1. "The Unfathomable Borden Riddle"
Posted by Kat on Dec-7th-03 at 12:46 AM

Nancie sent me a copy of an article which appeared in Yankee Magazine,  1966, which included a letter commenting on the Borden case by Marion Hicks Campbell.
The article is entitled "The Unfathomable Borden Riddle", well-written by John U. Ayotte. 
The letter-writer claims she heard a story 50 years previously after meeting "a man" who was working odd jobs on farms in the next county.
The itinerent worker was "oldish" with a "vacant but gentle face topped by staggly gray hair.  There was a nervous twitch to his mouth, however, and an anxious look in his faded blue eyes..."
She asked the farmer about the man and was told a story which she retells in her letter to the magazine.
This man had worked at the Borden's house (yard) doing light odd jobs.  "He sort of fell in love with the daughter Lizzie.  She was older than he was, but she was so domineering and strong, where he was shy and week, he thought her wonderful.  Said she was a good looker too, and her not being a favorite in her family, just as he hadn't been in his family, made her seem closer to him.  He never told her how he felt but he was so glad to run errands for her, I guess she knew she had him round her finger, and figured he'd do anything she wanted him to and not ask questions."  One day Lizzie, on whom he had a crush, asked him to come to the side door.  She gave him a bundle to dispose of and was cleaning a hatchet with a rag.  He put the hatchet in the barn and did go away and dump the bundle.  Later he heard that the Borden's were killed and so he got the hatchet out of the area of the barn and hid it in the horse stall.
He went to find the bundle , but it was dumped in an area commonly used for garbage and the pack he left was totally covered by now with loads of refuse.  He left town very afraid that he had not come foreward.
He traveled forever after that, always nervous someone would connect him with that day.

This is the gist of the story.  It's interesting and very well-written.
So well-written, in fact, that it belies it's claim to be just a letter in response to the Borden article!

In a box introducing Ms. Campbell's long yarn, the editor notes:
"Yankee Magazine originally published this story [article] in August 1966.  Soon after the magazine appeared on the newsstands, we received a flood of mail related to the article.  Certain letters offered surprising testimony - some of it firsthand, most of it hearsay, all of it interesting.  Here's one that reads something like an epilogue."

--Nancie seemed more impressed with the idea of all those letters and what they may have contained!
Thanks nj!

Thanks for sharing that, Kat.  I wonder if this is tied in with that story about that guy who was supposed to be Lizzie's boyfriend who died in a motorcycle accident in the 1920s?  I am of the same mind as Nancie, I'd like to see what all those firsthand testimony letters contained.   

Thanks for posting it Kat, good job of summarizing. And yes
wouldn't it be fascinating to see all those responses from 1966?
I wonder if they kept them?  I will write to Yankee and ask. I
remember passing thru the town and seeing their offices, a small
town in New Hampshire, I will definitely write a letter, can't hurt
to ask.  Thanks, NJ

My folks subscribed to Yankee magazine for many years and I saved their August 1966 issue which includes John U. Ayotte's "The Unfathomable Borden Riddle." As Kat says it is a well-written piece which summarizes the case and briefly discusses the theories of Edmund Pearson and Edward D. Radin.

My wife and I subscribe to Yankee magazine now and I have three other issues with stories about Lizzie. The August 1992 issue contains an article by Edgar Allen Beem entitled "Did Lizzie Borden Really Take an Ax and Give Her Mother 40 Whacks?" The issue of June 1996 has an article by Don Weafer called "The Long Silence of Lizzie Borden." With this article is a very good photograph of Maplecroft showing the front steps and open air, wrap-around front porch. And, the April 2001 issue contains an article about the B & B entitled "If You Lived Here, You'd Be Dead" by Howard Mansfield. Interestingly, three out of these four issues (August 1966; June 1996; and April 2001) advertise the Lizzie article contained therein somewhere on their front covers.

Great to see another Yankee Mag subscriber on here, thanks Doug,
I have also subscribed for many years, I think they are loyal to the
Lizzie mystery. After the April article they had so many negative
responses, I hope that doesn't stop them from keeping the tradition,
I don't think it will. 

Doug, when or if you have time, can you give a synopsis of an article you have there?

That story is about as worthless as the 1950s typed confession disposed of by E Radin. A QDE examined it and said it was false.

You wouldn't make a very good detective Rays, so single minded, you
have to consider everything and track down every lead!  Nancy Drew

That's funny.  I had a glmmer of a memory of good ole Ellen Eagan and Henry Hawthorne and Billie Borden, and 50 year old memories, and stange handy-men hanging around.

Interesting.  I wonder if that bundle contained the dress Lizzie was wearing at the time of the murders.  Or maybe something equally incriminating?

Talk about a bundle!
Here is an interesting take on Lizzie's dresses:
"A WASP Looks at Lizzie Borden. (The White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant Elements in the Infamous 19th Century Murder Case) (Cover Story") -The National Review,
8-17-1992, by Florence King.

"Plump by our standards, she had what her self-confident era called a good figure. She also had blue eyes, and like all blue-eyed women she had a lot of blue dresses--handy for changing .clothes without appearing to have done so. The case is a vortex of dark blue dresses, light blue dresses, blue summer dresses, blue winter dresses, clean blue dresses, paint-stained blue dresses, blood-stained blue dresses, and an all-male jury struggling to tell one from the other. "

--Suppose it's possible that the jury didn't even consider the dress situation?

That was good!  I like the "plump by our standards"!  I can just
imagine that all male jury having no clue or interest in the dresses.

Same reference.
I love this part:

"Back home in the stifling city heat, she sat in her room and brooded. Somehow she had found out that Abby was about to acquire some more real estate; Andrew was planning to put a farm in his wife's name and install his brother-in-law, John Morse, as caretaker. This last was especially infuriating, for Lizzie and Emma were Not Speaking to Uncle John. He had been involved, so they thought, in that other real-estate transfer five years before. Now he was back, plotting to do her and Emma out of their rightful inheritance.

Something had to be done, but what? Lacking lady-like poison, Lizzie did what every overcivilized, understated Wasp is entirely capable of doing once we finally admit we're mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more: She went from Anglo to Saxon in a trice."

According to Emma's testimony, Lizzie owned 8 dresses that were blue or blue was a marked color in them, I don't think I would call it a vortex of blue dresses.  But confusing, yes, even to us, I can't imagine what an all male jury in that era thought or made of it.  I'm wondering how many suits a man in that era would own?  From what I could find, men's suits of the 1890s were made of heavy wool materials though there was probably a summer weight wool and winter weight.  For them to open the cornucopia of women's dress of the times, the colors, the variety of materials, etc., it must have been mind-boggling!

I guess thats why they tried to break it down into its simplest terms for them, did Lizzie wear cotton or silk the day of the murders. 

And, don't forget, the one man (Harrington) who seemed to have any sort of a grasp on the issue was made fun of!

I was thinking more on this last night.  Emma made up her *inventory* of dresses around the end of May, 1893.  I was wondering if she included the Bengaline which was given up to the court and the Bedford Cord which was burned.  We really don't know.
She is asked if this list is of the dresses that were there on Saturday, the day of the big search.  Of course she says yes.  I don't know why we believe her, even if her memory is faulty 10 months later.
Trial
Emma

Q.  Have you an inventory, Miss Emma, of the clothes that were in the clothes closet on Saturday afternoon, the time of the search?
A.  I have.

