Random Thoughts about Lizzie’s Dress

[dalcanton]

Please forgive my rambling, but assuming Lizzie was guilty, I was thinking about the dress that she burned.

Perhaps it was stained with paint AND blood. There are 2 ways the dress could’ve become stained w/both:

1) it was already stained w/paint & knowing this, Lizzie wore it while committing the murder(s), hoping to pass all the stains off as paint in case the police found it
2) she committed the murder(s) & THEN splashed some paint on it, adhering to the same reasoning above

Or, perhaps there was no blood on the dress itself – only paint. Perhaps she placed the real bloody garment inside the dress & planned to burn the whole thing inconspicuously, using the paint-stained dress as a “cover”

Or, if the dress had blood on in, what really bugs me is where did she hide the dang thing so the police couldn’t find it? Did the police ever search for loose floorboards or wall panels? Just how “thorough” was their search?

Finally, if Alice would’ve never succumbed to her guilty conscience about the dress burning incident, we would’ve never known about it. And that would’ve been a piece of Lizzie lore that would’ve never come to light. So, I’m grateful Alice finally spoke up about it. At least it gives us something else to rack our brains with!

[PossumPie]

I've thought that if the dress was incriminating, why didn't Lizzie burn it when alone? She picked a time when others were there, so I think that there was no blood on that dress. Secondly, I believe that the paint was white...didn't she brush up against a freshly painted surface in the house? While I lean towards Lizzie's guilt, I tend to think the dress burning was just a lack of thinking of consequences on Lizzie's part.

[NancyDrew]

dalcanton,

In searching the house, the police were looking for a summer-weight dress, stained with blood. When they searched the upstairs dress closet, there were a number of heavy silk dresses hanging in the back. The police didn't investigate them, take them off the hangers, etc. She could have easily put a blood stained dress UNDERNEATH one of these.

[Allen]

The fact that she did it in front of witnesses doesn't bother me. Lizzie had no choice but to burn the dress in front of witnesses if she was going to burn it. There really was no opportunity after the murders to destroy it without others being in the house. And being caught burning something in the middle of the night would look far more suspicious than doing it during the day. John Morse was there, Alice Russell, the police coming and going. And the paint was not a white paint. It was a drab color. Which there are many shades of what they considered drab. Drab gray, drab brown, drab green, etc. Drab brown would be what I would estimate it was painted based on what colors the painter said he mixed to get it. The painter was painting the outside of the house, not the inside.

[Allen]

Trial testimony of John Fleet page 493 -494:

Q. You examined the drawers, and those in Emma's room also?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And searched the bed?
A. I said before not very closely.

Q. And Lizzie's bed?
A. Yes, sir: around it.

Q. Didn't you search the other places there were available there?
A. That is what I said. We searched the room and searched the drawers and around the bed, but not very closely.

Q. Were you asked about that time to go to the clothes closet?
A. Yes.

Q. Who let you in there?
A. Lizzie Borden.

Q. She went and unlocked the door?
A. She did.


Page 495:

Q. And you didn't look carefully enough then, when you were there to find out if they were dresses turned wrong side out or whether there was a cloth hung over them the first time?
A. I didn't look very carefully; no, sir.


Page 496:

Q. Did you look those dresses over thoroughly at the time?
A. No, sir.

Q. You did not?
A. No, sir.

Q. What did you do, what kind of search did you make in there?
A. We just looked in behind the dresses. At the time we wasn't looking very closely, that is, for any dresses, especially in the manner these dresses were hanging up there.

Q. That was on Thursday?
A. That was on Thursday.

page 497-498:

Q. Now did you say whether you did make any sort of search there in the clothes room?
A. I did.

Q. How many dresses were there?
A. I thought about a dozen or more.

Q. You didn't see any paint on them?
A. No, sir.

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) This was Saturday?
A. No, this was Thursday.

Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) This was Thursday?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you have seen any paint the way you looked?
A. I don't think I should.

Q. Would you have seen any blood the way you looked?
A. Not without it was on the outside, right before my eyes. I didn't look at them close enough to notice.

Q. Not withstanding you took each dress and looked at it?
A. I did, I took the dresses, moved them one side, that is about all, and went around the clothes press that way. It didn't take us two minutes in there.

Q. You were not expecting to find any man in those women's dresses?
A. There was a possibility of a man being in that room.

Q. Really, were you looking for him there?
A. We were looking for a man, or any other instrument or clothing that might have been there.

Q. Were you looking for a man in that clothing?
A. If he was there, yes, we was.

Q. You really thought you were looking for him?
A. Yes.

Q. You really thought you would find him?
A. We were looking there so there would be no excuse for anybody being in that room.

Q. The key was turned and it was locked when you went in there?
A. Yes.

[Allen]

There is also testimony that the dresses were covered with a cloth of some type.

Trial testimony page 744 - 745:

Q. Now, Mr. Seaver, on the Saturday you made some search with reference to dresses did you not?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or examination of dresses I ought to put it?
A. Yes, sir; in one clothes press.

Q. You were with Mr. Desmond at that time, or with the party?
A. I was with Capt. Desmond up in the garret in the first place, part of the time; in fact, most of the time we were up there.

Q. Where were the dresses that you examine, for that is all I care to call attention to?
A. They were in a large closet over the front hall.

Q. Won't you describe the character of your examination of those dresses on the Saturday?
A. I first went into the closet and the closet blinds were shut, that is, the outside blinds. I opened the blinds -- there were clothes around the window --- hoisted the window and took the cloth down and opened the blinds, and then I went to the hooks. Capt. Fleet was there with me. He had gone in two or three minutes before me.

Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) A little louder please?
A. Capt. Fleet was there with me, and I commenced on the hooks and took each dress with the exception of two or three in the corner, and passed them to Capt. Fleet, he being near the window, and he examined them as well as myself, he more thoroughly than myself, and I took each garment then and hung it back as I found them; all with the exception of two or three which were heavy or silk dresses, in the corner. I didn't pass those down. I just looked at them and let them remain as they were.

Q. (by Mr. Moody.) Those were silk dresses?
A. Those were silk dresses, I am very sure, heavy dresses, and they hung there and I didn't disturb them at all.

