1. "Talk About The Bordens"
Posted by Kat on Oct-21st-02 at 6:24 PM

This thread is pulled with permission by the individual posters and moved here:  See "LAB- "Speaking of Miss Emma".

Kat
2317 posts Oct-17th-02  7:24 PM
   
252. "Re: Speaking of Miss Emma..."
In response to message #248 [From Thread:  "Speaking of Miss Emms"]

      Carol, I've pulled together some cites that may help you form your Theory / opinion.
Some of this may be useful, some not.
At least it's now all in one place:
What Lizzie Told About Her Family
and What the Community Thought About It...


Knowlton Papers, FRHS, 1994. 
[Posted March 22, 02.  Am including it here, as it will be archived soon]
Known as "the Sanity Survey"...
by MOULTON BATCHELDER, DIST. POLICE pg.102-6:

November 24, 1892

H. A. Knowlton
District Atty.
New Bedford, Mass.

Sir,
I have interviewed the following named persons in reference to the relatives of Lizzie Borden who said as follows:

Capt. James C. Stafford North St. New Bedford.
I use to know quite well the mother of Lizzie Borden, her name was Sarah Morse.  She had a sister and brothers. John now in Fall River, another brother who is a Blacksmith and is now out West.  Mrs. Morse the mother of Lizzie Borden was a very peculiar woman.  She had a Very bad temper.  She was very strong in her likes and dislikes.  I never knew or heard of any of the Morses or Bordens was ever Insane or anything like it.  I use to live in Fall River and always knew the Bordens and the Morses.  Mrs. Gray who lives on this St. may tell you something aboute them, also a Mrs. Almy who lives on Franklin St, Fall River.

Mrs. -Holland  Daughter of Mrs. Gray Resides on North St. New Bedford.  Same house with Mrs. Gray.  I never heard my mother say that Lizzie her mother or any of the Morses is or ever was Insane or anything like it.  I always have heard that they were somewhat peculiar and odd.  I have heard my mother talk considerable about Bordens and the Morses but never heard her say that any of them were Insane.

Abraham G. Hart  Cashier Savings bank Fall River.  I have live here most all my life.  I never knew much aboute Lizzie Borden or her mother.  I never knew much about the brothers of Lizzie Bordens mother.  Always known of them.  I never heard that any of the Morses or Bordens was ever Insane.

S. H. Miller  93 Second St. Fall River opp. the Borden House.  I have lived in Fall River 64 years.  Borden use to work for me.  I know the Bordons (sic) and all of the Morses,  the father of Lizzies mother was Anthony Morse.  I use to know his two brothers.  Know the brothers of Mrs. Morse, Lizzies mother.  One is now supposed to be out West.  I never knew or never heard that any of the Morses is or was Insane.  Know they were somewhat peculiar.  Anthony Morse had two brothers George and Gardiner Morse.  I am not a witness at the trial.  I did not intend to be.  I saw Mr. Borden a little while before the murder.  Bridget, the Servant girl came running into my house and said both was dead just then a man was passing.  I called him and told Bridget to tell him what she told me.  She did and that man was a witness.  I did not want anything to do with it and I did not go near the house.

Rescom Case  199 Second St. Fall River.  I have lived in Fall River 57 years and I know all the Bordens and the Morses well.  A sister of Mrs. Morse (Lizzies mother, married his cousin, a man named Morse, they now live here in Fall River.  I use to know Anthony, father of Lizzies mother.  He has a brother now living in Warren Mass. the woman that was murdered use to visit my house often, but she use to keep her affairs to herself pretty well, but I assure you I have my opinion of Lizzie Borden and I hope they will get more evidence.  My wife dont know anymore than I do aboute the Bordens or Morses.  We never heard that any one of them is or ever was Insane but I think some of them are worse than Insane.

Nov.26.
John S. Brayton Fall River.  I have lived here great meny years.  I know the Morses Mother of Lizzie Borden was Sarah, her father was Anthony Morse.  I think her sister is dead.  Anthony Morse was a farmer, after he owned a milk route.  I never heard of any one of them as being Insane or having any streak of Insanity.

D. S. Brigam Ex. City Marshal of Fall River.  I use to know the Morses never heard of any of them as being Insane, but this girl Lizzie Borden is known by a number of people here to be a woman of a bad disposition if they tell what they know.

Geo A. Patty(sic-Petty), Fall River  I did not know much aboute the history of the Morses but never heard that any of them is or was ever Insane but Lizzie is known to be ugly.

Mrs Geo W. Whitehead  45 4th St. Fall River  Sister of Mrs. Borden who was murdered never heard that any of the Morses was Insane but ugly.  Since the murder people have said if she is guilty she must be Insane.

Mrs. William Almy Franklin St.  Fall River  Always known the Bordens and the Morses, but for several years I have not known much aboute any of them.  Some 30 years ago my husband who is now dead was in company with Mr. Borden.  I use to know the brother of Mrs. Morse (Lizzies Mother) also her sister.  I think their was 4 brothers.  I have never heard that their was any Insanity or anything like it among any of the Morses.

Chester W. Green  80 years old lives in Fall River and have for 40 years.  I know the Bordens and the Morses but I dont know much aboute.  Never heard as any of them was ever Insane or anything like it.

William Carr lived in Fall River for 40 years  I know the Bordens better than I know the Morses.  The Bordens are peculiar people but I never heard that any of the Bordens or the Morses is or was ever Insane.

Respectfully.
Moulton Batchelder
Dist. Police

HK102
Report, handwritten in ink. 
------------------------------------

The Legend 100 Years After the Crime--
A Conference on the Lizzie Borden Case
Bristol Community College, Fall River, MA
Aug. 3-5, 1992
The Hip-Bath Collection, Barbara Ashton,  from p211 +

[Jennings notes]
"i.  Rounseville--told Phillips that Mr. Borden speaking to him about going over to his farm for the summer said his family affairs were such this summer that he would not be able to go.

l.  B. Brigham Mrs. George--After murder L. showed her her money and bank book and said 'Why should I do it?'
------------------------------------------

Trial
Mrs. Hannah Gifford
pg. 1168+

Q.  Now Mrs. Gifford, will you state the talk, what you said and what she said?
A.  I was speaking to her of a garment I had made for Mrs. Borden, and instead of saying "Mrs. Borden" I said "Mother." and she says, "don't say that to me, for she is a mean good for nothing thing." I said, "oh Lizzie, you don't mean that?" And she said, "yes, I don't have much to do with her; I stay in my room most of the time." And I said, "you come down to your meals, don't you?" And she said, "yes, but we don't eat with them if we can help it." And that is all that was said.
............
Trial
[under] Anna Borden [no relation]
Page 1173

MR. MOODY. The evidence which we offer is substantially this, your Honors: that upon the return voyage, after this witness and the prisoner had spent the summer in various parts of Europe in travel, there was this conversation which I am about to state, which was several times repeated: it was in substance that she (the prisoner), regretted the necessity of returning home after she had such a happy summer, because the home that she was about to return to was such an unhappy home. This conversation, as I say, was repeated several times, and we submit that, owing to the nature of the statement that was there made, it would be competent. I should agree that if at that time there had been a mere passing word of resentment, if there had been any characterization of Mr. and Mrs. Borden such as might come from a passing feeling of resentment, that the distance of time of the conversation would be such as in your Honors' discretion would well warrant if not compel the exclusion of the testimony offered. But there is no language than can be stronger than the language used to express a permanent condition of things in that household. *

[*Of  course this is not testimony....]
-----------------------------------

Inquest
Augusta Tripp
Pg. 141+

....Q.  Were you a school mate of either of the daughters?
A.  With Miss Lizzie.
Q.  So that your most intimate friend in the family was Miss Lizzie?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you ever hear either Miss Emma or Miss Lizzie say anything about their step mother?
A.  I have heard them speak of her of course.
Q.  And about their feeling towards her?
A.  I think I have heard them say but very little.
Q.  Which one have you heard talk about it?
A.  I think Miss Lizzie.
Q.  When was it you heard her talk about it?
A.  I could not tell you when.
Q.  Was it the time of your visit there?
A.  Very little said about her; Mrs. Borden was away, and there was very little said about her.
Q.  What do you remember of hearing Miss Lizzie say about it?
A.  About Mrs. Borden then?
Q.  Yes, or at any time.
A.  Well, I dont know what to tell you, for I have seen them so little that they did not go to tell me all the[i]r---
Q.  I want to know what they did tell you, that is all.
................
Q.  Had you any opportunity of observing what the relations were between the daughters and the mother, or between Miss Lizzie and the mother?
A.  Whenever I saw them together, they had very little to say to each other, seemed to have very little to say to each other. Everything went along quietly. They did not seem to make very much conversation with each other.
Q.  Did they eat at the same table?
A.  O, yes sir.
.........................
Q.  What can you tell us about the relations between Lizzie and her mother, so far as you observed it, and heard it form Lizzie?
A.  All I can tell you is that I dont think they were agreeable to each other.
Q.  What made you think so?
A.  I have seen them together very little. What should make me think so, would be--- if I were there, why, they did not sit down, perhaps, and talk with each other as a mother and daughter might. They were very quiet.
Q.  That is, they were together so little that you observed the fact?
A.  No, I dont think I should, they were around in the same room together, the dining room.
Q.  They associated together so little you noticed the fact they did not associate together?
A.  I noticed it; not that they kept away from each other, not that at all, but that they did not enter into conversation, perhaps, with each other, perhaps.
Q.  Was that so with Lizzie as well as Emma, or with one daughter more than the other?
A.  I think Lizzie talked with her mother more than Emma.
Q.  Emma had less to say to her?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  What else did you notice that led you to think that Lizzie and the mother did not get along well together, or were not agreeable to each other, as you expressed it?
A.  I dont know of anything, I cant recollect anything.
Q.  What you noticed was their manner towards each other?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  That is all, not from any words?
A.  Their manner to each other was not that of those persons that are agreeable to each other, or it did not seem to be.
Q.  When was it that you have seen them together?
A.  I could not tell you surely; it is as much as five years since I have seen Mrs. Borden at all.
Q.  So all this was based on what was quite a while ago?
A.  O, yes sir.
Q.  The officer reports that you told him that Lizzie told  you at some time, that she thought her step mother was deceitful, one thing to her face and another behind her back.
A.  Did he say I said Lizzie told me so?
Q.  Yes.
A.  I did not think I told him so. It seemed to me so; it seemed to me that she did not like one way appearing to her face, you know deceitful, she could not bear deceitfulness, and she could not bear one thing to her face, and find out another thing to her back; she could not bear deceitfulness.
Q.  Was that what Lizzie told you?
A.  I could not say she told me that, that was the idea I got from what--- well, I dont know as I could say from being there, or from being with Lizzie perhaps, for I have been there very little.
Q.  You also told the officer that Lizzie told you that her step mother claimed not to have any influence with the father, but Lizzie thought she did have an influence with him.
A.  Yes, I think Lizzie thought she did.
Q.  Did Lizzie tell you that her step mother claimed not to have any influence with him?
A.  I dont remember any such talk.
Q.  With relation to giving some property to the step mother?
A.  Lizzie, from what I have heard her say, but I could not tell you the words, Lizzie said, but I gathered from what I heard her say, it was a long time before I heard her say it, that she thought her mother must have had an influence over her father, or he would not have made a present to her half sister. It was a long time ago, not expecting this to come up, I could not swear to one word Lizzie said.
Q.  This was all prior to the last visit, nothing was said about this at the last visit?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  Did Lizzie say to you she did not know that either Emma or she would get anything in the event of her father's death?
A.  I did not hear her say so.
Q.  Who told you she said so?
A.  I think my invalid sister told me so.
Q.  What is her name?
A.  Miss Carrie M. Poole, she is very feeble, she lives on Madison street New Bedford, she is very feeble indeed.
Q.  You never heard Lizzie say that?
A.  No Sir, I never heard Lizzie say that.
Q.  The officer says you said explicitly, Mrs. Tripp, that Lizzie told you that she thought her step mother was deceitful, one thing to her face, and another thing behind her back, not in so many words, but that was the substance of what she said.
A.  I dont remember of her saying that.
Q.  Do you remember of telling that to the officer?
A.  I remember very well talking to him that I thought Lizzie thought her mother was deceitful, one thing to her face, and another to her back. I could not say Lizzie told me that, I cant say so. I was taken very much by surprise at seeing Officer Medley come in, and I tried to tell; but those things were years back, and thinking they never would come up, I cant recollect word for word things that occurred years ago. I cant say that Lizzie told me she thought so; but it would be from little things I might have heard her say that would cause me to think she could not bear deceitfulness, being such an honorable person as she was, s[q]uare person.
Q.  Did she appear to be fond of her step mother in her talk with you?
A.  No, I dont think she was fond of her.
Q.  Did she appear to be unfriendly towards her?
A.  No Sir.
--------------------------------------

