meat cleaver vs hatchet

[Angel]

I can't remember if there was any in depth discussion before about this, but I'd like to explore this. There are several things that keep me going back to the possibility of Lizzie (or someone) using a meat cleaver instead of a hatchet. First, there would have been such easy access to one in the kitchen. It would have explained how the weapon disappeared so completely - it would just have been washed off and returned to a drawer with all the other kitchen utensils. It may have been a more manageable thing for a woman to use.
But the big thing that stands out in my mind is the way people discribed the cut through Andrew's eye. It was said to have been a very clean, neat cut from something that had to have been very sharp. Even if an axe would have been sharp I would think that it wouldn't have been slim enough to have cut through something like a delicate eyeball without crushing it too. And a sharp cleaver would have probably caused a cut such as the flap on Abby's head rather than an axe for the same reason. Also part of her hair was cut off cleanly rather than chopped. What do you think?

[Harry]

In the early newspaper reports the cleaver was mentioned as often as an axe or hatchet as the murder weapon. Looking at the papers in chronological order the cleaver seems to disappear after the 11th. I don't know if that was because of an analysis of the cuts or that the police had all these hatchets and axes from the cellar as possible weapons.

I'm no expert on the cuts so I'll leave that to others but the ones you mention Angel are somewhat hard to explain. The hair to me has always been especially troublesome. It is hard to get a clean cut of hair that way.

I looked in some of the books on the case and found this in DeMille's "Dance of Death", page 69:

"Winward, the undertaker, who perhaps had as great a right as any to name the appropriate weapon, nominated---unofficially of course, for his opinion was not asked in the courtroom---"a meat cleaver."

Couldn't find any record of the Bordens having a cleaver but I would assume it was a common kitchen implement in that day. There was a cleaver that had allegedly been on the Swansea farm on auction many moons ago but a farm would obviously require one.

[myk7753]

I agree, I'd aways thought that an axe or hatchet would have crushed Andrew's eye rather than slice it in two...but would a meat cleaver have enough ooomph to it to cause the skulls to crush as they did? I own a good sized meat cleaver and I've attempted to cut through bone without much success...of course I didn't have a good dose of adreniline running through my veins at the time.

Michele

[RayS]

Shouldn't you be referring to the Trial Transcript for the description of the murder weapon?

[theebmonique]

The trial transcript is one source document to check. However, THE murder weapon was never "found", therefore discussing other realistic possibilities is valid.


Tracy...

[RayS]

The trial transcript is one source document to check. However, THE murder weapon was never "found", therefore discussing other realistic possibilities is valid.
Tracy...

But the Prosecution claimed the hatchet found in the house was the murder weapon!!!
The expert witnesses said a hatchet was the murder weapon.
Why not a cutlass?

[theebmonique]

The trial transcript is one source document to check. However, THE murder weapon was never "found", therefore discussing other realistic possibilities is valid.
Tracy...

But the Prosecution claimed the hatchet found in the house was the murder weapon!!!
The expert witnesses said a hatchet was the murder weapon.
Why not a cutlass?

Let me repeat myself...THE murder weapon was never found and documented as such. Can you show me anywhere in the source documents where THE weapon is entered as evidence and verified to be THE weapon in the Borden murders...c'mon Ray....show us your stuff. Prove me wrong and I will send you some of my lovely Lizzie bookmarks...for free. Ask Audrey...they are nice.


Tracy...

[RayS]

Its too hot and humid to do that research work. But it is clear in my mind that the DA introduced the hatchet found in the house as the murder weapon. Doesn't the young lawyer who defended Lizzie tell about this in his book? (I forgot his name.) Arthur S. Phillips sounds right?

[Harry]

I assume you are talking to me.

I read EVERYTHING on the case. I suggest you do the same. Do your own thinking for a change. Then you might be taken seriously.

Have a nice day.

[Yooper]

Something to keep in mind is that a meat cleaver has a relatively fine blade when compared to an axe or a hatchet, by comparison a cleaver is rather delicate (!). I don't know what chopping bone might do to a cleaver, they aren't designed for cutting bone.

A hatchet or axe tends to split, or push apart whatever it cuts, a cleaver does not, due to the width (thickness) of the instrument.

None of this rules a meat cleaver out, in fact, since a viable murder weapon was never found, nothing is ruled out!

[1bigsteve]

A meat cleaver would explain why the cuts on the skulls were of different lengths since a meat cleaver's cutting edge is probably about 10" in length. It would also explain why the cuts appeared to be so thin. A hatchet blade is a wedge and gets thicker as it travels toward the eye. A meat cleaver is the same thickness all the way across.

