1. "Bridget & the Hatchets"
Posted by augusta on Jun-7th-02 at 9:37 PM

If Bridget never saw the box of hatchets in the cellar before the murders, how did she know to show them to the cops?

This is from her Preliminary Hearing Testimony, page 30:
(Referring to Bridget's actions after the murders:)

Q:  Did you go down cellar?
A:  Yes, with some of the officers.
Q:  What officers?
A:  I could not tell.
Q:  Did you see any axes or hatchets in there?
A:  Yes Sir in a box back of the furnace where Mr. Borden used to keep the wood.
Q:  When you went down this time with the officers, were they there?
A:  Yes Sir.  They asked me to go down with them.
Q:  They were in a box back of the furnace?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  Was that the first time you had seen them?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  Had you ever seen them before?
A:  No Sir.

...
Q:  That was the first time you had seen the axes, when the officers went down?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  You had not seen the axes that morning before that?
A:  No Sir.  I had no business to go to that place at all.
Q:  You had been down stairs before?
A:  Yes Sir.
Q:  You had not seen any axes before that time?
A:  No Sir.

Just by reading this, she says she saw the axes and hatchets, when she went down in the cellar with the officers.
This doesn't say she showed them where they were located (?)
Is there more?

Me thinks Bridget is not exactly telling the truth.

Since she did the cooking, there must have been many times that she had to go to the cellar for wood. Maybe even have to chop some kindling now and then. The laundry room was also down there.

It's hard to believe that in her two years and nine months at the Borden house that she was not familiar with the cellar and it's contents.

True, it doesn't say she showed them where they were.  But I thought that's why she was asked to go down there - to show them where any axes were.  (I think there's testimony on this somewhere.)  And if so, how could she show them if she had never seen them before?

But if they found them first - or if she just found them that day - it seems strange like Harry says.  She'd never seen these before that day.  I just noticed that in her testimony the other night and it surprised me.

I'm really in with you both on this.  That's why I wondered if "there was more?" 
I didn't know how to Begin to look for the discrepency...WordSearch for "Hatchets"?  Yea right!  Through Prelim &Trial.!
I remember something like you do.
Well, I'll start looking.  I thought amongst us we'd find it...

It sounds like Bridget just stumbles across this box filled with hatchets and axes, almost as if it wasn't in this spot on a normal basis.  I'm with Harry, I would think as the Borden's domestic she would have to do some light chopping here and there with the ax or hatchet.  But, in Bridget's testimony she says she doesn't ever have occasion to use them and NEVER touchs them, except for one time where she uses one to remove the heels from a pair of shoes of hers?  Whats that all about? 

That may be a start as a place to begin looking.  Do you know if that is Trial or Prelim., and a page?

Bridget's testimony at the trial regarding the hatchets is contradictory. I think you have to do a Clinton and define "show".

From page 332:

Q.  (By Mr. Robinson.)  Miss Sullivan, I forgot one or two subjects that I thought to ask you about until now. I think you said yesterday that you went down in the cellar with the officers after you found that Mr. and Mrs. Borden were killed.
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And how many officers went down with you?
A.  I think there was three.
Q.  Do you know who they were?
A.  I didn't know then who they were, but I do now.
Q.  And who were they?
A.  There was officer Doherty and the assistant marshal and officer Medley.
Q.  Now as I understand it, to be, officer Doherty and the assistant marshal,---is that Mr. Fleet?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And the other one was Mr. Medley?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Do you know whether anyone else went down?
A.  I don't remember.
Q.  Did they go down and look about in the cellar?
A.  Yes, sir: I went down with them: they asked me to go with them.
Q.  Did you show them anything?
A.  No, sir: I went down---I went in the rooms in the cellar with them, and in a box  there was some hatchets, and they took them out of it.
Q.  Where were those hatchets?
A.  They were in the cellar, in the room where Mr. Borden kept the wood for the furnace.
Q.  Was that in the same part of the cellar where the steam heater
stands?
A.  It was in the room alongside the heater.