Q.  Will you produce it?
A.  I have of the dresses.

Q.  Of the dresses.  Very well.

Page 1531 / i553

MR. MOODY. Taken at the time?

MR. JENNINGS. No.

Q.  When was that made up?
A.  This?

Q.  Yes.
A.  About a week ago.

Q.  Was it made up from your recollection?
A.  Yes, sir.

I would think that the Bengaline would have to had been included in the list of dresses according to Emma's Trial testimony, even if she was lying:

Q. Now where was that dress, if you know, on Saturday, the day of the search?
A. I saw it hanging in the clothes press over the front entry.

Q. At what time?
A. I don't know exactly; I think 9 o'clock in the evening.

As for the Bedford cord, I don't know for sure, but, I would think Lizzie would hang it back up since she changed into the pink wrapper on Thursday and this was on Saturday that the alleged amount of blue dresses were listed there.  My point was that there is a finite number of blue dresses owned by Lizzie, in my opinion not this swirling vortex of blue dresses upon blue dresses. 

Yes, as for trusting Emma implicitly, I don't think I can.  I think she fibbed about telling Lizzie to burn that Bedford cord, so, who knows what else she may have fudged on when on the stand?

You know what thought came to my mind, Emma is calling them dresses which I assume means that they are either one piece or a blouse waist and skirt of matching material, but, how many blouse waists did Lizzie possible own that really didn't go to a particular skirt and could be mix-n-matched in her wardrobe? 


Thats a good point, Bob.  If a man showed too much interest and knowledge in ladies' dress, they were ridiculed!  So much for getting to the bottom of things.

Yes, I was thinking that about being specific.  Emma wasn't quite asked how many outfits or matching blouses etc.
I think it's crazy for Emma to be believed at the trial as to 8 blue dresses.  Ask her about skirts why don't they?

The Bedford Cord was the *dress* to which Emma is referring in that bit of testimony about seeing it Saturday night, for want of a nail.
And we possibly know the Bengaline was not a *dress* as it came in 2 parts and the material didn't match..yes.

(Message last edited Dec-11th-03  12:37 AM.)

  Oops, sorry, transposed those dresses, long day at work.  It should have been the Bedford cord that was most probably there and possibly the Bengaline.

I realized why I remember so well is because Sunday that dress was burned.
The Emmer saying that Saturday night at 9 she saw the Bedford cord, and that because she needed a nail Saturday night, that Sunday she told Lizzie she might as well get rid of it is the flimsiest excuse I ever heard.
I guess we have to take into account the men on the jury were Victorian men, tho you'd think men with families would know better than to dismiss Lizzie and Emma as ladies, flowers of womanhood with no reason to lie.

Many will do that today, as a defense of their own lack of knowledge.
I suggest that many men today would mock a man "who knew too much" about ladies undergarments, or even dresses.

Its like somebody claiming Patricia Cornwell's book on "Jack" was refuted, but being unable to present any references. Touche?

I think a man in that era really had no clue to a woman's dress or
feeling or anything, they were too busy with making a living and the
women so hard at work keeping the house.  Little things we take for
granted today, like throw a load of laundry in, no big deal. But back
then just doing laundry by hand and drying it and ironing it was a huge project.  Meals were another big ordeal, etc. I can see the men
on the jury just having no clue into a woman's mind, and especially
her dress.  The one that did must have had 13 sisters or something. 

I was thinking along similar lines today while I was *doing* laundry.  Rather, I was putting it into a machine and my hardest job was deciding if this will be a cold water load that I will have to hang up.

I also tried to envision Emmer preparing for a trip and all the laundry ahead of time and all the voluminous material!
I wonder if the servant at the house one was visiting did your laundry, if you stayed long enought to need it?

My "Delia" sure hated company,so much extra work!  She had to heat
the irons early while still making breakfast and "these rich women
from Philadelphia" didn't appreciate her efforts one bit!

Thats a good question and it also makes me wonder how many dresses Emma did pack with her to go to Fairhaven?  I would think that like Lizzie she probably had a couple of wrappers or housedresses with her that she would wear about the house.  But, then how many fancy dresses did she pack?  Dresses for going out, shopping, etc.  Two?  Three?  I don't think that they wore garments then like we do today, we wear once and into the laundry it goes.  I think that they got a few days wear out of their clothes before they were laundered. 

I suppose a housedress or wrapper would only be worn in one's room?  While visiting, coming out into the family unit, one would be fully dressed?
I wonder what amenities the Delano house had and if it was a real treat for Emma or much like home.
Thanks nancie for your Delia's opinion on *company*!
Too much extra work, huh?
Wouldn't Philadelphia ladies bring a servant or companion when visiting?

(Message last edited Dec-14th-03  2:08 AM.)

I was thinking of Lizzie's pink and white stripe wrapper, it sounded quite stylish and it seemed like it was proper attire when there were strange men about the house and in her room questioning her.  I picture Emma with a couple of those with her for daily wear about the Delano house.  But, it may have been dressier than that, maybe everyday was a dress-up day while visiting?

Even if the Delano house didn't have more modern amenities than the Borden home, I'm sure it was still a treat for Emma to get out of that house.  The daily grind of hating Abby, arguing with Andrew and Lizzie's tantrums, it must have been a much welcomed respite! 

I got the idea that a "wrapper" was a casual dress and a "waist"
was a more dressy outfit. 

A wrapper is like wearing jeans around the house you are visiting.  Sort of like a preliminary to a bathrobe but a dress in those days.  Casual home wear.
A Waist is a blouse, I believe.  Some come with ties.

these damn dress parts!  they were confused even then!

***Officer Doherty, whose testimony I do not attach much importance to, but whose testimony I will allude to, said "I thought it a light blue dress with the bosom in the waist," whatever that may mean, and on being shown the dress he was asked, "if that is the dress," and he says "no, I don't think it was."*** (from knowlton in closing)

like knowlton i was also puzzled by what was meant by lizzie's bosom being in her waist.  at first i pictured her wearing a skirt like a tube top -- then i thought i had learned something from this guy's awkward statement -- that the waist was the skirt part since the shirt part would have to be the bosom part, i mean the bosom must be in the shirt (disregarding my initial rather kinky image).  but then i'm wrong still - huh?

???

(funny Haulover!) 
We used to wear "shirtwaist" dresses, they could be described
as a fitted shirt I guess, that's why I thought a "waist" was a
whole dress.  Susan might know for sure?

i was hoping susan or kat could define it once and for all.  the blouse, the waist, the skirt,  the dress, etc.

the officer knowlton was referring to -- i believe what that means is that the two parts of what lizzie was wearing murder morning were the same.  mrs. churchill thought so as well and remembers a detail of the material.  one thing i have learned for myself this past month (until someone corrects me) is that lizzie did not give the police what she actually wore ( i would say that no "part" of what she wore she gave them.  and i'll say this again:  had mrs. churchill seen in anything they held up to her in court what she remembered seeing murder morning, she would have said so.  if you read her testimony, you can tell that she tells them reluctantly that what they are showing her, she did not see lizzie wearing.)

might as well ask this again:  if lizzie lied about what she wore that morning, is there but one reason for doing so? any reason besides vanity?

still i'm not sure i can accurately name the "parts."  i thought at one point the waist was the upper part and the skirt was the lower. but then if someone says bosom vs. waist -- then the bosom must be the upper part.    i suppose there was always more than one way of saying it -- the two terms being relative?

it's not that this is important in and of itself, but in terms of communicating about it, it gets confusing.

