We had discussed this handle recently, and I gave trial transcription which showed that the court allowed the prosecution to send someone over to Fall River to check for this hatchet handle in the middle of the trial!
I was looking for the topic so I could add info from the newspaper, but alas, I have not been able to find it.
Here is the original snippet about the encounter at the house when they got there:
Trial
pg. 640
MR. KNOWLTON. If your Honors please, I think that it is important that an investigation should be had to see whether the piece of wood that had been described by Mr. Mullally is still in that box. In order that it be done with entire fairness, I ask that somebody be designated to go over with an officer to do it. I know of no other way to have it done promptly. I make this motion with no other interest than that of justice.
MR. ROBINSON. Justice is what we want.
MR. KNOWLTON. Do you object to the appointment of an officer for that purpose?
MR. ROBINSON. That is not a matter for consideration now.
MASON, C. J. The Court cannot interfere with the preparation of the case.
MR. MOODY. Miss Annie M. White will take the stand.
.........
Trial
Edson
pg. 652
Q. Mr. Edson, did you go last night to the house that was occupied in his lifetime by Andrew J. Borden?
A. Yesterday afternoon, sir.
Q. About what time?
A. Twenty minutes of four.
Q. And in consequence of some instructions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anyone go with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who went with you?
A. Officer Mahoney.
Page 653
Q. Did you obtain admittance?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you go to the door and make yourself known?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did any one come to the door?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who came to the door?
A. The servant girl.
Q. Of course you effected no entrance, you made no entrance?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you try to? I do not mean by forcible means, but by persuasion?
A. I sent word to Miss Emma Borden through the servant girl.
MR. ROBINSON. You do not want the conversation?
MR. MOODY. No, I do not care for it.
Q. And you failed to get admittance?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had tried to get admittance, did you?
MR. ROBINSON. I do not want the conversation. Let him state what he did.
A. I requested to be admitted; that is all.
--The questioning switches to when the implements were first removed from the Borden house. Then Edson is questioned closely at how well he searched and then he was asked about that hatchet handle, in a round-about way, carefully describing the location of the room he searched as the northwest corner of the cellar, as that was where the HH was found on Thursday, even though Fleet does describe the wrong room:
661
Q. Did you or any other of the party to your knowledge on that Monday take away anything from the house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you take?
A. Officer Medley had a hatchet head in his pocket.
Q. Did you see it?
A. He showed it to me partly.
Q. Do you know where he got it?
A. I do not.
Q. When did he show it to you?
A. Just as he was about to leave he came to me and pulled it out of his pocket, and it was in a paper, and says, "I am going down street---“
Q. I needn't say what he said. He took it out of his pocket?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was wrapped in a paper?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't see it before that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you examine it?
A. No, sir,---glanced at it, that is all.
Q. What did he do with it?
A. Went off with it, or away from the building.
Q. Did he go away before the rest of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How soon after you arrived there?
A. Not a great while after.
Q. It was only the small hatchet---had no handle?
A. No handle.
Q. And he didn't have any handle in his possession, did he, that he showed to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't see any loose handle around there?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you didn't find one yourself?
A. No, sir.
Q. And I think you say you don't know where Mr. Medley got it?
A. I don't know.
Page 662
Q. And you went into the front cellar, in the front corner, the northwest corner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And searched there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, did you find anything at all to help us in this case?
A. Nothing.
--This was Monday, August 8th, 1892. And there seems to have been no longer a hatchet handle there, which is interesting.
The posse sent to the Borden house after that hatchet handle during the trial was on June 9th, 1893, and testimony about the non-encounter at the house was reported Saturday, June 10th, first thing when court opened at 9:02 am.
Now, in the Crowell Collection of articles from unknown newspapers there is this piece from June 10th:
Unknown newspaper, June 11, 1893
"BORDEN EVIDENCE GETTING
TANGLED.
Stories Told by the Fall River
Policemen Do Not Agree.
MISSING HATCHET HANDLE.
Fleet and Mullaly Prove a Serious
Check to the Prosecution's Case.
WANTED TO ENTER THE HOUSE.
Emma Borden Kept a Policeman from
Searching the Residence -- Another
Conflict About the Wrapping Up of the Ax."
New Bedford, Mass., June 10
..."Lizzie Borden's counsel and Charles Holmes searched the cellar of the Borden house last night, but could not find the broken hatchet handle which Mulally swore was in a box with the head of the implement when he searched the house after the murders."
--I guess this headline flat-out claims that Emma did not allow the prosecution to enter. Maybe she didn't go to court that day, because she seems to have been at #92 in order for the state's representatives from New Bedford to be denied. Then, it seems as if Lizzie's friend and her lawyer did go in and search and found nothing of this handle.
