A HANDLELESS HATCHET
How It Cut the People's Theory in the Borden Case
Not Skillful Jugglers
The Policemen Testifying at New Bedford "A Sight to Behold"-
Not Properly Coached or Forgot Their Narratives - Saturday's Testimony
New Bedford, June 11 - The handleless hatchet - now generally known as "the hoodoo hatchet" - continued its demonish pranks in the trial of Lizzie BORDEN for her life yesterday. It chopped another great hole in the case, of which it is a most important feature, since the only theory of the murder that has been advanced is that Lizzie BORDEN butchered both her parents at the end of thirty-two years of an upright life. Whatever damages that theory simply increases the mystery that shrouds the murders. It is as if the cause was a deep and pitch-dark well, and the commonwealth had said: "We will rig up a search light and throw glare in the well and light up the very bottom of it." They took ten months to build the lamp, and on the first day in court set it up with a great flourish in New Bedford. They turned on the blaze, and it seemed very powerful, but the light only deepens the darkness.
The commonwealth's lawyers pretend to point out objects in the inky space, but those vanish like phantoms at a second glance. They fished up the hoodoo hatchet with a triumphant blaze of boasting, but it is bewitched. It turned on them, and they have been dodging its blows ever since they began to try to deal with it. That hatchet is the most sensational exhibit in his most sensational case. It played the mischief with the government all day Friday, and instead of resting yesterday the court was no sooner opened than it ?ew at its own guardians, and began chopping and hacking their case pretty nearly as bad as the bodies of Mr. and Mrs. BORDEN were chopped. The commonwealth's lawyers had been guarding it as they would guard Aladdin's lamp, if they could get hold of it, but to-day, after it had set their witnesses all awry and slivered their testimony so that it could be seen through, those lawyers tossed the ?riholy thing on the table at which Lizzie BORDEN's lawyers always sit, and there they left it lying, as if they wished to disown it.
The excitement in court when the policeman stepped beyond the stereotyped story that all the police of Fall River tell on behalf of the government, and said he had seen the missing handle in the same box where the hatchet blade was found, has been described. The lawyers for Miss BORDEN saw to it that no one should speak to the assistant marshal who had said he found the blade but said nothing about the handle, that being understood to have been burned or stuck in the stove wrapped up in paper by the prisoner. Then the marshal came back and said that he saw and found no handle, flatly contradicting the man who was with him and said the handle was found.
After that there was another exciting contest outside the court room between the two sets of lawyers. The district attorney, Mr. KNOWLTON, sent two officers to the BORDEN home to get the box in which the blade was found, and the handle of it was in it. Miss BORDEN'S sister, Emma, lives in that house, and her lawyers saw to it that their antagonists were kept out. That was what happened.
Miss Lizzie's chief counselor, Andrew J. JENNINGS, had better luck. He got the box, but the highly important handle was missing. Who took it can only be guessed at. Had it been found it would have played hob with the theory that Miss BORDEN burned it. However, the policeman who saw it proves as good witness for Miss BORDEN as the handle itself. The famous box marked "Muscated Grapes" in blue - the dominant color in this case - was on the table before the jury this morning.
Miss Lizzie BORDEN has been likened to a barometer, because heretofore her spirits at early morning have corresponded with what the day was to bring forth for or against her. It was not so to-day. She was limp and inert this morning. She seemed depressed. To be sure the event of the day stimulated her so that she left the court room a bright and vigorous woman, but that does not mend the fact that her spirits belied her good fortune earlier in the day. By the way, the strangers who are here begin to notice that Lizzie BORDEN'S face is of a type quite common here in New Bedford.
They meet Lizzie BORDENS every day and everywhere about town. Some have even come in the court room. Some are fairer, some are younger, some are coarser, but all have the same general cast of features - heavy in the lower face, high in the cheek bones, wide at the eyes, and with heavy lips and a deep line on each side of the mouth. It will be interesting to the ladies to know that all the reporters, even the one who writes this, have been mistaken about the material of which is made the dress which she wears in court every day. It is simple black crepe.
It will interest both sexes to hear then Bridget SULLIVAN, as she visits her friends in the kitchens on the hill, is fond of saying that she scarcely knew Lizzie BORDEN when she saw her in court the first day, she has grown so fat. Evidently, as the district attorney would say, prison far? Is better than the routine of mutton, cold soup, cookies and green peas she used to get in her cheerless home in Fall River.
