Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Kevin Luna wrote:

twinsrwe wrote:

Kevin Luna wrote:I'm looking for a reason to believe that the handleless hatchet isn't the murder weapon.

Kevin, we have given you several reasons why the handleless hatchet is NOT the murder weapon

I don't think you have. I think you have given me reasons why we can't be sure that it's the murder weapon.

I want to know why you believe the handleless hatchet IS the murder weapon,

For the same reason that I believe Lizzie is guilty. I see too much circumstantial evidence against it, and I see no reason to believe that it's not guilty.

and proof that the murder weapon could not have been any other hatchet

It could've been any hatchet with a 3.5 inch blade.

Kevin Luna, the prosecution did present the handle-less hatchet as the murder weapon and it was not taken seriously due to lack of proof. You say that you believe it is the weapon used in the murders, but go on to state it could have been any 3.5 inch hatchet. You state yourself we can't be sure. Do you have any proof to support your theory that it could be the weapon other than your gut feeling?

KGDevil wrote:Kevin Luna, the prosecution did present the handle-less hatchet as the murder weapon and it was not taken seriously due to lack of proof. You say that you believe it is the weapon used in the murders, but go on to state it could have been any 3.5 inch hatchet. You state yourself we can't be sure. Do you have any proof to support your theory that it could be the weapon other than your gut feeling?

There's evidence that the hatchet was washed, rubbed with ashes, then intentionally broken.

According to Officer Mulally's testimony at trial the handles of all of the axes they found were covered in ashes as well.

KGDevil wrote:According to Officer Mulally's testimony at trial the handles of all of the axes they found were covered in ashes as well.

Right, presumably from the furnace, but the ash that covered the handleless hatchet was coarse, not a fine dusting, and it was adhered to both sides of the blade. Also, there was no trace of ash in the break.

Kevin Luna wrote:

KGDevil wrote:According to Officer Mulally's testimony at trial the handles of all of the axes they found were covered in ashes as well.

Right, presumably from the furnace, but the ash that covered the handleless hatchet was coarse, not a fine dusting, and it was adhered to both sides of the blade. Also, there was no trace of ash in the break.

Where would Lizzie have gotten the ashes? No signs of ash in the break would indicate it was covered with ashes first and then broken. Did she have the ability to break it? Where and how was it broken? This tacks on extra disposal methods that had to be completed in the short period between killing Andrew and calling Bridget downstairs. All of this at a time when simply cleaning the weapon would have washed away most of the trace evidence they were capable of collecting. Which would have only been blood and hair. With their limited technology they could only established the difference between animal and human blood. The doctor even conceded cleaning the hatchet would have cleaned away most of the evidence.

KGDevil wrote:Where would Lizzie have gotten the ashes?

There was a pile of ashes in the cellar.

Did she have the ability to break it? Where and how was it broken?

If she had a saw, she could have sawed part of the handle off, then snapped off the rest.

All of this at a time when simply cleaning the weapon would have washed away most of the trace evidence they were capable of collecting. Which would have only been blood and hair. With their limited technology they could only established the difference between animal and human blood. The doctor even conceded cleaning the hatchet would have cleaned away most of the evidence.

But then there's one perfectly clean hatchet with a bunch of dusty ones. And the one clean one just happens to be an exact replica of the imagined murder weapon.

Kevin Luna wrote:

KGDevil wrote:Where would Lizzie have gotten the ashes?

There was a pile of ashes in the cellar.

Did she have the ability to break it? Where and how was it broken?

If she had a saw, she could have sawed part of the handle off, then snapped off the rest.

All of this at a time when simply cleaning the weapon would have washed away most of the trace evidence they were capable of collecting. Which would have only been blood and hair. With their limited technology they could only established the difference between animal and human blood. The doctor even conceded cleaning the hatchet would have cleaned away most of the evidence.

But then there's one perfectly clean hatchet with a bunch of dusty ones. And the one clean one just happens to be an exact replica of the imagined murder weapon.

