Lizzie's dress - Sawyer comments

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:48 am

First post referencing the new Jennings book!!

Page 261. Charles Sawyer comments to Attorney Phillips.
"Officer Medley asked Bridget about Lizzie's wrapper -- if it was the same one she had on earlier and she said Yes. Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

This is new info (at least for me)....only on-sight witness to mention spots/stains on the dress Lizzie was wearing that morning. This might support the idea that Lizzie was wearing the paint dress murder morning, even though Lizzie claims to have been wearing a silk Bengaline dress during that time.
Would also explain why Lizzie might have gotten nervous after hearing she was a suspect on Saturday and then was seen burning the paint dress Sunday morning. As a reminder, Lizzie had this damaged dress since Spring and only chose Sunday morning, hours after being named a suspect, to take the time to burn the dress.

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:53 pm

Kat, do you have/will you be getting the new book? Waiting for mine to arrive from the FRHS.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:17 pm

Yes, was first with MBhenty. Got it last Saturday. Had to be mum about it, and careful posting.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:59 pm

I love the book.....pass along to Stefani that the way they edited and present the information is effective and easy to follow.

I started out highlighting new or enhanced information, and I've already stopped because so much of the material would be highlighted, that no use highlighting!!

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:50 pm

What truly agonizing teasing, Camgarsky! Give a woman a break

You know I cannot wait. Hurry, hurry, FRHS…

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:53 pm

Kat, I am so glad we can trade “wows” with you on all this new info. I have been busy being a good Mrs. Claus, but am quite missing our forum.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:41 am

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:48 am First post referencing the new Jennings book!!

Page 261. Charles Sawyer comments to Attorney Phillips.
"Officer Medley asked Bridget about Lizzie's wrapper -- if it was the same one she had on earlier and she said Yes. Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

This is new info (at least for me)....only on-sight witness to mention spots/stains on the dress Lizzie was wearing that morning. This might support the idea that Lizzie was wearing the paint dress murder morning, even though Lizzie claims to have been wearing a silk Bengaline dress during that time.
Would also explain why Lizzie might have gotten nervous after hearing she was a suspect on Saturday and then was seen burning the paint dress Sunday morning. As a reminder, Lizzie had this damaged dress since Spring and only chose Sunday morning, hours after being named a suspect, to take the time to burn the dress.

Someone once posted that getting into/out of a Victorian dress took a lot of time. That seems logical except that if Lizzie slipped on the paint dress and didn't fasten all of the doodads, it could have been that she donned the dress, killed Abby, then took it off until Andrew came home. Nobody would have seen her in it. It would have been more suspicious if she had changed dresses multiple times and allowed people to see her. I never subscribed to the naked Lizzie theory, but what about a bed sheet used as a toga to cover her dress? It wouldn't be unusual for a women to come to breakfast in one dress and change into a nicer one later in the morning.

A bit of research shows that a Victorian wrapper was simply a simple dress not meant to be worn in public. Women wore wrappers if they were home and not expecting company.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:46 am

Possum -- our thoughts are pretty close.

Opinion:
My 'theory' is that Lizzie wore the 'paint' dress all morning. Covered it with the Prince Albert coat for Andrews murder and with something else for Abby's murder. Couldn't wear the same cover for both since I suspect the 'Abby cover' was somewhere upstairs and Lizzie had to act on opportunity (Andrew lying down and the new knowledge of Morse's imminent arrival). Mr. Prince Albert was conveniently right at hand, hung up just arms length from the sofa and Lizzie's kill position.

Knowing it didn't have much, if any, blood on it, she would still associate it with the killing and feel uncomfortable with the possibility of it being found. So she stashed it somewhere where the police didn't find. Whether one believes she did the killing or not, this seems indisputable since the police didn't find a dress with paint or blood on it and Lizzie acknowledges burning it on the Sunday. So it was somewhere inside the walls of that house. Per Emma it was on a hook in a closet that the police searched.

Love the toga idea!! And of course, am now reliving scenes from Animal House! Toga, toga, toga.....

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:44 am

Yes Kat... that's funny...

As you know, since Stefani worked on the book, I have been aware of it and had handled it well before it was announced.

Stef and I went round and round as I tried to convince her to let me display the cover on the forum and tease the gang.

But, no way. The Society wanted things hush until the final public declaration of its existence.