Q. Did you discover anything upon any of those dresses?
A. I did not.

[Allen]

The way the house is built you would not be able see into the Kitchen windows when standing outside on the ground. They sit up too high. The cupboard, or closet door, beside the stove was also opened blocking the window behind her when Lizzie did this. The doors were all locked so no one could get inside without knocking and alerting the people inside to their presence.

Trial testimony Alice Russell page 391 - 392:

Q. What did you see then?
A. Miss Lizzie stood up towards the cupboard door, --the cupboard door was open, and she appeared to either be ripping something down or tearing apart his garment.

Q. What part?
A. I don't know for sure; it was a small part.

Q. A smaller part? Go on and state.
A. I said to her, "I wouldn't let anyone see me do that, Lizzie." She didn't make any answer. I left the room.

Q. Did she do anything when you said that?
A. She stepped just one step farther back up towards the cupboard door.

Q. Did you notice where the waist of this dress was when she held the skirt in her hands when you first came in?
A. I didn't know that it was the waist, but I saw a portion of this dress up on the cupboard shelf.

Q. Inside the cupboard?
A. Yes, sir. The door was open.

[Allen]

And we have police officers who didn't check the obviously locked dress closet very well except to make sure there was no one hiding in there. When they could not get in there because it was kept locked and Lizzie had the key. Even the person asking the questions at trial couldn't seem to get past that. And they did not check heavy silk dresses because they were winter dresses and they figured no woman would wear or use them for anything during the hot summer months. And they did not check clothing hanging in any other closets of the house. Except for Bridget's room. Who didn't search Lizzie's room to thoroughly the day of the murders because she wasn't a true suspect, and because she said she didn't feel well and wanted them to hurry in their search. But these same officers are going to poke around with a stick in a bucket of bloody menstrual rags, or look into her slop pail?

[dalcanton]

"And we have police officers who didn't check the obviously locked dress closet very well except to make sure there was no one hiding in there. When they could not get in there because it was kept locked and Lizzie had the key. Even the person asking the questions at trial couldn't seem to get past that. And they did not check heavy silk dresses because they were winter dresses and they figured no woman would wear or use them for anything during the hot summer months. And they did not check clothing hanging in any other closets of the house. Except for Bridget's room. Who didn't search Lizzie's room to thoroughly the day of the murders because she wasn't a true suspect, and because she said she didn't feel well and wanted them to hurry in their search. But these same officers are going to poke around with a stick in a bucket of bloody menstrual rags, or look into her slop pail?"

Allen - your comment mirrors my line of thinking as well. I'm still astounded that the police did not do an extensive inspection of ALL the dresses, whether they were "summer" dresses or made from 100 pounds of wool! I would've also checked Abby's dresses AND Andrew's jackets & shirts. If Lizzie were the culprit, why couldn't she have slipped on her father's clothes to do the deed?

From what I've read, it seems as if the police only did a cursory search of Lizzie's room. They didn't check the bed very closely? Heck, I would've torn that bed apart! LOL

[PossumPie]

Allen, Thanks for the exhaustive testimony...This reinforces my view in another thread about the search Thursday NOT being complete...Heck, they didn't even look at all of Lizzie's dresses!!! and they seemed to "walk around the bed" I said earlier if someone pulled the fabric back from under the bed, and hid a hatchet there inside the box springs, it WOULDN'T have been found. They were looking for a sinister man to jump out and try to run...not a hatchet or blood drops!

[Catbooks]

When they could not get in there because it was kept locked and Lizzie had the key.

i've been reading old threads and came across two diagrams of the borden house, with a legend explaining some markings on the diagram. one of them was for doors in the borden household that were habitually kept locked.

downstairs, just the front and side doors, which makes sense. but upstairs it stood out to me that lizzie and emma's dress closet was normally kept locked. why would they have kept it locked? back then women often changed their clothing throughout a day more than we do now, and it was a shared closet, so it would have been inconvenient. plus, seems so senseless to lock up your clothes!

does anyone here know? maybe it's been discussed and a reason found for it.

thanks to this thread i'm becoming convinced that the house really wasn't very well searched on thursday, which gave lizzie some time to figure out what to do with the dress and the hatchet. but i can't figure out what she did with them.

maybe it was the dress she burned. it was dark-colored so blood wouldn't so easily show on it, and she could have hidden it under one of the dresses in the back that they didn't examine, or they could have given it a cursory look-over and just not noticed. it would make sense she'd wear a dress she didn't care about, and this one was already ruined by the paint. she did take some pains to hide it from alice, as she kept it in the closet while she tore it up, so alice couldn't have gotten a close enough look at it to see blood stains.

i have a problem with the hatchet though. she had to have either gotten it out of the house by the time the house was thoroughly searched several days later. but how? she was being so closely watched and i can't believe emma helped her get rid of it, or anyone else who was there. or, found a hiding place so good that no one found it, and removed it some time after she was acquitted.

hiding just the head of the hatchet would have been far easier, but then how did she have time to saw through or somehow break off the hardwood handle after the fact? and then dispose of the handle, how? it wouldn't burn quickly or easily, especially not with the stove burning so low. there was the furnace in the cellar, i suppose, but was it kept burning? it was august, a warm day.

[Curryong]

As you know, Catbooks, my theory as far as Lizzie's dress goes is that Lizzie used Andrew's coat as a cover-all and therefore wouldn't need to burn or dispose of anything, just employ a very quick wipe-down with cold water.
As far as the hatchet is concerned, (and it needn't have been a large hatchet,) what if ice-cream seller Hyman Lubinsky really did see Lizzie coming back from the barn just before she called Bridget, not after looking for whatever inside the barn but slipping behind it onto adjoining property, to throw a hatchet up on the gutters of a neighbours well-house, or disposing of it down a neighbour's well or fire-pit? This would have the advantage too of a madman disposing of his weapon in his flight if it was ever found.

