Handleless Hatchet Revisited

[Lorcan]

I took some screenshots of the old Destination America episode with Tom Lange, of OJ Simpson trial fame. I'm uploading a couple of frames which you can rock back and forth between (or make your own animated gif) and a static side by side. The bottom line is the hole in Abby's scarf appears to match the handleless hatchet blade size exactly. They stretched the cloth properly in the episode, so I don't think they were putting on a false show.

But what about the gilt paint and the new hatchet theory? I heard it speculated, but don't know how likely it is, that it could have come from elsewhere, such as a decorative hairpin or a tool used at some point during the autopsy, or may have just been a mistake. Does anyone know the exact source of the gilt story and how well it was verified that there was gilt paint inside the wound that was unaccounted for by whatever pins she used in her hair? I don't have the text of the autopsy.

I believe at the trial there was a wound in Andrew's skull that only the handleless hatchet fit properly and a new hatchet of the same blade size did not fit. The handleless hatchet looks dull and rusty in most photos, but you can see it does look quite sharp in the included photos. I have never seen it in person, but I plan to visit the Fall River Historical Society for the first time sometime this year when it reopens. People who have seen it in person can better comment on the sharpness of the blade.

[camgarsky4]

The report of gilt metal being found on Abby's skull was delivered by F. W. Draper, M.D. in a letter to Knowlton dated May 31, 1893. The letter in full can be found on pages 211 & 212 in 'The Knowlton Papers'.

Extract......
"The other discovery is still more important; on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull, near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of the gilt metal with which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory; this deposit (Dr. Cheever confirmed the observation fully) means that the hatchet used in killing Mrs. Borden was a new hatchet, not long out of the store. Perhaps this is not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan;' it was new to me and seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

[Lorcan]

Excellent evidence trail and confirmation. So, that hatchet on the roof might be Abby's murder weapon.

[camgarsky4]

If you are referencing the hatchet found on the roof of 'Crowe's' barn, yes it could be the murder weapon. There are fervent believers that it was the weapon and there are equally enthusiastic folks who push back on that theory. The forum has a couple of very healthy debates on that topic. One I was part of got a bit testy.

Based on the date of the letter, Draper and Cheever's examination of Abby's skull appears to have been sometime in the Spring 1893. It is pretty amazing that gilt or anything else remained attached to the skulls after the heads were boiled and the skin removed the prior fall.

[Lorcan]

Wait, you caught me off guard. I thought the gilt was found fresh in an open wound. If it was after some guy boiled the skulls in lobster pots in his house (that's actually what I heard on some interview podcast), that leaves me a lot less confident that the piece of metal was definitely gilt paint from that particular murder weapon.

From what I understand, and I got this from a book, so I'm not 100% sure on this - during the trial, there was one particularly narrow, well-defined wound in Andrew's skull and when a brand new hatchet with the same blade span as the handleless hatchet was tried, it did not fit because the tip of the blade got wide too quickly, but the handleless hatchet had been sharpened so many times (or just started with a slightly different edge geometry) that it fit perfectly.

Now, based on the photos I originally posted and seeing the low res documentary - trusting Tom Lange and the host sitting right next to him observing him do the test - that handleless hatchet really did fit Abby's scarf down to as close as could be seen, millimeter perfect.

I await more evidence and have to hold off on making a judgement call. The thing that still bothers me about Crowe's barn is it would be extremely risky. I am almost 100% certain that Lizzie knew of some hidey holes in that house - a loose board, a loose brick, a gap somewhere, some dark place, wedged or hooked out of sight or simply in the bottom of that bloody pail of rags or under her skirt - there were plenty of easier places to hide a hatchet.

[TeenaBee]

I have long been curious about the gilt found in Abby's skull at such a belated date and also cannot imagine how it could have been left there after the flesh being rendered. I thought I read here on this forum a long while ago that the skulls were given over to the defense team for their examination, and they tried to fit a "new" hatchet into the cuts in the skulls and presumably that is how the piece of gilt got there. I do recall Arthur Phillips' book mentioning some such experiment they did, to prepare for making a demonstration for the jury. But I also think the experiement in court went badly for the defense because the new hatchet wouldn't fit? So now I am not sure. If anyone has any definitive source or thought on that, would love to know -

[camgarsky4]

Hi Teenabee! So glad you are still keeping an eye on the forum.

