1. "Old Wive's Tale?"
Posted by Kat on Jul-4th-02 at 1:44 AM

Some of us have been looking at photos last night & tonight.  It's funny that we fumbled over two pictures that we've all seen...but could not immediatly agree as to WHICH WIFE OF ANDREW each depicted.  It became apparent to me that Andrew may have married Abby as a near-look-alike to his first wife Sarah.


Now this may be a superficial resemblence in a photo, that was not so obvious in real life...but pictures are all we have left.


Compare....
[First photo courtesy of Jenean]






(Message last edited Jul-4th-02  1:46 AM.)

The first one I recognized as Sarah right away, just from those "crazy eyes".
The second one we have been TOLD was Abby.  That's the only reason I would say that's Abby.  Otherwise I wouldn't have thought it was her.  I don't think "Abby's" photo here looks like Sarah.  Sarah's eyes give her away.
Andrew probably was attracted to Abby because of some resemblance to Sarah.  That would be a natural thing to do.  Despite writers' opinions to the contrary, I think they had a loving relationship.  I don't think he married Abby JUST to be a stepmother. 

When I pulled up the first photo all I could think was, my, what big eyes you have!  It does indeed appear to be Sarah, but, there is a resemblance to the younger Abby.  I thought at first that Kat had discovered an until now, never-before published photo of Abby!

And as Augusta said, the second one is Abby as we are told that it is.  It makes me wonder how many photos of the Bordens may be out there tucked or hidden away, that we have never seen!

I've had to wonder about the idea of Andrew marrying Abby just because her last name was a good one and he need a woman around the house.  Perhaps Abby struck a chord in ol' Andrew and reminded him of his Sarah and Cupid did the rest?  Was Abby a shameless flirt with Andrew?  Did she simper and bat her eyelashes at him.  All the good juicy gossip we want to know, but, alas, will never come to light! 

(Message last edited Jul-4th-02  2:45 PM.)

Has anyone compared the looks of John Derek's wives? Do they all resemble each other? Beauty in the eye of the beholder?

That's supposed to be Abby.  But if it had those "crazy eyes" it might look a lot like Sarah.  It's too bad we don't have more photos of her to see her as she progressed thru the years, like we do Lizzie.  We see this Abby, then all of a sudden we see the one in her older years with nothing in between.  The last known photo we know of of Abby doesn't look like these old ones of her.  I'm not trying to start any rumors, and I have faith in the FRHS's knowledge.  It would be great, tho, if there were photos of Abby in between those times.

I think Andrew was just too cheap to have his picture taken.  "A photograph?  What for?  I can see what I look like in the mirrah."  Still, wouldn't there be one on his wedding day?  Maybe both wedding days? 
It would seem that Andrew would have liked to have a picture of maybe himself next to his first dollar or something he achieved in business - certainly by his Borden Building, but maybe there wasn't time for that.  One of these days maybe we'll find one of him standing by the Borden & Almy sign.
 
Lizzie liked to have her picture taken.  I would bet a fair amount that more photos exist than we now know.  She had a lot of girlfriends.  Wouldn't they have had fun taking photos of themselves doing this and that?  And what about photos from the Grand Tour?  And especially photos of Lizzie's pets.  I rather expect a descendant or two of her old friends to come across something in their attic some day.

It strikes me that the "young Emma" looks a bit like the younger Abby photo. 

Did Mother's dress their daughters like this for portraits, usually?
Knee's showing...shoulders showing...jewelry?

I never thought so.  Especially with the off-the-shoulder dress.  Geez, I hope that's a glove on Sarah Morse's hand and not her hand.

I thought little Emma looked a bit provocative for the times, but maybe a portrait sitting was considered something special?

How would we find out if this was as unusual as it looks?

(edit:  because I can't spell tonight!)

(Message last edited Jul-6th-02  1:10 AM.)

Emma seems to be wearing typical children's clothing from the era.  The off the shoulder thing seems to be a bit much, but, from what I've seen, it was done that way.  The bit of lace you see coming out from under the dress is most probably trimming her pantelets.  Her legs would not be bare, Emma is probably wearing white stockings, I wish we could see her shoes!





The time period was between the 1850s and 1860s for these styles.

Thanks for the post, Susan.  I never noticed that before in old pictures. 

You're welcome, Augusta!  I just did some snooping around on the internet to try and find something to illustrate what I've seen before.  Pretty racy clothing for a little girl though, wouldn't you say? 

That was really COOL.

I've wondered about that for a while.
The comparison picture was Brilliant.

I'll say, tho, that it looks so much like her legs are bare, I seem to be able to see her little kneee...

Oh, well, she sure looks unhappy, anyway!

Thanks, Kat.  Well, I think I would be unhappy too if Sarah Borden was like she was rumored to be, prone to fits of rage, etc. 

