Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY
Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden
Topic Name: buried clothes

1. "buried clothes"
Posted by diana on Jan-20th-03 at 2:22 PM

I'm sure we've gone over this thoroughly at some point ­ but I still need help with a discrepancy in two of the statements regarding the burial of the victim's clothes in the back yard. 

Initially Albert E. Chase itemizes the articles buried thusly:
"1 sofa pillow and tidy; one large piece of Brussels carpet, one roll of cotton batting, one sheet and several pieces of cotton cloth, three towels, one napkin, one chemise, one dress, one pair drawers, one skirt, two aprons, one hair braid and several pieces of hair from Mrs. Borden's head from five to eight inches long, one necktie, one truss, one piece of black silk braid or watch guard." (Witness Statements)

Now this garbs up Abby quite nicely: I have her wearing a chemise and drawers, a dress, and one of the aprons.  But unfortunately it leaves poor Andrew with just a truss, a necktie, a skirt, and the other apron.  

Yet later during the Preliminary Hearing (p.189) Dr. Dolan is asked about the clothing from the "bodies of both Mr. and Mrs. Borden" that was buried (and he says was taken up twice after burial).  He claims it is now in the marshal's office downstairs. 
"Q:  Is ALL the clothing that was found on the bodies OF EACH there? [emphasis mine]
  A:  Yes Sir."

Have I forgotten the testimony that tells us what happened to Andrew's clothes -- and why a skirt AND a dress and TWO aprons were buried? 










2. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-20th-03 at 7:42 PM
In response to Message #1.

I was looking at the same exact same thing last night during football!  Only the W.S., not any testimony.
It was the sweater reference that I was looking around for, and I noticed (probably again) that Andrew's clothes weren't listed.

For a minute there you had me seeing Andrew in a skirt and apron and truss and tie. It was NOT a pretty sight!

I've just paused here and jumped over to "Blood Evidence" at the Museum/Library.  All the way up to trial and Prof. Dr Wood, there is still no accounting of the clothes of Andrew.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BloodEvidence.htm

Let me check the "Evidence List" as to what was taken to the Jury room for their perusal...be back in a jiff...
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/EvidenceList.htm

Nope, no Andrew-clothes.  Sorry.




3. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by bobcook848 on Jan-20th-03 at 7:49 PM
In response to Message #2.

Though I cannot pinpoint the exact text reference (but I shall at time permits to re-read) it is my understanding that the clothing worn by both decedants including bits of hair, skull bone and tissue were wrapped in ?? and at first buried near the barn.

Later in the week Uncle John exhumed them, out of respect for his dearly departed and gave them a proper burial elsewhere, location ??

It occurs to me that the good Dr. Seabury Bowen was the one who "ordered" the entire lot buried in the first place.  Since forensics hadn't been invented yet the lab at Harvard had little use for them.

This is to the best of my recollection...and I'm holding on to it.

BC


4. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Edisto on Jan-20th-03 at 8:14 PM
In response to Message #1.

This is the second time I've tried to post this.  Lost the whole thing the first time!  I wanted to respond to a couple of points.  One, a "skirt" might have meant a petticoat (probably Abby's).  You may recall that Lizzie's "skirt" on which a spot of blood was found was actually an undergarment.  Two, some of Abby's clothing is missing too.  She was clearly wearing shoes and probably stockings in the picture taken after her death.  Andrew too had on footwear that seemingly disappeared.  Three, I believe the clothing was first buried behind the "barn" without a container.  It was then dug up, placed in a box, and reburied.  Its second resurrection is probably when it was turned over to the authorities.  I have wondered for years what happened to Andrew's apparel.  His Prince Albert coat, for example, isn't accounted for after it was found under his head on the day of the murders.  One of the newspapers of the day referred to Andrew's having been poorly dressed and wearing "shocking bad hats."  I've wondered if his wardrobe was so sparse that he was buried in some of the clothing in which he was found.  His trousers might have been relatively blood-free, and it would have been possible to launder a shirt.  However, his Prince Albert sounds as if it would have been quite the worse for wear.  Maybe his cardigan was pressed into service. 

(Message last edited Jan-20th-03  8:16 PM.)


5. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by haulover on Jan-20th-03 at 10:29 PM
In response to Message #4.

i'm glad you bring this up about andrew's clothing. what interests me the most is that coat wadded up under his pillow.  it's a shame that we have no recorded observation of it (that i've found yet anyway).  because it seems so important to me in terms of whether someone might have worn it while committing the murder.  i realize it would have been soaked in certain places with blood as it was there under his head.  had it been used as a shield for blood splatters, it is possible if not probable that such evidence was still upon it.

is this not one of the biggest mistakes in the investigation that this piece of evidence seems to have been discarded? 


6. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by kimberly on Jan-20th-03 at 10:44 PM
In response to Message #5.

This is the most maddening aspect of the case to me --- they
threw away the clothes that could have told so much. I've
always assumed that if Andrew was sitting up the blood would
have dripped on the front of his pants maybe even his shoes,
but if he was indeed asleep when it happened there would have
been soaking blood & maybe the splatters would have been lighter
than "drips" of blood on his front. I guess by the time they were
removed his upper clothes would have been totally soaked & wouldn't show the patterns of the bloodstains but his pants & shoes should
have still shown the stains as they landed.


7. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Susan on Jan-21st-03 at 2:02 AM
In response to Message #6.

I wonder if we will ever find out what happened to Andrew's clothes?  I think the only reference as to their last known whereabouts was the laundry room floor in the basement.  I remember questioning this last time that list was brought up, not even his long johns or whatever Andrew used for underwear were listed, but, they buried that truss of his.  How weird! 


8. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by harry on Jan-21st-03 at 8:16 AM
In response to Message #1.

It's the kind of question that might be able to be answered by the release of the Hilliard papers.

My prayer: Let that occur in my lifetime.


9. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Stefani on Jan-21st-03 at 11:48 AM
In response to Message #1.

Pure supposition, but maybe Andrew was buried in his murder clothes, BECAUSE he only had one suit of clothes. Seems an odd thing, really, to be such a successful businessman and NOT have several suits, but like all of you I have always wondered about this discrepancy.

Another idea is that the girls decided to have him buried in them. Abby's clothes were torn by the hatchet, while Andrew's wounds were only about the head. Perhaps since his clothes were not chopped up, the family said to bury him in them. Closed casket and all.

Now if this is so, we have a real need (in my silly mind anyway) to exhume his body to read the pattern of blood on his clothes. Maybe once and for all we could tell if he was sitting up or reclining when he was killed.

That would be cool!


10. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by haulover on Jan-21st-03 at 2:40 PM
In response to Message #9.

in thinking about the bloody cothes.....this comes to mind:

i'm not at all clear on how bloody the murderer should be.  i've read a lot of disagreement.  would blood have splattered the way it did in the elizabeth montgomery movie?

i seem to remember that several people at the scene remarked how there was surprisingly little blood around the bodies -- considering how bloody the wounds themselves were. 

does anyone know of a similar axe murder -- where the murderer was observed immediately afterwards?


11. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by diana on Jan-21st-03 at 3:08 PM
In response to Message #4.

Thanks, Edisto, for the "skirt" reference.  I bet you're right and that was Abby's petticoat.  Now we're just left with that extra apron.  

So was the purpose of the original burial not to preserve evidence, but rather to dispose of blood-soaked items that would be upsetting to the family?

If you believe Victoria Lincoln [I know, I know!]it appears that John Morse asked all day Friday to be allowed to bury the clothes and was finally able to do so on the day of the funeral [Saturday].(p.151) So her version does make it seem like burying the clothes was a chore that he took upon himself in order to save the family the terrible task of disposing of these garments.

But Albert Chase, in his Witness Statement, says the items were buried "under my direction" on the afternoon of August 5 [Friday]and later dug up on the orders of Dr. Dolan.  This scenario [coupled with the fact that Chase made an itemized list of what was buried] looks more like it may have been an attempt to preserve evidence. And, if it was, Andrew's clothes definitely should have been included.




(Message last edited Jan-21st-03  4:07 PM.)


12. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by william on Jan-21st-03 at 4:57 PM
In response to Message #5.

We do have a recorded observation by Dr. Bowen, on page 401 in the Hearing:
Q. What was the position of Mr. Borden on this sofa at this time . . .
A. He was lying on the right side of his face . . .
Q. Was his head towards the hall?
A. Yes, the front hall door.
Q. Calling your attention to photograph No. 5,and the position there, I ask you how the position you saw him in, varies from that . . ,
A. The only difference I can see, I think the whole form has sunk down, has slipped down . . .
Q. Settled down into the sofa, up towards the foot of the sofa a little?
. . .
A. Yes, sir.  Under the head was a coat, I think, and a sofa pillow that he was lying on.
(The above has been abbreviated)
The now famous photograph that was shown to Dr Bowen, was photograph #5, exhibit #7 which is in the collection of the Fall River
Historical Society.
This photograph may be viewed on Stefani's web site in all its gory.

