Was Lizzie Wearing Two Dresses the day of the Murder ??

[lydiapinkham]

I agree, Susan, that the stockings were mostly cotton. Silk would be saved for good, and wool seems unlikely (although I've found many summer weight woolens advertised from the period--worst of all, woolen bathing gowns: EEWWW!). But the oxford ties I found for the "Let's call it a Wrap" article were a low shoe, not a boot, something like the tied oxford shoe today, with a slight heel. I'm not sure if the shoe picture made it in or not. If I get a chance tomorrow, I'll try my hand at photobucket and post likely pictures.

--Lyddie

[Allen]

I had posted this picture quite awhile back, around the time I first became a member of the forum. After reading through the thread I did some searching and found the original post. But of course I don't know for certain if the shoes Lizzie was wearing were similar to this.

[Susan]

Thanks, Lyddie and Melissa. I did finally get to redownload some of the source documents and found this brief description of Lizzie's ties in the trial volume 1:

Pg. 965

Q. What sort of shoes?
A. I think they were low shoes, laced, I think.

So, I may have been hasty in my judgement of Lizzie's footwear, it would be wondeful if these garments were still around at the FRHS to get a gander at.

I see we do have summer weight Merino wool socks that are supposed to do as Ray says, but, I still wonder if the Victorians had this available for their summer socks and stockings? Yes, Lyddie, my great-grandmother assured me how uncomfortable those woolen bathing costumes were, how they grew quite heavy when wet and how they didn't hold their shape when wet either. I wish she was still around to ask about the stockings.

[Shelley]

http://fashion-era.com/the_victorian_era.htm
This is a site we often use at the Fashion School of Design at URI as it is so historically accurate. Oxford ties have historically been low vamped, with eyelets for the ties, and frequently black for men and women, and are based on popular footwear from the campus of Oxford University and also Cambridge. I think I have a photo somewhere of this shoe. In the meantime, this vintage old shoe seller has some great real Victorian footwear. The nuns made us wear these ugly Oxfords back in convent school! Come to think of it, they wore them too!

Just scroll down a little and click on SHOES.

http://shoes.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsi ... 960.com%2F

[Shelley]

Cotton is probably right. Maybe cotton lisle.
To create lisle, one thread is twisted an extra twist per inch than ordinary yarns in one direction and a second thread is twisted at the same rate in the opposite direction. The two threads are then combined and twisted together. The extra twists in lisle yarns give additional strength and resilience. Due to the additional processing required to make lisle, it is more expensive than basic cotton yarn. (That's from my textbook)

Some of the machine knitted silk stockings were pretty jazzy though. Patterns on the sides were called clocking. Here's a real jazzy pair, which probably Lizzie would not have worn, but from the period. This is a great place to find vintage stuff.
http://www.vintagetextile.com/new_page_66.htm

[Shelley]

Here's a 1899 man's Oxford - the style originated in Scotland and Ireland before becoming a collegiate hit. Here's the best part though- look at the brand name- if only Lizzie were wearing these it would explain a lot!! I love the slogan too- "You can shut your eyes and buy these with perfect safety". Right!

[lydiapinkham]

Best of all is the battle axe in the upper right hand corner!

--Lyddie

[qtpiegurl77]

Yikes, I'd hate to wear wool stockngs all day! I'm glad I'm a modern gal for sure!

[Kat]

Lizzie says in the inquest testimony that she did not wear an apron that day . And seeing as she only ironed a couple of hankies, probably did not need to wear one. I think she had the cotton cord on that morning and had changed into the silk bengaline after she cleaned up and was preparing to go down to Sargent's to establish her alibi at that sale when Poppa came home. As mindful as Lizzie was as to the power of personal appearance in society, I bet she took some pains to look prosperous and tidy when she went into town. She may have hid the soiled dress in between her mattresses until it could be burned Sunday. Actually it may have done quite a bit of shifting around the house and/or barn!

So do you think Lizzie was wearing her Bengaline when Andrew was killed?
The outfit she actually turned in to the court?

