Here is one source that says Lizzie did not buy a pattern that day in New Bedford when she went out alone:
"... While there she never went out alone, always going in the company of the family, with the one exception, that being Saturday morning July 23, when she went on the street to buy a piece of dress goods of some cheap material, being gone about one and 30 minutes..."
You're right, Kat. I was reading some of the New Bedford newspaper coverage of the trial, and found a passage where they asked about the pattern in court (might have been the prelim. - not sure). The defense stalled around, and then like days later presented what Lizzie was supposed to have bought that day alone shopping. It was said that maybe the defense just came up with it then, to appease the prosecution. Pattern and material did go together - was sold together. You so smart!
"The New York Times, Sunday, December 25, 1892 " HEW
"WAS IT RED PAINT OR BLOOD?
MORE OF THE STORY ABOUT LIZZIE
BORDEN’S BURNED DRESS."
..."Miss Russell and the two Misses Borden were in a room on the third or fourth day after the murders. Lizzie went out and then came into the room again, holding in her hand a dress which she pointed to, at the same time saying:
“They are making so much fuss over things about here that I guess I will burn this. It is an old dress upon which I spilled some red paint.”
She passed out into the kitchen and put the dress into the fire. When the officers in their search found a piece of this dress in the ashes they sought to learn what it meant, and it was for this purpose that the New Bedford purchase was so closely examined into. Miss Russell said nothing about this matter at the first hearing, nor did Emma Borden, but when Miss Russell was asked point blank in regard to the occurrence the day before the Grand Jury reported, she told the story."
--I don't think anyone found any piece of the burned dress. The NYTimes seems to get some things right and some things wrong.
--Did the dress pattern become more important only during the trial?
Inquest
Lizzie
Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Q. In your room?
A. No, sir; in the attic.
Q. Not made up?
89 (46)
A. O, no, sir.
Q. Where did you buy it?
A. I don't know the name of the store.
Q. On the principal street there?
A. I think it was on the street that Hutchinson's book store is on. I am not positive.
Q. What kind of a one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.
--It seems the authortities were always aware of that dress patten. I wonder what their information was on that?
The pink and white stripe might apply to the wrapper, mightn't it? Could she have made 2 of those from some old pattern? A wrapper would be quicker to get in and out of, wouldn't it?
About the paint on the dress. Didn't the newspaper fiddle with the color of the paint? Lizzie always referred to the paint color as drab, didn't she? The red sounds much more dramatic to the press, but would not look much like dried blood, which turns more of a brownish color anyway.
lydiapinkham @ Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:10 pm wrote:The pink and white stripe might apply to the wrapper, mightn't it? Could she have made 2 of those from some old pattern? A wrapper would be quicker to get in and out of, wouldn't it?--Lyddie
I think that is an interesting suggestion! A pink and white and blue striped wrapper made in the Spring, maybe? And then Lizzie made up a fake one from this *pattern* (material and pattern), since the Saturday (July 23rd) she bought it.
It's pretty late- can someone give the description of the wrapper Lizzie wore when she came out of Emma's room Thursday afternoon? And did she ever turn over that *pattern?* (I don't recall that she did...)
BeddyBye!
It may post as 2:24 a.m. but believe me it's 3:24 a.m!
