Andrew's Jacket

[jwarrener]

This subject may have been covered before but it is one that I am still interested in getting some thoughts on.

In the picture showing Andrew's body, his jacket is folded and stuffed under his head like a pillow. I would think that anyone who was so concerned about getting a sofa dirty by putting his feet up on it when resting would also be very careful to not wrinkle or soil his jacket by putting it in that position.

Could it have been used to protect the murderer from getting blood on him or herself and then stuffed under Andrew's head afterwards?

John

[FairhavenGuy]

Hi John,

Yes, it's certainly possible the coat shielded the killer, then was folded up and placed under Andrew.

But it's also very possible that Andrew had a habit of using his coat as an extra pillow. We simply have no way of knowing.

I personally think, what with Andrew bleeding quite heavily from the head, the killer would have risked getting more messy by trying to tuck the coat under there.

[jwarrener]

But take a look at the picture. It doesn't look like the jacket was folded nicely but rather jammed under the pillow. Am I wrong?
Thanks
John

[FairhavenGuy]

Well, it certainly looks like there was some heavy duty activity around there, but it doesn't preclude Andrew having placed the jacket there himself.

Bowen (or somebody) says of the photo that Andrew had settled or slumped down or something between the time he was first seen and the time the photo was taken.

Looking at the photo, I can imagine the pillow not starting out in the position we see it either.

I can imagine Andrew entering the room and placing his folded jacket on the arm of the sofa, then placing the pillow on top of that, and resting his head on the pillow.

Getting hit in the head with a hatchet a number of times could have caused the pillow and Andrew to slip more toward the position we see in the photo, though the pillow and his head may have been higher up on the jacket when Bowen first arrived. As time went on, they slumped into the position that was photographed.

If the jacket was NOT there when Andrew was killed, it seems to me he would have ended up resting much lower and the killer would have to lift his bleeding head and get the jacket in there behind the pillow.

[Erato]

I've always liked the idea of Lizzie's using the coat to protect her dress; too bad we don't know if it had blood spatter on it. I don't see Andrew as the type to wad up his jacket to use as a pillow. but who knows. It would have been easier for Lizzie to wash her hands than to deal with a blood stained dress and the jacket would have been long enough to mostly cover her.

[Harry]

I looked at Dr. Dolan's Trial testimony re the coat (p854+) and the first part of it is interesting:

Q. Now as to the position of the body when you saw it, looking at exhibit 17 (photograph), how does that correspond with your remembrance of the position of the body when you saw it?
A. That is right. The only difference possible, the only thing that I am not quite sure of, is that possibly I may have pulled that coat up a little to get to his inside pocket. I am not quite sure of it.
Q. Which is the coat, sir?
A. This is it: His Prince Albert coat.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury) That is the coat, he says, right over there, ---over the head of the body.

Q. You pulled that up a little, did you: otherwise is the position the same as you found it?
A. Yes, sir.

MR. KNOWLTON. (To the jury). That is the picture that you have already seen, gentlemen.

Q. What was the head resting on?
A. The head was resting upon a small sofa cushion that had a little white tidy on it. The cushion in turn, I think, rested on his coat, which had been doubled up and put under there, and that, I think, rested upon an afghan or sofa cover, ---a knitted affair.
Q. The lowest of the three was the doubled up coat?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was the ---?
A. Afghan.
Q. Then came the coat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then the sofa cushion?
A. Yes, sir."

It is clearly the Prince Albert coat being referred to as Knowlton calls attention to that fact. Dr. Dolan may have altered the position of the coat.

At the Preliminary, Dr. Dolan stated (p93+)

"Q. Where was the principal flow of blood, on the lounge or on the floor?
A. Through the lounge on to the floor, after going through the pillow and his coat."

[FairhavenGuy]

Okay, so here we have Dolan fiddling with the coat, too. (Thanks, Harry!) That testimony does nothing to disprove the theory that Andrew placed the pillow on top of his coat.

The head was on the pillow, the pillow on the coat, the coat on the afghan.

Unfortunately, none of the Borden crime scene photos reflect what the scenes looked like immediately after the murders.

[Harry]

You're welcome Chris. Thought it would be good to have Dolan's testimony before us.

