Good grief!!!

[Angel]

I was rereading some previous posts about axes and meat cleavers and ice axes, etc., and I saw someone mention Robert Flynn's book "Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe." I looked it up on Amazon because I thought it would be a good book to read and saw that it is going for $125.00 and up. Needless to say, I will not be getting the book. Why is it so expensive? Has anyone read it? It was given five stars, so it must be good.

[Harry]

Wow, prices are rising! The book is only 28 pages, counting front and back cover. I believe the first edition was limited to 500 copies so that may account for its asking price.

It is actually a very interesting discussion of hatchets, axes, their cutting blades, gilt, etc.

Mr. Flynn reaches some final conclusions about the weapon used in the Borden murders.

1. The handleless hatchet was never determined to be the murder weapon.

2. It is impossible to determine the size of the hatchet blade by an examination of the skulls.

3. The testimony of the Harvard Medical School doctors was inconsistent and falsely presented at trial.
(My note: I believe Mr. Flynn, in the latter half of that sentence, is referring to the gilt that was found and never mentioned.)

4. The hatchet found on Crowe's barn roof was in all probability the murder weapon.

[Angel]

Thanks, Harry. That was helpful. That makes me think all the more that Lizzie used a hatchet with the first, thought it was over and done with, so she hurled it onto the roof. Then, when Andrew came home too early for her to get out of the house, she revised her plan, took an ice axe or meat cleaver, did him in, cleaned it off, and stuck it in a drawer in the kitchen. That would account for the cleanly sliced eyeball.

[mbhenty]

Yes the Flynn booklet on the Ax is a pretty expensive little item. There was only 500 copies printed. Sadly, when a dealer sets a price that high it sets a precedence for the price in the future for others.

The book is really not much more than a phamplet. After all, it is stapled together.

It's nicely done.

Now, if I am not mistaken, Flynn grew up in Fall River. If anyone should know, Flynn should. There is no way anyone could throw an ax up on a roof and have it sit there for 10 months without anyone detecting it earlier; especially the police during the time of the crime. The premise is perposterous.

And, what is the chance that it would be discovered just as the trial was going on?

No, the entire thing smells of a prank.

The 2nd street neighborhood was full of two and three level homes. Looking out a 3rd floor window it would be highly unlikely that someone would have not noticed the ax sitting on the roof of a shed for 10 months.

[RayS]

...
It is actually a very interesting discussion of hatchets, axes, their cutting blades, gilt, etc.

Mr. Flynn reaches some final conclusions about the weapon used in the Borden murders.

1. The handleless hatchet was never determined to be the murder weapon.

2. It is impossible to determine the size of the hatchet blade by an examination of the skulls.

3. The testimony of the Harvard Medical School doctors was inconsistent and falsely presented at trial.
(My note: I believe Mr. Flynn, in the latter half of that sentence, is referring to the gilt that was found and never mentioned.)

4. The hatchet found on Crowe's barn roof was in all probability the murder weapon.

For 2. I'd like to see quotes from 2 or 3 criminalistics textbooks or other experts.
For 3. the "Brady Rule" now requires exculpatory evidence from the prosecution.
Given 2. how can anyone say the Crowe's roof hatchet was the murder weapon? Any gilt found?

[RayS]

Now, if I am not mistaken, Flynn grew up in Fall River. If anyone should know, Flynn should. There is no way anyone could throw an ax up on a roof and have it sit there for 10 months without anyone detecting it earlier; especially the police during the time of the crime. The premise is perposterous.

And, what is the chance that it would be discovered just as the trial was going on?

No, the entire thing smells of a prank.

The 2nd street neighborhood was full of two and three level homes. Looking out a 3rd floor window it would be highly unlikely that someone would have not noticed the ax sitting on the roof of a shed for 10 months.

I also detect that smell about 200 miles and 113 years away.

