Motives not Suspects

[PossumPie]

I am so sorry PossumPie: if you can't figure out alone what the killer could have been doing during that 90 minutes, this is your affair, not mine.

Since I am not here to convince anyone, therefore I don't feel obliged to give you any more answers to this question.

(P.S.: For you if there are two or more people involved in a criminal case, they -- at least one of them --- could not keep the mouth closed. Ok. Very well. This is your affair, not mine either.)

In a debate, when one person just can't convince another of their side, the best thing to do is get the person to explain in detail their side. That is what I am doing. We are not going to change each other's mind, So I thought, "I'll ask him how it happened." I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to see your side of it. If you refuse to answer, that doesn't help your cause.

[Curryong]

I've been over the Witness Statements, Lizzie's Inquest testimony and Bridget's testimony at the inquest and Trial.
Lizzie's inconsistencies--- where she was before her father's death and what she heard and didn't hear-- first she was in the barn for half an hour (in stifling heat inside the building) then twenty minutes, looking for tin to repair a screen (all the screens on the windows were in perfect repair,) then it was lead sinkers for a fishing expedition (she hadn't fished for years)--just reinforces her guilt to me.

Then there is the farce of where she was just before her father's return, upstairs, downstairs, sewing, reading magazines, as well as Bridget's testimony that she saw no-one on the ground floor when she was cleaning the windows at around the time Abby was killed or shortly afterwards.
It sticks in my mind that on that Thursday in Lizzie's first statement to Fleet she says she last saw her mother in the guest room (as she came down to breakfast.) Freudian slip? At the Inquest Lizzie then remembers Abby dusting the dining room and a conversation she had with her. If I had a family member killed on the premises I'd certainly remember the last time I saw them!

In addition, of all the people who saw Lizzie after the murder not one recognised the heavy Bengaline silk that she gave to the police when it was produced in court. Several remembered a blue calico. Why did Lizzie burn the paint-stained dress?
What was Lizzie doing near her parents' bloodstained clothing on the second night time visit to the cellar, unaccompanied this time by Alice Russell on Thursday?

Of all the people known to have been at the Borden residence on that Thursday the only one left alive who we know was inside that small house for both murders was Lizzie. She had motive (especially motive) means and opportunity.

[Franz]

Your plan makes a lot more sense than someone sneaking in in broad daylight with people milling around outside and inside. I give it equal weight to the idea that Lizzie acted alone.
I think those who believe that the killer, if confronted would "just kill the person" totally forgets that the killer wasn't using a pistol with a silencer, they were using a hatchet. If I opened a bedroom door, saw a bloody guy crouched by my dead step mother, I wouldn't wait around for him to kill me too, I'd scream, holler, run and yell...not necessarily in that order!!!

1. PossumPie, you totally forget that the "hatchet" was not a fact; the killer used a weapon unknown to us.

2. You can scream as you like. But let's return to the Borden case. Abby's body was lying between the bed and the bureau, in a dark room, and if Lizzie (if innocent) entered into the guest room, she was not at all waiting to find a bloody body, she was not prepared to this, on the other hand, the killer was always there, vigilant, prepared to act. So it's not for me so difficult to imagine that the killer could have easily had Lizzie under his control, Lizzie would have had no time to scream.

3. To response to your last reply: I can't --- I have no such an intention either --- give you a screenplay minute by minute to describe you all the actions the killer might have done during all his waiting time. You have been all time denying this possibility. Please continue to deny it if you wish. As I said, this is your affair, not mine.

4. The contradictions in your opinions frustrated me alot. While you say: you are not 100% positive for Lizzie's guilt, this means that you admit that the killer could be an intruder, right? So, if you think my theory about the killer's hiding in the guest room impossible, would you like to explain to me your conjecture? from where, when and how did he enter the house? where was he hiding himself? or did he kill Abby, go out, return and kill Andrew? I will happy to know your theory.

5. While you sai to Debbie that you give "equal weight to the idea (Lizzie hiring someone) that Lizzie acted alone", in another reply you said: "... though more than one person usually can't keep a secret.". PossumPie, if you yourself took the caution to use the word "usually", why do you return and insist always the improbability of being silence for two or more accomplice? The Borden case was just not a usual one! I will not write any word to object you about this point. It's worthless.

(P.S: in your replies you asked me to "help you understand". If you can't understand alone, I can't help you either. Sorry.)

[Franz]

Sorry, double post.

[Curryong]

I'm going to leave the debate to Possum, Franz, but I do hope we're not going back to 'the killer used an unknown weapon' hypothesis, are we? Please, Franz! I've just been taking a look at a lot of the threads, from earlier years. None of our very experienced early posters (or later ones for that matter) really held on to theories that the weapon used was anything other than a hatchet, or hatchet-like weapon like an axe.
The presumption that the murder weapon was a hatchet was never really challenged at the trial, nor have writers on the case since done so.

