Lizzie Borden Society Forum

What are the opinions on whether anything new and / or useful could be found by an exhumation and an autopsy on the remains of Andrew and Abby today?

What about opinions on the whereabouts of the skulls -- where did they go after the trial?

hello bob! nice to meet you :)

the skulls were reburied sometime after the trial. i do think it likely some new and useful information could be found by reexamining them, particularly with current technology. i'd love to know if any of the gilt from the hatchet is still in abby's, exactly where the gilt is, and an analysis of it to confirm it was the type of gilding used to protect the edge of hatchets.

i was reading somewhere last week about an issue that might be resolved by re-exhuming and examining the skulls, and that exhumation has been requested, and denied. over the past few days i've been reading so much here, trying to catch up and assimilate new (to me) information, it seems the issue brought up that might be resolved has slipped straight out of my brain. maybe someone else here recalls it.

Hi Bob!

Not sure if anything useful could be found by exhumation of the bodies, unless there was a type of poison that would remain that long? I'm not sure anything would/could remain 100+ years later. However, the skulls might be another story. I agree with Catbooks- where, if any, is the gilt in Abby's skull?

Nope, nope and nope. And further more....nope.

Welcome back, Bob. It’s been a long time, but I’m glad you are posting again.

What would be the point of exhuming the bodies of Andrew and Abby 123 years after they were murdered? What would an autopsy on the bones of these two people prove? That the Handleless Hatchet was or was not the murder weapon? Would it really be worth the time involved and the money it would take to exhume the bodies and examine them, just to find out that worthless piece of information?

At this point time, it doesn’t really matter if the HH was or was not the weapon used to kill Andrew and Abby. An exhumation of the bodies and doing an autopsy is not going to solve the Borden murders.

If you recall, Dr. James Starrs, a forensics expert, attempted to get the family’s permission back in 1992 to exhume the Borden bodies, and was denied the request by the Borden family. So, I highly I doubt any relative of the Bordens would ever give permission now.

The crime scenes and physical evidence were horribly compromised, back in August of 1892. Law enforcement did not secure the crime scenes, nor did they enforce a chain of custody for the physical evidence. The bodies were originally buried without their heads. The heads of Andrew and Abby were severed at the August 11, 1892 autopsy in Oak Grove Cemetery, and taken to Dr. Dolan’s house where he boiled the flesh off of them, so that he could examine them and record the measurements of each 'wound'. The heads remained in the possession of Dr. Dolan, except for the week in which Dr. Draper had them. During that time, Dwight and Richardson also examined the skulls. After the trial the skulls were buried approximately 2 ½ to 3 inches underground above the victims’ bodies.

I say, let these people rest in peace.

Catbooks, and Mystery: As for the gilt, I agree with Harry….

On Jun 02, 2006, Harry posted:

The gilt found on Abby's skull is not mentioned until it is discovered by Dr. Draper (assisted by Dr. Cheever) in a letter to Mr. Knowlton, dated May 31, 1893. This is some 9 months after the crime.

To quote Draper's letter (HK203, page 211, Knowlton papers):

"... Perhaps this is not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

According to the Evening Standard of Aug. 27, 1892, Dr. Dolan had the flesh removed from the skulls by boiling. So any doctor who examined the skulls from that time forward had the opportunity to notice the gilt.

Could someone else have experimented with Abby's skull during this long period by trying to fit different size hatchet blades into the cuts? If so they could have inadvertently left a trace of gilt.

http://tinyurl.com/ocyv4kd

On Jun 06, 2006, Harry posted:

Dr. Draper is questioned at the trial, vol. II, page 1048+:

"Q. Are you able to say whether that hatchet head (showing witness handleless hatchet head) is capable of making those wounds?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Have you attempted to fit that in the wounds?
A. I have seen the attempt made."

It would seem very logical to me that if they tried fitting the HH blade they tried others as well. They were after all trying to determine the size of the blade of the weapon used.

