Lizzie's Dress

[camgarsky4]

To blow away the fog of confusion, sometimes it's good to step back and present information in its 'leanest' form. In this instance, I'm looking at the dress which Lizzie wore at the time of the murders.

It is undisputed that we 'only' have two dresses which can make this claim. The defense provided a blue bengaline skirt as the 'culprit', and the prosecution claimed it was a light blue calico dress; the exact same dress which Emma concurs Lizzie burned 3 days after the murders.

Our new friend, 'Google. Gemini' provides the following insights on how the two dress materials, Bengaline Silk and Calico, compared from a couple of perspectives.

Google. Gemini begins.
It is extremely unlikely that any woman in 1892 would be confused by the visual appearance of a bengaline silk dress versus a calico dress. Even a glance across a room would reveal two entirely different categories of textiles, social functions, and visual aesthetics.

Bengaline Silk: Bengaline is a heavyweight, luxurious fabric characterized by prominent, crosswise ribs (or cords) running horizontally across the warp. Because it traditionally featured a silk warp (and often a wool or cotton filling), it had a distinct, rich luster, a subtle sheen. It was usually solid-colored.

Calico: In 1892, calico was an inexpensive, lightweight, plain-woven cotton fabric featuring small-scale, printed multi-colored patterns (often tiny florals or geometric motifs).

Social Context and Class Significance
A Victorian woman would not just recognize the fabric by sight; she would instantly recognize its social standing: Bengaline was a high-end, fashionable material used for elegant visiting dresses and formal daywear for upper- or middle-class women.
Calico was a humble, utilitarian fabric. By the 1890s, it was largely relegated to informal morning wear at home, children's clothes, working-class apparel, or domestic uses like petticoats and sunbonnets.

Confusing the two would be the 19th-century equivalent of modernly mistaking an evening silk satin gown for a cheap cotton-print kitchen apron.
Google. Gemini ends.

Now with the material comparison established, here are the relevant testimonies that help us navigate what material made up the skirt that Lizzie wore during the timeline the murders were committed.

Lizzie - Inquest testimony
Q. What dress did you wear the day they were killed?
A. I had on a navy blue, sort of a bengaline or India silk skirt, with a navy-blue blouse. In the afternoon they thought I had better change it. I put on a pink wrapper.

The Borden dressmaker, Mrs. Raymond, testified to making a dress for Lizzie a couple months prior to the murders. She also provided a description of the material for the dress.

Mrs. Raymond, Dressmaker.  Trial Page 1578.
Q. Can you describe the dress?
A. It was a light blue with a dark figure.
Q. How light a blue?
A.  Well, quite a light blue. I don't know that I can tell you exactly.
Q. What they call baby blue?
A. No, I think not, not as light as baby blue.
Q. Do you remember what the figure was upon it?
A. I can't remember the shape of the figure. It was a dark figure and I think...

Emma confirms that the dress burned by Lizzie the morning of August 7th was the same dress that Mrs. Raymond described.

Mrs. Churchill described the skirt which Lizzie was wearing when Churchill arrived at the Borden house and up until Lizzie went up to her bedroom and changed into the pink wrapper. Does her description match the burnt/paint-stained dress or the dark blue Bengaline Silk dress.

Adelaide Churchill - Preliminary Hearing. Page 279
Q. Do you remember how Lizzie was dressed when she was standing there?
A. I think she had a cotton dress on, calico.
Q. Can you describe it any better than that?
A. I think the color was blue, blue and white.
Q. And the figure?
A. There was a figure on it, the shape of a diamond. It looked to me, of a darker shade of
blue, navy blue, printed on it.

For those that may want to pounce on the term 'I think' as a signal of doubt, it is of note that Churchill didn't hesitate to state "I don't remember" when asked additional specific questions about the dress and what Lizzie wore on her head. That testimony can be added to this thread if anyone prefers.

Final comment. Others were asked under oath what Lizzie wore that morning. Dr. and Mrs. Bowen, Alice Russell, Charles Sawyer, etc. Despite its 'eye catching' visual appearance, no witness provided a description that gave even the slightest hint of a bengaline silk type of material.

If another poster would like to add all the various testimonies related to what they saw Lizzie wearing, that would make enhance the research value of this thread.

[Lorcan]

Interesting - I realize now I was trusting Lizzie saying she wore a two-piece skirt and blouse. Here's the best I can get out of my paid AI account:

Two garments are in the record. At the inquest Lizzie said the morning garment was the navy skirt later handed to the officers. Emma and Alice Russell identified the dress burned on Sunday, August 7, as the cheap cotton Bedford cord Mrs. Raymond made the first week in May. The witnesses who described Thursday morning do not agree with one another.

Lizzie, inquest. Page marker 53 (10) falls just before this.

Q. What dress did you wear the day they were killed?
A. I had on a navy blue, sort of a bengaline or India silk skirt, with a navy blue blouse. In the afternoon they thought I had better change it. I put on a pink wrapper.
Q. Did you change your clothing before the afternoon?
A. No, sir.
Q. You dressed in the morning, as you have described, and kept that clothing on until afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.
Later in the same examination:
Q. Was the dress that was given to the officers the same dress that you wore that morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The India silk?
A. No, it is not an India silk, it is silk and linen; some call it bengaline silk.
Q. Something like that dress there? (Pongee.)
A. No, it was not like that.

Adelaide Churchill, inquest, page 133.

A. She had on a blue and white calico. Blue and white with a deeper navy blue diamond on it; of a deeper shade of blue, this diamond was, as near as I can tell it; I am not observing of clothes.
Q. Are you sure it was calico?
A. No, it might be gingham; it is cotton goods I think.
Q. It could not have been india silk, or anything of that pattern?
A. No, I dont think it was; it was calico or gingham I think. I do not think she would wear an india silk in the morning, unless she was going out.
Blouse waist. All one kind of cloth. She thought she would know it again. She had never seen it near to until that day.

Preliminary hearing, page 279, is the passage already in the post: cotton, calico, blue and white, a diamond of a darker navy blue printed on it. On that same page she said “I do not remember” to any other figure, and “I do not know” to the waist and to whether it was tight or loose.

Trial, page 353:

A. It looked like a light blue and white ground work; it seemed like calico or cambric, and it had a light blue and white ground work with a dark navy blue diamond printed on it.
Shown the dark blue dress: “That is not the dress I have described.” “I did not see her with it on that morning.” Groundwork “as light as” the blotting paper shown to her. She had seen Lizzie wear it before, but could not say how long or how often. On cross: “I only looked at the general effect.” “A cotton dress, either calico or cambric.” Recalled, page 650, she did not know what a Bedford cord was. “I thought it was a cotton dress of some kind.”

Dr. Bowen, inquest.
A. It is pretty hard work for me. Probably if I could see a dress something like it, I could guess, but I could not describe. It was sort of a drab, or not much color to it to attract my attention, sort of a morning, calico dress I should judge.
She changed “sometime in the course of two or three hours” to a wrapper, after she went up to her room. At trial, pages 310–312, the only thing he would describe was “A pink wrapper, morning dress.” Of the dress before that: “No, sir.” Read his inquest answer, he said the color was indefinite and “I don’t remember distinctly anything about the color.” “It was an ordinary, unattractive, common dress that I did not notice specially.” Shown the blue dress: “I don’t know, sir.”

Mrs. Bowen, trial pages 1586–1588. This is the witness the post leaves out. She said “A dark dress,” “a blouse waist, with a white design on it,” and, shown the waist, “I should say it was… The waist she had on.” The skirt was dark; she did not notice its figure. On cross she was read an earlier answer, “A white dress with a waist with blue material, a white spray running right through it,” and said she had meant “dark blue, the dress with a blouse,” “dark blue with white spray.” She did not say silk or bengaline.

Doherty. Preliminary, pages 331 and 344: “I think it was a calico dress.” Figured, printed, spotted. Blue, then “a light blue, a little blue,” then “Light blue? No,” then “Yes Sir” when the question was put again. “There was white to it.” “I cannot describe that dress. I have a faint recollection of it… a blue spot in it, a spot as large as the rubber on Mr. Jennings pencil.” Trial, pages 599–600: “a light blue dress with a bosom in the waist,” “a small figure on the dress, a little spot like.” Shown a dress: “No, I don’t think so.” Cross, pages 605–606: faint recollection, “not as dark nor as full a blue as that.” Friday morning he thought she had the same light blue one on. “I think so. I can’t say so positively.”

