Lizzie Borden Society Forum

So, I found this on the history.com website and imagine it is old news to most if not all --

Is this true?

What happened to the material?

I thought the firm that defended Lizzie had said it's records were sealed and would remain so indefinitely?

8. New information may still come to light.
In March 2012, the Borden case was back in the headlines when researchers at the Fall River Historical Society announced the discovery of the handwritten journals of Andrew Jennings, Lizzie’s defense attorney. The journals, which contain newspaper clippings as well as interview notes Jennings made during his pre-trial preparation, may yield new insight into the crimes. The extremely fragile material is currently being preserved by the museum before its contents are made available to the public.

Yes Bob:

Jennings papers were donated to the Fall River Historical Society about 2 or 3 years ago by his grandson, Saunder Waring.

The revelation put forward by the material, which was surprising to many scholars, was how the bodies were possibly moved and manipulated before they were photographed, and how the crime scene was disturbed by "first responders". (As they would put it today)

Along with that was Sawyer's story about how a yardstick lay on the floor near Abby, and how she may have been using it to smooth out the bed spread. In any event, that is part of the story that was disclosed in the Fall River newspaper when the account was recorded. Whether that information is in Jenning's journal is something I am not certain about.

Another deduction from the journals, that is, one concluded and assumed by the curators of the Fall River Historical Society, is that Abby may have seen her killer and had actually run around the bed to get away from them, thus the reason she was discovered on that side of the bed.

None-the-less, once the journals are released by the FRHS, we will all get a chance to surmise and form our own conjectures.

(It is the personal opinion of this bunny rabbit that it is unlikely that Abby would have witnessed her killer. It was a hot day. Windows to the house were probably open. And there is no way that someone would not scream when having someone come at them with an axe. And if she screamed, Bridget or someone would have heard it. Yes, I believe that it is true, that no one would have necessarily heard Abby hit the floor when she fell, but it is unlikely that no one would have heard her scream.)

mbhenty wrote: ... It was a hot day. Windows to the house were probably open...)

Thank you for the information regarding Jenning's material, MB.

For the hotness and the window, I don't know how the people did in America of Lizzie's time. My personal experience, now in Rome, is that when the weather is hot, we close the windows and put very low the jealousy outside.

Franz-- the window closing/opening habits seem to vary-- when I was a kid we left our windows wide open even in the hottest heat of the day-- nowadays, I know better. I have blinds, ceiling fans and use these on days when I do not turn my AC on.... I think this is acquired wisdom!

Bob- thanks for the post! I can't wait to see what was in the journals.

MB- never thought about the windows being open and someone hearing Abby scream. Interesting to mull over.

Thanks Franz:

I understand what you are saying. I remember seeing lots of photos taken in the 1800s where they would display a house with it's shutters (Jalousies) shut. Though they are often referred to as "storm shutters", they probably had more use as a shade shutter. Open a window...let in the air...and shut the shutter to block the sunlight.

Unlike in North America, where houses are made of wood, houses in Europe probably retained the cool air longer since most were made of stone. So shutting the Jalousies make sense.

I often see Arabs with a keffiyeh (scarf over their head) and in full bisht (Arab men's dress or men's gown) in 110 degree temperatures and wonder why they would dress with so much cloth when it is so hot outside—when in fact, the clothing they wear ward's off the heat and is cooler than baking one's flesh in the direct sun.

bob_m_ryan wrote:... I thought the firm that defended Lizzie had said it's records were sealed and would remain so indefinitely? ...[/b]

The sealed records you are referring to are those from George D. Robinson. Andrew Jennings was the Borden family attorney who had been the first defense attorney involved in the Borden case. He persuaded George D. Robinson to assume the leadership position for the defense of Lizzie.

The Augusta Chronicle, 05/12/98:

The papers are in a locked room inside a file cabinet on the 16th floor at the Springfield law firm founded by George Robinson, Borden's lawyer.

http://tinyurl.com/oc96wwm

South Coast Today, April 14, 1998: http://tinyurl.com/pg5bj2r

MB, I found the newspaper article, which contains Sawyer’s story regarding Abby and the yardstick.

The Herald News, Aug. 2, 2013: http://tinyurl.com/o929w3q

Have the Jennings journals ever been published to the public?

Thanks, cool find Twins'

The journals have not been released to the public as of yet, Bob_m.

Last I heard the Historical Society was going to have them restored by a conservator. Some time in the future the Historical Society is planning to have it published into a book or in book form. Until then we must all wait to see them.

Franz wrote:...

For the hotness and the window, I don't know how the people did in America of Lizzie's time. My personal experience, now in Rome, is that when the weather is hot, we close the windows and put very low the jealousy outside.

P.S.: I forgot that Abby is considered to be killed around 9:30. Here in Rome (in our home precisely), even in a day that becomes very hot around the noon, we probably open the windows at an hour early as 9:30.