The reason why the reports for the last few days have seemed to favor Lizzie BORDEN is very interesting. It is that the case made out against her by the government has been steadily melting, like a cake of ice in the sunshine. The presentation by District Attorney MOODY on Monday has now been nearly all met by the evidence of the commonwealth's witnesses. They have little left that they outlined.
There is yet to come the contradictory testimony of the prisoner about her doings on the day of the murder as she told her story at the inquest, though weighty circumstantial evidence of the same sort has been furnished by many a witness. Then, too, there is yet to come the promised testimony of the cloakmaker to whom the prisoner said that her stepmother was "a mean thing and we hate her." All else that the district attorney promised has been sworn to by his witnesses under his questioning on the direct examination but on the cross-examination by ex-Governor ROBINSON it has been riddled and all but destroyed. It has been largely police testimony, and the witnesses have in many cases spoken as if by note and show an unmistakable bias against the prisoner. But far more than that has happened. They have contradicted one another under the almost magical and all but super-human questioning by that master cross-examiner, ROBINSON. This has brought to light the positive, reiterated proof that Lizzie BORDEN did not hinder the searching of her room, and that she did not burn up the handle of the hoodoo hatchet. Worse still for the commonwealth, that handle has been at last traced to its place and they must account for its disappearance or suffer the consequences by resting under the fairly grounded suspicion that it was hidden or destroyed for a purpose involving a human life.
Yesterday the hatchet laid out two more policemen. First one of them told when he found it. He showed it to his captain, and then wrapped it up in a piece of brown paper and took it to the city marshal. Then his captain took the stand, all unconscious of what had been testified to, and said that he did it up in a whole newspaper and let the officer take it away.
Mr. ROBINSON, who stumbled on all this by his usual hard work that leaves nothing undone, actually made the two policemen show the jury how each one wrapped it up. The two officers each went through the performance, each one swearing positively to his details. One made a brown bundle the size of a five-cent cut of pie, and the other made a great newspaper bundle big enough to conceal a pair of ‘longshoremen's shoes.
____________
SATURDAY'S TESTIMONY
New Bedford, June 11 - There was less of a rush to the BORDEN trial yesterday morning than there has been yet, the morning opening warm and muggy, and the uncomfortable condition of the court room being too little attractive in view of past experiences to offset the drawing powers of listening to commonplace evidence. Miss BORDEN took her seat at 8:55 o'clock within the bar, and looked quite fresh and rosy, and more interested in her surroundings than has been apparent heretofore.
Before the court counsel on both sides held a consultation in the private
room of the justices. The first witness called was Lieutenant F. EDSON of the
Fall River police force, who testified as follows:
"At the time of the BORDEN tragedy I was acting-sergeant
of police. At 3:40 o'clock, last night, I went to the BORDEN house in consequence
of instructions, but was refused admission, the servant only appearing at the
door. I sent word to Miss Emma BORDEN requesting to be admitted but was refused.
Officer MAHONEY was with me. On the 5th of August I took two wood axes, a hand
axe and a small shingle hatchet from the BORDEN house. The axes and hatchet
were taken to the central police station, and I haven't had anything to do with
them since. When I was at the house on the morning of the 5th I was taking with
Emma, and Lizzie came in and asked Bridget whether she was sure the back cellar
door was locked, and the answer was ‘yes.' I took part in the search of the
premises on the 8th. DESMOND, CONNORS, QUIGLEY, MEDLEY and an outsider, A. J.
JENNINGS and Inspector HANSCOM were there also. They came when we were searching.
So far as I know, HANSCOM was never associated with the police in any work."
On cross-examination, EDSON said: "Our last search was made during the
day, we arriving there about 10 o'clock in the morning. We searched for ourselves,
each one being detailed to do different work. I searched about in the cellar,
about the furnace, the wood cellar, the one in the corner of the house towards
Mrs. KELLEY'S. I don't remember that there were any boxes in that room but there
were in a room adjoining. They were on the ground but I did not see any on a
shelf. There was a chimney, there were boxes placed along there in which cinders
had been placed. I didn't notice any box on a shelf near the chimney. I did
not see any box taken down. My work was done carefully and I think the others
did theirs so. I found nothing in the box of cinders and nothing anywhere else.
The hatchets and axes were not there that morning. Officer MEDLEY took away
that morning, a hatchet head. He showed it to me. It was wrapped up in a paper.
