But what about the blood?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:06 pm

I imagine this topic has been discussed here several times before. However, I've only been a "Bordenphile" for less than one year, and I've only known about this forum for about seven months. Therefore, I'm going to bring it up simply because I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts; namely, why did the police find no blood on Lizzie? If she was guilty (and I believe she was), how did she avoid getting blood on her (which I find to be impossible, given that blood was apparently splattered throughout the room). Alternatively, how did Lizzie so quickly dispose of her dress? I'm curious to hear what you think.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:40 pm

Good question, Michael. Well, if we could figure out how Lizzie kept the blood off her clothes we would have this case just about wrapped up. That has been a real puzzler for us.

I doubt Lizzie, if she was the killer, had the time to undress, kill her father, then redress before calling Bridget down. I think Lizzie must have slipped something over her dress, perhaps a hand made cover of some sort like a painters uniform or an old dress. She could have placed something over her head as well to keep blood off her hair. She could have hid the blood-covered dress inside another dress on the same hanger and then burned it in the stove later. She did burn a "paint-covered" dress in the stove the weekend after the murders. It is also possible that Lizzie cut the covering into strips and hid them in her slop jar claiming they were covered in her menstrual blood. I lean toward the idea that she used her paint-covered dress as the covering for the murders then burned it.

The other possibility is that Lizzie worked with a killer. I firmly believe Lizzie was in on the murders. She had the most to gain.

As far as where she hid the hatchet that is a mystrey. It may have been a meat cleaver that was cleaned then put back in place.

This case has so many twists and turns.

-1bigsteve (o:

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:56 am

There has been many thoughts on how Lizzie didn't have any blood on her. Some think she might have committed the murdereds naked, which would make it easier to clean herself up, some say she put an over coat on backwards to protect her clothes, and still others say she wore a dress over the one she was wearing to protect herself.

There was a dress that she had that she burned because she said she had been painting in. There has been some speculation that that was the dress she was wearing, but we will never know on that one. She burned the dress.

I too have always wondered why there was a lack of blood on her, and there really wasn't that much around the crime scene either. I mean, considering how brutal the actacks were, you'd thought there would have been blood everywhere; around the bodies, on the walls, floors, everywhere.

Gives something to look at alittle harder, I guess.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:04 am

I'll try to answer this from a different perspective. We can often limit ourselves when making assumptions. We all do it, myself included.

Considering the amount of energy expended in the act of murdering Abby and Andrew, there seems to be relatively little blood spatter. A hatchet or cleaver displaces a fairly small amount of tissue to do its work, most of this laterally with respect to the arc of swing as determined by the wounds, so the spattering which occurred may have been more the result of blood running off the blade while swinging the implement. The blood evidence in Andrew's case seems to describe roughly an arc on the north wall of the sitting room, and no blood was found south of the body projecting into the room. In Abby's case, blood was found on the baseboard, the bottom of the bedspread, the top of a dresser drawer, and one other place on the bed which I can't recall. Consider the number of hatchet blows in each case.

Keep in mind when considering testimony concerning the absence or presence of blood on Lizzie whether or not the individual had reason to examine Lizzie closely at the time. Lizzie was thought to be a victim rather than a perpetrator at first, at the time before she changed her dress. I can't think of anyone who came right out and said there was no blood on Lizzie, whether it was offered or in response to that specific question. They said that they didn't see any or didn't notice any. To state definitively that there was no blood implies a thorough examination was made.

We have to preserve the entire context of the testimony concerning blood on the dress. How much weight can we give to the statement "I didn't notice any blood on Lizzie" when that person has just finished saying that they can't remember the dress? It is an honest answer because, clearly, if you didn't notice the dress, you didn't notice anything on the dress. However, we can not conclude that there was no blood on Lizzie from the statements, only that none was noticed by persons who had no good reason to be looking for it at the time.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:53 am

That's true Yooper, and just because she said she'd given them the clothes that she had been wearing ie. shoes, stockings etc. doesn't mean that she hadn't switched them for others. So, finding no blood on them, actually ment very little also.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:26 am

In the technical sense, anyone saying definitively that Lizzie had no blood on her, was wrong! There was a spot of blood found on Lizzie's underskirt, so Lizzie did indeed have blood on her clothing. While the possibilities for the source were considered, it was explained away as something generally avoided for the sake of propriety. It was never absolutely determined where the blood came from.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:40 pm

From Yooper: "Keep in mind when considering testimony concerning the abssece or pernce of blood on Lizzie whether or not the individual had reason to examine Lizzzie closely at the time. Lizzie was thought to be a victim rather than a perperator at first, before she changed her dress. I can't think of any one who came right out and said there was no blood on Lizzie,whether it was offered or in response to that specific question. They said that they didn't see any or didn't notice any."

My thing with that is that even if she wasn't considered a suspect in the beginning, if there was blood one her, it would have been noticed. At least I would think it would be.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:48 pm

If there was blood on Lizzie, it would probably be of the size and pattern of the spatter found elsewhere, mostly small spots. Depending on the color of the dress, a few small spots of blood could well go unnoticed.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:18 pm

The fact is no one there saw any red blood on Lizzie's blue dress. Or on Bridget. Proof of innocence of the murders. No murder weapon either.

