1. ""What is your business, Mr. Seaver?""
Posted by doug65oh on Mar-8th-04 at 7:25 PM

…Just came across this question (from Andrew Jennings) while reading thru Seaver’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. Did a web search and discovered that a "George F. Seaver" served as the 5th City Marshal of Taunton in 1877-78.

If this is "our" George, Taunton must have been one wild place in his day. Not long before Seaver became City Marshal for example "....the police force had expanded to eleven officers including the City Marshal. Total departmental expenditures that year were $10,737.34. Arrests in 1875, of which there were 651 arrests, were mostly for drunkenness (420), followed by assault and battery (87) and a slew of offenses ranging from malicious mischief to fornication." (http://www.tauntonpd.com/history.htm)

Wonder if it is the same one?

Doug

Seaver is not in Glossary A or B in The Knowlton Papers.
There is a bit about him personally, in Hoffman, but we don't know Hoffman's source:

"George F. Seaver was a Massachusetts state policeman from Taunton..."

"On that day Seaver, a veteran of fifteen years as a Massachusetts state police officer..."

"Seaver stated that before he joined the police he was a carpenter.  When Robinson asked him if he had much experience with wood, Seaver answered, "Yes, sir, I think I have had considerable."  Yet, he could not tell what kind of wood was in the eye of the handleless hatchet, whether the wood was fresh or rotten or whether the break in the wood was recent or had been done some time ago."

--15 years (as a Mass.State Officer) subtracted from 1892 = 1877, which is when your bio said was the time of tenure of a George F. Seaver as City Marshal of Taunton.
If he was a carpenter 'before he joined the police', that might mean in his early life.
So far there is nothing to eliminate our Seaver from being your Seaver.
BTW:  I searched a bit in The Evening Standard, not too much, but did not find his origins in there.

State Officer Seaver with more than one role to play?


"The Fall River Tragedy" by Edwin H. Porter
page 154 - Mc Henry speaking in reference to the service of warrant on Mr Trickey.

"In the preparation and attempt at service of these warrants, there was some queer work, and I know that Trickey would have been arrested, had he not received a tip and skipped to Canada. He was in Boston when the warrants were issued, and had been for three days. I had him located and was at the Attorney General's office to get instructions as to how to proceed. He gave me a sealed letter of instructions to the clerk of the Distrct Court in Taunton, and this I delivered in person. Instead of making out the warrant according to his orders, the clerk made them out to the Sheriff Constable, etc., of Bristol County. I did not know this at the time. There was in the room at the time the warrants were made out, State Officer Seaver, and he demanded the clerk deliver the warrants to him for service. To this I most strenuously objected, and then there was a clash as to who was entitled to possession of the papers. I told Mr. Seaver that I was sorry to quarrel with a man whom I had always looked upon as a friend, but that I had been into this transaction from the start, and I proposed to stay in it until the finish. Without more ado I laid hands on the warrants and took them to Deputy Sheriff Brown of Attleboro, who, in turn, delivered them into the hands of the Boston Police. At Police headquarters in Boston it was soon learned that the warrants were defective, inasmuch as they were made out in such a manner as not to be seviceable in any County except Bristol County. They had to be returned to  the District Court in Taunton and rectified. This necessitated a delay of about twenty-eight hours, and gave somebody an opportunity to get Trickey out of the State. That is why he was not arrested. Mr. Seaver was especially desirous that I allow him to make the arrest of Mr. Trickey, but to this, as I said before, I successfully objected. There were some very strange things done in connection with these warrants and if you doubt what I have said, I refer you to the records of the Boston police on the 15th of last October."


McHenry seems to point at Seaver as the problem but his demand for the warrants could have been he knew they were made out for Bristol County and only servable by that jurisdiction. Could the clerk have done a deliberate stall for Trickey?

One thing that sticks in my mind is that if Mr. Trickey had come to trial the whole veracity of the "Lizzie had a Secret" story would have had a public airing! Not something some people wanted to happen!

