Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I hope people don't think this is morbid & disrespectful, but the first thing I think of when Andrew & Abby Borden come to mind is "I wish they could be dug up!"

Does anyone know if it is possible to exhume Andrew & Abby's bodies, and test them for forensic evidence? What type of organization would be in charge of doing something like this? Do you think it could be done in the name of curiousity...or is it wrong?

I wonder if forensic evidence, if any, would still be there 113 years later...

If anything, let modern scientists and all their technology see what they can conclude from the tests that they can perform. I would love to know the results and the opinions of 21st century forensics. Perhaps new light can be shed on this case if the opportunity arose.

I would love to see that done to, Diane. I'm a firm believer in allowing the truth to come out. There are no doubt tests they could run that may shed some light on the subject. I don't know what condition the bodys would be in though. Has anyone examined the skulls with a microscope for metal gilt?

Maybe we should all push for an exhumation.

-1bigsteve (o:

I believe we already know HOW they died. I don't see how an exhumation/examination of Andrew and Abby at this point, would prove WHO did it/WHY they did it. When James Starrs asked, he was told NO. SO, I say not only NO, but HELL NO.


Tracy...

It's still an open case isn't it? Cold, but no resolution of a dual murder, could be a candidate for exhumation. There was no justice for the victims, no one paid for the crimes- I'd say, legally it could be persued- but I wouldn't put my name on a petition or anything.

I agree there was no justice, and since it is an open case I guess there could a legal loophole/reason for exhumation. It's just that I cannot imagine at this point, what evidence could be obtained that would be SO revealing, towards an "answer" or a "conviction", that it would be worth disturbing the resting dead. WHAT is it that's down there that we don't already know ?


Tracy...

I don't see any resting dead, personally. I mean, they're dead, they're not resting. Nothing disrespectful, but it's bones. I could see others not wishing to *disturb* a grave- I mean lots of people feel that way. It's a sensitive issue.
Anyway, I doubt any relative of the Bordens would ever give permission.
As to what could be found- I'm not a forensic expert so I could not make any suggestions.
What would Elizabelle think could be found?

I suppose in someone's own lifetime, with a dear one dead and in a grave, the *resting* part might apply to resting in the memory of the survivor. That the departed loved one is resting there in their mind and feelings and one would not want to disturb that in the live person's life. That makes sense to me, psychologically.
So maybe the *rest in peace* part has always meant rest in my heart and don't revive it? Don't rake it up and make it painful again, to the living?

Maybe that's what that means.

Anyway, I don't think this would be painful to anyone after a hundred years, but if they were more recently buried, I could see the problem with the survivors not wanting that.

What do I think could be found?

The possibilities are endless...

Whatever late 19th century "investigators" missed will be caught by 21st century technology. I think there could definitely be new information discovered. Even the tiniest little thing could have a huge impact.

Hi Elizabelle,

Since I am one who doesn't think there needs to be an exhumation, what crime-solving evidence is it specifically that you think could be found by re-examining the corpses of Andrew and Abby Borden ? I am willing to listen.


Tracy...

I don't know exactly what could be found. I can only assume that there is SOMETHING that could be found by modern technology that went undetected in 1892.

I'll leave that to the experts. :)

I just can't think of WHAT there could be that would be definitive in saying who/what sharp instrument caused the deaths of A&A. Having a background in science, I am a firm believer in looking at all the evidence. I just can't see how digging up the Bordens would be anything but a 'media sensation'.

When I first read about Prof. Starrs, I thought "Oh, cool idea"...then I read more about him, and in my opinion, he wanted to do it for the press he would get.

I am by far not an expert on this case, but if SOMEONE could give me SOMETHING to make me think there was a real REASON for an exhumation...I am still willing to listen.


Tracy...

Elizabelle @ Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:42 pm wrote:What do I think could be find?

The possibilities are endless...

Whatever late 19th century "investigators" missed will be caught by 21st century technoly. I think there could definitely be new information discovered. Even the tiniest little thing could have a huge impact.

I agree with you, Diane. I am not an expert in forensics or whatever but I believe there could be clues that were over-looked in '92.

