I was reading through Masterson's book on Lizzie and I noticed that one of his contentions is that Abby could have died AFTER Andrew. I thought this was riduculous based on the congealed blood on Abby and the fresh blood on Andrew. Human blood can congeal anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes after death. based on the way the bodies were discovered and irrespective of Prof. Wood's controversial analysis of the time of death through stomach content analysis, this meant Andrew had to have died later and Masterson had to be wrong. However, it struck me that a fair amount of time passed before Abby's body was found. Neighbors and a few others had been in the house compromising the crime scene. While all this was going on, Abby was laying dead in the guest bedroom. If blood can congeal anwhere from 5 to 15 minutes after death, this coupled with the delay in finding Abby's body could mean that Abby died last. This dosn't prove Abby died last, even if the killer fled out the open side screen door unseen after he/she killed Abby; it simply means conventional wisdom MAY have ignored another scenario regarding conventional wisdom as to the order of the murders.
I am not saying I believe that this scenario was the case. Nevertheless, Masterson's theory cannot be discounted as quickly as I first believed. However, it would require a great deal of luck and perhaps Lizzie's complicity in that she would have had to have made sure the killer was safely out of the house before sounding the alert.
Gary
When Did Abby Die?
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Gary
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:53 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South Carolina
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I don't wish to innundate anyone with too much testimony.
But, I have collected the big doctors testimony as to what they based their conclusions on as to the time-lapse of death between Abby and Andrew.
The big doctors are Dolan, Wood, Draper & Cheever.
They based their conclusions on mainly 3 things: digestion, blood and body temperature. Also included but not explicitly held out to us is their reliance on anecdotal information as to the habits and schedules of these 2 victims including what they ate and when they ate it that Thursday.
(This is for reference purposes):
--------------
Trial
Dolan
Q. What would you say now?
A. I will say, taking everything into consideration, what I saw then and what I have learned since by examination, that the difference between the deaths of the two bodies would be from an hour to an hour and a half.
Q. What have you seen since that alters your opinion?
A. I don't know anything in particular that I have seen except that I have studied the subject up, have thought the matter over. Though I had performed the autopsy at the time, I had not thought so much of it as I have since. But taking everything into consideration from the day of the tragedy, all that has taken place since and all I have studied, that is my conclusion at the present time.
Q. Does the coagulation of the blood which you speak of have any bearing upon the opinion which you have expressed?
A. It has; yes, sir.
Page 968
Q. How soon, taking the warm season of the year into account, does blood that is separated from the body begin to coagulate?
A. Various authors differ on that. The time is generally put down from three to ten minutes.
Q. Is it safe after fifteen minutes, assuming that you find a body, the warm season of the year, and blood which has come from the body and coagulated, is it safe to express any opinion after fifteen minutes upon the coagulation of the blood?
A. Of itself I don't think it would be very safe; no, sir.
Q. Would the blood then become darker in color?
A. Yes, I think it would become darker.
______________
Trial
Dr. Wood
Q. Your medical education has given you, of course, a general medical knowledge in addition to your chemical specialty?
A. That is included in the action of poisons, etc.
Q. And have you been present and heard the evidence in the case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as relates to the condition of the bodies?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the condition of the intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the various witnesses who have testified to the appearance of the bodies after they were discovered, and to the description of the intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Taking all those facts as you have heard them, and also the examinations that you made yourself, what of them do you deem to be important in determining the time, the relative time, of the death of those two people?
A. The difference in the period of digestion, both stomach and intestinal, the drying of the blood, and the temperature of the body.
Page 997
Q. And also the intestines?
A. I mentioned that.
Q. Yes, I guess you did. And taking all those circumstances that you say you regard as important, as a whole, all together, considering them together, do you desire to modify in any way what you have already said as to the difference in time of death of the two people?
A. I should think that one corroborated the other, that they all tended to the same conclusion.
Page 998
Q. And that conclusion---will you state that, Professor, so that there may be no misunderstanding?
A. And hour and a half, more or less, it might be half an hour more or half an hour less.
_____________
Trial
Dr. Draper
Q. Did you examine any of the other parts of the body of Mr. and Mrs.
Page 1044
Borden?
A. I did, sir.
Q. I won't trouble you with anything except the intestines. Were the stomachs there?
A. They were not.
Q. Were the intestines?
A. They were.
Q. What did you observe with regard to the intestines?
A. In the case of Mr. Borden digestion had gone forward in the small intestines so that they were relatively empty. The large intestines, the large bowel was filled with residue of the last digestion. In the case of Mrs. Borden the small intestine showed food in the process of digestion, and I saw two small fragments of fruit skin, either pear or apple. The large intestine was empty.
Q. That aids what I had in mind before. Is the process of digestion completed in the stomach?
A. No, sir.
Q. That continues how far?
A. Until it is finally delivered as residue in the large intestines from the small intestines.
Q. There is no digestion practically in the large intestines?
A. No, sir.
Q. But there is a continuous process of digestion in the small intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there anything in the appearance of those intestines or the contents of them which would indicate anything abnormal or irregular in the process of digestion?
A. Nothing that I observed, sir.
Q. You have heard the testimony of Prof. Wood in regard to the contents of the stomach?
A. I have.
Page 1045
Q. Without repeating it, was the condition of the intestines that you have observed consistent with the appearance of the contents of the stomach as you heard them testified to?
A. It was.
Q. Have you heard the other testimony in the case with relation to the appearance of the bodies as they were found and after they were found?
A. I have.
Q. And the testimony with regard to the color and the consistency of the blood?
A. I have sir.
Q. And the heat of the bodies?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Taking all those facts together, or taking those facts or any facts that you have listened to with regard to the condition of the bodies, including what you observed yourself at the time of the autopsy, are there any of them that you deem important in determining the question in priority of death?
A. There are.
Q. If so, state what they are?
A. I place first in the series the differences observed in digestion in the two bodies.
Q. By Prof. Wood?
A. By Prof. Wood, and by Dr. Dolan and myself.
Q. Give all those that seem to you material or important or significant?
A. The differences in the condition as regards the color and consistency of the blood in the two cases; and differences in the temperature, are all factors which lead me to a conclusion.
Q. Perhaps in your first fact that you have stated you included the condition of the intestines?
A. I did, sir.
Page 1046
Q. Taking those facts together and assuming that the two people ate breakfast at the same time and from the same table, or from the same supply of food, and that nothing abnormal occurred in the process of digestion, are you able from those facts to determine the question of priority of death and the time of such priority?
A. As to the priority of death I am sure. As to the time, it will be approximate, if I make a conclusion.
Q. You can state both conclusions approximately or how accurately you can give either one of them?
A. I am sure from the evidence of digestion, of the color and its condition and consistency of the blood, and of the temperature of the two bodies, that Mrs. Borden died before Mr. Borden. As to the interval, I think, taking all the facts together, they lead me to the conclusion that an interval of at least an hour passed between the two deaths.
__________
Trial
Dr. Cheever
Q. You have also heard Professor Wood's testimony and that of Dr. Draper and Dr. Dolan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there any facts that you have listened ton in your opinion important or significant in determining the question of priority of death?
A. Of Mr. and Mrs. Borden?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of the time of such priority?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what what witness or witnesses that you have listened to that seemed to you to be significant of the conclusion to draw from them, and how certain you are of your conclusions?
A. The fact that Mrs. Borden's body was sensibly cooler than Mr. Borden's, the fact that the blood which was poured out on the surroundings was coagulated to a certain degree about the person of Mrs. Borden and was entirely liquid and dripping from the wounds of Mr. Borden and the fact that in Mrs. Borden's case the digestion was still going on and that in Mr. Borden it was apparently almost completed---all these things taken together convinced me that Mrs. Borden
Page 1089
died first, and probably by considerable interval.
Q. What interval, Doctor, as to the minimum, in your opinion?
A. The minimum I should place at about an hour; the maximum I should not be willing to place at more than two hours.
Q. And the probabilities in view of all the circumstances?
A. Between one and two hours, probably.
But, I have collected the big doctors testimony as to what they based their conclusions on as to the time-lapse of death between Abby and Andrew.
The big doctors are Dolan, Wood, Draper & Cheever.
They based their conclusions on mainly 3 things: digestion, blood and body temperature. Also included but not explicitly held out to us is their reliance on anecdotal information as to the habits and schedules of these 2 victims including what they ate and when they ate it that Thursday.
(This is for reference purposes):
--------------
Trial
Dolan
Q. What would you say now?
A. I will say, taking everything into consideration, what I saw then and what I have learned since by examination, that the difference between the deaths of the two bodies would be from an hour to an hour and a half.
Q. What have you seen since that alters your opinion?
A. I don't know anything in particular that I have seen except that I have studied the subject up, have thought the matter over. Though I had performed the autopsy at the time, I had not thought so much of it as I have since. But taking everything into consideration from the day of the tragedy, all that has taken place since and all I have studied, that is my conclusion at the present time.
Q. Does the coagulation of the blood which you speak of have any bearing upon the opinion which you have expressed?
A. It has; yes, sir.
Page 968
Q. How soon, taking the warm season of the year into account, does blood that is separated from the body begin to coagulate?
