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

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:57 pm

Somewhere I read ( I dont remember If it was in the transcripts or one of the Books ) That Either Mrs Churchill or Alice Russell was comforting Lizzie after the discovery of the Murders, and one of them went to loosen Lizzies dress ( maybe at the collar ) And Lizzie said " I'm not Faint "

Was it possibly because She may have been wearing a dress underneath & it could be blood stained and She was afraid if they loosened up her dress they may see the other one underneath ??
It makes me wonder why She protested the loosening up of Her dress during the comforting ??

Any veiws on this ??

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:47 am

I think I read this possibility somewhere. I'd think if she was up to no good that day and had not time to change after Andrew's death, Lizzie might have donned some more clothing over what she already had on.
The thing is, tho, she could not have worn something over the Bedford cord because it was 2" longer than her usual dresses. You'd have to pick another outfit.
So, if she burned the Bedford cord, why?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:08 am

While not impossible to do, I think it would have been difficult to wear one of those Victorian dresses over another. Emma said that Lizzie had her dresses made quite snug, so one tight fitting garment over another would have been incredibly uncomfortable and possibly lumpy and bumpy looking. I personally don't think Lizzie would have taken the chance, a garment stained with fresh blood that would contaminate another garment which she would probably also have to get rid of and then theres the question of possible seepage. The top garment could become bloodstained too in a short amount of time and noticed by others.

And, there is the question of timing. If Lizzie did have the time after Andrew's murder to put another dress on over what she was already wearing, why not just take off the bloodstained clothes first? Perhaps Lizzie was just modest and didn't want her clothing in disarray knowing that Dr. Bowen was due to show up at some point soon?

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:15 am

Emma and the dressmaker, Mrs. Raymond, were asked about this possibility in the Trial.

Emma being questioned about the Bedford cord (p. 1541):
Q Did she have any dress, Miss Emma, that she could get on over that?
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A Because her dresses were made rather snug.

And the dressmaker (p. 1580):
Q Could she get that dress on under any of her other dresses?
A No, sir.
Q Why?
A Because her dresses were always made too snug for that, the waist and the sleeves both.

Mrs. Raymond made the pink wrapper in the same session as the Bedford cord, so I guess we should take her word for this. A pity!

Airmid.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:36 am

And Alice at the trial:

Q. During the time that you was down stairs was there anything about loosening a dress, any one's dress?
A. Yes.

Q. Well, state what that was.
A. I will have to ask you your question again.

Q. About loosening anyone's dress.
A. Anything said, did you say?

Q. What I want to know is, was anything said or done about loosening anyone's dress?
A. I started to unloosen her dress, thinking she was faint, and she said, "I am not faint."

Q. Was her dress, the upper part of her dress, loose or tight?
A. Her dress was loose here, (indicating) where I started to unloosen it. It was loose here so it pulled out.

Q. Are you able to give us any description of the dress she had

Page 383 / i405

on that morning?
A. None whatever, other than that.

Q. When she went up stairs did she go up alone or did anyone go with her?
A. I am not sure.

Q. Did you go with her?
A. I have always thought so; I am not sure.

Q. Were you in the room with her at any time upstairs before a change of dress?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was anyone else there besides you and Miss Borden at that time.
A. No, sir.

Q. Now was there some conversation there in consequence of which you left the room?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you state what that conversation was?
A. She said, "When it is necessary for an undertaker I want Winwood."

Q. What did you do?
A. I went down stairs and waited in the hall to see Dr. Bowen.

Q. And did you see him?
A. After waiting some time, I sent for him. He didn't come through there, and I sent for him and he came.

Q. After you had an interview with him where did you go?
A. Upstairs again.

Q. Did you go to her room?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you see when you went to the room?
A. She was coming out of Miss Emma's room, tying the ribbons of a wrapper.

