Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I just found this forum and have been reading for about the last hour or so. I have Not read all the posts So if these questions has been beaten to death - I apologize in advance.

1) Why did Lizzie burn the dress when there were so many people in the kitchen? We have Emma, Ms Russell and Bridget all in the "area". If Lizzie was trying to Hide The Burning - why not do it when Nobody is around?
a) Because she had nothing to hide - it really was a paint spattered dress?
b) She wanted witnesses for some reason?
c) "They" all knew about the dress before the burning?

The above isn't a "poll" just some thoughts or questions.

2) Why kill Abby soo much earlier than "father"? Mr Borden was home early that day (because of the heat or his illness) and who knew that he either would be early OR was surprised by his early arrival?
It doesn't make any sense to me to wait 2 hours between killings. Why not wait to kill Abby?

3) What is the real obsession with locks? Okay - Abby wanted to "punish" Lizzie for stealing from her (proven?) And Father placed a key on the mantel (defiance of Abby?) Why lock ALL the doors in an era when Nobody locked doors? Why 3 Locks when one would do perfectly well? (On the master bedroom door).

4) Why were there NO footprints leading away from a "bloody" scene? I have read that it was probably the first 'blunt' blow that killed Abby - and so there wouldn't be alot of blood after death. But there were spatters and the thought is that blood would have 'spattered' on the murderer "from the waist down".
a) Long dress/skirt covered the shoes - keeping them 'clean'?
b) Abby was on the bed or fell onto the bed first- so blood would have been Higher on the murderer's body?
c) Why 'blunt' first if you are using an axe?

I find this all soo facinating and the more I read the more questions I come up with.

Thanks for any and all replies!

mappam @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:07 pm wrote:I just found this forum and have been reading for about the last hour or so. I have Not read all the posts So if these questions has been beaten to death - I apologize in advance.

1) Why did Lizzie burn the dress when there were so many people in the kitchen? We have Emma, Ms Russell and Bridget all in the "area". If Lizzie was trying to Hide The Burning - why not do it when Nobody is around?
a) Because she had nothing to hide - it really was a paint spattered dress?
b) She wanted witnesses for some reason?
c) "They" all knew about the dress before the burning?

The above isn't a "poll" just some thoughts or questions.

2) Why kill Abby soo much earlier than "father"? Mr Borden was home early that day (because of the heat or his illness) and who knew that he either would be early OR was surprised by his early arrival?
It doesn't make any sense to me to wait 2 hours between killings. Why not wait to kill Abby?

3) What is the real obsession with locks? Okay - Abby wanted to "punish" Lizzie for stealing from her (proven?) And Father placed a key on the mantel (defiance of Abby?) Why lock ALL the doors in an era when Nobody locked doors? Why 3 Locks when one would do perfectly well? (On the master bedroom door).

4) Why were there NO footprints leading away from a "bloody" scene? I have read that it was probably the first 'blunt' blow that killed Abby - and so there wouldn't be alot of blood after death. But there were spatters and the thought is that blood would have 'spattered' on the murderer "from the waist down".
a) Long dress/skirt covered the shoes - keeping them 'clean'?
b) Abby was on the bed or fell onto the bed first- so blood would have been Higher on the murderer's body?
c) Why 'blunt' first if you are using an axe?

I find this all soo facinating and the more I read the more questions I come up with.

Thanks for any and all replies!

Those are all very good questions. Welcome to the forum by the way! It's always good to get new members.

My opinion about why Abby was killed while Andrew was away from the house is that it would be easier and safer for the killer to do things this way. Lizzie was the killer in my opinion. It would present less problems. Even if Andrew did come home early, this still left a window of time for the killer to commit the deed with no one to interrupt. She was just one person, about my size. So if she goes up and begins wacking away at Abby with the hatchet , what if Andrew hears something and comes in? Can she take down two people at one time with one weapon? Can one of them get away? Would if be possible for the the weapon to be wrested from the killers grip when it's then two against one? I think the killer just felt safer with killing them one by one. She was alone in the house with Abby, no worry about interruptions. She was alone with Andrew. Though Bridget went upstairs for a nap, there was still that window of opportunity to kill Andrew without interruptions.

