A Question

[Kat]

The killer has to be in the Borden house by 9 a.m., right? Hiding where? There's no closet in the guest room.
And when Andrew was killed, it was determined that he was attacked from the dining room doorway to the sitting room. So the killer would have to approach him from the dining room, which means hiding somewhere in the back part of the house right? Anywhere from the back stairs or the attic or the cellar? Locking the front door against Andrew, and not letting him in the screen door, would give a killer time to hide in that back part of the house. But the inmates would know, wouldn't they?

[Bob Gutowski]

Hold up, Katinka - has it really been overwhelmingly determined that Andrew got it from behind? I had thought that Eric Stedman's experiments, coupled with the description of the blood spot locations, indicated that Mr. B. may well have been attacked frontally as he stood in front of or sat up on the sofa.

[Edisto]

Assuming Abby's time of death has been established, the killer would have had to be in the house by around 9:00. (Some disagree with the time of death, of course.) Isn't there some supposition that the killer could have hidden in the closet at the bottom of the stairs? There also appears to be enough room for a person to stand behind the door in the guest room. That could have worked whether the door was partly open or closed. After Abby entered the room, the person could have stepped out and accosted her.

I know it's assumed that Andrew was attacked from the (east) end of the sofa where his head was resting, but I don't recall a definite decision that the killer was standing in the dining room door. I know it's assumed that Lizzie, if she was the killer, might have stood there to shield herself from blood spatter. If the killer wasn't Lizzie, we have no way of knowing how much blood spattered onto him or her. The diagram in Rebello (p. 49) shows that door being hinged on the (west) side nearest the sofa. Wouldn't that make it difficult for someone to use it as a shield? (Well, unless the person had very long arms, like an ape!) It seems that the person would have had to stand in front of the partially-open door or even pushed the door itself out of the way and stood in the doorway. It makes more sense to me that the killer came through the foyer and used the door between it and the sitting room, which would have put him/her conveniently at Andrew's head, with plenty of room to swing the axe or other weapon. Another possibility would have been for someone to enter the front door and duck into the parlor, which also gives easy access to the sitting room and the sofa. The seldom-used parlor is also fairly convenient to the stairs that lead to the guest room.

I think there's more than one possible hiding place and more than one way the killer might have entered the sitting room.

Of course, we have to factor into this the fact that Bridget was washing windows and might have been able to see someone inside. (The windows are so high off the ground, though, that someone standing right under them probably wouldn't have seen a person inside unless he or she came to the window.) Assuming the killer was an outsider, we also have to consider that Lizzie was about the house and might have discovered an intruder.

I've never taken Eric Stedman's experiments very seriously. For one thing, I think he was part of the group that insisted there was a coffee table in front of the sitting-room sofa. If there had been, and if Andrew had been attacked frontally while standing, it would have been very tricky for him to wind up in a relaxed position on the sofa with said coffee table undisturbed. If he had been attacked frontally while he was sitting on the sofa, I think he would have yelled for help and/or raised his hands in defense. As I recall, his hands were undamaged, and nobody heard him roar. (Groan, maybe?)

[Bob Gutowski]

Good points, though I bet they didn't look very carefully for "defense wounds" on the arms in those days. Concerning Andrew, I'd bet the murderer, if he or she hadn't pulled the blinds closed, would've been worried about being seen from Mrs. Kelly's.

Did you guys see that The Travel Channel re-ran their 2003 "Haunted New England" show Saturday? Always nice to see Dennis Binette!

[Edisto]

Well, except for forensic advances, such as blood typing, DNA, etc., I tend to think the authorities considered about the same sorts of things in 1892 that they consider today. I suspect they checked both victims for defensive wounds. If the killer was Lizzie, I'm surprised that Abby didn't try to defend herself or at least scream for help. Although she was older (and fatter) than Lizzie, she still sounds as if she was fairly fit, and she and Lizzie were a near match in height. Maybe that story about Lizzie's working out at a gym is true!

[Bob Gutowski]

Wasn't there some speculation at one point that Abby may have been standing near the window right before the first blow was felled? I think about that moment at least once a day, I confess, usually as I'm drifting to sleep. what that says about me I will leave for others to decide.

It is was Lizzie, I think it's obvious she would be able to get close enough to Abby without the older woman suspecting anything before it was too late.

[nbcatlover]

Kat--

Suppose John Morse unlocked the cellar door during a privy visit before retiring to the guest room on Wednesday night. He is the first person up on Thursday and can relock it again if the person he let in did not lock it behind him.

There are many chambers in the cellar. I don't think the average family member would check out (1) the coal bin in summer. The person could have scurried up to the attic and hid in (2) a storage room before Bridget got home. Or the person could be in (3) the front parlor with an inside assist. Or most daringly, if the person was there to advise Lizzie, of perhaps, an elopement, the person could then have been concealed in (4) Emma's room overnight.

I've always thought that the person had been in the front parlor at least part of the morning. The person heard Abby go up and down once, then heard Lizzie come down once.

The person then went upstairs because he either thought Lizzie had gone upstairs again (and it turned out to be Abby) or to avoid being seen by Bridget when she was outside washing the windows (and surprised Abby).

I don't think murder was the first intent. It was a plan which went horribly wrong.

