Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Patricia Cornwell used her forensic talents to try to figure out the Jack the
Ripper thing. Has any professional ever done that with the Lizzie Borden case recently? It would be very interesting.

I have never heard any body trying it on the lizzie case, but I am relatively new to this forum. But it would be interesting to see what a person would come up with. Although I do know that there was a mock trial a few years back and they acquitted her.

Angel @ Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:26 am wrote:Patricia Cornwell used her forensic talents to try to figure out the Jack the
Ripper thing. Has any professional ever done that with the Lizzie Borden case recently? It would be very interesting.

What would a modern forensic scientist test today in the Borden murder case? Specifically, this would seem to me that there would be physical evidence surviving that could examined using 21st century science. What such physical evidence remains, and what sort of tests would you think could be done on it?

Is there any physical evidence remaining?I mean, the crime is over 100 years old. But it would be interesting to see if the River Falls police department has saved anything. Anybody up for finding out what they have saved?

Well, the Ripper case was over a hundred years old too, and Cornwell studied quite a few things. I don't know what is left of any clothing, axes, walls in the house with blood in the basement, or whatever is in the museum, but aside from that, there could be psych profiling, etc. that could be done.

Yikes it could take forever bringing new Bordenites
up to speed (and I'm not getting any younger).
The archives are a wonderful resource to research
what has already been discussed, I'd sure recommend any newcomer to utilize that feature of
this forum. Not to say that I don't love hearing new
opinions or rehashing a point, but to go through each thing from the beginning, things already discussed, is so tedious and boring. Snokums please read the archives, I think you have some valid questions and interest, however you will find your answers in the archives, and hopefully form new and interesting questions.

I bought the Cornwell Ripper book, began to read it and immediately fell asleep.

I also watched her special on the death of Princess Diana.

She needs to stick to Kay Scarpetta... But even those books are beginning to take on a new tone which I do not like....

She does have some lovely jewelry....

I have the Cornwell book as well, but I have not read it yet. I recently picked it up while shopping with my mom and we both bought a copy. Thanks for the warning Audrey. I have been putting that book on the back burner while reading other things. The most I've done is flip through the pages of pictures included in the book. Maybe I put it off for a reason? But now I'm really curious I'll have to start reading it.

Stef read that but I didn't get very far.
I don't remember why.

As to testing evidence in the Borden case now, the handleless hatchet could be tested? If Borden blood showed up at least we'd know the weapon.
Also, when they were making that new video Lizzie Borden Had An Axe they tested for blood in an obvious place. But I had requested they spray the Luminol at Lizzie's threshold to her bedroom- because if there was blood there she lied- because she swore her door was closed and locked.

Kat @ Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:20 pm wrote:Stef read that but I didn't get very far.
I don't remember why.

As to testing evidence in the Borden case now, the handleless hatchet could be tested? If Borden blood showed up at least we'd know the weapon.
Also, when they were making that new video Lizzie Borden Had An Axe they tested for blood in an obvious place. But I had requested they spray the Luminol at Lizzie's threshold to her bedroom- because if there was blood there she lied- because she swore her door was closed and locked.

How are you figuring the blood might have ended up in this spot?

Kat @ Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:20 am wrote:Also, when they were making that new video Lizzie Borden Had An Axe they tested for blood in an obvious place. But I had requested they spray the Luminol at Lizzie's threshold to her bedroom- because if there was blood there she lied- because she swore her door was closed and locked.

No. All that would prove is that some blood was found at the threshold of Lizzie's bedroom. That blood could possibly be menstural blood of Lizzie's from long before the killings, etc.

If there were menstral blood found in the doorway of Lizzie's room, I would think it wouldn't be much...unless an errant drop fell exactly as she passed through the doorway. I can't see her just standing in the doorway 'bleeding'.


Tracy...

Golaszewski....

Tracy is right... Trust us.

They would probably have to get at the wood area below the rug. I figure if Lizzie swore her door was closed and locked and bllood was found there (dripping blood or swipe marks from clothing) then it might show conspiracy. (She let someone in who was bloody). It could also be from Lizzie herself going into her room to clean up.
If I was Lizzie, I'd get locked into my room pretty quickly to get cleaned up. Any marks on the doorway or threshold might be telling. Of course I'd expext them now to be able to differentiate between just junk there, and real crime-scene-style evidence. Ron Shipp was there and a crime-scene re-creator- I forget his name- but he was pretty good.

