Confession

This the place to have frank, but cordial, discussions of the Lizzie Borden case

Moderator: Adminlizzieborden

Post Reply
User avatar
Smudgeman
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:51 am
Real Name: Scott
Location: Atlanta, GA

Confession

Post by Smudgeman »

Do you think if Lizzie had been found guilty of the murders that she would have confessed or continued to deny it? I was going to post a poll, but I will just ask the general question. I don't think so.
"I'd luv to kiss ya, but I just washed my hair"
Bette Davis
User avatar
Allen
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Me

Re: Confession

Post by Allen »

I believe she probably would have continued to deny it. In my opinion, her pride would never have let her confess to killing her parents. I also believe that Lizzie had little or no conscience about what she had done.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
John Watson
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:03 pm
Real Name: Cliff Roberts
Location: Rural Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by John Watson »

In my opinion, Lizzie was clearly a sociopath, completely lacking in those inner feelings that cause most of us to regret our wrongs and seek forgiveness. Thus, had she been found guilty, and being utterly incapable of feeling either guilt or remorse, she would have never confessed. Instead, using her long-practiced skill at lying and manipulating others, she would continue to proclaim her innocence and likely point the finger at someone else - perhaps Bridget the maid, or her uncle John Morse, or even her own sister. (In a recent Florida case, a young mother charged with killing her child - a sociopath if there ever was one - had no hesitation falsely accusing her own father of the baby's death and allowing her mother to risk purjury charges, to save her own skin. The tactic worked.) Prison matron Hannah Reagan testified that she overheard Lizzie accuse sister Emma of "giving her away," then measuring the end of her finger with her thumb, saying, "Well, I won't give in that much!" Whether Lizzie was quoted accurately or not, that statement reflects exactly the mind-set of a sociopath. Having succeeded in evading justice, Lizzie lived on among her former friends and neighbors apparently without a care in the world - a testament of sorts to the determination of one who wouldn't give in, no matter what.
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

The possibility exists that Lizzie wanted to keep the Borden fortune out of the hands of Abby and her family. If that was the motive for the murders, and if it stemmed from the perspective that Andrew's money assured the social position of the Borden name, then Lizzie may have thought the murders were necessary to a degree. The "old money" families were not inclined to swell their ranks by acceptance of the "nouveau riche", and especially not at their own expense. If Lizzie thought she was acting out of a sense of propriety, she certainly would not have felt compelled to apologize or to confess to wrongdoing.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
User avatar
Smudgeman
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:51 am
Real Name: Scott
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Confession

Post by Smudgeman »

I agree with you all. Lizzie did what she thought was necessary to ensure her rights to Andrew's money. There was a sense of urgency, because Abby was about to step into "her territory". I wish the police had done a better job of searching her clothing, but she used the mentrual cycle excuse to put a stop to that. Lizzie had plenty of time to plot and plan the perfect aliby and it worked! I definitley think she knew the police were on holiday, she avoided Morse like the plague, and she acted when the time was right, lucky girl! After all, she had nothing better to do, her testimony about ironing and preparing wrappers is laughable, Lizzie was lazy and I don't think for a minute she did any chores that morning except for swinging and axe.
"I'd luv to kiss ya, but I just washed my hair"
Bette Davis
DJ
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
Real Name:

Re: Confession

Post by DJ »

Well, Lizzie broke down with Emma while she was being held, in Fall River.

That is clear evidence that her resolve was shaken during the Inquest, and, if Alice Russell had come forward at that point, Lizzie might well have cracked. She was having to do-si-do so much with Knowlton that, had he slammed her about the dress burning, she could have conceivably folded.

I still say, over and over, that, if Jennings had been earning his keep, he would have advised Lizzie to take to her bed during the Inquest, claiming she was too distraught and overwrought to testify.

But no: Here she comes, her Father and Stepmother freshly chopped up, answering questions at an official hearing. That in and of itself looked bad. (She should have gone beddy-bye before the police got hold of her, the a.m. of the murders, too. No questions answered; Miss Lizzie is in a swoon.)

Better for people to think that she could be avoiding the proceedings, than for her to show up and spin tales about eating pears in the barn.

