Why oh why a hatchet??

[sguthmann]

Something else that I've recently been hung up...why did the murderer use a hatchet? Couldn't he or she just have easily used a gun, knife, or any variety of other weapons to kill the victims? What made the HATCHET the tool of choice for this particular killer? It just strikes me as unusual. I know that it would have been a weapon that would be relatively easy for anyone to get their hands on...but the mess?? The time involved to do the murder and the cleanup that would be necessitated by using such a weapon? Here's some thoughts that occur to me about the hatchet vs other weapons...

- a GUN= if done properly, a quick, impersonal and relatively easy method of murder which could be accomplished without ever having to physically touch or get too near the victim...but noisy and perhaps not that easy to get ones hands on (perhaps even more so for a gal?) and might be traceable? (I have no idea about the state of serialization of firearms and ammo, nor the state of gunpowder residue testing at the time). At the least, it would leave no doubt as to what the murder weapon was and what to immediately begin looking for.

- stangulation by ROPE, CORD, etc = easily procured, virtually no cleanup involved (bloodwise at least) and, if done properly, noise might not be much of a factor...but would it have required more strength than our killer had?

- bludgeoning via appropriate BLUNT OBJECT = would not need to obtain a special weapon, as virtually every household would have something that would "fit the bill"....would require some strength and endurance to get the job done, perhaps more so than a sharp object, and one may have trouble if the first blows weren't sufficient to incapacitate the victim.

- KNIFE = easily obtainable, and a relatively effective and efficient murder weapon, which could incapacitate the vicitim very quickly if done correctly. The sharper the blade, the easier it would sink into the flesh, so perhaps not requiring as much strength and endurance as, say, bludgeoning...but messy, somewhat unpredictable, and a good chance the perpetraitor might him/herself be injured in the attack (=evidence).

And then there's the HATCHET. Like a knife, a hatchet requires the murderer to be "up close and personal" at the time of the killing, and there are definitely correlations between so-called "crimes of passion" and the choice of murder weapons that reflect the "personal" aspect of the killer's relationship with the victim. This doesn't seem to be a case of "overkill," though, as I would define it (definitely nothing like the Ripper's dramatic slicing and dicing). Enough "whacks" to get the job done, and nearly all focused on the head; quick, incapacitating, and obviously effective. But the mess would require a very detailed and thorough cleanup, and that had the possibility to be very time-consuming. How could one be sure just how long such an attack would take to carry out and clean up? Does this indicate the killer wasn't concerned about having enough time? Or was this weapon chosen in a fit of madness that superceded such practical considerations? Personally, I have a hard time believing that this murder was not in some way planned.

I'm sure this topic has been psychoanalyzed to death already, but I can't help myself. I'm curious to hear what my more learned collegues have to say on the topic.

[Golaszewski]

A gun going off would definitely be noisy, and could get the attention of anyone nearby. This is undesirable if not getting caught is the idea. Also, it would require the murderer to have a gun. If this were a crime of passion (and the violence is suggestive of this), then unless the murderer has a gun handy something else would have to do.

Strangulation would require both superior physical strength, and likely the element of surprise. The easiest assailant to fight off is one whose only weapon is a rope.

They biggest problem with a knife is it will incapacitate only if the attacker knows how to use a knife in a fight. The killer may not have had such knowledge. If the victim isn't quickly incapacitated, they can fight back and use the knife on you.

There really isn't that much difference between a blunt instrument than a hatchet, other than the former is less bloody. Bashing somone's head in with a club is not much more elegant than hitting them on the head with a hatchet.

And, the choice of a hatchet could be desirable on the theory the killer was a woman. Some have argued that Lizzie may have been found guilty because the men on the jury just couldn't see a respectable lady from an affluent family using a hatchet to kill. A woman wanting to seem less like a suspect who was plotting out a killing logically might choose a hatchet.

[Audrey]

As far as using a gun...

I have no idea how I would even begin to go about purchasing a gun.... I wouldn't know where to go, who to ask or how to operate it. If Lizzie did it, would she have known how to put the bullets in the gun?