Well, from what I've read and seen, when Victorians refer to a waist or a blouse waist, it is indeed a woman's blouse, a seperate article of clothing.  Like this little beauty:

I've also seen them referred to as bodices.  From what I've researched on Victorian clothing it seems that during the 1890s most dresses were 2 piece; a waist and a skirt.  The skirts tended to be plainer, not much decoration and the emphasis was on the waist, such as this 2 piece dress:

I think it gets confusing because they refer to these 2 piece outfits as a dress when it is actually a skirt and blouse.

I own a couple of shirtwaist dresses, they're vintage, but you can still buy them, they're still made.


Haulover, I think what was meant by the bosom in the waist was that the blouse waist was full in the front, possibly pleated at the neckline and the hem so that it had a full, pouter pigeon look to it.

I also found this interesting article:

"The blouse became popular in North America when the tailored suit became favourite daytime wear. Shirtwaists were initially regarded as summer garments, but they soon caught on as an essential part of a woman's wardrobe. They could be adapted to the workplace as well as informal afternoon and evening wear. By the 1890s, shirtwaists were advertised as a separate garment to be worn with just a skirt. Soon they were worn with a suit jacket, a slim ankle-length skirt and a tie. This item of clothing was especially popular with the working woman who could supplement her limited wardrobe with a wide selection of inexpensive shirtwaists. This new style of clothing enabled women to dress in separates and hence economize. The "New Woman" also embraced the shirtwaist for reasons of physical comfort. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the blouse closely mimicked the trends in sleeve shapes and bodice styles. In the 1890s, shirtwaists featured high collars, narrow shoulders, full upper sleeves and a full front accentuated by pleats, gathers and lacey inserts. Blouses were generally made out of washable cotton or linen and were often worn with a detachable linen collar and cuffs. For dressier occasions, blouses were made of finer fabrics and were trimmed with ribbons, lace ruffles, tiny buttons and pintucks. According to Eaton's catalogue for 1901, the prices for shirtwaists ranged from 50 cents to $8.50, depending on size and complexity of design.

From this site:http://www.stfx.ca/people/lstanley/Material/Fashion/LDaytime.htm




(Message last edited Dec-16th-03  11:14 PM.)

I find two applicable definitions for "waist" in Webster's Unabridged:  1) "that part of a dress covering the torso" and 2) "blouse."  I think the "bosom in the waist" is the poor man's fumbling attempt to describe uncharted territory. In old dress patterns, "waist" by itself seems always to have meant "blouse."

I can't find the thread, but I remember a discussion of reasons to hang dresses inside out. Since dresses were not washed after first wear, they were hung up "to air."  Could they have had a better chance to breathe if the part worn next to the skin were hung outermost, at least for a day or so?

(Message last edited Dec-16th-03  11:24 PM.)

Beautiful pictures, Susan!  They just popped up as I posted my poor 2 cents worth.  I checked out the website too, which is very cool and jam-packed with nifty info.  This is a bit random, butI noticed that it was a (Nova)Scottish town that hosted it, and that took me back to all the Scottish stuff.  Did Fall River and/or Bordens have some Scottish connection?  The Hill was referred to as "The Highlands," "My ain countree" (either version) is Scottish, and the famous mantlepiece is adorned with Scotland's emblem, the thistle. Anybody out there know?

Thanks, Lydia.  Thats the artist in me, I like to illustrate my posts when I can with appropriate photos.  Lizzie seems to have liked that particular poem or hymn (I can't recall which it was now?) quite a bit, hence the inscription in the fireplace mantel.  Emma was supposed to have taken a trip to Scotland later in life.  Perhaps there is a Scottish background with the Borden family? 

There are 2: a rather bloody poem by Allen Cunningham, commemorating William Wallace's rebellion ("Hame, Hame, Hame") and a peaceful and pious hymn by Mary Demarest, "In My Ain Countree."  The hymn, verses 1 and 4, was requested by Lizbeth in her will to be done by a soloist at her funeral.  Some have seen the mantlepiece carving ("At hame in my ain countrie) as a confessional reference to Cunningham, but somewhere in the backfiles that reference is dismissed in favor of the hymn.  I prefer to have our cake and eat it too.  The word "hame" never appears in the hymn, but it appears in triplicate as the title of the poem AND contains the carved sentiment precisely as a refrain. I don't know that it's a confession--perhaps a private self congratulation, which could easily be innocently veiled as piety. I wasn't sure what the tune sounded like, but I found an on-line MIDI file in The Ames Hymn Collection--check it out, it's very pretty!!!

"TheBorden Family is of original French stock, deriving it's name from Bourdonnay, an ancient village in Normandy.  The first possessors of English soil came over with William the Conqueror, and, fighting under his victorious banner at Hastings, in the division of lands which followed the overthrow of Harold and the Saxon regime, were assigned estates in the County of Kent.   During five or six centuries suceeding the conquest, the name is met with under the various spellings of Bourdon, Burdon, Burden, Borden, Bording, Bordinghe, Berden, Birdin, and Barden.  It is noteworthy that the consonants are the same in each form, following each other in unvarying order, and thus indicating an original orthography common to all.
...
...The Bodens were soon established...gave their name to the estate, founded a religious parish...acquired wealth and influence....

...the ecclesiastical establishments encroaching more and more upon the rights of the people, the then head of the family, John Borden, the father of Richard and John, who appear to have been the pioneers in the work of emigration to America, distrustful of a religeous domination whose exactions had become intolerable, sold out his estate in Borden, and removed to Wales, where his children were born and continued to live.
When Richard and John became of age, they married in Wales, but subsequently returned to the neighborhood of Borden, with the intention of emigrating to America. 

...John [eventually] went to the vicinity of New London, Conn., in 1648 or 1650.

...The elder brother, Richard...establish[ed] himself permanetly upon Rhode Island...."
-The Genealogy of the Borden Family Living In Fall River and Vicinity, 1876, Atlantic Publishing and Engraving Co. New York, Benjamin Earl & Son, Fall River, Mass., 1877
-binder form, published and sold by the Fall River Historical Society.


No Scotland, but the connection may be Celtic.  Normandy, I believe was a Celtic enclave, as was Wales?

Leave it to Lizzie to be descended from a group who, with the Conquerer, took what they wanted after killing at Hastings!

(Stef and I have *been* to Hastings!)

Thanks, Lydia, it is pretty and its cool to hear one of Lizzie's hymns though I'm sure its much more impressive done on an organ.  I love this stanza from it:

My sins hae been mony, an' my sorrows hae been sair;
But there they'll never vex me, nor be remembered mair:
For His bluid has made me white, an' His han' shall dry my e'e,
When He brings me hame at last, to my ain countrie.

Hmmm, a reference to Lizzie's beloved Maplecroft, her ain countrie?

I've included the link to the page if anyone else is interested:
http://junior.apk.net/~bmames/ht0137_.htm

Thanks Susan, you are a gem, I loved those pictures. So that
settles it, a waist is a blouse as we know a blouse! Thank you!