[Audrey]

Please do correct me if I am wrong-- But the parlor was routinely kept locked, no?

[Kat]

The doctors and experts at the time seemed to agree that the killer of Andrew stood in the dining room doorway.
The door would be no shield, as Edisto points out, because it opens toward the kitchen. If there was no furniture there it could open wide against the wall and then the doorjamb itself would shield the killer- but I think there was probably a piece of furniture there.

The sofa abutting that doorjamb, almost overlapping it, seems to have convinced the experts that that doorway was where the attack took place.
Any other avenue of actually entering the room and Andrew would see, wouldn't he? Or hear and look and make a noise or try to defend himself?

I think hiding in the cellar makes some sense, after the killing of Abby- there were plenty of places there to hide. As long as it wasn't wash day, maybe the cellar was the best place. A weapon could be found there as well, if needed.
Getting up into the guest room by 9, when Morse only left around 8:45 and Andrew left around 9 sounds almost impossible.
How much of this whole murder plan depends on an inside helper?
All, most or some, or none?

[Angel]

nbcatlover, I don't think the scenerio of someone thinking Lizzie had gone back upstairs, following her, finding out it was Abby instead (and then killing her on the spur of the moment) works, because no one would incidently have an axe with him. I think the whole thing was planned.

[augusta]

NB - If you don't think murder was the first intent, what do you think was supposed to happen that morning?

I think the Chagnons' testimony could be important. At around 11 pm they heard some noises. I wonder if they really heard the murderer going into the Borden cellar. (Or if someone from the Borden house just made those noises so the Chagnons' would hear it and tell. But that's less believable to me.)

I think Morse unlocked the cellar door to let the murderer in during the nite. He was saying that it was locked, then denied saying it on Thursday afternoon. Andrew might have locked it Thursday morning, noticing it unlocked. It wouldn't have been any big news that he would go into the house and tell everyone about.

If the murderer could then not get out via the cellar door, as perhaps planned, could he have gotten out the side door without going thru the sitting room?

There is someone's telling that the hay in the Borden barn was mashed into the shape of a man who had perhaps slept there. For some reason I never quite believed that.

Wow - what a memory, Edisto - remembering Eric's theories.

I think it was only a theory that the killer struck Andrew from the dining room. To me it seems the most logical place, tho. But I don't study the layout of the house - it drives me crazy. It's like one big maze.

The first wound on Abby was the shoulder flap, wasn't it? And that could have meant she was looking out the window? The killer "missed" with this blow ... Did she suddenly turn? It seemed like the killer knew where he wanted the blows to go.

"Poor Mrs. Borden," is right. She didn't deserve that. And to face her accuser and KNOW she was gonna be killed. And then people for 100 years afterwards give her this characterization of Evil Stepmother and "a lump of oatmeal". (I am a great admirer of Jules R. He wasn't saying anything everyone else didn't. I think that has been how everyone has looked at Abby.) - This quote is from the video "Hash & Rehash".

The killer could not have been in the guest room while Abby was making the bed. But he/she chose to get her when she went upstairs for a minute to put on the pillow cases. It seems like something didn't go right that morning for the killer. He didn't know she was going to go back in there to put the pillow shams on. He/she must have planned to kill her while she was in there cleaning - there'd be a lot more time. I think she changed the sheets and everything for her company coming on Monday.

I think it's also highly interesting that we have never found out who this company coming Monday was. I'll bet the 'girls' were asked and they told who, but it didn't get in the papers or brought up at the trial.

How did the murderer know Abby was coming back up to the guest room? Did he/she hear Abby tell Lizzie she was gonna go put those shams on? Did Lizzie holler up "Illybay, erehay eshay omescay"?

I wonder if the killer tried to get Abby before, when she was cleaning the room. And then couldn't for some reason? Boy, would
that make a good scene in a movie ...

[Edisto]

Does JVM mention going back upstairs to the guest room before he left for Weybosset Street? If he didn't go to the front of the house, I doubt that he would have been a problem for an intruder. I don't recall hearing much about Andrew's being upstairs except in his own quarters. Much would depend on the door between the foyer and the sitting room being closed during the morning. I have no idea whether that was the case. One possible reason for keeping it closed would have been to keep street dust and debris, summer heat and winter cold out of the rooms in which the family spent time. Was the parlor kept locked? I don't know that either. I've read that the house was kept very thoroughly locked up, even to the separate rooms on the second floor. But was the guest room kept locked? Lizzie said something about Abby's straightening it and then closing it up to await new guests. She also said the guest room door was closed when she headed downstairs, but she didn't say it was locked. The traffic patterns described in the various testimonies seem to indicate that first-floor rooms, in general, weren't kept locked. The parlor, however, was special Since it was rarely used by the family, it could have been kept locked. At the very least, I think it was probably kept closed up. A closed door wouldn't be a barrier to an intruder; however, a locked door probably would. I say "probably" because he/she could have been provided with a key.

What if the person who brought Abby's note was also the killer? That would explain why the note wasn't found and why the messenger didn't come forward. It wouldn't explain why the sender of the note never came forward, but there's always the possibility the note itself was bogus and simply an excuse to get an intruder into the house. Abby could have answered the door, taken and read the note, and been distracted while the "messenger" dismantled the automatic bolt so as to be able to enter later. (Clearly he/she didn't kill Abby immediately, because Abby supposedly had time to tell Lizzie about the note.) This is all supposition, admittedly, but probably no more foolish than some of the other theories I've heard.