A. Various authors differ on that. The time is generally put down from three to ten minutes.
Q. Is it safe after fifteen minutes, assuming that you find a body, the warm season of the year, and blood which has come from the body and coagulated, is it safe to express any opinion after fifteen minutes upon the coagulation of the blood?
A. Of itself I don't think it would be very safe; no, sir.
Q. Would the blood then become darker in color?
A. Yes, I think it would become darker.
______________
Trial
Dr. Wood
Q. Your medical education has given you, of course, a general medical knowledge in addition to your chemical specialty?
A. That is included in the action of poisons, etc.
Q. And have you been present and heard the evidence in the case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as relates to the condition of the bodies?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the condition of the intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the various witnesses who have testified to the appearance of the bodies after they were discovered, and to the description of the intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Taking all those facts as you have heard them, and also the examinations that you made yourself, what of them do you deem to be important in determining the time, the relative time, of the death of those two people?
A. The difference in the period of digestion, both stomach and intestinal, the drying of the blood, and the temperature of the body.
Page 997
Q. And also the intestines?
A. I mentioned that.
Q. Yes, I guess you did. And taking all those circumstances that you say you regard as important, as a whole, all together, considering them together, do you desire to modify in any way what you have already said as to the difference in time of death of the two people?
A. I should think that one corroborated the other, that they all tended to the same conclusion.
Page 998
Q. And that conclusion---will you state that, Professor, so that there may be no misunderstanding?
A. And hour and a half, more or less, it might be half an hour more or half an hour less.
_____________
Trial
Dr. Draper
Q. Did you examine any of the other parts of the body of Mr. and Mrs.
Page 1044
Borden?
A. I did, sir.
Q. I won't trouble you with anything except the intestines. Were the stomachs there?
A. They were not.
Q. Were the intestines?
A. They were.
Q. What did you observe with regard to the intestines?
A. In the case of Mr. Borden digestion had gone forward in the small intestines so that they were relatively empty. The large intestines, the large bowel was filled with residue of the last digestion. In the case of Mrs. Borden the small intestine showed food in the process of digestion, and I saw two small fragments of fruit skin, either pear or apple. The large intestine was empty.
Q. That aids what I had in mind before. Is the process of digestion completed in the stomach?
A. No, sir.
Q. That continues how far?
A. Until it is finally delivered as residue in the large intestines from the small intestines.
Q. There is no digestion practically in the large intestines?
A. No, sir.
Q. But there is a continuous process of digestion in the small intestines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there anything in the appearance of those intestines or the contents of them which would indicate anything abnormal or irregular in the process of digestion?
A. Nothing that I observed, sir.
Q. You have heard the testimony of Prof. Wood in regard to the contents of the stomach?
A. I have.
Page 1045
Q. Without repeating it, was the condition of the intestines that you have observed consistent with the appearance of the contents of the stomach as you heard them testified to?
A. It was.
Q. Have you heard the other testimony in the case with relation to the appearance of the bodies as they were found and after they were found?
A. I have.
Q. And the testimony with regard to the color and the consistency of the blood?
A. I have sir.
Q. And the heat of the bodies?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Taking all those facts together, or taking those facts or any facts that you have listened to with regard to the condition of the bodies, including what you observed yourself at the time of the autopsy, are there any of them that you deem important in determining the question in priority of death?
A. There are.
Q. If so, state what they are?
A. I place first in the series the differences observed in digestion in the two bodies.
Q. By Prof. Wood?
A. By Prof. Wood, and by Dr. Dolan and myself.
Q. Give all those that seem to you material or important or significant?
A. The differences in the condition as regards the color and consistency of the blood in the two cases; and differences in the temperature, are all factors which lead me to a conclusion.
Q. Perhaps in your first fact that you have stated you included the condition of the intestines?
A. I did, sir.
Page 1046
Q. Taking those facts together and assuming that the two people ate breakfast at the same time and from the same table, or from the same supply of food, and that nothing abnormal occurred in the process of digestion, are you able from those facts to determine the question of priority of death and the time of such priority?
A. As to the priority of death I am sure. As to the time, it will be approximate, if I make a conclusion.
Q. You can state both conclusions approximately or how accurately you can give either one of them?
A. I am sure from the evidence of digestion, of the color and its condition and consistency of the blood, and of the temperature of the two bodies, that Mrs. Borden died before Mr. Borden. As to the interval, I think, taking all the facts together, they lead me to the conclusion that an interval of at least an hour passed between the two deaths.
__________
Trial
Dr. Cheever
Q. You have also heard Professor Wood's testimony and that of Dr. Draper and Dr. Dolan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there any facts that you have listened ton in your opinion important or significant in determining the question of priority of death?
A. Of Mr. and Mrs. Borden?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of the time of such priority?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what what witness or witnesses that you have listened to that seemed to you to be significant of the conclusion to draw from them, and how certain you are of your conclusions?
A. The fact that Mrs. Borden's body was sensibly cooler than Mr. Borden's, the fact that the blood which was poured out on the surroundings was coagulated to a certain degree about the person of Mrs. Borden and was entirely liquid and dripping from the wounds of Mr. Borden and the fact that in Mrs. Borden's case the digestion was still going on and that in Mr. Borden it was apparently almost completed---all these things taken together convinced me that Mrs. Borden
Page 1089
died first, and probably by considerable interval.
Q. What interval, Doctor, as to the minimum, in your opinion?
A. The minimum I should place at about an hour; the maximum I should not be willing to place at more than two hours.
Q. And the probabilities in view of all the circumstances?
A. Between one and two hours, probably.
-
Gary
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:53 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South Carolina
Hi
I would be curious to know how long after Andrew's body was discovered, did they go to check on Abby?
The three main methods that the parties are relying on to estimate the time of death were blood coagulation, digestion and temperature. Recall that the temperature was done by touch. This is not considered as the acceptable method in determining how long a body has been cooling. The accepted method is to take the core body temperature from the liver or from the rectum. Doctor Dolan admitted that the blood coagulation was only a reliable indicator of time of death for three to ten minutes. The greatest reliance is placed on the respective stages of digestion. Notice how the question is phrased, "...assuming that the two people ate breakfast at the same time, and from the same table or from the same supply of food, and that nothing abnormal occured in the process of digestion,are you able... from those facts to determine the priority of death...?" the doctor then admits he can be sure of priority of death but that the time of death and/or the interval between deaths would be approximate. That is a lot of pre-requisite conditions for guessing the approximate time of death. Since Morris is the only person who ate dinner with the elder Bordens, and stated that he took no notice of what the others were eating-combined with Abby's having eaten fruits which were not served at breakfast -the digestion evidence is subject to question. It seems that the doctor's were heaping one highly dubious test upon another in determing the time of death by blood coagulation, temperature by touch and digestion as limited by numerous prerequisite conditions.
The prosecuter also goes out of his way to make sure that each doctor has heard the testimony of the others. This is a somewhat coercive tactic which should not have been allowed by the court. Witnesses who are going to testify to substantially the same thing are not allowed to hear each others testrimony for fear that the testimony of one after another witness will influence the testimony of the subsequent witnesses.
I also notice that Prof. Wood does not object, probably by prior agreement with the prosecuter as to the exact language of the question, that he has a specialty in chemistry and a GENERAL MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Gary
I would be curious to know how long after Andrew's body was discovered, did they go to check on Abby?
The three main methods that the parties are relying on to estimate the time of death were blood coagulation, digestion and temperature. Recall that the temperature was done by touch. This is not considered as the acceptable method in determining how long a body has been cooling. The accepted method is to take the core body temperature from the liver or from the rectum. Doctor Dolan admitted that the blood coagulation was only a reliable indicator of time of death for three to ten minutes. The greatest reliance is placed on the respective stages of digestion. Notice how the question is phrased, "...assuming that the two people ate breakfast at the same time, and from the same table or from the same supply of food, and that nothing abnormal occured in the process of digestion,are you able... from those facts to determine the priority of death...?" the doctor then admits he can be sure of priority of death but that the time of death and/or the interval between deaths would be approximate. That is a lot of pre-requisite conditions for guessing the approximate time of death. Since Morris is the only person who ate dinner with the elder Bordens, and stated that he took no notice of what the others were eating-combined with Abby's having eaten fruits which were not served at breakfast -the digestion evidence is subject to question. It seems that the doctor's were heaping one highly dubious test upon another in determing the time of death by blood coagulation, temperature by touch and digestion as limited by numerous prerequisite conditions.
The prosecuter also goes out of his way to make sure that each doctor has heard the testimony of the others. This is a somewhat coercive tactic which should not have been allowed by the court. Witnesses who are going to testify to substantially the same thing are not allowed to hear each others testrimony for fear that the testimony of one after another witness will influence the testimony of the subsequent witnesses.
