Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I was reading Arnold Brown's book " The Legend, The Truth, The Final
Chapter" and came across info that got me thinking a bit. It mentions that
the way andrew was positioned on the sofa, could he have been killed sitting up while talking or arguing with his killer before the blows came??

I agree with the fact that when someone is napping nobody clenches their hands into fists and it does kind of look likehe may have tried to
make an effort to defend himself, but was a bit late, of course.

He also seems to be a bit low on the sofa. It looks like slumped over after the attack. And if he was actually napping wouldn't his head be sunken into the pillow a bit more from the blows?

Just a little food for thought. what do you guys think?

If the blows had come while facing Andrew, there would have been blood spots going North to South in the room- and there were not. The spatter pattern was on the parlor door, the kitchen door leading from the sitting room and over the sofa and above the door to the diningroom where the killer stood. I imagine one can also look at the shape of the wounds and determine which direction the weapon came from.

Note the absence of any time line in this discussion.

The clenched fists of Andy in that photograph taken long after the murder could be due to rigor mortis. (I haven't read anything specific about this.)

The postition of Andy on the couch tells me that he was sitting when first struck. Just try sitting in that position with bottom facing forward and upper body lying on your side. Uncomfortable for me, about Andy's age.

Hi Shelley

You're right. The book just got me thinking about thehands and the way he seemed to be slumped over.

Oh by the way, a couple of weeks ago Dee was saying that I should join you guys giving tours at the house!! I am not sure if she was serious, but
I am not too sure if I would be good at it

Ray- if you are responding to me- you are on my Ignore list.

Jeff, I think you'd be GREAT at giving tours! Most of us have learned Len's house tour, and of course we all give it our own personal presentation so each is a little different.

Shelley @ Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:44 pm wrote:Ray- if you are responding to me- you are on my Ignore list.
Jeff, I think you'd be GREAT at giving tours! Most of us have learned Len's house tour, and of course we all give it our own personal presentation so each is a little different.

Thanks for ignoring me. I write for the Silent Majority.
I ask anyone here to sit on a couch facing forward, then try to snooze by inclining to their right side. Not comfortable, and, you can try this at home.

It doesn't like look the sofa is long enough for Andrew to lie down comfortably without putting his legs up over the arm near the kitchen door, or drawing up his knees. Both positions wouldn't seem out of place by some person today who is "crashing" but it would be hard to imagine Andrew Borden doing this on a piece of his own furniture in 1892.

Probably he had to take a nap with his legs draped over the side of the sofa.

Does any person out there in the LB Forum know how many years the Borden had that sitting room sofa? I'm writing a story that takes place in 1875 and I have the horsehair sofa in the sitting room. But I suppose there is no way of knowing, and they could have had ANOTHER horsehair sofa in the sitting room in 1875.

Shelley @ Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:20 am wrote:If the blows had come while facing Andrew, there would have been blood spots going North to South in the room- and there were not. The spatter pattern was on the parlor door, the kitchen door leading from the sitting room and over the sofa and above the door to the diningroom where the killer stood. I imagine one can also look at the shape of the wounds and determine which direction the weapon came from.

If the first blow didn't spread blood drops, but knocked Andy over to his right, that would explain the alleged lack of blood spatter above the middle of the sofa, the wall, and the ceililng.
I'm sure these were all measured and recorded for presentation at the trial. Most writers will skip this as "boring details". What say the expert(s)?

The sofa is in the Empire style, and might have been in the sitting room in 1875. The American interpretation of the earlier French Empire style of 1815-1840, was also made popular in America by Duncan Phyfe designs in the 1840's. It was still the rage in the 1860's as evidenced by many interiors and photographs of Lincoln and the White House furnishings. In the country, the style lasted throughout the 19th century.

Mahogany continued to be the preferred wood: walnut was substituted when the more costly wood was not available. Veneer was also common, especially in inexpensive pieces. The bottom horizontal piece of the Borden sofa looks to be veneer. Acanthus leaves, or fruit and nuts were frequently seen as a central motif on the frame, The Borden sofa being made of a black horsehair fabric strongly suggests it was a venerable old piece.