Dr. Draper is the source for both the alleged finding of gilt and that the defense medical experts examining the skulls. Both letters were sent just prior to the start of the trial. Nothing like procrastination by both the defense and prosecution.

Draper wrote a letter (Knowlton Papers pg. 206) to Knowlton on May 28, which included the following insights...."Two of the medical experts for the defense, by the way, have made their appearance..." and "Both these gentlemen studied the skulls and bony fragments at my office, while I sat in a room near by within easy call, but not where I could hear conversation when their door was shut."

He followed up with another letter (Knowlton Papers pg. 212) to Knowlton dated May 31. This is the letter where he mentions that he discovered the gilt material in/on Abby's skull.

The flow of the two letters would lead me to interpret that Draper discovered the gilt after the defense medical experts visit, but the timing is not specifically noted.

[TeenaBee]

Thank you Camgarsky -- that is helpful, knowing the dates. I had somehow misseed the first letter. I wonder if Draper's office is where the defense performed the "private test" Arthur Phillips talked about in his writing on the case (found in the primary sources on this site). Have you heard of the defense being allowed to take adtual possession of the skulls for a time? Here is the relevant paragraph:

Describing the skull: “Many cuts appeared within its bony structure and at one place the hatchet cut was plainly nitched on both sides of the inner part of the skull. Mr. Adams was about to claim to the jury that the cutting must have been done by a weapon of very unusual make and was so confident of his position that he went to a nearby hardware store and purchased a hatchet which seemed to be of the correct size and planned to exhibit it to the jury and compare it with the notches as an illustration to his claim. .. He was urged by Governor Robinson to make a private test first and reluctantly did so, only to find that the fit was perfect, so that it became clear to us that an ordinary new style of hatchet was used by the murderer.”
Interesting if the hatchet Adams bought was a "perfect fit" in their private experiment, but failed to fit perfectly in the courtroom?

Anyway it does seem one has to read between the lines of Draper's letters and Phillips' recollections to figure out that might be where the gilt came from.

[camgarsky4]

The defense examination described by Draper was conducted at Draper's office. He only mentions the two medical experts attending the defense examination. It is possible that he didn't think to mention an accompanying lawyer. That said, seems like he'd have noticed if they carried a hatchet into the room where they studied the skulls. That is the only time I'm aware the defense examined the skulls pre-trial.

While I'm stereotyping, many of us would have the opinion that attorneys think highly of themselves and don't embrace being told how to handle situations. Perhaps Adams was so reluctant to do the test that, in fact, he didn't do the test, but told Robinson he did. That would help explain why at the trial, the demonstration failed.

[Lorcan]

Here is what I think might be interesting, but not definitive. This thread makes clear there are some serious evidence handling and contamination issues around the finding of gilt paint in one of Abby's wounds. I am now thinking it is far more likely to be later contamination than put there during her murder for the following reasons: the skulls were boiled in lobster pots and the skulls were handled by people who may have been testing new hatchets. I don't think the paint would survive the boiling.

This testimony is also very interesting, but not definitive, about the handleless hatchet being the murder weapon for at least Andrew.

From Dr. Draper's testimony when the defense tried to use a new hatchet of the same blade size (3 1/2 inches) as the handleless hatchet was originally made - however it had been ground and sharpened over the years, so the particular edge geometry changed from all the grinding.

Melvin Adams: The handleless hatchet is not an uncommon instrument, is it?
Dr. Draper: No, sir.
Q. It has a very general circulation?
A. I think so.
Q. Like some other things. (Producing a new hatchet). Is there anything about that which is out of the ordinary?
A. Nothing that I perceive at present, sir.
Q. Won't you see if you can cut that into the injury or the scar in the skull?
A. (After trying experiment). It does not fit the wound.
Q. Why not?
A. Because it is too blunt at this lower corner and does not go into this passage right here.
Q. That is on account of the grinding?
A. It is on account of the thickness and the grinding.
Q. That is to say, it is not ground enough, in your opinion?
A. It is not.

