A dress out of place

[Harry]

When Emma is questioned at the trial she gives this in answer to what dresses were in the clothes press on the second floor landing (page 1531):

"Q. And whose were those dresses?
A. All of them belonged to my sister and I except one that belonged to Mrs. Borden."

Now what would one of Abby's dresses be doing in that clothes press?

We know Lizzie had a key to that closet and perhaps Emma but would Abby have had one?

[Kat]

I think there were nice silk party-type gowns in there? They take a lot of space. Maybe one was Abbie's?
Those who searched the clothes press tell about some of the dresses, I think. Maybe also in the trial testimony?

[Nadzieja]

OK, I'm still in the prelim, the trial I'll start next. What is a clothes press? I'm not afraid to ask, it seems like a dumb question but it's these little details that can really shine light on things.

[Harry]

It's the clothes closet on the second floor landing opposite Lizzie's room. It's now a bathroom. I found this definition:

"1. (noun) clothes closet, clothespress
a closet where clothes are stored"


I asked that same question when I first heard the term. Not a dumb question at all.

[DJ]

I don't believe Emma would have mentioned it, had it been an important "clew." Perhaps she wished to convey the message that the girls happily shared a closet with Stepmommie Dearest. Or, perhaps it was a Freudian slip, that the presence of Abby's dress was somehow violating the Girls' personal space.
My Mother stores aging apparel in closets all over her house, particularly items that are expensive and can still be worn (if the size were attained once more) and/or that are sentimental, such as the "going away" dress from her wedding day (and, of course, the wedding dress).
When my paternal grandmother died, I found the dress she had worn to my parents' wedding in a drawer in her guest bedroom. It's still lovely, wearable, and (gasp!) custom made, although it would be considered a "party dress," not a formal, full-length gown.
My point: If Abby had a dress in the clothes press, it was probably one that no longer fit, but that was too good to tear up for rags, much less burn.
*************************************************************
Lincoln's theory is that Lizzie hid the Bedford cord that she burned under her Bengaline silk, that no male detective would think to look for a dress under another dress. Also, Lizzie had some control over the clothes press with her key.
If so, it was certainly one of Lizzie's "brighter moments"-- hiding the dress in a place that would have been thought "too obvious."

[diana]

Here's some of Fleet's testimony about searching the closets.


Q. Upon the Saturday did you go into the clothes closet in the front hall up stairs?
A. We did.
Q. Did you examine all dresses that you found there?
A. We looked at them, yes, sir.
Q. Did you see either in that closet or in any other closet in the house or anywhere in the house a dress with marks of paint upon it?
A. No, sir.
Q. How critically, how carefully were you examining the dresses at that time on the Saturday?
A. Very closely.
Q. Did you find any blood upon any dress? I have asked you about paint. Did you find anything that looked like blood or any discoloration of any kind?
A. No, sir. (Trial testimony p. 480 Fleet) [emphasis mine]

[DJ]

All that searching, I fear, makes Lizzie look all the more guilty, because she irrefutably burned a dress that she (and other witnesses) claimed to have been stained with paint, shortly after it was made for her.
Why couldn't the detectives locate the dress, in what should have been plain sight in one Lizzie's closets, unless Lizzie had hidden it? Which begs the question, "Why did she hide it?"

[diana]

Here's Emma at trial:
"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.
Q. How came you to see it at that time?
A. I went in to hang up the dress that I had been wearing during the day, and there was no vacant nail, and I searched round to find a nail, and I noticed this dress." (Trial, 1540+)

I find it difficult to envision how the Borden dresses were hung in the closets when Emma says she "searched round to find a nail" to hang up her own dress because none were vacant.

From on-line articles, it appears that clothes hangers were not in universal use until the end of the 19th century. Perhaps if the dress was hanging on a nail and the paint, as Emma testifies was "along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt", the damage may not have been as obvious as if the dress were stretched out on a hanger?

[DJ]

Someone's not being completely truthful here. How "critically and carefully" did the detectives search the articles in the clothes press? If Emma's telling the truth, then the garments were not examined as critically and carefully as stated.
A better question, re the detectives' search, would have been: "How long did you spend examining the articles in the clothes press?" Followed by, "Did you pull out each garment and examine it at length?"
If the detectives had really been on the ball, they would have inventoried each garment, with a description.

