Lizzie Borden Society Forum

One of the reasons the burning of the dress occurred was to make room for hanging another dress as there was a shortage of nails to hang things.

Lizzie, questioned at the Inquest, page 73:

"Q. All the reason you supposed there was sinkers there was your father had told you there was lead in the barn?
A. Yes, lead; and one day I wanted some old nails; he said there was some in the barn."

So Lizzie knew where to find a nail if she needed one.

A nail also comes into the story in the June 1891 robbery at the house. In Knowlton, HK067, page 74, in a letter from Knowlton to Pillsbury, dated Sept. 9, 1892, Knowlton quotes from Police Officer Desmond:

"... Lizzie Borden said "the cellar door was open, and someone might have come in that way." I visited all the adjoining houses, including the Mrs Churchills house on the north, Dr Kelly's house on the south, Dr Gibbs house & Dr Chagnon's house on the east, and made a thorough search of the neighborhood to find some person who might have seen someone going, or coming from Mr Borden's house; but I failed to find any trace.
I did get a 6 or 8 penny nail which "Lizzie Borden said she found in the
key hole of door," leading to a sleeping room on 2nd floor, east end of
building. So far as I know this robbery has never been solved."

None of this means much but it is something I ran across while researching Lizzie in the barn.

That is interesting Harry. The lathing strips are still hanging in all the closets and also in the third floor rooms. I recall Lizzie saying her fur sacques were hanging in bags up there. I also have a theory that the place the bed is now in Bridget's room is not correct. Of course Bridget had a single bed, and there is a full bed now in that room. When you first walk into the room, on the wall to the left of the door, there is a long run of lathing board. If you look closely, the holes are plugged up but still visible where hooks or nails were. I believe Bridget's little bed was on the window wall, otherwise her clothing would have hung right over her pillow. I will dig out the photo of this.

Clothes hooks in the lathing strip in the downstairs closet

I find it odd that a dress which could have furthered the cause of Lizzie's innocence wasn't kept under lock and key. It certainly could have been folded and put away in the attic or any number of places out of the way. The lack of a hook or nail seems a pretty lame excuse. If Lizzie wore the dress the day of the murders, she could only assume that someone would testify to that fact at the time she burned it. She could not count on "sins of omission" by friends, neighbors, or relatives. I find the concept of not remembering the dress, but being able to state conclusively that there was no blood on the dress (which can't be remembered) far more baffling than dazzling.

Come to think of it, we don't have any basis for the contention that Lizzie had no blood on her clothing the day of the murders, as is often cited as proof of her innocence. We only have testimony that the witnesses "saw no blood" (correctly, can't remember any blood) on a dress which they can't remember. They weren't looking for blood on Lizzie's clothing because Lizzie was considered by them to be a "victim" rather than a suspect at that time. If the prevailing attitude at the time was that a woman would be incapable of the act, why would they look closely at Lizzie's dress for the presence of blood?

That's an excellent point. I believe I mentioned doing a test at school to see if anyone noticed blood on a blue figured fabric swatch which was among other swatches. It amazed me they did not, and very few could pick out the sample swatch shown later when displayed with other similar patterns and colors. Bridget was wearing a blue calico with a cloverleaf patterm before she changed into a gingham. With all the commotion, I suspect a minute examination of every inch of Lizzie was not a priority to people rushing on the scene- and she went upstairs and changed quite soon after the finding of Abby and all the stir that caused. She changed, I believe, without this being suggested by anyone,

So, if Lizzie was wearing a patterned dress which was already stained with paint, it might be more difficult to isolate the presence of blood. Those accustomed to the stains on the dress (Bridget, for one) might look right past any new stains such as blood without thinking about it.

Bridget
Prelim
31
Q. Do you remember what dress she had on that morning?
A. No Sir.

Q. You have no idea at all?
A. No Sir.

Q. You could not tell whether she had a dress and waist of the same kind, or different?
A. No Sir, nothing about it.

Q. Could you tell whether she had an apron on?
A. I could not tell whether she did or not.
......
86
Q. When you saw Miss Lizzie there at the foot of the stairs, at that time when she gave the alarm, what dress did she have on?
A. I could not tell you.

Q. Dark or light?
A. I could not tell you.

Q. What dress did she wear that morning?
A. I could not tell you.

Q. Did you see any blood on her?
A. No Sir, I did not notice any blood on her.

Q. Did you see any blood anywhere, except in the places told about in this case?
A. No Sir.
________

Trial
244
Q. Let me ask you in this connection if you are able to tell us what dress she had on that morning?
A. No, sir, I couldn't tell what dress the girl had on.