A rope or knife would have required her to be physically closer to the victim than the hatchet would have.

[FairhavenGuy]

The use of a hatchet certainly does not eliminate any of the "usual suspects," but it's hard to know why a hatchet was used if you don't know who the murderer was.

Obviously there were a few hatchets/axes around the house, as would have been the case with almost any house during that time.

But there were other "weapons" there, too--knives, an ice pick no doubt, and the flat irons. All of the latter were handy closer to the scene of the crimes than the hatchets were. (There's simply no plausible reason for a hatchet just happening to be in the guest room, unless Uncle John carried one down his pants leg for self defense and forgot to take it with him when he left the house that morning )

This is a thought provoking question.

[Golaszewski]

As far as using a gun...

I have no idea how I would even begin to go about purchasing a gun.... I wouldn't know where to go, who to ask or how to operate it. If Lizzie did it, would she have known how to put the bullets in the gun?

A rope or knife would have required her to be physically closer to the victim than the hatchet would have.

On the theory that Lizzie did the killings, unless she had long owned a gun wouldn't it be damn suspicious if Andrew and Abby ended up dead by gunshot shortly after she bought a gun? Unless she had planned killing them long in advance, a gun would have been out of the question.

[Pippi]

bashing someone's head in with a flat iron would be effective and much less messy....and perhaps feminine?

[Kat]

"There really isn't that much difference between a blunt instrument than a hatchet, other than the former is less bloody. Bashing somone's head in with a club is not much more elegant than hitting them on the head with a hatchet."--Mr. G.

I was thinking along the lines of a hatchet being closer in family to a knife, tho I agree pretty much with the rest oif your assessments..
A blunt instument is a weapon of immediate opportunity, whereas a kife or hatchet has to be brought to the site of the murder in a guestroom.
The point may have been to bring in a weapon from outside the household. The axe or hatchet might be like using a knife, but with the added advantage of the distancing from the victim by virtue of the length of handle, less chance of a wound to the perpetrator in the act, and the weight of it as weapon might preclude it's being taken away in a struggle by the victim. Also, for all we know, hatchets were pretty common in homes at the time?
It still is bloody and it is really odd to me, if I'm to inherit a house, that I would choose a weapon which was going to totally foul the place with blood and gore.
An outsider, of course, wouldn't care.

Also, poison was left out of the original offering of weapons in the title post. Maybe there are not too many instances of an outsider poisoning a family to seem credible at the time? I don't know about poison here- I'm recalling there were snippets in the paper about a mass arsenical poisoning by a stranger at a restaurant the week of the Borden murders (Evening Standard).

[Golaszewski]

Also, for all we know, hatchets were pretty common in homes at the time?

At the Borden house, a hatchet was surely nearby. It might not have been in the room, however someone really pissed off could get it and use it in a minute or so. Thus it is consistent with the theory of a crime of passion.

It still is bloody and it is really odd to me, if I'm to inherit a house, that I would choose a weapon which was going to totally foul the place with blood and gore.

Those who would inherit the house could have easily afforded to pay someone to clean up the mess.

Also, poison was left out of the original offering of weapons in the title post. Maybe there are not too many instances of an outsider poisoning a family to seem credible at the time?

How many outsiders today use poison to kill a family?

[snokkums]

I think a gun would have been to loud. It would have drawn attention. A knife might to the damage.

[Nancie]

I have never abandoned the idea that it was the
"flat iron"..I have a few I've saved from family and
keep adding to my collection when I see them at
Flea Mkts etc. Lizzie was waiting for her iron to heat on the stove, plus putting it back on the stove
would possibly clean off the evidence? We've discussed this before and Susan showed us various
old shapes and sizes of flat irons from the day. Could definitely do the dasterdly deed.

[Nancie]

RE: GUN.. It isn't too hard to buy a gun, I bought
my Lady Smith 9mm automatic when I lived in Vermont. I walked into the gun store and just bought it. It probably isn't that easy anymore.

