Lizzie's Dresses

[NancyDrew]

It was recently posted in another thread that Lizzie only owned 2 dresses and 2 wrappers..."wrappers" being a skirt and matching blouse.

I thought I read someplace, somewhere, that Lizzie owned more like 9 dresses, most of them blue. Does anyone know?

I know I'm being a tad lazy, but I simply do NOT remember where i read this, and I'm hoping someone does, so that I won't have to hunt and peck through hundreds of pages of source documents...THANKS!

P.S. I have brought this up before, but with all the talk of dresses, I thought I'd bump it up again. When Lizzie changed her clothing into the pink and striped wrapper, 2 things, stand out clearly in my mind:

1. Lizzie justified the changing by saying "They thought I'd better change" but no one ever volunteered that 'they' told Lizzie "you'd better go change." I think it was 100% HER idea, and I'll go even farther...she wanted to get out of her clothing as soon as possible, before a close inspection of her was made.

2. I find her choice of the wrapper bizarre. It was reportedly pink and white, with a bright red ribbon around the waist. Who changes into a outfit like that while their parents lay bludgeoned just one floor below? It would have been much more suitable for her to wear something dark and conservative. The pink and white affair sounds more appropriate for an afternoon lawn party.

3. Finally, it has been said, regarding the dress-burning incident, that if an aritcle of clothing had been ruined by fresh paint, out of frugality, the garment would have been torn up to use as rags, or cut up to use in a quilt...in other words, re-purposed in some fashion. I'm sure that was the way Andrew Borden ran his home: waste not, want not. But I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here: what if, since Mr. Miser (Andrew) was dead, Emma and Lizzie were indulging themselves in a bit of luxury by disposing of a dress they wouldn't be caught dead in (no pun intended.)

I says this because of a story that I recently remembered from my own past: When my beloved grandfather died, in 1990, we all gathered at his house, to be with my grandmother. Raised in the Depression, he was extremely frugal, and never threw anything out.

I asked my Nana (the term I used to call my grandmother) if she wanted a cup of coffee, she replied "Yes, dear, that would be good. There's some left over from breakfast." Then she stopped me and said "No. He's gone, and I don't have to drink old coffee ever again. Make a fresh pot. "

She wasn't quite in touch with the enormity of his death yet, so we all forgave this kind of strange comment, but I found it interesting. While she lived with him, she had to abide by his rules (I'm not saying he was a despot; in fact, he was a wonderful man, but he lived his life wasting absolutely nothing.)

I'm just throwing out a reason why Emma and Lizzie might have thought "we don't have to save rags anymore...it's the dawn of a new era!" Is this too far fetched?

[Curryong]

Information turns up in Emma's testimony at the trial, NancyDrew. Emma made up an inventory of clothing for the police. She speaks of 18 or 19 dresses that were in the clothes closet in the home.

Q. And whose were those dresses?
A. All of them belonged to my sister and I except for one, that belonged to Mrs Borden.
Q. How many of those dresses were blue dresses or dresses in which blue was a marked colour?
A. Ten.
Q. To whom did those belong?
A. Two of them to me and eight to my sister.

I am sure Lizzie indulged herself at Maplecroft in ways that she could only have dreamed of before 1892!

[Curryong]

I agree with you by the way, both about her wanting to change out of her clothing after the murders and her choice of outfit, pink and white stripes with a fetching red bow! I wonder what the women who were trying to look after her thought.
Many things about what she said and did at that time are very strange. Chatting about hiring the most fashionable undertaker in town for instance, babbling to Dr Bowen about her father having been in danger (but omitting any possible talk of poison of course.) I don't think there's much doubt there was something very peculiar about Lizzie.

[FactFinder]

Yes, it is in the testimony that Lizzie owned these dresses. This list counts any dresses that were heavy summer dresses, dresses worn only for special accessions, pretty much every dress that Lizzie owned. Eighteen or nineteen dresses, minus one for Mrs. Borden. So about seventeen dresses. 10 of them were blue, only 8 attributed to Lizzie. The number of dresses she owned doesn't correlate with the number she had available to wear on a hot summer day around the house. The bedford cord was, according to everyone's testimony, a cheap cotton dress. Cheap dress goods that faded with washing. And my understanding of Lizzie only wearing a few of the dresses, and thus them becoming very soiled, comes from the the testimony of the dressmaker Mary Raymond. She said she finished Lizzie's bedford cord dress first because she needed it to wear. That Lizzie began wearing it as soon as it was finished. And that even after it got stained with paint, Lizzie continued to wear it the entire time Mary Raymond was there finishing up the other dresses for Mrs. Borden (and the pink wrapper.) If she had all of these other dresses to wear, why did she need the bedford cord so badly, and why so badly she continued to wear it even after it had become stained? Mary Raymond also testified that at the time she made the new wrapper for Lizzie, she took the old one she'd been wearing and cut a few squares of cloth out of it, and burned the rest of it. That the old wrapper was very much soiled. Which was strenuously objected to, but it made it into the record so that the information is there.

[Curryong]

Yes, there is some evidence that Lizzie had a rather restricted wardrobe. I believe a fellow Church worker once described Lizzie's gloves as more darn than glove. We don't know, of course, whether other middle-class spinsters living at that time and date in similar circumstances to Lizzie had more house dresses or less, or about the same. She had recently come into a little windfall thanks to Andrew paying his 'girls' top price for their property he'd bought back from them.. She could have peeled off a couple of hundred dollars from that and called on Mrs Raymond to make half a dozen house dresses for her, if she had cared to.

[Curryong]

Lizzie obviously loved clothes. At Abby and Andrew's funeral local newspapers reported that she wore a form-fitting black lace dress and dark hat with flowers under the brim. She must have caused some comment in the town, one would have thought for not wearing deep mourning, which involved crepe. No-one seems to have bothered to report what Emma wore. However, I think Emma would have worn mourning.

[NancyDrew]

That sounds like more odd behavior on Lizzie's part. Owned a bunch of dresses, but only wore 1 or 2. Insisted on wearing a paint-stained dress.

I can't imagine what life was like for women back then...having to wear only floor length dresses all the time. I wonder if Lizzie ever showed her ankles in her lifetime.

