The Victims' Clothes???

[sguthmann]

I believe I read that the clothes that Abby and Andrew were wearing when they were murdered was buried/destroyed soon after the murders (and I believe this was done by good ol' Uncle John)...I'm wondering:

- What clues, if any, to the ID of the killer would the clothing have had on/in it that could have been detected in the late 1800s (ie, no DNA testing or high-tech forensics back then); IF someone was looking to get rid of the clothes specifically because they believed there WAS some sort of incriminating evidence about them, what might that have been? I'm having a hard time coming up with any answers. Maybe I'm not being imaginative enough?

- If the clothing was simply buried, did anyone ever go back and attempt to salvage it (whatever state it may have been in)? For that matter, did anyone ever verify that Unc John buried it the way he said he did?

Thanks all!

[Golaszewski]

Offhand, I can't think of anything likely. The very basics of blood typing weren't discovered until 1901:

http://nobelprize.org/medicine/educatio ... dmore.html

Thus even on the hypothetical that the attackers blood managed to get on the victims clothes (it isn't impossible they could have wounded the assailant defending themselves), there would have been no way science at the time could have found this.

However, if Uncle John did get rid of the clothes he may have been unaware of the limitations of forensic science of the day. If he was the killer, he might have wanted to dispose of the evidence on the "better safe than sorry" theory.

[Susan]

If it was in use at the time, fingerprinting. I'm thinking if the killer handled the bodies at all and possibly left bloody fingerprints. I guess that would work too for the axes and hatchets the police found at the Borden house.

March 31 1892- The world's first fingerprinting bureau formally opened by the Buenos Aires Chief of Police; it had been operating unofficially since the previous year.

[Golaszewski]

If it was in use at the time, fingerprinting. I'm thinking if the killer handled the bodies at all and possibly left bloody fingerprints. I guess that would work too for the axes and hatchets the police found at the Borden house.

March 31 1892- The world's first fingerprinting bureau formally opened by the Buenos Aires Chief of Police; it had been operating unofficially since the previous year.

On a quick search fingerprint analysis was known in the US at the time of the murders. However, the OP was specifically asking about evidence that might have been found on the clothes that were destroyed. No way there would have been any usable fingerprints on the clothing. If there were any bloody fingerprints, they would have been elsewhere in the house. Given that the police didn't even bother to secure the crime scene, and common citizens were waltzing through it, this would likely have made any fingerprint analysis useless. And, from what I have read the investigators in this case were pretty much clueless.

[theebmonique]

First...OP = old post...yes ?

Second...could there have been prints lifted from any buttons on the bloody clothing ?


Tracy...

[Golaszewski]

First...OP = old post...yes ?

Second...could there have been prints lifted from any buttons on the bloody clothing ?


Tracy...

OP = Original post. This meaning the first post in the thread.

I guess theoretically if there was a really big, flat button on the clothing a fingerprint could be lifted from that.

[Golaszewski]

I was just looking through the archives. One poster commented that MA law at the time did not yet allow fingerprint evidence in court. Thus the police could be expected not to look for such. If fingerprint evidence was any concern to them, given how easily it could be rendered useless, they surely wouldn't have been allowing lots of people wandering around the crime scene

Of course, it is possible the killer was aware fingerprint evidence was being used at least in some places. Most of the likely suspects were well educated, and would have read newspapers, etc. And as none of the likely suspects were lawyers, they presumably wouldn't know the current MA laws about this. As such, I can reasonably imagine that the killer would try and destroy any evidence that could possibly have fingerprints.

[Allen]

The first court case use of fingerprints as a means of identifying and convicting a burgler happened in 1902, in London England. Harry Jackson left his thumbprint on the paintwork of a house and this print matched his record card. The first use in the United States was in 1911, when Thomas Jennings was found guilty via fingerprint evidence. He was convicted at the Criminal Court of Cook County for killing Clarence B. Hiller. Upon appeal, 21 Dec 1911, the Illionis Supreme Court ruled the evidence was admissible. Two months later, Jennings was executed on 16 Feb 1912.

http://www.amarogue.com/brain.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1910, Thomas Jennings was the first person in the United States to be convicted with fingerprint evidence. When he broke into a home and shot the homeowner, he left four clear prints in wet paint. The conviction was appealed, but the appeals court was satisfied that fingerprinting had a solid scientific basis.

