Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Friends of Lizzie's said that they would have a hard time thinking that she would be able to lie about anything. Maybe she wasn't lying when she gave the police the dressier dress and said it was the one she had been wearing that day. Maybe she had murdered Abby in one of her everyday dresses and then changed to the dark blue one because she intended to go out to town. That's why she had her hat out, ready to wear with that dress. Then Andrew came home earlier than she expected, so she realized she couldn't go. So she went back up to her room and changed back into her house dress. Evidently her everyday dresses were two pieces and could be interchangeable. That's why people were not describing the same outfit. After she murdered Abby she changed the bottom because it had blood on it. When she murdered Andrew later she may have had to change again. So the dark blue with the diamond pattern, the light blue with the sprig, etc. etc. etc. could have ALL been correct. It just depended when someone saw her. And the hat had not been worn out in the yard- that's why Lubinsky didn't see it. But Lizzie, in playing musical outfits throughout the day, got a little muddled with her stories.

Yes I quite agree that more than one dress came out of her closet that day. I think it is pretty safe to say a figured cotton calico, mentioned as the one she had on that morning by Bridget, and the cotton/silk twill Bengaline which was navy blue were two separate dresses. I always thought Lizzie's recollection of coming in from the barn and putting her hat down on the diningroom table was interesting- First, that anyone would bother about hatwearing when going up a hayloft for sinkers, and secondly, in all the horror, mentioning putting it down on the table when she came in.

Also curious that the "ruined" dress, the Bedford cord, which was from time to time worn by Lizzie to schlep around the house in on lazy mornings, suddenly became woodstove fodder.

Shelley @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:21 pm wrote:Yes I quite agree that more than one dress came out of her closet that day. I think it is pretty safe to say a figured cotton calico, mentioned as the one she had on that morning by Bridget, and the cotton/silk twill Bengaline which was navy blue were two separate dresses. I always thought Lizzie's recollection of coming in from the barn and putting her hat down on the diningroom table was interesting- First, that anyone would bother about hatwearing when going up a hayloft for sinkers, and secondly, in all the horror, mentioning putting it down on the table when she came in.

Also curious that the "ruined" dress, the Bedford cord, which was from time to time worn by Lizzie to schlep around the house in on lazy mornings, suddenly became woodstove fodder.

Au contraire, chere Shelley. It all makes perfect sense once you realize that Lizzie was just out in the back yard, as per her first statements.
I believe the story about being in the barn, up in the loft were told later as a sign she claimed to know nothing about any visitor.
'I couldn't see anything or anybody because I was up in the barn.'

Doesn't that make sense to you?

Shelley @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:21 pm wrote: I always thought Lizzie's recollection of coming in from the barn and putting her hat down on the diningroom table was interesting- First, that anyone would bother about hatwearing when going up a hayloft for sinkers, and secondly, in all the horror, mentioning putting it down on the table when she came in.

No- you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I do not believe she wore a hat to the barn- I think she had the hat ready to go to town, but then had to abandon her plans when her father came home early.

If she were just wondering around the yard would she have put on a hat (bonnet) to protect her from the sun? Ladies from that era and from her social standing, tried to stay pale, didn't they? So, if that's true, then she would have wanted a hat, to go wondering around in the yard. It was a warm sunny day.

That's an interesting idea. I always assumed that the difference of terminology regarding the "figure" or "sprig" was simply a matter of different people using different words for the same thing. At first, it seemed to me that the "figure" was a single one, which seemed rather strange, but afterwards I "realized" that it was a recurring pattern. Have I got that right? (Maybe I should ask Officer Harrington.)

Angel- no, I was agreeing with you. If she had planned an alibi downtown she certainly would have worn her hat. "Figured" usually means a pattern of some sort, repeated. We heard both diamond or cloverleaf I think for Lizzie , there could be a sprig repeat pattern also. I don't see how Bowen got "drab" out of it though. But then he was no Harrington.

She said she went out to the barn to get some lead for sinkers ( or to find tin to mend a screen). If she had said "I was going outside to walk around in the garden, pick up pears, etc", then I would have figured a hat might be involved. But she did not know that she was going to do all of that outside action so she would not need a hat for the purpose she stated as her reason for going out. The barn was only steps away from the back of the house and she should have been going right up to the dark loft, and down again with nobody seeing her and not needing a hat.

