This is a sort of off-shoot from the topic about Lizzie and 2 dresses. It reminded me of the "dress pattern" that Lizzie supposedly bought in New Bedford while on vacation there. She was alone for part of Saturday, July 23rd and says she bought it then. But it never quite seemed to get turned over to the prosecutor until late in proceedings against her.
The State seemed suspicious of this dress pattern, but soon enough, Knowlton is claiming they no longer care about it and it has no value in the case.
Here is what I collected in testimony. I have not combed thru the newspapers yet for this, but I think I recall they were pretty interested in that "dress pattern."
We had discussed this a while ago, but I think we have more newspapers by now, for background.
We also have a different grouping of members now, where we might get more opinions on this aspect of the case. We also need to know what exactly a "dress pattern" is. I think it was deduced that it was the pattern and the material as well?
This reflects onto the question as to what Lizzie may have worn during the killings (whether she killed anyone or not).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Inquest
Lizzie
(Miss Borden recalled [Thursday] Aug. 11, 1892.)
Q. (Mr. Knowlton.) Is there anything you would like to correct in your previous testimony?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Q. In your room?
A. No, sir; in the attic.
Q. Not made up?
89 (46)
A. O, no, sir.
Q. Where did you buy it?
A. I don't know the name of the store.
Q. On the principal street there?
A. I think it was on the street that Hutchinson's book store is on. I am not positive.
Q. What kind of a one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham.
--There is no question about the dress pattern in the other inquest testimony that we have recorded. So why did Lizzie get hit with that question right after her reappearance on Thursday? It implies the prosecutor had some knowledge of the dress pattern in order to ask about it.
Next there is testimony at the preliminary hearing and Marshal Hilliard is asked if he saw a dress pattern. He names those officers who searched and might know of it.
Preliminary Hearing
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Q. (Mr. Knowlton) Mr. Hilliard, did you look in the trunks in the attic?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. All of them?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you examine their contents?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you see anything up there of an unmade dress pattern in the attic?
Page 428
A. Well, there was some of the trunks that I looked into, but I did not look into all of them. I did not, to my recollection, see any dress pattern in any of the trunks that I saw.
Q. What other officer looked in the trunks in the attic besides you?
A. I think Mr. Seaver, I am not sure but what Mr. Fleet did. I think Mr. Desmond.
Q. Have you been to inquire for a dress pattern there since?
A. I have not, but under my orders other officers have.
Q. Who did go?
A. Mr. Fleet.
Q. Have you been able to get the dress pattern, or any dress pattern?
A. No Sir.
Q. When was it you sent for it?
A. I think the first officer that went there was Mr. Medley. After that, I think, I am pretty positive I sent the Assistant Marshal. Week before last I think was the first time the officer went there. I think Mr. Fleet was there a week ago last Saturday night. I think he was there some day the first part of the week, of last week.
Q. And you have not got it?
A. No Sir.
(Mr. Knowlton) I now call for it, Brother Jennings, and ask you to bring it, not now, but this afternoon.
Page 430.
……………..
Seaver
436
Q. Did you look in the trunks in the attic?
A. Not all of them.
Q. Who looked in those you did not look in?
A. Marshal Hilliard.
Q. You looked in all Marshal Hilliard did not?
A. I think Marshal Fleet looked in one or two trunks that I did not see in.
Q. In all but one or two, you looked?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Did you see anything of a dress pattern not made up, there?
A. No Sir.
Q. Did you see the trunks Mr. Fleet looked into, did you look into the contents of them?
A. I did not.
Q. You did not find any dress pattern at all up there in the garret?
A. Not up there.
Q. How many trunks were there up there?
A. I could not tell you, I think three or four.
Q. In the attic?
A. Yes, that is, trunks and large boxes.
RE-DIRECT.
Q. (Mr. Jennings) Do you know who opened that trunk that had the numerous springs on it?
A. Marshal Hilliard.
Q. Sure about that?
A. Do you mean that first opened it?
Q. Yes.
A. He went to that trunk first; I was there and attempted to assist him.
Q. Who finally got it open?
A. Capt. Desmond I think. I think Marshal Hilliard was the first one who went to it. I think your attention was called to it, and mine, and I do not know but two or three others.
Q. Did you look into that trunk to see if there was anything in it?
A. No Sir.
Q. You do not know whether there was any dress pattern there or not?
A. No, Marshal Hilliard was there; I supposed he was taking care of that; and I went into the other room.
.........