In order to make a comparison match, ink pads were used to take a suspect's prints. The prison systems quickly adopted this in order to keep on file fingerprints of known criminals. By 1924, Congress had established a national depository of fingerprint records at the FBI, and today there are several hundred million sets of prints there.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mi ... ene/6.html


There seems to be a discrepancy of one year.

[Audrey]

Even if they had been able to identify and use fingerprints in court, let us assume they found Lizzie's prints on a button on Abby's dress. There are logical explanations for it's being there.

[doug65oh]

A little something from the archives...of just more than a year ago:
"Re: Abby crashing to the floor..."
Posted by doug65oh on Mar-28th-04 at 2:39 PM
In response to Message #162.
A bit about fingerprints...

http://www.law-forensic.com/impression_evidence_5.htm

This link may answer some of your questions about fingerprinting, deafandsmart.

"The first conviction in the United States occurred in New York in 1906 ... and the first appellate decision in Illinois early in the twentieth century."

[That link there is still operating by the way. If I remember correctly, it's the source for that pullout quote there.]

[Wordweaver]

Of course, it is possible the killer was aware fingerprint evidence was being used at least in some places. Most of the likely suspects were well educated, and would have read newspapers, etc. And as none of the likely suspects were lawyers, they presumably wouldn't know the current MA laws about this. As such, I can reasonably imagine that the killer would try and destroy any evidence that could possibly have fingerprints.

From what I understand, most ordinary people were not aware of fingerprint evidence until after Mark Twain used it in Pudd'nhead Wilson -- published in 1894. According to a website devoted to forensic use of fingerprints, it would be 1902 before fingerprints were used to convict anyone in an English court, and almost another 10 years after that before anyone was convicted of murder in the US on the basis of fingerprint evidence. There was an 1892 murder solved by ise of fingerprint evidence, but it took place in Argentina. I don't know how well that was covered in the US newspapers, or whether Uncle John read Francis Galton's book on fingerprints.

Lynn

[wintressanna]

well I guess the important questions here are:
1. what would be very obviously belonging to a killer that the killer want to get rid of either on the clothing, concealed within the clothing, or in the nature of the clothing...obvious but not upon initial inspection such as when the bodies were first discovered.

2. Could Uncle John be simply reacting to the nature of the crime in getting rid of the clothes, such as the sight or smell of blood?

3. Would a killer at that time, even an educated one, expect a good amount of examination of the bodies given the relative newness of proper investigative methodology? Was Sherlock Holmes and deductive reasoning well popularized enough by that time that a killer would expect the use of similar methods by the police of his/her hometown?


As far as anything on the bodies, I immediately think of hair. Hair of a certain length, coarseness, and color would probably be somewhat incriminating at that time, and relatively easy to spot and gather. Also any evidence related to the murder weapon...splinters from a handle?...or the actual scene of the crime...mud or sand or leaves or plants...or even something related to the timeof death such as something enclosed in a pocket for later, indicating that task hadnt been performed yet.
Im just thinking of this off the top of my head, and I apologize due to the lack of relevance any of these things might have to this particular case.

[Allen]

This link may answer some of your questions about fingerprinting, deafandsmart.

Who or what is deafandsmart?

I wish at times like this I did not make a habit of selling my books back to the book store at the end of the semester. They would make great reference at times like these. But you would be amazed at how many of us do that, the lines are always really long during final exam week when they do buy backs . Thanks for sharing the site Wordweaver. I see they have 1911 for the first conviction as well. Fingerprinting was mostly used as a personal ID device by the military, and to keep track of known criminals before this. As Audrey stated even if fingerprints were found, there were logical reasons why Lizzie's prints may be on the clothing. The same could be said for any hair found on it belonging to Lizzie, there were logical reasons for it being there. Could it be that Uncle John was so eager to bury the clothing because something was being buried WITH the clothing? Was some sort of slight of hand going on there? Maybe some blood stained clothing of the killers was mixed with the actual clothing worn by Andrew and Abby?

