Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Thank you for these Franz, most interesting!

I always think the clothes for women in the 19th century were divine, if you could stand the corsets. A trifle over-dressed for a game of tennis, of course! The skating costume doesn't look too bad.

The men didn't have to suffer corsets, naturally, just woollen suits in the summer and hard starched collars, the edges of which probably cut.

Interesting! The first dress made me think of the women's coats and a movie I saw. I need to look up coats if possible- if any one has watched Sherlock Holmes I, there is a young lady who calls on him and later as she leaves, you see the dress is exactly like the first picture but I wondered why the coat didn't cover the entire dress. I wonder, did a woman like Abby, Lizzie, and Emma wear such a dress only one time a week (before it became soiled)?

Washing facilities being what they were then, (everything virtually done by hand washing and sheer elbow grease) I think not. I know that the hems of skirts would get extremely dirty trailing in the dust but I think people were just used to that then.

I wish Catbooks was here as she knew a lot about different dyes on clothing, but I do think a lot of dyes in the 19th century did fade over time. Another reason for them to not be washed a lot.
I just think the female clothing looked beautiful, but was so impractical really. And a crinoline of the 1850's -1860's would have been worse still. Can't imagine swishing around doing your household tasks in one of those! But they are lovely to look at!

A la recherche des élegances perdues...

Franz wrote:A la recherche des élegances perdues...

Eh, what's that Franz? Thanks, Anthony for the link. I wouldn't mind doing laundry the old fashioned way provided I didn't have to use lye or work outside the home.

I mean that the old times testified a great deal of elegance that has despeared today...

Ah, yes! I'm inclined to agree with you there- there isn't much elegance today.

I think every time has its proper elegance. But for me a despeared one is always more fascinating. Maybe for this reason old fashions revival from time to time...

I don't see any elegance today. And the only fashion I see coming back is from the 70s.

These days, even proper manners seem to be the exception rather than the rule

Yep, there is that as well!

You've got that right, Anthony!

FactFinder wrote: ... all of the learned people are gone and all that remains are amateur detective and newbies...

Oh what a bad news, "All of the learned people are gone".

Even if this is true, this doesn't mean that "all of the learned people" who are gone don't visit our forum and, who knows, from time to time find ispirations and illuminations here!

I love this forum and I am pround of being its member. I will try my best to be able to give some modest contribution to it!

Long live our Lizzie Borden Society Forum!

With regard to elegance of yesteryear's clothing: I'm not ready to sit in my bustle and do computer work. I would be willing to wear a fancy corset a la steampunk (even though I'm a bit old for such stuff).

What a completely ridiculous fashion the bustle was, and how could you sit down comfortably wearing it? I believe many of them were stuffed with horse-hair, of all things!

I think I read through most of what has preceded. I think Lizzie's apron(s) might be of MUCH more interest.

Albert E. Chase, witness statement, 8/5/92 lists the various items of clothing, etc. to be buried in the backyard. Some clearly pertain to Andrew though there does not seem to be any whole male garments. Probably pertaining to Abby we find, "...one chemise, one dress, one pair drawers,one skirt, TWO APRONS...," emphasis mine.

In Lizzie's inquest testimony we see this feeble fishing expedition by the prosecution:

Q: Did you have an apron on Thursday?
A: Did I what?
Q: Have an apron on Thursday?
A: No sir, I don't think I did.
Q:Do you remember whether you did or not?
A: I don't remember for sure, but I don't think I did.
Q: You had aprons, of course?
A: I had aprons, yes sir.
Q: Will you try and think if you did or not?
A: I don't think I did.
Q: Will you try and remember?
A: I had no occasion for an apron on that morning.
Q: If you can remember, I wish you would.
A: I don't remember.
Q: That is all the answer you can give me about that?
A: Yes sir.

