The Hatchet Blows

[Richard]

Something I've always puzzled about: has anyone come up with a reasonable amount of time it would take to actually commit the murders? I don't have any experience with hatchets or axes, and I only have a few visuals to guide me (like someone chopping wood) and it seems to me that hitting someone 18 times in the back of the head with a hatchet would take more than a couple of minutes. Is it fair to assume that each murder took anywhere from 2-4 minutes to commit?

Would it have been possible for the killer to swing over and over again in rapid succession and hit the target each time? Would aimed swings with the arm be required? Would the killer have to pause and aim each blow before swinging down? It seems that this would require a few minutes per murder.

I believe it has been determined that if Abby had been hit with the axe and fell to the floor, the sound of her heavy body hitting the floorboards would have been heard by anyone on the first floor. I suppose they would have hurt the katchet blows as well? Has anyone ever experimented with this?

If the killer executed 18 blows to Abby's head, taking more than 2 minutes to do so, what kinds of noises would that have made and would those noises have been heard elsewhere in the house.

It stands to reason that the less number of blows, the less overall noise you would make, and the less amount of time leading to a faster escape.

[Audrey]

IMHO even 2 minutes seems to be pushing it.

The reenactments I have seen have always shown the killer (usually Lizzie) swinging the hatchet in short, one handed blows. We have discussed this before and many of us (especially the women) thought they would need 2 hands to be able to finish the 'job'.

I bought an old hatchet from ebay and swung it around and it was hard work! I would never be able to do it for 2-4 minutes straight without resting. I am tall, but little and probably do not have even average upper body strength though.

BTW-- When I saw the title to this thread I thought you were complaining about 'The Hatchet'!!!

[Kat]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are good questions, but need Abby's murder take only 2-4 minutes? I mean, the killer hung around, supposedly- and really had a lot of time. That's why we can even envision the killer staging the scene.
For Andrew it might be more crucial to be quick, but I think 5 minutes would do and still leave the killer uncaught.
Are you more interested in how little time it would take? Meaning what would be the minimum time to kill Andrew?

[DWilly]

I've done a few "air hatchet" experiments and I think Abby could have been killed in less than two minutes easily. Andrew could have been killed in less than one minute. Now, I haven't actually tried it with a hatchet in my hand so, I don't know how the weight of the hatchet might effect my arms when I swing. I also, don't know how much the adrenaline flow might effect a person. Still, I think both murders could be done in less than four minutes. In pictures I have seen of Lizzie she looks to be a fairly healthy young woman. She might have been a tad sweaty after hitting Abby so many times, but I think she would have recovered fairly quickly and would have been ready for Andrew.

[Audrey]

The hatchet I bought was surprisingly heavy to me.

It makes me wonder, epecially if the killer was not accustomed to completing such movements if they had sore arms the next day.

[1bigsteve]

I have a hatchet head just like Lizzie's HH and I was surprised that it was heavier than it looks in the photos. It's not as heavy as my 32 oz. framing hammer which I can swing all day without any ill effect. I also have another hatchet head just like Lizzie's but a lot bigger. Both are old style shingling hatchets same as Lizzie's.

"Short one-handed blows" would be typical for someone with no experience swinging hatchets. That's how my mom and sisters handled hatchets until I taught them how to use it and they gained confidence.

In the movie, Elizabeth Montgomery is seen using both hands and raising the hatchet back over her head to get a lot of mustard on her swings. I doubt Lizzie, if she was the killer, used the hatchet that way. If she had she probably would have had blood all over her face and hair just like the actress. I think Lizzie probably used short blows and that would account for the lack of damage to the skulls. Two handed blows produce deeper penetration. On the other hand, the killer could have been smart enough to keep the swings short to minimize blood and brain splatter and to keep the hatchet from getting stuck in the skull.

I doubt it took long to commit the actual damage. I could have done in Abby in about 20 seconds using short blows for 19 wacks provided Abby was not a moving target. If she were I would just grab her head and drive the blade in. If it was Lizzie probably closer to 1 minute. The last thing a killer wants is to get caught standing over a dead body with a bloody hatchet in their hand (how embarrassing) so I imagine the killer was in a state of haste. Lizzie had no guarantee that Bridget would not suddenly appear at the door. Especially so during Andrew's murder.

Lizzie: "I thought you were outside washing windows!!??"

Bridget: "And I thought you were a respectable young woman!!??"

And besides Lizzie had to have time to "clean up." I doubt the killer had much soreness in his/her muscles the next day but I'm sure he or she felt a "blood pump" in their arms after the killings.

-1bigsteve (o:

[RayS]

Surely you meant "Elizabeth Montgomery"? Errare humanum est.

I estimate less than a minute for the exchange of pleasantries. "What are you doing here?" "What's it to you, you fat pig!" "We'll just see about this when Andrew comes back" (turning her back). Then the enraged Secret Visitor pulled out his handy hatchet and began striking. Another minute.
Then he calmed down and began his wait for the meeting w/ Andrew.

(My recreation of the murder. Does it sound plausible?)
I read a book last month that told of a similar hatchet murder of two old people. This guy was hired to drive an elderly couple, and became incensed by their backseat driving.
Edward Radin tells of another case of a window washer.

[Bob Gutowski]

Viva Elizabeth Taylor as Lizzie! I can just hear her ordering Maggie "Open that door, YEEEEW!" in standard Liz Taylor fashion, after giggling on the stairs.

Let's see if I can work MY favorite theory in while estimating the time of the assault. "Abby! Look out the window! I have a surprise! Don't look around!" CHOP! "Ahh!" "You turned around!" CHOP, CHOP! "Ooh, my forehead above my ear! Lizzie, why are you - " CHOP! "You'll never give away the farm, Abby, but you're going to BUY it!" CHOP, CHOP! "My hair!" CHOP, CHOP! "That's not your hair!" CHOP, CHOP.

PLOP.

CHOP. CHOP, CHOP, plus six more..

Four minutes.

[Yooper]

I think there must have been some amount of noise associated with repeated hatchet blows with Abby's head against the floor, even if muffled by carpeting.

One point to be made is that we only assume the murder weapon was a hatchet, it was never proven.

A hatchet is an "up close and personal" weapon. Abby likely knew her assailant, because there doesn't seem to be anywhere in the guest room to hide, and she probably would have cried out if a stranger had gotten too close. There didn't seem to be any sign of a struggle in the guest room either.

One image I keep replaying in my mind is Lizzie on her knees facing the foot of the bed pretending to look for something, Abby coming in to help her, kneeling down, and Lizzie taking it from there. It would explain the partial frontal assault characteristics of some of Abby's wounds. Lizzie could have partially caught her as she fell, lessening the noise.

In any case, the one wound near Abby's ear must be accounted for and I think it was the left ear (please correct me if I'm wrong). There was testimony it came from the front. It had to have been struck early-on, possibly even the first blow. If the murderer was between Abby and the door and Abby was in a kneeling position, she would have had to turn completely around, awkward if not impossible, in order to receive the wound from the front. If Abby was standing, there would have been quite a noise when she went down, and she would probably have had time to struggle or cry out. I doubt that the frontal blow was struck later because that would call for the murderer to maneuver Abby's head in a very awkward manner and would have been completely unnecessary.

One factor which would bear on the actual time involved in swinging the hatchet would be whether the arms were fully extended (swinging from the shoulders) or if the swings were from shoulder height (swinging from the elbows).

[Kat]

Both assailant and Abby kneeling facing each other is an interesting scenario!
The killer (someone Abby knew well who was of the household at the time) kneeling, calling Abby over to look at something under the bed- whips out the hatchet and starts. No blood on the lower part of the assailant if they were kneeling too, including feet!

Good one.

As for assuming the weapon was a hatchet, there's a large collection of testimony to that effect. The actual hatchet itself is in question tho.

[RayS]

Both assailant and Abby kneeling facing each other is an interesting scenario!
The killer (someone Abby knew well who was of the household at the time) kneeling, calling Abby over to look at something under the bed- whips out the hatchet and starts. No blood on the lower part of the assailant if they were kneeling too, including feet!
Good one.
As for assuming the weapon was a hatchet, there's a large collection of testimony to that effect. The actual hatchet itself is in question tho.

I remembered Trial testimony from a Doctor that in the case of Abby the assailant would have blood spatter from the waist down, and for Andy blood spatter from the waist up.
The experts with a handy cross-index could affirm or deny this.

[Allen]

Viva Elizabeth Taylor as Lizzie! I can just hear her ordering Maggie "Open that door, YEEEEW!" in standard Liz Taylor fashion, after giggling on the stairs.

Let's see if I can work MY favorite theory in while estimating the time of the assault. "Abby! Look out the window! I have a surprise! Don't look around!" CHOP! "Ahh!" "You turned around!" CHOP, CHOP! "Ooh, my forehead above my ear! Lizzie, why are you - " CHOP! "You'll never give away the farm, Abby, but you're going to BUY it!" CHOP, CHOP! "My hair!" CHOP, CHOP! "That's not your hair!" CHOP, CHOP.

PLOP.

CHOP. CHOP, CHOP, plus six more..

Four minutes.

The scenario of Lizzie and Abby both kneeling is interesting to me. Because it would have been very easy for Lizzie to have hidden the hatchet under the bed to be waiting for the right moment to strike. But I think it would've been more cumbersome for the attacker to be on their knees when attacking. It's easier to be thrown off balance this way. I think it would've slowed down the attack somewhat. How quickly could she have gotten up, or moved about, in a floor length dress?


But this raised an issue I've been thinking about more and more, that the weapon was already in the room prior to the attack. It would answer many questions about how the weapon got into the room without causing Abby an alarm. The killer could've waited until she wasn't looking and retrieved it from it's hiding place in the room. Anybody else think this could be likely?

[Yooper]

Although highly coincidental, it is possible that the weapon was being hidden at the time and Abby blundered into the room.

If Abby mentioned something about "pillowcases in the guest room" while dusting and Lizzie carried a pile of clothing to her room before Abby went upstairs, the hatchet might have come from anywhere.

[Kat]

Lizzie at a very early statement said that Abby was in the guest room already as she herself was going downstairs in the morning.
It is possible she was, because Morse said Abby entered the foyer before he left the house and that led to the front upstairs and he never saw her alive again, approx 20 minutes, to 15 minutes before 9.
But if Bridget really saw Abby in the dining room to get instructions about the windows, that encounter would have been about 9 am.
All this was about 9 am, so who is to know for sure?

Bridget may have lied about that meeting where she received her instructions to wash windows- if we believe Morse who says Bridget received the chore instructions at breakfast.

The scenario that the killer was kneeling- in pants or dress- their feet are concealed from the blood and then that would explain why there were no bloody footprints.
Also, one might keep their balance more easily kneeling squarely and having a lower center of gravity?

[Yooper]

While we are accustomed to being on our feet and our sense of balance is probably geared to that position, swinging a hatchet might be performed just as well from a kneeling position. The side-to-side stability is greater.

The kneeling/kneeling scenario also limits movements a great deal. I wondered about the linearity of the blood spatter in the guest room. It seemed as though Abby either didn't or couldn't move around much. If she had been on her feet and tried to defend herself, the blood spatter pattern might have been more random or circular to some degree. The large pool of blood beneath her head, with relatively little blood elsewhere, also seems to indicate little movement.

If she was in the bedroom first and the killer came in after her, wouldn't it make more sense to find her turned the opposite way, with her head toward the foot of the bed? If she was adjusting the bed or looking in a drawer and knew the killer she might have kept her back turned, but what about the wound near her ear which supposedly came from the front?

For Abby to let a stranger get within hatchet striking distance (an arm's length, which is the same as grabbing distance), without crying out, seems absurd.

[theebmonique]

We discussed the idea quite some time back, that the attacker could possibly have come from across the bed. He/she could have stayed perpendicular or move to a position of being length-wise on the bed. Being perpendicular could allow either arm to be used for swinging, Lying length-wise...which arm was used would depend on which way the attacker was positioned...head at the head of the bed, or head at the foot of the bed. These positions could also account for the lack of bloody foot prints and lack of blood on the attacker, save for some on their hand(s) and arm(s).


Tracy...

[Kat]

I think the opinion at the time, as to the length of the handle of the hatchet used was about 24" to 36"?
Does anyone remember that?
That's the length of a yard stick. That's not "grabbing" range.
Can anyone confirm?

[Yooper]

Most hatchet handles are in the 12-15 inch range. Axes range from 28-36 inches. A 36 inch axe handle is a VERY LARGE axe! Most are about 32 inches.

[Kat]

Will anyone look it up and show me wrong?
I tend to get the handle length not quite right. Maybe 24" was max as speculated in testimony?
But I recall it was longer than a tomahawk type hatchet that most people envision.

[1bigsteve]

Axes and their handles do come in various sizes from hatchets 12"-15" to double bladed tree felling axes about 36". There are axes with handles that are longer than a hatchet's but shorter than a 36 incher. These probably have about a 24" handle. I once owned one. These are lighter two handed axes and are usually used for lighter chopping or used by people who are not able to handle the big stuff. But an axe with a 24" handle would have produced much more damage than what was inflicted on the Bordens. The longer the handle the greater the damage even if the head remained the same weight, which it did not, usually.

A gander through a well stocked hardware store will give you an idea of the various axe sizes and such. Lizzie's HH style of shingling hatchet is no longer being made (Vaughan makes a small one called an Oyster Hatchet with no nail slot) but all other hatchet styles from Lizzie's day are pretty much still being made today.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Yooper]

The only implement I can come up with having a 24 inch handle would be either a "youth" model axe, or a cruiser's axe. They tend to be roughly the same thing, a lightweight axe designed to be carried more than used.

The "possible murder weapons" link in the Crime Library shows a number of hatchets and axes. Look at the hatchets proportionally using handle length with respect to blade width. The only example with a handle greater than three times the blade width is the shingling hatchet, roughly 3 1/2 times the blade width. The greatest possible length for that hatchet is slightly less than 16 inches, using the 4 1/2 inch blade width. There is a "hunter's axe" listed with a 16 inch handle which seems to be just a rather large hatchet. If used with two hands, as an axe, the effective handle length becomes the same as a hatchet with a twelve inch handle due to the width of one hand at the bottom of the handle.

Axes were much more common tools in Victorian times than they are today. It's hard to find a five pound axe nowadays. There would have been a greater variety of axes and hatchets available then. But they were still designed around human physiology and the variations in size and weight of the tools reflected, in part, the variety of physical capabilities in people. Axes are essentially two-handed implements with relatively heavy heads. They are designed for cross-cutting (chopping) heavy material. The heavy head and long handle provide much greater momentum for the "chop", and they cut deeper than hatchets. Hatchets are designed usually for one-handed use and less momentum from the swing. While hatchet blade widths vary, the handle is usually correspondingly longer as blade width increases to prevent a person's knuckles from following the blade through the wood.

I wish there was a viable method to re-create the physical part of the murders, that of actually using the hatchet on bone of the proper thickness. The momentum required to inflict wounds of a given depth would be very indicative of how much velocity ("swing") was necessary with various hatchet head weights.

[Kat]

Thanks you guys. I have handled hatchets at Ace Hardware and spent time talking to the salesguy but no one could get me to understand the difference between an ax and a hatchet.
Anyway, here is the testimony of Dr. Dolan at the Preliminary Hearing. He gives the handle length in his estimation. He also thought the weapon was the claw-head hatchet that had a 5" blade and weight of 3-5 lbs.

(August 26th, 1892.)

Q. Did you measure at any time, Doctor, the length of the handle of the hatchet that you have described?
A. No sir.
Q. Have you an opinion about its length?
A. I could not say, I should think it would be about probably eighteen inches or two feet, eighteen inches probably.
Q. Do you mean from the hatchet to the end of the handle?
A. No sir, from the blade to the end of the handle, the inner edge of the blade.
Q. Did you at any time measure the length of the edge, that is the breadth of the blade of the hatchet?
A. No sir, I did not.
Q. Did you weigh it?
A. No sir.
Q. Have you any opinion about its weight?
A. No, I should think it weighed from three to five pounds.
Q. And the handle was about eighteen inches to two feet long?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What is your theory as to the position the assailant of Mrs. Borden was in when these blows on the back of the head, that you have described, I do not limit them to the back of the head, were given?
A. My impression is ---
Q. Your opinion I am asking for.
A. Yes. That they were given while Mrs. Borden was lying in the position in which she was found, with the murderer standing over her.
Q. If the murderer was standing over her, using the hatchet you have described, with the handle about eighteen inches to two feet long, would the assailant have used, in your opinion, one or two hands to inflict these blows?
A. I would not be prepared to say that.
Q. Would he have been obliged to stoop over in order to give the

[Page 177]
blows?
A. Certainly, he would not have been obliged to stand erect.
Q. In a bending position?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Taking into account the average length of the handle of the hatchet, and the average length of the human arm, whereabouts over the prone body of Mrs. Borden, would the assailant have had to stand, in your opinion?
A. I should judge about over the hips.
Q. Then the assailant would have been obliged to be, would he not, astride the hips?
A. Yes sir.
Q. With one foot between the body and the bureau, and the other foot between the body and the frame of the bed?
A. Yes sir.

[Yooper]

One way to arrive at the reasonability of Dr. Dolan's testimony would be to fasten weights of between 3 and 5 pounds to the end of handles of 18-24 inch length. Then try to swing (or even move) the weights with one hand. A hatchet is designed for one-handed use. Try it!

[Harry]

Defense attorney Adams at the trial produced a new hatchet which he had purchased with a blade 3-5/8". Moody is his opening statement said the handleless hatchet blade was exactly 3-1/2 inches.

Adams then had the handle of his purchased hatchet measured and it was slightly over 12 inches.

He then asks Dr. Draper (p1064):

"Q. Taking the head of the handleless hatchet, would you say that the handle of the other hatchet would be a fair length for the handle of that hatchet?
A. I think so."

What I think Adams is trying to say is that there is a general correlation between the size of the cutting edge of the blade and the length of the handle. That's common sense as well. You don't put a large blade on a small handle or vice versa.

If that is true, and the cuts appeared to have been made by a hatchet with a blade of 3-1/2 inches, then the length of the weapon handle could have been in the 12 inch range.

[RayS]

The shorter length of a hatchet compared to an axe makes it more portable. In a time when wood was used for heating and cooking. An axe would be used for large pieces, a hatchet for kindling.
I once read that a hatchet was very common to carpenters in the 19th century for rough trimming of wood. Then a chisel for finer work (mortise and tenon, pardon my French).

[Kat]

Thanks again Harry for the info.
Now we can see how the prosecution changed its mind from a 5" blade at the preliminary hearing where the weapon was considered likely to be the claw head hatchet, to fixating on the handleless hatchet with a smaller blade. I had early on been convinced by Dolan that the claw head was the weapon.
Since no weapon was named in the indictment, I suppose it could still be either weapon or neither.

[Yooper]

There seems to be quite a number of superficial wounds, in Andrew's case there were three or possibly four wounds which would have proven fatal if struck alone, according to Draper. Some of this might be explained by a glancing or an angled blow to a relatively round object, but I wonder how many were the result of strength of swing by the murderer.

In both cases there was cushioning below the head, carpeting for Abby and a sofa pillow and possibly a coat for Andrew, but that would have been a constant value in both cases. The murderer would have had to swing harder in Andrew's case to do the same amount of damage because the cushioning was greater. The cushioning probably would have provided for head movement due to the recoil from the hatchet blows, more in Abby's case than in Andrew's. It would have been harder to extract the hatchet from a deeply inflicted wound if the skull was well-cushioned.

I wonder how much variation in swing strength existed between the blows and whether it was due to fatigue or just inexperience.

[Yooper]

Another thought just occurred, wouldn't Andrew's head have been driven downward into the pillow with repeated hatchet blows? Does the position of his head in the photographs seem rather high?

[Kat]

By the time we see the photo of Andrew it was stated by Bowen that Andrew's head was lower then than earlier. He thought the head was higher up before the photo. He thought the movements thru the room of people walking etc. had made the body sink down lower.
So if you're asking if the head seems high, supposedly it was even higher earlier.

Prelim
Bowen
402
A. He was lying on the right side of his face. The head of the lounge or sofa was near the door leading from the dining room to the sitting room.
Q. With his head towards the hall?
A. Yes, the front hall door.
Q. Calling your attention to Photograph No. 5, and the position there, I ask you how the position which you saw him in, varies from that, if it does at all?
A. The only difference I can see, I think the whole form has sunk down, has slipped down. I do not think the head is quite as high now as it was when I first saw him. The only way I can explain that, is that by walking through the room, he may have settled down some way.
Q. Settled down into the sofa, up towards the foot of the sofa a little?
A. I thought the head was a little higher up on the arm.
Q. On that part of the arm where it makes the curve to the back of the head?
A. Yes Sir. Under the head was a coat, I think, and a sofa pillow that he was lying on.

[Yooper]

I had been thinking about how soft the sofa pillow was, if it was soft enough to allow Andrew to "sink", then it was soft enough to allow him to be "driven down" by hatchet blows. Perhaps his head was partially resting on the sofa arm, at least for the first few blows. That might explain the three wounds to the cranium, the deepest ones inflicted, and we could infer that they were the first ones struck. Subsequent blows might have been delivered with only the pillow beneath his head, and would have been more superficial due to the softer surface.

Might he have been resting with his right shoulder more beneath him? I can't find any testimony stating that he had been moved in any way prior to the photographs.

[Kat]

I think they checked his pockets before the photographs and possibly moved that coat to check those pockets as well.
Hmmm... I don't know that those who have a theory about that coat know if that was moved, checked, and returned to it's place? Was it, I wonder?

I get you about the pillow- I hadn't thought it would affect the blows that much. I've no experience with hatchets and axes, but I find them fascinating.

[Yooper]

That's a good observation Kat, Andrew might have been moved a bit in the search for evidence.

I've had a lot of experience with axes and hatchets, but all of it is from cutting and splitting firewood rather than murder! The use of either implement is sort of a "whipping" motion using shoulders, elbows, wrists, and even some waist motion. A swing might describe a 90 degree arc for the arms, but nearly a 180 degree arc for the axe. The momentum of the axe or hatchet head does the work involved, and momentum is the product of mass and velocity. The mass is a constant determined by the weight of the implement head. Velocity varies with the height, arm length, and strength of the individual as well as with the handle length.

What might be surprising is that relative strength has less to do with the power of the blows than one might think. Strength only counts in overcoming the inertia of the implement head at the beginning of the swing.

[RayS]

My observation or assumption is that Andy was seated while his assailant was standing. "Blood spatters above the waist" said the Doctor.

[Yooper]

Wasn't there some testimony by Dr. Dolan to the effect that the undertaker had given him the items from Andrew's pockets?

[Kat]

The pocket thing is hard to determine. Because, as I recall, one of the officers knew what was in Andrew's pockets and apparently Lizzie heard or knew what was in his pockets- so that became very complicated- people wondered how Lizzie knew what was in Andrew's pockets.
I can't recall which officer. I think you are partly right.
Do you have the preliminary hearing? That is the source I am most conversant with.

There were these guys on my roof using a shingling type hatchet and they swung with a sort of rhythm, one handed, from about shoulder level. Then there were these guys resurfacing the pool next door and they chipped rather than swung. The roofers leaned over from the waist, but the pool guys squatted.

I understand about the weight of the head and the gravity thing. The Ace Hardware guy explained it to me.