1. "miscellaneous lizzie mysteries"
Posted by haulover on Nov-14th-02 at 10:27 PM

LIZZIE'S INQUEST TESTIMONY:
whether guilty or innocent, can there be any doubt that she is often lying?  to wit -- her barn story.  she stuck to her guns no matter how ridiculous it got.  but what i've wondered is:  why did she not consider an easier and more believeable story?  that because it was so hot in the house, especially around that stove, and had not felt well anyway -- she wanted to go out for some air and sit in the shade of a pear tree, and while there, decided to eat a few pears there that had fallen on the ground.  this would have put her out of sight of the side door, would it not?  she could easily justify 20 min. of this.  if she's guilty, then lincoln's theory of her lack of imagination applies -- that she was compelled to explain things she actually did -- such as going to the barn to use something to break the handle off of the ax?  (i know of no account of everything that was in the barn.)

lizzie's statement that in going downstairs she saw that the door to the guest room was closed.  she refers to abby's wish, stated earlier, that she wished it closed off from dust or whatever.  if she's telling the truth here, then an intruder can be hiding in there, secure enough from detection.  if lying, she says it to explain why she would not have seen the body.  but FACT:  the door is open when the body is discovered.

LIZZIE IRONING:
why is she ironing a few hankerchiefs on a day like this?  a small job at that.  to justify having a fire in the stove?  is she burning a lot of evidence?  between abby and andrew's murder, she has time to burn a lot of things.

FLAW IN LINCOLN'S THEORY:
lincoln has it (correct me if i'm wrong) that lizzie intended to only kill abby -- not her father.  the problem was that he came home earlier than expected and saw her there.  she had intended to go out and make an alibi.  if this is true, then why is it that it took her an hour to clean up and dispose of a weapon after killing abby---whereas she could accomplish the same thing ten minutes after killing andrew?  following this line, it gets thick and confusing..........it took time to burn up some clothing and dispense with a weapon.  then was andrew murdered with a different weapon? no.  most probable under this scenario is that she was taking the weapon out with her to dispose of it somewhere--then he came home--and she still has the ax.  and uses it once more.  but still the question of why ten min. as opposed to an hour needed to cover herself?  if she's guilty, my only answer is that she had learned a few things from her first crime, and was able to be more efficient.  that would explain why half the number of blows to andrew's skull.  as to her clothing, i don't know.  ten or fifteen min. is still not much time to wash an ax thoroughly, break the handle, put it in the fire, and take the ax to the ash heap in the cellar and put it in with the other axes.  or is it?  i can't relate to how much time the thing would actually take.

i've got more questions, but this will do for now.

p.s.:  one more question:  who is the author (or name of the book) where the theory was advanced that she did it in the nude?

I can make a beginning attempt to hopefully give/get some answers here...maybe others can help with what they know or think?

The questions and observations are all good, but intricate.  It may take time and research...

In Rebello, pg. 86-7,  Lizzie first says she was out in the yard and "heard a groan and came in"..(T. Bridget, 244), and then later it is embellished in her Inquest testimony to be that she was in the yard 5 minutes first (Inquest, Lizzie, 88)
Q. How long were you under the pear tree?
A. I think I was under there very nearly four or five minutes. I stood looking around. I looked up at the pigeon house that they have closed up. It was no more than five minutes, perhaps not as long. I can't say sure.

So why didn't she stick to the yard story?
Maybe she realized that for someone to escape w/o her seeing them, she would have to be inside the barn away from a window, for a short time.  Just enough time to be believable?
One might say, why not the cellar?
And I think of Morse and his arrival back to the house and running around planting the thought that the cellar door was unlocked Thursday, he JUST knew it!  He kept that up and Lizzie brought it up too, the next morning in front of an officer.  That implies that maybe in a conspiracy, the story would be (if not in fact) that the cellar door was open (or unlocked--never knew which they meant--physically open or "open" as in "not locked.") and that was the point of  entrance and exit of the perpetrator, so Lizzie knew ahead of time not to mention she was anywhere near the cellar after her first normally expected visit upon arising...Just a thought here & now for you...maybe she was to unlock the cellar that morning.  Maybe she DID.

As to the barn's contents, I think a member once found mention of a vise in the barn...I thought it was Harry.  He may be able to contribute the barns contents...should be interesting.

Handkerchiefs:  Is it in an opening statement, that it seems odd that Lizzie would iron , what?  2/3 of her handkerchiefs and then just Stop, and Leave? 
BTW:  Any thoughts on what-all she would be burning?

If she killed Abby in one outfit and burned it before Andrew came home, because she wasn't planning on killing HIM, then she would have to find a new killing outfit, or a shield that was foolproof for blood, because as you say, she has less time this time.  So that theory would encompass a whole 'nother outfit etc...

OMAGOSH, about that theory of killing in the nude.  That story of the Legend movie was written by William Bast, I believe.  1975 was the date of the movie, but who knows when it was written?  I thought maybe the idea came from a newsarticle of the time...it's possible...but I THINK it may be a letter in the Knowlton Papers?  I'm not sure about this.  I will have to look further.
Anybody know the Knowton Papers real well?
I usually know Where to look...it's the looking that takes time.

Do you have the Knowlton Papers?

(Message last edited Nov-15th-02  4:45 AM.)

Here's the key information from Rebello, page 87:

"....The first floor housed an old sleigh, a carriage and stalls for horses. There were also a number of barrels and old window frames; some with and without glass. (Preliminary Hearing: 394) The Borden's discontinued using a horse in 189l. (Trial: 193) An old, dirt-filled well was on the north west corner in front of the barn. (Trial: 668, 1391) The water faucet where Bridget Sullivan got her water to wash the windows was to the right of the south barn door under the staircase that led to the barn loft. (Preliminary Hearing, 60) Another door that led to the privy vault was at the end of the barn. (Preliminary Hearing: 138, and Trial 210, 416, 668, 1392)...