[Audrey]

Someone coming over that fence who did not expect that wood pile to be there may have disturbed it and caused a racket... especially followed by quickly rearranging it.

[augusta]

That's true, Audrey. Perhaps - if it was the killer the Chagnons heard the nite before - it was because of that pile of lumber. I was just thinking why would the person make that much noise? Well, that would be a reason. You so smart!

That's a good theory, Edisto - that a note bearer was the killer and the note was bogus.

This also gives Lizzie an excuse for someone being seen coming to the door and possibly being let in.

[Angel]

Augusta,
ouryay ootay unnyfay.

[Audrey]

I am not so smart.... But I can imagine stepping down on to a pile of lumber and having it go out from under me!

[diana]

In answer to one of Edisto's questions -- Morse does say that he (almost?) went into the front hall before he left for Weybossett.

"Q. Not going into the front hall after you came down stairs that morning?
A. Oh, I stood in the door and took my hat off the rack, which is right close: that is all.
Q. Only to get your hat, but no further?
A. No, sir.
Q. You are sure you did not go up stairs?
A. No, sir, I was not up there at all." (Trial,149)

He is also fairly consistent in his assertion that Abby disappeared into the front hall approximately 15 or 20 minutes before he left -- presumably putting her upstairs tidying the guest room at about 8:30.

[snokkums]

Is it a possibility that maybe the person was let in the house? That might explain how he got in the house. Lizzie could have let the person in under the pretext that the person wanted to see Andrew Borden, not knowing that her father was asleepnor that the person wanted to kill him.

[Kat]

Morse actually said he thought the cellar door was open, then equivocated, later.
Prelim
Morse
256
Q. Did you notice at all the cellar door, whether it was open or shut?
A. I think when I came from the back of the house, when I got the pears, I think it was open; I wont be sure, but I think it was.

Q. When you first went back of the house?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Wide open, or only partly open?
A. Well I could not say.

--It doesn't make sense tho, because there were 2 "outer" doors to the cellar. One the door into the yard and the other the door down the steps to the interior of the cellar itself.

_____________

Dolan's answer as to where, in his opinion, the killer stood to hit at Andrew:
Prelim
Dr. Dolan
174
Q. Where in your opinion, taking the case of Mr. Borden, and these spots that you have described on the kitchen door, on the inner frame of the dining room door the farthest from the head, on the semi circular appearance of the more circular range of spots on the wall, and spots on the kitchen door, and on the frame of it farthest from the dining room, together with the direction of the blow, and the place of the blow on Mr. Borden's head, did the assailant of Mr. Borden stand, or put himself, when he delivered these blows?
A. I think he stood behind him, behind his head.
Q. Between the head of the sofa and the parlor door?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Whereabouts, right close to the sofa, or some little way from it?
A. I should judge some little way from it, though I don't know. It might be right up to the sofa, I would not say that, because his head was in a foot at least from the outside of the end of the arm.
Q. You put this assailant there?
A. I should think he stood in a position about midway in the dining room door.
Q. Midway of the opening of the dining room door, but not in the dining room door?
A. Not necessarily; but I think is that position.

--Granted, one of the factors Dolan took into account was the string of "blood" on the dining room doorframe. Apparently that later tested as probably not blood. It could have been soup or tobacco juice- that was the color.
_________

As to Abby's probable first wound- it's got to be the flap wound. "Standing facing" is how it was delivered. The back wound in the upper left shoulder might be second, or...?

Prelim
Dolan
103
A. Yes Sir. I should say also, on the left side, without any mark on the skull, was a flat scalp wound, a wound about one and a half inches wide, and two to three inches long, flapped backwards immediately over the left ear.
....
144
Q. Now you tell us of a glancing scalp wound on the left side of the head over the left ear?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. You think that wound might have been given under what circumstances?
A. While standing up, and facing.
Q. That was not necessarily fatal?
A. No Sir.
_________

Was the parlour kept locked? Somehow I have that impression.

[nbcatlover]

If it was a conspiracy with insider help, do you really think unlocking the parlour doors would be a problem (it was cared for by "the girls")?

I suggest a plan was made for a male suitor (of whom Andrew disapproved) was intent on marrying Lizzie. This suitor is younger and a sporting man. running wild without the kind of family discipline Andrew would desire. The suitor, however, is going to make a last attempt to ask Andrew for her hand in marriage. If Andrew doesn't consent. he is going to elope with Lizzie anyway. He has his own source of funds, but Lizzie loves her father and does not want to be disowned and forbidden to visit the Second St. home. This meeting is of the utmost importance and his emotions are running wild.

If the suitor was dropped off in the neighborhood the night before (8/3), his cohort/driver/whatever would not hang around. He wants to tell Lizzie how the plan is to go down. Interestingly, the Fall River City Directory for 1893 lists a Honora Donahue living at 104 Third Street with Nora Donahue being a name mentioned by Ruby Cameron. I have not researched this, but with the street number change, I would expect this to be perhaps one block down from the Chagnons (help here would be appreciated).