The sofa was not long enough for Andrew to lie down, going by the measurements of the interior and the autopsy report of his height. The problem with those scrolled back arms is that they really eat up the actual inside sitting space. The sofa currently in the house is of this period and about the same size. The interior sitting space measures 5 feet 1 inch.

I recall we had discussed in the past that one of the possible reasons for Andrew's unusual position was that he had a hernia and was wearing a truss. And, if I recall correctly, Dr. Bowen testified to seeing Andrew reclining on the sofa in that position before in the past.

I've often wondered what proof we had that Andrew was napping at all in the first place. His posture looks very uncomfortable. Also if he wanted to nap why didn't he just go up to his room? Why lay down on a couch that was too short for him in such an uncomfortable looking position? The only word we have that he was taking a nap is from Lizzie Borden. Andrew was awake and reading the last time Bridget saw him.

Based on what I've learned and research I've done I believe the majority of the spatter would be directed away from the attacker, especially since the weapon had a smoother surface. Cast off occurs if the weapon is raised above the attackers head. This doesn't necessarily have to be the case if the killer never raised the weapon above their head. It all depends on the swing. But for the cuts to have occured only on the left side of his face, leaving the right side untouched, while he was sitting position doesn't make sense to me. Granted after the first few blows he probably wouldn't have remained in a sitting position. He most likely would've slumped to his right from the force of the blows exactly as he was found. But that first blow would've had to have been enough to drive him sideways in my opinion, otherwise I see cuts to both sides of the face and head.

Allen wrote:I've often wondered what proof we had that Andrew was napping at all in the first place. His posture looks very uncomfortable. Also if he wanted to nap why didn't he just go up to his room? Why lay down on a couch that was too short for him in such an uncomfortable looking position? The only word we have that he was taking a nap is from Lizzie Borden. Andrew was awake and reading the last time Bridget saw him.

Based on what I've learned and research I've done I believe the majority of the spatter would be directed away from the attacker, especially since the weapon had a smoother surface. Cast off occurs if the weapon is raised above the attackers head. This doesn't necessarily have to be the case if the killer never raised the weapon above their head. It all depends on the swing. But for the cuts to have occured only on the left side of his face, leaving the right side untouched, while he was sitting position doesn't make sense to me. Granted after the first few blows he probably wouldn't have remained in a sitting position. He most likely would've slumped to his right from the force of the blows exactly as he was found. But that first blow would've had to have been enough to drive him sideways in my opinion, otherwise I see cuts to both sides of the face and head.

That's what I was thinking too, if he'd been sitting when first struck, and slumped to the direction in which he was laying, wouldn't the force of the remaining blows drive him down into the couch further?

Bridget saw him sitting in the big chair by the window reading, (what was he reading and where did it go?) she was upstairs maybe ten minutes, and in that short time before Lizzie called to her, he would have then had to move to the couch, have the conversation with Lizzie, she would have then left to go to the barn and then the murderer would have done his thing........sure not much time!

Susan @ Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:57 pm wrote:I recall we had discussed in the past that one of the possible reasons for Andrew's unusual position was that he had a hernia and was wearing a truss. And, if I recall correctly, Dr. Bowen testified to seeing Andrew reclining on the sofa in that position before in the past.

But nobody has cited any source that a hernia would benefit that way. It is just speculation (first the verdict, then the facts to support it).
I do not know what effect a hernia would have. I can testify I tried laying that way with my rump on the seat and my head on the side, and it was uncomfortable. More likely to be knocked over into that position.

Is there ANY literature on this in a book? Nobody's personal experience?

shakiboo @ Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:01 am wrote:Bridget saw him sitting in the big chair by the window reading, (what was he reading and where did it go?) she was upstairs maybe ten minutes, and in that short time before Lizzie called to her, he would have then had to move to the couch, have the conversation with Lizzie, she would have then left to go to the barn and then the murderer would have done his thing........sure not much time!

Was there a chair opposite that couch where a visitor would sit?

I'm waiting for someone to quote the Kieran (?) measurement of blood spatter on the walls. I couldn't see anything from the famous picture.
PS Fingerprinting was starting to be established around the world. Vucetich's system was used in South America. What if a State Detective was in advance and dusted for fingerprints? Maybe there would be a print?