[Kat]

Witness Statements, pg. 42:

"ALBERT E. CHASE

Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in the yard back of the barn.

1 sofa pillow and tidy,
one large piece of Brussels carpet,
one roll of cotton batting,
one sheet and several pieces of cotton cloth,
three towels,
one napkin,
one chemise,
one dress,
one pair drawers,
one skirt,
two aprons,
one hair braid and several pieces of hair from Mrs. Borden’s head from five to eight inches long,
one neck tie,
one truss,
one piece of black silk braid or watch guard.

I also found mixed in with the hair of Mrs. Borden a piece of bone, which from it nature I took to be a piece of Mrs. Borden’s skull, it was cut so smooth, that I thought it might be of use in determining what kind of instrument was used, as the bone and hair both had the appearance of being cut with a very sharp instrument; I gave this piece of bone to Dr. Dolan.

About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a box."

--We have 2 aprons and seemingly 2 handkerchiefs we've not accounted for.
There is some confusion as to whether JVM or the Medical Examiner ordered the stuff buried. Dolan says it was not by his order.

(deafandsmart is/was a member here, Allen).

[Susan]

[quote="Golaszewski @ Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:30 No way there would have been any usable fingerprints on the clothing. If there were any bloody fingerprints, they would have been elsewhere in the house. [/quote]

Is that your opinion or do you know it to be a fact? I still think given the right conditions a killer could leave a bloody fingerprint on the victim's clothing that could be usable to convict them. If bloody fingerprints are taken from porous and nonporous sufaces by police day in and day out and used as evidence, why not on a piece of clothing? No bloody fingerprints were ever noted on the Borden's clothing, but, was it something that they looked for specifically?
From forensic sites I've checked, its one of things that they look for currently on a dead body.

*Examine the body for the presence of bloody fingerprints. If bloody fingerprints are detected, consider enhancing these prints (after first photographing them) using appropriate reagent spray.

* Describe bloodstain patterns or bloody fingerprints on the patient's body or articles of clothing.

From this site: http://www.forensic-ed.com/documentation.htm

Here are a couple of more current cases where bloody fingerprints were taken from material. Yes, they had to be enhanced due to the pattern of the material, but, what about a smooth cotton such as Abby's calico? Or Andrew's dress shirt?

State of Virginia v. Robert Douglas Knight (1991)
The first (case to establish a precedence for the acceptance of digitally enhanced
evidence in American criminal proceedings) is Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Robert
Douglas Knight. This 1991 murder case (murder was March of 1990, trial was in 1991)
involved the enhancement of a bloody fingerprint found on a pillowcase at the crime
scene. A company called Hunter Graphics (no longer in business) was contacted by the
Henrico County Police Department to assist in the enhancement process. Experts from
Hunter Graphics used a frequency filter known commonly as a Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) to subtract the fabric pattern that interfered with the identification of the
fingerprint. The fingerprint was subsequently identified as belonging to Robert Knight.
After being charged with the crime, Knight’s attorney moved for a Kelly-Frye Hearing
to determine the scientific validity and acceptance of the enhancement process. The
determination of the court was that the techniques used were essentially photographic
processes. Robert Knight plead guilty and was sentenced to four life terms.
http://www.more-hits.com/forensics/dl/A ... maging.pdf 01-25-2005

State of Washington v. Eric Hayden (1998)
The 2nd court case in the United States ruling on the computer enhancement of
fingerprint images. In 1995, Eric Hayden was charged with murdering a 27-year-
old female. Her body was found with a bloody sheet wrapped around her head and
neck. The examiner in this case, Dan Holshue, found latent prints on the sheet
but they were too subtle to identify. Erik Berg, an expert in enhanced digital
imaging, used enhancement techniques to filter out the background pattern and
colors of the sheet. After enhancement, the latent prints were identified and
Eric Hayden was found guilty of murder. His murder conviction was upheld on
appeal and the court concluded that computer enhancement did meet the Frye
test, setting new case law in this field.

