Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I know Alice Russell has been talked about a number of times on this board but there's still something I just don't understand about this woman. I was reading parts of the inquest testimony and two things stuck out for me:

1. I think it was Mrs. Churchill who talked about how Alice and Lizzie were sitting on a rocking chair and Lizzie had her head on her shoulder. So, it sounds like Alice was physically close enough to Lizzie to be able to spot any blood on her. And of course she didn't.


2. Alice in her inquest testimony talked about being in and out of Lizzie's room. From the sound of it, it doesn't sound like she was knocking first then going in but rather just walking in. At one point Alice said she walked into the room and "Lizzie was fastening a pink wrapper on." Alice was asked if Lizzie changed her shoes and stockings and Alice said no, because, " I was not out of the room long enough." Well, could it also be she wasn't out of the room long enough for Lizzie to completely switch dresses too? Doesn't sound like Lizzie would have had time to change her dress and hide it. Especially since Alice is just walking in and out on her.


So, with all of that in mind why would Alice be so hung up on that dress Lizzie burned? She saw Lizzie that day. No blood. She saw Lizzie changing clothes. Nothing strange to her. She saw Lizzie burning the dress but Lizzie didn't seem to be trying to hide that fact.

Wonder if either Emma or Lizzie ever spoke to Alice again?

I think she burned the dress in front of witnesses because it would be more suspicious if she had burned it and didn't tell anyone. Emma was aware of the dress. The dress maker who made the dress was aware of the dress. She may have thought Bridget would remember the dress. She did continue to wear it even after it was supposedly paint stained. If it suddenly disappeared after the murders when everyone was speculating on Lizzie's possible blood stained clothing and where it could be found, and whether or not she changed her clothes after the crime, that would've looked even more suspicious in my opinion. I think she burned it in front of Alice and Emma as a gesture of saying "I'm finally burning this old thing up because it's paint stained and dirty and nothing more.” I'm not surprised the police found it a damning bit of evidence. Paint stained or not, the dress could still be worn during the commission of the crime.

I've always wondered about the blood on Lizzie, or the lack of it, myself. I think a handkerchief worn over the hair, in much the same way it was worn to keep dust out of the hair while cleaning, would've kept most of the blood from Lizzie's hair. As for the dress, she could've put Andrew's coat on backwards, worn a gossamer, an apron, there are many ways she could've kept from getting blood spatter on her clothes for the SECOND murder. She had plenty of time to change clothes after the first. And after the first murder when she had become more aware of the factor of blood spatter, having experienced it, I would think she would be more careful about it the second time. She had plenty of time between he first killing and the second to ponder solutions to that problem as well.

I have often wondered about the lack of blood on Lizzie as well. However, I followed a murder trial on court tv where a 16 year old girl murdered her parents with a high powered rifle, and blood splatter and brain matter was everywhere except on the accused 16 year old girl. She was pristine except for a small dot caught under her fingernail where she explained away she had a nose bleed that day. She was tried and convicted of murder, and wore her bathrobe backwards and a shower cap to kill her parents. The clothing articles were found in the trash can, and she probably showered sometime afterwards, because blood was found in the shower drain. I think Lizzie was planning this for some time, so she probably had the common sense to know that it was going to be messy. Oh yeah, the 16 year old girl also wore rubber gloves that were found in the trash as to leave no fingerprints. Lizzie didn't have to worry about fingerprints. I keep thinking that maybe another article of clothing was underneath the dress she so boldy burned, you know, the one "everyone" knew was paint stained. That would make an easy way to get rid of other blood stained items.

(The dress Alice saw Lizzie wearing on Thursday was not the same dress as the dress Lizzie burned).
Otherwise, yes, they sat very close and Alice saw nothing unusual.

I was under the impression that when Lizzie changed her clothes to the pink wrapper, she did not or had not time, to change her shoes and stockings.