The jury didn't believe it, and I am not sure I do either.

KGDevil wrote:

Kevin Luna wrote:

KGDevil wrote:Where would Lizzie have gotten the ashes?

There was a pile of ashes in the cellar.

Did she have the ability to break it? Where and how was it broken?

If she had a saw, she could have sawed part of the handle off, then snapped off the rest.

All of this at a time when simply cleaning the weapon would have washed away most of the trace evidence they were capable of collecting. Which would have only been blood and hair. With their limited technology they could only established the difference between animal and human blood. The doctor even conceded cleaning the hatchet would have cleaned away most of the evidence.

But then there's one perfectly clean hatchet with a bunch of dusty ones. And the one clean one just happens to be an exact replica of the imagined murder weapon.

The jury didn't believe it, and I am not sure I do either.

What do you believe?

I think that the real murder weapon was possibly never found.

KGDevil wrote:I think that the real murder weapon was possibly never found.

Do you believe that Lizzie is the killer? I have a feeling that your answer will be "I think that the real murderer was possibly never found."

Kevin Luna wrote:

KGDevil wrote:I think that the real murder weapon was possibly never found.

Do you believe that Lizzie is the killer? I have a feeling that your answer will be "I think that the real murderer was possibly never found."

Actually, I do believe that Lizzie did it. One really doesn't have anything to do with the other.

KGDevil wrote:

Kevin Luna wrote:

KGDevil wrote:I think that the real murder weapon was possibly never found.

Do you believe that Lizzie is the killer? I have a feeling that your answer will be "I think that the real murderer was possibly never found."

Actually, I do believe that Lizzie did it. One really doesn't have anything to do with the other.

I agree, they don't have anything to do with each other. Do you believe that the break on the hatchet was probably intentional, because if the break were caused by accident, some of the ash would have come off?

Actually, Kevin Luna, I think the presence of coarse ashes on the weapon precludes any use of a saw on the hatchet. These are my thoughts on why. Whether or not the break was intentional, I think the handle had to have been snapped off or broken off by force. If the hatchet had been covered in ashes before using a saw on it the ashes would've been spread over the surface of the broken area by the movement of the saw blade. Both by the repeated sawing motion by someone unfamiliar with using a saw, and the resulting vibration it would have caused. Or do you believe the blade of the saw would not have picked up any of the ash and stayed clean? If it had been covered in ashes after being broken there would've been nothing to keep the ashes from covering the surface of the broken area. I rule out the use of a vise for a variety of reasons. The main reason is the pile of ash was inside the house. I don't think it was noted that there was a vise inside the house. Cleaning it and covering it in ashes, then carrying it out to the barn doesn't make much sense. It means going outside carrying the murder weapon. If Lizzie had really been taking care to make the weapon look as dusty as the rest of the basement, and like it had been there for awhile after being broken, she would've covered the break with ashes as well. This to me points more towards this hatchet being used while it was covered in ashes. And there really was no reason to break the handle off in the first place in order to "hide" it. Simply washing it and covering it in ash, if that is the scenario you want to go with, would've been more expedient. All breaking off the handle would accomplish is wasting too much of of the clean up time between killing Andrew and calling Bridget down.

KGDevil wrote:Actually, Kevin Luna, I think the presence of coarse ashes on the weapon precludes any use of a saw on the hatchet. These are my thoughts on why. Whether or not the break was intentional, I think the handle had to have been snapped off or broken off by force. If the hatchet had been covered in ashes before using a saw on it the ashes would've been spread over the surface of the broken area by the movement of the saw blade. Both by the repeated sawing motion by someone unfamiliar with using a saw, and the resulting vibration it would have caused. Or do you believe the blade of the saw would not have picked up any of the ash and stayed clean? If it had been covered in ashes after being broken there would've been nothing to keep the ashes from covering the surface of the broken area. I rule out the use of a vise for a variety of reasons. The main reason is the pile of ash was inside the house. I don't think it was noted that there was a vise inside the house. Cleaning it and covering it in ashes, then carrying it out to the barn doesn't make much sense. It means going outside carrying the murder weapon. If Lizzie had really been taking care to make the weapon look as dusty as the rest of the basement, and like it had been there for awhile after being broken, she would've covered the break with ashes as well. This to me points more towards this hatchet being used while it was covered in ashes. And there really was no reason to break the handle off in the first place in order to "hide" it. Simply washing it and covering it in ash, if that is the scenario you want to go with, would've been more expedient. All breaking off the handle would accomplish is wasting too much of of the clean up time between killing Andrew and calling Bridget down.