Lizzie's dress-burning took place between police searches, so I believe she was forced to get rid of it that very morning, and behave as though she were about to perform some regular household chore instead of a wildly out-of-character event. I think that's why Lizzie's defense team treated this dangerous act (Alice's admission of having witnessed it made them re-convene the Grand Jury) the same way, normalizing it by having Emma stretch the truth and say she herself had prompted Lizzie to get rid of the nasty, ruined dress, that "faded" and "soiled" dress, made just months earlier, and still in use as morning and housewear. Look at it this way. Lizzie stained the dress with paint soon after it was made, but in that household, she'd wear it while doing her housework, such as it was, or use it as a housedress. Would she be in the habit, then, of burning a dress which could be torn apart for use as rags and patches?

Years later Alice Russell would tell her sewing pupils that it was at that moment that she realized that Lizzie was, indeed, involved in the crimes.

Welcome!

Thanks Bob and Allen for the replies and the welcome.

I still find it 'odd' that Lizzie would 'choose' to burn the dress when so many people were around. It would have been easy to burn in during the night time hours (the stove would still be hot or could be rekindled) and nobody would have even noticed. Why draw attention to the burning?

Welcome aboard mappam. The ship leaves in about 20 minutes...

I think that if Lizzie had been caught late at night sneaking around the stove burning a dress it would have made her look guilty as sin. However, by burning it in broad daylight in front of witnesses Lizzie was saying "It's only a paint covered dress, what's the big deal?" After all a killer would never burn evidence in front of witnesses. So Lizzie, by burning the dress when she did she was making the statement that the dress was not evidence. When Lizzie said, "Why didn't you stop me" she was in fact saying "Oh, some people might actually think I was burning evidence. Oh gosh, I didn't think of that. How stupid of me!"

I doubt Abby was ever on the bed. The blunt marks on Abby's face have me confused. They could have been caused by the poll end of a hatchet. Perhaps the killer intended to beat Abby to death but once Abby was face down on the carpet the killer turned the hatchet around and used the blade. Almost all of the cut wounds are very shallow, several not even entering the skull. These were very light blows. Notice there was evidently no blunt marks on Andrews face. Perhaps by then the killer decided to use just the sharp end of the hatchet.

There are a lot of interesting things in this case. It's a major paradox.

Again, welcome aboard.

-1bigsteve (o:

Hi mappam!

In question 1 it's asked why was Bridget there at the dress-burning. I bring this up particulary because really it was the very first day that Bridget was not there that the dress-burning took place.
Somehow that's important.
It's still important that Emma and Alice were there, yes.
But Bridget was gone. That's a good question for why wait until Bridget was gone?

In the arguments at the trial, I believe it was tried to be shown that the burning of the dress was sort of an innocent act on Lizzie's part. It was tried to prove by the dressmaker that Lizzie actually burned the housewrapper she wore once her new clothes were made back in the Spring, rather than save the dress for rags.

I don't think they answered that question very well- the defense.

As for Andrew coming home early- may I ask what you have read before you came here? Any books that gave you that info?
We have not ascertained that Andrew was *early*.
In fact, Andrew might possibly have not intended to go downtown at all that day (due as you say to his illness). But Lizzie gave him a letter to mail around the time he said he didn't know if he would go out- which almost insured he went out. So it seems like he was intended to be out of the way for a while.
Why? I don't know.

As for locks: how many locks were on the connecting bedroom door between Andrew and Lizzie?

A first "blunt" blow didn't kill Abby. I mean, the facial contusions (by possible blunt object) didn't kill her. And there was a large pool of blood. And yes there should have been tracks.

