The Rag Bag

[augusta]

I had thought that Lizzie's attorneys at her trial objected to questions being asked about what the household did with old material (i.e., old blue dresses), and if they had a rag bag. (Trial, Koorey/Widdows edition/pages 1418 - 1419 (new page numbers.)

Reading thru some of Emma's testimony this afternoon, I was surprised to see that the defense was questioning Emma and asking her several times about it, and Knowlton kept objecting until it was dropped.

Why would Knowlton not want that answered? Did he have a plan for that question later on? Did he not want something positive to be testified to about the case?

I hadn't realized that Emma described the dress as that light blue one with the dark blue diamond shapes on it - just what one of the witnesses that morning (Mrs. Churchill?) described as Lizzie having on that morning before she changed.
From the Trial, Koorey/Widdows edition, new page 1413/old page 1537-1538:

Q: (by defense) Now, then, Miss Emma, I will ask you if you know of a Bedford Cord dress which your sister had at that time? (* at the time the house was searched on Saturday, August 6)
A: I do.
Q: Won't you describe the dress, tell what kind of a dress it was?
A: It was a blue cotton Bedford Cord, very light blue ground with a darker figure about an inch long and I think about three quarters of an inch wide.

* = my words

There is too much to type for its summary, which is that she supposedly got paint all over it and it was supposedly hanging on a nail on Sunday - the day after the cops searched extensively - and that Lizzie burned it in the kitchen stove. If you don't have a copy of the trial, I think there's a copy on this website. As I recall the paint happened to be a dark brown, the color of dried blood (unless I am not recalling right, which is quite possible ).

[Yooper]

That's pretty much standard procedure in a courtroom, what is "usually" done is not pertinent to a case, only what is specifically done is considered. I think that's why Knowlton would have objected successfully each time. What the household ordinarily or customarily did with old clothing has nothing to do with what was done with this specific piece of clothing.

[Allen]

I agree. What is usually done has no bearing on the case. It doesn't mean it is what was done in that particular occurrence. There are several instances during questioning, especially during Bridget's trial testimony, where it was stated out right "I didn't ask what is usually done, I ask what you did that day." or words to that effect. I think Knowlton was also trying to block it from being inferred that they burned the rags instead of putting them in a rag bag.I think it would have been more compelling if a rag bag from the home could have been produced. The same argument could be made however, that it had no bearing on why Lizzie burned the dress.

[LouManDude]

Hello folks. My first time here, though I've enjoyed viewing your thoughts, theories and insights. Per the topic, I have always been interested why the kitchen stove itself wasn't inspected closer or was it? When Dr. Bowen was described in testimony, as burning several small scraps of paper, that the officer (?) noticed what appeared to be ashes from another burnt paper... said to look as though it was rolled up. I believe the stove was used to discard most unwanted flammable materials, while non flammable items were typically discarded outside or in the barn privy.

Per the legal discussion above (not being able to ask about typical instances of discarding an unwanted dress by burning it in the stove), were the questions put to emma as "had lizzie burnt other dresses in the stove prior to this instance"? Would that have been allowed. I understand Knowlton not wanting to allow this line of questioning, as it would have shown a habit of discarding old clothes / rags.

Your thoughts?

[augusta]

Ah... Thanks Yooper and Allen. I didn't know that.

Welcome, LouManDude!

It would seem like the question being put as "Has Lizzie ever burned a dress before?" would be okay. But you could take it as "It doesn't matter what Lizzie did before. What did she do that Sunday morning?" Yes? No?

Knowlton and other prosecutors or cops talked to Bridget before the trial. Maybe Knowlton already knew the answer. It's said on Court TV a lot that never ask a witness a question that you don't already know the answer to.

I think Emma answered that question anyway. I'll look it up and post later.

I would think households back then kept a rag bag. My mother did. I always did. I have old towels and t-shirts and washcloths in mine. Not an 8 - 10 yard dress, tho. That might have been a bit much to hack up, and it was testified that that Bedford cord was real cheap material, soiled and good for nothing.

The only thing I remember about the kitchen stove being checked out on the Murder Morn was a cop caught the name "Emma" written on something Dr. Bowen was burning on one of the torn pieces of paper and asked Bowen what it was. Dr. Bowen replied, "It is nothing," and I think said it was something about his own daughter. I think the cop just let it go.

The round, cylinder thing that was seen in the stove some think was the rest of the broken off axe handle of "the hoodoo hatchet" that was an exhibit in court thought to be by the prosecution as the weapon used. Some think it was something important - papers - of Andrew's.