I also notice that Prof. Wood does not object, probably by prior agreement with the prosecuter as to the exact language of the question, that he has a specialty in chemistry and a GENERAL MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Gary
-
Haulover
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:44 pm
- Real Name: Eugene Hosey
- Location: Sycamore, AL
this is not from a medical professional, but it strongly suggests that there is something in this question that would have been obvious to anyone on the scene.
from Witness Statements, pg. 21:
George Petty, No. 98 Second street. "Went in the house with Dr. Bowen on his second visit. Mr. Borden had the appearance of having been killed but a short while, for the blood was fresh and flowing. Went up stairs, got down on my knees to examine Mrs. Borden's head. At once I saw she had ben dead sometime, and told the Doctor she must have been dead an hour. I further said, this is where the trouble began; this is the starting point. The blood had ceased to flow. It was dark, and covered with a kind of skin."
from Witness Statements, pg. 21:
George Petty, No. 98 Second street. "Went in the house with Dr. Bowen on his second visit. Mr. Borden had the appearance of having been killed but a short while, for the blood was fresh and flowing. Went up stairs, got down on my knees to examine Mrs. Borden's head. At once I saw she had ben dead sometime, and told the Doctor she must have been dead an hour. I further said, this is where the trouble began; this is the starting point. The blood had ceased to flow. It was dark, and covered with a kind of skin."
-
Gary
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:53 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South Carolina
Hi
Do you happen to know the timing of these events- I mean how long it took for Dr. Bowen to leave and re-enter the house and check on Mrs. Borden? I would be surprised to learn that Andrew's blood was still flowing freely when his heart had ceased pumping for ten minutes or so. I also don't understand how Petty could immediately put a time of death down based on an observation of the blood and a cursory examination of the body.
Gary
Do you happen to know the timing of these events- I mean how long it took for Dr. Bowen to leave and re-enter the house and check on Mrs. Borden? I would be surprised to learn that Andrew's blood was still flowing freely when his heart had ceased pumping for ten minutes or so. I also don't understand how Petty could immediately put a time of death down based on an observation of the blood and a cursory examination of the body.
Gary
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
Gary,
Besides the medical testimony and the opinions of others on the scene, we have a situation where Abby, after breakfast, is dusting on the first floor, and then is never again seen alive by anyone (except the murderer and perhaps an accomplice, if any).
Lizzie says she never sees Abby again.
Bridget says she never sees Abby again.
If, upon his return, Andrew saw Abby alive, it seems likely that either Lizzie or Bridget or both would have heard or witnessed something.
This situation of Abby going missing much earlier in the morning in no way contradicts the medical opinion. In my opinion, it supports it.
Besides the medical testimony and the opinions of others on the scene, we have a situation where Abby, after breakfast, is dusting on the first floor, and then is never again seen alive by anyone (except the murderer and perhaps an accomplice, if any).
Lizzie says she never sees Abby again.
Bridget says she never sees Abby again.
If, upon his return, Andrew saw Abby alive, it seems likely that either Lizzie or Bridget or both would have heard or witnessed something.
This situation of Abby going missing much earlier in the morning in no way contradicts the medical opinion. In my opinion, it supports it.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
The doctors conferred outside of court even before court- that's why they were allowed to witness each other's testimony- if they happened to be present during the testimony. These are prosecution witnesses. One doctor was even suggested by another to be brought in.
All this points to is that they were in agreement by the time they testified, and that they knew each other and had professional knowledge of each other.
I agree this can suggest less real work done on the evidence and more reliance on the "old-boy-network", but that's the way it was.
My problem has always been that since I know these men were there, working with the primitive tools that they had, that I do believe them, and that they did the best they could.
I can't second-guess Dolan- but others may.
Fairhaven Guy's comments include that anecdotal material I referred to.
However, we are relying on Morse, Lizzie and Bridget as to the last time Abby was seen, which witnesses are not the most dependable, being suspect themselves.
-----
We have a timeline of events going on the topic "How Much Was Abby's Body Moved?" if that is helpful.
viewtopic.php?t=388&start=25
All this points to is that they were in agreement by the time they testified, and that they knew each other and had professional knowledge of each other.
I agree this can suggest less real work done on the evidence and more reliance on the "old-boy-network", but that's the way it was.
My problem has always been that since I know these men were there, working with the primitive tools that they had, that I do believe them, and that they did the best they could.
I can't second-guess Dolan- but others may.
Fairhaven Guy's comments include that anecdotal material I referred to.
However, we are relying on Morse, Lizzie and Bridget as to the last time Abby was seen, which witnesses are not the most dependable, being suspect themselves.
-----
We have a timeline of events going on the topic "How Much Was Abby's Body Moved?" if that is helpful.
viewtopic.php?t=388&start=25
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
I don't know Masterton's theory, except that it wasn't Lizzie. Does he clear Bridget and Morse, too?
I certainly agree with you, Kat, that the witnesses to what happened in the house before 11:05 a.m. are not the most dependable. And I don't necessarily believe what they say. But then, if Masterson is proposing a totally outside job, isn't his theory blown if the insiders are lying?
I certainly agree with you, Kat, that the witnesses to what happened in the house before 11:05 a.m. are not the most dependable. And I don't necessarily believe what they say. But then, if Masterson is proposing a totally outside job, isn't his theory blown if the insiders are lying?
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I kept finding that those who did the autopsies, who took out the stomachs but could not examine them because they were tied off, did still have evidence to evaluate in the intestines which were left and their state did also add to those doctors analysis as to time of death.
So Wood had the stomachs but the rest had the intestines to look at Thursday.
And yes, that is based on- as Gary points out- a consensus as to the last time either victim was known to have eaten.
I believe Masterton has Abby called away by a note, takes a mincemeat pie over to the Whiteheads', while waiting there eats it, falls asleep, returns home, and is killed soon after eating, in a time more contemporary with Andrew.
So Wood had the stomachs but the rest had the intestines to look at Thursday.
And yes, that is based on- as Gary points out- a consensus as to the last time either victim was known to have eaten.
I believe Masterton has Abby called away by a note, takes a mincemeat pie over to the Whiteheads', while waiting there eats it, falls asleep, returns home, and is killed soon after eating, in a time more contemporary with Andrew.
-
Haulover
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:44 pm
- Real Name: Eugene Hosey
- Location: Sycamore, AL
Gary:
since i've got witness statements handy -- there is this on pg 4. officer doherty notes the time as 11:35 for this:
"At this hour I, with Frank Wixon, entered the Borden house 92 Second street. Dr. Bowen met me at the kitchen door, and said, "I am glad to see you." I inquired "what is the trouble?" He said "Mr. Borden is dead." I went into the next room, and there found the remains on a sofa covered with a sheet. In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before. He followed this by saying "to make matters worse, Mrs. Borden is lying dead up stairs. I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and run up stairs, and died with fright."
[at this point, of course, bowen is wrong about the circumstances of abby's death, but is apparently aware she is dead.]
______________
also from witness statements, pg 1, from George Allen:
"Fifteen minutes past eleven A.M. the Marshal came out of his office and said "Mr. Allen, I want you to go up on Second street, the house next to Mrs. Buffington's above the Borden street, and see what the matter is."
________________
so apparently the police were aware of the crime at 15 after and then 20 minutes or so after that of the body of mrs. borden upstairs -- that's a police perspective on the time concerning discovery.
________________
i think the observation about andrew's blood dripping is not a suggestion of a heart still beating -- i think a more accurate word is "draining." and petty's observation of abby and the difference he sees there -- i think that's just an honest observation and honest speculation of "an hour." he's not a medical officer. my point is that every eye witness could see the difference. (that is compiled in another thread, as i think kat indicated.) it is consistent.
it's not always easy to understand what someone is suggesting -- but if i understand your question about the different discovery times, which i hope i gave at least a general idea -- remember that this difference between dripping blood and thickened blood -- they are being reported simultaneously.
_________
Eugene
since i've got witness statements handy -- there is this on pg 4. officer doherty notes the time as 11:35 for this:
"At this hour I, with Frank Wixon, entered the Borden house 92 Second street. Dr. Bowen met me at the kitchen door, and said, "I am glad to see you." I inquired "what is the trouble?" He said "Mr. Borden is dead." I went into the next room, and there found the remains on a sofa covered with a sheet. In low tones the Doctor told me he was satisfied there was something wrong, for they were all sick the day before. He followed this by saying "to make matters worse, Mrs. Borden is lying dead up stairs. I suppose she saw the killing of her husband, and run up stairs, and died with fright."
[at this point, of course, bowen is wrong about the circumstances of abby's death, but is apparently aware she is dead.]
______________
also from witness statements, pg 1, from George Allen:
"Fifteen minutes past eleven A.M. the Marshal came out of his office and said "Mr. Allen, I want you to go up on Second street, the house next to Mrs. Buffington's above the Borden street, and see what the matter is."
________________
so apparently the police were aware of the crime at 15 after and then 20 minutes or so after that of the body of mrs. borden upstairs -- that's a police perspective on the time concerning discovery.
________________
i think the observation about andrew's blood dripping is not a suggestion of a heart still beating -- i think a more accurate word is "draining." and petty's observation of abby and the difference he sees there -- i think that's just an honest observation and honest speculation of "an hour." he's not a medical officer. my point is that every eye witness could see the difference. (that is compiled in another thread, as i think kat indicated.) it is consistent.
it's not always easy to understand what someone is suggesting -- but if i understand your question about the different discovery times, which i hope i gave at least a general idea -- remember that this difference between dripping blood and thickened blood -- they are being reported simultaneously.
