The killer covered in gore

[Audrey]

Could the blood splatter have been a surprise to Lizzie, assuming she was the hatchet-woman?

She may have been shocked when Abbie splattered her with blood... And been forced to take the time to thoroughly dispose of the dress she was wearing and clean herself up. (And if she did dispose of it-- she did a good job-- or the police were incredibly inept and this was the dress she burned!)

This would also explain why she burned ONE dress and moved about the house after killing Abbie without gore on her.


If we assume she didn't mean to kill Andrew-- this could possibly explain WHY she didn't get out of the house to cook up an alibi-- She was busy cleaning up an unexpected problem!

Andrew comes home and she is on the horns of a dilemma... Hence, she may have used his coat and wadded it up and put it under his head. Does anyone really think Andrew put it there?

She is on the stairs... preparing to go out. Hat in hand or on head (explaining why it was on the dining room table, if it was indeed there) and Andrew comes home... She follows him into the sitting room / dining room, DOES ask about the mail-- takes her hat off-- she knows what she has to do now... He falls asleep, she does the deed and then goes to the barn for whatever reason she does... Maybe to wash her hands at the pump there? Unless she had gloves on-- she may have soiled them-- OR the hatchet may have bloodied them from Abbie's blood put there in the previous attack.

Back she comes, has to explain the hat-- she did have an odd knack for peculiar details! She raises the alarm.. Not a bit afraid to be in a house where a killer may lurk and leans against the door frame recovering her equilibrium and wits after the adrenalin rush-- the fear and excitement of what has happened...

The day unfolds...

[Angel]

I always thought that the reason Andrew was killed was because he came home earlier than Lizzie expected. She probably had planned to go to town to appear to be shopping (hence her mentioning the fabric sale to Bridget to set it up) but her father came home and saw her there at home. Maybe she even had planned to run into him in town so he would not think she had killed Abby. But she felt he would never believe that now. So, in a panic, she killed him and then had very little time to make up an alibi, which is why the alibi was so feeble. She could have gone into the barn to wash up and then Lubinsky saw her returning. Maybe she thought she could still go into town, but then she spotted Lubinsky noticing her in the yard, so her plan was ruined.

[Allen]

I think Andrew was an intended target all along. I don't think Lizzie was ever in the barn that day at all. I think she could've cleaned up in the house much more conveniently than going out to the barn and risking being seen with the blood on her.

I don't think the blood surprised Lizzie, I think she was expecting there would be blood, and had thought of ways of keeping it from getting on her person or clothing. If someone is cut they bleed. Even if she didn't know it was going to 'splatter', she had to at least figure there was a risk of getting it on her, such as in the possibility of Abby struggling with her or brushing up against her if the first blow didn't bring her down. The handle of the axe would've brought her into pretty close proximity of the victims as well.

I also think it's possible she knew about blood splatter. Slaughter houses were the norm back then, as was the slaughter of animals on the farm. The men in slaughter houses wore aprons to try and keep the blood from getting on their clothing, Lizzie may have seen this and known what it meant. I read that slaughter houses could hold a sort of fascination for the public. I'm reading a book now entitled Devil in the White City about H.H. Holmes and the Columbian Exposition of 1893 aka the Chicago World's Fair. In looking up information on the World's Fair I found a statement that was made : "When the World Columbian Exposition was held in Chicago in 1893, more visitors went to the stockyards than to any of the Exposition's own attractions."

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/4 ... rhouse.php

As I stated in the other thread I think it's possible she bought the dress goods in New Bedford with the intention of making herself a dress. She could've made this dress without the knowledge of the other residents of the house, ( which would explain why she spent so much time shut up in her room.) hid it until the day of the murders, wore it during the attack, and destroyed it and no one would've been the wiser. Emma would not notice any of the dresses missing because to her mind they were all still there. Emma may not even have been home at the time Lizzie was making the dress, she could have been in Fairhaven.

viewtopic.php?t=217&start=100

She had plenty of time to clean up after killing Abby, and to change her dress. All she had to really do when killing Andrew was change back into the same dress long enough to commit the second deed, or shield herself by wearing his coat and standing around the corner as has been theorized many times on the forum. She could've then tucked it under him as it was found.

