1. "Abby's Deathspot"
Posted by star angelo on Jun-18th-03 at 7:26 AM

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but it occurred to me as I was falling asleep last night.. an odd time to ponder a horrendous crime but something tells me that seasoned "posters" have also experienced this nocturnal phenomena. Here goes.. I was looking at the pictures that were posted of Abby's deathspot "refurnished" when it occurred to me that where she was positioned in the room - tucked neatly away in a corner - made it all the easier for Lizzie to ostensibly come and go normally up and down the stairs without seeing a dead body. How convenient! If Abby had been killed on the other side of the bed or in the middle of the room or anywhere else in the house (aside from her own room, I suppose) it would've been virtually impossible for Lizzie to be able to be at home and not notice- thus providing her or her and her accomplice, the time-frame required to wait for Andrew to return so that the murder quota for the day was met before the police were "invited" over. Perhaps a great deal of thought was put into where Abby was killed and it was not as spontaneous and passionate as most assume. Any thoughts?

A couple of thoughts:

1.  Lizzie, of course, claimed the door to the guest room was closed when she went up to her room to take her clean clothing and sew a loop on a garment.  We don't know whether that's true, but assuming it was, it wouldn't have mattered where Abby's body was placed (other than in a position that would have made it impossible to close the door).

2.  With Emma away and Bridget having no chores in that part of the house, and assuming Lizzie was the killer, it probably wouldn't have mattered if Abby's body had been in plain view, because Lizzie would have been the only other person to go into that part of the house.  Presumably John Morse wasn't going to be spending Thursday night there, else Abby wouldn't have tidied up the room and put on clean pillow slips.

3. The authorities seemed to think that Abby was first struck nearer the northwest corner of the room. In her haste to get away from the attacker, Abby (they surmised) rushed into the space between the dresser and the bed, which was probably the only real cul-de-sac in the room and a very natural and easy place for the killer to deliver the fatal blows.  IMHO, that's probably the reason Abby was killed there -- not because her body would be concealed in that positiion.  (Clearly it wasn't concealed from people coming up the stairs and gazing in the direction of the guest room.  Bridget and Mrs. Churchill saw it easily.)

The thing that always got me about the Abby's deathspot is that it is so narrow. She is not a small woman in girth and according to testimony there was not enough room for the police to walk around her to examine her----they had to move the bed. It is a tight fit actually. The only part of the room with such a tight place. And that is where she lay.

Remember there was also a chair in there, above her head against the wall and another beside the dresser. All this making this space even more of a tight fit. If the killer was in this area they would have had to jump on the bed to get out of the space. Wouldn't it be cool if after all these years there were footprints on that bed spread?

After recreating the death of abby with my sister, I am of the belief that she was struck head on, facing her attacker, in order to get that first flap wound. You can't turn your head to get that effect. You have to be facing the person. Almost a glancing blow that sort of missed the "spot", then she turned, but ended up cornered there. Then the killer stood over her and overkilled.

If it was a hatchet with a long handle I wonder how
they had room to hit her & not the chair? There wasn't
much free space to swing a hatchet -- if "they" were
crouched over her, it seems like a long handled hatchet
would have been too gawky to use -- like holding a hammer
up by the hammer itself & not the end of the handle.

And about where she ended up -- maybe the attack did
start somewhere else? Like in Evan Hunter's book -- on
the landing. Or maybe she was coming down the stairs & the
killer was coming up them & maybe hit her in the face & she
ran into the guest room to hide? Hid behind (or started
under) the bed & was attacked there? They give people with
heart problems blood thinners -- does that mean you can
have thick blood? Maybe from being 70 pounds overweight
and being in her 60's she had hardening of the arteries?
Would that make you splatter less? I guess it must be
possible to kill someone and not have a big mess to clean
up -- it seems to have happened here.

The simplest explanation to all this follows.
Nemesis was sitting or hiding in the guest room for his appointment with Andy. He was discovered by Abby, words followed, and WSB "flew off the handle". The body lay where it fell, as if Abby turned her back in disgust or insult. WSB just closed the door and waited until Andy returned and called for him. He then left the door open when he went downstairs. That's why it was open when Bridget and Mrs. Buffington (?) went to search upstairs.

My explanation to fit the known facts.
I don't think the body was dragged, since there were no bloodstains for this. No one can see through the closed door, or open it if the door was normally kept closed.

Or maybe the first blow caused her to turn around away from the attacker? (Keeping the simplest solution in mind.)

I suspect that a 30+ yr old man experienced in manual labor could easily swing the hatchet hard enough to inflict a fatal wound.
Anyone 5'8" height (WSB?) could try this at home with one of those foam tomahawks formerly sold at Atlanta Braves games.
Was their ceiling the usual 7' height?

Abby could probably have been killed in the parlour, then locked the door, and it might be a longer time before she was found.
Bridget said she didn't go in there, even tho she claimed to have finished cleaning the windows.

I think if Abby was first attacked elsewhere than the guest room, she would have been screaming her voice off while running or stumbling to find escape or sanctuary.

It could still have been planned that she die in the guest room, because we assume that is why Morse came and messed up the bed in there.  Maybe the girls wanted the parlour pristine for the many visitors they knew they would be receiving condolance visits from starting Friday?

(I think they had a *thing* for the parlour and it was the nicest room in the house.  They wouldn't want to dirty it.  If one thinks about planning a messy murder, maybe they would choose the room ahead of time.
Can't be the elder's room because Emma would want that.  Not the parlour it's too nice.  Certainly not Lizzie's room...and it can't be the cellar because Bridget may be going up and down there.)

--Which room would anyone choose in their own house, I wonder

Draper backs up your scenario, Stef. He says that "wound on the left side of the head ... was given while Mrs. Borden was standing and facing her assailant." (Trial,1056)

***After recreating the death of abby with my sister, I am of the belief that she was struck head on, facing her attacker, in order to get that first flap wound.***

since she is still posting, i trust this wasn't too literal.  no more than a bandaged flap wound, i hope.

I think I'm fine and dandy.  But maybe I'm in the Spirit Realm?

(Message last edited Jun-18th-03  9:38 PM.)

This matches the wounds on Andy's left side of the head.
Definitely a right-handed killer then. And strong enough to slice through skull bones with one stroke. Anyone try this with the head of a pig or cow? (You could ask any rural relatives who butcher either.)

***Anyone try this with the head of a pig or cow? ***


has anyone here ever done so?   is it difficult/easy?  what does it feel like?

kimberly:

***They give people with heart problems blood thinners -- does that mean you can have thick blood? Maybe from being 70 pounds overweight
and being in her 60's she had hardening of the arteries? Would that make you splatter less? I guess it must be possible to kill someone and not have a big mess to clean up -- it seems to have happened here.***


you crack me up!! hhahaa!  i know what you're talking about but this strikes me as funny. 

the only thing i've read about the "modest" splatters is that it indicates the killer accomplished his objective right away -- so that the vast majority of blows were after victim was dead while heart was not pumping. 

which raises some of our other favorite questions:
1.  if the killer was experienced butcher or something akin to it, why would he trouble himself to strike abby about 15 more times than necessary?
2.  Since killer did batter outrageously, what does this say about who killer is?