Excellent points Kat. If there was any blood found in that area, it would most likely be crime-scene related, and therefore in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related.


Tracy...

theebmonique @ Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:51 am wrote:Excellent points Kat. If there was any blood found in that area, it would most likely be crime-scene related, and therefore in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related.


Tracy...

But if there had been blood there in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related, wouldn't the police at the time likely have noticed that?

theebmonique @ Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:51 am wrote:
Excellent points Kat. If there was any blood found in that area, it would most likely be crime-scene related, and therefore in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related.


Tracy...

But if there had been blood there in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related, wouldn't the police at the time likely have noticed that?

Probably not, if there had been a decent clean up attempt by the killer and/or any accomplices.


Tracy...

Golaszewski @ Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:27 am wrote:

theebmonique @ Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:51 am wrote:Excellent points Kat. If there was any blood found in that area, it would most likely be crime-scene related, and therefore in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related.


Tracy...

But if there had been blood there in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related, wouldn't the police at the time likely have noticed that?

Luminol shows the traces of *hidden* blood. When a murderers wipes up the gore, there are still microscopic traces left. Luminol shows that blood.

Lynn

Luminol shows the traces of *hidden* blood. When a murderers wipes up the gore, there are still microscopic traces left. Luminol shows that blood.

Lynn

But in that case, Luminol would reveal any small amounts of "monthly" blood that could easily have got there. A Luminol test would prove nothing. What would be needed are forensic tests that could reveal not only was blood found there, but also whose blood.

wonder if you can buy luminol from the internet?

lol

http://www.securityandsafetysupply.com/ ... nce-5.html



HAHA They do sell Luminol!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if theyd let me Luminole there?

Quote:
theebmonique @ Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:51 am wrote:
Excellent points Kat. If there was any blood found in that area, it would most likely be crime-scene related, and therefore in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related.


Tracy...

But if there had been blood there in more substantial amounts than anything 'monthly' related, wouldn't the police at the time likely have noticed that?


Probably not, if there had been a decent clean up attempt by the killer and/or any accomplices.

My apologies. I should have clarified my response. My comment on the clean up attempt was in reference to a visual inspection by the FRPD at the time of the murders. There could have been 'a lot', but could have gone unnoticed due to being wiped up. If there IS some blood there, luminol would almost surely be able to pick it up if there had been enough to soak through to the oringinal floor boards.

What are the restrictions/regulations on the use of luminol by the general public ? Are there any ?


Tracy...

If Lizzie had gone into her room to clean up, there would be blood not only in just the threshold of the door in this case. Other areas in the room should also be checked.

Well, at least Mr. G. is willing to try Luminol!
First they have to take a sample of anything *suspicious* or *likely* because once the Luminol is used, it will degrade the specimen found.
I don't know about Lizzie's whole room. Many people lived there after the Bordens.
I think, with the big skirts at the time, brushing against woodwork, in 1892, would give decent odds that it came from Lizzie or whomever. (A man would brush blood on the woodwork from his pants differently, I think). Something bleeding or dripping blood entering a room -that room- might be interesting.
Of course, as I say, I'm relying on the expert to determine what is there and also to analyze any findings.
I should write the producer, Tim, and ask if they already did this!

Reading through the comments on testing for blood, could one take this a step further and test logical entry/exit paths for the presence of microscopic blood evidence? Could it be possible that a "trail" of blood, invisible to the naked eye, might have existed - and may still exist? - in that house?

I too read the Cornwall "Ripper" book, and while I may not agree with all her conclusions, her creative use of what evidence remains from that case, together with today's incredible technology, has made me hope that something new could be learned in this case as well. True, there might be even less evidence still in existance to test in the Borden case, as compared to the Ripper murders evidence, but I can't help but think that what does remain may yet have information to yield. I think that, much like Cornwall's approach, it's how to go about getting what remains to tell us something new - that is the challenge for scientists and arm-chair detectives alike!

I asked for them to check for trails as well. Then I told Stefani they probably already thought of that because they were crime scene experts. I'm wondering if they did check and it yielded nothing they wouldn't include it in the video? That's why I should at least ask.