[PossumPie]

That sounds like more odd behavior on Lizzie's part. Owned a bunch of dresses, but only wore 1 or 2. Insisted on wearing a paint-stained dress.

I can't imagine what life was like for women back then...having to wear only floor length dresses all the time. I wonder if Lizzie ever showed her ankles in her lifetime.

True, but always remember we are comparing it to what we experience. I often walked through Sturbridge Village, a reconstructed town from the 1830's south of Boston and tried very hard to imagine sitting on an outhouse toilet in 10 degree weather, having the ONLY heat in the house be a fireplace, and the only light an oil lamp. No fridge, no TV, no internet. Heck they managed fine b/c they never knew what they were missing.
When I was growing up we had ONE phone, a corded wall phone with a party line. TV was 3 channels, black & white. no remote, no computer or internet. We got along great. Now if I lose DSL for an hour I'm freaking, and my wife just needs to push a button on her steering wheel out on the highway and say "Call Mom" and boom, her mother is talking to her, and her phone stays in her purse.

[FactFinder]

Lizzie lived on into the "roaring twenties" with flapper dresses and pants suits being all the rage. In that time women were less than prim and proper in their clothing. I wonder if the people she entertained at Maplecroft dressed like that. Are you from Massachusetts PossumPie? You sound as if you've been to the village a great deal. I've heard of Sturbridge Village a friend of mine visited there on vacation. It's a lovely place. The town where Abraham Lincoln grew up in Illinois has also been completely recreated, also circa 1830's. I've also visited many old recreated villages, towns, and Victorian homes to get a feel for what life might have been like. Definitely a far cry from anything we are accustomed to today.

[Catbooks]

the funeral was only two days after the killings, so lizzie would have had to have worn whatever suitable black dress she had. a hat trimmed with flowers doesn't sound funereal, but i don't know if it would have been out of line for the times. would it?

pants suits didn't come into vogue until the early 70s, and caused something of a fuss. (it's been said liza minelli was thrown out of a restaurant for wearing one.) in the 20s there was a trend for women beach wear with pants. i believe it was coco chanel who started that.

but the dresses, around the mid-20s especially, rose to a record height - knee length. probably by the time the 20s arrived, lizzie was doing little entertaining, and the friends she had were probably older, so unlikely to wear the short 20s dresses. i do wonder what she thought of it all, i mean the whole phenomenon of the 20s, the lost generation and all. maybe it appealed to her and she wished she'd been born later. emma would have hated it.

[FactFinder]

Women were wearing pants long before 1970's. A look at the fashion magazines, or photographs of women from an earlier age, show them wearing pants. Maybe not what is termed "pantsuits" but pants non the less. I wonder what Lizzie would have thought of women wearing pants? Although some of the bicycling suits in the nineteenth century for women were pants most of the time the legs were so poofy they might as well have been wearing dresses.

She did do a lot of traveling so I'm sure she was aware of the fads of her time. I agree I can see her wishing that she had been born later to enjoy the freedom in fashion women enjoyed at the time.

[PossumPie]

Lizzie lived on into the "roaring twenties" with flapper dresses and pants suits being all the rage. In that time women were less than prim and proper in their clothing. I wonder if the people she entertained at Maplecroft dressed like that. Are you from Massachusetts PossumPie? You sound as if you've been to the village a great deal. I've heard of Sturbridge Village a friend of mine visited there on vacation. It's a lovely place. The town where Abraham Lincoln grew up in Illinois has also been completely recreated, also circa 1830's. I've also visited many old recreated villages, towns, and Victorian homes to get a feel for what life might have been like. Definitely a far cry from anything we are accustomed to today.

I'm not from Mass. But Maryland. My father was a history teacher, and ALL of our vacations as a kid were to Colonial Williamsburg, Sturbridge, Gettysburg, Cherokee Village, NC, The Lewis and Clark Trail, etc. I learned to love history from these places, and have visited them many times.

[Catbooks]

Women were wearing pants long before 1970's. A look at the fashion magazines, or photographs of women from an earlier age, show them wearing pants. Maybe not what is termed "pantsuits" but pants non the less. I wonder what Lizzie would have thought of women wearing pants? Although some of the bicycling suits in the nineteenth century for women were pants most of the time the legs were so poofy they might as well have been wearing dresses.

She did do a lot of traveling so I'm sure she was aware of the fads of her time. I agree I can see her wishing that she had been born later to enjoy the freedom in fashion women enjoyed at the time.

oh yes, women were wearing pants for several decades before the 70s, but no pant suits.

but not in the 20s. chanel was designing avant garde clothing, much of it designed around women's comfort. the only pants around in the 20s were called beach pajamas and were intended for casual wear at the shore. by the 30s they were also worn for lounging and home entertainment, but not out. by the 40s, thanks to the war and women needing to fill work positions of men who'd gone off to war, they became fairly common and accepted for work, and gradually for sports wear as well.

unless you're talking about amelia bloomer's bloomers, but they were a flash in the pan and very much ridiculed. few women wore them.

at the turn of the century, most women were still riding sidesaddle! which gave way to riding (sensibly) astride, wearing long divided skirts.

i wonder what she thought of women's rights and the whole suffragist movement. seems like she'd be all for it, especially as they'd backed her during the trial, but i don't know.

[Curryong]

I agree with you, Catbooks, about Bloomers! Cycling was extremely popular for women from the late 1880's on, through to between the Wars yet I can't remember seeing photos of bloomers on any women cyclists, just the ubiquitous divided or long skirts.
I think beach pyjamas were probably popularised even more by Hollywood stars wearing them in publicity stills in the 1920's and '30's, weren't they? Hollywood was such an influence on young women's hairstyles, beauty products, grooming, (thin plucked eyebrows, anyone?) and clothing, then.

[FactFinder]

Women were wearing pants long before 1970's. A look at the fashion magazines, or photographs of women from an earlier age, show them wearing pants. Maybe not what is termed "pantsuits" but pants non the less. I wonder what Lizzie would have thought of women wearing pants? Although some of the bicycling suits in the nineteenth century for women were pants most of the time the legs were so poofy they might as well have been wearing dresses.