Bridget Sullivan. Preliminary: “Do you remember what dress she had on that morning?” “No Sir.” At the foot of the stairs when Lizzie gave the alarm: “I could not tell you.” Dark or light: “I could not tell you.” Trial, page 244: “No, sir, I couldn’t tell what dress the girl had on.” She did describe a light blue dress with a darker blue sprig, got last spring, with a dressmaker in the house that spring. That was not tied by her to Thursday morning. An answer that it “was not a calico dress she was in the habit of wearing” was stricken. Recalled, pages 270–271: Wednesday “a light blue,” “a blue wrapper on her; skirt and basque.” Thursday: “No, sir. I can’t tell what dress the girl had on,” except a pink wrapper in the afternoon. Her own Thursday dress was dark indigo calico with a white clover leaf. Her inquest testimony is not in these volumes.

Alice Russell. Inquest: she found Lizzie fastening a pink wrapper. Dress before that, dark or light: “I havnt any idea, I cant recollect a thing.” One piece or two: “No, I cant.” Preliminary: “Do you remember how Lizzie was dressed?” “No Sir.” Trial, page 383: “None whatever, other than that.” The other point was that the upper part was loose where Russell started to unfasten it, and Lizzie said “I am not faint.”

Sunday, page 391: Lizzie at the stove with a skirt in her hand. Emma: “What are you going to do?” Lizzie: “I am going to burn this old thing up; it is covered with paint.” Russell was not sure whether the words were “covered in” or “covered with.” Pages 394–395: the burned dress was “a cheap cotton Bedford cord,” “Light-blue ground with a dark figure—small figure.” She had seen it once in the spring, when Lizzie had it on during the dressmaker’s visit, and said, “Oh, you have got on your new Bedford Cord.” She did not remember seeing it again until that Sunday. On cross, page 408, she said it was not calico and not cambric, then: “I didn’t take hold of it to see and I didn’t examine it.” “I suppose it was the same dress that I have reference to her having made in the spring.”

Page 410: “If I were you I wouldn’t let anybody see me do that, Lizzie.” No blood. Soil on the edge held toward her. She did not see it put in the stove. Page 416: burned dress “All cotton.” Shown the blue skirt in court: “It is silk, but I don’t know what kind.” The waist: “I call it sateen.”

Emma, trial pages 1538–1543.
A. It was a blue cotton Bedford Cord, very light blue ground with a darker figure about an inch long and I think about three quarters of an inch wide.
Q. Who made it?
A. Mrs. Raymond, the dressmaker.
A. She had it made the first week in May.
Very cheap, 12½ or 15 cents a yard, not over 8 or 10 yards, narrow ruffle of the same, blouse waist, made at home in not more than two days. Paint “along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt,” within about two weeks. Saturday night, about 9, hanging in the clothes press: “You have not destroyed that old dress yet; why don’t you?” “Very dirty, very much soiled, and badly faded.” She did not remember Lizzie wearing it for several weeks before Emma went away. Next seen Sunday, about nine: “This dress was hanging on her arm and she says, ‘I think I shall burn this old dress up.’” Emma said why don’t you, or you had better, or I would if I were you. She did not see it burned. Doors and windows open. Officers in the yard. Funeral dress Saturday was a black net. Emma said the Bedford cord was not under it, and she did not think it could have been under the pink wrapper.

Mrs. Raymond, pages 1578–1579. The post’s quotation is exact.
Q. Can you describe the dress?
A. It was a light blue with a dark figure.
Q. How light a blue?
A. Well, quite a light blue. I don’t know that I can tell you exactly.
Q. What they call baby blue?
A. No, I think not, not as light as baby blue.
Q. Do you remember what the figure was upon it?
A. I can’t remember the shape of the figure. It was a dark figure and I think —
Blouse waist, full skirt, full sleeves, about two inches longer than Lizzie’s other dresses made then. “It was cotton, a cheap cotton dress.” Paint on the front, around the bottom, on the ruffle, and on the underneath part of the hem, while Raymond was in the house. On cross she could not give the shape or the color of the figure, and would not say it was navy. The light blue faded, or the color wore off. She also made a pink striped wrapper at that time.

Sawyer, trial page 1472. At the screen door from about 11:10 or 11:15. “Well, no, I couldn’t tell you the colors, as I know of.” Dark or light: “No, I don’t know as I could.” No blood seen.

Mrs. Holmes, trial page 1506. Arrived about noon. “A wrapper.” “A stripe—pink stripe and white stripe with what I should call a sheeny figure in it.” Shown the dark blue dress: Lizzie had it on Friday morning and, she thought, for a short time Saturday morning. Funeral: black net over silk.

No witness used “bengaline” or “India silk” for the dress seen Thursday morning. Churchill was asked that question and said she did not think so.

Mrs. Bowen is the one description of a dark dress, and she identified the waist produced in court. Bridget’s inquest is not in these volumes.

[Lorcan]

Summary analysis from AI:

The testimony sorts into three groups, and the two dresses are not identified by the same people.

The morning garment and the Sunday garment are separate questions. Lizzie is the only person who named the cloth she said she had on when the household was killed. Emma and Alice Russell are the only people who identified the dress burned on August 7. Nobody who saw Lizzie Thursday morning also saw that burning and said it was the same dress.

Light printed cotton, not the dark dress produced in court. Adelaide Churchill is the only witness who described the dress three times and did not move. Inquest: blue and white calico or gingham, navy diamond printed on it, blouse waist, all one cloth, not India silk. Preliminary, page 279: cotton, calico, blue and white, navy diamond. Trial, page 353: light blue and white groundwork, calico or cambric, dark navy diamond, as light as the blotter she was shown. Shown the dark blue dress: "That is not the dress I have described." She did not know what Bedford cord was. Patrick Doherty is weaker support for the same side. Preliminary: calico, figured, blue, white in it, a spot about the size of a pencil eraser, and he went back and forth on "light." Trial: light blue, a bosom in the waist, a small figure, "not as dark nor as full a blue as that." Dr. Bowen at the inquest only: drab, not much color, a morning calico. At trial he withdrew the color and said he had not really noticed the dress before the pink wrapper.
Dark dress, closer to the skirt and waist handed over. Lizzie, inquest: navy bengaline or India silk skirt, navy blouse, kept on until afternoon, then a pink wrapper. She said the dress given to the officers was that morning dress, then corrected it to silk and linen, "some call it bengaline silk," and said it was not the pongee shown to her. Phoebe Bowen is the only other witness on this side. Trial: a dark dress, blouse waist with a white design, and she identified the waist shown to her as the one Lizzie had on. The skirt was dark. She did not name silk or bengaline. On cross she was read an earlier answer, a white dress with a blue waist and white spray, and said she had meant dark blue with a white spray. Mrs. Holmes does not help Thursday morning. She arrived about noon and saw a pink-and-white striped wrapper. She said Lizzie wore the dark blue dress Friday morning and for a short time Saturday.

Could not describe Thursday morning. Bridget Sullivan, at the preliminary hearing and at trial: she could not tell what Lizzie had on, or whether it was dark or light. On recall she put a light blue wrapper, skirt and basque, on Wednesday, and a pink wrapper on Thursday afternoon. Alice Russell, inquest, preliminary, and trial: no description, except that the upper part was loose when she started to unfasten it. Charles Sawyer: could not tell the color, or dark from light. Emma was away.

The Sunday dress, agreed by the people who saw it burned. Emma: blue cotton Bedford cord, very light blue ground, darker figure about an inch by three quarters, made by Mrs. Raymond the first week in May, cheap, paint on the front and toward the bottom, burned Sunday about nine. Alice Russell: cheap cotton Bedford cord, light blue ground, small dark figure, the spring dress she had seen once during the dressmaker's visit. No blood. Soil on the bottom edge. She said it was not calico and not cambric, then said she had not taken hold of it. Shown the court skirt, she called that silk and the waist sateen. Mrs. Raymond matches the garment, not the wearing or the burning: light blue, not baby blue, dark figure of a shape and color she could not remember, cotton, blouse waist, paint on the front and hem. She would not say the figure was navy.

