Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Found this in the Boston Globe of August 16th, 1892.

"Another important matter came out today in the reported finding some days ago of evidence of a fire down in the cellar.
Under an old boiler a few filmy ashes were discovered like the remains of consumed cloth and clinging together.
That it was cloth was shown by the remains of a few pieces of white material lying about with their burned ends telling that they had been a part of the clothing which was now in ashes.
This is well authenticated and will be used as evidence upon the hypothesis that the murderer was provided with a protecting over garment, which was burned after the crime was committed.
No buttons or hooks which might naturally be used to confine the garment were discovered."

Nothing apparently ever came of this and I don't remember reading it anywhere else. Just thought it was interesting.

Fascinating indeed and I have not seen that before. Buttons, and especially hooks would not burn so it might indicate an apron which design might eliminate hooks and buttons if it were a half apron or even a bib apron. Thanks! Hot stuff!

I have never seen this either, thanks Harry. I wonder why it was never followed up on , especially if it was "well authenticated"?

I have never seen this either, Harry. But to me it is welll looking into. After all, there was a dress that was burned and Lizzie said that she burned the dress because there was red paint on it. Or is that story too?

I recall a news item that had the hooks and eyes but not the cloth found in the cellar ashes. Have you seen that one, Har?

No, Kat, I don't. This is the only reference I've seen regarding a fire in the cellar.

If true, it would explain the lack of burnt evidence in the kitchen stove. It would also explain the absence of any lingering odor in the kitchen from burnt cloth. Would the cellar have retained the burnt odor any better or worse?

Just a footnote, Harry.

My family had a coal burning stove in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island in the mid 1920s. It was was used for cooking and heating and for the disposal of anything, other than garbarge.

If my memory serves me correctly, anything we put into the stove didn't give off any odor, except for a few seconds or so. These fires were very hot and would incinerate anything placed there almost immeditely.

Just a footnote, Harry.

My family had a coal burning stove in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island in the mid 1920s. It was was used for cooking and heating and for the disposal of anything, other than garbarge.

If my memory serves me correctly, anything we put into the stove didn't give off any odor, except for a few seconds or so. These fires were very hot and would incinerate anything placed there almost immeditely.

That's a good point, Bill. I have no experience with clothing being burnt other than an accidental scorching. Myself and irons do not have a cozy relationship.

Jennings does make reference to the lack of odor of burnt clothing the day of the murder in his closing argument at the Preliminary hearing:

"... The lighter the dress the better to find out if she did it, and, if she did it with the white skirt on, where are the blood spots? Where did she get rid of the weapons? The dress, the shoes she had on that morning. Are there any shoe buttons found in the fire? Is there any smell of burnt clothing? No. ..."

That he mentions "if she did it with the white skirt on" is interesting. That just happens to be the same color as the burnt material found in the cellar.

What speaks against this material being of value is the timing. The Globe article is dated the 16th and refers to "the reported finding some days ago". There is no mention of a specific date when this was found. If it was found greater than a week ago I would assume the article would have mentioned it. If it was less then the search of the cellar could not have been very complete to miss this type of evidence.

That's a good point, Bill. I have no experience with clothing being burnt other than an accidental scorching. Myself and irons do not have a cozy relationship.

Jennings does make reference to the lack of odor of burnt clothing the day of the murder in his closing argument at the Preliminary hearing:

"... The lighter the dress the better to find out if she did it, and, if she did it with the white skirt on, where are the blood spots? Where did she get rid of the weapons? The dress, the shoes she had on that morning. Are there any shoe buttons found in the fire? Is there any smell of burnt clothing? No. ..."

That he mentions "if she did it with the white skirt on" is interesting. That just happens to be the same color as the burnt material found in the cellar.

What speaks against this material being of value is the timing. The Globe article is dated the 16th and refers to "the reported finding some days ago". There is no mention of a specific date when this was found. If it was found greater than a week ago I would assume the article would have mentioned it. If it was less then the initial searches of the cellar could not have been very complete to miss this type of evidence.

I've always felt that Lizzie had to have had a full-length covering to keep blood off her hair and dress. Maybe that was it.

-1bigsteve (o:

I always took "white skirt" to mean that long white petticoat which had the pinprick of "fleabite" blood on the back. When it was held up in court, they call it a "skirt", not a petticoat- which it does resemble. I have one of the era and it has a waistband and button. It was a fashion a few years ago to wear these as outerwear.