But, on page 333:

Q.  Did you show them where the hatchets were?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  Where did you show them?
A.  They was in a box in the cellar, in the room in there.
Q.  And did you take them out?
A.  No, sir; I did not.
Q.  Are you sure about that?
A.  No, sir: I didn't put my hands at all on them. I don't think I put my hand on the hatchets at all.
Q.  Well, are you sure about that?
A.  (Emphatically). Yes, sir, I am.

Kat, I found that in the Witness Statements, pg. 22:

Bridgets statement:  I think the wood was chopped over the River.  At one time one of the farm hands chopped a few planks for kindling.  I never had occasion to use a hatchet but once, and that was to take the heels off of my shoes.  

Oh, Goddess!  I NeVer would have looked at the Witness Statements for That!  Thanks.  She did admit to using a hatchet.

Harry seems to have found exactly what we need.
I can't decide if the wiley sophisticated lawyer is pulling one on Bridget, getting her muddled and a little confused so she sounds like she's contradicting herself, or whether she is stumbling of her own accord over lies.... (?)

Thats exactly what I'm wondering, Kat!  Bridget seems to be tripping over her own words as she goes along, and it doesn't seem to be the first time in the trial where she does it either!  I wonder, liar or crafty lawyer?  Hmmmmm. 

Well, here's more info, that might help us decide (?)

Trial, Mullaly, 611-12:
"I then inquired of her (Lizzie) if she knew whether there was a hatchet or an axe on the premices and she told me there was, and that Bridget Sullivan would tell me where they were."

613:
"Bridget went with us...Bridget led the way.  She went into the cellar there, and she took from a box two hatchets."

614:
"...and I saw a box, and from there saw where Bridget took those hatchets"
"...but Bridget Sullivan went over and reached up and took them out and gave them to me."

617:
"I showed him a box (Fleet) where Bridget had taken them from."

(Message last edited Jun-9th-02  7:46 PM.)

Excellent sleuthing Kat. As I said in another post, I have my strong suspicions about our Miss Bridget.

I found these references as a direct result of looking for a source to describe the 5th day of the trial, June 9th, 1893.
Didn't it turn out to be MULLALY'S DAY in court!




Does this hatchet appear LIFE-SIZED?


(Message last edited Jun-13th-02  10:55 PM.)

Apparently some newspaper agreed with you guys as to the veracity of Bridget.
In an un-named paper, SOURCEBOOK, June 9, 1893, (pg. 243),:

"New Bedford-
'I did not take the hatchets from the box.  I did not put my hands at all on them.  I couldn't tell you who took them out.  Bridget Sullivan took us to the cellar and led the way to a box to which she pointed, and from which she took two hatchets, and handed them to me.'--Officer Mullaly.

The foregoing is a mild illustration of the sensation of the day.  You will remember that I suggested that Bridget Sullivan was not so satisfactory a witness for the prosecution as the government expected her to be.

In her cleancut, pugnacious, dogged manner, when confronted with contradictions in her testimony given at the inquest and before this present time, she reiterated her insistance that she cared nothing for what appeared in the previous record, and swore with marked emphasis that, whatever she may have said before, she now testified to the truth.

I was quite convinced that she meant to tell the truth so far as she had to tell anything, but I must say it is difficult after the explicit testimony of officer Mullaly, which diametrically contradicts her on a most significant point, the finding and first handling of the hatchets, to attach much importance to any assertation made by her unless it be confirmed by the testimony of others. *

...The sensation caused by that announcement [of Fleet finding the handleless implement the day of the murder] equaled that caused by Mullaly's testimony that Bridget herself not only knew enough to take them directly to the box in which the hatchets were, but in spite of her sworn declaration that she never laid hands on them, she herself took them from the box and handed them to the officers. *

...Well, if a bomb had fallen in the court room more astonishment could not have been caused..."

--* emphasis mine.  Article written by "Howard."

