Lizzie's dress

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:57 am

The dressmaker who made the Bedford cord described it as about "two inches longer" than the normal length she made for Lizzie. The hem of this dress also touched the floor.

How is it possible to straddle Abby's body in such a dress? Is the dress wide at the bottom allowing the legs to open the necessary distance needed which I estimate to be at least 18 inches? Wouldn't she have to pull the dress up a bit before assuming the straddle position or would the body push the dress up as she stepped to each side?

Obviously I'm no Officer Harrington.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:45 pm

Thats a good question, Harry. The silhouette of the 1890s skirt was smooth and fitted in the front with the fullness gathered in the back in folds. The skirts were made from 5 to 6 gored panels, think of 5 or 6 triangles sewn together, the points at the top would be the waist of the skirt and you can imagine the fullness at the bottom.

Heres an early 1890s afternoon dress, you can see how from the front the skirt looks narrow.

And here is a cutting diagram for a 6 part 1890s skirt:

Heres a good picture to show how the folds were handled on the back of a 1890s skirt.

And a 1892 dress to give an idea of what Lizzie's dress looked like in back with its slight train.

So, as you can see, these skirts were quite voluminous at the bottom and back, plenty of room to straddle a body. I'm thinking with so much material at the bottom, some of the skirt in front may have lain on Abby's body, say the small of the back. If there was enough blood running down her back, the front of Lizzie's skirt may have gotten stained about the area below the knees on the outside, the hem would probably curl under towards Abby's feet as Lizzie crouched astraddle.

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:49 pm

hehe. that gives me a chuckle so i'll take a stab at it.

that's a good question re bloody spatter because that's a lot of skirts to do something with while handling that axe. i can't see her holding her skirts with one hand and axing with the other. as far as deflecting blood, i don't think skirts piled up around her was an option. there would be so much blood on the lower part of the skirt.

your question brings to my mind the high improbability of ANYONE killing abby while wearing a dress.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:30 pm

Susan, the dresses are beautiful! It would be such a shame to ruin something so pretty, wouldn't it?

Here's a thought I've never seen posted. How about a polanaisse? No, guys, it's not something you put on a sandwich, but a two layered skirt whose top layer could be drawn up in a variety of ways to expose the contrasting bottom layer Bo Peep fashion. The thing would offer a variety of looks with one costume. It might also be lowered to cover those pesky stains. The look was an old one, but it was still occasionally used in the 90's.

--Lyddie

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:32 pm

Haulover @ Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:49 pm wrote:your question brings to my mind the high improbability of ANYONE killing abby while wearing a dress.

Maybe the Legend movie has a touch of truth to it. The dress just seems so cumbersome to deal with.

I doubt if she would be totally naked but something less than a full dress could be a possibility. This way she could use the dress again. She had plenty of time before and after Abby to switch clothing.

In Andrew's case the Prince Albert coat was always a possibility.

Nancie · Post by **Nancie** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:25 pm

This discussion is a good example of why Lizzie
Didn't Do It, she was way too lazy to change that
big dress. She never even broke a sweat. She had
people do everything for her, clean up and take care of things. Good pix Susan.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:31 pm

It doesn't matter how much blood got on the dress if nobody ever saw the dress again.

And there was simply a lot less blood splattered around than most folks expect to see in this sort of situation.

The idea that a woman wearing a long dress couldn't commit this crime doesn't make sense to me. For centuries women had to do virtually everything they did wearing long skirts. Bridget was climbing up a stepladder washing windows in a dress.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:26 am

It's a good question and good answers.
I have worn a dress which is too long and had to wear higher shoes!
A skirt which is too long would be something one might step on when doing something odd or different, physically.
I think a young lady back then was so used to her costume that she could immediately adjust and make allowances for her skirt.

However, This is the Bedford Cord you are describing, right? That had a skirt and "waist" or separate top. The skirt could be changed and the top retained.
I must say, tho, I have worn long skirts all my life and have accidently tripped on a hem in my day. Actually stepped on the skirt itself. If that happened during a killing, there's going to be blood inside the hem from the shoes. And that brings up the shoes. We never talked about Lizzie's shoes!

