That handle-less hatchet, new or not?

[Harry]

We know that when the handle-less hatchet head was found that it was covered with dust. But what about its condition beneath the dust? Looking at the Trial testimony of Prof. Wood (p1012, Vol 2) he had this to say:

"Q. Is that the hatchet head?
A. Yes, sir. It has been in my possession almost all the time since. When I received this hatchet this piece of handle was in the head in its proper position, this fractured end of the handle being close up to the iron, that is, it was in that relative position so far as the upper and the lower end of the eye of the hatchet was concerned, this fractured end being just underneath or flush with the lower edge of the hole in the hatchet, or the eye of the hatchet as I have heard it called here. Both sides of the hatchet were uniformly rusty, as they are now; and it will be noticed that on the cutting edge here there are a few smooth places in the rust, which I made myself by scraping the rust from the bevelled edge."

In Robinson's closing argument (p1713-1714) he made an interesting statement about salt:

"... Bearing upon the rust, do not forget that the box in which they were put was an old salt box. Did you ever have an old salt box that you put old irons in, that you did not find them rusty? That is a good place to put irons if you want to get them rusty. The remains of the salt in that box as the axe was thrown into it would just be sufficient to rust that axe. It may be argued that there are no ashes on it, but you will have the magnifying glass, and I want you to look to it and see that this is a very porous piece of wood, and if there had been any blood it would have got into that end. Their theory, I suppose, is that it was used, and after it was used, washed thoroughly, so as to get all the blood off, and then the handle broken off by the person that used it. That is a very violent assumption, but that is their theory. And their theory is that it was all gotten off. But this piece of wood was inside of the eye, and Professor Wood tells you that blood will flow into a very narrow place. And he boiled it with iodide of potassium, and says he cannot get the slightest trace of blood. Even that telltale fluid that preached of murder was not found on it at all, and that is an innocent hatchet. ..."

Could the salt have corroded the hatchet head sufficiently from the morning of Aug. 4th until the time it was found. Not likely. There was no mention of Gilt being found on the head.

Here's a photo I assembled back in 2004 showing both sides of the head. Click on the photo to magnify.

[Darrowfan]

We know that when the handle-less hatchet head was found that it was covered with dust. But what about its condition beneath the dust? Looking at the Trial testimony of Prof. Wood (p1012, Vol 2) he had this to say:

"Q. Is that the hatchet head?
A. Yes, sir. It has been in my possession almost all the time since. When I received this hatchet this piece of handle was in the head in its proper position, this fractured end of the handle being close up to the iron, that is, it was in that relative position so far as the upper and the lower end of the eye of the hatchet was concerned, this fractured end being just underneath or flush with the lower edge of the hole in the hatchet, or the eye of the hatchet as I have heard it called here. Both sides of the hatchet were uniformly rusty, as they are now; and it will be noticed that on the cutting edge here there are a few smooth places in the rust, which I made myself by scraping the rust from the bevelled edge."

In Robinson's closing argument (p1713-1714) he made an interesting statement about salt:

"... Bearing upon the rust, do not forget that the box in which they were put was an old salt box. Did you ever have an old salt box that you put old irons in, that you did not find them rusty? That is a good place to put irons if you want to get them rusty. The remains of the salt in that box as the axe was thrown into it would just be sufficient to rust that axe. It may be argued that there are no ashes on it, but you will have the magnifying glass, and I want you to look to it and see that this is a very porous piece of wood, and if there had been any blood it would have got into that end. Their theory, I suppose, is that it was used, and after it was used, washed thoroughly, so as to get all the blood off, and then the handle broken off by the person that used it. That is a very violent assumption, but that is their theory. And their theory is that it was all gotten off. But this piece of wood was inside of the eye, and Professor Wood tells you that blood will flow into a very narrow place. And he boiled it with iodide of potassium, and says he cannot get the slightest trace of blood. Even that telltale fluid that preached of murder was not found on it at all, and that is an innocent hatchet. ..."

Could the salt have corroded the hatchet head sufficiently from the morning of Aug. 4th until the time it was found. Not likely. There was no mention of Gilt being found on the head.

Here's a photo I assembled back in 2004 showing both sides of the head. Click on the photo to magnify.

Well, maybe I'm just stubborn, but I have always felt that this hatchet is an excellent candidate for the murder weapon. I think that in 1892, "blood detection" was still an infant science. Have there been any tests conducted on this hatchet in modern times to detect human blood, or would it be pointless now due to the passage of time?

