The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "A Vise In The Barn"
Posted by dave rehak on Mar-2nd-02 at 6:23 PM

Well there's a new David on the board! Face it, folks, we're taken over the world (ha-ha). A growing army of Davids and Daves. Be warned

I appeal to the more Lizzie scholarly among u: I have found a source that CLAIMS that there was a large vise in the barn. We all know that the handless hatchet was sawed off. My question is: WAS there a vise? And how likely do u think it is that Lizzie sawed this hatchet on the morning of August 4th and then carried the hatchet head and handle back down into the cellar and put them in that tool box?

Sidenote: I've also been examining Abby's wounds. Did u know her head was practically taken off, almost? Probably the first blow killed her.



(Message last edited Mar-2nd-02  6:24 PM.)

Dave, WHO are you reading as to Abby's wounds?
THe first blow (and it has been claimed the 2nd), were frontal, and "stunning."
This first blow, which I agree with, was the "flap wound" to the scalp:
Prelim, pg.103, Dolan:
"...on the left side without any mark on the skull, was a flat scalp wound, a wound about 1 & 1/2 " wide, and 2 to 3" long, flapped backwards immediatly over the left ear"

",,,There was one wound on the back...The lower end of the wound was immediatly over the spine, about 4" below the juncture of the neck and the body.   That then ran forwards, and to the left 2 1/2" long....2 1/2"deep...it did not touch the bone..."

"...The remarkable thing about those (wounds) on the left (4), none of those went through the skull."

"...(the wounds to the right side of the head)...About 7 or 8, so far as I remember, probably 6, probably 1 or 2 more, went through the skull ; some took a little piece of the bone out; seven or eight went right through the brain , carrying the bone with them."
--these were the "crushing blows".  No neck wounds mentioned.  Anyone please read Abby autopsy info at website:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com
and decide for yourself...the easiest way to determine "coronor-ese", I think, is to draw a head first and follow the written description and draw the wound marks in the areas described.  THEN look at the photo.
--And yes, her head WAS taken off, at Oak Grove, for evidence.

I found reference to the vise in the barn twice in Lincoln's "A Private Disgrace" (on page 99 and on page 122, paperback edition):

page 99: "There was running water in the barn and a vise and some heavy hammers, there was a fire in the coal stove."

page 122: "It was a one-horse stable with room for both a carriage and a sleigh; in other words, a two-car garage. There was still an old sleigh in it, which had not been sold off with the horse and carriage. Just inside the door, along with an old vise and some yard and carpentry tools, was a smallish wooden box of assorted scrap, bits of broken metal, door knobs, old locks, a folded sheet of lead. Steep ladder-like steps without rails ran up to the hayloft."

I could find no references to it in any of the primary documents, the Witness statements, Inquest, Preliminary nor Trial. I also checked Brown, Kent, Radin and Spiering.

I resumed my search of the vise and can find no references in Porter, Pearson, Hixon nor Sullivan.

I found the site below which comments on a NY Times Aug. 5,1892 article on the murders where a "large vise" is mentioned.

http://www.tombtown.com/html/index2.htm?http%3A//www.tombtown.com/bios/lizzie.htm

This article, like most early newspaper accounts, has a number of factual errors.

The portion that refers to the vise:

"[NOTE: Some speculate that Lizzie was removing some of Abby's blood from her skirts and the hatchet by using the running water in the barn. The barn had a large vise, where she broke off the handle of the hatchet -- later burning the handle in the kitchen stove, and dipping the cleaned, wet hatchet head in wood ashes.]"

the picture of the hatchet shows quite clearly that the handle was sawed off, not broken. you can't fool experienced people with common sense, then or now.

WOW, What a lot of work went into this *vise* question!
I would grant you or anyone that there probably WAS a vise SOMEWHERE on that property, being as Andrew had been a carpenter. (either in the barn, or the cellar...)
If Lizzie clamped and "sawed" off that handle then her "trip to the barn" was her part-truth, as I've been hoping to find in other of her statements.

I have just read Arnold R.Brown's "Lizzie Borden...the legend, the truth, the final chapter" and I must concede that he has a valid point.  Mr. Brown ascerts that the real killer of Abbey and Andrew Borden was the illegitimate son of Andrew, one William Borden.  This son was the product of an affair between Andrew and Phoebe Hathaway Borden (wife of Deacon Charles Borden).  I am inclined to believe Mr. Brown's version of events on the fateful August morning.  You must read the book to fully appreciate the theory.

As much as I love her book, I won't take Lincoln as a primary reference as to the existence of a vise in the barn.  She needs one to be there for her theory (Lizzie really DID visit the barn that day, but not for sinkers/iron/screening) to work.  I don't personally believe that Lizzie, if she acted (mostly) alone, did any carpentry that morning.  I believe that the handleless hatchet is odd, but blameless.  Maybe the handle split or warped (if the hatchet was exposed to water or fell in  a puddle in the cellar, I don't know), and Andrew sawed it off at an earlier date, intending to buy a new handle.  The old handle was then (in this construction of mine) dried out and used for kindling - waste not, want not, in Andrew's Quaker way.  Please feel free to poke holes in this - I'm getting over food poisoning, and I'm just glad to be among the living.

Bob, we agree almost 100% on this.  Lincoln is the ONLY place I found mention of it, not that it didn't exist. Where would she have found the time to saw off the handle if it was used on Andrew?  I just can't believe that there were two hatchets involved although nothing is impossible in this case.

Sorry you're feeling sick. Run along across the street and see that kindly Dr. Bowen. I heard he's good with food poisoning. My money shan't pay for it though.

Seriously, hope you're feeling better.

Thanks, Harry, I needed that!  I was going to try to work the phrase "summer complaint" into my post, but I just couldn't get it to work.

The only way I've come to consider the "two weapons" theory is the idea that Lizzie only intended to kill Abby that morn, and that the slaying of Papa became a necessary addenda.  Having disposed of the (partially) gilt-coated weapon, or having hidden it so that it wasn't available for the second go-round, maybe Liz used a cleaver or another hatchet for the 11 a.m. festivities.  Then she had time to retrieve the first implement and toss it on the barn roof.  Let's get really Looney Toons, however, and suppose that Lizzie has just left Andrew in the sitting room alive, and Maggie's gone for her lie-down, and Liz has just finished hefting the "Crowe" hatchet aloft.  Does she THEN realize she's going to have to kill Andrew, with a different tool?  Or did Andrew peer out the window, see Lizzie's shot-put and then ask her what the hell she was doing, and thereby seal his fate?

In any case, I'm not saying that Lizzie's sawing of the cellar hatchet COULDN'T have happened; I'm just doubting that it did.   

Harry/Bob,

How about this scenario:

Lizze slips the hatchet to her step mom and a little later in the morning does the dirty deed to dad. A half dozen steps into the kitchen and she pops the weapon into the stove.  Later on she carefully retrieves the red hot hatchet head and, alone or in cahoots with Bridget, disposes of it.
The hatchet with the sawed off head is just a red herring.  Andrew or the woodchopper he employed, broke the handle one day while chopping wood.
The splintered handle was sawed off (to prevent possible injury) and the head and tossed into the cellar for later repair.

Harry: Stop teasing Bob.
Bob: Am shipping you a case of Pepto-Bismol by Priority Mail this afternoon.  Hope it does the trick.
Bill

(Message last edited Mar-4th-02  1:58 PM.)

The most disappointing thing about that handle-less hatchet, is that it was never considered as THE weapon during the searches, the Inquest, or the Preliminary Hearing.  Then, somewhere along the way, that claw-headed hatchet loses it's importance and the officials *grasp* at the HH.  I've yet to understand WHY the Claw-hatchet was eliminated, other than the blade size.  The blade -size determination seems somewhat arbitrary to me.  The workmen on the farm in Swansea in the Witness statements say Andew HAD a newish hatchet, it had been sharpened, and seems to be the claw-head.
The wounds to Abby's head, the best indication of our actually SEEING the marks left, in the autopsy photo, show all different size & shaped wounds, going in slightly different angles.  I understand that the LONGEST wound seem to determine blade size, but even that does not convince me.  If a person worked that blade back & forth, say to remove it from bone, wouldn't that make the wound appear larger / longer?  If it wasn't the Claw-headed hatchet, and the the HH seems unlikely, then someone had to bring a weapon to the site purposely to use on the victim(S).
If the weapon was that sharp Clawhead, that was newish, it seems to fit our requirements:  That it still have just enough gilt to leave a deposit in Abby's wounds, but after such prolonged use, and cleaning and wiping AFTER, then no gilt left for Andrew.  But then we are left with a murder weapon lying practically in plain sight...would a murderer DO that?

Anyway, do people think Lizzie went out to the barn that forenoon or not?  For ANY purpose?

Really, Did Lizzie go out to the barn at all?
Wouldn't she have dirty, dusty hands and cobwebs in her hair and bits of straw all over her, from the half-ton of hay that was in there, plus the hem of her skirt would be darkened with dirt. ?  I really wanna know!

Whether Miss Lizzie was in the barn is a $64 question. She appears to have been at least outside. Lubinsky testified he seen a woman coming toward the steps from the back. He knew Bridget by sight and it was not her. That would leave only 3 possibilities.

1. It was Lizzie.  2. He was looking in the wrong yard. 3. There was a 3rd woman.

I don't think 2 & 3 are very likely, especially 3.

The stairs to the loft of the barn are described in Lincoln (page 122) as "Steep ladder-like steps without rails ran up to the hayloft." That Lizzie would risk soiling her dress and perhaps ruining it to save a few pennies on lead sinkers seems hard to accept. However there is that expression "pennywise, pound foolish" and the Borden's were definitely on the thrift concious side. It would seem to me to be rather hard to climb steps like that in one of those 1890 dresses.

There is also the conflicting testimonies of the condition of the hayloft floor. Were "Brownie & Me" up there before anybody else? Then there is Alfred Clarkson who also testified he was up there rather early and there were people already in the loft when he went up. (page 1400, Trial)  The defense, all through out the trial, virtually asked every one whether and when they had seen Medley. They realized his testimony regarding the loft floor could be very damaging.

I kinda think she was in the barn at some point but did not go up to the loft.

BTW, Lubinsky was only 16 years old in 1892.

I'm glad someone laid it on the line..I'm looking for a jumping-off spot--Thanks.

Now, If she went to the barn, and it was she Lubinsky saw, then she could have cleaned up her attire from the dirt and dust, as easily as it has been suggested she cleaned up after the murders.  So either blood, or barn dirt is removed from her person, prior to calling for help?

Or did she not get dirty or dusty at all?

Wouldn't it be in her favour to HAVE barn dirt, dust and straw on her when the other's came?  So if she was out there for nefarious purposes, such as cleaning up after a kill, then the remnants of her stay in the barn would also be removed.  Therefore she did "clean up" out there for SOME reason?

Harry,
So did she go to the barn but did not get dirty?

Seems reasonable, considering Lizzie's "prissy" Victorian attitude and behavior (I'm guessing) that she would make every effort NOT to get dirty.  Good point, Kat

I should think her dress would get dirty just going to the barn. Didn't these dresses drag along on the ground? Wasn't that how she got paint on it in the first place?

I also can see no reason to go to the barn to get clean. There was a tap off the kitchen and one in the cellar. Why would you go to a dirty barn to get clean?  Could she have had a second dress hidden there to switch to?

She might have gone to temporarily hide the hatchet. She was familiar with the barn (She had pigeons once) and she might have a secret hiding place to hold the hatchet until she could permanently remove it.

More speculations and questions on my part.

The Borden barn would seem like a good hiding place for the weapon and dress or dresses except that once the murder(s) were discovered Lizzie might lose control over the ultimate disposition of these items. That is, Lizzie had no way of knowing she would be able to return to the barn and remove the items unseen before a search of the premises was started or even after an initial, unsuccessful search was completed. Lizzie had greater potential freedom of movement inside the house and I think more possible places (in the upstairs front part of the house and/or the cellar, for example) to temporarily hide, and control, a dirty or bloodstained dress and/or a weapon.



(Message last edited Mar-9th-02  6:21 PM.)

These are all very reasonable replies, thank you guys.
But DOUG:
Yours gave me a chill of "goosebumps" just now.
Don't know what that means...it went all over my legs...
My profile says "Sometimes I am psychic--Sometimes I am not."
Whether you believe in that, or even intuition, that post of yours sure affected me!

Don['t forget Any got rid of the horse(s) the year before!!! Any hay or straw would be decomposing into dustiness after a year (IMO). Even months old hay or straw gives off a lot of dust if you jump into it (as I remember). Of course, the dust may have been so common as to be not noticed at the time. Don't read history backwards.

So rays, are you saying that Lizzie, if she did go to the barn, probably DID get dirty and dusty (somewhat) but that nobody would notice because Everyone in those times were dirty and dusty to some degree?

No, I believe that Lizzie was familiar with the barn and its contents. She was out among the pears (her first story). When she realized it meant she saw who left by the back, she changed it to be in the barn, then, upstairs out of sight.

But if she did have any hay dust on her dress, it would have confirmed her story. No one mentioned its absence (negative proof).

After thinking about it some more last night I decided that:

1. Lizzie didn't go to the barn at all
                  or
2. If Lizzie went to the barn she *cleaned up*either out there or back inside the kitchen

Both ways, she's lying, and why should she lie if she is *innocent*?

Alice said Lizzie's hands were clean, and noticed nothing unusual about her clothing.  She remarked on how *white* Lizzie's hands were....

Lubinsky never testified he'd seen the woman coming out of the barn. He said she was coming from the direction of the barn and she was near the east side of the back door steps.

According to Lincoln there "...was a smallish wooden box of assorted scrap, bits of broken metal, door knobs, old locks, a folded sheet of lead." on the ground floor. 

For some reason Lizzie didn't look in this box. She claims only to have looked in the box upstairs. That's kind of suspicious for why would she not even try before climbing up those narrow steps. Lizzie's Inquest testimony on this (page 72)

Q. That is the reason you went into the second story of the barn to look for a sinker?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What made you think you would find sinkers there?
A. I heard Father say, and I knew there was lead there.
Q. You thought there might be lead there made into sinkers?
A. I thought there might be lead there with a hole in it.
Q. Did you examine the lead that was down stairs near the door?
A. No sir.
Q. Why not?
A. I don't know.

Kat, a good description of an intuitive moment regarding Lizzie is told by Victoria Lincoln in chapter 20 of "A Private Disgrace." Miss Lincoln had toured the Second Street house and describes Lizzie's possible thoughts and actions as she [Lizzie] prepared to burn the dress in the kitchen stove on Sunday morning. Miss Lincoln writes, "I shall never forget that strange, hallucinatory moment of false recall; for one moment I was Lizzie, hidden but still frightened, knowing that I must be secret, quick."

Yes, I figured you were responding to post #20--I just went back & checked.
I only want to get  A LITTLE inside the brains of these dysfunctional people--NOT become Lizzie for an instant!  OOO, scary.
It's funny though, not the ha-ha kind, that when I read (present tense) Lizzie's answers at the inquest to Knowlton, about the last words she had with Abby...and she recites it over and over like a memorized littany, adding one thing here and one thing there (like: She asked me WHaT MEAT I WANTED...I SAID NOT ANY), she seems so divorced from the fact that she is recounting the LAST WORDS of a human being who was in all respects her MOTHER for most of her life, and there is no reaction..no crying, no grief, no upset..she might as well have been telling a story about her trip to New Bedford.  This person lying dead & butchered in her own blood, in the sanctuary of her own home, a mother to Lizzie, a wife to her father and Lizzie is recounting that she addressed some wrappers for her as Abby asked!
This GALLS ME .
This is when I dislike her most and believe her capable of anything !

And you're right, Harry, to be so precise: and to remind us with the info that Lubinsky saw a woman that was not Bridget, coming From the area of the barn .