The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Lizzie Andrew Borden

 

Forum URL:

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/LBForum/index.php
Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: Lizzie's physical appearance

1. "Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by Tracie on Mar-28th-02 at 12:51 PM

I have read numerous books and articles about the case, but I haven't come across any information about Lizzie's appearance after the murders were discovered.  i.e., was she sweating profusely, did she appear disheveled, etc.?  If she did indeed kill her folks, wouldn't she be tired or sore from all that physical labor?  I mean, swinging an ax would certainly make one exhausted and sweaty and her clothing would be wrinkled or stained especially since the temperature outside was in the 90's.  Also, I tend to think our Miss Lizzie DIDN'T performed much in the way of physical labor at any time during her life, hence the comments about what household chores she did or did not do proves that she was pretty much out of shape.

Any ideas?

Tracie


2. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by David on Mar-28th-02 at 8:45 PM
In response to Message #1.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:35 PM.)


3. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by Kat on Mar-29th-02 at 2:03 AM
In response to Message #1.

Tracie:
I figure, for WHATEVER reason, Lizzie was MEANT to be found in pristine condition when she called outsiders for help.
She not only DIDN'T look as if she's just chopped her papa up, she testified that she didn't even enter the room when she found her father..therefore "absence of blood."
She also had no discernible marks on her hair, hands or clothing of having been 20 minutes climbing around in the barn .  No dirty hands (her hands were *white* according to Alice), no stray hay clinging to her clothes, etc.
I sure wish I knew WHY !
Bridget, to me, (and Muriel Arnold, in "The Hands of TIme"), seems more likely to be dirty, sweaty, hair damp...from WHAT?
Washing windows?
The wrong person is dirty and the wrong person changed her dress .
It's hard to figure...


4. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by David on Mar-29th-02 at 5:32 AM
In response to Message #3.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:36 PM.)


5. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by Kat on Mar-29th-02 at 8:29 AM
In response to Message #4.

Well, I admire your post, and your adherence to your view.
In my experience, I can't even rummage around in my garage for a nut or nail without getting my hands filthy, besides which I do not have half a TON of hay stored there .  I think, at the least her skirts would have dragged through all that dust and dirt leaving her hem noticably darkened.
There is some question as to the exact time that Lubinsky saw *a woman not Bridget* leave the area near the barn, and I don't know which "other witnesses" you refer to?
It is perfectly acceptable to me that you should respond, and I welcome the debate..

(Message last edited Mar-29th-02  8:31 AM.)


6. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by Tracie on Mar-29th-02 at 9:40 AM
In response to Message #2.

Okay, okay, I get the point about the clean Lizzie.  But, the rage that took place within the murderer had to heat that person up beyond the heat of the day.  I don't know where you are from David, but I have been living in Southeastern Mass all my life and in August it almost always humid and hot.  There was no relief from the heat--no AC or CA.  So cooling off would definitely take time.

Also, it would take considerable effort on the part of the person with the axe to inflict the damage done, regardless of the weight of said axe, we're are not talking about glancing blows, the ax actually broke thru the skull to the brain.  In surgery doctors use a saw to cut the skull to get to the brain, the skull is a tough nut to crack. LOL!!

And yes, I agree that the barn definitely had too many people going in and out after supposedly Lizzie being there.  Notice how many times Lizzie was asked about the heat in the barn, no one mentioned the heat of the house, which would have been hot also.

When I was younger, I always imagined that the heat played a big part in the murders but now I feel that it just was a coincidence.

David, I do not believe Lizzie killed her parents, I believe she knew about the plan and did nothing to prevent it, so I suppose she did kill them by not stopping it from happening.

Kat, I love reading your postings!!!

take care,

Tracie


7. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Mar-29th-02 at 10:38 AM
In response to Message #6.

Some reactions:

David - doesn't your sentence about "having Lizzie's word (whether you believe it or not)" cancel itself out?  If we don't believe her, it doesn't really matter if she swore on a stack of Bibles, does it?

