Andrew's coat
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Angel
- Posts: 2189
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:32 pm
- Real Name:
Andrew's coat
I just had a thought about the placement of Andrew's coat. If Lizzie used it to cover herself to do the deed, how did she then manage all by herself to raise his bloody head to put it under him? Even if she managed that, how could she do it without getting blood all over herself? If she did it in the nude or had another covering over her clothes, then why put it under his head at all? He already had a pillow, so it doesn't look like he was using it for that purpose. It doesn't make sense that the coat was there at all.
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
Andrew exchanged the coat for the cardigan, he must have taken the coat off and put the cardigan on, then carried the coat along to use as a pillow. Unless the cardigan was thrown over the arm of the sofa, it makes more sense to hang the coat where the cardigan had been. I would have thrown the coat over the other arm of the sofa so it wouldn't get wrinkled if I didn't want to hang it up.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Kat
- Posts: 14785
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
It's an interesting question.
Andrew kept his housecoat on a nail just inside the kitchen door from the sitting room. He kept his outdoor coat in the dining room.
Shelley seems to think he kept it in the dining room closet. He may have- but we don't know for sure.
If that outdoor coat was used as a blood shield during his murder and then stuck it under Andrew's head, that certainly would get that person covered in blood- at least their sleeves.
And then the question- why touch the coat if a person wore nothing or wore something else- as Angel asks.
An image comes to mind of what it felt like to Lizzie if she did do that- lifting up her father's broken and bloody head. It's revolting!
Maybe there is another reason the coat was there that we need to figure out?
Andrew kept his housecoat on a nail just inside the kitchen door from the sitting room. He kept his outdoor coat in the dining room.
Shelley seems to think he kept it in the dining room closet. He may have- but we don't know for sure.
If that outdoor coat was used as a blood shield during his murder and then stuck it under Andrew's head, that certainly would get that person covered in blood- at least their sleeves.
And then the question- why touch the coat if a person wore nothing or wore something else- as Angel asks.
An image comes to mind of what it felt like to Lizzie if she did do that- lifting up her father's broken and bloody head. It's revolting!
Maybe there is another reason the coat was there that we need to figure out?
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
I agree, it is an odd place for the coat and an odd use for it. Andrew would have to remove the coat, assuming he was wearing it, put it down somewhere or hang it up, then put on the cardigan. If the cardigan was on a nail in the kitchen and the coat was usually kept in the dining room, it makes sense to either hang up the coat and then get the cardigan, or take the cardigan into the dining room to change. Both garments were in the sitting room which may have been an odd place for either, unless Andrew was wearing it. Andrew might have been preoccupied, reading something perhaps, but it still called for a garment to be carried or removed somewhere unusual. One way I can envision the coat being left on the sofa is if the day was warm and Andrew wanted to cool off, he might have removed the coat immediately upon entering the house. He might have simply thrown the coat over the sofa arm on his way to the dining room if his hands were occupied with mail and a parcel. This still doesn't explain why the coat was used as a pillow, though.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Angel
- Posts: 2189
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:32 pm
- Real Name:
I just looked at the crime scene photo again. To me, it looks like the coat was folded up and then placed a little higher from the pillow, then sort of stuffed or tucked under the pillow- maybe it was used for the crime and then was tucked there afterwards - the person wouldn't necessarily have gotten blood on him/herself by tucking it up higher like that, but maybe the intention was to put it close enough to the body so that it would explain why there was blood on it?
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:12 am
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
It is difficult to tell where Andrew's head was before the hatchet blows. The force of the blows would probably have driven his head downward somewhat. It looks to me like the coat could have been pushed behind the pillow, without having to lift Andrew's head. A hatchet could have been used to stuff the coat in place with the minimum disturbance to the other objects. The placement of the coat would definitely explain why there was blood on it, whether it was worn by the murderer or not.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
leitskev
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm
- Real Name: kevin lenihan
Re: Andrew's coat
According to this article: https://phayemuss.wordpress.com/2017/11 ... bert-coat/
the Prince Albert coat was not listed with the items buried in the yard. Nor was it presented at trial.
Those two facts alone likely dispense with the coat theory. Why was it not with the buried items? Because the police and prosecutors held it back for close inspection. I don't have evidence of that, but it's common sense. From almost the beginning, Lizzie was the prime suspect, and the mystery of how she had no blood on her clothing was from the beginning the main riddle of the case. They would have developed the coat hypothesis very early on and looked closely at the coat for blood splatter.
It was not presented at trial, though Knowlton brought up in closing arguments, suggesting the coat theory to the jury. Why was it not presented as evidence? Seems pretty clearly because they didn't find any splatter on the unexposed parts of the coat.'
In the article above, they try to get around that by suggesting Lizzie had the undertaker bury him in his favorite coat. But that's absurd. You can see in the photo the coat is drenched in blood where the head lay. There was no way to clean that and no need...and no evidence of it.
The photo shows the coat to be neatly laid, possibly folded, under the pillow. The killer, if he/she used the coat as a shield, would have had to lift the pillow and Andrew's head in order to place it there. The bottom of the coat is all the way down at the bottom of the pillow. The head would swivel forward if the pillow was lifted. It does not even look possible to lie the coat down this way while holding up the pillow and the head with one hand.
the Prince Albert coat was not listed with the items buried in the yard. Nor was it presented at trial.
Those two facts alone likely dispense with the coat theory. Why was it not with the buried items? Because the police and prosecutors held it back for close inspection. I don't have evidence of that, but it's common sense. From almost the beginning, Lizzie was the prime suspect, and the mystery of how she had no blood on her clothing was from the beginning the main riddle of the case. They would have developed the coat hypothesis very early on and looked closely at the coat for blood splatter.
It was not presented at trial, though Knowlton brought up in closing arguments, suggesting the coat theory to the jury. Why was it not presented as evidence? Seems pretty clearly because they didn't find any splatter on the unexposed parts of the coat.'
In the article above, they try to get around that by suggesting Lizzie had the undertaker bury him in his favorite coat. But that's absurd. You can see in the photo the coat is drenched in blood where the head lay. There was no way to clean that and no need...and no evidence of it.
