red paint on dress

[snokkums]

There was some evidence that Lizzie was burning a dress that she wore that day. At first the police thought that it was the dress that lizzie was wearing that day. She claimed that it was red paint, and later Emma backed her up that it was paint. I wander if it was paint, or was it blood.?
What does everyone else think on this subject? Blood or paint?

[Allen]

I lean towards blood more and more. But, I think it was first stained with paint, and then worn while committing the murders so the paint stains would mask the blood. That dress was already known to be stained. I think it was a convenient way to dispose of the dress the way she did it, in front of Emma and Miss Russell. "Look I did it in front of witnesses, nothing suspicious here. Plus during the trial a great deal was made of the fact there were police outside the house at the time. Nothing was ever made of the fact the windows were so high off the ground they wouldn't have been able to see what she was dong in there.

[theebmonique]

PAINT.

Per the testimony of Mary Raymond - dressmaker, during trial testimony (Volume 2), being questioned Mr. Jennings:

Q. Do you know whether at that time you were there they were painting the house or did
paint the house?
A. They did paint the house at that time, yes, sir.
Q. Do you know anything about whether at that time there was any paint got upon the
dress?
A. There was.
Q. How soon after it was made did Miss Lizzie begin to wear it?
A. Just as soon as it was finished.

Q. And how soon was it after that, as you recollect, that she got the paint upon it?
A. I can't tell you that, I don't remember.
Q. Was it while you were there?
A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. Was anything said about it by you at the time to her?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was the paint, if you recollect.
A. It was on the front of the dress and around the bottom of the dress, around the ruffle,
on the underneath part of the hem.
Q. Did she wear the dress more or less all the time you were there?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember anything about the wearing of it?
A. Well, it either faded or the color wore off, I can't tell you


Tracy...

[Allen]

PAINT AND BLOOD

I was editing my reply when Tracy posted.Yes, the dress maker does testify that the dress was stained with paint. That doesn't mean it couldn't also have been later worn during the murders and then stained also with blood. The dress was already known to be stained, it would've been a perfect camouflage. It would also give her a legitimate reason for wanting to destroy it after the murders. It seems odd to me she had that dress ALL that time and it was stained with paint, but she only chose to dispose of it after the murders. Why not before then? So what if the dress was found and it was covered with stains. You mean to tell me the science of the time couldn't tell the difference between common house paint and blood?

[FairhavenGuy]

Science at the time certainly could tell the difference between paint and blood, but Lizzie might not have known that.

To my mind, it's just too much of a coincidence that Lizzie decided that dress had to go so soon after the murders. Maybe there was blood on the dress. Or maybe after seeing dried blood on another dress that had been disposed of earlier, Lizzie realized how similar that paint stains were and decided not to take chances.

The important things about the dress are these:

1. It was stained with something.

2. It had been in the house a long while, yet the police seem not to have found it or noted its existence until Alice brings up the burning.

3. If the police had seen it during a search and it was not bloodstained, surely they would have said, "Yes, we saw that old dress. It was obvious those were just paint stains." Instead, it was a very significant fact that Lizzie was burning a dress that they had not seen when they searched.

[Kat]

There was some evidence that Lizzie was burning a dress that she wore that day. At first the police thought that it was the dress that lizzie was wearing that day. She claimed that it was red paint, and later Emma backed her up that it was paint. I wander if it was paint, or was it blood.?
What does everyone else think on this subject? Blood or paint?

I don't think Lizzie claimed the dress was stained with red paint. In fact, since the dress burning incident only came up at grand jury and then trial, Lizzie was no longer talking- so if she claimed anything, it was probably hearsay through Alice and Emma.

However, if it was a blue outfit, a drab color might very well look like blood. This was an outfit, not a dress. It very probably was in 2 pieces.
Also, no one saw Lizzie wearing the paint-stained dress (= Bedford Cord) on Thursday.

Thanks for the testimony Tracy!

[Haulover]

"1. It was stained with something."

i often ponder that -- the key word being "something." something that might not have been visually evident but detectable. she may have become worried how far they would/could go in their detection. i've wondered if our assumption that the stain or whatever it was -- was blood -- what if this has been misleading all this time?

[Kat]

Well, I get your meaning- but that could more easily be washed than blood, right?
Why go to the trouble of burning? It would have to be the kind of stain which could not be removed with a damp towel.
I'm trying to imagine Lizzie being found with a wet dress from washing, or rinsing. I wonder if that would have been as incriminating as a dress that is burned?

