know photographs

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:01 pm

I am no expert at police stuff. Fargo, have you worked in the law enforcement field ?

Tracy...

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:35 pm

Fargo, it may be a photograph that was overpainted, it sounds like a common enough practice.

"In 1842 a method of coloring the picture was patented. The daguerreotype was coated with a transparent varnish or gum and then was painted by the daguerreotypist, if he or she was an accomplished painter, or by gallery employees whose sole job was to paint over the images. The painting could be of the entire figure, or simply rosy cheeks. The early daguerreotypes were also known to fade, so retouching was part of the procedure. Overpainting was also common, especially when enlargements were made. This was done in three possible media: watercolors, charcoal, or crayon."

From this site: http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/a ... rticle=759

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:17 am

Stefani has a portrait like that! One of those sold as "possible" Lizzies It is incredible in it's detail and very hard to differentiate between a photo and a drawing. It's black and white tho.
Maybe when they say "coloring" they also mean drawing rather than using always using color?

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:11 am

No, I have never worked in law enforcement. I have a friend that I grew up with that is a police officer here in town.

The portrait (?) that my cousin has is on a piece of material that I would estimate is about 16 to 20 inches high. The image on it does not cover all of the material but it covers most of it. I took some close up pictures of it. I asked my cousin to copy it for me if she could but because of the size of it, I don't know if it would be that easy to do.

The actual picture that I have which was taken in 1898, is about 3x4, it looks like a real picture. I had it blown up to 5x7 and it was still clear. When you blow it up to a 8x10 it's still clear enough, but you can notice that it loses some of its quality. It's pretty neat comparing the two of them togeather. They are both in black and white.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:38 pm

I went to google then typed in "robert a flynn lizzie borden and the mysterious axe". 9 titles down I found a website called simply "lizzie borden" it had references to lizzie and flynn. I clicked on it, it seems to be written by someone named russell aiuto, he is a teacher. It is written in yellow letters and shows the picture we were discussing as lizzie's police photograph. I don't know where he got his information though. I wish I knew how to find and copy links

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:40 pm

The next time I get a mug shot taken, I'll be sure to provide the details for everyone's edification. I do hope they utilize one of those "glamor shots" photographers. I can use all the help I can get.

I've been going through my old Lizzie Borden Quarterlies again. I'd forgotten that the second photograph of Lizzie with the orb-and-arrow earrings was so recently discovered. Apparently an anonymous letter-writer (someone who had contributed anonymously to the LBQ) gave it to the FRHS in 1999. It's a shame the donor wasn't identified, because he/she might have been able to provide some provenance for the picture. The LBQ uses the term "bequeathed," but I don't think that meant the donor had died, because one of his/her letters appeared in the same issue. I gather the donor was known to the LBQ editor. How I wish this person would step forward. He or she could possibly aid in authenticating two of the Lizzie pictures (the ones in which she's wearing those earrings).

I also ran across a 1996 interview with Mrs. Florence C. Brigham by Maynard Bertolet. She was 97 at the time and could certainly have been forgiven if her memories of Lizzie had faded somewhat. However, I got the impression that she herself had little, if any, contact with Lizzie and that even her mother-in-law (who testified at Lizzie's trial) was closer to Emma than to Lizzie. Florence Cook Brigham recalled as a child having watched from a second-story window as Lizzie's fine carriage drove by. If she had more vivid memories, she didn't share them. That's not much to go on when identifying photographs, although I'm sure Mrs. Brigham had great familiarity with all of the known photos of Ms. Borden. Of course, we have that too, don't we?

Helen Leighton, a most distinguished-looking lady, judging by her photograph in the October 2000 issue of the LBQ, was apparently much closer to Lizzie. I didn't find Miss Leighton's date of birth in the article, but she graduated from the Fall River Nursing School in 1893, which might mean she was 10-15 years younger than Lizzie. She was said to have been a frequent visitor to Maplecroft and to have accompanied Lizzie on some of her post-1892 travels. Miss Leighton left Fall River in 1919 and lived in several other Massachusetts cities until her death in 1951. (This article was written by Len Rebello, incidentally.) Since Helen Leighton died in 1951, we can be pretty sure she didn't help to identify any Lizzie photographs after that. I wonder if there's any record as to when the various images were unearthed.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:02 pm

There are a couple of links to Aiuto's stuff on this (lizzieandrewborden.com) website. I didn't find the article with the "yellow lettering," but Aiuto authored the crimelibrary piece on Lizzie. It seems to be riddled with errors. (He has Andrew's boots sitting on the floor by the sofa, for example.) I wouldn't necessarily take his word as gospel without further investigation. If I can find out how to contact him, I'll email him and ask where he got his info about the mug shot.

diana · Post by **diana** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:23 pm

Is this the site you found, Fargo?

http://tripleoakkennel.com/dk/Mob/lizzie_borden.htm

It titles Lizzie's pansy brooch pic as her police photo -- and credits it to CORBIS.