Anything else is conjecture, a way to assign guilt where there is none.
I believe that Lizzie knew more than she told, and so did her contemporaries.

Why didbn't she tell? I believe she was shielding a relative. Not just Willy (the actual murderer per Arnold Brown's book), but I surmise that Uncle John had a hand in arranging the visit, and he wanted his part kept secret.

Assumed quote: "Jeez, Lizzie, we never expected this to happen. If they know what I did I would be blamed but you know I liked your Dad and would do nothing to hurt him."

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:35 pm

Snok, Lizzie wasn't painting herself. The dress supposedly became stained when the house was being painted. As Bridget said, though, it was useful as a housedress in which one was to do chores of a morning.

Blood may not have been seen on Lizzie simply because no one was looking for it! Family members weren't the first suspects in domestic murders they way they are today.

I have no problem with Lizzie getting rid of the first dress, the paint-stained morning housedress, in which she killed Abby, that weekend in the oven. Perhaps she covered herself for the second murder with her father's coat, by simply tying the arms around her neck back to front, and later folding and wedging it under his shattered head.

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:26 pm

These are all great theories, and I suppose we'll never know. The lack of blood evidence is one of the fascinating aspects of this case. I have yet to form an opinion of what happened to the blood. From what I understand, from the time Bridget went to her room until the time Lizzie called her to tell her about her father's murder was only a few minutes (10 minuts?). How in the world could Lizzie have bathed or even hidden her blood-stained dress in such a short period of time? This is utterly fascinating.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:11 pm

If there was no blood on her, there was little to do except lose the hatchet.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:02 pm

Keep in mind the method of murder in this case would not necessarily produce much splatter. contrary to what some might think, wounds with a axe or hatchet may cause a good deal of blood outpouring, but not necessarily spattering all over everything. it's more of a seeping out.

my opinons change as i read and learn more about the case, but at this moment i'm inclined to think that Lizzie had help with the murders that day. i would not be surprised if someone else killed Andrew and Abby, with Lizzie's knowledge and blessing, of course.

also, i think that some of the early law enforcement officers who were on the scene and interviewing Lizzie DID suspect that she may have had something to do with the event. she was not automatically a victim in the minds of all who saw her that day. consider from the Witness Statements, the Harrington and Dohtery section:

"All this, and something that, to me, is indescribable, gave birth to a thought that was most revolting. I thought, at least, she knew more than she wished to tell."

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:38 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:35 pm wrote:Snok, Lizzie wasn't painting herself. The dress supposedly became stained when the house was being painted. As Bridget said, though, it was useful as a housedress in which one was to do chores of a morning.

Blood may not have been seen on Lizzie simply because no one was looking for it! Family members weren't the first suspects in domestic murders they way they are today.

I have no problem with Lizzie getting rid of the first dress, the paint-stained morning housedress, in which she killed Abby, that weekend in the oven. Perhaps she covered herself for the second murder with her father's coat, by simply tying the arms around her neck back to front, and later folding and wedging it under his shattered head.

Because you mentioned how she could have worn Andrew's coat it started me thinking. Men never questioned women back then (actually nobody talked much in public about underclothes or anything sexual) What if Lizzie killed wearing one petticoat. After put another over it then her dress. That would give her enough time to do what she had to then at the first opportunity change her clothers.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:39 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:35 pm wrote:Snok, Lizzie wasn't painting herself. The dress supposedly became stained when the house was being painted. As Bridget said, though, it was useful as a housedress in which one was to do chores of a morning.

Blood may not have been seen on Lizzie simply because no one was looking for it! Family members weren't the first suspects in domestic murders they way they are today.

I have no problem with Lizzie getting rid of the first dress, the paint-stained morning housedress, in which she killed Abby, that weekend in the oven. Perhaps she covered herself for the second murder with her father's coat, by simply tying the arms around her neck back to front, and later folding and wedging it under his shattered head.

Because you mentioned how she could have worn Andrew's coat it started me thinking. Men never questioned women back then (actually nobody talked much in public about underclothes or anything sexual) What if Lizzie killed wearing one petticoat. After put another over it then her dress. That would give her enough time to do what she had to then at the first opportunity change her clothers.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:01 am

The petticoat was given when the other clothes were given, I believe, so that may not have been what Lizzie was wearing that day (either). It's an assumption that the one spot of blood found was on something Lizzie wore on Thursday. Who could verify that *fact?*

Also, I think when Lizzie said she had had fleas, she literally meant she had had a flea bite- or thought the spot was from a bite of some kind.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:44 am

Hmmm, I was doing a search and came across this:

About Starch

Laundry starch is a liquid used to crisp collars and smooth fabrics. It is sprayed directly on the fabric before ironing. Upon heat, the starch firms up the cloth, making the fabric crisp. The garment looks sharper and keeps a press longer than conventional ironing.

Not only does it improve appearance, it also forms a protective barrier between you and your clothes. Dirt and sweat stick to the starch instead of the fabric. When laundered, the starch washes away with the dirt and sweat attached leaving the fabric untouched. This preserves the fabric making your clothing last longer.

Could it have been possible that Lizzie wore the Bedford cord for both murders, if it had been heavily starched and wiped or blotted any blood spots away with a dampened menstrual cloth?

