But what about the blood?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:51 am

I think the very fact that Lizzie went directly to the bottom of the stairs and called for Bridget is VERY telling. It means she KNEW Bridget hadn't been hacked to death by an intruder too. If she was innocent she would have been totally uncertain that anyone had been left alive in the house.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:25 am

If Bridget was involved in the murders to any extent other than in covering up the crime, would it make sense for her to flee rather than remain in the house? She was sent for Dr. Bowen and for Alice Russell, she could have simply kept running. Granted, she was in a hurry to leave the household after the investigation began, but there seemed to be some obligation for her to fulfill by remaining close by. Bridget may have lacked motive, other than having to wash windows while she was ill, which is pretty thin for two murders. She also may have lacked an exclusive opportunity. The Bordens were her source of income, so she may have had a better motive for wanting them alive. Her actions seem consistent with someone who was either innocent, or may have helped after the fact.

Bridget was supposedly the only person left alive in the house after Andrew had been killed, except, of course, for the murderer. Lizzie was the only person left alive in the house for a while after Abby's murder. Why would an intruder leave anyone alive in the house at any time? They can only hang you once, so why not remove all possibilities for witnesses? The opportunity was there to dispatch all of the household members. Abby was killed apparently without Lizzie's knowledge, Lizzie could have been killed shortly after. Bridget could have been killed when she came in from washing windows. Andrew could have been killed as soon as he arrived home. If Lizzie had been killed upstairs, and Bridget somewhere other than near an exterior doorway, it could have been done.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:48 am

[quote="sguthmann @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:50 am"][quote="Yooper @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:07 pm"] I believe that in the Knowlton papers, there is a statement from a relative of Mrs Borden's who spoke to Bridget not long after the murders, and according to this woman, Bridget told her she was quite afraid living in that household and planned to leave several times, but that each time Mrs Borden had begged her to stay, and in the end she did./quote]

How reliable is this information? If it is reliable, then it is very important, because it shows there was enough instability and volatility in the household to cause someone to be afraid for her own safety. How much more would one need to see Lizzie was a threat?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:10 am

Angel @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:48 am wrote:
sguthmann @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:50 am wrote:
Yooper @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:07 pm wrote: I believe that in the Knowlton papers, there is a statement from a relative of Mrs Borden's who spoke to Bridget not long after the murders, and according to this woman, Bridget told her she was quite afraid living in that household and planned to leave several times, but that each time Mrs Borden had begged her to stay, and in the end she did./quote]

How reliable is this information? If it is reliable, then it is very important, because it shows there was enough instability and volatility in the household to cause someone to be afraid for her own safety. How much more would one need to see Lizzie was a threat?

It would be very interesting to know why Bridget might have been afraid to remain in the Borden household. If the Whitehead house incident marked a turning point, it occurred five years previous to the murders. Bridget had been in the household about three years, so she came into whatever hostile environment had been created. Maybe the hostility increased over time.

These quotes seem to have gotten mixed up, what appears in the white quotation box are sguthmann's words, not mine. Sorry for the mixup.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:28 pm

Angel @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:51 am wrote:I think the very fact that Lizzie went directly to the bottom of the stairs and called for Bridget is VERY telling. It means she KNEW Bridget hadn't been hacked to death by an intruder too. If she was innocent she would have been totally uncertain that anyone had been left alive in the house.

Lizzie knew that the Intruder had a meeting with Andy. If Bridget didn't answer, Lizzie would know what that meant. Note she stood on the back porch, out in the open. Who could have been inside?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:15 pm

This is a segment (partial), from the Knowlton Papers:
Page 35

Bridget often said it was too bad Mrs. Borden was their stepmother she was too good for them and they did not like her.

I asked Bridget if they quarelled she said she would not want to say anthing about that of course they would not quarel in front of me. I pressed her upon this subject but she evidently did not want to talk about it.

She further stated that she made up her mind three times to leave their and gave in her notice but Mrs. Borden coaxed her to stay and once raised her wages Mrs. Borden was so good that Bridget stayed but was intending to leave? she gave as her reason that while the work was not hard the place was not pleasant for any girl on account of the odd habits of the family she said things were not very pleasant in the house, I asked how it was, well the girls kept so much to themselves their was no love for their stepmother.

