Lizzie Borden Society Forum

One moment I think Lizzie would have preferred to use poison, and that is why she tried to buy it-- the next minute I question whether or not she even did try to buy it.....

Let me assume she did try to buy it for evil purposes.... And, as we know, was denied it.

Do you think she planned the killing(s) on that day or did circumstances force her hand, leaving her with no poison, no plan 'B' and, in her mind, no other options?

The switch from poison to the hatchet may be been merely a matter of circumstance and maybe even convenience? Or could it have been an outlet for all that hate?

I am not convinced that Lizzie is the killer, but if she was...I would think she would have preferred poison...more genteel. (If)When that idea did not work out, I believe she got someone else more directly involved. thus, Plan B ? She figured she would never be suspected to do her position in the community, and with the inheritance, she could handsomely pay hush money. I think Andrew's murder was not part of the plan in the beginning.


Tracy...

I've always felt that using a hatchet was a bit "harsh" for a pre-planned murder. A spur of the moment snapping of someone's reason and faculties would be more in keeping with use of an axe or hatchet. But then the catch is how anyone could mentally crumble and kill Abby with a hatchet, and then wait a significant amount of time to kill Andrew? (Then it DOES become pre-planned, I guess!)
Poison would be a much more "logical" choice for a pre-planned murder, don't you think?
Unless something else WAS pre-planned, that went wrong...

I feel Lizzie planned to use cyanide because it would be less trouble for her. She wouldn't have to get her hands dirty. When she couldn't buy any she turned to the hatchet. Maybe she intended to use a knife (someone "stabbed" father) but decided at the last minute to use her dad's hatchet. I don't think it was to vent her wrath (the shallow wounds tell me that Lizzie didn't put much mustard on her swings) but just as a means of killing, getting the job done. Any weapon Lizzie chose would have to be silent. Maybe Lizzie's trip out back to eat some pears was actually a trip to throw the hatchet up on the Crowe's barn?

I think she intended to bump them both off that way she would have the money sooner and wouldn't have to worry about her dad suspecting her of Abby's murder, cutting Lizzie out of his Will.

-1bigsteve (o:

Sorry- I hadn't seen this topic yet!
I have a sort of reply at the other thread, that seems to fit here:
viewtopic.php?t=1825
Maybe I should post it here too?

I don't discount Bence but am complaining that he was vague for such an important witness. He seems pretty thorough otherwise- but in his line of business he might have been more observant. He seems prideful to me.
Hart is the useless witness- but in comparison with the others and in the context of someone here pointing out here that the other 2 (who were not Bence) knew Lizzie by sight. Hart did not. I'd throw his testimony out because he says he recognized her from a news picture. You probably would too- it's not an effective ID- better to go with Bence and Kilroy.
I gave the inquest testimony, above.