_________
Eugene
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
diana
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:21 pm
- Real Name:
Regarding the doctors being in agreement by the time the trial rolled around -- here's Knowlton's letter to Pillsbury -- dated May 27, 1893 where he writes: "Dr. Draper is coming round on our side in great shape. All doubts he may have has [sic] as to the time of death are now fully dispersed." (Knowlton Papers, 204)
I wonder what Draper thought initially?
Although Bowen was the first doctor on the scene, I can't think he was much help as far as things like body temp. etc. At the inquest, Knowlton tried to get Bowen to say if Andrew's body was warm and the doctor said: " I don't think he was cold. I think if he had been cold, it would attract my attention probably; it might, and might not." (Inquest, 120)
I wonder what Draper thought initially?
Although Bowen was the first doctor on the scene, I can't think he was much help as far as things like body temp. etc. At the inquest, Knowlton tried to get Bowen to say if Andrew's body was warm and the doctor said: " I don't think he was cold. I think if he had been cold, it would attract my attention probably; it might, and might not." (Inquest, 120)
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
Medical opinion aside, if Abby did get a note, go to Whiteheads, eat a pie, etc., how did she get back into the house without her key? How does that timeline work?
Bridget goes upstairs, Lizzie decides she needs lead, Abby comes home. Does the murderer let her in the front door or does she let herself in the side door. If the murderer is killing Andrew at Abby's arrival why would he/she go answer the front door? If Abby let herself in, wouldn't she go up to her room to remove her "going out" clothes, put on her apron, etc.? If she's comes upon the murder of Andrew from the back of the house--the dining room--how does she get up into the guest room to die?
If Abby returns before Lizzie goes to the barn, we run into Lizzie either reading a magazine downstairs or sewing a piece of tape upstairs and the doors locked (since Bridget must later let Andrew in the front door). Bridget's around the outside of the house doing windows or getting ready to do the inside of the sitting room. Again, as with above, which door does she enter? Who lets her in? Where does she go?
How could both Lizzie and Bridget completely miss Abby leaving and returning. And I think if either Lizzie or Bridget HAD seen Abby return, she would have tried to account for Abby's return return in her statements.
When one isolates one component of a case, such as the medical opinion, one can probably find some way to cast a doubt on it somehow. However, one must not lose track of all the other circumstances. No witness of Abby on the street, either coming or going--Mrs. Dr. Bowen didn't see her, none of the other street witnesses saw her. No one placing Abby at the Whiteheads. No mention of her return by either Bridget or Lizzie.
And you know what? Even if Andrew died first, that in no way clears Lizzie
or any of the usual suspects, really. The only real technicality about the death times comes down to inheritance. But if an outsider did it, that wouldn't be an issue or a motive. If an insider did it, and was put on trial for it, you'd think the authorities would do all they could to prevent that insider from inheriting. Yet, basically everyone claimed that Abby had died first. And the girls got the estate.
Bridget goes upstairs, Lizzie decides she needs lead, Abby comes home. Does the murderer let her in the front door or does she let herself in the side door. If the murderer is killing Andrew at Abby's arrival why would he/she go answer the front door? If Abby let herself in, wouldn't she go up to her room to remove her "going out" clothes, put on her apron, etc.? If she's comes upon the murder of Andrew from the back of the house--the dining room--how does she get up into the guest room to die?
If Abby returns before Lizzie goes to the barn, we run into Lizzie either reading a magazine downstairs or sewing a piece of tape upstairs and the doors locked (since Bridget must later let Andrew in the front door). Bridget's around the outside of the house doing windows or getting ready to do the inside of the sitting room. Again, as with above, which door does she enter? Who lets her in? Where does she go?
How could both Lizzie and Bridget completely miss Abby leaving and returning. And I think if either Lizzie or Bridget HAD seen Abby return, she would have tried to account for Abby's return return in her statements.
When one isolates one component of a case, such as the medical opinion, one can probably find some way to cast a doubt on it somehow. However, one must not lose track of all the other circumstances. No witness of Abby on the street, either coming or going--Mrs. Dr. Bowen didn't see her, none of the other street witnesses saw her. No one placing Abby at the Whiteheads. No mention of her return by either Bridget or Lizzie.
And you know what? Even if Andrew died first, that in no way clears Lizzie
or any of the usual suspects, really. The only real technicality about the death times comes down to inheritance. But if an outsider did it, that wouldn't be an issue or a motive. If an insider did it, and was put on trial for it, you'd think the authorities would do all they could to prevent that insider from inheriting. Yet, basically everyone claimed that Abby had died first. And the girls got the estate.
-
Gary
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:53 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South Carolina
I get very uneasy when I hear things like Diana's quote that pressure was brought to bear on all the doctors to be in agreement as to the time of Abby's death. Recall that they all agreed it was speculative, yet somehow this very speulative time frame wound up pointing generally at one and one half hours before Abby was discovered. I know that there was discussion about one to two hours-but what is the logical inference from that time frame?I think it is logical to assume the doctor meant one and one half hours as a general time of death.
If it was standard practice in those days to let other witnesses who were scheduled to testify on substantially the same matter, be allowed to hear each other and then take the stand and have the prosecutor make them agree that they have heard the testimony of the others-this is tantamount to coercion. what doctor will fly in the face of the reasoning of his counterparts regardless of how speculative their evidence may be and disagree with the time frames already conveniently laid out by his peers. It would be a very brave man indeed. Whether you agree or disagree with the the way the old-boy system worked in those days I think you will find that that we can be thankful that that is not the way things work today. If Lizzie was not guilty she was done a great disservice by the legal system. If she was quilty or an accomplice, she neverless, did not receive a fair trial. Can anyone really disagree with the contention that the doctors were simply going on the "fact" that Abby was not seen after 9:am. Masterton's indication that Bridget saw Ms Borden receive a note and go out after 9:am as she indicated to Ms. Churchill was changed to the firm time of 9:am to conform to Lizzies testimony at trial. Putting aside the speculation as to the time of death as indicated by Abby's body having been found forty minutes after her blood had long since congealed and coagulated; and the inadequate notion that you can tell a bodies rate of temperature cooling by touch; and diregarding the fact that the stomach was not analysed in the proper way by a surgeon; and taking into account that the intestine analysis is not as accurte as stomach analysis, We are basing the time of death on the word of Lizzie and Bridget, who may have had trouble keeping her story straight. Perhaps others will disagree, but I don't really feel comfortable with the whole scenario.
I agree with Kat as to the witnesses. I simply don't trust those witnesses to have been truthful and forthcoming. I disagree that using the implements available one hundred and twelve years later can be excused. Recall that Jack The Ripper's final victim was autopsied by surgeons in 1888 and they drew reasonable diagnostic conclusions about the time of death, the stomach alcohol content, poisons, as well as the methodology used to disable the victim and make conclusions based on blood splatter analysis about precisely how the weopon was used and furthermore dtermine whether there had been any sexual conection around the time of death.
I don't agree that Andrew died first as Masterton indicates at one point. I believe he is using this as an indicator that the killing was not done for the purposes of inheritance because that would bolster his belief that an outsider with a grudge against Andrew was the killer.
I tend to use the word seepage when I think of the observations of Andrew's blood. I don't have any problems with the idea that it is reasonable to find that Abby died first. I just have questions about the time frame of the murders, which analysis I believe was improperly handled.
Now that I have bored everyone to tears, I will check the time frame established on another thread.
Gary
If it was standard practice in those days to let other witnesses who were scheduled to testify on substantially the same matter, be allowed to hear each other and then take the stand and have the prosecutor make them agree that they have heard the testimony of the others-this is tantamount to coercion. what doctor will fly in the face of the reasoning of his counterparts regardless of how speculative their evidence may be and disagree with the time frames already conveniently laid out by his peers. It would be a very brave man indeed. Whether you agree or disagree with the the way the old-boy system worked in those days I think you will find that that we can be thankful that that is not the way things work today. If Lizzie was not guilty she was done a great disservice by the legal system. If she was quilty or an accomplice, she neverless, did not receive a fair trial. Can anyone really disagree with the contention that the doctors were simply going on the "fact" that Abby was not seen after 9:am. Masterton's indication that Bridget saw Ms Borden receive a note and go out after 9:am as she indicated to Ms. Churchill was changed to the firm time of 9:am to conform to Lizzies testimony at trial. Putting aside the speculation as to the time of death as indicated by Abby's body having been found forty minutes after her blood had long since congealed and coagulated; and the inadequate notion that you can tell a bodies rate of temperature cooling by touch; and diregarding the fact that the stomach was not analysed in the proper way by a surgeon; and taking into account that the intestine analysis is not as accurte as stomach analysis, We are basing the time of death on the word of Lizzie and Bridget, who may have had trouble keeping her story straight. Perhaps others will disagree, but I don't really feel comfortable with the whole scenario.
