The bleedin' hatchet

[Mara]

What if John Morse had brought with him a newly purchased hatchet and, not needing it for his errands that fateful day, left it in the Guest Chamber, perhaps on the very chest of drawers next to which Abby died? Maybe he found a good deal on it, and he being the sort of fellow who buys hatchets, no one made special notice of his doing so. Or maybe he got it somewhere en route to Fall River, where investigators never thought to go in search of clues. What if Lizzie saw the thing and got the idea to use it on Abby, then and there? That would explain the blue glint bits found in Abby's skull from a new hatchet. What if John Morse figured out what Lizzie had done with his new purchase, and decided to keep his trap shut about it for fear of being implicated in the murders? Still doesn't explain where it went, but might explain where it came from, and why it was new.

[Curryong]

What a cool idea! Although, as Morse had the perfect alibi for the time of the murders, it wouldn't necessarily implicate him (or his niece) if he bought a shiny new hatchet and left it in his room. Uncle John seems to have gone for the 'crazed intruder must have slithered in' line in the immediate aftermath of the murders, though in after-years who knows what he thought! Didn't he buy a new spring lock for the Bordens' front door and pay for it to be installed after he spotted something wrong with the existing spring lock?
The Victorians could never leave a perfectly good surface alone, could they? Wood and iron had to be decoratively carved, surfaces had to be covered in ghastly be-tasselled material and new hatchets had to have gilt edgings!

[PossumPie]

What if John Morse had brought with him a newly purchased hatchet and, not needing it for his errands that fateful day, left it in the Guest Chamber, perhaps on the very chest of drawers next to which Abby died? Maybe he found a good deal on it, and he being the sort of fellow who buys hatchets, no one made special notice of his doing so. Or maybe he got it somewhere en route to Fall River, where investigators never thought to go in search of clues. What if Lizzie saw the thing and got the idea to use it on Abby, then and there? That would explain the blue glint bits found in Abby's skull from a new hatchet. What if John Morse figured out what Lizzie had done with his new purchase, and decided to keep his trap shut about it for fear of being implicated in the murders? Still doesn't explain where it went, but might explain where it came from, and why it was new.

Interesting.. I think perhaps Lizzie shop-lifted the Hatchet in Fair Haven when she was visiting friends with Emma.

[Mara]

That's occurred to me too, Possum. But don't you think that would have come out? We surmise that if someone with nothing to hide could have supported Lizzie's story about the note. It stands to reason that someone selling a hatchet to a woman accused of chopping the elder Borders up with one would have spoken up about it. Unless. of course, she was a secret Mistress of Disguise -- which is possible, I suppose. She was later attracted to theatre people, after all. ;)

[Curryong]

Yes, it's a pity the police didn't widen their inquiries to include hardware-type stores in and around Fairhaven and Marion.

[Curryong]

She could have disguised herself as an older woman I suppose, though that would have required a degree of planning and some props. Did Lizzie ever go to Boston? If she had bought it there considerably earlier, say when the dispute blew up about Abby's half-sister's house, would a clerk in a big city store necessarily remember then?

[PossumPie]

That's occurred to me too, Possum. But don't you think that would have come out? We surmise that if someone with nothing to hide could have supported Lizzie's story about the note. It stands to reason that someone selling a hatchet to a woman accused of chopping the elder Borders up with one would have spoken up about it. Unless. of course, she was a secret Mistress of Disguise -- which is possible, I suppose. She was later attracted to theatre people, after all. ;)

Sorry, MAJOR typo...What if Lizzie shop-lifted the hatchet while visiting friends with Emma in Fair Haven?

[NancyDrew]

The theory that the hatchet was bought new and brought into the house by Morse has been brought up here before (I think maybe Franz?) and I think it is a darn good theory.

Do we know for certain the police DIDN'T look at hardware store purchases?

[Curryong]

Possum, I had almost the same thought this afternoon! What if Lizzie want on a little shoplifting expedition. Wonderful! No record, no way of being tracked. The police may have investigated stores in Fall River but I don't know about places elsewhere.

