The Handleless Hatchet

[KGDevil]

Here's another interesting excerpt from Emma's trial testimony:

Q. Do you know whether she had been wearing it for some little time prior to the day of the murder?
A. I don't remember seeing her have it on for several weeks before I went away.

Q. How long was it before the murder that you went away?
A. Just two weeks.

Let me remind you both that the whole point of this is to show you that it would be less suspicious for Lizzie to burn the dress alone and tell anyone who asks about it that she threw the dress away (or burned it, if burning unwanted clothes was a normal way to get rid of them back then), than to burn the dress around witnesses the day after she was informed of being a suspect. Did anyone see Lizzie wearing the Bedford cord in the 4 weeks prior to the murders? That's the relevant time frame. Not May. Emma obviously didn't see it. Did anyone else?

Lizzie was not alone in the house after the murders. Emma and John Morse were living there. John Morse stayed there for months. Alice stayed there for four days after the murders, police were showing up and conducting searches, and police were kept posted outside the house. When was this opportunity to burn it alone, and where is she burning it? She couldn't even empty a slop pail in the basement in the middle of the night without a witness after the murders.

You asked me to provide testimony that she wore it every day for weeks so everyone would be familiar with it's appearance. That fresh paint stains would be suspicious to everyone who had seen it. You asked me for witnesses who had seen her wear it day in and day out for weeks. I gave you Mrs. Raymond's testimony that she saw Lizzie wear it every day she was there after it was made. Mrs. Raymond was there every day for over three weeks. Almost a month. Then you said it didn't matter because that was in May. You change your arguments for arguments sake perhaps?

[Kevin Luna]

Lizzie was not alone in the house after the murders. Emma and John Morse were living there. John Morse stayed there for months. Alice stayed there for four days after the murders, police were showing up and conducting searches, and police were kept posted outside the house. When was this opportunity to burn it alone, and where is she burning it?

I don't think she had an opportunity to burn it alone. If she did, she probably wouldn't have burned it in front of witnesses. But you said this:

What looks less incriminating, saying it was just gone, when the police are looking for evidence of bloody clothing, or letting Emma see her burn it as if she had nothing to worry about?

This is a hypothetical question that assumes that she would have an opportunity to burn the dress alone. Without that assumption, the question makes no sense, because the option of burning the dress alone and "saying it was just gone" wouldn't exist. So I responded with:

Saying it was gone. There are two reasons why the dress burning incident is incriminating: how she destroyed it and when she destroyed it. Those two questions are up in the air if she burns it when no one is looking. She can claim she just threw the dress away, or gave it away, instead of annihilating it. She can also claim that she destroyed it some other time, instead of the day after she was informed of being a suspect.

[Kevin Luna]

You asked me to provide testimony that she wore it every day for weeks so everyone would be familiar with it's appearance. That fresh paint stains would be suspicious to everyone who had seen it. You asked me for witnesses who had seen her wear it day in and day out for weeks. I gave you Mrs. Raymond's testimony that she saw Lizzie wear it every day she was there after it was made. Mrs. Raymond was there every day for over three weeks. Almost a month. Then you said it didn't matter because that was in May. You change your arguments for arguments sake perhaps?

I didn't change my argument. I thought you were talking about what's more incriminating: just saying she destroyed the dress, or letting someone witness her destroying the dress. Here's what you wrote:

She wore that dress on a day to day basis for weeks. It was distinctive because it had paint on it. What looks less incriminating, saying it was just gone, when the police are looking for evidence of bloody clothing, or letting Emma see her burn it as if she had nothing to worry about?

Silly me for thinking that the first and third sentences of your paragraph were related.

[KGDevil]

Let me remind you both that the whole point of this is to show you that it would be less suspicious for Lizzie to burn the dress alone and tell anyone who asks about it that she threw the dress away (or burned it, if burning unwanted clothes was a normal way to get rid of them back then), than to burn the dress around witnesses the day after she was informed of being a suspect. Did anyone see Lizzie wearing the Bedford cord in the 4 weeks prior to the murders? That's the relevant time frame. Not May.

I think you've answered my question about your changing arguments. But in your argument, how does she really dispose of the dress then, Kevin Luna? If you concede she had no chance to burn it alone? Telling anyone that she had already gotten rid of the dress doesn't actually get rid of the dress.

