Boiled Skulls & Gilt

[camgarsky4]

I asked Google. Gemini if a boiled skull might retain traces of gilt. The answer caught me by surprise. Turns out the boiling is what makes it possible, not what would have removed the gilt!!

Answer: Yes — boiling a skull can leave traces of gilt embedded in the bone.
The key mechanism is that boiling opens the pores of bone, making it more likely to trap any metallic particles or residues present on the surface.

Bone is porous, especially cranial bone. When you boil a skull: Heat expands the pores in the bone.
Organic material softens and lifts away. Any loose particulate matter (including gilt flakes, metallic dust, or pigment) on the surface can be driven into those pores by heat, moisture, and mechanical handling.

Would gilt specifically embed?
If the skull had gilt on it before boiling — for example: Gilt transferred from an object in contact with the skull Then boiling could: Loosen the gilt. Break it into microscopic particles. Allow those particles to penetrate softened bone pores. Leave faint metallic specks or discoloration visible afterward.
Gold itself does not chemically bond with bone, but mechanical embedding is entirely possible.

Could later cleaning remove it?
Not easily. Once particulate matter is embedded in bone pores: Water alone will not remove it.
Degreasing agents may not lift metallic particles. Whitening (hydrogen peroxide) will not dissolve metals. Mechanical abrasion is the only reliable removal method — and risks damaging the bone.

Contextual note (Lizzie Borden relevance)
Since your recent questions relate to the Borden case, here’s the forensic implication:
If a hatchet or skull had gilt contamination, boiling could make that contamination persist, even if the original gilt source was removed. This is relevant because investigators in 1892 were working with boiled skulls during autopsy demonstrations, and bone behavior under boiling was poorly understood at the time.

[Lorcan]

That is super interesting, excellent find and potentially a odds changer on what really happened.

I didn't expect that, but it moves the Crowe barn hatchet right back into the picture and brings up one of my favorite pieces of speculation - the Marion letter that was burned.

Let's play with this low odds, but would be great in a movie situation. Here's what I think we can be confident about:

Prior to Summer 1892, Lizzie had been at Dr. Handy's Marion seaside cottage with a group of women and it was cold and damp enough for them to want a fire, but the hatchet was too dull for the women to successfully chop fire wood.

That's it - that's all I have for a story that I think is true. Here comes the speculation.

PURE SPECULATION, but interesting.

What if Lizzie's letter made a joke about the hatchet being dull in the letter and mailed it prior to even considering a hatchet as a murder weapon or if innocent, never planned a murder? Lizzie and her Marion crew had reason to joke and complain about a dull hatchet.

Even more speculative, what if Lizzie made a joke about bringing or needing or possessing a sharp hatchet - again, could be completely innocent and the joke still makes sense to have happened in that burned letter.

Now imagine this - as preparation for the Marion trip, at some point after that cold, damp visit she bought or stole a brand new hatchet. Perhaps it was several months before the murders and had been meant not only as a joke, but as a useful addition to the cottage and she would give it to Dr. Handy to keep around the cottage as a thank you for inviting them to stay.

Max speculation - imagine Lizzie had that sharp new hatchet no one knew about that she kept hidden in her room as a joke. Something happens and Lizzie snaps and uses that hatchet in a rage and she forgot she made the hatchet joke in the letter until it was too late. If Lizzie then calmed down and disposed of the hatchet on the Crowe barn roof with Abby as the only intended victim, then perhaps she planned to get Bridget and herself out of the house before Andrew and Uncle John got home, presumably enticing Bridget out with the clothing sale and then following her shortly thereafter after a quick staging of a break-in, but when Andrew returned that laugh on the stairs was her involuntary reaction when she realized she was pinned and she would be in a do or die situation having to kill Andrew whom she knew she could not successfully lie to face to face about Abby's murder.

[Lorcan]

WAIT A MINUTE - I just thought of something...what if Lizzie threw the hatchet on Crowe's barn roof not as a way to literally hide the murder weapon, but as a literal red herring to lead the police to believe an outside murderer climbed the wood pile and escaped through the orchard. That would explain her staying in the house. If she's in the house and the murder weapon indicates a fleeing suspect tossed the weapon as part of climbing the wood pile and traversing the fence, that sounds pretty straightforward.

If it was the murder weapon for Abby and it was on that rooftop, then the search then moves to an even higher level of incompetence than we already think it was.

Odds are pretty high the Crowe barn hatchet might have been put up there by kids playing a joke, but we have to consider that hatchet had gilt on it, so it was new - kids in that neighborhood in 1892 obtaining a new hatchet and having the patience to wait for it to age up there and be found weeks or months later and then never admitting to the prank for the rest of their lives - that seems like it might be even lower odds than it really being one of the two murder weapons and the police not finding it. Hmm, I will have to stew over this for a while. I don't really know how to put the odds on the different scenarios.