But if it was a killing done in a spur of the moment heat of passion or rage, the mess of killing Abby may not have mattered until afterwards. Then more precaution may have been taken during the killing of Andrew.

[Angel]

If Lizzie did the crime, then I think Abby was the target and Andrew got killed because he came home too early. If Andrew was the intended victim, then the murderer being someone from the outside makes sense.

[RayS]

If Lizzie did the crime, then I think Abby was the target and Andrew got killed because he came home too early. If Andrew was the intended victim, then the murderer being someone from the outside makes sense.

I believe that Arnold Brown's book correctly solved the case in theory.
And that the mystery about the activities of the day before were in preparation for the visit by Wm S. Borden, whose presence must be concealed from people outside the family, including Bridget.
Also, that no murder was planned, it just happened as is likely with any disturbed individual who is set off by unwelcome news. (Ever refuse a NY beggar?).
I'm not going to repeat what I said before. But Willy is the candidate who "matches the profile" (as I understand it).

[Erato]

I go along with Audrey on this. I don’t picture Lizzie as a very deep thinker. So much of this crime looks improvised; she was very lucky to get away with it. As I see it, the crime was premeditated over a long period of time (months, possibly even years) but in a very superficial way. Maybe the premeditation could better be called a growing fantasy of getting rid of Abby [and possibly Andrew, too; I can’t make up my mind whether he was intended as a victim in the original plan]. Something happened in the days or weeks before the murders which made her decide to act. When she couldn’t get the poison she wanted, she chose another weapon. It was a good choice since it gave her an overwhelming advantage over her victims and many people were unwilling to believe a well-bred, church-going woman could use such a weapon. If she had decided to use a kinfe, I don’t think she’d have made it through 2 knife fights. Of course she knew there would be blood shed if she used a hatchet, but I don’t think she imagined that she would be showered in blood. She learned how messy things could get when Abby didn’t die after the first blow – the number of poorly directed and not very strong blows make it look like she panicked. She learned from her first attack and was better prepared for the second murder.

[Robert Harry]

Why don't you think Lizzie was a deep thinker? She certainly was very well read, and (at least we know from her life at Maplecroft--she had plenty of time to think "making castles in the sky." And, as for her life on Second Street, she had plenty of time to think, dream, and plan.) I think she had plenty of time to think, so much, in fact, that she counted on the fact that a proper lady of her time would not be suspected of murdering with a hatchet. Yes, now I'm back to the "Lizzie dunnit" scenario. Also, through her reading, she could have pondered the dispatching of Abbie and Andrew at her leisure. I just can't get past the fact that Lizzie, and only Lizzie, could have known not only the regular daily schedules of the inmates, but also felt confident about who would come back when, etc., and also the inner workings of the household (which doors were locked, etc.) As for the Willy Borden theory--forget all the textual and historic arguments. One simple fact refutes it entirely...The supposed "proof" of William's presence--that sickening smell--that Brown gives as evidence from Ms. Eagan--if Willie spent any more than a few minutes in the Borden household, let alone hiding both in the barn and the house, the house would have reeked of his smell and no one, not one soul involved in the investigation of the murders, mentions any strange smell.

[Erato]

What evidence is there that Lizzie was “very well read?” Sure, she had time for thinking but it doesn’t seem that she generally employed her time in mind-improving activities. Although she had friends who were teachers, she herself pursued no higher education (even though she could have afforded it) and apparently dropped out of high school. She did some church work and she participated in that Fruit and Flower thing. On the day of the murders she says she flipped through a magazine, carried some laundry upstairs, sewed a tape on a dress, and spent 2 hours getting ready to iron some hankies. I think it is fair to say that Lizzie was not deeply involved in intellectual pursuits – writing poetry, studying calculus at home, collecting and identifying the local flora, learning a foreign language, or whatever – these were not Lizzie’s daily endeavors.

But that is not what I meant about her not being a deep thinker. I meant that, although Lizzie had the time to plot things out very carefully, it seems to me that she did not do so. The crime seems hastily improvised, not well thought out in advance, sort of a Rube Goldberg crime.