Where they disagree. Churchill and Doherty against Lizzie and Mrs. Bowen, on light printed cotton against a dark dress. Churchill's navy diamond against Raymond, who could not describe the figure, Emma's inch-long figure, Russell's small figure, and Doherty's little spot. Churchill's calico, gingham, or cambric against Russell's Bedford cord, which Russell said was neither calico nor cambric. Dr. Bowen against himself. Mrs. Bowen against her own earlier "white dress" answer. Bridget's Wednesday light blue wrapper is not a Thursday identification.

What follows from that, and no further. The dress Lizzie was wearing when Churchill, Bowen, Doherty, and Sawyer saw her is the dress after the alarm, not a separate sighting from the time of the killings. Lizzie said she did not change until afternoon. Bridget could not say. Mrs. Holmes already had the pink wrapper at about noon, and Dr. Bowen, Bridget, Russell, and Lizzie all put the wrapper on after she went upstairs. So the change is agreed. The time of the change is late morning, after Churchill left her in the dining room.

The prosecution link, morning dress equals burned dress, is a resemblance argument. Churchill and, more faintly, Doherty describe a light blue cotton with a dark figure. Emma, Russell, and Raymond describe a light blue cotton Bedford cord with a dark figure. Nobody who saw Thursday morning identified the burned dress as that dress. Emma, who named it, had not seen Lizzie wear it for several weeks before she left, two weeks before August 4. The defense link, morning dress equals the bengaline given to the police, rests on Lizzie's inquest answer and Mrs. Bowen's identification of the waist. No other witness used bengaline or India silk, and Churchill was asked and said no.

[Lorcan]

OK, back to human analysis:

I think the only person left alive to have seen what Lizzie was wearing at 9AM is Bridget.

We have no idea if the blue dress material and the pink and white dress material that was purchased in New Bedford was real. If not real, we have to wonder why Lizzie would lie about it. If real, we have to wonder why Emma could not produce it until the last day of court. To me, although others disagree (because Lizzie had a large proportion of blue clothing) I find it odd that a woman would purchase the same two colors as 3 months before - the pink and white really bothers me. The mystery for me is if it was a lie to cover up going to those 2 pharmacies in the 90 minutes she was alone in New Bedford's shopping district, wouldn't she be at a very large risk of not only the store clerks but the people she was visiting testifying about her returning with dress material or not?

After Abby's murder, Lizzie would have plenty of time to change out of an over the head light cotton dress or a skirt and blouse. There is no dress that I know of meant for morning inside the house chores that would have been difficult to remove.

Andrew's overcoat or a raincoat, along with gloves or not, and a handkerchief that she was ironing or a sleeping bonnet both bring blood cleanup after Andrew's murder down to a minute or two if it's just hands and face or face only.

Mrs. Bowen and Dr. Bowen seem to be protecting Lizzie.

I don't know how much Bridget was holding back. My gut feeling is she is being as honest as she thinks she can safely be without bringing the full wrath of Lizzie and her defense team potentially making life difficult for her if she goes too far - and that would be a balancing act because if she is seen to be obviously helping Lizzie, that is a danger as well. I think Bridget was in a very precarious position until it became clear that Lizzie was who was going to be the sole focus of the trial.

Assuming Lizzie is the culprit, I don't think she was wearing anything out of the ordinary when Abby was attacked and I think she was definitely wearing some type of shield when Andrew was attacked.

I'm interested to hear everyone's analysis.

[camgarsky4]

I tend to disregard Phebe Bowen's commentary...she comes across as a person who doesn't flourish in a stressful situation. That said, in the preliminary Hearing (days after the murders) she speaks confidently about a single observation regarding Lizzie's skirt...see in red below.
The Bowen's seemed to see 'dark' when all others saw lighter shades of Lizzie's skirt. But one thing they all have in common is that NO witness described anything that could be misinterpreted as Bengaline Silk.

I don't think it is rational to think Lizzie might have accidently given the wrong outfit to Hilliard. The evidence is overwhelming from my perspective that she was not wearing a bengaline silk dress that morning. So, she lied. Why would she lie?

Phebe Bowen Preliminary Hearing
Page 480
Q. What was the body of the dress?
A. I did not notice particularly.
Q. The ground of the blouse, you say it had a white spray?
A. O, it was blue.
Q. Light or dark blue?
A. I should say quite a dark shade; I cannot tell; I was not looking for fashions then.
Q. Do you know what skirt she had on?
A. I do not. It was nothing more than an ordinary morning dress; I think I had seen her wear it before. I only noticed the dress skirt.
Q. Something you had seen her wear frequently before?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. In the morning, or when?
A. In the morning when I have been in.

p.s. I think Lizzie wore her apron when Abby was killed and Andrew's killer wore his Prince Albert coat.

[Lorcan]

If Camgarsky is correct about Lizzie wearing an apron and I'm correct about her later wearing a hair bonnet and Bridget is correct about the pail of bloody cloth not being in the laundry room before the day of the murders, look at how many elements of the case are visible in this plate Lizzie gave to a friend after the murders. It is part of the Fall River Historical Society Collection.

[Lorcan]

Here's a dictionary of the relevant clothing terms as they were used in 1892.

Blouse waist
A waist was the upper half of a woman’s outfit, the part from shoulder to waistband. A blouse waist was the loose version: soft, usually gathered or bloused over the belt, not a fitted basque that buttoned tight to the hips. By 1892 a blouse and a skirt were often separate pieces, and people still called the pair a dress. Bowen’s answer just before this page was “a blouse waist of blue material, with a white spray.” She was describing the top, not the whole outfit.

White spray
Spray was the printed figure: a small sprig, a short stem with a few leaves or tiny flowers, scattered over the cloth. “Running through it” means the sprig repeated across the waist, not a border and not one large flower. It is the same kind of word as Churchill’s “diamond” and Doherty’s “spot.” At trial Bowen called the figure a round figure or flower, and said the cloth was dark blue with a white spray. She never named the weave.

Body of the dress
Knowlton is not asking about the bodice. He asks this right after she has described only the spray, and his next question is “the ground of the blouse.” Body here means the main cloth, the field the spray was printed on. She said she did not notice it particularly.

Ground
The background color of a print, as against the figure on top of it. Churchill later used the same idea: a light blue and white ground with a navy diamond printed on it. Bowen, pushed on the ground of the blouse, said it was blue, “quite a dark shade.”
Skirt, and dress skirt
The skirt was a separate lower garment, tied or buttoned at the waist over the petticoats. Dress skirt means the skirt of that dress, not an underskirt, petticoat, or a skirt worn with a different waist. Bowen said she did not know what skirt Lizzie had on, then that she only noticed the dress skirt. She registered that a skirt was there. She did not describe its color, figure, or cloth.

Ordinary morning dress
A house dress for the morning, before a woman changed to go out or to sit in the afternoon. In that house it was a cotton print, worn often enough that a neighbor would recognize it. Bowen said it was nothing more than that, and that she had seen Lizzie wear it before, in the morning when Bowen was in the house. Morning dress is not a wrapper. A wrapper was looser, usually unfitted, and Lizzie said she put a pink one on later that day.

Bengaline silk
This is Lizzie’s word, not Bowen’s. At the inquest Lizzie said the morning outfit was a navy blue “bengaline or India silk” skirt with a navy blue blouse. Asked again, she said it was not India silk; it was silk and linen, “some call it bengaline silk,” and it was not like the pongee shown to her. Bengaline was a cross-ribbed cloth with a silk face and a cotton or linen weft. It had a slight sheen and a corded hand, closer to a fine faille than to a print. India silk, strictly, was a thin plain silk; the two names were used loosely. It was a street or afternoon cloth. Churchill said she did not think Lizzie would wear India silk in the morning unless she was going out. No witness on Thursday morning described ribbed silk. The dress Emma and Alice Russell said was burned Sunday was a cheap cotton Bedford cord, a different corded cloth, cotton rather than silk-faced.

Apron
A separate cotton covering, tied at the waist, sometimes with a bib, worn over the dress to keep it clean. It was not part of the dress. At the inquest Lizzie was asked if she had one on Thursday. She said she did not think so, and that she had no occasion for one that morning. Bridget had her own aprons.

Prince Albert coat
A man’s coat. Double-breasted, knee length, with a full skirt all the way around, not the cutaway tails of a morning coat. It was named for Prince Albert and was ordinary day wear for a man of Andrew’s age and station.

[camgarsky4]

All this information ties back to the opening post...Lizzie claimed she wore a Bengaline silk 'like' skirt during the timeframe both the Borden's were murdered. However, not a single witness recalled her with a skirt on that looked similar to Bengaline silk. Calico or casual wear was the common theme.

On the flip side, Adelaide Churchill described Lizzie's skirt matching 'to a T' the dress Mrs. Raymond described making for Lizzie. This same dress got paint on it per Emma and Lizzie. This is the dress that no one disputed was burned by Lizzie three days after the murder.

To my way of thinking, along with the 'missing note', this goes to the top of the list of incriminating evidence.

p.s. The image on the plate Lizzie gifted is both ironic and funny.

[trojanusc]

I'm a little bit confused by the logic here...

First, let me say that I'm of the belief Lizzie must have had some blood on her following the murders. Not necessarily covered in it, but at least some spatter given the aggressive nature in which the hatchet was swung. For what it's worth, the History Channel had the LAPD crime lab recreate the murder using a similar hatchet and simulated skull, and the results suggested significant blood spatter on the perpetrator. While I think some blood spatter analysis is effectively pseudoscience, there's certainly a degree of truth here.

Now, let's get to that morning. Lizzie murders Abby upstairs. Maybe she does this nude, but if not, she's wearing something. If it's the blue dress, presumably there's some blood on it. She's subsequently seen by Andrew and Bridget, and while Bridget couldn't specifically identify her clothing, she never testified to observing a change of dress or anything particularly unusual about Lizzie's appearance. Then Andrew is murdered, and Mrs. Churchill encounters Lizzie at the screen door, apparently immaculate, down to her clean fingernails. Nobody describes visible bloodstains on her clothing. Yet your argument is that Churchill saw the very same blue dress Lizzie burned three days later. Alice Russell, who was hardly reluctant to provide incriminating testimony, described that dress as having paint or soil on it, not blood.

And this is where the logic breaks down for me. If Lizzie committed the murders in this blue dress, but it was clean enough to wear in front of Churchill, the Bowens, and the police, what exactly was she concealing by burning it? Either she wore it during the murders and somehow avoided getting blood on it, in which case why burn it? Or she wore something else and changed into the blue dress afterward, in which case Churchill's description tells us nothing about the murder clothing. And the suggestion that she simply cleaned the blood off doesn't make much sense either. She was seen within minutes of Andrew's murder, and thoroughly washing blood out of a cotton dress would presumably have left noticeable wet patches, assuming there was even time to do it. So we're supposed to believe Lizzie was sufficiently concerned about this dress to destroy it three days later, but not concerned enough to take it off before inviting half the neighborhood and the police into the house?

[camgarsky4]

Hi and welcome Trojanusc!

If Lizzie was the killer, I believe she wore her bibbed apron when Abby was killed. When dispatching Andrew, I think the killer shielded their body with Andrew's Prince Albert coat.

Lizzie would have presumed that she avoided blood splatter due to these body coverings. But to be sure, Lizzie looked herself over to confirm her dress was free of any blood.

Saturday evening, Mayor Coughlin let Lizzie know she was the primary suspect. The news sent her mind spinning, retracing every action or statement that could incriminate her. One potentially damning item stood out...the dress she wore. Might it hold a clue that she couldn't readily see. To be on the safe side, I think she decided to dispose of it at her first opportunity, which happened to be the next morning.

I don't think it was a coincidence that Lizzie decided to burn a dress that she had kept around for three months, just hours after she learned she was an official suspect. Can you imagine how her mind had to have worked overtime that entire night...worrying about every little thing that might come back to haunt her.

[Lorcan]

Thanks for joining in on our investigation, Trojan USC

I think the timeline is the source of confusion. Uncle John leaves around 8:40, Andrew around 9:00. There is around 60 to 90 minutes after 9 when Bridget does not see Lizzie as she is either outside vomiting or outside washing the windows.

In order of likelihood I think Lizzie was wearing:
1. The blue bedford cord and an apron.
2. The blue bedford cord without an apron.

Shelley Dziedzig did an experiment with similar material swatches and sprinkled some of them with blood and asked people to identify the sprinkled ones from a few feet away and none of them could point them out. However, there is also the mysterious blue dress material Lizzie says she bought just before the murders and Lizzie had many other blue dresses. Nobody as far as I know reported seeing any paint on Lizzie so I'm nearly certain she changed her dress to another cotton blue dress after Abby was killed but before anyone saw her.

Lizzie had a significant amount of green paint on that dress around the hem and I think some higher up. I believe she brushed up against the newly painted and still wet house while climbing the stairs and entering the screen door. Emma described the blue bedford cord as very faded (perhaps from trying to get the paint off or perhaps she was embellishing her story a bit to help save her sister's life). The point remains that nobody described the blue bedford cord, faded and with green paint on it out of all of the witnesses.

To believe Lizzie's burning of the dress is innocent, you have to think of what Emma said:

1. All the pegs were taken and there was no room for Emma's dress to hang in the closet. What about the prior 3 months when that was not a problem. Why is it a problem the morning after Lizzie was told she was a suspect.

2. If the dress was good enough to wear for house chores for three months, why is it useless and needs to be burned the morning after Lizzie was told she was a suspect?

That 3 month timeframe is interesting since Lizzie had another 3 month coincidence but with an even tighter window of coincidental timing.

Q. Had you been in the barn before?
A. That day, no sir.

Q. How long since you had been in the barn before?
A. I don’t think I had been into it, I don’t know as I had in three months.

So, Lizzie hadn't been in the barn for 3 months, but her father is murdered within a few minutes of her visit to find lead to make sinkers. She found lead but didn't bring any back. The screen she wanted to fix never gets mentioned again. She ate 4 pears in 30 minutes and spent 15 or so of those minutes looking into a box that she described as being just a couple feet square. She gave these stories about what happened after the barn:

Category 1: Heard a suspicious noise and went in to investigate.

1A. I heard a groan and went in
1B. I heard a scraping sound and went in

Category 2: Bored with chores

I went in, checked the kitchen stove, found the fire was too low to heat the irons, then I went into the sitting room to set down my hat, then I decided to wait upstairs for Bridget to rebuild the fire for cooking, and when I opened the door I saw my father

She had a drop of blood on the outside of her underdress about where her left calf would be.

I think she was standing in the doorway between the living room and sitting room with the bottom half of her body shielded by the sofa and the entire body shielded by Andrew's overcoat. I think she had her hair covered with a handkerchief or a sleeping bonnet that went into the stove or the pail of bloody cloths. Only her face and hands needed to be cleaned, a 30 second job. I think she was wearing blue dress number 2, not the blue bedford cord she had been wearing earlier that morning.

So, she has at least an hour to remove the blue bedford cord and use those cloths that were found in the pail to clean up from Abby, and for Andrew, cleanup is hands and face. No blood mystery at all.

Feel free to poke holes in my assessment. If I have something wrong or impossible or unlikely, I want to know so I don't keep making the same mistakes.

[trojanusc]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I appreciate that you've thought through the logistics, but I guess I'm concerned these responses make quite a few assumptions and then treat them as though they resolve some very substantial problems with the physical evidence.

First, you're suggesting Lizzie murdered Abby in the blue Bedford cord, cleaned herself up, changed into a second blue dress, then murdered Andrew while wearing his overcoat and some sort of bonnet. But what evidence supports any of this? Bridget never testified to seeing Lizzie change clothes, and the fact that witnesses didn't mention green paint hardly establishes that she did. Several couldn't even reliably identify what she was wearing. And wasn't the Bedford cord already paint-stained well before the murders?

I agree the burning of the dress is suspicious, but if Lizzie wore it while murdering Abby, why keep it around for three days while police investigated? Alice Russell didn't report seeing blood on it. If Lizzie had successfully cleaned it, why burn it? And if she hadn't, why risk keeping it?

My biggest problem is the cleanup after Andrew's murder. You suggest his overcoat and a bonnet protected Lizzie so effectively that she only needed 30 seconds to wash her hands and face. But how do we know that? Even accepting your theory, she had to remove the potentially bloodstained coat without transferring blood, return it beneath Andrew's head, dispose of the head covering (which was never found despite the house being repeatedly searched), and clean herself. And we're talking about an 1892 house, not a modern bathroom with running water and a mirror over the sink. Where exactly did she wash, and how could she be certain she'd removed every visible trace?

And what about the murder weapon? For argument's sake, let's assume it was the handleless hatchet, it was free of visible blood and covered with soot or ash. If that was the weapon, the blood would have had to be removed somehow after Andrew's murder. What happened to the handle? If it wasn't the weapon, then she had to conceal or dispose of another hatchet entirely. All within the same narrow window.

And remember, she supposedly had to manage the aftermath of TWO hatchet murders that morning. Granted, she had considerably more time after Abby's, but that still requires two successful cleanups, a clothing change, and the disappearance of whatever incriminating evidence resulted from both attacks.

As for the three-month coincidences, I don't find them particularly compelling. Lizzie's inconsistent accounts of her movements are suspicious, but not visiting the barn for three months doesn't establish that she murdered her father, any more than keeping a paint-stained dress for three months establishes that burning it was an attempt to conceal a murder.

I'm not arguing Lizzie was innocent. Frankly, I have difficulty believing she knew absolutely nothing about what happened. But knowing something and personally committing both murders alone are very different propositions.

Your theory is certainly possible, but it requires a second dress, protective clothing, two remarkably successful cleanups, and the cleaning or disappearance of every incriminating item, including the murder weapon. And after all that, we're supposed to believe Lizzie was perfectly composed, immaculately clean, and essentially "show-ready" within 8–10 minutes of her father's gruesome murder, without anyone noticing anything amiss. None of this is independently established. At what point are we following the evidence, and at what point are we constructing an increasingly elaborate scenario to explain why the evidence we'd expect simply isn't there?

[Lorcan]

The only evidence she did any of what I suggest as possible, is that I haven't found a better set of events that fits the evidence we have, so I'm attempting to figure out something that works. Trying to do the same operation with an outside assassin or Uncle John is far, far more difficult. Lizzie and Bridget conspiring together would make this a non-mystery. They could be lying about every single event and time that is not independently constrained, but I can't find any plausible evidence Bridget was a true conspirator, so I am left with Lizzie alone as being the most plausible, so I try to figure out could she have done it and how.

Some of my scenario guessing must come off to some readers as me asserting that that is what happened, but I'm really trying to establish what most likely happened given what I currently know or think I know about the case. I try very hard not to make a mistake in actual evidence, but I am more experimental trying to figure out how the crime could have plausibly happened.

Lizzie was 11 when she moved into the house. I remember myself at 11. I had little hiding spots all over my house. Some were probably childish and not well hidden, but I think some would have been missed with the level of searching done initially in the Borden case.

I think Lizzie really did not think she would be a serious suspect and that she could wait a while after things calmed down and disposed of the murder weapon and any clothing. My personal pet hiding spot for the murder weapon and clothing is inside a dress stand (both types in 1892 were hollow and could easily hold a hatchet wrapped in a dress). I could imagine a dress stand with a fancy dress or an incomplete dress pinned up on it and the police almost certainly didn't disassemble them during the search from what I can gather from testimony. That is just a pet theory. I have absolutely no evidence for it. I got the idea from the more modern dress stand that was in Lizzie's original small bedroom when I stayed there.

I take those 3 month coincidences very seriously because Emma was explicit about all the pegs being full. Also, when I read Lizzie's testimony about the barn, it sounds to me like she kept adding more detail to fill out the time as Knowlton pushed and pushed her to tell him why it took so long. That could be put down to the medication or stress or simply Lizzie making it up each time she was forced to to Knowlton's questioning.

The notably perfect clean and white hands described against her dress - eating 4 juicy pears and rummaging around old tools, wooden boards, and hay don't fit that description of perfectly clean hands, either. There was city water in the kitchen and there were mirrors around the house and certainly hand mirrors as well.

Trojan USC - can you think of any more likely scenario of how a killer could have done it? I think Camgarsky, Inspector and I are all pretty close in what we think happened, but if anyone has some alternatives that are even more plausible, that would be very interesting. I can't just say we don't have enough information to know and just drop it, I think we have to say that and then come up with every plausible scenario and maybe one of them or just an element of one of them will let us see some of the evidence in a new light.

[trojanusc]

I appreciate the clarification, and I certainly agree there's value in exploring different scenarios. I also agree that Lizzie is a more plausible suspect than Uncle John or some unidentified assassin. But I think there's a distinction between figuring out how something could have happened and establishing that it's the most likely explanation.

Your dress stand theory is a good example. Sure, Lizzie might have known hiding places the police overlooked. But that doesn't resolve the immediate problem after Andrew's murder. She still had to deal with a potentially bloodstained weapon, remove whatever protective clothing she supposedly wore, clean herself, and conceal everything within minutes. And if the handleless hatchet was the weapon, its lack of visible blood requires an additional explanation. The hiding place doesn't solve the cleanup problem. Not to mention she appeared within 5-10 minutes of the murder without looking the least bit unkempt - someone going through that level of stress would surely at least break a sweat or look a little frazzled.

I'm also struck by your observation about Lizzie's immaculate hands. You find it difficult to reconcile them with eating pears and rummaging through a barn, yet apparently have no difficulty reconciling them with repeatedly striking her father with a hatchet. If she could wash her hands after a murder, couldn't she just as easily have washed them after visiting the barn?

And I find your treatment of Bridget to be a slight double standard. You acknowledge that her involvement would resolve many of these logistical problems, but reject it because there's no affirmative evidence she participated. Fair enough. But where's the affirmative evidence for the second blue dress, the bonnet, the protective overcoat, or the elaborate cleanup? Aren't we applying two different evidentiary standards here?

I don't necessarily disagree that Lizzie is the most likely suspect, and I have a near-impossible time believing she knew absolutely nothing about what happened. But I think we're working backward from the assumption that she acted alone, then introducing whatever additional assumptions are necessary to make the timeline work.

[Inspector]

The timeline has to fit, otherwise accuracy and its associated occurrences within, won’t relate to the facts or what we perceive to be factual.

Until there’s a reason to suspect Lizzie had help, we can’t simply call it an assumption that she acted alone, instead we must work upon that assumption, or be obligated to present evidence to the contrary.
This means ultimately, a “person” , a real conspirator who has to be identified.
So here is the mountain that must be climbed.
Alas, Lizzie may be innocent, but where’s her helper?

[camgarsky4]

Thank you, Trojan, for introducing some lively dialogue!

I am completely open to Lizzie having a 'helper' when it comes to Andrew. In fact, I view it as more likely than her acting alone with his killing. That said, we are left with the same riddle to solve. Whomever Andrew's killer might have been needed to cleanup quickly and leave the premises unseen (or in Lizzie's case, fabricate an alibi), all the while keeping the murder weapon out of sight. If we presume the weapon was a hatchet or something of like size, hiding it was not a simple challenge.

The case for the Prince Albert being used by someone as a blood shield is very compelling but really isn't key to solving the 'who done it' aspect of the crime because any killer could have used it.

I can repost the coat 'argument' if needed.

[Lorcan]

About Lizzie's hands, I meant to get across there was city water and she did clean up before announcing Andrew's crime scene, innocent or not. She either washed blood off her hands (if needed, she may have worn leather gloves) if she was guilty, or washed pear juice and barn grime off her hands. Either way, she cleaned up before announcing Andrew.

For Bridget, the laughing on the stairs testimony, the denial of seeing the note, point to her not being in on a conspiracy. I'm not certain of that, but she seemed genuinely afraid of going up the front steps. That's why I think she wasn't in on it before it happened.

I'm not sure about the handleless hatchet being the weapon or not. The ashes and lack of natural dust are very suspicious to me, but the only reason I can think of to break the handle is to make it look like a useless old tool. Handles are thin, maybe it was dropped down a gap in the foundation wall or shoved into some thin opening or hidden inside of something hollow, or simply wrapped to her leg under her dress until a better spot could be found. I put the hiding of the weapon as lower difficulty than cleanup or not being seen or heard committing the crime.

I don't think the killer of Andrew would have exerted themselves as much as with Abby. It was 11 well placed blows on a target that apparently never was aware enough of being attacked to move. I think the first blow was either enough to render him unconscious (beyond his normal napping) or perhaps be fatal. The hatchet is not much heavier than a full size old hammer, so 11 blows downward to waist height is not that much physical exertion. If you look at the coat, it is shoved deeply under the pillow as if the coat was used to lift the pillow and head to position it after the crime. Whether that was the killer, the doctor, or the photographer, I don't know, but it sure looks like that coat was used to position his head before the photo was taken.

As for the assistant, Camgarsky and I disagree a bit. I think it makes it harder rather than easier in that I think that the odds are higher the killer would be seen exiting the house rather than Lizzie's cleanup issues if she was wearing the protective clothing I described. If I'm wrong about the coat and hair covering, then I flip 100% to Camgarsky's position where at that point it is much more likely Lizzie didn't swing the hatchet for Andrew's murder.

I think coverings were so normal in day to day life of Victorian women that it would certainly come to mind, especially after what happened with Abby, assuming Lizzie did it. They wore aprons all the time. They wore sleeping bonnets since they didn't wash their hair as much as in modern times, they wore hats in public, they wore leather gloves in public. I think it would just be top of mind for a woman of that era to cover hands and head and dress.

Of this whole thread, I think the largest gain in knowledge would be the thread about the locations of the pharmacies and Lizzie's friends' house in New Bedford. Here is the map, but I can't find the original thread yet.

[trojanusc]

What a great discussion... Firstly, I don't quite understand why questioning whether Lizzie acted alone requires us to identify an accomplice. We don't have to solve the case to recognize the problems with a particular reconstruction. And if we're going to demand affirmative evidence of a second killer, shouldn't we apply the same standard to the protective clothing, elaborate cleanup, and hypothetical hiding places being proposed to explain how Lizzie managed everything herself?

I agree that another killer would have faced logistical challenges, particularly entering and leaving the house unseen. But those challenges aren't necessarily equivalent. Someone else could potentially have left with the weapon and any bloodstained clothing. Lizzie had to remain in the house, summon Bridget, and appear completely presentable to everyone who arrived. That doesn't establish another killer was involved, but it certainly makes the possibility worth considering.

I also find the concession about Andrew's overcoat interesting. If the absence of a protective coat and head covering would make it substantially more likely that Lizzie didn't personally kill Andrew, then what evidence do we actually have that she wore either? The coat's presence beneath Andrew's head doesn't establish that it was worn during the attack, and the fact that Victorian women commonly wore bonnets and gloves doesn't establish that Lizzie used them to commit murder.

And we're still left with the weapon. Perhaps the handle was hidden in a foundation gap, inside something hollow, or even strapped beneath Lizzie's dress. But these are possibilities we're inventing, not conclusions supported by evidence. And let's not forget how extensively the house was searched. Police conducted multiple searches, including a thorough examination of clothing, trunks, furniture, and rooms on Saturday, followed by another search on Monday involving a mason who examined walls and chimneys. They even searched the surrounding grounds. Are we now supposed to believe Lizzie managed to conceal a bloody weapon or its missing handle somewhere these searches failed to uncover? It's possible, of course, but that's yet another assumption. And none of it explains how the hatchet head was cleaned, assuming it was the murder weapon.

I don't dispute that Lizzie is a plausible suspect, and I strongly suspect she knew more than she admitted. But the theory that she personally committed both murders seems to require an extraordinary sequence of events, particularly after Andrew's death, without any identifiable evidence of the cleanup supposedly necessary to accomplish it. And if we're willing to introduce hypothetical protective garments, hiding places, and an elaborate cleanup to make that scenario work, why is it any less reasonable to consider that Lizzie arranged for someone else to enter the house, kill Andrew, remove their own protective clothing, and leave with the weapon and any incriminating items? I'm certainly not claiming that's what happened, and it raises questions of its own. But it would eliminate much of the cleanup problem, and I don't see why it should be dismissed for lack of evidence while the equally speculative details of Lizzie acting alone are readily accepted. At what point are we reconstructing what actually happened rather than simply inventing whatever circumstances are necessary to any given theory possible?

[camgarsky4]

Trojan - you are welcome and encouraged to provide thoughts and ideas. We love having new posters, but it is more enjoyable for all if they share ideas and new perspectives versus focus on challenging what active posters have taken the time to research, compose and post.

For the record, I have personally timed the scenario of Lizzie killing Andrew, removing a body covering, wash hands and face, walk out to back corner of the backyard, toss a hatchet onto the neighbor's barn, casually return via the side door (assuming Lubinsky saw what he thinks he saw) and call down Bridget. It is VERY possible to perform those tasks in seven minutes or less.

Do I think Lizzie did exactly those steps, I have my doubts, but those doubts have nothing to do with the logistics and plausibility of Lizzie acting alone.

[trojanusc]

First, I appreciate the welcome, and I certainly don't mean to come across as dismissive of the research and time others have invested in this case. It’s truly impressive! If my questions have given that impression, I apologize. I'm genuinely interested in the discussion, and I think challenging the assumptions underlying various theories is a constructive part of it.

I also appreciate that you (and others) actually tested the timeline, and I don't doubt the accuracy of your experiment or that you completed those movements in seven minutes. My question isn't about the veracity of the experiment, but what it establishes. Consider the O.J. Simpson case. Prosecutors faced an extraordinarily tight timeline somewhat similar to the Borden case, but they had blood evidence at Bundy, in the Bronco, and at Rockingham to support their reconstruction. Here, we have no evidence Lizzie wore protective clothing, removed it, washed herself, or disposed of a weapon in the manner you're describing. Even the hatchet subsequently discovered on the Crowe barn was never connected to Lizzie.

And there's another distinction that I think another simple timing experience misses... It isn't simply that Lizzie supposedly accomplished all of this in seven minutes. She had to do it essentially flawlessly. Remove potentially bloodstained clothing, handle a bloody weapon, move through the house and possibly the backyard, wash herself, and return to summon Bridget, all without leaving any identifiable blood evidence along the way. No bloody fingerprints, no drops on the floors, no traces where the garments were supposedly removed or handled. Your experiment demonstrates how quickly someone can perform those movements, but doesn't replicate the difficulty of doing so without transferring blood or leaving incriminating traces.

I've never argued that Lizzie couldn't have acted alone. In fact, I strongly suspect she knew more than she admitted. But if we're willing to hypothesize protective garments, a remarkably efficient cleanup, and the disposal of a weapon to make that theory work, why is it unreasonable to consider that someone else entered the house, killed Andrew, and left with the incriminating items? Particularly when the proposed alternative involves Lizzie walking into her own backyard in broad daylight to throw away a murder weapon. Mrs. Churchill seemed to be the Gladys Kravitz of the neighborhood, so that strikes me as an extraordinary risk in itself. I'm certainly not claiming another killer is what happened, and that scenario raises questions of its own. But why should we apply one standard of evidence to that possibility and another to Lizzie acting alone? Your very helpful experiment establishes that the proposed sequence is physically possible. What I'm questioning is whether there's any evidence making it more likely than the other scenarios that could also fit the timeline.

[Lorcan]

TrojanUSC, I think we might be talking right past each other - I think the group already on the message board when your arrived is used to discussing most likely possibilities and trying to think through scenarios. We help each other find gaps in our knowledge and share images, documents, and other relevant material. Sometimes we even use AI in a very limited manner to do some carefully labeled work.

If Lizzie was dressed as I described, there is no complicated cleanup. She simply would set the hatchet down, put her arms in front of her like a zombie walking, and bend forward at the waist. The oversized overcoat would slump forward and down to the carpet. She can bend her knees and wiggle as necessary.

The killer almost certainly had blood on their hands and face at this point, and there was a blood smear on the door jamb going from the sitting room into the kitchen, where there was city water (under pressure). Hand mirrors were commonplace and there very likely could have been a mirror in the sink in the sink room adjacent to the screen door. Andrew brushed his teeth there. The hatchet could have been wrapped in a towel or put into the bloody bucket that was found in the laundry room.

There were blood smears as I mentioned before, there were blood drops from cast off but it appears that the killer wrapped, bucketed or otherwise prevented a literal trail of blood from being obvious. A towel or apron would handle that, as would a bucket. The bucket has the added benefit of never letting the blood dry and could be filled with all the cleaning agents women used at the time for reusable menstrual cloths.

Any type of conspiracy has to contend with the messiness and riskiness of the crime and the utter lack of a cohesive story from Lizzie. If it was planned with a professional, I think the murders would have looked a lot different. That is speculation, but the question does stand, if this was a conspiracy hatched by Lizzie and/or Emma, why would Lizzie even be in the house?

Leaving the Borden house unseen is possible, but very tough. The side door, driveway, and road have a lot of witnesses. The cellar door is a better option but there are barbed wire topped fences, and all 3 sides were occupied by potential witnesses.

Lizzie had good tree canopy cover for the throw to the Crowe barn roof and the roof was potentially covered with leaves and debris from the orchard, so that isn't as risky as it might first appear. There was the noise of sawing and stonemasonry from that yard as well.

It might help us to understand your perspective more if you were to start a thread with your most likely theory as to how things happened. At branching points you can give multiple options. Maybe you have some ideas we haven't explored yet and very likely someone on the board who has been studying the case in detail for (in some cases with the quieter posters) decades. Let's try to move the investigation forward.

We are absolutely not the type of community who tries to score points against each other. We have a wonderful group of amateur investigators who help each other out. I'd like to help you with the case, but I don't quite know what you'd need help with. One thing I can help with is book recommendations:

First thing is download all the free PDFs of the inquest, preliminary hearing, trial, and witness statements if you haven't already done that. They are free on the main area of this website.

Next, Spencer's book, The Case Against Lizzie Borden is very well done. Rebello's book is excellent but rare and expensive. Cara Robertson's book is excellent for a lawyer's perspective. If you think Uncle John might have done it, Rich Little has a book about that and a podcast with Seth Roszczewski. Spencer's other book has reviews of a vast array of other books about the Borden case. Parallel Lives, the Jennings Journals, and the Knowlton Papers are all published by the Fall River Historical Society and are all excellent. Finally, this forum has decades of diligent research, ideas, and theories that are a goldmine. Enjoy the prospecting.

[trojanusc]

I appreciate the detailed explanation and the reading recommendations. For what it's worth, I've read the books you've mentioned (Parallel Lives is my favorite), researched the Borden case extensively, and served as a producer/consultant on several historical true-crime documentaries. I'm certainly not suggesting that makes my interpretation any more valid than anyone else's, but I'm also not approaching the case without familiarity with the evidence. I recognize the work that's gone into the theories discussed here, and my questions aren't intended to diminish that work. I think we're simply discussing two different things: whether a particular scenario is physically possible and what evidence makes it probable.

I looked into the doorjamb blood you mentioned. Dolan described spots on the kitchen door, but the elongated stain was on the dining-room doorjamb, and he acknowledged it could have come from a swinging weapon. So I'm not sure that establishes anyone moving toward the kitchen to clean up. Likewise, the bloody bucket, towels, and running water may offer a possible means of cleanup, but what evidence establishes that the killer actually used them? You'd assume a killer doing all those things in the house would leave some trace. And if Lizzie removed Andrew's coat as you describe, how did it subsequently end up beneath his head?

I agree another killer would have faced considerable risks entering and leaving unseen. But the alternative requires Lizzie to commit a brutal hatchet murder, remove potentially bloodstained clothing, clean herself, deal with the weapon, and conceal any incriminating evidence, all within roughly eight minutes and without leaving identifiable blood traces along the way. And then emerge looking perfectly presentable and composed, ready to interact with Bridget and the neighbors, without appearing visibly disheveled, sweaty, or frazzled. That's an extraordinary sequence to execute essentially flawlessly in such a short window. I'm not saying it's impossible, but why is that inherently more plausible than another killer entering and leaving unseen?

As for proposing a complete theory, I simply don't think the evidence supports one with that degree of certainty. I strongly suspect Lizzie knew more than she admitted, but I'm unconvinced she personally committed both murders. And I don't think questioning one reconstruction obligates me to invent another. I'm not trying to score points or dismiss anyone's research whatsoever. I'm interested in distinguishing what the evidence actually establishes from what we're hypothesizing to make a particular scenario work.

[Lorcan]

Now I understand where you're coming from a lot better, thanks. I have to agree with Camgarsky and most likely you, and probably Inspector and Teenabee - also Cara Robertson and I think both Koorey sisters - there simply is not enough recorded evidence for any complete theory of the case to not have gaps that we have to try to fill in with conjecture and speculation.

I had a thread a while ago named Concentric Circles of Confidence, with the idea being what is the most solid piece of evidence, the 2nd most solid piece of evidence, etc. and try to work my way out from there. I'll resurface it. That might be another interesting topic to explore. It is highly speculative on my part and if I were to do it again, I probably wouldn't attempt percentage numbers, but at the time it was how I was sorting the list.

[Inspector]

To say Lizzie knew more, but didn’t kill Andrew isn’t enough to get off the mountain.
It may be how you feel about the case, but in order for Lizzie acting alone to not be plausible, one is obligated to at least come up with a name, or scenario of how the real person acted within the parameters of the timeline.

For instance, Rich Little has a theory
(improperly presented as fact) that John did it.
The problem with that, is that serious research reveals his
“feelings “ are just that.

I’m sure you’ve come to the fork in the road where you must walk alone with Lizzie in one direction, or choose her helper in another.
This is where the obligation is confronting all who don’t want the easy way out.

I want Lizzie to be innocent, but how can it be proven that she was innocent of even Andrew’s death? Many scenarios have been presented, but none appear to pan out.

We all have feelings about the case, but must remember that the mind of a murderer is reprobate, it has no stabilization point with God, or fellow man.

I think we can all sense that Bridget knew more, but what she knew (if she knew,) appears to be in relation to Lizzie.

[trojanusc]

I think we may be approaching this from somewhat different directions. My concern is that we're starting with the assumption that Lizzie acted alone and then working backward to construct a scenario that makes it possible, rather than allowing the evidence to lead us to a conclusion.

Very much appreciate this back and forth. While, I understand the desire to develop an alternative reconstruction, I'm not sure one is necessary to question the strength of the existing theory. We're being asked to accept that Lizzie brutally murdered her father, removed protective clothing, cleaned herself, concealed the weapon and any incriminating evidence, and emerged perfectly presentable within roughly eight minutes, without leaving identifiable traces of those activities. We can hypothesize coats, gloves, towels, buckets, and hiding places to make the timeline work, but what independent evidence establishes that any of this actually happened? And is totality of all of that happening without a single mistake or error, necessarily more plausible than another person entering the house, committing the murder, and leaving with the incriminating items?

The Michael Morton case comes to mind as a particularly interesting parallel. Prosecutors had a husband who was home with his wife, an apparent motive, and a medical estimate of the time of death that placed him at the scene. No one had been seen entering or leaving the house under circumstances that raised suspicion, and no alternative perpetrator had been identified. There was no conclusive physical evidence linking Morton to the murder, but prosecutors constructed a narrative in which he killed his wife, staged the scene to suggest an intruder, and went to work, where his coworkers noticed nothing unusual about his behavior. Opportunity, a seemingly workable timeline, no suspicious comings or goings, and someone who apparently resumed his normal activities without attracting attention. It was a persuasive narrative, and a jury accepted it.

Nearly 25 years later, DNA evidence established that someone else had committed the murder. I'm certainly certainly not suggesting the cases are identical (the double murder and the timeframe in between them opens up its own questions), but I think the parallels are instructive. The prosecution had a coherent explanation that accounted for the known circumstances, yet its central conclusion was entirely wrong. The absence of an identified alternative perpetrator hadn't made Morton guilty, and the fact that nobody had witnessed an intruder hadn't meant there wasn't one.

I strongly suspect Lizzie knew more than she admitted, and I'm certainly not declaring her innocent. I also recognize that a theory involving another participant presents its own difficulties, particularly the risk of entering and leaving unnoticed. But I think we should apply the same evidentiary standards to both possibilities. If we're willing to entertain a series of unproven assumptions to make Lizzie acting alone possible, it seems reasonable to consider alternatives without requiring a complete reconstruction of an unidentified person's movements.

Ultimately, demonstrating that Lizzie could have accomplished all of this in eight minutes isn't evidence that she did. As you say, the evidence simply doesn't permit a definitive conclusion.

[camgarsky4]

As previously noted, I lean slightly in the direction of Lizzie having an accomplice when it comes to Andrew's killing. That said, the reason Lizzie was acquitted is essentially, and likely wholly, due to the lack of a definitive weapon and the absence of bodily fluids on her person (blood droplet aside).

With that 'roadblock' in mind, it is powerful circumstantial evidence that it can be shown that Lizzie performing the murder and cleaning up in 7 minutes or less could be accomplished.

I won't go into why I suspect she had help with Andrew, but it has nothing to do with the plausibility of Lizzie acting alone.

If you want to explore issues which point away from Lizzie killing Andrew, we will really enjoy helping dig into those ideas. We just ask that you kick start that effort.

[Inspector]

There are unprovable assumptions or hypothetical insertions when looking at Lizzie acting alone. However, she’s all we have after no one has come close to showing who or how she may have been helped by an accomplice.

I believe serious research has used the known facts to arrive at Lizzie, and that’s where accusations of presumption and assumptions with reverse engineering are a bit offensive to those who have put so much time and effort into truth searching.

I’m in no way accusing you of not doing your homework, you may know more than me, but I think there are simple facts that are foundational, and primarily point to Lizzie.

I’ll concede that the case may never be solved, and I can’t 100% accuse Lizzie.
It simply appears she was probably guilty when all is taken into consideration.

[Lorcan]

Here's my thinking:

It was physically impossible for Emma to make it back to receive the telegram, so she did not swing the hatchet on Andrew.

In order for John to have done it, 2 of his cousins and their downstairs neighbor, and the streetcar conductor and possibly multiple priests would all have to agree to provide him parts of an alibi, so in my current opinion, John also did not kill Andrew.

If Bridget was in on it (voluntarily or coerced) why did she mention Lizzie laughing on the staircase, not back Lizzie up on the note story, or suggest going to Mrs. Whitehead's house? So, in my current opinion, Bridget is out of both murders.

If Bridget is not in on it, consider how risky it is for Lizzie to have an accomplice for Andrew. She had no way of knowing if Bridget would leave or stay upstairs, no way of knowing Andrew wouldn't have her work on some task on the first floor or even if Andrew would arrive back at the house alone. Bridget's window overlooks the backyard and is almost directly over the rear door. Mrs. Churchill was a risk on the side door. The front door was viewable by dozens of people.

I am curious to know all the various accomplice theories, because I cannot yet think of one that wouldn't be far more risky than Lizzie doing it alone, since I don't think Bridget was in on it.

If Bridget was in on it, there is no mystery at all. But if she wasn't, an accomplice gets very difficult for me to balance against Lizzie simply doing it alone.

What I have top of mind is a single scream from Bridget and both Lizzie and the accomplice would be caught. If Lizzie is alone, she is perfectly innocent looking being anywhere in the house and unless she had already put protective clothing or has the hatchet in her hand, she has free movement throughout the house to wait for a perfect opportunity. An accomplice has none of those advantages and tons of risk. Even being heard while upstairs by Bridget is a risk. If the killer made a sound when Bridget thought she was alone with Lizzie in the house, that's a major problem. If the killer accomplice is seen through the windows by a neighbor, that's a major problem. Lizzie alone has none of these problems.

Finally, if Lizzie has an accomplice, she has a potential blackmailer and a potential high profile trade to snitch to cut a deal to get out of a future legal problem.

[camgarsky4]

If Lizzie had an accomplice, it would be most likely that their payoff would occur upon her release from jail. Once she was acquitted, she had legal protection provided by 'double jeopardy'. The accomplice did not. Once acquitted, Lizzie had the legal upper hand, permanently.

[Inspector]

I haven’t read Spencer’s theories book yet, but in a way I don’t see how it would help our dilemma, although I know it would be an enjoyable read.

[Lorcan]

As a thought exercise, consider the practical constraints facing different categories of potential accomplices or hired killers, both in a scenario in which neither Lizzie nor Bridget was involved and in one in which only Lizzie was involved. If Lizzie had hired a professional killer, would she have needed to be present in the house at all, or would her role have been limited to facilitating entry and exit? A professional might well have preferred to attack the targets outside the house, including at a distance with a firearm. By 1892, accurate shots at 300 yards were readily achievable and shots at 600 yards were not uncommon. Alternatively, a professional assassin could have arranged the use of poison.

Even setting aside the choice of method, a professional within arm’s reach of Abby who had managed to approach her without eliciting a scream would have had more efficient options available than delivering nineteen hatchet blows, many of which failed to penetrate the skull of a largely stationary victim. A blood choke would have rendered her unconscious within seconds; a simple throat cut would have been sufficient to finish the task.

This line of reasoning appears to exclude a professional assassin. What remains is an attacker prepared to kill with a hatchet at a level of effectiveness consistent with either a first-time effort or a deliberately simulated first-time effort. The latter is difficult to explain, however, because it would have increased rather than decreased the risk to Lizzie. A single, decisive blow driven deep enough to reach the handle, if the attacker possessed the necessary strength, would have been more consistent with the work of a stronger outsider and would therefore have tended to exonerate Lizzie.

The remaining possibilities therefore center on a non-professional attacker who lacked the strength of a large, powerful assailant and who was nevertheless able to approach Abby in an upstairs bedroom without her raising an alarm—an approach that presents its own practical difficulties. These considerations are the reason for returning to the question of possible suspects known to the household. A hired professional appears unlikely. An unrelated, frenzied killer also appears unlikely, given the roughly ninety-minute interval between the two attacks, the relative care taken with blood evidence, and the fact that both Lizzie and Bridget survived.

This leaves the possibility of someone who knew the family and was willing to kill Abby with a hatchet. Relatively few people would have been prepared to carry out such an attack. If the attacker were a tenant primarily seeking Andrew, the practical problems of entering the house without being seen, heard, or otherwise detected remain substantial. Had Abby encountered the person unexpectedly, where would that person have been standing, and why did she not cry out? How did she come to be on the far side of the bed and where was the attacker hiding so she didn't scream nor have defensive wounds?

[Inspector]

The old rumor that Lizzie confided with her nurse that it was her boyfriend who killed her parents, was interesting initially, except the details made it unrealistic.

It did however appear to me, this would give a condition that would be comfortable for him to stay in the house for the time span , of both murders.
This would be much harder on someone who had to hide and stay still without any guidance or help to avoid detection.

[trojanusc]

I appreciate the thoughtful responses, and I certainly understand why Lizzie remains the principal suspect. My disagreement isn't with the research that's been done, but with how we're evaluating the competing possibilities.

I agree an accomplice would introduce risks, particularly with Bridget in the house. But were those risks necessarily greater than Lizzie acting alone? Consider one hypothetical: Lizzie arranges for someone to enter the house during a moment where Bridget is occupied, that person kills Abby, and Lizzie conceals them in the upstairs closet, which she knows Bridget rarely visits. Once Bridget goes upstairs for her nap, Lizzie retrieves the person and directs them to Andrew. During and after, she watches for an opportunity when Mrs. Churchill or other potential witnesses aren't looking, allowing the killer to leave with the weapon and bloody clothing.

That scenario would explain several otherwise troublesome questions. No murder weapon was ever conclusively recovered from the house, despite repeated searches. We still don't know what happened to it, and I think it's entirely reasonable to suspect it left the property that day. An accomplice departing with the weapon and bloodstained clothing would also help explain the absence of an identifiable cleanup trail, without requiring Lizzie to accomplish an extraordinary series of tasks flawlessly within eight minutes.

Do I have evidence this happened? No. It's speculation just as missing protective garments are also speculation, and I readily acknowledge the risks. But so are the proposed protective garments, elaborate cleanup procedures, and methods of concealing the weapon all within eight minutes. Bridget could just as easily have interrupted Lizzie during any of those activities. Her freedom to move around the house wouldn't have protected her if Bridget had come downstairs at the wrong moment.

I'm also hesitant to eliminate possible perpetrators based on assumptions about how a professional killer would behave. We don't know that such a person would necessarily have chosen poison, a firearm, or fewer blows.

My point isn't that this (or any) hypothetical is the correct explanation. It's that we can construct alternative scenarios that account for the known evidence just as we can construct one in which Lizzie acted alone. I guess at the end of the day my point is that the absence of an identified accomplice doesn't establish that Lizzie personally committed both murders. Both possibilities deserve the same scrutiny and risk assessments.

[camgarsky4]

You are correct, all viable scenarios deserve close scrutiny.