I also found this for what its worth, a site on blood absorbtion on different types of cloth:

http://www.iabpa.org/December2003News.pdf

I keep thinking about how Lizzie changed her dress before the police began questioning her in earnest. If she had on the Bedford cord, I can see the dress change, besides possible bloodstains, it had paintstains and was a morning dress for doing housework type things in. But, if she was wearing the navy blue Bengaline outfit as she said she was, why change it? It was suitable for company, it was somber in coloration, perfect for the grieving daughter instead of a garish, pink and white stripped wrapper.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:12 am

sguthmann - Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:02 pm

"All this, and something that, to me, is indescribable, gave birth to a thought that was most revolting. I thought, at least, she knew more than she wished to tell."

What point in time was that decision made? I don't disagree, but wonder if that occurred after Uncle John returned and talked to Lizzie.

I accept that unnamed quote because it makes sense to me. So too if someone said "I think Miss Lizzie is too upset to be questioned" or "Miss Lizzie is obviously innocent. And Bridget too."

PS Are we going to play that "give me a quote" game again?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:32 pm

Can you attribute the quote to whomever posted it and include the source of it- thanks?

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:53 pm

RayS @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:12 am wrote:sguthmann - Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:02 pm

"All this, and something that, to me, is indescribable, gave birth to a thought that was most revolting. I thought, at least, she knew more than she wished to tell."
What point in time was that decision made? I don't disagree, but wonder if that occurred after Uncle John returned and talked to Lizzie.

I accept that unnamed quote because it makes sense to me. So too if someone said "I think Miss Lizzie is too upset to be questioned" or "Miss Lizzie is obviously innocent. And Bridget too."

PS Are we going to play that "give me a quote" game again?

In the above, I take it your "decision" to mean "suspicion?" There wasn't a "decision" made at the time, simply a suspicion that Lizzie knew more than she was telling. Call it a "6th sense," a "gut feeling," etc, but the officer obviously got the feeling that Lizzie wasn't being entirely forthcoming with what she knew. Unless you want to argue that law enforcement on the scene had already "decided" that Lizzie was in out the murders or even committed them, I don't know how to take your meaning of a "decision." And if you do want to argue the latter, I'm prepared to debate that as well.

As to Morse speaking to Lizzie before or after the officer had been questioning Lizzie and getting the impression she knew more than she was telling, I really don't see how that was relevant to the officer's perception that she was being deceptive. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Regarding the quote, I thought I had included the source of that quote: "The Witness Statements," Doherty's and Harrington's notes...I'll try and pinpoint just which of the two made the statement if you like?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:53 pm

Susan @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:44 am wrote:Hmmm, I was doing a search and came across this:

About Starch

Laundry starch is a liquid used to crisp collars and smooth fabrics. It is sprayed directly on the fabric before ironing. Upon heat, the starch firms up the cloth, making the fabric crisp. The garment looks sharper and keeps a press longer than conventional ironing.

Not only does it improve appearance, it also forms a protective barrier between you and your clothes. Dirt and sweat stick to the starch instead of the fabric. When laundered, the starch washes away with the dirt and sweat attached leaving the fabric untouched. This preserves the fabric making your clothing last longer.

Could it have been possible that Lizzie wore the Bedford cord for both murders, if it had been heavily starched and wiped or blotted any blood spots away with a dampened menstrual cloth?

I also found this for what its worth, a site on blood absorbtion on different types of cloth:

http://www.iabpa.org/December2003News.pdf

I keep thinking about how Lizzie changed her dress before the police began questioning her in earnest. If she had on the Bedford cord, I can see the dress change, besides possible bloodstains, it had paintstains and was a morning dress for doing housework type things in. But, if she was wearing the navy blue Bengaline outfit as she said she was, why change it? It was suitable for company, it was somber in coloration, perfect for the grieving daughter instead of a garish, pink and white stripped wrapper.

It sounds like starch would make clean up easier. I would never have thought of that! I guess the question then becomes why would she burn the dress? Maybe she couldn't be sure if she had gotten all the stains?

That's a good point about the need to change her dress. Was there something else about the dress which made it unsuitable? Too warm perhaps? Shelley mentioned in a post on another thread about the pink wrapper being a good costume in which to portray innocence, it might have been part of an act. Fainting couch, doctor or minister in attendance, all good staging.

I can't imagine why changing her dress was even thought of. Under the circumstances, changing clothes would be the furthest thing from my mind. I wouldn't care who showed up, making an impression would not occur to me.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:46 pm

Ray, I did not see the attribution you give to sguthmann.
But- did I miss it, or did you edit it back in?
You can edit all you want, but then my posts make no sense- so I'd like to know, if that's OK?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:34 am

RayS @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:18 pm wrote:The fact is no one there saw any red blood on Lizzie's blue dress. Or on Bridget. Proof of innocence of the murders. No murder weapon either.

Anything else is conjecture, a way to assign guilt where there is none.
I believe that Lizzie knew more than she told, and so did her contemporaries.

Why didbn't she tell? I believe she was shielding a relative. Not just Willy (the actual murderer per Arnold Brown's book), but I surmise that Uncle John had a hand in arranging the visit, and he wanted his part kept secret.