I agree with Kat as to the witnesses. I simply don't trust those witnesses to have been truthful and forthcoming. I disagree that using the implements available one hundred and twelve years later can be excused. Recall that Jack The Ripper's final victim was autopsied by surgeons in 1888 and they drew reasonable diagnostic conclusions about the time of death, the stomach alcohol content, poisons, as well as the methodology used to disable the victim and make conclusions based on blood splatter analysis about precisely how the weopon was used and furthermore dtermine whether there had been any sexual conection around the time of death.
I don't agree that Andrew died first as Masterton indicates at one point. I believe he is using this as an indicator that the killing was not done for the purposes of inheritance because that would bolster his belief that an outsider with a grudge against Andrew was the killer.
I tend to use the word seepage when I think of the observations of Andrew's blood. I don't have any problems with the idea that it is reasonable to find that Abby died first. I just have questions about the time frame of the murders, which analysis I believe was improperly handled.
Now that I have bored everyone to tears, I will check the time frame established on another thread.
Gary
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:14 am
- Real Name:
To me, a lot of the aspects of the case become almost too complicated. Some things ARE just as they appear.
There also comes a time that a person has to make some assumptions (in their own mind) to be able to form an opinion.
I have accepted that Abby died approx. when it was concluded she did by the medical reports, wittness statements and theories developed at the time. Perhaps Lizzie and Bridget singularly or together did see and know more than they testified to. Certainly it would seem that one of them had to have!
There also comes a time that a person has to make some assumptions (in their own mind) to be able to form an opinion.
I have accepted that Abby died approx. when it was concluded she did by the medical reports, wittness statements and theories developed at the time. Perhaps Lizzie and Bridget singularly or together did see and know more than they testified to. Certainly it would seem that one of them had to have!
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
So why, Gary, do you accept the 1888 English doctors' conclusions but not the 1892 Fall River doctors' conclusions? Were late-19th century medical examiners in Massachusetts somehow stupider than the ones across the pond?Gary @ Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:40 pm wrote:Recall that Jack The Ripper's final victim was autopsied by surgeons in 1888 and they drew reasonable diagnostic conclusions about the time of death, the stomach alcohol content, poisons, as well as the methodology used to disable the victim and make conclusions based on blood splatter analysis about precisely how the weopon was used and furthermore dtermine whether there had been any sexual conection around the time of death.
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
Dr. Bond's Post Mortem on Mary Kelly
This post-mortem report was written by Dr. Thomas Bond after he examined the remains of Mary Jane Kelly, the last victim of Jack the Ripper, 1888.
"Position of body
The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle & lying across the abdomen. the right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress, the elbow bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk & the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.
The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed & the abdominal Cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds & the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.
The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.
The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of spearate splashes.
Postmortem examination
The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.
The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis.
The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage.
Both breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.
The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.
The left calf showed a long gash through skin & tissues to the deep muscles & reaching from the knee to 5 ins above the ankle.
Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds.
The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.
On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away.
The left lung was intact: it was adherent at the apex & there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substaces of the lung were several nodules of consolidation.
The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.
In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines. "
There it is, Gary, in its entirety. How is this superior to the autopsy reports and stomach analysis of Andrew and Abby Borden?
This post-mortem report was written by Dr. Thomas Bond after he examined the remains of Mary Jane Kelly, the last victim of Jack the Ripper, 1888.
"Position of body
The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat, but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle & lying across the abdomen. the right arm was slightly abducted from the body & rested on the mattress, the elbow bent & the forearm supine with the fingers clenched. The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk & the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.
The whole of the surface of the abdomen & thighs was removed & the abdominal Cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds & the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.
The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.
The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of spearate splashes.
Postmortem examination
The face was gashed in all directions the nose cheeks, eyebrows and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched & cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.
The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis.
The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage.
Both breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.
The skin & tissues of the abdomen from the costal arch to the pubes were removed in three large flaps. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee.
The left calf showed a long gash through skin & tissues to the deep muscles & reaching from the knee to 5 ins above the ankle.
Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds.
The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.
On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away.
The left lung was intact: it was adherent at the apex & there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substaces of the lung were several nodules of consolidation.
The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.
In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines. "
There it is, Gary, in its entirety. How is this superior to the autopsy reports and stomach analysis of Andrew and Abby Borden?
-
Gary
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:53 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South Carolina
Hi Fairhaven
It seems that you have missed the most important part of the autopsy in ignoring the analysis that Bond privately prepared for his boss, Sir Robert Anderson.
Bond indicated as follows; the body was lying on the bed and had been moved to the middle of the bed to enable the killer to work more comfortably; a sheet was used to cover the face while the knife was drawn from left to right as evidenced by the blood splatters on the wall (arterial blood was found on the wall near where the victims head was found);the victim would have had virtually no time to cry out and was approached without signs of a struggle;the murderer attacked from the right side drawing the knife from left to right across the jugular and carotid artery; The weopon was a long sharp bladed knife; this was then compared to the other victims all of whom were killed with the same action of the knife with the exception of Elizabeth Stride, who had been cut from right to left with a shorter, blunt less sharp knife; the killer would not have been deluged with blood, but he would have had blood on his hands and some wet blood on his shirtsleeves; the killer would have needed great strength, but indicated by his methods that he had no anatomical knowledge, rigor mortis was accounted for and core body temperature were used after accounting for the air temperature and other factors, it was therefore stated that the victim had to have been dead for at least twelve hours. There is more but I think you see the point. (See Sugden, pgs 314-320)
Compare this with what the Borden's analysis consisted of. Dr. Bowen, who had taken the temperature of Abby's body by touch some forty minutes after Andrew was found, was asked in court whether he could tell the temperature merely by putting his finger in the air. When he indicated that he could he was openly laughed at by the spectators.
The stomach contents were sent away to a Prof. of chemistry with some medical training a long time ago. Prof. Wood a appears to have taken as long as 19 days to complete his analysis.
The blood coagulation evidence to establish T.O.D. was done on Abby some forty minutes after Andrew was found. This, despite the fact that one of the medical men indicated such evidence was valuable only for a time of 3 to 10 minutes.
It then appears for all the world that the doctor's got together to present a unified front as to what they would testify to- threreby resulting in what appears to be a a canned version of when Abby died. The purpose of course being to convict Lizzie. How would you feel if you were on trial and the medical men got together and decided to reinforce each others highly dubious testimony as lead by the prosecutor repeating to each doctor that he had heard the testimony of his peers.
There seems to be something about medical men which prevents us from dealing with them objectively. This lasts until you watch a medical man testify to a virtual impossiblity in order to bolster the side which has hired him and payed his witness fees.
There were plenty of brilliant trained, experienced men in the United States who could have been called in to analyse the evidence, but obdurate minds prevailed and the medical men would only be allowed in from as far away as Boston.
Gary
It seems that you have missed the most important part of the autopsy in ignoring the analysis that Bond privately prepared for his boss, Sir Robert Anderson.
Bond indicated as follows; the body was lying on the bed and had been moved to the middle of the bed to enable the killer to work more comfortably; a sheet was used to cover the face while the knife was drawn from left to right as evidenced by the blood splatters on the wall (arterial blood was found on the wall near where the victims head was found);the victim would have had virtually no time to cry out and was approached without signs of a struggle;the murderer attacked from the right side drawing the knife from left to right across the jugular and carotid artery; The weopon was a long sharp bladed knife; this was then compared to the other victims all of whom were killed with the same action of the knife with the exception of Elizabeth Stride, who had been cut from right to left with a shorter, blunt less sharp knife; the killer would not have been deluged with blood, but he would have had blood on his hands and some wet blood on his shirtsleeves; the killer would have needed great strength, but indicated by his methods that he had no anatomical knowledge, rigor mortis was accounted for and core body temperature were used after accounting for the air temperature and other factors, it was therefore stated that the victim had to have been dead for at least twelve hours. There is more but I think you see the point. (See Sugden, pgs 314-320)
Compare this with what the Borden's analysis consisted of. Dr. Bowen, who had taken the temperature of Abby's body by touch some forty minutes after Andrew was found, was asked in court whether he could tell the temperature merely by putting his finger in the air. When he indicated that he could he was openly laughed at by the spectators.
The stomach contents were sent away to a Prof. of chemistry with some medical training a long time ago. Prof. Wood a appears to have taken as long as 19 days to complete his analysis.
The blood coagulation evidence to establish T.O.D. was done on Abby some forty minutes after Andrew was found. This, despite the fact that one of the medical men indicated such evidence was valuable only for a time of 3 to 10 minutes.
It then appears for all the world that the doctor's got together to present a unified front as to what they would testify to- threreby resulting in what appears to be a a canned version of when Abby died. The purpose of course being to convict Lizzie. How would you feel if you were on trial and the medical men got together and decided to reinforce each others highly dubious testimony as lead by the prosecutor repeating to each doctor that he had heard the testimony of his peers.
There seems to be something about medical men which prevents us from dealing with them objectively. This lasts until you watch a medical man testify to a virtual impossiblity in order to bolster the side which has hired him and payed his witness fees.
