Swinging the Hatchet

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:01 pm

I have always imagined the killer swinging the hatchet with both hands, bringing the hatchet abover his/her head to get a strong swing.

Watching the program on TDC I noticed the actress depicted the hacks with one arm and short strokes.

I began to wonder if she was instructed to "chop" in that way or if it was her natural instinct. It would be my natural instinct to use the over head, two handed method. I am tall, 5'11" but weigh only about 135-140lbs and do not have a lot of "upper body" strength.

I got out a short handled hatchet like the one they used and took off after some pumpkins I had laying about the place.

With the one handed "chop" I was able to break them up and destroy them but it took a lot of chops.

Over head, two handed swings just pulverized them and sent them flying in all directions.

It made me think of the experiment they showed with the hatchet and the melon.

I got pumpkin gore on me either way.....

What is everyone else's opinions/thoughts on the "chop/swing" method?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:00 pm

I am thinking if this was a crime of rage, then both hands were used as the killer stood over Abby's body. But if the killer came from across the bed, then I think it was first with one hand, then the other. As for Andrew, I'd have to say it was a two-handed job, with the killer having come through the dining room doorway and attacking from the head end of the couch.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:20 am

It's a good question from a girl's point of view.
Those things are heavy- like 5-6 lbs.
Maybe one arm would actually get tired after 10 blows and have to switch?
That's an interesting observation because the blows to Abby seem every-which-way.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:30 am

Kat @ Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:20 pm wrote:It's a good question from a girl's point of view.
Those things are heavy- like 5-6 lbs.
Maybe one arm would actually get tired after 10 blows and have to switch?
That's an interesting observation because the blows to Abby seem every-which-way.

Exactly!

I do not think I would have been able to get enough purchase on the thing to do the job one handed... and if it got stuck I do not think I would have been able to pull it out one handed...

Ghoulish thoughts.....

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:08 am

.......And it's not like Lizzie or Bridget were exercise fiends...I seriously doubt they had a lot of arm and upper body strength. I wonder how we could recreate the "act" to be more realistic with what it would be like to hit a human head...speaking of ghoulish thoughts.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:50 am

When they hit the cantalope in the video it rolled toward the scientist, giving him spatter. I doubt the head of either Abby or Andrew would roll back towrd the subject doing the hacking like that....

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:30 am

Yes, I couldn't believe that with the cantaloupe, for such a scientific experiment, why didn't they affix it to the table somehow? I also wondered about their depiction of Lizzie and Bridget one handedly swinging the hatchet. Maybe for the first swing I might do it that way, but after that, I think I would use both hands. I did like the way they showed how fast and vicious the attacks may have been with the hatchet, that really gave me chills, it brought back the reality of the crimes!

One thing they did that I noticed no one brought up yet was their experiment about when Abby fell about the sound traveling through the house! I was so glad they did that since it was always a question of mine and something I believed to be true, the sound traveled down and through the house!

keim · Post by **keim** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:56 am

The "cantalope test" was laughable! A cantalope has NO similar qualities to a human head, other than it's mushy inside. And I couldn't believe it, when the doctor had to hold it down with his hand! Good way to lose a thumb!

But the blood splatter question is perplexing.
If it was possible, in 1892, to find, and see blood droplettes on the carpet, I wonder what the tell-tale trail through the house might have revealed. Dripping murder weapon, bloody shoes, bloody hands.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 8:54 am

Susan-- you said it when you mentioned that seeing the program and the viciousness of the murders brought back the reality of the crimes!

It did the same for me.

Every test I have ever seen about gun shots, stabbings and axe and other tool injuries have been done on pigs which they say our skin is the most like....

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:48 am

While talking about the spattering of Andrew's blood, they concentrated on the killer standing behind him.
Yet in all the reenactments, they showed the killer standing in front of him. ???

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:56 am

Hi Keim, welcome to the forum! Sorry, so much excitement going on with the new show and Stefani's lecture, I forgot my manners. You're a member of the Doombuggie's site, aren't you? I am, MT Tomb2.

Yes, the cantaloupe test started out scientific and quickly become something else. I too was worried about the choppers fingers holding on as he did. Not to mention again how it rolled towards him as he chopped, a victim's head wouldn't have done so. But, I guess it did show inertia in action, how everything went towards the direction the hatchet blow came from.

I wondered about that too, Audrey, why not use the real skull of some animal from the butchers that was fresh. I guess without a beating heart it would have comprimised the test and Peta would have probably shut the production company down for showing it.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:37 pm

But the melon didn't have a beating heart. . .

The melon test was also foolish because the "arteries" full of blue blood were stuck on top, out in the open. With a layer of skin, flesh and hair over the artieries I don't think there would have been as much of a flood of stuff slopping backwards.

Also, there was no indication that the placement of those arteries was anatomically correct or that the melon on the countertop was the same height from the floor or in the same proximity to the attacker as Andrew's head would have been.

I can't figure out why a forensics expert would think a melon was the closest thing to a human head that they could test with.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:22 pm

I am so glad to read these reactions, because my thoughts were precisely the same about that melon. The heart probably stopped pretty quickly in both cases--one factor; the vertebrae remained intact with both, so the skulls wouldn't have skittered; crania are much harder than melon rinds; brains in no way resemble seeds and melon-guts; and on and on. We need the guys from Mythbusters to re-enact the crime. They always think how best to duplicate conditions and take into account all the surrounding circumstances--often trying experiments 2 or 3 different ways to see if angle, weight, whatever might influence the outcome. The show's experiment was downright lame!

About the one handed hatchet wielding. I agree with you, Auds; it didn't look powerful enough to do what that hatchet did--unless the rumor in the paper was right. . . . One story had it that Lizzie had been working out at the ladies' gymnasium to develop the necessary upper body strength for the job. I love the picture of Lizzie in her bloomers swinging Indian clubs back and forth with the theme song from "Rocky" blaring in the background.

--Lyddie

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:45 am

Tim Evans describes a test he made personally on a pig, I believe, in the current issue of The Hatchet.

keim · Post by **keim** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 am

When the scientist administered the first blow, the cantaloupe split into two pieces. From that point on he was basically chopping a dry table. The least they could have done, was to find a melon which was the approximate size of a human head, which would have stayed relatively intact. As the murderer repeatedly hit the victim, a pool of blood and tissue would have been created in the wound, which would have "splashed" more.
But, you also have to remember that there are many people out there in TV-land, who would have been appalled by a more realistic test. For instance, I'm sure that is why they used blue "blood".

Yes, the "Myth-Buster" guys would do a great job with this test!

Sorry for using the grocery store spelling of "cantalope" earlier!

Hi Susan! Yes, I'm imagineerie.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:33 am

the pig head experiment in the article was very revealing. it answered a question i've had for a long time, when looking at the number of blows and the difference in number between abby and andrew. the answer lies in the difficulty of smashing through a skull -- the back of a skull being thicker and harder than the face. (these details are actually in trial evidence.)

and another lincolnism to debunk, one of her most absurd, i always intuitively thought -- that she hit andrew fewer times because, basically, she "loved him a little."

goldenpixie · Post by **goldenpixie** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:35 pm

Hmmm I'm guessing whether one hand or two was used would depend on the length of the axe handle? If it was a really short one, I would think it might be uncomfortable to use two hands. And maybe if using one hand to chop, the other is used to balance yourself? Perhaps she had a hand against the dresser/chest when killing Abby and the other against the door molding when killing Andrew?

(I'm trying to visualize this - I'm at work and can't really stand up and do a chopping motion with my hands as if.... I think I'd be escorted out of the office really quick!)

Was Lizzie right handed or left handed?

LadySphinx · Post by **LadySphinx** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:52 pm

The ferocity of the attacks imply that she must have been insanely angry; I can't imagine anyone committing a savage murder and keeping a cool head throughout. Rage could have kept her going through the attacks, upper-body strength or not. Also, Lizzie was a rather heavy lady. Her weight might have tired her out quickly, but it would also mean she could put a lot of heft behind those initial axe blows. She would have been sore in the morning, though. I wonder if anyone noticed if Lizzie was a bit stiff following the murders?

(Also, Goldpixie inspired me: I just got out the family hatchet, went outside, and tried to hit a cardboard box one-handed. After the first three or so strikes, my aim wandered all over the place--exactly like the haphazard blows Abby received. Two-handed, though, I could hit almost the same spot over and over again--more like Andrew's wounds. I think I've successfully frightened the neighbours for the evening . . . .)

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:55 pm

Hi Susan! Yes, I'm imagineerie

Cool! Neat to see another Doombugger on this forum. Was it the new Lizzie show that got you interested or have you always been an armchair sleuth of the case?

Goldenpixie, I can't recall where I read it, but, it had Lizzie as righthanded. How it was ascertained, I don't know.

Welcome to the forum, LadySphinx! A gal after my own heart that does experiments, I've done quite a few myself, it really helps at times.

goldenpixie · Post by **goldenpixie** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:56 pm

LadySphinx @ Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:52 pm wrote: I think I've successfully frightened the neighbours for the evening . . . .)

ohmygawd! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!! Too funny! I wish I was there to see it!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:00 am

And maybe if using one hand to chop, the other is used to balance yourself? Perhaps she had a hand against the dresser/chest when killing Abby and the other against the door molding when killing Andrew?--Donna

I was thinking something similar. Like propping oneself up with the other hand (such a tight space) or maybe holding something in the other hand? Like a skirt lifted up, or an object?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:18 am

It was mentioned here that Lizzie was sort of hefty?
Do we think so? I mean, even in the times she lived in, would a size 6 or 8 be considered rather large? I understand Lizzie supposedly gained weight while in jail, but here are some of her outfits from when she lived at Maplecroft. They are on display at the Borden B&B by courtesy of Terry's family. They seem about the size of Elizabeth Montgomery's outfit styled for the courtroom scene in the Legend movie. I think they are tiny clothes. When we were recently at the House, I did check the foyer model to see if it was pinned in back to fit the form, but it wasn't. The hooks up the back of the blouse were intact. (I seem to recall it had lots of little hooks.)

pleaseclickonpics

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:19 am

I personally don't think Lizzie was a hefty woman, I think she was a natural woman before our era of anorexic super models to hold her up against. Yes her face was jowly, even before her weight gain in prison, but, even with her weight gain, she didn't look huge. Bridget was alleged to have made that comment about Lizzie upon seeing her in court for the first time and didn't recognize her due to Lizzie's getting so fat. I think food must have been one of the few pleasures that Lizzie had to enjoy while in prison and possibly mixed with stress eating. But, wasn't it possible once out of jail that Lizzie lost the weight she put on in prison over time? That photo of Lizzie in Newport taken after the trial doesn't make her look huge, her face looks fleshier though. Thanks for the pics, Kat.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:53 am

There are many reason a person may look a little heftier on certain days...... Maybe Lizzie just didn't get out of the cameras way when she should have!

Personally, there are days each month I look like Shelly Winters.....

donj · Post by **donj** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:44 pm

If Lizzie was a hefty woman I think she would have done more damage than she did. If in fact she did it at all.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri May 19, 2006 8:45 pm

The fact that the right side of Abby's head was broken open indicates to me that the killer was most likely right handed, unless the killer was standing in front of Abby with the killer's rump up against the wall. I doubt there was enough room for that.

The lack of chop marks on the floor, bed frame and sofa indicates that either the killer was very accurate with his/her swings or he/she held the hatchet in both hands. The marks on the back of Abby's head went in different directions and some did not penetrate very deep into the brain. So either the killer was not very strong or he/she was running out of steam by the time the cuts were made on the back of Abby's noggin. They may have been the last chops made.

Women don't have as much Teres major, Latissimus dorsi, Triceps brachii long head and Pectoralis major muscle as a man does and these are the muscles you need to drive an axe or hatchet downward.

I've been doing some research on old time hatchets and found that most of the Shingling hatchets, like Lizzie's HH, and the Carpenter's claw hatchet were both about the same size. There were basicaly two sizes for each type: 3 1/2" X 6" and 4" X 6 1/2". You could get either type of hatchet in either size. They were about 1 1/2lbs. I have one just like Lizzie's HH Shingling hatchet that measures 3 3/4" X 6 3/8". I also have another one that is a monster at 4 1/2" X 7 1/4". It's about 2lbs.

When I was a kid I cracked open brown coconuts with a hatchet. I didn't have any trouble bogging that blade deep into the nut and I imagine a coconut shell is harder than a human skull. I did get a lot of milk splatter on myself though.

-1bigsteve (o:

Shelly Winters?? Eeewwwww, I never did like her!!!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:24 am

I just had my roof re-done and saw a lot of shingling hatchets. These guys did all that one-handed- very adept. I could see a girl needing two hands.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the M.E. thought the hatchet that killed the Borden's weighed about 3 lbs.?

You're right about the killer probably not standing with rump to east wall, because there was a camp chair positioned there.
I just bought a camp chair. I have a picture of it. I should post it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:34 am

Something like this camp chair was at the east wall between the bureau and the bedhead:

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:35 am

If the hatchet weighed three pounds it was a very large hatchet. That's the weight of an average axe.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sat May 20, 2006 10:03 am

Kat @ Sat May 20, 2006 12:24 am wrote:I just had my roof re-done and saw a lot of shingling hatchets. These guys did all that one-handed- very adept. I could see a girl needing two hands.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the M.E. thought the hatchet that killed the Borden's weighed about 3 lbs.?

You're right about the killer probably not standing with rump to east wall, because there was a camp chair positioned there.
I just bought a camp chair. I have a picture of it. I should post it.

Today's modern roofing "half" hatchets are lighter than the "full" hatchets used in Lizzie's day. Lizzie's HH is a "full" hatchet. They did have "half" hatchets in Lizzie's day just like today. When I handle today's half hatchets at the hardware store they feel much lighter than the old style full hatchets that I own. The advantage of the half hatchets for roofing is that they can pound nails into tighter corners and their lighter weight. There are also half hatchets made with longer handles called Rig Builders.

Like Yooper said, 3lbs. is awfully heavy for a hatchet. A hatchet that heavy would have done a lot more damage to the heads of Abby and Andrew. Most axes are about 2 1/2 to 4lbs.

Camp chair? You mean that type that can fold up on you without warning? I remember sitting in one when I was about 6 and that thing folded up on my leaving me trapped with my knees pressed against my chest as helpless as a baby. Of course there was about a gazillion people around all having a good laugh at my expense.

News at 11!! If you look up "Embarrassment" in the dictionary you will see a photo of me stuck in that blasted chair! Excuse me, is there a hole I can hide in?

Oh, the memories.

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:06 pm

Kat @ Mon Nov 08, 2004 1:18 am wrote:It was mentioned here that Lizzie was sort of hefty?
Do we think so? I mean, even in the times she lived in, would a size 6 or 8 be considered rather large? I understand Lizzie supposedly gained weight while in jail, but here are some of her outfits from when she lived at Maplecroft. They are on display at the Borden B&B by courtesy of Terry's family. They seem about the size of Elizabeth Montgomery's outfit styled for the courtroom scene in the Legend movie. I think they are tiny clothes. When we were recently at the House, I did check the foyer model to see if it was pinned in back to fit the form, but it wasn't. The hooks up the back of the blouse were intact. (I seem to recall it had lots of little hooks.)

pleaseclickonpics

I read in some book (title unknown) months ago, or was it a newspaper article that Marilyn Monroe, the sex goddess of the 1950s, was a size 14. Isn't that 'medium'? Assuming there was no change in the dimensions to sizes, I understand the 'size' is dependent on the cost. An average cost size 6 could be an expensive size 4?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Sat May 20, 2006 5:12 pm

The quality of the fabric and the cut of the garment does make a difference....

Brands can even be different. Some women can fit into a dress or even jeans form one brand or designer and a different size from another.

I doubt Lizzie ever wore an 'off the rack' dress in her life.