Lizzie Borden Society Forum

With the news out of Britain, I was wondering if there are any fabric items in the FRHS that might be tested? Also are there any items still in police possession? I've wondered what happened to Andrew's coat. Does anyone know?

And a further thought....if you could find out the truth, would you really want to know? I'm not sure I do! I love the mystery so much.

The weapon would be necessary and even then it might not be definitive. Unlike a shawl (or a table runner that some poor unfortunate was wearing as a shawl) which has the DNA of two unrelated persons, Catherine Eddowes and Aaron Kosminski, the hatchet might have only the DNA from Andrew, Abby and Lizzie...and Emma and the woodcutter and Bridget - all of them probable suspects. It'd be almost impossible to determine anything unless the killer were someone beyond the household...like David Anthony who would no reason whatsoever to be handling a hatchet with Andrew's and Abby's DNA.

Yes, I would love to know for sure what happened...whether Kosminski is JtR (I think this time it's the real thing because the scientist involved has a stellar reputation in genetics and criminal forensics) or it's someone else, learning the truth would send me down the road to further study Lizzie. Finding the Borden truth would point me toward the Villisca Axe murders...knowing the truth about them would send me off to read about the Black Dahlia. Etc. Etc. Etc.

edit: to correct multiple typos!!

Great points Debbie. Yes, unless there was unidentified DNA - from a non-household member - it wouldn't reveal much. Even then it could just be DNA from some non-involved person who handled the item. We know Lizzie didn't cut herself handling the hatchet but if there was an intruder and he did, that would be definitive. Unfortunately there wouldn't be semen staining to help scientists zero in - we'd need another blood type. I don't think DNA could be extracted at this date with casual handling such as placing Andrew's coat under this head. It's too bad hair evidence is long gone - I'm sure the killer shed in the midst of frenzy. It makes you weep for the lost crime scene data.

It's too bad there's not more extant evidence. Even if we had the Crowe's roof hatchet, and modern techniques, the time outside would probably have destroyed everything.

I'd move on, too, to another case, but not before psychoanalyzing the newly ID'd killer to death. I'd so love it to be an intruder but I remain, with reservations, a Lizzie-did-it for now.

There is nothing to test, as far as I can think.

I'm like everyone else. Lizzie's DNA, even if the technique was around in 1892, would be found all over the Borden house, but so what, she lived there! If the weapon were to be miraculously found tomorrow, with Abby's hair and a bit of skull still clinging to it, then of course it should be tested.

There might be an item from Maplecroft handled daily by Lizzie, (a book etc) or even better, a body part from an operation held by a hospital after an operation (that was how they managed to test Anna Anderson) from Lizzie that the weapon could be tested against. Would I want the mystery solved? Probably not. I enjoy the Forum too much.

This JtR news is what brought me back to the forum, lurking about for a few days and re-reading old threads, hoping someone would bring it up. I tried to come up with a "wish list" of DNA evidence that might prove anything. If the wash basin and slop pail from Lizzie's room had Abby's or Andrew's DNA, that would be interesting!

I was captivated by the new JtR evidence, which was that DNA from sperm of the suspect was found on the scarf/shawl, as well as DNA from the victim. But then someone pointed out that the sperm may have come from a sexual encounter before the murder, not during or after. I am not quite ready to pronounce this case solved until we see the science peer-reviewed.

Edit: Well, the "sperm" DNA was not from actual sperm, but an interior epithelial cell. The new book's author thinks the shawl did not belong to the victim, but was brought by the killer. This was the murder where some graffiti had been cleaned off the wall above the scarf before the words were taken down completely.

Hi Regofam! Yes, the slop pail would be interesting. What a tale it could tell. Fall River Historical Society has Abby's switch (hair piece) and some people on the forum think the killer straddled Abby on the back and may have grabbed her by the hair. If Lizzie's DNA were found on that, that would be weird - no real call to touch other people's hair pieces. And they have Abby's pillow shams. If DNA were found on that, it might be interesting as no doubt they were freshly washed to be put on the bed, and likely taken away by police without Lizzie touching them.

The Borden clothes were buried but then dug up, I don't think I've ever seen it mentioned what became of them. Destroyed, probably. A big sweaty palm print of DNA could have lurked somewhere. I've wondered whether a crime scene team could go through the house today and find any evidence of the murders. I assumed it's been repapered and painted countless times but somewhere there must still be a speck of blood that was invisible to the naked eye. But that wouldn't help us with the perpetrator of course. Still, it's fascinating to think about.

The thing to DNA test back then was the tobacco stain on the wall! As much as Abby, Bridget, etc. cleaned house, that tobacco stain must have been recent. Probably someone who came in after the murders were discovered, but if it was a murderous intruder it would be helpful!

I doubt DNA could tell us much of anything even if we had something to test. Even bloody finger prints on a hatchet handle would be helpful if we could find Lizzie's fingerprints somewhere which is possible, and there were fingerprints not Lizzie's.