(Sorry, "glory.").
















13. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-21st-03 at 5:29 PM
In response to Message #9.

Hmmm..
I'm thinking about this...

The bodies were stripped for autopsy Thursday by 3:30 p.m. or so.
Abby would be in rigor, how advanced I don't know.  They may have had to cut her clothes off.
I thought maybe they would have cut off Andrew's also, merely because it would be the easiest way to remove clothing from a dead body.
But if he was not yet in rigor before his clothes were removed (which we don't know when his clothes were removed?) then his clothing could have been preserved whole. 
I was wondering who would bury Andrew in bloody clothes.  It doesn't seem *fitting* somehow.
Next, I'm thinking that the bodies laid out naked on the dining room table, covered by whatever, over Thursday night and into Friday night, at which point the Undertaker says they started readying the bodies for burial.
If SOME bloody clothing was buried Friday, including Andrew's, then they couldn't put those clothes back on Andrew.  Besides which they would be stiff with blood.
If Andrew's clothes were not buried...which it sounds like they weren't (by the list as to what was there), then possibly his clothes were cleaned and then he was put back in them Friday night, ready for burial Saturday.
I don't think though, that anyone would bury Andrew in bloody clothes...I think if he had no others they had time to get him some.
Isn't it a big deal to select what the deceased will be wearing to the grave?
I really don't know that...only what I've seen on T.V.?


14. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by harry on Jan-21st-03 at 6:46 PM
In response to Message #13.

Some notes on Andrew's garb. From Rebello, page 25:

From the Fall River Globe:  "Andrew J. Borden was a peculiar man in many respects. While his tall, neatly clothed figure was familiar to all the older citizens, he had few intimates and was reticent to a marked degree. "

From the Boston Globe:  "He was a man of tall stature, erect as a post, and dressed very plainly, almost to the point of shabbiness......He was famous for wearing shocking bad hats, and retained a tie until it was almost thread-bare."

I would doubt Andrew had an extensive wardrobe. It would not surprise me if he was buried in the cleaned up clothes he was found in. It is very mysterious though that they are not mentioned anywhere.


15. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by kimberly on Jan-21st-03 at 7:57 PM
In response to Message #13.

It seems like it would be more trouble than it was worth
trying to clean up the mess on those clothes & bury him
in them. I would imagine even a thrifty person would have
had a few extra things, he couldn't have thrown his suits
in the washing machine every day. With only one suit of clothes,
they would have eventually fallen off him if he didn't have a
different set to change into sometimes. Even poor people
had their "Sunday best" even if it wasn't fancy. Everyone
I know of gets buried in their nicest outfit & if they don't
have a "nicest outfit" the family gets them one & the funeral
homes also have suits & dresses that can be bought if you
aren't planning on going shopping. My grandmother was buried
in a little suit that belonged to my aunt --- I guess Uncle John
could have loaned Andrew something of his.


16. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by harry on Jan-21st-03 at 8:06 PM
In response to Message #15.

Uncle John was thought to have only one suit.  He did show up at the trial in a new suit and it caused a stir.

As for shirts Morse admitted when they got dirty he threw them away instead of getting them cleaned.

Now that's peculiar and not around the eyes!


17. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by kimberly on Jan-21st-03 at 8:13 PM
In response to Message #16.

Ah ha! Perhaps you are on to something! Maybe he loaned Andrew
his old one?? Everybody went out & bought new clothes --- except Emma, I think.


18. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Edisto on Jan-21st-03 at 8:35 PM
In response to Message #15.

I believe we tend to think in terms of the way things are done today, rather than the way they were in 1892.  If Uncle Morse had only one suit, it's certainly possible that Andrew didn't have more than one.  I don't recall that Andrew was much of a churchgoer, so he might have had little use for "Sunday best."  While funeral homes today do indeed have appropriate clothing for sale (split up the back for easy entry), that might not have been so in the 1890s.  Most of the older people I've known preferred to be buried in something they owned in life, rather than a shroud purchased for the occasion.  Of course, it spares the expense too.  Andrew would probably have begun spinning in his grave right away if Lizzie and Emma had bought something new for him to be buried in!  Ordinary clothing too can be split up the back so that it's easy to put on a corpse.  Possibly some of Andrew's clothing had only minimal spotting that could be easily cleaned off.  I'm not saying everything could have been salvaged, but it's possible some things could have been.


19. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Susan on Jan-21st-03 at 9:14 PM
In response to Message #18.

Even if Andrew had only one suit, I would imagine that he had more than one shirt.  That suit could be worn day after day, a shirt, yuck!  So, a fresh pair of underwear, a different shirt and possibly the suit that he died in, I can see it.  What material was Andrew's clothing made of?  Some materials are naturally liquid repellant and the blood may have just rolled off of the suiting material instead of soaking in. 

After rigor mortis sets in, isn't it a matter of time before the body relaxes again or do they remain stiff?  I've heard stories, don't know if they are urban legend or not, of undertakers having to break bones in order to dress corpses, ewwwww.  But, not like their clients will complain any. 

(Message last edited Jan-21st-03  9:15 PM.)


20. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by harry on Jan-21st-03 at 10:27 PM
In response to Message #17.

Morse's old one was probably dirtier than Andrew's was after the murder.

 


21. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by kimberly on Jan-21st-03 at 11:00 PM
In response to Message #20.

I wonder how long he wore things before they got dirty
enough to throw them away? I can't imagine what it was
like to have to breathe around these folks!


22. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-22nd-03 at 1:12 AM
In response to Message #19.

Preliminary
Dolan
Pg. 93-98:
"There was very little blood on his [Andrew Borden] clothing, except on his bosom, his shirt bosom, and of course the back where the blood ran down, that is, in the back of his cardigan, and his clothes were soaked, where it had run down from his face to the lounge, as it lay on the lounge.

[The principal flow of blood was] Through the lounge on to the floor, after going through the pillow and his coat.

There was not a great deal [of blood] on the floor. It was dropping when I was there, dropping from the lounge in two places on to the carpet.

. . . from the head of the sofa it was dripping down on to the carpet [under the sofa].

Yes, it was under, near the back wall.
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/BloodEvidence.htm
--------
Andrew was stripped for "partial" autopsy, but his body was probably still pliable.
I believe rigor is at it's worst within 12 hours and is passed off the body within 12 more.  It might be 24 to 36 hours total.  The first signs beginning in three hours.



23. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-22nd-03 at 2:05 AM
In response to Message #22.

Rebello, pg. 110+

"The Victims' Clothing

Andrew Borden's woolen cardigan jacket, black trousers and Congress boots (Trial: 864) and
Abby's clothing were put in the wash room in the cellar. John V. Morse took charge of disposing the clothes.

'The clothes worn by the deceased persons were buried near the house. Yesterday afternoon, under the direction of Officer [Albert E.] Chace, the blood-stained clothes, which the family were anxious to dispose of, together with portions of skull which had been cut from the head of Mrs. Borden, were buried near the house. Just what Medical Examiner Dolan will say when he hears of this is not known. Earlier in the day he had forbidden any such interment.

John V. Morse wanted the bloody clothing buried....' "

pg. 111
..." 'The clothes were examined on Tuesday by Dr. Dolan, Medical Examiner. He took hairs from Mrs. Borden's clothing. He ordered the remaining articles be placed in a shoe case
and buried four feet below ground.' "

"That Mysterious Box / The Bloody Clothing Once More Dug Up in the Back Yard," Fall River Daily Globe, Friday, August 12, 1892: 7.

Sources:
Fall River Daily Herald, Saturday, August 6, 1892: 4.
New Bedford Evening Standard, Saturday, August 6, 1892: 2.
Fall River Daily Herald, Monday, August 8, 1892: 4.
Fall River Evening News, Tuesday, August 9, 1892: 8.



(Message last edited Jan-22nd-03  2:08 AM.)


24. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Susan on Jan-22nd-03 at 11:34 AM
In response to Message #23.

Thanks, Kat.  So, it sounds as though Andrew's clothing was buried afterall.  I wonder why it wasn't on that list of things?  Curiouser and curiouser. 


25. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by kimberly on Jan-22nd-03 at 1:11 PM
In response to Message #23.

That is so strange the way they even included a piece of
Abby's skull in with the clothes to get rid of. Why would
they have been walking around away from her with that? Why not
leave it on her person to be buried with her? Did they think of
it as rubbish, I wonder?


26. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-22nd-03 at 2:07 PM
In response to Message #25.

Susan,remember, some of those citations are from newspapers.  They say Morse wanted the burial of the objects, but Chase says it was his objective under orders.  (?)

