Abby's body moved?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Oct 19, 2012 10:41 am

I read on Warps and Wefts that Abby's body was actually found partly under the bed but was moved after the discovery. But how can that be? The congealed clot of blood under her head places her body where it is seen in the pictures.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:07 am

I've seen the photos of her body. It doesn't look to me like the body was moved. I mean, it's like her head is lying in a pool of blood. Like she was lying right where she fell .Besides, I think that there would be blood where she was orignally. Might be wrong, but it's something I'd like to look into. Fun!!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:16 am

Perhaps the bed was moved.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:24 pm

I always thought Andrew's body looked posed for the photograph.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:41 pm

Yes

In fact, Andrew Borden was indeed moved.

So was Abby.

According to discoveries found within the Jennings Papers, Abby was closer to being under the bed.

Andrew Borden was also moved, or posed for his photo. (though he didn't know it)

According to the Jennings Papers both bodies were moved and placed back and posed for their respective photographers.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:26 pm

If Abby's body was moved and then put back into the original position, wouldn't there be some evidence of blood at the temporary site?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:45 pm

I would think there would be blood at the temporary site and also a trail from point A to B. But I am just guessing. In all the pictures, I see, I don't see a trail or anything. Maybe I am not looking hard enough.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:40 am

I wonder if the Jennings papers mentions the position of Andrew's body before it was moved.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:46 am

Yes Angel:

We will need to read the Jennings papers ourselves and weigh out the facts. It could be just an opinion or conjecture on Jennings part when he mentioned that it looked like Abby was climbing under the bed.

Now, if we look at the photo below, a photo of Abby with the bed removed, we can easily see the blood stain on the rug and the distance between it and the dresser. The body and the blood stain on the floor look like it is situated right where we have always seen it. What I'm getting at is, it doesn't look like she had her head under the bed, due to where the the blood stain was left.

Thus, are the Jennings paper wrong, or are we misinterpreting what is said there?

That being said.

Let's study the photo below.

It could be that Abby's head was indeed under the bed. If so, than we must assume that she did not lay parallel to the bed but on a 45 degree angle, with her feet and legs towards the dresser and window. The position of Abby's body when found could have been completely contrary to what we are use to seeing in photos. (Considering her size, I doubt very little of her could fit under the bed, except for her head)

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:43 pm

Yes:

OK:

Lets study this further. (Click on photo for better image)

Below is a photograph of where Abby Borden was discovered. It was taken after the blood stain in the rug was Cut Out. You can see the scatter-rug in it's place.

Now it has been said that Abby was trying to get under the bed. Not possible.

If you look at the wood baseboard along the wall, I would judge it to be between 10 and 12 inches high, there and about.

Now look at the the rear foot of the bed and the side rail. The bed is only 3 or 4 inches above the floor. There is no chance possible that any part of Abby's body, with the exception of her hand an forearm, could fit under that bed.

If Abby was trying to get under there, it wasn't going to happen. Thus, I would have no idea why someone at the crime scene would assume she was trying to get under the bed. With this I must conclude that if the body was moved, it was placed back in the same location it was found. As for the Jennings Papers........it's a mystery to me. (At least until I view them myself)

If you look closely, you can see the fireplace mantle behind the bed, upper right.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:57 pm

Yes Fargo:

It is believed by some that Borden could even have been laying straight across the sofa, with his legs and feet up, somewhat off the floor. And that he had his shoes off and that they were placed on his feet after the body was moved for a photo-op.

This very well could be true.

Unfortunately, photos were taken for the record in the 1800s not for evidence. Not moving the body was rarely considered and not looked upon as critical evidence.

Of course the photo shows him with his legs and feet draped along the floor. It is quite evident that no one sleeps in that position, and that his head was likely much higher on the sofa pillow.

Miranda · Post by **Miranda** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:43 pm

I have always thought Abby's body was in an odd position.( it hadnt occured to me that the body was moved at the scene) why didnt she fall over to one side or the other? it looks like there is about 24-30 inches between bed and dresser. Unless she was in rigor mortis when they tried to move her? In which case she would have been rigid, so they just propped her up lke that?