I'll just say this Franz. None of us can ever be 100 percent sure of anything to do with this case, for obvious reasons. However, when a person, having studied all the facts, still says that he is 80 percent sure that the main suspect committed the murders, those are pretty good odds, in my opinion. Probing for the remaining 20 percent to become higher isn't going to help!

[Franz]

I'm going to leave the debate to Possum, Franz, but I do hope we're not going back to 'the killer used an unknown weapon' hypothesis, are we? Please, Franz! I've just been taking a look at a lot of the threads, from earlier years. None of our very experienced early posters (or later ones for that matter) really held on to theories that the weapon used was anything other than a hatchet, or hatchet-like weapon like an axe.
The fact of the murder weapon being a hatchet was never really challenged at the trial, nor have writers on the case since done so.

I'll just say this Franz. None of us can ever be 100 percent sure of anything to do with this case, for obvious reasons. However, when a person, having studied all the facts, still says that he is 80 percent sure that the main suspect committed the murders, those are pretty good odds, in my opinion. Probing for the remaining 20 percent to become higher isn't going to help!

That "the killer used an unknown weapon" is not an hypothesis, but a fact. why not a meat clever?

You said: "The fact of the murder weapon being a hatchet was never really challenged at the trial". Your expression is uncorrect. We should say: "The hypothesis that..." Yes, this hypothesis was never really challenged, I agree. But that "the earth is the center of the universe" has not been challenged either, for centuries. Now we know that it is not even the center of the solar system.

(P.S.: you speak of the percentage of being certain who was the killer. I agree with you: according to the facts that we know, yes, it's true. For considering the facts we use our logical faculty. But we are, on the other hand, human being, everyone has his/ her own sensibility, feeling and intuition, right? I have no word to add.)

[Curryong]

Thank you Franz! I'll change the word to presumption. I think!

[PossumPie]

Franz, you are correct that the weapon is unknown, but the size and shape is NOT consistent with a meat cleaver. A meat cleaver is a thin flat blade, the wounds show very wide wedge shapes. A hatchet would make a mark consistent with the ones on the Bordens. That convinces me to within 95%.

Your statement That "the killer used an unknown weapon" ... why not a meat clever?" Shows me that you are not being logical. You START with the idea that it may be a butcher, he may have used a meat cleaver, then say WHY NOT A MEAT CLEAVER? I start with the size and shape of the wounds, make no prejudicial judgement as to what the weapon was, then looking at the patterns, I say It is consistent with a hatchet or small ax. The wounds are completely INCONSISTENT with a meat cleaver, it is impossible for a meat cleaver to make them, they are the wrong shape and size, but it fits your theory so you say "why not a meat cleaver" The subtle phrase I use "consistent with a hatchet or small ax" does NOT say that it WAS a hatchet, only that they are the same size and shape. You make no observational statement at all. "Why not a meat cleaver?" B/C it leaves the wrong type of wound size and shape that's why!

I am not completely convinced it was Lizzie, but the long hours I've put into reading re-reading and studying the testimony and the facts we know (It was broad daylight is an "A Priori" fact) lead me to believe that IF it was NOT Lizzie who killed them, Lizzie and/or Bridget probably were aiding the killer. Too many wild chances the killer took to be a stranger. IF it were a person hired by Lizzie and/or Bridget, then of course the odds of them telling someone are higher than if just Lizzie kept the secret. A secret becomes more at risk as the number of people who know it increase. This isn't a contradiction, just a fact.

[PossumPie]

I'll take a stab at the idea that it was a stranger. I'll try to be objective.

Around 9:30 AM a stranger sneaked into the side or back door of the Borden home. The front door was locked so they couldn't get in that way. They did not knock, nor did they know how many people were home or where they were in the house. No neighbor on any side saw them enter. They had a weapon consistent with the shape/size of a hatchet. The room they entered was empty, they made their way through halls and rooms in a house they knew nothing about until they arrived at the stairs. Cutting off ALL MEANS OF ESCAPE, they climbed the stairs. Perhaps they heard Mrs. Borden up there. They turned left, entered the room Mrs. Borden was in, without her seeing them come in. They killed her with the weapon. They hid in the room, closing the door and looking out the windows. They remained there about 90 minutes, which means they were waiting for something/someone else. They must have heard noises downstairs of other occupants in the house, but did not try to kill them. At some point, they heard Bridget unlock the front door, let Andrew in, then go back to the back of the house. They waited about 20 minutes, then left the room, went down the stairs, not knowing if anyone was standing there, sneaked down the hall, entered the room Andrew was lying down napping in, and killed him. Either not getting any blood on himself, or covering it up somehow with a coat, he then continued down the room into the kitchen and out into broad daylight, not being seen by any neighbor and away into oblivion.

This is what must have happened if it was a stranger.

[Franz]

Thank you Franz! I'll change the word to presumption. I think!

I am sorry to say so: that the weapon was a hatchet was only an unproved hypothesis. I have nothing against anyone. The weapon could be a hatchet, an axe, but if we say it could be, this means meanwhile that it could be not.