I agree that the ferocity of the attack on Abby betrays something about the killer.  Would an experienced butcher really need to hack away 19 times?  Wouldn't a "hired killer" want to do the deed with relative economy of time and effort?  Also, I see no need to suppose the attack occurred anywhere else but right there in the bedroom--Given the evidence there is no need to suppose that Abby was attacked on the stairway, etc.  BTW I watched the wonderful moving graphic of Lizzie swinging the axe ("Take that--and that--and that") and counted to 19--try it and you'll see what hatred/rage/ferocity the killer must have had.  It takes a shockingly long time to hack 19 times. 

Defense Attorney Robinson (quoted in Porter's book) said more than once that 'this savage attack was the work of a madman'.

In anothr case, I heard (on talk radio) that the 25-30 stab wounds on Ron Goldman showed he was the hated target of a frenzied attack.

Ever hear of anyone getting stabbed multiple times in your area?

NOT ME. But the person would have to have hatred or frenzy to whack so many times. Any normal human inhibitions would be absent, IMO.

Not a pretty thought, but how many strikes would it take to
kill a cow?  I would imagine it would be many. One or two
gunshots would do the deed but with an axe I think many swings
would be necessary.  And maybe Abby had to be swiped a few times
to get her in that corner thus adding up the number of bruises.

That's a really good idea, RH.
WE all should experience that animation 19 times, and imagine...

Did the defense say it was the work of a madman, Ray?  A madman could not have waited an hour and a half minimum, between kills, nor could he think to clean up so he could walk the streets and not be noticed.  IMO.
Also in the OJ case the killer got in, slaughtered, and got out.

I also believe a professional (Whether butcher or hitman) would not have used so many blows.
The ones to the back of Abby's head are all directions...looking very untidy and inept.  But the killer may have learned something from the experience with Abby.

(I still wonder how, if it was Lizzie, she got out of this with no wounds herself?
If it were an outsider, there could have been wounds to the assailant we never knew about)

  Already did that, sat and watched the Lizzie animation for 19 whacks, it is a long time!

I've always had this idea that since the Bordens had the farm, there might be animals like a cow and such there.  Lizzie may have witnessed them putting down an ailing animal with an axe or hatchet to the head, may have asked questions since she cared for animals so much; like does it hurt much, how many blows do you have to give them to kill them and where?

This explanation may have been in Lincoln, but, there was that one hatchet that was found with two white hairs caught on it, wasn't it used to kill a cow?

Then I always have that thought in the back of my head that Andrew Borden was blessed with 3 daughters, he obviously wanted a son to carry on his name, hence the Lizzie Andrew.  Could it have been Andrew who taught Lizzie how to swing an axe to put down an animal?  He did kill those pigeons, whether he wrung their necks or not, he had to know how to do it.  Might he not have passed this info down to his favorite daughter? 

I looked it up -- blood thinners are to prevent clots --
not thick blood. If the killer kept hacking away even if
they were dead after being hit once -- maybe they couldn't
tell when they were dead. Just one more to make sure? Like
Susan Atkins saying she kept stabbing Sharon Tate until she
stopped screaming. Mabye the Bordens were twitching or making
sounds & the (inexperienced) killer thought it was sounds of
life and not dying?

Good point, Kimberly.  Maybe the inexperienced killer just kept at it until there was no longer even a peep or groan out of Abby.

Dr. Draper testified to his opinion on how long they might have survived after the blows.  This is from the trial, vol2, page 1055+:

"Q. Doctor, taking the results of your observations, what should you say as to the time of death after the wounds were inflicted?
A. I am able to form an accurate judgment in the case of the man. I can only approximate in the case of the woman.
Q. You may give your opinion or judgment.
A. In regard to Mr. Borden, the cutting across of the internal carotid artery within the skull meant immediate death. In the case of the woman, there was stunning from the first blow, unconsciousness, and the length of survival might be five minutes, might be ten. Death might have come in one minute.
Q. You put the extreme limit at ten minutes?
A. Yes, sir."
Q. After all the blows were inflicted?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Ten minutes after all the blows were inflicted?
A. Yes, sir.


I've always thought that was a partial reason why Abby received more blows.  Whether Abby made any noises of course we will never know.


(Message last edited Jun-20th-03  1:16 PM.)

I have no personal experience, but if Abby or Andy were just hit in the head with a maul (or blunt end of hatchet), that would knock them unconscious and prevent any vocalizations. Slicing through the skull into the brain should kill quickly, like a bullet to the brain.

The story of the repeated stabbing is simply that a wound to the chest or abdomen is not immediately fatal. (I guess a trained killer could kill with one stab, as taught in the military.)
...
Does a beheaded body still twitch and move? I never watched those snuff films.


(Message last edited Jun-20th-03  12:57 PM.)

But to be clear, we know the doctor's will not claim which one of Andrew's wounds was the first and which the second, etc., so we also don't know when the artery was cut, in the sequence of blows.
I have heard that nobody really dies instantaniously.
It would be as long as it took, no matter the form of dying, for all the oxygen to be out of the system, where the lungs shut off, and the starved brain stops functioning.
(does that make sense?)

***Could it have been Andrew who taught Lizzie how to swing an axe to put down an animal?  He did kill those pigeons, whether he wrung their necks or not, he had to know how to do it.  Might he not have passed this info down to his favorite daughter?***

ha.  how ironic.

picture this:  you get in a time travel machine and go back in time to one of those days on the farm and there is andrew teaching lizzie how to use an axe?  what do you say to andrew? 

 

once you bury an axe in a person's brain -- they are goners, as much now as then -- isn't this true? 

it may be necessary to distinguish this from "technically speaking" dead.

but we get into a grey area of passage, don't we? 

if we ask it this way:  if killer had penetrated abby's skull into brain once as opposed to a number of times -- would this have any impact on inevitability of death or time it took to die?

Kat, I really posted that for it's references to Abby.

The moment of exact death is hard to medically define.  I'm certainly no doctor and what one is aware of, or feels, during a time period like Abby suffered is beyond my knowledge.

Needless to say it was a cruel and horrific battering whether she was aware of it all or not.

Apparently not so. Your question is a good one and reminded me that I have a really interesting book which I haven't read in many a year. It's titled "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine" written in 1896 by two doctors, Gould and Pyle.  Forgive me for this long extract from it:

"Head Injuries with Loss of Cerebral Substance.-The brain and its
membranes may be severely wounded, portions of the cranium or cerebral substance destroyed or lost, and yet recovery ensue. Possibly the most noted injury of this class was that reported by Harlowe and commonly known as "Bigeow's Case" or the "American Crow-bar Case."
Phineas P. Gage, aged twenty-five, a foreman on the Rutland and Burlington Railroad, was employed September 13, 1847, in charging a hole with powder preparatory to blasting. A premature explosion drove a tamping-iron, three feet seven inches long, 1-1/4 inches in diameter, weighing 13-1/4 pounds, completely through the man's head. The iron was round and comparatively smooth; the pointed end entered first. The iron struck against the left side of the face, immediately anterior to the
inferior maxillary and passed under the zygomatic arch, fracturing portions of the sphenoid bone and the floor of the left orbit; it then passed through the left anterior lobe of the cerebrum, and, in the median line, made its exit at the junction of the coronal and sagittal sutures, lacerating the longitudinal sinus, fracturing the parietal and frontal bones, and breaking up considerable of the brain; the globe of the left eye protruded nearly one-half of its diameter. The patient was thrown backward and gave a few convulsive movements of the extremities. He was taken to a hotel 3/4 mile distant, and during the
transportation seemed slightly dazed, but not at all unconscious. Upon arriving at the hotel he dismounted from the conveyance, and without assistance walked up a long flight of stairs to the hall where his wound was to be dressed.
Harlow saw him at about six o'clock in the evening, and from his condition could hardly credit the story of his injury, although his person and his bed were drenched with blood. His scalp was shaved, the coagula and debris removed, and among other portions of bone was a piece of the anterior superior angle of each parietal bone and a semicircular piece of the frontal bone, leaving an opening 3-1/2 inches in diameter. At 10 P. M. on the day of the injury Gage was perfectly rational and asked about his work and after his friends.
After a while delirium set in for a few days, and on the eleventh day he lost the vision in the left-eye. His convalescence was rapid and uneventful. It was said that he discharged pieces of bone and cerebral substance from his mouth for a few days. The iron when found was smeared with blood and cerebral substance.
As was most natural such a wonderful case of cerebral injury attracted
much notice. ....Professor Bigelow examined the patient in January, 1850.... Bigelow found the patient quite recovered in his faculties of body and mind, except that he had lost the sight of the injured eye. Upon the head, well covered by the hair, was a large unequal depression and elevation ...."

I have no idea what the medical terms mean but it does show what can be endured.  This was a drawing which accompanied the story:



(Message last edited Jun-20th-03  4:25 PM.)

Yes, thanks, it was a good reference.  I understand.
I am only annotating Draper's opinion as to Andrew for the reading public.
I know you know what you were writing. 

Current rule is when brain waves cease. The heart can still be kept beating, and breathing, by machine. Or so I've read.

My answer is: NO. My grandmother was the one to kill chickens, and also gather eggs. My grandpa milked, and did the bigger animals, or so I was told. (Before they moved to the city after losing their farm, like millions of others.)

(Message last edited Jun-20th-03  4:27 PM.)

Years ago I read of a person (coal miner) whose skull was pierced with an steel bar, and lived on after it was removed. But I wouldn't recommend you try this at home!
...
Yes, that must have been the event in that old "Ripley's Believe It or Not". Were there also WW I & II stories about head wounds?

(Message last edited Jun-20th-03  4:32 PM.)

No WWI stories Rays, the book was written in 1896.  However, there are many similar stories of head wounds in all wars where the patient recovered at least to some extent.

I am in no way saying that either Abby or Andrew could have recovered (obviously they didn't) but it does show the body's amazing ability to recover and that brain wounds even to this degree are not necessarily fatal.

I've never watched any snuff films either (they say they
don't really exist) and I have never witnessed a human's
death in person. They have some very graphic stuff online,
deaths that haven't been cleaned up or edited for TV news
programs. I saw the Daniel Pearl video, the edited version,
it didn't include the killing, just the aftermath. And, there
was one of a Russian(?) soldier getting his throat cut -- I
have never been so horrified in my life. I can't fathom how
people can do such things -- maybe murderers are different
from everybody else. If Lizzie was one of "them" how did
she stop it? Is being a nutcase something you can control?

It's not a certainty that a blow to the head, ipso facto, produces unconciousness.  Anyone of us who have sustained a bad bang to the head from a too-low cupboard can attest to this - in fact, I will, personally. I have also met the floor with my head as a result of a boyhood neighbor trying to "flip" me, and while I saw lights, I never lost conciousness, even as blood started to flow from the inside of my mouth, which I'd bitten (I can still feel the scar).

Therefore, the first blow to Abby's head, presumably the one which caused the flap above the left ear, may have sent her, shrieking, away from Lizzie or Nemesis, but she may have been awake through much of the subsequent attack. 

Phineas Gage was medical miracle -- in more ways than one.  The fact that he survived such a massive brain injury -- especially in that day and time was amazing.  But his survival with a brain injury contributed a lot to early studies of localization of brain function before such methods as CAT scans or MRI's could even be imagined. 

If I remember correctly from my psych books -- the area that was damaged was the ventromedial region of the frontal lobes. Gage's speech and language processing remained intact -- but his personality changed radically.  He became socially disinhibited and used profane language etc. -- altogether in opposition to his previous nature.  This personality change helped doctors who were studying the correlation of brain function and behavior isolate the functions of the frontal lobe area.



 

I had made my little comment way back when then got bounced off the computer by another brown-out.  We're having Power woes here.
Meantime our brother phoned and I told him I had just read the exceprt about this guy and was frustrated because just as I was about to view the attachment my computer quit!
Well, he had been pre-med years ago and I think they had studied this case because he did know about it.  He said the guy's personality changed and they did study that way back at the time.

Thanks for the interesting article, Har!

Does "Bowling for Columbine" contain such death scenes?
I only watch Broadcast TV, and its censorship.
About a dozen years ago there was a Penna state official who commited suicide on camera for the news reporters; censored over the air.
This is what I mean by a "snuff film". Any other rumored events could just be "movie magic", and I would NEVER pay to watch anything so disgusting.

I've been thinking about this, and I suppose the killer in these kinds of *overkill* crimes are more likely to stop stabbing or axing (whatever) when they were exhausted and sated.
I think what Susan Atkins said was her way of explaining the inexplicable in terms a *normal* person may want to hear.  Like *I stabbed until she stopped screaming.*
I think that is a cop-out on her part.

The killing is the release.   The object of the action  (Which is to killdead) becomes secondary to the mindless thrill or thrilling horror the person killing is experiencing.  Something takes over, something primitive and evil, and something we can't comprehend.  It is the fuel which inflames the person, takes them over momentarily..they give themselves up to it, they overkill because they like it.  Susan Atkins was not going to admit to that, at least at first.
Whoever killed Abby was such a type, I think.

i basically agree.  once started, the killer "got turned on" by it.

it's not a "hitman" job.  it's a killer who got a thrill from it.  and/or wanted them dead as dead can get.  dead and them some.

I just went looking at some sites for motives for killers, the breakdown is pretty interesting.

Visionaries - Acts in response to voices and is instructed by these voices to perform the act of murder.  These killers are usually schizophrenic and psychotic.

Missionaries - They think it is their responsibility to rid society of unwanted elements.

Hedonists - Kill because murder causes them pleasure.

Lust Killers - Kill for sexual gratification with acts that are usually sadistic.

Thrill Killers - Kill because of a desire for a thrill or experience.

Gain Killers - Kill for personal gain.  The killer premeditates the act to require financial gain or materialistic goods.  While gain is not the main motive in a murder some serial killers have took the opportunity to steal from their victims for their own personal gain.

Power Seekers - Kill for the desire to have control over the life and death of others.

Which combination of these fits our Lizzie, if it is thought she did do it?
And which would apply if she set it up?

I think the last three categories would fit Lizzie (If she did it):
Gain seekers, thrill seekers, power seekers.  She surely gained from the crime, she could very well have spiced up her bland life with the exhiliration that may have come with killing people she may have thought were preventing her from taking her "rightful" place in the world, and, let's face it, murder is the ultimate manipulation of someone(s)!!--it sure is an effective way of "controlling" someone!! Though I certainly do not advocate it.

"Power" might describe Lizzie if she set it up, I suppose.
Also "Gain".  But there's something missing from these cataegorys, to pin-point the personality type of someone who has the fantasy to kill. yet hires it out.
Under the law, they are just as guilty, but in their mind there must be some rationalization they can live with?

if you must choose one of those offered, lizzie's motive is GAIN.  she wanted to change her life, and there were some obstacles to it.  i don't know that she had a desire for power over others.  i think lizzie was practical.  she selfishly wanted some things (i'm assuming here she did it).  she wouldn't have done it out of what we call abnormal psychology.  more like what we call cunning and ruthlessness.  she could have done this BECAUSE she could remain so calm and lie so easily.. example inquest:  lie at times so ridiculously and yet still calmly defy anyone to call her a liar.

I kind of agree about the gain thing.  But I also keep in mind the Feminist vision that Lizzie was ahead of her time, wanting emancipation from the wicked paternal authority figure who ruled her life and kept her down, under his thumb.

Theferefore Lizzie getting her name on Director's rolls at the Hospital Auxillary, owning stock in her name, traveling to the Continet, becoming a Landlord..Living a life as seperate as possible from the father and his wife....all these things show Lizzie as striving to carve a life for herself out of nothing, with no help from anyone.  She even adapted her personality to accomodate Society and Church work, making friends above and beyond her *parents* social strata.  All these things gave this *lowly* female some Power, which was really in the wave of change happening right then in that time.

She climbed up by her bootstraps, she thought, though her father's largess was responsible for her toe-hold.

We mustn't forget that Feminists claim her.

Maybe she was intent upon righting (what she perceived to be) injustice and liberating herself "by any means necessary."  Maybe for these reasons she truly did not believe (if she actually killed them) that she did anything wrong.  Thus, she could calmly declare herself innocent in good conscience.

Lizzie is/was "not guilty". IF she did it (never happened) it would be more to keep what she would inherit, rather than a "gain".
The frenzied attack on both elderly persons say a "madman" (as per Robinson's descriptions).

Around Sept 1994 I heard a talk show where the caller (a retired NY Detective) said the multiple stab wounds on Ron Goldman shows he was the target of a frenzied attack, and Nicole was the innocent bystander, not the other way around. He offered to tell this to either the defense, prosecution, or both. (Obvious low opinion of LAPD?)

You can try this at home in this hot weather. Take your hatchet to the woodpile and strike pieces of wood ten times (as w/ Andy).
Does it leave you red-faced and winded? Yet no one noticed this w/ Lizzie. (Assuming she called Bridget as soon as she discovered Andy.)

Bridget may have found Lizzie agitated, and Mrs. Churchill may have found her pale-faced, as I remember, but we really don't have any way of knowing, if we suppose that Lizzie did kill Andrew, that she turned right around and hollered for Maggie, do we?  Therefore, her lack of huffing-and-puffing, at least as much as we have anecdotal evidence of, cannot possibly be taken to support her innocence. 

I see your point, but I still think Lizzie would have to have been in a pathological state to kill, hire a killing, or be cool about the whole thing later.
So essentially it is all about her, whether she sublimated her actions, thoughts or deeds into some kind of acceptable format of serious Feminism, or not.
She didn't continue with her organisations, or her openly charitable works or her committees or align with Feminist Groups.
She may have been a Selfish, Narcissistic Feminist, Pathological*?

*by this word I mean "deviates from the normal".

But could her icy coolness be a sign of her cultural background? Maybe some others would have been screaming, etc. (Then would that be held against her?) Maybe she was just stunned into this coolness.

20 years ago when I came over to visit my Dad (he's been quiet for a while, said Mom), I found him sitting in his chair, just staring. His hand was cold and clammy. I immediately called the ambulance, etc. But I felt nothing (then). Its as if I replicated Lizzie's coolness. So I can believe her coolness. His heart attack was not unexpected.
(I really don't want to get personal here.)

Have YOU ever been in an accident, or have some accident happen?
I once witnessed a neighbor who gashed his arm while working. His wife, a nurse, was becoming hysterical over the blood loss (not an artery). Her husband was very matter of fact over it, as if he had been hurt and bleeding before. Every individual can react differently?

I really don't mean litterally that Lizzie was from the first, and ever after, cool about the deaths.  And not *Icy cool* which was not my term
I can't know that.  I wouldn't assume to know that.
She probably had hidden moments of horror or regret or fear, tears, arguments with Emma...all kinds of natural reactionary behavior that we didn't see.
We were discussing a tendency, an idiocyncracy, which might give a clue as to Lizzie's *patholgy*.

Yes, every individual can, and will, react differently.

My little sister started to laugh when the sand bar we were standing on shifted and we were suddenly in 20-plus feet of ocean with an undertow.  She didn't scream, she didn't cry...she laughed.

Rebello's timeline, supposedly taken from the witness statements and the preliminary hearing and trial testimonies, says Bridget went to her room between 10:56 and 10:57.  Very shortly afterward, she heard the city hall clock strike the hour of 11:00 and checked her own clock, so those times are fairly well established.  At 11:10, Lizzie "hollered" to Bridget.  So Lizzie would have had a very short time in which to catch her breath and regain her composure, especially if she had been frantically hiding a hatchet, washing up and changing clothes.  These times may be somewhat inexact, but they are bracketed by events that can be more precisely fixed, such as Mrs. Churchill's departure from Hudner's Market and Cunningham's call to the police station.  It's the timeline that puzzles me most about the Borden case.  IMHO, Lizzie's "calm" demeanor could be explained by the fact that she was in shock, either from having committed two grisly murders or from having found Andrew's mangled remains.

YES, but "by and by" the jury verdict, the facts, and AR Brown say she was "not guilty" (not the same as innocent). She was fortunate in having a better life than Dr Sam Shepard (or OJ?).

Didn't Mrs Churchill say she saw Lizzie on the back steps acting strangely, or upset? THAT suggests some sort of emotional posture. Maybe cleared up by the time strangers arrived? Just standing or sitting on that little back porch suggests something unusual.
...
My guess or speculation is that Bridget went up "a few minutes" after Andy returned home. Lizzie told her about the sale, as if trying to get her out of the house. I believe this was for Andy's meeting with WS Borden, which required secrecy (like other family secrets). Pessimists may say this was to remove a witness, but can't explain how leaving a live Bridget would prove an alibi? Which is another reason why I think Lizzie was innocent of the crimes.

(Message last edited Jun-25th-03  1:25 PM.)

Mrs. Churchill saw Lizzie inside the screen door.
When she arrived, Lizzie was sitting on the interior steps which led to the upstairs.
I don't know how odd this may be, but it is what Mrs. Churchill saw and experienced, in case this helps you visualize where Lizzie was.

Inquest
Churchill
128
...At the screen door, standing by the screen door I saw Lizzie as if she was in great distress.
Q.  How did she show that?
A.  Perhaps she rubbed her head. I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance....
.....
....When I got there she sat on the second stair which is right at the right of the screen door as you come in, the back stairs.

(Message last edited Jun-25th-03  5:48 PM.)

The spot between bed and wall is narrow, but the fact that there were blood spatters on the bedspread certainly suggests that the murder did take place at that site.  I do not think Abby could have been killed elsewhere and then moved; there would be too much to clean up and telltale evidence for the police to find.  I think it is very possible that Abby did turn once as the blows were struck.

I watched a "Matlock" episode early this morning and he was on a jury.
He was the sole hold-out to convict a man of murdering his wife.
Somehow she had to have gotten from the bed to the bathroom and hit her head and died.
The other jurists said that the husband could have chlorophormed her in the bed and dragged her off the bed and into the bathroom and knocked her head on the tile.  (This was the prosecution's theme of M.O.)

Matlock had a lady who was of the weight of the deceased wife, 180+, climb on the table and then asked the man who was "holding out" for guilty try to move her.  He was 150 lbs.  He could not even budge her off the slippery table top.
He also blew a gasket trying to move her.
He ended up convinced that the scenario proposed by the prosecution was invalid.

Did Matlock then get sued for forcing that juror to "blow his gasket?"

I think Lizzie's distress, such as it may have been, could have been indicative of either guilt or innocence, unfortunately.

What attorney in his right mind would allow Matlock on a jury?  (Yes, folks, I do know Matlock is a fictional character.  Not like Sherlock Holmes, who of course is real.)

Isn't the entire premise of the film, flawed?

It was always my understanding that a lawyer, or other "officer of the court," could not serve on a jury.

Okay you guys you crack me up.

Jim says Abby probably wasn't moved after being attacked, by the killer.  If it was Lizzie at 140 lbs. it might be impossible for someone her size to move someone of Abby's size.

I think the only way she could have been moved, if she was, would be to partially roll her over.  Basically twisting her torso.  Maybe pulling her by the ankles a few inches as well.  These are the only ways I can think of.

I used to be in good enough shape to pick my mother up off the floor.  I weighed more than I have in my life during that period.  But she helped by pushing up with one hand, arm, and by bending her legs.  She was probably about 160 lb.
I think the more you weigh the more you can lift.

As to Matlock, that fool prosecutor, his friend wanted him on the jury I suppose because Matlock had plans to go fly-fishing with his daughter.  A little pay-back?

Is it true a lawyer can't serve on a jury?  I thought everyone was ellible, according to specific laws in their state.

Whee!  I can just see Lizzie rolling Abby like a hoop from room to room and maybe up and downstairs as well.  Something about Abby's appearance, as she lay on the guest room floor, gives new meaning to the phrase, "dead weight."  It would be hard to convince me that Abby was moved very far from the spot where she fell.

Yes, and there are other occupations that prevent jury service.
Not that a defense attorney would pick an employee of a police dept!
When you get a jury notice they will list the exceptions.

Wasn't "Matlock" a great drama series? One of my favorite 1980s shows.
"Dragnet" was revived and moved to Sat night. This may be based on an actual event from the early 1980s. The mistress of a then dead close friend of Pres Reagan was murdered; rumor said she had a video from one of her keeper's sex orgies, and sued for "palimony". But we'll never know. (Was the name Blumenthal from LA?)
...
But this provides an example of testing theories by repeating their events.

(Message last edited Jun-26th-03  6:01 PM.)

I think Abby's body was moved when the bed was removed for the photo op...recall in the photos available everywhere that the bed is absent and the camera tripod legs are visible in the reflection in the mirror of the bureau.  I think that she was sort of wedged between the bed and the bureau when she was whacked and in order to get the bed frame out of the way for a better photo her body was moved and "placed" in a more photogenic position.  That's my tale...

BobCookBobCook

yeah, but the notions posted by some that abby was murdered somewhere else and put there between that dresser and bed is ridiculous.  the blood evidence is clear enough on that count.  "why" is one thing but that is where the old lady died. 

Most (?) current state laws make it a crime for unauthorized people to move a dead body (CSI). Was this true then? They did remove the bed to take some pictures that afternoon.

From my somewhat limited knowledge of things but with the help of my police detective brother he informs me that in 1892 and until maybe the post WWII era it was rather "routine" to move or re-position the body of the deceased if -- and that's a capital IF -- necessary.

"If necessary" referred to any case where the body would or could be viewed "better" with the removal of objects, such as the bed in our case.  All this changed with the introduction of formal forensic studies of crime scenes. 

Nowadays police photographers literally "hang from ropes" if need be in order to photograph the body no matter what position it may be found in.  Of course with today's high speed shutters and digital cameras one need not move the body during photo taking.

In the Commonwealth if a person is "declared" dead (which Paramedics and EMT's can do) vs. "pronounced" dead (which only a state recognized Medical Examiner can do) the body is NEVER EVER moved until all necessary photos and measurements are taken.  This has been the cause of numberous traffic tie ups on I-95 and other highways while the police investigate a fatal crash.

Once the M.E. (Medical Examiner) has given his OK then and then can the body be removed usually be a local funeral home.  I must also point out that the M.E. doesn't have to be in attendance of the body either, he or she need only give removal approval to the local authorities and the rest is history.....

BobCookBobCook

State laws vary, of course. I thought "Weegee" in the 1930s established his reputation with photographs of crime scene victims before the bodies were moved away. All were in public, I think.

Practices change w/ advanced knowledge (all I know is from CSI).

That is a very interesting post, BobCookBobCook.  Thanks a lot!

I don't know about a law that states a person can't move a body.

In the distant past, it seems I've heard and read of people trying to kill someone who was already dead, and they didn't know.  That usually comprised moving a body somewhat.  I think it was some kind of misdemeanor if prosecuted?  Include a scenario where a dead person is moved by a bystander from the street in case of getting run over before authorities arrive.  I can think of instances where I think it's OK to move a body and not be prosecuted or arrested, then or now.

There's also cases of someone dying naturally and just leaving them in the bed to mummify and not reporting it.  These are not huge laws broken, I don't think.  There's something about a dead body that has less laws about it, than a live person, I believe.

For all intents and purposes if someone, other than a legal authority type person, ie police officer, paramedic, etc. moves a dead body with the intention of rendering immediate life saving or minor movement necessary to make a "declaration" or "determination" of death, should move the body prior to the arrival of the officals there is no law, at least in the Commonwealth, that would be considered a violation and therefore cause such person to be placed under arrest. 

However; in the event a person interfers with a crime scene that person, including law enforcement people, can be charged with a crime, sometimes called "obstruction of justice", remember the O.J. Simpson case?  Recall the accusations lodged against Detective Forman for "placing evidence" at the scene that supposedly did not have any connection to the scene?

There is also a law on the books in the Commonwealth that addresses the issue of "improper handling and transportation" of a dead body. This law is usually an addendum to a more serious charge of homicide in the cases where the murderer attempts to dispose of the remains in an effort to "cover up the crime". 

Well that's quite a bit for Law 101 for today....

BobCookBobCook

Thanks Bob.  Seems like it would be "tampering with evidence" as well.

Lifting a 200 pound limp body would take considerable strength, way beyond the average person's ability.

With your experience as a fireman have you ever attempted to pick someone up of that weight?

I do not believe for one moment that the more one weighs, the more one can lift.  If that theory was true, then a 400 pound overweight person would be able to lift more than an in-shape, solid 175 pound adolescent for example.  And one of those poor 600-700 pound souls that appear from time to time on tv talk shows should be able to bench press an aircraft carrier.  The ability to lift heavy objects has far more to do with muscle tone, coordination, upper body development and leverage than one's body weight.

Years ago, my mother was very ill with cancer.  One day, I helped her to a bathroom and on her return to her bed, she sank to the floor and I could not help her up.  She was alert but physically unable to move.  She probably weighed 150 pounds or so, but she was absolute dead weight.  I was in my early thirties and in decent shape (I run and lift weights) but I could not budge her alone and had to summon help.  A helpless human being, unlike a solid set of metal weights, goes limp and their weight is unbalanced and uneven rendering them almost impossible to lift and move without assistance.

No matter how one measures it, Lizzie was not exactly the picture of vigor.  Maybe she did manage to knock out Abbey and drag her prior to hammering her with the axe, but I doubt it.  Firstly, there is no way Lizzie could have lifted or carried Abbey who was grossly overweight and large enough to apply for statehood. Lizzie, who was rather hefty herself, would have had to drag the poor woman prior to unleashing her fury upon her with an axe.  That very scenario sounds more like a slap stick comedy scene than preparation for a gruesome murder.

Secondly, what an odd place to drag the body because it certainly did not give Lizzie much room to manuever and wield that axe.  The idea that Lizzie might use some technique to render Abbey unconscious and then drag her dead weight to that part of the room on a day when the temerature and humidity were unbearably oppressive and THEN proceeded to slaughter her with repeated axe blows makes absolutely no sense.  Somewhere along the way, the violent passion, that pent up fury, the burning desire to destroy that woman would have been lost. In that heat and humidity, out-of-shape and over dressed Lizzie would have ended up in a sweltering heap on the floor next to her drugged step-mother. That whole scenario is too stilted and too theatrical for the brutal reality of the crime scene.

Everything points to the fact that Abbey was attacked from behind.  She was caught unaware and pulverized by an intensely angry and impassioned killer.  And she was killed between the bed and the wall of the guest room because that is where the murderer found her that morning. 



(Message last edited Jun-28th-03  10:55 PM.)

I had a similar experience with our mother.
But I am talking about girls.
I was 147 lbs. and was lifting almost dead weight every now and then, and I was strong, just from my daily duties with her.
When I became ill, and 105 lbs.  I still had the same duties And my mother weighed less, but my strength was nil.  (The illness was a digestive disorder.)
So I was lifting things for 10 years, basically the same duties, but no strength.
When I weighed more, and was still ill, I could lift a lot.
As I've gained weight again, in the more normal range, I have been relatively inactive except for walking, but I am much stronger.  I recently lifted almost dead weight of my neighbor at 72 lbs.

My girlfriend is very stong.  She has recently quit smoking and gained about 30 lbs.  She is stronger than ever, at lifting things.  She used to be 145lbs., at 5'6", and a telephone lineman.

I was using *girls* as example.  I don't know about *boys*.  But I guess you just told me, thanks.  So maybe there is a difference? 

I don't know how we got off on Abby dying elsewhere, or the origin of the attack as beginning elsewhere.  That makes not much sense to me either.

(Message last edited Jun-28th-03  11:16 PM.)

From what I remember from biology class, men's strength is mostly located in their upper bodies, women have it in their lower bodies.  I think there was something about our points of balance being different too.  Have you ever tried that experiment where you go and stand by a wall and bend over and touch your head to the wall and someone puts a chair in front of you to lift?  I think it was men aren't supposed to be able to lift it, but, woman can. 

Thanks, Bob, for that info.  I've made myself unpopular with some devotees by insisting that we can't depend upon the Borden police photos to tell us anything definitive, as there was no conception of "the crime scene" as such until decades later, and that those bodies were most definitely prodded, poked, and moved before the photographer arrived.

Nowadays, one would hope that the remaining family would be removed to be photgraphed and sequestered.  The scene would not only be photographed, but video-taped, as well.  I'd love to go back in a time machine and, if I couldn't invisibly witness the murders, calmly note just what Lizzie WAS wearing, and take a peek into that pail of bloody rags as well.  No Victorian sense of decorum in my way!

Spectacular foul-ups still occur, like The Ramsey case, or as I like to remember it, "Let's send Daddy to look for a body!"  

(Message last edited Jun-30th-03  12:23 PM.)

Bob - indeed! who wouldn't want to use the "way back machine" and actually either witness (invisible of course to others) or as you point out...take lots and lots of notes...but then if that did happen and especially to you, you'd be the alpha and omega of this case and we of today would be...well non-existence...but it's fun to dally in the dream of it, I'm with you.

RE: those "crime scene photots", I have advocated during my short time here on the forum that the bodies and their surrounding were, without malice, moved and re-positioned for "convienence".  Whose? the photographer!  The man behind the camera which is clearly visible as being the "black box with a cape" style of the era and no doubt required a flashbar, had to have the bodies positioned for lighting.

In the case of Mother Dearest the bed needed to be removed as the natural sunlight was from the west and would have come in through the door to the guest room.  The front window would have had some loss of light due to the large shade tree out front.  Movement and re-movement of the body.

In the case of Father Dearest ditto on the sunlight except that the sitting room has two windows facing the west and the Kelley house next door would have caused a slightly diminished quantity of natural afternoon light.  The sunlight would have been optimal in the "center of the room" not the center of the wall (between the dining room door and the kitchen door).  Ergo...the photographer has his best light if the sofa (and the body) are moved northerly towards the parlor door which places the left arm (as you face the photo) of the sofa closest to the dining room door jamb.

This movement or re-positioning of the sofa and Father's remains has lead many to believe that the sofa was "always nearest the dining room door".  I, personally have always felt this is not the truth.

Soooooooo...that's my tale and I'm....well you know...stickin' to it.

BobCookBobCook

There'a a 50's comic-book treatment of the story in which a scientist do go back, and discover that Andrew, all set to run away with pretty little Bridget, has doped both his wife and Lizzie and is going to kill them both.  He does away with Abby, and the scientist enters the fray, and ends up killing Andrew.  He returns to the future, leaving a confused and innocent Lizzie to stand trial.

Before I ever knew about that cominc, I wrote a short story in high school about how the government had declared study of crime to be illegal, and they'd "pacified" history by undoing famous murders (I know - but it was high school!).  An obsesso goes back in time, and re-commits the Borden murders, which is a mortal offense, but, who'll know it was him?  And he'll get to relish the records of it until the Lawgivers pacify it again.  So, he returns to the present, where someone in his apartment complex has just been slaughtered with a sharp instrument...can you guess what happens to him, with that bloody hatchet in his hand?

We're fortunate to have whatever photos we do have, though it's a pity one shot of Andrew on the sofa was deemed enough.  With the publication by the FRHS of that grisly shot of Andrew's autopsy (what a horror his cleaned-up face is!), and the (thank you, Koreys!) recently deciphered shot of Abby as a bloody mess (not to mention the portrait of her shaven, broken head), we've got a lot, comparatively speaking, to look at.  I'm especially taken by the unedited version of Abby, "feet first," in which you can see a jaunty little fellow (the photographer's assistant?) seated on the far side of the bed.  You can see part of the door which lead into Lizzie's room, and it's tantalizing to think she may have been literally on the other side of that door in her "pink wrapper" being tended to by Alice or Bowen at the very moment the photo was taken.  Like "the ghostly policeman" in the full version of the sitting room picture, the presence of living people makes the photos more immediate and shocking to me.

I was looking for a suitable topic to stick this info and get an opinion as to what we see here in this picture.  "Abby's death spot" is right where this pic goes.
I admit I only read, just now, Bob G.'s last post here and I liked it so much there was no question not to re-open this thread!  Wonderful post Bob!
......................

Now, I have been trying to figure out where the washstand was which ended up with bloody water.  I didn't know if I knew where it was usually situated in the guest room.  A couple of nights ago I found in the Preliminary Hearing(250), that Morse agrees that the wash stand is located on the south side of the room, on the west side of the door.  He also agrees there is a *table* on the west side of the room as well.

To me, since this pic has a reverse vision of the guest chamber it's confusing, &  I want to know if that is the wash stand in the mirror on the left of the camera, and if it is, has it been moved? Or is that the west side of the door on the south side of the room?



(Message last edited Sep-11th-03  7:05 AM.)

Yes, I remember that cute, imaginative story & it was nice to re-read it!

That's definitely in the south west side of the room.  However, doesn't that look like it's situated over the threshold, as tho it's been moved & is being used as a kind of barrier to keep people from going in & out of the room?

Along those same lines, where was the bed when this photo was taken? They must have taken it apart as I think it was too large just to push over to the southeast corner.  Apart, the pieces could be stacked that way and not visible.

In the full-blown shot of the photo Kat posted it shows a large white reflected area to the left (the west wall) so it may have been in part stacked there. Some of it also could have been out on the landing.

Then they must have re-assembled it because Morse slept in it that night.

I may regret asking this but...
Do you have those autopsy photos Bob mentions?  I've never heard about those. I think this is the first time I've seen this photo of Abby before too.  Very sobering, yet fascinating.

Benjamin, they are on the Lizzie Andrew Borden Virtual Museum and Library site:  www.lizzieandrewborden.com.

Here are links to the pages with them, they are under the autopsy notations, scroll to the bottom of the pages for the pics.

Andrew:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AutopsyAndrewBorden.htm

Abby:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/AutopsyAbbyBorden.htm

Personally I think the one photo of the back of Abby's shaved head is the worst one of the bunch! 

Thank you, Susan!
I agree with you about Abby's shaved head. I took a psychology course this past Spring and who knew that I'd use some information from that class looking at a crime photo. I was thinking, "Wow, that's Abby Borden's occipital lobe."  I was also thinking it wasn't the best idea for me to check out those photos right before going to bed.  I'm gonna go watch The Simpsons so I won't have nightmares.

You know, when I posted that photo, I just stopped short of acknowledging Abby's death scene there...to give her some respect as victim, tho I wanted a picture of the room.

I don't lose sight of the victims, nor compassion for them.  That is why I'm here I think....remembering that this murder was never solved and these victims had no justice and deserve as much as someone killed today.

There was a photo Bob G. referred to tho that I had enhanced to show what Stef and I saw in Abby's autopsy photo.  He was mentioning that because no one could quite figure out what they were looking at.

You know those optical illusion pictures?  If I first see one one way, it is VEry hard for me to adjust to seeing it differently.  That is why it took 2 of us to decide what we saw.

If anyone sees it differently, please point out another perspective.

(Message last edited Sep-12th-03  1:05 AM.)

Abby was last seen in the dining room by Bridget with a feather duster, yet Abby is not found with one.  Where did she keep that and she must have put it away before getting the pillow shams (downstairs).
I believe the *pillow shams* were given the authorities, along with the bedspread, by Mrs. Holmes.
Well, what have we decided that wadded up piece of cloth was by Abby's side on the carpet, if it's not something with which she was dusting?
.....
Also, is it determined that the washstand (in pic) was in the room, out of the room in the hall, or to the west of the door or to the east of the door?

Did Morse actually sleep there in that room that night?
Is that in testimony do you think?
I found where soon after we hear he has moved to the attic.  Why not Thursday night?  Bridget wasn't occupying her room that night.  It would have been more suitable for the single male to remove himself to the upper floor.

HI.I do so hate to be a bother but;I have jst been on a site RE:MY FAVOURITE PHOTO OF LIZZIE.And it seems that there are a lot of pictures of the family that i have not seen.Any suggestions as to where i can view these pics?

Isee you are referring to our archive.  I recognized the title you gave and *phrase searched* it at the Archive section of the LABVM/L.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive0602/LB/ArchiveLBFavPhoto.htm

The family pictures are at our Museum/Library:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/LizziePhotographs.htm

The Emma pic is part of the family group( but not contemporary to each other) put together by the B&B, photo by John Clark:


I believe this is the one of Lizzie which Stef liked the best...

Hi Kat!
I was just re-reading some of the posts. I hope my comment about the occipital lobe didn't come across as flip. I meant no disrespect to Abby. It is just such a horrific crime & photo and viewing the photo from a more "academic" standpoint helped give me a bit of distance from the awfulness of it.  Her autopsy photos, as well as Andrew's, really bring home the point of just how much rage must have been involved in the crimes. The fact that I had to look at some of the photos for a bit before I figured out exactly which way was up was very disturbing. 

On a lighter note, That photo of a younger Lizzie that you posted that you said was Stef's favorite: That's my favorite photo of Lizzie as well!  I tried to find a postcard or replica of it while in Fall River, but David at the FRHS said it was a fairly new aquisition and that they hadn't done any sort of printing/copying.

i think my favorite lizzie pic is the one after the trial where she's holding the back of the chair.  notice how much she favors her daddy.  i also treasure that one because she's looking directly at us.  in one glance you can see both strain and relief. someone said this in a former thread and i agree that she really does have beautiful hands.

I thought your post was very appropriate and because of what you mentioned, I realized my first instinct to give some respect to Abby when I *used* her pic was probably right on.
I think it is right to study the pics dispassionaltely as long as we realize first that was a human being.  I was basically reminding myself.  I wouldn't presume to think you had done otherwise.
The fact that you are here means to me that you care about all this.

I hear this but I don't see it.
Maybe I will post a comparison.

I think Andrew was nearer Lizzie's age in this pic than when he was in his late 60's (the regular pic we always see of him).
What's the vote?



(Message last edited Sep-13th-03  12:05 AM.)

Does this photo remind you of a certain Senator elected in 2000?

YES, the best looking picture of her, unless its the one from her teens. This was actually a snapshot not a studio portrait. More relaxed in this one?

First, Any has lidded eyes, Lizzie does not.
Then Andy frowns, Lizzie has a slight (forced?) smile.
That's my opinion.

Thanks Kat! Yeah, the one thing I dislike about internet communications is that we lose the subtle nuances of vocal intonation, which can say a lot more than just words.
  These do help, though!

Personally I think Lizzie takes more after Sarah than Andrew.  Emma on the other hand looks like she took more after Andrew.

Yes, I can see what you mean,Susan.  I didn't see it with Andrew.
The heaviness at the cheeks, the nose is somewhat similar, and the lips are very similar, in my opinion.
It would be good to have seen Sarah's ears for comparison.
Have you all seen the early portrait atributed to Sarah?
That one has me Totally baffled!
(PS:  Benjamin, you really are welcome here so we are a group, like-minded.)


(Message last edited Sep-13th-03  10:28 PM.)

what strikes me the most in the comparison is how much prettier lizzie is than her mother.

compare lizzie's chin, her cheek bones, her forehead, the shape of her eyes (brows included) -- she's getting her looks from somewhere else.  i don't know what you girls are seeing, but lizzie is miss victorian america in comparison.

What if this portrait, above, is her mother, before having babies?
That picture, believe it or not, is a recognized portrait of Sarah.

I think Lizzie looks fine for her time period.  The best in her later family, anyway.
But if she were here now, she would look funny.

That pic is somewhat scary -- must be that high hair. She looks
a lot happier in that one -- I wonder if it was pre-Andrew? Or
could it be a blushing bride? It looks 1000 years before the one
with Emma -- she was at least as big as Abby in that one. I just
had a thought -- Andrew's wives start out skinny & end up very
overweight, not just pleasantly plump, not just middle-age spread,
they were big. Maybe they turned to food as their only source of
pleasure? I was beginning to think he liked his women bigger --
but it looks like they both started off small.

I have to disagree; I've always thought Lizzie to be very attractive.

Today, she'd have a bit of make-up, & seeing as she was very fashion conscious, she'd be all hip & up-to-date now.  I think she'd be a babe

Thanks, Kat! 

I suddenly have this image of Lizzie running in slow motion in the opening credits of Baywatch. 

Is it a photo or a painting?  I'm trying to look past the hair and at the face only, but, its hard!  I keep thinking, Girl, your hairdo is a hairdon't!!!  It would probably help to have the two pics side by side for comparison.  Oh, that hairdo! 

But isn't gaining weight the common fate of people who have enough to eat and are not overworked? Do you fit into your teenage clothes?
Not even an old cap fits me. Wool shrinks.

Hi Kat.Thankyou for the photos,I am so pleased with the one of Sarah Morse,I have never seen the picture before.I would like to know more of her life with the then young bordens..

I'm lucky if my clothes fit after I wash them -- so I'm not
going to worry about the size I wore 15 years ago.

***I think Lizzie looks fine for her time period.  The best in her later family, anyway.***  now that i definitely agree with -- in fact, it's true if you compare her to the other three women in the house at the time of the murders.

if lizzie looks more like that portrait attributed to a younger sarah?  i dont' know.. perhaps....i don't know.

this maybe-lizzie picure later in life intrigues me.  i cannot almost believe it really is her.

I don't think that one looks like her at all. Too mousey.

Jumel, I have a better version of the portrait.  It looks to be a painting.
It is to be found in : Williams, Joyce G., J. Eric Smithburn, and Jeanne M. Peterson. Lizzie Borden: A Case Book of Family and Crime in the 1890s. Bloomington, IN: T.I.S. Publications Division, 1980.

--Has anyone seen it elsewhere?
--I'll throw in an Andrew, too.  Apparently Andrew's later photo is not such a good copy.





If you want to save these pictures, they will be removed by Arborwood in a week or so...

(Message last edited Sep-15th-03  1:28 AM.)

If you want to put makeup on Lizzie, then yes I agree she can be pretty.
If she walked in here raw in her hairdo, I think she would look funny.
I didn't think of make up.  I don't wear it nor my girlfriend nor my neighbor...I forget there is that.

For Susan:



(Message last edited Sep-15th-03  2:07 AM.)

Thanks, Kat.  Boy, put them together and they sure do look like family.  I still can't get over that hairdo!  I think part of it is that weird flap of hair on the left of Sarah's head. 

that picture of her i like because it shows the light color of her eyes (and therefore probably to best "effect" the "look" people mention).  also, that's the "prettiest" lizzie picture in my opinion.

about the photo itself, notice the subtlety of "meaning" in that behind her right side is dark and to her left is light?

i'm glad you say what you do about makeup.  it can cover up or make a "comedy" out of natural beauty.  how much makeup did victorian women wear as a rule -- does anyone know?

Generally none, unless you were a woman of ill-repute.  & then, it was commonly just rouge.

I think once you were a matron, married and with children, a little powder on your face was considered acceptable.  I've read things about Victorian women biting their lips to redden them and I'm sure you've seen movies where Victorian women pinch their cheeks to redden them a bit.  The natural look was in, anything else as Tina-Kate said would mark you as a "soiled dove". 

I'm sorry I did not divulge that I had *flipped* Lizzie's picture so each portrait was facing the same way.
Believe it or not, behind the left side of her face is dark.
see:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/LizziePhotographs.htm

You sure notice things!

i see.  and i didn't realize you had flipped it.  the difference is there, though, isn't it?

you know how van gogh was always doing something with "backgrounds" on portraits?  i think he did something like this with a self-portrait -- though that might have been a different sort of split -- it was a deliberate split anyway.  i know his work well, but i haven't looked at them in a while -- though i think it was the "severed ear" period. 

if i were going to "do something" with the photo, that's the type thing i would notice as an "indicator" of "where to go with it."

that's like your "night no more."  who knows what was really there at the starting gate?  but it's a valuable tool for getting somewhere.  i do realize i'm talking about art now and not case facts.

Doesn't the photographer have the say in the portrait pose, lighting and special effects back then?
How much does the sitter contribute to the outcome and how much is the result of the artist?

I would think, then as now, unless you go to a photographer wanting a certain pose, they will tell you what to do.  I just went on a photoshoot last weekend with a photographer friend of mine.  A friend of outs that was visiting wanted full length shots (from head to toe) and suggested the location to do it in.  He posed her, did stuff with her hair, told her to smile or not, look at the camera or away.  Posed her hands, told me how much light to reflect on her with the reflector, etc.  Her concept, her idea, all of his work as a portrait photographer. 

I also like this picture of Lizzie. She looks lovely really - very ladylike with a girlish quality.

From what I have read about the Victorian era, "ladies" did not use cosmetics - only actresses who also were not highly regarded.

Found a couple of interesting links on Victorian make-up:

Many an Edwardian society hostess in middle age was in urgent need of the help of cosmetics and by 1900 face enamelling was once again beginning to be accepted among society ladies. The Edwardian society hostess's complexion, ravaged by age, a high carbohydrate diet, spasmodic exercise, combined with living in a dirty polluted atmosphere was far from radiant. Queen Alexandra flaunted her make-up and shocked and amused observers. But she epitomized the feminine ideal of the Naughty Nineties. Ladies were more discreet and despite a gradual acceptance of make-up in the 1890s, it was still considered 'not nice' to admit to its use.

From this site: http://www.fashion-era.com/make_up.htm

And I found this site that you can't copy from at all:

Mother's Victorian Vanity-http://www.angelfire.com/ar3/townevictorian/mothersvanity.html

photography then produced many accidents or flaws that are hard to explain in terms of what someone wanted.  but if  you see something that works conceptually, why not explore it (not as something someone "wanted)as though truth was trying to "sneak in" on all concerned?  who knows?  light and photography still "play games."  the "coincidence" factor and the "truth" factor arouse suspicions or play with our heads?  i meant to make a small but intuitive point that might mean truth.  or it might mean nothing.