....The north side of the barn was filled with a least a half ton of hay and some sea grass. There was an old fireplace and binding cords to the right of the west window. A pile of lumber was at the southwest corner. (Preliminary Hearing: 395) A pile of lumber, a carpenter's workbench, a box and a large willow basket were found along the south end near the staircase. (Trial: 483, 668, 681).... 

This from Lincoln (page 99, paperback ed.):
"There was running water in the barn and a vise and some heavy hammers; there was a fire in the coal stove."....

On page 122, she describes Medley's trip to the barn:
"He had gone to the barn because Miss Borden's casual statement that she had spent half an hour in its loft had struck him as most surprising; he wanted to look at the place. It was a one-horse stable with room for both a carriage and a sleigh; in other words, a two-car garage. There was still an old sleigh in it, which had not been sold off with the horse and carriage. Just inside the door, along with an old vise and some yard and carpentry tools, was a smallish wooden box of assorted scrap, bits of broken metal, door knobs, old locks, a folded sheet of lead. Steep ladder-like steps without rails ran up to the hayloft."

I did a quick search of the books available to me and could NO OTHER author who cited the vise in the barn. 

I don't think it very likely Lizzie would have had the time to take the hatchet to the barn and saw off the handle.

i've only seen a small sample from the knowlton papers.  and it was curious; if i understand it, knowlton says he interviewed bridget right after the murders, pretending to be a relative of Abbys.  according to him, she made it clear that the sisters did not like mrs. borden.  she didn't want to talk about their family quarrels, but said she had wanted to leave several times and abby had talked her out of it.  (btw, was this ethical behavior on the part of knowlton?)

"I don't think it very likely Lizzie would have had the time to take the hatchet to the barn and saw off the handle."

i agree.  that's one reason it's tempting to think she's innocent -- at least as far as doing the actual killing.  even if the broken-handled hatchet is not the murder weapon, it's still difficult to see her cleaning up and disposing of the weapon that fast.  the problem is we can't identify with certainty the murder weapon anyway.  this is an example of why the case is so maddening -- there's too much missing information.

 

Cool stuff from the barn, Harry!
Now we've got the info in one place.
It pleases my sense of "order".
Does that mean the only mention of a vise in the barn is in phoney-baloney Lincoln?

There is a letter to Hilliard from Nellie McHenry in the Knowlton Papers (33-35) which is pretty much as you described, haulover,
where she is the one claiming to be a relative of Abby and wants the truth from Bridget, and so she says she spoke with her 2 hours.
You know Nellie McHenry, wife of THE "Trickey-McHenry"?

I've been reading that very book last night and today.  I was looking for an example of someone writing in a theory that Lizzie did it in the nude.

There were plenty of people , (just like us, it seems), who pondered what seemed impossibilities, & who still thought that Lizzie COULD kill, saw off a handle and burn it & her clothes all before calling Bridget downstairs.
They also were not shy about naming alternative weapons...flat-irons being number one.

(Message last edited Nov-16th-02  2:12 AM.)

Lizzie did it in the nude:

I found a first reference to this theory in the Knowlton Papers, pg. 249, letter dated June 16, 1893:
"--no one knows whether Lizzie had on any clothes or not--"

(Emphasis is the writer's--underlined)

Now, we still don't know really where Bast got this idea. 
The Knowlton Papers weren't donated to FRHS until 1989.
BUT, this may mean that there were news articles of the day that posited this theory.
Otherwise we could say that if an idea has occured to a letter writer of the public in 1893, that same idea could come to a writer in 1974-5?

Perhaps Bast got if from Lizzie's own George Robinson?

Trial Volume 2

CLOSING ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT
by HON.GEORGE D. ROBINSON

Page 1703/i725

Well, they will go another step in their theory, I think likely.  I would not wonder if they are going to claim that this woman denuded herself and did not have any dress on at all when she committed either murder.  The heart waits to learn what theories they will get up about this woman without evidence.

Seems likely doesn't it, the trial documents were available during that time period.  But, it still doesn't make any sense then why Lizzie would choose that particular moment to burn a dress that the police are looking for that could clear her name because it wasn't bloodstained at all.  Odd. 

kat:  thanks for clarifying what i read about someone interviewing bridget.  i was confused about who was doing the interviewing.
what is your problem with lincoln?  i believe her book was the first i ever read about the case.  interestingly, she concurs with knowlton in his closing argument where he advances theory that this was all directed against the stepmother but she got caught in the house when father came home early.  my problem with lincoln's theory is just this:  if she only intended to murder abby, why does it take her so long to get out of there and establish her alibi?  the time looks more like the murderer is waiting for father to come home.  on the other hand, to argue with myself, i found a way it can be similar to lincoln's theory but different in details:

after lizzie is satisfied that bridget is busy with the windows, she double-locks the front door and goes down to the cellar and gets the ax.  she goes upstairs and lets abby have it.  she removes her dress before leaving the guest room; if the ax is dripping, she wipes it on the dress.  if necessary she can also wipe her face.  so she's able to leave the room without dripping, go into her own room, washes herself, and put on a clean dress.  she wipes the ax as clean as she can and puts it in some kind of bag, intending to remove it from the house.  she had already started the fire in the stove.  now she takes the bloody dress to the kitchen to burn but sees, to her great distress, that the fire has gone out.  (she really did have trouble with the fire).  by the time it is burned up and she's ready to leave, father comes home.  now she has to change her plan.  when bridget goes upstairs, she uses the same ax on her father, washes the ax, somehow breaks off the handle.  the blade she puts down in the cellar and the handle goes in the fire.  fearing she doesn't have the time to burn this dress, she puts it away, washes at the kitchen sink, goes upstairs and changes.  comes down and calls to bridget.

i'm not convinced by the above theory at all -- just exploring.  i've never been convinced that the handleless hatchet is the murder weapon, for one thing.  but the above scenario does explain two mysteries.  1) it gives a reason for her to have that fire in the stove, while pretending to iron (several of her best hankerchiefs).  and 2) it explains why she burned that dress.  there must be a reason why she bothered to burn it.  yes, policemen were just outside the door, yet this might have been the first opportunity she had for doing so, with so many people around and in and out.  yes, the police searched dresses from closets, but did they search the kitchen?  the fact is this dress she burned was not discovered by the police.  if they saw it, they must have seen it as a rag -- not as a "dress."

