Blunt side of the axe/hatchet?

[RGJ]

Sorry to start another thread, not sure of the etiquette here :-) but I am interested in whether Abby or Andrew's wounds included ones that would seem to be from the blunt side of a hatchet/axe. I saw several references to that, but is it in the autopsy or something?

[Curryong]

I've brought up the threads 'All about Abby' and 'All about Andrew' which discusses wounds, autopsies, blood splatter etc for each of them. Also Possum's observations on stomach contents on the thread 'Digestion'.

[irina]

Something that really bothers me about various observations of the wounds to Mr. and Mrs. Borden is that the instrument of death was always said to be extremely sharp. At the very first it was compared to a razor and Andrew was said to have been "cut". I have personal experience with hatchets and axes, including preparing meat scraps for pet food by chopping it with a hatchet, and so I have wondered if the weapon even was a hatchet. On the other hand Possum said he keeps his hatchet razor sharp. I have also questioned whether a new hatchet~there is indication a new hatchet may have been used~would have come from the store fully sharpened or if the buyer was responsible for putting an edge on it. Some suggest Lizzie may have shoplifted a hatchet since no one ever figured out where she would have bought one. If she obtained a new hatchet not yet sharpened, did she sharpen it? Or were some hatchets sold with a razor sharp edge?

I read through testimony and other statements to see if anyone slipped up right at first, referring to the wounds on Andrew as "whacks", "chops", "blows", etc. I was trying to see if anyone accidentally admitted knowledge before the doctors had weighed in. I found a variety of descriptions of Andrew's injuries but none indicated that anyone suspected a hatchet or axe. "Very sharp instrument" seemed to be the basic understanding.

[RGJ]

Thanks, that is interesting. I know today many hatchets and axes are not sold razor sharp, I assume because of the threat of injury during the retail process.

What I am interested in is whether an autopsy or doctor ever described a wound that could have been from the blunt side of an axe/hatchet. I thought someone might know here quick, I haven't had time to read everything...but haven't seen it yet.

[irina]

Abby had little bruises on her forehead & bridge of her nose. There are thoughts they came from her falling on the floor or that they were livor mortis from laying face down on the floor. I have also wondered if she didn't get a (male) fist to the face. Other than that The wounds were all of a cutting type so far as I know. Perhaps more important is that wounds doctors believed were the first, were cutting in nature. So if one considered a blunt whack on the head to knock the victim out perhaps, that doesn't seem to be what happened.

[taosjohn]

I have also questioned whether a new hatchet~there is indication a new hatchet may have been used~would have come from the store fully sharpened or if the buyer was responsible for putting an edge on it.

Just a few weeks-- maybe six-- ago, I bought a hatchet from the local Ace. (Actually it is called a "Collins Axe," but any normal person would refer to it as a hatchet; about 18" long, pound and a quarter, edge about 3" across, blunt face about 2".)

It was sharp enough to shave with at purchase, even though it is pretty much intended for limbing and splitting...



Certainly the wounds on the skulls, particularly Abby's, suggest a hatchet; there are wounds in the bone exactly the right size and shape.

The suggestion also has been that the weapon was a "lather's hatchet." Nowadays we'd be likely to call it a "roofer's hatchet," as very little wood-lath construction is done any more; but the tool is equally useful for roofing with 90 lb. paper. (The HH appears to be a lather's hatchet, 19th century style-- the flat peen opposite the edge distinguishes it from a tool for kindling or brush or the like.) A lather's hatchet used for lathing needs to be sharp-- one is splitting strips of soft wood into lath, or cutting across it for length; unlike the one in the shed you use for kindling, it is likely to be sharpened on a more than daily basis...

[RGJ]

Interesting John, thanks.

Have you considered the hatchet found on the roof of the adjoining Crowe's barn a year later? It is my understanding it fit the wounds and had the new ave "gild" paint/coating on it similar to what was found in Abby's wound.

I think it was "gild". Maybe it had "guilt" on it :-)

[Curryong]

Which kind (lathing or otherwise) was the one found on the Crowe's barn roof? I'll have to check! I know the supposed owner, who claimed it when it was found just before Lizzie's trial was finished, was a carpenter (Carl McDonnell) but he (and his tools) were apparently working for Dr Chagnell at the time of the murder. It had a 'slight coloring of gilt'. (Rebello: Page 105)

Rebello. Same page.
From a letter sent to Knowlto from Dr Draper who examined the skulls of Abby and Andrew after the 'boiling down' process.