[Kevin Luna]

Let me remind you both that the whole point of this is to show you that it would be less suspicious for Lizzie to burn the dress alone and tell anyone who asks about it that she threw the dress away (or burned it, if burning unwanted clothes was a normal way to get rid of them back then), than to burn the dress around witnesses the day after she was informed of being a suspect. Did anyone see Lizzie wearing the Bedford cord in the 4 weeks prior to the murders? That's the relevant time frame. Not May.

I think you've answered my question about your changing arguments. But in your argument, how does she really dispose of the dress then, Kevin Luna? If you concede she had no chance to burn it alone? Telling anyone that she had already gotten rid of the dress doesn't actually get rid of the dress.

You asked me a hypothetical question so I answered it. Your question assumed that she would have an opportunity to destroy the dress alone.

[KGDevil]

I should learn there is no way to read the difference between a hypothetical question and sarcasm. Because that was not a hypothetical question.

[Kevin Luna]

.

[Kevin Luna]

I should learn there is no way to read the difference between a hypothetical question and sarcasm. Because that was not a hypothetical question.

What looks less incriminating, saying it was just gone, when the police are looking for evidence of bloody clothing, or letting Emma see her burn it as if she had nothing to worry about?

That's not sarcasm. You're BSing because you embarrassed yourself.

[KGDevil]

Kevin Luna, some of your tactics are meant to seem clever I suppose. I gave you the names of witnesses, but because I didn't look it up for you, you said I couldn't back up my claims. Or that it was not relevant to the point I was attempting to make because you disregard my points and focus only on the fact that Mrs. Raymond had not seen the dress since May. That Emma hadn't seen Lizzie wearing the dress since May. Had anybody seen her wearing the dress since May? Had Bridget washed the dress since May? The assertion being that if nobody had seen it she could have said she had gotten rid of the dress and destroyed it after the murder. Then later in the conversation state all of these arguments you're making are in answer to a question I asked that implied it was possible. Which it did not. Clever way to keep changing arguments. It doesn't imply anything about burning it, stuffing it in a matress, or burying it in the basement. It simply implies saying it was just gone. It does leave the question of how she would dispose of it, but does not imply the opportunity of doing it without witnesses. If that wasn't your assertion the fact that nobody had seen it since May is irrelevant. But it's the point you kept hitting. Underlining and bold lettering: Had they seen the dress since May. But then, you were just answering my question.

Fresh house paint somehow getting on the dress in August when the house had been painted at that same time around May makes sense to you though.

Emma said she hadn't seen Lizzie wear the dress in at least four weeks. She did not say she hadn't seen the dress hanging in their clothes closet in that four weeks. They did not buy clothing off of a rack. Mrs. Raymond had been making clothing for them for many years. They may have made some of their own garments, we at least know they mended them. And the guest room doubled as a sewing room. They looked at and wore the same dresses unless new ones were made. Which is why they had house dresses, and dresses that were worn only they went out. Emma might wonder if one came up missing what had happened to it. Especially after the murders. And witnesses were well aquainted with it's appearance

You have no proof of her intention to paint her dress. You have not even offered proof it was possible. But disregard that fresh paint, in new areas on a badly faded dress, would be pretty relevant evidence. It would be just as incriminating as blood, because it would be obvious to anyone who had ever seen it. What excuse did she have for fresh house paint on a house dress in August? Helping a friend paint a house the same color as hers? The testimony you quoted for Emma shows she knew where the stained areas were. It coincides with what Mary A. Raymond said about the stains. A little on the front, some around the ruffle on the bottom, and some on the underside. Sounds like brushing against fresh paint. The dress was faded so the colors of the new paint would not have match the faded stains. If the idea was to blend it in as a diguise it would not have blended. It would've stuck out. The dress would appear to be growing new paint stains for no apparent reason. You seem to have the impression the only witnesses who are relevent were police. Or you believe Lizzie thought they would not have wanted to establish how or where this dress became stained and who had seen it afterward. Then you believe after going to all of the trouble to paint it she decided her own logic wasn't sound and burned it in a panic in front of witnesses anyway.

I do admit some of your logic escapes me. And once again, I agree to disagree.

When Twins said she agreed with me you said:

"You agree that burning the dress in front of witnesses is less suspicious than burning it alone, then waiting until someone asks about it, then telling them you got rid of it because it was stained?

You agree that blood is less suspicious than paint?"

Clever. If she agreed to this question, you could continue your argument, but later say you weren't saying burning the dress alone was less incriminating, only that you were asking if Twins thought it was.