     

That's a good find, in the argument at trial!

I wonder who is in the credits of the "Legend" movie, as consultant?
I doubt the movie development people read that trial in 1974 or whatever.  It wasn't easily available.  I was wondering if they scouted Fall River and ran smack into Waring, who had the Knowlton papers until they were donated.  The other chance might be that their consultant knew of this in the trial...anyone knew who their fact-checker was on the movie?

Maybe it's in Porter or Pearson...that would seem an easier way for a writer to come across this...by researching other writers.

UH, what problem do I have with Lincoln?  Let me count the ways...
No, better yet, let SUSAN count the ways...she's made it her hobby!

Some of the timing is bothersome and we can't seem to explain it by using testimony.
We are relying on Bridget & Lizzie for the morning's happenings and we don't know if they are both to be believed.
For instance, Bridget says she is starting out washing windows at 9:30 a.m.
Where has Abby been from 9 a.m. until 9:30, when the guest room was already finished around 9, except for pillow shams at the foot of the bed?
Why doesn't Bridget ever remark upon the "absence" of Abby all morning?
(I am replying to you, not Lincoln here, as I've not been conversant with her book in a while.  Those who have read it more recently may comment on that)
I have to question where the idea comes from (which has been repeated by others) that Andrew came home "early" that day?  I don't think there's proof for that.  Does a theory depend upon it, or can there be leeway--so that if he wasn't considered early after all--would it change anything dramatically?  (Is that something you can work around, is really all I mean...just in case?)

I have a question, in general, about the handle to the hatchet.
The officer says it was there in a box in the cellar.  So did Lizzie have to burn it, or was the cop mistaken?  Either way, it's up to you...but also are you comfortable with that handleless hatchet being the weapon?  Personally, I don't know...so I like to hear people's theories.  If you say it need not be the weapon, then burning part of it wouldn't enter into the timing...but the hiding of the Actual weapon would take that time and more...because the handle can be burning while Bridget is running to and fro and while waiting for Bowen, etc., before any of the first officers arrive...which gives the chance to burn about  1/2 a more hour, by my quick calculations.  1/2 a more hour that she cannot use to hide something.  (But she could be burning something important, regardless, right?)

About the double-locking of the front door...or checking that it is locked...do we include the hooking of the screen door?  Otherwise we secure the front from unwanted entry but leave the screen door unsecured for Bridget to waltz in all unawares?  That would be a shock...
Maybe the weapon was already secreted in Lizzie's room, close to the scene of the first murder.  No one goes in there and she keeps the door locked...

I've just recently found out that 8 or 10 yards = the Bedford Cord.  That is more than rags.  That burning of that outfit wasn't witnessed apparently, but I know I make it all more complex by suggesting that maybe it wasn't burned..simply because no one see's her do it.   it's that act which gets her indicted, so I don't know why she would pretend to do it.  Just thinking aloud here...

The January 1996 Lizzie Borden Quarterly contains an excellent article by one of the deans of Bordenia, Neilson Caplain, on the handleless hatchet.

In it, he cites many sources and facts and comes to the conclusion that the handleless hatchet was not the weapon used.  I know it erased any doubts in my mind of it's possible use.

Didn't David Kent's "40 Whacks" (& others) say this ten years ago?

The murder weapon (new hatchet w/ some gilt paint on it) was taken away by the murderer. Read AR Brown's book for the best evidence.

The story of a nude Lizzie whacking away at Abby and Andy was tossed off as a joke by Knowlton at the trial. That wouldn't work either, since there was NO showers in those days (invented circa 1910?). We know about the lack of a bathtub. Getting dressed afterwards would've left bloodstains on the inside of the dress(es).

When was the first bathtub put into the White House?

WAS there any saws in the barn? Did Lizzie have experience? The clean cut suggests a practiced hand.

Are you saying that it is ONLY because of the dress burning that you think she's guilty? That's not enought to convict then, or now.

I thought there was NO fire in the stove around the time of Andy's death? Just a few embers.

According to one of the police officers presetn, there WAS a handle in the box for the hatchet; it just disappeared while in police custody. Things like that do happen accidentally.

I'm sorry, Rays, I guess I didn't make it clear that I was refering to the Legend Of Lizzie Borden movie.  If in the movie she knew that the police were looking for this particular dress and had done the murders in the nude, the dress would only have been paint stained.  So, why would she have still chosen that moment to burn a dress that was innocent?  It could have cleared her name, its what got her indicted in the first place when Alice finally mentioned it.

  But, even in the actual case, if she was innocent, why right at that point in time did she choose to burn a dress?  To point suspicion in her direction and off of someone else, seems pretty risky to me!  I think she had more of a guilty reason to burn that Bedford cord.  And, I don't think that is the only reason why Lizzie is guilty, when I do think it is she who did the murdering.

Kat, the researcher for the Bast movie is Kellam de Forest/  Don't know if that helps you any? 

Thanks, Susan.
I was hoping it was some Lizzie afficianado we had heard of.
But haven't heard of this person.

-[-Edit here:  I said something that is not my business.  Sorry.]

