Lizzie's dress

[Kat]

First, Harry--You're right! I forgot all about Lizzie's inquest being from the newspaper records. It's the preliminaries I'm thinking of with Bridget--they just didn't make it into the hipbath collection?

The 5 volumes of the Preliminary Hearing including Bridget's testimony were recovered from the Hip-bath at Jenning's house. This is the source of this surviving court record.
The cool thing is they also include his annotations, which are barely legible.

[lydiapinkham]

Okay, then. At trial were they referring to the preliminary questions and answers? This may completely cancel out what I just wrote on the other thread. If so, my bad.

--Lyddie

[Kat]

If you have the trial, you might look for the references to which you allude. I can't answer without knowing what exactly is the question?

I don't think you are *cancelled out* and I think someone who really wants to know should keep asking, like you are.

[lydiapinkham]

Okay, I'm trying to keep track of two threads at once here, but, for instance when Bridget is asked if her memory is better "now than before" when she insists she never said she saw Lizzie cry, they seem to be consulting a record of her responses at inquest (?). Is that record what was retrieved in the hipbath collection, or was it actually lost before trial and bluffed by lawyers basing questions on memory instead of document.

(I hope that isn't too incoherent: I'm running a slumber party here with 5 screaming preteens, and I'm trying to take a break from the festivities. These girls are livewires.)

--Lyddie

[diana]

It is very confusing, Lyddie. At the trial Robinson certainly acts as though he is quoting directly from Bridget's inquest testimony. But he may indeed have been bluffing -- because it appears that Bridget's inquest testimony went missing sometime prior to trial and never re-surfaced -- at least to our knowledge. (It is the Preliminary Hearing testimony that was recovered from the hip-bath collection.)

In Fall River Tragedy, Edwin Porter says those present during Bridget’s inquest testimony were: Judge Blaisdell, Knowlton, Rufus Hilliard, District Officers Seaver and Rhodes, Dr. Dolan, Annie White, and a couple of police officials “who were among the first called to the house of the Bordens”. (p.54) None of those people would appear to be sympathetic to the defense’s cause, so that makes it doubly hard to know where Robinson's supposed 'quotes' would have come from.

But I find it very odd that Robinson would use a reference to Christmas when 'quoting' Bridget if he wasn't on fairly sure-footing as to what she had said....Christmas is a pretty evocative word.

I think there was something in Bridget's original testimony that the prosecution wanted suppressed or changed at later hearings -- I think the defense knew that -- but maybe they didn't know what it was.

At the preliminary hearing Adams pushes Bridget as hard as he can to tell the court what was on a piece of paper Knowlton showed her the evening just prior to Adams’s cross-examination. Adams’s implication is that it was regarding something she had testified to at the inquest. Bridget stubbornly resists his questions although it is obvious she is not telling the whole truth

She admits Knowlton showed her a “little paper” the previous evening – but says she doesn’t know what it was. Although initially she claims that the piece of paper had nothing to do with her testimony, she finally admits that it was something she had said somewhere but she professes not to remember when she said it. She says she knows for sure it was not about the groan, the note, the laugh upstairs, or Lizzie saying words slowly but claims not to remember what it was about. (The discussion with the D.A. was just the night before, remember.)

Adams is finally forced to let it go. (Preliminary Hearing: p.48+ old version, p.206+ updated version) It’s an intriguing bit of sparring between counsel and the witness and to my mind is revealing as to Bridget’s nature. Here’s part of it. It goes on for almost three pages in this vein:

Q: … What did he show you the paper for; do you recollect?
A: I do not know.
Q: You read it, did you not?
A: No Sir, I did not.
Q: You saw it was in printing?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: He handed it to you?
A: No Sir.
Q: You said he showed it to you?
A: I said I saw it.
Q: Was he talking about that paper when he showed it to you?
A: No Sir. He read a little of it.

(I'm reminded that the Bordens were Bridget’s fifth employers in a span of less than 4 years. I’d say this girl had a mind of her own and could definitely stonewall if she wanted to.)

[Kat]

That was a good explanation, Diana.
That reminds me that because of that incident we wondered if Bridget could read.

I forget that the Preliminary Hearing is the first time we can read Bridget. And so those who don't have it would have more questions like these.


You're right also, Diana, in your statement that the inquest was secret and from the letters in the Knowlton Papers- extracts provided by Harry -we know the defense did not get Bridget's inquest testimony (at least as recorded by Pillsbury and Knowlton in their correspondence)- and nobody for the defense attended the event.
It's a good question as to where they got notes from- maybe it was hearsay- Bridget denied things, after all. I wonder if Bridget knew they had not her testimony?

