dead before the axe?

[wintressanna]

Hi everyone

im new here and to an interest in Lizzie Borden, too, but it is contagious isnt it? My sister and I were talking about the crime, and she had a novel notion that I wonder if anyone had ever thought of and overruled.....

That is, since there was so little blood...could it have been that they were axed AFTER death? Like the axing covered up the true murder weapon/cause of death?

Anyone have any ideas?

ANASTASIA

[Kat]

Hi!
We did have a discussion going about chloroform, but it petered out. I think my stance was basically that the marks of chloroform would show.
What other form of death would the hatcheting cover-up and what would be the reason to have 2 causes of death- well, I mean, one cause, but another fake cause?

[john]

Ideas like this sure get me thinking Wintressanna!

[wintressanna]

Hey I have a really really really wild idea.

WHAT IF:

A. They were killed through other means

B. Their faces were smashed up in order to cover up their true identity, What if neither Andrew nor Abby were killed but someone else in their stead, and they ran off to Mars or whereever ? Its their clothes that really identify them, and Lizzie's ring that the father wore, things like that. What else?

LOL ok Ive been thinking about this too long!

[Audrey]

I think Abby's face was intact for the most part...

She had one blow to the front and the rest to the back of her head.... Correct?

[theebmonique]

Here's a bit from Abby's autopsy report:

FIRST an incised wound 2 and 1/2 inches in length, and 2 and 1/2 inches in depth. The lower angle of the wound was over his spine and four inches below the junction of neck with body, and extending thence upward and outward to the left. On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body.

SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width.

THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm


Tracy...

[Audrey]

Thank you dear...

So- Miss Scientist, former hospital worker and now science teacher...

Would you think you could recognize her face with those injuries?

[theebmonique]

We have discussed the possibility that maybe Abby's frontal head wounds knocked her out...or even killed her. But, the killer, not realizing she was already dead...went on a-whackin'. If she's already dea...no blood pressure...no spurting. gushing blood.


Tracy...

[Audrey]

but... recognizable or not??

[theebmonique]

I am pretty sure that these particular wounds would not have rendered the poor old girl unrecognizable. Since she was dead immediately or VERY shortly after those wound were inflicted, there would not be the swelling that can make faces unrecognizable due to wounds of this nature.


Tracy...

[Kat]

I was trying to picturte this recently when I was re-reading the Witness Satements. (I didn't get too far).
Anyway the policeman Doherty said, quoted by George Allen:
"My God her face is all smashed in."

Trying to picture the multiple blows to the back of the skull and what that would do to the face. Lifting the face with the head if the hatchet stuck in bone...then the face dropping down again, lifted, dropped -Plus clotted blood before cleaning her up, and some lividity- and with the contusions and the flap wound, I'd think her face was a mess.
But not unrecognizeable.

[Audrey]

***WARNING***

Put your pizza down before reading...

[theebmonique]

Yes, I am sure her face was 'affected'...but as you say...not unrecognizeable.


Tracy...

[Susan]

If Andrew and Abby both were knocked unconcious with say the blunt end of the hatchet first, could those wounds be totally obliterated by the cuts or would their skulls have showed some sort of trauma? Abby's skull had that huge gaping hole in the back, could the hole have been smaller originally from a whack from the blunt end? There were so many chops in that small area, did they have the technology to piece her skull together there and see all there was to see?

[FairhavenGuy]

Susan, one doesn't need any more technology to piece together a skull than one does to piece together a smashed teapot.

I think there are photos of both of their faces after death aren't there?

Besides, both Andrew and Abby seem to have rather distinctive bodies. Where are you going to find another 5'2", 200 lb. woman? And there's never been any mention of anyone ever questioning the fact that it was Andrew and Abby.

Hatchet wounds would cover up a completely non-related cause of death, such as poison or smothering. (Both Abby and Andrew could, in fact, have been napping and smothered, then chopped. Abby was in a bedroom, after all, and hadn't been feeling well.) The chopping would make an inside job look like the work of a mad fiend like Jack the Ripper.

[Kat]

We do know that some pieces at least of Abby's skull were accidently buried with the bloody items. So by the time of that happening (Friday) there were already gaps in her skull bones. Whether they retrieved all of the pieces, we don't know.
The autopsy photo in Knowlton, of Abby's shaved head, doesn't show the caved-in wound (which was a collection of wounds) on the right side. The picture with her hair intact doesn't show her face either but does show the depression in her skull.