[Haulover]

"I'm trying to imagine Lizzie being found with a wet dress from washing, or rinsing. I wonder if that would have been as incriminating as a dress that is burned?"

i've considered that too. it might have seemed safer and quicker to get rid of it there in the stove -- piecemeal.

a two-part effort? the secret trip to the cellar was water-related.

i've always wondered if the dress became rags before burning.

[Susan]

I had an incident this past weekend that made me think of Lizzie's paint stained Bedford cord dress. What happened to me may be similar to how Lizzie got paint on her skirt, see what you think.

In preparation for my fiance's birthday party, my brother and fiance were doing some touch-up painting work about the house. Both failed to tell me that they had done any painting work on the front porch railing and spindles. I came out on the front porch to ask my fiance a question and went to the side rail by the driveway where he was. Before he could warn me, I was close to the rail and my skirt brushed up against it. Well, I had white paint on the front and on the lower right hand side of the skirt. Thankfully we used some Goof-Off and got the paint right out.

Now, according to Emma's testimony at the Trial about the paint on Lizzie's Bedford cord:

Page 1536

Q. Where was the paint upon it?
A. I should say along the front and on one side toward the bottom and some on the wrong side of the skirt.

And then there is Mary Raymonds the dressmaker's testimony:

Page 1579

Q. Where was the paint, if you recollect?
A. It was on the front of the dress and around the bottom of the dress, around the ruffle, on the underneath part of the hem.

Does the placement of the paint sound familiar? Then I checked the house painter, John W. Grouard's testimony. Something that he said clicked in my head, about mixing up the paint to suit Lizzie's taste and then testing it out on the house:

Page 1350

Q. (By Mr. Jennings) After it was mixed did you take it out and try it on the house?
A. Yes, sir, on the corner of the house by the back steps.

So once Grouard got Lizzie's approval, he and his men probably continued painting that side of the house. Those steps on the side of the house did get painted by his crew according to his testimony and it being oil paint in Lizzie's day was probably wet for a long time. Lizzie probably came out the side door to check on the progress not realizing that the steps were wet and her skirt probably brushed the railing like mine did as she came out the door. The ruffle dragged on the painted deck there and possibly the steps too and got paint on the inside of the hem. Sound plausible? Heres a pic of the area, I can picture it so easily in my mind.



Photo from the LBVM&L site.

[sguthmann]

while lizzie may not have been a genius or excelled at school work, i think she was far from being stupid - which is why it is so hard for me to swallow that she would innocently burn a stained dress just days after the murder of her father and mother. i don't buy that she hadn't thought through the fact that it would appear odd at best - and guilty at worst.

so then, assuming she is smart enough to know these things, why would she go ahead and take such a chance burning a dress? i submit that she did it because she knew there WAS blood on it.

had it been stained only with paint, this could have easily been determined by Wood of Harvard or a number of other experts. they certainly could determine the difference between blood and paint, even in those times. and therein was the problem for lizzie.

under the "lock and key," so to speak, of the police that were a constant presence outside the home, standing guard (and keeping their eyes open for what was going on inside the home) there would be no opportunity to get the dress out of the house and dispose of it. how she hid it to that point is a mystery to me, but i think she had managed it. she knew that more police searches of the home could occur at any time...but how much longer could she "dodge the bullet?" the sooner the dress was destroyed, the sooner one of the major 'smoking guns" of the case would be gone for good. she really had no choice but to try and get rid of the dress while she could and in the only manner she could: inside the house.

and so she hatched her plan and took her chances and burned away a "old paint-stained dress" (which it very well could have been - but i believe there HAD to have been more than paint on it). once the dress was gone, who could say what had been on it - paint and/or blood - it didn't matter. it would be gone for good. and she could feign ignorance at why such an action might be seen as suspicious. and yes, if her actions were found out, there would be those who would say this showed she was attempting to hide something - but suspicions and speculations would not equal hard physical evidence, and so it was a chance she HAD to take.

a smart girl like her not recognizing that this act could be construed as the possible destruction of evidence? ridiculous! and yet, she plays "dumb" and leaves the fall river authorities - as well as armchair sleuths of today - without a way to positively PROVE that the dress was more than paint-stained. pretty smart, eh?

[stuartwsa]

Could she have burned the dress to cover up the burning of something else?

[Kat]

I see where Lizzie's long hem would be taken up in her hands as she descended the steps.
I had not realized just where they first tried the paint- that's interesting, Susan.
I often wear long dresses and am always pulling my skirt up a bit and holding it close to me so I don't brush by papers and have them fall to the floor, or whatever.
I think with the sheer volume of material, Lizzie could pick up her skirts and still brush against those steps or railing lower than she was.That makes sense as to how it got on the underneath part.