[Kevin Luna]

Why can't you comprehend that new paint stains on the dress would be much more likely to fool cops than blood spatter?

[KGDevil]

Why can't you comprehend that new paint stains on the dress would be much more likely to fool cops than blood spatter?

Why can't you comprehend that the police knew nothing about the house being painted in May until they asked? That any staining would be suspicious enough to ask questions as to how and why it got there? To people who had seen this dress?

Or do you think police are not going to be curious about mysterious stains on a dress that belongs to only one of two people home during two hatchet murders? Did the police even have the information that the house was painted? They will just take the word of their suspect that it's just paint? Fresh paint in August from a house painted in May? Were these the Keystone cops?

[Kevin Luna]

Why can't you comprehend that new paint stains on the dress would be much more likely to fool cops than blood spatter?

Why can't you comprehend that the police knew nothing about the house being painted in May until they asked? That any staining would be suspicious enough to ask questions as to how and why it got there? To people who had seen this dress?

Or do you think police are not going to be curious about mysterious stains on a dress that belongs to only one of two people home during two hatchet murders? Did the police even have the information that the house was painted? They will just take the word of their suspect that it's just paint? Fresh paint in August from a house painted in May? Were these the Keystone cops?

I'll try to explain this again. If the cops found this guilty dress, and it were covered in slightly different shades of paint, they're much more likely to disregard the dress and move on, than if the dress were covered in blood spatter. So, it stands to reason that, assuming she had the necessary paint, she probably tried painting over the blood. It would only take seconds to do.

[KGDevil]

You don't think finding a stained dress would be of interest to police during a murder investigation. Gotcha. Did it go something like this?

"Oh, look at these stains on this dress. No idea how they got there or why. Just random unexplainable stains. But, I am looking for blood stained clothing specifically and nothing else. So this is probably not relevant...."

What I think is what I have said all along. The dress was hidden until she burned it in the stove. I think Emma wasn't purjuring herself about seeing the dress on the nail. I think she was mistaken.

[KGDevil]

Kevin Luna, I agree to disagree with you on all points. We share different opinions and that is perfectly alright. Everyone sees the evidence differently. And since we will never solve the case it doesn't matter. And I do not really follow some of the logic but that's fine too. Everyone has their opinion.

[Kevin Luna]

You don't think finding a stained dress would be of interest to police during a murder investigation. Gotcha. Did it go something like this?

"Oh, look at these stains on this dress. No idea how they got there or why. Just random unexplainable stains. But, I am looking for blood stained clothing specifically and nothing else. So this is probably not relevant...."

I think Emma wasn't purjuring herself about seeing the dress on the nail. I think she was mistaken.

But you've gone on and on about how distinctive and well known the dress was. I could accept the slight possibility that Emma mistook some other dress for this dress if she hadn't claimed immediately after that that she was the one responsible for Lizzie burning the dress. That's an obvious lie to protect Lizzie. In that light, Emma's story about seeing the dress hung up in plain view also looks like an obvious lie to protect Lizzie.

[KGDevil]

Kevin Luna, I don't have to bite at bate to keep your arguments going. I have already said I agree to disagree. And quite frankly, I don't think there can be any rational arguments made with someone who thinks the fact that there is no evidence that she hid the weapon so it couldn't be found means she didn't hide it. Because there was no evidence that she hid it so it couldn't be found. If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence. The same with your argument about police looking for stained clothing ignoring stained clothing. For me, your logic goes in circles. I am getting off this particular ride and moving on.

[Kevin Luna]

And quite frankly, I don't think there can be any rational arguments made with someone who thinks the fact that there is no evidence that she hid the weapon so it couldn't be found means she didn't hide it.

I never said that. I said if you believe she hid the weapon, you're going against the evidence. Which is a fact. You just admitted that there was no evidence that she hid the weapon.

[KGDevil]

And you are under the impression I haven't read any of the other threads. You also have a way of twisting words as well as your logic. I never said there was no evidence she couldn't have hidden the weapon. I said if she did hide it and it was never found there would be no evidence. Good Day, Kevin Luna, you are free to troll elsewhere.

[Kevin Luna]

And you are under the impression I haven't read any of the other threads.

I'd ask you to cite where I ever said what you claim I said, but I'm sure you won't.

You also have a way of twisting words as well as your logic. I never said there was no evidence. Good Day, Kevin Luna, you are free to troll elsewhere.