[FactFinder]

What if John Morse had brought with him a newly purchased hatchet and, not needing it for his errands that fateful day, left it in the Guest Chamber, perhaps on the very chest of drawers next to which Abby died? Maybe he found a good deal on it, and he being the sort of fellow who buys hatchets, no one made special notice of his doing so. Or maybe he got it somewhere en route to Fall River, where investigators never thought to go in search of clues. What if Lizzie saw the thing and got the idea to use it on Abby, then and there? That would explain the blue glint bits found in Abby's skull from a new hatchet. What if John Morse figured out what Lizzie had done with his new purchase, and decided to keep his trap shut about it for fear of being implicated in the murders? Still doesn't explain where it went, but might explain where it came from, and why it was new.

Interesting.. I think perhaps Lizzie shop-lifted the Hatchet in Fair Haven when she was visiting friends with Emma.

That's an interesting idea PossumPie. (On a side not it was in New Bedford that Lizzie visited friends, not Fairhaven. And then her little excursion to Marrion.) But if she shop lifted it, nobody would have known she had taken it. And there would be no one to have seen her buy the hatchet either. So it would not have come out unless someone happened to discover it was missing and remember Lizzie as having been in the store. Her visit was just a few weeks before the murders. They did investigate the stores in New Bedford where Lizzie had supposedly went shopping. But their main objective was to investigate a dress pattern and some material that Lizzie had bought there. I wonder how in depth they actually went with the purchases that had been made.

[Darrowfan]

This is the point where I always get confused. Did any experts categorically rule out any of the hatchets that were found on scene? Or is the consensus that it can't be determined with certainty? Someone help me out here.

[PossumPie]

This is the point where I always get confused. Did any experts categorically rule out any of the hatchets that were found on scene? Or is the consensus that it can't be determined with certainty? Someone help me out here.

The hatchets were not ruled out by size/shape, in fact one fit the wounds perfectly BUT they were rust covered and they ruled them out b/c there was supposedly no way rust could form that quickly if she had washed blood off.

[Curryong]

Does anyone know which of the axe-heads was eventually presented to the Fall River Historical Society? It was the one that featured in the trial wasn't it? The F.R.H.S. apparently doesn't believe theirs is 'the one'. Have any modern scientific tests ever been conducted on it, for vestiges of blood and so on?
The truth is I suppose, that the hatchet used to do the deed is as wrapped in mystery as the rest of the case. Lizzie could have bought it, could have pinched it, John Morse could have bought it somewhere, heck, even Andrew could have purchased it a few days before and maybe deposited it in the barn for some forthcoming project, only to have it taken indoors by his daughter! We just don't know!

[Mara]

On the shoplifting theory (which is a good one, I believe), it would be useful to know how such items were displayed in those days. The standard we know today, by which almost everything in a hardware store is on display and available for the customer to place in their cart (or tuck under their clothing) was probably not the standard then, but would hatchets be among the items kept in the back room, with only one of each type on display? I'd love to know.

Asidem: Where I live, in an old-timey part of Virginia, old-timey hardware stores still display nails and other small bits of hardware (sinkers!) dumped into open boxes or buckets, to be scooped out and sold by weight. After paying for their larger purchases, customers will often help themselves to a couple of nails for some small project on their way out the door. I saw the very stuffy old president of our local bank do this once, with a nod and a smile as he headed for his Jaguar. I think about that every time they nail me (no pun intended) for $32 if I overdraw my account even by so little as a penny.

[Darrowfan]

This is the point where I always get confused. Did any experts categorically rule out any of the hatchets that were found on scene? Or is the consensus that it can't be determined with certainty? Someone help me out here.

The hatchets were not ruled out by size/shape, in fact one fit the wounds perfectly BUT they were rust covered and they ruled them out b/c there was supposedly no way rust could form that quickly if she had washed blood off.

Many thanks, Possum. I believe that one of the hatchets could have indeed been the murder weapon. I say this because it sounds as if the experts' opinion on the matter is nebulous at best. Also, you say that "there was supposedly no way rust could form that quickly if she had washed blood off." That makes me wonder, could it have already been rust covered prior to the killings, and perhaps rather than washing the blood off (with water) Lizzie simply wiped it off (with a cloth or some other object)?