I agree that burning a dress at night would be more suspicious because there were police outside wide awake. They would have smelled something burning in the August night.
I wonder what they would have done? Arrested her on the spot? Send a runner to Hilliard and ask him what they should do? That's an interesting question in itself.

Also, bigsteve is right- Abby wasn't on the bed. Who are you reading?

As for "shallow wounds"- they were not called that- they were described as incised, or penetrating into the skull, or penetrating into the skull and the brain, or crushing. (The crushing was like an accumulation of blows which caved in a section of skull into the brain where the brain then could obtrude).

ooops- I hit the "back" button too many times.

I think that Lizzie made a very bad judgment call in thinking that if she burned the dress in plain view of others in broad daylight it would look like an innocent task of getting rid of a paint ruined dress. Instead it backfired, and people went the other way in viewing it as a guilty act. And I always thought Emma's remark "yes, why don't you burn it?"was too contrived.

Undoubtedly the visit the previous evening of Mayor Coughlin and Marshal Hilliard advising her she was suspected shook her up. The time to get rid of any evidence was growing shorter and since she couldn't leave the house ....

Since it was so open and so brazen she may have thought that that would lessen its impact. No such luck. Instead it turned Alice Russell into a prosecution witness and gave them one of the strongest pieces of evidence against her.

It's a good question though about why she did it after Bridget had left. Did she trust that Alice would never say anything and fear that Bridget would?

Welcome mappam!

Thank you for the welcome.

I am going from memory (granted that is sometimes a little fuzzy LOL) but have read about everything I can find. Mixed ideas and speculations as well as court records.

I Know that Abby was not on the bed, but beside it on the floor. I "picture" it as = Abby was in the guest room making the bed and cleaning it because of John's visit - Someone came in and hit her with the Blunt end of an axe.

Where was the first blow located? Back of the head? I don't remember reading this fact.

There were NO defensive wounds - arms or hands - to indicate that she ever held up her arms to ward off a blow. So the first hit probably came while she was turned away from the attacker. This knocked her to the floor (straight down or hitting the edge of the bed first??). Then the killer wanted to make sure she was dead and turned the axe around so the sharp edge did the rest of the 'damage'.

So either Abby knew her attacker or someone snuck in and she didn't turn to see who it was. More than likely she may have turned then turned back again - with her back to the attacker - indicating she knew the person.

She was on the Far Side of the bed - farthest away from the door - so who ever attacked her had to walk all the way around the bed to hit her. Again this tells me she knew the attacker.

It also tells me that this was a "planned" attack - people don't usually walk around a bedroom with an axe

If I remember Abby's head was toward the "head of the bed" wall - with her feet pointing toward where the attacker would have been standing. Isn't this kind of hard to "straddle" her and hit her over and over again? And there was not that much room between the bed and the side wall so the blows would have had to be more in a "up/down" angle than side to side swing? Just like chopping a log vs a tree.

Also - whoever it was had pretty good aim. Both with Abby and Father - all the wounds were in the same general location = head. If someone is swinging wildly wouldn't more wounds have been on the shoulders and back?

So if someone had to straddle Abby - again - where were the footprints from the spatters? Did anyone ever look at Lizzie's shoes for blood? In a long dress/skirt when you bend forward the cloth would cover the shoes - but it seems to me that "some" blood would have been on shoes?

Any why an axe and not a kitchen cleaver or knife? Did the killer "know" that the blunt end of an axe would leave LESS blood? (on them). And why not just push Abby down the stairs or "accidently" set her on fire?

mappam @ Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:15 am wrote:
So if someone had to straddle Abby - again - where were the footprints from the spatters? Did anyone ever look at Lizzie's shoes for blood? In a long dress/skirt when you bend forward the cloth would cover the shoes - but it seems to me that "some" blood would have been on shoes?

Kat Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:00 am Post subject:

And there was a large pool of blood. And yes there should have been tracks.