He took it away before we went. It had no handle and he had no handle in his
possession. I saw no handle, I don't know where he got this hatchet, Mr. JENNINGS
never interfered. On the contrary he said it was perfectly proper. Mr. HANSCOM
never interfered with us and he went away in a short time after we went to work.
When I carried the axes to the station I carried them openly in my hand and
used no bag at all. I don't remember that there were any shelves in the woodshed
but I think there was a shelf near the heating apparatus. The shelf I think
was in the room north of the heating apparatus and I think now (plan shown)
that I see the plan, that there was a shelf in another room. The claw hammer
I found on a shelf Captain HARRINGTON directed me to it where I got it on the
morning of the 5th. During my search in the cellar I found nothing bearing upon
this case and at that time was satisfied there was nothing. We had a mason with
us to open the chimney if necessary. I am quite sure he did open it, but am
not positive. His name is Charles H. BRYANT. I don't know that he took anything
away from the chimney. I looked about under the stairs in the water closet and
was there as long as I wanted to be and had every opportunity to search that
I wanted. When I got through in the cellar I went into the barn and searched
in the lower part in the box stall and tore some of the boards away. Then we
went upstairs and pitched the hay over. There were others there with me and
some of them took away lead, I think. I am not sure, but they were looking at
it. While we were there Mr. SEAVER and McHENRY came. They looked about the place.
Q - "Who is this SEAVER?"
A - "He is a state detective"
Q - "Who is McHENRY?"
A - "He was a friend of SEAVER'S."
Q - "What was he doing there?"
A - "Just looking around."
Q - "Where does he belong?"
A - "He hailed from Providence then."
Q - "Where does he hail from now?"
A - "The last I heard of him he was in New York."
Q - "Still traveling?"
A - "I don't know."
Q - "Still detecting?"
A - "I don't know."
Q - "Did he ever help your officers?'
A - "Not that I know of."
Q - "Has he been around police headquarters since?"
A - "Yes, sir."
Q - "How long has he been there?"
(Objected to but allowed.)
A - "Have seen him a great many times." Witness said continuing:
I don't recollect having seen him prior to the tragedy. I don't know whether
he was paid by the city for his services. I never saw his name on the pay roll,
but I don't make it up. Clerk GARDNER does that. When I was in the barn I saw
a piece of lead in a box, but this was down stairs. My impression is there was
a willow basket on the bench up stairs. (Box and basket sent for) Then we searched
the lumber pile in the yard but found nothing there. Then we went to the well,
but that was practically filled. The well is westerly adjoining the barn. Then
we went to the CROWE yard and I had no trouble getting over the fence."
Officer EDSON yesterday morning testified to an ineffectual attempt Friday night to search the BORDEN cellar for the hatchet handle sworn to by MULLALY, Mr. ROBINSON brought out the fact that nearly all the Fall River police prominent in this case have been promoted since the murder, except MULLALY, who yesterday contradicted FLEET. The prisoner closely watched the exhibition to the jury of the box and the basket containing lead found in the barn.
On cross examination Officer MEDLEY said McHENRY was engaged with him on the case. The prisoner leaned forward and anxiously watched the witness as he said that it was more than likely he consulted Marshal HILLYARD about this case when McHENRY was present. Officer DESMOND testified to finding a handleless hatchet contending that the dust on it was very much coarser than any other dust in the cellar.
State Detective SEAVER testified to finding the handleless hatchet covered with coarse dust giving more positive evidence than the other officers. He also described the dress and blood spots found in the house. On cross examination he said he could not tell within three months as to the time when the break in the hatchet handle was made.
Governor ROBINSON examined the witness carefully as to the dresses searched
and confused him about them which amused the prisoner greatly.
"We found nothing there of importance." Here the box and basket
were produced. "Where we came back I did not go into the BORDEN house,
but I think Captain DESMOND and Mr. BRYANT went in somewhere. I did go into
the kitchen but only to ask for information."
"When were you promoted?"
"In February last. Captain HARRINGTON has been promoted, and CONNORS
and DOHERTY and MEDLEY. DESMOND will be also promoted from acting captain to
captain."
Here witness identified the box and basket, saying he thought they looked
as they did when he first saw them. The box had old lead, the basket old nails
and rubbish and some pieces of lead pipe.
Re-direct: "I cannot tell you how the water closet
operates. I am not sure. The box with lead in it was in the carriage room, but
you could not see it until you passed the opening in the door."
The box and basket were opened in evidence.