As to the handle to the handleless hatchet, it was returned to the box, and much later, when the State desired to go back to the Borden's to find it, in the middle of one of the hearings, they either weren't allowed or couldn't ever find it.
The bottom line was, though, that
It was never in custody.
I can look this up if you would like...



(Message last edited Nov-18th-02  12:30 AM.)

Dr. Wood said that it would have been impossible to clean off the handless hatchet of all blood evidence in so short a time as after killing Andrew and the finding of the weapon later that day in the basement. He found no blood on it anywhere. He found no gilt on it, so cannot that hatchet at least be ruled out as the weapon that killed Abby at least?

Regarding the stove in the Borden kitchen.  How big was the area where the dress would have been put to burn?  Alice Russell explains that she saw Lizzie with a portion of the dress in her hands, the skirt. Could a whole skirt, not torn into smaller pieces, have been able to have been put into the stove to burn, either then or any other time? 

My thinking is that Lizzie, if she had a bloody dress from the second murder to dispose of she did not have time to tear it up into small pieces to burn it. I don't see how, as well, Lizzie could have put the whole Bedford cord skirt into the stove to burn at once because it had too much fabric.  So the idea of burning up a dress to get rid of it sounds like too much work and effort and rather impossible right after committing a crime where there is so much more to cover up for.

And we have the wonderfully elusive Alice Russell who says that she did see the Bedford cord during the spring when it was made, and that she did not see it until the Sunday it was preparing to be burned by Lizzie.  If Lizzie had it on earlier in the morning while she was committing the murder, then Alice would have seen blood on it and she said there was no blood on it. And as Susan says, if there wasn't any blood on it why would Lizzie burn it except that it was an innocent act.

my gut instinct is that the weapon was never found.  but what of the officer who described finding the blade and noticing it was "different" from the other contents?  if i understand, his impression was that ashes were adherring to it as though applied when wet.  of course that could mean any trivial thing.

i don't know how big the stove.  that's a good point though; she may have taken several days to get it all burned up.

don't forget that what people saw her wearing that morning need not have been the garment she wore for the murder.

if it's true that the dress simply had paint stains -- why was lizzie dumb enough to burn it?  she knew they were looking for a blood-stained dress.  she was just looking for something to do around the house -- and, of all things, burns a "stained" dress?

and also this?  why was the dress there?  did the police not search the kitchen?  i mean, it seems to me that the police should have produced it. 

It's very possible that the mysterious axe found on the Crowe roof during the trial could have been at least the weapon that killed Abby. I don't know that the information we have ever says whether it was tested for blood stains.  If it was the weapon it had been there on the roof for a year, would that have been enough time for the elements, rain and snow, to have washed it clean?

If the garment Lizzie wore that morning wasn't the one she wore to commit the murders (if she did) then we have the old problem of how did she hide one or two dresses in which the crimes were committed so the police couldn't find them?

Lizzie might have burned the paint-stained dress because she felt that the police were done with all their searches by Saturday and therefore, whatever they didn't take with them wasn't considered part of the crime scene any longer, even though the police and the mayor told the family that night not to leave the house.  In other words, the house was cleared at that point, all the searches over, yet the family themselves, particularly Lizzie, were still suspect. But Lizzie didn't make the connection between the physical properties in the house and her being suspect, so she burned the garment.

Right, I also think it was the police responsibility to take away all items they felt suspicious, this is why I don't think the Bedford cord was involved.

about the ax on the roof.  my instinct is that a year was long enough to make it impossible to test for blood.

as for hiding the garment---apparently the kitchen was a safe place.  the police were not supposed to look at it and make the judgment themselves that it was paint-stained as opposed to blood-stained.  they were supposed to produce it for testing.  but they didn't.  why?  it must be that they just did not think to look for a dress in the kitchen, stuffed away somewhere as a rag. they were focused on dresses in closets.  we'll never know whether it was paint-stained or blood-stained.

as for lizzie's motive in burning the garment--the question remains--why?  because it really was paint-stained and she thought, well i think i'll just burn this thing?  she knew they had been looking for a bloody dress.  why incriminate herself unnecessarily?  if she's innocent, she was dense at times.  and if the police ever saw this garment and made some judgment about whether it was relevant, i haven't seen it in writing.  all indications are that the police never saw it.  if she burned a dress that sunday, or if she had been burning pieces of it since thursday.....she must have had a reason.

there's that stove again.  i can't get over my hunch that she needed a fire in that stove the day of the murders and so needed to pretend to be ironing.

is police ineptitude a key factor in this case?

Lizzie Borden and the Mysterious Axe, by Robert Flynn, 1992:

"THE NEW SENSATION
'I Have Found Lizzie Borden's Hatchet'

Cried a Boy in John Crowe's Barn in Fall River

Discovery Made in Back of the Borden Estate.

Fall River, June 15.[1893] -- The Daily News Bulletin this afternoon has the following: [partial-kk]

......The hatchet is an ordinary shingle hatchet with a blade 3 3/4  inches in length.  It was covered in rust and part of this was scraped off by the boy when found.  It has the appearance of having been comparatively new and but little used.

The handle, which is 13 1/2 inches long, looked weather-worn as if it had been long exposed to air, sun and storm.  The under side of the handle had a few slight stains, but nothing that resembled spots.  Near the head of the hatchet, these stains were more pronounced.

The boys were much excited over the find, and it was given to Mr. Potter, the father of the finder, who now has it in his possession.  He at once notified the police and tried to find Mr. Jennings, but in this was unsuccessful.

If the murderer of Andrew J. Borden and his wife escaped from the Borden premises by the rear, and it was a very easy way for him to so escape, he could easily have thrown the hatchet to the place where it was found.

So far as is known no man has been on the roof within two years.  Mr. Crowe knows of none;  all telegraph, telephone, electric light wiremen, roofers and several photographers agree on this.  The police did not visit it in their thorough search.

