, the parlor wasn't on it.

going to attach the (plain) plan of the 1st floor, just to refresh our memories on the layout.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:18 pm

Yes, I've never understood, (which we spoke about on another thread,) why Emma wanted to stay in her old home after what happened. I think Emma wanted things spick and span for the funeral gathering. So awkward, having your father's blood splatter around and your maid elsewhere.
Perhaps Abby didn't want the 'girls' to use the parlour for social gatherings of their friends, but instead stick to the guest room for such meetings? Abby and Andrew had their good points but don't seem to have been gregarious, to say the least. The undercurrents in that house must have been horrendous.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

I found this, which includes photos.

http://lizziebordenwarpsandwefts.com/ta ... rden-case/

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:36 pm

Well that's interesting to review, Curryong. The way Dolan describes the arc of spatters from where Andrew's head was found toward the kitchen door make me rethink my insistence that all of the attack came from behind his head, in the area of the door to the dining room (which I presume they referred to incorrectly as the parlor door). Couldn't that kind of an arc be thrown off by the momentum of the murder weapon as it was raised high in preparation for the next blow?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:58 pm

I think so Mara, but as I've never lifted a hatchet in anger or otherwise, (except in my experiment when I used water,) I'm no expert. Possum's your man for that! However, most of the blood splatter activity is where you would expect it to be, I suppose, if the attack came from around the dining room/parlour door. The spots found near the kitchen door are intriguing. Killer taking hatchet to the sink room tap off the kitchen perhaps, wrapped in a couple of hankies, and a drop or two escaped ?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:44 am

thanks so much for locating all of that blood evidence, curryong!! very interesting, and helpful

”I found one on the west door, the jamb of the door leading from the sitting room into the dining room.I did not measure it. I should judge from twelve to fourteen inches (from the carpet).It was not a spot, it was a string, as it were, of blood. Instead of being a spot of blood, that was long, it would probably measure, if drawn out, two inches or two and a half inches.”

this is interesting. there was only *one* blood stain anywhere near or on that door behind andrew's head, leading from dining room into the sitting room? i didn't expect that. so then the door was open (opening inward into the dining room, so it was protected from the blood) when he was being killed, and only that one 'string' of blood got on the door jamb, none on the actual door.

mara, no, they mean the parlor door. there's a door leading directly from the sitting room, and into the parlor, behind and opposite andrew's head and the sofa.

i find the spots of blood on the kitchen door surprising too. if they were round drops, as in spatter, i don't see how they could be from the hatchet being carried into the kitchen. they'd be elongated teardrop shapes if that were the case.

So awkward, having your father's blood splatter around and your maid elsewhere.

you are so bad!

yes, she wanted it clean for the ceremony, but holy cow, can you imagine doing that?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:58 am

Blood splatter tutorial:
http://www.bloodspatter.com/bloodstain-tutorial

My oldest daughter's classmate shot herself (she didn't die) and the story in the community is the kids cleaned up the mess after school along with some other family members.

I've always wondered about Andrew's position, sort of slumped to the side for what would be an incredibly uncomfortable nap. On the other hand, a whack into the left side of the face from directly ahead or slightly from the left might knock him sideways onto the pillow.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:14 am

Trouble is, IF Andrew didn't put the coat under his head himself we don't know exactly how low Andrew was when he was napping. If he was snoring/dribbling into the Afghan and the cushion was more or less upright against the couch arm and his hair, his head could have been quite low down. This would have affected the killer's strokes, I guess.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:25 am

Curryong wrote:Trouble is, IF Andrew didn't put the coat under his head himself we don't know exactly how low Andrew was when he was napping. If he was snoring/dribbling into the Afghan and the cushion was more or less upright against the couch arm and his hair, his head could have been quite low down. This would have affected the killer's strokes, I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if his head was merely lolling against the couch's back at first, then perhaps slipped down onto the cushion as he settled. Yes, it looks extremely uncomfortable, whichever way you look at it!

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:28 am

There was so much moving of bodies and covering and uncovering that he might have died in a less contrived position.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:42 am

I'm just wondering whether the odd cylindrical shape that Officer Harrington noted had burned away in the stove was Andrew's newspaper, (which may have remained rolled up prior to his sitting down on the couch to read it,) but which was thrown into the stove instead because it didn't suit the killer's scenario of Andrew peacefully snoozing.