I know you and others think it's possible for someone to switch weapons. We discussed this. I don't think it's impossible- but I think it's unlikely.
If I think that than I have to decide if it was Lizzie who tried to buy poison, and then failing that used a hatchet. Or if it was Lizzie who tried to buy poison, and failing that got someone else to use the hatchet.
Or Lizzie never tried to buy the poison and used a hatchet. Or Lizzie never tried to buy poison and never used the hatchet.
My way is much more complicated because of my tendency toward not switching poison for blade.
As you know, I only put Poison in this category as something I don't think would be switched. Just about any other failed attempt with any other kind of weapon, I'd agree might be interchangeable.
It's the psychology behind poisoners which makes me hesitate over an easy acceptance of a switch like that.
~~~~~

You know, I hate to say it, because I've gained a sort of affection for Emma, but she seems more like an annonymous-letter type or a secret poisoner type to me - more so than Lizzie.

If Lizzie were buying poison for someone else to administer- that would seem acceptable, psychologically, to me.

--Me

Poisoners are sadistic and are a bit like bombers:
They usually have a signature way of doing it and don't really intend to be around when the poisoning happens (or bombing) and like to imagine the horrible excrutiating death caused by their sadistic method. Victims don't always die, but have to live maimed in some way and if they do die it can be horrific.

I don't think it was to vent her wrath (the shallow wounds tell me that Lizzie didn't put much mustard on her swings) but just as a means of killing, getting the job done.

-bigsteve

I'm sorry to intrude upon this topic with this info but please bear with me.
For a description of Abby's wounds please see Dolan's autopsy. There is no "shallow wound" described there.
There are "penetrating wounds" into the brain, and wounds that penetrated into the skull but did not go all the way thru, and incised wounds and "crushing wounds":

"THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows:

1.  Was a glancing scalp wound two inches in length by one and 1/2 inches in width, situated 3 inches above left ear hole, cut from above downwards and did not penetrate the skull.

2.   Was exactly on top of the skull one inch long penetrating into but not through the skull.

3.  Was parallel to No. 2, one and 1/2 inches long, and penetrating through the skull.

4.  Was 2 and 1/4 inches long above occipital protuberance and one and 1/2 inches long.

5.  Was parallel to No. 4 and one and 1/2 inches long.

6.  Was just above and parallel to No. 5, and one and 1/4 inches long. On top of skull was a traverse fracture two inches in length, a continuation of a penetrating wound.

7.  Was two inches long and two inches behind ear hole crushing and carrying bone into brain.

All the wounds of the head following No. 7 though incised crushed through into the brain.

8.   Was 2 and 1/2 inches long

9.   Was 2 and 3/4 inches long

10.    Was one and 3/4 inches long

11.   Was 1/2 inches long

12.   Was 2 and 1/4 inches long

13.   Was one and 3/4 inches long

14.   Was two and 1/2 inches long

15.   Reached from middle line of head towards the ear 5 inches long

16.   Was one inch long

17.   Was 1/2 inch long

18.   Was 3 and 1/2 inches long

These wounds on the right side were parallel, the direction being mostly from in front backwards.

HEAL. There was a hole in right side of skull 4 and 1/2 to 5 and 1/4 inches, through which the brain evacuated in fluid condition being entirely decomposed.

For the sake of accuracy.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

I think that when people describe killers and their 'mode' of killling, they tend to think in terms of people who kill more than once, or what are known as serial killers. Serial killers will sometimes stick to the same type of weapon, and the same MO, for each killing because it is the ritualistic act of the killing that satisfies them. But even serial killers have been known to switch weapons. Lizzie wasn't a serial killer. She didn't have a 'ritualistic' style of killing. She wasn't killing to fulfill some inner need or fantasy, in my opinion, she was killing to get her hands on her parents money. She was a one time killer that was just looking for whatever was going to get the job done to get her parents out of the way, no matter what that ultimately might be. She was an inexperienced killer also, so she might have tried out a few different weapons for size so to speak. When she couldn't obtain one, she chose another one that was more readily available, and could be obtained more efficiently. And one that evidently would leave no trace of what weapon was even used. But that's just my opinion.

Most poisoners can't stop. That's the point. They prefer poison. It fulfills a need. That's why it's hard to equate Lizzie and poison.
Those ladies, Bravo and Maybrick were caught after a one-time kill. So we can't know if they would have gone on to poison the next person to get in their way.

BTW: a coincidence- but in the Mammoth Book Of Killer Women, edited by Glyn Jones, Flo Bravo is the chapter after Lizzie Borden.

[quote="Kat @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:10 am"]Most poisoners can't stop. That's the point. They prefer poison. It fulfills a need. That's why it's hard to equate Lizzie and poison.
quote]

Are we talking about most poisoners as in serial killer poisoners? These poisoners have that inner need to start with, that's why it fulfills it, and that's why it becomes a compulsion to keep killing to fulfill it. That's what makes them serial killers. That was my whole point. If she didn't have that inner need that serial killers have to kill and kill again, and she doesn't have that ritualistic urge to use poison over and over again, then I think she could use any weapon. She just wanted them dead. I don't think she really cared how, she just wanted them dead.