The photo shows the coat to be neatly laid, possibly folded, under the pillow. The killer, if he/she used the coat as a shield, would have had to lift the pillow and Andrew's head in order to place it there. The bottom of the coat is all the way down at the bottom of the pillow. The head would swivel forward if the pillow was lifted. It does not even look possible to lie the coat down this way while holding up the pillow and the head with one hand.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Andrew's coat
I'll give the coat argument one more go.
Not sure if this statement is controversial....don't think so, but it does seem to be the general consensus that Andrew was a cost conscious and a buttoned up individual.
The Prince Albert Coat which Andrew's wore as his outdoor coat was kept in the dining room closet.
Bridget Sullivan Prelim Hearing
Page 9
Q. Where did he (Andrew) keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A. In the dining room.
When Andrew arrived back home after his downtown walk, he went to the dining room and read some paperwork.
Bridget Sullivan Prelim Hearing
Page 20
Q. Where did Mr. Borden go when he came in?
A. Into the dining room.
Q. You were at work in the sitting room then?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did he do in the dining room?
A. He sat at the head of the lounge in a chair when I saw him.
Andrew then went up to his bedroom, came back down and sat in the chair on the south side of the sitting room. Both of these actions were witnessed and testified upon by Bridget. At some point very shortly after being seen sitting in the sitting room chair reading, AJB ended up lying down and dead on the sitting room sofa.
Related tidbits:
Mere moments before Andrew's killing, Lizzie was last see walking into the dining room by Bridget.
The dining room closet is located directly next to the door into the sitting room.
The coat was located under AJB's head on the arm of the sofa less than 2 feet from its normal hanging location.
The coat closet, sofa arm, dining room door are all within 1-2 feet of where the assailant very likely stood when killing AJB.
The dining room had a lounge and presumably a lounge pillow of its own.
Andrew went directly to the dining room upon returning home. Why? Andrew and Abby used the sitting room as their primary 1st floor relaxing room to talk, read, etc. It seems common sense (to me) that he went to the dining room after coming in from outdoors to take off and hang up his coat. He took papers he had in his coat pocket out before hanging it up and glanced at the paperwork in the dining room before going upstairs for an unknown specific reason.
Then AJB comes down with the paperwork and sits in his standard chair by the sitting room windows to properly digest whatever the paperwork contained.
For whatever reason, Andrew hops up and goes to lie down on the sofa. The sofa pillow and afghan are not soft enough and he wants to make himself more comfortable. Would he fold up his costly, outdoor formal coat or would he reach around the corner and grab the pillow off the dining room sofa? Personally, I don't think he added another pillow or the coat....but noting the dining room sofa pillow to add some realism to this topic.
Back to my opening statement, I am quite confident that you don't and won't view the coat as a part of this crime and that is fine with me. I couldn't care less what theories you personally espouse to. But to say the coat theory is "a dead end'" is completely inaccurate unless stated as a personal opinion.
Not sure if this statement is controversial....don't think so, but it does seem to be the general consensus that Andrew was a cost conscious and a buttoned up individual.
The Prince Albert Coat which Andrew's wore as his outdoor coat was kept in the dining room closet.
Bridget Sullivan Prelim Hearing
Page 9
Q. Where did he (Andrew) keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A. In the dining room.
When Andrew arrived back home after his downtown walk, he went to the dining room and read some paperwork.
Bridget Sullivan Prelim Hearing
Page 20
Q. Where did Mr. Borden go when he came in?
A. Into the dining room.
Q. You were at work in the sitting room then?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. What did he do in the dining room?
A. He sat at the head of the lounge in a chair when I saw him.
Andrew then went up to his bedroom, came back down and sat in the chair on the south side of the sitting room. Both of these actions were witnessed and testified upon by Bridget. At some point very shortly after being seen sitting in the sitting room chair reading, AJB ended up lying down and dead on the sitting room sofa.
Related tidbits:
Mere moments before Andrew's killing, Lizzie was last see walking into the dining room by Bridget.
The dining room closet is located directly next to the door into the sitting room.
The coat was located under AJB's head on the arm of the sofa less than 2 feet from its normal hanging location.
The coat closet, sofa arm, dining room door are all within 1-2 feet of where the assailant very likely stood when killing AJB.
The dining room had a lounge and presumably a lounge pillow of its own.
Andrew went directly to the dining room upon returning home. Why? Andrew and Abby used the sitting room as their primary 1st floor relaxing room to talk, read, etc. It seems common sense (to me) that he went to the dining room after coming in from outdoors to take off and hang up his coat. He took papers he had in his coat pocket out before hanging it up and glanced at the paperwork in the dining room before going upstairs for an unknown specific reason.
Then AJB comes down with the paperwork and sits in his standard chair by the sitting room windows to properly digest whatever the paperwork contained.
For whatever reason, Andrew hops up and goes to lie down on the sofa. The sofa pillow and afghan are not soft enough and he wants to make himself more comfortable. Would he fold up his costly, outdoor formal coat or would he reach around the corner and grab the pillow off the dining room sofa? Personally, I don't think he added another pillow or the coat....but noting the dining room sofa pillow to add some realism to this topic.
Back to my opening statement, I am quite confident that you don't and won't view the coat as a part of this crime and that is fine with me. I couldn't care less what theories you personally espouse to. But to say the coat theory is "a dead end'" is completely inaccurate unless stated as a personal opinion.
-
leitskev
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm
- Real Name: kevin lenihan
Re: Andrew's coat
I am going to endeavor extra hard to avoid your provoking statements("I couldn't care less what theories you personally espouse to."), and stay even keeled and respectful. I respect your knowledge of the case. These people are all long dead so this should always be a friendly discussion.
Let's examine the testimony you past. Bridget does not recall seeing Andrew hang the court in the dining room. Presumably Bridget was not present when Andrew went into the sitting room? So the bottom line is we have no testimony that claims he did not bring the coat in with him.
Your argument will be that he normally hung the coat in the dining room, so why wouldn't he on this morning?
Because on this morning he was ill. He broke his usual routine. Came home early. And decided to take a nap.
I find Bridget's testimony inconclusive. She didn't see Andrew lie down. She didn't see him hang his coat.