Kudos to Stefani for the simple but smart cover design. Very stylish and clean. As a design consultant for the Literary Hatchet, I get to insert a big thumbs up or down when Stefani is working on a book's motif or design. How much that "thumb" is taken into consideration is only speculation. Though not on the final cover of The Jennings Journal. That one is Stef's alone.

.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:33 am

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:46 am Possum -- our thoughts are pretty close.

Opinion:
My 'theory' is that Lizzie wore the 'paint' dress all morning. Covered it with the Prince Albert coat for Andrews murder and with something else for Abby's murder. Couldn't wear the same cover for both since I suspect the 'Abby cover' was somewhere upstairs and Lizzie had to act on opportunity (Andrew lying down and the new knowledge of Morse's imminent arrival). Mr. Prince Albert was conveniently right at hand, hung up just arms length from the sofa and Lizzie's kill position.

Knowing it didn't have much, if any, blood on it, she would still associate it with the killing and feel uncomfortable with the possibility of it being found. So she stashed it somewhere where the police didn't find. Whether one believes she did the killing or not, this seems indisputable since the police didn't find a dress with paint or blood on it and Lizzie acknowledges burning it on the Sunday. So it was somewhere inside the walls of that house. Per Emma it was on a hook in a closet that the police searched.

Love the toga idea!! And of course, am now reliving scenes from Animal House! Toga, toga, toga.....

The police finding Andrew's Prince Albert coat bunched up under his head is significant. Here is a well-dressed, proud, wealthy utilitarian man, respected and feared in the community. He would take very good care of his clothes and NEVER wad up an expensive coat under his head. It must have been put there after the murders. Any blood spatter on it would be obliterated by the blood pouring out of his wounds onto the coat. Of course that means that the killer lifted his head and placed it there after the murders...

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:32 pm

The killer would have to lift the head, but not actually touch it. There was pillow between the coat and the head. So a bit less gross.

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:27 pm

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:48 am First post referencing the new Jennings book!!

Page 261. Charles Sawyer comments to Attorney Phillips.
"Officer Medley asked Bridget about Lizzie's wrapper -- if it was the same one she had on earlier and she said Yes. Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

This is new info (at least for me)....only on-sight witness to mention spots/stains on the dress Lizzie was wearing that morning. This might support the idea that Lizzie was wearing the paint dress murder morning, even though Lizzie claims to have been wearing a silk Bengaline dress during that time.
Would also explain why Lizzie might have gotten nervous after hearing she was a suspect on Saturday and then was seen burning the paint dress Sunday morning. As a reminder, Lizzie had this damaged dress since Spring and only chose Sunday morning, hours after being named a suspect, to take the time to burn the dress.

I still await my copy, so could someone clarify the context, please? Is Sawyer reporting to Phillips about remarks he has overheard between Medley and Bridget?

Unless Sawyer heard wrong, then Medley should have given this information to the prosecution by writing it down in his witness statements, as it is potentially hugely damaging information for Lizzie! “Spots” could have meant paint and/or blood!

Not surprised Phillips would therefore not have wanted it to be brought out, but what else could explain Medley not furthering this line of questioning of Bridget? Thinking Sawyer HAD to have misheard; do you all agree?

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:39 pm

The way i understood the info as presented, is that Sawyer is telling Phillips what Medley asked Bridget and then shared a couple of his own observations. In other words, Sawyer told Phillips "Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:48 pm

Ohhh. So, police/prosecution would not have had this information (unless Sawyer repeated it to police; unlikely, as they did not use it.) Lay folk then may have thought telling any lawyer would be the same as telling police, that all lawyers would have to share any information received with the other side. If Sawyer thought that, it would explain why he did not repeat this info. to police.

But this is atomic stuff! First “WOW” of the book! Thanks, Camgarsky.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:57 pm

Reasonwhy, there is a LOT of Sawyer in this book! Don’t know why it didn’t make it into Witness Statements or testimony.

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:06 pm

Most interesting, Kat. With his paint business pretty close by on Second St., maybe he knew and liked Lizzie or Emma and was biased against police?

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 10:10 pm

As he was there from shortly after the crime until around suppertime—can’t recall the exact hour—Sawyer certainly must have seen and heard a great deal…

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:10 pm

Exactly. He was there most of the day and has a lot of observations...and why didn't we think of that?

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:22 pm

New inquiry into Sawyer needed! One question: Did he have a previously existing friendship with Phillips? And another: what was his reputation for reliability/honesty in the neighborhood? As a decorative painter, he must have had acute visual skills, too.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:25 pm

Sorry, did not see your post there Jodi.