If Lizzie started the day in her Bedford Cord, no one who knew the dress saw her in it. I suppose you think she changed out of it and maybe into it and maybe out of it again?
Was Lizzie going to Sargents at all? I didn't know that.

I think it's very possible that Lizzie shifted clothing around that day around the house and/or barn.

[Shelley]

I think she had on the Bedford cord that morning around the house and killed Abby in it. Bridget said she would wear it around the house sometimes in the morning. I think she got blood on the skirt of it. I think she changed into the blue bengaline to go downstreet and establish her alibi at that sale at Sargent's, then Andrew came home and wrecked her opportunity to get out of the house. I think she wore something over that bengaline when she had to kill Andrew in self-preservation and fear of discovery. He would have known she had something to do with Abby's killing. She may well have worn that frock coat of his! I rather think she did. Why would he deviate from his normal practice of hanging it up on the back of the kitchen door when he put on his reefer? He sure did not need it for a pillow on the sofa as the crime photo shows plenty of head props for comfort.

You may notice you never hear about that coat again. I did a presentation for the Costume Society of America on textile evidence in this case so I became very interested in all the bits and pieces collected as evidence- including the clothing cut off the corpses, even the "tidy" from the sofa. In the inventory of clothing listed- there is no mention of that frock coat being buried and dug up with the rest of the stuff. I think if you dug up old Andrew you'd find that coat! Since it was his best and only good coat, I bet Lizzie asked Winward to clean it and lay her father out in it! What a nice way to take care of "evidence" if she had worn it.

That sale at Sargent's was not advertised in the paper the day before- how did Lizzie know about it? I think she set it up as a potential alibi for the big day. When she could not get out of the house, it was a handy and quick way to lure Bridget -and she came right out with it too-just like the "note" that kept Andrew from going upstairs to see Abby.

I think Lizzie stuck to the truth whenever possible- I forget where I read she was "not a good liar". Sure, she gave 'em the bengaline as she did have it on at onc point I think. Silk/cotton or silk/linen bengaline is not that heavy-just a more dressy fabric than one used for household work-perfect for downtown.
I have always thought Bridget's big secret was that she KNEW what dress Lizzie had on early in the day- she would- she did the laundry and knew everyone's clothing.

[Kat]

That's a good point about getting rid of the Prince Albert coat by burying Andrew in it.
His body was not yet ready for the funeral tho until later in the evening of the Friday, if not Saturday morning. Someone could have had a chance to really check out that coat. But then also, it's true that by Saturday morning it might not have been much time for officials check it, if they hadn't thought of it yet. However, since the bodies were not buried until the 16th I think, there really was time to get that coat if he was wearing it. I can't imagine if the bodies were left in the ladies' waiting room at the cemetery in their clothing? They would be stripped for the 2nd autopsy on the 11th.
They would be left decomposing in their clothing?

Doesn't Bridget say the Prince Albert was usually put in the dining room? But it does seem reasonable to eventually put the coat on the nail in the kitchen, after removing the reefer. How do we know the nail was on the back of the door?

The key on the mantle would show Andrew right away that Abby was not in their room. So it makes sense that he would think she was elsewhere in the house- could be even in the cellar- enough to wonder about it.

About the dress: If Lizzie wore the corded dress, Alice did not see it. However, Lizzie could have worn it that morning and then killed Andrew in the Bengaline- but wouldn't Alice have noticed that dress?
Also, Lizzie had much more time to clean up the cord dress after Abby was killed, yet she burned it. But did give up the Bengaline.

This part does not quite make sense to me. I would think she would be very worried about that Bengaline (if that is what she had on when Andrew was killed) since there was so little time to clean up or check herself after Andrew died.
I guess what I mean is I'd think it would be the other way around in my own concern- if I were she. I pretty much would know how *stained* the cord dress was because there was 90 minutes or so of time to check it over, whereas with the Bengaline (if worn), I would just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope: or burn both.

