First Instinct

[Kat]

Whether we accept the source or not, the dress burning seemed to be a turning point according to what Alice Russell did. We need not reject the entire concept due to a personal disbelief in a part of it. Her actions at the time seem to support her later comments.

I am not rejecting the concept, just asking where you read it and that I had not read it- did not recall reading it. Nor did I have a disbelief. If I say I did not read it or do not recall reading it and ask for a source, that doesn't automatically say that I don't believe it. I am truly asking. And any help to find something obscure, I will be happy to provide.

Here is the excerpt from a FRHS Quarterly report, Summer, 2002, that supports what you recall as to what you read about Alice Russell.
(I did not go find the topic titled "Cover-up" but thanks for looking for it).

[Yooper]

Thanks for the look-up Kat.

It seems that the article is trying to imply something, but there seems to be a contradiction. I'm having trouble getting past a belief by Alice Russell that Lizzie is innocent until August 7th, coupled with a "knowledge of the goings-on immediately after the murders" being taken by Alice to her grave. Didn't Alice leave the Borden household on the 7th or shortly after? If so, all Alice would have taken to her grave was information which supported Lizzie's innocence.

[Kat]

Let me provide the context:
A person donated a photograph to the FRHS of Alice Russell taken in 1931.
We'll call that person Donor.
Doner's grandmother was 1st cousin to Alice.
That 1st cousin's husband was the one to take the picture. (He is not designated as Doner's grandfather). But basically, the photographer is an in-law of Alice. He wrote on the envelope the photo was in: "Alice Russell Lizzie's Turncoat Friend."
(He took that photo and then wrote that on there. I think that stinks).

The article in the Quarterly Report states that after the trial Alice "...ceased to be on friendly terms with the Misses Borden..." and that later in her life few knew of her association with the case.

I think it's possible that the donor supplied this family anecdote when they turned over the envelope. If so, the story is 3rd hand as published.
(Alice to her cousin, cousin to her husband, then somehow to donor who told that to the Historical Society. I'm leaving it at 3rd hand, in case Donor heard it from the grandmother, and then to us).

[Yooper]

The photographer's comment on the envelope is more degrading to him than it is to Alice, if the connection is known. I hope his camera lens shattered when he took the picture!

Alice's actions seem to support the information, even though it's third hand in this case. Emma, who witnessed the same dress burning, was apparently not affected in the same way. If Alice truly thought Lizzie was innocent until August 7th, it makes me wonder what Emma thought of Lizzie's involvement. It also may mean that nothing much was done by Lizzie to incriminate herself immediately after the murders because Alice seemed to be a constant companion during that time.

Overall, I think the dress burning was very odd. Not for the act itself, it's a good way to get rid of a garment which has no value or use otherwise, but for the timing. The dress could have been folded and stored somewhere temporarily if space was limited. This might imply (require?) the existence of a new dress which required the closet space.

At the time the dress was burned, Lizzie didn't know what the testimony would be concerning her apparel the day of the murder. If she wore the Bedford Cord dress the morning of the murders and it was free of blood, it would serve to prove her innocence.

[Kat]

No one says they saw Lizzie wearing that Bedford cord. In fact, Alice Russell says Lizzie was not wearing it. It's a mystery.

The odd things that Alice noted, or which affected her personally were these:

That Lizzie came to her house Wednesday evening and gave that littany of foreboding.

That Lizzie went down to the cellar without her after she, Alice, had already gone with Lizzie - tho Alice did not find this out until later.

That on Saturday of the funeral, upon entering the elder Borden's bedroom that had been her room, she found a stick under the bed which scared her and which she had not noticed before.

That on Sunday Lizzie burned a dress. Alice told the girl's private investigator Monday. Then Alice left.

I think the stick under the bed scared her more than anything else. She claimed she thought it might somehow implicate her.

The burning of the dress and the telling of it to Hanscomb seems to be the single thing that most scared Emma, by Monday.

[Yooper]

Lizzie didn't really know what anyone saw her wearing by the 7th, she only knew whether or not she actually wore the Bedford cord dress.

If she didn't wear the dress, then it is reasonable to expect that no one would say that she had worn it, and there was no harm in leaving it intact, especially under the circumstances. If left intact and not worn, it would only further the contention that none of Lizzie's dresses bore bloodstains. So, if not worn, there was more to gain by keeping it than by burning it. This is true regardless of guilt or innocence.

If the Bedford cord dress was worn by Lizzie at the time the murders were committed, then it is reasonable to expect that someone would probably testify to that fact. If Lizzie was innocent, then the dress would help prove it, so it would have made more sense to keep that particular dress under lock and key than to burn it!

Now, at this point, consider the trade-off. Under the condition that the dress could only provide proof of innocence, Lizzie was so desperate for one-dress-worth of closet space that she was compelled to burn the Bedford cord dress rather than store it? It makes more sense to burn the pink wrapper or one of Emma's dresses than the Bedford cord if closet space is imperative, and a burnt offering is the only way to obtain it! I think I can understand why the dress burning was both a turning point for Alice and a source of fright for Emma if they thought Lizzie was innocent!

