Hiding the Hatchet

[Aamartin]

If Lizzie did it-- and successfully hid the hatchet on the premises, what is your opinion on how well it was hidden and how long it remained there? ie- if she hid it by dropping it down the inside of a wall, a chimney, etc-- could she later retrieve it? Would and could she have done so in the days leading up to her arrest? Or did she have to wait till she was acquitted and came back home? They did pretty much strip the place and all the interior walls during a renovation and didn't find it.....

If the hatchet wasn't hiding in plain sight and never taken seriously as the murder weapon it might have just remained where it was until the move. If it was the one on the neighbor's barn roof? She didn't have to move it.

Would Emma have kept it's discovery a secret if she found it while Lizzie was in jail or on trial?

What say you?

[phineas]

I tend to believe it was the hatchet on the Crowe roof. Unless it was washed, though I'd wonder if Lizzie would be covered by minute splatter flinging a soaking blood covered weapon. At least a few drops. And she had to have a good arm to land it where it didn't slide off into the yard. I don't think Lizzie had a confederate like Dr. Bowen remove the ax - he would have to have been in on it prior, so it either landed on the roof or was secreted for a time in the house. She grew up in that house and would have known its eccentricities and hiding spots. I grew up in a house from 1848 and its gloomy basement was filled with hiding spots and a lot of beams and boards.

If she kept the hatchet in the house, I think she would have gone down, versus up -- to avoid the stairs and Bridget -- and to distance herself from it if were found like in a room relating to her - a loose floorboard in her bedroom or Emma's, or a closet. I think the menstrual rags are a temporary hiding place. The night of the murders when Lizzie went downstairs could have been a more permanent move. I like the idea of Lizzie moving the hatchet all around to keep ahead of the police! But it had to have left the house eventually. I couldn't sleep at night with the house of my control (with renters) so I would move it out of the house before others moved in when I left. She wouldn't have ever wanted any hatchet to surface at 92 ever.

[Aamartin]

I agree-- even though she couldn't be retried-- she would take no chances of it being found

[phineas]

The blood drops leading toward the kitchen away from Andrew's body tell me she washed it and/or went directly out the side door to get rid of it on the roof.

[Curryong]

I totally agree with your theory of the disposal of the murder hatchet. I believe Lizzie had been out in the yard weeks before and noted the workmen in Crowe's Yard. What could be more simple than throwing on the barn roof, if it was quickly found it would be presumed to be a workman's and claimed, (so long as it was clear of blood) which is in fact exactly what happened. If it lay there for many months (which it did) all the better!

I believe she did this straight after the cleaning of it in the sink room. She may well have been the woman Hiram the icecream seller saw, slightly after eleven.

A slight moment of carelessness with the blood droplets towards the kitchen door but in the end that didn't matter. I just feel that Lizzie would have instinctively wanted the hatchet out of the house as this fitted in with an 'enemy' intruder disposing of the weapon on his flight. Lizzie would probably have known the police would want to search the house that day though she wouldn't have knowledge of their procedures.

The hatchet wouldn't have been hidden anywhere that could be associated with her or with Emma. There could be a cavity under a floorboard Lizzie popped it into, but it wouldn't have stayed there long. Her entire story, which in fact quickly unravelled, was of an enemy coming in and murdering her parents. Intruder murderers don't stop and put the weapon in a place which screams 'inside job,' and Lizzie's life depended, literally, on the police believing that there had been a male intruder.

I have always wondered why, in a pre-DNA, pre-fingerprint world, she didn't just throw the bloodied hatchet down in the sitting room. However, like these murders, that answer is hidden in the past!

[debbiediablo]

I'm leaning toward Lizzie having an accomplice (not Dr. Bowen but possibly Bridget) who killed Andrew after Lizzie killed Abby. Lizzie went to the barn to avoid watching her father's bloody murder. Whoever helped her most likely came back into the house once the murder became public knowledge or even before. I tend to think the hatchet went to the roof. Possum and I don't always agree on Occam's Razor but in this case there seems to be too much coincidence in a hatchet murder taking place where the hatchet is never found and a well-weathered hatchet mysteriously showing up on a neighboring roof, a stone's throw away, a year later - so very close yet not readily visible from the upstairs of #92. Did the claimant work there before or after the murder? If before, it's possible the hatchet did belong to him...until it somehow ended up in the Borden household.