[Kat]

That too, Stuart!

[darthvader]

There was some evidence that Lizzie was burning a dress that she wore that day. At first the police thought that it was the dress that lizzie was wearing that day. She claimed that it was red paint, and later Emma backed her up that it was paint. I wander if it was paint, or was it blood.?
What does everyone else think on this subject? Blood or paint?

Emma backed her up that it was paint???

If it was indeed paint, no big deal, end of story, which seems to be how Fall River's finest treated it. Which leads me to think that is all it was, paint.

But if it was blood, Emma is at the very least an accessory to murder.

[Allen]

I think that the police had their suspicions that there was blood on the dress that Lizzie burned once that came to light. But she destroyed the evidence before they had a chance to examine it. So they could speculate, as we do today, but without the dress they couldn't prove it. I think that during the trial the prosecution tried to cast suspicion on this destroying of a "paint stained" dress right after two murders had been committed. But it all boiled down to the fact that it could be proved there was paint on the dress. The dressmaker even testified to it. I don't think the jury looked past that. But she evidently still wore it around the house. What was to stop her from wearing it the day of the murders. Also would give her a perfect excuse for burning the dress once there was blood on it. I guess the question to me is, why does it have to be either or?

[darthvader]

Somebody please correct me. Did'nt the police have the chance to search the house after the murders? Would they not have found a dress that may or may not have been stained with blood? My understanding has been that the police saw the dress, saw it's stains, asssumed paint and moved on.

Who was the first to point out Lizzie burned the dress?

[darthvader]

sorry, double post!

[Harry]

The police did search the house, several times. No, they did not find a paint covered dress. Where it was has never been explained.

Lizzie burned it the Sunday morning after the Mayor and City Marshal made a call on her Saturday evening. They advised her that she was suspected.

The dress burning incident was witnessed (although she never actually saw Lizzie burn it) by Alice Russell. The police had questioned Alice about whether all of Lizzie's dresses were present. Alice allegedly told the Borden's hired detective, Hanscom, of the missing dress.

The police were not notified until Alice had a change of heart and told Knowlton just prior to the end of the Grand Jury term in December 1892. Up to that time the Grand Jury had not indicted Lizzie and apparently this bit of news tipped the scales against her.

[1bigsteve]

I lean toward Lizzie wearing that paint covered dress during the murders and decided, after the Mayor's visit, that she had better get rid of it, pronto. Her burning it in front of others was probably Lizzie's way of saying, "Well, it's only a dress covered in paint. What's the big deal?" When Emma commented about it Lizzie went into her, "Why didn't you stop me?" as an attempt to make herself look like she was absent-mindedly burning a dress covered in paint without realizing how it may look to others. I think Lizzie was burning evidence in plain sight.

Strange I don't recall Lizzie ever saying, "Get's some water and let's put it out." I think Lizzie knew exactly what she was doing.

-1bigsteve (o:

[snokkums]

Didn't she later on say that the blood on the dress was a stain from that "time of the month"? Or am I wrong? Lizzie changed her story so many times, I am not sure what to believe.

[libby]

i am firmly in the blood and paint group.

there has been speculation (i can't remember by whom) that lizzie could have hidden the bedford cord under her mattress during the initial, cursory police search. before she was suspected, she could easily have stayed in bed, as the police search would have exacerbated her "fragile emotional state."

what i want to know is which dress did lizzie wear down to breakfast that morning? that dress would almost certainly be the one she wore during abbie's murder. she could have changed, then covered herself in andrew's coat for his murder.

i read somewhere that bridget had described lizzie's a.m. dress as "blue with a sprig," or something like that?

does anyone know what color or pattern the bedford cord was?

could a blood-stained white apron, ripped into rags, be mistaked for "monthly" rags like those found in the slop-bucket? remember, bridget initially said that the bloody rags had not been there on wash-day, although lizzie had claimed they were there three or four days.
were "monthly" rags always of a certain material? would they have been so different than an apron? does anyone know?

[Allen]

i am firmly in the blood and paint group.

there has been speculation (i can't remember by whom) that lizzie could have hidden the bedford cord under her mattress during the initial, cursory police search. before she was suspected, she could easily have stayed in bed, as the police search would have exacerbated her "fragile emotional state."

what i want to know is which dress did lizzie wear down to breakfast that morning? that dress would almost certainly be the one she wore during abbie's murder. she could have changed, then covered herself in andrew's coat for his murder.

i read somewhere that bridget had described lizzie's a.m. dress as "blue with a sprig," or something like that?

does anyone know what color or pattern the bedford cord was?

could a blood-stained white apron, ripped into rags, be mistaked for "monthly" rags like those found in the slop-bucket? remember, bridget initially said that the bloody rags had not been there on wash-day, although lizzie had claimed they were there three or four days.
were "monthly" rags always of a certain material? would they have been so different than an apron? does anyone know?

