Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden Topic Name: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone....  

1. "If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-6th-03 at 9:31 PM

few of us seem to think lizzie is actually "innocent."  i certainly don't.  the question is exactly what went on that day.

maybe i'm overlooking something, but the theory that lizzie is not innocent but that someone else did the axe work -- i have one question. it concerns the DRESS.  after spending a week on it (and i forget which thread it is in, it is recent) -- i have to conclude that the dress lizzie handed over to the police was NOT what she actually wore that morning.

let me put it this way:  if i'm right about the dress -- and if lizzie herself did not do the bloody work -- then why did she not turn in the actual dress she wore that morning?

if you believe the brown theory, for example -- what did she stand to lose by being honest?

and for the sake of this argument, nevermind about her burning one -- it's what she claims to have worn that makes her a liar.  but the theory is popular that lizzie was involved but did not with her own hands do the grim work.  again, if this is so, why did she not hand over that dress described so well by mrs. churchill and sufficiently verified by everyone else who could recall it?  can anyone think of any other reason for her not doing so -- except that she had reason to worry that blood could be found on it?

in retrospect, it's not so much the dress-burning incident that makes her look guilty -- it's what she claimed to have worn.




2. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by harry on Nov-6th-03 at 11:04 PM
In response to Message #1.

That's an excellent point haulover.  If innocent, why not turn the true dress over to the police?  I can think of no reason why she shouldn't.

She says she never went into the sitting room nor the guest room so she could not have accidently gotten any of the victims blood on it.

The burning of the dress is perhaps the most damaging evidence against her.  Why would any person, knowing they were under suspicion, burn a dress when they know the police are looking at their clothes? 


3. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-7th-03 at 12:07 AM
In response to Message #2.

I don't mean to sound flippant at your question.  But I can't think of any logical reason either, so I am going to be illogical.
What if the someone who did the deeds wore Lizzie's dress?
It was the Bedford cord and was longer in the hem than any of her dresses other than her dresses  with trains, as if made for someone taller.
If someone wanted to implicate her, or if it was a last minute substitution for a covering on the real murderer, loaned by her?

The only other thing I could ever come up with, which may have been influenced by an article or an author, is that the burning of the dress was to cover up the burning of something way more important and therefore worth the chance of being witnessed or reported.
..
I've got the impression in my mind that it wasn't until later that Lizzie said she didn't enter the sitting room?  That at first it sounded like she did?

(Message last edited Nov-7th-03  12:13 AM.)


4. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-7th-03 at 3:53 AM
In response to Message #1.

I'm with you, Haulover, I can't fathom why Lizzie didn't hand over that dress.  By all counts people couldn't agree as to what Lizzie was wearing, but, they were all pretty certain that she didn't have blood on her dress.  So, why hold it back?  Was there something else on that dress that she was afraid might be found?  Poison residue?  Something else? 


5. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by jamfaws on Nov-7th-03 at 4:57 AM
In response to Message #4.

I think one of the things that makes her look guilty is the fact that her dress didn't have any blood on it, christ, she walks into a room and sees blood spurting from her father's head and instead of rushing over to him and seeing if he was alive, or could she save/help him in any way, she goes and calls the maid, then sits outside the backdoor (and for all she knows, the murderer could still be inside!) But on the other hand if she had done the deed and her dress got soaked, why not explain to the police that the reason for the blood on her was because she was trying to help/save her father.
When you think of how many people saw her that morning, and no two people were adamant what she had on, I would have thought Bridget would have known exactly what she was wearing, actually most of the woman I would have thought would have taken much notice of clothing worn, after all Alice Russell changed before coming to the house and Lizzie herself, in the midst of these gruesome crimes was more concerned about changing into another outfit that day.

The burning of the dress, i've wondered what if she burnt it because the paint that was on it looked like blood, she knew it was paint, but panicked that they would think it blood? I know it sounds silly, but would she know what tests could be done to determin whether it was blood or not? or in her mind the mere fact that it looked like blood, panicked her (and Emma) so they decided to burn it?


6. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-7th-03 at 1:59 PM
In response to Message #3.

A very good idea about the dress. What if he also left the hatchet behind to implicate Lizzie, and the quick-thinking girl used Bridget to deliver this to Alice?

But we know this is just speculation, don't we?


7. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-7th-03 at 2:01 PM
In response to Message #5.

Or maybe to draw attention away from the real killer? Lizzie and Emma had time to talk to Uncle John all day Friday & Saturday, and plan a cover-up. [Yes, this is speculation.]

I assume that the dress turned in was the one she wore that day, absent any definitive proof.


8. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by njwolfe on Nov-7th-03 at 9:14 PM
In response to Message #7.

Like everything else about this case, typical Lizzie, who knows
why she didn't turn in the dress, is that the dress even?  The one
she burned may have been an innocent thing "oh why didn't you
tell me", typical Lizzie. 


9. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-7th-03 at 11:09 PM
In response to Message #5.

jamfaws:

i think anything except what she did in the aftermath would have made her look more innocent.  either throw herself upon andrew -- or run into the street screaming.

there have been some reasonable explanations about her burning the dress -- such as this:  that after they ransacked the closet, it was understandable she might do some "cleaning" and decide to get rid of this rag -- that this upheaval called her attention to it and it was in the way, etc.

but my point is what no one can explain:  giving them a false dress.  if her arms did not do the axe-swinging, why lie about it?  i would think if she had someone else at hand for the bloody work -- why not rush to turn in that "cotton goods" light blue with the dark diamond?

but about the dress-burning:  some ask, why would she burn it when she did, when she could be seen?  probable answer:  she burned it as soon as she could when she realized she was suspect, when there was a fire in the stove.  (fire in the stove in the middle of the night not a good idea.)


10. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-7th-03 at 11:32 PM
In response to Message #2.

***The burning of the dress is perhaps the most damaging evidence against her.  Why would any person, knowing they were under suspicion, burn a dress when they know the police are looking at their clothes?***

and right when she knows she is suspected. 

yet i think what she does when she is asked to hand over her morning aug 4th dress -- that is the most damaging.  i mean, you can make up a number of excuses about why you burned a dress -- but in turning over evidence.........and what she turned in is not what she was wearing.  it is not even the "type" of dress she would have worn in terms of material and/or the conventions.  she turns in something she would have worn to go out in public in a more formal context. 


11. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by harry on Nov-8th-03 at 7:12 AM
In response to Message #10.

I think Knowlton's closing argument summarizes it best:

"That dress had been good enough to keep through May, through June, through July, through the first weeks in August. It was a singular thing that of all times in the world it should be selected on the Lord's day to destroy a dress which had been concealed from the search of the officers made the afternoon before and within twelve hours of the time that Lizzie was told that formal accusation was being made against her."

Alice Russell reminds her right at the time she's about to burn it that it is not something she should be seen doing. So she could have stopped then if for no other reason but to avoid suspicion.  What was the rush?