So does anyone know if it was customary to open the windows in the morning before it became too warm/hot?

twinsrwe wrote:

bob_m_ryan wrote:... I thought the firm that defended Lizzie had said it's records were sealed and would remain so indefinitely? ...[/b]

The sealed records you are referring to are those from George D. Robinson. Andrew Jennings was the Borden family attorney who had been the first defense attorney involved in the Borden case. He persuaded George D. Robinson to assume the leadership position for the defense of Lizzie.

The Augusta Chronicle, 05/12/98:

The papers are in a locked room inside a file cabinet on the 16th floor at the Springfield law firm founded by George Robinson, Borden's lawyer.

http://tinyurl.com/oc96wwm

South Coast Today, April 14, 1998: http://tinyurl.com/pg5bj2r

Thanks for posting the links, Twins! I find it a good read. However, I'm not sure that a lawyer-client information would be considered confidential when the client dies. I read a book a few years ago that was written by one of the lawyers who represented OJ Simpson. He told how he played a part in getting him off. People were glued to their newspapers back then like people were glued to their television's during that trial.

mbhenty wrote: Thanks, cool find Twins' ...

You're welcome, MB. I just happened upon that newspaper article by accident, when researching something else.

MysteryReader wrote:... Thanks for posting the links, Twins! I find it a good read. However, I'm not sure that a lawyer-client information would be considered confidential when the client dies. ...

You're welcome, Mystery. I’m glad you enjoyed the information. I not sure either, that the a lawyer-client information would be considered confidential, since both Lizzie and George Robinson are decreased. Where do we go to find this information?

Yes:

I don't think lawyer-client confidentiality comes into it here.

You see, this is not formal or business—it's a personal journal.

And it is not about what she (Lizzie) said or what he discussed with her, but what he observed, along with discussions he may have had with witnesses and professional bystanders or otherwise—notes, all written into a personal journal.

The journal belong to private citizen Andrew Jennings, not the law firm of "Jennings, Jennings, and Jennings", sort of speak.

It would be difficult to prove that Jennings meant to use the information he gathered for use in the case and could be deemed as personal, ephemeral notation. Not legal memorandum.

At least, these are my thoughts on the matter.

MB-

I second Twins- where do we go to find out this information? Is there a chance for the Historical Society to inherit the journal?

http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20120 ... /303059432


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... 120_years/

New poster here. I've been following the forum for quite a while though.

Hello all!

In regards to the windows, I found that while living in a home that had wooden siding we always left the windows open because it was stifling during the summer. When I moved into a home constructed of bricks we left our windows closed because it stayed cooler inside. I really believe that it depends upon the construction of the home.

Hello Violette. Welcome to the forum! Since you have been following the forum for awhile, I’m am glad you decided to join us and started posting your thoughts and beliefs. So far I am finding you have some interesting things to say.

I agree, the coolness of a room on a hot day depends largely on the construction of the house.

I agree with both Anthony and Violette. Haven't Andrew and Abby already been through enough? Their killer(s) got away with murder. Justice will never be obtained for these two people. Since it has been 123 years since Andrew and Abby's deaths, exhuming their bodies now would be the ultimate insult to them. Let them rest in peace!!!

Mystery Reader, The Supreme Court ruled in Foster v. something that confidentiality goes on after death. When Vince Foster, a Clinton aide, killed himself during the Whitewater affair there was a lot of buzz that maybe he was murdered. Anyway, when a suit was filed by ( I forget whom) to access his conversations with his lawyer, I know I was not alone in anticipation of the verdict. It had implications in the Borden case. The Robinson office has for a long time been asked and petitioned to release the Lizzie Borden records but have always refused due to client confidentiality. This was upheld when the SCOTUS confirmed that confidentiality exists after death. Bummer!
I was in a seminar in 1992 at the LB Conference and spoke with Dwight Waring, who had the journals at the time. He refused to let anyone see them, saying that one day he might write a book. He never did and I am so glad that they were bequeathed to the FRHS. But they sure are taking their time about publishing them. I have always been curious as to any Pinkerton report that might exist.

MB, if you look at Abby's autopsy you will see that she had a "contused wound" between the bridge of her nose and forehead shaped like a v. I have always found this fascinating. Seems to me that she was, in fact, facing the killer, probably with the first blow (a sad iron?? the wrong end of the hatchet?) that would have knocked her out, thereby explaining the lack of blood at the scene. I think the same of Andrew. He, too, had (I believe) two contused wounds. Ever since I first saw those autopsy reports I've thought both of them were knocked out before they were killed. Certainly that would explain, in both cases, the lack of blood. If they were both severely injured by blows first, before the cutting began, they were already on their way to being dead. I wish we had a pathologist on the board who could go over the autopsies. I am a rank amateur but when I saw those "contused wounds" alongside the "incised wounds" it really was food for thought.