I think the most likely conclusion is that there may have been something incriminating on that Bedford cord dress, and Lizzie only needed to suspect that and act on the suspicion out of fear, she didn't need to know it for a fact. Keep in mind that the dress burning occurred on the 7th of August before anyone had testified, and Lizzie would not have access to the police investigators' notes.

[Kat]

That makes sense- that Emma was afraid because Lizzie burned an innocent dress that could prove her innocent.

Some member thought there was something other than blood on the dress, which would be almost as incriminating.

Also, it has been theorized that the burning of the dress was a red-herring. Wrapping something unseen in the dress as being the real thing meant to be burned.

[Yooper]

It could also mean that Emma was afraid that Lizzie thought she had good reason to burn the dress! I suggest that Alice may have come to that conclusion. Alice's comment to Lizzie seemed to imply that Lizzie might "get caught", and perhaps this is what Emma picked up on.

I agree, it didn't have to be blood on the dress to be incriminating. Brain tissue has a bleaching effect on clothing and I don't know that spot cleaning with water would prevent it. We had a discussion about the make-up of brain tissue and I remembered it as protein, another member recalled it was mostly lipid. Lipids are hydrophobic, they are not water-soluble. I don't know how long it takes before the bleaching effect takes place, perhaps three days?

[RayS]

...
That 1st cousin's husband was the one to take the picture. (He is not designated as Doner's grandfather). But basically, the photographer is an in-law of Alice. He wrote on the envelope the photo was in: "Alice Russell Lizzie's Turncoat Friend."
(He took that photo and then wrote that on there. I think that stinks).
...

Yes, emotions then or now look down on a "rat". My question is: when did Alice Russell tell about the burning? I've read that she told the Pinkerton man, who was then sent away to Iowa (Brown's book). Did she keep her silence until November grand jury? For what reason?
Pardon me if my memory failed me.

[nbcatlover]

If you were innocent and believed that the police had inspected your house thoroughly already, and you came across a paint stained dress with stains of a drab color than now reminded you of the blood-stained clothes of your father and step-mother which your Uncle had previously buried, wouldn't you consider burning that dress too?

There has been speculation that Alice stayed at the house, not at the request of Lizzie and Emma, but at the request of the police. Maybe her family knew some details that we can only speculate about. People have been known to say they believe something if paid enough money to believe it. The position Alice got in the school system was "a City job," very frequently obtained by "having pull" (influential friends).

[Yooper]

If I were innocent and the dress could only go to prove that, furthermore, if burning the dress would only create or intensify suspicion of me, I would take extreme measures to preserve the dress for the time being. Lizzie did more than to merely consider burning the dress, and she did so despite Alice Russell's warning. There was plenty of time for disposal of the dress at a later date.

[Yooper]

...
That 1st cousin's husband was the one to take the picture. (He is not designated as Doner's grandfather). But basically, the photographer is an in-law of Alice. He wrote on the envelope the photo was in: "Alice Russell Lizzie's Turncoat Friend."
(He took that photo and then wrote that on there. I think that stinks).
...

Yes, emotions then or now look down on a "rat". My question is: when did Alice Russell tell about the burning? I've read that she told the Pinkerton man, who was then sent away to Iowa (Brown's book). Did she keep her silence until November grand jury? For what reason?
Pardon me if my memory failed me.

I can't find any testimony from Alice Russell about the dress burning prior to the Grand Jury session. Even then it was an eleventh-hour decision on her part. Her reasons for waiting are anybody's guess. We have to remember that Emma kept quiet about the dress burning, too.

[Kat]

Well, Emma got out of testifying at the preliminary hearing somehow, so her next chance to talk would be the grand jury. That was secret so we don't know what went on there.
She probably was not expected to have much to testify to at the prelim because she had not been home at the time of the murders, and not for a time before the murders.

I've been trying (not too hard) to find the first time Lizzie's visit to Alice Wednesday night and what she said to her there is recorded.

As for the dress burning and Alice- I think after she told Hanscomb she probably felt she had done her duty, and waited to see what would happen. She probably did not quite know how things worked in a murder investigation.

[Yooper]

I think Hanscomb's notes would be quite a find! I have to wonder whether the prosecution had access to them.

Up to a point, it was a "sin of omission". Alice was leaving a "paper trail" of testimony. She had given Hanscomb the information and he was the first (only?) person to pose the question of whether Lizzie's wardrobe was still intact. Apparently Alice didn't want to be in a position to have to lie for Lizzie. Perhaps she thought it might implicate her in some way. She might even have intended to keep quiet about the dress burning altogether. If the prosecution had intended to put Hanscomb on the stand, that might have forced Alice's hand.

Alice's testimony about Wednesday night speaks to the same dilemma if it wasn't offered early on. She was in the position of having to tell something less than the whole truth in order to retain her friendship with Lizzie and Emma. She might have been willing to do that, but she wasn't prepared to lie outright for it, which she would have had to do in the case of the dress.