Q. What sort of wrapper was it?
A. Pink and white stripe, I think.

Q. Was it a tight or loose wrapper, perhaps wrappers are always loose?
A. I couldn't tell you.

Page 384 / i406

------

Lizzie didn't seem to want her dress fiddled with. She went upstairs alone, after all. Alice saw Lizzie after she had removed what she had been wearing, coming out of the private room of Emma. By then she was in her pink wrapper. I believe an officer noticed a bundle at the floor of Emma's closet after that later and did not examine it.
Lizzie may or may not have had other clothing under what people saw her wearing. She may have had part of another outfit on.

There had recently been discussion about not much blood, and if so, that might work- so it should have been examined as a possibility, and it's a good question. If there was much blood got on Lizzie (if she did it) - Susan is right- she would probably not put on another outfit over the bloodied one as it would be too much to get rid of that too, as well as bulky. It was hard enough to get rid of the Bedford cord.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:52 am

Lizzie had her clothing tailor made for her and I would think this would prevent her from being able to wear one dress atop another--unless she had recently undergone a weight loss.

Those dresses, even the summer weight ones, were not light garments. I would think, like posted above that it would have obvious.

Do you think she was one of those people who just doesn't like to be touched?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:01 am

I agree Audrey. Don't think it's possible to wear one over another without it being noticed. And would it not cause her to sweat?

There was some speculation that a dress could be hidden that way when hung up and that would account for a bloody dress not being found during the search. That would seem to me a very risky way of hiding it.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:13 am

Right! Even if she was guilty as hell, that may be an innocuous statement...or she may have butchered Father in her undies, and was afraid of any bloodstained skin being seen. We'll never really know, will we?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:57 am

Are the absence of blood spatters a sign of innocence (YES) or because Lizzie "denuded" herself? See Trial Transcript.
Respectable NE maidens did not denude themselves to kill their parents.
They wouldn't even do it clothed. IMO

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:42 pm

"Respectable" and "murderess" are, most likely, mutually exclusive. :)

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:53 am

I don't think she was wearing two dresses at the same time (one under the other), but it is a possibility that she might have changed out the dress she wore at the time of the murder. Meaning, she wore one at one time and changed into another. Might have burned the dress she wore at time of the murders.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:18 am

I wonder how awkward it would be to wear an apron under a dress. The best hiding place at the time was on Lizzie herself, it was the one place nobody looked more than superficially.

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:27 am

Now that is rather a good idea!

Edit: added pictures of a nice flimsy apron, that wouldn't be too hard to tuck away.
Original caption of the pictures: " Victorian white organdy apron measuring 38" long and 84" around the bottom, dating from c1890 and in Excellent condition."

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:38 am

Just some speculations.

I don't eliminate the possibility that Abby's murder may have been done in the nude and Andrew's using the Prince Albert. No dress problem either way.

Or

If she was dressed and somehow successful in protecting herself from blood spatter with Abby's murder would she not use the same method with Andrew? No Prince Albert coat then.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:55 am

It makes sense that success could be repeated, but was Andrew's murder planned? I need to do some experiments with fabric on a small fire, and I need a timeline on the fire in the Borden cookstove. An apron would be easier to dispose of in the stove than a dress would. Multiple aprons are a possibility, there must have been several in the house. Did the police question the integrity of wardrobes other than Lizzie's?

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:04 am

Harry @ Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:38 pm wrote: If she was dressed and somehow successful in protecting herself from blood spatter with Abby's murder would she not use the same method with Andrew? No Prince Albert coat then.

If she covered herself up in some way to kill Abby, then she still could approach Abby without suspicion because what she was wearing was clean.
She could not approach Andrew covered with the same item, because it would be no longer clean. Admitted, Andrew was lying down at the time he was killed, and perhaps sleeping. But Lizzie couldn't be sure he still would be sleeping, by the time she got back in the sitting room after she went for the hatchet. Once back in the sitting room, the solution to the dress problem presented itself in the form of the coat.
Just speculation of course!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:48 am

snokkums @ Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:53 am wrote:I don't think she was wearing two dresses at the same time (one under the other), but it is a possibility that she might have changed out the dress she wore at the time of the murder. Meaning, she wore one at one time and changed into another. Might have burned the dress she wore at time of the murders.