You find it, I presume, vitally conclusive, even though she never testifies to seeing these things.
When I call this a dead end, I do not mean what you think I mean. I do not mean that the evidence shows the coat was necessarily placed under the pillow before the murder. What I mean is there is nothing conclusive here. It doesn't add to either side of the debate.
I notice that you DON'T wish to respond to my main points: 1) the coat was not on the list of the buried items; 2) the coat was not presented as evidence at trial. How do you account for this? What happened to the coat? The article I linked proposes that Lizzie had the undertaker clean the coat and bury Andrew in it. She might be jesting. In any case, that's not a serious theory. The more likely explanation is that the coat was kept by the prosecution to analyze for evidence. As no evidence helpful to their case was found, they didn't use it...though they did bring it up in closing arguments, which is a little sneaky.
Did the defense have access to the coat evidence? I don't know. Perhaps that would shed more light on my argument, perhaps even dispel it.
As to whether Andrew would fold up his coat, who can say? Perhaps he planned to have it laundered and pressed the next day anyway? Maybe his watch was in his coat pocket and he wanted it near. Maybe he had the chills, thought to use it as a covering, then changed his mind. He was ill. We don't know.
I'll ask you again the question I asked in last post. Look closely at the photo. Look at the bottom of the coat all the way down beneath the pillow. Look at the way the coat is laid down. Does it look to you...forget about your pre-existing feelings about the case...does it look to you like someone could lift the pillow with one hand, on top of which is Andrew's blood-gushing head, and then lay the coat down that way? What would this do to the head? Wouldn't it fall forward? Did she then push the bloody head back up? I ask you to look at the photo...look at the way the coat is laid down...and let us know what you think.
In my view of that photo, even if Andrew's head was not gushing blood, it would be all but impossible to use one's right hand to hold up the pillow and head while place the jacket in such a manner with one's left hand. The coat is actually touching the bottom of the couch, so the pillow and head would have to be moved quite a bit.
I can add one thing in favor of the coat argument. From my research, I've found that many killers, even serial killers, feeling some remorse after the act, will do something respectful to the body, such as cover it up. So I suppose one can imagine Lizzie placing the coat there not just to hide the evidence in plain sight, but as an act of love to her father, she gently lifts his head under the pillow and places his coat.
Not sure that fits your conception of the woman and the crime, but I'm trying to consider all possibilities.
But my best current conclusion is that:
a) the police would have examined that for splatter, and the prosecutors likely did have it looked at closely for that
b) and there WOULD be splatter on the unexposed parts of the coat if she used it.
Again, I am not arguing with you, I'm sure you are a very decent fellow, I am not trying to provoke you. I am opening to being convinced by any of your arguments.
Let's examine the testimony you past. Bridget does not recall seeing Andrew hang the court in the dining room. Presumably Bridget was not present when Andrew went into the sitting room? So the bottom line is we have no testimony that claims he did not bring the coat in with him.
Your argument will be that he normally hung the coat in the dining room, so why wouldn't he on this morning?
Because on this morning he was ill. He broke his usual routine. Came home early. And decided to take a nap.
I find Bridget's testimony inconclusive. She didn't see Andrew lie down. She didn't see him hang his coat.
You find it, I presume, vitally conclusive, even though she never testifies to seeing these things.
When I call this a dead end, I do not mean what you think I mean. I do not mean that the evidence shows the coat was necessarily placed under the pillow before the murder. What I mean is there is nothing conclusive here. It doesn't add to either side of the debate.
I notice that you DON'T wish to respond to my main points: 1) the coat was not on the list of the buried items; 2) the coat was not presented as evidence at trial. How do you account for this? What happened to the coat? The article I linked proposes that Lizzie had the undertaker clean the coat and bury Andrew in it. She might be jesting. In any case, that's not a serious theory. The more likely explanation is that the coat was kept by the prosecution to analyze for evidence. As no evidence helpful to their case was found, they didn't use it...though they did bring it up in closing arguments, which is a little sneaky.
Did the defense have access to the coat evidence? I don't know. Perhaps that would shed more light on my argument, perhaps even dispel it.
As to whether Andrew would fold up his coat, who can say? Perhaps he planned to have it laundered and pressed the next day anyway? Maybe his watch was in his coat pocket and he wanted it near. Maybe he had the chills, thought to use it as a covering, then changed his mind. He was ill. We don't know.
I'll ask you again the question I asked in last post. Look closely at the photo. Look at the bottom of the coat all the way down beneath the pillow. Look at the way the coat is laid down. Does it look to you...forget about your pre-existing feelings about the case...does it look to you like someone could lift the pillow with one hand, on top of which is Andrew's blood-gushing head, and then lay the coat down that way? What would this do to the head? Wouldn't it fall forward? Did she then push the bloody head back up? I ask you to look at the photo...look at the way the coat is laid down...and let us know what you think.
In my view of that photo, even if Andrew's head was not gushing blood, it would be all but impossible to use one's right hand to hold up the pillow and head while place the jacket in such a manner with one's left hand. The coat is actually touching the bottom of the couch, so the pillow and head would have to be moved quite a bit.
I can add one thing in favor of the coat argument. From my research, I've found that many killers, even serial killers, feeling some remorse after the act, will do something respectful to the body, such as cover it up. So I suppose one can imagine Lizzie placing the coat there not just to hide the evidence in plain sight, but as an act of love to her father, she gently lifts his head under the pillow and places his coat.
Not sure that fits your conception of the woman and the crime, but I'm trying to consider all possibilities.
But my best current conclusion is that:
a) the police would have examined that for splatter, and the prosecutors likely did have it looked at closely for that
b) and there WOULD be splatter on the unexposed parts of the coat if she used it.
Again, I am not arguing with you, I'm sure you are a very decent fellow, I am not trying to provoke you. I am opening to being convinced by any of your arguments.
