But what about the blood?

[Allen]

Does anyone know if the police got down on their knees and looked for any pin-head sized blood spots on the Borden's carpet/hardwood floors? I've been thinking that a killer would have left at least a few drops of blood from the guest bedroom to the hiding place and from the sitting room to the exit point. Now, if the killer wiped the blood off the hatchet after each murder, what happened to the "rag" used to wipe off the blood? Was it thrown into the stove? Hatchet heads don't absorb blood so some drops must have landed somewhere, perhaps just a few feet away from the bodies.

These are just my rambling ideas floating around in my head right now.

-1bigsteve (o:

Depending on the shade and weave of the carpeting, and the length of time any stains had to dry, it's possible that blood stains were missed in my opinion. If they were small and blended in with the color of the carpet they might have been passed over. Especially if they were dry and produced no contact transfer. I had an idea about this, althought I'm not sure of how plausible it is. If Lizzie was the killer, to keep the hatchet from dripping on the floor could she have carried it in her skirt? Lifted her skirt slighty on both sides in the front to make a sort of cradle for the hatchet? I am picturing it sort of being lifted like a woman might lift her skirt to step over something she didn't want to get on her dress. It would mean more bloodstaining on the skirt she was wearing, but could it be a possibility?

[Smudgeman]

Even if there were drops of blood found, there was no DNA testing available back then, so many different conclusions could have been assesed. I think Lizzie shielding the hatchet on her dress is a very real possibility. How easy would that have been? Have you ever been bleeding say from a cut to the finger, and applied pressure to the wound to make sure you didn't make a mess, or cupped your hands to avoid a mess? Drawing her dress up like a tent would have made perfect sense to avoid dripping.

[RayS]

There you go again!!! So Lizzie Dunnit? But the jury verdict says otherwise.
In all rational honesty, isn't the explanation of another person to do the killing the simplest explanation for the lack of blood stains and a missing hatchet?

There was no blood typing until the 1920s or 19930s. There was no Luminol to test for blood until the late 1950s (?). DNA typing wasn't apporoved until the late 1980s.

"The Case of the Burning Bequest".

IF this existed then and cleared Lizzie (and Bridget) then what would you say?

[RayS]

Please folks, can't you see what is happening?

Ray has got you in his sights and he is enjoying every delicious moment.

Someone in the Forum proposes - he disposes.

With all of the attention he is receiving, he's just shivering with delight.

Wake up!

I agree. If many of the people who typed the word "Click" so many times after one of RayS post would actually do it instead of just typing it, that might go a ways to making things more bareable here on the forum for everyone.

This is an example where people attack the messenger for his good news (Lizzie was found not guilty) and do not question their own prejudices and opinons.
But then this would be a dull, dull forum if we all agreed.

For example, what's the weather like in your area? Raining? That is good if you have been missing rain, bad if you have 'too much'. See what I mean?

[Allen]

There was no blood typing until the 1920s or 19930s. There was no Luminol to test for blood until the late 1950s (?). DNA typing wasn't apporoved until the late 1980s.

"The Case of the Burning Bequest".

IF this existed then and cleared Lizzie (and Bridget) then what would you say?

What I had been trying to get at, was that any missed blood drops could've been part of a blood trail that was never recognized for what it was. Or that Lizzie kept from leaving a trail by cradling the axe in her skirt. The only reference I made to DNA was in speculating that if the piece of skirt which contained the bloodspot had been preserved, there really are no samples from Andrew and Abby that survived to even compare it to. If the samples did exist, and a profile could be generated with profiles from the Borden's to compare it to, and it exonerated Lizzie and Bridget then I guess they would be not guilty. But since that isn't possible the argument is sort of moot.

[RayS]

I guess you are saying that there can never be proof of guilt. Therefore that proves Arnold Brown's theory since he does admit it can't be proved.
Yes, there is a leap of faith here. All previous writers were sure that Lizzie did, or maybe Bridget, or Emma for sure (you know their names).

I think Brown himself (given his experiences) knew he could not prove it, but this story was just too good to be passed over. It alone provides the solution to the mystery of this case. IMO

[Smudgeman]

[quote="RayS @ Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:09 pm"]I guess you are saying that there can never be proof of guilt. Therefore that proves Arnold Brown's theory since he does admit it can't be proved.