I really do think that Andrew had that asymmetrical wound that perfectly matched the handleless hatchet or another hatchet ground using the same technique that would leave the lower part of the blade shorter and thinning that the top. I basically put it 70% handleless hatchet killed Andrew, 25% another hatchet owned by Andrew and ground by the Swedish farm hand in the same pattern, 4.99% some other Borden hatchet ground and sharpened by the Swede. 0.01% it was a non-Borden hatchet, not ground by the Swede, that happened to have the exact blade asymmetry as the handleless hatchet.

What are you thinking about all of this, gilt and all, Camgarsky, Inspector, and TeenaBee if you are around.

[camgarsky4]

Lorcan -- not sure if you were being tongue in check for part of that writeup. It WAS reported that the Marion letter Lizzie jokes about the dull hatchet and bringing a sharp one that she now possessed. That is what has made the letter so 'infamous'. It's also why I think it's odd that Jennings told Johnston to not cooperate with the police, when if the letter contained nothing and Elizabeth said that, then the negative rumors would end. Even back then, lawyers preferred the potential jury pool not to be too influenced before the trial. Again, I think it is because of Johnston and Jennings handling of the situation that the letter gained traction.

I think it is the more likely the murder weapon if my only choices are between it and the handless hatchet.
I'm not clear on why, if for nefarious reasons, the handle of the handless hatchet removed. Blood residue would have been focused on the head and the handle area immediately below the head...the part of the wood that remained with the hatchet head. The remainder of the handle would likely have had very little blood, yet for some reason Lizzie went to all time and effort to break it off. I don't buy into Pittman's explanation that Lizzie, the very attentive daughter of a carpenter, picked up that breaking trick watching Andrew. Andrew exited his business in 1878 (Lizzie 16) and likely had ceased actual hands-on carpentry work many years before as his role evolved into management reflecting the growth of Almy & Borden. For me this is a case of forcing general information into a clue. Just like folks who bring up Morse doing something related to butchery 40 years previously as making him a suspect since a hatchet was used.

If I put a % on my opinion of the likelihood of what was the murder weapon. 65% Crowe, 20% Handleless, 10% both (if there was an accomplice), 5% other.

[Lorcan]

To clarify what I was trying to get across, I thought the story of the Marion crew (Lizzie and friends) did have a visit where it was cold and damp by the ocean and they did try to chop firewood and the only hatchet they could find at Dr. Handy's cottage was too dull for them to successfully chop wood for a fire. I thought that part was solid.

Where I thought it was speculation is the contents of the letter. Something in there was bad looking enough for Lizzie to make the friend want to destroy the letter, presumably they initially believed Lizzie was innocent and the joke could be taken out of context and potentially get Lizzie hung. If that rumor of a hatchet joke wasn't outright denied then I think that was the most likely situation, that the rumor was true. Now that I think about it, I think Knowlton or one of the lawyers made a comment that if the rumored quote was true, it meant "madness" in the sense that Lizzie was mentally ill. I think the lawyer said that thinking the time of the joke would have been after a hatchet murder was planned, but I think the window of dull and sharp hatchet jokes would have opened the night they spent in the damp and chilly cottage all the way forward in time.

The real speculation for me is did Lizzie have a new hatchet not as a planned murder weapon, but as a practical and funny gift for all of Dr. Handy's guests, including Lizzie's crew, to use going forward. I actually think the odds of that are pretty high if the Crowe roof hatchet was new and was Abby's murder weapon.

I also think the Crowe roof is not a great hiding spot. I think there were at least two if not half a dozen hiding spots Lizzie would have found growing up in that house and on that property. My top 3 are:

1. Inside one of the hollow dress torso stands with an unfinished or obviously not a suspicious dress mounted on the dress stand.
2. Wrapped in cloth under her dress skirt. No way she gets patted down.
3. Some loose board (floorboards, molding, etc.) in the house or barn.

I don't follow why other people don't give extremely high odds for Andrew being killed with the handleless hatchet or another 3.5 inch hatchet of a similar age ground down in that pattern by the Swede. That demo where a new 3.5 inch hatchet of a similar design did not fit the bottom edge because of both length and thickness of the bottom edge of the blade is very compelling to me. New hatchets are not asymmetrical in that way.

I am perfectly happy with thinking that Abby was killed with a brand new hatchet and Lizzie put it beyond her own reach because Abby was the only target until Andrew got home and unknowingly put her in a kill or be killed situation. I don't have proof that she didn't plan to kill Andrew, but if she could have gotten out of the house with a staged break-in, I think Lizzie would have been done. Andrew had half the blows of Abby and it really looks like she swung very hard on the first strike and it wasn't the same level of uncontrolled rage with so many misses on another stationary target. I think with Abby is was wild, uncontrolled swinging and with Andrew it was more clinical - just get it done as effectively and quickly as possible.

