Why oh why a hatchet??

[Pippi]

"They wouldn't have put gilt on something that was going to be used to iron clothes. It would have transfered the gilt to the clothing... "

Not the entire iron, an ornamental edge around the top edge and even things that had plain purpose were often fancied up, example stoves and ovens.

No, I don't think it was done with a flat iron

[Lee]

I find it strange that Abbey would be in there anyway making a bed or tiding up in there because that was a room normally looked after by Lizzie and Emma and Emma not being home that dudy should have been left to Lizzie so WHY didn't Lizzie do it? Why was ABBEY THERE?

Maybe Abby asked Lizzie to take care of it and she refused or made up being sick? What was the hurry to make up the room? Could Lizzie and Abby have been there together doing it? was there an argument about the Swansea land transfer? Perhaps Lizzie WAS cleaning up the room and called Abby up, maybe to bring up some pillow slips? Could Lizzie have found a hatchet in the room left by Morse? Could Morse have purchased a hatchet for Lizzie to bring to Marion? ( she was in charge of chopping wood there when she went the following Monday and the hatchet there was dull) Was the hatchet in Lizzie's room packed with her stuff for her trip? Did Morse dispose of the hatchet after the murders because it could be traced back to him?

[Lee]

I'm finding it hard to accept that this was done to avenge the death of some pigeons. And if so, why also kill Abby?

If he did tell Bridget to cook them for dinner, it's even worse.

Lynn

There were only 2 reasons for Andrew to bring dead animals into the house instead of burying them in the backyard.
1. to show Lizzie as a punishment (apparently they were her pets)
or
2. for Brigit to dress them and cook them up for dinner.

[CSIBlonde]

What about the flat iron Lizzie used on her hanky, as a weapon? She was ironing when Andrew arrived home. Lighter to lift & swing but would cause a lot of damage. Dr Draper is asked at the trial about a conversation on a wound of Abby's looking triangular but denies saying it....

[camgarsky4]

It was a hatchet because Lizzie had acquired one for the Marion trip (based on Marion letter theory/news article), it was fresh in her mind since she had written about it the previous day and after the failure of the Wed a.m. prussic acid purchase, she had to pivot on the means to commit the murders. Lizzie clearly felt she had to take action that week.

In my minds eye, I can see her lying on her bedroom lounge/bed trying to figure out what to do after the pharmacy rejection and her eyes resting upon the hatchet....perhaps lying randomly in her room ready to pack for the trip. She then decided to visit Alice to plant some seeds of explanation/background for the soon to occur events at the Borden house.

[VictorianFan89]

Something else that I've recently been hung up...why did the murderer use a hatchet? Couldn't he or she just have easily used a gun, knife, or any variety of other weapons to kill the victims? What made the HATCHET the tool of choice for this particular killer? It just strikes me as unusual. I know that it would have been a weapon that would be relatively easy for anyone to get their hands on...but the mess?? The time involved to do the murder and the cleanup that would be necessitated by using such a weapon? Here's some thoughts that occur to me about the hatchet vs other weapons...

- a GUN= if done properly, a quick, impersonal and relatively easy method of murder which could be accomplished without ever having to physically touch or get too near the victim...but noisy and perhaps not that easy to get ones hands on (perhaps even more so for a gal?) and might be traceable? (I have no idea about the state of serialization of firearms and ammo, nor the state of gunpowder residue testing at the time). At the least, it would leave no doubt as to what the murder weapon was and what to immediately begin looking for.

- stangulation by ROPE, CORD, etc = easily procured, virtually no cleanup involved (bloodwise at least) and, if done properly, noise might not be much of a factor...but would it have required more strength than our killer had?

- bludgeoning via appropriate BLUNT OBJECT = would not need to obtain a special weapon, as virtually every household would have something that would "fit the bill"....would require some strength and endurance to get the job done, perhaps more so than a sharp object, and one may have trouble if the first blows weren't sufficient to incapacitate the victim.

- KNIFE = easily obtainable, and a relatively effective and efficient murder weapon, which could incapacitate the vicitim very quickly if done correctly. The sharper the blade, the easier it would sink into the flesh, so perhaps not requiring as much strength and endurance as, say, bludgeoning...but messy, somewhat unpredictable, and a good chance the perpetraitor might him/herself be injured in the attack (=evidence).

And then there's the HATCHET. Like a knife, a hatchet requires the murderer to be "up close and personal" at the time of the killing, and there are definitely correlations between so-called "crimes of passion" and the choice of murder weapons that reflect the "personal" aspect of the killer's relationship with the victim. This doesn't seem to be a case of "overkill," though, as I would define it (definitely nothing like the Ripper's dramatic slicing and dicing). Enough "whacks" to get the job done, and nearly all focused on the head; quick, incapacitating, and obviously effective. But the mess would require a very detailed and thorough cleanup, and that had the possibility to be very time-consuming. How could one be sure just how long such an attack would take to carry out and clean up? Does this indicate the killer wasn't concerned about having enough time? Or was this weapon chosen in a fit of madness that superceded such practical considerations? Personally, I have a hard time believing that this murder was not in some way planned.

I'm sure this topic has been psychoanalyzed to death already, but I can't help myself. I'm curious to hear what my more learned collegues have to say on the topic.

- A gun would've been too noisy. If Lizzie or anyone else shot Abby, Bridgett would've heard and fled for the cops. By the time Andrew came back, he'd be seeing police flanking his home.

- Strangulation is a good idea, however there is a chance that Abby could've fought back.

- Bludgeoning, you got me there.

- Knife? Again, you got me there though I will say that depending on where the person is stabbed, they might just survive.

Hatchet, well... I did watch a documentary once where one of the person being interviewed was a cop who stated that the hatchet and the number of blows suggested deep, personal anger. Like it wasn't enough to just stab with a knife --- the intent was to maim so thoroughly as to leave the victim almost unrecognizable.

[MaryM]

It is a poser, isn’t it, I don’t have experience with such things, but I would think that an axe or hatchet affords someone more force than say, a knife, although they are heavier.

[camgarsky4]

I think folks make this too complicated......if the culprit was Lizzie, then it was used because it was available. Prussic acid was the intended method, but acquiring it was more than Lizzie could pull off....both in New Bedford and Fall River.

Based on the Marion letter, ensuing rumors of its content and the decision by Elizabeth Johnston not to reveal what the letter said, I believe Lizzie had a hatchet ready to take to Marion for the 'girls' outing. When the prussic acid idea fizzled, the hatchet was the readily available next choice.