'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 observations fully) means that the hatchet used in killing Mrs Borden was a new hatchet, not long out of the store...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 situated.'

Quite obviously this description didn't tie up with the prosecution's old, hacked, ash-covered handleless hatchet, so Knowlton never used it, but it's interesting isn't it?

[twinsrwe]

I agree, with Harry regarding the gilt found in Abby's skull (Highlighting and underlining is mine).

On Sun Oct 01, 2006, Harry posted:

As to the gilt, my opinion has not changed. In fact if anything I am even more convinced that its value as evidence is weak.

Draper in his letter to Knowlton says: "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."

When the heads were removed they were boiled and the flesh removed - no gilt noticed.

Casts were made by Dr. Draper - no gilt noticed.

The skulls were examined at Harvard by two expert doctors hired by the defense, Dwight and Richardson - no gilt noticed.

Knowlton in his closing argument has this to say about their examination:
"... These things were put into the hands of Dr. Draper, and no less eminent men than Doctors Dwight and Richardson, whom some of you know to be the equals of those who have been called here, have examined them to their hearts' content, and it is not for my distinguished friend to challenge the conclusion to which these gentlemen came when their own experts are silent in reply. ..." (trial 1764)

Draper had the skulls for a whole week before writing about finding the gilt. It was during this week that Dwight and Richardson examined the skulls. (trial 1059) It just seems very strange to me that experts who are brought in to perform just one task, examining the skulls, could not see something that Dr. Draper described as being able to be seen with the naked eye.

Again I am not denying that it was a hatchet, nor that it was new hatchet, nor that there was gilt. It's when and where the gilt was deposited that is not clear to my mind.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2317

[irina]

The correct word is gilt.

I have read that in the old days hatchets and similar implements were not sold sharpened as the buyer might want to create a special edge which he preferred. These things today I am sure are sold sharp. I don't know how accurate it is that in the old days these things were sold without a sharp edge. At least sometimes.

The Gordon Bordon letter specifically mentions a lather's hatchet. This is intriguing since there was construction being done in the area, a lumber yard nearby, etc. Plus since Second St. was near the business district I am sure hatchets would have been sold in nearby businesses and that the hatchet could have been bought that morning perhaps.

[taosjohn]

Interesting John, thanks.

Have you considered the hatchet found on the roof of the adjoining Crowe's barn a year later? It is my understanding it fit the wounds and had the new ave "gild" paint/coating on it similar to what was found in Abby's wound.

I think it was "gild". Maybe it had "guilt" on it :-)

The problem I see with that-- though I haven't seen the primary sources quoted-- is that it was claimed. I assume that the claimant had to identify it somehow?

Was the claimant working next door at around the time of the murders? That is, could the tool have been abstracted from its owner at or shortly before the event, used, and then thrown up there? Otherwise, I'd be prone to think it was simply left on the roof by him and was there the whole time with no connection to the killings. In 1892 there must have been twenty or thirty hatchets within 100 feet of the Borden house.

[taosjohn]

My own tentative theory is that the hatchet entered and exited with the killer, and may still be with his or her family if any to this day.

[Curryong]

I have always thought that the Crowe's barn hatchet, thrown up there by Lizzie, was probably THE one. The carpenter McDonnell had been doing some work around the place for Dr Chagnell, a neighbour. He didn't work in Crowe's Yard at any time. Boys found the hatchet on the roof of one of Crowe's barns while they were looking for a lost ball. Of course, they were very excited by the find. The police, who hadn't searched the barn roofs in 1892, less so. Mr Crowe was mystified and said that no-one had been on his (flat) barn roof in the past two years.

The carpenter identified the hatchet as one he had lost in the summer of 1892, and to the police's relief no doubt, took it away.

The whole silly saga is on the thread 'bleedin' hatchet' which I've brought up again for everyone's enjoyment!!!

[taosjohn]

I have always thought that the Crowe's barn hatchet, thrown up there by Lizzie, was probably THE one. The carpenter McDonnell had been doing some work around the place for Dr Chagnell, a neighbour. He didn't work in Crowe's Yard at any time. Boys found the hatchet on the roof of one of Crowe's barns while they were looking for a lost ball. Of course, they were very excited by the find. The police, who hadn't searched the barn roofs in 1892, less so. Mr Crowe was mystified and said that no-one had been on his (flat) barn roof in the past two years.

