1. "Abby kneeling by the bed..."
Posted by audrey on Mar-10th-04 at 3:31 AM

I do not know why this struck me today...

I was wondering about JVM's suit and if he undressed between the dresser and the bed and perhaps layed his suit on the chair there? 

He had not changed it for days..... It may have had food particles and fuzz and lint that fell off onto the floor as he dressed or undressed.  Instead of getting a sweeper, could Abby have been kneeling down to pick these crumbs up?  Think about it-- if you see something like this on your floor and it doesn't need a total vacuum would you not squat or kneel down, "pinch" them up in one hand and drop them into other-- keeping your hands relatively close to one another?

So much testimony has Abby facing her killer.  I just can not accept this as 100% fact considering her position.  There is much discussion and even debate about her being repositioned. 

"it has always been a mystery"

I've always been an advocate of the Abby kneeling theory although I have to admit I have never made a detailed study of the wounds.

The kneeling position does "solve" two of the problems, one that nobody heard the body fall and two, that the killer was tall.

Lord knows what condition Morse left the room in.

Audrey, did you have to reveal the secret of how I vacuum - the "pinch" method. 

Yes, but weren't most of the hatchet wounds on her face?
Is there blood anywhere else but under her head?

***Yes, but weren't most of the hatchet wounds on her face? ***

surely you know better than that.  what did you really mean?

Somebody DID hear the body fall, though.  And haven't we kinda agreed (ha, ha, ha!) that the "flap" wound was most likely delivered as Abby faced the killer?

We just don't have enough physical evidence to know, do we?  Pictures of the bedspread, the bloody chair near Abby's head that was moved, good clear shots of Abby's face, cleaned up.

For all we know, Abby was dealt the first blow and clapped her hand to her head in disbelief and pain, thereby keeping the flow of blood to a minimum.

Ok, anybody else want to go back in time with me and invisibly observe? 

I believe We have to at least give credence to the M.E. who was there.
And yes, He says Abby was facing her killer to receive the flap wound.
From then on we can speculate.
And just how does a strange man approach a woman in a bedroom, holding a weapon?

I was looking at this when I visited the house and I hope to write my experiences for the upcoming Hatchet.

(Message last edited Mar-10th-04  5:29 PM.)

She could have been kneeling and facing the killer or she could have been kneeling and turned toward rhe killer.

or maybe the killer instructed her to "lay face down beside the
bed and you won't get hurt"

i would think it would be heard within a certain range of hearing.  but how loud or exactly what kind of sound, i don't know.

but the thought i had about HOW she fell that was a new idea (for me, anyway) is that after her knees hit the floor, then her hands hit the floor (at this quick interval she is on all-fours, so to speak) -- THEN the back wound flattens her.  this would explain the position of her arms, wouldn't it?  (are they not pretty much "uniformly" positioned?) so by this theory, she really does go down in "sections" -- in 3 parts, in total.  this is a better explanation for how she almost "neatly" falls within that narrow space.  i don't say that she was not first struck across the face while standing -- i just mean that she did not fall flat all at once in a haphazard flailing-about sort of way where she would have probably struck the dresser on the way down.  further, this better explains the upper back wound if that blow was actually calculated to "flatten" her.  whether you agree or not, do you understand my reasoning?

i'm rethinking how we have defined some of our questions.  for example, is it realistic that the reverberation of abby's fall can be likened to the idea of a 200 lb weight suddenly dropped?

also this -- the idea that her arms go up to shield her face as a sort of explanation for where her arms are on the floor -- her arms aren't doing that when she turns her back to the killer -- but her instinct would be to use her hands to keep from falling flat on her face.

i hope but dont' know if this is progress. this is my third description of her fall.

  

that's an important question.  i would say he sneaks up on her to start with.  but even if she is looking at the doorway when the killer enters, she might not have the time to decide how to respond -- and what comes is something she would never have expected.

If the murderer(ess) was someone Abby knew and "trusted" she would not be suspicious at all.  Let's consider that mantle behind the guest room bed. Could an axe have been placed there so that the murderer(ess) simply pretended to help Abby with the pillows and then reached for it? Or reached for it from the other side of the bed (near the door) and approached Abby?