BTW -- I'm not sure that's George Robinson on that site ... is it? Doesn't look much like the Robinson picture in the LAB photo lineup.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:06 pm

Thanks for that, diana.

I knew I'd seen a photo identified as Lizzie's police photo, too, and that was probably where I'd seen it.

The FR Police Department site does not show this photo, so I doubt it is the police photo, if there really is one.

The CORBIS site simply has a generic Lizzie Borden caption for the photo, and says it was taken "late 19th century." CORBIS does not identify it as a police photo.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:34 pm

Thanks for the history on that photo of Lizzie, Edisto. I've always wondered when and where that photo came on the scene; now I know! It seemed to appear out of nowhere, with no fanfare whatsoever.
It does make one wonder exactly what else is hiding out there.

Elizabeth Ann · Post by **Elizabeth Ann** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:12 pm

doug65oh @ Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:32 pm wrote:There are several here, snok (http://www.frpd.org/lizzie/photos.htm) and also many more of Lizzie on the main website at http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Galle ... graphs.htm

Thanks for the links. These are very helpful for a novice to learn more!

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:00 pm

Yes, that is the site diana. Is it possible that because of the popularity of the case that years later, after Lizzie was gone, that the police gave the picture away to perhaps the FRHS? The police did give the FRHS the pictures they had of the outside of the borden house.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:40 am

How do we know the FRPD gave those outside pictures to the FRHS? Is that info at one of these links provided above? (I didn't go to any of them tho I'm familiar as to what is on this LABVM/L website).
The outside pictures were taken by Walsh right? He wasn't a police photographer, I don't think.
Maybe I'm mistaken?

There are 2 outside pictures of the well and the back of the house which are Walsh, in The Knowlton Papers, pg. 53.
I think Phillips had a couple of exteriors also. Neither of them were police.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:52 am

diana @ Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:23 pm wrote:Is this the site you found, Fargo?

http://tripleoakkennel.com/dk/Mob/lizzie_borden.htm

It titles Lizzie's pansy brooch pic as her police photo -- and credits it to CORBIS.

BTW -- I'm not sure that's George Robinson on that site ... is it? Doesn't look much like the Robinson picture in the LAB photo lineup.

It's Judge Blaisdell, from Porter, page 53.

Does anyone know what CORBIS is? Is it a photo collection agency? I've always wondered. They have that dramastist woman photo of the Borden house front steps c. 1940's, or 1950's?

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:39 am

When I visited the FRHS last October, the tour guide told me that the pictures that were on display of the outside of the Borden house were police photographs that had been given to them. (the FRHS)

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 8:03 am

Kat,

CORBIS is a stock photograph agency. Its collection also includes the Bettmann archives.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:34 am

That picture of Robinson (if it's he) appears on page 234 of Porter, where it's labeled "Ex-Governor Robinson." I agree that it doesn't look much like the picture that's in Rebello (page 192). I think Rebello's is the same one that's in the LAB gallery. I also recall a line drawing of Robinson that's in one of the books (can't find it right now) and that looks more like Rebello's picture than Porter's. Another mystery! (I found the line drawing. It's on page 303 of the Sourcebook. Robinson looks a bit portlier than Rebello's picture, but still similar.)

I think Aiuto used those archive photos, taking it for granted that the captions were correct. His (very long) article has a lot of the facts straight, but he says it was over 100 degrees on the day of the murder and that Andrew's boots were sitting by the sofa. (He even has the crime-scene photo that shows otherwise!) He also accepts as gospel the "fact" that Abby died an hour to ninety minutes before Andrew. That may or may not be the case. I saw other things in his piece that bear looking into as well. Aiuto has good educational credentials, but his undergraduate field was theater, and his background is mostly in biology. Not necessarily the best training for someone exploring the Borden case. He mostly used secondary sources (some of them questionable). The one "primary" source I saw was the Knowlton Papers, and that's of limited usefulness without other primary sources. He has done articles on other crimes as well as the Borden case, so he's probably a generalist rather than a true Borden fan.

