The search

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:41 am

One of the areas that needs more analysis is the searches performed by the police at the house. Just what did they find and even more important what did they miss?

We know they missed a stained dress. Whether it was paint, blood or whatever, it was missed.

And they missed (assuming it was there) a dress pattern.

Was Mullaly correct in that there was what could have been the handle to the handleless hatchet in the box in the cellar? Fleet denies seeing one.

What happened to the small white box-like object Andrew brought home? Did it contain a lock? Papers? A book? Was it looked for?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:28 am

Excellent! And where were the papers Andrew was reading by the window in the diningroom when he came home? And here is the big one- what happened to his blood-stained jacket? It is not in the inventory of clothing from the bodies which was buried.My thought is that Wingate cleaned it and buried him in it if it was his best jacket. Oh, I bet we could make quite a list! Did anybody think to check for pear cores? I wonder if Mrs. Churchill ever told anybody what she saw that day before she died. There is information out there still I would bet- hidden in somebody's attic in a letter or diary.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:37 pm

Harry @ Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:41 am wrote:One of the areas that needs more analysis is the searches performed by the police at the house. Just what did they find and even more important what did they miss?

We know they missed a stained dress. Whether it was paint, blood or whatever, it was missed.

And they missed (assuming it was there) a dress pattern.

Was Mullaly correct in that there was what could have been the handle to the handleless hatchet in the box in the cellar? Fleet denies seeing one.

What happened to the small white box-like object Andrew brought home? Did it contain a lock? Papers? A book? Was it looked for?

No, we do not know that they missed a stained dress. They were looking for blood, not old stiff paint. An inventory of the evidence (if it was made and still exists) would answer that.
If Andy brought home a small white box and it disappeared then only one of two things happened. It was overlooked in the search (no fingerprints or evidence), or the visitor took it away (if it had something in it for him).

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:54 pm

YES, they missed a stained dress.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:08 am

I want to know about this darn big bloody handkerchief that's in the photo of Mrs. Borden!
We saw it in the video and didn't really know it was truly evidence until then. I mean there was testimony about it's being found, and the FRHS has it- but it's a big mystery to me. No one saw Abbie with it on that morning!
And the item shown on the video was clean, right?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:39 am

Maybe it was one of the things in the room that Lizzie could have used to wipe off a dripping weapon.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm

From Harrry: "One of the areas that needs more analysis is the search performed by the police at the house. Just what did they find and even more important what did they miss?

Think maybe they weren't looking hard enough? I mean, they actually could have found something they pointed directly at Lizzie. They might not would have wanted to find something that pointed to nice, well-brought up lady. After all, young ladies just didn't do something like this.

"What happened tothe small white box like object
Andrew brought home? Did it contain a lock? Papers? What was the lock for?"

Maybe the box contained a will? It might have been locked because of that, or if there was some jewelary. Given Lizzies pention for shoplifting, he might have felt that whatever was in the box needed to be protected.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:24 pm

Kat @ Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:08 am wrote:I want to know about this darn big bloody handkerchief that's in the photo of Mrs. Borden!
We saw it in the video and didn't really know it was truly evidence until then. I mean there was testimony about it's being found, and the FRHS has it- but it's a big mystery to me. No one saw Abbie with it on that morning!
And the item shown on the video was clean, right?

I recall that big handkerchief on the video, it was patterned in some way and was maroon in color if I recall correctly. They showed the cut marks in it that were of the size of the handless hatchet head, but, it looked remarkably clean! Perhaps the blood has faded with time? Or, do you suppose the FRHS may have cleaned it to preserve the material, it was silk, wasn't it?

If Lizzie is to be believed about Abby cleaning the guest room for company on monday, I think that would have included a quick sweeping and dust up in there. Perhaps she put on the handkerchief up in the guest room only, so, no one would see it except the killer?

It did bring an interesting thought to me, suppose Abby had the handkerchief on her head throughout the whole killing. It would contain some of the blood spatter during the attack. After the killer is done, they yank off the handkerchief to fully view their handiwork pulling the chunk of Abby's hair switch with it and it lands on the bed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:14 am

I suppose Abbie might have had it on- put it on upstairs. I can't quite picture her storing that in the front room tho. Maybe it was in an apron pocket? I suppose that's possible.
Sweeping tho- did that entail beating the rug?

Supposedly Abby only had to replace pillow slips and she would be done- no handkerchief.
There's something about that handkerchief. You'd think it would have been explained.

Well, also what's missing are the eggs. By that, I mean missing from the questions.
Defense wounds are *missing.*
Other victims are missing: As in, not everyone there was killed so that means 2 specific people were targeted.

Who put away the ironing board.
Missing is proof of any poison that week.

Oh and missing are any wounds to the perpetrator, that we know of. Forensics usually show that someone using a bladed weapon can easily get hurt themselves.

Ms. Jo · Post by **Ms. Jo** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:08 am

I would like to know what they deduced from the "2" aprons that were inventoried, with the "bloody clothes" ? Did Abby have on two aprons when she was murdered? Or did the murderer have one of them on?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:23 am

That's another good one!
Our member Augusta wondered if one or two of the doctors donned Borden aprons during the makeshift partial autopsy.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:01 am

The first time I saw that kerchief or scarf, it was sort of bunched up, turban style, back in 1991, with something ominously dark on it in patches. It was a sort of lavender color with a small pattern on it. Mrs. Brigham showed it to me in a case. I saw it recently and it was unrecognizable, lying neatly pressed in a box, completely flat and looking like a streamer-like a neck scarf, with sharp cuts visible, it may have been a silk fabric. Looked quite differnent-must have undergone some conservation.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:15 am

Went back to look at the crime scene photos. I want to know what happened to the handkerchief too. I don't think that she had two aprons. Maybe one that she put on when she got upstairs.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:24 pm

I really don't know where else to post this, but this seems like it might be the proper thread in which to pose it. It appears that many people were allowed to move about pretty freely in and around the Borden house just after the murders, could this have given someone a chance to have carried away the murder weapon before police had time to find it? Or even for the murderer, if not Lizzie, to hang around the scene to watch the goings on?

Trial testimony of William H. Medley page 704:

Q. How many people were in the yard at that time?
A. Well, there were more people then than when I first arrived, but I could not say how many.

Q. More officers, I presume?
A. No, sir.

Q. No, but more citizens?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now I am speaking of the yard behind the house, around off south of the barn and all round there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. A dozen, fifteen or twenty people, all together then?
A. I don't think there was so many as that, as twenty -- perhaps a dozen.

Q. They were all freely moving about there and people freely coming and going in the yard, were they not?
A. Yes, sir.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:05 pm

I would think if the Doctors hadn't used the apron's then they would have been kept as evidence, that would have been a good reason as to why Lizzie had no blood on her dress.....two murders, two bloody aprons.......so I would say they were used by the doctors during any examinations done and the autopsies.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:30 am

The police search was not systematic, it seems very disjointed. There was likely redundancy in some areas while others may have been neglected. Forensic science wasn't as sophisticated back then, so perhaps crime scene contamination wasn't even thought of.

The authorities seemed to exercise a degree of discretion with their search efforts in and around the Borden house by asking permission to search each time. One possible reason for this might be to prevent Lizzie from thinking she was a suspect.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:23 am

I can't quite see two distinguished male doctors donning a lady's apron to perform an autopsy-it doesn't fit the mindset of the era. The visual makes me smile. "Excuse us. Miss Sullivan- may we borrow a couple of your aprons while we cut Mr. and Mrs. Borden up."- or something like that

I admit the 2 aprons are a puzzler though.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:29 am

[quote="Yooper @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:30 am"]The police search was not systematic, it seems very disjointed. There was likely redundancy in some areas while others may have been neglected. Forensic science wasn't as sophisticated back then, so perhaps crime scene contamination wasn't even thought of.