Hello Kat
The photograph of Sarah and Emma is the one ususally seen.  I have the same photo, but it also shows the lower half of the picture.  I believe the original was cropped because of the obvious distortion; Emma's leg and shoe are depicted, but it is difficult to make a judgment as to the type of hosiery or shoes she is wearing.
Unfortunately I do not recall where I obtained the picture. The full sized photograph may be available in one of the many books about Lizzie.
Bill

One reason everybody's expressions looked frozen is that photographic exposures were very long in those days.  It must have been especially hard for a child, who was probably being held in a vise-like grip by an adult (or in some cases by a vise).  It also partially explains the very few toothy grins we see.  The lips would have stuck to the teeth.  I believe it was considered somewhat crude to bare the teeth.  That's still true in some cultures.  One of the "Victorian Vistas" books contains a sad posthumous picture of a baby.  A rather drastic way to get the child to hold still for its picture!

I recall being told as a child that in the early days of photography, people did not smile because having one's photo taken was the equivalent of having one's portrait painted; a serious event. 

Also, it was very common to take pictures of corpses as mementos.  The FRHS has a whole section devoted Victorian funeriary practices.  Quite morbid, but also fascinating.

William, you're back!!1
Way cool!!!!!

Augusta and I were admiring Sarah's *blackened* hand...
Stef, too, for that matter.
If you have the whole glossy, can you tell if there's something strange-looking about that hand, or is that more distortion?
(PS:  I 've NEVER seen the full portrait, anywhere.  That must be interesting)

I didn't think about a child standing still for a long period.  But what is the average time to expose the film?  Is it like a FULL MINUTE?

I wonder how Queen Victoria got all her kids to hold still that long, not Just One...

I seem to know genetically about showing teeth when smiling.  I have, for some odd reason, always been aware of that.  Maybe it's from the old nature shows where we learned not to Grin at a Gorrilla, because showing teeth was a sign of aggression.  I wondered how humans evolved while showing teeth in a smile, without their base instincts getting riled, as they should be programmed to do.  Sorry to go into this here, Edisto, but you're the first person I've been able to ponder this with!

My girlfriend, when asked (I take polls), said similiar to you, Tina-Kate:  that PORTRAITS were a BIG DEAL.  So I guess what you'd say was that personal photography was so new, that the client posed (or was posed) as if for a painting, because that was the Norm until photo's?  I think you make a lot of sense with that intrepretation.

Well, just what I've heard from my greatgrandmother and grandmothers, having a picture taken was a serious thing.  Plus, my one grandmother had told me about her Christening picture with her mom,( boy, did she look severe!)her mother would tell her later that there was a sort of headrest on the back of the chair, similar to a dentists, but, probably not as comfortable!  It held your head in place while the photo was being taken.

In the photo of Sarah and Emma, it appears that Sarah is wearing a black kidskin glove.  Shes even wearing a shawl, so it must have been quite a formal affair.  And, if you look to the left of the photo at little Emma's arm, it looks as though Sarah may have been holding her and let go during the exposure.  No wonder why she looks so unhappy!  Being told to hold still and not fidget for the picture!  Watch the birdie! 

Don't forget that people's teeth were not the blinding white pearls we see today, and not a lot of folks went in for elaborate orthodontia.   

I've always been told I have a talent for seeing resemblances, and I can see that the Abby of the carte de visite and the Abby of the later portrait, the one with her hair pulled back from her face, are the same woman.  Now, if I could just make out some sort of a face in that horrid post-mortem picture (the "head of fudge" shot reprinted in THE KNOWLTON PAPERS).

Actually, people's teeth were pearly white, especially of the lower classes. Sugar was expensive and only for the upper classes then (before early 19th century?). The false teeth of Geo Washington may not be representative of ordinary people then. But that's my opinion.

Wasn't teeth brushing well known throughout the 19th century in US?

You can visit many third world nations today and see for yourself. If they tend to die young due to bacterial infections cured in the first world, they may not live long enough for decaying teeth.

Well, coffee and tea stained teeth as much as they do today, so I wouldn't expect everyone's smile to be pearly, and I stand by my claim re:orthodontia and braces.

Speaking of oral hygiene, though: I've always wondered in the testimony where it says that Andrew cleaned his teeth at the sink exactly what his method was.

Welcome back, Bob!  You've been missed.  My opinion is that Andrew carefully removed his upper plate and gave it a thorough rinsing in the sink, then reinstalled it.  I dunno what he did about the lowers, which were apparently not removable.  My little account book from the 1890s shows that people made purchases of tooth powder and toothbrushes, so dental hygiene certainly wasn't unknown.  At least some of them also saw their dentists regularly.

Stef & I have been trying to decipher that photo...we have a scan of it...over this past weekend of the Fourth.

I thought by rotating the book to the upside-down position (or nearly) I could make out Abby's EAR.  From there it followed that the right shoulder was just below, and a little hunched, because the body is lying on it's left side (?).  Her head (nose/chin) is tilted down.
The area exposed thusly makes sense, because the photograph would then be recording the mortal wound, which is the series of blows that congregated just behind and almost level with that right ear--the place where the skull caved into the brain.

Mrs. Kelly, next door, was on her way to the dentist the morning of the murder when she seen Andrew.

Yea, and she was an HOUR late!

Must not have been looking forward to that visit....
Tho I understand she was delayed by a nurse (of Dr. Kelly?).