The question about the apron is an excellent question libby. I might have to do some digging and find out what sort of material those menstrual rags were made of. I would imagine they were designed using some sort of absorbent material due to their function. Interesting idea, however.

The dressmaker testified at trial, and was asked to explain the appearance of bedford cord.

Trial testimony of Mary A. Raymond:

Q. Could 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 ---

Q. Can you say about how large?
A. No, I don't think I can?

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

Q. How as it as to the sleeves?
A. The sleeves were full sleeves, large sleeves.

Q. How was it as to length?
A. Longer than she usually had them.

Q. How did the length compare to those of the other dresses made for her at that time?
A. Well I should certainly say it was half a finger longer, two inches longer.

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

Q. Was this dress longer or shorter than that?
A. I should think longer.

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

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

Q. Was it trimmed at all?
A. Trimmed with a ruffle around the bottom.

Q. A ruffle of what?
A. Of the same.

[darthvader]

The dress burning incident was witnessed (although she never actually saw Lizzie burn it) by Alice Russell. The police had questioned Alice about whether all of Lizzie's dresses were present. Alice allegedly told the Borden's hired detective, Hanscom, of the missing dress.

The police were not notified until Alice had a change of heart and told Knowlton just prior to the end of the Grand Jury term in December 1892. Up to that time the Grand Jury had not indicted Lizzie and apparently this bit of news tipped the scales against her.

I seem to recall Alice Russell as a neighbor, am I correct? Did'nt she stay at the Borden house a few times? At one point did she remark to Lizzie, "I wish you never burned that dress!" or something to that effect?

Could she be a possible suspect? As a neighbor or previous guest she may have known the house well. And she did change her mind about the dress, prehaps to misdirect guilt?

[libby]

even if normal mentrual rags were very different from apron material--do you think many men of the time would have even known the difference? i can't imagine more than a fleeting glance at a bloody slop-bucket by any man.
even the marrieds, i'll bet, didn't get into such details even with their own wives.
and god knows, men didn't do laundry.



alice was a neighbor. i've never heard anyone suspect her of anything.
i always found an interesting part of her testimony about the dress-burning was that she claimed that when she admonished lizzie (while lizzie was standing at the cupboard tearing the fabric), that lizzie stepped in closer to the cupboard (imo, like she didn't want alice to have too close a look).

many here have speculated, and i agree, that lizzie asking alice, "how could you let me do it?" was her way of acting innocent AND shifting blame, to make alice feel some responsibility for the dress-burning.
seemed to have worked for minute, until alice finally caved and told police.

[Allen]

Alice had been a neighbor of the Borden's for many years. But she was residing at a different address by the time of the murders.

[libby]

thanks for the clarification, allen!

[Harry]

Alice Russell lived at 33 Borden St., easy walking distance from 92 Second St.

[snokkums]

I think you are right libby. Don't think too many men are going to be talking about the womens time of the month. Maybe they heard the explantation of the blood on the dress as menstrual blood from Alice or Lizzie herself. Can't picture a man looking a bucket full of bloody rags.

[darthvader]

Alice Russell lived at 33 Borden St., easy walking distance from 92 Second St.

It also seems like she had been over many times to visit with Emma and Lizzie and had little contact with Andrew and Abby. She would have a great knowledge of the house and the fact she gave misinformation to the police makes her a great suspect. I think I just cracked the case.

[Allen]

Alice Russell lived at 33 Borden St., easy walking distance from 92 Second St.

It also seems like she had been over many times to visit with Emma and Lizzie and had little contact with Andrew and Abby. She would have a great knowledge of the house and the fact she gave misinformation to the police makes her a great suspect. I think I just cracked the case.

Well almost. What motive would she have had for killing Andrew and Abby Borden?

[darthvader]

Alice Russell lived at 33 Borden St., easy walking distance from 92 Second St.

It also seems like she had been over many times to visit with Emma and Lizzie and had little contact with Andrew and Abby. She would have a great knowledge of the house and the fact she gave misinformation to the police makes her a great suspect. I think I just cracked the case.

Well almost. What motive would she have had for killing Andrew and Abby Borden?

You still need to look at Emma and Lizzie having her do it for them. They both planned on being out of town as to have perfect albis. Lizzie had to come back as John Morse was in town and she needed help getting in and out of the house.

