Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I do however think that I am going to take a break from posting for awhile. So I might have a lot of catching up to do when I get back. :smile:

I do have one question though, which was something I had originally asked. Did Lizzie do any ironing after Andrew got home, or didn't she? Who seems to be more believable?

I went to the LizzieAndrewBorden site and found what Mrs. Churchill said at the inquest about going to find Abby and here's what she said about going up the stairs:


" I think Bridget went ahead of me. I got half way up the front stairs, I got just far enough so my head was level with the front entry floor. I turned my head to the left, I could see straight across the spare bedroom floor, and at the north side of the bed I saw something that looked like a prostrate form of something. I could not distinguish nothing, the room was not light, it was a little darker, darker than downstairs. It looked more than any mat would be on the floor."


It seems to me that even looking to find Abby, Mrs. Churchill still had a little trouble making out the body. She could see something but she had to really look to see it.

Allen @ Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:02 pm wrote:I do have one question though, which was something I had originally asked. Did Lizzie do any ironing after Andrew got home, or didn't she? Who seems to be more believable?

Bridget at the Preliminary seems pretty definite that she did. Page 22:

"Q. He sat down with a book or a paper near the window in the sitting room?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. In a rocking chair?
A. An easy chair I guess.
Q. Had he then put on his house coat?
A. I could not tell you.
Q. What was you doing then?
A. Started to wash the first window in the dining room.
Q. Had you seen Miss Lizzie about then?
A. No Sir.
Q. How soon did you see Miss Lizzie?
A. I was washing the last window, she came out from the sitting room into the kitchen, and brought in an ironing board.
Q. She came from the sitting room through the dining room?
A. Yes Sir, and she went out in the kitchen, and brought in an ironing board, put it on the dining room table and started to iron.
Q. That was while you was finishing the last window?
A. Yes Sir."

She repeats essentially the same thing at the trial, pages 237-238.

Lizzie at the Inquest said:

"Q. When your father went away, you were ironing then?
A. I had not commenced, but I was getting the little ironing board and the flannel."

Bridget's time for Lizzie ironing would be near 11 while Lizzie's beginning time just after 9. The only way Lizzie could be right is if she took out the ironing board around 9-ish but did little with it till just before 11. She says she went to the barn because the irons were not hot enough and that would have been near 11.

While researching this I could not help but notice Lizzie's confusing inquest testimony about her reading the magazine:

"Q. Will you give me the best story you can, so far as your recollection serves you, of your time while he was gone?
A. I sprinkled my handkerchiefs, and got my ironing board and took them in the dining room. I took the ironing board in the dining room and left the handkerchiefs in the kitchen on the table and whether I ate any cookies or not I don't remember. Then I sat down looking at the magazine, waiting for the flats to heat. Then I went in the sitting room and got the Providence Journal, and took that into the kitchen. I don't recollect of doing anything else.
Q. Which did you read first, the Journal or the magazine?
A. The magazine.
Q. You told me you were reading the magazine when your father came back?
A. I said in the kitchen, yes.
Q. Was that so?
A. Yes, I took the Journal out to read, and had not read it. I had it near me.
Q. You said a minute or two ago you read the magazine awhile, and then went and got the Journal and took it out to read?
A. I did, but I did not read it; I tried my flats then.
Q. And went back to reading the magazine?
A. I took the magazine up again, yes.

No wonder Knowlton died fairly young.

I've found a bit of testimony that could help in trying to figure out when Lizzie had done her ironing.

Alice Russell inquest testimony page 150:

Q. Do you remember of anything that Lizzie said about it, that
remains in your memory?
A.No, I have not asked her but one question all through it.

Q. Will you tell me what that is?
A. Yes, sir, I asked her what she went to the barn to do. She says my
screen and window--- she gave me to understand they did not come
together right, or something,; " I was ironing handkerchiefs, and
my flat iron was not hot, and I thought I would go and get that while
I was waiting."

Q. What did she say she went to get?
A. A piece of tin or iron to fix a screen. I found the handkerchiefs part
ironed, and part damp. I took the damp ones and shook them out.

Q. Did you find the ironing board?
A. I don't remember seeing it.

Q. A little ironing board?
A. I don't remember it.

Alice Russell Trial testimony page 399:

Q. Did you see any handkerchiefs about there?
A. I found some handkerchiefs in the dining room.

Q.Had they been ironed?
A. Some of them.