Police Officer Harrington at the trial gave more than a complete description to the amusement of his listeners:
Harrington: It was a house wrap, a striped house wrap, with a pink and light stripe alternating; the pink being the most prominent color. On the light ground stripe was a diamond figure formed by a narrow stripe, some of which ran diagonally or bias to the stripe and others parallel with it. ... the sides were tailor fitting or fitted to the form. The front from the waist to the neck was loose and in folds. The collar was standing, plaited on the sides and closely shirred in front. On either side, directly over the hips, was caught a narrow bright red ribbon, perhaps three-fourths of an inch or an inch in width. This was brought around front, tied in a bow and allowed to drop, with the ends hanging a little below the bow. It was out in semi-train or bell skirt, which the ladies were wearing that season. (Trial: 565-566)
Harrington: She was dressed in a plain, or in a house wrap, striped in pattern, a pink and light stripes alternating, pink being the most prominent color or shade. On the light stripe was a diamond figure by small bars or stripes, some of which ran parallel with the stripe and other biased to it, or diagonally. It was fitted to the form on the sides; stand up collar, plaited on the sides and closely shirred in front ... gathered closely; smaller plaits in front ... from the waist to the neck it was puffed, quite a number of folds in it. On either side, directly over the hip, was caught a small, narrow, bright red ribbon, about three quarters of an inch or an inch in width. (Trial: 580)
Do we think Lizzie would be audacious enough to make a substitue murder dress as the pink and white wrapper?
Rather than an ordinary drab colored blue which resembled other blue dresses she owned?
I'm trying to figure out the psychology-- would it be easier to fake people out between 2 *garish* predominately PINK dresses than to try to fake people out with multiple blue ones?
Also, I think the wrapper is one piece, whereas the other outfits were usually or sometimes in 2 pieces.
If Lizzie hid an elephant in plain sight (a pink wrapper she murdered in) and wore the similar wrapper later lounging in her room, then maybe she burned the paint-stained Bedford cord blue dress to cover up the burning of the false pink wrapper?
I've always thought that that unmade dress pattern in the attic sounded suspiciously close in description to the pink and white wrapper Lizzie put on later in the day of the murders. I guess we never really get to hear if the pattern turned over later on matched Lizzie's description she gives of it.
Something interesting hit me from Mary Raymond's Trial testimony, the bit about the wrapper that the Bedford cord took the place of, Lizzie cut out pieces of it to save and the rest was alleged to have been burned. But, nothing was ever mentioned about another wrapper that the pink and white striped one was to take place of, I'm assuming that there was another one, that Lizzie always would have at least two house dresses. So, if this old one wasn't destroyed, Lizzie would then have the Bedford cord, the pink and white stripe wrapper and this old house dress also, three house dresses.
Bridget remembered Lizzie as usually wearing the Bedford cord around the house in the mornings, but, the morning of the murders, Bridget doesn't remember what Lizzie was wearing. If it was some sort of pink and white stripe wrapper, I think Bridget would have recalled that, it sounds bright and colorful. Do you think its possible that Lizzie was wearing this third dress, the older wrapper, not her usual Bedford cord which threw Bridget? Enough to notice it wasn't her usual attire, but, nothing so bright or noticeable about it to describe it later?
The dress pattern was not seen by the prosecution by the time Hilliard testified at the Preliminary Hearing. Porter says that Hilliard appeared on the 31st of August.
Meanwhile, any dress pattern could be gotten to take the place of the one Lizzie described at the inquest.
Later, by trial, both sides tell the court they decided the pattern had nothing to do with the case.
That could mean anything. It could mean frustration on Knowlton's part that he hadn't been on top of the importance of that dress pattern before it became too late. The 31st was obviously too late. Knowlton could be gritting his teeth and thinking to downplay any importance of the pattern as he now has a burned Bedford cord to take over the whiff of suspicion.
Inquest
Lizzie
88+
Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Q. In your room?
A. No, sir; in the attic.
Q. Not made up?
A. O, no, sir.
Q. Where did you buy it?
A. I don't know the name of the store.
Q. On the principal street there?
A. I think it was on the street that Hutchinson's book store is on. I am not positive.
Q. What kind of a one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.
.....
Preliminary
Hilliard
450
Q. (Mr. Knowlton) Mr. Hilliard, did you look in the trunks in the attic?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. All of them?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you examine their contents?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you see anything up there of an unmade dress pattern in the attic?
A. Well, there was some of the trunks that I looked into, but I did not look into all of them. I did not, to my recollection, see any dress pattern in any of the trunks that I saw.