So it's your belief that using the hatchet with such force to break the handle wouldn't rub the ashes off, but sawing the handle would?

One big snap, versus repeated sawing against the surface, yes I do think it's more probable.

KGDevil wrote:One big snap, versus repeated sawing against the surface, yes I do think it's more probable.

You think it's more probable that the handle broke on its first use after being covered with wet ashes?

Kevin Luna wrote:

KGDevil wrote:One big snap, versus repeated sawing against the surface, yes I do think it's more probable.

You think it's more probable that the handle broke on its first use after being covered with wet ashes?

We have no real proof as to how long this hatchet was lying around unused, or when it was bought or by who, or that it was it's first use. We have no idea how often or for what reason it had been used. It was asserted that the fact it was a "new break" didn't even mean it had to have happened in the 48 hours prior to the murders. You think it's more probable that Lizzie carried a murder weapon covered in wet ashes out to the barn, risking being seen with it, to needlessly saw off the handle?

She would be defeating her own purpose to go to all of this trouble to break off the handle, make it look dusty and unused, but leave the break clean.

KGDevil wrote:... We have no real proof as to how long this hatchet was lying around unused, or when it was bought or by who, or that it was it's first use. We have no idea how often or for what reason it had been used. ...

The closest time frame we have as to when the Handleless Hatchet came to be in the Borden's barn is through Alfred Johnson, who worked on one of the Borden farms in Swansea.

Witness Statement of Alfred Johnson, August, 11, 1892, page 37 (Underlining is mine):

Alfred Johnson made the following statement. “Have worked for Mr. Borden nine years. Have done his work at the house, cutting wood and cleaning up the yard, when not busy at the farm. Think the two last times I cut wood was early in the Spring, and again just before planting. Mr. Borden had two axes, a single hatchet, and a shop or bench hatchet. The bench hatchet has never been used much since it was sharpened. I ground it over here to the farm in the early Spring. The hatchet and axes were always kept in one place, in a box in the wood room at the left of the furnace. Never found them in any other place, and always put them back after using them, as Mr. Borden was particular about having one place for all tools. When I have been working at Mr. Borden’s, I have stayed there. (Geo. W. Seaver B. P.)

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... sState.pdf

From Alfred's statement, we know that the Handleless Hatchet had to have been brought to the Borden premises between the time of just before the planting season and early August.

KGDevil wrote:

Kevin Luna wrote:

KGDevil wrote:One big snap, versus repeated sawing against the surface, yes I do think it's more probable.

You think it's more probable that the handle broke on its first use after being covered with wet ashes?

We have no real proof as to how long this hatchet was lying around unused, or when it was bought or by who, or that it was it's first use. We have no idea how often or for what reason it had been used. It was asserted that the fact it was a "new break" didn't even mean it had to have happened in the 48 hours prior to the murders.

I'll take that as a no. If the hatchet broke by accident, it would almost certainly have been done after repeated use, in which case the ash on the blade would almost certainly have rubbed off. Since virtually none of the ash had rubbed off, the break was most likely intentional. So somehow this hatchet got wet then immediately got covered with ashes (or it got covered with wet ashes), then, before it could be used much, if at all, someone intentionally broke it. And this broken hatchet coincidentally found its way to the cellar of a house in which two people were murdered using an identical weapon.

You think it's more probable that Lizzie carried a murder weapon covered in wet ashes out to the barn, risking being seen with it, to needlessly saw off the handle?