For example, the poison. Prussic acid was not a good idea because the deaths would be very quick, would not resemble food poisoning, and cyanide can be detected in the body. She could have learned all this with a little prior study. Moreover, she was ill-prepared when she tried to make the purchase. When Bence refused to sell her the prussic acid, she just walked out of the store rather than carrying through with the pretense of cleaning a moth infested seal skin. She could have asked him to suggest another product for that purpose to make the attempted purchase look innocent. When this plan fell through, it looks to me like she decided to just go for it with the best weapon available in the house – the hatchet. She then made a very clumsy effort to plant a story with Alice Russell the evening before the event. She didn’t consider the timing of the murders and so she wound up with 2 improbable killings separated by more than an hour. She had no preplanned account of her activities that day so she invented off-the-cuff, unconvincing, and contradictory stories of where she was and what she was doing.

[Allen]

What evidence is there that Lizzie was “very well read?” Sure, she had time for thinking but it doesn’t seem that she generally employed her time in mind-improving activities. Although she had friends who were teachers, she herself pursued no higher education (even though she could have afforded it) and apparently dropped out of high school. She did some church work and she participated in that Fruit and Flower thing. On the day of the murders she says she flipped through a magazine, carried some laundry upstairs, sewed a tape on a dress, and spent 2 hours getting ready to iron some hankies. I think it is fair to say that Lizzie was not deeply involved in intellectual pursuits – writing poetry, studying calculus at home, collecting and identifying the local flora, learning a foreign language, or whatever – these were not Lizzie’s daily endeavors.

But that is not what I meant about her not being a deep thinker. I meant that, although Lizzie had the time to plot things out very carefully, it seems to me that she did not do so. The crime seems hastily improvised, not well thought out in advance, sort of a Rube Goldberg crime.

For example, the poison. Prussic acid was not a good idea because the deaths would be very quick, would not resemble food poisoning, and cyanide can be detected in the body. She could have learned all this with a little prior study. Moreover, she was ill-prepared when she tried to make the purchase. When Bence refused to sell her the prussic acid, she just walked out of the store rather than carrying through with the pretense of cleaning a moth infested seal skin. She could have asked him to suggest another product for that purpose to make the attempted purchase look innocent. When this plan fell through, it looks to me like she decided to just go for it with the best weapon available in the house – the hatchet. She then made a very clumsy effort to plant a story with Alice Russell the evening before the event. She didn’t consider the timing of the murders and so she wound up with 2 improbable killings separated by more than an hour. She had no preplanned account of her activities that day so she invented off-the-cuff, unconvincing, and contradictory stories of where she was and what she was doing.

First I'd like to say schooling was not considered practical for women back then. Pursuing an education was actually more often discouraged for women as being a waste of time. The emphasis was placed on learning all the things that had to do with taking care of a family and a home, past that any education was thought to be pointless since a woman's place was at home taking care of her family. From the time they were born women were geared toward marriage. So Lizzie dropping out of school doesn't necessarily point to the fact that she was lazy or less than intelligent. Emma did not graduate either.

Women of a certain social status were expected to lead a life of leisure. It was encouraged. It was the norm. And when a woman wasn't married, it was expected of her to contributed to the community and give meaning to a life that was otherwise 'wasted' because she wasn't married. This is why I think that depression ran rampant during these times, these women were bored to death.

How do we know she was well read? She had an extensive library in her home in Maplecroft from what I have heard and read, all books that she seems to have actually read. She attended the plays at the theatre and loved the opera. And in the words on Nance O'Neil in an interview given to the Newspapers after Lizzie's death:

Sourcebook page 345:

She was exceedingly well read, conversant with the best literature, and spoke interestingly of her travels abroad, which Miss O'Neil recalled as extensive. With her intellectual qualities she combined kindness and thought for others and a great fondness for animals.

page 346:

Borden was accustomed to come frequently to Boston, to the Bellevue, to enjoy plays and concerts and the company of a few friends, among whom Miss O'Neill recalled was Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, and a brilliant woman novelist and her husband, who were not merely friends, but warm companions of Lizzie Borden.