I can't say that I agreed there should've been footprints. The only real 'pool of blood' at Abby's crime scene was around her head, and beneath her body on the front of her dress it was pretty bloody. But we can't even see the blood on the dress in the pictures. If we can't see it, then how could there have been a way for the killer to get it on their shoes? Did they slide their feet under Abby's body during the killing? I think if the killer straddled her it depends on where the feet actually were for their feet to get bloody enough to leave footprints. Maybe the killer didnt straddle her at all. In order not to leave footprints all she had to do was not have blood on her feet. This is entirely possible. There weren't pools of blood everywhere. In Andrew's crime scene the only pool of blood was directly below his head, and I'm guessing that took a little time to form there, it didn't happen right away. Whatever the reason, there were not footprints. But there was a killer there that day.

When I see the size of the carpet piece removed from where Abby's body lay, which was removed as blood evidence, I think there was more blood than we can see in the photo.
Of course, I mean we don't see the piece of rug- but we see the vacant area which was no longer covered in rug.

Tracks were expected at the scene of Abby's murder, I believe, and tracks were looked for but none found. I don't know why.

I have always thought that Abby was the primary target and Andrew's murder was a crime of "convenience". If Lizzie committed the murders, her focus was on Abby because she had no way to determine when anyone else would show up or in what sequence. When everyone else was out of the house would have been the perfect opportunity. I also think Abby may have been in a kneeling position when she was first struck.

Kat @ Sat Apr 01, 2006 1:01 am wrote:When I see the size of the carpet piece removed from where Abby's body lay, which was removed as blood evidence, I think there was more blood than we can see in the photo.
Of course, I mean we don't see the piece of rug- but we see the vacant area which was no longer covered in rug.

Tracks were expected at the scene of Abby's murder, I believe, and tracks were looked for but none found. I don't know why.

Unless shoes were put on after Abby was murdered right there at the scene of the slaughter.....

The inside of the shoes would be bloody-- but no one would see that.

Lincoln reported a mysterious bundle in Emma's closet.... She speculated that shoes were amongst the contents...

The killer could have even used a pair of slippers or mules.

It sort of shoots Brown's theory out of the water (yet again)!!

A crazed Billy hacks Abby to death in a fit of rage and doesn't get his feet 'wet'? HA!

A woman's skirt could have protected her shoes... But not a man's trousers.

Straddling would be difficult in a full skirt-- but not impossible. Wouldn't the hem of the skirt get soiled and possibly drag the floor?

Maybe Lizzie had to burn the dress while Bridget was away, because Bridget knew that Lizzie wore that dress when she went out to the barn, or when she was doing chores around the house that might get her clothing soiled, not that I think Lizzie did many chores :)
Or, Bridget knew Lizzie NEVER wore that dress again after it was stained with paint, and would ask why now? Or perhaps, she once mentioned to Bridget she was planning on cutting it up for rags, and Bridget would be suspicious of her sudden change of plans. Or, maybe Lizzie wore a slip to murder the old folks, and burned it along with the old dress? So many possibilities!

Regarding the question about the locks, the only people who knew of the key's location were family members, so any subsequent missing items would be at the hands of a family member assuming the room wasn't broken into in an obvious manner.

Unless shoes were put on after Abby was murdered right there at the scene of the slaughter.....

--Audrey

You know, reading this sentence has me realizing that there is no blood on the bottom of Abby's shoes.

mappam @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:08 pm wrote:Thanks Bob and Allen for the replies and the welcome.

I still find it 'odd' that Lizzie would 'choose' to burn the dress when so many people were around. It would have been easy to burn in during the night time hours (the stove would still be hot or could be rekindled) and nobody would have even noticed. Why draw attention to the burning?

Perhaps the best explanation was that it was innocent at the time, but only acquired an evil intent after the fact.

Kat @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:54 am wrote:

Unless shoes were put on after Abby was murdered right there at the scene of the slaughter.....

--Audrey

You know, reading this sentence has me realizing that there is no blood on the bottom of Abby's shoes.

