Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I went to the tru crime website and drew up Lizzie Borden. The opening line said: "The day is stifling hot over oone hundred degrees. The elderly man still in his heavy morning coat reclines on the sofa." What I am wondering id this, if it was such a warm day, why did Andrew have a heavy overcoat on(if had it on)? And why didn't he take it off when he recline on the sofa?

Probably because despite the season, in the Victorian era daily dress was much more formal than now and a businessman would be expected to wear such attire. Maybe he had planned to go out later again that day for appointments.

Never thought about like that. Andy was an upstanding kind of guy.

I have done a lot of reproduction sewing and worn reenactment garments myself. I am always amazed at how much clothing was worn in the summer and of the popularity of wool. Civil war soldiers fought in wool uniforms in the middle of the summer. Low necklines and shortsleeves were for evening wear, work dresses had long sleeves and a chemise and a corset was also worn under the dress, even in the heat of summer. I guess you would have to become acclimated to your wardrobe, it seems like that is what people did. No victorian businessman would have been without the proper business attire and it would most likely include a wool suit jacket of some sort. Andrew probably intended to put the wool suit jacket back on and return to business appointments in the afternoon.

I always wondered how they fought in all that warm clothing. All the clothes they had to wear back then, espeically the women, had to be uncomfortable.

If I remember correctly, the day of the murders was not all that hot. The preceeding days were but it had cooled down some.

People in those days were so overly concerned about "image" that they were willing to suffering anything in order to maintain that image. Just think of all those women wearing those heavy gowns and tight corsets in the hot summer months. That must have been a drag.

-1bigsteve (o:

Steve is right, the temperature was in the eighties and it was humid. Uncomfortable, but not the stifling heat portrayed in most of the stories. Even if it had been stifling, Andrew would likely have worn the Prince Albert coat rather than appear in public in his shirtsleeves. That's just what people were used to at the time.

If I remember right he took it off once he got home, wasn;t it found beside his head on the arm of the couch?

Yes, he was wearing his "reefer," a sweater, when he was found. So, whoever wrote that article was wrong. Still, it was bad weather (82 degrees, sunny and humid, which in Fall River means yuck!) for the proper businessman. They say the New Englanders who settled in Hawaii trotted out their heavier clothing in the Fall, even though it was no cooler than it had been all summer!

What bothers me is why Andrew would use his coat as a pillow. His cardigan was hung in the same place every day, he seems to have been fairly organized in that respect. His coat would have been worn in public, stains and wrinkles would have been apparent on it before on any other garment worn. Besides, it cost money to dry clean a coat if it couldn't be laundered in the ordinary way and Andrew would have realized that. I wouldn't even consider using a suit coat as a pillow! Granted he wasn't feeling well, but he took the time to retrieve his cardigan and change, so he might have hung the coat where the cardigan was temporarily.

Bob Gutowski wrote:Yes, he was wearing his "reefer," a sweater, when he was found. So, whoever wrote that article was wrong. Still, it was bad weather (82 degrees, sunny and humid, which in Fall River means yuck!) for the proper businessman. They say the New Englanders who settled in Hawaii trotted out their heavier clothing in the Fall, even though it was no cooler than it had been all summer!

Your kidding! Even in Hawaii? Apparently old habits die hard!!

The coat being left there has always struck a wrong cord with me also. It just doesn't fit what we know about Andrew. So if he didn't do it and Lizzie never mentions the coat, then that leaves the killer. Why would the killer leave the coat there? Or what was the killer doing with Andrews coat?

The killer might have worn the coat while killing Andrew. It could have been worn either correctly or backwards to cover the murderer. It could also have been stuffed beneath Andrew's head or underneath the cushions or pillows. Blood would have dripped on it. and any blood spatter from the hatchet blows wouldn't have been noticed.

If I remember right they didn't really look the coat over very good, wasn't it buried in the back yard? I quess I need to brush up on my knowledge of the case! So I better hit the links and old posts some more! lol

By the time they thought to examine the coat thoroughly I think it had been buried and dug up a couple of times. For some reason it had to be buried or disposed of, and likely because it contained blood. It would be impossible to determine where and when the blood got on it, during the murder or after when Andrew bled on it.

Too bad they didn't carefully unfold it and check it out, maybe they'd have seen spots in folds where there shouldn't have been any and that would have given them some clue as to the coats purpose for being there. ie. blood got on the coat before it was put by his head.

One part of the coat must have been uppermost as it lay beneath Andrew's head. It would have contained most of the blood, unless the coat was completely saturated. If the front or back of the coat was not the uppermost part, and if blood spatter was present in those places, it might have told them something. There were any number of things the police might have done better the day of the murders, but Victorian protocol prevented it. Perhaps they were also concerned with conducting too thorough a search at first, to do so would tip their hand if they suspected a family member. They did conduct a more thorough search of the premises the day of the funeral.

Actually I was surprised at the extent of the search the day of the murder. They were looking through trunks in the attic and boxes in the basement. What would a stranger be doing any place like that? They don't even search murder scenes like that today, do they? I mean I can see checking hiding places for someone still hiding but they were going through personal things. Did they even at that early date suspect her?

They said they searched those places, but how thoroughly? I think they were concerned with spending too much time disrupting an already badly disrupted household the day of the murders. If they didn't suspect Lizzie on August 4th, I don't think it took them much of the 5th to come to that conclusion. You're right, some of the places searched imply that a household member was involved. Why would an intruder stash a murder weapon in the attic or the basement before leaving? Or anywhere else, for that matter? Most would likely just drop the hatchet and run, or take the hatchet along and toss it somewhere.

We don't really know what happened to Andrew's blood-stained Prince Albert coat. There is nothing that I know of that states it was buried with the clothing behind the barn. Police Officer Chase in the Witness statements details what was buried:

"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."

It also doesn't appear as part of the trial exhibits shown/given to the jury.

Could he have been buried in it? I don't know why but as I was reading that, it just popped into my head that it had been cleaned and he wore it to be buried in. Like I said, don't know why.

If the coat had blood on it, it would certainly have been Andrew's, so they might have figured that it was not worth much as evidence. Forensics were not very advanced at the time, and if the coat had been found somewhere underneath Andrew's head, it's a pretty safe bet that it had blood on it to some extent. The undertaker might well have sent the coat out for a quick cleaning and Andrew was buried in it.

Reading your post brought back a funny childhood memory. It was a stifling hot day and I went to the little grocery store on our corner. Inside was a man ordering something from the meat counter, and the reason I remember was because he was wearing a very heavy peacoat and a wool hat. I took one look at him and felt hotter than when I went in the store. I really never figured out why on that one either.

Just reading your post about the man wearing a heavy coat and wool hat even makes me feel hot.

I seem to remember that it was not as hot that day as we have sometimes been led to believe. And people did seem to dress more formal and keep to a certain expected image back then, so it didn't seem odd to me that he wore an overcoat. Although I would think there would be too much blood on that coat to clean. Back then they used things like kerosene to remove stains, so I believe if it was wool or some material that would not do well to be saturated then it would be ruined.

I don't think his head was laying on the coat, I think it was laying on the arm of the couch above his head. If it was laying there when he was attached, it no doubt had some blood on it but it wouldn't have been a great amount, I don't think.

Dr. Dolan testified at the trial (p854-855) as to the order of things beneath Andrew's head:

"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."

This from Dr. Dolan, p864:

"Q. What did the body of Mr. Borden have on?
A. On the outside, a cardigan jacket, that is a woolen jacket, black vest and black trousers, and a pair of Congress shoes."

Wouldn't a woolen jacket be warmer than his Prince Albert coat?

I think the killer wore the coat backwards. I don't picture Andrew folding it up. If he needed a pillow, there must have been plenty of those in the parlor, or sitting room.

Thanks Harry! I'm with you on that Stargazer! It just doesn't sound like him at all. He seems more like the "a place for everything, and everything in it's place" type of person. Not to mention, I just can't see him using his coat that way!! But then that would mean that, if the killer used the coat to murder him, they'd then have to lift up his head and the pillow and put the coat there. That just goes above and beyond cold blooded!!

I have to agree it doesn't seem like Andrew to just fold it up & lay on it. Coats were not cheap and being as frugal as he was he would have hung it where it belonged.

Thanks for the transcript, Harry. So maybe the pillow did prevent the coat from soaking up much blood if it was under a cushion. I wonder what size cushion it was, and how tightly the coat was folded. I guess I'll have to keep wondering though.

I could see him folding the coat to prop his head since it seems as we get older a lot of us have neck discomfort, and propping does seem to help so he may have experienced some aggravation in his neck area and needed some quick relief. Just a thought. And it seems that years back people used items for multiple purposes in many different creative ways. LOL

It does seem as thought the woolen jacket would be warmer than the coat unless the coat was wool too. I love the hot weather and give me 90° in the shade and I'm happy, but absolutely not dressed in wool!

Nope, still can't picture Andrew using the coat that he wears out and about town to be seen in and do his business in as a pillow. Maybe the one he wore around the house, if he wasn't wearing it, but not the one he'd just taken off. And I'd bet it got hung up somewhere. You could be right, Patsy, but I just can't see it.

Harry wrote:Dr. Dolan testified at the trial (p854-855) as to the order of things beneath Andrew's head:

"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."

This from Dr. Dolan, p864:

"Q. What did the body of Mr. Borden have on?
A. On the outside, a cardigan jacket, that is a woolen jacket, black vest and black trousers, and a pair of Congress shoes."

Wouldn't a woolen jacket be warmer than his Prince Albert coat?

I was wondering the same thing. I doubt that the change had anything to do with the relative warmth of the garment, just the formality of not going around in his shirtsleeves. The fact that Andrew changed out of his Prince Albert coat implies that he wanted to take care of it. He wore the cardigan jacket around the house to keep the Prince Albert from undue wear, wrinkling, stains, etc.

Alrighty then, some one else had to put the coat, not just under his head, but down under other things as well. Could he have been in another position when he died? I'm squeamish, I guess, cause I just can't imagine some one lifting up his poor hacked up bloody head to do that. Poor old fella.

I suggest that someone with the fortitude to kill Andrew with a hatchet might not think twice about perhaps folding and stuffing the coat under him. Just fold it over the hatchet and use that to push it.

Yooper wrote:I suggest that someone with the fortitude to kill Andrew with a hatchet might not think twice about perhaps folding and stuffing the coat under him. Just fold it over the hatchet and use that to push it.

I guess that would be one way of doing it. Your right though, if you could do that to another human being, that would be nothing.

Interesting that the killer may have folded the coat and put it under the cushion. Trying to think of some reasons to do that, so could it be some thwarted form of a loving gesture, or so that not too much blood got onto the sofa, or was it to stage the body as some serial killers seem to do, or. . .

Some think Lizzie put the coat on backwards and used it to keep blood from getting on her dress, then put it under there to explain how the blood got on the coat. She/he could have just as easily layed it on the arm of the couch by his head and gotten the same effect. Been alot easier then putting it under his head and everything.

Perhaps the murderer, after having worn the coat to do the deed, then put the coat under Andrew's battered head so that it would explain the blood on the coat later during the investigation. However, just the act of raising a bloody head and then stuffing the coat under it would seem that it would have been very difficult to avoid getting blood on one's own clothes at that time.

If an overly large coat was worn backwards, it might be relatively simple to remove it, just put your arms together and lean forward. We may overestimate the amount of blood spatter on the coat as a result of the murder, there could have been quite a bit less than we expect.

I spent some time this morning looking at the crime scene photo's and in Andrew's, you can very clearly see the coat on the arm of the couch, actually, more on the arm then under his head. If he had fallen from a blow and the coat was already there, it could have ended up the way they found him. What do you think? He could have left the coat there himself.

I imagine if the idea was to remove the coat due to the heat, he might have taken it off and laid it on the sofa. The trouble with that is; why then put on the cardigan if it was too warm? If he had to deliberately retrieve the cardigan, it would probably have crossed his mind to hang up the Prince Albert. I don't know where the coats were kept, and I suppose if they were kept in two separate locations it would be more understandable if one was left lying on the sofa.

Since Andrew would normally see business clients at his home around this time of day ot would make sense he would leave the prince albert coat folded on the arm of the couch in case there was need of it again for a client. That's how formal attire was for them back then. The cardigan makes sense that he would be in something more comfortable in his home but keep the prince albert handy during this time if it was quickly needed.

I can understand wanting to keep the Prince Albert handy, but why not hang it on the back of a chair or lay it over the back or arm of one of the chairs in the sitting room? To me it makes more sense to keep wearing it rather than take it off and lay on it.

Thats one of the many very odd things about the Andrew crime scene. The shoes being on after Lizzie said she had removed them, the position of the feet and the clenched fists all suggest something is not as it should be. That coat folded up so tight, then a cozy placed over it. There was also talk that the body had been more upright than what the photo shows (Dr. Dolan?) If I lie on my sofa, my shoes come off. That is not a position for a man taking a nap. More like someone sitting and conversing, then smashed down by blows. Or the body may have been moved.

If Lizzie really had done what she said she did, then gone to the barn, Andrew could have from that point on, done anything. Including putting his shoes back on, to go the bathroom or to go see where she had gone to. There's no way we can know. She had to know if she'd killed him that he had his shoes on, so why would she say she helped him take them off? It makes no sense.

Yooper wrote: You're right, some of the places searched imply that a household member was involved. Why would an intruder stash a murder weapon in the attic or the basement before leaving? Or anywhere else, for that matter? Most would likely just drop the hatchet and run, or take the hatchet along and toss it somewhere.

That's another thing I found odd about this case, and another indicator of Lizzie's guilt to me: who else would've taken the time to hide the hatchet like that, and clean it -I believe there was no actual blood found on the hatchet head or the handle (or any blood that was visible to the naked eye, anyway).

For a killer that was from outside the family, doing such a thing would've been too time-consuming and risky.

Heck, just waiting around an hour and a half to kill Andrew while dodging Lizzie and Bridget would have been time consuming and risky! It has always bothered me that no definitive murder weapon was found. The smartest thing an intruder could do is drop the hatchet next to Andrew and walk quickly away. Dispose of the hatchet as soon as possible, in any event. To be seen or caught in possession of a hatchet without an obvious purpose immediately after the murders would certainly invite suspicion.

Yooper wrote:Heck, just waiting around an hour and a half to kill Andrew while dodging Lizzie and Bridget would have been time consuming and risky!

That's another thing that makes me suspicious of Lizzie.....if you're going to kill two people in the house, wouldn't the other two people there also be killed, to lessen the chances of being caught/eliminating potential witnesses? Yet that didn't happen.

I agree, who was spared and why is just as telling as who was killed and why. This would not have been just any old intruder, it would have been a Victorian Black Ops hit man with the capability of invisibility, and as we all know, they don't use hatchets!