Re-cross examination: "When I was in the vegetable cellar Officer QUIGLEY
was there, but I can't say where Captain DESMOND was. I left QUIGLEY in the
vegetable cellar when I went out. CONNORS was searching in the fine coal cellar.
MEDLEY I saw after I left the wash-room. That was when he showed me the hatchet
head."
When Officer EDSON was dismissed counsel for defense held a five minutes' consultation, during which Lizzie BORDEN was also consulted, and Mr. KNOWLTON was called over to take a hand in the discussion. It was in relation to the introduction of certain testimony.
Samuel F. MAHONEY, police officer of Fall River, was sworn and said:William H. MEDLEY, inspector of police, Fall River, testified:
"I am not doing special work on the force. Last year
I was a patrolman up to August 4th. Upon that day I was informed, when I was
in the North police station, of the homicide at the BORDEN house. The city marshal
told me. It was 11:25 o'clock when I got the news. I got into a train and rode
to the central station. It took me six or seven minutes. We went as fast as
I could get the man to drive his horse. When I got to the station house I was
told to go to No. 92 Second street. I passed the city hall about 11:30 or 11:40
and was but a few minutes going to the BORDEN house. I saw Mr. SAWYER there
when I got there. Mr. FLEET came soon after and in the meantime I went around
the house. I tried the rear cellar door. It was fastened. Then I went into the
house where I saw the doctors. I asked Lizzie where she was when the thing occurred
and she said she was in the barn. I asked her if she had any idea who did it
and she said no she had not. I asked her where Bridget was and she said she
was upstairs. During this time the officers were arriving fast and searching
was going on all over the place. I went right out into the barn. The door was
locked with a hasp. When I went to this door there was quite a number out there.
After I went into the barn I went up stairs until my head was just above the
barn floor, and I looked about, my view crossing the line of the barn floor.
The dust was thick and putting my hand down I brought away an impression of
dust and left the mark plainly in the dust on the floor. Then I stepped on the
floor and could see the foot prints plainly, and I saw no others there but those
I made in the trial. I noticed the temperature was very high. The windows of
the hay loft were closed.
Then I searched about the yard, but found nothing. Then I received instructions and left for the Bowenville station, arriving there at 12:30, or just as the train was leaving. On Thursday I went back to the house, arriving at 3 o'clock and staying until 5:15. That evening about 8 o'clock I went again and stayed a little while. On the Monday following the murder I went to the house and took part in the search. Mr. DESMOND was with me. When I went to the house I went into the cellar. I explained all I could in the wash cellar. Then I explained some boxes and barrels in a little place near by. Then I went into another room and found on a block, I think a chopping block, a box in which besides the handleless hatchet was a lot of old rubbish. DESMOND was near by at the time and showed it to him. In consequence of what he told me, I took it to the marshal and I haven't had possession of it since that time. I have never had possession of any other part of handle except that which was in the hatchet."
Here the witness identified the small hatchet and said that when he found
it the piece was in the iron. Continuing he sais:
"When I saw it first it was covered with dust like
the dust of ashes, which had been blown over in. I noticed that the break in
the handle was new, but did not notice any dust or ashes on the point of the
breaking. I could not say whether the dust adhered or was loose. I did not observe
it close enough to say."
Cross-examined: "When I was in the barn there were no tracks in the barn floor dust. I did not go over to the front window and did not examine about there. I just stood at the head of the stairs looking about making a general observation. I don't think I was on the place over half an hour after I found that hatchet before I took it down to the marshal's office. In regard to that piece of handle, I can't tell which way it was in the iron. I didn't take the wood, but there was no one with me when I found the hatchet. It was in a box resting on a block about a foot and a half above the ground. I looked into the open box as I stood on the floor. The box was three feet from the entrance to the cellar, perhaps four feet. I did not notice any chimney there, although there was a mason at work about there. I can't tell you what was in the box under this hatchet. I think had there been a handle in the box I should have seen it. McHENRY was engaged with me on this case. After the finding of the hatchet, at his suggestion, I went with him one day to get some measurements. I can't say whether I ever had any consultation with the marshal about the case when McHENRY was present."
At this point there came another contradiction for the commonwealth. It was
when DESMOND was cross- examined about the handleless hatchet. DESMOND said
it was he who had wrapped the hatchet up in the paper and then gave it to MEDLEY.
MEDLEY testified that he had wrapped the hatchet up. DESMOND said MEDLEY had
found the hatchet and called his (DESMOND'S) attention to it.