Allen, I brought that up some years ago on the older Borden site which is now defunct. Lizzie's word is all we have for that "nap" and, God help me, that would even fit the theory proposed by that Brown person.

Whether or not Lizzie's word alone is enough, what did Emma or Bridget or Uncle John say about this? Emma and Bridget did live there and were familiar with Andy's habits.

I don't want to give away personal information, but I often rest on a couch before or after lunch. Sometimes just to read. Those over 60 can respond as to their habits.

Just what seems reasonable for Andy?

I think the problem is that the family members you mention were not questioned as to whether this kind of nap was a normal thing for Andrew.

"What seems reasonable" is another version of "common sense tells us." People often do outrageous, unpredictable, or quietly odd things.

I believe Andrew's nap was partly a result of his being sick. Lizzie did say that he said he would take a nap because he still wasn't feeling well. They had all been sick since that Tuesday. That's why Bridget went upstairs to take a nap as well. They were all still recovering from their illness, including Lizzie who didn't feel well enough to eat breakfast.

but it still could have been habitual for Andrew to take a nap. I just suspect this one particular nap was him not feeling well after taking a 45 minute walk through town in the heat.

Yes Susan we did discuss the hernia and what would or would not have been a comfortable position for Andrew to lie. Good memory! I had asked Len about it and he told me his grandfather always napped in just such a position on the couch- it was still emblazoned in his memory. That was *personal experience.*

That is just substantiation of real life- I don't mean to imply that Andrew was necessarily lying down or sitting up. I don't know.

Kat @ Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:36 am wrote:Yes Susan we did discuss the hernia and what would or would not have been a comfortable position for Andrew to lie. Good memory! I had asked Len about it and he told me his grandfather always napped in just such a position on the couch- it was still emblazoned in his memory. That was *personal experience.*

No, that is not quite the same as "personal experience". you will never understand arthritis until you get it yourself, etc.
IMO

Shelley @ Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:53 pm wrote:The sofa is in the Empire style, and might have been in the sitting room in 1875. The American interpretation of the earlier French Empire style of 1815-1840, was also made popular in America by Duncan Phyfe designs in the 1840's. It was still the rage in the 1860's as evidenced by many interiors and photographs of Lincoln and the White House furnishings. In the country, the style lasted throughout the 19th century.

Mahogany continued to be the preferred wood: walnut was substituted when the more costly wood was not available. Veneer was also common, especially in inexpensive pieces. The bottom horizontal piece of the Borden sofa looks to be veneer. Acanthus leaves, or fruit and nuts were frequently seen as a central motif on the frame, The Borden sofa being made of a black horsehair fabric strongly suggests it was a venerable old piece.

The sofa was not long enough for Andrew to lie down, going by the measurements of the interior and the autopsy report of his height. The problem with those scrolled back arms is that they really eat up the actual inside sitting space. The sofa currently in the house is of this period and about the same size. The interior sitting space measures 5 feet 1 inch.

Thank's for the information on the sofa, Shelley. I've been trying to find info about it. I wouldn't mind having a sofa like that in my living room.

I think Andrew was probably sitting up right when he was first struck, maybe that cut through the eye, and then he slummped over where the killer finished him off. His hands may have clinched as a last second reaction to seeing the hatchet coming or it could have been a neurological reaction when his brain was hit, in other words nerves. Often times when someone is shot in the brain their body will jump or tighten a bit for a split second. That is my thought.

-1bigsteve (o:

Oh! They are not terribly comfy- as is the case with most Victorian furniture. You can get a sofa like this in this area for about 450-500 dollars and there are still many to be had. I went antiquing today and got the most fabulous Renaissance Revival chair for a little over 100-, black walnut with burled insets needs reupholstering- , but it will be fabulous when done. I also got some 1890's silverplate and a great 1890's butter dish. Those Victorians had a piece of silver for every possible use from pickle tongs to tomato servers! My diningroom is all done and when the parlor is finished I will take a photo. It's fun to live with what you love.

shakiboo @ Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:01 am wrote:Bridget saw him sitting in the big chair by the window reading, (what was he reading and where did it go?) she was upstairs maybe ten minutes, and in that short time before Lizzie called to her, he would have then had to move to the couch, have the conversation with Lizzie, she would have then left to go to the barn and then the murderer would have done his thing........sure not much time!

