The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "The trail of blood"
Posted by harry on May-14th-02 at 11:47 PM

There is a distinct absence of blood leading away from both murder scenes. I know the rooms were all covered with rugs and any blood would have seeped into them.  But that doesn't mean that the blood could not have been seen upon close inspection.

I haven't found much of any search being made to find any such blood. For instance, from the guest room to Lizzie's room, from the sitting room to either the front or back door, etc.

This is one area where modern forensics would have been a great help. Today the use of Luminol would have highlighted any traces. This little article on Luminol gives an idea of it capabilities.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/onthecase/toolbox/tool_01.html

This lack of a trail of blood seems to me to support the finding of Lizzie without blood on her. What I mean is since there is no trail, there does not appear to have been much blood on the murderer or they would have dripped it off of them. No trial, no spatters on the killer, no blood on Lizzie.

If there WAS blood leading FROM one place to another, then when no blood was found on Lizzie it would have been more conclusive proof of her innocence, would it not.

I think that there was blood, at least a few spots, but just not noticed by the police.  The heavy traffic of people on Thursday must have obliterated some of this evidence. That same traffic may have also carried blood from one crime scene to the other.

I agree Stefani, the absence of a trail of some sort, hurts Lizzie. The more blood there is, the more innocent she would likely be.

Harry, wasn't there blood found on the sitting room door on the kitchen side?  It may have been from the handling of Andrew's body, but, I seem to remember reading about it and found it quite interesting!  Could you imagine if they had had Luminol in Lizzie's day?  I'm sure that we'd have quite a bit more evidence today on the case. 

There really seems to be blood everywhere if you look for it, just not dripped by an assailaint:
-Dr. Dolan says he got blood on his "pantaloons" (Prelim., pg.119).
-John Crowther, a reporter says "he got blood on his shoes while going around the house, says Dr. Foley did too." (Proceedings, Hip-bath Collection, pg. 217).
-George Petty says he "went upstairs, got down on my knees to examine Mrs. Borden's head..."  (W.S., pg. 21)
-Dr. Albert Dedrick talks about the bloody water basin in the guest room and that he "called Dr. Bowen's attention to this, and he said perhaps some of the Doctors washed their hands there...I  had put my hands in Mrs. Borden's wounds, and when I had washed my hands, I took the towel from Dr. Dolan, who had just finished drying his..."  (W.S., pg. 22)

We can imagine the blood transfer taking place, and the dripping wet bloody hands of the people examining the wounds.  We even had in the Prelim. Dolan being asked if he washed before handling the hatchets!  (Which, BTW., he does remember doing, pg. 146)...

--(Last edit to provide page numbers)

(Message last edited May-15th-02  4:01 PM.)

Boy, Kat, you did your blood research, didn't you?  I also recall that there had been some conjecture about a bloodstain on the window frame in the Guest room.  It seems that the stain was made by someone looking out the window and not a splash of blood.  I will have to check through my books and see if I can find where I read this again.

Here is Dr. Dolan being questioned at the Preliminary Hearing about blood in guest room, re: window:

Pg. 163
Q: Did you look on the screen of that window?
A: Yes sir
Q: There was a screen in the window, was there not?
A: Yes sir
Q: Did you see any blood spots on it?
A: Not that I could say were blood
Q: Was the window open?
A: I could not tell you that
Q: How did you get at the screen?
A: It was an inside screen
Q: Did you look at the window?
A: Yes sir
Q: Did you raise the screen before you looked at the window?
A: Yes sir
Q: The window was shut was it not?
A: I mean afterwards, not at that particular time
Q: Did you find any spots on the window?
A: No sir
.................................
Pg. 178
Q: As a matter of fact, did you find any spots or drops of blood upon the frame or the sash of the window in this guest chamber which was just beyond the bureau?
A: I saw what appeared to be blood at first, but careful examination showed they were on the outside of the window, and therefore could not very well be blood
Q: When you say on the outside of the window, do you mean by that on the outside of the glass of the window, or the sash?
A: The outside of the window, of the glass
Q: The question I put to you was whether you discovered any spots of blood upon the sash of that window?
A: I do not recollect that I did sir
Q: Was not your attention called to it by some person or persons at the time when you were there searching and examining?
A: My attention was called to what appeared to be blood, what the person thought was blood, one day when I was there
Q: Is that the blood you have already spoken of, as being outside of the glass of the window?
A: Yes sir, one also I think on the frame inside of the window
Q: Do you mean the frame of the window, or the sash of the window?
A: The window frame
Q: Where was the spot on the inside of the window?
A: I could not tell you, I did not pay much attention to it;  I examined it at the time
Q: You did not think it was blood?
A: No sir
Q: Is it there now?
A: I could not tell you

(Message last edited May-15th-02  3:58 PM.)

Boy, Kat, you're good!  That was what I was refering to, but, could not find which book I had read it in.  So, I guess maybe there was no blood on the window frame, just alot of talk about it? 

I remember one *book* talking about how if there was dirt on the guest room window then Bridget hadn't done a very good job that day!  Since Bridget's orders probably did not include the upper story windows, I had always remembered this exchange from the Prelim.
Besides, I have read the Prelim. about 3x so I can easily find things in there.  It's the Trial I'm not experienced with yet, as I've put off reading it until the perfumed potpourrie pages dissipates.

Thanks for the info Kat.

There does not appear to be (or at least the police didn't notice it) any blood leading from Mrs. Borden's body to the guest room door, on the landing of the front stairs, the stairs themselves, the front hall, the front door and the small hall from the kitchen to the back door.

The killer would have had to come out of the guest room and across the landing no matter who he or she was.

Perhaps nobody there gave it much thought after the shocking murders? They saw what they expected to see, and noted what they thought was important.

Just since you've brought this up, Harry, I've noticed in two books one-liners about no trail of blood.
But that's IT!
Nothing more is said, so I didn't make note of it.  They add absolutely nothing to an explanation of why no blood trail.  Just remark upon it and move on...

I guess that's what we'll end up doing?

(BTW:  We know some Bordenites think it's possible the blade was wiped on Andrew's folded coat, whether it was worn or not duing the execution.  Did you see the "Hiram Harrinton" post where he says Lizzie says she helped Andrew off with one coat and into another?  It's from the W.S., pg. 11.  That could be why the coat is on the couch, rather than in the dining room where he supposedly kept it.
Also, if that big hankerchief in Abby's photo is not the one she used to cover her hair when dusting, according to Martins, then that could have been used to wipe the blade that killed Abby?
If so, why would a maniac killer stop and think to wipe a blade?)