The police have been carefully examining the hatchet this morning.  They thought they could tell whether there had been blood on it or not.  They confirm that they are baffled.

But one of them, who has been an important witness in the Borden case, admits that with the new find and the exclusion of the Bence story everything has gone up for the government so far as a possible conviction of Lizzie Borden is concerned.

The defense has opened its case.  Now look for important and vital contradictions of government testimony."

--So this hatchet was found about the time the defense was ready to open it's case.  If there was anything to this find, it seems as if it would have been officially tested and submitted as evidence.  Since it wasn't submitted, it became just another diversion in the newspapers.
However, Mr. Flynn seems to think this is the weapon, but doesn't explain why it doesn't seem to bother him that there was no gilt in Andrew's wounds, nor the fact that the blade is too wide, according to his own interpretation of the letter written to Dr. Dolan on August 12, 1892, from Dr. Draper:
"...It must have been an edged instrument with a cutting edge of not more than two and a half inches wide."

Flynn's conclusions are these:  (thanks Bill!)
"The 'handle-less hatchet' was never determined to be the murder weapon."
"It is impossible to determine the size of the hatchet blade by examination of the skulls."
"The testimony of Harvard Medical School doctors was inconsistent anf falsly presented at the trial."
"The hatchet found on the roof of the Crowe Barn was in all probability the murder weapon."

--Personally, I don't agree that it is the weapon.  It was later claimed, and seems to disappear from the case.  If it becomes a problem of this being the weapon which killed Abby but NOT Andrew, then it becomes too complicated.  I don't think there were 2 weapons.
--------------------------
As to keeping a fire going in the stove, maybe that was Lizzie's excuse to be IN the kitchen/Dining room area, and near the back door or the cellar entrance.  It seems it was common to put the little ironing board there on the table to iron light things.
If Lizzie really wanted to iron, why not take advantage of the heated flats of Wednesday, as Bridget said she did HER ironing that day?
[YeaYeashesaidshewassick...right. (I'm speaking to Lizzie here...)]

--Maybe Lizzie was really burning something else on Thursday, hence a fire in the stove.
Maybe she was also burning Something Else on Sunday, and used the dress as an excuse..."Why didn't you tell me (it would seem suspicious)?"--sounds so disingenius...
She's got something hidden in the kitchen cupboard that is Not a dress, but the ripping or tearing of it to burn, she disguises by tearing the dress.  It would have to be something well worth getting into trouble over a burnt dress, which was only the excuse...

Anyone with practical experience will know that tearing up anything into small pieces is the way to burn something. Don't try this at home unless you have the smarts and a fire extinguisher handy. Or even outside in the back yard.

If that hatchet was in plain sight during the daytime searches, it could have been seen from an upper window, either at the Borden's or next door. It would also have make a clunking sound when it landed on the roof. This would not occur if thrown up there months later (as a false clue by a prankster) at night.

If you think the Bedford Cord was torn up in rags in the kitchen during the searches then you don't believe Emma when she says it was hanging on a hook in the upstairs closet Saturday nor Alice when she says she came in and saw Lizzie holding the skirt of the dress in her hands on Sunday. 

If the dress was hanging on a hook as Emma says it was there when the police made their searches of the house and not in the kitchen cupboard and the police had ample opportunity to either confiscate it or disregard it.

Also people are dense at times even if they are innocent.  Didn't Mr. Ramsey find his daughter's body, pick it up thereby compromising the crime scene, and bring it up to the living room?  That seems like an even more blatent denseness than Lizzie burning a dress.  And he was a multi-millionaire not a woman without any rights in Massachusetts.

The mysterious axe on the Crowe roof from the material you quote, Kat, was given to the police.  Evidently they didn't have it tested, nor do we know whether the defense ever saw it. The information you posted only says the defense was notified, not whether they made any requests for testing etc.  I would think they might have but maybe the police didn't allow testing.  Would both the police and defense have reasons for not wanting to test it?

carol:

okay.  then maybe sunday was the day she started burning pieces of it.  that would not make alice a liar.  maybe emma lied about seeing it in the closet.

what mr. ramsey did is more understandable from a human psychological perspective though -- if he's innocent. did not someone at the time make the observation that it was more suspicious that a daughter so finding her father did NOT have a trace of blood on her? 

i guess it's possible that her attention had been drawn to it by the searches, if it was just paint-stained.  didn't the police take everything out of the closets and lay them on the beds?  if she had to straighten all this out after the searches, she might well have looked at this one and thought -- this is stained with paint, i'm not going to wear it, why hang it up again?  simply put, she may have been genuinely cleaning house -- after the police had turned everything upside down.  just like if you ransack a closet, looking for something--and then you have to put everything back--nine times out of ten, you throw some things away.

which is the nature of this case.   everytime you think you've got something, it shifts.

Saturday evening Lizzie is told SHE is suspected.
She says."I am ready to go."
Saturday night at 9 o'clock Emma says there is no vacant nail for her use, and so she notices this dress.
Her reasoning, for asking Lizzie "You have not destroyed this old dress yet;  why don't you?" is Implied:
It is "dirty', "soiled', "faded" and she hasn't seen Lizzie wear it for weeks before she (Emma) had left town.
The next day Lizzie is tearing up the dress, near the stove.
This is their story.

If Lizzie was *dense* then Emma was *more Dense*.  She claims it was her idea, for want of a nail.