First of all, I don't think she needed to go to the barn to break the handle, but from what I understand the barn door was actually very close to the side door, so it might not have been a big risk.

More importantly, I don't think that sawing off the handle was needless, at least not in Lizzie's mind. If blood got on the handle, she would probably feel the need to destroy it even if it weren't truly necessary. Also, remember that Lizzie wants everyone to think that an enemy of Andrew came in and assassinated him and Abby. Presumably, she also doesn't want the police to even suspect her. Lizzie may be thinking that if the police find the murder weapon at the scene, especially if it's been washed, they will suspect someone in the house, but if the police can't find the murder weapon they will suspect an intruder. She could hide the hatchet, but that's a huge risk, IMO, because she can't assume that the police will be incompetent and not search the house. And when they find it, it will send even more suspicion her way. In her mind, the best (maybe only) chance at avoiding suspicion (thus saving her lots of money in lawyer fees) is to destroy the weapon and disguise its remnants.

If Lizzie had really been taking care to make the weapon look as dusty as the rest of the basement, and like it had been there for awhile after being broken, she would've covered the break with ashes as well.

In her haste, maybe she simply didn't think about it. No one noticed the lack of ash in the break right away, or, if anyone did, it didn't dawn on them that it might be suspicious, because no one suspected it as the murder weapon until about a month after the murders.

KGDevil wrote:She would be defeating her own purpose to go to all of this trouble to break off the handle, make it look dusty and unused, but leave the break clean.

It was merely an overlooked detail. That's how criminals get caught.

twinsrwe wrote:

KGDevil wrote:... We have no real proof as to how long this hatchet was lying around unused, or when it was bought or by who, or that it was it's first use. We have no idea how often or for what reason it had been used. ...

The closest time frame we have as to when the Handleless Hatchet came to be in the Borden's barn is through Alfred Johnson, who worked on one of the Borden farms in Swansea.

Witness Statement of Alfred Johnson, August, 11, 1892, page 37 (Underlining is mine):

Alfred Johnson made the following statement. “Have worked for Mr. Borden nine years. Have done his work at the house, cutting wood and cleaning up the yard, when not busy at the farm. Think the two last times I cut wood was early in the Spring, and again just before planting. Mr. Borden had two axes, a single hatchet, and a shop or bench hatchet. The bench hatchet has never been used much since it was sharpened. I ground it over here to the farm in the early Spring. The hatchet and axes were always kept in one place, in a box in the wood room at the left of the furnace. Never found them in any other place, and always put them back after using them, as Mr. Borden was particular about having one place for all tools. When I have been working at Mr. Borden’s, I have stayed there. (Geo. W. Seaver B. P.)

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... sState.pdf

From Alfred's statement, we know that the Handleless Hatchet had to have been brought to the Borden premises between the time of just before the planting season and early August.

Thank you for providing that timeline Twins. It's very helpful information to have.

I have studied the contemporary photos of the house and barn, had the pleasure of touring the house, and read the witnesses statements about what they saw that day. Almost everyone coming and going can be accounted for by a witness. Mrs. Churchill noticed Lizzie's "distress" from her window across the yard, through the Borden's closed screen door. I'd say risk of going unnoticed was high.

I still can't agree with a scenario that requires sawing off the handle. Most people think Lizzie was not so bright. But she committed two murders and did not leave one bit of solid evidence, down to hiding the "paint stained" dress well that she was able to burn it in the stove. Not a single spot of blood on her. The bucket of bloody stained rags was left in plain sight because she claimed they were menstrual rags. Despite her terrible alibis, there was not one bit of evidence that the police could find linking her to the crime. I don't think she suddenly started needing morphine to help her sleep. I think she needed an excuse for a "foggy mind." Because although she started telling her lies before she ever took any medications, the defence used morphine to make it all go away. I give her credit for being craftier than people think. I think the murder weapon was never found.

KGDevil wrote:I still can't agree with a scenario that requires sawing off the handle.

