Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Right now I"m in the "Lizzie did it" camp. Mostly it was the impeccable research done by Allen that helped convince me. Forgive as I babble a bit; I do have an important question to ask...



The timeline always bothered me...so close, so tight. Andrew was seen by a neighbor at 10:40, and Bridget recalls Lizzie yelling for her a couple of minutes after the town hall struck 11. How could she have cleaned up all the blood in such a short period of time? THAT'S what us American's call "the 64,000 dollar question." And it was what ultimately acquitted her, in my opinion.


BUT.

I have now learned that blows to the head don't produce large quantities of spurting blood (only arteries do....thanks you to the nurses here who confirmed that.) And that Andrew's Jacket was bunched up under his head, and covered with blood. That seemed out of place...I just couldn't feature him doing that. So now I have a mental picture of someone putting on his jacket backwards, surgeon style. And...I don't know if any of you recall, but there is a poster here who tried putting her own blood on her own brown hair, and found that it blended in completely. Okay, folks, cards on the table time: I tried it too. I'm "pre-diabetic" so I bought a blood glucose meter and I have the gear. I pricked 2 of my fingers, HARD, squeezed out the blood onto my brown hair...and yup, you guessed it. It was completely undetectable (I think my family is planning an intervention....to get me a new hobby!!! )

AND there is the angle of motive. The only people who were better off with Andrew and Abby DEAD rather than alive were Emma and LIzzie. And Lizzie was the one with the attitude, Lizzie was the one who shoplifted, who stole, who whined about her lot in life, who needed to be sent on a grand tour of Europe to shut her up. Imagine that...she went on a grand tour of Europe, but didn't have a flush toilet or telephone in her own house. Lizzie was strange, weird, cold, distant, depending on who you asked. Her behavior and demeanor right after the murders bothered one of the police officers...so much he wrote his feelings down. (sorry I'm going to be lazy....all the die-hards here know the citation I'm referring to.)


Opportunity...hell, yes, She was right there, alone in that tight house with all those locked rooms, with Abby. She was right there, tending to Father, seeing to it he nestled in on that horsehair sofa.

Which bring me to the biggest thorn in my side. MEANS. Did she have the means?

1. Assuming Lizzie did it, her means were simple: an ax, or hatchet. (I'm not sure I know the difference.) In her own words, there were several around the house, in the basement. So somehow Lizzie got her hand on the ax, and she bludgeoned her step-mother to death. She had plenty of time to clean up after killing Abby...Bridgette never came up the front stairs, and Father had just left, so had Uncle John. Plenty of time to wash up, fix her hair, and do...what?

That's what is bugging me. The means were an ax. What did she do with 'the means' between the two murders, and what did she do with the ax AFTER killing Andrew? If she hid in her slop pail, or menstrual bucket, or whatever she used for disposing of such things, well those were in her room. So after dispatching Andrew, we have to assume she ran back upstairs, hid the ax amongst the bloody unmentionables, where she knew polite Victorian menfolk wouldn't dare search, and then dash back downstairs, through the sitting room, thru the kitchen, to the beginning of the back stairs, where she yelled for Bridgette. If the broken handle in the basement was the murder weapon, then we have Lizzie taking the time to run downstairs to hide the handle, (after wiping it clean, rinsing it, then rolling it in ashes.)

It adds another layer to that tight time frame...that window between the neighbor seeing Andrew fumbling with the lock, and Bridgette hearing Lizzie yell.

For those of you who lean towards Lizzie's guilt: Do you think that she deliberately created that tight time frame, because she knew it would ultimately add great doubt as to her ability to pull the whole thing off??? ("she didn't have time! she was perfectly clean!")

Did Lizzie figure all that out ahead of time and coordinate the elements to ensure the situation wouldn't seem tenable? My thinking has evolved...I used to think she was lucky. Now I'm wondering if she WAS brilliant. She murdered two people and created circumstances that would ultimately make it very difficult for anyone to believe she did it. Was she THAT clever, THAT smart? This is a woman who didn't even finish high school...who frittered away her days doing a lots of little bits of nothing-ness. Sewing, visiting, ironing, tending to her room. (Lord how could she stand it?)

Okay..one more question: I think Lizzie changed her dress after killing Abby. I think she was wearing the blue Bedford cord dress she later burned up. But do you all agree that she didn't have time to change clothes after killing Andrew? We're talking about a 20-25 minute time frame. During those minutes, she swung the ax 11 tiimes, took off Andrew's coat, put it under his head, either went upstairs or downstairs to hide the ax, I assume she MUST have stopped to glance in a mirror and make sure nothing looked weird or out of place...did she have the time?

Any thoughts here? Damn if this case isn't confounding!!!!

NancyDrew, what is a "64,000 dollar question"?

1. If you think Lizzie wanted to creat a tight time frame, then, you think that Lubinsky's testimony was not reliable, in other words, Lizzie didn't go out in the yard and walk very slowly in order to be seen by someone (as a false alibi), don't you?

2. If Lizzie was so brilliant to think to creat a tight time frame, if Lizzie figured all that out ahead of time, why did she fail to givel a more consistent alibi testimony? She might have had plenty of time to prepare a good version, right? And then, why didn't she say that Abby had gone out to the market, instead of telling that note story?

