Why Oh Why Didn't They Search that Bucket?

[dalcanton]

I understand that menstruation was an off-limits topic – especially for men – back in Lizzie’s day. But, you would think that after 2 brutal murders having been committed & the pressure/urgency to solve the crime, the police would’ve overlooked their “uncomfortableness” about the subject & would’ve thoroughly searched that alleged menstrual bucket in the washroom, especially after Bridget testified it hadn’t been there the day before. Also, when an officer spied Lizzie going down to the washroom by herself on that fateful Thursday evening after having just – 15 minutes prior – gone down w/Alice, he stated that Lizzie was bent over the washtub & he couldn’t see what she was doing. I find this to be incredulous – why didn’t he CHECK to see what she was up to. Forget Victorian propriety! I mean, c’mon! They were THAT bothered by something as mundane & natural as alleged menstrual blood that they wouldn’t even investigate these suspicious incidents? How could they let potential clues (possibly crime-solving ones!) just slip through their fingers like that? So frustrating!

[leitskev]

I'd like to know just what the theory is here that many are going with. I'm asking the question innocently, an invitation for people to point out the evidence, the testimony, the logic to me, a relative newb.

So the theory is that Lizzie was clever enough to hide the murder weapon in plain sight, with bloody rags, thinking that no one would check the menstrual bucket because of Victorian squeamishness? That's a really tough sell, but I'll play along for the moment.

Is the next step in the theory that Lizzie, next morning, and under the watchful eye of police outside, removed the hatchet and found a better hiding place? Where it survived the exhaustive search on Monday, and subsequent searches by the prosecutors after Lizzie was arrested? Where it lasted the many months while she was in jail, and was finally removed after her trial and acquittal? And that no once since has ever found a hiding place in that house? I keep hearing about loose floor boards, and I've never seen a loose floor board anywhere in my life in any house or apartment. Has anyone ever found one on 92nd St? A house built like a fort. A house that instantly became legend, in a city where people have been looking for a bloody hatchet ever since the trial. Our Lizzie, the same girl who couldn't stick to a simple story about what she was looking for in the barn, who couldn't fake a crime scene, was clever enough to hide a bloody hatchet in a solidly constructed house that was searched by determined professionals?

What did this bucket look like? Was there bloody rags and bloody water in it, or just wet and bloody rags? What was the custom? All those officers searching the house, none became suspicious of the bloody bucket and took a stick and searched it? Even though Lizzie was under extreme suspicion within hours, these people were so different than us that not one of them said, "did you check the bloody bucket in the cellar?" I mean how long would it take? How hard could it be? Dirty work, but nothing compared to searching the cesspool.

I'm just asking. If that's the evidence, ok, I'll accept it.

[Allen]

It's only a tough sell if you truly don't understand the Victorian mind set. The fact that Lizzie was not a true suspect the day of the murders, when the bloody rags were found, could also explain why the bucket was not searched. I think it also indicates that nobody truly did suspect Lizzie that first day. Not the first day. Put it in terms like this, "Why is there a bucket of bloody rags in the basement? Did the killer use them to clean up? Why would there be bloody rags in the basement?" Lizzie explains they are menstrual rags. So there is a reason for bloody rags to be in the basement other than being left there by the killer after he cleaned up. If they believed at time that the killer could be someone other than Lizzie why would they search a bucket of menstrual rags that Lizzie admitted were hers? I think Lizzie could count on this. Yes. Victorian men were not likely to want to poke around in a ladies business too much unless they believed there absolutely was a reason. By the time they believed they had a reason it was too late.

There are homes that have hiding places no one would think to look. Because they have never been discovered doesn't mean they aren't there. We also don't know if the loose floorboards, or anything else along those lines, were discovered because I don't believe every loose board discovered by the subsequent owners would have made front page news. Some Victorian furniture, such as bedroom dressers, had hidden compartments to put belongings in to keep them from being stolen in case of a burglary. Because these little hiding places never became public record doesn't mean they weren't there. I could find many places in the house that I live in now to hide something and it would never be found. And I've only lived here two years. Not all of my life. I also happen to believe the handle less hatchet could very well have been the murder weapon.