[Allen]

This part does not quite make sense to me. I would think she would be very worried about that Bengaline (if that is what she had on when Andrew was killed) since there was so little time to clean up or check herself after Andrew died.
I guess what I mean is I'd think it would be the other way around in my own concern- if I were she. I pretty much would know how *stained* the cord dress was because there was 90 minutes or so of time to check it over, whereas with the Bengaline (if worn), I would just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope: or burn both.

I'd think that Lizzie would give up whatever dress she might have thought the witnesses would remember her wearing. I do not think she was counting on virtually no one remembering what she had on. If she had been I don't think she would've handed over either one of the dresses. She could've picked any dress from her closet that was blue and said it was the one. But perhaps she believed that someone would be able to identify what she had on when the witnesses arrived at some point.

[Kat]

Doesn't Bridget say the Prince Albert was usually put in the dining room?

--Kat

Bridget
Prelim
pg.9

Q. Where did he keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A. In the dining room.

Q. Did you see him with that on?
A. No Sir.

I found it.
We don't even know if Andrew wore the Prince Albert coat that day, do we?

[Allen]

What I have never understood about the blood was the idea that if Lizzie would've said she ran to her father and knelt over him/grabbed him/ hugged him to her or anything you might expect someone to do when they find a loved one in that condition then blood on any dress she was wearing could've been explained. Even if she had done it. Yet she said she never went past the sitting room doorway. This is very strange, and in my opinion I think it was because she had a guilty conscience and didn't want to admit she had ever had any blood on her at all. But that is my opinion.

[Shelley]

Good point about the mantel key Kat. Well, no Victorian man would have gone to the bank, post office, etc. in his shirtsleeves -so yes, he must have had on his coat. I thought he had only the one business coat, the Prince Albert. Winward was there the day of the murder and I can picture Lizzie or Emma giving it to him to clean for the laying out for Saturday morning. Laying out was a formal process for the viewing so the Prince Albert, by which he was known all around town would have been my choice too. I think Lizzie said she helped him on with his reefer, which means he took off the coat. As strange as it is to us now, men did not sit down to dine with even family in shirtsleeves, nor answer the door to prospective businessmen in shirtsleeves. Nowadays we are lucky not to be subjected to nude at table!

[Kat]

Bridget did not see Andrew with his coat on that morning- it sounds like, until after breakfast. When she is asked *did he put his coat on* she said *no.*
I think when she is asked *he put it on there* and she says *yes,* she means *usually.*

But I had thought she did not see Andrew in any coat that morning, but now I am reminded that she did- but to me it sounds like after he came back downstairs the second time.
My opinion can be changed. Any other input here anyone?
Hmmm...

But also, we have no witness that day, that I know of, who said Andrew wore the Prince Albert coat - of course they were not exactly asked. But since it was August, I don't see why he couldn't have worn a lighter-weight coat, as an outdoor coat, rather than the story we hear of Andrew only wearing the Prince Albert.

Bridget
Prelim
Q. Was he dressed when he came down?
A. In his shirt sleeves.

Q. Have his coat with him?
A. No Sir.

Q. Did he put his coat on?
A. No Sir. He had his dressing coat, a short coat, hanging in the kitchen.

Q. He put it on there?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Did he have his collar and neck tie on when he came down?
A. No Sir.

Page 7

Q. Did he put those on?
A. No Sir.

Q. Not for breakfast?
A. No Sir.

Q. When did he put them on?
A. After breakfast I think. He went up stairs to his room.
......

Q. What did Mr. Borden do after he let Mr. Morse out?
A. Went into the sitting room back again.

Q. Was that before he had put on his collar and neck tie? He had not done that then?
A. No Sir.
.....

Q. About what time did Mr. Borden go out?
A. I did not see him go out.
........

Q. After Mr. Borden had let Mr. Morse out, where did he go then?
A. The sitting room.

Q. You do not know what he did?
A. No Sir.

Q. Did he go up stairs after that?
A. He came out in the kitchen and cleaned his teeth, and then went up stairs.

Page 9

Q. Up the back stairs?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. That was after Morse went; sometime afterwards, or not long?
A. Not very long.