There were plenty of brilliant trained, experienced men in the United States who could have been called in to analyse the evidence, but obdurate minds prevailed and the medical men would only be allowed in from as far away as Boston.
Gary
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:26 am
- Real Name:
The reference was to Doctor Bond's autopsy report; nothing was mentioned of his memo to Sir Robert Anderson until Counsel brought it up... 
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
Hi Gary!
In Boston. . .in 1782 Harvard Medical School was founded. . .
In Boston. . .in 1863 Boston College. . .
In Boston. . .in 1893 Tufts School of Medicine. . .
Why go outside of Boston, about 60 miles from Fall River, for more outstanding medical minds?
By the way, the first crime lab in the United States was established by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1930.
In 1892, one relied on "ordinary" doctors and chemists. I have read somewhere, but I can't find the reference at the moment, that the blood splatter analysis in the Borden case was exemplary. Few have ever questioned the testimonies of the medical experts in this case, and believe me, far greater minds than ours have had more than a century to study this.
But again. . . let's say Abby died closer to Andrew or even after him. How does that clear Lizzie? or Bridget? or Morse?
In Boston. . .in 1782 Harvard Medical School was founded. . .
In Boston. . .in 1863 Boston College. . .
In Boston. . .in 1893 Tufts School of Medicine. . .
Why go outside of Boston, about 60 miles from Fall River, for more outstanding medical minds?
By the way, the first crime lab in the United States was established by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1930.
In 1892, one relied on "ordinary" doctors and chemists. I have read somewhere, but I can't find the reference at the moment, that the blood splatter analysis in the Borden case was exemplary. Few have ever questioned the testimonies of the medical experts in this case, and believe me, far greater minds than ours have had more than a century to study this.
But again. . . let's say Abby died closer to Andrew or even after him. How does that clear Lizzie? or Bridget? or Morse?
-
Gary
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:53 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South Carolina
Where were the brilliant legal minds from these fine insitutions when it came time to provide a skilled, trained, experienced autopsy surgeon? You contend one relied on ordinary medical doctors and chemists in the Borden's day. I would very much like to see who said that, because I know that was not the case throughout the country. You mean to imply that there was not one skilled autopsy surgeon in 1892 in America. Nonsense. They had them in most other western civilized countries. By your reasoning I guess It was very much correct to say that the English autopsy surgeons, one in each district, must have had a leg up on their American counterparts. This is clealy false but it is the only way to reconcile the points you have made in your recent posts.
As for blood splatter analysis, Prof. Wood was supposed to be a blood splatter expert, but as I understand it he went to the house a number of days after the killings and could find nothing of value. How clever to put this off until nothing could be gained by a visit.
So, because no-one in lthe last century has questioned the work of the medical men, you imply we are all too stupid to question something that is of long standing acceptance. By that token there is no point in participating in this discussion by the people on these boards as there is obviously no room for views that don't follow the pat story. The spectators in the courtroom questioned Dr. Bowen by laughing at his contention that he could tell the temperature by extending his finger into the air. Masterton, a Prof. of chemistry questioned it again and again in his book and I choose to question it because it was patently mishandled. For centuries the earth was seen as flat. Does that mean it was a correct surmise. After all it was an accepted fact for many centuries. People did not question it except for a few heretical thinkers. By your logic it could not be disputed.
I never set out to prove that the T.O.D. cleared anybody- my point is that if Abby died closer to the time that Andrew died, but prior to Andrew's death, it gave another killer more practical ability to stay in the house undetected, or while possibly using Lizzie and/or Bridget to aid in the getaway.
Nevertheless, perhaps you are right about one thing if you feel the medical men cannot be questioned then the argument in your mind is closed. Therefore this discussion is a waste of time.
Perhaps Victoria Lincoln was right -this matter was a private disgrace not to be questioned or examined too closely by outsiders for fear of what might be found.
Gary
As for blood splatter analysis, Prof. Wood was supposed to be a blood splatter expert, but as I understand it he went to the house a number of days after the killings and could find nothing of value. How clever to put this off until nothing could be gained by a visit.
So, because no-one in lthe last century has questioned the work of the medical men, you imply we are all too stupid to question something that is of long standing acceptance. By that token there is no point in participating in this discussion by the people on these boards as there is obviously no room for views that don't follow the pat story. The spectators in the courtroom questioned Dr. Bowen by laughing at his contention that he could tell the temperature by extending his finger into the air. Masterton, a Prof. of chemistry questioned it again and again in his book and I choose to question it because it was patently mishandled. For centuries the earth was seen as flat. Does that mean it was a correct surmise. After all it was an accepted fact for many centuries. People did not question it except for a few heretical thinkers. By your logic it could not be disputed.
I never set out to prove that the T.O.D. cleared anybody- my point is that if Abby died closer to the time that Andrew died, but prior to Andrew's death, it gave another killer more practical ability to stay in the house undetected, or while possibly using Lizzie and/or Bridget to aid in the getaway.
Nevertheless, perhaps you are right about one thing if you feel the medical men cannot be questioned then the argument in your mind is closed. Therefore this discussion is a waste of time.
Perhaps Victoria Lincoln was right -this matter was a private disgrace not to be questioned or examined too closely by outsiders for fear of what might be found.
Gary
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
If we can know what specific references each of us is using; if some are relying on memory here or if they have recently perused the testimony of all the doctors whose expertise has been questioned, if we knew who had read the behind-the-scene accounts from letters in the Knowlton Papers which provide a broader picture and in context, without assumptions at that point, I think these people's arguments might hold more weight as sourced to the material, and then we can speculate further. If some are relying on just snippets out of context that others post, this is not really fair to the doctors or to a valid argument. If we are on the same page, read the same testimonies (concurrently with each other) I think we would have a better chance of a discussion which was to the point.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Well, I hope I didn't bring this topic to a screeching halt! 
Maybe everyone is regrouping and reading the sources they can download at the website.
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm
The thing is, each of us has a valid point- I'm also thinking about that letter in the Knowlton Papers which specifically spells out to the prosecution what might be best not touched upon at trial, as to the medical information. The reason given was that (I believe) it was pointed out that they preferred not to confuse the jury, nor did they want the defense to bulk up with their own, or more doctors, to refute their findings.
It still sounds like old-fashioned, but reasonable strategy behind-the-scenes by those involved for the state.
When Fleet and Mullaly did their *act* at the trial, they paid dearly for not being on the same page.
But the defense brought in no doctors to refute the evidence of the bodies or time of death, tho they examined some of it.
We could actually agree to read the 4 doctors testimony at trial, and if none have The Knowlton Papers, maybe I can get permission to present the pertinent letters in the Privy, in the near future.
Maybe everyone is regrouping and reading the sources they can download at the website.http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm
The thing is, each of us has a valid point- I'm also thinking about that letter in the Knowlton Papers which specifically spells out to the prosecution what might be best not touched upon at trial, as to the medical information. The reason given was that (I believe) it was pointed out that they preferred not to confuse the jury, nor did they want the defense to bulk up with their own, or more doctors, to refute their findings.
It still sounds like old-fashioned, but reasonable strategy behind-the-scenes by those involved for the state.
When Fleet and Mullaly did their *act* at the trial, they paid dearly for not being on the same page.
But the defense brought in no doctors to refute the evidence of the bodies or time of death, tho they examined some of it.
We could actually agree to read the 4 doctors testimony at trial, and if none have The Knowlton Papers, maybe I can get permission to present the pertinent letters in the Privy, in the near future.
-
diana
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:21 pm
- Real Name:
I, for one, am interested in this topic. I'm going to go back and re-read Dolan's testimonies because I have a rather shaky recollection that he was not totally unassailable when questioned as to Abby's time of death.
You make a good point, Kat -- that the defense did not pay much attention to refuting the prevailing opinion as to when the Bordens died. And certainly that interval between the deaths couldn't have helped their case. Wood makes mention of two medical experts for the defence -- Dr. Thomas Dwight and Dr. Maurice H. Richardson -- both of whom studied the skulls and "bony fragments" at Wood's office -- yet neither of these were called at trial. However Wood cautioned Knowlton that because the defense was recruiting medical experts, the prosecution would be wise to enlist more medical help on the side of the government to bolster their case. (KP, 206)
I've found it difficult as a lay person to access substantitive modern information on forensics --but although Wood states: "Of the three data, [body temp, condition of blood and digestion] the condition of the digestive process in the two individuals is the most significant and reliable" (Knowlton Papers, 210) -- my impression from what little I can find on-line and in-library is that the digestive process is not as highly regarded as an indicator of time since death as it was in the 1890's.
You make a good point, Kat -- that the defense did not pay much attention to refuting the prevailing opinion as to when the Bordens died. And certainly that interval between the deaths couldn't have helped their case. Wood makes mention of two medical experts for the defence -- Dr. Thomas Dwight and Dr. Maurice H. Richardson -- both of whom studied the skulls and "bony fragments" at Wood's office -- yet neither of these were called at trial. However Wood cautioned Knowlton that because the defense was recruiting medical experts, the prosecution would be wise to enlist more medical help on the side of the government to bolster their case. (KP, 206)
I've found it difficult as a lay person to access substantitive modern information on forensics --but although Wood states: "Of the three data, [body temp, condition of blood and digestion] the condition of the digestive process in the two individuals is the most significant and reliable" (Knowlton Papers, 210) -- my impression from what little I can find on-line and in-library is that the digestive process is not as highly regarded as an indicator of time since death as it was in the 1890's.
