UPDATE 9/3/2010 ON HANDLELESS HATCHET BY HARRY ON LB FORUM. I MUST SAY I AGREE WITH THIS.
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: South Carolina
The time here is: 7:06 pm
PostPosted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
That has been my theory for a number of years. I posted this in January 2008:
“I stand by my posts of June 2006 regarding the gilt. This copy of them includes some highlighted comments.
“The gilt found on Abby’s skull is not mentioned until it is discovered by Dr. Draper (assisted by Dr. Cheever) in a letter to Mr. Knowlton, dated May 31, 1893. This is some 9 months after the crime.
To quote Draper’s letter (HK203, page 211, Knowlton papers):
“… Perhaps this is not new information either to you or Dr. Dolan; it was new to me and seemed important enough to justify immediate conveyance to you. The shining deposit can be seen with the naked eye; it is plainly visible with the use of a lens, when once its situation is indicated.”
According to the Evening Standard of Aug. 27, 1892, Dr. Dolan had the flesh removed from the skulls by boiling. So any doctor who examined the skulls from that time forward had the opportunity to notice the gilt.
Could someone else have experimented with Abby’s skull during this long period by trying to fit different size hatchet blades into the cuts? If so they could have inadvertently left a trace of gilt.
In that same thread:
“Dr. Draper is questioned at the trial, vol. II, page 1048+:
“Q. Are you able to say whether that hatchet head (showing witness handleless hatchet head) is capable of making those wounds?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Have you attempted to fit that in the wounds?
A. I have seen the attempt made.”
It would seem very logical to me that if they tried fitting the HH blade they tried others as well. They were after all trying to determine the size of the blade of the weapon used.
In any case the value of the gilt is compromised as evidence since it wasn’t found earlier. It doesn’t mean that it has no value but it does mean that another explanation can be offered for the presence of the gilt.
Nine months and nobody saw what Dr. Draper said could be seen with the naked eye? More than likely, at least to me, it wasn’t there during this time. The whole thread is at:
has a wonderful article about the Nance O’Neil-Lizzie Borden connection. The writer is quite right in stating that Nance’s name recognition by contemporary crime enthusiasts is largely due to that connection.
The contrived interview is very well written and has the content and tone I believe is just how Nance might have formulated and posed those questions to Lizzie. Be sure to read it.
Totally unrelated but I post here to make a point that will not be missed by the party to whom it’s intended.
The so called handleless hatchet presented at Trial is depicted below (as posted by “Harry” on the LB Forum today). These are the best images you will see of it. Frankly, I don’t believe it was the murder weapon.
This has been on display at the FRHS for years. I even had ocassion to take it outside in the light of day and hold it through the good graces of past Curator Emeritus, the late Florence Brigham.
The connundrum in concluding if this was the murder weapon includes the fact that gold gilt was found in the wounds of Abby, the kind of gold gilt from engravings on new hatchets. “Steve S.” of the LB Forum astutely posted today:
|Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:39 pm Post subject:|
If this was THE hatchet DJ, it wouldn’t expalin the gold gild in Abby’s skull.
And so the mystery continues. 🙂