[Yooper]

The part of the dress burning incident which seems incredible is the deliberation with which it was apparently done. It seems to have been imperative for Lizzie to burn the dress. Alice Russell tried to warn her, but she didn't take the hint. The incident seems to have been an epiphany for both Alice and Emma, but apparently neither one tried to stop her in the physical sense. Emma simply turned back to her dishes. Alice seems to have had a grip on how it would appear if Lizzie was "seen" doing it. Lizzie's response to the dilemma was to shift the blame with "why didn't you stop me?". Why are Lizzie's actions everyone else's responsibility?

[snokkums]

Her first instinct might have been to panic or be scared because, if she did it she might be thinking, "Oh they are going to find out I did it!". Or she might have been scared and panicy because she thought the person was still out there.

[Yooper]

Lizzie's behavior immediately after the murders doesn't seem to suggest a fear that the murderer is still in the house because she sends both Bridget and Mrs. Churchill away from the house while she remains there alone. She doesn't run from the house herself, so I don't think Lizzie was afraid of any immediate threat from the murderer.

She may have been panic stricken to a degree, but she seemed to be in control enough for cause-effect reasoning. She did raise the alarm immediately after the event, and soon enough to give rise to questions about timing.

Maybe the best thing she could have done would be to create a visible injury to her own head like a bruise on the forehead, lie down on the kitchen floor, and feign unconsciousness until Bridget "found" everyone. The hatchet could be conveniently found in the rear hallway.

[Kat]

Here at the preliminary hearing is where Alice Russell has the chance to talk about the dress burning incident.
In my mind, I refer to it as the "anything else?" questioning of Alice:

Prelim
Alice Russell
152
Q. This is an inquiry in which every person is interested, to get at the bottom facts; is there any other I have not asked you about, which you know which is material to the question, that you have not stated? Can you tell me anythingelse concerning this matter that you have not already done? It is as much your duty to tell, as it is mine to ask.
.......
Q. That is one reason why I postponed it as long as I could. Is there any other fact that you can tell me that you have not told me?
...........
154
Q. Is there any other fact that has to do with this matter that you can tell us, that you think of? My inquiry is not directed to, or at, or against anybody, or in favor of anybody.
A. I dont know of anything.

After the second chance- or question- Alice recounts the finding of the stick under the bed. Then she has one more chance to tell and she answers "I don't know of anything."

[Yooper]

This I find very odd, Alice refuses to be put in the position of lying to Hanscomb, but not only does she neglect to mention the dress burning at the preliminary hearing, but we can also presume she didn't mention it during the regular course of the grand jury hearing. She decided to bring it up sometime after the grand jury had heard the testimony as a separate and isolated incident. She didn't mention the dress burning at the inquiry, either.

If Alice thought the dress burning was a "turning point" for her in her opinion of Lizzie's innocence, then she was trying to protect Lizzie with her silence. Something or someone got to Alice before the grand jury hearing was officially closed.

If Alice thought the dress burning was not tied to the question of innocence, why the warning about Lizzie getting caught? Why did the incident frighten Emma? Why did Alice describe it as a "turning point"?

Has everyone noticed how many people were able to testify that Lizzie had no bloodstains on her dress, hands, and face, but nobody seems to remember what dress she was wearing? If they can't remember the dress, how in the world can they remember the lack or presence of bloodstains?

[Haulover]

alice russell never said that lizzie was not wearing the bedford cord. she could not remember anything about what she was wearing. this is what she said. those who did have memory of it described a dress like the bedford cord. the dress alice russell remembered was the one lizzie pulled out of the cupboard. as far as alice russell RE what lizzie was wearing murder morning is zero. i have always had a problem with the notion that alice russell tells us anything about what lizzie was or was not wearing murder morning. she tells us nothing. i've said it again and again. i've written on it extensively at least once. it is only churchill who gives us a substantial description of murder morning dress. alice is zero on this.

my point -- many people get the idea that alice lets us know that lizzie was not wearing the bedford cord murder morning. but in fact she does not. nothing is nothing.

[Yooper]

I think it was Alice who was almost apologetic about not remembering Lizzie's dress, she said she went almost a whole season without taking notice of Emma's or Lizzie's hats. If that's true, it seems unusual because, in my experience, women are more apt to notice such things than men, although Alice could be an exception. I'll have to look up whether she remembered bloodstains on the dress she couldn't recall(!).

[Yooper]

Alice Russell, Trial, p.393

Q. At either of the three previous times---at the inquest, at the preliminary, or at the first
testimony before the Grand Jury, did you say anything about the burning of this dress?
A. No, sir.
MR. ROBINSON. Wait a moment. I do not see how that is at all material. The
government is not trying to fortify this witness, I hope.
MR. MOODY. Well, I do not press it. If you don't want it, I don't care to
put it in.
MR. ROBINSON. Oh, it is not what I want. You are trying the government's
case; I am objecting.
MR. MOODY. I waive the question.
MR. ROBINSON. I think it should be stricken out.
MR. MOODY. I agree that it may be stricken out.

Did they strike a nerve here?

[Kat]

I usually interpret this testimony at trial, of Alice about the Bedford cord as meaning she did not see Lizzie wearing it Thursday:

DIRECT EXAMINATION, resumed

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Miss Russell, will you tell us what kind of a dress---give us a description of the dress that she burned, that you have testified about, on Sunday morning?
A. It was a cheap cotton Bedford cord.