I never knew that Bridget said that she saw him sitting by the window and reading, but I am like you, I want to know where the reading material went to. Did they ever find the reading material?

And you are right Jeff. I went to look at the autopsy pictures and it does look like Andrew slumped over after the blows, like he was a wake when he was hit. And his fists are clenched, but that might have happened during rigor mortis. Very interesting. Thanks for getting me thinking about that kind of stuff, Jeff!!

All good stuff above. One thing I have learned from wearing a corset- it is difficult to slump , flop, or lounge about with any sort of ease which we enjoy today. Fainting couches were designed for just the sort of raised"leaning" to one side in a partial recline. I have seen some of those old trusses and they function by holding immobile that affected part of the anatomy. I also have enjoyed the discomforts of umbilical hernia, and there are some positions more comfortable than others.

I don't find Andrew's position on the sofa at all unusual for those times, or these days, and frequently I lounge over sideways just like that to watch television. Given the decorum of the 1890's, it might have been unseemly to take off one's shoes, sweater and such, then lay down (if he could have fit). He was also expecting to eat in about 45 minutes, not to mention there was a chance someone might knock on the door on a business call.

Mr. Hart's description of Andrew looking feeble would also add to the need to rest awhile when he came home. On one of the photos of the sitting room there are books visible on that center table which is moved to the side. Maybe the newspaper was not mentioned because it did not seem important.

In Mrs. Churchills trial testimony, she mentions fanning Lizzie with a newspaper, I believe they were still in the kitchen at that time. So, that could have been the newspaper Lizzie says she took to the kitchen, when she was reading the old Harpers magazine.......If it was a newspaper Andrew was reading, wouldn't Bridget have said he was reading the newspaper?

Lying on your side to watch TV is very doable. But isn't your rump perpendicular to the surface of the sofa?
Andy's is plump on the sofa, as if there was no muscular control. This is based on my own personal experience.
PS
I believe the "preponderance of evidence" supports my conclusion.

I don't find Andrew's position on the sofa that strange either, especially if he had a hernia. I had back surgery from a herniated disc several years ago, and I found it quite difficult to GET comfortable anywhere. Sitting upright was almost impossible, so I created different positions to make myself as comfortable as possible.

One thing I have tried this weekend was to attempt reading on the sofa. Even with the door to the diningroom open, it is pretty dark on the sofa. For nearly 70 year old eyes, I can see why Andrew went to the diningroom window to look at his papers when he got home, and also sat in the comfy chair by the window in the sitting room to read. The one thing that sofa is good for is napping. There is no end table or room for one to hold a lamp- so if he was on that sofa, I really believe now it was to either relax or doze.

That's an interesting observation.
That dark color of the sofa may absorb light too.

There was a tree in leaf somewhat on the driveway side, I believe.
That might impede some of the light that time of year in the dining room.

But it makes sense about the sofa, re: reading there.
There was a small table placed in the vicinity of the sofa, but you know about that one.

This picture is from the LABVM site, under the crime scene photo section. There is just something about his positioning to me that doesnt look natural. It could of course be that this wasn't the position that Andrew lay down to nap in (if he indeed was napping at all.) The force of the blows from the axe could've driven his body downward somewhat from it's original reclining position. But something about it just doesn't ring true to me. And as long as the only word we have that he even lay down to doze off came from Lizzie, to me the jury will always be out on that one.

I'm trying to imagine if I just sat down on a couch, where would I sit?
I tend to sit near an arm- rather than in the middle.
This looks like if he just sat down he would be sitting in the middle.
I sit in the middle to lie down. He just fits there on the pillow when his torso is extended.

I admit it may infliuence me to sit near an arm in case someone else wants to sit- and also I may be influenced by the fact that most sofas now have seat cushions, so it's like picking a seat cushion rather than one long seat.
Just observations. I don't have a couch where the seat is continuous.
I will try to notice where I sit naturally next time I am faced with a couch like that.