He gets secreted in the house (with an assist from Uncle John who has picked up eggs from the farm to prevent delivery by the farmhand). The cohort comes to the door in the morning after Morse and Andrew leave.

"Shucks, Mrs. Borden, Mr. Eddy on the farm's taken a turn for the worse. We need you right away," says rough-hewn character with ax in hand and buckboard in the street. Her plain dress covered by a shawl would be good enough for the journey to the farm for the hired-help.

Bridget is not a problem, because, according to one of the neighbors, she usually washes the windows on Thursdays.

But something goes wrong. Mrs. Borden excuses herself to bring the pillow slips upstairs. The suitor comes out of hiding to speak to his cohort, and unexpectedly sees/hears the unwelcome suitor. Bye, bye, Mrs. Borden!

Lizzie, expecting to leave the house, is in the cellar privy, cleaning herself up and getting her laundry to pack a bundle of clothes. She is unaware of what happens. And due to Victorian sensibilities, the time she is in the privy is passed over, even by Mr. Knowlton, so it is never really accounted for. She continues on the plan, which is to exit the house after Andrew returns so the suitor can speak with him in private. Lizzie goes and eats pears and lies in the hay in the barn. She doesn't know that her father's hour of death has been appointed due to the prior murderous act.

When she returns from the barn, she is faced with her father's death and the pressure to help her beloved suitor escape. When she sends Bridget for the doctor, she really needs one. She is in shock. Murder is totally unexpected, totally unplanned.

The cohort and her beloved suitor escape--going in different directions. Love, loyalty, shock and confusion all play a part in why Lizzie covers up and has such a weak and confusing alibi.

Other people know who is involved, but loyalty, money, and a fix to get Lizzie off, once accused, quiet the fears of the populace and avert a major scandal. Morse is devastated by this fiasco. He escapes back to Iowa after the trial even though he supposedly has moved back East because he has to get away from all the people involved.

A circumstantial case can be made that it is the renewal of contact with this suitor, which proceeds from Dear Friend letters to visits at the house that ultimately drives Emma from Maplecroft (and not Nance O'Neill).

Unfortunately, with this suitor theory, there is heavy circumstantial evidence. The concrete piece of tangible evidence is missing. Perhaps it is in Robinson's files...

[Kat]

I posted earlier that if there was inside help, any door could could be open, including the door to Andrew's bedroom. That way the killer could get around the house easily.
I also asked if people thought there was inside help.
If you think there was, then obviously the doors could all be unlocked for any amount of time and the killer had much more freedom of movement.

My scenario was only predicated on whether an intruder could have worked within the parameters of the normal functioning Borden household with no help. If there was no help, and the parlour was kept locked, we have to allow for that.

But anything inside the house that happened between 9 and 10:40 am is open to supposition of course.

[Audrey]

Someone would have had to have been incredibly lucky to have sneaked into and around the house without being detected!

Assume the killer sneaked in while Bridget was on the other side of the house talking with the Kelly girl. Assume he had to use the usually locked side door. (wow, 99.9% of the time, this door is locked! What luck! Now where do I go from here?)

Assume Lizzie was on one of her upstairs errands at this time... So he slips into the cellar to wait... How would he know when it was "safe" to sneak up to the 2nd floor? Why even go to the 2nd floor unless he was LOOKING for Abbie? Wasn't it well known that Andrew spend the morning downstreet conducting business?

Assume Lizzie was in the cellar... She must have been making a lot of noise down there (And Kat claims you cant "go" in FR!) for the killer to know to sneak elsewhere in the house.....

Assume Lizzie was in the sitting room and he sneaked into the dining room. Good thing it had 2 doors. He must have stood very near the one Lizzie was not planning to use (probably the one closest to the parlor) to sneak into the sitting room the very moment Lizzie left the sitting room to go into the kitchen. Excellent timing!

Then he might have had the freedom to go upstairs and kill Abbie...

Suppose Lizzie was in the kitchen..... He could only have gone down or up-- and then only have avoided detection if Lizzie didn't hear him.

Suppose she was in the dining room. He could have down down or up-- or to the kitchen, or possibly the sink room. Maybe he scooted around the corner and hid in the pantry.

It would have taken great luck, stealth and the choreographical skills of a ballet dancer to have been able to

a)- INSTINCTIVELY known where to go-- and where to avoid to escape being seen.

b)- move quietly enough to avoid detection.

Sure, someone unaware of the habits of the house might have thought Andrew was lazing about on the 2nd floor and not known about the locked doors and 2 separate parts of the 2nd floor--and gone to the guest room looking for him... Or they may have gone there to hide in wait for him only to be stunned to see Abbie there... And killed her. Thank goodness she went quietly!

So he sits there watching Abbie be dead and waits. Good thing Andrew makes so much noise with that bell so he knows he is home... Good thing Bridget went to her room and Lizzie got a wild hair to go out to the barn... LUCK seems to be following this guy!

Down he goes and kills Andrew and gets out of there without being seen... Prior, while in, or leaving!

Too bad they didn't have a lottery back then-- he should have stopped off and got a ticket!

[Haulover]

i also believe the killer must be known to be in the house by lizzie.

BTW, the thing about andrew's killer at the dining room doorway -- one can say the dining room doorway and the parlor doorway are one and the same -- that's a tight corner. i mean, that's the same place. (this may be obvious to some and not to others -- i wasn't certain until i was there a few weeks ago.)

