Trial Excerpts
June 13, 1893
Fall River, Massachusetts, Court Building
Testimony of Dr. William Dolan (recalled) for the Prosecution
New Bedford, June 13th, 1893.
CROSS-EXAMINATION, resumed
Q. Have you an opinion as to where the assailant of Mr. Borden stood, taking into account the spots, which you saw?
A. I have.
Q. From the appearance of things, where did the assailant stand?
A. Stood close behind the head of the lounge, that is, between the parlor door and the head of the lounge.
Q. You no longer, if you have ever put him there, make him stand in the dining-room door?
A. I never put him there.
Q. Did you ever have an opinion that one or more of these blows might have been given by a person reaching around the jamb of the dining-room door and striking the head?
A. Well, to stand even behind the dining-room door you would not have to reach around.
Q. You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right, don't you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And all those wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That is to say, it is a left-handed blow?
A. In what sense left-handed; delivered by the left hand?
Q. That it strikes the body in a left-handed direction-from left to right.
A. Yes sir, to a certain extent. Those that are most markedly from left to right are those that would come down directly as the head lies there now, and give the direction of a left-handed blow.
Q. And those blows made quite as severe injuries as any?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And the strongest left-handed blow, in your opinion, was the blow upon the eyebrow where that bone was chipped out?
A. Yes sir.
Q. In your opinion, would a strong and crushing blow not have been necessary to have made that?
A. No sir.
Q. A light blow, in your opinion, could have done that?
A. Not a light blow; no sir.
Q. A fairly strong blow?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Was it a one-handed or a two-handed blow, in your opinion?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Have you any opinion about that?
A. I think one-handed could do it.
Q. Assuming that the carotid artery (which is the artery running up through the neck, here, and under the angle of the jaw) had been cut, would there be a large flow of blood?
A. It depends upon where it was cut, sir.
Q. Suppose it was the interior one; there are two of them, I believe, or two branches.
A. Even then it would depend upon where.
Q. Well, supposing it was cut near the angle of the jaw, would there be a large flow of blood immediately?
A. There would, immediately; a very large flow of blood.
Q. And if the assailant, using the instrument, which you have described, or a similar one, had cut that, would not it have been natural that the assailant would have been covered with blood or would have been spattered and sprinkled with blood?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. How do you explain that they would not have been?
A. Because it would not spurt in that direction.
Q. In what direction?
A. In the direction of the assailant.
Q. But when the hatchet goes into the wound, doesn't it get covered with blood, particularly the edge of it?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And when it is covered with blood, which is fresh and warm, isn't it liable to come off in a swinging blow?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And isn't that liable to strike the assailant somewhere as he swings his blow from front to rear and rear to front?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And wouldn't you say it would be probable that the assailant would be covered with blood or have spatters upon him?
A. He would have spatters; yes sir.
Q. And in what part of the body, in the case of Mr. Borden, would these spatters come?
A. The upper part.
Q. That is, the head, the breast?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Would the hands be liable to be spotted or spattered?
A. They might.
Q. Would not it be probable?
A. Probable.
[After an extended cross-examination as to the position of Mrs. Borden's body, the direction of the blows and the location of the blood spots, the examiner reached this question].
Q. Now taking the position of Mrs. Borden, the pillow shams, the bed spreads, the spots on the pillow sham, mirror and baseboard, where, in your opinion, did the assailant stand when inflicting this injury?
A. Astride the body.
Q. Did you say at the time when you got to the house how long in your opinion Mrs. Borden had been dead?
A. Did I say so then?
Q. Yes.
A. I have no recollection, sir.
Q. Is your opinion about the time of her death based upon what you saw there on Thursday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Well, haven't you said that in your opinion she died about an hour and a half before the time you saw her?
A. I don't know whether I said it that way or whether I said an hour and a half before Mr. Borden. I am not sure, sir.
Q. But your opinion which you formed was made up of the appearances which you saw on Thursday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Didn't you testify about that at the other hearing in Fall River?
A. In what particulars?
Q. As to the time of her death.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Don't you recall that you said there that in your opinion she died about an hour and a half before the time that you saw her body at the house?