3. Emma said she believed Lizzie's innocence because of the criminal weapon's not being found. I tend to think Emma was sincere when saying so.

I believe she worked with what she had time wise.

I don't think she ever thought she would be a true suspect.

I think there was something afoot-- and something happened to hasten it, and I think either the reason for or the perceived reason for John Morse's visit may have been just that.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is the "something afoot" the plan to kill both of them, or just Abby? And how did John Morse's visit hasten her plans? Thanks!

Picture this...I'm not saying it happened, but to illustrate how easy it would be to hide a weapon. A month, a year perhaps before the killings, Lizzie finds a floorboard in the Kitchen/parlor, wherever, that is loose. she pulls one end and see's that it lifts up 4 or 5 inches. After the killing, she puts the hatchet there. The police never find it b/c despite everyone making a big deal about not finding a weapon, I bet you $1,000 that I could hide a hatchet in my house and you would never find it. It is my house, I am intimately familiar with the places I could hide something. I tend not to worry AT ALL about not finding the murder weapon. They had no metal detectors, Ground Penetrating Radar, they looked around, and left. The tight time frame is a challenge. Nancy, I love your idea of the coat put on backwards. Mr. B. doesn't seem like the kind of gentleman to crumple a coat under his head...I think under pressure, with adrenaline going, we can move much quicker. My favorite NFL football team was playing last night, and I ran upstairs, completely undressed, turned on the shower, showered, washed my hair, applied conditioner, washed it out, dried off, put on new clothes, and came back downstairs in less than 4 1/2 min. Ok, laugh at me- but I did it. We tend to think things take way longer than they really do, especially under pressure.

AND...as for the blood, again, as a nurse I am often surprised by how much blood some things produce, and how LITTLE blood other things produce. The first whack with an ax to the head is "free" there are no large arteries on the surface of the head, so no large spurts. You are hitting intact skin, so no splatter either. Veins don't produce spray b/c the pressure is low, Arteries however can spray across a room. The spatter from either attack would ONLY be from the force/speed of an ax hitting an already wet surface...the skull. Blood pools under the head from gravity drain. The first hit would have probably been fatal, meaning Blood Pressure would have dropped to zero b/c the heart would have stopped. While the cerebrum contains rich blood, it is mostly in small capillaries on the top the large vessels containing blood are underneath around where the neck connects with the head. In conclusion, if I saw someone who had killed by the method done in the Borden case, I would expect very little spatter on the clothes, more so smears from incidental contact with the weapon or hands afterwards. If she were careful, it isn't impossible that there was no blood transfer.

Look at the diameter and number of vessels on top of the head, compared to the neck...There isn't a lack of blood vessels near the top of the head, but they are capillaries that are too small to show up on the picture.

I think Lizzie either read more into JVM's visit-- or heard something and had to accelerate her plans.

Thanks everyone. What about letting Bridgette discover the body (Andrew)? Does anyone think that would have a been a better of idea for Lizzie (IF she did it)

Franz: Back in in the 1950's in America, there was a TV game show that was called "The 64,000 dollar question." Contestants would start out being asked very easy questions: the first being worth $1, then $2, then $4...it kept doubling...the questions getting harder and harder to answer.

They could stop at any time, and take their collected monies, or they could keep going until the big payoff, "the 64,000 collar question." In the past 50 year, this expression has crept into the American vernacular to mean the one BIG question...the one whose answer will give the giant payoff, the most answers, the solution to a problem.

It's probably going to die out as my generation is the last one to even know what this means...

PossumPie:

Thank you for the cool photo! In your opinion, did the killer KNOW to avoid cutting the neck? Avoiding the throat area meant avoiding the carotid artery, which, if slashed, would have spurted blood? Who would have this information, besides a doctor? Would someone trained in slaughtering live animals know this?

I guess I'm trying to say "How would Lizzie have know that cutting ONLY the head would be less bloody than the neck, or other areas (torso, etc)?

NancyDrew wrote:Thanks everyone. What about letting Bridgette discover the body (Andrew)? Does anyone think that would have a been a better of idea for Lizzie (IF she did it)

Franz: Back in in the 1950's in America, there was a TV game show that was called "The 64,000 dollar question." Contestants would start out being asked very easy questions: the first being worth $1, then $2, then $4...it kept doubling...the questions getting harder and harder to answer.

They could stop at any time, and take their collected monies, or they could keep going until the big payoff, "the 64,000 collar question." In the past 50 year, this expression has crept into the American vernacular to mean the one BIG question...the one whose answer will give the giant payoff, the most answers, the solution to a problem.

It's probably going to die out as my generation is the last one to even know what this means...

NancyDrew, thank you for your information.

About letting Bridget to discover Andrew's body, I just submitted a reply to a thread of Harry (topic: Is it possible that Lizzie invented the note story?). Maybe you have read it. Indeed many others have considered and discussed this issue.