[quote="mspitstop"]Mystery Reader, The Supreme Court ruled in Foster v. something that confidentiality goes on after death. When Vince Foster, a Clinton aide, killed himself during the Whitewater affair there was a lot of buzz that maybe he was murdered. Anyway, when a suit was filed by ( I forget whom) to access his conversations with his lawyer, I know I was not alone in anticipation of the verdict.


Okay, I had to look this up as I wasn't familiar with it. In my digging, I came across that in past cases, it was granted in the cases of law enforcement needing information regarding a criminal case, confidential information between a lawyer and his client was allowed to be given.

In Lizzie's case, the information between her and her lawyers isn't needed by law enforcement. It's just the curious minded that want to know what was said, by whom and when. So, I guess we'll not know what it information was traded, except by Jennings.

I don't know when the cases you cite were ruled on or who ruled on them but the Supreme Court ruled in June of 1998 that confidentiality went beyond the grave. I just looked it up again and it was Kenneth Starr who perpetrated that giant fishing expedition know as the impeachment of Bill Clinton who tried to get Vince Foster's attorney to fork over his records of their conversations. The premise of the ruling was if clients did not believe that confidentiality would be respected even beyond, they might not be as forthcoming or honest with their attorneys. When the ruling was published I remember reading in some newspaper that it had implications for the Borden case and Robinson's office commented it had no intention of opening their records. Damn!!!

mspitstop wrote:I don't know when the cases you cite were ruled on or who ruled on them but the Supreme Court ruled in June of 1998 that confidentiality went beyond the grave. I just looked it up again and it was Kenneth Starr who perpetrated that giant fishing expedition know as the impeachment of Bill Clinton who tried to get Vince Foster's attorney to fork over his records of their conversations. The premise of the ruling was if clients did not believe that confidentiality would be respected even beyond, they might not be as forthcoming or honest with their attorneys. When the ruling was published I remember reading in some newspaper that it had implications for the Borden case and Robinson's office commented it had no intention of opening their records. Damn!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swidler_% ... ted_States

Yup. That's the one.

My memory needs refreshing:

1) Didn't Lizzie open a downstairs window around 11 AM to make Andrew more comfortable when he laid down? This might indicate windows were opened as needed, and I'm guessing that 9 AM on this particular day wasn't too hot in the upstairs.

2) Didn't someone from the FRHS indicate there was evidence leading them to believe that Abby was struck once from the front-side by the killer and that she might have been attempting to crawl under the bed to escape or at minimal to protect her head?

3) Wasn't there a blow directly to the top of her skull which might indicate her head was pulled by the hair into an upright position while supine OR the blow was delivered by a very tall person (very, very tall) OR as she sank to her knees?

I kind of think screaming may be overrated in this situation. We see it in movies because it's theatrically compelling. In real life, how many murders are marked by neighbors hearing a scream? Did Abby even have a chance to scream? In face of a close quarter hatchet attack I can't wrap my imagination around Abby having the opportunity or even ability to let go with a blood curdling shriek that would attract attention. Could she have been heard over street noise and especially if the neighboring houses had their windows closed?

debbiediablo wrote:My memory needs refreshing:

1) Didn't Lizzie open a downstairs window around 11 AM to make Andrew more comfortable when he laid down? This might indicate windows were opened as needed, and I'm guessing that 9 AM on this particular day wasn't too hot in the upstairs.

2) Didn't someone from the FRHS indicate there was evidence leading them to believe that Abby was struck once from the front-side by the killer and that she might have been attempting to crawl under the bed to escape or at minimal to protect her head?

3) Wasn't there a blow directly to the top of her skull which might indicate her head was pulled by the hair into an upright position while supine OR the blow was delivered by a very tall person (very, very tall) OR as she sank to her knees?

I kind of think screaming may be overrated in this situation. We see it in movies because it's theatrically compelling. In real life, how many murders are marked by neighbors hearing a scream? Did Abby even have a chance to scream? In face of a close quarter hatchet attack I can't wrap my imagination around Abby having the opportunity or even ability to let go with a blood curdling shriek that would attract attention. Could she have been heard over street noise and especially if the neighboring houses had their windows closed?

I have been doing some research and found answers to numbers 2 and 3, but I didn’t find anything for question number 1, except the alleged interview that Hiram Harrington had with Lizzie, on the day after the murders. Sorry I couldn't find a better reference to your number 1 question, Debbie.

