That scraping, scraping sound again

[Erato]

Hi –

I am new to the forum. I am a longtime Lizzie fan, originally from Massachusetts (not Fall River), but without much access to information beyond what can be found on the web since I live outside of the US. I have been trying to read through previous forum threads as quickly as possible to bring myself up to speed. I suppose I should say up front that I tend to believe Lizzie was guilty and that she acted alone.

One matter that has struck me is Lizzie’s mention of a sound [or sounds] she heard just before discovering her father’s body – variously described as a groan, distressing noise, or scraping noise. It seems to me that in mentioning this noise[s] she was attempting to account for real sounds that might have been heard by someone else. I think that there were two different sounds she was trying to account for: a human sound [groan, distressing noise] and a mechanical sound [scraping]. The human noise was presumably the sound of her father’s last moments.

What strikes me about the description of the mechanical sound is the repetition of the word “scraping.” Here is Rebello's reference to what Lizzie supposedly told people that day--pg. 86. [Note – I don’t have Rebello myself so am depending on what others have previously posted]:

-- To Patrick Doherty "It must have been done while I was in the barn. ... I heard a peculiar noise ... I think it was something like scraping, scraping noise." (Trial: 595).

I think the sound she was describing was the rhythmic sound of sawing off the hatchet handle. There was supposedly a vise and tools in the barn along with a box containing bits of scrap iron and lead [“Just inside the door, along with an old vise and some yard and carpentry tools, was a smallish wooden box of assorted scrap, bits of broken metal, door knobs, old locks, a folded sheet of lead.” - Lincoln, page 122 ] I think that after washing the hatchet as best as she could, she sawed offf the handle and then burned it in the kitchen stove. At the same time, I think she dried the wet hatchet head by sticking it down into the embers in the stove, thereby coating it with ash and degrading any residual blood still adhering to it enough to make it undetectable by the laboratory methods available at that time. She then hid the hatchet head in the box in the cellar.

Erato

[Audrey]

Welcome to the forum!

How long have you lived abroad?

Can I ask where you do live?

I come from Paris but have lived in the US since college.

[Erato]

I've been in Ecuador about 16 years; out of the US about 25 years.

[theebmonique]

Welcome Erato ! New members are always welcome ! Introduce your self....tell us more about you ? I guess being from Massachusetts, you have "always" known about Lizzie. What books do you have on the case ? Have you been to the Borden house or Maplecroft ? It's great to have another 'local' perspective on the forum, even if you have been away for awhile.


Tracy...

[DWilly]

I have two thoughts off hand about the hatchet.

1. How long would it have taken Lizzie ( if she did it) to saw through the handle? I don't think it would have taken too long but, still she only had about 20 or so minutes tops to kill Andrew, saw off the handle and get rid of any blood she had on her.

2. Wasn't it shown that it would have been impossible for all of the blood to have been washed off the handle since a bit of it could have gotten under the spot where the handle met the head of the hatchet? Also, was this the same hatchet that had cow's blood on it but no human blood?

[Audrey]

I have two thoughts off hand about the hatchet.

1. How long would it have taken Lizzie ( if she did it) to saw through the handle? I don't think it would have taken too long but, still she only had about 20 or so minutes tops to kill Andrew, saw off the handle and get rid of any blood she had on her.

2. Wasn't it shown that it would have been impossible for all of the blood to have been washed off the handle since a bit of it could have gotten under the spot where the handle met the head of the hatchet? Also, was this the same hatchet that had cow's blood on it but no human blood?

I did an experiment with a hatchet...

viewtopic.php?t=471

I had a hell of a time breaking/sawing that handle!

Maybe I had a dull saw....

[1bigsteve]

I'm not sure which hatchet had cow's hair on it but I think it was the broken hatchet. I thought I had read that there was cow's blood on it too but I might have misread that in Spiering's book. It's been years. An expert said there was not enough time to have washed off blood to the point where it would not have been detected.