Considering the number of blows, I can't ignore the fact that there were no defensive wounds on her upper arms or hands. Such should be the case if Abbe faced her murderer. It is my belief "she never saw it coming," If Mrs.Borden were on her knees at any point in the attack she would not be facing her assailant. In that position the hatchet blows could easily be administered to any part of her head or upper torso by anyone standing behind, and over her.

I speculate that she was facing away from her attacker,in an erect position, and dropped to her knees after the initial blow or blows.
This is my perception.  I'm sure there are at least a dozen other scenarios - probably more.

Considering the number of blows, I can't ignore the fact that there were no defensive wounds on her upper arms or hands. Such should be the case if Abbe faced her murderer. It is my belief "she never saw it coming," If Mrs.Borden were on her knees at any point in the attack she would not be facing her assailant. In that position the hatchet blows could easily be administered to any part of her head or upper torso by anyone standing behind, and over her.

I speculate that she was facing away from her attacker,in an erect position, and dropped to her knees after the initial blow or blows.
This is my perception.  I'm sure there are at least a dozen other scenarios - probably more.

Pardon my redundancy

Maybe she was going out the door when someone appeared
there (in the doorway) & hit her the first time. She
could have ran back into the room & the killer followed.
Just because she was found by the bed doesn't mean that
was where the attack started. It may have just been where
it ended. If the "flap wound" spurted blood it may have
landed on the killer & not on anything in the room. Her work in
the guest room was finished -- she was probably leaving the
room. I think she was either in the doorway or almost there
when the killer appeared. It would be easy to hide beside the
door & then surprise her & she probably wouldn't even have
had a chance to scream. The flap wound probably made her
stumble around not knowing what was happening. Or else she
knew & she had no where to run besides back into the room.

(Message last edited Mar-11th-04  11:25 AM.)

If she was attacked at the door there would be blood evidence.  She might have grabbed her wound and then stumbling, touched something.
I have heard that the first wound is "free".  I have read this too, as fact.  I'm not sure I understand totally what is meant by that.  It does seem to imply not too much bloodshed from the first strike.
BUT, facial wounds tend to bleed profusely, so maybe that doesn't count in this case.

Or somebody cleaned up the room pretty well...

Haulover, interesting.  Your post made me picture a man walking forcefully into the guest room, saying "Mrs. Borden?"  Before Abby even knows what's happening, chop.

Of course, I still think...mostly...it was Lizzie herself.

At the risk of sounding naggy, I'd like to suggest we not get bound up with the "position of the hands" as an indicator of anything.  As will go on my gravestone, we may suppose, as per doctors' testimony, that the bodies as seen in the photos are not in their original positions.  I'd even count on it!

BTW, are any of you show music fans?  This thread reminded my of a Sondheim lyric, from the show FOLLIES.  Ben, remembering a long-ago affair, sings "Sally, standing by the door, Sally moving to the bed..." 

(Message last edited Mar-11th-04  5:13 PM.)

I try to use the first testimony not the picture.

It seems like there is a lot of blood evidence missing
in this case. There was no blood to tell which way the
killer left, or where they were in the house waiting
between the killings. It is really amazing(or just anal?)
the way the "maniac" managed to stay rational(??) enough
to clean up the mess before they left...

Did They (he) take the whatever they (he?) used to clean up the place with them (him?)
Or is that the bloody cloths in the pail in the cellar?

There may be 6,000 rolls of Brawny Towels in the cellar NOW, but in 1892....?

The lack of bloodstains anywhere else kind of makes it
look like someone was following along cleaning up. Like
in the Evan Hunter book. It is like they attacked and
then were magically clean to wander the house again. I
just don't see how anyone could have not left a spot
anywhere. I don't spose it was a ghost or a spook of some kind.

I remember it, Bob!  I was in the chorus of an amateur production of that show several years ago. Beautiful song! Speaking of Sondheim, it sounds as if Sweeney Todd moved to Canada and went into the pork business.  The news just reported how Canada's latest serial killer disposed of his poor victims by grinding them into pork that he gave away to his neighbors. Can you imagine that guy's neighbors trying to figure out how many times they'd been given corpse sausage? BLLLEEEAAHHH!

--Lyddie

That's why I lean toward the 2 person theory: one can check for stains, keep the killer from brushing against anything, and clean anything that might be a giveaway.  In the days before luminol, it would have been easier to clean smooth surfaces, at least.

--Lyddie

Bon Dieu....