-
KGDevil
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
- Real Name: John Porter
Re: Andrew's coat
You keep saying the police would've checked that coat so closely for blood evidence and also pointing out they buried everything in the yard. Did they check any of the clothing for evidence, or just bury everything in the yard? Did they present any of Andrew or Abby's clothing in court? You base your arguments on assumptions the prosecution did this or that with no evidence to back up that's what actually happened. It's speculation. The police didn't even check the pail with the bloody rags down cellar because they were squeamish about discussing Lizzie's monthlies. I'm not sure why the position of Andrew's head in the photograph is evidence of anything when no one has any idea what position the body was in just after the attack except for the killer. There is not necessarily a need to pick up, or touch, the head to do a tucking motion and shove anything under a pillow. I've put enough money from the tooth fairy under pillows of sleeping children to understand. I'll grant it wasn't under a bloody pillow, but there is no need to pick up the head. It was not the prosecution's job to have to come up with a theory of how Lizzie shielded herself. Knowlton stated as much in his closing arguments, and it's true. Because, unless you get a confession from the killer laying out every detail, there is never a way to know every detail of how any murder was committed. That's also common sense. That's why it was not as imperative as you make it out to be that they prove exactly how Lizzie would've shielded herself from blood spatter. People are found guilty of murder when the body has never even been found. I think not having a body takes a lot more convincing than how a killer shielded themselves from blood spatter. Lizzie using the coat is also just a theory with no proof of whether she did not or did not use it. But, in my opinion, it makes a lot of sense.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
-
Steve887788
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:16 pm
- Real Name: Stephen
Re: Andrew's coat
I dont see how anyone could shield their body esp head by holding up any type of tarp / coat / blanket and still manage to chop Andrew Borden's head / face with relative precision, 11 times.
-
leitskev
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm
- Real Name: kevin lenihan
Re: Andrew's coat
KC
There is no evidence Lizzie placed the coat there.
There is no evidence Andrew did not.
There is no evidence Andrew hanged his coat up that morning. Bridget did not testify he did.
The idea that Lizzie used the coat then placed it there is COMPLETE speculation supported by ZERO evidence, yet that doesn't dissuade you from being convinced this happened.
The items buried were apparently listed, and the coat was not on that list. What happened to it? Why wasn't it buried?
The bottom of the coast is resting on the couch itself. You would have to move the pillow and the head to get the coat all the way in there like that. No one said you have to touch the head, but moving the pillow moves the head that's on the pillow.
It was not the prosecution's job to explain how Lizzie killed Andrew yet had no blood visible on her minutes later? Are you sure about that?
Keep in mind the prosecution DID argue in closing comments to the jury that Lizzie might have used the coat to shield herself.
No one is looking for every detail, my friend. The ESSENTIAL mystery of the Borden killings for 120 years has been this: how could Lizzie kill her parents, clean herself up in minutes and hide the murder weapon. That was the mystery on August 4th, it is the mystery now.
The coat is the explanation many have settled on. Because if you can't explain how she did this, it's hard to maintain a strong claim that she did it.
Getting a murder conviction without a body is very rare. You need very compelling evidence.
In the Borden case, the jury acquitted in about an hour, and even before that, the media coverage, including national media, did not buy into the prosecution's case. There was never any evidence against Lizzie. I'm not saying she didn't do it, but there's no witness, no murder weapon, no blood on Lizzie minutes later.
I have a very hard time imagining an intruder sneaking into the house unseen, killing, waiting, killing again and then escaping unseen. So based on that, Lizzie had always been the prime suspect to me. But when I look at details, things don't add up in my view. A LOT of things.
Aside from the difficulty in cleaning up and hiding the murder weapon, there are other problems. Can you think of any other murders like this? When you look at other savage murders like this, there was clear signs in the prior history. We see histories of mental illness, a propensity for violence, a highly dysfunctional upbringing. None of that is present here. Lizzie is a Sunday school teacher involved on the board of several charities. Her parents are normal people, upright citizens. No alcohol. No breakdowns. Nothing. All you have is the possibility Lizzie stole from her parents the year before. Look at any other cases. Look at the shooter yesterday in Texas. In every other case, we see really clear signs and patterns. That's not here in the Borden case. It stands out as a complete outlier.
I've learned something else from looking at a wide range of other cases that applies here. We have been told that the crime was a crime of passion, based on the number of hatchet blows. Therefore, we're told, this was personal. But that turns out to be complete utter nonsense. Go and look at other ax murders. This kind of attack, where the blows are waaay beyond what was needed, is the NORM when it is a stranger. Look at the Viilesca murders. A stranger waited and watched from the barn, went into the house and killed multiple people, and utterly destroyed the victims, smashing their heads til the brains splattered all over the place.
I like to analyze the Borden case because there are a lot of general lessons to be learned. Among those lessons is how people...police, prosecutors and the public..let their interpretation of evidence be so heavily influenced by the conceptions they form earlier about guilt or innocence. We all have that tendency. I am trying not to be guilty of it, though I no doubt make the mistake too. And I see it a lot here. No one would be bothered by that coat on the couch if we didn't have the problem of how Lizzie was not covered in blood. But because of that we get people saying Andrew would never put his coat in the couch, despite there being no way we could know this. I would do something like that with my coat.
There is no evidence Lizzie placed the coat there.
There is no evidence Andrew did not.
There is no evidence Andrew hanged his coat up that morning. Bridget did not testify he did.
The idea that Lizzie used the coat then placed it there is COMPLETE speculation supported by ZERO evidence, yet that doesn't dissuade you from being convinced this happened.
The items buried were apparently listed, and the coat was not on that list. What happened to it? Why wasn't it buried?
The bottom of the coast is resting on the couch itself. You would have to move the pillow and the head to get the coat all the way in there like that. No one said you have to touch the head, but moving the pillow moves the head that's on the pillow.
It was not the prosecution's job to explain how Lizzie killed Andrew yet had no blood visible on her minutes later? Are you sure about that?
Keep in mind the prosecution DID argue in closing comments to the jury that Lizzie might have used the coat to shield herself.
No one is looking for every detail, my friend. The ESSENTIAL mystery of the Borden killings for 120 years has been this: how could Lizzie kill her parents, clean herself up in minutes and hide the murder weapon. That was the mystery on August 4th, it is the mystery now.
The coat is the explanation many have settled on. Because if you can't explain how she did this, it's hard to maintain a strong claim that she did it.
Getting a murder conviction without a body is very rare. You need very compelling evidence.