1) Here is just the section of the full article where Hiram is supposedly interviewing Lizzie (Highlighting and underling are mine.):

Fall River Daily Herald — Aug. 6, 1892:

‘Last evening I had a long interview with Lizzie Borden, who has refused to see anyone else. I questioned her very carefully as to her story of the crime. She was very composed, showed no signs of any emotion or were there any traces of grief upon her countenance. That did not surprise me, as she is not naturally emotional. I asked her what she knew of her father’s death, and, after telling of the unimportant events of the early morning, she said her father came home about 10:30. She was in the kitchen at the time, she said, but went into the sitting room when her father arrived. She was very solicitous concerning him, and assisted him to remove his coat and put on his dressing-gown; asked concernedly how he felt, as he had been weak from a cholera morbus attack the day before. She told me she helped him to get a comfortable reclining position on the lounge, and asked him if he did not wish the blinds closed to keep out the sun, so he could have a nice nap. She pressed him to allow her to place an afghan over him, but he said he did not need it. Then she asked him tenderly several times if he was perfectly comfortable, if there was anything she could do for him, and upon receiving assurance to the negative she withdrew. All these things showed a solicitude and a thoughtfulness that I never had heard was a part of her nature or custom before. She described these little acts of courtesy minutely....

http://tinyurl.com/ptfhqwp

I don't put very much faith in the correctness of anything Hiram Harrington stated to the Fall River Daily Globe. I especially don’t put any stock in his ‘interview’ with Lizzie; I happen to agree with Harry.

Posted by Harry on Fri Sep 29, 2006 (Highlighting and underling are mine):

I, too, could find no newspaper article mentioning Hiram Harrington actually entering the house. Since the article is dated the 6th (Saturday) and Hiram says the interview was "last evening" I assume it took place on Friday the 5th. The following appeared in the NY Times on August 6th covering events of August 5th:

"... From all indications it would seem as if the funeral services to-morrow would have an official flavor. Miss Lizzie has kept her room all day and has been inaccessible to callers, no matter who or what they were. ..."

If Hiram actually did enter the house I don't think he got very far. He may have asked to see Lizzie and she more than likely would have told him in so many words to "get lost". Of course that's just speculation on my part.

It sounds to me like he was just saying what he knew of the Bordens from his and Laurana's personal knowledge.

http://tinyurl.com/q4bao2s

Here is what is in the Witness Statements, page 11 (Highlighting and underling are mine)):

Hiram Harrington. “When the perpetrator of this foul deed is found, it will be one of the household. I had a long talk with Lizzie yesterday, Thursday, the day of the murder, and I am not at all satisfied with statement or demeanor. She was too solicitous about his comfort, and showed a side of character I never knew or even suspected her to possess. She helped him off with one coat and on with another, and assisted him in an easy incline on the sofa, and desired to place a afghan over him, and also to adjust the shutters so the light would not disturb his slumber. This is something she could not do, even if she felt; and no one who knows her, could be made believe it. She is very strong willed, and will fight for what she considers her rights. She went to the barn, where she stayed twenty minutes, or half an hour, looking for some lead from which to make sinkers for fishing lines, as she was going to Marion next week.” He spoke about the Ferry street estate being given to the girls, and afterwards being returned. He spoke at some length about her telling about the same story as was published in the News and Globe of Friday evening.

Harrington and Doherty


2) Yes, in the video titled, Echoes of Lizzie: The World's Largest Borden Murder Mystery Exhibit , Dennis Binette explains the position in which Abby was found. This is a 13 minute, 30 second video; forward video to the 6:21 mark where Dennis speaks about Abby:

http://tinyurl.com/pxaoomx

3) Abby Borden’s Autopsy Report (highlighting and underling are mine):

Fall River, Mass. August 11, 1892
Record of Autopsy on body of Abby D. Borden, aged 64 years. Thursday August 11, 1892. at 12.35 P.M. One week after death.
The Autopsy was performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper, and witnessed by F. W. Draper of Boston, and J. H. Leary of Fall River. Clerk of Autopsy D. E. Cone of Fall River.
Body that of a female, very well nourished and very fleshy 64 years of age. 5 feet, 3 inches in height. No stiffness of death, owing to decomposition, which was far advanced. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. No marks of violence on front of body. On back of body was
FIRST an incised wound 2 and 1/2 inches in length, and 2 and 1/2 inches in depth. The lower angle of the wound was over the spine and four inches below the junction of neck with body, and extending thence upward and outward to the left. On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body.
SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width.
THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows:
1. Was a glancing scalp wound two inches in length by one and 1/2 inches in width, situated 3 inches above left ear hole, cut from above downwards and did not penetrate the skull.
2. Was exactly on top of the skull one inch long penetrating into but not through the skull.
3. Was parallel to No. 2, one and 1/2 inches long, and penetrating through the skull.
4. Was 2 and 1/4 inches long above occipital protuberance and one and 1/2 inches long.
5. Was parallel to No. 4 and one and 1/2 inches long.
6. Was just above and parallel to No. 5, and one and 1/4 inches long. On top of skull was a traverse fracture two inches in length, a continuation of a penetrating wound.
7. Was two inches long and two inches behind ear hole crushing and carrying bone into brain.
All the wounds of the head following No. 7 though incised crushed through into the brain.
8. Was 2 and 1/2 inches long
9. Was 2 and 3/4 inches long
10. Was one and 3/4 inches long
11. Was 1/2 inches long
12. Was 2 and 1/4 inches long
13. Was one and 3/4 inches long
14. Was two and 1/2 inches long
15. Reached from middle line of head towards the ear 5 inches long
16. Was one inch long
17. Was 1/2 inch long
18. Was 3 and 1/2 inches long
These wounds on the right side were parallel, the direction being mostly from in front backwards.
HEAL. There was a hole in right side of skull 4 and 1/2 to 5 and 1/4 inches, through which the brain evacuated in fluid condition being entirely decomposed.
CHEST. The chest and abdomen was opened by one incision from chin to pubis.
LUNGS bound down behind but normal. HEART normal.
ABDOMEN, Stomach and part of bowel had been removed. Spleen, pancreas, kidneys, liver, bladder and intestines were normal. Womb was the seat of a small fibroid tumor on anterior surface. Fallopian tubes and ovaries normal. Lower bowel empty. Upper portion of small bowel containing undigested food.