And another question that has to be asked is why would anyone put a soiled dress up in the cupboard?  That hardly seems like a place for that sort of thing.

Turning in the wrong dress, and one so different, was really a gamble. A gamble that no one would remember the exact dress she wore or as it turned out there would be conflicts in the dress testimony.

I you think Lizzie did it then you have to decide just how intelligent, how shrewd, how conniving or how cunning she was.  Did she plan and commit a perfect murder or was it all luck and she won the perfect murder lottery that day. That's the part I struggle with.


12. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Tina-Kate on Nov-8th-03 at 7:49 AM
In response to Message #11.

"...she won the perfect murder lottery that day."



That's great, Harry!


13. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by njwolfe on Nov-8th-03 at 2:15 PM
In response to Message #11.

That dress burning was damaging in a courtroom but maybe it really
was an innocent thing. All these women hanging around together in a
small house, Lizzie was bored, taking care of some odds and ends
housekeeping things, she had meant to burn that old dress months ago.
I don't think Lizzie was very intelligent,  I think she was immature,
spoiled and overly sensitive. Also self centered and self rightous,
cunning too!  But capable of planning the perfect murder? No I don't
see it. (I keep changing my mind though)


14. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-8th-03 at 3:46 PM
In response to Message #11.

***I you think Lizzie did it then you have to decide just how intelligent, how shrewd, how conniving or how cunning she was.  Did she plan and commit a perfect murder or was it all luck and she won the perfect murder lottery that day. That's the part I struggle with. ***

yes.  and it's easy to fall into a semantics argument.  she was certainly dishonest and sneaky.  one eye-witness image we have of that is from the policeman who watched her return to the cellar that night.  her intelligence would be in her "clean-up" i suppose.  we tend to think that ineptitude and cleverness are too incompatible to exist side-by-side -- but in real life, isn't this frequently the case? she had HUGE luck with that awful alibi thrown out.  (wouldn't you love to see knowlton question her a SECOND time?)  and there's a thin line between daring and foolishness.  i guess once she started she did about the best she could do.  but mostly luck.

i can't help but see a lot of naivete.  (though i've never drawn a distinct conclusion about the nature, the character traits, etc. about lizzie.  i don't believe i know her.  there are just bits and pieces and a few photos.)  but about the naivete -- 2 items in particular:  her reckless statements and the overall way she conducts herself in the immediate aftermath  -- and her testimony.  it's as though she really thinks she will have to be taken at her word and that's all -- as though this is her prerogative IN THIS AS IN ANY ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.  but if she's been shoplifting and manipulating most of her life and getting away with it -- one thing leads to another?  lizzie may be the worst case scenario of someone who does not get what she needs from parents.  in fact, the whole story easily falls into place right there.  if andrew does not know how to discipline her (just throws money at her when it's absolutely necessary/otherwise, neglect) and the stepmother who's never allowed to discipline her yet sees through the stepdaughter.  just the sound of that is ominous, isn't it?



15. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-8th-03 at 4:03 PM
In response to Message #11.

Obviously you never knew any stingy misers. I'm pretty sure Lizzie had to keep that soiled dress because Andy wouldn't allow her to discard a "brand new" dress.
"It's still good enough for around the house", a phrase I often heard while growing up. But this wasn't a paint stained dress, of course.


16. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-8th-03 at 4:07 PM
In response to Message #10.

But the police searched the house Thursday, Friday, and Saturday and found no bloody dresses. Hence, there was none. Yes, you could CLAIM that it had been hidden away so it could not be found. But that is just arguing from a supposition, not from the facts.

Didn't Erle Stanley Gardner say that "theories should come from facts, not the other way around"? (His introduction to Sir Sydney Smith's autobiography circa 1960.)


17. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by harry on Nov-8th-03 at 4:42 PM
In response to Message #15.

"Obvious you ..."?  Why do you in all your posts have to inject personal comments?  Is that a necessity with you?  Never mind what I know. Stick to what you know and keep the personal stuff out of it.

Lizzie paid for her own clothes out of her allowance from Andrew. I don't think Andrew gave a damn what she did with her money or her clothes. It was four dollars either way. Obviously!


18. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-8th-03 at 6:33 PM
In response to Message #5.

I've been thinking along the lines of an innocent reason for Lizzie burning the Bedford Cord, and I thought of one innocent and one not.
Lizzie, we know pretty well from testimony, wore the Bedford Cord on Wednesday, but was not seen wearing it on Thursday, yet burns it Sunday, the day after being informed by the Mayor she is suspected.

Lizzie still had her period, and it ended Wednesday, which was stipulated at Trial.  So I was thinking maybe her dress was stained from menstrual blood and she knew it or discovered it later after the "search" and she did not want that faded, dirty dress, now soiled also with menstrual blood to be seen, or found by the police-MEN.

She hides the dress also because it looks to implicate her.  So she is saving face and also destroying something which innocently poined to her.  If we follow this through, then it's feasible that Lizzie would then want to also give up a dress which she thought looked good, being concerned about her image as a "Lady."

The other thing I was thinking of, for destroying the dress after wearing it Wednesday, is that Wednesday was the day she might have bought poison, but otherwise she may have been dallying in her room all day under cover of sickness, but actually fooling around with some sort of poison and got it on that dress and thought it possible it would be noticed by authorities and so destroyed it.

Actually Lizzie didn't sit outside after she found her father, but stayed within the screen door which as you say is so odd because no one knew if the murderer was still in the house, which is strange if not stranger!

(Message last edited Nov-8th-03  6:47 PM.)


19. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by njwolfe on Nov-8th-03 at 6:33 PM
In response to Message #14.

good post Haulover, naive Lizzie. 


20. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Benjamin on Nov-8th-03 at 7:19 PM
In response to Message #18.

I've wondered about her staying just inside the door as well. The way you phrased it made me think that perhaps she stayed just inside the screen door because: 1--if the murderer was still inside the house, she could get outside to safety quickly, and 2--if the murderer was in the back yard or side yard then she could just as quickly slam the door and be safer inside.
  She also may have wanted to keep a look out for help returning, but not be seen loitering in the side yard looking agitated for fear of questions/scandal from the neighbors.
  That whole dress thing still has me confused. Maybe she bought them at that Fall River Outlet Mall and the tags had been cut out and she burned them because didn't want people to know she couldn't afford retail?


21. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-8th-03 at 10:31 PM
In response to Message #1.

Hello, All.

As Someone new to the Lizzie Borden case and a new Member of the forum, I look forward to learning about Lizzie, the murders, the other players, etc.  I have visited the Web site quite often and have already read one book on the case (David Kent's "Forty Whacks"). I hope that all of you will make me feel welcome here.

Mark H.
Lompoc, CA


22. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by harry on Nov-8th-03 at 11:41 PM
In response to Message #21.

Hello Mark H., welcome to the forum.

Kent's "Forty Whacks" was a good choice for the first book. IMO, the best of the Borden books although somewhat partial to Lizzie.

If you haven't already, make sure you visit the web site where there is a huge library of source materials for your use.

Feel free to dive in whenever you have something to say.  


23. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-9th-03 at 12:36 AM
In response to Message #1.

Harry, Thanks for the welcome.

I agree that FORTY WHACKS is pretty pro-Lizzie, but it IS still a good book. As I said, I am new to the Borden case and don't have an opinion as to Lizzie's guilt or innocence, yet, and I come here with an open mind.

Thanks again for the welcome!


24. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-9th-03 at 12:48 AM
In response to Message #21.

welcome, mark.  don't hesitate to offer an opinion or ask a question.  people who have been in it for a long time make mistakes and constantly learn and unlearn.  just say what's on your mind.


25. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by william on Nov-9th-03 at 10:54 AM
In response to Message #23.

Welcome to the board, Mark.  I'm sure you will spend many happy hours here. I would like to recommend one of the most fair minded books on Lizzie Borden. It is a volume often overlooked.

"Goodbye Lizzie Borden"
by Robert Sullivan

As a judge Mr. Sullivan had an extensive legal background, which is reflected in this book.  Would that more legal-eagles would accept the challenge and write about our Lizzie!


26. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-9th-03 at 3:14 PM
In response to Message #21.

Hi Mark, welcome to the forum.  Lompoc, where is that exactly?  I'm from California too.  My advice is to go to Stefani's wonderful site here: http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/sitemap.htm

You can download Trial documents, the Inquest, etc. and have the facts of the case for yourself to peruse.  Theres plenty of photographs and other wonderful writing there.  And never be afraid to ask questions, someone will have the answer or at least try to help. 


27. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-9th-03 at 9:29 PM
In response to Message #26.

Hi, Susan

Thanks for the welcome!  Lompoc is 55 miles north of Santa Barbara and 7 or so miles from Vandenberg Air Force Base. We are sometimes known as the Flower Seed Capital of the World, because there several kinds of flowers grown and harvested for their seeds here.

I have browsed the Lizzie Borden Web site several times during the past week or so and became hooked instantly. The more I learn about Lizzie and the whole thing, the more I want to know. and I'll be making use of everything the site has to offer.


28. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by harry on Nov-9th-03 at 9:45 PM
In response to Message #27.

Lompoc?  If I remember his biography right I believe W.C. Fields lived in Lompoc.

Isn't there a prison there as well?  Not that your in it Mark. 

Before moving south I lived in Ossining, NY which is where Sing Sing prison is located.  I wasn't in there either.


29. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-9th-03 at 10:13 PM
In response to Message #28.

LOL

Yep, there's a federal prison, and nope I'm not in it....In fact I didn't know it was here til AFTER I moved here in 1992. It, along with Vandenberg, is Lompoc's major employers, so I guess it does have its good point


30. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-9th-03 at 10:55 PM
In response to Message #27.

Thanks, Mark, I knew Lompoc was north, but, just not sure where.  I'm down in San Diego.  Didn't know there was a state prison there, learned something new tonight. 

Isn't the site great?  When I stumbled across it I felt like I had found a treasure trove and then found there was a forum to boot!  Its so great to have all of these people to discuss the case with, I never thought that there were so many Lizzie buffs, or Bordenites as we call ourselves. 


31. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-9th-03 at 11:51 PM
In response to Message #29.

Welcome Mark!
I've been away and missed your debut.
Don't they fire off missles from that base?  Can you see launches from where you live?
You must have had fires there too, in that length of time you've lived there?

Our family used to live in California.

Well, what does anyone think of Lizzie spilling poison on that dress instead of blood?
If she had an accomplice and she didn't kill the folkes herself, there must be a reason she burned it surrounded by police.
I was getting bogged down with that menstrual pail tho. If the dress was soiled really with menstrual blood, from Wednesday or Tuesday, and that was why Lizzie burned it, she didn't make any special arrangements to hide her bloody pail, which to me, would be more shocking to a "Lady" for strange men to find, then that Bedford cord.


32. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-9th-03 at 11:52 PM
In response to Message #20.


Lizzie at the outlet mall!
About that side door.
What you say makes sense, but what do you think your reaction would be or a girl you know of an age with Lizzie?
To stand in the side the house?
I'm thinking that is too scary for me!

(Message last edited Nov-10th-03  12:43 AM.)


33. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-10th-03 at 12:44 AM
In response to Message #32.

 


34. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-10th-03 at 12:47 AM
In response to Message #31.

Hi Kat,

Yes, they do have missile  launches here. They also launch satelites as well, and you can see them from town if the weather is decent.  BTW, back in the 80's there were plans to launch some shuttle flights from here, but they were shelved after the Challenger explosion.

Now back to the subject at hand: It doesn't matter what was on that dress--blood, paint, poison, mutton soup broth, whatever. She couldn't have picked a worse time to burn it, what with the house being watched by as many people as it was. And wasn't she warned by someone NOT to burn it at the time?


35. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-10th-03 at 2:36 AM
In response to Message #34.

I think knowing what was on the dress would explain a lot as to her guilt as to killing, or just being a Victorian repressed, private, and modest spinster.
If soup or paint or menstrual blood, she's a repressed and vain lady of her time, not wanting that to reflect badly on her.
If the Borden's blood was on that dress, than the story is simple.

But, yes, it was incredibly stupid for her to do that while under suspicion, and the knowing why might help determine if she was stupid or guilty.

The fact that she brazenly did that and got away with it at Trial, makes her not so stupid after all.
I believe she either gambled, or she really was in a sort of daze, newly orphaned and in mourning...*Why did you let me do it?*


36. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-10th-03 at 3:22 AM
In response to Message #35.

I still think there had to be something on that dress, something she didn't want anyone to see or find out about.  If it was simply for vanity reasons, she picked a bad time to be that way.  She was on trial for at least a lifetime prison term, that dress may have gotten her off the hook if the police could see that all of Lizzie's dresses were clean.  All the things about the Bordens that came out in the trial, what they used for toilet paper, the hot and cold running mutton, etc., I think a slightly soiled housedress that was only a few months old would be the least of Lizzie's worries.

Which brings me back to; if Lizzie burned her Bedford Cord and handed over her Bengaline silk dress to the police, what happened to the cotton dress she was wearing when she was seen directly after Andrew's murder?  It doesn't add up, the dress sounded like it was clean and presentable, why not hand it over? 


37. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Benjamin on Nov-10th-03 at 9:38 AM
In response to Message #33.

 


38. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-10th-03 at 2:38 PM
In response to Message #36.

Given the fact that NOBODY saw any blood or stains on Lizzie that day, why are we discussing a false clue? Wouldn't fresh or clotted blood show up very visibly on a blue background dress?


39. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by njwolfe on Nov-10th-03 at 7:25 PM
In response to Message #36.

Playing catch-up on this thread, welcome Mark.  A few points
seem to go together in the vanity theory, the menstrual blood,
maybe poison on dress, and even the "outlet store" idea.  Had anyone
here ever heard of "prussic acid" before our interest in Lizzie?
My dictionary doesn't even list it.  A quick Internet search shows
it used in poisoning animals.  Maybe it was a cure for FLEAS which
we found out LIzzie had  a problem with, and she was embarrassed about?  (I know I am embarrassed and I live at the shore where we
can't get rid of the sand fleas who just love my sweet little Holly)
also in that day I'm sure the menstrual blood was humiliating. 
And I loved the outlet store theory, which could be tied with Lizzie's
interest in the sale of goods for 8 cents a yard she would only mention to Bridget.  Burning that dress really could have been just
a vanity thing, to save face. 


40. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Benjamin on Nov-10th-03 at 9:55 PM
In response to Message #39.

I had thought from one of the books or one of the A&E programs that "Fleas" was a euphamism for a woman's menstrual cycle. The tiny flecks of blood being similar to a person having flea bites. So Lizzie did not have an actual problem with mites of any kind, it was just another bizarre Victorian phrase.


41. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-10th-03 at 10:51 PM
In response to Message #35.

let me point something out about the stupidity vs. clever issue.  to understand how this works, look at our own observations, how they flow..........when we zero in on lizzie's stupidity, we discover she is clever; when we dilate on her cleverness, we end by shaking our heads that she could be so stupid.  it's a circle.

we still don't have a plausible reason for lizzie to falsify her murder morning dress.  (there's another almost poetic lizzie-type dress -- not a calico -- nor a bedford cord -- but a murder-morning.)
ha.  anyway.

as far as cleanliness/vanity -- that bengaline had two stains on it, didn't it? (okay it was the cleanest blue dress she could use)

it seems it's easier to explain why she would burn one than it is to explain why she would not hand over the one she actually wore -- if her hands were blood-free. 

i was reading pearson today about this accomplice theory, and i liked this -- he says there are some things that no one can do and one of them is to become invisible.





42. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-11th-03 at 1:38 AM
In response to Message #36.

here is a maybe to your question:

that what she was seen wearing when they came in was exactly what she was wearing when she murdered andrew.  how she covered herself is another mystery.  could be that she herself could find no blood evidence on it, but began to worry that someone might.  the evidence that she was worried about this is in the fact that she changed to the pink dress.  consider what she said about this -- that "they thought i should change it."  actually, they did not -- she did. of course, there was a reason.

let me back up to "how she covered."  this is "old" theory -- but harry's recent photograph struck me about the prince albert.  does that look natural to you, or WRONG? 

the dress is still far from solved.  my problem is this:  the dress mrs. churchill describes COULD HAVE been the bedford cord -- maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  what alice sees in the cupboard IS the bedford cord.  neither alice nor bridget can describe what she wore murder morning.  dr. bowen doesn't say anything about the dress that DISAGREES with mrs. churchill.  mrs. bowen more or less agrees with mrs. churchill, but it is possible to quibble with her about the light/dark concerning the figure/ground issue.

my one conclusion is that there are several reasons to know that what lizzie turns in IS NOT what she was wearing that morning.


43. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-11th-03 at 3:03 AM
In response to Message #37.

Hi Ben!
I'm glad you liked the picture.
You inspired me!

Here is a link to a conversation about Lizzie and Fleas if you would like it.

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive703/LBorden/LBBridgetDetective.htm


44. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Benjamin on Nov-11th-03 at 6:44 PM
In response to Message #43.

Thanks for that link, Kat. It took a few tries to get there, but it was an interesting read. I had also been thinking about bed bugs or something.  With ticks, you don't really tend to bleed, since they're sucking up all the blood. Growing up on the horse farm/in the country I got a few ticks as a kid. Awful!, but if Mom didn't get them off, they would just drop off. They also tend to go for a person's head. I've never heard of a tick near someone's genitalia.   I don't think a tick could get that far without someone noticing it. When they're moving on your arm or leg, you know it.
  I was thinking that another reason for a "pin head" sized dot of blood may have been just that: a pin prick.  Maybe she had been sewing a day or two before and had pricked her finger and didn't realise it bled and she grabbed her undies at some point and a spot got on them?


45. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-11th-03 at 9:11 PM
In response to Message #42.

This made me think that Lizzie possibly burned two dresses, the Bedford Cord and this mystery dress.  But, if this mystery dress sounds so much like the Bedford Cord and was a 2 piece, do you think its possible that Lizzie burned the Bedford Cord skirt only and the mystery dress blouse only and to Alice they looked like parts of the same garment?

From the blood evidence testimony given at the Trial, it sounds like for Abby's murder, the killer would get blood on the lower portion of their body; the Bedford Cord skirt.  For Andrew's murder, the upper portion of the body; the mystery blouse.

Kat had posted at the time that Lizzie burned the Bedford Cord the police weren't interested in it, it was the burning of it that caused the interest, sorry, I'm paraphrasing.  Why did Lizzie make such a spectacle of the burning and not just do it in secret?  If Lizzie had been wearing the Bedford Cord that morning, only Bridget would have seen and she obviously didn't recall what Lizzie had on that day.  I'm trying to find a reason for burning that Bedford Cord with witnesses, the only thing I keep coming up with is that she was wearing it that day and was seen, possibly by everybody, and had to make a "innocent" showing of burning it. 


46. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-11th-03 at 11:10 PM
In response to Message #45.

I'm sorry, I don't remember saying that.  The searchers made it clear they were looking first for a man or weapon, then later at the clothes of the women, and by Saturday Lizzie was a suspect, named to her face by the Mayor.

I can only find it reasonable that the dresses involved were probably in 2 pieces and possibly mixed, and so the only way the Bedford cord could be worn by Lizzie Thursday and seen by everyone, would be the blouse, because the skirt portion was so memorable:  dirty hem from dragging the floor because it was too long and was faded and had a ruffle.

I suppose, as I've said before, that the mixing and matching of outfits by Lizzie may be the key to the murder clothing and the burning of a *skirt*.


47. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-11th-03 at 11:16 PM
In response to Message #42.

haulover had made the comment that the Bengaline Silk Lizzie turned in as the dress she wore that morning, had stains and it did near the pocket, smooches.
That's a good point as to why that had possibly not been vanity that made her turn that in.
Maybe everyone's clothing was stained in those days?


48. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-11th-03 at 11:53 PM
In response to Message #47.

That's a thought, Kat. I'm guessing that in those days most of the clothes washing was done by hand so it may have been impossible to get them 100% clean.


49. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-12th-03 at 12:11 AM
In response to Message #48.

I was thinking of my old friend and I had been going through her clothing.  She had 4 closets full of clothes, very nice clothes, and was fastidious and very well groomed, but every other one of her outfits had a stain, or a smooch somewhere.

It was not noticable to me when she was dressed up but when on hangers, there were marks.
I thought maybe she bought so many clothes because her nice outfits got stained and after a while she couldn't bear to throw them away because they were so nice.

She was born in 1916, so it may have been a habit to hold on to those clothes.
That's just what I was thinking about and you must have caught on to that somehow.


50. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-12th-03 at 12:22 AM
In response to Message #45.

that's a good question about why she burned it when she did.

she had to do it when there was a fire in the stove and she had an understandable reason for being in the kitchen.  starting a fire in the middle of the night is what would really draw attention, wouldn't it?  she had to seize the opportunity and take her chances.


51. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-12th-03 at 1:37 AM
In response to Message #50.

There might be a connection between the burning and Bridget's absence that first Sunday morning?  ..or is that coincidence dependent upon some other circumstance?


52. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-12th-03 at 11:08 AM
In response to Message #51.

that really is a good point.  i didn't even think of it.


53. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-12th-03 at 2:22 PM
In response to Message #51.

I agree with haulover She would have had to do it while there was a fire already going, and she took a chance that nobody would notice what she was doing.

Also, didn't Bridget leave the house the afternoon of the murders never returning?


54. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-12th-03 at 4:31 PM
In response to Message #53.

Bridget did leave Thursday night and stayed over at Miller's with his servant, but she returned.
Sunday was the first day Bridget was not there.  Bridget did the laundry and would probably recognize Lizzie's clothes, as to what was missing.
The fact that Bridget did stay over across the street the murder night, maybe they all got an earful over there, I just thought of that!
A frightened Miss spilling secrets? Hmmm..thanks...

Trial
Bridget
Q.  Did you remain at the house after the homicide any length of time?
A.  I stayed there. I went out Thursday night and slept out in Mrs. Miller's girl's
house, and Friday night I slept in the house.

Q.  You mean Mrs. Miller's house with the girl?
A.  With the servant. I slept with her Thursday night.

Q.  On Thursday night?
A.  Yes, sir, and I came back Friday morning, stayed there all through the time
and did the work and Friday night I went out and came back and slept in the house.

Q.  In the Borden house?
A.  Yes, sir, and Saturday night I left for good as I thought, and came back Monday and Mr. Miller said I should not leave the house until he came and took me out.

Q.  You did not stay there Saturday night?
A.  No, sir, -- or Sunday night.

Q.  You were not there Sunday morning?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Were you there Sunday at all for any part of the day?
A.  No, sir, I came there Monday morning.


55. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-12th-03 at 11:34 PM
In response to Message #54.

Oh, man! I would love to have been a fly on the wall at the Miller house that night! I'm 99.9% sure Bridget told about stuff that didn't come out at ANY of the legal proceedings.


56. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by harry on Nov-13th-03 at 12:11 AM
In response to Message #54.

That part where Southard Miller told Bridget not to leave the house until he came and got her is interesting. 

I wonder why Miller was so protective of Bridget, first allowing her to stay at his house Thursday night and then the coming for her Monday.

Maybe Bridget was close friends with the Miller maid, but Miller who didn't want to get involved taking in the States star witness is a poor way of avoiding involvement.  Bridget's cousin lived just a few blocks away. 





(Message last edited Nov-13th-03  12:18 AM.)


57. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-13th-03 at 1:33 AM
In response to Message #56.

That has always baffeled me why Miller said to Bridget to wait until he took her out.
Maybe by Monday the onlookers knew Bridget by sight and he was wary of her safety in a crowd situation?
Do you know how long the crowds stayed outside after the murders?

Gosh can one imagine a gibbering Bridget Thursday night at the neighbors!?

(Message last edited Nov-13th-03  1:34 AM.)


58. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-13th-03 at 2:25 AM
In response to Message #51.

So do you see the burning as more of an impulse thing, I've got to get rid of this dress, oh, heres an opportunity to burn it?  I wonder if she was planning on getting rid of the Bedford Cord why she didn't tear it up sooner and have it in pieces ready for the chance?  It still feels like such a staged event, but, I guess it could have been a quick impulse thing and Lizzie got caught. 


59. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-13th-03 at 2:39 AM
In response to Message #58.

Why was it staged?
I used to wonder if it was a 'red herring'.  That's staged as well...


60. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by harry on Nov-13th-03 at 7:06 AM
In response to Message #57.

Yes, I think the escort Monday was for her safety although I think the excitement had pretty much died down.  Marshal Hilliard, in his trial testimony said he gave orders to clear the street on Saturday night during his visit with Mayor Coughlin to the Borden house. He estimated the crowd to be "200 or 300 people, maybe more."

At the same time didn't Bridget, at her own request, walk to the Inquest? Apparently no one bothered her then.

Just as a way out possibility, what if Miller was asked by the police to secretly see what he could find out from Bridget. 

As you say, she certainly would have been talking and crying and who knows what she would say. She was far more likely at that time to reveal more with neighbors and friends than with the police. Even make some off-hand comments that she, or her lawyer, would later think better of.


61. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-13th-03 at 1:57 PM
In response to Message #56.

Given the Mob Action against Uncle John on Thursday evening, it makes perfect sense to safeguard Bridget against the sickos out for blood against a poor immigrant servant.
Wouldn't you have done the same?


62. "Re: Lizzie the Magician"
Posted by robert harry on Nov-13th-03 at 6:24 PM
In response to Message #58.

I don't know if I'm derailing the conversation, but there is something I've been wanting to say for a while.  The whole dress-burning affair suggests a deliberate attempt on Lizzie's part to purposely confuse everyone so that no one could unravel the mystery--if this is true, it worked!!!  Here we are one-hundred-eleven years later still wondering what happened.  This purposeful obfuscation, almost like a magician's sleights of hand, is evident over and over again in Lizzie's behavior and verbal statements.  I can't help but think of a shell game scenario--"Was I upstairs or downstairs?  Hmmm...oh yes, I was upstairs, but then again I was reading the Providence Journal in the kitchen.."  Rather someone suffering from morphine confusion, I sense the purposeful work of an artful prestidigitator.  By "acting confused" Lizzie really ends up confusing everyone, such that it is still impossible to figure out who did what when, what dress she wore when, etc. etc.  She sows the seeds of doubt (thereby precluding "beyond a reasonable doubt"--so she must be found not guilty.  By the way, even though I strongly suspect Lizzie, I must say that I am forced to agree with the verdict, probably because she was such a good "magician." 


63. "Re: Lizzie the Magician"
Posted by haulover on Nov-13th-03 at 8:59 PM
In response to Message #62.

as usual, you make a very good point -- and one that i instinctively understand.  if lizzie had a genius -- it was her ability to CONFUSE.  everyone around her seems to just absorb this confusion and wring their hands, concluding, justly, that there is in fact a reasonable doubt as to her guilt.

my favorite example of this lizzieism is her talk about the sinkers and whether there were some at the farm.  read how she confuses knowlton.  the fact is those sinkers at the farm never had any relevance -- yet she has him looking there for something.

then someone is going to ask whether this is conscious clever strategy on her part or just her nature acting itself out under the circumstances.  since they seem so inseparable it must be both.

as kat has suggested, do you think the dress-burning was a red herring of some sort?

perhaps you make my point.  you see how it is more intriguing to talk about the dress-burning.  that may have been this, may have been that.

BUT what she claimed to have worn that day is something she can't fool about.  by all evidence, lizzie turned in a dress she did not wear that morning.  on this point, what is your opinion?  if her own hands did not do the grim work -- then why turn in a false dress?  this is the question she does not want us to ask?  is there but one answer?








64. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-13th-03 at 10:05 PM
In response to Message #59.

  I don't know why, but, a Cecile B. DeMille production with a cast of thousands comes to mind.

Seriously, we only have the two witnesses, Alice and Emma, to Lizzie's dress burning.  She doesn't make a secret of the burning, its almost as if she wants them to see her innocently burning this dress because its dirty.  I guess just having Bridget scrub the inside of the hem never occured to Lizzie?  Alice makes warning sounds to Lizzie yet she continues what shes doing.

If she burned it in secret and someone found out, its particularly damaging to her case.  Doing it in front of witnesses, staging it in front of witnesses makes it seem like what she is doing is just that, burning an old, soiled dress.

I'm wondering when Lizzie normally had dresses made, was it always in the Spring that Mrs. Raymond would come to make them?  If it was always in the Spring, what was Lizzie planning on replacing this old dress with?  The unfinished dress pattern in the attic?


I like Robert Harry's post, Lizzie does deal in confusion, and it does seem deliberately so. 


65. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-14th-03 at 6:32 AM
In response to Message #64.

Susan, the comment you made about Lizzie dealing in confusion brought tomy mind a mental picture of her looking down from heaven (or up from hell) chckling and saying to herself, "Ha! I still got 'em going." BUT if she hadn't we would all be siting around twiddling our thumbs. So thank you, Lizzie for giving us the ultimate mystery to solve.

She does deal in confusion, but y'all gotta admit she's damn good at it.


66. "Re: Lizzie the Magician"
Posted by robert harry on Nov-14th-03 at 10:36 AM
In response to Message #63.

Yes, I do think the dress-burning was a red herring.  It just seems to me that Lizzie spent years observing the society around her and, of course, her own family.  She had intimate knowledge of their actions and reactions to events, circumstances, etc.  (This makes me really wonder about the robbery prior to the murders--whether or not it really was a "dry run" by Lizzie to test these reactions--as well as her mastery of the art of confusion).  I think everyone must agree that whoever committed the murders must have had this kind of intimate knowledge--not only about the habits and customs and daily routines of the inmates, but also about the susceptibility of the police, the neighbors, and society at large to being fooled or confused.  I say this because this element of "confusion" enfolds practically everything about the case:  e.g., which hatchets were where, how many dresses were in the closet, what was Lizzie wearing, where was Bridget, where was Lizzie, etc.  Could Lizzie have purposely surrounded these things with enough ambiguity such that everyone would be fooled and nothing could be proved?  I'm afraid I am really beginning to think so. 


67. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-14th-03 at 10:53 AM
In response to Message #64.

Wasn't it the fashion until recent times to get new clothes for Easter? That would explain spring dress-making.


68. "Re: Lizzie the Magician"
Posted by rays on Nov-14th-03 at 10:56 AM
In response to Message #62.

My opinion is that Lizzie said she was upstairs (to explain the laughter) part of the cover-up. Lizzie was reading in the kitchen. But she could have gone upstairs for a minute.

I think Bridget was paid-off not to lie, but simply not to tell all she knew. "But Miss Lizzie, I seen you in the kitchen when Mr Borden came home."  (My quotes.)


69. "Re: Lizzie the Magician"
Posted by njwolfe on Nov-14th-03 at 7:05 PM
In response to Message #66.

yes, she did have a lot of idle years on her hands to think and
fester over every little thing.  That just jumped out at me from
Robert Harry's post, the fact that she did NOTHING. We are used
to women her age either working full time or caring for a family
and household. Lizzie did nothing all day, everyday.  (except for
the church activities and volunteer stints)  But she must have been
a very lonely woman, too much time on her hands. what is that
saying about the Devil's workshop?   


70. "Re: Lizzie the Magician"
Posted by robert harry on Nov-14th-03 at 7:16 PM
In response to Message #63.

Thanks, Haulover, but it's usually you who gets me really thinking.  Maybe, too, it's partly my training in literary analysis and counseling that helps me look at Lizzie the way I do.


71. "Re: Lizzie the Magician"
Posted by haulover on Nov-14th-03 at 10:13 PM
In response to Message #70.

robert harry:

if you can determine that lizzie gave the police a dress she did not wear that morning -- (i think i've determined, from all available evidence, that she lied about what she wore) -- but that is, if you reach the same conclusion -- can this mean anything but that her own hands were bloody?

(i'm trying to either disprove or admit to the possibility of an accomplice theory.)

this is a finding of physical evidence that points directly to her own horribly grim hands -- unless i can find or someone else can show me my error.

if she stood by while someone else did it -- why not give the police what she actually wore and rest assured that mrs. churchill and others can verify?  why claim the bengaline silk lie? 

i know there is the "confusion" resulting from the possibility of mixing and matching parts -- but mrs. churchill's pretty detailed memory does not match the bengaline silk at all.  she did not see in the courtroom what she saw murder morning.




72. " If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-15th-03 at 3:01 AM
In response to Message #59.

Suppose Lizzie did study her family and Bridget's personalities and did realize she could baffle and confuse and also kept her real character hidden from neighbors and casual friends, per RobertHarry.
Then suppose she planned a decoy dress, to be made up of that dress pattern that ended up (abandoned?) in the attic trunk. (per Susan)  Maybe too lazy to make it up.  She supposedly bought that pattern, which probably contained the material, while away the previous week.
Now, suppose Lizzie knew there were important papers of some kind which Andrew had mentioned as being ready that week.  Then she would return to be on the spot if that happened.  She overheard that would happen Thursday and she took the chance.
She retrieved the papers from his hand after death and had shielded herself with the Prince Albert coat.
She might have then to dipose of these papers.
There has to be a fire ready.
There was a fire ready after breakfast Sunday morning and Bridget was gone that morning.  It might have been the earliest fire Lizzie could access, Saturday being the funeral and lot's of scrutinity.
Now Alice had been either out or out of the room, which, is not clear.  If she was out, Lizzie may have taken that time to start the burning of the dress.  Alice showing herself in the kitchen may have been a shock, and Lizzie would be quiet and not know how to deal with this situation..She makes some excuse about the dress.
The dress may be burned as a red herring actually to conceal the burning of the papers, or the book, or package...the thing which Andrew brought home in his hand Thursday.
It would have to be of some substance to need a dress burning to cover up the burning of that.
Maybe it wasn't papers.  Maybe it was the hatchet handle which she may have broken up and hid and burned Thursday with the dress.
Something that was not a dress was burned under cover of burning a dress, that's my idea of a red herring.

You don't need all the supposing, but I wanted to set the stage...for Lizzie.

(Message last edited Nov-15th-03  3:11 AM.)


73. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-15th-03 at 3:13 PM
In response to Message #72.

If the dress is a red herring, the event has to be staged, there has to be at least one witness to see it as so.  Alice and Emma can't be chance witnesses then, they have to see it happen.

If Lizzie had papers to destroy she could have placed them with one of those old magazines in the kitchen and placed them in the fire.  If Emma asked what are you doing in there, Lizzie could just say she was tidying up the kitchen and burning some old magazines.  There was that roll of paper ash found in the fire the day of the murders.

Burning the dress to create a diversion seems like awful risky business, especially since the police were interested in Lizzie's dresses.  I still feel like it was the dress itself that had to be disposed of with possibly Emma as the only unquestioning witness. 


74. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-15th-03 at 6:45 PM
In response to Message #73.

Well, the police were all around outside, but Lizzie burned the dress.  I think she was better off burning it on the QT, and it becomes staged merely because there was a witness.  The item, I think, would have to be substantial, to need the full fire of a dress to burn it.
Burning the dress had to be so important that not burning it could be a catastrophe...so I include a *whatever* in the burning, because it was so odd to do that under scrunity.


75. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-15th-03 at 8:41 PM
In response to Message #74.

again, i'd like to pull this back toward my original question.  we broaden all the time, but i'd like to narrow on this.  i'm trusting mrs. churchill, because she has a specific memory.  i know of no reason to distrust mrs. churchill.

Mrs. Churchill from Trial:

Q. Would you describe the dress that she had on while you were there?
A. It looked like a light blue and white ground; it seemed calico or cambric, and it had a light blue and white ground work with a dark navy blue diamond printed on it.
Q. Was the whole dress alike, the skirt and waist?
A. It looked so to me.
Q. Was that the dress she had on this morning?
(referring to the dress lizzie gave them)
A. It does not look like it.
Q. Was it?
A. That is not the dress I have described.
Q. Was it, the dress she had on?
A. I did not see her with it on that morning.

Cross Examination:

Q. And there was a white thread and a blue thread mixed?
A. Well, I am not positive.  I only looked at the general effect.  It looked like blue and white ground work to me, with this deep navy blue diamond printed on it.
Q. Was the ground work in any stripes?
A. I don't know.  I don't remember about that: I remember the diamond upon it.
Q. Can't you help us a little bit about that, because we are trying to get at it?
A. Well, the diamond is the most distinct thing in my mind.  It had a navy blue -- well, my dress is navy blue -- similar to that.

__________________

the diamond pattern is the key.  this is not a general impression about color.  this is a memory of a specific detail.  this is not on the dress they showed her in court.  if lizzie's defense could have shown mrs. churchill a diamond print on any part of a dress, they would have.  lizzie gave them a blue dress, but mrs. churchill's memory of a diamond pattern is what exposes lizzie's lie. 





76. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Susan on Nov-16th-03 at 4:27 PM
In response to Message #75.

I wish there was a better description of what dress Lizzie did hand over to the police, all we know is that it was navy blue and the skirt and the blouse were different materials.  Lizzie even seems to state as much in her Inquest testimony:

Q. What dress did you wear the day they were killed?
A. I had on a navy blue, sort of a bengaline or India silk skirt, with a navy blue blouse.  In the afternoon they thought I had better change it.  I put on a pink wrapper.

See, she makes no reference to the material of the blouse, it could be cotton, silk, whatever.  I can't find it now, but, there was some sort of description of the skirt as having a print on it, a light colored spot of some kind.

Mrs. Churchill's description is that the dress is a lighter color of blue, blue and white with the print on it and the blouse and skirt match.  That doesn't sound at all what Lizzie handed over, a navy blue blouse and a navy blue Bengaline silk skirt that may have a print on it.  Thats as far as I can get it at this point.   


77. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-16th-03 at 4:51 PM
In response to Message #76.

i agree.  i've noted all that you say myself.  it would be nice to have a detailed description of the bengaline and matching blouse.

but nevertheless, what i think is revealing about mrs. churchill's testimony is her distinct memory of a diamond pattern.  and she can't see it on either the blouse or the skirt in court.  therefore lizzie wore something murder morning she did not turn in.

SO, she's guilty.  her talent for creating confusion has its serious lapses.  it seems lizzie was very successful except for mrs. churchill's diamond pattern. 

maybe there is more description of this two-piece lizzie gave them.  i can't find it though.

mrs. churchill was not one who remained friends with lizzie afterwards, was she?  i can't remember the story exactly.  but can you imagine mrs. churchill's thoughts about this if she KNOWS that lizzie has lied?


78. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-16th-03 at 11:48 PM
In response to Message #77.

Doesn't Mrs. Churchill say it was a calico she saw and doesn't Dr. Bowen pretty much say the same thing?
Calico is not Bengaline Silk/linen, It's a cheaper cotton fabric.,, so there you go.
But it's really odd that these people are raised in Fall River, the Spindle City and are famous over the world for their dyes and Calico cloth, yet we are to believe these witnesses didn't notice Lizzie's clothing?

Anyway, I'm a bit with Susan on this.  We know Dolan says the Bengaline skirt and blouse handed in are not the same material... So who's to know Lizzie did not wear, at one time or another that Thursday, any part of the Bengaline?  I don't think we can know that.


79. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-17th-03 at 1:21 AM
In response to Message #78.

**Doesn't Mrs. Churchill say it was a calico she saw and doesn't Dr. Bowen pretty much say the same thing? **

exactly.  she says, calico, cotton goods, cheap fabric.  it seems to me that even though dr. bowen cannot be as descriptive as mrs. churchill, what he does say does not contradict her.  they saw the same thing.

**Calico is not Bengaline Silk/linen, It's a cheaper cotton fabric.,, so there you go.
But it's really odd that these people are raised in Fall River, the Spindle City and are famous over the world for their dyes and Calico cloth, yet we are to believe these witnesses didn't notice Lizzie's clothing?**

you raise a point that has several explanations.  to be so familiar with something is one reason to not notice it.  but take bridget and alice in particular.  they both definitively say they can't remember.  i can understand this.  i generally can't say what people in my office wear from one day to the next -- even though i may be in close contact all day.  it's not that i'm not observant, but that their clothing is unimportant compared to so many  other things concerning them.  for example, i could give a detailed description of a facial expression or an intonation or a gesture, even the look in an eye -- and still be unable to tell you the color of a shirt or a dress.  that mrs. churchill "noticed" the fabric and bridget and alice did not -- this has to do with "perspective?"  mrs. churchill "saw" lizzie framed in a doorway before she knew there was a murder.  alice had the murder on her mind before she entered.  i note that alice noticed something about the way the blouse fitted -- though still could not say color, fabric, pattern -- this is not unusual, it's believable.  that whole subject as to why one does or does not see something is  worth a study.