The above report is in substance the result of the two hours of conversation.

Mrs. Nellie S. Mc'Henry
Provo Aug. 25/92

(Note: "Statement of Bridget Sullivan to Nellie S. McHenry" handwritten in ink on reverse side of document.)
--This is Nellie McHenry- not too reliable. I've not been convinced that this interview occurred. There were other ways for Nellie to get this info. I also am not convinced that this is untrue.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:58 pm

There really isn't much in the statement that isn't known from other sources. The girls kept to themselves, their area of the house was more or less separate from the rest. I expect they quarreled and Bridget probably couldn't help overhearing at times. There was no respect or acceptance of Abby by Emma and Lizzie. Emma spilled the beans about the domestic disharmony at the Inquest and spent part of the Trial testimony on an attempt at damage control. The only new item is Bridget having supposedly quit three times, but if she had truly resolved to leave, she would have done it. It couldn't have been completely unbearable if she allowed herself to be talked into staying.

duke4172 · Post by **duke4172** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:20 pm

While we are on the subject of blood I have noticed that in all of the pictures I have seen of the bodies there is no blood on the walls or surrounding area! I know enough about murder with sharp objects to know that with the kind of murder we are talking about in the Borden case there should have been some blood splatter!

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:28 pm

Welcome to the forum Duke !

I believe that part of the reason we don't 'see' a lot of blood in the usual Borden death photos is due to the quality of the photos and also because they are in black and white.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:19 am

Hi Duke!

Yes I agree with Tracy. I wish we could see the spatter in the photos.
Stefani told me the crime scene pictures are much bigger in real life, and I think she saw blood spatter in the one of the sitting room.
We will need bigger and better pictures.
But maybe the black and white might work in our favor?
I'm not sure. I'm thinking *contrast* here.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:40 am

Welcome to the Forum, Duke!

Speaking of blood spatter, I found an interesting little blip in Agnes De Mille's Lizzie Borden A Dance Of Death; Dr. Draper testified in another ax murder case. On page 115 and 116 there is a footnote:

In the second trial of Mate Thomas Bram for the axe murder on July 14, 1896, of the captain, his wife and the second mate of the Herbert Fuller, Dr. Draper gave expert testimony to the effect that "a person standing over Captain Nash and striking him with an axe...would not necessarily be spattered with blood." This opinion might have helped the prosecution in the Borden case, but the second Bram trial did not take place until five years after Lizzie's.

The story of the Bram murder is available in Edmund Pearson's Studies In Murder, it is available through Amazon if anyone is interested:

http://www.amazon.com/STUDIES-MURDER-ED ... 081425022X

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:08 am

Good point on the Bram murders, Susan.

Pearson also has a footnote on the Bram case in his The Trial of Lizzie Borden, page 62:

"(30) The subject of the extent and direction of the shower of blood drops in an attack with a weapon of this kind is one that needs more investigation. Thomas Bram, in the U. S. Circuit Court in Boston, in 1897-98, was twice convicted of the murder of three persons on the ship Herbert Fuller at sea. An ax was the weapon, and it was necessarily swung in the confined space of a ship's cabin. There was less opportunity here than in the Borden house, to wash away blood-stains. Yet the men who saw him directly after the murders saw no blood at all on him."

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:45 pm

If Lizzie did it she may have done it in the nude, change her dresses between the murders...

I think she was not searched throuh entirely because she was a woman, and police did not go through a woman's stuff, clothes or anything like that. She had plenty of time carry things away, destroy or hide evidence.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:04 pm

Harry @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:08 am wrote:Good point on the Bram murders, Susan.

Pearson also has a footnote on the Bram case in his The Trial of Lizzie Borden, page 62:

"(30) The subject of the extent and direction of the shower of blood drops in an attack with a weapon of this kind is one that needs more investigation. Thomas Bram, in the U. S. Circuit Court in Boston, in 1897-98, was twice convicted of the murder of three persons on the ship Herbert Fuller at sea. An ax was the weapon, and it was necessarily swung in the confined space of a ship's cabin. There was less opportunity here than in the Borden house, to wash away blood-stains. Yet the men who saw him directly after the murders saw no blood at all on him."