Q. And some, I infer, had not been from your answer?
A. Yes, sir.

Q.What was the condition of those that had not been ironed?
A. They were sprinkled to iron.

Q. And how many were there all together?
A. I don't know positively.

Q. I am not very particular --- about how many?
A. After hearing about handkerchiefs I tried to remember, and as nearly as I could judge there were four or five ironed and two or three sprinkled to be ironed.

Q. There were some of both?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember what became of them?
A. I took them upstairs and as I took them in Miss Lizzie said, " Oh, yes, those are what I was ironing."

Q. What was done with them?
A. I said, "What shall I do with these? and she said, " Lay them in this drawer," and I took those that were sprinkled and lay them over Miss Emma's towel rack to dry.

Q. When you say they were sprinkled, that is the ordinary process in house-keeping when getting ready to iron?
A. Yes, sir.


Here is some information I found on ironing clothing during the victorian era.

"Virtually all clothing had to be ironed. If you’ve never picked up a flat (or “sad”) iron of the 19th century, next time you see one in an antique store, do try to. I guarantee they are a lot heavier than the iron you use at home! Such irons were set on the kitchen range to heat; several irons were necessary for efficient work, since they cooled fairly quickly. There were also additional, specialty irons; the most popular were used for smoothing out bows and bonnet strings (called tally or Italian irons), for puffy sleeves (called French or mushroom irons), and for making flutes or pleats (called fluting irons).


Later, gas irons were available, which made the task a little less time consuming. In all cases, however, before steam irons were invented, a bowl of water (often scented with lavender) was kept nearby to help get wrinkles out. With the fingers or a clean hand–held whisk broom, water was sprinkled onto the clothes just before an iron was taken to them."


http://www.vintageconnection.net/archiv ... aundry.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------


Tuesday was "Ironing Day". Supplies needed for ironing in the 19th century included a skirt board, a bosom board (for shirtfronts), a sleeve board, an ironing table, a dish of water with a sponge to dampen clothes or to wipe away extra starch, a fluting iron and fluting scissors to properly "finish up" ruffles, a number of flatirons that each weighed between 5 and 8 pounds, and padded-cotton "potholders" to wrap around their hot handles.

The irons were heated on a trivet over the stove fire, and while one iron had cooled down and was in the process of being re-heated, the next could be used. To keep the iron from sticking to fabrics (today they are covered in Teflon), a piece of beeswax held inside a scrap of cloth was rubbed across the iron's hot surface.

Ironing the clothes, sheets, and table linens was a slow, agonizing process. Various fabrics required varying weights of irons, and some required repeated passes over them. For example, lace had to be ironed repeatedly, but embroidery could simply be ironed on the wrong side over flannel. Shirtfronts needed to be ironed on a bosom board, then starched by using a "polishing iron". With the many changes of irons--plus having to re-heat each one in between--and the heavy, bulky fabrics that were used, along with the many changes of boards for each job, Tuesday was a long, hot, strenuous day!

http://www.creationsofyesteryear.com/af ... eping.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Ironing was an unpleasant task that was done after the day's washing. Then, as now, ironing was done to remove the wrinkles from the fabric. Prior to ironing, the garment would be sprinkled with water to make the fibers softer.

The most common type of iron was the flat iron, which was one solid piece of cast iron. It would be heated by placing it on a trivet over the coals of a fire. After heating, it could be used to iron clothes, but a cloth was required to hold the handle because it would be as hot as the rest of the iron.

An ironing cloth was used atop the ironing board so that a smoother surface could be used for ironing, which translated into a smoother surface on the fabric.

http://www.nps.gov/fosc/laundress_info1.htm

------------------------------------------------------------


If Lizzie had dampened the handkerchiefs just prior to ironing them, but did no ironing after Andrew got home, would they still have been damp at the time that Miss Russell found them? I'm taking this to mean the clothes were merely dampened and not soaking wet. How long would it take them to dry? If we could figure this out it might help in discovering who was more accurate in their testimony.

No thank you to the ironing!
I remember sprinkling clothes before steam irons.
My 86 year old neighbor was from upper-class Newton, Mass. and I caught her ironing sheets in the summer- In Florida!
I talked her out of it. She stopped after that- broke a habit of a lifetime!

