1. "reference to Lizzie"
Posted by diana on Apr-24th-02 at 4:50 PM

Just came across a cryptic reference to the Borden case in Yseult Bridges' study of the Julia Wallace murder.  Bridges is of the opinion that William Wallace murdered his wife while wearing no clothing except a coat. When discussing testimony presented at trial which suggested that Wallace must have wiped the bloodstains from his feet, legs, and hands .. Bridges remarks that Wallace would have had to wash as well.  And then she writes: "For this purpose all he had to do was to run some cold water into the enamel basin in the scullery ....and ... If he had read the case of Lizzie Borden he would know that there was evidence to suggest that the murderer had used PAPER with which to dry.  It was thick paper, and its remains were discovered in the kitchen stove."

Yseult Bridges seems a meticulous researcher.  This book was first out in 1959 -- so any source she is referencing would be prior to that.  I can't think offhand about any suggestion that whoever murdered the Bordens used the paper found in the stove to dry themselves. Does this ring a bell with anyone? 

I certainly know of no such reference.  Furthermore, what was thought to be singed paper in the Bordens' kitchen range was in a neat roll.  If it had been used as a towel, it probably would have been crumpled up.  This is about as goofy as one account I read (which one?) that had Lizzie wearing a window shade when she committed the murders.

Wasn't there some talk that Lizzie might have worn a dress pattern? I remember that being discussed on the old message board.

BTW, what are dress patterns made of? 

I haven't seen a dress pattern for a long time -- but they used to be made of flimsy paper -- almost like tissue paper.

Tissue paper burns real easy and fast.  Mmmmmm.....

In the Prelim., Seaver is asked about the dress pattern, page 436...I think toward the end of the Trial, eveyone stipulates that they are satisfied about the "dress pattern."
I don't believe we ever find out what they mean by this.
Harry:  You have *Word Search* on the trial?  Maybe you could check near the end?

BTW: Would A WET (bloody) tissue paper burn that easily?

This is from the trial (page 1146). Hilliard is being questioned by Robinson:

Q.  Do you know that a dress pattern was got from the house?
A.  I believe that Mr. Jennings and I think it was Mr. Harrington, I won't be sure but I think it was him that had a dress pattern brought from the house.
Q.  Where is it now?
A.  I don't know, sir.
Q.  Was it returned or not?
A.  I think it was in Mr. Jennings' custody; I don't know where it is.
Q.  You haven't it?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  Was it examined by you at all?
A.  No, sir, it was in the court room; I did not look at it.

MR. ROBINSON. (Addressing Government counsel) Have you that?

MR. KNOWLTON. We attached no significance to that in reference to this matter, and dropped it.

MR. ROBINSON. It had no significance at all.

If there was more than one pattern to begin with, one could have been used and one turned over to the police.  Didn't the dressmaker testify she normally made more than one dress at a visit? If the pattern that was used was burned, the pattern turned over to the police would indeed have no significance. 

Just speculating on my part.

I do a good deal of sewing, so I'm very familiar with dress patterns.  However, I formed the impression some time ago that "dress pattern" meant something different in 1892-93 than it does now.  I think these people were talking about what I would call a "dress length," meaning the fabric from which a dress was to be made.  Lizzie was said to have purchased a "dress pattern" on her trip to the shore within the weeks before the murders.  However, I think what she actually purchased was enough fabric to make a dress.  Draping oneself in fabric would make a great deal more sense than trying to hide behind pieces of flimsy tissue paper.  Whichever Lizzie might have used, that would have been another item to get rid of.

What if the dress maker used some old or cheap fabric to make a dress pattern which would be used to as a model to make the new dresses?  That way no expensive fabric would be wasted if the dress maker made a mistake and/or Lizzie didn't like the outcome.  Lizzie would then have a dress of sorts, not a complete dress with all the trimmings, just a "pattern" to go by, that she could slip it on, do the deed/dispose of after.

This is a really interesting idea.  Here I always thought when they referred to the dress pattern, it was just that, dress shapes on paper to cut your material from.  But, a premade dress of some cheap material, hmmmmmm? 

Would this "pattern" need to be open on the sides for measurement purposes?
Like something you'd lift over your head, with open sleeves?
I wish I could draw what I mean.
We need a 100 year old former dressmaker to explain how "patterns" worked.