Questioning then moves to Lizzie's occasions to use axes/hatchets. etc. Though Lizzie is equally vague in her knowledge of hatchets the prosecutor asks questions about, IF there was blood on any of them would Lizzie know how it had gotten there, etc. We find no such pressure on the apron such as, "If I told you one of your aprons was found under Mrs. Borden's body would you know how it got there?

Also listed in the items to bury are 1 sofa pillow and tidy, 3 towels, one napkin. The towels for instance could have been used to soak up/wipe up blood. So could an apron. Yet we find the inquest sequence that ends up going nowhere. What does it mean?

Also considering some other points in this thread, we need to remember fabrics and clothing were very different in Lizzie's day. Folks didn't go to the local WalMart for a cheap wardrobe. Lizzie had all her garments made for her and they were not easily replaced, which could be a reason she would continue to own and wear a paint stained dress. Perhaps also that dress was easier to wash and care for which would have been a big thing at that time. Clothes were boiled and beaten and scrubbed in lye soap. Some fabrics could not be washed at all. Even when I was a little kid in the 50s/60s ,at least in my family we wore ragged or patched things around the home due to comfort or ease of care, but my mom also made the distinction we would not wear those things in public.

I have an idea Lizzie's dress burning and dress changing incidents may be due to the fact she was menstruating and may have stained her skirt. It would make sense female friends would whisper in her ear that she should change her dress. I also wonder if she didn't have an idea that if the police found blood on ANY garment of hers, in any place, she would be convicted. A spot on a petticoat might pass as a "flea bite" but a bigger stain might have concerned her. Science could determine human blood from other species but of course there would have been no way to determine source or type. She also likely felt any stain of that nature was an intensely personal issue.

I do however question Lizzie's choice of a pink and white wrapper with red ribbon tie. Mourning was so strict in those times I would expect everyone to reach for black garments as soon as possible. However Lizzie's garment has been described as a sort of pink with blue stripes and it has been described as gingham. I need to look for an exact definition of gingham but the definition I was taught is a weave that results in a checkerboard pattern. The Lizzie reenactments seem to have the actresses don a cotton candy pink and white striped garment. In reality it could have been much more subdued in the range of dusty rose and blue/grey crisscrossed stripes with the overall effect being subdued or greyish. The red ribbon need not be bright Christmas red. The Medieval term "crimson" actually meant a dark blood red or maroon. Possibly Lizzie was color blind. Odd in women but if she was, her pink and white outfit may have appeared overall grey.

I think the dress-burning, if Lizzie was innocent, was absolutely the worst thing she could have done. If it had menstrual blood on it in a couple of places that could have been explained away to the squeamish police, perhaps by Bowen. As it was, the burning put more attention on what she was wearing on that morning.

Alice Russell was a friend of Emma's and, perhaps because of the age gap, less so of Lizzie's. Even so, it was Alice Lizzie turned to on that Thursday morning, sending for her after Dr Bowen was away. After the dress-burning, which seems to have greatly shocked Alice, she turned into a valuable prosecution witness, and her friendship with the Borden sisters was shattered for ever.

I don't know if you have read my post on Officer Harrington's description of the house wrap, which is on Page 2 of this thread. His testimony caused Lizzie amusement as she sat in court, and no doubt some chuckling among his fellow police officers.

He says 'it was a house wrap, striped with pink and white stripes alternately'. He then states 'Pink was the predominant colour...' He goes on to describe what does indeed sound like a gingham pattern. However, he says these are 'in the lighter stripes'. I can't see any reference to blue or grey in the description at all. Admittedly, Lizzie loved blue in her clothing but went for a different colour this time! I don't know whether the term 'gingham' was used then, but it doesn't appear to have been known to Harrington if it was. He describes the ribbon as 'red'.

I love the 19th century and used to lecture on it. Of course people then tended to have less clothes than people do today, even those in the middle classes, because there was little 'made to wear' clothing sold and what little there was appears to have been regarded as inferior.

Women seemed to have sensibly worn very old faded clothing for their morning household tasks and, as was natural, their best for going into Town.