Witness Statements
Medley
Pg. 31

Fall River, August 8, 1892.
Paid a visit to Mrs. Cyrus W. Tripp at her home in Westport on August 7, 1892. In reply to my questions she made the following statement. "Lizzie told me she thought her stepmother was deceitful, being one thing to her face, and another to her back. Lizzie told me her stepmother claimed not to have any influence with her father. But she must have influence with my father, or he never would have given my stepmother's half sister such a very large sum of money. She said, I do not know that my sister or I would get anything in the event of my father's death. This conversation took place at different times during former visits; nothing being said during her visit July 26th.

............................................


Susan
1525 posts Oct-18th-02  3:03 AM
   
253. "Re: Speaking of Miss Emma..."
In response to message #252 [From Thread:  "Speaking of Miss Emma"]

      I realize that you pulled all this info for Carol, but, thanks, Kat, I find it useful too!  Boy, from the testimony of her contemporarys, Lizzie sounded like a piece of work!

Oooo, and from someone else's mouth that Emma hated Abby more than Lizzie did!  

.........................................

kimberly
556 posts Oct-20th-02  8:09 PM
   
254. "Re: Speaking of Miss Ugly..."
In response to message #253[From Thread "Speaking of Miss Emma"]

      What do you spose 'peculiar' is? What counts?
"we never heard that any one of them is or ever was Insane but I think some of them are worse than Insane" what is worse than
insane? "never heard that any of the Morses was Insane but ugly"
what is 'ugly'? "never heard that any of them is or was ever Insane but Lizzie is known to be ugly" again with the ugly. They sound like they must have been nightmares, what could they have been doing? 

...........................

Kat
2317 posts Oct-21st-02  5:14 AM
   
255. "Re: Speaking of Miss Ugly..."
In response to message #254 [From Thread:  "Speaking of Miss Emma];

      I kind of thought "ugly" meant a mean streak or acting belligerant or angry at times.

"Peculiar" might mean just about anything, especially AFTER the murders...

Kim, I had asked Susan if I could copy and paste my post and hers to a new thread because this "Emma" one is too long.  She said fine and then I am late getting to it.  I'd like to paste your post too, if that's all right?  Those are good questions.

.............................
kimberly
556 posts Oct-21st-02  1:52 PM
   
256. "Re: Speaking of Miss Ugly..."
In response to message #255 [Thread:  "Speaking of Miss Emma"]

      Sure, that will be fine. Too bad Miss Emma wasn't
this popular in real life. 





(Message last edited Oct-21st-02  6:26 PM.)

Thanks for posting all those references Kat. If I ever tried that long a piece the internet would bounce me off before I finished. Maybe you do it by another method than typing it all out though.

The police/attorney must have interviewed certain people for the express purpose of seeing if they could get people to say Lizzie or her family were insane or peculiar. The general consensus was that she was not insane and who knows what peculiar meant to each person.

The second set of references seemed to deal with Lizzie's opinion of Abby after that house purchase five years before the murders. From what I gather it was Emma who had the most long standing animosity against Abby.

I have found it "peculiar" that in the inquest testimony when Knowlton asked Lizzie, "Where was your mother? Do you prefer me to call her Mrs. Borden?" (he meant on Thursday morning) And Lizzie responds with, "I had as soon you called her mother.  She was in the dining room with a feather duster dusting."  I wondered why Lizzie would respond in that manner if she was so opposed to the term mother?



 

Probably Jennings told Lizzie not to object if Abby was referred to as her mother.  They must have been aware that Fleet and Harrington took special notice of her "she's not my mother..." comment. Why create more suspicion at the inquest.

I would have loved to have sat in on the conversations between Jennings and Lizzie prior to her inquest testimony.  Most lawyers tell you to only answer the question asked and not volunteer anything beyond that. Lizzie was not always successful in that regard.

Good point Harry.  But then, why didn't Lizzie tell Knowlton something like you can call her whichever you prefer rather than saying she would rather he call Abby "mother?"  She went rather overboard the opposite direction in her answer. Do you really think that Jennings had time to counsel Lizzie in how to answer questions, though, because I think he expected to be there as her lawyer and he was denied. You probablly know more about this than I do, but I did love it when Lizzie threw some of his own back at him.

I believe it was the Sunday after the murders, the 7th, that Lizzie was told she was suspected by the Mayor. The inquest began on the 11th, so Jennings had plenty of time to brief Lizzie on what to expect. He could more or less anticipate the questions that would be asked.  If nothing more he could have told her to maintain her cool.

I also wouldn't be surprised if she was waiting for that question.

You're right Carol, they had quite a duel, Lizzie and Knowlton. He had to be the most exasperated man trying to get straight answers from her. Or at least two in a row that sounded somewhat alike. 

There is a letter in the Knowlton Papers where they are trying to get Jennings involved and wanted his actual Participation (as I recall) in that "SAnity Survey"!
Jennings writes back that he would not be able to help in that regard.
The idea was, I think, that with Jennings opening family doors for them (the Prosec), that they would then get a true sampling of what people really thought.  The inference is that the person's polled would be more candid if Jennings (as family friend) gave his approval.  Also it was a FEELER put out to the defense to see if they were at all interested in an insanity plea.

But, was there such a thing as an 'insanity plea' in the Borden's day?  I thought that that was something fairly recent in the legal system.  My thinking is that back then it was, you're sane, or you're crazy, no in between.  So, if Lizzie's defense tried to use that plea, wouldn't they then have to lock Lizzie up in an insane asylum? 

http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artMcNaughtonRule.html

"The McNaughton rule -- not knowing right from wrong

The first famous legal test for insanity came in 1843, in the McNaughton case. Englishman Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The court acquitted McNaughton 'by reason of insanity,' and he was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life. However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity.

The 'McNaughton rule' was a standard to be applied by the jury, after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense experts. The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense proved 'at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.'

The McNaughton rule became the standard for insanity in the United States and the United Kingdom, and is still the standard for insanity in almost half of the states."
..................................

Michael Martins and Dennis Binette, eds., The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Lizzie A. Borden: The Knowlton Papers, 1892- 1893, Fall River Historical Society, 1994, pg. 86-7.

The Insanity Issue:
Knowlton Papers, pg. 86-87, Letter #HK077 & #HK078:

"Sept. 22, 1892

My Dear Doctor: -
From such general knowledge as you have of the Borden case, have you observed in it any indication of insanity?  I should be glad to talk with you a moment concerning it, if you can look in when passing this way.  There are some indications in the mechanical aspects of the case that it was the work of a maniac, and I am not sure but that we must explore somewhat in that direction.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General

Dr. Edward Cowles,
McLean Asylum for the Insane"



"MCLEAN ASYLUM
SOMERVILLE, MASS.

Hanover, N.H.
Sept. 24, 1892

My Dear Sir: -
In yours of the 22nd inst. forwarded to me here in Somerville, I have your question whether from such general knowledge as I have of the Borden case I have observed in it any indications of insanity?
I shall be absent from home until about the 5th of October, and I can not call at your office till after that time, but I will then do so should you still wish it.
I will say now, however, that my inferences have been against a theory of insanity in the person charged with the crime, from anything I have so far read concerning her conduct before or after the event.  As to 'the mechanical aspects of the case', I have not knowledge enough of them to have attempted any inference.
I would willingly talk with you concerning this matter; -I will find time enough for that, altho' an extraordinary winter's work is to begin immediately upon my return.

Very truly yours
Edward Cowles

Hon.A.E. Pillsbury
Attorney General"

--these letters passed just 3 weeks after the end of the Inquest.
...............................
Knowlton Papers, pg. 95-6: #HK095 & #HK096:

"ANDREW J. JENNINGS,
COUNSELOR AT LAW,
SECTION G. GRANITE BLOCK.
Fall River, Mass., Nov. 22, 1892

Hon. A.E. Pillsbury
Attorney General
My Dear Pillsbury
          Since my talk with you I have been seriously considering your proposition and have come to the conclusion that I cannot consent to unite with you in the examination proposed.  I asked Adams opinion on the advisability of the course proposed without expressing any opinion of my own and also on my return that of Mr. Holmes who to a certain extent represents the Borden girls, without informing him that I had consulted Adams.  Both came to the same conclusion that in view of all the circumstances we could not do anything which suggested a doubt of her innocence and that the course proposed would not be wise or expedient on our part.
Sincerely Yours,
Andrew J. Jennings
-----------------
HOSEA M. KNOWLTON.     ARTHUR E. PERRY.
                    COUNSELLORS AT LAW.
                                      OFFICE:
                   38 NORTH WATER STREET.
{Dictated.}
                         NEW BEDFORD, MASS., November 22, 1892.

Hon. A. E. Pillsbury
Attorney-General.
Dear Sir:-
                            I did not have time to write so fully as I desired about the sanity business.  I could do nothing whatever with Jennings.  He took exactly the position I feared he would, and seemed to regard it as some sort of surrender if he consented to anything.  We can make some investigations into the family matters without him, but it wil not be so thorough as it would be if we had his assistance.
     I note your suggestions about form of indictment, which I will adopt if I ever get so far;  of which, however, I am far from certain.

Yours Truly,
H. M. Knowlton
-----------------
Pg. 100  #HK099
Pillsbury, on the same date, from Boston, writes Knowlton that "Jennings was here to-day, evidently indisposed to consent at first, but more inclined to before he left, I think.  He went away saying that he must see Adams, and that he would let us hear from him as soon as possible.".....