W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner

D. E. Cone, Clerk

http://tinyurl.com/ppmdp7k

Probably #1 is a mistake on my part...for whatever reason I decided she was making the room cool rather than darkened. Thanks for the research Twins because if Lizzie and/or Hiram was telling the truth then she was attempting to put an afghan on Andrew. Which gives us an idea of the temperature of the house. IF this account is true....

Note the three (not two, as I had said) "contused wounds". The oval shape. To my way of thinking, these were the first blows struck and they were done with Abby facing her killer. If you look at a hatchet, the opposite of the blade side is a small round or oval shape and that is what I think caused those blows. After she was unconscious (or dead) the killer went to work with the business end of the hatchet.

debbiediablo wrote:Probably #1 is a mistake on my part...for whatever reason I decided she was making the room cool rather than darkened. Thanks for the research Twins because if Lizzie and/or Hiram was telling the truth then she was attempting to put an afghan on Andrew. Which gives us an idea of the temperature of the house. IF this account is true....

You're welcome for the research, Debbie. As I previously stated, I don't put very much faith in the correctness of anything Hiram Harrington stated to the Fall River Daily Globe. I especially don’t put any stock in his ‘interview’ with Lizzie. There are a several things within the alleged interview Hiram and with Lizzie, that I feel are red flags, which lead me to believe that the interview never took place. Debbie, you mentioned Lizzie wanting to put an afghan on Andrew. I may be totally wrong, but given the fact that it was the early part of August, I don’t believe the house would have cooled down enough to warrant the need for an afghan, especially since Andrew was supposedly only going to take a short nap. (I say ‘supposedly’ Andrew was going to take a nap, because I am not convinced that he was going to take a nap. I still wonder if Andrew was attacked while standing, and fell onto the couch in the position he is displayed in.) Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rebello, page 61 (Red highlighting is mine):

Weather Reports:

Weather report, Tuesday evening, August 2, 1892. For RI, MA & CT Showers followed by clearing weather, cooler in the interior, easterly winds, shifting north. Fall River Daily Globe

Weather report until Tuesday night, August 2, 1892. Cloudy and unsettled, slightly warmer, variable winds, generally easterly to southerly, Wednesday , fair and cooler. Fall River Daily Herald.

Weather report for Wednesday evening, August 3, 1892. For New England, fair, preceded today by showers on the coast, slightly warmer, southeasterly winds. Fall River Daily Globe.

Weather report for Wednesday night, August 3, 1892. Con't cloudy, cool weather, easterly winds becoming variable. Herald office temperature: 8 a.m. 61, 12 noon 66, and 2 p.m. 66. Highest 66, Lowest 60. Fall River Daily Herald

Weather report, Thursday, August 4, 1892, according to the U.S. Signal Service at 7 a.m. 67 and at 2 p.m. 83 and at 9 p.m. 75.

Weather report until Thursday night, August 4, 1892. Fair, preceded by coast showers today, warmer Thursday, variable winds. Herald office temperature at 8 a.m. 66, 12 noon 72 and 2 p.m. 76 Highest 78, Lowest 63. Fall River Daily Herald

Rebello also stated as a note that no information was ever found for the humidity on August 4, 1892.

On Nov 02, 2006, in the thread titled, The Hiram Harrington interview – revisited, Kat posted: ...

In Proceedings, some of Jennings' notes have been transcribed. This is on Hiram:

k. Harrington, Hiram--Brother-in-law of A.J. Borden arrives at 12:05 and at 12:15 (?) hired a horse to go notify his wife because she had been sick and he wanted to tell her himself because of the shame he feared.

http://tinyurl.com/nqoyz94

This means that Hiram was at the Borden house for approximately a total of 10 minutes. The interview he had with Lizzie contained a conversation which I believe would have taken a lot more time than the approximate 10 minutes, he was there. Not only that, we all know Lizzie did not do ANTTHING in a hurry! Here is the entire interview Hiram supposedly had with Lizzie:.

