Hatchet Hypothesis

[Yooper]

The photographs of the handleless hatchet seem to indicate a very clean break, and it is difficult to reconcile that with a simple random break. In my experience, hardwood tool handles rarely break that cleanly across the grain. Any that I have broken have been split, broken parallel with the length of the handle, not crosswise to it.

Some ways in which a hatchet handle could be broken cleanly across the grain are: by sawing it, either completely, or partially and breaking it from there; by starting the break with another hatchet or axe or something similar and breaking it from there; by clamping it in something like a vise which can exert pressure on the wood fibers and confine the break to a relatively straight-across configuration. There is always the possibility that it could be broken by striking the hatchet against something while using it, something with a sharp, straight edge, which could make it just a random break.

The hypothesis is this: if a hatchet head is stored with the handle stub still in the eye of the hatchet head, and further, if the handle appears to have been cut or sawed to remove it, the hatchet was put wherever it was found by someone unfamiliar with simple, common hatchet repairs. The method for replacing a wooden hatchet handle is to remove the wedge in the top end of the handle, the part within the hatchet head, and pull or drive the handle out. This has to be done in order to replace the handle at some time anyway, so why go to the trouble to cut the handle off in addition to this? It makes more sense and wouldn't take any more time to simply remove the handle correctly. Then the head can be taken to the hardware store and tried against various replacement handles to purchase the proper one for that head. The conclusion is that someone unfamiliar with hatchet handle replacement cut the handle off to remove it for some unknown reason, and it probably wasn't Andrew Borden.

Hatchets were much more common implements in 1892 than they are today, used often, and probably broken fairly often. Replacing hatchet and other tool handles was very common, most hardware stores probably carried as many replacement handles as they did complete hand tools. Someone as frugal as Andrew Borden would almost certainly be aware of the replacement possibility and far more inclined to replace a handle than an entire tool. He grew up in modest circumstances and might be well aware of simple repairs of any kind. I think it entirely reasonable that he would know how to replace a hatchet handle, and he would be aware of the wasted effort in cutting the handle off.

Has anyone had the opportunity to examine the handleless hatchet first hand and arrive at any conclusions about the character of the break?

[FairhavenGuy]

Kat has held it, I'm pretty sure.

You could be right about an inexperienced handle remover.

Refresh me on when it was found in relation to the other searches of the cellar. It wasn't found the first time around, right? I also remember, maybe in Medley's testimony, that he recalled seeing the handle in the box, too, but they had left it there!

Someone (Arnold Brown, maybe?) once suggested that some of Lizzie's statements might have been crafted to explain what other's might have seen or heard. I wonder if the "scraping sound" Lizzie said she heard was a cover story for a sawing sound?

[Shelley]

This all makes sense to me. I had a chance to hold it (handleless hatchet) back in 1991 when Mrs. Brigham was curator. I too thought the break looked pretty straight-not splintered or jagged. I am not sure how much it has been handled and worn smooth over time, but I agree about the repair. I have had to replace an axe handle a couple of times as we cut our own trees for the woodstove. The steel head is practically indestructible but even oak handles do split sometimes, especially when a steel logslitting wedge is used with it often.
There is some testimony by one of the Swansea handymen (Mr. Johnson or Mr. Eddy maybe??) that Andrew had just purchased a new hatchet and had left it to be sharpened at the farm but decided not to take it with him home on his last visit. Maybe he bought a new one because the old one had broken! Being thrifty-minded, he hated to throw the head away and probably planned to buy a new handle at some point and keep it for a spare. That's one possible explanation.

[Yooper]

Please also keep in mind that a very large, dull saw, like a bow saw for instance, will make a cut appearing primarily straight, but with somewhat rough edges.

I'll have to look up any testimony about a sequence for finding the handleless hatchet, I remember there was something causing confusion, maybe over dust/ashes. I'll check it out.

It may have been innocently broken and kept for use as a spare, that is also a possibility. The break might appear more ragged and less like a cut if this is so. Another possibility for the purchase of a new hatchet rather than just a handle for the old one is if the old one completely disappeared for some reason!

[Yooper]

Kat has held it, I'm pretty sure.

You could be right about an inexperienced handle remover.

Refresh me on when it was found in relation to the other searches of the cellar. It wasn't found the first time around, right? I also remember, maybe in Medley's testimony, that he recalled seeing the handle in the box, too, but they had left it there!