Q. And you couldn't describe it?
A. No, sir, I couldn't.
.....

270
Q. And do you know, if she was in the house, anything about what she did Tuesday?
A. No, sir; I do not.

Q. Do you remember anything about what dress she had on?
A. Yes; she generally wore a light---

Q. No, not generally; what did she have on Tuesday?
A. I don't remember what she had on Tuesday; I can't tell.

Q. Do you remember anything about Wednesday, what dress she had on?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was it?
A. It was a light blue.

Q. You say you don't remember Thursday?

MR. MOODY. Well, let her finish.

THE WITNESS. Wednesday morning she had a blue wrapper on her; skirt and basque.

Page 271

Q. Now you say you do not remember on Thursday?
A. No, sir. I can't tell.

Q. Can't remember?
A. No, sir. I can't tell what dress the girl had on.

Q. Have you any recollection at all what dress she had on any part of Thursday?
A. No, sir, excepting the afternoon I went to her room and she had on a pink wrapper.

Q. A pink wrapper in the afternoon?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Before that you can't tell anything about it?
A. No, sir; I couldn't.

_____________

This has always sounded to me like Bridget knew what Lizzie wore on Wednesday- the light blue wrapper.
But not Tuesday or Thursday.
It's her way of saying she did not see Lizzie wearing that wrapper stained with paint on Thursday.

Continued:

Q. Miss Lizzie was about the house that forenoon [Wednesday] not doing anything in particular?
A. I saw her around the house before dinner. I saw her down in the kitchen at breakfast time and

Page 293

before dinner was served on the table.

Q. That is the day you said she had on the light blue wrapper?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did she have that on when she came down in the morning?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And kept it on during the forenoon and had it at the dinner table?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that day you remember it very clearly?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the dinner was at 12 o'clock?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember seeing her about that same day again, later in the day, Wednesday?
A. No, sir, I don't remember.

Q. Don't quite remember whether you saw her in the afternoon or not?
A. No, sir, I did not see her.

Q. I used the word "wrapper".
A. It was a basque and skirt.

Q. If you will tell me what the dress was?
A. It was a basque and a skirt.

Q. It was a man's mistake. Was it a blouse, as some one at my right says?
A. Yes, sir, a loose blouse with a belt round it.

Q. To state it all right let me ask, what was it, a blouse and skirt?
A. I don't know the name,---a loose skirt with a belt round it.

Q. Was the skirt or waist or blouse of the same color?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know whether she had any ribbon about it or not?
A. No, sir.

Q. Can't remember the style?
A. I think it was a belt, I cannot tell. I don't know whether it was a belt or ribbon.

Page 294

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION


Q. (By Mr. Moody.) Is this dress that you are speaking of that she had on Wednesday the one you referred to as having been made in the spring?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And with a dark blue figure in it?
A. Yes, sir.

______

No one saw Lizzie wearing the paint-stained dress Thursday- the one that was made in the spring.

Note also, this part of Bridget's trial testimony also goes towards the alibi of Lizzie vs. Eli Bence for Wednesday!

If no one noticed blood on Lizzie means there was no blood on Lizzie, then because no one noticed Lizzie's dress, there was no dress on Lizzie.

Yooper @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:57 am wrote:If no one noticed blood on Lizzie means there was no blood on Lizzie, then because no one noticed Lizzie's dress, there was no dress on Lizzie.

That to my mind, is an excellent point. Not one witness noticed any blood on Lizzie or any other indication that she could have committed the murders. But none of the witnesses could really recall what Lizzie had been wearing, or much about her physical appearance so soon after the crimes, which could indicate they were not really paying much attention to the condition of either her clothing or physical appearance. I wouldn't say that is unusual for that circumstance given that everyone was probably in some varying degrees of shock. But I would think if they had been paying that much attention to her appearance someone could've remembered and described what she had been wearing. So how closely did they actually look at her?

Yooper @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:57 am wrote:If no one noticed blood on Lizzie means there was no blood on Lizzie, then because no one noticed Lizzie's dress, there was no dress on Lizzie.

Was that from the famous reporter Borat?

I am showing with testimony that Lizzie did not wear the *paint stained* dress on Thursday.
Alice Russell and Bridget Sullivan both agree that the dress-that-was-made-in-the-spring aka the *paintstained dress* was not seen by either of them on Lizzie on Thursday.

It doesn't mean she didn't change into it and out of it- just that it was not identified as being seen to be worn by those intimate with Lizzie.
This was in response to:

So, if Lizzie was wearing a patterned dress which was already stained with paint, it might be more difficult to isolate the presence of blood. Those accustomed to the stains on the dress (Bridget, for one) might look right past any new stains such as blood without thinking about it.

--Yooper.

"Those accustomed to the stains on the dress (Bridget, for one) etc..." says Yooper. I am showing that Bridget who knew the dress knew Lizzie wore it Wednesday but not Thursday.

