The Arbuckle trial transcripts provide a few clues about this bangle as to what it looked like and how it was worn. The prosecutors did not make an issue of the bracelet. It was not in evidence and they could object to any reference to it by the defense. The prosecutors wanted jurors to see that the bruises on Virginia Rappe’s right bicep had been caused by a hand gripping it tightly, namely Roscoe Arbuckle’s, as he struggled with her in room 1219 of the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. His lawyers, however, especially Nat Schmulowitz, speculated that the bracelet had caused a circular bruise that does, indeed, resemble the impression made by an arm bracelet. If the it were tight enough around the upper arm, Schmulowitz reasoned, it may have inflicted the bruises and should be seen by jurors as another possibility.

The bracelet in the manuscript of Spite Work is a kind of MacGuffin. But how could such an object inflict a bruise? That is one thing. The other is how did Rappe wear her bracelet in the first place. On Labor Day, September 5, 1921, she wore a long-sleeve silk shirtwaist. A photograph exists of this garment, which shows the sleeves and cuffs, which required cufflinks. So, any bracelet worn on the right arm would have to worn outside the sleeve, which would seem unconventional. If worn underneath, then the object takes on a rather decadent aspect, suggesting Rappe wanted the arm bracelet to teasingly appear after she disrobed, if that was expected of her. She was, after all, a “junior vamp.”

There is only one description of where it was worn. Maude Delmont, Virginia’s companion at Arbuckle’s ill-fated party, described seeing the bruising on the upper right arm where the bracelet had been—“worn across the arm.” Maude, as she is affectionally called in Spite Work, had a rather idiosyncratic line of sight. One of Arbuckle’s lawyers, Frank Dominguez, satirized her ability to see around corners and into Arbuckle’s bedroom. Putting that aside, “across the arm” suggests just above the elbow.

Arm bracelets, of course, don’t bruise on their own. Pressure would still have to be applied, say, from a fall or some other misadventure, moving a body from one place to another . . .

So why is this important to the narrative? (1) To dress Rappe as close as possible to how she appeared on Labor Day 1921; (2) to write objectively about the prosecution’s adherence to a struggle between Arbuckle and Rappe; and (3) to stress test Mr. Schmulowitz’s hypothesis. It anticipates the late Johnnie Cochran in regard to “the glove” defense, albeit applied a bracelet, and inspiring this paraphrase:

“If it’s a tight fit, you must acquit.”