On August
5, last, I received, at the Harvard :Medical School, a box containing
jars with samples of milk, and other jars containing the stomachs of
Mr. and Mrs. Borden. First examined Mrs. Borden's stomach; it was
perfectly healthy in appearance, with no evidence of the action of any
irritant. It contained about eleven ounces of partly digested food, and
of liquid. So far as could be determined from appearance it was under
going the usual stomach digestion, which had progressed approximately
two to three hours from the last meal, possibly a little longer.
In Mr.
Borden's stomach there was very much less food. Digestion was much
further advanced; nearly all the solid food had been expelled into the
intestine. This would make it appear that digestion, at ordinary
rapidity, had been going on somewhere in the neighborhood of four
hours; anywhere from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 hours. His stomach showed no
diseased condition, nor the action of any irritant-judging from ocular
examination.
Contents of
both stomachs were immediately tested for prussic acid; an immediate
test was necessary, as being a volatile acid it would escape to the air
shortly after exposure. The test for prussic acid showed a negative
result. Afterwards, they were analyzed for the irritant poisons, also
with a negative result. In short, I found no evidence of poison of any
kind.
Both
samples of milk were then tested without obtaining evidence of any
poison.
Q.
Assuming, Professor, that the two persons whose stomachs you had under
examination ate breakfast at the same table and time and partook of the
same breakfast substantially, what difference in the time of their
deaths should you say, from the examination of the stomachs now alone,
would be indicated with reasonable certainty, assuming the digestion to
have gone on normally?
A. Assuming
the digestion to have gone on naturally in both cases the difference
would be somewhere in the neighborhood of an hour and a half more or
less.
Q. Does
digestion stop at death?
A. Well, it
stops; yes sir. It stops so far as the expulsion of food from the
stomach is concerned. There is a sort of digestion goes on after death
in which the stomach wall itself is partly digested.
Q. Was
there anything of the kind here?
A. The
membrane was a little bit softened, but not to any extent.
Q. Is there
anything in that circumstance to conflict with the opinion you have
given?
A. No sir;
and it was included in my answer, that they had a perfectly normal
appearance, that being a post-mortem change.
Q. And (
understood your answer of an hour and a half as an answer to my
question, assuming the breakfast to be at the same time and the process
of digestion not interrupted, to have been the difference to a
reasonable certainty? A. I didn't quite catch the whole of the question.
Q. Is that
the difference that you fix to a reasonable certainty?
A. Not
within narrow limits, but only approximately.
Q. Within
what limits? A. I should say within a half an hour one way or the other.
Q. Have you
been present and heard the evidence in the case?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So far
as relates to the condition of the bodies?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And the
condition of the intestines?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And the
various witnesses who have testified to the appearance of the bodies
after they were discovered, and to the description of the intestines?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Taking
all those facts as you have heard them, and also the examinations that
you made yourself, what of them do you deem to be important in
determining the time, the relative time, of the death of those two
people?
A. The
difference in the period of digestion, both stomach and intestinal, the
drying of the blood, and the temperature of the body.
Q. And
taking all those circumstances that you say you regard as important,
all together, do you desire to modify in any way what you have already
said as to the difference in time of death of the two people?
A. I should
think that one corroborated the other, that they all tended to the same
conclusion.
On August
10, at Fall River, I received from Dr Dolan the large hatchet known as
the claw-hammer hatchet; the two axes; the blue-dress skirt and waist;
the white skirt which is there [garments being exhibited by counsel as
witness names them] ; the sitting-room carpet [holding it up] ; the
bedroom carpet; a false switch; a lounge cover; three small envelopes,
one labelled "hair of Mrs. Borden, 8/7/92, 12.10 P.M."; one labelled
"hair from A. J. Borden, 8/7/92, 12.14 P.M."; one labeled "hair taken
from the hatchet."
The
claw-hammer hatchet had several stains on it which appeared like
bloodstains, on handle, side and edge. All the stains on the head of
the hatchet were subjected by me to chemical and microscopic tests for
blood, and with absolutely negative results. The two axes, which I
designated A and B, had stains which appeared like blood, but tests
showed them absolutely free from blood.
Q. Did you
make an examination to be able to determine whether it was reasonably
possible that that hatchet could have been used in inflicting the
wounds that you have described, and then have been washed soon
afterwards, so that traces of blood might or might not be found upon
it? A. It could not have been washed quickly on account of those
cavities in between the head and the handle.
The hair
labelled "taken from the hatchet" was a short hair, one inch long, with
a red-brown pigment. It is animal hair, no question of that, and
probably cow's hair.
The blue
skirt has, near the pocket, a brownish smooch, which resembled blood,
but a test showed it was not. Another, lower down, proved not to be
blood. The waist had not even a suspicion of bloodstain. The white
skirt had a small blood spot, six inches from the bottom of the skirt.
