1. "HK001"
Posted by Kat on Feb-20th-03 at 11:15 PM

Commonwealth of Massachusetts VS. Lizzie A. Borden; The Knowlton Papers, 1892-1893. Eds. Michael Martins and Dennis A. Binette. Fall River, MA: Fall River Historical Society, 1994.

The first letter included in the Knowlton Papers is from Providence, dated Aug. 9th, 1892, 6 days after the murders.
It is handwritten in lead.
At the end, it refers to a person named George B. Fisk, as one who "can enlighten you on her [Lizzie's] hatred of Mrs. Borden."

This person is mentioned in Glossary A, p.433, as being unidentifiable.  Just because the letter came from Providence, doesn't mean that this George B. Fisk is there as well.  (?)
When I first read the letter and this name I immediately thought of George FISH, husband of Priscilla, Abby's elder sister.
Granted, that George Fish is George H. Fish...but "H" is similar to "B." when transcribing from pencil handwriting...
(See George H. Fish in Rebello, pg. 23)
The reason *our* George seems a candidate is he had a particular opinion as to the murders of the Bordens.

"Attorney Knowlton

It appears that you are somewhat dazed  in regard to the Borden murder but to me it is one of the plainest cases I ever read of, and if the parties had been poor they would have been dealt with same as other poor criminals.  The woman has manifested guilt from the first.  Her object was money alone  if you arrest three parties at the home you will soon solve the mystery.  The servant girl is satisfied who did but expects pay for silence, first you ask her privately what kind of dress Lizzie had on in the morning and if she changed it up to the time of calling her also if she had on apron then ask Lizzie where they are.  This large apron was what concealed the axe when she came downstairs after killing the mother, you will find apron, dress and towel burried either in cellar or burrid under floor in Barn, I should say east cor. of Barn, placed there from outside  that is why you saw no tracks.  I get this from a dream I had sundy night, why you found so little blood, it was wiped up with cloths which are hid on premise, unless she has hiard someone to take them away.  I am of the opinion of the Pastor which said the murder must be a fiend incarnate and from Lizzie's face I read that she is deep as the bottomless pit and subtle as hell void of soul or feeling all self.  I think the public opinion of near all is that she is the guilty one and will slip you if you give her the chance.  You will get evidence enough after her arrest. neighbors dont care to tell what they think until she is in safe keeping but they not in her favor.  George B. Fisk can enlighten you on her hatred of Mrs. Borden.

I write this as a duty to the Public safety.
Shall expect this to be strictly confidential.

In Haste"


Rebello, pg. 123, same date:  August 9th, 1892:

" 'Lizzie and Morse, Fish Believes They Concocted the Deed, And Hired Some One to Commit the Double Murder, Girls Never on Good Terms with Their Stepmother, He Says,' Fall River Daily Globe, Tuesday, August 9, 1892: 2."

"Mr. George H. Fish was married to Abby Borden's sister, Priscilla B. Gray. He believed Lizzie and her uncle John V. Morse planned the murders but hired someone to commit the murders. His theory was quickly denied by his family."

" 'Mr. Fish's Belief, He Tells of Their Differences in the Family,' Fall River Daily Globe, Tuesday, August 9, 1892: 8.

'Have No Theory / Fish Family Disagrees With Grandfather / Do Not Believe Lizzie and Morse Concocted the Deed,' Fall River Daily Globe, Wednesday, August 10, 1892: 2.

'A Fish Story / The Hartford Relative Called Down by the Facts / A Suggestive Hint - Dr. Handy Saw a Wild Man on Second Street / Mysterious Robbery and Its Relation to the Killing of the Bordens / The Board of Aldermen Takes Steps Relative to Increasing the Force of Policemen,' New Bedford Daily Mercury, Wednesday, August 10, 1892: 1."

More on Fish.

From the August 9 Evening Standard, page 8:

"Hartford, Ct., Aug. 8. - George B. Fish, of this city, whose wife is the sister of the murdered Mrs. Borden of Fall River, in a published interview says that he believes Lizzie Borden and J. V. Morse concocted the deed and hired someone to do it.

