Blood, blood, everywhere blood.

[mbhenty]

I was working on my boat the other day getting it ready and building a cover to protect it from the harsh New England winter.

While doing so I was cutting a line. With the knife in my hand I worked at a rope and kept reciting to myself, "don't do that. It's not safe."

Sure enough, I stabbed myself in the back of my left hand just west of my thumb.

Immediately blood began to squirt out. I must have hit a vein. It actually poured and bubbled. I placed my hand over it but it would not stop. I finally reached out for a rag which sat on the deck and wrapped my hand. The boat was up on stands, so I needed to climb down a ladder to the ground, which I did.

Now......

From the time I actually stabbed myself and the time I was actually standing on the ground took about 20 to 30 seconds. In that short time there was blood everywhere. It was all over the deck, winches, cabin roof, on the ladder, and along the ground. Amazing. It actually looked like a mini slaughter. It was all over my shoes, my pants, my shirt, and when I tried to adjust my glasses, all over my face. How ridiculous I felt.

It was more of a puncture than a cut. Perhaps a quarter inch long, but deep. In conclusion I really needed a couple of stitches. But like stories one hears about old folks eating cat food from lack of funds, I just did not want to visit the hospital and deal with the bill. Especially since I could use the funds in my struggle to keep my little vessel at the marina.

I went home washed my hand, dunked it in alcohol and bandaged it up. Hoping it would be ok, I sat by the computer staring out the window at Maplecroft.

Now there was someone familiar with blood.

Lizzie Borden.

Or you would think she would be.

But the injury I incurred only strengthened my belief that Lizzie did not wheel the axe. The tremendous amount of blood I spilled was amazing for a tiny cut. There was no way Lizzie could have escaped blood evidence. I don't believe that was possible in the short time she had between the time she supposedly killed her father and the time she sounded the bell. Some blood, some blood evidence would have displayed itself.

[Franz]

It's all ok, MH?

[Franz]

Was Lizzie familiar with blood?

I remember that it was discussed in the forum about the smell of (quantity of) blood. The conclusion, according to the aknowleged members in this field, is that the blood, even when there is a lot, doesn't smell very much. Therefore, Lizzie might have no need to shut the guest room door, if she killed Abby.

I am never convinced by all this. It might be true that the blood, even a great quantity of blood, doesn't smell a lot. But what I doubt, is wether Lizzie, her experience of life being considered, knew this or not. I think most probably she didn't.

What should she have done after the murder of Abby? To shut the guest room door. (No matter how certain she was that the body of Abby could not be seen from outside, no matter how certain she was that the blood of Abby didn't smell very much, she would have shut the door as well. Point!)

But the guest room door was found open.

(Certainly, the most important reason for which I believe in Lizzie's innocence, is that she was immaculately clean that morning.)

(P.S.: Some days ago I watched Titanic on TV. At a certain point the woman must cut with a hatchet a chain by which her lover's hands were tied. Before she acted, the man asked her to try the hatchet somewhere else. This scene made me think of Lizzie, the Borden case. Was Lizzie familiar with the blood? ... Was she familiar with the use of a hatchet? The woman in the film cut only one time, and she succeeded--- it's a film --- Was Lizzie so experienced with the use of a hatchet that she gave in total about 30 blows with a performance so brillant? My answer is "No.")

[MysteryReader]

Hope all is well, MB!

You're right- I don't think Lizzie did it either as there wasn't any blood on her but you mentioned you got it everywhere!

[twinsrwe]

MB, I hope your cut hand is doing OK! I know it hurt bad when you dunked your hand in alcohol - OUCH!!! Hopefully, it will not become infected.

[twinsrwe]

I still believe Lizzie probably swung the hatchet that killed her father and step-mother. We know that there was very little blood splatter in the area of the room where Abby was killed, the same is true of the area in the room where Andrew died. This fact leads me to believe that both Abby and Andrew died with the first or second blow administered to them. Since their hearts were no longer pumping blood, the amount of blood would not be nearly as much as one would expect. In order for a person to actually bleed profusely, there must be a heartbeat. In Abby’s case there was a pool of blood under her head, which was from the influence of gravity. In Andrew’s case the blood was still dripping from his wounds, downward onto the floor, this was also due to the influence of gravity.