Gramma

Excellent analysis of how and why Trickey got a warning. Yes, it looks like somebody was trying to protect him to let him get away.
Just professional jealousy? (Ever see this in corporate politics?)

Good find and fascinating site, Doug!  I had no idea the Bobbie style hats were in use in this country then.


--Lyddie

Seaver and the art of asking questions....

I was hashing over the “George Seaver” question again the other evening, trying to figure a couple things out when it suddenly occurred to me: Among other things, lawyers are trained in examination techniques. In time, and after countless kicks in the backside from the judge on the bench, they learn to ask tight, well-tailored questions of witnesses. (Reporters are often taught – or learn this the hard way–as well…it’s not an ‘exclusive’ domain of lawyers.)

From Seaver’s testimony of June 10, 1893 we learn:

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) George F. Seaver, is it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are a member of the State District Police force?
A. I am.
Q. Living where, Mr. Seaver?
A. At Taunton.
Q. How long have you been a member of the force?
A. Between 14 and 15 years, about 14 years.
Q. Did you go to Fall River at any time subsequent to this homicide?
A. I did.
Q. When did you go?
A. I went August 4th, in the afternoon, arriving there about ??? o'clock.

[Seaver had previously stated that he learned of the murder via telegraph at about 3:40 pm; he proceeded to the Borden home, arriving there “between 5 and half-past 5 that afternoon.”]*
Q. Did you go to the house on that day?
A. I did.
*George F. Seaver, 31 August 1892. Preliminary Hearing , page 453.

----------
Here’s where the real fun starts, because we enter the realm of logical inferences. Lawyer Moody’s question as stated appears to apply only to Seaver’s service on the State District Police force. Seaver certainly understood it that way, as we see from his answer. Had Moody used the phrase “law enforcement” (a somewhat broader question) the answer might well have been different.

The difficulty there is that strictly speaking, Seaver’s law-enforcement experience as a whole is not relevant to the case in which he is giving evidence. His testimony is that of a participant investigator, not of an expert. Had Seaver been called in as an expert, there’s every likelihood that he would have been questioned much more closely on his experience and expertise. (District Attorney Knowlton’s examination of Dr. Wood at Volume 2, beginning page 989 is a good example of “expert questioning.”)

Actually I have to thank Kat for this, as it was this part of her post the other week that got me thinking:

“When Robinson asked him if he had much experience with wood, Seaver answered, "Yes, sir, I think I have had considerable." Yet, he could not tell what kind of wood was in the eye of the handleless hatchet, whether the wood was fresh or rotten or whether the break in the wood was recent or had been done some time ago."

I’ve just found the section of testimony that this passage refers to (beginning at page 758 in the trial transcript.) It appears that Robinson’s aim from the general tone of the questioning was to break Seaver down, and make him look like the south end of a northbound horse when it came to matters of carpentry.

Q. You won't give your judgment as a carpenter?
A. I couldn't tell. They may have been off a month.
Q. A wood workman! Can't you tell me?
A. No, sir.

I’m actually surprised that this line of questioning was allowed to pass as stated. Nowadays it might draw an “Objection, argumentative. Also as to relevance: remoteness in time as to the witness’s carpentry skills. Counsel is badgering the witness, and is seeking to obtain an expert opinion when this witness has not been qualified as an expert upon the subject” or something of that sort.

Earlier in the week I did query someone from the Taunton Police Department about their Marshal George F. Seaver - one of those "the witness may answer if he knows" sort of questions. I've heard nothing back as yet, but... we'll see.

Doug

Hey!  I "heard" you were interested in testimony comparison.
That is pretty cool!
Are you trying also to figure out/prove- if Seaver was the big-wig in Taunton?

I am that The PD's genealogy expert probably think's I'm nuts, but he wouldn't be the first ... They sure went to an awful lot of trouble trying to make him look like a stoop. What astounds me is that they got away with it - no judge in his right mind would tolerate that these days.

"Hey!  I "heard" you were interested in testimony comparison." (Yeah I know... it took me two days to reconstruct that )

Note to Self - Lesson 2: Make careful notes before posting!


Doug