Q. What other officer looked in the trunks in the attic besides you?
A. I think Mr. Seaver, I am not sure but what Mr. Fleet did. I think Mr. Desmond.
Q. Have you been to inquire for a dress pattern there since?
A. I have not, but under my orders other officers have.
Q. Who did go?
A. Mr. Fleet.
Q. Have you been able to get the dress pattern, or any dress pattern?
A. No Sir.
Q. When was it you sent for it?
A. I think the first officer that went there was Mr. Medley. After that, I think, I am pretty positive I sent the Assistant Marshal. Week before last I think was the first time the officer went there. I think Mr. Fleet was there a week ago last Saturday night. I think he was there some day the first part of the week, of last week.
Q. And you have not got it?
A. No Sir.
(Mr. Knowlton) I now call for it, Brother Jennings, and ask you to bring it, not now, but this afternoon.
.............
Trial
Hilliard
1146+
Q. Did you call for a dress pattern?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you hear anybody?
A. No, sir, not any of the times that I was there myself.
Q. Do you know that a dress pattern was got from the house?
A. I believe that Mr. Jennings and I think it was Mr. Harrington, I won't be sure but I think it was him that had a dress pattern brought from the house.
Q. And where is it now?
A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Was it returned or not?
A. I think it was in Mr. Jennings' custody; I don't know where it is.
Q. You haven't it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it examined by you at all?
A. No, sir, it was in the court room; I did not look at it.
MR. ROBINSON. (Addressing Government counsel) Have you that?
MR. KNOWLTON. We attached no significance to that in reference to this matter, and dropped it.
MR. ROBINSON. It had no significance at all.
.....................
Trial
Mrs. Holmes
1506
MR. JENNINGS. (To opposing Counsel) Will you produce that dress?
Q. What dress did Miss Lizzie have on when you arrived there?
A. A wrapper.
Q. Color?
A. A stripe---pink stripe and white stripe with what I should call a sheeny figure in it.
Q. How many days were you there, Mrs. Holmes, after the murder?
A. I went there, as I told you, on the 4th of August about noon. I was there parts of every day until after Miss Lizzie's arrest.
..................
Trial
Closing/Robinson
1700
Unless that, there was nothing more to be seen and nothing more to be found, and they had had all they wanted and had got her clothes and her stockings and even an unmade dress pattern and wanted to see if that had not been made up into some sort of a mantle to wrap her up in. They had got the whole thing and looked over everything, and had taken all they could find and all they wanted and notified them that they had got all through.
Thanks for all the info, Kat. I guess the dress pattern that was finally turned over must have matched Lizzie's description as they let it go. She is very specific with the type of material used and if she had used this dress as a murder dress and disposed of it, could you imagine the consultation between Lizzie and Emma? Poor Emma would have had to go and purchase a dress pattern that fit the description Lizzie gave out. It would be so interesting to learn of, if any, purchases Emma had made whilst Lizzie was under suspicion, then arrest.
Could it have been that the pink and white stripe wrapper that Lizzie did have made up already be the dress chosen to perform the murders in and the dress pattern which sounds like be used to replace it later? Opportunity knocked on Thursday morning and Lizzie answered only to find she was wearing the Bedford cord instead and not the chosen murder dress?
Well it's a big guess because she wasn't seen wearing the Bedford cord Thursday.
It's starting to make more sense that it was the wrapper which was worn. It's not so tight, it's one piece, it's worn in the morning as a casual thing. It's not as long as the Bedford cord, which might trip her up unless she wore taller shoes.
She 's got everyone looking for a blue dress, whereas it might have been pink and white and blue striped after all!
I was trting to picture Emma bringing home packages after Lizzie was arrested! You read my mind. I thought of asking Mrs. Dr. Kelly and Mrs. Churchill if they had seen Emma bring home any interesting packages... !