From this site:
http://www.fprints.nwlean.net/s2.htm

[Allen]

[quote="Golaszewski @ Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:30 No way there would have been any usable fingerprints on the clothing. If there were any bloody fingerprints, they would have been elsewhere in the house.

"Is that your opinion or do you know it to be a fact? I still think given the right conditions a killer could leave a bloody fingerprint on the victim's clothing that could be usable to convict them. If bloody fingerprints are taken from porous and nonporous sufaces by police day in and day out and used as evidence, why not on a piece of clothing? No bloody fingerprints were ever noted on the Borden's clothing, but, was it something that they looked for specifically?
From forensic sites I've checked, its one of things that they look for currently on a dead body.

*Examine the body for the presence of bloody fingerprints. If bloody fingerprints are detected, consider enhancing these prints (after first photographing them) using appropriate reagent spray.

* Describe bloodstain patterns or bloody fingerprints on the patient's body or articles of clothing.

From this site: http://www.forensic-ed.com/documentation.htm

Here are a couple of more current cases where bloody fingerprints were taken from material. Yes, they had to be enhanced due to the pattern of the material, but, what about a smooth cotton such as Abby's calico? Or Andrew's dress shirt?

State of Virginia v. Robert Douglas Knight (1991)
The first (case to establish a precedence for the acceptance of digitally enhanced
evidence in American criminal proceedings) is Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Robert
Douglas Knight. This 1991 murder case (murder was March of 1990, trial was in 1991)
involved the enhancement of a bloody fingerprint found on a pillowcase at the crime
scene. A company called Hunter Graphics (no longer in business) was contacted by the
Henrico County Police Department to assist in the enhancement process. Experts from
Hunter Graphics used a frequency filter known commonly as a Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) to subtract the fabric pattern that interfered with the identification of the
fingerprint. The fingerprint was subsequently identified as belonging to Robert Knight.
After being charged with the crime, Knight’s attorney moved for a Kelly-Frye Hearing
to determine the scientific validity and acceptance of the enhancement process. The
determination of the court was that the techniques used were essentially photographic
processes. Robert Knight plead guilty and was sentenced to four life terms.
http://www.more-hits.com/forensics/dl/A ... maging.pdf 01-25-2005

State of Washington v. Eric Hayden (1998)
The 2nd court case in the United States ruling on the computer enhancement of
fingerprint images. In 1995, Eric Hayden was charged with murdering a 27-year-
old female. Her body was found with a bloody sheet wrapped around her head and
neck. The examiner in this case, Dan Holshue, found latent prints on the sheet
but they were too subtle to identify. Erik Berg, an expert in enhanced digital
imaging, used enhancement techniques to filter out the background pattern and
colors of the sheet. After enhancement, the latent prints were identified and
Eric Hayden was found guilty of murder. His murder conviction was upheld on
appeal and the court concluded that computer enhancement did meet the Frye
test, setting new case law in this field.

From this site:
http://www.fprints.nwlean.net/s2.htm[/quote]"



Fingerprints were not even being used as evidence in a court of law at that time. So even if they did find a fingerprint, they would not have been able to use it in court. The first person to be convicted in a court of law in the United States using fingerprint evidence did not occur until 1911. Thats almost twenty years after the murders.

(Edit: for some reason it will not show the whole thing as a quote. No idea why)

[Allen]

I forgot to thank Kat for posting the list of clothing items that were buried, I'm trying to hurry because I have to leave for class soon. Thanks Kat!
Two aprons, and two handkerchiefs unaccounted for, and Lizzie was said to be ironing handkerchiefs that morning. Is there something to that? Two aprons, two murders? Just some questions I'm working around. But why does it seem that most of the clothing buried was female, and where are all of Andrews items of clothing? Where is Abby's dress for that matter?

[Haulover]

the biggest mystery that comes to mind is andrew's prince albert coat, which somehow went unaccounted for -- and in the case of this particular article, an examination of it could have shown the probability of whether the killer wore it as a shield.

[wintressanna]

This list is really interesting...but Im kinda confused. This sounds like items recovered from the crime scene, though not all of them easily fit in with that description...so how did these things get in the washtub? Was it just a convenient place to stash them or were they about to be washed? Im
also curious as to whether or not they would still be buried in a box behind the barn.