That statement makes no sense whatsoever to me? Since there is no proof of guilt, we are all to agree that Brown was right?huh? You are talking in riddles again.

[Yooper]

I guess you are saying that there can never be proof of guilt. Therefore that proves Arnold Brown's theory since he does admit it can't be proved.
Yes, there is a leap of faith here. All previous writers were sure that Lizzie did, or maybe Bridget, or Emma for sure (you know their names).

I think Brown himself (given his experiences) knew he could not prove it, but this story was just too good to be passed over. It alone provides the solution to the mystery of this case. IMO

The fact that there can never be proof of guilt, and Arnold Brown's agreement with that, in no way proves the rest of Arnold Brown's hypothesis. That's like saying Arnold Brown agreed that Lizzie's middle name was Andrew, so he must have been right about everything he said.

[SteveS.]

RayS wrote "I guess you are saying that there can never be proof of guilt. Therefore that proves Arnold Brown's theory since he does admit it can't be proved. "

Makes entirely no sense to me either so I submit it was a murder/suicide commited by Andrew since it can never be proven.

[theebmonique]

I guess you are saying that there can never be proof of guilt. Therefore that proves Arnold Brown's theory since he does admit it can't be proved.

So...any theory of guilt in this case can therefore be proven by admitting it can't be proven ??????? I am with the "it makes no sense" crowd.





Tracy...

[RayS]

I guess you are saying that there can never be proof of guilt. Therefore that proves Arnold Brown's theory since he does admit it can't be proved.
Yes, there is a leap of faith here. All previous writers were sure that Lizzie did, or maybe Bridget, or Emma for sure (you know their names).

I think Brown himself (given his experiences) knew he could not prove it, but this story was just too good to be passed over. It alone provides the solution to the mystery of this case. IMO

The fact that there can never be proof of guilt, and Arnold Brown's agreement with that, in no way proves the rest of Arnold Brown's hypothesis. That's like saying Arnold Brown agreed that Lizzie's middle name was Andrew, so he must have been right about everything he said.

OK, not everyone saw the humor in that post.
What I mean is this: Brown alone admitted he had no proof, an honest admission. The others who said it was Lizzie, or maybe Bridget, or Emma, or ??? NEVER admitted they had no proof. This makes Brown more honest and believable than previous writers. Don't you agree with the logic of this?

You have to take Brown's theory as the result of the memoirs of Henry Hawthorne together with his researches. Anyone who has read a book knows how a writer becomes a partisan of his theories.

[Angel]

I was reading the archives and had a thought. Maybe it wasn't Lizzie's time of the month at all, but she was smart enough to use the nondisposable napkins (women used at that time) to clean up the murder blood and wash herself off. It would have been almost mpossible to hide towels or whatever else she could have used, so she put the napkins into water in a bucket like she always did when she had her cycle and put it down into the cellar to soak. It could be a clever way to hide something in plain sight.

[Allen]

I was reading the archives and had a thought. Maybe it wasn't Lizzie's time of the month at all, but she was smart enough to use the nondisposable napkins (women used at that time) to clean up the murder blood and wash herself off. It would have been almost mpossible to hide towels or whatever else she could have used, so she put the napkins into water in a bucket like she always did when she had her cycle and put it down into the cellar to soak. It could be a clever way to hide something in plain sight.

I agree with that idea Angel, because I've proposed that the same idea was possible. Lincoln proposed the idea in her book, and I so agree that it would've been easy for her to have cleaned off with the napkins and then put them neatly in the bucket. No man, police officer or not, was going to check that out to thoroughly.

[1bigsteve]

I've been thinking the same thing. Lizzie could have claimed she was in her monthly cycle as a means of covering up the blood by claiming it was hers when it could have been her parent's blood. That would be "hiding the clean-up in plain site."

Maybe it was just the hatchet or cleaver she cleaned or maybe she did the murders in the nude, although I highly doubt that. Perhaps she washed the cover she used to protect her clothes from the spray. Could she have been washing that protective cover, and that is where the blood in the pot came from?

-1bigsteve (o:

[Smudgeman]

It really is a very clever idea, I mean I am sure a woman's menstrual cycle was not a topic of discussion among family members, maybe only Dr. Bowen would know with any certainty, or maybe not? A slop pail was a slop pail, who is to question what was in it? Yuk.