[Franz]

PossumPie, "the meant clever" is not my idea, it was discussed here before. Please tell me what is your source that proved the weapon could not be a meat clever?

[irina]

Reading the inquest testimony of Emma I was surprised to see several questions asked of her about where the Bordens bought their meat. Specifically "meat". More or less in reference to Abby going out to buy meat for dinner. I have no idea or opinion of why these questions were asked but when I read them the idea of meat clever did come to mind.

Regarding the weapon whatever it was, there is the matter of pieces of Abby's hair still attached to bits of bone cut by a "sharp instrument". This also makes me wonder if the weapon was something similar to but a bit different from a regular hatchet/axe. This was noted at the time and experts emphasized the weapon had a very sharp edge.

Concerning an intruder hiding out for 90 minutes, one need not think of him sitting and twiddling his thumbs for 90 minutes. Within that time Abby got killed. How long did that take? At the other end of the spectrum I believe he opened the door to listen to activities in the house when Andrew came home. If I am right that could be another 15 minutes passed. Possibly those two ends of the spectrum account for 30 minutes. Granted that leaves a full hour of possible inactivity. We all know our perceptions of time are dependent on our activities. Time can seem slower or faster depending on what we are doing. Whether the killer was a stranger or Lizzie, someone filled those 90 minutes somewhere. Under the influence of intense emotions 60 minutes of intense listening and thinking could seem to pass rapidly. Although it does not matter because the killer DID fill in all that time in that house on that day.

Lizzie's testimony is so bad I don't think I would dignify it by calling it lies. It reads more like insanity to me. While I do not believe she committed murder with her own hands it is possible she covered for someone she knew or that she had a good idea who did it. Maybe.

[PossumPie]

PossumPie, "the meant clever" is not my idea, it was discussed here before. Please tell me what is your source that proved the weapon could not be a meat clever?

Geez, Franz, this is getting ridiculous. Just like a shoe print in the snow will give detail about the size and shape of the shoe, a laceration in the scalp and bone will tell about the weapon. It CAN NOT BE A MEAT CLEAVER. they are flat, and thin. The wounds show wedge shaped openings about 1cm wide. A meat cleaver is about 3-4mm wide. IMPOSSIBLE that it was a cleaver. It could be from a hatchet or an ax. Possibly a wood-splitting wedge though unlikely. It is absolutely scientifically impossible beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a knife, saw, meat cleaver, or anything thin and sharp. There is a wedge shape...Meat cleavers are NOT wedge shaped. This is NOT debatable. It is a fact.

MEAT CLEAVER WOUND>>>>THIN no wedge shape




AX WOUND >>>>>>WIDE wedge shaped
http://2.imimg.com/data2/GG/XH/MY-76221 ... 50x250.jpg

[Franz]

Mr. and Mrs. Borden were barbarically murdered in the morning of the August 4th 1892 by an unknown killer with an unknown weapon.

That the weapon was an hatchet or an axe; that the killer was Lizzie, Bridget, Emma, Morse, William Borden, etc... All these are nothing else but conjectures.

Let's be humble before our immense ignorance.

[BOBO]

PossumPie, "the meant clever" is not my idea, it was discussed here before. Please tell me what is your source that proved the weapon could not be a meat clever?

Geez, Franz, this is getting ridiculous. Just like a shoe print in the snow will give detail about the size and shape of the shoe, a laceration in the scalp and bone will tell about the weapon. It CAN NOT BE A MEAT CLEAVER. they are flat, and thin. The wounds show wedge shaped openings about 1cm wide. A meat cleaver is about 3-4mm wide. IMPOSSIBLE that it was a cleaver. It could be from a hatchet or an ax. Possibly a wood-splitting wedge though unlikely. It is absolutely scientifically impossible beyond any reasonable doubt that it was a knife, saw, meat cleaver, or anything thin and sharp. There is a wedge shape...Meat cleavers are NOT wedge shaped. This is NOT debatable. It is a fact.

MEAT CLEAVER WOUND>>>>THIN no wedge shape




AX WOUND >>>>>>WIDE wedge shaped
http://2.imimg.com/data2/GG/XH/MY-76221 ... 50x250.jpg

Not getting into the fray, but I must disagree. Meat cleavers ARE wedged shaped. Foster Bros., of NY started in 1878, and made one that was 15" in length, with a 8" blade, that weighed 3 lbs. The blade was 3/8" thick. Don't know just what the Bordens owned.

[Franz]

Mr. and Mrs. Borden were barbarically murdered in the morning of the August 4th 1892 by an unknown killer with an unknown weapon.

That the weapon was an hatchet or an axe; that the killer was Lizzie, Bridget, Emma, Morse, William Borden, etc... All these are nothing else but conjectures.

Let's be humble before our immense ignorance.

[Franz]

PossumPie, please tell me, who has ever scientifically proved, beyond any reasonable doubt, that any sort of meat clever (or any sharp instrument other than hatchet or axe), used by whoever, would not produce the wounds other than those in the first picture? If this has been proved, please give me the source.