Regarding the heat that day, recent investigations seems to indicate that the temperature was only in the 80's, but that it was humid.  Lat year, when I was going through the house with Len Rebello on August 6th, it was a sunny day, only in the 80's, yet oppressively humid.  AS we trudged over to see Mrs. Whitehead's house, we discussed how the weather was, perhaps, similar to that on the day on  question.

If Bridget was as terrified (for whatever reason) as testimony seems to indicate, the anxiety, etc., may have contributed to her disheveled appearance.  Also, she had been out in the sticky air, lugging supplies and going up and down the step-ladder to do the windows.  If the weather was similar to last August, I'm sure she was sweating like a horse!  And, of course, there was no air-conditioning once she got in the house.

(Message last edited Mar-29th-02  12:33 PM.)


8. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by joe on Mar-29th-02 at 11:07 AM
In response to Message #5.

I'll assume somebody else killed Abby & Andrew AND Lizzie made arrangements to have it done, and would not get dirty, hay-ey or get lead stains on her hands....

I've been looking at the timelines of Lizzie and Maggie to find if Lizzie could have opportunity to go to the barn or otherwise signal someone that the coast was clear for both murders.  I can see how it might have happened before Andrew was killed, but how it might have been done before Abby was killed would have been hard, but possible.  Maggie would have to be someplace where she couldn't see Lizzie going to the barn.  The timing had to be right. Maybe Lizzie could have signalled from the kitchen window or the pantry window (anyhow, it looks like there are windows in the floor diagram) that it was clear to enter the house and zap Abby.  Lizzie probably could have done this in the space of a few minutes. Where was Bridget?  Going back & forth to the barn for water.  But:
Q.  Have you any idea how long that was after Mrs. Borden told you to wash the windows?
A.  Half and hour I should judge.(pg 13)

Outside, she washed windows in the parlor, then the sitting room and dining room in that order. All toward the front of the house.  Hard to see anybody  

According to Moody timeline from the Prelim: Not far from 9:30 a.m. "Mrs. Borden "apparently" told Lizzie about making up bed in spare room and would go back up to put two pillowcases on..."and she was killed within a very few moments after she left the room (D.R.), because no living person saw Mrs. Borden from that time until her death, except the assailant." (pg.65).
Could Lizzie have signalled or gone to the barn just before this and let someone enter the house, then secreted him away in that 2nd floor clothes press or her own room where Abby never entered?  Killer kills Abby,  Lizzie takes him back to the barn or he goes by himself.

As for Andrew's death, Lizzie could have gone to the barn, talked with the killer, told him to do in Dad, too, all the while not getting dirty and then lying at the inquest about the sinkers.

Again, according to Bridget's timeline from the Prelim:
10:55 a.m. "4 or 5 minutes to 11" a.m., Bridget went upstairs- knew by the length of time she was upstairs when "it struck 11 o'clock." (pg.25).
11:10 a.m. Lizzie "halloed" to Bridget..."so loud...Come down quick", that her father was dead. (pg.27).
"I might be upstairs ten or fifteen minutes, as near as I can think, after I went up stairs." (pg.27).

But, who then, if not Lizzie?
Just rambling and thinking,
joe


9. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by David on Mar-29th-02 at 12:03 PM
In response to Message #7.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:37 PM.)


10. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by David on Mar-29th-02 at 12:14 PM
In response to Message #8.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:38 PM.)


11. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by David on Mar-29th-02 at 12:30 PM
In response to Message #5.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:38 PM.)


12. "Well, I disagree."
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Mar-29th-02 at 12:52 PM
In response to Message #10.

I don't know what bearing or authority The Bible should have on the matter, but the law (and I was just able to verify this with one of the criminal attorneys with whom I work) dictates that the suspect herself cannot be labled a "witness" to her own alibi or actions.  Therefore, you're down to one witness - Hyman Lubinsky.

And who's to say that Lizzie did not have some business in the yard or barn (the hiding or disposal of a weapon, etc.) after murdering Andrew, in which case this alilbi is no alibi at all? 


13. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by joe on Mar-29th-02 at 1:52 PM
In response to Message #10.

David, that's all we really have to go on is conjecture.  In August, I'll be in FR and maybe I'll discover something of value.  That is if there is anything left of value to discover.
Joe


14. "And, the dress..."
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Mar-29th-02 at 2:16 PM
In response to Message #13.

David,

The dress was said to be in that condition by Emma, who also testified that she suggested that Lizzie burn it (which may or may not be true).  Once again, we can't simply take her testimony at face value.  You might say, "I believe Emma when she says that the dress was worn and badly faded, even if the dress was supposedly only made that spring," but to state it as a certainty, as you did above, is misleading.

Bob


15. "Re: And, the dress..."
Posted by joe on Mar-29th-02 at 3:24 PM
In response to Message #14.

Did I miss something?  Was the dress that Lizzie had on the morning of the murders the paint-stained, dirty old thing that she burned?


16. "Re: And, the dress..."
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Mar-29th-02 at 3:50 PM
In response to Message #15.

We really don't know WHICH dress Lizzie had on that morning; it's one of the many mysteries of the case.  Did Lizzie, at any time that morning,  have on the bengaline cotton dress she later gave the police?  Did she change into it from a housedress (perhaps the cheap paint-stained cotton dress, faded or not, that she later burned) before her father returned home?  There is a lack of agreement among the witnesses, and the many books on the case, each with some sort of agenda (or why write a book?) do not clarify matters.  All we know is that Lizzie did change into a pink housedress, called a wrapper, after the discovery of the murders and as the parade of gawkers, policemen, and doctors into the house was beginning.

(Message last edited Mar-29th-02  3:50 PM.)


17. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by Kat on Mar-30th-02 at 12:20 AM
In response to Message #11.

David.
What time was Andrew killed?


18. "Re: Well, I disagree."
Posted by David on Mar-30th-02 at 2:25 AM
In response to Message #12.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:40 PM.)


19. "Re: And, the dress..."
Posted by David on Mar-30th-02 at 2:54 AM
In response to Message #14.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:42 PM.)


20. "Re: Lizzie's physical appearance"
Posted by David on Mar-30th-02 at 3:03 AM
In response to Message #17.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:43 PM.)


21. "."
Posted by David on Mar-30th-02 at 8:34 AM
In response to Message #16.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:44 PM.)


22. "Well, well"
Posted by Kat on Mar-30th-02 at 8:50 AM
In response to Message #20.

This is an EDIT:  I was composing this post while your NEWEST one was already posted, unbeknwnst to me.  I am answering the post of yours BeFORE THIS last one...

First off, I think it is interesting hearing your Christian views because I think this gives us some unique insight into the minds of those humble farmer/jurors 100 years ago.  They also probably read their Bibles and could quote some Scripture, and may have ordered their thoughts as you have...therefore reaching the verdict they did.

Secondly, I asked about the time you believed Andrew killed,because minutes are of the essence in this murder.  I have studied Hyman Lubinsky's Trial testimony and Charles Gardner's..the guy who ran the stables where Mr. Lubinsky picked up his horse team that day.
Lubinsky was not good with the English language, and a teenager--not that this may matter..but it is worth keeping in mind.
He gathered his team "late" that morning.  Wednesday he got them at 10:30 a.m. (Trial, 1421).
On Thursday he admits to getting going from the stables "a few minutes after 11..I could not tell you whether 5 or 10 minutes (past 11).." (T, 1413) The wagon (or whatever) was" EMPTY" (he was going to go fill up with his product), the team trotting past the Borden house "easy", DOWN the hill...(1414)
Charles Gardner says Mr. Lubinsky took his team out (Aug.4th) between 5 and 10 minutes past 11. (1427)
"I think he LEFT THE STABLE about 10 minutes past 11."
He, himself left the stables at 20 to 25 minutes past 11 and noticed nothing around the (Borden) house. (1428)

--Lubinsky saw a woman not Bridget , in a dark-colored dress, without a hat .
--I think Lizzie at least had a hat, even if we'll never be sure about the dress...
--The TIMING is 11:10, probably, that Lubinsky see's a woman.  That's cutting it fine.  Also she could have been in a different yard, and a different woman, and even a different day.  He didn't tell his story immediately, and he became a defense witness, under the auspices of Mr. Phillips, Jennings assistant.  He DID not appear at the Inquest or the Preliminary--so who knows what he truly rembers AFTER the defense team has put him on their roster?

(Message last edited Mar-30th-02  8:55 AM.)


23. "Re: Well, well"
Posted by Carol on Mar-30th-02 at 1:45 PM
In response to Message #22.

Hi David:  I thought your explanations of the "Lizzie" murder morning dress interesting because of the amount of time that you spent in thinking this matter over and the points you considered in coming to your conclusion. 

I haven't heard of anyone before presenting the option that she gave the police the navy dress because she might have had had a lapse of memory or blanked out and gotten the days and her attire mixed up. 

Although I am familiar with materials having worked in cotton fabric art I am not familiar with exactly what navy bengaline is but know that it is quite different than calico and I would have assumed that it was a solid color not with any white parts included in its weave.  Perhaps someone can shed some more light on that. The kind of material involved in the dress is important as everyone here seems to realize that ladies did their housework in calico and went out in a more dressy fabric.  So why did Lizzie have on a dressy dress on Friday and Saturday...because of the people coming in and out, etc., that would make sense.  Perhaps we will find in a forgotten diary a comment on what Lizzie wore on Friday and Saturday, the police certainly wouldn't have thought it important to ask.  I have been told government intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

Anyway, it intrigues me how you can write such long paragraphs and not get cut off the web!  I just get started and I get a message saying I have been disconnected, it's not just a warning, and my messge is GONE and I have to begin again. If you have some secret, do tell.


24. "Re: Well, well"
Posted by Carol on Mar-30th-02 at 1:45 PM
In response to Message #22.

Hi David:  I thought your explanations of the "Lizzie" murder morning dress interesting because of the amount of time that you spent in thinking this matter over and the points you considered in coming to your conclusion. 

I haven't heard of anyone before presenting the option that she gave the police the navy dress because she might have had had a lapse of memory or blanked out and gotten the days and her attire mixed up. 

Although I am familiar with materials having worked in cotton fabric art I am not familiar with exactly what navy bengaline is but know that it is quite different than calico and I would have assumed that it was a solid color not with any white parts included in its weave.  Perhaps someone can shed some more light on that. The kind of material involved in the dress is important as everyone here seems to realize that ladies did their housework in calico and went out in a more dressy fabric.  So why did Lizzie have on a dressy dress on Friday and Saturday...because of the people coming in and out, etc., that would make sense.  Perhaps we will find in a forgotten diary a comment on what Lizzie wore on Friday and Saturday, the police certainly wouldn't have thought it important to ask.  I have been told government intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

Anyway, it intrigues me how you can write such long paragraphs and not get cut off the web!  I just get started and I get a message saying I have been disconnected, it's not just a warning, and my messge is GONE and I have to begin again. If you have some secret, do tell.


25. "Re: Well, well"
Posted by David on Mar-30th-02 at 3:32 PM
In response to Message #23.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:45 PM.)


26. "Re: Well, well"
Posted by David on Mar-31st-02 at 3:19 AM
In response to Message #22.



(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:46 PM.)


27. "Carol Can't Post"
Posted by Kat on Mar-31st-02 at 5:15 AM
In response to Message #24.

Carol,
I used to "get kicked off" a lot and Stef told me just to get a new phone number from my internet service.
I got a new dial-up number and a back-up..it turned out the first # I was given was proven to be faulty.
This may seem simplistic, but I'm sure if you contact Stef, (click down at the bottom of this page="CONTACT", she'd be glad to help answer your question as well.
Alternatives are always nice, especially when it sounds like a lot of WORK just to post!!!!!
Contact Stef....kk

(Message last edited Mar-31st-02  5:18 AM.)


28. "Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Apr-1st-02 at 2:22 PM
In response to Message #27.

V. Lincoln, of course, believes, that Lizzie killed Abby, ruined the blue cotton housedress, and dressed in the bengaline, hoping it resembled the morning dress enough to make it look like she hadn't changed her dress at all.  These days, I tend more to believe that Lizzie did ruin the paint-stained dress (which she nevertheless wore around the house mornings, according to testimony) during Abby's murder, and later offered the blue bengaline, which she may or may not have had on that day at all, as the dress she was wearing.  Unlike David, you know that I think Lizzie was guilty, and that she saw that weekend morning, in between searches, as the only time to get rid of a blood-spattered (or even spotted) dress.  Remember, we only have Emma's word that the dress (made only that spring) was dirty and faded - and this was in a household where, more than likely, old fabric would be used for rags and dusting cloths.  No, I think there was a sinister reason Lizzie burned that dress, and that loyal Emma was prepped for the trial to try to make this kind of disposal look like an everyday occurrence.  On this point, I think Lincoln may have gotten it right. 


29. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Apr-2nd-02 at 1:28 AM
In response to Message #28.

What we must remember is that these "dresses" of Lizzie's comprised TWO PARTS:  A "Blouse Waist", and a "SKIRT".
What Alice saw Lizzie handling at the stove before Alice quitted the room, was a SKIRT.  The "blouse" was supposedly still in the cupboard.

The items turned over to the court comprised TWO parts of a dress, also.  A "Blouse Waist" and a "skirt", only these were supposedly called a "Bengaline silk dress".  There is ONE LINE in the testimony, I think it was Dolan, where he says, "the material does not match..."  Meaning the two pieces he was given to examine were NOT of the same material.  It's just one little throw-away line, that I found about a week ago...I've been talking about it to Stef, but don't know quite what it means.

If Lizzie had 8 blue dresses, maybe some were interchangeable, skirts with blouses...  So maybe she burned the skirt only, and saved the blouse as it wasn't bloody...then gave IT with a different skirt to the authorities and let them figure it out.  Witnesses (or a witness) to what Lizzie wore that Thursday morning, remembered the top, but not the skirt...

The experts (?) said that in Abby's death the BOTTOM of the person would be more apt to get blood on.  So the BOTTOM was destroyed.  The top didn't get bloody during the killing of Andrew because of a shield (?). 

What we've been dealing with all along are the possibility of FOUR pieces of clothing (skirt and blouse, skirt and blouse) rather than TWO DRESSES.  I think that's been a stumbling block in this question all along.
Page 170,Prelim., Dr. Dolan:

Q: Did you have anything else given to you?
A: Yes sir
Q: This blouse waist?
A" Yes sir
Q: Worn with the same dress skirt, as I understand?
A: Yes, not the same material.

BOOM...skipped right over THAT one!  And on to the next question....

There could be, in this case:
A 2-piece outfit, worn during the murder
One piece  (the skirt) is destroyed
Then a substitute skirt is submitted with the REAL blouse, and only 3 pieces of clothing are involved, and only a 1/2 lie...

Open for ideas...

(Message last edited Apr-2nd-02  1:32 AM.)


30. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Apr-2nd-02 at 12:06 PM
In response to Message #29.

Well, I just sat up reading that post.  Can we go back to define "bengaline," however?  Do we believe Lincoln that it was basically a cotton/linen dress into which some silk had been woven to improve the sheen, and not a pure silk dress, which gives a confusing picture.  It still seems like a nice dress that one would put on to go shopping, as opposed to a plain (if nicely cut) cotton dress. suitable to shlepping around the hot ol' house in of a summer's day.  However, if I follow correctly, the new theory would be that Lizzie might have been wearing some combination of something she destroyed and something she later handed in with a different skirt?  Please let me know if I've missed something.

(Also, I have to say I wish the police department and court had been able to appreciate what they had in Harrington, and had let him be in charge of all questions concerning any of Lizzie's clothing!) 


31. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by diana on Apr-2nd-02 at 4:58 PM
In response to Message #30.

I wonder if Lincoln got her information re: the bengaline from Radin's book on Lizzie.  He writes: "In the 1890's, bengaline silk was the name applied by mills to a cotton or wool fabric into which some silk threads had been woven, because, they claimed it improved the sheen of the cloth."  [and then he adds] "A somewhat better than average cotton was just what a person in Lizzie Borden's social position would wear for daytime use." (p. 172-3 Simon & Schuster edition).

I'm really interested to know what everyone thinks Lizzie wore BETWEEN the murders -- when she was flipping through magazines, setting up the ironing board, chatting with her father and Bridget, etc.  As Robinson says in his closing argument at the trial: could Lizzie have done all this "besmeared and bedaubed as she would have been with the blood of her first victim?"  He goes on to answer arguments that she changed her dress and put the first one on again, or put on another dress, with: "Did she (put) it back again?  Then she had to put that on over her clothes again and over her person exposing herself to have her underclothing soiled in that way ... And .. if she put on another dress, then there were two dresses to burn and dispose of, instead of one, and the government only wants one -- they have all the rest." 

[No wonder she was up for the sale at Sargent's -- her closet might have been getting a little bare, at this point.]


32. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Apr-2nd-02 at 10:59 PM
In response to Message #30.

Maybe Lizzie's Bengaline skirt was the closet match in looks, to the skirt she destroyed (or would, over the weekend).

If we knew the tone of voice, or which words were emphasized in spoken testimony, we'd have a better idea of the true INTENT of the speaker.

Working under my premise, here is a new interpretation of why no two people really could agree on what Lizzie wore that Thursday:

Prelim. pg 479-80, Prelim,. Mrs. Dr. Bowen:

Q: What dress did she have on?
A: A blouse waist of blue material, (blah, blah...)
.....
Q: What was the body of the dress?
A: I DID NOT NOTICE PARTICULARLY
Q: The ground of the BLOUSE....?
.....
Q: Do you know what SKIRT she had on?
A: I do not.  It was nothing more than an ordinary morning dress;  I think I had seen her wear it before.  I only noticed the dress skirt.*

-*-Here, she might, with the proper emphasis be saying:
"I only barely noticed it"
"I wasn't examining it or anything"
"It only vaugley came to my attention..."

Prelim, pg.279, Churchill:

Q: Do you remember how Lizzie was dressed when she was standing there?  (When Churchill first arrived)
A: I THINK she had a cotton dress on, calico.
A:...I think the color was blue...etc....
....
A: I do not remember
Q: Do you remember whether it was ALL ONE KIND OF CLOTH, THE UPPER AND THE LOWER PART ?
A: I THOUGHT it was
Q: What sort of a WAIST was it?
A: I DO NOT KNOW
Q: WHETHER it was TIGHT FITTING or LOOSE FITTING?
A: I do not know

--I'm still not sure of the ramifications of interchangeable (to an extent) blouses with skirts.


33. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by diana on Apr-3rd-02 at 2:20 PM
In response to Message #32.

I've always thought the confusion about the dress was perfectly natural.  We know that most of Lizzie's dresses were blue.  And it seems like each day was much like any other day in that house. So no wonder Mrs. Bowen, and Churchill couldn't be completely certain of what she wore.  Especially if these waists and skirts were mixed and matched -- as I'm sure they were.

And the very sameness and routine of their homely life make it perfectly reasonable that Bridget, for example, would say in her trial testimony: "No sir, I couldn't say what dress the girl had on".

And Alice Russell could give no description of what Lizzie wore that morning.  HOWEVER, in her trial testimony, she describes the dress that was burned as "a cheap cotton Bedford cord" that she had seen when on the dressmaker's visit when it was being made and then goes on to say: "That is the only time I saw it until this time." [referring to the burning of the dress].  So SHE is quite specific in her trial testimony that she did NOT see Lizzie in the Bedford cord on the morning of the murders.

I'm still intrigued by the question of what Lizzie wore BETWEEN the murders. 


34. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Apr-3rd-02 at 10:32 PM
In response to Message #33.

A different skirt?


35. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Carol on Apr-4th-02 at 5:33 PM
In response to Message #34.

Thanks Kat and David for the advice on how to not get unceremoniously disconnected from the internet. I'll work on it.  No, I would not consider myself computer literate and have considered writing out my piece elsewhere to transfer but that is almost like giving in to the problem. 

I love the dress mystery.  Wonderful original thoughts on the "dress" being a skirt and blouse, Kat.

My dictionary says bengaline is "a lustrous fabric with heavy crosswise cords, woven of silk, cotton, worsted, etc. (l880-l885)"  With that in mind I am thinking that unless this was a VERY used Lizzie dress, that Mr. Bowen's description of it being drab, doesn't seem to fit. I have in the past assumed that the bengaline dress was not what was generally thought of as a morning or house dress material. 

On the matter of the bedford cord that got paint on it I think that possibly it was not even involved in the situation at all, except that it was burned.  Perhaps Lizzie wore it until it got paint on it, then put it away in the closet and forgot about it (which is why Alice Russell didn't ever remember seeing it again until the stove incident), and then when the police started going through all the dresses Emma's attention was brought to bear on it and both women decided it was time to just get rid of it.  So it only resembled what Lizzie really wore that morning by way of it being a blue dress with white and a dark spot or diagram on it.



36. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Apr-4th-02 at 10:40 PM
In response to Message #35.

I'm GLAD you love the dress mystery, cause I'm beginning to think I'll NEVER figure it out!  That's why I Need You Guys!

I wondered if Lizzie wore the Bengaline SKIRT, between murders., if she did murder...then gave it to the court, saying, "This is what I wore that day"..which she DID.... (?)

See, that Prince Albert Coat is stuck there in a most INNAPPROPRIATE place...so that has to figure into the mystery.  It solves how a person could keep their *top* clean, during butchery.  But it is spontaineous?  Or planned to use the coat as shield?


37. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Carol on Apr-5th-02 at 11:54 AM
In response to Message #36.

Hi.  I can't figure why Lizzie would change into the Bengaline skirt between murders.  She might, if she killed Abby and got blood on her other skirt, have wanted to change it then, because she would be seeing Bridget and her father during that interin, but why would she then change out of the Bengaline to kill her father?

If the Bengaline "skirt"was a dressy go-to-meeting type outfit then it follows, for me, that she would have worn it with that same bengaline top (blousewaist)because I think she was fashion conscious and wouldn't have thought a calico top would be appropriate for a bengaline skirt.  I also have in my mind that the bengaline outfit was solid navy not mixed with white and a diagram.  Most of the witnesses describe a non-solid material as what Lizzie was wearing in the morning.  Perhaps one of the newspaper reporters noticed this and wrote about it somewhere.  It also fits with my thinking that she wouldn't have worn the bengaline as a housedress, either as a skirt with another material type top or with it's own matching top in the morning. Somehow I don't think that Lizzie would have made a dressy out-to-meeting dress into a housedress when it has become too worn to wear outside because I thought that the custom of the day was to separate those two types of apparel by material quality.  My thoughts are not complete on this, of course.

I have pondered about Mr. B's coat too.  In the photo it is folded up, at least "a" coat looks like it is folded up neatly by the side of his head there on the couch.  I have tried to find out if anyone, before they buried those clothes, checked to see and wrote down whether that coat had any blood on it but can't find a reference.  I also wonder what Mr. B's habits were, did he normally fold up his coat, perhaps to use as a pillow while he took his naps at an angle on the couch?  Why would the murderer, whoever it was, leave a blood stained coat folded up neatly right by the body.  They most likely would have gotten blood on themselves in the process of taking the coat off and folding it up.  I would suspect that Mr. B., since he wore that coat so often and he had come in and was not going out again, would have hung the coat up somewhere. So the coat is important, very important. 


38. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
Posted by Kat on Apr-6th-02 at 12:06 AM
In response to Message #37.

I have the impression from my reading, that Andrew placed that *outdoor* coat on the back of a dining room chair, like on a hanger, or a "valet".  It would keep it's shape, in the shoulders.  I think Bridget said that. Anyway, I was picturing that LOOONG coat on the back of a dining room chair, and it seems to me it would drag on the floor.  So now I don't know what to picture in my mind...only that the COAT was *out of place* folded up on the couch and that big bloody handkerchief found by Abby's body was also *out of place*.  Both seem inportant.