Someone (Arnold Brown, maybe?) once suggested that some of Lizzie's statements might have been crafted to explain what other's might have seen or heard. I wonder if the "scraping sound" Lizzie said she heard was a cover story for a sawing sound?

In the Trial testimony beginning on page 466, John Fleet testified he had come across two hatchets and two axes, all intact. On page 473, he testifies to a second trip to the cellar, the same day and not too long after the first, when the handleless hatchet was found. This is a rather lengthy quote, hence the referral. Mullally seems to have been the one who found it.

Sawing might well be described as scraping, so might wood protesting as it bends be described as a groan.

[FairhavenGuy]

I recall someone other than Fleet testifying about finding the hatchet head AND its handle. Whoever was questioning him seemed very surprised about the handle being in the box, too. I remember posting that bit of testimony here ages ago, but my copies of the trial transcripts are not on the computer I'm working on now, so I can't look for the passage tonight. Maybe I'll try searching the archives.

[FairhavenGuy]

I FOUND it. I posted this in November 2004 in a thread about breaking the handle that had been started by "Audrey."


Mullaly tesitifies at the trial about the other piece of the handle being in the box in the cellar, too. It's on page 631.

"Was it a piece of that same handle?"
"It was a piece that corresponded with that."

"The rest of the handle?"
"It was a piece with a fresh break in it."

"The other piece?"
"Yes sir."

Then this exchange sounds like something out of Monty Python:

"Was it a handle to a hatchet?"
"It was what I call a hatchet handle."

[Yooper]

That may raise questions on it's own merit! What became of the rest of the hatchet handle? I'll go back and read the archive and the testimony.

The critical point is still whether the handle was broken or cut, no matter what became of the rest of the handle.

[Kat]

It is from old pictures and descriptions that I believe the piece, which was broken off very short, was splintered somewhat.
Also in testimony as they are holding the HH in court, the bit of wood was not in the head. And they mention splinter or splinters.
Edward Rowe Snow has a photo of himself holding the HH and it looks splintered and not clean, but there are shadows in the pic. I do believe earlier pictures show this- but not everyone sees what I see. You could try a Word search for "splinter."

[Kat]

Here is my personal gallery:
album_personal.php?user_id=5
You can click on the middle picture if you'all like.
It's just me saying "Hello!"

[Yooper]

I remember the testimony as to the splinters, but they don't really define them or go into much detail. The break does seem to be somewhat feathered, that is, the wood fibers were torn rather than cut cleanly to some extent. It may be possible to replicate that with a very dull saw, or one which has little set to the teeth which would cause binding to a degree.

Something else which might be helpful is to know what kind of wood the handle is made from. My guess is hickory because it was, and is, the most common wood used as handle material. However, we don't know that the broken handle hadn't been replaced once already, so it might be anything.

[Angel]

If Lizzie was trying to remove the handle, the fastest thing would have been to take one of the other hatchets in the cellar and with one sharp blow cut it off. I imagine she would have been quite adept at it at that point, having had recent practice.

[Yooper]

Indeed, she might have cut partially through or completely through the handle with another hatchet or axe. It would take a fairly heavy axe to cut through the handle cross-grain with a single stroke. Multiple strokes might tend to get overly noisy. The break might have been started with an axe and finished by snapping, which would leave part of the break somewhat feathered or splintered.

[william]

There are marks on the stub which seem to point to placement in a vise.
I believe the handle became splintered, as they do when broken, and the splintered end was trimmed off to prevent injury.

My grandfather had several hatchets and axes. He was constantly choppiing wood for our wood burning stove. When the handle became splintered with use, he would chop off the splintered end with another hatchet, so no one would be injured before he had the opportunity to relace the shaft. I have also observed him cutting off the splintered ends with a saw. Since there is no proof that this particular axe was the murder weapon, the discussion is academic.

[Angel]

There are marks on the stub which seem to point to placement in a vise.
I believe the handle became splintered, as they do when broken, and the splintered end was trimmed off to prevent injury.

My grandfather had several hatchets and axes. He was constantly choppiing wood for our wood burning stove. When the handle became splintered with use, he would chop off the splintered end with another hatchet, so no one would be injured before he had the opportunity to relace the shaft. I have also observed him cutting off the splintered ends with a saw. Since there is no proof that this particular axe was the murder weapon, the discussion is academic.

Yiu're right. If the stub looked like it was trimmed, then it probably was Andrew or someone else other than Lizzie who did that. I still tend to think that Crowe's hatchet was the weapon.

[Susan]

There is a bit in the Trial volume 1, pgs. 757 to 761, where George Seaver is being cross-examined by Mr. Robinson where they mention chips and slivers that were on the piece of wood that was in the hatchet head, but, were now off. At least, that is what I get from the conversation, the splinters were taken or broken off. Sorry, its a long piece to transcribe, otherwise I would have.

[Yooper]

Anytime I've broken a hatchet or axe handle, I've simply taken the broken handle out of the head. I have to do that anyway to replace the handle and it seems like wasted motion to saw the handle off. It accomplishes the same thing, as far as safety is concerned, as sawing or cutting the splinters off.

This doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done, but it just strikes me as odd. If it was sawed off or cut off, I really couldn't tell by looking at it who did the sawing or when or why. I guess the best way is to just go and look at it.

[Kat]

Thanks Susan! That's the part I meant.

As for the marks on the handle nub that is left in the head- it's my opinion from examining it very very closely, and given some time to do so, too- that the marks you see are from that part being up inside the head. The nub that is left is farther out - for show- it should be up in the head farther. There is, on one side only- inside the metal holder, something that sticks out- an imperfection- that corresponds with those lines you see on the nub. If the nub were situated deeper, where it should be, there would be very little left showing.
Also, when you look down into the top, where the shimmeys (?) should be- there is nothing there. The nub is loose.

Hey William- your Hatchet issue- where you are the premiere author that issue- April/May 2004- has lots of pictures - 3 pages- of closeup views of the HH!

[Yooper]

So, rather than a vise indentation on the handle stub, there is a scratch lengthwise with the stub which was caused by a burr on the inside of the hatchet head? The scratch in the handle stub would be caused by inserting and removing the head. Have I got that right? Also, the burr must be fairly close to the bottom of the hatchet head to mark it that far down on the stub?

A vise might leave a pattern on the handle from the knurled jaws on the vise. It would look like small, regularly spaced squares or diamonds, and it would depend on the particular vise used. There might or might not be any knurl marks present. The hatchet could also be gripped in a vise with the head uppermost and struck with a heavy object to break it. This would leave vise marks on the lower part of the handle.

The Trial testimony does indicate that there were splinters present when the hatchet was found that must have been subsequently broken off, so the handle must have been at least partially snapped off.

[Kat]

Yes there are 2 parallel lines. As well as I could see from my vantage point, there was one imperfection in the interior metal part that holds the handle. So I can't account for the second line unless a better view is taken. I found the imperfection- or the metal sticking out- at the last minute before the producer then was given access to it. It's my understanding that they filmed a lot of mine and Stefani's examination of the HH, singley and as a couple- but did not use the video they shot.

I had just about given up with only my eyeballs, when I found the place, only on one side, that stuck out. Since the dual marks are only on one side as well, I was pretty confident it had caused the lines. But of course I am not the final say. I figure it might have been further up for a while, gained the indentation, then was kept further out and gained the other over time. But maybe there are two points inside the metal head on that side which correspond.

Wouldn't a vise make marks on both sides of the wood?

[bob_m_ryan]

Kat --

Whether a vise would leave marks on wood has a number of variables:

how tight are the vise jaws made?

how hard is the wood of the handle?

was a cloth or towel used between the handle and the jaws?

do the jaws have a cross-hatch pattern?

I have put on heads of axes and hammers in the past. When doing so I have usually placed the handle on cement or workdesk top upright and installed the shims into the top of the head by pounding down.

That said, one could also place the head of the axe or hatchet in the vise, not the handle. So, the question might really be -- Are there vice marks on the head of the hatchet?

[Yooper]

Kat, the vise would leave two marks where it gripped the wood, on opposite sides around the circumference. If the hatchet was gripped away from the head, and the saw cut was made flush with or above the top of the vise jaws, with the hatchet head uppermost, then the stub would not have vise marks. If the hatchet was gripped close to the head with the hatchet upside down and cut flush with the top of the vise, the stub would have vise marks. This would call for a longer stub, and it would be difficult to fit the hatchet head within the vise jaws to hold it this way, unless it was a fairly wide vise. The hatchet head probably either swells at the eye, or tapers from the hammer end to the blade end. This might make it difficult to hold in a vise with straight jaws because there would be very little for the vise jaws to grab.