Borden House and Excavations

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:10 am

Being new here, I hope I am not asking a question that has already been addressed in the forum, but for those who care-I did look!!
Here goes:
I know there was some excavation work done when the barn was reconstructed as the gift shop-I've seen those posts. However-has anyone done any new searches of the house? I saw a Discovery Channel Doc recently where they used sonar (sp?) to find paintings that were behind walls that had been built over them. Has anyone done anything to perhaps check the walls or the floors? I am dying to know because I have seen some post on here that suggest some think Lizzie hid the hatchet away in the house!

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:13 am

I think Shelley would know much more about this than I do.

However, I have always felt that Lizzie, if she was the killer, had a secret hiding place for that hatchet somewhere in the house, a place Lizzie could hide the hatchet and retrieve it later. But it's possible that it was not a hatchet that was used. If Lizzie used a meat cleaver she could have cleaned it quickly and put it back in it's place. The murder weapon then could have been hiding in plain sight.

But, I strongly suspect that Lizzie cooperated with the killer. Either she hired a killer or someone else did, possibly her Uncle John. It's a strange case with a lot of possibilities.

-1bigsteve (o:

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:46 am

Thanks steve! On a recent visit to the house-something struck me (no pun intended) : The Ironing Board & Iron. Looking at the skulls, it looks like they could have been bashed in with the cast-iron iron. I know Lizzie was all about it that day. The only think that makes me think it wasn't the iron was the fact that a part of Abby's hair was cut off.
I don't think there is nearly enough discussions about alternative weapons that might have been used. Would love to hear theories about what others might think the weapon could have been or why the hatchet is really the only alternative. Thanks!

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:20 am

If the hair was "cut" off as opposed to "hacked" off then I think a meat cleaver would have been a more likely weapon. The angle of the cutting edge of a meat cleaver allows it to cut deep into meat while still able to cut through bone. The angle of a hatchet's cutting edge is different. A hatchet is made to cut wood and act as a wedge to break the wood apart. If the hair was drapped over a hard surface then I think a hatchet could have easily cut through it. However, if the hair was "cut" off while Abby was being attacked then I don't feel there would have been a hard, stable surface for the hatchet to work against. I think Abby's head would have had a bit too much "bounce" to it. Most household hatchets are not kept very sharp, then or now. Of course if it was a hired killer he may have used a very sharp hatchet.

There are a lot of "what-ifs" in this case and I think that is why it's so hard to solve. There are a lot of interesting possibilities.

-1bigsteve (o:

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:46 am

In the years I have been at the house (since 1998), I think we have hit almost every nook and cranny. As you know, extensive work was done getting the place ready and up to fire code, putting in sprinklers and air conditioning back in 1995-96. The clapboard on the printing press side had to be replaced by the last owners as it was in such bad shape from having that building so close to the house ont he south side. Last year we had a lot of damage on the third floor from an overflowing air conditioner condensation pan- wallboard had to be opened up, ceiling on the second floor Morse room opened and extensive patch job, etc. I have taken photos of all of this, and it was interesting seeing the original plaster and lathe. Some of the rounded door arches put in after the 20's were returned to their former contours back in 1995.

The bathrooms were added in the sites of the old pantry and sinkrooms, the hall entries to the sinkrooms were wallboarded over. On the third floor a bathroom was put in where once John Morse slept in a tiny bedroom next to Bridget's. Lizzie's old dress closet on the second floor had to be converted into a bath. So the walls have pretty much had a thorough prodding and poking into.

The ONLY place I would hold out much hope for is the cellar that anything MIGHT still be concealed- and I do look often, poking about here and there. LeeAnn had started having a look behind the false brick wall in the westernmost front "room" of the cellar. So far, just a lot of brick dust in that 6 inch crevice between the brick and the outside granite foundation. I have hopes of UNDER the boiler, or maybe down inside the old chimney where the washing caldron still sits. I would love to run a metal detector over the cellar floor which had been earth in 1892 except for the wash room which was bricked. Nothing but broken dishes and junk came out of the privy vault location when the new barn was built.

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:42 pm

Thanks Shelly, that was so interesting! I think I may have met you recently when I visited the house. I was there several weeks ago when a girl passed out in The Guestroom. I was the guy who helped put her feet up. I think that may have been you-if not-nice to meet you now!!
Have you heard if she is alright? I know she got taken by ambulance, but didn't know if you had heard anything since. Thanks so much again!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:43 pm

Not me I am afraid. I would be there on a Friday night-and once in a great while, on a Saturday. I will ask about the girl who passed out when I go up this week.