[Yooper]

Lizzie might have washed or rinsed almost anything in the laundry room and left it there. The only person left alive to know that it was out of place was Bridget, Emma had been away.

[Allen]

Lizzie might have washed or rinsed almost anything in the laundry room and left it there. The only person left alive to know that it was out of place was Bridget, Emma had been away.

This is another good point. I think she could've cleaned off with the napkins, put them in the bucket as menstrual rags, and then used the "paint stained" dress to explain any stains on her clothing. But the dress had to be burned because the police officers and scientists involved would've had no qualms about checking her dress. Another thing I've been thinking about were the handkerchiefs she was supposedly ironing. Could the menstual napkins have passed for handkerchiefs if they were not inspected to closely? Could she have had a few of them them on hand, along with the bucket she left down in the kitchen, to do quick clean up? She could've had a clean bucket with nothing but water in it and mixed in just enough real handkerchiefs to conveniently leave them hanging damp to be found by Alice. I realize it's a stretch and this is all pure speculation.

[Yooper]

I expect any damp cloths of any kind might have been questionable. How thoroughly can blood be washed or rinsed in a short time? Among Lizzie's friends and family, I think there was a tendency to close one eye and look the other way where incriminating evidence was concerned. If true, this makes many things possible. Alice finally mentioned the dress burning, but at the eleventh hour. It may be that the only reason she brought it up was that the private detective was aware that she knew about it.

[Allen]

What I was meant was along the lines of Lizzie bringing the napkins down to the dining room mixed in with the handkerchiefs she was supposedly ironing. This would aid in a quick clean up. She could use the napkins, but leave the dampened handkerchiefs hanging as evidence to corroborate her story. The napkins went into the bucket, and down cellar. Since the handkerchiefs indeed never had any blood on them they would not have looked suspicious. My idea about the bucket having clean water in it for cleaning up was because I didn't know if Lizzie would have been afraid of Bridget hearing her run water in the sink so close to the time of Andrew's death.

[Yooper]

That would be an ideal place to hide the napkins if they at all resembled the handkerchiefs, I have no idea what they looked like. It may be that damp towels on a drying rack would raise suspicions. The pail would be a good way to disguise clean-up rags, bloody napkins are bloody napkins, regardless of the blood source. Once in the pail, they are unlikely to be questioned in detail, and searching the pail would have been avoided.

[theebmonique]

I was reading the archives and had a thought. Maybe it wasn't Lizzie's time of the month at all, but she was smart enough to use the nondisposable napkins (women used at that time) to clean up the murder blood and wash herself off. It would have been almost mpossible to hide towels or whatever else she could have used, so she put the napkins into water in a bucket like she always did when she had her cycle and put it down into the cellar to soak. It could be a clever way to hide something in plain sight.

Excellent idea Angel. Since using blood types in forensics was not available at the time of the Borden murders, it's not like they could have tested the rags for Andrew/Abby's blood types even if they had suspected a bucket and its contents.





Tracy...

[sguthmann]

Does anyone know if the police got down on their knees and looked for any pin-head sized blood spots on the Borden's carpet/hardwood floors? I've been thinking that a killer would have left at least a few drops of blood from the guest bedroom to the hiding place and from the sitting room to the exit point. Now, if the killer wiped the blood off the hatchet after each murder, what happened to the "rag" used to wipe off the blood? Was it thrown into the stove? Hatchet heads don't absorb blood so some drops must have landed somewhere, perhaps just a few feet away from the bodies.

These are just my rambling ideas floating around in my head right now.

-1bigsteve (o:

Depending on the shade and weave of the carpeting, and the length of time any stains had to dry, it's possible that blood stains were missed in my opinion. If they were small and blended in with the color of the carpet they might have been passed over. Especially if they were dry and produced no contact transfer. I had an idea about this, althought I'm not sure of how plausible it is. If Lizzie was the killer, to keep the hatchet from dripping on the floor could she have carried it in her skirt? Lifted her skirt slighty on both sides in the front to make a sort of cradle for the hatchet? I am picturing it sort of being lifted like a woman might lift her skirt to step over something she didn't want to get on her dress. It would mean more bloodstaining on the skirt she was wearing, but could it be a possibility?

I think it is HIGHLY likely that blood on the carpet was missed, especially in the guest room. The carpet appears fairly dark in color, with various patterns that could have made blood drops and spatter very hard to see with the naked eye. Without luminol, some would be virtually impossible.