I guess I'm thinking more like early in the morning when Lizzie has a chance to kill Abby. Bridget didn't recall what Lizzie was wearing that morning, or, she wouldn't say. She was the only witness to Lizzie's dress besides Abby. And the dress Lizzie was wearing later when Andrew came home sounds close in description to the Bedford cord. Light blue and dark blue, diamond pattern shapes on it, a ribbed fabric also, almost like Lizzie was thinking Bridget might have had an inkling of what she was wearing earlier that day and this was a close enough match to get away with it?
Didn't it take forever for the family to turn over that dress pattern after it was asked for? Stalling for time so Emma could go back to the store that Lizzie purchased the original from? Maybe it was on order?
I picture, about the dress, if Lizzie did it, her getting up that morning, being seen wearing whatever you say she was seen in, then when Abby is upstairs working in the guestroom, Lizzie ditches that outfit and puts on her tacked together dress, maybe with an apron to top it off, hatchets Abby, changes out of those clothes back into what she was earlier seen wearing,(meanwhile Bridget has not seen Lizzie supposedly between 9 and 9:30, sees her at the screen door while Bridget is outside- and then not again until Andrew came home)- then as Andrew gets comfortable, Lizzie puts back on her killing outfit, then changes back into what she was seen wearing earlier. That way, whatever else she wore is the real herring, and the blue dress which no one seems to all totally agree upon is left up to everyone, including us, to debate- but essentially that dress is not the one which matters, so she doesn't need to "match" it.
She needs to match A dress which she already owns in case she is seen- because Bridget probably washes Lizzie's dresses and knows them- but she is not seen.
This thread is weaving a fascinating pattern! The pink wrapper makes an excellent blind. It also seems to have some psychological significance as well: pink to represent emancipation from the blues?
Yes, looking at it that way, it doesn't matter what Lizzie wore in the morning, just that whatever she was seen in stayed clean. I'm wondering if the dress pattern would come pre-basted or that was something that would have to have been done by Lizzie herself?
With Abby's murder, Lizzie would have quite a bit of time to change and clean up. But, with Andrew's murder, would Lizzie have the time to change out of a skirt and a blouse that possibly closed up with hooks and eyes. From what I've seen, some of those 1890s blouses closed along side seams and along one shoulder with the hooks and eyes, perhaps easier to get off than to put back and on and hook in a hurry? Would she have the time to get out of her clothes, put on her basted together dress pattern, murder Andrew, take off the dress pattern, clean up, hide the hatchet and burn/hide the dress pattern and get dressed in whatever dress she chose to be seen in then. Lizzie had about what, 15 minutes to do all this in.
That's a good point, especially as you described how the clothes worked back then.
Lizzie had all the time she wanted, after Andrew, if she did all that changing in her room with the door locked. She gave the alarm when she was *ready* would be all.
She's too clean to have killed Andrew but she's also too clean to have been in the barn and they should have hit her with that.
Maybe she took a chance with Andrew and wore the Prince Albert coat over her raise-the-alarm dress. The speed with which she is known to have raised the alarm is one of the most impressive aspects of her case. Since Andrew presumably was dozing, he would have been a sitting duck, and she wouldn't have to worry about inconvenient outcries about what she was doing in his coat.
Kat, I totally see your point, since Lizzie gave the alarm, she was in control, she could take her time. But, it was still such a short amount of time that she took to have done what she needed to do, kill Andrew, clean up and be presentable when she screamed for help. I hear you, Lyddie, that was possibly one of the most speediest murders in time.
I agree with that, Lizzie should have been questioned as to why she was so clean if her barn story was to be believed, nothing on her face, hands, hair or dress, not even a smudge of dust or dirt. Almost too clean, like freshly cleaned?
I've heard about the Prince Albert coat trick, worn backwards, or forwards, or tied at the waist- but I can't imagine removing it and folding it and stuffing it in the vacinity of a very bloody Andrew without getting blood on one.
How would this work? (And Andrew was still dripping).