Maybe the defense did get hold of Bridget's inquest testimony after all through another avenue and since they no longer pestered the State, they stopped writing each other about it?
The Robinson files may provide this document...

[lydiapinkham]

Thank you, Diana and Kat. At least I have the data straight now. But if the truth is out there, I'd like to know where! Just when we think we know something, the provenance evaporates. It's all so tantalyzing--and frustrating!

--Lyddie

[Susan]

I found a mention of Lizzie's shoe in the paper, thought it should go under this thread:

Boston Daily Globe

BORDEN JURY FOUND
Miss Lizzie Sat Calmly Through It All



NEW BEDFORD, June 5-Before a stern and grim-looking bench of Judges as ever sat in Puritan New England of old. Miss Lizzie Andrew Borden was put on trial for her life the Court House in New Bedford. this morning. She had been occupying the large and rather comfortable room of the matron in the House of Correction. She was taken along the two short blocks to the Court House In a closed carriage at about a quarter to 11 o'clock. A little crowd had gathered to see her. It was a crowd mainly composed of well-dressed women and young girls, a crowd that added picturesqueness to the beautiful neighborhood of grand residences and park like gardens. The prisoner hurried into the Court House, closely attended by Deputy Sheriff Kirby, who is detailed as her escort. Those who saw Miss Borden for the first time were very much astonished. Her newspaper portraits have done her no justice at all. Some have made her out a hard and hideous fright, and others have flattered her. She is, in truth, a very plain-looking old maid. She may be likened to a typical school marm, plain, practical, and with a face that shows the deep lines of either care or habitual low spirits, and the transitory marks of a recent illness.

Beside her on her right sits bar custodian. She was dressed in black. excepting for a blue plume of feathers, two blue velvet rosettes in her hat. and a large enamelled pansy pin at her throat. Her dress was of black brocade, with two rows of narrow velvet ribbon found her curls and around the bottom of her basque, and three rows of the same ribbon above the edge of her skirt.

A common sense, broad-toed, brand new shoe peeped out from under her dress, and she wore black cotton gloves. Her dress fitted her as perfectly as if she had been measured for it in Paris, but it was of a very old fashion. Having the: the front of the basque puffed with great fullness. Excepting her rather loud Din pin she wore no jewelry. Her black straw hat was poke shaped. and of no existing, fashion. Her beautiful, fine nut-
brown hair, soft and glossy to a degree, was pulled back into a lone roll behind her head.

[Kat]

I tried to find the color- "Nut Brown" (for Lizzie's hair)- but didn't get too far. It is darker than I thought tho, according to hat colors.

Thanks for the transcript!
Since Lizzie gave her shoes to the court I suppose she needed new ones.
I wonder why we had no *shoe inventory* from the girls?

[Susan]

Yes, nut brown is a tough one when it comes to hair color. I've seen some wigs on line that are called chesnut, which is a medium, dark brown. But, then there seems to be a chesnut which is an auburn color, a dark, reddish brown. Haven't found anything that was strictly called "nut brown" except this one woman's description of her hair color on this Iranian singles site, her hair was reddish brown.

I know, isn't that weird, a whole list of dresses from Emma, but, nothing about how many and what kind of shoes and boots they owned. They considered it serious enough to test the shoes Lizzie turned over to check for bloodstains, why not look for another pair?

[Kat]

I found this in the Trial, as I was looking for attic information.

It was State Officer Seaver describing his search of the dress closet on Saturday:

Q. Now, Mr. Seaver, on the Saturday you made some search with reference to dresses, did you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or examination of dresses, I ought to put it?
A. Yes, sir; in one clothes press.

Q. You were with Mr. Desmond at that time, or with the party?

Page 745

A. I was with Capt. Desmond up in the garret in the first place, part of the time; in fact, most of the time that we were up there.

Q. Where were the dresses that you examined, for that is all I care to call attention to?
A. They were in the large closet over the front hall.

Q. Won't you describe the character of your examination of those dresses on the Saturday?
A. I first went into the closet and the closet blinds were shut, that is, the outside blinds. I opened the blinds---there were clothes around the window---hoisted the window and took the cloth down and opened the blinds, and then I went to the hooks. Capt. Fleet was there with me. He had gone in two or three minutes before me.

Q. (By Mr. Robinson.) A little louder, please?
A. Capt. Fleet was there with me, and I commenced on the hooks and took each dress, with the exception of two or three in the corner, and passed them to Capt. Fleet, he being near the window, and he examined them as well as myself, he more thoroughly than myself, and I took each garment then and hung it back as I found them; all with the exception of two or three which were heavy or silk dresses, in the corner. I didn't pass those down. I just looked at them and let them remain as they were.

Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Those were silk dresses?
A. Those were silk dresses, I am very sure, heavy dresses, and they hung there, and I didn't disturb them at all.

Page 746

Q. Did you discover anything upon any of those dresses?
A. I did not.

Q. Did you see a light blue dress, diamond spots upon it, and paint around the bottom of the dress and on its front?
A. I did not.

--Now Lizzie couldn't know what dresses would be searched, or whether her things would be searched at all- but it seems extraordinary to find out that not all the dresses were taken down and examined.
These heavy dresses, we find out, were not.

I started to wonder about Lizzie burning a dress on Sunday- We don't know that Lizzie didn't burn a whole slew of dresses (and petticoats), and maybe Alice only caught Lizzie burning one. We know of one, so we stop at one. What's to stop Lizzie from burning all kinds of things now that there is proof she did burn something?
Also, wasn't Alice *away* that morning (out/ or in another part of the house?) and just kind of showed up in the kitchen? Maybe Lizzie was counting on Alice being out?

[Haulover]

for me, this is a victoria lincoln "overlap."

she thought the bloody dress was hidden underneath one of those silk dresses. which is a "could have been but we'll never know" sort of thing.

what does anyone think about using testimony this way to reach such a conclusion? is it "fair?"

[Susan]

Yes, Kat, I agree, there is no way for Lizzie to have known what dresses they would or would not take down. The police were looking for a cotton dress, but, whos to say that they wouldn't check all of them, just in case?

My mind keeps going back to that blanket bundled up on the floor of Emma's closet. A lightweight, cotton dress could have been folded up in between the blanket and no one would really think to look for a dress in there. Lizzie had to put her Bedford cord somewhere out of the way, it was never seen or found by police despite Emma herself saying that it was hanging on a nail in the dress closet.

Yes, I imagine that Lizzie could have burnt a great many things before Alice got back, I'm thinking that 2 dresses would have been enough, 2 murders, 2 dresses. But, I still feel like the burning of the Bedford cord was staged. Everyone had mentioned that dress, it couldn't just disappear off the face of the earth, that would look even more suspicious. I think Lizzie needed and wanted a witness that wouldn't ask too many questions about what she was doing and why at that particular moment. That way, when asked about the Bedford cord, she could easily say that it was an innocent act, she did it right in front of Alice Russell, she had nothing to hide. But, I think Alice was a bit more suspicious than Lizzie bargained for with her comment about, "I wouldn't let anybody see me do that, Lizzie." Lizzie never replied, you'd think she would have least said,"Why not? Whats wrong with what I'm doing?" But, that may have meant stopping what she was doing, she needed to get rid of that evidence.

[Kat]

I guess you are saying, haulover, that Lincoln wasn't fair?
Did Lincoln use testimony?
........
The police didn't know what they were looking for.
They didn't know if they were looking for blood on a dress, or a man hiding in the closet.
Even by Saturday, if they are not examining every dress, they are still not sure what to look for.

It was Desmond who explained to the questioner that he was really looking for something that would lead him to a line of inquiry, and that was his mission.
Q. Were you looking for anything but blood spots?
A. I was looking for anything which might have a tendency to solve what we were after.

Q. Well, that is pretty indefinite, if you please. Were you looking for any spots except blood spots---on the dresses, I mean?
A. I cannot answer that.

Desmond was there Saturday.

I think Lizzie maybe burned some shoes? Or is that the influence of the movie The Bad Seed?

It's possible that Lizzie wanted an audience when she burned the dress, but also possible that she expected that Alice was out.
The dress didn't become interesting until it was burned. It wasn't a big deal until witnesses were asked what Lizzie wore, later the next week, was it?

[lydiapinkham]

Regarding shoes, don't we have a statement from the police that they didn't even ask for shoes and stockings until Monday? I think you are thinking of Rhoda's cleated shoes, Kat. (clackety clackety clack ) Wouldn't there be a terrible stench in the kitchen if Lizzie tried to burn a pair of leather shoes?

One thing about the initial closet search; it was anything but thorough. It reminds me of the Constance Kent case. Constance rinsed the blood stains from her nightgown, then moved it about just a step ahead of the police. I mentioned a pollanaise (?) once before-- a kind of overskirt. Could Lizzie have worn a skirt over a stained one when raising the alarm, then changed into the pink wrapper and hidden the stained skirt somewhere that had already been searched?

--Lyddie

[Kat]

I didn't think of the stink of shoes burning.
I just thought if Rhoda could do it, so could Lizzie.
I love that movie, The Bad Seed.