A. As I say, I am not sure of making it that way.
Q. Let me read to you and see if this is what you said, page 105:
"From what you saw, and all you saw, did you form any opinion as to how long she had been dead when you found her?" Answer: "I couldn't say exactly how long she had been dead, but it was my impression she was dead anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half when I saw her."
Q. Did you say that?
A. I said it if it is there; yes sir.
Q. And you saw her in the vicinity of twelve o'clock?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So that the opinion which you formed then was that she died somewhere from half-past ten to eleven o'clock.
A. According to that statement, yes sir.
Q. Well, wasn't that statement your opinion?
A. Yes sir; at that time.
Q. Didn't you say you formed your opinion from what you saw at that time?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you desire to change that opinion now?
A. I don't know that I desire to change it, except that-since it is there of course I said that, but I hadn't the impression that I said it, just as I told you I hadn't the impression that I said it was from the time I saw her or from the contrasting of the deaths of the two bodies.
Q. What would you say now?
A. I will say, taking everything into consideration, what I saw then and what I have learned since by examination, that the difference between the deaths of the two bodies would be from an hour to an hour and a half.
Q. What other factor comes into your opinion?
A. The difference in the warmth of the bodies.
Q. Well, what is the common period of time assigned for the cooling of the body?
A. Well, anywhere from ten to twenty-four hours.
Q. Take the body of Mrs. Borden, who was a woman 60 odd years of age, weighing about 200 pounds, how long at that time do you think it would take for her body to cool, to become cold?
A. I don't know. Of course the external temperature would have something to do with it, but I am not prepared to say how long it would take for her body that particular day. As I say, all normal bodies differ very much in length of time.
Q. Can you give me any opinion as to the length of time?
A. I could not; no sir.
Q. Would there be any difference in the time between her body and Mr. Borden's, assuming both died at the same instant?
A. There would; yes sir.
Q. What difference would there be?
A. The difference would be that hers would be warmer than Mr. Borden's.
Q. That is to say, hers would be warm longer than his?
A. Be warm longer than his and warmer than his.
Q. Was there some other factor, the factor of digestion that came into your opinion?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Well, the stomach is a rebellious member of the body, isn't it, and often doesn't perform its duty well?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Even in people who are in comparative health?
A. That is a fact.
Q. So that food passes from the stomach into the intestines without always being digested, doesn't it?
A. Not in a normal stomach; no Sir.
Q. I know it. But assume that the stomach is not in a normal condition; that is, that one is suffering from indigestion.
A. Yes.
Q. And from that condition of body which is followed by summer sickness.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Under those circumstances would not food naturally pass from the stomach into the upper intestine without being fully digested?
A. Yes sir.
Q. If the person was in that condition could you safely express any opinion as to the length of time that the meal was taken before you saw the upper intestine?
A. No sir, not safely.
Q. That is, you couldn't form an opinion within some half hour or an hour, could you, of the time of the meal?
A. I hardly think you could.
Q. In other words, if a person had eaten breakfast at seven o'clock in the morning, and a day or two days before that had been ill and vomited up her food that day, and after breakfast at some time you found her dead with some undigested food in the lower intestine, could you tell from that fact alone, knowing also that they had been ill, how long before that they had eaten their morning meal?
A. Not accurately, no sir.
Q. I mean within half an hour or an hour?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Well then, isn't the opinion, which you give as to how long before Mr. Borden died, Mrs. Borden died, one of speculation largely?
A. No sir. You mean, as far as the intestine is concerned?
Q. Yes.
A. It is not as marked, of course, as the temperature and the condition of the blood.
Q. On digestion alone how far will you go as to the difference of time in the death of Mr. and Mrs. Borden?
A. Well, knowing that they had partaken of the same food, and knowing that both had been ill to a certain extent, and
Q. I am allowing you to answer, although you put in things that I did not put into my question. Go on.
A. I have to do that to make up my result.
Q. Go on.
A. And finding nothing in the upper bowel of one and something in the upper bowel of the other, I think it makes the thing equal; that is, their having eaten at the same time, and their having both been ill at the same time, I think it takes away considerable of the force of your question: could I tell by the intestines of Mrs. Borden that she had had breakfast within half an hour or an hour, that is, within half an hour or an hour's time. Taking those things into consideration, I think that it is not speculation to say that by her intestines you could say that digestion was still going on.
