Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I'm sure that this discussion must have occured somewhere in the forum. Took a quick look but couldn't locate.

Not sure what sort of renovations that went on at Number 92 in recent years, or what kind of construction was used for the outside walls when the house was built, but would like to ask, just in case.

Many homes in Fall River, and all over New England, were built with Ballon Framing, in which the outside walls were hollow from cellar to attic. This meant that the 2x4s used for the outside walls were very long, 30 to 40 feet, and the floor joists would hang on them rather then sit over a sill or floor.

Most of the ones I worked in were built over the sill of the first floor. So if you went into the attic of a 3 decker, and dropped a coin into the wall, it would drop all 3 floors, and come to rest inside the wall at the first floor level.

Many homes in New Bedford the wall was open right into the basement. (in which case you could retrieve your coin.) In Fall River most ballon framed homes were closed off in the basment, so if there was a fire in the basement it would not travel up the walls. These building practices was the result of a couple of major fires which happened in Fall River in its past. For instance, mostly all of Fall River's homes built after the 1860s had plastered ceilings. In New Bedford, and other towns in the area, its just the opposite. Working in a multi-family home in New Bedford for me was a pleasure...........?well easier anyway.

My question is: If Lizzie had access to the inside walls from the attic, or anywhere else, could she not have dropped the ax into the wall. A house like 92 could have 70 to 90 such cavaties.

I have a friend who owns an old 1840s home in Somerset, MA., use to belong to a wealthy sea captian. When He took one of the walls apart on the first floor he found all sorts of treasures. Old booklets, tops, toy soldiers. The attic was where the kids would play when it was raining and they would drop things into the walls where they sat for almost 150 years. Cool!

Ah darn-it. Just thought of something. If she did do that she would never have sold the building?

Maybe she would have sold it...

She certainly would not not have ordered it torn down.

Mini-Poll. If your loved ones were murdered in a house that you subsequently moved out of and you didn't need the money from it's sale or lease-- what would you do with the property? (Assuming innocence and/or guilt)

Any small metal detector (like the ones used by the police in searching homes?) could easily detect a metal object, even buried beneath ground.
Arnold Brown says that house was built with granite block foundation, and Andy (a carpenter in youth) would have realized its quality.
Also, I read that balloon-frame houses were invented in the 1860s in Chicago. That house could be the traditional post and beam frame, wooden rather than nail fasteners. Without termites or ants, it could last a long time.

There are two obvious answers to the missing hatchet:
1) it was taken away by the murderer;
2) when Lizzie sent Bridget to Alice she brought a sack with bloody clothes and hatchet in it. (I don't believe this myself.)
3) the thorough police search missed this somehow (I don't believe this).

I think that since Lizzie was probably far more aquainted with the house and it's possible 'secrets', she could've easily found a place to hide the weapon that the police would never even think to check out.

I suspect that the hatchet found on the flat roof of the Crowe barn was the murder weapon. The killer could have thrown it up there. I haven't been onsite yet (soon! eight short weeks from now!), but I have read that the distance makes that supposition reasonable.

Michael you could visit the house and check its construction yourself. IT would be cool to have the results from someone who knew about local construction!

Thanks Kat, Yes makes alot of sense. You know, if they told me I was allowed in only two rooms in the entire building at 92 Second street, it would be the Attic and the cellar.

You can learn a lot about how people lived by studying such unconventional places.

After working in some basements, where I would need to move boxes and other items to perform my work, the occupants lives would unfold before me.

Any thing from old hospital equipment, signs of an ill family member, old photos, toys, music records, displaying taste in music and how they changed over the years, from albums to 8track to cassette; to old furnishings, dishes and many household items. And in Attics even the type of wood they used and paint gave certain clues to what other uses this space had rendered. (very similar to the Hatchet cover with the siding at 92. To some just siding; to others a display of hidden lives embedded right in the wood and paint.)

I remember one fine home that had Plate settings, 3 or four different kinds, all full sets, most never used, just stacked on shelves long forgotten. This was an old couple and you could see what they had when they were married, how they upgraded to more valued set, to new fangle designs of the 70s etc. Made me want to search through their kitchen to see how much further their tastes had changed. Even down to the paper cup and plates on which they served me a snack, especially on a hot day rummaging through a dusty attic. Much could be told.

Yes RayS Makes sense that Ballon Framing could have come into it's own in the 1860s in Chicago. It was about that time that Fall River began Plastering all their cellar ceilings.