[NancyDrew]

But if the ax had a wooden handle, and ANY human blood got on there (and how could it NOT?) there is no way to wash it all off...not from wood. I used to teach high school biology, and I brought in a case from my own past; a woman my mother worked with bought an old house...it had very old wooden floors. One day she dropped a piece of food on the floor and must have employed the famous "five second rule" because she picked it up and ate it. About 10 days later she got very sick and ended up with tuberculosis. This was in the 1970's. The Department of Health launched a full investigation, and they traced it to the old wood floors in her house. Wood is a porous, fibrous material. It acts like a sponge. Thoughts?

[PossumPie]

This is the point where I always get confused. Did any experts categorically rule out any of the hatchets that were found on scene? Or is the consensus that it can't be determined with certainty? Someone help me out here.

The hatchets were not ruled out by size/shape, in fact one fit the wounds perfectly BUT they were rust covered and they ruled them out b/c there was supposedly no way rust could form that quickly if she had washed blood off.

Many thanks, Possum. I believe that one of the hatchets could have indeed been the murder weapon. I say this because it sounds as if the experts' opinion on the matter is nebulous at best. Also, you say that "there was supposedly no way rust could form that quickly if she had washed blood off." That makes me wonder, could it have already been rust covered prior to the killings, and perhaps rather than washing the blood off (with water) Lizzie simply wiped it off (with a cloth or some other object)?

It's tough to say...I try so hard not to go off on hypotheses with strings of implausibilities trailing behind, but THEORETICALLY, if you wash a bloody hatchet, then rub it down with steel wool or an acid, exposing the fresh shiny metal underneath, it will almost instantly begin to rust over. You have to apply an oil. I am an avid though amateur chef, and all of my fry pans/woks are cast iron. They develop a wonderful black surface that is non-stick. (No bits of toxic Teflon in your food!)
Anyway, to season them, I must scrub them down. but any exposed metal has to be rubbed quickly with cooking oil or it rusts right in front of your eyes. Obviously this is different than the thick layers of rust which form more slowly over time. I would HOPE the 'experts' could have told the difference but you never know. It seems a lot of trouble for Lizzie to go through though in the few minutes she had.

[Darrowfan]

It's tough to say...I try so hard not to go off on hypotheses with strings of implausibilities trailing behind, but THEORETICALLY, if you wash a bloody hatchet, then rub it down with steel wool or an acid, exposing the fresh shiny metal underneath, it will almost instantly begin to rust over. You have to apply an oil. I am an avid though amateur chef, and all of my fry pans/woks are cast iron. They develop a wonderful black surface that is non-stick. (No bits of toxic Teflon in your food!)
Anyway, to season them, I must scrub them down. but any exposed metal has to be rubbed quickly with cooking oil or it rusts right in front of your eyes. Obviously this is different than the thick layers of rust which form more slowly over time. I would HOPE the 'experts' could have told the difference but you never know. It seems a lot of trouble for Lizzie to go through though in the few minutes she had.

Interesting, Possum. Thanks for elaborating on the scientific angle.

[Darrowfan]

But if the ax had a wooden handle, and ANY human blood got on there (and how could it NOT?) there is no way to wash it all off...not from wood. I used to teach high school biology, and I brought in a case from my own past; a woman my mother worked with bought an old house...it had very old wooden floors. One day she dropped a piece of food on the floor and must have employed the famous "five second rule" because she picked it up and ate it. About 10 days later she got very sick and ended up with tuberculosis. This was in the 1970's. The Department of Health launched a full investigation, and they traced it to the old wood floors in her house. Wood is a porous, fibrous material. It acts like a sponge. Thoughts?

You point is well made, Nancy. Where I may differ is that you seem pretty certain that blood would have to have contaminated the wooden handle. But there is always the (slight) possibility that only the head of the weapon had blood on it. I guess I just can't get past the fact that the weapon was some "hatchet-like" instrument, and such instruments were found on the scene. That could just be a strange coincidence, I suppose, but I tend to think that one of the instruments found at the crime scene was the murder weapon. I realize how simplistic my thinking must sound on this point.

