Maybe she did and maybe she didn't

[snokkums]

I was reading through some old posts and came across a post I thought was interesting and I got to thinking about the reason why the person thought that Lizzie was innocent.

The first reason was that her demanor. The author thoug that she would have done more acting, she wouldn't have been so cool come and collected as she was.

My answer to that one is: this was the victorian era, they didn't show emotion like we do today. They didn't show emtion in public like we do today.


Second reason: No blood on her dress or person. Some speulate that she bathed and burned the dress. Well, there was a dress that did get burned. Lizze claimed that there was red paint on the dress. No way to prove weather or not it was paint or blood because the dress was burned. And there is no way of proving that she didn't mastermind the whole deed and have someone else to do the deed.

Third reason The letter Lizzie said that Abby received. No one ever found the letter.

[Yooper]

By most accounts, Lizzie was calm and unemotional in spite of what happened, and some people thought this was odd. If Victorian times dictated calm and unemotional behavior under the circumstances, why did some people find her behavior odd? I expect a degree of hysteria was perfectly acceptable in light of what had happened, and was in fact expected. Even when given the opportunity to put off an interview with authorities, Lizzie stated she was as able to answer questions immediately as well as at any other time. This underscores the observations of Lizzie being surprisingly unemotional.

Blood didn't need to be on the dress in an obvious way to prompt the dress burning, only the suspicion that there might be some. I don't know when Lizzie would have had an opportunity to examine the dress she burned for presence of blood, so she likely didn't know if it was there or not, unless she was innocent. She only had to suspect there might be some and it would be found. At the time of the dress burning, Lizzie wasn't aware of who saw what, she didn't know who might identify the dress she wore, she didn't know if anyone saw blood on her dress. Burning the dress destroys the evidence, it puts an observer's word against hers and there is no proof to support the observer's allegation of blood on a dress. An innocent person, suspected of murder, should have had an interest in preserving evidence not destroying it. There was nothing to gain by destroying it, only something to lose if she was innocent. If the dress was in the way in a crowded closet, it could have been wrapped up and stored under a bed or in the attic for a time.

There is nothing but Lizzie's word that a note ever existed. I guarantee you'll never find a note which never existed! You'll have some difficulty finding an author and a delivery person, too!

[snokkums]

I am just saying that there could have been a number of reasons why she was calm and maybe people were jumping to conclusions. Who is to say that she was in hysterics in privacy of her room, maybe she put on a good face for the public or maybe the doctor gave her something that might have made people think she was alittle odd because she was unemotional. I mean, I have worked in the medical field before and some of the sedetives the doctors give patients can anybody be out in la la land, like their just out there.
Dont think she examined the dress, just think she got rid of it.

[Yooper]

The exchange about being able to answer questions immediately took place in her room.

[shakiboo]

Her behavior during the time of the murder was odd, to those who didn't know her. But didn't several friends or people who did know her, say she was acting just as they thought she would?

[Yooper]

Yes, those who knew her well seemed to concur about Lizzie's apparent lack of emotion. They said it was entirely within character for her to behave in that manner, it didn't seem to surprise any of them. What does this imply? She either lacked emotion to a great degree, or she was able to keep her emotions in check extremely well. This would make it all the easier to see her as having murdered her parents, especially her father, she wouldn't let emotions get in her way or even slow her down.

[shakiboo]

That is a good point. But we all know people who handle themselves like Lizzie did. The one's that don't come all undone and can stay cool and uninvolved emotionally. we also know that doesn't make them cold and unfeeling, because they aren't. They just don't show it. Had Lizzie been a man, no one would have questioned her behavior, because men are supposed to be that way, it doesn't mean that they are cold and unfeeling, it just means they handle their emotions differently. For the most part they've been taught to handle them differently. What if Lizzie had been taught to handle her's like that?

[Yooper]

If the friends say she just wasn't the emotional type, and if others who didn't know her said she was surprisingly unemotional, it only supports the observation by those who didn't know her well. It was a correct and accurate observation, nothing more. Lizzie was not considered guilty of the murders solely because she was unemotional. It was simply enough to give people pause and allow them to consider the possibility in spite of Victorian mentality, which is exactly what they did.

Yes, I agree with the argument that men are generally taught to hide emotions, even today. Remember what Judge Blaisdell said at the end of the inquest, showing a bit of emotion himself by the way, something about if Lizzie was a man, he would have no reason to hesitate in finding her probably guilty. It was clear enough to him at that time, and the only thing giving him pause was gender.

[SallyG]

In Victorian times it was quite fashionable to swoon at the slightest provocation...finding your parents murdered necessitated, by the standards of the day, not only swooning, but hysterics prior to the swoon! Lizzie did neither. She was cool, calm, collected, and ready to get the whole unpleasant mess cleaned up and get on with her life!

Compare Lizzie's behavior to the previous night...she was very nervous and talkative. It seems like she was in the throes of a nervous reaction because she knew what was coming the next day. Tomorrow was the day...if all went right...and she was nervous with anticipation.

Forward to the next day. Lizzie was very cool and calm. The deed had been done, the anticipation was over. It's almost like she had come down off her "high". It was done! There was no need for swooning, no need for hysterics. It was over. It's not surprising that she reacted the way she did.

We all know the feeling of nervousness and anticipation we get when something unpleasant or unsettling is scheduled to happen, or that we have to do. And the feeling we have when it's over. The relief. The calm feeling of "it's over!" That was Lizzie's reaction.

To me, even more proof of her guilt. Not the fact that she was unemotional...but comparing her behavior to the night before. THAT is what is so indicative of her guilt. Her anxiousness to have Abby found as well. She wanted to get the show on the road and get it all behind her..and get her money!

[Yooper]

Good point! Lizzie was nervous enough to tap dance on her visit to Alice Russell. All sorts of things were brought up that Alice had never heard before, she seemed a bit stymied by the visit. I think her need to hurry up and get it over with led to the one event which most strongly incriminates her, sending people to find Abby upstairs and saying she thought she heard Abby come in. Her behavior the day of the murders is entirely consistent with someone having completed an unpleasant task, but perhaps not to the exclusion of other possibilities.