Do you think I put too much weight on the odds of the asymmetric blade fit for Andrew?

[camgarsky4]

I'll go back and reread the related testimony, but the gilt is a powerful piece of evidence against the handleless hatchet. It was clearly a used hatchet, and I can't imagine it had any of the original decorative gilt still on it at the time of the murders.

I received and read Flynn's pamphlet about the hatchets. He held out the gilt issue was a key determinant and that is what got me to relook at the gilt probability and get the AI info. He also did some type of study, which I 'll reread and post the findings. Lastly, he had a letter from Draper to Dolan dated August 8 which is new info for me. I'll try to find out if it's been verified as authentic.

[Lorcan]

I think Abby absolutely could have been killed with a different hatchet than Andrew. If the gilt was really deposited in Abby's skull during her murder, I think it is almost 100% certain they were killed with two different weapons because gilt = never sharpened, asymmetric wound in Andrew's skull = a hatchet that was sharpened several times.

A rusty hatchet on the Crowe barn rooftop that still had gilt on it is hard to explain as a kid's prank. I just can't see a group of kids having the patience and discipline to throw a new hatchet up there and then wait for it to rust. It's possible but for none of them to ever come forward or let it slip for the rest of all their lives. That's a tough sell for me.

Could Lizzie have thought the police would have found it and she put it there as a marker for the police to lead them to the conclusion of an intruder leaving the house after the murders, climbing the wood pile, and over the fence into the orchard? Maybe, because that roof is not a good hiding place, but it is like Jack the Ripper leaving the piece of bloody apron in the doorway of a building that led police to believe that was his route away from Mitre Square. It could easily have been misdirection as well. This is really speculative, but objectively hiding place versus an attempt to point police to an obvious escape route, I lean toward planted evidence.

If planted, is it:

a. by Lizzie, who wanted the police to focus the search for the killer off the property.
b. by a group of kids as a prank
c. by Lizzie or an accomplice well after the murders?

Or, did a worker leave a brand new hatchet on the roof by mistake and never come back to get it?

Or, did a worker play a prank on a co-worker and throw their new hatchet on the roof for a prank or out of some interpersonal conflict?

[camgarsky4]

Why is the roof not a good hiding place? Under sawdust in the cellar is a good hiding place?

[Lorcan]

Because of the windows overlooking it. Might be partially obscured by leaves in the summer, but not in the winter.

This is my top 3 hiding places for the hatchet:

1. Inside one of the hollow dress torso stands with an unfinished or obviously not a suspicious dress mounted on the dress stand.
2. Wrapped in cloth under her dress skirt. No way she gets patted down.
3. Some loose board (floorboards, molding, etc.) in the house or barn.

What I can't think of an innocent explanation for is the heavy ash rubbed on the handleless hatchet blade. All the other contents of the place it was found had natural small diameter light dust from settling over time, but the handleless hatchet looks like it was wet when heavy ash was deliberately put on both sides. Also, the fresh break in the wood. Then the exact match for the wound in Andrew's skull - an asymmetric match that perfectly fit.

I have to explain the lack of blood and why the handle was snapped off.

Could it have snapped during the actual attack? Did she swing it at something out of an emotional or other reaction to killing her father, something hard in the basement like stone, brick, metal and it snapped?

Did the thin handle get dropped down a smaller hole in the bricks of the foundation or other small hole that the head wouldn't fit into?

Was the hatchet rinsed immediately after Andrew's murder, scrubbed with lye soap, held wet over the flames to cook off the blood and scrubbed some more? A few seconds of holding a wet hatchet over an open flame would boil and char any blood. Not to be gross, but throw a burger or steak into a hot pan and the browning is near instant. Did the burst of open flames from the roll of paper in the kitchen stove boil/cook off any remnant of testable or identifiable blood?

Did Lizzie use the same blood removal compounds that menstrual rags were soaked in to remove blood? A stir and soak, a scrub with lye soap, and few seconds in open flame of a thoroughly wet hatchet?

Some day I hope we have a forensic scientist on this board. I tried 5 emails to difference agencies and no replies at all. On a watch list with no benefit yet for the investigation

[camgarsky4]

Building a case for the handleless hatchet killing Abby also would want to include an explanation for how gilt got into/onto Abby's skull.
--------------------------------------------

As far as neighbors seeing the hatchet lying on the Crowe barn roof, I've had this debate a couple times before.