I was told that the skulls of Andrew and Abby were buried separately from their bodies, in boxes above the coffins. If this is the case then the right thing to do would be to reunite their heads with the rest of their bodies.

To do that would require an exhumation. While you are at it, if you are going to go that far you might as well do modern forensic tests on the bodies. If we find out that the Handless Hatchet is the murder weapon, it won't answer the question of who did it, but it will answer the question of the hatchet

With modern technology and testing that was not available in 1892, we might be able to tell if Andrew and Abby were being poisoned.

There's a new Prof. Starrs book out- Stef just gave it me. I'll see if there's anything in there.
A Voice For The Dead.

I don't know a lot about this, but in my estimation, as long as all the body parts are there, there is not considered a need to put the parts in the proper place.

***Reading through the comments on testing for blood, could one take this a step further and test logical entry/exit paths for the presence of microscopic blood evidence? Could it be possible that a "trail" of blood, invisible to the naked eye, might have existed - and may still exist? - in that house?***
________

this was THE question in my mind.

after seeing what they did in fact present and knowing no more -- my guess is that they were restricted from doing what we would like to do -- for example, pulling up the guest room carpet and testing every square inch, plus the hallway, landing, stairs, etc........and the same from andrew's body. even the slightest maybe of a blood trail, say from andrew's body to a window (for example) would have been exciting.

I just read the section on the Borden case in Prof. Starrs new book.
He states:
"But where were the skulls of Abby and Andrew? They disappeared after Lizzie's trial without any documentation as to their whereabouts. They continue to be among the missing."
He does go on to say that since he can't exhume, he can't prove it but his second ground scan in colder weather seems to indicate a second burial: he calls these "subsurface anomalies."

A Voice For The Dead, James E. Starrs with Katherine Ramsland, G.P.Putnam's Sons, published by The Penguin Group, N.Y., Toronto, London etc., 2005, p 240-248.

Cornwell didn't really come up with anything new, she just used old stuff in a new way, and came up with a culprit who's been known for over 50 years. If you want something new about "Ripper," lets see the $ 15,000.

I just finished reading Cornwell's book. I wanted to start it awhile ago but I got interested in other things. I'm always reading something. I am a voracious reader. I will buy or take out 3-4 books at the library at a time.So if I start one book and it doesn't grab me right off, I'll finish the others first. I thought her evidence was very convincing. I've also looked up some of Walter Sickerts paintings and seen samples of his handwriting that didn't come from the book. I think there is some real evidence there. Some of his pictures are very creepy. And maybe it is just because I looked at them after I read the book, but I do see a resemblance of some of the women in the drawings to the Ripper victims.

As I was reading the Cornwell book last year I too started looking up Sickert paintings but I recall I couldn't find any- I think I found a sketch or 2 in black/white?

Can you give me the link to his paintings? Thanks!

BTW:
A Voice For The Dead, James E. Starrs with Katherine Ramsland, G.P.Putnam's Sons, published by The Penguin Group, N.Y., Toronto, London etc., 2005, p 240-248

You all might ask your library for a copy of this book. It says some not very nice things about the Community Borden and does bring up one interesting thing.

Here is just one of the sites I found.It has a bunch of links that will take you to "galleries" of paintings and drawings by Walter Sickert. I even found a copy of the painting he did called "Jack the Rippers Bedroom." I would post it but I am not sure of the site where I found it I would have to go back and look. I have a bunch of his art saved to my computer now. All the links posted on this site will take you to Sickert paintings.

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/si ... chard.html

Well that didn't take long I found the link for "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom."



http://www.manchestergalleries.org/coll ... vQuery.php

i've looked at sickert's paintings. he's interested in the morbid underworld of the society he is living in. he's interested in current events in general. he certainly imagines a jack the ripper figure. this is where the author loses me -- that this equates to the works of a man who is jack the ripper.

take edgar allan poe. his narrators killed people and cut them up for no reason whatever and then confessed and destroyed himself over it. but poe never hurt a fly.

my point is -- it is an odd disconnect to imagine a morbid creative endeavor as something part and parcel with the actual murder of humanity. this is where cornwell comes off as being rather dim-witted. she reacts to sickert's paintings and becomes convinced that her imagination has actually nailed the real jack the ripper. why would jack the ripper duplicate his murders in paintings, when his real work was in the murders?

morbid subjects in all media succeed gloriously when the artist himself is haunted and tortured by horrible things, while personally unable to confront anyone about the simplest of things. i mentioned literature -- we could get into film, too, for that matter. i don't buy the cornwell theory.

but let me be fair. is there a confirmed example of where a serial killer put it on canvas or paper? jeffrey dahmer put it in the refrigerator.

i think cornwell made a fool out of herself with this theory, and revealed that she is no artist. (not that she ever claimed to be -- but i can see that she isn't - that i can see clearly -- i can't see that sickert is jack the ripper.)

Gacy is one who painted his twistedcrazed self in his own painting usually of him as that scary clown....................http://www.supernaught.com/crimefiles/topshelf.htm

Theres some pics of his art scroll down to see.

Gacy was a clown.
I think Sickert would have wanted to have been Jack The Ripper, and he may have penned some of the notes to the police and investigators. But if he were the actual killer he probably would have gone mad long before he actually died. Cornwell doesn't like him because he was an untidy bachelor, which I guess she's not. But he was brought up as a Ripper suspect before she was born because of the subjects of his paintings, and I wouldn't give you a nickle for any of his work, but you could probably get a couple million dollars for it at southeby's.

yes gacy was a clown and painted himself-in his true evil form--------------
the evil twisted murderous clown!

Well yes Gacy was a true clown. But he didn't prey on the hapless. His subjects were always, can I use the word ."fagg---," i can't use the word. I was stopped. But Gacy didn't just haul people off the street and murder them. He didn't grab children and rape and murder them. He took people who wanted to be with him and was clever and even killed a marine. So he was a different type of killer. That certainly doesn't make him any better, it just makes him different.

Thank you Allen! I only saw his architectural renditions last year! I don't think these were available online at that time.
I thought maybe Cornwell bought them all up to take apart looking for DNA! Thanks again!

I thought Gacy killed young men he brought home to whom he offered jobs? Construction or remodeling jobs? Got them loaded then did his thing?
The last victim, for which he was finally caught, I believe was supposedly a fine young fellow, innocent? These young men could be considered kids, I think.
He was a lazy killer who didn't want to travel to get his victims and dispose of them. He stayed in his community.

That's not so *different* anymore- see the BTK, and Green River Killer, Dennis Nilsen, Dahmer...Dean Corell in Texas "The Man With The Candy"

I agree about the differece in *doing* or arting about it, Eugene. I once went to the local art festival with a notebook to write down my thoughts. I sat on a bench and I wrote first: "I could have brought a pen or a camera."
To experience the art, I could not write about it...so I sat and wrote about the experience of sitting writing about it.
It was self-conscious.

Kat @ Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:42 pm wrote:BTW:
A Voice For The Dead, James E. Starrs with Katherine Ramsland, G.P.Putnam's Sons, published by The Penguin Group, N.Y., Toronto, London etc., 2005, p 240-248

You all might ask your library for a copy of this book. It says some not very nice things about the Community Borden and does bring up one interesting thing.

Better yet, next time you're in a bookstore, just read the last bit.

What I didn't like about Cornwell was that there was a book, and earlier accusations of Sickert being the Ripper, and she doesn't mention them. The book was supposedly by a relative of his, though he had no children nor did his sisters as far as I saw. Kat probably knows all about it.
I did read the book, and she says she spent two million dollars researching it. Between us, she'd have been better off giving me $ 15,000 and having some concrete new knowledge about Jack The Ripper.

Kat you are awesome yes you are right on the Gacy thing-!:)

Actually, john, Stef probably knows "all about it." She's read about 4 recent Ripper books and then lent them to me and they are just sitting here for now. I never finished the Cornwell and I didn't see the whole TV show on it either. I knew about Sickert from my earlier readings on the Ripper- from about ending maybe 3 years ago? I think I have about 12 Ripper books not including Stef's new purchases- Sickert is definetly in the Index!.

Nona, was I correct? I haven't read about Gacy in Years! (I did look up the spelling of Dean Corell on Google tho.)

I don't know much about the ripper. I just found a clue a while back dealing with one of the princial suspects, and interestingly when I touught the ripper was Montague J. Druitt, and this other thing popped at me.

Actually, Haulover, there are people who believe that Poe did kill a woman, and some evidence of that. More if you're interested.