Why Did Lizzie Change Into a "Pink Wrapper?"

[Allen]

Going with my theory that Lizzie may have done some planning ahead, I've always subscribed to the theory that it was Lizzie who committed the daylight robbery on June 24, 1891. Emma, Lizzie, and Bridget were in the house at the time the robbery took place. It's my belief this was a dry run of sorts. Lizzie wanted to see if she could make everyone believe that someone had broken into the house right under their noses, and in broad daylight. Most of the items missing were Abby's. I think Lizzie was trying her hand at some reconnaissance as a prelude to the big event. If this is true, she had been planning this for at least a year prior to the murders.

[Yooper]

The one problem I see with respect to planning Andrew's murder is what to do with Bridget? Lizzie could not have foreseen Bridget going upstairs for a rest at the same time Andrew took a nap in the sitting room. If she thought Bridget would be up and about, even if she could predict Andrew taking a nap downstairs, Lizzie could not expect Bridget to stand idly by while she murdered Andrew. So, under the circumstances, if Lizzie expected to murder her father, she first had to murder Bridget, and before her father arrived.

Lizzie did not suggest the sale at Sargent's until just before Bridget went upstairs, so she may have been trying to create an opportunity to kill Andrew at that point by getting Bridget out of the house, but I doubt she would have thought about it before then. Lizzie knew Andrew was in a vulnerable position by that time.

[Yooper]

I wonder if the daylight robbery was staged because the Borden daughters had come across something important while snooping. They may have been watching Abby closely since Andrew bought part of the Whitehead residence. If they snooped when they had the chance, they might have uncovered something like a list of Andrew's assets, or a rough draft of a will among Abby's things, or maybe something else they thought important. If they removed whatever it was, the rest of the items may have also been removed and the robbery staged. It really was a clumsy attempt at staging a robbery and it might have been done to avoid confrontation with either Abby or both Andrew and Abby if just a single document had gone missing.

[DJ]

So much seems to be connected to the farm at Swansea-- Uncle John has an interest in it, and Mr. and Mrs. Borden are there when the daylight robbery occurs. It even comes up in the article that Kat posted recently, the one from the Montreal newspaper.

Mr. and Mrs. Borden's absence at the farm was oh-so-convenient for the perp, wasn't it?

One wonders why Lizzie & Emma didn't ride out there as well? Didn't want to go with Abby?

Why was Abby going? Just getting out of the house, or something bigger?

I think Lizzie committed the daylight robbery, and she did so, at the very least, "to get Abby's goat."

If Lizzie were doing it as the prelude to committing murder, then what was driving her at the time, and why did she wait another year?

Do you think the police scrutiny made her back down?

Let's discuss--

[Yooper]

The daylight robbery seems a bit unreasonable with respect to harassing Abby. I had thought it was part of an attempt at "Gaslighting" Abby, in an attempt to drive her nuts. The trouble is, it runs the risk of putting the perpetrator at peril if the truth is found out. That would also tend to undo whatever else has been done to drive Abby crazy by focusing everything on the perp. It all seems rather risky to me if the idea is to convince Abby that she has an enemy.

[Allen]

I think Lizzie committed the daylight robbery, and she did so, at the very least, "to get Abby's goat."

If Lizzie were doing it as the prelude to committing murder, then what was driving her at the time, and why did she wait another year?

Do you think the police scrutiny made her back down?

Let's discuss--

I think that the police were investigating the crime and kept looking into the matter for some time. She may have wanted to see if she could get away with it, and convince everyone someone had stolen into the house unnoticed in broad daylight. Would it be believed? The motivation that drove her I think was Andrew's money and getting her hands on it. I think she had to wait so that the investigation died down and the police lost interest. She may just have been waiting for the best opportunity she was going to get. She may have wanted to get a feel for what kind of questions would be asked so she knew what bases to cover later.

