If she cleaned up where are the cleaning supplies?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:45 am

[quote] Nineteen times She flailed away in fury at the older woman giving away to long suppressed hatred.With her bloodletting lust satifisfied at last, she let the bodyremain where it had fallen and quickly cleaned herself and the weapon, and then for almost 90 minutes calmly engaged in such homely chores as carrying up laundry from the cellar sewing a loop on a dress, ironing several handkercheifs and leafing through a magazine."

I was wandering if the police ever found the supplies she supposedly cleaned herself up with. If thats what she did.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:11 am

Does blood clean up with just cold water or is soap needed also? The barn might be a likely place to clean up. I don't know what the faucet arrangement was there but Bridget had been using it and the surrounding area probably showed use.

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:44 am

maybe the cleaning rags & supplies were hidden in the ladies " Flea Bucket " as suggested by Lincoln, along with the Hatchet in between murders ??

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:53 pm

Yooper @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:11 am wrote:Does blood clean up with just cold water or is soap needed also? The barn might be a likely place to clean up. I don't know what the faucet arrangement was there but Bridget had been using it and the surrounding area probably showed use.

I had a pair of pant where a small spot of blood was still visible nearly 2 years after it happened. I only threw them out when they started to tear.
Waste not, want not.
Use it up, wear it out, make do or do without.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:15 am

Mary Livermore, the Suffragette, claimed that through her war experience tending wounded soldiers, she found that wet blood does not wash out of wet hair. She was instructed by the more experienced to let the blood dry and then brush it out thoroughly.

If Lizzie was the murderer and covered her hair, that might be the hardest thing to show as clean so soon after Andrew's body was found. I agree that the barn might be a good place to clean up at- as posted- Bridget had already been using the water supply in the barn, which faucett, I believe, was under the stairs.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:00 am

But did the police look in the barn? I mean stuff just doesn't dissappear into thin air. somewhere there had to be the clean up. Something had to be left.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:38 am

Well, a bloody napkin could go into the napkin pail. An apron could have been burned in the stove, as could an axe handle. Another dress, the one we don't know about, might also be burned.

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:03 pm

She may not have had very much blood on Her from Andrews Killing
Especially if She just sort of reached around the doorway & hacked Him.
So Clean up in the barn could have been Quick & easy.

But After Abby, do you think She Cleaned up in the Cellar ?
Maybe disposing of the dirty/ bloody clothing & such in the Bucket ?
And possibly hiding the hatchet there too ?

Lizzie, you smart Devil You !!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:05 pm

The problems listed above are quickly disposed of once you assume the obvious: Lizzie didn't do it.
The same questions about OJ have the same solution. OJ had the alibi of the limo driver. Lizzie was not seen at the drugstore at 11am that day.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:55 pm

It sounds like those comments are non-responsive and contributes not much. Also, the last sentence makes no sense

I really was left thinking "Huh?"

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:37 pm

I really don't think OJ killed the Bordens, but I can't seem to find a book to substantiate that claim.

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:32 pm

This comment by Matt got me to thinking...

"She may not have had very much blood on Her from Andrews Killing
Especially if She just sort of reached around the doorway & hacked Him.
So Clean up in the barn could have been Quick & easy."

IS it possible for Lizzie to have sheilded part of her body behind the door or door frame and still been able to reach Andrew with the hatchet? Would she have been close enough?
I haven't been to the house, so I couldn't even guess.

If she hid to the right of the door frame she would have had to use her left arm to swing the hatchet, which would account for the "left to right" theory.

Also, I was reading Sullivan's book last night and it states on pg. 129:

"Dr. Draper indicated the first wound, which was a flap wound over the left ear. This, he said, had been delivered from front backwards and was a long cut."

and on pg 131...

"One wound on the left side of the head was given while Mrs. Borden was standing facing her assailant."

Are these statements accurate to the original transcripts?

I always thought that Abby's body position looked like someone who was curling up and trying to ward off the blows.

Michele

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:53 pm

Dr. Draper's testimony is in Volume II of the trial transcription. Do you have those?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:06 pm

It has been suggested, probably more than once, that Lizzie could have worn Andrew's coat, then folded it and put it under his head.

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:47 pm

doug65oh @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:53 pm wrote:Dr. Draper's testimony is in Volume II of the trial transcription. Do you have those?

No, I don't, and I should... I just wanted to be sure that portion of Sullivan's text was accurate.

Just thinking outloud here...

If Abby took that blow face to face with her attacker, the initial blood "spurt" from that wound would have shot out forward, so her attacker SHOULD have had blood on their clothing, at least from that wound...being the first but not fatal wound, heart still pumping.

I can then imagine Abby turning and going down to the floor, not falling with a thud, but purposely curling up in the vain hope of protecting herself. The attacker then had plenty of time to clean themselves off before Andrew's attack.

Since Lizzie's favorite color of clothing was blue and she owned multiple blue dresses...AND since no one seems at all sure (with the exception of the pink wrap) what she wore that day...she could have changed from one non-descript blue dress (that now had blood on it) to another non-descript blue dress without Uncle John or Bridget noticing she'd changed. She would have had to be careful about any blood getting on her when Andrew was attacked, that's why I wondered about the doorway.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:52 pm

Harry worked his fingers to the bone on those. They're free downloads when you have the time.

A happy belated by the way too!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:56 pm

If Lizzie was the murderer she would have had a good deal more time to clean up after Abby's murder than after Andrew's. That is assuming the murders occurred within the time frame suggested by the expert witnesses at the trial.

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:15 pm

Tomorrow, a new hard drive is goin' in this 'puter...then I'll take advantage of all Harry's hard work and download the files.

Thanks for all the feedback on my ramblings...it's appreciated...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:46 pm

The doorframe cannot shield anyone from blood. One can stand in the doorway, but the door would have to open wide against the dining room wall and so it could not be a shield. Meaning, there'd be no *reaching around.*

Also, in my readings I have several times come across the term that *the first blow is free.* This means there would be no spurting blood from the pressure of the first cut and any blood flung from a weapon would be from any cut after the first. I hope I explained that properly.

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 am

Kat @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:46 pm wrote:The doorframe cannot shield anyone from blood. One can stand in the doorway, but the door would have to open wide against the dining room wall and so it could not be a shield. Meaning, there'd be no *reaching around.*

Also, in my readings I have several times come across the term that *the first blow is free.* This means there would be no spurting blood from the pressure of the first cut and any blood flung from a weapon would be from any cut after the first. I hope I explained that properly.

LOL...Well, there goes my Doorframe Theory...

As for the "first blow is free"...I've never heard that before.

I know little about medical issues. I've had no more 'medical training" than any average mom of four gets in the course of their children's lives, but I can tell you from first hand experience that I've seen one small stab wound that hit in just the right spot, immediately spurt blood in 4' streams...by the time the bleeding was stopped, a small 5' x 8' bathroom looked like a slaughterhouse.

I just assumed if that "first wound" even nicked the temporal artery, there would be an immediate and pronounced loss of blood. Having no expertise in that area, I'll leave the issue to others who know much more than I do...

Thanks Kat for the info....

Michele

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:05 am

All I can say is it's a forensic oddity I have seen on TV and read in books several times. I know I didn't explain it correctly- sorry.
When I come across one of the sources for this phenomenon in science, I will post it.

[Edit here]: I have a source for cast off not being found after one blow:
"Cast off occurs only when a weapon is used to inflict repeated blows, strikes or stabs. The weapon can be anything, even a fist, as long as it retains blood for a moment and then is used to inflict at least one more blow. Once the victim's skin is broken by the initial impact and bleeding begins, subsequent contact in the area of bleeding will contaminate the weapon with liquid blood. As the bloody weapon is withdrawn and raised to deliver another blow, at some point when the maximum extension of the attacker arm is reached, there is a stop and a change of direction, back in the direction of the victim. Depending on the speeed of the withdrawl and the abruptness of the momentary stop, some quantity of blood will fly off the weapon. A narrow directional spray may be found on nearby objects, and each cast off can be used to determine the participants positions. Even the hand used to hold the weapon, right or left, may be determined if the victim's body remains in place or its position was documented before it was moved or can be ascertained by other evidence."
Crime Scene, Larry Ragle, Avon Books, NY, 1995, pgs. 198-99.
It goes on to explain that the attacker's clothing can be a source for the finding of cast off blood, and voids in the cast off pattern is called "shadowing," meaning there was something in the way.

I realize this doesn't address the other point of actual bleeding.
In reading more, it explains that if the victim falls on the wound there may be very little bleeding, or if the first blow kills the heart will not pump it and we'd see little bleeding. But I was under the impression that one wound made by a bladed instument can cause a closing up of the wound when the blade is removed which equals seepage but not spatter, or jetting.

Have not found that yet, but I may be incorrect on this last explanation.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:10 pm

Yooper @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:06 pm wrote:It has been suggested, probably more than once, that Lizzie could have worn Andrew's coat, then folded it and put it under his head.

THAT suggestion (fom Robert Sullivan?) can be tested. Just get a 5'4" woman to wear the Prince Albert coat of a 6'2" man and see what she could do. How could she put it on?
Can anyone answer this?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:12 pm

Kat @ Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:05 am wrote:All I can say is it's a forensic oddity I have seen on TV and read in books several times. I know I didn't explain it correctly- sorry.
When I come across one of the sources for this phenomenon in science, I will post it.

[Edit here]: I have a source for cast off not being found after one blow:
"Cast off occurs only when a weapon is used to inflict repeated blows, strikes or stabs. The weapon can be anything, even a fist, as long as it retains blood for a moment and then is used to inflict at least one more blow. Once the victim's skin is broken by the initial impact and bleeding begins, subsequent contact in the area of bleeding will contaminate the weapon with liquid blood. As the bloody weapon is withdrawn and raised to deliver another blow, at some point when the maximum extension of the attacker arm is reached, there is a stop and a change of direction, back in the direction of the victim. Depending on the speeed of the withdrawl and the abruptness of the momentary stop, some quantity of blood will fly off the weapon. A narrow directional spray may be found on nearby objects, and each cast off can be used to determine the participants positions. Even the hand used to hold the weapon, right or left, may be determined if the victim's body remains in place or its position was documented before it was moved or can be ascertained by other evidence."
Crime Scene, Larry Ragle, Avon Books, NY, 1995, pgs. 198-99.
It goes on to explain that the attacker's clothing can be a source for the finding of cast off blood, and voids in the cast off pattern is called "shadowing," meaning there was something in the way.

I realize this doesn't address the other point of actual bleeding.
In reading more, it explains that if the victim falls on the wound there may be very little bleeding, or if the first blow kills the heart will not pump it and we'd see little bleeding. But I was under the impression that one wound made by a bladed instument can cause a closing up of the wound when the blade is removed which equals seepage but not spatter, or jetting.

Have not found that yet, but I may be incorrect on this last explanation.

I understood Herb MacDonell (?) to be the national expert on blood spatter. Does his book (?) cover this? He teaches a course.

myk7753 · Post by **myk7753** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:34 am

RayS @ Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:10 pm wrote:
Yooper @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:06 pm wrote:It has been suggested, probably more than once, that Lizzie could have worn Andrew's coat, then folded it and put it under his head.
THAT suggestion (fom Robert Sullivan?) can be tested. Just get a 5'4" woman to wear the Prince Albert coat of a 6'2" man and see what she could do. How could she put it on?
Can anyone answer this?

I am 5' tall, and my husband (6' tall) has a full length jean jacket/coat/duster that I put on backwards, so it completely covered me from floor to neck. I then lifted my arms as if to swing an ax...no problem whatsoever...

Michele

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:31 pm

myk7753 @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:34 am wrote:
RayS @ Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:10 pm wrote:
Yooper @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:06 pm wrote:It has been suggested, probably more than once, that Lizzie could have worn Andrew's coat, then folded it and put it under his head.
THAT suggestion (fom Robert Sullivan?) can be tested. Just get a 5'4" woman to wear the Prince Albert coat of a 6'2" man and see what she could do. How could she put it on?
Can anyone answer this?
I am 5' tall, and my husband (6' tall) has a full length jean jacket/coat/duster that I put on backwards, so it completely covered me from floor to neck. I then lifted my arms as if to swing an ax...no problem whatsoever...

Michele

I understand that some people reported other results. In any event, the blood spatters would be on the back of the coat. No such bloodstains were ever reported, as far as I know. I'm sure they looked carefully.
Or is my assumption wrong?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Judge Robert Sullivan had assumed that Lizzie was guilty, and tried to concoct a story that would show guilty.
He made it up!
Unless somebody can show they found bloodstains on that folded coat which came from using it as a shield.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:43 pm

I am 5'11" and my husband is 6'3".... So this might make a difference. He has a long cashmere dress coat and I put it on backwards and would never have been able to swing a hatchet or much of anyting else dressed like this....

His was custom made-- so that might make a difference as well. The sleeves were fitted for him--but he isn't a shrimpy guy...

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:51 pm

Why does everyone assume that the coat would have had to be worn backwards? If it was buttoned in the front it would have covered just as well.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:07 pm

The pictures we have seen of the Prince Albert coats show a deep "V" in front. That would be more deeply defined on a shorter female. Maybe that is why?
You can try Googling a Prince Albert.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:33 pm

This whole scenario of Lizzie possibly wearing the prince albert coat to slaughter Andrew reminds me of the recent case of Sarah Johnson from Idaho who murdered her parents and was found guily and sentenced to prison. One of the key prosecutors demonstrated how Sarah wore her pink bathrobe backwards to murder her parents with a large shotgun. She later put the robe in the garbage which was recovered by police. The robe had alot of the blood splatter on it, which explained why Sarah was free of any blood except a tiny speck under her fingernail. She said she had a nosebleed, anyway, I can see Lizzie wearing a coat as a shield rightways or backwards. Just because the coat would be big on her, does not rule out the fact it could work as a shield.

Another fact in the Sarah Johnson murder trial was that she also wore a shower cap to protect her hair from blood splatter. Maybe the hat Lizzie says she wore that day was for that purpose?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:48 am

I'll never understand how these murderous people never think to get rid of old clothing stained with blood. They throw stuff in the garbage, put splattered shoes back into their closets, hide stuff in sheds in their yards, etc. At least, if Lizzie was guilty, she did a really good job of disposing of the evidence.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:16 am

Kat @ Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:07 pm wrote:The pictures we have seen of the Prince Albert coats show a deep "V" in front. That would be more deeply defined on a shorter female. Maybe that is why?
You can try Googling a Prince Albert.

Thanks. I see that now. I always thought the coat would be a lot longer.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:14 pm

Angel @ Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:48 am wrote:I'll never understand how these murderous people never think to get rid of old clothing stained with blood. They throw stuff in the garbage, put splattered shoes back into their closets, hide stuff in sheds in their yards, etc. At least, if Lizzie was guilty, she did a really good job of disposing of the evidence.

Because most murders are committed in a fit of anger, with little planning or experience. I've read that most (?) murderers make a full confession as soon as they are questioned by the police. They feel guilty and want to confess.
This did not happen w/ Lizzie (or Bridget).
A professional murderer (or murderess?) would never make these mistakes, which is why finding no bloody clothes or weapon would say the killer took them away! They knew what to do.

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:38 am

If Lizzie did it, wearing Andrew's coat would indeed seem to be a good choice to protect her clothes. As to Abby's murder: perhaps Abby's waterproof would have come in handy there. Since it had a rubber coating, it would have been easy to clean. (By the way: I haven't been able yet to find a picture or a description of such a waterproof garment, did any of you?)
Which brings me to the following: something in the testimonies gave me the impression that the sinks in the house didn't have a drain. If that's the case, there would have been an additional task in cleaning up: getting rid of the bloody water. Does any of you know if that was the case?

Airmid.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:47 am

Yes, in The Hatchet, issue June/July 2005.
(Vol. 2 Issue 3). Page 57 for the *rubber coats.*
The article is called "Let's Call It a Wrap or What Did The Bordens Wear?" by Mary Naugle. The illustrations comprise pages 53- 57.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:48 am

I had not heard there were no drains in the sinks. I don't see the point of that. It seems a drain would be elementary, Watson.

Mossy Oak Mudslinger · Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:56 am

Yooper @ Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:37 pm wrote:I really don't think OJ killed the Bordens, but I can't seem to find a book to substantiate that claim.

serendipity · Post by **serendipity** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 8:36 am

Its possible there was very little blood spatter. If both victims died after the first blow, there hearts would have stopped and the killer might have got very little blood on them.

Its likely Jack the Ripper got no blood on him because he strangled his victims first.

Forensics was a bit basic in those days. I don't think a drop under a fingernail (for example) would have been picked up.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:12 am

On another note, blood analysis in 1892 was extremely primitive. Blood types were not discovered until 1909. See this article:

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/biology/art14433.html

When Dr. Wood analyzed the spot found on Lizzie's dress he explained that certain animals had similar blood construction. I think Matt will like this.

Page 1005, Trial, part II, Dr. Wood is being questioned about the measurement of the blood corpuscles he examined:

"Q. With the blood of what other animal would it be consistent?
A. There are some other animals, mostly of the---not domestic animals, which have the same diameter within the human limits, like seal and opossum, and one variety of guinea pig. The rabbit comes pretty near and the dog comes pretty near."

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:05 pm

The experts compared the size of blood corpuscles to check if it was human or animal.
(As I remember it, I hope I'm not wrong.)

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:39 pm

Hey Harry

Now I can Die a Happy Man.
My two Passions, Lizzie Borden & Opossums have finally crossed paths.
Life is so wonderful !!
Thanks for the interesting tidbit.
Matt