Warps and Wefts Revisited

[Lorcan]

I'd like us to explore the problem of the blue dress material and pink striped dress material and how that might shed some light on whether Lizzie and/or Emma lied under oath about it, or worse.

The problem is not that the New Bedford material was proven incriminating. It was not. The problem is that Lizzie made it verifiable, and then the verification appears to have failed or become obstructed. If the material was really in the attic trunk where Lizzie said it was, it should have been simple to produce. The fact that it was not simple is the suspicious fact.

New Bedford / July 23
Lizzie's testimony

Q. “Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?”
A. “I think I did.”

Q. “What kind of a one was it, please?”
A. “It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.”

Fall River / First week of May
Mary A. Raymond's testimony

Q. “Can you describe the dress?”
A. “It was a light blue with a dark figure.”

Q. “In what manner was it made?”
A. “It was made a blouse waist, and a full skirt, straight widths.”

Q. “Did you make a pink wrapper for her at this time?”
A. “I made a pink striped wrapper.”

Q. “Now what was the material of which this Bedford cord was made?”
A. “Why it was a Bedford cord. That was the name of the material.”

Q. “Well, I meant as to whether it was cotton or woolen or cheap goods?”
A. “It was cotton, a cheap cotton dress.”

Here is a very interesting aspect of the case. In May Lizzie had a cheap blue bedford cord and a pink striped wrapper made by her dressmaker. Then, two months later, shortly before the murders, while alone in New Bedford, the only day and timespan she was known to be alone, she buys dress patterns (I think it may have been dress material, not a pattern, others have argued this) but she again buys extremely similar items.

1. Did Lizzie simply invent a quick lie by describing the dresses made for her a couple of months prior?
2. Did Lizzie actually buy the same colors, nearly identical, two months later just before the murders?
3. What do we really think happened and why?

[camgarsky4]

I've forgotten the exact #'s, and if necessary we can find out, but Lizzie had around 10-15 dresses and the vast majority were blue. So it seems Lizzie had favorite colors, perhaps pink was one of them. I believe the wrapper she changed into murder day was also pink.

What are you asking with the final question?

If 'did Lizzie buy cloth and why', I suspect it was to show Nancy Pool that there was a purpose to her 'shopping outing', when she was out for that 1-2 hours. Nancy probably couldn't have cared less, but it made Lizzie feel like she 'covered her tracks'.

[Lorcan]

I think the main theory - I switched from Rebecca's book to Spencer's so I'm not sure - but the theory is using a very similar or exact dress material to make a duplicate dress - two dresses so similar that at a distance the bloody one and the original one could be worn and swapped. I think the other theory is a dress just larger enough than normal to be worn over the top of another dress. I think Rebecca goes into specifics about the hem and sleeves being detached matching what Alice described about pulling material down during the dress burning incident.

The blue I can let slide but two pink striped dresses within 3 months really rings the alarm bells with me for something being not quite right about that story. Hopefully inspector and teenabee will have some thoughts or anyone else lurking. I'll try this weekend to see what Rebecca's theory is. Camgarsky - you recently read the book, I think - do you know what her theory is?

[camgarsky4]

I could barely read her book. I found the majority of her theories to be speculation built on speculation, sometimes multiple layers of speculation.
If you opt to lean into her writings, I hope you validate every fact she states.

You think someone having 80-90% of their dresses blue is understandable, but if they want 2 pink dresses that is too much to swallow?

So why didn't either version of the duplicate dress get used that day? If the theory is the painted dress was one of the duplicates, it wasn't pink stripped.

[Lorcan]

No, I think we are talking past each other, Camgarsky. What I'm saying is Lizzie said she bought dress material of some sort while in New Bedford days before the murders. Lizzie said this material was in a box in the attic inside a trunk. When Emma was asked multiple times by the police for that dress material she did not produce it and she turned the police away not allowing them into the house to search for it themselves.

This rings all kinds of alarm bells for me. There is something about that New Beford dress material story that just doesn't add up. Why doesn't it add up? I think either the dress material isn't there because it was used in the murders and hidden or destroyed, so it couldn't be produced for the police or it was not as described by Lizzie - a description that matches the color (blue) the material (cheaper cotton) the other color (pink striped) that was the exact pair of dresses that were made for her two months previously.

Is this evidence of guilt - not hard enough evidence to be useful. Is this evidence of some level of deception or misdirection - I think that it is very suspicious as not being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding what Lizzie testified to regarding the matter.

Why so suspicious? Because it's in context with Lizzie likely trying to buy poison in New Bedford and Lizzie unquestionably burning blue cheap cotton dress material mere hours after being told she was suspected of the crime by the mayor. Add to this Emma almost certainly lied about that incident.

Why do I make such a direct accusation against Emma? I don't do it lightly.

Emma testified under oath it was her idea to burn the dress because it had paint on it.

If that statement is true, why did she ask Lizzie what she was doing burning the dress in question, the dress Emma told her to get rid of and told the jury that they routinely burned their old dresses. The trigger for me to suspect a lie and reason why I am willing to risk calling Emma likely a liar about the dress burning idea is the way Lizzie answered Emma's question. Lizzie said I am burning the dress because it has paint on it.

Is that 100% proof Emma was lying? No. But, given the context of everything around it, I believe she was lying. I don't think Emma would have asked the question the way she did and absolutely don't think Lizzie would have answered in that way, specifying the reason for the dress burning if it was Emma's idea in the first place.

I realize I've been getting a bit sloppier in my recent posts separating evidence from inference from speculation and chained speculation. I'll try to be more structured in the future.

[camgarsky4]

I agree with your opinion that Emma made up her testimony about the painted dress.

Saturday, August 6 the police searched the house, specifically looking for blood evidence or a murder weapon. They searched the clothes closet on the second floor. Based on Emma's recollection, in that very same closet, on that very same day, a dress with noticeable stains was hanging on a hook.

The FR police weren't a collection of crack murder detectives, but I don't think they were the
Three Stooges either. With their assignment to examine the clothes for signs of blood, I don't believe the police wouldn't have noticed and secured a dress with 'dark' stains. But in their testimony and written statements they make no mention of anything catching their eye.

As often seems to be the case, it is a 'he said, she said' situation. I go with what 'he said' (aka police) in this instance because of the fortuitous absence of Bridget that morning and the proximity in time to being told she was a suspect.

A more fuzzy reason to not believe Emma and Lizzie is that the stain had been on that dress for several months and the day after being named the suspect, a dress with stains is burned.

The dress burning is another of the 'stray' guilt indicators.

[Lorcan]

This is inference and speculation, but something to consider:

You made me think of something else. Remember how Lizzie had such a hard time getting a fire hot enough to heat iron flats, even though she had access to old newspapers, dry kindling cut last winter in the basement, and coal? Seems like she regained her fire management skills pretty well to dispose of a dress in the kitchen stove a few days later.

[camgarsky4]

And without Bridget to start the initial fire!!

Great observation!!

[Inspector]

What has always bothered me is the dark dresses in the back of the closet. They could have easily concealed stains, and they weren’t really looked at very well.
You’d think the back closet would be the ones suspected the most.

[camgarsky4]

I find the idea of Lizzie wearing two dresses to be a stretch. Why would that be necessary? She had aprons readily available. Aprons were invented to keep dresses from getting anything on them.

If necessary, she had plenty of time to change between the murders and I think Andrew's killer used the Prince Albert Coat as a blood splatter screen.

Again, my opinion only, but the theory that Lizzie bought fabric a couple weeks pre-murder with the intent to sew duplicate dresses is even more imaginative.
I believe that Lizzie's original intention was to poison the Borden's. I don't think violently attacking them entered her mind until her August 3rd attempt to purchase prussic acid got rejected by Eli & team. At that point, she had run out of options. For some reason she had to take action on that Thursday.

Whomever can explain what was special about August 4 (with solid substantiation) will likely have gone a long way towards solving the crime.

[Inspector]

I can only add that Thursday was the usual window washing day, and Emma was out of town. Though that doesn’t explain it, they are contributing factors that may have helped tip the scales.

[Lorcan]

I agree with Camgarsky that Lizzie need not wear two dresses and she had many options to cover or change a dress. I also think that the main purpose of that 90 minutes alone shopping in New Bedford would have been addressed by the uncalled pharmacy-related witnesses from New Bedford. So, if Lizzie bought some cheap dress material, it was likely to just have some plausible shopping bags when she returned from shopping.

however, I am mystified as to why, when Lizzie gave specific instructions on where that dress material was (in the attic in a trunk) did Emma fail to produce it, turn the police away on multiple occasions, and then only produce material matching what Lizzie described on the final day of the trial.

That is a real mystery to me - I'm not saying Lizzie used the dress material from New Bedford as part of the crimes, but I really want an explanation as to why that material was so difficult to produce.