Q. How long was he gone up stairs?
A. I could not tell.

Q. Was that the time he came down with his collar and neck tie on?
A. He put his collar and tie on up stairs.

Q. And came down with them on?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Did he do anything about his coat when he came down that time?
A. I did not see him. He went in the sitting room.

Q. Where did he keep the coat that he wore out of doors?
A. In the dining room.

Q. Did you see him with that on?
A. No Sir.

Q. So the last time you saw him before he went out, he had his house coat on?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. You say you did not see him go out?
A. No Sir.

--There was about 90 minutes bewtween the end of breakfast and when Andrew left around 9 AM.

[Shelley]

I would bet that shallow little diningroom closet right by the entrance to the sittingroom held some hooks on which he hung his street coat. I was looking at it just yesterday and thinking not much could have been put in there and that would have been really handy if someone came to the door on business, or for going out.

[Shelley]

Here is a great site on the invention of the wire coathanger in 1903. Guests at the house are always intrigued when I mention the dress hooks, and that the zipper was not invented until 1893 but not used in dresses and pants until much later.

Thomas Jefferson invented the the early wooden coat hanger, the hideaway bed, the calendar clock and the dumbwaiter among some things. Wire hangers ruin clothes, though- just remember Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest!



http://www.designboom.com/history/wirehangers.html

[Kat]

I would bet that shallow little diningroom closet right by the entrance to the sittingroom held some hooks on which he hung his street coat. I was looking at it just yesterday and thinking not much could have been put in there and that would have been really handy if someone came to the door on business, or for going out.

I never thought of that! That's very good!
I pictured it hung on the back of a chair, but what you point out makes sense. So his outdoor coat was not kept in the kitchen after all, maybe.

Lizzie said she put her hat in the dining room. Maybe her hat lived in that closet as well?

[Shelley]

It might have been Kat. There is a top shelf where we now store tableclothes in that closet. We don't know what they kept in those two sittingroom closets, and there may not have been a front hall hatrack and mirror. I cannot recall where I read once that there was a large nail on the back of the kitchen door where Andrew hung his cardigan reefer. I always thought maybe he hung his coat on that when he took the reefer down.

[Kat]

Bridget talks about where Andrew kept that inside jacket. It sounded like on the wall near the stove by the door to the sitting room. Her phrasing is weird tho.

Lizzie said she entered the dining room and put her hat down (from coming in from the barn, supposedly). That means to me that she at least did not keep her hat upstairs, because she said she was going upstairs when she found Andrew. So it would make sense if the dining room closet was used for the coat of Andrew and the hat of Lizzie- they both put each thing there in the dining room.
I admit it seems like an unusual place to keep a hat or a coat.

Morse said his hat was in the entry hall.
Trial
149
Q. Not going into the front hall after you came down stairs that morning?
A. Oh, I stood in the door and took my hat off the rack, which is right close: that is all.

Q. Only to get your hat, but no further?
A. No, sir.

[Shelley]

Well that's one mystery solved. I expect most Victorian homes had either a wall hook hat rack or a standing hat rack with or without a mirror in the front enty as everyone wore a hat when going out.

[Shelley]

The diningroom closet shelf is only 12 inches wide, probably too narrow to keep a hat. Didn't Lizzie say she put her hat down on the table when she came n from the barn? The diningroom closet does have 3 hooks in it though, just right to hang up an outside jacket. Seeings as Andrew was a well-known man of business about town, I would bet my last dollar(and Andrew would probably take it too!) that he always made an effort to look like one on the street while going in banks, collecting rents, -and putting on his business coat if someone came to the door to do business between 11-12 daily before lunch. Appearance was of much more concern to people then than now- and far more formalities observed. Makes a lot of sense he should keep it handy in the diningroom in case someone knocked on the front door seeking an interview. Even if he were at table, he could pop up and be ready in an instant to look the part.

[RayS]

I remember "hooks" in the "cloakroom" back in 1940s school. They were like a large J where you could hang a cap or hat from the long top of the J, and your coat on the lower part of the J.
Do they still sell them today?

[RayS]

Is there any evidence for a second dress? Can't we just stick to the facts in thjis section?