[FactFinder]

Can anyone give a reference for the information that the hatchet used in the murders was new?

[Curryong]

I don't think the police at the time leaped to the conclusion that the hatchet was new, did they, FactFinder ? I think they were desperately trying to get a hatchet/ axe to fit the requirements, examining those in use at the house, conducting searches in and around the house for the murder weapon, looking into Lizzie's purchases, etc.

I think the impression that the murder weapon, not necessarily a hatchet, was new, comes from observations made by a Dr Draper, who assisted by Dr Cheever, examined the skulls, presumably after they had been 'boiled down' so to speak, and wrote to Mr Knowlton on May 31st 1893, about gilt. Quote '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' End quote.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the poor old skulls were subjected to all kinds of experiments by police and the medical profession in the months between the murders and the trial. (Gilt speaks to me of perhaps someone wondering whether a gilt candlestick could have done the job, resulting in contamination of these important objects.)
The gilt reappears in the book 'Lizzie' by Evan Hunter, and somehow or other, modern authors have come to the conclusion that the Victorians gilded their new axes/ hatchets. Therefore, the hatchet used must have been new!

Incidentally, I have re-read the doctors' evidence in the trial testimony on blood splatter patterns. How could I have been so stupid in my previous post!

[Mara]

Oops! I deleted my post after realizing it wasn't half as useful as Curryong's, just above :)

[Franz]

Of the Borden case many things remain unknown to us. The killer could be Lizzie, or not. So, many members take care to add --- and I appreciate it --- an hypothetical sentence: if Lizzie was guilty or innocent, blablabla. Certainly we don't need to add it every time, because the context is clear.

The weapon could be an hatchet, an axe, or maybe something else. We don't know with certainty. But I read rarely someone take care to say: if the weapon was an hatchet (or axe), blablabla; on the contrary, many state this as a fact. But we all know that this is not a proved fact.

I permit myself to make a suggestion to the editors of the journal The Hatchet, to add an interrogative point to the title --- The Hatchet? --- not only because that this is a question if the weapon was an hatchet, but also because the whole Borden case is nothing else but a big enigme, a big question.

[PossumPie]

I believe once standard hatchets of the day were compared to the boiled off skull wound and they matched in shape and fitted in size sufficiently enough to convince any reasonable observer that is most certainly WAS a hatchet. The only real debate is was it one found in the Borden home or not.

[Franz]

I believe once standard hatchets of the day were compared to the boiled off skull wound and they matched in shape and fitted in size sufficiently enough to convince any reasonable observer that is most certainly WAS a hatchet. The only real debate is was it one found in the Borden home or not.

"The only real debate is was it one found in the Borden home or not". Oh, really? If I post a thread entitled "Was the weapon an hatchet (axe)?", would you think this is not a real debate?

[Franz]

sorry double submission.

[Franz]

sorry triple submission.

[Franz]

...
I think the impression that the murder weapon, not necessarily a hatchet, ...

Bravo! Curryong. Chapeau bas, messieurs!

[PossumPie]

I believe once standard hatchets of the day were compared to the boiled off skull wound and they matched in shape and fitted in size sufficiently enough to convince any reasonable observer that is most certainly WAS a hatchet. The only real debate is was it one found in the Borden home or not.

"The only real debate is was it one found in the Borden home or not". Oh, really? If I post a thread entitled "Was the weapon an hatchet (axe)?", would you think this is not a real debate?

Fritz, I can tell you must be a city-dweller. I have used axes and hatchets my whole life. I chopped and split 3 cords of wood last winter...with an Ax. An ax and a hatchet are nothing alike. Axe heads are more than twice as long and twice as wide as a hatchet. If someone was hit with an ax in the cranium, it would explode the head. The width alone of a ax head is extremely wedge shaped, and would separate the two edges of the skull bone far enough to destroy the whole occipital/parietal area of the skull. A hatchet comes in fairly standard sizes and is much thinner and smaller. the handle is not more than 14 inches long. An ax handle is around 3 feet long. The length/width of the cranial fractures is never any longer or wider than the hatchets that they found in the Borden house. The skin was boiled off of both skulls, so the wounds could be measured and compared to the hatchets found.

NOW...while it almost certainly was a hatchet, there is NO evidence whatever that it was one of the three found at the Borden house. No human blood was ever found, and hatchets are all of a fairly standard size, so just because the wounds matched up to the hatchets doesn't mean it was one of them. It could NOT have been a meat cleaver or a knife. These objects by definition have blades less than about 0.125" wide. The wounds in the skulls were all much wider than that.

Here is a forensic image of a skull with knife wounds. The arrows show the narrow entrance wounds due to the thinness of the meat cleaver/knife blade.


in contrast here is the borden skull, note the much wider wounds indicative of a wedge shaped blade of a hatchet rather than a flat blade of a knife.

[Curryong]

Those are dreadful skull wounds aren't they? I've got the feeling that Lizzie did buy/pinch a new hatchet in honour of the occasion to be, so to speak, but where the gilt Dr Draper mentions seeing on Abby's skull (see earlier post above) came from remains a mystery, yet another one in this extraordinary case, rather like the tobacco Andrew, a non-smoker was supposed to have had in his jacket pocket!

[PossumPie]

Those are dreadful skull wounds aren't they? I've got the feeling that Lizzie did buy/pinch a new hatchet in honour of the occasion to be, so to speak, but where the gilt Dr Draper mentions seeing on Abby's skull (see earlier post above) came from remains a mystery, yet another one in this extraordinary case, rather like the tobacco Andrew, a non-smoker was supposed to have had in his jacket pocket!

Yes. We need to be careful making speculations like "It could have been a meat cleaver or a butcher knife" if the forensic evidence doesn't support that theory. THE ONE THING that doesn't lie in this case is the actual forensic evidence. The skulls show no evidence whatever that it was a knife, butcher knife, saw, Cleaver, chain, brick, bullet, etc ,etc, etc. The wounds are EXTREMELY consistent with a standard common hatchet.

[FactFinder]

I don't think the police at the time leaped to the conclusion that the hatchet was new, did they, FactFinder ? I think they were desperately trying to get a hatchet/ axe to fit the requirements, examining those in use at the house, conducting searches in and around the house for the murder weapon, looking into Lizzie's purchases, etc.

I think the impression that the murder weapon, not necessarily a hatchet, was new, comes from observations made by a Dr Draper, who assisted by Dr Cheever, examined the skulls, presumably after they had been 'boiled down' so to speak, and wrote to Mr Knowlton on May 31st 1893, about gilt. Quote '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' End quote.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the poor old skulls were subjected to all kinds of experiments by police and the medical profession in the months between the murders and the trial. (Gilt speaks to me of perhaps someone wondering whether a gilt candlestick could have done the job, resulting in contamination of these important objects.)
The gilt reappears in the book 'Lizzie' by Evan Hunter, and somehow or other, modern authors have come to the conclusion that the Victorians gilded their new axes/ hatchets. Therefore, the hatchet used must have been new!

Incidentally, I have re-read the doctors' evidence in the trial testimony on blood splatter patterns. How could I have been so stupid in my previous post!

I was asking because I saw many references to the weapon being considered new, and the gilt in the wounds, but saw no references to where this information was obtained. I personally had not formed any opinion about whether or not the weapon was new or not. The letter written to Knowlton seems pretty clear about that point. I'd like to have read the entire exchange.

The blood pattern evidence presented is very interesting indeed. They were aware that the direction and size of the patterns indicated a lot about the weapon used and the position of the killer. Good stuff.

[Curryong]

Sorry FactFinder, I'd seen in early posts some discussion about gilt and whether or not the Victorians gilded the edge of their new hatchets. The gilt thing from Dr Draper comes up in posts here on this forum, 'The Book Lizzie' of May 2006. The letter written by Dr Draper to Knowlton can be found (HK 203, page 211, Knowlton Papers.)