I should think the coat, when worn backwards, would restrict the arm movements. Also, the blood spatter would be on the back of the coat not the front.

Bridget testified that Mr. Borden normally hung his outside coat in the dining room. From her testimony at the Prelim. (p9):

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

I'm not sure whether that bit of testimony refers to the Prince Albert coat.

Without me doing a lot of digging does anybody know, from testimony, whether Andrew even had the Prince Albert coat on that day?

[jwarrener]

Great Insights! Thanks!

Wasn't their testimony by Lizzie or a statement that when Andrew returned home that morning, she took and hung up his coat?

[jwarrener]

It definitely was a crime of passion which rules out so many suspects. ALSO that Lizzie was talking about her fear of her father's enemies to Alice which set up alternative suspects the night before seems to indicate that she either was planning on doing it or knew something about it ahead of time.

Another interesting thought came to mind just know invloves her uncle.
Why go forward with the murder when you had an unexpected house guest visiting? Couldn't he return at any time and catch you in the act?
Unless something so enraged you there was nothing going to stop you from getting revenge??? OR Uncle John's presence itself that night set things up in motion. Was it the fear of losing part of her inheritance to Uncle John or something else?

What could it have been?

I remember being told that Uncle John had spent some time the previous year as a guest at the house. I think he stayed in the room next to Bridget's.
Could there have been something sexually that Uncle John did to Lizzie that laid the groundwork for the murder.

Maybe Lizzie told Andrew and Abby about it and they ignored her accusations OR Abby defended her brother to Andrew. Couple this with the realization that Uncle John not only was evil in Lizzie's mind but that Lizzie felt that Abby was about to get more property transferred into her name soon. . What could she do? She had to put an end to this nightmare. She hated Abby for defending her brother and making her look like a liar in front of her father as well as conniving to have the property taken from her inheritance. She hated Andrew for not coming to her defense when she really neeed him. So in a fit of anger she killed Abby. Then out of hate of her father for the same thing and in fear that he father would know that she was the murderer and had only one possible thing to do--finish her revenge.

Remember how guilty Uncle John seemed to be after that morning by not wanting to go into the house even in spite of seeing a crowd out front?
Did he fear that Lizzie would bring up the accusations of the past or just felt guilty about what he did? So in spite of the commotion around the house it was safer for him to stay away until he realized that something BIGGER than a family quarrel was going on.

Lizzie didn't eat supper or breakfast at the same time as Uncle John--did she?

When Lizzie went on her European trip, was it right after or during Uncle John's visit the year before? (I don't know the answer.) Would it have been a way for Andrew to make up for not coming to Lizzie's defense when she needed him in terms of Uncle John.
For as frugile a person as Andrew was, it really had to take something to lay out the cash to send her on that trip.

Finally, if something happened between Lizzie and Uncle John in his room next Bridget's. Maybe Bridget heard what was going on but couldn't do anything to help since she was just the servant and in some form of her own guilt at not being to help Lizzie did what she had to do to protect Lizzie afterwards--whether it was spiriting away the murder weapon or leaving out some incriminating evidence at the trial.

Thanks for letting me ramble. This case has fascinated me since I was 11 years old.

[FairhavenGuy]

Just a note: John Morse wasn't Abby's brother. He was the brother of Andrew's first wife Sarah.

[jwarrener]

My mistake--My mind was going really fast on a new road that I never ventured own before and it looks like it hit a couple of mudholes on the way. Sorry

[FairhavenGuy]

No need for an apology. It's easy to slip on the road once you get going.

I, too, think John Morse has to fit into the picture somehow.

August 4 was not a completely ordinary day.

John Morse was there--not an everyday event.

Emma was away--not an everyday event.

Members of the household were/had been ill--not an everyday event.

Lizzie had made a dire prediction the night before--not an everyday event.

[Erato]

I think Uncle John was the unwitting spark that set Lizzie off because she knew or suspected or feared that he would help/encourage Andrew to make some financial move that she considered disadvantageous. I think she knew this financial transaction, whatever it was, was in the works and so her mind had already turned to thoughts of prussic acid. After failing to obtain the cyanide, she spent the afternoon stewing up in her room and listening in on the conversation downstairs in the sitting room. She decided that she had to go through with it using any available weapon; maybe she even hoped Uncle John would be blamed. As for Emma, I've often wondered if she absented herself from Fall River at that time because she knew what Lizzie was planning to do and, while generally supportive, could not face being a direct participant.