She did do a lot of traveling so I'm sure she was aware of the fads of her time. I agree I can see her wishing that she had been born later to enjoy the freedom in fashion women enjoyed at the time.

oh yes, women were wearing pants for several decades before the 70s, but no pant suits.

but not in the 20s. chanel was designing avant garde clothing, much of it designed around women's comfort. the only pants around in the 20s were called beach pajamas and were intended for casual wear at the shore. by the 30s they were also worn for lounging and home entertainment, but not out. by the 40s, thanks to the war and women needing to fill work positions of men who'd gone off to war, they became fairly common and accepted for work, and gradually for sports wear as well.

unless you're talking about amelia bloomer's bloomers, but they were a flash in the pan and very much ridiculed. few women wore them.

at the turn of the century, most women were still riding sidesaddle! which gave way to riding (sensibly) astride, wearing long divided skirts.

i wonder what she thought of women's rights and the whole suffragist movement. seems like she'd be all for it, especially as they'd backed her during the trial, but i don't know.

I don't know how big of a fashion fad it was, but I've seen photographs of women in the 1920's wearing pants. Some of them women in my own family from family photographs. Definitely in the 1930's as well. I don't know about the popularity of it, not every woman in the entire nation, but at least the few that I've also seen appear in photographs in contemporary magazines. I don't take the word of anything on Google written in this century unless it cites sources that are contemporary. Much of the fad for wearing pants in that era were the women who wore what looked like men's tailored suits. The bold women who were not concerned with feminine froo froo. Most of the women who dressed in this fashion were often labeled homosexual. But even Katherine Hepburn wore pants, as did many other well known females of the time. Marlene Dietrich was also known for it. I'm curious how one would ride a bicycle sidesaddle?

[Curryong]

How would they ride sidesaddle? With very great difficulty and a twisted neck, I would imagine!
Seriously though, didn't Marlene Dietrich have rather an androgynous image, wearing gentlemen's evening dress on one publicity still I can remember, and Katherine Hepburn was regarded as a bit tomboyish. I've no doubt that early aviators like Earhart wore pants, too, and I'm sure out in the countryside women wore them too for all sorts of rural activities between the wars. They would have worn a shirt and possibly jacket with those, of course.

[Catbooks]

i can't recall seeing any photos of women on bicycles, so haven't any idea what they wore.

as i mentioned in another thread, i've been collecting, wearing, and selling vintage for quite long time (wearing and collecting longer than selling), and as i so rarely come across anything earlier than from the 20s, my knowledge of fashion starts trailing off earlier than that. but from the 20s onward, i know a good amount. it's been a passion of mine since high school, starting with watching old movies.

the beach pajama craze happened as a result of people (especially women) becoming more interested and active in being outdoors, particularly visiting the beach and beach vacations. started with the 'trendy' upper class, and it spread. it dovetailed with the women's movement for comfortable clothing that could be worn and and not be so restrictive when doing more active, er, activities.

in the 20s hollywood wasn't so much of a factor as far as popularizing fashion. that was because it took much longer to produce and distribute a film and they couldn't very well follow the paris fashions because they'd be too soon out of vogue by the time the films were released. so at that point they sort of followed fashion, but didn't pay too much attention and began doing their own thing.

by the 30s, the process had sped up considerably. except by then hollywood (and i guess other areas in the world where they made films) was starting to lead fashion with the costumes created for the films. gilbert adrian's letty lynton dress for joan crawford in the earlier 30s was a HUGE success. i forget now who first made them available in stores, but they couldn't keep them in stock.

… uh, sorry. i got a little carried away there and now can't remember the point.

anyway. factfinder, my guess is the pants you've seen women in from the 20s would have to be beach pajamas. there were all sorts of them. they were very popular. you probably just didn't know that's what they were called and what they were for.

not sure what you mean by 'the word of anything on google.'

marlene dietrich was known for wearing tailored menswear pants, but that was in the 30s, and people were *shocked* by it. hepburn wore them a bit later. definitely in the 40s, could have been late 30s. people raised their eyebrows, but it wasn't as shocking as when marlene first wore them.

[FactFinder]

Catbooks, I am not sure why you keep bringing up beach pajamas. These were pants that women were wearing out on the street. Or in some instances, at a party. They were nowhere near water. I appreciate that you've been studying this clothing and have collected a great deal. I'd admit that would give you a great deal of knowledge in this area. But I'm also aware there is a difference between beach pajama's and pantsuits, pants, and anything else with two legs being worn on women who are not at the beach. I'm not trying to argue a point, I'm just saying I'm well aware of what I saw.

[FactFinder]

About Lizzie's eight dresses. This list of dresses included every dress that Lizzie owned. So if two were heavy summer dresses, that's six dresses. If two were kept for special occasions so as not to get soiled around the house or walking around the streets, that's four dresses. Two house dresses for only wearing around the house, two for going out. So while Lizzie owned eight dresses, I wouldn't say she owned a bunch of dresses she could have been wearing on the day of the murders.

[Curryong]

I think those eight were out of the ten dresses that were blue or blue-patterned weren't they. There were about 18 or 19 dresses that specifically belonged to the sisters but, apart from the blue ones, Emma didn't say which were hers and which were Lizzie's.

[Catbooks]

factfinder, the reason i've brought them up several times is because in the 20s, that's all there was in the way of pants for women. perhaps the disconnect is the word beach. (or perhaps even the word pajama.) although they were originally intended for wear at the beach, they weren't worn exclusively at a beach. obviously, as that would mean no one except those who lived near or visited a beach of any sort would have worn them.

also, a contemporary eye looking at the (many) styles would not look at them and think BEACH PAJAMAS! they would just look like wide-legged pants.

women's pants are a particular interest of mine, having fallen for the kate hepburn 40s gabardine pants she was known for, and become interested in the history of them. (pre-60s pants are very difficult to find, and i greatly covet those from the 40s.) so this is something i do know about. we just happened to wander into what is very familiar territory to me in this discussion.

here, these citations may help.