As an aside: I saw a "self-defense" murder on TV last night and the lady hit the man on the head with a heavy object. He was leaning so his head was not much higher than her face. When she smashed him blood spurted onto her face. We can't rule out a spurt in the attacker's face when Abby was hit from the front to her face.
On another show (It was CSI night) the rule was "Use a knife and you get cut." It reminded me of OJ's cut. And that Lizzie had no wounds- not even superficial- That We Know Of- but then she wasn't searched.

william · Post by **william** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:57 am

I'm still of the opinion that Lizzie may have worn one of her step mother's oversized dresses. One thing's for sure --she wouldn't be bawled out by Abby for getting blood on the dress.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:13 am

FairhavenGuy @ Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:31 pm wrote:It doesn't matter how much blood got on the dress if nobody ever saw the dress again.

That assumes Lizzie wore a different dress after Abby's murder. Then if she got some blood on the second dress after Andrew's attack she had two dresses to get rid of.

She would take a chance in Bridget noticing that a second dress was worn that morning.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:44 am

With Abby as a "moving target," at least at first, and probably without having practiced such a thing beforehand, the murder is more likely to have gotten bloody there. Both Andrew and Bridget saw Lizzie after Andrew returned home. If she was Abby's murderer, she would have already have changed by then.

Andrew, though, was most likely not a moving target, and the murder would now have a much better idea of how blood may or may not splash. Assuming the same murderer for both, I think the murderer could have come away from Andrew's killing rather clean, especially if one used a Providence Journal as a shield and tossed it into the stove before Bridget was summoned.

"She would take a chance in Bridget noticing that a second dress was worn that morning."

Well, yes, but there would be nothing unusual about changing from her morning "house dress" to a better dress for going out later in the morning. Besides after Morse and Andrew left the house, we only have Lizzie's and Bridget's word on anything at all that went on before Mrs. Churchill came over. There's stuff those girls didn't tell, gang!

william · Post by **william** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 2:48 pm

Why not the same bloody dress for both murders? No problem slipping it on and off if the garment belonged to two hundred pound Abby. Why have the inconvenienc of two bloody dresses when one would do the job?
Disposition of the evidence would have been relatively simple, the kitchen stove was nearby.

Maybe Lizzie wasn't neat, but she certainly was inventive. She also possessed a great imagination ("A boy was here with a note for Mrs. Borden").

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:32 pm

That's not a bad theory Bill. I think two dresses are too hard to dispose of.

Did anyone ever account for Abby's dresses? I don't remember the question being raised. Where and when would she have gotten it? Gotta think on this one.

connecticuthills · Post by **connecticuthills** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:06 pm

Hi All
I'm a newbie but I've been fascinated about the case for years
I loved to read some indepth study on Lizzies personality and pychological make up
anyone know of any?
To keep with the thread Lizzie had 10 blue dresses - she liked the color blue

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:35 pm

connecticuthills: welcome. there's been a great deal of posting about lizzie's psychological makeup. there's a theory dealing with narcissism (you can find a lot on this searching the archives.)

the dress:

***She would take a chance in Bridget noticing that a second dress was worn that morning.***

this brings to mind victoria lincoln's theory. she thought lizzie had done just that -- and this was why lizzie claimed she did not even see bridget after her father came home (afraid bridget would say something about the change of dress). lincoln then goes on to say that this dress for the street was what lizzie gave the police as what she had worn that morning (the bengaline silk).

lincoln ignored a lot of testimony in coming up with it though. mrs. churchill was certain lizzie was not wearing the bengaline silk -- that she was wearing a cotton dress which she could describe in some detail. (light blue ground with darker blue diamond pattern.) knowlton utilizes churchill's observations well in closing. she is asked repeatedly, "is this the dress?" and she answers no in several ways -- his point being that she really is sure. i put a lot of stock in churchill's testimony, because she is more observant of the bordens than anyone else. having seen both borden and bridget out there that morning, knowing what time borden usually leaves, when the windows are usually washed, etc. -- i see her habitually in front of her window, somewhat on the nosy side.