[Susan]

I see where Lizzie's long hem would be taken up in her hands as she descended the steps.
I had not realized just where they first tried the paint- that's interesting, Susan.
I often wear long dresses and am always pulling my skirt up a bit and holding it close to me so I don't brush by papers and have them fall to the floor, or whatever.
I think with the sheer volume of material, Lizzie could pick up her skirts and still brush against those steps or railing lower than she was.That makes sense as to how it got on the underneath part.

Yes, I can totally see Lizzie lifting her skirts as she descends the stairs, but, I'm thinking of when she first came out the back door. I do the same thing when I'm wearing long or particularly full skirts, pick it up or try to hold it in as I go by stuff. Lizzie knew that there were men about the house painting, so, I think she might have been more aware about lifting her skirts where they were outside.

I did try an interesting experiment this weekend with oil paint and some pieces of old, light blue, small wale corduroy pants. The oil paint was from my brother and it was dark brown, not drab, but, it worked for my purposes. I used the corduroy as it approximates the ribbed quality of Bedford cord material. Anyhoo, I found that brushing the material up against sticky oil paint resulted in the paint only hitting on the high points of the material, the ribs, while the lower spaces in between each rib was not hit by any paint. I also tried swiping it across, like a person going by fairly fast, which came up with same results. And I tried applying pressure, like someone leaning on a painted surface, which covered pretty much all of the surface of the material; high and low.

So, unless Lizzie physically leaned or pressed against those freshly painted surfaces, the paint smearing should have been very light on the material. Yes, the darker colored paint showed up quite well on the light blue corduroy, but, it was interesting how the spaces between each rib showed up clean in the midst of the paint smears. I wonder if the real Lizzie tried to use some Naptha to try to clean it off? I know it doesn't solve anything like the murders themselves, but, it was just one of those things I had to check out.

[Lefty]

I will be the first to admit, I am no expert on any of this and am far less read than most here, but I've always believed that she burned the dress because it had paint on it.

Here's why.

It's a hot august and Lizzy, with the police, the circumstances of her parents death, by the standards of society is housebound. The house is a pressure cooker of stress, grief and disbelief, (Even a guilty Lizzie would likely be in disbelief that she had done it and all of this was actually real.) and I imagine Lizzy would have been looking for things to occupy both her mind and her time. I can believe while looking for something to wear she happened upon the dress with its paint stains and decided it was time to get rid of it.

I know, it sounds naive, but I have been through a traumatic experience, the loss of a loved one where my entire (aunts, uncles, cousing, etc.) family gathered around the household of a family member while we waited for news and hoped for the best and I had cousins that patched and painted a spot on the ceiling, an uncle who fixed some leaky kitchen pipes and another who replaced the commode in the bathroom with a new one that had been waiting to be installed for months.

I understand the logic of burning the bloodstained dress but wouldn't the chance of being caught be just a huge risk? What if the officer had had reason to come in at just that time? How could she have been sure that earlier searches wouldn't have found it? It's easy for us 100 years later to poke holes in a sloppy investigation but unless Lizzie had experience in this sort of thing how would she know just how thorough, or not, a search would be?

[Kat]

Hey snokkums! To answer you- the bit of blood spot was on the underskirt, or what would be the petticoat.

from:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... idence.htm

Dr. Dolan Testifies [Preliminary Hearing]

Questioned by Mr. Adams
Lizzie’s Clothing

Pg. 168:
Q: Was any clothing given to you?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Who gave it to you?
A: I think Mr. Jennings
Q: Where did he get it?
A: I don’t know. He said he got it from Miss Lizzie Borden.
Q: What was it, a dress skirt and an under white skirt?
A: Yes sir and her waist.
Q: Did you examine them?
A: Yes sir.
……………………..
Q: Did you find some blood on them?
A: One blood spot on the skirt.
Q: How big was it?
A: The size of a good pin head.
Q: That is on the white underskirt?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Do you know whether it came from without, in, or from inside out?
A: From without, in.
Q: How do you know that?
A: Simply because the meshes of the cloth on the outside were filled with blood, and it had hardly penetrated on the inside.

------

Susan, cool experiment! I think Lizzie would have tried some Naptha- if she noticed right away that she had brushed against wet paint - maybe she didn't notice? Until it was dry? Does Naptha remove dry paint?