I still find it very persuasive that the "pansy" picture was apparently in existence before Lizzie's arrest. Maybe the police trotted her down to Gay's and had her picture taken just on the off chance that she would turn out to be the suspect in an upcoming murder!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:58 am

According to Rebello, page 359,: "The photograph of Att. Robinson in Porter's book is actually Oliver Ames of Easton, Massachusetts."

Who he and how he got in Porter's book is anybody's guess. IMHO, he doesn't look a thing like Robinson. Porter must have been using his blind eye when he used that photograph.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:25 pm

I did some further digging and Oliver Ames was, like Robinson, former Governor of Massachusetts. I believe he succeeded Robinson in office.

The Ames family was apparently quite wealthy (made their money in shovels, no less) and there is a school in Easton named for him.

Thank goodness the family didn't make the fortune in hatchets!

diana · Post by **diana** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 1:49 pm

Thank you, Edisto, for all those page references -- and thank you, Harry, for finding out about Oliver Ames.

It does look as though Ames succeeded Robinson as Governor of MA in 1887 -- he was followed by Brackett in 1890 -- and then William E. Russell in 1891. So Russell would have been governor at the time of the Borden trial as he was in office until 1894 according to this source on the web.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... sachusetts

At first I thought Ames may have directly preceded the governor who was in office at the time of the book's publication. And someone was simply told to put in a picture of 'the ex-governor' which could then have led to Ames -- but that doesn't work out as there were two other men between Ames and Russell. A mystery, indeed... especially as Porter knew full well what Robinson looked like.

An erratum! If it's in the original Porter, of course. Does anyone have an original Porter?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:15 pm

Well, if it's not Robinson, no wonder I thought it was Blaisdell- especially so early in the morning! Thanks for not saying I was full of bologna!

Here are Blaisdell & "Robinson" (faulty?) from the reprinted Porter.
I thought they looked a lot alike excepept for the facial hair. Comparing now, I don't think so- only superficially.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:51 pm

Stefani has an original Porter and said she had checked it against the reprint and it is a full facsimile. Mislabeled photos and all.
Isn't there another misidentified picture in there?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:02 pm

Kat @ Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:40 am wrote:How do we know the FRPD gave those outside pictures to the FRHS? Is that info at one of these links provided above? (I didn't go to any of them tho I'm familiar as to what is on this LABVM/L website).
The outside pictures were taken by Walsh right? He wasn't a police photographer, I don't think.
Maybe I'm mistaken?

There are 2 outside pictures of the well and the back of the house which are Walsh, in The Knowlton Papers, pg. 53.
I think Phillips had a couple of exteriors also. Neither of them were police.

Here is another source for outside pictures and that is the Jennings' collection called "The Hip-bath Colection:"

Ashton, Barbara. "The Hip-Bath Collection." Proceedings: Lizzie Borden Conference. Ed. Jules R. Ryckebusch. Portland, ME: King Philip Publishing Co., 1993. 211-214.

"What Andrew Jennings decided to sequester may turn out to be as important as what he decided to reveal."

This collection was, in part, donated to the FRHS, in 1968, with some items requested returned to the (Waring) family. Ms. Ashton, author, had a look and made some notes:

Contents Of Collection:

Photographs:
Yard
hall,
entrance hall,
north side of house
Second street looking north and south
backyard between house and barn,
Mrs. Churchill's front steps.
guest chamber,
Abby,
sitting room,
south side of house and south yard,
Borden house (enlarged),
side views of pool of blood,
Mrs. Borden with feet showing,
Mrs. Borden's matted switch,
Andrew Borden on the horsehair couch,
Andrew naked on the floor[sic]
skulls--front with hatchet marks, Mrs. Borden with huge hole in side of head,
courthouse.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:04 am

Mabe the tour guide at the FRHS was mistaken. Now that I think of it, the tour guide also told me that Alice Russell lived across the street from Lizzie, which I know is wrong. It was probably a mix up with Dr Bowen.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:44 am

Who was your tour guide Fargo ?

Tracy...

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:28 pm

I got a raft of misinformation when I visited the B&B in 1998. The people who conducted the tours and talked to the guests seemed bent on making Lizzie look as guilty as possible and convincing us that the house was haunted. (That last might have had something to do with the fact that it was Halloween.)