[Harry]

There is another entry in Mr. Flynn's book which raises an interesting point about the instrument used to create the wound on Mrs. Borden's back. It is contained in a letter written by Dr. Draper to Dr. Dolan on Aug. 12th. It should be noted that the second autopsy, which was performed at the Oak Grove cemetery, was done on the 11th, so Dr. Draper's letter is only one day later.

In this letter Draper argues against the ordinary shaped hatchet as the instrument that was used to create that wound. He raises the point, that I believe you and others have mentioned, about the instrument possibly being an ice hatchet. He writes:

"I assume the tools found were of the ordinary pattern; if they were so, they could hardly fit that back wound; if they included in their number a narrow bladed, short handled hatchet, like a lather's tool, that would fill the requirement. So would one form of an ice hatchet sold for use in house refrigerators. Such a tool could make all the face, scalp and bone lesions found on both bodies....."

However, on May 31, 1893, less than a week before the trial, Draper had changed his mind and in a letter to Knowlton states that in his opinion the weapon used had a blade of 3-1/2 inches. This is the famous "gilt" letter. He also testified to that at the trial.

The official autopsy report defines this wound as being 2-1/2" wide and 2-1/2" deep. I don't say that a 3-1/2 inch hatchet could not have caused this wound, at least the surface width size. There was also a certain amount of body decomposition a week after the murders which may have added to the size of the wound.

[Shelley]

Points well made. I seem to remember an ice house very close to the Borden's where such implements would have been plentiful, not to mention the possiblity of such a tool for home use in cracking or shaving ice from the ice box block.

[shakiboo]

Hello everyone, I thought I remembered somebody coming forward to claim the ax found on the shed roof....??? a carpenter or something

[Shelley]

Some hatchet definitions from the Woodcutting encyclopedia:

Lathing hatchet - Blade flat along the top to facilitate use in corners and close to ceilings. The poll is a hammer head (often checkered) and there is a notch in the underside of the blade for pulling nails.Used to apply wooden lath in preparation for the application of plaster.

Shingling Hatchet - Round shouldered blade with hammer head, sometimes with a claw or a notch in the blade for pulling nails.

Carpenter's Hatchet - Kent pattern head, general purpose or bench tool.

Broad or Side Hatchet - Kent pattern head sharpened on one side. Used in hewing as a broad axe.

Hatchets are taxonomically differentiated from hand axes by some using one or more of the following characteristics;

the addition of a hammer head.
A head 1-3 pounds (500 to 1,500 grams) in weight
A hatchet seen in a dream, denotes that wanton wastefulness will expose you to the evil designs of envious persons. If it is rusty or broken, you will have grief over wayward people. In the Egyptian Hieroglyphics a symbol of power, and also of death. The hatchet is called the "Severer of the Knot " i.e., of marriage or any other tie

Lots of fun Hatchet photos here:
http://outdoors-magazine.com/s_article. ... rticle=144
And even a silver ice cream hatchet

[Kat]

Hello everyone, I thought I remembered somebody coming forward to claim the ax found on the shed roof....??? a carpenter or something

Yes that's right. It was in the newspapers.
Rebello, 105:
Note: It was eleven year old Freddie Potter, son of Caleb C. Potter, who found the axe at Crowe's barn while playing ball on Third Street. Two days after the axe was found, The Fall River Daily Herald, June 17, 1893, reported the axe as belonging to Carl MacDonnell, a carpenter who had been working in the area. He lost an axe similar to the one found at Crowe's barn.

[Angel]

OK, then it's possible that an ice axe or meat cleaver could have been used for both murders, washed and then put carefully away in the kitchen. It would certainly be something Lizzie would have had quick access to if she would have lost her control over something that transpired between her stepmother and herself. She could have gone down to the kitchen, gotten it out of the drawer, put it in her skirts or in some folded laundry, gone upstairs and done the deed.