If it were worn backwards and unbuttoned, one could just lean forward and wriggle out of it, allowing the coat to drop over Daddy. As long as arms and elbows were held high during the folding, I don't think she would get blood on herself: there would be no upward spray, and gravity would make the blood seep downwards as rolled it up and tucked it under his head. I don't know if this would work or not, but it would involve no quick changes or hurried stashing of bloodied apron, etc. Also, the wadded up coat has always seemed uncharacteristic of Andrew. Weren't there some fussy little throw pillows he could have used instead? I just think he would hang up the coat or drape it carefully over a nearby chair.
No matter what, she would still have hands to clean, but they could be washed up quickly and thoroughly in the kitchen sink. If the crime scene photos were clearer (and uncontaminated), I think we could learn a lot. I can't help but think that the blood on the bodies would tell us whether the weapon was rested on the them, whether anything had been dragged over them, etc. I don't thing investigators looked for the stories revealed by such evidence in those days.
I've heard that tried- reenacted- and the coat kept slipping down. Maybe there's a silk lining or something.
Lizzie was 5'4" and Addrew 5'11". A Prince Albert coat would come to his knees.
It might swamp Lizzie?
Has anyone here tried this for a first-person account?
Just for info: There was-under Andrew's head-:
Prelim
pg. 2
Dr. Dolan
A. At the head of the sofa, which was to the west, there was a Prince Albert coat folded up, that was placed on top of, I think an afghan, some knit cover, and on that was placed a small sofa cushion with a piece of the tidy on it; on that rested Mr. Borden’s head. His two feet were on the floor; and he lay in the position as if he had been asleep.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Thanks for blowing up and labeling the photo, Kat. The coat still looks out of place to me--even more, knowing that he already had a cushion uder his head. Also, wasn't the coat blood soaked? As I recall the description (I'll have to double check), it was soaked, not sprayed.-, yet the coat seems to be above any source for seepage.
Regarding reenactments: did they try buttoning one or two buttons to keep the coat from slipping off prematurely? Would the length of the coat necessarily be a liability? I'm thinking it might have offered more protection so long as she walked slowly so as not to trip over it. (Of course, we all know Lizzie never did anything in a hurry. )
If one wore it back to front I can't picture how one could button it?
Button it and then turn it around?
The person I know who has tried this any way they could think of only had success keeping it up by doing something with it I never thought of.
Anyway, whatever we wonder about its use, that coat belonged in the dining room- that's where it was kept.
Would Lizzie approach from the dining room? If she killed from that doorway then I guess so and could grab the coat. So where was she previous to donning the coat and entering from the dining room? Ironing?
Could Lizzie have worn Andrew's Prince Albert the correct way, buttoned it up and maybe pinned the lapels closed so that the front of her blouse would be protected?
I envision after Lizzie may have made a quick check on Andrew, perhaps seeing him dozing and knowing its now or never, leaves the dining room and goes into the kitchen to see if Bridget is still there. She is, and Lizzie comes up with her "There is a dress sale at Sargeant's today, eight cents a yard" and she watches and waits as Bridget goes upstairs. Knowing Bridget's routine would be a big help, knowing when she usually comes down after going up to her room to rest. On her way back through the dining room, Lizzie spies the coat and comes to a quick decision to use it. I guess the thing would be where is the hatchet at this point? Hidden up in her room? In the cellar?
The front way would be logical, Susan, but the lapels would be a hassle--pins would be upstairs. The coat would be so big on her, I assumed she could button one button in back by hiking up the fabric or by turnng it around--must confess, though, I have no idea what the weight of the fabric would be or how difficult it might be to perform either strategy. I don't think I could try an effective experiment with contemporary coats--my husband's would be nothing like Andrew's. Do you have any men's coats in your collection, Susan? Maybe you could try it out.
Kat, are you at liberty to tell the other way your friend thought of? Sounds interesting.
(I always figured the axe was parked in the closet.)
--Lyddie
I'm thinking if Lizzie approached from the dining room (somebody did) they just grab that coat- yes.