[Catbooks]

curryong, i'm assuming the hatchet had to be about the same size as the headless one found in the cellar, since the blade fit so well into the gashes in the skulls. i really don't know what the total length of such a hatchet would be, but am guessing in the neighborhood of 13-15 inches.

if there is a well house or other similar structure in the neighbors' back yards, she could have thrown it up there to hide it. but if she missed and it simply fell into a yard, that would have been bad news for her; someone would surely have heard it. i can't see her scaling the back fence in one of those long skirts to get to a neighbor's well or fire pit. also, weren't there workmen in the back neighbor's yard who would have seen her?

i truly don't know what to make of hyman's testimony. you'd think he'd have known that day if it were 10:30 or 11:00 when he was passing by. it bothers me that he later changed it to 11:00, at or close to the time of the murders. no matter what time, though, you have to wonder who he saw. was it bridget and he was simply mistaken that it wasn't? dunno.

i do tend to think lizzie used the coat to cover herself, but it seems likely some of the blood would have gotten on the skirt of her dress, from either andrew or abby, or both.

blood isn't so easy to remove from fabric. it absorbs into the fibers and takes more than a quick wipe-down. fresh blood does remove more easily than dried, but even still it takes some scrubbing with cold water, and preferably soap too. so my theory is she'd still need to dispose of the dress to make certain the police wouldn't find any trace of blood.

[Catbooks]

hey, currong, looky what i found here!

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive70 ... atchet.htm

looks like your theory of lizzie going to the back yard and throwing the hatchet on top of a neighbor's structure just might be right :)

[Curryong]

How much blood splatter would there be in a downwards direction towards her feet if (a) the couch arm deflected most of it and (b) her father's coat most of the rest? The dress was dark and patterned, she might very well have risked just wiping the hem.
After all, the police of those days wouldn't have asked her to immediately change and hand over all her garments, and her friends were obviously too busy fussing over her to examine her dress. She did change into her pink wrapper later, of course, and I think she then hid the blue patterned dress somewhere, possibly, as has been speculated on many times on this forum, under her winter dresses hanging in her closet.
I still think she may well have disposed of the weapon somewhere outside rather than inside the house, perhaps later, after all the outdoor searches had been completed. Perhaps she played a game of cat and mouse with the weapon, constantly moving it and changing it's hiding place whenever she could, perhaps it remained well hidden in one of her closets, who can tell!
I remember reading posts speculating that she may have hidden the axe head in the 'rags' bucket, but I tend to discount this as I don't think she would have had time to split axe head from handle directly after the murder, whatever she was able to do later.

[Curryong]

Wrote post above before reading your last posting. Wow! So Lizzy could have qualified as a champion discus thrower! What a very interesting find! If Miss Lizzie bought herself a nice decorative hatchet at some time then we are back to considering gold gilt. I am happier with that than I am with a piece bought for genuine wood-chopping. As I've said before, the Victorians loved decoration on everything.

[Catbooks]

that's the thing, we don't know how much blood splatter there would have been. true, the couch arm would have deflected most of it traveling directly back, and she was mostly covered with her father's coat. but that dress had 8-10 yard of fabric in it. i just read that in emma's trial testimony, so quite a volume of it would have been peeking out the bottom.

for abby, there was no couch or anything blocking any splatter of blood.

if i just murdered my step-mother and father, and didn't want to be caught and hung, i'd do my very best to be *sure* all evidence that pointed to me was destroyed.

heh! she may not have had to have been a female victorian champion discus thrower. from what i'm reading, the part of the crowe barn at the back of the property was only 9 feet high. there's the wood pile she could have stood on, partially hidden by the pear tree foliage, and heaved it up.

i'm frustrated by not being able to find a clear photo or drawing of the barn and that part of the borden's back yard. i want to know how far away from the borden's back fence the barn is. looks like not far, but dammit, i want to see!

[Curryong]

Maybe we are back again to that mysterious supposedly paint-stained Bedford blue cord that ended up in the stove. Perhaps she wore that when killing Abby, hid it successfully from the police and then, as we know, disposed of it later. It's odd that she again bought blue Bedford cord cotton (must have been extremely fond of that particular colour and material) when she went off shopping at New Bedford and then wouldn't produce it when the police asked.
She said it was in a trunk in the attic when she gave evidence at the Inquest. Who puts new dress materials that you intend to sew into an outfit into a trunk in the attic, I ask you, honestly! I think it is significant and as Mara pointed out in one of her posts, that purchase is often overlooked.
However, even if we think that she sewed a quick duplicate to wear later for Andrew, we still have the difficulty of blood spatter to be cleared up on that. You and I disagree on just how much there would have been and I concede that if you are correct and I am wrong about that amount, even if she wore the coat, then that dress couldn't have been worn when she was being fussed over by her friends and the first police arrived.
With everything else she had to do, including disposing of the weapon, she wouldn't have had time to change. Hmm, difficulties all round. Tying her dress, petticoats up high under the coat? That would have been extremely awkward and would have left blood-spattered stockings, an apron perhaps, going down to the floor, but that would have been another thing to have to hide. I'm stumped for the moment and will have to think.

[PossumPie]

WOW...this is what I mean about tracing back evidence to ORIGINAL sources...First those in that thread that Catbrooks linked to were speculating on the wrong building. I went back to the ORIGINAL article, and posted a JPEG of it. It is not the large building with the sloped roof, but the smaller one with a flat roof. They argued back in that other thread about balls falling off sloped roofs etc. without going back to the original document. That is what drives me crazy about these threads where people cite people who found a thread that cites an older thread.....Yikes. We need original documentation. Every one of these rumours and "facts" had their start in an original newspaper article or quote. I know I am lazy sometimes and don't cite the original source. But I should.
Secondly I posted twice a picture of a Crime scene technician in an all white jump suit who just smashed heck out of a forensic head full of blood. It shows the minimal blood spatter. It ISN'T as much as what people keep believing it would be.
Thirdly, I posted awhile back that There was about 5 min. time frame....I'll do the math for you. You can walk at a leisurely pace 704 feet in 2 min. this is 235 Yards, longer than 2 American football fields. Lizzie could have walked the length of a Football field, hidden an object, walked back, and had 2 min. extra time. Not a problem.
I'm sorry if this sounds testy...I've just come in from yet another round of shoveling ice and snow...I'm ready for spring!!