Mrs. Churchill from Trial:

Q. I suppose you had not the least occasion to examine that dress that morning?
A. No, sir; only I had seen it before.

Q. Had you ever seen her have any other clothes than that one dress?
A. Oh, yes, indeed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:17 am

Here's nosy Churchill again. I don't mean to be curt. I have not experienced this view of Mrs. Churchill before...
I think if one were asked intimate questions of their neighbors they had lived next door to for 20 years, one might be able to come up with some information as to habits and such.

What about Lizzie's shoes?
We haven't figured out her shoes.

Why Abby's dress, tho? How may yards are we talking about?

diana · Post by **diana** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:24 pm

This is all I know about Lizzie's shoes.

At the Inquest, Lizzie says she was wearing a pair of black "ties" and black stockings on the day of the murders. She says they are at home and she doesn't know if the stockings have been washed or not.

At trial, Mrs. Churchill acknowledges that although Lizzie's feet and shoes were up on the lounge while she was being attended to by the ladies -- she did not notice her shoes.

At the Preliminary hearing and at trial, Dr. Dolan says he got the shoes and stockings from Marshal Hilliard during the inquest and gave them back to Hilliard to give to Professor Wood. Hilliard confirms this and says that he collected them from Lizzie's house on August 10 and "carried them back to my office, and that night I turned them over to Dr. Dolan". (Shades of O.J. here!)

At trial Dolan says he thinks there was blood on the bottom of the shoes -- but when pressed says that it was not human blood -- and when pressed further says that he doesn't claim it is any kind of blood.

Professor Wood says there was no blood upon the shoes or stockings and the stockings had no suspicious stains.

Of course all this hinges on whether Lizzie told the truth about which shoes she wore. But I didn't find anything in testimony showing that there was doubt cast on this particular statement.

Didn't check the authors, though...

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:32 pm

I guess the question would be how many pairs of boots and shoes did Lizzie own? If she was anything like the women of today, myself included, she may have had a collection of shoes and boots to wear, walking shoes, dancing shoes, traveling shoes, visiting shoes, etc. Like the Bedford cord dress possibly being substituted for what Lizzie wore the day of the murders, couldn't she have substituted a pair of "ankle ties" to the court, no one really saw what kind of shoes she had on that day, just her word for what she wore.

For all we know, she may have been wearing what could have been bloodstained boots at the Inquest and had her clean pair at home, ready and waiting?

diana · Post by **diana** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:46 pm

Yes, you're right, Susan. It does seem to be all down to whether Lizzie was telling the truth about the shoes. You'd think the police would have examined more than one pair, wouldn't you?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:09 pm

Thanks you guys. I hope this isn't too off the topic of the dress.
But it occurred to me that Lizzie's shoes would be more importannt than her dress. There probably would be fewer of them and hard to destroy. Plus can we see a barefooted Lizzie killing Abby? Could that have happened? Maybe Lizzie was burning SHOES rather than just the Bedford Cord?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:47 pm

That's a very interesting thought Kat. Could the Bedford cord have been a 'cover up' (since it was already known to be ruined by paint) for what Lizzie was really burning ?

Tracy...

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:57 am

I had wondered the same thing, Kat, about Lizzie possibly being barefoot while she killed Abby. But, the Victorian New England Yankee thing enters my mind, going about barefoot at home once you have left your bedroom doesn't sound like something that would be done, murder or no murder. Could Lizzie have been wearing slippers earlier in the day so that she would have something on her feet and changed into boots after killing Abby?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:35 pm

Oh you know- I didn't picture them as boots before.
I see they are called ties.
I always pictured black Mary-Janes so thanks you guys for waking me up.

Do you know what Victorian Yankee Women wore as shoes around the house?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:49 am

I could be off about Lizzie's footwear, but, from the searching I have done so far, the standard in women's everday footwear for the 1890s was boots.

There seems to be high rise and low rise boots, boots with Louis heels and boots with flat heels like Abby was wearing, boots that tie, boots that button, and boots like Andrew's Congress shoes with the elastic sides. Pumps were also popular, but, those were more for evening wear and fancy dress. I'm sure there were some type of shoes available, but, I haven't found any examples on the web yet. I'm thinking something like Oxfords with a higher than normal heel from what I can recall seeing in the past. Wish I had my old Sear's Roebuck book for the 1890s, they had pages of footwear with illustrations.

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:29 pm

This is a revelation to me, too. I'd always thought of Lizzie's shoes as soft leather -- sort of ballet slipper style with ribbon ties. I know where I got that idea, too.

"There were no shoes and stockings, but the weary police forgot to point it out or to ask for them until the D.A. prompted them a week later. Then she turned over a pair of black strap slippers (ties she called them; I called mine ankleties) and a pair of black stockings, which she admitted had been washed." (Lincoln, 156)

To me, this provided the picture of a soft, slipper type shoe. But Susan is right. In the Spring/Summer 1895 Montgomery Ward catalogue -- most of the footwear shown for women consists of boots -- although there are a few lace-up "oxfords" -- also some congress boots. But anything that looks like a mary jane or ballet shoe seems to be referred to as a "slipper". And Professor Wood, Dr. Dolan, etc. called the pair they had from Lizzie "shoes".

Perhaps Lizzie used the word "ties" to distinguish between lace-up boots and congress boots?

diana · Post by **diana** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:49 pm

Found this on:
http://www.geocities.com/victorianlace10/dressed.html

"Boots of some type were the typical everyday wear for the Victorian women. Most had rows of tiny buttons, making it necessary to get them fastened by using a metal "buttonhook". Many women---out of vanity---wore their shoes too small, and this made the task of fastening her shoes all the more difficult! Lace-up shoes became available in the 1890's, but they were considered to be only appropriate for work or very casual wear."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:36 pm

That link didn't work, sorry.

Geocities drives me crazy!

Anyway, thanks for finding the Lincoln reference, Diana, because that is almost exactly what I have been picturing. MaryJanes or ballet style shoes. Not necessarilly soft but with a strap that tied. And flat- no heel.

When A woman has a dress fitted, is she going to be wearing the shoes that will go with it in order to adjust the length? Is this why the Bedford Cord was always too long, at least according to Emma? Maybe Lizzie wore boots with a heel during a fitting and then after it was washed and it faded Lizzie used it more around the house and would be wearing a flat shoe?

Thanks for the picture and info Susan.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:04 pm

Thanks for the info, Diana. I wonder if this part was true of Abby or if she just bought her switch?

"Switches were heavy strands of hair that were added to the lady's own hair and held in place with hair pins. It was common for women to keep "hair receivers" on their dressing table, which was a container to hold the collected hair taken from hairbrushes until the woman had enough to take it to the wig-maker to be made into a "switch"."

I did a bit more searching and came up with this from an 1890s wedding:

Slippers were of white kid, satin or brocade and the heels rose to one inch.

From this site:

http://www.literary-liaisons.com/article003.html

This seems to be what the Victorians refered to as a slipper, a slip-on pump or mule, though I can't quite picture Lizzie going about the Borden house in mules.

And this:

Shoes: Little boots which buttoned or laced, as well as fancy pumps, some with Louise IV heels and bucked straps (for evening) were worn during this time. The toes were slightly squared in the 70s, but by the 1890’s the long, narrow toe on a high-laced boot was common for daywear. Flat slippers, trimmed to match the dress were often worn for dancing.

From this site:

http://members.aol.com/historicdance/LVclothing.html

[/url]

diana · Post by **diana** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:49 pm

I wish we could find some full length pictures from the 1890's that show women's shoes. But I guess the dresses are so long that you wouldn't see much of the footwear anyway.

I'm giving up my Lincoln-inspired vision of the soft flats with ribbon ties and trying to imagine everyone in boots now. Another thought I had was that Lizzie may have referred to her shoes as "ties" because, according to that one article, laces on women's shoes were a fairly new innovation -- and just beginning to supplant those rows of tiny buttons previously used as fasteners.

We saw an original "hair receiver" when we toured the FRHS. I bet Abby did collect her hair this way. She was probably too frugal to buy a switch.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Thu Jun 24, 2004 8:10 pm

I found Dr. Dolan's Trial testimony on Lizzie's shoes that were taken:

Pg. 965

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

Edward S. Woods Trial testimony on Lizzie's shoes:

Pg. 1008

The Witness: This pair of low shoes or ties, and this pair of black stockings.

I wonder if they mean "low" as in, they were low boots, didn't go up the calf at all and stopped at the ankle? I'm thinking like work boots or hiking boots we have today, all shoes are pretty much "low" were they sit on the foot.

Diana, they made me think, did Victorian men keep hair receivers too? When I think of all that hair jewelery and funeral hair art of the period, it doesn't look like one lock of hair cut from the deceased would suffice for these works.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:52 am

That's good Susan.
So it could mean low heeled or low on the ankle?
I think, for some reason, low heeled.
That would go towards answering my possible scenario that the Bedford Cord might have been made for taller boots/shoes, but when it faded was relegated to low shoes around the house?

That dress was a mistake from the first, if you think about it.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:16 am

Yes, thats a possibility if Lizzie was wearing heels when the Bedford cord dress was made and then switched to flat shoes for around the house, the hem would drag more. Wasn't the Bedford cord and the pink and white stripe wrapper made specifically for around the house wear; house dresses?

From Mary Rammond's Trial testimony in reference to the Bedford cord:

Pg. 1580

Q. At the time did she have an old wrapper which this was being made to take the place of?
A. Yes, sir.

From Emma's Trial testimony about the length of the Bedford cord:

Pg. 1541

Q. I will ask you a little further, ---how long was that dress?
A. So long that in the back perhaps---I might say dragged an inch or more. It was not a train dress, but it was so long that it very quickly got soiled because it was so very light.

Q. How did it compare in length with her other dresses?
A. It was longer than any dresses except those that were made with a train.

Q. How did it compare with the length of her pink wrapper?
A. I should think it was an inch and a half longer, sure.

Are they refering to the length of the skirt as to how long it was in the back or all around? And how long were Lizzie's other skirts that they are comparing the Bedford cord to? Were they slightly above the floor? Floor length? The inch and a half added length sounds about right if Lizzie normally wore flat shoes or boots around the house and wanted to switch to something with a heel for house wear. The skirt would need to be made a bit longer.

I just tried this out with a 50s evening gown I have, I had it hemmed to wear 2 inch spike heels with, which sounds about the equivalent of women's heels in the 1890s. Without shoes on, it hit the floor about an inch or so in the front, totally walkable though, it didn't get in the way or become tangled under my feet. In the back, it did drag on the ground a bit. Hmmm......

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:55 pm

Perhaps she was not not nude, but Lizzie could've stripped to her underwear without alarming Abby, another woman - after all, Abby was in the front part of the house, which was not HER area, technically. For all we know, Lizzie might've cleaned up as best she could, only to realize later she'd gotten some blood on the Bedford cord after dressing ANYWAY - or it might've become bloodied during the attack on Andrew, who (incest theories aside), would not expect to see Lizzie approaching him in her undies.

Nancie, I think your "Lizzie: too lazy" post might be oversimplifying things a bit.

Wow, what gorgeous pictures of the dresses of the era! Thanks, Susan.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:04 pm

Susan said:

"I just tried this out with a 50s evening gown I have, I had it hemmed to wear 2 inch spike heels with, which sounds about the equivalent of women's heels in the 1890s. Without shoes on, it hit the floor about an inch or so in the front, totally walkable though, it didn't get in the way or become tangled under my feet. In the back, it did drag on the ground a bit. Hmmm...... "

Thanks Susan, that goes back to my original question. Do you feel that it would be possible to straddle a body the width of Abby's wearing a dress that touched the floor? I can see being able to walk in it but how far apart can the legs be?

I assume they would have had to plant one foot down on one side of her and step the other leg over her to the other side.

It should be obvious that these questions are from a man who has no idea how loose or tight a dress like that would be.

william · Post by **william** » Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:05 pm

Harry I don't think it would have been difficult to straddle Abby's half erect body and administer the fatal blows.

I attempted to reenact the event by having my wife assume Abbys position. I had no trouble straddling her legs. My feet were only sixteen inches (measured) apart. I don't believe the dress would have been an encumbance while I was raining down the fatal blows on her (Abby's) head

You'll have to excuse me now. I promised Marjorie a double Cappuchino at Starbuck's for her invaluable assistance.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:01 am

Hey William, what's a half-erect body? I can't picture that.
Do you think her rear was in the air?

Har, if a long skirt is like an A shape, if one hitched it up to the knee and gathered it to the side or in front in a bunch, one could stand akimbo.

william · Post by **william** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:29 am

Kneeling sweetie, kneeling (but you knew that; you're just teasing me).

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Sun Jun 27, 2004 11:39 pm

you were talking about shoes in the context of this. it seems to me that a floor-length dress would protect blood spatters on shoes. a long dress would make sense inasfar as it would cover shoes. i still see a problem with so much material so near abby's head in terms of blood-gathering -- though i guess it could work out if the plan was to dispose of the bloody skirt anyway. but this does not match the "soiled" hem of the bedford cord lizzie pulled out of the closet.

what if lizzie's burning the bedford cord had nothing to do with the issue of blood stains?

i don't think anyone stradled abby's body wearing a dress anyway. yeah, i know. i'm working on it. no testimony to back it, but my current opinion is that the killer wore pants and was a man. where was lizzie? i don't know. maybe she was in the barn during the first murder. she certainly wasn't in the barn when andrew was killed.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:27 am

The M.E. thought the assailant would straddle at the hip if the hatchet handle was of sufficient length.
If the hip and rump were up, then that wouldn't work, would it?
The person would be standing about over the waist?

If anyone would like they can go to Stay To Tea for my comparison of hatchet handle lengths in Dolan's testimony.
viewtopic.php?t=236
"I Told You No Wire Hangers"

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 am

Thanks Susan, that goes back to my original question. Do you feel that it would be possible to straddle a body the width of Abby's wearing a dress that touched the floor? I can see being able to walk in it but how far apart can the legs be?

Well, Harry, in my 50s gown, if I could do the splits sideways, I could definitely do it in that gown, there is ALOT of yardage in the skirt.

From Emma's testimony, she says 8 or 10 yards went into the making of the Bedford cord dress. For sake of argument, I'll say 9 yards, and with the fabric bolt being a yard across. Take about 3 yards off for the bodice and the sleeves, that leaves you with 6 yards of material to be made into pieces for the skirt. I came out with a skirt that was 12 feet around at the hem which I think would be plenty of material to straddle or stretch over a body and do the deed.

Kieran says the width between the bureau and the bed in the guest room was 34 inches. If Lizzie placed her feet apart at 34 inches, that would take up about 6 feet of skirt at the hem and leave 6 feet free to move, does that make any sense? 3 feet of skirt in front of Lizzie's legs at the hem and 3 feet of skirt in the back, leaving the other 6 feet free.

Though I'm thinking it would have been easier to squat over or kneel over Abby's body and deliver the blows than to stand bent over and deliver them.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:28 pm

Thanks for all the insightful info.
Very interesting approach to the problem.
BTW: Kieran was there on the 16th so everything had been moved and then moved back again. Give or take a few inches.

Did they ever cut the skirt on the bias back then, or just those panels?

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:59 am

From what I've seen and read, Victorians used bias cutting for small details on garments, like a sash or for those apron draperies on bustle skirts. There may be some dresses out there made that way, but, I haven't come across any yet. The 1930s was the advent of the bias cut for dresses, the idea is that the material would then cling to the natural contours of the body. Think of those slinky Hollywood stars of the period like Jean Harlowe wearing those gowns that left little to the imagination.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:09 pm

Kat, I did find a sort of bias cut skirt for the 1890s, the circle skirt.