In any case the value of the gilt is compromised as evidence since it wasn't found earlier. It doesn't mean that it has no value but it does mean that another explanation can be offered for the presence of the gilt.

http://tinyurl.com/ocyv4kd

On Sep 26, 2006, Harry Posted:

There is another entry in Mr. Flynn's book which raises an interesting point about the instrument used to create the wound on Mrs. Borden's back. It is contained in a letter written by Dr. Draper to Dr. Dolan on Aug. 12th. It should be noted that the second autopsy, which was performed at the Oak Grove cemetery, was done on the 11th, so Dr. Draper's letter is only one day later.

In this letter Draper argues against the ordinary shaped hatchet as the instrument that was used to create that wound. He raises the point, that I believe you and others have mentioned, about the instrument possibly being an ice hatchet. He writes:

"I assume the tools found were of the ordinary pattern; if they were so, they could hardly fit that back wound; if they included in their number a narrow bladed, short handled hatchet, like a lather's tool, that would fill the requirement. So would one form of an ice hatchet sold for use in house refrigerators. Such a tool could make all the face, scalp and bone lesions found on both bodies....."

However, on May 31, 1893, less than a week before the trial, Draper had changed his mind and in a letter to Knowlton states that in his opinion the weapon used had a blade of 3-1/2 inches. This is the famous "gilt" letter. He also testified to that at the trial.

The official autopsy report defines this wound as being 2-1/2" wide and 2-1/2" deep. I don't say that a 3-1/2 inch hatchet could not have caused this wound, at least the surface width size. There was also a certain amount of body decomposition a week after the murders which may have added to the size of the wound.

http://tinyurl.com/pwbadew

On Sep 29, 2006, Harry posted:

...

I still say that the gilt could have been deposited by accident. Evidence that has been examined for almost a year, and then something new is found with it, greatly reduces its value to me. All these doctors that were there must have been blind to it for that period of time.

That this gilt evidence was not introduced at the trial also tells me something. The prosecution didn't think much of it. I don't subscribe to some elaborate conspiracy on their part in holding it back.

I think it was most likely a hatchet but it is still an open question in my mind. Both the severed eye-ball in Andrew's case and the wound on Abbie's back are hard to reconcile with a hatchet.

I don't think the gilt had anything to do with the original decision that a hatchet was used. They were looking for and collecting hatchets the day of the murders. At best the gilt could prove that it was a new or slightly new hatchet.

http://tinyurl.com/pwbadew

On Oct 01, 2006, Harry posted:

...

"I assume the tools found were of the ordinary pattern; if they were so, they could hardly fit that back wound; if they included in their number a narrow bladed, short handled hatchet, like a lather's tool, that would fill the requirement. So would one form of an ice hatchet sold for use in house refrigerators. Such a tool could make all the face, scalp and bone lesions found on both bodies....."

That was contained in a letter from Draper to Dolan dated August 12th, the day after the autopsy at Oak Grove. Why Draper changed his mind later I have no way of knowing. Draper was a doctor specifically brought in to assist at the autopsy so I assume he was knowledgeable.

There is also this testimony given by Dr. Dolan, re the autopsy, at the trial (p962+)

"Q. When these gentlemen were present with you was there ever any discussion as to the character of the instrument that must have caused that injury in the back?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was not there a discussion of it at the autopsy at the Oak Grove Cemetery?
A. As to this instrument?
Q. As to the kind of instrument, the edge the instrument had?
A. Sharp edge?
Q. As to whether it was an edge like a hatchet, or had an edge, had three sharp edges, ---like an instrument which had three sharp edges? Three sharp edges?
A. In other words, you mean triangular?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recollect so.
Q. Don't you remember that the wound appeared very deep in the centre of it and shallower at each end?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And don't you recall that there was a discussion between you doctors there that this must have been caused by an instrument having three edges, a triangular shape?
A. No, sir.
Q. Don't recall any such discussion?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you say there were present Dr. Cone, Dr. Leary and Dr. Draper?
A. Yes, sir."

If this discussion occurred, it sounds like Draper or Leary raised a question about the instrument at the autopsy.

As to the gilt, my opinion has not changed. In fact if anything I am even more convinced that its value as evidence is weak.

Draper in his letter to Knowlton says: "The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

When the heads were removed they were boiled and the flesh removed - no gilt noticed.

Casts were made by Dr. Draper - no gilt noticed.

The skulls were examined at Harvard by two expert doctors hired by the defense, Dwight and Richardson - no gilt noticed.

