Motives not Suspects

[debbiediablo]

Too many late nights debbie, that's what it is!


I just can't see Bowen partaking in any murder cover-up. He had too much to lose. Doctors in those days had to be seen to be whiter than white. The only possible exception would be if he and Lizzie had enjoyed a dangerous flirtation and she subsequently begged him to help her conceal the weapon, whether hatchet or whatever.

Too many late nights for sure!

Bowen looks suspicious to me, more intuitively than for anything factual that points to him. "Too much to lose" can be interpreted as too much to lose by committing or becoming complicit in a murder; too much to lose if he doesn't; so much to gain by doing so. I, too, would like to know more about Bowen's relationship with Andrew....and the women of the family, too. Was Andrew stingy about paying a doctor because of the money, because he truly didn't have much faith in doctors or because of Bowen being the treating physician...or all three?

[irina]

I would think the Hey Saw would have left noticeable marks. Maybe it isn't a heavy instrument though one picture I saw looked just like an all steel hatchet. PossumPie must be taking the holiday off. I rather expected he would slice and dice me for suggesting a Hey Saw especially since I really have no idea what it is.

It was noted that Dr. Bowen took Lizzie to church once and they sat in the Borden pew. For some reason this had a tinge of scandal. (I'll find my notes sometime soon and give the citation.) Some loosely written articles on the Borden murders flat out blame Bowen and say he wasn't on his rounds that morning. I don't believe that. One of those grab a theory & support it efforts.

Anyone with mere access to surgical instruments could have obtained a Hey Saw. The doctors had assistants, drivers, wives, families, patients, servants. You name it. Lizzie herself had a friendship with Dr. Handy and Dr. Handy's daughter and stayed in their house at Marion. Dr.Handy seems to have been in the vicinity that morning and his actions were a bit odd~which probably means nothing.

If a Hey Saw was found at 92 Second the police would have glommed onto it and logged it in as a hatchet. If a doctor found it before the police I could imagine he would have kept it. There I am heading into rank speculation.

Many regions of the head/neck contain nerves and arteries which if severed, can lead to death. Wasn't the first likely blow to Abby delivered from the front and did it not produce a "flap"? The first strike from a hatchet would likely stun the victim.

One thing about these murders, whoever did them he likely didn't have experience killing animals since a person with that knowledge would know how to render death with one or at least very few blows in my opinion.

Has anyone ever considered if Andrew could have been smothered first? By his Prince Albert coat? People he saw that morning said he was "feeble" and Lizzie herself used the same word in explaining why she suggest he take a nap. He probably was not truly sleeping when he was attacked. Was he weak enough to simply be over powered, suffocated into submission then killed? This could help address the short time of his "napping" and being killed without a fight, in the position in which he was found. I suppose he was old enough and sick enough that it wouldn't take much to smother him and that a man would not be necessary, that a determined woman could accomplish this.

[irina]

Curryong: Specifically concerning Lizzie's abysmal testimony/explanations, I think it is best to look for patterns or breaks in the pattern. It is easy to write off her performance as due to lying, shock and grief, morphine and hallucinations, and probably a few other things. One pattern that seems to me to be there is that she may well be covering for someone.

Overall her words are so muddled they fail to be self serving. They make her look guilty so is it reasonable to assume she was consciously lying to protect herself? It has been said that women especially, after committing murder, cannot accept what they have done which is extremely out of character and so a sort of amnesia sets in. Possible except she pulled herself together before a second murder.

The one part of her testimony that breaks the muddled pattern is her trip to the barn. She is specific where the boxes with lead can be found for instance. In witness statements police officers describe finding lead in these two places in boxes, etc. as Lizzie describes. To me this part of her testimony alone is intelligible and supported by others. Is this a base for some form of truth? For the sake of argument, did she go to the barn earlier to look for lead and did she find a hatchet in the tool boxes? Had she previously secreted a hatchet in the barn? Did she purposely go to the barn to allow an accomplice/lover to finish the job and escape? OR was her trip to the barn somehow fixed in her mind as a spot of sanity just before she found her father so horribly murdered?

I also believe there are some different clues in her reported talk with Miss Russell. Lizzie expressed concern for her father and family. It may not mean much but psychopaths seem to see the world as revolving around themselves. At least Lizzie did think about others and their well being. If she had ranted about a fear of not inheriting should Andrew drop dead for instance, I would say she would look a lot more guilty. Of course Miss Russell conveniently forgot the other two hours of conversation from that visit so who knows what might have been said. But I read somewhere that she would never have thought Lizzie capable of murder except for watching her burn the dress. If so I would guess Lizzie did not discuss anything that would seem incriminatory in hindsight.

[Curryong]

I am away from home without my notes, but I believe it was Mrs Jane Gray, Abby's stepmother, who told the police about Lizzie and Dr B. (in the witness notes.) Abby's relatives were not unbiased, but nevertheless it almost certainly did happen. Then Phoebe Bowen probably got to hear about it and it happened no more! Didn't Victoria Lincoln hint that 'old Bowen' was a bit of a smoothie in his bedside manner? That of course doesn't mean anything of itself. In those days a bit of schmoozing of the ladies would bring you more patients!