[Yooper]

while lizzie may not have been a genius or excelled at school work, i think she was far from being stupid - which is why it is so hard for me to swallow that she would innocently burn a stained dress just days after the murder of her father and mother. i don't buy that she hadn't thought through the fact that it would appear odd at best - and guilty at worst.

so then, assuming she is smart enough to know these things, why would she go ahead and take such a chance burning a dress? i submit that she did it because she knew there WAS blood on it.

had it been stained only with paint, this could have easily been determined by Wood of Harvard or a number of other experts. they certainly could determine the difference between blood and paint, even in those times. and therein was the problem for lizzie.

under the "lock and key," so to speak, of the police that were a constant presence outside the home, standing guard (and keeping their eyes open for what was going on inside the home) there would be no opportunity to get the dress out of the house and dispose of it. how she hid it to that point is a mystery to me, but i think she had managed it. she knew that more police searches of the home could occur at any time...but how much longer could she "dodge the bullet?" the sooner the dress was destroyed, the sooner one of the major 'smoking guns" of the case would be gone for good. she really had no choice but to try and get rid of the dress while she could and in the only manner she could: inside the house.

and so she hatched her plan and took her chances and burned away a "old paint-stained dress" (which it very well could have been - but i believe there HAD to have been more than paint on it). once the dress was gone, who could say what had been on it - paint and/or blood - it didn't matter. it would be gone for good. and she could feign ignorance at why such an action might be seen as suspicious. and yes, if her actions were found out, there would be those who would say this showed she was attempting to hide something - but suspicions and speculations would not equal hard physical evidence, and so it was a chance she HAD to take.

a smart girl like her not recognizing that this act could be construed as the possible destruction of evidence? ridiculous! and yet, she plays "dumb" and leaves the fall river authorities - as well as armchair sleuths of today - without a way to positively PROVE that the dress was more than paint-stained. pretty smart, eh?

I agree. Keep in mind, from Lizzie's perspective, any dress without bloodstains could only further the cause of her innocence. Lizzie did not know who had seen what at the time of the dress burning, but she knew she was a suspect. She did not know who might be able to identify her clothing the day of the murders, but she would have to assume that someone would. It would make sense for Lizzie to take extraordinary care of the dress she had worn at the time of the murders if it was without bloodstains, under those circumstances. There was plenty of storage space in the Borden house for it.

[Susan]

Thanks, Kat. From what I understand, Naptha would work on fresh oil paint, not dried. But, the pigments in that oil paint could possibly have stained the Bedford cord if she did try to use it, since it was such a light blue color. I think the dress may have been ruined either way, was just thinking about the Legend Of Lizzie Borden movie where Elizabeth Mongomery purchases some Naptha at the local store.

[sguthmann]

I will be the first to admit, I am no expert on any of this and am far less read than most here, but I've always believed that she burned the dress because it had paint on it.

Here's why.

It's a hot august and Lizzy, with the police, the circumstances of her parents death, by the standards of society is housebound. The house is a pressure cooker of stress, grief and disbelief, (Even a guilty Lizzie would likely be in disbelief that she had done it and all of this was actually real.) and I imagine Lizzy would have been looking for things to occupy both her mind and her time. I can believe while looking for something to wear she happened upon the dress with its paint stains and decided it was time to get rid of it.

I know, it sounds naive, but I have been through a traumatic experience, the loss of a loved one where my entire (aunts, uncles, cousing, etc.) family gathered around the household of a family member while we waited for news and hoped for the best and I had cousins that patched and painted a spot on the ceiling, an uncle who fixed some leaky kitchen pipes and another who replaced the commode in the bathroom with a new one that had been waiting to be installed for months.

I understand the logic of burning the bloodstained dress but wouldn't the chance of being caught be just a huge risk? What if the officer had had reason to come in at just that time? How could she have been sure that earlier searches wouldn't have found it? It's easy for us 100 years later to poke holes in a sloppy investigation but unless Lizzie had experience in this sort of thing how would she know just how thorough, or not, a search would be?

RJR, I respect your opinon and I agree, after a traumatic experience, people may act in ways that could seem "odd" to an outsider. It may be a facet of the grieving process, it may be a way to focus on something other than the tradgedy if only for a bit, or it may be a way to act and accomplish something while one is feeling basically helpless, any number of things could be explained under such circumstances.

My problem with that logic in THIS case is that you have a girl whose parents have just been brutally murdered inside a house where she herself acknowledges that the only two other people on the premises were herself and a domestic and she knows she is a suspect and under intense scrutiny from the police. Assuming she's innocent, why would she take such a chance and pick that moment in time to burn a dress when she knows how this might look to the public and the authorities?