I burned just one yard in a woodstove as a test- and yes, it did smell briefly pretty bad, like scorched linen. The smell did not last too long after I opened a window. Cotton cloth is extremely dry and absorbant, which is why candlewicks and oil lamp wicks are made of that twisted fiber. It burns steady, efficiently, and pretty clean. For everything you never wanted to know about wicks and cotton fiber:
http://www.wickstore.com/flatoilwick.html

My problem with this dress burning business is why it should have been done in the kitchen- why not outside behind the barn- most homes had a burn barrel for burnables, then buried or pitched down the privy anything glass or metal which would not burn. And the timing was odd too- the day after the funeral. Shoot, with poor old Abby dead, that bit about needing a hook for Emma's clothing was sort of silly- Emma would NOW have Abby's closet space, dresser space and ALL her hooks.

Cool, Shelley. Nothing like actual experiments.

A question I may have asked before but can't remember the answer. Are dress patterns white?

If you are speaking of store-bought thin tissue paper patterns such as Vogue, McCalls or Simplicity, they are nowadays a light tan with black cutting lines and have been since I can ever recall. They had to be tissue to be folded up in a small packet

I thought what was meant by a pattern to make up in the Lizzie reference was a dress made of fabric, cut out, and ready to have a seamstress sew it up. Then it could be tailored to fit the specific body of the wearer. Here is an excellent reference using 1890's figures and patterns on the topic with a very long click -on link Hey- but it works!


http://books.google.com/books?id=2xK80q ... A1-PA11,M1

I neglected to mention the granddaddy of pattern-makers , Butterick, for which I would be thrown out of Costume History class! Lizzie would have been very, very familiar with their magazine The Delineator, as well as Peterson's magazine for ladies.
http://www.butterick.com/bhc/pages/arti ... about.html

I agree with this, setting something on fire in the basement would have been dangerous and leave a mark on the floor. If that's what they meant. Plus the Boston Globe often made mistakes (I'm being nice! ). If it was an apron it wouldn't take much to burn and tossing it into the Kitchen stove seems quicker, Lizzie could have done it on her way to the back to call for Bridget. Also there's that story of her giving a bundle of stuff to the handy man to dispose of it, I forget where I read that. You all are way to good being able to cite newspapers, books, etc. I read and absorb, but for get where I read it!

StevenB




My problem with this dress burning business is why it should have been done in the kitchen- why not outside behind the barn- most homes had a burn barrel for burnables, then buried or pitched down the privy anything glass or metal which would not burn. And the timing was odd too- the day after the funeral. Shoot, with poor old Abby dead, that bit about needing a hook for Emma's clothing was sort of silly- Emma would NOW have Abby's closet space, dresser space and ALL her hooks.

The basement would have been fine as the furnace was either coal or wood- I forget which-except for the fact that this was AUGUST and the furnace would not have been lit. Since they did not have hot running water, there was no reason to stoke up the furnace in summer. Any new fire and fresh ash in the furnace would have caused attention. I think Lizzie had no choice- she had to put it in the stove. I thought of burying it behind the barn, but of course that would have caused comment and that box of clothing from Abby and Andrew was busily popping in and out of the earth behind the barn already!

I thought they meant that whatever had been burnt was burned on the FLOOR, that's what it sounded like to me........




StevenB

"Under an old boiler a few filmy ashes were discovered "

I took that to mean the ashes were from the boiler. There was an ash trap which had to be raked out periodically after the boilers were stoked and burning awhile. Even today if you root around under the furnance which is located in the identical spot, there is earth and ash- probably from eons ago, same situation under the caludron in the cellar chimney base. Open earth floor can still be seen in one part of the cellar too.

Harry @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:54 am wrote:That's a good point, Bill. I have no experience with clothing being burnt other than an accidental scorching. Myself and irons do not have a cozy relationship.

Jennings does make reference to the lack of odor of burnt clothing the day of the murder in his closing argument at the Preliminary hearing:

"... The lighter the dress the better to find out if she did it, and, if she did it with the white skirt on, where are the blood spots? Where did she get rid of the weapons? The dress, the shoes she had on that morning. Are there any shoe buttons found in the fire? Is there any smell of burnt clothing? No. ..."

That he mentions "if she did it with the white skirt on" is interesting. That just happens to be the same color as the burnt material found in the cellar.

What speaks against this material being of value is the timing. The Globe article is dated the 16th and refers to "the reported finding some days ago". There is no mention of a specific date when this was found. If it was found greater than a week ago I would assume the article would have mentioned it. If it was less then the initial searches of the cellar could not have been very complete to miss this type of evidence.

IF there is no name, place and date of the discovery could it possibly be another hoax?

Shelley @ Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:41 am wrote: . . . I thought what was meant by a pattern to make up in the Lizzie reference was a dress made of fabric, cut out, and ready to have a seamstress sew it up. Then it could be tailored to fit the specific body of the wearer. . . .

That's what I thought too, after reading what Lizzie says when she is asked about a pattern.

"Q. Did you buy a dress pattern in New Bedford?
A. A dress pattern?
Q. Yes, a dress pattern.
A. I think I did.
Q. Where is it?
A. It is at home.
Q. Where?
A. Where at home?
Q. Please.
A. It is in a trunk.
Q. In your room?
A. No, sir; in the attic.
Q. Not made up?
A. O. no, sir.
Q. Where did you buy it?
A. I don't know the name of the store.
Q. On the principal street there?
A. I think it was on the street that Hutchinson's book store is on. I am not positive.
Q. What kind of a one was it, please?
A. It was a pink stripe and a white stripe, and a blue stripe corded gingham." (Lizzie Borden: Inquest)

The confusing part for me is when the pattern is referred to in the singular, but Lizzie describes two different fabrics. Could it be a pink & white shirtwaist with a blue striped skirt? Or does 'a pattern' just mean the same style done up in two different colors?

Same pattern done up in two different colors. These sound like "house dresses"- cheap. These are certainly not tissue paper dressmaker's patterns.

Harry @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:12 am wrote:Found this in the Boston Globe of August 16th, 1892.

"Another important matter came out today in the reported finding some days ago of evidence of a fire down in the cellar.
Under an old boiler a few filmy ashes were discovered like the remains of consumed cloth and clinging together.
That it was cloth was shown by the remains of a few pieces of white material lying about with their burned ends telling that they had been a part of the clothing which was now in ashes.
This is well authenticated and will be used as evidence upon the hypothesis that the murderer was provided with a protecting over garment, which was burned after the crime was committed.
No buttons or hooks which might naturally be used to confine the garment were discovered."

Nothing apparently ever came of this and I don't remember reading it anywhere else. Just thought it was interesting.

Maybe that was the dress lizzie said she burned because she said there was paint on it? Or maybe it was the dresss that she committed the murders in and she was trying to get rid of the dress. I guess anything is possible.

Mysterious New England, from the pages of Yankee Magazine, "The Unfathomable Borden Riddle," by John Ayotte, pg. 56.
A letter in response to the original article tells the tale of the *ragman* who inadvertantly helped Lizzie dispose of the evidence.
The *letter* is added to the article dated November 16, 1966 in response to a first publication of August, 1966, Yankee Magazine. They call it an *epilogue* and was written supposedly by Marion Hicks Campbell.

Nanci first sent me a copy from Yankee Magazine, then our Mark A. sent me the book, then our Harry sent me the story as well! It's an interesting story.

>>>>>

I looked in the Casebook and the Sourcebook for the hooks and eyes or buttons left and could not find it. Will keep looking but it may take a while.

I am almost certain there is some reference somewhere that Bridget testified that she had taken some ashes down cellar from the kitchen that morning. I am assuming they were from the stove. But I cannot find anything about it in the trial testimony or in the witness statements. I do not presently have a copy of the prelim. ( I keep threatening to buy a copy. I really need to just break down and get it.) Can anyone tell me if it may be in there she made the statement about carrying ashes down cellar?

Missy, it's on the bottom of page 12 of the Prelim.

"Q. Had you been down cellar before that morning, before you went to get the pail?
A. I went down after some coal that morning, and some wood to start the fire with.
Q. That was one trip?
A. No, I went down first for the wood, and took the ashes down, and brought the wood, and went for the coal."

Thanks so much Harry! Then it would be safe to assume these ashes that were carried down cellar by Bridget were probably dumped into the same ash pile that the police noticed in the basement during the search. I can't image any reason she would want to make separate ash piles. This would also indicate that it was a common practice for the ashes in the stove to be disposed of by taking them down cellar. So it's quite likely whatever was burned could have been burned in the stove, so there was no fire down cellar, and then the ashes taken down cellar afterward.

That makes more sense then a fire in the basement, you wouldn't want to go off and leave something burning and you'd want to make sure that it was all totally burned. Wonder if they eventually sifted through the stove ashes .........there could have been a tiny scrap of paper left unburned, or of course the buttons and hooks.