I keep reading- everywhere early in the case- that there was a real lack of blood. No big splashes, no trails of blood, no drips from a weapon, no bloody footprints.
HOW does one not leave bloody footprints?

Well I would think that if they didn't get any blood on their shoes it may not have left foot prints?

I think if the murderer stood in one spot while doing the hacking, there would be no blood spatters under foot. And, it probably took awhile before the blood pooled and saturated the carpets under Andrew and Abby. When the killer walked away from the bodies, they may have tracked some small blood spatters underfoot. But, I don't think those would have carried too far, nor completely have covered the bottoms of their shoes. Too bad they didn't have Luminol to use at the time, there may have been some indication of where the killer walked after each murder.

Wasn't one of the carpets red or maroon in color? I'm seem to recall that one of them was, if so, would blood show up as much?

What I have read is they looked very closely- as you or I would- to find any tracks at all- and there were none.
It was testified to as an expert opinion that the lower body of Abby's assailant would have blood.
I'm talking about actually washing the feet or wiping the shoes before leaving that scene. The person would have to have done that.
Unless their feet were off the floor- like they were lying on the bed.
Maybe they used that silk handkerchief?

Kat @ Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:36 am wrote:What I have read is they looked very closely- as you or I would- to find any tracks at all- and there were none.
It was testified to as an expert opinion that the lower body of Abby's assailant would have blood.
I'm talking about actually washing the feet or wiping the shoes before leaving that scene. The person would have to have done that.
Unless their feet were off the floor- like they were lying on the bed.
Maybe they used that silk handkerchief?

Even if they took the time to wipe their shoes or wash their feet, if they had blood on them they would've left prints before they had time to clean up, or on their way to clean up. Unless they brought the cleaning impliments with them along with the axe. What I'm thinking is, the killer could've been able to keep their shoes from getting any blood on them because the killer wore a floor length dress. There was very little blood on the carpeting except around the bodies themselves.Just avoid the problem areas.

Or maybe the killer did not wear any shoes. Any blood could be wiped off the feet quickly with the hem of the dress or the hankerchief.

I was looking at some posts in the archives and also Alice Russell's testimony. Now, it's been discussed about Alice and Lizzie making a trip to the cellar around 8pm and a little later Lizzie going to the cellar on her own. The reason being that Lizzie had to empty the slop/toliet pail. I was under the impression that the slop pail was something Lizzie would use during the night and then in the morning she would empty it. Matter of fact I think the day of the murder that's what Bridget said Lizzie did. I thought during the day people would use the water closet. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the water closet had a toliet in it and that's what they used during the day. Anyway. My question is why would Lizzie empty the pail around eight? Would she have even used it during the day?

Lizzie did burn a dress.
And Lizzie was not so stupid as to think that burning a dress in front of witnesses would not arouse more suspicion upon her. Read all the books you want and see what they say about the dress burning - almost nothing.
I'll tell squthmann all about the dress burning in pm and he can tell you about it.

DWilly is thinking!

DWilly @ Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:27 pm wrote:I was looking at some posts in the archives and also Alice Russell's testimony. Now, it's been discussed about Alice and Lizzie making a trip to the cellar around 8pm and a little later Lizzie going to the cellar on her own. The reason being that Lizzie had to empty the slop/toliet pail. I was under the impression that the slop pail was something Lizzie would use during the night and then in the morning she would empty it. Matter of fact I think the day of the murder that's what Bridget said Lizzie did. I thought during the day people would use the water closet. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the water closet had a toliet in it and that's what they used during the day. Anyway. My question is why would Lizzie empty the pail around eight? Would she have even used it during the day?

After a certain point in the day, Lizzie retired to her room and stayed there. When her door was locked might be a time when she was using her toilet pail. She would have to empty it for her possible upcoming night time use, wouldn't she? She doesn't let Alice carry it, but she does make an extra trip to the cellar after that, for no reason that we know of.
The cellar was full of men all day, too.
Wasn't it more like 9 pm? After dark?