Unless we just can't see it in the picture, black and white might not be the best thing to show blood. But I don't find it all that odd that there isn't any blood on her shoes. The bottoms of Nicole Simpsons feet were completely clean and free from blood also, though she was obviously lying in a large pool of it, and she was in her bare feet. I think all that indicates is that there wasn't much of a struggle, that Abby hit the floor pretty quickly, so she didn't have any time to walk through any blood.

Exactly. It tells us something that her shoes are clean.
The soles of her shoes, as we see them.

Allen @ Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:30 pm wrote:

Kat @ Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:54 am wrote:

Unless shoes were put on after Abby was murdered right there at the scene of the slaughter.....

--Audrey

You know, reading this sentence has me realizing that there is no blood on the bottom of Abby's shoes.

Unless we just can't see it in the picture, black and white might not be the best thing to show blood. But I don't find it all that odd that there isn't any blood on her shoes. The bottoms of Nicole Simpsons feet were completely clean and free from blood also, though she was obviously lying in a large pool of it, and she was in her bare feet. I think all that indicates is that there wasn't much of a struggle, that Abby hit the floor pretty quickly, so she didn't have any time to walk through any blood.

Looking at Abby there are two things that stand out for me. One is it does appear there wasn't much of a struggle. I think Abby knew the killer and wasn't surprised to see that person upstairs. The other thing that stands out for me is the number of times Abby was hit. Whom ever killed her had a very strong emotion directed at her. That is one of the reasons why I think it was Lizzie. Lizzie is the only person I can think of, other than Emma, who had that much hate directed at Abby. Abby also, would not have been surprised to see Lizzie upstairs or coming into the guest room.

From the location of Abby's body (on the far side of the bed) she was either looking out the window - perhaps lost in thought?? or making the bed?

Could someone she Did NOT know sneak up on her? Would the floorboards 'squeek' or was the house quiet enough that Tip-Toeing would have been possible?

Also If it was in fact the blunt blow that killed Abby - then she would have been standing up. So a stronger hit would have been possible. After she fell it would have been harder to continue to strike her. (The shallower 'cuts').

If you look at the way she is lying - her head is toward the far wall from where her attacker would have been standing. So the person that continued to hit her would have to have been straddling her??
And hitting more like "chopping" than Swinging motion.

The amount of blows tells me that it is an act of violance and Pre-Planned.

People don't usually walk around the house with an axe.

Then was it Rage or Panic that caused the attacker to continue to "whack" Abby?

I get the idea that Abby might have been kneeling when she was first struck, perhaps working on the bed corner. This would have minimized the "thud" when she hit the floor. The apparent lack or minimal amount of blood on Abby's back and shoulders might indicate that most of the blows fell while she was prostrate, otherwise, given the location of the trauma, the back of her dress would almost certainly have a good deal of blood present.

There's that *shallow* word again to describe the cuts.
If we did not touch the wounds, we cannot know if they were *shallow* - in any case I don't think it's a proper forensic description in this case?
The blows either struck bone, struck bone and passed through to the brain, or were bruises or were a combination of blows that caved in the skull, and there was a shoulder incised wound and a face flap wound.

Anyway, as for Abby hearing someone enter the room, here is my opinion:
If the person was already upstairs, maybe she didn't hear them. But if the person had to climb the stairs to get to Abby I think she would have heard them.

Bob Gutowski @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:01 pm wrote:Lizzie's dress-burning took place between police searches, so I believe she was forced to get rid of it that very morning, and behave as though she were about to perform some regular household chore instead of a wildly out-of-character event. I think that's why Lizzie's defense team treated this dangerous act (Alice's admission of having witnessed it made them re-convene the Grand Jury) the same way, normalizing it by having Emma stretch the truth and say she herself had prompted Lizzie to get rid of the nasty, ruined dress, that "faded" and "soiled" dress, made just months earlier, and still in use as morning and housewear. Look at it this way. Lizzie stained the dress with paint soon after it was made, but in that household, she'd wear it while doing her housework, such as it was, or use it as a housedress. Would she be in the habit, then, of burning a dress which could be torn apart for use as rags and patches?