It was 1/16 inch in diameter: the size of the head of a small pin. The
corpuscles, examined under a high-power microscope, averaged 1/3243 of
an inch, and it is therefore consistent with its being human blood.
Some animals show a similar measurement: the seal, the opossum and one
variety of guinea pig. The rabbit and the dog come pretty near.
Experiments
which I made with the two carpets, from the sitting room and the guest
chamber, showed that blood dried on them with equal rapidity. I
examined a pair of shoes and a pair of black stockings, and found no
blood on either.
There is
the small hatchet, which I should have mentioned in connection with the
claw-hammer hatchet. The latter has a cutting edge of 4 1/2 inches; the
small one an edge of 3 1/8 inches.
Q. I will
ask you the same question I did with reference to the other hatchet,
whether in your opinion that hatchet could have been used and then
cleaned in any manner so as to remove any trace of blood beyond the
power of your discovery, as you examined it?
A. It
couldn't have been done by a quick washing.
Q. Why not?
A. It would
cling in those angles there and couldn't be thoroughly removed. The
coagula would cling. It would have to be very thoroughly washed in
order to remove it. It could be done by cold water, no question about
that. But it couldn't be done by a careless washing.
Q. And is
that the same reason why you gave the answer as to that hatchet?
A. Yes sir.
Q. On
account of the fibers of wood?
A. And the
holes between the head and the handle.
[Witness now deposed as to a
hatchet head he received from the City Marshal, a broken piece of the
handle being still in position.]
Both sides
of this hatchet were rusty. There were several suspicious spots on the
side of it, but they were not blood. When I received it, there was a
white film, like ashes, on it.
Q. How much
of it when you first saw it had the appearance of being marked by this
adherent film of white matter which looked like ashes?
A. Both
sides. One side you can hardly see now, and the other side you can see;
more in the middle of the hatchet, not near the edge.
Q. Did it
appear to you to be the sort of covering that would result from being
exposed to ordinary dust flying in the air?
MR. ADAMS.
We object to that question.
MR.
ROBINSON. It is very leading, at any rate.
MR.
KNOWLTON. I see no reason why I should not put the question, unless
your Honors decide that I should not.
The CHIEF
JUSTICE. Excluded.
Q.
Professor, what is your opinion, as the result of the examination which
you made, as to the question whether this hatchet could have been used
to inflict the wounds which you have heard described and then subjected
to any cleaning process to remove the traces of blood, as to the
question of whether or not you would be able to find them upon the
hatchet?
MR. ADAMS.
Well, we pray your Honors' judgment.
MR.
KNOWLTON. I do not think that question is very happy.
Q. Assuming
this hatchet to have been used for inflicting the wounds which you have
heard described and then subjected to some sort of a cleaning process,
whether or not that could be reasonably possible to have occurred
without your having discovered traces of blood upon the hatchet or the
handle that you found?
MR. ADAMS. We object to that question.
The CHIEF
JUSTICE. He may answer.
MR. ADAMS.
We would like to have our rights saved, may it please your Honor.
[Question
read.]
A. Before the handle was broken, not after.
MR. ADAMS.
I think the question must be answered as put, if it can be answered.
The
WITNESS. If by the question is meant the hatchet head as it is—
MR.
KNOWLTON. I beg pardon, Professor Wood. I don't think my brother has a
right to catechise the witness yet.
MR. ADAMS.
I have not catechised him.
MR.
KNOWLTON. Yes, but you were getting into a colloquy with him, which I
do not think is proper.
Mr.
Stenographer, will you read the answer?
[Answer
read.]
Q. That is
to say, the conditions I named could have existed before the handle was
broken off. Why do you make that difference, Professor?
MR. ADAMS.
All this goes in under our objection, may it please your Honors.
A. Because
it would be very hard to wash blood off that broken end.
Q. A little
louder. A. It would be almost impossible to quickly wash blood out of
that broken end. It might have been done by thorough cleansing, but
that would also stain the fracture.
Q. Any why practicable before?
MR. ADAMS.
Your Honor understands that we object to this portion of the inquiry
and ask to have an exception saved?
The CHIEF
JUSTICE. If you ask an exception you should do it clearly.
MR. ADAMS.
I mean to do it, sir; I mean to rise in my place and object.
The CHIEF
JUSTICE. Counsel for the Government are not bound to understand an
objection to mean an exception. The two things are very distinct.
Q. Going
back to the answer that you gave-before the handle was broken, and not
after-you have told why it could not be after the handle was broken.
Why do you give the other answer, "before the hatchet was broken"? Give
your reasons.
MR. ADAMS.
We object to this, may it please your Honor, and ask that an exception
may be saved.
The CHIEF
JUSTICE. It may be answered.
A. That
hatchet handle fitted very tightly into the head, and was a smooth
handle-the part remaining-so far as I could see from the part
remaining. I cannot answer for the part which I have never seen.