I think that in this case.... The killer (Lizzie?) was not a serial killer and cannot really be compared to one or even expected to exhibit the usual qualities of one that profiling has taught us.

I think she would have liked to use poison... It was just easier-- and be honest... Wouldn't you rather poison someone versus hack them up with a hatchet?

I think she 'resorted' to the hatchet.

Audrey @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:38 pm wrote:I think that in this case.... The killer (Lizzie?) was not a serial killer and cannot really be compared to one or even expected to exhibit the usual qualities of one that profiling has taught us.

My sentiments exactly.

I think we are agreeing more than you think.
I'm saying Lizzie probably was not a poisoner, did not try to poison, because it wasn't her type of weapon (as per her personality) and because she was not a serial killer.

But I did mention 2 ladies who only killed once with poison, who we don't know might have become serials- but were caught after the first kill.
Obviously Lizzie was not a serial killer. We don't even know if she was an actual hands-on killer killer at all.

Kat @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:00 pm wrote:

I don't think it was to vent her wrath (the shallow wounds tell me that Lizzie didn't put much mustard on her swings) but just as a means of killing, getting the job done.

-bigsteve

I'm sorry to intrude upon this topic with this info but please bear with me.
For a description of Abby's wounds please see Dolan's autopsy. There is no "shallow wound" described there.
There are "penetrating wounds" into the brain, and wounds that penetrated into the skull but did not go all the way thru, and incised wounds and "crushing wounds":

"THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows:

1.  Was a glancing scalp wound two inches in length by one and 1/2 inches in width, situated 3 inches above left ear hole, cut from above downwards and did not penetrate the skull.

2.   Was exactly on top of the skull one inch long penetrating into but not through the skull.

3.  Was parallel to No. 2, one and 1/2 inches long, and penetrating through the skull.

4.  Was 2 and 1/4 inches long above occipital protuberance and one and 1/2 inches long.

5.  Was parallel to No. 4 and one and 1/2 inches long.

6.  Was just above and parallel to No. 5, and one and 1/4 inches long. On top of skull was a traverse fracture two inches in length, a continuation of a penetrating wound.

7.  Was two inches long and two inches behind ear hole crushing and carrying bone into brain.

All the wounds of the head following No. 7 though incised crushed through into the brain.

8.   Was 2 and 1/2 inches long

9.   Was 2 and 3/4 inches long

10.    Was one and 3/4 inches long

11.   Was 1/2 inches long

12.   Was 2 and 1/4 inches long

13.   Was one and 3/4 inches long

14.   Was two and 1/2 inches long

15.   Reached from middle line of head towards the ear 5 inches long

16.   Was one inch long

17.   Was 1/2 inch long

18.   Was 3 and 1/2 inches long

These wounds on the right side were parallel, the direction being mostly from in front backwards.

HEAL. There was a hole in right side of skull 4 and 1/2 to 5 and 1/4 inches, through which the brain evacuated in fluid condition being entirely decomposed.

For the sake of accuracy.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

I've read the report many times in the last few months and I had just finished re-reading the autopsy report on both Andrew and Abby a few minutes before making my post above about shallow wounds.

The hatchets in Lizzie's day (as they are now) had cutting edge lengths from 3 1/2" to 4 1/2" on average (a broad axe hatchet is about 5 1/2"). The length of blade, from cutting edge to the front of the handle is approximately 3" to 3 1/2". Dolan describes the "length" of the wounds, not the "depth" of the wounds. To get a deep wound the entire cutting edge of the blade would have to sink into the skull which would produce a wound measuring the exact length of the cutting edge, say 4". With the exception of the wound on line 15, all others appear to be shorter. It is impossible to get much penetration into a skull with a hatchet that has a cutting edge of 4" long and a wound on the skull that is only 1" or 2" in length. Some of Abby's wounds could have come from being hit with the corner of the blade and this would have allowed a deeper wound but with a triangle shape to it. After the hatchet broke-up her skull on the right side there would have been very little resistance for the blade and it could have then sank deep into Abby's brain at that point. The report said that bone was pushed into her brain but it does not say how "deep" the blade itself went in. You can break-up a skull with a hammer and push bone into the brain without having deep penetration. Just look at length of those wounds, 2", 1 1/4", 2 1/2", 1", 1/2", etc. You can't cram much of a 4" hatchet into those short wounds unless the skull is made of rubber. The hatchet head I have which is almost identical to Lizzie's HH has a cutting edge of 3 13/16" and blade length from handle to cutting edge of 3" and a blade thickness of 7/16" at the eye. If the wounds were 3 13/16" X 7/16" then I would say that the blade went deep. I don't see wounds that size on Abby. Of course we don't know what make and model of hatchet she used but the principle is the same.