Another thought is that maybe the photo does not reflect the exact way the body was found. I am trying to recall exactly what time the photographer took these photos. Now of course CSI snaps as soon as they hit the scene. Dr. Dolan, Dr. Bowen, Winward or others may have adjusted the body somewhat. I know the contents of his pockets were examined and pocket watch and money were still there to rule out burglary. I have worked in funeral homes enough to know that sometimes arms, after rigor mortis has worn off, are often positioned to keep them from dangling.

The 2 views of Abby always get people confused at the house.- the one with her fanny in the air, and the one where the bed is moved and she is flat out. If she were moved, it may well have been true that Andrew was adjusted to another position as well.

The town shutterbug Walsh you mean, Shelley? As I recall, he took the photos about half-past 3, and testified to that effect. Let me check that right quick here. Well, he's not specific as to what (or whom) he photographed, but the first hour he mentions is half-past 3, and the latest, quarter past four.

As near as I can tell, Abby was photographed first, Andrew at some point later. The questioning as to time is a bit vague, and Walsh bless his heart responded pretty much the same way!

Walsh's testimony is pitifully short - it starts at page 121 and runs only three pages - that's in Volume 1 of the trial record.

It looks to me like he sat down and then just keeled over towards the arm of the chair. He just doesn't look like he'd be comfy enough to relax or nap, one foot looks like it's barely touching the floor, there's no back support, and of course his head, but look what his head went through, had to be a pounding, so that might account for his head, but the rest of him is just too un-natural, especially for a man his age. IMHO Even to get himself up would be a chore.

Here is Walsh at trial:

JAMES A. WALSH, Sworn

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) State your full name.
A. James A. Walsh.

Q. And you are a photographer doing business in Fall River?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. At the request of the Government have you recently taken photographs of the premises?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. (Producing photographs) Are those the photographs?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And are they accurately taken from their respective points of view?
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOODY. We offer these, your Honor. There are five of them.

(Five photographs of Borden premises marked Exhibits 10 to 14 inclusive.)

Q. Perhaps you had better give us the exact date when these views were taken?
A. Those were made last Saturday.

Q. Did you take some views soon after or upon the day of the homicide?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. At whose request were those views taken?
A. The medical examiner's.

Q. (Producing photograph) That is apparently a view of Mrs. Borden?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What time in the day was this taken?
A. Probably half past three.

Q. In the afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Under whose direction were the body, the bed and the bureau

Page 122

adjusted to the position seen in the view?
A. They were that way when I went in the house. I didn't see anyone move them.

MR. MOODY. I offer, then, first, this view.

Mr. ROBINSON. He hasn't answered your question.

Q. You took them, you say, as you found them in the afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. MOODY. Of course it is a question of the order of evidence. We shall have some evidence later on with respect to them.

MASON, C. J. It will be sufficient to mark them to identify them, and offer them later.

Q. Do you identify this one as a view that was taken upon that afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

(Photograph of Mrs. Borden's body marked Ex. 15 for identification.)

Q. Do you identify this other view of Mrs. Borden's body as one made by you upon that afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

(Marked Ex. 16 for identification.)

Q. Do you identify this view of Mrs. Borden's body as one taken upon that afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

(Photograph marked Ex. 17 for identification.)

Page 123

Q. In who's presence were these views taken?
A. There were several officers there and Dr. Dolan.

Q. Was Dr. Dolan present while each view which you have identified was taken?
A. I could not say that he was present at all of them; he was at some of them.

Q. Do you remember what officer was present at all of them?
A. No, I could not say any officer was present at all,---going in and out of the room.

Q. Do you identify this (Exhibit 18) as a view taken upon Aug. 4, 1892?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The one just identified was a view of Mrs. Borden's head?
A. Mrs. Borden.

Q. You identify that (Exhibit 19) as a view of Mr. Borden's head taken on the same day and time?
A. Yes, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) When were those last two taken?
A. They were taken probably at half past four that afternoon.