[Kat]

Maybe it's a girl thing: Fouling the house, making an awful mess when it's going to become your house in a few hours. It doesn't compute.
Ladies, any opinion?

If the crime was premeditated by any length of time, that girl might choose a weapon which made less mess.
If the crime was one of pure passion in the immediate moment, there wouldn't be a hatchet in the guest room to use...

I guess it boils down to: If Lizzie did it she planned on an hatchet because it's - as they say- a man's weapon?

[doug65oh]

Andrew - well, I think we've covered this before but... he had, did he not, something of a "hatchet history" himself, having purportedly bisected Lizzie's squabs with said implement?

Sure, it's messy as all get-out, but the symbolic irony in using a hatchet...kerblam, right between the eyes....

And as for making a mess, the potential inheritence would almost justify that; cleanup would be a mere drop in ye olde molasses bucket...

[Kat]

You're not a girl, pardon me. Maybe I'm different than the other females here about making a mess.
You guys seem to think money will cover it!

Andrew twisted the heads off the pigeons according to Lizzie.
Remember she said they looked tender?

Inquest
Lizzie
82
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very tender, I said why are these heads off? I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.
Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.

--That reminds me of the quote in The Legend movie: Where Ms. Montgomery says to Mrs. Borden something about twisting her arm off? Did she say that?

[Allen]

Well it seemed she was trying to skirt the issue a bit from just those few sentences. So I read the rest of the testimony to see if it gave me the same feeling. I got my copy of the inquest testimony from the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook on page 87. Why does she use the phrase "I think.." so many times? "I think he said so."...."I think I remember...." Read how many times she says "I think..." and "I don't know."

Q. Can you tell of any killing of an animal? Or any other operation that would lead to their being cast there, with blood on them?
A. No sir. He killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.

Q. What with?
A. I don't know, but I thought he wrung their necks.

Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.

Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A. All but three or four had their heads on, that is what made me think so.

Q. Did all of them come into the house?
A. I think so.

Q. Those that came into the house were all headless?
A. Two or three had them on.

Q. Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.

Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone, that is all.

Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very
tender, I said "Why are these heads off?" I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.

Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.

This gives me the same feelings as the square dancing she did with the upstairs, downstairs, no I was in the kitchen statements. In my opinion, she was being evasive. But then I don't trust her statements so that could just be me. She also goes from saying that all but three or four had their heads on, to later saying two or three had them on.

[Kat]

I only published the bit I thought necessary to make the whole point which was that she says Andrew says they were twisted off.
I didn't mean for it to look like I was selecting specific testimony to back up my own opinion.
It says that Andrew twisted the heads off and only the movie shows differently.
I wasn't there but I don't see why Lizzie should prevaricate on this point. If he had axed them, she might get some sympathy out of it.
It is always a good idea for anyone to double-check testimony tho. It's the correct thing to do.
But from the Sourcebook?
Do you have her inquest as a download?
The other newspapers of that time can't be relied upon for accuracy.

[Allen]

I only published the bit I thought necessary to make the whole point which was that she says Andrew says they were twisted off.
I didn't mean for it to look like I was selecting specific testimony to back up my own opinion.
It says that Andrew twisted the heads off and only the movie shows differently.
I wasn't there but I don't see why Lizzie should prevaricate on this point. If he had axed them, she might get some sympathy out of it.
It is always a good idea for anyone to double-check testimony tho. It's the correct thing to do.
But from the Sourcebook?
Do you have her inquest as a download?
The other newspapers of that time can't be relied upon for accuracy.

I did not imply you selected testimony to support your own point. Maybe I did not word my post correctly, what I said was just from those few sentences you posted of Lizzie's testimony I got the idea she was trying to skirt the issue. So I went back and read the rest of the testimony to see if I still had the same feeling about it. The testimony that I used which was listed in the SourceBook did not come from a newspaper. The entire "unabridged text" of Lizzie's Inquest is listed from start to finish in the middle of the book starting on page 52 and ending on page 97. I have checked it several times when using it at other times against the Inquest testimony as I found it listed on other sources,and it is accurate. The one I have checked it against most is the one I use the most, which is listed at this site. If she said that Andrew axed her pidgeons, it could go to show why an axe was possibly used to do away with Andrew himself.

http://www.frpd.org/lizzie/part1.htm

[Kat]

It is always correct to check the testimony. You did the absolute right thing.
(I forgot you are suspicious of everything Lizzie says ).