In the Borden case, the jury acquitted in about an hour, and even before that, the media coverage, including national media, did not buy into the prosecution's case. There was never any evidence against Lizzie. I'm not saying she didn't do it, but there's no witness, no murder weapon, no blood on Lizzie minutes later.
I have a very hard time imagining an intruder sneaking into the house unseen, killing, waiting, killing again and then escaping unseen. So based on that, Lizzie had always been the prime suspect to me. But when I look at details, things don't add up in my view. A LOT of things.
Aside from the difficulty in cleaning up and hiding the murder weapon, there are other problems. Can you think of any other murders like this? When you look at other savage murders like this, there was clear signs in the prior history. We see histories of mental illness, a propensity for violence, a highly dysfunctional upbringing. None of that is present here. Lizzie is a Sunday school teacher involved on the board of several charities. Her parents are normal people, upright citizens. No alcohol. No breakdowns. Nothing. All you have is the possibility Lizzie stole from her parents the year before. Look at any other cases. Look at the shooter yesterday in Texas. In every other case, we see really clear signs and patterns. That's not here in the Borden case. It stands out as a complete outlier.
I've learned something else from looking at a wide range of other cases that applies here. We have been told that the crime was a crime of passion, based on the number of hatchet blows. Therefore, we're told, this was personal. But that turns out to be complete utter nonsense. Go and look at other ax murders. This kind of attack, where the blows are waaay beyond what was needed, is the NORM when it is a stranger. Look at the Viilesca murders. A stranger waited and watched from the barn, went into the house and killed multiple people, and utterly destroyed the victims, smashing their heads til the brains splattered all over the place.
I like to analyze the Borden case because there are a lot of general lessons to be learned. Among those lessons is how people...police, prosecutors and the public..let their interpretation of evidence be so heavily influenced by the conceptions they form earlier about guilt or innocence. We all have that tendency. I am trying not to be guilty of it, though I no doubt make the mistake too. And I see it a lot here. No one would be bothered by that coat on the couch if we didn't have the problem of how Lizzie was not covered in blood. But because of that we get people saying Andrew would never put his coat in the couch, despite there being no way we could know this. I would do something like that with my coat.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Andrew's coat
Edited post and reposted. Deleting this duplicate version.
Last edited by camgarsky4 on Thu May 26, 2022 7:54 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
KGDevil
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
- Real Name: John Porter
Re: Andrew's coat
I said it was a theory that had no proof but I think it makes sense. I'm not stating things as fact that are indeed speculation. I don't know if you missed that part. But, you like to do a lot of cherry picking as well. For instance, cherry picking that Knowlton offered up the coat, but leaving out the part where he said it wasn't his job to prove how she did it, or that she could've done it any number of other ways. He didn't know and it wasn't his job to prove that. You also completely ignore that if Lizzie had no time to clean up, then no other killer had time to clean up either. They would have the same amount of time. Another killer would have even less time because they had to get out before Lizzie could find the body. I don't like talking in circles so hopefully someone else would like to jump on the merry go round. I'm getting off.leitskev wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 8:47 pm KC
There is no evidence Lizzie placed the coat there.
There is no evidence Andrew did not.
There is no evidence Andrew hanged his coat up that morning. Bridget did not testify he did.
The idea that Lizzie used the coat then placed it there is COMPLETE speculation supported by ZERO evidence, yet that doesn't dissuade you from being convinced this happened.
The items buried were apparently listed, and the coat was not on that list. What happened to it? Why wasn't it buried?
The bottom of the coast is resting on the couch itself. You would have to move the pillow and the head to get the coat all the way in there like that. No one said you have to touch the head, but moving the pillow moves the head that's on the pillow.
It was not the prosecution's job to explain how Lizzie killed Andrew yet had no blood visible on her minutes later? Are you sure about that?
Keep in mind the prosecution DID argue in closing comments to the jury that Lizzie might have used the coat to shield herself.
No one is looking for every detail, my friend. The ESSENTIAL mystery of the Borden killings for 120 years has been this: how could Lizzie kill her parents, clean herself up in minutes and hide the murder weapon. That was the mystery on August 4th, it is the mystery now.
The coat is the explanation many have settled on. Because if you can't explain how she did this, it's hard to maintain a strong claim that she did it.
Getting a murder conviction without a body is very rare. You need very compelling evidence.
In the Borden case, the jury acquitted in about an hour, and even before that, the media coverage, including national media, did not buy into the prosecution's case. There was never any evidence against Lizzie. I'm not saying she didn't do it, but there's no witness, no murder weapon, no blood on Lizzie minutes later.
I have a very hard time imagining an intruder sneaking into the house unseen, killing, waiting, killing again and then escaping unseen. So based on that, Lizzie had always been the prime suspect to me. But when I look at details, things don't add up in my view. A LOT of things.
Aside from the difficulty in cleaning up and hiding the murder weapon, there are other problems. Can you think of any other murders like this? When you look at other savage murders like this, there was clear signs in the prior history. We see histories of mental illness, a propensity for violence, a highly dysfunctional upbringing. None of that is present here. Lizzie is a Sunday school teacher involved on the board of several charities. Her parents are normal people, upright citizens. No alcohol. No breakdowns. Nothing. All you have is the possibility Lizzie stole from her parents the year before. Look at any other cases. Look at the shooter yesterday in Texas. In every other case, we see really clear signs and patterns. That's not here in the Borden case. It stands out as a complete outlier.
I've learned something else from looking at a wide range of other cases that applies here. We have been told that the crime was a crime of passion, based on the number of hatchet blows. Therefore, we're told, this was personal. But that turns out to be complete utter nonsense. Go and look at other ax murders. This kind of attack, where the blows are waaay beyond what was needed, is the NORM when it is a stranger. Look at the Viilesca murders. A stranger waited and watched from the barn, went into the house and killed multiple people, and utterly destroyed the victims, smashing their heads til the brains splattered all over the place.