It seems as if a "finished" dress, even of cheap material would be no good for measuring material lengths.  the seams would need to be accessable...
  But what do I know about sewing.  I got a D in sewing in Home Ec.  If I had known we'd be REQUIRED to WEAR what we had made to school one day, I would have tried to do a better job....

Hi Kat,

I myself have made dresses and such and used old material (sheets, etc) and just basted them into place---long stitches that can easily be removed.  If the dress maker did that then she would have a template for each section of dress that would have the darts and tucks, and seam allowances that could be used over again and again, but if she had made the finished product, the template would be in pieces and not whole.  I can't remember when Lizzie had her last fitting for the dress in question--months before or weeks before.  I don't think you could buy a pattern like the template that I described above, and I know I read that Lizzie was questioned about buying a pattern on one of the trips to I think to New Bedford but I assume (and you know what they say about assumming) that it was a paper pattern.

I'm going to do alittle research at the Taunton Historical Society and see if I can find out anything interesting about Lizzie or dress making.  I'll keep you informed!!!

Tracie

Here's a link with everything you ever wanted to know about patterns (& then some) from 1863 onward:

http://www.butterick.com/bhc/pages/articles/histpgs/about.html

Enjoy! 

I am curious as to whether Lizzie's dressmaker had a "female form" which could be adjusted to different clients sizes. The dressmaker could drape the fabric and finish off the fittings using it as a pattern instead of the tissue patterns we are used to today. When she got the dress complete to a stage then it was taken back for a "live" fitting?  But perhaps this type "form" was not used till later in time? 

I'm an experienced seamstress, going back many decades.  Also, I make period costumes dating back to the mid-19rh Century and later.  There were paper patterns available in Lizzie's day (what someone referred to as "templates").  Of course, there may also have been experienced dressmakers who could simply drape fabric on a dress form and cut it to fit, but I rather think most people used patterns.  A tissue pattern would have had many pieces.  There might be two, three or four pieces for a skirt (or even more, if it was a so-called "gored" skirt).  Each sleeve was probably at least two pieces.  A bodice would be two, three or four pieces (or even more), plus a collar and cuffs, if needed.  These pieces would definitely have openings on the sides, where they would be seamed later, so they could probably be slipped over the head.  The problem with Lizzie's having used a tissue pattern to protect her from splatters is that such patterns often opened down the front or back as well as being open at the sides.  There were also openings at the shoulders.  A pattern of that type would have had to be put together in some fashion before it could have been used as protective gear.  It seems a bit unlikely (to me, anyway) that Lizzie had time to do that.  I also believe (as I posted somewhere else) that the term "dress pattern" as used in the Borden case actually meant the fabric from which a dress was to be cut.  I believe that because I recall some testimony that seemed to be related to Lizzie's having purchased a "dress pattern" on her recent visit to the shore.  What she bought was a length of fabric from which to make a dress.  I believe the police were exploring whether Lizzie draped herself in the length of fabric before committing the murders.  A tissue dress pattern, cut into many pieces, would probably have been quite impractical for such a use.

Gosh I almost missed this thread...afterall I posted in all most every other one...wow...being MIA for a day or two too long makes a guy kinda...wordy...as far as the dress pattern goes, don't have a clue.

Not much on dress patterns.

BC

Yea, Edisto, it does now seem as if even an APRON of Abby's would be better coverage than light paper basted together,,,it's just more disposable.  But, if wet, not that disposable after all!

So a "dress pattern" could mean like when the police asked everyone "What pattern was there on the dress...or what 'ground'?"  Pattern=fabric?

I dunno.  I've always been bewildered by the fact that these men referred to a length of fabric as a "dress pattern," but that's what I think they were doing.  I'll try to find the reference(s) that convinced me of that.  I wondered if the problem was that men don't know squat about dress patterns and probably didn't know then either.  (of course, these days most women don't know squat about dress patterns either.)  They should have called in Phil Harrington.  He seemed to know a lot about ladies' apparel.

At the Costuming Link
there is a "blouse waist" of a dress shown, already made, with the stipulation that Bodice & Sleeves had *OPTIONS*:
"5 different sleeves are Optional..."

So it seems as if Lizzie's clothes could be "blouse waist" = Top--
and Skirt = skirt, with different styles to modify the main garmet...=interchangeable?