Q. Bedford cord?
A. Yes, sir.

Page 395 / i417

Q. What was its color?
A. Light-blue ground with a dark figure---small figure.

Q. Do you know when she got it?
A. I am not positive.

Q. Well, about when she got it?
A. In the early spring.

Q. Of that same year, do you mean, or some other year?
A. Yes, sir, I think that same year.

Q. Was your attention called to it at the time she got it in any way?
A. At the time I first saw it?

Q. Yes, at the time you first saw it, and by what?
A. She told me that she got her Bedford Cord and she has a dressmaker there, and I went there one evening and she had it on, in the very early part of the dressmaker's visit, and she called my attention to it, and I said, "Oh, you have got on your new Bedford Cord." That is the only time I saw it until this time.

Q. Until the time it was burned?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you give us anything more about the figure---

MR. ROBINSON. You turned around and made correction; I don't know whether it is a correction for the reporter or only for me. Perhaps you had better state it again.

MR. MOODY. I did not mean to put in the question. "the morning the dress was burned?" but, "the Sunday morning following the homicide". That is the I referred to.


Q. To make it clear, between the time you saw it on Miss Lizzie Borden and had the talk about it in the spring, you did not see it again until the Sunday morning after the homicide?

Page 396 / i418

A. I never remember of ever seeing it, and I am quite sure I did not---that I never had.

[Yooper]

That's clear enough, Alice is asked specifically about the time period between when the dress was made and when the dress was burned (which includes the day of the murder), and her answer is that she did not see Lizzie wearing the dress. Then how is the burning of the Bedford cord dress a "turning point" for Alice? Why would Lizzie deliberately burn a dress which could only support her innocence, and in so doing, intensify suspicion of her guilt? Lizzie was aware by then that she was a suspect.

[Kat]

Please remind me: the term *turning point,* is your own?
I only ask because maybe we should not give it the weight of quotations if you are quoting yourself?
It's your interpretation of what you believe occured, correct?

[Susan]

That is one of the things I find so interesting and maddening about Alice Russell; she states she does not observe things, yet she states she is sure Lizzie wasn't wearing the Bedford cord dress the day of the murders. But, she can't tell us what dress Lizzie did wear. She "observed" it enough to know in her mind that it wasn't the Bedford cord, but, for the life of her, can't give any description of what it was. And yet, she "observed" that Lizzie changed into the pink and white stripe wrapper later in the day, and she still couldn't say what Lizzie had worn that morning. Makes me wonder if it was more of a selective observation by Alice, she may have known what Lizzie wore and wouldn't say? Agh, it is so frustrating.

[Yooper]

The term "turning point" is my own, it refers to an article by the FRHS.

You're right Susan, Alice's observations have a selective quality about them. Alice's observations make a degree of sense from the standpoint that she didn't see bloodstains on Lizzie's dress. But the statement that she didn't see bloodstains on the dress she didn't see does not address the question of the presence of bloodstains! It only says that she couldn't possibly have seen them if they were there. This goes for any other testimony where lack of bloodstains is put forth. If they can't remember the dress, then they can't remember the surface the bloodstains were or were not on. The only logical follow-up to (dress=can't remember) is (bloodstains=can't remember), not (bloodstains=no). We can not imply that Lizzie had no bloodstains on her clothing from such testimony.

[RayS]

That is one of the things I find so interesting and maddening about Alice Russell; she states she does not observe things, yet she states she is sure Lizzie wasn't wearing the Bedford cord dress the day of the murders. But, she can't tell us what dress Lizzie did wear. She "observed" it enough to know in her mind that it wasn't the Bedford cord, but, for the life of her, can't give any description of what it was. And yet, she "observed" that Lizzie changed into the pink and white stripe wrapper later in the day, and she still couldn't say what Lizzie had worn that morning. Makes me wonder if it was more of a selective observation by Alice, she may have known what Lizzie wore and wouldn't say? Agh, it is so frustrating.

Perhaps people are more likely to notice and remark upon a changed outfit, rather than the "drab dress" preciously worn?
I wonder if the deaths affected Lizzie and made her change her outfit. I'm too polite to mention the details.

[Kat]

I'm sorry but I don't agree that not recalling what Lizzie wore discounts whether that person could remember if there was blood on it.
I think someone can remember blood stains and not remember the actual description of the item it was on, especially during a traumatic time.
If it was on plaid, it's possible a person could identify blood that was on plaid. If it was on a blue outfit, that might be too unmemorable an item. If it was on white, that might be memorable.
I just don't think the logic follows.

[Edit here] I am getting confused. I might have misunderstood your intent, Yooper.

I also do wish to know to which statement you refer when you say the statement that she didn't see bloodstains?

[Haulover]

***Q. To make it clear, between the time you saw it on Miss Lizzie Borden and had the talk about it in the spring, you did not see it again until the Sunday morning after the homicide?