Murder is a risky business, and not to be committed lightly unless one is not in their right mind, or wants to be caught. Once you put it into motion you cannot turn back, or take back what you've done. You have to be ready to cover your behind and hope for the best or take consequences. This was an age when forensics was in it's infancy. They could determine basic information, but nothing like today. They did not even use fingerprinting. It might have been a lot easier to get away with the perfect murder then. I think she may actually have been counting on them being able to tell Abby died first. After all if there was confusion as to who died first, it could've tied up Andrew's money. Because if Andrew died first Abby's people got his money. The media reported on murder cases back then the same as they do today. With all the gorey details, pieces of evidence, and testimony just as today's newspapers do. I'm sure that even a lay person like Lizzie could've had some idea from reading such accounts what kind of evidence the authorities could obtain. Uncle John even remarked to the authorities that the Borden killings reminded him of another murder case.

No matter when the murders were planned to take place Bridget would've been a problem she lived in the household just like everyone else. I think she only had one true day off. I think if she really wanted the murders done, she'd have to plan ahead as much as she could, take the first opportunity that presented itself, and go forward. Otherwise she could've waited forever for that perfect set of circumstances. I think if she was wanting them dead and out of the way, the longer she waited the more frustrated she became. She wasn't getting any younger, and she may have been concerned Andrew would pass first. Abby did have to die first at all cost. Waiting for that perfect moment, and after a frustrated attempt at poisoning, and being rebuffed for buying a stronger poison, she might've just snapped and taken the more direct route.

I'm not sure what good taking a document that showed Andrew's assets or some similar document would've done the girls. What would've been their motive to take it? If they had already read it, then they knew what was on it. If they had snooped into it once, they could access it again without actually taking it and drawing attention to themselves.

[Yooper]

One possibility as a motive for taking a document such as a list of assets would be in the case of Andrew being unaware of the document, or the possibility that he was unaware of it. A list of his assets might be just that because Andrew was likely very well aware of his assets and didn't need a list. Having a list of assets in her possession would have made Abby look suspicious to Emma and Lizzie (possibly even to Andrew). It might not have been something she wanted to share with Andrew. If Lizzie took only the list from Abby, Abby would likely know it was an inside job and that Lizzie and Emma were aware of the list. If a robbery was staged it might always be a question, Abby could never be certain whether the girls knew or not, and that was the motive. It sends the message that "you're being watched", but allows denial if a confrontation arises.

[Yooper]

Using the daylight robbery as a dry run for the murder seems awfully risky, too. What if the police figured out that Lizzie was the perpetrator? Then a year later, Lizzie is the prime suspect in a double murder? I can't quite get past the risk involved. I think the murder might have been better left as a surprise, without greasing the skids first!

I seriously doubt the robbery was used to set a precedent, but it set one anyway. Crimes taking place at 92 Second Street allow for perpetrators to vanish into thin air! They seem to disappear like phantoms, no one ever sees or hears them, either from inside or outside the house! They just walk in, do whatever they came for without disturbing anything else, then vanish! Amazing, no?

[Allen]

Better to be caught committing a robbery, and one that was committed against relatives who probably woudn't press charges, than to be caught committing a murder, imo. I'm saying if she got caught "stealing" then it wouldn't have made much sense for her to try to say a perpetrator broke in and killed her parents. It was a dry run to see how believable the story was. If she couldn't get away with a simple robbery, how would she get away with murder? Then she'd know that alibi would never fly, and maybe the Borden's would never have been axed by an unknown "intruder". And yes, it did set a precedent, which was my point. I think testing the risk factor and doing a dry run make sense. And it wouldn't have been the first time Lizzie was caught stealing. I'm thinking of Tilden Thurber. Nothing untimately came of that affair either, and that was a reputable establishment she stole from. I think by then Lizzie was used to get away with, well murder, and didn't think she'd ever get caught stealing from Tilden Thurber. It probably came as a surprise to her that she did.

[Yooper]

The problem is the precedent itself. The more phantom perpetrators, the less credible the stories. It is an inverse relationship, not a direct one.

[nbcatlover]

delete

[Allen]

If Lizze was a kleptomaniac, and notoriously bad at stealing, I'd think there would be more clear cut examples we could point to besides Tilden Thurber. Especially after Andrew was gone to hush things up, and after many in Fall River came to believe Lizzie had gotten away with murder and were less inclined to hush anything up. Do we believe this one instance is the only time she stole anything? We don't really have any clear evidence of her being known to take anything else, other than rumors and gossip. In my opinion that doesn't speak towards being notoriously bad at it. Chief Hilliard stated after the murders that he believed Lizzie had committed the robbery, and that he convinced Andrew this was the case, and Andrew requested that the investigation be stopped. Nothing was done to Lizzie so she may have believed she had gotten away with it. (Rebello page 36).