There is a problem with another dress(es). She would have to have put on another one for when Father came home and Bridget came inside. That means TWO bloody dresses to dispose! But she only burnt one (if that story is true).
The first bloody dress was after Abby was whacked. Then after Andy.
Do you agree with this reasoning?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:50 am

Airmid @ Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:04 am wrote:
Harry @ Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:38 pm wrote: If she was dressed and somehow successful in protecting herself from blood spatter with Abby's murder would she not use the same method with Andrew? No Prince Albert coat then.
If she covered herself up in some way to kill Abby, then she still could approach Abby without suspicion because what she was wearing was clean.
She could not approach Andrew covered with the same item, because it would be no longer clean. Admitted, Andrew was lying down at the time he was killed, and perhaps sleeping. But Lizzie couldn't be sure he still would be sleeping, by the time she got back in the sitting room after she went for the hatchet. Once back in the sitting room, the solution to the dress problem presented itself in the form of the coat.
Just speculation of course!

But what was she wearing when Bridget came inside and Andy came home? Don't forget being seen outside, coming from the barn.
The presence of a Secret Visitor solves this problem.

william · Post by **william** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:48 am

Abby weighed about seventy pounds more than Lizzie. Lizzie could have placed one of Abby's dresses over her own with no problem. If she squirreled away two of Abby's dresses, along with. dust caps, gloves and a couple of pairs of socks to cover her shoes this would complete her ensemble and protect her from getting blood on her clothing.

Remember. Time was of the essence.
While Lizzie could have been leisurely afte Abby's murder, she had only twenty minutes or so to clean up after killing her father. A set of the afore mentioned clothing could have been stored in Lizzie's bedroom and the second set in the sitting room or dining room and voila! - all set to complete the perfect crime, or as in this case - crimes.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:40 pm

william @ Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:48 pm wrote:Abby weighed about seventy pounds more than Lizzie. Lizzie could have placed one of Abby's dresses over her own with no problem. If she squirreled away two of Abby's dresses, along with. dust caps, gloves and a couple of pairs of socks to cover her shoes this would complete her ensemble and protect her from getting blood on her clothing.

Remember. Time was of the essence.
While Lizzie could have been leisurely afte Abby's murder, she had only twenty minutes or so to clean up after killing her father. A set of the afore mentioned clothing could have been stored in Lizzie's bedroom and the second set in the sitting room or dining room and voila! - all set to complete the perfect crime, or as in this case - crimes.

Interesting speculation. But Lizzie would have to go up the back stairs, through her parents' bedroom, and into Abby's room. What about locks?
Again, the simplest explanation is that this never happened. Unless you have some newly discovered evidence or facts for this claim.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:52 pm

william @ Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:48 am wrote:Abby weighed about seventy pounds more than Lizzie. Lizzie could have placed one of Abby's dresses over her own with no problem. If she squirreled away two of Abby's dresses, along with. dust caps, gloves and a couple of pairs of socks to cover her shoes this would complete her ensemble and protect her from getting blood on her clothing.

Remember. Time was of the essence.
While Lizzie could have been leisurely afte Abby's murder, she had only twenty minutes or so to clean up after killing her father. A set of the afore mentioned clothing could have been stored in Lizzie's bedroom and the second set in the sitting room or dining room and voila! - all set to complete the perfect crime, or as in this case - crimes.

This is a possibility.... Abby kept some of her belongings in the guest room, a room Lizzie has easy access to!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:07 pm

That's an interesting idea, William.

They were roughly the same height. Abby, according to the autopsy, was 5'3" and I believe Lizzie was 5'4".

It certainly is not out of the realm of possibility.