[shakiboo]

I believe Lizzie said that she had stopped her monthly the day before (?) Possibly earlier in the week. But wouldn't blood, even in water begin to smell? and go from bright red to brown? What I'm getting at is.....if it was fresh blood from that day, wouldn't it be different then blood from 24 hours before?

[Yooper]

I don't know how closely the police would have examined the napkins or the pail, possibly not close enough to notice a difference in blood color. If the napkins weren't washed more often, then they sat until laundry day, up to a week later. I have absolutely no idea how they handled that.

[theebmonique]

The red color gets dark pretty quick due to the oxygen disappating out of the red blood cells. I am thinking it would get dark within an hour or so at least...maybe faster...depending on the concentration of blood in a given spot/location.





Tracy...

[Yooper]

How quickly would the oxygen dissipate in water? A slightly acidic solution might hasten the reaction, maybe add vinegar to make the blood appear "older"?

[theebmonique]

I can't find anything on dissipation time, but in 'plain' water, another factor would be hemolysis due to a difference in salinity of the water and the blood. I am not sure on the effects of acetic acid. Hemolysis ? Crenation ? Seems like either way, the oxygen would escape the RBC's.





Tracy...

[Kat]

The officers of the court stipulated at trial that Lizzie's period ended Wednesday night, Aug. 3rd. If anyone wants that exchange from the trial let me know and I'll post it. I can't dismiss it because it is a significant fact. I don't think Knowlton would have agreed unless he had proof. Proof could be in the form of the Matron of the jail giving him the info. Lizzie was in her custody and could count. She would know.

Dr. Dolan checked the napkins himself, after they were taken.
See his testimony at "Blood Evidence" at the website:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... idence.htm

Is there any more from Dolan on this at trial?

"Dr. Dolan Testifies [Prelim]

Questioned by Mr. Adams
Bloody Cloths


Pg. 188:
Q: Do you remember a pail in the cellar?
A: Yes Sir
Q: And were there some clothes or napkins in that pail?
A: Yes Sir, three.
Q: Did you examine them?
A: I examined them casually.
Q: Did you take them?
A: No sir.
Q: Were they taken by anybody?
A: By the officer, officer Mullaly I think I told to take them.
Q: What was subsequently done with them, if you know?
A: Nothing; they were left down stairs in the marshal’s office, and nothing further done with them."

The handkerchiefs that Lizzie was ironing or were sprinkled prepared for ironing were her fine handkerchiefs, I had always thought. I am looking for that- if anyone finds it let me know?

Here is testimony about the handkerchiefs:
Trial
Alice Russell
399
Q. Did you see any handkerchiefs about there?
A. I found some handkerchiefs in the dining room.

Q. Had they been ironed?
A. Some of them.

Q. And some, I infer, had not been, from your answer?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the condition of those that had not been ironed?
A. They were sprinkled to iron.

Q. About how many were there altogether?
A. I don't know positively.

Q. I am not very particular---about how many?
A. After hearing about handkerchiefs I tried to remember, and as nearly as I
could judge there were four or five ironed and two or three sprinkled to be ironed.

Q. There were some of both?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember what became of them?
A. I took them upstairs and as I went in Miss Lizzie said, "Oh, yes, those are what I was ironing."

Q. What was done with them?
A. I said, "What shall I do with them, and she said, "Lay them in this drawer." and I took those that were sprinkled and lay them over Miss Lizzie's towel rack to dry.

Q. When you say they were sprinkled, that is the ordinary process in house-keeping when getting ready to iron?
A. Yes, sir.

-----
Inquest
Alice
150
...[Lizzie told Alice]“I was ironing handkerchiefs, and my flat iron was not hot, and I thought I would go and get that while I was waiting.”
Q. What did she say she went to get?
A. A piece of tin or iron to fix the screen. I found the handkerchiefs part ironed, and part damp. I took the damp ones and shook them out.
Q. Did you find the ironing board?
A. I dont remember seeing it.
Q. A little ironing board?
A. I dont remember it.
_________

Bridget at the Preliminary says, at some point:

23
Q. You did the ironing, I suppose, for the family?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. What was this that she was ironing?
A. Handkerchiefs. She always done them herself.