Page 396 / i418

A. I never remember of ever seeing it, and I am quite sure I did not---that I never had. ***
___________________

on this question, my mind runs along the lines of what susan posted.

i'm aware of the above testimony -- alice says she is sure she had not seen it since -- this would include murder morning. Yet alice can't tell us anything about what lizzie wore murder morning.

it's a matter of reasoning. this is what i say to alice: you never saw that bedford cord again until you saw her taking it out of the cupboard. okay. fine. but you don't remember what she was wearing murder morning -- therefore, according to you, it could have been anything. that you don't remember tells me nothing -- yet i'm supposed to believe that it could NOT have been the bedford cord since you're sure you had not seen it since spring. this equals a hole in testimony. you tell me nothing about lizzie's attire murder morning. something is wrong here with alice. it's churchill who provides a description.

i think this is important, because the interpretation that lizzie was not wearing the bedford cord murder morning because of what alice says has been perpetuated over and over again -- and yet it is faulty reasoning in the way testimony is used.

what we have is this: i never saw the bedford cord until lizzie had it at the stove. i do not have any idea what lizzie was wearing murder morning.

alice does not wear a crown of honesty to the degree that we can "read between the lines of what she says." it would make just as much sense to conclude that alice was upset by the bedford cord in the cupboard BECAUSE she saw her wearing it murder morning.

but i see churchill with a description and several others who say things backing her up. alice, on the other hand, produces zero on lizzie's dress murder morning--this equals nothing--that's what i'm saying. what alice says about the bedford cord does not clarify what lizzie wore murder morning. she can't have it both ways. she cannot expect us to presume that lizzie was not wearing the bedford cord because of what she says about the beford cord, while at the same time insisting she cannot remember what lizzie was wearing.

again -- alice says, "i never saw it again until that moment." but what did you see murder morning, alice? i have no idea. okay. this is my rendition of logic -- you saw nothing, so you can't say what she wore. these are not pieces of a puzzle that fit -- it is a gap.

i haven't seen that thing for 6 months. okay, what did you see last month? nothing.

[Susan]

Here is Alice's Preliminary testimony on whether she saw any blood on Lizzie or not:

Q. Where were you sitting?
A. Right beside her.
Q. Did you notice whether there was any blood on her or not?
A. I did not see anything.
Q. On her hands?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see her hands?
A. Yes Sir, I rubbed them.
Q. Were there any signs of any blood on them?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you observe her face?
Page 294
A. I bathed her face.
Q. Were there any signs of blood on it?
A. No Sir.
Q. Or on her hair?
A. No Sir.
Q. Was her hair done up, as usual?
A. I think it must have been, or I would have noticed it.
Q. Did you notice any signs of blood on that?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you notice any signs of blood on her clothing, or her dress?
A. No Sir.

I do agree with Kat, that it would be possible not to particularly notice what Lizzie was wearing outside of some blouse and skirt, but, notice if there was bloodstains, fresh or dried, on it.

Theres more with Alice's observations that vex me. Granted, as I believe that Phoebe Bowen put it, that they were not looking for fashions that day. Alice couldn't tell what Lizzie had on the day of the murders, but, when shown the dress and blouse that Lizzie had turned over to the police as what she allegedly wore in court, Alice was able to tell that the skirt was silk and the bouse was sateen.

Sateen and Bengaline silk are both lustrous fabrics, they have a soft sheen to them and reflect light to a certain point. I certainly would'nt pertain to them as Dr. Bowen did by calling them a "Drab dress". I went back in the archives and found where in the past I had posted samples of the materials involved, I'll try to post them again here.

Samples of Bedford cord material, the material shown is made of wool, not cotton like Lizzie's Bedford cord dress:



From this site: http://www.hirschauto.com/samples/bedford.htm

Examples of Bengaline silk, and yes, Kat was correct in the past, the ribs go horizontally in items made from it:



And though this example is just sheets and pillow shams, its navy blue, gives you a good idea of what Lizzie's sateen blouse looked like given to the police:

[Yooper]

I'm sorry but I don't agree that not recalling what Lizzie wore discounts whether that person could remember if there was blood on it.
I think someone can remember blood stains and not remember the actual description of the item it was on, especially during a traumatic time.
If it was on plaid, it's possible a person could identify blood that was on plaid. If it was on a blue outfit, that might be too unmemorable an item. If it was on white, that might be memorable.
I just don't think the logic follows.

[Edit here] I am getting confused. I might have misunderstood your intent, Yooper.

I also do wish to know to which statement you refer when you say the statement that she didn't see bloodstains?

I can understand the confusion, let me try to clarify.

We can define the visual observation of a stain as the perception of an anomaly in the continuity of a surface, in this case a dress, and the anomaly is a disruption of the color or pattern, in this case blood spots. In order to perceive the stain, a difference must be apparent. The blood spot must appear to be different than something (the dress) either by color or pattern or both. A difference requires two entities, so let the dress=A and the blood=B. In order to notice a bloodstain on a dress, one would have to notice the difference between A and B, which is a completely valid observation. To notice the presence or lack of blood, but not the dress is to notice the difference between B, which is clearly an absurdity.

[Yooper]

Maybe a simpler explanation would be; if you can't remember something, how can you remember a difference between that and something else?