Do you suppose this is where they get the term "Canadian Bacon"?


(And that is really all I have to say about that!)

--Lyddie

i know the body was tampered with.  but you have to ascertain what was probably the basic position of the body as it fell.  specifically, the arms were moved -- either upward or downward, outward or inward -- to some degree - i doubt to a HUGE degree -- but is there any doubt that they are folded up underneath her when she is killed?  does this not tell us something?  particularly, they don't look to have flailed haphazardly about her body.  it seems to me we have to find some reasonable difference between the "struck dead attitude" and the "tampering."

_______________


Trial from Bowen:

Q. Will you look at the photograph marked Ex. 16, where the bed is drawn away, and tell us in what respect the position of Mrs. Borden differs in that photograph, if it differs at all?
A. I think her arms were a little lower down than are represented here, -- slightly lower, below the breast.
Q. About how much lower?
A. Six inches, I should say.
Q. They were lower at the time, or lower in the photograph?
A. Lower at the time.
Q. In other respects is her position upon the floor the same as it was when you first found her?
A. As far as I can see, yes, sir.

Q. Will you be kind enough to tell us in what respect Mr. Borden's position differed from that photograph, if it differed at all?
A. I don't think the photograph shows the ease that is natural to a  person that is asleep or lying down.  I think in this case the form has sunk down a little from what it was when I first saw it.
Q. Otherwise than the sinking down of the form is there any change in the position of the body upon the sofa, as far as you could observe?
A. No, sir, I don't think there is.
Q. And by sinking do you mean the general collapse that occurs?
A. Yes, sir.  I think the head is lower here than it was.

Hi Kat,
"Or is that the bloody cloths in the pail in the cellar?"

I have often wondered if that wasn't a mixed batch! Possibly ones left at the very end of cleaning. Remember, the fire was burning, too. Bridget's testimoney - " I came down to start the fire"..."Miss Lizzie had been ironing eight or nine minutes when I went upstairs"......"Made a coal fire that morning". There was opportunity to burn rags or clothes before the call for help went out.

Something I had never noticed before in Bridget's testimony....is this a slip up???
"Washed Monday, hanging out the clothes Tuesday and ironed Wednesday. Finished ironing that evening. Then I laid the clothes out in piles and Mrs. Borden and the girls took them upstairs. I mean Lizzie took hers up instead of the girls took them up." Then she says, "THEY took the piles of clothes up Thursday morning, I separated the clothes before breakfast."
Did Bridget slip here and say "the girls" not meaning Emma and Lizzie but rather two other domestics helping her? Is it a hint there were more in the house than she and Lizzie? Is there any testimony from Lizzie mentioning going upstairs to put her clothes away that morning?
 
And while we are on the subject of the fire, State Officer Seaver "misplaced" his original notes and had to make up new ones from memory. Could some of that stuff going into the stove by Dr. Bowen's hand have been Seaver's notes carelessly left lying about?

Gramma

Does anyone think the killer returned to guest chamber and looked at Abby in the time span between her attack and Andrew's?

They say a criminal always returns to the scene of the crime....

The killer may have tampered with the body in many ways. 

(I just love the phrase "tampered with" and try to think of ways to use it as often as I can)


(Message last edited Mar-11th-04  10:46 PM.)

***At the risk of sounding naggy, I'd like to suggest we not get bound up with the "position of the hands" as an indicator of anything.  As will go on my gravestone, we may suppose, as per doctors' testimony, that the bodies as seen in the photos are not in their original positions.  I'd even count on it! ***

allow me to state that we need to find an indicator of SOMETHING. 

HOW different would you say the bodies are in the photos as opposed to their original positions?  there is no blood trail. they are where they are.

radical changes vs. minor ones.  for example, i don't care if someone pulled down abby's skirt -- her hips are still there.

i've imagined lizzie doing just that -- going back to the guest room to make sure it actually happened.  (but that's specifically the lizzie killer theory.)

why would the killer tamper with abby's body?  it's possible, of course, but why bother?

without the pictures?  don't you think we need the pictures as a connection to reality when visual testimonies differ?

i had the impression early in the anthony story that there was some cleaning up "of the premises."  i don't know what this would be as far as evidence.  of course, the killer might clean himself/herself -- but not the carpets.

Gramma, may I ask the source for what you posted as Bridget's testimony?

And yes, Bridget misspoke about the girls taking up the laundry.
She was reminded that Emma was away.

Dr. Dolan didn't have his original partial autopsy notes either.

I've always wondered what de Mille [Dance Of Death] meant when she blurted out, to her friend Welch, after viewing the Hip-bath collection, "No blood!":

"But in the car on the way home, he continued wistfully, 'I wish all the same we could examine them. The points, you see, are, and Jennings knew them as well as I, that Lizzie lied, but she might have done so even though quite innocent, but she lied repeatedly, and the second point is---but you saw yourself?'

'Yes!' I almost yelled. 'I saw. It was plain.'

'By the way, call me Joe,' said Lawyer Welch. We shook hands.

'No blood! ' I said.

'Blood no problem,' he reaffirmed. We shook hands again.

The pictures and the bedspread had told an extraordinary story."

--It goes on to note what blood there was and how likely the murderer would not be covered or dripping in gore.

Preliminary
Vol 2
pg. 101
Dr. Dolan
Q.  As you saw it, without turning it [Abby] over, what was the appearance of it?
A.  You could not see any part of the face. The arms were thrown, as it were, prone around the face. All that was exposed was the right half of the back of the head.

The picture has Abby's arms near her chest:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/crimesceneassets/abbybloody.jpg

Yes of course I look at the pictures.  Then I take out my hard copy of the Preliminary Hearing, read the testimony and draw my own Abby and Andrew and place the blood where the testimony says and then I can compare.
But the descriptive words themselves at that point are more important to me when I diagram.
Have you tried that?

Yes!  Arms here, arms, there.  H., we don't HAVE an indicator, other than the testimony, concerning the position of the arms.

The photos DO NOT show the ORIGINAL POSITION of Abby's body, in particular.  With all due respect, you can't come up with a convincing theory about Abby's fall based on the photos alone.  They show corrupted evidence.  WE can haggle about it until we're blue in the face...fingers, whatever.

It was almost enough for people in those days that the victim was dead.  We should be happy they tried to ascertain the time of death with the stomach contents and perceived tempertaure of the corpses, and the quality of the blood, at least.

Lyddie, I just saw SWEENEY again at the NY City Opera - my favorite musical!  



(Message last edited Mar-12th-04  2:06 PM.)

Stefani was in that play at school.  I still have a picture of her character.
I think that is one of her favorites as well!

Kat,
Sorry about that! The source of Bridget's testimony was "The Fall River Tragedy" by Porter, page 107. On page 104 it says "Didn't look at the fire before I went upstairs." and "A coal fire was started in the morning."

Gramma

tonight i re-read and copied down bowen vs. dolan on the subject of the position of her arms.  until i read specifically for this from this perspective, i did not realize how interested they were in trying to ascertain just that particular detail -- the position of her arms.  there is a serious descrepancy between bowen and dolan on this.  they did not see the same thing.  intially, i was just trying to understand how she might have fallen without a great deal of noise or reverberation.  it doesn't matter how she fell as far as identifying the killer -- not that i can see.  but this difference between the two witnesses on this particular point about the hands/arms must have some answer. it's not simply a matter of testimony.  there are two testimonies that conflict.  i doubt it matters as far as the ultimate question at hand -- it is just very curious.  like trying to piece together the testimonies about the dress mystery -- this really -- for me, anyway -- becomes a sort of logic problem.  that might be a tangent that doesn't matter, but it bugs me nevertheless. 

I have believed Dolan over Bowen mainly because I don't think Bowen did too much to the body of Abby before returning downstairs.
Her arms up around her head makes sense to me.

Now, recall Bridget went into the room first and stood looking at the body?
Wasn't she in danger?
In danger from a supposed maniac and danger from getting blood on her which might point to her as a suspect?
She also could have manipulated the body as Mrs. Churchill went directly back down the stairs without entering the room.
If Bridget had killed Abby, it would be an alibi to claim she got blood on her from discovering the body.
Like Lizzie had that same chance with Andrew's body, but says she didn't enter the sitting room.
Those 2, alone in a house of gore, were clean tho...

OOOOOOOOOO!  I'm soooo jealous!!!

--Lyddie

Didn't Bridget pile up the cleaned and dried clothes in the dining room? So each could take their stuff back to their rooms? People remembering the usual practice, not what happened that day?
Bridget wasn't allowed on second floor.

(Message last edited Mar-13th-04  3:24 PM.)

For those of you who have not the Preliminary Hearing:

Preliminary Hearing
Bridget
74+

Q.  Where did you leave the clothes you had ironed Wednesday evening?
A.  I put them on the table, folded, and Mr. Borden took a pile, and the girls took the other pile.
Q.  When?
A.  Wednesday morning.
Q.  What girls?
A.  Miss Lizzie’s and Miss Emma’s clothes. I always separated them, and laid them in piles.
Q.  You said you separated the piles, and Mr. Borden took one, and the girls took their piles; you do not mean that, because Emma was not there?
A.  Miss Lizzie must have taken them then.
Q.  They did not take them until Thursday morning?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  They were not ready to be taken?
A.  They were on the clothes horse.
Q.  They were hung to air as was your habit after finishing ironing?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You folded them up Thursday morning?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  You took them off the clothes horse and folded them up?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Perhaps that is one of the things you did after breakfast?
A.  No Sir, while I was getting breakfast.
Q.  There was one pile for Mr. Borden’s room, and one for Lizzie’s and Emma’s room?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  They were not ready until Thursday morning?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Where did you pile them up?
A.  On the kitchen table.
Q.  Where the pears were?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  In the kitchen?
A.  Yes Sir.

***I have believed Dolan over Bowen mainly because I don't think Bowen did too much to the body of Abby before returning downstairs.***

i know.  and from mrs. churchill's description, the room was quite dark (unless bridget opened the shutters before bowen entered).  but both doctors "raised" abby, so they should bear each other out.  (i looked and find they DO bear each other out concerning andrew.)  i transcribed every word from bowen and dolan in a notebook i usually keep with me, but it's more constructive to sort through it as constructively as i can before posting on it again.

i do know it's not unusual to find this kind of fork in the road, where you have to find a rationale for believing one more than the other, or a rationale for why someone is mistaken, etc.  but this subject about where her hands were -- i prob. said this, but it matters more as a lesson as how two people (assuming they are both honest) have two different tales on a particular detail, and both seem untroubled and certain about it. 

another one of these type problems, and a more important one -- is concerning "The Mystery of the Dress."  you know i spent a lot of time on that a while back, and for now, i have put it aside.  for what i discovered was not what lizzie was wearing, but rather, a logic problem.  then that in itself becomes interesting.  you must make an intuitive leap, or choose to define something about memory -- in order to reach a conclusion.  your view was that if lizzie had been wearing the bedford cord, then alice would have remembered it, since she knew it.  my view was that since alice could not remember it, then it could have been anything. the debate on this together with all the other testimonies work into it is not yet done, but one thing at a time, i guess.  but you see what i'm talking about? the fork in the road.  it would be easy if testimonies were mere facts, but two or three levels down, it becomes interpretation.  (if i had to take a wild leap of faith, i would guess that the answer is more simple than complex.)

about bridget's reaction to mrs. borden:  radin made an issue out of this as something pointing to her guilt.  but it may seem more odd to us AFTER THE FACT.  at the time, perhaps it was an honest reaction on her part of concern, of wonder -- has she fainted?  is she sick?  or what?  i guess it would hinge or whether bridget was actually fond enough of abby to think ONLY of that at the time and want to rush up and find out what it was.  but then, irregardless of bridget in this reaction of hers -- what about everybody else in the house?  before the police had a chance to search, the women in the kitchen or dining room (not to mention the trip up the back stairs for a sheet) -- they don't seem concerned that an axe murderer might come slashing through.  bowen did not seem to think about it either.  on the other hand, Sawyer seemed concerned about someone hiding somewhere.  simple answer that the women were too focused on lizzie to think about it?  and that reminds me -- now that you've been in the house -- perhaps there is something about the house itself that has something to do with this?

what's your reaction to this idea?  would you be shocked to discover FOR FACT (i'm not saying it's possible) that lizzie was wearing that bedford cord when mrs. churchill saw her in the doorway and that's the same dress she burned and there never was any other such dress?

I suppose the testimonies can become a labor of interpretation.
If we had a tape to hear nuance and see body language, I suppose that would give us a wider window.
I can only use my instincts after a certain point.  If I am interpreting.

I trust Alice's interpretation of what she saw and didn't see.
I trust Dr. Dolan in the same way.
These are about the only ones, maybe Churchill, of those who were close.
I make that distinction because Sawyer should be trusted but I doubt he really knew what was going on.  The same for Mrs. Dr. Bowen- her husband sent her home!
Those who were vested emotionally, like Bowen, Bridget, Emma- these I take with a grain of salt.  I can sense the conflicted and confusing feelings of these type of witnesses and so I don't rely upon them.

Anyone else has a possible agenda, or emotionally addled.

As to Bridget checking out the body of Abby, I think she was curious and shocked and enthralled.  Her first instinct also was to rush into the sitting room.  Lizzie kept her from that.
Coming from a large Catholic family she may have been no stranger to accidents and trauma and death.

The fact that the women would not go upstairs alone shows they were wary, both times.
Bowen was wary- I think he got out of that guest room pretty fast.
Sawyer was scared and admitted it.  He bolted the cellar door.
I think these key people show fear and apprehension.

Lizzie gave up an outfit to the court thru her attorney which she claimed was what she was wearing Thursday.
We already know that was not the dress- at least witnesses said it was not.
Once we have a phony dress, there's nothing hard in believing there are more phony dresses.  That's just the way I look at the dress situation.

i wish i could be the night owl you are.  i'm up two hours too late as it is!  my problem is that my brain doesn't start working at its best until after midnight.  (that prob. means something.)

i've got a whole new image project started now involving the idea of SHADOWS.  i barely made a dent in it.  i wish i could stay up all night.  well, i'll struggle through tomorrow and do it again.

btw, yes, i agree -- my plum tree blossoms look like garland.  i thought that -- together with the contrasting whiteness of it -- it was a surprisingly appealing picture.

later, Eugene

Hi Kat,
Do you find it strange that the transcription of the Preliminary hearing says MR Borden took a pile of clothes up? Porter says MRS Borden and I think that makes a whole lot more sense as I do not see Andrew carrying his own clothes upstairs. Just not a "man's" job in 1892 with all those women in the house!

Gramma

The hard copy put out by the Fall River Historical Society reads "Mr. Borden".

Since theirs is a copy of Jennings' hip bath files (the only known copy), I am inclined to believe them over Porter.

Maybe Porter assumed it was in error for the very reasons you mention and changed it to "Mrs."

I have read elsewhere that Andrew, at least once, took the clothes line wash in.

(Message last edited Mar-15th-04  5:08 PM.)

Andrew was meticulous.  He was also not a man prone to frivolity.

I have no problem imagining him taking his pile of clothes on his way upstairs to avoid a "wasted trip".

Thrift can apply to time as well as money!

He may have also thought "They are MY clothes; I will handle them."

Who knows? 

If Bridget was innocent of any plotting and inclusion in a plan, I feel she may well have rushed into the room to see Abby thinking the equivalent of "Oh, lord, what now?"

It also was Bridget's place as an employee to enter the room first - Addy was only a neighbor, and not even a close one like Phebe Bowen, at that!

(Message last edited Mar-17th-04  11:21 AM.)

Yes, you are right, Harry.  From the Preliminary Volume 1, pg. 16, Bridget is on the stand and is being questioned about the cellar door:

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Borden had anything to do about seeing that back door was shut up?

A. Yes sir.  He was always seen a Monday, or whatever day the clothes would be taken in, that it was locked; for he always took in the clothes line himself.

If Andrew could be responsible for bringing in the clean clothes off the line then I think he wouldn't have a problem bringing up Abby's and his own ironed clothes.  He also gathered those pears in the back yard and threw out the old ones according to Bridget and emptied out his slop pail.  It sounds like Andrew wasn't bothered by doing some simple domestic chores.  If the term I read is correct, Andrew was partially retired and must have had time on his hands that he needed to fill with something. 

As far as the testimony reads, Andrew brought in the clothes line, but we don't know that he brought in the wash, or the laundry or whatever. 
I too, believe the testimony transcript over the author.
I don't know why Andrew would be so sure as to bring in the line?  Isn't it funny that the picture of the Borden backyard after the murders shows the line still out there and a small rug hanging there?
What's with that?

Did the line not ever get taken in again, after Andrew died?  Was it a 'Control' issue, or did he not rely upon Bridget's memory to bring in the line?  Supposing the line wore out sooner if left out in all weather?  I don't know...