However, there is no more accurate inquest testimony than as the download at the web-site.
It took 4 people to make sure it was correct to the hard copy.
There is no source more accurate.
I wouldn't use the Sourcebook. Just so people know.
Thanks for explaining!

[Wordweaver]

If she said that Andrew axed her pidgeons, it could go to show why an axe was possibly used to do away with Andrew himself.

http://www.frpd.org/lizzie/part1.htm

I like the symbolism of that. Although Andrew apparently wrung the birds' necks, using a hatchet could still carry some of the same symbolism.

There's a practical issue here. Anyone with the courage can easily wring a bird's neck, thus decapitating it (or not, depending on technique and level of force). But even if a very powerful person could break an adult's neck by the grab-and-twist method, nobody could use the swing-by-the-head technique on a 200-pound woman or a man nearly six feet tall. So if you can't wring someone's neck, why not use a hatchet? That's the other approved bird-killing technique.

Even if you're not trying to make the killing look like a slaughter of pigeons, it's quick, fairly quiet, relatively sure (although some of the New Orleans axeman's victims lived), and allows you to obliterate the victim's face or pound their skull until your rage is satisfied. In those days, hatchets were common household items. They're not rare these days -- I own two now. (We have a wood stove.)

Unlike a flatiron, a hatchet has a handle designed to maximize the force of the blow. Many flatirons had detachable handles, which would never have stood up to the violence of those two assaults.

Lynn

[Golaszewski]

If she said that Andrew axed her pidgeons, it could go to show why an axe was possibly used to do away with Andrew himself.

I'm finding it hard to accept that this was done to avenge the death of some pigeons. And if so, why also kill Abby?

[Kat]

I should specify that by "hard copy" I mean The Evening Standard newspaper.
Please believe that the work was done to benefit everyone by all these people. It was the best source to start with.

[Audrey]

It is always correct to check the testimony. You did the absolute right thing.
(I forgot you are suspicious of everything Lizzie says ).

However, there is no more accurate inquest testimony than as the download at the web-site.
It took 4 people to make sure it was correct to the hard copy.
There is no source more accurate.
I wouldn't use the Sourcebook. Just so people know.
Thanks for explaining!

And we tend to forget that work took hours upon hours and was not only double checked-- it was probably triple checked!

All of the painstakingly transcribed and checked source documents are available here and all but one (the prelim) are free.

If one does a Lizzie search one can find many sites with information and error after error--- except for here.

The books are nice and I own almost every one published about the case, and I enjoy reading them and just having them on my bookshelf. However the source documents and the other materials available here are completed works. The investigation, corroboration of facts, etc has been completed. This allows us to march fearlessly into personal theory development.

I can say, with 100% certainty that a person googling Lizzie may find interesting tidbits to tantalize or make us laugh-- But unless new evidence is uncovered-- no one is going to find any hair raising new evidence or facts not listed, sourced and discussed here!

This is the Rolls Royce of Lizzie-dom. (and Lizzie would certainly approve of a RR)

[Golaszewski]

I can say, with 100% certainty that a person googling Lizzie may find interesting tidbits to tantalize or make us laugh-- But unless new evidence is uncovered-- no one is going to find any hair raising new evidence or facts not listed, sourced and discussed here!

The big problem with the Borden murder case is that it is at a total dead end absent new evidence. What is needed now is either new physical evidence to be discovered, or possibly new forensic analysis of old evidence.

[Allen]

Q. Can you tell of any killing of an animal? Or any other operation that would lead to their being cast there, with blood on them?
A. No sir. He killed some pigeons in the barn last May or June.