#1. There were metal particles in Abby's wounds, from what I've heard. What kind of steel was it? Was it steel from a cheap hosehold hatchet that could be bought at Thrifty's or was it a higher grade of steel from say an expensive wood workers tool such as an adze or a logger's hatchet? If the steel was of higher grade then that would point more toward someone who relied on tools for his living. I doubt Lizzie would be buying an expensive hatchet and I highly doubt penny-pinching Andrew had one.

#2. Abby felt she was being poisoned. Maybe she was. Perhaps with modern technology traces of poison could be found in the bones. If there is, perhaps Lizzie was trying to poison her parents and when that failed, she resorted to the blade.

#3. An examination of the wounds in the skull through a microscope could help answer the question of what type of murder weapon was used, simular to checking the grooves on a bullet. It may also tell us how tall the killer was.

The answers to these kinds of questions may not prove who did it but that would not be the reason for examining of the bodies. The experts in that day did the best they could with the knowledge and methods they had. But with modern technology we may get some yes or no answers. Was it a hatchet? Yes or no. Was there any poison? Yes or no.

It would be nice to have some definet answers to some of the questions we have been asking. It won't prove who did it but it could help narrow our focus. It could also give us more to yak about. If the bodies are exhumed I hope it is for scientific and criminology reasons and not as a sleezy publicity stunt. Leave Barnum & Baily out of it.

As they say, "God is in the details."

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.

-1bigsteve (o:

The answers to these kinds of questions may not prove who did it but that would not be the reason for examining of the bodies.

So what WOULD the reason be then ? To answer a few questions ? While these questions may get a few more answers in this case, unless the answers are HUGE, I don't think it would be worth it. Yes, new info would be very nice, but unless it is known that definite, MAJOR case breaking info COULD be found, I don't think disturbing the Bordens graves should be done.


Tracy...

Well, I must say that bigSteve came up with some interesting things forensic scientists might like to look at.
At least there's a list.
I suppose the metal found in the head wound of Abby is the gilt?
I recall in the Discovery Channel video they talked about "tool marks" and trying to fit those marks on the skull to the HH. (Handleless Hatchet). However, since not many really think it's the murder weapon, eliminating it wouldn't be that big of news.
Wouldn't there need to be things to match any findings to?
Poison, so far, sounds the most interesting- but even that would only raise more questions. It wouldn't show who poisoned them, I don't think.
...anyone else have any ideas what exhumation might prove?

Trauma Analysis

The assessment of trauma in skeletonized remains requires the ability to distinguish between perimortem trauma and postmortem damage. Perimortem trauma is damage caused to bone in the interval surrounding the time of death. The interval is defined by the time period during which the bone is "green" or behaves with the plasticity of its living state. Any trauma that occurs while the bone is fresh and green is perimortem trauma including damage that occurs shortly after death. Perimortem trauma that would have either contributed to or is directly associated with the cause of death is classified as trauma associated with the cause of death. For example, perimortem rib fractures can occur in a victim without those fractures being the cause of death, but the accompanying cranial gunshot wound would be trauma associated with the cause of death.

Forensic anthropologists are trained to recognize the types of trauma that can be found on bone including blunt force, sharp force, gunshot wounds, and burning. By visual inspection, touch, use of a light microscope, and radiography, the anthropologist can identify these forms on trauma from the characteristic marks they leave on bone. Blunt force trauma is associated with fractured or crushed bone, such as in a greenstick fracture or a depressed cranial fracture. Blunt force injuries to green bone may leave clear identifying marks of the instrument used to inflict the trauma, such as grooves or direct impressions of the weapon. Sharp force trauma includes incised cuts, stab wounds, and chopping injuries. This type of trauma leaves an assortment of marks, such as nicks, punctures or serrated grooves, which are observable by touch, plain vision, and under the microscope. The anthropologist may make a silicone cast of cutmarks for later comparison to the cutting edge of a suspect weapon. Gunshot wounds, especially to thin or tabular bones, have characteristic beveled shapes. Bullets frequently leave traces of lead on the bone, which can be seen on an x-ray. Typical fracture patterns are found on bone burned during the perimortem interval. Fire damage may occur in conjunction with other forms of trauma, so the anthropologist is prepared to find evidence that might be obscured by the charring and breakage caused by burning.