I like to analyze the Borden case because there are a lot of general lessons to be learned. Among those lessons is how people...police, prosecutors and the public..let their interpretation of evidence be so heavily influenced by the conceptions they form earlier about guilt or innocence. We all have that tendency. I am trying not to be guilty of it, though I no doubt make the mistake too. And I see it a lot here. No one would be bothered by that coat on the couch if we didn't have the problem of how Lizzie was not covered in blood. But because of that we get people saying Andrew would never put his coat in the couch, despite there being no way we could know this. I would do something like that with my coat.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Andrew's coat
Answers to unanswered questions:
1) I didn't answer your blood/police question because I've already answered twice. The amount of blood that might have gotten on the killer, regardless of what they were wearing, would have been negligible. The only blood that left AJB"s immediate body was the blood that might spray off the hatchet with each stroke. There were no blood geysers. Again, testimony & autopsy report confirm this.
2) Since presenting the coat as evidence during the trial would allow for defense cross examination of the item, the prosecution would have to concede that any assailant might have used the coat, completely mitigating the potential impact on the jury as to Lizzie's guilt. By very shrewdly only surfacing the coat during his closing argument, Knowlton insured that he could express his theory and no one could speak up to ridicule it.
3) The list of buried clothing items would not be able to fully redress Abby and Andrew. Other items are missing. Missing evidence and key items from this case are not uncommon....sadly it is quite common. For example, there are dozens of summoned witnesses who were never called to testify, yet they must have been interviewed if the prosecution summoned them. Where are all those witness statements? Odds are, Knowlton decided they what they might share would be deemed inadmissible or inconclusive. Such was the case on multiple issues in this trial. I presume you know that almost all of the physical evidence that is known to exist is only thru the happenstance that the Jennings family didn't toss out everything in a hip bath stored in their attic (I believe that was the location). It wouldn't take much of a stretch that we could be sitting here studying the case without the handless hatchet head, or Abby's hair piece....on and on. To follow this idea, if the Marshall Hilliard family hadn't kept and donated his papers in the late 20th century, we wouldn't have the witness statements we do have. Again, very easily could not have that information. Heck, it is a bit of a miracle that we have any of Lizzie's inquest testimony. We will never have all the pieces to this puzzle, so we need to connect some dots and make our best deductions. Pure clarity will always be out of our reach.
I choose to think that the coat was likely used as a cover by the killer. You don't choose to believe that. All good.
My primary point is that when people say "Lizzie (or any killer) couldn't have done the deed, cleaned up and escaped in that time period"...they are incorrect. It could be done. What we do KNOW as a FACT is that someone killed them and 'escaped' in that time frame. So it not only could be done, it was done.
If you or anyone else have other theories on how it was done in that timeframe, please toss them out there. Easy to throw stones at an idea.....a bit more challenging to provide an alternative that might be more compelling.
Extract from Leitskev post above:
Your argument will be that he normally hung the coat in the dining room, so why wouldn't he on this morning?
Because on this morning he was ill. He broke his usual routine. Came home early. And decided to take a nap.
This is an example of what frustrate me. You typed 4 mini sentences that literally have ZERO relationship to the fact that the coat was kept in the dining room closet and he went straight to the dining room upon returning home. By the way, we don't really know if he came home early, broke his usual routine or was napping or just relaxing. These are supposition most Bordenites make (including me), but we don't know it and certainly can't reference as a fact.
I've answered your questions......now my turn....Why did Andrew go straight to the dining room?
Actually until this exchange of posts, I would have given the coats involvement to be around 60%......however this little exercise has helped me identify a couple new aspects, so thanks! My confidence this item was directly involved is closer to 80%+.
1) I didn't answer your blood/police question because I've already answered twice. The amount of blood that might have gotten on the killer, regardless of what they were wearing, would have been negligible. The only blood that left AJB"s immediate body was the blood that might spray off the hatchet with each stroke. There were no blood geysers. Again, testimony & autopsy report confirm this.
2) Since presenting the coat as evidence during the trial would allow for defense cross examination of the item, the prosecution would have to concede that any assailant might have used the coat, completely mitigating the potential impact on the jury as to Lizzie's guilt. By very shrewdly only surfacing the coat during his closing argument, Knowlton insured that he could express his theory and no one could speak up to ridicule it.
3) The list of buried clothing items would not be able to fully redress Abby and Andrew. Other items are missing. Missing evidence and key items from this case are not uncommon....sadly it is quite common. For example, there are dozens of summoned witnesses who were never called to testify, yet they must have been interviewed if the prosecution summoned them. Where are all those witness statements? Odds are, Knowlton decided they what they might share would be deemed inadmissible or inconclusive. Such was the case on multiple issues in this trial. I presume you know that almost all of the physical evidence that is known to exist is only thru the happenstance that the Jennings family didn't toss out everything in a hip bath stored in their attic (I believe that was the location). It wouldn't take much of a stretch that we could be sitting here studying the case without the handless hatchet head, or Abby's hair piece....on and on. To follow this idea, if the Marshall Hilliard family hadn't kept and donated his papers in the late 20th century, we wouldn't have the witness statements we do have. Again, very easily could not have that information. Heck, it is a bit of a miracle that we have any of Lizzie's inquest testimony. We will never have all the pieces to this puzzle, so we need to connect some dots and make our best deductions. Pure clarity will always be out of our reach.
I choose to think that the coat was likely used as a cover by the killer. You don't choose to believe that. All good.
My primary point is that when people say "Lizzie (or any killer) couldn't have done the deed, cleaned up and escaped in that time period"...they are incorrect. It could be done. What we do KNOW as a FACT is that someone killed them and 'escaped' in that time frame. So it not only could be done, it was done.
If you or anyone else have other theories on how it was done in that timeframe, please toss them out there. Easy to throw stones at an idea.....a bit more challenging to provide an alternative that might be more compelling.
Extract from Leitskev post above:
Your argument will be that he normally hung the coat in the dining room, so why wouldn't he on this morning?
Because on this morning he was ill. He broke his usual routine. Came home early. And decided to take a nap.
This is an example of what frustrate me. You typed 4 mini sentences that literally have ZERO relationship to the fact that the coat was kept in the dining room closet and he went straight to the dining room upon returning home. By the way, we don't really know if he came home early, broke his usual routine or was napping or just relaxing. These are supposition most Bordenites make (including me), but we don't know it and certainly can't reference as a fact.
I've answered your questions......now my turn....Why did Andrew go straight to the dining room?
Actually until this exchange of posts, I would have given the coats involvement to be around 60%......however this little exercise has helped me identify a couple new aspects, so thanks! My confidence this item was directly involved is closer to 80%+.
-
leitskev
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm
- Real Name: kevin lenihan
Re: Andrew's coat
KG
I am not sure I should reply. You continue to make comments designed to inflame, meanwhile your own comments seem so shallow that it's not worth spending much time responding. Such as your accusation of cherry picking and the absurd example you provide. Did you want me to repeat Knowlton's entire closing argument? Is that what one has to do to avoid cherry picking? Knowlton only says it's not hist job to prove how she did because Lizzie's accomplishment seems impossible, and he DOES have to show that it was possible. For example, no one accuses Emma of committing the murders because she wasn't in Fall River. But Knowlton does have to convince the jury it was POSSIBLE, and that means exploring ways. Which is why he raised the coat to the jury.
If the weapon used had been a 200 lb rock, the prosecutor would have to show how Lizzie could have lifted it.
The entire case is circumstantial, with no direct evidence, so the prosecutors have to make it plausible. For example, had Lizzie only killed Abby, and had this discovery taken place at the time it did, a couple of hours later, the necessity of explaining how Lizzie cleaned up is much less of a problem.
No other killer had time to clean up? This statement is an example of why I should not respond to you. If the killer was an intruder who got in and out, since he was never caught he had a LIFETIME to clean up. Man, maybe you should read your posts before hitting send.
I am not sure I should reply. You continue to make comments designed to inflame, meanwhile your own comments seem so shallow that it's not worth spending much time responding. Such as your accusation of cherry picking and the absurd example you provide. Did you want me to repeat Knowlton's entire closing argument? Is that what one has to do to avoid cherry picking? Knowlton only says it's not hist job to prove how she did because Lizzie's accomplishment seems impossible, and he DOES have to show that it was possible. For example, no one accuses Emma of committing the murders because she wasn't in Fall River. But Knowlton does have to convince the jury it was POSSIBLE, and that means exploring ways. Which is why he raised the coat to the jury.
If the weapon used had been a 200 lb rock, the prosecutor would have to show how Lizzie could have lifted it.
The entire case is circumstantial, with no direct evidence, so the prosecutors have to make it plausible. For example, had Lizzie only killed Abby, and had this discovery taken place at the time it did, a couple of hours later, the necessity of explaining how Lizzie cleaned up is much less of a problem.
No other killer had time to clean up? This statement is an example of why I should not respond to you. If the killer was an intruder who got in and out, since he was never caught he had a LIFETIME to clean up. Man, maybe you should read your posts before hitting send.
-
KGDevil
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:41 pm
- Real Name: John Porter
Re: Andrew's coat
I totally agree. Someone did clean up after Andrew's murder. It's not impossible because someone did do it. If you want to say Lizzie had no time then another killer had less time to get out before Lizzie found Andrew's body. People can choose to believe Lizzie couldn't have cleaned up a bit more after she immediately sent Bridget out to get Dr. Bowen and then to find Alice Russell. Nobody was in that house at that time but Lizzie until Mrs. Churchill showed up. Lizzie had just told Bridget her father had been killed. Would Bridget have been inspecting Lizzie that closely at that moment? That would be a great shock. If Lizzie felt that her father had just been killed wouldn't it have been better to send for police instead of Alice Russell? What's Alice going to do? Lizzie was left standing at the side door by one of the only working faucets in the house. The bloody rags were found in a pail in the cellar and no one examined them. We should believe Lizzie had no time to clean herself up because it was too bloody a killing. She'd be splashed with gore. We should believe another killer who had little to no time to clean up escaped down second street with a face sprayed with blood, hair and clothes all bloody, and carrying a bloody murder weapon. You can't say Lizzie was too covered in blood for it not to have been noticed but another killer was not. That's not speculation. Someone did clean up after murdering Andrew. And I would hope that anyone who really wants to be knowledgeable and have the facts of the case would read all of the source documents.camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Thu May 26, 2022 7:55 am
My primary point is that when people say "Lizzie (or any killer) couldn't have done the deed, cleaned up and escaped in that time period"...they are incorrect. It could be done. What we do KNOW as a FACT is that someone killed them and 'escaped' in that time frame. So it not only could be done, it was done.
If you or anyone else have other theories on how it was done in that timeframe, please toss them out there. Easy to throw stones at an idea.....a bit more challenging to provide an alternative that might be more compelling.
[
Last edited by KGDevil on Thu May 26, 2022 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell. - Arthur Conan Doyle
-
leitskev
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm
- Real Name: kevin lenihan
Re: Andrew's coat
Cam
Some very intelligent replies in your post, thank you. Once again you got emotional as you went, so I'll just have to live with that as the norm.
I will attempt to address ALL of your points as I ALWAYS try.
Blood splatter: every other ax murder I can find evidence on has significant splatter and gore. In the Borden murders, there was significant blood splatter on the sitting room wall and the floor. The testimony I read last night said there would be blood sprayed on the face, hands, hair of the killer. Any documentary I've watched where they experiment with this shows the same. There's no way to settle this. I suspect if a week later they found an intruder had done this crime, and not Lizzie, you would have no problem thinking there would be much splatter, but that's just a suspicion.
note: I was not looking for your answer on this. I wanted an answer to the question of why the coat was not on the buried items list, yet was not presented at trial. To me that suggests the prosecutors kept the coat for close analysis. I am not asking what happened to the coat AFTER the trial. I am asking why it was not buried with the other clothing. The article I linked speculated, probably facetiously, that Lizzie had the coat cleaned and Andrew buried in it. But the very fact she floats this theory or makes this jibe suggests she is aware of the problem: why was the coat not buried right away with the other clothing?
The prosecutors absolutely understood that if they could examine that coat and find blood on the unexposed side it would prove the killer used the coat. Yes, someone COULD argue an intruder did this, but it would TEND to incriminate Lizzie. If the coat was in the dining room where it was normally hung, would an intruder find it and bring into the sitting room? Not impossible, but less likely than Lizzie finding it. Would an intruder lift Andrew's pillow and head in order to slip the coat there? Again, much less likely. Why would an intruder do this? He's escaping. Better to turn the coat inside out and escape with it, or just toss it on the floor. It was LIZZIE that had to hide evidence because she wasn't LEAVING.