Assumed quote: "Jeez, Lizzie, we never expected this to happen. If they know what I did I would be blamed but you know I liked your Dad and would do nothing to hurt him."

Just for a moment, assume that Lizzie killed both Abby and Andrew and that there was sufficient time between the murders for Lizzie to change her dress or spot-clean it and wash up, assuming there was blood on her. By the time she killed Andrew, she would have had a better idea than any of us as to how much blood spatter occurs during a hatchet murder. She would have been one of the world's leading authorities on the subject by then! Who would know better how to dress for the occasion? By the time she got to Andrew, she would have had a good idea of how to cover herself.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:29 pm

Kat @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:46 am wrote:Ray, I did not see the attribution you give to sguthmann.
But- did I miss it, or did you edit it back in?
You can edit all you want, but then my posts make no sense- so I'd like to know, if that's OK?

Yes, I edited it to save space and make it more readable.
You were not wrong, you can edit in my correction.
Happy?

Notice how few people now quote other's postings?

I understand that a site with Book Reviews tells the posters to NOT reply to another's reviews because they can change it or ever delete it. I've seen a review that corrected another's comments about another country, then found the review was deleted.
Don't forget typing errors too.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:36 pm

Yooper @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:34 pm wrote:
RayS @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:18 pm wrote:The fact is no one there saw any red blood on Lizzie's blue dress. Or on Bridget. Proof of innocence of the murders. No murder weapon either.

Anything else is conjecture, a way to assign guilt where there is none.
I believe that Lizzie knew more than she told, and so did her contemporaries.

Why didbn't she tell? I believe she was shielding a relative. Not just Willy (the actual murderer per Arnold Brown's book), but I surmise that Uncle John had a hand in arranging the visit, and he wanted his part kept secret.

Assumed quote: "Jeez, Lizzie, we never expected this to happen. If they know what I did I would be blamed but you know I liked your Dad and would do nothing to hurt him."
Just for a moment, assume that Lizzie killed both Abby and Andrew and that there was sufficient time between the murders for Lizzie to change her dress or spot-clean it and wash up, assuming there was blood on her. By the time she killed Andrew, she would have had a better idea than any of us as to how much blood spatter occurs during a hatchet murder. She would have been one of the world's leading authorities on the subject by then! Who would know better how to dress for the occasion? By the time she got to Andrew, she would have had a good idea of how to cover herself.

I strongly urge you to learn more by reading true crime books, etc.
One alleged killing does NOT make a world's leading authority on hatchet whacking. Can you prove me wrong?

Did you try burning rolled-up high rag content paper to see what happened?

In duplicating the blood spatter experiment, hyou could try with a rolled-up towel soaked in beet juice (say) and use just a hammer ten times. Keep whacking it when it is on a couch, then see what you get on your hair, face, clothes, etc.

Lizzie had little time after Andy came home. She went outside, came back in, found the body, and started to call for help.
Why did she call for and send Bridget? That's what servants are for!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:41 pm

RayS @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:36 pm wrote:
Yooper @ Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:34 pm wrote:
RayS @ Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:18 pm wrote:The fact is no one there saw any red blood on Lizzie's blue dress. Or on Bridget. Proof of innocence of the murders. No murder weapon either.

Anything else is conjecture, a way to assign guilt where there is none.
I believe that Lizzie knew more than she told, and so did her contemporaries.

Why didbn't she tell? I believe she was shielding a relative. Not just Willy (the actual murderer per Arnold Brown's book), but I surmise that Uncle John had a hand in arranging the visit, and he wanted his part kept secret.

Assumed quote: "Jeez, Lizzie, we never expected this to happen. If they know what I did I would be blamed but you know I liked your Dad and would do nothing to hurt him."
Just for a moment, assume that Lizzie killed both Abby and Andrew and that there was sufficient time between the murders for Lizzie to change her dress or spot-clean it and wash up, assuming there was blood on her. By the time she killed Andrew, she would have had a better idea than any of us as to how much blood spatter occurs during a hatchet murder. She would have been one of the world's leading authorities on the subject by then! Who would know better how to dress for the occasion? By the time she got to Andrew, she would have had a good idea of how to cover herself.
I strongly urge you to learn more by reading true crime books, etc.
One alleged killing does NOT make a world's leading authority on hatchet whacking. Can you prove me wrong?

Did you try burning rolled-up high rag content paper to see what happened?

In duplicating the blood spatter experiment, hyou could try with a rolled-up towel soaked in beet juice (say) and use just a hammer ten times. Keep whacking it when it is on a couch, then see what you get on your hair, face, clothes, etc.

Lizzie had little time after Andy came home. She went outside, came back in, found the body, and started to call for help.
Why did she call for and send Bridget? That's what servants are for!

I'd be happy to prove you wrong. How many people in the world at that time had murdered someone with a hatchet? Lizzie would have been one of them. Police investigators only see the aftermath of the crime, they aren't there when the crime occurs. Who would know better what happens during a hatchet murder than a hatchet murderer?

Torching rag bond was your idea, I'll leave that up to you. I doubt that cotton content would make much difference.

Hammering a wet towel is far different than hacking a skull. Any blunt instrument would create more spatter. You could try pounding a bathtub full of water with a baseball bat to prove this.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:35 pm

1bigsteve @ Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:40 pm wrote:Good question, Michael. Well, if we could figure out how Lizzie kept the blood off her clothes we would have this case just about wrapped up. That has been a real puzzler for us.

