Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I just took a look at possible murder weapons shown on the forum crime library. That ice chipper looks like something that could have caused such damage to a skull AND slice cleanly through an eyeball. Did anyone ever check out that possibilty as the weapon? Something like that must have been lying around the kitchen and been used quite a bit. I just can't buy into the theory that it was an axe because of the way the eyeball had been cut.

I went to the forum crime library myself and took a look at the pictures. I think you are right. THe ice chipper does look like a good weapon to inflict those kinds of wounds to a person. But looking at the photos of Abby's skull, it looks like there is more damage . I guess what I am saying with her wounds, if Lizzie used the ice chipper she would have to really be strong to give those kinds of blows to the head, or have had more blows to the head than what was reported. Or another scenrio could have been that Lizzie used as axe on Abby and the ice chipper on Andrew.

What I am wondering is how well did the police check into what kind of axe did she use? Did she use the ice chipper, or and axe, sledgehammer etc.
I mean don't think they ever did find the hatchet itself.

Not that the subject is in any way closed but we had an interesting thread in 2002 on this very subject.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... tWeapn.htm

The first message in the thread refers to a letter in the Knowlton papers where the writer thought an ice axe was used.

Thanks for that info, Harry. When I was reading that, it struck me that it could very well make sense that two weapons were used. Lizzie could have used a hatchet or whatever with Abby, disposed of it, like throwing it on top of Crowe's building, thinking that was the end of it, and she would then proceed with her intention to go to town. However, before she had a chance to leave, Andrew came home earlier than she had expected, so she had to revamp her plans. Looking around for another weapon, she came across the ice axe which would explain how the eyeball was so cleanly severed.

Thanks for the info Harry. Just got finished reading abit of it.

I think Kat had a good point of saying that and axe and the way it was swung(SP) might not have been to easy for a woman, so maybe another type of axe wa used.
Maybe a lighter shorter one.I mean I am strong for a woman, but not like the way the thread was saying the way the blows were given. It is very possible two weapons were used.

Or maybe two people, two different axes?

I'm sure that Arnold Brown is right when he says a hatchet was used to kill farm animals like chickens or sheep. An expert could do a horse. I read that a "pole-axe" was used on bigger cattle. The extra leverage would kill this strong beast.

Angel @ Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:05 pm wrote:Thanks for that info, Harry. When I was reading that, it struck me that it could very well make sense that two weapons were used. ...

William of Ockham advised against "multiplying causes needlessly". The simplest explanation is likely to be the truth.

If no blood stained clothes, shoes, or weapons are found then its because the suspect is not guilty (when you can't find them). This applies to Lizzie, Bridget, or OJ Simpson.

Ray, be careful- you may cut yourself with Ockham's razor when trying to show us how profoundly well read you are, and then where would you be--- lots and lots of blood everywhere, and you would be guilty of snobbery.

By limiting yourself to the one idea that it was Lizzie, you miss the truth in plain sight. Replace Lizzie with her half brother Billy and all the problems with the use of a wepon disappear! Here is a farmer with experience with a hatchet and tools. A man who works with his back and his hands. The swinging of the hatchet and the efficient kills are explained! Think of Lizzie as a dughter....she and Andrew were never said to be at each others throats! Abby was on the outs yes, but come on! Lizzie did not HATE Andrew. Billy? well...he would have reason far more than Lizzie...

My modest contribution to this question is "Proof of Brown's Theory - Part 2". Actually, anybody else whose identity would be kept secret is a possibility. But Arnold Brown deserves the credit for publishing first.

We can never know for certain (no DNA or fingerprints or even William S Borden's birth certificate). It is the Optimal Solution to the problem.

Reading Ann Rule's books that collect her magazine article will show you cases where someone was killed, and those who live there were not guilty.Hence it was an intruder. Note how the difficulties are all explained this way.

I hope you will agree.

Angel @ Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:10 pm wrote:Ray, be careful- you may cut yourself with Ockham's razor when trying to show us how profoundly well read you are, and then where would you be--- lots and lots of blood everywhere, and you would be guilty of snobbery.

"If you can't say anything nice about somebody don't say anything at all" - famous saying attributed to Lizze Borden (?). The reason why she didn't speak out.
Yes, I'm old but not yet a fool. And I haven't stopped reading when I became old enough to drink/

Well that would then be 3 weapons because some people think Lizzie used poison prior to Thursday and/or was about to use prussic acid. That's a lot of weapons.

As for a clean kill: those were not clean kills -they were overkill. Are ray and steveads the same person?

Kat @ Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:20 pm wrote:Well that would then be 3 weapons because some people think Lizzie used poison prior to Thursday and/or was about to use prussic acid. That's a lot of weapons.

As for a clean kill: those were not clean kills -they were overkill. Are ray and steveads the same person?