There is a partial Andrew face photo at autopsy and of course the photo on the couch. There's not a facial photo of Abby.

[Susan]

Susan, one doesn't need any more technology to piece together a skull than one does to piece together a smashed teapot.

I was thinking more along the lines if they would think to look for or know that there may have been other wounds besides the hatchet cuts. And would they have the technology to look for that? As Kat posted, bits and pieces of Abby's skull may have been missing, could those pieces put together give a clue as to a blunt trauma wound that may have caused a skull fracture mixed in with the mess of hatchet cuts and breakage?

[Kat]

Uhm, I'm re-thinking my stance on chloroform use. I maintained that it could be noted at the time the bodies were found, by smell and/or burning of the face or nasal cavity.
But I just watched a show on HHHolmes and he did use chloroform in Pietzer's death (sp?) and the expert now says unless there was a lot ingested, it probably couldn't have been detected c. 1895.
However, Holmes wrote that he was temporarily overcome himself from the fumes. That might be disadvantageous to an unskilled killer, tho...

Recall, they did not find a crucial wound in Abby's back at the first autopsy! Go figure!

[Allen]

I have thought since I read about the newspaper article stating that Lizzie bought chloroform that it was possible she had used it to to subdue both Abby and Andrew.Why no signs of a struggle? Maybe Andrew was not dozing at all, but knocked out? The way his hands are clenched in the crime scene photos has always struck me as odd.The chloroform was not necessarily used as the means to cause death, but rather to render them unconcious.Chloroform was after all used to put patients under for surgery. I cannot imagine it would've become popular if it left burning on the skin, especially since it was administered via a cloth over the patients face. Chloroform was administered to Queen Victoria using this method during the birth of one of her children. Though there is some debate over whether or not she was actually put completely under, it had been used during surgeries to do just that. There is some talk that Jack the Ripper may have used it on his victims as well, which is why the murders were committed so silently. So Lizzie could've used the chloroform to knock them out, or subdue them, and then used the axe to finish the deed. The reason for the axe was to throw suspicion away from her. Which is exactly what the use of the axe achieved. No one could believe a woman, especially one of Lizzie's standing, could've wielded the axe. I don't think she could've chosen a better weapon. It wasn't a woman's murder weapon. But, interestingly enough, according to the newspaper article I found which I posted under Stay to Tea in the thread "True Crime Victorian Style", a woman did indeed try to kill her husband using an axe just days after the Bordens were murdered. So I guess the only way it could be believed a woman would use such a weapon is for her to be caught with it in her hands during the commission of the act.

[john]

Somehow, when i started reading this stuff, I knew that Jack The Ripper and Queen Victoria would be brought in. Now I'm waiting for Colnel Lindbergh and Lee Harvey.

[Harry]

Allen, the chloroform theory is an interesting one. There is a letter in the Knowlton papers (HK070), page 78, which is pretty specific:

"Sep 13 '92
District Attorney Knowlton
Fall River Mass.
Dear Sir- Have been reading with some interest the Borden murder case and a suggestion occurred to me which I have not seen spoken of in the papers & which would explain some mysteries connected with the case. From the description of the case the thought came to me that the murderer of the Bordens used chloroform to facilitate the murder of the aged couple.
This theory seems feasible from the following points:
1. It explains the difference of 1-1/2 hours between the deaths of the vic-
tims as the murderer after catching one of the victims asleep & finishing
her would perhaps have to wait some time to catch the other sleeping.
2. This accounts for no noise being heard.
3. It would account largely for the bloodless clothes.
4. It accounts for the slumbering position in which the old couple were
found, the old man especially in his usual place on the sofa in his usual
position.
5. It accounts for so many slashes on the victims inflicted by the murder-
er as under the anaesthetic it would be difficult to tell when life had
ceased. Thus the murderer would make many slashes or cuts to make
death sure.
..........
Respectfully Yours, Dr. M. M. Park, Dentist"

There is also the druggist, a Mr. Brow, who had a drug store at 62 Second St. who claimed that Lizzie had purchased chloroform from his store. But that, he said, was over 4 years previous to the crimes.

If the killer could sneak up on them with a hatchet, why not chloroform. I am not familiar with the odor so I have to ask how close could you get to the victim before they could smell it? In Andrews case, if he was napping, it wouldn't be an issue but it certainly would be in Abbys.