[phineas]

If they had the hatchet, Curryong, I think Lizzie would have swung. That's why I think she didn't just drop it. However she planned the executions, the need for a missing weapon was crucial to point suspicion away from those in the house. The lack of weapon, pointing to an intruder who removed it, was a very smart move on Lizzie's part and it may have taken brass lady parts to keep it in the house or make the throw to the roof.

[Curryong]

The carpenter McDonnell claimed the shingling hatchet was his because he had been doing some work for Dr Chagnon, (the French Canadian doctor who was a neighbour of the Bordens) 'some time or a little after' the murders, he stated. There's been speculation (by those who believe in Lizzie's innocence) that he laid it down temporarily and it was pinched by one of the other Crowe's Yard workers as a joke and then thrown up on the barn roof.

[Curryong]

I do take your point Phineas, and of course she definitely wished to point suspicion away from herself and the others. I'm just playing around with different scenarios that may have lain low in Lizzie's brain before she committed the acts. The whole thing took brass lady parts actually!

All the same, the townspeople, if not the police, seem to have got the idea there was a crazed murderer on the loose, so it's not too bizarre an idea.
Lizzie, in her answers to early questioning, seems to have gingerly been leading them up the garden path in that direction, with statements about finding side doors open. overheard arguments. and aggressive acquaintances of Andrew's, who could have attacked and killed him. (Not to mention her conversation with Alice about 'enemies'.) The police didn't entirely swallow her story because they could find no-one who wished Andrew that much harm.

However, Lizzie didn't know that story wouldn't play out and a violent attacker could have just thrown the hatchet down and escaped! As it was, she took the safe route and disposed of the hatchet on the barn roof!

[phineas]

I like playing with different scenarios too! If the hatchet WAS left behind...
-Lizzie and Bridget's primary, only defense would still be their cleanliness.
-The police, upon seeing two women and one hatchet, would have examined them physically more thoroughly versus being distracted by the intruder idea.
-As soon as the tight timeline emerged and they found Andrew had barely 20 minutes between being witnessed downtown and the cry of murder, it would be assumed no one else but someone in the house could have done it, because there wasn't time or means to dispose of the murder weapon. It would be considered a crime of passion.
-Bridget would have suspected Lizzie and not spent the night in the house. Alice Russell might not have stayed, nor witnessed the burning of the dress.
-Lizzie would have been immediately suspected versus several days' grace. She might have been arrested earlier and not been able to burn the dress and if so, would the brown paint have been blood after all?
-Lizzie's bizarre behavior, her "coldness" and lack of affect, would be interpreted differently from the outset.
-The search would have focused on clothes and washing up. Possibly the doctors would not have been able to use the sinks, and that evidence would be preserved.
-Bridget would have been a likely target for anti-Irish feeling, since the two women would be the only ones suspected and better the serving girl than the demure maiden lady. Riot or mob?
-There would be no need to search the barn for a weapon, but possibly for clothes.
-The burning of the dress would have been tantamount to confession.
On the flip side.....
-The actual shock of the murder weapon might have played into Victorian sensibilities and the police might NOT have thought either capable of wielding it. Without it, it's more of a thought problem, not as visceral. From the wounds, they intellectually understand it must be a hatchet, but seeing it? Different story?

[Curryong]

The tight timeline has always been a bit of a problem, hasn't it?

Those that believe Lizzie innocent do point to that as being a tick in her favour. I think Lizzie did give the impression always of being the genteel middleclass maiden lady and I do think, at first, that the police authorities (Officer Harrington aside) were reluctant to believe that such a person could be guilty of brutal murder. The first officers on the scene did look in closets etc in case a male intruder was still hidden.

I do feel that, (besides the timeline and perhaps her cool demeanour), the thing that led to Lizzie's arrest was that neighbours back and sides, onlookers on the street, the Crowe's Yard workers, were all questioned, and no glimpse of a visitor to the Borden house and property was ever seen that morning. When you add the motive, lots of lovely money, and the fact that Lizzie was the only one in the house when Abby was killed plus her very sus alibi for Andrew's departure, senior police started to think "Hmm, well maybe this genteel lady is a murderess!"

She chose to deposit the hatchet on the barn roof rather than leave it near Andrew, so her thought processes were similar to yours!

[debbiediablo]

The tight timeline has always been a bit of a problem, hasn't it?

The timeline, the missing hatchet and the total lack of blood splatter are why I lean toward Lizzie having an accomplice...the most logical choice being Bridget as she was the only other person there. Both of them had means and opportunity, and Lizzie's motive was supposedly $$$$$$. I would love to know more about Bridget and the maids who preceded her, most especially why they quit what seems to be a cushy job at the Borden's.