NB "Twice convicted"? The quote above in bold was by this poster.

The TRUTH is that Bram was tried twice after a hung jury in the first trial. There was no blood spatter on Bram because he didn't do it!
After the chief witness against him was arrested for attacking another person with an axe Bram was given a full pardon. Justice was done here.

I take it that expert witness was hired by the Prosecution?
Remember Judge Dewey's remark on experts in his summation?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:06 pm

nishmat @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:45 pm wrote:If Lizzie did it she may have done it in the nude, change her dresses between the murders...

I think she was not searched throuh entirely because she was a woman, and police did not go through a woman's stuff, clothes or anything like that. She had plenty of time carry things away, destroy or hide evidence.

WHO is telling you this? Is there any evidence for her nudity? Proper Puritan maidens did not take off their clothes to kill their parents, then or now.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:32 pm

RayS, it is one thing to quote a message but another thing to alter that message.

You quoted me and you highlighted a certain portion of it. That is NOT allowed. That is YOUR highlight not mine.

Kindly DO NOT do so on my messages in the future.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:54 pm

RayS @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:06 pm wrote:
nishmat @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:45 pm wrote:If Lizzie did it she may have done it in the nude, change her dresses between the murders...

I think she was not searched throuh entirely because she was a woman, and police did not go through a woman's stuff, clothes or anything like that. She had plenty of time carry things away, destroy or hide evidence.
WHO is telling you this? Is there any evidence for her nudity? Proper Puritan maidens did not take off their clothes to kill their parents, then or now.

How in the world could there be "evidence" of her nudity? She certainly was not stripped searched, and she would make sure that she was not caught if she actually did take off her clothes, so that is a moot point. It is a possibility that we will never know.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:28 pm

Harry @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:32 pm wrote:RayS, it is one thing to quote a message but another thing to alter that message.

You quoted me and you highlighted a certain portion of it. That is NOT allowed. That is YOUR highlight not mine.

Kindly DO NOT do so on my messages in the future.

I remember others highlighting somebody else's quote. I think you are being quite contrary, IMO. THAT was a quote from Pearson, not from you. I meant nothing against you. You did realize what was wrong with that quote?

Pearson's "Five Murders" has a chapter on this case. It was used for a mystery "Murder in the After House" by M R Reinhart.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:29 pm

Smudgeman @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:54 pm wrote:...
How in the world could there be "evidence" of her nudity? She certainly was not stripped searched, and she would make sure that she was not caught if she actually did take off her clothes, so that is a moot point. It is a possibility that we will never know.

It is absolutely certain that "we will never know".

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:53 pm

I don't give a damn whether the post is right or wrong.

DO NOT ALTER MY POSTS WHEN YOU QUOTE.

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:08 am

RayS @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:06 pm wrote:Proper Puritan maidens did not take off their clothes to kill their parents, then or now.

Apparently "proper puritan maidens" remained dressed with they killed their parents. Glad we got that cleared up! *LOL*

sguthmann · Post by **sguthmann** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:33 am

Yooper @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:58 pm wrote:There really isn't much in the statement that isn't known from other sources. The girls kept to themselves, their area of the house was more or less separate from the rest. I expect they quarreled and Bridget probably couldn't help overhearing at times. There was no respect or acceptance of Abby by Emma and Lizzie. Emma spilled the beans about the domestic disharmony at the Inquest and spent part of the Trial testimony on an attempt at damage control. The only new item is Bridget having supposedly quit three times, but if she had truly resolved to leave, she would have done it. It couldn't have been completely unbearable if she allowed herself to be talked into staying.

Thing is, IF McHenry's statement is true and Bridget did tell her these things, then we know Bridget did quite a bit of "minimizing" while on the witness stand - but why? Why need to?

Also, I don't necessarily agree that if Bridget really had wanted to leave she just would have. First of all, a job's a job. I don't know that a woman in her situation would have felt free to just up and leave, even if things were very unplesant. Where would she go? What would she do for money? If she left, what would she tell prospective employers was the reason for her leaving? She couldn't very well spill the Bordens' dirty laundry. It would have been unproper, and perhaps unbecoming a woman of her station to be repeating things that occurred behind closed doors. If she up and left the Bordens, what sort of reference might she expect from them? And what would they be have to tell others was the reason for her leaving? The truth? I think not.

