1. "Another Coincidence?"
Posted by Kat on Apr-13th-03 at 11:14 AM

Did the choice of murder day depend on Lizzie's period?

We have the pail of bloody cloths seen in the cellar, and Bowen, as Lizzie's physician that day, says that's OK we know all about that.

Is he being honestly open about this *fact*, is he merely taking Lizzie's word for her earlier condition or did he have some proof supplied him?

The Tricky story came out after the Preliminary Hearing, and before the grand jury sat.  The article implied Lizzie could have been pregnant by a person Andrew found distateful, and that even had this man come to take responsibility, Andrew would still denounce him & her and throw them out.
(What's a girl to do?)

Anyway, the first paragraph of Jennings denial of record deals firstly with this expose:

The Evening Standard, New Bedford, Monday, October 10, 1892:
"A TISSUE OF LIES.
.......................
Lawyer Jennings Says the Boston Paper's Story Is False.
........................
Member of Fall River Police Force Asserts That It Is True.
........................
Names are Fictitious, But Statements Substantially True.
........................
Fall River, Oct.10.-- Andrew J. Jennings, counsel for the defendent in the Borden case, made the following statement to a correspondent to-day:  The matter published in a Boston paper this morning relating to the murders of Andrew J. Borden and his wife [see second page] is a tissue of lies.  I have endeavored to find out about Mr. and Mrs. Fred Chace, at the number indicated, 198 Fourth Street.  There is not only no such number but not any within 50 of it.  There is no such name George F. Sisson in the directory, nor can I find any person who knows anybody of that name. **The kernel of the whole malicious story deals with a condition which is absolutley disproved by things found in the cellar by the prosecution and admitted to be what Miss Lizzie claimed they were.  Subsequent events have confirmed her claim.  Mr. Morse says that the whole story is absolutely false, not a word of truth in it.  The Reagan story has already been denied by Miss Emma and Miss Lizzie, and was admitted by Mrs. Reagan to be false by at least six persons."

A member of the police force says today that the names used in the story are fictitious, but the matter is substantially true."

--**The bloody cloths are supposed to be proof of her unpregnant state.  And it's put forth that *subsequent events* prove Lizzie got another period while in custody.  Well, that's kind of convenient to have that condition whilst the folks are being slaughtered.

Things I have thought about

I personally do not believe Lizzie had her period that day.  I do believe Bowen would have backed her up without examining her.  I also believe investigators @ the time (esp since this was long before DNA, modern forensics, etc) would be grossed out enough not to test for the nature of that blood (or perhaps this was not something that could be done @ that time).

Trying not to get too indelicate -- Liz claimed her period ended Wednesday.  Those of us who are female know that the menstrual flow is not volumnous toward the end.  Unless she left the stuff soaking for days, there surely would not be a lot of gore in the pail.  One would think esp in summer weather, it would not be pleasant to leave such things soaking/sitting around for days.

Indulge me here on this one -- I know it's speculatory:

Another possibility (if there were any grain of truth in the Trickey/McHenry story) is that Lizzie would have a flow if a pregnancy had been terminated.  The most logical person who may have in engaged in such a cover-up would also have been Bowen.  In this particular line of speculation, say the elder Bordens had insisted upon an abortion.  I can see that as a "last straw" that would provide a motive.

http://www.sandiegobloodbank.org/education/blood_banking_history.php

Just found this on the San Diego Blood Bank website --

1900 Karl Landsteiner, an Austrian physician, discovers the first three human blood groups, A, B, and C. Blood type C was later changed to O.  His colleagues Alfred Decastello and Adriano Sturli add AB, the fourth type, in 1902. Landsteiner receives the Nobel Prize for Medicine for this discovery in 1930.

Therefore, in 1892/3, no one would have been able prove it was say, Lizzie's blood or Abby's blood that was in that pail.

(Message last edited Apr-13th-03  1:27 PM.)

Thats a good question, Kat.  I was thinking that if Lizzie had murdered her parents while premenstrual, it would be a little more understandable knowing the emotional state she may have been in.  But, it was after the fact and we have these bloody cloths soaking in a pail.  Were these all the cloths that she had used during her period?  There would be quite a bloody little mound in there if so, what would a couple more added to that mix mean to anyone?  That is if Lizzie used the cloths at all to wipe any blood off or up.  From Bridget's reaction, the pail seemed like it was something new that was introduced to her all of a sudden.  Perhaps Lizzie had already brought a pail of bloody cloths down for Bridget to wash on Wednesday and here she on Thursday morning bringing down another pail of bloody cloths, just speculation.