Fall River Daily Herald — Aug. 6, 1892:

‘Last evening I had a long interview with Lizzie Borden, who has refused to see anyone else. I questioned her very carefully as to her story of the crime. She was very composed, showed no signs of any emotion or were there any traces of grief upon her countenance. That did not surprise me, as she is not naturally emotional. I asked her what she knew of her father’s death, and, after telling of the unimportant events of the early morning, she said her father came home about 10:30. She was in the kitchen at the time, she said, but went into the sitting room when her father arrived. She was very solicitous concerning him, and assisted him to remove his coat and put on his dressing-gown; asked concernedly how he felt, as he had been weak from a cholera morbus attack the day before. She told me she helped him to get a comfortable reclining position on the lounge, and asked him if he did not wish the blinds closed to keep out the sun, so he could have a nice nap. She pressed him to allow her to place an afghan over him, but he said he did not need it. Then she asked him tenderly several times if he was perfectly comfortable, if there was anything she could do for him, and upon receiving assurance to the negative she withdrew. All these things showed a solicitude and a thoughtfulness that I never had heard was a part of her nature or custom before. She described these little acts of courtesy minutely.

‘I then questioned her very carefully as to the time she left the house, and she told me positively that it was about 10:45. She said she saw her father on the lounge as she passed out. On leaving the house she says she went directly to the barn to obtain some lead. She informed me that it was her intention to go to Marion on a vacation, and she wanted the lead in the barn loft to make some sinkers. She was a very enthusiastic angler. I went over the ground several times, and she repeated the same story. She told me it was hard to place the exact time she was in the barn, as she was cutting the lead into sizeable sinkers, but thought she was absent some 20 minutes. Then she thought again, and said it might have been 30 minutes. Then she entered the house and went to the sitting room, as she says, she was anxious concerning her father’s health. “I discovered him dead,” she said, “and cried for Bridget, who was upstairs in her room.”

‘Did you go and look for your stepmother?’ I asked. ‘Who found her?’ But she did not reply. I pressed her for some idea of the motive and the author of the act, and after she had thought a moment, she said, calmly: “A year ago last spring our house was broken into while father and mother were at Swansey, and a large amount of money stolen, together with diamonds. You never heard of it because father did not want it mentioned, so as to give the detectives a chance to recover the property. That may have some connection with the murder. Then I have seen strange men around the house. A few months ago I was coming through the back yard, and, as I approached the side door, I saw a man there examining the door and premises. I did not mention it to anyone. The other day I saw the same man hanging about the house, evidently watching us. I became frightened and told my parents about it. I also wrote to my sister at Fairhaven about it.” Miss Borden then gave it as her opinion that the strange man had a direct connection with the murder, but she could not see why the house was not robbed, and did not know of anyone who would desire revenge upon her father.’

http://tinyurl.com/ptfhqwp


The Witness Statements page 11( Underlining is mine):

Hiram Harrington. “When the perpetrator of this foul deed is found, it will be one of the household. I had a long talk with Lizzie yesterday, Thursday, the day of the murder, and I am not at all satisfied with statement or demeanor. She was too solicitous about his comfort, and showed a side of character I never knew or even suspected her to possess. She helped him off with one coat and on with another, and assisted him in an easy incline on the sofa, and desired to place a afghan over him, and also to adjust the shutters so the light would not disturb his slumber. This is something she could not do, even if she felt; and no one who knows her, could be made believe it. She is very strong willed, and will fight for what she considers her rights. She went to the barn, where she stayed twenty minutes, or half an hour, looking for some lead from which to make sinkers for fishing lines, as she was going to Marion next week.” He spoke about the Ferry street estate being given to the girls, and afterwards being returned. He spoke at some length about her telling about the same story as was published in the News and Globe of Friday evening.

(Doherty & Harrington)

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... sState.pdf

If you recall, Lizzie pointed out in her inquest Testimony, that Hiram was a man her father did not get along with.

Inquest Testimony of Lizzie Borden -Questioned by District Attorney Hosea Knowlton (Underlining is mine.):

Q. Beside that, do you know of anybody that your father had bad feelings toward or who had bad feelings toward your father?
A. I know of one man who has not been friendly with him. They have not been friendly for years.
Q. Who?
A. Mr. Hiram C. Harrington.
Q. What relation is he to him?
A. He is my father's brother-in-law.
Q. Your mother's brother?
A. My father's only sister married Mr. Harrington.
Q. Anybody else that was on bad terms with your father or that your father was on bad terms with?
A. Not that I know of.


In Edward D Radin, Lizzie Borden: The untold story, page 197 - 198 (Hardcover) (Underlining is mine.):

"The story of family dissension told by Hiram C. Harrington, Borden's blacksmith brother-in-law, needs little explanation because it is just that---a wild and woolly story. One of the Fall River Globe reporters, who was local correspondent for the New York World, telegraphed Harrington's story to the New York paper but added an important qualifying sentence: "Mr. Harrington is embittered against the family and does not hesitate to make startling statements." Even Knowlton doesn't seem to have been very impressed with Harrington's story. After he questioned Harrington at the secret inquest, he never called him as a witness at the trial."

mspitstop wrote:Note the three (not two, as I had said) "contused wounds". The oval shape. To my way of thinking, these were the first blows struck and they were done with Abby facing her killer. If you look at a hatchet, the opposite of the blade side is a small round or oval shape and that is what I think caused those blows. After she was unconscious (or dead) the killer went to work with the business end of the hatchet.