Harry, assuming that this hatchet is the murder weapon, do you have any theory as to why the handle was broken off? Was it because there may have been blood on it that the killer could not wash off? It seems to me that one of the investigators claimed to have seen the handle itself, laying next to the hatchet head when it was found. Am I mistaken about this?

[Harry]

Ooops, double post.

[Harry]

Yes, Officer Mullally claimed to have seen what appeared to be a handle. This was a direct confrontation to his senior officer, Fleet. Mullally had a reputation for not always being cooperative. I'll have to search my files to find the exact reason. There was a whole slew of promotions for the officers involved in the case. Mullally was not one of them.

It was testified by of Prof. Wood that in his opinion that the handle was made of oak. Hardly easy to break in the time frame Lizzie had . There was a vise in the barn. The wooden part in the head shows grooves which may have been caused by a vise. But Lizzie had no time for that. We have no way to determine when those grooves were made or by whom.

Q. Did you form any opinion as to the kind of wood this hatchet was made of?
A. I think it was oak.
Q. You have never seen the piece of the handle corresponding to the other part of the handle of that hatchet?
A. No, sir.
Q. And therefore you are not able to form an opinion as to that?
A. I know it must have been a handle of the same wood.

Now to find Mullally's reputation.

[Harry]

Yes, Officer Mullally claimed to have seen what appeared to be a handle. This was a direct confrontation to his senior officer, Fleet. Mullally had a reputation for not always being cooperative. I'll have to search my files to find the exact reason. There was a whole slew of promotions for the officers involved in the case. Mullally was one of them, although author Lincoln claims he was not.

It was testified by of Prof. Wood that in his opinion that the handle was made of oak. Hardly easy to break in the time frame Lizzie had . There was a vise in the barn. The wooden part in the head shows grooves which may have been caused by a vise. But Lizzie had no time for that. We have no way to determine when those grooves were made or by whom.

Q. Did you form any opinion as to the kind of wood this hatchet was made of?
A. I think it was oak.
Q. You have never seen the piece of the handle corresponding to the other part of the handle of that hatchet?
A. No, sir.
Q. And therefore you are not able to form an opinion as to that?
A. I know it must have been a handle of the same wood.

Now to find Mullally's reputation.

[Darrowfan]

Yes, Officer Mullally claimed to have seen what appeared to be a handle. This was a direct confrontation to his senior officer, Fleet. Mullally had a reputation for not always being cooperative. I'll have to search my files to find the exact reason. There was a whole slew of promotions for the officers involved in the case. Mullally was not one of them.

It was testified by of Prof. Wood that in his opinion that the handle was made of oak. Hardly easy to break in the time frame Lizzie had . There was a vise in the barn. The wooden part in the head shows grooves which may have been caused by a vise. But Lizzie had no time for that. We have no way to determine when those grooves were made or by whom.

Q. Did you form any opinion as to the kind of wood this hatchet was made of?
A. I think it was oak.
Q. You have never seen the piece of the handle corresponding to the other part of the handle of that hatchet?
A. No, sir.
Q. And therefore you are not able to form an opinion as to that?
A. I know it must have been a handle of the same wood.

Now to find Mullally's reputation.

Interesting, Harry. I agree with you that it is extremely doubtful that Lizzie would have had the time (or inclination) to place the hatchet in a vise, and break off the handle, after the murders. I suppose it is possible that Lizzie could have broken the handle off some time before the killings. Why would she do this? Perhaps she felt that using just the hatchet head as her weapon was sufficient, and also that it would be easier to conceal the weapon on her person, in preparation for using it, without the handle. But this is definitely the rankest sort of speculation on my part.

It could be that some one else broke off the handle prior to the crime for a perfectly innocent reason, and of course, I may be all wet about that hatchet being the weapon at all. This just gives me something else to be frustrated about.

[Harry]

Ooop, double post.

[PossumPie]

Breaking an oak hatchet handle is very VERY hard to do. In a vise (unless it is already cracked/old) you could not break it without hitting it with a maul or heavy hammer. It wasn't broken before the crime b/c that jagged remaining part of the wood would soak up blood and there was no blood in it. There was too LITTLE time between Mr. Borden's death and Lizzie raising the alarm. The rust worries me...Rust would have flaked off in the wound. My gut says that it was a brand new hatchet, as evidenced by the guild flakes found in the wound tracts. Where did it go? As I've said in other posts, I guarantee I could hide a hatchet in my house and you'd never find it. Behind a loose floorboard, or a loose stone in the foundation, under a cupboard on a small ledge, under a riser on a staircase, slip it in a ripped lining under a sofa, push it up in the horsehair stuffing...It is over-rated that the weapon wasn't found by the Fall River Police.

[Darrowfan]

Breaking an oak hatchet handle is very VERY hard to do. In a vise (unless it is already cracked/old) you could not break it without hitting it with a maul or heavy hammer. It wasn't broken before the crime b/c that jagged remaining part of the wood would soak up blood and there was no blood in it. There was too LITTLE time between Mr. Borden's death and Lizzie raising the alarm. The rust worries me...Rust would have flaked off in the wound. My gut says that it was a brand new hatchet, as evidenced by the guild flakes found in the wound tracts. Where did it go? As I've said in other posts, I guarantee I could hide a hatchet in my house and you'd never find it. Behind a loose floorboard, or a loose stone in the foundation, under a cupboard on a small ledge, under a riser on a staircase, slip it in a ripped lining under a sofa, push it up in the horsehair stuffing...It is over-rated that the weapon wasn't found by the Fall River Police.

What you say makes sense. For some reason, I have latched onto that handle-less hatchet as the murder weapon. Obviously, I need to re-think that.

[PattiG157]

Personally I don't believe the "handle-less hatchet" is the murder weapon. I seem to remember that "gilt" - something that is found on brand new hatchets only - was found in Mrs. Borden's wounds, signifying that the murder weapon was brand new. As far as I know (and I could be wrong on this), none of the hatchets found in the Borden home were new.

[leitskev]

The evidence is convincing that this was not the hatchet. The Fall River Historical Society, which owns the hatchet, and would therefore like it to be the murder weapon, is convinced it's not the weapon.

-- evidence from Abby's skull suggests the hatchet used was new. They found protective paint that come off a new weapon on first use.
-- no rust was found on the skull
-- no blood was found on this hatchet
-- animal hair was found on it(I might wonder if that evidence was placed there by police, thinking it human. Perhaps they found it near the hatchet.
-- police testimony on the handle in court was contradictory.
-- how Lizzie could break off the handle and dispose of it in minutes defies expectation.

As far as police finding the real weapon in the house...I don't think it's so easy to hide one as some suppose. Loose floorboards, etc...police know how to look for that stuff. Criminals always try to hide evidence...it's nothing new, even back then. And this weapon would have had to remain hidden for some time. When could Lizzie dispose of it? When she got out of jail nine months later? That house was searched many times. They drained privies and so forth. I mean they left no stone unturned.

It is possible she could have hidden it for a time, and accomplice helped remove it...at great risk to his or herself.

If Lizzie was somehow smart enough to change clothing and wash up, hide the weapon, and hide her clothing...all in about 5 minutes or less...then she should have been smart enough to come up with a better plan to begin with.

I just don't see how she could pull this off without an accomplice of some sort.

[Darrowfan]

The evidence is convincing that this was not the hatchet. The Fall River Historical Society, which owns the hatchet, and would therefore like it to be the murder weapon, is convinced it's not the weapon.

-- evidence from Abby's skull suggests the hatchet used was new. They found protective paint that come off a new weapon on first use.
-- no rust was found on the skull
-- no blood was found on this hatchet
-- animal hair was found on it(I might wonder if that evidence was placed there by police, thinking it human. Perhaps they found it near the hatchet.
-- police testimony on the handle in court was contradictory.
-- how Lizzie could break off the handle and dispose of it in minutes defies expectation.

As far as police finding the real weapon in the house...I don't think it's so easy to hide one as some suppose. Loose floorboards, etc...police know how to look for that stuff. Criminals always try to hide evidence...it's nothing new, even back then. And this weapon would have had to remain hidden for some time. When could Lizzie dispose of it? When she got out of jail nine months later? That house was searched many times. They drained privies and so forth. I mean they left no stone unturned.

It is possible she could have hidden it for a time, and accomplice helped remove it...at great risk to his or herself.

If Lizzie was somehow smart enough to change clothing and wash up, hide the weapon, and hide her clothing...all in about 5 minutes or less...then she should have been smart enough to come up with a better plan to begin with.

I just don't see how she could pull this off without an accomplice of some sort.

You've made some pretty convincing arguments, leitskev. Thanks.