.....
76
Q. Now I will come back again to your finding her ironing. Did you see the handkerchiefs?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Do you know when she sprinkled them?
A. No Sir.

Q. Do you know when she washed them?
A. No Sir.

Q. Did not she wash some handkerchiefs several days before that?
A. Lizzie always washed her own handkerchiefs.

Q. Several days before that?
A. No Sir.

Q. They were not washed that week, because you washed on Monday, and dried Tuesday, and ironed Wednesday?
A. I do not remember.

Q. Do you remember whether she sprinkled any handkerchiefs in the kitchen?
A. I do not remember. I often saw her do it.

Q. Did you see a pile of handkerchiefs on the dining room table when she was trying to iron, or ironing them?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Were they rolled up, as clothes are when they are ironed?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Did they appear to be sprinkled?
A. Yes Sir.

Page 77

Q. They are sprinkled because they are a little too dry to iron?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. These appeared that way?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Do you know how many she had ironed?
A. No Sir.

Q. Some were ironed, you think, and there was a roll unironed?
A. Yes Sir.

[shakiboo]

Thanks Kat, for the testimony. That would have been an excellant way for Lizzie to hide any rags she used to do any clean up. Such as wiping the weapon off, and her face and hands. Only three were there, enough to be from her last day of her cycle also. Then the amount of blood would also come into play, also the color. The last day of her cycle would surely not have been heavy, there wouldn't have been alot of blood on the napkins as her cycle would be ending and completely done the next day. If she washed out the napkins on a daily basis, and surely she did. Then it could possibly be from her last days cycle. Surely Lizzie would take care of that herself and not leave it for Bridget.

[Yooper]

So, if Lizzie's cycle ended on Tuesday rather than Wednesday, she could have used the napkins for cleanup on Thursday and said they had been there since Wednesday night? She might have washed anything actually used on Tuesday sometime on Wednesday.

[shakiboo]

Right Yooper, but again the amount of blood would come into play...........wouldn't have been very much if from her cycle...little to none actually. Wish they'd been a little more informative about that. For instance, " three napkins, stained slightly" or "three napkins with bloodstains covering the majority of each". If ya get what I"m trying to say.....

[Yooper]

I'm thinking there might have been very little blood spatter to clean up and once the napkins had been rinsed and wrung out a couple of times, the pattern on the napkins might be less definite.

[Kat]

The only things I would have a problem with would be that some may believe a handkerchief was interchangeable with a mentrual napkin/cloth, even to the cops- that's why I think it's important to know Dolan looked at them.

The other is that Lizzie was faking a period.

I think it's just as likely that if she plannned the murders she planned it around her menstrual cycle rather than faking a period- because of the stipulation.

Remember we are still coming out of those dark days of *Legends* that Lizzie was killing due to PMS!

[Kat]

And also refuting the Trickey/McHenry false story in the papers that Lizzie was pregnant and that that is what she and Andrew fought about.
All these things center on Lizzie's blood and menstrual cycle.

[Yooper]

The napkins might have been kept anywhere, they didn't need to be among the handkerchiefs. Abby was killed upstairs with plenty of time to clean up afterwards. Andrew's murder was a time crunch. Unless Lizzie carried the hatchet with her when she came downstairs, it had to be retrieved from somewhere, and so might a napkin.

I agree, it would have called for a great deal of premeditation to time the murders to coincide with her cycle. It pretty well makes Andrew's murder premeditated. Killing only Abby and leaving the house to establish an alibi could include disposing of any evidence along the way.

[Smudgeman]

And also refuting the Trickey/McHenry false story in the papers that Lizzie was pregnant and that that is what she and Andrew fought about.
All these things center on Lizzie's blood and menstrual cycle.

Don't you think Bridget would know about Lizzie's menstrual cycle, I mean what time of the month it generally came? Definitely the women of the house would know about that I think.

[Allen]

And also refuting the Trickey/McHenry false story in the papers that Lizzie was pregnant and that that is what she and Andrew fought about.
All these things center on Lizzie's blood and menstrual cycle.

Don't you think Bridget would know about Lizzie's menstrual cycle, I mean what time of the month it generally came? Definitely the women of the house would know about that I think.

Good point considering Bridget was most likely the one who always laundered the menstrual napkins. She would most likely be aware of when it was Lizzie's "time". If I had to wash them, lets just say I think I'd be aware of around when this little chore could be expected of me.