I doubt Lizzie, if she was the killer, had the time to undress, kill her father, then redress before calling Bridget down. I think Lizzie must have slipped something over her dress, perhaps a hand made cover of some sort like a painters uniform or an old dress. She could have placed something over her head as well to keep blood off her hair. She could have hid the blood-covered dress inside another dress on the same hanger and then burned it in the stove later. She did burn a "paint-covered" dress in the stove the weekend after the murders. It is also possible that Lizzie cut the covering into strips and hid them in her slop jar claiming they were covered in her menstrual blood. I lean toward the idea that she used her paint-covered dress as the covering for the murders then burned it.

The other possibility is that Lizzie worked with a killer. I firmly believe Lizzie was in on the murders. She had the most to gain.

As far as where she hid the hatchet that is a mystrey. It may have been a meat cleaver that was cleaned then put back in place.

This case has so many twists and turns.

-1bigsteve (o:

I think you are right she would not have time to do all that. I think she had one dress on for both of the murders and just ended up burnig the dress or something, because she couldn't have had a dress to kill abby in, then change and then kill andrew in another dress, and then call Bridget after she cleaned herself up. She either killed them in the nude, or she had the same dress on and Bridget helped clean her up, or as you suggest, she had some thing over the dress and hair.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:13 pm

THAT is just conjecture. You assumed that Lizzie done it, and then create a story to justify your preconceived idea. How very wrong!!!

The fact is that it had to be an Intruder given the lack of blood spatter and a missing murder weapon. What is so hard to understand???

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:09 am

I've always had a hard time believing Lizzie did either murder in the nude, Snokks. I just don't see how Lizzie could have cleaned the blood off her skin and get dressed within that short period of time. I always keep in mind that Lizzie wasn't even sweating, and she would have been if she had been exerting herself. But, sometimes I wonder if maybe Lizzie did the murder in the nude, not just to keep blood off her clothes, but maybe for some physcological "kick." Perhaps she wanted her nude body to be the last thing her father saw. Who knows. I don't see Bridget helping Lizzie clean up or even knowing anything about the murders. I just don't feel Lizzie would have trusted Bridget to keep a hangman's noose off her neck.

Lizzie admited to spending some time doing some sewing on the morning of the murders. I often wonder if maybe Lizzie was finishing up on a cover that would shield her dress and hair. No doubt Lizzie had a lot of time planning the murders, if she was the actual killer.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:35 am

Of course it is "conjecture."
It is not uncommon to pick a suspect, put them into the scenario, and try out a fit. Of course, all the elements we know (the facts) need to match. Then, if they don't fit- that person is put aside- but not yet eliminated.
I'd think that was a very reasonable way to look at this case.
So saying someone is trying to fit a suspect into a *preconceived idea* is a valid way to look at the suspect, in my opinion.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:56 pm

Kat @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:35 am wrote:Of course it is "conjecture."
It is not uncommon to pick a suspect, put them into the scenario, and try out a fit. Of course, all the elements we know (the facts) need to match. Then, if they don't fit- that person is put aside- but not yet eliminated.
I'd think that was a very reasonable way to look at this case.
So saying someone is trying to fit a suspect into a *preconceived idea* is a valid way to look at the suspect, in my opinion.

YES, that is your opinion. But it is wrong. Practical knowledge of the facts will lead to the guilty party.

Of course, I'm only getting this from some mystery novels. In real life if they pick a suspect then try to fit the evidence you will have a miscarriage of justice. Tom Mooney, Sacco & Vanzetti, Dr. Sam Sheppard, O.J. Simpson, etc. Ever read about them?

Jack Kehoe was judicially murdered in 1879, but Pennsylvania granted him a complete exoneration in 1979. you can look it up.

The forensic evidence, if correctly gathered, plus a motive, will solve the crime. LeMoyne Snyder gave an example in his old and out of print manual for police officers. It tells of a crime where such evidence was not gathered. Then when it came to trial the suspect was correctly found not guilty (no evidence).

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:30 pm

RayS @ Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:13 pm wrote:THAT is just conjecture. You assumed that Lizzie done it, and then create a story to justify your preconceived idea. How very wrong!!!

The fact is that it had to be an Intruder given the lack of blood spatter and a missing murder weapon. What is so hard to understand???

The lack of blood spatter was something all of the expert testimony supported, it was impossible to predict whether the murderer would have blood upon their person. This was at the time, and it is still true today. If you have conclusive evidence otherwise, please share it, I can't find anything definitive concerning blood spatter as a result of hatchet wounds to the head. The "fact" that there MUST be blood on the murderer is conjecture! Explain WHY that is necessary!

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:20 am

Yooper @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:30 pm wrote:
RayS @ Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:13 pm wrote:THAT is just conjecture. You assumed that Lizzie done it, and then create a story to justify your preconceived idea. How very wrong!!!

The fact is that it had to be an Intruder given the lack of blood spatter and a missing murder weapon. What is so hard to understand???
The lack of blood spatter was something all of the expert testimony supported, it was impossible to predict whether the murderer would have blood upon their person. This was at the time, and it is still true today. If you have conclusive evidence otherwise, please share it, I can't find anything definitive concerning blood spatter as a result of hatchet wounds to the head. The "fact" that there MUST be blood on the murderer is conjecture! Explain WHY that is necessary!