The barn had three roof heights, all reported as being flat. From East to West, they were 18 feet, 12 feet and 9 feet in height.
A mature pear tree grows to 25-40 feet high depending on the pruning approach of the owner. Since it would be doubtful that the orchard was ever a commercial endeavor, pruning the tops of the pear trees would be unlikely. Whichever height you choose would place the top of the canopy well above the highest point of the extended barn. The orchard reportedly contained a couple dozen pear trees; the Borden backyard had several. All the surrounding yards had mature trees and outbuildings breaking up the line of sight.

The hatchet was reportedly found near the northwest corner of the front flat roof, placing it at roughly the mid-point of the barn and near the first row of pear trees.

Anyone who has owned a building with tall, mature trees, endures the annoying experience of tree debris accumulation on your roof. It was reported that no one had been up on the roof for any reason for a lengthy period extending back before the murders. So, the roofs apparently had not been cleared of debris.

Third and Second Streets had slight downward slopes as they traveled north towards downtown.

I owned and lived (for a decade) in a three-story house built in 1905, surrounded by other homes built roughly in the same time period, but mostly one and two stories. My master bedroom was the third floor (converted attic). I couldn't tell you what was ever on any of my neighbor's roofs, except once, there was a multi-colored beach ball on a bungalow down the street which caught my eye. Reality is that no one who lives in a residential area, sits staring out their upper story windows studying the neighbor's roofs. It takes something to catch the eye. Colorful, large, etc. I don't think Victorian homeowners in the 19th century leaned into maximizing window views in urban settings; shutters, blinds and curtains adorned most, if not all, windows.

In my opinion, a small, brownish item, fully or partially blocked by tree branches (winter) or leaves (summer), possibly camouflaged by collected tree debris, would never be noticed by anyone casually glancing out the Churchill, Chagnon, Borden or Kelly windows. Keep in mind, that after Bridget left (in the summer), no one seems to have occupied the attic bedrooms.

[Lorcan]

Those are excellent points. Here are the illustrations I have of the 3 Crowe outbuildings. I had always assumed it was the smallest building, closest to the SE corner (Kelly side) of the house that was where the hatchet was found. On one of the images, someone placed the hatchet on the middle building. Notice how the smallest building is always depicted with a flat roof, but one of the middle buildings is also with a flat roof in one illustration. Not sure if the author (Rebecca Pittman, I think, flattened that roof from the globe and (obviously) added the overlay of the hatchet and Lizzie in the SE corner of the Borden yard.

OK, so here's where I currently stand:

1. I don't know if it's the smallest, closest first building where the hatchet was found or the middle building which had either a flat roof or a slightly sloping roof. Either way, I'm ok with the hatchet being not so easy to notice from an overlooking window.

2. If the Crowe barn hatchet is the murder weapon, and the gilt in Abby's wound was deposited during the murder, that opens up some very interesting evidence and pretty much convicts her if all my points are actually accurately described below. There should be a very skeptical and heated debate about these points because I'm going to state them in a way that almost certainly would convict Lizzie if all of them are stated perfectly accurately to the known facts. I don't think we can prove these 100% but it's worth the exercise to see exactly where the weaknesses are:

Premises (p) and Speculated Conclusion (sc):

p1: The gilt in Abby's wound was deposited during her murder.

sc1: Abby was killed with a hatchet that was never sharpened after the manufacturer painted the gilt (thin decorative metal overlay - almost like a gold leaf paint)

p2: The Crowe barn hatchet was Abby's murder weapon.

p3: The beveling on the particular skull wound that the handleless hatchet fit into that the new hatchet of similar design did not shows that particular wound defined the actual blade width because both ends of that wound beveled in such a way that the entire width of the leading edge of the blade penetrated completely through the skull not just a partial penetration at an angle so that part of the blade was still outside the skull. This is the definitive point of the evidence for the handleless hatchet being Andrew's murder weapon or a hatchet that had been ground asymmetrically in the same way down to a tiny fraction of an inch in both length and thickness on the bottom edge of the blade. That is consistent with either the handleless hatchet or a hatchet of a similar number of sharpenings by the same person or a person with nearly identical sharpening/grinding technique. It is critical you all understand what I am saying - you'd have to agree the testimony says this:
1. The leading edge of the blade for the particular wound in question showed definitive signs of complete penetration of the leading edge with no portion of the cutting edge outside of the skull.
2. The wound showed both a tapering and a shortening on the lower portion of the blade inconsistent with the symmetry of a new hatchet blade and the minimum thickness of new hatchet blade of that size and style.

sc2: Abby was killed with the Crowe barn hatchet

sc3: Andrew was killed with either the handleless hatchet or another hatchet ground down and sharpened in almost the identical pattern.

sc4: The Crowe barn hatchet was tossed on the roof after Abby's murder, but before Andrew's murder

sc5: Andrew was not planned to be killed with a hatchet at the time the Crowe barn hatchet was thrown on the roof.