[Golaszewski]

Is that your opinion or do you know it to be a fact? I still think given the right conditions a killer could leave a bloody fingerprint on the victim's clothing that could be usable to convict them. If bloody fingerprints are taken from porous and nonporous sufaces by police day in and day out and used as evidence, why not on a piece of clothing? No bloody fingerprints were ever noted on the Borden's clothing, but, was it something that they looked for specifically?

The cites have already been given by others. The first use of fingerprint evidence in a US court wasn't until the 20th century. Thus even if fingerprints had been found, they couldn't have been used in court. And it is very unlikely anyone in the general public at the time would have even been aware of fingerprints until after Twain wrote "Pudd'nhead Wilson". (Twain was quite popular at the time.) I most seriously doubt whoever did this was thinking about fingerprints specifically.

[Susan]

The reason I asked, Golaszewski, was that I was thinking you had insider information, like if you were a cop or a detective. And by the way, welcome to the Forum!

This is what I originally posted:


If it was in use at the time, fingerprinting. I'm thinking if the killer handled the bodies at all and possibly left bloody fingerprints. I guess that would work too for the axes and hatchets the police found at the Borden house.

And fingerprinting wasn't used in court cases at the time, so, the point is moot. Oh, and one thing I forgot to add, pointless as it is, I was thinking that Abby's dress and Andrew's shirt both probably were starched, which gives the fabric that glazed kind of a surface. Kind of like Lizzie's petticoat that had that one tiny pinhead sized dot of blood that sat on the outside of the garment.

[Kat]

We have no account of anyone wearing an apron Thursday and yet we have 2 which were stored in the tub. No handkerchiefs are mentioned, yet there is a bloody maroon one at the trial submitted which it was assumed Abby wore on her head to clean the guest room, yet no one saw her wearing one. The other handkerchief is what we call that whilte blob of material in the Abby-side-view photo, with the bed removed : Things which were there, as apposed to things which were not there, as mentioned by Allen and questioned by wintress.
There is a dress listed and drawers, a chemise and a skirt, and false hair. That covers Abby.
Andrew's clothing does seem to be missing from the list.
Posters of long ago (me +) wondered if he had been buried in his clothing, as it's not mentioned again.

The rest of this stuff was dug up again and taken away, finally, as evidence. During the inquest, as an aside, Dolan had Abby's clothing dug up (referenced above) after he saw the wound in her back for the first time at the Aug. 11th second autopsy. He wanted to match the hole in her top to the hatchet head and to her wound, I believe.

[sguthmann]

excellent discussion, very good points on all sides. i appreciate the "brainstorming."

is anyone relatively sure of the final whereabouts of the clothes? after they were dug up for the final time, they were placed in a box and...? reburied? in the Bordens' yard?

Kat quoted a very helpful section from ALBERT E. CHASE's testimony, but something struck me as a bit odd and wanted everyone's take on this as well:

"Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House..."

Where the clothes in a state of being washed, or merely thrown in the tub as a place to keep them until...whatever was to be done with them? Does any of the witnesses or other accounts ever clarify this? I guess when I read it the first time, I took it to mean the clothes were in a state of being washed...but I guess it doesn't exactly say that. However, if they WERE, it appears to be attempt to get rid of...something?...that could have been detected on the clothing.

Interested to hear what you all may know about this. Clearly some VERY knowledgable people here!

[Smudgeman]

I am curious about the 2 aprons as well. Were they in the tub BEFORE the victims clothes were thrown in there? Did they have blood on them? If they didn't before, they would after they were mixed with the other bloody clothes. Where did the sheet come from? The sheet and aprons could have been used by the killer(s) as a shield perhaps, but as Haulover mentioned, where is the prince albert coat? Also, it is interesting that Lizzie asked Bridget if the cellar door was locked the day of the murders, maybe she knew those items were in the tub already?