Exactly Yooper. I've been saying the same thing. Hatchet wounds typically do NOT present the type of blood spatter pattern you would see, say, from blunt force trauma. The blood "oozes" and "seeps" rather than spraying and splattering. Furthermore, in the case of Abby, all the wounds to the back of the head would even further lessen any resulting blood spatter. I suppose it's physiologically explainable, but that region seems to bleed less, and with less force, than other areas on the head.

The lack of blood on Lizzie that day is certainly something to note, but it certainly does not rule out she did the deed, or got someone do it for her.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:23 am

Since we obviously have *missing information* I still maintain that picking a suspect and fitting that suspect into a scenario to see if they fit is valid. We have what we have to work with- that is why this case is unsolved. But I think your response to snokkums and to me was rude Ray, so I should not be answering you.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:05 am

Kat @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:23 am wrote:Since we obviously have *missing information* I still maintain that picking a suspect and fitting that suspect into a scenario to see if they fit is valid. We have what we have to work with- that is why this case is unsolved. But I think your response to snokkums and to me was rude Ray, so I should not be answering you.

You're absolutely right, Kat. That's really all we have to work with, it's all we can do. I suggest that it is also conjecture to assume that the murderer MUST have blood on them. There is no forensic proof available to support this contention.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:45 pm

Susan @ Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:44 am wrote:Hmmm, I was doing a search and came across this:

About Starch

Laundry starch is a liquid used to crisp collars and smooth fabrics. It is sprayed directly on the fabric before ironing. Upon heat, the starch firms up the cloth, making the fabric crisp. The garment looks sharper and keeps a press longer than conventional ironing.

Not only does it improve appearance, it also forms a protective barrier between you and your clothes. Dirt and sweat stick to the starch instead of the fabric. When laundered, the starch washes away with the dirt and sweat attached leaving the fabric untouched. This preserves the fabric making your clothing last longer.

Could it have been possible that Lizzie wore the Bedford cord for both murders, if it had been heavily starched and wiped or blotted any blood spots away with a dampened menstrual cloth?

I also found this for what its worth, a site on blood absorbtion on different types of cloth:

http://www.iabpa.org/December2003News.pdf

I keep thinking about how Lizzie changed her dress before the police began questioning her in earnest. If she had on the Bedford cord, I can see the dress change, besides possible bloodstains, it had paintstains and was a morning dress for doing housework type things in. But, if she was wearing the navy blue Bengaline outfit as she said she was, why change it? It was suitable for company, it was somber in coloration, perfect for the grieving daughter instead of a garish, pink and white stripped wrapper.

Another consideration with respect to the dress change is that it took place after Abby's body was discovered. Lizzie may have wanted to avoid going upstairs past the open guest room door. The perceived need for a change of costume might have been responsible for Lizzie's need to have Abby discovered as soon as possible, she seems to direct the search accordingly.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:09 pm

I wonder why no one, not even the police thought to do a room by room search for a murderer who could still have been hiding on the premises. And their search for a murder weapon, IMO spoke loud and clear that they thought it was some one in the household, because an intruder couldn't have possibly hidden the weapon in the rooms that were locked, and had no time to go up into the attic, pick a lock and hide the weapon.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:21 pm

Yooper @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:30 pm wrote:
RayS @ Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:13 pm wrote:THAT is just conjecture. You assumed that Lizzie done it, and then create a story to justify your preconceived idea. How very wrong!!!

The fact is that it had to be an Intruder given the lack of blood spatter and a missing murder weapon. What is so hard to understand???
The lack of blood spatter was something all of the expert testimony supported, it was impossible to predict whether the murderer would have blood upon their person. This was at the time, and it is still true today. If you have conclusive evidence otherwise, please share it, I can't find anything definitive concerning blood spatter as a result of hatchet wounds to the head. The "fact" that there MUST be blood on the murderer is conjecture! Explain WHY that is necessary!

You haven't done your homework! You should read a book or two, starting with David Kent's book.

One doctor testified the murderer of Abby would have blood spatter from the waist down, the murderer of Andy would have blood spatter from the waist up. (Note Well!)

No, I can't list the pages here, I operate from memory (like the others).

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:25 pm

Kat @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:23 am wrote:Since we obviously have *missing information* I still maintain that picking a suspect and fitting that suspect into a scenario to see if they fit is valid. We have what we have to work with- that is why this case is unsolved. But I think your response to snokkums and to me was rude Ray, so I should not be answering you.

Is that the proper way to detect a crime, given everything learned over the last 200 years?

You gather the facts, then see who is the likely suspect. Its cost effective, and avoids errors. IMO

What about profiling?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:33 pm

RayS @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:21 pm wrote:
Yooper @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:30 pm wrote:
RayS @ Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:13 pm wrote:THAT is just conjecture. You assumed that Lizzie done it, and then create a story to justify your preconceived idea. How very wrong!!!

