Hatchet

[Angel]

I was just thinking that if I had killed someone in 1892 when there was no need to worry about fingerprints and much forensics at that time, why would I bother to hide the hatchet at all. From what everyone said, there were hatchets all over victorian houses at that time to chop wood, etc., so what would be the point in hiding the one that was used in the murder? Even washing it off would be a waste of time. I would have just left it at the scene of the crime. It wouldn't have led to the murderer.

[Yooper]

You're right Angel, it makes more sense to just drop the hatchet on the floor and allow it to be found. I don't know why an intruder, who would certainly not want to be seen with it or found to be in possession of it, would take the time to hide it. It makes more sense to just drop it and go.

[Franz]

I agree with you both. But I think if the killer was an intruder, we should consider if there could be any special reason for which he took his weapon away.

[Yooper]

It might make more sense for an intruder to hide it in a place where it would be found, but look like it had been hidden purposely. This would frame Lizzie or Bridget for the murders.

[Franz]

Angel, you said in one of your old treads: "I still maintain that the weapon was a meat cleaver". If it was actually a cleaver? of a special type? or even with the name of its possessor on it? A cleaver is easier to hide and to take away.

[Franz]

It might make more sense for an intruder to hide it in a place where it would be found, but look like it had been hidden purposely. This would frame Lizzie or Bridget for the murders.

If the murderer didn't want Lizzie or Bridget to be suspected? If he just intentionally avoided such a thing to happen? In my opinion the overkilling (to create a most horrible scene possible) fits well with the fact that the weapon wasn't found in the house, and both could be explained by the same (speculated) reason: the intruder might have done his best to avoid that the two women could be suspected, and... involved in the murders, so ... the role of the note... It seems that all coincide well... at least for me...

[Yooper]

If an intruder had hidden the hatchet as I suggested, it would then make sense to me that Bridget and/or Lizzie were purposely left alive so there was someone to frame.

[Franz]

If an intruder had hidden the hatchet as I suggested, it would then make sense to me that Bridget and/or Lizzie were purposely left alive so there was someone to frame.

Yes, it's possible. But the departure ideas of our conjectures are just completely opposite. In the yours the intruder wanted to frame someone, in the mine the killer wanted to protect them.

[Yooper]

Yes, the conjectures are divergent, but a benevolent multiple ax murderer is relatively difficult to conjure up without a lot of further conjecture.

[Franz]

Yes, the conjectures are divergent, but a benevolent multiple ax murderer is relatively difficult to conjure up without a lot of further conjecture.

Yes, you are right. But as you quoted in another tread: "simplicity is favored over complexity, until complexity better expresses the answer." Even in your conjecture (an intruder who wanted to frame someone in the house), you should give conjectures as answers to other two questions: the overkilling, and the note story. (Certainly, you are convinced for Lizzie's guilt. But within the conjecture of an intruder, how do you explain these two questions?)

[PossumPie]

I would think that one would only take a weapon with them if they were afraid something about it would give away their identity. After all to be found with a murder weapon on you would be pretty hard to explain.

[Yooper]

Yes, the conjectures are divergent, but a benevolent multiple ax murderer is relatively difficult to conjure up without a lot of further conjecture.

Yes, you are right. But as you quoted in another tread: "simplicity is favored over complexity, until complexity better expresses the answer." Even in your conjecture (an intruder who wanted to frame someone in the house), you should give conjectures as answers to other two questions: the overkilling, and the note story. (Certainly, you are convinced for Lizzie's guilt. But within the conjecture of an intruder, how do you explain these two questions?)

Why would I offer further conjecture if I am convinced of Lizzie's guilt? I agree, the overkill and note story are an impasse, so the intruder is an absurdity.

A benevolent multiple ax murderer is still a hard sell without further conjecture.

[Angel]

Yes, I still think the cleaver could have been the weapon. Maybe something Abby said on the spur of the moment set Lizzie into a rage, so she grabbed the cleaver from the kitchen and went up the stairs to get Abby. She washed it and was preparing to leave to create an alibi, but then Bridget was about for a while, so she was trying to get Bridget to get out of the house by telling her about the fabric sale. When that didn't work she was probably relieved when Bridget decided to go upstairs to lie down. Then Dad came home too early and Lizzie felt she had no choice but to do him in to protect herself. I'm sure all of this was decided in haste and with a certain amount of hysteria, so it wasn't thought out properly. This is only my idea on the subject, and I certainly cannot prove anything. But I think if this had been premeditated, it would have certainly be handled better. However, if I'm totally off base, and it was a hatchet, then I still don't see the point of hiding it.

[Allen]

This is a good question to ponder Angel. Why did the killer think they had to hide the murder weapon from being found? The only distinction with the blood evidence they seemed to be able to make with any certainty during the trial was whether or not it was human or animal. It's also very true that hatchets and axes were common place household items. Every household had at least one. One could be hard to distinguish from the other when new. But I wonder if after something has been used if it doesn't develop some distinguishing qualities. Paint on the handle or chipped handle. How it wore down. Rust spots. Little things that someone could point to and say yes that is the one right there. But one hatchet could in all probability be hard to tell from another.

Fingerprinting had been used before the murders but had not yet been adopted in the United States. Before fingerprinting the Bertillion system was in place. Sir Francis Galton began his study of fingerprints in about 1888. In fact, he wrote a book in 1892 called Finger Prints if anyone wants to read it. The American author Mark Twain wrote a book in 1888 called "Life on the Mississippi" that involved a murderer who was identified by the use of fingerprints. In 1893-94 his story "Pudd'nhead Wilson" was published in seven monthly installments in Century Magazine before being published as a novel. It was a story about a trial that involved the use of a fingerprint to identify a murderer.

[PattiG157]

Does anyone know if any forensic tests, like luminol (sp), have been done on the hatchet? I know it's currently in the Fall River Historical Society, but since the case is still officially unsolved, it MIGHT tell us something if we did some type of forensics on it.

Just a thought!!!

[PattiG157]

Does anybody know if anyone has ever done any type of forensic testing on the hatchet? With today's technology, we might be able to find something on there. Just wondering ...