Some lathing hatchets have very thin blades. I measured an old one from Lizzie's day and it was 1/8" thick. But, the cutting edge was about 2" long and some of the wounds on Abby's head were longer. A lathing hatchet is also very light, not much heft.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

One of 3 indictments, which came from the grand jury, naming Lizzie as one to be tried. From The Knowlton Papers:

HK109
Document, printed, with notation handwritten in ink.

No.
INDICTMENT.

COMMONWEALTH
vs.
LIZZIE ANDREW BORDEN.

MURDER.

Bristol SS. Sup. Court. Nov. Term, 1892.

Rec'd Dec 6 1892

COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS.
BRISTOL SS. At the Superior Court begun and holden at
Taunton within and for said County of Bristol, on the
first Monday of November, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and ninety-two.
The Jurors for the said Commonwealth, on their oath present,-
That Lizzie Andrew Borden of Fall River in the County of Bristol, at Fall
River in the County of Bristol, on the fourth day of August in the year
eighteen hundred and ninety-two, in and upon one Andrew Jackson
Borden, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought, an assault
did make, and with a certain weapon, to wit, a sharp cutting instrument,
the name and a more particular description of which is to the Jurors
unknown, him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden feloniously, wilfully and
of her malice aforethought, did strike, cut, beat and bruise, in and upon
the head of him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, giving to him, the said
Andrew Jackson Borden, by the said striking cutting, beating and bruis-
ing, in and upon the head of him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden,
divers, to wit, ten mortal wounds, of which said mortal wounds the said
Andrew Jackson Borden then and there instantly died.
And so the Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that
the said Lizzie Andrew Borden, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, in manner
and form aforesaid, then and there feloniously, willfully and or her
malice aforethought did kill and murder; against the peace of said
Commonwealth and contrary to the form of the statute in such case
made and provided.
A true bill.
HENRY A. BODMAN
Foreman of the Grand Jury
HOSEA M. KNOWLTON
District Attorney

Bristol ss. On the second day of December, in the year eighteen
hundred and ninety-two, this indictment was returned and presented to
said Superior Court by the Grand Jury, ordered to be filed, and filed; and
it was further ordered by the Court that notice be given to said Lizzie
Andrew Borden that said indictment will be entered forthwith upon the
docket of the Superior Court in said County.
Attest:--
SIMEON BORDEN Jr.,
Asst. Clerk

A true copy
Attest: Simeon Borden Clerk

--But we have to deal with the "gilt" found in Abby's wound, which was discussed in depth on another thread recently.

[myk7753]

I would have thought that preparing the skulls for examination by boiling them would have removed any trace elements of the weapon.

I'm more inclined to believe that the "gilt" was deposited on the edge of the wound in the skull when the powers that be were trying out for size various axe and hatchet heads to see which one gave the best fit?

[Kat]

Well, that was a new theory. It's not provable.
It's a good supposition. It needs to stand the test of time.
To dismiss the gilt would make things less complicated, but that is usually done by consensus where members in discussion agree to a new workable theory.

I will say that the prosecution and defense seemed to have proceeded from day one without the knowledge of gilt, and after it was pointed out, did not use it in their case. If the prosecution knew about it early on, and only Draper found it later after the fact was already known, we do not know. We have not the reply to his letter.
But they did believe a hatchet was used and they did believe it was a new one.

[snokkums]

Doesnt a meat cleave have three prongs to it? Don't ever remember reading or hearing the wounds on the victims resembled anything like that.

[theebmonique]

Snok,

You might be thinking of something else. This is a meat cleaver:



Tracy...

[Kat]

Tracy! Your Avatar of The Wicked Witch combined with your posting of a meat cleaver is just slightly more scary than if Lizzie was weilding it!

[theebmonique]

Well...I'll get you my pretty...and your palmetto bugs too !!


Tracy...

[Yooper]

Tracy

You'd better hope she likes parquet flooring!

[1bigsteve]

Carefull, Kat! Flying monkeys are coming your way!!!


-1bigsteve (o:

[theebmonique]

I never mentioned using the monkeys.


Tracy...

[Kat]

Is it proposed that a cleaver was used in both murders or that there were 2 weapons?

[1bigsteve]

Is it proposed that a cleaver was used in both murders or that there were 2 weapons?

I think there could have been two weapons used, perhaps the first one broke and a backup was used. I don't really cling too much to that theory but it is very possible. Two weapons to hide? Ehhh...

If a meat cleaver was used in both murders, and there was no factory gilt layer placed on that cleaver, then I think that the gilt in Abby's skull was probably placed there by officials trying to "fit and match" new hatchets into the wounds. But why were gilt particals found only in Abby's wounds and not Andrew's? Wouldn't they try to fit the hatchets in both skulls? A meat cleaver could have been quickly cleaned (especially if it had a varnished or plastic/ivory type handle) and placed in plain site and gone unnoticed by the investigators because they were busy looking for hatchets. That could explain why the weapon was not found (Lizzie herself did not leave the property).