I don't follow the *logic* that therefore Lizzie wore *nothing.*

Yooper also began the statement with the hypothetical "if".

The logic concerning the dress is very simple. If we accept as fact that Lizzie had no blood upon her person due to testimony such as "I can't recall", or "I didn't notice any", then when the same people testifying about Lizzie's dress come up with "I can't recall", or "I didn't notice", then we must logically conclude that she had no dress upon her person. It couldn't be simpler! Or more absurd! Therefore, it is also an absurdity to conclude that Lizzie had no blood upon her person due to the same answers given in testimony!

Yooper @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:45 am wrote:The logic concerning the dress is very simple. If we accept as fact that Lizzie had no blood upon her person due to testimony such as "I can't recall", or "I didn't notice any", then when the same people testifying about Lizzie's dress come up with "I can't recall", or "I didn't notice", then we must logically conclude that she had no dress upon her person. It couldn't be simpler! Or more absurd! Therefore, it is also an absurdity to conclude that Lizzie had no blood upon her person due to the same answers given in testimony!

Maybe you need to see a medical person for your problem?
Everyone else here knows she wore a dress, and no one saw stains on it. Not even bloodstains, which would contrast to a light blue dress.
Recall that photo from Iraq a few months ago showing blood spatter on blue jeans of civilians.

I consider your statements better off in a "Legends of Lizzie" chapter.

RayS @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:50 pm wrote:

Yooper @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:45 am wrote:The logic concerning the dress is very simple. If we accept as fact that Lizzie had no blood upon her person due to testimony such as "I can't recall", or "I didn't notice any", then when the same people testifying about Lizzie's dress come up with "I can't recall", or "I didn't notice", then we must logically conclude that she had no dress upon her person. It couldn't be simpler! Or more absurd! Therefore, it is also an absurdity to conclude that Lizzie had no blood upon her person due to the same answers given in testimony!

Maybe you need to see a medical person for your problem?
Everyone else here knows she wore a dress, and no one saw stains on it. Not even bloodstains, which would contrast to a light blue dress.
Recall that photo from Iraq a few months ago showing blood spatter on blue jeans of civilians.

I consider your statements better off in a "Legends of Lizzie" chapter.

No one here can describe what Lizzie wore at the time of the murders. No one here can say with any certainty whether or not Lizzie had any blood on her.

Perhaps you should consult an exorcist for your problem?

Just getting back to hooks and nails, this is the lathing strip in Bridge's room. There is also one in the third floor open space and in each third floor storage room as well as in all the closets in the house. These strips were studded with hooks or nails for hanging things. This is the wall to the left as soon as you walk in, which leads me to believe Bridget's bed was not on this wall.

Bill Pavao showed us where the one in Emma's room was. You have to feel it thru the wallpaper (reaching up) on the left (west) wall, the wall where the closet is.

Yes, I can! Nobody present saw any bloodstains on Lizzie's dress, or on the dress of Bridget. This completely refutes Gerald Gross's 1963 argument.

People can describe it, based on what was written. They are only as good as their sources.

I wasn't there with a videotape, but I can assure you 100% that Lizzie was not "denuded" at the time. The proof is the lack of comment.

No one here can describe what Lizzie wore at the time of the murders. No one here can say with any certainty whether or not Lizzie had any blood on her.

After you do the quote, be sure to remember to attribute it to the person, after the tag of [/quote] closes.

RayS @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:31 pm wrote:Yes, I can! Nobody present saw any bloodstains on Lizzie's dress, or on the dress of Bridget. This completely refutes Gerald Gross's 1963 argument.

People can describe it, based on what was written. They are only as good as their sources.

I wasn't there with a videotape, but I can assure you 100% that Lizzie was not "denuded" at the time. The proof is the lack of comment.

No one here can describe what Lizzie wore at the time of the murders. No one here can say with any certainty whether or not Lizzie had any blood on her.

No one present can describe Lizzie's dress, with the possible exception of Mrs. Bowen. If they can't remember anything about the dress, then they can't remember anything on the dress, whether pattern, color, bloodstains, or a pink poodle. By stating: 1) I don't remember the dress, and 2) There were no bloodstains on the dress, they create an inconsistency. How can we logically accept as fact that there was no blood on Lizzie based upon testimony from people who can't remember the dress?

Why did they not remember the dress? They were occupied with other considerations which precluded an interest in the dress. They did not consider Lizzie a suspect at the time, why would they be in the frame of mind to "examine" Lizzie?

Did anyone present come out and say "No, she had no blood on her person. I looked closely but could find no blood."? This is different than answers such as "I didn't notice" or "not that I remember".