After the Inquest, after someone finally advised her to keep her mouth shut, I don't think she would have budged.

However, there was that breakdown in the cell at the time of the Inquest.

Burning the dress with Alice Russell in and about was her second big mistake in the cover-up. Testifying at the Inquest was her third. Talking to the police on the Fourth was the first big mistake.

Postscript: When Johnny Stompanato was stabbed to death in Lana Turner's bedroom, did she call the police? A doctor? No and no. Her lawyer. Smart move, Lana.

"Bridget, Father is murdered. Run downtown and fetch Mr. Jennings."
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

I doubt that Lizzie could have avoided the Inquest completely, she would have had to appear sooner or later. Ordinarily, if she's the only person pleading the Fifth, contending that she might be incriminating herself with her testimony, it would certainly make her appear guilty. In this case, since Lizzie was aware that she was a suspect at the time of the Inquest, she would have been justified in a refusal to testify. She had been told she was a suspect the Saturday night after the murders.

I agree, Lizzie would have been much better served by keeping her trap shut! If the Inquest testimony was allowed at the Preliminary and at the Grand Jury, part of those rulings would have been the result of her verbal dysentery. The case may not have progressed as far as a trial without her Inquest testimony.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
John Watson
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:03 pm
Real Name: Cliff Roberts
Location: Rural Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by John Watson »

It would be easier to understand Lizzie if you do a little research on sociopaths. Lizzie didn't immediately send for her attorney or take to her bed to avoid questioning, or any of the other sensible courses of action suggested here, not because she was stupid or naive, but because she felt she could handle anything they had to throw at her. Part of the mental makeup of a sociopath is the belief that they're smarter than anyone else. They believe that because they've been fooling people - successfully - for most of their lives. They've had years to perfect the ability to lie convincingly, to fake remorse, to pretend concern for others, to act contrite - all to appear normal and fit in with others. This egocentric belief in their own invincibility is usually what trips them up; they take unnecessary chances - like Lizzie burning that dress in front of her friend. Lizzie passed it off with a believable excuse and, for good measure, blamed the friend for letting her do it! Same thing with the inquest - she had her story and no one could prove any differently. But she'd never been interrogated in such detail before and must have realized, to late, that she'd slipped up. At any rate, she beat the rap despite her mistakes. Why? Because she never stepped out of character. She believed, correctly, that without an eyewitness to the killings and without evidence of bloodspatter on her clothing, it would all come down to whather the jury believed her. In the end, the jury was left with nothing but the daily vision of Lizzie, seated demurely across from them, the very epitome of innocence - exactly the impression Lizzie so often managed to convey. Like Norman Bates in drag as an old lady, seeing police watching him and thinking to himself, ". . . they'll see me sitting here and say to themselves, 'why she wouldn't even kill a fly.'"
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

In my opinion, I doubt that Lizzie Borden would have been judged guilty of first degree murder in Massachusetts if she had been photographed in the act! There was absolutely no way they were going to execute a woman for murder. The death penalty was mandatory for first degree murder at the time. There was absolutely no way to get second degree murder out of a double homicide with a hatchet. The only option left was acquittal.

From Robert Sullivan, "Goodbye Lizzie Borden":
"In 1857 a female charged with murdering her husband by arsenic poisoning was tried in Plymouth County. The evidence against her was overwhelming, but the jury resisted conviction and was unable to reach a verdict."
"Months later, in 1858, the state legislature enacted the so-called 'murder statute' for the first time, distinguishing murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree, defining both and requiring a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and not the death penalty for persons convicted of murder in the second degree. It had been argued to the legislature that regardless of the evidence, it was impossible to convict female defendants in murder cases because of the mandatory death penalty."
"Immediately after the new murder statute was enacted, the Plymouth County female defendant just mentioned was re-tried and, after a discussion of abandonment of purpose to kill and some flimsy evidence of lack of deliberate premeditation, she was convicted by the jury of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment."
"Some thirty years later, and only a few years before Lizzie Borden came to trial, Sarah Jane Robinson, accused of six murders, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Shortly thereafter, on the sole ground that she was a woman, her sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Incongruously, militant equal-rights-for-women groups exerted considerable pressure upon the Governor to obtain this commutation."