[Kat]

Ah, I don't think that helps.
I just wanted to be clear on what you were saying. Benefit of the doubt and all that. After reading your original point twice, I thought I might have misunderstood- not that I didn't follow your logic.
If your stance is that which I originally thought, engendering the reply I gave, then I'm sticking to it. I guess we agree to disagree?

[Kat]

Thank you for the examples Susan! Loved the blue! I really did. I think that is probably very close and now I see it, it is much as I imagined, yet I didn't know it!

[Yooper]

Ah, I don't think that helps.
I just wanted to be clear on what you were saying. Benefit of the doubt and all that. After reading your original point twice, I thought I might have misunderstood- not that I didn't follow your logic.
If your stance is that which I originally thought, engendering the reply I gave, then I'm sticking to it. I guess we agree to disagree?

We all have the right to an opinion, so we can agree to disagree!

[Yooper]

***Q. To make it clear, between the time you saw it on Miss Lizzie Borden and had the talk about it in the spring, you did not see it again until the Sunday morning after the homicide?

Page 396 / i418

A. I never remember of ever seeing it, and I am quite sure I did not---that I never had. ***
___________________

on this question, my mind runs along the lines of what susan posted.

i'm aware of the above testimony -- alice says she is sure she had not seen it since -- this would include murder morning. Yet alice can't tell us anything about what lizzie wore murder morning.

it's a matter of reasoning. this is what i say to alice: you never saw that bedford cord again until you saw her taking it out of the cupboard. okay. fine. but you don't remember what she was wearing murder morning -- therefore, according to you, it could have been anything. that you don't remember tells me nothing -- yet i'm supposed to believe that it could NOT have been the bedford cord since you're sure you had not seen it since spring. this equals a hole in testimony. you tell me nothing about lizzie's attire murder morning. something is wrong here with alice. it's churchill who provides a description.

i think this is important, because the interpretation that lizzie was not wearing the bedford cord murder morning because of what alice says has been perpetuated over and over again -- and yet it is faulty reasoning in the way testimony is used.

what we have is this: i never saw the bedford cord until lizzie had it at the stove. i do not have any idea what lizzie was wearing murder morning.

alice does not wear a crown of honesty to the degree that we can "read between the lines of what she says." it would make just as much sense to conclude that alice was upset by the bedford cord in the cupboard BECAUSE she saw her wearing it murder morning.

but i see churchill with a description and several others who say things backing her up. alice, on the other hand, produces zero on lizzie's dress murder morning--this equals nothing--that's what i'm saying. what alice says about the bedford cord does not clarify what lizzie wore murder morning. she can't have it both ways. she cannot expect us to presume that lizzie was not wearing the bedford cord because of what she says about the beford cord, while at the same time insisting she cannot remember what lizzie was wearing.

again -- alice says, "i never saw it again until that moment." but what did you see murder morning, alice? i have no idea. okay. this is my rendition of logic -- you saw nothing, so you can't say what she wore. these are not pieces of a puzzle that fit -- it is a gap.

i haven't seen that thing for 6 months. okay, what did you see last month? nothing.

I have to agree with this, it is the same point I've been making concerning the bloodstains or the lack thereof. Simply substitute "bloodstains" for "Bedford cord" in this argument! You can't logically get an absolute from a maybe. All you can get from maybe is another maybe!

[RayS]

The contrasting colors of red or brownish-black blood would make it stand out on any medium blue or light colored dress. Unless color-blind?
Therefore there were no blood spots on either Lizzie's or Bridget's dresses.

[Kat]

I still put my stock in Alice who must have been under tremendous strain. She seemed more agitated than Lizzie when they were together up in Lizzie's room.

The way I see it is this:

Earlier in the Spring Lizzie is getting new clothes.
That means all attention is on her. Everyone is meeting in the guest room and sewing their brains out and measuring and sewing and chatting. This is called a Good Time in Lizzie's life: attention, touch, chatter, and new clothes.

When she finally wears that Bedfprd cord, we can assume that a big deal was made of it. I think it was the first one finished. Lizzie puts it on, shows off the dress, Alice comes over, Lizzie says see my new dress? And Alice says, "Oh, you have got on your new Bedford Cord."

After that scene, I can well imagine, that our Lizzie, with what? 8 blue dresses, might mix and match these outfits to create more combinations, but the Bedford Cord is the one Alice remembers. I think she would know easily what Lizzie was not wearing more easily that what she was wearing. Especially since a big deal was made about it in the Spring. Also the Pink wrapper was one of the first made as well. The dressmaker said Lizzie got rid of the old wrapper very soon after the new one was completed.

Maybe it's a girl thing? I hate to fall back on that, but I can say I do observe what other females are wearing- and they also say that women dress for each other and not for men.

Unless you guys think Alice was lying to cover for Lizzie? I'm not sure if you mean that or not?