[PossumPie]

It's only a tough sell if you truly don't understand the Victorian mind set. The fact that Lizzie was not a true suspect the day of the murders, when the bloody rags were found, could also explain why the bucket was not searched. I think it also indicates that nobody truly did suspect Lizzie that first day. Not the first day. Put it in terms like this, "Why is there a bucket of bloody rags in the basement? Did the killer use them to clean up? Why would there be bloody rags in the basement?" Lizzie explains they are menstrual rags. So there is a reason for bloody rags to be in the basement other than being left there by the killer after he cleaned up. If they believed at time that the killer could be someone other than Lizzie why would they search a bucket of menstrual rags that Lizzie admitted were hers? I think Lizzie could count on this. Yes. Victorian men were not likely to want to poke around in a ladies business too much unless they believed there absolutely was a reason. By the time they believed they had a reason it was too late.

There are homes that have hiding places no one would think to look. Because they have never been discovered doesn't mean they aren't there. We also don't know if the loose floorboards, or anything else along those lines, were discovered because I don't believe every loose board discovered by the subsequent owners would have made front page news. Some Victorian furniture, such as bedroom dressers, had hidden compartments to put belongings in to keep them from being stolen in case of a burglary. Because these little hiding places never became public record doesn't mean they weren't there. I could find many places in the house that I live in now to hide something and it would never be found. And I've only lived here two years. Not all of my life. I also happen to believe the handle less hatchet could very well have been the murder weapon.

Allen, I keep singing that same song every time someone says "My biggest problem is where Lizzie hid the weapon" Geezzzzzzz I get tired of that old statement. No offense to anyone. I've listed tons of places, under a couch, rip the fabric liner, put it in. The freaking house was NOT searched thoroughly they had no metal detectors, they just did a cursory search. NOT until Monday did they tear the house apart. If my wife wouldn't totally freak out, I'd offer any of you $1000 to find a hatchet I'll hide in my own house. You NEVER would find it. I know 2 or 3 places already...It's not like I'd be hiding a freaking BUICK!!!!

Lizzie was asked about the menstrual bucket, said the Dr. was aware, the subject was tactfully dropped....

[leitskev]

So the house was searched thoroughly Monday. In the meantime, the house was under 24hr surveillance. When did Lizzie leave the house with the hatchet?

Under the couch? Holy crikey. No offense, but under the couch? The testimony by the investigators was they searched everywhere but under the wallpaper. There's no need for metal detectors. Police do searches the same exact way today...they look carefully. It's no different. No need for metal detectors because they are looking for any evidence, not just metallic stuff. Jeez.

If the weapon was in the house when they did the thorough search, Monday, they almost certainly would have found it. Ask any cop. We're talking about teams of trained people used to searching for contraband hidden by a lot smarter people than Lizzie Borden.

Let's pretend the people that lived in the house before the Bordens were opium smugglers and there was a brilliant secret hiding space that Lizzie had discovered. It was so good, the police missed it. Don't you suppose someone would have discovered that little trap door in the wall, or whatever, by now? And don't you think the first thing they would have thought was, "Aha! That's where Lizzie hid the hatchet!".

If it was not in the house...Monday...where did it go? Who took it out? Very risky. But I do think it's plausible someone smuggled it out for her. Would have been hard, but doable. Especially for someone trusted. Someone perhaps with a medical bag.

Finally on the bucket: is that all we have from the trial? Because this is where Victorian sensibilities likely came into play. It was probably understood by all involved that the bucket was searched. So there was no need to get into bloody details in court. They respected her privacy that much. Unless it says somewhere that they did not search the bucket at all, I think it's fair to assume they did search it. They weren't idiots.

[Allen]

No offense, but we're not talking about CSI Las Vegas here. Much of what you're saying sounds like something out of a police crime drama in our century. Their search, even on Monday, was not that thorough. They poked around, opened a few trunks in the attic, and looked around in the basement. They were trained to search. Where is the testimony that says they searched everywhere but under the wallpaper? Have you read all of the testimony that pertains to the search? They didn't even know what dresses were hanging in the closet until the trial. And then it came from a list Emma gave them from memory. Police did not do searches then the same exact way they do today. Today they come in and pretty much ransack your house turning it upside down. This is not how things were done back then. Even when searching the privy I wouldn't say they did a thorough search of it.

I have a hard time believing that because someone found a loose board they would have contacted the newspapers. It's not like there was a hatchet in there for them to say AHA the weapon. It was just a loose board? Hidden compartments in the furniture would not still be there. Come on here. I'm not saying they were the Keystone Kops, but I wouldn't say the Fall River police of the nineteenth century were teams of people used to searching for contraband. Even the coroner admitted he'd never really had a murder case such as this before. Btw, opium smugglers in the nineteenth century would be hiding a substance that was entirely legal at the time. You could get a prescription for it as a medicine. They could buy it at any drug store. Cocaine was actually in coca cola and in many medicines. Morphine was found in infant teething medicine. And actually no, they did not search the bucket. They were not even allowed to answer any questions beyond the fact that they had seen it, and the cloths inside it, at the trial. Because it was conceded they were menstrual rags.

[PossumPie]

So the house was searched thoroughly Monday. In the meantime, the house was under 24hr surveillance. When did Lizzie leave the house with the hatchet?

Under the couch? Holy crikey. No offense, but under the couch? The testimony by the investigators was they searched everywhere but under the wallpaper. There's no need for metal detectors. Police do searches the same exact way today...they look carefully. It's no different. No need for metal detectors because they are looking for any evidence, not just metallic stuff. Jeez.

If the weapon was in the house when they did the thorough search, Monday, they almost certainly would have found it. Ask any cop. We're talking about teams of trained people used to searching for contraband hidden by a lot smarter people than Lizzie Borden.

Let's pretend the people that lived in the house before the Bordens were opium smugglers and there was a brilliant secret hiding space that Lizzie had discovered. It was so good, the police missed it. Don't you suppose someone would have discovered that little trap door in the wall, or whatever, by now? And don't you think the first thing they would have thought was, "Aha! That's where Lizzie hid the hatchet!".

If it was not in the house...Monday...where did it go? Who took it out? Very risky. But I do think it's plausible someone smuggled it out for her. Would have been hard, but doable. Especially for someone trusted. Someone perhaps with a medical bag.

Finally on the bucket: is that all we have from the trial? Because this is where Victorian sensibilities likely came into play. It was probably understood by all involved that the bucket was searched. So there was no need to get into bloody details in court. They respected her privacy that much. Unless it says somewhere that they did not search the bucket at all, I think it's fair to assume they did search it. They weren't idiots.

First off, the search was MONDAY, Lizzie herself could have gotten rid of it by then. Second, you are extremely naive if you think cops are good at searching for things...A drug dog, maybe. FDA, perhaps, a beat cop??? no. I have a brother-in-law who is a cop. He knows the hiding places crooks usually use, but he is no trained searcher. until a house-wide thorough search was performed by a TEAM of trained searchers, a few cops who didn't even suspect Lizzie were not going to find a thing. Most cops even today are poor searchers...their only saving grace is that crooks are even more stupid.' Look at the JonBenet Ramsey case. The cops didn't even find her BODY!! They let freaking friends and relatives stomp through the house contaminating evidence... and find the body!!!!

Second, you are naive if you think they just tactfully didn't mention the Menstrual bucket...If it wasn't in the record in court, it wasn't done. Victorian discretion aside, Law is Law. The police botched the whole deal, which is why Lizzie went free. Victorian sensibilities as you say made them ignore the bucket completely, it wasn't searched.

I'm not 100% sure Lizzie was guilty, but I am not so naive as to think the cops did a professional job either! You watch too much CSI. They were not in there with high tech equipment like TV.
I found evidence from a crime scene that was thrown from a vehicle and landed in my back woods. I called the police, didn't touch the object knowing they could get fingerprints. What a laugh... the cop grabbed the object picked it up, fingered the whole thing, and threw it on his front seat of the cruiser...so much for CSI.