[PossumPie]

I tend to believe it was the hatchet on the Crowe roof. Unless it was washed, though I'd wonder if Lizzie would be covered by minute splatter flinging a soaking blood covered weapon. At least a few drops. And she had to have a good arm to land it where it didn't slide off into the yard. I don't think Lizzie had a confederate like Dr. Bowen remove the ax - he would have to have been in on it prior, so it either landed on the roof or was secreted for a time in the house. She grew up in that house and would have known its eccentricities and hiding spots. I grew up in a house from 1848 and its gloomy basement was filled with hiding spots and a lot of beams and boards.

If she kept the hatchet in the house, I think she would have gone down, versus up -- to avoid the stairs and Bridget -- and to distance herself from it if were found like in a room relating to her - a loose floorboard in her bedroom or Emma's, or a closet. I think the menstrual rags are a temporary hiding place. The night of the murders when Lizzie went downstairs could have been a more permanent move. I like the idea of Lizzie moving the hatchet all around to keep ahead of the police! But it had to have left the house eventually. I couldn't sleep at night with the house of my control (with renters) so I would move it out of the house before others moved in when I left. She wouldn't have ever wanted any hatchet to surface at 92 ever.

The shed roof the hatchet was found on was only 8 feet high. Lizzie could easily have stood at the back of her yard and tossed it up there. It was NOT on the barn roof...

[PossumPie]

Occam's Razor is often misunderstood. It isn't law, but merely states that given several possibilities, the simplest one is USUALLY correct. If I found a dead smoldering cow laying under a charred tree after a thunderstorm, It is MORE likely (but not certain) that the cow was killed after the tree was struck by lightning. NOT that aliens came down and did nefarious experiments on the cow. The simplest explanation is usually correct.

That is what drove me WILD beyond belief about Franz's theory that a furious Morse who's motive to kill two people (who he seemingly loved to visit) to assure two nieces (who he seemingly didn't care much for) got rich. So he had an accomplice distract Abby while another man sneaked behind her back in broad daylight, sneaked up the stairs unseen, Abby immediately came in , just happened to tell Lizzie(who didn't see the killer enter but DID see Abby enter moments later) that she got a note, went upstairs, was killed, the killer sat for an hour and a half contemplating his crime, sneaked down just at the perfect time when NO ONE was around except Andrew who just happened to have his eyes closed, Killed Andrew, and sneaked out in broad daylight with the whole nosy neighborhood seeing everything else that went on that day EXCEPT the entry and exit of the killer....WHEWWWW!!!!! Now that is NOT the simplest explanation for sure! I have stated ad nauseam that it's not that that it COULDN'T have happened, but that there are many less complicated ways for them to end up dead. There is nothing impossible about it, just highly statistically improbable. Every minute detail had to happen just so. Details no killer could control, like coming downstairs and having Andrew be the only one on the first floor, and just happening to be lying down and not see the killer approach. Highly improbable. BUT Lizzie could have walked around watching for the perfect opportunity to kill him unnoticed. My biggest roadblock for an outside killer has always been two-fold. First, the killer who ever it was, waited 90 minutes between killings, not something an outsider would have easily done. Secondly, the set-up of the old house makes it impossible to know from a hiding place upstairs what is going on downstairs. You cannot hear what is going on anywhere except at the front hall at the base of the steps, and not even there if the door to the guest room is closed. How ever would the killer know it was 'safe' to open the door, descend the stairs, find the entire first floor empty save Andrew who just happened not to see the killer?

There, my semi-annual talk on Occam's Razor...Of course it doesn't always fit. If I saw a house on Cielo Drive with multiple dead rich and famous people lying around, I would first think drug party gone bad NOT a bunch of crazed hippies killing them to start Helter Skelter, the end of the world scenario where white people would rule over blacks...led by Charlie Manson!!!

[Catbooks]

I totally agree with your theory of the disposal of the murder hatchet. I believe Lizzie had been out in the yard weeks before and noted the workmen in Crowe's Yard. What could be more simple than throwing on the barn roof, if it was quickly found it would be presumed to be a workman's and claimed, (so long as it was clear of blood) which is in fact exactly what happened. If it lay there for many months (which it did) all the better!

I believe she did this straight after the cleaning of it in the sink room. She may well have been the woman Hiram the icecream seller saw, slightly after eleven.