It just doesnt make sense that she wasnt flat on the floor when she died.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:32 pm

I was just thinking of Lizzie saying that she helped Andrew take his boots off that mourning, while the picture showed otherwise, I figured that she was either mistaken or lying, but maybe she was telling the truth.

W Brayton Cook · Post by **W Brayton Cook** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:57 am

These photos make me wonder: where are the splatter patterns? If you are killing some one with an axe/hatchet I would think blood would splatter several feet from the site of the attack. The lace covered pillow in Andrew's photo looks pristine which supports the notion he was moved and the area all around abby (except the pool of blood), seems clean too.

I wonder what a modern forensic scientist would make of it?

BTW, it is nice to be back!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:05 pm

I had thought from what I'd read that one of the first blows to her head was fatal. If that was the case, she could not have tried to get under the bed. Or if she was still alive and did try that, then no more blows to the head would be possible.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:00 pm

It isn't likely that Abby was trying to get under the bed with her elbow leading the way, as shown in the photo above. It really does seem an odd posture for the arms, unless she was trying to cushion her fall. That implies she wasn't dead as she fell, but didn't live long enough to move her arms from the elbows outward position.

Blood spatter was confined to baseboard level and one or two of the dresser drawers. I don't know if any was found on the bed rail, but there was very little found on the bedspread, as was discovered very recently. We need to be careful of assumptions about blood spatter.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:22 am

This discussion is interesting, but I don't recall any testimony or evidence to the effect that either body was moved or repositioned before photographs were taken. Jennings wasn't there when the bodies were found, so anything he says has to be based on what he learned from someone else - in other words hearsay. That's not really evidence. The only reason for moving a body would be to check for signs of life. Abby's death could easily be confirmed without moving her body by simply checking the carotid pulse. In Andrew's case, his head wounds alone were sufficient evidence of death, which could be easily be confirmed by lack of carotid pulse and/or heart beat. And if he had been moved, why leave him in that ackward position for the photograph instead of simply replacing him the way he was found? And why on earth would anyone put a dead man's shoes on if they were originally off? I don't think Andrew took his shoes off at all, because he never intended to stretch out and take a nap on that sofa. If he'd wanted that, he could have gone up to his bed. He was probably persuaded by Lizzie to lay back and rest his head on the pillow while she went to get him a nice cool glass of water. It was important for Lizzie to get her father into a recumbant position on that sofa so that she could effectively attack from above and behind, as she did with Abby. With Andrew's head on the pillow, she could swing the axe downward with full force - greatly preferable to the alternative of striking a standing Andrew. What this means, of course, is that Lizzie deliberately positioned her father on that sofa to make it easier for her to bash his brains in.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:28 am

mbhenty

. . . Below is a photograph of where Abby Borden was discovered. It was taken after the blood stain in the rug was Cut Out. You can see the scatter-rug in it's place . . . .

I hadn't seen this photo before. Any idea as to when it was taken and by whom? And have you come across any other crime scene photos like this one, taken after the original crime scene photos?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:12 pm

YES

It is believed that the photo of the bed and scatter rug was taken very shortly after the crime,(days? a week?) since the photo was used as an exhibit at the trail.

It was probably taken by James Walsh, who took a series of photos of the inside of the house at the time, believed to be of the bedroom, sitting room and hallway. Mr Walsh had a photographic studio on South Main Street not far from the crime scene.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:24 pm

Yes

I must also add that Walsh took the infamous photos of the dead bodies of Andrew and Abby.

As for the removal of Andrews shoes........Edwin Porter, the reporter for the Globe and author of The Fall River Tragedy, believed that Lizzie lied when she claimed to have witnessed Borden remove his shoes, slippers [sic], and that Borden never actually removed his shoes.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:35 pm

On August 10, the second day of the inquest, Lizzie testified to what she remembered when her
father returned home.

Q. When you were out in the barn, where did you leave your father?
A. He had laid down on the living room lounge, taken off his shoes and put on his slippers and taken off his coat and put on the reefer. I asked him if he wanted the window left that way.

.............................................

Q. Can you give me any judgment as to the length of time that elapsed after he came back and before you went to the barn?
A. I went right out to the barn.
Q. How soon after he came back?
A. I should think not less than five minutes. I saw him taking off his shoes and lying down. It took only two or three minutes to do it. I went right out.