The authorities seemed to exercise a degree of discretion with their search efforts in and around the Borden house by asking permission to search each time. One possible reason for this might be to prevent Lizzie from thinking she was a suspect.[/quote]

I agree. Good point about Lizzie, I had not thought of that.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:25 pm

Shelley @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:29 am wrote:
Yooper @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:30 am wrote:The police search was not systematic, it seems very disjointed. There was likely redundancy in some areas while others may have been neglected. Forensic science wasn't as sophisticated back then, so perhaps crime scene contamination wasn't even thought of.

The authorities seemed to exercise a degree of discretion with their search efforts in and around the Borden house by asking permission to search each time. One possible reason for this might be to prevent Lizzie from thinking she was a suspect.
I agree. Good point about Lizzie, I had not thought of that.

Where are you getting this information? The recurring searches of the house seems to have been as thorough as possible. The Police Marshall was on the scene not long after the murders, as far as I know.

Note your "Lizzie dunnit" thinking! You are saying LAB was guilty, therefore they must have missed something. In fact if the murderer took away the hatchet that simply explains why it went missing.

The lack of bloodstains on Lizzie or Bridget meant they were not a suspect. Only after a few days did they place suspicion on the one person who could have seen someone leaving the house and could say "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father".

But the fact is that there is no facts to make it an open-and-shut case.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:51 pm

Shelley @ Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:23 am wrote:I can't quite see two distinguished male doctors donning a lady's apron to perform an autopsy-it doesn't fit the mindset of the era. The visual makes me smile. "Excuse us. Miss Sullivan- may we borrow a couple of your aprons while we cut Mr. and Mrs. Borden up."- or something like that I admit the 2 aprons are a puzzler though.

lol that is funny! But what if they brought their own aprons? And they knew it had nothing to do with the murders, and just put it with the other bloody clothes, towels etc. to be done away with......

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:31 pm

RayS @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:25 pm wrote:
Shelley @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:29 am wrote:
Yooper @ Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:30 am wrote:The police search was not systematic, it seems very disjointed. There was likely redundancy in some areas while others may have been neglected. Forensic science wasn't as sophisticated back then, so perhaps crime scene contamination wasn't even thought of.

The authorities seemed to exercise a degree of discretion with their search efforts in and around the Borden house by asking permission to search each time. One possible reason for this might be to prevent Lizzie from thinking she was a suspect.
I agree. Good point about Lizzie, I had not thought of that.
Where are you getting this information? The recurring searches of the house seems to have been as thorough as possible. The Police Marshall was on the scene not long after the murders, as far as I know.

Note your "Lizzie dunnit" thinking! You are saying LAB was guilty, therefore they must have missed something. In fact if the murderer took away the hatchet that simply explains why it went missing.

The lack of bloodstains on Lizzie or Bridget meant they were not a suspect. Only after a few days did they place suspicion on the one person who could have seen someone leaving the house and could say "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father".

But the fact is that there is no facts to make it an open-and-shut case.

If the searches were systematic and thorough, why were they recurring?

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:40 pm

I think they were recurring because when nothing incriminating was found they searched again, and still nothing was found so they searched even further......they were searching in places that even if she had done it (the murders) she'd have had no time to run to the attic and open up a trunk, they had from the beginning, been looking in places that a stranger couldn't have gotten to, with almost every door on the inside locked and both Bridget and Lizzie running around. And, Fleet suspected Lizzie right from the get go.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:14 am

May I remind you ray to not use quotes and keep repeating this phrase until it can be verified?

"it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father".

--ray

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:25 pm

...
If the searches were systematic and thorough, why were they recurring?

Errare humanus est.
Just like they continued to search and research the Ramsey house, or the Nicole Brown Simpson house. Different people see things differently, so what one might miss another will pick up.

The importance of a committee is their agreement is better than a lone person. Practical experience should convince you of this.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:29 pm

Kat @ Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:14 am wrote:May I remind you ray to not use quotes and keep repeating this phrase until it can be verified?