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:39 pm The way i understood the info as presented, is that Sawyer is telling Phillips what Medley asked Bridget and then shared a couple of his own observations. In other words, Sawyer told Phillips "Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

The spots on the dress comment comes when Sawyer is telling Phillips what Bridget said about it to Medley. And that means Bridget is the one who also claims she is "nearsighted some anyway."

[--Well,Reasonwhy, you know this is almost funny because we were wondering if Bridget could read and whether she could tell the time from a clock face and now she's nearsighted. She's a mess.

]

I think it's most important that Bridget also told that when she was in her room
she sat at her window! I don't want to spoil it for you!

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:40 pm

You do realize you and Camgarsky are killing me, right? Well, at least you agitated my curiosity enough to draw me back into posting. Wrapping presents and writing cards and crafting garlands be darned! An insatiable need to discuss all things Borden cannot be denied.

But the way you interpret and the way Camgarsky interprets this passage is crucial! What do mbhenty and Stefani think? We must have all minds on this new book. I’m ready to chip in for a gift copy to Possum; we need him! If he has it in hand he can’t help but read it, PhD or no, right?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:50 pm

I feel like my 10 years experience reading Hatchet submissions where there's the raw article that may need editing, reshaping, contextual changes, syntax, grammar, and "pinning-down-that-pronoun" makes it easier for me to read something twice and get it. The Sawyer stuff is convoluted, but reading a few times achieves better contextual understanding. (I don't need Stef or Michael for that. I've worked on Stef's and Michael's articles. I'm the only one in the Hatchet who had no one to fact check me, that's a lonely feeling, honestly)

(not that we're dealing with fact checking here...

)

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:58 pm

You certainly have the long intellectual experience to do careful deciphering, Kat. But, if these are Bridget’s words, why do you think Medley did not follow up?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:02 am

Sawyer says Medley seemed to be trying to "get Bridget to convict herself" and "Had her on the back stairs." (That sounds lascivious, but I doubt it...

)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:04 am

When is your book due? I don't want to spoil it for you!

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:08 am

I guess it really is better that my book has not come, or I would be doing no Christmas prep at all. But these snippets are blowing my mind

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:09 am

I'm also missing Beowolf, what about you?

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:10 am

Payment has been received, FRHS says, but no notice that book has yet been sent. I am sure they are deluged.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:13 am

In the meantime, speaking of the FRHS: a gift to us, from them...

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:15 am

Yes, I thought highly of Beowulf, her postings and her art. Really enjoy her deep questioning and observations. We also had a new poster introduce himself in “Stay to Tea” a few days ago—he’s doing Shakespearean studies and is a writer—I replied to him but have not seen anything else of him. Yes, just looked him up: “ShakespeareandBorden.” I see you wrote him, too, Kat. Well, he may be busy with final exams…

For all who lurk: please join us. We want to know your thoughts :)

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:18 am

That’s beautiful. Now if they can decorate early and publish a Borden book, maybe I can step up my game, too.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:25 am

Reasonwhy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 11:40 pm You do realize you and Camgarsky are killing me, right? Well, at least you agitated my curiosity enough to draw me back into posting. Wrapping presents and writing cards and crafting garlands be darned! An insatiable need to discuss all things Borden cannot be denied.

But the way you interpret and the way Camgarsky interprets this passage is crucial! What do mbhenty and Stefani think? We must have all minds on this new book. I’m ready to chip in for a gift copy to Possum; we need him! If he has it in hand he can’t help but read it, PhD or no, right?

LOL, Reasonwhy, I LOVE your enthusiasm for the case. You infuse an energy that is much needed. This forum goes through periods of many posters with extreme passion and hot debates, to few posters all thinking the same way. We NEED your energy! I've asked my wife for a copy for Christmas. I'm hoping that January will give me some time to read it.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:21 am

Glad you are getting it Possum. Like most Borden books, it is very skimmable, so even if you don't find the time to thoroughly read while you work to earn the title 'doc', you will find interesting tidbits and can jump in when we dive into excerpts!!

And have her order via Amazon Prime!

Kat -- thanks for sharing the Christmas photo. I've lived in Florida for 5 years now and I don't miss much about the mid-west (except the more affordable land prices), but I really do miss the magical Christmas decorating folks do further north. Home interior architecture influences how beautiful the decorations show and the FRHS certainly fits the bill!!

