Random Thoughts about Lizzie’s Dress

[Curryong]

Thank you for the confirmation about the cupboard too, Catbooks, a strange place to stow a piece of dress, shelf in the coal cupboard!

[Catbooks]

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!

lol! a bit like this --->

this case does do that to a person. i suppose it's why i've had a tendency to go on binges with it. eventually i get so confused with all of the internal back and forth and details, my head spins off into orbit and i have to give it up for a while!

oh right, the hatchet. true, if it was the crowe barn hatchet, a new one with the gilding still on it, she'd have had to gotten that ahead of time. seems fairly likely she'd have shoplifted it during her trip, when she went shopping and got the fabric. no receipts, no sales clerks to remember her when/if she was later suspected.

a nice cuppa and a lie down sounds good to me as well!

[FactFinder]

I can find no reference that the apron's actually belonged to Abby. It could have been that the aprons were worn by the doctors when they did their examinations, and likely whatever they cleaned up with as well. Since the list of things buried in the yard included the sheet that covered Andrew, several pieces of cotton cloth, one roll of cotton batting, three towels, and a napkin.

[Catbooks]

interesting reading the other items that were buried. no piece of carpeting? i could have sworn i read there was. so if abby wasn't wearing two aprons, i wonder what did cause that odd roll around her midriff. i looked at those photos last night, and i see what curryong means. only other cause i can think for it is abby rolled her skirt up around her waist a bit because it was too long. either too long for her in general, or for whatever activity she was doing.

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.

forgot to comment on this. i don't think lizzie (or the murderer) was protected from blood the dining room door. it would have been very awkward to try to swing the hatchet by half hiding around the door, and anyway the dining room door swung into the dining room, hinged on the side near the sofa.

i'm no nurse by a long shot, but i'll hazard a guess that if someone were killed by blows such as these to the head, it would take a little while for the heart to stop pumping. however, no arteries were involved, so there shouldn't be any spurting. just the spatter from the impacts, and then seepage.

ugh, i've just grossed myself out.

[FactFinder]

Yes, the piece of carpeting was also buried. I didn't mention it because my focus were the items that seemed to have been buried in relation to the bodies or the doctors who did the examinations.

ALBERT E. CHASE
Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in the yard back of the barn. 1 sofa pillow and tidy, one large piece of Brussels carpet, one roll of cotton batting, one sheet and several pieces of cotton cloth, three towels, one napkin, one chemise, one dress, one pair drawers, one skirt, two aprons, one hair braid and several pieces of hair from Mrs. Borden’s head from five to eight inches long, one neck tie, one truss, one piece of black silk braid or watch guard. I also found mixed in with the hair of Mrs. Borden a piece of bone, which from it nature I took to be a piece of Mrs. Borden’s skull, it was cut so smooth, that I thought it might be of use in determining what kind of instrument was used, as the bone and hair both had the appearance of being cut with a very sharp instrument; I gave this piece of bone to Dr. Dolan. About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a

[Curryong]

Surely, FactFinder, the position in the list of those aprons, coming after drawers and skirt and before Abby's hair braid, (in other words, her clothing,) gives a strong indication that the aprons were Abby's. It's true it's not stated that they were but the skirt, dress etc aren't named by Chase as hers either, though I think we can take it that they were.
If they weren't hers but the doctors, say, then surely they would have been listed among the batting and cotton cloth, etc.

[FactFinder]

I'm also going by the testimony that Abby never wore aprons to do her household chores.

[Curryong]

But she might have if she was going to do a massive amount of dusting etc in the guest room. Sorry, FactFinder, but I do think that roll around Abby's middle in the photo signifies aprons. That's my opinion and I'm going to stick to it!
I wonder whether the white object in the photo is the bloodied silk handkerchief often discussed on the forum, or perhaps the napkin that was on the list. Perhaps Abby was about to sew, repair a napkin when she was killed.

[FactFinder]

Yes, Curryong you have the right to stick to that opinion. But when I look at the photograph all I see is a dress rolled up probably because the killer stood astride Abby and pushed it up, and the body was also moved before the photo was taken. A roll on the back of the dress wouldn't signify her wearing two aprons to me because the only thing that is in the back of an apron are the ties. I don't think apron ties, even if there are two of them, are going to cause a roll of fabric in the back of the dress such as that. An apron covers the front not the back. You would also see the ties, and the edges of the apron not just a roll of fabric. It either indicates to me that the killer stood astride Abby pushing the fabric up between their feet as they struck, or that Abby was moved a bit before the photo was taken. And we know that she was moved.

[Curryong]

Yes, her clothing was dis-arranged. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, as I feel that the listing of the aprons with the clothing she was killed in is significant.

[Mara]

This may not be germane, but I thought I'd mention it, since I'm a big fan of aprons. There are many styles of aprons, only a few of which have a sash that ties int he back. For heavy women like Abby, this might not have been her first choice, since reaching around to her back, given her girth and the constricting dresses of the day, would have been awkward. She might have opted for one of the less fitted over-the-head styles. One was something like a tunic that might have ties at the side or would just be left open there. Another had crossed straps in the back whose length could be adjusted with buttons before slipping the whole thing over the head.

There does seem to have been some arrangement to the listing of objects buried in the back yard, which makes me think two aprons listed together is worth notice. But it isn't quite enough evidence to make me believe Abby would wear two aprons to tidy up an already tidy guest room. She could really have gotten away with not wearing any. Could she have been trying on a new one that she had in the works in the Guest Chamber, with the half-hearted idea of deciding how best to finish it? (The room was Abby's sewing room, after all.) She might even have used the mirror on that famous dresser to check out how it looked. She might have heard Lizzie come in and turned to ask her opinion, only to receive that initial frontal blow.