I wonder, as Tina-Kate posted, if Dr. Bowen would just back Lizzie up without checking, I mean, the man wasn't a gynecologist, how much would he know?

Tina-Kate, I think if Lizzie did have an abortion, she would have had it done by a doctor from another town.  Something as scandalous as that in a small town, I don't think the family physician would be called upon.  But, an interesting speculation nonetheless.    My understanding is that after having an abortion, or a birth for that matter, that the menstrual flow is quite heavy.

Just thought I'd add, I don't believe Liz was pregnant...altho I did speculate about it @ 1 time.  Trickey having died in my neck o the woods; I was susceptible to being Trickey/McHenry'd for a time...

Personally, I think Liz gave the line of her period having ended Wed in case someone insisted on checking her out for proof.  "Well, I'm all clean now; it ended Wed."

It was smart on her part to use a menstrual ruse...she'd know it would be an avenue people (men in particular) would not want to pursue too deeply.

Those are great posts you guys!
We had been flooding that other thread with the "It Just Happened To..."coincidences.  Like most of the police force was out of town, and Morse got the eggs.
So, the menstrual thing is part of that (planned chaos), to hide bloody towels?  But I think she did have her period because if it ended Aug. 3 she would be due again while in custody ready for the Preliminary Hearing.  She might be a bit late because of the unaccostomed surroundings and stress.  (AS in JAIL).

The dates of the Prelim. were Aug. 25th to Sept. 1st.
[efit here]:  Counting 28 or so days from July 29th, assuming her period lasted an average of 5 days, to that time, Aug. 3rd, I get that she would be due again Aug. 26, during the Preliminary Hearing..

The Jenning's denial of the Trickey/McHenry story was Oct 10.
He said they had proof those allegations were false, which implies Lizzie had her period while in jail.

Her next cycle might be Sept. 28th, next Oct. 26th etc.

But see, BOTH sides stipulated that the pail and it's contents WERE what they claimed to be.

So they had not the forensic techniques to figure out what blood, whoose blood was in that pail.  But I wonder if Lizzie planned on that murder to fall within her period so she could[ account for bloody cloths...and that was damn smart of her--PLUS a guy could never use that excuse!
She also might use her own menstrual blood to disguise someone else's blood she meant to hide in plain sight.  So a man could bebefit from her pail as well.

(Message last edited Apr-18th-03  9:02 PM.)

Never underestimate the guile of a woman

I love how you've investigated & found it fits perfectly, Kat.

Lizzie was under arrest from Aug 11/12th, so that would leave a few more weeks window to have her period while in custody.  Jennings (or even the prosecution) may not have been so interested in the accuracy of her cycles, but more in the fact she proved to be not preggers while in custody.

The fact she stated it ended Wed makes me suspicious she had it during murder week, because it seemed too convenient an answer in case anyone wanted to have her checked out.

However, period or no, it was darn good way to explain blood.  Just think, 10 yrs later, that would no longer be a viable cover-up method!  Time was on her side.

BTW, I forgot to ask you Susan  -- what do you mean by: "From Bridget's reaction, the pail seemed like it was something new that was introduced to her all of a sudden." ?   Is that a reaction in the Prelim?  I didn't pick anything like that up in her Trial testimony.

Boy, what I wouldn't give for a few hrs alone with Bridget & a pitcher of Irish Guinness

Yes that makes sense that the men would be counting her days for a pregnancy, but they were counting after all, so I suppose they got the clew that Lizzie's cycle pretty much was what she said it was.

I wonder always if there is any tiny flame of truth in the "Tissue Of Lies" statements/story...where there's smoke, so to speak....

I think the Bridget reference was that she hadn't seen those cloths when it was time to do the wash.

Trial
Fleet
550
Q.  You spoke of finding a pail near the foot of the stairs---I think you did, as you went down,---didn't you?
A.  I did not. There was one there; I did not testify to that, I think.

Q.  There was one there?
A.  There was in the wash cellar.

Q.  There was one there?
A.  In the wash cellar.

Q.  There were clothes in it?
A.  There were.

MR. ROBINSON. It is agreed that that pail contained the napkins which had been worn within a day or two by the defendant,---the ordinary monthly sickness---and as to that fact that is all we propose to put in.  We do not care to go into the details.  It is also agreed that the sickness ended Wednesday night.

