The Fall River Tragedy: A History of the Borden Murders

by Edwin H. Porter

CHAPTER XXI.
The Trickey-McHenry Affair.

The history of the Borden murder would be incomplete without reference to the affair in which Henry G. Trickey, the talented reporter of the Boston Globe, and Detective Edwin D. McHenry figured so prominently. They were not alone in the deal which resulted in the Boston Globe publishing on the 12th of October, 1892, a story which has since became famous as the most gigantic “fake” ever laid before the reading public. A dozen people, a majority of whom rank high in the estimation of the public were directly connected with this matter and while the writer of this book would be justified in giving each and every man’s connection therewith, circumstances have arisen which would seem to indicate that by the publication of these names, an unfortunate occurrence would be stirred into action again, and perhaps no particular good would result. So delicate in fact has the matter become that no newspaper has attempted to publish anything more than an occasional reference to it; although more than one great daily is in possession of the main facts. It is a delicate matter because it has many sides to be presented, and each participant maintains that he was right in his actions and that the others were wrong. After hearing the story from many sources, each of which is apparently authentic, it becomes more confusing and treacherous. There are some things however upon which all parties agree, and they will be discussed in this chapter.

Henry G. Trickey bargained with Detective McHenry for an exclusive story of the Borden case and the price to be paid was $500, according to Mr. Trickey. The story was delivered, paid for and published in the Boston Globe. It was false in every particular, and the Globe discovered its mistake ten hours after it had been made. Mr. Trickey left Boston soon afterward and was accidentally killed by a railroad train in Canada in the latter part of November. His friends insisted that he was unjustly dealt with by McHenry, and that his death was the indirect result of the transaction. They claim

also that he represented a great newspaper and that his efforts in getting the story for publication were honest, praiseworthy, and done in a manner which is to be expected of the live newspaper man of the day. But the State represented in this matter by McHenry, makes a different claim, and it submitted evidence to the grand jury whereby Mr. Trickey was indicted for his connection with the affair. Had the unfortunate Mr. Trickey lived to meet his accusers the result would no doubt have been as interesting and quite as sensational as the killing of the Bordens. As the Fall River police in connection with McHenry secured the evidence upon which Mr. Trickey was indicted, it is but natural to expect that they had reasons for so doing. To offset this, the friends of the reporter claim that he was the victim of a plot of which McHenry was the moving spirit and they shoulder most of the blame on the detective. He, however, appears to be able to bear the burden, as Marshal Hilliard has repeatedly said that he found McHenry a capable, reliable and trustworthy, officer so far as his connection with him had been. Thus it will be seen that if Mr. Trickey was innocent of the charges preferred against him he was at a disadvantage, for the Fall River police, as well as the District Attorney and the Attorney-General were kept thoroughly posted on what was taking place between the reporter and the detective. In order that both sides may be presented to the public the story of the transaction as told by McHenry as well as that of Trickey is given and can be taken for what it is worth. The detective has been unmercifully criticised by almost every newspaper in the country. Perhaps he deserved it richly and perhaps he did not. The following is his statement made to the writer. He said:—

DETECTIVE EDWIN D. MCHENRY.

“I was in New York the day of the Borden murders, and left that night for Fall River. Upon arriving on Friday morning, I, in company with State Officer Seaver, went to the Borden house to make a survey of the premises. This trip I took upon my own responsibility, as it were, prompted merely by a desire to look over the ground where so terrible a tragedy had been enacted. While in the yard I learned the story of the man who was said to have jumped over the back fence, and out of curiosity searched that part of the premises for a trace which the escaping man might have left. I was engaged in this work about three hours. I talked with John Cunningham who was the first man on the premises, and from him learned that the back cellar door was locked when he made an effort to open it shortly after the murders were reported. I then went to the door

and counted eleven weekly cobwebs, that is cobwebs which had been in place a week or more. Assistant Marshal Fleet and I opened the door and concluded that no one had passed through it for a week at least. We then went to the barn and made further search. We were told that the place had been locked. After that, we made search of the Chagnon fence, and I measured it and took other observations. From the house, I went to the City Marshal’s office and there met Mr. Hilliard and Mayor Coughlin. The two men were discussing the case. It was then that the Marshal employed me on the case, and the Mayor authorized his action. I was engaged in various work until Saturday afternoon or evening, when the Marshal said to me, ‘Mr. McHenry, I understand that there is a Pinkerton man in the city. I want you to take care of him.’ The Mayor was also present at this interview, and gave his sanction to the order. I learned afterward that the Marshal referred to the fact that Assistant Superintendent O. M. Hanscom of the Boston Agency was in the city, and believed that he was in the employ of Attorney Jennings and the Borden family. But the same night I found Mr. Hanscom, and watched him according to orders. It happened that the Marshal, Officer Seaver and myself were at the Marshal’s residence during the early part of the night in consultation on the case. Mr. Hilliard was at supper, and I took occasion to go out and look around the premises. As I did so, I saw two Pinkerton men at the back window evidently in the act of eavesdropping. I very quickly told them to get out, as we did not want any such cattle around. I did not mention the incident to the Marshal at the time, but later, as we walked up to the city, I informed him of what I had seen. He was naturally angry at the audacity of the men whom I had seen around his house. On the way to the police station we met Henry G. Trickey, and he immediately entered into conversation with the Marshal. I heard Mr. Hilliard say, ‘I am making no special mark

of anybody in this investigation, but I do intend to probe this affair to the bottom, no matter who it hits. I want you to convey this information to your friend. Outside detectives must not interfere with the work of my men.’ Right here I want to state, by way of parenthesis, that I did not go to the post office in Providence and offer to sell the evidence in the Graves-Barnaby case to Mr. Trickey, although he said that I did. And the reason that I state that, is that this very night, of which I am speaking, saw the beginning of the Trickey-McHenry affair, and it was but three nights after the Borden murders. It did not have its origin in me at all, as you will see as we progress. You will remember that yesterday I told you of an alleged truce which was said by the newspapers, in fact by Mr. Trickey himself, to have been patched up between us. The fact is that three months before the Bordens were murdered, I, in company with two friends, were in the Adams House, Boston, when Mr. Trickey came up. We had not been on friendly terms, as you know, since the Graves trial in Denver, and at that time we did shake hands, and apparently the hatchet was buried. In Mr. Trickey’s own statement of this affair, which was printed over his signature in the Boston Globe of October 11th, 1892, appears this sentence, “I went to Providence to see about the lawyer story.” Now that was manifestly incorrect, as you know yourself that the Boston Globe published the whole story ten days before, and I know that Mr. Trickey got it from State Officer Seaver. I merely mention this to show to you some of the glaring inconsistencies which are prominent in the story of the affair from which that sentence was read. But that is not the point for discussion now. On the night to which I referred awhile ago, which was the 7th of August, Mr. Trickey, before meeting us as before stated, had left Superintendent Hanscom across the street and Mayor Coughlin had joined the party, which then consisted of Marshal Hilliard, the Mayor, Officer Seaver, Mr. Trickey and myself. After the short conversation with the Marshal, Mr. Trickey then turned to the Mayor and commenced to abuse the Attorney-General for his course in the then pending Trefethen-Davis case. Mr. Trickey said, ‘Hanscom had prevented the conviction of Trefethen so far, and he will lead Pillsbury yet; more than that, he will prevent the Fall River police from hanging Lizzie Borden.’ This thread of conversation was kept up for awhile, and then Mr. Trickey, turning to me said, ‘Just a minute, Ned, I want to speak to you.’ I stepped aside with him. The Mayor and Officer Seaver walked along; the Marshal heeled up a few feet away. Then Mr. Trickey delivered himself as follows:

—‘Ned, you are a big chump if you don’t throw that big clam digger, (meaning the Marshal) and deal to me. There is just 5000 bobs in this job for us.’ The Marshal overhead this statement. I replied, ‘What do you mean, Trickey?’ Then he said, ‘You know how I stood with Hanscom in the Graves matter, don’t you? I just about own that Pinkerton Agency, and the men do just about as I say in these matters. Now, I am in a position to give you a chance to get square with the Pinkertons and at the same time catch 5000 nice juicy bobs.’