[Kat]

Uncle John Morse is an interesting character in the story.
He did not leave money to Lizzie and Emma in his will.
When he died, in 1912, there was a redistribution of his legacy and Lizzie accepted the money and Emma did not.

Emma said in her testimony in 1892:
113
Inquest
Q. He was enough of an Uncle then to be a correspondent?
A. He is a very dear Uncle of ours, of mine.
Q. You corresponded with him regularly?
A. Yes Sir.

Morse had at one time, according to Emma, been a dear uncle. By the time of his death, Morse had said in his will the Borden girls were not in need of any money of his. When it came down to doling out his money, Emma refused her share. Of course, Lizzie did take hers.
What could have happened in the meantime?

[Allen]

I'm of the mindset that Lizzie was just downright greedier than Emma. Lizzie also didn't make any provisions for Emma in her will, stating that she had already had her share of their father's money. Emma made provisions for Lizzie though even after stating that she would never set foot in Maplecroft for as long as Lizzie was still living. I think Emma refused the money because it wasn't originally left to her as per the will, and she was following John's wishes. She also probably realized, heck, she really didn't need the money anyway. I realize it's probably the thought that counts. Do we know this wasn't talked over between John and Emma at some point?

[Harry]

We are not talking about a sizable amount of money that Uncle John left the Borden sisters. Something like $600 each. Essentially pocket change to either one of them in 1912 the year of Uncle John's death.

Emma whose lifestyle couldn't even remotely spend what she already had certainly didn't need another $600. She probably felt Morse's other family members could make better use of it.

[KT72]

Pardon my ignorance (there are so many facts and considerations in this case, I frequently forget many of them); but did anyone actually see Morse go down the street from the house that morning?........I'm just thinking, he went out the side door, right? When a person leaves a house, the inhabitants don't typically watch their progress. If no one was paying attention, how easy would it have been for Morse to go around another way and slink back into the house?.....

I definitely think Morse's presence had something to do with what happened though. I guess you could say I'm a fan of the incest theory; perhaps Lizzie overheard some conversation between Morse and Andrew about Lizzie's biological mother, and that coupled with her mother's brother's presence set her off?...Something to think about........

[jwarrener]

Morse had alibis that seemed too good to have occured in real life which also makes one wonder why he went out of his way to establish such an airtight alibi.

ALSO when he saw a crowd around the house after the murders he didn't go directly inside. Wouldn't it be natural if you saw 10-20 people standing outside the house that you were staying at to go and check what was happening??

What was he worried about? Did he suspect that there was going to be family trouble? Was he himself involved?

Like has been said already here, he is a suspicious and definite part of the puzzle.

[Kat]

The Borden girls did not travel to Morse's bedside when he was dying. I think there was at least a week for them to make the atempt. So much for the dear uncle.
Anna Morse went tho, to Iowa from Minnesota.. She had a decent share in his legacy, tho.

Of course, the redistributed amount -not willed yet apportioned- to the Borden girls was put aside for Emma. Her estate asked for it after her death and it was saved for her. So I've often wondered why not take the money and give it to charity? The refusal seems to send a message.

[Allen]

Morse had alibis that seemed too good to have occured in real life which also makes one wonder why he went out of his way to establish such an airtight alibi.

ALSO when he saw a crowd around the house after the murders he didn't go directly inside. Wouldn't it be natural if you saw 10-20 people standing outside the house that you were staying at to go and check what was happening??

I've often wondered how Morse's alibi is considered to be too good to be true, or as you stated too good to have occured in real life. His alibi was basically that he was at the home of relatives visiting at the time of the murders. This was checked out and established to be true. So he remembered a few otherwise insignificant details. The only reason they are suspicious is that the murders occurred while he was away, in my opinion.

If nothing untoward had happened that day, and he came home and was able to describe these same details in conversation, would the person he was having a conversation with think it suspicious that he remembered so much about his day? The only thing that makes these details seem so suspicious, in my mind, is simply the fact that everybody is LOOKING for suspicious behavior. I think too much is read into his story, and his being able to corroborate it. I don't see how this alibi is too good to be true or suspicious. Evidently neither did the police.

[jwarrener]

Thanks but didn't Morse know the conductor's badge number when asked? (Which is more than amazing to me if it was true.) Or did he only remember that he rode with the 5? nuns?

[Kat]

It's 6 priests. Close!
I agree with Allen in her post.
The *elaborate alibi* probably came from Arthur Phillips, a young, green investigative defense attorney with a bad memory by the 1930's.

If one rode with 6 priests on the car, one might tell that story around the dining table...

[Fargo]

Does this mean that with all the investigating that was done that Andrew's Jacket was not examined to see if there was blood spatters on the front or back of it in a way that they would be if the killer had worn it?

The killer could have worn the Jacket backwards or put the Jacket on frontwards and buttoned it up.

[theebmonique]

I don't see Andrew's jacket on the evidence list, but I haven't had the chance to check past the crime library/evidence list via LABVML at this point. I would think that it was so blood-soaked, that that detecting any blood due to it being worn to protect from splatter, would be moot.

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... ceList.htm


Tracy...

[Harry]

I don't remember ever reading what happened to the Prince Albert coat. It was not one of the items buried behind the barn by Uncle John, at least according to this list.

This is from the Witness statements, p42, notes by Police Officer Albert E. Chase:

"Fall River, Mass. August 5, 1892. The following articles and wearing apparel were this afternoon taken from a washtub in the cellar wash room of the Borden House by orders of the City Marshal and Medical Examiner, and were buried under my direction in-the yard back of the barn. 1 sofa pillow and tidy, one large piece of Brussels carpet, one roll of cotton batting, one sheet and several pieces of cotton cloth, three towels, one napkin, one chemise, one dress., one pair drawers, one skirt, two aprons, one hair braid and several pieces of hair from Mrs. Borden's head from five to eight inches long, one neck tie, one truss, one piece of black silk braid or watch guard. I also found mixed in with the hair of Mrs. Borden a piece of bone, which from it nature I took to be a piece of Mrs. Borden's skull, it was cut so smooth, that I thought it might be of use in determining what kind of instrument was used, as the bone and hair both had the appearance of being cut with a very sharp instrumetn; I gave this piece of bone to Dr. Dolan. About the middle of the next week Dr. Dolan ordered all the articles dug up. After taking out pieces of clothing and of the carpet, they were ordered buried again. This time they were all put in a box."

Since the list appears to be very specific it doesn't appear that the coat was included. It does list the sofa pillow and tidy that Andrew's head lay on but not the coat.

The case of the vanishing coat. Someone call Columbo!

[jwarrener]

Thanks for the clarification on the nuns and the badge number.

It seems that after the first murder there was enough time to clean up. After the second one, however, the killer had to have some protection, stripped naked and washed later (highly unlikely) or left with a fair amount of blood on them (also unlikely). I think after the the killer saw how much blood came out of Abby that they were deliberately being careful to avoid problems on the second one.

As frugal as Andrew was about things, I can't see him folding his wool jacket as a pillow under him or even worse laying it under the pillow. It woudl have been wrinkled terribly if he had to go out again for business. ESPECIALLY on a warm day when the wool would have made him very uncomfortable as a pillow. I also remember some testimony in which Lizzie said that she took his jacket and hung it up when he came in that day. Can anyone confirm or dispute that??

One of these days I would love to experiment and see if there were any ways that the jacket could have been used to protect the wearer and allow the arms to be free enough to have the power needed to do what was done.
Thanks
John

[Kat]

I don't think we've yet proven that Andrew wore that coat that day?
Bridget did not see Andrew leave. I think she last saw him in his shirtsleeves?
If Andrew did not wear that (particular) coat on that August day, and yet it was out on the sofa- that would be extra suspicious.

[diana]

I've been trying to find something about Lizzie hanging up Andrew's jacket when he came home -- but am coming up empty.