sc6: Andrew coming home when he did made him a target.

sc7: The killer chose a different hatchet to kill a sleeping or at least dosing old man (strangulation or a knife slash to the throat were not the viable silent option for the assassin)

sc8: This group of premises and speculated conclusions most realistically point to a killer who didn't plan to kill Andrew at the time of disposal of Abby's murder weapon, chose a potentially louder, more risky, weapon than physically overpowering an overweight 5 foot tall 64 year old woman and a dosing 69 year old man with manual strangulation although within arm's length of both victims.

sc9: Lizzie tried to get Bridget out of the house, not vice-versa.

sc10: Lizzie fits 100% with a rage killing of Abby with the Crowe barn hatchet, throwing the hatchet on the roof, later deciding Andrew had to die, killing Andrew with a different hatchet.

Somewhere in here I most certainly have overstatements and I want some feedback to see which ones and by how much. The reason being, if what I've laid out is actually in agreement with the evidence, and I had access to her complete Inquest testimony, I would have likely convicted Lizzie.

[Lorcan]

This is part of what I'm talking about, but I think there is some specific statement where the beveling of the skull wound shows that the blade had passed completely through the bone so that the exact length of the cutting edge that produced that wound was known for that particular wound. That there was no possibility of part of the cutting edge being outside the skull - basically the entire cutting edge was inside the skull and both the top and bottom edges of that wound beveled the bone in such a way that the cutting edge had to pass completely through the skull. I can't find that exact description in testimony yet. Perhaps it was an extrapolation made by an author of a book I read.

Trial Transcript
Page 1067
Q. The handleless hatchet is not an uncommon instrument, is it?
A. 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.

Q. Won't you show me exactly what you attempted to do? (witness stepped before the jury with the skull and hatchet and began the experiment). Will you begin farther out?
A. It does not go through as the other one did. It does not show through on the inside of the wound, as the other did.

[Lorcan]

This is from AI - treat it as such - it likely explains what I had in mind but it may also have come from a book or article I read, but this is fact-checking me, so I think that although this is AI, it is worth posting in this situation:

You are looking for a sentence that is not in the sworn testimony. The closest things in the record are (1) Draper’s two-end nick / tin-plate demonstration and (2) Knowlton’s opening argument. Neither one uses beveling the way you remember it.
What Draper actually said about “the whole edge is in”
The length-defining wound is the cut in front of Andrew’s left ear that crosses the carotid channel at the base of the skull. Draper’s language is about stops at both ends of that bony track, not about beveling:
“a very little nick there, which indicates approximately the length of a blade which entered in that portion.”
“Its upper edge was also seen in the skull as a cut through the bone. This also measures with approximate accuracy the length of a blade which would enter there.”

Measure: three and a half inches.
Then the tin-plate fit, Trial2 pp. 1047–1048:
“Adjusting it in that way it fits in the wound in the base of the skull… It also rests against and cuts the surface of the upper portion, but takes in this edge and no more.”
“How do you determine that the cut portion which you refer to in the upper end… is the other cutting edge of the wound which you have fitted down at the lower end?”

“I found none other to correspond.”
And later, when he points to the upper stop:
“Where that cut begins, sir, was chipped at that end.”

“Only the fact that there is the cut, ends here, a little chip of the bone at that point, that is all.”

“Did you determine whether that was the point of the end of a cut?”

“I felt quite confident of it.”
A four-inch plate “does not go into either of these places.” A 3½-inch plate (and the handleless head) does, and “shows through on the inside.” That is the entire “both ends mark the blade” proof. It is a stop-at-each-end / gauge-fit argument.
He never says: both lips of the wound are beveled because the full cutting edge went through and no part of the edge remained outside.
What “bevel” means in this record
Bevel / bevelling is used for direction of the blow, not for proving full-width penetration:

“Instead of entering at right angles to the surface, it entered at an angle… It was, as we should call it, bevelled.”
“chipping up and leaving a bevelled edge”
“A bevel from right to left would be a clear indication that the blow came from the right toward the left.”

On Andrew, the eyebrow wound is “bevelled” left-to-right and did not penetrate deeply. The 3½-inch ear/base wound is the one used for length; its diagnostic marks are a nick / notch at the jaw and a chip at the upper end, plus the tin/hatchet seating.
The “flush to the skull” exchange in the preliminary is Dolan on Abby’s crushing cuts (“the cutting edge of some instrument went through? Flush to the skull?”). That is not the Andrew length-gauge wound and is not a statement that both corners of the blade were inside the vault.
The sentence that sounds like what you remember
Knowlton’s opening, not a doctor on the stand:
“There is another thing that is unmistakably told by one of the skulls—I think that of Mr. Borden—and that is that the weapon which brought him to his death was just three and one half inches on its blade, no more, no less.