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:41 pm

But where could Lizzie have disposed of two of Abbys dresses, I know the house was searched, I assume that also meant every room, including Abby's dressing room, Its an interesting theory. maybe they were in that pile on the closet floor that has been talked about.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:30 pm

If Lizzie did it, she probably had planned ahead of time, and had the dresses and necessary garb in hand as William stated. And yes, the police did an awful job of searching. I dont think her closet or Emmas closet was searched that thouroughly, garment by garment?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:06 pm

I'm thinking a cotton apron would be easy to dispose of in the stove. Bridget was outside for quite a while washing windows, so adding a few sticks of wood to the fire would be possible to do unnoticed. Lizzie was going to iron handkerchiefs, so she might have determined how well the fire was going before heating the irons; that would have been second nature in those days.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:50 am

I never looked at that way ray, but you are right . She still could have burned the dresses. I know in that time period they often changed clothes depending on the time of day. They had a dress for breakfast and morning time, lunch and afternoon time, dinner time, going out etc. So it could have been possible that she changed dresses without really being noticed, because that's what the ladies did back then. It wouldn't have been anything out of the ordinary. As for the blood stains, if (and this is a pretty big if) they were not really big spots, she could have dismissed burning the dress as it was her time of the month and had an "accident".
Just a thought.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:34 pm

Is there a shorthand for "Just A Thought?" It should be : JAT.
Right?

If Lizzie wanted us to believe that she always burned a dress after a menstrual break-through bleed, the girl would be denuded before long!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
An apron was not waterproof. I think an apron would not be enough coverage to actually depend upon- due to seepage- that's why interested writers sent letters in saying *check the waterproofs!* (raincoats).
There were aprons found in with the buried/bloody clothing. And Lizzie was caught off guard when asked if she wore an apron that day. So that does seem suspicious, tho she denied wearing one. Previous posters have convinced me an apron would just not be enough.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:37 pm

I have worn aprons while feeding the kids on a night we were going out before the sitter gets there and you still have to be careful!

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:46 pm

I think if Lizzie tried to use the excuse of "an accident"...the blood stains would have had to be on the back of the dress versus the front...which is where the stains would have been had she been the one to commit the murders.

Tracy...

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:34 pm

snokkums @ Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:50 am wrote:I never looked at that way ray, but you are right . She still could have burned the dresses. I know in that time period they often changed clothes depending on the time of day. They had a dress for breakfast and morning time, lunch and afternoon time, dinner time, going out etc. So it could have been possible that she changed dresses without really being noticed, because that's what the ladies did back then. It wouldn't have been anything out of the ordinary. As for the blood stains, if (and this is a pretty big if) they were not really big spots, she could have dismissed burning the dress as it was her time of the month and had an "accident".
Just a thought.

I believe the rich and wealthy wore one morning suit, an afternoon suit, and evening wear. I don't believe Andy would have done this.
I remember reading that the habit was to do chores (cleaning) in the morning, and afternoons were free for social events.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:25 pm

It may have been something Lizzie did every normal day, but we don't know what she did this abnormal day.

So it could have been possible that she changed dresses without really being noticed, because that's what the ladies did back then. It wouldn't have been anything out of the ordinary.

--Snokkums

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:30 am

Kat @ Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:34 pm wrote: An apron was not waterproof. I think an apron would not be enough coverage to actually depend upon- due to seepage- that's why interested writers sent letters in saying *check the waterproofs!* (raincoats).
There were aprons found in with the buried/bloody clothing. And Lizzie was caught off guard when asked if she wore an apron that day. So that does seem suspicious, tho she denied wearing one. Previous posters have convinced me an apron would just not be enough.

I wonder if a starched and/or waxed apron would do the trick! I tried to find some information about the effect of starching on a garment. I found nothing that shows that starching make a piece of cloth water repellent, but I did find that starching makes it easier to wash stains out of clothing. Apparently the starch soaks up fluids, and prevents it from getting into the fibres of the fabric. (No good link to this information yet, I'll do some more googling.) So that could mean that a starched apron would do a better job protecting a dress than an unstarched one.
Waxing of course would make an apron water repellent. Unfortunately we can't tell if Bridget used to wax aprons, but we can safely assume she starched them, since not using starch seems to be unthinkable in those days.

Kat, was there really more than one apron among the buried clothing?

Airmid.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 1:41 am

Well, Lizze was also caught off-guard when she was asked about her dress pattern she bought in New Bedford while away.
My definition of her being caught off guard is when she repeats the question- giving her time to think (it seems).