I've heard of one house being hit more than once. I had a friend who's house was burglarized three times in the space of one year, with none of the stolen property being returned or any of the people who had broken in being caught. It did not make the fact of their house being broken into any less credible. They had sincerely been robbed. It's not a phenomenon of any sort. And according to testimony someone had allegedly broken into the Borden barn as well one night in April of 1892, and Lizzie said a man had allegedly been seen lurking outside the house at night prior to the murders. That's how many phantom perpetrator's on record?


And after the murders Lizzie seemed bent on making it seem like Andrew had some quarrel with someone outside the house, some enemy, some mysterious man she had heard but not seen. Lizzie seemed to be into inventing fictional characters, because she did not want to blame a real innocent party, and certainly didn't want to own up to what she had done. I will at least give her that due. She didn't point the finger at anyone else.


If Andrew thought her guilty she would not have gotten away with it. But he would not have pressed charges which I started above. The only risk Lizzie took by actually getting caught was the wrath of Andrew. Which I'm sure she was accustomed to by that time. But if she got away with it, that was a different matter entirely.

[Angel]

I don't think Lizzie did the robbery to plan ahead a whole year. I think she was just trying to upset Abby. And although Lizzie may have had vague plans about getting rid of her parents, I think something triggered her to do it precipitously (or however you spell it) because she was trying to thwart some kind of activity that day on her father's part regarding the finances. If she had figured out how to commit the murder beforehand, she would have done a much better job than that. So much of it was muddled and badly planned that it looks much more like a last minute, impulsive and desperate move that she would have handled a lot better had she more time to cover herself. That's my feeling, but I could be wrong.

[Yooper]

If Hilliard thought Lizzie committed the robbery, what did she get away with as far as a precedent? The fact that Andrew allowed Lizzie to get away with it becomes moot when it comes to Andrew's murder. He couldn't very well cover for her under those circumstances. It seems all of the phantom perpetrator stories have a common source, Lizzie Borden. She may have been dumb enough to think she was being convincing with her tales, or that she was getting away with something, but it only served to allow the police to focus on her as the murderer. The only person naive enough to buy her stories was Lizzie herself.

[Allen]

In light of the fact that Lizzie was aquitted of the murders, and no one else was ever charged with the murders, I would say Lizzie did a fair amount of convincing. The simple fact that she wasn't found guilty proves that.

[Yooper]

I would argue quite the opposite. If Lizzie had been convincing, the police would have sought others as the Borden murderer. Just the fact that they didn't do this implies she was not convincing. The fact that she was acquitted does not address substance, merely outcome.

[Allen]

What it all boils down to is, what Lizzie believed in her mind she could get away with. If she was dumb enough to think she was fooling people with her perpetrator stories she did, time and time again. The mysterious angry man who spoke to her father about the store. The mysterious man lurking outside the house during the night. If she did commit the daylight robbery, no matter what the reason, she again conjured up a mysterious intruder to take the blame. The same with the thefts from the barn. She told Alice Russel due to all these enemies Andrew supposedly had she was afraid they might try to burn down the house, or do some other form of violence. She was "afraid someone would do something." She's conjuring up enemies that it was never proven that Andrew even had. By the time of the murders she probably believed she could use this theme yet again. If she believed she could get away with it, that's all that matters. Because what she believed she could get away with, is what she would try to get away with.


There were gorey accounts of contemporary murders, and murder trials, in the papers. Descriptions of evidence used, testimony given at trial, descriptions of the scenes and the bodies. Descriptions of how the murders were committed, what the motives were. I think anyone reading the newspapers could have picked up a general knowledge of what could be used against them in court and what kinds of evidence the police looked for. I'd say Lizzie did a bang up job of covering up if she did commit the murders considering no blood was found on her person after two brutal killings with an axe. She also managed to keep her blood stained clothing hidden from police until it could be disposed of properly. The murder weapon, for all the legal intents, was never found. I think Lizzie was a lot brighter than what everyone gives her credit for.