She's not a stupid girl. Her thoughts and actions may have been effected by the traumatic events of the past days, but surely between her and her sister, the thought must have crossed someone's mind that it may not be a good time to be burning a dress - even if only "paint-stained?" And yet she goes ahead and does it. Why? What would be worth the risk? I can only think of one reason; she knew if she didn't take the chance then, she might not get another.

[Harry]

The part that troubles me about the burning incident is Lizzie's reaction to Alice's warning. Page 321 of the trial, Alice testifying on Direct:

"Q. What did you see then?
A. Miss Lizzie stood up towards the cupboard door,---the cupboard door was open, and she appeared to be either ripping something down or tearing part of this garment.
Q. What part?
A. I don't know for sure; it was a small part.
Q. A smaller part? Go on and state.
A. I said to her, "I wouldn't let anybody see me do that, Lizzie." She didn't make any answer. I left the room.
Q. Did she do anything when you said that?
A. She stepped just one step farther back up towards the cupboard door."

I think someone doing something that they thought was innocent would ask "Why?". Lizzie doesn't but steps back further making it less likely that she would be seen.

We have to keep in mind also that she had been told the night before that she was suspected.

[sguthmann]

exactly Harry. it all adds up to someone who knew fully well what she was doing.

[Yooper]

I have an idea that Alice and Emma knew full well that it was wrong, too. Alice's statement about not letting anyone see her (Lizzie) burn the dress implies knowledge of wrongdoing. Alice is telling Lizzie that she isn't being sneaky enough. Emma's lack of concern about the incident is also apparent.

[Harry]

There is something else about the timing of the burning of the dress. Dr. Dolan testified (p963 of the Trial) that the dress that allegedly was worn by Lizzie on the 4th was turned over to him on Saturday, the 6th.

Then she burns the dress on the 7th.

Mighty suspicious.

[Kat]

Eek, that's right! Hadn't thought of that!

[Yooper]

There is something else about the timing of the burning of the dress. Dr. Dolan testified (p963 of the Trial) that the dress that allegedly was worn by Lizzie on the 4th was turned over to him on Saturday, the 6th.

Then she burns the dress on the 7th.

Mighty suspicious.

So, if Lizzie knowingly gave the authorities the wrong dress on the 6th, and they accepted the dress without question at that time, it created a small window of opportunity to dispose of the Bedford cord dress before the dress given up on the 6th was called to question. Lizzie didn't know who might be able to identify the dress she had worn on the 4th, and she would have to assume that the dress she gave police on the 6th might be questionable. If she was going to get rid of the Bedford cord dress, the sooner, the better.

[Harry]

Precisely my suspicion, Yooper.

In the back of the Knowlton Papers book, Appendix B, pages 371 to 380, there is a reproduction of one of the notebooks that Knowlton maintained recording his private thoughts on the case. On page 381 (page 20 of Knowlton's notebook) there is the following regarding the dress. He is talking about Mrs. Churchill:

"Saw the dress shown by Jennings
before the public hearing.

Had talk with Jennings. Probably
told him it was just not the dress."

When this showing of the dress to Mrs. Churchill occurred I don't know but that dress was turned over to the police on Saturday the 6th so I assume it was then or earlier. I can't imagine once the police had the dress they would let Jennings have it back again to show it to Mrs. Churchill.

Now if Jennings knew that Mrs. Churchill said it was not the dress she wore then Lizzie probably knew. They could assume Mrs. Churchill had also told the police. The police would then be on the search for another dress. An unburned one.

Of course this speculation is dependent upon when the dress was shown to Mrs. Churchill.

[Yooper]

That might be the earliest possible confirmation Lizzie could have had about someone being able to identify the dress. It didn't need to be a positive identification of the Bedford cord as the dress worn, only an identification of the dress given up on the 6th as a dress not worn on the 4th. In any event, Lizzie would have to assume that someone out of all the people present on the 4th would have noticed the dress she wore. I have wondered if memories had gotten selective once the dress had been burned. To absolutely identify the Bedford cord as the dress Lizzie wore on the 4th puts the noose around Lizzie's neck once the dress was burned. I don't think anyone wanted that responsibility. I think the only reason we, or anyone at the time, knew of a dress burning was due to Alice Russell's conversation with Hanscomb, the detective hired by Lizzie and Emma. He would be able to testify as to Alice's knowledge of a dress burning, so she felt compelled to present the information to the Grand Jury at the last minute. She might have been prosecuted for withholding evidence otherwise if Hanscomb blew the whistle on her. I think a lot of people told something less than the whole truth.

[shakiboo]

I have to wonder why Lizzie, choose to burn that dress when she did, knowing that anyone could walk in on her. Had she done it earlier, Alice was out, and all she'd have had to do was make sure that Emma was elsewhere. It took, what? about 5 seconds to actually get it into the stove? You'd think, since it could very well put her neck in the noose, she'd have been a whole lot more careful.