This letter then goes on to mention that Jennings told him "a story about one Joe Carpenter...and asks "have you ever heard of this...?"
------------------

--These last 3 letters seem to be out of sequence.  It might seem as if Letter #99 from Pillsbury came first on the 22nd, then Knowlton's reply, Letter #96, except he makes no mention of discovering "Carpenter"...then Jenning's letter last declining all hope of help to Pillsbury, Letter #95, which is Jenning's and his colleague's final answer.  By November 24th, Batchelder's report of his enquiry into the mental health of the families Morse & Borden was complete and submitted.

--As far as I know this was the entire matter which we have as a record, on the prosecution's side, and people can decide for themselves what was going on behind the scenes.

Thank you for all the great info, Kat!  Your poor 2 fingers!  I didn't know that the insanity ruling was started so long ago!  So, I guess my original assumption was correct?  If Lizzie's defense pled insanity and she was proven as such, Lizzie would have been locked up for the rest of her life.  Yikes! 

The odd thing about this is that the prosecution instigated this investigation as to sanity or insanity, because of the
*mechanics of the case*.
I suppose they thought (back then) that the long interval between the killings was suspicious of insanity?

But the McNaughton rule seems to be a DEFense strategy, so why is the prosecution delving into that theory of law?

Also, around this time period, during the seating of the grand jury, there are letters about HOW an Indictment should read, and what charges and the wording of charges, and HOW MANY Indictments to throw at Lizzie, to wrap her up good & tight.

---My poor Typing finger is not so poor.  The McNaughton stuff was pasted here and attributed to a web-site.
The first 2 letters I knew I had pounded out on keyboard way back when so I looked them up and copied and pasted those here.  The last 2 letters and my comments were all my poor finger had to type...plus this response to you of course.
It helps to know where most things are located ...in fact, even with messages archived now, I have still been able to remember where, in general, to look.  (You all know I like to "Collect" relevent info, and pull it together.)
--Thanks for wondering about my finger.
--BTW:  That Prime Minister who was almost assassinated, but for his secretary taking the bullet, was our ggggranduncle, Sir Robert Peel.  We have an especial interest in the McNaughton Rule.

If you want to know the meaning of "peculiar" then, just look it up in an old (or current) dictionary. Like that "peculiar institution", it means something not shared by most people.
EG Lizzie's shade of blue was peculiar to her.

Perhaps it was the only way that the prosecution thought that they had a real case against Lizzie, she only could have done the crime if insane.  She being a petite woman involved in Christian works in an era that just couldn't believe that a woman could have done such a thing.  They must have realized what an uphill battle that they were facing!

How cool about your ggggranduncle!  Really amazing to have a family member who is part of history as we know it! 

I was re-reading these posts here and noticed that it was thought that Lizzie was told she was suspected on Sunday, by the mayor.
It just popped out at me.  Something in my brain clicked and I remembered that she was told she was suspected on Saturday evening.  Why I always remember this is:  It was the day of the funeral...what a nice "cap" to the day!
And because it's so odd that Lizzie, after being told this, burned a dress the very next morning...Sunday.

Well, you know, after doing a crime, you have to get rid of that pesky evidence before you are possibly incarcerated.

Perhaps Lincoln did have something right, the dress may have been hidden in the dress closet still.  Lizzie hears she is suspected and panics, must get rid of any link to the crime, and then burns the dress at the first available moment, but, tries to make it look casual.

I'm trying to think of Lizzie doing this innocently, choosing that particular moment for some house-cleaning; Oh dear, I'm suspected, I may go to prison, I had better tidy up before I go.  Um, doesn't work for me, too weird. 

Yes, Kat I did inadvertently mention Sunday. Twas Saturday. That's what you get when you start writing before you verify your facts. Also the Inquest started on the 9th, Tuesday. 

Still, Jennings had time with Lizzie before the Inquest to brain wash her which was my point. 

Are you then saying it wasn't Bridget (Radin) or Emma (Spiering) or Nemesis (Masterton) or ???
Could Bridget have put on Lizzie's dress and done it?

OR could Lizzie have burned it to draw suspicion away from Wm S Borden? (Yes, a little too smart an action, and premature.)

Rays, supposing there was no William S. Borden for a moment, can you think of any other reason why Lizzie would burn a dress of hers?

One thought did occur to me, Lizzie may have burned the dress due to feeling unclean and violated after the murders, it was the dress she wore that day and it may have reminded her of what she saw, Andrew's bloody corpse.  Just a thought. 

Sorry.....
But if Lizzie wore that dress that day it was to commit murder.
She was not seen in that dress by Alice, so if she had it on earlier why did she change it before Alice saw her?
Alice hadn't seen that dress since the spring, and Bridget says she saw it Wednesday but can't say about Thursday.

Ray, if you are speculating that Bridget could have put on Lizzie's dress and done it, do you mean one murder or both?
Would that make the two of them in cahoots because I can't see Bridget *borrowing* that dress wihout Lizzie knowing, and I can't see Lizzie burning it to save Bridget?  Unless she burned it because she knew it incriminated HERself?...That's a thought!
Interesting.  And not Brown!  Good.

If Lizzie burned the dress to draw suspicion away from someone else, that might indeed make it a *red-herring* .  I've always wondered about that.

And yea, Harry, you're right...that gives Jennings a whole 'nother day to prepare Lizzie, which I know was your point.  I remember you once asking along these lines: " When did Jennings first get there --when was he called in by Emma?"


(Message last edited Oct-25th-02  2:23 AM.)

Well, every once in awhile, I try to give ol' Lizzie a chance at being innocent, but, I guess I didn't suceed with that one.  My thinking was from my memory of when my husband and I were robbed back in Arizona, they went through everything in the house, including my underwear drawer!  I felt unclean, unsafe, and violated, so, I transposed those feelings to Lizzie.

The "mechanical aspects of the case," might refer to the way the skulls were impacted by the weapon.  Knowlton went on and on about how they were blundered, puny, indirect, etc., blows so as to attribute them to a woman, Lizzie.  But Robinson went on about how well directed they were, that someone did it who had familiarity with using the weapon, etc. 

I wonder if they were trying to make some analogy between the words maniacal and mechanical.

Yes, I think the"*mechanical aspects* could include the M.O., and the way the crime was committed--physical aspects.

Sorry, Kat, but that was just a little humor; to consider another alternative. I don't believe Bridget did anything, except to not gossip. Consider the possibilities.

I believe that Lizzie burned the dress for the reason she gave. Andy (or Abby) alive would not have let her waste money that way. Now, she could do as she pleased. (Remember the first time you threw away something that was still useful? What did your parents say?)
Remember, NO ONE said she was wearing a bloodstained dress; red or black would show up in contrast on a (light?) blue dress.

BTW, has anyone ever butchered a pig or deer or cow? Hacking it with a hatchet? You may try to visit your local slaughterhouse and ask for this information. Notice the blood stains on the butchers? As practiced butchers, wouldn't they try to keep the blood off themselves?

You can experiment today to learn about the past.

I agree with you Kat about the dress. Lizzie didn't have the Bedford Cord on the day of the murders.  Another point, the Bedford Cord had a ruffle around the bottom, and it was much longer than the other dresses she usually wore, Mrs. Raymond testified to that. Also she said Lizzie's dresses were usually very tight...idea here that they were hard to get on and off, not like we toss off and on our garments today.  And I don't believe the Bedford Cord had a diamond print in it, did it?

Another point to consider is that Bridget said she had on a dark blue dress with a white shamrock on it that morning, and later in the day changed to a light blue gingham with a border on the bottom.  So here we have a lot of blue dresses on women that morning.  No one has said what Mrs. Bowen, Alice or Churchill were wearing that morning.  If these ladies also had light blue on, no wonder Mr. Bowen had a hard time remembering anything but "drab."  I think they had a better time acknowledging which lady had on a morning dress as opposed to an afternoon or "street" dress than the blue of it.

Perhaps that is why Judge Dewey made such a point of asking the jury whether what they heard in evidence gave them any inkling of what the dress really was Lizzie was wearing that a.m.
 

Sorry for the extra post but my additional thought didn't arrive till after I posted before. About the dress, one police officer said he thought Lizzie was wearing a light blue dress during the day on Thursday but also had a light blue dress on that evening! Was he now mixed up with Bridget changing her dress? Or did Bridget not change her dress until she got over to the Miller's in which case that wouldn't apply.  Lots of things are not made clear.

Bridget did change her dress before she went to stay at the Miller's.

She does say she ran 3 errands that day in her dress she wore to wash the windows that morning, then changed it after her last run across the street.
So she would be in a fresh dress when she went to stay overnight.

She started out in a dark blue calico, an indigo blue with a white "clover leaf" figure (Is that a shamrock figure?  Sounds like it may be...).
Later she put on a plain gingham blue with white border at the bottom...she called it a "lighter" blue than the morning dress.  That was sometime after her last trip across to Miller/Bowen and before she left the house for the night.  (from the Trial...I have no page # for some reason...)
....
Well, Ray, I did like what you wrote, even if you were humoring me.  I thought it was an original speculation from you and it was refreshing to "suppose" with you. It still stands as an interesting observation/ possibility, even if it was not meant...

(Message last edited Oct-27th-02  3:33 AM.)

(I realize I'm not exactly responding to your post, Kat, since you didn't mention Lizzie's Bedford cord dress, but this is just general info from the trial testimony.  I've hashed and rehashed it so many times that I had it bookmarked.)

Mary Raymond, the dressmaker who made the dress in the spring of 1892, described it at the trial as light blue (but not as light as a baby blue) with a darker figure.  She couldn't recall anything about the shape of the figure and was unsure of its color.  When asked how the dress was made, she said it had a loose blouse waist (meaning the top) and a full skirt and sleeves.  The waistline, neck and cuffs might have been tight, of course, but otherwise it sounds like a rather loose outfit designed as a housedress and not for show.
  
Emma Borden, in her trial testimony, said the figure in the material was about an inch long and three-quarters of an inch wide, pointed at the top and broader at the bottom than the top.  Asked if it was "sort of triangular," she responded "perhaps so."  She thought the figure was either black or dark blue and the other part of the dress was a very light blue.  She believed the figure was printed on the fabric.

Bridget, who didn't recall what Lizzie was wearing on the morning of the murders, described the Bedford cord dress as light blue with a darker "sprig" on it.

Dr. Bowen, of course, tried to get away with saying the dress was "drab."

Mrs. Churchill, who seemed to be alone in having seen Lizzie wearing the Bedford cord dress on August 4, described it as having a background that was light blue and white mixed,with a "dark navy blue diamond" printed on it. (Mrs. C. admitted to having seen Lizzie wear the dress on other occasions.  Could that perhaps have confused her?)

Mrs. Bowen appeared to believe that Lizzie had worn the darker blue outfit she turned over to the police.

Alice Russell, who claimed she didn't care about fashion, had seen the Bedford cord dress in the spring when it was new but was sure she hadn't seen it since.  By default, she was saying Lizzie wasn't wearing it when Alice saw her on August 4.