From what I've been hearing and the few photos I've seen, DWilly, the hatchet handle broke off, it was not sawed off. That type of break is the type you see when a hatchet head misses (over shoots) it's target. like the end of a piece of kindling, and the handle makes contact. Wood makes different types of breaks depending on the direction of the grain in relation to the direction of force used. Since I'm a wood worker it would take about three or four strokes of my hand saw to cut through a hickory handle that size. Lizzie would have taken much longer.

"Dull saw" Audrey? Likely story. You really need to get back to eating some protein and pack on some muscle. Too much time lounging around on the sofa with chips and soda can make a person flabby you know. Grab some 180lb. dumbbells and do some verticle rows and you will be in shape in no time. Come on now, 1, 2, 3... what, too heavy? Excuses, excuses. I mean really Audrey...


-1bigsteve (o:

[Angel]

Why would a hatchet handle from a city house have cow hairs on it? Certainly they wouldn't have butchered a cow at that house. Could it be that the hatchet was taken from the farm and brought to the house to be used as the murder weapon?

[Audrey]

"Dull saw" Audrey? Likely story. You really need to get back to eating some protein and pack on some muscle. Too much time lounging around on the sofa with chips and soda can make a person flabby you know. Grab some 180lb. dumbbells and do some verticle rows and you will be in shape in no time. Come on now, 1, 2, 3... what, too heavy? Excuses, excuses. I mean really Audrey...


-1bigsteve (o:

Mon Dieu!

I do not wish to be muscle bound and manly looking.

And, kind sir... apart from being pregnant, I have never weighed over 135 pounds in my entire life. Potato chips? Again, Mon Dieu!

[Allen]

Why would a hatchet handle from a city house have cow hairs on it? Certainly they wouldn't have butchered a cow at that house. Could it be that the hatchet was taken from the farm and brought to the house to be used as the murder weapon?

That's a good point Angel. I would agree that the hatchet was probably brought from the farm at some point, by who and for what purpose I have no idea, but it makes sense. It could possibly have been brought to the house by the hired man, Albert, who occassionally stayed in the attic room next to Bridget?

[Audrey]

Why would a hatchet handle from a city house have cow hairs on it? Certainly they wouldn't have butchered a cow at that house. Could it be that the hatchet was taken from the farm and brought to the house to be used as the murder weapon?

Perhaps sensible Andrew brought it to town as it wasn't sharp enough for butchering but good enough for general use around the house.

[diana]

A week after the murders, both F. Eddy and Albert Johnson told police that axes and hatchets from the Borden house had been sharpened on the Swansea farm. (Witness Statements, 36-37)

"The large hatchet was comparatively new. When it was bought,
it was brought over here, and ground sharp." (Eddy)

"Mr. Borden had two axes, a single hatchet, and a shop or bench
hatchet. The bench hatchet has never been used much since it was sharpened. I ground it over here to the farm in the early Spring. The hatchet and axes were always kept in one place, in a box in the wood room at the left of the furnace. Never found them in any other place, and always put them back after using them, as Mr. Borden was particular about
having one place for all tools." (Johnson)

[1bigsteve]

I recently handled an exact duplicate of that handleless hatchet and it felt too light to have been much of a "working" hatchet. It might breakup some small kindling but that looks like about it. It's not as heavy as modern hatchets (of the same handle length). What that Borden hatchet was originaly designed for I don't know. The light weight head could explain why the wounds were so shallow - not enough weight in the head, especially if it was weilded by a woman.

Does anyone know the name of the hatchet's manufacturer?

-1bigsteve (o:

P.S. Good for you, Audrey!! Way to go!!

[1bigsteve]

A week after the murders, both F. Eddy and Albert Johnson told police that axes and hatchets from the Borden house had been sharpened on the Swansea farm. (Witness Statements, 36-37)

"The large hatchet was comparatively new. When it was bought,
it was brought over here, and ground sharp." (Eddy)

"Mr. Borden had two axes, a single hatchet, and a shop or bench
hatchet. The bench hatchet has never been used much since it was sharpened. I ground it over here to the farm in the early Spring. The hatchet and axes were always kept in one place, in a box in the wood room at the left of the furnace. Never found them in any other place, and always put them back after using them, as Mr. Borden was particular about
having one place for all tools." (Johnson)

Diana-

Thank's for the information. Do you know which of those two hatchets was the "shop" hatchet and which of those two was the "large" hatchet? I can't imagine the handleless hatchet being the "large" hatchet because I've never seen one smaller, or not much smaller. Some modern hatchets are slightly smaller but not by much. I would imagine the shop hatchet being larger because of the extra needed heft or weight. I get the impression that the octagon "peg" sticking out the backside of the hatchet was for taping with a hammer to help the hatchet do it's job, much like the taping end of a steel chisel.

Has anyone seen a photograph of the "other" hatchet?

Kat, what was it like holding that handleless hatchet head? What impression did you get as far as size and weight? Did you feel like you were stepping back in time? It must have been a nice experience holding a bit of history.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Erato]

In photographs, the hatchet handle appears to have been sawed off rather than snapped off. Certainly it would be easier to saw through a ~2” hickory handle than to break it, even if it were held in a vise. I do not have a spare hickory tool handle that I can use for the experiment; perhaps someone else can give it a try. The time to saw through a hatchet handle would depend not only on individual strength and endurance but also on the kind of saw used and its sharpness.

As for the hatchet head, my point was this: even if a blood residue were left in the crevices between the handle and the head, this blood might later be undetectable if the hatchet head had been heated. Tests for the presence of blood depend on a chemical reaction with the enzyme peroxidase which is present in blood and in certain other organic materials. Peroxidase is a relatively heat stable enzyme, but it will be denatured [that is, the shape of the molecule will be deformed such that it no longer functions] at temperatures of about 100 degrees centigrade. This is a much lower temperature than the embers of a coal fire. I doubt that the murderer [Lizzie, in my opinion] would have known this, but I suggest that she/he did realize that a damp, clean hatchet head would look suspicious and so the head was thrust into the stove to dry it and give it a covering layer of “dirt.” When the broken hatchet head was found, it was covered with ash.

[Kat]

In the preliminary hearing, the claw-hammer hatchet was considered to be the weapon of interest. The handleless hatchet had not been scrutinized yet as a weapon.

Prof. Dr. Wood, pg. 346 (372)+ said he examined the 2 axes and found nothing. At the trial it was described what was found on the axes (stains etc.) but no blood whatsoever.

He said he had 3 envelopes with hair and the one envelope said it was from this hatchet. The hair was 1" long and red-brown under a microscope. Probably "from a cow, or an animal, and was not a human hair."
This claw hammer hatchet was found on a chopping block in the celler. It also, to Wood's eye, had wood and cotton fiber on the metal blade area.

347(373)
Wood
Prelim
Near the sharp edge of the hatchet on both sides, there was an accumulation of material which looked as though it might be blood, and which under the microscope was seen to be chiefly wood and cotton fiber. There was quite a number of cotton fibres in this patch. There was a little stain that looked as though it might have been from a spatter of blood. It was a long narrow stain on the beveled edge of the hatchet, on the left hand side, about one inch from the upper corner on the blade, on the head of the hatchet, at the sharp edge, and it was evidently made by moisture. It was a spatter of some kind, perhaps a spatter of water, where rust had accumulated there. It was iron rust, and not blood; it looked like blood though. There was another spot on the side of the head of the hatchet very similar to a blood stain. In fact iron rust does resemble blood very much, and it is almost impossible, sometimes, for me to distinguish between the two.
Q. Without a scientific examination?
A. Without testing, yes sir. There were also several stains on the handle, which I examined, with negative result.
Q. What were they; what did they turn out to be?
A. On the handle of the hatchet, and on the handle of the axes, there were some reddish stains, that looked very much like blood, which was either reddish tinted varnish--- There was a pigment on them, which after performing the blood test, appeared to be some mineral pigment that resembled blood.
Q. You only examined one hatchet?
A. That is all.

-------

The experts seemed to think the weapon had about a 3 to 5 lb head (I recall- but can't seem to find it in testimony) and a handle "...not less than 12 to 14 inches" for leverage. (T1094).

In the trial pg. 1000, the handle to the claw hammer hatchet was described as not a tight fit to the head.

-----

The handleless hatchet's handle was broken off very near the head. There were splinters described as coming from that break. We don't see those anymore. That doesn't mean it wasn't sawn off partway and broken the rest, but a reminder that there was not much stub showing, originally. The part we see now belongs up inside the metal head with maybe an inch sticking out.
It was always described in court as *broken.*

Also a caution, if one is checking testimony about ashes or the appearance of the HH's head, make sure it is testimony being weighed, not arguments by the lawyers, closing statements, or the questions themselves. That is not evidence. The answers are evidence. We all know how a lawyer can *lead* a witness.

[diana]

I'm sorry, Steve -- I don't know the answer to your question.

My post was really just to note that the Borden hatchets/axes were apparently sharpened on the farm -- and this could account for animal hair being found on the one taken from the Second Street cellar.

[1bigsteve]

Thank you, Diana. I've often wondered if the staff at the farm had something to do with the killings?

Thank you, Kat for the explaination. I've seen hundreds of handless hammers with a clean break, like you see with the Borden handleless hatchet, with very little splintering. Handles for hatchets, hammers and such are made with the grain going in the same direction as the head. This gives the handle more strength. However when the nail or whatever target is missed by the head and the handle hits instead, the handle often snaps off cleanly with very little splintering as opposed to what you would get if the grain was going at a right angle to the direction of the head. How much splintering a piece of wood produces depends on the direction of the force used to break it. I've broken a few hammer handles myself and they all broke this way. Cleanly. The splintering is usually a strip at the back of the handle and a little at the sides but the remaing handle is often fairly clean as if it was sawed off.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Erato]

The exposed break in the hatchet handle was said to be fresh in appearance so presumably the hatchet had been broken fairly recently. If the handle was broken in the manner described by 1bigsteve, nobody ever came forward to say, “Oh yeah, that hatchet. I broke it myself when I was chopping wood and I missed the log and the handle slammed into the chopping block.” It’s hard to imagine Andrew or Abby chopping wood when they had farm laborers or Bridget to do the job. And those farm employees seem to have had pretty specific knowledge of the axes and hatchets in the Borden household and their condition.

[1bigsteve]

A break can look "fresh" for several years if it is kept in out of the weather. It could have been broken by Lizzie, Bridget or anyone else. The handle wouldn't hit the chopping block but rather the top end of the kindling that the blade was suppossed to hit. The layer of dust on the head doesn't sit right with me for some reason. It's possible that it was the weapon and the handle broke during the killing, especially if it was already cracked. Lizzie could have washed it off in the sink then dried it in the stove and covered it with the ash before planting it in the basement.

Or it could have been an entirely different weapon.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

The HH was not one of the 4 instruments which were gathered up from the cellar and put aside on Thursday for collection Friday.
Those were 2 axes, and 2 hatchets, one being the claw-hammer hatchet.
The HH is the 5th instrument, I believe retrieved on Monday, and then later during the trial, another popped up on Crowe's roof to the rear of the Borden property, which was thought to possibly be the weapon. That makes 6 instruments by 1893, but we only have a photo of the HH.

[Kat]

In the preliminary hearing, the claw-hammer hatchet was considered to be the weapon of interest. The handleless hatchet had not been scrutinized yet as a weapon.

Prof. Dr. Wood, pg. 346 (372)+ said he examined the 2 axes and found nothing. At the trial it was described what was found on the axes (stains etc.) but no blood whatsoever.

He said he had 3 envelopes with hair and the one envelope said it was from this hatchet. The hair was 1" long and red-brown under a microscope. Probably "from a cow, or an animal, and was not a human hair."
This claw hammer hatchet was found on a chopping block in the celler. It also, to Wood's eye, had wood and cotton fiber on the metal blade area.

347(373)
Wood
Prelim
Near the sharp edge of the hatchet on both sides, there was an accumulation of material which looked as though it might be blood, and which under the microscope was seen to be chiefly wood and cotton fiber. There was quite a number of cotton fibres in this patch. There was a little stain that looked as though it might have been from a spatter of blood. It was a long narrow stain on the beveled edge of the hatchet, on the left hand side, about one inch from the upper corner on the blade, on the head of the hatchet, at the sharp edge, and it was evidently made by moisture. It was a spatter of some kind, perhaps a spatter of water, where rust had accumulated there. It was iron rust, and not blood; it looked like blood though. There was another spot on the side of the head of the hatchet very similar to a blood stain. In fact iron rust does resemble blood very much, and it is almost impossible, sometimes, for me to distinguish between the two.
Q. Without a scientific examination?
A. Without testing, yes sir. There were also several stains on the handle, which I examined, with negative result.
Q. What were they; what did they turn out to be?
A. On the handle of the hatchet, and on the handle of the axes, there were some reddish stains, that looked very much like blood, which was either reddish tinted varnish--- There was a pigment on them, which after performing the blood test, appeared to be some mineral pigment that resembled blood.
Q. You only examined one hatchet?
A. That is all.

-------

The experts seemed to think the weapon had about a 3 to 5 lb head (I recall- but can't seem to find it in testimony) and a handle "...not less than 12 to 14 inches" for leverage. (T1094).

In the trial pg. 1000, the handle to the claw hammer hatchet was described as not a tight fit to the head.

-----

The handleless hatchet's handle was broken off very near the head. There were splinters described as coming from that break. We don't see those anymore. That doesn't mean it wasn't sawn off partway and broken the rest, but a reminder that there was not much stub showing, originally. The part we see now belongs up inside the metal head with maybe an inch sticking out.
It was always described in court as *broken.*

Also a caution, if one is checking testimony about ashes or the appearance of the HH's head, make sure it is testimony being weighed, not arguments by the lawyers, closing statements, or the questions themselves. That is not evidence. The answers are evidence. We all know how a lawyer can *lead* a witness.

Here is the description of the hatchet which was thought to have done the deed- in the Prelim- by Dr. Dolan. He's talking about the claw-hammer hatchet:
(August 26th, 1892.)

Q. Did you measure at any time, Doctor, the length of the handle of the hatchet that you have described?
A. No sir.
Q. Have you an opinion about its length?
A. I could not say, I should think it would be about probably eighteen inches or two feet, eighteen inches probably.
Q. Do you mean from the hatchet to the end of the handle?
A. No sir, from the blade to the end of the handle, the inner edge of the blade.
Q. Did you at any time measure the length of the edge, that is the breadth of the blade of the hatchet?
A. No sir, I did not.
Q. Did you weigh it?
A. No sir.
Q. Have you any opinion about its weight?
A. No, I should think it weighed from three to five pounds.
Q. And the handle was about eighteen inches to two feet long?
A. Yes sir.

--For a long time I really thought this was the weapon.

[1bigsteve]

It looks like he was discribing a small axe or a very large hatchet. A 3-5lb. head is too large for a standard "one hand" hatchet. They do make axes this size and they do come in handy for projects that are too big for a normal hatchet and too small for a full size axe. That is what he seems to be discribing to me.

I can't see that being the weapon. With a head that size and that long handle the momentum would have been too much for the shallow wounds we see. The wounds with that axe would have been much deeper not to mention the extra exertion needed on Lizzie's part to weild it. She would have been sweating like a race horse.

Does anyone know what the final say was on the crowe hatchet? What kind/size it was? Where it came from and who owned it?

Thank you for the info Kat.

-1bigsteve (o:

[theebmonique]

Couldn't that size HAVE been used, but the wounds were shallow because the arc of the swing was small...due to lack of leverage...like if the attacker were lying on the bed, either across or lengthwise ?


Tracy...

[FairhavenGuy]

Perhaps sensible Andrew brought it to town as it wasn't sharp enough for butchering but good enough for general use around the house.

There's no such thing as a hatchet or an axe "not sharp enough." They can be sharpened to just about razor sharpness forever, same as a kitchen knife. I don't think you say, "This steak knife is dull, let's use it for butter from now on. . ."

[1bigsteve]

Couldn't that size HAVE been used, but the wounds were shallow because the arc of the swing was small...due to lack of leverage...like if the attacker were lying on the bed, either across or lengthwise ?


Tracy...

Good question.

If Lizzie had been weilding that small axe she may have had to choke up on it (hold the handle half-way to the head) instead of at the end of the handle because of her lack of strength. This would have created a smaller travel arc and much less momentum resulting in shallower wounds. The weight of that head may have been too heavy for Lizzie to raise up high enough to get any speed and that could have been why there were so many wounds and why they were so shallow. It is very likely that Lizzie would hold the axe handle half-way to the head with her right hand and hold the end of the handle with her left hand. Her left hand would help control the axe while her right arm provided the up and down power.

When a man swings an axe he lets his right hand slide down the handle as the axe makes it's downward arc. This allows the axe a wider arc and provides more downward power. Most women don't slide their right hand down the handle because they lose control of the axe due to their natural lack of strength and experience. Because of that they are actually "pushing" the axe head downward with their right hand (provided they are right handed, reverse everything for lefties). This produces much less power and shallower wounds. Even if Lizzie had used a smaller one-handed hatchet she probably could not produce the power to create deep wounds due both to her lack of physical strength and the tighter arc due to the shorter handle. However, if Lizzie had more experience with using an axe and felt comfortable with it she could have done more damage with each swing even if her strength level had stayed the same.

I taught my Mom and Sisters how to use hatchets and axes many years ago and once they got the hang of it they were able to do a lot more damage to their firewood and they looked like professionals in the process. I doubt Lizzie had much experience with hatchets. These shallow wounds are what lead's me to believe it was a woman who did the killings. A man would have done much more damage with fewer swings.

I have often wondered if Lizzie was laying across the bed swinging down on Abby because of the four horizontal wounds on the back of Abby's head but I highly doubt it. In that position it would be very difficult to inflict that big hole in the right side of Abby's head. The bed was too close. The natural position for a killer would be to stand over Abby with a foot on each side of Abby's body. If Lizzie had been laying on the left side of the bed in a sleeping position she would have had to use her left hand to hit Abby. I strongly feel that Abby's body was moved after the killing. When I first saw that photo (her feet toward the camera) I thought it was a model stand-in I was looking at. Abby's position looked too perfect as if she were in a position to do some push-ups.

It may have been that Abby was on her knees facing the side of the bed when the four horizontal wounds were inflicted, then to escape her attacker she spun around into her final position as the remaining blows were placed on the right side of her head, creating that hole. I doubt Abby would have been able to move around after that hole was created so I think that large hole was created from the final blows. Of course this is just one possible explaination. Abby may have been on her knees facing the dresser, or even the Singer when the attack started.

There are all kinds of interesting possiblities in this case.

-1bigsteve (o:

[FairhavenGuy]

You know what 1bigsteve, I think this crowd needs to see some side by side comparisons of various axes and hatchets with something to give them a sense of scale and some notations of the weights of each.

I have a tomahawk that I use for historical re-enacting. It's got a forged head with a blade about four inches wide and an 18 inch handle. Unfortunately, tonight it's not at home with me, so I can't weigh it. The catalog I bought it from doesn't list a shipping weight, either. I just checked. (We've got an eleven year old girl in our militia group who can hit a wooden target at about 12 to 15 feet with it.)

I think, though, there's a lot of confusion about the sizes and shapes of hatchets. I propose we gather up a few potential weapons and post photos with their sizes and weights noted. What do you think?

[1bigsteve]

I think that is a great idea, Fairhaven. I'll see what I can find on the net. Maybe a photo of all axes together. I'll do some searching. Thank's for the idea.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

I had made a special trip to Ace Hardware to take photos of axes and hatchets, and posted those, like 2 years ago. I think I lost those when my computer lost itself.

bigsteve: you keep referring to *shallow* wounds on Abby's head. Is there expert testimony that calls them *shallow*, or is it just a word you are using as your judgement from the pictures? I really think this should be made clear to your readers- do you have a source for that description you can share? Thanks!
It sounds like you have a lot of experience with these weapons!

[1bigsteve]

I can tell the wounds are shallow because many of the wounds did not even penetrate the skull. I can see that in the photos of her head. A hatchet blade is wedge shaped and makes a wound wider the deeper it penetrates. The medical discription of the wounds (sizes) show that the wounds are shallow. With that many wounds the skulls would have suffered much more damage if a man had done the killing. A human skull is not very thick. If I had been the killer and used that many blows the skulls would have been broken into small pieces. But then again I wouldn't have had to use more than one blow. Personally, if I was the killer I would have choked them to death. No blood, no weapon and nothing to tie me with the crime except my hand prints around their throats.

It's possible that the killer deliberately kept the blows light to keep blood splatter to a minimum. But then again all he needed was one good swing anyway. Why not just give each victim one good wack? He wouldn't even have to raise a bloody hatchet over his head (no blood dripping on his clothes and face). Pry the hatchet head out of the wound, wipe off the blood and go onto the next victim. Less blood splatter and less time at the crime scene. I can't see an outside killer lurking with in the Borden house between killings waiting for the next victim. Perhaps a hired killer, maybe.

No matter how I look at this case I keep coming back to the idea that a woman was most likely the killer. Someone who's presence would not attract any attention. Lizzie? Bridget? Emma? I can't buy into Andrew's son being the killer. If he was and was so good with a hatchet, as Arnold claimed, he would have done a better job with fewer, deeper blows. It just stands to reason based on my experience with using cutting tools.

I have been using hatchets, axes and all sorts of tools since I was a kid. I've been in the wood working industry since '68. The only thing I don't like about it is the saw dust. But at least I still have all ten fingers. I play it safe now by trading stocks on my computer.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Erato]

Several books about axes are mentioned at http://www.mjdtools.com/
This is a website devoted to antique tools. Needless to say, these books are not available to me at the corner bookshop in Quito. Maybe somebody else could locate them at a library.

[theebmonique]

Wow...I never knew there were so many kinds of hacking implements ! Thanks for the link Erato. (Off-topic...why Ecuador ?)


Tracy...

[Kat]

Has anyone a link within the site?
I'm having trouble loading the page and finding anything.
Thanks

[Allen]

Why would a hatchet handle from a city house have cow hairs on it? Certainly they wouldn't have butchered a cow at that house. Could it be that the hatchet was taken from the farm and brought to the house to be used as the murder weapon?

From the Witness Statements notes of George F. Seaver taken on August 11, 1892, statement made by Frederick Eddy page 36-37:

I have seen axes and hatchets at Mr. Borden's. The large hatchet was comparatively new. When it was bought, it was bought over here, and ground sharp. After being ground, Mr. Borden was here, and it was carried out and put on the wall by the gate for him to carry home. When he went away he said, I won't take the hatchet. You'll be coming over in a day or two, and you bring it over; which I did. I did not use axes or hatchets at Mr. Borden's, as a Sweden, Andrew Johnson, went to Mr. Borden's when he was not busy here, and did all the work, cutting the wood, cleaning up the yard, etc.