The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "Let me axe you this..."
Posted by Harry on Mar-20th-02 at 12:36 AM

Did anyone ever ask the farmhand, Alfred Johnson, who did the chores around the 92nd street home, if he would verify if all the axes and hatchets found were the same ones he normally used.

This from the Witness statements by Johnson, page 37:

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

ie: two hatchets, two axes.

From the trial, page 607, Doherty being questioned:

Q.  Did you go to the house to bring away the hatchets and the axes?
A.  No, sir; I didn't go there for that purpose.
Q.  Did you bring them away?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  Do you know who did?
A.  I do. Lieut. Edson, Francis L. Edson.
Q.  Do you know what he brought?
A.  I do.
Q.  And what?
A.  Brought two axes and two hatchets.
Q.  And he did not bring this, the hatchet without a handle?
A.  I don't think he did. He showed me what he had. He called my attention to what he had.

The number of usable axes and hatchets jibe with Johnson's statement. Were these the same four he used in his chores?  Was he ever shown the handleless hatchet?

The newer bench hatchet referred to had also been ground and sharpened which would have probably taken off any gilt.

This is heavy-duty research time...have to get BAT to you on this..

However:
I think from what I've read so far (up to-thru Prelim) that "Bench hatchet" is the "claw-headed" hatchet.(148)  Dolan, in the Preliminary, says he was given or shown, an ax and a hatchet by Mullaly (153), and his attention was drawn to the hatchet by the Marshal in his office.
(150)Ground sharp
(151)Hatchet still had "s shiny look, a fresh look....moderately new...bought within a year."..not used a grat deal.
(155-6):
Q: Was the edge turned when you tried it with your thumb?
A: No sir, I do not think the steel was as finely tempered as that to have it turned.
Q: Do you understand a finely tempered steel turns more easily than one that is soft?
A: I would say it was not drawn down to as fine an edge.
Q: It did not have a razor's edge then?
A: What I mean is the blade, the cutting edge, did not continue in as fine a condition for any great length of distance, that is for an inch or two inches as would enter;  in other words, put it this way, it went down a regular ax edge for about an eighth of an inch;  it was not sharpened for an inch up
.......
(176) This hatchet's handle was approx. 18", and weighed 3-5 lbs.
(107)Cutting suface of 5 ".
.....
(150 &180) It looked as if the blade had been "scraped" or "washed".
.......
When Dolan got to the cellar, Thursday, he first saw "I think four, one hatchet, that is the large hatchet with the claw...I think 3 other axes, ordinary wood axes.,,,examined two of them..."(107)
________________

--So far it looks like the handle-less hatchet was found later, it was NOT introduced at the Prelim., and was produced later at the trial.  So it would be : Thursday= 1 claw-headed hatchet and 3 axes.
--My interpretation of the BOLD (highlighted) testimony above , as to the honing, or sharpening, was that the WHOLE blade hadn't been sharpened, only a Portion , thus leaving some (enough?) GILT to be distributed to Abby's wound.

(Message last edited Mar-20th-02  5:34 AM.)

Prelim., 373, Ed Wood:

"...near the sharp edge of the hatchet....wood and cotton fiber.  There was quite a number of cotton fibers in this patch."
--examined 1 hatchet only (by Prelim.)

--more on the grinding, or honing, pg444, Dr. Draper:
Q:...whether or not such an instrument as that, or such a weapon as that which I presume you have seen, would furnish an adequate cause for such injuries?
A: I think it would, assuming the edge of the blade to have been nearly at right angles, and not rounded.
Q: What do you mean in your answer by "rounded"?
A: I can better make a picture than describe it in words, I think.  (The witness makes diagram on paper.)
A:Old axes I think have a rounded edge instead of a square edge as they are when they are new. A new ax that had not been ground at the corners so to make it round, would, I think, cause those wounds.
Q: You mean that one could have done it, and that one not?
A: I do not think that one could; but I think the other one could.

There's no Medley in the Preliminary?  I just noticed this looking for the Handeless-hatchet (HH).  The Evening Standard June 9th, pg3. implied he took charge of  all the implements...interesting...
pg.6 of that edition tells of trial testimony where there was found in the cellar, 2 hatchets (1 being the claw-head), and 2 axes, and being "put aside".  THEN it tells of Fleet calling Mullaly's attention to a box with the HH in it, and of putting it back .  This is from the newspapers. (Regarless, that = 5 !)