[wintressanna]

wow that letter is really interesting and makes some sense regarding the quietness of their brutual murder, the lack of blood, the number of blows...and i hadnt thought of how it would help explain the time difference...

Anyone have any reservations about this theory or input about chloroform...besides perhaps the lack of perceived odor at the crime scene and/or traces of chloroform burning on the faces? Im not sure if there was enough of a face left on Abby at least to really tell about the traces of chloroform burning.

What I wonder is, what did the crime scene smell like? I dont remember any mention of an odor, but wouldnt there have been some smell of blood at least...you'd think there would be some odor. The bodies might not have been decomposed enough to give off a strong odor of decay, but youd think there would be some odor, wouldnt you?

[wintressanna]

OK I ADMIT IT

the idea that the bodies were anyone but the Bordens is pretty fantastic. We really have no reason to doubt it. Its just I was thinking that identification of the victim is usually one of the most important aspects of criminal investigation (according to my couch potato detective show expertise :P) and I hadnt seen much of any attempt to investigate this point. And one of the most challenging aspects of this crime, second to perhaps few details being straight forward, is the fact that most of the recorded trauma to the bodies is the brutual smashing in of the faces. I just dont think thats a usual thing. I mean, I dont think more than any one person out of 100 could actually do such a thing, even to a body that is already dead by some other means, and even to a person you absolutely hated, whose body is dead by some other means. Deep down we all have a certain sympathy for the body of another human being, dead or alive, outside of who they are or were....right?

But I think it would be easier to over ride this sympathy if you have a logical reason to do it that way, like to obscure the identity of the bodies and somehow save someone close to you by doing so. Im a writer by profession...ummmm.....is my writer slip showing a little too much???????

[john]

these people know an awful lot about this crime, as you can see, wintressanna, but you brought up a very interesting point. i asked a while back if mrs. borden had any other marks on her, signs of struggle, you know and they said there were some marks, but kinda indefinate. i don't see how an intruder could sneak up on mrs. borden from the layout of the room without her screaming, unless she knew who was coming into the room and it happened real quick. that certainly blows my theory that lizzie didn't do it, but mr. borden, bridget, uncle john, reverend jubb?

[john]

the half hour between the time andrew walked in the door and when the police were called is the most studied of criminal events except for about 5 minutes of john kennedy, and we still don't know much about either timeframe.

[theebmonique]

i asked a while back if mrs. borden had any other marks on her, signs of struggle, you know and they said there were some marks, but kinda indefinate.

"Indefinate" I will repeat what has been said/posted regarding Abby's facial wounds. And again, for the FULL autopsy report, see the website listed below.

Here's a bit from Abby's autopsy report:
Quote:
FIRST an incised wound 2 and 1/2 inches in length, and 2 and 1/2 inches in depth. The lower angle of the wound was over his spine and four inches below the junction of neck with body, and extending thence upward and outward to the left. On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body.

SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width.

THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide.



http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... Borden.htm

[Allen]

Somehow, when i started reading this stuff, I knew that Jack The Ripper and Queen Victoria would be brought in. Now I'm waiting for Colnel Lindbergh and Lee Harvey.

We have discussed the Lindberg case briefly in one of the threads. Not sure about Lee Harvey Oswald. What made you "know", and is this necessarily bad?

[Allen]

Harry,

Thanks for sharing the letter, I found it very interesting! After reading it I really believe the theory about the chloroform could be well founded.Even so I am going to do more research to answer a few more questions I have. It would seem chloroform could be pretty readily obtained at the time. On top of this, the theory had even been introduced in the letter to Knowlton as early as September of 1892 by a dentist. Wouldn't a dentist have been familiar with the substance? It's smell, how it was used, whether or not it produced any visible signs, etc?

[Kat]

I don't think the reasons the dentist listed were or are accurate, so maybe he has a bit of experience with chloroform but not much experience about the crime scene.

"1. It explains the difference of 1-1/2 hours between the deaths of the victims as the murderer after catching one of the victims asleep & finishing her would perhaps have to wait some time to catch the other sleeping.
2. This accounts for no noise being heard.
3. It would account largely for the bloodless clothes."

--1-This implies that Abby was asleep when given chloroform.
Camped out in the guest room in the early morning?

--2-The amount of noise is still under contention. No one knows the amount of noise during either killing.

--3-The clothes were about the bloodiest parts of the murders.

[Kat]

Personally, I think adding another method of murder to the mix makes the case more complex than need be. That's just my opinion. It's like having 2 weapons. It is 2 weapons. Why not strangle them while chloroforming them?

[Kat]

BTW: I handled an old axe today!
I was in my bedroom and hearing thunk! Thunk! Thunk! Really loudly and the ground vibrated.
I stepped outside and there was a man with an axe in the next yard. One of those 3 foot handled ones. He was chopping the roots in the ground, preparing to lay sod tomorrow. He was about 30 feet from my window. Because he was hitting the ground, that was the Thunking vibration.
I asked to handle the instrumnent. It was very heavy. We estimated it at about 4 pounds at the head, which was about the weight of the murder weapon according to the experts at the time. 3 to 5 lbs., I think they said. Possibly up to a 2 foot handle.
I told the man, who had never heard of Lizzie (he was from Ireland) about the possibility of her raising this up and down 19 times chopping at her stepmother. He said "She must be strong."
When I told him of the possibility of her doing something similar to her father his response was "That's bad!"
(Meaning it is bad to kill one's father).
When I said how could she get the strength, he said adrenaline. When I asked what she was doing waiting 90 minutes between killings, his partner piped up with "RESTING!"

[Allen]

I don't think chloroform could be considered another method of murder, it didn't murder them. The method of murder was the axe. Considering the extent of the injuries, I would say the clothes were relatively bloodless. It should've been a lot more bloody considering the amount of wounds inflicted upon them by the axe.The scenes were relatively bloodless also in my opinion. I don't believe it makes the murder more complex to add the chloroform. Other murderers used this method to make their deed more easily done.It would've been more complex in my opinion for something like this not to have been used. If Abby were completely aware why didn't she struggle or scream? In other reports I have read, including the one I posted, there were either signs of a struggle, screaming if anyone was around to hear, or both. In the one I posted the man screamed enough that his neighbors were able to come and save him. In the smutty nose case which you brought up and I found interest in, there was also a struggle, a bloodier scene, and screaming. So why didn't Abby scream after she was hit the first time? Fight or flight should've kicked in, the adrenaline of being attacked, and there should've been a struggle. I think as close as those houses were, if she would've screamed she would've been heard. I do not believe she was hit once and it silenced her. It was broad daylight, in a house in the middle of a busy street, I think it makes more sense if she did use something to silence them first.

[Audrey]

Who says Abby didn't scream? How do we know she didn't struggle?

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum and in "Lizzie-Land" in general about the street noise...

A long time ago there was a thread about "Abby crashing to the floor". I started the thread when my oldest son dropped a weight in his room and it shook my entire house-- A house much larger than 92 2nd... It made an interesting "think" for me...

I emailed my brother who is a physician and asked him what one might expect (if anything) to find in an autopsy when the person was exposed to chloroform. I am interested to see what he thinks...

If we consider the chloroform we also have to accept that not only was she able to successfully hide the axe/hatchet but the chloroform bottle, rag, and perhaps even a dress...

Where was Lizzie when I was hiding Pere Noel presents from my kids?

[FairhavenGuy]

Could this, "3. It would account largely for the bloodless clothes," refer to the lack of blood on the prime suspect's clothes?

[Audrey]

oh... Another thing.

Criminologists will usually tell you that the answers to mysteries or unknown occurrences are usually very simple... Making it more complicated than it needs to be seems to be a bit AR Brown-ish to me....

I think that if Lizzie did it--- she did it remarkably simply and had one heck of a run of good luck after!

[Allen]

Dismissing a theory out of hand because it seems "to complicated" seems to be the way. Dismissing anything I think is a mistake, since we have no idea, no matter how learned we think we are, what happened. And Audrey what of the murderers who do take this route? It's not always simple and clean cut with a run of good luck at the end.If she could take the time to hide the axe, as someone obviously did, not to mention the blood stained clothing, who is to say the chloroform,clothes, and whatever else was use could not have beed hidden in the same place as the axe?

[Allen]

In my opinion, if someone willfully takes the life of another, the situation could be pretty complicated. The situation could get as complicated as is needed to keep the killer from being caught. Some killers take the time to plot out an elaborately planned schemes to cover their tracks, and make the cases harder to solve.

[Audrey]

I can agree... If the killer had a bottle and a rag as well as a weapon and bloody clothing- they probably ended up together...