Postmortem damage occurs after death, after the bone has become brittle from decomposition and drying. Some damage may occur during recovery such as marks acquired during excavation from shovels, trowels or probes, damage from careless handling such as breakage, and marks from scalpels or scissors. Other forms of damage are from natural agents such as dog or other carnivore chewing, rodent gnaw marks, root etching, and flaking and cracking caused by exposure to sunlight. Attempts to dispose of remains also will cause postmortem damage, such as cutmarks, chemical burns, and burning from fire. Forensic anthropologists are careful to minimize the occurrence of postmortem damage during and after recovery of remains. Postmortem damage is distinguishable from perimortem trauma by the lack of indicators of plastic behavior in the bone, a color difference between the outside bone and the newly exposed bone, and the pattern (e.g., only at joints) or type (e.g., carnivore chewing) of the damage

http://www.tulsareparations.org/Skeletons.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharp-force traumas are incised wounds and stab wounds resulting from attacks or accidents with knives, swords, axes, and other sharp implements. Such injuries cause bone cracks, incisions, scratches, gouges, piercing, and fragmentation of bone. The size and shape of sharp-force traumas provide clues to the instrument that caused the damage, the direction of the attack or accident, and the nature of the events leading to an individual's death (Rhine 1998, Sciulli 1991).


http://www.wku.edu/~darlene.applegate/f ... html%20old

I also read on the of the sites that they can also estimate the amount of force needed to inflict the wound. Other than this bit of information this site said essentially the same thing these other two did.

BINGO! Way to go, Melissa baby! You hit the nail on the head.

I know if I was Andrew Borden in that grave I'd be saying: "Dig me up. I was murdered. Find out who did it. I can rest later." It's been 113 years and the killer is long gone but that should not stop the wheels of justice. Getting some definite answers could help us focus our attention in the right direction instead of going off willy nilly chasing puffs of wind. It may even eliminate some suspects or shine some light on suspects we hadn't thought of, like maybe Abby's relatives.

Many murder cases have been solved by just one tiny little detail or answer. That tiny little answer can turn out to be the HUGE answer we needed. We will never know what we will find or where it may lead unless we try. If my relatives had been murdered I would be ordering an exhumation. I wouldn't rest until the case was solved even if it took forever. But, on the other hand, if the case was solved, what would we have to jabber about?

Thank you for the information, Melissa.

-1bigsteve (o:

Allen's quotes do provide some good definitions. Would it be possible to determine the identity of the assailant by determining the amount of force used ? Kat's point of what would we have to compare the marks to, is a very good one. I know we previously discussed in the forum that Borden relatives have denied permission to exhume in the past.


Tracy...

I think the only thing we could determine about exhuming Abby and Andrew is that if they were being poisoned, it could be found out through a toxiogolgy screen, and maybe find out what kind of metal the axe was. But, it wouldn't tell us who "done it".

Measuring the amount of force or foot pounds of energy it took to do the damage to those skulls would not tell us who actually did the killing as far as whether it was Lizzie, Emma, Dr. Bowen, Bridget, Sophia Loren or whoever. But, the amount of force used to inflict those wounds would be a good indicator of whether the killer was most likely a man or a woman.

When I first saw the photo of Andrew on that sofa, over 30 years ago, I thought to myself: "Lizzie couldn't have done it. The whole side of his head is smashed flat. It had to have been a man." Years later when I saw the autopsy photos of his head and read the autopsy report and saw how shallow the wounds really were I began to realize that the killer was most likely a woman.

Sure, any of those blows could have been fatal but shooting someone in the head with an air rifle can kill a person just as quick. It is the lack of damage, the shallow depth of the wounds that is not conducive to a man being the most likely killer. If the killer was a guy who never did a lick of work in his life and didn't like getting his hands dirty then, yes I can see him as a killer. I have seen normal sized women using a hatchet and inflicting a lot more damage to an oak log than the damage done on those two skulls and a block of wood is a lot tougher than thin bone and skin.

It is possible that the killer was a man but I don't think Luther Heggs was in town that day.

An examination of the wounds in the skulls may indicate what type of weapon was used. Every cutting tool has it's own shape and bevel. If those wounds and the metal particles (gilt) are found to have come from a cheap-o hatchet than Lizzie and Emma would still be main suspects in my book. If they were from an expensive wood workers hatchet or adze, then I think both women would drop down as suspects on my list. I can't see Lizzie spending a lot of money on an expensive weapon. Even if she were to steal it, where would she get it? It is unlikely that a normal hardware store would have any, and certainly not out where they can be stolen. Andrew wouldn't have one. I heard that dried cow blood was found on the handleless hatchet. Lizzie could not have cleaned off every trace of human blood without eliminating the animal blood too. That hatchet is not even a suspect in my book, although I would test it anyway.