Q. Am I to understand that all five were taken the same afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. They are all the work of the same day?
A. Yes, sir.

--I've often heard the casual description of Abbie's bum in the air but I've not seen it myself.
If that is supposedly the view up from her feet, I thought that might be an optical illusion. We have figured there was a distortion of the feet- that would lead to a distortion all the way up her body.

The picture I'm looking at here it appears as though the feet are "flexed down" so to say (as might have happened due to the strain of dead weight). It's hard to judge, but the knees look to be bent too. If they are, and the feet are flexed or splayed in such a fashion as it appears in the photo, glutius rising just might be more than illusion. The visual makes almost perfect sense though: Hit the floor just right, knees bent, and whoops...up she goes.

Too bad nobody asked all the medical people, Winward and police if they had touched or altered the body positions (even slightly) at any time during the day and the course of investigations. I can well undertand why Mr. Walsh did not! If they searched the body of Andrew for pocket contents, his hands must have been moved. The way his hands are propped look to me as if they were carefully laid up on his torso -perhaps afterwards. Deadweight is so true- dead arms, especially the way Andrew is perched on the sofa on his side- may well have dangled down. You will see the deceased in caskets with arms carefully either crossed across the chest or crossed at the waist. This is hardly the same scene as Andrew on the sofa, I know, but it may be a good possibility Andrew's arms were moved before 3:30.

The photographs of Abby- I have always been told the one where the big bed was rolled over to the fireplace wall and she is flat as a pancake on the carpet face down with her elbows out was taken first and that the view of her with her elevated posterior and the bed still in place was after she was moved-lifted up , then put down. The bed in that one is just visible. If anyone has any more info on that, I'd like those details.

Dr. Bowen, in his trial testimony, said when he first saw her, both hands were under her and he had to move one to find a pulse, that they were both under her, elbows out at right angles from her body. Now, add that to rump in the air, it almost sounds like she had been in a position to crawl and then collapsed.

I forgot to add that Abby had been rolled over and looked at, by Dr. Bowen and Dr. Dolan sometime before the pictures were taken. Sounds like it was about the time the pictures were being taken. Also, when Dr. Bowen first checked her she wasn't as close to the bed as she appears in the photo's, as when he checked her for a pulse he went in between her and the bed.

I agree that may be a likely scenario. This past weekend, while going through possible re-enactment sequences, our "Abby" stood facing the headboard wall, and when our stand-in "killer"- this week a man, came up behind her she turned her head to the left and started to pivot around to see what was behind her to the left. This enabled the killer to inflict the over the left ear wound, "Abby" to fall naturally forward, then try to scramble away. Yes, she was on her knees, but our killer pushed her down with his knee, then pinned her by sitting on her back before inflicting another 18 blows. This all went very smoothly and natural-looking. It looks a little more unnatural with Abby facing the killer dead-on, then a frontal left ear attack. She then has to do a three-quarter turn to end up on her face which is rather unnatural-looking. I really have to get a video camera. If she had her backed turned, or partially turned to the person in the room- that speaks volumes as to who the person must be.

Shelley @ Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:09 am wrote:Too bad nobody asked all the medical people, Winward and police if they had touched or altered the body positions (even slightly) at any time during the day and the course of investigations. I can well undertand why Mr. Walsh did not! If they searched the body of Andrew for pocket contents, his hands must have been moved.

Many of the witnesses, officers and doctors alike, were asked if they had disturbed the bodies in any way or if the bodies were positioned in the same way in the pictures as they had been when they first viewed them. Also if anything in the room was disturbed by them, such as the bed being moved. I believe by asking if they bodies appeared to be positioned the in the same way they were trying to get at whether or not they may have been repostioned or had moved in any way. It does seem to me from reading over the testimonies that Abby's body had been disturbed from it's original position before the pictures. One of the officers, I'm not quite sure which one now,also testified to having moved the bed out somewhat to get at Mrs. Borden for a better examination and then replaced it.

Trial testimony of Dr. Dolan page 854:

Page 856

Q. And what examination did you make of the body of Mrs. Borden at that time?
A. I simply touched the body and saw the wounds upon the back of her head, but did not examine them minutely: noted also that the blood was coagulated and was of a dark color.