Why not? Because it would have vibrated the ash off? Couldn't she have just smoothed the ash over by rubbing it lightly with her fingers after she broke the handle off?

I think the murder weapon was never found.

Assuming that Lizzie is the killer, there are two possibilities for what she did with the murder weapon. She either hid it in/around the house, or broke the handle off and covered it with ashes. There's no direct physical evidence that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, but there's lots of circumstantial evidence. There's precisely zero evidence, direct or circumstantial, that she hid the murder weapon somewhere in/around the house. So you should realize that if you think she hid the murder weapon, you're going against the evidence.

KGDevil wrote:... Thank you for providing that timeline Twins. It's very helpful information to have.

You're welcome. I have a feeling that the Handleless Hatchet was something the Andrew picked up, just like he did with the old lock that he picked up the day he was murdered, and perhaps he was the one who broke the handle off.

twinsrwe wrote:

KGDevil wrote:... Thank you for providing that timeline Twins. It's very helpful information to have.

You're welcome. I have a feeling that the Handleless Hatchet was something the Andrew picked up, just like he did with the old lock that he picked up the day he was murdered, and perhaps he was the one who broke the handle off.

Which is exactly what Lizzie wanted you to think.

Kevin Luna, I am not going against any evidence. Circumstantial evidence is nothing conclusive. It is open to interpretation. If she did hide it somewhere in the house, as she did the dress, and it was never found there would be no evidence of the murder weapon. Not even circumstantial. She made no bones about burning the hidden dress in front of witnesses. There was a difference between the dress and the murder weapon. The dress belonged specifically to her, had been made for her, and her sister and others knew it existed. That bit of evidence she would have to account for at some point, if not to police at least to Emma, so she needed to let them see her burn it. If she had nothing to hide she would've let police examine it. But for Emma she was finally just getting rid of an old paint stained dress. Quickly, expediently, and in plain sight. The same as the bucket of bloody rags in plain sight. We can speculate about what was on the dress but that's it. We can speculate about the rags. But that's it. And it was all in plain sight. If the hatchet wasn't hidden I believe it also would have been cleaned and in plain sight.

KGDevil wrote:Kevin Luna, I am not going against any evidence. Circumstantial evidence is nothing conclusive. It is open to interpretation.

Your belief in Lizzie's guilt is based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, correct?

If she did hide it somewhere in the house, as she did the dress, and it was never found there would be no evidence of the murder weapon. Not even circumstantial.

There might be evidence. But no evidence was found whatsoever.

She made no bones about burning the hidden dress in front of witnesses.

Correction: she made no bones about burning the dress in front of Emma, knowing that Emma would lie to protect her. Alice Russell walked into the kitchen uninvited. Besides, Lizzie was about to be arrested, she needed to destroy the dress immediately. Being witnessed destroying the dress is much better than letting the dress be examined.

There was a difference between the dress and the murder weapon. The dress belonged specifically to her, had been made for her, and her sister and others knew it existed. That bit of evidence she would have to account for at some point, if not to police at least to Emma, so she needed to let them see her burn it.

Why on earth would she ever have to account for some paint stained dress? And even if Emma asked about it, why couldn't Lizzie just tell her she got rid of it? Why would Emma have to witness the burning?

If she had nothing to hide she would've let police examine it. But for Emma she was finally just getting rid of an old paint stained dress.

I didn't say she had nothing to hide. I think she deliberately wore the paint stained dress when she did the killings so she could paint over any blood that got on it and no one would think it suspicious. After she learned that she was going to be tried for the murders, she became afraid they would examine underneath the paint, so she burned it.

Quickly, expediently, and in plain sight. The same as the bucket of bloody rags in plain sight. We can speculate about what was on the dress but that's it. We can speculate about the rags. But that's it. And it was all in plain sight. If the hatchet wasn't hidden I believe it also would have been cleaned and in plain sight.