She kept all physical evidence of her guilt hidden. No blood, no bloody clothing, no weapon. Even getting caught burning a dress so close in time didn't influence the jury. The handless hatchet which fitted the wounds didn't influence the jury. Her being one of the only people at home at the time did not influence the jury. The supposed note calling Abby to go out never being found, even in the face of a substantial reward, in the end did not influence the jury. Neither did the reports she did not get along with her parents, and had stopped calling Abby mother. Even in the face of all those locked doors inside the house being such a hindrance to a killers movements the jury was not influenced. Something had to influence that jury to say that Lizzie was not guilty, even in the face of all this circumstantial evidence. People had been hung using less evidence than that. In my opinion it was because the jury believed that someone could have gotten into the house unnoticed. Part of the reason they believed this was because it had happened before.

[Allen]

What also makes me think this was at least somewhat preplanned, or that she had pondered this for quite some time, is the fact about the evidence. She had plenty of time after Abby to clean herself up, and stow her blood stained clothing and the weapon. But how after she killed Andrew, if she had not planned it out, did she get cleaned up, dispose of the weapon so thoroughly the police might not find it, and her clothing appear so clean? And if the handle was truly broken off the hatchet, where and when? She said she went to the barn in case someone might have seen her going there to break off the handle in the vise? Dipping it in ashes to make it look as though it had been in the box for awhile with the rest of the dust covered contents? Putting bloody rags in a bucket and calling them menstrual napkins? The fact that she kept all physical evidence so well hidden makes me believe it was not just a a random act of passion that arose on that day. Who would think of all that on the spur of the moment? There weren't even any blood trails leading away from the bodies. She was carrying a blood stained weapon, and blood covered clothing. I would think she left the guest room with it. No bloody footprints, no blood of any kind outside the rooms where the murder took place.

[Yooper]

If the jury was reluctant to convict a woman of first degree murder due to a mandatory death sentence, they didn't need to be convinced of anything, nor would they be. They only needed something like Dewey's Charge to justify a "not guilty" verdict. The general public was nowhere near as "convinced" as Lizzie's jury, they ostracized her for the rest of her life. That makes the jury something other than an accurate representative of the general public. So, to take the jury's verdict and tout it as proof positive of anything definitive is a gross error.

[Allen]

How would Lizzie know what the jury thought ahead of time? Looking back we can say that because we know how the story unfolded. But if it was your neck in the noose, and you wanted to kill your parents, would you say they will not convict me because I am a woman? Hind sight is not what I'm looking at here. No murderer is going to commit a crime knowing they are not going to be convicted if they go in front of a jury simply because they are a woman.

[Allen]

And I do not believe that the jury would be that remiss in their duties, that no human would be that remiss in their duties to protect the public, to let a two time axe murderer go free simply because she was a woman. But even if that were somehow to be the case, how would Lizzie know what the jury was going to think? She had no way to know what would happen.

[Yooper]

To say that the jury based its verdict on the "fact" of phantom perpetrators because there was a history of them relative to the Borden case may well be incorrect. In fact, the jury may well have been predisposed to find Lizzie "not guilty" based upon an aversion to subjecting a woman to capital punishment. It has nothing to do with what Lizzie thought the jury might or might not think or do.

[Yooper]

Robert Sullivan cites instances of women in Massachusetts being brought up on charges of second degree murder, even when the evidence supports first degree murder, just to allow the jury to convict of a lesser crime and avoid the death sentence. In fact, the "degrees" of murder were a result of the impossibility of a jury convicting a woman of first degree murder.

[Allen]

I think that somehow the basis of my theory has become misunderstood. And that's just what is it. My theory, because we can never know for sure what really happened. My theory was that the daylight robbery was staged. It was staged by Lizzie, to test the credibility of saying someone broke into the house in broad daylight while the family was home. If she couldn't make this theory fly for a simple robbery, then it was not going to fly for a murder. If she got caught with the robbery I'm sure she knew Andrew and Abby would not press charges formally.

She couldn't very well murder Abby and Andrew outside the house, where else could she be assured a secure location with the most minimal chance for witnesses? Where they would be vulnerable. A place she would also have immediate access for clean up. She can't whack them in an alley and then walk through the streets covered in blood. That's just not realistic. She couldn't meet them in the streets somewhere. Or wait outside of the market,or the bank, or the church. I don't believe she used an accomplice because that is a great deal of trust to place in someone, and who did Lizzie have she could trust that much? She could've done it at the farm in Swansea. That's another possibility. But that presented some of the same problems as the house in Fall River. Maybe more so. Where else could Lizzie have realistically killed either Abby or Andrew? It was home or nowhere.

Now, how do you murder your parents in their own home, under the nose of Bridget and Emma? Interestingly these were the only two people home during the daylight robbery. If Emma is out of the picture that helps, but that leaves Bridget. So, would anyone believe someone could get into the house unseen and commit a crime?


She would have to go with a plan B for the murder if it the idea of someone breaking in didn't really fly. But what exactly would a plan B amount to? If say she used poison, could she blame it on some outside source? Milk, bakers cakes, something? But if she administered poison all it seemed to do was make them sick. She couldn't get her hands on prussic acid. So now she's back to using a weapon.

I think she wanted them dead because she wasn't getting any younger, she wanted to enjoy life as she believed she should enjoy it, and she may have feared Andrew would die first leaving his money to Abby. So she would have to be assured that Abby died first. Andrew was tight fisted so even with Abby out of the way, she would not be living much better than she was before she killed Abby. Andrew may have had suspicions about Abby's death.



I believe that Lizzie may have thought about killing her parents for some time. Pondering possible ways to do it, alibi's, hiding places for evidence, what have you. She lived in that house every day of her life and had ample opportunity to get the family's habits and schedules down to the letter. I think she planned ahead as much as she possibly could. For example, if she used this type of weapon she could hide it here afterwards, use such and such to cover blood spatter on her clothing, etc. She hid the physical evidence far to well for me to believe it was a totally impromptu act of rage with no prior planning. Not just the physical evidence on her person, but there were no blood trails, bloody footprints, no blood of any kind in any part of the house except where the killings occurred. This also does not speak of a frenzied act of rage to me. With Bridget living there and having only one day off a week, and probably rarely spending the night outside the home, she would have to grab the first opportunity she had and put her plan into action.


I think what Lizzie believed the jury and other authorities might or might not think had a great deal to do with things. I cannot believe that even a woman could commit a cold blooded killing and not think about what could happen to her if she goes to trial. Or what the jury might take into account in the evidence against her, simply because she is a woman. If this was the case there would be no covering up of the crime. What would be the point of hiding it? What Lizzie believed she could get away with, and what she thought the jury and the police might think probably weighed very much in how she executed the killings. This was the point I was trying to make. Lizzie had no way to know what would be on the minds of the jury, so it was in her mind to cover her deeds as well as she possibly could. To convince them that she did not commit the murders, that someone else did. She didn't want to point the finger at anyone that was innocent. I gave her that she didn't point fingers. So then it had to be a "phantom" she made up herself.

As for the jury aquitting her because she was a woman, I don't buy that was the only reason. She may not have counted on the death penalty, but she may have believed she could be punished with prison. We may never know and I don't think we ever will. But in my opinion, I think it probably was a factor. Or there would not have been the repeated attempts at hammering home the fact that this was possible by the defence. The screen door was unlatched, the window was open, the lock on the front door didn't work properly, you were out of site of the side door washing windows, you were talking to the Kelly girl and didn't see the side door, and of course it has happened before..etc.

[pld0128]

In my searching on this site for info and opinions, I came across the previous post from Allen from several years ago. But it pretty much lines up with my opinion and feelings about Lizzie's thought processes.

[Curryong]

Yes pld, I agree. Allen was always good value. There is a slight caveat on those thoughts on my part, however.

We have to remember that Uncle John was visiting. I don't believe, until almost the last moment before the murders, that Lizzie knew that he was coming home for the midday meal. However, when she did, things had to be hurried up.

I believe that the murder of Andrew was going to be after lunch, in the early afternoon, with Bridget on her afternoon off. There would be sufficient time, then, to even attempt a part alibi. She could be seen doing a spot of shopping downtown. Only to return home to discover two dreadful murders had occurred while she was away! I don't think Lizzie would have known that doctors were able to estimate times of death fairly accurately, ie that they would have known Abby was killed so much earlier.

There is a little, subtle, evidence too, that things were going to change vis the Swansea farms. Uncle John had visited before when there had been unpleasant changes for the Borden 'girls'. The Whitehead house sale for instance. I am not sure whether Uncle John had informed his nieces of the Swansea changes or not. (He and Emma used to correspond and when he lived at Dartmouth they reputedly would visit him.) John and Andrew had also conversed on the Wednesday afternoon and Lizzie may have eavesdropped.

Either way, Lizzie may have felt that the Swansea property was going to be transferred to Abby and so acted before that could happen, (just a little theory of mine.) She had hated Abby for years and now, on that Thursday morning, the moment had come. She also had to kill Andrew of course, as a necessary consequence.

To get back to the title of the thread--Lizzie changed into the pink wrapper because, as more and more police arrived, she couldn't risk the paint-stained dress that she had worn that morning being examined or taken away. She hid it and then burned it.

[dalcanton]

All this talk about changing dresses made me think of the lack of a blood trail leading from Abby's corpse to outside the guest room. If Lizzie were guilty, perhaps she murdered Abby, then changed out of the bloody dress into an unsoiled one right then & there in the guest room. Same with her shoes & stockings. She could've had another dress & a pair of shoes/stockings stashed in the room beforehand (the bureau perhaps)? Then she immediately concealed the original bloody dress, shoes & stockings in a "bag" or similar item she had also secreted into the room. Thoughts?

p.s. I like the idea that someone posted about Lizzie having made a "murder" dress.

[Curryong]

The police were suspicious apparently, of the blue gingham material that Lizzie had bought in those few days she had spent in New Bedford staying with the Pooles shortly before the murder. They thought that she may have quickly sewn it into a dress which resembled the blue paint-shattered one, worn it for Abby's murder and then hid it. However Lizzie had, rather oddly, put the material away in a trunk in the attic.

There was definitely a lack of blood platter leading away from Abby's body and away from the guest room, whoever killed her. However, the killer needn't necessarily have been standing (or squatting over the body) in literally pools of blood.

As I believe it was Lizzie, covered for the most part in Abby's black gossamer raincoat, I tend to think that she may have worn black stockings which she later hid then washed. I believe she wore the blue paint-splattered dress all that morning.

[Constantine]

What about that pinpoint of blood (wider on the outside than on the inside) on her underskirt? Why was that ignored?

[twinsrwe]

Good question, Constantine. That particular blood spot was even brought up during the trial, and completely ignored.

[pld0128]

I think that had been thought to be menstrual blood.

[debbiediablo]

My understanding was that the flea bite was an innie, not an outie, although this still wouldn't rule out menstrual blood.

[twinsrwe]

You're right, pld0128.

The defense didn't know if the clothes that Lizzie gave them were the clothes she actually wore that day. They didn’t have a reliable description of what she was wearing during the time Abby and Andrew were murdered. The blood that was found on her dress, was explained away as menstrual blood, so therefore, the spot on her dress was the result of "having fleas". But, testimony from Dr. Dolan indicates that it is impossible for that particular blood spot to be from menstrual blood. (Underlining is mine).

Dr. Dolan questioned by Mr. Adams

Pg. 168

Q. What was it, a dress skirt and an under white skirt?
A. Yes sir and her waist.
Q. Did you examine them?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did you find some blood on them?
A. One blood spot on the skirt.
Q. How big was it?
A. The size of a good pin head.
Q. That is on the white underskirt?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Do you know whether it came from without, in or from inside out?
A. From without, in.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Simply because the meshes of the cloth on the outside were filled with blood, and it had hardly penetrated on the inside.

[Curryong]

Nowadays of course, they'd be able to tell whose blood it was! It's quite frustrating!

[PattiG157]

Since corsets were so confining and painful-I was just wondering - if Lizzie actually did do the deed- would she have been physically able to do so with such savagery (to Abby) while wearing one?

Good point! I'd never thought of this before, but as someone who considers Lizzie innocent, I find it very possible that she might've been unable to commit the crime while wearing a corset.

[PattiG157]

I think that had been thought to be menstrual blood.

You're right; at one point Lizzie said the spot of blood was a "flea bite," which is a euphemism for menstrual blood.

[debbiediablo]

I still entertain that Lizzie foreshadowed her own plans when she opined to Miss Russell that some evildoer was going to burn the house down around them. This seques into Curryong's theory that Lizzie had to hurry up Andrew's murder because John Morse was unexpectedly coming home for lunch. Her obsession with keeping the flat irons hot that morning also plays directly into the idea she would need a fire source. Abby's death sometime after 9:00 convinces me that the murderer knew the only sure shot at killing Abby in a remote area of the house would come in the guest room when Abby made it up. If this is true, then the killer had to be privy to the innermost workings of the Borden household. Otherwise it would've been smarter and safer to kill Abby around 10:30 and then ambush Andrew shortly after 11:00.

[twinsrwe]

Since corsets were so confining and painful-I was just wondering - if Lizzie actually did do the deed- would she have been physically able to do so with such savagery (to Abby) while wearing one?

Good point! I'd never thought of this before, but as someone who considers Lizzie innocent, I find it very possible that she might've been unable to commit the crime while wearing a corset.

On the other hand, Lizzie may not have wore a corset that was inflexible.

I found the following web site interesting (NOTE: Underlining and highlighting are mine):

The 1900’s called for an elongated torso, upright shoulders, long sloping bust and graceful hips. We would recognise this look as “The Gibson Girl”. When the exaggerated shoulders of the late 1800’s went out of fashion, the waist itself had to be cinched tighter in order to achieve the same effect. The focus of the fashionable silhouette of the mid and late 19th century was an hourglass figure.

gibson-girl-jpg.jpg

It is during this time when tight lacing may have been used to achieve the hourglass figure the concern over the health of corsets became a rather large issue. Doctors proclaimed that wearing corsets caused a number of ailments; damage to the heart and lungs, tuberculosis, circulatory damage, indigestion, enlargement or displacement of liver, constipation, undeveloped uterus, prolapsed uterus, gallstones, and muscle atrophy. Sadly, many people still believe that many of the items on that list were actual side effects of corset wearing, and not a lack of medical understanding and product propaganda, but that is a discussion for another blog!

At the time new products popped up to fight the horrors of corset wearing, Health Corsets. In 1884, Dr. Jaeger came up with wool sanitary corsets, described as flexible and elastic. Dr. Jaeger claimed that the wool had curing capabilities and that it had cured him of his chronic health problems: excess of weight and indigestion. Another was created in 1887, a dermathistic corset with leather facing. It was marketed towards women who wanted better health and enjoyed a vigorous lifestyle. Brothers and Doctors, Lucien and Ira De Ver Warner who lectured about the evils of corset, sold the Coraline Health Corset. Made with flexible fibers from the Coraline plant. Their factory of weavers were making 6000 corsets a day, by 1894 they were millionaires.

health-corset-add-jpg.jpg

Some women decided to throw out their corsets and be part of the Rational Dress movement. Where women dressed in free-flowing clothing. A similar movement will find a resurgence in the 1920’s.

http://tinyurl.com/m7e4l28

[Bobbypoz]

ick


:-)

[twinsrwe]

Welcome back to the forum, Booypuz! It is good to see you are posting again.

[Constantine]

Sadly, many people still believe that many of the items on that list were actual side effects of corset wearing, and not a lack of medical understanding and product propaganda, but that is a discussion for another blog!

I don't think that's so sad. Anything that encouraged women to abandon such an oppressive garment is fine with me. (Besides, except for tuberculosis and gallstones and maybe a couple of other things, it seems to me that this list is right on the money!)

[twinsrwe]

I agree, Constantine. The Victorian women were required to wear corsets, no matter what. Today's women have a lot more freedom when it comes to the clothes they wear, and wearing a corset is a real rarity. We have come a long way, for sure.