--pg. 201:
..."Notable among the 'celebrities' was journalist Joe Howard, whose mein and demeanor attracted as much attention as the defendant herself.  He styled himself as the first syndicated columnist, and his reports--ebullient and fanciful at times--were read by the thousands of subscribers of a dozen big-city newspapers.  He acquired, by a means he never revealed, a front-row seat and this is his report..."
--see Augusta's post of trial day 4.

(Message last edited Jun-10th-02  3:59 AM.)

It's spelled "mien", unless I'm mistaken.
You get a front row seat by knowing somebody (and paying) for it.
Just like today.

Yea, whoever his publisher or owner was, would arrange all that.

Does that hatchet I posted appear life-sized to those who know hatchets?

Wasn't the broken hatchet supposed to have a cutting edge of 4" or something like that?  I think that the one you posted may be a little bit larger than life.  Why Kat, what a big hatchet you have!  The better to chop you up with! 

But it still has a sawn-off handle, not one broken off!!!
Obvious sabotage (after used to kill those pigeons earlier?).

If you ever broke a handle on a sledge hammer, or axe, you'd KNOW it was never 'broken off'.

It wasn't broken off, the line is way too strait to be broken off. I have seen both a hammer and a hatchet broken off, and there is a crookedness, and wood hanging down from it. Thanks Kat, yes that looked life size.
  RedFern

On my screen the whole blade surface seems to be about 4 ", if I measure with my forefinger knuckle (that word doesn't "look" right...)
Anyway, I really wondered what other people and their screens "saw", so thanks for the replies.

The HH was supposedly 3 & 1/2 inches right?
BUT we find out they're talking CUTTING EDGE, (to make wounds) not the complete blade surface, edge to edge.
So maybe at 4" it IS the right size, and it accidently posted as life-sized!

If anyone has the "DID SHE/DIDN'T SHE?" oversized book, it appears about the same size on my screen as that HH on the back cover.  (I figured they made THEIR image "life-sized")
--Thanks for the input.

[Edit here:  OH Jeesh!  This posted on a new page!  Figures!  Anyone will have to go back a page to refer to the hatchet...am not about to throw that on this page too!)

(Message last edited Jun-11th-02  7:28 PM.)

Hey Kat, just measured the hatchet head as it appears on my screen and it has a cutting edge of 5".  Don't mean to rain on your parade. 

The cutting edge is just the middle part of the blade that makes the initial slice.
The Whole blade is not measured as "cutting edge", at least that's what I found out at Ace HArdware.

So you mean the whole blade on YOur screen is FIVE INCHES!!
Holy Cow!  Sorry to stick such a HUGE thing in your face!!!

My parade ain't rained on.  My Stef always warned me "Mac's are Different"...and also that people's screen's see things differently.  I pretty much expected that, but I did appreciate knowing for Sure!

Yes, it's huge!  But, its kind of like people's perception, what they see and is true for them is just that.  BTW, I read your report on the axs and hatchets at Ace.  Loved how the salesperson started backing up from you!  I guess its just a woman with an ax in her hands that makes people nervous? 

Aha!  So Bridget did lie about the hatchets.  Not only in the "Sourcebook" article Kat quoted, but more importantly in that other testimony in her own words, where she says she found the box for the officers.  There we go.  A direct lie.  No two ways about it. 

Taking it another step further, she seems to strongly deny that she ever touched them.

You know, why would the officers ask her to go down in the basement?  Wasn't it specifically to show them where the hatchets were?  The cops did not need a person from the household to watch them as they searched that morning, did they?  (They didn't have a search warrant yet, did they?) 

I'm not a lawyer either, but the police do not need a search warrant when a crime has been committed and reported.
A search warrant is used to search for evidence of a crime, or contraband (illegal goods). But you can check this w/ a lawyer.

Nowadays they have to have "just cause" to search without a warrant, and it's so hard to prove they have just cause, they go ahead and get a warrant to cover their hides. 

I can't think of any better "just cause" than the Bordens' murders.  The law was probably different back then.  Maybe they didn't use a search warrant at all back then (?). 

An original question of yours was *Why would the officers ask her (Bridget) to go down in the cellar with them?*

My interpretation is that Lizzie told her to!