All kinds of maybes to this case, right? :)

[Catbooks]

…
ALBERT E. CHASE
Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in the yard back of the barn. 1 sofa pillow and tidy, one large piece of Brussels carpet, one roll of cotton batting, one sheet and several pieces of cotton cloth, three towels, one napkin, one chemise, one dress, one pair drawers, one skirt, two aprons, one hair braid and several pieces of hair from Mrs. Borden’s head from five to eight inches long, one neck tie, one truss, one piece of black silk braid or watch guard. I also found mixed in with the hair of Mrs. Borden a piece of bone, which from it nature I took to be a piece of Mrs. Borden’s skull, it was cut so smooth, that I thought it might be of use in determining what kind of instrument was used, as the bone and hair both had the appearance of being cut with a very sharp instrument; I gave this piece of bone to Dr. Dolan. About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a

i feel sad reading that. poor abby, her hairpiece and a piece of her skull with her hair attached to it just thrown into a hole in the back yard and buried.

why aren't andrews clothes listed there? there's his neck tie and truss, and perhaps the silk braid or watch guard (why bury that?), but where is his coat, jacket, shirt, pants, and drawers?

back to lizzie's dress for a moment, another thing that bothers me is lizzie said she was wearing a navy blue silk bengaline dress all day, until she changed into the pink and white wrapper, and that's the dress she gave knowlton, which was entered in as evidence. why would she be wearing that? silk was expensive, that wasn't a morning or housedress. she mentioned nothing about going anywhere that day, and it was a warm day. it makes no sense she'd be wearing that dress.

also, from what i could gather it was entirely navy, no print. what mrs. churchill described as lizzie wearing was a dress with a print, which matches well with the description of the bedford cord, definitely not the bengaline silk.

[Curryong]

Exactly, Catbooks, a nice CLEAN dark silk dress to hand over to the police. Bridget, too, mentioned she thought it was 'zblue with a sprig.' No-one except Mrs Bowen positively identified the navy blue dress in court. I am convinced she wore the Bedford cord (with suitable coveralls, of course) on that Thursday.

[PossumPie]

It seems the current prolific posters, including myself, are fairly confident in Lizzie's guilt. One thing we forget sometimes, is that even if an outsider killed Abby and Andrew, they also would have to deal with the blood. How did they avoid spatter? Did they have a plan to stay clean before they came to the house? How did they leave into a busy main street carrying a hatchet and possibly bloody clothes? The same questions must be asked no matter who killed.

[Catbooks]

curryong, i'd forgotten mrs. bowen identified the navy blue dress in her testimony. how convenient for lizzie! i too am convinced she actually was wearing the bedford cord.

very true, possum. regardless of who killed the bordens, the killer had to deal with some amount of blood on themselves and their clothes, the hatchet, and a killer other than lizzie had the additional problem of leaving the house, without being seen.

[FactFinder]

No matter what type of apron is worn, ties would be visible, and the edges of the apron would stand out from the dress. Not blend into her dress like it was not even there. There are no ties, and there are no edges of an apron of any type visible. We also have testimony that Abby never wore and apron. And doctors who testified that they do wear aprons when doing autopsy's and surgeries.

[twinsrwe]

…

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. …

I agree. I didn’t think Emma told Lizzie she ought to burn that dress, either. I think Emma testified that she told Lizzie to burn the dress because she HAD to do whatever it took in order for her to follow through on her promise to Sarah that she would ‘look after little Lizzie’.

Apparently, Lizzie felt this dress was just fine to wear around the house during the 4 months after she got paint on it. So, why did she all of a sudden decide it had to be burn that particular day? I think there was something on the dress that Lizzie didn’t want anyone seeing, and whatever it was, she had to get rid of it ASAP. Don’t you think it is odd that Lizzie was ripping/tearing apart this dress, while it was still in the cupboard? Why in the world was it in a cupboard to begin with?

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.

Furthermore, WHY did Lizzie risk burning a dress so close to the time of the murders when she knew she was a suspect? If it’s true that there was only paint on the dress, then she would have had nothing to worry about. By burning the dress she incriminated herself, and became even more suspicious.

[Catbooks]

…

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. …

I agree. I didn’t think Emma told Lizzie she ought to burn that dress, either. I think Emma testified that she told Lizzie to burn the dress because she HAD to do whatever it took in order for her to follow through on her promise to Sarah that she would ‘look after little Lizzie’.

Apparently, Lizzie felt this dress was just fine to wear around the house during the 4 months after she got paint on it. So, why did she all of a sudden decide it had to be burn that particular day? I think there was something on the dress that Lizzie didn’t want anyone seeing, and whatever it was, she had to get rid of it ASAP. Don’t you think it is odd that Lizzie was ripping/tearing apart this dress, while it was still in the cupboard? Why in the world was it in a cupboard to begin with?

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.

Furthermore, WHY did Lizzie risk burning a dress so close to the time of the murders when she knew she was a suspect? If it’s true that there was only paint on the dress, then she would have had nothing to worry about. By burning the dress she incriminated herself, and became even more suspicious.

i agree, emma was protecting lizzie. i don't think, though, that emma knew or admitted to herself lizzie was guilty. do you?

it's too coincidental that two witnesses described the dress she was wearing that morning as being similar to that bedford cord. then she changes into the pink and white wrapper, claiming others told her to change, yet no one who was there remembers telling her to, or overhearing anyone else do it. then she burns the bedford cord 3 days afterwards!

i'd thought it odd the dress was in the cupboard too, but then realized what this meant:

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.

lizzie was holding the skirt (bottom half) in her hands when alice came in. the small part, the waist (blouse or top half), was in the cupboard. that was where they kept coal and a few other related things (which i read just a few days ago but now can't remember!), so if she were planning on burning it, it does make sense she'd put it there.

[twinsrwe]

… i agree, emma was protecting lizzie. i don't think, though, that emma knew or admitted to herself lizzie was guilty. do you? ...

I believe that Emma knew exactly what happened, but would never admit that Lizzie was the killer because she then would have to also admit that she had a big hand in being an instigator for Lizzie’s feelings of hatred toward Abby. I also believe Emma failed to see Lizzie as a grown woman, who no longer needed anyone to look after her.

[Curryong]

Alice Russell believed in Lizzie's innocence until the dress burning incident, I believe. I think it probably shocked her. She probably thought 'What stupidity for an innocent person to be burning any of her clothing with the police around and an investigation going on!'
After that, she came to believe that Lizzie may well have been guilty, she told the investigators and became a witness for the prosecution, her evidence causing a sensation. The fact that it cost her Emma's friendship was probably a source of regret to Alice, but she felt she had to tell what she saw. Too bad, really, for the Borden sisters, that she intruded on the scene.
It's the dress-burning incident that has given me a little pause about Emma's knowledge of who killed her parents, actually. A more natural response to any idea of dresses being disposed of surely would be to say 'Let's just leave things as they are for the time being' instead of encouraging her in what would be regarded by the police, or anyone, as a rather suspicious act. She might have known in her secret heart of hearts but then pushed the knowledge away with all her being.

[Mara]

It's the dress-burning incident that has given me a little pause about Emma's knowledge of who killed her parents, actually. A more natural response to any idea of dresses being disposed of surely would be to say 'Let's just leave things as they are for the time being' instead of encouraging her in what would be regarded by the police, or anyone, as a rather suspicious act. She might have known in her secret heart of hearts but then pushed the knowledge away with all her being.

It's Emma's cool behavior in this incident that makes me uneasy about her. There was something not right about that woman and it's possible she knew it herself. I'm going to go back and read what the papers said about her at the time.

[PossumPie]

BUT...think about it this way. IF Lizzie were purposely destroying evidence, WHY the heck do it in front of a bunch of witnesses? I would have gone down in the middle of the night, threw it in the stove, closed the door, waited a few minutes, stirred around the coals and gone back upstairs. To do something blatantly suspicious in front of Mrs. Russell makes no sense. I think the dress was not the one worn.

[Curryong]

But surely PossumPie, wouldn't it be better to do it openly, daringly, in daytime, as if nothing was wrong. Whereas, if she had sneaked down in the middle of the night and been seen by anyone in the household who heard noises of someone creeping downstairs and followed Lizzie it would have looked ten times more suspicious. In my opinion she did it boldly in the daytime because by then she knew she she knew she was under suspicion and there might not be too many more opportunities, night or day. She was just unlucky that a friend who had a sense of duty witnessed her actions.

[PossumPie]

But surely PossumPie, wouldn't it be better to do it openly, daringly, in daytime, as if nothing was wrong. Whereas, if she had sneaked down in the middle of the night and been seen by anyone in the household who heard noises of someone creeping downstairs and followed Lizzie it would have looked ten times more suspicious. In my opinion she did it boldly in the daytime because by then she knew she she knew she was under suspicion and there might not be too many more opportunities, night or day. She was just unlucky that a friend who had a sense of duty witnessed her actions.

You have a point, but why not wait until it was just Emma? I just can't see the purpose of destroying a bloody dress with a gossipy neighbor there watching you.

[Curryong]

Didn't Alice Russell come into the kitchen when Lizzie was already tearing up the dress. I think Lizzie had her back to her and a portion of the dress Alice glimpsed on a shelf in the coal cupboard next to the stove?

[PossumPie]

Didn't Alice Russell come into the kitchen when Lizzie was already tearing up the dress. I think Lizzie had her back to her and a portion of the dress Alice glimpsed on a shelf in the coal cupboard next to the stove?

A. I went into the kitchen, and I saw Miss Lizzie at the other end of the stove; I saw Miss Emma at the sink. Miss Lizzie was at the stove, and she had a skirt in her hand, and her sister turned and said, "What are you going to do?" and Lizzie said, "I am going to burn this old thing up; it is covered with paint."


Alice Russell Testimony:

Q. What did you do then?

A. I am quite sure I left the room.

Q. Did you speak to either of them at that time?

A. No sir, I don't remember that I did. I don't think I did.

Q. Did you come into the room again?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What did you see then?

A. Miss Lizzie stood up towards the cupboard door; the cupboard door was open, and she appeared to be either ripping something down or tearing part of this garment.
-----------------
We are both correct. Alice was there, in and out of the kitchen. Lizzie purposely took the dress out knowing Alice was in the next room. Alice entered and Lizzie began tearing it. Either very naive or very stupid. And if innocent, why right in the middle of all this drama, did she take the time to burn a dress?

[Curryong]

Yes PossumPie, you know, I am becoming quite convinced that the Bedford cord was worn by Lizzie for one or both of the murders. I know it was faded and paint-stained and all the rest of it, but it just seems a very opportune and convenient moment to be burning a part of her wardrobe that she had worn consistently as a house-dress for several months;, and at a time when she knew that she might be arrested sooner or later.

[debbiediablo]

One of the reasons O.J. Simpson went free is because the blood appeared to have soaked through his sock...the stain was the similar on both sides which is pretty hard to do with a foot in it. Thus the blood was planted by the police. Which makes me wonder if the police looked over Andrew's coat with care. Were the bloodstains confined to where his head laid or was there splatter in areas of the jacket that were folded under.

[twinsrwe]

... Were the bloodstains confined to where his head laid or was there splatter in areas of the jacket that were folded under.

At the Preliminary, Dr. Dolan stated (p93+)

"Q. Where was the principal flow of blood, on the lounge or on the floor?
A. Through the lounge on to the floor, after going through the pillow and his coat."


Dr. Dolan's Trial testimony regarding Andrew’s coat (p854+)

Q. Now as to the position of the body when you saw it, looking at exhibit 17 (photograph), how does that correspond with your remembrance of the position of the body when you saw it?
A. That is right. The only difference possible, the only thing that I am not quite sure of, is that possibly I may have pulled that coat up a little to get to his inside pocket. I am not quite sure of it.
Q. Which is the coat, sir?
A. This is it: His Prince Albert coat.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury) That is the coat, he says, right over there, ---over the head of the body.

Q. You pulled that up a little, did you: otherwise is the position the same as you found it?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury). That is the picture that you have already seen, gentlemen.

Q. What was the head resting on?
A. The head was resting upon a small sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion in turn, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there, and that, I think, rested upon an afghan or sofa cover, ---a knitted affair.
Q. The lowest of the three was the doubled up coat?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the ---?
A. Afghan.
Q. Then came the coat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then the sofa cushion?
A. Yes, sir."

[debbiediablo]

... Were the bloodstains confined to where his head laid or was there splatter in areas of the jacket that were folded under.

At the Preliminary, Dr. Dolan stated (p93+)

"Q. Where was the principal flow of blood, on the lounge or on the floor?
A. Through the lounge on to the floor, after going through the pillow and his coat."


Dr. Dolan's Trial testimony regarding Andrew’s coat (p854+)

Q. Now as to the position of the body when you saw it, looking at exhibit 17 (photograph), how does that correspond with your remembrance of the position of the body when you saw it?
A. That is right. The only difference possible, the only thing that I am not quite sure of, is that possibly I may have pulled that coat up a little to get to his inside pocket. I am not quite sure of it.
Q. Which is the coat, sir?
A. This is it: His Prince Albert coat.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury) That is the coat, he says, right over there, ---over the head of the body.

Q. You pulled that up a little, did you: otherwise is the position the same as you found it?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury). That is the picture that you have already seen, gentlemen.

Q. What was the head resting on?
A. The head was resting upon a small sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion in turn, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there, and that, I think, rested upon an afghan or sofa cover, ---a knitted affair.
Q. The lowest of the three was the doubled up coat?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the ---?
A. Afghan.
Q. Then came the coat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then the sofa cushion?
A. Yes, sir."

Twinsrwe, thank you for the cite.

Think about much blood would be needed to soak through a white tidy, small cushion, a jacket, an afghan and a sofa cushion. Perhaps Dolan did not differentiate between 'soak through' and 'run off' but he was the coroner so his words should be accurate. Then again, blood splatter wasn't a science in the 1890's.

What stands out to me is if the murderer had worn the coat as protection from blood spray and then tried to disguise this, the absolute logical place to position it would be under Andrew's head...NOT three layers down between the cushion and the afghan!!!

[Curryong]

It was only one layer down, underneath the cushion or antimacassar really. Although it would have been a very messy job putting the coat in such a position afterwards I think its a brilliant way of disguising a part of the murder plan, and Lizzie could have lifted Andrew's head while she was doing this, with the aid of the cushion.

[Catbooks]

… i agree, emma was protecting lizzie. i don't think, though, that emma knew or admitted to herself lizzie was guilty. do you? ...

I believe that Emma knew exactly what happened, but would never admit that Lizzie was the killer because she then would have to also admit that she had a big hand in being an instigator for Lizzie’s feelings of hatred toward Abby. I also believe Emma failed to see Lizzie as a grown woman, who no longer needed anyone to look after her.

when do you think emma knew? i don't think she knew at first. it would have been a terrible shock, and she'd need some amount of time to process the murders. i definitely think she knew the morning of the dress burning, or very soon afterwards. by the time alice admitted to her the next day alice had lied about all the dresses being present, i think she really began suspecting at that point.

i too think she played a huge role in lizzie's hatred of abby, never dreaming this would happen. i also think she felt guilt over that, and leaving for fairhaven for those two weeks.

[Catbooks]

... Were the bloodstains confined to where his head laid or was there splatter in areas of the jacket that were folded under.

At the Preliminary, Dr. Dolan stated (p93+)

"Q. Where was the principal flow of blood, on the lounge or on the floor?
A. Through the lounge on to the floor, after going through the pillow and his coat."


Dr. Dolan's Trial testimony regarding Andrew’s coat (p854+)

Q. Now as to the position of the body when you saw it, looking at exhibit 17 (photograph), how does that correspond with your remembrance of the position of the body when you saw it?
A. That is right. The only difference possible, the only thing that I am not quite sure of, is that possibly I may have pulled that coat up a little to get to his inside pocket. I am not quite sure of it.
Q. Which is the coat, sir?
A. This is it: His Prince Albert coat.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury) That is the coat, he says, right over there, ---over the head of the body.

Q. You pulled that up a little, did you: otherwise is the position the same as you found it?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury). That is the picture that you have already seen, gentlemen.

Q. What was the head resting on?
A. The head was resting upon a small sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion in turn, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there, and that, I think, rested upon an afghan or sofa cover, ---a knitted affair.
Q. The lowest of the three was the doubled up coat?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the ---?
A. Afghan.
Q. Then came the coat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then the sofa cushion?
A. Yes, sir."

Twinsrwe, thank you for the cite.

Think about much blood would be needed to soak through a white tidy, small cushion, a jacket, an afghan and a sofa cushion. Perhaps Dolan did not differentiate between 'soak through' and 'run off' but he was the coroner so his words should be accurate. Then again, blood splatter wasn't a science in the 1890's.

What stands out to me is if the murderer had worn the coat as protection from blood spray and then tried to disguise this, the absolute logical place to position it would be under Andrew's head...NOT three layers down between the cushion and the afghan!!!

the afghan was on the bottom, so it had to soak through or around the tidy, cushion, and then onto the coat. his jacket wasn't under his head.

she may have not wanted to touch his head, and it would no doubt be easier to slide the coat under a pillow than underneath someone's hacked up head.

also, at this point she has to act fast. there's no hour or more to think any more about it. there's no guarantee bridget won't come down from her room to use the privy, get a glass of water, anything like that. john morse could for some reason cut his visit short and arrive there early for dinner.

she's got to clean and dispose of the hatchet, wash herself off, make certain there's no visible blood anywhere on her, and then sound the alarm.

she'd have had to go down to the cellar to do most of that. she needed water, and a mirror! too risky going upstairs to her room and using a basin/wash bowl and pitcher, likewise the water in the barn. had to be the cellar.

does anyone know if there was a mirror down in the cellar, near the privy or wash area?

i think she burned the dress at the first opportunity she could. emma was safe, alice was a close friend. no one else was there. lizzie knew the police suspected her. she knew she may not have another opportunity to burn it. she was right about alice. alice was the first person to lie for her.

if she were innocent, it would have made the most sense to *protect* the dress, because a provable lack of blood on it would help her case.

we've only emma and lizzie's say-so that the dress was faded. alice saw the hem was soiled, but that's all. only emma and lizzie say it was in such sorry shape it had to be burned. maybe only emma, come to think of it. lizzie just said it was stained with paint.

edited to add: i see curryong and i are on the same page about the pillow and why she may have put the coat where she did :)

[debbiediablo]

It was only one layer down, underneath the cushion or antimacassar really. Although it would have been a very messy job putting the coat in such a position afterwards I think its a brilliant way of disguising a part of the murder plan, and Lizzie could have lifted Andrew's head while she was doing this, with the aid of the cushion.

I see it as brilliant had she placed it directly under his head where it would serve purpose.

If Lizzie wore the coat to murder her father then she was standing there with a hatchet covered in blood, hair, tissue and possible brain matter. Ninety minutes earlier she had murdered Abby the same way. If caught, she would face the gallows. I don't think this would be the time for squeamishness or empathy on her part. Grabbing him by the hair and hauling his head up would've been faster, easier and more effective.

I do see why you think she didn't want to touch his head, but death by hanging is far less preferable than stuffing a coat directly under her murder victim's head. If she were brilliant enough to deduce that the coat would protect her clothing, she would've been brilliant enough to recognize that the coat might not be effective in disguising blood splatter if it were the third layer down.

I think we're going to agree to disagree on this...

[Mara]

If Lizzie (or anyone else) wore Andrew's coat to protect themselves from blood staining, why would they need to fold it neatly (!) and stick it under the pillow? Why not just throw it over the corpse? I think debbiediablo's info on domestic homicide behaviors comes into play even more when we ask this question.

[twinsrwe]

… i agree, emma was protecting lizzie. i don't think, though, that emma knew or admitted to herself lizzie was guilty. do you? ...

I believe that Emma knew exactly what happened, but would never admit that Lizzie was the killer because she then would have to also admit that she had a big hand in being an instigator for Lizzie’s feelings of hatred toward Abby. I also believe Emma failed to see Lizzie as a grown woman, who no longer needed anyone to look after her.

when do you think emma knew? i don't think she knew at first. it would have been a terrible shock, and she'd need some amount of time to process the murders. i definitely think she knew the morning of the dress burning, or very soon afterwards. by the time alice admitted to her the next day alice had lied about all the dresses being present, i think she really began suspecting at that point.

i too think she played a huge role in lizzie's hatred of abby, never dreaming this would happen. i also think she felt guilt over that, and leaving for fairhaven for those two weeks.

I may be wrong, but I think Emma knew when Lizzie burned the dress. I also think Emma continued to proclaim Lizzie’s innocence because of the guilt she felt for instilling in Lizzie her hatred of Abby.

[Mara]

While double aprons are tangling around each other's ties in your head, here's an idea. Police office Joseph Hyde observed Mrs. Churchill and Lizzie in the cellar, then 15 minutes later, Lizzie by herself. According to his testimony, Lizzie bent down in the area where there was a washtub containing the victims' bloody clothes (the same that were listed when buried the next day). What if Lizzie's solo visit to the wash cellar was to add a bloody apron of her own to the one taken off Abby's body?

Going to make popcorn now. Back later. :)

[debbiediablo]

If Lizzie (or anyone else) wore Andrew's coat to protect themselves from blood staining, why would they need to fold it neatly (!) and stick it under the pillow? Why not just throw it over the corpse? I think debbiediablo's info on domestic homicide behaviors comes into play even more when we ask this question.

Mara, yes. I have positively entertained the theory that Lizzie wore the coat for protection, but now I see it as a gesture to 'undo' the crime and nothing more. Which puts me back to 'Start' as to how she hid whatever blood evidence there was. And there had to be some.

PossumPie, how long before Andrew's heart would stop beating given the extensive bludgeoning to the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes and maybe to the arteries within. I'm comparing brain anatomy with Andrew's skull. I see no obvious damage to the brain stem which regulates cardiac and respiratory function. Can you imagine him remaining conscious for very long, but did he have to bleed out enough to disrupt blood flow into the brain stem? Regarding Abby, I wonder if she died more slowly given the location of the blows which are more at the back and top of the skull.

SOURCE: Andrew Borden's Autopsy (the one in the cemetery):

Fall River, Mass, August 11th, 1892

Record of Autopsy held at Oak Grove Cemetery on body of Andrew J. Borden. Autopsy performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper. Witnesses F. W. Draper of Boston and John W. Leary of Fall River. Clerk D. E. Cone of Fall River. Time of Autopsy 11.15 A.M. August 11th, 1892, one week after death.Body that of a man well nourished. Age seventy years. 5 feet 11 inches in height. No stiffness of death on account of decomposition, which was far advanced. Inguinal hernia on right side. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. There were no marks of violence on body, but on left side of head and face there were numerous incised wounds and one contused wound penetrating into the brain.The wounds beginning at the nose and to the left were as follows:1. Incised wound 4 inches long beginning at lower border of left nasal bone and reaching to lower edge of lower jaw, cutting through nose, upper lip, lower lip, and slightly into bone of upper and lower jaw.2. Began at internal angle of eye and extended to one and 3/8 inches of lower edge of jaw, beginning 4 and 1/2 inches in length, cutting through the tissues and into the bone.3. Began at lower border of lower eye lid cutting through the tissues and into the cheek bone, 2 inches long and one and 3/8 inches deep.4. Began two inches above upper eye lid 1/2 inch external to wound No. 3, thence downward and outward through middle of left eyebrow through the eye ball cutting it completely in halves, and excising a piece of the skull one and 1/2 inches in length by 1/2 inch in width. Length of would 4 and 1/2 inches.5. Began on level of same wound superficial scalp wound downward and outward 2 inches long.6. Parallel with this 1/4 inch long, downward and outward.7. Began 1/2 inch below No. 5, 3 inches in length downward and outward, penetrating cavity of skull. On top of skull was a transverse fracture 4 and 1/2 inches in length.8. Began directly above No. 7 and one inch in length downward and outward.9. Directly posterior to No. 8 beginning at ear and extending 4 inches long, 2 inches in width, crushing bone and carrying bone into brain. Also crushing from without in.10. Directly behind this and above it, and running downwards backward 2 inches long superficially.The general direction of all these wounds is parallel to each other.HEAD. Right half of top of skull removed. Brain found to be completely decomposed; and in fluid condition.CHEST. Chest and abdomen opened by one incision extending from neck to pubis. Right lung glued to ribs in front. Left lung normal. HEART normal.ABDOMEN. Spleen normal, kidney normal, liver and bladder normal. Stomach and portion of liver had been removed. Lower part of large bowel filled with solid formed feces. Feces also in lower part of small bowel. – William A. Dolan, Medical Examiner

SOURCE: Abby Borden’s Autopsy Report

Fall River, Mass. August 11, 1892

Record of Autopsy on body of Abby D. Borden, aged 64 years. Thursday August 11, 1892. at 12.35 P.M. One week after death. The Autopsy was performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper, and witnessed by F. W. Draper of Boston, and J. H. Leary of Fall River. Clerk of Autopsy D. E. Cone of Fall River. Body that of a female, very well nourished and very fleshy 64 years of age. 5 feet, 3 inches in height. No stiffness of death, owing to decomposition, which was far advanced. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. No marks of violence on front of body. On back of body was FIRST an incised wound 2 and 1/2 inches in length, and 2 and 1/2 inches in depth. The lower angle of the wound was over the spine and four inches below the junction of neck with body, and extending thence upward and outward to the left. On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body. SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width. THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows:
1. Was a glancing scalp wound two inches in length by one and 1/2 inches in width, situated 3 inches above left ear hole, cut from above downwards and did not penetrate the skull.
2. Was exactly on top of the skull one inch long penetrating into but not through the skull.
3. Was parallel to No. 2, one and 1/2 inches long, and penetrating through the skull.
4. Was 2 and 1/4 inches long above occipital protuberance and one and 1/2 inches long.
5. Was parallel to No. 4 and one and 1/2 inches long.
6. Was just above and parallel to No. 5, and one and 1/4 inches long. On top of skull was a traverse fracture two inches in length, a continuation of a penetrating wound.
7. Was two inches long and two inches behind ear hole crushing and carrying bone into brain.
All the wounds of the head following
7. though incised crushed through into the brain.
8. Was 2 and 1/2 inches long
9. Was 2 and 3/4 inches long
10. Was one and 3/4 inches long
11. Was 1/2 inches long
12. Was 2 and 1/4 inches long
13. Was one and 3/4 inches long
14. Was two and 1/2 inches long
15. Reached from middle line of head towards the ear 5 inches long
16. Was one inch long
17. Was 1/2 inch long
18. Was 3 and 1/2 inches long
These wounds on the right side were parallel, the direction being mostly from in front backwards. HEAD. There was a hole in right side of skull 4 and 1/2 to 5 and 1/4 inches, through which the brain evacuated in fluid condition being entirely decomposed. CHEST. The chest and abdomen was opened by one incision from chin to pubis. LUNGS bound down behind but normal. HEART normal. ABDOMEN, Stomach and part of bowel had been removed. Spleen, pancreas, kidneys, liver, bladder and intestines were normal. Womb was the seat of a small fibroid tumor on anterior surface. Fallopian tubes and ovaries normal. Lower bowel empty. Upper portion of small bowel containing undigested food. – W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner

D. E. Cone, Clerk

[Catbooks]

I believe that Emma knew exactly what happened, but would never admit that Lizzie was the killer because she then would have to also admit that she had a big hand in being an instigator for Lizzie’s feelings of hatred toward Abby. I also believe Emma failed to see Lizzie as a grown woman, who no longer needed anyone to look after her.

i too think she played a huge role in lizzie's hatred of abby, never dreaming this would happen. i also think she felt guilt over that, and leaving for fairhaven for those two weeks.

I may be wrong, but I think Emma knew when Lizzie burned the dress. I also think Emma continued to proclaim Lizzie’s innocence because of the guilt she felt for instilling in Lizzie her hatred of Abby.

the last post from twins was responding to this post of mine:

when do you think emma knew? i don't think she knew at first. it would have been a terrible shock, and she'd need some amount of time to process the murders. i definitely think she knew the morning of the dress burning, or very soon afterwards. by the time alice admitted to her the next day alice had lied about all the dresses being present, i think she really began suspecting at that point.

that's what i think as well, twins.

another piece of the puzzle to throw into the mix, is emma testified at the trial that she had more ill feelings towards abby than lizzie did. which does sound plausible. could also be more covering for lizzie, deflecting, but it has the whiff of truth about it as well.

[Catbooks]

If Lizzie (or anyone else) wore Andrew's coat to protect themselves from blood staining, why would they need to fold it neatly (!) and stick it under the pillow? Why not just throw it over the corpse? I think debbiediablo's info on domestic homicide behaviors comes into play even more when we ask this question.

Mara, yes. I have positively entertained the theory that Lizzie wore the coat for protection, but now I see it as a gesture to 'undo' the crime and nothing more. Which puts me back to 'Start' as to how she hid whatever blood evidence there was. And there had to be some.

PossumPie, how long before Andrew's heart would stop beating given the extensive bludgeoning to the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes and maybe to the arteries within. I'm comparing brain anatomy with Andrew's skull. I see no obvious damage to the brain stem which regulates cardiac and respiratory function. Can you imagine him remaining conscious for very long, but did he have to bleed out enough to disrupt blood flow into the brain stem? Regarding Abby, I wonder if she died more slowly given the location of the blows which are more at the back and top of the skull.

SOURCE: Andrew Borden's Autopsy (the one in the cemetery):

Fall River, Mass, August 11th, 1892

Record of Autopsy held at Oak Grove Cemetery on body of Andrew J. Borden. Autopsy performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper. Witnesses F. W. Draper of Boston and John W. Leary of Fall River. Clerk D. E. Cone of Fall River. Time of Autopsy 11.15 A.M. August 11th, 1892, one week after death.Body that of a man well nourished. Age seventy years. 5 feet 11 inches in height. No stiffness of death on account of decomposition, which was far advanced. Inguinal hernia on right side. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. There were no marks of violence on body, but on left side of head and face there were numerous incised wounds and one contused wound penetrating into the brain.The wounds beginning at the nose and to the left were as follows:1. Incised wound 4 inches long beginning at lower border of left nasal bone and reaching to lower edge of lower jaw, cutting through nose, upper lip, lower lip, and slightly into bone of upper and lower jaw.2. Began at internal angle of eye and extended to one and 3/8 inches of lower edge of jaw, beginning 4 and 1/2 inches in length, cutting through the tissues and into the bone.3. Began at lower border of lower eye lid cutting through the tissues and into the cheek bone, 2 inches long and one and 3/8 inches deep.4. Began two inches above upper eye lid 1/2 inch external to wound No. 3, thence downward and outward through middle of left eyebrow through the eye ball cutting it completely in halves, and excising a piece of the skull one and 1/2 inches in length by 1/2 inch in width. Length of would 4 and 1/2 inches.5. Began on level of same wound superficial scalp wound downward and outward 2 inches long.6. Parallel with this 1/4 inch long, downward and outward.7. Began 1/2 inch below No. 5, 3 inches in length downward and outward, penetrating cavity of skull. On top of skull was a transverse fracture 4 and 1/2 inches in length.8. Began directly above No. 7 and one inch in length downward and outward.9. Directly posterior to No. 8 beginning at ear and extending 4 inches long, 2 inches in width, crushing bone and carrying bone into brain. Also crushing from without in.10. Directly behind this and above it, and running downwards backward 2 inches long superficially.The general direction of all these wounds is parallel to each other.HEAD. Right half of top of skull removed. Brain found to be completely decomposed; and in fluid condition.CHEST. Chest and abdomen opened by one incision extending from neck to pubis. Right lung glued to ribs in front. Left lung normal. HEART normal.ABDOMEN. Spleen normal, kidney normal, liver and bladder normal. Stomach and portion of liver had been removed. Lower part of large bowel filled with solid formed feces. Feces also in lower part of small bowel. – William A. Dolan, Medical Examiner

SOURCE: Abby Borden’s Autopsy Report

Fall River, Mass. August 11, 1892

Record of Autopsy on body of Abby D. Borden, aged 64 years. Thursday August 11, 1892. at 12.35 P.M. One week after death. The Autopsy was performed by W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner, assisted by Dr. F. W. Draper, and witnessed by F. W. Draper of Boston, and J. H. Leary of Fall River. Clerk of Autopsy D. E. Cone of Fall River. Body that of a female, very well nourished and very fleshy 64 years of age. 5 feet, 3 inches in height. No stiffness of death, owing to decomposition, which was far advanced. Abdomen had already been opened. Artificial teeth in upper jaw. No marks of violence on front of body. On back of body was FIRST an incised wound 2 and 1/2 inches in length, and 2 and 1/2 inches in depth. The lower angle of the wound was over the spine and four inches below the junction of neck with body, and extending thence upward and outward to the left. On the forehead and bridge of nose were three contused wounds. Those on the forehead being oval, lengthwise with body. SECOND The contusion on bridge of nose was one inch in length by on half inch in width. THIRD On the forehead one was one inch above left eyebrow, one and 1/4 inches long by 3/8 inch in width, and the other one and 1/4 inches above eyebrow, and one and 1/2 inches long by 1/4 inch wide. On the head there were 18 distinct wounds, incising and crushing, and all but four were on the right side. Counting from left to right with the face downwards, the wounds were as follows:
1. Was a glancing scalp wound two inches in length by one and 1/2 inches in width, situated 3 inches above left ear hole, cut from above downwards and did not penetrate the skull.
2. Was exactly on top of the skull one inch long penetrating into but not through the skull.
3. Was parallel to No. 2, one and 1/2 inches long, and penetrating through the skull.
4. Was 2 and 1/4 inches long above occipital protuberance and one and 1/2 inches long.
5. Was parallel to No. 4 and one and 1/2 inches long.
6. Was just above and parallel to No. 5, and one and 1/4 inches long. On top of skull was a traverse fracture two inches in length, a continuation of a penetrating wound.
7. Was two inches long and two inches behind ear hole crushing and carrying bone into brain.
All the wounds of the head following
7. though incised crushed through into the brain.
8. Was 2 and 1/2 inches long
9. Was 2 and 3/4 inches long
10. Was one and 3/4 inches long
11. Was 1/2 inches long
12. Was 2 and 1/4 inches long
13. Was one and 3/4 inches long
14. Was two and 1/2 inches long
15. Reached from middle line of head towards the ear 5 inches long
16. Was one inch long
17. Was 1/2 inch long
18. Was 3 and 1/2 inches long
These wounds on the right side were parallel, the direction being mostly from in front backwards. HEAD. There was a hole in right side of skull 4 and 1/2 to 5 and 1/4 inches, through which the brain evacuated in fluid condition being entirely decomposed. CHEST. The chest and abdomen was opened by one incision from chin to pubis. LUNGS bound down behind but normal. HEART normal. ABDOMEN, Stomach and part of bowel had been removed. Spleen, pancreas, kidneys, liver, bladder and intestines were normal. Womb was the seat of a small fibroid tumor on anterior surface. Fallopian tubes and ovaries normal. Lower bowel empty. Upper portion of small bowel containing undigested food. – W. A. Dolan, Medical Examiner

D. E. Cone, Clerk

reading the autopsy reports is making me a bit queasy, so i couldn't read them too closely. this is the first time i've read them and found the fact that abby had the front of her face is something i hadn't known. i'm going to have to reevaluate how i thought her murder happened.

i still think lizzie wore andrew's prince albert to protect her from the blood spatter. why fold it afterwards? why not? i can easily see her taking it off, folding it up out of habit of being neat, while reflecting on what she needed to do next. if she didn't wear it, what's the point of taking it from the dining room, where it was usually hung on a hook, folding it, and slipping it under the pillow?

i can buy her slipping it under the pillow as partly an action of undoing, if she also wore it. not so sure i can if she didn't.

i noticed that the couch, or lounge as they called it, was soaked through with blood, and it had run onto the carpeting. that's a lot of blood, so it seems his heart was still pumping for a while. i too would like to hear possum's response.

[Curryong]

I wonder whether Emma worked out what had happened in her own mind as soon as she heard the news about the deaths. We don't really know how Dr Bowen phrased it in his telegram, but Emma certainly didn't come rushing home on the first available train from Fairhaven that day. It was almost an avoidance. "I don't want to deal with this." Natural in the circumstances, but perhaps eve more so if she suspected that Lizzie may have acted out her hatred. Remember, Emma knew Lizzie better than anyone else on earth.

[Curryong]

My goodness, Abby's autopsy report is heavy stuff, isn't it? I think the possible hiding under the bed was discounted in earlier threads (a) because Abby was probably dead or heavily unconscious by the second hatchet blow to the skull, and (b) the duplicate bed that is in the bed and breakfast now doesn't look capable of allowing a rather sturdy female to get underneath.
And Abby was elderly, so her reactions would have been slower. It wouldn't be like a young person instantly diving for safety. I do believe Lizzy trapped her in that room with nowhere to go, for a few moments. I think Abby was unsuspecting until Lizzie was very near. I've often wondered whether one of those facial contusions was caused by the blunt end of a hatchet making Abby see stars and become disoriented.

[debbiediablo]

Abby might not make the conscious decision that she couldn't fit under the bed. Maybe she was trying to get her head away from the hatchet or, like a wounded animal, simply trying to get as far away from the pain as she could. The braid on the bed might be evidence that the murder was more than just being struck from the back, collapsing to the floor unconscious and then being bludgeoned.

[twinsrwe]

Catbooks, what are you doing? Look at the post you submitted on Sun Feb 09, 2014 10:34 pm. The first quote under my name is NOT anything I posted; that is something you posted, and put it in under my name!!! You are the only one who does not use capital letters when starting a sentence, nor do you capitalize the word ‘I’ within a sentence. I don’t appreciate having my name attached to something you posted.

Please do an edit and put the actual words I posted under my name.

[Catbooks]

sorry, twins! i got the message that i could only quote 3 messages, so i had to delete and no doubt messed up the nested quotes of who said what in the doing of it. i'll try to fix it.

[Catbooks]

it took a bit of editing and revising, and editing and revising again, but i think i've got the quotes right now. my apologies. it was entirely unintentional. i simply didn't know what to remove so the post would take.

[Curryong]

I'm still a believer in the 'Lizzie wearing Andrew's coat ' theory, firstly because I tried it myself and it worked in my experiment! Secondly, if the killer had simply thrown the coat aside or put it directly beneath Andrew's head the scene would not have appeared as the killer wanted it to appear.
An old man comes home very tired. He decides to have a nap on the couch before the midday meal, and do it in comfort. Lying on a hot woollen folded coat looks neither natural nor comfortable. A cushion, with tidy on top to protect the side of the sofa from Andrew's greased hair, does.
A roll up of the coat and a lifting of Andrew's head, using the cushion to protect Lizzie from as much blood as possible, and the thing is done. There is nothing to associate killer and coat, as there would be if the blood-stained coat was left elsewhere.

[Mara]

Oops. Got a better thought. I'll come back and post it later.

[Catbooks]

same for me, still with the lizzie in the prince albert in the sitting room theory. putting the coat under the pillow under his head obviously looked as suspicious to the police, as it does to us. but throwing it over him would undoubtedly have drawn more attention to it, and it was his head that was bleeding, not the rest of him.

i'm still puzzling over abby's death. it appears there was more activity than i'd thought.

[twinsrwe]

it took a bit of editing and revising, and editing and revising again, but i think i've got the quotes right now. my apologies. it was entirely unintentional. i simply didn't know what to remove so the post would take.

Apology accepted, I know you didn’t intentionally do this. I also know what you mean about the limit of only three quotes; sometimes I find that frustrating! Actually, all you had to do was take out your first post. I appreciate your editing the error, however part of your quote is now missing, and therefore my response doesn’t make sence… Go in and edit it again by adding in this part of your quote, just above the current sentence:

when do you think emma knew? i don't think she knew at first. it would have been a terrible shock, and she'd need some amount of time to process the murders. i definitely think she knew the morning of the dress burning, or very soon afterwards. by the time alice admitted to her the next day alice had lied about all the dresses being present, i think she really began suspecting at that point.

There is the option of previewing your post before you submit it – just click on the ‘Preview’ icon to the left of the ‘Submit’ icon. By doing a preview, you'll be able to see what your post will look like before you submit it. I do appreciate your efforts to fix this – thank you.