Finding poison in the bodies would not prove who did it, but if Abby said she was being poisoned, and poison is found in the bodies, and Lizzie was trying to buy cyanide, then I'd put my money on Lizzie being the most likely suspect. Any details they could uncover in those bodies could either put another nail in Lizzie's coffin or possibly shed light on someone else. At least we would have more facts to go on.

It seem's no matter how I look at the case everything seem's to point back to a woman being the killer and Lizzie as the most likely one. But what I can't figure out is how did she keep herself blood free (dress and scarf, a painter's uniform?) and where did she hide the weapon? I would feel a lot better about Lizzie's guilt if I could answer those two nagging questions.

If the relatives ever do grant permission to exhume, I hope Geraldo and the circus is out of town. I would like this to be strictly scientific.

Hmmm. I've got a shovel...

-1bigsteve (o:

Is there a possibility that metal found on the skulls could be matched with the famous hatchet in the FRHS?

While that might not be possible, there is a very good chance that modern experts might more sophisticated ways of matching the wounds against that weapon.

If it did, indeed, match would that add anything to the current body of knowledge?

Chris...my thinking is that it would not.


Tracy...

I think it's possible that the murder weapon could have been the same make and model of the handleless hatchet and have an almost identical shape and grind pattern.

They would need one of those super-duper microscopes to check the ridges and grooves of the grind marks on the hatchet with the marks on the skulls. If that hatchet did match perfectly with the wounds then that would mean that the lab who tested it in 1892 did not do a very good job. They said there was no human blood on it and Lizzie didn't have enough time to clean it well enough to get all the blood off while leaving the cow's blood on. It would be nice if they could test it again for blood, but then contamination would be a problem.

But if it was the murder weapon then that would be one more nail in Lizzie's casket. At least then we would know what happened to the hatchet and who most likely was swinging it. Lizzie.

-1bigsteve (o:

There was no cow blood on the handleless hatchet.
I don't know where you read that.

Also, finding poison does not point to any particular person.
It might possibly point to a female in the household or a female visitor or a doctor visitor.

I think matching tool marks to the HH with any cuts in the skulls could possibly be done. I don't know what that would prove. That the weapon came from the premises, perhaps?

I wonder what kind of shape the skulls would be in? They seemed kind of broken up in the pictures and after pieces of Abby's skull were buried were they ever recovered and kept? I think there would be pieces missing from both skulls by now.

Is Andrew's skull still above ground? I seem to have seen old photos of it. If it is and it is in good condition then the countour of the edges of the wounds could be checked with the contours of the handless hatchet to see if there is a perfect match. I imagine sophisticated equipment would be needed rather than just placing the edge in the wounds and "eyeballing" it. Like checking the grooves of a gun barrel with the grooves in the bullet. If there is no match then it would most likely point to another weapon. There is also the possibility that people have tried jamming the hatchet blade into or against the edges of the wounds and oblitorating any distinct patterns. But if those skulls are in those caskets then there, I guess, would be some deterioration of the wounds.

If the handleless hatchet was proved to be the weapon, by matching the patterns in the wounds with the hatchet, what would it prove? Since it was found on the premises it would point, most likely, to an inside job. It would not prove Lizzie or Bridget killed any one. However, I can't see a hired killer coming in, killing two people, two hours apart, breaking the handle, washing and dryng the head, planting the head in the cellar and walking away. All in broad daylight? Possible but unlikely.

I read about the "cow's blood" years ago and I don't know how true that statement is and I have not said it was a fact and never implied it was in my prior posts above, but, it seems to me to have been part of a conversation between an investigator and an expert (in 1892-3), something to the effect: "There was a stain on the hatchet that we thought was rust but it turned out to be cow's blood. We did not find any human blood on the hatchet." It could have read: "We saw a stain that we thought was blood but it turned out to be rust." I could have have gotten that backward but I remember "cow's blood" being mentioned. There was also mention made by that expert that some human blood would have been left on the hatchet no matter how much washing was done. I read this years before I ever got a computer. I'll have to read through my old books on the case and see if I can find it. It may have been in a book or document at the library. I can imagine that hatchet would have had blood in the grain of the wood. Hickory, ash and oak are "open-pore" woods and I don't think Lizzie had the chance to clean it that thourghly. Has it been tested lately?