Q. I think my question was, within what period of time you would dare to give an opinion based upon the digestive appearances alone?
A. I misunderstood you. I thought you said was it speculation.
Q. Well, will you answer that question? I asked you before that about speculation. Will you answer that question?
A. I wouldn't say within half an hour, no sir.
Q. Assuming that one had been more ill than the other, that one had had a severer attack than the other, would it make any difference in that digestion?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. And would that interfere with the expression of an opinion with reasonable accuracy as to the length of time?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. Assuming that was the fact would you then fix the limit as more than half an hour?
A. No sir.
Q. You would still stick to your opinion that you could determine within half an hour the difference in time?
A. No sir, I would not.
Q. And I understand you to have already told me upon the coagulation of blood, you wouldn't dare after fifteen minutes to express an opinion, within fifteen minutes or half an hour as to the difference of time?
A. No sir, not to swear to it, I wouldn't.
Q. So that you have nothing left but the temperature of the body?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And that is tested simply by touch?
A. Yes sir.
Q. I neglected to ask you one question. When I was inquiring about the position of the assailant of Mrs. Borden, you told me, I think, that in your opinion the assailant stood astride of the body and over it. If in that attitude the assailant stood, would there be a general spattering of blood over his body?
A. I don't know whether there would be a general one over the entire body. I think there would be surely some on the lower part of the body.
RE-DIRECT
Q. Something has been said, Doctor, about the capacity and different sizes of the hatchets, which inflicted the wounds, in respect to the length of them. You have testified, as I understand it, if I am in error you will correct me that these wounds varied from half an inch to four or more in length?
A. I have, yes sir.
Q. Would those lengths of themselves afford any indication, the exterior length of the wounds, afford any indication of the size in respect to the length of the weapon, which inflicted them?
A. I don't think so, no sir.
Q. Why not?
A. Simply that the coming down, taking the particular case, coming down on a hard surface they are liable to slide.
Q. Is there anything in the length of the wounds, which is inconsistent with their having been inflicted by a weapon, for example, of three and one half inches in length?
A. There is not, no sir.
Q. And why so? Explain why. How could a three-and-one-half-inch hatchet make a two-inch wound, for example?
A. Because the whole cutting edge wouldn't be brought into play at once.
Q. That is, didn't go through?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And how can a three-and-one-half-inch hatchet make a four-and-a-half-inch wound?
A. By sliding and by also going in underneath, that is, crushing into.
Q. And if it went, not vertically but at an angle, would that also have a tendency to make it?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. You spoke of the food in the intestines as undigested?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What portion of the food in the intestines of Mrs. Borden was undigested?
A. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
Q. Was there anything in the appearancence of what you found in the small intestines to indicate that there had been anything abnormal or irregular or showing disease of any kind in the operation of digestion?
A. No sir.
Q. So far as that indicated anything at all, did it appear whether or not the digestion had been normal?
A. It indicated nothing abnormal, no sir.
Q. Now, you said that there were back of the lounge eighty-six [blood] spots describing the arc of a circle. When was the last time that you saw them?
A. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
Q. How long after the homicide?
A. They were there; I think it was the 13th that I counted them.
Q. The 13th of what?
A. August.
Q. You say [they] formed a sort of arch. Can you tell what, in your opinion, caused that, spattering or spurting?
A. Spurting.
Q. Spurting is the force of the heart, of the blood?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Spattering comes from contact of the instrument with the blood?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Or dropping from the hatchet?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you find any other spurts besides those there that in your opinion formed that arch?
A. I did not.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. [By Mr. Adams] From the appearance of an injury having various lengths like one, two, three, four or five inches you are hardly able to determine the length of the cutting edge giving them, are you?
A. No sir.
Q. Do the appearances disclosed by examination after death in reference to upper intestine aid you in forming any opinion at all about digestion?
A. It does, yes sir.
Q. Do you mean to say that indigestion is indicated by the appearance of the intestine itself?
A. Of course if the intestine was inflamed.
Q. Does inflammation indicate that a person has indigestion always?
A. No sir.
Q. In other words, one may have indigestion without inflammation of the intestine?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So that the appearance of the intestine would not necessarily help you in determining whether or not a person had poor digestion, or indigestion, not normal digestion?