Years later Alice Russell would tell her sewing pupils that it was at that moment that she realized that Lizzie was, indeed, involved in the crimes.

Welcome!

I agree. I don't see why she had to burn the dress. I find that odd too. Did she always burn dresses that got ruined? If she did'nt, that would set off alarms for me. Like you said,why not just rip it up or use it to clean with? Why did'nt she just throw it out with the garbage?

I agree Mossy -

If this family was like most of the families of that era - Nothing went to waste.

Cleaning rags would have been the first logical use (I would think) or Menstral Pads.

When I was in my early teens a friend and I ware visiting my grandmother on her farm. We found outselves in need of "necessories". My grandmother didn't have anything on hand - so she showed us how they handled this situation when she was younger.

She took some old cloth and created a "pad" by cutting and then rolling the fabric into a log. She then took a larger piece of this fabric and rolled it around this log so she had two longer ends that could be twisted and tied to a "belt" to keep it in place.

The bucket that was talked about would have contained this type of "pad" I believe.

To me this would have been the logical thing to do with the dress. It would have been so easy for Lizzie (If she was the killer) to make a few pads and add it to this bucket.

Because this bucket was never examined and there was no DNA testing available - nobody would have questioned any extra pads or known the cause of the blood on the rags (pads).

Or just wash the danged dress

A "public" display of burning it makes no sense to me at all.

mappam @ Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:08 pm wrote:Thanks Bob and Allen for the replies and the welcome.

I still find it 'odd' that Lizzie would 'choose' to burn the dress when so many people were around. It would have been easy to burn in during the night time hours (the stove would still be hot or could be rekindled) and nobody would have even noticed. Why draw attention to the burning?

My logical explanation is this: Lizzie did not want to wear a paint-stained dress. But Andy would have objected to discarding a new dress. Lizzie demonstrated her independence by now doing what she had wanted to do.
Would you wear a paint-stained dress today? Or even with washable stains on it?

So what you're saying is it was a sort of like 'ding dong the &##$# is dead now I can burn my dress'? That soon after he was dead she was already demonstrating independence? I do not buy that explaination but that is just my opinion.

Allen @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:47 pm wrote:So what you're saying is it was a sort of like 'ding dong the &##$# is dead now I can burn my dress'? That soon after he was dead she was already demonstrating independence? I do not buy that explaination but that is just my opinion.

Maybe people will act strange under stress, and Lizzie was under stress.

Independent witnesses established the a dress was stained with paint....

IMO Lizzie was differnet in her reactions to things. It is hard to tell what she may have been thinking.

Ray makes a good point about us not wishing to wear stained clothing today.

RayS @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:29 pm wrote:

Allen @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:47 pm wrote:So what you're saying is it was a sort of like 'ding dong the &##$# is dead now I can burn my dress'? That soon after he was dead she was already demonstrating independence? I do not buy that explaination but that is just my opinion.

Maybe people will act strange under stress, and Lizzie was under stress.

Under stress? She sure knew what to do the morning of the murders-giving everybody orders to go and get so and so. She was prepared with an alibi and everything. She seemed organized to me,especially the morning of the murders.

Audrey @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:56 pm wrote:Independent witnesses established the a dress was stained with paint....
...
Ray makes a good point about us not wishing to wear stained clothing today.

For example: a woman is getting dressed to go out. Her compact spills some powder on her dark dress. NOW she has to change to another dress, even if it could be brushed off in time (?).
I suspect this is caused by not wishing to be the butt of gossip among other women.
"Oh, look, Lizzie is still wearing that old dirty dress!"

