Lizzie's Hatchet Up Close

[1bigsteve]

LIFE has come out with a new magazine called: "The Most Notorious Crimes In American History." Near the inside cover there is an up close color photo of Lizzie's handless hatchet head. I have never seen that clear a photo of the hatchet head. You can clearly see the rust particles and grain of the wood. You may want to pick up a copy. I saw it at Borders Books news stand.

-1bigsteve (o:

[twinsrwe]

OMG, Steve, it is so strange that you mentioned this magazine - I just picked up a copy of it yesterday, and have not had a chance to read it yet.
It was the funniest thing because I didn't go into the magazine section of the grocery store - my husband and I were waiting in the check out line, when he quickly left our cart and came back with this magazine. Someone had placed it in front of the Globe magazines.

I thumbed through it and noticed that the magazine did in fact have an article on our Lizzie - I only had time to read where the article mentions the online magazine of The Hatchet: Journal of Lizzie Borden Studies. Unfortunately, I haven’t had time to read and check the accuracy of the information in article yet. (My husband and I spent the evening preparing food for a big party at my son’s place today). Once I have a chance to check for accuracy, I’ll post my findings.

Thanks for mentioning the picture of Lizzie’s handless hatchet head at the beginning of the magazine – I didn’t notice that in the store. You’re right, it is the clearest picture I have ever seen. In addition to the rust particles and grain of the wood, it clearly shows that the handle appears to have been broken off, not sawed.

Well, gotta go – it’s party time!

[patsy]

I'd like to get it, but may have to drive a couple of hours to find it since we're out in the boonies. Thanks for the heads up.

[Kat]

I think it's online at Amazon too? It's $12.99 or something. I just saw it last week and called Harry from Wal-Mart because it is a reprint from an earlier edition, yet still mentions our magazine The Hatchet! That was so exciting to be mentioned in a Time-Life book at Wal-Mart!

The piece of wood that still exists in the hatchet was once shoved much further up and in, so when you see those 2 gouged lines, they are from an imperfection inside the hole.

What I'm trying to describe is a small piece that is pulled out, tho still in situ, that should really be shown as pushed up into the hatchet head. Over time there had been splinters off there, so even tho it may look sawn off now, I do believe that is from wear and age and handling by lots of people from trial until now-a-days.

Stef and I handled it with gloves and looked at it very closely and she took very intimate photos of it- some of which are in The Hatchet, Vol 1, issue 2- April/May 2004.

[DJ]

Thanks, Kat, for reminding us of the "much handled" histories of both the hatchet and the bedspread. While fascinating artifacts, their forensic usefulness-- as applied to the 1892 crime from this vantage point-- is rather limited.

Thanks, BigSteve, for notice of the pic-- I'm going out to look for the magazine this week.

I still believe this is THE hatchet!!!

[SteveS.]

If this was THE hatchet DJ, it wouldn't expalin the gold gild in Abby's skull.

[DJ]

If the same weapon was used for both murders, and Lizzie committed both, then gosh only knows what she could have attempted to clean the hatchet with, and what implements she could have used in the process, before she used it again. (Acids? Bleaches?)

Thus, the gilt newness of the hatchet could have easily been eradicated, and the hatchet prematurely aged, between murders.

I'm not saying that's what happened-- "The End"-- but it certainly could have happened that way.

(Maybe the handle was blood-stained, and she immersed the entire hatchet in various harsh solutions in an attempt to remove the stains, finally resorting to breaking/sawing off the handle.)

Anyway, that is my THEORY. I also believe that Lizzie did not leave the house with a murder weapon, if she wielded one. Far, far too risky. I strongly believe she hid (to greater or lesser degree) things in the cellar.

************************************************************
To further this discussion (not for the first time), let's accept that the hatchet was new (gilt) and that Lizzie used it to kill Abby.

How did she obtain it?

Five-finger discount, as in the Liz Montgomery movie?

Purchased it herself?

I doubt Andrew was in the market for a new hatchet, not with old ones lying around, so I doubt he purchased it. How ironic that would be, however ....

