I'm sure this has been covered before but I couldn't find anything.
Everyone talks about Lizzie not having any blood on herself or on her clothing. Has there ever been any mention of blood trails or bloody footprints. I've never heard of a neat murderer. I'll admit I haven't read everything so I'm sure I've missed something along the line, but it just seems that with so much blood it would have had to be in more than the two areas where the bodies discovered. There was carpet in the rooms so it wasn't even like they could wipe it up off a hardwood floor.
Anyone have any info or reference to anything?
I have been looking for more information on this topic, too. The carpets were patterned, which could hide minimal bloody tracks. For all the descriptions of the blood spots, I have not seen a modern expert analysis of them.
One question on my mind is were there any mirrors in the house, in addition to presumably at least one in Lizzie's room? The only way to be sure you did not have blood on your face or hair would be to look in a mirror.
Much has been made of the hatchet handle that was broken or cut from the head. If this was the murder weapon, one would expect blood to be found in the crevice around the handle right by the head. And yet, no one has mentioned finding traces of blood in there. I could imagine wrapping the handle in clean menstrual cloths, right up to the head, and after the murders placing them in the bucket with the other cloths. How much more difficult to wield the hatchet, though?
The only blood evidence found was on and beneath the victims and spatter cast off from the murder weapon. There was no testimony about trails of blood, either in the form of footprints or as blood dripping from the murder weapon. There was actually very little blood spatter found around Abby's body, especially since she received several more hatchet blows than Andrew. The important point to be made is that there was relatively little blood spatter in both Abby and Andrew's murders, certainly a lot less than most people expect. Based upon that, maybe the expectations are incorrect, since the point was proven not once, but twice.
We need to be careful to not presume too much. I have not been successful in finding any information on blood evidence from hatchet murders anywhere on the internet and I have no first or second hand experience with the subject, so I have reached no conclusions about how much blood should have been found. That is why I do not assume that the murderer must have been covered in blood, nor do I assume that the murderer had to have had any blood whatever on their clothing. A lack of blood noticed on Lizzie's clothing by people who couldn't adequately describe her dress does not dismiss her as a suspect.
I don't think this was much of an issue at the trial, at least I can't remember anything about blood trails covered at that time. If there was any cleanup involved it speaks to an inside job because I doubt that an intruder would have much reason to be fastidious.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
I did a search of real life crime scene photo's. My reasoning was reading about blood evidence is not as conclusive as seeing it for yourself. If you do not have a strong stomach,of course don't search for them. But I found some pictures that looked like the modern day counterpart to Abby's crime scene photo's. Much gorier in color. And photo's of murders that had been committed with an axe/machete/similar implement. They were all most assuredly very bloody scenes, and I may not sleep tonight for having looked at them. But I hope this helps.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Thank you all for your research & your replies. All I can remember is the photos from the Charles Manson murders years ago and I remember having bad dreams about them. The photos of Abby & Andrew just look so "neat" for lack of a better word.
I know there are mirrors in the bedroom where Abby was killed and also one in the front hallway. So there were places to see your reflection.
It's interesting to me what blood (spatter) evidence reveals. I recently saw a program in which a doctor was convicted in the bludgeoning murder of his wife. There was blood inside his shirt sleeve which indicated a gap in the clothing on the wrist when the murder weapon was striking the victim. The mention of mirrors recalls the Villisca ax slayings where each mirror in the Moore home was covered, probably due to superstition at the time a deceased person's soul could be trapped in it. Apparently Lizzie didn't subscribe to such nonsense.
I didn't know that fact about the Villisca murders. When I read it what I thought was about the Jewish custom to cover all mirrors in the home of the family of the person that died. That's one murder I would like to read about, but the one reason I have such a hard time with it is because of the children involved.
That's one thing I have always wondered about too. The crime photos of the bodies were so neat, like they were staged or something. Almost like the bodies were cleaned up. I, too, remember the Manson crime scene photos, and I got physically sick, and yet abby and Andrew were so neat, so to speak. Also seems to me that the police really didn't do a good job on securing the crime scene and looking for blood and the like.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
Hi everyone! Newbie here. I read the testimony of the various doctors who testified for the prosecution, and there was some interesting discussion (at the trial) of the difference between blood spurts and blood spatters, namely that the former is when the pumping action so of the heart causes blood to come spurting out and the latter (spatter) is made from blood flung off the weapon.
I can't remember which, but I believe it was near Andrew Borden's body that an "arc" of blood spatter was found, indicating the full swinging motion of the murderer as they extended their arm fully and swung around.
I thought about this...if a very strong person (say a young man, used to hard labor) were doing the deed, would they really need to swing their arm around in a semi-circle, or couldn't they just inflict the blows straight up and down? A petite woman, or someone with not very much upper body strength, would need the momentum gained by swinging the axe in an arc. The latter scenario also seems to imply more rage and emotion.
To me, the blood or lack thereof is central to this case. Since LIzzie was (supposedly) the first person to find her father's mangled body, wouldn't it be considered normal for her to have some of his blood on her? Was the Bengaline silk dress she was said to be wearing (by Mrs. Churchhill, am I correct) ever examined?
The house was carpeted, but I"m not sure what color. Did police rip it up and examine it for blood? Emma's testimony would seem to indicate that no, they didn't.
Q. What, if anything, did Dr Dolan say to you as to the character of the search which had been made?
MR. KNOWLTON. I object.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Court's recollection of Dr Dolan's testimony is that he testified to the character of the search. If you want to show anything different from
what he testified—
MR. JENNINGS. I think I have a right to put it in—
The CHIEF JUSTICE. You may show it.
Q. Will you answer the question? [The last question was read.]
A. He told me the search had been as thorough as the search could be made unless the paper was torn from the walls and the carpets taken from the floor.
"Unless the paper was torn from the walls and the carpets taken from the floor." Well, why wouldn't the police examine the carpets? Is it because trace evidence and blood spatter analysis was practically non-existent?
I can well imagine, with all the people trampling in and out of the house, that the carpets were very soiled and contained ground-in blood. But still...if we are to take the word of the neighbor who saw Andrew fumbling with the front door locks, and the well-documented time the police received a call (11:05, correct?) it is practically impossible to conceive of how Lizzie would be able to cleanse herself of blood spurting AND spattering. Even in the tv movie, where Elizabeth Montgomery (as LIzzie) commits both crimes in the nude, she goes down the the basement and washes herself off with water...and then we're supposed to believe she just slipped into that full-length Bengaline silk skirt (with buttons), the navy blouse (also, lots of buttons), put undergarments, hose, shoes, AND neaten up her hair?
I can't conceive of her being able to accomplish all of this...and wouldn't she have to do it TWICE? That's another question I have...did anyone see Lizzie between when the 1st and 2nd murders were supposed to occur? When Bridgette heard Andrew struggling with the lock, and exclaimed her famous "Pshaw!" after which she heard someone laughing from upstairs, did she (Bridgette) actually see Lizzie come down stairs and talk to her father?
If Bridgette saw Lizzie after Andrew came home (and she wasn't covered in blood spatter, or otherwise looking disheveled, as one might after swinging an axe 18 times at the back of another person's head) then IF Lizzie committed both murders, we have to conclude she washed and straigtened herself up TWICE, after each murder.
If Bridgette didn't actually see Lizzie, then I guess it is possible Lizzie killed her mother, hung around in blood spattered clothing (or, failing any blood castoff, at least sweaty and messy) for an hour, then killed again, THEN cleaned herself up, put on a full length silk skirt with matching blouse, petticoat, hose, shoes, wiped off and straightened her curly hair and fixed her bun, etc.
