Lizzie Borden Society Forum

doug65oh @ Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:44 am wrote:The author of the story on the link Harry posted back there Angel...the name is Thomas Vaughan. Dr. Conan Doyle didn't write it.

The closest thing to that written by Doyle himself (I think, it's been awhile since I thought about it) should have been "The Adventure of Lady Frances Carfax." (That's the only one I recall, I mean.)

As I recall...Holmes took the spill over the Reichenbach Falls in...1891, and was not heard of in print again (and thsi is thru Doyle) until 1894.

Yes that is indeed a Sherlock Holmes story that involves the use of chloroform.There are a few more in which chloroform was used, one is The Adventure of the Three Gables, but the woman was only knocked unconcious and not killed, as far as I recall. Conan Doyle was a master story teller I'll say that much.

http://sherlock-holmes.classic-literatu ... age-13.asp

FairhavenGuy,

As for the hacking with the axe being a possible cover up for a poisoning, yes I believe it's entirely possible. Even if you believe chloroform wasn't used, the idea of another poison has alot of merit, I have stated that before in other posts. I think the killer ( Lizzie) realized that a poisoning would point to her, because as it has been referred to many times, poison was considered a woman's murder weapon. Lizzie was also seen trying to buy poison.(Though that is still cause for debate). It was almost inconceivable to some that a woman would use a weapon such as an axe. I think she couldn't have picked a better weapon, if indeed a cover up was the case. I think Abby being under the influence of SOMETHING accounts for the lack of blood spatter or signs of a a struggle. If Abby had her wits about her, she would've at least tried to get away. In my opinion there should've been a larger circumference of blood spatter around the room. The fact that the blood spatter was mostly limited to the immediate area of the body makes me think there was little or no struggle. If someone was trying to hack me with an axe, I'd scream or cry out, I'd try to climb over the bed to get away,I'd fight for my life. Bridget never mentions hearing a scream, any commotion, thumping noises, the body hitting the floor, no noise of any kind. Two people soundlessly hacked with an axe. I would think if anyone would've heard a scream, or commotion, it would've been Bridget.

Unless Bridget knew to/was told to keep quiet...?


Tracy...

Supposedly Morse brings up chloroform in a news interview. He said if he were to kill them he would smother them with chloroform in their bed at night.

wow - i agree totally with audrey, but now have read paparazzi associated with borden.

I have one more post about the chloroform, simply to get all my ideas off my chest once and for all. It's not two methods of murder if its not used to actually cause the death. If it doesn't directly cause the death, how can it be a method of murder? If this was the way of thinking every doctor to ever use chloroform on a patient is guilty of attempted murder. I do not see where strangulation of the victims in some of those links I posted means anything. By your line of thinking that would still be two methods of murder.Chloroform and strangulation. Two methods of murder, or two weapons, make it two MO's? There are killers who use more than one weapon to commit a murder on a single victim.They don't always confine themselves to simply stabbing, or simply shooting, or simply strangling. And that doesn't make it more than one MO. A killer could strangle, shoot, and mutilate a victim,and that would still be one MO if it was all done by the same killer. An MO is how a killer commits the act, no matter how many weapons he/she uses. I don't understand that line of thinking. There is no guideline for murder that says a killer must only use one weapon, or that more than one weapon used means more than one killer. There are murders committed using more than one weapon on a single victim...or more than one method of murder with violent overkill on top of that. Such as the Tate/ LaBianca Murders.

Voyteck Frykowski death certificate


Cause of death:

Multiple stab wounds and gunshot wounds. Victim was shot twice, struck over the head thirteen times with a blunt object, causing massive skull fractures and was stabbed fifty-one times, with wounds penetrating chest, back, neck, scalp, both legs, and both arms.

And that was all the same killer. It wasn't each member of the group taking a turn at him, it was one perpetrator.

I also found this from The Journal of Forensic Sciences, although it's not the entire article, it does sum up the findings of the authors.I have no way of knowing it was used, nobody does. I am just saying its possible. If not chloroform, then I believe something was used to incapacitate them first. Ok, I have finally gotten all my chloroform issues off my chest, and I am moving along to other issues. . I am sure you all will be relieved to hear that . And Tracy please do not smack my hands with that ruler now? .