The fact is that it had to be an Intruder given the lack of blood spatter and a missing murder weapon. What is so hard to understand???
The lack of blood spatter was something all of the expert testimony supported, it was impossible to predict whether the murderer would have blood upon their person. This was at the time, and it is still true today. If you have conclusive evidence otherwise, please share it, I can't find anything definitive concerning blood spatter as a result of hatchet wounds to the head. The "fact" that there MUST be blood on the murderer is conjecture! Explain WHY that is necessary!
You haven't done your homework! You should read a book or two, starting with David Kent's book.

One doctor testified the murderer of Abby would have blood spatter from the waist down, the murderer of Andy would have blood spatter from the waist up. (Note Well!)

No, I can't list the pages here, I operate from memory (like the others).

Anyone can determine that when standing over a body while hacking the head with a hatchet, IF blood spatters the murderer, it will more likely be found below the waist than above. There is a very profound reason for this, the legs are closer to the floor than the upper body! The same individual can determine that with a couch blocking the murderer from the waist down, IF blood spatter occurs, it will probably fall above the murderer's waist by default. This hardly qualifies as expert testimony, only someone trying to pacify an overzealous attorney.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:51 pm

I think it is interesting, that those who have proffered an *Andrew-sitting-up-when-hit* theory do not have a *void* in the blood on the wall behind the couch to point to.
At least not that I have heard of or read about?

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:12 pm

RayS @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:21 pm wrote: You haven't done your homework! You should read a book or two, starting with David Kent's book.

One doctor testified the murderer of Abby would have blood spatter from the waist down, the murderer of Andy would have blood spatter from the waist up. (Note Well!)

No, I can't list the pages here, I operate from memory (like the others).

I do read books, and I also like to do my own primary research as well. I've spoken with actual law enforcement officers and crime scene investigators, all of which have years of homicide experience - including cases of "death by hatchet/axe" - and what I have repeatedly posted is the result of my conversations with them. In every case, the lack of blood spatter at the scene or on the perp from such manner of death did not surprise them at all.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:31 am

Thinking about what Yooper said about the guest room door being open....
Lizzie had said it was closed.
When Bridget and Mrs. Churchill went up to check, it seems to have been open.
If Lizzie was telling the truth, who opened the door?
And here is a question about what people might do- would they close the door after they had seen the body and left the room? (Bridget.) Doesn't that sound natural?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:10 pm

Kat @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:51 pm wrote:I think it is interesting, that those who have proffered an *Andrew-sitting-up-when-hit* theory do not have a *void* in the blood on the wall behind the couch to point to.
At least not that I have heard of or read about?

The grainy low-contrast photos don't show much. There is measurement by Kierans, but now plot of the blood spatter. Any mention about what was on the rug? I remember they talked about being on the ceiling.

There would be no "void" on the wall since the murderer was not standing with his back to the wall. You can review the findings of Dr. Paul Kirk on the Marilyn Sheppard murder.

I would expect some blood spatter to the side of where the murderer stood, and some spatter on the upper torso. But I'm no expert either.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:14 pm

sguthmann @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:12 pm wrote:
RayS @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:21 pm wrote: You haven't done your homework! You should read a book or two, starting with David Kent's book.

One doctor testified the murderer of Abby would have blood spatter from the waist down, the murderer of Andy would have blood spatter from the waist up. (Note Well!)

No, I can't list the pages here, I operate from memory (like the others).
I do read books, and I also like to do my own primary research as well. I've spoken with actual law enforcement officers and crime scene investigators, all of which have years of homicide experience - including cases of "death by hatchet/axe" - and what I have repeatedly posted is the result of my conversations with them. In every case, the lack of blood spatter at the scene or on the perp from such manner of death did not surprise them at all.

Your comments do not have any authenticated references, like court cases. Anybody can say they were told anything.

If I've misjudged you, I'm sorry. Anonymous quotes don't seem like good evidence.

If you do your own primary research, just get a quart of blood from your local slaughterhouse (add a little vinegar to keep it from clotting), then saturate a towel on a couch. Take you hatchet and hit the towel 10 times.

I'm sure a sheet to measure blood spatter, and photos, will convince us.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:10 pm

RayS @ Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:14 pm wrote:
Your comments do not have any authenticated references, like court cases. Anybody can say they were told anything.

If I've misjudged you, I'm sorry. Anonymous quotes don't seem like good evidence.

If you do your own primary research, just get a quart of blood from your local slaughterhouse (add a little vinegar to keep it from clotting), then saturate a towel on a couch. Take you hatchet and hit the towel 10 times.

I'm sure a sheet to measure blood spatter, and photos, will convince us.

You're correct, I could just being saying whatever I want to, since I'm not referencing something in a book or disclosing names, dates, recordings, etc of who I've spoken with. My source material is authentic enough though, but I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it. I work in law enforcement and have ready access to many people with actual experience working such crime scenes. I draw insight from them and was sharing what I've been told, but you are correct, my info is from "unauthenticated references." The best I can do for you is, as dear Ripley said, "Believe it, or not."