That's an Interesting thought you have there, mspitstop. Actually it makes a lot of sense!

Andrew Borden has similar "contused" wounds. I think that this is the explanation for why there was not more blood surrounding the bodies and why blood spatter might have been kept to a minimum.

I agree, mspitstop, There is also the fact that both of them probably died with the first couple of blows, which means their hearts stopped pumping blood. Once the heart stops, there is less blood flow.

Boy, it sure looks like the handle of that hatchet was cut off rather than broken. That is a very clean snap other than the splintering along the straight edge if it was 'broken' off.

I agree, Bob.

On Sep 01, 2010, Harry posted the following pic along with the one I posted above, in the thread titled, Lizzie's Hatchet Up Close:
Lizzie's Hatchet Up Close, is an interesting read. It is well worth your time to check it out here: http://tinyurl.com/oy52otk

I wonder what the break would look like when placing a hatchet blade firmly in an anvil (I'm thinking there was an anvil in the Borden barn) and then either pushing or pulling to break it. The type of wood would need to be matched. The break here doesn't look smooth enough for a cut to me, the splinters on the one side are what I'd expect from a break or from a break that started with an effort to cut and then ended up being broken in haste. There are two stripes equidistant on the side. Perhaps markers for something? Or ineptitude with a saw? Someone, MB??, who works with tools with handles and various types of wood might know at a glance. I do think blood could be cleaned from this blade without a lot of effort, at least to meet the limits of 1892 forensics.

Yes Deb:

I'm impressed that you have studied exhibit number one so closely.

Before I get started let me add that in no way do I believe that this was the weapon used. Once the police deemed Lizzie guilty the search was on for evidence. They didn't find any. In desperation they came up with the handless axe. (In which, I believe, sat in the box with its broken handle and for some reason disappeared, was taken, and that the police, Fleet, lied about it ever existing)

I heard you say in another post Deb, when discussing events, that you "didn't know". To that let me add, very astute observation. If there is anything about this case that we can be sure of is that "we don't know."

That being said, if there is one thing that I can imperiously declare as truth is that the weapon used in the killings walked off the property with the killer. Even then I would not be surprise if I were wrong.

Now back to the said axe. I have studied the break up close at the Historical Society as it sat in a glass case. The break always fascinated me. It appears to ragged to have been cut, but to clean to have been snapped off. A clean break like the one you see is certainly possible, but usually when it breaks off right at the axe itself, when the mouth where the handle fits into the metal acts as a lever breaking the wood off cleanly. But this break is much to low and away from the iron head. If you look closely, you can see a line across the wood about an 1/8 of an inch from the bottom. Almost like someone started to cut it or stressed the wood on purpose then broke it off.

When it did break it probably did so while the hammer end was being used. Handles break off when it hits the striking object instead of the metal head. Many times the wood is crushed where the handle hits the object. It is much easier to miss what you are swing at with the hammer head than with the blade. The hammer surface is only the size of a quarter. Perhaps an inch across? The blade has a much longer striking surface. Though it may be razor thin it is 4 inches long. Even when you miss you don't really miss completely. Unless you are swinging at something very narrow. (?) One thing I must point out is the purpose of this instrument. It is meant for light use. Not chopping logs. It was designed to split and nail shingles. Though it could certainly have been used to split logs.

I have broken an axe handle once chopping wood. Not an easy thing to do unless the handle is weakened or damaged, or has been struck countless times before. When I did break the axe handle it split right down the wood. Not across. Most of the hammers I have broken....the wood was crushed and ragged. Today I use black electrical tape just below the hammer head to protect the wood when the hammer is still new. This cushions the wood and protects it. Yes, I still miss the nail.




So the break on the Borden axe if confusing. If I had to guess I would say that someone began to cut it so it could be broken on purpose. Or not?

Now:

As wood gets older it dries out. This causes it to get harder and somewhat more brittle, giving it a better chance to break off cleanly.

Below are countless examples of broken handles. The ones which were broken in service, as opposed to being intentionally snapped off, is not definitely discerned by looking at the photos, I don't think.

As you can see, most of the clean breaks are very close or right at the implement's head.

more:

This hatchet is the biggest red herring in the whole Borden case. I really believe it was ruled out by the Harvard experts as it had no blood or human hair residue and the experts all agreed that it couldn't have been cleaned quickly and thoroughly. Also the shocking testimony by Officer Mullaly stating that he saw the handle to the "handeless Hatchet" in the same box. He was contradicted by Medley. I believe Mullaly was the only officer who actually testified honestly. He was also the only officer not to receive a promotion after the trial. I wish people would stop treating this hatchet like the Holy Grail!!