Susan,
This says he took the clothes LINE in. That WAS the department of the men. You are making the assumption he brought in clothes when actually it may only have been the line. Yes, the line was put up and taken down sometimes. I can remember women, when I was growing up asking for their husband to put the line up because they would be doing wash. Again, the times are different and things were done then that you do not think of today.

Gramma

Hi Kat,
Our answers were almost at the same time! I  have not seen the picture of the Borden's backyard but I know some houses had a board on the house and a crosspiece on a pole in the yard. On the board and the crosspiece were hooks and the line was pulled taut, back and forth, through the hooks. And, yes, they brought the line in because it lasted longer than if it was left out to weather. The lines were, most often, woven cotton rope. In order to keep the line from sagging to the ground it took some strength to pull the line extra taut, hence it became a "man's" job.

Gramma

I see how our answers overlapped.
I think we doubled up on poor Susan!

We had had a similar discussion before so my assumption is that she does know it was the line which was taken in.

Thanks for the extra info as to strength involved- I thought it was because Andrew was tall...

According to my Victorian housekeeping experts, the line was to be wiped down and taken in after EACH use.  Otherwise, the cotton lines would gather soil, which would be transferred to your nice clean clothes!

--Lyddie

Thanks Gramma and Kat.  Some times I believe what you are both saying to be the case, then there are other times where I wonder if this was just a figure of speech of Bridget's?  When she means clothes line, does she mean the actual line itself, or all and sundry, the clothes, the line, everything.  Maybe I'm just trying to read too much into some of these statements, but, we've seen how Bridget has a way of saying things that don't even jibe with the jargon of the day, such as Andrew's dressing coat.  But, for now, I will go with the general consensus on the clothes line. 

Sorry to presume to speak for you.  I did not know you had another opinion about the line.

That makes sense Lydia.  I'm still of the belief that Andrew would not be adverse to taking in the clothes as well. I think his sour dispostion mainly applied to money matters and not necessarily to domestic chores. 

This clipped photo of the back yard shows a clothes line.  It looks very short and low to the ground. It is not detailed enough to show where the ends are attached.  Maybe William, who has a great deal of knowledge on the photos, can shed some light

Harry,

Based upon my personal memory as child (1920s), Mom alway took the clothes line in when it was not in use. She had a practical reason. She didn't want anyone to "hang themselves" if they were walking through the yard after dark.

Not at all, Kat, no problem.  Its a minor point in the scheme of things, but, I do agree that Andrew took in the actual clothes line itself, there is ample evidence that that was the norm.  Andrew taking in the clothes is just my speculation here, I could be totally off.  If Bridget can lug a laundry basket full of wet clothes out to the line, I'm sure she could also take in the dry ones too.  I'm just trying to get a hold on her speech patterns, shes says one thing and means another. 

Bill, mine was the opposite.  I was raised in a 3 story tenement that had back porches and clothes lines going out to a pole.  We lived on the top floor. Being the neighborhood monkey I made pocket money by climbing the poles and hooking on the pulleys and feeding the clothes line through.  There were two other identical tenements (6 apartments each) where I had this job as well.  It was a bit scary doing the third floor hookups while hanging onto the pole especially when the wind was blowing.

It's amazing how fearless you are when you are young.

Was this in Massachusetts? Triple-deckers?

Leaving out all night (ground level) is one way to later discover it missing. IMO

A nice polite way to reference birds sitting on the line.

I once hit a line running and luckily my hands went instinctively to my neck! 
I have a memory of swinging a full head over heels and landing on my back!  I had marks on the outside of my wrists for a long time.
That was scary.  Those things can seem invisable!

I also hadn't thought about birds using the line.

I don't know about Andrew.  He's born in 1822.  I have no idea of the role of first born son in a poor family at the turn of the 18th century.  If he was induced to help with the laundry then he probablt would continue with that pattern.  All his sisters died but Lurana- so maybe he did help out.
But having a maid who only did the cooking and laundry and the occaisional window    Maybe he wanted his money's worth out of her?

(Message last edited Mar-17th-04  12:46 AM.)

Our old/older clotheslines were on porch level, well above the ground. But you could still hit drying clothes.
My aunt in the country had theirs at ground level (like the Bordens?) between two trees, with a pole holding it up in the middle. I saw this in other rural areas where the porches were a step or two off the ground.