The Handleless Hatchet

[Kevin Luna]

I recently started reading about the Lizzie Borden case and it seems like everyone believes that the handleless hatchet is NOT the murder weapon, but I haven't heard a convincing reason to believe that it wasn't. As I'm sure everyone here is well aware, it had a 3.5 inch blade, its handle was broken/cut off, and it had "a coarse dust of ashes adhering more or less to all sides of the hatchet". To me, it's too big of a coincidence that it was found in the basement of a house in which two people were hacked to death using a 3.5 inch bladed weapon, but I'm open to changing my mind.

[Kevin Luna]

Alfred Johnson, the man who would periodically come to the Borden house and cut wood for them, made the following statement. “Have worked for Mr. Borden nine years. Have done his work at the house, cutting wood and cleaning up the yard, when not busy at the farm. Think the two last times I cut wood was early in the Spring, and again just before planting. Mr. Borden had two axes, a single hatchet, and a shop or bench hatchet. The bench hatchet has never been used much since it was sharpened. I ground it over here to the farm in the early Spring. The hatchet and axes were always kept in one place, in a box in the wood room at the left of the furnace. Never found them in any other place, and always put them back after using them, as Mr. Borden was particular about having one place for all tools. When I have been working at Mr. Borden’s, I have stayed there"

Interesting that Alfred remembers the 2 axes and 2 usable hatchets that were in that box, but not the handleless hatchet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of anyone who testified that they ever saw that handleless hatchet before the murders.

[Kevin Luna]

Speaking of Alfred, why wasn't he called to testify at the trial? Other than Andrew, no one would know the Bordens' axes and hatchets better than Alfred. He could testify that he had never seen the broken hatchet, or any third hatchet, at the Bordens. This would carry weight in support of the idea that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon. If Alfred did see a third hatchet, why didn't the defense call him?

[MysteryReader]

Hi Kevin,

I don't know why Alfred wasn't called to testify at the trial. However, someone pointed out that Lizzie stole a hatchet (she apparently had a "problem" with taking items) and it could have been that one that was used in the murders.

[twinsrwe]

I recently started reading about the Lizzie Borden case and it seems like everyone believes that the handleless hatchet is NOT the murder weapon, but I haven't heard a convincing reason to believe that it wasn't. As I'm sure everyone here is well aware, it had a 3.5 inch blade, its handle was broken/cut off, and it had "a coarse dust of ashes adhering more or less to all sides of the hatchet". To me, it's too big of a coincidence that it was found in the basement of a house in which two people were hacked to death using a 3.5 inch bladed weapon, but I'm open to changing my mind.

Hello, Kevin, welcome to the forum.

The prosecution did not claim that the handleless hatchet was the murder weapon, nor did Dr. Draper confirm that the handleless hatchet was the actual murder weapon. Dr. Draper only testified that this hatchet was capable of making the wounds found on the skulls of the Bordens

Dr. Draper is questioned by Mr. Knowlton at the trial, volume II, page 1048+ (Underlining is mine.):

Q. Are you able to say whether that hatchet head (showing witness handleless hatchet head) is capable of making those wounds?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Have you attempted to fit that in the wounds?
A. I have seen the attempt made.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... orden2.pdf

There was no physical evidence presented at the trial to tie the handleless hatchet to the crime. Having a 3 ½ inch blade, its handle broken off and a coarse dust of ashes adhering to it, is not the kind of evidence needed to tie this hatchet to the murders of Andrew and Abby Borden; there was no blood, hair, tissue or fibers found on the handleless hatchet.

There is a YouTube video from the Discovery Channel documentary "Lizzie Borden Had an Axe", in which Professor Tom Mauriello and Detective Tom Lange of OJ Simpson fame, examined the handleless hatchet and Abby's scarf: http://tinyurl.com/juohkzt

All that Professor Mauriello and Detective Lange proved was that the handleless hatchet fit perfectly in one of the slits in Abby’s scarf. Their finding does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the handleless hatchet was the actual weapon used to killed the Bordens. All it proves is that the Underhill handleless hatchet could have been the weapon, just as the thousands of other Underhill hatchets that were being used around in the New England towns in 1892.

Robinson in his closing argument at the trial refers to the Underhill handleless hatchet, volume II, page 1711+ (Underlining is mine.):

...They say that it was all covered over with rust and all covered over with ashes, etc. I should expect everything to be covered with ashes. One of the policemen tells us it had been dropped in the ashes. Well, that is down cellar; it had been lying in the ash heap, and it was then. Mr. Borden, who never threw anything away,---who even carried home an old lock to save it and was going to put it up in his barn sometime, had probably put it away there to save it, and it happened to be in the ashes and was tossed there in the box and had fine dust upon it, and they say it had coarser dust upon it. Yes, I have no doubt that it had. I have no doubt there are farmers on the jury, and I have no doubt in your barns or your shops or cellar you will find some of these old things that you have thrown away. This is an Underhill hatchet---one of the kind that you and I remember well when we were young: there have been thousands of them in use all around in the New England towns. When you get your magnifying glass and examine it you will see the words upon the blade "Underhill Edge Tool Co. ...