Q. Will you describe the postion of the body of Mrs. Borden as accurately as you can?
A. She was lying with her back exposed, and also the right back of the head exposed, and her hands were something in this position (illustrating), that is, just around her head; her head was not resting upon them.

Q. That is the hands were further to the west---
A. Towards the wall.

Q. Nearer the wall than her head?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How near her head were her hands?
A. Almost touching.

Q.Were they clasped together?
A. No, sir.

Q. And were the position of the two arms and hands relatively-- that is, right and left -- the same?
A. They were, yes, sir.

Q. They had the same curve?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How near did they meet? Did they come together?
A. No, sir they didn't touch. They came very near each other.

Q. How near?
A. I should judge within an inch or two inches.

Q.You say the head was resting somewhat upon ---
A. The face; the face was laying in such a position that the right back of the head was exposed.

Q. Not directly, then, face downwards?
A. No, sir.

Q. But with the head turned somewhat to the left?
A. The left; yes, sir.

Q. Can you tell how much it was turned to the left? That is if the face was so far downward, it would be at 90 degrees angle to the floor; whether that is a convenient way for you to express it, I don't know.
A. Probably a more convenient way to express it would be to say that she was lying on the left side of her face; that is the left side of her nose and eye were resting upon the floor.

The autospy also states there are contusions on the bridge of the nose and forehead which would indicate she must have fallen on her face in the end, and with some measure of impact.

Allen @ Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:12 am wrote:

Shelley @ Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:09 am wrote:Too bad nobody asked all the medical people, Winward and police if they had touched or altered the body positions (even slightly) at any time during the day and the course of investigations. I can well undertand why Mr. Walsh did not! If they searched the body of Andrew for pocket contents, his hands must have been moved.

Many of the witnesses, officers and doctors alike, were asked if they had disturbed the bodies in any way or if the bodies were positioned in the same way in the pictures as they had been when they first viewed them. Also if anything in the room was disturbed by them, such as the bed being moved. I believe by asking if they bodies appeared to be positioned the in the same way they were trying to get at whether or not they may have been repostioned or had moved in any way. It does seem to me from reading over the testimonies that Abby's body had been disturbed from it's original position before the pictures. One of the officers, I'm not quite sure which one now,also testified to having moved the bed out somewhat to get at Mrs. Borden for a better examination and then replaced it.

Trial testimony of Dr. Dolan page 854:

Page 856

Q. And what examination did you make of the body of Mrs. Borden at that time?
A. I simply touched the body and saw the wounds upon the back of her head, but did not examine them minutely: noted also that the blood was coagulated and was of a dark color.

Q. Will you describe the postion of the body of Mrs. Borden as accurately as you can?
A. She was lying with her back exposed, and also the right back of the head exposed, and her hands were something in this position (illustrating), that is, just around her head; her head was not resting upon them.

Q. That is the hands were further to the west---
A. Towards the wall.

Q. Nearer the wall than her head?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How near her head were her hands?
A. Almost touching.

Q.Were they clasped together?
A. No, sir.

Q. And were the position of the two arms and hands relatively-- that is, right and left -- the same?
A. They were, yes, sir.

Q. They had the same curve?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How near did they meet? Did they come together?
A. No, sir they didn't touch. They came very near each other.

Q. How near?
A. I should judge within an inch or two inches.

Q.You say the head was resting somewhat upon ---
A. The face; the face was laying in such a position that the right back of the head was exposed.

Q. Not directly, then, face downwards?
A. No, sir.

Q. But with the head turned somewhat to the left?
A. The left; yes, sir.

Q. Can you tell how much it was turned to the left? That is if the face was so far downward, it would be at 90 degrees angle to the floor; whether that is a convenient way for you to express it, I don't know.
A. Probably a more convenient way to express it would be to say that she was lying on the left side of her face; that is the left side of her nose and eye were resting upon the floor.

Dr. Bowen was one of the first people to see both of the bodies, in his trial testimony he testifies to moving her hand out from under her to check her pulse, then describes the difference between what he saw and the differences of her body placement in the photo's.