But in all respect to Mr Brown, any child who lived in Fall River knows that all foundations in city buildings are built in granite. Granite was king in Fall River, right from the city's beginings. Much of Fall River's granite was exported all over New England to the building trade.

The Capital of New York, Albany had it's City Hall built from Fall River Granite. If you ever see photos of the Rolling Rock in the Flint section of Fall River, that sits in the middle of what was an early granite quarry. Most Fall River's government buildings and mills were build from Fall River granite. Fall River's baby, the Granite block, which sat across the city hall was the city's monument to the Granite Trade.

The chances that 92 Second Street is constructed in the Post and beam way is highly unlikely. There are very, very few homes left in Fall River that were built in post and beam. Most of these marvalous buildings were destroyed to make way for the mills and 3 deckers that housed it's workers. The Second Street building is a good size building and the bigger they became, the less chance such a building practice was used

Coming to mind as I sit here typing I can only think of 6 or 7 such buildings, including the Church/Troy cottage which is the oldest house in Fall River. It sits about a block from my home. The age of the Church house, c1750 dictates that it would be built in the post and beam style (Yes, I have Worked inside the Church house. What a wonderful tiny space.)

Even though the Borden House was built before the advent to ballon framing in Chicago, I will dare not throw out the idea that that construction method was not used in the Borden house at 92.

If there was an opening to a wall, especially from the attic, and I dropped a hammer into it, it could fall all the way to the basement sill or become wedged anywhere between the 1st floor and Attic, in which case, unless you dismanttle the entire wall, you would never discover it.

I have often wondered what Lizzie, provided she was the killer, did do with the hatchet.

I doubt Lizzie knew about balloon framing and I doubt she would have dropped the weapon down the walls where it could not be retrieved later (unless it was on a string) and where a future owner could discover it during future remodeling work. Of course she could have dropped it down the wall in a moment of desperation before she had a chance to think things through, but knowing Lizzie she probably had the crime planned a bit better then that.

Anyone want to drop a mini-cam down the walls? Magnet on a rope?

I think the hatchet, if it was a hatchet, was still there on the property during the Police "search." Lizzie did not have the time to leave the property following the murders. She could have thrown it on Crowe's barn, but in broad daylight? Lixxie might as well have waved a red flag. Possible though. I find tools, toys and junk on roofs so it's not impossible that a roofer left his shingling hatchet on that roof.

Unless Bridget was informed and agreed to the killings before hand, I can't see Lizzie suddenly trusting Bridget to get the hatchet off the property after the killings. "Um, Bridget, um, I just killed my parents. Um, would you mind taking this bloody hatchet somewhere and hidding it and then, um, keep your mouth shut about it afterward? Um, please?" I don't see it. Besides, where would Bridget hid it? Under Dr. Bowen's, or someone else's, house? Shove it down a pre-arranged gopher hole? In broad daylight?? With all due respect to Radin, I don't lean toward Bridget's guilt.

I think:

A. Lizzie, if she was the killer, hid the hatchet in such a place where it would not be found but where she could retrieve it later and drop it in the sea or somewhere it could never be found.

B. The killer, if it were not Lizzie, took it with him/her. No doubt the killer wrapped the weapon in a cloth of some sort because there were no blood drops between the guest room and the sitting room. Did the police seach for blood drops on the floor of the upstairs closet next to the guest room? The other closets? Sometimes I wonder if a cloth was draped over the heads to minimize blood splatter. I imagine cloth fibers would have been found in the wounds. Just a thought.

What a maze of a case.

-1bigsteve (o:

Yes Steve:
Don't know enough about the ax on the Crowe Barn and have the booklet written about it by Flynn, but for some strange reason I can't locate it. Perhaps I was dreaming I had it....????

But the core of my belief is; a killer known to Lizzie came in, she hid him, he did both murders, and left with the ax. (and Bridget could have known this. He could have been someone Lizzie was having an affair with. Sometimes as I get ideas for my novel, I picture Bridget trying to open the front door, as Lizzie stands at the top of the front steps laughing as she makes out with her lover. Something she always did with this person in front of Bridget and laughed about? Fun!)

(Please everyone it is just one stray idea. Feel free to express your own. But in expressing mine I am not attempting to solve this case or in any remote way, come up with a plausable solution,,just fun.)