(Mr. Knowlton) I made some public allusion to the dress pattern. I am satisfied that is the dress pattern; so that whatever may have been supposed to have been in the case, is out of it. I say that in justice to the defendant. I ought to say I never supposed there was anything about it; I simply wanted to see it, that is all.
Page 459
___________
Trial
Hilliard
Q. Do you recollect what you then asked her about the shoes and stockings?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was it?
A. I asked her if she would be kind enough to find me the shoes and stockings that she had promised the District Attorney she would hand.
Q. What did she say?
A. "Yes, sir."
Q. No objection at all then?
A. No, sir.
Q. What did she do?
A. She went up stairs and I think it was Mrs. Brigham that brought me the shoes and stockings down.
Q. Was there any other article of clothing or for clothing that you received?
A. None that I know of from Miss Lizzie.
Q. Did you call for a dress pattern?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you hear anybody?
A. No, sir, not any of the times that I was there myself.
Q. Do you know that a dress pattern was got from the house?
A. I believe that Mr. Jennings and I think it was Mr. Harrington, I won't be sure but I think it was him that had a dress pattern brought from the house.
Q. And where is it now?
A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Was it returned or not?
A. I think it was in Mr. Jennings' custody; I don't know where it is.
Q. You haven't it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it examined by you at all?
A. No, sir, it was in the court room; I did not look at it.
MR. ROBINSON. (Addressing Government counsel) Have you
Page 1147
that?
MR. KNOWLTON. We attached no significance to that in reference to this matter, and dropped it.
MR. ROBINSON. It had no significance at all.
………..
Robinson Closing
1700
Unless that, there was nothing more to be seen and nothing more to be found, and they had had all they wanted and had got her clothes and her stockings and even an unmade dress pattern and wanted to see if that had not been made up into some sort of a mantle to wrap her up in.
The Dress Pattern
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
Apparently the dress pattern includes the material for the dress, otherwise a pattern would be made from gingham rather than paper. Robinson states that they wanted to see if the pattern had been used as a covering garment during the murders. I expect they wanted to examine the pattern for blood.
This could be hyper-sensitivity with respect to clothing examination, depending on when the dress burning episode became known. It also demonstrates a rather limited scope of thought. It implies that Lizzie must have worn a woman's garment which was at least partially completed.
This could be hyper-sensitivity with respect to clothing examination, depending on when the dress burning episode became known. It also demonstrates a rather limited scope of thought. It implies that Lizzie must have worn a woman's garment which was at least partially completed.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
The New York Times, Sept. 4, 1892, referring to the Preliminary Hearing:
"The missing dress pattern, of which much was said at the trial, and which was produced by order of the District Attorney, is believed in police circles to be a duplicate of the first piece purchased in New-Bedford shortly before the tragedy."
"The missing dress pattern, of which much was said at the trial, and which was produced by order of the District Attorney, is believed in police circles to be a duplicate of the first piece purchased in New-Bedford shortly before the tragedy."
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
New Bedford Evening Standard, Aug. 31, 1892:
(Again "court" = Prelim.)
"When the court was again called to order Mr. Knowlton resumed the reading of the record of the inquest. He showed that Lizzie had bought a dress pattern on Union street in New Bedford."
......
Also, the Dress Pattern made headlines:
Evening Standard
"Wednesday, August 31, 1892 Page 1
IN DEFENCE.
Counsel for Lizzie Borden
Putting in Evidence.
Marshal Hilliard Tells of the Search
of the House.
Dress Pattern Purchased by Lizzie
Was Not Found.
Mr. Knowlton Calls Upon Attorney
Jennings to Produce It.
Detective Seaver and Other
Witnesses on the Stand.
Wounds on Mr. Borden Described
by Dr. F. W. Draper.
It Is Decided That Prisoner Will
Not Testify at the Hearing.
Defendant's Side of the Case
Nearing Completion.
[Special Dispatch.]"
...
...Demand for Missing Dress Pattern.
"On cross-examination witness said that in examining the attic he didn't recollect seeing any unmade dress pattern; had sent to inquire for such since, but had been unable to get it.
Here Mr. Knowlton made a demand on Mr. Jennings for that dress pattern, giving him until this afternoon to produce it."
...
[Seaver]
..."Witness saw no dress pattern during his search."
___________
Standard
Thursday, September 1, 1892 Page 8
"Dress Pattern Seen.