Carrie, the invalid sister of Augusta Tripp Lizzie's school friend, (can't think of Carrie's last name) heard Lizzie saying that she didn't expect she and Emma would get anything later (in way of an inheritance.) Lizzie stayed with Carrie and her mother in their New Bedford boarding house shortly before the murders.

Augusta denied that statement when she gave evidence for Lizzie at her trial, saying her sister was feeble. She wasn't deaf however. It was apparently known among the sisters' friends that they were very suspicious of their stepmother's influence over their father.

My thoughts are that Alice did believe that Lizzie was innocent until the burning of that dress, from one view a suspicious act, from another a stupid one. I believe she then had a think before the trial about all the circumstances leading up to that Thursday, including the conversation Lizzie had with her the Wednesday evening. Lizzie expresses anxiety over her father's safety because of his discourtesy. The next day he and his wife are dead. Wow, it was almost as if the maniac who did it was listening to that conversation!

Lizzie's demeanour on the Thursday would have come into her friend's thoughts too. The police noted Lizzie was cool, calm and collected. Alice and Mrs Churchill were notably agitated and upset.

What was to stop Lizzie going to the barn a day or two before and noting the position of the bits of lead in boxes? I doubt whether their position had changed for years, actually. In several ways the barn was a workshed/lumber room.

Andrew couldn't have been smothered first. Remember the autopsy evidence! Where's Possum when you need him! Smothering (and I'm sure deb will confirm) leaves evidence on lips and lungs that wouldn't be there after being hatcheted.

As far as Abby's wounds go, nobody can tell when the first blow was struck nor at what part of the head, only that at one stage she must have seen her attacker (the flap wound.) In the thread 'All about Abby' deb did a diagram which showed blood on the bed rails and the bedspread. There has been speculation (and only that) that maybe Abby was smoothing the bedspread when attacked.

[irina]

I think it would be possible to smother an old, sick man to the point of unconsciousness without leaving tell tale signs. An attempt at smothering could subdue him a bit. Blood patterns show he was not dead before being attacked with the hatchet/axe/blade/instrument/whatever. Anyway it doesn't matter much but could explain why the coat was found where it was. Although I have certainly folded coats and laid down on them when I was too tired or not feeling well. In those days clothing couldn't be cleaned, ironed, etc. that good so people weren't so casual with clothes. In one way I can see Andrew using his coat that way. Possibly there was something in the pocket he wanted to protect? In another way I can see the killer putting it where it was found. I have the feeling if it was used by the killer to absorb blood spatters, that would have been investigated and noted.

[debbiediablo]

petechiae.jpg

From: http://forensics4fiction.com/tag/coroner/

Have you ever wondered how medical examiners can tell a person was smothered/strangled (asphyxia) if there is no ligature or damage to the neck? Although not 100% conclusive, the presence of petechiae can support such a finding. Figuring out how a person died can be pretty tricky if there isn’t some obvious trauma like a gunshot or knife wound. This is especially true if the victim is found in an otherwise benign setting, like in bed. Imagine finding an older woman dead in her bed. Imagine further she was in poor health. Is it possible the police could simply think the woman died from natural causes or some illness? Are there clues, so tiny, that they may be missed during casual observation? This is the reality that no CSI or detective wants to face and why autopsies are so commonly performed. Petechiae, also referred to as Petechial Hemorrhaging, are small pinpoint locations of bleeding where blood vessels have ruptured. They are most commonly seen in the eyes (and eyelids) but can also be found in the face, neck, and upper chest.

Sometimes they can be hard to spot. They are most easily seen against the white of the eye, but a trained forensic pathologist can easily spot them in other areas of the body as well. They can even be found on internal organs. These pin pricks occur when there is increased venous blood pressure. This is what commonly happens during asphyxiation. When a person’s airflow is cut off or restricted (smothering, suffocation, strangulation) the body struggles to breathe and move oxygenated blood to the vital organs. This increased pressure can be too much for the blood vessels and they simply burst open. Now this condition can also be seen in non-criminal deaths like drownings and certain heart failures so the presence of petechiae isn’t 100% conclusive for strangulation or smothering.

[Curryong]

Very interesting deb, I remember reading about this phenomena in various murder cases in which asphyxiation featured, but I've never seen petechiae in full colour, so to speak!

I believe Bridget gave testimony that Andrew's coat was kept on a hook in the dining room, the same room in which Lizzie had been ironing her handkerchiefs and talking to Bridget about the materials sale. Andrew was wearing his casual jacket when he was killed, referred to as a cardigan by Dolan.

[irina]

I am aware of the petechial heamorrhages in cases of suffocation, but what about partial suffocation? There is such a thing as autoerotic asphyxiation for example where people partially suffocate themselves for a "high". Would that necessarily cause petechiae? Don't know. Need to do research. I could see sick, "fleeble", old Andrew quit struggling pretty fast then groan or something, so the job got finished otherwise & the coat got stuffed under the pillows. Just something to think about along the line. (as in keep our eye[s] open)

[debbiediablo]

I find it difficult to wrap my brain around a suffocation suddenly turned to bludgeoning. The damage done to both of them, and particularly to Andrew's face, looks like overkill and depersonalization to me. Meaning the killer was enraged at the time of the murders. I don't entertain a killer who thinks, "Gee, this is taking a bit more time than anticipated, maybe I should bash in his face so no one short of his own daughter would recognize what's left."