Now, if I am the killer, I leave the house I have two objectives. Get away, and get rid of that bloody ax ASAP. My first priority is get the hell off that property. As soon as I scaled the wood pile in the back yard, and once my feet hit the ground on the other side, the next thing in mind is to get rid of the ax before I'm seen with it. In that case I could just fling it up onto a roof. Not sure how long it was before they discovered that ax up on the Crowe roof, but I think it was a couple of weeks later. Number 1, could have been someone's sick joke.............Number two, (I lived on a 3rd and 4th floor apartment.) There is no way that ax would be thrown onto a shed roof, sit there and not dicovered by someone in the surrounding homes within the first 24 hours.

What an interesting theory, Mbhenty. The police sure didn't search there. Thanks for sharing your knowledge of house building back then in that area. Yes - there are a LOT of things made of granite in Fall River.

That is such an interesting theory, and fits, that it bears checking out. I don't think a metal detector could work between floors, tho.

When Emma gave her interview in 1913, she said she knew Lizzie was innocent because she never could have hid the weapon where no one could find it. Between the walls. Fascinating!

Lizzie didn't sell the house for a long time. She and Emma rented it out. Maybe she sold it when she realized it was 'safe' - no one would think to look. And she didn't have to worry about being tried a second time for the murders. (She could have been tried as an accessory or under some other charge - something Andrew Jennings feared.)

I don't think she threw it on the Crowe barn roof. There were men working in the yard that day. I'd think someone would have noticed an axe whirling thru the air. I believe a workman left it there.

As for Radin's theory on Bridget, Bridget LIKED Abby Borden. She thought the 'girls' were nasty, how they treated Abby. Bridget might not have told all, but I doubt that she did it.

Audrey, your poll poses a good question. I could not stand to look at the place again. I would have it torn down or possibly sold. Lizzie was much like her father in business matters. She hated the house before the murders and would have probably been glad to have seen it disappear. But she chose to rent, then sell it for the money.

I have often wondered why there was no blood on the carpeting. They were dark in color and patterned, weren't they? There might have been blood on it that nobody could see. Very interesting!

Armchair speculation is good as it presents interesting questions.
But if the police did a thorough search there would be no hatchets hidden between the walls. I'm assuming that they would know enough to pry up the bottom planks to see if anything was there. A good lantern would help (did they have dry cell flashlights then?).
While I've never seen them on TV shows, I believe that police and others have a small hand-held device that can detect hidden metal (like those wands in the airports).
Any one willing to investigate?

Well I can't see the police checking the walls for a hatchet. What would make them think to look there? I don't know that the architecture of the house would've crossed their minds during the search. Where and how did she have access to dropping the weapon inside of the walls? I'm thinking if there was a hole in the wall somewhere, or something of that nature, which was big enough for a weapon to fit through the police might have had the idea to check there.

Does anyone know if the police search included the chimneys, specifically the ashes found at the base of most chimneys? I assume the Borden house had cleanouts at the base of the chimneys.

The house I live in now once had one of those free standing oil burning furnaces in the room we now use as a family room. This unit had a chimney that vented out up through 2 additional stories to the roof. The chimney was enclosed in a closet that was in a 2nd story bedroom as well as one in a 3rd floor bedroom.

A few years ago we did some remodeling and removed the chimney. When it was no longer in use, someone had (of course) covered up the hole that led from the family room into the upstairs closet.

Over the years my naughty boys had used a hammer to make a hole in the chimney in their closet and had thrown all sorts of things down into it!

Their father's old class ring, evidence of sneaked Oreos, etc. We have plaster and lathe walls in the house and there wouldn't have been room to get a hatchet between them-- or a way to get to the inside of the walls without a hole in one of them but it is an interesting theory.

I have always thought someone needs to go over that house with a metal detector and think that someone MUST have at one time.... Does anyone know of any tests/results such as this?

I do not think the police would have pried up each and every plank around the entire perimeter of each room...

I also do not think the murder weapon has been found. I think it is somewhere on that property.

Another good temporary hiding place might be in the stovepipe if the hatchet is small enough. If the stove is in use, disconnecting the pipe would fill the room with smoke, so a searcher might hesitate to search there.