Lizzie may well have been a sociopath, or well aware of the sociopolitical climate in Massachusetts at the time, or both.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
DJ
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
Real Name:

Re: Confession

Post by DJ »

Forgot to welcome you, John Watson, to the Forum!

I don't know that Lizzie was an out-and-out sociopath, but, of course, it's possible.

My reading on her is more a case of arrested development. I think she was spoiled and, above all, childish. With childish beliefs and thought patterns. I think she was sneaky and eavesdropped.

Look at the daylight robbery-- that's the sort of thing a child would do. If a sociopath did that, they would have gotten the heck out of the house and later proclaimed, "Oh, I wouldn't know about that. I was only in the house a few minutes today. I left about the same time you all did. I've been out shopping and visiting ever since. Sorry."

I don't think Lizzie thought much for herself. I think Emma had a lot of sway/control over Lizzie's thinking and actions.

Lizzie Borden Case followers often fall into two camps:

Emma as largely benign spinster.

Emma as the actual murderer-- as proposed in several books.

I don't think she wielded the hatchet, but she came pretty close, in that she evidently controlled a lot of Lizzie's thinking about property matters and Mrs. Borden.

Remember, Abby was the only mother that Lizzie had known, but Emma rejected Abby from the get-go. It took her awhile, but Emma finally got Lizzie around to calling her "Mrs. Borden" instead of "Mother."

To sum:

I think Lizzie was a terrible liar-- a true sociopath could have done better.

I think she had some serious delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, I've known, unfortunately, too many people I would classify as "sociopaths." They were slick, charming, sophisticated, and believable-- up to a point.

Again, my take on Lizzie: Spoiled, childish, and handily manipulated by her older sister to the point that I would state that, if there had been no Emma Borden, I don't believe Lizzie would have killed her father and stepmother.
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

Lizzie really did appear to be a perpetual spoiled brat through much of her behavior. How much of that was genuine as opposed to a sociopath using the expectations of others to manipulate them? I get the idea Lizzie's personality was the more dominant between Lizzie and Emma, at least by the time of the murders. The exchange with Lizzie accusing Emma of "giving her away" implies that Emma needs to answer to Lizzie for her actions, and the bit about "not giving in" suggests a resolute individual. Lizzie was capable of playing the part of Village Idiot with her response to Alice Russell concerning the dress burning, "how could you let me do it?". The real question is how much of the childish behavior was genuine and how much was an act?
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
John Watson
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:03 pm
Real Name: Cliff Roberts
Location: Rural Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by John Watson »

Hello DJ, and thank you for the welcome. I'm afraid I'm in the "benign Emma" camp. She has always come across to me as the weaker of the sisters. She very likely mothered Lizzie, and certainly remained protective of her from childhood right into adulthood, but I don't see evidence that she exerted any authority or control over her kid sister. Rather, it was Lizzie who always seemed to be the one in charge. The bedroom situation is most telling, I think; Lizzie had the big room, Emma went beddie-bye in the closet. We don't know everything about their relationship, of course, but I can think of only one occassion when Emma really stood up to Lizzie, this being the Nance O'Neil "affair" (quotes intended) which resulted in Emma moving out for good, leaving Lizzie as sole resident of Maplecroft. (I can almost hear Lizzie saying, "Either accept it or get out!") I do agree with you that Lizzie was a spoiled brat, and the theft was a childish act - but what was her motive? Lizzie may have acted rashly and without thinking at times, but I see the theft as a prelude to some future evil deed she was planning (much as the statement to Alice that "father has an enemy" was intended to draw attention away from her in the planned murder of her father). Oh to have been a fly on the wall of the Borden house and/or Maplecroft!

And thank you, Yooper, for your insight on the reluctance of Massachusetts juries to convict a woman in a death sentence case. I wasn't aware of that. I'm not sure whether Lizzie considered that beforehand or whether she even cared about it; my feeling is that she would have done the deed, death penalty or not. But it does bring up an interesting question: Would the jury have convicted her if they'd had the second-degree option? (Just as a sidelight: Twenty-seven years before the Borden murders, a Washington boardinghouse keeper, Mary Surratt, was hung as an accomplice in the assassination of Lincoln. The evidence against her was circumstantial, centering on possible advance knowledge of the crime. Five of her military judges sent President Johnson an appeal for mercy due to her sex, but Johnson ratified the death sentence and hang she did.)

One last observation: Being a sociopath does not carry with it a guarantee of intelligence. While many have learned how to capitalize on their lack of a conscience, they are no smarter than the rest of us, and their success is often due more to luck and audacity than brains.
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

I expect the jury would have been more inclined to find Lizzie guilty if life in prison was the outcome of a guilty verdict. Justice Dewey would have been less inclined to charge the jury in the manner which he did. Lizzie's Inquest testimony and Eli Bence's testimony might have been included as evidence. The entire trial was a political hot potato from the start, nobody wanted any part in executing a woman in Massachusetts at that time, defense and prosecution alike. It is important to realize that the Bordens were not Abraham Lincoln, and Washington D.C. was not Massachusetts. The landmark cases in Massachusetts preceded the Surratt trial by less than ten years, and Massachusetts by then had a history of resistance to executing women. That may have stemmed from the legacy of the Salem witch trials. There may be an interesting parallel between the Salem witch trials and the trial of Mary Surratt, however.

I wonder if Lizzie played Abby against Emma over the years as she was growing up? If one was disinclined to give Lizzie her own way, she could show allegiance to the other in some way and eventually Lizzie would prevail.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
DJ
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
Real Name:

Re: Confession

Post by DJ »

I think it's telling that a neighbor such as Addie Churchill, who by her accounts got along well with Mr. and Mrs. Borden, does not single out Lizzie as the "bad" child, nor does she promote Emma as the "good" one. She appears to have had problems with both of them.

When Lizzie told Emma, "Why did you let me do that?" at the dress burning, I take her at face value. I think Lizzie was so used to following Emma's lead on things-- her directions, her imperatives, her agenda-- she probably believed Emma sanctioned the dress burning because Emma didn't tell her otherwise.

If Lizzie did tell Emma, "You have given me away," after the Inquest, while she was being held, then it seems to me Lizzie believed Emma had blabbed too much about something-- probably to Jennings.

Anyway, my picture of Lizzie at Maplecroft is of a child finally ensconced in her grand playhouse-- a picture that grew increasingly pathetic as the years progressed. Seeing her as an aging woman, with her dog, on the porch in that recently published picture seems to sum it up.

It was childish of her to think that she could entertain Nance & Co. and still be accepted into any sort of local "society." At that point, it seems as if she was so needy of companionship and conviviality that she stepped out of her boundaries.
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

I've always taken the exchange after the dress burning as Lizzie addressing Alice. Alice had just finished telling Lizzie and Emma that she had told Hanscom that Lizzie's wardrobe was still intact, and Alice realized it wasn't true due to the burning she had witnessed. It seems to me that Lizzie was responding to Alice with "How could you let me do it?".

Alice had told Lizzie to not let anyone see her burning the dress, to which Lizzie responded by taking a step closer to the closet next to the stove, a presumably better hidden position. This implies that Alice knew it was wrong to burn the dress, and so did Lizzie at this point, even if she didn't know it before (Village Idiot scenario). Rather than ask "why hide?" if Lizzie was unsure, Lizzie went ahead and finished burning the dress, which further implies that Lizzie knew it was wrong beforehand and that Alice was simply offering good advice. I don't quite know what Lizzie expected Alice to do to prevent the dress burning, perhaps rope and hogtie Lizzie and stand her in the corner?

According to Emma, she told Lizzie to go ahead and burn the dress beforehand. Whether she actually told her that or she was just covering for Lizzie is a question. In any case, there was absolutely no good reason to dispose of the dress and ample reason to preserve it if Lizzie was innocent. The "how could you let me do it?" comment sounds like someone used to playing the irresponsible child when it gets her off the hook.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
DJ
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
Real Name:

Re: Confession

Post by DJ »

Yes, I went back to the trial transcript, which is the only place where we have Alice on record about the dress, because whatever she said before the Grand Jury was not preserved.