.............................................

Dr. William A. Dolan (Trial: 864)

Q. What did the body of Mr. Borden have on?
A. On the outside a cardigan jacket, that is a woolen jacket, black vest and black trousers and a pair of Congress shoes.

Note: Mr. James A. Walsh, a Fall River photographer, was requested by the medical examiner to take photographs of the bodies of Mr. and Mrs. Borden. Exhibit 17 was a photograph of Andrew Borden's body taken about 4 p.m. on August 4, 1892. The photograph of Andrew Borden shows him lying down with both feet on the floor with his shoes on. (Trial: 122-123) Lizzie said, "I saw him taking off his shoes and lying down."

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:53 pm

One of the earliest persons to see Andrew was George Pettee.
He testified at the trial (p645 & p646):

"Q. Now, Mr. Pettee, where were you when you first learned that there had been trouble at the Borden house?
A. I was in Varnum Wade's store.
Q. About what time was that?
A. Well, I can't say: I think it was after eleven o'clock.
Q. At what time?
A. It was after eleven o'clock: I couldn't say exactly at what time.
Q. When you got there, who was there, Mr. Pettee?
A. I saw Mrs. Churchill and Bridget, Frank Wixon and Dr. Bowen. I may have seen others: I don't remember of others."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Q. Now will you tell us anything that you observed with reference to Mr. Borden's body, or the blood upon it?
A. Well, I noticed the position that he laid in. He was lying on his right side, with the left side exposed. His feet was crossed, and one of them rested on the floor. I noticed the condition of his head,---the condition of the blood that came from it."

The photo does not show his feet crossed and they are not slippers on his feet. IMHO, he was moved, probably several times, before the photo was taken. Click photo for enlargement.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:46 pm

Why in the world would they move the bodies for a photograph? The original crime scene photo's should have been, well, "original"! In today's world, that would have raised so many red flags.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:42 pm

Walsh took the photographs sometime in the late afternoon and after examinations by the various doctors involved. The photos would have been taken primarily for the benefit of Hilliard and Dolan and used as evidence in the crime. Dr. Dolan seems to have been in charge of the photos, according to testimony by Walsh, the photographer. Photography was a good bit more involved back then, they didn't have hand held instant cameras, and a lot of set up time was necessary. My best guess is that the priority was examination by the doctors, and photographic evidence could wait a bit.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:06 pm

I did a little research and found that my earlier comment about there being no evidence Abby Borden's body had been repositioned prior to its being photographed, was not entirely correct. In fact, three individuals testified they did move portions of her body before it was photographed: (1) Dr. Seabury Bowen moved her right hand to check for a pulse when he first viewed the body; (2) Patrolman Patrick Doherty also moved one of her hands so that he could better see the head wounds; and (3) Dr. William Dolan, with the assistance of Dr. Bowen and Patrolman Doherty, " lifted Mrs. Borden's body sufficiently to make a preliminary count of her wounds."

Patrolman Doherty, who was shown the body by Dr. Bowen before the arrival of Dr. Dolan, testified in some detail as to what he observed – and did – at that time:

" . . . The body was between the dressing case and the bed, and I wanted to see the head and there was no room for me to go between the body and the bed . . . I pulled the bed one side and walked up . . . I stooped down and looked at the head, moved one of the hands to look at the head, and she was cut . . . she was lying face downward, her head to the east, with her hands something like in this position (clasping hands above the head) . . . She was close to the bed. I think her feet projected a little below the foot of the bed . . . I thought [her head] was pretty close [to the wall], probably six or seven inches . . . I moved one of the hands to look at the head and I had room to put my hands between hers and the wall . . . it seemed to be this way (indicating her hand was outstretched). Doherty also told of seeing a clump of dark hair, about half as large as his fist, on the bed spread near the center.

Based on this testimony, it appears that Abby’s hands were not tucked under her head as shown in the photographs, but rather extended toward the wall and were clasped when Doherty saw her. Dr. Dolan testified that when he first saw Abby, “her hands were nearer the wall than her head – they were not clasped.”