Compatible with the 1930s taste for a lean, long, and fluid silhouette, pants or pajamas became a favorite sartorial item or the beach or at-home wear.

New York Fashion: The Evolution of American Style, Caroline Rennolds Milbank (a very highly regarded fashion historian).

In the same way as the sportwear revolution was responsible for deconstructing corsets, fashion movements of the 1920s were sparked by social situations. Trousers had come in through the back door. In 1922 Paul Poiret [who was an avant garde designer of the period] showed pyjamas as 'original attire for the hours of deshabille.' By 1924, when Vogue announced 'Pyjamas become matters of vivid importance,' it was time to put the cards on the table. 'Vogue is no over-emphasizing a fancy of the hour, but it is giving fair notice to a new mode that is starting on a new career. The pyjama is not an amusing novelty; it has become an essential part of the smart woman's wardrobe.' Vogue pinpointed three variations: sleeping pyjamas - 'a lovely boyish thing of washing silk or crepe de Chine'; lounging pyjamas - 'when informal entertainments and masquerades are the order of the day'; and beach pyjamas - 'usually of gay printed cretonne, often with bright rubber wristlets to keep the sleeves in place when one loiters on the sand.'

[i/]Vogue Fashion: 100 Years of Style by Decade and Designer[/i], Linda Watson.

right, curryong. emma's inventory of the closet said 18-19 dresses, one of which was abby's, leaving 17-18.

out of those 10 were blue; 8 were lizzie's and 2 were emma's, leaving 7-8 unaccounted for, but belonging to either lizzie or emma. lizzie cared a great deal about clothes, while emma didn't, so it's reasonable to assume that the majority of those 7-8 dresses belonged to lizzie.

[Mara]

Women were wearing pants long before 1970's. A look at the fashion magazines, or photographs of women from an earlier age, show them wearing pants. Maybe not what is termed "pantsuits" but pants non the less. I wonder what Lizzie would have thought of women wearing pants? Although some of the bicycling suits in the nineteenth century for women were pants most of the time the legs were so poofy they might as well have been wearing dresses.

She did do a lot of traveling so I'm sure she was aware of the fads of her time. I agree I can see her wishing that she had been born later to enjoy the freedom in fashion women enjoyed at the time.

Just a question of phrasing, FactFinder. The term "pant suit" (or "pants suit") was indeed of the 70s. It referred to a specific outfit with matching jacket and pants, not just trousers and a blouse or sweater, or even a jumpsuit, which of course became popular for US women during WWII -- this defense plant "uniform" was so much more comfortable than skirts, which required hosiery and nice shoes that were hard to come by.

The look you're referring to -- trousers for women -- was first popularized by a few Hollywood actresses whom we still admire today for their distinctive fashion sense; Marlene Dietrich, Jean Harlowe and Katherine Hepburn come to mind. That really took off more in the 1930s than the 20s, though. In the 20s, they were still often called beach pajamas or hostess pants and weren't considered appropriate street wear in much of the US. They had a wide cut that made them seem almost like full-length skirts. These eventually transitioned into something more revealing by the 30s.

I doubt Lizzie would have approved of trousers on women, though who knows? Perhaps she encountered the occasional pants-wearing woman in Nance O'Neill's set. She might even have given them a try herself, if only for relaxing in private at Maplecroft. The style seems to have been embraced more by tall, slender women (like Nance). Lizzie probably wouldn't have thought it a flattering silhouette for herself but again, who knows?

[FactFinder]

I very much appreciate the explanations of beach pajama's (although I already know what they look like I've seen them before ) and the difference between pants and pantsuits (which I already know also I said I may have used the wrong word). But I have seen the photographs from the 1920's myself. I even said that some of them are family photographs. I keep saying this over and over again. So let me try this...I am capable of looking at a picture and discerning if, in fact, someone is wearing PANTS. NOT beach pajamas. I'm not saying it was a major fad that took over the United States and all women wore them. I'm saying I've seen photographs of a few women from the 1920's...who were wearing PANTS. Yes, not many fashions designers made pants for women because it was considered shocking. That's why some women went the way of wearing MEN'S pants which look nothing like beach pants. And there were also some magazines that I've seen where women are wearing trousers. It's very frustrating the way you all keep telling me that I must be mistaken. I understand you're knowledgeable about this subject. But I highly doubt you know the wardrobe of every women in the United States in the 1920's.

[Mara]

FactFinder, as in all things, there are exceptions. Sometimes it's a matter of regional trends, or purely individual situations. I have a photo of a great aunt and her girfriend in 1905, posing cheerfully on the deserted main street of their conservative small town, wearing what look like men's trousers! No one here is trying to correct you or defend until death their contributions to the ongoing conversation. We're all here to pose questions and share what we know -- or think we know -- and enjoy each other's company into the bargain.

[FactFinder]

I've become very disappointed with being a member of this forum. I've watched this board for many many years and have learned a lot from people who contributed their posts and their research. But unfortunately most of the people I admired for all of their knowledge no longer contribute. I've no idea what happened to them they just stopped posting. Most of the information being bantered about now is pure conjecture, and very little actual research into the facts of the case. And a lot of it boils down to a pissing contest of who thinks they have a more educated opinion. It's a shame really. After months of watching Franz go on about masturbation in the barn, incest theories, going to trial for murder instead of admitting to smoking a cigar, etc, etc, et al I had my doubts about joining. Then I watched several members have melt downs and just leave. Several very well read education members who I believe knew more about this case than everyone else combined. I can see now why some members had a melt down and left for good after such a short stint I'm about to do the same. And like some other members I'm going to have a good rant before I go. The level of actual knowledge, well read researched knowledge, about the case on this board has gone way down hill since I first started coming here. Most members don't even bother to check source documents for the information I readily can find in about five minutes. I see a lot of "I believe so, I think so, If I remember correctly (which most of the time is no) and I'm too lazy to look it up but..." and information that has obviously come from Google results. For information I find in about five minutes in source documents. No, no one outright tried to correct me in the wording of "you are wrong." But I stated over and over the pictures I viewed myself were photo's of women in pants. And I got answered with what I probably saw were beach pants, more beach pants, bloomers, more beach pants, and Liza Minelli in the 1960's. It seems easier than wading through the actual source documents and contemporary resources for the facts to guesstimate, look at other members posts about the same subject who may or may not know what they are talking about, and good old Google. I don't think I'll remain a member because I've learned very little in my period of membership that I didn't already know. All I've become is very frustrated. Many of the members who have been posting for years are gone. Does anyone wonder why? For anyone who has actually done in depth research coming here is like reading "See Spot Run" when what you wanted to read was Shakespeare. So I'll go the way of Yooper, Shelley, Allen, Augusta, Fairhavenguy, Nbcatlover, gramma, and so many others I've watched come and go over the years. And I am out.

[PossumPie]

I've become very disappointed with being a member of this forum. I've watched this board for many many years and have learned a lot from people who contributed their posts and their research. But unfortunately most of the people I admired for all of their knowledge no longer contribute. I've no idea what happened to them they just stopped posting. Most of the information being bantered about now is pure conjecture, and very little actual research into the facts of the case. And a lot of it boils down to a pissing contest of who thinks they have a more educated opinion. It's a shame really. After months of watching Franz go on about masturbation in the barn, incest theories, going to trial for murder instead of admitting to smoking a cigar, etc, etc, et al I had my doubts about joining. Then I watched several members have melt downs and just leave. Several very well read education members who I believe knew more about this case than everyone else combined. I can see now why some members had a melt down and left for good after such a short stint I'm about to do the same. And like some other members I'm going to have a good rant before I go. The level of actual knowledge, well read researched knowledge, about the case on this board has gone way down hill since I first started coming here. Most members don't even bother to check source documents for the information I readily can find in about five minutes. I see a lot of "I believe so, I think so, If I remember correctly (which most of the time is no) and I'm too lazy to look it up but..." and information that has obviously come from Google results. For information I find in about five minutes in source documents. No, no one outright tried to correct me in the wording of "you are wrong." But I stated over and over the pictures I viewed myself were photo's of women in pants. And I got answered with what I probably saw were beach pants, more beach pants, bloomers, more beach pants, and Liza Minelli in the 1960's. It seems easier than wading through the actual source documents and contemporary resources for the facts to guesstimate, look at other members posts about the same subject who may or may not know what they are talking about, and good old Google. I don't think I'll remain a member because I've learned very little in my period of membership that I didn't already know. All I've become is very frustrated. Many of the members who have been posting for years are gone. Does anyone wonder why? For anyone who has actually done in depth research coming here is like reading "See Spot Run" when what you wanted to read was Shakespeare. So I'll go the way of Yooper, Shelley, Allen, Augusta, Fairhavenguy, Nbcatlover, gramma, and so many others I've watched come and go over the years. And I am out.

I'd be sorry to see you go, but as in a coffee shop in the real world, you have an eclectic mix of people here. I also am one to say don't just pull something out of your butt and say " Back then people did this" or "there is no way anyone could do such and such in 5 min." SHOW ME THE FACTS! I am one you mentioned as pulling facts off of Google sometimes, but there is NOTHING WRONG with Google, just as long as you verify the source. If Google leads me to an archive of pictures from an actual crime scene lab with documentation of a scientific experiment, who the heck cares if I had the website memorized, or found it with Yahoo, Google, or whatever. They are only search tools, NOT authorities.
Sometimes people post as they are getting ready to leave for work, or waiting for the kids, and there isn't time for finding the source. There have been things I KNOW I read in original source material from the trial, but can't find. I welcome someone later posting the source, or telling my I mis-read it and correcting me.
The whole incident with Franz was maddening for many of us b/c he had NO proof, NO documentation, he just developed a whole theory based on "It could have happened" with zero evidence that it DID. When I find myself in a mini debate with someone (thinking back to Allen) often she cited factual information and I stood corrected. Some people aren't scientific, and post feelings, 'what-if's" and "I wonder" That is great too for a starting point. I find that my more scientific posts are largely ignored. I don't know if people think I am a "smart-ass" or making it up, or what, but I post them b/c I tear my hair out when I see an inaccuracy based on "It doesn't seem possible" without any facts. Someone once insisted Lizzie couldn't have walked 100 feet to the barn and hidden the hatchet, and got back to the house in 5 min. I posted that a person could briskly walk 705 feet in 2 min. and it was ignored. Oh well.

Keep at the forum. People come and go, and often return. The more superficial ones post a few times, get bored and leave. The ones like Nancy Drew, DarrowFan, Kat, and others are around for the long term. Sure you will get into arguments, but facts win arguments. attack with citations and sources.

[Mara]

Well, to be fair, this is not a site for peer review of scholarly articles prior to publication! It's a public forum for people to bat around their ideas and questions about the Borden case and some topics tangential to that -- for fun. We all bring different degrees of knowledge, commitment and gravitas to the conversation. The only requirement I've ever heard about is to be nice. All of us, whether casuistically or with academic skill that makes their every post a précis for a doctoral dissertation, try to honor what facts have come down to us about the case. As Possum says, not all of us always have the leisure to go to the stacks, as it were, and double-check our sources, but jump in anyway. In my book, that shouldn't be a hanging crime ;)

Since case facts have not yet revealed an undisputed resolution to the mysteries surrounding the Bordens' murders, not even to the most learnéd Borden scholars, it's interesting to a lot of us to see how much we might benefit from enlightened speculation. We all have different lights to shine on the subject, and that's fine. I don't mind, for example, some of the more outré theories expressed here because they invariably spark a flood of responses that can be informative as well as entertaining. Sometimes, to steal an idea from Shakespeare, it takes a fool to make the King articulate more reasonably the hows and whys of his rule.

I hope FactFinder will put her frustration aside and continue to post here. She has often brought out important bits of information that most of us already know and either forgot or are choosing to ignore for the sake of one of those tangents I mentioned, or we absolutely didn't know about and are happy to receive, especially if offered in the spirit of community and not as the knockout punch in a heavyweight fight.

Some of us are brand-new to the Borden case and filled with what will seem to others like "dumb" comments. Some of us have been interested in the Borden case off and on for longer than some others of us have even been alive and -- yes, I freely admit it -- tend to forget facts or, in their eagerness to be part of a lively discussion, will neglect to rein in their enthusiasm to be 100% certain about something. It happens. I think it's all okay. We're not here to cure cancer, you know? And there are no prizes for being right, only the appreciation of one's forum fellows for being part of something worth coming back to when the dishes are done.

[Stefani]

I've become very disappointed with being a member of this forum. I've watched this board for many many years and have learned a lot from people who contributed their posts and their research. But unfortunately most of the people I admired for all of their knowledge no longer contribute. I've no idea what happened to them they just stopped posting. Most of the information being bantered about now is pure conjecture, and very little actual research into the facts of the case. And a lot of it boils down to a pissing contest of who thinks they have a more educated opinion. It's a shame really. After months of watching Franz go on about masturbation in the barn, incest theories, going to trial for murder instead of admitting to smoking a cigar, etc, etc, et al I had my doubts about joining. Then I watched several members have melt downs and just leave. Several very well read education members who I believe knew more about this case than everyone else combined. I can see now why some members had a melt down and left for good after such a short stint I'm about to do the same. And like some other members I'm going to have a good rant before I go. The level of actual knowledge, well read researched knowledge, about the case on this board has gone way down hill since I first started coming here. Most members don't even bother to check source documents for the information I readily can find in about five minutes. I see a lot of "I believe so, I think so, If I remember correctly (which most of the time is no) and I'm too lazy to look it up but..." and information that has obviously come from Google results. For information I find in about five minutes in source documents. No, no one outright tried to correct me in the wording of "you are wrong." But I stated over and over the pictures I viewed myself were photo's of women in pants. And I got answered with what I probably saw were beach pants, more beach pants, bloomers, more beach pants, and Liza Minelli in the 1960's. It seems easier than wading through the actual source documents and contemporary resources for the facts to guesstimate, look at other members posts about the same subject who may or may not know what they are talking about, and good old Google. I don't think I'll remain a member because I've learned very little in my period of membership that I didn't already know. All I've become is very frustrated. Many of the members who have been posting for years are gone. Does anyone wonder why? For anyone who has actually done in depth research coming here is like reading "See Spot Run" when what you wanted to read was Shakespeare. So I'll go the way of Yooper, Shelley, Allen, Augusta, Fairhavenguy, Nbcatlover, gramma, and so many others I've watched come and go over the years. And I am out.

When people stop posting there are a number of reasons----some decide to lay off the case for a while, some decide they do not like the discourse. Others are ill or have died or are experiencing personal problems. Coming here and keeping up with everyone's comments and the myriad threads can be a challenge. I commend those who have decided to continue the discussion.

As I have said before, if a member offends you with his or her theories, ignore them. You can ignore any member by choosing that option.

If people get heated in their discussions, do not take it personally, even if it feels like you are being attacked. I have been apprised of several instances of real abuse here and have taken steps to warn those involved to cease from that type of behavior. If you feel like you are being attacked personally, please contact me as your admin and I will address the issue.

Stefani

[Stefani]

By the way, you didn't live through the RayS years, did you? Now that was stressful!

And for a forum that has been in existence for over a decade, I'd say we are doing fairly well.

[PossumPie]

By the way, you didn't live through the RayS years, did you? Now that was stressful!

And for a forum that has been in existence for over a decade, I'd say we are doing fairly well.

Well said...and for the record, my 'scientific academic' posts are just an attempt to help bring some science to balance things out. I am light-hearted and love to read posts by all kinds of people. I also respond well to "your full of crap" so If I am...call me out! I enjoy the 'friends' I've made here and would hate to see someone leave on bad terms. This should be enjoyable, not a cross examination at a trial.

Also remember that we don't know what is going on behind the scenes. My 17 year old kitty has been very sick for 3 days now, and I am worried to death about him. He is my child. Sometimes posts reflect a personal problem that you may not know about so I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Curryong]

Please don't leave, FactFinder. Your contributions are valued. Read what others on here have said, and re-think. I promise I will source more. By the way, I agree that it would be great if some of the older members came back and posted again. The more the merrier!

[Mara]

Possum, don't apologize! I love your contributions. It's clear you mean them for the general edification of the community. That's what I meant about our all having different kinds of light to shine on the subject of the Borden case. Scientific lights are especially helpful. They should have had more of them to hand in Fall River during the investigation and trial!

Your kitty is in my heart.

[PossumPie]

Possum, don't apologize! I love your contributions. It's clear you mean them for the general edification of the community. That's what I meant about our all having different kinds of light to shine on the subject of the Borden case. Scientific lights are especially helpful. They should have had more of them to hand in Fall River during the investigation and trial!

Your kitty is in my heart.

Thanks...We all do have our strengths. I just mean to keep things logical. And my kitty thanks you for your concern. He is my baby and I am worried sick...

[Catbooks]

By the way, you didn't live through the RayS years, did you? Now that was stressful!

And for a forum that has been in existence for over a decade, I'd say we are doing fairly well.

Well said...and for the record, my 'scientific academic' posts are just an attempt to help bring some science to balance things out. I am light-hearted and love to read posts by all kinds of people. I also respond well to "your full of crap" so If I am...call me out! I enjoy the 'friends' I've made here and would hate to see someone leave on bad terms. This should be enjoyable, not a cross examination at a trial.

Also remember that we don't know what is going on behind the scenes. My 17 year old kitty has been very sick for 3 days now, and I am worried to death about him. He is my child. Sometimes posts reflect a personal problem that you may not know about so I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

i had thought about that, not knowing if there were something very stressful going on behind the scenes, which is why i hadn't responded until now. also, i was pretty taken aback at factfinder's response, and a fair amount of (unwarranted, in my opinion) criticism directed at me. it's tough to not take that personally. plus, within my first week here!

i'm very sorry about your kitty, possum. i was a wreck when my older cat was sick. i hope he or she gets better soon.

honestly, i'd have dropped the discussion earlier, but i thought with a name like factfinder, what i could contribute on this particular subject would be of interest. and, i'd seen so much debate on this forum over the years, fortunately the majority of it civil, i didn't think too much about it. if it's any consolation, i was getting frustrated with you as well towards the end.

i too hope you'll come back. i've gotten into heated debates a few times before over the years and i don't hold grudges or feelings of ill will. when it's done, it's done.

my intention wasn't to frustrate you, and i'm pretty certain yours wasn't to frustrate me either.

i do miss some of the old crew and wondered where they'd gone. allen, yooper, harry, and others whose names i've forgotten.

[debbiediablo]

Please don't leave, FactFinder. Or anyone else for that matter. There are only two things guaranteed in this forum: 1) that we won't "solve" the case, and 2) that we'll all have our own opinions! I appreciate the diversity that each and every person brings to the table, and someone who has the facts literally at their fingertips is, indeed, a valued member. As are those who conduct their own outside experiments, bring a broader perspective to the discussion or even devise their own theories that seem improbable to most of us. Some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history have been serendipitous. Here are ten:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... es#slide-1

[debbiediablo]

Sign in our local antique auction house: "Cats are like children...except with fur."

[FactFinder]

I had intended my last post to be my final post. But I would like to make a response. First, yes, I was around during the Rays years. Franz put me in the mind of Rays in the way that he stuck to his theory even though there was absolutely no proof. So, Rays isn't the only member I'd say made things stressful in that regard. Second, this site has been around for a decade that's true. And most of the members it started out with have been gone a long time. But in the last few months how many members have had a melt down and left out of frustration. Yooper, MBhenty, and Allen made it pretty clear why they left. I'm sure other members probably left due to the same frustration. Some of those members are not even listed in the member directory anymore I checked. So they are not coming back. The level of knowledge is just not there. It's been reduced to conjectures, hyperbole, and really isn't any different than any of the other forums I've been a member of over the years. I'm not trying to be nasty about it. I'm just saying there is a problem. It's not just with the members who left, but with potential members. I have three friends who are just as interested in the case as I am, if not more. They are probably some of the most knowledgeable people I know and they've said in not so many words they wouldn't touch being a member of this site with a ten foot pole. So yes, I may have had a straw that broke the camels back moment. I had been already frustrated before I even talked myself into joining after seeing some of what goes on here. So, no, I'm not going to remain a member. I have enjoyed meeting many of you, and I would like to have known some of you to have a coffee with you. But I get off here this is my stop.

[Mara]

Life is short. Why demand less than absolute perfection while it lasts?

Perhaps you and your friends could start your own forum, with membership limited to people you approve by some application method that makes sense to you. I'm sure that the exclusivity would be attractive to just the kinds of people whose company you and your three friends would most enjoy.

If that doesn't work out, perhaps the four of you could write the definitive Lizzie Borden casebook. With Past and Present now permanently out of print and so difficult to obtain used, many of us here would be delighted to line up for the first copies off the press.

[Curryong]

Bravo, Mara!

[FactFinder]

As usual, you all miss the point. It isn't just me and my three friends. Everyone who has serious knowledge about this case has LEFT this site. In a huff I might add. Not just me look at what I'm saying for once people. How many members have to leave this site or admit to purposefully avoiding it before you all get your head out of your behinds and see there is a problem. Is there a reason that all of the learned people are gone and all that remains are amateur detective and newbies? I don't think so. That is one of the BIGGEST problems on this site, nobody listens. I'd say my friends and I are the lucky ones. Not the other way around.

[Mara]

Ah. I apologize. I allowed myself to get bogged down in whether to post in MLA or APA citation format and wound up with an incomplete thesis. Allow me to compete it.

You are insulting and offensive. You barged in here with a giant chip on your shoulder. That much was obvious. Nevertheless, you got a warm embrace from everyone, and this is how you respond? It might be best for you to take your Theo Durrant* avatar and flounce off now, in the tradition of aggrieved forum narcissists the World Wide Web over, and leave us lesser lights to wallow in our ignorance while you mutter O tempore o mores! into your keyboard. On the other hand, you might check your aggressive attitude at the door and stick around, if only to elevate the level of discourse to something worth your while. Frankly my dear, et cetera.

*Yes, there are people here who know all about the Durrant case. I've even read his sister's book and once tried to Labanotate what little we know of her Salomé choreography for students at my university's theatre school. So see? I'm hopelessly tangent-prone. I guess that makes me an incontrovertible dummy. So be it.

[FactFinder]

Sure. You could try to put it off on me as trying to pretend to be superior. Nowhere did I say I was smarter than anyone here. Nowhere did I say I was superior. I'm NOT the only one who left. You've lost at least four very learned dedicated members in the matter of the last few months. Members who had great knowledge about this case, the ones who have done an abundance of research, spent a lot of time going over every aspect of this case... are GONE. Do you realize that? Your way is one way to look at it. Or...maybe you would just listen to what I'm saying. In the last six months three or four very learned members have left this forum. After voicing just as much displeasure as I have with what's going on. So you can continue to say it's just me, and my sense of superiority, and my chip on my shoulder. Or you can see there is a problem BEYOND me. All you did was prove my point. Nobody listens. I pointed out all the members who have left in a VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Some of those members had been here since 2008 or longer. I pointed out all the people I know who are interested in the case who want nothing to do with this site. People with a lot of knowledge about this case DON'T want to come here, and are LEAVING. How is that pointing to MY superiority? I'm not the only one who left. I don't even know some of the other members who left. I just know they were intelligent learned people who has been here since before any of you got here. And now they are gone. I'm not the only one who has voiced severe displeasure before they left either. So take it as just being me and my alleged superiority complex. Stating that I have taken the time to have, in fact, done my homework is not a superiority complex. That shows the level of blindness to what's going on. Mara I had a good deal of respect for you when I joined. But now you just show that you're as catty and blind as everyone else. I've asked to have my membership cancelled and I pray God my name is removed from this whole debacle. So there will be no more posts from me. Good day.

[Mara]

Mara I had a good deal of respect for you when I joined. But now you just show that you're as catty and blind as everyone else. I've asked to have my membership cancelled and I pray God my name is removed from this whole debacle. So there will be no more posts from me. Good day.

Any admirable creature can turn on you if you poke it often enough with a pointed stick.