Someone on another board construed the word "figure" to mean one large design on the bodice of the dress.  I've always been convinced that the dress had an all-over smaller print, and I believe that was described in one of the many testimonies regarding it.  I know fabrics were (and still are) said by seamstresses to have "a figure" or "a print" or "a design" on them, when what is meant is "an all-over design."  If the Bedford cord outfit had had a large figure on the bodice and been solid light blue elsewhere, it would probably have been easier to remember than a print dress.  Also, a fairly busy all-over print would have concealed those paint (blood?) stains far better than a solid light blue would have.

How much credence are we giving to Emma's trial testimony?  She claims the burned Bedford cord was hanging on a nail in plain sight when the search was conducted on Saturday.  If it was stained with something that looked like blood, why didn't the searchers notice it?


Page 1540 / i562

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.

Thanks for all the info, Edisto!  See, I had always thought that the figure on Lizzie's Bedford cord was a diamond, now it sounds as though it may have been a triangle?  At any rate, there was some sort of geometric pattern printed on the material or woven into it.

Diana, I love Emma's last statement about the dress not being able to be used for anything else.  Um.....did cleaning rags have to be pristine material in the Borden's house or what?  From what I've read about it, Bedford cord sounds like a long lasting material, it doesn't wear out quickly, but, sounds like the dyes didn't last in it too long in that era.  It sounds perfect to be used as rags for scrubbing with.  Or, why not remake the dress into an apron?  It seems like a big waste of material to me, faded or not.

Most certainly the fabric from a dress that had been made only a few months before could have been put to SOME use, so it seems Emma was being disingenuous.  (Maybe she thought all those men wouldn't know from fabric!)  However, my understanding of Bedford cord is that it's something like pique'.  I've tried to find it at the nearby fabric stores and been told it's still available in some places, but I haven't yet found a bolt of it.  I'm told it's a "shirting" type of material -- lightweight, crisp and hard-finished.  That doesn't sound like something that would make ideal cleaning rags.  It wouldn't have been absorbent enough.  In 1892, there wouldn't have been any permanent-press finishes for cotton, so it would have been necessary to use starch.  Starch rinses out, which would have left the fabric softer, but maybe still not soft enough for cleaning.

Dockers makes pants from bedford cord, I had a pair from
them a long time ago & if they were bedford cord they
couldn't be used for rags, they were kind of slick, not
soft like regular cotton, not as heavy as denim but still
rather useless for anything besides clothes.

Thanks, Edisto and Kimberly!  Oh well, there goes the cleaning rags idea.  Such a waste of material, I'm surprised one of the women in the courtroom didn't jump up and call attention to the fact of the dress not being that old and couldn't have been in that bad of shape.  Lizzie's pink and white stripe wrapper seemed perfectly good and presentable to wear while the police and Dr. Bowen were around the house.  Hmmm.....it must have been those pesky bloodstains. 

A Waste Of Material...yes that was "8 or 10 YARDS" of fabric!  I wonder how long that would take to burn?  (Trial, Emma, 1538)

In the trial excerpt given earlier Emma asks Lizzie, "You have not destroyed that old dress yet, why don't you?"  (T.1540)  Sounds like she means annihilate,...remove from the planet.  No rags.  Sorry.

Anyway, I have always had a question about the wording in this next section.  Every time I read it, since the last reference made is to the Pink wrapper  (this is where the Bedford cord first becomes known as a "wrapper" to the menfolk...) it sounds as if Emma is being asked if she was with Lizzie when she had on that PINK wrapper Saturday & Sunday.  So what he's implying is:  Did Lizzie get away with wearing the Bedford Cord under her pink wrapper Thursday, Friday & Saturday ....  right?  This is after establishing that she herself had not seen Lizzie in that B.C. for a while :
A.  I don't remember seeing her have it on for several weeks before I went away.  (T. 1541)
.......
Q.  Do you know whether she had this blue wrapper on under that that morning? [the black net, Saturday]
A.  I know that she had not.

MR. KNOWLTON. What morning is that, Mr. Jennings?

MR. JENNINGS. Saturday morning, the morning of the funeral.

Q.  Did she have it on under the pink wrapper when she had that on?
A.  I don't think she could possibly have had it on under it.

Q.  Was she lying on the sofa with the pink wrapper on?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Would the dress have shown if she had it on under that?
A.  It must have.

Q.  Were you with her Friday and Saturday when she had it on?
A.  Almost constantly.

Q.  In the same room?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  When did you next see that Bedford cord dress?
A.  Sunday morning, I think, about nine o'clock.

--It seems the gist of this testimony is to show that Lizzie hadn't worn that Bedford dress at all, that Emma knew of, for weeks.  Is that merely to try to show that that is why Emma suggested Lizzie destroy it on the night of the evening that the mayor said Lizzie was under suspicion?
It almost sounds like EMMA was looking to get Lizzie into trouble...Shades of "Oh why did you let me DO it?"

From reading AR Brown (or others) wasn't it the custom to spend mornings working around the house, then afternoons in leisure? That's one way to fill up the day before radio, television, etc.

I guess my interpretation was A-OK on this testimony, since no one had a different "take" on it. 
At least I can put this bit of confusing testimony to rest.

NOW.  I was reading the new LBQ tonight.  There's some odd dress stuff in there.
There's the trial testimony of Alice and because we're near the subject talking about Alice earlier, and dresses now, I thought I'd ask another question as to interpretation that has always bothered me:

Trial
Alice
390+

Q.  After the breakfast had been got and the dishes had been cleared away, did you leave the lower part of the house at all?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  About what time in the morning was it when you returned. Miss Russell?
A.  I don't know.

Q.  Was it before noon?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Will you state what you saw after you returned?
A.  I went into the kitchen, and I saw Miss Lizzie at the other end of the stove; I saw Miss Emma at the sink. Miss Lizzie was at the stove, and she had a skirt in her hand, and her sister turned and said, "What are you going to do?" and Lizzie said, "I am going to burn this old thing up; it is covered with paint."

Q.  "Covered in paint,"---is that the expression?
A.  I don't know whether she said "covered in paint" or "covered with paint".

Q.  Do you recall anything else said then?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  What did you do then?
A.  I am quite sure I left the room.

--I take this to mean she left the house.
If she did leave the house, then Lizzie choosing that time to burn a dress makes more sense.  It was the first day Bridget was gone during the day...It seems possible that Morse was staying away days, and if Alice left for a while, then Lizzie and Emma would now be alone for the first time EVER since the crime...
Maybe Lizzie never intended Alice to see what she was doing At All.  Caught out, acts like it's no big deal....

Kat, I recall reading in one of the authors that Alice left to go to church and decided against it and went home for awhile.  But, I'm trying to remember what their source was for the info or if it was just hearsay.

If Lizzie killed Andrew and Abby the dress burning was a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of thing.  I can imagine Lizzie wanting to do it without anyone there, but, wasn't that part of her plan, that someone had to witness her burning the dress so that it appeared to be an innocent act?  Had I been Alice I would have stopped her saying that the police are looking for that dress, you had better give it to them.  I'm curious what Lizzie's reaction would have been??? 

Jeesh that was fast.  I only stepped out of the room to feed the catz...
Anyway...
If other authors read the same interprtation, that Alice LEFT, (doesn't matter where she Went) then Lizzie picking that time is not innocent.  Nor could it appear innocent if caught.  Which she WAS caught and which got her Indicted.
See, Lizzie didn't wear that dress Thursday, in front of anybody.  But she did wear it Wednesday.  Alice hadn't seen her wear it since the spring.  Emma implied that Lizzie hadn't worn it for a week before Emma left town.
So, if Lizzie wasn't seen in that dress (by anyone but Bridget Wed.) that dress could have been just another forgotten blue dress, that no one would miss...IF she hadn't been caught "blue-handed."  A list of her dresses could easily have ommitted that one and no one might remember.

(Message last edited Oct-30th-02  2:55 AM.)

But, Emmer seemed so ploddingly honest, I think that she would have felt compelled to mention that Bedford cord dress, especially if it was suddenly missing.  Bridget may still have mentioned what she saw Lizzie wear on Wednesday if she was asked what Lizzie was wearing.  I think Lizzie got backed into a corner and that was how she had to handle it, destroy it with witnesses.  It sounds like she had all morning after Alice left to burn that dress, why wait until that point for her to come back to do it? 

I'm lost again.  Where is Bridget's testimony that Lizzie wore the Bedford cord on Wednesday?  This is all I've come up with from her trial testimony.

First, she answers Mr. Moody:  

Q.  I will call your attention, not asking you when it was worn or
what part of the time it
      was worn, to a cotton or calico dress with light blue groundwork and a little figure.
      Does that bring to your mind the dress I am referring to?
A.  No sir, it was not a calico dress she was in the habit of wearing.


A little later: 

Q.   Will you describe that dress that I have referred to as well as you can?
A.   It was a blue dress with a sprig on it.

Q.   What was the color of the blue; what was the shade of the blue?
A.   Light blue.

Q.   And what was the color of what you have called the sprig on it?
A.   It was a darker blue, I think, than what the under part was.


And finally:

A.   I don't remember what she had on Tuesday; I can't tell.

Q.   Do you remember anything about Wednesday, what dress she had on?
A.    Yes, sir.

Q.    What was it?
A.    It was a light blue.

Q.    You say you don't remember Thursday?

MR.MOODY ----           Well, let her finish.

The WITNESS --            Wednesday morning she had a blue wrapper on her; skirt and basque.
                         ***

There's where I got lost!  How do we know that the "blue wrapper ... skirt and basque" is the Bedford cord?

Cheers, Diana. Thanks for posting those pieces of testimony. I was thinking the very same thing. Bridget said Lizzie had a skirt and basque on on Wednesday and to me that doesn't compute into a Bedford Cord that had a ruffle on it.

I also have some problems with people interchaning the word dress for skirt and blouse. I had a lot of problems with that while reading the testimony because no one seems to be consistent.  A dress could refer to either a one-piece garment or a skirt and blouse.  Also a Basque seems to refer to a specific type of blouse as distinct from other kinds. It probably refers to a type of sleeve that was like a traditional Basque national outfit, I would suppose.  I think the prosecution referred to their exhibit, the dress Lizzie gave them, as a two-piece garment, a navy skirt and blouse.  In my mind I retain the image that the Bedford cord was a one-piece dress. What do you think?

Trial
Bridget
Pg. 292+
[Included is more testomny than needed but has to start where "WEDNESDAY" is specified...]

Q.  See if I understand you about another thing? On Wednesday morning it was that  Miss Lizzie came down and complained and did not want much breakfast.
A.  She did not say anything about breakfast, but she said she was sick all night.

Q.  That she was sick all night?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  I think you said in answer to some question put to you by the other side, that night you did not hear any of them come up, you were up in your room, but did not hear them.
A.  No, sir, I did not.

Q.  Did you learn that Mrs. and Mrs. Borden were ill?
A.  They told me that morning.

Q.  You did not hear any one of the three?
A.  No, sir, I did not.

Q.  Miss Lizzie was about the house that forenoon not doing anything in particular?
A.  I saw her around the house before dinner. I saw her down in the kitchen at breakfast time and before dinner was served on the table.

Q.  That is the day you said she had on the light blue wrapper?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Did she have that on when she came down in the morning?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And kept it on during the forenoon and had it at the dinner table?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And that day you remember it very clearly?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And the dinner was at 12 o'clock?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Do you remember seeing her about that same day again, later in the day,  Wednesday?
A.  No, sir, I don't remember.