SORRY I sound so pissy, but I get so tired of people thinking the world is like CSI where one PopTart crumb leads the police to the killer. It isn't like that people! NOT even in 2013. I have NEVER seen a police officer turn a couch upside-down and rip into the under-lining to see if something was hidden there. They are linear thinkers- if something isn't on or under furniture, good enough.

[NancyDrew]

Easy now...we're all friends here. I am very intrigued by your offer to find something hidden in your house for $1000, Possum...not that I want a grand from you, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about this. I couldn't hide something in my house so that someone could not find it. I really couldn't. And I have a pretty cool house; built from 1928-1929, knotty pine walls and ceilings, open beams, a creepy attic and equally creepy basement.

What sort of hiding place are you thinking about? I'm thinking about each room in my house...there are no loose floorboards, and no hidden safes in the walls. I guess I could rip open my Tempurpedic mattress and stuff a hatchet in there, but then how to close it up again without it looking really obvious?

In terms of the police, don't even get me started. I hate cops, sorry. I have a really good reason that I'm not going into here, but in my experience, they are not that bright. A guy here in our little town was caught by cops with a baggie in his jacket that contained powdered heroin. It needed to be tested to make sure it was really the drug. The police kept it for months, putting off turning it in to the state lab. Finally, 9 months later, they claimed someone dropped it and it spilled all over the floor. And nope, they couldn't just brush the contents back into an evidence bag..it was GONE. Idiots.

Where WOULD Lizzie have hid the hatchet? If the handless one where the murder weapon, could any sort of modern forensics today prove that it was the one plunged into the heads of Abby and Andrew?

I can't imagine Dr. Bowen sneaking out the hatchet in his bag...why? The only scenario I can possible envision is if he and Lizzie were lovers, and there is no evidence of that.

[leitskev]

"...a few cops who didn't even suspect Lizzie..." They suspected Lizzie within hours, and by the time of the search, she was THE suspect.

"...we're not talking about CSI Las Vegas here" No we are certainly not. A team of cops methodically searches a room. It's routine police work. It's not sophisticated. It just takes time. And they had no shortage of cops.

The only possible excuse for not finding the hatchet, and frankly I'm surprised you guys never mention it, is this: they thought they had the weapon. If they had the weapon in hand, the one they presented at trial, if they were convinced that was the one, then they were not really searching for a weapon, they were just searching for general evidence.

If they were searching for a weapon, however, and one was there, they would have found it. I'm not going to spend my morning again going over the court testimony to find it, but it's in there. They asked the lead cop about the nature of the search, and he said they looked everywhere but under the wallpaper. No metal detectors required or modern forensics tech. It's simple manpower, which is mostly what is used today...except on CSI.

"I have a hard time believing that because someone found a loose board they would have contacted the newspapers." Well, I didn't exactly say that, though they might have. I've never seen a loose floorboard in my life. Have you? I doubt there was ever a loose floor board in that solidly constructed house. There were no drop ceilings. Paneling? Doubt it.

In her room there are built in drawers next to where her bed was. Before the Bordens lived there, apparently it was a kitchen(it was 2 apt. home), and was used for kitchen stuff. I wandered when I took the tour if she could have have hid the hatchet behind the drawer. But I doubt that too. I doubt she was that clever. She would have to latch it or something. And the cops probably pulled the drawers all the way out anyway.

Bottom line for me: if the cops did not feel confident that they had the weapon in hand, then they would have torn that house up to find it. And they would have. If it was still there.

Did Lizzie dispose of the weapon between Thursday and Monday? On her own? Tough to do. She was obviously watched VERY closely. They watched her pee from the window for cripe sakes! How was she to dispose of a weapon...in a way where it was NEVER found...with every move she made being watched?

This girl seems to be both foolish(kills her parents without making any attempt at establishing a plausible alibi or getting her story straight), and very clever(hides and gets rid of a weapon in a way that no one ever finds it, all while under tremendous scrutiny).

"You watch too much CSI." Just stop it. Seriously. Argue the merits, but this is silly. I don't watch CSI at all. Ever. What's more, not once...not once...not once...not once...not once have I mentioned any investigative or search technique that resembles anything sophisticated. You guys keep bringing up metal detectors and the like...not me. I am talking about simply going into a room and carefully searching. It's simple manpower.

I myself have dealt with police often, and they botch evidence all the time. They did so here with the hatchet they brought to court. I don't hold police investigations in high regard at all, now or then. But mishandling evidence, or improperly influencing testimony, things like that...those are very different from not being able to search a premises for a murder weapon. Searching a house takes minimal training.

Nancy: yes, it's not easy to hide a hatchet. Unless a carpenter deliberately constructed a hiding place. I mean that's about the only way...and that would have been discovered by now. That hiding place would still be there.

The hatchet they presented in court is pretty well established now as not the weapon. There were paint chips in Abby's skull that would have come off a brand new hatchet; the organic evidence on that hatchet was from an animal; and police testimony was contradictory. One cop said there was no handle, the other said it was in the box next to the broken hatchet. Which tends to show how desperate they were to find the weapon, to the point of possibly disposing of the handle so they could make their case. Which they wouldn't have had to do..if they found the weapon!!! So they were looking hard.

The only reason I say Bowen could have smuggled it is just because it's hard to imagine anyone else doing it. Alice? Emma? Morse? Churchill? Whoever did it was risking their life. Bowen had the means(the medical bag) and the opportunity(he spent time alone with Lizzie as her physician). Did he have motive? There's no evidence, but there was strange behavior: burning the notes, not returning immediately after sending Emma the telegram, and being very concerned in later days about possible new evidence in the case, and possibly being at the house where Morse just left(newspaper account).

Not saying Bowen is guilty, just speculating.

[Allen]

I have read all of the testimony about the search from the witness statements clear up until the trial. Many times. If you cannot check the information and relate where you got it, I do not see how you consider it as accurate. As is the case with you insisting Lizzie was being observed while she took a pee. The search was not that thorough. And I am not sure why you keep insisting they watched Lizzie urinate? That's just ridiculous. She was under scrutiny when the murders were committed. She was on a busy street and was not at home alone. She may not have had someone standing there over her at the time they were committed, but she was under just as much scrutiny hiding the weapon as she was for the murders themselves. She killed two people in broad daylight and nobody saw or heard anything even though there were many people around outside that day, and the windows in the house were opened when she killed Andrew. Hiding a weapon is that difficult? If Lizzie was the suspect by the day of the murders the police wasted an awful lot of man power chasing down other leads.

[Allen]

Where is this banana peel now? This could have been the case cracker.

Witness statements page 15-16:

Friday 12, 1892. Harrington. At the Borden house all forenoon assisting on the safe. Afternoon. Doherty, Medley and Harrington continue on the Frank Wade clue. Got a boat and rakes,and went all over the pond where he saw the suspicious person. We pulled up much stuff and things, but failed to find the hatchet which he thought might be thrown there. We brought back to the station a paper bag which contained an old banana peel, which was tied up with a very long string. This was very suspicious indeed. We had Mr. Matherson the superintendent of the Chase Mill to see we did our work well. He expressed himself as being satisfied we could do no more in that line.

[PossumPie]

"...a few cops who didn't even suspect Lizzie..." They suspected Lizzie within hours, and by the time of the search, she was THE suspect.

"...we're not talking about CSI Las Vegas here" No we are certainly not. A team of cops methodically searches a room. It's routine police work. It's not sophisticated. It just takes time. And they had no shortage of cops.

The only possible excuse for not finding the hatchet, and frankly I'm surprised you guys never mention it, is this: they thought they had the weapon. If they had the weapon in hand, the one they presented at trial, if they were convinced that was the one, then they were not really searching for a weapon, they were just searching for general evidence.

If they were searching for a weapon, however, and one was there, they would have found it. I'm not going to spend my morning again going over the court testimony to find it, but it's in there. They asked the lead cop about the nature of the search, and he said they looked everywhere but under the wallpaper. No metal detectors required or modern forensics tech. It's simple manpower, which is mostly what is used today...except on CSI.

"I have a hard time believing that because someone found a loose board they would have contacted the newspapers." Well, I didn't exactly say that, though they might have. I've never seen a loose floorboard in my life. Have you? I doubt there was ever a loose floor board in that solidly constructed house. There were no drop ceilings. Paneling? Doubt it.

In her room there are built in drawers next to where her bed was. Before the Bordens lived there, apparently it was a kitchen(it was 2 apt. home), and was used for kitchen stuff. I wandered when I took the tour if she could have have hid the hatchet behind the drawer. But I doubt that too. I doubt she was that clever. She would have to latch it or something. And the cops probably pulled the drawers all the way out anyway.

Bottom line for me: if the cops did not feel confident that they had the weapon in hand, then they would have torn that house up to find it. And they would have. If it was still there.

Did Lizzie dispose of the weapon between Thursday and Monday? On her own? Tough to do. She was obviously watched VERY closely. They watched her pee from the window for cripe sakes! How was she to dispose of a weapon...in a way where it was NEVER found...with every move she made being watched?

This girl seems to be both foolish(kills her parents without making any attempt at establishing a plausible alibi or getting her story straight), and very clever(hides and gets rid of a weapon in a way that no one ever finds it, all while under tremendous scrutiny).

"You watch too much CSI." Just stop it. Seriously. Argue the merits, but this is silly. I don't watch CSI at all. Ever. What's more, not once...not once...not once...not once...not once have I mentioned any investigative or search technique that resembles anything sophisticated. You guys keep bringing up metal detectors and the like...not me. I am talking about simply going into a room and carefully searching. It's simple manpower.

I myself have dealt with police often, and they botch evidence all the time. They did so here with the hatchet they brought to court. I don't hold police investigations in high regard at all, now or then. But mishandling evidence, or improperly influencing testimony, things like that...those are very different from not being able to search a premises for a murder weapon. Searching a house takes minimal training.

Nancy: yes, it's not easy to hide a hatchet. Unless a carpenter deliberately constructed a hiding place. I mean that's about the only way...and that would have been discovered by now. That hiding place would still be there.

The hatchet they presented in court is pretty well established now as not the weapon. There were paint chips in Abby's skull that would have come off a brand new hatchet; the organic evidence on that hatchet was from an animal; and police testimony was contradictory. One cop said there was no handle, the other said it was in the box next to the broken hatchet. Which tends to show how desperate they were to find the weapon, to the point of possibly disposing of the handle so they could make their case. Which they wouldn't have had to do..if they found the weapon!!! So they were looking hard.

The only reason I say Bowen could have smuggled it is just because it's hard to imagine anyone else doing it. Alice? Emma? Morse? Churchill? Whoever did it was risking their life. Bowen had the means(the medical bag) and the opportunity(he spent time alone with Lizzie as her physician). Did he have motive? There's no evidence, but there was strange behavior: burning the notes, not returning immediately after sending Emma the telegram, and being very concerned in later days about possible new evidence in the case, and possibly being at the house where Morse just left(newspaper account).

Not saying Bowen is guilty, just speculating.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean or difficult, and I've said I am not 100% sure Lizzie is guilty...BUT I've read the testimony many times. There was a very quick, non-complete search of the house the day of...NOT to find a hidden weapon, but to make sure nothing obvious was left by the killer. Almost every cop assumed Lizzie innocent at first...There was one who kept saying that it was creepy that Lizzie was not showing any emotion. The rest were conciliatory, and cooperative with Lizzie's grief. They asked if they could search her room and she REFUSED. Only the Dr. convinced her to allow it, to see if the KILLER threw the weapon in there. She said her door was locked...they insisted on searching, she finally allowed it. Perhaps she pulled the fabric away from her box-spring and put it up there, They wouldn't have searched that on Monday, and that is why she refused to let them in her room.

Furniture has seams, tacked on with nails that can be pried off, and pushed back in place. I contend that even a "thorough" search wouldn't find something there. The stove didn't have enough fire to even warm Lizzie's irons, she could have reached up in there and put it inside the Smoke-box portion or the flue. TRUE, on Monday they searched that, but a quick placement there Thursday until she had more opportunity to get rid of it was all she needed. They did NOT watch her pee or change her menstrual rags every min. from Thursday to Monday. Not sure where you read that.

You are correct in one thing...Where the hatchet went immediately after the murder of Mr. Borden is the most difficult question for the "Lizzie is guilty" camp...but it doesn't worry me that much...I had plenty of practice hiding Christmas Presents from kids bent on finding them...I trust a kid's "finding power" better than any cop's.
I get more concerned about the lack of blood on her...

Here is a scenario...I risk people saying it is wild speculation- but it is just a "what if" Lizzie realized before the murders that she would need to get rid of the weapon. She found a hiding place, big enough for the head of the hatchet, but the handle wouldn't fit. She took an old hatchet, broke off the handle, tried the head in her hiding spot..It fit! good! Now, the day of the murders, she took her murder weapon, broke off the handle and threw it in the stove, put the head in the hiding spot. Again, the above is just wild speculation, but there is no evidence that it couldn't occur. AND There was a hatchet in the basement that had a broken handle. perhaps her "trial run" The hatchet the killer used was new...it wasn't "paint" on it--it was "gilding"- That shiny stuff they put on during manufacture that falls off upon use. They looked for the hatchet in places LARGE ENOUGH for a hatchet to be hidden, a hollowed out book or something large enough for only the head wouldn't have been searched.
Police chief: Private, what are you doing?
Private: I'm looking in all of these books on this shelf for a clue.
Police chief: YOUR DOING WHAT? QUIT FOOLING AROUND OR YOU"LL BE LOOKING FOR A JOB!
Private: Yes sir...sorry.

As for "You watch too much CSI" TV and Movies make us think the cops are way smarter than they are, that the smallest clue conceivable leads to a killer, that every murderer is caught in the end b/c "Crime does not Pay...!" This just isn't true. Cops are inept, searches are botched, clues overlooked, and criminals go free or are never caught. As I mentioned above...JonBenet Ramsey's killer is still on the loose...and the cops DID allow friends and family to contaminate the entire scene, eventually doing the cops job for them-they found the body and the murder weapon. Jack the Ripper never was caught, and the cops wiped a possible message from him off a wall before photographing it...Yikes. I'm not saying it was all the police's fault that the killer of the Borden's wasn't brought to justice-whoever that may have been- BUT they botched and destroyed the case from the beginning. The judge was biased, the Prosecutor did a poor job. The killer didn't get away b/c they were smart, it was b/c the police and prosecutor were NOT.

[Aamartin]

In her room there are built in drawers next to where her bed was. Before the Bordens lived there, apparently it was a kitchen(it was 2 apt. home), and was used for kitchen stuff. I wandered when I took the tour if she could have have hid the hatchet behind the drawer. But I doubt that too. I doubt she was that clever. She would have to latch it or something. And the cops probably pulled the drawers all the way out anyway.

Actually, that built in was put in post 2 apartments.

Lizzie would have been very clever in hiding places, that whole family was a family of locks, hiding things and distrust

[PossumPie]

In her room there are built in drawers next to where her bed was. Before the Bordens lived there, apparently it was a kitchen(it was 2 apt. home), and was used for kitchen stuff. I wandered when I took the tour if she could have have hid the hatchet behind the drawer. But I doubt that too. I doubt she was that clever. She would have to latch it or something. And the cops probably pulled the drawers all the way out anyway.

Actually, that built in was put in post 2 apartments.

Lizzie would have been very clever in hiding places, that whole family was a family of locks, hiding things and distrust

Correct...and she didn't even NEED to be, that is apparent in the quoted testimony by Allen in another thread.


Q. And searched the bed?
A. I said before not very closely.

Q. And Lizzie's bed?
A. Yes, sir: around it.

Q. Didn't you search the other places there were available there?
A. That is what I said. We searched the room and searched the drawers and around the bed, but not very closely.


Q. That was on Thursday?
A. That was on Thursday.


Q. Not withstanding you took each dress and looked at it?
A. I did, I took the dresses, moved them one side, that is about all, and went around the clothes press that way. It didn't take us two minutes in there.