Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Nona wrote: ↑Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:01 pm 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?

Wordweaver wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:09 am

Golaszewski @ Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:06 am wrote: 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

sguthmann wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:55 pm 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.