The hatchet was cleaned and in plain sight. Quickly and expediently cleaned. But it was also disguised, just like the bloody rags, just like the dress. Everything was more or less in plain sight (the dress was apparently "hidden" in a cupboard, but it might not have been there the whole time).

You can justify it however you want, but the fact remains that you're going against what little evidence there was. The same can be said for those who believe in Lizzie's innocence. There's no evidence whatsoever that there was an intruder.

The rags weren't disguised. It was a bucket of bloody rags. The only disguise was Lizzie's word saying they were menstrual rags. Even though Bridget said that bucket had not been there when she did laundry. She made no attempt to hide them. The dress was not disguised. It already had paint on it, and probably blood from the killings, and she didn't diguise it. She burned it in front of witnesses who knew it was a paint stained dress owned by Lizzie Borden. For me it doesn't fit her known behaviors to try to dispose of the hatchet the way it is asserted.

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? Now you theorize she was planning to paint over an already paint stained dress. With no proof of that. Emma knew where the stains were on the dress and testified to that in court. When would she have opportunity to paint over an already paint stained dress? Why would she have to account for it? The police were looking for clothing worn by the killer. They even looked at a dress pattern thinking she may have made a dress to wear during the killings.They looked at their raincoats. You can justify it however you like, but circumstantial evidence is not definitive. It is open to interpretation. And my interpretation happens to be different from yours. As was the interpretation of the jury who aquitted her. If it was as iron clad as you paint it to be she would have been found guilty in the face of it because there would have been no room for doubt.

As a side note: The dress maker who made the dress knew of it's existance, and could still describe what it looked like to the court. They even went as far as calling the man who mixed the house paint that got on the dress as a witness.

KGDevil wrote:The rags weren't disguised. It was a bucket of bloody rags. The only disguise was Lizzie's word saying they were menstrual rags.

You say that the rags weren't disguised, then two sentences later you explain how they were disguised.

The dress was not disguised. It already had paint on it, and probably blood from the killings, and she didn't diguise it.

There must have been some kind of incriminating stain on it, because she burned it. So you're telling me she kept a blood- and paint-stained dress hidden in her house for days, and didn't bother painting over the blood stains? If the dress already had paint on it, why the heck wouldn't she cover over the blood with paint?

For me it doesn't fit her known behaviors to try to dispose of the hatchet the way it is asserted.

Does murder fit her known behaviors? As if that even mattered.

She wore that dress on a day to day basis for weeks.

Where did you learn that from?

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?

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.

Now you theorize she was planning to paint over an already paint stained dress. With no proof of that.

No proof, just reason and common sense.

When would she have opportunity to paint over an already paint stained dress?

Immediately after Andrew's murder. There was very little blood spilled in the two murders. It wouldn't have taken long to cover up the blood spots.

Why would she have to account for it? The police were looking for clothing worn by the killer.

You were talking about having to account for it to Emma. Now you're moving the goalposts. The police didn't know the paint-stained dress even existed. If someone informed the police of the existence of the dress she could just say "oh I got rid of that thing a while ago. It was stained with paint!" If someone said they saw it the day of the murders, she could just say that they're mistaken. It's her word against theirs.

Here's an excerpt from Emma's trial testimony:

Q. Which one was made first?
A. This Bedford cord.

Q. Do you know whether or not they were painting the house at the time that dress was made?
A. I think they did not begin to paint it until after the dress was done.

Q. Do you know anything about her getting any paint on it at that time?
A. Yes, she did.

Q. Where was the paint upon it?
A. I should say along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt.

Q. How soon was that after it was made?
A. Well, I think within two weeks; perhaps less time than that.

Q. How soon did she put it on to wear after it was made?
A. I think she put it on the next morning after it was done.

Q. Now where was that dress, if you know, on Saturday, the day of the search?
A. I saw it hanging in the clothes press over the front entry.