Here is her testimony:
"Q. When you went out to the barn, where did you leave your father?
A. He had laid down on the sitting room lounge, taken off his shoes, and put on his slippers, and taken off his coat and put on the reefer." (Inquest)

Her uncle, Hiram Harrington, apparently told the police and the press that he had a long conversation with Lizzie on the day of the murders and she told him that she helped Andrew "off with one coat and on with another, and assisted him in an easy incline on the sofa . . . " (Witness Statements) But there is still nothing there about her hanging the jacket up -- and, personally, I don't believe this conversation between Hiram and Lizzie ever took place.

A quick word search in the Bowen, Sullivan, Churchill testimonies didn't turn up anything that helped. So I don't think that it can be firmly established from testimony that his jacket was hung up when he came home.

However, Bridget does say the coat Andrew wore outdoors was kept in the dining room. (Prelim. 9) And when he came home that morning, Andrew went directly into the dining room and spent some time reading in there before moving into the sitting room. So doesn't it seem likely that, if he had his outdoor coat on, he would have hung it up in the dining room at that point -- before moving into the sitting room?

[Fargo]

If Andrew's Coat was worn frontwards there woudn't be the arm restiction that there would be if it was worn backwards.

If the Coat was worn backwards by someone considerably smaller than Andrew like say by a smaller man or a woman, and if the coat was a few sizes too big for them then there would be less arm restriction because of that.

[Kat]

Thanks for looking all that up Diana!
We should save it for future reference!

Was it an author who claims Andrew wore that coat summer & winter?
Did anyone downtown notice it?
Anybody know?

[Haulover]

***I don't think we've yet proven that Andrew wore that coat that day?
Bridget did not see Andrew leave. I think she last saw him in his shirtsleeves?
If Andrew did not wear that (particular) coat on that August day, and yet it was out on the sofa- that would be extra suspicious.***
_______________

i've considered this myself. and it seems odd that this dropped out of the inventory. here's an idea for speculation: that the killer wore the coat for both murders and left it there, whereas andrew never wore it that morning.

[FairhavenGuy]

Andrew might not have worn that coat, but I highly doubt that Andrew or any businessman of any kind would be out without a coat, winter or summer. Except for young boys or laborers, a man would generally not appear in public in just shirtsleeves at that time.

It wasn't much earlier in history that the shirt alone was considered underwear--something that was always covered with a vest and a coat in public settings.

Andrew was a very traditional businessman out doing banking, etc. People in his position even today often wear suit jackets even in August.

Andrew, I'm certain, was not out on the street without a coat of some sort.

[Kat]

Agreed. But someone sometime made it legend that Andrew never went out without the Prince Albert coat.
We hear it is wool. Was Andrew that frugal that he didn't have a summer-weight coat?

Hey Eugene! If Andrew didn't wear it it could be used for both murders, is your idea? That's a good one!

[Allen]

I wanted a clear image of what a 'Prince Albert' coat would look like. I had a pretty good idea, but I wanted an exact image so I could try and imagine in my mind what it would look like if someone about my size and height ( Lizzie) were to wear it backwards. So I did some looking around.



http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/pattern ... tinfo.html




http://www.5rivers.org/en-gb/dept_20.html




http://www.broadwaycostumes.com/images/ ... 0-zoom.jpg

[Audrey]

I put one of my husband's long 'trench' coats on backwards.... It really was not comfortable at all and I would not have been able to raise my arms much above my head.

[Angel]

Why would the coat have to worn backwards at all? If it was buttoned in the front, it would seem to me that it would cover the person well enough to prevent blood getting on him or her.

[FairhavenGuy]

Kat, wool doesn't necessarily translate to winter weight. For much of history people wore different weights of wool year round.

[DWilly]

Also, given the fact Andrew was six feet tall I would imagine his already rather long coat would pretty much cover up five feet four Lizzie. My understanding is that Lizzie was also a lot thinner at that time. Even easier to slip on the coat.

[stuartwsa]

I've had Prince Albert coats in stock before in my vintage clothing store. They always are small, by our standards. In fact they usually are so small that they are purchased by women, because they are too small to fit the men of today.
But, given how tight that they have even fit my women customers, I can't see ANYONE of either sex putting one of those on back-to-front, to take a hatchet to someone. Arm movement would be severely curtailed because the sleeves were cut to move in the opposite direction. And, think of all of the extra material on Lizzie's leg-o'-mutton sleeves, all bunched up in the sleeves of the Prince Albert. It all adds up to zero arm mobility.

