Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Maybe I watch too much CSI, but I didn't see any blood spatter on the pictures from the crime scene.

Toward that end, I have some questions, 1. Are there any other pictures taken by police that were not released to the public?

2. Has a forensic analyst ever looked at the crime scene photos and been able to draw any conclusions?

3. What about their bones? (I'm thinking about the tv show, Bones, which is based on a real life character.)
The Borden's bones are still underground, no? I can't imagine how an order of exhumation would be justified to officials, but wouldn't it be interested if their skeletal remains OR their heads (which are buried separately, I believe) be re-examined for a couple of things..both to look at the cutting marks and see if there are microscopic particles of the murder weapon buried in the bone...and also, to run an analysis on the bones themselves to see if indeed, they were under the influence of a slow-acting poison...

Is this all too outlandish?

We talk a lot about Lizzie's behavior, answers, movements, etc. but I haven't seen a lot of focus on the corpse's themselves..surely there must be something in Abby's body which would help reveal more details about her attacker. I wish the undertaker had gone over her body with a microscope for transfer...something from the killer--a hair, a fiber, etc---must have stuck onto her.

Thoughts?

There was a show I watched a while back (the name escapes now) that they did go to the basement with some kind of equipment and there was traces of blood. They did a kind of reenactment of the crime. there were questions of how come Bridget didn't hear Abbeys' body fall as tight as the house was and heavy she was. One person went outside where Bridget was and they other two went into the quest room, where Abbey's body was found. When one of the guys fell, the person outside did hear the thud.

It never did answer the question as to why there was no blood splatter. They did go into a lab, take a melon and an axe, and when finished hacking the thing, there was splatter all of the place. Only thing I can think is that they did clean up -- Bridget and Lizzie. That's the only thing I can think of.

I have always thought that blood splatter would have been found on Lizzie's shoes. Or there would be grass, hay, etc on them if she went into the barn like she said she did. Someone should have asked her to remove her shoes and examined them thoroughly to see if they were clean or not.

Inquest
Lizzie
Q. What shoes did you have on that day?
A. A pair of ties.
Q. What color?
A. Black.
Q. Will you give them to the officer?
A. Yes.

88 (45)


Q. Where are they?
A. At home.
Q. What stockings did you have on that day?
A. Black.
Q. Where are they?
A. At home.
Q. Have they been washed?
A. I don't know.
Q. Will you give them to the officer?
A. Yes, sir.

Cast-off blood spatter from an ax/hatchet would be in a line in front/behind the swinger of the weapon. The photo appears aprox 7-8 ft. in front of where she was standing before she fell, so the cast off would be very small droplets not visible in black and white photos.

Blood spatter and cast-off from head wounds would indeed be a mess. Head wounds bleed like crazy. The first hit is free, no splatter/cast-off, BUT the next hit will splatter like crazy. People looking at the case have always wondered how anyone could not be covered with blood. I've heard wild theories that the killer was nude, then quickly dressed after. BUT that wouldn't explain the amount of time between killings, would they put the bloody clothes back on?

The blood spatter created by both murders is gone over in fair detail during the trial. The bedspread on the bed that day has recently surfaced and it shows relatively little blood on it, just a few drops along one edge if I remember correctly. Each case is certainly different, but there isn't much need to generalize expectations to all/any axe murder(s) when we have the record of blood spatter for this particular case. The clothing may not have been anywhere near as blood spattered as we might expect!

What I keep coming back to is that the directionality and pattern of splatter on Mrs. Borden seems to indicate she was down low with the killer astride her. I know I have even read this by one of the Harvard Experts...can't remember if it was trial transcript. I think Mrs. Borden was kneeling, bending over when the killer entered, which may explain why she didn't scream out when someone with a hatchet came at her.

There was a wound on the side of Abby's head, a glancing blow by the description, which was thought to have come from the front.

snokkums wrote:There was a show I watched a while back (the name escapes now) that they did go to the basement with some kind of equipment and there was traces of blood. They did a kind of reenactment of the crime. there were questions of how come Bridget didn't hear Abbeys' body fall as tight as the house was and heavy she was. One person went outside where Bridget was and they other two went into the quest room, where Abbey's body was found. When one of the guys fell, the person outside did hear the thud.

It never did answer the question as to why there was no blood splatter. They did go into a lab, take a melon and an axe, and when finished hacking the thing, there was splatter all of the place. Only thing I can think is that they did clean up -- Bridget and Lizzie. That's the only thing I can think of.

There's a big difference between a melon which is free to roll around on a counter top and a human head anchored in place by the neck and body. Did they put a wig on the melon first?

Yooper wrote:
There's a big difference between a melon which is free to roll around on a counter top and a human head anchored in place by the neck and body. Did they put a wig on the melon first?

I didn't think that experiment was very scientific either, and for that very reason. This was on the same television show where they used a dollhouse to demonstrate how sound carries in the Borden house. Sounds feasible? No. The human head doesn't roll around when being struck like a melon does either. It is anchored down as Yooper stated. I thought most of these experiments were a farce.

I did see that show on TV...Dectective Lange from the OJ Simpson case found blood on the cellar wall directly under where the settee was. It dripped down through the floor. Also, in a little alcove in the cellar, blood was found on the wall adjacent to where a wash basin once stood. Wasn't luminol used to light up the bloodstains?

On the subject of forensic blood splatter, there are two different types of splatter patterns that were found at the scene. In the sitting room, the wall directly behind the sofa had 60-80 spots of blood in an arching pattern toward the dining room door that were determined by, I believe Dr. Dolan, to be from a spray pattern due to the first contact from the weapon. As Mr. Borden was still alive at the time of the first impact, his natural blood pressure would cause a spray pattern from the cut arteries. Additionally, it was determined that the initial hit probably killed him, as there was no defensive wounds found on the Mr. Borden's hands, had he tried to defend himself. The likely murder weapon, being a 2-3 lb. hatchet with a 4.5 inch blade, had cast blood splatter from the parlor door almost to the kitchen door, though not in the amounts you may expect.

In the case of Mrs. Borden, it was determined that the initial hit with the weapon was to the left front side of the face, which means that she saw it coming. From the position of her hands up near her head, she had likely grabbed at her face and turned away from the attacker, falling forward where she was found. There was far less blood evidence in Mrs. Borden's case, I believe because she bled out primarily from her face wound. Additional contusions on her nose and forehead were likely from the brunt force of the blows to the back of her head.

I think the primary reason that there was no blood evidence on any of Lizzy's clothing is that she wore a towel to help cover her hair / face and an apron and/or little if anything else, when she killed Mrs. Borden. She then had almost an hour to clean herself in the cellar before her father returned from his usual business walk. However, I don't believe she could kill her father and needed an accomplice, which is why Lizzy was seen coming from the barn about 11:05 AM, the approx. time of her father's murder. Not a speck of blood would be seen on her from that time on.

I’ve wondered if there is any dress, or item belonging to Lizzie that could be tested today with modern forensic techniques.
There’d be no reason for any of the two victims blood to be in Lizzie, or Bridget’s rooms.
We know for a fact there is still plenty of DNA in the floors of the guest room, and sitting room.

Remember Pete Peterson had a trunk that was supposedly from the Second Street home, given to his mother from Lizzie.

DNA is so comprehensively complex, and the information in your fingernail is greater than the worlds largest super computer.

So, I think the case could be solved, but alas—I don’t see a push, or a reason .
For where would be the reward for solving it? nay—-it would simply stop the money, and stop the lure into the mysterious.

Therefore we are left with our meanderings, research, theorizing, and arguments.

Hammering away at the anvil which has withstood every blow.

However, I desire the truth!