District Attorney Knowlton said that he had seen the dress pattern about which he had questioned several witnesses. He told the court that he had examined it carefully and if it had been considered as in the case before could now be considered as out of it."
(Again "court" = Prelim.)
"When the court was again called to order Mr. Knowlton resumed the reading of the record of the inquest. He showed that Lizzie had bought a dress pattern on Union street in New Bedford."
......
Also, the Dress Pattern made headlines:
Evening Standard
"Wednesday, August 31, 1892 Page 1
IN DEFENCE.
Counsel for Lizzie Borden
Putting in Evidence.
Marshal Hilliard Tells of the Search
of the House.
Dress Pattern Purchased by Lizzie
Was Not Found.
Mr. Knowlton Calls Upon Attorney
Jennings to Produce It.
Detective Seaver and Other
Witnesses on the Stand.
Wounds on Mr. Borden Described
by Dr. F. W. Draper.
It Is Decided That Prisoner Will
Not Testify at the Hearing.
Defendant's Side of the Case
Nearing Completion.
[Special Dispatch.]"
...
...Demand for Missing Dress Pattern.
"On cross-examination witness said that in examining the attic he didn't recollect seeing any unmade dress pattern; had sent to inquire for such since, but had been unable to get it.
Here Mr. Knowlton made a demand on Mr. Jennings for that dress pattern, giving him until this afternoon to produce it."
...
[Seaver]
..."Witness saw no dress pattern during his search."
___________
Standard
Thursday, September 1, 1892 Page 8
"Dress Pattern Seen.
District Attorney Knowlton said that he had seen the dress pattern about which he had questioned several witnesses. He told the court that he had examined it carefully and if it had been considered as in the case before could now be considered as out of it."
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Dress pattern again in headline:
Evening Standard
"Saturday, September 3, 1892 Page 6
THE MURDER MYSTERY.
Dr. John H. Abbott's Opinion of
the Case.
Question Raised Regarding the
Dress Pattern Surrendered
Mrs. Marshall Refuses to Tell Her
Story to the Police."
...
"THAT DRESS PATTERN.
Was It Possible For Defence to Have
Duplicated the Goods?
Fall River, Sept. 3. --- The day after the Borden murder City Marshal Hilliard put two New Bedford officers at work in that city with orders to trace Lizzie Borden's actions during the two weeks previous. They found that she had purchased a dress pattern of cheap material in a dry goods store in that city, and it was to this pattern that reference was made at the trial. Some importance was attached to the matter at the time of the discovery of the purchase. The police failed to find the dress pattern or any dress of it in their search at the Borden house. They made demand on the members of the family to produce the piece of goods or the made-up dress. If they could not do this the police wanted to know what had become of it. The family refused to move in the matter and the police at New Bedford searched the store to get a sample of the goods bought by Lizzie.
The last day of the trial the defence surrendered the piece of dress goods which Lizzie had purchased and it was still intact. The question has arisen in the minds of some people who believe as the prosecution does whether or not it was possible for the friends of the prisoner to have duplicated the dress pattern and surrendered the last purchased instead of the first, and that the first one might have been made-up and used by Lizzie Borden at the time of the murder and afterwards destroyed or put out of the way."
Evening Standard
"Saturday, September 3, 1892 Page 6
THE MURDER MYSTERY.
Dr. John H. Abbott's Opinion of
the Case.
Question Raised Regarding the
Dress Pattern Surrendered
Mrs. Marshall Refuses to Tell Her
Story to the Police."
...
"THAT DRESS PATTERN.
Was It Possible For Defence to Have
Duplicated the Goods?
Fall River, Sept. 3. --- The day after the Borden murder City Marshal Hilliard put two New Bedford officers at work in that city with orders to trace Lizzie Borden's actions during the two weeks previous. They found that she had purchased a dress pattern of cheap material in a dry goods store in that city, and it was to this pattern that reference was made at the trial. Some importance was attached to the matter at the time of the discovery of the purchase. The police failed to find the dress pattern or any dress of it in their search at the Borden house. They made demand on the members of the family to produce the piece of goods or the made-up dress. If they could not do this the police wanted to know what had become of it. The family refused to move in the matter and the police at New Bedford searched the store to get a sample of the goods bought by Lizzie.
The last day of the trial the defence surrendered the piece of dress goods which Lizzie had purchased and it was still intact. The question has arisen in the minds of some people who believe as the prosecution does whether or not it was possible for the friends of the prisoner to have duplicated the dress pattern and surrendered the last purchased instead of the first, and that the first one might have been made-up and used by Lizzie Borden at the time of the murder and afterwards destroyed or put out of the way."
