Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I have brought this up before, but it really hasn't been discussed much. Am I the only one that cannot reconcile the idea that Andrew's eye could have been cut clean through with something that was sharp enough to slice it but not squish it, and yet, most people feel the weapon was an axe? I don't think an axe or hatchet has a thin or sharp enough edge to do something like that. That's why I keep going back to the thought that the weapon (at least in Andrew's case) was a cleaver or ice chipper.

I agree...I would think an axe would squash the eye rather than slice it. I am thinking it would have to be an extremely sharp axe to neatly slice an eyeball like that. Perhaps brand new or newly sharpened?

Even so, wouldn't the thickness of the sharp side be too wide to neatly slice something so small and delicate?

I think it probably could have done both, youknow, like when you try to cut a tomato with a dull knife. Thats the way I look at it.

We need to consider the idea in context. The eyeball was surrounded by bone and was held in place. A lot of the lateral force of the hatchet was absorbed by the bone because it would be impossible to strike just the eyeball by itself, the hatchet blade is too long. I don't know how stable the eyeball structure is, but the bone would have prevented flattening and held it upright.

an eyeball is a much more dense and fiberous structure than many might think. to slice one through and through is not such an easy task. that's not to say there wouldn't be some damage from an axe crashing down upon an eyeball, but just keep in mind that it's not a proverbial "hard-boiled egg."

I think this is asked in court and explained by an expert, isn't it? I mean the structure of the eye and the description of the cut and how it was done. Have you read that?

I imagine there was some "smooshing" of the eyeball before the surface tension gave way and the edge cut into it. Like Yoops said, "the bone structure kept the eyeball from moving around." Once the surface tension was broken it would have been easy for the edge to cut through it.

-1bigsteve (o:

Apparently Dr. Dolan thought a hatchet could have done the job. Here he is at trial:

“Q. Did that cut through the eye?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To what extent?
A. It bisected the eye, that is, cut it completely in half.
Q. What is the character of the cut?
A. Clean.
Q. Indicating what kind of an edge?
A. Sharp.
Q. A sharp edge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your opinion would this claw-headed hatchet accomplish that?
A. I should like to see the edge of it.
Q. Haven't you seen the edge of it and already given an opinion upon it?
A. I have; yes, sir;
Q. Is this any new subject with you?
A. I want to see it as regards the eye.
Q. Very well. I now show you the hatchet upon which I asked your opinion. Have you an answer ready?
A. Yes, sir; I think it could.
Q. It could?
A. Yes, sir.” (Dolan: Trial, 934)

Later on in the trial, he's asked how this could happen.

"Q. As to the construction of the anatomy of the human eye, will you tell us about that?
A. It has three outside coats and two what we call humors, that is water.
Q. Water?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How is that water held?
A. Held in a sac.
Q. In a sac?
A. Yes.
Q. Now when you saw Mr. Borden on the day of the tragedy, was not the left eyeball cut entirely through, clean through those three outer sections and the sac itself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just as you would cut it with a razor?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think that a hatchet could have made such a blow as that?
A. I do.
Q. Even through this humor which is on the inside?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Assuming that the head is on a cushion, or a substance soft and yielding?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the eye ball then, in its turn, rests upon a sort of cushion behind it?
A. It does, yes, sir.
Q. When one feels the eye in life, there is a sort of cushion or elasticity behind the eye?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Notwithstanding the anatomy of the eye and its situation and its action in life, and that head upon a yielding cushion, you think a blow which cuts through these three outer coverings and the humor inside,---that this injury could have been done by a hatchet?
A. I do, yes, sir.” (Dolan: Trial, 987+)

We also don't know if Andrews eyes were open or closed when the first blow struck? I don't know if that would make any difference with the slicing of the eyeball?

Thank you so much Diana!
You got my *hint* obviously.
Maybe others don't have the documents handy?
It seems easier to make a more informed opinion when one has the expert testimony as a guide.

Kat @ Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:32 am wrote:I think this is asked in court and explained by an expert, isn't it? I mean the structure of the eye and the description of the cut and how it was done. Have you read that?

I got your "hint" too, Kat, but I can't afford over a hundred dollars to buy the preliminary and the trial transcript. I wasn't offering an "informed opinion". Just thought some might have ideas on this subject to share.

Is that the infamous four-pound hatchet that Dolan is talking about?

The key word, to my mind is "sharp". If the weapon was sharp enough to neatly slice a wedge out of Abby's skull, slicing an eyeball would be easy. If you cut a grape with a knife, there is some brief resistance until the denser outer skin is breached, then the soft pulp within is no obstacle.

It was surmised, when metallic fragments were found in Abby's wounds, that the weapon might be new, of course an older weapon could also be sharp. In fact , I would suspect a new hatchet would need to be sharpened . Hard to say. Cutting knives in the kitchen frequently need to be sharpened on a rotten stone or grist stone. I know we had a long discussion on those metallic fragments in Abby's scalp and ruminated about hair pins, autopsy tools, etc. Yet one more mystery.

Angel @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:52 am wrote: . . . I can't afford over a hundred dollars to buy the preliminary and the trial transcript.

I cut and pasted this portion of your post, Angel and I hope you don't mind the edit. But I just wanted to remind some of the newer members that although one does have to purchase the Preliminary Hearing -- the trial transcript, the inquest testimony, and the witness statements are all available absolutely free to read or download on the lizzieandrewborden website.

Just go to:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/LizzieABorden.htm

and click on 'crime library'.

(Tracy's very good about including information about this when she welcomes new members -- but some may have missed her posts.)

Thank you for the kind words Diana ! I wish there was a copy/paste option with .pdf files. It would make quoting/posting from the source documents so much easier...or is there a way and I am too dorky to know ?





Tracy...

Thanks, Diana. But if I attempted to read (or copy) these huge documents at work my employees would kill me. And I don't have a printer at home. Sometime when I have a lot of time at home I will try to read the trial transcript because it looks like there is so much I haven't yet seen.

Tracy -- my dream is to be able to copy/paste from .pdf's!

A forum member mentioned quite a while ago that there was a program that allowed you to convert .pdf's to word doc.'s so you could copy/paste the contents. Do any of our techno-savy members know anything about this?

I have a copy of that program...but you have to save the enitire "article" you want to "convert" to word...then you can copy/paste a particular section. So, it's better than nothing. I would like to figure out how to save just the portion I want to copy/paste. I guess another option is saving it to a disc so it won't take up so much room on your hard drive...or you could get and extra hard drive...any other ideas ?





Tracy...