[Susan]

I personally view the dress burning incident as Lizzie trying to think ahead, however faulty her reasoning may have been. She hands over the Bengaline silk skirt and sateen blouse to the police on the 6th, hoping they will take it as what she wore the day of the murders, but, knowing that someone may question it. Lizzie now has the Bedford cord dress to get rid of, she knows that they may come back for it.

If she destroys the dress alone, out of view of others, and the police come back for that dress, it would be viewed as a guilty act of hiding evidence. If Lizzie destroys the Bedford cord in view of a witness (or two) with the idea that she is just getting rid of an old, paint stained dress, its an innocent act, they saw her do it. She had nothing to hide.

I'm still on the fence as to whether Alice was supposed to be a witness to the dress burning too, or if it was just Emma that was Lizzie's target audience? Lizzie probably thought that whatever she told Emma, Emma would buy as the truth. But, did Lizzie have that sort of confidence in Alice? Alice seems to be the wild card in the deck that day. She cautions Lizzie as to not being seen doing what she is doing. Did Lizzie blindly put her faith in Alice that day and get burned? Or did Alice get home to soon that day before Lizzie was finished with her fancy footwork by the stove? I agree with Harry, if it was just an innocent act, why didn't Lizzie make a reply to Alice in any way?

[Smudgeman]

I have often thought that Lizzie might have had another dress or article of clothing inside the dress she burned. She burned that dress because she knew Emma knew it was paint stained. And she knew nobody would suspect another blood stained garment was carefully tucked inside. Pretty clever idea I would say.

[Yooper]

I personally view the dress burning incident as Lizzie trying to think ahead, however faulty her reasoning may have been. She hands over the Bengaline silk skirt and sateen blouse to the police on the 6th, hoping they will take it as what she wore the day of the murders, but, knowing that someone may question it. Lizzie now has the Bedford cord dress to get rid of, she knows that they may come back for it.

If she destroys the dress alone, out of view of others, and the police come back for that dress, it would be viewed as a guilty act of hiding evidence. If Lizzie destroys the Bedford cord in view of a witness (or two) with the idea that she is just getting rid of an old, paint stained dress, its an innocent act, they saw her do it. She had nothing to hide.

I'm still on the fence as to whether Alice was supposed to be a witness to the dress burning too, or if it was just Emma that was Lizzie's target audience? Lizzie probably thought that whatever she told Emma, Emma would buy as the truth. But, did Lizzie have that sort of confidence in Alice? Alice seems to be the wild card in the deck that day. She cautions Lizzie as to not being seen doing what she is doing. Did Lizzie blindly put her faith in Alice that day and get burned? Or did Alice get home to soon that day before Lizzie was finished with her fancy footwork by the stove? I agree with Harry, if it was just an innocent act, why didn't Lizzie make a reply to Alice in any way?

Alice withheld the dress burning incident until December, after the Grand Jury had finished, and presented the testimony at the eleventh hour. Alice had told Hanscomb, the private detective, about the incident. I think Alice could be relied upon to keep quiet, up to a point. She may have been willing to keep quiet for Lizzie's sake as long as she (Alice) was not in jeopardy. Since Hanscomb knew that Alice knew of the dress burning, Alice ran the risk of Hanscomb coming forth with the information which might incriminate her for withholding evidence. Apparently Lizzie was not worth going to jail for, from Alice's perspective. If this is true, it implies Alice's perspective was more legalistic than moralistic in nature. Furthermore, if Lizzie knew Alice's perspective, Lizzie could probably count on Alice to cover for her. Alice did not tell Lizzie to not burn the dress, she told Lizzie to not get caught burning the dress, which absolutely defines a legalistic rather than a moralistic outlook. I think Lizzie thought she could count on Alice to keep quiet. Emma's apparent lack of concern about the dress burning would only tend to foster complacency.

The point about burning the dress in front of witnesses is well taken. If Lizzie could choose two witnesses to the act of burning the dress, Emma and Alice would top the list. They would be the least likely to try to stop her. Lizzie's reaction to Alice's having told Hanscomb of the incident is very telling of the three-way relationship. Lizzie's reaction was "why did you let me do it?". This implies that impulsive behavior on Lizzie's part was tolerated by the two older women, Alice and Emma.

Harry makes a good point about a lack of reply from Lizzie to Alice. That was not the reaction of an innocent person. Furthermore, an innocent person wouldn't have given the authorities the wrong dress to begin with.