Curryong, there is another hypothesis even less challenged than the hatchet one: that one and the same killer killed Abby and Andrew with the same weapon. But this statement, what is it? An hypothesis, a conjecture, not a known fact.

[Curryong]

Yes Franz, it's all of those things, a belief I hold, though obviously not one shared by you!

[Curryong]

Sorry irina, obviously we are seeing different things in Emma's testimony. The marketing questions at the Inquest weren't particularly emphasised, I thought. As I've said earlier I think the hatchets at the house and whether they were used for slaughtering animals on the premises was probably the point of the few questions asked. On the other hand there was a great deal of questioning of Emma at the trial about the dress that was burned, (the Bedford cotton,) regarded by the prosecution as a suspicious circumstance.

[debbiediablo]

Thank you, Debbie. I appreciate very much your imagination.

I think that, in front of a so mysterious case with so little known facts, we need to use our imagination, our feeling, our sensibility, our intuition, other than our logical thinking faculty. My intuition told me Lizzie was not that killer in that house in that morning. And my intuition is still telling me so.

This is a bit late....

Hi Franz! I'm midway between you and Possum in my methodology. First I like to generate every possible scenario, fact based or intuitive, just brainstorm ideas. Not thinking outside the box so much as trying to throw the box away. (This does not include they were killed by space aliens!) Then come back and examine each and every theory in light of the facts we know....trying to use known facts to explain mundane behavior that may not be so mundane (did Lizzie bring the killer home with her the night before...one clue would be if she often stayed late with Alice or was that night an exception?) And then extrapolate. This is more circuitous logic than linear thinking. Ask what's needed to be known to make a theory more supportable, i.e. did Lizzie often linger past dark at the Russell house? How dangerous was the neighborhood at night? Did she make a practice of greeting evening guests or did she usually go up to bed in silence? How often did she sleep late in the mornings?

Once we get stuck on a specific behavior as being fact (i.e. Lizzie wore the coat to protect from blood splatter) we find one solution but immediately close the door to considering dozens of others some of which may lead to greater truth. So I'm all about imagination...and then all about fitting the imaginary to the facts, allowing the facts and behavior to explain each other. Or fail to explain....

[Curryong]

As far as Lizzie's night life and the neighbourhood is concerned, that's an interesting subject isn't it, and one I was going to speculate on when the site went into maintenance mode?

Second St was certainly not a leafy and exclusive road, was it? A mixture of boarding houses, commercial properties, houses, (including doctors' residences) shops and the like. The Bordens did like to keep themselves, literally, behind locked doors and, of course, there is the club under Andrew's bed!

It's hard to get a grip on just how 'dangerous' the neighbourhood was getting. On the one hand excessive precautions, on the other Lizzie popping out to see Alice on that Wednesday evening , and returning in darkness, in spite of, (so she said) seeing strange men near the house at night on previous occasions. It may well have been that the sisters exaggerated how decayed Second St was becoming in the hope that Andrew would buy something in a nicer part of town.

We know Lizzie went to dances. Did Andrew escort her there and back? Hardly think so! Did friends give her lifts in their carriages? Maybe! She probably went to Church functions in the evenings. Did she walk there and back unescorted sometimes? Probably. Alice seems to have been more a friend of Emma's than Lizzie's so we don't know how often she visited Alice's home. If the answer is 'rarely', then the Wednesday visit becomes even more intriguing.

[Curryong]

With regard to a meat cleaver being a possible weapon, what about the gilt that was found in Abby's skull?

On the other hand, (having a debate with myself here) Winward the undertaker did opt, off the cuff, for a meat cleaver when asked!

[BOBO]

I'm sorry, but this post has gotten SO FAR off topic that I can't see the forest for the trees.

[debbiediablo]

Considering any of the Lizzie did it scenarios I then wonder why she called Bridget so soon. With this short time she barely had time to take a deep breath or check her appearance in a mirror or wash her hands.

Lizzie called Bridget because she was ready to bring the crime she either committed or conspired to commit to light...or because she happened onto her murdered father and immediately sounded the alarm.

Regarding her trip to the barn. I'm inclined to think she was there...perhaps to grab a new hatchet hidden in the hay? Or for lead to make sinkers or to fix a screen? Or to watch out the window as her co-conspirator makes his getaway...either strolls out of sight or reaches a buggy or wagon or other means of transportation. Or makes it through the door of his own nearby house.

Just thinking. Often a lie contains some element of truth rather than being entirely fabricated.

[debbiediablo]

I'm sorry, but this post has gotten SO FAR off topic that I can't see the forest for the trees.

For sure it has. And I'm going to egregiously take it one step further:

Think about Lizzie visiting Alice...confiding her worries that something terrible is going to happen to her family, that there's a dark and dangerous cloud hanging over them. (I'm taking a small amount of hyperbolic privilege here.) Blah, blah, blah about her fears of the future, concerns over strange men hanging around the yard, a foreboding prescience. Then she toodles on home after dark, slips in the front door and fails to say a civil good night to the family whose safety is so uppermost in her mind??? Really now.