[RayS]

Hello everyone, I thought I remembered somebody coming forward to claim the ax found on the shed roof....??? a carpenter or something

Yes that's right. It was in the newspapers.
Rebello, 105:
Note: It was eleven year old Freddie Potter, son of Caleb C. Potter, who found the axe at Crowe's barn while playing ball on Third Street. Two days after the axe was found, The Fall River Daily Herald, June 17, 1893, reported the axe as belonging to Carl MacDonnell, a carpenter who had been working in the area. He lost an axe similar to the one found at Crowe's barn.

My hunch is that this was a practical joke played on him by one of his co-workers. If he threw it there, he would know where it was.
Were there any initials on this tool? Many do that to prevent substitution.

[Kat]

OK, then it's possible that an ice axe or meat cleaver could have been used for both murders, washed and then put carefully away in the kitchen. It would certainly be something Lizzie would have had quick access to if she would have lost her control over something that transpired between her stepmother and herself. She could have gone down to the kitchen, gotten it out of the drawer, put it in her skirts or in some folded laundry, gone upstairs and done the deed.

Would these items deposit gilt in Abbie's wound?
Are we discussing 3 different weapons? (Poison, new hatchet with gilt, and something else some believe are sharper to cut Andrew's eye in half?)

To repeat myself, why not grab a weapon in the room if not premeditated? Sewing scissors?
Anything else, if the person had to go get it and return to kill= premeditated.

[Angel]

But didn't someone suggest at one point that the gilt was not mentioned anywhere until way later after the trial, which led some to believe that the gilt may have been deposited a lot later during another examination (when trying to fit different weapons into the skulls to measure the holes) instead of at the initial autopsy? Or did I read that wrong?
I wouldn't include poison as a weapon because there was no evidence of it in the bodies or of anyone trying to use it. Just suspicions based on Bence's story.
If Lizzie did it she may not have acted in the moment, but went downstairs fuming, and then grabbed something from the kitchen and went back upstairs.

[RayS]

I surely doubt that the Professors would taint the evidence. They would not be looking for a brand new hatchet, IMO.

[doug65oh]

I wouldn't include poison as a weapon because there was no evidence of it in the bodies or of anyone trying to use it. Just suspicions based on Bence's story.

Not to split hairs here but I don’t think we can dismiss poison as a weapon solely on grounds of a lack of medical evidence. Bence after all, was not the only teller of tales regarding poison:

Q. Anything else at that time?
A. She said, "Father must have an enemy, for we have all been sick, and we think the milk has been poisoned." (Trial, p. 348)

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Well, then, go on and state how the conversation went on, taking your own method.
A. I suppose it was followed right on after that. When she spoke, she says, "I don't know; father has so much trouble." Oh, I am a little ahead of the story. She said, "Mr. and Mrs. Borden were awfully sick last night." And I said, "Why, what is the matter; something they have eaten?" She said, "We were all sick," she said, "all but Maggie." And I said, "Something you think you have eaten?" She said, "We don't know. We had some baker's bread, and all ate of it but Maggie, and Maggie wasn't sick." And I said, "Well, it couldn't have been the bread; if it had been baker's bread I should suppose other people would be sick, and I haven't heard of anybody." And she says, "That is so." And she says, "Sometimes I think our milk might be poisoned." And I said, "Well, how do you get your milk; how could it be poisoned?" And she said, "We have the milk come in a can and set on the step, and we have an empty can. They put out the empty can overnight, and the next morning when they bring the milk they take the empty can." And I said, "Well, ifthey put anything in the can the farmer would see it." And then I said---I asked her what time the milk came, if she knew. She said, "I think about four o'clock." And I said, "Well, it is light at four. I shouldn't think anybody would dare to come then and tamper with the cans for fear somebody would see them." And she said, "I shouldn't think so." And she said, "They were awfully sick; and I wasn't sick, I didn't vomit;
Page 377
but I heard them vomiting and stepped to the door and asked if I could do anything, and they said No."
(Trial, p. 376-377)
---------
Now, where I’m going with this is: Was poison the instrument of death in either case? Nope, in all likelihood it was not, and there was certainly no medical evidence presented to suggest that.