Witness Statements, pg.42

"ALBERT E. CHASE

Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in-the yard back of the barn.

...I also found mixed in with the hair of Mrs. Borden a piece of bone, which from it nature I took to be a piece of Mrs. Borden's skull, it was cut so smooth, that I thought it might be of use in determining what kind of instrument was used, as the bone and hair both had the appearance of being cut with a very sharp instrument; I gave this piece of bone to Dr. Dolan.
About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a box."

--Apparently the bone was mixed in with the other stuff and just happened to be noticed.
So how are they going to make notes about blood patterns on the Prince Albert coat, if they even missed saving out the hair and the bone?



27. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by haulover on Jan-23rd-03 at 11:01 PM
In response to Message #26.

yeah, why does the prince albert coat seem to disappear?  that was the most valuable piece of evidence.  i cannot find any account of it.


28. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-25th-03 at 2:35 PM
In response to Message #13.

The new issue of LBQ has a hint as to how those clothes were handled.
Trial
Alice Russell
405+

Q.  Saturday was the funeral?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  You spoke of the clothing that was torn off.  You meant the clothing of the deceased?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  You spoke of finding clothing down cellar which had been taken off; you mean clothing from the deceased persons?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  That was down stairs in the cellar?
A.  Yes, sir.


29. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Carol on Jan-25th-03 at 2:41 PM
In response to Message #17.

The bodies were taken from the house by the undertaker for the funeral before the week-end I believe. The family was told not to leave the house by the Mayor and Hilliard on the week-end, so if Emma and Lizzie did go out to buy new clothes for Andrew to be buried in it would have to have been Friday, when they went out to the lawyer's office.

Perhaps the funeral parlor was told to get new clothes for Andrew to wear in his coffin. Maybe things were done for him, being an undertaker by trade himself, that weren't done for other clients, like getting him new clothes to be buried in by those in charge who knew him.

Perhaps the reason a complete list of what was buried was never made was because it was made from memory, similar to the list of items that the police made in the house and later it was revealed in testimony that that officer had lost his original list and made the new one from memory.

Perhaps when all the clothing from the bodies was taken and put in a heap in the basement, then buried without a box outside, and then  dug up certain pieces of clothing, etc. were removed, and the rest buried. No list was made of exactly what was reburied. When they were unearthed again, the remainder of the clothes weren't considered important by the police so they eventually disappeared.

If Andrew was buried in the clothes he died in I would think they would have decomposed after all this time but that would be something for someone with experience in burials would have to answer.


30. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Carol on Jan-25th-03 at 3:30 PM
In response to Message #29.

Just re-read what I wrote and I probably remembered wrong and the bodies were taken from the house in a funeral procession Sat. morning.


31. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-25th-03 at 8:36 PM
In response to Message #29.

I'm still trying to figure out the *sweater* reference.
I have to say, this is the first time anywhere I have heard Andrew's housecoat called a sweater.
A cardigan in my 1897 Funk & Wagnall's Dictionary has a short blunt definition:
"A Jacket of knitted wool'".
The reason I showed the picture was because of the lining that shows.  The seems to be a satin-type lining where the buttons would be down the front.  It also had  lapels.
And since he has a watch and [chain]*, it looked to me in the closeup (that William created & rotated) that Andrew had on a vest.
I suppose if we call the outer garmet strictly a cardigan or another of the names used by the lawyers, we can still agree as to what Andrew wore.
*edit here--there is a photo contrived to be a close up of Andrew on the couch, and one can see the glint of a watch chain across his vest-chest.--if testimony says it is not specifically a *chain* then I suppose i should not call it that, tho it does indeed look like a chain.

Prelim.
Wixon
222

A.  The result of the conversation was removing the watch from Mr. Borden's pocket. I suggested whether anything had been taken.
Q.  You found the watch and took it?
A.  Yes Sir. I removed the lapel of the cardigan jacket, I should call it, it was a dark material, and took it.
Q.  What kind of watch?
A.  Silver.
Q.  With a chain?
A.  No, a piece of braid, I think they call it, something like this.


(Message last edited Jan-26th-03  12:53 PM.)


32. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Jan-25th-03 at 9:08 PM
In response to Message #31.