There was such a big deal made about that dress pattern, I think the authorities put some stock in that- but what?
What would their theory be as to that pattern?

Oh BTW: I have always thought that since Lizzie did not seem too concerned about the searches (that if she did it) then the evidence was already gone by 11:15, or she had it on her person or in her room where she could control it's whereabouts.
By Thursday night- that's another story.

[Susan]

Yes, thats true that no one was asked about what Lizzie usually wore around in the mornings until the Inquest. But, Emma knew, Bridget knew, I think Phebe Bowen knew, and Lizzie must have had an inkling that they would be asked about that Bedford cord. I think that in order for Lizzie to feel that she would appear innocent in Emma's eyes, she had to do away with it with Emma's knowledge, I think that that was important to Lizzie. If Lizzie had done away with it without anyone's knowledge, it might make it look more like a sneaky, guilty sort of act. I feel like Emma's question that day was not so much,"Lizzie, what are you going to do?" but more like,"Lizzie? What are you doing in there?" I would imagine Emma doing the dishes would have heard the tearing fabric and the sounds of the stove lid being removed and such.

Perhaps Alice was totally unplanned for? But, maybe Lizzie viewed that as a godsend having another witness to an "innocent" act, maybe she cursed the day that Alice was born? I'm just thinking out loud here, Lizzie had quite a bit of time with Alice out of the house, if she wanted to destroy that dress quickly and quietly, wouldn't she have done so already?

Hmmm, that dress pattern. Could it be as we thought about in the past that it might have looked suspicious? Buying a new dress pattern shortly before the murders that no one really saw that could have been used on the day of the murders and destroyed with no one being the wiser? I don't recall at the moment, but how did the police find out about the pattern again?

I don't know if it means anything, but, in Alice Russell's Trial testimony, she mentions that Lizzie went to the dress closet twice the day that it was searched. I would assume that that was after the police had searched it? Once I can see as she may have wanted to make sure that they left the closet as they found it and hung everything back where it belonged and closed the blinds again. Its that second visit that I'm wondering about, why? She was already dressed for the day, she didn't really need anything out of there. Did she have something to hide in there that she was concerned about?

[Kat]

Sunday was the first day Bridget was not there and Alice made breakfast. Then Alice tells us she doesn't remember what she made!
I think Bridget being gone must have something to do with why Lizzie picked that day to burn a dress. If Bridget being gone was a reason, then Lizzie did not want a witness. I don't include Emma in the term *witness* pretty much for reasons you gave.

Alice seeing that Bedford cord reminded her that she had not seen Lizzie wear that dress on Thursday. That complicates matters- Alice then deciding she had not seen that dress since the spring. Alice may have never recalled what Lizzie wore that Thursday if she had not been re-introduced to that dress. That's a minus factor, and does not go in Lizzie's favor.

I think the two trips to the dress closet was to unlock the door for authorities.
It's interesting tho that Lizzie retained the key- whereas she sent Bridget everywhere with keys to open doors in the attic and the elder Borden's rooms. However, maybe Bridget retained her own keys that were always for her use, and Lizzie retained the keys which were always for her own use- her bedroom door and the dress-closet?

[Susan]

I'm with you on that, Bridget being gone seemed to act as a catalyst. I think Lizzie knew that if Bridget saw her burn that dress, she might tell someone inadvertantly, servants talk, servants gossip. Can't you just hear Bridget talking to one of her girlfriends, "Mary, did I tell ya' what the Borden girl did now? After herself just got done telling me about a dress sale at Sargeants the day they was killed, she takes a notion to burn up this perfectly good dress! Give it here, says I, I'd put it to good use, sale at Sargeants indeed! La, she just tore it up and burned it in the stove and in broad daylight. That one, shes bold as brass, I say! Not a thought in her head that poor old Bridget might make use of her hand-me-downs."

Well, you get the picture. I'm wondering why if Lizzie wanted to get rid of the dress without Alice witnessing it, why did she wait so long? Alice left, Emma was taking forever with the breakfast dishes, Lizzie was alone in the kitchen. The part with Alice walking in and Emma asking Lizzie what she was going to do and Lizzie with the skirt over her arm sounds almost staged to me, just for Alice's benefit.

The dress closet bit is maddening, Alice doesn't remember much about it. She was prompted about it, if Lizzie gave the key to Marshall Fleet, if she opened it for him herself, etc., Alice can't recall. But it does sound as though Lizzie retained those two keys. Her bedroom door key didn't do her much good the day the police broke into her room from Andrew and Abby's room, but, I guess she still wanted a modicum of control.