Prelim. pg.347, Mullaly:
A:... Bridget led the way to the left,  We went in, and in a small box, she reached up, and took two hatchets out of this box, and passed them to me.  We came out of there, and went into an apartment south of the furnace, I believe, or the hot water heater, I believe it was.  In there we found two axes.  I took them down.
.............
Q: ...Did you take any notice of the hatchets when you got them down?
A: I did
Q: What did you notice about them?
A: One was larger than the other
Q: Anything else?
A: On the large one, there was a small rust spot
Q: Anything else?
A: That was all I noticed.  On the axes, both handles were covered with ashes.
.........
pg 352..."The larger hatchet was quite sharp,,,"
___________________________

Prelim., pg356, FLEET:
Q: What did you find down in the cellar?
A: I found Mr. Mullaly, Mr. Doherty, and afterwards Dr. Dolan.  I found Mr. Mullaly with a pair---these same axes and hatchets on the floor in the wash room.  We searched down in the cellar, we searched the cellar even after that, to see if we could find anything that might have been used, other than what was already on the floor; but failed to find anything .
Q: What was it that was already on the floor ?
A: The two axes and the two hatchets.
........
pg.357: The hatchet that was ":clean" was the claw-head.
pg.367: The CH hatchet was brought away Friday.
________________________

Now, Harry, you seem to have noticed something here.
The 2 axes and 2 hatchets accounted for in the PRelimiNARY heaRING, do not include in their number, nor any mention of the HANDLESS HATCHET !

-nowadays we might wonder if it were planted evidence , a *drop*,during the "second search" Thursday,  to please the prosecution?  To muddy the waters of the case still further?  Is this why Fleet acts as if he hadn't much to do with it?  This mention of the HH was DRAGGED out of him?
--I'm done.  Someone can take the ball....that knows the trial...

(Message last edited Mar-21st-02  2:42 AM.)

In the trial, Fleet testifies:
Q. I will recall you to that particularly. Did you in your testimony there say one word about this handleless hatchet? (Holding up hatchet head).
A. No, sir. (p. 545)
Q. Did anybody tell you not to say anything about it?
A. No, sir. (p. 546)
...
Q. And you were asked in regard to them, and didn't you say you failed to find anything else there?
A. Oh, I might have said that, and at the same time---I had found that thing and put it back again.
Q. What did you say to that Court for, under oath, that you failed to find anything else,when you did find something else?
A. Yes, but I left it where I found it.
............
Q. Now what reason had you for telling that Court that you did not find this hatchet? (Holding up hatchet head).
A. None other than the hatchet, as I found it in the box---placed it there again---being all covered with ashes, I didn't take it away. The handle having been broken at that time, I didn't think---if it is allowed to go in, that it was used for the purpose of killing. (p. 548)
********************************************
Seems to me that Officer Fleet sure did have a problem.  I think this was just another lack of the police looking suspiciously at everything at the crime scene. But, maybe there is more in the trial.
joe

Interesting matter of the "handless hatchet" isn't it?  Recall the trial dialogue of Officer Mullaly who "swore under oath" that 'HE' examined the box of hatchets/axes given them by Bridget from the niche in the chimney.  A box which Mullaly testified had the "handless hatchet" and what appeared to him as the 'other piece of the handle' which he showed Assistant Marshal Fleet. But then the good Assistant Marshal Fleet "swore under oath" that 'HE' "did not see any wooden handle" from the box. 

Ex-governor Robinson had a "field day" with these two on the stand one right after the other and since Fleet had given testimony previous he was not in the courtroom during Mullaly's testimony and when he was recalled for further questioning he completely contridicted his comrade of the police force.

Another classic case of "one hand not knowing what the other is doing" and if the jury was paying close attention to the line of questions to both men they could only conclude that neither man, who were both witnesses for the government, gave any creedance to the case.  Score a big one for Lizzie...BC

Any idea why the prosecution would *drop* that claw hatchet as "murder weapon" and by the time of trial try to palm off that HH?
I figure it could be that:
-the HH is the weapon..
-the claw-head hatchet's blade surface was too long to match up with expert testimony
-they KNEW they did NOT have the weapon, even though the searches produced 5 instuments
-they screwed up, or their experts did
-they were determined to *lose* the case
-more stuff was suppressed than just the "gilt" testimony
????????