know photographs

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:59 pm

Are there any photos of lizzie out there that we know are really lizzie? I know during the trial I think women were all dressing like her, so how do we know who is who?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:32 pm

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

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:37 am

thanks I'll check them out.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:34 am

Of the crime scene pictures that are on the website, one picture has had me asking a question since I was about 12 years old. The first story I ever read on the case was in a book of short stories when I was in elementary school. This book had some pictures in it. There was a picture of Abby's body, there was also the picture that shows what the guest bedroom looked like from the doorway. I wondered then as I wonder now, was Abby's body still in the guest bedroom when that picture was taken? You cannot tell from the picture.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:04 pm

I think the question about authentic photographs of Lizzie is a good one. Yes, there are numerous photographs that we think are Lizzie, because they resemble her in some way (besides clothing); however, I've often wondered what process was used to authenticate them. The line drawing that appeared in the early newspaper accounts, showing a somber Lizzie wearing a dress with a diamond-shaped detail on the chest and a pansy pin at her throat, is taken from the photograph that's on the cover of the "Lizzie Borden/Did She?...or...Didn't She?" book. For that reason, that photo is a pretty sure bet to be authentic, although in most versions the line drawing faces slightly left, while the book-cover photo is facing right. If one compares that photo with the one supposedly taken at Newport after the trial, the two barely look like the same person. That may well be because Lizzie gained so much weight while imprisoned. I have wondered many times exactly how these old photographs are authenticated, because a lot of researchers of the Borden case are hobbyists, rather than trained investigators. There was a fairly drastic change in women's clothing styles about the time of the Borden murders. The "leg o' mutton" sleeve came into vogue just prior to the trial (at least in New England). That's the style Lizzie is wearing in the Newport picture. Emma made reference to the style change in her trial testimony, in fact. Some of the photos of Lizzie show her in dresses with sleeves that aren't full at the top. Assuming they actually are images of Lizzie, those were probably taken before the murders, because Lizzie seemed to be quite fashion-conscious. I too have wondered if all those pictures are actually Lizzie. I believe there are two images in which she's wearing the same orb-and-arrow earrings. Assuming we can validate one of those pictures, the other is also likely to be authentic. At least they're likely to be of the same person!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:00 pm

I think a lot of the trial drawings that were published in the various newspapers at the time are kind of ambiguous, in my opinion. If they weren't labeled we would have a tough time figuring out who they are supposed to be. I thought a few of the drawings that were done of Lizzie reminded me more of Bridget Sullivan. A drawing of Alice Russell could pass for Emma Borden. I think it depended on the skill and style of the artist. For the drawings done during the trial, I'm not sure how fashion conscious one can be from prison, but she does always appear to be dressed well, that is true. All of the descriptions of clothing worn by Lizzie during the trial seem to be complimentary.

I would also be interested to know how these photo's are authenticated. That's a good point about a lot of the research being done by hobbyists. There are at least two photos’ which are supposed to be Lizzie Borden that I do not believe look very much like her. I simply go along with the fact that they are supposed to be, and that they have probably been authenticated somewhere along the way. I had never noticed the earrings being the same in the two pictures before. Thanks for pointing that out.

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.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:01 pm

Fargo @ Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:34 am wrote:Of the crime scene pictures that are on the website, one picture has had me asking a question since I was about 12 years old. The first story I ever read on the case was in a book of short stories when I was in elementary school. This book had some pictures in it. There was a picture of Abby's body, there was also the picture that shows what the guest bedroom looked like from the doorway. I wondered then as I wonder now, was Abby's body still in the guest bedroom when that picture was taken? You cannot tell from the picture.

Is this the picture to which you refer?
This was taken later by Phillips. It is in his book, The Phillips History Of Fall River, "Fascicle III", opposite page 96, and its legend reads: "Photographs by author at time of Borden Trial."

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 8:21 pm

yes thats it, I figured it was a police photograph like the other pitures of the house's interior.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 8:58 pm

The process of authenticating the photos of Lizzie probably began with earlier members of the Fall River Historical Society, such as Constance Winslow and Florence Brigham. Both had actually seen Lizzie (and, I assume Emma, too) and could verify real photos of her. I know that there were some in the collection that Mrs. Brigham would not positively identify as Lizzie. But, she wouldn't say that were not Lizzie, either!

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:29 am

One picture we can be sure of which is Lizzie is her mug shot. I am not sure which picture it is. I read somewhere that there was a mug shot taken of her.