Q. What with?
A. I don't know, but I thought he wrung their necks.

Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.

Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A. All but three or four had their heads on, that is what made me think so.

Q. Did all of them come into the house?
A. I think so.

Q. Those that came into the house were all headless?
A. Two or three had them on.

Q. Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.

Q. Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.

Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone, that is all.

Q. Did you tell anybody they looked as though they were twisted off?
A. I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very
tender, I said "Why are these heads off?" I think I remember of telling somebody that he said they twisted off.

Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.

taken from the LAB site

Lizzie's inquest testimony page 82:

Q. Can you tell of any killing of an animal? or other operation that would lead to their being cast there, with blood on them?
A.No, sir, he killed some pidgeons in the barn last May or June.

Q.What with?
A. I don't know, but I think he wrung their necks.

Q. What made you think so?
A. I think he said so.

Q. Did anything else make you think so?
A.All but three or four had their heads on, that is what made me think so.

Q.Did all of them come into the house?
A.I think so.

Q.Those that came into the house were all headless?
A.Two or three had them on.

Q.Were any with their heads off?
A. Yes sir.

Q.Cut off or twisted off?
A. I don't know which.

Q. How did they look?
A. I don't know, their heads were gone,that is all.

Q.Did you tell anybody they looked as though they had been twisted off?
A.I don't remember whether I did or not. The skin I think was very tender,
I said why are these heads off? I think I remember of telling somebody that he said he twisted them off.

Q. Did they look as if they were cut off?
A. I don't know, I did not look at that particularly.

My question was why she seems to be skirting the issue. She says "I think..." and "I don't know...” too often in my opinion. I do not believe she killed her parents to avenge some pigeons. I know if I had just killed someone with an axe, or hatchet, I would deny any knowledge of the recent use of such a weapon by me or by the victim. For no other reason than I would be scared the information could be used in some unfavorable manner against me. My belief is she used the axe because it was considered to be a more "manly" weapon. But, I am always looking at the evidence and my opinions change often. It could be asked why she did not use the club that was under Andrew's bed? That would surely have done the deed.

[Audrey]

There is a lot of "near as I can tell" or "I can not remember" in the testimony of the case.

The inquest was too early for her to have been advised to be deliberately vague.

I used to think she did it on purpose-- But she did such a poor job of testifying at the inquest that one has to wonder if she even had her wits about her at the time.

The reason I tend to reject the conspiracy theories and that the killings were well planned out by a group or even more than one person is why leave Lizzie twisting in the wind so badly? No alibi? No one else to have been there to say "WE were in the barn" or even to have had a decent story concocted for Lizzie alone.

And as ar as new evidence... I would love for some to be found... but... well. You know.

[Audrey]

My belief is she used the axe because it was considered to be a more "manly" weapon.

And in my belief is she was smart enough to have thought that would have thrown them off her trail she would have been smart enough to also have a back up plan if it didn't... ie-- an alibi or at least a believable story as to the sequence of her events of that day.

I don't think she ever dreamed anyone would dare to suspect her and if someone had the nerve to do so-- well they would never charge her or arrest her.

But then again.. She did say the night the mayor told her that she was suspected that she was ready to go with them...

[Smudgeman]

Also, for all we know, hatchets were pretty common in homes at the time?

At the Borden house, a hatchet was surely nearby. It might not have been in the room, however someone really pissed off could get it and use it in a minute or so. Thus it is consistent with the theory of a crime of passion.

It still is bloody and it is really odd to me, if I'm to inherit a house, that I would choose a weapon which was going to totally foul the place with blood and gore.

Those who would inherit the house could have easily afforded to pay someone to clean up the mess.

Also, poison was left out of the original offering of weapons in the title post. Maybe there are not too many instances of an outsider poisoning a family to seem credible at the time?

How many outsiders today use poison to kill a family?

