Lizzie Borden Society Forum

One thing we haven't seen are photographs of the court proceedings. But there was at least one camera on one of the days of the Preliminary hearing. I found this paragraph in the August 29th (?) Fall River Herald, (Sourcebook, page 168) in the column titled, Today's Evidence:

"This morning the crowd waiting for admission to the trial was nearly as large as on the first day. There were quite as many women as on any day of the trial, and they jumped upon their feet to see everything that went forward. A photographer had invaded the sacred precincts of the court and had spread his tripod in the corner of the free seats ready to do deadly execution."


Unfortunately it doesn't say anything beyond that. Just think though, there may be photos somewhere waiting to turn up.

So maybe the Fall River Herald has photos or a photo, you think?
Actually, I guess we don't know who was behind the camera, who paid.
Very interersting, thanks!!

Cool find, Harry. I wonder if thats where some of those drawings we have of the people in court? Photographs weren't really used in newspapers until 1895, so could they have been for an artist to draw from later?

"Many American periodicals before the turn of the century increasingly contain photographs and photos as parts of advertisements. This is primarily because the cost of the process at first could only be justified for adervertising. Photographs began appearing in Victorian magazines and newspapers circa 1895 thanks to the half-tone process. The process was invented in the 1880s, but did not become economically until the late 1890s. The extensive use of photographs in newspapers and magazines is thus essentially a 20th century phenomenon. The use of photographs in books had not begun even in the 1890s."

From this site:

http://histclo.hispeed.com/photo/photo-print.html

I was wondering if the photographer got thrown out before he could squeeze the bulb. We think flash photography is a nuisance today--imagine the stench and smoke from one of those cameras! The courtroom was miserable enough already. I'm pretty sure that a magazine would have bought and published any photos had they come out. But what an interesting find, Harry. I imagine people tripping over the tripod legs and muttering six to the dozen.

--Lyddie

Good points Lyddie. That courtroom was relatively small and every seat filled. Those explosions of light would have disrupted the proceedings and would have temporarily blinded half the people.

I also thought that the cameras of those days required the subject(s) to remain virtually motionless.

Regarding the Brit Lizzie and Emma:

Looks like Emma had a makeover and Lizzie had a makeunder. (The "Lizzie" has sort of an exagerrated Lizzie face shape, but not much else. Don't these people have fact checkers?

--Lyddie

Good find, Harry! I just thought all the pictures were sketches from courtroom artists, but now we know there is a chance that maybe there were some photographs taken ...

I agree with Liddie in that I feel the photographer probably would have been kicked out. But since it does take up room and set up, maybe he got clearance to do so.

If a photographer made it that far into the courtroom and was set up, I'll bet there's photos of the crowds outside the courtroom trying to get in. Maybe some of Lizzie arriving, or prominent witnesses.

I was wondering about the photographing process of 1892 - if the person had to be motionless for so many minutes, and if so, how many minutes. I think Lincoln's portraits, 1865 and older, required him to be still for a bit. I would think that by 1892 photography may have progressed.

If you look at the photo of Lizzie arriving at the jail in Porter's book, it's pretty fuzzy. (Still exciting, tho, to know that was her - somewhere in it - during that particular time!)

Good point, Sherry. Maybe he did get off a shot or two before getting thrown out. But why wouldn't the photos have emerged? Just thought of a possible irony: suppose the photos didn't come out? Just think of that photographer cussing up a storm because he had thought his fortune was made: exclusive shots of the Borden trial--then it comes out overexposed.

--Lyddie

Wow, that was odd, I was doing a search on photography in the 1890s and came across this link to the old Lizzie site, we were discussing something similar.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive20 ... AKodak.htm

I was trying to find the amount of time the subjects would have to be still to get a clear photo, nothing found as of yet. I did find that the first flashbulb came about during Lizzie's day.

1893 The flash-bulb is invented, a glass bulb filled with magnesium-coated metal ribbon, ignited electrically.

...the famous Delaney sisters - the two ancient black ladies whose story became the show and TV film HAVING OUR SAY.

Susan--I don't know about exposure time then: I don't think they clamped them in for photos anymore. However, I remember a photo my dad showed me of my uncle's graduation from dental school (probably about 1920), and a couple of class clowns were able to show up as twins by running behind the other fellas and reposing themselves on the other end of the row. They must have had quite a lapse in order to do that.

--Lyddie

I think exposure times were still on the longish side during Lizzie's day, especially in areas where the lighting levels were low. I keep thinking of that crime scene pic of Andrew where you can see a ghost of a man who had come into the sitting room through the kitchen door and left again during the exposure.

That sounds pretty neat doing the twin thing. I recall seeing old photos where kids couldn't sit still and had turned their heads during the exposure time, they ended up looking like they had two heads on one body!