Finding poison in the bodies, would not by itself, prove who did the killing, but as I have mentioned above, IF: A. Abby said she was being poisoned, and B. Poison is found in the bodies and C. Lizzie was seen trying to buy cyanide, then who would most of the attention be drawn to? Lizzie. Sure Bridget or Dr. Bown could have done it but I feel Lizzie would be the prime suspect, more than she is now. Especially if that hatchet is proved to be the murder weapon and I don't think it was.

There have been several people convicted of murder after a victim is exhumed and poison is found in the body. But, that poison may have been the final piece of evidence the police needed to convict the killer. In the Borden case I think that more than just poison in the bodies would be needed to convict Lizzie or any one else. It would probably take several more pieces of evidence, that point to Lizzie, or whoever, to convict. If there was a "proponderance of the evidence", even if the evidence is circumstancial, then there may be enough to convict that person. Most of the "evidence" I see in this case seems to point more toward Lizzie then anyone else but I would like to see a lot more before I would put a rope around her neck. If I had been on that Jury I would have come to the same conclusion, not because I am positive Lizzie is innocent, but because I am not positive she is guilty.

Exhuming those bodies may not provide enough evidence, or any evidence, to convict anyone but it may give us more pieces to the puzzle. That is what detective work is all about. I couldn't imagine being a police detective and telling my Captain that I didn't try to match the bullet with the gun found because it would not prove who pulled the trigger. Or I didn't check for poison in the body because it would not prove who the killer was. I would lose my job in a New York minute.

Of course all of this is academic. I can't see the police glootching around in old bodies looking for evidence in a 113 year old case when all suspects are long dead and they have more important cases to deal with. But it would be nice to know what a modern day autopsy would uncover. It would sure keep our jaws flappin.

BTW: Does anyone know if the police ever looked for the hatchet in Lizzie's privy? In the movie Elizabeth Taylor is seen dropping the hatchet in the toilet. I've been wondering if anyone know's if it was searched.

-1bigsteve (o:

Trial Testimony of Professor Edward S. Draper page 998+:

Q. Won't you state what they were that you received?
A. I received from Dr. Dolan in that trunk the claw hammer hatchet,-- that hatchet which has been known as the claw hammer hatchet: those two axes which have already been seen: the blue dress skirt--

Q. Those two hatchets you mean?
A. No, sir, the claw hammer hatchet and the two axes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is talk of how Draper tested all three of these implements for bloodstains with a negative result. Then on page 1002:

Q. Then we will dispose of the hair, if you please.
A. The envelope marked "Hair taken from the hatchet" contained when I opened it two pieces of paper, this one, which was sealed and which contained a short hair -- it does not now; it is empty now, but that is the paper in which the hair was enclosed, contained a short hair one inch long, and containing both root and point of the hair, and when they had been examined under the microscope, it was seen to consist almost entirely of the central medullary cavity, which is unlike human hair, and it had a red brown pigment, and is more similar to a cow's hair than any other animal who's hair I have examined. It was sealed between those two glasses, and can readily be seen if the glass it placed upon a piece of paper. It is animal hair, no question of that, and probably cow hair. The envelope also contained a piece of paper which I examined very carefully without removing it from the envelope, and then I have examined with a lens every part of the inside of the envelope without finding any hair. It is marked " Hair placed here 1.57 P.M. 8/7/92" and it contains only a mucilage spot in the center; that is, I was unable to find any hair on it at all, and that hair (pointing to the cow hair) is the only hair which I have had as coming from the hatchet. I would state that upon the examination of that stain upon the edge of the hatchet , the cutting edge, a part of which remains there, but a large portion of which has been removed, I found a great deal of wooden fibre and cotton fibre, that is, in this rough stain right near the back part of the cutting edge, the bevelled edge. It contained quite a number of fibres of cotton. Whether that was upon the other hair or not, I don't know.