[Shelley]

This issue has always fascinated me too. Either the police bungled the job of inventory and examination- or the dress was never in there and Emma conveniently "recalled" it was there later to help Lizzie's dress-burning activity. Emma needed "a nail" and offered that up as a reason for justifying the burning of the dress- destroy that old thing for want of a nail. Personally, I have never bought that after-the-fact statement from Emma. She may have been coached to recall it by the defense.Cover up. Emma had at this time, ALL of the room in poor old Abby's closet to hang things now Abby was dead. I have often imagined the girls packing up Abby's stuff pretty quickly and wondered if Sarah Whitehead got the old -fashioned shawls and bonnets, and Abby's household calicos. I bet the girls could not wait to unload Abby's personal effects. I hope Abby's sisters got them-jewelry and such.
I am positive the police asked the same thing we ask- why on earth did Lizzie suddenly get the urge to burn up a dress the day after the funeral in the kitchen stove- a hot day in August to boot. The key word is BURN. If she threw it in a rag bag, tossed it in an old trunk or drawer, buried it, tore it into rags, or gave it away to charity- it could be FOUND and examined. That dress had to be utterly destroyed so it could never be examined and burning was the best way at hand. I tried burning one yard of cloth in my wood stove and it smelled dreadful. Surely burning a dress was not the normal way of disposing of old clothing in 1892. It may not have been illegal but it was cerrtainly peculiar. Lizzie thought she would be unobserved- Emma was back in the sink room washing dishes. The stove was still red-hot from breakfast. Lizzie could not have predicted Alice would choose that damning moment to waft through the kitchen and catch her in the act. The whole thing smacks of FURTIVE and desperate to me-and there could be only one reason why- blood evidence on that dress. Grouard and Emma had to be the damage control. Next to Eli Bence's evidence- Alice and that dress-burning information she gave was the next most lethal testimony to Lizzie's case.

[Kat]

What the interior of the clothes press looked like and the size, how the dresses were hung, what else was in there and what the dresses were like of the few they admitted they did not look at, is all in testimony. Good luck, y'all...

I'm on the ancient laptop and only access to PDF source docs, nothing in "Word."

[SallyG]

That business about dress burning always seemed a bit suspect to me. I would imagine Abby was thrift conscience in running the household, and burning perfectly good fabric seems like a huge waste. Even if the dress was stained with paint, the good parts of the dress could be relegated to the rag-bag for other use. I find it hard to believe that old dresses were burned....seems more like they were trying to make the burning of the dress seem normal.

Even now, I'd never throw away or burn an old piece of clothing. If it can't be donated to Goodwill, the fabric can be used for something else...rags, etc.

I still wonder if the police, in their search, came across that dress in the kitchen cupboard and dismissed it. How long had it been there? Was that the dress Emma saw in the closet taking up a nail? Or had it been wrapped in the blanket on the floor of Emma's closet? Had it been stuffed somewhere in the basement the night of Lizzie trip to the cellar? Did it ride to the cellar in the slop bucket on that first trip down when Alice accompanied Lizzie?

I'm pretty sure Emma did a lot of covering for Lizzie...especially pertaining to that dress! That was probably the one piece of evidence that could really tie Lizzie to the murders.

[Shelley]

Quite right. And the dress was a two piece affair which Bridget testified Lizzie would still wear around the house in the mornings from time to time. The damage was on the skirt but the waist was fine. Why burn the whole thing? And why was it in the kitchen closet? Alice said she saw Lizzie pull it down from the second shelf. I would bet the custom would have been to make dustrags and cleaning cloths out of ruined clothing. The cloth itself was still new as the outfit was recently made that year. Cremation of the body closes all doors on autopsies later. Cremation of evidence, like a dress for example- closes all doors of examination and explanations later. I think it had to be burned, and Emma did damage control later.

[DJ]

Thing about Emma: She knew of the dress burning for months, but never bothered to mention it to the authorities. It's not a stretch that she stretched the truth at trial.
Also, since Alice Russell didn't come forward until the Grand Jury proceedings, there was no chance to question Lizzie at all about the matter, and Bridget and Emma had plenty of time to prepare their statements for the trial. I don't recall that Bridget was ever asked how often Lizzie wore the paint-stained dress. If she had been wearing it often, why mutilate, burn, or otherwise discard it?
If Lizzie wasn't interested in the dress, Bridget or one of her cronies would have certainly been more than delighted to have it.
The timing of Alice Russell's "big reveal" doubtless made a huge difference in the manner in which events unfurled from Aug. 4th through the end of the trial.
What if she had stepped forward before the inquest, and Lizzie had been faced with questions regarding the matter-- and Emma, and Bridget (even though Bridget didn't witness the act, she certainly could have testified about the frequency with which Lizzie wore certain items, and how she disposed of unwanted clothing)? Someone might have dropped a bomb-- I'm thinking Bridget, since Knowlton (doubtless correctly) believed she was withholding something that could have cinched the case for him. Or, Lizzie might have lost her resolve in the face of such questioning.