A slight moment of carelessness with the blood droplets towards the kitchen door but in the end that didn't matter. I just feel that Lizzie would have instinctively wanted the hatchet out of the house as this fitted in with an 'enemy' intruder disposing of the weapon on his flight. Lizzie would probably have known the police would want to search the house that day though she wouldn't have knowledge of their procedures.

The hatchet wouldn't have been hidden anywhere that could be associated with her or with Emma. There could be a cavity under a floorboard Lizzie popped it into, but it wouldn't have stayed there long. Her entire story, which in fact quickly unravelled, was of an enemy coming in and murdering her parents. Intruder murderers don't stop and put the weapon in a place which screams 'inside job,' and Lizzie's life depended, literally, on the police believing that there had been a male intruder.

I have always wondered why, in a pre-DNA, pre-fingerprint world, she didn't just throw the bloodied hatchet down in the sitting room. However, like these murders, that answer is hidden in the past!

that's exactly what i think happened: she took the slightly dripping hatchet into the kitchen, washed it off in the sink room, perhaps stopping first down in the cellar (there was a mirror there, if i'm not mistaken?) to quickly check her appearance, went to the back fence, stood on the woodpile (maybe) and flung the hatchet onto crowe's roof.

there was enough noise going on in crowe's yard, what with the workmen working, the chances of anyone hearing it land -- and if they did, thinking anything of it -- she'd have been covered.

the pear trees were in leaf and would have helped screen her actions, as well as the hatchet possibly being visible from any upstairs window. plus, even if by some chance anyone did happen to notice it, so what? it'd be hard to make out what it was, and chances are no one would bother about it. crowe's was a rather junky place.

even if someone did bother with it, it fit right in with lizzie's intruder story. whereas if she were discovered in the house alone with bridget, with two corpses hacked to death, with the murder weapon, she'd have been a goner. i think you were spot-on when you said lizzie instinctively knew she had to get that hatchet out of the house and off the property.

i agree with phineas, too, and loved reading her scenario of what would have likely happened!

here it is, 123 years later, and two of the reasons we're here, and the case unsolved, is because the murder weapon was 'never found,' or never proven, as well as that tight timeline and how clean lizzie and bridget were.

[Franz]

If Lizzie did it --- you all know that I don't think so ---, one possibility of hiding her criminal weapon, in my opinion, could be the barn: after having hidden it somewhere in the barn, she came back to the house, and was seen by Lubinsky. She was walking very slowly? Well, because she was preparing herself to perfom: the "discovery" of her father's body, the hollering "Maggie!..." etc.

The barn was a world, I imagine, of pele-mele. Lizzie might have thought it was the best place to hide her weapon, if she did it.

[Franz]

...I have always wondered why, in a pre-DNA, pre-fingerprint world, she didn't just throw the bloodied hatchet down in the sitting room. However, like these murders, that answer is hidden in the past!

Good question, Curryong. Why didn't she do so? My answer: the killer was not Lizzie; the killer was an intruder who took the weapon away.

[violette]

I've rewrote my post three times. Every time I think I've came to a definite conclusion as to what I believe I read the previous posts and the doubts start again.
I would like to say that I believe throwing a hatchet on to the roof of a barn or shed would be incredibly risky, and I don't believe Lizzie would have done that. What if someone saw or heard? That just seems like highly reckless behavior, not typical of someone who could clean themselves so throughly that no blood was evident and could keep quite a bit of composure.

[Aamartin]

I've rewrote my post three times. Every time I think I've came to a definite conclusion as to what I believe I read the previous posts and the doubts start again.
I would like to say that I believe throwing a hatchet on to the roof of a barn or shed would be incredibly risky, and I don't believe Lizzie would have done that. What if someone saw or heard? That just seems like highly reckless behavior, not typical of someone who could clean themselves so throughly that no blood was evident and could keep quite a bit of composure.

I think the risk of being seen doing it would have been high

*edited for typos

[InterestedReader]

Please, your indulgence, i am learning...

There are two little illustrations of the Borden house and its vicinity. On one, an anterior view of the back side of the house, a blue cross has been added, to mark the hatchet's point of discovery. So was it indeed here, in line with the fence bordering upon the pear orchard, and at the Kelly side extremity, where stood the Crowe building? And where a hatchet would be recovered?
Thank-you for any reply,

Wendy

[mbhenty]

Of course the neighborhood where the Crowe barn once stood has changed dramatically since 1892. The house behind 92 Second and the house where the Crowe barn once stood, which today would have an address of 255 Third Street, did not exist when the murders occurred. Historically, where the Crowe barn once sat there is a Victorian Queen Ann which was built in 1899.