KAE · Post by **KAE** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:41 pm

cfking @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:46 am wrote:Thanks steve! On a recent visit to the house-something struck me (no pun intended) : The Ironing Board & Iron. Looking at the skulls, it looks like they could have been bashed in with the cast-iron iron. I know Lizzie was all about it that day. The only think that makes me think it wasn't the iron was the fact that a part of Abby's hair was cut off.

I've been wondering that myself. When I think of Lizzie ironing, I have always pictured something like this:

http://www.bargainjohn.com/images/M414ASadIron1.jpg

When reading her inquest testimony she says she is ironing handkerchiefs:

Lizzie's Inquest Testimony:

page 59

Q, About what time do you think your father went down town?

page 60

A. I don't know; it must have been after nine o'clock. I don't know what time it was.
Q. You think at that time you had begun to iron your handkerchiefs?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How long a job was that?
A. I did not finish them; my flats were not hot enough.
Q. How long a job would it have been if the flats had been right?
A. If they had been hot, not more than 20 minutes, perhaps.
Q How long did you work on the job?
A. I don't know, sir.

So she has at least two "flats" on the stove. One is heating while she uses the other until it's too cold and then swaps them. How many were found after the murders?
Because of the size of handkerchiefs, would she have used something smaller ?
Flat Irons (or Sad Irons) came in many sizes and shapes. How many would a typical household at the time have had?

BTW, I tried to copy and paste from the Inquest PDF and it wouldn't let me.
Please don't tell me you guys have been typing in all this testimony by hand?
Arrrgghhhhh.........

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:52 pm

The problem with flat irons is that they are very heavy and unwieldy. They fall into the catagory of "blunt instrument" and could never have made those sharp cuts in the skulls of the Bordens. I have had a go many times at waving them around and they make an awful weapon.Holding them by the handle, they wobble, and are impossible to swing with any good aim before flopping heavily from side to side. If I were desperate and nothing else was at hand, I suspect the best way to use a flat iron would be to throw it at someone's head with force, and if they were not HOT, I would hold the iron by the triangular bottom, not the handle and chuck it with a fury at the head of my intended victim. A candlestick was also once in the running, and makes a better weapon, but does not deliver the sharp cut- a wedge was actually sliced right out of Abby's skull. That seems to call for a sharp blade attached to a significant handle.

KAE · Post by **KAE** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:10 pm

I guess I was thinking in terms of knocking them out and then finishing them off with a hatchet, But you're right, when I actually try to imagine swinging a flat iron over my head it does seem very awkward!
Thanks.

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:00 am

Thanks Shelly! I felt sorry for that young woman, she went right down-and almost thru the window!
On the weapon.
The meat clever almost sounds plausable, but wouldn't that have left long gashes in the face? I am the son of a butcher(really) and I've seen many cleavers, but think it would leave a huge slash.
I am doing searches of victorian household items, since we don't use anything that would have been practical back in victorian times, there must be some things laying around the house besides a hatchet....

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:30 am

Yes, , in my experiments with meat cleavers, the blade is sharp enough, yes, and could slice a wedge- but an average home meat cleaver does not have sufficient head weight and surface area to really crush dense bone, although it slices well enough through soft tissue. What is ideal about a hatchet is that the handle offers superb control of where the head of the tool is going, and the iron or steel head is dense enough to pound and shatter bone. The blade end adds to the lethal tool in its ability to add insult to injury by its cutting properties. So in essence what you have is the famous "blunt instrument" beloved by so many mystery novelists, with the added potential of a razor-sharp cutting edge and the practicality of a handle with which to deliver the blows with maximum control as to where they land, optimizing the power and strength of the person wielding the weapon. Handles are necessary- look at the fire poker, axe, club, etc. in detective stories. A cleaver has a handle, yes- but it is on a par with a butcher knife, easy to grasp, but without the advantage of a longer, stouter handle to grip and swing for optimum delivery.. Honestly, try this at home on a watermelon. (Please don't call the men with the nets to haul me off). Try a butcher knife, cleaver and hatchet with a swinging motion and see the results. An axe, by the way, is out of the question in a space of limited swing radius.