When Dr. Bowen was questioned at trial about the lifting up of Abby’s body for Dr. Dolan’s exam, the following exchange took place: Q. And when it was placed back, do you think it was put back in exactly the position you found it when you went up there first? A. Somewhat similar. I won’t say exactly. Q. Do you recall whether the arms were put back in the same position, or was it a modification of their position? A. I didn’t notice particularly at that time.

All three witnesses agree that when they first saw Mrs. Borden, she was lying face down between the bed and the dressing table. That position was never altered. And while Patrolman Doherty did pull the bed away from the body, he apparently moved it back since the photograph depicts what he observed when he first entered the room, i.e. “no room to go between the body and the bed.” Thus, while photographs of her body do not represent exactly how it appeared when first discovered, the altered position of the hands does not seem material to the case.

I found nothing to change my opinion as to Andrew Borden’s body. He was wearing Congress shoes and his feet were on the floor when he was first seen by Dr. Bowen who covered the body with a sheet before leaving to send the telegram to Emma. Another early witness reports seeing Andrew’s shoes sticking out from under the sheet. Dr. Dolan might have shifted the body slightly while searching Andrew’s pockets, which may account for any perceived change in position prior to taking of the photograph.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Thanks for sharing that information, but I am a little confused. It seems the statements made are contradictory about her hands. Were they clasped or outstretched? Doherty said they were clasped, but Dolan says they were extended towards the wall and not clasped. I have never heard about the large fists sized clump of hair on the bed, was it a hairpiece or part of her skull?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:39 pm

Bridget and Dr. Bowen were the first two people to see Abby, what did they say about the position of her hands?

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:33 am

Smudgeman wrote:Thanks for sharing that information, but I am a little confused. It seems the statements made are contradictory about her hands. Were they clasped or outstretched? Doherty said they were clasped, but Dolan says they were extended towards the wall and not clasped. I have never heard about the large fists sized clump of hair on the bed, was it a hairpiece or part of her skull?

When Doherty demonstrated how Abby's hands were positioned, the court reporter described him as "clasping hands above the head." Since the reporters words are subjective, I don't think we have to take them literally. "Clasping" could mean resting on one another or touching in some way, while "above the head" could mean beyond the head of the prone body and closer to the wall. At some point, Dr. Bowen moved Abby's right hand to feel for a pulse which would explain why the hands were not "clasped" when Dr. Dolan saw them. Other than this, Doherty and Dolan were in basic agreement on the position of the hands - that they were closer to the wall than the head.

Regarding the hair found on the bed spread, Doherty said it "appeared to be a piece of hair which had been severed, I think . . . ." The braided length of human hair, which became an exhibit at Lizzie's trial, was indeed whacked from Abby's head by the axe which killed her. Whether it was Abby's own hair or a hairpiece is unknown to me. It can be seen today at the Fall River Historical Society.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:49 am

Yooper wrote:Bridget and Dr. Bowen were the first two people to see Abby, what did they say about the position of her hands?

Hi Yooper! The instant Bridget saw the body, she fled the room. She was never asked about the position of the hands and likely couldn't have answered if she had been. Dr. Bowen was never asked about Abby's hands either, and he never volunteered anything about them.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:04 pm

Okay, Now I remember about the clump of hair, I forgot it was found on the bed. It must have fallen off during the assault, because no blood was on the bedspread if I remember correctly, and no blood was found on the piece of hair

.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:10 am

Smudgeman wrote:Why in the world would they move the bodies for a photograph? The original crime scene photo's should have been, well, "original"! In today's world, that would have raised so many red flags.