[Kat]

Maybe it became staged when Alice came in?
That Emma stepped out of the sink room to make her comment because Alice appeared, and seemed to support Lizzie, to make it appear innocuous.
Then later on Monday when Alice brought it up, Emma admitted that the telling of the dress-burning to Hanscomb by Alice scared her more than anything else....

Lizzie could have burned a will, some stockings, another petticoat- all before Alice arrived in the room to see Lizzie take out the part of the Cord dress by the stove.

[Susan]

Ah! Now thats a thought, didn't Emma mention something about the dishes not being done until late that morning?! Maybe our Miss Emma was helping Lizzie tear things up and burn them instead of working on the breakfast dishes. Alice comes back and Emma scurries to the sink room after a quick word with Lizzie before Alice can enter the kitchen. That does work with the whole staged thing in my mind, Emma just calling out at the moment Alice comes into the room. Hmmmmm............

[Angel]

This probably won't prove anything, but I always wondered what the color the paint could have been on the dress. If it was something like an obvious green, then Lizzie, in her naivete, might not have thought anything about burning it. On the other hand, if the paint was red, and even if Lizzie was innocent, it may have made her paranoid enough to dispose of the dress because it looked like blood.

[Susan]

Hi Angel, we were just discussing the paint color on another thread; "92 Second Street To Receive Major Renovations", here is the link to that particular thread:

viewtopic.php?t=502&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0

According to the house painter, John W. Grouard, who painted the Borden house stated that the color was a dark drab, and the trim was a slightly darker shade of the same color.

[Allen]

Hello all, I am a new member to the site, but I have been studying the facts of the Borden case for many years. I have even taken the trip that most enthusiasts of this case eventually make and spent the night in the Borden house on two occassions in the John Morse guest room. This case is just so fascinating.It was my interest in this case that sparked my interest in true crime in general and the reason I decided to go to college for a degree in Criminal Justice. As for the idea of Lizzie changing her dress, I think it is very plausable that she did so. I believe she changed her dress after killing Abby, and used her fathers coat to shield her as she stood around the corner in the dining room to wield the axe. I have tried out my theory of standing in this position and wielding an imaginary axe, and it was pretty clear there would've been very little blood spatter on the perpetrator. Then she removed the coat and placed it under Andrews head. As for her burning the dress. If it was known that the Bedford cord was stained with paint, she could've worn this dress when she murdered Abby to purposefully disguise the blood stains.Who would've noticed the stains as being peculiar even after the murders, if it was known to be staind with paint in the first place? If the stains were known to be there, then she could also provide a valid reason for wanting to destroy the dress after the deed was done. It was covered with paint so why not just burn it up? Hiding in plain sight.What I dont understand is if the dress was covered with paint , why wasnt there more witness corroboration of it? She did still supposedly wear it didnt she? Even after it was stained with paint? And the location of the stain is what makes me believe that the supposed paint stains could've been used to mask and blood spatter.The dressmaker Mary A. Raymond testified at the trial


Q.Where was the paint, if you recollect?

A.It was on the front of the dress and around the bottom of the dress,
around the ruffle, and underneath part of the hem.

Wouldnt this be the very location that a person straddling a body and wielding the axe would've been expected to be spattered with blood?
And as for the theory that maybe she wore a dress belonging to Abby?
Where would the dress have gone? Well, maybe it was buried in the back yard when John Morse buried the bloody clothes of Abby and Andrew after the funeral.


1890's "ankle ties"





1892 boot style




early 1890's mourning dress






1893 house wrapper

[Audrey]

How much "clip clopping" would those shoes have made... and how much carpet was in that house in l892?

[Allen]

Well going by the available photos and accounts I've read about the layout of the house in 1892...the whole house was pretty much carpeted, the same as it is now. I think the shoes would've made very little noise. But as close as those rooms are,and all being directly connected, I think it would've been pretty hard for anyone to move around without being seen or heard by either Lizzie or Bridget. And with the front door locked, and the door to Andrew and Abby's bedroom kept locked, the only way to get upstairs and into the guest room was through the back door, through the kitchen, through all those connected rooms to the front hall, and up the front steps. Lizzie,with her own testimony, places herself right in the path the killer would have to take to get to Abby. How could anyone else have gotten in? I dont think it's possible. And even if her shoes did make noise, why would anyone in the house who was used to hearing them walk about think anything of it?