The crow barn was approximately 8 feet from the Borden properties back fence. The south-east corner of the Borden Property. Or if you are facing the Borden house, the corner off to the right, over the fence in the back. (In the photo below you can see a white 3 story house behind 92 Second Street, the house with the red tear drop over it. Below that white 3 story house is a house with a dark roof. The Crowe barn sat right there. Closer to the upper left portion of that building. Click on photo to make it large) It would have been easy to toss a hatchet up there. The rear portion of the barn was only one story high, with a 4/12 pitch. (approx.) An axe or hatchet thrown onto the roof would rest easily along such a pitch. And more than likely the roof had a cedar shingle roof. An implement, such as a hammer or axe, would not slide but instead rest quite comfortably on such a roof. Weather it was a brick building or wood is something I could not verify. (Not that it would make any difference.)

If a the murderer made his escape this way, it would take very little effort to toss the axe up onto the Crowe barn roof. This writer is of the assumption that it was a hoax, or left there by a workman, who indeed made ownership to it.

But no IntrestedReader.... little exists today and it is a minor miracle that 92 Second Street is till standing.

Now for the Wade Store. The fellow's name was Vernon Wade the Grocer. In 1892 Fall river directories have the store about 100 feet to the south of the Borden house, at 98 Second Street. Now, let's look at the modern map below. The red tear-drop is over the Lizzie Borden B&B. In 1892, according to Fall River directories, the Wade store was just to the lower left where that clearing of grass exists, on the same side of 2nd Street as 92, and on the corner of Second and Spring or on the other corner, the one where the parking lot exists, about a half block away.

Hope that helps.

[mbhenty]

Ok:

Here's another view. This is a street view. You are looking west and standing on Third street. You can see the back of the Borden house. (The green building). In the foreground is a small house, which was once a garage. To the left of it is a white fence. That is where the Crowe barn stood. The small house in the foreground is in line with the Borden side (south side) and back yard. The back of the borden property lines up with this small garage/house.

[bob_m_ryan]

That overhead picture really hit home with me. I just did not realize the amount of 'build up' so close to the house. I guess that neighborhood will always be 1892 in my mind.

[mbhenty]

The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Street neighborhoods are not the safest place to live.

Case in point.

Here is another view of the same neighborhood I posted about in the post above. Same street, same address, but wider view.

In the photo below you can see the Borden House in t he distance off to the left, and way to the right some guy sleeping on the sidewalk.

What is that all about.

(Probably the high rates at the Borden B&B)

[Aamartin]

He almost looks like he is napping-- maybe waiting for someone? How odd-- that looks like maybe keys and a cell phone on the little retaining wall? Edited-- Oh, and a pack of cigs

[Kevin Luna]

I have always wondered why, in a pre-DNA, pre-fingerprint world, she didn't just throw the bloodied hatchet down in the sitting room.

If the weapon is gone, it would suggest an intruder, because how else could the weapon have left the scene? If the weapon is at the scene, it would suggest that the killer was someone in the house because an intruder would most likely take the weapon with them when they leave. Criminals generally try to leave as little evidence as they possibly can, of course.

[camgarsky4]

MB -- enjoying your photos above from a couple years ago. They really help visualize what the possibilities might be.

You mention you think the hatchet on roof likely a hoax....is there a particular reason (s) you aren't on board that Lizzie could have tossed it up there?

[mbhenty]

Yes: The Crowe Axe.

Again, as I have mentioned in another post. I have lived in countless 3 decker apartment houses, a couple on the 3rd floor. Looking out a window it is very easy to see the top of lower buildings. The view of the Crowe barn would have been very visible from 3 deckers in the area and from the Borden' attic where Bridget had her bedroom. Bridget's bedroom overlooked the Crowe property. (taking into account the growth of trees in the yards which could block the view) And also, with all the police in the area the day-week of the murder I believe that someone would have looked out the window and seen it. Possibly....

Also the police did not make much of it when it was found by a young boy who was looking for his ball and found the rusty axe.

And Finally.......

There was a later newspaper report about a workman that reported loosing a similar axe in the area.

Information below taken from
"THE REBELLO". (click to make BIG)

[camgarsky4]

Thanks, the multiple reasons to doubt is compelling.

All this has been discussed and written many times, but typing out for my own clarity.....