If we go by Lizzie's assertion about when she began ironing, and when she stopped ironing, would the handkerchiefs have been dry by the time Miss Russell found them? Miss Russell is pretty clear about the fact that they were still damp. That's what I was trying to figure out. Maybe this calls for an experiment. Anybody got any handkerchiefs I can borrow?

I found this neat little page that has to do with the "Days of the Week"


http://godslittleacre.net/spiritualgrowth/wash_day.html

This is a dimly recalled notion from years ago before steam irons -- but I remember my grandmother sprinkling cloths and handkerchiefs and rolling them up so they would stay moist until the ironing was finished.

Perhaps Lizzie did this and the rolled handkerchiefs may have still been slightly damp even if left for an hour or two. That might explain why Alice Russell said she took the damp ones and "shook them out".

Just a thought....

Thanks diana. That's a good point. If the handkerchiefs were rolled up or folded together, they might hold the moisture longer. Your post also gave me an idea, I never thought of asking my grandmother any of these questions. I think she is the only one who won't mind if I ask a million and one questions.

Kat @ Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:29 pm wrote:No thank you to the ironing!
I remember sprinkling clothes before steam irons.
My 86 year old neighbor was from upper-class Newton, Mass. and I caught her ironing sheets in the summer- In Florida!
I talked her out of it. She stopped after that- broke a habit of a lifetime!

I had to laugh.....

There isn't a sheet on any bed in my house that hasn't been pressed!

We have an odd habit... Sheets are put on the bed for 2 days, then flipped top to tail for 2 more days and then changed. They are not pressed when flipped, but the pillow cases are!

If you slept in a bed with pressed sheets and pillow cases, you would want to sleep in them every night afterwards...

(and NO! I am not like Leona Helmsley! I would not ask anyone to get up in the middle of the night to re-press them!)

Someday I am going to have a clothes/linen press!

The Royal Household does something similar.
They turn the sheets over tho.
I don't want my face where my feet used to be!
Of course the Royals have the staff to do stuff like this.

I told my neighbor they had invented cotton-polyester sheets which were wrinkle-resistant.

Well I talked to my grandmother to ask my questions. She said the way it was normally done was to sprinkled a little water on the clothes, just enough to dampen them slightly, and then she'd roll them up and put them all together to sit. She said she normally left hers sit for about an hour, and then she ironed them. She said the items would normally stay damp for quite awhile, but it depended on how damp they were, and whether or not they were rolled up. She said that if all she was doing was handkerchiefs she may not have rolled them up, but everyone does things differently, so that doesn't state that someone else might not have rolled them up.

My grandfather said that his mother had used irons that were neither steam nor electric. She would put them on a bracket on the coal stove to heat them up, and that she normally used two or three at a time so that one was always hot. She would use one at a time and leave the others on the stove, and when she was finished with that one she would put it back on the stove and take another one. In this way she was never waiting for them to heat. I guess that answers my question. I guess it's just a matter of who you find find more believable, Lizzie or Bridget.

I remember reading some people thought that a flat iron could have been the murder weapon. Not me though.

Flat irons were also referred to as 'sad' irons, but not for the reason I would have thought, it was because they were so heavy. Another definition of sad is heavy. I guess it's true that language really changes through the years. Does anyone know there are actually clubs who have members that are into collecting antique irons? They even have meetings and conventions. I've actually become really fascinated with antiques in general lately, not just the kitchen appliances.

More than I ever wanted to know about irons.

http://www.irons.com/

http://www.patented-antiques.com/default.htm

http://pages.videotron.com/valeda/

William had a picture of a wicked flat iron for sleeves.
A lot of correspondents to Knowlton proposed a flat-iron-as-weapon theory.

Thanks for the links, Missy!
That last guy who collects & sells old irons needs a new camera!

Smudgeman @ Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:01 pm wrote:I have often considered the presence of a "visitor", but I have problems with it. It would have to have been a very carefully thought out plan, if Lizzie was merely the helper of the murderer(s). It would have to be someone who knew the family routine, habits, etc., and the layout of the house very well.

I have often thought that when Lizzie said she was in the barn, she was really signaling someone that was either in the barn, or down cellar, or hiding somewhere in the house, or out in the yard? But then you have all these people hanging around outside that never saw anyone leave or enter the Borden house , except for people that would naturally be there, Bridget, Andrew........It must have been a really lucky escape from the murder scene in broad daylight?