That is all, Mr. Fleet.
----------
From Witness Statement of Wm Medley 8/4/92, pg. 28:

"I inquired [of Lizzie] about some cloths which looked, to me like small towels, they were covered with blood, and in a pail half filled with water, and in the wash cellar.  She said that was all right; she had told the Doctor all about that.  I then asked her how long the pail and its contents had been there; and she said three or four days.  I asked the Doctor about it, and he said it had been explained to him, and was all right.

I then had a talk with Bridget about the pail and its contents.  She said she had not noticed the pail until that day, and it could not have been there two days before,or she would have seen it, and put the contents in the wash, as that was the day she had done the washing."

--Actually, Bridget had done the washing 3 days before, on Monday.  I think I wouldn't want the maid to do that kind of washing.




(Message last edited Apr-14th-03  1:35 AM.)

Maybe she kept them in her room? If she had her own
little bathroom of sorts in her bedroom she might have
kept them there since it would be where she changed her
clothes & washed up. She may have finished & then brought
the pail down to be washed rather than just keeping them
downstairs the entire time.

Thanks for that, Kat. 

I'm going to get indelicate here, but such is the topic --

Precisely; I wouldn't want anybody cleaning up after me in that way.  I doubt if Lizzie would either.  If Liz & Emma cleaned up after themselves in their own rooms, took down & cleaned their own slop buckets, why would they leave Bridget to clean up after their personal monthly hygiene?  I don't see Lizzie keeping that pail in her room all thru her period...in August?  Think of the smell, & the flies/bugs!  I would think the ladies would rinse out the rags thoroughly almost immediately after changing & perhaps then set them aside for a thorough wash, rather than leaving them soiled, wet & stinking in a pail for days on end.

Also, if this had been the case -- surely the officers would have commented on the foul stench.  No, I think this was new blood & not menstrual.

Yes, thanks for getting that, Kat.  Bridget's answer just always struck me as strange when questioned about the pail.

Tina-Kate, I think you are correct, the napkins would probably get a rinsing and then set in the pail to soak in cold water until wash day.  And yes, sadly, cleaning such things was a maid's work, distasteful as it may be to us.  I think that pail had some sort of cover on it, I don't think it was open to the air.

I can't imagine what the normal proceedure of Lizzie would be per her monthly.
She might be a person who wasn't quite ever prepared.  I wonder if during that period she had to utilize something other than her pads or cloths which she reserved for that use only.  Lazy Lizzie, or distracted Lizzie not having a clean pad ready?
Being a Cancer, and having a period for 40 years, sometimes it is easy to forget the panty-liners.  And that's just running to the store!  That's not having to rinse and wash and hang to dry and fold and store over & over day after day, year after year.  This doesn't answer the questions, but I think it could happen.  Then she would have to improvise.

Anyway, Medley said the cloths were covered in blood.  If Lizzie had rinsed them first and then left them to soak they might not have been thus described.
It does seem to begin to sound like new blood, because I doubt she would keep that soaking pail in her room all week.

We don't know exactly when that pail showed up in the cellar, tho, either...

Yes Susan, I'm sure most maids had to put up with that...& lots of other stuff we'd rather not think about.

Bridget, however, seemed to have it comparatively easy in some ways.  If "the girls" were so self-sufficient (esp in things like emptying their own slop pails), it seems awfully strange that this issue would be an exception.  If it were me living there, I'd either be changing them in the loo & bringing them out to the wash basin for rinsing...or taking care of it in my room & discreetly bringing them down to the cellar to rinse. 

Lizzie said they'd been there "3 to 4" days.  Bridget said they weren't down there when she did the wash on Mon.  So, they magically show up on Thurs, "covered in blood".  Lizzie claims her period ended Wed.  For it to be completely gone by Thurs, it would have had to started Sat or Sun.  (Never met anyone who had a normal period shorter than 3-4 days...esp a healthy 32 yr old).  So, did Bridget see any of those in the wash Mon?  Nope, she sez not.  If that pail was the usual routine...surely it would have been there as Liz would have had heavy flow days (at least 1) by Mon.  Certainly with her being so particular, setting up her own self-styled "bathroom" upstairs, everyone claiming how spotless & well-kept her room was, her readily coming down Thurs night to empty & rinse out slop pails with Alice...I just don't believe her claim to leave those rags sitting around like that.