Q.  Don't quite remember whether you saw her in the afternoon or not?
A.  No, sir, I did not see her.

Q.  I used the word "wrapper".
A.  It was a basque and skirt.

Q.  If you will tell me what the dress was?
A.  It was a basque and a skirt.

Q.  It was a man's mistake. Was it a blouse, as some one at my right says?
A.  Yes, sir, a loose blouse with a belt round it.

Q.  To state it all right let me ask, what was it, a blouse and skirt?
A.  I don't know the name, -- a loose skirt with a belt round it.

Q.  Was the skirt or waist or blouse of the same color?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  Do you know whether she had any ribbon about it or not?
A.  No, sir.

Q.  Can't remember the style?
A.  I think it was a belt, I cannot tell. I don't know whether it as a belt or ribbon.


RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION -Page 294

Q.  (By Mr. Moody) Is this dress that you are speaking of that she had on Wednesday the one you referred to as having been made in the spring? A. Yes, sir.

Q.  And with a dark blue figure in it?
A.  Yes, sir.




(Message last edited Oct-30th-02  7:21 PM.)

It came to me a while ago, that the "dresses" they were discussing were of 2 pieces.  The Bedford cord and the Bengaline silk.  Carol, I'm not sure if you were checking in, then.  I've pasted my opinion here merely because the archives have moved from this site:
(As you can probably tell from my posting times, between here and my previous one at "New In Your Group". it took about an hour to find the Trial info & this stuff.   Now I get dinner!)

Kat
2066 posts Apr-2nd-02  1:28 AM
29. "Re: Dressy Lizzie"
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...

Still open for ideas...


(Message last edited Oct-30th-02  7:52 PM.)

I knew it was in there if you said it was, Kat!  Thanks for posting the whole thing.

BTW this link shows a photo described as a form-fitting basque bodice.  It doesn't jibe with Bridget's "loose blouse" description -- but perhaps 'basque'was a just common term for 'blouse'.

http://www.sensibility.com/vintageimages/victorian/images/1880syoungwoman.jpg

Like Carol, I've always thought of the burned dress as a one-piece affair.  And I think that's because both Emma and Alice refer to it in the singular.  When I read Emma's testimony, I see a one-piece dress hanging on that nail -- not a skirt and a blouse. 

(Message last edited Oct-30th-02  8:09 PM.)

Thanks Diana for your vote of confidence.  You guy's questions are always stimulating! 

If some forum members skipped a month or so of postings prior to May 31, 2002 the archives (searchable) are located at:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/archive.htm

Yes I agree with you and Carol as to the ambiguious terms used interchangeably as to the fashions of the Borden girls and their maid.
Basque
Blouse
Loose Blouse with a belt
Skirt
A loose skirt with a belt--or a ribbon
Dress
Wrapper
A dress waist
A waist
--And after using all these terms, the attny. STILL refers to it as a "dress" at the end!

Anyway, that was a lovely photo.  Really tight top though!

I have these two illustrations of a dress from the 1890s, two piece, blouse with self-belt and skirt, don't know if it will help any, but, here they are.

The men searching the house and clothes press, and the men questioning these men in testimony, call these items the girls wore...Dresses.

So I was wondering if the top and bottom which are supposed to be worn together, button together underneath the "waist", (hidden buttons, inside) to make one garment, hanging?  It would need less nails that way...

I am brand new to this group.  I, like many of you, thought I alone was "possessed" by Lizzie Borden.  I am relieved that this is not the case.  One burning question I have re: Lizzie's burning her dress--Why would there be any reason for any of her dresses to be "covered with/covered in paint?"  Did Lizzie assist in the painting of her house? It seems that Lizzie was not one to get too dirty doing chores.  How could she have gotten a dress stained with paint?

Welcome, Robert! You are in the right place!
I think the way Lizzie got the paint on her dress
was from brushing against it while the house was
being painted. I've done that before myself!

Welcome Robert Harry.

Emma also testified that the dress was very faded and soiled.  The dress was made in May, less than 3 months before the murders.

I could understand to some extent it getting soiled even though she didn't participate in the household chores.  It's the fading thats the problem.  Washed a lot?  Left out in the sun?  Cheap to begin with? All three and more? 

All this assumes the dress that was burned was soiled with paint and not something else.

I've thought about the fading, too.  I wonder if there was an attempt made to bleach out the paint stains.  After all, the dress was almost new when the paint got on it.  Perhaps Lizzie wanted to try to salvage it somehow.  I know I've ruined clothes by using bleach when I shouldn't have.

The paint they make now dries hard on clothes, I'm guessing that the paint from then did also, so if it was on much of the dress it would have been pretty much impossible to use for anything. If it was
actually worn & worn out, what was she doing wearing a paint stained dress?

Good Diana. Bleach is a possibility even without the paint/blood stains. Something had to happen to it to be so badly faded as described by Emma.

Of course Emma could have been exaggerating to help Lizzie.

The outside of the house was painted on May 10.  Mrs. Raymond, the dressmaker, said she made the dress around the first week of May. So Lizzie must have been outside in the dress in order to get it paint stained. The painter says he painted everything, the house, the fence, the barn and the well. I don't believe Lizzie ever said exactly where on the property she picked up the stain. If true, it's possible she didn't even notice it until later.

What about a "shirtwaist"? What is that? Seen in old books.

My take on the "faded dress" is that is was merely Emma's way to justify the action of her baby sister!!!
Can any dress made in May be faded in August? Unless left out for days on the seashore, wet and bleached by the sun? Or maybe somebody bought a really cheap piece of cloth?

I think you have to use a little judgment in filtering through these statements. What would it be like today?

That's why I say Andy was sitting up when struck.

THAT is a very good interpretation of the statements!!! I can see that happening today. Using bleach, which also weakens the fabric. This may explain why it was easy to tear it up. Ever try tearing up new cloth as opposed to worn raggy cloth?

One entry found for shirtwaist.


Main Entry: shirt·waist
Pronunciation: 'sh&rt-"wAst
Function: noun
Date: 1879
: a woman's tailored garment (as a blouse or dress) with details copied from men's shirts

(Not necessarily responding to your post, Kimberly, but just some general info.)  When I was about 12, I went to visit my grandparents in a very small North Carolina town.  For some reason, my mother gae me some money with which to buy myself a school dress.  I had never bought a dress for myself without her input before, and I was very concerned about getting the most for my money.  Not knowing much about quality, I used the money to buy two inexpensive cotton dresses.  Mother didn't say anything negative when I showed them to her.  However, after one laundering, they were barely wearable; they had become rags.  The problem was that in those days there were no permanent finishes for cotton fabrics.  There was only "sizing" that washed out with the first laundering.  The dresses shrank and were limp and faded after one washing.  Maybe Lizzie was naive enough to buy cheap fabric for what was essentially a housedress.  With the first laundering, her Bedford cord may have lost all its sizing and looked as if she had had it for years.  --And of course she got paint on it to boot.

Thanks for taking the time to find and post all those remarks about the dress, Kat.

I don't know what the attorney and Dolan were talking about either, the answer Dolan gives doesn't match the question. Unless perhaps Dolan was also thinking about the underskirt, in that case it was a different material, white.

I still think that the Bedford cord was a one-piece dress, I get that from the seamstresses testimony and Emma's. I don't see Lizzie mix and matching a Bengaline silk with a cheap bedford cord IF they were both skirts and blouses.

The idea that everything was two piece is interesting but I can't accept it yet, have to ponder more.

There should be lots of information there in Spindle City about textiles and the different fabrics and caring of them in the late l800's in some library archive or research department. That was THE
textile city of the east coast.  Some historian knows the answer to fabric care and naming of women's clothing. 

A shirtwaist to me, in modern times, my times, means a dress which is just an enlongated shirt.

Also I have a question about a statement about the dresses as well. I haven't looked up the exact statement but it is on page 372 of the trial testimony when the attorney is talking to Churchill about the dresses.  The attorney makes the comment to the effect that all the dresses were taken by the government on Saturday, and asks was Churchill aware of that.  I find that odd. Does this mean the government physically took all the dresses out of the house. They didn't because the women wore clothing throughout the week. Anyone have comments on that portion of the testimony?

I was looking at Mrs. Raymond's remarks at trial earlier tonight because Robert questioned what Lizzie was doing with paint on her dress.  I thought I would double-check that we had someone's testimony as to the paint getting on that "dress" other than the girls.
Mrs. Raymond confirmed the fact and described the area of stain.
Then I happened to take a note as to her description of the "dress" she made Lizzie first:

Trial, pg.1581, Raymond:
"...a blouse waist and a full skirt, straight widths...sleeves were full sleeves, large sleeves."   &
"a blouse waist" "means a loose front."

For Ray
Pg. 1579-80:
"It either faded or the color wore off...it changed color"

I  remember Alice saying the front pulled out of the "dress" Lizzie wore on Thursday...but since that is not the Bedford Cord it may not matter to some...but it does imply other Lizzie "dresses" were 2 pieces.

Well, since Alice described the Bedford Cord as in 2 pieces at the stove, we've thought that it came in 2 pieces:

Trial
Alice
Pg. 391-2
Miss Lizzie was at the stove, and she had a skirt in her hand, and her sister turned and said, "What are you going to do?" and Lizzie said, "I am going to burn this old thing up; it is covered with paint."
................
Q.  Did you notice where the waist of the dress was when she held the skirt in her hands as you first came in?
A.  I didn't know that it was the waist, but I saw a portion of this dress up on the cupboard shelf.

And since Bridget describes the Bedford cord thus: (T.292)
Q.  Was the skirt or waist or blouse of the same color? ["as a loose skirt with a belt round it."]

A.  Yes, sir.

--And since we know the Skirt had paint on it, and therefore that is Lizzie's excuse to burn it ...The conclusion is this "dress" was two pieces.
--We do not know if she burned the "waist", as there was no witness.  We really only have a witness to Lizzie's tearing of the material.

I'm not sure what the term "bleach" means here, but it's unlikely the Bordens used chlorine bleach when they did laundry.  That's because it wasn't commercially available until 1913, and the household version didn't come out until several years after that.  (Of course Emma and Lizzie lived into that era, so they might have used it later.)  The Clorox company has a very interesting website, which mentions that the process of manufacturing chlorine bleach was (and is) a complex one, so it wasn't something one could whip up at home.  I recall that people used to put their laundry out to bleach in the sun, and there were certainly other compounds that could be used as bleaches in the 1890s, but not good ol' Clorox, the housewife's friend.

(Message last edited Nov-1st-02  12:12 PM.)

I have questions as to what a "waist" refers to as it could mean how the material was at the waist not that the garment was a bouse and skirt.  Cannot material in a one-piece dress can be "loose in the bosom" as one police officer described. 

Also we know Mrs. Raymond made many dresses for Lizzie that spring and are you sure the one she made first was the Bedford cord?

The garment Alice saw Lizzie holding she describes as a skirt.  Could not Lizzie, since she was in the middle of attempting to burn it, have taken the garment apart with scissors, put the top of the dress in the cupboard while she continued to tear or cut up the skirt to burn it. Alice didn't see that because she came in on the scene in the midst of it. That might be why Alice said she only saw a skirt. Perhaps it was the skirt portion of the dress.