Speaking of dress material, this next part was dismissed at trial as being not incriminating, but when you look at the photos and read the descriptions of the blood on the walls and ceiling that was splashed or cast off (not the pooled blood from draining) I wonder if that single drop of blood on the outside of the underskirt was cast off from Abby if Lizzie's outer dress skirt was slightly lifted while straddling. It's in the perfect spot for that to happen - 6 inches from the bottom and it fell onto the skirt from the outside not the inside as would be expected for the most common innocent explanation.

“one very small spot” of blood, about 1/16 inch in diameter, “about the size of the diameter of the head of a small pin,” and “plainer” or slightly more extensive on the outside of the skirt than on the inside. It was located six inches from the bottom of the skirt.

People often say they didn't find a drop of blood on Lizzie, but they did. And it was in the size, shape, and location that is consistent with Lizzie straddling Abby's back and it being a small droplet of castoff that hit the outside of the underskirt.

[camgarsky4]

Agree on the droplet of blood.

The delay on presenting the fabric could have been as straight forward as Robinson intentionally delaying meeting the prosecutions request. By delaying it the defense avoided any potential surprises. But by not completely ignoring the request, they avoided Knowlton using it in his closing arguments to make the case that the defense had something to hide.

By the last day of the trial, the outcome was blatantly obvious. The judges blocking prussic acid witnesses, excluding her inquest testimony, the prosecution being indecisive about the murder weapon and then the defense offering up Brownie & Me and Lubinsky with their new revelations, it was over by the final day. No harm could come by providing the fabric to the court at that point; albeit quite tardy.

That is all supposition, but seems like a practical explanation.

[camgarsky4]

It is certainly a possibility that the tendency to wash their exterior windows on Thursday's (per Churchill's testimony) and the unsubstantiated belief that Bridget's work schedule gave her Thursday afternoon's off were factors into why August 4. Both would allow the killer to anticipate a bit more freedom within the house which might not be the case on other days of the week.

[Inspector]

Does anyone believe Emma’s absence was part of the plan, or was it coincidence? As far as mobility it would certainly help.
Interestingly, W Spencer doesn’t think Lizzie cared for Bridget (whether she lived or died) but I don’t agree. It seems to me Lizzie did care for her, and could have simply walked away after Andrew was dead, and not had to deal with all the aftermath.

Possibly, Lizzie felt more in control by staying.

If Lizzie could coax Bridget away from the house, I think she too would have left—just speculation.
All the things we seem to think were mistakes by Lizzie never came to truly hurt her in the case, no matter how incriminating.

[Lorcan]

I think that whether Lizzie emotionally cared about Bridget or not, her actions and decisions protected Bridget. Bridget only had a partial alibi for Abby's murder and no alibi, other than Lizzie herself, for Andrew's murder. If Lizzie chose to clean up and walk out of the house leaving Bridget to come down to the crime scene alone and Lizzie testified against her, Bridget could easily have hung.

Imagine that Lizzie decided to testify in this manner. "After father left, I had to use the privy in the basement. I heard Bridget's familiar footsteps walking above me and thought she had come in the house for a break washing the windows, that perhaps she had vomited again and had to rest for a while."

That puts Bridget as suspect #1 for Abby.

Now imagine Lizzie cleans up and leaves and Bridget comes down to an empty house. She was alone with Andrew. If Lizzie testifies she left father sleeping on the sofa and went out to the sale she told Bridget about, Bridget is now suspect #1 for both murders.

Lizzie likely saved Bridget from the gallows, in my opinion, whether she did it intentionally or not, she protected Bridget by not attacking Bridget when her own life was at risk and Bridget could likely save her from the noose with just those few sentences said at trial.

[camgarsky4]

Here are some thoughts, if we go with the idea that Lizzie could have killed her father, clean up and stroll out the side door and intentionally leave Bridget exposed to be a primary suspect.

Lizzie does not come across as someone who would leave the scene (aka the stage) and let the ensuing events unfold as they will?

I think these are some of the building blocks that we all agree on (I know not you Teenabee ):
1) Lizzie planned to poison her parents, but by noon on August 3 had failed to procure poison.
2) Sometime the afternoon of August 3, she formulates a plan using violence, which assumes that Morse will leave in the morning and Bridget will be washing windows in the morning and taking the afternoon off. (the question of why didn't she just postpone is lurking)
4) Lizzie visits Alice Russell and plants the seeds of future violence at the Borden house. However, this potential violence is specific about men, not the family servant.
5) She gets back to her bedroom around 9pm, August 3.

Lizzie strikes me as one of those personalities that was consumed with the desire to control her environment and that day did her best to stage direct.

I'll let you guys stew and debate on this, but I don't think Lizzie possessed an ounce of legitimate empathy or concern for others. As I've mentioned on other posts, in today's world, I think Lizzie would be diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder.

[Inspector]

I suppose whether one thinks Lizzie cared for Bridget or not, the fact remains that she chose not to leave Bridget there alone, and did try to get her to Sargents.
Would Lizzie have gone along to Sargents with Bridget? I think so.
Reason…she’s still in control of the situation, and Bridget is still safe.
Lizzie could have thrown Bridget under, or simply left her there alone, so why didn’t she?
I still say that she care for her to some degree.
I seem to remember reading somewhere, Lizzie would even help her with chores from time to time.
If Lizzie did these crimes, she obviously had demons, and mentally unstable.
The evidence seems to suggest there was no reason for hatred towards her parents.
Perhaps the lust for money fueled the fire, and Andrew needed to give much more to put it out.
A proper will that the sisters agreed with could have fixed everything.
Andrew was right to say, it needed to be done.

[Lorcan]

I agree with the scenario laid out by Camgarsky and that Lizzie's natural personality was to be a stage director. Why? Looking back at how Lizzie guided the police to a supposed lock pick (a full-sized nail) when they were investigating the daytime robbery is one example of stage directing. The second is Lizzie telling the police which rooms they didn't need to search because she always kept them locked.

I personally chose to give Lizzie that little benefit of the doubt on having some mercy on Bridget - since she also didn't try to throw any "real" person under the bus: Bridget, John, the Swedish farm worker - she stuck to the mysterious man angry at her father whom she couldn't identify. That could be just because she already had the whole plan for the mystery man that she laid out to Alice or it could be she really did have some empathy or mercy for Bridget. It's just a choice I'm making to give her that benefit of the doubt. I don't have strong evidence to back it up. I just choose to keep a little flicker of a chance for repentance, atonement, and redemption for Lizzie, if she was the killer.

[Lorcan]

I know this risks getting contentious, but as we are discussing Lizzie's need for control, I think that also applies to motive. Control not greed, in the traditional sense.

I ask myself is Lizzie so angry at Abby and Andrew because of $5,000 or the fact that they did this transaction secretly and she found out from an outsider? I believe the latter, because:

1. Fear of the unknown - what else might Abby and Andrew be planning to do with her future inheritance?
2. Loss of influence - Abby clearly now has the upper hand in the influence contest with the one and only source of income for all 3 women.

So, if it was the fact that it was kept a secret that was the real, deep emotional hurt Lizzie felt, and both parents knew how much that hurt her as evidenced by her not calling Abby mother anymore, the continued animosity even after a financial equalization - evidence to me that it was emotional not financial hurt, what if they chose to do it again? Hide another transaction from her. This time something large - the Swansea Farms or a Will.

That for me is my #1, by far, suspicion of motive. That 2nd perceived betrayal is what I think was the emotional trigger that led to the murders.

I don't have any evidence of the mystery transaction, but hopefully I'll find it in Spencer's book. Perhaps is was the smoldering roll of paper in the stove. Victoria Lincoln, I think, mentioned it, but she is known to be unreliable. However, psychologically, what I described feels more natural to me than simple greed to inherit a few years early. She already lost her under 25 marriage window and was rapidly becoming a social old maid, so I look for an emotional trigger and what I described is the best I can come up with.

[camgarsky4]

There are several indicators that Andrew might have been contemplating changes to his estate planning, possibly including writing a will or gifting properties out of the estate.
I am on board that this possibility would be a solid and likely motive. If one of the sisters (cough cough) happened to be wired a bit on the self-centered side, then hostility as a resolution could (and did) ensue.

As far as the Swansea properties go, I doubt Lizzie gave the upper farm the slightest thought; why would she. It was a working farm. Emma sold that very farm just months after the murders, most likely to liquidate funds to cover legal fees. If Lizzie killed their parents over this upper farm, seems she would have influenced Emma to sell some other piece of property; there were plenty of options. Most importantly, we don't have a single shred of information, fact or innuendo, that suggests this motive, that is until Victoria Lincoln's book in the 1960's. It is one of the classic myths for this case.

That leaves us with the duplex in south Swansea, the vacation home the Borden's co-owned with the Almy's. I can understand all the family members feeling an attachment to that house and location because they likely had great times visiting with great weather and beautiful seas all about.

But again, there isn't even a tiny morsel of indication that Andrew or Abby gave a single thought to changing the ownership situation. None. Except of course by modern day Borden novelists.