I don't believe there was any intruder. Did'nt Andrew come home early because he felt sick? The intruder would have had to known he was coming home earlier. If he had planned to kill both of them he was certainly lucky.

Also,inconsistencies in a suspect's story is a red flag to police. Lizzie had way too many.

And I don't believe Bridget was involved. What would she have had to gain from whacking off Lizzie's parents? Seems to me she did'nt get anything out of it anyway. I'm not quite yet sure about Emma though.

I think Lizzie had planned to kill both her parents. She had planned to first kill her stepmother,then wait for her father to come home and kill him. But to her surprise and maybe to her own benefit,he came home early.

Welcome to the forum Mossy ! Sounds like you have some great knowledge of our beloved passion.

Introduce yourself please and tell us more about you !

Again...welcome !



Tracy...

Yes please tell us a bit about yourself!

And I haven't heard PBR since my bartending days in the late 1970's!!
Brings back memories.

Hi Everybody, Mudslinger here...

Thanks for the welcomes. I'm new to this forum and it looks like a very nice forum. I live in Connecticut,USA but I was born in Massachusettes. I lived very close to Fall River and have been there many times. I have never been to the house though, but I want to go there in the future.

I've always enjoyed the Lizzie Borden story. It's very fasinating because it's a "who done it" story and I like the idea that it takes place in the 1800's with the clothes they wore and their life styles.

What I know about her story comes from the movie starring Elizabeth Montgomery and documentaries. But a couple of weeks ago I came across an old book stashed away in my mother's house and I'm reading it now. It's called "Lizzie," by Evan Hunter. I'm almost finished with it. But I can't compare it because I have'nt read any other books by other authors yet. But I'm planning on reading some. Anybody have any ideas on what other books on her story are really good to read.

Thanks again,
Mudslinger

Kat @ Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:29 am wrote:No thank you to the ironing!
I remember sprinkling clothes before steam irons.
My 86 year old neighbor was from upper-class Newton, Mass. and I caught her ironing sheets in the summer- In Florida!
I talked her out of it. She stopped after that- broke a habit of a lifetime!

While the usual reason to iron is remove wrinkles, there is another and more important reason than just looks. A hot iron will kill nits and eggs from vermin. People in tropical climates should always iron clothes that were left outside to dry. Flies will deposit eggs on them, and when they hatch they will feed on the wearer.

I was told that in Europe the washing machines will first boil water for the wash. That too will kill nits and eggs from insects.

Aren't you glad to learn this?

that's funny. ray wants kat to iron and boil.

what about snakes and frogs, etc.--can they be ironed out?

Coming from Europe.. I can tell you very plainly that none of my clothing would have withstood a boiling.

My neighbor would iron the sheets out of the dryer. They were part linen or something which would really wrinkle- but what you say makes sense about nits etc.
But that might be before dryers.
I hadn't realized until my friend told me- that the drying part of your dishwasher is what kills the germs, not the hot soapy water.

Hey Mossy, how do we know that Andrew came home early and how did it matter? ("maybe to her [Lizzie's] own benefit").
You ask for "other books"- how about source documents you can download at:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Resources ... uments.htm

And the Preliminary Hearing and news items. Rick Geary's book is good.

In the book I'm reading titled "Lizzie" by Evan Hunter, it says he came home early because he was'nt feeling well. I don't know whether that's fact or not though. I need to read other stuff.

Thanks for the link to the downloads. I'm trying to build up my fact sources.

It's been claimed before that Andrew came home early. I don't necessarilly agree, but I wondered how that would affect the murders and be to someone's benefit?

One author thinks Lizzie meant to go out before Andrew came home, which would have saved his hide because I believe that author believes Lizzie Killed Abby?
Was that V. Lincoln?

There's something about the timing of Andrew's arrival home which is probably important...it may have affected whether he lived or died that day?

Those "inconsistencies" occurred over time. The usual rule is those closest in time to the event are correct. Which is why the police try to get statements right after the crime. Time can affect memories.

Lizzie's first words "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father ..." tells everyone who isn't prejudiced that SHE KNEW who did it, but would never tell. Also, her sister & uncle also knew, but also kept quiet.

Lizzie was honest enough to shield the innocent from blame. If somebody says they wouldn't do that, remember you are different from Lizzie. You can never recover the times and morals of that age.

I've been reading the John Douglas book, and some things came to mind. How could Lizzie say she thought she heard Abby come home when she had been out in the barn and couldn't have heard anyone in the house? She told her father right after he came home that Abby was out. Then, right after her father lied down, Lizzie left for the barn. And then, after everyone was in the house after the murders, Lizzie told people to go look for Abby upstairs. Lizzie must have designated for them to look up the front stairs, or they probably would have gone up the back where Abby's room was. Why, if Lizzie was innocent, would she assume that an alive Abby was up the front stairs when she had no reason to go there- the cleaning of the front upper room had already been taken care of 2 hours earlier.

If a disorganized offender was waiting in a closet for Andrew to come home for over an hour it seems there had to have been some blood left somewhere in it.

Douglas brought up a good point about the professional contract killing theory. If someone hired one to do it and the killer did not make it look like a botched robbery, then what was the point, because it would just have the crime scene and circumstantial evidence point back to Lizzie.

If Bridget had done it, it would have been more dangerous leaving Lizzie alive than Andrew. And looking at the way Bridget handled things emotionally, it seems that if she was guilty of something she would have easily folded under the scrutiny and third degree from the police.

Another thought just popped into my head. Maybe when Bridget didn't leave to go to the fabric sale she could have sealed her own doom, until she unknowingly saved her own life by deciding to go to the top floor to nap, thus getting out of the way of Lizzie.

Lizzie must have designated for them to look up the front stairs, or they probably would have gone up the back where Abby's room was. Why, if Lizzie was innocent, would she assume that an alive Abby was up the front stairs when she had no reason to go there- the cleaning of the front upper room had already been taken care of 2 hours earlier.

--Angel

Dr. Bowen had asked for a sheet to cover Andrew and Bridget went up the back stairs to get it- so she and Mrs. Churchill had already been up in Mrs. Borden's room and could probably see that she wasn't there. They had to have the key to go there. Tho now I think about it, Abby could have been dead on the floor on the far side of the marital bed? We don't know if they *looked*.

But we notice these two didn't go look in the parlour or the cellar or the dress closet, or Lizzie's room. I suppose they didn't look anywhere up the front stairs other than the guest room because Abby could be seen from the steps, and the guest room was unlocked- whereas all the other doors were locked.

(Was the cellar locked or not? Sawyer threw the bolt, but it might have been locked already?)

Angel @ Wed May 03, 2006 1:28 pm wrote:I've been reading the John Douglas book ....

DON'T DO IT!! That is entertainment, not a serious look at the case.
David Kent's book is the only one to read (for a start).

Angel @ Wed May 03, 2006 1:28 pm wrote:I've been reading the John Douglas book, and some things came to mind.
...
Another thought just popped into my head. Maybe when Bridget didn't leave to go to the fabric sale she could have sealed her own doom, until she unknowingly saved her own life by deciding to go to the top floor to nap, thus getting out of the way of Lizzie.

The purpose was to get Bridget out of the house so a private meeting could be held. If she hadn't gone upstairs to rest (common enough after washing the windows?), they would have sent her out on an errand.
Note how Lizzie sent Bridget over to get Alice Russell?

[quote="RayS @ Thu May 04, 2006 7:02 pm"]
"The purpose was to get Bridget out of the house so a private meeting could be held. "



And you are going to prove this how?

Angel @ Fri May 05, 2006 10:54 am wrote:

RayS @ Thu May 04, 2006 7:02 pm wrote: "The purpose was to get Bridget out of the house so a private meeting could be held. "

And you are going to prove this how?

WHAT kind of "proof" would you require? Please be specific if you want me to reply. Its easier to ask than to list the details.

Is it the same kind of proof used by others ("Lubinsky was involved")?

Ray's logic is proof enough. "The proof is in the pudding" and the pudding that Brown cooks is too good to be dismissed. With Bridget busy, and Abby "out" the father-son meeting may proceed. As with any plan, things go wrong. Abby didn't leave fast enough after getting her "note" and became a casualty. Having killed already Bill would have been in an agitated state before any discussion with Andrew, and not getting the right answers could provoke a repeat attack. MMMMM good pudding!