Lizzie and Emma are step-daughters of the murdered woman and have never been on good terms with her owing to trouble over the division of property left by the girl's mother to Mr. Borden who gave it to the second wife instead of the girls.  When asked what Lizzie's object would have been in doing this, Mr. Fish replied: "Simply to get them out of the way.  No one made any money out of it, nor could they in any way by murdering the couple."

Morse was asked what he had to say.

"Nothing at all.  Mr. Jennings, our counsel, has advised me to have nothing to say for publication."

"But that directly implicates you and Miss Borden.  Have you nothing to say to that?"

"You know as well as I do what grounds there are for such an absurd charge as that.  It is entirely unreasonable; that is all I will say."


(Message last edited Feb-20th-03  11:52 PM.)

Oh Good!
Thanks!  I was hoping for more on Fish.
We don't know him too well.
He was at the funeral with Priscilla and his son and his son's wife.  (R., 103)

Another poison pen letter? Note that the writer was NOT a WITNESS to anything. You can decide how relevant are his comments.
Doesn't D Kent mention they received hundreds of such letters?

Obviously they can't inherit from a predeceased Abby!
Have YOU ever seen the anger that results after a death of a relative?

It's odd about the inheritence.
As far as I can figure from Rebello items, Abby did have something that was considered her estate and I believe the Borden girls approved of it's distribution to the relatives of Abby.
Something like $788 was apparently, in the end, settled onto each sister, Priscilla Fish, and Sarah Whitehead (who was 1/2 sister).
However, that was handed out in November of 1894, yet Priscilla & George were dead by then. Since they had no children between them, I can't figure out where that share would go. ...back to Sarah Whitehead?
--(Priscilla's share, in Rebello, is stated as going to George Fish...278)

-There WERE 2 aprons amongst the bloody clothes.
-There WAS a pail of cloths that were blooded supposedly from Lizzie's menstrual cycle.
-It is possible that Bridget was paid something for not volunteering information as to the relationships in that house.
-Also note as *odd* some easy words misspelled and some bigger words used correctly.
-We do know there is a problem with accountability of Lizzie's dresses...  Not to say this person has inside info, but then they do refer to Fisk or Fish (?) who does have a belief in Lizzie's guilt.
Just very odd and interesting...

If Andy died first, then Abby would inherit one-third herself, or as dower rights (for her life). AR Brown says a factory worker earned $500 a year (80-hour week!), so $788 is not peanuts then.

Didn't I read that Abby's ownership in the old Borden Homestead was turned over to her sister? That was worth at least $1500!

(Message last edited Feb-22nd-03  1:40 PM.)

Didn't AR Brown say this about that letter from a "Samuel Robinsky", and claim it was written by Phillips (and sent to Jennings, thereby not break the law by writing false information)?
Did D Kent also comment on the letter posted from Albany NY?

Apparently the Fourth Street 1/2 House was given over to Sarah Whitehead for $1.
But Priscilla still owned 1/4.
So that doesn't answer how the remaining two 1/2 sisters found an equitable solution to ownership of the house.

Anyway, the Borden girls didn't need to distribute anything I don;t think, as Abby pre-deceased Andrew.
So they must have given up Abby's estate for whatever reason?
-They would be sued for it anyway?
-They didn't want anything of Abby's at all?
-They wanted to look good, or look like they were being fair?
-They wanted to shut up Abby's family so they would go away?
-Fill in your own blank_______?

I can only give my opinion. Probably all of the four reasons.

As I remember it, Abby gave her 1/4 to Sarah (stepmother). Her stepbrother gave his 1/4 to his sister. When the stepmom wanted to sell, Andy bought her out, and gave it to Abby. No mention of this transfer before the murders; and Abby would be wise to keep her half, just in case.

(Message last edited Feb-23rd-03  3:00 PM.)

Rebello, pg. 23:
Deja-Vu all over again...