Though I think Lizzie could be a lot of things, self absorbed, petty, and most of all guilty, the one thing I have never thought is that she was anything less than intelligent. I think the only reason her alibi, and the killings, were seemingly not well thought out is that she was an amateur killer. I also think that though she had planned the killings ahead of time, she didn't know exactly when they were going to happen. I don't think she woke up that August morning and knew that was going to be the day. Something happened that day. Something caused her to believed it was now or never. I also remind myself, even though the alibi and the killings appeared to be hap hazard and hastily put together, she was still acquitted.

[Audrey]

I do not think Lizzie was so very well read at the time of the murders as she was sly and cunning....

[Erato]

Whether you think Lizzie was guilty of murder or not, we all have some mental picture of her character and of the characters of the other major players. In my view of her, she was not unintelligent but, equally, she was not strongly motivated intellectually, either. Often, in that time period, women were better educated than men because their labor was not so much in demand and they had time to spend before marriage. In my own family, nearly all of the women born between 1860 and 1875 finished high school, many went to college, many were teachers until they married.

But, as I said, wheter she read a great deal or not, the crime doesn't appear carefully planned.

[1bigsteve]

I think Lizzie was planning the murders and when she couldn't buy the cyanide she got her hands on a hatchet.

With Emma gone that day and Uncle John and Andrew out of the house, and Bridget outside washing windows, I think Lizzie saw her opportunity to kill Abby. When Andrew arrived home early, whether he was an original intended target or not, Lizzie saw a second opportunity, with Bridget upstairs, and so killed her Dad. Perhaps with Abby already dead Lizzie was suddenly faced with the reality that Andrew would blame her and decided that the only way to "save" herself was to kill her Father. That killing may have been made on the spur of the moment. The fact that their were tracings of metal gilt in Abb'y wounds (none in Andrew's indicating that Abby was killed first) indicate to me that the hatchet was recently bought, or stolen, probably for the sole purpose of killing Abby and/or Andrew.

I think Abby's killing was pre-planned and not a "heat of the moment" thing because Lizzie would have had to go all the way to the basement, or barn, grab a hatchet, go all the way back upstairs and kill Abby. There was plenty of time to cool off. I can't see Lizzie standing there calmly talking with Abby with a hatchet in her hand and having no premeditation. I don't think Lizzie was in the habit of walking around all day with a hatchet in her hand. I feel that when Lizzie came into that guest room she had that hatchet in her hand and intended to kill Abby no matter what was going to be said.

I also don't think it was PMS that spured Lizzie into killing because she already tried to buy the poison. I'm not sure on the abortion and incest angles either. I can't understand a Father or Uncle wanting to "sleep" with his own daughter or neice. I know it happens but geeze!! Possible of course. I think the killings boiled down to one thing: Lizzie and Emma were getting older, still single, they were under their Father's thumb, and Abby's, and they were getting tired of living such a tight-wad lifestyle. Wack out the old folks, take the money and start living! Lizzie's lifestyle after her release from jail seems to indicate that that rich, cultured, "vedy, vedy up-posh shindigging" is what appealed to Lizzie. Nice home, car, servants, trips to the theater, Europe, operas, etc. Emma went along with it but never felt comfortable and moved out. I think Emma had feelings of guilt over living on "blood money."

I personally feel that the old fashion "need for money" is what brought on the killings. But...

-1bigsteve (o:

[1bigsteve]

I do not think Lizzie was so very well read at the time of the murders as she was sly and cunning....

I think that is true. I don't think Lizzie became "well read" until after the murders and her release from jail. Her "pre-murder" trip to Europe just gave her a taste of what money could buy her. Unfortunately, Andrew and Abby stood in her way.

-1bigsteve (o;

[SallyG]

Though I think Lizzie could be a lot of things, self absorbed, petty, and most of all guilty, the one thing I have never thought is that she was anything less than intelligent. I think the only reason her alibi, and the killings, were seemingly not well thought out is that she was an amateur killer. I also think that though she had planned the killings ahead of time, she didn't know exactly when they were going to happen. I don't think she woke up that August morning and knew that was going to be the day. Something happened that day. Something caused her to believed it was now or never. I also remind myself, even though the alibi and the killings appeared to be hap hazard and hastily put together, she was still acquitted.

