Should Andrew and Abby be exhumned ?

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:58 am

Where you you stand on the question of Exhuming Andrew and Abby ?

Should they be exhumned to find more information ? Some questions could be answered like; Were they being poisoned ? Was William Borden really Andrew's son ? Tune in next week for the answer ( We would have to do a bit more digging to find out that one )

Seriously, how do you feel and why ?

xyjw · Post by **xyjw** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:50 am

Is there DNA evidence of William Borden to compare with any of Andrews? Are the remains still able to produce DNA?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:35 am

Would there be anything to gain other than satisfying idle curiosity by exhuming the Bordens? I can't think of anything offhand, it really doesn't pertain to anything current.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:23 pm

NO, NO, AND NO.

These people use the excuse of science and truth as reasons to violate and disturb the dead.

Characters such as Jim Starr are just financial opportunists: seekers of fame and stature, stardom sniffers, celebrity hookers, silk shirt bums with no sacred or moral validity to there actions. Their only interest is to make money and/or write a book.

NO, NO AND NO. Let the dead be.

Let us say that the Lizzie Borden case is 30 years, even 40 years old. In that case there may be some, some who are guilty of the crime still alive. Then in the name of justice I can see disturbing a grave to get to the truth and incarcerate the guilty. Perhaps there is good reason or proof of to do so. Example, the development of DNA. One good reason. Weapon and it's connection discovered and wound match is needed to convict, another good reason.

But a 100+ year old crime, No. DNA, discovered weapon or otherwise.

There is no one left to pursue or make restitution in a case as old as the Borden.

Curiosity and inquisitiveness is just not reason enough no matter how long the murders were committed to disturb the sacred ground of those who lie at rest.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:18 pm

The case is still technically 'open'. Since everyone involved in the case is now dead, why don't they mark the case 'closed'?

If there are chances of finding a solution to the Borden case by exhumation, then I vote yes.

Professor Starrs thinks there is a chance of solving it by exhumation.

Does anyone really want it solved? I do.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:39 pm

augusta @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:18 pm wrote:The case is still technically 'open'. Since everyone involved in the case is now dead, why don't they mark the case 'closed'?

If there are chances of finding a solution to the Borden case by exhumation, then I vote yes.

Professor Starrs thinks there is a chance of solving it by exhumation.

Does anyone really want it solved? I do.

I don't know if I want the case to be solved. I think it would take all the fun out of trying to come up with different theories of who did why and how. And trying to figure out if Lizzie really did it.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:15 pm

I second MB's eloquent speech. NO!!!!!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:13 pm

I vote yes as well Augusta.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:34 pm

I'd have to say No. Among other things, exhuming a body costs money, and I don't think there would be a sufficient return on that investment to justify the time and expense of exhuming - and for that matter examining - two sets of skeletal remains. Four boxes of bones... Let 'em rest with what's left of their dignity intact.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:44 pm

Yes, I understand some of us want to

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Fri Mar 27, 2009 11:48 pm

Yes. I think they should be exhumed and full and complete tests should be made. These two innocent people were murdered and it is for the living to find out how, why and by whom. Andrew and Abby can not rest until answers are found. If I were in their place I would want my body exhumed and answers found. I could not rest if I knew my killer got away with my murder. It wouldn't matter if the killer was long dead, I would want answers.

-1bigsteve (o:

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:40 am

Lizzie Borden lies at rest less than 35 hundred feet from my front door, or a little more than a half mile. Any attempt to dig up the Borden graves would bring on a stern protest and formal complaint. I for one would do my best to stop it.

No good would come from disinterring the Borden graves except that some Frankenstenian PhD would make money in the end, and others would have their curiosity tickled and entertained; not to mention that such an action would probably end with more questions than answers.

To simplify the reasoning here, it comes down to inquisitiveness; pure and simple undiluted curiosity. The fact that the case is still not closed is not reason enough. These are not reason to exhume those at rest.

Graves are sacred places.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:22 am

Myself I say yes, for 2 reasons. First the obvious reason, to find more answers about the case. Even if we find nothing that can tell us who did it, we might find out certain things that would tell who was more likely to have done it.

Today it is common practice to exhume bodies of murder victims, this is no different. Time does not change what happened. Two people were murdered.

Second, I believe that Andrew and Abby should be reunited with thier heads, it is the decent thing to do. To do that requires an exhumation anyway. If you are going to go that far, you might as well go the rest of the way and do the forensic examination and testing.

joe1956 · Post by **joe1956** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:22 am

If I were murdered as were Andrew and Abby, I would want everything and anything done in order to find the culprit. I would not care if 200 years had passed. Retrieve my body from the grave, and run all the tests possible. My body and my spirit have been long separated from each other. It is not an insult to me or too anyone's religious beliefs. How can anyone say let them rest in peace? How could anyone rest in peace knowing that the world does not know who killed him/her? If anyone wants Andrew and Abby to rest in peace, realize that the body and the soul are two separate entities, and let the mortal remains of these people be tested using all the current procedures. True, no one is alive who had anything to do with the case. The murderer has long since passed. But history still leaves Andrew and Abby's brutal murders unsolved. Using selfish, self-serving religious beliefs to prevent further testing is wrong.

Stefani · Post by **Stefani** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:34 am

If I were the murdered person, I would KNOW who killed me. And know that, by now, the killer(s) were dead. So what would it matter to me, the murdered person to find the culprit? If there is a heaven and hell, all the justice in the universe has been metered out by God in this case.

If I don't believe in heaven and hell, then it wouldn't matter if anyone found out who killed me because there is nothing to be done.

If there is no God, and we return to the earth and simply cease to exist when we die, then it REALLY wouldn't matter, would it? There would be no EARTHLY reason to figure out the answers.

After all this time, in wooden coffins buried in 1892, there probably isn't anything left anyway, but dust. And what do we do with that when we find it? Sell it at the Lizzie Borden B&B in little jars? Not a happy picture. Not worth the trouble. No need to dig them up. IMHO.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:44 am

There's another point to be made here, its not just the dead who deserve respect. Most people thought Lizzie was guilty or they wouldn't have ostracized her after the trial. To their minds, Lizzie got away with murder and they did their best to make certain she would not enjoy her life after the trial. The case was not pursued after the trial, no one else was ever brought to justice. They effectively closed the book on this case when the trial ended. That was their decision, and it deserves respect, too.

joe1956 · Post by **joe1956** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:37 am

Please know that I am a deeply spiritual person, and I meant no disrespect to anyone when I wrote the last statement in my previous reply. I just feel that religious believes should not stand in the way of science and knowledge. My apology to anyone who I offended.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:46 am

One thing I thought of but forgot to mention. If Andrew and Abby were reunited with there heads then the Cemetary would no longer have to worry about anyone digging up the heads.

There was talk awhile back somewhere about placing a guard at the plot because the heads are only about 3 feey down. Its a lot easier to dig down 3 feet and carry away a smal box with a head in it than it is to dig down 6 feet and open a coffin, especialy of its in some kind of vault or rough box. The condition of the coffins would depend on the moisture in the ground, among other things, Like were rough boxes used? I don't know much rain Fall River gets.

The Big Bopper was in pretty good shape after 48 years with a damp ground but that was with a metal coffin and a metal vault.

We get large amounts of rain where I live. I have a friend in town here who works at the cemetary. Awhile back he told me how they exhumed this guy who was buried for 47 years, he said the wooden rough box was okay but the wooden coffin lid was rotted through. He said the skull was there and a pair of dress shoes. Our cemetary is right at the base of the mountain so it gets lots of water run off.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:45 pm

I voted NO. Loudly if I could.

What is to be gained? What could possibly be found that would lead to solving the case?

As for Prof. Starrs he has a whole shopping list of people he would like to exhume. By coincidence (I'm sure

) all of them happen to be famous. Check out this 2003 article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _109128669

kssunflower · Post by **kssunflower** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:53 pm

I vote no as well. I opposed it when Starrs exhumed Jesse Jame's body in the mid 90's in Kearney, Mo., to confirm it was actually him. The only real discovery was that he was buried in a wooden instead of lead coffin. I also don't think there's anything to be gained, other than possibly attracting more tourists.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 4:20 pm

Even tho I voted yes, I am starting to think maybe I should have voted no.

I think what Harry said is right. What point would it serve? We do know that they were axed to death, so what else would we find?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:54 pm

Yes,

the question is not "what else would we find". Much could be found or,......nothing would be found.

The question is, what would we do with the results? Even if the killer was discovered. What would be the next step? Dig him up also?

What would we do? Why, a book of course. A top seller. More fodder for the hungry masses who have an insatiable need for pointless knowledge for the sake of curiosity. Nothing more.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:23 am

I voted no because it has been so long that I really don't think anything is there but dust and everyong concerning the case is long gone. No one would be brought to trial for the crime. The one thing that makes me very uncomfortable is that the heads are not buried with the bodies and they are not down very far.
I don't remember if it was William of Harry but one of you explained to me about "bricking". That's where the grave itself was lined with bricks and that it was one of Lizzie's requests. Did she do this only for herself or do you think she also did this for her parents?

I would like Lizzie's records from the lawyers office to be published however I don't think they would be comfortable doing that and how would we feel if we knew our records would be published after death. Would we be honest with our lawyers?

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:41 am

snokkums @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:20 pm wrote:Even tho I voted yes, I am starting to think maybe I should have voted no.

I think what Harry said is right. What point would it serve? We do know that they were axed to death, so what else would we find?

How do we know for a fact that they were "axed" to death? Perhaps a closer examination with modern techniques could reveal more information on the actual weapon, and possible poison, used, provided there is something left of the skulls, bones and bodies.

These murders were committed against society itself, not just Andrew and Abby, and I think it is up to society to find the truth regardless of whether the crimes happened two minutes ago or two hundred years ago, whether the killers are alive or dead. It's not enough that the victim knows who the murderer is. Society itself has the right to know who the murderer is and what happened. Maybe there is nothing left of the bodies to examin but we won't know that until we exhume them. Exhumning, to me, has nothing to do with "morbid curiosty." I would move heaven and earth to discover the facts in a crime case regardless of how many bodies I had to exhume or how many tests I had to run. Andrew and Abby never recieved justice and I would do everything in my power to get the facts and expose the killer(s), regardless of how long he/she has been dead. I could never let a killer "sleep in peace."

-1bigsteve (o:

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:31 am

The decision of society at the time was to find Lizzie not guilty and to ostracize her afterward. They were the people more directly affected by the events than we are. Apparently they were content with that because no one else was ever brought to justice for the crimes.

During Dr. Draper's testimony at the trial he attempted to fit a hatchet procured by the defense to the wounds on the skulls. The defense tried to show that any off-the-shelf hatchet would fit the wounds rather than the handleless hatchet. It backfired, the new hatchet did not fit the wounds. The hatchet had to have a certain blade length as well as contain random variations in grind width and thickness to fit the wounds exactly, as did the handleless hatchet. My best guess is that if it both walks and quacks like a hatchet, it is probably a hatchet.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:48 am

I don't think Professor Starrs would ever go back to Fall River. He was pretty much enraged when he was turned down on his request to exhume the Bordens before.

Exhumations are done all the time, and thank goodness it is an option in criminal cases. The Jesse James case, I believe, was endorsed by his family.

They exhumed a lot of people to make sure it was them. But exhuming the Bordens would not be simply to ID them.

I don't know if the Bordens were embalmed or not. If they were, they'd be in better shape. But even so, when they relocated the bones of Tsar Nicholas II and his family, that were just buried without any casket in the ground, they were able to use DNA to prove that the bones were indeed theirs.

By the way, Lizzie's grave may or may not be bricked. Oak Grove said they did not know. I think someone said it was a practice used in England. Lizzie did request it in her handwritten note on her burial requests, but if you read the newspaper coverage on when they were preparing the grave and burying her, there is no mention of the grave being bricked. You'd think someone would have mentioned it from working on it or seeing it being done. But it is possible. As far as I know, the other Bordens' graves are not bricked nor were requested to be.

I've had several deaths in my family kind of recently. But I'll use an example of an uncle who was murdered in 1933. His murder went unsolved, and nobody went to jail for it. He was pushed out of a railroad car after someone drove a RR spike thru his forehead. He was 16, and tho he was mixed up in Prohibition/gangster stuff, it was a friend who killed him. My dad's family laid him out in their home on Christmas Eve. I share this story here because it's a murder like the Bordens; unsolved; I am related to him; but he died long before my birth - as the descendants of the Bordens today are. I feel sadness for him, and a feeling of injustice and a feeling of wanting justice done because I still feel a family tie with him.

Nothing was ever done about his case. When they threw him off the train, he landed face down in a small puddle of water in a ditch. So they put his cause of death as "drowning". I asked a family friend who knew my dad's family, why the cops didn't do anything. And the friend said that he remembered when it happened, and at that time there were so many murders occurring by the Purple Gang and mobsters, they didn't have time to look into this one case.

If a detective contacted me today and said they have evidence to point to who murdered him, but they need to exhume him to do some tests, would I agree or say no.

In his case, if the person suspected was still living, I would say yes. But if not, and there were no clues that might be gained by the exhumation, I would say no. I wouldn't want him dug up and poked and prodded for the sole purpose of being able to point a finger at another dead person who killed him.

I think the Borden case is different. It isn't like it is some John Doe - or like my uncle, where they never got into any clues whatsoever.

The Borden case is so celebrated. People spend hours and hours still on this case, and it's 116 years old. And there are plenty of clues and testimony. And the case was investigated plenty. If the interest in whodunit is so minute, then what are we all doing here on the Forum and having had the LBQ and now 'The Hatchet'? The case is still a world-wide sensation. Are we serving no purpose here?

My point is, if we are so interested and involved in the Borden case, how can we not vote for exhumation AS LONG AS THERE IS A VERY GOOD CHANCE SOMETHING/S WOULD BE LEARNED TOWARD THE SOLUTION?

I've always believed the solution would be found some day. I was thinking more in the line of correspondence or papers found in someone's attic - or the much-wanted publication of the Robinson papers, or Andrew Jennings' little red notebook.

The Bordens are not resting in peace. They are resting in pieces. Yes, I agree, they probably are all bones (or less) now. But experts could probably tell us what we could expect to learn from an exhumation, and if it isn't enough, then I would see no sense in doing it.

Yes, their heads aren't even buried with their bodies. That bothers me. I would at least like to see their heads put in with their bodies. (If my uncle's head were buried separately, I would want them to exhume him to put his head with him.) If that is ever done, what harm would there be in scientists examining them at that time?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:28 pm

What other sharp object could have done all that damage? I think they could have done some testing to see if there was any prussic acid in their system (that might be another explanation as to why Abby and Andrew were sick, other than food poisoning) but what purpose wouldl that have served? That's not what killed them.

I think that Lizzie was punished just the same after the trial as if she would have been convicted. It has to be pretty awful to live the town you grew up in, know everyone, and they don't want anything to do with you, even tho you were aquttied of a crime

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:57 pm

augusta – if you’ll read the autopsy reports carefully there’s only one logical conclusion possible – and that’s a rarity in this case for sure! Condition of the bodies only one week post mortem strongly suggests that they were not embalmed. Take this for instance, from the report on Andrew: “No stiffness of death on account of decomposition, which was far advanced.” Elsewhere we find that the “[r]ight half of top of skull removed. Brain found to be completely decomposed; and in fluid condition.”

There’s also a notation that the stomach and a portion of the liver were removed. We know from testimony at trial and other sources that these organs were preserved and sent up to Boston for examination by Dr. Wood.

The point here, of course, is that if the Bordens had been properly embalmed (or indeed, embalmed at all) the bodies would have been in far better shape only one week post mortem. (As we've seen elsewhere recently, embalming was a very common practice for many years prior to 1892.)

Interestingly, the examples you cite (including your own hypothetical) share a single common thread: A desire by a family member that an exhumation be done. For what purpose is irrelevant.

Why are we here? That’s really an excellent question – and a question for which there are many answers. In part the answer is simply to fulfill a basic human need. We sit, we read, we pore for hours, days, weeks and years haggling back and forth over details, using what tools we have at our disposal to formulate a solution.

Yet for all that pent up desire, that raging compulsion, has any one of us ever gone trotting out to Oak Grove in the dead of night armed with pick, shovel, and spade, determined to find the ultimate answer – hell, high water or prison be damned? That’s really what it comes down to, isn’t it? I would certainly hope we have more self-control and better sense.

The key is this: Performed honorably and to the best of our own abilities, our present methods do no harm to anyone living or dead, nor unduly disturb properties public or private - up to and including burial grounds.

What is our purpose? Let’s say the bodies were to be exhumed and examined, as Jim Starrs has advocated for years – what then? Starrs gets another feather in his cap, gleefully wets himself in triumph for awhile, and then sets of in search of another body. Goody for him.

But…but…what about us?! We’d still be here most likely – still reading, investigating, haggling back and forth over details just like always. The only difference…we’d have a few more details and bits of scientific jargon to fight over. Isn’t that the cold, hard truth of it? It's just human nature.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:12 pm

I voted no. I don't see where anything would be gained exhuming these two bodies.

The key to DNA evidence lies in comparing the DNA from the scene of a crime with a suspect's DNA.
(Source: ttp://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/dna-evidence.htm)

Let's just say Andrew and Abby's bodies are exhumed and there is found to be DNA evidence that is different from their DNA. Since Lizzie was the only suspect in the Borden murder case, her body would then need to be exhumed in order to find out if the DNA evidence matched her DNA. If there isn't a match, then what? Dig up some more bodies? How many other bodies would need to be exhumed in order to find a match, that is if a match can be found?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:30 am

The only good I could see that would come from exhuming them today would be that handleless hatchet could possibly be ruled out as the murder weapon if there are tool marks that can be successfully analyzed. Then all this speculation over whether or not it was used in the murder could be ended. If it's not then the murder weapon truly was never found. We might found out if there were some things the doctors in 1892 missed since science has advanced. There could be more thorough testing for the presence of poisons. Lizzie's body would not have to be exhumed to necessarily test it if a suspects DNA was found. It is highly unlikely that would happen in my opinion. If there were to be any blood from the suspect found I would think the only place it could be found today would possibly be the bed spread. Did Lizzie hurt herself in the struggle? I think it would be the same as using blood to establish paternity. Couldn't the sample be compared with Andrew's to see if he shows up as being biologically related to the suspect? If so that narrows things down considerably.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:38 am

Starrs actually has said (in a phone conversation about 2 years ago) that he would "like to revist the Borden Case" as it is a favorite. I would not be opposed to having the skulls exhumed and compared with the FRHS hatchet head. The skulls were detached and separated from the bodies for over a year, so in a way they seem to me like separate entities in their treatment. I can't see much point in poking about in the dry bones in the coffins, -not with the wounds of interest confined to the skulls.
I agree with Doug, and am inclined to believe the bodies were NOT embalmed. Reading the Oak Grove autopsy reports sort of feed that suspicion. But I also wonder if Dolan, on the day of the murder, when Winward arrived, may well have known that there was to be further exploration of the cadavers later, when the results of the poison tests were in- and told Winward to wash and dress the bodies but not to embalm them. I sort of think somebody would have mentioned that fact if it had occurred on Thursday evening or Friday. I wonder if Winwards papers still exist somewhere. Winward's daughter Helen was a good friend of Mrs. Brigham's of the FRHS- wish I had thought years ago to ask her.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:10 am

Yes, I see.

................the heads as "separate entities"?

That's a good one......

Please forgive me.

stop it, stop it,

no, please no,

Sorry Shelley.

But, you see the excuses we make up to supply us with what we think is right, fair or permissible.

I suppose that is why people are always trying to bite my head off. I haven't had my head on straight for years.

Hey, my name is Andrew Youngman, take my head, please.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:25 am

I suppose what I mean, and obviously conveyed badly above, is that had the entire bodies been buried at the same time - with heads- exhumation would seem to, from a religious point of view, be violating final burial in consecrated ground on a whim- (upon which the church does not look favorably unless it is for essential reasons). I am not sure just exactly when and who buried the skulls in shallow graves much later on. Perhaps it was an Episcopal priest -or maybe just the cemetery sexton or gravedigger. I don't know if any prayers were said for the repose of the souls beneath, or if the two boxes were tossed unceremoniously into the holes and covered up. Technically, one could make a case for Dolan's removing the skulls, boiling the flesh off and making exhibits of them, a violation of sorts. Personally, I have always looked upon this as extreme and not necessary when photographs and measurements would have sufficed. Not to have informed the family, was also, in my mind, barbaric.

If you recall when Starrs broached the topic of exhuming the bodies, there was a hue and cry from the church community, -and I believe the Jewish population in particular- about the sanctity of burial (in this case Christian burial). Those of us in the church biz get this-and it is a big deal. Final Rest means final rest until the Day of Judgement. Undisturbed. Lizzie must have been worried about it when she had hoped for "bricking over"- to insure Final Rest.

This is what I meant above about seeing the skulls almost as "separate entities" -not knowing the circumstances of their interment. Even from a Christian perspective, personally I am not adverse to exhumation if the freedom or life of someone in prison could be be restored by such an act-or if there is a fair certainty that important information might be gained. I think most viewed Starrs' interest as being either for personal sensation, or idle curiosity. And in the end, even proving the hatchet head WAS the murder weapon would have no real impact upon solving the crime-then or now.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:59 am

Hi! I was just recently exhumed. Now I can't find my head. Can you help me?

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:32 pm

Wouldn't tradition dictate saying prayers when the heads were buried? I would still considerate it a burial, it seems a little disrespectful to just dig a hole & put them in without anything.
I still don't understand why they didn't go down to just above the casket, three feet just seems too shallow. Seeing it was just a year after the burial why wouldn't they open the casket & just carefully place them with the body?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:55 pm

I have no reason to believe the skulls would have been buried with any less ceremony than the bodies.

The relatively shallow depth might be explained by the height of the caskets. While I don't know exactly how deep the graves were dug originally, assume six feet. By the time the casket and rough box (two feet high?) are in the hole, the top of the box is four feet below the surface. If the skull caskets are a foot high, and if they are placed directly on top of the rough boxes, the top of the skull casket is then only three feet below the surface.

I think it was up to Emma and Lizzie to disapprove of the way Abby and Andrew were buried, not us. If they did not object, or did not ask about it, then that was their decision. Who are we to disapprove of that?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:36 pm

Well that's the point. Emma and Lizzie did not know of it. The family was not consulted or given any choice. I wonder where the order came down from- Pillsbury? Knowlton? Did Dolan have the clout to make up his mind to do this solo?Since Draper was called down from Boston, the bigwigs must have been in on it. And we do not know how the skulls were interred and there is NOTHING in Oak Grove records to say- I looked. I feel pretty sure that today the family would have to sign a release or something in order for the coroner to arbitrarily lop off the heads of a deceased family member- EVEN if they were murder victims. And really- with the photos and the measurements- was this just a theatrical shock tactic designed for court later? Did the prosecution think Lizzie would give herself away when the skulls were introduced as evidence? It is a very interesting sideline- those skulls. How many cases have you heard of where body parts were dragged into court? And the family knew nothing?

Okay- so it has been 116 plus years and we are not as sensitive now. Bring it home to something personal. Suppose it was your father and mother. They are cut open in their home hours after being murdered in a sensational and violent way. They are stitched up and laid out in your diningroom. After the funeral and you leave thinking the corpses are laid to rest, the coffins are stuffed in a dirt hill holding tomb FOR A WEEK, then a posse of doctors hauls them out and right there in the cemetery outbuilding cuts them open again, turning over everything in sight with their liquified brains spilling out on the slab in the Ladies Comfort Station. Surely a hospital would have been a more seemly place. Finally the city medical examiner takes the heads clean off the top of the spinal column and apparently puts them in some sort of bag, trots off to his surgery and boils the flesh off until the skulls are as clean as a whistle-and then they hang around as evidence somewhere waiting for the trial 10 months later.

Then you and your sibling hear with horror that your family's heads are going to be put on public display as evidence. I think today this would be quite a scandal. And if this happened today to me I would sue! I have to wonder exactly who and what was behind that business in 1892. It smacks slightly to me of haste and hole-and-corner. What else were they thinking they'd find. They had hair, they had the stomachs, they had the photos.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:54 pm

It seems to me that they were able to fit a hatchet head to a skull wound in court with remarkable precision.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:09 pm

Which proved exactly what? The murder weapon may have been a hatchet? There must have been a hatchet in every home in Fall River. The hatchet or some blood spatter had to be linked somehow to Lizzie-and it was not. They may as well have brought in a meat cleaver, a candlestick, a machete-whatever. The photographs of the skulls would have effectively shown the damage. The measurements of the wounds given could have been said to match the blade width of a hatchet. Am trying to recall now- DID that hatchet always fit precisely when it was tried in court?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:02 pm

It proved that the specific handleless hatchet head fit the wounds exactly. Random imperfections in the blade grind were necessary to do this. An off-the-shelf hatchet purchased by the defense did not do this. Dr. Draper indicated that the length of the hatchet blade along with random variations in the edge thickness were necessary for an exact fit. While there may have been a hatchet in every home in Fall River, very few, if any, would fit the wounds exactly. This is exactly what the defense was trying to show, that the wounds could be caused by any old hatchet, and it backfired. The prosecution proved a unique hatchet was necessary, and that this unique hatchet was coincidentally to be found in the Borden's basement, having first been rubbed in ashes. Computer difficulties prevent a direct quotation currently, but see page 1085+ in the Trial transcript.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:31 am

Starrs wanted to examine the handless hatchet against the marks made on the Borden skulls. With today's forensics, yes, I agree, THAT hatchet could be linked to those skull wounds. I might wonder though, had he been able to dig up the skulls, IF over time they would have deteriorated to the point where this procedure would be inconclusive. Starrs got to do his thing with the hatchet head- and stub of the handle-but as we know-not the skulls.

In 1892 tests were done on that hatchet and nothing done to it by the techniques of the time could link that hatchet to the crime, even though I agree, it looked mighty suspicious with the wood ash coating.
For all the great theatrics in the courtroom, all that one could conclude was that a hatchet very like the one found in the basement could have caused the wounds. There was nothing extraordinary about the handless hatchet found in the cellar in its dimensions or blade length-countless other similar ones in the city. What could have narrowed it down to being the murder weapon would have been if Borden blood or hair had been found on it, or if unique properties to that singular hatchet matched up to wounds in the skull-tests which were not available then. And no doubt today, even more sophisticated testing, from fingerprints, to metal composition of the steel or iron head matching particles embedded in the skull and scalp, etc. etc. could be done to fix that exact hatchet to those two crimes.

From an unscientific outlook, I have always thought the handless hatchet WAS the likely candidate for murder weapon-but of course that does not hold up in court.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:28 am

The trouble I have with the handleless hatchet as the weapon is the broken handle. It is hard to break a hatchet handle unless it was already partially broken. Will have to research the type of wood the remaining piece was.

And just when would this breaking be done? Lizzie would have to break it (how?), dip the hatchet head in the ashes and put it in the box on the shelf. Then dispose of the handle some how (where?).

I don't find the handleless hatchet suspicious. It is exactly the kind of thing the frugal Andrew would keep. Men are pack rats when it comes to tools. I inherited a ton of them from my father, some of which were way beyond saving.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:30 am

Yes, all good points Harry. I have tried to sort that all out too. Usually hickory or oak was and still is used for ax and hatchet handles-hardwood. If the murder weapon was that handless hatchet either the handle had a hairline crack or fault in the handle and it did naturally break, or someone tried to destroy the handle because it was bloodstained in the wood, and broke it off deliberately which might require some effort if not sawn through. Then the handle might have been burned in the stove, and the head washed carefully and coated with the woodash as it was found in the cellar. Excellent point about Andrew keeping an old hatchet head (my father-in-law saves 2 inch pieces of string).

The wood ash on the head is the thing I can't get past. Would being in the proximity of the furnace allow for a coating of woodash to be on the hatchet head? How can we justify the comment that it appeared to have been "recently washed". Why would anyone wish to wash such an item if it was old junk awaiting a new handle? That hatchet is quite an enigma. It matches the wound dimensions, it is handy in the house, looks as if it were washed, has a coating not of dust but of wood ash, had blood of an undetermined origin and a cow hair on it, (I wonder if Abby's switch was horsehair or human hair??), and is found in a box of old bits of innocent-looking junk. On the downside- nothing incriminating was found on it except for the woodash and the just-washed appearance, and perhaps the fresh break on the handle stub. And in the end, nobody could link the hatchet to Lizzie or prove it was the weapon.

Still, it is as good a candidate as any other for a possible murder weapon. After all the break was fresh and could have occured that day. Was there an anvil in the barn? Would the killer try to break off the handle and burn it? Would they have the time to do it? I rather think not. I suspect the killer would be more likely to get out of the house as quickly as possible with the weapon and drop it in the river or somewhere enroute rather than go through all the trouble of trying to destroy it before leaving- UNLESS, of course- the killer was inside the house and a family member who had the luxury of time to think about getting rid of the weapon.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:14 am

The problem with trying to examine the handleless hatchet against the skulls presently is the amount of time gone by. What are the odds of finding the skulls in the same condition as they were in 1892-3? Their integrity had been seriously compromised by the hatchet wounds, they would be relatively fragile. What kind of container were they buried in? Is it likely to have stood up over the years? The skulls had been boiled to the extent necessary to remove the flesh, that would have also removed pertinent traces of other substances from the wounds. The various hatchets were tried in the wounds after the skulls were prepared, they might have left traces of various substances. With the exception of the fit of a hatchet head to the opening, there was likely no viable conclusion to be drawn from the skulls even in 1893. I don't know how bone deteriorates over time, if it shrinks to an appreciable degree, so even if the skulls are still intact they might not provide anything conclusive.

If there is something to gain in examining the hatchet head after all this time and its having been handled and compromised many times, why don't they do it? It had been subjected to wood and/or coal ashes at the time, in addition to who knows what else?

"Out of all of the gin joints in all of the world, she has to walk into mine." Out of all of the hatchets in all of the world, one which fits the wounds exactly is found in the basement. Sooner or later, you draw a line for coincidence.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:21 am

Starrs did say the hatchet handle stub was smoothed from being handled over time by God knows how many people . That fresh break no longer looks fresh. Exactly- the evidence is so compromised by time and conditions now- nothing absolute could be determined. Those Starrs radar scans show two blips which appear to be containers which might accommodate skulls- the fact that they have a shape gives me some hope that the boxes are still intact and that the skulls may at least be intact inside- albeit deteriorated.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:36 am

Yes, so they unearth the bodies.

They make comparisons with the ax and skulls and discover that it was indeed the handleless ax.

So.

Still does not prove Lizzie did it.

The discovery off the real weapon in this case does not prove the killer.

What next.

What is the next constructive, lawful step.

Who does this appease? Not the Borden family. A relative has already spoken out against it.

Even if he did not. What's next.

So, we discover this, we discover that........what do we do with it other than going: Ooooooooohhh, Aaaaaaahhhhh, Hmmmmmmmm.

So the case gets solved? How does this help society to make restitution, make society safer?

So we exhume the body and discover the killer. So what?

What's next...........?

WHY A BOOK. MAKE MONEY. Enhance our hobbie. Stroke and climax our curiosity.

It is a raw and it is for all the wrong reasons.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:53 am

Exactly. Nothing fresh or urgent to discover. The voice of the city which objected (albeit it on religious grounds) was honored. Which is why it has not happened. Nor is it I daresay likely to happen. Starrs has some interesting scans- and goes on to Houdini. Case closed. Nearly everyone is happy. The End. I'm glad.

william · Post by **william** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:58 am

Let the dead rest.
Does anyone really think an exhumation would reveal the murderer? - like an enclosed note saying,"it was me!" and signed? How unlikely would thqt be?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:05 pm

Oh, I do not think Starrs is a charlatan if you take the meaning of that as "fraud"- the man is not a fraud and actually has extremely distinguished credentials. One may object to perhaps his lack of sensitivities in approaching the Dead. Scientifically, he is bona fide. Scientists, and atheisits often do not regard mortal remains in the same way as the rest of the world. In some ways, maybe this a good thing inasmuch as science has advanced greatly thanks to dissection and exploration and experimentation using dead bodies. There are a good many ways to look at it- and points of view. What I would examine is the motive behind it-does the end justify the means. In some cases- it does.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:25 pm

I would only add that the same science which enables advances in forensics would also provide the probability of finding anything viable after 100-odd years.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Should Andrew and Abby be exhumned ?

Do you think Andrew and Abby should be exhumned for forensic testing ?

Should Andrew and Abby be exhumned ?