I'm with you on that one. Why move the body, unless it was to take it to the morgue or something like that, but for a picture? It does raise flags in my mind too. Isn't it messy police work to be doing something like that? I'd have to ask the question of what are you trying to hide by rearranging the crime scene.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:16 am

I started thinking about the hair piece found at the crime scene. Did anyone try to identify who the hair belonged to? Could it possibly have been Lizzie's hair piece that fell off? Did anyone question Bridget or Emma if they knew of Abby or Lizzie having such a hair piece? Did women back then wear hair pieces? I guess they just assumed it was Abby's hair that got cut off. I'm curious, because the hair is braided. I think it would be difficult to braid your own hair, depending on the length of course, and I don't see Andrew paying for a hairdresser!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:13 am

One of Abby's wounds was at the point where the neck meets the shoulders so that might explain how the braid was cut off, as well as the lack of blood on the braid if Abby's clothing prevented it. That makes me wonder how it found its way onto the bed. We can't assume that Abby was simply standing near where she was found when the assault began, for all we know, she might have been chased up the stairs

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:40 am

All the pictures I have seen of Abby, seems her hair is in a bun. Nothing around the neck. The bun looks like briads curled around her head, so I am thinking that if the braid came from Abby, there would be blood on it. Unless some how or another it got cut before the murderer started hacking away.

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:56 pm

I'm not certain it was ever established that no blood was found on the braided hair piece. However, if that was the case, it's quite possible the hair was pulled from Abby's head by one of the first blows to strike her. I believe Dr. Dolan once expressed an opinion (though I couldn't find it in his testimony) that a 2-inch wound on the nape of the neck (as Yooper mentions) was the first blow struck. This might explain the absence of discernable blood on the hair when it was found. What is more significant to me is where the braid was found. Abby was discovered face down, lying perpendicular to the bed, with her head toward the wall and her feet extending just past the foot of the bed. This suggests she was standing at the corner of the foot of the bed when she was first attacked. Doherty testified that that the hair piece lay, "about on the middle of the bed, right on the spread." Since no one has testified they put it there, it is fair to conclude the braid was pulled from Abby's head during the attack, probably by the hatchet blade as it was swung back. However, since Lizzie had to be standing behind Abby when she struck, shouldn't the hair piece have been carried up and back, landing behind Lizzie and not on the bed to her right? Then another possibility occurred to me: Could Abby have been staggered but remain standing after the first blow to the back of the neck? Dr. Dolan said the 2-inch wound was not deep and so superficial that he missed it during his initial examination. If Abby had remained stunned but upright, could Lizzie have grabbed her by the back of the neck and pushed her down to the floor, accidentally pulling off the extension and then tossing it onto the bed? It’s these unexplained little oddities in this case that convince me that despite all the words of testimony, the photographs, the police reports etc., we really don’t know the exact mechanics of the attacks, especially the one on Abby Borden.

Incidentally, in reviewing Dr. Dolan's trial testimony, he did describe the hair found on the bed as being "artificial," and close examination of the photograph of the hair reveals what appears to be a hairpin protruding from the base.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:48 pm

In all my years of looking into this murder case I never knew, until now, that there was a fireplace mantel hidden behind the headboard.

I have always felt that someone, perhaps the Doctor, moved or at least repositioned Abby's body slightly. Her dress may have been askew and he wanted to give her a little dignity. The way her body lays looks a little too "perfect" to have come to rest that way.

-1bigsteve

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:59 pm

1bigsteve wrote: . . . I have always felt that someone, perhaps the Doctor, moved or at least repositioned Abby's body slightly. Her dress may have been askew and he wanted to give her a little dignity. The way her body lays looks a little too "perfect" to have come to rest that way.

Actually Steve, you're right. Either Dr. Bowen or Dr. Dolan testified that Abby's upper back and one leg were visably bare when she was first found. Since the photograph doesn't show this, obviously someone rearranged her dress to preserve her dignity. Good observation!

John

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:19 pm

Add one more name to the list of persons who moved or repositioned Abby's body before photos were taken. A passerby, Dr. Albert Dedrick, stated to police that he happened to see Dr. Dolan racing up to the Borden house and that he followed him inside where he observed first Mr. Borden, then Mrs. Borden. In his words, "I took hold of her arm, it was cold, clammy and very stiff . . . I put my hands in Mrs. Borden's [head] wounds." I wonder just how many other "sightseers" were allowed to contaminate the crime scenes and manipulate the bodies!

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:42 am

I remember saying to myself, when I first saw this photo of Abby's body in a book in 1974, that the woman was a stand-in in a recreation of the crime scene. I thought that because the body looked like it was posed, too well laid out to have been a victim of a brutal crime.

It would have been interesting to have seen the bodies positions before the people arrived. We might have a different view of these murders.