[Kat]

Again, quoting myself from an early Hatchet article, "The Borden House: Frame By Frame, Part 2"
June/July 2004, page 42:
"The girls used the guest room as a sitting room and sewing room. Their dress closet was large, five feet by eight feet, with a big window that would have had a pleasant view, except for the fact that the window was shuttered and the glass packed with paper or cloth to prevent the rising dust of the roadway from getting in. It was kept darkened to retard the colors from fading and a sheet-like cloth was tacked up to cover the contents from the wall to the door. I picture a room sequesterd from the world and wrapped in bandages from torn sheets. The closet is now a beautiful and serviceable bathroom, kept shining and new. There are still shutters on the wiondow, but they can be opened to let in the light."

[Harry]

Partial quote:

I tried burning one yard of cloth in my wood stove and it smelled dreadful. Surely burning a dress was not the normal way of disposing of old clothing in 1892.

That's a great point, Shelley. Burning cloth gives off an awful smell, not something you would want to do much less in the morning.

Lizzie may not have been a genius but she was no fool either. She certainly was aware of what the burning of a dress meant. She knew of the police searches of the house. Surely they weren't still searching for an outsider hiding in the house.

Why not show the dress to the police before she burned it?

How lucky Lizzie was that Alice Russell did not divulge her information before Lizzie testified at the Inquest.

[Stefani]

Isn't there a statement by Lizzie at the Inquest that it was their habit to burn old dresses instead of keeping them for rags? Sort of like a family tradition?

This is a fascinating conversation. I am especially intrigued by DJ's timing ponderings. If the police knew of this earlier, I agree that we might have a more interesting and real answer to the dress' whereabouts/reasons for elimination.

It is like the missing Bridget inquest---since it is her first testimony I want to read how her answers are worded as compared to the Prelim and Trial. The first questions posed to her and her answers are much more important to my understanding of the case than the prepared ones presented later at trial.

[DJ]

Also, too, regarding timing-- there was the recent pondering over the contents of Elizabeth Johnston's letter.
Another big "what if"-- wondering what would have happened if she had turned it over to Knowlton, before the inquest, and if it indeed contained Lizzie's assurances that she had a sharp hatchet at hand and would gladly chop wood at Marion.
It would have proven nothing, but it would have shown that Lizzie had ready access to the type of murder weapon employed, and that she knew how to wield it.
If such were the contents of Miss Johnston's letter, and they had been disclosed at the inquest, and-- if Alice Russell had come forward at the outset-- Lizzie might have cracked. She almost did at the inquest, anyway. Doesn't she exclaim to Knowlton: "Who are you?" at one point when he's hammering away at her?

[Shelley]

I am sure Lizzie would have said it was a tradition to burn old dress- each one containing about EIGHT yards of cloth - even if, - (and I believe it WAS-) - a lie. And of course nobody but Bridget or Emma could dispute it. Maybe this is the thing Bridget wanted to squeal about years later-the fact that nobody in the house used the kitchen stove to dispose of old clothing. I find the idea prepostrous- and so would most people. If it were a small, oil stained cleaning,cloth, maybe. I burn a woodstove everyday most of the year and it would never occur to me to stuff one of my long dresses in it to dispose of it!
There was a rag and bone man whose job it was to drive up and down in an old cart, buying up rags, bottles and bones in this era,- not to mention old clothing being bundled up for the church mission work to the poverty-stricken masses, "piecework" for the ladies' sewing circle, or just plain household rags in the era before paper towels. My granny never let an old towel or sheet or even Grandaddy's union suits go to waste. My old baby diapers were around for years as dustcloths. People tended to wash things out, even rags- and use them up until they were shreds before disposing.
So- why were Abby's and Andrew's things buried instead of burned? I could almost see more sense in that as they were blood -soaked and frightful. No- I won't buy Lizzie's story-she just had not planned on anybody seeing her do it, it was done the day after the thorough search by the police, and when the stove was good and hot after breakfast.