My point was that adding elements to the crime is a tricky thing to do since it just adds additional layers that need explanation.

AR Brown took this route-- Have you read his book? He comes up with some plausible (I suppose) explanations until he comes to the prussic acid... He just ran out of gas.... Have you read Masterson? He did a great job of presenting the facts and causing the reader to look in different directions-- UNTIL he started adding things...

There is simply no reason to add a chemical to the situation...

If we want to add chloroform-- then a person can ask-- Was Bridget gassed? Is this why she was throwing up? What about the illness? Was it caused by gas? Could be-- Bridget was sick all morning-- John could have done it-- He was there earlier. Also-- The old folks were sick for a couple of days-- Who else was around? They could have done it.

In an investigation if you take too many detours you get lost-- and the criminal gets away! That might be very well what happened in this case to begin with...

[Allen]

There is simply no need to add a chemical to the situation? Hmm. Well.
There is simply no way to know if one was used, so whether anyone feels there is a "need" or not it may well have been used. I don't rule anything out, because I don't know what happened.We will never know.If you take too many detours the criminal gets lost? It is the job an investigator to not rule anything out, to follow all avenues and leads, or they become closed minded and think that anything beyond simplicity becomes "too complicated".The criminal who doesn't simply just stab or shoot , and and becomes more creative and inventive will surely get away. An investigator that would say that was "too complicated" and rule it out without first actually investigating is no kind of investigator at all.If you are investigating a crime, you don't rule anything out until you actually have some sort of proof positive that says to the contrary, you're limiting yourself and your ability to solve a crime if you do that.

[Nancie]

Luck happens. I really believe that Lizzie was just
so unbelieveably lucky, whether she did it or had it
done, she was one LUCKY LADY. It happens. just
like. SH** happens!

[Audrey]

So... Since there is no way of knowing is one was used... If the police were investigating this case today and had no way of knowing if something was used-- they should use time following up on speculative ideas? OK.

(Or should I say OJ?)

[Allen]

I think that if the police were investigating this crime today, that they would've known if something was used. They test for all of that in the event of a homocide automatically. And how do investigators solve a crime except to speculate at what might have happened based on the evidence and follow it up. A murder investigation IS one big speculation.
Speculative ideas? YES, they should follow them up. How else will a crime get solved? Is the murderer going to come in and confess to doing it, and how they did it and when, if there is no evidence?Unless you are thinking that all the evidence and a confession is just going to drop into your lap, speculation is all you have.

[wintressanna]

You know what Im wondering? I really have to take a harder look at all the documentation, to really line this up and see if im not just plain wrong. But Im wondering if the reason that none of the details of this case are straight forward is because of the strength of Lizzie's personality, and her waffling testimony on every little aspect. I dont think criminologists today would have relied so heavily upon that. Did they follow every lead possible to find the murder weapon? What difference could it have made if modern forensic scientists examined the exact angles of the blow versus the exact positions of the bodies? Dusted and took in all the particulars of the rooms, the house? What leads could they have followed to establish the chrionology instead of going over every little thing Lizzie said? I know they did examine the barn, etc, and maybe the investigation wasnt lacking but there was little to find. Like I said, I really have to take a harder look at the documentation. But I find it really interesting.

[Nancie]

1892 here, nothin fancy folks, just us gool ol boys fillin out some traffic tickets here..these guys didn't have Master degrees in criminology or psychology like some some of you on this forum claim, jeez they were just good old boys from new england, and now a double-homicide! holy SH** can you imagine how they felt, so inadequate i'm sure.

[theebmonique]

There's no just 'claiming' on the master's in criminology and psychology...those are REAL, and documented. I have seen her papers. The folks from Hahvad aren't faking any degrees.


Tracy...

[theebmonique]

Now the 1892 Fall River Police Department may have wished they had the degrees some have now, had they known they needed them. The more knowledge the better. Knowledge is power.


Tracy...

[Kat]

Do those other crimes involve 2 modes of killing? Chloroform is a mode or method of killing. Like Poison vs. the hatchet. I've always had a big problem with the Lizzie-buying-prussic-acid story simply because it's 2 methods.
I have read true crime for 30 years. I have watched the videos and belonged to the Video club. I have studied this case. This case is not like any other case and that's why we're here. It is very rare to have 2 methods of murder. 2 weapons usually denotes 2 perpetrators. We're talking about experience in other crimes, not just the crimes posted in the news items. Try to find a parricide by a 30 year-old woman. They are few and far between.

This studying of muder & reading experience doesn't make me right- just more firm in my belief.

There are comparisons to the Manchester axe murder, but that case was more straightforward.

I said if she used chloroform why not strangle? I didn't say "smother" notice, because I see the need for a hands-on involvement. This killer wouldn't be content to chloroform and smother- they would strangle- really get their fingernails embedded in those necks. That's what the hatchet was for. But girls don't strangle. But girls back then had abilities to use a hatchet, I believe.

There is just one thing I will point out, nothing against anyone honest- it's just one's own words coming back to roost- maybe their opinion has changed? But it was posted here that a person (you know who you are ) dismisses Lizzie's testimony whole, and do not believe a word she says, or at least that has been the stance. If we are now being advised to keep an open mind, which is always good advice from anyone, we can start with that testimony's importance as the only time we get her story, ever: agreed?

Nancie has got that right about those old Fall River cops. Even those old cops anywhere back then. They hadn't much to work with forensically, so really much less was expected in a court of law. The courts wanted motive, means, and opportunity- just the simple stuff was enough back then. It doesn't mean the cops were stupid, just that the bar was lower, no sophistication.

[Allen]

Chloroform is not necessarily a method of killing. It would not be two modes of murder. Chloroform did not cause their death. It simply could've rendered them unconcious and subdued them so they did not struggle or scream. If they had not been hacked with the axe they would've come out of it. It could be used as a means for murder if it was ingested. But if it was just inhaled it could've been used to knock them unconcious. Were all those doctors who used it as an anesthetic trying to murder thier patients?

[Allen]

There is just one thing I will point out, nothing against anyone honest- it's just one's own words coming back to roost- maybe their opinion has changed? But it was posted here that a person (you know who you are ) dismisses Lizzie's testimony whole, and do not believe a word she says, or at least that has been the stance. If we are now being advised to keep an open mind, which is always good advice from anyone, we can start with that testimony's importance as the only time we get her story, ever: agreed?.

If I believed Lizzie was innocent, I would have no problem believing she told the unvarnished truth. But I don't, therefore thats a whole different ball game. But, for the sake of argument, if I believed she was innocent, I would still take her testimony with a grain of salt because she did not even seem to know which end was up most of the time, or whether she was going or coming. Too many contradictions. So either way I go, I don't take it too seriously. There is also proof, in the form of the testimony of other witnesses, that throws a lot of doubt on the words of our Miss Lizzie.
But yes, it is the only time we get Lizzie's story. How much of it to believe is another matter.

[Audrey]

Chloroform is not necessarily a method of killing. It would not be two modes of murder. Chloroform did not cause their death. It simply could've rendered them unconscious and subdued them so they did not struggle or scream. If they had not been hacked with the axe they would've come out of it. It could be used as a means for murder if it was ingested. But if it was just inhaled it could've been used to knock them unconscious. Were all those doctors who used it as an anesthetic trying to murder thier patients?

If anyone was going to use a chloroform soaked rag on a person's face long enough to knock them out-- Why not just keep it there until they are dead??? There is NO WAY you are going to convince me to even entertain the notion that they were unconscious when the hatchet struck them. Why shoot fish in a barrell? Get a funnel and pour chloroform down their throats! It makes no sense. None at all. As far as subduing them.... Binding a person is subduing them, locking them in a room or throwing them down a well might keep them from getting away. Chloroform and the axe ARE two methods of killing. Would someone give arsenic to a person to "knock them out" so that they could shoot them???

Lizzie would have had to have been terribly careful with that chloroform and put JUST the exact, right amount on the rag and hold it for JUST the exact, right amount of time over their faces for it not to have (In Abby's case) noticeably burned their mouths/faces or her own fingers.

Bridget shut the sitting room windows.... How long would the smell of the vapor remained in that hot, stuffy room? Indeed-- In the whole house-- especially with a rag soaked with the stuff hidden somewhere.

Chloroform is NON FLAMMABLE http://www.solvaychlorinatedorganics.co ... 14,00.html

so if she had stuck the doused rag in the stove it would have been like putting a water soaked rag in there-- it would not have ignited and may have put out a small fire or hot coal it was laid on.


As far as the question of whether or not Physicians who used it attempting to murder their patients.... My husband has an office full of "laughing gas" which he uses appropriately--- In the wrong hands it most certainly coud be a weapon!