Such "overkill" is usually the sign of passionate hatred. IMO

The same person? Isn't one of me enough for all of you?

Kat @ Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:20 pm wrote:Well that would then be 3 weapons because some people think Lizzie used poison prior to Thursday and/or was about to use prussic acid. That's a lot of weapons.

As for a clean kill: those were not clean kills -they were overkill. Are ray and steveads the same person?

Such "overkill" is usually the sign of passionate hatred. IMO

The same person? Isn't one of me enough for all of you?

Certainly---I, for one, have definitely had enough

I second that notion Angel, it is not enoyable to visit this forum anymore. Every thread is the same thing, Arnold Brown,........... Yawn.........

I agree too. It makes me feel like I am watching that scene in The Shining, where Jack Nicholson is typing...and it's the SAME DAMN THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN !





Tracy...

Excuse me but prior to 1992, all we ever heard was how guilty Lizzie was. If 100 years of the same thing isn't too much then I'm sure a couple of Arnold Brown admirers won't kill you...how intolerant of you to speak in such a way toward fellow Lizziephiles who simply have a different point of view. Brown refers to this aspect of the legend in his book. He mentions how some people erupt in anger at the shaking of the pear tree that is the legend. I see we have a few who don't like the old tree shaken. Too bad. Brown Brown Brown.

It's not just that there is a difference of opinion, but that the way the opinion is SPEWED out nearly everytime...no matter the topic or thread. Also, the approach taken is not always a kind and gentle one. It has become tiresome to many.

Ray has every right to any opinion he wants to have reagrding this case. Those who disagree with him have the same right to their opinions.





Tracy...

Steve you are new. And Ray is old.
And we have been talking to him since 1999.
After about 7 years of Brown we all admit it gets tiring.
He can take it- don't worry.

If some people are so convinced that Arnold Brown's work of fiction is the answer then WHAT ARE THEY ON THIS FORUM FOR?

To convince the rest of us? Don't bother, we can think for ourselves.

To sell his book? Makes me wonder at times.

Try to show how bright they are? The really bright ones read and discuss EVERYTHING on the case not just this one book. I've had the honor of talking to many of them. Most of them have investigated this case far beyond anything that Arnold Brown even contemplated.

For anyone to say we haven't discussed Brown must have just woke up. As Kat says we have been tolerating this Brown theory tacked on to virtually every post for the last 7 years - repeat 7 YEARS. The same thing over and over and over. How many times can we hear it? Check the archives - we've heard it all, again and again.

It is a THEORY, a poor one at that, but a THEORY. It is not fact, so I wish those who accept it as "the final answer" would please STOP trying to ram it down everyone elses throat. If you are so convinced of Brown's theory, or any theory, then put the Borden case away and go on with something else in your life. I'm sure there are other crimes you can solve.

Oh, well ok then I'm sorry. Bye.

I was thinking the same thing last night Harry.
I was wondering at the motive of anyone who believed a theory so much for so long and why the heck they would hang around here and only talk about that theory.
I was thinking we are being *taught* this- and not very well at that, either- sorry if I'm stepping on anyone's toes.

Oh and we musn't forget we are being *taught* at the hands of a self-described *dabbler* in the case. Who claims they barely have the time to post here, yet deigns to *inform* us. That can be insulting, over years, if you really think about it.

For anyone to come on to this forum and show disrespect to members like Angel, Scott and Tracy lights my fuse.

It's probably a good call to say that almost everyone on this forum hs read Brown. If we haven't read it we certainly have heard about it here - endlessly.

Thank you for the support Harry.

Steve...you shouldn't run off so quickly. We are really a nice bunch. Stick around...you'll see.

None of us have the same exact ideas on what happened with this case, and I must say that we are VERY tolerant of differences in opinion. That is when we aren't continually beat over the head with the same stick...and told we are supposed to enjoy it.





Tracy...

For anyone to say we haven't discussed Brown must have just woke up. As Kat says we have been tolerating this Brown theory tacked on to virtually every post for the last 7 years - repeat 7 YEARS. The same thing over and over and over. How many times can we hear it? Check the archives - we've heard it all, again and again.
.[/quote]


It is unimaginable for me to think that someone can live seven years without more than one thought.

Angel @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:20 pm wrote:For anyone to say we haven't discussed Brown must have just woke up. As Kat says we have been tolerating this Brown theory tacked on to virtually every post for the last 7 years - repeat 7 YEARS. The same thing over and over and over. How many times can we hear it? Check the archives - we've heard it all, again and again.
.

It is unimaginable for me to think that someone can live seven years without more than one thought.[/quote]
Really? Surely you jest about "one thought"? If the facts support this view, it would be foolish to adopt a view that contradicts the facts.
I hope you will agree.