Q. Was
there any difference-of course it is now removed-in the way in which
that handle occupied the head of that hatchet, from the claw-hammer
hatchet, for example?
A. Yes sir.
MR. ADAMS.
What is the question?
Q. Was
there any difference between the way that handle fitted into the
hatchet, and the claw-hammer hatchet?
A. It
fitted very tightly.
Q. And what
was the difference between that and the claw-hammer hatchet?
A. The
claw-hammer hatchet does not.
Q. What is
the nature of prussic acid?
A. It is a
poison acid, gaseous. It consists of gas, and that gas is soluble in
water.
Q. In
reference, I mean now, to its poisonous effects? A. It is one of the
most deadly poisons we know.
Q. And how
instantaneous or otherwise is it?
A. Death is
caused anywhere from a few seconds to a couple of minutes.
Q. And what
quantity of prussic acid is sufficient to cause the death of a human
being?
A. Any
solution of prussic acid which contains one grain of acid-any solution
which contains one grain of acid is a fatal dose. That is, it is less
than a teaspoonful of the solution which is ordinarily used in the
drugstores, which is a two per cent solution.
Q. And what
is that solution used for, if you know?
A. For medicine.
Q. Alone,
or in prescriptions?
A.
Prescriptions.
Q. [By
Mr. Adams] The white skirt to which your attention was called had
upon it, you have stated, I believe, a spot of blood appearing as large
as the size of the head of a small pin?
A. Yes
sir-the diameter, not the size.
Q. Are you
able to. say that that was not a spot of blood which might have gotten
on from the menstrual flow of the woman?
A. No sir,
I am not.
Q. It would
be entirely consistent with. that, would it?
A. Yes sir,
it may have been menstrual blood, or may not, so far as I can determine.
Q. Could
you determine from the appearance of the stomachs, assuming that the
two persons had eaten their meal at the same time, who had eaten the
larger meal?
A. I could
not.
Q. In all
the opinions that you have given, have they been based upon the
digestion being normal?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And if
digestion had been disturbed in the case of either of these persons,
that would interfere somewhat with your opinion, would it not?
A. Yes sir,
if I knew that.
Q. And it
would interfere to what extent as to time? Within what bounds?
A. Some
things might tend to empty the stomach more rapidly and others less
rapidly; some disturbances more rapidly and others less rapidly. The
action of an irritant, for instance, would perhaps hasten the stomach
movements so that the food would be expelled into the upper intestine
more rapidly than it would under normal circumstances. Other conditions
might delay that motion so that it would go on more slowly.
I am not
willing to fix the difference in time between the deaths of these
persons beyond an hour. If one died at eleven, the other might have
died at ten, or at nine.
As to the
break in the handle of the "handleless" hatchet, I would not express
any opinion as to the freshness of the break.
Q. [By
Mr Knowlton] Have you had occasion to consider the subject of the
spattering of blood when blows are struck in the manner in
which you have heard these blows described?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What can
you say as to that generally?
A. It might spatter in any direction and might not spatter in every direction.
Q. That is,
there is no rule at all?
A. No sir.
Q. What
happens? Does it spatter or spurt?
A.
Spatters; when any blunt surface strikes a pool of blood, of course it
will spatter in that direction, varying according to accidental
circumstances.
Q. Would
there be any way in which you could determine whether any given surface
near the wounds would receive the spattering or not, or how much?
A. No sir.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. [By Mr
Adams] Assuming that the assailant stood behind Mr Borden when these
injuries were given and received, have you formed an opinion whether he
would be spattered by blood to any extent?
A. I have
thought that he must be spattered with blood, but I don't think it is
absolutely necessary that he should.
Q. You have
expressed that opinion, have you not?
A. I have.
Q. And you
give that opinion taking into mind the bloody spots you saw on the wall
and parlor door?
A. I beg
your pardon: I will correct what I just said. Your question was if the
assailant stood behind him, at his head. I don't see how he could avoid
being spattered.
Q. What
part of the body would receive these spatters?
A. Above
the position of the head, or from this level up.
[Indicating
with the hand]
Q. From the
waist up?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Assuming
that the assailant of Mrs. Borden stood over her when she was lying
down on the floor, face downward, and taking into account the spatters
of blood which you saw there, have you formed an opinion as to whether
her assailant would be spattered with blood? A. I don't see how the
assailant could avoid being spattered in that place.
Q. What portion of the body would receive the spatters in your opinion?
A. From
below—
Q. Below
the—
A. From the
lower portion of the body and upward.
Q. [By
Mr. Knowlton] Is there any way of determining-you say the assailant
of Mr. Borden could not avoid being spattered-could you make any
opinion or in any way form any opinion as to the number of spatters?
A. No sir.
Q. Whether
few or many?
A. No sir.