A lot of things got ignored that day. It was a huge shock. The cops looked dumb, but I don't think they had any real kind of procedure to follow for a crime of this type. A lot of the cops were out at Rocky Point for a clam bake. There really were a lot of different people, doctors included, who just walked in and walked around, contaminating evidence. I think it was only after 1 pm that a cop was posted at the door and told not to allow anybody in. Then there were "me and Brownie" out in the barn, too. This was a huge thing - in broad daylight, upstanding citizens, locked doors ... I don't think today the murderer would have gotten away with it.

[Yooper]

Welcome to the forum, LouManDude!
I don't think it matters how the question is phrased, anything to do with prior behavior would not be allowed. It tends to relegate the dress in question to the status of all the other dresses previously owned, it implies the dress in question is not unique. People have free will, they are not obliged to behave in the same way every time, and it can not be considered remarkable if a pattern is changed, only unusual. I guess it may also tend to put the individual in the position to have to explain their actions, and it shouldn't be necessary to prove innocence under the law, that much is assumed until proven otherwise. It is up to the jury to determine if actions are reasonable under a given set of circumstances.

In the case of the Bedford cord dress, at first glance it may seem reasonable to burn it if Lizzie wanted to be absolutely rid of it. That's probably the most effective way to do that. The real question is why. If there was no incriminating evidence on the dress, it would be further proof of innocence, one more garment without blood on it. It makes more sense to lock the dress up than to burn it, especially if she wore it the day of the murders. At the time it was burned Lizzie was aware she was suspected and she didn't know who could identify the dress she wore the morning of the murders. She didn't know there would be any inconsistency among the witnesses about what she wore that day. My best guess is that she wore the Bedford cord dress during the murders and burned it because she was suspected of the crime. She had to assume that someone would be able to positively identify the dress as the one worn, and that made it necessary to reduce it to ashes and play dumb afterwards.

Alice Russell cautioned Lizzie during the burning, but she didn't tell Lizzie to not do it, she cautioned Lizzie to not be seen doing it. Alice was aware that burning the dress was wrong. Lizzie responded to the warning by stepping back or to the side, somewhere she would be less easily seen. Lizzie did not ask why it might be wrong to burn the dress or why it was necessary to not be seen doing it, and she did not stop burning the dress! If Lizzie was unaware that her actions at the time were unusual and incriminating, she would have asked why such a seemingly simple thing should not be seen. Why should she not be seen performing such a common and ordinary task?

[LouManDude]

Thank you Yooper and Augusta. I've always had an interest in this case, though more so recently. So, it is nice to be able to share opinions and theories with others.

Personally, I believe LIzzie deliberately tried to create confusion throughout the investigation. Changing stories, changing dresses and subtly directing many of the events. All, while being doted upon and cared for by her closest friends and neighbors. When you think about it, the first persons that she had Bridget contact were not the police, but Dr. Bowen and Miss Russell. I'm not really sure the dress burning was even that relevant, other than to possibly throw more confusion into the mix. That action alone, just raises too many questions. Did she burn it because it was bloodstained or just soiled with dirt and paint as she and Emma stated? If it was bloodstained, why didn't the police find it during two days of inspections. Why would she burn that dress so casually in front of witnesses and with police just outside. I think dear Lizzie knew exactly what she was doing! ;)

Just my thoughts. Thank you again for the welcome. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

[Yooper]

I expect Lizzie had to dispose of the dress before she was taken to jail. She may have burned it at the first opportunity, regardless of Alice and Emma being present. There was also a Pinkerton detective in the house at the time, a man named Hanscomb, who had been hired by Lizzie and Emma. I expect it was less of a risk to burn the dress during the day than in the middle of the night with the police watching the house. The way I look at it, if the dress actually had anything incriminating on it, or if Lizzie feared it might have, she had to burn it right away. The longer it remained intact, the larger the risk it might be used against her. It had been successfully hidden until that time, but there was no guarantee it would remain undetected. Once it was disposed of, and regardless of who watched her burn it, there was no longer hard evidence, only one person's word against another. It was clearly effective, we are still wondering about it! Lizzie probably thought it was worth the risk because she didn't know if or when they might come for her. Again, there didn't actually have to be any blood on the dress to cause concern, only the fear that there might be.

Lizzie likely considered Emma and Alice to be allies. Alice knew it was wrong to burn the dress so she cautioned Lizzie to not be seen doing it. Alice also kept quiet about it until the grand jury was nearly finished. The grand jury had been sitting on the fence until Alice came forward with the information.

Some of the women on the forum have suggested the dress might have been hidden under another dress on the same hanger. I have to admit, I would never have thought to look for it there! Wherever it was hidden, the police didn't find it. I'm sure that if they had come across a dress with paint stains which might have resembled blood, they would have called it to question.

In my opinion, there was absolutely no good reason to burn the dress if Lizzie was innocent. There are very good reasons to preserve it, but only if there was nothing incriminating on it. If it was in the way in a crowded closet, I can think of another bedroom and closet which wouldn't be needed any time soon.