A. No sir.
CROSS-EXAMINATION, resumed
Q. Have you an opinion as to where the assailant of Mr. Borden stood, taking into account the spots, which you saw?
A. I have.
Q. From the appearance of things, where did the assailant stand?
A. Stood close behind the head of the lounge, that is, between the parlor door and the head of the lounge.
Q. You no longer, if you have ever put him there, make him stand in the dining-room door?
A. I never put him there.
Q. Did you ever have an opinion that one or more of these blows might have been given by a person reaching around the jamb of the dining-room door and striking the head?
A. Well, to stand even behind the dining-room door you would not have to reach around.
Q. You think the assailant swung the instrument from left to right, don't you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And all those wounds can be fairly accounted for by blows from left to right?
A. Yes sir.
Q. That is to say, it is a left-handed blow?
A. In what sense left-handed; delivered by the left hand?
Q. That it strikes the body in a left-handed direction-from left to right.
A. Yes sir, to a certain extent. Those that are most markedly from left to right are those that would come down directly as the head lies there now, and give the direction of a left-handed blow.
Q. And those blows made quite as severe injuries as any?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And the strongest left-handed blow, in your opinion, was the blow upon the eyebrow where that bone was chipped out?
A. Yes sir.
Q. In your opinion, would a strong and crushing blow not have been necessary to have made that?
A. No sir.
Q. A light blow, in your opinion, could have done that?
A. Not a light blow; no sir.
Q. A fairly strong blow?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Was it a one-handed or a two-handed blow, in your opinion?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. Have you any opinion about that?
A. I think one-handed could do it.
Q. Assuming that the carotid artery (which is the artery running up through the neck, here, and under the angle of the jaw) had been cut, would there be a large flow of blood?
A. It depends upon where it was cut, sir.
Q. Suppose it was the interior one; there are two of them, I believe, or two branches.
A. Even then it would depend upon where.
Q. Well, supposing it was cut near the angle of the jaw, would there be a large flow of blood immediately?
A. There would, immediately; a very large flow of blood.
Q. And if the assailant, using the instrument, which you have described, or a similar one, had cut that, would not it have been natural that the assailant would have been covered with blood or would have been spattered and sprinkled with blood?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. How do you explain that they would not have been?
A. Because it would not spurt in that direction.
Q. In what direction?
A. In the direction of the assailant.
Q. But when the hatchet goes into the wound, doesn't it get covered with blood, particularly the edge of it?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And when it is covered with blood, which is fresh and warm, isn't it liable to come off in a swinging blow?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And isn't that liable to strike the assailant somewhere as he swings his blow from front to rear and rear to front?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And wouldn't you say it would be probable that the assailant would be covered with blood or have spatters upon him?
A. He would have spatters; yes sir.
Q. And in what part of the body, in the case of Mr. Borden, would these spatters come?
A. The upper part.
Q. That is, the head, the breast?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Would the hands be liable to be spotted or spattered?
A. They might.
Q. Would not it be probable?
A. Probable.
[After an extended cross-examination as to the position of Mrs. Borden's body, the direction of the blows and the location of the blood spots, the examiner reached this question].
Q. Now taking the position of Mrs. Borden, the pillow shams, the bed spreads, the spots on the pillow sham, mirror and baseboard, where, in your opinion, did the assailant stand when inflicting this injury?
A. Astride the body.
Q. Did you say at the time when you got to the house how long in your opinion Mrs. Borden had been dead?
A. Did I say so then?
Q. Yes.
A. I have no recollection, sir.
Q. Is your opinion about the time of her death based upon what you saw there on Thursday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Well, haven't you said that in your opinion she died about an hour and a half before the time you saw her?
A. I don't know whether I said it that way or whether I said an hour and a half before Mr. Borden. I am not sure, sir.
Q. But your opinion which you formed was made up of the appearances which you saw on Thursday?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Didn't you testify about that at the other hearing in Fall River?
A. In what particulars?
Q. As to the time of her death.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Don't you recall that you said there that in your opinion she died about an hour and a half before the time that you saw her body at the house?
A. As I say, I am not sure of making it that way.
Q. Let me read to you and see if this is what you said, page 105:
"From what you saw, and all you saw, did you form any opinion as to how long she had been dead when you found her?" Answer: "I couldn't say exactly how long she had been dead, but it was my impression she was dead anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half when I saw her."