How am I twisting your words? You literally just called it a "fact" that "there is no evidence that she hid the weapon so it couldn't be found". Here, I'll copy and paste it again:

And quite frankly, I don't think there can be any rational arguments made with someone who thinks the fact that there is no evidence that she hid the weapon so it couldn't be found means she didn't hide it.

[KGDevil]

If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence.

[KGDevil]

You are now unaware enough of your own past statements that you need citations for your own opinions. Interesting.

I find myself singing as I finally log out and go about my day.

[Kevin Luna]

You are now unaware enough of your own past statements that you need citations for your own opinions. Interesting.

I find myself singing as I finally log out and go about my day.

Here's the quote you cited:

If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence.

That came from you, not me.

Kevin Luna, I don't have to bite at bate to keep your arguments going. I have already said I agree to disagree. And quite frankly, I don't think there can be any rational arguments made with someone who thinks the fact that there is no evidence that she hid the weapon so it couldn't be found means she didn't hide it. Because there was no evidence that she hid it so it couldn't be found. If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence. The same with your argument about police looking for stained clothing ignoring stained clothing. For me, your logic goes in circles. I am getting off this particular ride and moving on.

Are you feeling all right?

[Kevin Luna]

Oh, and in response to that statement:

If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence.

There could have been evidence, such as blood, or a slit in her mattress, or a hole in the backyard. But there wasn't.

[KGDevil]

You just admitted that there was no evidence that she hid the weapon.

If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence.

I wish I could use crayons.

If you cannot comprehend the difference between saying there is no evidence she hid the weapon, and saying if she hid the weapon there would be no evidence, you have only proved my point for me. Thank you.

But let me try one last time.

"There is no evidence she hid the weapon."

Most rational people would take this to mean she could not have hidden the weapon because there is no evidence she did.

"If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence."

This means a lack of evidence due to the fact said evidence wasn't found.

You either think your logic sounds rational, or you are hoping everyone else does. You are either twisting my words, or this is actually your logic. Either way my head hurts.

[Kevin Luna]

"There is no evidence she hid the weapon."

Most rational people would take this to mean she could not have hidden the weapon because there is no evidence she did.

No, a rational person would take that to mean what it says, that there is no evidence she hid the weapon. An irrational person would take it to mean she could not have hidden the weapon. Of course she could have hidden the weapon! The police did a terrible job searching the house.

Here's further proof of your irrationality:

You believe that burning a dress around witnesses the day after learning of being a suspect is less incriminating than burning the dress sometime when no one is around and lying about when/how it was gotten rid of.

You believe that blood spatter on a paint-stained dress is less suspicious than new paint on an already paint-stained dress.

[Kevin Luna]

You just admitted that there was no evidence that she hid the weapon.

If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence.

I wish I could use crayons.

If you cannot comprehend the difference between saying there is no evidence she hid the weapon, and saying if she hid the weapon there would be no evidence, you have only proved my point for me. Thank you.

You admitted that there was no evidence that she hid the weapon when you said that it was a "fact" that there was no evidence she hid the weapon, not when you said "If she hid it, and it wasn't found, there would be no evidence." Here's the quote...again:

And quite frankly, I don't think there can be any rational arguments made with someone who thinks the fact that there is no evidence that she hid the weapon so it couldn't be found means she didn't hide it.

[KGDevil]

I agree with everything KGDevil has posted above. Kevin, you really need to do the research for yourself; you'll find that the answer to your question, 'Where did you learn that she wore that dress on a day to day basis for weeks?', is within Mrs. Mary A. Raymond's testimony. She may have worded it a bit differently than KG did, but it is there in black and white. Here is the link you need: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... orden2.pdf

The last time she saw the dress was in May

I agree with everything KGDevil has posted above.

You agree that burning the dress in front of witnesses is less suspicious than burning it alone, then waiting until someone asks about it, then telling them you got rid of it because it was stained?

You agree that blood is less suspicious than paint?

I'm not sure how quoting yourself is evidence that I'm irrational?

[KGDevil]

Edit: No longer feeding a troll.

[Kevin Luna]

I didn't quote myself. You should learn what a quote is after you learn how to construct a paragraph.

[KGDevil]

[KGDevil]

And quite frankly, I don't think there can be any rational arguments made with someone who thinks the fact that there is no evidence that she hid the weapon so it couldn't be found means she didn't hide it.

I never said that. I said if you believe she hid the weapon, you're going against the evidence. Which is a fact. You just admitted that there was no evidence that she hid the weapon.

[KGDevil]