Q. You never saw but one hair?
A. I never saw but one hair, and that is the one sealed in the glass.

Q. Whether the hair was put in or not with that piece of paper, it never came to you?
Q. I never could find it.

I looked up information on mucilage and found the definition. It states that it can be used as an adhesive. Apparently this was used to stick the second hair to the piece of paper, yet it still slipped off and was lost. Was that also a cow hair?

The doctor also stated more or less that blood couldn't have been washed away by a quick or careless washing so well it could not be detected by examination. He said it could be washed away by cold water, but not by someone who was careless about it. That leads me to wonder exactly how well they could detect human blood stains, and what about the brown 'smooch' on that dress.

Somewhere, in The Witness Statements I think, there are some details about how they searched the privy vault. So I think that yes, it was searched.


http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0834317.html

Thank you Melissa. Now I remember about that cow's hair. It's coming back to me now. I knew there was blood stains and a cow in there somewhere but I had forgotten about the hairs. I read this over twenty years ago.

I doubt Lizzie had the time to clean off the blood and dry the hatchet head. There are proccess that police have now that can detect blood no matter how well it is cleaned. I think it show's up as a blue stain under a certain type of light, or something.

Mucilage is used as a glue. Remember those little brown glue bottles with the red nipple looking spout that was suppose to sqeeze the glue out? I never could get the glue to cooperate. The glue would alway's cyrstalize and flake away. They still sell those little brown bottles.

I have often wondered about that privy search.

Brown "smootch" on the dress? Blood? Now this is getting good...!

Thank's again Melissa. I have some things to chew on.

-1bigsteve (o:

The point I would like to bring out is that contrary to an earlier post, almost every household would have had a hatchet or ax.

People (immigrants, the poor, rich people's servants) still routinely raised and killed chicken, rabbits, (pigeons?), etc. in their backyards to eat. Most homes had some kind of wood stove, and there was always a need for kindling.

It was only when "urban renewal" became the mantra in the 1960s that cities like Fall River and New Bedford got rid of small livestock within the city limits and banned outhouses. And you think the Bordens were bad with their privy in the basement in the 1890s.

My next-door neighbors in the 1950s had a kitchen sink and a hand basin on each floor. The only toilet for 3 tenements was in the basement. Field mice would run over your feet when you were in there. There were no bathtubs. It was a galvanized tub in which people bathed in their kitchens in the winter and on the back porch in the summer. By school age, I had seen most of my neighbors naked. We were the "rich folk". We had bathrooms in each unit with the big, clawfooted porcelein tubs and the flush box for the toilet mounted near the ceiling.

Hatchets and axes were a way of life that wasn't dead yet in my lifetime, much less Lizzie's.

Your post bring's back memories for me. I remember going into my grandmother's house and it was like stepping back in time. Except for the TV and a few other things her furnishings were well-kept but old. It was like an antique store. I remember bathing in the same claw foot tub my mom bathed in when she was a little girl. Nothing changed much in that part of the country.

My grandfather alway's had axes and hatchets around and so do I. They come in handy for knocking out kindling and camping and such. They are still in just about every home. They are just tools like hammers. I just can't imagine killing animals in my yard for dinner. I don't have the heart for it but I guess people do.

I don't think I would want to see my neighbors naked any more than I have already. My dad remembers bathing out on the porch just like you describe, when he was growing up.

Oh, the memories!

-1bigsteve (o:

I for one never debated that, it's pretty much common sense. They cut their own firewood and slaughtered their own animals. Not to mention all the other handy uses a hatchet or axe had back then. But, what is really in debate is that each tool leaves it's own distinctive mark. I do understand that because a hatchet or axe is known to be the murder weapon it doesn't narrow the suspect list. As you said most households had them. Most households today still have them. I know we do. But it would be interesting to know if the handleless hatchet that is known to have come from the house, and was known to have been owned by the Bordens, can really be excluded. I guess I'm among the minority.

I think Kat made a good point above about the condition of the skulls. I don't know where Abby's and Andrew's skulls are, whether they are in the grave or still above ground but if they are in good condition then I think an exam could be made of the wounds and that handless hatchet. You can take two hatchets, both same make and model, same size and they will both leave slightly different marks especially after they had been used and sharpened. Any nick or imperfection in the edge, as well as the natural countour of the blade, would be transfered to the bone to some degree.