The confusing part of all this is that today women only refer to their clothes as dresses when they are one piece generally and refer to a skirt and bouse when talking about a skirt and blouse.  Except for when people talk generally about the type of dress meaning type of attire, which could apply to men or women. That is partly why I cannot buy that the Bedford cord was a skirt and blouse.

Assuming the quote is correct and not out of context, the "took" verb means they inspected all that they could find. And they did search everywhere!!!

You're right about the bleach, Edisto.  Although French chemist, Berthollet, discovered chlorine gas could be used to produce sodium hypochlorite (the active ingredient in household bleach) in the late 1700's -- the process appears to have been too costly to put into production for household use until early in the 1900's. 

However, "in 1897, Sears Roebuck & Co. listed five bleaching products in its catalogue: ammonia, borax, lye, and blueing and dry blueing -- the latter two referring to a liquid and a powder solution of plant additives, most indigo, designed to make clothes whiter..." (Source Chlorine Chemistry Council website)

I'm assuming that the Borden household may have used some of these products -- and as you noted -- probably relied on drying in the sun to do the rest. 

(Apparently drying textiles in the sun was a common practice in Britain before the use of commercial bleaching products.  They used to set aside large areas of land as "bleaching fields" and these were released for agriculture after the commercial bleaches came into use.)

Probably more than you needed to know about bleach, I'm guessing.

Not exactly on topic but worth noting.  Hiram C. Harrington according to Rebello, page 4:

"From 1885 to 1888, Mr. Harrington worked in Assonet (Freetown, Massachusetts) at the Crystal Springs Bleachery."

Then in Radin, page 81:

"The trouble about money matters did not diminish, nor the acerbity of the family ruptures lessen, and Mr. Borden gave each girl ten shares in the Crystal Springs Bleachery Company, which he paid $100 a share for. They sold them soon after for less than $40 a share."

I would think the bleachery referred to would be related to the textile industry and probably not for home use.  Tho, Andrew may have had connections there and it wouldn't be beneath him to bring home a few samples.

They traded stocks like I do now.  Buy high, sell low.  

It's probably a bit of a stretch to call bluing a "bleach," since it actually adds color rather than subtracting it.  Bluing can still be bought in some supermarkets and as an additive in commercial liquid starch. I've used it on old textiles, which have to be handled gently.  It imparts a very faint blue tint that counteracts the yellowing produced by age.  The effect would be that the fabric has been "bleached," because a blue-white looks "whiter" than a yellow-white.  It doesn't weaken fabrics as most bleaches do.  Another time-honored way to bleach old fabrics is to put them into the sun, of course.

Trial
Mrs. Raymond
Pg. 1577

Q.  And do you remember in what order the dresses were made, as to when this Bedford cord dress was made?
A.  I made that the first one.

Q.  Why?
A.  Well, she needed it, needed it to wear, and had it made first.

Q.  How long did it take to make it?
A.  I couldn't tell the exact time, but I should think three days.

--I think it is the men who are confused as to the terminology and that obfuscates the true descriptions.
Mrs. Raymond and Bridget's attempt to describe the Bedford Cord correctly...  and even Dr. Dolan and Marshal Hilliard were describing a pieced dress, or a dress in 2 parts, referring to what was given the court--the Begaline.  If that "dress" was given as the thing Lizzie claimed she wore the day, and that is 2 pieces, then it seems also to further suggest that the Bedford Cord was also,( as well as the dress she did wear--she had to have handed over something similar at least)
(Hilliard questioned, T.1110--"Q.  Dress skirt, underskirt and dress waist?"--please note that the 2 pieces of the dress (Bengaline), are removed from each other in description, by the underskirt.

--I am not necessarily bent on converting you.  I am rather attempting to give you the sources and page numbers which support the true description of the clothing (unimpeded by these men's misnomers) so it can be clear as to what the information is, and maybe help in that everyone does not have to go and look all this minutia up, because I have already done so.
--Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary, 1897:
"Waist:  #6.  That part of a womans dress or other garment covering the body from the waistband upward.
...A similar garment for children upon which lower garments may be buttoned."
--That last part is what I had envisioned...that there was a way to attach these pieces together, thereby making it into s "dress".

Edisto, would there be any use for vinegar in the keeping of the clothes?  i was thinking of all that vinegar in the cellar.

I think this solves the problem about the tearing of the dress. And why I like to take a day or more to consider these questions.

We all know that bleaching was done in those days, probably in the 18th century or earlier. A lot of people may have mixed their own fresh stuff from chemicals bought at a general store or druggist.
Anyone here remember "Reckitt's Blue", wrapped in cheesecloth?

Here's my considered scenario.
Lizzie gets paint on her new dress. She tries to remove it with kerosene. But that merely smears it around to a larger stain. So she tries to soak the whole dress in kerosene. That removes the stain, but leaves the dress with a brown tint ("drab"). Well, "that's good enough for around the house", but not for outside. She also tried bleaching, but that only weakens the fabric!!!

After the murders, which she didn't commit, she is faced with the probable PUBLIC knowledge of this dress! "Oh Lizzie, even YOU wouldn't be wearing that old thing. Hee-hee." Ashamed to acknowledge wearing this, she destroys it by tearing it apart. (Would a new dress be this easy to tear apart?) Her parents are not around to stop her.

Wasn't it a sign of growing up when you first discarded something you didn't want since your parents couldn't stop you?

While "Chlorox" is a national brand, in those days there were many, many small businesses that served local areas. And maybe those who mixed the dry chemicals to make their own fresh stuff.
Maybe somebody with spare time can look up 'bleaching' on the web?

Anybody here make their own tomato sauce? Or dressing? Or beer?
Remember "Reckitt's Bluing"?

The uncommented talk about the Bleachery shares (bought for $100, sold for $40) makes me wonder. Did Andy give shares that had lost value, or were the girls swindled by another sharpie? Does anyone know the fair market value at the time?

Is Lizzie, now an orphan and facing public suspicion, and after seeing bloody murder and being questioned alone without her dear sister, about to worry about the searchers finding her favorite dress wasn't up to standards?  And THAT was a reason to dispose of it?
Why does bleach play so important a role?  The fabric was cheap.  Even the dressmaker said so.
I wondered WHY Lizzie bought and made cheap clothes out of cheap material?
And why would the dressmaker even go along with that?

The cost of the material was cheap, but, was the dress actually cheap itself?  It sounded as though for a housedress it was made rather stylishly.

From the Oxford English Reference Dictionary:

Bedford Cord n a tough woven fabric having prominent ridges, similar to corduroy. (Bedford in south central England.

To me it sounds as though Lizzie wanted a dress that could stand-up to what little work she did around the house and could get repeated wearings out of, thats why I don't buy that it was so shot in 3 months.  Lizzie was on a budget, the same as Bridget, Abby and Emma, and it sounds as though she wanted to put her money to use in her trips and possibly finer dresses.

I found this great 2 piece Bedford Cord outfit, I can see why it would get a faded appearance so quickly, the upper ridges would get worn faster than the lower.

I think that Lizzie did have one piece dresses and skirts and blouses in her wardrobe.  The outfit she gave police sounds like a two-piece from the evidence. 

Mrs. Raymond described, from your quotation Kat, a blouse waist as meaning loose in the waist, but that doesn't mean that the Bedford cord was a two-piece outfit, it just says to me that the top of the outfit/garment was loose fitting in that area. Loose in the waist when describing a garment in this fashion doesn't exactly mean to me that it is a separate blouse that can pull out and look askew it means more that it was made to be loose in the waist area, not fitted. 

I'm not sure that the Bedford Cord was Lizzie's favorite dress nor that she would burn it so a police officer, who wasn't in the least up on dresses (except Harrington)might see it was worn upon examining her clothes.

Mrs. Raymond says in another quote that Lizzie wanted that dress made first because she wanted to wear it, she had a use for it. What that use was we don't know. 

The dressmaker was employed to make clothes and I don't think she would have too much say in, nor would she comment on, the cheapness of fabric a customer would chose, do you, except maybe in a way that would compliment the customer?  She might lose customers otherwise. 

One thing no one has yet accused Lizzie of is that she got paint on her outfit that day on purpose.

Isn't she taking a Big chance to turn over a two-piece dress as the one she wore, if she hadn't actually worn a two-piece on Thursday, regardless that it wasn't the Bedford Cord she wore when people saw her close up?
She sat so close to Alice in the kitchen that her head was on Alice's shoulder...yet Alice doesn't remember the dress Lizzie wore.
If Lizzie is gambling that the Color is at least close, it's an even Huger gamble if it's one-piece as opposed to 2 pieces.  Also, I'd like to know about that Bengaline silk she did turn over to the court.  When Dr. Dolan says the top & bottom are not the same material, then which part of that suit Was Bengaline?

I only called the Bedford Cord her favorite, because she seems to have worn it more often than her other dresses even after it faded and became soiled and stained.  It was her favorite to wear in the mornings...not literally her favorite dress.

But, isn't it funny to think that all this dress switching about was done for Bridget's sake?  Andrew and Abby were dead, they'd never tell what Lizzie had on that morning and the only one who may have seen would have been Bridget.  And Bridget either didn't recall or chose not to remember it.

Lincoln perhaps did have a point in her book when she describes the two 'dresses'; the Bedford Cord and the Bengaline were both ribbed fabrics, both 2 piece, both blue with some sort of figure on it.  It seems only Lizzie would have thought of such a thing as trying to find something to wear that matched the description of the Bedford cord.  It all hinged on Bridget's memory of that morning. 

It seems more odd to me that she would turn over a navy dress of silk type fabric rather than a morning dress fabric dress of lighter blue.

Alice Russell is an enigma, she has such detail of certain conversations during that time, yet no recollections of simple observances.  To me she is having selective memory.  But recall that regarding the Bedford cord dress, she does say that she didn't see it on Lizzie since it was made in the spring.  So if it was Lizzie's favorite morning dress to wear, then we can assume Alice never saw Lizzie in the mornings.

We can be sure that the two piece navy garment in evidence was a two piece navy garment because Lizzie says so clearly in her inquest evidence, she calls it a skirt and blouse.

Dr. Dolan might have been answering the question without using the full deck at his disposal, i.e., his reasoning was off because he either misinterpreted the question or answered with something else in mind. The attorney never cleared it up by subsequent questions. Reading through the testimony many times the attorney's ask a question and the answer doesn't correspond.  Quite odd.

It's interesting too that Bridget when questioned, a question she isn't allowed to finish, that most days Lizzie wore not a calico in the mornings. So what does that mean?

Carol, I think from Bridget's answer: "No, sir; it was not a calico dress she was in the habit of wearing.", simply meant that the dress Lizzie usually wore in the morning was not made of calico, it was the Bedford cord made of cotton.  Being an all male court assembly, I don't think they had the foggiest idea on women's fabrics, if it was a male type of suiting material; wool, serge, etc., I think they would have understood it better.

We have Alice Russell's testimony on it from the Trial Volume 1:

Q. You called it a Bedford cord; do I get it right?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that what we call a calico?
A. No, sir.