The Prosecution were certainly interested in any aprons in Lizzie's possession but I don't think she would have worn one that morning. Lizzie seems to have done less housework than Emma or Abby and unless she was helping with spring cleaning or heavy dusting I don't believe she would have worn any.

Did she wear a heavy cambric one to murder Abby?
Possibly, but if some blood seeped through to the dress underneath that would still need cleaning off. (The apron could have been rolled up in the blanket on the floor of the dress closet, which the police took no notice of, and never examined.)

The testimony re the aprons, towels etc isn't very clear unfortunately. The towels could indeed have been used to wipe away blood, by the doctors. Similarly, and I had an argument with FactFinder, on this very thread I think, about whether the aprons were used by the doctors and then buried or whether they were Abby's.
The trouble is that in those days doctors like Dolan could have worn aprons when performing autopsies, should have worn them, but frequently didn't!

I'm inclined now to believe that FactFinder was right and I was wrong and they were aprons worn by Dr Dolan and possibly by the undertaker's assistant during the autopsy and laying-out. They must have been terribly stained with blood and were afterwards buried with the other things.

I'm inclined to think that the old faded Bedford cord did get bloodstains or spots on it, which is why Lizzie wished to change into her wrapper. Others on the forum in the past haven't agreed with me! She certainly didn't wear the Bengaline silk which she gave to the police as the garment she wore that morning. Not one witness identified it and Mrs Churchill remembered her wearing a faded lighter blue dress 'with a dark blue figure'. Why did Lizzie give that gown, which was a heavy silk outfit to the police, hmm? So many unanswered questions about this case!

Somewhere, and I'll find it, described the pink striped outfit as a gingham weave but with a stripe pattern. I really need to check out the whole definition of gingham. One of the statements mentions another color stripe besides the kind of pink and white. I'll dig it out. I think I know the statement you are referring to but may have missed your post. The thread went astray for a bit & I skipped ahead, scanning for discussions of clothing.

Your idea of where two aprons came from may well be correct but I find the prosecutor's questioning to be interesting. I copied the whole thing because it went on and on. I wonder if Lizzie had said she wore an apron, if the prosecutor would have had an interesting follow up question. It would be extremely interesting if one apron too many ended up in the guest room with Abby's body. (Perhaps the drunken intruder snagged an apron that was hanging from a nail in the kitchen wall, to wipe pear juice off his face before he snuck upstairs to kill Abby... )

To make it even more complicated the beloved Wikipedia states that 'checked gingham became more common over time, though striped gingham was still available in the late Victorian period...!

I've mentioned many times on the forum, that from a medical perspective, there just wasn't fountains of blood. Head trauma blunt or sharp produce a copious amount of oozing blood, but not the spurting-on-the-wall stuff you see in Horror Movies. A sharp object head wound would produce small droplets of blood in an arc up and over the head of the killer, but their dress, shirt, apron, or pants would NOT be covered in blood.
To get the gross "Made for TV" spurts, a murderer has to hit an artery. Arteries have more pressure behind them, and spurt.
I posted a forensic picture a while back of a CSI in a pristine white cotton jumpsuit bashing a forensic head in with a blunt hammer. While there was a small amount of droplets on the shins, none was above the knees except a bit on the wrist of the swinging arm.

Also, they understood how to clean almost anything out of clothes, as Irene stated, you just didn't pop down to WalMart and buy a cheap replacement dress. Lizzie had a woman who came to the house and made her clothes. Even a large menstrual stain would have been attacked with cold water scrubbing, and carbolic soap NOT thrown away. Besides, they don't call menstrual pads "Rags" for nothing. Women were VERY careful about ruining a dress, and wore a layer of rags held with a belt, several layers of protection, a petticoat, and a dress. For the menses to soak through all of that was very uncommon. I also don't believe that the one blood spot they found on Lizzie's petticoat was menstrual in origin, it was on the OUTSIDE of the petticoat, not the inside where menstrual blood would have originated.