There was disscusion here before about photography back then and how people had to stay still because it took awhile to take the picture. Like the man that you can see through that is standing in the sitting room. I was thinking of the movies you see where they take a picture and there is that big explosion for the flash. Was there different types of photography back then? What would they do for the lighting for the interior pictures of the house? Would the lighting from the windows be enough? I know that older houses tended to have more and sometimes bigger windows than some of the houses of today have because they never had the kind of interior lighting that we have today.

justagrrrl · Post by **justagrrrl** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:14 am

George Eastman introduced the first box camera in 1888. The next year, the first flexible cellulose nitrate films were introduced. This allowed a great many more people to have access to photography as these cameras are portable and do not require a lot of equipment. A camera is essentially a dark box, so one can take a photograph with nothing more than a surface (usually paper) which has been coated with emulsion or photo-sensitive material and a dark box. A flash or other lighting implement is not necessary so long as the exposure time is long enough.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:11 pm

Fargo (or anyone else, for that matter), can you give us a source for the info that a "mug shot" was taken of Lizzie when she was arrested in 1892? Frankly, I don't recall hearing that before. There is extant some information from the police blotter, which gave a description of Lizzie, although it's pretty vague. As I recall, it gives her hair and eye color as "light." That doesn't help us much. Even if there is a purported "mug shot," unless it's properly labeled and unless there's a chain of custody, we probably shouldn't accept it as valid. It would certainly make sense that there might have been a police photo of Lizzie, because such photographs were in use at the time. The question is whether such a photograph still exists.

Incidentally, someone complained on another thread that looking up sources was too much work and made the experience on this forum less enjoyable. IMHO, many posts don't require any citations. That's true of posts that use information readily available to all of us and understood to be true. However, when someone posts a statement such as "At the time of the murders, the Bordens owned a cat," he or she should be ready to provide a primary or secondary source. I use that example because a long time ago I posted that very statement on an earlier board. I then realized I needed a source and, guess what?, I couldn't find one. It nearly drove me nuts, because I was sure I'd read it somewhere. Finally someone else (I think it was Kat) found the "reference" for my ill-advised statement, which turned out to be an obscure newspaper article that was published between the time of the murders and the start of the trial. It mentioned that a reporter had seen a cat on the steps or porch at 92 Second Street. That's hardly evidence that the Bordens owned a cat. It certainly taught me a lesson though!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:27 pm

That's interesting grrrl about exposure time = light.
I remember a show on the Shroud of Turin and they were trying to figure out if it could be faked. In one segment, they went to great lengths to show how it might have been done around Da Vinci's day. It included a 3-D statue of a man suspended in a box-like dark room with I think one small light source and showed how he could have figured out the upside-downess effect as well. They essentially made a room into a box camera.
Did you write your post or did you quote? It sounds like you know about stuff like this- that's cool.

justagrrrl · Post by **justagrrrl** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:18 pm

Kat
I have participated in a project much like that.......turning a room into a pinhole camera.....very cool!! In fact, the exposure time for that was close to 6 hours!
...and no, i didn't quote. I've studied a bit of photography. My forte is printmaking....namely relief and etching, so photo processes are of much interest to me.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:22 pm

Oh that's cool, thanks! A creative mind is always welcome!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:28 pm

In looking for a reference for the Lizzie Borden police photo, (I thought I had read that somewhere as well) I found this newspaper article in Rebello that contains a statement made by Lizzie to Mary Russell, a prison matron at the Fall River Police Dept. I think it is quite interesting.

Rebello page 159:

"Lizzie's Turn to come By and By," New Bedford Evening Standard, Monday, August 15, 1892:2.

“Mrs. Russell, the [evening] matron whose custody in Fall River Lizzie A. Borden passed the hours from the time of her arrest on Thursday until she was taken to Taunton Friday, was much impressed by her composure and entire absence of nervousness. The prisoner impressed her as being a woman of considerable determination or one who was bound to have her way. Mrs. Russell thinks eventually Miss Borden will break down, although she thinks she will maintain her composure until her trial. She was not a troublesome charge. During the hours Mrs. Russell was with Lizzie she never alluded to the crime but once, and that was just before her departure for Taunton ' So they are going to take me to Taunton, are they?' asked Lizzie. 'I believe they are.' replied Mrs. Russell..'Well,' continued Lizzie,' they seem to do about as they please with me.'

'They were up to my house and brought me down here...to the inquest twice, and then they brought me here for a rest and I did not know what it all meant. Now they are going to take me to jail. They are having their way with me now, but I will have mine by and by.'"

