Crowe Barn hatchet

[Inspector]

I write some of my best stuff, only to have it time out and deleted, but I’ll give it another try. Not that my thoughts or anything special, but I do enjoy the speculation between those who are knowledgeable about the case.
I believe option one concerning the hatchet is the most likely scenario and also to Lorcan’s point about leaving the hatchet at the scene. I agree that there’s no reason why the assailant would need to take the weapon with them if it was an intruder.


Camgarsky4, I don’t see how the hatchet on the crow barn helps the intruder theory because I wouldn’t think he would need to take it with him. Another way to look at it though would be to consider if Lizzie was outside and she worked with an intruder, she would obviously have seen him, but there is always the possibility that Lizzie actually went upstairs to her room or somewhere on the second floor and watched from a window until the intruder vacated the premises, but it’s a good question. Why would he take the hatchet with him?

[Inspector]

Lorcan reminded me of the supposed statement Bridget made sometime after the murders, that she helped Lizzie on the stand. The truth is that Lizzie really helped Bridget if Bridget was innocent by not implicating her in the crime such as leaving for example, I believe me and Camgarsky4 had discussed about this a while back when I was trying to decide if Lizzie and Bridget were working together.
This had made me feel that Lizzie really cared for Bridget.

[camgarsky4]

To say the intruder wouldn't have taken it with him because Michael Corleone was told to drop his revolver seems like an approach that might eliminate scenarios before they are fully vetted. I doubt Lizzie knew a single criminal. But she might have known some poor or desperate individual who would assume that nothing about his existence, including a murder weapon, should be seen or identified. Or perhaps Lizzie told him to take it with him. Hard to prosecute someone without a murder weapon. Or maybe he did act alone, but was an amateur (which I think likely if she had an accomplice) and got the heck out of that house as fast as he could without pausing to take any other actions.

I think the first question to answer is whether it was possible to escape via the Chagnon property. That answer or set of answer choices might then inform our view of the Crowe hatchet.

[Inspector]

Yes, I did give a quick direct assumption of what the intruder might do. Of Course this does create a narrow presupposition on how the intruder would act based on him having some basic preplanning.
I do think it possible to escape via Chagnon, though no one was seen. There’s always room for error on what witnesses may have or not seen.

[Inspector]

Since we’re on the hatchet subject, what are we to make of the excluded testimony of a Frenchman named Lemain?
Story from June 16, how he claimed to hear a hatchet wielding man say Poor Mrs Borden? Claimed he had a bloody sleeve and hatchet.

[camgarsky4]

The police report you reference is pasted below. The guy with the hatchet and blood on his garments was seen August 18, 14 days after the murder. Not sure how officer Perron investigated the incident on August 17, if LeMay saw the guy August 18. That said, nothing would suggest that the sighting happened August 4 or 5.

North Steep Brook is in the upper reaches of Fall River; practically speaking, nowhere near the Borden home.

I am not aware of any other information pertaining to this sighting or individual. Based on what we have, I would presume no connection to the case.

Page 44-45 Witness Statements
A. PERRON.
August 18, 1892. 8.30 o’clock P. M. Joseph Lemay of North Steep Brook reports that about 5.30
o’clock this afternoon, while in the woods about a mile from his house, he heard somebody say “too bad
about Mrs. Borden.” Looking around to his left, he saw a man sitting down on a stone. Mr. Lemay asked
him if he was tired. The man made no reply, but took up a small hatchet and commenced to grind his
teeth. Mr. Lemay says that “he had some spots of blood on what was once a white shirt, three drops.”
His coat sleeves were pulled up, so that the wrist bands of his shirt could be seen, and there was some
blood on both of them. They looked at each other for some minutes, when the man got
45
up, jumped a wall, and went in a northerly direction.
Description. 30 or 35 years of age, height about five feet three inches, 140 pounds weight, brown
mustache, quite good size, face looked as though be bad not been shaved in two or three weeks. Dressed
in black coat, dark pants, laced shoes, black derby hat, torn on top. Looked as though he had been
having hard times recently, as he was a hard looking customer. Investigated by A. Perron, August 17,
1892, and finds it as reported as above.

[Inspector]

Thanks for that.
This was from the San Jose Mercury paper June of 1893
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SJMN18930617.2.9&dliv=none

[camgarsky4]

Thanks for the article. I completely 'misspoke' that this incident had no other documentation. It had trial testimony!!

LeMay was called by the defense as a witness at the trial to tell his story about the Steep Brook man with the hatchet.
LeMay's testimony, pages 1454-1460, is very similar to the police report submitted on Aug 18. The San Jose Mercury article includes a number of details not mentioned at the trial, but the essence of the article matches the witness report and trial testimony.

Due to the sighting occurring on August 16, 12 days after the murders, the judges excluded the testimony.

[Inspector]

Thought you might get a kick out of that newspaper story.
It’s amazing they received the story so far from Fall River.
Don’t quote me, but I seem to remember Arnold Brown attributing the the man LeMay saw as William Borden.
I don’t know why folks would make up such stories just for fame or whatever motivates them
The story struck me as having some truth years ago .
Not so sure anymore.