[Kat]

It seemed to matter in the questioning that the carpet stopped at the landing and hall of Mr. Borden's bedroom, and that the final steps up to the attic area and Bridget's room was uncarpeted.
The attic was also probably uncarpeted.
One of Bridget's jobs was to sweep the front foyer every other Friday, but we don't know if that was carpeted, or bare floor, or partially carpeted.
The kitchen was probably bare floor as well- was the back hall to the side door carpeted? In Bridget's testimony at trial, it sounds by the question that that back hall probably was carpeted up to the kitchen entry.

[Allen]

Q. You came down your back stair of course?
A. Yes, sir.

Q.Which are not carpeted - the upper part?
A. The upper part aint.

Q.That is from the second to the third story there is no carpet on it?
A. No, sir.

Q.But from the second story to the kitchen entry there is a carpet on the
stairs?
A. Yes, sir. There is from the all leading from Mr. Borden's to the first
story stairs, there is a carpet in there leading down to the lower floor.

Q.And the only thing on the route up to your room that is uncarpeted are
the stairs?
A.Yes, sir.

Q.That lead directly up to the attic?
A. Yes, sir.

[Allen]

Not sure, but from the crime scene picture I've seen taken of the front foyer its looks as if it might have been carpeted also.

[Kat]

Yup, I think you're right about the foyer- good call!
I checked Kieran and he said the carpet sweeper was kept in this closet with a box of table leaves. (T 108).

[Allen]

Since the topic is Lizzie's dress -and I'm sorry I know this has probably been discussed before- but the fact that she didnt have any visible blood splatter on her after the murders is one that can be used to argue her innocence. But I wonder if maybe her dress shouldn't have been a little dusty after being up in the barn loft. There was enough dust that foot prints.or a handprint could be seen in it, but no one says anything about Lizzie's dress or shoes being dirty or dusty? She was wearing a dress that dragged the floor.Should she have been sweating a little from being shut up in that loft? Maybe her hair should've been pasted down a little to her forehead? I dont know, but it seems to me that if she really did spend any time in the loft of the barn her dress would've shown signs of it.

[Kat]

That was the essence of my very first post which was on the old dark-rose board (we were the "Cellar Dwellers"). I interrupted a heated debate between Terence and another. I'll never forget it.
And the question is still valid.
The authorities were so busy trying to prove whether the floor was dusty when Medley saw it (hence Lizzie did not go up there)- vs. the defence saying Me & Brownie were up there first messing up the dust and dirt, no one led the jury to ask that question about her clothing. Her hands were white. Yes, it should have been noted!
BTW: Lizzie was not witnessed by anyone who knew that dress as wearing the long Bedford Cord on Thursday- the dress with the ruffle which dragged.

[Allen]

A passage from Emma Borden's trial testimony while on cross examination by Knowlton in part II of the trial testimony.

Q. I dont know as I will bother about that.Did any of the members of your 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 of one was that?
A. Blue and brown plaid, and American cloth.

Q. And you had one too?
A. Yes, sir.

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.


===============================================

from The American Heritage Dictionary

wa·ter·proof

ADJECTIVE:

Impervious to or unaffected by water.
Made of or coated or treated with rubber, plastic, or a sealing agent to prevent penetration by water.

NOUN:

A material or fabric that is impervious to water.
Chiefly British A raincoat or other such outer garment.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... d=w0053400.

===============================================

Interesting. What was he trying to get at there? Did he think Lizzie wore a raincoat?

[Smudgeman]

I don't think Lizzie was ever in the barn, because at the very least she would have been sweating from the heat. Interesting about the rubbers, I wonder if the Bordens all had rubber golashes? She certainly could have put them on during the murders and washed them off quite easily afterwards?hmmmmm

[Kat]

There are many reference to raincoats or gossamers/waterproofs as possibly being used in the public's letters to Knowlton in The Knowlton Papers.
Also to head coverings, called "hoods."
I think it's a good idea by thinking people.

[Allen]

I have not been fortunate enough to get a copy of the Knowlton papers, or to have read any of it, I wish I had so I could read the references you are talking about...might clear up some of my questions. But seems like a fair theory, since there were raincoats handy.

[Kat]

I didn't think you had the book, that's why I thought you were really thinking to get to the gossamers!

[Kat]

Here's one from The Knowlton Papers:

"#HK053
Letter, handwritten in ink.

Dear Sir,

I asked myself how I could commit a murder with a weapon that most certainly cause the blood to fly in all directions, and yet keep myself unspotted. This is the answer:--- I should put on a gossamer, (rubber cloak) and after the deed just sponge it off, with water prepared for the purpose, and hang it up in its place, or dispose of it in some way fixed upon in my mind beforehand.
I would suggest to you that all or any gossamers in that house be examined, and if any are missing trace them. That one tiny spot of blood might have spattered in between the buttons. The weapon is probably hidden in some prepared place; it may be wrapped up in old clothes or rags, or burried in the garden among vegetables or flowers.
If these suggestions prove of any value, I shall expect to be suitably rewarded.
Dorcas Bell

Brooklyn P.O. N.Y.