BTW -- notice the men on this board have not posted to this thread?  Shows how effective this is, even in the 21st century

Right you are Tina-Kate.  This is as close as I am getting to this thread.  Believe me, I have nothing to add. 

If the blood on the cloths in the pail in the basement came from new blood and not Lizzie's period then what new blood was it?  There is no evidence that anyone cleaned up any portion of the two murder rooms, there were no smears noted, no clear areas where there should have been blood.

If Lizzie cleaned herself up and that is where the new blood came from would there have been enough on her to produce a pail full of cloths with blood on them?  The bloody dresses would have been folded up and hidden if she did the deeds so there would be only the drips on the hatchet or weapon used and some spots of blood that would have gotten on her flesh, and not much of her flesh would have been exposed (I am discounting the nude theory as nuts).

During a regular period some women flow profusely and some very little.  We don't know exactly the amount of blood on the cloths in the pail.  But, is it easier to assume that a menstrual flow from a heavy flow type of woman over several days would produce such a collection of blood or that it came from the few spots that Lizzie cleaned up off herself?  And did she have time to take the cloths and pail down to the basement and do all the other things necessary to do after the murders, especially Andrew's where time was of the essence?   

ROFL, Harry.  Imagine how Victorian gentlemen felt!  "Don't go on with it.  We won't go into any detail..." (to paraphrase Robinson).

Carol, why do you feel the "nude theory" is nuts?  Crazy like a fox, IMHO.

Whomever was the killer would have had to have done a certain amount of personal clean-up, minimum.  It was testified (& sounds perfectly rational to me) blood would come back on the killer, even if only a result of the hatchet swinging back.  An outsider would have to clean-up before going outside & walking the streets.  & most likely the murder weapon was wiped, at the very least. 

Yes I imagine the men back then didn't discuss women's periods.
My father would leave the room if a "girdle" commercial came
on the TV he would be so embarrassed.  I'm sure this delicate
subject wasn't tossed about in the police station. 

There's a lot about this subject.  It was discussed obviously, and by men:
[This post took a while to research--if it comes out of sequence, or seems redundant, that would be why.]

Prelim.
Dolan
Pg. 188:
Q: Do you remember a pail in the cellar?
A: Yes Sir
Q: And were there some clothes or napkins in that pail?
A: Yes Sir, three.
Q: Did you examine them?
A: I examined them casually.
Q: Did you take them?
A: No sir.
Q: Were they taken by anybody?
A: By the officer, officer Mullaly I think I told to take them.
Q: What was subsequently done with them, if you know?
A: Nothing; they were left down stairs in the marshal's office, and nothing further done with them.
Q:  Did you examine them?
A:  Yes Sir
Q:  Did you become satisfied that they had no connection with this case?
A:  Yes Sir
MR. KNOWLTON:  "We claim nothing at present."

[Here is Knowlton making no claims at present--possibly he is awaiting news of the Matron that Lizzie got her period, because by trial both sides agree]
...............
Trial
Robinson Closing
Page 1642

I forebear to allude to what is proved in this case, Miss Borden's illness, monthly illness, at that time, and to tell you or remind you that Prof. Wood said he would not undertake to say that that blood was not the menstrual blood.  You know the facts.  I need not give them in detail.  you know enough in your own households; you know all about it.  You are men, and human.  You have your feelings about it.  I am not going to drag them up, but you must not lose sight of these things.
.................
At the Prelim., Mullaly speaks of cloths in pail, 347.

Fleet at trial, the pail in the cellar, 550

Doherty, pail and some towels,T. 596

Medley called Mullaly's attention to the pail, T.706

Hyde saw the pail and cloths, T.847

Hyde talks about Lizzie's solo trip to the cellar where she ended near the pail, T.834

Robinson's Closing Argument alludes to the pail in the cellar and it's significance T.1694:
"Taking again her own sickness at that time, the fact that that pail was standing  right by the sink---I am not going to make any suggestions, but I am quite certain that you will guess what she was there for. I will leave it there..."

_________
I wouldn't say the police or the lawyers or the doctors, being all men, never talked about this pail and it's contents.  I would say it played a decent-sized role in the proceedings after all, and therefore it was discussed, ruminated upon, taken into consideration and was a subject at the trials.
A blanket statement about that pail and a bunch of men not heeding it, seems a bit misjudged, as a woman's life might depend on such things, being tried for murder.