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... orden2.pdf

I have a question for you: What is there about the handleless hatchet that convinces you it is the actual murder weapon used to kill the Bordens?

[Kevin Luna]

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the found weapon is the murder weapon in order for them to assert that it's almost certainly the murder weapon, and use all the circumstances and coincidences surrounding the weapon as evidence towards the defendant's guilt.

There's no one thing about the handleless hatchet that convinces me. When looking at each piece of evidence individually, each piece might look insignificant. Using Robinson's example, the coarse ash may have gotten on the hatchet head if it were lying in a pile of ash. He's not wrong. But when you add all of these seemingly insignificant details together, and view the whole, it becomes blatantly obvious, to me, that it's the murder weapon.

[Kevin Luna]

Hi Kevin,

I don't know why Alfred wasn't called to testify at the trial. However, someone pointed out that Lizzie stole a hatchet (she apparently had a "problem" with taking items) and it could have been that one that was used in the murders.

From everything I've read in the trial transcripts, Lizzie had a spotless reputation before the murders.

[Kevin Luna]

My original comment was really concerned with why so many people don't believe that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon. It may not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but a lot of people think Lizzie's guilt isn't provable beyond a reasonable doubt, yet almost everyone believes in her guilt. I don't understand why more people don't believe that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, especially if they already assume Lizzie is guilty.

[twinsrwe]

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the found weapon is the murder weapon in order for them to assert that it's almost certainly the murder weapon, and use all the circumstances and coincidences surrounding the weapon as evidence towards the defendant's guilt. ...

I'm not a lawyer either, but I do know that in order to claim that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, there must be physical evidence (such as blood, hair, tissue or fibers from the victims) left on it to prove it was the weapon used to kill Mr. and Mrs. Borden. As I stated above, it was determined that the handleless hatchet could have been the murder weapon. The reason Lizzie was found 'not guilty' of murdering her father and step-mother was because there was no physical evidence that tied her directly to the victims.

There's no one thing about the handleless hatchet that convinces me. When looking at each piece of evidence individually, each piece might look insignificant. Using Robinson's example, the coarse ash may have gotten on the hatchet head if it were lying in a pile of ash. He's not wrong. But when you add all of these seemingly insignificant details together, and view the whole, it becomes blatantly obvious, to me, that it's the murder weapon.

Thank you for your explanation. I problem I have with the handleless hatchet being the murder weapon is the broken handle. How did it get broken? Was it broken before the murders or after? If it was broken before the murders, then there would not have been enough leverage left in order for the killer to cause the kind of wounds that were inflicted on the victims. If the handle was broken after the murders, how did the killer break it, clean off the physical evidence, cover it in ashes, and get it to rust in such a short period of time?

[twinsrwe]

My original comment was really concerned with why so many people don't believe that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon. It may not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but a lot of people think Lizzie's guilt isn't provable beyond a reasonable doubt, yet almost everyone believes in her guilt. I don't understand why more people don't believe that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, especially if they already assume Lizzie is guilty.

I believe that Lizzie was probably guilty of murdering her father and step-mother. However, as I previously explained, I have a real problem with the handleless hatchet being the actual murder weapon because of the missing handle. If an explanation of how and when the handle was broken ever comes to light, then I am open to believing it may just be the actual weapon used.

[twinsrwe]

BTW, Kevin, I don't understand why Alfred Johnson was not called to testify, either. I do know that at one time, he was a suspect:

The “Usual Suspects”& The Unusual, Part II

Alfred Johnson — Hoffman, pg. 183. Also W.S., pg. 37, George Seaver, Aug. 11, 1892, notes, Frederick Eddy says Alfred Johnson is a ‘Sweden’ and “went to Mr. Borden’s when he was not busy here [at Swansea farm], and did all the work, cutting the wood, cleaning up the yard etc.”

Also, Porter, pg. 46:

. . . inquiries directed to the domestic (Bridget), elicited answers to the effect that the Portuguese must have done it. The individual referred to was a Swede laborer, and Marshal Hilliard thereupon drove to the Somerset [sic] farm. The investigation there was necessarily brief in its character . . . satisfied the Marshal that the laborer (Swede) . . . was far removed from the house on Second street at the time the murders were committed . . . another trip . . . made to Somerset [sic]. . . confirmed the opinion of Marshal Hilliard. The man established a thoroughly satisfactory alibi, and the officials were forced to acquit him of the possibility of any knowledge or of complicity in the affair.