Also, it looks as if the complete style as an* illustration* in a BOOK could be called a "Pattern",
As well as the actual cut-out pieces of paper that one pins to the fabric to use as a template to cut the shapes into the cloth.

http://www.sewingcentral.com/cgi-bin/Web_store/web_store.cgi?page=turncent.html&cart_id=4015116_29021



See made bodice, about 11 figures down.
See also as described above, and skirts.

Could it be possible that Lizzie bought a BOOK of patterns...or rather an illustrated guide to current fashion?

(Message last edited May-10th-02  8:05 PM.)

My goodness, Kat!  What a beautiful blouse!  Sorry, didn't mean to jump in here as I really don't have anything to say about the Lizzie "dress Pattern" search, but, I do like that blouse!

Thanks!  I made it myself!

You are a woman of many talents! 

Witness Statements, pg. 31, Officer Medley makes notes dated August 5, 1892 (yet specifies "this visit to New Bedford August 7[?])", and does not give the direct source of the information here to be recounted:

That when Lizzie visited that city and the home of Mrs. Poole , Lizzie..." never went out alone, always going in the company of the family, with one exception, that being Saturday morning July 23, when she went on the street to buy a piece of dress goods of some cheap material, being gone about one and 30 minutes.  She went alone and returned alone..."

Wow, what a great piece of detective work, Kat!  Are you sure your real name isn't Nancy Drew?    So, she actually had cheap material that she purchased by herself!  Great find!

Funk & Wagnall Dictionary, 1897:

PATTERN:

#3-  Material in sufficient quantity to make a garment, especially a dress.

#6-  (Archaic)  Something made like a model, a copy.

#7-  (Archaic)  A small piece of something, as dry goods; a sample.

PATTERNBOOK:

A book containing patterns of designs for exhibition or reference.

--I suppose this "pattern book" definition answers my own wondering about the usage, where Pattern might also mean the "book" of patterns...as in "NOT".

Kat, doesn't it still seem funny that they collected the dress pattern that Lizzie bought as evidence and nothing was ever produced of it at the trial?  How much material was there?  Was some of it missing?  And that she had bought a cheap material it leads me to think that perhaps Lizzie was planning on destroying the Bedford Cord dress and having a new house dress made to take its place in the first place?  Hmmmm.  Every new piece of info that is found makes my decision on Lizzie swing back and forth like a pendulum.  One day its, she did it, the next is, she did not. 

Has this already been mentioned in relation to patterns? I am working my way through the minefield of the Frank Spiering book, "Lizzie" and came upon a reference to patterns. 

In the photography section in the center of the book is a copy of a letter Emma wrote to a Mrs. Cummings on March 23, 1894 from the French Street house.  In the letter she says "...I hope to be in the country some time this summer so think one dress will be all I need.  I think an India or China silk is useful as any thin dress and if you will bring patterns of something with  dark ground, something suitable for church wear and for calling I will go see you the middle of the week.  I suppose you will be home by that time...".

The credit for the photograph goes to the Fall River Historical Society. It was interesting to see Emma's handwriting and read something she wrote.

That's a really good find, Carol.
It's so helpful when people are reading the author's and contribute them...it's been so long for me...

Yea, they made a big deal out of the "dress pattern", and then *stipulate* it into obscurity, like switching the emphasis onto a different hatchet...

Edisto seems to have been on the right track.

(Message last edited May-19th-02  12:19 AM.)

Trial, Hilliard, pg. 1146-7

Q: Was there any other article of clothing or for clothing that you received?
A: None that I know of from Miss Lizzie.
Q; Did you call for a dress pattern?
A: No sir, I did not.
Q: Did you hear anybody?
A: No, sir, not any of the times that I was there myself.
Q: Do you know that a dress pattern was got from the house?
A: I believe that Mr. Jennings and I think it was Mr. Harrington, I won't be sure but I think it was him that had a dress pattern brought from the house.
Q: And where is it now?
A: I don't know, sir.
Q: Was it returned or not?
A: I think it was in Mr. Jenning's custody;  I don't know where it is.
Q: You haven't it?
A: No, sir.
Q: Was it examined by you at all?
A: No, sir, it was in the court room;  I did not look at it.
Mr. Robinson: (Addressing Government Counsel)  Have you that?
Mr. Knowlton: We attached no significance to that in reference to this matter, and dropped it.
Mr. Robinson: It had no significance at all.