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:24 am

PossumPie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:25 am LOL, Reasonwhy, I LOVE your enthusiasm for the case. You infuse an energy that is much needed. This forum goes through periods of many posters with extreme passion and hot debates, to few posters all thinking the same way. We NEED your energy! I've asked my wife for a copy for Christmas. I'm hoping that January will give me some time to read it.

Thank you so much, PossumPie! Your kind words acted on me like a happiness shot. Please give Mrs. Pie a big hug for her contribution to our forum

Steve887788 · Post by **Steve887788** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:50 am

That seems logical except that if Lizzie slipped on the paint dress and didn't fasten all of the doodads, it could have been that she donned the dress, killed Abby, then took it off until Andrew came home.

If she was thin enough to fit into 2 victorian dresses then I need to give her credit to her abilities - that must have been some ball of cloth rustling around at high speeds. I don't think she could fit into one of hers without help.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:36 pm

Steve887788 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:50 am
That seems logical except that if Lizzie slipped on the paint dress and didn't fasten all of the doodads, it could have been that she donned the dress, killed Abby, then took it off until Andrew came home.
If she was thin enough to fit into 2 victorian dresses then I need to give her credit to her abilities - that must have been some ball of cloth rustling around at high speeds. I don't think she could fit into one of hers without help.

Nowhere did I imply that she had two dresses on. Not all Victorian dresses were "Gone with the Wind" affairs that took 2 people and a half hour to get into. "Wraps" were no harder to slip on and off than today's dresses.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:46 pm

Scarlett O'Hara: "Fiddle-dee-dee."

Steve887788 · Post by **Steve887788** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:48 pm

IDK - I've never slipped on a dress. But maybe she could have worn one of Abby's dresses ? they must have been larger. But then the police would have found it - maybe - probably not - OK so they overlooked any dress in the house that was suspect.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:42 pm

camgarsky4 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 9:39 pm The way i understood the info as presented, is that Sawyer is telling Phillips what Medley asked Bridget and then shared a couple of his own observations. In other words, Sawyer told Phillips "Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

Hello, Cam, Reasonwhy and I are awaiting your response to a possible other interpretation (mine

) of what your understanding was of the Sawyer/Medley/Bridget comments recorded by Phillips about spots on the dress and being a bit nearsighted. ?
I read it differently. Can we return to that, for a moment, plz? Thanks!

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:36 pm

Kat, I did reread a couple times. I am now leaning towards your interpretation, but plan tonight to read all the Sawyer comments (of which there are a surprising high #) and see if I can pick up a speaking tendency that would influence my take.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:10 am

From a grammatical standpoint
Charles Sawyer comments to Attorney Phillips.
"Officer Medley asked Bridget about Lizzie's wrapper -- if it was the same one she had on earlier and she said Yes. Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

If Bridget was the object of the phrase "Think there were" it would be "Thought there were" (past tense) Think is present tense implying that Sawyer is the object.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:32 am

Possum, I think that is how my 'brain' interpreted the first go round. I read everything with Sawyer last night and really impossible to be definitive about whether he is sharing a personal observation or repeating what he heard Bridget say.

The notes by Phillips and Jennings are at times almost shorthand (not literally) and so not sure proper grammar can be used as a indicator for this journal notation.

But if you think about it, not a massive difference. Someone (Bridget or Sawyer) say they saw spots. Of course, if assuming Lizzie was wearing the Bedford Cord, the spots could be paint or something more ominous. If the dark blue Bengaline Silk, spots probably not really noticeable, but any spots on that dress would have been 'gotten' that morning. Blood perhaps.

That said, both Bridget and Sawyer testified and neither mentioned a spot under oath.

If it was Bridget sharing that she was 'near sighted', that would help explain her telling the time mostly via her 'internal clock' and how long she felt it would take to complete tasks. Clocks located throughout the house would often be > 5 feet away as she scurried about the house.

I suppose a painter would be more economically able to acquire glasses than domestic help?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:41 am

I would prefer no equivocation on the interpretation of what we are reading and discussing, if that's OK, everyone? Please may we settle and agree at each impasse, otherwise we will not achieve a fluid understanding, working forward.
[It must have been hard for those working on these papers to figure things out, as well.]
(Edit here- to remove previous remark about this document being 3rd hand interpretation. My source says, "not so." Original notes by main characters, transcriptions/translations by FRHS who have years of experience working on this type of project- and thank goodness for that!