I agree. I think Lizzie was bent on getting rid of at least Abby. And I think that the motive was money. I don't think she initially intended to kill Andrew too; with Abby out of the way, she and Emma would be the sole beneficiaries of Andrew's money. I think Lizzie was "boiling" over something..maybe another property transfer..who knows. But something was going on, and I think it definitely involved money. She did seem to be trying to get Bridget out of the house that day. I think once Abby was disposed of, she intended to go downtown. That way, when Abby was discovered, her reaction could be "Everyone was out...someone must have come in and murdered Abby during that time!" When Andrew came home early, her plans were foiled. He knew she'd been home all morning, so he would have no doubt as to who the murderer was. So, she realized she had to kill Andrew as well. This turn of events ruined her initial story, though, of having been out when Abby was killed. Now she had two dead bodies, and no alibi. Of course, she could have made a hasty exit from the house, and left Bridget to explain things. Since she didn't, I guess she didn't want the innocent Bridget to go to jail, or face execution for something she herself did. Very thoughtful. I think when she finally raised the alert, she was still in somewhat of a state of shock.."I've really done it" type of thing. She seems to have been putting her story together as she went along. I'm not sure if Lizzie ever really thought she'd get off; I think she hoped for the best. Luckily for her, in spite of the circumstantial evidence, the jury just couldn't envision her hacking her parents to death.

[Allen]

Whether you think Lizzie was guilty of murder or not, we all have some mental picture of her character and of the characters of the other major players. In my view of her, she was not unintelligent but, equally, she was not strongly motivated intellectually, either. Often, in that time period, women were better educated than men because their labor was not so much in demand and they had time to spend before marriage. In my own family, nearly all of the women born between 1860 and 1875 finished high school, many went to college, many were teachers until they married.

But, as I said, wheter she read a great deal or not, the crime doesn't appear carefully planned.

I think it is also interesting that teachers were also not permitted to be married, once married they were no longer employable and were fired. So if a woman wanted to remain a teacher she had to also not want to be married.

Among the hurdles that female teachers had to overcome was the right to keep their jobs when they married. When teacher Mary Murphy was fired for misconduct after marrying in 1901, she took the case to court. The judge ruled in her favor, noting that "marriage was not misconduct" and was not, therefore, grounds for dismissal. In Massachusetts in 1915, however, the prohibition against marriage remained, one of a number of rules that also enjoined teachers not to leave town without the school board's permission, not to stay out past eight in the evening, and not to wear a dress that was more than two inches above the ankle.

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/ ... ation2.htm]

[DWilly]

What evidence is there that Lizzie was “very well read?” Sure, she had time for thinking but it doesn’t seem that she generally employed her time in mind-improving activities. Although she had friends who were teachers, she herself pursued no higher education (even though she could have afforded it) and apparently dropped out of high school. She did some church work and she participated in that Fruit and Flower thing. On the day of the murders she says she flipped through a magazine, carried some laundry upstairs, sewed a tape on a dress, and spent 2 hours getting ready to iron some hankies. I think it is fair to say that Lizzie was not deeply involved in intellectual pursuits – writing poetry, studying calculus at home, collecting and identifying the local flora, learning a foreign language, or whatever – these were not Lizzie’s daily endeavors.

To put things a little more in perspective here. It wasn't that uncommon for people to drop out of high school. Both of my Grandmothers did it and so too did famous tennis coach Eleanor Tennant. The thing you want to keep in mind is even though they dropped out of school in many ways their education surpassed that of many teenagers today who graduate from high school. I remember reading a letter written by famous outlaw Billy The Kid. I was shocked at just how well he wrote. At least as good as many Advanced Placement students I've seen in today's high schools. And his penmanship was well above what I've seen of many people including myself. So, I think even though Lizzie dropped out of high school she was in fact rather well educated. At least by today's standards.