I have always felt that the handleless hatchet head found in the cellar was very revealing in its state- how could it be a weapon with no handle? Of course the hatchet which did the deed would have to be "neutralized" by busting off the handle!

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:50 am

You right Shelly! I also watched the video on this site where they matched the hatchet head that was found to Abby's Scarf and it fit perfectly. It makes a stunning case for that to be the actual murder weapon.
Have any real psychic's ever come to the house? I would love to get the real life Allison who the series medium is based off of to come to the Borden house, I wonder what she would see?? So facinating. I can't believe one of the networks hasn't picked up on this and gotten leading psychics out to the home. It would make a great special.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:10 am

With both victims being below elbow level of the attacker, especially Abby, the corner of the cleaver would have made contact more than the entire cutting edge. One of the wounds was over 5" long though. That could have been the result of the hatchet coming across at a shallow angle. Some of these wounds were not very long so it shows that not much of the hatchet head got through the skull. This indicates to me that who ever did the killing didn't have much in physical strength.

I have seen male butchers cut right through large bone in one swing with a heavy meat cleaver at waist high. Those cleavers are much heavier than the type you find in a family's kitchen. I don't know if Lizzie had one that heavy but I doubt it. I doubt she would be able to lift it. They are heavier than a hatchet.

I lean more toward a hatchet as the murder weapon but I don't ignore the possibility that another weapon could have been used. I can't help but wonder if Lizzie, if she was the killer, hid the murder weapon under her mattress and was laying on it during the police search. "I'm sorry I can't get up but I'm feeling faint..."

-1bigsteve (o:

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:59 am

I agree Steve, professional butcher's cleavers used to dismember cattle carcasses are in another league and no wonder Uncle John, who had training as a butcher and was living with Issac Davis, a former butcher, was a suspect. Yes, angle is also very important. Andrew's head was conveniently balanced and propped for very easy delivery of the weapon to the skull. In trying out angles on a head on the floor, I found the easiest way was to sit on the victim's back, grasp the hair with the left hand, thus steadying a rolling spherical skull, and delivering th eblows with the right hand, in a motion with the weapon not going completely back over my shoulder, but rather just back to my shoulder height each time. At least that is the most efficient for driving, staccato blows. I have noted in years of giving the hatchet to guests to try, men and women approach the issue of attacking a body on the floor in predictable manner and I have to wonder whether the upper body anatomy and strength of male versus female might not be a consideration.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:09 am

You know you are a Bodenite when...

you can read this tread while eating your lunch & still be interested in both the thread & the lunch.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:11 am

Yes, I know what you mean- am having lunch also in between whacks! Also, corseting is a factor. I winched myself up in a corset the other day and approached the problem at hand.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:50 am

Tina-Kate @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:09 am wrote:You know you are a Bodenite when...

you can read this tread while eating your lunch & still be interested in both the thread & the lunch.

I know what you mean Tina! I often find myself looking through crime scene or autopsy photos of JFK, Sharon Tate, Jayne Mansfield, the Bordens or any number of bloody photos while eating a ham sandwich and not think a thing about it.

"Oh, look how that shotgun blast took the top of his head off! Notice the path of the shot? All that brain-splatter on the wall! Look at that direction! Cool! Munch, munch, munch, boy this sandwich sure is tasty..."

We are a weird bunch of people aren't we?

-1bigsteve (o:

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 12:49 pm

I have to believe that Uncle John had something to do with it, knowing that he was training to be a butcher. I didn't know that Steve, thank you! Having seen my father at work-I know that butchers have good aim! I have to go back and see who alibi'd Uncle John, because this is fishy. LOL. The more I read, the more I learn, the more I come to a realization that it had to be a group effort. I think perhaps the Uncle John and the family knew that Andrew was planning on leaving the daughters without and helped them to plan it. Who carried it out and how is the mystery.
The wild card is Bridget. From everything I've read she was twittery and fidgety and quite paranoid of the police. I would think if she actually knew anything or took part she would have eventually broke down and confessed.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:04 pm

Issac Davis was blind at the time of the murder-and I believe it was he who had trained John as a young man, although MANY men and women too knew how to slaughter cows and pigs and game. My granny could clip the head off a chicken with a hatchet as quick as a wink!( she was maybe 4 feet 10, 100 pounds) I grew up on a chicken farm watching this by the hour. John Morse has a darned good alibi for the times of the murders-lucky for him.
I never thought Bridget had a thing to do with it, only that she put a few things together in her mind after Mrs. Borden was found dead upstairs- and made the smart decision to pack and flee. I have to think that she, more than anyone else knew the climate in that house and just what the family relations were like on a day to day basis. She also knew all the clothing as she had to wash it- and my guess is that she knew what Lizzie had on the morning of the crimes- and what she gave the police as such were different items.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:12 pm

I feel that uncle John's alibi was a little too perfect. Between that and his lolly gagging in the yard eating pears while people were moving around the house leads me to think very strongly that John had a hand in it somehow. Uncle John gives me the creeps.

I think Bridget figured things out very quickly and thats why she left. She might have felt it was safer for her to keep her mouth shut. No doubt she wanted to come clean later in life. It would have been interesting to have heard what she had to say.

-1bigsteve (o:

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:20 pm

Since most of you are more well versed in the myths surrounding this case, I have a question.
Everything I've read, even on this site, portrays Emma as some sort of mousey bird-like creature. Yet, in her own testimony, she says it was she who had the biggest problem with the late Mrs. Borden, way more than Lizzie.
Judging from her pictures, she doesn't seem like a frail creature, and from what I've read, she was far less sentimental towards her father than Lizzie was.
But I read so little that implicates Emma in any of it. I would think that she would have to have some gusto to stand up to Mrs. Borden and be so angry that she refused to have dinner with the family.
Since I have siblings, I understand the dynamic. The good sister/bad sister element. However, in my experience, these stereotypes are more often than not, VERY decieving.
I am leaning towards Uncle John & Emma planning with Uncle John/and or Lizzie carrying out the deed. Thoughts?

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:53 pm

I have a hard time believing that this was a conspiracy by more than one or two people. If this had been well thought out, then the murders would not have been carried out in broad daylight on a busy street within such a small time frame and with Lizzie having such an incredibly flimsy alibi. I think Uncle John was acting strangely because he was terribly worried he may be implicated in the murder, whether he was involved or not. I know that if I was visiting someone and left the house for small period of time, and then found out that someone in that house had been done in, I would wrack my brain before I came back to the sceneto make sure I had all my bases covered before any questioning.

I think Lizzie was contemplating murder eventually, but something happened that morning to trigger a "it's now or never" desperate attempt to stop everything before she had no control over the situation. Like a will change or property transfer that morning.

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:03 pm

Regarding the broad daylight issue-I have read that the police where having a get together out of town that very day. That only a couple of police could initially show up to the scene and that they were somewhat daffy being the one's left behind. That would be a strange coincidence that it would happen during that very time. I may be wrong, please feel free to correct me if I am-as I am somewhat of a newbie to this and so many of you are down-right experts!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:10 pm

That's very true.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:48 pm

Well, it is true that it was the day of the annual policeman's outing at Rocky Point. I think too much has been made of a "skeleton crew", rookies, etc. being the only ones around. Hilliard himself was right there, and in a very short time, once the call boxes had been activated to the crimes, the house was inundated with cops. Even Allen, the first responder had the presence of mind to set Mr. Sawyer standing guard at the door. It is sort of like the old "How Hot Was IT?" myth that grows hotter and hotter the more things you read- also not quite true. Right now it is 77 degrees outside but the humidity is so high I could cheerfully murder something myself right now. The thermometer was around 78 at the time of Andrew's murder. This is easy to check as records were kept. The cops of Fall River get such a bad rap as being buffoons and away eating fried chicken at an amusement park, while the truth is there were actually plenty of men on the job, some who grasped the situation REAL fast at the Borden house (Medley, Harrington) and had some serious questions in their minds about what the witnesses were saying.

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:24 pm

Thank you Shelly. There is so much misinformation out there on Lizzie.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:29 pm

Uncle John still had to get past Bridget if he was involved in the murder in a physical way. Either that, or Bridget was involved in covering it up if she knew Morse was involved.

Planning the murders in the way they took place was almost impossible. Bridget was outdoors, everyone else was away. Abby was upstairs, about as far away from where Bridget began her window washing as she could be. No one could have foreseen an opportunity to kill Andrew before Abby's body was discovered.

I seriously doubt that an intruder or anyone hired for the task would hang around for an hour and a half after murdering anyone! I doubt that person would have foreseen the opportunity to kill Andrew, he would have been more concerned with someone, perhaps Andrew, discovering Abby's body.

Just the fact that Abby's murder took place in a bedroom with a hatchet as the weapon implies premeditation. There is really no reason for a hatchet in a bedroom otherwise. Murder was probably contemplated, but timing and means were not.

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:23 pm

KAE @ Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:10 pm wrote:I guess I was thinking in terms of knocking them out and then finishing them off with a hatchet, But you're right, when I actually try to imagine swinging a flat iron over my head it does seem very awkward!
Thanks.

Your idea of a flat iron as the murder weapon echoes the thoughts of a number of people who took it upon themselves to suggest this to prosecuting attorney Hosea Knowlton.

Their correspondence appears in the Knowlton Papers with comments such as: "some of those [flat irons]are sharp enough to kill a horse if new and struck with force..." (p.55)
"Flat irons have been deadly instruments before now . . ." (p.49)
". . . what was there to hinder the use of a flat iron?" (p.62)
"A flat iron would do all the bloody work in the hand of a woman." (p. 136)
"Miss Lizzie was inseparably connected with the flat irons by her own words or statement at different times, and by Bridget and Miss Alice Russell when asked on the stand 'What else did you see in the cupboard besides a part of the old dress' answered "flat irons" . . . (p.352)
This same letter writer goes on to say the medical testimony, nature of the wounds, dimensions of the cuts, one-sided bevels, etc. confirming his theory that a flat iron was the murder weapon.

Here's the testimony he refers to BTW:
"Q. What do you say Miss Russell? Was it a food closet or a
clothes closet?
A. As near as I remember, there was coal and wood kept in the closet, and on the other shelves I remember seeing flat irons: that is all I remember: there were kitchen utensils." (Trial, 419)

Apparently some of Lizzie's contemporaries didn't find your idea too far-fetched for speculation.

NancyC · Post by **NancyC** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:32 pm

Shelley, I just happen to own a pretty nice metal detector if you'd like to do some poking around!! I was thinking about that myself... maybe the infamous hatchet is still in the house somewhere and a metal detector can see through materials we cannot. I'm just 2 hours away so say the word and I'm there!

Steveads2004 · Post by **Steveads2004** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:56 pm

The acceptanmce of the long time between murders has always made me wonder...it seemed too easy that everyone agreed that poor old Abby was dead for up to 1.5 hours before Andrew was disccovered. I have doubts that the time of the killings wasn't much closer. The methods Dr. Dolan used to get this established seem cursory and certainly not definative. If we take away the long period between killings,(just for fun) then the whole scene changes drastically. Now there is a wide open window for an outsider, or even Lizzie or Bridget to have done the deed...what other possibilities do you envision if the time between killings was minutes instead of hours?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:07 pm

Porter has this on the number of policemen and the Rocky Point excursion (p8):

"Almost all of the night patrolmen and many of the day men were absent from the city on the day of the killing, on the annual excursion of the Fall River Police Association to Rocky Point, a shore resort near Providence, Rhode Island, and this unusual condition served greatly to handicap the efforts of Marshal Hilliard in his attempt to get possession of a tangible clue to the perpetration of the crimes. The city was but poorly protected by members of the day force, who were doing double duty. However, within half an hour after the general alarm had been sent out a half dozen officers from the central part of the city had arrived at the Borden house."

The newspapers of the time said "about half" the force was at the excursion.

The following year, 1893, only members of the police night force were allowed to attend the annual excursion.

One can make the argument that there were too many policemen at the house, especially on the inside.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:41 pm

Yes, the night patrolmen would have been snoozing at home in their beds after the night beat at any rate the morning of the murder had they not stayed awake for the excursion. I will have to dig some to find the article I had read a while back stating the number of day officers excused from their usual duties was not nearly as high as some of the papers had stated, nor were they all the rankest green rookies left behind to guard the city. Always after a shocking crisis, everything seems to get exaggerated to make a far juicier story or to seem to pin some blame somewhere. Reading some of the newspaper coverage right after the event, all manner of speculations were rampant and one would have thought the entire city was teeming with looney emmigrants with blood in their eye raging around the city wielding dripping hatchets while the police were lounging in vast numbers at the Park, leaving the city vulnerable and innocent infants at risk in their cradles.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:14 am

Here are other weapons mentioned by the public in letters to Knowlton; Indictment stating "a sharp cutting instrument"..."unknown"; the hatchet decided upon by the experts; and the gilt found in Abbie's wound~ Also included are the reasons the medical men decided the murders were more than an hour apart:

Knowlton Papers:
"HK061
Letter, handwritten in ink.

District Atty. Knowlton
Dear Sir -
I read with deep interest your powerful argument in the Borden Case.

You say 'we have not yet found the instrument with which it was done' -

From what I have read I think the terrible deed was done with a chopping knife such as is used in every kitchen by every cook.

Please investigate -& dont mention this -
Attentive Reader
9-5-92"
_______
To Knowlton:
#HK013
"Letter, handwritten in ink.

Mass. August 13th,1892

. . .In today's paper I see it stated upon strong grounds that the axe or hatchet had probably been discovered, with which the deed had been done, and at the same time that a clairvoyant had stated that the weapon used was a long-handled carving knife, which was found according to her directions and that the arrest naturally followed." . . .
______
Knowlton Papers:
One Indictment, Dec 6, 1892:

..."an assault did make, and with a certain weapon, to wit, a sharp cutting instrument, the name and a more particular description of which is to the Jurors unknown, him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden feloniously, willfully and of her malice aforethought, did strike, cut, beat and bruise, in and upon the head of him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden..."
_________

Knowlton Papers
#HK203

"F. W. DRAPER, M. D.
304 MARLBOROUGH STREET,
BOSTON,
May 31, 1893
My Dear Sir: -
Dr. Cheever and I have had a conference to-day with the Borden photographs and skulls before us. We are in entire accord and he will testify

1. That the cause and manner of the deaths were the same in both cases, namely, fracture of the skull and injury to the brain by blows on the head.

2. That the weapon was an edged tool of some weight, like a hatchet.

3. That the length of the edge of the weapon was about 3-1/2 inches.

4. That Mrs. Borden was killed by blows inflicted from behind, the assailant standing astride the body.

5. That Mr. Borden was killed by blows given by the assailant standing at the head of the sofa just within the door.

6. That the assailant was right handed and used his right hand, or, if using both hands, that the left hand was foremost, or in front of the right hand, on the handle.

7. That Mrs. Borden died first, and that the supposition of an hour's interval is not inconsistent with the facts relating to the stage of digestion, the body temperature and the condition of the blood in the two cases.

8. That the deaths were not instantaneous.

9. That a woman would have sufficient physical strength to inflict the blows, assuming that she was of normal adult vigor. I write especially to inform you of two important discoveries which I made upon a careful examination of the two skulls.

On Mr. Borden's skull I found that the blow just in front of the ear left its mark on the base of the skull within the cavity, that its depth was 1-7/16 inches and that it cut directly through the internal carotid artery; this wound was necessarily and immediately fatal from hemorrhage.

The other discovery is still more important; on one of the cuts in Mrs. Borden's skull, near the right ear, there is a very small but unmistakable deposit of the gilt metal with which hatchets are ornamented when they leave the factory; this deposit (Dr. Cheever confirmed the observation fully) means that the hatchet used in killing Mrs. Borden was a new hatchet, not long out of the store. Perhaps this is not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and
seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated." . . .

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994
________

--Since there were witnesses to when Abbie was last seen, and when Andrew was last seen- and because all these things (stated above in Draper's letter) could be compared with each other in this case due to 2 victims, the consensus has been that there was a distinct and provable difference in the times of the deaths.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:17 am

If the weapon was one of immediate opportunity, then the murder of Abbie might be debated as not premeditated. Finding a bladed weapon fitting the description of the wounds that might be found in a pocket or in the guest room is hard to come by.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:31 am

cfking @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:50 am wrote:You right Shelly! I also watched the video on this site where they matched the hatchet head that was found to Abby's Scarf and it fit perfectly. It makes a stunning case for that to be the actual murder weapon.
Have any real psychic's ever come to the house? I would love to get the real life Allison who the series medium is based off of to come to the Borden house, I wonder what she would see?? So facinating. I can't believe one of the networks hasn't picked up on this and gotten leading psychics out to the home. It would make a great special.

Where did you see the video?

And I talked to Professor Mauriello who was with Lange in that demonstration and he stated it was a spontaneous and casual examination of the hatchet and *handkerchief* and all agreed since the item was already shredded in places and so old, there was not a match made between the blade of the HH and these shreds, altho the video implied that conclusion.

Please see Hatchet vol 5, no 3 "On the Trail of the Bloody Handkerchief."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:41 am

Am catching up here, as I seem to be posting out of context- but it was asked if any famous (*leading*) psychics had been to the House and per Rebello:

Page 173:
Lovit, Reva, 'World Renowned Psychic Visits Lizzie Borden Bed & Breakfast," Tribune, October 26, 1996: 2.

Kenny Kingston claimed a "transient" walked in, stripped Lizzie and was about to attack her. This traumatic experience caused Lizzie to lose reality, she grabbed an ax, later destroyed by Bridget, ascended the stairs and killed her father and then her stepmother.
. . .
. . .Mr. Kingston further went on to say Lizzie wanted actress Sharon Stone to play the role of Lizzie, a role that would save Stone's career."
~ AND~
"At Lizzie Borden's House, Summoning Her Spirit," Philadelphia Inquirer, June 16, 1997: D1.

Jane Doherty, president of the New Jersey Society of Parapsychology, visited the Borden home to conduct a seance. She claimed Lizzie didn't know anything about the murders nor did she commit them." . . .

--Rebello, Leonard. Lizzie Borden: Past and Present. Al-Zach Press, 1999.
________

Note: There is a weird video of Ms. Doherty at the House conducting her psychic investigation.
For further impressions of what these psychics surmised, please see Rebello, page listed above.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:43 am

Oh and I meant to thank KAE, Diana and Harry for their quotes and sources! Thanks!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:53 am

Shelley @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:59 am wrote:...In trying out angles on a head on the floor, I found the easiest way was to sit on the victim's back, grasp the hair with the left hand, thus steadying a rolling spherical skull, and delivering th eblows with the right hand, in a motion with the weapon not going completely back over my shoulder, but rather just back to my shoulder height each time. At least that is the most efficient for driving, staccato blows. . . ..

--partial, and truncated

I know you've often said this, and I know you have said you've tried this out- but I've not ever been able to envision a murderer putting their own hand in jeopardy by placing it within the area they are hitting with a hatchet.

Also, the point of a hatchet is the handle- which you rightly pointed out- but we should include the idea that that handle also might be chosen to provide distance from the victim so that there is less chance of a self-defense wound on the assailant from the victim fighting them off. An 18" to 24" inch handle provides at least some distance and also that distance might occasion less blood on the attacker. That also negates any need to sit on the victim.

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:14 am

Kat: I actually saw the video on Youtube. It's under MondoLizzie's videos. How facinating!
From your information it seems the hatchet was the culprit! Thank you for your clarification, it seems like you've been studying this case for awhile!!
As to the psychics, I'm really a skeptic when it comes to those, but there are a few that spook me with what they seem to know, and I hope someday they get one of them to come to the Borden house.
Would love to see an all-out investigation by the national association of psychics!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:33 am

We have had a number of amateur and professional psychics at the house over the years. I am not one who puts much faith in this psychic approach-nor have I ever heard anything they have pronounced which throws any light on the mystery- or for that matter, anything one could verify through normal means later.
Jane Doherty is one who channelled things through her stomach- which expanded and quivered, contracted and seemed to have a life of its own. It is difficult for me to take much of this very seriously. I don't know if we can ever solve this mystery, but I doubt it will be by any psychic means.

As far as testing out possible theories, I have urged anyone to try things at home for themselves- certain things will become instantly apparent- such as swinging a flat iron. You don't have to be in the house on Second Street to do experiments. It is not hard to grasp a spherical object with one hand and hit it with another and avoid injuring the left hand- the hair being the important element in this procedure. Nor is it essential to steady the skull- the wound marks are random and scattered-one even goes wild- so maybe it was a frenzy of whacks at a rolling target. Either works.

I think I will attempt some YOUtube documentations.

I like a practical approach.

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:43 am

If only there was a way to do at-home experiments regarding blood spatter.
Most accounts I've read say that both victims were likely killed by the first blow. If it was a hatchet-and lets say for argument it was-then if the hatchet hit-lodged in the skull perhaps it prevented large spatter. After that if the victims were dead and the heart wasn't pumping, perhaps blood didn't spatter much with each blow.
Oh, how I wish I could solve that mystery-because there seemed so little blood even in the area where the murders occured.
Does anyone know a way to do this experiment at home??

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:38 am

Well, nothing is going to work like the real thing!. Mostly I have tried melons of various types. We get a lot of medical people visiting the house and I have tried to ask them for information about spurting, head wounds, etc. We know where the spatter was in both murders and in what quantity. Head wounds bleed- a lot. The enormous blood loss into the sofa, and down into the floor boards in Andrew's case happen after the attack. The big wet ring around Abby's head which you can discern as a dark halo on the carpet in the crime photo of her on the floor, is seepage after the attack.

Newspapers of the day claim the killer must have been drenched from head to toe. But they base this on seeing the aftermath, all the spots on the door, over the sofa, etc, and the pools of blood seepage on the furniture, carpet, etc. Much of the newspaper speculation is unscientific. I can see where the killer may have had very little blood upon their person-perhaps more in Abby's scenario. I don't buy the in the nude version and I think Hollywood went over the top with blood streaming in Lizzie's hair, etc.

The attacks were fast and furious- in both cases the killer is behind the victim, the weapon goes to its mark, then is raised up and angled away from the killer. I don't see that the killer had to be saturated, especially if the attacks were fast, and then the killer got out quick before all the blood flowed from the wounds.

I suppose it might be useful to research other similar murder cases where an ax or hatchet is the weapon and that blood evidence-I doubt we will be able to find any volunteers to experiment on!

cfking · Post by **cfking** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:47 am

Thanks Shelly! That's true, I doubt if any volunteers step forward!!
I am still reading all about Lizzie's Menstruation Bucket-which I personally think was the best hiding place for spatter. I know in the day women would cut up old cotton night gowns and underthings to use as rags for their cycle. It wouldn't be a stretch to think Lizzie had one of these on to do the deed to Abby, then sliced it up and dumped it in the bucket.
Then used the prince albert coat for father. :)

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:01 am

We have to keep in mind the cushioning beneath Andrew's head and the relative lack of it beneath Abby's head. All of the wounds found the mark in Andrew's murder, all but two in Abby's case, and neither seemed to have any defensive-type wounds. The fact that a hatchet was almost certainly the murder weapon may imply that the murderer expected to get close enough to the victim to use it.

I can't think of any way to reliably replicate the murders using props of any kind. Skin has an elastic quality, bone is dense and brittle. Brain tissue and blood vessels would be difficult to duplicate. The weight of the body is likely to immobilize the head to a degree. Maybe we need a Hollywood stunt crew!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:08 am

Actually I went to one of those Hollywood Horror Makeup and FX lectures at Universal Studios in Orlando last year and learned alot. Yes, they can truly replicate a very good facsimile of a skull filled with blood and tissue, skin and brain matter! I agree, there would be some initial resistance, perhaps the blade being caught in bone. Several variables indeed on each scenario. I am attending Monster Mania in 3 weeks in NJ and hope to pick the brains of a few FX people attending!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:25 am

Just don't pick their brains with a hatchet, sis!

KAE · Post by **KAE** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:22 pm

Shelley @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:33 am wrote: Nor is it essential to steady the skull- the wound marks are random and scattered-one even goes wild- so maybe it was a frenzy of whacks at a rolling target. Either works.

I think I will attempt some YOUtube documentations. I like a practical approach.

What do you think of the attacker using a combination of forehand (right to left) and backhand (left to right) swings? Very random and might account for the horizontal wounds visible in the "shaved head" photo.

I'd like to see some of your experiments on Youtube. It might help clarify things to see a demonstration.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:02 pm

We have done some demonstrations with Garden Bay Films doing the taping.
http://pearessentialproductions.wordpre ... n-project/
Richard (a poster here) is doing a series of mini-docs, 10 in all I believe. Yes, there are plans for more. I may get a chance for another one Tuesday when I have a bigger cast to work with.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:41 pm

Thanks cfking for your response about the video.

Please see the info at this link to the LABVM/L about what contemporary psychics wrote about the crime and victims at the time:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Diversion/PsychicFile.htm

Also, there is a section at our website that gives links to more paranormal matters:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Paranormal.htm
~ ~ ~ ~

Kat: I actually saw the video on Youtube. It's under MondoLizzie's videos. How facinating!
From your information it seems the hatchet was the culprit!

--cfking- partial

BTW: the HH has not ever been proven to be the weapon that killed the Bordens. Please keep in mind that there were 5 potential weapons recovered from the house, and at the time of the Preliminary Hearing (Aug 25 to Sept 1, 1892), a hatchet they called a *claw head* hatchet was considered most suspect at the time.

By Trial time the next year, suspicion had centered on the HH, for various reasons.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Borden House and Excavations

Borden House and Excavations

The 1.5 hours between killings