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Witness Statements, page 6:
(Phil Harrington)
"I arrived at the house about 12.15 or 12.20 M. The conversation with Lizzie was about five minutes later.
She was dressed in a striped house wrapper, full waist, and caught on the side by a bright red ribbon, which was tied in a bow in front. The stripes were on the pink shade, and between them was a dark figure."
---- Is there any seeming correlation between this pink wrapper and the pink dress pattern?
It has seemed odd that Lizzie, newly orphaned, would put on pink, with a red ribbon, with the bodies still in the house.
Like she didn't know how to behave- tho her father had been an undertaker.
Does this change into the pink wrapper have any relationship to her possibly ditching a pink dress she might have worked on secretly in her room to wear for a murder? She did some sewing in her room Thursday.
(Phil Harrington)
"I arrived at the house about 12.15 or 12.20 M. The conversation with Lizzie was about five minutes later.
She was dressed in a striped house wrapper, full waist, and caught on the side by a bright red ribbon, which was tied in a bow in front. The stripes were on the pink shade, and between them was a dark figure."
---- Is there any seeming correlation between this pink wrapper and the pink dress pattern?
It has seemed odd that Lizzie, newly orphaned, would put on pink, with a red ribbon, with the bodies still in the house.
Like she didn't know how to behave- tho her father had been an undertaker.
Does this change into the pink wrapper have any relationship to her possibly ditching a pink dress she might have worked on secretly in her room to wear for a murder? She did some sewing in her room Thursday.
-
Susan
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:26 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: California
Hmmm, pink and white and blue stripe gingham and a pink and white striped wrapper with a blue figure on it. Yes, they sound quite similar. What would Lizzie's point be in buying a dress pattern that was so similar in coloration to a housedress that she already had other than having a similar replacement? But, if the murders weren't premeditated, why would Lizzie plan that far in advance?
Yes, the whole dress change thing is odd. If Lizzie was broken up by the murders, I don't think a dress change would have been first and foremost on her list of things to do. But, she may have cornered herself into wearing that loud, striped wrapper if the Bedford cord dress came into play that day and had Abby's blood on it. Lizzie seemed to be aware enough that she would be spending the rest of the day on the lounge in her room and wanted to be comfortable. And, probably wanted to spare one of her better dresses from creasing it and such and had to change.
Yes, the whole dress change thing is odd. If Lizzie was broken up by the murders, I don't think a dress change would have been first and foremost on her list of things to do. But, she may have cornered herself into wearing that loud, striped wrapper if the Bedford cord dress came into play that day and had Abby's blood on it. Lizzie seemed to be aware enough that she would be spending the rest of the day on the lounge in her room and wanted to be comfortable. And, probably wanted to spare one of her better dresses from creasing it and such and had to change.
“Sometimes when we are generous in small, barely detectable ways it can change someone else's life forever.”-Margaret Cho comedienne
-
Airmid
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:16 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
Such good, but touch questions you raise there, Kat!
I think we first problem we encounter is not knowing what a dress pattern consisted of, and if there was fabric included. My reasoning in this aspect would be, that if there hadn't been any fabric included with it, the authorities would never have attached such an importance to it. But would the fabric have been pre-cut, or would a length of fabric been included, enough to make the dress? I don't have a clue.
I can imagine that the authorities were interested in it, though, After all, it was a potential dress of Lizzie's that they hadn't seen yet. I can't help thinking though that their interest in it was a bit overdone. As far as I know, they didn't display the same zeal in checking out other textiles, like household linens, nightdresses, shawls, or whatever. It makes me wonder if someone tipped them off in an anonymous letter about it. After all, they took the tip that Lizzie might have worn two dresses or an apron seriously too. And they might have attached importance to the fact that it was "missing".
However I'm not surprised that the police didn't find the dress pattern initially. It wouldn't be something that would stick in their minds when searching the trunks, since they wouldn't naturally associate it with something wearable or something involved in a murder. So it's entirely possible that the dress pattern was where Lizzie said that it was: in one of the trunks.
I get the impression that Lizzie was genuinely surprised when asked about the dress pattern at the Inquest:
Lizzie is not in the habit of repeating the question, like she is doing in this quote.
