Lizzie Borden Society Forum

This is interesting to me. I was looking through the evidence list on the crime resources on the site and it had an article on axes. It came from Sears, Robuck and Company. There were different sizes of axes, some big, some small. So, I was wondering if maybe Lizzie got an axe with short, smaller handle and used that to kill her parents. You know, one that is lighter and easier to handle for a woman-- after Lizzie was of the weaker sex, and maybe the smaller one would have been easier to handle. I think that maybe the police were looking for an axe with a longer handle and alittle heavier and maybe they were looking for a smaller lighter one.

Good Point
A Smaller hatchet would also be easier to hide, like say under her dress ?

Yes it would be easier, at least for her. She could very easily put it under her dress, and sneak it out of the house.

That is possible- but it implies that the weapon had to be a hatchet, and none other- if she went to the trouble of picking it and keeping it ready and using it, doesn't it?
Maybe even ordering it from Sears catalogue?

It seems like she could more easily use a knife or a meat cleaver.

I think the point of a longer handle- which a short hatchet, a cleaver, or a knife do not have- is a long handle.
If you want to reach your victim with a weapon before they can reach you, a longer-handled weapon would be more practical, I think. That's just my opinion.
A weapon that reaches even further than the victim can reach back in defense is poison.

I'm not disagreeing, I hope to just be expanding on your statement.

snokkums @ Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:51 am wrote:This is interesting to me. I was looking through the evidence list on the crime resources on the site and it had an article on axes. It came from Sears, Robuck and Company. There were different sizes of axes, some big, some small. So, I was wondering if maybe Lizzie got an axe with short, smaller handle and used that to kill her parents. You know, one that is lighter and easier to handle for a woman-- after Lizzie was of the weaker sex, and maybe the smaller one would have been easier to handle. I think that maybe the police were looking for an axe with a longer handle and alittle heavier and maybe they were looking for a smaller lighter one.

YOU have assumed that Lizzie was guilty, in spite of the historical record!!!
One writer said that some sort of "psychological void" causes people to assume an opinion that is contrary to the facts established by law.
Haven't you learned that you can't always trust what you read in the newspapers and see on TV or hear on the radio?

I think if we took a poll we might get about 65% guilty and the remainder, 35%, would split at 10% not guilty and 25% undecided.
So Snokkums is in the majority.
When you post in capitals and triple exclamation points people think you are yelling or pounding your desk.

I wasn't trying to implying that she was quilty. What I am saying is that if she were quilty (and I think she was) that it would have been easier for her to get a smaller hatchet. Women aren't as strong as men and some of us have small hands (like me) and would have been easier for her to have a smaller hatchet.

snokkums @ Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:55 am wrote:I wasn't trying to implying that she was quilty. What I am saying is that if she were quilty (and I think she was) that it would have been easier for her to get a smaller hatchet. Women aren't as strong as men and some of us have small hands (like me) and would have been easier for her to have a smaller hatchet.

Loius Solomon's book says most people then believed that Lizzie was innocent. I suspect that "amateur investigators" sought to make a 'not guilty' Lizzie appear guilty. I assume he was right.

I'm pretty sure that 2 out of 3 posters here would say "guilty", and, most people who know little about this case would agree. There has been many works of fiction that portray Lizzie as guilty, and the laziness of people would be to go along with this (how the Big Lie works).

You are all free to believe whatever you want. But the jury decision is final, barring any new evidence.

NB Those who are "undecided" are a 'not guilty' vote: "beyond a reasonable doubt". Remember, the jury that was there said not guilty of Andy's murder.

I agree, but anyone today who implied she knew who did it, but wouldn't tell would also be arrested as a suspect "accessory after the fact" IMO.

Kat @ Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:06 pm wrote:...When you post in capitals and triple exclamation points people think you are yelling or pounding your desk.

I don't know how else to emphasize my points.
Doesn't that make them easier to read?
I hope no one is offended by that.

I wasn't. You had some good points. In the court of law she was aquitted, so legally, she is innocent. But I just have this feeling that the police and prosocuters really didn't look at well. Even though the prosocuters put on an average case, I still think that they probably thought that Lizzie couldn't have done it. She was a properly brought up young lady, and ladies didn't such awful crimes. So I think they made an average to thin case so her lawyers could punch holes in the theory they had. I wasn't there but it's just my guess as to what happened.

snokkums @ Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:55 am wrote:I wasn't. You had some good points. In the court of law she was aquitted, so legally, she is innocent. But I just have this feeling that the police and prosocuters really didn't look at well. Even though the prosocuters put on an average case, I still think that they probably thought that Lizzie couldn't have done it. She was a properly brought up young lady, and ladies didn't such awful crimes. So I think they made an average to thin case so her lawyers could punch holes in the theory they had. I wasn't there but it's just my guess as to what happened.