The chimney's were searched quite thoroughly. This is from The Fall River Evening News dated 8-8-1892:

"This morning Mr. Hanscom, Mr. Jennings, Marshal Hilliard and Detective Seaver went to the house with Acting Captain Desmond, Acting Sergeant Edson and Officers Connors and Quigley and the search was renewed. The officers were accompanied by Charles H. Bryant, the mason and builder. The chimney and the basement walls were searched in every part, on the chance that some crevice or hole might be found where a weapon or clothing might be secreted. Particular attention was paid to the possibility of a secret closet or oven that might have been previously arranged. It is now certain that there is no place undiscovered where anything of even the size of a knife might have been hidden."

And from the Fall River Globe, same date:

"The police were more active today than at any time since the murders were consummated. The marshal ordered another search and Capt. Desmond, Sergt. Edson and Officers Medley and Connors were detailed for the work. Charles H. Bryant, a mason, was called in to break places in the old fashioned chimney. The interiors of the old fashioned fireplaces and every part of the chimney were gone over with like results. The searchers spent a great deal of time in the cellar where they overturned everything."

was the well ever searched, or was it filled in at that time?

i think the police "searches" were willy-nilly at best. not only was a systematic search of the entire site NOT done on Aug 4th, but the crime scene as it were was FAR from secure that date or any of the following. the possibilities are endless as to what could have happened to the murder weapon. i don't mean to be critical of the police, as it think they did the best they could, and the fact that this case remains unsolved is not their sole responsibility, however, as in so many high-profile cases, when one takes a look at the methodology, the searches, the collection of evidence, there is so much room for improvement. it's unfortunate. some of it was simply the times in which they lived though.

i'd like to think that done over in this day and age, there would be some significant differences, but then I think about the jonbenet ramsey case - look how many of the same type of mistakes were repeated? outside persons (friends of the ramseys) entering the home, uncontrolled, the crime scene forever "tainted;" the inadequate initial response of the local law enforcement to secure the scene and proceed with the investigation; the discovery of the body by one of the suspects; possible cross-contamination issues; a heavily medicated "suspect" who was not able to be thoroughly questioned in those first crucial hours...on and on. hindsight may be 20/20, but these are such basic mistakes and problems that should have been addressed differently. i'm sure the officers and investigators in both cases would have done much differently if they could do it all over.

Yooper @ Sun Apr 09, 2006 12:00 pm wrote:Another good temporary hiding place might be in the stovepipe if the hatchet is small enough. If the stove is in use, disconnecting the pipe would fill the room with smoke, so a searcher might hesitate to search there.

Welcome aboard, Yooper!

I doubt Lizzie would hide the hatchet in the stove pipe. She would have had to take the pipe apart, the room would fill with smoke, and she would have had soot on her sleeves. Nobody reported a strong smell of smoke minutes later, as far as I know.

I think, if Lizzie did the killing, that she had a pre-arranged spot to hide it, someplace where she could retrieve it later. I would love to go through that house. With my experience in construction, if that weapon is still there I would find it. Maybe it is under a floor board in the barn?

-1bigsteve (o:

Was the determination made that the same weapon was used to kill both Abby and Andrew? I think Abby's murder was planned and carried out while others were absent from the house, but Andrew just happened to be in the wrong place when there was no one else around. The murderer couldn't know when he would return or who would be in the house when he did return. If Lizzie killed Abby, for some reason she didn't dispose of the weapon right away while the fewest possible people were present.

This all presupposes that a hatchet was used and I wonder what else could have been used to produce the same results, but be "hidden" in plain sight.

If the killer had not planned to kill both of them then it would have made sense to have disposed of the weapon immediately after killing Abby.....

Exactly! How could a double murder be planned with all those "extras" in the household?

When it comes to such an investigation as that of the Borden case, once the authorities "think" they know who commited the crime, all their attention comes to bear on that person and everyone else becomes excluded.

And once that person is convicted and imprisioned, I dare say, there is very small chance police would ever admit their error even if the real killer beat down their door.

I think the police should have immediately concentrated on a possible outside party, and had a much wider search area than just the Borden property. Then perhaps they could have come up with new leads while the crime scene was still hot, even leads that could have come right back to Lizzie.

i'm sorry, but it's simply not logical to think the killer/s was after just Abby.

first of all, what's the motive? secondly, according to everyone asked, Abby didn't have an enemy in the world...save maybe her step-daughters, thirdly, i don't buy that the killer would have stuck around after doing in Abby had Andrew not been a target, fourthly why would bridget and lizzie be left alive if we're to believe andrew was killed for being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" - if anyone was in the "wrong place at the wrong time," it would have been bridget and lizzie! by that logic, there's no way that one, if not both, of those girls should rightfully have been left alive!

i believe that it IS logical to assume that if there was one murderer, then one weapon was likely used in both killings. if there was more than one murderer, one might expect more than one weapon to have been used. from what i read in the reports and autopsies, i think it is logical to assume that one weapon was used.