One of the key challenges with Lizzie's guilt is that the murder weapon (presumably a hatchet) is missing. Yet found in the cellar is a possible answer and lying on the roof of a neighboring shed is another possible answer. Not sure what the odds are of this set of coincidences....but it must be remarkably high.

Same goes for the missing bloody clothes. Multiple coincidences that 'could' explain why bloody clothes weren't found. 1) Folded coat by Andrews head (out of character for Andrew not to have hung it up); 2) Lizzie burning dress post-murder; 3) Bloody pail of rags in cellar.

Recognizing that this case will never be declaratively solved, and setting aside the limited kill time for Andrew (thoughts on that in a couple days), the two primary reasons to doubt Lizzie's guilt seem to have multiple plausible (albeit very debatable) explanations.

[History&Mystery]

I have felt that even if Lizzie committed the murders, Emma was involved. I think it may be plausible that after Emma got home from Fairhaven the weapon was moved to her luggage and disposed of later. That could be what Lizzie was up to that night in the cellar; collecting the weapon from the pail of bloody rags and bringing it to Emma. Emma and her luggage were not in the house at the time of the murders so the police might not have even thought to search her bags. As soon as the investigation was over Emma could have disposed of the weapon or the entire suitcase and nobody would have noticed. For this to work they would have to make sure to keep suspicion off of Emma, which wouldn't be difficult with her alibi.

[camgarsky4]

Agree, instinctively it feels like Emma had to at a minimum know what was going to happen and likely helped plan it. Stayed away because she lacked the 'fortitude' to do the dirty work and to ensure fewer people in the house on the 4th. Would have been even more difficult to murder the parents in the house with both girls present and have any believability that they didn't see a thing or that an intruder snuck in under both their noses. So if she was aware of the plot, then she very well could have help dispose of evidence.

[exLAO]

I have just registered on your site and have no experience with online groups so I hope I am doing this correctly.
I have not been able to find a reference anywhere (in fact based books, documentaries or articles) regarding whether the unused well near the Borden barn was ever searched for the murder weapon (presumably a hatchet).
Is anyone aware of any specific information regarding this?
It would seem both an obvious place for police to search for a missing weapon, & yet perhaps deliberately overlooked if having a heavy cover (that a woman couldn't easily lift) or some other typically Victorian reasoning led to excluding it.
Apologies if I have missed a previous discussion on this issue ... I've tried to search diligently.

[twinsrwe]

Hello, exLAO, welcome to the forum. You're doing fine.

Yes, the Borden well was searched. I believe the following is the only place in which the Borden’s well is mentioned.

The Witness Statements, from the notes of D. Desmond, page 37 (Underlining and highlighting are mine):

Edson, Conners, Quigley, Medley, Desmond and Charles Bryant went into the cellar; had only been there a few minutes, when Mr. Jennings and Hanscomb came down. Mr. Jennings spoke about the lumber pile in the yard, and wanted us to be sure and search that before we got done. Mr. Bryant and myself (Desmond) looked over the chimneys. After finishing the east chimney, which is the one in the kitchen, we went to look at the one in the west of building. This runs up between the parlor and dining room. The side in the dining room seemed to be bricked up or cemented. While we were looking over it, Emma and Lizzie both said “if this front is in your way, tear it out.” Mr. Jennings was there at, the time. Emma spoke about a “lumber pile in the yard”, and thought it would be a good place to search. Mr. Bryant, and myself went into the cellar; and it was thoroughly searched by Edson, Conners, Quigley and Desmond. From there, we went and searched he barn, lumber pile, yard, privy vault and well, also John Crowe’s yard which is on south side of Borden house.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/y4uhassj

[Rolie Polie]

Hi I'm new here. I've been a guest reading posts for about a year- mostly since COVID- and then decided to join in. I know you all have been at this for nearly 2 decades, so I'm sure that I will repeat just about everything you've already discussed. Sorry, ahead of time- I just haven't found the answer yet!

I've been thinking about that hatchet also. God, the murderer was either brilliant or so lucky that s/he should have picked numbers for $Billion Lotto on the same day. I mean no offense to the Misses Borden, but I don't think that Lizzie was THAT brilliant. Was she THAT lucky?
Here's my thought progression:
I keep thinking that if Lizzie wanted to kill 1 or 2 people in-house, then she would already have a plethora of household chemicals to kill with that could almost make it look natural or at least like a mistake. Patent medicines were extremely dangerous and an overdose could easily kill someone if it was cocaine or a powerful opiate. Lizzie herself received a **** load of morphine from the doctor at regular intervals, after the murders. Any household cleaner would be lethal in those days- oooops it got into the food.... Heck, get some poisonous leaves and bake a cake or cook up some mixed veg. Victorian green wallpaper could kill anyone with fumes and the dust flakes that it produced.