Another thing, after the trial she may have even planned on writing a play for Nance O'Neil. At least that's what some of the papers said. So, at least later in life she had some things she was doing.

[Elizabelle]

I firmly believe that Lizzie didn't murder Abby and Andrew. I do believe that she and Emma hired it done, and planned it extensively.

But if Lizzie did kill Abby, I can imagine what a surprise it was for her to find out that blood spurts!!! I truly don't believe that Lizzie would have realized that she would be splattered with blood. If it weren't were the violence of TV and movies, I wouldn't know that blood spurts. Lizzie didn't have that "luxury" of entertainment.

Then Andrew came home...

Lizzie put on Andrew's coat to shield herself from the blood she KNOWS will spatter...does the dirty deed, wads up the coat, places it behind Andrew on the couch, and the rest is history.

But I can't allow myself to believe that Lizzie did it. To the day I die, unless proved otherwise, I will always believe that Lizzie and Emma hired the killings to be done.

[Audrey]

No violence on TV/Movies, court TV or true crime books may very have jept Lizzie from knowing about blood splatter. In fact, I think it is likely.

I also do not think she hung around slaughter houses...

[Allen]

She may not have had to actually hang around one to have information filtered to her. She could have known someone who worked in one, or known someone who knew someone. Or simply heard talk about what went on in one since they were so prevalent at the time. There are many ways to have information filtered to you. This was something that was also pointed out in another thread about the prussic acid when trying to figure out how Lizzie may have knowledge about the prussic acid. Then as I said there was the slaughtering of animals on the farm. Would a butcher know something about it? A doctor? We know she knew at least one person who had been a butcher and seemed to be pretty well aquainted with Dr. Bowen.

Jack the ripper was in the not too distant past. There were many references in the newspapers about how the killer should've been blood spattered, about the blood at the crime scenes. There was much debate about how JTR inflicted the wounds without becoming so blood splattered that he would've attracted attention. How did he slit the throat without the blood spurting out onto his person, things of this nature. This lead to speculation that it could've even been a woman, a midwife, because she would be someone who could walk the streets spattered with blood and no one would question as to why. I'm sure the Whitechapel murders weren't the first and only murders that were ever reported in the Newspapers in this manner and definitely weren't the last. I'm also sure that they fascinated the people of America as well as they did the people of England. There may not have been television but there were enough fiction and non fiction books and real life events, occupations, and murders reported in the newspapers that it's pretty possible she did.

[Audrey]

Although later in life Lizzie was friendly to her servants, I do not think, with her aspirations to be in high society, her trip to Europe, et al-- that she socialized much with slaugter house employees.

[Allen]

Look at the newspaper coverage of Lizzie's own trial and the references made to the blood that should've been on the killer and the blood evidence. I don't think it was a precident beginning with just her case.

[Audrey]

And Lizzie had attended how many trials?

Lizzie was an amateur forensics enthusiast?

I still think there is more than a good chance she didn't know what to expect when she hacked Abbie up...

If you accept that she tried to buy a deadly poison just days before the murder she may have resorted to the hatchet as a last resort. Likewise-- Why would she have have had a cheap dress made or used pattern material to shield herself when administering poison to the elder Bordens?

If she did it--in my opinion she did it on the fly. While I do think she planned to kill them she didn't intend to get her hands dirty. Therefore, she would not have had the expectation of getting covered in blood.

Prior to my education in criminology where we studied cases, crime scenes, etc. I do not think I would have known to expect blood splatter had I grabbed an axe or hatchet and killed someone with it.
There have been meat packing plants in existance all my life and since I find them distasteful (As I am confident Lizzie did) I would not engage in a conversation with someone who worked in one about the day to day operations and hazzards of the job, nor do I think the people who worked in them (then or now) go about the public street in their blood splattered work clothes for me to see and inquire as to what that was or where it came from.

[Allen]

And Lizzie had attended how many trials?

Lizzie was an amateur forensics enthusiast?