Knowlton in his closing argument has this to say about their examination:
"... These things were put into the hands of Dr. Draper, and no less eminent men than Doctors Dwight and Richardson, whom some of you know to be the equals of those who have been called here, have examined them to their hearts' content, and it is not for my distinguished friend to challenge the conclusion to which these gentlemen came when their own experts are silent in reply. ..." (trial 1764)

Draper had the skulls for a whole week before writing about finding the gilt. It was during this week that Dwight and Richardson examined the skulls. (trial 1059) It just seems very strange to me that experts who are brought in to perform just one task, examining the skulls, could not see something that Dr. Draper described as being able to be seen with the naked eye.

Again I am not denying that it was a hatchet, nor that it was new hatchet, nor that there was gilt. It's when and where the gilt was deposited that is not clear to my mind.

http://tinyurl.com/pwbadew

I agree that an exhumation at this point would not solve the mystery -- just wondered about others thoughts. I think the skulls would be the only objects that might shed some more light on the subject, but agree it is doubtful.

It is quite perplexing that we know so much but yet so little. This is a true mystery that will never be solved. I think it could have been at the time, but the 'investigation' was so seriously botched as to be akin to the old keystone cops episodes.

...and it is nice to be back 'on the case' as it were.

Bob, you posted that the skulls would be the only objects that might shed some more light on the subject, but agree it is doubtful, . Putting aside your doubts, I am curious as to what you think the skulls may show, if anything?

I agree, that the Borden murders could have been solved back in 1892, if the crime scenes and physical evidence had not been compromised in the manner they were.

twinsrwe wrote:Catbooks, and Mystery: As for the gilt, I agree with Harry….

On Jun 02, 2006, Harry posted:

The gilt found on Abby's skull is not mentioned until it is discovered by Dr. Draper (assisted by Dr. Cheever) in a letter to Mr. Knowlton, dated May 31, 1893. This is some 9 months after the crime.

To quote Draper's letter (HK203, page 211, Knowlton papers):

"... Perhaps this is not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

According to the Evening Standard of Aug. 27, 1892, Dr. Dolan had the flesh removed from the skulls by boiling. So any doctor who examined the skulls from that time forward had the opportunity to notice the gilt.

Could someone else have experimented with Abby's skull during this long period by trying to fit different size hatchet blades into the cuts? If so they could have inadvertently left a trace of gilt.

http://tinyurl.com/ocyv4kd

On Jun 06, 2006, Harry posted:

Dr. Draper is questioned at the trial, vol. II, page 1048+:

"Q. Are you able to say whether that hatchet head (showing witness handleless hatchet head) is capable of making those wounds?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Have you attempted to fit that in the wounds?
A. I have seen the attempt made."

It would seem very logical to me that if they tried fitting the HH blade they tried others as well. They were after all trying to determine the size of the blade of the weapon used.

In any case the value of the gilt is compromised as evidence since it wasn't found earlier. It doesn't mean that it has no value but it does mean that another explanation can be offered for the presence of the gilt.

http://tinyurl.com/ocyv4kd

On Sep 26, 2006, Harry Posted:

There is another entry in Mr. Flynn's book which raises an interesting point about the instrument used to create the wound on Mrs. Borden's back. It is contained in a letter written by Dr. Draper to Dr. Dolan on Aug. 12th. It should be noted that the second autopsy, which was performed at the Oak Grove cemetery, was done on the 11th, so Dr. Draper's letter is only one day later.

In this letter Draper argues against the ordinary shaped hatchet as the instrument that was used to create that wound. He raises the point, that I believe you and others have mentioned, about the instrument possibly being an ice hatchet. He writes:

"I assume the tools found were of the ordinary pattern; if they were so, they could hardly fit that back wound; if they included in their number a narrow bladed, short handled hatchet, like a lather's tool, that would fill the requirement. So would one form of an ice hatchet sold for use in house refrigerators. Such a tool could make all the face, scalp and bone lesions found on both bodies....."

However, on May 31, 1893, less than a week before the trial, Draper had changed his mind and in a letter to Knowlton states that in his opinion the weapon used had a blade of 3-1/2 inches. This is the famous "gilt" letter. He also testified to that at the trial.