[Curryong]

I think they settled later in the thread that it was a flat roof construction, didn't they, Possum, just arguments going back and forth with some getting hold of the wrong end of the stick and being corrected by sources pointed out by other members, just as we do here now sometimes? I agree, original sources are the best.
Certainly I (and I'm sure Casebooks) am in no doubt that it was a flat-roofed construction that we were talking about. (Of course, this presents its own problem. Anyone glancing out of upper-storey windows in the Borden property would surely have been able to see anything on that flat roof, glinting away in the sun.)
You get no argument from me about there being little or no splashing on Lizzie's skirts, but then I am a full-blown supporter of the 'Lizzie wore Andrew's coat backwards' theory, as you know. I just have to convince others such as Casebooks of that undeniable fact!
I sympathise with you all in the U.S., as one who is enjoying/ enduring heat waves at the moment. Haven't seen snow or ice, except at a ski resort for decades, and agree such conditions have gone on for you too long.

[Curryong]

Just to make it clear that, although I am an 'Andrew's coat' supporter for the second murder, I am more inclined towards Lizzie maybe wearing the old be-spattered paint Bedford cord dress for Abby's murder, for which, as far as we know, she didn't wear any covering garment, and where there just MIGHT have been some blood smears on skirt and hem she couldn't get off. Not many but some, and she may have tucked the Bedford cord away somewhere to be burned later and decided to put on a similar blue number she had quickly sewn, for Andrew's demise. Needn't have been a full dress, just a skirt, worn with the blouse top of the original outfit she had had tons of time to clean up while waiting for her father.
I just feel, along with Mara, that the significance of Lizzie's purchase of similar cotton material to her original dress does have its place in the Borden case and cannot be overlooked. It's the just the amount of blood splatter on clothing after Andrew's death where Casebooks and I differ, that's all!

[Curryong]

Sorry Catbooks, I was thinking about the Borden case and quoted your name as Casebooks in the last post. So sorry!

[Catbooks]

possum!! where did you find it stated definitively that it was the small flat-roofed building the hatchet was found on?

the copy of the article you posted is very similar to the one i downloaded, and was transcribed by harry (i believe it was) on that thread. it's *very* confusing. the author of the article says the hatchet was found on the main building/barn, near the northwest corner. but it also states the main barn has a flat roof, and clearly it does not. only the small building closest to the borden's has a flat roof.

still no luck finding an actual photo of the buildings. best i could find is this scale model, but you can see the main barn has a considerably pitched roof, the next closest a moderately pitched roof, and the small one is the only one with a flat roof.

sorry about all the snow! luckily for me, none here. good thing, as i'm nursing a bruised rib and i'd just have to wait until the snow melted to get out of the house.

[Catbooks]

curryong, yes, back to the old bedford cord again, although it is strange she'd have put the cheap new fabric in a trunk in the attic. not to mention be so insistent on not giving it up to the prosecution.

i'm just not sure how much blood splatter there would be. possum, i saw the photo of the experiment you posted, but there weren't any details, as i recall, on how they conducted it for me to be able to apply it much to the borden murders. such as, where was the hatchet wielder standing in relationship to the head?

i'm with you on lizzie wearing the bedford cord (i think that's the most likely dress anyway) when killing abby. the coat was worn only while killing andrew. probably she'd cleaned herself and dress up well enough after abby in the hour and a half between murders, and knew she wouldn't have much time after andrew. he even came home 15 minutes early, so she had 15 more minutes than she thought she would.

i don't have a problem with the hatchet not being noticed on the roof, btw. the pear tree foliage would have covered it for a long time. by the time it the leaves were falling and finally gone, it's unlikely anyone would have noticed or paid any attention if they did.

ha, casebooks would have been a better name to use here :). wish i'd thought of it.

[Catbooks]

possum, i just came across your mentioning the experiment and see it was a baseball bat that was used. my bad. in any event, my point was i have some trouble trying to translate the experiment to the bordens very well, although it is interesting. certainly no blood bath involved, anyway.

i still struggle with this bedford cord dress, which seems the most likely one.

how is it that a dress that's only 4 months old came to be so terribly soiled and faded, according to emma's trial testimony, that the only sensible thing to do with it was to destroy it?

it was made of cheap fabric, and intended to be worn around the house. okay. but lizzie did very little housework, just cleaning up her own room as it needed, some light ironing and mending, and as far as i can tell, that's all. she did no cooking, mopping of floors, no cleaning of windows, nothing that would cause a dress to become so soiled and faded within only 4 months that it could only be torn up and burned.

the hem could have gotten dirty from trailing about on the floors and outside in the yard, but that's it.

i accept that it got stained with paint within a week or so after it was made for her. that would be annoying, but it was to be a house dress anyway, so not that big a deal. i believe there was testimony that proved that really did happen - from either the seamstress or the painter. someone.

emma describes it as a light blue fabric with a 'darker' blue print about an inch long and 3/4s of an inch wide. don't know how close together the print was and how much light blue showed, or how dark the dark blue print was. enough contrast anyway that it might be difficult to see a relatively small amount of blood splattered on it.

plus, it already had 'drab' colored paint stains on it. emma says the paint stains were 'along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt.' if anyone outside of the family noticed (alice, mrs. churchill, police), she could just say it was paint.

it was made of 8-10 yards of fabric, so it must have had a pretty full skirt. the bodice or waist, as they called them, wouldn't take much yardage - 2 at most.

saturday evening around 9:00, two days after her father and step-mother are murdered and the day of their funeral, emma sees the dress in the closet and says to lizzie 'you have not destroyed that old dress yet; why don't you?' (?? that would be about the last thing on my mind, if i were emma.) then the next day lizzie burns it in the stove.

emma testifies the dress was not only so terribly soiled, but also 'so badly faded. and, mysteriously, 'it was a shade that in washing that would be ruined - the effect of it.' so if washing would somehow ruin this cotton dress, how did the whole dress get so badly faded, within just four months? not from being washed; emma just said so.

… ack, i've had this tab open since yesterday. forgot to hit the submit button.

[PossumPie]

Just to make it clear that, although I am an 'Andrew's coat' supporter for the second murder, I am more inclined towards Lizzie maybe wearing the old be-spattered paint Bedford cord dress for Abby's murder, for which, as far as we know, she didn't wear any covering garment, and where there just MIGHT have been some blood smears on skirt and hem she couldn't get off. Not many but some, and she may have tucked the Bedford cord away somewhere to be burned later and decided to put on a similar blue number she had quickly sewn, for Andrew's demise. Needn't have been a full dress, just a skirt, worn with the blouse top of the original outfit she had had tons of time to clean up while waiting for her father.
I just feel, along with Mara, that the significance of Lizzie's purchase of similar cotton material to her original dress does have its place in the Borden case and cannot be overlooked. It's the just the amount of blood splatter on clothing after Andrew's death where Casebooks and I differ, that's all!