[Curryong]

Would she, though, with her mind thinking over what she'd said to Alice and Alice's responses to her, not prefer to quickly go up to her room and ruminate over it all, alone?

My own theory as regards Uncle John is that, with his personal hygiene seemingly low on his priorities, Lizzie preferred not to get down-wind of him under any circumstances, night or day. Hence the non-greeting. (Might have had to kiss him on the cheek!) However, two males in the house are better than one, safety-wise.

[Franz]

Yes Franz, it's all of those things, a belief I hold, though obviously not one shared by you!

I just say that those statments are conjecture, I don't say I would challeng them all.

[Franz]

This is a bit late....

Hi Franz! I'm midway between you and Possum in my methodology...

Better late than never.

Do you think that all my writing here is nothing else but intuitive and imaginative production?

[Franz]

I'm sorry, but this post has gotten SO FAR off topic that I can't see the forest for the trees.

It's always the same: we know from where to start, but we never know to where to finish.

[Franz]

PossumPie, do you really think that with your first picture you could prove that all wounds produced by any meat clever must be like those in the picture? therefore you are so certain to declare that "IMPOSSIBLE that it was a cleaver"? And is this your logic that you love so much?

I am thinking about Andrew's almost half cuted eyeball...

[PossumPie]

Franz, I'm done with this aspect of the discussion. If you TRULY believe what you said:

" we need to use our imagination, our feeling, our sensibility, our intuition, other than our logical thinking faculty. My intuition told me Lizzie was not that killer in that house in that morning. And my intuition is still telling me so."

Than we should fire all Crime Scene investigators, and detectives, get rid of all Medical Examiners and Pathologists, and just let everybody determine guilt or innocence based on their "Intuition" WOW...don't know how to take that one.....

"throw science out for intuition." This has gotten so ridiculous...I think I am going to take a break from this forum for a few days...

[Franz]

Franz, I'm done with this aspect of the discussion. If you TRULY believe what you said:

" we need to use our imagination, our feeling, our sensibility, our intuition, other than our logical thinking faculty. My intuition told me Lizzie was not that killer in that house in that morning. And my intuition is still telling me so."

Than we should fire all Crime Scene investigators, and detectives, get rid of all Medical Examiners and Pathologists, and just let everybody determine guilt or innocence based on their "Intuition" WOW...don't know how to take that one.....

"throw science out for intuition." This has gotten so ridiculous...I think I am going to take a break from this forum for a few days...

PossumPie, it's not the first time that you "accused" me for a "crime" I didn't commit. I am not throwing science out for intuition. My last question concerns just the science. I asked you: do you really think that with your first picture you could prove that all wounds produced by any meat clever must be like those in the picture? In your last reply (quoted above) you didn't answer me. Since you declare that "IMPOSSIBLE that it was a cleaver", and then you put that picture, so please prove us that all wounds produced by any meat clever must be like that. Could you prove it? If you couldn't prove it, but meanwhile you just post that picture, then I think it was you who "throw science out".

Concerning the intuition. I don't think the word is a tabù, on the contrary, we need it in front of a mysterious case. I think I am very fortunate to have some intuition, and I am happy. And I will use my intuition, together with the "science" (ahimé! what a noble word!) while considering the Borden Case, this is my right.

If you have no intuition, PossumPie, or if you have but you don't permit you to use it while considering any criminal case (o even in your everyday life), it's your affair, not mine. And I would be very sorry for you. (I hope I have not been too rude by saying so.)

[BOBO]

With regard to a meat cleaver being a possible weapon, what about the gilt that was found in Abby's skull?

On the other hand, (having a debate with myself here) Winward the undertaker did opt, off the cuff, for a meat cleaver when asked!

The gilt was spotted at a later date. I believe it could have come from any number of hatchets that they attempted to fit into the wounds. When it was found they said you could see it with the "naked eye". That said, I don't believe it came from the murder weapon.

[Curryong]

Of course BOBO, some are more observant than others! I take it you are still open to the meat-cleaver suggestion? It's a pity modern experts haven't thoroughly gone into the weapon question.

[debbiediablo]

The gilt was spotted at a later date. I believe it could have come from any number of hatchets that they attempted to fit into the wounds. When it was found they said you could see it with the "naked eye". That said, I don't believe it came from the murder weapon.

Interesting point, BOBO, that I hadn't previously considered. Given the contamination of evidence, moving of bodies, burning of papers and dress, two bass-ackwards autopsies, certainly there is possibility of the gilt being deposited by weapon(s) which were being "tried out for size" on the wounds...which is perhaps why the presence of gilt was not the game changer it could have been. Maybe both sides understood it's lack of evidentiary value.

[Curryong]

Probably that is why the gilt evidence didn't end up in court, debbie. It's more than likely that they did try and fit the weapon to the crime, so to speak! Of course, not every axe/ hatchet they tested would have been new and gilded.