After the searches, I would think the clothing Was disarranged.  But Remember Lizzie has turned over an outfit to the authorities, so if they needed a nail Saturday, with one outfit now gone, then they probably always need a nail.  Also, Abby's clothing could now be discarded or put in boxes or stuck in the attic lying on a bed...there was not a pressing need for a nail that they should join in destroying an outfit, at just that Time, especially if it had not been used that much lately.
I also don't see the logic in assuming that because Emma says she found that outfit on a nail in the clothes press Saturday night at 9 o'clock, that it had been there all along.  Maybe only part of it was there.  Maybe it wasn't there at all, and it Was evidence, and it was hidden, prior to Sunday's burning.

--As to the Crowe's roof hatchet transcription, that took a long time to find and post.  It is just more reference material for people to read, who may not have access to it, so they can make up their own mind.  The highlighting was done, not to emphasize my opinion, but to facillitate in person's reading it...I realize that some people skim over long posts.  Those points directly related to your (Carol) surmises as to whether it was tested.  This is the only reference that I know of [newspaper], to the enigma that was the Crowe's roof hatchet.
But I also wouldn't assume from that article that no testing was done, or that the defense didn't have access to it etc.  Just not enough is known to draw any conclusions as to what part it may have played in the trial or acquittal of Lizzie.  I may have assumed that if the defense needed that hatchet to build a smokescreen around, then they would have done so.  I also, now, may be prone to assume that the defense probably wished that hatchet had Never Been Found!  If one thinks about it, it is a danger and a complication to the defense, AND to the prosecution.

And yet Alice's testimony contradicts Emma's in that she says that Emma turned while at the sink, I assume to poke her head out the sink room door and look down the hall to the kitchen, and says to Lizzie, What are you going to do?  If Emma had told Lizzie to burn that dress then why question it?  Not, Lizzie, what are you doing in there?  But, I see you with a dress and what are you going to do with it?

If the Bedford cord was bloodstained and for some reason still in the dress closet, Lizzie was taking a big risk.  Obviously the police didn't know Bedford cord from a plain cotton dress, none of the men seemed to.  If it was only paint stained it may have easily been overlooked by the men at the time.  But, its maddening trying to keep Lizzie innocent with her choosing that moment to burn that dress.  Why?

Emma says she didn't see Lizzie wear the Bedford cord for about 2 weeks before she left town, yet, Bridget recalls Lizzie wearing it Wednesday. 

Trial
Emma
Pg. 1542+
A.  I was washing dishes, and I heard my sister's voice and I turned round and saw she was standing at the foot of the stove, between the foot of the stove and the dining-room door. This dress was hanging on her arm and she says, "I think I shall burn this old dress up." Do you wish me to go on?

Q.  Go right along.
A.  I said, "Why don't you," or "You had better," or "I would if I were you," or something like that, I can't tell the exact words, but it meant,---Do it. And I turned back and continued washing the dishes, and did not see her burn it and did not pay any more attention to her at that time.
.................
Pg. 1571+
Q.  Do you recall what the first thing you said was when Miss Lizzie was standing by the stove with the dress?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  What was it?
A.  I said, "You might as well", or "Why don't you? something like that. That is what it meant. I can't tell you the exact words.

Q.  Wasn't the first thing said by anybody, "Lizzie, what are you going to do with that dress?
A.  No sir, I don't remember it so.

Q.  Do you understand Miss Russell so to testify?
A.  I think she did.

Q.  Do you remember whether that was so or not?
A.  It doesn't seem so to me. I don't remember it so.

Q.  Why doesn't it seem so to you, if I may ask you?
A.  Why, because, the first I knew about it, my sister spoke to me.

Q.  That is what I thought you would say. Now, you don't recall that the first thing that you said to her, the first thing that was said by anybody was, "What are you going to do with that dress, Lizzie?
A.  No, sir. I don't remember saying it.

Q.  Do you remember that you did not say it?
A.  I am sure I did not.

Q.  Miss Russell was in the room, was she not?
A.  I don't know. When I turned to hear what my sister had to say I saw Miss Russell, but she wasn't in the room with her then. She was in the dining-room with the door open.

Q.  The reason you don't think you said so was because you had previously spoken with your sister Lizzie about destroying the dress?
A.  I don't understand the question.
...............

......Q.  The reason you think you didn't say so was because you had previously spoken to her about destroying the dress?
A.  Yes, sir. I had previously spoken about it. I don't think I had thought of the dress all the time. I had spoken to her about it.

Q.  Now, isn't that the reason that you say you didn't say that,
that argument?
A.  The reason that I didn't say so is because I didn't say so.

Q.  You swear that you didn't say so?
A.  I swear that I didn't say it.

Q.  Did you just tell me that you didn't remember of saying it?
A.  I did.

Q.  Do you mean to put it any stronger than that?
A.  I think I may truthfully.

Q.  What has refreshed your recollection since?
A.  Nothing; only thinking, I am sure I didn't.

Looking at the whole case, does burning the dress, in itself, provide any evidence of guilt? Nobody saw her wear it on Thursday, nobody saw any blookstains on it, etc.
Yes, it is possible she put it on/over what she was wearing. But not probable, because the crazed killing of Abby suggests unplanned hatred. The "work of a madman" who chops his victims in a frenzy that suggests insanity. Only a few in anger, unless it has been building up for years?

The dress must not have been too paint stained, I
was reading Spiering again after a few years & Emma
said during the trial: (page 165)
(excuse any errors, I was in a hurry)

Knowlton: Had she worn it quite a number of mornings?

Emma: When she first had it she did--until it was badly soiled.

Knowlton: After the paint was on it?

Emma: She wore it some after the paint was on.

Knowlton: She got the paint on--if I understand you--immediately
after she got it made?

Emma: I think within a week or two. I don't remember whether the
painting was commenced immediately or not.

Knowlton: But nothwithstanding the paint she wore it mornings?

Emma: She wore it some until the dress got soiled besides that.

Knowlton: She wasn't interrupted in the wearing of it on account
of the paint alone?

Emma: Well--she was--excepting very early in the mornings.