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:38 pm

Heavy Starching on just about any fabric will make it somewhat waterproof. At the Bed & Breakfast the Housekeeping staff heavily starches our white tablecloths. so if wine or other drinks are spilled, it almost just rolls off, including thick stuff like vegetable Juice. ( V-8 )
We use a Liquid starch, in which you immerse the fabric in it & then squeeze it out & let it dry, then iron out the wrinkles.
So I think it is possible That lizzie could have been wearing a starched apron. And in those days, since there was no can starch, Bridget would use a liquid starch that you would mix from a powder.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:45 am

Witness Statements, pg. 42:

"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 instrument; 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."

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:51 pm

Today Monday July 24 the first section of the 'New York Times' has an article on the bloodshed in Lebanon. One picture is of a young boy with spatter on his light blue pants. They stand out clearly.
Hence the fact that nobody noticed anything is proof positive that there were no blood stains on Lizzie that forenoon. QED. Case closed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:15 pm

OK! You can go home now. Bye!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:19 pm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:20 pm

I'm putting angels up when I'm being naughty!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:45 pm

Kat @ Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:15 pm wrote:OK! You can go home now. Bye!

So what does Rebello say about the absence or presence of bloodstains?
Just asking.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:57 am

The Librarys up North have Rebello in their reference department. And when I phone for a reference they actually quote from his work to me and I have to say "I just got off the phone with him!"
So his book is a jumping off place for people to do more research. It would be cool if people thought for themselves and got up out of a chair and looked it up, made a call, sent away for a copy of this and that, read the source documents- whatever it takes.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:01 am

Here is the link to blood evidence I collected from Dr. Dolan's preliminary hearing testimony:

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

Airmid · Post by **Airmid** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:23 am

Very enlighting. Matt and Kat!
I think Abby is wearing an apron on the crime scene photos (http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/crime ... bloody.jpg), but that leaves the second apron to account for. What a pity that the aprons haven't been studied close for blood spatter evidence!
At least in Abby's case there doesn't seem to have been a lot of blood spatter. There's 3 things to support this claim:
- the blood evidence statements. There's not a lot of blood spatter, except on the rail of the bed. (Btw, could someone help me out and tell me what part of the bed you would call "the rail"?)
- the crime scene photos. Ok, they're not the clearest, but they still give us a chance to see for ourselves how much blood there was.
- Dr. Bowen's testimony: "As I got at the top of the stairs, as soon as I got up on the second story, I could look right over the deb, and I saw her lying there flat, prone. My thought was, that she had run up there and fainted." (Inq 118).

Personally, I think that the second apron is the most damning piece of evidence for Lizzie's involvement that I came across. We even have an indication how it came to lie in the pile of clothing that was to be buried. This took place thursday evening, about 9 PM, according to Officer Hyde:
"About fifteen minutes after, Miss Lizzie came down the cellar alone, with the small lamp in her hand. She set the lamp on the table, and went over towards the sink again, and stooped; but I could not see what she did there. Then she took up the lamp again, and went up stairs." (Wit 39)

If you think I'm seeing ghosts please let me know!
Airmid.

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:07 pm

Sounds good to Me.
She could have hidden the apron under Her night Dress & placed it in the pile to be buried.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:33 pm

But then Hyde says Lizzie was too far away from the bloodied clothing on her next cellar visit. She actually was closer to the pail of water with the bloody cloths.
Lizzie first went to the west side of the room and set down the lamp. Then she went over to in front of the sink and stooped. At that point the sink was under Hyde so he could not look straight down the interior wall to see what Lizzie did there. She was 5 or 6 feet from the bloody clothes.

Pardon the long testimony:

Trial
Hyde
835
Q. Did you see either of those persons later than that?
A. In a few minutes after, perhaps ten or fifteen minutes, Miss Lizzie came out of the same door, of the sitting room door, into the kitchen, in the same way, down into the cellar. She came into the wash cellar, and she puts her lamp on to a table on the west end of the cellar. She comes over to the east end of the house, where the sink is, and stooped down opposite to the sink. What she did I don't know.

Q. Was any one with her at that time?
A. She was all alone.

Q. How long did she stay in the cellar at that time?
A. It didn't take her above two minutes before she went upstairs again.

Q. At that time was there anything else in that wash cellar?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What?
A. There was the clothes that had come off Mr. Borden and Mrs. Borden.

Q. You stayed there all night, did you?
A. I stayed there till about eleven o'clock.

Q. About how long was this second visit to the cellar after the visit in company with Miss Russell?
A. I should say about ten or fifteen minutes.

. . . . . .

844+
Q. Now about fifteen minutes after you say you saw Miss Lizzie come into the room?
A. About fifteen minutes after that I see Miss Lizzie come the same way.

Q. And she had a light with her?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The same lamp?
A. The same lamp, I believe. It looked like the same lamp.

Q. A good clear nice oil lamp?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Giving a nice light?
A. It gave a good light.

Q. She didn't come down there in the dark, did she?
A. No, sir.

Q. Where were those clothes you spoke about?
A. They were on the south side of the wash cellar.

Q. Right about where you were then?
A. Almost opposite to where I stood. Saying the window was there, the clothes was right in the cellar, right where that radiator is there. (Indicating.)

Q. When you say "opposite", you mean down against the very wall where you were standing?
A. Yes, pretty near the wall, not exactly to the wall.

Page 845

Q. Right down in one pile---these clothes?
A. One pile; yes, sir.

Q. How far were they from the sink?
A. Quite a ways; I should think five or six feet.

Q. Back from the sink?
A. Back from the sink.

Q. Which corner did the sink stand in?
A. The sink stands in the southeast corner.

Q. You stood right on the south side?
A. I stood at the southeast corner window.

Q. The very first window?
A. The very first window.

Q. You were looking right in onto that sink?
A. No, sir; you couldn't see on to the sink exactly. You can't see right on to the sink through that window. You can see anyone standing front of the sink. Saying that was the sink (indicating) you could see anyone standing there, but you couldn't see the sink. You could see the person standing there.

Q. What did she do with her light when she came in?
A. She went on the west side of the wash cellar and put it on to a stand.

Q. The west?
A. The west.

Q. The opposite side, towards Second Street?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And sat it right down there?
A. And put it down there.

Q. The lamp didn't go out, did it?
A. No, sir.

Q. A good light all the time?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. She went over to the sink?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you didn't see her do anything?
A. Only I see her stoop down by the sink, stoop right over by the sink.

Q. Those clothes were back quite a distance?
A. Yes, sir.

Page 846

Q. Did you see her open the door under the sink?
A. No, sir.

Q. Are you sure about that?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recollect about that now?
A. Yes, sir; I never see her open any door.

Q. You didn't see her do anything, did you?
A. No, sir; only stoop down.

Q. Do you know whether there is a door under it or not?
A. I wouldn't swear but I believe there is. I was in that cellar once and I believe there is a door to the sink.

Q. A door that opens and swings around?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which was does it swing?
A. I wouldn't swear.

Q. Don't you remember taking hold of the door and opening it?
A. No, sir.

Q. You stood right there at that window so you could look right down, and you couldn't see the sink quite?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The same as looking in that window? (Indicating)
A. Yes, sir; the sink was right there.

Q. You could see her just as well---you were not more than four, or five feet from her?
A. Perhaps four or five feet from her.

Q. Right there; and you wouldn't tell me but what the window was open all the time?
A. I couldn't swear.

Q. You couldn't swear to that?
A. No, sir.

Q. And there was nothing in your way from seeing everything, was there?
A. Nothing in my way. I couldn't see the sink; I could see her.

Q. You didn't see her do anything except you say she stooped

Page 847

down?
A. No, sir; that is all I see.

Q. How long did she stay there?
A. Oh, she wasn't there a minute.

Q. Half a minute, was she?
A. She wasn't there a minute, anyhow.

Q. Had you been in the house before?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That day?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you seen that pail there with the cloths in it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was that standing?
A. That pail, when I see it, it was standing on the south side of the wash cellar.

Q. Well, that is pretty near where you were?
A. Pretty near where I was.

Q. And that pail was pretty near the sink, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you saw what was in that pail, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I don't mean to go into it. You saw it?
A. Yes, sir; that was my impression.

Q. Well, then she took the light and went upstairs?
A. Yes, sir.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:03 am

Speaking of bloody clothing, wasn't one of the articles of Abby's clothing that was buried a chemise? I don't have the source documents re-downloaded at the moment to check. Anyhoo, I was thinking this weekend about this; how odd that they had all of Abby's clothes and underthings, but, not all of Lizzie's. Lizzie turned over a blouse, a skirt. a petticoat, black cotton stockings and her ankle-tie boots. What happened to her chemise that she must have been wearing that day and her pantaloons? I would think that the police would want every scrap of clothing Lizzie had worn that day, though what they received seemed to satisfy them. I wonder why no one thought to ask for those other articles?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:52 pm

Here are the shoes and stockings.
Inquest
Lizzie
Q. What shoes did you have on that day?
A. A pair of ties.
Q. What color?
A. Black.
Q. Will you give them to the officer?
A. Yes.

88 (45)

Q. Where are they?
A. At home.
Q. What stockings did you have on that day?
A. Black.
Q. Where are they?
A. At home.
Q. Have they been washed?
A. I don't know.
Q. Will you give them to the officer?
A. Yes, sir.

--Do we know they were *cotton* stockings and *ankle* boots?
I know you said you don't have your sources up and running- maybe someone else can tell me?

As for Lizzie's undergarments, it's a good question but I don't know. You'd think with Abby's chemise they would have noticed the cut in her back.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:42 am

The stockings being made out of cotton is my assumption, but, its based on what I have read in my Turn-of-the Century fashion books. From what I can gather, stockings came in three materials; cotton lisle, wool and silk. Silk was for dressy occasions and evening wear, cotton and wool for everyday wear. I think wool can safely be ruled out during the heat of August, could you imagine wool close to your skin in the summer? It gives me a heat rash just thinking about it.

So, that leaves cotton or silk. I'm not saying that it was impossible that Lizzie had on silk stockings, but, knowing the frugality of that household and that Lizzie was pretty much in and around the house leads me to think casual wear.

As for the ankle tie shoe, I don't recall who posted a wonderful pic of a pair of 1890s ankle ties in the past. But, they appeared to be small boots of some sort. Kind of like an Oxford shoe, but, I recall it coming up higher like a small boot?

My thought with the other undergarments was that small drop of blood on the petticoat. Granted, if Lizzie's chemise was stained with blood, she never would have handed it over to the police. But, supposing they asked and she did turn it over and they found another small pin dot or two of blood on the outside of the garment? More flea bites to expain away?

The cut in the back of Abby's blouse and chemise may not have been so noticeable due to state of the blood on them. If it had dried and stuck the garments to Abby's back, the cuts wouldn't split open as they moved Abby's body around. I wonder if they wouldn't have just cut the clothing off of her body instead of undoing hooks and buttons and such. If so, they may have cut it up the back as Abby may have been laying face down due to the wounds in the back of her head. That would have possibly destroyed the cut evidence. Though the overlooking of the cut in her back while performing an autopsy still seems incredible!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:09 am

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!

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:34 am

Susan @ Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:42 am wrote:The stockings being made out of cotton is my assumption, but, its based on what I have read in my Turn-of-the Century fashion books. From what I can gather, stockings came in three materials; cotton lisle, wool and silk. Silk was for dressy occasions and evening wear, cotton and wool for everyday wear. I think wool can safely be ruled out during the heat of August, could you imagine wool close to your skin in the summer? It gives me a heat rash just thinking about it.
...

During most of my working years as a suited office worker I bought and wore wool socks winter and summer. They kept my feet warm in winter and cool in summer. Wool wore better than cotton socks. Wool blend.
Reading some old mystery novels from the 1930-40s, there are often references to a woman wearing "light wool stockings". Sheer stockings were considered daring, like bare legs?