NancyDrew wrote:PossumPie:

Thank you for the cool photo! In your opinion, did the killer KNOW to avoid cutting the neck? Avoiding the throat area meant avoiding the carotid artery, which, if slashed, would have spurted blood? Who would have this information, besides a doctor? Would someone trained in slaughtering live animals know this?

I guess I'm trying to say "How would Lizzie have know that cutting ONLY the head would be less bloody than the neck, or other areas (torso, etc)?

I don't think blows to the head implies medical knowledge, I think it is the most logical place to get a quick silent kill. Jack the Ripper was never caught in part b/c he/she knew that to make one fierce slash across the trachea will sever it so no screams can occur, and also cut a carotid artery thereby killing the victim. Some say 'medical knowledge" was needed, but I say anyone has an idea that a severed windpipe with a knife or ax/hatchet to the head will be fatal. I don't think the killer 'avoided' the neck, if your weapon of choice is a hatchet/ax the target of choice is the hard bones of the skull. a knife is best for the neck.
I've said before, the lack of blood on clothes doesn't bother me very much b/c of the type of wounds. Think of a tire going through a mud puddle. the muddy water splashes to both sides as the weight of the tire displaces it. the blood from a head blow would splash toward either side, not really to the front and back. I LOVE your idea that Lizzie could have grabbed up her fathers coat, put it on backwards, attacked him, then put it crumpled under his head. But then what did she do for Mrs. Borden? The idea that NO blood got on Lizzie is implausible, unless they never checked the correct dress, or she had a covering. I have formed a tentative opinion that Lizzie is guilty, mainly b/c when I ask who had motive, she is the only one I come up with, except perhaps Emma who had an airtight alibi. To take a human life, you must have reason. To risk the death penalty, you must have a good reason. I keep getting in Lizzie's head and I hear her saying,
"I feel deprived of the "good life" that trip to Europe showed me what I could have all the time. Father may die and leave everything to Mrs. Borden, and I will be stuck living like this forever. I'd rather be dead. He is old and has had his chance at life. He is so cranky that he will be better off dead anyway. As for her, The world is better rid of her."

PossumPie, Yes, this is exactly how I think Lizzie's thoughts took place also.

Has anyone taken a really good look at the autopsy report. Well I did, and something REALLY stood out to me: Most of the wounds on Mr. Borden were fairly long cuts...4 inches being the average. But on Abby, the cuts are much smaller...1 inch, 2 inch, etc. I think it is because the killer was hacking at bone with Abby, and it's harder for the ax to go through bone. But wouldn't a man have the strength to make bigger cuts in the back of the skull? Take a look at Abby's autospy, the written report of the wounds...it is striking how many small cuts there are. Almost the frenzied hacking of a fairly weak person, no?

NancyDrew wrote:PossumPie, Yes, this is exactly how I think Lizzie's thoughts took place also.

Has anyone taken a really good look at the autopsy report. Well I did, and something REALLY stood out to me: Most of the wounds on Mr. Borden were fairly long cuts...4 inches being the average. But on Abby, the cuts are much smaller...1 inch, 2 inch, etc. I think it is because the killer was hacking at bone with Abby, and it's harder for the ax to go through bone. But wouldn't a man have the strength to make bigger cuts in the back of the skull? Take a look at Abby's autospy, the written report of the wounds...it is striking how many small cuts there are. Almost the frenzied hacking of a fairly weak person, no?

Good observation, Nancy. I always thought that it was the angle of impact, If I hit the back of your head while you lay....longer entrance wounds occur. If I hit you while you are standing, leaning over, falling, the angle of the bottom and front edge would be much shorter, thereby a shorter entrance wound.
When I chop wood in the late fall, some swings of my ax hit dead center flat so the impact on the log is exactly as long as the ax head. BUT sometimes I hit the log part way through the swing, and the entrance wound in the log is maybe 2inches shorter. Just a thought.

You said "If I hit the back of your head while you lay...longer entrance wounds would occcur." But isn't this what happened to Abby? She was laying down, while the killer hit the back of her head, and the entrance wounds are very small.

Color me confused!

Picture an ax. There is a top edge, facing the ceiling. A sharp edge, facing the victim, and a bottom edge facing the floor. Depending how it is swung, the entire sharp edge can embed in a persons skull. The length of the wound will be exactly the length of the sharp edge. NOW, If the person is lower than you, falling/stumbling, the top corner of the sharp edge/bottom edge might enter the skull. Say the top 1/4 of the sharp edge entered. (the bottom 3/4 of the ax would be sticking out.) This will make a much shorter wound in the skull, no entire edge penetrated. It's hard to describe without a picture.

See how the entire edge is NOT in the wood?

If the weapon was a cleaver? What about?

PossumPie,

I see your point. And the wounds were much bigger on Andrew because the ax was hitting soft flesh, right? (yuk!)

This is an interesting, but frustrating, discussion. The frustration comes from the fact that the "murder weapon" was never really identified. It could have been any of the hatchets or axes found on the Borden property, or it could have been none of them. By the way, Nancy, I think in your earlier post you said that you weren't sure the difference between an ax and a hatchet. An ax generally has a long handle, and is meant to be used with both hands. A hatchet has a much shorter handle, and is meant to be used with one hand.