MB, your deep wound bled profusely, because your heart was still pumping blood through your body.

[twinsrwe]

Franz, since Lizzie was a woman, she knew that blood definitely has an odor. The older the blood is, the stronger the odor becomes.

As for her being experienced with the use of a hatchet, I don't know. However, if a woman decides to kill someone with a hatchet, then I really don't believe experience with using one is necessary in order to accomplish the deed; rage and adrenaline would be more than what would be needed.

[Franz]

Franz, since Lizzie was a woman, she knew that blood definitely has an odor. The older the blood is, the stronger the odor becomes.

As for her being experienced with the use of a hatchet, I don't know. However, if a woman decides to kill someone with a hatchet, then I really don't believe experience with using one is necessary in order to accomplish the deed; rage and adrenaline would be more than what would be needed.

1. That's just what I mean: Lizzie should knew, or incorrectly believed, that a quantity of blood smelled a lot. But the guest room door was open.

2. Yes, twinsrwe, it's possible. However, as you said above: "...This fact leads me to believe that both Abby and Andrew died with the first or second blow administered to them." I highly doubt that Lizzie was capable of this.

[twinsrwe]

Franz, since Lizzie was a woman, she knew that blood definitely has an odor. The older the blood is, the stronger the odor becomes.

As for her being experienced with the use of a hatchet, I don't know. However, if a woman decides to kill someone with a hatchet, then I really don't believe experience with using one is necessary in order to accomplish the deed; rage and adrenaline would be more than what would be needed.

1. That's just what I mean: Lizzie should knew, or incorrectly believed, that a quantity of blood smelled a lot. But the guest room door was open.

2. Yes, twinsrwe, it's possible. However, as you said above: "...This fact leads me to believe that both Abby and Andrew died with the first or second blow administered to them." I highly doubt that Lizzie was capable of this.

1. Yes, Lizzie should have known, but I highly doubt the thought of blood smelling even crossed her mind. Yes, the guest room door was left open. However, weather the killer was Lizzie or an unknown intruder, closing a door would not be something that a killer would think to do. Lizzie did and said a number of things that lead the detectives directly to suspecting her as the killer. After 'finding' her father, she called for Bridget. (How did she know Bridget wasn't the killer?) Then she sends the only other living person out to get Dr. Bowen and when he wasn't home, she sends that person to get Alice Russell, while she stayed in the house. (How did she know the killer wasn't still in the house?) Lizzie came up with a wishy-washy "alibi' for when her father was killed, but, as far as I know, she didn't have an alibi for the time Abby was killed.

2. Here I have to disagree with you, which is OK. We are all entitled to our opinions. As I have stated in a previous thread, I find it interesting that so many members believe Lizzie couldn’t possibly have killed Abby and Andrew, because she was a woman, who was 32 years old and weighted 175 or 180 (?), along with their belief that it would have taken a man to kill in the manner in which Abby and Andrew were killed with a hatchet. However, 61 years prior to the Bordens being killed, Frankie Silver, who was a 90 lb, 18 year old woman, killed her husband with an axe, and then she dismembered his body and burned it in the fireplace, as well! Therefore, it is my belief that ANY woman is capable of murder given the right circumstances.

[John Watson]