Arnold Brown's book explains this, as good as any other writer.
Lizzie was arrested to quell the spontaneous general strike that affected the profits of the mill owners. The workers went back to work. The case was supposed to be droped, until Alice Russell told her story to the Grand Jury. Its a smart explanation. (You know Brown had politicial experience.)

Arnold Brown's book solves everything for you doesn't it Rays?, so again I ask "why do you bother to visit this forum?" You never answered me before, just wondered why not? You have solved the crime to YOUR satisfaction, so why gloat about it? Many others do NOT buy into your line of thinking. Like Kat said in another thread, "are you trying to bore us off the internet?"

I believe it was a very small hatchet. No bigger than a foot long.

If it were a larger hatchet, it would have been much easier to handle and easier to kill Abby & Andrew.

As it stood, it was a small hatchet, hard to handle, and thus the murderer had to "over-kill" the victims in order to ensure their demise.

Smudgeman @ Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:51 pm wrote:Arnold Brown's book solves everything for you doesn't it Rays?, so again I ask "why do you bother to visit this forum?" You never answered me before, just wondered why not? You have solved the crime to YOUR satisfaction, so why gloat about it? Many others do NOT buy into your line of thinking. Like Kat said in another thread, "are you trying to bore us off the internet?"

Actually, it was Frank Spiering's book that explicitly mentioned the spontaneous general strike, as I remembered it. Spiering gives a lot of background material, which makes his book readable; it is not Spiering's solution.
I first visited "Dark Rose" to see what the more experienced people said about the case. Many, many believed Lizzie did it (but they had "no documentary proof" for their claim). Being in early retirement, I had the time.
I continued to visit the successor sites. For entertainment, since the books tell more than any one person here. Even me.
I gues I just like being diabolus advocatus. Pardon my Latin, its rusty.

My challenge to each of you: Whose Book is the Best?
If none, you have justified my attempts here. If some other, you justify my attempts to argue.

Are we having fun?

snokkums @ Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:51 am wrote:This is interesting to me. I was looking through the evidence list on the crime resources on the site and it had an article on axes. It came from Sears, Robuck and Company. There were different sizes of axes, some big, some small. So, I was wondering if maybe Lizzie got an axe with short, smaller handle and used that to kill her parents. You know, one that is lighter and easier to handle for a woman-- after Lizzie was of the weaker sex, and maybe the smaller one would have been easier to handle. I think that maybe the police were looking for an axe with a longer handle and alittle heavier and maybe they were looking for a smaller lighter one.

I don't know if hatchets are made for different sized people, Snokks, perhaps they do but hatchets, like hammers, are made in different weights for different purposes. Take Lizzie's HH. I have seen shingling hatchets exactly like Lizzie's that are smaller than hers and I've seen some bigger, like one I got. On the other hand, some people, like me, prefer heavier tools like hatchets and hammers than other lighter people. I doubt Lizzie knew enough about hatchets to shop around for a smaller one. She probably just picked whatever she saw on the rack. Of course that is assuming she bought one.

A smaller hatchet used by Lizzie would account for some of these wounds not penetrating through the skull. It stands to reason that a man would have done more damage to these skulls. I still lean toward the possibility that a meat cleaver may have been used.

-1bigsteve (o:

1bigsteve wrote “I doubt Lizzie knew enough about hatchets to shop around for a smaller one. She probably just picked whatever she saw on the rack.”


Lizzie buying “off the rack”? Sorry that one just cracked me up. I’m just being evil.
I think the gold gilt ? spelling that was found in Abby’s wounds shows it was from a new axe or hatchet, unless another kind of sharp instrument was also made that way? I’m just curious as to whether any other item was.

[quote="1bigsteve @ Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:41 pm
I still lean toward the possibility that a meat cleaver may have been used.
-1bigsteve (o:[/quote]

Me too. At least, in Andrew's case. There's no other way to explain the neatly sliced eyeball. A hatchet would have at least partially squished it.

One problem with a meat cleaver being used is whether it would have stood up to the abuse of chopping bone. Cleavers are designed to chop meat, not bone, and they have a relatively fine edge compared to a hatchet. Repeatedly striking a hard surface with a meat cleaver would render it useless and it would show obvious signs of abuse. The edge might appear chipped or bent. Another problem is that the wounds inflicted by a meat cleaver would be longer than those inflicted by a hatchet. Most hatchets I've seen and used had about a 3-4 inch edge and most cleavers I've seen had about an 8 inch or larger edge.

