Will the trial continue?

[snokkums]

We all know that Lizzie did faint one day at trial. Well, I was reading in the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, on page 271 and it brought up some good questions.

Well, here goes: "First-- In view of the extra ordinary weakness manifessted by Lizzie Borden when the skulls were first produced in court the other day, still covered, what may be expected from her in her present mentally anxious state, when the sklls in all their naked hideousnessare not only produced but handled and described?

Second--In case she breaks down, as is not at all impossible, can the trail proceed? Proceed in her absence, even by mutual consent of the commonwealth and the prisoner?

Third-- In view of an occurrence in the jury box today, will the case stand if 11 jurors continue in the box, and will it be possible for the trial to proceed without the full complement, even with the consent of the prisoner and the commonwealth?"

Not quiet sure what the first question is asking, but I never thought about how the trial would proceed if she wasn't physically couldn't be there. And how would that affect the jury?

Would they be able to make a good decesion or come to the conclusion that she didn't do because she was fainting all the time.

There was also a statement on the page about the spots on the axes were rust. Does anyone know about that\?

[Kat]

I don't think Lizzie was present in the courtroom when the skull was exposed. I think she *fainted* after someone's long oratory? There are different accounts as to when and why she sunk- usually trying to place her swoon when Andrew's skull was revealed. I don't think that's accurate, but it sounds like good drama. She was allowed to be out of the room ahead of time.

What's your question about the spots being rust?
It was found they were not blood..

[kssunflower]

I think Lizzie's fainting spell occurred on the second day of the trial after Dist. Attorney Moody outlined the prosecution's case for about 2 hours. I just wonder if she wasn't advised by her counsel to do this to gain sympathy.

[Shelley]

I had read that Emma and Lizzie were removed to an adjoining chamber when the skulls were brought into the court room so as to spare their tender feelings- which sounds right for the period. I thought the handless hatchet had some stains of blood which were of animal origin along with a hair from probably an ox or cow? So much of what was in the newspapers was inaccurate- often for pure sensation and to sell papers.

[Kat]

The claw head hatchet from the Preliminary is the one that you might be referring to.
I think the Handlelss Hatchet had a blade the right size, but entered into the court (and case) at the Trial.

Since there were several potential weapons recovered it's very easy to mix them up.

Here is Prof. Dr. Wood at the Preliminary Hearing. He's referring to the claw head hatchet. Sorry there's a lot, but not many people have this document:

A. On the 10th of August I received from Dr. Dolan a trunk.
Q. Received it personally?
A. Received it personally.
Q. What did you find in the trunk?
A. The trunk contained a hatchet, two axes, a blue dress skirt, a blue dress waist, a white skirt, a starched skirt, a lounge cover, and a large envelope which contained three small envelopes, these small envelopes being marked, one of them, "hair taken from A. J. Borden", the second one, "hair taken from Mrs. A. J. Borden", and the third one "hair taken from the hatchet," or "from hatchet". On the 16th of August I received from City Marshal Hilliard, personally, in Boston, a paper box containing a pair of shoes or ties, and a pair of black stockings.
Q. Women's stockings?
A. Yes Sir. Of these substances, I examined the hatchet --- take them in order, as I have given them. The hatchet contained quite a number of suspicious looking spots which looked like blood spots on the head of the hatchet, and also on the handle. These were examined very carefully and thoroughly, but there was no blood spot upon the hatchet, whatever, no trace of blood. The same was true of both axes. Every spot which seemed possible to be a blood stain, and some which did not look to me to be blood stains, I tested very carefully; and there was no blood whatever on either ax.
--and--
The hair taken from hatchet was about one inch long, and under the microscope was seen to have a red brown color, and contained both the root and the point. In other words, it was hair like that from a cow, or an animal, and was not a human hair.
Q. About how long was it?
A. One inch long.
--and--
Q. Did you testimony include the two axes? If it did not, tell us about them. You found nothing on the two axes?
A. Nothing on the two axes.
Q. There was something on the hatchet that had been supposed to be blood, or that was thought to be?
A. Yes Sir. Near the sharp edge of the hatchet on both sides, there was an accumulation of material which looked as though it might be blood, and which under the microscope was seen to be chiefly wood and cotton fiber. There was quite a number of cotton fibres in this patch. There was a little stain that looked as though it might have been from a spatter of blood. It was a long narrow stain on the beveled edge of the hatchet, on the left hand side, about one inch from the upper corner on the blade, on the head of the hatchet, at the sharp edge, and it was evidently made by moisture. It was a spatter of some kind, perhaps a spatter of water, where rust had accumulated there. It was iron rust, and not blood; it looked like blood though. There was another spot on the side of the head of the hatchet very similar to a blood stain. In fact iron rust does resemble blood very much, and it is almost impossible, sometimes, for me to distinguish between the two.
Q. Without a scientific examination?
A. Without testing, yes sir. There were also several stains on the handle, which I examined, with negative result.
Q. What were they; what did they turn out to be?
A. On the handle of the hatchet, and on the handle of the axes, there were some reddish stains, that looked very much like blood, which was either reddish tinted varnish--- There was a pigment on them, which after performing the blood test, appeared to be some mineral pigment that resembled blood.
Q. You only examined one hatchet?
A. That is all.
Q. Have you that hatchet here?
Page 374
A. I have.
Q. Please produce it.
A. I did not bring it here for this purpose; I brought it for another purpose. (Produces it.)
Q. That is the one you have been talking about?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. The other hatchet you have not seen?
A. No Sir.
Q. It has not been put in your hand?
A. No Sir.
--and--
Q. Did you weigh this ax?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you measure the handle?
A. Yes.
Q. The hatchet that is produced?
A. Yes. I have a record here of it, somewhere. I did measure it, but here is a little foot rule. (Measures.) It is just a foot from the head.
Q. From the head, the outer end?
A. 14 inches.
Q. From the end of the handle to the end of the helve in the head?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Are there any changes in that since you have had it?
A. Only what I have done by scraping it a little.
Q. The edges &c?
A. I have scraped off some of these stains. There is an accumulation there on the inner edge of both sides. This I have called right hand, I have marked it with an R; that is my mark simply to designate what I
Page 381
term right, and what I term left.
--and--
(Court) Is it easy to efface blood stains from a hatchet, or the handle of a hatchet, with water, when they are fresh, so that there would be no indication of the stain left?
A. O, certainly, it is possible to wash it off.
Page 385
(Mr. Adams) You say it is possible; is it easy?
A. I answered that.
Q. You said it was possible?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Is it easy?
A. It depends entirely upon what the surface is.
Q. From wood?
A. If the wood is polished and hard it can be washed off very quickly.
Q. Take that particular helve, would it be easy to wash blood off of that?
A. It would this part, but it is not in there, and it would not be easy to wash it out from all these holes in the end; and in between the helve and the head where these deep cracks are, which I have very carefully examined, it would be a very difficult matter.
Q. You say you have examined into these deep cracks, and all about the head, and there is no blood there whatever?
A. No Sir.
(Mr. Jennings) We have concluded to surrender this to the custody of the Court, but I should like, before anything is done with it, to have the opportunity to file a motion that this be left in the custody of the Court, and it be heard upon it.
(Mr. Adams) It is to remain in the Court until we have a chance to be heard.

--There is more on the claw-head hatchet but this might be enough?

Let me add Harrington's ID of it at the Prelim:

Q. Was that claw headed hatchet we had here this morning the one you found on the chopping block?
A. I cannot say about the one I found; it resembled it.
Q. It looks like the hatchet you found on the chopping block in the afternoon?
A. Yes.




Page 398

Q. About the same size and weight?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did it have a claw end?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Is that the only claw end hatchet that you saw around the house?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did you do with it?
A. I took it from where I found it, and brought it back into the laundry, as you call it, the wash room. Marshal Fleet was there, he suggested---- He took the hatchet and we went into a room to the north of that, which contained some boxes and barrels, and he put it on a scaffold at the east of the door as you go in, behind some boxes.
Q. That is in the north east corner of the room that opens out of the laundry?
A. That is right.

[Kat]

The claw-head hatchet was basically *hidden* so that it was separated from the others as important. I don't know why they gave up on it after this hearing. I wonder whatever happened to it?

~~~~~~
At the Trial, Emma would not have been in the courtroom until after her defense testimony, whatever day that was. I don't know if she was with Lizzie during the baring of the skull, or in a side room, or waiting in the hallway or what. I don't know why they would let Emma in with Lizzie while Lizzie was a prisoner of the court...

[Shelley]

Yes, I am trying to find the newspaper article which mentioned the ladies were "removed to another chamber"- although it did not say the SAME chamber for both Lizzie and Emma, when the skulls were brought in. I have always thought the mention of the cotton fibers on the hatchet was interesting. I have seen the scarf which was on Abby's head and it does not look like cotton, but her cotton calico dress, had it sustained any cuts might have left cotton fibers on the blade. I wish there had been a thorough description of the clothing which was on the bodies of the victims-all the details, if any part had slice marks, etc. I guess after being buried the first time -in no receptacle to protect them, some evidence could have been lost. The blow which fell low on Abby, at the base of the neck between the shoulder blades must have left a slash in her calico cotton dress and I have thought maybe a hatchet could acquire the fibers from that source.

[Kat]

Yes I have a premier article in our Hatchet magazine about the *bloody handkerchief.* It was not ever proven to have been on Abbie's head, and it was silk. If the same weapon was used to kill both Bordens, then any fibres would probably come from Andrew's clothing, wouldn't they? And yes, why did they give up on the claw-head when it had cotton fibres? "That has always been a mystery" (as Lizzie would say)...

[Shelley]

Thinking about this, I have never read that Andrew's clothing had been slashed in any way-seems as if the 10-11 wounds were confined to his temple, nose and left eye- so no clothing fibres, cotton fibers, etc. would have been left on the blade. More likely cotton fibers would have been picked up from Abby's clothing. Yes, I have seen the silk kerchief flat recently and I think the slashes are actually the silk deconstructing and separating, not slashes from a blade. Funny, when I first saw the kerchief back in 1991, it was not conserved and nicely flat- it was sort of bunched up almost looking like a little turban.

[Kat]

Yes indeed I agree some of the holes in the handkerchief are from deterioration of the silk. It had been on display at the FRHS under florescent light for many years and then removed and stored, according to them. It was in a lumpen shape, the way they received it. I'm not sure when it came to be folded.
As described in the Borden case at the time tho, it was already "old", "ragged", "shredded from wear."