[nbcatlover]

I'm referring to an old document reprint which may not be accurate.

My apologies to Stefani, Kat, and Harry if it already online at the site. I couldn't quickly locate it.

It is the Record of Autopsy held at Oak Grove Cemetery on August 11, 1892 performed by W. A. Dolan and assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper.

In regards to Abby D. Borden, it first refers to an incised would over the spine below the junction of neck with body.

The part that confuses me comes next:

...On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body.

SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width.

THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide

The report has described one incised wound before reporting the contusions. It then follows the contusions with 18 more incisions. The contusions (bruises) are in addition to the 19 whacks.

I hate to say this, but it sounds to me like she was butt in the face with, perhaps, the base of the ax handle. It is anyone's guess whether she was knocked unconscious. If she was unconscious, she may not have been hatcheted immediately.

Why isn't there more discussion about these bruises? Andrew has none.

[Haulover]

it's been discussed. some have wondered if she was hit with the blunt end of the axe or the handle or something. the bruises can be the result of her face falling to the floor, it seems to me the bruises are where you'd expect them in this case -- nose and forehead.

[augusta]

I think the doctors at the time thought that the 'contusions' were from Abby falling face down on the floor.

It would be interesting to see how extensive the bruises were. I hadn't thought of them possibly coming from being hit with the axe handle.

I think there must be more photos of the autopsies than we have seen.
There's got to be a full face frontal of Abby, at least.

Second Street was a very noisy street then. Very busy, with usually quite a few people.

I used to think, when I was little and read on Lizzie, that there was a killer hiding in the house that nobody knew about, and he simply listened as to where people were and got around without being seen that way. I figured there would be no tv's, radios or electrical appliances making noise in the house like there are today. But would he be able to hear clearly enough with all the bustle outside?

Today, tho, I think Lizzie knew about the intruder and helped him get around. I always thought he hid in one of the closets downstairs waiting to get Andrew.

[nbcatlover]

Haulover--

The autopsy says OVAL and lenghtwise with body.

It says BRIDGE of nose--that's pretty hard to fall on if your face is turned to get one above the eyebrow.

They were similar in size:

1" x 1/2" bridge of nose

1-1/4" x 3/8" on forehead above eyebrow

1-1/2" x 1/4" also on forehead (placement not noted)

The missing location of the third oval would really help. We've been trying some experiments on our own, and it seems like you might damage the side of your nose with the mark above an eyebrow if you fell on a flat surface (the floor). It could also be a less than full accurate description by Dolan.

If she fell on the camp chair, it would seem her body was moved to the side of the bed with the intent of keeping it out of sight.

(I hadn't paid attention to the fact that both Andrew and Abby had artificial upper teeth.)

[Haulover]

nbcatlover: i'm not sure what your finer point is. i'm listening. face hits the floor at some point, or does it? bridge of nose could be damaged frontally. but you're not saying her face fell leftward, which might be the case. you're saying the bruises were from being struck? i guess it's easy to think these are from the face hitting the floor. if you look at the whole body, there is a leftward tilt -- but then we get into moving the body. well, if her face was not damaged by striking the floor, why wasn't it?

[theebmonique]

I am not sure the shape of the 'whatever it was that hit Abby's face', whether it be the floor or someother blunt 'object', would be the sole 'determiner' of the shape of the bruises. Other factors such as if they were inflicted before/after death, or if they were caused by the pressure of being pressed against the floor for however long may also play a part.


Tracy...

[Kat]

I had to go find this illustration I made a while ago- filed on my back-up disc.
It's to show the OVAL shape and position of the contusions on Abby's face, per testimony description.
I hope you can read it.
It's quoted from the autopsy, same as posted earlier.

[Haulover]

thanks for looking that up. i dont' remember it, though i might have seen it. that does clarify. i did not have a very accurate idea of it.

[Kat]

You're welcome.
The bridge of nose contusion is not described as to placement, so the vertical nature of this mark may be wrong..

[nbcatlover]

Kat--thanks for the photo. The marks on the photo are pretty much as I had envisioned.

And its the bridge of the nose that still bothers me. It indents. It would seem to me that an indented part of the face would not be bruised hitting a flat floor.

And would you get 2 similar oval bruises on the forehead? Or just one large bruise?

And I know blood pools in the lowest areas of a body after death, but I'm not sure you can "bruise" after death.

Where's a CSI when you really need one?

[theebmonique]

Did the autopsy confirm that these bruises were definitely caused by this 'incident' ? Is it at all possible Abby could have sustained the bruises earlier that day or the day before bumping into something in the house ?


Tracy...

[diana]

Here is the trial testimony of Dolan and Draper regarding the contusions on Abby's face.