9-2-'92"

--There was a reward at the time. I wonder if there still is?
Anyway, I think some of these letters prompted further investigation or at least proposed certain questions to the State to ask the witnesses.
If we were around then, would we be signing our names to letters to Knowlton, or signing "Fascinated in Florida" etc...

[Allen]

Thank you very much for sharing that letter Kat! And I agree, it seems it might have prompted some of the questions that we saw asked in the trial. I wonder why it was not investigated further? It's a very plausible theory. I wonder were any of the gossamers ever actually examined? Yes if I was around then, I definitely would've been one to write letters to the prosecution. Probably expressing many of the same ideas I have on this forum

[1bigsteve]

Here's one from The Knowlton Papers:

"#HK053
Letter, handwritten in ink.

Dear Sir,

I asked myself how I could commit a murder with a weapon that most certainly cause the blood to fly in all directions, and yet keep myself unspotted. This is the answer:--- I should put on a gossamer, (rubber cloak) and after the deed just sponge it off, with water prepared for the purpose, and hang it up in its place, or dispose of it in some way fixed upon in my mind beforehand.
I would suggest to you that all or any gossamers in that house be examined, and if any are missing trace them. That one tiny spot of blood might have spattered in between the buttons. The weapon is probably hidden in some prepared place; it may be wrapped up in old clothes or rags, or burried in the garden among vegetables or flowers.
If these suggestions prove of any value, I shall expect to be suitably rewarded.
Dorcas Bell

Brooklyn P.O. N.Y.

9-2-'92"

--There was a reward at the time. I wonder if there still is?
Anyway, I think some of these letters prompted further investigation or at least proposed certain questions to the State to ask the witnesses.
If we were around then, would we be signing our names to letters to Knowlton, or signing "Fascinated in Florida" etc...

A full length rain coat would offer good protection from blood splatter. Burying the hatchet in the dirt is not something I thought of before. Is there any comments from the police about recently up-turned or disturbed earth in the Borden yard on the day of the killings? If there was, Perhaps the police didn't recognize the importance of it at the time.

Lizzie's trip to the barn may have been to hide a hatchet in a prearranged hiding place and not to look for fishing sinkers. If she hid it it would most likely be in a spot where she could retrieve it later and get it off the property while at the same time keep it well hidden from the police just after the killings.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Audrey]

As I have said before...

If we wish to explore Lizzie wearing a raincoat to protect her clothing from blood splatters while murdering ABBY we have to accept that she knew blood would splatter.

How can we assume she KNEW sucj a thing would happen?

If she killed Abby sans protective gear-- she would have had time to dispose of the dress... And if she did so, she did a good job of it.

Killing Andrew she would have known/expected there to be splatter-- hence her assumed position in the doorway or using his coat.

Practice makes perfect.

[Erato]

Besides shielding herself in the doorway, she could easily have made a paper sleeve to cover her hatchet arm from a piece of newspaper. And also a paper cover for her hair. My father used to make a folded paper hat out of a sheet of newsprint [just like the one worn by the carpenter in "The Walrus and the Carpenter" as illustrated by Tenniel] when he painted or did carpentry work.

[Allen]

As I have said before...

If we wish to explore Lizzie wearing a raincoat to protect her clothing from blood splatters while murdering ABBY we have to accept that she knew blood would splatter.

How can we assume she KNEW sucj a thing would happen?

Well in my opinion, if she planned it ahead of time, I assume she would know that if she used an axe to kill Abby it was going to get messy and may have planned for such a thing. Even a small cut produces blood, what did she assume the cuts from the axe were going to produce? While she may not have known exactly how the blood was going to project from the body, I assume she knew there would be blood at any rate. She may have known about blood splatter from a slaughter house, or from animals being slaughtered on the farm. Either way I think she had to assume there was going to be a bloody mess in using such a weapon.

[Audrey]

I see your point, but I do not know why she would have known...

Prior to my education in Criminology, I would not have thought of such a thing-- and these days we have all sorts of crime shows, books, movies, etc to educate us informally. Lizzie did not.

Who is to know what she knew and didn't know? (and that is a statement that can go either way!)

[Kat]

We had discussed the dress pattern as being somehow important to the prosecution as they asked about it specifically. The pattern Lizzie supposedly bought in New Bedford.
I think we deduced that if it was made of paper (like dress patterns nowadays) she could have tacked that together and worn it over her clothing and then burned it as paper in the stove. I don't think it was ever produced?
From the sound of it, it included material- which when described sounds a bit like Lizzie's pink & white wrapper.