**Anyway, I'm a bit with Susan on this.  We know Dolan says the Bengaline skirt and blouse handed in are not the same material... So who's to know Lizzie did not wear, at one time or another that Thursday, any part of the Bengaline?  I don't think we can know that.**

well, sure.  i haven't delved into that.  i meant to narrow down as opposed to broaden -- that the distinct memory of the witness was not verified by the evidence.

____________________________________________

i don't want to abandon my original question (why would unblemished lizzie hands need to lie about what she wore?)..........BUT (and especially if this is where we're stuck)

as a branching dress-subject....................the two parts of the dress -- IF one part was formal social wear and the other was of the opposite type (at home in the morning for dusting, ironing, etc.)-- is this another clue about what lizzie did or planned that morning?

toward that, let me ask another question that must have an answer:  why can't lizzie remember seeing bridget that morning after her father came home AND BEFORE she gave the murder cry?  is this particular mystery related to what she was wearing?  as it turned out, of course, bridget did not or could not say a thing about what lizzie wore -- but did lizzie have reason to fear what she might have noticed?











80. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-17th-03 at 1:52 AM
In response to Message #79.

I think it's possible that Lizzie was worried and/or unsure of what Bridget would say she, Lizzie, wore that morning.  I know there is definetly some hanky-panky with the dress (es).  I don't know of what material the part of the outfit turned in by Lizzie was made, which was not the same material as Bengaline silk..  No one says.  I might assume it was similar.
I think Dr. Dolan, by saying this was trying to make a point.  But no one noticed.  I believe you are trying to make a point as well, and not too many notice, just like Dr. Dolan- and it might be because it's beyond what we can truly know.

But you can try.  Keep trying.
(I myself, as I said, do not follow the minute descriptions- they're too confusing.  I go by what was not seen, and by general description of a calico material.)

BTW:  It's also strange but true, that Alice did not answer Bridget's summons with murder in mind.  She thought *they* were worse, from Tuesday/Wednesday illness.  Alice says it was not until Morse came that she realized it was  "Murder."
--Lizzie must have really pulled one over on Alice Wednesday night, for her to believe an innocent illness as late as Morse's arrival, which was 11:45 a.m.


81. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by haulover on Nov-17th-03 at 10:33 AM
In response to Message #80.

**BTW:  It's also strange but true, that Alice did not answer Bridget's summons with murder in mind.  She thought *they* were worse, from Tuesday/Wednesday illness.  Alice says it was not until Morse came that she realized it was  "Murder."
--Lizzie must have really pulled one over on Alice Wednesday night, for her to believe an innocent illness as late as Morse's arrival, which was 11:45 a.m. **

thanks for correcting me.  now that you say it, i recall it.  i don't know why i forgot it.

i was thinking how "dumped on" alice is by thursday morning.  after lizzie's wednesday night prophecy -- i would think that alice, on her way over to the house, must have been baffled about what to think was up.



82. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-17th-03 at 2:51 PM
In response to Message #75.

This assumes Lizzie did switch her dress after the murder.
We do know that one eyewitness alone cannot be 1000% reliable on a minor detail. Isn't it possible her memory was mistaken?


83. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-17th-03 at 2:53 PM
In response to Message #76.

Did Lizzie still own such a dress when the house was searched Thursday, Friday, and Saturday? Any records? Or are we just arguing about something that can NEVER be settled, like an opinion on the weather? Too hot, too cold, or just right?


84. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-17th-03 at 2:55 PM
In response to Message #78.

First it is very possible for people to live in Fall River (or Detroit) and not be familiar with trade details.

"It was a dark color car." What kind? "I don't know."


85. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-17th-03 at 2:57 PM
In response to Message #80.

One question: Did Alicr Russell tell about Wed night's meeting during August? Or was her story later given to incriminate Lizzie?
...
I wonder if Lizzie's agreement with this story could be because Alice told less than what happened August 4, 1892? The only person to leave the house before the police came was Bridget, and Lizzie sent her to visit Alice. That is the only time to carry off any evidence.

(Message last edited Nov-17th-03  2:58 PM.)


86. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by Kat on Nov-17th-03 at 5:48 PM
In response to Message #85.

Trial
Fleet
Page 464

Q.  Anything else?
A. I then asked her if she had any idea who could have killed her father and mother. Then she said, "She is not my mother, sir; she is my stepmother; my mother died when I was a child."  I then asked her if there had been any one around this morning whom she would suspect of having done the killing of these people, and she said that she had not seen any one, but about nine o'clock that morning a man came to the door and was talking with her father.  I asked her what they were talking about, and she said she thought they were talking about a store, and he spoke like an Englishman.  I think about all the conversation I had with her at that time--- Oh, no. Miss Russell was in the room, and she says to Lizzie, "Tell him all; tell him what you was telling me."  And she looked at Miss Russell, and then she says, "About two weeks ago a man came to the house, to the front door, and had some talk with father, and talked as though he was angry."  And I asked her what he was talking about.  She said, "He was talking about a store, and father said to him, 'I cannot let you have the store for that purpose;’ "---The man seemed to be angry.  I then came down stairs.

Q.  Is that all that you recall at that first interview with her?
A.  I think it is.
--This shows that Alice was prodding Lizzie to tell the things which she told Alice previously.
--We have Lizzie's word she was outside.  We don't know she didn't go back outside after her father was killed.  Lizzie had control over the time she called down Bridget.


87. "Re:  If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by rays on Nov-17th-03 at 8:13 PM
In response to Message #86.

Yes, this is about seeing a stranger a few days before. But nothing here about Lizzie's ominous feelings about the near future. Maybe it was there, but telling about her feelings (like a "dream") sort of implies a foreknowledge of the crime.

Could this be a sign that Lizzie was thinking about telling all?


88. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by breezy on Nov-18th-03 at 12:05 PM
In response to Message #21.

Greetings Mark - nice to meet you. Have you heard of a town called Hanford? It's south of Fresno and that's where I'm from. Live in Missouri now and love it but too bad there's no ocean


89. "Re: If Lizzie Did Not Act Alone...."
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-18th-03 at 9:55 PM
In response to Message #88.

Hi, Breezy

Yes, I know about where Hanford is, but I've only been through the area once on my way to Sequoia National Park in the summer of '95. I understand there is some sort of military installation in that area.