Sorry to keep referring to Victoria Lincoln, but I think she has a fairly "common sense" approach to the case, and her suppositions about many aspects of the murder and its aftermath seem to ring true-

If I recall, according to Lincoln, Lizzie's defense team attempted to paint (no pun intended) the dress burning episode as one carried out in broad daylight and in public, and therefore not terribly suspicious. In fact, Lincoln says, given the way that the kitchen and ajoining rooms were laid out at the time, Emma was washing dishes "around the corner" where the stove was not visible when Lizzie began her odd chore. It was just as likely that Lizzie would not be observed in the highly unusual act of incinerating her dress. Lincoln surmises that Lizzie was driven to burn the dress when she did because a detective, hired by the local police, was due to inspect the crime scene the following day, and she was afraid that a more thorough search would uncover it.

In terms of the locks and keys- I also think Lincoln has it right. She believes that Andrew, who like the rest of the Borden household, knew that Lizzie had perpetrated the daring daylight robbery, kept that key on the mantlepiece as a silent warning to Lizzie- that he simultaneously trusted her and distrusted her.

We always had a rag-bag. Our mother got that habit from her grandmother (born 1881) who grew up well-off.
(They actually had a house on a *Hill*).
However, I never heard what they used for menstrual pads. I don't think they used old corded dresses tho.

RayS @ Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:24 pm wrote:

Audrey @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:56 pm wrote:Independent witnesses established the a dress was stained with paint....
...
Ray makes a good point about us not wishing to wear stained clothing today.

For example: a woman is getting dressed to go out. Her compact spills some powder on her dark dress. NOW she has to change to another dress, even if it could be brushed off in time (?).
I suspect this is caused by not wishing to be the butt of gossip among other women.
"Oh, look, Lizzie is still wearing that old dirty dress!"

But this was Lizzie's house dress, so it was only worn around the house. She would change it if she wanted to go out. How many friends did Lizzie have coming to visit her at the house that would see her in this dress?

I think Lincoln talks somewhere in her book about some sort of linen rags they used for menstruation. I am going to check that out and see what she says about it.

Allen @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:56 pm wrote:

RayS @ Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:24 pm wrote:

Audrey @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:56 pm wrote:Independent witnesses established the a dress was stained with paint....
...
Ray makes a good point about us not wishing to wear stained clothing today.

For example: a woman is getting dressed to go out. Her compact spills some powder on her dark dress. NOW she has to change to another dress, even if it could be brushed off in time (?).
I suspect this is caused by not wishing to be the butt of gossip among other women.
"Oh, look, Lizzie is still wearing that old dirty dress!"

But this was Lizzie's house dress, so it was only worn around the house. She would change it if she wanted to go out. How many friends did Lizzie have coming to visit her at the house that would see her in this dress?

As far as I know, nobody was expected over that day. But there is testimony about Lizzie and Emma (?) having their friends over (as I remember it). Certainly that dressmaker was over earlier that year.
PS Didn't A Brown mention that the girls were more likely to visit that be visited? Andy was not a genial host. (Ever meet people like that?)

I found this in Lincoln.

The birdseye linen napkins of the time I remember well as the burden of my budding womanhood. They were slightly longer than a baby's diaper, and thicker. Once given their preliminary rinsing in the water closet, they were stored away, usually in a container kept under the set tubs in the basement, to await the proper washing.

Allen @ Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:56 pm wrote:

RayS @ Tue Apr 18, 2006 1:24 pm wrote:

Audrey @ Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:56 pm wrote:Independent witnesses established the a dress was stained with paint....
...
Ray makes a good point about us not wishing to wear stained clothing today.

For example: a woman is getting dressed to go out. Her compact spills some powder on her dark dress. NOW she has to change to another dress, even if it could be brushed off in time (?).
I suspect this is caused by not wishing to be the butt of gossip among other women.
"Oh, look, Lizzie is still wearing that old dirty dress!"

But this was Lizzie's house dress, so it was only worn around the house. She would change it if she wanted to go out. How many friends did Lizzie have coming to visit her at the house that would see her in this dress?

My impression was that Lizzie did go out and visit friends, few visited them. Her involvement with many "charities" suggests this.
I don't have an actual quote.