Oliver Gray, Abby's father married as his second wife "Jane Eldredge D. (Baker) Gray [whose] first husband Obed Eldredge was lost at sea in 1857. This [first] marriage produced two children. (1) Henry H. Eldredge. He died at the age of 32 of consumption on April 16, 1882, in South Dartmouth, Massachusetts. (2) Lucy J. (Eldredge) Cahoon. (Date of birth, marriage and death unknown)".

Oliver died in 1878, and his stepson died in 1882.
There is nothing about the stepson inheriting part of the house over and above Oliver's wife and 3 natural daughters, let alone another step-daughter.
Can you give a source to persue this, please?

Thank you again for your very interesting question.
I read it in a book, of course!!! I'm not that old to be an eyewitness. Maybe David Kent's book, or ?
It said when Abby's father died, he split the house four ways: Abby, her stepmom, her stepbrother and stepsister. (Maybe w/o a will, since it was equally divided?)
Abby gave her share to her stepmom. Her stepbrother (already married) gave her share to his sister.

Anyone can look it up, and give one or more answers.

This is a good place to give you advice on reading books on this subject. Buy a bound notebook, and keep notes for each book you read. Then you'll be able to quickly look it up.

What book did you get that from, Rays?  And what page(s)?  It's far different from the facts as we've read in other places, so your source is critical to your statement. 

Right, the "girls" didn't HAVE to give Abby's relatives a thing.  They could have been advised by Jennings that it would look good for them. 

I had always thought that that letter meant George Fish, too.  It feels too close not to be. 

I guess I can look in Kent (?) to see which author may have stated that division of the property.  But, if Oliver were to bequeath his house in shares to everyone, wouldn't he then include:
Jane, her son (is he married?  don't know this...), her daughter, Priscilla, Abby and Sarah--that's 6 people that each get 1/4?

It does remind me though that Sarah [Whitehead] would have 3 half-sisters and a half brother, because her mother was Jane, And she is 4 years younger than Lizzie.
I never remember this about her.

Anyway, thanks for the input Augusta, because I know you have actually read Knowlton Papers pretty much cover to cover!

I remember someone posting here that the Borden girls later turned over that half-share to the Whitehead home to Abby's sister. Not as a payoff, but just as the proper and right thing to do.
Does anyone else remember this?

If the Kent or Brown books have a good index, it can be easily found.

I don't find it in Kent's book.
In fact, pg. 164+, he misrepresents Mrs. Whitehead as being the person from whom Andrew bought 1/2 a house, and earlier calls Sarah Whitehead's mother ABBY'S mother, when she was her stepmother.
Nothing like an index, tho there is a Bibliography and a glossary of character's names.

Brown also doesn't describe the division of the Fourth street house the way you say you remember.  [pg. 58 & 59]:
Brown also gets it wrong.  He says, "...the mother of Abby Borden, Andrew's second wife...wanted to sell..."
This is Abby's step-mother, as her real mother died in 1860.

He also erroniously and misguidedly points out that Morse's visit  "coincided" with the robbery.  There is nothing anywhere to say Morse was even in Fall River when the *break-in* occurred.

So it's not Kent and it's not Brown.  What about your notes?

(Message last edited Feb-27th-03  6:28 PM.)

Sorry, I have no notes at hand. Maybe it was in Sullivan's book (not easily available to me), since he did interview Abby Borden Whitehead Potter for his book.

The confusion of step-mother for mother seems very common in those books. Could it be the result of editing by someone other than the author? "Try to shorten it a few pages to fit the book length"?

Sure, leave out a few "steps"*and it will shorten your book by, what, about 25 words?
Granted, in the old days they did say "brother" when they meant Brother-in-law, but these are Modern writers and those mistakes should not have been made.
I will check Sullivan, but if we rely on "lil Abby, we might as well rely on Brown.

Sullivan, Robert. Goodbye Lizzie Borden. Brattleboro, VT: Stephen Greene Press, 1974, pg. 22:

"When Sarah and Abby's father, Oliver Gray, died, the interest in the Fourth Street home was divided four ways: one-fourth to the widow, Mrs. Gray; one-fourth to Mrs. Priscilla Fish, a daughter by Gray who does not otherwise enter this story; one-fourth to Sarah Gray Whitehead; and one-fourth to Abby Durfee Gray Borden.

Abby gave her one-fourth to her young half-sister, Sarah, and, some five years before the murders, Andrew Borden bought the Widow Gray's portion and gave it to Sarah Whitehead. So strong were the expressions of Lizzie's and Emma's reaction to their father's unusual largess ( . . ' we thought what he did for her [Abby Borden's] people, he ought to do for his own,' Lizzie would say at the inquest) that he compensated his daughters with a gift of real estate of much greater value-and which, for reasons never made explicit, he bought back from them several weeks before he was killed."

Res ipso loquitur. So I wasn't wrong in my statement, based on Sullivan's book. I assumed he did his research from ABWP's statements.
So Abby did own one-half of the Whitehead homestead after Andy bought the widow's portion.

I don't know to which of your statements you refer.
The one that always gets me looking around is the one where you claim there was a step-brother involved.  I maintain that if a step-brother inherited from a step-father , Oliver, then the step-daughter of Jane's lineage would also inherit and that would  mean that the house was divided between 6 people who each got 4ths.

So as long as you agreee with Sullivan and that is the correct determination:  Abby, Jane, Sarah, Priscilla...then we won't need to look any further, right?

BTW:  And yes, I believe it was when Andrew bought the widow's 1/4 that Abby then accrued 1/2 and That is when it was given over, as 1/2, to Sarah Whitehead.  Then Sarah had 3/4ths.

(Message last edited Mar-2nd-03  12:11 AM.)

As I remember it from reading a book, Abby's stepbrother (married and living elsewhere) gave his fourth to his sister (whose husband had problems). Wasn't that nice of them?

Please see this topic title.
Please understand that the division you now espouse once again is not listed anywhere that I can find.
A ways back there (Post #23) you agreed to Sullivan's explanation, now you bring up a step-brother again?
Which is it to be?
A 6 way split in fourths, or a four way split in fourths?
(You can't include the step-brother unless you include his sister.)

As per Sullivan, a four way split between Abby, her stepmom, stepsister, and stepbrother. Sounds good to me, since RS got his info from Abby Borden Whitehead Potter.

Sullivan, Robert. Goodbye Lizzie Borden. Brattleboro, VT: Stephen Greene Press, 1974, pg. 22:

"When Sarah and Abby's father, Oliver Gray, died, the interest in the Fourth Street home was divided four ways: one-fourth to the widow, Mrs. Gray; one-fourth to Mrs. Priscilla Fish, a daughter by Gray who does not otherwise enter this story; one-fourth to Sarah Gray Whitehead; and one-fourth to Abby Durfee Gray Borden"

There IS no step-brother here
It says:
Widow 1/4
Priscilla 1/4
Sarah Whitehead 1/4
Abby Boden 1/4

Isn't that what it says?
You agreed with Sullivan.  This is Sullivan..

I'm looking at the deed of conveyance itself and it is assigning, to Abby, Jane Gray's "undivided half", so go figure.
It mentions a Fish, so maybe Priscilla and them, for this record, gave the 1/4 in that possession to Jane as well, before this deed claims 1/2.

I have tried shrinking the file to fit here but can't do it, sorry.



(Message last edited Mar-4th-03  2:12 AM.)

Could that be MR Fish? Step-brother in law?
As I remember it from unaided memory.

[Note the word "unaided". Still Abby gave her share to her stepmother, and that was the important thing.]

(Message last edited Mar-4th-03  6:45 PM.)

I suppose it's possible that MR. Fish was considered the owner of his wife's 1/4 share?
But to Abby he is brother-in-law, directly, husband of her full sister.
Let's see, Mr. Fish would be 1/2 brother-in-law to Sarah Whitehead.
No, I don't find a "step" here, either.

I'm still stuck on that AM & Abby's movements.

I'm going back in time to this post from Feb...some stuff that fell by the wayside --

From Kat's post --

-There WERE 2 aprons amongst the bloody clothes.

-It is possible that Bridget was paid something for not volunteering information as to the relationships in that house.

Can you pls enlighten us further on this Kat?  Two aprons both from Abby's body??

Witness Statements, pg. 42:

"ALBERT E. CHASE

Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in-the yard back of the barn.

1 sofa pillow and tidy, one large piece of Brussels carpet, one roll of cotton batting, one sheet and several pieces of cotton cloth, three towels, one napkin, one chemise, one dress., one pair drawers, one skirt, two aprons, one hair braid and several pieces of hair from Mrs. Borden’s head from five to eight inches long, one neck tie, one truss, one piece of black silk braid or watch guard.

I also found mixed in with the hair of Mrs. Borden a piece of bone, which from it nature I took to be a piece of Mrs. Borden’s skull, it was cut so smooth, that I thought it might be of use in determining what kind of instrument was used, as the bone and hair both had the appearance of being cut with a very sharp instrumetn; I gave this piece of bone to Dr. Dolan.

About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a box."

--It's odd again you brought up this because I just got out the Witness Statements to read again tonight!  WOW!  ESP.
--Don't know whose apron's they are, tho.  I don't think they said.



(Message last edited Jul-7th-03  1:32 AM.)

Jeeze Kat -- sometimes you make me feel like I miss so much!!!

How did I not pick up on those 2 aprons before?  I suppose a lot of times I read thru things with a goal in mind & miss other things.

One sheet is prob the Andrew.  Hmmm...3 towels?  One roll of cotton batting??? 

I'm glad you are mentioning the *towels*.  I found a reference to towels, again in the Witness Statements, pg. 28, Medley's notes, from Aug. 4:

"Had a talk with Lizzie about the deaths of her parents. I asked here where she was when this thing happened. She said she was up stairs in the barn; and on coming into the house, found her father all cut and bleeding on the lounge. She then called Maggie, and then Mrs. Churchill. She did not have any idea who could have done it. I inquired about some cloths which looked, to me like small towels, they were covered with blood, and in a pail half filled with water, and in the wash cellar. She said that was all right; she had told the Doctor all about that. I then asked her how long the pail and its contents had been there; and she said three or four days. I asked the Doctor about it, and he said it had been explained to him, and was all right.

I then had a talk with Bridget about the pail and it contents. She said she had not noticed the pail until that day, and it could not have been there two days before, or she would have seen it, and put the contents in the wash, as that was the day she had done the washing."

--I don't think we ever connected these towels with the menstrual towels.  We had wondered what happened to them.  But I recall the pail had ended up at the police station.  So I wonder IF these are those towels or not?!

Oh more towels...or the same towels?
Witness Statements, Edson, pg 35, notes from Aug. 5th:

..." I went down cellar from the entry, went into the wash room in the southmost corner of the cellar. On the floor were two axes and a single hatchet. On a bench or table were a number of wet towels. There was blood on the towels."

--He doesn't say they were in a pail.  This is what I was reading tonight!

i've also noticed the two aprons and wondered about it, but i haven't connected it.  i've speculated that one of those aprons lizzie used when murdering at least one of the victims -- and somehow........all of that mess in the cellar ends up in one confused pile.  once the doctors came in and started examining, they would surely have needed to wash their hands, and they would have produced blood-stained towels.  once the evidence is manipulated, how do you then separate one thing from another -- a menstrual napkin or an extra bloody apron, for example?

andrew is certainly not wearing an apron? is there a reason abby would have worn two?

From the Edson "...On a bench or table were a number of wet towels. There was blood on the towels."

Sounds more like these were regular hand towels if they were out on a bench or table in plain view.  The other references to the menstrual towels have them soaking in that pail.  We don't know if the towels were there from the doctors or @ the 1st investigation of the cellar.

The more we learn about things that escaped the police's view, the more frustrated I get with how bungled the whole thing was!

Like most of us of a certain age, I grew up seeing women wearing aprons.  Never in my life have I seen anyone wear 2 @ the same time.  My only thought was if Abby had indeed been wearing 2, she might have had one to cover the other so that if the outer one got dirty, she could whip it off to reveal a clean one should anybody happen to stop by unexpectedly.  But even that sounds a stretch.  My mother did something similar, but she would put on a whole new clean apron for visitors.

If we knew Abby had on 2, & they both had blood, Haulover might be on to something here.  Mind you, if she used an apron to cover herself & then put it on Abby...she'd have to manoeuver that dead weight to do so...& most likely get more blood on her own clothes in the process.

Hmmm...I'm also wondering about the sheet that's listed.  The one used for Andy may have remained with his body.  However, if that sheet was in the guestroom & got splattered with Abby's blood & kept for evidence...perhaps that's what happened to JVM's dirty laundry.

Like Haulover pointed out, "once the evidence is manipulated" who can tell what was what & where?  I wonder if the police did take a more accurate inventory, but it just never ended up in the source documents that remain.



(Message last edited Jul-7th-03  11:34 PM.)

Well, Bridget & Mrs. Churchill brought down 2 sheets- that we know.  One was used to cover Andrew and Mrs. C put the extra one on the dining room table.
One used on Andrew was removed for the autopsy, we surmise and laid aside and seems to be in one photo.
But wouldn't Abby be covered with the second sheet, a la Legend movie, as the bodies waited in the dining room for preparation for burial, which preparation was not begun until Friday evening.

So if Andrew and Abby were laid in the dining room , each covered with one of the two sheets brought down Thursday, then those sheets could not be buried in the yard on Friday at any time.

So a sheet which was accounted for and buried might not be Andrew's sheet.  You've got a point.

But maybe the bodies were covered with something nicer provided by the undertaker, until they were readied for burial, and therefore that single sheet was Andrew's after all, no longer needed.
BUT, we have an *autopsy* photo of Abby's head and it sure looks like she is wrapped in a sheet, of some sort, in that photo.
I suppose it's possible the undetaker actually provided a covering until the caskets came?

Now I'm wondering if that was JVM's dirty sheet & maybe they tossed all the clothes into a bundle...wrapped in the sheet & buried.

that's an idea.  practical anyway.

i've imagined lizzie stuffing an apron in under the napkins in the pail and managing later to switch it to the victims' pile of clothing.

Yes...it's that extra apron that's troubled me for a long time.  We discussed it on the forum back in January of this year -- but then got involved with Andrew's cardigan, as I recall.  Why two aprons?  Was one Bridget's?  Were they both bloodstained? We'll probably never know...

Speaking of aprons, Knowlton makes this remark in his closing argument at the Preliminary (Porter, page 139):

"It has been a source of immense disappointment that we have not been able to find the apron with which she must have covered her dress, and which must contain blood, just as surely as did the shoes. It is a source of regret that we have not been able to find the packet, but she had fifteen minutes in which to conceal it."

Pssst Hosea... check the pile of clothes!


(Message last edited Jul-8th-03  11:46 PM.)

Seriously! I sometimes wonder if anyone was checking anything!!
That is so funny, Harry!  But easy for us, I guess -- Monday morning quarterbacking and all ....

They called a lot of things aprons then:

The full legnth smock that looks like a housedress -- the
"butcher" style -- the ones that appear to be an overskirt,
I guess it is possible Abby was wearing two -- maybe one
that covered her whole dress & a little one over it? Maybe
she wore a small apron to keep her "bigger" apron cleaner
so it wouldn't have to be washed as much?

Thanks Kimberly for the link!

--I always wondered about this roll of material around Abby's waist.
It actually looks like it starts higher up her body than her waist.
Her skirt does not appear twisted, just this bit...