Re: your "saturated w/ blood towel" experiment, yes that might have some value in blood spatter patterns, but we're talking about two people with skulls, scalp, and brain matter. In all fairness, the experiment that you described would best fit a situation where you already have a semi-liquid, bloody pool of "mush" that someone was hacking away at. This obviously was not the case in the murders. And although some of the bone was broken through during the deadly blows, I know of no evidence that bone and flesh and brain matter was found liberally spattered around the bodies - just blood (and hair in Abby's case). Now a "blood-injected" melon (if there was such a thing) - that would start to be a little more like the real deal. You really must try and reproduce the exact conditions of the murders (short of committing some yourself, of course!) in order to get the most accurate and scientifically reliable results. I beg to differ that a blood-soaked towel is not going to produce what I would consider particularly reliable evidence, thus I'll not be carrying out that experiment. But thanks for the suggestion.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:04 am

Wow I'm impressed. You have been very patient with our old odd fellow, Ray.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:12 am

The blood evidence is at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... idence.htm

One blood spot on the ceiling- sitting room:
Dolan-
We saw two spots upon the ceiling immediately above, not exactly above the head of the lounge. I do not think it was human blood; I think it was some insect that had been killed there. There was another spot Mr. Jennings and myself saw that was in all probability human. That would be from the head westward about a foot or eighteen inches westward on the ceiling.

The Void I was referring to would be Andrew's silhouette if he was sitting up. Behind him, no? yes?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:30 pm

sguthmann @ Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:10 pm wrote:...
You're correct, I could just being saying whatever I want to, since I'm not referencing something in a book or disclosing names, dates, recordings, etc of who I've spoken with. My source material is authentic enough though, but I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it. I work in law enforcement and have ready access to many people with actual experience working such crime scenes. I draw insight from them and was sharing what I've been told, but you are correct, my info is from "unauthenticated references." The best I can do for you is, as dear Ripley said, "Believe it, or not."

Re: your "saturated w/ blood towel" experiment, yes that might have some value in blood spatter patterns, but we're talking about two people with skulls, scalp, and brain matter. In all fairness, the experiment that you described would best fit a situation where you already have a semi-liquid, bloody pool of "mush" that someone was hacking away at. This obviously was not the case in the murders. And although some of the bone was broken through during the deadly blows, I know of no evidence that bone and flesh and brain matter was found liberally spattered around the bodies - just blood (and hair in Abby's case). Now a "blood-injected" melon (if there was such a thing) - that would start to be a little more like the real deal. You really must try and reproduce the exact conditions of the murders (short of committing some yourself, of course!) in order to get the most accurate and scientifically reliable results. I beg to differ that a blood-soaked towel is not going to produce what I would consider particularly reliable evidence, thus I'll not be carrying out that experiment. But thanks for the suggestion.

I believe this topic was about the blood spatter, and lack therof on the dress of Lizzie (and Bridget). This proves them both innocent of committing the murder(s).

If whacking a saturated towel on a sofa led to splatter on the wall behind the sofa, and on the whacker, that would be proof of what an expert testified to at the trial.

If you can mention any murders by hatchet similar to Abby and Andy, do so. Others would like to read them as well.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:08 pm

Kat @ Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:51 pm wrote:I think it is interesting, that those who have proffered an *Andrew-sitting-up-when-hit* theory do not have a *void* in the blood on the wall behind the couch to point to.
At least not that I have heard of or read about?

I totally get what you are saying, Kat. If Andrew was whacked sitting up, there should be more of a blood spatter pattern, a heavier pattern, towards the center of the wall above the sofa. I don't think that any such pattern was noted.

Yooper @ Sat Feb 3, 2007 10:45 am wrote:

"Another consideration with respect to the dress change is that it took place after Abby's body was discovered. Lizzie may have wanted to avoid going upstairs past the open guest room door. The perceived need for a change of costume might have been responsible for Lizzie's need to have Abby discovered as soon as possible, she seems to direct the search accordingly."

I think its also interesting to note at the time that Bridget changed her dress in the afternoon also. She doesn't give a time for the change, just afternoon:

Trial volume 1, page 336:

Q. Did you keep it on all day?
A. Yes, sir: until the afternoon.

Q. Well, that is not all day?
A. Well, I kept it on until I got a chance to change it, after all the fuss was over.

Q. When did you change it?
A. I could not tell what time it was.

Q. Well, was it in the afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what dress did you put on then?
A. I put a gingham dress on.

Q. Gingham?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what was the general color of that?
A. It was a blue gingham.

Q. Check----plaid?
A. Plain.

Q. Plain?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What do you mean------all one color?
A. Yes, sir, with a white border on it.

Q. What is that?
A. Yes, sir, the gingham was plain, with a white border on it.

Q. Plain, with a white border?
A. Yes, sir.

It goes on to describe the dress, and that Bridget hadn't changed yet when she had gone on an errand across the street to Mrs. Miller's.

Rays @ Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:30 pm wrote:

"I believe this topic was about the blood spatter, and lack therof on the dress of Lizzie (and Bridget). This proves them both innocent of committing the murder(s).

Ray, I don't understand your reasoning of due to lack of blood on Lizzie or Bridget that it makes them innocent? Unless you are presuming that moments after murdering Andrew that they would stand around in a blood spattered dress with dripping murder implement in hand waiting to be caught? I think that like most murderers, unless caught in the act, would hide the evidence of their wrongdoing as well as the murder weapon. We only have Bridget's word on the amount of dresses she personally owned and for Lizzie we only have her word and Emma's word on the amount and what kind of dresses that were in her closet.