If this handle existed in the cellar on the 4th, then by Monday it probably was gone. If it existed, someone seems to have disposed of it over the first weekend, which makes it sound like valuable evidence.
If I had been Jennings tho, I would have gone and looked a year later as well!
Where is the handle?
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
Allen
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
I am going to check the trial transcript a little later, but wasn't there testimony from at least one of the Officers that stated they did not believe the handle was ever really in the box? I need to check it out, I'm just going by something I thought I remembered. I'll check the transcripts after I finish my homework and see if my memory is correct.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
His bio:
"EDSON, FRANCIS L. 1855 - 1906: born in Fall River, Massachusetts, son of Daniel and Susan Edson. Employed as a roll coverer, he was appointed to the Fall River Police Department in 1883 and held the rank of sergeant at the time of the Borden murders. He was advanced to lieutenant in February of 1893 and, in December of that same year, promoted to captain. He married Miss Bertha C. Perkins. He was actively involved in many organizations, both professional and fraternal. He died in Fall River, Massachusetts. His extensive testimony at the trial relayed details pertinent to the search of the Borden property."
--from: Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.
My list here shows he is the first witness in Volume III of the trial, and the others in that same volume include:
Ben Mahoney
Wm. Medley
Dennis Desmond
George Seaver
Dr. Albert Dedrick
Joseph Hyde
Dr. Dolan (begins- partial)
"EDSON, FRANCIS L. 1855 - 1906: born in Fall River, Massachusetts, son of Daniel and Susan Edson. Employed as a roll coverer, he was appointed to the Fall River Police Department in 1883 and held the rank of sergeant at the time of the Borden murders. He was advanced to lieutenant in February of 1893 and, in December of that same year, promoted to captain. He married Miss Bertha C. Perkins. He was actively involved in many organizations, both professional and fraternal. He died in Fall River, Massachusetts. His extensive testimony at the trial relayed details pertinent to the search of the Borden property."
--from: Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.
My list here shows he is the first witness in Volume III of the trial, and the others in that same volume include:
Ben Mahoney
Wm. Medley
Dennis Desmond
George Seaver
Dr. Albert Dedrick
Joseph Hyde
Dr. Dolan (begins- partial)
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I don't recall that, but am awaiting your reply.Allen @ Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:15 pm wrote:I am going to check the trial transcript a little later, but wasn't there testimony from at least one of the Officers that stated they did not believe the handle was ever really in the box? I need to check it out, I'm just going by something I thought I remembered. I'll check the transcripts after I finish my homework and see if my memory is correct.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I would think that someone either saw the handle or didn't see the handle or lied about seeing the handle, but it doesn't sound like sworn testimony acceptable in court to say they didn't think there ever was a handle. That's not proof of anything.
Only Fleet and Mullaly had this puzzle and one of them is incorrect. I tend to not believe Fleet for multiple reasons, one being his misremembering of the room the hatchet was found in. Maybe you are thinking of the lawyers opening or closing arguments?
Only Fleet and Mullaly had this puzzle and one of them is incorrect. I tend to not believe Fleet for multiple reasons, one being his misremembering of the room the hatchet was found in. Maybe you are thinking of the lawyers opening or closing arguments?
-
Allen
- Posts: 3409
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
Sorry if I have not had time to go over the testimony as of yet, but I am currently working on a 10 page research paper for one of my classes. I have to have, and properly cite, at least 5 sources and must use direct quotations from each source at least twice. So I am kind of swamped at the moment. But I will look into it when I get an opportunity to read all of the testimony.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
It sounds like you are very busy and I figured you were!
I don't think you really have to look at all the hatchet material- I already did when I worked on the cellar article. It's a huge amount to go over.
I don't often say this, as I am always willing to be checked.
Once the question was raised tho, we would not proceed until it was verified.
You might Word Search the opening or closing remarks as a short-cut- it sounds to me like something like that would be in there and reflect almost an author's bias- that's why I don't search those myself.
Good luck at school and good for you!
I don't think you really have to look at all the hatchet material- I already did when I worked on the cellar article. It's a huge amount to go over.
I don't often say this, as I am always willing to be checked.
Once the question was raised tho, we would not proceed until it was verified.
You might Word Search the opening or closing remarks as a short-cut- it sounds to me like something like that would be in there and reflect almost an author's bias- that's why I don't search those myself.
Good luck at school and good for you!
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
I decided to look at Medley's testimony again, as he supposedly brought out that hatchet head from the cellar, wrapped up.
In the trial, he is asked if he thought there had been a handle there does he think he would have seen it. His reply is that he thinks he would have seen it. Before this, for many pages, he is also telling us that he didn't look at anything else in the box but that hatchet head and didn't handle anything else in the box.