[Susan]

Scott, I think the sheet is the one that was used to cover Andrew with, I guess they didn't need or get around to covering Abby with one. Yes, the two aprons have always intrigued me, one was probably Abby's, but, the other one? The only thing I could come up with was possibly that one of the doctors who was there may have borrowed it for the impromptu autopsies that were performed on the bodies. The doctors may have been in their street clothes and didn't have a smock or whatever they used to cover themselves. Theres alot of other bloody stuff that was thrown in there like towels and cotton batting which I assume was used by the doctors that day.

[FairhavenGuy]

I'm thinking that we know the difference between human hair and animal hair could be determined at the time, because wasn't a hair found on a hatchet that was identified as a cow hair?

So could they match hairs to specific people in 1892? Hair and fiber evidence can be very important today and both are things that could have been found on the victims' clothing.

[Kat]

I was thinking about hair and fibre too, Chris. I was thinking it may not have held up in court, but at that time would a cop know to preserve such a thing? Even just to eyeball it, and compare? The same, really, goes for a fingerprint. If a girl's fingerprint was found in blood on the body of Andrew or Abby, wouldn't they notice?

The trial exhibits and evidence lists are thus. Notice no bloody chlothing.

"The following articles which had been offered in evidence during the progress of the trial were selected from among the exhibits in the case by counsel and sent to the jury:

Pages 1927-1928
Plans and photographs marked as exhibits in the case.
Skulls of Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Borden.
Bedspread and pillow shams.
Handkerchief found by Mrs. Borden's body.
Piece of doorframe taken from inside of dining room.
Piece of moulding taken from guest chamber west of dressing case.
Piece of plaster.
Two axes.
Claw-hammer hatchet.
Hatchet with plain head.
Handleless hatchet and bit of wood.
Blue blouse and dress skirt.
White skirt.
Magnifying glass.


Pages 1608+


LIST OF EXHIBITS.

1. Large plan, showing main street and other streets.
2. Plan of Borden premises, and surrounding estates.
3. Plan of Borden premises, including ground floor of house.
4. Plan of Borden premises, including second story.
5. Plan of sitting room.
6. Blue print of Exhibit 3.
7. Blue print of Exhibit 4.
8. Blue print of Borden premises and surrounding estates.
9. Plan of cellar.
10 - 14. Photographs of Borden house.
15 - 19. Photographs of bodies.
20 - 21. Carpets.
22. Tag attached to jar containing Mr. Borden's stomach.
23. Tag attached to jar containing Mrs. Borden's stomach.
24 - 43. Small photographs of Borden premises.
44. Pin produced by Mr. Adams for comparison, in connection with testimony of Professor Wood.
(All item numbers inclusive.)"

--The pin was to compare the spot found on Lizzie's petticoat and the magnifying glass was also extra to help the jury look closely at certain items.
I wonder if they did?

We need the newspapers or Rebello to remind us when the clothes were dug up and retained for the last time.

[Kat]

Here is a snippet from the Bloston Globe, Aug. 9th, 1892, reporting on events from the 8th, Monday. We might ask ourselves if this was such a secretive enterprise, how did the *details* get published the next day?
The event the paper alludes to just before this section is related to the finding of what appeared to be blood on a hatchet handle by the Mayor, a doctor. Apparently this seemed an important clew for a long time- maybe in deference to His Honor.

The headline reads: "No Footprint."

[Susan]

Thanks for posting that, Kat. Interesting, that is the first time I've read that portions of the elder Borden's clothing was cut off and saved. Do you think we can put any stock in this or would this just be another news story to take with a huge grain of salt? I really don't recall it being mentioned in any source documents.

[Kat]

I figured since we don't know, this is as good a source as any. They were right about the piece of carpet.
It makes sense that they cut up the clothes. It might be what happened to Andrew's Prince Albert coat.

Thanks for noticing the item posted. It's reception has been underwhelming so far.
It takes several of us to reach a consensus.

[Susan]

You're welcome, Kat. The bloodstained scraps of material didn't make it into the exhibets introduced in the court like the carpet did. I wonder why not when they brought in bloodstained pillow shams as evidence, would it have fallen more under that category? Do you think it may have been for some sort of testing of the blood itself? The jury knew the victims had been bludgeoned with a hatchet and that it was bloody, were the bloodstained articles there to bring this point home? And if so, how much more effective would it have been to bring in the full, uncut, bloodstained garments of the victims.