[Curryong]

Ah Possum, I was speculating mainly on how that darn gilt got onto the skull, and having a bit of fun with it. I think the vast majority of posters do believe that it was a hatchet that caused the wounds. If Franz wishes to believe otherwise and posts that he does, he's entitled to! Sorry if you believe I started him off on a tangent!

[Franz]

In my posts under this thread I didn't express any opinion about the weapon. What I wanted to say is that the hatchet is not a proved fact. By saying so, I was not stating that I thought the weapon was other than a hatchet.

Am I mistaken?

[Catbooks]

hello everyone! i'm new to posting here, but have read this board for many years. every year or two i go on a lizzie/borden case binge, foolishly thinking that maybe this time i'll be able to solve it. it's fun trying anyway.

i read the op sometime last week and was very excited by it! just got my account sorted out today, so at long last i can post.

i go through periods where i think john morse had to have in some way been involved, or know more than he was comfortable with in any event, so this was a new take on that, and does sound plausible.

I don't think the police at the time leaped to the conclusion that the hatchet was new, did they, FactFinder ? I think they were desperately trying to get a hatchet/ axe to fit the requirements, examining those in use at the house, conducting searches in and around the house for the murder weapon, looking into Lizzie's purchases, etc.

I think the impression that the murder weapon, not necessarily a hatchet, was new, comes from observations made by a Dr Draper, who assisted by Dr Cheever, examined the skulls, presumably after they had been 'boiled down' so to speak, and wrote to Mr Knowlton on May 31st 1893, about gilt. Quote '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' End quote.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the poor old skulls were subjected to all kinds of experiments by police and the medical profession in the months between the murders and the trial. (Gilt speaks to me of perhaps someone wondering whether a gilt candlestick could have done the job, resulting in contamination of these important objects.)
The gilt reappears in the book 'Lizzie' by Evan Hunter, and somehow or other, modern authors have come to the conclusion that the Victorians gilded their new axes/ hatchets. Therefore, the hatchet used must have been new!

Incidentally, I have re-read the doctors' evidence in the trial testimony on blood splatter patterns. How could I have been so stupid in my previous post!

i do wish we knew for certain there was gilt in the wounds. thank you for the source. that info wasn't here when i last read this thread. i was hoping the gilt was seen by the doctors doing the autopsy, rather than many months later, after the skulls had been (ick) boiled. then we'd have something concrete in this maddeningly elusive case. when i last read this thread i thought that was so, and that the murder weapon could be narrowed down to a new hatchet. alas, it turns out to be as slippery and non-conclusive as almost everything else involved!

oh well.

[Curryong]

Welcome Catbooks, to the Forum and to our speculations about this sometimes maddening case! I too am a newbie and learn something knew every day, both from reading early posters and threads and from my fellow posters now. Having reached the conclusion, to my own satisfaction if nobody else's, that the Victorians didn't gild their hatchets, I want to know for sure where that gilt came from and why no-one else besides Dr Draper and presumably Dr Cheever, saw it! I don't suppose I shall ever get to know! Contamination of the skulls at some point I guess!

[Catbooks]

thanks for the welcome, curryong :)

may i ask what has made you conclude hatchets weren't gilded? perhaps there was something earlier in the thread and i missed it. it does seem odd that no one else saw it before dr. draper and perhaps dr. cheever as well. contamination, yes, it certainly could have been that!

[Curryong]

Reached that conclusion On no evidence, whatsoever, Catbooks! Just that I adore the Victorian period and nowhere, not even in ironmongers' advertisements of the times with their inevitable illustrations, have I ever come across any references to axes or hatchets being gilded. It's maddening and I would love it if someone would post an ad or reference showing that they were. I wouldn't put it past ironmongery or hardware manufacturers.
. The Victorians could never see empty area or any surface without wishing to decorate it in some way!