I'm glad somebody solved the mystery of who the man in the supposed Robinson photo actually is. If nothing else, studying the Borden case should teach us to be cautious and do our own research whenever possible. Another thing that Aiuto published in his various articles is that Lizzie first claimed in her inquest testimony that she had gone out to the barn after Andrew came home and then changed her story and said she had never left the house. I don't think that's true. If she had claimed to be in the house when Andrew was murdered, that would have made her look guilty indeed. She did change her story about some points (e. g., where she was when Andrew came home), but not about going to the barn. I think Aiuto was confused.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:45 pm

It was a lady, I don't recall her name.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:59 pm

It's not necessarilly wrong information. It's still possible. I will try to find out.
But also it could be a form of misunderstanding- I'm not saying it is- but if you were told these were police photographs but not told they were donated by the FRPD, (meaning that was your assumption) that might explain things.
I could be wrong.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:44 am

Free iced tea, a trip to Hawaii for three, and a duckboat at the "Could All The World Have Known This Was Coming Down" site, plus you can have your picture taken with "Toonces," The Cat Who Could Drive.

john · Post by **john** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:23 am

Free iced tea, a trip to Hawaii for three, and a duckboat at the "Could All The World Have Known This Was Coming Down" site, plus you can have your picture taken with "Toonces," The Cat Who Could Drive.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:08 pm

I'm going to try and capture and image of the picture I was talking about from my TV screen. I don't know how it will turn out. But hopefully I will be able to post it sometime soon, I can probably post it from my mom's computer the next time I'm there. Hopefully someone can tell me who is in this picture.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:51 am

I went to yahoo and typed in "frpd lizzie photo". I found a FRPD website called "lizzie borden photos" that says how some of the pictures there are police photos. It says that they still have the camera that they used. Some of the pictures are obviously not police photos, like the pictures of andrew and abby while they were still alive. Like the picture of lizzie taken right after her aquittal. They claim however that the hatchet was found in the barn.

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:33 pm

Thanks, Fargo. Here's the link to that site.

http://www.frpd.org/lizzie/photos.htm

That's interesting that the police department still has the camera. I think James Walsh, who was requested by Dolan to take the pictures of the bodies at the crime scene, was an independent photographer. Did he pass on his camera to the FRPD, I wonder?

Also, I'd forgotten that the pictures of the Borden premises used at trial weren't taken until the following June. (Source: James A. Walsh testimony, Trial, 121+)

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:01 pm

I didn't know that those pictures were taken that much later. I thought that they may have been taken later because we have read so much about the crowds of people that gathered outside the house after the murders. In these pictures there are no crowds of people.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:31 pm

There is also a photograph in Porter's "Fall River Tragedy" with the caption 'Arrival of Miss Lizzie Borden at the police station.' But you can hardly make out anything. Oh, to have the original negative and to reprint (and enlarge) it CLEARLY!

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:21 am

I love that photo in Porter's book, Stuart. It's incredible that someone took that - that anyone thought to take it. It makes you feel like you're right there - almost. Yes, it would be great if it could be made clearer.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:27 am

The camera that the FRPD has is not the one James Walsh used on the Borden crimes. They believe it is, but they are wrong.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:02 pm

On what page in Porter is the 'arriving' picture ?

Thanks !

Tracy...

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:34 pm

OK...found it, pg. 88. I wonder if Mr. Flynn would have better copies or any negatives of the actual picture ?

Tracy...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:36 pm

The photo's of the unknown lady in the picture did not turn out so well. I also did not know what to do about the display on my video, so it is included in the pictures as well. But this is the unkown lady to which I refer in my previous posts. I also added a few other pictures which turned out much better, considering I was taking pictures of my television screen.
Among the other pictures are Emma's bedroom, the upstairs bathroom which used to be the clothes closet, and the attic stairs and the door at the top of the stairs there.

Unknown lady

Upstairs bathroom

Emma's Room

The Attic stairs and the door.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:22 pm

I think that FRPD website should lay to rest the idea that the picture of Lizzie wearing the pansy pin is her police mug shot. If the FRPD had taken a mug shot, I feel sure they would have it on their website. (Thanks for posting the link; I overlooked it the other day.)

This website certainly doesn't do credit to the FRPD, because it's riddled with inaccuracies. For one thing, that Gay Studios picture is very unlikely to be Lizzie, as most of us have previously stated. The FRPD is treating it as if it is an authentic photo. Airing a half-baked theory like Arnold Brown's (RIP, Mr. Brown) isn't totally responsible either.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:06 pm

I wrote to the FRPD a few years ago after the LBQ did their survey on that "Gay's Studio" group picture- Lizzie or Not Lizzie? and gave them the results and the benefit of our Forum discussion as well. I never heard back and they never changed their claim.
Augusta investigated that camera which they claimed was Walsh's and found it not to be his at all. They still seem to think it is...she was in contact with them.
I thought maybe when they changed their site they might update their info but they didn't.