(Aside: I take all of Emma's testimony, particularly her trial testimony, with a grain of salt.)

I was putting the "Why did you let me do that?" comment at the scene of the dress burning, when it actually was made in the dining room on Monday, the day after, by Alice. Not Emma.

And, you're right. Alice told Lizzie that she ought not to be burning the dress, and Lizzie goes right ahead. So, the first time Alice called Lizzie out, Lizzie kept right on going. No discussion. No asking, "Why not?"

Also, it's rather odd that that dress was in that kitchen cupboard, to begin with!

To sum: Lizzie's response to Alice the following day rings very hollow indeed. When Alice called her out the first time, she kept right on with the dress.

Of course, Emma is standing there, too, like a cigar-store Indian, not agreeing with Alice that Lizzie should stop, because it looks bad. She is silently approving of Lizzie's actions.

To wit: If Emma had thought Lizzie innocent, she should have jumped in and joined her buddy Alice's chorus.
User avatar
Smudgeman
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:51 am
Real Name: Scott
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Confession

Post by Smudgeman »

Good point DJ, Why was the dress in the kitchen cupboard, and when was it put there? I don't remember any of that, I assumed Lizzie retrieved it from her room before burning it. I can imagine Lizzie asking Emma if she should burn the old, paint stained dress, and Emma giving her consent like a "cigar-store Indian", hahaha. If she thought the police would suspect the paint to resemble blood, Emma would agree she should burn it, but why after the murders did she suddenly remember she had an old, paint stained dress?
"I'd luv to kiss ya, but I just washed my hair"
Bette Davis
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

I agree, it was an odd time to be thinking of burning up a paint stained dress. It was an odd thing to consider doing in the first place, regardless of the timing. Lizzie knew by then that she was suspected, so any article of her clothing which did not contain blood stains was an argument for her innocence. Still, who was aware of what Lizzie's wardrobe actually contained at any given moment? People might say they made a dress of some description at a given time, or they had seen Lizzie wearing a particular dress, but it might be disposed of at any time, burned, cut up for rags, whatever. Practically speaking, other than Lizzie, no one other than Emma, or to a lesser degree Bridget, could say what Lizzie had or should have had in her closet. So if Lizzie disposed of a paint stained dress, who would realize it was missing besides Lizzie and Emma? In this case, Alice became aware of it when she found Lizzie burning it. Alice Russell was aware it was wrong to burn the dress, were Lizzie and Emma both as dumb as a ball peen hammer? DJ is right, Emma was either just as wrong as Lizzie, or just as stupid as Lizzie, one or the other.

I think this incident with the dress is where the lights came on for Alice with respect to Lizzie's guilt. She left the Borden house very shortly after the "how could you..." exchange, and I don't think she returned. We don't hear much about Alice until she shows up with the dress story after the grand jury had finished hearing testimony. There had been an inquest and a preliminary hearing prior to the grand jury, but Alice kept quiet. I think by then she had come to the realization that she had witnessed a gross wrongdoing, the dress burning, and to continue keeping quiet might implicate her in a cover-up of the murders.

To me, common sense says that Lizzie had reason to burn the dress other than paint stains. It could only further prove her innocence if it had nothing other than paint on it. It could be stored in Abby and Andrew's room if it was in the way otherwise, or stored under a bed. For whatever reason, a relatively new garment was not cut up for rags, it was completely destroyed, reduced to ashes. The actions fly in the face of common sense at every turn. Lizzie found it necessary to completely destroy the evidence, and Emma agreed with her.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
John Watson
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:03 pm
Real Name: Cliff Roberts
Location: Rural Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by John Watson »

The fact that police apparently missed finding the so-called "paint stained" dress during their search of the home after the murders calls into question just how thorough that search was. Since they were looking particularly for possible blood stains on any article of Lizzie's clothing, surely they would have seized it and had it tested for human blood, had they found it. The question now is, just where did Lizzie stash the dress before she burned it?
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any police testimony about having seen the paint stained dress during searches or not. That implies that either the dress was found and passed inspection, or the dress wasn't found and would either pass or not pass inspection. It has been suggested that one dress might be covered by another on the same hanger, one over the other. That certainly would have fooled me if I had been looking for the dress, but I'm not a cop. I get the idea that the Fall River police methods were less than sophisticated by the standards at the time. They made several searches of the house, but substituting frequency for accuracy doesn't strike me as valid.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
John Watson
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 2:03 pm
Real Name: Cliff Roberts
Location: Rural Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by John Watson »

Yooper:

You're quite right about the absense of police testimony concerning discovery of a paint-stained dress, but that in no way implies, " . . . the dress was found and passed inspection." Had any dress been found with stains, it would certainly have been seized and sent for tests, as was done with Lizzie's petticoat. This would have involved police and medical experts at the very least. Reports would have been generated and testimony taken. Since no report or testimony concerning such a discovery has been found, one can only conclude that no such dress was found. Moreover, Lizzie would certainly have been aware the dress had been taken for tests and returned, and would undoubtedly have stated so to friend Alice when caught burning it. The fact that officers discovered a single drop of blood on a petticoat of Lizzie's indicates they did look closely at Lizzie's clothing. How could they miss a dress so badly stained that Lizzie felt compelled to burn it? Bottom line: Police never found the stained dress because Lizzie had concealed it. Question now is: Where . . . and why?
DJ
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:12 pm
Real Name:

Re: Confession

Post by DJ »

I just cannot imagine Andrew Jackson Borden's daughters getting in the habit of dress-burning in the first place!

I realize that sounds like a joke, but I'm serious, and I know there was testimony about this alleged practice at trial, but I still don't believe it. Who would have known, aside from Emma (yeah, right), Lizzie (ooh-boy), and maybe Bridget.

People could always use scraps of material and especially old shirts and dresses. For quilts. For rags. For patches. For bandages and tourniquets. To remake into children's and babies' clothes. To tie up tomato vines. You get the picture. Especially in an era when there were no box stores, etc., loaded with household supplies.

Most people kept boxes in their houses for scraps of material, much less discarded garments.

If Emma and Lizzie ever burned a dress, I would wager A. J. Borden wasn't looking.
User avatar
Yooper
Posts: 3302
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
Real Name: Jeff
Location: U.P. Michigan

Re: Confession

Post by Yooper »

John Watson,
I agree with the absurdity of a paint stained dress passing inspection, but it must be stated as part of the implication or it results in an incomplete conclusion. We might also infer that had the police discovered it and even if they recognized the stain as paint, they would probably have remembered the dress and it would have at least appeared in testimony.

We should also remember that Lizzie was unaware of who had seen what at the time of the dress burning. She didn't know how accurately anyone could describe what she was wearing the morning of the murders. It was just possible that the police might ask specifically for the dress burned, either through correct positive identification, or through incorrect supposition by anyone familiar with her usually wearing that dress in the morning. I don't know how closely Lizzie might have scrutinized the dress, but if she wore that dress while committing the murders, and whether or not she had found blood on the dress, if she feared there might be evidence of the murders on the dress she had to dispose of it immediately, and before the inquest.

I agree with DJ, ordinarily an old garment used for rags would tend to be worn and threadbare. This would have been a recently made dress with the fabric in relatively good shape, so the rags would have been quite sturdy. A person might want to take a sturdy rag along when searching for sinkers in a dusty barn, for example. If nothing else, they might have gotten a couple of potholders out of the dress material.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
User avatar
stargazer
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:23 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Jandolin Marks
Location: Mohave Desert Arizona
Contact:

Re: Confession

Post by stargazer »

Could the dress have been hidden under a mattress ? Were all of the beds stripped, and searched ? Could she have concealed the dress inside a larger, fancier dress, or coat ? Was the attic searched? barrels ? Trunks ? She had days to move stuff around.
Neglect is a one way street to nowhere
User avatar
snokkums
Posts: 2545
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Robin
Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
Contact:

Re: Confession

Post by snokkums »

I don't think she would have admitted to the murders. I think she was so spoiled that she would blame the whole incident on the system, someone else, she was insane at the time, any thing but owning up to the deed. It was everything else but not her. To me, that would be her way of thinking, it's me, it's everything else.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
Post Reply