Q. Did you say that?
A. I said it if it is there; yes sir.
Q. And you saw her in the vicinity of twelve o'clock?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So that the opinion which you formed then was that she died somewhere from half-past ten to eleven o'clock.
A. According to that statement, yes sir.
Q. Well, wasn't that statement your opinion?
A. Yes sir; at that time.
Q. Didn't you say you formed your opinion from what you saw at that time?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you desire to change that opinion now?
A. I don't know that I desire to change it, except that-since it is there of course I said that, but I hadn't the impression that I said it, just as I told you I hadn't the impression that I said it was from the time I saw her or from the contrasting of the deaths of the two bodies.
Q. What would you say now?
A. I will say, taking everything into consideration, what I saw then and what I have learned since by examination, that the difference between the deaths of the two bodies would be from an hour to an hour and a half.
Q. What other factor comes into your opinion?
A. The difference in the warmth of the bodies.
Q. Well, what is the common period of time assigned for the cooling of the body?
A. Well, anywhere from ten to twenty-four hours.
Q. Take the body of Mrs. Borden, who was a woman 60 odd years of age, weighing about 200 pounds, how long at that time do you think it would take for her body to cool, to become cold?
A. I don't know. Of course the external temperature would have something to do with it, but I am not prepared to say how long it would take for her body that particular day. As I say, all normal bodies differ very much in length of time.
Q. Can you give me any opinion as to the length of time?
A. I could not; no sir.
Q. Would there be any difference in the time between her body and Mr. Borden's, assuming both died at the same instant?
A. There would; yes sir.
Q. What difference would there be?
A. The difference would be that hers would be warmer than Mr. Borden's.
Q. That is to say, hers would be warm longer than his?
A. Be warm longer than his and warmer than his.
Q. Was there some other factor, the factor of digestion that came into your opinion?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Well, the stomach is a rebellious member of the body, isn't it, and often doesn't perform its duty well?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Even in people who are in comparative health?
A. That is a fact.
Q. So that food passes from the stomach into the intestines without always being digested, doesn't it?
A. Not in a normal stomach; no Sir.
Q. I know it. But assume that the stomach is not in a normal condition; that is, that one is suffering from indigestion.
A. Yes.
Q. And from that condition of body which is followed by summer sickness.
A. Yes sir.
Q. Under those circumstances would not food naturally pass from the stomach into the upper intestine without being fully digested?
A. Yes sir.
Q. If the person was in that condition could you safely express any opinion as to the length of time that the meal was taken before you saw the upper intestine?
A. No sir, not safely.
Q. That is, you couldn't form an opinion within some half hour or an hour, could you, of the time of the meal?
A. I hardly think you could.
Q. In other words, if a person had eaten breakfast at seven o'clock in the morning, and a day or two days before that had been ill and vomited up her food that day, and after breakfast at some time you found her dead with some undigested food in the lower intestine, could you tell from that fact alone, knowing also that they had been ill, how long before that they had eaten their morning meal?
A. Not accurately, no sir.
Q. I mean within half an hour or an hour?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Well then, isn't the opinion, which you give as to how long before Mr. Borden died, Mrs. Borden died, one of speculation largely?
A. No sir. You mean, as far as the intestine is concerned?
Q. Yes.
A. It is not as marked, of course, as the temperature and the condition of the blood.
Q. On digestion alone how far will you go as to the difference of time in the death of Mr. and Mrs. Borden?
A. Well, knowing that they had partaken of the same food, and knowing that both had been ill to a certain extent, and
Q. I am allowing you to answer, although you put in things that I did not put into my question. Go on.
A. I have to do that to make up my result.
Q. Go on.
A. And finding nothing in the upper bowel of one and something in the upper bowel of the other, I think it makes the thing equal; that is, their having eaten at the same time, and their having both been ill at the same time, I think it takes away considerable of the force of your question: could I tell by the intestines of Mrs. Borden that she had had breakfast within half an hour or an hour, that is, within half an hour or an hour's time. Taking those things into consideration, I think that it is not speculation to say that by her intestines you could say that digestion was still going on.
Q. I think my question was, within what period of time you would dare to give an opinion based upon the digestive appearances alone?