From Emma's trial testimony we have approximately the amount of paint and where on Lizzie's Bedford cord dress:

Q. Where was the paint upon it?
A. I should say along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt.

I noticed something else in Emma's testimony, not only was the Bedford cord made and the pink and white stripe wrapper, but, there was one or two others it sounds like:

Q. Did she make more than one dress at that time for your sister?
A. Oh, yes, she made several.

But, how many is several?  Three?  Four?  Five?

And, from Emma's testimony I found out a neat little thing, Lizzie owned more dresses than Emma.  Emma always seemed to me to be someone who went for quality, not quantity.  Remember her letter to the dressmaker where she says she thinks that one new dress will suffice?

Q. Well, how many dresses were in there?
A. I can't tell you without looking at this paper.

Q. Well, can you tell us about how many?
A. Somewhere about eighteen or nineteen.

Q. And whose were those dresses?
A. All of them belonged to my sister and I except one that belonged to Mrs. Borden.

Q. How many of those dresses were blue dresses or dresses in which blue was a marked color?
A. Ten.

Q. To whom did those belong?
A. Two of them to me and eight to my sister.

Lizzie had eight blue dresses, plus the pink and white stripe wrapper, and then there is the black lace net dress she wore to the funeral.  I don't know if Emma included the Bedford cord in the blue dress category or not, but, thats ten dresses for Lizzie at least, which would leave eight for Emma and the one for Abby.  What does it all mean?  Nothing, just stuff I kind of just discovered and thought I would share. 

Any raincoats? Still with the Spiering, you know.

That leaves 8 "dresses" that weren't blue.
And we don't know how many of these outfits were two- piece.
They might be *mix-and-match*.

There was raingear for each woman, tho Emma says hers was with her and her stuff at Fairhaven, at the time of the murders.

I keep thinking about thrift.
It seems to me that an outfit that had been torn or soiled when it was still new, might be fixed up back then...adding ribbons or appliques or lace ...to cover the damage.  Like we would patch our jeans.  I think women DID do this sort of thing and so embellishments on a dress in a weird place became acceptable.
I suppose, tho, if the dress was badly faded, there was not much hope?  But couldn't it be dyed?
It just seems these things used to be done in those days to salvage an outfit...

That would be six of Emma's dresses that weren't blue, she had two blue dresses.  I'm just going by Emma's count, for all we know there may have been twenty-two dresses and most of them Lizzie's.  Yes, thats true, Emma doesn't go into great detail about the dresses if they have interchangable tops and skirts.

If the Bedford cord was as bad off as 'the girls' said and it was so cheap, I can see why Lizzie didn't bother to try and salvage it.  If it was one of her finer dresses, than yes, she may have been more inclined to try something. 

Don't blue dresses complement auburn or red haired women? Or blondes?

If Alice lied about anything I would like to know why she was supposed to have.

No one knows exactly how the police conducted their searches of the dress closet because there are several different police testimonies about it, some of which include that there were a few dresses never even looked at because they were heavy ones. If any of Abby's dresses were in the locked hall closet that week-end we don't know if they were removed by the sisters.  We don't know how many dresses were on each hook. We don't know how the sisters went about moving dresses in the closet nor what their daily activities regarding the closet were. Do we have any real reason to disbelieve Emma when she says she saw the dress there Saturday night?

Interesting comment you made Kat about Lizzie saying on Saturday night that she was ready to go right then.  Because if this is so, it is after she gave the two piece navy outfit to the police, and it is before the dress burning Saturday.  She had no way of knowing that the police would not arrest and take her that night, after she willingly professed to be ready to go right then.  So, if they had done that, that would have meant Emma would have been the one left to burn up that old worn out thing, the Bedford cord, and if so, would she have done so with Lizzie being gone? 

My point is if Lizzie was arrested Sat. night perhaps no dress would have been burned Sunday morning, and therefore, if it had blood on it, it would still be either in the closet or in some "hiding place" or if not, it would be on the hook in the closet still.

It seems to have been an issue with me and I believe, possibly, with you, Carol, that Lizzie wouldn't be so ready to leave the house *unattended* if there was anything incriminating her there still to be found.
I also have had this view, as I believe it is sensible thinking.
If I put myself in Lizzie's place and I know I didn't DO anything, I don't worry about the authorities finding anything because I know there is nothing to be found, or at least something I think is easily explainable.
So following this reasoning, by Thurday night I would be easy on that account.

And if I am Lizzie, and I am guilty, than Thursday night I may be finishing hiding something in the cellar, after 9 p.m., after I have ditched ole Alice.
Now Friday I am probably going to be away from home signing papers and getting my attorney involved and putting up a reward with my sister.
So Friday morning I must know that there is nothing that can be found, because I'm waltzing off to see Jennings.
And Saturday I give all the help needed to the authorities because I know there is nothing left to find...HECK, I have gone off to the cemetary without batting an eye.  My secret, I KNOW, is SAFE.
Sunday I am alone without Bridget around (for whatever that's worth, and at some point Alice isn't around, and I tear up this dress.  (Why?)
Anyway, the night before I was willing to go to jail because I know there's no evidence.
So I would say, if that's what you're getting at, then I have been there too.
The bottom line is by Friday morning, Lizzie, either guilty or somewhat innocent, KNOWS there is nothing left on the premises that can incriminate her.
(So I think maybe the tearing and possible burning of the dress on Sunday COULD have been at the instigation of Emmer, as Emmer claims, but it could have to do with the getting rid of one last thing that might have been gnawing away at either sister and the decision was mutually reached to this expediency--and could be a cover-up as to what was REALLY being burned...a Will...a deed...a statement of intent..?)