I'm treading dangerous ground here, though. I've read somewhere that sometimes repeating a question can be interpreted as a sign of a guilty conscience, since it buys time to think what to answer to the question.
So I did a quick search and found some other instances where she repeated the question:
Lizzie Inquest p. 47:
Q Do you know something about his real estate?
A About what?
Q His real estate?
Lizzie Inquest p. 48 (being questioned about the house on Ferry Street):
A He bought it of us, and give us the money for it.
Q How much was it?
A How much money? He gave us $ 5.000 for it.
Q Did you pay him anything when you took a deed from him?
A Pay him anything? Nor sir.
These are probably innocent enough. These questions were asked in the first minutes of her questioning, and might have confused Lizzie as to what the purpose of these questions was and what was expected of her.
I'm not too sure about the next two instances....
Lizzie Inquest p. 81:
Q Did you have an apron on Thursday?
A Did I what?
Q Have an apron on Thursday?
A No Sir, I don't think I did.
Lizzie Inquest p. 91/92:
Q Do you ever use prussic acid on your sacks?
A Acid? No sir; I don't use anything on them.
Not much help, am I?
Airmid.
I think we first problem we encounter is not knowing what a dress pattern consisted of, and if there was fabric included. My reasoning in this aspect would be, that if there hadn't been any fabric included with it, the authorities would never have attached such an importance to it. But would the fabric have been pre-cut, or would a length of fabric been included, enough to make the dress? I don't have a clue.
I can imagine that the authorities were interested in it, though, After all, it was a potential dress of Lizzie's that they hadn't seen yet. I can't help thinking though that their interest in it was a bit overdone. As far as I know, they didn't display the same zeal in checking out other textiles, like household linens, nightdresses, shawls, or whatever. It makes me wonder if someone tipped them off in an anonymous letter about it. After all, they took the tip that Lizzie might have worn two dresses or an apron seriously too. And they might have attached importance to the fact that it was "missing".
However I'm not surprised that the police didn't find the dress pattern initially. It wouldn't be something that would stick in their minds when searching the trunks, since they wouldn't naturally associate it with something wearable or something involved in a murder. So it's entirely possible that the dress pattern was where Lizzie said that it was: in one of the trunks.
I get the impression that Lizzie was genuinely surprised when asked about the dress pattern at the Inquest:
Kat wrote: Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Lizzie is not in the habit of repeating the question, like she is doing in this quote.
I'm treading dangerous ground here, though. I've read somewhere that sometimes repeating a question can be interpreted as a sign of a guilty conscience, since it buys time to think what to answer to the question.
So I did a quick search and found some other instances where she repeated the question:
Lizzie Inquest p. 47:
Q Do you know something about his real estate?
A About what?
Q His real estate?
Lizzie Inquest p. 48 (being questioned about the house on Ferry Street):
A He bought it of us, and give us the money for it.
Q How much was it?
A How much money? He gave us $ 5.000 for it.
Q Did you pay him anything when you took a deed from him?
A Pay him anything? Nor sir.
These are probably innocent enough. These questions were asked in the first minutes of her questioning, and might have confused Lizzie as to what the purpose of these questions was and what was expected of her.
I'm not too sure about the next two instances....
Lizzie Inquest p. 81:
Q Did you have an apron on Thursday?
A Did I what?
Q Have an apron on Thursday?
A No Sir, I don't think I did.
Lizzie Inquest p. 91/92:
Q Do you ever use prussic acid on your sacks?
A Acid? No sir; I don't use anything on them.
Not much help, am I?
Airmid.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Those are interesting replies you guys, thanks!
My favorite Lizzie *balk* is when asked "Where was your sister Emma that day?" Her answer? "What day?"
It's also unusual that so much police interest was engendered by this dress pattern, so long before it was ever known that Lizzie burned a dress! That wasn't until December that that came out.
My favorite Lizzie *balk* is when asked "Where was your sister Emma that day?" Her answer? "What day?"
It's also unusual that so much police interest was engendered by this dress pattern, so long before it was ever known that Lizzie burned a dress! That wasn't until December that that came out.
-
Ms. Jo
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:37 am
- Real Name:
- Location: Seward, Alaska
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
This dress pattern, which we believe included the material, pre-cut or not- seems to have died the same death as the clawhead hatchet, which during the preliminary hearing was considered THE weapon, the officials were pretty sure.
Then- we never hear about it again, and no one tells us why.
Frustration here.
Then- we never hear about it again, and no one tells us why.
Frustration here.