I think my frustration this morning is more from having such a hard time battling some misconceptions. The 5 minute debate, according to some, Lizzie couldn't do anything in 5 min. She couldn't even have gotten to the barn. I gave scientific numbers as to just how far you could walk and return in 2 min. (more than 2 American Football field-lengths) In a previous thread, I put the timer on the microwave on, and went upstairs, showered, dried off, and put on new clothes, and was back down before it beeped. I have been battling the "B" horror film "buckets of blood" belief also, with some folks admitting the only real reason they believe Lizzie's innocence was b/c she wasn't drenched in blood. I have debated people who believe that the police searched every inch of that house and that it would be impossible to hide a hatchet there. I'm not 100% convinced of Lizzie's guilt, but I lean that way--I just want facts and theories to be supported by some realistic scientific evidence.

[FactFinder]

possum, i just came across your mentioning the experiment and see it was a baseball bat that was used. my bad. in any event, my point was i have some trouble trying to translate the experiment to the bordens very well, although it is interesting. certainly no blood bath involved, anyway.

i still struggle with this bedford cord dress, which seems the most likely one.

how is it that a dress that's only 4 months old came to be so terribly soiled and faded, according to emma's trial testimony, that the only sensible thing to do with it was to destroy it?

it was made of cheap fabric, and intended to be worn around the house. okay. but lizzie did very little housework, just cleaning up her own room as it needed, some light ironing and mending, and as far as i can tell, that's all. she did no cooking, mopping of floors, no cleaning of windows, nothing that would cause a dress to become so soiled and faded within only 4 months that it could only be torn up and burned.

the hem could have gotten dirty from trailing about on the floors and outside in the yard, but that's it.

i accept that it got stained with paint within a week or so after it was made for her. that would be annoying, but it was to be a house dress anyway, so not that big a deal. i believe there was testimony that proved that really did happen - from either the seamstress or the painter. someone.

emma describes it as a light blue fabric with a 'darker' blue print about an inch long and 3/4s of an inch wide. don't know how close together the print was and how much light blue showed, or how dark the dark blue print was. enough contrast anyway that it might be difficult to see a relatively small amount of blood splattered on it.

plus, it already had 'drab' colored paint stains on it. emma says the paint stains were 'along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt.' if anyone outside of the family noticed (alice, mrs. churchill, police), she could just say it was paint.

it was made of 8-10 yards of fabric, so it must have had a pretty full skirt. the bodice or waist, as they called them, wouldn't take much yardage - 2 at most.

saturday evening around 9:00, two days after her father and step-mother are murdered and the day of their funeral, emma sees the dress in the closet and says to lizzie 'you have not destroyed that old dress yet; why don't you?' (?? that would be about the last thing on my mind, if i were emma.) then the next day lizzie burns it in the stove.

emma testifies the dress was not only so terribly soiled, but also 'so badly faded. and, mysteriously, 'it was a shade that in washing that would be ruined - the effect of it.' so if washing would somehow ruin this cotton dress, how did the whole dress get so badly faded, within just four months? not from being washed; emma just said so.

… ack, i've had this tab open since yesterday. forgot to hit the submit button.

Lizzie only had two dresses and two wrappers that she wore every day. Day in and day out. Four months of having only two dresses to wear, no matter how little work you did around the house, in all probability would make the dress pretty soiled in my opinion. Sweating in the summer time (sweat stains), trailing along floors every day. Periods. I'd wager it could very well become stained in only four months time. I don't think the dress was originally meant to be worn just around the house. That is what the house wrappers (such as the pink wrapper Lizzie changed into) were for. It was not originally intended to be a house dress. It was relegated to such when it became stained with the paint. Also the soaps used to clean the clothing back then were much different, plus the fact that they were more or less boiled in hot water upon each washing. Laundry was only done once a week in the nineteenth century. So she would have worn the dresses all week before they were even cleaned.

[twinsrwe]

… saturday evening around 9:00, two days after her father and step-mother are murdered and the day of their funeral, emma sees the dress in the closet and says to lizzie 'you have not destroyed that old dress yet; why don't you?' (?? that would be about the last thing on my mind, if i were emma.) then the next day lizzie burns it in the stove.

emma testifies the dress was not only so terribly soiled, but also 'so badly faded. and, mysteriously, 'it was a shade that in washing that would be ruined - the effect of it.' so if washing would somehow ruin this cotton dress, how did the whole dress get so badly faded, within just four months? not from being washed; emma just said so. …

Back in Lizzie’s day, a dress that was not ‘presentable enough’ to wear, would have been torn up and used for cleaning rags or cut up for making patchwork quilts, etc. It is my understanding that the dress Lizzie burned was supposedly a new dress, which had been ruined when she brushed against fresh paint 4 months prior to when she burned it. That would have left a great deal of material without any paint whatsoever on it. So, not only was Lizzie being extremely wasteful by burning it, her actions were totally against what she would have been taught during her upbringing years. As far as that goes, she could have tore the dress up and given the rags to Maggie to use when washing those dang windows!!!

WHY she felt that dress just HAD to be burned 3 days after the murders, since she had the previous 4 months in which to burn it, is beyond me.


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 from the bloody rags, so therefore, the spot on her dress was the result of "having fleas". But get this...

