1. "Off with their heads!"
Posted by harry on Aug-19th-02 at 1:06 PM

One of the more macabre aspects of the Borden case is the removal of the heads of Andrew and Abby Borden by Dr. Dolan.  This same doctor, in his capacity as Medical Examiner, was in charge of the Bertha Manchester case.  Apparently he had a reputation of removing heads as the father of Bertha Manchester protested strongly against this possibility. This is part of an article that appeared on the Evening Standard:

"Dr. Dolan calmly assured them that he was acting in the interest of the state, and that it was his duty to remove the body, and added that he should do it; the father insisted, with an oath, that enough violence had already been done to his child, and he would not allow any more to be done --- evidently decapitation after the removal --- and he maintained that she could be examined as well in that house as anywhere. He was reinforced by his sister, who piteously pleaded for the retention of the body, and he allowed to call Dr. Dwelley to examine the body, and who at the same time said that the medical examiner had no right to prevent her from doing her pleasure in this matter.
After Dr. Dolan had reiterated his authority and his duty, and his determination to do as he was told by superior officers, and after the assistant marshal and several members of the police force had emphasized Dr. Dolan's claims, Mr. Manchester and Mrs. Terry were sent back into the other room and the door was forcibly shut upon them. They were still firm in their protest, however, and referred to the decapitation of several persons by Dr. Dolan in an accusatory manner"

I wonder if the Manchesters were aware of the decapitation of the Bordens. I don't know if this was a common practice in the 1890s. It would seem to me that photographs would have been more than sufficient to demonstrate to the jury the violence inflicted.

I think F Lee Bailey's "Defense Never Rests" notes that these experts, like the judge, are part of the prosecution. Showing the victims skull could inflame and prejudice the jury to strengthen a weak case, IMO. The defense may have let them in, since the verdict was "bought and paid for", according to A R Brown's theory.

I wonder if such exhibits would be allowed in today's courts?

(Message last edited Aug-19th-02  3:43 PM.)

Maybe Dr. Dolan wanted to compare Bertha Manchester's skull with the Borden's to see if the cutting pattern was the same?  Perhaps he thought he was on to something, 3 murders in the same vicinity within a short time of the others. 

I was remembering Dr. Dolan's testimony as he was asked his credentials as to examining victims of murder,

Up until the Borden's, I believe he had one case, of a woman battered and killed by her husband.  I don't think he was too experienced in autopsying murder...maybe he was being thorough?  But I believe his orders to take the heads of the Borden's came from higher up.
Maybe this is so in the Manchester case?

This will completely confuse the issue, but I just ran across an old email from Terence Duniho where he states, "The skulls of Andrew and Abby were not used at the trial. They were plaster casts."

He said he "gleaned" this "tidbit" from his trip to Fall River on March 24, 2001.

I believe I discussed this with Terence via email at one time.  I don't think his assumption is correct.  At the trial itself, I recall that one of the attorneys (Knowlton?) mentioned that he would reluctantly have to produce the skulls themselves, because the plaster casts were insufficient to illustrate some point.  Lizzie was allowed to leave the courtroom at this time, and the actual skulls were supposedly produced and used in a description of the wounds.  I don't know how anyone who wasn't in that courtroom could make a valid claim that the skulls weren't produced, because the testimony reads as if they were.   As I recall, it was much clearer that Andrew's skull was actually unveiled and used for illustration.  I myself was less sure about Abby's, although it seemed as if it too was in the courtroom.

You are correct Edisto. At least Andrew's skull was admitted as evidence. From part 2 of the trial beginning page 1046. Dr Draper is on the stand:

Q.  Is there anything in the nature or character of the wounds upon the head of Mr. Borden which would so assist you?
A.  There is.
Q.  Would the skull itself be of assistance in pointing out such things as occur to you to be important?
A.  It would.

MR. KNOWLTON. Then in that case, although I regret very much the necessity of doing it, I shall have to ask Dr. Dolan to produce it.

(Dr. Dolan retired from the Court room and returned with the skull of Mr. Borden.)

MR. KNOWLTON. I understand it to be agreed without recalling Dr. Dolan that this is the skull of Mr. Borden?

(Mr. Adams nodded assent.)

After further digging:

Both skulls were in the courtroom but I don't remember Mrs. Borden's being used. This from page 1109 at the end of the 8th day:

"MR. KNOWLTON. He will not carry it (the handleless hatchet) away.  I will talk with you about it later.  Dr. Dolan will take the custody of the skulls.  And if your Honors will pardon me another suggestion---I believe it is understood that the other skull, although we do not care to produce it now, it may be necessary to refer to it in the argument possibly, and the jury are to have it anyway, as I understand it."

Both skulls were among the exhibits which went to the jury room when they were making their decision. (page 1927)

Thanks, Harry!  That's pretty much the way I remember it from my email conversation with Terence.  I think he or I may have posted something about it on the old board too.

Thanks, Harry!  I had read that Andrew's skull came to court, but, not Abby's. 

Yes, Abby's skull was at home, making mince pies sprinkled with rosewater.

And eating Pigeon Pie!

At least in the "Legend" movie, they said that the head removals were ordered by "his honor, the Mayor".  Seems like I read a newspaper article that said the same.

I would think that the heads were removed for study.  They couldn't very well keep the entire body, and there'd be no sense anyway since the wounds were all on the head (except for the one that missed and got Abby on the back).  That's a good question - do they allow that today?  I've never seen it in a court case - just photos I've seen presented.  That's gotta be totally traumatic for the family.

I remember the first time I went to Fall River (1989), it was in the scant literature about the case (I thought it was in the AAA Tour book) that you could view the skull of Andrew in either the lobby of City Hall or the Courthouse.  I remember I was so tempted, but decided I'd be too spooked to see it.  I don't know if this was a cast of the skull or the real one.  But I've since not read anything about it and nobody seems to remember it. 

I would think that it was the plaster cast.  How could the city keep a portion of a persons' body, especially without the consent of the family which was very much living at the time?  Unless, for some reason, that the skulls were kept as evidence long after the trial was over.

That just made me wonder, that guy who did the readings over the Borden graves, was he able to tell if Andrew and Abby had been buried headless?  That would be too weird! 

I think the bottom line on the Borden skulls was that Starrs determined the skulls WERE in the graves, but at the feet of each.
I can't give source.

Ooooo, thats just as creepy!  Why couldn't they at least put the skulls back in their general vicinity!  To go through eternity with your head beneath your feet!

I don't know why that is.
I just remember finding it out.

Am I supposed to put this thing together now?

  Um, no, you can't.  The prosecution still has parts of the skeletons for souveni......uh, evidence, yeah, thats right!