Mb, Franz and other distinguished board members: For what it's worth, here's my two cents: Without getting into all the details, in order to absolve Lizzie of guilt one must accept the following scenario (or reasonable facsimile): An unknown intruder enters the home after Andrew leaves, locks the front door, goes to the second floor guest bedroom and hacks Abby to death, all without being seen or heard by anyone in or about the house; he then bides his time for nearly two hours until Andrew returns home and finds the door he left unlocked now locked. Intruder waits patiently while Lizzie carefully assists Andrew into a vulnerable position on the parlor sofa, suggests that Bridget take a nap in her room, and then obligingly hurries off to the barn, leaving the coast clear for our intruder to slip into the dining room and hack Andrew to death from the parlor doorway, after which he leaves the house, presumably covered in blood and carrying the bloody hatchet, and escapes - again sight unseen. In order for that scenario to work, an amazing number of coincidences must occur: Uncle Morse and Andrew leave the women alone in the house with front door left unlocked; three women - one upstairs, one in the kitchen/dining room, one outside; by chance, no one happens to see or hear intruder enter; intruder happens finds Abby by herself upstairs, out of sight of the others; commits violent murder and no one hears anything from upstairs; Andrew just happens to recline on the sofa, in a supine and helpless position; Bridget happens to go to her room upstairs and Lizzie happens to go to the barn, leaving the coast clear; bloodied killer happens to escape onto the street at a time when there are no neighbors or passersby to see him. Too much to ask, I think.

No question in my mind that the killer was a psychopath; the sight and smell of blood would likely not disturb him/her.

No one found any trace of blood on Lizzie or her clothing, but how carefully did they look in those crucial first minutes? My theory is that she wore a cheap smock over her dress and a snood or cap on her head, and likely gloves of some kind. All of these articles could quickly be destroyed by tossing them into the kitchen stove. A splash of water would remove any visible trace of blood from her face and arms. A quick trip to the basement to snap the handle off the hatchet, rinse the parts in the sink, rub them in ashes from the furnace and mix in with other tools. Sounds like a lot of time involved, but I think a determined person could accomplish everything within the 15-20 minutes allotted Lizzie.

[Franz]

...
1. Yes, Lizzie should have known, but I highly doubt the thought of blood smelling even crossed her mind. Yes, the guest room door was left open. However, weather the killer was Lizzie or an unknown intruder, closing a door would not be something that a killer would think to do. Lizzie did and said a number of things that lead the detectives directly to suspecting her as the killer. After 'finding' her father, she called for Bridget. (How did she know Bridget wasn't the killer?) Then she sends the only other living person out to get Dr. Bowen and when he wasn't home, she sends that person to get Alice Russell, while she stayed in the house. (How did she know the killer wasn't still in the house?) Lizzie came up with a wishy-washy "alibi' for when her father was killed, but, as far as I know, she didn't have an alibi for the time Abby was killed.
...

(The underline in the quotation is mine.)

1. In the very first moment immediately after having been told that Andrew was killed, Mrs. Churchill didn't suspect that Bridget could be the killer; Alice didn't suspect her, Dr. Bowen neither. So why must Lizzie react differently than them? If Lizzie failed to suspect Bridget --- why should she, please? --- must she have this privilege to be suspected for the murder?

2. In the very first moment immediately after haveing been informed the murder, Bridget didn't doubt that the killer might be still in the house, Mrs. Churchill didn't doubt neither. So why must Lizzie react differently than them? If she failed to doubt that the killer might be still in the house, must she have this privilege to be suspected for the murder?

I could certainly suspect Lizzie for the murder, but I would not suspect her for these reasons. They are not very convincing reasons for me.

[Franz]

Mb, Franz and other distinguished board members: For what it's worth, here's my two cents: Without getting into all the details, in order to absolve Lizzie of guilt one must accept the following scenario (or reasonable facsimile): An unknown intruder enters the home after Andrew leaves, locks the front door, goes to the second floor guest bedroom and hacks Abby to death, all without being seen or heard by anyone in or about the house; he then bides his time for nearly two hours until Andrew returns home and finds the door he left unlocked now locked. Intruder waits patiently while Lizzie carefully assists Andrew into a vulnerable position on the parlor sofa, suggests that Bridget take a nap in her room, and then obligingly hurries off to the barn, leaving the coast clear for our intruder to slip into the dining room and hack Andrew to death from the parlor doorway, after which he leaves the house, presumably covered in blood and carrying the bloody hatchet, and escapes - again sight unseen. In order for that scenario to work, an amazing number of coincidences must occur: Uncle Morse and Andrew leave the women alone in the house with front door left unlocked; three women - one upstairs, one in the kitchen/dining room, one outside; by chance, no one happens to see or hear intruder enter; intruder happens finds Abby by herself upstairs, out of sight of the others; commits violent murder and no one hears anything from upstairs; Andrew just happens to recline on the sofa, in a supine and helpless position; Bridget happens to go to her room upstairs and Lizzie happens to go to the barn, leaving the coast clear; bloodied killer happens to escape onto the street at a time when there are no neighbors or passersby to see him. Too much to ask, I think.