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]

Can't speak for Catbooks, PossumPie, just for myself. Catbooks is more than capable of speaking for herself. For me I have no problem in repudiating any suggestion that Lizzie would be covered in blood and gore from head to toe, (if she was the muderer, of course.) This is even less likely if, as I believe, Lizzie attacked her father from around the dining room door dressed in Andrew's coat. She would have been shielded from most, if not all blood spatter by the said door, by the coat, by the side of the couch, and last but certainly not least, by the fact that, after the first couple of blows, Andrew's blood would have ceased spurting as he would have been dead.
That shouldn't stop members of the forum speculating with different scenarios, I'm sure you will agree. Where I perhaps disagree with you is that, while Lizzie was virtually spatter-free, (according to my theory) after Andrew's murder, this MAY not have been the case after Abby was hatcheted to death.
Which is where my theory that Lizzie may have worn two distinct but similar dresses that day comes from. Maybe it's because I'm female (being sexist here) but I do believe that Lizzie purchased a similar blue cord cotton for a purpose, perhaps to replace the old one, and utilised it later after the paint-spattered blue Bedford cord MIGHT have got smears on it from Abby's murder that she couldn't get off.
Obviously, I can't prove it, scientifically, or any other way, as the paint-spattered dress ended up in the household stove, and ostensibly the similar material Lizzie purchased in New Bedford was handed over to the police, in original condition. That doesn't mean that my theory has no merit.
So much about this baffling and sometimes irritating case HAS to be speculative not scientific as we don't have the clothing Lizzie wore on that day or any extant murder weapon, or any other physical evidence really. You won't get any argument from me that after Andrew's murder Lizzie, if it was her, had ample time to clean herself, dispose of the weapon, (I believe outside), and do whatever else she had to do. And in this, as we all know, she was brilliantly successful, as she was acquitted.

[twinsrwe]

… I have been battling the "B" horror film "buckets of blood" belief also, with some folks admitting the only real reason they believe Lizzie's innocence was b/c she wasn't drenched in blood. I have debated people who believe that the police searched every inch of that house and that it would be impossible to hide a hatchet there. I'm not 100% convinced of Lizzie's guilt, but I lean that way--I just want facts and theories to be supported by some realistic scientific evidence.

Possum, since you are an R.N., I have a question for you. If Abby and Andrew died with the first blow administered to them, wouldn’t their blood cease to flow out of their bodies in huge amounts? Since their heart beat would have stopped, the blood would only flow out into a pool wherever their heads would have rested, wouldn’t it?

[twinsrwe]

Curryong, it looks like we are thinking the same thing about the blood ceaseing to spurt after death!

[Curryong]

Yes, twinsrwe. However, as an inexperienced and possibly extremely agitated murderer, I do believe Lizzy could have got a bit more blood on herself from Abby than she did from Andrew!!

[Curryong]

Catbooks quoted Emma on the day of the funeral as urging her sister to destroy the blue Bedford cord dress. I agree with Catbooks, IF she really did say it it was a very odd remark. Almost one with a sub-text.
Although the Bedford cord had been a walking-out summer dress and was now probably stained and sweat-ridden (what a lovely combination!) that need not necessarily have prevented Lizzie from wearing it on that Thursday morning.
She was, after all, just lounging about, perhaps a bit of light dusting, ironing, in the house. She didn't want much breakfast. remember, perhaps feeling a little low? After all, the only people she would be seeing would be the maid and Abby, neither of whose opinions about her clothes she really gave two figs about!

[twinsrwe]

Yes, twinsrwe. However, as an inexperienced and possibly extremely agitated murderer, I do believe Lizzy could have got a bit more blood on herself from Abby than she did from Andrew!!

I agree. That's a good possibility.

[Catbooks]

possum, i just came across your mentioning the experiment and see it was a baseball bat that was used. my bad. in any event, my point was i have some trouble trying to translate the experiment to the bordens very well, although it is interesting. certainly no blood bath involved, anyway.

i still struggle with this bedford cord dress, which seems the most likely one.

how is it that a dress that's only 4 months old came to be so terribly soiled and faded, according to emma's trial testimony, that the only sensible thing to do with it was to destroy it?

it was made of cheap fabric, and intended to be worn around the house. okay. but lizzie did very little housework, just cleaning up her own room as it needed, some light ironing and mending, and as far as i can tell, that's all. she did no cooking, mopping of floors, no cleaning of windows, nothing that would cause a dress to become so soiled and faded within only 4 months that it could only be torn up and burned.

the hem could have gotten dirty from trailing about on the floors and outside in the yard, but that's it.

i accept that it got stained with paint within a week or so after it was made for her. that would be annoying, but it was to be a house dress anyway, so not that big a deal. i believe there was testimony that proved that really did happen - from either the seamstress or the painter. someone.

emma describes it as a light blue fabric with a 'darker' blue print about an inch long and 3/4s of an inch wide. don't know how close together the print was and how much light blue showed, or how dark the dark blue print was. enough contrast anyway that it might be difficult to see a relatively small amount of blood splattered on it.

plus, it already had 'drab' colored paint stains on it. emma says the paint stains were 'along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt.' if anyone outside of the family noticed (alice, mrs. churchill, police), she could just say it was paint.

it was made of 8-10 yards of fabric, so it must have had a pretty full skirt. the bodice or waist, as they called them, wouldn't take much yardage - 2 at most.

saturday evening around 9:00, two days after her father and step-mother are murdered and the day of their funeral, emma sees the dress in the closet and says to lizzie 'you have not destroyed that old dress yet; why don't you?' (?? that would be about the last thing on my mind, if i were emma.) then the next day lizzie burns it in the stove.

emma testifies the dress was not only so terribly soiled, but also 'so badly faded. and, mysteriously, 'it was a shade that in washing that would be ruined - the effect of it.' so if washing would somehow ruin this cotton dress, how did the whole dress get so badly faded, within just four months? not from being washed; emma just said so.

… ack, i've had this tab open since yesterday. forgot to hit the submit button.

Lizzie only had two dresses and two wrappers that she wore every day. Day in and day out. Four months of having only two dresses to wear, no matter how little work you did around the house, in all probability would make the dress pretty soiled in my opinion. Sweating in the summer time (sweat stains), trailing along floors every day. Periods. I'd wager it could very well become stained in only four months time. I don't think the dress was originally meant to be worn just around the house. That is what the house wrappers (such as the pink wrapper Lizzie changed into) were for. It was not originally intended to be a house dress. It was relegated to such when it became stained with the paint. Also the soaps used to clean the clothing back then were much different, plus the fact that they were more or less boiled in hot water upon each washing. Laundry was only done once a week in the nineteenth century. So she would have worn the dresses all week before they were even cleaned.

may i ask where you found the info about lizzie only having two everyday dresses and two wrappers? all i've found so far is emma's testimony of the dresses in the closet.

she states there were 18 or 19, and one was abby's, leaving 17 or 18 belonging to lizzie and emma.