Then that means the weapon is stored in that part of the house- kitchen, dining room or cellar or right outside (or brought inside by whoever).
That coat theory belongs to someone else, sorry.
I bet if someone had a similar coat they could figure it out.
Even if I told you, it still doesn't mean it was done like that tho.
Most of men's suiting material for the time period was wool, so, the Prince Albert may have been made of that. Thats true, pins would have probably been upstairs in the work basket in the guest room, unless Lizzie had her own sewing basket in her room somewhere. She did admit to basting a loop on her sleeve up in her room. I'm just trying to figure a way that would be quick and easy for Lizzie to have made use of that jacket if she did use it.
Kat, do you think there might have been some sort of set-up in the kitchen where that hatchet might have been used on the stove kindling, or would that have just been in the cellar where Bridget got the wood and coal from? Wouldn't it have been something if the hatchet usually lived next to the stove, had already murdered Abby, and was sitting in plain view again when Andrew got home. Ready and waiting to be used again.
No, Lyddie, unfortunately, I don't have any men's jackets to play around with, I used to have a long duster type of coat, but, got rid of it when I moved to warmer climes.
Well, Bridget was asked to show the police the axes and hatchets and there is nothing about her pointing to a wood bin or some such place in the kitchen- rather she took everyone down to the cellar and showed them where everything was kept.
I don't know if it was usual to keep a hatchet in the kitchen- we've never reached a consensus as to the handle length of the weapon used and that would help determine what kind of place it was kept.
The experts thought probanbly an 18 to 24 inch handle (Dolan, Prelim., 176), while I know members here have expressed the opinion the handle was shorter and more like a tomahawk.
The experts claimed the handle had to be long for leverage.
If it's a long handle it might stand up leaning against something; if it's short it could be in a drawer.
Bridget said she used the wood just as it was cut by the man who came from the farm.
Yes, I thought it was a total long shot, but, was trying to figure a place where Lizzie might have kept the hatchet handy that, if found, wouldn't be considered out of place. The kitchen was pretty much Bridget's domain, so, unless the hatchet belonged there on a regular basis, I don't think it could have been hidden there, Bridget might happen upon it. Any ideas where else downstairs that Lizzie could have gotten away with it?
And the size of the handle would totally come into play as to where it could be kept, it too long, that would leave out quite a few places.
This is my first post, actually my first ever to a forum. I have read most of the archives and don't think I've missed the answer to this question... Why was the coat on the settee to begin with? If it was August and very hot, I can't imagine that he was wearing it along with a suit coat. I would have thought that it would be hanging in the closet. Was he a fastidious person who would not have wanted things out of place?
Could it have been around the corner and used as other posters have suggested and left on the settee then because it had blood on it? Could material or buttons be fingerprinted? Is the coat still in evidence somewhere (or have I been watching too many forensic tv shows)?
Hi, Weber, welcome to the forum! Good questions, lets see if I can answer them. The coat found on the arm of the sofa Andrew was murdered on was actually a type of long, Victorian suit jacket for men called a Prince Albert. From what I can gather, it sounds as though Andrew Borden wore this suit jacket downtown everyday, no matter what the season or weather.
Normally the Prince Albert would be hung up in the dining room and Andrew would switch and put on his cardigan type jacket that he was found dead in. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for the Prince Albert to have been found on the arm of the sofa other than the one we've been throwing around again, that Lizzie or the unknown murderer used it as a protective covering from blood while murdering Andrew. Andrew Borden comes across as a creature of habit, why he would break with tradition that day and not hang up his Prince Albert and instead use it for padding under his head I can't fathom?
Fingerprinting was in its infancy in the 1890s and I don't believe the findings were admissable in court at the time. So, the killer lucked out on that one, thats for sure!
As for where the Prince Albert might be now? I don't recall if was originally buried in the Borden backyard with the rest of the bloody clothing and then dug up and taken as evidence, I'll have to check.
I'll put in my two cents and say I bet the coat was more of a towel for the killer than a protective covering. I agree it had no business being under the old man's head.