In subsequent posts, you may notice my original comments)

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:01 am

Kat wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:41 am I would prefer no equivocation on the interpretation of what we are reading and discussing, if that's OK, everyone? Please may we settle and agree at each impasse, otherwise we will not achieve a fluid understanding, working forward.
[It must have been hard for those working on these papers to figure things out, as well. I think we are reading a third-hand interpretation...Waring to FRHS to Stef, from hand-written notes, yet!]

I agree also that if we spend pages trying to understand something that is indeterminant, we will never progress. Part of the reason this case is still getting attention over 100 years later is that there is equivocation in EVERYTHING. Monday-morning quarterbacking as we do, we can pick apart first-hand testimony syntax to fit any pet theory. We are at a disadvantage without knowing intent or context in much of what we read and "read-into" words and phrases with our biases. Think about the interpretations of verses in the Bible by various passionate Christians who can "make" them mean anything that they want. I agree Kat that speculation about each line in the journals can lead us down a false trail, but not knowing even if a principal character is being truthful makes everything equivocal in the end.

This case is a Monet painting. If you get too close with a magnifying glass, all you see are colored dots. Step back and patterns emerge.

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:55 am

Folks -- I post so much because it helps me process things when I write my thoughts....so many of my posts are a case of 'live thinking'. Once I decide where I stand on something, I tend to not be equivocal. However, until my brain settles on a position, I'll need to continue to banter about.

I'd love to hear takes on this from Reason, Wall, Swinell or others to make sure we've vetted thoroughly.

At this point, I am leaning towards this being a case of Sawyer repeating what he heard Bridget tell Medley. Will settle on an opinion soon.

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 11:07 am

Kat, I’m not sure I understand what you are asking. This could be because I was up late and still haven’t had my coffee:)

camgarsky4 · Post by **camgarsky4** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 12:15 pm

Reason -- we are trying to come to a consensus on whether 1) Sawyer is recalling what he heard Bridget tell Medley or 2( what Sawyer himself saw.

Kat votes the former...I shifted from the later to the former, but I'm hovering at 60/40. Possum was leaning the later, but not sure if that is still where his vote would land.

Page 261. Charles Sawyer comments to Attorney Phillips.
"Officer Medley asked Bridget about Lizzie's wrapper -- if it was the same one she had on earlier and she said Yes. Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway."

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 12:34 pm

Thanks, Camgarsky. I’m writing my interpretation now :)

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:28 pm

References here are to Sawyer’s comments, pp. 260-61. Looking at the pattern of his comments, I observe:

—He has a recurring tendency to omit the subject pronoun, at least as Phillips noted his remarks.
—This includes the debated usage, “Think there were spots in the dress.” Over the two pages we see this repeatedly:
1. “Saw no blood…”
2. “Sure Lizzie didn’t…”
3. “Think it was Dr. Bowen…”
4. “Think she was running…”
5. “Saw no windows open…”
The problem is that sometimes the subject is clearly himself; sometimes it is clearly someone else:
1. Bridget
2. Bridget
3. Sawyer
4. Sawyer
5. Sawyer

When the subject is clear, it’s because the sentences just preceding it name the subject. When no subject has been named, Sawyer is referring to himself.

IF we apply that pattern, then in our contested passage, Bridget is the subject:

“Off Medley asked Bridget about Lizzie’s wrapper—if it was the same one she had on & she said Yes. Think there were spots in the dress. Am nearsighted some anyway.”

Until I studied this conversational pattern of his, I could read it both ways. Now, based on that pattern, I understand Sawyer to be relating to Phillips what it was that he heard Bridget say to Medley.

With these somewhat rough notes of Phillips and Jennings, close analysis such as this will sometimes be needed. Thankfully, meanings will often be immediately clearer and we can skip from what was meant to the consequences for the Borden case.

For me, one consequence, as I mentioned further up in the thread, is the suspicious non-reporting by Medley of this exchange in his witness notes. Did he not hear what Sawyer heard?
(All underlining, italics, and bolding above are my own.)

Reasonwhy · Post by **Reasonwhy** » Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:02 pm

Other evidence that may show Sawyer is NOT referring to himself are the comments he makes about Lizzie’s dress. He thinks she wore the pink wrapper all day!
“Lizzie had on a reddish cast of wrapper, not sure….I was there until 6 P.M. (at door). She had same one on in the P.M….” (Page 260)
—Underlining here is Phillips’.

Since no one reports having seen paint or blood on the pink wrapper, why would Sawyer go on to be referring to himself as thinking, “Think there were spots on the dress”?
Logically, he must be referring to Bridget’s s statement to Medley.