The verses you gave us of the hymn really struck me.  It is referring to a person who has sinned greatly, but knows that with the blood of Christ to save them they will be forgiven and the sins forgotten when they reach heaven.  Is this Lizzie's confession? If Lizzie was truly a christian, she knew that true remorse and repentance would mean forgiveness from the one who really matters...God. It did not matter what everyone else thought of her.

i truly appreciate your explanations, susan.  and the pictures.  i love that lady in "midnight blue."  it looks like that blouse could almost be used as a "mini skirt." 

i understand the terms better now, i think, but if i may be a pest once more:

***Haulover, I think what was meant by the bosom in the waist was that the blouse waist was full in the front, possibly pleated at the neckline and the hem so that it had a full, pouter pigeon look to it. ***

what does "pouter pigeon" mean?  does this basically mean that he noticed her bosom because the material "defined" it without a lot of buttons or other "decorations" etc.?  (NOT trying to be funny here.)

i know you  know a lot about these dresses.  i'll stop axing you about this if you'll just take one more educated swing at me.

I have wondered that also Merri, but thinking more that LIzzie
wanted to live in peace and put everything behind her, no matter
what happened.  She had a guilty conscience she had to set right.

ha ha Haulouver you are funny even when you aren't trying to be!

Haulover, since Susan is out, I think I can help on this.  The pouter pigeon look refers to the profile, which makes the lady resemble a puffed up (pouter) pigeon.  The "waist," or blouse, is so loose that it puffs out and over the cinched in portion at the bottom. In other words, the boozum slopes down and out as if her boobs hang low. Does that make any sense?  If you look at the pattern pix at agelesspatterns.com, you'll see lots of them.  P.S. Can someone tell me how to post a link in blue to direct people to links?  My tech impairment is showing here.  

***In other words, the boozum slopes down and out as if her boobs hang low. Does that make any sense?***

it makes sense if she's not wearing a bra.  i think njwolfe is right, and i'm beginning to feel a bit embarrassed. 

i think i should just shut up at this point? 

Wow, I missed out on alot, was addressing Christmas cards.  You're welcome, NJ, hope that helps with the pics.


Thanks Lydia, thats pretty much it with the pouter pigeon look.  To post a link to a site, type , copy the web address and paste it directly after the [url], then type right on the tail end of the address .  When your message is posted the address should come up highlighted and you will be able to click on it to get to the site.  Hope that helps?


Haulover, though this blouse is from a later date, 1896, it will give you an idea of what I was talking about with the "bosom in the waist".  The front of the blouse is very full and poufs out, it makes the woman's chest look like that of a pigeon, all puffed up.

Considered an 1890's WRAPPER.  It looks like a dress and it IS one piece, but the person weraing it and her girlfriend would know this is a "wrapper", casual wear.


.........
This is a "Gown".  It comes in 2 pieces!  This bodice is sort of puffy in front which is what the girls mean.  The top of this *gown* might be called a *waist* or a *Blouse waist* or bodice.

Thanks, Kat, those are gorgeous!  So, do you think its possible that Emmer would wear a wrapper like that around the house while visiting in Fairhaven?  Its still pretty dressy looking for a casual dress.  I've also found that wrappers are sometimes refered to as tea gowns.  Probably something you wore to tea with your family, possibly something you might wear when your girlfriends come to tea at your house? 

Well, in a house of women, or in the Borden house with the only man a father, I'd say yes.
But with Emmer visiting a man's home, unrelated, Mr. Delano, I'd say no.
Remember Wednesday when Dr. Bowen came over, Lizzie ran upstairs so fast he didn't see her face?  Wednesday she was wearing that Bedford cord and even that wasn't good enough...at least I think that's why she ran upstairs.
(I don't think the Bedford cord was so noticeably stained.  I think that was exaggerated by the girls, and Bowen wouldn't notice the fading anyway but Lizzie did)
Tho she wore the wrapper in her room with Bowen Thursday, she was in the capacity of patient you see?
Someone may know better tho.

Susan--Thanks for the directions! I have found some neat links, and now I can share them properly (provided I follow the instructions  properly--knock wood).  Nice illustration!

These pictures are gorgeous, Kat!  But now I'm ALL confused.  I just read Bridget's definition from the testimony you so kindly printed (#41 in Welcome to Florida, everyone), and she calls wrappers TWO PIECE!  Is the term referring to fabric or fit? A wrapper being slightly looser and more comfy? Or did I misread? I'll go back and check when I've got time.

--Lyddie

(Message last edited Dec-18th-03  12:05 PM.)

The attorney calls the Bedford Cord a "Wrapper" , but Bridget keeps repeating it's a "Basque and skirt".  He says oh it's a man's way to say it.
He's not describing the pink wrapper of Thursday afternoon but the dress worn by Lizzie Wednesday.

what great pix Kat, hard to believe that was their "casual" wear,
poor things. They should see me now in MY casual wear: sweats.
(111 years from now some forum will be trying to define the word
sweats, was it one piece or two?)

hey, susan, thank you very much!  i get it now.  that image explains it perfectly.  i SEE. 

OOPs Susan I think my post crossed yours in the ether- excuse me, I hadn't seen it.
That is a good representation!

thank you as well for same reason. 

do you agree the bedford cord had this type blouse?

From Trial pg 1581, Mary A Raymond
Cross by Knowlton

Q. What sort of waist was it?
A. Blouse waist.

Q. That means loose--
A. That means loose front.


is mrs. raymond describing this type waist?  i know you don't think lizzie is seen wearing this beford cord by the ladies that morning.  but if this guy  who saw that "the bosom was in the waist" was seeing this type waist (the blouse waist) -- is it just coincidentally that what lizzie was in fact wearing was this same style just different dress?  (i'm asking you in the context of your own theory.)  or do you  put any stock in the remark? 

and here is a great "what if".  what if mrs. raymond had been able to recall exactly the pattern?  of the dress pattern bridget remembers from wednesday, i believe she calls it a "sprig."

dress made last spring,
dress worn wednesday,
dress worn murder morning.

light blue dark pattern,
light blue with sprig,
light blue with diamond.

______________

i do think i understand  your reasoning as to why lizzie was not wearing mrs. raymond's beford cord murder morning in presence of ladies.

it is still tricky business:

mrs. churchill sees diamond,
bridget remembers yesterday,
alice did not notice.

then:

RE dress-burning:
alice recognizes spring bedford cord and had not seen it earlier -- yet cannot identify a pattern as mrs. churchill does.  doesn't actually refute mrs. churchill's description though.

Kat--Okay.  So Bridget is probably too intimidated to contradict an authority (No, it isn't the same as a wrapper), but simply repeats the basque and shirt description.  Makes sense. Thanks.

Lyddie

(Message last edited Dec-19th-03  12:26 AM.)

The reason I wonder if she had on the Bedford Cord after raising the alarm is that, if it had stains on it she thought she must destroy to prevent discovery, why did she take such a risk, and why didn't the police spot the spots?  Of course, maybe she discovered something in those yards of fabric later on. 

Also, I've always wondered about Minnie Green's story of a payoff.  Even Minnie's response to the Butte librarian on reading about the case seems to indicate that she wonders "Payoff? whatever for?"  If Bridget was not an accomplice in the act, could her favor have been to discredit Alice's Bedford cord story by saying that she couldn't remember what Lizzie wore on Thursday?  That might have been worth a parcel of land back in County Cork.

No problem, Kat, love those pics!  I love how structured those dresses are.


You're welcome, Haulover.  Emma is asked about the Bedford Cord dress at the trial and gives pretty much the same description of the waist or blouse:

Q. But, as to the waist, was that full or snug?
A. The waist was a blouse waist, perfectly loose in the front.

Found this little bit about wrappers, answered my own question about Emma possibly bringing hers while visiting the Brownells:

"Outside of artistic circles, the artistic reform styles most acceptable to fashionable American women were wrappers, or house gowns, especially the more formal version, the tea gown, which gained popularity in the 1870s.  Taking the lead of the British, Americans designed tea gowns in a vaguely medieval or classical style that appeared to be loose fitting.  Etiquette demanded that they be worn only in the home where they were appropriate when entertaining close friends.  However, as noted in the Jenness Miller Magazine, women of the 1890s frequently wore tea gowns in public, especially at summer resorts."

From this site: http://costume.osu.edu/Reforming_Fashion/artistic_dress.htm

Which guy?  The guys don't know anything about the dresses.  the attorney, in error calls it a "wrapper".  I'm not sure I understand.
Emma says Lizzie could not be wearing a dress (murder dress) under her wrapper (which is the only thing Emma see's on Lizzie because Emma was home late) because the Bedford Cord is longer than Lizzie's dresses which are not for the street and there's that pesky, noticable ruffle at the bottom too.
She says Lizzie's dresses are usually worn fitted snug.

I think it's possible that the morning wear around the house is loose and the going out clothes are snug.
It makes sense.  You want to be comfortable in your home and show your figure off on the street.

Emma at Trial:
Page 1540

Q.  Now where was that dress, if you know, on Saturday, the day of the search?
A.  I saw it hanging in the clothes press over the front entry.

Q.  At what time?
A.  I don't know exactly; I think about 9 o'clock in the evening.

Q.  How came you to see it at that time?
A.  I went in to hang up the dress that I had been wearing during the day, and there was no vacant nail, and I searched round to find a nail, and I noticed this dress.

Q.  Did you say anything to your sister about that dress in consequence of your not finding a nail to hang your dress on?
A.  I did.

Q.  What did you say to her?

MR. KNOWLTON. Wait a minute. I pray your Honors' judgment as to that. That is clearly incompetent.

MASON, C. J. The question may be answered.

Q.  What did you say to her?
A.  I said, "You have not destroyed that old dress yet; why don't you?"

Q.  Is that all that was said?
A.  All that I remember.

MR. KNOWLTON. I don't think, may it please your Honors, that answer should stand.

Q.  Did she say anything in reply?
A.  I don't remember.

Q.  What was the condition of that dress at that time?
A.  It was very dirty, very much soiled and badly faded. **

Q.  Do you know whether she had been wearing it for some little

Page 1541 / i563

time prior to the day of the murder?
A.  I don't remember seeing her have it on for several weeks before I went away.

Q.  How long was it before the murder that you went away?
A.  Just two weeks.

Q.  Was this material of which this dress was made in a condition to be made over for anything else?
A.  It could not possibly be used for anything else.

Q.  Why?
A.  Because it was not only soiled, but so badly faded. It was a shade that in washing that would be completely ruined,---the effect of it.

Q.  I will ask you a little further,---how long was that dress?
A.  So long that in the back perhaps---I might say dragged an inch or more.  It was not a train dress, but it was so long that it very quickly got soiled because it was so very light.

Q.  How did it compare with the length of her pink wrapper?
A.  I should think it was an inch and a half longer, sure.

Q.  How was it made as to the sleeve?
A.  We called them full sleeves then, but not as large as they are making this season.

Q.  But, as to the waist, was that full or snug?
A.  The waist was a blouse waist, perfectly loose in front.

Q.  Did she have any dress, Miss Emma, that she could get on over that?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Why not?
A.  Because her dresses were made rather snug.

--He goes on to cal that bedford cord a "wrapper".  He's mistaken.

--**These ajectives are what makes the dress sound like such a sloppy dress.  If you leave off the emphasis on this extreme description, it doesn't sound so bad:
* It was  dirty,  soiled and  faded. **

--It's an interesting notion which was put forward that this morning wear of Lizzie's could be her comfortable menstrual dress.  It makes some sense for her to don a dress which is loose and already stained to wear during her period.  When Emma says she hasn't seen Lizzie wear it in some weeks before she went away, there we have a menstrual cycle! 




(Message last edited Dec-19th-03  3:34 AM.)

Okay, from what I can gather from all this is that a wrapper is a looser fitting dress, worn indoors only.  From the beautiful photos Kat posted it looks just like a dress to me but I know zero about these things.  It doesn't look all that comfortable but maybe compared to what she was wearing it was.

Reading Harrington's testimony in the Trial (page 581) I was bewildered (as was Robinson) by the level of detail and I had it settled in my mind that it was more robe-like than dress-like.  What was the large red ribbon for that Harrington described?  Decoration? I think thats where I got the robe idea from assuming that the ribbon was tied to hold the robe closed.

And I don't even want to know what a basque is! 


(Message last edited Dec-19th-03  9:23 AM.)

There's an example of this type of dress at the B&B.  It is an actual dress that Lizzie wore and they have it on display in Emma's room. (Lizzie's old room - which is like the size of a closet by the way)  I will take a picture of her dress for you all and post it.

I have a thought.  Lizzie stated that she changed into a pink wrapper in the afternoon.  Why on earth would she buy anything "pink" considering that she had flaming red hair?  It's always been a common fashion faux pa that red-haired women shouldn't wear pink since it would clash too much.  Maybe it was Emma's dress and she was borrowing it?  Just seems odd to me for her to wear that color.

This was covered in earlier posts. I suggested that the pay-off to Bridget was not for anything Bridget did, but rather for her silence about what she knew. EG, that Lizzie was in the kitchen or sitting room when Andy returned, not laughing up on the second floor.

One quote from Bridget was "if I told more, then that awful man who killed Mrs Borden would come after me". ANYONE who works for the powerful know thay have the ways and means to get even.

Stefani stayed at the B&B in 1997 and that *dress* was in Lizzie's (big) room at the time, in which she stayed.  It turns out it is Elizabeth Montgomery's costume from the Legend T.V. movie.
I recall she said it seemed really small.

There's a photo of it in Emma's room from a year or 2 ago.
The latest photo I've seen has that outfit in the front entryway by the stairs near the door to the Sitting room/parlour.
I think it is 2 pieces, at least it looks that way to me, in photo's only.
A new photo, just of the outfit detail would be cool!

Can, have you read the posts or the sources which give Lizzie a quite less red-haired description?  We looked at her arrest record for one thing and it said her hair was "light".  Other's at the time of the turn of the century called light brown hair, *light*.  Just "light"..that was meant to be brown.
Of course there are differences of opinion.  But red red, we haven't proved red red.
We've tried to find a red-haired Lizzie and haven't quite succeeded.
Maybe you can ask at the B&B especially if Bill Pavao is there or Mr. Rebello?
Thanks!

Oooo, Can, I thought of something that you could photograph if you are able to, inside the closet in the elder Bordens bedroom is supposed to be this small door that opens into behind the chimney.  There is also one down in the kitchen closet to the left of the stove.  I wonder if they still exist?  If so, pics of those two things would be cool.  Thanks in advance. 

***Officer Doherty, whose testimony I do not attach much importance to, but whose testimony I will allude to, said "I thought it a light blue dress with the bosom in the waist," whatever that may mean, and on being shown the dress he was asked, "if that is the dress," and he says "no, I don't think it was."*** (from knowlton in closing)

the guy i refer to is officer doherty.  that's the quote i wanted to understand.  now i think i do.

i know the guys don't understand the dresses. they still don't.  but i think i understand what a loose blouse waist is now.  it means the whole front is loose and bosomy -- as opposed to more "fitted."

the rest of what i said means that i see a "blue" haze of a dress -- with question marks all over it.

an essential component in your theory about what lizzie was or wasn't wearing -- is that alice did not see it murder morning -- rather, she saw it later, in the cupboard -- right?  that may be.  the only question i have is that since alice can't say what lizzie WAS wearing murder morning -- is it therefore a fact that lizzie was not wearing the bedford cord?  it's a matter of interpretting what someone remembers.  if i don't remember what it was at all -- does that stand to reason that i know what it was NOT?  see what i mean?  that's the problem with that in terms of drawing a conclusion.   it is not factual the way that that "bengaline skirt with matching blouse" was NOT what she really wore.  mrs. churchill's memory is consistent and uncomplicated.  alice's memory poses an additional problem.  i can see exactly what you're saying -- but one could also say that since alice doesn't remember murder morning dress at all it might as well have been the bedford cord -- except that alice is certain she had not seen it.  that's it -- but if she did not see, she did not see.

it seems that all memories are "blue."  she had a variety of blue parts or it's really the same dress all along, worn wednesday and thursday. 

Alice says she is certain that she hadn't seen the bedford cord since the spring until it was coming out of the cupboard to be torn & burned.
It's about the only thing she is certain of in the whole case so why take that away from her?
"A. I never remember of ever seeing it, and I am quite sure I did not---that I never had."

And Bridget remembering that dress Wednesday but not Thursday says to me that she didn't note or recognize Lizzie's Thursday dress.
And yes I think what someone does not wear particularly when others are familiar with it is a good non-memory source.

How about my spontaneous little theory that Lizzie had basted together another blue outfit which pattern/material she bought in New Bedford, and that was the unrecognized dress she did wear, so similar to her others?  A disposable dress?  That might be why Bridget couldn't tell what Lizzie wore.

The bengaline's outfit blouse material did not match the skirt according to Dr. Dolan.

Also, Susan's pic is more "Gibson Girl" of which you might be more familiar.  The blouse in the waist phrase, after seeing these examples tends to seem to mean exactly what it says:
That the blouse is more bloused out at the waist.  The eye is drawn, literally, to the waist.

It is also termed a Waist when its a blouse or top.  But the above is a description rather than a term.

I dunno Kat, good theory, keep thinkin, but a "disposable dress"
I dont think Lizzie was that sharp to think of it plus so much work
even in just "basting" together a dress of that era. 

Actually I think it's something she would think of as she did buy the stuff to make a dress-- she testifies to it being up in the attic.
All this sewing testimony might just as well be leading there.  The question was asked why would Lizzie give the explanation she did about why Abby could disappear into the Guest room all morning and her reply was to sew.  Lizzie says she was upstairs sewing herself.  Basting.
Basting to me means temporary but it can also mean what our mom used to call "a slap-dash job".  Just enough to hold up under scrutinity.
If Lizzie could plan a muder she can put together a bogus dress and pull a switcheroo.

I recalled that we had discussed this quite some time ago, it was the winter that the river had frozen over and they all went over, was it not?  Anyhoo, seriously, we had a discussion about that dress pattern in the attic and after much pressure from the police, it was finally turned over to them.  Someone had posted that perhaps the stall was to buy time to replace the dress pattern with a like substitute because Lizzie may have used that dress pattern during the killings.  Do you remember this thread at all, it was interesting and might be appropiate here, I can't find it.

I'm wondering if it would have been possible for Lizzie to have bought that dress pattern and dropped it off at a seamstress to stitch up?  It sounds like it took about 3 days for a few ladies to put together a dress, timewise would it work?  Something blue that resembled so many of her other dresses, that if worn on the murder morning wouldn't raise any eyebrows or garner a second glance, something to replace a bloody, old, faded, soiled Bedford cord? 

i follow you on your response to my particular question about the memory.  obviously you understand what i'm saying.  that's good.  i mean i appreciate it because the dress discussion just lends itself to confusion.

***And yes I think what someone does not wear particularly when others are familiar with it is a good non-memory source.***

thank you for the clear answer.  this is something i've juggled--i'm just not sure.  in the way you have figured that in your own mind, i'm really interested in anything else you might be thinking in connection with that that convinces you further.  (the aforegoing not a good sentence--i hope you know what i mean.)  you're basing this mostly on psychological likelihood? (if that makes sense).  i guess if i were to "ultimately" "get at" something here it would be, for example, why would mrs. churchill clearly see the material and alice would not?  did mrs. churchil say she had seen lizzie wear it before -- or was that mrs. bowen?  one of the women said something like that, i'll have to check to be sure.  but if mrs. churchill had seen before what she saw lizzie in murder morning -- that would actually support your theory -- that one would recognize/remember what one had seen before -- while being less likely to remember something they had not.  (i think it's that i've never observed clothing enough myself to register what i do/don't recognize/remember.)

***How about my spontaneous little theory that Lizzie had basted together another blue outfit which pattern/material she bought in New Bedford, and that was the unrecognized dress she did wear, so similar to her others?  A disposable dress?  That might be why Bridget couldn't tell what Lizzie wore. ***

this is interesting, and i'll have to do more thinking on it.  what i do like about it is that it ties in "the sewing."  and as i recall, it was the sewing issue (i first had it in conjunction with pillow cases), that got me surrounded by dresses again.  well, one thing leads to another; any route that makes sense at all is worth exploring.  by "spontaneous little theory" i take it you mean one you haven't fully explored yourself but are introducing, at least to yourself.  so if the bedford cord in the cupboard might have bloodstains -- then this basted substitute of lizzie's is what she is wearing when she cries murder?  there is another issue straight ahead here that is possibly/probably dress-related and it is this:  the explanation for why lizzie "refuses" to have seen bridget after andrew came home.  that she has changed her dress is the only likely reason i've been able to find -- lizzie would be fearing, of course, that bridget would remember the change.  you think there could be something in the particulars of exactly "how" lizzie "changed" that would be confusing enough to bridget that she could not remember?

anyway, this is worth continuing for as long as the focus of it lasts.

***The bengaline's outfit blouse material did not match the skirt according to Dr. Dolan. ***

he means it was not the same material.  when lizzie calls it "matching" i take it she means that it matches "in color," probably.  like if my tie picks up the color of my jacket and shirt, it matches.  right? 

***Also, Susan's pic is more "Gibson Girl" of which you might be more familiar.  The blouse in the waist phrase, after seeing these examples tends to seem to mean exactly what it says:
That the blouse is more bloused out at the waist.  The eye is drawn, literally, to the waist. ***

exactly.  i mean that's exactly what i thought i saw when i said i SEE.

***It is also termed a Waist when its a blouse or top.  But the above is a description rather than a term. ***

i believe i have this down too.  the waist is the top part, the blouse, the shirt, the bosom -- as opposed to a skirt.  (my initial problem with this wording is that a woman's actual anatomical waist is BETWEEN a blouse and skirt, it is "literally" neither -- so by anatomy it could be "either."  if you think waist and therefore hips, you're thinking skirt, for example.)  but i see the waist is the blouse when the whole thing is in two parts.

P.S.:  what's that other word that harry asked about?  i don't know it either.  i can't look back and find it now.  it's what bridget kept saying.  oh.  basque (sp?)



 

75 & 76 are such good posts I don't need to respond!
And yet you deserve some feedback for all your thinking!
Well, yes the basted dress is spontaneous but may not be original to me.  But I also did not look ahead to which would be the murder dress and why burn a bedford cord unless it was the bloody one.
So maybe you can elaborate.
Maybe she used both?
Alice doesn't particularly notice the skirt Lizzie has on Thursday but she is close to the blouse and tries to undo it to give Lizzie ease.  Alice says it became loose or means *un-tucked* somewhat.
So the basted outfit could resemble the Bedford cord?  And that is what Lizzie mixed and matched Thursday as needed?
She is not seen in the skirt that day which is ruffled and too long.
How would Lizzie work this switch if she killed both people?

BTW:  Did Lizzie call her Bengaline a matching outfit?
Inquest
Lizzie
53
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.

--I word-searched for the word "Match" and Bengaline and these are the two references.
Inquest
91
Q. The India silk?
A. No, it is not an India silk, it is silk and linen; some call it bengaline silk.

--Jeesh Lizzie calls it an India Silk and then chastises Knowlton for calling it an India Silk.  She sometimes sounds like she is trying to dominate him, in a *lady-like* way.
--It might seem she is inferring a matching outfit but not necessarily.

I'm sorry I don't respond to your  Mrs. Churchill references.  I explained that I don't go by minute description.
I think it is Mrs. Dr. Bowen who knows somewhat of what Lizzie *usually wears*, in the mornings.

Haulover, I went on a search for Basques, here is what I found:

Basques came into being in the 1870s, it is a type of bodice that has a little skirt( or tail as it was called) attached at the waist and was meant to be worn over your skirt.  Here is an example of a fashion illustration with a woman in a Basque, the lady on the left.


And here is an example of the real thing, an 1870s Basque bodice:


I think the 2 things about a Basque that carried over into the 1890s was that it was tight and it was boned.  When Bridget refers to Lizzie's blouse being a Basque, I don't think she means that it had the little skirt on it, just that it was a boned and fitted blouse.

You can still buy a Basque, it is now a piece of women's underwear, very much like a bustier, but has some boning.  Heres a modern day Basque:


Hope that helps. 

These statements are so vague as to defy any logical conclusion.
Except this: the jury heard it all, and decided "not guilty".
And so it is settled for all time. Remember, if you control what evidence is introduced (collusion?) then you control the verdict.

***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. ***

okay.  she did not use the word "match."  i just notice she names the color and material of the skirt, but of the blouse -- just the color (the same color).

***I'm sorry I don't respond to your  Mrs. Churchill references.  I explained that I don't go by minute description.
I think it is Mrs. Dr. Bowen who knows somewhat of what Lizzie *usually wears*, in the mornings***

thanks.  i thought it might have been mrs. dr. bowen who said something about being familiar with what lizzie wore,, or that she thought it was one she had seen her wear. 

i can't discount ANY  minute descriptions any witness is willing to give.  it's a guiding principle with me.  it's the same with eli bence's memory of lizzie particulars.

using this principle, here's a good example of a liar -- the susan smith infanticide killer -- her initial descriptions of the car jacker are very general, and as she is questioned, she begins to get more and more specific and detailed -- this is the liar.  the honest person will remember a detail (he had on a red-and-white cap, for example) and from there get more and more vague.

So we have Alice saying the blouse of Lizzie Thursday which she attempted to loosen for Lizzie was loose-fitting.
Trial
Alice
Q.  About loosening anyone's dress.
A.  Anything said, did you say?

Q.  What I want to know is, was anything said or done about loosening anyone's dress?
A.  I started to unloosen her dress, thinking she was faint, and she said,  "I am not faint."

Q.  Was her dress, the upper part of her dress, loose or tight?
A.  Her dress was loose here, (indicating) where I started to unloosen it.  It was loose here so it pulled out.

Q.  Are you able to give us any description of the dress she had

Page 383 / i405

on that morning?
A.  None whatever, other than that.

--Then we have Bridget saying Wednesday's outfit was a skirt and basque which appears to mean tight-fitting..  Why would Lizzie choose the Bedford cord as morning wear tight in the bodice?
I wonder if Bridget's definition of basque was different?  As a language thing or maybe the descriptive word was changing by 1892?

Its entirely possible that Bridget had something else in mind when calling Lizzie's blouse a basque.  Thats all the info I could find on basques and the common denominator was the tight fit and boning so that it contoured the body.  The funny thing is that blouse of Lizzie's that was loose in the front, it would still have had a fitted lining, so, it would still fit her quite snug.  I was looking at a sewing pattern for an 1890s blouse that I have.  It has a pleated front, cartridge pleats I think they are called, that appears loose and free, but, it is sewn over a tight, fitted lining, I imagine its so the blouse holds it shape? 

if bridget is talking about lizzie's dress it must be from wednesday , as opposed to thursday.  i'm just trying to help -- if bridget remembers this basque from wednesday -- then wednesday's dress is very different from thursdays?

(this is just the way i am, my choice to the truth.........i'm looking for a diamond pattern somewhere........we'll just keep going on then.)

a basque?

the problem here is that even the ladies are confused?  no? well tell me how i'm wrong.

Susan, absolutely great post! Super pictures.

So that's a basque.  What is she wearing in this cropped portion of the Newport photo where she is standing behind the chair?



(Message last edited Dec-23rd-03  12:19 AM.)

That's a basque, I believe.
I looked it up in Funk & Wagnalls, 1897 "basque"= "A woman's short-skirted dress-waist, separate from the dress-skirt; possibly so called because originally copied from the basque costume."
It doesn't show a picture but it also doesn't mention bones.
I would suppose it can be boned or unboned.

I don't think Thursday's dress (outfit) has to be very different from Wednesday's not to be noticed by Bridget, just that it is not that outfit.  She knows that Bedford cord.  She may not be familiar with something like it and just notice what the dress is not.
To me this is sensible.

Thanks, Harry.  I would call what Lizzie is wearing a bodice or blouse or waist.  This is tricky, but, I did some research on this.  During the 1890s there was a popular style of blouse for women that looked like 2 pieces, a jacket and blouse, but, it is actually only one piece, a blouse.  Look at the revers or lapel of the jacket on the left, it is backed with the "blouse" material.

Heres a link for a Ladies' Bodice with Bolero front:
http://www.tudorlinks.com/treasury/freepatterns/w1896bolbodice.html
Unfortunately the sewing instructions are current and not the original ones.