[Harry]

Partial quote:

Isn't there a statement by Lizzie at the Inquest that it was their habit to burn old dresses instead of keeping them for rags? Sort of like a family tradition?

I don't believe there is anything by Lizzie but Jennings in his questioning of Emma at the trial tried several times to get the inference in that it was their practice to burn rags. Each time he tried Knowlton objected and each time the question was excluded. (page 1543+)

[1bigsteve]

Not to get off track, but how do we know for a fact that that dress Lizzie burned was her own dress? Could it have been Abby's dress that Lizzie could have worn over her own during the killings?

-1bigsteve (o:

[Stefani]

Not to get off track, but how do we know for a fact that that dress Lizzie burned was her own dress? Could it have been Abby's dress that Lizzie could have worn over her own during the killings?

-1bigsteve (o:

ooohhh. case solved.

[Shelley]

Good one. We know from the passport and Abby's autopsy that the two were the same height. Of course Abby's dresses would be too large somewhat, but that would be a plus if Lizzie wore one of Abby's over her own dress. Yes, I really have always believed much hinges on Bence's and Alice's testimonies. Was there not also a mention of two aprons in that dreadful pile of reeking deathclothes?

[Kat]

Looking at Mary Raymond's testimony at the trial, from the day the Bedford Cord was made, there is her evidence as to her experience of Lizzie wishing to burn a dress. It also was not allowed, but it may show that either it was a practice to burn clothing, or that Mrs. Raymond misunderstood what Lizzie's intention was that Spring, or someone got at Raymond to have her tell of Lizzie intending to burn her old wrapper that the new one was to replace. There may be another interpretation, as well. Lizzie may have been setting the stage to an *outsider* that the family, or she herself, does burn dresses, but if so, that is way-before-the-fact premeditation. There might be more interpretations still. But it seems as if there was an intention known in May of 1892, before the murder.

Mrs. Raymond [the dressmaker]
Trial
Q. Do you remember anything about the wearing of it?
A. Well, it either faded or the color wore off, I can't tell you

Page 1580

which. It changed color.

Q. At that time did she have an old wrapper which this was being made to take the place of?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember what she did with the old wrapper?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did she do with it?

MR. KNOWLTON. Wait a minute; if she knows of her own knowledge. I object anyhow.

MASON, C. J. The witness is only asked with reference to her own knowledge.

MR. KNOWLTON. My objection, however, is general. I meant to have put it so.

MASON, C. J. She may answer.

Q. Do you know what she did with the old wrapper that this took the place of?
A. She cut some pieces out of it and said she would burn the rest.

MR. KNOWLTON. I pray your Honors judgment as to the answer.

MASON, C. J. That is not responsive.

MR. JENNINGS. The two are connected your Honor.

MASON, C. J. Her knowledge is all the question calls for; not what somebody told her.

Q. After she had cut the pieces out what did she do with them?
A. She started out of the room to go down stairs with it.

Q. In her arms?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever see it after that?
A. No, sir.

Q. She came back without it?
A. She came back without it.
- - - - - - - -

[Then she refers to “Detective” Shaw coming to see her]:

Q. Did you tell him or Mr. Knowlton about this old wrapper being burned?

MR. KNOWLTON. Wait a minute. I pray your Honors' judgment as to that.

MR. JENNINGS. I think we may see what this conversation was. They have introduced it in part and we have the right to have the whole of it now.

MASON, C. J. That question is excluded.

Q. Will you tell the rest of the conversation that you had with Mr. Knowlton?

MR. KNOWLTON. I pray your Honors' judgment. I asked her a single question and stopped there.

MASON, C. J. I don't think we have any of that conversation.

--Do we know when this *conversation* [with Knowlton] was?

[Kat]

It's funny, but Lizzie's Arrest Record says 5'4" in 1892.
Lizzie's passport (as Shelley says) gives her height as 5'3" in 1890.

I wonder if they accounted for her shoes/heels?

Abbie was indeed listed as 5'3" in her autopsy record.

The Bedford Cord was considered long by Mrs. Raymond and by Emma.

Was it made long on purpose?

[Nadzieja]

I didn't think of "who's dress was burned", I just thought it was Lizzie's. That's a good point.
My mothers old house was a very old farm cottage. In it there was one closet , and that was very small. All along one side there were hooks and a few nails. In the other was an iron bar to hang things that were on hangers. It had no windows & a door that closed it off, and for some reason the floor in it was painted dark brown & the walls had dark wallpaper. It was really kind of spooky to me.