[Kat]

They probably didn't know how to preserve this stuff for 10 months. No air conditioning.
Burying it or storing it in an underground vault might have worked, but one leak and you've got moldy bloody material!

The bedspread is unique in that it shows the direction of blood spatter. I suppose the pillow shams did too.

The drops on the spread looked like dashes to me, teardrop shaped. Since the thing is folded, one does not know which part of the speard is exposed in the exhibit, other than it's the bottom edge.
They knew about directionality, at least, in 1892.

[theebmonique]

Thank you Kat. I did not know the clothing had been cut up when it was put in the ground.

I would love to get a look at the bedspread. Maybe my third try will be the charm huh ?


Tracy...

[Smudgeman]

They could have taken pictures of the bloody clothes, pillow shams, and bedding. Although, I guess pictures in black & white would be less effective than color. Why not take pictures and cut samples? Pictures of the victims with their clothing on, and pictures seperately of just the clothing?

[sguthmann]

Where can one find pictures of the bedspread and other exhibits mentioned from the trial? Or were they all "disposed of?"

Kat, thanks for the article - very interesting!

[Susan]

They probably didn't know how to preserve this stuff for 10 months. No air conditioning.
Burying it or storing it in an underground vault might have worked, but one leak and you've got moldy bloody material!

The bedspread is unique in that it shows the direction of blood spatter. I suppose the pillow shams did too.

The drops on the spread looked like dashes to me, teardrop shaped. Since the thing is folded, one does not know which part of the speard is exposed in the exhibit, other than it's the bottom edge.
They knew about directionality, at least, in 1892.

True, they probably had no idea how to store these items so that they weren't contaminated in any way. I can see why they would introduce the pillow shams and the bedspread, but, why that piece of carpeting or both pieces (from the sitting room and guest room), what was the point?


Sguthmann, the bedspread and other items are at the Fall River Historical Society:

It's all here for you to see: the handleless hatchet, her prison lunch pail, the police photographs taken at the scene of the crime, the billy club the arresting officer carried, the pillow shams from the bedroom that Abby was murdered in, the photographs of Andrew and Abby's crushed skulls introduced as evidence, the braided hairpiece that Abby was wearing when she was so nefariously attacked…and enough material in our archive to attract historians, scholars, playwrights, researchers and filmmakers from the far corners of the globe.

Here is a link to their site:
http://www.lizzieborden.org/bordencollection.htm

Heres a pic of some of the stuff, I don't know for sure, but, that thing under the handless hatchet head is either a pillow sham or the bedspread.

[Kat]

Your picture doesn't show to me, Susan.

[Kat]

Is this the pic you posted Susan?
When I went to the site the pic was not there!

I had saved this page as HTML so I took a desktop photo of it for youse guys.
I had thought that was the bedspread. Now I don't know if it's a pillow sham. It doesn't look very big, does it?
The display now is horizontal, not vertical, like this.

[Susan]

Yes, thats the one, Kat. Odd, the pic didn't show for me either, but, I right clicked on it and clicked on "show picture" and it did. Yeah, I'm kind of thinking that thing is a pillow sham. When you saw the bedspread, did they take it out of somewhere, stored away for safekeeping? Or, is it on display in a case like the other items?

[theebmonique]

Thank you both for the pictures.

Seeing the hatchet reminds me of seeing the picture of our dear Kat holding it !

Tracy...

[Kat]

I heard that everything will be out always now. But I'm not sure.
What we saw was already displayed in glass cases in the last room on the right (if you're coming in the back circular-drive entrance).

This picture might have been taken by standing on a ladder looking down, now that I examine it more.

There are more cases and things are spead out a bit.

[Susan]

You know, I think you may be right, Kat. That looks like a reflection of an overhead light on the glass. I still find it amazing that these items still exist and are in a collection, not tossed or lost or forgotten about somewhere.

[john]

Interesting since the FBI wasn't founded until 1932.

[Kat]

Interesting since the FBI wasn't founded until 1932.

The letter was dated April 4, 1946.