So I think it was a very complicated decision for Bridget to stay with the Bordens or to leave. I think Bridget was probably very torn. I think she probably did feel some loyalty (and pity?) towards Abby. I also think she was probably filled with increasing anxiety and fear over the dynamics of the household and the "terror tactics" that they increasingly the victims of. Those are just a few surface points. That's not taking into account that Bridget may have had even more specific and terrifying reasons to be afraid to remain in the household. I rather think she felt stuck between a rock and a hard place...in a situation that she knew was deteriorating with every passing day, month, and year. I think that it is very likely that she wavered between leaving and staying, and may have attempted to quit on several occasions, only to be convinced to stay out of loyalty, pity, or fear. IF it is true that she had tried to leave on several occasions, I think that is VERY telling about living conditions in that house.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:57 am

sguthmann @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:08 am wrote:
RayS @ Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:06 pm wrote:Proper Puritan maidens did not take off their clothes to kill their parents, then or now.
Apparently "proper puritan maidens" remained dressed with they killed their parents. Glad we got that cleared up! *LOL*

LOL is right, sguthmann. I always get a kick out of her supposed "moral standards". Jeesh!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:29 am

sguthmann @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:33 am wrote:
Yooper @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:58 pm wrote: Also, I don't necessarily agree that if Bridget really had wanted to leave she just would have. First of all, a job's a job. I don't know that a woman in her situation would have felt free to just up and leave, even if things were very unplesant. Where would she go? What would she do for money? If she left, what would she tell prospective employers was the reason for her leaving? She couldn't very well spill the Bordens' dirty laundry. It would have been unproper, and perhaps unbecoming a woman of her station to be repeating things that occurred behind closed doors. If she up and left the Bordens, what sort of reference might she expect from them? And what would they be have to tell others was the reason for her leaving? The truth? I think not.

So I think it was a very complicated decision for Bridget to stay with the Bordens or to leave. I think Bridget was probably very torn. I think she probably did feel some loyalty (and pity?) towards Abby. I also think she was probably filled with increasing anxiety and fear over the dynamics of the household and the "terror tactics" that they increasingly the victims of. Those are just a few surface points. That's not taking into account that Bridget may have had even more specific and terrifying reasons to be afraid to remain in the household. I rather think she felt stuck between a rock and a hard place...in a situation that she knew was deteriorating with every passing day, month, and year. I think that it is very likely that she wavered between leaving and staying, and may have attempted to quit on several occasions, only to be convinced to stay out of loyalty, pity, or fear. IF it is true that she had tried to leave on several occasions, I think that is VERY telling about living conditions in that house.

I totally agree with you.

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:14 am

WHO is telling you this? Is there any evidence for her nudity? Proper Puritan maidens did not take off their clothes to kill their parents, then or now

Ray,

Proper Victorian Ladies may undress to commit a murder...many have suggested this, that Lizzie actually did commit it in the nude so she could easily wash off.

I don't think Lizzie was acting like a Victorian Lady at all with that Hatchet.

Do you??

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:17 pm

nishmat @ Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:14 am wrote:
WHO is telling you this? Is there any evidence for her nudity? Proper Puritan maidens did not take off their clothes to kill their parents, then or now
Ray,

Proper Victorian Ladies may undress to commit a murder...many have suggested this, that Lizzie actually did commit it in the nude so she could easily wash off.

I don't think Lizzie was acting like a Victorian Lady at all with that Hatchet.

Do you??

But "Lizzie Didn't Do It" hence she was a proper Victorian Lady. QED

Did she use the shower or the bathtub to wash herself? And what happened to the towels? [Trick Question!]

nishmat · Post by **nishmat** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:57 pm

But "Lizzie Didn't Do It" hence she was a proper Victorian Lady. QED

Did she use the shower or the bathtub to wash herself? And what happened to the towels? [Trick Question!]

So women cannot commit murders if they are victorians, ray?

By the way...how do you view women in your ordinary life? I guess some women to you cannot commit murders because they are too nice, or what??