[debbiediablo]

FactFinder:

I think I hear what you're saying, and there seems to to be two possibilities. One is the create an advanced forum either adjunct to this one or elsewhere; one that limits users to people who literally pass a test to become members. There's a Jack the Ripper site that uses something similar to vet those who join.

My other comment is there may be a finite limit to discussion of Lizzie Borden. People can read every book that was ever written (some of us can't because the books are no longer in print). They can study all the evidence and know it dead to rights (play on words intended). But, ultimately, their ability to find new, useful discussion will be self-limiting by the fact that there's nothing new to discover about Lizzie unless/until the Robinson, et al, law firm decides to release files on the case.

My profession keeps me in intimate contact with people who have severe behavioral and emotional disorders and major mental illnesses. The best skill I've developed is to accept people wherever they are on their life journey (or their Lizzie journey..:-) – to try not judge; to try not to make them into me; to try not to push them beyond their capacity, and to try not to wish for their perfection. The only person I can ever control is me...and on some days that's toooo much!! :-)

I started Heinous BBSing about 20 years and have gone with the flow as one BBS would be replaced by another. Your taking leave resembles people dropping their BBS memberships. They were convinced changes at the BBS were no longer meeting their needs; in reality it was always about their outgrowing the BBS.

I wish you well, FactFinder, at the next stop on your journey.

[Catbooks]

by FactFinder » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:43 am

Sure. You could try to put it off on me as trying to pretend to be superior. Nowhere did I say I was smarter than anyone here. Nowhere did I say I was superior. I'm NOT the only one who left. You've lost at least four very learned dedicated members in the matter of the last few months. Members who had great knowledge about this case, the ones who have done an abundance of research, spent a lot of time going over every aspect of this case... are GONE. Do you realize that? Your way is one way to look at it. Or...maybe you would just listen to what I'm saying. In the last six months three or four very learned members have left this forum. After voicing just as much displeasure as I have with what's going on. So you can continue to say it's just me, and my sense of superiority, and my chip on my shoulder. Or you can see there is a problem BEYOND me. All you did was prove my point. Nobody listens. I pointed out all the members who have left in a VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. Some of those members had been here since 2008 or longer. I pointed out all the people I know who are interested in the case who want nothing to do with this site. People with a lot of knowledge about this case DON'T want to come here, and are LEAVING. How is that pointing to MY superiority? I'm not the only one who left. I don't even know some of the other members who left. I just know they were intelligent learned people who has been here since before any of you got here. And now they are gone. I'm not the only one who has voiced severe displeasure before they left either. So take it as just being me and my alleged superiority complex. Stating that I have taken the time to have, in fact, done my homework is not a superiority complex. That shows the level of blindness to what's going on. Mara I had a good deal of respect for you when I joined. But now you just show that you're as catty and blind as everyone else. I've asked to have my membership cancelled and I pray God my name is removed from this whole debacle. So there will be no more posts from me. Good day.

you're not the only member who's left, but you *are* the only member who's pitched what amounts to a tantrum, and has left in such poor grace.

i've read this forum for many years, before it was in this format. in the past week or more, while i was waiting for the problems with my account to be sorted out (thank you again for your help and perseverance, stefani) and afterwards, i read a lot of old threads. the past 7 pages' worth, as well as a number of archived threads from the old forum.

with the unfortunate exception of some of my favorite (and knowledgable) posters being gone, the forum is much the same as it always was. there has always been discussion without citations (even by those who are extremely knowledgable about the case), speculation, conjecture, human errors, posts with links to old discussions, the very things you are claiming are the reasons you're leaving.

you may have done your homework, but even you have made errors, and not cited source materials, in the short time i've been here. i don't mind, everyone makes mistakes. but don't try to act like you don't and it's only everyone else now on the forum who does.

this is part of allen's parting post:

Postby Allen » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:34 am

I get tired of anytime I disagree with anyone they automatically get defensive and say I'm arguing with them. I'm just disagreeing with you. The same as you disagree with me. This is a forum. Grow up. I'm tired of you making it out like I'm attacking you. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. I actually admire Franz because as much crap as he's gotten for his theory he still keeps plugging away at it, and he stays polite as always.

i suggest there are a few things in there you can learn from.

lastly, your signature: 'Using big words and fancy language doesn't make you sound educated. What makes you sound educated is knowing what the hell you're talking about.'

sounds arrogant, childish, and passive aggressive.

[FactFinder]

Thank you, catbooks. For posting a quote from someone I have been fortunate enough to contact outside of this forum. Although it's been quite awhile I did have contact with allen outside of this forum. And I can tell you her parting post only minimized the same frustration I feel now with all of this. I'd say her feeling pretty much mirrored mine. She is also one of the ones who is never coming back. In her parting words to me she expressed much the same profound frustration.

[Catbooks]

i would say there's a lot you could learn from allen, and not just about the borden case. your and allen's parting posts have nothing to do with one another.

[debbiediablo]

"When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes." – Dylan Thomas

[FactFinder]

With every reply, it amazes me because it just underlines the fact that none of you listen. I stated that I have been in contact with allen. Contact usually means talking to someone. Outside of this forum. Communication. Words flowing both ways. And what she expressed to me was feelings very much similar to my own. And the fact that she is never coming back. Which is why she is no longer even listed in the member registry. I have been awaiting my removal as well. I don't know why I even bother trying to make a point on here. Because as I've said, nobody listens. So in a way, I hope you do learn something from both allen and myself. What she expressed to me was the same frustration that I myself have expressed. And I refered to the parting words TO ME directly. Not the parting words on this forum. I have asked for my membership to be cancelled and so far, nothing. What does one have to do?

[Catbooks]

i have no way of verifying you and allen were ever in communication, or that if you were you're characterizing her words accurately, except your say-so. which is not the best with me at this point.

it's not a matter of not listening. that should be obvious.

what does one have to do? wait until stefani deletes your account. i imagine she has other things to do, aside from attending to this forum. in the meantime, you of course are free to neither read or post anymore.

edited to add: one thing i do know is allen was never rude. however you may wish to align with and liken yourself to her, i see a great difference.