"it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father".
--ray

I remember reading this phrase or quote in most every book I ever read on this case. Pardon me if I don't bother to look up what I know.
PS
I do not have a collection of all books, newspapers, etc. That sounds like it came from a daily newspaper, it could not have come from the trial transcript.

I think it came from Pearson's book, read decades ago (no longer available). I wasted time looking it up in Brown and Spiering but no luck.
Didn't Edwin Porter state that Lizzie knew nothing about a murderer? THAT would imply the existence of the quote above.
Anyone can use quotes whenever they please. NOTE that I did not reference any book or publication "he said".

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:39 pm

I think the point , and correct me if I am wrong, is that the police did not do a total, thorough, search of every square inch of that place immediately.

Then there was a little confusion over the handless hatchet (yes, I wil look it up tonight), who saw it where first, hatchets and axes were moved around after Bridget initially showed the police the box, -and most of all, the crime scene was not secured. The Brownie & Me testimony shows that people were on the premises and up the loft, places that should have been secured earlier. The rolled up bundle peeping out of the bottom of Emma's closet was not investigated promptly and on-the-spot. The family had free run of the interior of the house, including places which were not observable by the police, from Thursday afternoon right through Saturday morning when the coffins left the house and the no-holds-barred search commenced. Preferential treatment for the Misses Borden?- yes, I think so.

Lizzie sent the officer from her room when she was on the fainting sofa, claiming a search at that point would make her sick, etc. These kinds of things raise an eyebrow about the efficiency and professionalism of the police. No doubt, being who Lizzie was, and the standing of the deceased in the community contributed somewhat to the accommodating nature of the police towards the family. There may have even been typical Victorian sympathy for two orphan "girls" and a delicacy rendered them by the police staff investigating. Whether everyone and anyone would have received the same treatment from the police would be interesting to compare.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:27 pm

Implicit in your story is the "Lizzie dunnit" outlook. Given the lack of evidence (no bloody dresses, stocking, shoes, etc) it was only natural for the police to not push too hard. The Bordens were part of "respectable society", a code word for the 'ruling class'. Even today they would probably not have done things much different. (The Ramsey case.)

Dashiell Hammett told a story about searching for missing gold on a ship bound for Australia. At the last hour he went and looked at a place that had been searched earlier, and found the missing stolen fortune. They had an idea of who did it, but couldn't prove it. Besides, recovering the loot was #1 for the Pinkertons.

I guess we agree to disagree? The police did the best they could in searching for something that wasn't there.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:58 pm

RayS @ Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:25 pm wrote:
...
If the searches were systematic and thorough, why were they recurring?
Errare humanus est.
Just like they continued to search and research the Ramsey house, or the Nicole Brown Simpson house. Different people see things differently, so what one might miss another will pick up.

The importance of a committee is their agreement is better than a lone person. Practical experience should convince you of this.

Practical experience convinces me that it is far better to do something correctly the first time.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:05 am

What about the missing axe handle? Didn't they just find the head of an axe? Or am I wrong?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:06 am

Please see this topic

viewtopic.php?t=2382

Mullaly says Fleet saw the handle and took it out of the box and then put it back. Fleet doesn't recall seeing a handle.
After that, no one remembers to see the handle.
During the trial, the court/prosecution sent officers from New Bedford to Fall River to Second Street to ask Emma if they could look again in the cellar and word was sent to the door that they couldn't.
And then I believe Emma did let Lizzie's curious lawyer come look but word was nothing was found at that late date.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:40 pm

Yooper @ Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:58 pm wrote:
RayS @ Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:25 pm wrote:
...
If the searches were systematic and thorough, why were they recurring?
Errare humanus est.
Just like they continued to search and research the Ramsey house, or the Nicole Brown Simpson house. Different people see things differently, so what one might miss another will pick up.

The importance of a committee is their agreement is better than a lone person. Practical experience should convince you of this.
Practical experience convinces me that it is far better to do something correctly the first time.

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" said Lizzie Borden to her cat.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

The search

The search

Re: The search