No question in my mind that the killer was a psychopath; the sight and small of blood would likely not disturb him/her.

No one found any trace of blood on Lizzie or her clothing, but how carefully did they look in those crucial first minutes? My theory is that she wore a cheap smock over her dress and a snood or cap on her head, and likely gloves of some kind. All of these articles could quickly be destroyed by tossing them into the kitchen stove. A splash of water would remove any visible trace of blood from her face and arms. A quick trip to the basement to snap the handle off the hatchet, rinse the parts in the sink, rub them in ashes from the furnace and mix in with other tools. Sounds like a lot of time involved, but I think a determined person could accomplish everything within the 15-20 minutes allotted Lizzie.

Hello John.

Some people believe that Lizzie didn't kill but she helped the killer to act. What do you think about this theory?

[Maplecroft16]

Does anyone know where I can find the info on where Lizzie admitted to buying a Hatchet two days Previous?
Thank You.

[violette]

In regards to the blood in the sitting room, the hatchet initially hitting the skull would have caused a spray and 'gurgle' (where the blood starts to flow rapidly out but not upwards towards the assailant) of blood. I believe that most of the blood would then have been absorbed into the jacket and sofa that his head was lying atop. So the murderer could have actually not gotten very much blood on them when killing Andrew. The height of his head on the sofa could have worked to their advantage as they could stand further back and have perfect aim.
However, I have issues with Abby's murder. If she was struck many times on the back of the head the blood would have had to gotten onto the clothing and body of the person wielding the hatchet because they would have had to swing very deliberately while standing or straddling her, mere inches away. The forearms would have had to be smeared or splattered with blood, and maybe even the chest region.

[John Watson]

Hi Violette.

As far as Abby's murder, the skin at the top and back of the scalp (where all of the damage was done) is thin and not much tissue underneath, so aside from spots and splatters on the wall, bedstead, and possibly ceiling from the back-swing, I don't think there'd be that much sprayed onto the assailant. If it was Lizzie (and I think it was) she may have worn the same outfit she had on when she murdered Andrew, and she had plenty of time to rinse her face and arms in her bedroom washbowl before returning downstairs. I agree with your reconstruction of the attack on Andrew.

[John Watson]

Hello Franz!

I'd have to say that I'm convinced Lizzie acted alone. She really had no need for a surrogate to carry out the killings. She was perfectly capable of hefting that hatchet and carrying out the cold blooded killing of two elderly people. Like most psychopaths, she would have preferred to work alone. She would never have trusted anyone else, either to carry out the killings or to knowingly assist her in the crime, nor could she have tolerated the idea that someone else knew her secret. She certainly used others as dupes to help in the cover up, such as the lady friend she told about the so-called threats against Andrew and that he "has an enemy." At least, that's the way I see it.

[twinsrwe]

...
1. Yes, Lizzie should have known, but I highly doubt the thought of blood smelling even crossed her mind. Yes, the guest room door was left open. However, weather the killer was Lizzie or an unknown intruder, closing a door would not be something that a killer would think to do. Lizzie did and said a number of things that lead the detectives directly to suspecting her as the killer. After 'finding' her father, she called for Bridget. (How did she know Bridget wasn't the killer?) Then she sends the only other living person out to get Dr. Bowen and when he wasn't home, she sends that person to get Alice Russell, while she stayed in the house. (How did she know the killer wasn't still in the house?) Lizzie came up with a wishy-washy "alibi' for when her father was killed, but, as far as I know, she didn't have an alibi for the time Abby was killed.
...

(The underline in the quotation is mine.)

1. In the very first moment immediately after having been told that Andrew was killed, Mrs. Churchill didn't suspect that Bridget could be the killer; Alice didn't suspect her, Dr. Bowen neither. So why must Lizzie react differently than them? If Lizzie failed to suspect Bridget --- why should she, please? --- must she have this privilege to be suspected for the murder?

2. In the very first moment immediately after haveing been informed the murder, Bridget didn't doubt that the killer might be still in the house, Mrs. Churchill didn't doubt neither. So why must Lizzie react differently than them? If she failed to doubt that the killer might be still in the house, must she have this privilege to be suspected for the murder?

I could certainly suspect Lizzie for the murder, but I would not suspect her for these reasons. They are not very convincing reasons for me.

Franz, according to your reply I see that you greatly misunderstood the point I was attempting to get across. So, let me try again…

When Andrew cane home that day, Lizzie told him that Abby had gone out because she received a note to go see someone who was sick, which means only Andrew and Lizzie were in the house. Then Bridget comes in after washing the windows, and goes upstairs to take a nap. (There are now Lizzie, Andrew and Bridget in the house.) Then Lizzie claims she went out to the barn, which leaves Andrew and Bridget in the house. When Lizzie returned from the barn, as far as she knew there were only two people in the house; Andrew and Bridget. Lizzie found her father dead, which means that, as far as she knew, Bridget was the only person left alive in the house. Lizzie immediately calls for Bridget, and claims “someone came in and killed father”.

It just seems odd to me that she thought ‘someone’ had gone into the house, but didn’t think the killer may have been Bridget, who was the only person besides her father who was in the house when she went to barn. The only way Lizzie could have known that Bridget was not the killer, and that ‘someone’ was not still in the house, is if Lizzie was the actual killer. (BTW, I said nothing about Mrs. Churchill. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if Dr. Bowen, Alice and Mrs. Churchill suspected Bridget or not. I am talking strictly about Lizzie and who she didn’t suspect, and who she did suspect.)

It is your right to believe that these reasons are not very convincing, for suspecting Lizzie of murder. I don’t put ALL of my belief in Lizzie being the killer, for ONLY the reasons I pointed out; there are several other factors that I have taken in consideration as well. However, I think the things that I listed makes Lizzie appear suspicious.

[twinsrwe]

Violette, I agree with your thoughts on how Andrew was killed. It makes a lot of sense.

John, I also agree with your thoughts on Abby's murder.

Kudos to both of you!

[twinsrwe]

...
I'd have to say that I'm convinced Lizzie acted alone. She really had no need for a surrogate to carry out the killings. She was perfectly capable of hefting that hatchet and carrying out the cold blooded killing of two elderly people. Like most psychopaths, she would have preferred to work alone. She would never have trusted anyone else, either to carry out the killings or to knowingly assist her in the crime, nor could she have tolerated the idea that someone else knew her secret. She certainly used others as dupes to help in the cover up, such as the lady friend she told about the so-called threats against Andrew and that he "has an enemy." At least, that's the way I see it.

Thank you, John! I agree with everything you stated here.
Excellent post!

[Maplecroft16]

So nobody knows??

[John Watson]

Maplecroft, I don't think I ever heard about Lizzie admitting that she bought a hatchet two days before the murders. If you tell me where you first heard this, I'll try to check it out.

John

[mbhenty]

Yes:

No need to research the story about Lizzie purchasing hatchets or an axe. Never happened. (It does happen in the 1975 movie The Legend of Lizzie Borden where it depicts Lizzie stealing a hatchet)

Many things have been written about this case. Some are written in the heart of fiction and some by wacky theorists and those desperate to suckle on the nipple of fame or money.

I would not be surprised that someone, somewhere wrote about it. But sorry Mapecroft16. It never happened. Lizzie never purchased an axe or hatchet anywhere. If she did and it was on record, she would almost definitely been found guilty.

[violette]

Hello Franz!

I'd have to say that I'm convinced Lizzie acted alone. She really had no need for a surrogate to carry out the killings. She was perfectly capable of hefting that hatchet and carrying out the cold blooded killing of two elderly people. Like most psychopaths, she would have preferred to work alone. She would never have trusted anyone else, either to carry out the killings or to knowingly assist her in the crime, nor could she have tolerated the idea that someone else knew her secret. She certainly used others as dupes to help in the cover up, such as the lady friend she told about the so-called threats against Andrew and that he "has an enemy." At least, that's the way I see it.

I agree with you John.
I think that she planted these little tidbits in the minds of her friends and neighbors to direct the attention away from herself, and to sow the seed of an 'enemy' in their minds so that when she acted on her thoughts she would have those lies to back her up.
She would have wanted no accomplices. Maybe this is why she waited until Emma was away. Even better Uncle John Morse was in town, and wouldn't they have suspected a man instead of Lizzie...

[debbiediablo]

My understanding is that Andrew and Morse left the house by the side door and Andrew returned via the front door - that this was his morning habit. However, I'm not sure this makes a lot of difference in the outcome. Blood smells but that makes no difference if there's no one present to smell it except the murderer. I also think Lizzie was, if not antisocial aka psychopathic, at least Cluster B which also includes narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. My opinion about the door being left open is Lizzie was enjoying a glance here and there of her handiwork. She hated Abby. Her feelings toward Andrew were more ambivalent: she loved him but also hated him for giving in to her "evil step-mother." So she couldn't wait for someone else to find Andrew; she had to get it over with. You've all hear me say over and over :-) that the positioning of the pillow under Andrew's head is a sign of undoing and that her smashing his face beyond recognition is a means of depersonalizing him (defined as divesting a person of their human or individual characteristics). What better way to depersonalize her father than by making his face unidentifiable. As for undoing, it's incredibly common in domestic homicides. As is foreshadowing the event which is what happened when Lizzie talked with Miss Russell the night before. I've come to believe that Lizzie was the murderer. And, in reading JW's comment above, I suddenly wondered if her trip to the bar occurred directly after Andrew's death. I have no doubt that a woman her size and age could commit this crime. At 38 I was 5'6" and weighed 125 lbs and could use an 8 lb mall to split wood for the fireplace. It was easy (other than the fact that I missed the splitting wedge about half of the time). But I couldn't have broken the handle off the hatchet. So maybe Lizzie made a quick trip to the barn to use the anvil to help break the hatchet handle directly below the head....????

[Franz]

I quote here what a reviewer wrote about the Radin's book. I made the same observation in the forum but this reviewer said it much better than me:

In fact, after her father's body had been discovered, and her sister, who was staying in Fairhaven, had to be informed, Lizzie said that the telegram should be phrased carefully, because there was an elderly person where her sister was staying, and the shock might be too much for her. This doesn't sound characterstic of a person who had just committed a double homicide.

http://www.amazon.com/Lizzie-Borden-unt ... B0007EBMMO

In the personality of Lizzie, I don't see nothing of antisocial, psycopathic, etc. On the contrary, I found some of her reactions very humain.

[debbiediablo]

The thing about antisocial personality disorder is those who have it are excellent pretenders. Sometimes charming and often normal acting. The key word here being 'acting.' Not all psychopaths are murderers, or even criminals. Some are surgeons, clergymen and lawyers. Some of them are very succesful CEOs. Some of them are highly decorated military leaders. Some of them are even President.

If Lizzie killed Andrew and Abby then she most likely was a psychopath. My guess is that this is what caused Emma to leave forever. Psychopaths are very good at pretending...for awhile. But eventually it becomes apparent that they are unable to have a reciprocal relationship, that their idea of love is more like ownership, that they will do what it takes to get what they want no matter who gets hurt. The smart ones are very planful and can hide like a chameleon.

Not that Lizzie fully compares to Ted Bundy, but this is a Bundy quote: "We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere. And there will be more of your children dead tomorrow." One of Bundy's friends was Ann Rule, former police officer and then a crime writer. She failed to recognize him for what he was even though he was actively killing at the time. She later wrote the true crime story The Stranger Beside Me about their relationship.

The fact that Lizzie could behave in a thoughtful, human way does not eliminate her from being a possible psychopath. In what’s been billed as one of the most overlooked books of recent years — “The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success” — author Kevin Dutton finds that CEOs lead the list in terms of most psychopathic persons. That’s followed by lawyers, and then by members of television and radio media. Numbers four and five are salesperson and surgeon — and then the media makes the list again, with the number six slot held by journalists. The final four: police officer, clergy person, chef and civil servant. Civil servant is another way of saying politician.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... r-then-me/

[pld0128]

Great post, DebbieDiablo

[Franz]

Thank you for the link, Debbie.

[twinsrwe]

… Blood smells but that makes no difference if there's no one present to smell it except the murderer.

Thank you, Debbie, for backing up what I previously posted, regarding the fact that blood does smell. It’s a lot like a person who smells strongly of body odor; everyone around them can easily smell the odor, but the person who reeks of body odor cannot smell it. I have a perfume that I like wearing, because there so many people that tell me I smell good; unfortunately, I can’t smell it.

It is obvious that there was quite a bit of blood spilled in the Borden Murders. I believe no one commented on the smell of blood, because it was an expected odor, Given the amount of blood that had been spilled, and was still dripping, from Andrew’s wounds, as well as, the fact that Abby also had a large amount of blood under and around her head. I think I would be more surprised if someone would have mentioned the smell.

[twinsrwe]

The thing about antisocial personality disorder is those who have it are excellent pretenders. Sometimes charming and often normal acting. The key word here being 'acting.' Not all psychopaths are murderers, or even criminals. Some are surgeons, clergymen and lawyers. Some of them are very succesful CEOs. Some of them are highly decorated military leaders. Some of them are even President.

If Lizzie killed Andrew and Abby then she most likely was a psychopath. My guess is that this is what caused Emma to leave forever. Psychopaths are very good at pretending...for awhile. But eventually it becomes apparent that they are unable to have a reciprocal relationship, that their idea of love is more like ownership, that they will do what it takes to get what they want no matter who gets hurt. The smart ones are very planful and can hide like a chameleon.

Not that Lizzie fully compares to Ted Bundy, but this is a Bundy quote: "We serial killers are your sons, we are your husbands, we are everywhere. And there will be more of your children dead tomorrow." One of Bundy's friends was Ann Rule, former police officer and then a crime writer. She failed to recognize him for what he was even though he was actively killing at the time. She later wrote the true crime story The Stranger Beside Me about their relationship.

The fact that Lizzie could behave in a thoughtful, human way does not eliminate her from being a possible psychopath. In what’s been billed as one of the most overlooked books of recent years — “The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success” — author Kevin Dutton finds that CEOs lead the list in terms of most psychopathic persons. That’s followed by lawyers, and then by members of television and radio media. Numbers four and five are salesperson and surgeon — and then the media makes the list again, with the number six slot held by journalists. The final four: police officer, clergy person, chef and civil servant. Civil servant is another way of saying politician.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... r-then-me/

Excellent post, Debbie!!!

Thank you for giving us some insight into the make up of a psychopath. Very interesting!

[violette]

My opinion about the door being left open is Lizzie was enjoying a glance here and there of her handiwork. She hated Abby. Her feelings toward Andrew were more ambivalent: she loved him but also hated him for giving in to her "evil step-mother." So she couldn't wait for someone else to find Andrew; she had to get it over with.......... I have no doubt that a woman her size and age could commit this crime. At 38 I was 5'6" and weighed 125 lbs and could use an 8 lb mall to split wood for the fireplace. It was easy (other than the fact that I missed the splitting wedge about half of the time). But I couldn't have broken the handle off the hatchet. So maybe Lizzie made a quick trip to the barn to use the anvil to help break the hatchet handle directly below the head....????

Oh, I love your post!

Sorry that I cut bits out but I wanted to highlight two things that you mentioned.

First of all it makes so much sense that a psychopath would have left the door of the room open to occasionally look in at their handiwork. This had never occurred to me before.

Secondly, I agree that a woman of her size could have committed the murders. I'm 5'4" (wasn't Lizzie the same height? I remember it being recorded somewhere) and 115lbs and I can lift my 60lb dog, I've moved a bed (frame, box springs, and mattress) by myself, I've also helped my father chop wood. There is no reason why a woman of her stature could not have physically committed those murders, unless she had some sort of physical disability.

[debbiediablo]

… Blood smells but that makes no difference if there's no one present to smell it except the murderer.

Thank you, Debbie, for backing up what I previously posted, regarding the fact that blood does smell. It’s a lot like a person who smells strongly of body odor; everyone around them can easily smell the odor, but the person who reeks of body odor cannot smell it. I have a perfume that I like wearing, because there so many people that tell me I smell good; unfortunately, I can’t smell it.

It is obvious that there was quite a bit of blood spilled in the Borden Murders. I believe no one commented on the smell of blood, because it was an expected odor, Given the amount of blood that had been spilled, and was still dripping, from Andrew’s wounds, as well as, the fact that Abby also had a large amount of blood under and around her head. I think I would be more surprised if someone would have mentioned the smell.

Yes, Twins, experienced homicide investigators know by smell what they're going to find before they find it. Or ask any surgical nurse or ER personnel. Blood has an odor just like any other body fluid.

[twinsrwe]

You've got that right, Debbie. Being women, we KNOW that blood smells! I don't believe I need to explain that statement any further.

[debbiediablo]

Do you think science had the ability to determine for sure that the hatchet head with the broken handle did not have blood on it?

[violette]

Apparently forensics weren't very developed in the 1890s.

Luminol (which is a chemical used to detect blood on an object) wasn't even used until the late 1930s.

I'm wondering if the hatchet could have been cleaned with something like bleach? If scrubbed well bleach would have taken all blood residue away, especially since they didn't have advanced means of detecting it.

[debbiediablo]

How much mess would there be? The killer had plenty of time to clean the hair and blood from Abby. So, assuming Andrew got the privilege of a freshly cleaned hatchet, most if the damage was done to his face. Blood, brains, tissue and bone fragments are easier to remove than hair, in my far from learned opinion.

[NancyDrew]

Hi again....hope no one minds if I'm bumping up again another old thread.

The blood angle of the murders has always been a huge sticking point for me. One part that I know we've discussed before, and I'd like to address again:

1. How did the murderer (whomever they might be) NOT leave bloody footprints, fingerprints, smudges, droplets, nothing?

DID the police search the house intensely for any signs of blood? I've heard the rugs were ripped up...can someone corroborate that?

2. Did anyone search Bridgette (her clothing, body, etc. ) for blood?

3. The sheer "cleanliness"--for lack of a better work---of the killings, seems odd. Blood is only found in a small area around the heads of both victims. How did the killer know for SURE that there wasn't a drop of blood on his/her shoes that could than be transferred to the carpet/floor?

But then again, I"m thinking with a 21st century perspective here. There were folks trampling in and out of the house immediately after Lizzie sounded the alarm, and since most roads were dirt and horses were the main route of travel, likely the bottom of most folk's shoes would be caked with mud, thus making the floors/rugs in the house filthy. Thoughts?

[KGDevil]

My thoughts on how much blood splatter there was has changed over time. I started out believing it had to have been a bloody gore splattered scene. But over time, and the more I studied the evidence, my thoughts on that changed. There really is no information from any of the various witnesses who were in and out about there being much blood splatter. No witnesses mentioned seeing any bloody footprints, blood trails, transfer of blood from bloody clothing, or handprints or fingerprints. Not even the newspapermen who were at the scene. Their job is to be observant and sensationalize what they see to sell papers. (In some cases make it up all together.) But the only mention of blood is what came from the wounds of the victims, and in that targeted area. People did trample through there. They didn't mention blood except on and around the victims.

The first hit, as they say, is free. If the first hit was also a killing blow the splatter would most likely have been kept to a minimum. I think most of Andrews wounds could have been killing blows. If the Lizzie stood behind Andrew the direction of the blood splatter may have been away from her.

Abby was lying face down on the floor between the bed and dresser. There was very little struggle. The blood was more or less contained to that area. I think she may have died fairly quickly as well. There appeared to be a minimal amount of blood splatter reported for both Bordens.