It is possible that Lizzie could have hidden a bloodied dress from killing Abby (I think highly improbable though) and if she was really a whiz could have hidden the second bloodied dress from killing Andrew (I think this highly improbable also) without the police finding either but I don't think she had time to hide either or both postulated bloodied dress in the basement during her short couple minutes there by the sink (the officer observed where she was and how long). I still think that if she had hidden one or two dresses in the house that she would be wary someone would find them and only if she was really innocent (no bloodied dresses) would she be willing to turn herself over to the police, making the Sunday dress burning an innocent act.

Your proposition that she might than have burned the dress Sunday to cover up the burning of something else is interesting. It would have been far easier to hide a document of some sort than a dress in the house, retrieve it and toss it into the fire piece by piece with pieces of dress fabric, a dress that perhaps they felt no one would question the burning of because of the evidence of paint on it. No one ever asked the sisters that question like they never asked so many other provocative questions.

Let's say there was a bloodied apron.
That wouldn't have near as much volume as a dress or skirt.
Lizzie and Bridget were asked about aprons.
2 aprons were catalogued with the blood evidence being stored in the cellar.
Maybe that could be hidden, retrieved Thursday evening, and put into the cellar tub that held the collection of clothes, etc., from the bodies.   That could be the reason for the cellar trip.  It might not even have been USED by Lizzie, just disposed of eventually in plain sight with the other stuff, helping out someone else. This is reminding me of the nightdress swithcherroo Constance Kent pulled off with the laundry after her little 1/2 brother was killed in the privy by his throat being cut and stab wounds.

Also, if there was a will, or some inventory or statement of Andrew's wishes, this might be carried upon the person of Lizzie, say inside her corset?
She may have kept that ON her, so it went where she went, and therefore she knew the house was clear for searching when she wasn't around.  That then could be the something that was burned on Sunday, the first day that Bridget was no longer there.
Could be either, or both or neither?
But I would think this would necessitate our assuming that the weapon was carried away by Thursday night, or by Friday morning (latest) when/if the girls left for part of the day, on legal errands.

--I would add here:
That the burning of the Bedford Cord would then be an *innocent* or more rightly called a *NAIVE* act, by the sisters--but done for expediency's sake.
The logic being that burning the dress LOOKS SO SUSPICIOUS that it's nearly impossible to believe they would do such a thing at such a time.  Therefore it is either NOT SUSPICIOUS at all, a truly innocent act by these girls with not much sophistication or decision-making abilities, or that it was to cover-up something else.  I can't escape this irony, plus it seems so REAL of these girls to do such a crazy thing.

(Message last edited Nov-25th-02  7:51 PM.)

Perhaps another mystery is WHY Alice Russell kept quiet from August to November (?) before squealing to the Grand Jury. Was there a cat fight? I don't understand why she kept silent all those weeks.

[Does anyone think that the burning the dress ALONE is proof of guilt?]

(Message last edited Nov-26th-02  4:13 PM.)

We have always been led to believe that the grand jury seemed to think the dress-burning incident was the final piece in their search for an indictment.
But, I've sometimes even wondered if this is really true, or another one of the *Legends* passed down. 
We're really not supposed to know WHAT that grand jury thought or did or talked about or believed.

The real story is contained in Alice's Trial testimony, and there is not much of it relating to her grand jury appearances.
I've noticed the author's like to spin the tale, tho....

Trial
Alice Russell
Pg. 393

Q.  Miss Russell, you testified before the inquest, did you?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  You testified at the preliminary hearing?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  And you testified once and then again before the Grand Jury?
A.  Yes, sir.

Q.  At either of the three previous times---at the inquest, at the preliminary, or at the first testimony before the Grand Jury, did you say anything about the burning of this dress?
A.  No, sir.

MR. ROBINSON.    Wait a moment. I do not see how that is at all material.   The government is not trying to fortify this witness, I  hope.

MR. MOODY.         Well, I do not press it. If you don't want it, I don't care to put it in.

MR. ROBINSON.   Oh, it is not what I want. You are trying the government's case; I am objecting.

MR. MOODY.         I waive the question.

MR. ROBINSON.  I think it should be stricken out.

MR. MOODY.        I agree that it may be stricken out.

--If it HAD been sticken out, as in actually *XXXX -ed* out, would we ever had known?

Kind of makes you wonder what other juicy little tidbits that we have never heard about that were known about and dismissed. 

Haulover, I found this in Rebello, page 203, in response to your question:

"p.s.:  one more question:  who is the author (or name of the book) where the theory was advanced that she did it in the nude?"

Algernon Blackwood, "Episodes Before Thirty",  E.P. Dutton & Company, 1924, page 116.

"Mr. Blackwood, a reporter for the New York Evening Sun, mentioned the Borden case in his autobiography "...Lizzie Borden ... though this was in Providence, Rhode Island - who took all her clothes off, lest the stains of blood betray her, before killing her father and mother in their sleep."

Lots of factual errors in those few sentences but the naked theory is put forward.   I've never read the book myself. 

Was it first mentioned in the trial by her defense lawyer, in reference to the lack of bloody clothes. "Does anyone think this poor girl denuded herself to commit the crimes?" (My recollection of the quote.)

Some wit said proper New England girls did not denude themselves to murder their parents, and not even with their clothes on!!!

The statement "murdered in their sleep" shows the unreliability of hearsay and later reminiscences. Errare humanum est.

(Message last edited Nov-27th-02  4:18 PM.)

Cool!  Thanks Harry.
I had postulated a news story as a source in post #2, contemporary to the crimes and trial.  Supposing that author wrote about that in the Sun and then included it in his autobio?

Also Ray, here is your cite;
Trial, 1893
Robinson Closing
Pg. 1703
..."Well, they will go another step yet in their theory, I think likely. I would not wonder if they are going to claim that this woman denuded herself and did not have any dress on at all when she committed either murder."...

--So this or a news story would be the earliest citations...