Yes, Possum, but as I believe that any blood spotting on Lizzie's dress came from her activities that morning rather than her menses, I think she just decided later that getting rid of it by popping it in the stove was a good idea.

I wish the list of items buried had been clearer. We don't know which items were bloodstained (didn't have to be blood-soaked,) apart from Abby's clothes obviously, although, as John Morse asked that they all be buried, it seems pretty clear that the sight of them, smell of them, had begun to be offensive. I do think that one of the aprons was Dolan's and he decided to chuck it on the pile with the stained towels, napkin etc.

The napkin is quite intriguing actually. Was it the item shown in the photograph near Abby's hand that is usually called a handkerchief, I wonder? If some of the household napery was kept in the guest bedroom Abby had perhaps taken it out ready to be sewn on the sewing machine (which was kept in that room) just before she was killed.

IF Lizzie did it, and if I were Lizzie, I would have made sure blood was all over my dress...I could say I was trying to revive Andrew, and it got on me. Then No one would think twice about any blood on my clothes...Any thoughts?

At one point Lizzie was asked if she had touched Andrew's body or something similar and her reply was, "I did not touch the sofa." I have considered the possibility she got a little blood on her dress (since I think she's innocent) while trying to help him or investigate the extent of the injuries. I can imagine a police officer making a crude statement like if even one drop of blood was found on Lizzie that she would hang, or something. Innocent or guilty burning the dress was an extreme act for some reason.

On the other hand I love Vincent Bugliosi's explanation of "consciousness of guilt" and "consciousness of innocence" in "And the Sea Will Tell". These points are part of our law and I wouldn't be surprised if the idea goes back to British Common Law. Considering consciousness of innocence in the dress burning, she did it in broad daylight with her sister present. (Yeah, I believe Emma would cover for her if Lizzie was guilty.) Anyone could have come into the room including police. Alice Russell certainly did enter the room. There would have been a lot of other ways to cut up and destroy the dress or to burn it at night, etc. Consciousness of guilt would be better demonstrated if she really did act sneaky or got caught burning it at midnight for example.

Everything I read keeps reinforcing my idea that Lizzie was of very average intelligence. She was not very creative or imaginative. I think that fact provides some clues.

irina wrote: ...
Everything I read keeps reinforcing my idea that Lizzie was of very average intelligence. She was not very creative or imaginative. I think that fact provides some clues.

I quote only this last paragraph but I am not to say if I agree or not with you. I would like to invite you and others to think about the note story: if Lizzie lied, we should say that this lie was a creative one, an imaginative one. As I just said, I don't want to discuss about Lizzie's intelligence. But this creative and imaginative lie would come back against Lizzie herself. So I always wonder: if Lizzie were the killer and must find a way to prevent Bridget and her father of searching Abby, why didn't she say simply that Abby went to the store?

(P.S.: What I mean, is that the thing was not that Lizzie must invent a creative and imaginative lie but she failed; the thing was that she needed only a very simply lie ("Abby told me she went to the store): instead of giving such a simple lie --- if she was guilty ---, she invented a very creative and imaginative lie, but this creative and imaginative lie was just a very very bad one. Therefore, there is something not convincing for me. I hope I explained what I wish to say.)

PossumPie wrote:IF Lizzie did it, and if I were Lizzie, I would have made sure blood was all over my dress...I could say I was trying to revive Andrew, and it got on me. Then No one would think twice about any blood on my clothes...Any thoughts?

Good idea. Then Lizzie didn't need to clean up herself at all, with the condition that the blood she got intentionally after must cover those probable blood spots when she killed her father.

But, when she killed Abby, did she get the blood spots? if yes, where did she hide the cloth?

Anyway, IMO, Lizzie's immaculately clean indicated strongly her innocence.

Franz wrote:

PossumPie wrote:IF Lizzie did it, and if I were Lizzie, I would have made sure blood was all over my dress...I could say I was trying to revive Andrew, and it got on me. Then No one would think twice about any blood on my clothes...Any thoughts?