,,,Well, their motto is
"We'll Try."

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:09 pm

The photo's of the unknown lady in the picture did not turn out so well. I also did not know what to do about the display on my video, so it is included in the pictures as well. But this is the unkown lady to which I refer in my previous posts. I also added a few other pictures which turned out much better, considering I was taking pictures of my television screen.

Hmmm, the dress and the hairstyle appear to be from the early 1890s. Could it be a photo of Bridget by any chance? Did they say when the photograph was found?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:23 pm

Can you refresh our memories as what these pictures mean? Are they from a video?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:13 am

Allen @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:44 am wrote:
Kat @ Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:31 pm wrote:
"Allen--
I remember there was a photo being kept in one of the attic bedrooms of the Borden house of a lady, which I was told at the time, was unknown. I wonder if they ever figured out who this lady was. I was told the picture was found there in the attic of the house."
Is this the photo?
No, that is not the same picture to which I referred. Although I'd be interested in knowing who that picture is. It is kind of an odd looking picture I wish I had a way to transfer video images to the computer. I have it on my video footage of the house that I shot on my last visit. Great mug shot Kat. That was too funny.

I took these pictures from the video footage I shot during one of my stays in the house. I essentially paused the video when it came to the frame I wanted, and took the snapshots of the screen with my digital camera. I apologize for it taking so long for me to post them, but I am unable to upload pictures or anything like that on the computers at the library, so I had to wait until I was near a computer I could use for this purpose. I posted them from my mothers house. I have narrowed down that the problem with my computer is not the computer itself, but my provider, who insists there is nothing wrong with my connection.

The pictures of the lady did not turn out so well because the room was kind of dark at the time I was shooting the video. So it's kind of grainy. I took several shots and they all turned out the same. I also apologize for the display from my video being in the corner of the screen, I forgot to shut it off at the time. I am not sure when the picture was found, all I was told at the time was that the picture was found in the attic of the house, and no one knew who the lady in the picture was.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:24 pm

I think it's a good picture, Allen. You can make out her face pretty good. It looks like she has leg-of-mutton sleeves. But according to "Everyday life in the 1800's", they say those were popular from 1820 on. (I kind of question that. That seems like a long time for those sleeves to be popular. Maybe it's more that they were worn during that whole period. Still, when I see a picture with someone wearing them, it's later than 1820. I think of those sleeves from like 1870-1910.

Who the heck is it?? It's no one I've seen before in anything Lizzie. But that doesn't mean anything. It could have been left by someone other than the Bordens that lived there. Why didn't they write on the back of their pictures??? My husband has all these photos of his family and ancestors, and nobody wrote on them to say who they were. So we have all these pictures and haven't a clew who we're looking at. Frustrating.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:35 pm

Thanks!
The pictures are fine! And with your extra added personal touch like the time or date stamp next time you see them on the internet you will know they are yours! The more "identifying" characteristics, the better!
I think you did a great job and thanks for doing it, too!
Sorry you are still having problems.

I've never seen that picture before tho.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:43 am

Hey Missy!
I wrote Bill Pavao about the picture. He was there when it was acquired. He says a person from -he thinks Maine?- contacted Ron Evans (at the house), that they had a picture of Lizzie Borden and it was for sale. So Ron bought it and knew right away it wasn't Lizzie but did know the frame was worth what he spent. So it was stored in the attic. I guess by now, no one would know who this woman was.

Thanks Bill!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:11 pm

Kat @ Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:43 am wrote:Hey Missy!
I wrote Bill Pavao about the picture. He was there when it was acquired. He says a person from -he thinks Maine?- contacted Ron Evans (at the house), that they had a picture of Lizzie Borden and it was for sale. So Ron bought it and knew right away it wasn't Lizzie but did know the frame was worth what he spent. So it was stored in the attic. I guess by now, no one would know who this woman was.

Thanks Bill!

Thanks, Kat. Thanks to Bill as well. I am wondering if the picture was bought and brought all the way from Maine, how the story came about that it was found in the attic of the house? I even commented on this in the video, as this is what I was told.

Oh well, I guess you are right. We may never know who it is.

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:07 pm

Since I'm way out here on the west coast I've been looking at the San Francisco Chronicle to see what coverage they had on the trial. On June 20, 1893 they had a little drawing of Lizzie leaving the court house but what was interesting is under the picture it said it was reproduced from the only photograph taken that day by the New York Recorder. Has anyone seen that picture?

I have a question, the picture of Lizzie standing behind the chair was that during the trial or at Newport?