Q. Quite different from a calico?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is it a cambric?
A. No, sir.

Q. So it is neither a calico or a cambric?
A. No, sir.

Q. Very different material, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir. 

I found a rag in the Trial, Bridget, pg. 1237.
She says dust rags were made of Andrew's old handkerchiefs.

  Okay, Kat, that cracked me up!!!  Found a rag!  But, no dust cloths from old dresses or shirts.  My mom used to save my dad's old tee shirts to dust with, nice soft cotton cloth to polish the furniture with.  You know, come to think of it, even a couple of torn up pairs of his old boxers too!  But, no handkerchiefs, I think my dad's were more for show than actual use. 

You are quoting Alice Russell above, and she did know the difference in fabrics.  But what I am saying is that of course, from Bridget's answer she is saying that the dress Lizzie usually wore was not a calico, that part is obvious, but where does she, Bridget, go on to say that the morning dress Lizzie usually wore was the Bedford Cord?  Isn't that something that has been assumed by those on this link who think that way?

If Alice Russell, probably Emma and Lizzie's friend who saw them most often, never saw the Bedford Cord on Lizzie from the time it was made until she saw it burned up, then I question the assumption that Lizzie wore it most mornings. 

I also don't think she would wear a paint stained dress as her choice of morning dresses, not with her personality and attention to her personal appearance. If she really liked the pattern of the Bedford Cord and got paint on it she could easily have had another dress of that same pattern made up for her. I can't see her choosing to wear a dress that was so soiled as her favorite.

To my mind there are three garments involved, the Bedford Cord, the blouse and skirt Lizzie gave in evidence, and whatever outfit she probably did wear on the day of the crimes. 

That men can't differentiate between fabrics, except for Harrington, is probably a given, but they can differentiate between a morning dress and an afternoon going-out-of-house dress, and on that point they have come through in their questioning as knowing that fact which helps to say that Lizzie was most likely wearing a morning dress not the navy silk she gave police.

That's where my thinking is now, it might change, but I would need more evidence before I assume that Lizzie was always wearing that Bedford Cord in the mornings.

I must have known last night while I was searching for sources to make a note of this one!  That it would come up...thank goodness I did...Do you have a "search" feature and disc of the trial, Carol?  It's a big help.
Trial
Bridget
242+
Q.   What was the usual dress that Miss Lizzie Borden wore mornings? Will you describe it?

MR. ROBINSON.         Wait a moment; we object to that.

MR. MOODY.              Not as having any tendency to show what she had on that morning.

MR. ROBINSON.        I object.

MR. MOODY.              I don't care to press it against objection.

THE WITNESS.           Well, she wore a ----

MR. ROBINSON and MR. MOODY.              Wait a moment.

Q.  I will call your attention, not asking you when it was worn or what part of the time it was worn, to a cotton or calico dress with light blue groundwork and a little figure.  Does that bring to your mind the dress I am referring to?
A.  No sir, it was not a calico dress she was in the habit of wearing.

Q.   I did not ask you about the habit, but ----

MR. ROBINSON.      That should be stricken out.

MR. MOODY.            Certainly.

MASON C. J.             Let it be stricken out.

Q.   Do you remember a dress of such a color with a figure in it?
A.   Yes sir.

Q.   Will you describe that dress that I have referred to as well as you can?
A.   It was a blue dress with a sprig on it.

Q.   What was the color of the blue; what was the shade of the blue?
A.   Light blue.

Q.   And what was the color of what you have called the sprig on it?
A.   It was a darker blue, I think, than what the under part was.

Q.   Did it have any light spots or light, figures in it?

MR. ROBINSON.           This is very leading now ----

A.  I don't remember.

MR. ROBINSON.           I would like to have the witness describe the dress; she is competent to do that.  Was the last question answered?

(Question read). "I don't remember."

MR. ROBINSON.           I move that that be stricken out.

MR. KNOWLTON.         I object. I contend that the question is not leading.

MR. ROBINSON.           I understand he does not propose to go any further with it.

MR. MOODY.                 I do not.

MR. KNOWLTON.        That is all, -- to negative the fact of a white figure in it.

MR. ROBINSON.           Well, we will have no talk about it, now. Let it stand as it is.

Q.  When did she procure that dress?
A.  Last spring, I guess.

Q.  Do you know who made it?
A.  Yes sir.

Q.   Who? (Witness hesitated). If you do not know of your own knowledge, I won't ask you.
A.   I know her, but I forget the lady's name.

Q.   It is the name that you are hesitating about, is it?
A.   Yes sir.  

Q.   Do you know where her place of business is?
A.   No sir, I do not.

Q.   Was it made at the house or made somewhere else?
A.   I think it was made at the house.

Q.   Was it a dressmaker that she usually had, or some other dressmaker?
A.   Why, generally the same dressmaker has been there ever since I have been in the house.

Q.   The same dressmaker that has always been there? 
A.   Yes sir.

Q.   The same one that was always there made this dress that you describe?
A.   I can't tell who made the dress at all, but I know the dressmaker was there in the house dressmaking that spring.

Q.   And she got that dress that spring?
A.   I can't tell who made it.

--I also think there were at the most 3 outfits, at the least  2 &1/2, depending on whether Lizzie's clothes could mix or match.
--I also wonder how, when they say to stike out a sentence, and it is agreed...that we still Have that sentence in our copy?  I always thought that was odd...but glad it was that way, of course!


(Message last edited Nov-7th-02  7:55 PM.)

Yet in the Preliminary, Bridget is not able to say a word about Lizzie's dress at all that she wore that day, was she drawing a blank, or was it fear that kept her from speaking what Lizzie wore that day?  Why the sudden recall later on?  Odd.

Preliminary Vol. 1, Page 86

Q. When you saw Miss Lizzie there at the foot of the stairs, at that time when she gave the alarm, what dress did she have on?
A. I could not tell you.

Q. Dark or light?
A. I could not tell you.

Q. What dress did she wear that morning?
A. I could not tell you.

Q. Did you see any blood on her?
A. No Sir, I did not notice any blood on her.

Post #80 does not give a day, so that may be confusing.
Bridget never did admit to remembering what Lizzie wore that Thursday, just as you say..
In this segment on the previous page,(Trial, 242) she was testifying to what Lizzie wore  habitually.
She says she does not remember what Lizzie wore on Tuesday, either, but DOES recall Wednesday...and Wednesday sounds like the Bedford Cord.

(Message last edited Nov-8th-02  3:34 AM.)

Actually, cold medicine is making my brain fuzzy.  Sorry, my bad, no confusion from you. 

You're cute on Nyquil.  At least you're Here and interested.
Why would Bridget remember Wednesday particularly, but not Tuesday or Thursday?
I think she's asked this but doesn't have an answer?

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I just don't want to be spewing jibber-jabber all over the place.

But, I just had a thought, Ooo, Ooo!  Bridget did laundry the week of the murders, Monday, I believe and Andrew always took in the clothes line himself.  That was Tuesday if I remember correctly, which would mean that Bridget ironed the clothes Tuesday or Wednesday.  If the Bedford cord was in the laundry that was ironed, Bridget would have seen it and knew what Lizzie was wearing on Wednesday, which would have been the pink and white stripe wrapper.  But, since Bridget remembered Lizzie wearing the Bedford cord on Wednesday, the pink and white striped wrapper was the one in the laundry pile.  Does that sound reasonable?  Does it make sense?  Am I actually on to something? 

No, I seriously consider myself computer illiterate.

This is a confusing piece of testimony because the attorney is talking about and wants Bridget to describe a calico dress. Yet, Bridget says a calico was not the dress she was in the habit of wearing. Yet he presses on with the question about a calico dress so you don't know whether she is in the end describing what she is thinking about, not a calico or what he is asking her about, a calico.

Maybe Lizzie had several, not just two, light blue dresses with a small pattern in it.  Bridget here doesn't say there was any white in it and the figure is a sprig.  The dress Mrs. Churchill described Thursday morning was a light blue and white ground with a dark blue diamond pattern on it.

No one anywhere mentions a ruffle which the Bedford cord had on it, which to me is the deciding factor.

And the Bedford cord was much longer than her other dresses and it was tight fitting, which the Thursday dress, the loose bosom dress, was not.  I will continue to investigate this.

I don't remember where you were asking this question but somewhere you wanted to know why Dolan I think it was said that the garment Lizzie gave police was of two different fabrics. I found in Lizzie's inquest testimony a part where she says, "I had on a navy blue,sort of bengaline or India silk skirt, with a navy blue blouse...."
So I think that answers the question, the skirt was Bengaline, the blouse was not. Maybe?

Bridget said in her testimony that she was ironing when Uncle John arrived Wed. afternoon. So at least she ironed that day.

You bring up a very interesting point.  I always wondered if Lizzie went to the closet when she went upstairs at noon Aug. 4th after the murders and got out the pink wrapper.  Or, was the pink wrapper already in Emma's room. If so then she either wore it before and tossed it in there the day before rather than hanging it up or it was in there folded up from the laundry. I only say this because I think one of the ladies says in their testimony that she saw Lizzie coming out of Emma's room tieing the bow of the pink wrapper she just changed into.  However, I am not sure that I believe a dress just ironed would be folded up, wouldn't it be hung up. 

Oh if you're waiting on a ruffle, good luck!
Seriously.
Especially after all these confusing people give all their different versions of what a *Lizzie Outfit* is even called.

The Inquest testimony of Lizzie saying the skirt was Bengaline but not saying that Specifically about the blouse, is a good find!
I hope that is the answer.
I've always hated Lizzie's clothes.
I wish she would just get to Maplecroft and buy new stuff!

--About Bridget--I had the impression she was speaking there what she wanted to, following her own line of thought which was to get into evidence that "habitual" info, maybe coached by the prosecution.  She just barrels merrily along even disregarding the objections.
She wants to describe a light blue dress with a darker color sprig that is not a calico, as a dress that Lizzie had had made in the spring and was in the habit of wearing.  That is what I read, post #80, and that is what she said.
--I'm getting confused Susan.
Bridget did the ironing Wednesday and the clothes were taken upstairs Thursday.  If I follow your reasoning, I would think that the outfits Bridget ironed would be the ones she remembered, not the absence thereof?
It seems as if an outfit was put in the laundry it wouldn't be seen again for use until Wednesday or Thursday.  That's 3- 4 days a week that an outfit was unavailable.  So the Bedford Cord was not in the laundry that week because Lizzie was seen in it Wednesday by Bridget, whereas the rest of the laundry was returned Thursday.
I have a feeling these outfits weren't laundered all that often if their use was restricted 3 days minimum per week.

I don't see why we can't figure out how to make searching easier for you!
We really must try...you would be so happy with it.  What kind of computer do you have?
I am IMAC, but I think most servers even PC's have "SEARCH" feature.
On mine it is APPLE-F.
i just press the keyboard where the Apple key is and then type down the letter 'F".  That's all.  A box pops up and you type in the key word or phrase, like    bengaline   and click on "Find".
The less words the better, all lower case.  The hardest part of search as Harry always says, is finding the KEY word or phrase that will find you what you are looking for.
You can practice on this thread.  The word    bengaline    would be highlighted blue or whatever. if found..

Maybe Susan can tell you which keys cause "SEarch"?

(Message last edited Nov-9th-02  1:53 AM.)