[Yooper]

There is testimony from Alice in which she lets on that she does not particularly notice fashions. She once went an entire season without noticing Lizzie's and Emma's hats. Her testimony at the trial seems to indicate good recollection until she got to Lizzie's house, when she seems to answer every second question with "I don't remember". Alice's first instinct upon finding Lizzie burning the dress is to tell Lizzie not to be seen doing that, rather not to do that. She says in later years that the dress burning was the point at which she stopped believing in Lizzie's innocence, but no where in the police notes, the inquiry, the preliminary, nor during the regular session of the Grand Jury, does she offer the information about the dress burning. Alice states that she positively saw no bloodspots on a dress which she can't remember(!). The dress she can't remember was not the Bedford cord(!). That's a lot more than I can remember about what I can't remember!

I do not think Alice Russell is a liar, at least it is not her nature. She seems to have drawn the line at an outright lie, because she had to tell Hanscomb a "falsehood" and sought to correct it after a conversation about it with Lizzie and Emma. She seems willing to tell less than the whole truth by withholding the dress burning until the eleventh hour. I don't think she is alone here, I get the distinct impression that many people were telling less than they knew. Alice knows that her friendship with Lizzie and Emma is at risk if she tells all she knows and all she suspects. Rather than base the rest of the friendship on a false foundation, she tells a more complete truth, which I think is the correct thing to do, and allows the friendship to fend for itself, which is again correct.

I will absolutely admit to being overly logical and objective, with the distinct benefit of 20-20 hindsight, and from the position of having nothing to lose. So, when it is brought up that perhaps it's a "girl thing", I have to accept that. I have to trust it because I am not, nor have I ever been a girl! I am in no position to argue with that.

However, I don't think that females are any more impervious to logic than they are incapable of murder or lying.

The bottom line is, I think Alice was trying her best to avoid an outright lie on Lizzie's behalf. She was under tremendous pressure, she was losing two good friends by retaining her integrity. She was not above keeping some things to herself, as long as she didn't have to lie outright. While I think she would absolutely try her best to cover for Lizzie, she would not sacrifice her integrity to do so.

[nbcatlover]

Personally, I've always wondered about Dr. Bowen's comment about her dress being drab. It doesn't necessarily mean it was not interesting to him. Drab (as in olive drab--as in the paint color Lizzie picked out for the Borden house) is a color like the Olive 9030 sample above.

Perhaps Dr. Bowen was color-blind. Red/green is the most common type, but yellow/blue color blindness exists.

Somehow the dress burning incident reminds me of Monica Lewinsky and her semen-stained dress which she threw in the bottom of her closet and forgot about for a while.

Unless Alice saw something on that dress which was questionable (and she testified she did not), what is the big deal about burning a ruined dress after the police had searched? Perhaps it was the actual police search that had brought to mind the forgotten task of getting rid of a paint-stained dress. People do weird things when they are in shock or while grieving in an effort to make things seem "normal" and to block out negative thoughts by keeping active. She seems to have gotten free rein to snoop around in Andrew and Abby's room (think "club" under the bed).

Personally, I always felt Alice was there, in the Borden house, looking for trouble. Is there testimony anywhere that Lizzie, Emma, or Dr. Bowen requested her to remain in the house?

According to Rebello, she got her job with the city as an assistant sewing teacher in 1896. While she worked at Leander Wilbur's Clothing Store, her position was listed as clerk/bookkeeper, not seamstress. Her educational qualifications to be a teacher are unknown to me.

Also, in Rebello, she "retires" from her "city job" on the same day that the Massachusetts Teachers' Retirement Plan went into effect. Alice seems to me to be very smart about taking care of Alice. I personally believe she found it more expedient to give up her friendship with the Borden "girls" for goodwill from those connected in the local politics (for lack of a better term, think Arnold Brown's Mellen House Gang).

Remember, to this day, Massachusetts (Taxachusetts) and Rhode Island are consistently ranked in the top positions (they take turns) as the most corrupt states in these United States. Local politicians can make or break careers.

[Yooper]

A pink wrapper seems an odd choice for a grieving daughter.

[Yooper]

It is possible that Alice was at the Borden house to watch for trouble, and she found it when Lizzie burned the Bedford cord dress. But the information was given to Hanscomb, the investigator hired by Lizzie and Emma. Alice left the Borden house shortly after that. At the trial, the question came up about Alice's silence concerning the dress burning until after the regular Grand Jury session (p.393). The defense objected to the question and both attorneys agreed to have it stricken from the record.

It is certainly possible for Alice to have been working with the authorities. She could have told anyone besides Hanscomb (the prosecution) about the dress burning and they decided to keep it quiet, hence, Alice's silence. When the Grand Jury was still fence-sitting after the regular session, the dress burning was used to give them a push.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Alice was working with the authorities before the dress burning. She may have gone to them with her suspicions after that. This reconciles Alice's silence with her representing the dress burning as a turning point. It also may explain the eleventh hour revelation of the dress burning-to push the Grand Jury off of dead center.

[Kat]

Well, the grand jury thought the dress burning was a big enough deal to indict, and Emma was scared enough over the realization that it might not have been wise and they had to let Hanscomb know- so I think the dress burning was a Bigdeal.
This is in response to your question, Cynthia:

Unless Alice saw something on that dress which was questionable (and she testified she did not), what is the big deal about burning a ruined dress after the police had searched?

Also: It may be semantics, but to be clear, Alice didn't tesify that she *did not* see something *questionable* on that dress. Maybe the wording is a little casual here. Excuse me, please, for pointing it out (see below).

Otherwise, it my reasonable opinion that burning the dress was a suspicious and/or really dumb thing to do. It got her indicted.
Granted, Lizzie was already *ruined* when Blaisdell pronounced Lizzie "probably guilty" after the preliminary hearing.

I will put the testimony that does refer to soil here.
Alice at the trial:

Q. And this conversation with Emma, you may state it again, if you please, so there will be no doubt about it.
A. Emma turned around from the sink and she says "What are you going to do?" and Lizzie says "I am going to burn this old thing up. It is covered with paint."

Q. Did you see any blood on that dress?
A. No, sir.

Q. Not a drop?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see any blood on the remaining part of it?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see that it was a soiled dress?
A. The edge of it was soiled as she held it up. The edge she held towards me like this (illustrating), and this edge was soiled.

Q. As she stood there holding it you could see the soil of the dress, could you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I think you say that you did not actually see it put into the stove?
A. No, sir.

Q. Or any part of it?
A. No, sir.

Q. And that is all you know about whether she did or not except what she said she was going to do, and you made your remark. I want to get at that. You made a remark to her?
A. I said, "If I were you I wouldn't let anybody see me do that, Lizzie."

Q. This was on Sunday morning?
A. Yes, sir.

Page 411 / i432

[Airmid]

Thanks so much, Susan, for posting pictures of those fabrics. That clears up a few of my open questions!

As to the burning of the dress: Do we know what middle-class women usually did with their old dresses in Victorian times? And especially in the Borden household?
I'm asking, because it seems to me nothing ever got thrown away in that household. Abby used old handkerchiefs as dust rags, and Andrew picked up an old lock from the streets and brought it home with him. Burning an old dress might have been looked upon as an excessive waste.

As to Alice's testimonies: I have been wondering how impressionable Alice might have been. Suppose in an imaginary conversation Alice said to Lizzie: "You were wearing your Bedford Cord, weren't you", and Lizzie replied: "No, I wasn't", would Alice say: "Oh, I remember wrong then"?
Of course we can't answer that question with certainty now, but there might be hints in the sources. I'll go and look for some if I can find the time!

Airmid.

[Kat]

I didn't get that impression but will look forward to anything you find on Alice's *impressionability*.

To me, it's like Alice was there more to be a witness to things through the Borden girls, because she could have been asked to leave or told she was no longer needed. But I don't think she was asked to stay by anyone in the household. With Bridget gone tho I think she was put to good use.

She witnessed the first cellar trip by Lizzie Thursday night.
But not the second.
She *witnessed* the dress burning- but did not stay in the room to see it burned.
She witnessed the club under the elder Borden's bed that she thought had not been there before Saturday which is really odd.
What else can we come up with?
(I don't know why the Borden girls may have *used* her- but it's another way of looking at her presence).

[nbcatlover]

When you discuss Alice "witnessing" the club under the bed implies Alice was going around "checking under the bed." Makes me think of Monsters, Inc. and scared littlel kids looking for the bogey man. That's impressionable to me.

Also, did she go with Lizzie to the basement as an escort or a witness or was it because she was too afraid to go down cellar alone? Lizzie wasn't afraid to go down there alone...she went back after the two of them had been down there together.

At least Bridget's position was clear. She was too spooked to stay in the house.

[Kat]

Yes Bridget did seem spooked.

Actually, Alice offered to go with Lizzie when Lizzie said she wanted to go. Lizzie said that Alice could then hold the lamp. Alice seemed to be *shaking* according to Off. Hyde who was watching thru the window. I personally don't think of being frightened in a dark house in that cellar at night as being anything other than a normal reaction. Lizzie says she doesn't recall the trip down cellar, which is a bit odd. She also seemed kind of matter-of-fact about the trip.

Alice is actually asked if she had checked under the bed *as women do* but she denied it. The fact that she caught a glimpse of the stick on Saturday when she had not seen it before, I think meant to her that either someone placed it there since she had moved in or else it had been re-positioned now- either way it might have seemed to her that someone had been in (her) the room while she was out and messed with that.

[Angel]

I hadn't realized that the stick was not there one time and then the next time it was. That is so spooky. It would unnerve me too. I definitely would have been looking under the bed if I had stayed in that house (and under the carpets, the dressers, the closets, the curtains, etc etc etc) and if I had found that something was under my bed that hadn't been there before it would have rattled me completely. It would have taken a good deal of courage to stay there in that house with Lizzie- I couldn't have done it. No wonder Alice was shaking.

[nbcatlover]

Kat

Alice is actually asked if she had checked under the bed *as women do* but she denied it. The fact that she caught a glimpse of the stick on Saturday when she had not seen it before, I think meant to her that either someone placed it there since she had moved in or else it had been re-positioned now- either way it might have seemed to her that someone had been in (her) the room while she was out and messed with that.

Of course, she could just be flighty, highly impressionable, and unobservant. If anyone had been in the room, it was most probably the keystone cops, excuse me, the police.