out of those, 10 were blue. 8 were lizzie's and 2 were emma's, leaving 7 or 8 that weren't blue, belonging to lizzie and/or emma. probably more of those 7 or 8 were lizzie's than emma's, so i'm guessing at a total of lizzie dresses were around 13 or 14. we know that several in the back of the closet that weren't searched were fancier and heavier dresses.

i do think the bedford cord was intended as a house or morning dress, even before lizzie got the paint on it. the reason i think so is emma stated in her trial testimony the fabric used was very cheap, and the dress was quite plain, with only a narrow ruffle at the bottom for trim. she also stated it only took two days to make the bedford cord, so cheap fabric and quickly made. not the kind of dress lizzie would be likely to wear out of the house to be seen in!

emma's testimony:



Q. What kind of material was it as to cost? Do you know what the price of it was?

A. Very cheap.

Q. Do you know, have you any idea what it cost?
A. It was either 12-1/2 cents a yard or 15 cents.

Q. About how many yards do you think there were in it?

A. Not over eight or ten.

Q. In what way was it trimmed?
A. Trimmed with just a ruffle of the same around the bottom, a narrow ruffle.

alice russell's trial testimony:

Q. (by Mr Moody) Miss Russell, will you tell us what kind of a dress -- give us a description of the dress that she burned, that you have testified about, on Sunday morning?
A. It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord.

(and later)

Q. Was this Bedford cord of which this dress was composed, cheap or otherwise?
A. Cheap.

Q. Cheap material. Which edge was it that you saw soiled as the skirt of the dress was exposed to your view Sunday morning?
A. The bottom of it -- what touches the ground.

emma already stated this dress couldn't be washed because 'it was a shade that in washing that would be ruined - the effect of it.' so the severe fading wasn't a result of it being washed. which begs the question, how did it get so terribly faded in only 4 months' time?

you're right that laundry was only done about once a week back then, but it was essentially only whites that were boiled. a dress such as this wouldn't have been, unless there were lice or something in it. it would have been sponged/spot-cleaned, aired, and pressed on a more regular basis, and washed much less frequently.

[Catbooks]

twins, i've wondered about that as well. seems like consigning the dress to the rag bag is far more in line with the times, and especially andrew's household. and yes, why does this particular dress need to be incinerated three days after the murders? why right then?

very interesting about that blood spot on the white underskirt coming from outside in, rather than inside out, which is what you might expect if it were a matter of her period. i believe it was possum who wrote a very compelling post that a blood spot that size would have to come from spatter, not just a stray drop of blood from menses.

here's a thought about how lizzie may have prevented much blood getting on her when she killed abby. last night i was reading the rest of emma's trial testimony and she was questioned about the 'waterproofs' the family owned - raincoats.

abby and emma had what she called gossamer waterproofs. i found period ads for them, claiming how lightweight they were and could be easily folded up and put in one's pocket.

lizzie had a different kind. forget what she called that, but not a gossamer. emma claims she took hers with her on her trip, but who knows if that was ever confirmed by witnesses. they were kept in that closet, easily accessible to lizzie, and obviously easily cleaned after the fact in that hour and a half between killings.

[Catbooks]

not sure if this will work, but here's a link to an add for a gossamer waterproof in godey's magazine:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vpZMAA ... of&f=false

[Curryong]

It makes me sound absolutely ancient but as a small child I can remember dyes in clothing were sometimes not dye-fast and bright colours especially suffered from this. It may have been this that Emma was on about, if the blue in the blue Bedford cord was a particular shade of blue. Lizzie certainly liked her blue, which she may have felt suited her complexion!
However, as I've said in another thread, Andrew had recently handed over a large sum of money, and for only a small amount of cash by today's standards she could have gone ahead and thoroughly replenished her wardrobe with the help of Mrs Raymond. There was no need for her to languish like some Cinderella with only two house dresses, (if that indeed was all she had.)
It may very well be that she FELT deprived compared to some of her more fashionable contemporaries. It is not that clear that she really was. I think she had more clothes than poor old Emma, for example.

[Curryong]

Yes, Catbooks, my heart leaped when I read that particular piece of testimony too. However, unfortunately I have a feeling that the police probably felt the same way and the three waterproofs (each of the females in the family had one) would have (one hopes) have gone over especially carefully. It would have been a wonderful opportunity if there had been an extra one purchased, for that to have been used. Unfortunately there's no evidence of any others.
Incidentally, why was Abby found wearing TWO aprons? Seems a bit excessive, even if you are clearing out the guest room.

[Catbooks]

curryong, well then i guess i'm ancient as well because i too remember non-colorfast dyes :)

but that's when they're washed, and emma has already expressly said the bedford cord couldn't be washed, that's why it had to be burned. because washing it would 'ruin the effect.' so then how did it get so badly faded?

blue is one of the most colorfast dyes. reds, purples, yellows, oranges are much less so.

i suppose this is as good a time as any to mention i've been collecting, wearing, and selling vintage clothing for a very long time. only very, very rarely as old as from the late 1800s, as i almost never come across it. but i am quite familiar with how to clean vintage fabrics and how they behave. i don't know everything by any means! a fair amount, though.

yes, it's clear lizzie was very fond of blue! i do think lizzie felt deprived, and that she had some reason to feel that way, given the upper middle class financial status andrew worked so hard to attain. good point about that large sum of money she and emma had recently gotten. both of them could have easily splurged on an entire new wardrobe, if they wanted to. i doubt emma was much interested in clothes, but lizzie very much was.

even if the police had gone over the waterproofs, what would they have found to incriminate? blood would have washed off of it easily, so there wouldn't have been any need to buy an extra one.

i don't know about the two aprons! i just read that recently, that there were two aprons buried in the back yard. what the what? as far as has been said, wasn't it only the clothing the bordens were wearing that were buried? and i think a piece of bloody carpeting. one apron, sure, but two?

[Curryong]

She was indeed wearing two, which were later buried by the obliging Uncle John. That accounts for the curious roll seen around her middle in one of the crime scene photos. I suppose the blood-soaked Prince Albert was later burned.
What I want to know is what Lizzie found so interesting in the pile of Abby and Andrew's blood-soaked clothing that was reposing in a pail in the cellar after the murders. Officer Hyde was on duty and saw her make two visits to the cellar in the middle of the night after the murders. One was with a visibly nervous Alice Russell, and involved slop pails and the privy. The second visit, 15 minutes later, was by Lizzie alone. Hyde could see her in the area where the clothing was and she was bending down but he couldn't see what she was doing. What was it?