I am trying to recall who turned out Andrew's pockets. I would think that would certainly affect his hand position. Yes, I think Bowen, as a doctor felt secure in saying he had handled Abby's body in the course of checking vital signs, - but I wonder if anyone else, innocently doing so, might be afraid to admit that they had altered the positions-even slightly. Of course, in the end I suppose it really doesn't matter too much- they were both just as dead no matter how they were when they met their fate. It is, to me, very telling that there were no defense wounds on either body which would seem, common sense -wise, that they were taken unawares- the person with the weapon did not arouse immediate alarm. They either knew the person and were not alarmed, or were napping unawares or were sneaked up upon with back turned away.

Yes, the position of the bodies in the photographs may not be exact as when first found. The police and ME certainly had more experience than all the posters on this board, and would have noticed anything funny.

One fictional story on TV (based on True Crime) mentioned that some serial killers posed their victims. Boston Strangler? That clue doesn't apply here. It is interesting to read the speculations of people about the positions.
Andy's clenched fists suggest rigor mortis to me, but I'm not an ME.

Prelim, pg. 196, Dr. Dolan specifies the photographs that were taken of the crime scenes, and describes the order in which they were taken:

#1 pic=Abby slightly moved
#2 pic=Abby with bed removed (side shot)
#3 pic= Abby with bed put back again
#4 pic= Abby downstairs
#5 pic=Andrew unmoved
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... ceList.htm

Thank you Missy for the testimony.
And yes it matters if the bodies were moved. A crime scene recreation could not be ennacted without knowing this.
I suggest the testimony be studied about this.
Or look at archive discussions.
The undertaker passed Dolan the effects of Andrew but I don't think he got them himself. But that was a bit later, I believe. Winward's testimony should be checked.

Prelim pp184-185 Dolan testifying:

Q. What did you take?

A. I took some keys.

Q. Where are they.

A. In my possession.

Q. Have you got them here?

A. No Sir.

Q. Will you produce them?

A. If you wish, yes sir.

Q. I do. You took some keys?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. A bunch?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. That is to say, they were on a key ring?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. In what pocket were they?

A. I did not take them myself.Q. Did you see them taken?

A. No Sir.

Q. Who gave them to you?

A. The undertaker.
Q. I understood you to say you took some keys.

A. No Sir.

Q. Did not I just ask you if you searched, or caused the search?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. Do you know where these keys came from, what pocket?

A. No Sir, I do not.

Q. Did they come from any pocket?

A. I could not say.

Q. Where were you when the undertaker handed them to you?

A. In the sitting room.

Q. On this day?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. Did you take anything else from the person, or see anything taken from the person?

A. I cannot remember now whether I took anything or not; I think I did take something myself; I cannot remember just what it was.

Q. What else have you?

A. I have got some money.
Q. Loose, or in a pocket book?

A. Loose and in a pocket book, change, I have some silver, and some

Page 184

money in a pocket book.

Q. Who gave you those?

A. The undertaker.

Q. What else?

A. I do not recollect anything else. I have a memorandum book.

Q. Have you got any papers?

A. I could not say; I have not examined it.

Q. You have not examined them?

A. I counted the money before the undertaker.

Q. Where are all these things?

A. In the safe at the office.

Q. Will you produce them?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. Have you any keys other than this bunch of keys?

A. There is a big key there, like a shop key.

Q. Have you any other key besides the big shop key and this bunch of keys?

A. I do not know, I have not examined them thoroughly; they were all put in a handkerchief, and tied up, and they have remained that way.

Q. I understand you have not altered these keys as to their arrangement since you received them?

A. No Sir.

Q. There are certain keys that are on a key ring?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. There is one other large key?

A. Yes Sir.

Q. So far as you recollect, that is all the keys there are?

A. So far as I can recollect.

Q. Whatever keys there are, are precisely the same collection that they were, when you received them?

A. Yes Sir.

It seems as if the body was handled a good deal fishing out all these items. and naturally it is a matter of importance to detectives solving the case what the body position was at the time of the murder- I meant it did not matter much to the deceased.

Wow! You typed all that? Thanks a bunch!
Have you Winward?