My big question, one I was thinking about this weekend is: didn't we pretty much agree (he laughed!) at one point somewhere between the last Borden website and our current splendid one that the bulk of the blood on the sitting room wall indicated that the assailant struck both from in front of and from the foot of the sofa?
Some of you may remember that I think there never was a "nap" that day except in Lizzie Borden's imagination.
Now I'm wondering if Andrew did wear that coat Thursday.
Hi Weber!
Bridget didn't see him leave.
Lizzie didn't see him return.
He did have the habit of hanging that coat up in the dining room, and he did go there first when he came in.
I checked Bridget at the Preliminary but she didn't see him in the outdoor coat. Bridget may have meant she didn't see Andrew with that coat on that morning before he left, but she's not specific, nor is the question.
If Andrew was distubed by a visitor as soon as he arrived, if he was wearing the coat - he might not remove the coat if it was quick urgent business. That's the only reason I can think of for him to still be wearing it in the sitting room, or removing it in the sitting room, or having it removed by the killer, to be left there.
(These are speculations other than the killer wore it).
Prelim
Bridget
9
Q. Where did he keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A. In the dining room.
Q. Did you see him with that on?
A. No Sir.
Q. So the last time you saw him before he went out, he had his house coat on?
A. Yes Sir.
Just had a thought as I was drifting off to sleep last night...what if Lizzie tied the arms around her neck, and wore the thing like a big apron? No pins needed!
Kat, wasn't Andrew seen in his Prince Albert by 1/2 of Fall River that day? I just read all the inquest and preliminary stuff about his movements that morning, and I could swear that buried among the statements are some observations on that score. I may be projecting onto my recollection, though.
Hello and welcome, Weber! You raise some interesting questions. There was no fingerprinting at the time, but if luminol testing could be done on the house, maybe the buttons could be dusted. The jacket was buried briefly with the rest--probably to reduce the odor. Can't help wondering if prints could remain after burial and police handling. The crime scene was corrupted every which way. Even if we got prints, Lizzie's or Bridget's could still be legitimate if one of them took his coat for him as he changed.
No DNA either because there was no struggle either time.
Say, Bob, do you suppose Lizzie had any chloroform left over? That would have knocked Andrew out quite handily. I never bought the instantaneous nap either.
I don't know, Lyddie- let's ask everybody to try to find where it says Andrew wore that Prince Albert coat that day and figure out if it's a newspaper item, a rumor, testimony- what?
BTW: You signed off "Lizzie."
I think they could test for chloroform?
I recall Morse said that's how he would-a-done-it, supposedly- in an *Interview*, only at night- in their sleep!
Kat @ Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:51 am wrote:Now I'm wondering if Andrew did wear that coat Thursday.
I looked at a lot of possible sources but so far I have not been able to find anyone who said they actually saw him in the Prince Albert. Lizzie in her Inquest testimony simply says he had "taken off his coat" and changed into his reefer.
Knowlton, in his closing argument, page 1850, vol. II, makes an interesting statement re the coat:
"... Did it ever occur to you, however, how remarkable it is that the coat which the old man took off, which I presume he took off, at any rate whether that coat or another, instead of being hung upon a nail, as a prudent old man would have hung it, was folded up underneath his cushion? That might have been used. I can't tell. There are plenty of ways in which a woman can conceal that sort of thing. ..."
It appears that it is assumed that he wore the Prince Albert as that was his normal wear. Was there another coat he could have wore and hung up on his return?
If the coat was worn during the murder it was very clever of the killer to stuff it in the sofa near the body. That would account for the blood on it. He/she could not just hang it up with blood on it.
)
Good questions, lets see if I can answer them. The coat found on the arm of the sofa Andrew was murdered on was actually a type of long, Victorian suit jacket for men called a Prince Albert. From what I can gather, it sounds as though Andrew Borden wore this suit jacket downtown everyday, no matter what the season or weather.