Good idea. Then Lizzie didn't need to clean up herself at all, with the condition that the blood she got intentionally after must cover those probable blood spots when she killed her father.

But, when she killed Abby, did she get the blood spots? if yes, where did she hide the cloth?

Anyway, IMO, Lizzie's immaculately clean indicated strongly her innocence.

I agree...the most convincing evidence that Lizzie was INNOCENT was the lack of blood on her. Doesn't prove her innocence, but it is very compelling.

I still contend the burned dress was the one she killed Abby in-- and didn't expect the mess she made of herself. With Andrew, she took precautions.

I came back to define gingham. Couldn't find my Encyclopaedia of Costume or whatever it is called. So I went to an online textile encyclopaedia which I offer here as it might be of use over time discussing Lizzie's times. Gingham is made of DYED yarns woven into checks, plaids or STRIPES. The basic need is DYED YARN (thread)and pattern must be woven in as opposed to printed, embroidered, etc. Supposedly Dutch invention, originally made in Manchester, England. Name "gingham" is Asian in origin. http://www.belovedlinens.net/fabdico/te ... ry-g.html/

Franz, I'll take the note question over to the note thread since this is a Lizzie's dresses thread. May make reply a bit later this evening.

Sorry, Irina, but my link didn't work! I think I have a sort of idea of how Lizzie's wrapper must have looked in colour and design, however. She didn't have any basic black dress in her wardrobe, obviously! She did wear a black lace gown to the funeral on the Saturday but that seems to have been quite dressy, judging by the brief description.

I'm not ascribing any particular meaning to her wearing that wrap, actually. It probably surprised her friends in a much more formal age that she would wear a rather colourful garment. However, I feel that the idea that she wished to take off her old gown and later disposed of it is more significant. I'm forgiving of the pink and white and the red ribbon! Smile

When I think gingham, I think Judy Garland in Wizard of Oz...blue gingham dress.

I'm with you on the dress-burning, Anthony. An incredibly stupid thing to do if she was innocent. I agree that the blue calico that was burned was 'the' dress. Of course we don't know that there weren't blood spots, just that no-one spotted any. Her friends weren't after all there to give the dress the once-over!

Lizzie burned that dress during the day rather than at night, because creeping downstairs into the kitchen to do it in the dark, with Alice and uncle John in the house, would have been quite risky, in my opinion. If Emma had caught her burning anything at night she would have kept her mouth shut. Not so with Alice.

We don't know either, whether the stove, in Bridget's absence, was allowed to go cool or low at night and was stoked up in the mornings, ready for Alice to cook breakfast.

I agree, also, with Franz, Possum, that if I had been Lizzie, much better to have clasped my dear dead father in my arms, getting as much blood on me as possible. Even if I was suspected, the police wouldn't have been able to say anything.

I'm wondering whether Lizzie had older blood spotting on the blue calico from earlier that morning that had already dried, which might have been awkward if the dress had had to be handed over immediately. However, if the dress was absolutely lathered in fresh blood from Andrew, that might not have mattered.

I hate to suggest this because I believe Lizzie is innocent, but it is also possible that Lizzie's idea of appearing innocent, if she was guilty, was that she must have no blood on her clothes, etc. She may also have believed a real killer would take the weapon with him and thus the hatchet got hidden or whatever. In reality innocent people helping or assessing loved ones who are victims of trauma, are likely to get blood on themselves. Murderers leave weapons behind. It may have seemed different to a person in Victorian times who never studied true crime.

On the other hand some statements indicate Lizzie's hair was carefully examined and there was no blood there. I could see a blood droplet or two ending up in her hair and being ignored by her. While I have brought up hair, it was said her hair was perfectly neat. I wonder how sturdy were hairdos in those days. What I have seen of Victorian pins and combs, etc. I would think very little activity would be disastrous to a hair style. My own hair is fairly long and heavy. With benefit of rubber bands and heavy duty hair pins I can and do wear it pinned up. Since the heavy duty pins are no longer available it is more difficult to retain a neat style. I don't think such pins were even available in Lizzie's day. So what would her hair have been like if she killed Andrew and shortly thereafter summoned help?