By the way, didn't Andrew have a hernia on his right side, and wouldn't his lying like that on the sofa chafe it, especially if he had full pockets?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:06 am

This is Professor Wood's testimony at the trial about the long 'string' of blood one and three quarters to two inches long that was found on the dining room door frame.

'Though it looked to me like blood at that time....(Goes into another room where there is more light to look at the mark again) ..It does not look like a blood stain to me now'.
Q. 'What does it look like?
A. I do not know.
Q. Tobacco?
A. I do not know. It is a yellowish stain.

Could it be that Andrew, who had tobacco in his jacket, had been chewing tobacco to soothe his queasy stomach and missed the spittoon?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:24 am

i can't imagine andrew's body didn't move at all as he was being killed. we know his feet were crossed when he was originally found. too bad there's no photo of that. i do think his body slumped some when he died.

thanks for finding that professor wood testimony! i'd just read someone saying something about a yellow stain, and wondered where that came from, and where the stain was. it was suggested it was from someone (bridget, i think) vomiting when seeing the body, but i thought they were talking about abby's body and that the stain was upstairs in the guest room.

how do you confuse a yellowish stain with a blood stain?

also thanks for the info about andrew's hernia. i didn't know why he was wearing a truss.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:24 pm

here's a good shot of andrew's body and the room. the parlor door is very close to the door leading from the sitting room into the dining room. the kitchen door is closer than i'd realized.

it helps me to have visuals like this, so i figured it might help others too.

too bad the photo is so grainy. i can't see any blood anywhere except on andrew's face.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:04 pm

I especially like this photo because it supports my idea that the sofa was originally farther right, with the picture on the wall centered above it. I suppose my idea has no material bearing on the case, and would be shot down if blood spatters were not found on the wall behind the safe as it it sited here (suggesting that the sofa hid the wall right there, all along.

Do you notice the gentleman standing to the far right, at the kitchen door? I never did before! His legs curiously disappear into mist. Maybe it's the specter of David Anthony! ;)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:15 pm

It may well be, Mara. I've seen the full photo somewhere, with the legs manifesting into a rather sheepish-looking detective. I think the furniture and the bodies were moved several times for so many different purposes who knows where they were originally sited! However, I do agree that the sofa would have been kept at a reasonable distance from the entry to the dining room for practical reasons.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:34 pm

There was so much contamination of the crime scene. What would this picture, particularly Andrew's body, look like if sofa and body were slid about a foot to the right....I'm not sure we can assume they centered the picture although it looks like it was meant to be centered when the kitchen door was open. Some people hung large pictures on studs regardless of appearance.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:01 am

Yes, I note that the picture isn't hanging exactly in the center of the wall, between kitchen and dining room doors, so the sofa wouldn't have been dead center (you should excuse the expression). I think it would have been right under the print, though.

I'm not sure how that jibes with Dr. Dolan's description of the blood spatters.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:34 pm

the sofa being pushed so far to the left bugs all of us, i think. but i've never read anything about that not being its usual position in the borden household, so i've attributed it to the long list of borden household oddities. such as keeping the dress closet locked, and hanging one's prince albert on a hook in the dining room, rather than the coatrack in the hall, where it would make the most sense.

i figure the sofa had to have been where it usually was, or the police would have noticed it too and it would have ended up as part of the trial. the blood spatter tells me that's where it was when andrew was killed.

the door that leads into the kitchen opens into the kitchen, so that can't be the reason it's moved so far over.

i have noticed the ghostly gentleman :). probably one of the detectives who was standing there and then perhaps the photographer asked him to step out of frame, or he moved away on his own. exposures took a long time back then (which i know you know).

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:57 pm

Perhaps Andrew insisted on the sofa remaining where it was, as he liked to snooze on it. I can imagine him being the sort of man who never took note of household arrangements unless they impacted on him. The furniture was solid but old fashioned, it seems, from comments at the time of the murders. Most pieces would have been bought when the family moved into Second St you would imagine, unless (poor Abby) some were from Andrew and Sarah's marriage.

And yes, they were an odd family. There can't be too many households where father ends up a mangled mess on the sofa!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:22 pm

or stepmother hacked to bits in a guest room!

yes, i've read the sofa was civil-war era, and the rest of the furnishings were 40 or so years out of date.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:40 pm

Catbooks wrote:
i figure the sofa had to have been where it usually was, or the police would have noticed it too and it would have ended up as part of the trial. the blood spatter tells me that's where it was when andrew was killed.