It would probably take one of those microscopes that can check the eye color of the mite that lives on the bug that lives on the hair that grows on the leg of a flea. We have all seen those photos. With a thourgh exam I do think the handless hatchet can be excluded as the murder weapon. The type of break in the handle is a good indication to me that it is not the murder weapon. That clean break is the way a handle often times breaks when the blade misses the target, say the end of a piece of kindling, and the handle hits, provided the grain of the wood is going in the proper direction. I've broken handles just this way and that break is the same type I've seen. Many axes are made now with a rubber collar around the handle against the head to protect it from this kind of impact. I think I talked more about wood handles in the "handleless hatchet" thread.

So if a complete exam was made of the wounds and the Borden hatchet, provide the skulls are in good condition, I think the hatchet could be proven to be or not be the weapon. I would give my right arm to hold that hatchet head in my hand with a magnifying glass. I would like to check the grain direction and the bottom of that break.

-1bigsteve (o:

The HH is over 113 years old in its broken condition.
I've been trying to describe that there were slivers at the time of the trial and it was not as clean a break as we see now.
Anyone can download the trial testimony from the website. Descriptions of it are in testimony.

It has been assured us (Bordenites) that the skulls were placed in the graves, but possibly near the victim's feet. Apparently body parts interred after the body need not be placed in their proper anatomical position.

In a forensics sweep of a crime scene, of course I agree that every measure should be taken to fit weapon to wound, possible poison to possible purchaser- but since we are discussing an exhumation here, a touchy subject to be sure- I think the list of probable rewards in evidence-gathering might be steeper than in an open case where the body is still held pending more inquiry: Meaning the expectation of new findings tending toward resolving a case are probably steeper and stiffer a criteria. Not a *shopping list*, but more of a direct purpose in mind to lead toward a resolution, IMO.

I have read Prof. Starrs *new* book and he has a heck of a time getting permissions and he sounds very bitter about it, too.

When ever I break a piece of wood I have a habit of knocking off the splinters to keep them out of my skin. I always imagined that was done to the Borden hatchet. Wood splinters more in one direction than another depending upon the direction of the force in relation to the direction of the grain.

When I get the time I'm going to have to download all this info you have on this case. It will give me some good reading material for these cold winter nights that are coming up.

-1bigsteve (o:

I have looked at the autopsy photos too. They are shallow holes in the head. I thought too, at first, "Oh a woman couldn't have done this". But, two things. One, women can and are stronger than most people give them credit for, and the holes to the head are not that deep.

When I wrote about matching the skulls to the HH, I did not mean by matching marks on the bone with any marks on the hatchet. With today's technology, it's possible to match a sample of duct tape to a particular role of duct tape through spectrographic and other types of analysis. I wonder if any particles of metal that may be embedded in the skull may be matched to the particular metalic composition of the hatchet.

It the HH were to be eliminated as the murder weapon, it would not add anything new to the case.

But, if the HH were proved to be the murder weapon, I think it would narrow the suspects down to those who could have snapped off the handle, cleaned it, and stuck it into the box in the cellar.

Not that most folks haven't already done that. . .

If there was gilt metal present in Abby's wounds, it means the hatchet was probably brand new. Gilt metal would have been used as a maker's label on the blade. This scrapes off through ordinary use, and relatively quickly. Nowadays we're apt to find a plastic stick-on label on the side of a hatchet head.

The presence of gilt metal doesn't necessarily mean a cheap hatchet was used (although it doesn't preclude it), but it does mean a relatively new hatchet was used. Perhaps the hatchet found on the shed roof gains some credibility.

Why would Andrew's wounds show no gilt?
Or at least we never heard of any?
I used to think that in that 90 minute hiatus between murders that the killer went to the cellar and sharpened the blade!

If the murderer washed the hatchet between killings, the gilt may have been removed to the point where no more would be easily lost through use. If the murderer did not wash the hatchet, the dried blood on the hatchet head might have prevented gilt loss. Another possibility is a second murder weapon.

Perhaps the skull scraped the gilt off during Abby's killing so there was none left for Andrew's killing. But still you would think there would be some traces in Andrew's wounds. I can't see it ALL being scraped off in Abby's wounds. Maybe the killer switched from a hatchet that broke to a meat cleaver or another hatchet??

Does anyone know if there is any record of the police checking with the hardware stores to see if Lizzie bought a hatchet? In the movie Lizzie is seen stealing one.