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.ex ... e+fmtx5655

Yes I'm saying that chloroform and strangulation are 2 methods of murder. Obviously. But I'm also saying that they go together. That is shown by the cases you linked us to. A large proportion were a combination of these two methods, which I had thought did go together and there they were- thanks for the cases.
Since it seems these two methods tend to go together (when there is an attept to kill), then maybe they are or can be considered one method by professionals, one the extenuation of the other- a progession, as it were. A progression of aggression without leaving the victim- a synthetic weapon that is hands-on, combined with a hands-on type of killing.
But that is semantics. I don't see why it's hard to understand. This type of combination of weapon may be in a class by itself.
To use chloroform in the commission of an attempt at murder makes it a weapon. I don't bring dentists or doctors into it unless they are attempting murder: not everyday useages.
Also I am talking about poison compared to any other weapon. Chloroform is a poison when used to attempt murder, when there is no resultant smothering. It is not a hatchet, which is a different weapon.
If you study poisoners it will show that they are a different breed of murderer. If I have to put Lizzie Borden in the same class as a poisoner, then it's safe odds that she did not then switch to a hatchet, or a knife or a gun, The thrill in the kill for the murderer is in the poision. There is a delight and sense of power to watch someone die of poison. These are torture-lovers, actually. That is my definition between these two modes of killing: it is the psychology of murder/murderer. This possible use of chloroform relates back to the possible attempt to buy prussic acid. I am linking these as poisons in the Borden case.

Anyway, we are now talking about the Borden case and a 32 year old woman who possibly commits parracide.
How do we relate this back to Lizzie Borden? We might expect her, if she used chloroform which did not kill, to then strangle, which is my initial observation.
You've actually proven my thoughts on this combination.

Here is Morse on the regular guy's view of murder by chloroform combined with smothering. (I think smothering with chloroform is different than strangling):

Rebello, 135, 136

"Uncle John Morse Talks," New Bedford Evening Journal, Friday, June 23, 1893: 3.

..."'Now they say that Lizzie Borden did that and I [John Morse] planned it all out. If I'd been planning it, is it likely I'd have planned in that way? Wouldn't it have been easier to have smothered them with chloroform in the night and in the morning said they had committed suicide?'"

well i hope that is the last word on chloroform,
yawn. So obvious the Bordens were hacked to
death isn't it?

Well, it is an interesting distinction, and my problem with this case and Lizzie committing any crime is that I lump prussic acid, arsenic and chloroform (without smothering/strangling) into the class of weapon called poison.
And many accept that Lizzie attempted both means and I've never been so sure of that- so this brings that up, which is good.
Anyone who can automatically believe that Lizzie tried to buy prussic acid, or pre-poisoned the elder folks earlier in the week, or both, may have no problem with Lizzie then taking up a hatchet, but I do and probably always will.

I am new to this forum but i do agree with the theory that the administration of some type of anesthesia before the killings is highly possible. My reason for this is as follows...I have read the autopsy reports on both bodies and why are there no signs of struggle? Even if someone did sneak up on you, unless the first stroke of the axe were lethal, your first instinct is to protect yourself. With that being said, why were there no markings on the hands or arms? If some one hit with an axe, even in a dazed state they would try and protect themselves. Just a thought...

good points Monarch. But if it were an experienced
Butcher hacking at you.... They would know how to
get you with just ONE blow. That is just my own theory. Your point is good though, food for thought,
keep posting..

I have to change my avatar, I don't want my
precious grandbaby on there with posts about
hacking and killing!

Hi Monarchrn, welcome to the Forum! I've been kicking this idea around myself since reading this thread, I don't know if I've quite bought into it yet or not. I'm not so sure about the chloroform and my thoughts have been leaning more towards some sort of patent medicine that was readily available around the house, such as Laudanum. I've been reading that it was and I think still is used as an anti-diarrhea medication. If too much is taken it can cause dizziness and fainting. Though there is nothing noted about either Andrew or Abby taking such a medication.

That is one thing that I think is odd, if the elder Bordens did have food poisoning, they vomited, nothing noted about diarrhea. I've had food poisoning twice in my life and both times, not to get graphic, was a race to figure which end needed the bowl first!

I would hazard a guess that the contusions, i.e. the bruises on Abby's face, occurred when her face struck the floor. Hatchets don't bruise.

Do you think that would knock Abby out very soon after the facial/scalp flap wound? Or at least knock her insensible?

Wouldn't laudanum be found in the stomachs or traces of it or some recent use of it?

Well, my thought is that it would have made Abby insensible before Lizzie even struck with the hatchet, a means to having non-struggling victims. As I said, just kicking this idea around and see what comes of it, if anything.

From what I can find on Laudanum (Opium Tincture):

Difficult or painful urination; dizziness, lightheadedness, or feeling faint; drowsiness; frequent urge to urinate; nervousness or restlessness; unusual decrease in amount of urine; unusual tiredness or weakness

Taking an overdose of this medicine or taking alcohol or other CNS depressants with this medicine may lead to unconsciousness and possibly death. Signs of overdose include convulsions (seizures), confusion, severe nervousness or restlessness, severe dizziness, severe drowsiness, slow or irregular breathing, and severe weakness.

From this site:
http://www.medformation.com/ac/mm_usp.n ... 02425b.htm

Sorry, Kat, I looked high and low on the internet and couldn't find anything on post mortem evidence of Laudanum use or overdose. All cases I found where someone had been poisoned with it, there was a bottle found or someone admitted to administering the drug. The only thing I found that was slightly helpful was a doctor's writing from the 1820s that said that plant based poisons must be tested for in the stomach immediately, the traces don't last long.

Only 2 notes on the topic.

1) Tempting though the chloroform theory might be to explain away the absence of defensive wounds, one important factor rules it out: the absence of odor. Andrew was seen minutes after the crime, yet no one mentions the tell tale chemical odor that chloroform would produce.

2) There is one case of murder by chloroform alone--Edwin Bartlett, 1885. An article appeared in The Lancet the following year ("The Case of Edwin Bartlett. Mercurialsim; Death from Liquid Chloroform; Necropsy," Alfred Leach, May 22 & 29), discussing the autopsy of this otherwise healthy man, whose stomach was revealed to be full of chloroform. Because no one could figure out how wife Adelaide could have poured the chemical down his gullet without his spewing it back up, she got off. (A bizarre case of the court determining that she must have done it, but damned if anyone could figure out how. One theory was that it was poured in by means of a tube similar to those used in force feeding.

Interestingly, the doctor in attendance first thought by the smell in the room and the suddenness of death that Bartlett had been poisoned by means of prussic acid! Roughead gives a great account in his book The Art of Murder.

--Lyddie

Laudanum...could be Susan....

It could be plausible that Andrew and Abby could have been given laudanum (maybe under the guise of a diarrhea remedy)and been given too much, causing them to become unconscious, even near death. This would explain the unusually small amount of blood after the axings.

I read a news article today that sort of brought into perspective what it must have sounded like as both Andrew and Abby were attacked with an axe. Below is a quote from an article about a man who killed another man with an axe in England. This attack took place outside on the street, the article was posted yesterday.

http://www.concealcarry.org/

Avelina Rodrigues, 48, said the attacker ignored her pleas to stop as he brought blow after blow down upon his victim, leaving the body badly mutilated.

She said: "I heard the first thuds of the axe as it hit the man's head. I thought it was the sound of a child being hit by a car.

"I ran to the front of the house and could see a man, smartly dressed, tall and thin, with the axe in his hand.

"The axeman saw me but he just ignored me. He hacked his victim's head, cutting it as if it was a block of wood for a fire. His victim was unconscious on the ground, but he kept bringing his axe down on him.

wintressanna @ Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:57 pm wrote: And one of the most challenging aspects of this crime, second to perhaps few details being straight forward, is the fact that most of the recorded trauma to the bodies is the brutual smashing in of the faces. I just dont think thats a usual thing. I mean, I dont think more than any one person out of 100 could actually do such a thing, even to a body that is already dead by some other means, and even to a person you absolutely hated, whose body is dead by some other means. Deep down we all have a certain sympathy for the body of another human being, dead or alive, outside of who they are or were....right?

You don't need one person out of a hundred -- you just need one. Facial mutilation does argue rage and hatred, yes -- but I think the killer genuinely hated the victims.

And as for the idea that we all have sympathy for others' bodies, there are plenty of killers whose behavior would argue otherwise.

A *Pop* treatise on Toxicology and it's history:

http://crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/f ... ml?sect=11

Right!

Isn't there another way to kill someone without chloroform? I am just thinking maybe they were dead before the axeing. I mean anything is a possibly and there wasn't alot of blood at the scene

I agree. What kinds of poisons were available back then that gave nausea and severe cramping besides arsenic?
In reading the Lizzie Sourcebook I saw that it was mentioned (theory of Josiah Hunt, keeper of some house of correction) at that time that Mr. Hunt believed the Bordens were dead before the axing.
And Abby had all kinds of suspicians that they were being poisoned, so she was on to something.

Here is a thought. Maybe there wasn't as many axe wounds as first suggested. If there was 40 whacks on one and 41 one the other, wouldn't there have been lots more blood than what was found? What about maybe there was another weapon than the axe? Just a thought.

Think that maybe someone cleaned up real well before the cops came in? There should have been more blood. Think I am just coming up with different senarios thats all

There were 19 blows to Abby and 10 to Andrew.
About cleaning up- if people can't believe Lizzie did it because there wasn't enough time for her to appear clean and composed- there probably wasn't enough time to clean up the scene.

I sometimes think that the descriptions of the blood spatter does not sound like much, but it's probably more than we have imagined. I see these shows on cable with lots of blood spatter, but when they recount it- saying things like 5 spots- or 86 spots- it sounds like just spots. But when they show the spots- it a heck of a lot of blood. It might be that the descriptions in testimony are somewhat lacking in our imaginations.

I mostly agree with you allen - sorry to be late but somehow I missed your post - but if you look at the layout of the guest room, how could anyone sneak up on Abby doing the bed? I told Kat how it could possibly happen - check back - but it still is pretty unlikely that Abby was unaware someone else was in the room.
I regret to admit that if someone didn't sneak up on her she had to have known and trusted to some degree her killer.