I've read that the gilt found on the edge of new, unused hatchets was found in Abby's scalp. I also read that Lizzie told someone she would have to buy a hatchet to ensure that they didn't freeze while camping out the next weekend. I read that the police checked every mercantile that might have sold brand new hatchets and found that no vendor had evidence of Lizzie purchasing one. No one came forward saying that they loaned her one. So, that settled one question of mine that once they heard about the crime, surely someone would have remembered selling or loaning Lizzie a new hatchet with gilt on it.

Next is the question about what happened. In its simplest form: An implement was used to break the skulls of 2 people. It would be so ironic if they searched for the wrong weapon.
1. Were authorities always certain that it was a hatchet and not a metal shovel from the fireplace, a roofing hammer, a meat cleaver, a heavy metal sharp-edged candle holder, or even one of the irons on the stove?
2. Did authorities consider the potential that the murderer or an accessory left the property with it concealed on their person soon after the murders, and disposed of it in the river, in someone else's well, or some other place off-premises? Where was the local garbage dump?
3. How was the privy addressed? (Hello, how are you today? hahaha)
4. Was it lost because the murder scene was not sealed off and people were not barred from disturbing everything? There are strange people who would like to take something like that, even if it is the prime evidence of murder. They'd never admit to copping it.

[camgarsky4]

Rolie Polie -- hi!
A few of your questions can be answered (or at least you'll know what related testimony/statements exists) if you go to the associated Virtual Museum & Library site. If you scroll down a bit you'll see a link to "Primary Source Documents'. Also, if you search this site for 'irons' threads you'll find extensive discussions whether the iron flats could have been the murder weapon.

My takeaway on household chores and Lizzie role in them is that she did very, very little around the house and certainly preparing meals/food was not on the list. So I'm guessing that if one random day, Lizzie is baking up a delicious chocolate cake for all to enjoy, eyebrows would have been raised! :) My assumption is that if Prussic Acid had been procured, the means of dispensing would have been the milk bottles or a similar drink and the poison needed to be tasteless and effective immediately. Most of the dangerous household cleaning agents in my house (bleach, etc) would likely cause tremendous pain before death or extreme illness would ensue. Lastly, the poison had to be 100% effective. Would a household cleaning agent have that assured outcome?

Good push on how and when did Lizzie get a hatchet (if she did). We aren't sure how wide reaching the police canvassed stores for a hatchet purchase, but you are correct, seems like an enthusiastic citizen who knew anything would have come forward. Could she have gotten a hatchet using the '5-finger discount' method? Newspaper reports tell us that a nearby worker lost his hatchet/roofing tool and some believed the hatchet found on Crowe's shed roof was that lost hatchet. Maybe it was.....

[Rolie Polie]

Hi Thanks camgarsky4! I'm sorry that I missed this site in its heyday, but let's see where we can go with those Primary sources.

[camgarsky4]

I hear you on missing this site when there was exponentially more interaction. Based on the # of views, it seems like folks are reading threads, just not much interaction. What I've found helpful with starting a new thread topics is that it helps me organize my thoughts as I type. That's something.....

After you have a chance to read up on the hatchet found on the Crowe shed rooftop, I'd love to toss around some ideas on the vrelativity of this finding.

[Rolie Polie]

I will read up on that one. I didn't know about it until recently, so this will be interesting. See you when I return with some thoughts about that one.

[Rolie Polie]

I've had this news clipping on my mind for a while; it's posted at Warps and Wefts on December 29, 2019
https://lizziebordenwarpsandwefts.com/category/lizbits/
Apparently a heavy, full dumbwaiter fell on both of Lizzie's arms about 2 months before the murders. How do you think that could affect the case against her? I haven't seen it in any testimony yet. I have read no discussion by any doctor regarding seeing her for the accident. They didn't do xrays, so I wonder if she escaped injury or not. You know how you don't realize how injured you are until much later on. I don't see how there could be no injury in that case; therefore, I wonder at her ability to swing a hatchet over her head and downwards 20 times to inflict that damage on the victims, and then hurl it across the back yard and onto a neighbor's roof.

[camgarsky4]

Amazing the number of little tidbits like this that have surfaced about this case. I suppose that is what makes it entertaining to dig into.

Couple quick thoughts...
1) If this had truly impaired her, can't imagine the issue wouldn't have surfaced at the time of murder or during the trial. Being incapacitated would have been a powerful defense and her attorney's seemed to think of every angle to create reasonable doubt.
2) I think the murdered used a short handle hatchet and made the swings from about face height, not over the head. could have been single or double armed....maybe combo when the assailant got tired.
3) My guesstimate on the length of throwing the hatchet is around 30'. My scientific (sarcasm alert) measurement method was to learn the Borden house is roughly 44' x 22'. I used a pencil to rough guess the distance from SE corner of borden lot to where on the roof I think the hatchet was found. Seems like 30 ft. That doesn't seem too far, especially if your adrenaline is pumping. At some point, I plan to pull my family into this strange hobby and have my daughter see how far she can heave a heavy hammer (closest thing I have to a hatchet).

Lastly, to your point, I have never heard of this story on a thread or in any of my research, so thanks for sharing the link!

[John Bull]

If I owned that property I think I'd start digging around where that privy used to be. That's how they found Richard the Third; all it took was the will to do it.

[Marchesk]

I have felt that even if Lizzie committed the murders, Emma was involved. I think it may be plausible that after Emma got home from Fairhaven the weapon was moved to her luggage and disposed of later. That could be what Lizzie was up to that night in the cellar; collecting the weapon from the pail of bloody rags and bringing it to Emma. Emma and her luggage were not in the house at the time of the murders so the police might not have even thought to search her bags. As soon as the investigation was over Emma could have disposed of the weapon or the entire suitcase and nobody would have noticed. For this to work they would have to make sure to keep suspicion off of Emma, which wouldn't be difficult with her alibi.

This is a good possibility. It makes sense that Lizzie would hide the weapon under the bloody rags and then move it. If Emma, Bridget or Dr. Bowen helped Lizzie cover it up, it makes sense for them to have disposed of the weapon somewhere else.

Or Lizzie, Bridget or Emma knew of a really good hiding place. The Hinterkaifeck murder weapon wasn't found until a year later when the farm house was torn down, despite an extensive search by the police using K9 dogs.

[Steve88778]

[camgarsky4]

Steve -- agree that the cellar hatchets likely were not the murder weapons. Do you have a theory on where the hatchet was hid or how it was disposed of?

[Steve88778]

I believe that this murder was planned months Ahead of time. And assuming Lizzie was involved she could’ve thought of many places in that house to conceal the hatchet be at under floorboards or down old drain pipes or or maybe even buried outside who knows... when you read testimony and read books it almost sound like people were constantly looking at their watch or clock and keeping an eye on the house like it was the only thing to do I think there’s been a lot of time that that house was not looked at and anybody could’ve snuck away and not be seen. I don’t believe that that house was being watched by everybody all of the time like it witnesses say. Just because they did not see anybody leave that house does not mean it did not happen. But to be honest I don’t know why they didn’t just leave the hatchet in the sitting room floor next to Mr. Borden why hide a hatchet and risk incriminating yourself.

[camgarsky4]

Based on the photos and diagrams I've seen, Second street was like a bowling alley lane. Narrow and controlled. Properties on both sides of the street had fencing or housing (right on the street), so in my opinion 'sneaking away' or staying out of sight was not a likely outcome. You were in sight pretty until you reach an intersecting street to turn on.

As far as the Borden property, it was fenced relatively securely. In the event you did scale the back fence, there is testimony from workers on the Crowe property and Lucie Colett on the Chagnon property that no strangers were seen that morning. But I guess to your point, someone could have escaped the house unseen. But, it is a fact that a large number of folks testified that they saw nothing and it would have taken some good fortune to slip in and out without being noted on neither occasion.

To my estimation, what makes an unaided intruder even more unlikely is when did they actually enter the house? I outline this on another thread I sent out couple days ago. Just the sheer luck and coincidence to enter undetected at one of the random times the side door was unlocked and then know where to go to do the killing, again without being detected defies logic....to me.

I believe the hatchet was found on the Crowe shed roof in June '93 in the midst of the trial. I think Lizzie tossed it up there, but a stranger could have done the same as they escaped via the Chagnon pear orchard. That undisputable ambiguity is probably a big reason neither side introduced the finding at the trial. Basically finding it solved nothing definitely on the culprit. This is a topic I would love to know if the Hilliard papers mention.