If it WAS tobacco then maybe Andrew was chewing some and missed the spittoon! I don't think they knew what it was. Somebody suggested soup but it is more likely to have been tobacco, knowing Andrew had some in his pocket. The trouble with domestic murder (inside a family home) is that the entire family's DNA is inevitably all over everything.

Well, I asked at the FRHS a long time ago if the hair cuttings they still had had ever been tested, and if they contained the roots. They said they had never been tested and they did not contain the roots. I have always believed that the Bordens were poisoned by arsenic that last Tuesday night. But, probably having ingested only one small dose, I don't think that would have showed up in any testing for arsenic anyway.

Professor Starrs came to Fall River all ready to exhume the victims and test them, when Borden descendants took him to court to stop him and succeeded. He got pretty mad and said he would not come back to Fall River again.

What was he going to test? He had like a high-tech metal detector and had already went over Abby and Andrew's graves with it. Someone said he found that Andrew's casket was caved in, but that was normal for the wooden caskets in that era with no protective vault. Both Andrew and Abby's coffins were made of cedar.

The courthouse had the exhibits shown at the trial. The bloody clothing, carpeting, etc., that had been buried near the Borden barn, perhaps too quickly by John Morse, finally ended up in the hands of the police. On the day of her acquittal, a trunk, boxes and the sofa Andrew was murdered on were returned to Lizzie Borden. We know some went to Andrew Jennings, and some burned in the warehouse the sisters had things stored in. According to the tour at the murder house, all from their 2nd street House was lost.

Great information, Augusta.

That slop pail would be exceedingly interesting..especially if the match were to Bridget, not Lizzie.

I posted this earlier in a different thread, but I'll repost it here when he probably belongs.

The story about the bloody shawl is based on conjecture, nothing more. First of all, it's not a shawl at all, but some sort of tablecloth. It's been around for years, handled by who knows how many people; it's obviously been laundered and ironed, who knows how many times. The DNA evidence linking it to a living relative of Catherine Eddowes is questionable; even if it's believable, it only shows the cloth could have belonged to any blood relative of the test subject, not necessarily Catherine Eddowes. Trying to tie the cloth to Aaron Kosminski is even more far fetched. For openers, the author doesn't even name the so-called relative of Kosminski whose DNA supposedly links the shawl to Kosminski. Second, he admits his "expert" could find no DNA in suspected semen stains (no semen was found at the scene of any of the Ripper murders), but says he did find traces in epithelial cells he said came from a penis, and these matched Kosminski's unidentified relative. Beginning to get the picture? Now consider this: Eddowes body was found on her back in a pool of blood with her entire abdomen ripped open, her intestines pulled out and spread beside her. A bloody piece of her apron had been ripped off, and this was subsequently found by police in a doorway several blocks away; written in chalk on the black brick wall above the cloth were the words, "The juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing." None of the police reports or news stories mention anything about the victim's shawl, although she may have been wearing one. If she was, it would have been soaked in blood and disposed of when her body was washed at the mortuary. The shawl claimed to have belonged to Eddowes shows no evidence of any bloodstains, certainly not the kind that would have soaked deeply into the material; in fact, the author's shawl looks clean and pressed, in surprisingly good condition for an 1888 article of clothing - or table cloth - or whatever it really is. Finally, Aaron Kosminski was never mentioned in any police reports of the time; the last name "Kosminski" was mentioned by a retired officer as a possible suspect long after the fact, and modern researchers have identified his first name as Aaron. He was a young man, likely affected by schizophrenia in his late teens. He was known to mumble to himself and eat what he could find in the gutters. The only violence ever attributed to him was a single occasion when he threatened to cut his sister with a knife. That did not stand in the way of his living at home with his family, more lately with his brother's family. He could hardly have been the nattily dressed sailor seen talking amicably with Eddowes at the entrance to Mitre Square 10 minutes before her body was found. I've debunked this story at http://www.casebook.org, an excellent discussion board dedicated to Jack the Ripper, however the author and his friends have done their best to sell conjecture as fact and the discussion still rages. I suggest you check it out yourself, and also do a little backgrounder on the author.

John Watson

I was watching one of those cold case shows the other night and they were wanting to examine the sofa and they found out sadly for them that the sofa that is in the house now is a replica and not the one Andrew was found murdered on..I was wondering what happened to the real sofa? was it thrown away due to the blood stains? or was it just tossed because no one wanted it I have the same question about the bedroom suit in the guest room what happened to it? can someone give me any kind of info about this furniture..

The sofa was taken away after the murder and supposedly reupholstered and returned to Emma at No 92 later. My guess is that any furniture taken by the police was returned by them to the Borden sisters after the trial.

However, within months the sisters bought Maplecroft and, perhaps understandably, most of Andrew's old-fashioned furnishings weren't wanted there. They took very little from 92 with them to their new home which was furnished with antique pieces and fine furniture. They put the furniture from 92 in storage I believe, and that's where it remained. Everything was wrecked when the warehouse was flooded in some sort of storm activity in, I think, 1918.