Heres an example of a dress that is similar to Lizzie's though not as nice in my opinion:


Heres a description of the blouse:

The bodice is fitted with 9 bones (one bone is missing). It is lined in brown cotton. There are a few old mends in the lining. A side front hook/eye closure is incorporated into the bodice design. The basic bodice is done in navy blue wool. There is a front insert which includes the high neckline and continues through the waistline. This insert is a rich gold color with navy blue strips done in various trims. The bottom edge of the bodice is also accented with 3 blue strips. The sleeves of the bodice are very full on the top and tapered to the wrist. The bodice is slightly rounded in the back and comes to a "V" in the front. The skirt is solid navy blue and fully lined in black cotton and has a hem protector. The skirt has a thin waistband and back hook/eye closure. The skirt has a nice flare with darts at the waistline. The gown is in very good condition, but does have a few small moth holes. It is very wearable and the material is in very sturdy condition. Measurements: bustline=29"-30"; waistline=22"=23"; skirt waistline=22".

From this site: http://www.victorianelegance.com/1800.html


Kat, from what I could find, a majority of Victorian women's bodices that were fitted were boned.  It seems to have been more prevalent from the 1870s to the early 1900s.

I'm merely thinking of the loose top of the morning outfit Lizzie wore.
Thursday was a morning *dress*, or at least worn in the morning and it's bodice was loose fitting.
Did they bone even their morning housewear?
(see your explanation #82)

(Message last edited Dec-23rd-03  6:47 AM.)

Ah, theres even more trouble there, I've read before that wrappers or tea gowns were meant to be worn without a corset, comfortable leisure wear.  But, from Emma's description of all of Lizzie's dresses being so snug it sounds like it may have been a fitted top with the loose front over a lining.  Most examples I find of these types of blouses had some boning in them, even if it is only 2 bones.  The ones I've seen without the boning tended to be women who worked hard in their lives, farmer's wives and such. 

wonderful pictures and research here! The close-up of the Lizzie and
chair pix sure shows how tiny her waist was and how petite she really
was.  Just looking at the "whole picture" you get the impression she
is on the heavy-side because of the big clothing and her full face.
  I remember reading one author who said that his biggest surprise
was at how "small" she was.   

Thanks, NJ, I tried my best, Victorian clothing is quite a confusing mess.  Yes, Lizzie's waist is cinched in pretty small, sometimes I forget that she was only like 5'4", I would tower over her.  I think I would have been considered a giantess in those days. 

" The issue of June 1996 has an article by Don Weafer called 'The Long Silence of Lizzie Borden.' With this article is a very good photograph of Maplecroft showing the front steps and open air, wrap-around front porch."- Doug.

It turns out we have this issue.  Stef acquired it.
For the rest of you, it was basically a re-telling of the story of the crime, and that Lizzie stayed, inexplicably, in Fall River, had another bout with the law over the Tilden-Thurber charges, her association with Nance O'Neil, and Emma leaving her forever.
Weafer goes on to give tid-bits from Lizzie's will, which he thinks shows Lizzie's  real thoughts, after never mentioning publicly, her past and the Borden murders.
He ends the piece with an interesting insight, pg. 123:

"There is almost nothing in it [will] to suggest the circumstances of one of the strangest lives in American history, a life sundered by what happened on a hot day in August 1892.  Nothing but this:  She signed the document twice -- once as Lizbeth A. Borden, and once as Lizzie A. Borden -- as if they were two different people."

-"The Long Silence of Lizzie Borden", Yankee, June 1996, Dublin, New Hampshire, pgs. 54-57 and 123.

The first is the name she was then known as. The second is the name she was given at birth. If you know anybody who goes by a simplified, anglicized name, see if they do the same for their will.

We see the current pictures of Maplecroft and the lot extends to the right empty and grassy except for a garage set way back and further away, a green house which we've been told housed Lizzie's servants.

There is a photo, which is a bad depiction, sorry, but it was listed as "Maplecroft 1910" and it has a big house next to it, which sounds like "The Kenney House", which Lizzie bought and had removed.  In Rebello, pg. 558-9, the transaction and removal is depicted.  But- "City Directories listed the house from 1886 to 1899.  There's no listing for 1900.  A sketch...New Bedford Evening Journal ...1893...shows a house next to Maplecroft."  In 1913, the Gertrude Stevenson article indicates:  "...that there was a house on the lot but Miss Borden had it removed and the land converted into very attractive gardens."

In Rebello, pg. 283, there is a sketch at top which shows a house very close to the right of Maplecroft.

I'd like to know the approximate date of the car out front as that may give a hint as to the date that house was still next door, and whether or not that even is The Kenney House and whether we know when that house was removed.  Also if a better picture can be posted?



(Message last edited Jan-11th-04  10:22 PM.)

All this stuff about Victorian dresses is WAAAAAAAAY over my head.
 

I'm not much on those old cars. But if you find the year the house was demolished, then you'll know the approximate year of the car.
Given a rich neighborhood, assume a fairly new car.

Isn't 5'4" the average size of a woman nowadays? That would make her taller than average then, historically accurate for the well-fed rich.

I don't know the year the house was Moved, that's why I'm asking.
I did assume the car was new (ish)

I tried to research the car with as little as we can see of it.  One thing that might help is those tires, they're white!  The only antique cars I could find from the 1900s that had white tires on them were between 1902 and 1909, all the rest had black tires.  That body type on the car seems to have been available from 1910 to around 1925, the body types seem to start being altered around then.  Hope that helps? 

I posted the photo and a request for help in identification to a newsgroup, alt.autos.antique.  Sometimes you get a few answers that don't necessarily agree so we may be back to square one but at least we'll have a choice.

From looking at some web sites it looks later than 1910. But the quality of the photo makes it hard to see much. I have the same photo in my files with the same level of quality. 

White tires put it after 1912 (?), I believe. White is plain rubber. Some coal trucker decided to ask for carbon to be added to the tires so they wouldn't get dirty. They found that this strengthened the tires and made them last longer. Since then all tires are black with carbon dust (charcoal). Or so I once read.

Thanks, Ray, you pointed me in the right direction.  Found this:

In 1910, B.F. Goodrich Company invented longer life tires by adding carbon to the rubber.

From this site: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bltires.htm

Meet You in the Privy?

  I beg your pardon! That's a funny invite Kat. 

Great photos!  I'll repost them to that newsgroup so they have a better view.

Thanks!

William warned me before this Forum was created! 

You're welcome. I remembered reading a book on the early history of automobiles about 10? years ago. Remember those stories about a buggy whip holder in the early years? THIS was to drive away any dogs that came barking and howling alongside your "tin lizzie".

Ever ride a bicycle in a strange neighborhood with loose dogs?

Well, I don't really know much about those antique cars, just what I read and what my one grandmother told me about them.  She had horrified me as a girl with a story about a man in her neighborhood that had broken his arm cranking the car to get it started, the crank kickedback and smacked the guy in the arm, breaking it.  I wish she was still around, I'm sure she could've helped us with some of these questions with firsthand knowledge. 

Aren't we lucky that all we have to do is put in a key and turn it?   According to something I read or heard injuries such as the one Susan described were commonplace in the days prior to electric starters.

Yes, that is one reason why Charles Kettering invented the electric starter. "Impossible" the academic engineers said. This will happen if you don't retard the ignition (used to be lever on the steering wheel).