Lizzie Inquest, 81:
Q. Did you have an apron on Thursday?
A. Did I what?
Q. Have an apron on Thursday?
A. No sir, I don't think I did.
Q. Do you remember whether you did or not?
A. I don't remember sure, but I don't think I did.
Q. You had aprons, of course?
A. I had aprons, yes sir.
Q. Will you try and think whether you did or not?
A. I don't think I did.
Q. Will you try and remember?
A. I had no occasion for an apron on that morning.
Q. If you can remember I wish you would.
A. I don't remember.
Q. That is all the answer you can give me about that?
A. Yes sir.

--They were really trying to find out about an apron.  Here is one of Lizzie's devices where she repeats the question to give herself time to think.
Makes it sound as if she is scrambling for an answer (whether she is or not...)

Bridget, Prelim., 31:
Q.  You could not tell whether she [Lizzie] had a dress and waist of the same kind, or different?
A.  No Sir, nothing about it.

Q.  Could you tell whether she had an apron on?
A.  I could not tell whether she did or not.

--There is Bridget's little device she uses to keep from answering or lying...*I could not tell...*

Mrs. Churchill at Inquest, 132:
Q.  Did she [Lizzie] have on an apron?
A.  I dont think she did, but I cant tell you certain.

--BTW:  The green circled object has not been identified.  And Bridget says she hangs her apron on a hook in the back hallway.



(Message last edited Jul-9th-03  4:25 AM.)

I'm always torn when I see this pic, sometimes I see that roll as an apron and other times as Abby's chemise popping out from under her blouse.  Does anyone else get that ever or is it just me? 

I've always wondered about that roll too. I could never
figure out how her clothes would have been rolled up like
that -- to me it always look like it was her skirt waistband
rolled to make her skirt shorter -- but that can't be. If it
is the apron it is still odd. I keep thinking that I've seen
a movie or something where a woman had on a pinafore(sp?) apron
over her dress just as a covering for her dress & then put a
smaller skirt front apron over that. So I don't think the two
aprons really makes Lizzie the killer -- they may have been
worn by Abby in layers to protect her dress. That sounds like
classic Victorian New England Yankee thrift to me. 

I just noticed -- her skirt half & blouse half look
like two different shades -- if it isn't just in the
picture she might indeed have had on one of the aprons
that looks like a full skirt. Since we can't see her front --
I wonder if her apron was one of those that had the "bib"
type front? The ones that they pinned to their dresses. She
did have one on -- but I don't see the string ties in the
back.

***Q. If you can remember I wish you would.
A. I don't remember.
Q. That is all the answer you can give me about that?
A. Yes sir. ***

that's one my favorite exchanges between those two.  i feel almost sorry for knowlton.


Q. Did you have an apron on Thursday?
A. Did I what?
Q. Have an apron on Thursday?
A. No sir, I don't think I did.

a lizzie "pause", yes.  what's interesting to me about this one is how she insists she cannot remember whether she did or did not.  (she knows maggie saw something funny about an apron?)


____________________

while we're at it, what happened to andrew's pants?  did they bury him in them?  (talk about parsimonious)

We have *3 towels burried*.
I checked the old thread "Coming Out From The Privy" where we discussed the pail & it's bloody contents.

Dolan says in the Prelim., 188+, that there were *3 cloths or napkins in pail*.
Mullaly took "Them"..."left downstairs in the Marshal's office'.
After that we don't know what happened to them.
I can't tell to what day he is referring.  He is lumping all the clothing etc. into the statements, but that is referred to as being buried.
[Btw:  Medley & Doherty both call the items in the pail, *towels*].

I am inclined to think those 3 items are Lizzie's personal 3 items.

(Message last edited Jul-9th-03  11:55 PM.)

That is still so strange the way they got rid of all the
victims clothes -- they didn't even hold the bloodstained
things up in court to shock the jury........

Could that roll result from dragging the body towards the feet for a better picture? Or what? Maybe just because of the way she fell?
Can anyone try this at home?