So I do see where it seems as if he is asked if he thought (Medley) if there was a hatchet handle there. The reason this still wouldn't apply to the question of a handle on Thursday, is because Medley only re-discovered on Monday, the HH which was handled on Thursday by Fleet, and even the box it was in was left out on a bench near the floor, whereas it had first been found in that box in the jog of the chimney. This Monday was the day the Mason was there taking apart that very chimney.
It was good of your memory to bring that up- Thanks!
I'm only saying it doesn't affect what was there Thursday, but also supports what I said that by Monday the handle was gone, if there really was one.
So, if there really was a handle, and it was gone by Monday, I think this handleless hatchet must have some significance to the murder case.
Trial
Medley
Page 715
Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Who was that?
A. I can't think who the officer was. I remember showing it to this officer, but I can't think now who it was. It was one of the officers. I don't think it was Mullaly. Anyway I can't be sure about that. I showed it to one officer.
Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) There wasn't any handle in that box?
A. In the box?
Q. Yes.
A. No, sir, not that I saw.
Q. Well, you don't believe there was, do you, from your investigation?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. You do not. If you had picked that hatchet head out of a box in plain sight, having no handle to it, and there had been a handle there, you would have probably seen it, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, sir, I think I should probably have seen it.
Q. You cannot tell us much about the end, the broken end of this piece, can you, except you say it looks dark?
A. That is all I can tell you.
Q. You wrapped it up in a paper and folded it up. Perhaps you will illustrate how you folded it up in the paper. The piece you won't need.
A. (Folding hatchet head in piece of newspaper). This is only as near as I can remember doing it.
Q. Well, that is quite right: that is all I have a right to ask you.
A. I am not very tidy at such things. (Handing parcel to counsel) Now that, as near a I can think, is about how I did it.
Q. And then you put it in your pocket?
A. I put it in my
Page 716
pocket. Nothing stylish about the manner of wrapping it up.
Q. Well, I am glad to find a man that is not on style. Then you carried that off down to the police station?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And from that time on you did not have any charge of it?
A. No, sir.
Q. And I do not know whether you saw it afterward?
A. I did see it afterwards.
Q. Down there?
A. In the grand jury room.
Q. Oh yes. But you had nothing to do with it in any way?
A. No, sir.
In the trial, he is asked if he thought there had been a handle there does he think he would have seen it. His reply is that he thinks he would have seen it. Before this, for many pages, he is also telling us that he didn't look at anything else in the box but that hatchet head and didn't handle anything else in the box.
So I do see where it seems as if he is asked if he thought (Medley) if there was a hatchet handle there. The reason this still wouldn't apply to the question of a handle on Thursday, is because Medley only re-discovered on Monday, the HH which was handled on Thursday by Fleet, and even the box it was in was left out on a bench near the floor, whereas it had first been found in that box in the jog of the chimney. This Monday was the day the Mason was there taking apart that very chimney.
It was good of your memory to bring that up- Thanks!
I'm only saying it doesn't affect what was there Thursday, but also supports what I said that by Monday the handle was gone, if there really was one.
So, if there really was a handle, and it was gone by Monday, I think this handleless hatchet must have some significance to the murder case.
Trial
Medley
Page 715
Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Who was that?
A. I can't think who the officer was. I remember showing it to this officer, but I can't think now who it was. It was one of the officers. I don't think it was Mullaly. Anyway I can't be sure about that. I showed it to one officer.
Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) There wasn't any handle in that box?
A. In the box?
Q. Yes.
A. No, sir, not that I saw.
Q. Well, you don't believe there was, do you, from your investigation?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. You do not. If you had picked that hatchet head out of a box in plain sight, having no handle to it, and there had been a handle there, you would have probably seen it, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, sir, I think I should probably have seen it.
Q. You cannot tell us much about the end, the broken end of this piece, can you, except you say it looks dark?
A. That is all I can tell you.
Q. You wrapped it up in a paper and folded it up. Perhaps you will illustrate how you folded it up in the paper. The piece you won't need.
A. (Folding hatchet head in piece of newspaper). This is only as near as I can remember doing it.
Q. Well, that is quite right: that is all I have a right to ask you.
A. I am not very tidy at such things. (Handing parcel to counsel) Now that, as near a I can think, is about how I did it.
Q. And then you put it in your pocket?
A. I put it in my
Page 716
pocket. Nothing stylish about the manner of wrapping it up.
Q. Well, I am glad to find a man that is not on style. Then you carried that off down to the police station?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And from that time on you did not have any charge of it?
A. No, sir.
Q. And I do not know whether you saw it afterward?
A. I did see it afterwards.
Q. Down there?
A. In the grand jury room.
Q. Oh yes. But you had nothing to do with it in any way?
A. No, sir.