A. I misunderstood you. I thought you said was it speculation.
Q. Well, will you answer that question? I asked you before that about speculation. Will you answer that question?
A. I wouldn't say within half an hour, no sir.
Q. Assuming that one had been more ill than the other, that one had had a severer attack than the other, would it make any difference in that digestion?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. And would that interfere with the expression of an opinion with reasonable accuracy as to the length of time?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. Assuming that was the fact would you then fix the limit as more than half an hour?
A. No sir.
Q. You would still stick to your opinion that you could determine within half an hour the difference in time?
A. No sir, I would not.
Q. And I understand you to have already told me upon the coagulation of blood, you wouldn't dare after fifteen minutes to express an opinion, within fifteen minutes or half an hour as to the difference of time?
A. No sir, not to swear to it, I wouldn't.
Q. So that you have nothing left but the temperature of the body?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And that is tested simply by touch?
A. Yes sir.
Q. I neglected to ask you one question. When I was inquiring about the position of the assailant of Mrs. Borden, you told me, I think, that in your opinion the assailant stood astride of the body and over it. If in that attitude the assailant stood, would there be a general spattering of blood over his body?
A. I don't know whether there would be a general one over the entire body. I think there would be surely some on the lower part of the body.
RE-DIRECT
Q. Something has been said, Doctor, about the capacity and different sizes of the hatchets, which inflicted the wounds, in respect to the length of them. You have testified, as I understand it, if I am in error you will correct me that these wounds varied from half an inch to four or more in length?
A. I have, yes sir.
Q. Would those lengths of themselves afford any indication, the exterior length of the wounds, afford any indication of the size in respect to the length of the weapon, which inflicted them?
A. I don't think so, no sir.
Q. Why not?
A. Simply that the coming down, taking the particular case, coming down on a hard surface they are liable to slide.
Q. Is there anything in the length of the wounds, which is inconsistent with their having been inflicted by a weapon, for example, of three and one half inches in length?
A. There is not, no sir.
Q. And why so? Explain why. How could a three-and-one-half-inch hatchet make a two-inch wound, for example?
A. Because the whole cutting edge wouldn't be brought into play at once.
Q. That is, didn't go through?
A. Yes sir.
Q. And how can a three-and-one-half-inch hatchet make a four-and-a-half-inch wound?
A. By sliding and by also going in underneath, that is, crushing into.
Q. And if it went, not vertically but at an angle, would that also have a tendency to make it?
A. It would, yes sir.
Q. You spoke of the food in the intestines as undigested?
A. Yes sir.
Q. What portion of the food in the intestines of Mrs. Borden was undigested?
A. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
Q. Was there anything in the appearancence of what you found in the small intestines to indicate that there had been anything abnormal or irregular or showing disease of any kind in the operation of digestion?
A. No sir.
Q. So far as that indicated anything at all, did it appear whether or not the digestion had been normal?
A. It indicated nothing abnormal, no sir.
Q. Now, you said that there were back of the lounge eighty-six [blood] spots describing the arc of a circle. When was the last time that you saw them?
A. I couldn't tell you that, sir.
Q. How long after the homicide?
A. They were there; I think it was the 13th that I counted them.
Q. The 13th of what?
A. August.
Q. You say [they] formed a sort of arch. Can you tell what, in your opinion, caused that, spattering or spurting?
A. Spurting.
Q. Spurting is the force of the heart, of the blood?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Spattering comes from contact of the instrument with the blood?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Or dropping from the hatchet?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you find any other spurts besides those there that in your opinion formed that arch?
A. I did not.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. [By Mr. Adams] From the appearance of an injury having various lengths like one, two, three, four or five inches you are hardly able to determine the length of the cutting edge giving them, are you?
A. No sir.
Q. Do the appearances disclosed by examination after death in reference to upper intestine aid you in forming any opinion at all about digestion?
A. It does, yes sir.
Q. Do you mean to say that indigestion is indicated by the appearance of the intestine itself?
A. Of course if the intestine was inflamed.
Q. Does inflammation indicate that a person has indigestion always?
A. No sir.
Q. In other words, one may have indigestion without inflammation of the intestine?
A. Yes sir.
Q. So that the appearance of the intestine would not necessarily help you in determining whether or not a person had poor digestion, or indigestion, not normal digestion?
A. No sir.