Which makes me wonder if Mr. Jennings was planning on introducing the dress pattern in court in defense of Lizzie's dress burning?  As I had posted earlier, maybe this was going to be his way to explain it away, Lizzie was planning on making a new house dress and get rid of the old soiled one? 

I don't know.  I guess we'll never know.  It almost seems as if the two sides had come to some agreement about introducing this "pattern" at all.  Maybe if what you surmise is true they DID decide to forego any more reference to it as it might confuse the jury, and the differing testimonies would serve to *cancel each other out*?

Something odd, I thought, happened about the time of Hilliard's (not) taking custody of that material, Trial, pg. 1115:

Hilliard was given a dress skirt, underskirt and dress waist and "rolled them up with what I call a lounge cover that was taken from the dining room."  He says he made it into a bundle - gave to Jennings - and Jennings gave to him at "Granite Block" (near Hilliard's office), and then he gave it to Dolan.

Talk about *chain of custody*!!  He gives important evidence into the hands of the defense, and trusts it to come back to him unspoiled or without being tampered?!
And what about "bundling" all this potentially bloody stuff together?  Granted, it would have been dry by then, Saturday, but what if it rained while it was being carried?  It doesn't make sense.  Jennings seems to have been given every courtesy, above and beyond the call of defence lawyer....

I don't know if this may be annoyingly off-topic but it refers to Jennings.

I was looking at "Land Transfers" documents written in long-hand that are stored in this computer and which Stef says come from the UMASS/Amherst web-site...(the one Joe recently provided the link for) and there was a transfer of May, 1887 between Abby and Jane Gray, with Andrew Jennings signing as witness and JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
Well, I looked at Rebello (196) and Hoffman (alpha.) and neither specify if Jennings was ever a judge.

Isn't that what a Justice of the Peace IS?

If he had been a judge, no wonder both sides trusted him with evidence...
Does anybody know about this?

(Message last edited May-21st-02  9:31 PM.)

Kat, that land transfer form is dated 1887. According to Rebello, Jennings graduated Boston Univ. in 1876 and practiced law in Fall River during that year. Nothing about a Justice of the Peace position. Obviously he was though, as the form clearly states it.

Maybe he was picking up a few extra dollars acting as a Justice of the Peace on routine legal transactions. With Andrew's interest in land no wonder Andrew chose Jennings as his lawyer.

Completely off topic, I remember on the Andy Griffith show when it first started, Andy was sheriff, justice of the peace and a few other titles. Of course that was fiction. 

Thanks SO much for verifying that, Harry!
AND for the much-needed SMILEY FACE!

So, do you think a J.O.P is similar to a NOTARY Public?

It's NOT like a judge?

EDIT here:

An answer to my own question;

http://www.mjpa.org/

(Message last edited May-24th-02  1:59 AM.)

Most cool site Kat.

It says that they are appointed by the governor. If that was true in 1887, it would be interesting to know who was Governor.

Robinson's term ended in 1886 but that doesn't mean Jennings wasn't a JOTP prior to 1887. I wonder if Robinson appointed him.

Great question Kat. You never know where these things lead.

Well, I just went to Delaware and they take their JOP's more seriously!  You still need a NOTARY...
They have a WHOLE COURT!
(Is that not a Commonwealth state?  Cause if it isn't I can't compare them)

http://courts.state.de.us/jpcourt/html/faq.htm

My time-line notes specify Robinson as elected for 3 ONE YEAR Terms, beginning 1884.  He served through 1886, inclusive...ie: 1884-1886.    (YIOFR, Hoffman)

What was Jennings doing in 1884?
I guess you need to type all of Rebello onto disc as well, so we can WORD SEARCH!  Then we wouldn't need a new index!!!
TA-DA!

Back in April I put out an idea that there could have possibly been more than one dress pattern and the one turned over to the police was not the one that was used in the murders. Seems like I'm not so crazy after all. Although this case is leading me toward that end. While browsing the Evening Standard articles I ran across this item:

Saturday, September 3, 1892  Page 6

That Dress Pattern.

Was It Possible For Defence to Have
Duplicated the Goods?