The carpenter identified the hatchet as one he had lost in the summer of 1892, and to the police's relief no doubt, took it away.

The whole silly saga is on the thread 'bleedin' hatchet' which I've brought up again for everyone's enjoyment!!!

Ah-- so it is possible that it was swiped for the purpose, or that someone chucked it up there as a prank on the owner.

Could "summer" have been immediately proximate to the killings?

Or need we assume significant premeditation if we are casting it as the Murder Weapon? Or don't we know? (I didn't see much precision about the timing in the old thread, perhaps I missed it.)

[Curryong]

I'm out so I can't check in my Rebello but I believe the carpenter said he had done some work for Dr Chagnell at 'around that time' (of the murders). If I'm wrong I'll correct it later, but I believe so.

Fall River Daily Herald June 17th 1893:8

'The owner of the Potter-Borden hatchet has in all probability been found. Carl McDonnell, a carpenter employed by William Smith of Second Street, did some work for Dr Chagnon about the time or a little later and lost a hatchet of a description similar to this one.

There are so many hatchets of a similar make that it is almost impossible to identify any one in particular unless marked for that purpose. The axe undoubtedly belongs to McDonnell'.

'It does?'

Love the turkey gif, twins! Very appropriate and seasonal!!

[taosjohn]

I'm out so I can't check in my Rebello but I believe the carpenter said he had done some work for Dr Chagnell at 'around that time' (of the murders). If I'm wrong I'll correct it later, but I believe so.

I found it-- "around or a little after." The difference is pretty crucial, and I guess we'll never know...

[Curryong]

I certainly think it's a more likely candidate than any others that have been found, and is certainly better than the handleless hatchet.

[RGJ]

a whole book about the Crowe hatchet?

http://www.amazon.com/Lizzie-Borden-Mys ... 0961481145

At any rate, I suspect that the cops were desperate to dismiss the hatchet. They actually gave it BACK to the carpenter? Sounds weird

[Curryong]

Yes, the discovery of the Crowe's Barn hatchet was a source of great embarrassment to the Fall River Police!

There's a bit about author Flynn in the link provided in the thread 'Leary Press', RGJ.

[RGJ]

Are we all in rough agreement that this is likely the murder weapon? I'm told it fit the wounds, was new with the gilting (well, rusty by then, but not well-used) , the owner said nobody had been on the roof for two years. Did the carpenter say he left in on the roof? Or it just went missing when he was working there?

As to blood or evidence on it...well, that would be a career killed for the law enforcement guys who were backing other theories. I could see it getting a serious wipe down from some flatfoot :-)....

[irina]

I like the idea that the hatchet could have been swiped from the workmen, used for murder and tossed on the roof. I have always had a feeling the Crowe roof hatchet is the one. Until I came here I couldn't find much on it and I also never considered Lizzie's ability to throw it onto the roof. So what I felt proved her innocence actually doesn't. It would make a lot of sense if a psychopath picked up the hatchet, used it and chucked it as he left.

[taosjohn]

Are we all in rough agreement that this is likely the murder weapon? I'm told it fit the wounds, was new with the gilting (well, rusty by then, but not well-used) , the owner said nobody had been on the roof for two years. Did the carpenter say he left in on the roof? Or it just went missing when he was working there?

As to blood or evidence on it...well, that would be a career killed for the law enforcement guys who were backing other theories. I could see it getting a serious wipe down from some flatfoot :-)....

More likely than the HH; but I think the actual weapon came in with and left with the killer, whose name we are unlikely to ever know...

[irina]

I don't think I'm getting everyone's posts in order. I just saw Curryong's post of the newspaper article. That is written like a cover up and from such does urban legend spring! An effective article would give a bit more detail, like who the workman was working for, what he was doing and when he first noted his hatchet was missing. Of course they may have ascertained that he lost his hatchet say, September of 1892. IF it was his hatchet. People didn't have so much stuff back then. I don't know what a hatchet would have cost to replace, but people weren't careless about losing their stuff back then.

[Curryong]

There is a bit more about the finding of the hatchet in the thread 'The bleedin' Hatchet', but not much. I've been noticing things have been jumping about out of sequence and in one case not posting lately. Weird!

[twinsrwe]

... Love the turkey gif, twins! Very appropriate and seasonal!!

Thanks!