[Shelley]

Those aprons, usually of linen or cotton (household variety), if heavily spattered , the blood soaks right through them onto the dress below. We also do not know if they were bib-type aprons or half aprons.

Anything is possible of course, but I wonder why Lizzie would want to wear a dress of Abby's- which would also be missed? And two dresses- twice as much to conceal. There was and is a great difference in a 140 pound woman and a 200 plus pound woman in dress size.

I think if Lizzie had straddled Abby's body and gotten right down into that first murder, there was a greater chance for a splattering on the hem of her skirts which were near the head. With Andrew there is the arm of the sofa for protection of the lower skirt, and by standing partially in the doorway, one is somewhat shielded from flying spray. The medical folks who visit say once the heart stops there is no arterial spurting. After the head is opened, much blood seeps out, but not necessarily while the attack is in progress instantly.

Trying some experiments recently, the arm need not go all the way back up to starting position for each stroke. To deliver 10 strokes can be done in as little as 10 seconds. That amount of time does not expose the killer to much spray if the victim is prone and the killer is vertical. I have only used water in experiments of course.

[Susan]

You're a gal after my own heart, Shelley, I love trying different experiments to see if I understand things correctly, whats possible and whats not. Interesting! So, what are you using as a stand-in for the victims heads?

Yes, I personally don't think an apron would have covered Lizzie enough from blood spatter to have trusted one. My mind keeps going to Abby's gossamer rain coat in the front hall closet. The asked after Lizzie, Abby and Emma's rain coats, but, I don't know if they ever asked for them and tested them for blood? On the rubberized gossamer, a couple of quick swipes with a damp (with water) menstrual cloth and it probably would have looked clean.

[Shelley]

The smaller ice box watermelon makes a fabulous substitute for a head. It is round and about the same size. These are the dark green ones with stripes. A cantalope is just too small. My hatcheting experiments were done with one, when I realized the normal thing to do is not to keep raising one's arm up to the same height each time.

Mr. Borden's wounds are described as parallel which I believe shows a little more control and done from a vertical position where the height of the attacker over the body is relatively fixed, parallel wounds result. When bending down over the object attacked, more irregular, and diverse angles result due to the fluxuating position of the attacker. Needless to say the degree of frenzy is also a factor . I find two hands on the hatchet result in a more controlled and consistent delivery, although not as rapid as one-handing it.

If I were about 30 years younger, I would take up forensic science-love it!

[Kat]

On a previous page it was asked if Lizzie put her hat down on the dining table. She only says she entered the dining room and put her hat down. I think author's have been repeating the table thing since time began but that's not what she says. As you know, there was more furniture there than just the table, plus a hook in the closet.
I think it would be a bit rude to put one's hat down on a dining table that was already set, wouldn't it?
I mean, ironing small clean items there would be different.

Inquest
Lizzie
Q. When you came down from the barn, what did you do then?
A. Came into the kitchen.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I found my father, and rushed to the foot of the stairs.
Q. What were you going into the sitting room for?
78 (35)
A. To go up stairs.
Q. What for?
A. To sit down.

--
We still don't know what Andrew wore downtown that day. I don't mean to imply he was not suitably dressed- just that we have no one describing him as wearing that Prince Albert coat that day. He might have a perfectly decent summerweight jacket that he wore in August to go downtown. I think authors like to assume he would be wearing something uncomfortable to add to the image of this strict, disciplined Quaker-type man who didn't mind being uncomfortable in the heat by wearing that Prince Albert.
If we had a witness that would be different. I'm just not assuming he wore that- is all.

[Shelley]

She may have laid it down on the little settee in the corner. With the ironing board and its accoutrements on the table plus all the dishes- there was probably no room. We also do not know what type of hat it was. I am trying to picture what kind of a hat one would wear to a barn in summer- a boater? I will check my fashion magazines for possibilities.

[Shelley]

The first photo from the Delineator looks more dressy for downtown, I'd opt for the straw boater with the wider brim being a good candidate for casual on a sunny day. Brims, for the most part were not too large in 1892. Both images are dated 1891. The sleeve is a little smaller than most at the top for the time, but the skirt is exactly right.