(Message last edited Apr-15th-03  3:15 AM.)

Well, ordinarily I wouldn't like to quote from Victoria Lincoln's book, but, she does have a passage that is helpful here.

From A Private Disgrace-Lizzie Borden By Daylight pg. 131

"A covered china chamber pot stood under every bed.  Customarily, in the morning the contents were poured into the slop pail, the pots rinsed from the washstand pitcher, and the rinsings also poured into the slop pail.  One used the water closet for two purposes: to defecate, and to give menstrual napkins a preliminary rinse-if, that is, either operation had to be performed by day.  Otherwise, the covered pot and slop pail were more throughly cleansed and emptied when the room was made up in the morning.
  
   The birdseye linen napkins of that time I remember well as the burden of my budding womanhood.  They were slightly longer than a baby's diaper, and thicker.  Once given their preliminary rinsing in the water closet, they were stored away, usually in a container under the set-tubs in the basement, to await their proper washing.  In a house like the Bordens', which had no hot running water, this entailed not only bringing out the scrub board but also heating up the copper on the washroom stove as well.  This was a part of the task that many of that day, wholly lacking, it seems, in empathic fastidiousness, left to the servant.

   But, all this, I repeat, was daytime work.  Slop pails were tall, their covers tight and weighty, and napkins soiled at night could soak in them as well as anywhere else."

Lincoln also goes on from here to point out Lizzie's visit to the cellar the night of the murders to perform, what seemed like, the task of a woman who was menstruating.  She and Alice went to the water closet to empty the slop pail and then Lizzie goes into the laundry room and thrusts something under the sink.  But, according to Lizzie, her period was over on Wednesday.  Why more sanitary napkins to rinse out after she already brought some down on Thursday morning?

I have to wonder if Bridget is forgetful or she wasn't asked properly if she did wash any napkins out on Monday.  It sounds from Lincoln's description that the only ones that would be carried down in the pail would be currently used napkins.  The rest would be stored under the laundry room sink.  Curiouser and curiouser.

And I really do wish the men would post with their thoughts on this, I'd like to get a male perspective on all this.  Please guys. 

Thanks Kat.  As you said to haulover on another thread, it's great to have a block of references all in 1 place.

I agree, no doubt the men did take it seriously & discuss it @ length.  It was their job to do so.  I'm sure (like so much of the case) they certainly didn't enjoy it...blood evidence is blood evidence, & they had to deal with it.

(I believe Lizzie was hoping they would not deal with it).

I find Robinson's closing argument comment -- "Prof. Wood said he would not undertake to say that that blood was not the menstrual blood" very interesting.  It shows they did not have the knowledge @ the time to distinguish menstrual blood from other types of human blood.  Strange wording, tho; almost as if he declined to make an effort. 

Thank you, thank you, thank you Susan for posting from Lincoln.  I've only ever seen snippets/quotes & am always grateful when someone posts things I've never read.  The "birdseye linen napkins" may or may not have been around in Lizzie's day (isn't V. Lincoln @ least 1 generation removed?  I believe commercial feminine products were a mid-1890s product & very expensive), but the procedure was probably very similar.

And yes...why would Lizzie be still disposing of soiled towels on Thurs night?  She'd have no reason to do so if her period ended Wed.  & why state her period ended Wed, if she indeed still had it?

You're welcome, Tina-Kate.  From what I could find, the first available, disposable sanitary napkin used in the US was Kotex in 1921.  There was one available in the 1890s; Lister's Towels made by Johnson and Johnson, but, due to too little advertising, failed.
Disposable sanitary napkins were available in Germany as early as the 1880s, but, due to the Comstock laws were not available in the US.  Old habits die hard and some women may have chosen to stick with their old stand-by.  I will have to delve into Victoria Lincoln's age later.

My only thought about Lizzie getting rid of used napkins on Thursday night would be that in the morning she got rid of the ones she used to clean herself up after killing Abby, and in the evening, the ones she used to clean herself after killing Andrew.  I don't think she had enough time to bring them down in the cellar. 

I haven't posted in a while, but I couldn't resist Susan's request for a male perspective on all this.  I am the youngest of 4 and the only boy!!!  Plus there are a lot of nurses in my family, so i got used to hearing about a lot of "feminine things."  However, I think most guys-like myself- tend not to be too inquisitve about the exact procedings of women during their periods.  for example, my significant other has highly irregular periods, so if she seems preoccupied or busy about such matters, I don't think to question her about when the period started, how this differed from last month, etc.  So, re: Lizzie, I actually think it is far better to have women who know these matters  discussing this.  I don't mean to sound sexist, it's just that guys (for whatever reason--enthrallment with the "feminine mystique," respect or "chivalry" or just blockheadedness) -- aren't inclined to question women about menstruation (unless, of course, it becomes an issue of possible pregnancy).  I have learned an enormous amount by reading what you all have written, and I never would have thought to suspect those pails with blood and rags had I not read what you all contributed.  Had I been there, I probably would have just presumed the blood and rags were from Lizzie's period and not investigated any further!!  Too bad there were no women investigators at that time!! Seems like Lizzie counted on a bunch of men who wouldn't press her on this.

True, there weren't any female police officers in Fall River at the time but there was a female detective apparently working for the defense.

"Mr. Z. W. Pease, a reporter for the New Bedford Daily Mercury (8/22/1892) wrote: "The identity of a little French woman, very chic, has been the source of much speculation for the last 10 days. She wears blue serge, of course, trimmed with wide gold braid, and a white sailor hat. Every day she occupies a front seat in the court room [at Central Police Station] and yesterday, afternoon she stood in the corridor applauding Attorney Jenning's criticisms on Marshal Hilliard's conduct. Ma charmante, I learned yesterday, is a detective in the employ of the Pinkertons. She was sent here by Detective Hanscom and is working in the interest of the defense."

We can only guess what her purpose was as there is nothing further on her.

Didn't AR Brown say that Jennings hired the Pinkertons to spy on the police? To see if they were planting evidence? And somebody else was hired to spy on the Pinkertons? What's new?

Tina-Kate, Victoria Lincoln was born in 1904, so, it is possible that she started menstruating before disposable sanitary napkins were available.

  Yay!  I applaud you guys for being so brave to post here, I know its not a subject most guys are comfortable with.

Thanks, Harry.  A new character to add to the team.  A French female detective, I can't even imagine what her duties would be?  Perhaps the Pinkertons found that this cute little French Miss could charm info out of men that was needed?  Hmmm. 

OOO  La-La a present for Lizzie?
She come to visit jail, oui?
She hold a leetle hand...she get Mamselle Liz some sympathy, non?
She find out ting?
She tell Jenning.
Mme. dreams?

I seem to remember that Edwin McHenry's wife, Nellie, was a detective of sorts too.  As I recall, she was supposedly assigned to interview Bridget and see if she could get more info out of her than the police could.  --And then there were those women in the hire of the police who were visiting drugstores in an effort to buy drugs without a prescription. It appears the police might have used females for special projects, at least.

My mother was born in 1911.  When she went off to college around 1927, she took a large steamer trunk with her.  That trunk was kept at our house while I was growing up and contained some of my mother's college-related souvenirs and belongings.  These included a stash of  nondisposable sanitary napkins made of birdseye cotton fabric, similar to what was used for diapers when my children were babies.  My mother was from a very small town in North Carolina, where she was probably unable to procure some of the modern items that were sold in cities.  However, I would have thought the drugstores in a college town would have found a ready market for the new disposables.  I never discussed the matter with my mother, and maybe she did forsake the old reliables for the new product, but she did apparently take a supply of the nondisposables off to college with her in the late 20s.

Thanks, Edisto, that is so helpful!  I just wondered if perhaps when your mother went to college if maybe her mother or another female relative helped her pack and made sure that the old stand-bys went in the trunk.  I would think as a young woman she would want to use or try what was modern more so than older women.

I know when I had "The Talk" with my mother, she showed my the plastic belt apparatus that was used before my time and I was horrified!  It looked incredibly uncomfortable.  I was so glad that the products of my generation didn't involve all that.

All this talk just made me think of an incident that happened many years agao when my first nephew was about 4.  He wanted to know why women carried purses and mens (sic) carried wallets.  I gave the explanation that women had so much more stuff to carry than men.  And just now thought, the original intent was probably just to carry sanitary supplies when away from home.  Odd thought, hunh? 

And cigarettes and lighters.

Tina-Kate, the nude theory holds no merit for me and doesn't fit with what I know of Lizzie's personality.