[Audrey]

I've had Prince Albert coats in stock before in my vintage clothing store. They always are small, by our standards. In fact they usually are so small that they are purchased by women, because they are too small to fit the men of today.
But, given how tight that they have even fit my women customers, I can't see ANYONE of either sex putting one of those on back-to-front, to take a hatchet to someone. Arm movement would be severely curtailed because the sleeves were cut to move in the opposite direction. And, think of all of the extra material on Lizzie's leg-o'-mutton sleeves, all bunched up in the sleeves of the Prince Albert. It all adds up to zero arm mobility.

Very nince info and insight!

[jwarrener]

Could the coat have been used in another way? It seems to me that after she saw Andrew lay down, she would have been very nervous about him or someone else catching her. So she probably evaluated the situation to see when the exact best time would be to act and rushed to get the deed done as fast as possible without taking time to carefully put on the jacket.

I also note that in the picture of Andrew's body, the blood did not seem to splatter backwards heavily. The pillow behind him does not look soaked. So it seems that the jacket may have only needed to protect Lizzie's arms.

Any thoughts?

[Allen]

Why would the coat have to worn backwards at all? If it was buttoned in the front, it would seem to me that it would cover the person well enough to prevent blood getting on him or her.

This is true. But from the style of the neckline, it seems like even buttoned up it would come down into a sort of V. If the coat was too big for Lizzie, I think the v would open even wider and cover a larger area.


stuartwsa Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:59 am

I've had Prince Albert coats in stock before in my vintage clothing store. They always are small, by our standards. In fact they usually are so small that they are purchased by women, because they are too small to fit the men of today.
But, given how tight that they have even fit my women customers, I can't see ANYONE of either sex putting one of those on back-to-front, to take a hatchet to someone. Arm movement would be severely curtailed because the sleeves were cut to move in the opposite direction. And, think of all of the extra material on Lizzie's leg-o'-mutton sleeves, all bunched up in the sleeves of the Prince Albert. It all adds up to zero arm mobility.

But weren't the clothes tailored to fit the individual who would be wearing them at the time? They weren't bought off a rack. So if Andrew had a Prince Albert Coat I would think it would be tailored to fit his size and frame. I don't think we can really go by examples of vintage clothing as being a generalization for everyone's size, since clothing was tailored to fit, and not everyone was the same size.

[Allen]

Also how do we know that the dress Lizzie was wearing had leg o' mutton sleeves?

[Audrey]

Why would the coat have to worn backwards at all? If it was buttoned in the front, it would seem to me that it would cover the person well enough to prevent blood getting on him or her.

This is true. But from the style of the neckline, it seems like even buttoned up it would come down into a sort of V. If the coat was too big for Lizzie, I think the v would open even wider and cover a larger area.


stuartwsa Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:59 am

I've had Prince Albert coats in stock before in my vintage clothing store. They always are small, by our standards. In fact they usually are so small that they are purchased by women, because they are too small to fit the men of today.
But, given how tight that they have even fit my women customers, I can't see ANYONE of either sex putting one of those on back-to-front, to take a hatchet to someone. Arm movement would be severely curtailed because the sleeves were cut to move in the opposite direction. And, think of all of the extra material on Lizzie's leg-o'-mutton sleeves, all bunched up in the sleeves of the Prince Albert. It all adds up to zero arm mobility.

But weren't the clothes tailored to fit the individual who would be wearing them at the time? They weren't bought off a rack. So if Andrew had a Prince Albert Coat I would think it would be tailored to fit his size and frame. I don't think we can really go by examples of vintage clothing as being a generalization for everyone's size, since clothing was tailored to fit, and not everyone was the same size.

Even bare armed... Put one of your husband's trench coats on backwards and see what it feels like..

The sleeves are cut and designed for arms to be put in the regular way and a tailored garment even more so. It is not comfortable, especially in the arm pit area... Making it hard to raise your arms above your head.