I'm not saying that Lizzie wasn't wearing a dress. I didn't really think that anyone would need to be spoon-fed the absurdity.

Yooper @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:16 am wrote:

RayS @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:31 pm wrote:
I'm not saying that Lizzie wasn't wearing a dress. I didn't really think that anyone would need to be spoon-fed the absurdity.

I understood exactly what you meant Yooper. I think what you're saying makes perfect sense, as I stated in my above post. If no one could remember any of the particulars of Lizzie's attire this to me would indicate they were not paying very close attention to her appearance. I believe someone was even asked how she was wearing her hair and could not remember, yet they also didnt remember seeing any blood. If they can't remember what her hair looked like, how can they clearly remember anything that might be in it? To my mind the witnesses didn't remember a whole lot when it came to our Miss Lizzie so their answers might not be considered definitive. n fact, they were not even paying enough attention to remember what she wore in the first place.

Too bad the makers of the Elizabeth Montgomery movie didn't know it was an absurdity. Ders folks in dem der hills who thunk she was pure naked when she did dem poor ol' folks in.

In other words, they did not notice anything unusual, like blood spatter.
hence there was no blood spatter.
Aside from a joker, who believes that Lizzie denuded herself for the murders?
See how ridiculous you become when you deny that an intruder did it?

Oh, I do not think, just because many (including many of the 1892 residents of Fall River) believe Lizzie was guilty that we/ they are RIDICULOUS. I would agree that the concept of committing these crimes naked, nude, without clothing, bare, (take your pick of vocabulary) is far-fetched and Hollywood-like sensationalism, not fitting the mindset of the era. What would be ridiculous to me is anyone setting themselves up as the final arbitrator on what happened on August 4, 1892. It is highly unlikely that we will ever know the whole truth and I am not brash enough to say my thinking is the only possible solution.

RayS @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:02 pm wrote:In other words, they did not notice anything unusual, like blood spatter.
hence there was no blood spatter.
Aside from a joker, who believes that Lizzie denuded herself for the murders?
See how ridiculous you become when you deny that an intruder did it?

OK. Let's put the spoon down and use the garden shovel.

Someone tells you that they can't remember the car and didn't notice that the car was blue. Do you conclude that the car wasn't blue?

Garden shovel? Hellsbells - bring in a back hoe!


Now, off to make pumpkin pies . . . .

NOW YER TALKIN'!!

Yooper,unless I myself have missed the point that was attempting to be made but think I understand it, was not insinuating that Lizzie committed the murders in the nude.

You're right, Allen, I was not implying that Lizzie committed the murders in the nude. In fact, I wasn't even talking about the actual time of the murders, but immediately afterward when others were present. It's amazing how some people zero in on a phrase and quote it out of context.

[quote="Shelley @ Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:17 am"]That is interesting Harry. The lathing strips are still hanging in all the closets and also in the third floor rooms. I recall Lizzie saying her fur sacques were hanging in bags up there. I also have a theory that the place the bed is now in Bridget's room is not correct. Of course Bridget had a single bed, and there is a full bed now in that room. When you first walk into the room, on the wall to the left of the door, there is a long run of lathing board. If you look closely, the holes are plugged up but still visible where hooks or nails were. I believe Bridget's little bed was on the window wall, otherwise her clothing would have hung right over her pillow. I will dig out the photo of this.

Clothes hooks in the lathing strip in the downstairs closet
[img]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m155 ... 06_20A.jpg[/img][/quote]


I remember reading somewhere that Bridget had a cross hanging over her bed from a hook on a board.......... I just read that some where, God knows where. If her bed were elsewhere, could she still have hung a cross over her bed? I didn't much wall space except for the wall behind the curent bed location. Maybe the bed was pushed over against the window or at least closer than it is now?

Where did you read about a cross hanging from a hook in a board over her bed? She may have used the closet in that room which is very long, but not too deep. , and since she had so little, maybe she never needed to use the lathing strip hooks for clothing- in which case the bed in its current position would work out. I also never felt the other wall for paper over a possible second wood strip. Guess we will never know for sure.

[quote="Shelley @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:16 pm"]Where did you read about a cross hanging from a hook in a board over her bed? She may have used the closet in that room which is very long, but not too deep. , and since she had so little, maybe she never needed to use the lathing strip hooks for clothing- in which case the bed in its current position would work out. I also never felt the other wall for paper over a possible second wood strip. Guess we will never know for sure.[/quote]

I read it the Hatchet but I misread it, it says a cross hangs there NOW!

or did when the article was written..........

Steven

Yes, a crucifix hangs there now. I thought you were referencing 1892.

so did I! I read the piece wrong...........



Steven





[quote="Shelley @ Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:28 pm"]Yes, a crucifix hangs there now. I thought you were referencing 1892.[/quote]