If you choose the route of knives or hatchets, there is going to be blood. You want the victims dead no matter what. If you go the route that Lizzie committed the murders, I think she chose a very good weapon. Poison was not working, but maybe she slowed the old folks down a bit, too bad she didn't have any anti-freese lying around. A knifing would have been a very physical, bloody mess, with the chance of getting hurt or not getting the job done unless you know how to fight and to fight with a knife.The victims could have fought back a bit easlier than having a heavy axe/hatchet swinging at you. If you took a really good swing at your intended target, the hatchet could kill you instantly or kill you after one ,two, three. The number of blows Mr and Mrs Borden sustained goes beyond wanting to kill, but wanting to make sure they were "sincerely" dead. You could argue that a first good blow to the jugular vein with a knife would do the trick, but a steel blade with a handle with leverage is going to really make sure you win the fight. With a knife you would have to continue stabbing until death,and you would be sore after such an encounter. So why did the killer continue to hack away at Mr & Mrs Borden after I am sure they were dead? Do you think an outsider would have so much rage?

[Kat]

I was thinking lately that the murders may have been planned ahead but happened Thursday because Morse came.
Morse the butcher, Morse the enigma, Morse the eccentric.
I've been wondering if the onus was to be displaced onto him, at least long enough to keep them from suspecting Lizzie until she got rid of the evidence.
He was a suspect, and the first one too.
Lay it on him- why not?
Maybe that's why he wrote those girls out of his will? Like -gee thanks for all the upset, lady!

[Golaszewski]

And as ar as new evidence... I would love for some to be found... but... well. You know.

It occurs to me that if a team of top forensic scientists were to go over that house with a fine tooth comb, it might yield something. Absent that, all that would be left are possible writings by the suspects that have yet to surface. Such as a diary where the real killer admitted it, and has never been made public because family members wanted to keep a secret. Later descendents in that case theoretically could make this public.

[Golaszewski]

So why did the killer continue to hack away at Mr & Mrs Borden after I am sure they were dead? Do you think an outsider would have so much rage?

Which is why I tend to suspect this was a crime of passion by someone who hated the victims. Of course, it is always possible a random psycho killer passed through town and did the dirty deed.

[Audrey]

The recent special on TV in which the lovely Misses Kooreys took part in was (apart from their appearances) rather anti climatic. Forensics was used in this special, ie- the luminol (heavy editing I suspect), and of course the melon and the hatchet debacle...

I think the hour would have been better spent just having Kat and Steph tell all they knew about the case or maybe a web cam in Michael Martins' office or home...

[Audrey]

So why did the killer continue to hack away at Mr & Mrs Borden after I am sure they were dead? Do you think an outsider would have so much rage?

Which is why I tend to suspect this was a crime of passion by someone who hated the victims. Of course, it is always possible a random psycho killer passed through town and did the dirty deed.

The crime of passion angle is the easiest to understand.. But the hardest to explain.... I have been seriously pissed before but it seldom lasted 90+ minutes and I would have been hard pressed to keep it under wraps between 2 episodes of 'acting out'

[Golaszewski]

The crime of passion angle is the easiest to understand.. But the hardest to explain.... I have been seriously pissed before but it seldom lasted 90+ minutes and I would have been hard pressed to keep it under wraps between 2 episodes of 'acting out'

I may have to get the Masterson book to read his argument about the murders may have been very close in time together. Clearly at the time the investigators did a sloppy job.

[Audrey]

clearly... but common sense prevails.

[Allen]

And as ar as new evidence... I would love for some to be found... but... well. You know.

In my opinion the only new evidence that could be found would be found during the renovations at the B&B. But, I really don't hold my breath on anything new being found. I think it's a shot in the dark at the least. Though no evidence pertaining to the case may be found it would be interesting to see what is found, and in some cases, what is not. Is anything left of the items that Uncle John wanted buried so long ago?

[Kat]

I was thinking lately that the murders may have been planned ahead but happened Thursday because Morse came.
Morse the butcher, Morse the enigma, Morse the eccentric.
I've been wondering if the onus was to be displaced onto him, at least long enough to keep them from suspecting Lizzie until she got rid of the evidence.
He was a suspect, and the first one too.
Lay it on him- why not?
Maybe that's why he wrote those girls out of his will? Like -gee thanks for all the upset, lady!