[Curryong]

I too see a killer with a huge amount of rage, who struck quickly from behind the dining room door frame before the victim awoke. A murderer who then went on to smash one side of Andrew's face. I think raining a large number of blows down on him was deeply personal and satisfying to the killer.

'Feeble' doesn't necessarily mean that Andrew was tottering around as if he was ninety! The different mode of expression in Victorian days could very well be the same as someone saying today "That person doesn't look very well!" Andrew had been sick for a night yes, (complete with vomiting,) and no doubt felt seedy afterwards, but he had been used to hard physical labour for much of his life, and, as a particularly horrible pre-mortuary photo shows, he was still in good physical condition. I don't think it was a coincidence that someone waited until he was snoozing before striking.

[irina]

I don't think Lizzie hated him that much if at all. I see an inexperienced killer killing for necessity perhaps. Sudden rage with Abby, necessity with Andrew. Escape perhaps.

[Curryong]

Well, Andrew escaped with eleven strokes compared with Abby's eighteen, so I expect you're right!

[debbiediablo]

I see sudden rage with Abby, yes, but also rage with Andrew...maybe they had an argument over Abby's death or something else or maybe the murderer blamed Andrew for his own need to die. Regardless, compare the destruction to the back of Abby's head with the front of Andrew's. It's not so much the difference between 11 and 20 blows as it is the difference between destroying identity in a fit of rage versus enraged killing with identity left intact.

[irina]

A problem with that reasoning is that the side of Andrew's face was exposed. If the killer attacked from behind arm of couch (uh, you know what I mean), that was the vital area exposed. If Andrew was sleeping on his stomach would the back of his head have been damaged & face intact? If he laid with his whole face exposed, probably his whole face would have been obliterated. If the idea was to destroy identity, why didn't the killer vary the swings so the other side of his face was damaged as well? Axe murder isn't neat and I suspect the killer had no idea what he (she) was doing. "Whacked" till he/she thought death was produced.

There is no doubt Jack the Ripper destroyed Mary Kelly's identity by mutilating her face, because death was accomplished otherwise. With Andrew the method of killing was necessarily disfiguring.

In one sense it could be argued that most any axe murder disfigures the victim's identity because the murderer will for obvious reasons aim for the head, one side of which contains the face.

[Curryong]

I do think anger was involved in some way with Andrew though, because of the sheer number of blows involved. For instance, with the chief suspect L....., just reiterating here the main motives always put forward for Andrew's demise at her hands were, (1) that she didn't want him discovering Abby's death as he would know who the culprit was, and she would be disinherited at the least, and (2) she wished to get her mitts on his not inconsiderable fortune.

She would have been able to accomplish Andrew's death, and her objective, in about four or five swift but hard blows with a hatchet-type weapon. Maybe there was a surge of adrenaline involved once the chopping commenced, but I still think that eleven strokes of the weapon shows some over-kill!

I'm not so convinced that it was to obliterate Andrew's face and destroy his identity (I take your point that the side of Andrew's face that was badly damaged was the side that was easily accessible) but certainly the vigour needed to produce wounds of that nature, as well as their number, was fuelled by personal feelings (of anger,) I think. Hey, only my opinion!

[Franz]

...
I'm not so convinced that it was to obliterate Andrew's face and destroy his identity (I take your point that the side of Andrew's face that was badly damaged was the side that was easily accessible) but certainly the vigour needed to produce wounds of that nature, as well as their number, was fuelled by personal feelings (of anger,) I think. Hey, only my opinion!

I agree with you, Curryong. It might have been more likely a coincidence than intentionally: Andrew was lying on the sofa. And, generally speaking, when a killer wants to kill with something like an hatchet (probably in the Borden case), it should be the head the best choice, just as, with a knife, the killer would not stab the face, right? I don't think destroying the identity had anything to do with the murder.

[twinsrwe]

...
I'm not so convinced that it was to obliterate Andrew's face and destroy his identity (I take your point that the side of Andrew's face that was badly damaged was the side that was easily accessible) but certainly the vigour needed to produce wounds of that nature, as well as their number, was fuelled by personal feelings (of anger,) I think. Hey, only my opinion!

I agree with you, Curryong. It might have been more likely a coincidence than intentionally: Andrew was lying on the sofa. And, generally speaking, when a killer wants to kill with something like an hatchet (probably in the Borden case), it should be the head the best choice, just as, with a knife, the killer would not stab the face, right? I don't think destroying the identity had anything to do with the murder.

I agree with both of you. Andrew was laying on his back, with his head turned slightly to the right, therefore the wounds he received had to have landed on the right side of his face. If the killer meant to destroy Andrew's identity, then wouldn't his entire face be hack up?