To me, a deep wound would penetrate about 3 to 4" deep. With all my experience using hatchets and axes in the last fourty years, I would have no trouble at all sinking that hatchet head all the way into a human skull up to the handle. An oak log is a whole lot harder to cut through than a thin boned, hollow human skull. It seems in all reasonableness that any normal sized man, because of his strength, would have drove that hatchet deeper into the skull than the hatchet did in the report. If there was traces of gilt in her wounds then the hatchet was probably sharp. The nature of these wounds indicate to me that a woman, especially one who didn't have much experience with hatchets, was "most likely" the killer. This is based upon the idea that the weapon was a hatchet. If it was a meat cleaver than the lack of weight and leverage could result in these wounds being inflicted by a man.

So it is the depth of wounds I am reffering to and not the length.

I think Lizzie resorted to the hatchet, or whatever she used, because she couldn't get the cyanide, just like Audrey suggested above. In spite of everything I hate thinking Lizzie was the killer. Maybe Lizzie was in the barn, but not on that morning and not looking for sinkers. Maybe she was in the barn the day(s) before the killings looking for a hatchet??

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:07 pm wrote:I think we are agreeing more than you think.
I'm saying Lizzie probably was not a poisoner, did not try to poison, because it wasn't her type of weapon (as per her personality) and because she was not a serial killer.

But I did mention 2 ladies who only killed once with poison, who we don't know might have become serials- but were caught after the first kill.
Obviously Lizzie was not a serial killer. We don't even know if she was an actual hands-on killer killer at all.

True. I think Lizzie looked too "clean" (no blood on hair, skin, clothes) to have actually done the hacking herself and not enough time to clean herself up. I lean toward the idea that she helped the killer or went along with it. I don't feel Lizzie could have become a serial killer. Her parents just got in her way of what she wanted. I don't think she had anybody else in her sights, although Bridget may not have thought so.

-1bigsteve (o:

Poison is "typically" a "woman's method of killing," regardless of being a serial killer or not. Are all poisoners women? No. Are all women killers poisoners? No. But something to consider, all the same.

In spite of the fact that no poison was detected by the Harvard prof, I do think that there was a very good chance that the family Borden was being poisoned in the days before the murder. I also think that something - or someone - happened that necessitated the murders to occurr when they did. The poisoning was taking too much time, ie the Bordens were taking too long to die. Now what happened/changed that necessitated the Bordens dying when they did? What was the "last straw," the precipitating factor that led the killer to decide, "now is the time"? I wish I had the answer.

I was wondering if Emma was the poisoner, what she might have put it in to make everyone ill while she was away.
Lizzie didn't often eat with everyone else, maybe because she knew Emma had a *habit?*

Did it sound sincere when Uncle Arthur, er, I mean Uncle John came home Thursday to say *Oh my God, how did this happen?* I thought he seemed surprised. Not necessarily at the killing, but the day, the time, the method?

Kat @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:37 pm wrote:I was wondering if Emma was the poisoner, what she might have put it in to make everyone ill while she was away.
Lizzie didn't often eat with everyone else, maybe because she knew Emma had a *habit?*

Did it sound sincere when Uncle Arthur, er, I mean Uncle John came home Thursday to say *Oh my God, how did this happen?* I thought he seemed surprised. Not necessarily at the killing, but the day, the time, the method?

Interesting idea.

I sometimes think of the psychic (or was it Ouija) reading and the soap in the food. I cannot seem to find the link to it!

Soap would have been in flake form in those days. easy to put into soup or broth.

That would make the family very uncomfortable but wouldn't kill them, as you know.
But: If Emma (?) was only fooling around with a substance like that- then maybe a more diabolical mind took it further?
(Not discounting Emma here- meaning she got a taste of power- next step, the real thing?)

The thing is this: That Lizzie's friends thought she was pretty much an outspoken girl- she didn't lie- they said. They found it harder to believe Lizzie would lie about killing than actually killing.
Look at how Lizzie's remarks are remembered by the sewing lady- *Don't call her mother- she's a mean good-for-nothing thing* (not exact quote). And Mrs. Tripp tells of Lizzie's complaints about Abby right out to her in the open. People didn't really say that Emma spoke out like that. Emma seems more secretive. Hence my judgement that if there was a poisoner, it wasn't Lizzie.

Now that is good thinking-- and something I hadn't considered.

For some reason the idea of a sneaky Emma appeals to me.

Audrey @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:56 pm wrote:

Kat @ Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:37 pm wrote:I was wondering if Emma was the poisoner, what she might have put it in to make everyone ill while she was away.
Lizzie didn't often eat with everyone else, maybe because she knew Emma had a *habit?*

Did it sound sincere when Uncle Arthur, er, I mean Uncle John came home Thursday to say *Oh my God, how did this happen?* I thought he seemed surprised. Not necessarily at the killing, but the day, the time, the method?

Interesting idea.

I sometimes think of the psychic (or was it Ouija) reading and the soap in the food. I cannot seem to find the link to it!

Soap would have been in flake form in those days. easy to put into soup or broth.

Sorry I forgot to answer you about OUIJA:
It's at the website-
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Diversion/PsychicFile.htm