It depends on the complexity of the hairdo with regard to it being disordered during activity, doesn't it? The trouble is, that we have photos of Lizzie with what looks like very neat hair and we have others (one in which she is wearing the huge mutton-leg sleeves of the time) in which her hair looks quite messy. There were no hair-dressing salons for women then, of course, but most people would naturally make an effort for a photo.

For mornings at home her hair may well have been just combed and put up in a bun. If she went out a hat would cover any stray messiness. Lizzie's hair does seem to me to have been quite plentiful but fine, slightly curly, the sort of hair that might be 'fly-away'.

There doesn't appear to have been any concerted effort by anyone, friends, police officers early on the scene, to have closely examined Lizzie's hair, skin or clothing in any way. Officer Harrington, who arrived after noon, was the only one who could describe her clothes and that was after she had changed into the pink wrapper.

Mrs Churchill was the only one who made any attempt at all at describing what Lizzie was wearing before. None of the others could remember, which certainly suggests to me, that no great, close examination was made.

No-one saw ANY blood on Lizzie's hair, hands or face. However, let's remember that police and Dolan believed, because of the blood pattern, that Andrew's killer would have attacked from the back and to the side. In that position, especially if the killer stood partly shielded by the dining room door frame and the back of the couch, there would be little blood splatter shooting up onto the killer's face or even hands. There would be some perhaps on the right lower leg and on the boots. The killer may well have worn Andrew's coat as a shield.

I don't know whether you have seen the photo posted by Possum on several earlier threads showing the results of a modern experiment in blood splatter? The person with the hatchet was clean except for one leg.

This is part of a series of colorized historical photos at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aac_1392197830 If you watch, do so in fullscreen. I cringed looking at this!

A moving and intriguing accompanying song, as well as evocative photos. Thanks, debbie. How do you like the ladies' tall hats. Imagine keeping them on in a gale!

Debbie, this is a great video! I enjoyed it very much; thanks for posting it.

Curryong wrote:A moving and intriguing accompanying song, as well as evocative photos. Thanks, debbie. How do you like the ladies' tall hats. Imagine keeping them on in a gale!

I'd love for someone who understands the evolution of women's clothing and its relationship to the female role in society to post to how a woman corseted, cinched, ruffled and covered from head to toe couldn't possibly commit a double hatchet murder.

Lizzie's jury, though academically unqualified, would be able to explain it all in a couple of minutes!

Curryong wrote:Lizzie's jury, though academically unqualified, would be able to explain it all in a couple of minutes!

Too funny, Curryong!

http://www.today.com/news/time-warp-wom ... 2D11599299

I'm tempted to download her book Victorian Secrets: What a Corset Taught Me about the Past, the Present and Myself if it's on Kindle except I downloaded Dancing to the Precipice about the French Revolution no more than an hour ago.

I spend a fortune on Kindle! At the moment (totally off-topic, sorry BOBO,) I am reading 'The little girl who fought the Great Depression' an examination by a cultural historian John Kasson of Shirley Temple as an icon of her times, socially, economically, even politically. It's very entertaining and informative. At the same time I'm reading about the Black Dahlia murder. I did read about it years ago but I'm now taking another look at it via 'Severed' by John Gilmore. I expect you know about the Black Dahlia. I found 'Murdered in their Beds' fascinating, by the way.