Well the last I knew you didn't actually have to attend a trial to read about it in the newspaper. Newspaper articles is what I was mentioned, not trials. People in America couldn't attend the JTR trial unless they wanted to hop a ship and go to England, it didn't stop them from knowing and reading about it. I didn't attend the OJ Simpson trial, but I could've read all I wanted to about it in the newspapers and magazines without turning on a tv or actually going to the courtroom. Lizzie's own case was covered extensively in the media. During the coverage of her trial there was much mention in the newspapers about how the killer should've been covered in blood. You don't have to be an amatuer forensics enthusiast to read something in the paper and understand what it means. I'm sure her case wasn't the first case in the newspapers to describe things such as this. And it was all anybody was talking about, in their homes, at work, at the store, everywhere. She may not have even needed to pick up a paper at all if there was talk of a murder case.

I'm a Criminal Justice major and we also study evidence, cases, and all of those things as well, but even before this I knew that blood would make a mess. Whether it splatters or not it will make a mess if you kill someone. The blood is not going to evaporate upon being exposed to air, nor is it going to stay inside the body when there is a big gaping hole in it.

And I'm sure that those people who worked in those places changed their clothes and bathed before leaving work in an era when people were lucky to bath a couple of times a week at home

[Audrey]

So they went about with blood and gore on their clothes? Appeared on the public streets in that way and perhaps even sat down to dinner with their families like that?

Mon Dieu.

[Kat]

There was a sighting of a man with something like a bloody machete, walking along the street. I don't recall his clothing tho.

In The Knowlton Papers, if you have it, there are lots of letters written/received which describe how someone could cover themselves before killing because of the blood.
Plenty of people wrote in with their ideas, from all walks of life- so maybe back then people did know about such things?

It's hard to determine what people knew or thought back then- it's all speculation.
But those letters are interesting, and may have some bearing on the original question here.

[Allen]

I found this in The Witness Statements today, and I thought that it supported some of my posts in this thread, so I decided to post it.

The Witness Statements from the Notes of William H. Medley page 33:


Fall River September 13, 1892

"I have visited New Bedford, going to the hardware store of Hillman and Vincent. Mr. Mark Vincent is the man who sold the ax of which I have before made mention, the purchase being made about two days before the murder. I took Mr. Vincent to see the Portugese working at the slaughterhouse on the Davis Farm, and who is well aquainted with Mr. Morse. But after a thorough look at the man, concluded he was not the man; neither had he ever noticed him in the store at any time. The Portugese man has a distinctive look about him; and anyone seeing him once, would know him again. This Portugese claims never to have been in New Bedford, except on Sunday, at any time within six months."

So I guess we can show that Lizzie knew somebody who knew somebody?

[DWilly]

I think it's a pretty good bet that Lizzie not only read about Jack The Ripper but also the Alice Mitchell case too. I wonder if Lizzie read any of the crime fiction stories of the time? They were around. Edgar Allen Poe, Wilkie Collins and Arthur Conan Doyle were all published by then. Wonder if she read any Sherlock Holmes stories?

I'm editing this in rather quickly. I hope I get it right. I remember sometime ago, where I don't recall, reading how Lizzie loved watching Nance O'Neil in Macbeth. Now, this may be just a "Lizzie legend story" I don't know, but anyway, supposedly Lizzie like a part where Nance says something about all of the blood etc. I found this, it may or may not be the right quote about all of the blood after the murders in Macbeth, but it is one.:

Queen: Out damned spot! out, I say!---One,two; why, then ' tis time to do't:---Hell is murky! Fie, my lord fie! a soldier and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?---Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

[nbcatlover]

Today the fish processing business is mostly mechanized, but as recent as the 1980s, it was not unusual to see men and women on the streets wearing rubber boots, smelling of fish, and despite having removed their work aprons, wearing some small amount of fish gut or scales.

Occasionally, they would stop at a market or bakery in their work clothes as any other worker would.

They were no different than a machinist who might go home covered in metal filings.

Work, for many people for many years, was a very dirty business. It still is for many fishermen, and think of seal-hunters who club baby seals to death, even today!

Indoor toilets weren't even mandated in houses in the New Bedford/Fall River area until the age of Urban Renewal in the 1960s.

People were often "gross" by today's standards.