And if that's true, that's the only evidence that matters. But is it necessarily true? Do we know for certain that there were no blood spatters just behind the end of the sofa where Andrew's head lay? I suppose not, or there would probably be record of that in Dr. Dolan's meticulous catalog of spatters. Still, it irks me.

Catbooks wrote: the door that leads into the kitchen opens into the kitchen, so that can't be the reason it's moved so far over.

Thanks for noting this. Someone else mentioned here recently that the kitchen door swung open into the sitting room and no one debated that.

Mara · Post by **Mara** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:42 pm

Catbooks wrote:
mara, no, they mean the parlor door. there's a door leading directly from the sitting room, and into the parlor, behind and opposite andrew's head and the sofa.

Quite right! I have the detailed floor plans beside me now, which I didn't have then. In my mind, that other door was to the front entry; I'd totally forgotten about the one right next to it.

Catbooks wrote:i find the spots of blood on the kitchen door surprising too. if they were round drops, as in spatter, i don't see how they could be from the hatchet being carried into the kitchen. they'd be elongated teardrop shapes if that were the case.

I agree, unless there were some sudden movement, such as to push the door open while carrying things. Maybe then, some drops might have fallen off. But then, one would think they'd have been rushed off by a passing skirt, which brings us back to the Naked Lizzie Theory.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:39 pm

Mara wrote:
Catbooks wrote:
i figure the sofa had to have been where it usually was, or the police would have noticed it too and it would have ended up as part of the trial. the blood spatter tells me that's where it was when andrew was killed.
And if that's true, that's the only evidence that matters. But is it necessarily true? Do we know for certain that there were no blood spatters just behind the end of the sofa where Andrew's head lay? I suppose not, or there would probably be record of that in Dr. Dolan's meticulous catalog of spatters. Still, it irks me.

Catbooks wrote: the door that leads into the kitchen opens into the kitchen, so that can't be the reason it's moved so far over.
I think that was me re: the kitchen door. I was thinking the sofa would be centered on the wall if the kitchen door opened into the room but had no idea which way it opened (even though I have seen a diagram of the house but not one with the doors marked...:-) Given that the door opens into the kitchen, they must've needed the sofa moved over toward the dining room door for traffic flow.

Thanks for noting this. Someone else mentioned here recently that the kitchen door swung open into the sitting room and no one debated that.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:36 am

This is what the civil engineer Thomas Kiernan, civil engineer who was employed by the prosecution to do all sorts of measurements, plans, etc for the prosecution, had to say about the position of the couch when he was at the Borden home on August 16th 1892. Presumably Emma had left the couch where it was!

A. 'It was placed against the north wall of the dining room, and almost directly in line with the east side of the door which leads from the sitting room into the dining room. It projected by the door just half an inch.'

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:35 am

Something about that picture has always bothered me. His posture is unnatural. If he were laying down, he would have taken off his boots (It was reported that Lizzie said she had helped him off with his shoes, so we know it was his habit to remove them) and had his feet up. It looks like he was just preparing to lay down. his butt is right in the center of the couch. His coat sleeves and pants cuffs are all riding up, This happens when you raise your arms above your head or extend them full-out in front of you, Riding up like that is a very uncomfortable feeling which he would have remedied if he were positioned comfortably. I think he saw the killer enter, and was attempting to rise off the couch when hit. Both hands are clenched in a defensive posture suggesting he wasn't hit without warning. The boots still on also suggest he hadn't gotten comfortable in his nap-time position yet. People have suggested he was lying down with eyes closed and was hit without warning, but these observations suggest otherwise. That position of his spine would have been very uncomfortable for an elderly man...Whatever else we say, I don't believe that was the position he intended to be in for any length of time.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:26 am

It does look most uncomfortable Possum, I agree. A couple of things, though. I don't think the couch was long enough for Andrew to have laid down full length. The couch was 7' 1" long, including those rolled arms. Andrew was 5ft 11" so it would have been a tight fit. He also had a hernia on his right side and wore a truss, so that may have caused pain.

I've always thought Andrew may have gone upstairs to put his 'cardigan' on, and his congress boots, which were more casual shoes than his outdoor boots, might have been kept in a downstairs closet.

Do hands sometimes go into spasm in death throes?