[Kat]

I Want One!
Thanks for the pics!
BTW: I have seen you in the newspapers of 1993 lately!
All Dressed up!

[Angel]

[quote="Shelley @ Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:53 pm"]The smaller ice box watermelon makes a fabulous substitute for a head. It is round and about the same size. These are the dark green ones with stripes. A cantalope is just too small. My hatcheting experiments were done with one, when I realized the normal thing to do is not to keep raising one's arm up to the same height each time.


Shelley, I hope no one can see through the windows to your house when you are conducting your experiments.

[RayS]

The smaller ice box watermelon makes a fabulous substitute for a head. It is round and about the same size. These are the dark green ones with stripes. A cantalope is just too small. My hatcheting experiments were done with one, when I realized the normal thing to do is not to keep raising one's arm up to the same height each time.

Shelley, I hope no one can see through the windows to your house when you are conducting your experiments.

If you have relatives on a farm, you can ask to be present when they slaughter a pig or cow. A hard skull isn't found in melons.
Or you could visit your local abattoir and say you are doing a study; they will believe your cash. (Keep a vomit bag handy.)

[Allen]

Anything is possible of course, but I wonder why Lizzie would want to wear a dress of Abby's- which would also be missed? And two dresses- twice as much to conceal. There was and is a great difference in a 140 pound woman and a 200 plus pound woman in dress size.

I am not sure Abby's dresses would have been missed. Do we have an inventory of Andrew and Abby's clothing? Other than what was buried in the yard? The police were probably more focused on Lizzie and Bridget's clothing as they were possible suspects. I wonder if they would have even believed that the murderer might have worn clothing of the deceased to commit the murder. The dress being so much bigger than what Lizzie wore would make it easier to slip on over what she was already wearing, and would be less inhibitive of movement since the clothing was loose. She could've even removed her own skirt underneath Abby's dress. The dresses that Lizzie wore were in two pieces.

[Allen]

If you have relatives on a farm, you can ask to be present when they slaughter a pig or cow. A hard skull isn't found in melons.

This is my problem with substituting melons for a human head also. Such as they did on the television program that was filmed at the house. In the program the melon was even allowed to roll around freely on the table as it was being hacked up. I have to agree on this point. I think there would be a big difference between hacking through a melon and hacking through bone. Although the patterns might probably appear the same, it would take more force in my opinion to chop through a skull.

[Allen]

Yes, I personally don't think an apron would have covered Lizzie enough from blood spatter to have trusted one. My mind keeps going to Abby's gossamer rain coat in the front hall closet. The asked after Lizzie, Abby and Emma's rain coats, but, I don't know if they ever asked for them and tested them for blood? On the rubberized gossamer, a couple of quick swipes with a damp (with water) menstrual cloth and it probably would have looked clean.

I've thought of those gossamers myself, Susan. Emma testified that Lizzie owned one which was kept in the upstairs dress closet, but I think it was made out of a different material than Abby's if I remember correctly. She called it an American... something or other. I'll have to look. The quick swipe to a waterproof and the cloths could've been stored in the bucket with the 'menstrual rags' in the cellar. There are many possibilities for how Lizzie could've kept herself from getting any spatter on her. The gossamer, the Prince Albert, wearing Abby's dress. But the waterproof I've always found to be one of the most credible ones. I noted that there were questions asked about these gossamer's, but I have never been sure if they were actually checked for evidence.

[Allen]

If you have relatives on a farm, you can ask to be present when they slaughter a pig or cow. A hard skull isn't found in melons.

This is my problem with substituting melons for a human head also. Such as they did on the television program that was filmed at the house. In the program the melon was even allowed to roll around freely on the table as it was being hacked up. I have to agree on this point. I think there would be a big difference between hacking through a melon and hacking through bone. Although the patterns might probably appear the same if the melon was somehow held in place so as not to roll, it would take more force in my opinion to chop through a skull.

oops...hit quote instead of edit....