If the rumor is true that Andrew was going to make out a will to Abby's advantage and Lizzie objected to it, one really GOOD way to prevent the outcome is to kill Abby. For insurance, if the opportunity should fall into her lap (as it did), why not kill Andrew as well and not have to worry about possible retribution from him? After all, he can still make a will to exclude her and her sister. Lizzie's sister (surrogate mother) will certainly back her up (in addition to others), after all she's the family brat and everyone has indulged her for all these years and been accustomed to covering her indescretions.

My point is simply that the double murder could not have been planned as such. Part of it was coincidence. There was no way of knowing when Uncle John would return or when Bridget would be up and about. She did not KNOW she would have the opportunity to kill her father before Abby's body was discovered, so why hang on to the murder weapon?

Yes Steve:
Don't know enough about the ax on the Crowe Barn and have the booklet written about it by Flynn, but for some strange reason I can't locate it. Perhaps I was dreaming I had it....????

--mbhenty

Here is one of the articles on the Crowe's roof hatchet.
Please click on the picture in the box if you need to make it bigger.

Yooper @ Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:59 pm wrote:If the rumor is true that Andrew was going to make out a will to Abby's advantage and Lizzie objected to it, one really GOOD way to prevent the outcome is to kill Abby. For insurance, if the opportunity should fall into her lap (as it did), why not kill Andrew as well and not have to worry about possible retribution from him? After all, he can still make a will to exclude her and her sister. Lizzie's sister (surrogate mother) will certainly back her up (in addition to others), after all she's the family brat and everyone has indulged her for all these years and been accustomed to covering her indescretions.

My point is simply that the double murder could not have been planned as such. Part of it was coincidence. There was no way of knowing when Uncle John would return or when Bridget would be up and about. She did not KNOW she would have the opportunity to kill her father before Abby's body was discovered, so why hang on to the murder weapon?

Again, I have to say that I completely disagree. If Andrew was going to make a new will that was to have been to Abby's advantage, then simply kill off ol' Andy before he gets the thing revised and filed. One murder is easier to pull off than two, so why go to unecessary trouble? If Abby had ended up dead and Andrew had not, who do you think Andrew would suspect? Would he have had that matter dropped too? Undoubtedly, no.

The fact that Andrew was killed too was not a crime of simple coincidence or happenstance as you say. There was nothing coincidental or random about his murder. In fact, if you want to make the case for one of the Bordens being the target of the murderer and the other as someone who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," it would be more logical to suggest that Andrew was the target and Abby happened upon the killer, to her unfortunate demise. Not the other way around, as you suggest.

As to the variables of people coming and going, who better to be in a position to know the comings and goings of the people in that house than someone who was in that house? And depending on if you believe that there were "others" in on the deed, then the actions of Morse and Bridget really don't cause one much concern because you may know indeed precisely when they'll be conveniently "away" and when they will be back.

Wordweaver @ Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:59 pm wrote:I suspect that the hatchet found on the flat roof of the Crowe barn was the murder weapon. The killer could have thrown it up there. I haven't been onsite yet (soon! eight short weeks from now!), but I have read that the distance makes that supposition reasonable.

As I remember it, some books say a group of men were working at the stone mason's there. They could have heard the clatter of an axe on a roof, or even thrown it up there as a practical joke on someone.
Isn't it a little strange that an axe would show up just as the trial started? Somebody planting exculpatory evidence?

1bigsteve @ Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:29 pm wrote: Welcome aboard, Yooper!

I doubt Lizzie would hide the hatchet in the stove pipe. She would have had to take the pipe apart, the room would fill with smoke, and she would have had soot on her sleeves. Nobody reported a strong smell of smoke minutes later, as far as I know.

I think, if Lizzie did the killing, that she had a pre-arranged spot to hide it, someplace where she could retrieve it later. I would love to go through that house. With my experience in construction, if that weapon is still there I would find it. Maybe it is under a floor board in the barn?