The notion of poison, however, hung in the air at No. 92 for at least some period of time prior to the murders. It came to be not by the tale of Bence, but by imprecations from Lizzie’s own mouth if any of these witnesses are to be believed.

It wasn’t identified as an instrument of death, but seems rather more one of fear, unease. Interestingly - I'd almost have to ask why the subject of poison was ever introduced. Did milk, bread, or other such things not cause illness of their own accord, simply thru normal spoilage?

[Shelley]

A good observation. I also wonder just what types of poison they tested for-surely not every possibility. I find Dr. Bowen's statement that he was not surprised something had happened when he got to the door, as they had been so sick Wednesday- this before he saw the body of course. So REAL poisoning- not bottulism or salmonella was on his mind, and firmly put about by Lizzie to Alice.

[doug65oh]

Well, Dr. Wood stated pretty emphatically (at pg. 994) as to examining the stomach of Andrew Borden:

Q. That stomach had not been opened?
A. That stomach had not been opened. It was in the same external condition as the stomach of Mrs. Borden. Both of those contents of the stomachs were immediately tested for prussic acid, because prussic acid, being a volatile acid, it is necessary to make an immediate test for it, as it would very shortly after its exposure to the air escape, and escape detection therefore. Therefore those were both tested for prussic acid, with a negative result. Afterwards they were analyzed in the regular way for the irritant poisons, with also a negative result.
Q. In other words you found no evidence ---
A. I found no evidence of poison of any kind.
Q. Of any kind whatever?
A. In either case.
------------------
Seems odd on reflection that Dr. Wood was not more closely questioned here, asked to state what exactly he tested for (or did not test for, as the case may be.) Particularly set against the close questioning on digestion.

[Shelley]

Yes and I always thought it was pretty pointless making such an issue and fuss of testing for Prussic acid- we know Lizzie could not get any! It is also pretty smug saying "poison of ANY kind" and then not saying what exactly was tested for. I take that with a slightly raised eyebrow and head on one side!

[Kat]

Someone suggested a theory of how the gilt got there but they weren't there. The experts were there and it would seem like something they would have considered. It's just that we still don't know any better- other than gilt was found. The experts relied on a hatchet as the weapon- so I tend to go along with that. I certainly don't know any better than those who were there.
If the only question about a hatchet being used is whether it was sharp enough to split an eyeball, I would have to again rely on the expert testimony and their opinion that it would.
As for posion, we can't say Abbie thought she was being poisoned and then not consider it a weapon.
(Personally I am not sure Abbie meant that- but as has been pointed out, Lizzie did consder it a weapon).

But didn't someone suggest at one point that the gilt was not mentioned anywhere until way later after the trial, which led some to believe that the gilt may have been deposited a lot later during another examination (when trying to fit different weapons into the skulls to measure the holes) instead of at the initial autopsy? Or did I read that wrong?
I wouldn't include poison as a weapon because there was no evidence of it in the bodies or of anyone trying to use it. Just suspicions based on Bence's story.
If Lizzie did it she may not have acted in the moment, but went downstairs fuming, and then grabbed something from the kitchen and went back upstairs.

[Harry]

That was my "theory" that I posted back in June on this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=1970&highlight=gilt

I still say that the gilt could have been deposited by accident. Evidence that has been examined for almost a year, and then something new is found with it, greatly reduces its value to me. All these doctors that were there must have been blind to it for that period of time.

That this gilt evidence was not introduced at the trial also tells me something. The prosecution didn't think much of it. I don't subscribe to some elaborate conspiracy on their part in holding it back.

I think it was most likely a hatchet but it is still an open question in my mind. Both the severed eye-ball in Andrew's case and the wound on Abbie's back are hard to reconcile with a hatchet.