Prelim.
Winwood
386
Q.  Were you the one who removed the effects from the body?
A.  I took the things out of Andrew J. Borden's clothes.
Q.  Did you give whatever you took to Dr. Dolan?
A.  I did.
Q.  Without bothering to produce them, will you kindly tell me what they were, in the shape of valuables?
A.  I think there was $78. in bills in the pocket book.
Q.  In a pocket book?
A.  Yes Sir.
Q.  What pocket was that pocket book in?
A.  In the inside pocket in the coat, I should think.
Q.  In the coat pocket?
A.  Yes Sir, inside pocket, inside the coat.
Q.  Not inside the vest. What else in the shape of valuables?
A.  In that pocket there was some minor papers, which we did not examine into, just opened them, and saw there was no more money in there, or notes. That is all we examined for.
Q.  There was a watch and chain?
A.  Yes Sir, in his vest.
Q.  Anythingelse?
A.  In his pants pockets some loose change, two or three dollars in silver.
Q.  What size bills were these?
A.  I think about $5.

--There were keys, also, in Andrew's pants pocket.  Why would he lie down on some keys on a ring, loose change etc. IF he had been upstairs?
--this is posted to confirm the vest.
--Since the undertaker is specific as to say he took things out of Andrew's clothes, rather than responding *yes* to the question that he removed items from Andrew's body, then the Prince Albert coat might be included in the term clothes, and then that coat could have been moved before the photographs.
Do we know when Winwood took these items?


33. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Carol on Jan-27th-03 at 3:35 PM
In response to Message #31.

I found this reference regarding the cardigan:

"...The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
 
cardigan
 
SYLLABICATION: car·di·gan
PRONUNCIATION:   kärd-gn
NOUN: A knitted garment, such as a sweater or jacket, that opens down the full length of the front. 
ETYMOLOGY: After the Seventh Earl of Cardigan, James Thomas Brudenell (1797­1868), British army officer." 
 
James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan was a British commanding officer, he led the tragic charge at Balaklava, immortalized in The Charge of the Light Brigade.  He was evidently from the website about him an unpopular commanding officer, personally quarrelsome, overbearing, using excessive punishment with "unscrupulous licentiousness." Even though his regiment had only 350 men he made 700 arrests and held 105 courts martial. Not a nice man, but he introduced the garment which became known as a Cardigan to his regiment.

Kat quoted: I'm still trying to figure out the *sweater* reference.
I have to say, this is the first time anywhere I have heard Andrew's housecoat called a sweater.
A cardigan in my 1897 Funk & Wagnall's Dictionary has a short blunt definition:
"A Jacket of knitted wool'"."

From what I can figure out I think that the name cardigan refers to
a woolen knitted garment which opened down the front, which was perhaps during the Brudenell and up to the Borden time period more often called a jacket than a sweater (since this is the way the testimony reads). Today, and certainly as far as I know from my personal experience a cardigan always meant a sweater that opened down the front. The dictionary supports it being called either, so I think that over time the word has come to mean more a sweater than a jacket. I don't know if all, but certainly a majority of the sites selling cardigans call them sweaters.

So I think now that the outer long sleeved garment Andrew wore might well be the cardigan of testimony and the vest, a sleeveless garment which may or may not have been wool too. He must have been cold on that hot day, probably due to his age and health. 

I would like to see that photo up close in better condition because I am thinking it is knitted even though it looks not because cardigan refers to knitted.  Would like to find out more. 


34. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by rays on Jan-27th-03 at 5:55 PM
In response to Message #33.

Was Cardigan the General who was suffering from a disease (that eventually killed him) at that Battle? Did the Charge of the Light Brigade lead to reforms in the British Army?

(Message last edited Jan-28th-03  6:11 PM.)


35. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Carol on Jan-28th-03 at 4:19 PM
In response to Message #34.

"Was Cardigan the General who was suffering from a disease that eventually killed him at that Battle? Did the Charge of the Light Brigade lead to reforms in the British Army?"

No, he survived the battle and came home a war hero and was inclined to have everyone continue to see him as one.

He died in 1868 after falling from a horse, he was injured in that fall leading to his death.

I don't know the answer to the second question.

More on the Cardigan sweater.  His troops were in Russia and they were very cold so to remedy that situation the cardigan was developed for the troops as well a the raglan sweater, also named after an Earl and the balaclava, named for the Russian city. The one thing he did do positively was make sure his troops were warm even though they died.


36. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by rays on Jan-28th-03 at 6:15 PM
In response to Message #35.

So maybe it was Lord Raglan (both gave their names to a style of clothing). I once read about this many years ago, after the British movie was shown circa 1971 "Charge of the Light Brigade". I also read a book "Royal Babylon" about this problem in the 19th century.