[Shelley]

The experiments with the melon were to get an idea of hand motion in a hatchet attack, length of time between blows, movement of liquid off the blade, direction of "wound" marks. Of course the bone of a cranium is quite different than the rind of a melon. I did learn that some blows will bounce off, especially before the rind was breached and split. Duplicating the real thing, I am sure you will appreciate, posed some problems- one must make do with what is at hand!

A lot also depends on the sharpness of the hatchet.

[Shelley]

The women wore cotton calicoes in the morning around the house. Bridget tells us they did, and it is documented fashion research that was true in that time period for people living in the Borden circumstances , in summer, in the morning.

A cotton summer calico is relatively thin fabric. I purchased several yards of it for my Costume Society demonstration, in various shades of blue, with patterns, sprigs, dark blue backgrounds, light blue with dark figures, and every possible color and pattern given as a description of Lizzie's dress.

I spattered a light spray of beef blood from the dinner steaks on these some of these swatches (which measured about 10 inches square) and to my amazement, after they dried ( a dark brownish shade) when I held the squares up at a distance (5 feet) in natural interior light and asked participants to point out which had blood spatters- NOBODY got it right! 15 people participated.

Using swatches of 12 different blue/ figured calico patterns, I held up one swatch for 15 seconds, put it away, waited five minutes, then asked participants to pick out the same swatch on a chart which had the selection of 12 similar fabrics on it including the selected one.
Two women got it right- 12 got it wrong. No man got it right .


Finally, cut out two swatches of light calico maybe 10 inches square. Put one on top of the other. Now, get that dinner steak out, and with an eyedropper, suck up some of that blood that always pools at the bottom of the styrofoam package. Stand back from the counter and flick a drop at the squares of calico. Next, drop some blood from about a foot above the swatches. Wait 60 seconds. Now, peel off the first layer and you will see the blood has handily soaked into the fabric below. Cotton is a very absorbant textile. Liquid will move from an area of high concentration, with wicking action, into an area of lower concentration. Liquids behave that way.

In my opinion, there would have been no advantage whatever in wearing a dress over a dress if keeping blood off was the desired effect. Blood would seep through to the dress below and possibly into the cotton petticoat beneath that. There are disadvantages in mobility and movement. and disposing of incriminating yardage. The average skirt and blouse contained 7 yards of fabric. Not to take into consideration that in a crime of passion, with adreneline surging- WHO would stop a moment before the deed, think about putting on a dress over a dress, then go back to seething rage again? These types of crimes flow from a different place than a quiet, reflective and cunning poisoner. Totally different Modus Operandi.
If you know about dressmaking - the arm scye (hole) in the basque (blouse) in the 1890's was tight-fit. To put a blouse over top of another blouse would not only be bulky, uncomfortable and tight, the bunched-up fabric under the armpit would restrain free arm motion.

So what did I learn? People, especially when there is activity going on around, may not pay especial attention to the color, texture, composition or pattern of another's clothing. Men may have even less ability to notice and retain patterns and color than women, especially in describing fine pattern detail and color. When presented with a variety of similar patterns to one shown isolated a short time prior, many will not be able to recall the specific pattern, but may point to one similar, or not similar at all.
Dried blood on fabric of a dark blue background , or dark blue patterned foreground may not be visible under normal daylight conditions at a distance to the casual and unalerted observer.

My next experiment will be with navy blue bengaline.

[Harry]

As Arte Johnson used to say on Laugh In, "verrrry interesting".

Good stuff, Shelley, or should we start calling you Shell-ock Holmes!

My thoughts on the dresses have been that unless the person is wearing something that is unusual, or at least unusual for them, others do not tend to notice their outfit. I think Lizzie could have easily switched two similar blue dresses and Bridget would not have noticed. She may have even had two identical blue dresses.

The appearance of the blood on the fabric was most interesting.

[RayS]

There is one thing you should keep in mind. When it come to wearing a dress or apron, a man could also put one on to keep from being spattered!

Does anyone remember the last scenes of Hitchcock's "Psycho"?