[Nadzieja]

When exactly did Alice Russell mention the dress being burned?

Another question---What is the Elizabeth Johnston letter?

[Shelley]

The issue of burning clothing as a means of disposal in 1892 is not the puzzling bit to me. Burning was a frequent means of disposal of course. Burying things like glass and metal was the way to dispose of non-combustibles. Recently I dug up a pile of old metal bits, china, glass, and medicine bottles from the 1890's in my front yard. And the privy site at Second Street was loaded with similar items excavated when the new barn went up.
Without garbage pick-up and landfills, etc. families were responsible for their own trash. The problem I have with the dress burning was that it was done in the kitchen stove. Something as big as a dress would have, I believe, been burned outside. I can recall even from the 1950's - burn barrels behind the barn of my country relatives who did not have city trash removal. When the barrels were full of things which could not be composted, buried or recycled, the rest was burned- maybe once a month.
I think the dress had to be burned up inside because police were in and out of the premises, outside the house, etc. and Lizzie would have had some big explaining to do if she had been seen out in the back yard by the barn burning a dress.

[william]

Many years ago (83?) My family had a wood burning and coal stove in the kitchen that was used for cooking and heat. Clean rags were placed in a bag in the pantry, but soiled ones were dropped into the stove to be consumed. If any small items were no longer wanted and were burnable - into the stove they went. It was the family incinerator and we made good use of it.

[Shelley]

Small items- yes indeed. But 8 yards of fabric- and ALL AT ONCE- that's the part that is hard to swallow.

[1bigsteve]

I remember using burn barrels in my area right to the end of the 1960s. Everything that could burn was thrown in and everything else was put in the garbage can. Trips to the county dump was a normal routine.

Perhaps burning trash like clothes was a normal thing in the 1890s. So maybe Lizzie's actions of burning that dress was a normal action for that time period. Or, there was blood on that dress and Lizzie used the "normal routine" to cover her burning the evidence. When Emma commented on it and Lizzie said in return, "Why didn't you stop me..." maybe Lizzie was "playing dumb" when she threw the dress in the stove since it was part of her "normal everyday routine" and after Emma's comment Lizzie could then suddenly realize "how bad that would look."

If there was blood on that dress, and I think there was, then Lizzie had to get that dress into the stove before anyone could stop her. Once it was on fire Lizzie could then play the "Oh gosh I wasn't thinking - Why didn't you stop me - It was only paint - But now I realize the police may think it was blood" role.

But, if it was covered in blood, why didn't Lizzie slip it into the stove after killing her father and before calling Bridget down? Why have it laying around for the police to find?

-1bigsteve (o:

[kssunflower]

But, if it was covered in blood, why didn't Lizzie slip it into the stove after killing her father and before calling Bridget down? Why have it laying around for the police to find?

Good point, Steve. I think I asked in another post if Lizzie had the opportunity to dispose of any evidence in the stove the morning of the murders. Makes one wonder.

[Shelley]

Steve, you might recall it would have been after 11a.m., when, according to Lizzie,the fire had gone out. That is why she had gone out to the barn for sinkers as she could not heat up her flats. Actually, by 11 the stove would have been banked down, prior to Bridget stoking it up again to heat up lunch around 11:45 or so.

There may also have been a large pile of residue and ash from trying to burn such a large object, had she tried to burn it immediately,not to mention buttons or hooks in the ash trap on the stove or in the firebox itself. I will always believe that dress was concealed somewhere until the coast was clear and she could burn it up while the fire was hot- unwatched. Twice ALice thwarted those plans by catching her in the burning of it- and I believe Alice's tagging along the night of the murder on the trip to the cellar is what compelled Lizzie to return shortly after alone, taking advantage of Alice's door being closed as she undressed- and scooting back down to that cellar. Nothing worse than a helpful friend if you have something to hide!

[Kat]

Yes there were 2 aprons buried. It's interesting to try to figure out why and whose.

However, the burning did not necessarily encompass "8 yards of fabric [and] all at once" as we can see by reading what Alice Russell says she saw that morning. It seems it was in pieces, Alice thinking the skirt was separate from the blouse (waist), and then tearing of the larger part before feeding to the stove.

Trial
Alice Russell
Page 391 / i413

Q. Will you state what you saw after you returned?
A. I went into the kitchen, and I saw Miss Lizzie at the other end of the stove; I saw Miss Emma at the sink. Miss Lizzie was at the stove, and she had a skirt in her hand, and her sister turned and said, "What are you going to do?" and Lizzie said, "I am going to burn this old thing up; it is covered with paint."

Q. "Covered in paint,"---is that the expression?
A. I don't know whether she said "covered in paint" or "covered with paint".

Q. Do you recall anything else said then?
A. No, sir.

Q. What did you do then?
A. I am quite sure I left the room.

Q. Did you speak to either of them at that time?
A. No, sir, I don't remember that I did. I don't think I did.

Q. Did you come into the room again?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you see then?
A. Miss Lizzie stood up towards the cupboard door,---the cupboard door was open, and she appeared to be either ripping something down or tearing part of this garment.

Q. What part?
A. I don't know for sure; it was a small part.

Q. A smaller part? Go on and state.
A. I said to her, "I wouldn't let anybody see me do that, Lizzie." She didn't make any answer. I left the room.

Q. Did she do anything when you said that?
A. She stepped just one step farther back up towards the cupboard door.

Q. Did you notice where the waist of the dress was when she held the skirt in her hands as you first came in?
A. I didn't

Page 392 / i414

know that it was the waist, but I saw a portion of this dress up on the cupboard shelf.

Q. Inside the cupboard?
A. Yes. The door was wide open.

Q. When you came back the second time and she was tearing the smaller part, did you see the skirt?
A. Well, I am not positive; I think I did.

--If Mrs. Raymond is correct, then this mimics what Lizzie supposedly was going to do in the earlier Spring incident- which was to take parts from the clothing, with intention of burning the remainder.

[Yooper]

One observation, if Emma had suggested that Lizzie get rid of or burn the dress in question, then there would be little reason for her to ask what Lizzie intended to do with it at that point.

Was Hanscomb, the Pinkerton detective, in the house at the time the dress was burned? He might be the reason the dress was disposed of, the fear that he might find it.

If the dress was being torn into smaller pieces, the same work needed to make rags out of it, why burn the rags?

[DJ]

Lincoln says Alice Russell told the Pinkerton man, who threw in the towel. He was in the house at the time, and the police were on guard outside.
I just don't think Lizzie was so dull-witted that she didn't understand the ramifications of burning the dress at that time, about how incredibly guilty it made her seem-- as a letter about a sharp hatchet would have.
She could have lived with the presence of a paint-stained dress a bit longer, given her circumstances.
If the dress were bloodied, she should have stayed up all Thursday night into Friday morning, tearing it into little strips, and burning it in her (dry) slops pail. Maybe she couldn't burn it, because of open bedroom doors. I sure as heck would have torn it up though-- quietly-- and carried it down to the cellar, then tried flushing it down the toilet, bit by bit.
That dress, if bloodied, was her ticket to the gallows, and I don't see how she managed a calm demeanor for three days, even if it was well-hidden.

[Susan]

I've always felt that the dress burning incident was so contrived. The moment Alice pops into the kitchen, Emma asks Lizzie what she is up to and Lizzie is at the stove, dress in hand and ready to burn. It has such a staged feel to it. Its not like Alice actually caught Lizzie in the act of feeding pieces of the dress into the stove.

If Lizzie had wanted to get rid of that dress covertly, she could have found a spot away from the others and taken a scissor to it, much more quiet and attention getting than tearing. Then, she could have arisen early and started the stove on the pretense of making breakfast for them and burned the pieces to her hearts content.

I think Lizzie knew she needed to get rid of that dress and knew that she couldn't do it secretly; she needed to be seen doing it. If it came to attention that Lizzie's bedford cord dress was missing and couldn't be found by anyone: Emma, Alice, the police, etc., Lizzie would have some explaining to do as to what happened to that dress. Oh, you burned it in secret? Why? What did you have to hide?

If Lizzie disposed of the dress with witnesses, in broad daylight with police in the yard, it was an innocent act. Oh, I'm just going to burn this old thing up, it is covered with paint, see here, Alice? I know this is convoluted thinking at best, but, I think Lizzie may have been panicked and tried to think of the best way possible to do this and get away with it. She may of weighed her options and considered the public dress burning as a less guilty act.

Once Lizzie announced her plans to the women though, she hid in the cupboard to do the ripping. Why not on the kitchen table where she has room to lay the whole thing out while tearing? Obviously the police would be very interested in what she was doing and I guess Lizzie couldn't afford to let Emma or Alice to see bloodstains that looked nothing like paint smears. Even Alice's caution to Lizzie about not letting anyone see her do it says that even she knew Lizzie was up to something not kosher. Lizzie had no answer for Alice when she saw through her ruse. Not even a simple, Why, I am doing nothing wrong? I guess at that point Lizzie just had to throw caution to the wind and finish what she started.

Which also makes me wonder, did Lizzie burn the whole dress or just the bloodstained pieces? I imagine only Lizzie and Emma know for sure. But wouldn't that be the ultimate in nose thumbing? After Lizzie's acquittal she comes home and takes the few remaining pieces of the bedford cord dress and makes a patchwork quilt out of it. Also what I found interesting is that the cupboard door was to the left of the stove and from what I could find out about Victorian cook stoves, the firebox is also on the lefthand side of the stove. Whether Lizzie fed the dress down through one of the open stove lids or directly into the firebox, she had a perfect little work area set up.



The firebox is the small door on the left of the stove, the big door to the right is the oven.



The scene of the crime. From my understanding, the stove that is currently at the B&B was one that was part wood burning and part gas. The left part of the stove would have been for wood, that part on the right with the griddle on top would have been for two gas burners and a gas oven. But now, as far as I can see and know, the whole thing is converted to gas.

First photo from this site: http://www.barnstablestove.com/html/kitchenranges.htm

Second photo is from the LBVM&L site: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Galleries ... dStPt1.htm

[1bigsteve]

Are there any photos of the original stove that Lizzie stuffed the material into?

-1bigsteve

[Susan]

Steve, as far as I know, there are no pictures of the Borden kitchen at the time of the murders. From what I saw in my searches, cook stoves of that era were black and boxy, and some of the fancier ones had nickel trim.

Speaking of kitchens and stoves, I saw something today on the food network that ties in with Lizzie. There is a meatloaf recipe that is attributed to Lizzie, the recipe calls for covering the meatloaf with water before cooking it. Well, I saw this Italian restaurant on Diners, Dives and Drive-ins that made meatballs and they cooked them in the stove covered with water! So, I guess it is an actual way to cook a meat item.

[Harry]

Back to my original question on this thread as to why one of Abby's dresses was in that always locked closet.

Perhaps it was an unfinished dress and they kept it there until the dressmaker could return. They made the dresses in the guest room which had no closet and an unfinished dress wouldn't be of much use so why take it to another part of the house.

[DJ]

That sounds logical, Harry.
I offered a few thoughts early on, but I don't think Emma would have mentioned the dress if it were any way damaging to Lizzie.
The presence of the dress might have annoyed Emma, or she might have been attempting to create the impression that the Girls and Abby were such chums that they even shared a closet.
I'm thinking the last. So, what otherwise would have been inconsequential gets blown into a big deal, in order to create an illusion of bonhomie.

[Shelley]

The dress may have been out of season, and we know Abby kept things in the guest room, just out side the clothes press, so she may have put things in the closet too from time to time- I wonder if Abby had a key as well as Lizzie to the closet- and did Emma?. I was busy spacing out dresses on one of the lathe strips in Bridget's room recently. Of course people did not have nearly so many clothes as we do now, but those dresses did take up some room. Maybe Abby was "out of hooks" in her closet in the back of the house. Emma's closet holds very little, there was no closet in the guestroom and I would say three women must have been severely challenged as to space in that house. Of course the fur sacques were hung upstairs on the third floor, and I have always wondered why Lizzie and Emma's winter dresses were not also hung upstairs in those big empty rooms as well and not crammed in on the second floor closet. The lathe strips are still there with faint hook marks in what is now Knowlton and Jennings rooms, as well as Bridget's. I seem to recall reading there was a trunk or chest in that front hall just outside the dress closet?

[Harry]

There is mention of a trunk in the closet but I also think I read somewhere of a trunk outside the door.

And just where was Lizzie's water-proof? This is from Emma's trial testimony (p1568):

"Q. I don't know as I will bother about that. Did any of the members of your family have waterproofs?
A. Yes, we all had them.
Q. What kind were they?
A. Mrs. Borden's was a gossamer, rubber.
Q. That is, you mean rubber on the outside?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And black?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that hanging?
A. I think she kept it in the little press at the foot of the front stairs in the front hall.
Q. Did Miss Lizzie have one too?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did she keep hers?
A. In the clothes press at the top of the stairs.
Q. What kind of one was that?
A. Blue and brown plaid, an American cloth."