I don't think the gilt had anything to do with the original decision that a hatchet was used. They were looking for and collecting hatchets the day of the murders. At best the gilt could prove that it was a new or slightly new hatchet.

[Angel]

Thanks, Harry, that's what I as trying to remember. I knew I had seen it somewhere, and it was you who posted last June that the gilt thing wasn't mentioned until 9 months later. Like you, I think that information weakens the information regarding finding the gilt.

[doug65oh]

Did you mean to say "Thanks, Harry"? (I'll take that edit as a "Yes")

[Angel]

Yes, thank you. I changed it. Must have been in one of my fugue states. Better look around here to see if there are any bodies lying around.

[doug65oh]

Salright.

[RayS]

That was my "theory" that I posted back in June on this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=1970&highlight=gilt

I still say that the gilt could have been deposited by accident. Evidence that has been examined for almost a year, and then something new is found with it, greatly reduces its value to me. All these doctors that were there must have been blind to it for that period of time.

That this gilt evidence was not introduced at the trial also tells me something. The prosecution didn't think much of it. I don't subscribe to some elaborate conspiracy on their part in holding it back.

I think it was most likely a hatchet but it is still an open question in my mind. Both the severed eye-ball in Andrew's case and the wound on Abbie's back are hard to reconcile with a hatchet.

I don't think the gilt had anything to do with the original decision that a hatchet was used. They were looking for and collecting hatchets the day of the murders. At best the gilt could prove that it was a new or slightly new hatchet.

(My italics)
THAT is the best argument against the guilt of Jeffrey McDonald!

[RayS]

Thanks, Harry, that's what I as trying to remember. I knew I had seen it somewhere, and it was you who posted last June that the gilt thing wasn't mentioned until 9 months later. Like you, I think that information weakens the information regarding finding the gilt.

I wasn't there, but I'm sure the gilt was mentioned in a report as soon as it was found.
In fact, the news about the gilt was kept secret for a century until it was revealed in David Kent's "40 Whacks".
There was no Brady Rule then.

[Kat]

I wanted to ask you Harry what you mean about wondering about a hatchet causing Abbie's back wound? Why might it not have been such an instrument?

Otherwise, I was picturing a primitive scene that is stuck in my head.
If there was gilt in Abbie's wound but not in Andrew's I can see the hatchet, nearly new, but already honed so that not much gilt is left, being so over-used on Abbie- 19 blows - a lot of those hitting bone- that it might blunt the edge so that it could not cut that eyeball of Andrew in half. Then I see the killer going down to the cellar and sharpening the weapon, waiting for Andrew to return. The cellar would be the best place to hide or to wait, because no one consistantly goes into all the rooms down there.

Maybe that is why I am always drawn to the cellar. I think I have spent more time down there than any other room, and not many visitors spend any time down there at all.

[Harry]

I wanted to ask you Harry what you mean about wondering about a hatchet causing Abbie's back wound? Why might it not have been such an instrument?

I bas it on what Dr. Draper said. I posted this on September 26th in this thread:

"I assume the tools found were of the ordinary pattern; if they were so, they could hardly fit that back wound; if they included in their number a narrow bladed, short handled hatchet, like a lather's tool, that would fill the requirement. So would one form of an ice hatchet sold for use in house refrigerators. Such a tool could make all the face, scalp and bone lesions found on both bodies....."

That was contained in a letter from Draper to Dolan dated August 12th, the day after the autopsy at Oak Grove. Why Draper changed his mind later I have no way of knowing. Draper was a doctor specifically brought in to assist at the autopsy so I assume he was knowledgeable.

There is also this testimony given by Dr. Dolan, re the autopsy, at the trial (p962+)

"Q. When these gentlemen were present with you was there ever any discussion as to the character of the instrument that must have caused that injury in the back?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was not there a discussion of it at the autopsy at the Oak Grove Cemetery?
A. As to this instrument?
Q. As to the kind of instrument, the edge the instrument had?
A. Sharp edge?
Q. As to whether it was an edge like a hatchet, or had an edge, had three sharp edges, ---like an instrument which had three sharp edges? Three sharp edges?
A. In other words, you mean triangular?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't recollect so.
Q. Don't you remember that the wound appeared very deep in the centre of it and shallower at each end?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And don't you recall that there was a discussion between you doctors there that this must have been caused by an instrument having three edges, a triangular shape?
A. No, sir.
Q. Don't recall any such discussion?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you say there were present Dr. Cone, Dr. Leary and Dr. Draper?
A. Yes, sir."

If this discussion occurred, it sounds like Draper or Leary raised a question about the instrument at the autopsy.

As to the gilt, my opinion has not changed. In fact if anything I am even more convinced that its value as evidence is weak.

Draper in his letter to Knowlton says: "The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

When the heads were removed they were boiled and the flesh removed - no gilt noticed.

Casts were made by Dr. Draper - no gilt noticed.

The skulls were examined at Harvard by two expert doctors hired by the defense, Dwight and Richardson - no gilt noticed.

Knowlton in his closing argument has this to say about their examination:
"... These things were put into the hands of Dr. Draper, and no less eminent men than Doctors Dwight and Richardson, whom some of you know to be the equals of those who have been called here, have examined them to their hearts' content, and it is not for my distinguished friend to challenge the conclusion to which these gentlemen came when their own experts are silent in reply. ..." (trial 1764)

Draper had the skulls for a whole week before writing about finding the gilt. It was during this week that Dwight and Richardson examined the skulls. (trial 1059) It just seems very strange to me that experts who are brought in to perform just one task, examining the skulls, could not see something that Dr. Draper described as being able to be seen with the naked eye.

Again I am not denying that it was a hatchet, nor that it was new hatchet, nor that there was gilt. It's when and where the gilt was deposited that is not clear to my mind.

[Shelley]

I agree on all counts Harry. I do believe however, that a candlestick or a meat cleaver does not have sufficient substance to crush bone or in case of a candlestick, inflict sharp cuts. I have tried strokes with a meat cleaver and large butcher 's knife- no good. I think a hatchet or something very like a hatchet still is a reasonable assumption. Can someone remind me of just where that ice house was located- I believe it was quite close to the Borden house. I was looking at ice-cutting tools recently and some of those would fill the bill nicely!

[RayS]

...
I bas it on what Dr. Draper said. I posted this on September 26th in this thread:
...
That was contained in a letter from Draper to Dolan dated August 12th, the day after the autopsy at Oak Grove. Why Draper changed his mind later I have no way of knowing. Draper was a doctor specifically brought in to assist at the autopsy so I assume he was knowledgeable.

There is also this testimony given by Dr. Dolan, re the autopsy, at the trial (p962+)
...
If this discussion occurred, it sounds like Draper or Leary raised a question about the instrument at the autopsy.

As to the gilt, my opinion has not changed. In fact if anything I am even more convinced that its value as evidence is weak.

Draper in his letter to Knowlton says: "The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated."

When the heads were removed they were boiled and the flesh removed - no gilt noticed.

Casts were made by Dr. Draper - no gilt noticed.

The skulls were examined at Harvard by two expert doctors hired by the defense, Dwight and Richardson - no gilt noticed.

Knowlton in his closing argument has this to say about their examination:
"... These things were put into the hands of Dr. Draper, and no less eminent men than Doctors Dwight and Richardson, whom some of you know to be the equals of those who have been called here, have examined them to their hearts' content, and it is not for my distinguished friend to challenge the conclusion to which these gentlemen came when their own experts are silent in reply. ..." (trial 1764)

Draper had the skulls for a whole week before writing about finding the gilt. It was during this week that Dwight and Richardson examined the skulls. (trial 1059) It just seems very strange to me that experts who are brought in to perform just one task, examining the skulls, could not see something that Dr. Draper described as being able to be seen with the naked eye.

Again I am not denying that it was a hatchet, nor that it was new hatchet, nor that there was gilt. It's when and where the gilt was deposited that is not clear to my mind.

(My italics)
Is it unusual to have doctors or other experts to disagree? Based on their own experiences. If there was not gilt there, why did they document that?
Since it wasn't introduced into evidence during the trial, it may not be important.
Except if it was, it would rule out the old hatchets found at the Borden home.
Trust Andy to keep using an old one rather than buying the latest style!

[Shelley]

I have always wondered whether perhaps Mrs. Borden used bent metal hairpins to hold on her fake hairpiece and pin up her backhair. Wire hairpins had been around since the 16th century although "Bobby" pins did not come into being until girls started "bobbing" their long hair around WWI and were a rage by 1920. I thought perhaps the sharp weapon had flaked off the shiny metal bits of hairpins -which would explain why Mr. Borden had no such fragments in his wounds.

[Shelley]

Here is a sample of a heavy duty wire hair pin of that period. This one is old and dark, but if you took a sharp blade and made a cut, it would be shiny. They have changed very little today except for the plastic coated tips.

[stuartwsa]

Shelley, do you think Abby's hairpiece was used to make her hair longer (i.e., pinned in the back, up in a twist or bun), or to cover thinning, wispy hair and to make it appear fuller?

[shakiboo]

That is interesting! Up until now I had thought the hair (her hair) had been cut off by the force of a blow to her head! I didn't realize she had a hair piece!!! Even though I had heard it referred to as a hair piece. Poor Abby.....

[Shelley]

Well, being just 9 years younger than poor old Abby at her tragic demise, I can tell you female alopecia is no fun. Yes, I would bet her hair was badly thinning. Sometimes illness could also make hair fall out, or thin. "Switches" or fake hairpieces were very common, and continue to be. Hair in 1892 was worn close to the head with a bun or a twist at the nape in a "Hebe knot" or in braided buns and coils. A center part was very popular at the time, with the "fringe" or bangs in front crimped, or frizzed or curled. The one photo of older Emma surprises me- as the hairdo is quite fancy for a plain, schoolmarmy" woman. Lizzie's "do" is also in style.
I have seen Abby's fake hair up close- it is greying and done in a simple braid. I suspect she pinned it in a braided bun over her own meager hair. Hair was truly The Crowing Glory of every woman and they were very vain about it.

[Shelley]

Another trick up the sleeve of Victorian ladies to make more fullness in the hair was to save your own hair and when enough was gathered from hairbrushes and combs , little wads or "rats and mice" were made to fill out skimpy buns and side hair. A device on every lady's dressing table, right next to her brushes and button hook was a hair receiver- here is one from the 1890 period made of painted porcelain. The hair was poked through the little hole on top.

[Shelley]

All styles from the early 1890's. Hair ornaments and hat trims all featured a very strong vertical line- feather straight up in the air, bows, etc. Lizzie wore a beautiful stylish black chip-shaped hat with cherry ribbons at her trial. Not exactly mourning color!

[Harry]

There is a photo of Abbie's "rat" in the library. Note the hook like pin on the lower left hand side.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/crime ... byhair.jpg

[Kat]

Dr. Dolan at the preliminary is asked about Abbie's hair (145).
It's a good question as to how Abbie might have worn her hair and how the hair switch accented her own hair.
It sounds like she had enough hair, just that the switch added some kind of style?

Q. She was 64?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did she have a full head of hair?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What was its color?
A. It was getting to gray; it was not what you call a head of gray hair; but it was getting to that color.
Q. What was the pigment, or the color of it?
A. I think it was brown, or a blackish; I did not pay much attention to that?
Q. You do not think it was dead black; you think it had a brownish tinge, slowly turning gray?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How was it worn?
A. It was down when I saw it, the knot was broken.
Q. The knot, or whatever it was, was broken, and it was down?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How was the front, parted in the middle, and combed down smooth?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did these blows, or any of them, cut the hair?
A. Yes Sir, all of them cut the hair.
Q. Cut it right through?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Was it a clean incised cut of the hair?
A. Some of it was so matted you could not tell. There was one large one on top that was cut as though you cut it with the shears; it was a wound that took out the piece of skull on the left side; it was not glancing, but was neat and clean.
Q. As though done with a razor?
A. Yes Sir.

[Shelley]

There is a photo at the house of Abby lying facedown on an autopsy board before and after the head was shaved in back. She does not seem to be bald in the back anywhere, the hair looks dark and matted and in loose disarray. "the knot was broken" sound very much like the first illustration above. The fake hair attached would have been called a "switch" The braid with the little hook on the end would have gone right around her own little bun and caught in a circlet.

[shakiboo]

I learn something new every time I come to this site!!! Apparently, Abby was still very much concerned with her appearance, if she was such a stay at home you wouldn't think she'd care so much, and on that day, after being sick, she still took the time to fix her hair......Interesting. I had no idea about the women saving the hair they'd lost and using it again either. that's quite ingenious! Thanks Shelley for sharing that info and the pictures!!

[Shelley]

Too bad there are so few photos of Abby alive. The 1862 photo shows the popular center part with the ears covered a la Mrs. Lincoln. She seems to be wearing a crocheted snood. A similar vintage one of Sarah Borden shows a hairstyle like Abby's.
The younger one of Sarah does show a different part which is interesting. Her part moves from left to right over time!

This photo was said to be about 15 years before the murder, and Abby's hair looks still dark for the most part. She must have been about 49?I like to picture her with her curling iron waving her fringe of front hair so nicely.

[Shelley]

Oh I just love this stuff. Recently, for a museum exhibiting class, I had to do a 1860-90 display for the university of Rhode Island textile and fashion school- it was nearly a crime to have had so much fun!

Yes, I guess we keep thinking about the 1975 movie which made poor Abby into a gross pig slurping her soup. Both photographs of her show a neat woman, in fashion, and making an effort for style. The descriptions of her home also indicate a tidy, tasteful individual. I love that she was still making some effort at 64! I would love to have seen her in her downstreet bonnet and shawl that lived in the closet under the stairs.

[Haulover]

i've read all this quickly.

but is there a suggestion that the weapon was an implement that an iceman would have always had? i've often thought that the killer used something he routinely possessed and used. milkman, iceman -- these people are mysteries, aren't they?

interesting about the hairpin and gilt.

abby's hair piece is decidedly grey, isn't it? dark grey,. i can't remember for sure if there is a pin of some sort still attached to it.

andrew's hair is what surprised me, i would call it blond.

[Shelley]

Yes, the false hair is certainly grey. Women used a great many wire hairpins to pin up all that hair, -it never came up as far as I know in connection to shiny bits in the wound- it was just my own musings on the possibility, which I believe makes some sense.

Sometimes elderly people who have white hair, have this yellowing effect. That is one reason why the little old gals use that hydrangea blue rinse! It takes the ugly yellow out!

[Shelley]

The iceman would have had tongs surely, but I was thinking of an ice house which I remember as being very close to the Bordens' house. There was a tool, rather sharp for cutting block ice, an ice hatchet. Then there was a rather sharp edge for shaving ice as well. It would have been handy to use, wash and return to the ice house.

[Haulover]

***Then there was a rather sharp edge for shaving ice as well. It would have been handy to use, wash and return to the ice house.***

that's an idea -- that the murderer HAD to return the implement.

[Shelley]

The murderer- or a friend, neighbor, sister, . . .
Harry- I bet you must know where that ice house was located? Once Len showed me one 2 doors from the Cook Borden house over on 4th street but I seem to recall one on Second Street- really close.