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:26 am
- Real Name:
There's actually a short paper titled "Standards Employed to Determine Time of Death" at www.arrakis.es/~jacoello/date.pdf ....
(I found this by typing - without quote marks - "digestive process as an indicator of time of death" in ye olde browser; it was the first hit.)
Might be helpful...
(I found this by typing - without quote marks - "digestive process as an indicator of time of death" in ye olde browser; it was the first hit.)
Might be helpful...
-
FairhavenGuy
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:39 am
- Real Name: Christopher J. Richard
- Location: Fairhaven, MA
- Contact:
Hi Gary!
Dr. Edward S. Wood was, in fact, an expert from Harvard Medical School, where he'd been a professor since 1876. He was a physician and chemist. His specialty was medical chemistry and medico-legal cases, especially involving poisons and bloodstains. He had testified in many trials, including capital cases.
William A. Dolan, after getting a dregree from St. Joseph's College, in affiliation with Lavalle University, New Brunswick, got his medical degree in 1882 from University of Pennsylvania. He then was house surgeon at St. Peter's Hospital in Albany, NY before returning to Fall River, where he'd grown up. The year of the Borden murders he had been appointed medical examiner for the Third Bristol District in Massachusetts.
Bowen, though somewhat of a buffoon, in my opinion, had graduated from Brown University and the Bellevue Hospital Medical College in New York.
Masterton, on the other hand, is a retired college chemistry and thermodynamics teacher and the author of high school text books and lab manuals.
I'll put my money on Wood and Dolan.
Dr. Edward S. Wood was, in fact, an expert from Harvard Medical School, where he'd been a professor since 1876. He was a physician and chemist. His specialty was medical chemistry and medico-legal cases, especially involving poisons and bloodstains. He had testified in many trials, including capital cases.
William A. Dolan, after getting a dregree from St. Joseph's College, in affiliation with Lavalle University, New Brunswick, got his medical degree in 1882 from University of Pennsylvania. He then was house surgeon at St. Peter's Hospital in Albany, NY before returning to Fall River, where he'd grown up. The year of the Borden murders he had been appointed medical examiner for the Third Bristol District in Massachusetts.
Bowen, though somewhat of a buffoon, in my opinion, had graduated from Brown University and the Bellevue Hospital Medical College in New York.
Masterton, on the other hand, is a retired college chemistry and thermodynamics teacher and the author of high school text books and lab manuals.
I'll put my money on Wood and Dolan.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14768
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Welllll:
Dr. Dolan at the Preliminary:
Q. As a Medical Examiner have you ever had an autopsy in a homicide case before?
A. I do not know whether you would call it a homicide, there was a case here ---
Q. Whether since you were Medical Examiner you have had a case of homicide before?
A. I would say yes.
Q. How many?
A. One.
Q. What one was that?
A. Do you mean the name?
Q. Yes, for the purpose of identification.
A. It was on the body of a woman named Catherine O’Conner.
Q. What was the cause of her death?
A. Concussion of the brain.
Q. Due to what, in your opinion?
A. Due to beating by her husband.
(Mr. Knowlton.) Has that case been tried?
A. He has been convicted yes sir.
--He states at the beginning of his testimony in answer to a question that he had had a good many autopsies, yes.
Probably before he became M.E., tho.
Seems he only had one before the Bordens.
I trust him though mainly because he was there.
Dr. Dolan at the Preliminary:
Q. As a Medical Examiner have you ever had an autopsy in a homicide case before?
A. I do not know whether you would call it a homicide, there was a case here ---
Q. Whether since you were Medical Examiner you have had a case of homicide before?
A. I would say yes.
Q. How many?
A. One.
Q. What one was that?
A. Do you mean the name?
Q. Yes, for the purpose of identification.
A. It was on the body of a woman named Catherine O’Conner.
Q. What was the cause of her death?
A. Concussion of the brain.
Q. Due to what, in your opinion?
A. Due to beating by her husband.
(Mr. Knowlton.) Has that case been tried?
A. He has been convicted yes sir.
--He states at the beginning of his testimony in answer to a question that he had had a good many autopsies, yes.
Probably before he became M.E., tho.
Seems he only had one before the Bordens.
I trust him though mainly because he was there.
-
MysteryReader
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:03 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Misty
- Location: somewhere in GA
Re:
I haven't finished reading this thread yet or finished my research but this one caught my attention. Yes, the late-19th century medical examiners in Massachusetts were somehow stupider (more like dumber) than the ones across the pond. I don't believe the autopsies were done correctly (at least not as thoroughly as Gary's post suggests).FairhavenGuy wrote:So why, Gary, do you accept the 1888 English doctors' conclusions but not the 1892 Fall River doctors' conclusions? Were late-19th century medical examiners in Massachusetts somehow stupider than the ones across the pond?Gary @ Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:40 pm wrote:Recall that Jack The Ripper's final victim was autopsied by surgeons in 1888 and they drew reasonable diagnostic conclusions about the time of death, the stomach alcohol content, poisons, as well as the methodology used to disable the victim and make conclusions based on blood splatter analysis about precisely how the weopon was used and furthermore dtermine whether there had been any sexual conection around the time of death.
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
I think the most obvious example of the autopsies not being as thorough as thorough as they could have been is, of course Dr Dolan missing the wound in Abby's shoulder blades during his first autopsy at the Borden home. While not vital in explaining the cause of death it is certainly a bit worrying.
I certainly don't think that Massechusetts doctors were dumber than those 'over the pond' or indeed, elsewhere in the United States. Dr Dolan realised his mistake and of course performed another postmortem after the funeral at the cemetery.
I do think conditions at the time had a great deal to do with it. The Borden home, including the dining room seems to have been particularly badly lighted. No electricity. While I know that post-mortems were often conducted in people's homes at that particular time I feel that everything would have been better if the examination had been in a mortuary.
I certainly don't think that Massechusetts doctors were dumber than those 'over the pond' or indeed, elsewhere in the United States. Dr Dolan realised his mistake and of course performed another postmortem after the funeral at the cemetery.
I do think conditions at the time had a great deal to do with it. The Borden home, including the dining room seems to have been particularly badly lighted. No electricity. While I know that post-mortems were often conducted in people's homes at that particular time I feel that everything would have been better if the examination had been in a mortuary.
-
MysteryReader
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:03 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Misty
- Location: somewhere in GA
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Curryong wrote:I think the most obvious example of the autopsies not being as thorough as thorough as they could have been is, of course Dr Dolan missing the wound in Abby's shoulder blades during his first autopsy at the Borden home. While not vital in explaining the cause of death it is certainly a bit worrying.
I certainly don't think that Massechusetts doctors were dumber than those 'over the pond' or indeed, elsewhere in the United States. Dr Dolan realised his mistake and of course performed another postmortem after the funeral at the cemetery.
I do think conditions at the time had a great deal to do with it. The Borden home, including the dining room seems to have been particularly badly lighted. No electricity. While I know that post-mortems were often conducted in people's homes at that particular time I feel that everything would have been better if the examination had been in a mortuary.
Okay, I give you the conditions weren't that great. Also, what is with waiting a week to do another autopsy after the funeral
We have refrigeration systems today so it's not a big deal to put a body in and wait until there is time (usually within a week or two, not months) but decomp had to have been bad then. 
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
There was the farce of Uncle John agitating to have the clothes buried, which they were, (probably because they were stinking out the cellar instead of being bundled up and taken away as they would be nowadays.)
He sought permission to do it and that wasn't granted straight away. John couldn't find anyone to do this unpleasant task at first and then there were arguments about payments between John and the man he contracted to do it. That took time.
Then, after the clothing was buried, Dr Dolan became cross because he wanted to examine the clothing again! So the clothing had to be dug up once more. Another delay. Dr Dolan took a look at Abby's clothing and decided to perform another autopsy. The murders were on the Thursday morning. The funeral was on the following Saturday. Barely three days between the two events. Perhaps there was some deterioration but I think the second autopsy was performed mainly to cover all bases and Dr Dolan's butt!
He sought permission to do it and that wasn't granted straight away. John couldn't find anyone to do this unpleasant task at first and then there were arguments about payments between John and the man he contracted to do it. That took time.
Then, after the clothing was buried, Dr Dolan became cross because he wanted to examine the clothing again! So the clothing had to be dug up once more. Another delay. Dr Dolan took a look at Abby's clothing and decided to perform another autopsy. The murders were on the Thursday morning. The funeral was on the following Saturday. Barely three days between the two events. Perhaps there was some deterioration but I think the second autopsy was performed mainly to cover all bases and Dr Dolan's butt!
Last edited by Curryong on Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
PossumPie
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:26 am
- Real Name: Possum Pie
Re: When Did Abby Die?