PS:  If Lizzie continued to wear the Bengaline skirt for the Andrew murder (where the coronor said the *upper part of a person might be splashed*), but had on a shield, she wouldn't need to change the skirt again.

So we have: one blouse & skirt -1st murder.  Skirt gets bloody.  Change skirt to Bengaline which "matches" blouse somewhat.
Bengaline worn rest of the morning through killing of Andrew and after, due to *shielding* of some kind.  Old blooded skirt gets burned.  Bengaline and the blouse ("not the same material") are turned over to court....this is not written in stone....


(Message last edited Apr-6th-02  12:10 AM.)


39. "Re: Dressy Andrew"
Posted by Kat on Apr-6th-02 at 12:15 AM
In response to Message #38.


40. "Re: Dressy Andrew"
Posted by Carol on Apr-6th-02 at 12:41 PM
In response to Message #39.

Nice, nice threads!! As other people have mentioned before if it was used by the murderer as a "shield" it would have had to been put on with the back of the coat over the front of the murderer because of the narrowness of the front, I would think.  I wonder if any of the evidence from the trial says that the folded up garment on the couch WAS indeed definitely Andrew's Prince Albert coat...worn though it must have been at that stage of his life. 

If it was used as a shield by the murderer then if it would have shown blood spots all over the back of the coat I would think which would have been visible and the police should have been aware to think of looking for those. 

If it was not used as a shield and was just folded up and placed on the couch in that position before the murder took place then the blood spots would have only been on a rather square type patch (only in the area that was face up (whatever part of the coat which was face up when folded.)  I don't believe, from what I have read, that the blood spotting would have seeped through such a coat in a random pattern that such a hatchet job would produce. 

So much evidence we could have gotten from that coat seems to be missing.


41. "Re: Dressy Andrew"
Posted by Carol on Apr-6th-02 at 12:48 PM
In response to Message #40.

Another thought.  If the murderer put on Andrew's Prince Albert coat to do him in then the coat must have been in another room, as Kat said, out of his sight, because wouldn't Andrew have been alerted something was afoot if the murder stood there in the same room putting on his coat? 

In any case, I doubt this coat shield theory also because if the murderer put on the coat at any time before he applied the hatchet to Andrews head, Andrew would have been alerted something very odd was going on, unless of course he really was sleeping at the time and didn't see the person and it was all a complete surprise. 

However, I think that Andrew was sitting up at the time of the first hatchet blow and knew his assailant...his shoes were on, for one thing and there didn't appear to be any defensive marks on his body.


42. "Re: Dressy Andrew"
Posted by Carol on Apr-6th-02 at 1:09 PM
In response to Message #41.

Another thought about the dress burning incident.  There has been much alignment of Lizzie for burning a dresss that was hanging up for two days or so in a closet which the police saw and cleared of suspicion or else they would have taken it (in any case the police said they did a thorough search of the whole house by Sunday morning, every cranny)and which her friend, Alice Russell, almost encouraged her to burn by NOT saying "Don't do that", instead she just said something to the effect "Don't get caught doing that" and later turned her in for doing that. 

That incident doesn't seem to compare to the magnitude a hundred years later, when the police should have been so much more observant, trained and alert, that not much of a malignment of Mr. Ramsey took place when he all of a sudden, after a search had been already made of his house, "found" his daughter's body and REMOVED IT from the crime scene. That seems much more like tampering with the evidence than Lizzie's burning of a paint-stained dress and yet the grand jury sent her to trial.


43. "Re: Dressy Andrew"
Posted by rays on Apr-7th-02 at 2:51 PM
In response to Message #41.

Why would Andy sit still while his murderer pulled out the hatchet from his homespun sack? My guess is that the murderer promised him a big surprise if he shut his eyes for a moment. This is the simplest answer to this question.
Abby obviously expected no attack either. Sometimes, contempt for a mental case can rebound (as in that So.Dakota case from 1958? memorialized in that TV movie "Badlands").


LizzieAndrewBorden.com © 2001-2008 Stefani Koorey. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice.
PearTree Press, P.O. Box 9585, Fall River, MA 02720

Page updated 13 October, 2003