We should be glad you are not a police investigator.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:04 am

I think the letter-writers of the day thought of it too when they published their theories*- that is Victorian days for you!

*published as in sending to the newspaper- or here is one in
The Knowlton Papers, from "Blue" Boston of all places!

HK241
Letter, handwritten in ink.

Boston, June 18 1893

Honored Sir

It seems strange to me that it has never occurred to anyone that perhaps Lizzie Borden was naked when she committed the murder. She could easily, and quickly wash herself.

That is my idea for I think she is the one.
Yours Respect

Clara Brown, Boston

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:10 pm

nishmat @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:57 am wrote:
But "Lizzie Didn't Do It" hence she was a proper Victorian Lady. QED

Did she use the shower or the bathtub to wash herself? And what happened to the towels? [Trick Question!]
So women cannot commit murders if they are victorians, ray?

By the way...how do you view women in your ordinary life? I guess some women to you cannot commit murders because they are too nice, or what??

We should be glad you are not a police investigator.

YOU haven't answered my question as to how Lizzie cleaned up after Andy's murder. The answer is: she didn't (not enough time).

I checked this out with Inspector Martin Beck.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:43 am

It's a shame that the petticoat that had the small droplet of blood on it is not available. With the new tests these days it would be possible to see if it came from Abby or Andrew (samples from the handkerchief, bedclothes, etc.) - it would be very incriminating if it matched.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:43 pm

RayS @ Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:10 pm wrote:
nishmat @ Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:57 am wrote:
But "Lizzie Didn't Do It" hence she was a proper Victorian Lady. QED

Did she use the shower or the bathtub to wash herself? And what happened to the towels? [Trick Question!]
So women cannot commit murders if they are victorians, ray?

By the way...how do you view women in your ordinary life? I guess some women to you cannot commit murders because they are too nice, or what??

We should be glad you are not a police investigator.
YOU haven't answered my question as to how Lizzie cleaned up after Andy's murder. The answer is: she didn't (not enough time).

I checked this out with Inspector Martin Beck.

Some proof is necessary that cleanup was needed before we jump to the conclusion that time was consumed by it.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:12 pm

May I please ask; who is Inspector Martin Beck ? Is he a fictional character or an actual police investigator ?

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:26 pm

theebmonique @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:12 pm wrote:May I please ask; who is Inspector Martin Beck ? Is he a fictional character or an actual police investigator ?

Tracy...

May I please answer by saying you've been missing some good stories?

PS I've often wondered if you are another screen name for "Owdry". Can you please tell me who you are?
I understand the reasons for privacy, but putting up somebody else's picture reminds me of "Owdry".
(I was ordered to not use you-know-who's name.)

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:53 pm

click

Tracy...

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:20 pm

RayS @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:26 pm wrote:
theebmonique @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:12 pm wrote:May I please ask; who is Inspector Martin Beck ? Is he a fictional character or an actual police investigator ?

Tracy...
May I please answer by saying you've been missing some good stories?

PS I've often wondered if you are another screen name for "Owdry". Can you please tell me who you are?
I understand the reasons for privacy, but putting up somebody else's picture reminds me of "Owdry".
(I was ordered to not use you-know-who's name.)

Excuse me, Ray, but I think Stefani, and the rest of us, would like to keep talk about "Owdry" confined to "Lizzie's Privy." There you, and the rest of us, can flap away to our heart's content.

It has been established that "Owdry" was a man and some members of this forum have met Tracy and know she is a woman. We have seen photos of Tracy and we all know she is a woman. But, you on the other hand I am not so sure about. Why do you continue to hammer away on others? Are you "Owdry?"

Now, Ray, may I please ask you; who is inspector Martin Beck? Is he a fictional character or an actual police investigator? A straight answer will do nicely. Thank you.

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:30 am

I don't think they saved the petticoat. I think they cut the spot out and tested that.
Anyone know for sure?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:04 am

Inspector MARTIN BECK was a detective series written in the 60s and early 70s------FICTION. I think the authors were a husband and wife team. The books centered around Swedish life, the locale where the stories take place.

I never read one but perhaps RAYS can give us a review?

And since when does the outcome of fiction determine the facts in truth?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:28 am

RayS seems to like to get a lot of the basis for his posted opinions from fiction. I know some mystery books are based on true stories...but they are still fiction nonetheless. I used to love watching Perry Mason...but I do realize and understand that it was FICTION. Just because it happens on TV, or in movies and books...does not make it real, as most of us know.IMO.

Tracy...

william · Post by **william** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:17 am

Please folks, can't you see what is happening?

Ray has got you in his sights and he is enjoying every delicious moment.

Someone in the Forum proposes - he disposes.

With all of the attention he is receiving, he's just shivering with delight.

Wake up!

william · Post by **william** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:18 am

Please folks, can't you see what is happening?

Ray has got you in his sights and he is enjoying every delicious moment.

Someone in the Forum proposes - he disposes.

With all of the attention he is receiving, he's just shivering with delight.

Wake up!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:42 pm

theebmonique @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:28 am wrote:RayS seems to like to get a lot of the basis for his posted opinions from fiction. I know some mystery books are based on true stories...but they are still fiction nonetheless. I used to love watching Perry Mason...but I do realize and understand that it was FICTION. Just because it happens on TV, or in movies and books...does not make it real, as most of us know.IMO.

Tracy...

Good Fiction (as in mystery novels etc.) is based on reality. There are sticky legal situations if you use Real Names in fiction, especially if the person is rich and powerful. Even if you don't agree, the publishing house has its lawyers etc.

You do know that "copycat" crimes are often based on what they read. Ted Bundy was a law student and had real knowledge of police methods; one reason he wasn't caught. He was caught trying to impersonate a police detective and trying to abduct a young woman. Handcuffs, phony badge, etc. I think its in Ann Rule's book.

I think a person can be educated as well as entertained by the novels of Perry Mason. Chandler or Hammett used the real world as a background for their stories. "The Maltese Falcon" is one tale about the search for winning wealth. It just depends on your life and experiences.

I used "Martin Beck" as the answer to a Swedish person's sarcastic question. If it had been someone else I might have answered "Sherlock Holmes". I hope you will understand this answer.

The original books are a lot better than the TV shows of the late 1980s. The shows of 1957 to 1966 were overseen by Erle Stanley Gardner. You can read a biography about him. His books have become out of print.

Per Swaloo's books ended with his early death in 1975. I read they have a serices on Swedish TV, like Mike Hammer some years ago.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:45 pm

william @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:18 pm wrote:Please folks, can't you see what is happening?

Ray has got you in his sights and he is enjoying every delicious moment.

Someone in the Forum proposes - he disposes.

With all of the attention he is receiving, he's just shivering with delight.

Wake up!

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again!!!
I only shiver from cold. I would prefer people to read the various books and comment on how good each one did. Or why Brown's Theory fits best the unsolved murders. But many people here prefer to comment on the messenger rather than the message. I know the answer is based on the personal experiences.

I really don't like personal questions.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:47 pm

mbhenty @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:04 am wrote:

Inspector MARTIN BECK was a detective series written in the 60s and early 70s------FICTION. I think the authors were a husband and wife team. The books centered around Swedish life, the locale where the stories take place.

I never read one but perhaps RAYS can give us a review?

And since when does the outcome of fiction determine the facts in truth?

Based on my limited experience, those books vary. I think some were better than others. Your experiences may vary.

"The Terrorists" was the last one.
"The Laughing Policeman" was very popular, and turned into an American movie (with many changes from the original!!).

diana · Post by **diana** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:01 pm

Kat @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:30 am wrote:I don't think they saved the petticoat. I think they cut the spot out and tested that.
Anyone know for sure?

At trial, they appear to be showing the petticoat with a hole cut out of it.

"Q. (Referring to white skirt). Was that hole cut---assuming for the moment that to be the skirt---was that hole now there that you see in it, at that time?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was that hole in about the position where the spot of blood was that you have described?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Won't you give the size and appearance of that spot of blood as you saw it?
A. About the size of a pin head, an ordinary pinhead.
Q. And about where that present hole is cut out?
A. Yes, sir." (Dolan:Trial, 886)

Then Professor Wood says:
"The white skirt, this one, contains a small blood spot on a line---it is 16 inches to the left of this line from the placket hole to the bottom of the skirt, and six inches from the bottom of the skirt. . . . I had to make a larger hole in the cloth in order to avoid removing the whole of the blood spot, it was so small. This blood spot was about one-sixteenth of an inch in diameter, about the size of the diameter of the head of a small pin, not a large pin nor a medium size pin, but a small pin, and it appeared to me to be a little bit more extensive and plainer on the outside of the skirt than on the inside." (Trial, 1004)

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:16 pm

"A little bit more extensive and plainer on the outside of the skirt than on the inside?"

Does that mean he felt the blood came from the outside of the skirt?

-1bigsteve (o:

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:22 pm

william @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:18 am wrote:Please folks, can't you see what is happening?

Ray has got you in his sights and he is enjoying every delicious moment.

Someone in the Forum proposes - he disposes.

With all of the attention he is receiving, he's just shivering with delight.

Wake up!

I agree. If many of the people who typed the word "Click" so many times after one of RayS post would actually do it instead of just typing it, that might go a ways to making things more bareable here on the forum for everyone.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:30 pm

1bigsteve @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:16 pm wrote:"A little bit more extensive and plainer on the outside of the skirt than on the inside?"

Does that mean he felt the blood came from the outside of the skirt?

-1bigsteve (o:

In my opinion, if it appeared more extensive and plainer on the outside of the skirt, it would be due to the sort of spreading effect liquid has when it hits a surface and soaks in. I also really wish they had kept that skirt as well. Or at least the swatch with the blood spot which was removed from it. That would've been so helpful in determining how it came to be there. But without a sample from either Abby or Andrew to compare it to there really wouldn't be a way to tell if the blood had come from them. Even if the blood from the bedspread was allowed to be swabbed for DNA and produced a useable profile, is there a sample from Andrew that could be used?

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:06 pm

mbhenty @ Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:04 pm wrote:

Inspector MARTIN BECK was a detective series written in the 60s and early 70s------FICTION. I think the authors were a husband and wife team. The books centered around Swedish life, the locale where the stories take place.

I never read one but perhaps RAYS can give us a review?

And since when does the outcome of fiction determine the facts in truth?

Thank you, Michael. I did a google but wasn't sure which Martin Beck Ray was talking about. I was expecting a reply from Ray but he likes to give me a wide berth, like his friend "XXXXXX" did. It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken for a bear.

Does anyone know if the police got down on their knees and looked for any pin-head sized blood spots on the Borden's carpet/hardwood floors? I've been thinking that a killer would have left at least a few drops of blood from the guest bedroom to the hiding place and from the sitting room to the exit point. Now, if the killer wiped the blood off the hatchet after each murder, what happened to the "rag" used to wipe off the blood? Was it thrown into the stove? Hatchet heads don't absorb blood so some drops must have landed somewhere, perhaps just a few feet away from the bodies.

These are just my rambling ideas floating around in my head right now.

-1bigsteve (o:

diana · Post by **diana** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:43 pm

1bigsteve @ Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:16 pm wrote:"A little bit more extensive and plainer on the outside of the skirt than on the inside?"

Does that mean he felt the blood came from the outside of the skirt?

-1bigsteve (o:

Yes, Steve -- Wood admits that if it was plainer on the outside of the white petticoat, it would probably mean it came from the outside. But I feel he qualifies this a bit when he says, "it appeared to me to be a little bit more extensive and plainer on the outside of the skirt than on the inside."

To me, this implies some hedging on his part whether whether it was plainer on the outside. After all, it must have been difficult to determine something like that if as Wood says, the spot was only "one-sixteenth of an inch in diameter, about the size of the diameter of the head of a small pin, not a large pin nor a medium size pin, but a small pin" (Wood: Trial)

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:19 pm

Lizzie was never carefully examinded after the murders like they would do today if she was a suspect. There were no pictures taken of her, no female officer stripped searched her or took notes about her body or clothing, she had plenty of time to clean up, scrup her fingernails and make sure she was ready for a spot check as limited as it was back then. I also think she used her time of the month to her advantage. Who would argue or try to prove she was on her period or not? Are we going to call her gynecologist to the stand? I think Dr. Bowen would protest, since he was probably her doctor for everything back then? Lizzie could simply state she was early or late with her period that week, who would go there?