[Catbooks]

thank you, curryong. well, you'd think if gilding hatchet and ax blade edges was a thing, you'd have found references to it somewhere. it sounded reasonable enough at first blush.

i also find the victorian period fascinating, although haven't studied it as much as you have. i guess that's one of the strong appeals this case has for me. since we haven't yet figured out how to time travel, this is the next best thing! there's so much documentation of the intimate details of this family's lives

[Mara]

As far back as I can remember (to the mid-'fifties or so), new hatchets came with a stripe of paint on the edge: a dull gold or silver sometimes but more often, blue. Could be it was just decorative, or maybe it was to protect the ground edge from rusting, I don't know. I also don't know if this dates back to the 1890s but could be -- basic hand tools like hammers and hatchets used to look pretty much the same forever, though it's hard to find such things now.

The thing I find hard to accept is that there could be anything left of this "gilding" in the boiled skulls Dr. Cheever examined.

[Catbooks]

so it was done then! at least as far back as the 1950s. thank you, mara. seems most likely it was done as a way to temporarily protect the edge from rusting.

i suppose if the first few strikes were that hard, and entered into the skull, some fragments could possibly have attached themselves pretty strongly to the bone itself and survived boiling.

[Curryong]

Funnily enough I was just discussing this matter (my new obsession!) with someone two hours ago and he suggested, (his father was an old wood-chopping champion at agricultural shows) that what Dr Draper might have been talking about was not actual gilt or paint but 'metal gilt' (minute pieces usually too small to see with the human eye,) that fly off a very new axe or hatchet when it is first used. I can't say I have ever really used an axe or hatchet to chop anything, I'm not that kind of gal! It's possible I suppose. If it is then the killer bought a brand new hatchet for the occasion!

[PossumPie]

Funnily enough I was just discussing this matter (my new obsession!) with someone two hours ago and he suggested, (his father was an old wood-chopping champion at agricultural shows) that what Dr Draper might have been talking about was not actual gilt or paint but 'metal gilt' (minute pieces usually too small to see with the human eye,) that fly off a very new axe or hatchet when it is first used. I can't say I have ever really used an axe or hatchet to chop anything, I'm not that kind of gal! It's possible I suppose. If it is then the killer bought a brand new hatchet for the occasion!

I also wonder if what was seen was flecks of actual blade of a new hatchet. I bought a new hatchet 7 years ago for splitting smaller pieces of kindling. It came shiny and new, and there was no guilding on the edge, or paint for that matter, but there was something that looked like a thin coat of varnish or epoxy. The edge was honed sharp by machine I'm sure, and there were small flecks of loose metal still attached. Maybe this is what was seen...I have no evidence that guilding was done on edges of hatchets back then, but they were steel and will rust if a merchant keeps it on the shelf long enough, perhaps a varnish, wax, paint, or slight guilt edge would keep them looking nice before purchase.

[Curryong]

Thank you for that observation PossumPie. So it is possibly metal gilt the good doctor saw under his lens.

[Mara]

The noose tightens! I know what you mean, Possum, about those teensy metal filings or whatever on new hatchets. Today, it isn't unusual to see blade edges protected by molded plastic pieces or a sort of gummy vinyl goop that you have to peel off, or little leather "holsters."

[Catbooks]

i wonder where these minute pieces of gilt or metal flecks are now. couldn't they be tested to determine what kind of metal they are? if they're steel - i'm assuming that's what hatchet heads were and are made of - then that would help support that the murder weapon was in fact a hatchet. if not, it'd point in another direction.

now that i think of it, surely they had the means to test the type of metal it was back then. i would think. i also wonder if anything was revealed if they were examined under a microscope. if not back then, now. our modern microscopes blow the old ones right out of the water.

[Mara]

It seems to me that if there were any metal in the skulls, what would have appeared after the boiling and drying would have been rusty, not "gilty." <insert groan here ;)>

[Catbooks]

heh. true, if they were fragments of steel, they'd have rusted. even without being boiled, i imagine.

back to guilty gilt then, just for fun. i don't know what type of metal would have been used to gilt the edges of hatchets.

[Curryong]

Nice one Mara! However, Dr Draper saw something glistening, and thought it worthy of note or he wouldn't have written to Knowlton about it. If these were metal filings a nice boil-up wouldn't necessarily have caused rust on all of them.