Maybe that's why a hatchet was used in a room in which Morse had stayed. To implicate Morse.

[Nona]

I find it strange that Abbey would be in there anyway making a bed or tiding up in there because that was a room normally looked after by Lizzie and Emma and Emma not being home that dudy should have been left to Lizzie so WHY didn't Lizzie do it? Why was ABBEY THERE?

[Wordweaver]

I'm finding it hard to accept that this was done to avenge the death of some pigeons. And if so, why also kill Abby?

I don't think it was done to avenge their deaths. But the atmosphere in that house was one of terror and paranoia. Locked doors. Fears of poisoning or arson or burglary. Smoldering resentment expressed obliquely ("Mrs. Borden" instead of "Mother").

Imagine yourself the daughter of a wealthy man, yet living in a mixed neighborhood in a relatively small house all too close to a livery stable. (Road apples. August heat. Flies. Stench.) You're a luxury-loving spinster over 30, and your only hope of getting a better life for yourself is to get your hands on Papa's cash. You can't move out or get a job -- respectable girls didn't do that, and you want to be more than respectable, you want to be fashionable. If you displease Papa, he might cut you out of the will. You're dependent, frustrated, feeling helpless and angry. And you won;t give p and leave Papa to the usurping stepmother.

Papa is widely known as a sharp trader. Maybe he killed the pigeons innocently, as a money-saving measure (or to protect the new paint job from their droppings -- see http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... dencat.htm), or maybe he did it in a rage with Lizzie.

Now we are getting into much more speculative territory.

Imagine how you would feel if your domineering father, who has always controlled you through money, killed your pets and brought their bloody corpses in. Victoria Lincoln reads that as just old Andrew being unemotional. But in a house where there is so much repressed emotion, that could well feel like a personal threat or punishment to Lizzie. If he did tell Bridget to cook them for dinner, it's even worse.

So I can see Lizzie taking a nasty satisfaction in giving old Andrew something like what he gave the pigeons, whether she slew the elder Bordens in a rage, or planned it meticulously to get the cash, or thought about it a lot but never really intended to do it until she finally lost her temper one August day.

Same motive also holds if Emma was responsible (though I don't believe she wielded the hatchet). She was motherly toward Lizzie and would feel angry on her behalf. I doubt Uncle John knew about the incident. Bridget would have known, though.

Does that make more sense?

Lynn

[Angel]

Getting back to the hatchet thing---I asked in a previous post if anyone knew how common a meat cleaver was in a kitchen at that time. It could be used and then washed and put back into a drawer. And it was mentioned that a piece of bone was found in the hair that was hacked off Abby, and it was cut very cleanly with what had to have been a very sharp object.
As for the random maniac theory, I don't think that was the case. If that was true, I believe Lizzie and Bridget would have been victims too, because they were all over the house at the time Abby and Andrew were killed.

[Haulover]

***Getting back to the hatchet thing---I asked in a previous post if anyone knew how common a meat cleaver was in a kitchen at that time. It could be used and then washed and put back into a drawer. And it was mentioned that a piece of bone was found in the hair that was hacked off Abby, and it was cut very cleanly with what had to have been a very sharp object.***

i aired this idea once myself. from what i gathered, as i remember -- it is unlikely because of the weight and leverage needed, the force apparently inflicted.

[Haulover]

one obvious answer to "why a hatchet" is that the murderer was an experienced butcher.

[Kat]

It's been answered somewhere here earlier (by me ) that there was gilt in Abby's wound and kitchen implements are not gilded. Thus what killed Abby was not a kitchen implement, unless it was some sort of ornamental object.

[Nancie]

Look at the IRON! Or, an experienced Butcher?
I just love this case...

[theebmonique]

Since there was gilt in Abby's wound, I am doubting that it could be an iron that was the weapon of choice. So far at least, I haven't found anything that states that the irons of that time were gilded...maybe one of you knows different ?