(Message last edited Jul-9th-02  9:54 PM.)

What exactly is this "fudge picture"?  Can someone post it?  Is it a close-up of Abby's head on the floor? 

Thanks for the info, Kat and Stef!  I'll try that when I get home.  Is there anyway you could post the shot with a drawn overlay of where you think the features appear?

It's a picture of Abby's corpse after she's been undressed and draped with a sheet for her post-mortem exam.  It's very difficult to try to make out Abby's blood encrusted features, though I've also gazed at the printed version in THE KNOWLTON PAPERS for what seems like hours, with a variety of magnifying devices. 

Actually, due to the damage to his head, Andrew's features in the "sofa" shot are not so easy to make out, I've found, though the two clearest repros I know, (in the de Mille book and the newer SHOTS IN THE DARK) do clearly show you half of the left eye sitting on Andrew's cheek.  I can make out the nose, with its tip cut off (easier to see in the autopsy shot, if very grisly to behold), but the relationship of his jaw to what I perceive to be his beard in the sofa shot has always confused me.  I'd love to see a good drawing of the scene that would clarify Andrew's admittedly butchered features, or an overlay, as I requested above.

Bob,
Stef and I did this over the phone, which is sort of like writing it here...
We didn't agree, I don't think.
I'll see her tomorrow and hopefully we can work it out.
Seems William would be a good one to weigh in on this subject.  I wonder if he has 2 cents to contribute...
OH!  BTW:  EDISTO may have a good opinion too!

Thanks for the info, Bob Gutowski! 

I'll patiently await whatever further revelations are coming, Kat and Stef!

I spent some time right before bed last night gazing at the shot, and I began to think I could make out a closed left eye and a closed mouth...but it's like looking for faces in the wallpaper.

You're welcome, Susan!

I can't comment on Andrew's couch photo until I get hold of the Shots In The Dark book.

I also have No idea how to draw an overlay and scan and post it.

But Stef did come over and we did look at the Abby photo.  Once I think I see something it's very hard for my eyes to see something else.  We rotated the photo every which way and oddly enough it looked more explicable and familiar if we flipped the photo so what was exposed was the LEFT side of Abby.

BUT, since we know the major wound(s) was behind the right ear we knew THAT was the wrong angle.  It did help make things clearer, tho, so that we could accept what our eyes were Trying to see, on the Right side.

Strange, Huh?

OK.  Stef had me SEE:

Turn the book upside down.  (I figured THAT part out)...
We see amongst the hair, traveling UP into the hair (on the right side of the head) AN EAR.  That WHOLE whitish area that disappears & reappears in the hair, going UP, is ALL EAR.  Check the shaved head photo.  See how large Abby's ears are?  They are uncommonly large.
We do NOT see the shoulder.
What that sharp line of definition is between dark & stark light just below and behind that ear is her NECK.
That clean sweep of light area is her hairline at the back of her neck, going down to a point.
She seems to have a short thick neck.
See Abby photo of her alive.  Her neck comes thickly out of her dress collar, like a little bulldog.
Therefore her face is smack DOWN--face down, head just barely turned to the right--no features showing, as if she were just found (face down on carpet).
If you look closely at the sheet you will maybe see the blood spot that seems to correspond with her wounds.  This sheet must have covered her, had the blood transferred, and then it was pulled back for the photo.
The largest transfer area might be from the shoulder/neck wound.  (though why the doctors weren't aware of it before Thusday the 11th is beyond comprehension.  The sheet tells a bloody story as well as a shroud).
So the blood mark just behind her head, corresponds on the sheet to where it covered the crushed -skull area.
That area would be the one that was most important to record for evidence of muder.  The wound itself only shows as a darker glistening sink -hole type area on her head, because there is still hair covering that area.  In higher resoltion it looks like a DEpression, and has actual designated boundries exactly like the stripped skull photo.

I don't know who you could get to provide an overlay.  I'm not even sure that that would be important to those that may want to decide what they are seeing for themselves?

I think this photo will be available , shortly.

Thanks for the lowdown, Kat! 

You seem to be right on the mark.  Today I received my latest "AntiqueWeek," a tabloid newspaper for antique dealers and collectors.  There was an account of a recent auction in which two primitive paintings of little girls were offered.  One of them brought $100,000, as it was by a well-known artist.  It was dated to 1851, and the little girl in the picture was dressed almost exactly like little Emma.  She's described as having a two-strand garnet necklace.  Her dress has the same off-the-shoulder neckline, and even her hairstyle is similar to Emma's.  The other painting (undated) has two little girls who are similarly dressed.  I think Emma was probably the height of fashion (maybe for the last time in her life).

Thanks for the info, Edisto!  Poor Emma, she'd like to be a cultured girl, but, just doesn't quite hit the mark with up to the minute fashions! 

Don't you find it amazing during certain periods of history that children were dresses like they were little adults?

Believe it or not, the portrait at the bottom of my message #10 is of a little boy!  Apparently the only difference so that you can tell is that little girls hair was parted in the middle, little boys to the side.