You are frustrated not by my statements, but by facts you don't like. No one disputes that Andrew normally kept the coat in the dining room. But again, no one testified it was put there that morning. No one. Was it Andrew' custom to take a nap in the morning? There's no indication of that which I am aware of. But we DO know he was ill. The Emory girl(Morse's niece) was ill, Mrs. Eagan walking on Second street was ill(she was forced to relieve herself in the adjacent yard). Some kind of stomach bug seemed to be sweeping the city. The Bordens were hit by this. Andrew was ill.
We don't know he lied down to take a nap, but those are the indications. He was found lying on the couch with no defensive wounds, apparently struck from the side of the couch(by someone most likely using their left hand, BTW; Lizzie was right handed).
It's possible, as old man, Andrew came home and napped most days and never used his coat under the pillow. But there's NO TESTIMONY saying so. Therefore, it's logical to assume he was taking a nap because he was ill, and that's why he took his coat. I'm not saying it happened that way, but there's not reason to think he didn't.
Your last post is a perfect demonstration of what goes on. You have gone from 60 to 80% not because you have discovered some new insight, but because you are digging in your heals. It's human nature. We see this in the Borden case( and in all cases). Mrs. Churchill: once she became convinced Lizzie was guilty, it seems to have colored her memory of Lizzie's dress, which conflicts with the testimony of others. The police, looking at the barn loft floor closely, testified no one had been up there in a long while, yet we learned that multiple people were up there minutes before. Human beings did in around a position. Exactly as you are.
Some very intelligent replies in your post, thank you. Once again you got emotional as you went, so I'll just have to live with that as the norm.
I will attempt to address ALL of your points as I ALWAYS try.
Blood splatter: every other ax murder I can find evidence on has significant splatter and gore. In the Borden murders, there was significant blood splatter on the sitting room wall and the floor. The testimony I read last night said there would be blood sprayed on the face, hands, hair of the killer. Any documentary I've watched where they experiment with this shows the same. There's no way to settle this. I suspect if a week later they found an intruder had done this crime, and not Lizzie, you would have no problem thinking there would be much splatter, but that's just a suspicion.
note: I was not looking for your answer on this. I wanted an answer to the question of why the coat was not on the buried items list, yet was not presented at trial. To me that suggests the prosecutors kept the coat for close analysis. I am not asking what happened to the coat AFTER the trial. I am asking why it was not buried with the other clothing. The article I linked speculated, probably facetiously, that Lizzie had the coat cleaned and Andrew buried in it. But the very fact she floats this theory or makes this jibe suggests she is aware of the problem: why was the coat not buried right away with the other clothing?
The prosecutors absolutely understood that if they could examine that coat and find blood on the unexposed side it would prove the killer used the coat. Yes, someone COULD argue an intruder did this, but it would TEND to incriminate Lizzie. If the coat was in the dining room where it was normally hung, would an intruder find it and bring into the sitting room? Not impossible, but less likely than Lizzie finding it. Would an intruder lift Andrew's pillow and head in order to slip the coat there? Again, much less likely. Why would an intruder do this? He's escaping. Better to turn the coat inside out and escape with it, or just toss it on the floor. It was LIZZIE that had to hide evidence because she wasn't LEAVING.
You are frustrated not by my statements, but by facts you don't like. No one disputes that Andrew normally kept the coat in the dining room. But again, no one testified it was put there that morning. No one. Was it Andrew' custom to take a nap in the morning? There's no indication of that which I am aware of. But we DO know he was ill. The Emory girl(Morse's niece) was ill, Mrs. Eagan walking on Second street was ill(she was forced to relieve herself in the adjacent yard). Some kind of stomach bug seemed to be sweeping the city. The Bordens were hit by this. Andrew was ill.
We don't know he lied down to take a nap, but those are the indications. He was found lying on the couch with no defensive wounds, apparently struck from the side of the couch(by someone most likely using their left hand, BTW; Lizzie was right handed).
It's possible, as old man, Andrew came home and napped most days and never used his coat under the pillow. But there's NO TESTIMONY saying so. Therefore, it's logical to assume he was taking a nap because he was ill, and that's why he took his coat. I'm not saying it happened that way, but there's not reason to think he didn't.
Your last post is a perfect demonstration of what goes on. You have gone from 60 to 80% not because you have discovered some new insight, but because you are digging in your heals. It's human nature. We see this in the Borden case( and in all cases). Mrs. Churchill: once she became convinced Lizzie was guilty, it seems to have colored her memory of Lizzie's dress, which conflicts with the testimony of others. The police, looking at the barn loft floor closely, testified no one had been up there in a long while, yet we learned that multiple people were up there minutes before. Human beings did in around a position. Exactly as you are.
-
camgarsky4
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:05 pm
- Real Name: George Schuster
Re: Andrew's coat
Leitskev -- you are correct and we are wrong. Got it.
Please do not expect any further posts from my direction.
Please do not expect any further posts from my direction.
-
Steve887788
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:16 pm
- Real Name: Stephen
Re: Andrew's coat
Just a side note --in the famous pictures of AJB lying on the couch - there is a man to the right, standing and partially developed - who is he ?
-
leitskev
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:56 pm
- Real Name: kevin lenihan
Re: Andrew's coat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6v0ssW_8dA
According to this historian, it was Uncle Morse who paid someone $5 to bury the bloody clothing. The police found out and dug it up. The historian doesn't say here, but I believe they eventually listed the articles and then reburied them inside a bag.
Did Uncle Morse dispose of the coat for Lizzie?
I'm just trying to add to the facts here as they arise.
According to this historian, it was Uncle Morse who paid someone $5 to bury the bloody clothing. The police found out and dug it up. The historian doesn't say here, but I believe they eventually listed the articles and then reburied them inside a bag.
Did Uncle Morse dispose of the coat for Lizzie?
I'm just trying to add to the facts here as they arise.