The possibility of a meat cleaver being the possible weapon has got me thinking though, only because (if Lizzie didn't pinch a brand new hatchet from somewhere, which ended up on Crowe's barn roof) then a meat cleaver would be an easier weapon to locate (in a kitchen) than grubbing about in the cellar among split axe handles and ancient blades.

Said meat cleaver would have to be heavy enough to really chop through bone, though, however thin Abby's skull was reputed to be!

[Franz]

Oh my dear fellows, why are you still wasting your time about the meat clever? The scientific and logical PossumPie has declared that "IMPOSSIBLE that it was a clever" (Attention to the indicative form of the verb and the upper letters of IMPOSSIBLE). And he thought to have proved it with that beautiful picture. Whoever mentions the meat clever runs the risk to be considered by PossumPie to have intention to fit the meat clever into the Morse's guilty (with butcher accomplice) theory. I am being under such an accusation. Please don't be a second Franz.

[irina]

This thread has gone a bit astray and as a new person I am feeling cautious about making a reply.

However I liked the original idea of other motives without naming suspects and I favour a stranger who for some reason was enraged by Abby.

Now there is a spirited discussion about the weapon. I absolutely believe the weapon was never found. The experts of the day emphasized a "sharp instrument". Bits of Abby's hair still attached to bits of skull were found. To me this isn't the basic wood chopping hatchet. Like I said before I have experience chopping meat scraps and bone to prepare pet food, with a basic wood chopping hatchet. The results are half cuts and a lot of pulverizing. I don't know what difference it would make if a human head was being whacked, so to speak. I would expect the effect to more resemble bludgeoning than cutting though there would be some cutting and slashing.

Therefore it seems wise to consider other similar tools which could support or not support an intruder. What sort of instrument is like a hatchet or clever and is very sharp? One example is that Victorian medical surgical or postmortem kits sometimes had a hatchet like instrument. These can be viewed on Pinterest for example. They weren't common and I have no idea what they were used for or even what they were called. I would guess they would be very sharp. There were a lot of doctors in the vicinity of 92 Second, which is not to point the finger at any doctor or doctor's assistant who may have had access to such tools. There is also the question of what happened to the murder weapon. Why wasn't it left? If it was a valuable tool of trade it would make sense for the owner of such tool, be it a carpentry tool, butchery tool or a medical tool, to take it away with him.

Concerning Lizzie's nighttime visiting about the neighborhood and her perceived safety, I have some personal observations. Having lived in medium sized towns most of my life, I have never been afraid to walk at night if I needed to or wanted to. Whether or not Lizzie coming home in the dark after visiting was risky, in my opinion would best be judged by the culture, crime stats, etc. of Fall River at the time. The towns where I lived have had plenty of crime. Mostly property crime and assaults between people who knew each other. I think in many communities there are distinct lines between general lawlessness and assaulting innocent women, and that the latter is frequently not tolerated and is punished severely. (Unless the woman is blamed for getting raped, etc.)

Debbie: I love what you said about not thinking outside the box, but discarding the box altogether! That's a classic idea to be remembered!

[debbiediablo]

I can't see a meat cleaver doing that kind of damage....or an axe. The meat cleaver could not smash such wide holes through the skull. Having grown up in a time and place where butchering was a rite of autumn, I've seen how much damage a meat cleaver can do to bone. I agree with Possum's photo where the blades leaves slice-like marks on the skull. On the other hand, an axe with the long handle generates a lot more power and a lot more damage than the Borden injuries. The entire head would be caved in with one or two blows. Maybe it wasn't a hatchet, but if not, the murder weapon was similar in size, weight and shape.

[Curryong]

Most of the threads veer off like that after a strict start I'm afraid!

irina, with regard to the original title of the thread, have you examined the motive of the chief suspect at the time and her behaviour after the trial, as well as her life before? Important, I think! We can think outside the box, of course, but even in modern police investigations the police turn quite early to the question of 'who profits by this person's death?' Of the people that we KNOW were near the two victims an interesting question to ask ourselves with regard to the Bordens, I think!

With regard to the wounds sustained, all these were characterised at the time by Dr Dolan and, (at least in Abby's case) photographed quite closely. The thread 'All about Abby' is quite interesting in that regard. Her wounds are discussed quite thoroughly.

The thread 'The Bleedin' Hatchet' also, with regard to the weapon, is interesting. Doctors at the time would have been much more used to treating hatchet and axe wounds than physicians are today.

If there had been obvious signs of a very different sharp-bladed weapon being used then it would have been pointed out to the police. The doctors would surely have recognised the difference between the wounds left by a surgical instrument and those left by a hatchet. I think there can be too much of a discounting of those observations made at the time in modern day efforts to find a different weapon/suspect.

The police themselves were used to using axes/hatchets and probably to seeing people with wounds after being attacked. Those investigating the crime didn't just go and search for hatchets for the hell of it!! Smile.