According to what we have heard, and I could be off on this, Lizzie had 2 wrappers or housedresses or morning dresses.  We'll call them dress A-the Bedford cord and dress B-the pink and white striped wrapper.  If dress B was in the laundry, and Bridget ironed it on Wednesday, she would automatically know, since there are only the 2 dresses, that Lizzie was wearing dress A that day for sure.  That was my line of reasoning, I don't know if that clarifies it any, I hope?

From Bridget's trial testimony she does say she saw what Lizzie had on that Wednesday and perhaps that is why it was so clear in her mind, she had just ironed the pink and white striped wrapper.  She didn't recall Tuesday, Andrew had brought in the clothes, not Bridget.  And Thursday, Lizzie could have still been wearing the Bedford cord or the pink and white stripe wrapper since it was now clean.  The only thing that would throw off my speculation here would be if there was a third housedress thrown into the mix, which is entirely possible!

From Bridget's own testimony we know that Lizzie was in the habit of wearing that Bedford cord more than any other dress in the morning, perhaps her favorite?  So, I would think that it would get more washing, it must have gotten filthy!  Long skirts that trailed slightly behind dragging over the floors in that house day in and out and dress shields or no, that blouse or the waist of that dress must have been sweated through in the heat of summer, yuck!  Do you get the impression that everyone must have smelled like a petting zoo in summer?  Ewwww.  So, I don't know how long that would be between washings, but, when it was cleaned, it must have needed it badly and then the pink and white stripe wrapper got to come up to bat. 

I'll try to get someone here to help me with how I can search.  I have the disc of the trial but I tend to go to the Virtual Museum Adobe printout to look up things and just go to the person's testimony I think is involved and read all through it. Your way sounds much faster.  I have a Dell PC.  Thanks anyway.

In response to Kat's suggestion that I might know what key to hit for search, I'm sorry, Carol, I don't.  It sounds as though you and I do the same thing when looking something up.  I'm still almost computer illiterate after nine months of having one! 

Will someone please help these nice ladies who don't even know they are in distress?

Could it be keys:
"Control"   and  "F"    ?   "F" =" Find"...on my Mac

It's like having a bloodhound!

If Lizzie only had two morning dresses and one was the Bedford Cord, then burning it would leave her with only one morning dress. What did she wear then when the pink wrapper was in the laundry for several days?

The fact she burned the Bedford Cord dress means to me she had several morning dresses in her collection, so burning an old one (which I don't think she wore frequently) would not leave her cold without enough selections.

Mrs. Holmes said in the trial that she thought Lizzie wore the dark outfit in evidence on Friday and Saturday, (I believe). So if that is true, and that outfit was considered to be an afternoon dress, then all the business about morning and afternoon dresses is somewhat arguable. Maybe ladies didn't follow that rule as closely as we think.
But if Mrs. Holmes only saw Lizzie in the afternoon on Friday and Saturday, then she might still be following tradition.

But from what Mrs. Holmes says perhaps because Lizzie was under morphine during that period, which included the day that she gave the dress to the police, she might have been confused as to what she wore which day. 

Thats a good question about what else Lizzie would have to wear if the pink and white wrapper went in the wash, I don't know?

Off the top of my head, I can check later as I must leave for work soon, only the men in the trial refer to the dresses as morning dresses, none of the ladies do.  Emma makes reference to it only being worn mornings and early at that, almost as if it is a robe before Lizzie gets fully dressed for the day.  I think housedress is probably the most accurate terminology.  From Emma's testimony there are only 18 to 19 dresses in the dress closet and one was Abby's, unfortunately, there is no breakdown as to how many dresses each sister had, did each have 9?  It just sounds as though Lizzie had a very finite number of outfits, how many could be housedresses, how many going-out or calling outfits?

Thats a good point about Lizzie being drugged, its possible she was fuzzy-headed and didn't recall what she had worn.  It was never made a point of at the trial.  Good food for thought, Carol!


Kat, there is a button on my keyboard with a small magnifying glass on it, perhaps that is my search button?  I'm almost afraid to push it! 

I only learned the Search feature last May or so, before Stefani went on vacation.  She also taught me "copy-n-paste" and then left town!
Luckily I learned it just then because I sure am using it!

I remember the old days, not yet 3 years ago when we got the Prelim and the trial on paper.

I studied and read that Prelim. about 6 times in 6 months.  Made notes all over it.  I had to become so familiar with the primary sources before this type of "searching" did me any good.
I've spent 3 years doing that , backed up by Knowlton Papers, Dr. Hoffman's book, and Rebello.  Rebello I spent about 50 hours on, just the first 1/2.  I didn't even know he had a time-line in the back when I was composing mine for the Museum/Library!

I used to be as familiar with the "authors" but I've let that part slide and concentrated that part of my memory onto the Newspapers.  I figured what we do here is basically what the authors did, and so now I've replaced authors with the Evening Standard, the articles in the Casebook and Sourcebook, the Rochester papers, and the Knowlton Papers, Proceedings, and approx. 35 issues of the LBQ.  (These I've read all 3x)

I think I've read the Inquest about 10 times and find it fascinating, along with the Witness Statements.  Like you guys, I best love the element of TIMING.  The papers, and these 4 documents are closest to the crime in time.  They make me feel a part of it.

Anyway, after those years of study  (I haven't been employed--more retired), only NOW can I "search" by computer...because I know where to LOOK.  That is invaluable.
(Just a bit of my rez-oo-may)

(Message last edited Nov-11th-02  7:54 PM.)

Kat, I don't know if this is what you are refering to or not, but, there is a little magnifying glass with the word 'search' next to it at the top of posts.  I just used that to find this thread where we were discussing Lizzie's dresses.  I found something interesting, it may be nothing, but, to me it sounded suspicious!

From Lizzie's Inquest testimony we learn that there was a dress pattern that was not made up yet, possibly material that was cut out and needed to be sewn yet.  Lizzie is asked to describe it:

Q. What kind of one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.

This to me sounds suspiciously close to Lizzie's pink and white stripe wrapper!

From the Witness statements of Doherty and Harrington describing Lizzie's pink and white stripe wrapper, page 6:

The stripes were on the pink shade, and between them was a dark figure.

Mrs. Holmes description from the Trial Volume 2, page 506/i528

Q. Color?
A. A stripe---pink stripe and white stripe with what I should call a sheeny figure in it.

Philip Harrington's description from the Trial Volume 1, page 566/i

Q. Will you describe it?
A. It was a house wrap, a striped house wrap, with a pink and light stripe alternating; the pink the most prominent color.  On the light ground stripe was a diamond figure formed by narrow stripes, some of which ran diagonally or bias to the stripe and others parallel with it.

All of Lizzie's clothing sounds oddly made from material that is very close in description and color to one another, what gives?  Was she planning on using the pink and white stripe wrapper to do the killing in and have it replaced with something that sounded damn close and goofed?  Very odd indeed! 

That is an interesting interpretation of eveyones concern about that *dress pattern*.
That question is important, we can tell, because it's one of those *quick-change-of-subject* questions designed to catch Lizzie off-guard.
Those are the ones she REPEATS before she answers.
I always thought that gave her time to think, and it was a question that hit close to home...delving into an area she was shy of.
But it couldn't be figured out why she would be asked and then later stipulated by the prosecution that the dress pattern had no value in the trial.
Was this some kind of deal they made, so as not to confuse the jury, do you think?

PRELIMINARY HEARING
PG. 427+
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Q.  (Mr. Knowlton)  Mr. Hilliard, did you look in the trunks in the attic?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  All of them?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you examine their contents?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  Did you see anything up there of an unmade dress pattern in the attic?
A.  Well, there was some of the trunks that I looked into, but I did not look into all of them. I did not, to my recollection, see any dress pattern in any of the trunks that I saw.
Q.  What other officer looked in the trunks in the attic besides you?
A.  I think Mr. Seaver, I am not sure but what Mr. Fleet did. I think Mr. Desmond.
Q.  Have you been to inquire for a dress pattern there since?
A.  I have not, but under my orders other officers have.
Q.  Who did go?
A.  Mr. Fleet.
Q.  Have you been able to get the dress pattern, or any dress pattern?
A.  No Sir.
Q.  When was it you sent for it?
A.  I think the first officer that went there was Mr. Medley. After that, I think, I am pretty positive I sent the Assistant Marshal. Week before last I think was the first time the officer went there. I think Mr. Fleet was there a week ago last Saturday night. I think he was there some day the first part of the week, of last week.
Q.  And you have not got it?
A.  No Sir.
(Mr. Knowlton)  I now call for it, Brother Jennings, and ask you to bring it, not now, but this afternoon.

[Seaver is asked about the dress pattern, pg. 430 &
Finally--]

pg. 458
(Mr. Knowlton) I made some public allusion to the dress pattern. I am satisfied that is the dress pattern; so that whatever may have been supposed to have been in the case, is out of it. I say that in justice to the defendant. I ought to say I never supposed there was anything about it; I simply wanted to see it, that is all.

But, do you think that they may have jumped to the same conclusion as I did that this dress pattern sounded suspiciously close to Lizzie's pink and white stripe wrapper?  I wonder if once it was examined they saw that there was no way it could be mistaken for the dress that already existed and that is why they dropped it?  Wasn't that dress pattern held back for awhile from the police after they had asked for it?  That alone would raise my suspicions. 

I'm not quite sure what the significance is.
If Lizzie had meant to wear the pink wrapper that Thursday morning (whether she was slated to be the one to do the deed, or not) and burn it if it got blood on it somehow, if even by transfer and not by weapon, then she didn't have the "duplicate" outfit made up in time, but to HER it would seem suspicious?
Do you think this was to be made up into a replacement article of clothing, near enough in appearance to her pink wrapper, that no casual observer would notice?

Yes, thats my line of thinking exactly!  Why buy a dress pattern that sounds like a duplicate of a perfectly new dress that you don't wear that often in the first place?  I mean, how many pink and white striped dresses can a girl have?  I'm going by Bridget's recollection there that Lizzie was in the habit of wearing the Bedford Cord on most mornings.

But, can you imagine if that was Lizzie's plan to sew that dress up as a replacement, she probably would have needed the dressmaker or at least Emma's help.  Em, could you help me stitch up this dress pattern I bought?  Why?  You already have a perfectly new pink and white striped wrapper.  What do you need with another?  And Lizzie going to Abby to help her is just too out there!  I'm just supposing here that Lizzie may have planned something in advance and either let it drop or had to let it go.  That dress pattern is just too close in description for me.  Maybe I'm just chasing phantoms here, but, it just jumped out at me the other day and I haven't finished worrying it yet. 

Along these same lines, I've been thinking a bit more...

If Lizzie bought that fabric out-of-town on Saturday the 23rd July, then she was pre-meditating that week she was gone and therefore my theory of the possibility of whatever legal thing came up to cause the act to be *NOW* didn't happen the week she returned but sometime previous to her departure, when Emma was still at home too.

Then to take it farther, she could have acquired a weapon out-of-town at the same time, when she was shopping alone in New Bedford Saturday, and maybe it was a new hatchet and it was hidden in that bolt of fabric.  Seems to mean the last bolt I saw was long enough to hold a 16", 24" or a bit longer hatchet...