That is the exact measurement of the blade of that hatchet.”
That is advocacy collapsing Draper’s “approximate” two-end fit into “exact / no more, no less.” Draper himself, on cross, will not lock “no less”:
“My point is, one more than three and a half couldn’t get in.”

Asked whether less than 3½ would account for the carotid cut: “Certainly.”
Cheever goes further: a 2¾-inch edge could do it. Robinson’s closing throws that disagreement at the jury. So the trial record itself undercuts “we know the exact length because the entire cutting edge had to be inside.”
The page 1067 passage you quoted
That passage is only the new hatchet vs. handleless contrast:

new blade: “too blunt at this lower corner”
“thickness and the grinding”
“does not go through as the other one did. It does not show through on the inside of the wound, as the other did.”

That is about thickness at the lower corner, not about both ends of the cutting edge being proven inside by bevels. Adams even suggests a polished surface beyond the seated handleless head means a longer cut. Draper rejects that: the polish is the blade narrowing as it is “presumably buried inside of the skull.”
Bottom line
The description you are hunting for—both top and bottom of that wound beveled so the whole leading edge had passed completely through, with no part of the cutting edge still outside—does not appear in Draper, Dolan, Cheever, Wood, the preliminary, or the trial testimony.
What exists is:

Two bony stops (nick below, chip above) + 3½-inch tin/hatchet seating + 4-inch failure.
Knowlton turning that into “no more, no less.”
Later writers blending (1), (2), and the separate bevel = angle of blow language.

That last blend is the extrapolation. You have not missed a hidden page.

[Lorcan]

Camgarsky and I did about as much research via regular web and AI as we can for now. I think we'll all have to decide for ourselves how much weight we put on each of our suspected potential murder weapons. I'm currently at:

Crowe barn hatchet being the murder weapon for Abby:

1. I give it more weight than before this thread for 2 reasons:

a. That the boiling might have helped the process of the gilt sticking to the bone rather than definitely removing it and the gilt being deposited much later by people testing new blades against the already boiled skulls.

b. A more realistic view of how easy it would be for a hatchet to go unnoticed on the Crowe barn roof.

c. Trying to imagine neighborhood kids in 1892 obtaining a new hatchet, throwing it on the roof, being patient enough to wait for rusting to occur, and for the rest of all their lives, never letting the secret out. That, to me, is much longer odds than Lizzie throwing it up there after murdering Abby.

Handleless hatchet being the murder weapon for Andrew:

1. I believe the number of experienced people who saw that hatchet up close on both sides considered the testimony of wear and grinding to be accurate to make that extremely plausible that it was grinding that caused the lower edge to be shorter and thinner. Too many people could have disputed that for me to doubt that testimony.

2. Given that I am almost 100% certain it was sharpening that caused the geometry of the bottom of the blade and given that particular 3.5 inch hatchet fit completely through the skull matching the narrowing of the bottom of the wound, and the new break, and the heavy ash on all sides while simultaneously lacking the natural fine dust of the rest of the tools in the location it was found put me in a situation where I can think of no innocent explanation for all those properties simultaneously occurring. I would put odds of 98% that Andrew was killed by the handleless hatchet or another of Andrew's hatchets of a similar amount of sharpening by the same person (Johnson, the Swede).

That puts me in a conundrum for thinking Lizzie might be innocent IF AND ONLY IF the Crowe barn hatchet was her murder weapon and the Handleless hatchet was Andrew's murder weapon. If those two different hatchets were used that morning, by far, and I mean really far, I think that the most likely reason for those two hatchets being used is Abby was killed and her murder weapon was thrown on the Crowe barn roof. At the moment of the throw, the killer did not plan to use a hatchet to murder Andrew that morning. Andrew coming home before Lizzie could get Bridget out of the house and stage a break in and leave the house AND the story of the note are 100% consistent with Lizzie deciding she was in a do or die situation and she had to kill Andrew before Abby's body was found.

That's where I stand at the moment. This turned out to be a very interesting and potentially pivotal thread.

[Lorcan]

Something just hit me as far more significant than I had noticed before now. Keep in mind the small diameter, light dust that accumulated evenly over the other tools where the handleless hatchet was found and then notice what Johnson said in his witness statement:

When considering the dust, use Johnson's witness statement:
Alfred Johnson made the following statement. “Have worked for Mr. Borden nine years. Have done his work at the house, cutting wood and cleaning up the yard, when not busy at the farm. Think the two last times I cut wood was early in the Spring, and again just before planting. 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. When I have been working at Mr. Borden’s, I have stayed there.


