The Lizzie Borden Society archive

Forum URL:

1. "Where did Lizzie hide her paint-stained dress?"
Posted by Stefani on Jan-27th-02 at 6:02 PM

One thing that has always bothered me is that there were numerous searches of the house, including the clothes press upstairs and no one seems to have seen the paint-stained dress that Lizzie eventually burned on Sunday.

From the trial and Moody's opening statement:
"On the morning of Sunday Miss Russell came into the kitchen. There were officers about on the outside of the house, but none in, and there was the prisoner with the skirt of a dress upon her arm and what appeared to be its waist lying upon some shelf by the side, and we will describe that dress. It was a dress which the prisoner had purchased in the spring of that year, a cotton dress and not a silk dress like this. (Holding dark blue silk dress up to view.)  It was a light blue dress. You will recall Mrs. Churchill's description of that in this connection. It was a light-blue dress with a fixed navy-blue spot in it. The dress ordinarily worn in the morning corresponds to that description and was also bought in the spring. As she saw the prisoner standing by the stove and as she approached her, Miss Emma turned round and said, "Lizzie, what are you going to do?" The prisoner replied, "I am going to burn this dress; it is all covered with paint." Miss Russell turned away. She came in again to the room and she found the prisoner standing with the waist of the light blue dress, apparently tearing it in parts, and she said, "Lizzie, I would not do that where people can see you." The only response which the prisoner made was to take a step or two further out of observation. Miss Russell turned again and went away. Upon the following day in consequence of some talk with Mr. Hanscomb, (sic) a Pinkerton detective not in the employ of the government, Miss Russell went into the room where the prisoner and her sister Emma 
were sitting and said, "Lizzie,

Page 82 / i102

I am afraid the burning of that dress was the worst thing that you could have done." She said, "Oh, why did you let me do it, then?" A considerable search had been made by the officers for clothing and for weapons and they will say that the search was such that no clothing unconcealed covered with paint could have escaped their observation. "

So where was the dress and why did they never find it?

(Message last edited Jan-27th-02  6:11 PM.)

Hi Stefani,

  Frankly I have never been too impresssed with the investigative skills of the Fall River Police during the Borden murders. They were remarkably inept is so many ways that it is not too difficult to believe they overlooked the paint stained dress during their so-called exhaustive search.
  When I was a lad, oh so many years ago, my grandmother kept old rags in the top compartment of her old coal burning stove. At infrequent intervals she would remove the rags and burn them.  This practice of burning rags and other trash in the coal or wood burning stove, was widely practiced. I believe Lizzie might have placed the dress in question in the top of the stove, with a future intent to burn it. I attribute no ulterior motive to this action.  I don't believe that dress had blood stains, but I do believe a blood stained garment was probably burned in the fire by Lizzie, within minutes after Andrew's death. After all, who would want to hang on to incriminating evidence like that for any length of time?

I recently read, in two seperate places, a theory that the paint-stained dress was "hidden" inside another dress, hanging in the closet.  If the investigators made a pass over those dresses, like when you pass through your clothes closet  looking for something, they may not have noticed a dress within another.
This may be to "save a nail" for another dress and be innocent.

I like Bill's idea that A dress (or whatever worn) was burned immediatly, because by Saturday, Lizzie could go off to the funeral unconcerned by a search while she was away.
So the "evidence" was gotten rid of or destroyed before Saturday at 9 a.m.---BUT what happened to the weapon?

(Message last edited Jan-27th-02  7:57 PM.)

That is an intriguing question. 

She lived in that house 20 years, so she must have known every square foot of it. Maybe she found some secret hiding place known only to her and possibly Emma. 

Were Emma's bags searched when she came home?  Probably not, and what a place to hide things for a short period of time!

William, you made an interesting statement that the bloody dress was burned immediately after Andrew.  When Bridget came down stairs Lizzie was standing by the door and made Bridget go right out without going into the kitchen or sitting room.  Something still burning in the stove that she didn't want Bridget to see?  Although, she simply could have waited a few minutes more for it to complete burning before calling Bridget.

That brings up that question again of why she didn't wait longer in any case to cry the alarm.

Would Bridget be able to smell that cloth burning?
Perhaps as Lizzie tended it she knew time was running out, that Bridget would notice, so Lizzie called her down and sent her away, and in That confusion bought More time to finish the project...that may be why she sent Bridget Away Again, And sent Mrs. Churchill away...she gained possibly 10 extra minutes to finish the burning before anyone stopped and noticed the smell in the chaos....
It's a simple solution, Bill, as you remarked earlier, when things were getting complex.

There was no reason for Lizzie to hide a "paint" stained dress. It would have been incriminating only if were blood stained. It is not surprising that it was overlooked by the police - they were inept.

Coal/wood burning stoves were hot, hot, hot! A dress would be reduced to ashes in a very short time, perhaps a minute or two.

They sure were Bill.  We had one for awhile when I was a kid. We were one of the first to convert to oil in our building. My father did the conversion himself.

There is also the time needed to shred the dress as in the burning of the paint covered dress.  She would also have had to slip into another dress either before or after the burning.  Plus hide that pesky hatchet somewhere.   

The police conducted search after search in the afternoon of August 4 and in days that followed the murders but the Bedford cord wasn't found. Where it disappeared to from Thursday afternoon to Sunday morning we will never truly know. Emma said it was hanging in the closet at the top of the front staircase on Saturday. Could the police have been so meticulous about checking Lizzie's bedroom and the other rooms that they overlooked or poorly examined what was hanging in this closet?? It's an intriguing possibility. Another consideration worth bearing in mind is that by the time the officers got to that closet, any blood-stains on it would have been brown. Dry blood on the fabric of the dress would have looked like dirt. There is no difference in appearance. Its reasonable to conclude that the dress, if it was stained with blood at all (no one saw any stains on Lizzie's dress) was only lightly dabbed or sprinkled with blood. This is of course theorizing that Lizzie did it.

(Message last edited Jan-28th-02  2:23 PM.)

I can think of lots of little tricks she might've used, but maybe she wadded the thing up in a ball and shoved it in a pillow case and slept on it, for all we know!  I do think the police were at pains at the hearings and trial to seem as efficient as possible, even if they were flying by the seat of their pants.  Think of Lizzie seemingly trying to curtail one of those searches by exclaiming "Please, all this is making me sick!"  I subscribe to the theory that, since it was a house Lizzie had lived in for most of her life, she knew of at least a few convenient hidey-holes...though, maybe Billy Borden wore it when he left the house!

(Message last edited Jan-31st-02  11:31 AM.)

Hello Bob,

  I think "flying by the seat of their pants" is an appropriate description of the police activity during the Borden investigation. The next thread should be "WHY on earth would Lizzie hide her paint-stained dress?" Better still, "Where did she hide that darn hatchet? I'd really like to know the answer to that one.
Ciao!

Hi all:  Interesting thought there that Lizzie might have had that dress in the closet for some time before the murders so she could tear it up and burn it.  I don't think she had time to tear up and burn a dress if she had killed Andrew in it.  And why has no one questioned why Miss Russell nor Emma didn't stop Lizzie from burning the one which was actually burned and why Miss Russell said what she did to Lizzie that day at the stove.  In a way what Miss Russell said might be considered an encouragement for the dress to be burned only burned if no one could see but that doesn't explain her next move which was to tell the detectives about it.  I would like Miss Russell to explain. 

Me too - I'll meet you with my Ouija board, and we'll get cracking!

The question has come up as to WHY Lizzie would burn a dress Sunday, if she already burned a dress Thursday (or some type of clothing donned for murder).
Maybe she was tearing and burning a dress Sunday to cover up the burning of Something Else.  I used to maintain that that specific activity of Sunday, the first DAy Bridget is Not in The House, must mean something, but could also be a "red herring."
It could be both.  Maybe hidden amongst the dress folds was her underclothes, stained from Thursday, that she continued to wear until she had more time to dispose of them.  Bridget would know Lizzie's wardrobe and underclothing, as she did the wash, so Bridget had to be gone.
Neither Alice, nor Emma got a real good look at what Lizzie was doing.
Emma was in the sink alcove, and Alice stepped out of the room. (Maybe so she wouldn't have to SEE something she thought was suspicious, and have to testify about it later).
I think Alice was merely warning a friend...and she ended up telling the authorities after consulting a lawyer (See T. Duniho's article "All Things Swift"--in the web-site).
She said she was asked about Lizzie's dresses, and Emma told her to tell what she "knew."
That's another reason why I think the burning of the dress on Sunday was for another purpose--else why do it in front of Alice anyway?
Kind of like a magic trick--where your eye is trained on the right hand, but it's the left hand that is shifty...

If we attach no significance to Lizzie's act of burning the paint stained dress, then where, when and how she disposed of it is of no consequence.

Bill, I left you some mail.

I don't normally quote the SOURCEBOOK, but it does give one reporters intrepretation of what he experienced at the trial, while watching Lizzie during Alice's testimony...pg.236

"To all appearances the prisoner was much less interested in the testimony than the most unconcerned among the persons in the court.  She spent her time in examing her fan and putting the handle of it in her mouth and out again mechanically..."

Kat, what is the SOURCEBOOK????

It's a myriad collection of newspaper articles, mostly undated , compiled and edited by David Kent, in collaboration with Robert A. Flynn, Brandon Publishing Co., Boston, 1992.
Called-THE LIZZIE BORDEN SOURCEBOOK

Part One:  Synopsis of the Murders and Investigation
Part Two: Lizzie's Inquest Testimony
Part Three: Prelim
Four: Trial
Five: Trickey Affair
Six: Reporters
Seven: Aftermath
Eight: Ballet-Opera-Plays

Gives paraphrased testimony.
Early accounts of the crimes contain major erronious material
Gives Atmosphere
As researcher,don't know who/what to believe.
After each catagory (above) there are numerous newspaper articles describing from their point of view..
Beware:  Read At Your Own Risk!

May be for sale at B&B, or FRHS?

(Message last edited Feb-1st-02  11:19 PM.)

Does anyone remember the SOURCE that describes the finding of ashes in the cellar, containing hooks and eyes, as if a dress had been burned?  Was that Pearson?  Help!

Hi Bob:  OK, I am up for a round with the Ouija at your house.  I will need a round-trip plane ticket but will bring refreshments. The first question I will ask Miss Russell is: Why could you remember that the dress you saw Lizzie tear up to burn was the one that was made for her in the spring, during which time you were present as it was being fitted. It was a rather ordinary event to have a dress fitted and made yet you remember the dress enough to recognize it several months later by sight.  Why is it then, on the occasion of an important and memorable event such as the day when the Borden's were murdered, you cannot remember anything about what Miss Lizzie was wearing the morning you were there?

Hey, can I come too? I'll bring the potato chips

We'll get a Ouija board and hail spirits, namely Lizzie. Furniture will levitate. The room will go cold. Green mists will appear. The spirits (god theyre such bad spellers!) will try to give us messages from the beyond as we ask "Did Lizzie do it? How? Which one was the weapon?" Suddenly, a ghostly apparition of Lizzie will appear... I'll drop a load in my pants out of fear


(Message last edited Feb-2nd-02  8:34 PM.)

Carol.
Because Lizzie had probably 8 blue dresses and did not wear the Bedford cord in front of Alice Thursday--the ONLY dress she WOULD remember.

Trial, pages 394-396, Alice's portions of testimony:

The dress Lizzie was tearing and said she was about to burn because it was covered in/with paint was "...got in the early spring."
Q) Was an ATTENTION CALLED TO IT AT THE TIME SHE GOT IT in any way?
A) AT THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT.
...A) She (Lizzie) TOLD ME THAT SHE HAD GOT HER BEDFORD CORD and she had a dress maker there, and I went there one evening and SHE HAD IT ON...and she CALLED MY ATTENTION TO IT, and I said "Oh, you have got on your new Bedford cord."  That is THE ONLY TIME I SAW IT UNTIL THIS TIME.
Q) Until the time it was burned?
A) Yes sir.
.................
Q) To make it clear, between the time you saw it on Miss Lizzie Borden and had the talk about it in the spring, you DID NOT SEE IT AGAIN UNTIL THE SUNDAY morning after the homicide?
A) I never remember OF EVER SEEING IT and I am QUITE SURE I DID NOT.- that I never had.

--(tried to format per instuctions-to highlight, rather than use all CAPITALS, but it didn't work-so ALL CAP.S, it IS...)

(Message last edited Feb-3rd-02  12:03 AM.)

Thanks for printing out the testimony. I don't think it odd that Miss Russell should remember the Bedford cord dress and the fitting but that she doesn't have a clue as to what Lizzie was wearning just after the murder when she was there to observe it.  Her reporting memory seems rather selective.  My point is that being present just after the murders was a much more important event (at least most people would consider that a more important event in a life) than being present when a dress was being fitted months before and her attention was certainly called to that event even though Miss Lizzie or others didn't tell Miss Russell to take particular note of what dress Lizzie was wearing. I think it is commonly accepted, unless someone has amnesia or some medical problem that memories are clearer closer to an event than distant from it and so since her testimony was closer to the murders than the dress fitting event it follows that Miss Russell must have had a greater perception of what Lizzie wore the morning of the murders, yet she doesn't, her memory is a complete blank at that point. Does anyone else want to come to the Ouija party?

Inquest, page 154, Alice's testimony:
Q) What sort of a dress was it Miss Lizzie had on before she changed it?
A) I don't know.  I have not any idea.
Q) You must have been badly flustered.
A) Perhaps it does seem so to you, I can tell you, any other time I have been out with the girls, sometimes a whole season, and I could not tell you what kind of hats they wore.  That was not as strange as it would seem to some people.  I do not observe, and I care very little about such things.
........
A) I haven't any idea (whether the dress was dark or light), I can't recollect a thing.

--This statement comes from one who was closest physically to Lizzie, after the murders--they were sitting side by side in the kitchen and Lizzie's HEAD WAS ON HER SHOULDER.
--This also comes from A SEWING TEACHER.
--Do you think she is protecting Lizzie, has selective memory, or is dissembling?