Q. Were there any other wounds on the head excepting the cuts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were they?
A. There were three, what we call, contusions on the front of the face.
Q. Where were they?
A. Two of them over the left eye and one on the bridge of the nose, just over the bridge of the nose.
Q. I will ask you to go back again a moment. Did you notice these contusions on Thursday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were there then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they at that time fresh?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so, to leave that subject once for all, those three blue marks indicate those contusions?
A. They do, yes, sir.
Q. Was there any cutting about them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were they, if I may ask, what we sometimes call black-and-blue marks?
A. Yes, sir, bruises.
Q. How were they in reference to the position of the face, assuming that the person in life fell on her face?
A. They were on that side, on the left side, the side she was lying on.
Q. Were they where the face would strike assuming it fell in life?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How severe were they?
A. Well, it was an ordinary bruise, I wouldn't undertake to---
Q. Three of them?
A. Yes. (Dolan: Trial 896+)
..........

Q. I did omit to call to your attention---I crave my friends pardon---to the three contusions. Were they of such a nature that you could tell anything about what they were when you saw the bodies?
A. Yes, sir, they were discolorations without swelling.
MR. ADAMS. I do not understand.
THE WITNESS. They were discolorations of the skin, without swelling.
Q. How caused?
A. I think either by the forehead receiving a blow in falling, or by the forehead resting upon some resisting substance as the body lay down.
Q. Assuming that the contusions were at the point of contact of the face with the floor, would that, in your opinion, account for the existence of the contusions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how?
A. Because it was in a situation corresponding with the resting of the most important parts upon the floor, and exposing or developing the right side of the head.
Q. And that would indicate it was caused by falling, as I understand?
A. Falling, or the resting of the head there.
Q. The mere resting would cause it?
A. Yes, sir, I think so.
Q. Would you be able to form any better opinion about that if you had seen them immediately, or wouldn't you?
A. I think I should be better able.
Q. You did not see them immediately?
A. No, sir. (Draper: Trial, 1081)

[Kat]

Thanks Diana.
I was thinking if Abby was hit with a butt-end piece of wooden handle of a hatchet, it probably would have broken the skin.
I don't know if it's universal or not, but I'm under the impression that a woman's skin gets more delicate the older she gets.

[theebmonique]

Thank you Diana and Kat ! It's interesting to think the bruises may NOT have been caused by the strike of a weapon, but maybe by just Abby's head 'resting' on the floor. An interesting thought no doubt. Hmmm.


Tracy...

[nbcatlover]

ignore me

[theebmonique]

Ignore you ?....why ?


Tracy...

[Audrey]

Do we know that the bruising present on Abbie's face wasn't post mortem??

3. LIVOR MORTIS (HYPOSTASIS, POST MORTEM LIVIDITY, POSTMORTEM SUGGILLATIONS)

Lividity is a dark purple discolouration of the skin resulting from the gravitational pooling of blood in the veins and capillary beds of the dependent parts of the body following cessation of the circulation. The process begins immediately after the circulation stops, and in a person dying slowly with circulatory failure, it may be pronounced very shortly after death. Lividity is present in all bodies, although it may be inconspicuous in some and thus escape notice.

Lividity is able to develop post mortem under the influence of gravity because the blood remains liquid rather than coagulating throughout the vascular system. Within about 30-60 minutes of death the blood in most corpses, dead from natural or non-natural causes, becomes permanently incoagulable. This is due to the release of fibrinolysins, especially from small calibre vessels, e.g. capillaries, and from serous surfaces, e.g. the pleura. Clots may persist when the mass of clot is too large to be liquified by the fibrinolysin available at the site of clot formation. In some deaths associated with infection and cachexia, this fibrinolytic effect may fail to develop, explaining the presence of abundant clot in the heart and large calibre vessels. Thus, in cases of sudden death the blood remains spontaneously coagulable only during a brief period immediately following death; it then becomes completely free from fibrinogen and will never again clot. This incoagulability of the blood is a commonplace observation at autopsy. The fluidity of the blood is not characteristic of any special cause or mechanism of death although many texts state that the blood remains liquid longer in asphyxial deaths. (Ref. 19 at p. 38-40).

The bluish colour of post mortem lividity does not have the same connotation as cyanosis produced during life. The term "cyanosis", which means a bluish discolouration of the skin or mucous membranes, should be confined to clinical descriptions and not used for corpses. In the living, the cyanotic colour of the blood requires the presence of at least 5 g of reduced haemoglobin per cent in the capillary blood. However, in the corpse, oxygen dissociation continues and there may be reflux of deoxygenated venous blood into the capillaries. For these reasons, the blood of a cadaver becomes purplish-blue, but this is not the result of a pathophysiological change occurring during life, e.g. strangulation. The normal colour of areas of post mortem lividity is a cyanotic hue, but this description should not be used since it is misleading. (Ref. 19 at p. 40-43).

The medico-legal importance of post mortem lividity lies in its colour and in its distribution. The development of lividity is too variable to serve as a useful indicator of the time of death.

Typically, lividity has a purple or reddish-purple colouration. Lividity in bodies exposed to the air may acquire a pink colour at the sides, but not, as rule, at the back or other areas which are close to the ground. In deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning, it is classically described as "cherry red"; in cases where methaemoglobin is formed in the blood during life (e.g. potassium chlorate, nitrates, and aniline poisoning) it appears chocolate brown; in deaths from exposure to cold, it is bright pink, and a similar colouration is seen in bodies refrigerated very soon after death. Refrigeration of a body already displaying typical purple lividity will cause it to turn pink. Similarly, lividity in parts of the body covered with moist clothes appears pink, whereas it is the usual purple colour in other areas. Cyanide poisoning results in lividity which is described by different authors as pink, bright scarlet, and violet.

Lividity is first apparent about 20-30 minutes after death as dull red patches or blotches which deepen in intensity and coalesce over the succeeding hours to form extensive areas of reddish-purple discolouration. Slight lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anaemia or massive terminal haemorrhage. After about 10-12 hours the lividity becomes "fixed" and repositioning the body, e.g. from the prone to the supine position, will result in a dual pattern of lividity since the primary distribution will not fade completely. Fixation of lividity is a relative, rather than an absolute, phenomenon, but nevertheless, well developed lividity fades very slowly and only incompletely. Fading of the primary pattern of lividity and development of a secondary pattern of lividity will be quicker and more complete if the body is moved within, say, the first six hours after death, than at a later period. (Ref. 6 at p. 82). Even after 24 hours, moving the body will result in a secondary pattern of lividity developing. Duality of the distibution of lividity is important because it shows that the body had been moved after death. However, the timing of this movement of the body is inexact. Polson (Ref. 10 at p. 14) claims "it shows that the body had been moved ... within 8 to 12 hours". Camps (Ref. 6 at p. 82) states more convincingly that "for the hypostasis of have value in this way, the body must have first remained in one position for a length of time, perhaps about 10 hours, sufficient for the lividity to have become well developed and it must then be examined early enough after being moved before much of the hypostasis has become redistributed". The blanching of post mortem lividity by thumb pressure indicates that the lividity is not fully fixed.

Pressure of even a mild degree is sufficient to prevent gravitational filling of the vessels and this is so in the compressed areas of skin in contact with the underlying supporting surface. The result is that these compressed areas of "contact flattening" also show "contact pallor" (or "pressure pallor"). A supine corpse will display contact pallor over the shoulderblades, buttocks, calves and heels. Other areas of contact pallor will correspond with the location of firm fitting clothing, e.g. elasticated underwear, belts and collars, and any firm object lying beneath the body, e.g. the arm of the decedent. Thus, the distribution of lividity depends upon the position of the body after death.

Within intense areas of lividity, the accumulated blood may rupture small vessels to produce a scattering of punctate purple-black haemorrhages between one and several millimetres in diameter. These haemorrhages are seen most commonly over the lower legs of victims of suicidal hanging with complete suspension. These haemorrhagic loci should be distinguished from ante-mortem petechial haemorrhages.

Lividity is usually well marked in the earlobes and in the fingernail beds. In a supine corpse there may be isolated areas of lividity over the front and sides of the neck resulting from incomplete emptying of superficial veins. If the head is slightly flexed on the neck, then lividity may have a linear distribution corresponding to the skin folds. (Ref. 19 at p. 36). Isolated patches of hypostasis may be due to blood in the deeper veins being squeezed, against gravity, to the skin surface by the action of muscles developing rigor mortis (Ref. 6 at p. 83). Differentiation of lividity from bruising can be made by incising the skin. In areas of lividity the blood is confined to the dilated blood vessels whilst, in areas of bruising, the blood infiltrates the tissues and cannot be readily washed away under running tap water. Microscopic examination will resolve any doubts and provide a permanent record. In a decomposing body it may be impossible to definitively distinguish between livid staining of the tissues and a putrefying area of bruising. Areas of lividity are overtaken early in the putrefactive process. The red cells haemolyse and the haemoglobin diffuses into the surrounding tissues where it may undergo secondary changes such as sulphaemoglobin formation. In bruised areas similar putrefactive changes occur and it may be impossible to determine whether the pigment in the stained putrefied area originated from an originally intravascular or extravascular collection of blood, i.e. from a patch of congestion or from a bruise.

Lividity occurs in the viscera as well as the skin and this provides some confirmation of the external observations. In the myocardium lividity may be mistaken for an acute myocardial infarction, and in the lungs may be misdiagnosed as pneumonia. Livid coils of intestine may falsely suggest haemorrhagic infarction. Lividity developing in the viscera of a body lying prone and resulting in a purplish congestion of organs usually found pale at autopsy can be disconcerting to those unaccustomed to these changes.

Most texts agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity at around 12 hours post mortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed. Adelson (Ref. 12 at p. 168) states that lividity "ordinarily becomes perceptible within 1/2 to 4 hours after death, is well developed within the next 3 or 4 hours, and attains its maximum degree between 8 and 12 hours post mortem". Polson (Ref. 10 at p. 13) states that "it varies in its time of onset, is ordinarily apparent within 1/2 to 2 hours after death, and its complete development is attained in from 6 to 12 hours". Camps (Ref. 6 at p. 81) states that it "first appears about 20-30 minutes after death as dull red patches which deepen, increase in intensity, and coalesce to form, within 6 to 10 hours, an extensive area of reddish-purple colour". Spitz and Fisher (Ref. 14 at p. 17) state that its "formation begins immediately after death, but it may not be perceptible for as much as two hours. It is usually well developed within 4 hours and reaches a maximum beween 8 and 12 hours. ... After 8 to 12 hours lividity becomes "fixed" and will remain where it originally formed". Simpson (Ref. 11 at p. 9) states that "it commences to develop within an hour or so of death, becoming marked in 5 or 6 hours".

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicin ... edeath.htm

[theebmonique]

Great description on lividity Audrey. Thank you.

Do we know that the bruising present on Abbie's face wasn't post mortem??

I had wondered that very thing myself...I asked about it earlier.


Tracy...

[Allen]

POST-MORTEM BRUISING can occur but needs great force to produce small bruise. After death blood is under physical pressure only. There is only a passive ooze from blood vessels ruptured after death rather than the active extravasation under pressure which occurs in life. Most likely to occur within areas of post mortem lividity where blood is under greater physical pressure and over bony prominences where tissues may be crushed against the underlying bone, e.g. back of the head.

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicin ... ndsdws.htm

[Kat]

Well, the areas *bruised* seem to be at "bony prominences"...

"just over the bridge of the nose" might mean between the eyebrows. If Abby had a prominent brow ridge, that 3rd bruise might be there, rather than in the curve, where I first pictured it.

[theebmonique]

I wonder if her own body weight would have been enough pressure ?


Tracy...

[nbcatlover]

I've learned recently that post-mortem bruising does occur and the most frequent cause is mishandling of the body. Perhaps the bruises happened when they moved the bed, etc., for photgraphs?

[1bigsteve]

Thanks Diana.
I was thinking if Abby was hit with a butt-end piece of wooden handle of a hatchet, it probably would have broken the skin.
I don't know if it's universal or not, but I'm under the impression that a woman's skin gets more delicate the older she gets.

Perhaps the marks were caused by the front leading edge of the handle while Abby was facing the killer with her hands trying to block the swings, in other words Abby and the killer were fighting for control of the hatchet? I think it's possible that the handle could have smacked Abby hard enough to bruise without breaking the skin. Perhaps the 5 1/2" long wound on top of Abby's head was caused by the corner of the blade bashing and raking across her head during this part of the struggle? Was any mention made of damage done to Abby's hands and fingers? I don't see anything in Dolan's report about "defensive" wounds on Abby's hands and arms. Perhaps these bruises are what knocked Abby to the floor where the rest of the wounds were made.

Our skin does get thinner and more prone to bruising as we age. I don't see how Abby could develop three oval bruises on her forehead just from laying on the floor. One roundish one yes, but three seperate oval bruises? Lividity would have caused one purple "spot." If she fell against something she would have had to hit it three times it would seem. I can't see anything in the room that would have hit Abby three times on the way down. Perhaps the handles on the dresser? Thin, I admite. I think the body was moved but not very far as there is no trail of blood. Maybe the Dr. moved Abby's body in some way to give her some sense of dignity, i.e. straightened her dress, moved her feet together. I think her head landed in the same spot where it is in the photos. Her body looks like it was posed. It doesn't look like it's the body of someone who was in a struggle for her life.

Interesting problem.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

You're right in that we hear of no defensive wounds. I'm pretty sure they looked. They would want that evidence for a trial of anyone.

If there was such a struggle as envisioned here, then the killer would probably have to put the room back in order afterwards.
That might imply they knew where everything went, or that they didn't want a struggle to be known to have occurred- which would have me wondering, why not?
Then I ask where was the noise- the screaming?
If there was time to struggle there was time to scream.
Maybe the room was put back in order (if it was) so no one would think that Abby screamed- they would think it was a quick unconsciousness.

[1bigsteve]

You're right in that we hear of no defensive wounds. I'm pretty sure they looked. They would want that evidence for a trial of anyone.

If there was such a struggle as envisioned here, then the killer would probably have to put the room back in order afterwards.
That might imply they knew where everything went, or that they didn't want a struggle to be known to have occurred- which would have me wondering, why not?
Then I ask where was the noise- the screaming?
If there was time to struggle there was time to scream.
Maybe the room was put back in order (if it was) so no one would think that Abby screamed- they would think it was a quick unconsciousness.

Perhaps Abby was caught off guard because the attack happened so fast and/or she knew the attacker and her guard was down. Perhaps she was stunned with the first wack and didn't have the chance to scream or maybe her scream was not much of an "ear-splitter" and therefore was unheard by Bridget.

It was evening when Christine Demeter got bashed in the head with a hammer in her open garage and neither her daughter, who was in the living room watching TV, or neighbors heard any sounds at all. Sound carries a long way at 9:30PM in flat country.

It doesn't really surprise me that a scream was not heard by Bridget. But, if Lizzie was innocent, why didn't Lizzie hear a scream of some sort, if a scream was uttered? If she was innocent wouldn't Lizzie go up to investigate, find the body and call for the Police? I think Lizzie had to claim she didn't hear a struggle or scream because either she was the killer or was in on it and could not alert the Police untill after her father was killed.

When I first saw that photo of Abby's body, the one with the feet in front of the camera, my first thought was that it was a "re-enactment photo" with a stand-in as Abby. It did not look like the body of a woman who was just murdered. It looked too pristine, as if she were doing some push-ups or looking for a contact lens. Since her head was in the pool of blood I don't think her body had been moved after death but I do feel that her lower body was rearranged and her dress straightened. It is amazing that the bed frame was not hit by the hatchet since her head was so close to it. And the carpet to for that matter. It look's as if Abby were killed somewhere else and her body placed where it was found.

Both the room and body look too pristine. It bother's me.

-1bigsteve (o: