1. "The Wounds of the Victims"
Posted by haulover on Nov-19th-02 at 12:16 AM

this is an issue that has been argued back and forth as to evidence of the gender of the killer.  some have said that these multiple wounds indicate great strength, skill and fury -- that they are "well-directed" and so forth.  this argues for a strong man as the killer.  others have said (as i believe knowlton said in his closing argument)that the excessive number of blows indicates awkwardness and a hatred that exceeds physical strength.  this argues that a woman did it.  i can see that any strong man could bury an ax in a brain with one blow and be done with it.  couldn't any experienced wood-chopper do so?  yet the advocates that a man did it refer to fury and hatred.

what are we to infer that abby was hit about 18 times and andrew 11?

something else, by the way.  considering that gender is an actual, valid issue here....... what man would hack away again and again if he could do the job--if not with one blow, certainly with two?  at any rate, there is a malignant emotionalism there, isn't there?  i'm not saying, of course, that murderousness is gender-related....but personality-wise, is there something to be gleaned gender-wise from the nature of the wounds?

i don't know.  it's very confusing.  what does anyone think?

i guess the value of this question is that lizzie is the only female suspect.

Didn't Robinson or Jennings say it was the "work of a madman"? And that ir showed a practiced skill to hit with parallel blows? Please read the relevant parts of the trial transcript (as quoted in some books).

actually the lawyers summed up the two views (still debatable) in their closing statements.

from robinson:

"They were well directed blows. They were not the result of blundering. They were aimed steadily and constantly, for a purpose, each one finding its place where it was aimed, and none going amiss on the one side or the other. Surely we are prompted to say at the outset, the perpetrator of that act knew how to handle the instrument, was experienced in its control, had directed it before or others like it, and it was not the careless, sudden, untrained doing of somebody who had been unfamiliar with such implements."

from Knowlton:

"No, Mr. Foreman, there was nothing in those blows but hatred, but hatred, and a desire to kill. What sort of blows were they? Some struck here at an angle, badly aimed; some struck here in the neck, badly directed; some pattered on the top of the head and didn't go through; some, where the skull was weaker, went through. A great strong man would have taken a blow of that hatchet and made an end of it. The hand that held that weapon was not the hand of masculine strength. It was the hand of a person strong only in hate and desire to kill. We have not proved anything yet, but we must take things as they come, no matter where they lead us. It was not the work of a man who, with a blow of that hatchet, could have smashed any part of that skull, and whose unerring aim would have made no false blows or false work. It was the blows of hatred; the weak, puttering, indecisive, badly aimed, nerveless blows---I forebear for the present to bring that sentence to a conclusion, for I won't do it until I am obliged to, I won't ask you until I am obliged to, to listen to it. I will come at this one step at a time."

interesting.  who is right? 

Some ramblings:

The prosecution and defense were both arguing to prove their side, their opinion, so much of what they summed up can be looked at from that perspective instead of factual information. The doctors testified to details but they all indicated a woman could have inflicted the blows, they didn't go into the rage issue or the psychological attitude of the killer at the time.

The murder of Bertha Manchester was also one committed with a sharp edged instrument, and it was found at the scene. Bertha, from the newspaper accounts was killed in much the same manner as Abby Borden, with strokes to the head, many of them of different sizes and also some that seemed to be inflicted with the blunt edge of the weapon. They arrested and convicted a man for that crime.

So it seems to me that the kinds of wounds or blows might not be a gender issue or an issue to ascribe to hatred, whether a man or woman's hatred. It could be ascribed to someone who wanted to know the victim was really dead, therefore the many many blows. Or it could be someone who enjoyed inflicting pain and wanted the death to be a s l o w one, painful and prolonged. Both men and women are are capable of violence. The gender issue does seem to be significant in the type of weapon chosen because of women, as a generalization, would prefer poison or have been proved to use poison more often.

Also I am not so sure that even a man could kill someone with one blow, the weapon would stick in the skull and wouldn't crush it.  Doesn't it take many blows to crush in a skull at any point?  I believe that is what the doctors testified to at the trial, that many blows actually crushed in the sides of both victims heads, Andrew and Abby, and those wounds consisted of from 1/2 inch to 5 inches, depending on which body.

Robert Ressler, the man who coined the term serial killer and is a criminal profiler, said that there is a sexual motivation in killers who use knives and other such weapons.  I wonder if he would think this of the Borden case of over a hundred years ago.  He has had thoughts about the Jack the Ripper case which are interesting.

the problem is we can't relate (i hope not anyway) to what it would be like to commit murder with an axe.

it's interesting to look at the key difference between the two murders.  abby is struck twice as many times -- indicating it took half as much time for the killer to off andrew.  this makes sense if lizzie is the killer, because she had less time to pull off the second one.  bridget is just upstairs instead of outside and morse could come home any minute.  it would be paramount in her mind to get it done and reported as quickly as possible.  also, she's got some experience under her belt, so to speak, when she kills father.  which brings up this question:  did any of the doctors ever remark, or say anything to the effect that andrew's wounds appeared to be made more efficiently?

the biggest mystery is the weapon itself.

as to gender and method.  well, we know there is evidence that lizzie had tried to buy prussic acid--and may have been trying to kill with something else and failed.  it makes a simple kind of sense as to why she would finally take up the axe.  i've also read that drowning is a "female method."  (andrea yates, susan smith, for ex.)

so if lizzie is guilty, her audacity is still almost unbelievable.  yet even this makes sense.  how often would she find this opportunity when everyone but she and abby were out of the house?  and she's up in the guest room to boot, a part of the house only she and emma, or abby, ever go.

someone suggested the way to have done it was in the middle of the night while they were in their beds and make it look like a break-in.  but this would have been practically impossible.  their door might have been locked at night.  even so, it would have been hard to go at one of them without arousing the other.  and bridget is directly above.  and emma is nearby, apt to wake and find lizzie gone from her room.  this could never have worked.
 

It is interesting to compare and contrast the Manchester murder with the Borden murders.  It is so strange, tho, like lightening striking twice in one place, that these two events happened not quite a year apart, in roughly the same place, geographically.

The wounds of Bertha were inflicted by a bloody axe which is left exposed upon the wood pile near the house.  In the Borden murders, the weapon may still be unaccounted for.

Bertha seems to have crawled a ways in her death throes, as there were 5 blows from the edge of the axe, but also a few blows with the back of the axe.  She left a smuged trail of blood, dragging herself across the kitchen floor.  She had limbs exposed and left large pools of blood.

We can assume there were less blows, that she was chased and struck down (probably from behind) and also had bruises.  Some sort of petty robbery or rifling of the belongings were thought to have occurred.
The back-of-the-axe blows may have been a desperate attempt to cave in the skull, and ensure death.
-----------

The blows to Abby's head seem really haphazard to me, from the photo.
Blows and marks going every which way.  Maybe they are *misses*, maybe Abby was moving.  But some seem almost superficial, until the crushing blows mentioned. She probably could have survived some of them.
(Anyone:  I will not post that autopsy photo here...please go to the LABVM/L)
Profilers have stated that disfiguring the face is a way to blot out the identity of the person being killed.  It symbolically destroys their personality and ego.
The first blow to Abby was probably to the face.  From someone who wanted to erase that face.  Who wanted to erase Abby from ever being born?
And yes, the extra blows...the mutiplicity of blows!  If you sat and counted aloud slowly to 19, and hit your flat palm down on the table each time...SMACK...Smack   You'd be tired.  If I tried to print "SMACK   SMACK   SMACK 19 times here, everyone would squirm, it takes SO LONG and is SO REDUNDANT.
Yes there was twice the hate in those many blows, as compared to Andrew, unless time was a constraint.  19 blows and 10 blows--that's hate.
--I think a knife is sexual, but an ax or hatchet is expedient.  I don't see a comparison there.
--As to poison, I don't know why, but I never really believed Lizzie tried to buy poison to kill the Bordens.  Maybe because the methods are too different?  I could see EMMA buying poison for parents, but not Lizzie.  Lizzie seems more straighforeward to me...Emma more devious.  I also think poison is more sadistic, and if a person wanted thrills from their killing, poison would be more in that line.
--Morse was supposedly giving his opinion in the papers as to why it was not He who committed the murders.  He said (?) that he would have chlorophorrmed them in their bed, asleep, at night.  He probably  did know that they kept their door locked.
Can 2 person's be chloroformed instantly?
He could have done it or had it done while both girls were away in July, and on an evening out of Bridget.



(Message last edited Nov-20th-02  8:48 AM.)

If Lizzie did it I think Emma was involved, she
wouldn't have had to hide it from her. I think the
door to Andrew & Abby's room was locked on Lizzie's
side. (Anybody remember?) It would have been simple enough to
tinker with the locks anyway. I think it would have been
easier for her to get by with it with an entire night to clean
up, not in the middle of the morning with people out
in front of the house & Uncle John expected for lunch.
He would have been gone that night probably, and he hadn't been
there long. I've heard of people being murdered while their spouses
slept next to them & then awoke & were attacked. 

The question can easily be answered (from AR Brown and E Porter) that is was the work of a MADMAN. Forceful blows, struck by a practiced powerful hand. The prosecution said different.

I gues you could just look at the evidence, and note down what your impression is. Also, that you are untrained in forensics (just like the jury).

Yes, The Night Stalker case comes to mind.
Sleeping partner attacked before the other was aware.
There was a key required to get from Lizzie's room to the elder Borden's bedroom..according to Lizzie...and another key to exit their room down the back stairs.
But I think you may be right that those locks could be successfully tampered with...and done so in advance, without the elder Borden's knowledge that the connecting door was no longer secure.
The muders happening when they did, must Mean Something, else a conspiracy of Morse and Davis could have done it while the girls were away July 21st thru Tues. the 26th.
(The 21st being a Thursday which we have been led to understand is Bridget's 1/2 day...but if Bridget can go OUT on Wednesday Night, she may be allowed out any night she chooses).

The Night Stalker is a perfect example of that, when I
want to be scared I go to Crime Library & that one usually
does the trick. My favorite chapter is Citizens Arrest,
that is the greatest, chasing the killer thru the streets
and just beating the crap out of him.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/ramirez/5.htm

In regards to the killing being "personal" because
of the facial attack, a lot of the serial killers
you can read about have tried to destroy the faces of
their victims, be it with a gun or by cutting & they
usually didn't know anything about them, just the nature
of the beast, I guess it could be called. Ramirez, the
Night Stalker, gouged out one woman's eyes. That seems like
a very personal attack, I don't think Dahmer "de-faced"
his victims, I think he usually drugged & strangled them,
which seems, dare I say, more "thoughtful"??? He would dis-member
them while dead & on occasion tried to lobotomize them alive,
but I don't think there was really any facial mutilation done.
I guess it is just some killers tempermant to hurt or ugly-up the
faces of their victims.

(Message last edited Nov-21st-02  4:59 PM.)

It's weird you mentioned that because I was thinking specifically of the Citizen X guy, Chikatillo, who gouged out eyes, and bit off toungues...and Jack The R. who cut eyelids and cheecks and ears, as I was writing about "personal" hatred and trying to blot out a person's identity, and you're right:   those WERE serial killers, supposedly killing strangers.
The facial mutilation and gouging out the eyers...they didn't want their victim looking at them.  Not all corpses eyes are closed.
Serial killers are eliminating , usually, a class of person.  like a social class, either above them which they strive for (and feel they can't attain), like Bundy, or those freaks who kill and/or mutilate prostitutes because they may feel superior to them, as if they were below them..
Dahmer & Neilsen wanted company.  They wanted a beautiful boyfriend to keep always.

So It may be that these types of killings may not  compare to a family killing .
A Borden family killing is personal, and the face of authority is Andrew.  Blotting out his eyes and face, negates his existence.

Either way tho, attacking the face  blots out the person's humanity.

(Message last edited Nov-22nd-02  2:52 AM.)

When it seems like facial mutilation is big on some killers to-do lists, it makes it possible that it could have been a stranger
killing the Bordens. I have always thought it very possible
that this could have been a semi-random act, with Lizzie escaping
because she was a fetching young woman. It might have been a
wanna-be or just a disgruntled unbalanced person who had words
with Andrew.

Do you mean a wanna-be serial killer?

Wouldn't a disgruntled unbalanced person eventually be caught?
Going around *unbalanced* would get people's attention.  And if he was not quite in tune with reality, he'd be more likely to talk?
Especially with a whole police force out looking for just such a person, even a week after the homicides.
I suppose this person could have committed suicide, tho.
Then we might not ever know, especially if they were never reported missing.
This is getting complicated...I'd better stop now.

Yes, I read that most "serial killers" are not crazy!!! Crazy people are too disorganized to evade the police. The standard case is one who kills their family (altho not classified as such), or, complete strangers in a public place.

AR Brown presents the optimal solution (the best evidence). Since Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" she KNEW who did it; but she held her tongue (even after being indicted).
No other explanation is logically possible, IMO. Could a stranger have gained entrance to a locked house, and evaded detection? I don't think so. Wm S Borden's presence was a family skeleton, kept secret.

Or, as one book said (Kunstler's?), it was a pact between Lizzie and Bridget. Lizzie did Abby when Bridget was outside (an alibi), and Bridget did Andy when Lizzie was outside (seen by Lubinsky). But there is no proof that there was this close conspiracy. Yes, some may believe otherwise.

The doctors testified the wounds were parallel although some longer than others, which doesn't imply random here and there every which way blows.

Once Andrew's carotid artery was severed it wasn't necessary to hit him more times, as by that time his skull was also crushed in. The doctors did not say there was one fatal wound on her body, but the skull was crushed in, so perhaps the killer was familiar will killing, although perhaps not humans, and knew that to make sure Abby was dead it required more blows.

Proposing that the Manchester murderer was also the Borden murderer, by that time with two killings under the belt they knew they did not have to inflict as many blows. Perhaps the murder was just getting used to how to kill a particular kind of prey...human.

Not a serial killer really, but maybe someone
who wasn't beyond killing people they might have been
angry at. I've heard of people who were mean & everyone
was afraid to mess with them, not really "screwy" acting or
anything, just a mean person. If Andrew didn't mind
insulting people he could have just pissed off the
wrong person. I know it is possible that Lizzie did
it, but I think it could really have been someone else too.