-1bigsteve (o:

Wouldn't the fire codes ban any openings between floors as a way for any fire to spread through the house?
I think it most unlikely for the police to fail in their search. IMO Experienced police know where to look. For example, any sewers w/in a mile of a crime are searched for a murder weapon, etc. Erle Stanley Gardner tells about the Conn. Police Doctor who found a coat along the highway and was able to get clues from it (don't remember the story).

That barn was torn down around 1930, and they did find something. The experts will tell you what.

If we bump old Andy off, we have to split the pot three ways.

I think it was a crime of desperation. To use prussic acid as a poison shortly after buying it is either stupid or desperate, if it is a controlled substance. The inconsistency of going from poison to hatchet may indicate desperation, too. Perhaps there was a need to have one or both out of the way by a certain date. Perhaps the desperation was great enough that Lizzie didn't care which one/when.

I think there is possibly too much read into the planning aspect. Multiple murderers/conspirators are just more loose ends to worry about in the end.

I believe the simplest explanation is the most probable. Lizzie was at the end of her tether, for whatever reason, and she had to act immediately. Whether Andy or Abby or both, something had to be done. Killing them both was the most effective, the longest chance, but they can only hang you once, so why not?

Yooper, while we may "agree to disagree" on the original target/s of the murders, I can say I agree with you that the acts smack of a desperation. I do believe the "poisoning" was connected to the eventual murders, and yes, perhaps someone/s thought that the poison route was taking too long or not having the desired effect quickly enough.

For some reason, it became imperative for the Bordens to die literally then and there...now what would make someone willing to take the many risks of committing such a crime in the time and place that he/she/they did? That's what puzzles me, I can think of many motives, but none that satisfy in my mind why someone decided that particular day that Andrew and Abby HAD to die.

The true measure of desperation is having nothing left to lose. You come to the point where you're better off to do whatever you must than put up with what you have.

If we consider what the daughters of Andrew Borden did when left to their own devices, we seem to find that (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Emma chose to live quietly, more or less in the fashion in which she was raised. Lizzie perhaps kept up with the times more than Emma and found friends further from her "station" in life.

I think perhaps Lizze felt more stifled by her parents from a personal perspective than Emma did. Emma only seems guilty of resenting her step-mother, and probably to a greater depth than she would ever let on. Emma may have felt some responsibility if Lizzie did commit the crime because Lizzie's opinion of Abby was likely due to Emma's influence. I have a difficult time believing that a child of five would not accept a step-parent as a parent, having lost the biological parent at age two or three. A child of fourteen might well resent the intrusion, especially if she had been surrogate mother to her toddler sister and may have adopted the role of "lady of the house" even if only in her mind.

Lets not forget that Lizzie's relationship with her sister may have been as much mother/daughter as it was siblings. Perhaps seeing her sister's resentment of Abby contributed to Lizzie's desperation.

RayS @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:24 pm wrote: Wouldn't the fire codes ban any openings between floors as a way for any fire to spread through the house?
I think it most unlikely for the police to fail in their search. IMO Experienced police know where to look. For example, any sewers w/in a mile of a crime are searched for a murder weapon, etc. Erle Stanley Gardner tells about the Conn. Police Doctor who found a coat along the highway and was able to get clues from it (don't remember the story).

That barn was torn down around 1930, and they did find something. The experts will tell you what.

Firecodes? I do not understand what you mean.

Did the police find the hatchet on the roof of the nearbye barn? Did they find the 'paint' stained gown?

No.. they did not. Perhaps they were too busy looking in a sewer drain a few miles away from the crime scene.

If they exacted such a detailed and complete search why did they not find the dress Lizzie later burned?

Audrey @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:11 pm wrote:

RayS @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:24 pm wrote: Wouldn't the fire codes ban any openings between floors as a way for any fire to spread through the house?
I think it most unlikely for the police to fail in their search. IMO Experienced police know where to look. For example, any sewers w/in a mile of a crime are searched for a murder weapon, etc. Erle Stanley Gardner tells about the Conn. Police Doctor who found a coat along the highway and was able to get clues from it (don't remember the story).

That barn was torn down around 1930, and they did find something. The experts will tell you what.

Firecodes? I do not understand what you mean.

Did the police find the hatchet on the roof of the nearbye barn? Did they find the 'paint' stained gown?

No.. they did not. Perhaps they were too busy looking in a sewer drain a few miles away from the crime scene.

If they exacted such a detailed and complete search why did they not find the dress Lizzie later burned?