-1bigsteve (o:

i don't really believe that digging them up could prove anything. more likely it would create a new argument, or something unexpected would be noticed about the clothing, or something. or what if the heads could not be found?

it's really morbid curiosity on my part, i think -- i can't help it. i would like to see if that ring is really on andrew's finger, for one thing. and while we're at it, how about a look at lizzie herself? you know, depending on what type of coffin she was buried in and whether it was put in a sealing, air-tight vault, and whether she was embalmed -- she might not look that bad.

i'm kidding, but my imagination itself is not particularly ethical. i've thought about it.

When I visited the house last September, our tour guide, Eleanor, told us that an expert who wanted to examine the skulls received death threats. I understand that this was at about the time that the skulls were reburied (in boxes about two feet deep), which was fairly recently.

Constantine @ Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:14 pm wrote:When I visited the house last September, our tour guide, Eleanor, told us that an expert who wanted to examine the skulls received death threats. I understand that this was at about the time that the skulls were reburied (in boxes about two feet deep), which was fairly recently.

I think they were buried a long time ago and reunited with the bodies. I'm thinking it was before the trial was over?

Constantine @ Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:14 pm wrote:When I visited the house last September, our tour guide, Eleanor, told us that an expert who wanted to examine the skulls received death threats. I understand that this was at about the time that the skulls were reburied (in boxes about two feet deep), which was fairly recently.

How well guarded is the cemetery?

Chiming in a bit late here-- But ethically I think the bodies should not be disturbed.

There is no 'legal' reason to solve the case at this time.

Can you imagine if they were somehow able to prove it was Emma for example? Would this nullify her claim to Andrew's estate? If so would the entire estate revert to Lizzie? Follow this to America's litigious society-- Would the heirs of Lizzie's legatees be able to sue the heirs of Emma's?

Isn't the case considered closed?

This link has some info:
viewtopic.php?t=486&start=0


Tracy...

It's an open cold case as far as I know. No reward tho- I suppose- but no justice for the victims yet, either.
The victims deserve justice, as we all probably agree.

Yes Steve there were accounts in the newspapers of police running down hatchets and hatchet buyers. One was a Portuguese supposedly from Andrew's farm. He had a distinctive look. I think he bought a hatchet but was not someone anyone recognized from Second Street that day?
Harry, Diana- do you recall this guy?

Regarding the Portuguese man that attempted to purchase a hatchet, this appeared in the Nov. 22, 1892 New Bedford Evening Standard:

"... The government officials still cling tenaciously to the theory of Lizzie's guilt, but there is a doubt as to the young woman having been alone. Dr. Handy's wild-eyed man is thought of again in this consideration, and also the mysterious Portuguese who purchased a hatchet in New Bedford two or three days before the murder, and the mysterious man of the same nationality who was seen in the vicinity of the Borden house the day of the tragedy, and who has never been found. There are also two or three points in connection with this unknown individual which to-day can be considered as peculiar, to say the least.
....
"...It is thought the Portuguese may be connected with a farm hand who, from the first, has been somewhat under suspicion, and whose movements on the day of the murder have never been thoroughly explained. The coming 10 days will be directed toward determining whether or not that individual has a perfectly established alibi. The hardware dealer of New Bedford who sold the hatchet to mysterious Portuguese will be given an opportunity to identify him, and Dr. Handy will also be called on to look at him. If all this amounts to nothing, and the investigation fails to show further signs of an accessory's hand in the murder, then the wheels of justice will commence to revolve at the point where they stopped, and the indictment proceedings will go on. In connection with this mysterious hatchet purchaser comes another young man whose movements have been carefully "piped" by the Fall River police. He has visited the Borden house several times since the murder, and on every occasion a police officer has quietly tracked his movements. Who this person is only the shadowing officer and the principal government officials know. ..."

I think that you need either a court order or family permission to exhume a body. No one today can get either, ever.
A court ordered exhumation in case the death is now considered suspicious (read True Crime), or there is a question of the identity of the body (it sometimes happens). IMO

Good stuff Harry! Thanks!

I think Eleanor is confused. She should get one of the Borden experts to check her script before she adds fuel to a muddled situation.

I believe she is thinking of Professor Starrs. who is more side-show entrepreneur than scientist. He wanted to dig up the graves and. fortunately, was denied.