(Message last edited Feb-4th-02  6:14 AM.)

Reply to my own post #18:
I found the reference in Muriel Arnold's THE HANDS OF TIME--actually in my notes from that book.
Somewhere between pages 64 and 67, It was a BOSTON GLOBE STORY:
--In a remote corner of the cellar, police found an old wash boiler.  When moved, light ashes were scattered about, but clung together as burned rags would, and several pieces of material (white) with burned edges were found with 6 buttons or hooks to fasten a garmet.

This book relies a lot on newspaper articles and reporters so if it's not in testimony, i would discount this, unless one believes certain elements were suppressed.

Hi Kat:  When I have lots of time I will re-read the entirety of Miss Russell's testimony.  However, Miss Russell, aside from her expose that she was an unobservant person, she certainly did observe in detail the modest little Bedford cord housedress fitting and was able to tie it into the dress burning incident with clarity.  She was the only one close to Miss Lizzie the morning of the murders who could not even state one fact about the dress she wore, even Dr. Bowen gave a blurry attempt at description. I also am aware that Miss Russell was a sewing teacher and her work concerns were such that she had to be a detail minded person. This was a murder, not going to teas and out and about during the "season" and it was a dress, a dress that could have had blood on it from the scene of a crime not a hat someone wore on an outing or for teas during the "season."  So, in answer to your question, "Do you think she is protecting Lizzie, has selective memory, or is dissembling?" I would answer that that is exactly what I want to ask Miss Russell.

Okay - who was the one who testified that the murder dress was light blue with a navy blue diamond on it?  Was it Mrs. Churchill?  I sometimes get her and Alice Russell mixed up.

According to Pearson ("Studies in Murder") Emma was to testify about the Bordens' rag burning practice, but it never came about.

I agree with the thought that there was a secret hiding place in that house.  It would fit with Andrew's personality and the overkill on the locking of the doors.  Did he personally rebuild the house after he bought it from S. Miller, or did he hire it out to be done?  Even if hired out, he could have easily come up with something like that.  Then perhaps after the burglary, he emptied it but Lizzie still knew the space existed.  Okay, okay.  Just a theory.

I've always wondered why Lizzie stayed at the screen door when Bridget left.  Why wasn't she using the time to hide more stuff?  Lately I've been leaning more towards she was giving her accomplice time to escape then.  But I think you guys have something there with the stove.  I always thought she threw in the piece of hatchet handle - or papers of Andrew rolled up.  But paper pieces would flutter about, wouldn't they?  It would be harder to tell what a hunk of wood was in there.  Yeah, I guess she coulda burned the dress then too.  I wonder about the buttons or whatever the closures were, though.  She was certainly keeping Bridget from something. 

Did Bridget have to pass thru the kitchen to come down the stairs, grab her shawl and leave?  Didn't she leave thru the kitchen door?

Kat's post about the hooks & eyes being found was good.  But that would have come up somewhere in the prosecution I think if it were true.

Do we have any source that says the cops looked specifically in that kitchen cupboard?

I'd think the chances of her 'hiding' the dress in the dress closet are quite high.  It's funny that when people are looking for little clues and hidden things, they don't notice the obvious.  My family has a habit of slinging their coats and jackets on a banister in the family room.  It never fails - every time I hang them all up in the foyer closet where they're supposed to be - nobody can figure out where their coat is. 

I think Alice Russell tries to be very specific in her testimony, and I think she had given it a great deal of thought.  I think that the morning of the murders she was rattled, like everyone else was. She was sitting in a rocking chair upstairs while one of the first searches was going on and she was described as being terribly nervous.  She may have even sorta remembered that dress being on Lizzie that morning but maybe wasn't sure to trust her memory on that morning.  And Lizzie did change into that wrapper after noon.  I don't think anyone was even thinking of what Lizzie had on. 

I always thought Alice's comment about "I wouldn't do that where anyone could see me" was curious, too.  Yeah, what is she saying?  Without anything further to go on, I'd have to vote for her blurting it out trying to innocently help Lizzie.  This was Sunday, and she'd probably heard an earful from Lizzie and Emma about how rotten the cops were.  Maybe she was disturbed by it, and confused, and that's why she left the room. 

Emma telling her to tell what she knew was a good move.  Emma knew Alice didn't know anything.  I don't think Emma was a very truthful person during this time, so I don't think she was being any Girl Scout there.

Even though Emma told her that, it's interesting to know that Lizzie never spoke to Alice Russell again. Maybe that was more of Alice's doing than Lizzie's (?). 

Someone did a Ouija board reading back then, and it's included in the Knowlton Papers.  But we should do a new one.  I'd love to come!  Wow, several of us posters in the same room at once??  Can't pass that up.  I'll bring ... my dog, Dusty.  He's a coward and won't protect us, but he'll let us know if anything's lurking.