"And you wrapped it up and handed it back to him,
did you?"
"Yes, I did."
"Are you sure about that."
"Positive," was the answer.
At the request of ex-Governor ROBINSON, DESMOND took a newspaper and showed
how he had wrapped the hatchet up before he handed it to MEDLEY.
Then DESMOND stepped down and George F. SEAVER, who is
one of the state district police force, came forward. SEAVER was one of those
who examined the dresses in the house. He examined those found in the front
closet, and Mr. MOODY asked him about it.
"Did you, in the dresses you examined, find one of
light blue, with a diamond dark blue figure in it, or with paint stains on it?"
"I did not."
"When did you examine the dresses?"
"On Saturday."
SEAVER made measurements of the blood spots that he found in the house, and
ascertained the distances they were from the different parts of the room. When
he was cross-examined the piece of handle out of the hatchet was handed him.
His attention was called to the fact that some slivers had been taken off the
wood recently.
"How recently have they been taken off?"
"I could not say."
"Well, what kind of wood is that?"
"I don't know."
"What was your business before your present occupation?"
"I was a carpenter."
"And yet you don't know what kind of wood that is."
" I do not. It might be ash or oak. I'm not certain which
it is."
Then Mr. ROBINSON took up the examination of the
dress. He wanted to know what kind of dresses SEAVER found.
"Were they challies, or delaines, or silk, Bedford
cord, or calico, or alpaca, or what?"
SEAVER said: "I don't know what they were."
"Well, did you look particularly for a light blue
dress with dark spots?"
"I did not."
Are you sure there was no blue dress there?"
"I didn't see any."
"Will you swear it was not there?"
"I do not recollect it."
Witness was asked about the memorandum he had made of the blood spots he
found. He said the memorandum from which he read this morning was not the original
one made by him. That one he thought he lost at Fall River. The one he had now
he made from memory.
At this point an adjournment was taken until Monday morning at 9 o'clock.
___________
TO-DAY'S ARGUMENT
Fall River, Mass., June 11 - Lizzie BORDEN's counsel and Charles J. HOLMES searched the cellar of the BORDEN house Friday night but could not find the broken hatchet handle which Officer MULLALY swore was in a box with the head of the implement when he searched the house after the murders.
The following points will be argued Monday:
First: The declarations offered are the testimony under oath of the accused
in a judicial proceeding, namely, an inquest as to the cause of death of the
two persons named in the indictment now on trial, duly notified, and held by
and before the district court in Fall River in accordance with the provisions
of the public statute.
Second: The defendant was not under arrest, but three days before the time of giving such testimony was notified by the city marshal and mayor of Fall River, that she was suspected of committing the crimes charged in the indictment on trial; and the house and the inmates, including the defendant, were, hereafter, until her arrest, under the constant observation of police officers of Fall River specially detailed for that purpose and stationed around the house.
Third: That before she so testified she requested, through her counsel, A.
J. JENNINGS, of the district attorney, and of the judge to preside, and pressing
at said inquest the privilege to have her said counsel there present, which
request was refused by both the district attorney and the judge, and said counsel
was not present.
(What happened to Fourth?)
Fifth: That when her testimony so given was concluded she was not allowed to leave the court house, and was thereupon placed under arrest upon a warrant issued upon the charge and accusation of having committed the crimes set forth in this indictment. Said warrant was issued upon a complaint said to be made by the city marshal, upon the conclusion of the testimony for the defendant at the inquest, being the same complaint upon which the defendant was tried before the said district court and held to answer before the grand jury. Said city marshal was present at the inquest when the defendant testified.
Sixth: Prior to said inquest, to wit, on the next day before she was summoned, as above stated, a complaint charging her with the murder of the two persons, as to whose deaths the inquest was held, was sworn to by said city marshal, and a warrant was issued thereupon for the arrest of the defendant and placed in the hands of said city marshal. The city marshal did not serve this warrant and the defendant was not informed of it. No action was taken on said warrant but the same was returned after the conclusion of the defendant's testimony and before the issuance of the warrant upon which she was arrested.
Seventh: That before giving her testimony as above, she was not cautioned by said court or said district attorney that she was not obliged to testify to anything which might incriminate herself, but said counsel was informed that he could, before defendant testified, confer with her in relation thereto and he did.
Eighth: The nature and character of the testimony offered may be considered by the court in determining the question of its admissibility.
___