I see problems with the autopsies of course, but I have read the autopsy reports as a Registered Nurse, and the CORE facts are clearly and completely addressed. The state of the digestion of her breakfast which was ingested at a known time, along with coagulation times seems to fix her T.O.D. fairly accurately. Of course without the sophisticated Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometers we have today, an uncommon poison COULD have been present and missed. In order to test for poisoning, they would have had to test for SPECIFIC KNOWN poisons individually. There is no magic test that turns blue if any known poison in the world is present.
Generally, someone proposing a theory that would need Abby and Andrew to have died at nearly the same time picks apart the autopsy findings, but from a medical point of view, I would swear in court as an expert witness that there was at least an hour between deaths, and probably closer to an hour and a half.
An interesting fact is that even today in 2014, roughly 60% of ALL DEATH CERTIFICATES are inaccurate. They are done hurriedly by internists and busy doctors. Lucky for us the blows to the head were obviously homicide, and her case was studied a bit more carefully. The New Yorker Magazine of a few weeks ago has a great article on death certificates.
Generally, someone proposing a theory that would need Abby and Andrew to have died at nearly the same time picks apart the autopsy findings, but from a medical point of view, I would swear in court as an expert witness that there was at least an hour between deaths, and probably closer to an hour and a half.
An interesting fact is that even today in 2014, roughly 60% of ALL DEATH CERTIFICATES are inaccurate. They are done hurriedly by internists and busy doctors. Lucky for us the blows to the head were obviously homicide, and her case was studied a bit more carefully. The New Yorker Magazine of a few weeks ago has a great article on death certificates.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
-
twinsrwe
- Posts: 4457
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:49 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Judy
- Location: Wisconsin
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Thank you, Possum! I was hoping you would share your expert knowledge of the Borden autopsies with us from an RN's point of view. Knowing that you would swear in court as an expert witness that there was at least an hour between deaths, and probably closer to an hour and a half, gives me a lot more confidence in the autopsy finding from Dr. Dolan.
In remembrance of my beloved son:
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Thank you twinsrwe, it is. It's one of the most ridiculously funny theories I've ever read.
Sorry, posted in the wrong thread!!!
Sorry, posted in the wrong thread!!!
-
MysteryReader
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:03 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Misty
- Location: somewhere in GA
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Okay, I'll have to go back and re-read- I'm sure I have it as the murder was a Thursday, the 4th and the second autopsy was the day of the burial on the 11th.Curryong wrote:
Then, after the clothing was buried, Dr Dolan became cross because he wanted to examine the clothing again! So the clothing had to be dug up once more. Another delay. Dr Dolan took a look at Abby's clothing and decided to perform another autopsy. The murders were on the Thursday morning. The funeral was on the following Saturday. Barely three days between the two events. Perhaps there was some deterioration but I think the second autopsy was performed mainly to cover all bases and Dr Borden's butt!
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
The Inquest was on the 9th to the 11th of the week following the murders. Lizzie gave evidence. She was arrested on the evening of the last day of the inquest.
The second autopsy was completed by Dr Dolan and the Boston doctor on the 11th, at the Oak Grove Cemetery, after the funeral on the 6th. ('Goodbye Lizzie Borden: Robert Sullivan, page 45) It was at this autopsy that they discovered the deep shoulder blade wound on Abby.
I think that's where we've been getting muddled and talking at cross purposes. The cemetery buildings would presumably have had a cool receiving room, if not a mortuary.
The second autopsy was completed by Dr Dolan and the Boston doctor on the 11th, at the Oak Grove Cemetery, after the funeral on the 6th. ('Goodbye Lizzie Borden: Robert Sullivan, page 45) It was at this autopsy that they discovered the deep shoulder blade wound on Abby.
I think that's where we've been getting muddled and talking at cross purposes. The cemetery buildings would presumably have had a cool receiving room, if not a mortuary.
-
MysteryReader
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:03 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Misty
- Location: somewhere in GA
-
PossumPie
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:26 am
- Real Name: Possum Pie
Re: When Did Abby Die?
You're welcome. I have seen over the years, people who 'need' the Bordens deaths to be close together for their theory to work...mostly by proposing all kinds of reasons why the blood was dry around Abby but not Andrew. Those people usually have theories that it wasn't Lizzie who killed, but they admit that they are very uncomfortable with a killer hiding in the house for an hour-and-a-half so ignore the medical evidence for that long time frame and boldly state that they were killed at the same time. On the surface, it looks plausible, but taking into account the state of digestion of both Bordens, just didn't happen. Of course writing a book and ignoring scientific evidence could sway the beliefs of casual readers who wouldn't know to look a little deeper at the science...twinsrwe wrote:Thank you, Possum! I was hoping you would share your expert knowledge of the Borden autopsies with us from an RN's point of view. Knowing that you would swear in court as an expert witness that there was at least an hour between deaths, and probably closer to an hour and a half, gives me a lot more confidence in the autopsy finding from Dr. Dolan.
The fact is either 1. The killer killed Abby, hung around for 90 minutes without being discovered then killed Andrew and slipped away, or 2. Was someone already in the house who's presence for those 90 minutes wouldn't be questioned...Bridget or Lizzie.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
-
PossumPie
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:26 am
- Real Name: Possum Pie
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Today is my 1 year anniversary of being a poster on Lizzie Borden Forum....as promised to the ladies here...a picture!
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Congratulations on your 12 months on the Forum, Possum. And thanks for the glimpse of you-know-who, though I think I would have preferred a more full-frontal really!
Are you going to celebrate by going toe-toe (metaphorically) with our newest member, or are you saving yourself?
Are you going to celebrate by going toe-toe (metaphorically) with our newest member, or are you saving yourself?
-
twinsrwe
- Posts: 4457
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:49 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Judy
- Location: Wisconsin
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Congratulations, Possum!!!
I love your picture; thanks for posting it for us.
I love your picture; thanks for posting it for us.
In remembrance of my beloved son:
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
"Vaya Con Dios" (Spanish for: "Go with God"), by Anne Murray ( https://tinyurl.com/y8nvqqx9 )
“God has you in heaven, but I have you in my heart.” ~ TobyMac (https://tinyurl.com/rakc5nd )
-
Franz
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:44 am
- Real Name: Li Guangli
- Location: Rome, Italy
- Contact:
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Congratulations, PossumPie!
A wondeful year here together with you, many thanks!
A wondeful year here together with you, many thanks!
"Mr. Morse, when you were told for the THIRD time that Abby and Andrew had been killed, why did you pronounce a "WHAT" to Mrs. Churchill? Why?"
-
PossumPie
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:26 am
- Real Name: Possum Pie
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Thanks to you all for the kind words. We have exercised our brain cells together and doing so formed friendships.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
-
Franz
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:44 am
- Real Name: Li Guangli
- Location: Rome, Italy
- Contact:
Re: When Did Abby Die?
PossumPie, are you the guy in the picture?
"Mr. Morse, when you were told for the THIRD time that Abby and Andrew had been killed, why did you pronounce a "WHAT" to Mrs. Churchill? Why?"
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
Not unless he has changed into Sherlock Holmes in a cute hat!
-
debbiediablo
- Posts: 1467
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:42 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Deborah
- Location: Upper Midwest
Re: When Did Abby Die?
I cannot wrap my brain around how Andrew could have been killed first...even if not considering from the autopsy results which I believe are accurate. Abby would've been somewhere - either inside the house where she would've heard the murderer hacking up Andrew's face or coming in where she would've encountered either the murder taking place or just finished. Then put Lizzie in the mix, discovering Andrew or chasing Abby upstairs with the hatchet when Abby discovers Andew. Overall, this scenario has huge gaps in possibility. At least to me.
DebbieDiablo
*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'* Even Paranoids Have Enemies
"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
*´¨)
¸.· ´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·'* Even Paranoids Have Enemies
"Everything you want is on the other side of fear."
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
I would certainly trust the testimony of doctors who saw the bodies of Abby and Andrew in situ, who saw the blood, did the post-mortems, examined the stomach contents etc., to any doctor who hadn't experienced those things. Often authors do have to take a different angle in their narrative, when writing about the Ripper, Zodiac, Lizzie and other well-known killers/murders otherwise their book wouldn't sell! There are only so many re-tellings of a well-worn story that book buyers can stand.
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: When Did Abby Die?
I didn't know where to place this. It's interesting, though off-topic as far as Abby is concerned.
I've been following the Oscar Pistorius trial in South Africa. The victim, Reeva Steenkamp, still had undigested food in her stomach, according to the autopsy report. Oscar testified that he and Reeva had last eaten about eight hours before the shooting.
A 'specialist anaesthetist has been on the witness stand today for the defence. She gave as her opinion that Reeva could have retained that food due to her having been asleep and her being pre- menopausal. Possible?
I've been following the Oscar Pistorius trial in South Africa. The victim, Reeva Steenkamp, still had undigested food in her stomach, according to the autopsy report. Oscar testified that he and Reeva had last eaten about eight hours before the shooting.
A 'specialist anaesthetist has been on the witness stand today for the defence. She gave as her opinion that Reeva could have retained that food due to her having been asleep and her being pre- menopausal. Possible?