Q. At what time?
A. I don't know exactly; I think about 9 o'clock in the evening.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/wp-conten ... orden2.pdf

So, assuming Lizzie destroyed the dress because it had blood stains on it, there are three possibilities:

(1) Lizzie hung up a blood-stained dress in plain view, or
(2) Lizzie covered over the blood stains with paint, then hung it up, or
(3) Emma is committing perjury.

Which do you think is true? Personally, I think Emma is committing perjury, because her testimony goes on to state that she was responsible for Lizzie burning the dress, which I find ridiculous.

When and how are you giving Lizzie the opportunity to paint a dress in a house full of people? Or directly after the murders? Paint that matches what was already on the dress, at a time when ready made buckets of paint weren't used? They man who painted the house mixed the paint himself. She is cleaning up, changing clothes, sawing off hatchet handles, and painting dresses in her short little window of time. She was a busy little bee. I think I am going to agree to disagree. You don't seem to understand that people had seen her wearing this paint stained dress since it was made. She alternated between wearing the same two house dresses, wearing one until it was soiled enough to be washed, since she had them made. Bridget washed this dress in the laundry. Suddenly, there are paint stains there that were never there in the weeks leading up to the murders. That's supposed to be less suspicious?

Kevin Luna, some of your logic seems strange to me. I did say the rags were not disguised. They were bloody rags. You can't make something not look like bloody rags with words. That's not a diguise. That's my point. You don't send kids trick or treating door to door by sending them in their every day clothes and have them say "Trick or treat, I'm the wolf man." You can't change a bucket of bloody rags into something else. They took her word for it. And she knew they would. That's why she didn't bother to hide them.

I think I respectfully agree to disagree. Because I don't quite follow some of your logic. And neither of us will change our minds.

Where did I learn how often she had worn the dress? From the testimony given.

It wouldn't be her word against everyone else's about the dress. Everyone in the house had seen her wearing it. Unless they all had reason to lie and cover it up. Emma was asked for an inventory of all of the dresses that were in the clothes closet. Do you think it wouldn't have come up at some point?

Again, I think I will respectfully agree to disagree on many points. We each see the evidence differently. And there is nothing wrong with that.

KGDevil wrote:When and how are you giving Lizzie the opportunity to paint a dress in a house full of people? Or directly after the murders? Paint that matches what was already on the dress, at a time when ready made buckets of paint weren't used? They man who painted the house mixed the paint himself.

They had recently painted the house. That's how Lizzie stained the dress in the first place. There was probably leftover paint in the cellar.

She is cleaning up, changing clothes, sawing off hatchet handles, and painting dresses in her short little window of time. She was a busy little bee.

She had between 15 and 25 minutes.

You don't seem to understand that people had seen her wearing this paint stained dress since it was made. She alternated between wearing the same two house dresses, wearing one until it was soiled enough to be washed, since she had them made. Bridget washed this dress in the laundry.

The only thing I don't understand is how any of that is relevant.

Suddenly, there are paint stains there that were never there in the weeks leading up to the murders.

The police wouldn't know that there are new paint stains. And the police are the only ones that matter.

That's supposed to be less suspicious?

Are you serious? Yes, paint stains are much less suspicious than blood stains.

Kevin Luna, some of your logic seems strange to me. I did say the rags were not disguised. They were bloody rags. You can't make something not look like bloody rags with words. That's not a diguise. That's my point. You don't send kids trick or treating door to door by sending them in their every day clothes and have them say "Trick or treat, I'm the wolf man." You can't change a bucket of bloody rags into something else. They took her word for it. And she knew they would. That's why she didn't bother to hide them.

I'm saying the guilty bloody rags were disguised as innocent menstrual rags.

Where did I learn how often she had worn the dress? From the testimony given.

Where did you learn that she wore that dress on a day to day basis for weeks? From whose testimony?

It wouldn't be her word against everyone else's about the dress. Everyone in the house had seen her wearing it.

Who specifically? Specifically when did they see her wear it? You can just cite the page number(s) in the trial testimony if you want.

Emma was asked for an inventory of all of the dresses that were in the clothes closet. Do you think it wouldn't have come up at some point?