Emma?

Does anyone recall that TV psychic who visited the house and had the vision of a man bringing a (concealed) hatchet in the side door? Then, she went upstairs and freaked when she saw a pic of J.V. Morse, that he was the man in her psychic vision?

If one wants "to go all conspiracy theory"-- if Morse did bring in the hatchet, all the more reason not to bring a bag, and have anyone infer that he was distributing weaponry.

[Harry]

Here's 2 pretty clear views of both sides of the handleless hatchet. Note the vise marks on the first view. There are photos that do not show these marks. Just because the break looks clean it does not mean the handle appeared to be sawn at the time the hatchet was first found. If memory serves me correctly (too lazy to research it) I believe the piece of wood (handle) was in the head when it was found but not in the hatchet when it was displayed at the trial.

[patsy]

Thanks for the pictures. We can clearly see the vise marks.

I did check Amazon and they have the hardcover for $25.60 and only 4 left if anyone is interested.

Never heard the psychic story about a man who resembled Morse carrying a hatchet into the house. Hmmmmmm

[DJ]

In the witness statements, Bridget claims there was little, if any, chopping of wood at No. 92, that that was done "over the river," at the farms.

Bridget goes on to say that the only time that she used a hatchet was to cut the heel off a shoe.

Considering that there were several hatchets/axes with handles in the cellar, one of them noted by police to have a sharp blade, it seems unlikely that:

Andrew would have purchased a new one before the murders, so:

If someone from the outside did not come in and kill Abby with a new hatchet, that Lizzie killed Abby with a new hatchet, it's worth discussing how she might have obtained such.

Again, was she bold enough to have shoplifted such a large item, one that would have been difficult to conceal in exiting a store and transporting home?

No one came forward claiming to have sold her one.

No one that Lizzie knew claimed to have had a brand-new hatchet stolen in the immediate past.

Interestingly, the police did follow up on the sale of a hatchet from a hardware store to a "Portuguese" in New Bedford, and a "Portuguese" at the Davis butchery, where J.V. Morse was working, was interviewed by police but dismissed as the buyer.

(How difficult would it have been to pay any proxy "Portuguese" to buy a hatchet, though? The fact remained that a hatchet was sold to a "Portuguese.")

If Lizzie killed Abby with a new hatchet, I can't see her having bought it. She either stole it, or someone supplied it.

As such, if Abby was murdered by Lizzie (and not an outsider) with a brand-new hatchet, it's entirely likely that Lizzie had a bit of outside assistance, especially if one believes the Prussic Acid incident (and I do), and that the hatchet was thus more of a means of last resort, after she failed to obtain the poison.

[twinsrwe]

Harry, thanks for posting the two pictures of the handleless hatchet. The first picture is the same as the one shown in the "The Most Notorious Crimes In American History." The only difference is that the picture you posted is brighter, and therefore clearer.

Something I noticed when viewing your first picture, which I didn’t pick up when viewing the picture in the magazine, because that picture is not as bright, is that it doesn’t appear to be the same hatchet as the one from the FRHS website. If you look at the far left lower side of the hatchet head in the first picture – it appears as though the head is on a flat surface. The hatchet head from the FRHS doesn’t appear to have the same flat surface.

Am I seeing things or is my imagination working overtime? Does anyone else see the same thing?

[1bigsteve]

Harry, thanks for posting the two pictures of the handleless hatchet. The first picture is the same as the one shown in the "The Most Notorious Crimes In American History." The only difference is that the picture you posted is brighter, and therefore clearer.

Something I noticed when viewing your first picture, which I didn’t pick up when viewing the picture in the magazine, because that picture is not as bright, is that it doesn’t appear to be the same hatchet as the one from the FRHS website. If you look at the far left lower side of the hatchet head in the first picture – it appears as though the head is on a flat surface. The hatchet head from the FRHS doesn’t appear to have the same flat surface.

Am I seeing things or is my imagination working overtime? Does anyone else see the same thing?

?

Do you mean the flat surface the head is laying on or the 8-sided octogon poll end? The hammer (poll) ends of these roofing hatchets have 8 flat sides. Both of these photos above are of the same hatchet. The handle looks a size too small for the eye of that head.

Lizzie's hatchet head has a "U" shaped nail notch in the bottom blade edge rather than a "V" shaped notch. There is also no beveling of the nail notch. This makes Lizzie's hatchet almost worthless for pulling out roofing nails. It's not a good professional grade of roofing hatchet. The blade is unusually long for this type of roofing hatchet. The cutting edge has a noticeable radius while most of these roofing hatchets are straight.

-1bigsteve (o:

[twinsrwe]

?

Do you mean the flat surface the head is laying on or the 8-sided octogon poll end? The hammer (poll) ends of these roofing hatchets have 8 flat sides. Both of these photos above are of the same hatchet. The handle looks a size too small for the eye of that head. ... -1bigsteve (o:

The 8-sided octagon poll end. If you look at the second picture, you can plainly see 8-sides. The poll end of the hatchet in the first picture only has 4 sides, which are laying on a wider flat surface.

[1bigsteve]

In the top photo I count 4 sides of the poll. The other 4 are on the other side away from the camera. The width of the poll is the same in both photos. It's probably a play with light, shadow and camera angle that is confusing the eye. I have a hatchet head, the same type and size as Lizzie's, in front of me right now and I can angle it like the one in the photo and both heads line-up identical. I think it's just a play with light.

I keep this head on my desk as a paper weight. Am I a devoted Borden Nut or what?

-1bigsteve (o:

[twinsrwe]

Thanks, Steve! Being the expert on hatchets that you are, I knew you had the answer to that question.

[Tina-Kate]

This is really interesting & great. Thanks everyone!

Great pictures!

[Yooper]

What process was used to remove the flesh from the skulls of Abby and Andrew Borden? Would gold gilt remain on the skull after that process was employed?

I'm wondering about the likelihood of the gilt coming from a new hatchet applied to the wounds after the flesh had been removed, perhaps trying to fit various hatchets to the wounds.

[Harry]

That has been my theory for a number of years. I posted this in January 2008:

"I stand by my posts of June 2006 regarding the gilt. This copy of them includes some highlighted comments.

"The gilt found on Abby's skull is not mentioned until it is discovered by Dr. Draper (assisted by Dr. Cheever) in a letter to Mr. Knowlton, dated May 31, 1893. This is some 9 months after the crime.

To quote Draper's letter (HK203, page 211, Knowlton papers):

"... 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."

According to the Evening Standard of Aug. 27, 1892, Dr. Dolan had the flesh removed from the skulls by boiling. So any doctor who examined the skulls from that time forward had the opportunity to notice the gilt.

Could someone else have experimented with Abby's skull during this long period by trying to fit different size hatchet blades into the cuts? If so they could have inadvertently left a trace of gilt.

In that same thread:

"Dr. Draper is questioned at the trial, vol. II, page 1048+:

"Q. Are you able to say whether that hatchet head (showing witness handleless hatchet head) is capable of making those wounds?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Have you attempted to fit that in the wounds?
A. I have seen the attempt made."

It would seem very logical to me that if they tried fitting the HH blade they tried others as well. They were after all trying to determine the size of the blade of the weapon used.

In any case the value of the gilt is compromised as evidence since it wasn't found earlier. It doesn't mean that it has no value but it does mean that another explanation can be offered for the presence of the gilt.

Nine months and nobody saw what Dr. Draper said could be seen with the naked eye? More than likely, at least to me, it wasn't there during this time. The whole thread is at:

viewtopic.php?t=1970&

[Yooper]

I have to agree with that, if the gilt was plainly visible, it would have been noticed much sooner than it was.

[Harry]

I have to agree with that, if the gilt was plainly visible, it would have been noticed much sooner than it was.

Yes, it's hard to believe it went so long unnoticed.

Kat tells me that they are not vise marks on what's left of the wooden handle. She has seen, handled and examined the head closely.

She says the wooden piece would have been inserted much further into the head than shown in the photo. There's some sort of a ridge (my word, not hers) on one side of the hole that when the wood is inserted further causes that mark.

There are no signs of these marks on the other side of the piece of wood which would probably have occurred if they were caused by a vise.

Kat, I know, can explain it better.

[Yooper]

Sounds like a high edge on the inside of the eye of the hatchet head, maybe the bottom edge of the eye?

Was the "gilt" referred to subjected to analysis and determined to be gilt metal? We're speculating as though we know it to be that, but I certainly couldn't prove it! It may have been anything and come from anywhere for all I know.

[Harry]

There is no indication that it was ever analyzed chemically. Both Dr. Draper and Dr. Cheever thought it was gilt. What there level of expertise in this area was I have no idea. Neither was questioned about it at the Trial.

There is also no indication that Lizzie's defense team was ever made aware of the gilt finding. The "discovery" rules did not exist at the time.

The hatchet found by the Potter boy on Crowe's barn roof was said to show a mixture of gilt and rust. It was found on the 14th of June in the midst of the trial. That hatchet was turned over to the police after an unsuccessful attempt to turn it over to Jennings for the defense.

[Tina-Kate]

If they are not vice marks, do we know what they are?

[diana]

Here’s an interesting take on the testimony of the two doctors regarding the hatchets and the gilt. It's from David Kent’s Forty Whacks.

“. . . at the last minute, here came a letter from two unimpeachable authorities, [Knowlton’s] own expert witnesses, saying the hatchet on which the police and the prosecution had built their case was not the murder weapon at all---old, dull, and rusty as it was!

If Drs. Draper and Cheever were allowed to state their findings [regarding the gilt] from the witness box, there would be no purpose in even continuing the trial.” (Kent, 136)


“We can never know, so there is no profit in speculating, what arguments Knowlton had used to persuade Draper to change his testimony that the murder weapon had been a new hatchet with gilt metal that had come off when the first blow had been struck. That his contradictory testimony was a cover-up is obvious. Knowlton put it squarely to him:

Q. [Showing him the handleless hatchet head] Are you able to say whether that hatchet head is capable of making those wounds?
A. I believe it is.

And later, in re-direct examination, Knowlton pressed the point as to "whether in your opinion those wounds that you found could have been inflicted by that hatchet?" Draper's response: "In my opinion they could."

Dr. Cheever, who followed Draper to the stand, was asked the same question. He replied, "This hatchet [holding the handleless hatchet head] could have caused the wounds."

It might be argued that neither doctor had, technically, perjured himself. In response to Knowlton's two questions, Draper had said it "could" have made the wounds in the skull. He had not said that it "had." The same is true of Dr. Cheever's testimony. Knowlton may have found a way to frame his questions so that neither respondent would have to perjure himself when replying. If that was, indeed, Knowlton's solution to his dilemma, it did nothing to protect the Harvard professors from an equally serious charge, a sin of omission rather than commission, that of withholding evidence known to them.” (Kent, 141+)

[Yooper]

In order for Knowlton to have had a "dilemma" it would have to be proven that the substance was gilt, that it had come from a hatchet, and it was in place on Abby's skull as the direct result of the murder rather than as the result of the skull being handled afterward. The time lag without being noticed by anyone other than Draper and Cheever raises a big question.

Given the forensics at the time, I don't know whether any hatchet could have been tied to the crime in the absolute sense. The handleless hatchet "could" have caused the wounds, so could any number of other similar hatchets. Any number of still other hatchets could not have been used because they didn't fit the wounds, as the defense found out during the trial. There is no doubt that the lack of a definite murder weapon was a weak point for the prosecution. The fact that they found a hatchet which "could" have caused the wounds was better than having found any number of hatchets which could not have caused the wounds. I don't know whether Draper and Cheever could have stated conclusively that any hatchet had absolutely been used in the murders, so Kent's allegation of a conspiracy may be baseless.