The original concept of the circle skirt—that is, of a skirt made from a single piece of fabric—was “invented” in the 1890s, when slim but flaring skirts were favored. However, the look then was very different and still quintessentially Victorian; those skirts were floor–length, had trains, and were covered with furbelows.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:33 pm

Yes, a "Circle-skirt" is what I had in mind. Thanks!

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:24 am

Couldn't she have had on slippers and no stockings? The long skirt would cover the bare legs, and the slippers could be kicked off just outside the door. After wiping down the feet, stockings and proper shoes could be put on before raising the alarm.

The only thing is that there are no signs of tracks in the blood at either scene, nor is there any sign of cleanup of the scene.

P.S. What happened to Bridget's statement at the inquest? Her answers to questions immediately after the crime would be so helpful. How did they lose an entire witness statement? Were any other statements lost as well?

--Lyddie

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:03 am

lydiapinkham @ Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:24 am wrote:P.S. What happened to Bridget's statement at the inquest? Her answers to questions immediately after the crime would be so helpful. How did they lose an entire witness statement? Were any other statements lost as well?

Would you believe the entire official copy of the Preliminary? What we have is Jennings' copy from the famous "hip-bath" collection. It consisted of 5 separate volumes of testimony. Stefani, Kat and myself recently created a consolidated version arranging the testimony in correct order and from other sources added additional testimony, closing arguments and the verdict.

On the Inquest both Bridget's and Lizzie's testimony is absent. Luckily, Lizzie's entire testimony was recorded and published in the New Bedford Evening Standard on June 12, 1893. Stefani and Terrance Duniho painstakingly created an exact copy of Lizzie's testimony. Alas, Bridget's has never been found. There are bits and pieces of it in references at the Preliminary and Trial but the vast part of it is missing.

There is correspondence in Knowlton about the missing Inquest testimony. I will start a new thread.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:11 am

lydiapinkham @ Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:24 am wrote:Couldn't she have had on slippers and no stockings? The long skirt would cover the bare legs, and the slippers could be kicked off just outside the door. After wiping down the feet, stockings and proper shoes could be put on before raising the alarm.

The only thing is that there are no signs of tracks in the blood at either scene, nor is there any sign of cleanup of the scene.
-Lyddie

I was just reading (Trial?) how they did check for drips of blood or any marks showing movement from room to room and there were none.
I think there might have been some clean-up of that kind of thing.
As to clean-up in the guest room, I was thinking more along the lines of someone righting those delicate glass-looking things on the bureau.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:23 pm

Hi, Kat and all!
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? All very strange. I tend to put more faith in people's reliability immediately after the crime than I do when they testify nearly a year later, when they've had time to tailor their stories and be coached.

And Kat--the cleanup: I agree with you that there was some blood cleanup at the scene (drops on the floors leading from the scene, etc.), but footprints usually get left behind in the immediate area surrounding the victim(I'm thinking of the Clutter case, etc.). I guess I was thinking that cleanup in the immediate area of the body would leave a sort of edge that would show that pooling blood had been disturbed. But maybe not. Also, I think I subconsciously think of luminol even though I know it was years before the procedure was instituted.

--Lyddie
(Did they use luminol in Lizzie's room during the recent investigation.)

--Lyddie

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:26 pm

I just remembered why I mentioned the possibility of slipper and stocking removal: the ones she presented were spotless, as I recall. This would be a less extreme form of nudity. (The extra long skirt made me think of the ease of hiding their absence.)

--Lyddie

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:59 pm

Yes, Lyddie, Victorian social mores aside, Lizzie was "about the house", it was her morning. She could have very easily come down in house slippers, no one saw and no one would know.

But, then theres the issue later on of Lizzie lying on the lounge after Andrew's body was discovered. Alice helped Lizzie lay down on the dining room lounge, if she was wearing slippers and no stockings, would Alice have noticed, and would she have said something?

It took her awhile to mention the dress burning, would she have hidden that she saw Lizzie wearing slippers and no boots or stockings when she was questioned about what Lizzie had been wearing that day and was shown it in court?

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Lizzie's dress

Lizzie's dress

lizzie's shoes

lizzie's shoes

So, as it was so close to her room...