The official autopsy report defines this wound as being 2-1/2" wide and 2-1/2" deep. I don't say that a 3-1/2 inch hatchet could not have caused this wound, at least the surface width size. There was also a certain amount of body decomposition a week after the murders which may have added to the size of the wound.

http://tinyurl.com/pwbadew

On Sep 29, 2006, Harry posted:

...

I still say that the gilt could have been deposited by accident. Evidence that has been examined for almost a year, and then something new is found with it, greatly reduces its value to me. All these doctors that were there must have been blind to it for that period of time.

That this gilt evidence was not introduced at the trial also tells me something. The prosecution didn't think much of it. I don't subscribe to some elaborate conspiracy on their part in holding it back.

I think it was most likely a hatchet but it is still an open question in my mind. Both the severed eye-ball in Andrew's case and the wound on Abbie's back are hard to reconcile with a hatchet.

I don't think the gilt had anything to do with the original decision that a hatchet was used. They were looking for and collecting hatchets the day of the murders. At best the gilt could prove that it was a new or slightly new hatchet.

http://tinyurl.com/pwbadew

On Oct 01, 2006, Harry posted:

...

"I assume the tools found were of the ordinary pattern; if they were so, they could hardly fit that back wound; if they included in their number a narrow bladed, short handled hatchet, like a lather's tool, that would fill the requirement. So would one form of an ice hatchet sold for use in house refrigerators. Such a tool could make all the face, scalp and bone lesions found on both bodies....."

That was contained in a letter from Draper to Dolan dated August 12th, the day after the autopsy at Oak Grove. Why Draper changed his mind later I have no way of knowing. Draper was a doctor specifically brought in to assist at the autopsy so I assume he was knowledgeable.

There is also this testimony given by Dr. Dolan, re the autopsy, at the trial (p962+)

"Q. When these gentlemen were present with you was there ever any discussion as to the character of the instrument that must have caused that injury in the back?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was not there a discussion of it at the autopsy at the Oak Grove Cemetery?
A. As to this instrument?
Q. As to the kind of instrument, the edge the instrument had?
A. Sharp edge?
Q. As to whether it was an edge like a hatchet, or had an edge, had three sharp edges, ---like an instrument which had three sharp edges? Three sharp edges?
A. In other words, you mean triangular?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recollect so.
Q. Don't you remember that the wound appeared very deep in the centre of it and shallower at each end?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And don't you recall that there was a discussion between you doctors there that this must have been caused by an instrument having three edges, a triangular shape?
A. No, sir.
Q. Don't recall any such discussion?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you say there were present Dr. Cone, Dr. Leary and Dr. Draper?
A. Yes, sir."

If this discussion occurred, it sounds like Draper or Leary raised a question about the instrument at the autopsy.

As to the gilt, my opinion has not changed. In fact if anything I am even more convinced that its value as evidence is weak.

Draper in his letter to Knowlton says: "The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

When the heads were removed they were boiled and the flesh removed - no gilt noticed.

Casts were made by Dr. Draper - no gilt noticed.

The skulls were examined at Harvard by two expert doctors hired by the defense, Dwight and Richardson - no gilt noticed.

Knowlton in his closing argument has this to say about their examination:
"... These things were put into the hands of Dr. Draper, and no less eminent men than Doctors Dwight and Richardson, whom some of you know to be the equals of those who have been called here, have examined them to their hearts' content, and it is not for my distinguished friend to challenge the conclusion to which these gentlemen came when their own experts are silent in reply. ..." (trial 1764)

Draper had the skulls for a whole week before writing about finding the gilt. It was during this week that Dwight and Richardson examined the skulls. (trial 1059) It just seems very strange to me that experts who are brought in to perform just one task, examining the skulls, could not see something that Dr. Draper described as being able to be seen with the naked eye.

Again I am not denying that it was a hatchet, nor that it was new hatchet, nor that there was gilt. It's when and where the gilt was deposited that is not clear to my mind.

http://tinyurl.com/pwbadew

twins, harry of course made excellent points, and there is some doubt about it, as it was discovered 9 or so months later, after having been examined by three doctors. however …

first of all, don't forget that no one was a real forensics expert back then. forensics was truly in its infancy at that point. my guess is the doctors primary focus in examining the skulls was to figure out how the wounds were made, the kind of damage caused, possibly in what order they were made, and most of all to identify the weapon based on the size and angles of the damage to the skull.

this is the only description we have of the gilt: "Draper in his letter to Knowlton says: 'The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated.'" (bolding and italics are mine.)

that it 'can be seen with the naked eye' doesn't mean it was readily seen with the naked eye, which is backed up when he goes on to say that even with the use of a lens, one need know its 'situation' (location). this says to me it was a small deposit, in a place not readily seen or noticed, without attention being first called to it.

it's possible dr draper wasn't the sharpest hatchet in the cellar, and that he did try out a gilt-edged tool, and then promptly forgot all about it, but i doubt it.

the fact that no gilt was seen when the heads were boiled (good god, i wouldn't have wanted that job) doesn't bother me because such an apparently small deposit wouldn't have been likely to be seen at all until after the flesh were boiled and stripped away. *shudder*

i think it's very likely that with modern, highly powerful microscopes it'd be possible to examine the deposit and by its location and how tightly pressed into the skull it was or wasn't, be able to tell if it got there with very strong force, or very little force, which would have been the case if the possibly very forgetful dr draper had tried another gilt-covered weapon in that location.

Catbooks, you bring up some valid points. I agree, that forensics was in its infancy in 1893, when Dr. Draper examined the Borden skulls. Dr. Draper had been the medical examiner for 16 years prior to examining the Borden skulls, and for 12 years after. He was a highly qualified physician for the position of medical examiner. He may not have been a forensic expert, but he was as close to being one that was available in 1893.

I also agree that the gilt mentioned in Dr. Draper’s letter to Knowlton was a small deposit. Dr. Draper indicated in his letter that the gilt was ‘very small’. However, I disagree with the gilt being ‘in a place not readily seen or noticed, without attention being first called to it’. Following is why I am in disagreement with your statement.

Here is the entire contents regarding the gilt in Dr. Draper’s letter to Knowlton dated, May 31, 1893 (Highlighting and underlining are mine):

The other discovery is still more important; on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull,
near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of the gilt metal
with which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory; this deposit (Dr. Cheever
confirmed the observation fully) means that the hatchet used in killing
Mrs. Borden was a new hatchet, not long out of the store. Perhaps this is
not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and
seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The
shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with
the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated.

The gilt was found on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden’s skull, near the right ear. This indicates to me that the gilt was on the edge of the cut bone. Dr. Draper used a semicolon between, ‘The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye', and ‘it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated'. (As you know the semicolon is a punctuation mark that separates major sentence elements. Technically, the semicolon could be replaced with a period, since each independent clause is a complete sentence. However, the semicolon emphasizes the connection between the two clauses.) Since Dr. Draper used a semicolon, instead of a period, clearly indicates to me that the gilt’s situation as well as the gilt itself can be seen with the naked eye. Dr. Draper could just as well have used a period, instead of a semicolon, and wrote: The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye. It is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated.

The actual murder weapon may have been a new hatchet with a gilt edging, but since Dr. Draper did not indicate in his letter to Knowlton that the gilt was found embedded in the bone of Abby’s skull, then it is my belief that when Dr. Dolan boiled the Borden skulls to remove the flesh, any gilt that would have been left by the murder weapon would have come off along with the boiled flesh. Therefore, I do not believe the gilt Dr. Draper found on Abby’s skull when he examined it, was from the actual hatchet that killed the Bordens. I believe the gilt was accidently left on the cut near the right ear, by one of the physician’s who examined the Abby’s skull. Another reason that I think it was accidently left by one of the physicians, is that the gilt was not mentioned, or even hinted at, during the trial. If the gilt had been introduced at the trail, then the prosecuting attorney’s case would have been stopped dead in its tracks.

I have to honestly say that I was surprised by the content of your post where you stated, 'it's possible Dr. Draper wasn’t the sharpest hatchet in the cellar’, and that he was ‘possibly very forgetful’. I’m sure you didn’t intend any disrespect toward Dr. Draper, but that is how I took it the first time I read it. However, once I got past the initial shock, I was motivated to do some research on Dr. Draper’s professional and private life. I found several very interesting articles on him, which I think you may also find interesting.

Here is an excerpt from the book titled, Introduction to Forensic Sciences, Second Edition, by William G. Eckert, published December 13, 1996:

The first major change in medicolegal investigation in America occurred in Massachusetts in 1877, when the state became the first in the country to come to grips with the inherent deficiencies of the coroner system. This system allowed an untrained person, serving by political appointment, to decide the cause of unnatural death on the basis of whatever evidence he could obtain without physical certification. Massachusetts abolished the office of coroner and replaced it with that of medical examiner, who was a qualified physician. Boston’s first was Dr. Frank W. Draper, Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University, who authored a textbook in Legal Medicine in 1905. This work was based on the experiences he had during that handling of more than 8,000 cases in 28 years of experiences.

Source (Scroll down to third paragraph): http://tinyurl.com/nryqq7r

Introduction to Forensic Sciences, Second Edition is the current edition of this bestselling introductory textbook. Dr. William Eckert, one of the world's foremost authorities in the area of forensic medicine, presents each of the distinct fields that collectively comprise the forensic sciences in a logical, relatively non-technical fashion.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/noq95g2

The Harvard Graduates' Magazine, Volume 17, By William Roscoe Thayer, William Richards Castle, Mark Antony De Wolfe Howe, Arthur Stanwood Pier, Bernard Augustine De Voto, Theodore Morrison

… He was appointed medical examiner in 1877 by Gov. Rice, and he was reappointed in 1884 by Gov. Robinson, in 1891 by Gov. Russell, and in 1898 by Gov. Wolcott. He resigned in 1905. ... While medical examiner Dr. Draper came into contact with most of the great tragedies of New England. He examined 8332 cases and made more than 3000 autopsies. He was active in 38 murder cases of wide note, including the Lizzie Borden case of Fall River, the Isaac Sawtelle fratricide at Rochester, N.H., the Blondin case, the Eastman murder, the Chinese cases of Wah and Charley Chin. The closing charter of his life as medical examiner was the Tucker trial, in which he was a witness. …

Source: http://tinyurl.com/nrymubn

FRANK WINTHROP DRAPER 1 (1843-1909), pioneer Massachusetts medical examiner, was born in Wayland, Massachusetts, February 25, 1843, and died in Brookline, Massachusetts, April 19, 1909. He graduated A. B. from Brown University in the class of 1862, and took there his A. M. degree in 1865.

In August, 1862, he enlisted in the 35th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers, and saw active service on many fields over a wide area, extending from Virginia to Vicksburg. In March, 1864, he was in the Virginia Campaign and a month later was promoted to a captaincy and attached to the 9th Army Corps. He went through the Wilderness Campaign and was in the "Crater," that hell upon earth, before Petersburg. He served as aide to General Sigfried and was in the battle at Hatcher's Run, and he also served under General Terry in North Carolina and was present at the surrender of General Johnston. He resigned from the army in June, 1865, holding the position of acting assistant adjutant general, 1st Brigade, 3rd Division, 25th Army Corps.

He wrote an interesting account of his service in the army, under the title "A Soldier's Narrative," which was published by his native town.

Soon after leaving the army, Dr. Draper entered the Harvard Medical School, from which he graduated with honors in 1869, having served a year as house surgeon at the Boston City Hospital. He entered upon general practice at once, and soon became assistant editor of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal and lecturer on hygiene at the Harvard Medical School.

In 1877 the old coroner system in Massachusetts was supplanted by the present efficient medical examiner system, proving to be a model for the rest of the country. Dr. Draper was the first appointee, in the large Suffolk District (Boston), establishing the new law upon its present firm foundation and bringing the work to the high standard it has since occupied. It is his monument and merits all praise. He held the position twenty-eight years, or until failing health compelled his retirement. During this time he investigated over 8,000 deaths and performed more than 3,000 autopsies. He summarized
his experience in his book entitled "A Text Book of Legal Medicine," published in 1905. He lectured on hygiene at the Harvard Medical School from 1875 to 1878, and on forensic medicine from 1878 to 1884, becoming assistant professor of legal medicine in the latter year, and professor from 1889 to 1903.

When in 1877 the Massachusetts Medico-Legal Society was formed, Dr. Draper took a prominent part in its deliberations, and was its secretary for several years. He was a member of the State Board of Health for six years, 1886-1892, and was also visiting physician at the Boston City Hospital, 1874-1886, and the Children's Hospital, 1873-1874. He always took an active part in the affairs of the Massachusetts Medical Society, serving as councillor, 1873-1905; secretary, 1873-1875; president, 1900-1902, and for sixteen years was its efficient treasurer, 1875-1891.

For many years Dr. Draper was one of our most prominent medical experts, and saw much service in the courts in that capacity. The character of this work is shown by the remarks often heard from attorneys to the effect that they did not care which party called him so long as he was in the case, his evidence being regarded as always fair and impartial. As a writer, Dr. Draper was unusually clear and forceful and a model in style, and as a lecturer he was succinct and interesting.

He belonged to various societies, in which he was a valuable member and was always available for important service.

He married Miss Fanny Jones in the early seventies, and had two sons, one of whom became a physician. Liberal in his religious views and deeply reverential in all sacred things. Dr. Draper had few enemies, and yet he was firm in his convictions and had the courage to express them upon all proper occasions, having the rare faculty of differing pleasantly and leaving no sting or scar. Modest, lovable and most companionable, he was a rare spirit, never to be forgotten by all who knew him.

Failing health from arterio-sclerosis gradually lessened his activities for three or four years, terminating finally in cerebral hemorrhage. He was calm and philosophical to the last, as might have been expected of such a character.

1 From the biography by Dr. G. W. Gay, in "American Medical Biographies."

Source (Scroll down to heading titled, 202 MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOCIETY): http://tinyurl.com/ofuz5cy

There is also an interesting thread on the forum titled, The Borden Case Revisitied: Dr. Frank W. Draper (1905), authored by doug65oh. There are three excerpts from different parts of Dr. Draper’s book, regarding the Borden’s wounds, that Doug opened this thread with. There is also a download link provided by Doug, for Dr. Draper’s book titled, A Text-Book Of Legal Medicine, which was published in 1905. WARNING: Dr. Draper’s book contains several graphic illustrations. If you wish to view this book before doing a download of it, then click on the following link; this link allows you to flip through the book to see what the illustrations are about: http://tinyurl.com/p8jy596

For a little bit larger copy of this book to flip through, click on this link: http://tinyurl.com/pubr9bo

Here is the link to the forum thread: http://tinyurl.com/o52xsmo

Just a curious thought as I'm reading these posts- has anyone bought a few different sized hatchets, ice picks, etc. to try on a melon and measure the cuts?

Good to see the forum so active! Thinking of exhumation and forensics, I remembered that Emma testified that Andrew was buried wearing Lizzie's ring (the one she gave him 10 or 15 years prior). When Winward's came to perform the embalming, I've read that it was done that day on the kitchen table - often called cooling tables when called to perform that duty. This would have been during the period when the stomachs were removed.

Wondering: Would the ring have been removed as Andrew was prepared? And if so...follow my tortured reasoning...as Emma was not yet there....would someone have handed Andrew's ring to Lizzie? Is it possible that she kept it, then placed it on Andrew's finger just before his coffin was closed or anytime during his lay-out? Interesting to contemplate a partial Lizzie B fingerprint. Not that it would have any application unless a hatchet came to light at the house at some future point.

Interesting question. Don't they remove jewelry and return it to the family today?

I've got a picture of Lizzie later, wearing a ring on her left hand. I always thought it was the same one she gave Andrew, but there is no proof that it was.

It's been a little over 123 years since Abby and Andrew were murdered. After 123 years I doubt any evidence would exist, with the exception of what was already known - that a sharp object (hatchet) created cuts and removed bits of skull. Evidence of poisoning would most likely have deteriorated within the first few years.

I am not one who is sentimental about human remains. I do not believe that is the person anymore and in my family we choose cremation. That said, I do not think they should be exhumed even if there was a possibility for new evidence-- they have never 'rested in peace' and this, IMO would be an additional insult to their memory.

Aamartin, considering that anyone who perpetrated the crime would have long ago passed and couldn't be brought to justice, I agree with you. It would just be to satisfy curiosity and that in itself isn't a good enough reason to disturb their resting places.