I don't want to start World War III, but if you've ever watched your local butcher go to work on a side of beef, you would see him chopping bones as well as separating meat from larger bones with his cleaver.
A skull would'nt offer much of a challenge, only about a quarter of an inch of bone to break through at most.
I'm not certain it was a hatchet that did the dastardly deed, either.

There may be cleavers designed to cut bone, but the only implement I've seen butchers use to cut bone has been a saw. I've also seen a cleaver edge turned into a wavy, ribbon-like contortion by striking bone.

william @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:44 am wrote:I don't want to start World War III, but if you've ever watched your local butcher go to work on a side of beef, you would see him chopping bones as well as separating meat from larger bones with his cleaver.
A skull would'nt offer much of a challenge, only about a quarter of an inch of bone to break through at most.
I'm not certain it was a hatchet that did the dastardly deed, either.

I'm thinking (because of the gold residue) that the first one might have been the hatchet. Then it was disposed of, either in the barn rafters, on top of the shed roof, or whatever, because she thought she was done. However, when Dad came home early, she may have had to rethink and improvise, so she went into the kitchen and got the cleaver. Just my thoughts- no proof.

One reason for Lizzie to retain the hatchet might be if she had planned a trip downtown to establish an alibi. She could have disposed of the hatchet on the way and kept it some distance from the crime scene. While her route might be subject to search, perhaps a small side trip could slip her mind in questioning.

I would tend to think she would want to dispose of it as soon as possible, instead of carrying it about and risk having it on her. How much easier it would be to sling it on top of a shed while in the back yard supposedly eating pears. She would reason that no one could prove who threw the hatchet up there- could have been anyone, anytime.

It seems logical that Lizzie would want to dispose of the murder weapon as soon as possible, I think anyone would. However, Lizzie didn't seem to be in any particular hurry. If she had planned to be downtown as an alibi she took her time in getting ready to go, assuming Abby was killed at the generally accepted time.

Remember Lizzie's own testimony..."I don't do anything in a hurry".

SteveS. @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:57 pm wrote:Remember Lizzie's own testimony..."I don't do anything in a hurry".

The other thing that I can never get out of my head is that Lizzie was a loner. And that she was probably responsible for the "break-in." And that she was arrested for shoplifting. People that do these things have to be, by nature, secretive and sneaky. That's why I think she did the murders. She would never have included anyone else in her plans because she was naturally secretive and covert in her actions. She did not do things in a hurry because she was probably very careful and distrustful of everything and everyone. She was very careful because she didn't want people to know what she was thinking and felt very self protective.

Smudgeman @ Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:51 pm wrote:Arnold Brown's book solves everything for you doesn't it Rays?, so again I ask "why do you bother to visit this forum?" You never answered me before, just wondered why not? You have solved the crime to YOUR satisfaction, so why gloat about it? Many others do NOT buy into your line of thinking. Like Kat said in another thread, "are you trying to bore us off the internet?"

It is part of my Community Service.
I also enjoy matching wits.

RayS wrote "It is part of my Community Service.
I also enjoy matching wits."

Well Ray, I have to admit this is one of those times were I actualy enjoyed your wit. The community Service line still has me laughing.

RayS @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:30 pm wrote:

Smudgeman @ Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:51 pm wrote:Arnold Brown's book solves everything for you doesn't it Rays?, so again I ask "why do you bother to visit this forum?" You never answered me before, just wondered why not? You have solved the crime to YOUR satisfaction, so why gloat about it? Many others do NOT buy into your line of thinking. Like Kat said in another thread, "are you trying to bore us off the internet?"

It is part of my Community Service.
I also enjoy matching wits.

Why are you quoting me from a different thread that has NOTHING to do with this thread?

If you notice that comment was from July, 2006. Almost a year later, and you still can't leave it alone.

Smudgeman @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:56 pm wrote:If you notice that comment was from July, 2006. Almost a year later, and you still can't leave it alone.

Maybe he considers them "Words To Live By"?

Reply to posts resumed March 28th:

Inquest
Lizzie
77(34)
Q. Now can you explain why you were ten minutes doing it?
A. No, only that I can't do anything in a minute.
-------

When one says Andrew came home early (twice now since I've been on tonight)- are you saying that as your opinion and your theory rests on that? Or do you have a foundation for that statement? I mean, can you show proof of that?

Lizzie did say she planned to go out in the afternoon. She warned Bridget to make sure doors were locked, and she testified she was going to buy fishing gear- that's why she was checking for sinkers.
Did they sell fishing lines and hooks at Sargents? Because some think Lizzie was headed there. I only thought Bridget was to be sent there with the info that fabric was on sale.