This is a link to an archived post by Kat, in which gilt is discussed. She cites a reference in the Knowlton Papers (HK203), from Dr. Draper (and confirmed by Dr. Cheever), who mentions finding the gilt.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... eAdang.htm


Tracy...

[Susan]

Maybe it's a girl thing: Fouling the house, making an awful mess when it's going to become your house in a few hours. It doesn't compute.
Ladies, any opinion?

If the crime was premeditated by any length of time, that girl might choose a weapon which made less mess.
If the crime was one of pure passion in the immediate moment, there wouldn't be a hatchet in the guest room to use...

I guess it boils down to: If Lizzie did it she planned on an hatchet because it's - as they say- a man's weapon?

I understand what you're saying, Kat, about making a mess in what is to become your house. I know that I wouldn't want to do it! But, outside of cleaning her room and ironing her hankies, what did Lizzie do about keeping up the Borden home? It doesn't sound like much, Emma sounds like she did most of the work that may have come about that Abby or Bridget didn't get. So, I don't think that Lizzie would necessarily care about bloodying the house, she wouldn't have to clean it up, someone else would get it. Theres no mention made about Lizzie being upset or caring about the blood in the home at the time of the murders that I know of, she walked right by the pile of bloody clothes in the cellar the night of the murders.

Who was concerned about getting rid of the bloody clothes; Uncle John. Who was concerned about cleaning up the bloodstains off the parlor door; Emma. Lizzie's only concern seemed to be about getting rid of a possibly bloodstained dress and what undertaker took care of her parents.

Maybe blood is the key? Maybe in Lizzie's limited knowledge of things, blood would tell what she needed to be known, Abby died first, then Andrew. Maybe she thought that with poison the time of death couldn't be told? That would leave instruments that would let blood. A knife might cause too much close contact and the need for strength to stab the victim with. Plus the knife would come from the kitchen, Bridget's domain, she might notice a knife missing from its usual spot. I think the same may be true of a cleaver.

If Lizzie had anyway to obtain a gun, I think it would be too noisy. Right after Abby's death, people might come around to see what the gunfire was about.

A mallet might be too heavy to swing and control and might not let enough blood to be seen. Andrew's club might take strength that Lizzie didn't want to test if she had or not and possibly not enough bloodletting.

That might lead to an axe or hatchet, which might have been the only readily available tool that fit the bill and was at hand. Andrew may have had all sorts of woodworking tools handy, but, unless it was something that could produce damage, I don't think Lizzie would rely on it.

[Wordweaver]

Maybe it's a girl thing: Fouling the house, making an awful mess when it's going to become your house in a few hours. It doesn't compute.
Ladies, any opinion?

I've been chewing this over, and then the answer became blindingly clear. Or *an* answer.

She didn't trash her own house -- she trashed Abby's house.

Lizzie hated 92 Second Street anyway. She wanted to live on the Hill. It was another woman's territory as well as solid proof that Andrew cared more about scrimping than he did about his youngest daughter. It was also the house Andrew had bought for Abby to live in, when he'd never bought Sarah a house.

I can't see Lizzie being upset about splashing Abby's house with blood.

Lynn

[Pippi]

not that I think it was done with a flat iron, but, I don't see any reason why a fancy one wouldn't have gilt even if it was just an ornamental design...I didn't find anything googling "flat iron" "gilt" however that doesn't prove much...

[Audrey]

It just doesn't make sense! A flat iron was something which has a purpose... Not something they would have bought to sit around looking pretty.

They wouldn't have put gilt on something that was going to be used to iron clothes. It would have transfered the gilt to the clothing... Certainly on the .000001% chance they did put gilt on irons I can not imagine Andrew having such an item in his home...

[Kat]

Well, you girls make sense as to why Lizzie might not be worrying about blood.
I guess you could say she was killing the house as well?

[Wordweaver]

Well, you girls make sense as to why Lizzie might not be worrying about blood.
I guess you could say she was killing the house as well?

That is exactly it.

Lynn