No mention of the water-proof being there when Emma inventoried the closet.

[Shelley]

Aha- that clears it up nicely Harry. The press at the foot of the stairs in the front hall is the tiny closet that Andy Jennings stepped inside-the one that held the diningroom table leaf and the carpet sweeper. It is only 13 inches deep. I was visualizing a small trunk or chest at the TOP of the stairs and wondering how and where that would have been able to fit.. in the photo below I was imagining some sort of chest where the red chair is outside the now-bathroom. The banister is so very low- dangerously so.

[Harry]

Seaver, who searched the upstairs closet with Fleet, testified at the trial (p767+):

"Q. Do you remember whether there were any umbrellas, parasols or sun-shades in the clothes closet?
A. My impression is that there was an umbrella there.
Q. What makes your impression,---because you think there ought to be an umbrella there?
A. No, sir, I think there was one out of order there.
Q. Was there one in order?
A. There was one somewhere about there that day.
Q. Was it not in the back hall way?
A. I do not know.
Q. It was Bridget's, wasn't it?
A. I could not say.
Q. You would not say there was one any way?
A. I think I saw one there, but I would not say in that closet.
Q. Did you see any waterproof there?
A. Not in that closet.
Q. Anywhere?
A. I would not say; I don't recollect any now.
Q. You know what I mean by water-proof?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whether it was a gossamer rubber, or anything of that kind.
A. I don't recollect that I saw any, myself.
Q. You know what a lady's waterproof is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't see one?
A. I wouldn't say I didn't see one. I don't recollect it now."

From a photo previously on the forum (posted by either Shelley or Susan) I thought ladie's water-proofs were quite large. How could you miss seeing one if it was there? It would seem to me the ideal thing to look for.

[Shelley]

Yes, they were large- sometimes also called Impermeables- voluminous to fit over the large leg o mutton sleeves and long skirts. I can't imagine seeing one and not remembering it.

[Susan]

Harry, that is a very plausible idea as to why Abby kept a dress in Lizzie and Emma's clothes closet. Another thought occured to me along those lines of thinking. Abby may have had a perfectly serviceable dress, perhaps something dressy that she only wore on special occasions. But, it may have been a bustle dress or something that looked out of style. The 1880s to the early 1890s was a transition period in women clothing, from a bustle to the full skirts we associate with Lizzie. So, Abby may have been waiting for the seamstress to come and make-over the dress so that it was in style. Cheaper than making a new one.

I found the one picture I posted in the past of women and men in waterproofs. Lizzie's was a plaid and it must have been some sort of oilcloth to withstand the rain. I wonder as to the weight of it, if it was light enough when hung from a nail maybe it was not distinguishable from the rest of the dresses hanging there?

[william]

. . . .and wouldn't a waterproof have been a great protection against blood stains for your under garments!

[Yooper]

A waterproof would gave been an ideal cover to protect against blood spattered clothing. So might one of Abby's dresses, if she wore a larger size than Lizzie. Another possibility for one of Abby's dresses being seemingly out of place. If the authorities were concentrating on Lizzie's dresses, one of Abby's might not be examined closely, if at all.

[DJ]

I think Lizzie (or whoever) killed Andrew used his coat as a splatter-guard. It was, of course, wadded up on the sofa-- not his practice. Apparently, he always made sure it was properly hung when he entered the house, so it would look unwrinkled for the next time he went out.
I've thought about Abby's dress or a waterproof being used as a splatter-guard in the first murder, but I don't think Lizzie even thought about using one. Moreover, anything out of the ordinary-- wearing a waterproof indoors, or Abby's dress-- would have alerted Abby to something out of the ordinary. If Lizzie had entered the room in either, Abby might have turned around, and Lizzie would have lost her advantage. If Abby saw the hatchet, there would have been a struggle. And Lizzie, being at a disadvantage in size, might well have been overpowered.
I think Lizzie realized her limited window of opportunity-- Bridget outside, Abby upstairs-- and barely had time to grab the hatchet from the cellar and make it upstairs, much less cover her clothing. Every second was important, before Abby left the guest bedroom.
That is, if Lizzie did it! (If she didn't, she sure-heck knew who did, and was guilty just the same.)