[twinsrwe]

twins, i've wondered about that as well. seems like consigning the dress to the rag bag is far more in line with the times, and especially andrew's household. and yes, why does this particular dress need to be incinerated three days after the murders? why right then? …

Yes, it makes me more than wonder. This dress had been stained with paint for 4 months prior to Lizzie burning it. WHY would she even think of burning it 3 days after her father and step-mother had been murdered? You can’t tell me that she didn’t have the time to burn it in the 4 months before these murders.

… very interesting about that blood spot on the white underskirt coming from outside in, rather than inside out, which is what you might expect if it were a matter of her period. i believe it was possum who wrote a very compelling post that a blood spot that size would have to come from spatter, not just a stray drop of blood from menses. …

I agree with Possum; a spot that size couldn't possibly have been from menstrual blood.

[twinsrwe]

... even if the police had gone over the waterproofs, what would they have found to incriminate? blood would have washed off of it easily, so there wouldn't have been any need to buy an extra one. ...

I agree, the waterproof raincoats would be easy to clean, and there wouldn’t have been any incriminating evidence left.

[Curryong]

What if a drop or two had got caught under, say, a linen or cotton edging or trim? (I'm playing devil's advocate here. Except momentarily I've never believed those waterproofs were involved) mainly because, although I obviously don't know, I think the blue Bedford cord was the garment worn for Abby's demise, perhaps later substituted by a similar skirt for Andrew.
Why weren't the waterproofs involved? My guess, Lizzie didn't think of them because something happened when she saw Abby that morning in the guest room, either something was said or a fit of murderous rage overtook Lizzie for some other reason, the hatchet was nearby but the waterproofs weren't, and it was on!

[twinsrwe]

That makes prefect sense Curryong!

I have always thought that something happened between Abby and Lizzie that morning. The number of blows Abby received indicates uncontrollable rage.

[Catbooks]

i'll have to go back and take note of the curious roll on abby. well that's plain weird. i can maybe see someone putting on two aprons if they were going to do something particularly messy, but abby had just gone up to uncle john's room to make the bed or change the linens and tidy up a bit.

wasn't it a sink in that small cellar room (laundry area or something?) where abby and andrew's clothing was that night? who knows what she was doing. cleaning the rags in her slop pail? even that would be odd, unless of course they were cloths she used to clean up with after the murders. if they were cloths for her period, you'd think she'd have left them until another time instead of going into a room where the clothes of your murdered parents were! 'well you know, these stains might set! must rinse these rags out tonight' ;)

Yes, it makes me more than wonder. This dress had been stained with paint for 4 months prior to Lizzie burning it. WHY would she even think of burning it 3 days after her father and step-mother had been murdered? You can’t tell me that she didn’t have the time to burn it in the 4 months before these murders.

twins, i can see her wearing it for just around the house for a while, even though it had paint on it. who cares, if only family and bridget will see it? but for she and emma to even be thinking about burning it then, the evening of and day following the funeral of their hacked to pieces parents, what? i simply don't buy that emma told her that saturday evening she should burn the dress. i think emma was covering for lizzie, protecting her.

she may have even felt guilty that she'd left lizzie alone with abby and andrew for the few weeks before the murders happened.

i think the bedford cord was worn during both abby and andrew's murders, but she likely put on one of the waterproofs to protect most of her for abby. then cleaned it and put it back. it was, after all, right there in the hall closet. very handy. i think she used andrew's prince albert to cover herself when she did him in.

what would a hatchet be doing upstairs to be nearby? they kept the hatchets in the cellar. i can't think of any reason for one to be upstairs, except for lizzie bringing one up, hidden in the laundry. i think at least that morning she knew she was going to kill abby and andrew, so there was some degree of premeditation.

[Curryong]

I suppose, if the murderer was Lizzie, two opposite possible scenarios are possible, aren't they? One is that Lizzie was as coolly calculating as you can get and planned most things beforehand, such as secreting a weapon, a cover-all for each murder, which could include a waterproof, and was just overcome with the old adrenalin when it actually came to murdering Abby.
The other is, that, although she had longed to dispose of Abby for some time, something occurred to precipitate those murders, something just prior connected with Uncle John's visit perhaps, and Lizzie opportunistically took advantage of everyone being out and Bridget washing windows to launch a surprise attack. Perhaps something was said, perhaps a red mist descended, we'll never know.
Personally, I think it was a mixture of both scenarios. She was certainly not thinking clearly when it came to her alibi when Andrew was killed. Her inquest testimony was a mess.

[Curryong]

Just something very quickly. I've just been reading Alice Russell's testimony about seeing Lizzie burn up her dress. She said she could see a part of the dress concerned inside the cupboard next to the chimney, on a shelf. I've had a look at the house blueprints on that thread. Is this the coal cupboard Alice is talking about here, or what?

[Catbooks]

yes, it's the cupboard just to the left of the stove, next to the window. they kept coal and, er, other similar things (i forget what, despite having just read it) there.

i don't think lizzie did it in a sudden fit of rage of the moment, nor do i think she planned and plotted for weeks. maybe not even days. everything just fell into place in her head - emma being out of town, bridget being sent outside to wash the windows, uncle john gone visiting and not due back until noon, knowing andrew usually arrived at 11:00 and was likely to want to lay down and nap when he got home.

i also think something happened to galvanize lizzie into action. maybe it was overhearing abby, andrew, and morse's conversation the night before. maybe something else, or a combination. in my opinion it was something that happened not long before the killings took place.

[Curryong]

Yes, you are probably right, although IF our famous gilded hatchets was bought/ shoplifted prior to her trip to New Bedford then she had some vague plan forming earlier. I've come round to the macintosh theory too, now I've had a chance to think more. Prince Albert's are chasing hatchets, barns and multi-aprons, and Prussic acid and Bedford cords, around and around in my mind. It's like the Excorcist. My head will spin off in a minute! What I need is a cup of tea and a good lie down!