I used to think Lizzie would have known about a loose board or loose brick somewhere in the house, however now I'm leaning toward maybe she thought the best place to hide a needle is not in a haystack but in a bucket of needles. If the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, perhaps it was soaked and washed, perhaps put into the flames while wet to really make sure no blood could possibly be found, washed and scrubbed a second time and rubbed with cold ash from the ash piles in the basement and then tossed in with the rest of the hatchets - an old broken needle in a pile of needles.

[camgarsky4]

When and how did she break off the handle?

There wasn't a lot of time between when Bridget went upstairs and Lizzie called her down again. How much of that time was spent with the hatchet cleaning process you describe?

[Lorcan]

That was one of the physical experiments Rebecca Pittman did for her book. Her theory is the when Lizzie made up something for an alibi, there was usually an element of truth, so when Lizzie asked what she picked up in the garage, she said a chip, and that's how Rebecca broke her hatchet with the same type of break. It's page 823 of her paperback. It would have taken mere seconds to break it.

I don't want to discourage a sale of her book, especially since the amount of work she put in is so great and the market for Lizzie books is not exactly in Harry Potter or Stephen King levels, so I will not give all the details, but her method produced the same type of break as the handleless hatchet. Even though it is titled The History and Haunting of Lizzie Borden it's 98% history. She also did a huge amount of legwork tracking down dresses, dress material, and dress patterns.

I think at least 2 or 3 minutes on the hatchet cleaning to scrub, hold in it the flames, then scrub again, go to the ash bucket, then drop it in the hatchet bucket. The handle could easily be in her stocking under her skirt or wrapped in the dress she burned.

[Lorcan]

One other thing I've been thinking about and I'm a bit hesitant to bring it up, because I think Bridget was entirely innocent - she was truly in a very precarious position:

If Lizzie decided to just leave the house after Andrew was murdered and Bridget fell asleep, she would wake up to being the prime suspect in a double murder. I'm pretty sure after puking her guts out in the back yard and then having to do all the windows inside and out, when she gossiped with Mrs. Kelly's maid, there might have been a bit of colorful Irish language exchanged.

The problem for Bridget is she cleaned the inside windows as well, so she didn't have a 100% solid alibi for Abby unless Lizzie cleared her. She also doesn't have a 100% alibi for Andrew without Lizzie. So, if it came down to a she said / she said between Lizzie and Bridget, I would not have wanted to be Bridget in that city at that time with Lizzie and Emma having Jennings, the Pinkertons, and the former governor, and Melvin Adams all supporting Lizzie and Bridget getting who? Which dream team would be defending Bridget?

So, even if the window of time Bridget testified to was narrowed to help Lizzie and signal to her that she was not going to be a threat - I wouldn't blame Bridget. That noose was waiting for her, too, and Lizzie was the only one who could definitely save her from it. The way Bridget was crying while the police brought her in for questioning leads me to believe she absolutely knew the danger she was in.

[camgarsky4]

Robert Flynn, renowned Bordenite, published a pamphlet in the 1990's which argues the 'handle less' hatchet was not the murder weapon and opines that the Crowe barn roof hatchet was. I've never read it, so I have no idea how compelling his perspective is, but might shortcut or spark some of this current discussion.

His thoughts and the pamphlet are discussed randomly thru the years on the forum. I've asked the Fall River library if they have a copy, but haven't heard back yet.

Screenshot 2026-04-10 073129.png

[Lorcan]

Thanks for the effort trying to get the pamphlet and for resurfacing the Pittman book thread. I have been starting new threads without first searching the existing ones - I'll try to do that in the future so a lot more of the context and other people's research can be resurfaced.

I had planned to try to find definitive information on what the gilt was made of and if it could be proven one way or the other if it would survive boiling water - if it were a lacquer-based paint, or actual gold leaf metal, or something else. In the process of doing that I wanted to find the exact testimony about the gilt found in Abby's wound in any of the official transcripts (inquest, preliminary hearing, trial) and no luck.

I've heard it discussed in some of the audiobooks and podcasts I've listened to, discussed confidently, so I thought it was well documented, but I was wrong. The one reference I came across said it was from a book by Taylor that said a letter was sent from the Harvard lab, but that letter is not part of the official record nor has it been found to confirm - as far as I can tell so far.

I'm glad this community is so supportive of the enthusiasm for playing detective for those new to the case. It's so easy to accept a plausible claim as fact without knowing the source in this case. I'm trying to stick to scientific evidence and actual testimony. I'm starting to think I may have no provable basis at all that there was ever gilt inside the wound in Abby's skull.

[camgarsky4]

The only official gilt references are in the Draper letters to Knowlton (Knowlton Papers). I've provided the quotes or the gest in an earlier email. That is all there is.

That said, the letters clearly state that Draper saw what he took to be gilt metal residue on Abby's skull. The letters were written and sent as part of Draper's official capacity as a consultant for the Commonwealth. That said, the doubts related to the defense team handling the skulls prior to the gilt sighting and the boiling enigma are legit cons to the gilt being an indicator of what the murder weapon might have been.

For whatever reason, Knowlton did not surface the topic at the trial. Perhaps they didn't mention because it could be used by the defense as a counter to the handless as much or more than itt might have supported it.

[TeenaBee]

For me there is a logical problem in the prosecution's theory of the handleless hatchet. They so adamantly claimed that Lizzie had managed to hide her Bedford cord so well that officers were never able to find it in their searches before she burned it. A bundled up dress would be much larger than the head of that hatchet. So if she had this ace of a hiding spot, why not stick the hatchet head, no bigger than the palm of one's hand, in with the dress? Wouldn't that be a lot less time-consuming and a lot easier than all kinds of weird maneuvers in trying to "disguise" the hatchet head to make it look like everything else in whatever salt box they found it? Those officers saw nothing suspicious about that hatchet head when they first found it. Fleet put it back. They it to the station four days later then ignored it. I understand it was only weeks later that they started paying attention to it, in my mind out of desperation to link her to the crime they'd already arrested her for (I do believe her defense team was correct in that they thought the claw hammer hatchet would come back positive for blood). I think they talked themselves into truly believing that old rusty hatchet head could be the weapon because they truly believed she was guilty and simply couldn't find any other reasonable possibility.

[camgarsky4]

Good points. Couple of follow up thoughts.

Hatchet handle
Did Lizzie plan ahead of the murders to break the handle off the hatchet? If yes, why?

If Lizzie committed Andrew's murder, we all suspect that in the moments after striking 10 blows upon her father's face, she scurried to the sink to wash off her hands, face and hatchet. If breaking the hatchet handle was not pre-planned, that means Lizzie noticed blood remained on the handle after the washing and 'on the spot' came up with a technique to break a thick piece of wood (I'm still not clear on Pittman's theory), dream up the ash camouflage idea, run downstairs to finish hiding the weapon and then go back up the cellar stairs and call down Bridget. That is a lot of excellent problem solving while under a level of stress and tension that most of us can't fathom.
Bridget did not mention Lizzie showing any sign of physical or mental exertion.

Stained Dress
A comment on the Bedford cord dress. Leaning into the logic approach....I find it suspect that the 'stained' dress was available Sunday morning to burn, but when the police were specifically looking for a blood stained dress on Saturday, they did not notice a dress with dark paint stains on it.

We can't be 100% sure the police didn't overlook a 'stained' dress in the clothes closet or bedrooms, but that level of incompetence (F grade) would be an even lower standard than the 'C grade' level performance the Fall River Police force demonstrated throughout the case. If the stained dress was just hanging on a hook (per Emma), unconcealed in the clothes closet, it stretches my imagination to think it wouldn't have spotted and examined on Saturday.

So paint or blood, I think Lizzie placed the Bedford cord dress somewhere secretive enough to not be found during a search. Hiding anything in the aftermath of a murder creates suspicion and doubt.