Some of Woody Wilson's critics said the same thing; the polite term is "megalomania". You can look it up.

So WHY would an experienced horseman "fall from his horse"? Drunk, or from some medical condition? Don't be fooled by euphemisms! Also read of the same thing being said about William S Donovan; he was hallucinating before his death: "the Russians are invading over the Brookly Bridge!".

Note how Tennyson's Poem put a pretty face on a military disaster?

(Message last edited Jan-28th-03  6:16 PM.)


37. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Carol on Jan-29th-03 at 2:29 PM
In response to Message #36.

"So WHY would an experienced horseman "fall from his horse"? Drunk, or from some medical condition? Don't be fooled by euphemisms!.."

The sources didn't go into the details. I am reporting what several historical records, the encyclopedia, etc. said about his death. I didn't get the impression they were euphemizing.

For being such a disagreeable man I find it odd that the sources did say he used his own money to outfit his troops in the new cardigan.

More on the cardigan. The cardigan was a collarless garment and if there were pockets they were located below the waist. Also some were sleeveless.  Only modern cardigans are described as always with sleeves.

So this means that what was called a vest on Andrew might have been the cardigan. But I think that it was the long sleeved garment Andrew was wearing that was the knitted cardigan.  I can't see from the photos well enough to see if it was collarless, but that would be another clue. Also the band flipped out on the bottom of the garment in the crime scene photo might have been the band of reinforced tape which you would need on a knitted garment with buttons and buttonholes for front closing. A knitted garment would soak up more blood wouldn't it?  So perhaps it was disgarded after the autopsy in the house and the Prince Albert Coat put on him for his funeral. That is why it wasn't ever seen again.

The photograph does show a bunched up dark material (coat) right in back of Andrew's head on the sofa arm, so evidently some people thought the Prince Albert coat was folded whereas the photo shows it not. I am also toying with the idea that the photo was taken after the coat was tampered with by police or Dr. Bowen. Perhaps even other things done, such as would explain why someone saw Andrew with tie shoes on and the photo shows the Congress boots.  Other crime scene photos were taken after things were rearranged.  The crime scene photo from the capture of Pablo Escobar was tampered with but it was later explained why they did that.


38. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by haulover on Jan-31st-03 at 9:18 PM
In response to Message #37.

carol:

my problem with your theory about the coat is that it must have been blood-soaked somewhere -- even if not splattered -- and would not have been used for burial.


39. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Feb-1st-03 at 1:52 AM
In response to Message #38.

From my post #32
--"Since the undertaker is specific as to say he took things out of Andrew's clothes, rather than responding *yes* to the question that he removed items from Andrew's body, then the Prince Albert coat might be included in the term clothes, and then that coat could have been moved before the photographs.
Do we know when Winwood took these items? "

--Does anyone have an interpretation of WHEN the emptying of Andrew's pockets occurred?
Way before I had thought the pockets were emptied before Andrew was taken from the couch ..before his clothes were removed.
Can someone pinpoint when the items were taken and given to Dolan?


40. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by rays on Feb-1st-03 at 1:07 PM
In response to Message #39.

Wouldn't the search of Any's corpse be the Police or Medical Examiner's job? Evidence. If no valuables found, presumed robbery. Else its personal. Then or now.


41. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Carol on Feb-1st-03 at 1:55 PM
In response to Message #38.


"my problem with your theory about the coat is that it must have been blood-soaked somewhere -- even if not splattered -- and would not have been used for burial."

I don't know if it was or not. I have always had a problem with thinking that the crumpled up coat behind Andrew's head WAS the Prince Albert coat, if that is the one you refer to above.  Bridget said his outer coat was always kept hanging in the dining room.

Could not the undertaker have looked in that coat if it was hanging in the dining room. If it was not the coat on the sofa then maybe they used it to bury him in because it didn't have any blood on it.

Perhaps the coat on the sofa was another garment...maybe left by the murderer even which didn't have anything in it to identify them. Maybe Emma and Lizzie were too much in shock to pay attention to that piece of clothing and it was put in the heap on the floor of the basement after the autopsy and no one even looked into it not being Andrew's. 

I don't think Andrew would have crumpled up his own coat and left it on the sofa when he normally kept it in the dining room.


42. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Kat on Feb-1st-03 at 6:33 PM
In response to Message #41.


Prelim.
Dolan
Page 89

Q.  Describe its position exactly.
A.  At the head of the sofa, which was to the west, there was a Prince Albert coat folded up, that was placed on top of, I think an afghan, some knit cover, and on that was placed a small sofa cushion with a piece of the tidy on it; on that rested Mr. Borden's head. His two feet were on the floor; and he lay in the position as if he had been asleep.

--------------
Trial
Dolan
From 854+--a couple of references

Q.  Now as to the position of the body when you saw it, looking at exhibit 17 (photograph), how does that correspond with your remembrance of the position of the body when you saw it?
A.  That is right. The only difference possible, the only thing that I am not quite sure of, is that possibly I may have pulled that coat up a little to get to his inside pocket. I am not quite sure of it.
Q.  Which is the coat, sir?
A.  This is it: His Prince Albert coat.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury)   That is the coat, he says, right over there, ---over the head of the body.
Q.  You pulled that up a little, did you: otherwise is the position the same as you found it?
A.  Yes, sir.
MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury)   That is the picture that you have already    seen, gentlemen.
Q.  What was the head resting on?
A.  The head was resting upon a small sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion in turn, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there, and that, I think, rested upon an afghan or sofa cover,---a knitted affair.
Q.  The lowest of the three was the doubled up coat?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  Was the---?
A.  Afghan.
Q.  Then came the coat?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  And then the sofa cushion?
A.  Yes, sir.
----------------
Trial
Dolan
927+

Q.  The photograph which is marked Ex. 5 and is the representation of Mr. Borden lying on the sofa, I understand you to say, is a correct representation of the way he looked to you when you saw him?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  With the exception that the head is lower down?
A.  Yes, sir.
Q.  In this photograph there appears to be on the arm of the sofa near the dining room, something folded up which is not clear or distinct. Was that the coat?
A.  No, sir, not the very bottom.
Q.  No, I mean, on the upper arm of the sofa?
A.  That is the Prince Albert coat.
Q.  When you saw him, was his head upon that?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  Did it touch it at all?
A.  No, sir.
Q.  How much did it settle, in your opinion, from the time you saw it?
A.  I could not really say that it had settled at all. My impression is that I lifted that somewhat; I am not sure.  If I did, of course I lifted the head some.
Q.  Have you any opinion as to the effect that these blows would have on the head with reference to its settling on the arm of the sofa?
A.  I have not thought of one before.  I should think possibly repeated blows would cause it to sink some from its natural position.
Q.  So that when Mr. Borden first lay down on the sofa, you would judge that possibly his head might have been up touching his Prince Albert coat?
A.  I would not say that; I should say that the cushion would slide with his head.
---------------


(By the time of the trial SURELY Emma or Lizzie would have called that coat *IMPOSTER!*  If it came there by mistake and belonged to another.... all the questions, the photos, the testimony--they were probably paying close attention. )


43. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by haulover on Feb-2nd-03 at 9:29 PM
In response to Message #41.

it seems to me that the coat in question was andrew's prince albert coat.  the question is whether he put it there that way before the murders -- or if the murderer put it there after the killing.  what is regrettable is that this coat was not examined thoroughly.  ( if it was, i can't find it.)  the point being that if it was one particular blood-soaked area that is one thing -- if it were splattered either in back or front, that is another.


44. "Re: buried clothes"
Posted by Carol on Feb-3rd-03 at 11:45 AM
In response to Message #42.

"(By the time of the trial SURELY Emma or Lizzie would have called that coat *IMPOSTER!*  If it came there by mistake and belonged to another.... all the questions, the photos, the testimony--they were probably paying close attention. )"

I am not so sure how much Lizzie and Emma had to do with the garments once the doctors and police took over. It is odd that the coat would be on the sofa not neatly folded but rather crumpled up on the arm. One explanation would be if the coat was normally kept in the dining room on a hook and the hook was near the windows Bridget could have removed it to the sofa while she was doing the windows and never put it back.

It is Dolan who identifies the coat as Andrew's in the testimony you give. How familiar was he with Andrew's wardrobe?  But Dolan didn't even investigate the spots on the parlor door that day, he came back later to do so and Emma had already removed them by cleaning. My question is if it was not really Andrew's coat then it might have been the coat of the murderer, the coat that had the tobacco in it, which no one thought Andrew chewed. There could have been more than one Prince Albert coat being worn in Fall River that day.



 

Navagation

LizzieAndrewBorden.com © 2001-2008 Stefani Koorey. All Rights Reserved. Copyright Notice.
PearTree Press, P.O. Box 9585, Fall River, MA 02720

 

Page updated 12 October, 2003