I don't think it's the Holy Grail (more like curiosity as to how and why it was broken...strange things can end up being important) but I do wonder what a break would look like if it were scored lightly and then placed in an anvil so the score was exactly even with the sides of the anvil which would put all the pressure at that point. What appears to be two pencil marks or scratches on the side are there for some reason. They appear deliberate and equidistant. The third one would be right where the break it. Perhaps to mark where the handle was to be cut except a saw would not work that close to the mouth of the hatchet; it'd hit the bottom of the blade. Under these circumstances the highest possible break point would be exactly where it is. I disagree with the inability to clean it. Cold water from a well does wonders with blood in a short time. Scrubbing it with a rag, rinsing the rag and tossing that into the slops bucket...no one's sticking a hand in there! And Bridget had sloshed around out there with the windows so water on the ground would be expected. All that said, I'm not convinced Lizzie would take the time to mark the hatchet three times for scoring to then break it in the anvil. But this would explain her supposed trip to the barn. Unless those marks were each made with an inept stroke of a hack saw. Thanks MB!! :-)

MB, thank you for the examples of broken handles. They give us a totally different insight as to how the Handleless Hatchet may have been broken, doesn't it?

mbhenty wrote:Yes:

I don't think lawyer-client confidentiality comes into it here.

You see, this is not formal or business—it's a personal journal.

And it is not about what she (Lizzie) said or what he discussed with her, but what he observed, along with discussions he may have had with witnesses and professional bystanders or otherwise—notes, all written into a personal journal.

The journal belong to private citizen Andrew Jennings, not the law firm of "Jennings, Jennings, and Jennings", sort of speak.

It would be difficult to prove that Jennings meant to use the information he gathered for use in the case and could be deemed as personal, ephemeral notation. Not legal memorandum.

At least, these are my thoughts on the matter.

I think you are right about that is would violate lawyer-client confidentiality. It is a personal journal, besides, both parties involved are dead, and to my knowledge, there are no living relatives living. If there are, I don't they would care too much. As I said, both people are dead.

twinsrwe wrote:I agree with both Anthony and Violette. Haven't Andrew and Abby already been through enough? Their killer(s) got away with murder. Justice will never be obtained for these two people. Since it has been 123 years since Andrew and Abby's deaths, exhuming their bodies now would be the ultimate insult to them. Let them rest in peace!!!

Yes, let them rest in peace. Besides, even if they found something, who would they charge? Both parties are dead.

The confidentiality issue arose when people have tried to access the Borden records from the George Robinson office which is still in business in Springfield, MA. From what one gathers the Jennings journals mostly contain newspaper clippings and ephemera around the trial. There haven't been any confidentiality questions there. I was desperately hoping it might contain a report from the Pinkerton Agency as to the findings of the Pinkerton agent who was hired by the sisters to investigate the crime. He was there for a short time and then disappears from the records. I know detective agencies generate written reports to their clients and I have been hoping to locate this for a long time. I tried to track it down through the Pinkerton Agency but they were bought several years ago by a Japanese company and their old records, though archived in California, are very sparse and were never collected in any serious way. The Borden case is not in their records so the only hope I had was the Jennings' journals. I met Dwight Waring in 1992 at the Conference and questioned him about them (they were in his possession at the time). He refused to answer any questions or to let anyone see them. His reason was that he might someday wish to write a book. I suggested to him he could make a bundle by just publishing the damned journals and not have to trouble himself to write a line. He scowled. For those of you who were at the Conference, this took place after the seminar on the "hipbath collection" given by (I forget her name) the journalist who worded for The Providence Journal (?) and was present when Jenning's daughter turned over the collection to the FRHS. She said that at the last minute, the daughter gave over everything but removed the two red leather journals and kept them for her family without explanation. When I asked the journalist who had them now (1992) and were they available for research, she pointed to an elderly gentleman in the room and said "He has them." When I asked the gentleman who he was, he shortly answered, "I am Dwight Waring" and then the aforementioned conversation took place. At this point I would think that if the journals had anything new to offer, like the Pinkerton report, we would have heard by now.

I am bumping this subject up...and I heartily apologize if this information has been posted elsewhere.

If not, HAVE the Jennings journals been published?

Regarding the files at the Robinson law firm, this has always irked me. Abby and Andrew may be dead a long time, but they still deserve justice. This case has never been solved...who KNOWS what is in the Robinson papers? I've heard a representative from that law firm quoted as saying there is 'no smoking gun' contained in the confidential records, but that is just one man's opinion. This forum alone, rich with resourceful people, would tear into those files and through detailed inspection, I'm SURE, come up with something new about the case---anyone agree with me?

I agree with you but we cannot argue with the law as it stands now. I wish Jennings' journals would be published. I don't know what is causing the delay.