Lizzie TV Show

[Steveads2004]

Hello! I came across a TV show the other day that had many familiar names on it from this board! That was neat! Anyway they had a detective Lange from the OJ Simpson case on it. He was supposed to be reexamining evidence etc. That part of it didn't impress me since I noticed inaccuracies and I have read more pertinent facts here posted by all of you! BUT they went to the basement and sprayed luminol and it showed blood evidence remaining in the floorboards under the where the sofa was and near where the broken axe handle was said to have been found, and also in a "dry sink". I'm sure most of you have seen this show before but I was wondering what you thought about that blood evidence? Would anything still be there after 100+ years? And are we supposed to believe that the dry sink is still there in the same spot as 1892? If so was this the "slop pail" that was said to have been used for mestrual rags? I enjoyed seeing Stefani and other familiar names appear! The owner at the time was the same man I met when I stayed overnight in 1992. It must have been taped around that time.

[patsy]

I have never seen it and hope to catch a rerun one of these days. I found a site with the transcript of what I believe was the show you mentioned. http://www.livedash.com/transcript/lizz ... 10/490551/

We have recently seen pictures of the bedspread from the guest room which showed some blood and that is on cloth which so far has not disintegrated, so I'd think it would last a long time on wood too. My belief is they mad floors so much better and tighter back then so I will wonder how much could have really seeped through if any. Just my thoughts.

[Yooper]

I was disappointed in the attempt to replicate the blood spatter. I can see no correlation between striking a melon on a hard surface with striking a human head on a cushioned surface. The melon is soft, the head is hard. A counter top or table is hard, a cushioned sofa arm is soft. A melon is loose and free to roll around, a human head is attached to a body and is relatively immobile. This seriously detracted from the credibility of the investigators as far as I'm concerned.

If the only thing luminol will fluoresce is blood, and if the fluorescence is found directly under where the arm of the sofa was in 1892, then it is probably blood from Andrew's murder. That would tend to prove the floors were not as tightly constructed as we might expect. If the wood was dry and not finished or painted in the basement, it would absorb blood or any other liquid and it would still be there.

Ordinarily I would assume that because they tested with luminol, and they they expected to find something with it, blood from 1892 would still be viable for testing with luminol. Otherwise, why would experienced investigators bother with a luminol test? However, the "melon test" casts aspersions upon the rest of the investigation, so I took the entire episode with a grain of salt!

[shakiboo]

What were they trying to prove with the test on the melon? I agree with you, a melon is a poor choice for a head. But would that have any effect on the blood (or melon) splatter coming off the swinging axe? Oh, this is gross, but even the juice of a melon isn't the same as blood. So, being thinner would it go further? Looking at Andrews murder picture's, he just doesn't look like he'd put himself in that position to rest, he doesn't look comfortable. That being said, could he have been standing when he was first struck and landed that way to be finished off?

[Yooper]

They were trying to replicate the blood spatter with melon juice spatter. They proved beyond a doubt that when a melon on a hard surface is struck with a hatchet, the striker is indeed likely to get melon juice on him.

I suspect Andrew was lying down when he was attacked, there were objects on the arm of the sofa which indicated that intent, an afghan, pillow, etc. I doubt that all of those things would have been put there afterward. At the same time, just because they were arranged in that way doesn't indicate he was using them at the moment he was struck, he could have been standing at the time, intending to lie down. However, I think Andrew would have been able to defend himself against Lizzie if he was aware of the attack. There didn't seem to be any defensive wounds present or any misdirected hatchet blows, and the blood spatter was confined to the same area, so he didn't move around during the attack. Everything seems consistent with Andrew being attacked while napping. With any luck, he never knew what hit him.

[shakiboo]

There's no way of knowing for sure, but I really hope he was sound asleep!

[Yooper]

He probably was, the first whack probably did him in based upon the existing blood spatter at the time. I really don't understand the insistence by some that the perpetrator should be covered in blood. We have the evidence before us, for being struck numerous times with a hatchet, there seems to be relatively little blood spatter involved, and especially in Abby's case. When the bedspread was examined recently, there was very little blood staining present. Why do we insist upon denying what is right in front of our noses?

[shakiboo]

I don't know, it just seems like it would be a bloody mess, in both cases. The axe itself had to have had blood and gore on it from Abby, and as fast and hard as it was being swung, there should have even been blood on the ceiling. But it's true once the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing. I wonder then if Andrew might have lived longer then Abby, if he lost enough blood to go down thru the couch and then seep through the floor boards. Maybe it's the bloody gory movies that we've seen that puts that idea into our heads. I went to youtube this morning and was looking at some video's about the murder's. There's some pretty interesting one's there and some really stupid ones. But one of them was two forensic guys looking at the axe head that was found in the basement and Abbies scarf. It still had some blood stains on it and it was getting a bit tattered, but there was also a slit in the matrial that the axe head fit perfectly. That was the first time I'd ever seen the scarf. Maybe that's what was used to clean the axe after Abby was killed.

[Yooper]

I really think it is all imagination, the expectation of gobs of gore. We have descriptions of the blood spatter present in both Andrew and Abby's murders, and that is exactly the amount of blood we should expect under those specific circumstances. There is no need to generalize that to suit other cases, nor is there any reason to deduce anything from other cases to apply to the Borden case. We clearly have what we need in this specific case, and we need to reconcile our expectations with the facts.

The video dealing with the scarf might well have been the investigative episode containing the "melon test". I think that was part of the program if I'm not mistaken. I wonder if Abby might have been wearing the scarf when she was attacked? It could have come off early during the attack, minimizing blood stains.

[Steveads2004]

Yes that is the show. The melon test was completely foolish and useless. the melon was rolling all over the table as he hacked at it. Just stupid. No wonder OJ got off. The "scarf" was a floral purple piece with holes and shreds. The handleless hatchet was fitted into one of the shred holes and fit perfectly. But what does that prove? Wouldn't every hatchet made by that manufacturere have fit as well? It was a striking visual for someone with no knowledge of the case but meaningless if you ask me. It was the blood evidence that was the highlight of the show. It brought the reality of the human tragedy come to life after over 100 years. There is the poor man's blood still there. Wow.