Source: Lizzie Andrew Borden Virtual Museum and Library: http://tinyurl.com/hxt9nfw

[Kevin Luna]

I do know that in order to claim that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, there must be physical evidence (such as blood, hair, tissue or fibers from the victims) left on it to prove it was the weapon used to kill Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

Please show proof that there must be physical evidence for the prosecution to merely claim that a weapon is the murder weapon.

The reason Lizzie was found 'not guilty' of murdering her father and step-mother was because there was no physical evidence that tied her directly to the victims.

The more I read of the trial transcript the more I believe that the real reason that she was found "not guilty" was because the prosecution was incompetent. Their story of how/why she killed her parents makes absolutely no sense when you look at the evidence, they repeatedly mention Lizzie's good reputation, and they even call Lizzie "the equal of your wife and mine". That's the prosecution talking. It directly lead to justice Dewey saying this in his charge to the jury:

"I understand the government to concede that defendant's character has been good; that it has not been merely a negative and neutral one that nobody had heard anything against, but one of positive, of active benevolence in religious and charitable work."

Unbelievable.

[Kevin Luna]

If the handle was broken after the murders, how did the killer break it, clean off the physical evidence, cover it in ashes, and get it to rust in such a short period of time?

Andrew came home at approximately 10:40 and was killed within 5-10 minutes. The police were called at approximately 11:15 and Bridget was informed of the murders about 5-10 minutes before that. That means Lizzie had approximately 15-25 minutes to kill Andrew and clean up, and that's not including the time she had alone in the house after she told Bridget to run around the neighborhood. That seems like more than enough time for someone who has every step planned and every implement prepared.

Didn't the house have a vice in the basement or the barn? Even if it didn't, I'm sure they had a saw and Lizzie could saw part of the handle and then snap the rest off the way you chop down a tree.

Regarding the rust, why couldn't it have been there before the murders?

[twinsrwe]

I do know that in order to claim that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, there must be physical evidence (such as blood, hair, tissue or fibers from the victims) left on it to prove it was the weapon used to kill Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

Please show proof that there must be physical evidence for the prosecution to merely claim that a weapon is the murder weapon.

OK, you have made a good point here. I should have re-read my statement a little more carefully before submitting that post. Let me re-word the point I am attempting to make: I do know that in order for the handleless hatchet to be the actual murder weapon, there must be physical evidence (such as blood, hair, tissue or fibers from the victims) left on it to prove it was the weapon used to kill Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

[twinsrwe]

If the handle was broken after the murders, how did the killer break it, clean off the physical evidence, cover it in ashes, and get it to rust in such a short period of time?

Andrew came home at approximately 10:40 and was killed within 5-10 minutes. The police were called at approximately 11:15 and Bridget was informed of the murders about 5-10 minutes before that. That means Lizzie had approximately 15-25 minutes to kill Andrew and clean up, and that's not including the time she had alone in the house after she told Bridget to run around the neighborhood. That seems like more than enough time for someone who has every step planned and every implement prepared. …

Kat Koorey put together a timeline for Bridget Sullivan from her testimony at the Preliminary Hearing. Here is a partial of Bridget’s timeline:

10:30- 10:40 a.m. — Mr. Borden at the front door. (pg. 19).
10:45- 10:55 a.m. — Mr. Borden went up to his room. (pg. 21).

10:55am: 4 or 5 minutes to 11:00am, Bridget went upstairs.
11:10am: Lizzie “halloed” to Bridget . . . “so loud . . . Come down quick”, that her father was dead.

“I might be upstairs ten or fifteen minutes, as near as I can think, after I went up stairs.”

Source: http://tinyurl.com/haf3gma

According to Bridget Sullivan, she went upstairs to lay down 4 or 5 minutes to 11:00am, and then at 11:10, Lizzie yelled for her to come down quick. Obviously, Andrew was still alive when Bridget went upstairs. Assuming Lizzie was the killer, and she used the handleless hatchet, then she had 14 to 15 minutes to kill Andrew, change her clothes, hide them, clean herself up, thoroughly wash the hatchet, dry the majority of water off, then rub it down with ashes, and break the handle off.

She did not have any time to clean up things after she sent Bridget to get Dr. Bowen, because according to Mrs. Churchill’s testimony at the trial, after her shopping trip, she was coming down Second Street, and saw Bridget running from Dr. Bowen’s house over to the Borden house. She went into her house, set her parcels down on a bench in front of one of her windows, looked out the window, and saw Lizzie standing by the screen door. She open the window, and asked Lizzie what was the matter. Lizzie responded by telling her to come over, and Mrs. Churchill went right over.

Inquest testimony of Mrs. Churchill, questioned by Mr. Knowlton , Volume II, page 127 (34) and continued on 128 (35):

O. What was the first thing to which your attention was attracted?
A. I was coming down Second Street, I had been to Hudner’s Market. I got about half way between Mrs. Burts house and mine, and saw Bridget going from Dr. Bowen’s door over to the Borden House, running, and she looked as if she was scared.

Q. That was the first?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. How far were you then from the house?
A. Half way between Mrs. Burts house and mine. I went in my back gate.

Q. Were you twice the length of this room?
A. It was a good deal further than that corner.

Q. Twice as far perhaps?
A. I can’t get at distances.

Q. What time, as far as you can judge from everything, was that?
A. I don’t know, I think it was about eleven o’clock when I started out of the house, somewhere in that vicinity. I knew I had to get down the street and get back time enough to get potatoes for dinner, so to have them by twelve o’clock. I only gave a short order, did not stay long there, and came right back.

Q. What was the first thing you did?
A. I went into the house, stepped through to the kitchen, laid my parcels on a bench which runs right across one of the south windows that looks into Mr. Borden’s back yard. At the screen door, standing by the screen door I saw Lizzie as if she was in great distress.

Q. How did she show that?
A. Perhaps she rubbed her head. I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance. I opened one of the south windows, one has a screen in and the other did not, I says, “what is the matter Lizzie?” She said “O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over, somebody has killed father.” I went right through the house and went out the front door and went over. When I got there she sat on the second stair which is right at the right of the screen door as you come in, the back door.

Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... ay2003.pdf

As you can see from the attachment, Mrs. Churchill did not have very far to go (Click on image to enlarge.):

Scan_Pic0001.jpg

… Didn't the house have a vice in the basement or the barn? Even if it didn't, I'm sure they had a saw and Lizzie could saw part of the handle and then snap the rest off the way you chop down a tree. …

I have no idea if the Bordens had a vise or not. Furthermore, I don’t know if they had a saw, but assuming that they did, then yes, I believe she could have sawed part of it and snapped the rest off. It’s obvious that the handle was snapped due to the jagged edge of the piece of wood that was still in the hatchet head.

…Regarding the rust, why couldn't it have been there before the murders?

Assuming the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon; I would think that if the rust were on the blade before the murders, then some of it would have come off in the wounds. Wouldn’t it?

[Kevin Luna]

She did not have any time to clean up things after she sent Bridget to get Dr. Bowen, because according to Mrs. Churchill’s testimony at the trial, after her shopping trip, she was coming down Second Street, and saw Bridget running from Dr. Bowen’s house over to the Borden house. She went into her house, set her parcels down on a bench in front of one of her windows, looked out the window, and saw Lizzie standing by the screen door. She open the window, and asked Lizzie what was the matter. Lizzie responded by telling her to come over, and Mrs. Churchill went right over.

Inquest testimony of Mrs. Churchill, questioned by Mr. Knowlton , Volume II, page 127 (34) and continued on 128 (35):

O. What was the first thing to which your attention was attracted?
A. I was coming down Second Street, I had been to Hudner’s Market. I got about half way between Mrs. Burts house and mine, and saw Bridget going from Dr. Bowen’s door over to the Borden House, running, and she looked as if she was scared.

Q. That was the first?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. How far were you then from the house?
A. Half way between Mrs. Burts house and mine. I went in my back gate.

Q. Were you twice the length of this room?
A. It was a good deal further than that corner.

Q. Twice as far perhaps?
A. I can’t get at distances.

Q. What time, as far as you can judge from everything, was that?
A. I don’t know, I think it was about eleven o’clock when I started out of the house, somewhere in that vicinity. I knew I had to get down the street and get back time enough to get potatoes for dinner, so to have them by twelve o’clock. I only gave a short order, did not stay long there, and came right back.

Q. What was the first thing you did?
A. I went into the house, stepped through to the kitchen, laid my parcels on a bench which runs right across one of the south windows that looks into Mr. Borden’s back yard. At the screen door, standing by the screen door I saw Lizzie as if she was in great distress.

Q. How did she show that?
A. Perhaps she rubbed her head. I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance. I opened one of the south windows, one has a screen in and the other did not, I says, “what is the matter Lizzie?” She said “O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over, somebody has killed father.” I went right through the house and went out the front door and went over. When I got there she sat on the second stair which is right at the right of the screen door as you come in, the back door.

Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... ay2003.pdf

Q. How did she show that?
A. Perhaps she rubbed her head. I knew something was wrong, of course, by the appearance. I opened one of the south windows, one had a screen in and the other did not, I says “what is the matter Lizzie?” She said “O, Mrs. Churchill, do come over, somebody has killed Father.” I went right through the house and went out the front door and went over. When I got there she sat on the second stair which is right at the right of the screen door as you come in, the back stairs.

Q. Crying?
A. No Sir. I put my hand on her arm, this way, and said “Lizzie, where is your father”? She says “in the sitting room”. I said “where was you when it happened?” She said “I went to the barn to get a piece of iron.” I said“where is your mother”? She says “I dont know, she had a note to go and see some one that was sick this morning, but I dont know but they have killed her too.” She said “father must have had an enemy, for we have all been sick, and we think the milk has been poisoned.” The she said “Dr. Bowen is not at home, but I must have a Doctor”. I says “shall I go and try to find someone to go and get a doctor”?

Q. What was that?
A. She said “Dr. Bowen is not at home, and I must have a Doctor.” I says “shall I go, Lizzie, and try to find someone to go and get one”? She said yes. I went out and ran across the street, because I knew the young man that worked for us had gone in a yard where they sell horses, Mr. Hall’s yard, with a carriage he had been washing in our yard. He was going out of the yard that day when I went in with my bundles. I went across and called for Thomas Bowles. I says “somebody has killed Mr. Borden; go and get a Doctor.” I dont know where he went. I went back.


Lizzie sent Mrs. Churchill off to look for a doctor. I don't think Lizzie was cleaning up while she was sending people to look for doctors, I'm thinking she was burning the hatchet handle in the stove.

Assuming the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon; I would think that if the rust were on the blade before the murders, then some of it would have come off in the wounds. Wouldn’t it?

Maybe. We don't really know how much rust it had on it at the time of the murders, do we? Dr. Wood didn't even receive it until August 30th, almost a month after the murders.

[twinsrwe]

... Lizzie sent Mrs. Churchill off to look for a doctor. I don't think Lizzie was cleaning up while she was sending people to look for doctors, I'm thinking she was burning the hatchet handle in the stove.

Ok, I see what you are saying, now; thanks for clarifying what you meant. You may be right about Lizzie taking the opportunity to burn the hatchet handle after sending Bridget and Mrs. Churchill around the neighborhood to find a doctor.

Lizzie claimed that she was ironing some handkerchiefs, the flats got cool, and supposedly the fire wasn’t hot enough, so she ‘put in a stick of wood to try to heat the flat’. (Could the stick of wood have been the handle to the handleless hatchet head? I think it is a good possibility. It has always seemed strange to me, that Lizzie said ‘a stick of wood’ instead of ‘a piece of wood’.) She then claimed she went to the barn for 20 minutes. We know that Officer Harrington said that he saw a cylinder-like shape in the stove that had completely burned away. An old piece of dry hardwood will burn rapidly provided it has a good draft.

However, Officer Mullaly claimed, at the trial, to have seen the handle to the handleless hatchet in the same box that the handleless hatchet head was found in. He also claimed that, Assistant City Marshal John Fleet saw the handle and took it out of the box and then put it back, but John Fleet denied it; said he did not see a any handle. Guess it all depends on who you believe. As far as I know, Officer Mullaly was the only one to have claimed he saw the handle to the handleless hatchet head.

So, Kevin, you may very well be onto something here. The only thing that concerns me is Officer Mullaly’s claim that he saw the handle of the handleless hatchet in the box in the cellar. Why would he claim such a thing if it were not true? Personally, I believe Officer Mullaly over Assistant City Marshal Fleet. The sad truth is we will never know for sure.

[twinsrwe]

Assuming the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon; I would think that if the rust were on the blade before the murders, then some of it would have come off in the wounds. Wouldn’t it?

Maybe. We don't really know how much rust it had on it at the time of the murders, do we? Dr. Wood didn't even receive it until August 30th, almost a month after the murders.

You’re right, we don’t know how much rust it had on it. Iron will rust rapidly if wet/damp and placed in a salt box, and after 30 days it most likely had a lot of rust on it.

[Kevin Luna]

Why do u believe Mullaly over Fleet?

[twinsrwe]

Well, it seems to me that Officer Mullaly was a very observant individual, and did a much more thorough job of investigating the murder scene than Assistant Marshall Fleet did. Mullaly left no stone unturned, whereas Fleet seems to have been ‘a fly by night’ sort of guy. A great example is Fleet’s testimony at the trial, regarding his search of Bridget’s dresses:

Fleet being questioned by Mr. Robinson, Trial, volume I, page 519:

Q. Was there any blood on Bridget’s dresses?
A. On Bridget’s?

Q. That is what I asked you.
A. Not that I discovered.

Q. You didn’t discover at all.
A. I did not discover anything in the line of blood.

Q. You did not really look for blood, did you, on her dresses?
A. No more than I did on any others.

Q. That is not correct. Did you look for blood on Bridget’s dresses?
A. I looked at Bridget’s dresses.

Q. Just tell the jury how you looked.
A. Just looked at the dresses as they were,---some were thrown on the bed.

Q. Were they in the closet?
A. There were some in a closet.

Q. Did you take them down?
A. I threw them on the bed, that was all.

Q. Were there any grease spots on any of these dresses?
A. I can’t say.

Q. You did not look to see, did you?
A. Not very closely.

Q. You could not tell to-day that there was or was not?
A. No.

Q. Now what did you really look at those dresses for?
A. To see if we could discover anything, or any blood, or anything on that.

Q. You did? And yet you say you did not see anything at all? You didn’t make a very thorough examination, did you?
A. No, sir.

Q. How many dress did she have?
A. Who?

Q. Bridget.
A. I don’t know.

Q. Well, give us some kind of an idea.
A. I could not.

Q. Well, a dozen?
A. No, sir.

Q. Well, half a dozen?
A. She might have,---it seems to me two or three dresses.

Source: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... orden1.pdf

See what I mean? He even admits that he did not do a very thorough search of Bridget's dresses. The above testimony indicates, to me, that he does not pay very close attention to the questions being asked of him, which leads me to believe that he applied the same kind of attention when it came to other officers providing him with vital information, such as Officer Mullaly did with the handleless hatchet. I tend to believe Fleet did put the handleless hatchet back in the box, just as Officer Mullaly said he did.

[Kevin Luna]

You think that Fleet was so unobservant that he picked up a broken hatchet handle without realizing/remembering it?

[twinsrwe]

Yes, I do.

Look at the above testimony: Fleet was being questioned about Bridget’s dresses; he was asked how many dresses she had, and Fleet responds with, “Who”? Really? His response just blew me away!

[Kevin Luna]

You dont think that it's much, much, much more likely that Mullaly is simply mistaking some other tool for the missing handle?

Yes, I do.

Look at the above testimony: Fleet was being questioned about Bridget’s dresses; he was asked how many dresses she had, and Fleet responds with, “Who”? Really? His response just blew me away!

I see absolutely nothing wrong with his response. For a split second he got confused as to whether he was being asked about Bridget's or Lizzie's dresses. Totally understandable given where he is and what he is doing. He wants to make sure he answers the right question. Not to mention he's clearly flustered, having just admitted that he didnt do a very thorough search.

[twinsrwe]

You dont think that it's much, much, much more likely that Mullaly is simply mistaking some other tool for the missing handle?

No, I don’t. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know if a paticular item is a broken handle from a hatchet, or some other tool.

Yes, I do.

Look at the above testimony: Fleet was being questioned about Bridget’s dresses; he was asked how many dresses she had, and Fleet responds with, “Who”? Really? His response just blew me away!

I see absolutely nothing wrong with his response. For a split second he got confused as to whether he was being asked about Bridget's or Lizzie's dresses. Totally understandable given where he is and what he is doing. He wants to make sure he answers the right question. Not to mention he's clearly flustered, having just admitted that he didnt do a very thorough search.

I’m sorry, Kevin, but I do not agree. It is pretty clear, to me, that Fleet was being asked about Bridget’s dresses. If Mr. Robinson were referring to Lizzie’s dresses, he would have stated his question differently by using her name, don’t you think?

I don’t feel Fleet was flustered as much as embarrassed by Mr. Robinson calling him out. Perhaps it was his embarrassment that caused him to respond as he did. However, if you look at the testimony I posted above, you will see that just before he was called out about not doing a very thorough search, he stated that some of the dresses were thrown on the bed and some were in the closet; he took the ones in the closet and throw them on the bed. When questioned how many dresses Bridget had, he stated that she might have had a half dozen dresses, but it seemed to him she had two or three dresses. Do you mean to tell me that Fleet couldn’t remember two to three dress? I find that incredible.

[twinsrwe]

.

[Kevin Luna]

Just to be sure, you think that Fleet was (a) too stupid to realize that he was holding a headless hatchet handle, and/or (b) too stupid to remember that he was holding a headless hatchet handle?

Not one person, police or civilian, other than Mullaly, ever saw the handle. And Mullaly never saw the handle again. It seems quite apparent that Fleet picked up one of the other tools from the box and Mullaly simply didn't see the head of it.

[twinsrwe]

Just to be sure, you think that Fleet was (a) too stupid to realize that he was holding a headless hatchet handle, and/or (b) too stupid to remember that he was holding a headless hatchet handle?

No, I am not saying that Fleet was stupid. I am saying that he was not focused on doing his best to investigate the crime scene. If a person is not focused on the task at hand, then they tend to miss critical information, as well as evidence.

Not one person, police or civilian, other than Mullaly, ever saw the handle. And Mullaly never saw the handle again. It seems quite apparent that Fleet picked up one of the other tools from the box and Mullaly simply didn't see the head of it.

It's true that Mullaly was the only one to have claimed seeing the handle to the handle hatchet. You may be correct, in saying that Fleet may have picked up one of the other tools from the box and Mullaly simply didn't see the head of it. Unfortunately, it is Mullaly's word against Fleet's word, and since no one else was there at the time to witness the event, we are left with yet another mystery.

[Kevin Luna]

Hinterkaifeck is a mystery. This isn't. Mullaly is obviously just mistaken.

If a person is not focused on the task at hand, then they tend to miss critical information, as well as evidence.

Critical information/evidence that they're literally holding in their hand?

[twinsrwe]

Well, Kevin, obviously you and I have opposing opinions here, and that is OK. You are entitled to your opinions as much as I am entitled to mine.

[Kevin Luna]

If Fleet went through a box of possible murder weapons and wasn't "focused on the task at hand", as you claim, wouldn't that make him utterly incompetent as a police officer?

Why was Mullaly's handle never found?

[twinsrwe]

If Fleet went through a box of possible murder weapons and wasn't "focused on the task at hand", as you claim, wouldn't that make him utterly incompetent as a police officer?

No, that does not make Fleet utterly incompetent. There is a big difference between ‘being incompetent’ and ‘not being focused’. A person is incompetent, when they lack the necessary ability and skills to perform a task at hand. A person is not focused, when they are not paying attention to the task at hand. Fleet had the ability and skills necessary to investigate the Borden crime scene; I just happen to believe he was not paying close attention to the task at hand.

Why was Mullaly's handle never found?

I don’t know, and neither do you. We can speculate about what happened to that handle, whether it existed or didn’t exist, until the cows come home, but it is never going to change the fact that we do not have proof for our conjectures.

[Kevin Luna]

Why do you believe that Fleet wasn't focused? Because he got confused while being cross-examined on the witness stand?

[Kevin Luna]

Why was Mullaly's handle never found?

I don’t know, and neither do you. We can speculate about what happened to that handle, whether it existed or didn’t exist, until the cows come home, but it is never going to change the fact that we do not have proof for our conjectures.

My question was really more rhetorical.

[twinsrwe]

Why do you believe that Fleet wasn't focused? Because he got confused while being cross-examined on the witness stand?

No, Kevin, my belief that Fleet was not focused during his investigation of the Borden murders, has NOTHING to do with his confusion while being cross-examined in court.

[twinsrwe]

Why was Mullaly's handle never found?

I don’t know, and neither do you. We can speculate about what happened to that handle, whether it existed or didn’t exist, until the cows come home, but it is never going to change the fact that we do not have proof for our conjectures.

My question was really more rhetorical.

Well, you may not have expected an answer, but I answered it anyway, with the truth.

[Kevin Luna]

Why do you believe that Fleet wasn't focused? Because he got confused while being cross-examined on the witness stand?

No, Kevin, my belief that Fleet was not focused during his investigation of the Borden murders, has NOTHING to do with his confusion while being cross-examined in court.

The text that you were quoting is from the cross-examination of Fleet.

[twinsrwe]

Why do you believe that Fleet wasn't focused? Because he got confused while being cross-examined on the witness stand?

No, Kevin, my belief that Fleet was not focused during his investigation of the Borden murders, has NOTHING to do with his confusion while being cross-examined in court.

The text that you were quoting is from the cross-examination of Fleet.

Yes, and your point is?

[Kevin Luna]

Why do you believe that Fleet wasn't focused?

[twinsrwe]

Why do you believe that Fleet wasn't focused?

(Using the testimony posted above.) If Fleet had been focused when he was investigating Bridget's dresses, then he would have inspected each dress for blood or anything that could have been on them, which he admitted in court that he did not do. If he had been focused, then he would have been paying attention to what he was doing, by carefully inspecting each dress.

[Kevin Luna]

.

[KGDevil]

I do know that in order to claim that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, there must be physical evidence (such as blood, hair, tissue or fibers from the victims) left on it to prove it was the weapon used to kill Mr. and Mrs. Borden.

Please show proof that there must be physical evidence for the prosecution to merely claim that a weapon is the murder weapon.

Kevin Luna, hello. I've been perusing a few of the threads in the last few days, and I do have a question. If it is the job of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then why would they present a murder weapon without any actual proof it is the murder weapon? That in itself leaves a reasonable doubt because there is no proof. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to prove every element of their case. There is no real proof to support the handle-less hatchet is the murder weapon which is why so many people do not believe it. Swaying a jury's opinion is no different.

[Kevin Luna]

What is proof?

[KGDevil]

What is proof?

Something which convinces 12 reasonable people beyond a reasonable doubt the handle-less hatchet, and not any other similar weapon possibly used by another person, could have made those wounds. The fact that it simply fit the wounds proved nothing. As the defense pointed out, any number of weapons from any number of households could have fit the same wounds. It was a more common household implement than it is today. Simply owning one, or several, wasn't a red flag. Most people did. They could not prove Lizzie had the strength, or opportunity, to break the handle before hiding it in the box in the cellar. There needed to be strong evidence this weapon and no other was the murder weapon, and that Lizzie had sole access to it at the time. The state did not meet their burden of proof in this regard, or there would not still be so much controversy over whether it's the murder weapon. Instead there is reasonable doubt. Which is one of the main reasons the case fell apart.

[Kevin Luna]

I'm looking for a reason to believe that the handleless hatchet isn't the murder weapon.

[debbiediablo]

I'm inclined to agree with Twins. Fleet wasn't focused because most of the authorities did not initially consider Lizzie a suspect. Hindsight causes us to attribute her with superpowers of criminal planning when, IMO, she just got lucky. Eye witness accounts are notoriously skewed; every so often DNA exonerates someone who has been imprisoned, in part, by being identified by the victim and sometimes more than one person. Police are supposed to be more observant, but they are every bit as human as the rest of us. The human minds looks for what it thinks it will find, and it sees what it thinks it will see. Certainly the prosecution hesitated to go after Lizzie the same way they did Aileen Wuornos 100 years later. This was Victorian society where highborn woman of wealth did not bludgeon their parents with a hatchet. To attack her could have backfired, perhaps did for awhile, and made her an object of sympathy. The all male jury could not come to terms with even the remote possibility that their own genteel daughters could commit such a crime. To convict Lizzie was to fly in the face of everything men believed about woman in the late 1800s.

[twinsrwe]

Thank you KG and Debbie; your inputs are very much appreciated. I wholeheartedly agree with both of you.

[twinsrwe]

I'm looking for a reason to believe that the handleless hatchet isn't the murder weapon.

Kevin, we have given you several reasons why the handleless hatchet is NOT the murder weapon.

I want to know why you believe the handleless hatchet IS the murder weapon, and proof that the murder weapon could not have been any other hatchet.

[Kevin Luna]

I'm inclined to agree with Twins. Fleet wasn't focused because most of the authorities did not initially consider Lizzie a suspect. Hindsight causes us to attribute her with superpowers of criminal planning when, IMO, she just got lucky. Eye witness accounts are notoriously skewed; every so often DNA exonerates someone who has been imprisoned, in part, by being identified by the victim and sometimes more than one person. Police are supposed to be more observant, but they are every bit as human as the rest of us. The human minds looks for what it thinks it will find, and it sees what it thinks it will see. Certainly the prosecution hesitated to go after Lizzie the same way they did Aileen Wuornos 100 years later. This was Victorian society where highborn woman of wealth did not bludgeon their parents with a hatchet. To attack her could have backfired, perhaps did for awhile, and made her an object of sympathy. The all male jury could not come to terms with even the remote possibility that their own genteel daughters could commit such a crime. To convict Lizzie was to fly in the face of everything men believed about woman in the late 1800s.

You're saying that you're inclined to believe that Mullaly saw Fleet pick up the missing handle?

[Kevin Luna]

I'm looking for a reason to believe that the handleless hatchet isn't the murder weapon.

Kevin, we have given you several reasons why the handleless hatchet is NOT the murder weapon

I don't think you have. I think you have given me reasons why we can't be sure that it's the murder weapon.

I want to know why you believe the handleless hatchet IS the murder weapon,

For the same reason that I believe Lizzie is guilty. I see too much circumstantial evidence against it, and I see no reason to believe that it's not guilty.

and proof that the murder weapon could not have been any other hatchet

It could've been any hatchet with a 3.5 inch blade.

[Kevin Luna]

If it is the job of the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then why would they present a murder weapon without any actual proof it is the murder weapon?

I don't know, but they did, didn't they?