Maybe the FRPD failed in their searches because they were involved in 'the plot' in some way ? ...maybe 'paid' to miss or overlook some of the evidence ?



Tracy...

The Great Chicago Fire of Oct 1871 resulted in establishing fire codes throughout the nation. Every year Fire Prevention week in October commemorates the Chicago Fire. Fire codes seek to prevent or lessen the dangers from fires.

The police did not find the hatchet on the roof because it was not there that weekend. I suppose that looking out the window you could see it. Any old hatchet could have been planted there.
The police search must have found the paint-stained dress, but it was not germane because of the old dried paint on it.

Can you find anything in the record that says differently?

RayS @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:57 am wrote:The Great Chicago Fire of Oct 1871 resulted in establishing fire codes throughout the nation. Every year Fire Prevention week in October commemorates the Chicago Fire. Fire codes seek to prevent or lessen the dangers from fires.

The police did not find the hatchet on the roof because it was not there that weekend. I suppose that looking out the window you could see it. Any old hatchet could have been planted there.
The police search must have found the paint-stained dress, but it was not germane because of the old dried paint on it.

Can you find anything in the record that says differently?

I am looking through the Witness Statements, and so far I have not found anything that says the paint-stained dress was found by FRPD but rejected as pertinent evidence in the case. I will keep looking. Maybe I am blind...


Tracy...

I think the house was built in 1845, before the fire codes.

The fact that the roof hatchet appeared to be "little used" is interesting. I think a roofer would be less apt to be careless with a new tool.

In discussing the ax on the roof, keeping in mind that people are like cattle, "Lead them and they will follow."

You heard it said "Build it and they will come."

well there you have it:

"PLANT IT AND THEY WILL BELIEVE."

theebmonique @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:32 pm wrote:

RayS @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:57 am wrote:The Great Chicago Fire of Oct 1871 resulted in establishing fire codes throughout the nation. Every year Fire Prevention week in October commemorates the Chicago Fire. Fire codes seek to prevent or lessen the dangers from fires.

The police did not find the hatchet on the roof because it was not there that weekend. I suppose that looking out the window you could see it. Any old hatchet could have been planted there.
The police search must have found the paint-stained dress, but it was not germane because of the old dried paint on it.

Can you find anything in the record that says differently?

I am looking through the Witness Statements, and so far I have not found anything that says the paint-stained dress was found by FRPD but rejected as pertinent evidence in the case. I will keep looking. Maybe I am blind...

Tracy...

That was not really meant as a rhetorical question. The police, then or now, do not record what was NOT found. IMO
"Blindness" could refer to an obsessive need to contradict?

Yooper @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:53 pm wrote:I think the house was built in 1845, before the fire codes.

The fact that the roof hatchet appeared to be "little used" is interesting. I think a roofer would be less apt to be careless with a new tool.

I may not know the correct terms. Is the "sill" the word for the horizontal board that is used to begin and end the vertical boards? This should provice a fire-break from its use as a foundation.
It is also possible to retro-fit new codes whenever a property is sold. Like using 220V lines instead of 110V, cement on dirt basement, etc.

I don't want to look at "Carpentry for Dummies".

RayS @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:57 am wrote:The Great Chicago Fire of Oct 1871 resulted in establishing fire codes throughout the nation. Every year Fire Prevention week in October commemorates the Chicago Fire. Fire codes seek to prevent or lessen the dangers from fires.

The police did not find the hatchet on the roof because it was not there that weekend. I suppose that looking out the window you could see it. Any old hatchet could have been planted there.
The police search must have found the paint-stained dress, but it was not germane because of the old dried paint on it.

Can you find anything in the record that says differently?

The polite found the paint stained dress and then forgot about it??? This would explain why the grand jury indited Lizzie after Alice returned and testified to the burning of a dress-- which she told them Lizzie stated was stained with paint....

If they were as competent as you contend to remove each and every floor board/wall board/etc to see if a hatchet was secreted in the wall why not step forward and admit they did find a paint stained dress???

This is the problem when you try to make the facts fit a conclusion, ie- Brown. In my opinion the idea that the police found the paint stained dress and it NEVER coming out that they did so is ludicrous and something one of my 8 year olds might have suggested 3 or 4 years ago.

Ray,
Please do not twist my words or continue to make slighting comments. I was responding to a comment you had made, which was:

The police search must have found the paint-stained dress, but it was not germane because of the old dried paint on it.