[Nadzieja]

Hi Kat, I found where Lizzie said that she was ironing her "best handkerchiefs" It is in her inquest on P (16). Q: It may seem a foolish question. How much of an ironing did you have? Her answer: I only had about eight or ten of my best handkerchiefs.

[Nadzieja]

Something doesn't sound quite right, Dr. Dolan examined it "casually". It sounds as if he took one small peek at it then walked away. He told another officer to take them then really nothing was done with them. Seeing there was no blood analysis, what else would he say. Men at that time might have know what was biologically involved with menstral cycles but I doubt they knew the way they were handled. People just didn't talk about those things as openly as now. So I think if Lizzie wanted to she could have hid something in there knowing they would be too embarassed to pursue the subject.

[Yooper]

Something doesn't sound quite right, Dr. Dolan examined it "casually". It sounds as if he took one small peek at it then walked away. He told another officer to take them then really nothing was done with them. Seeing there was no blood analysis, what else would he say. Men at that time might have know what was biologically involved with menstral cycles but I doubt they knew the way they were handled. People just didn't talk about those things as openly as now. So I think if Lizzie wanted to she could have hid something in there knowing they would be too embarassed to pursue the subject.

That's a good question, what exactly is a casual examination? Casual with respect to what?

From a practical standpoint, what would a thorough examination tell Dr. Dolan? Would he have been able to prove anything conclusively with a closer examination? Perhaps the term "casual" allows Dr. Dolan to show that he had done his job, without indicating too much interest in the subject matter. I think Lizzie may have had them over a barrel!

[twinsrwe]

I was reading the archives and had a thought. Maybe it wasn't Lizzie's time of the month at all, but she was smart enough to use the nondisposable napkins (women used at that time) to clean up the murder blood and wash herself off. It would have been almost mpossible to hide towels or whatever else she could have used, so she put the napkins into water in a bucket like she always did when she had her cycle and put it down into the cellar to soak. It could be a clever way to hide something in plain sight.

I think this is a very good possibly, Ellen.

My Grandmother would have been at the age to start her menstrual cycles around 1890; she and I were very close when I was growing up and at one point in time I lived with her for awhile. When I became of age to start my menstrual cycles, she told me that when she was a young girl, she wore very bulky cotton "rags" folded several times to the size needed. These rags were made from old discarded dresses, or bed sheets. (Due to the fact that she was not rich, it was unheard of to "buy" menstrual rags/cloths/napkins.) Once used, the menstrual rags were rinsed out in cold water, then left to soak in pails that contained clean cold water until laundered; menstrual rags were laundered on a daily basis, due to the odor.

Granted, my Grandmother did not have a maid, however, I highly doubt that if she did have one, she would have left her menstrual rags for the maid to do, as a woman's menstrual cycle materials are very personal things.

[twinsrwe]

... My idea about the bucket having clean water in it for cleaning up was because I didn't know if Lizzie would have been afraid of Bridget hearing her run water in the sink so close to the time of Andrew's death.

It is my understanding that there was running water out in the barn, if this is so, then, perhaps Lizzie's trip out to the barn on the 4th, was for clean water, instead of a piece of tin or iron to fix the screen door, or, the sinkers for her fishing line, as she claimed.

[twinsrwe]

I believe Lizzie said that she had stopped her monthly the day before (?) Possibly earlier in the week. But wouldn't blood, even in water begin to smell? and go from bright red to brown? What I'm getting at is.....if it was fresh blood from that day, wouldn't it be different then blood from 24 hours before?

I would think so. The blood would definitely be different in color. As you know, at the beginning a menstrual cycle the blood is bright red; by the last day the blood is dark reddish-brown in color. However, it is unknown if Lizzie's menstrual rags were rinsed out in cold water, then left to soak in pails that contained clean water until laundered, or if the menstrual rags were just put in water until laundered, without being rinsed out first. I, also, think the rags would definitely smell if they were not rinsed out, prior to being left in fresh water to soak.

[Kat]

Thank you Nadzieja- that is just what I was wanting about Lizzies' "best" handkerchiefs!

Has anyone gone further and read Dolan at the trial about the pail and cloths? Is there anything in the trial about it? I thought there was a bit more than *casual*.

[twinsrwe]

Thanks Kat, for the testimony. That would have been an excellant way for Lizzie to hide any rags she used to do any clean up. Such as wiping the weapon off, and her face and hands. Only three were there, enough to be from her last day of her cycle also. Then the amount of blood would also come into play, also the color. The last day of her cycle would surely not have been heavy, there wouldn't have been alot of blood on the napkins as her cycle would be ending and completely done the next day. If she washed out the napkins on a daily basis, and surely she did. Then it could possibly be from her last days cycle. Surely Lizzie would take care of that herself and not leave it for Bridget.

I agree. Lizzie could have wiped off the weapon, her face and hands, then placed the bloodied rag(s) in the menstrual pail which contained her menstrual rags, then took the menstrual rag pail out to the barn, rinsed all of the rags out, then filled the menstrual pail with fresh clean water for them to soak in until she had the time to launder them. By rinsing out the rags, most, if not all, of the dark reddish-brown blood from the last day of her period as well as the bright red blood from the murders would no longer have been visable to the naked eye. (Bright red blood will easily come out of cotton material if rinsed out within a short period of time after blood had gotten on the material.) I think Lizzie would have had plenty time to accomplish this task. Of course, this is only speculation on my part.


I also think, Lizzie, Emma, Abby and Bridget, most likely, took care of laundering their own menstrual rags. This just makes sense to me. Lizzie was in the process of ironing handkerchiefs on the morning of the murders; wouldn't ironing normally be a job for the maid? I think Bridget's role, in the Borden household, was more for Abby's benefit than for Lizzie's or Emma's benefit. It is my understanding, that Lizzie and Emma kept pretty much to themselves and did a few things around the house for their own benefit, such as Lizzie ironing her own handkerchiefs.

[Allen]

I also think, Lizzie, Emma, Abby and Bridget, most likely, took care of laundering their own menstrual rags. This just makes sense to me. Lizzie was in the process of ironing handkerchiefs on the morning of the murders; wouldn't ironing normally be a job for the maid? I think Bridget's role, in the Borden household, was more for Abby's benefit than for Lizzie's or Emma's benefit. It is my understanding, that Lizzie and Emma kept pretty much to themselves and did a few things around the house for their own benefit, such as Lizzie ironing her own handkerchiefs.

The Witness Statements page 28 from the notes of William Medley:

I then had a talk with Bridget about the pail and it contents. She said she had not noticed the pail until that day, and it could not have been there two days before, or she would have seen it, and put the contents into the wash, as that was the day she had done the washing.

[Allen]

Medley also states in his notes that Lizzie had said that bucket had been there for three or four days. This indicates, and makes more sense to me, that it was a custom for her to take her bucket of menstrual rags down cellar and leave them there for Bridget to wash. Which is sort of corroborated by Bridget's statement. If Lizzie laundered her own napkins, Bridget probably would not have made the statement about putting them into the wash if she had seen them.

[Angel]

Medley also states in his notes that Lizzie had said that bucket had been there for three or four days.

That statement, it seems to me, looks like a cover-up. Bridget says she didn't notice the bucket there three or four days ago. Lizzie would WANT others to think it had been there days before the murders. However, if it had, it would have been reeking by that time because of the hot weather.

[shakiboo]

Medley also states in his notes that Lizzie had said that bucket had been there for three or four days.

That statement, it seems to me, looks like a cover-up. Bridget says she didn't notice the bucket there three or four days ago. Lizzie would WANT others to think it had been there days before the murders. However, if it had, it would have been reeking by that time because of the hot weather.

But, Lizzie said her last day of her cycle was Wednesday, that would be too late for Bridget to get them in the laundry, as she had already done the wash. BUT if she did do the napkins, and not Lizzie, there should have been some for her to do when she did the wash that week. From what she says apparently there wasn't, so why would there only be 3 there, and supposedly from Lizzies last day of her cycle? That being the case, Bridget would have seen them there, unless Lizzie had them in the pail upstairs, and that's what she brought down that thursday morning. Bridget did see her go down cellar with a slop pail that morning. But again there should have been way more then just three, if (and I doubt it) they were from her monthly.

[Angel]

[quote="shakiboo @ Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:13 am
But, Lizzie said her last day of her cycle was Wednesday, that would be too late for Bridget to get them in the laundry, as she had already done the wash. .[/quote]

But, that's what Lizzie SAID--how do we know she was telling the truth? She may not even had her cycle during that time.