Q. Mr. Fleet, will you describe everything in respect to the appearance of that hatchet, if you can?
MR. ROBINSON. Don't want anything but just what the hatchet was at that time; don't want any inferences.
MR. MOODY. I think he will be careful.
Q. Any appearances that you noticed about the hatchet, you may describe.
A. Yes, sir, I don't want to do anything else, Mr. Attorneys. The hatchet was covered with a heavy dust or ashes.
Q. Describe that ashes as well as you can.
A. It was covered with a white ashes, I should say, upon the blade of the hatchet,---not upon one side, but upon both.
Q. Could you tell anything about whether there was ashes upon the head of the hatchet?
MR. ROBINSON. I don't think you ought to make any suggestions. I object to that style of question.
Q. Well, describe further.
A. I should say that upon this hatchet was dust or ashes as though the head---
MR. ROBINSON. Wait a moment: I object to that.
Q. Describe on what parts of the hatchet.
A. On both the faces and all over the hatchet was covered with dust or ashes.
Q. Was that fine dust---
MR. ROBINSON. Wait a moment. The witness did not say fine dust. We object to that.
Q. Describe the dust there.
A. The dust, in my opinion, was ashes.
Q. According to your observation, what did it look like?
MR. ROBINSON. I object to it.
MASON, C. J. Describe it. Whether he recognized it as ashes or any particular substance, he may say.
A. I recognized it as ashes.
Q. Can you tell me how fine or coarse the ashes were?
A. They were fine.
Q. Did you notice anything with reference to the other tools in the box at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you notice anything with reference to their condition in respect of ashes?
A. I did.
Q. Will you tell us what it was?
A. There was dust upon them.
Q. The same as upon this?
A. No, sir.
Q. What difference was there, if any?
A. The other was a kind of a dust, and there might be the dust of ashes. It was a light dust.
Q. How in appearance did it differ from the covering of this hatchet?
Page 477
MR. ROBINSON. Wait a moment: I object.
MASON, C. J. He may describe the difference, if there was any.
A. That is, the dust on the other tools was lighter and finer than the dust upon that hatchet.
Q. At that time, Mr. Fleet, did you observe anything with reference to the point of breaking of the hatchet?
A. The only thing that I recognized at the time was that this was apparently a new break.
MR. ROBINSON. I object to that answer, that this was a new break.
Page 478
Q. At that time did you observe anything with reference to ashes upon the point of the break of the handle, upon the wood where it was broken?
A. There seemed to be ashes there like the other.
Q. What did you do with that hatchet, Mr. Fleet?
A. I put it back in the box.

[camgarsky4]

Maybe I got you thinking a leaning more than before towards the Crowe hatchet.
Well, you've got me leaning towards the handleless more than before.

Before we close this chapter (aka post), why do we think the assailant would have broken the handle off? After washing in the sink, I imagine the head and handle looked equally 'clean' or not. Was breaking the handle off necessary to fit and 'hide' in under the ashes? Do we think she burned the handle? Or hid next to the head under the ash as Mullaly implied.

If you wanted to remove any sign of the murder weapon, it seems like a peculiar choice to place it in the same location where hatchets are kept, just covering it wish ash.

If a handle breaks while being used, the internet tells us that the break is jagged and not clean like the handleless hatchet's break looks to be.

[Lorcan]

My ideas are:

1. To make it appear useless and unused for a long time.

Reasoning:

Ash was applied to it on all sides. Not the natural small diameter light dust as was on the rest of the tools. That cannot happen if it is left in the box unused and untouched. It would have more dust on the upper surface and the bottom would be protected from dust accumulation relative to the top surface.

We know the bench hatchet was sharpened in early Spring 1892 and put into the box of tools where Mr. Borden was particular about storing that hatchet with the others. The hatchet handle was not broken in early Spring 1892. It looked like a fresh break in early August 1892. That fits 100% with it actually being a relatively fresh break. Who could have broken it?

Not Johnson. Not without telling Andrew. Not without mentioning it at the trial. I just cannot see him doing that. He sounds like he did his job the way Andrew wanted the job done. Get the vibe from his witness statement and see if you agree. I get the vibe that Andrew wants things done a certain way and if you do that your job is safe. If you do not, well, let's not find out.

Abby, Emma, Lizzie (innocently, unrelated to the murders) are all very unlikely. Lizzie hadn't been out in the barn for months and appeared to do no manual labor involving a hatchet as part of her chores. Could Andrew have broken it and never mentioned it Johnson - never told Johnson to obtain another one so it would be available - never bought a replacement himself? That also is extremely doubtful to me. I don't think Andrew was doing a lot of work hard enough to break a hatchet that Spring.

It was placed back in the normal box for tools in the early Spring by Johnson, yet it had no fine dust like the rest of the tools in the box. Johnson had not been there for a while since so much wood was cut the prior winter. Johnson had sharpened that hatchet and said it wasn't used much since. He called it the bench hatchet in the witness testimony above. So, what the defense lawyers would object to, we will do, ask leading questions and speculate and extrapolate:

The break makes the hatchet appear useless. The dust (tries and fails) to make it look like it had been broken for a long time and gathered dust.

That's my #1 theory. Those two reasons: make it look useless, make it look unused for an extended period of time. I will think more on it, but that's my best guess.

[Lorcan]

The killer didn't think to dry the hatchet completely, place it in the box of tools, blow all the natural dust away as much as possible, then with dry hands, gather ash and blow it over the whole box the let it drift down naturally so that all the tools would have a relatively uniform layer of settled dust. Even though the ash would look different from the other dust the whole box would be more uniform and maybe the police wouldn't notice it as much as the severe error of rubbing ash on both sides of the hatchet head and then placing it into a box full of tools, all of which have a natural, long-term, light dust fall on the upper surfaces, except for the handleless hatchet head.

[Lorcan]

1. Regarding the uniform break in the handle, we currently know of one way: Rebecca Pittman's experiment with a chip of wood under the handle. I also think, but don't know, that if the hatchet was put in a narrow slot between two immovable surfaces (a vise, or in a gap in the bricks in the cellar, or similar narrow channel) the break may end up being smooth and relatively perpendicular, rather than a long split along the grain of the wood.

2. We need to realistically assess how likely the gilt was the result of someone testing new hatchets in the already boiled and cleaned skulls. It would be very severe incompetence for that to happen unnoticed. I would assume a detailed close inspection was done to conclude the boiling effort to be sure the bone was clean. So, if we think either of the following (a, b) is true, then Abby's gilt was likely deposited during her murder:

a. Do we trust the competence of Dolan to have inspected the skull thoroughly and report to the court if the gilt was a later deposit from testing new hatchets?

b. If you can't transfer gilt by simply testing the fit of new blades as part of the investigation, that also pretty much seals it. If it takes significant force for the gilt to transfer into the bone as observed then that also points to it being deposited during the murder.

Unfortunately, both of these require us to trust the competence of Dolan and others handling and observing the skulls. If significant force was required for how the gilt was positioned in the bone then I think that would settle it, but I don't know if their descriptions are going to be able to allow us to confidently make that judgement.

3. I think the only reason the handle was broken was to make it not appear as a viable murder weapon and the only reason ash was rubbed on it was to make it appear to have been untouched, gathering dust. I think the killer had the philosophy of it is better to hide a needle in a pile of needles rather than a haystack if she didn't want to risk another roof toss or other hiding spot in the very tight window of time before calling Bridget down.

Reasons I don't think the handle was broken because of blood evidence:

1. The hardest part to clean was not the part of the handle that is missing, it's the area around the eye where the wood passes into the metal hatchet head. Also the break itself, but we have to assume the killer is at least smart enough to clean the intact wood before breaking the handle.

2. We have blood evidence on the sitting room side of the kitchen door jamb showing the killer with wet blood went from the sitting room into the kitchen. I would put high odds that the blood was washed off the hatchet within 30 seconds of the last strike on Andrew. Probably even less than 30 seconds. One sink was perhaps 8 to 10 steps away from the murder scene. A bucket full of the same types of blood cleaning agents (lye soap, etc.) that was used for menstrual cloth was at a minimum available in the basement perhaps 45 seconds or less from the murder scene. Soap, scrubbing, even open flame (the roll of paper in the kitchen stove would have had a burst of open flames for a time) could have cooked off the blood enough to make it undetectable to primitive 1892 blood tests.

[camgarsky4]

What this exercise has done for me is reinforce that there are at least TWO viable murder weapons, which the culprit, whether Lizzie or someone else, might have used.

It has already been well established that a number of items, Prince Albert Coat, apron, stained dress all included, could have provided the killer with cover from blood splatter.

[Lorcan]

I think we might have exhausted this particular topic for now, but my learnings are:

1. The Crowe barn hatchet is more viable for me for 3 reasons:
a. I used to think the boiling would have removed any gilt, now I don't.
b. I used to think the houses surrounding the Crowe roofs would have easily seen the hatchet, now I don't.
c. Because I believed a & b, I assumed it was a publicity prank, but thinking deeper about it, I don't think kids would have been patient and silent enough for that type of prank.

2. When you really think about what Johnson said and the implications of the handleless (bench) hatchet being sharpened and put away in early Spring and then found a few months later covered with heavier ash on BOTH SIDES when all the other items in that box, a place Andrew insisted on for the tools, have a natural light dust on the top surfaces.

[Inspector]

Great addition Cam!
I think it bolsters the Crowe hatchet as being a top runner for the weapon used.