-1bigsteve

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:09 pm

Speaking of suspicious death scene photos, I once bought a paperback with a cover photo showing a man and woman lying side by side on the grass. The title was "Fatal Tryst" and it told of the still-unsolved 1922 murders of Rev. Edward Hall and his lover, Eleanor Mills, whose bodies had been found under a pear tree along a New Jersey lover's lane. The 1999 book was excellently written with many photos, but what really caught my eye was the cover photo of the two bodies just as police had found them. Everything else I'd read on this classic murder case indicated there were no photos of the bodies in situ, yet here on the cover was just that - a photo showing the bodies in the exact position and at the exact location described by witnesses. I hoped to obtain an enlarged print of this rare image, so I contacted the author Gerald Tomlinson. Imagine my disappointment when he confided that the photo was a fake: He'd photographed his daughter and a male friend, dressed exactly like the victims, on the lawn behind his house, then superimposed this image onto an actual photo of the death scene. Mr. Tomlinson listed the cover photo under his name in the photo credits, along with several other recent-day images he'd included in the book, but apparently no one picked up on that. The fake photo still shows up as the real thing on many true-crime web sites. I used to contact the sites and warn them of the mistake (I corrected the error myself on Wikipedia) but most continue the deception to this day. Bottom line: Even though an arm or two may have been slightly altered in the Borden photos, let's be thankful we have the genuine articles to study and comment on!

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:38 pm

Yooper wrote:One of Abby's wounds was at the point where the neck meets the shoulders so that might explain how the braid was cut off, as well as the lack of blood on the braid if Abby's clothing prevented it. That makes me wonder how it found its way onto the bed. We can't assume that Abby was simply standing near where she was found when the assault began, for all we know, she might have been chased up the stairs

I am still curious as to how the braid was found on the bed as well. I somehow believe Abby was caught off guard kneeling to fix the bed skirt or sheets, and never made it to a standing position. Otherwise, wouldn't the bed be askew if she fell on it during the assault? That room is not that big for all the furniture to be intact during such a violent attack. I wonder if the bed or any of the furniture was moved as well?

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:12 am

Could it be that the killer cut off Abby's braid after her death and placed it on the bed as some sort of "sign?" Maybe some sort of "woman on woman" thing? Perhaps a doctor placed it on the bed while examining Abby and left it there? Was it positively identified as Abby's braid?

-1bigsteve

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:57 am

Abby might have been leaning over the bed in some way when the attack began. There were two wounds other than those delivered to the back of her head, the one to the side of her head and the other to the base of her neck. If she was leaning over the bed when the hatchet struck her at the base of her neck and severing the braid, she might have turned to face the assailant. She might then have been struck a glancing blow to the side of her head. Turning away from the attack, a third blow directly to her head might have killed her. I imagine all this could have happened rapidly enough to localize the blood loss to a relatively small area.
Another possibility might be more or less facing the assailant, but bent over the bed adjusting it in some way when the braid was severed, standing upright or nearly so to take the glancing blow, then turning and falling.

I'm guessing that if the braid was moved after the attack, it would probably have blood on it if it fell to the floor near Abby's head. The same might be true if it remained in place and was removed after the attack.

There are any number of possibilities!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:26 am

I do not believe that Abby was at all trying to get under the bed, even if it were possible for her to do so. I believe so for the simple reason that if her head were under the bed or partially under the bed, how would the killer have hit her in the head with the axe blows?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:52 pm

I'm thinking that with all the blows to the head that maybe the braid came off with all the swings? You know, like a haircut, maybe?

Steveads2004 · Post by **Steveads2004** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:03 pm

Your "haircut theory" is the most likely scenario. It does make the case for the weapon being a hatchet of very new sharpness stronger. I know other ideas for the wweapon have been suggested but I don't think a hoop barrell thing or a cleaver would make such a clean cut? Maybe a cleaver would, I'm just guessing on this. If only the letter Lizzie wrote about her new hatchet/axe that has been talked about had been found. More likely it was destroyed on purpose at the behest of Lizzie's team.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:05 am

The only other thing I can think of is that maybe the braid is a hair piece, and it came off? The "haircut" scenario?