To commit murder with a hatchet in the nude means the person wouldn't mind getting blood on their entire body. Women in those days didn't even show their ankles in public much with clothes on. The human body wasn't something acceptable. Nudists or those in the entertainment media and maybe some kids on the new Dating shows even today are the only people I know of that are so blase about their bodies that they parade in public let alone private places.  Lizzie was a product of her time, not an exhibitionist even in her own house. I also doubt if she would have wanted Abby to see her naked. If one is going to commit that kind of crime they would want to be secure in themselves while doing it, secure to me means she would have wanted her normal clothes on.  I don't think she would have been that comfortable in her birthday suit.

But it isn't remotely in my mind-set that Lizzie would have killed Andrew without clothes on. If what they said was correct in the testimony the murderer approached Andrew from the head of the couch in the vicinity of the dining room door, so Andrew perhaps or most likely didn't see him/her.  She would have had to run through the stairs, the front hall, the sitting room (where her father was and might be awakened, into the dining room doorway.

Why would Lizzie run around the whole house with nothing on taking the chance Bridget might come downstairs, Uncle John might walk in anytime, or someone might see through the sparkling newly cleaned windows?  To me, she wouldn't have time to kill Andrew, clean up and dispose of the hatchet, wash herself, re-dress and go call for Bridget within the time limit. If the killing alone didn't send her off the edge, seeing herself with blood spots all over after TWO crimes would have done her in. She would have had to have pre-prepared by taking in the clothes to clean up with too, or else she would have dripped all the way back upstairs to dress up again and that doesn't seem feasible.

She certainly didn't go outside and fling the hatchet on the the flat Crowe roof if she was in the nude, so that possibility would have to be dismissed.

I probably have more reasons but that's off the top of my head.

Ditto here, the nude theory is nutty!

i guess you make your point.  it's almost comical.

  I was thinking way, way before it was acceptable for women to smoke.  When women began to travel away from home more.

Good points, Carol.  Still doesn't rule it out, tho.

Un-heard-of, bizarre, unspeakable acts...those are exactly the things that work...because people simply cannot fathom that they're possible, or that someone else might attempt them.

If Lizzie did actually commit the murders, I'm sure the last thing she'd be worried about would be either of them seeing her naked.  People who worry about things like that are those that don't accomplish what they set out to do.

People who go out on a limb -- they're the ones of whom legends are made.

So it sounds like a good idea someone had to time the murders for when there would be a bucket-o-blood on the premises?

(A bit of fact for the guys:  they say a woman's amount of blood loss during the whole period is only about a tablespoon.  But diluted etc., in a bucket, it might seem like a lot more...hell, it DOES seem like a lot more!)

like most men, i don't know how to discuss menstrual blood, but after reading all that the women discussed -- how can the fact be ignored that there was an "automatic" alibi for the presence of blood in the house while a search for blood was underway? 

Really.  And to think too, that if there were drips on the carpet that could not be proved as a victim's blood...it could be claimed to be Lizzie's.  Also if she did it, and was wounded in the attacks, there was another reason to have that pail handy to explain blood.  (It may have been a wound to a part of her body not normally seen).

I wonder why we have not discussed the possiblity of the assailant being themselves wounded in the frenzied attacks?

Was there any notes made of the pattern of staining on the
towels in the pail? Menstrual bloodstains would have an
"inkblot" pattern -- blood that was whiped off would be all
over them. Even if they had been soaking awhile the set in
menstrual blood seems like it wouldn't totally soak out but
would need a laundering too.

And about her being nude -- I don't think you can apply normal
modesty to someone who has been thought to have killed people,
they are not being normal when they were/are killing so I think
that the regular rules don't apply in certain situations. I'm
sure Lizzie's parents didn't raise her to run around the house
naked but they didn't raise her to kill them either.

That's a good point. I believe this was raised in the trial as a sarcastic excuse to why they found no blood on Lizzie's dresses (the ones inspected by the Police). Imagining blood on a non-existent dress is just an excuse for conviction. "There is no murder weapon or bloody clothes because he/she got rid of them before the police arrived." Or maybe they didn't do it?

Somebody remarked that proper New England ladies didn't kill their parents in the nude. Or even when fully clothed. Read E Porter's remarks on the type of woman or person who would do this.

i had a notion about this today.  and a question or two, i guess.

could lizzie have been so cunning as to plan this for during or near her cycle so she would have the alibi for blood?  i wonder if anyone has ever linked the "nude" theory to the menstrual cycle?  you'll notice in the movie, when elizabeth montgomery goes to the kitchen sink to wash, you glimpse some sort of tie at her back.  i have no idea what they wore would look like, but wouldn't it have been clever of her to clean herself only with sanitary napkins, perhaps including what she was wearing?  that way, she could clean herself fairly quickly and just drop them in the pail.  this would be so much quicker than a bodily wash.  and then i thought about bowen -- why she calls first for him.  to establish as soon as possible her physical condition which would explain blood in the house?  and it would make so much sense it would be unquestionable.

Since we don't know exactly when the bloody pail showed up in the cellar, it's an assumption it was brought there Thursday.

That said, do you think Lizzie's odd trip alone to the cellar, where she ended near that pail according to Officer Hyde, had as it's goal the hiding of something or the retrieving of something and it might have been something to do with that pail?

For what its worth, found this in the Trial Volume 1, page 224/i245
Bridget is being questioned about when she first saw Lizzie on the murder morning:

Q. What did she do?
A. She came through the kitchen and she left down the slop pail, and I asked her what did she want for breakfast.  She said she didn't know as she wanted any breakfast, but she guessed she would have something, she would have some coffee and cookies.

My guess if there were any more bloody napkins left from wednesday to be brought down, Thursday morning would be the day. 

I miscounted the days and dates in post # 6.  I counted 28 days from the end of the cycle, instead of 28 days Including the cycle:

"The dates of the Prelim. were Aug. 25th to Sept. 1st.
[efit here]:  Counting 28 or so days from July 29th, assuming her period lasted an average of 5 days, to that time, Aug. 3rd, I get that she would be due again Aug. 26, during the Preliminary Hearing.. "

Post # 19:
[Dolan answering]
Q:  Did you become satisfied that they had no connection with this case?
A:  Yes Sir
MR. KNOWLTON:  "We claim nothing at present."

According to Porter, Dolan testified the first and second days of the Prelim.  That would be August 25th & 26th.  At some point during these two days, Knowlton says the state makes no claims against or for the pail and it's contents, for NOW.

If Lizzie was due Aug. 26th that all fits neatly into a menstrual timeline that would satisfy the need to have a bloody pail on the premises (to allay suspicions about excess blood after a slaughter);  satisfy the prosecution that Lizzie did have a return period during the first few days of the Prelim., because he stipulates it at trial later, and it also satisfies the rumors that Lizzie was pregnant.  It meets and Answers a Lot of questions on differing levels.  Amazing.

How can you have Lizzie both wearing a menstrual napkin and being nude?  Nude means nude.

To the believers in the nude theory, what evidence do you have for it besides Lincoln's and the attorney's imagination? What else in her life points to her not being modest?  What points to her being comfortable without clothes on?  Why do you think she wouldn't have minded being seen in the nude by Andrew, Abby or anyone else?  Would Lizzie have been so confident she could do them in without them putting up a fight or something unseen happening that she knew it would be over 1-2-3 in advance and neither Borden would have attempted to take the hatchet/weapon away and strike her?  Or did she plan that in advance to and the reason she did it in the nude was so as to prevent the prospect of either Borden being able to clutch at her clothing?

Or are you saying that anyone who could murder in such a way would be capable of doing it in the nude?  

It's likely that menstrual napkins were fastened to some sort of belt, because the voluminous undergarments worn in that day wouldn't have been suitable for holding a napkin in place.  As we've mentioned elsewhere, women's bloomers usually had an open crotch, so that the napkin would simply have fallen through!  I do agree, however, that the picture of Lizzie wearing nothing but a "sanitary belt" requires a little more imagination than I'm inclined to apply.

ditto Edisto, I just can't picture it.  My grandmother told me
about the rags, no cute little napkins and belts back then.
Just can't picture the nude Lizzie!

Robinson trial page 550/i571
"It is agreed that the pail contained the NAPKINS which had been worn within a day or two by the defendant,--the ordinary monthly sickness--and as to the fact that is all we propose to put in.  We donot care to go into the details.  It is agreed that the sickness ended Wednesday night."

It's interesting that way back in those days before the beltless napkins of our day that they still called menstrual gear napkins, even in court. I think about the pioneer women too who had to exert such incredible constant movement out on the plains probably having to tie rags around themselves during their periods.  It's for sure they didn't engage in any techniques of suspended animation to keep their gear on. Remember those horrid metal on belts just a short time ago?  Young women of today in the west are indeed fortunate.