In giving this explanation for my response, I was just meaning to comment that if you were thinking that; the police "must" have found the dress but found it "not germane" to the case, that I had not heard that before nor had been able to find anything to back it up in the Witness Statements.

I apologize for whatever I have done so that you a lot of times have to end your responding posts to me with a slam. What can I do to make it up to you so that you will stop doing that ?

Tracy...

the FRPD may have been very thorough in SOME aspects of searching the Borden crime scene, however, you cannot tell me that by today's standards their work would not be considered VERY LAX, lacking basic law enforcement crime scene security and search procedures.

what if the police returned in a day or 2 and took the house apart, plank by plank and brick by brick?? that day or 2 during which the premises were NOT sealed off and thoroughly searched leaves a lot of room for manipulation and contamination of the data and evidence, not to mention what could be gotten rid of during that time! and what about interviews and interrogations? some were done early on, but how thorough were they? they certainly didn't isolate bridget and lizzie in separate interrogation rooms and go over and over the events of the day as would be done now. crucial, critical time was lost, and the state of the crime scene was forever compromised. those are simply the facts.

...and HAD that paint-stained dress been found by the police, you can bet there would have been a small ruckus, at the very least! even if they realized that it was just paint, the initial discovery would have caused a small flurry of excitement and action. SOMEONE would have remembered it and reported it before Alice came forward. heck, you can bet the newspapers would have heard about it and reported it as well - "Stained Dress Found in Borden House of Horrors - Police Insist It's Only Paint!"

...and can anyone shed any light on the old well in the Borden yard? was it ever searched? was it filled in at the time?....

Yes Rays: the flat piece of wood that sits on top of the foundation is the sill. The entire building rests on it.

The part that stands upright on top of the sill is the header, which sits over the sill like a sand box. The end headers follow suite with the floor joists.

sguthmann @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:59 pm wrote:...and can anyone shed any light on the old well in the Borden yard? was it ever searched? was it filled in at the time?....

This is all I have found so far pertaining to the well.

The Witness Statements page 38 From the notes of D. Desmond:

Edson, Conners, Quigley, Medley, Desmond, and Charles Bryant went into the cellar; had only been there a few minutes when Mr. Jennings and Hanscomb came down. Mr. Jennings spoke about the lumber pile in the yard, and wanted us to be sure and search taht before we got done. Mr. Bryant and myself ( Desmond) looked over the chimneys. After finishing the east chimney, which is the one in the kitchen, we went to look at the one in the west of the building. This runs up between the parlor and the diningroom. The side in the diningroom seemed to be bricked up or cemented. While we were looking over it, Emma and Lizzie both said "if this front is in your way, tear it out." Mr. Jennings was there at the time. Emma spoke about the 'lumber pile in the yard", and thought it would be a good place to search. Mr. Bryant, and myself went into the cellar; and it was thoroughly searched by Edson, Conners, Quigley, and Desmond. From there, we went and searched the barn, lumber pile, yard, privy vault, and well, also Crowe's yard which is on the south side of the Borden house.

Yooper @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:53 am wrote:I think the house was built in 1845, before the fire codes.

The fact that the roof hatchet appeared to be "little used" is interesting. I think a roofer would be less apt to be careless with a new tool.

Not only that, but traces of gilt were found in Abby's skull wounds. She was killed with a new or newish hatchet.

Nice to meet you, BTW.

In Mandal (Sharky) Marks day there were tales that if there was an attack of paranoia he threw betting slips down that trap door to the old fireplace in Andrew's bedroom and they would fall all the way to the cellar, into the fire area there.
I had asked about it and it was confirmed verbally on the phone with a contact in Fall River who knows the house who said it was possible.
Personally, I can't quite picture it, but I have not much experience with old houses.

theebmonique @ Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:28 pm wrote: I apologize for whatever I have done so that you a lot of times have to end your responding posts to me with a slam. What can I do to make it up to you so that you will stop doing that ?
Tracy...

Tracy- please! You do not have to ever apologize to anyone who is rude to you- it is their own decision to respond in an offensive way. I have never seen that you deserve this kind of crass behavior, and I certainly have never seen that you have been rude to anyone else. And as for him not doing that anymore- don't count on it. It's too ingrained, obviously, or our attempts (to explain that one simply doesn't treat people like that) would have shamed any sensitive person to have seen the light by now.