My husband is 6'3" and I am 5'11". I am much taller than Lizzie-- than even the average woman-- But I am slim and my arms have no loose skin. The sleeves of Thayne's coats are cut much more generously than mine and bought off the rack...

I am going to go put it on again and try to raise a hatchet over my head and see what type of luck I would have....

[diana]

Kat writes:

But someone sometime made it legend that Andrew never went out without the Prince Albert coat.

Maybe it was Kent?
"It was not an unusual sight to see gaunt, Scrooge-like Andrew, in the black, double-breasted Prince Albert and string tie he wore winter or summer, carrying a basket of eggs from his farm to sell on his way to the bank." (40 Whacks,2)

Or it could have been Victoria Lincoln. She seems pretty sure he wore it out the day of the murders.

"His clothes never varied with the season; he dressed the part of a man of substance as he had first conceived it as a rising young undertaker, always wearing a black string tie and a knee-length, double-breasted Prince Albert when he appeared in public. He wore it downstreet in the record heat on the August morning of his death." (Lincoln, 34)

Lincoln also contradicts Bridget's testimony about where Andrew keeps his indoor and outdoor coats and writes:
"Here is Andrew, a man of property who looks it, even though as always upon entering the house he has exchanged his long Prince Albert for the short house-coat that he calls his "dressing gown." (One or the other of these garments, turn and turn about, is always ready for his exits and entrances, hung neatly on a hat rack at the door.) (Lincoln 64-65)

Later, she has Dolan ruminating about the same issue we've examined in this thread.

"Dr. Dolan thought hard about that coat. Even an untidy man would not have wadded it in like that; he would simply have tossed it to one side. And Andrew was not untidy. He was famous for his meticulous neatness and for his methodical habits and his miserliness. There was a coat rack in the hall, a step away; it was unthinkable that a man with a horror of unnecessary presser's bills would not have hung his coat there.
On the other hand, that tall man's long Prince Albert put on back to front, would have shielded a man of average height to well below the knee; the murderer had almost certainly got no more blood on himself from the second murder." (Lincoln, 114-115)

[Allen]

Even bare armed... Put one of your husband's trench coats on backwards and see what it feels like..

The sleeves are cut and designed for arms to be put in the regular way and a tailored garment even more so. It is not comfortable, especially in the arm pit area... Making it hard to raise your arms above your head.

My husband is 6'3" and I am 5'11". I am much taller than Lizzie-- than even the average woman-- But I am slim and my arms have no loose skin. The sleeves of Thayne's coats are cut much more generously than mine and bought off the rack...

I am going to go put it on again and try to raise a hatchet over my head and see what type of luck I would have....

I wasn't stating that wearing it backwards would be any better than wearing it the proper way. I just stated that if she wore it the proper way, it would create a sort of v in the front which could leave an open area for blood splatter.

[Angel]

Audrey- make sure you're in a good mood when you do it- and make sure no one is lying on a couch at the time.

[FairhavenGuy]

But weren't the clothes tailored to fit the individual who would be wearing them at the time? They weren't bought off a rack. So if Andrew had a Prince Albert Coat I would think it would be tailored to fit his size and frame. I don't think we can really go by examples of vintage clothing as being a generalization for everyone's size, since clothing was tailored to fit, and not everyone was the same size.

This is true, but men's coats were also much more tailored than they are today. They were designed to fit the body more than today's styles and the sleeves were cut and fit so that they tended to curve forward. No slouching was allowed. One really had to stand up straight with his shoulders back and his elbows slightly bent in order for the coat to fit correctly. Overall, even when worn the right way round they were much more restrictive than the coats we wear today.

I wear a 19th century frock coat similar to Andrew's Prince Albert coat when giving tours. I also wear an older style 18th century civilian coat for my 1770s re-enacting. It's not all that easy to raise my arms too high even when wearing them correctly.

It would be very difficult to function well in a coat worn backwards.

[Smudgeman]

I just had a wierd, random thought....what if the killer threw the jacket over andrews face to catch the blood splatter? What if he was really asleep, and the jacket was placed over his face before he was murdered and tucked under his head afterwards? Not alot of splatter would land on the killer, the jacket could have acted as a sponge?