[RayS]

As Arte Johnson used to say on Laugh In, "verrrry interesting".
...
My thoughts on the dresses have been that unless the person is wearing something that is unusual, or at least unusual for them, others do not tend to notice their outfit. I think Lizzie could have easily switched two similar blue dresses and Bridget would not have noticed. She may have even had two identical blue dresses.

The appearance of the blood on the fabric was most interesting.

I think that is more likely of a man, a woman would be more likely to notice a changed dress, and comment on it. Remember Dr. Bowen's description?
PS There was a color picture in a newspaper last month showing people wounded in Lebanon. The blood spots stood out on light blue jeans.

[Shelley]

Light blue jeans- yes indeed. With the absence of a pattern, the blood is VERY noticeable. You are quite right Ray, a man would also have to consider similar challenges. The thought of a Victorian man running around the house in one of Abby's dresses, however, although not impossible, may be less likely.

Some men are also afflicted with colorblindness, which I believe is an X-linked issue manifested in men.. It may well have been the case with Dr. Bowen who described a dress as "drab". My husband has this affliction- reds and green especially are confused.

I will try to scan some of these test swatches-am not sure how they will look in such an unnatural light and presentation. You may also easily try these experiments at home on unsuspecting friends. The important thing is not to tell your participants what is going on. They must walk into all tests "blind" to intent.

[Shelley]

I have always believed that Bridget, who was in charge of the laundry KNEW there was some switching around of dresses. I believe the contents of Lizzie's closet were remarked upon by the police and the comment was made about a prepondrance of blue and blue-patterned garments.

[Allen]

I found this while looking for the testimony about the gossamers. She is being asked about the inventory of dresses that were in the closet on Saturday during the search.

Trial testimony of Emma Borden page 1531:

Q. Well, how many dresses were there in there?
A. I can't tell you without looking at this paper.

Q. Well, can you tell us about how many?
A. Somewhere about eighteen or nineteen.

Q. And whose were those dresses.
A. All of them belonged to my sister and I except one belonged to Mrs. Borden.

Q. How many of those dresses were blue dresses or dresses in which blue was a marked color?
A. Ten.

Q. To whom did they belong?
A. Two of them to me and eight to my sister.

[Shelley]

Thanks- those are the quotes I was looking for.

[Shelley]

I found it also worthy of note that Lizzie went to put on that pink and white striped wrapper with great alacrity, lay down on her bed and effectively kept the police from searching the room or her person. I believe they asked her was that HER idea or someone else's.

The presence of the male authority figures of Bowen and Jubb in the room also deterred the aggressive search of police of Lizzie's person and room. Smart move.

Lizzie also had to produce the key to the dress closet- which means she had control over entry into that area.

[RayS]

I found it also worthy of note that Lizzie went to put on that pink and white striped wrapper with great alacrity, lay down on her bed and effectively kept the police from searching the room or her person. I believe they asked her was that HER idea or someone else's.

The presence of the male authority figures of Bowen and Jubb in the room also deterred the aggressive search of police of Lizzie's person and room. Smart move.

Lizzie also had to produce the key to the dress closet- which means she had control over entry into that area.

I can't recall the source, but I remember reading somewhere that they did search Lizzie's room, even under the mattress. A thorough job as they should have done. Those w/ Trial Transcript or a good index can say.

[Allen]

Trial testimony of Emma Borden page 1568+:

Q. I don't know as I will bother with that. Did any of the members of the family have waterproofs?
A. Yes, we all had them.

Q. What kind were they?
A. Mrs. Borden's was a gossamer, rubber.

Q. That is, you mean rubber on the outside?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And black?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was that hanging?
A. I think she kept it in the little press at the foot of the stairs in the front hall.

Q. Did Miss Lizzie have one too?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did she keep hers?
A. In the clothes press at the top of the stairs.

Q.What kind was that?
A. Blue and brown plaid, an American cloth.

Q.And you had one too?
A. Mine was gossamer.

Q. Did you have yours with you in Fairhaven?
A. I did.

Q. So that was not at the house while you were gone?
A. No, sir.

Interesting that nothing is mentioned as to whether or not Andrew owned one, or what kind it was.