It wouldn't have come up from Emma, that's for sure.

New paint that wasn't faded like the rest, in new areas of the dress. Any blood spatter would not have limited itself to the stained areas. Fresh paint in new areas on a faded dress and stains would not be suspicious? The prosecution tried to establish what those stains and the dress may have looked like after fading from repeated wash and wear, and becoming soiled. I don't think a fresh coat would've fooled police or the prosecuting attorney.

I assume you haven't read all of the trial testimony if you are asking where to find this information. It's relevent because everyone in the house already knew what that faded paint stained dress looked like and the location of the staining. Bridget washed this dress by hand, and hung it up to dry on the clothes line, and she ironed it. She handled it. Emma knew what it looked like. Fresh unfaded splotches suddenly appearing would be pretty relevant. Even the dress maker knew when they asked her to describe the dress and where it was stained.

I still agree to disagree. I will offer not offer any further opinions about this as I have explained all of them. I would be left to repeating myself. We have veered away from the original topic as well. The testimony of the dressmaker Mary A. Raymond starts on page 1576 of trial testimony. There is further testiomony available if you want to research it on your own.

I've read the trial transcript. Where did you learn that she wore that dress on a day to day basis for weeks? From whose testimony? Who specifically saw her wearing the dress? Specifically when did they see her wear it? Can you not answer any of these questions? You can just cite the page number(s) in the trial testimony if you want.

You cite Ms. Raymond, the dressmaker, but the last time she saw the dress was in May, months before the murders. That doesn't really help.

Fresh paint in new areas on a faded dress and stains would not be suspicious?

Not as suspicious as fresh blood.

If you had indeed read it, you would not be asking me most of these questions. You are free to look for the answers if you think I am incorrect instead of asking me to do your research for you.

Im asking you to back up your claims. Is that asking too much?

KGDevil wrote:If you had indeed read it, you would not be asking me most of these questions. You are free to look for the answers if you think I am incorrect instead of asking me to do your research for you.

You're asking me to read the entire transcript again.

I've read all of the source documents more than once. Because the only way to get answers is to look for them.

KGDevil wrote:I've read all of the source documents more than once. Because the only way to get answers is to look for them.

I'm simply asking you to back up your claims. And you can't do it. If you gave me names, I could quickly and easily look up your claim for you, but you can't even do that.

I gave you the name of one witness, and the page number of the trial. You haven't even bothered to look at that testimony you ignored my reference. If you really want to know the rest I am simply saying do your own research.

I didn't ignore it. I wrote,

You cite Ms. Raymond, the dressmaker, but the last time she saw the dress was in May, months before the murders. That doesn't really help.

I'll remind you of what you're supposed to be citing:

Where did you learn that she wore that dress on a day to day basis for weeks?

Mrs. Raymond may not have seen the dress since May. But the locations of the stains, which she clearly remembered, the fact that Lizzie wore it every day that Mrs. Raymond was there after the dress was completed, and that the color had already begun to fade since the dress had become stained, while the dress maker was there to observe it, had not changed in that three months. In fact, if the dress had already become that badly faded, in three months time I'd guess it had become even more faded. I already gave you the names of other witnesses. Which you are free to reference on your own.

the color had already begun to fade since the dress had become stained, while the dress maker was there to observe it, had not changed in that three months. In fact, if the dress had already become that badly faded, in three months time I'd guess it had become even more faded.

Why are you talking about the dress being faded?

I already gave you the names of other witnesses.

Please name them again.

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

twinsrwe wrote: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'd like to refer you both to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5271

Here's a quote:

FactFinder wrote:Lizzie only had two dresses and two wrappers that she wore every day. Day in and day out.

Here's someone's reply:

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one gave her an answer either. Curious.

KGDevil wrote:Bridget washed this dress in the laundry...Bridget washed this dress by hand, and hung it up to dry on the clothes line, and she ironed it.

If this was within the 4 weeks prior to the murders, please provide a source for this as well.

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?