Fall River, Sept. 3, 1892 - The day after the Borden murder City Marshal Hilliard put two New Bedford officers at work in that city with orders to trace Lizzie Borden's actions during the two weeks previous. They found that she had purchased a dress pattern of cheap material in a dry goods store in that city, and it was to this pattern that reference was made at the trial. Some importance was attached to the matter at the time of the discovery of the purchase. The police failed to find the dress pattern or any dress of it in their search at the Borden house. They made demand on the members of the family to produce the piece of goods or the made-up dress. If they could not do this the police wanted to know what had become of it. The family refused to move in the matter and the police at New Bedford searched the store to get a sample of the goods bought by Lizzie.
The last day of the trial the defence surrendered the piece of dress goods which Lizzie had purchased and it was still intact. The question has arisen in the minds of some people who believe as the prosecution does whether or not it was possible for the friends of the prisoner to have duplicated the dress pattern and surrendered the last purchased instead of the first, and that the first one might have been made-up and used by Lizzie Borden at the time of the murder and afterwards destroyed or put out of the way.

Why the stall in turning over the pattern? To buy time to duplicate the original? Also, I wonder if they investigated the possibility of Lizzie purchasing two like or exact patterns.

BTW, the trial referred to in the above is the Preliminary hearing.

Well, let's see.  Normally, Lizzie didn't make her own clothing; she hired a dressmaker.  Wouldn't that person have come forward and mentioned making up a dress for Lizzie at a rather odd point in time?  Or did Emma and/or Lizzie sew up something for the murderous occasion?  It's a difficult concept for me to grasp -- that Lizzie would have made up something especially for the occasion (dressed to kill, so to speak) and then gotten rid of that garment and purchased an identical piece of yard goods to turn over to the police.  I recall that debacle about the hatchet handle (the one belonging to the infamous handleless hatchet) that one policeman claimed he had seen.  Someone was sent to the Borden house to look for the missing handle, but Emma's new maid wouldn't let them in to search.  Maybe Emma was just playing hardball with the prosecution in both cases.

This article seems to suggest that Lizzie herself bought just one. If it was used in the murders it was destroyed. Emma, Morse, Bridget, whoever, knowing that the police would want it, went out an bought an identical pattern and it was this pattern that was turned over to the police.

Does a "pattern" have to be made into a dress to be used? Can't it just be draped around the body?  Does a normal pattern contain enough material to be cut in half and each half used for protection?

I have no idea what a pattern looks like but I envision it a bolt of cloth as a continuous length of material. Am I in the ball park?

Does this seem like it's getting complicated?  It's boggling my mind...(I probably shouldn't THINK past 1 a.m.!)
Since the prosecution stipulated that THEY were satisfied as to the dress pattern having absolutely NOthing to do with their case, I figure it's one less thing to worry about.  According to the Knowlton Papers, they were still wondering more about a "gossamer" than anything else.
If we contemplate a "dress pattern" as being suspicious, and having to be gotten rid of, we also have a DRESS, or part of a dress to wonder about--the part that we know was burned: A Bedford cord?
Do you think she got rid of a dress pattern (or length of fabric), AND a Bedford cord dress (or part of one)?
(as an aside: AND a hatchet?)

Well, I didn't mean to bring this thread to a screeching halt.

Was my argument so well-reasoned, there is no rebuttal?
I Don't Think So.
How 'bout them "gossamers"?

Yes, I recall that Emma was questioned on the stand about the gossamers.  Form Trial Vol. 2, page 1568/no image:

Q. I don't know as I will bother about that.  Did any of the members of your family have waterproofs?

A. Yes, we all had them.

Q. What kind were they?

A. Mrs. Borden's was a gossamer, rubber.

Q. That is, you mean rubber on the outside?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And black?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was that hanging>?

A. I think she kept it in the little press at the foot of the front stairs in the front hall.

Q. Did Miss Lizzie have one too?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did she keep hers?

A. In the clothes press at the top of the stairs.

Q. What kind of one was that?

A. Blue and brown plaid, an American cloth.

Q. And you had one too?

A. Mine was gossamer.

Q. Did you have yours with you in Fairhaven?

A. I did.

Page 1569/i591

Q. So that was not at the house while you were gone?

A. No, sir.

But, what of Andrew's gossamer or waterproof?  What of Bridget's?  The kinds of and whereabouts of these two garments are never asked about.  Kind of makes you wonder.  Hmmmm?