I read a lot about the Black Dahlia years ago when her murder first came to my attention but not the Gilmore book which is supposed to be the best. I'll download it once done with several of my recent purchases. My first career was as a librarian; literally I loved books, even the smell of them! But there's something about the instant gratification of Kindle that trades off against the visceral pleasure of holding a hardcover book in my hands and turning the pages. And that bookish scent ... (Sorry BOBO...we'll be back on track shortly....) I haven't seen Irina post recently although I've been distracted by my grandson going home after spending much of the summer with us and his new and dearly beloved horse. "She" is named Renegade after the Florida State horse that rides to center field before all home football games except that Renegade is a "he."

Back on topic: I wonder if Lizzie cinched and gusseted on the morning of the murders. Like the all-male jury. I find it a tiny bit difficult to envision a woman fully dressed and corseted with the flexibility (and ability to breathe deeply!!) necessary to climb on Abby's back and whack her in the head nineteen times with a hatchet without having a ruffle or a flourish get in the way of even minimal splatter.

Where are you Irina?

Glitch that resulted in double post...sorry. Is there a way to delete a duplication?

Not as far as I know.

I'm using Kindle lately because I desperately need two more large bookcases for the overflow of books I already have! Any more and I shall have to move out! I do agree, though. Nothing beats the physical look and feel and smell of a new book in your hands.

I wonder whether Lizzie thought "Today's the day! Im going to loosely lace myself this morning." as she contemplated murder? Or whether something blew up and then, like an athlete going through the pain barrier, she didnt feel the restrictions until it was all done. Satisfied but puffed out, Lizzie then loosened them a little ready for number two!

Yes Irina, where are you?

Curryong wrote:Not as far as I know.

I'm using Kindle lately because I desperately need two more large bookcases for the overflow of books I already have! Any more and I shall have to move out! I do agree, though. Nothing beats the physical look and feel and smell of a new book in your hands.

I wonder whether Lizzie thought "Today's the day! Im going to loosely lace myself this morning." as she contemplated murder? Or whether something blew up and then, like an athlete going through the pain barrier, she didnt feel the restrictions until it was all done. Satisfied but puffed out, Lizzie then loosened them a little ready for number two!

Yes Irina, where are you?

I like my android tablet for reading-- but you can't take it in the tub with you!

That is SO true, even though I once took a library book into the bath and fell asleep while I was reading it!

There are waterproof sleeves and cases for cell phone and notebooks...I just take the chance and read from my MacAir propped on a bathtub caddy that extends across the top of the tub. My daughter has a lovely cherry table with wheels and a tray for laptop and phone that slides under and over her slipper tub..sort of like a hospital table complete with strap to keep the laptop in place. Both she and her husband work from home...and seemingly from the bathtub!

I love taking a long luxurious bath, and having a book around too. I was mortified when that library book landed in the water! Like you I have a bath caddy, but I suppose there's always the chance that I'll snooze again and dislodge the book. Magazines don't do it for me as my wet paws get all over the paper. However, I used to know someone who did crosswords in the bath!

debbiediablo wrote:I read a lot about the Black Dahlia years ago when her murder first came to my attention but not the Gilmore book which is supposed to be the best. ...

I have John Gilmore’s book, Severed: The True Story of the Black Dahlia Murder. It is without a doubt the best book I have read on the ‘The Black Dahlia’ murder.

Several years ago, when my niece was in college, she and her classmates did a play about the life of ‘The Black Dahlia’. My niece played the part of Elizabeth Short. Since she was a natural blonde, she had to dye her hair jet black for this role. For the play, my niece was dressed in a black outfit, and wore two large dahlias in her hair, one on each side of her head. Since she played the lead role, her picture was on the front of program guide. When I first saw her picture on the program guide, I got goose-bumps on my arms and a shiver went up my back, because I was looking at a picture that I had seen before, in John Gilmore’s book! My niece had been transformed into ‘The Black Dahlia’ The resemblance of those two women was downright uncanny! Here is the picture from John Gilmore’s book:

debbiediablo wrote:Glitch that resulted in double post...sorry. Is there a way to delete a duplication?

Yes, let Stefani know. I'm think she can delete it, or you can just simply state: Oops, double post.