[Allen]

My point was that even if she may not have thought of 'splatter' or how it projected from the body, she knew there would be blood at any rate. A cut produces blood. There are possible ways she could've learned about blood splatter, though you can never be sure, but she probably assumed that the wounds were going to produce blood. Also, as stated in another thread the hatchet handle, if it was the weapon, was estimated to be only about 12 to 14 inches in length, that puts her in pretty close proximity.

Audrey, just to be clear on what you're saying and make sure that I'm not misunderstanding, are you saying it's possible that Lizzie thought she was going to attack Abby with an axe or a hatchet and there wouldn't be any blood produced from the cuts? Or are you just saying she didn't know it would splatter?

Kat, that is an interesting theory about the dress pattern. I'm wondering how thick the patterns were, because I really don't know much about that. Would the paper the patterns were made of have been thick enough so that the blood wouldn't soak through onto the clothing underneath and still produce a stain?

Another theory that I had about the dress pattern was whether or not it was possible if she planned the killing far enough ahead of time, she could have made a dress from some cheap material, kept everyone else in the house unaware of it's existence, hid it until the day of the murders, wore it during the killings, and then destroyed it and no one was the wiser? All of her dresses would still be present and accounted for as far as Emma knew.

[william]

Mebbe Lizzie recalls the blood spatter when Andrew chopped off the heads of her pigeons (if he ever did!).

In any event, they had chickens at the Swansea farm. She may have witnessed the demise of some of the poor things when they were being readied for Sunday dinner - yes the blood does spatter. I've seen it once - once was enough.

[1bigsteve]

That's a very good point about the "cheap" dress, Allen. I have often wondered if Lizzie had kept one of her old dresses that everyone thought she had thrown away, or as you said, made herself a cheapo dress that no one knew about and burned it after the killing. She would also have had to make some sort of head covering since the hatchet would be arcing over her head, something not too tight that it would cause her to sweat from the exersion. But, I could just see Abby screaming when she saw this strange figure coming for her!

Perhaps her "ironing" was just an excuse to keep the stove stoked and ready for use. Didn't Lizzie say she was in the kitchen reading Harper's Bazzar? Maybe she was just keeping her eye on the stove.

-1bigsteve (o:

[Audrey]

I contend that she may have expected bleeding, but she may not have expected the blood to 'squirt' on her or splatter about the room.

She may have purchased or had a cheap dress made for this purpose, but why then attempt to buy the prussic acid?

My idea is that Lizzie was not an experienced murderer. She may not have known what to expect at all.

[1bigsteve]

I contend that she may have expected bleeding, but she may not have expected the blood to 'squirt' on her or splatter about the room.

She may have purchased or had a cheap dress made for this purpose, but why then attempt to buy the prussic acid?

My idea is that Lizzie was not an experienced murderer. She may not have known what to expect at all.

Wack, wack, wack, oops, thar she blow's!!

What I was thinking, Audrey was that Lizzie may have intended to kill her parents with the cyanide but when she couldn't buy any she had to resort to another method. A gun would have been too loud and too hard to "ignore" until after Andrew was killed. A gun going off in that house could not have been ignored by Lizzie and Lizzie would have had a hard time explaining why she didn't go up for a looksie when she heard the first shot that killed Abby. The smell of gun powder would have been obvious too. I doubt Andrew had one and Lizzie would have looked funny buying one. Personally I would have choked them both to death. A knife could have been choice for Lizzie but as someone else said earlier, Lizzie may have felt that she needed the extra power a hatchet would give her from leverage and momentum. Even so, I'm still surprised by the shallow wounds.

Could the weapon have been a meat cleaver that was washed and put back in it's place? Hiding in plain sight? Could the weapon have been some other household object with a sharp edge? The police assumed it must have been a hatchet so it's possible they walked right past the real weapon.

Did Lizzie have enough time from the day she couldn't buy cyanide to the morning of the murders to make a "covering?" She said she was up in her room sewing something on something on the morning of the murders. Maybe she was just putting the finishing touches on her "costume?"

Four of the wounds on the back of Abby's head were horizontal, or in an "ear to ear" direction. That indicates to me that Lizzie would have had to have been standing between the dresser and Abby during the attack, or between Abby and the bed, or laying across the bed, or Abby was moving during the attack.

Lizzie may not have known much about how to murder but whoever did the killing was skilled enough not to have hit the bed, floor, wall or sofa with the weapon. Interesting.

-1bigsteve (o: