What would Lizzie think?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:43 am

I have always wandered what Lizzie would think if she was still alive about the interest in her and the murders. I also wander what she would have thought about all the stuff we got now: computers the internet airplanes, etc, all the things we take for granted.

Elizabelle · Post by **Elizabelle** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:03 pm

Remember, Snokkums? It's wonder, not wander.

To wander around the woods.

To wonder about the Borden murders.

If Lizzie could be transported through time and visit the 21st century, I'm sure she would be appalled and disgusted by our modern culture, with our lack of values, structure, discipline, morals, manners, decency, etc.

I live in the 21st century, and I'm appalled and disgusted with society...so I can only imagine how a proper young woman from the 19th century would feel in our fast-paced, technology driven world. She would feel lost and scared, and she wouldn't want to stay long. Can't say that I would blame her much.

I would give anything to go back in time and live in the 19th century. I was born in the wrong time and would feel more comfortable with the simplicity and innocence of days gone by. This is not a century I'm proud to be a part of, that's for sure. We have too much technology, and I don't believe it's for the best. I refuse to have a cell phone...I have no idea what a Blackberry is...and I'm serioiusly considering throwing my TV set out into the street, since there is nothing on there but filth and nonsense.

I could go on and on, but I won't. I'll stop here before I start going off the deep end!

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:37 pm

Lizzie would be enthralled with the things she could have and the places she could go...

She would be sort of like Paris Hilton (but not ugly and not so vapid) and she would travel all about the world.

She would keep her Blackberry in her Prada bag.....

If Lizzie had beat the murder rap today she would be almost a celebrity. Men would flock to her door-- But she would pay no attention to them.

I think if Fall River had 'let' her she would have been much more extroverted and been seen all over town. I see her as a 'walking the red carpet' type if given the chance!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:00 pm

Not a clue you say, of what a blackberry be? My...you are shielded!

Allow me to light a candle here, and explain. By its most common definition, a "Blackberry" is "the usually black or dark purple juicy but seedy edible aggregate fruit of various brambles (genus Rubus) of the rose family."

Seriously tho (at least for a minute) I know exactly what you mean about the filth and utter nonsense on television these days. It's the primary reason why I keep a dvd player and a small, select set of discs that are genuinely entertaining - from the dramatic to the utterly silly. (I do not yet have the Adeventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon set, but...it's on the list.)

Then too, even "kinder, gentler" entertainment has benefited from this explosion of technology. Care, for example, to stop by the woods of a snowy evening, or debate thy hardheaded neighbor over the need of a wall? This can be...for pittance or for free. You've just got to know where to look.

Okay now I'll hush, otherwise I'll end up cutting box tops to send in for that frogman outfit. (Can't go off the deep end unprepared, yaknow.)

DWilly · Post by **DWilly** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:40 pm

I tend to come down more in the middle on this topic. On the one hand I agree that Lizzie would be shocked by how corrupt our society has become. She would have trouble understanding how Paris Hilton could be born both good looking and rich and yet, still be so desperate to be a silly celebrity. I remember reading about how many of the women who were either witnesses or just spectators at Lizzie's trial made sure they wore veils. Back then women didn't want their names let alone their faces in the paper. Today people will do just about anything to have their 15 minutes.

I think Lizzie would also be stunned by how women have given up on the idea of being anything close to a lady. That would really surprise her. Women have really sunk low in their behavior. The thing that is really getting to me is this new trend of wearing your pajamas in public. I have actually seen teenage girls wearing their PJ bottoms and slippers as they walk along the streets. Lizzie would have fainted at that sight.

On the other hand, I think Lizzie would love the fact that women now have the right to vote. She would also like the fact that women can take care of themselves and are not so dependent on men. I just finished reading Pride and Prejudice and one of the things in that book was how the father, since he did not have a son, left the family home to another male relative because he couldn't imagine a female inheriting anything.

Another thing she would like is that there's a lot less bigotry now. Back then, Blacks were lynched, catholics couldn't be teachers in Fall Rivers, many people were antisemitic etc. The past had its dark side too and it wasn't always pretty.

Finally, I bet she'd love things like walk in showers, nice toliets etc. I could see Lizzie tooling around New York in her Lexus with Jodie Foster just having a good old time.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:01 pm

hmmm...

Was Lizzie so much of a 'lady' or someone who wanted to be perceived as one?

Ladies do not hate, sulk, or shoplift... They are gracious, generous and giving. They are modest and demure- A lady would never allow her sister to give up her spacious room so that she could have it.

If someone mistakenly called a lady's stepmother her mother-- she would ignore the faux pas.

A lady would never gossip with her couturier and call the same stepmother a 'mean good for nothing'. Ladies do not discuss family problems with service people!

Lizzie may be shocked by today's morals... But I think it would have been typical hypocritical shock!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:49 pm

I think she might be alittle apalled, but I think she would enjoy the celebrity lifestyle.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:02 pm

Snokkums, you wonder "what she would have thought about all the stuff we got now: computers the internet airplanes, etc, all the things we take for granted."

Well, she didn't have a computer or the internet, but there were airplanes while Lizzie was around, and cars, radio, (scandalous) movies, pop-up electric toasters, electric cooking ranges, air conditioning and many of the things we take for granted.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:34 pm

Amelia Earhart had already begun her flying career, and had already set some records in 1922, just a fews years before Lizzie's death. I have to wonder what Lizzie thought of that.

I think Lizzie was much more of a lady than many of the women I see on the streets or in the stores today, even the ones who believe themselves to be ladies. And some of the clothing, the make up, and the language.

But then Lizzie was also around for the 'roaring 20's', the flappers, and for prohibition.

Lizzie was also around to see the sinking of the Titanic, and the Lusitania. I wonder if she knew anyone from either? Unlikely, but possible.

She was also around when the women got the right to vote in August of 1920, which I'm sure tickled her to death.

If Lizzie was alive today I think she would be shocked also. Many many things are so much different than the way they were back when times were simpler, and people I think were definitely NICER. People are not nearly as nice and friendly in most areas today as they were in her time, or even when my grandmother was growing up. Everything is geared to be so fast paced with drive thru's and fast food, microwaves, etc. Nobody really takes the time to stop and enjoy the simpler things in life anymore.
The elegance has definitely gone out of most of today's life as well, nobody has the time or inclination for it anymore.

I think Lizzie would love some things about today, but I think if she were somehow transported through time she would think, this is a nice time to visit but I wouldn't want to stay here.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:44 pm

I guess I am the only one who thinks Lizzie would fit in very well in today's conspicuous consumer society...

I mean--- She was one of the original 'gimme' girls!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:54 pm

Oh she would have fit in just dandy Auds - and eventually been telegraphing Emma in New Hampshire "Gimme, Em!" because Emma was the only one with any money left...know what I mean??

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:02 pm

I think that is another thing Lizzie would have a hard time with, the fact that she wouldn't be worth as much today as she was back then.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:05 pm

Audrey @ Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:01 pm wrote:hmmm...

Was Lizzie so much of a 'lady' or someone who wanted to be perceived as one?

Ladies do not hate, sulk, or shoplift... They are gracious, generous and giving. They are modest and demure- A lady would never allow her sister to give up her spacious room so that she could have it.

If someone mistakenly called a lady's stepmother her mother-- she would ignore the faux pas.

A lady would never gossip with her couturier and call the same stepmother a 'mean good for nothing'. Ladies do not discuss family problems with service people!

Lizzie may be shocked by today's morals... But I think it would have been typical hypocritical shock!

Just where are you taking this from? Can you name five books with this advice, books proven to be "true" and not opinions?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:10 pm

Audrey @ Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:44 pm wrote:I guess I am the only one who thinks Lizzie would fit in very well in today's conspicuous consumer society...

I mean--- She was one of the original 'gimme' girls!

No. Lizzie was a theatre-goer, and spent time in Boston and New York. The wicked ways of the Big City (really the financial centers of the day) would NOT have shocked her. Maybe only that there is so much publicity about what was kept behind closed doors.

Raymond Chandler wrote a novel and short story, where the photograph of a society girl 'unclothed' was a source of blackmail and murder. Nowadays, who would care? The rich care only for money, not morals.

You can read "Compromised" by Terry K. Reed for evidence on this.
The book "European Babylon"? tells about the royalty of 19th century Europe. That would make the Star or National Enquirer today. Assuming the reporter wasn't shot first by the Royal Guardsmen.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:07 pm

thanks elizbethbell for reminding me

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:49 pm

i've wandered if lizzie ever saw any films. "Nosferatu," for example--i wander how she would have reacted to that.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:11 pm

Why would info like what Auds just posted have to come from any specific book, let alone 5 ? I know we like to have proof of certain kinds of claims around here, but some of what she stated seems to be common knowledge/common sense ? Without any books on the morning bathroom habits of most Americans to back me up, like most people, I peed when I got up first thing this morning. Again, it's not documented in any books. Slicktoria didn't write about it. Arnold Brown didn't write about it, not even a Trickey-McHenry article. I have no proof now...but I guarantee you...I PEED !

Tracy...

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:25 pm

I just might have to add "TRACY PEED!" to my signature. . .

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:18 pm

Can you at least give us a general time frame of the peeing?

Were you on the stairs or in the kitchen? If you peed on the stairs I am going to see to it you get the death penalty.

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:52 pm

I was on the stairs...yes, the stairs. NO WAIT...I WAS in the kitchen...I know better than to pee on the stairs...whew.

Tracy...

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:50 pm

You sure you weren't in the barn?

Jayne Mansfield once said that everytime she stopped to use a rest room at a service station she was worried that the owner would put up a sign that said, "Jayne Mansfield Peed Here."

Now days she would be very lucky to find one that was actually unlocked and even luckier to find one even fit to pee in.

I could crank this up but I won't.

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:14 am

Haulover @ Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:49 pm wrote:i've wandered if lizzie ever saw any films. "Nosferatu," for example--i wander how she would have reacted to that.

I haven't seen 'Nosferatu' (censored due to copyright violation?).
Lizzie may have died before 'talkies' and missed the Hollywood dramas that entertained so many. But maybe Lizzie would have preferred the more exclusive theatres in Boston and New York?

theebmonique · Post by **theebmonique** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:29 am

I believe the first "talkie" was The Jazz Singer with Al Jolson, which came out in November of 1927. Yes, Ray...Lizzie just missed it by a few months.

http://www.ieee-virtual-museum.org/exhi ... id=1&seq=7

Tracy...

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:39 am

The first "sound" picture with synchronised (the Vitaphone system) music was "Don Juan" in 1926. I think John Barrymore was in that one.

"The Jazz Singer" in 1927 was the first "talkie" in that spontaneous speech was used (and music) but in only parts of the film. The rest of the film was silent.

"The Lights of New York" in 1928 became the first film that had speech through it's entire length. So it was the first true, complete "talkie."

All three were made by Warner Brothers. And we are talking pre Bugs Bunny here, but only by 10 years.

-1bigsteve (o:

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:38 am

Elizabelle @ Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:03 am wrote:Remember, Snokkums? It's wonder, not wander.

To wander around the woods.

To wonder about the Borden murders.

If Lizzie could be transported through time and visit the 21st century, I'm sure she would be appalled and disgusted by our modern culture, with our lack of values, structure, discipline, morals, manners, decency, etc.

I live in the 21st century, and I'm appalled and disgusted with society...so I can only imagine how a proper young woman from the 19th century would feel in our fast-paced, technology driven world. She would feel lost and scared, and she wouldn't want to stay long. Can't say that I would blame her much.

I would give anything to go back in time and live in the 19th century. I was born in the wrong time and would feel more comfortable with the simplicity and innocence of days gone by. This is not a century I'm proud to be a part of, that's for sure. We have too much technology, and I don't believe it's for the best. I refuse to have a cell phone...I have no idea what a Blackberry is...and I'm serioiusly considering throwing my TV set out into the street, since there is nothing on there but filth and nonsense.

I could go on and on, but I won't. I'll stop here before I start going off the deep end!

Amen, Elizabelle! You hit the nail on the head.

I think technology is wonderful but it's coming at such a rapid pace it overwhelms us. It took me years before I bought a computer because I was told that pornography would come "looking for me" and jam up my hard drive. That has never happened although bad email is a royal pain.

But, I have figured out this much so far...

A. Spam is the meat you eat,
B. Bluetooth is what you get from eating Blackberries,
C. A Hard Drive is what you endure when you forget your road maps,
D. Ear Bud is an infection you get from listening to an i-Pod,
E. Wireless is a radio,
F. A megabyte is what you do to a hoagie.

I think poor Lizzie would have taken one look at this world of our's and slammed the door. I could not blame her. I remember my Grandparents talking about the "good old days" (1900-1920's) with a lot of fondness and resentment for today's hustle and bustle society.

I would not want to live in Lizzie's time, except to sit and talk with her, because life was hard and short. Every time period has it's good and bad points but today's world seems to have much more bad than good. Presidents fool around, wars, perversions, aids, mass murders, and whatever else.

Yea, I think Lizzie would have slammed the door on today's world. But, like Audrey said above, Lizzie may have become the "girl about town." She might have excepted todays advancements and carried a Blackberry in her, whatever kind of purse that is, and mayby partied till she dropped. I'm sure the filth on TV would be a major shock (there is nudity in cartoons now

) to her.

I wonder what Andrew and Abby would be thinking if they came back today?

-1bigsteve (o:

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:02 pm

1bigsteve @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:38 am wrote:
I remember my Grandparents talking about the "good old days" (1900-1920's) with a lot of fondness and resentment for today's hustle and bustle society.

Sometimes I think people my age will be doing the same thing later in life. I mean, every generation without exception speaks nostalgically about "the good old days" and how much worse things are now. So just imagine..........30-50 years from now, as things continue along their present course, my own generation will express its own disapproval of society's "progress". Can you imagine what things will be like then, if we're disappointed in our society now?.........

And I can just see myself as one of those who can't program or figure out whatever new high-tech gadget comes along in 2040.

I wonder what Andrew and Abby would be thinking if they came back today?

LOL, they'd probably drop dead all over again, from shock this time

Don't know about Andrew; but actually, Abby might be a much happier woman. If she was unhappy at home, she could always obtain a divorce (MUCH easier for women, and more common, now than in 1892) and move out with a tidy alimony. Her experiences as a downtrodden, emotionally abused woman would then prompt her to write a book and become a motivational speaker for women's empowerment!

Can't you just see her on "Oprah"?................

Then again - if Abby were around today, perhaps she wouldn't have gotten married to Andrew in the first place. Her marriage to him was purely for security reasons. However, in our day she could have gone to college, built a career for herself, become self-supporting, and not felt forced (by circumstances) into marriage. She might be a swingin' single

or just free to wait until true love came along.

[/i]

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:43 pm

KT72 @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:02 pm wrote: Her marriage to him was purely for security reasons.

[/i]

I'm not quite sure I agree that her marriage to Andrew was just for 'security reasons.' I think there might have actually been some real affection for her husband involved. That's just my feeling anyway.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:52 pm

I agree with Melissa... It may have been a matter of convenience for Andrew-- But Abby went into that marriage with high hopes.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:14 pm

Audrey @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:52 pm wrote:I agree with Melissa... It may have been a matter of convenience for Andrew-- But Abby went into that marriage with high hopes.

But WHY did Andy choose her above the other available women?
Does Arnold Brown's explanation prove valid?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:45 pm

And just what was his explanation? The book is so mind boggling I forgot he even addressed why Andrew might have chosen Abby....

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:44 pm

How could Brown know why Andrew chose Abby?

Personally I think she looked like Sarah in her younger days.
Abby had a stepmother and may have wanted out of that house. You'd think she'd have been wary of becoming a stepmother herself.
It's possible it was a marriage of convenience. And Andrew was making money by then...
But to move in with Andrew's father and stepmother, and with his 2 kids, in a house where Sarah died- that's really stretching it. Poor Abby.

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:00 pm

Abby was well into her spinsterhood when she married Andrew. This was a bleak prospect. Much better to have the security of a male provider, and an extremely wealthy one at that.

We have to keep in mind that marriage back then was a primarily social arrangement, for both parties. People make a big deal out of Andrew only marrying Abby for the sake of having a mother for his daughters; but this was common practice back then. Widowers would frequently remarry for the sole purpose of giving their children a stable mother figure.

We look down on "marriages of convenience" these days; but 100 years ago they were the norm and nothing was considered wrong with them at all. Marriage wasn't about love; it was a social contract. I'm not disputing that love could be, and frequently was, involved - that's just not what it was all about.

I don't doubt that Abby was fond of Andrew and vice versa; they would certainly take basic compatibility into account. But I think Andrew just saw a stable, respectable unmarried woman fit for his household, and Abby saw a way out of spinsterhood in marriage to one of the wealthiest men in town. This doesn't mean she was a money-grubber; it just means she didn't want to die alone and destitute. (And in fact, that was exactly what ended up happening, wasn't it?

)

Which makes me think - Andrew certainly wouldn't have chosen Abby unless he thought her compatible with his daughters. Was he really that bad a judge? If not - what happened??..............

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:07 pm

Abby didn't get a very good deal....

She kept an immaculate house and paid for the curtains she had hung in the parlor with her own meager savings.

Even more important than that I guess is that she paid with her life for what she gained by her marriage.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:13 pm

Have you seen the photo of Abby at or about the time of her marriage to Andrew?

She was lovely....

(This photo was enhanced with Paint Shop Pro 'one step photo fix' and 'digital camera noise removal' tools)

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

I've always felt immensely sorry for Abby. I think it's true that she did go into the marriage with high hopes, thinking that at last she'd be taken care of and have a ready-made family to boot. How disappointing to find that her stepchildren couldn't care less. And how terrible to have one of them stop calling her "Mother" after all those years.

She must have been very unhappy indeed, and lonely. If you go into the B&B, you can feel the sadness in that room where she was killed. It's palpable.

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Now for Sarah....

(The same ehancements)

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:19 pm

Audrey - thanks for posting that picture of Abby. If I'm not mistaken, that is her actual wedding portrait.

What a change in her over the years leading up to the murders!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:32 pm

That was a good photo of Sarah, Audrey! You know, with those enhancements, she doesn't have such a *crazed* look about her eyes!
Maybe she really didn't look as Crazed in real life. What does anyone think- anyone who understands the photo enhancement process?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:00 am

Interesting... At first glance here the "crazed" look to the eyes almost appears to be directly related to the camera. Emma looks none too thrilled herself. Isn't this one of only a relative few photos of Sarah - at least that we know of?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:11 am

Maybe it removed some shadow?
Sarah's right eye now looks almost comforting, but her left eye still looks mad-as in angry- just a bit.
Which view would be the realistic one- enhanced or not enhanced

Hmmm...

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:49 am

Those eyes look haunted to me.... Wary and on guard.

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:35 am

Well, photography back then wasn't what it is today...............

I think maybe photos from back then only give us an idea of the reality. Just one shade better than a drawing or painting.

I've always thought that picture of Sarah and Emma was kind of poor quality to begin with. I don't know if that's because it had been damaged, or what.............

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:45 am

Audrey @ Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:49 pm wrote:Those eyes look haunted to me.... Wary and on guard.

The look of a person's eyes can be very misleading, as I found out a few years back.

I avoided buying a broadway recording of Oliver! for several years because the cold look of the singers eyes and face gave me the chills. I didn't think she could have a voice I would want to hear. My opinion was reconfirmed when I saw her in The Seven Percent Solution handing a breakfast tray to Sherlock Holms. As she looks into the camera/Sherlock's eyes, her brown eyes look so cold and lifeless to me, like a shark's eyes. But, when I finally bought the album and heard her warm voice, and later read that she was a very warm-hearted person, my opinion of Georgia changed 180 degrees!!

Sarah may have had a lot on her mind that came through her eyes, health, money problems, rotten mutton, living with Andrew and who know's what else. Take a person's stress away and see how their eyes light up.

Abby looked right well as a younger woman. No doubt she had stress later in her life from worry about health, money problems, rotten mutton, living with Lizzie and who know's what else.

People's faces are not perfectly balanced. Our left side look's slightly different than the right side. Ever see those split photos of Walt Whitman?

-1bigsteve (o:

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:36 am

I agree with Audrey. That picture of Sarah is disturbing. She looks extremely unhappy and haunted. And that baby! - she does not look like a secure, loved little child. She looks extremely apprehensive and uncertain. And I don't think the quality of the photo has anything to do with it. The expressions of both mother and child have a definite story behind them.

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:04 pm

We also need to remember that it was not common for people to smile in photographs back then. A full smile was exceedingly rare; and teeth were pretty much never shown at all.

This was because back then, having your picture taken was a formal occasion. It was the quicker and cheaper alternative to having your portrait painted; but the formality of portraiture remained for photography.

Also, as we all know, they did not take snapshots as we do today. Setting everything up and getting the angle, focus, etc. just exactly right was a long process. I'm sure this added to the formal atmosphere as well. (And besides, can you imagine smiling for all that time while the photographer was getting ready? We think it's bad today when we pose with a smile and say "Hurry up and take the picture!" Just think what it was like back then!)

And actually, Sarah does have a kind of quarter-smile on the right side of her face (left as you're looking at it). Kind of like Lizzie's pictures, eh?.........

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:21 pm

And actually, Sarah does have a kind of quarter-smile on the right side of r face (left as you're looking at it). Kind of like Lizzie's pictures, eh?.........[/quote]

Sorry--I really don't see that at all.

KT72 · Post by **KT72** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm

Angel - cover the right side of Abby's face (as you're looking at the photo). Her other side is definitely her "better side"!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:02 pm

The clothing that both Sarah and baby Emma are wearing in the picture is very interesting, well to me anyway. Sarah's attire appears to be fancier than what Abby is wearing. Sarah is even wearing gloves. She was said to have suffered from migraine head aches and fits of temper. I think that is what comes across in her eyes to me. There is something disconcerting there, I agree. I wouldn't call it haunted, I don't really know the word for it.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:04 pm

Yeah- I just can't get past those eyes.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:42 pm

All I can say is they look changed to me. Especially after staring at the *original*. I think part of it is the *lowering brow.* That might have contributed to the shading of her eyes, and was possibly removed after the enhancement..
It is her right side of the face where I see the most difference- and yes, covering the other side made it more apparent (at least to me).
During the picture process as well, we've been told these are long exposures where one has to sit still, unblinking, c. 1853.