I'm still looking for the reference to the police photo because I'm sure I read that just recently somewhere. What seems to be the way recently for me is that I will find it when I'm not looking for it anymore.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:21 am

That's weird you brought that up because I was reading Porter this week! He desribes the scene thusly:
65, 66
"Lizzie A. Borden was accused of the murder of her father, Andrew J. Borden. The warrant made no reference to the killing of Abbie D. Borden. That night the prisoner was overcome by the great mental strain to which she had been subjected for nearly a week and when all had departed, except the kindly matron, the burden proved heavier than she could bear. She gave way to her feelings and sobbed as if her heart would break. Then she gave up to a violent fit of vomiting and the efforts of the matrons to stop it were unavailing. Dr. Bowen was sent for and he succeeded in relieving her physical sufferings. The prisoner was not confined in a cell room of the lock up down stairs."
--Fall River Tragedy.

Porter wrote for the FR Globe but my Globe copy ends at Thursday, Aug. 11th with Lizzie's last appearance in the court and then there is a sort of editorial.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:57 am

My NYTimes skips to Friday and the trip to Taunton.
My Boston Globe says she was weak and needed assistance and they feared she was out of strength Thursday after being in the courtroom the last time.
What does The Sourcebook say?

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:19 am

The police photo of Lizzie should be easy to recognize, all we have to look for it a picture of Lizzie holding a board with numbers on it.

It has been years since I read about it. I think that I read it in either Sullivan's book or Spiering's book. I hope for the sake of authenticity that it was Sullivan's book and not Spiering's. I think it claimed that the police photo of Lizzie is the same picture that is on the cover of Sullivan's book, which is the same picture that is shown four times on the beginning of this Forum.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:05 am

I've never heard a mug shot of Lizzie mentioned before. It would be interesting to see, if there was one.

I thought they only took mug shots back then only after the person was sentenced and was entering a prison. I didn't think they took a mug shot of everyone who was ever arrested.

I've seen a lot of mug shots, all of convicted persons who were just entering the prison system.

Things changed since then. A mug shot is taken after arrest. But I don't know if they did that in 1892.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:20 am

Fargo wrote:The police photo of Lizzie should be easy to recognize, all we have to look for it a picture of Lizzie holding a board with numbers on it.

It has been years since I read about it. I think that I read it in either Sullivan's book or Spiering's book. I hope for the sake of authenticity that it was Sullivan's book and not Spiering's. I think it claimed that the police photo of Lizzie is the same picture that is on the cover of Sullivan's book, which is the same picture that is shown four times on the beginning of this Forum.

The photo that's shown four times on the home page is the same one to which I referred earlier -- the one in which Lizzie is wearing a dress with a diamond-shaped detail on the bodice and has a pansy pin at her throat. I have several reasons for thinking that's not Lizzie's "mug shot." They are:

1. Most of the "mug shots" I've seen, old or
new, are taken with the subject full-face to
the camera. Often there's also a profile shot.
This photo shows Lizzie partially turned,
probably to reveal her "good side" to the
camera. I don't think a police photographer
would be especially interested in flattering his
subjects!

2. Not only is Lizzie very dressed up in this photo,
but she's clearly wearing jewelry, which would
probably have been confiscated when she was
arrested. The police photographer wouldn't
likely have been interested in whether she
looked her best.

3. (And most convincing of all to me) On
Saturday, August 6, 1892, the New Bedford
Evening Standard published a line drawing
of Lizzie that was clearly taken from this
photograph. Lizzie wasn't arrested until
August 11, so her "mug shot" probably
wouldn't have been taken until at least then.

Incidentally, I want to correct something I posted earlier. The police blotter of 11 August 1892 listed Lizzie's height as 5'4", her complexion and hair color as "light," and her eye color as "gray."

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:57 am

Good thinking Edisto! I can stop looking for the reference now. (Which means I will probably find it.) Good research.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:00 am

I think this book would be an interesting one to have.

http://www.bookcloseouts.com/?R=0821227750B

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:29 am

Well the fact that in that picture Lizzie isn't holding a board with numbers on it kind of made me wonder too.

As I said it has been years since I read about it, but read about it I did. It's there if it exists, all we have to do is find it. Eventually I will find where I read it.

Modern mug shots are sometimes a single photo with the persons face turned slightly to the side, that way they get sort of both views in one. I have seen some mug shots that have been taken this way. We don't know that they did it differently in the 1890's, it might have varied from region to region.