The size and shape of the wounds were and are important, of course. They were measured and various sized blades were tested and slotted into the wounds on the skulls, Andrew's skull in particular. The part of Abby's skull with hair attached you mention (which was buried) could have been the result of a glancing blow by a very sharp hatchet! The investigation was certainly sloppy in some regards and by modern standards. Nevertheless, the males investigating the case were very much more used to implements like hatchets than we are.

[debbiediablo]

All else aside, I'd love to have a peek inside Dr. Bowen's medical bag. Irina, do you have photos of any of the Pinterest medical kits? Or links?...:-)

[irina]

Debbie and Curryong: The joke is kind of on me. I have long known there was something in antique surgical kits that LOOKS like a hatchet, some more than others. This is a Hey saw, invented by William Hey 1736-1819, a British surgeon. Appropriately this was devised to cut into the skull bone. Perhaps it could be used like a hatchet but at any rate I don't think this was the case with the Bordens as the instrument has a serrated edge though this is not always apparent in the pictures. Some of them look very much like hatchets. One of the best sites that shows and explains this is http://www.medagadget.com/2009/05/1800s ... oxing.html . Another good site it http://www.medicalantiques.com/civilwar ... cation.htm . The first listed site might give a good idea of what would have been in Bowen's bag.

I looked through many images of hatchets to see how specialized they were. Most are basic hatchets. There is such a thing as a meat hatchet. There are also the hatchets used in carpentry. Hatchets are basically hatchets. My curiosity in this direction is why the murder weapon wasn't found, that if it was a special tool the murderer would have wanted to keep it or might have carried it with him. I really don't think the broken handle hatchet is it.

There is a mass shooting in Santa Barbara, California just being explained. I should probably listen to the footage. 22 year-old fellow wrote a 100 page manifesto against all women...

[debbiediablo]

Heys saws.jpg

Hey's saw...yes they had serrated edges but, even so, perhaps one these could be the murder weapon. (They come in every imaginable size and varying shapes including hatchet-like.) I don't know if 1892 forensics could tell the difference between a blunt edge and the fine serrations of these blades which were designed for cranial resections.

[/b] From Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice By David Dolinak, Evan Matshes, Emma O. Lew; Page 144; Copyright 2005, Elsevier, Inc.

"A serrated blade does not necessarily leave a serrated wound. Macroscopic photographs of each wound at autopsy will capture subtle details that may be missed by the pathologist at autopsy."

[debbiediablo]

Think about this, especially the red font areas, in relation to the initial wounds (or thought to be the initial wounds) delivered to both Abby and Andrew...it would seem the killer hit the "most likely to kill" places at first blow...which means he/she was either lucky or smart about anatomy:

Stab Wounds of the Head and Face

Fatal stab wounds of the head typically are through the eye with involvement of the
orbital wall or the squamosal portion of the temporal bone, which is the thinnest bone
composing the cranial vault. However, on rare occasions the fatal incised or stab
wound did not penetrate the skull, but involved a major vascular structure, such as
the superficial temporal artery or one of its branches, the occipital artery at the
back of the head or the facial artery of the face with death by exsanguination.

Most fatal stab wounds of the head do involve penetration of the cranial vault. If
such a stab wound is associated with an immediate fatality it generally is due to
penetration of the squamosal portion of the temporal bone with penetration or
perforation of the middle meningeal artery within its groove. Although not common
penetration of the top of the head with involvement of the longitudinal groove, may
penetrate the contained superior sagittal sinus.

More often, the stab wound to the head is not immediately fatal with many of the
victims being hospitalized. There are cases, in which the victim has walked or run
away from an altercation, not realizing they have been stabbed in the head with
penetration of the brain. This is because stab wounds of the brain are “low velocity”
injuries as compared to a missile, consequently, they are not characterized by the
same degree of cerebral destruction as the latter. In essence, there is no associated
conical cavitary lesion as seen in missile injuries due to their velocity. Remember,
the energy imparted to an organ as a result of a missile is due to velocity square and
not its mass. Thus, a stab wounds destruction is limited to the track the sharp-edged
instrument produces.

There are also cases in which the person has been hospitalized, with multiple
injuries, one of which was not picked up. This is especially true in those who have a
crop of hair or the entrance to the brain was through the orbital plate of the frontal
bone or cribiform plate of the ethmoid bone, with the stab wound having occurred in
the upper or medial aspect of the upper eyelid next to the supraorbital margin.
Some of these victims have eventually died due to continued intracranial bleeding or
infection. This is why when examining the head during an autopsy you take the time
to inspect the undersurface of the scalp and most especially the external and internal
surfaces of the calvarium and floor of the skull. The other thing to keep in mind is
that the actual defect in the skull from a sharp-edged instrument will coincide with the
width and thickness of the blade of the weapon.

Possum cannot comment further as to the further relevance of the final paragraphs.