If a new hatchet was used on Abby, and the same hatchet was used on Andrew, is it possible that all of the gilt particals were knocked off in Abby's wounds so that there was none left do be deposited in Andrews? In other words the hatchet was "wiped clean" in Abby's skull?

However, if the gilt had been found to have been placed in Abby's wounds during the attempts to "fit and match" the new hatchets, would the prosecuters bring that point up in the trial? Today that would be seen as "contamination of the evidence" or something. I imagine the prosecutors would be a bit too embarrassed to mention it. The defence would probably not bring up the issue in court because it would do nothing to prove Lizzie's innocence, although they could have brought it up to embarrass the prosecution and shed doubt on the prosecution's case against Lizzie. I'm no Lawyer so these are just my ramblings.

myk7753 mentioned "boiling"above. Is it possible that Andrew's skull was boiled but not Abby's thereby eliminating any traces of gilt in Andrew's wounds? Or, Abby's skull was examined for gilt before it was boiled and Andrew's skull was examined after it was boiled?

Just my ideas.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Kat]

The first time I visited the B&B with my sister (who had stayed there before), Shelly came in and started rooting around in the kitchen drawer asking if anyone had seen her hatchet! Turns out she kept a prop hatchet, real-size, in the kitchen drawer. It fit.
However, I don't know if those were the Borden's kitchen drawers. Probably not.

Well, if we consider the weapon, we really should examine what the experts had to say, that's my opinion. They were there and they would have the best idea. I don't know why they would settle on a hatchet if the weapon wasn't a hatchet.

Also, we should keep in mind that there's no reason to keep a hatchet (or a cleaver) in the guest room, so the murder of Abby would have to have been premeditated.

[Harry]

This page shows "antique" hatchets of all types:

http://www.roseantiquetools.com/id104.html

What I find interesting is the location of the gilt on virtually all of them. With the exception of one head, it is not near the cutting edge but in the center of the blade.

This would indicate to me that if the gilt on the weapon used was in the same location as on these hatchets, the head would have had to be driven deep into the wound to leave a deposit. The gilt would also be on one of the thickest portions of the blade since it has to accomodate the handle.

I'm satisfied it was a hatchet used. Like Kat I'm inclined to believe the people who examined the wounds. However, I'm not convinced the gilt was deposited at the time of the killing. Considering the location of the gilt on the hatchet heads I'm not able to see how the gilt got there at all.

Are there other instruments the doctors could have used in examining the skulls that had gilt on them?

[Angel]

--But we have to deal with the "gilt" found in Abby's wound, which was discussed in depth on another thread recently.

During that thread hadn't we talked about the fact that the gilt was not mentioned until a long time after the trial, which could mean that it could have been residue left by those inspecting the skulls then, instead of at the time of the murders?


Sorry- I posted this before I read to the end of the posts I had missed during the weekend.

[1bigsteve]

I think the examiners could have placed the gilt in the wounds by accident just by examining the wounds with some sort of a medical tool(?). If a cheap-o hatchet had been used, one with gilt all over the head and edge, then I feel gilt could have been placed in Abby's wounds during the killing. But, why wasn't any found in Andrew's wounds? I'm thinking of those cheap tools you see at flea markets that are covered all over in a chrome finish and made in some small country somewhere. Tools that are guaranteed to break real easy.

If the head had been driven in deep enough to deposit gilt in Abby's wounds then the wounds would have been as long as the cutting edge of the blade, 3 1/2 - 4", instead of so many wounds of differing lengths (most of the shorter in length). Also the width of the wounds would have been much wider due to the thickness of the blade near the eye. The thin width of the wounds and differing lengths indicate that the hatchet head did not penetrate very deeply in many of the wounds. As the hatchet head goes in deep it can crack the skull open and then close up again when the blade is removed. This can leave a narrow wound but it would also break up the skull into little pieces after 19 blows. Abby's head would have been busted up into little pieces. So would Andrew's.

Personally I think it was a hatchet too, but here is my logic. If the examiners failed to determine when and how the gilt got into one victim and not the other, or failed to show much interest in the gilt, then how much faith should we show in their finding that it was positively, absolutely a hatchet and nothing else?

If I were the killer I would have broken their necks. That would have been my method of killing. No blood, no weapon, no trail. However, if Lizzie was the killer I doubt she could not have done that so the weapons for her would have come down to:

A. Poison. Failed to buy any,
B. A gun. Too loud. Would have stunk up the house,
C. A knife. Too much chance of her being over-powered,
D. A meat cleaver. OK, but not enough leverage maybe,
E. A hatchet. Lots of leverage, momentum. Perfect.

So I think a hatchet was the perfect weapon with the cleaver coming in a close second choice. Did Lizzie, or who ever did the killing, use a hatchet? In my opinion, yes. But, I am not 100% positive about it. No matter how you cut it, this case is a puzzler.

Thank you for the site before, Harry. They do have some cool tools! I wish I had a bigger garage. I'd be in heaven. I collect old tools.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Yooper]

It's pretty hard to use poison selectively if the plan is poisoning the food. I don't know how else you might get poison into a person, but I'm assuming the poisoner has no great deal of medical knowledge.

A hatchet with a wooden handle would be easier to get rid of if the handle is broken off. The cleavers I'm familiar with are cut or stamped from a sheet of steel. The handle is a slab-sided type with the steel between two layers of handle material, sort of a sandwich. It would be very difficult to break this down in any way.

[Kat]

From all my CSI crime shows and books on *popular forensics* I find that people who use a knife to kill usually get cut, after multiple wounds are inflicted. A cleaver is up-close-and-personal. It's as up-close to cut as a knife, I think. Maybe a cleaver-wielder would get cut?

There were 2 men stopped on the street that day with a rusty sword- or was it a machete? These are both long-handled. The longer the handle to the weapon, the farther away the assailant can stand and the safer it is for them not to have a tussel.

BTW, FYI: The gilt was found before the trial, not after. And the Crowe's roof barn hatchet was found after the trial began.

[RayS]

From all my CSI crime shows and books on *popular forensics* I find that people who use a knife to kill usually get cut, after multiple wounds are inflicted. A cleaver is up-close-and-personal. It's as up-close to cut as a knife, I think. Maybe a cleaver-wielder would get cut?
...
BTW, FYI: The gilt was found before the trial, not after. And the Crowe's roof barn hatchet was found after the trial began.

IMO a person would not get cut when using a proper weapon (like a hunting knife or bayonet) which has a hilt. Its using a kitchen tool like a bread knife or steak knife (hiltless) where the cut happens when the hand slips over the blade. But using a knife with a hilt means it was premeditated, in most cases.

Leather covered handle is best, leather gets sticky from blood. That is why the soldiers of old used a glover over a metal handled sword. IMO

The documents from 1892 tell when the gilt was found; right after the murders. Today the Brady Rule would have forced the Prosecution to turn over this evidence to the defense. Lizzie didn't do it, at least with that hatchet.

[Kat]

This was May 1893:

May 28th is the date of the previous letter where Draper informs the prosecution that defense experts had been
closeted alone with the skulls for examination.
By May 31st he was writing, warning of the gilt found. Draper says he doesn’t know if their own people knew about this.

--Kat

viewtopic.php?t=1970&start=25

[lydiapinkham]

One thing about the hatchet assumption is that the hatchet was thought to have been recently washed, then camouflaged by wood ash. I think that may have had more to do with their immediate and maintained suspicions than the wounds themselves. When they found that the hatchet fit the wounds and Lizzie had access to it, that clinched it. Still, I've always wondered what she could have done with the handle. I find it hard to believe she could have reduced it to ashes in the stove in such a short time. I too find the cleaver more believable as an eye slicer. I also find more than one weapon a distinct possibility. . . .

--Lyddie

[RayS]

With mass-production methods, all the hatchets stamped out from one mold should match, more or less.
Anyone with a ruler or micrometer could test this at a hardward store.
(I hope they won't think its weird.)

[nbcatlover]

I inherited my late uncle's copy of Radin. As a kid, he'd bring me down to the coal cellar to see this portrait of "Lizzie Borden," located appropriately over the hatchet, scythe, and ax handle. While most of the coal cellar was torn down when the house was rehabbed, the Lizzie wall still remains.



I was shocked to find out that she, in no way, resembled this drawing!

And no, no one in my family was the "Portagee."

[Kat]

Wow Cynthia- regardless- that is a great photo!
Thanks!

[nbcatlover]

If the police had gone door-to-door looking for the "murderer," they would have ended up with hundreds of hatchets and axes. Every home had one when I was growing up, and in New Bedford, they changed the ordinances in the 1960s so people couldn't keep their chickens, roosters, and goats, etc. in the city anymore.

My mother always said that if she had to do what her mother did, we would have never eaten chicken. Namely, grap the hatchet and go out in the backyard and do a poor chicken in. My mother said the chickens would run around with their heads cut off. Then the feathers still had to be plucked and the pinfeathers singed. Brings out the vegetarian instincts in me!

[RayS]

Chicken, like lamb, is one of the meats that is considered fit to eat by all meat-eating cultures in the world (kosher, hallal, etc).
Do you eat eggs or butter?

[Kat]

There is a cleaver-wielding manic-looking Lizzie picture at MondoLizzie:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/MondoLizzie/