On another matter, when I was in the sitting room I got as far back as I could but I could not get as much in my picture of the north side of the room as there is in the crime scene picture. I thought the camera they used was on a stand or tripod, so it would be closer to the north side of the room than my camera was. Mabe they had a wider lens.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:50 am

Is anyone else having browser problems? My browser keeps saying my session has expired, so I press refresh, and it shows up as an edit to my post?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:05 pm

OH you mean this photo?
Lizzie bought them all up and suppressed it!

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:13 pm

That's it, you've got it. After all these years it's finally been found.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:31 pm

"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?

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:44 am

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.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:56 am

Lizzie with her hair down and they took her jewlery.

THAT other pic used to be claimed as Sarah (Morse) Borden.
It's in one of the books I believe:
BrownSullivanSpieringLincolnRadinKent- someone like that.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:23 am

That picture that is supposed to be Sarah Borden is in the book, Lizzie Borden, A case Book of Family and Crime in the 1890's by Joyce Williams.

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:06 am

Some time back, I recall having seen some actual mug shots that I believe were taken by the Fall River Police Department around the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. I've looked for a reference, but couldn't find one. I tried the FRPD website, which is interesting but doesn't seem to have any pictures like that. As I recall, all of these photos were of male prisoners, who were a pretty loutish-looking lot. (A large percentage of the arrests in Fall River were for drunkenness.) The FRPD site does have a picture of the handcuffs that they say "might" have been used on Lizzie. I somehow can't envision Lizzie led away in handcuffs, especially since she was taken away in what was essentially a taxi and allowed to have a female companion (Mrs. Brigham) with her. (Taunton Daily Gazette, 8/10/92, quoted by Rebello, p.142.)

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:57 pm

Free trip to three to Hawaii plus a chance to win a Hummer at "Could All the World.............." site. Other prizes. Hurry - we just gave away fishing equipment and a duckboat to Allen of Allentown, and a crank flashlight to Teresa and Conway of Truth or Consequences NM.

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:00 pm

Hey, Kat - I bet that's Emma!

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:05 pm

Hi snokkums - been a while.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:09 pm

Oooooooo....ANOTHER offer of a free trip to Hawaii ! WOOHOO !

Tracy...

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:34 pm

WOW - Theebmonigue just won a thong, a thourghbred, and Thursday to do whatever you like!
s/a/theebomonique

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:43 pm

john @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:00 pm wrote:Hey, Kat - I bet that's Emma!

The face does contain some of Emma's charateristics, you may be right.

We'll have to look into that.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:52 pm

a thourghbred

a what ???

s/a/theebomonique

???

john,

Would it be possible to get a clear explanation of what you mean, please ?

Thanks,
Tracy...

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:53 pm

theebmonique @ Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:52 pm wrote:
a thourghbred
a what ???

s/a/theebomonique
???

john,

Would it be possible to get a clear explanation of what you mean, please ?

Thanks,
Tracy...

And the miss-understandings start again.

john · Post by **john** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:45 pm

Smiles at theebonique.
A thourghbred is a misspelling of a horse.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:47 pm

I rest my case.

Tracy...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:01 pm

Thanks Fargo for the William's Casebook info.
I wonder who it really is?

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:20 pm

Well, the hairstyle certainly defies explanation (and gravity). The poor dear probably didn't WANT her name known!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:49 pm

You don't suppose she was a Morse, do you?
Maybe one of Anthony's 2 wives?
She looks a generation older than Sarah Morse Borden.

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:04 am

It kind of looks like tintype. I am not sure but I think a tintype is when they draw the person from a picture then paint it as a portrait. When I went to Nova Scotia last year I thought I was going to surprise my cousin with a picture of her grandmother. My cousin surprised me with a portrait that was based on the picture I have. You could tell that it was based on my picture, the dress was the same, the ribbon was in exactly the same position. You could tell it was the same person but she looked a bit different.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:19 am

Great mug shot, Kat!

Edisto · Post by **Edisto** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:22 pm

A tintype is an old photographic process, wherein no negative is involved. The positive image is created on an enameled metal plate. Thus the plate is "painted" (with enamel) before the photo is taken. I'm sure such images could have been used as the basis for paintings, but that isn't a necessary part of the process.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:42 pm

Is there anyone amongst us who has worked in the law enforcement business and may know about the details of mug shots ? Do they do digital ones nowadays ?

Tracy...

Fargo · Post by **Fargo** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:33 pm

When I saw the portrait or picture that my cousin has, I didn't know what to make of it. It looked like a picture but not exactly, it looked kind of like a portrait, but it looked too real to be a portrait. It almost looked like it was half picture half painting.

Yes, they use digital for mug shots today.