Source: SHARP EDGED AND POINTED INSTRUMENT INJURIES
WILLIAM A. COX, M.D.
FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST/NEUROPATHOLOGIST
July 26, 2011
PAGE 75

[Curryong]

They look quite light and rather delicate to me debbie. Any idea of their size as compared with the sort of hatchet we've often discussed?
If it was a doctor, what motive would he have? Most of the doctors I've read about, from Palmer (strychnine) to Harold Shipman, used poisons, over-doses in injections and the like. Hardly surprising, really, with the whole pharmaceutical range at their disposal! And if it wasn't a doctor, (and it probably wasn't,) why choose one of those weapons rather than something more robust and easily obtainable? (Like the Crowe's barn hatchet for example!)

If I were a homicidal maniac, killing for no perceptible reason beyond my inner urge to murder and maim, I know which weapon I'd go for!

[Curryong]

We discussed various scenarios in the All About Abby' thread and other threads too, didn't we? If the killer wished to catch Abby unawares, then to strike at the back of the head first would be the logical place. She might then twist round, look momentarily at the killer, stagger a bit, put her hands up etc. With Andrew of course it was slightly different as he was a sitting duck, or rather a snoozing one, in more ways than one. (Incidentally, I really enjoyed working on 'All about Andrew' and 'All about Abby' with everyone, more than usual, and I enjoy most threads.)

To me, what I got from discussions on those threads and viewing the wounds/facial injuries on Andrew including his eye, was 'These people were killed by someone with a deep and abiding hatred and resentment towards them.'
Possum didn't agree with me, but I do think that the injuries to Andrew's face (whatever the weapon used) do mean something significant. Maybe the wounded eye was just caught in the process of chopping down. Or maybe not.

[debbiediablo]

The Hey's saw appears to be smaller than a hatchet although the two in the photo are examples of many styles, shapes and more than likely sizes. Surgical instruments are designed to not break while in use, so I'm thinking it's strong and durable although probably not designed for bludgeoning. For it (or something similar from a medical bag) to be the murder weapon would be a leap of faith sort of like Franz with the note. But it's worth thinking about simply because the murder weapon was never recovered, and the autopsies were like everything else - less than competently performed. The first thing experienced homicide investigators say is that people who are close to a murder victim often do not respond in the ways that might seem logical, so I need to give Dr. Bowen some leeway. Nonetheless, his behavior throughout the investigation and his testimony under oath seems to highlight a man who either could not remember or chose not to. He may have been confused as to whether Abby was really dead; he most certainly moved her body; he was burning papers in the kitchen stove for no explicable reason (could he have been protecting his daughter rather than the Borden sisters?) and his memory of Lizzie's dress is humiliating to read - both for witness and attorney. Bowen could've had means and opportunity...but what would his motive have been?

All in all, if I have to lay my money down it would be Lizzie acting alone but with Emma's planning assistance and possibly real assistance. That she overkilled both of them and then used Andrew's coat as a means of undoing. Everything about the crime fits perfectly with the description of an unstaged domestic homicide.

Edited for spelling errors and fell asleep midway through....

[Curryong]

Too many late nights debbie, that's what it is!

I just get the feeling from Dr Bowen's behaviour on that Thursday that he got himself into a bit of a flap. It may have been Abby's appeal to him the previous morning about being poisoned. Now, less than a day later, she and her husband had been brutally murdered. (I'd like to know more, incidentally, about his relationship with Andrew, just for human interest's sake.) He was seen by Mrs Churchill as seeming tearful when he came downstairs after viewing Abby.

He was away seeing patients on his rounds practically all that morning, wasn't he? The paper-burning observed by Officer Harington the dressmaker's assistant, looks peculiar on the face of it but it was probably to do with the telegram sent to Emma, and arrangements about his own daughter's return journey as she'd been away.

I just can't see Bowen partaking in any murder cover-up. He had too much to lose. Doctors in those days had to be seen to be whiter than white. The only possible exception would be if he and Lizzie had enjoyed a dangerous flirtation and she subsequently begged him to help her conceal the weapon, whether hatchet or whatever.

[BOBO]

Of course BOBO, some are more observant than others! I take it you are still open to the meat-cleaver suggestion? It's a pity modern experts haven't thoroughly gone into the weapon question.

Curryong, after 40+ yrs. of looking at this case, I'm open to any suggestions....lol. No proof.... but I still lean towards the Crowe barn hatchet.

[Franz]

Heys saws.jpg

Hey's saw...yes they had serrated edges but, even so, perhaps one these could be the murder weapon. (They come in every imaginable size and varying shapes including hatchet-like.) I don't know if 1892 forensics could tell the difference between a blunt edge and the fine serrations of these blades which were designed for cranial resections.

[/b] From Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice By David Dolinak, Evan Matshes, Emma O. Lew; Page 144; Copyright 2005, Elsevier, Inc.

"A serrated blade does not necessarily leave a serrated wound. Macroscopic photographs of each wound at autopsy will capture subtle details that may be missed by the pathologist at autopsy."

Very interesting. Many thanks.