No, I find that added later hat detail completely at odds with the action she proposed. I think it was added to give more credibility to her being outside.

The main point I was trying to make was that people had different descriptions of what she was wearing that day, but they could have all been right because she was wearing different variations throughout the morning for one reason or another.
For instance, she messed up her dress with Abby, then changed to another similar one and was seen by Bridget. Then Bridget goes outside and Lizzie dresses in the dark blue to get ready to go to town. She leaves her hat on the table and goes out briefly to hide the axe or whatever. She comes back to the house, is seen by Lubinsky and then goes upstairs. Andrew comes home, so she realizes she has to change back into an everyday dress because she's not going anywhere. Bridget goes upstairs, Lizzie chops up Dad and then maybe changes again. She takes the hat which was left on the table to go out and puts it away. Then she calls to Bridget.

I think you are right, she probably was wearing the dress at some point in the day, so Lizzie probably wasn't lying.
Besides, wasn't it the custom of the day that you changed dresses for breakfest, then had another dress for lunch, another for supper? And if you went out, you had your clothes that you wore out because you didn't wear out what you wore around the house. Or am I wrong on that?

snokkums @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:39 am wrote:I think you are right, she probably was wearing the dress at some point in the day, so Lizzie probably wasn't lying.
Besides, wasn't it the custom of the day that you changed dresses for breakfest, then had another dress for lunch, another for supper? And if you went out, you had your clothes that you wore out because you didn't wear out what you wore around the house. Or am I wrong on that?

On page 380 of the Trial Testimony, Alice Russell testified that she changed her dress before going to the Borden house, so you may be correct about a house dress being different than a street dress. If this was the custom, I have to wonder why Lizzie's going-to-the-barn-for-sinkers dress was the dress she gave the authorities, and not something perhaps more paint-stained.

We were just talking about the wrapper on another thread. Yes, Lizzie could easily have had a wrapper on when she came downstairs- and probably did. Bridget says that the Bedford cord dress, even paint-stained as it was was worn sometimes in the morning by Lizzie around the house. Absolutely, dress would fit the occasion. In the great mansions of Newport, a woman would change about 5-6 times a day in the 1890's. If Lizzie had planned to go downtown on Main Street, she surely would have changed into something nicer than household calico, and worn gloves, hat and probably carried a sunshade. Lizzie is described as fastidiously "neat" -and she would have paid attention to details of dress, even if she did not possess a closetful of Worth gowns and travel in high society. Appearance was so important in that era- even among middle class. I expect if an 1890's Victorian would come back today and had a look at what we go out in, they would have a heart attack. I KNOW they would if they went to the beach.

Inquest
Lizzie
77(34)
Q. What did you do then?
A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Opened the sitting room door, and went into the sitting room, or pushed it open; it was not latched.
---------

It's my understanding that we don't know where Lizzie laid down her hat.
I doubt it was on the dining table because first she did not say that, and second it was set for the next meal and also had the small ironing board on it. I can envision Lizzie attempting to iron something clean on the already set table, but not laying down a hat. I don't think a hat would be very clean- I don't think their hair was very clean.

I was thinking the same thing, Angel, recently, about that Bengaline dress. I was thinking the same reason as you as well- that Lizzie did not lie and therefore she wore that dress at some point that day. Or maybe a part of it- as described- outfits of Lizzie's could be 2 pieces, skirt and blouse.

A. I went into the dining room and laid down my hat.


Sounds to me, from her own testimony (and if you believe her) that she laid the hat down in the diningroom. With Emma away, the west end of the table would have been clear. Either 3 or four places at the east end would have been set- depending on whether it was known if John was returning. There was also a daybed in the corner, and most probably a sideboard of some sort and probably several side chairs.

With the kitchen door to the sittingroom closed in summer, the diningroom sure appears to be the "Grand Central Station" of the house, with that room used as the corridor of preference from the back to the front of the house and into the sittingroom.

That is true that people changed to go into town to shop. I remember my mother changing from her house dress to a street dress before going downtown to shop. (There were no malls back then) You could get everything down on Main St. I remember people working in the shoe factories changing their work shoes for street shoes, but I'm not sure about the clothes. So I'm sure Lizzie changed clothes at least twice a day, people dressed for dinner not just going into town.

Too bad no one saw Lizzie in the Bengaline if she went to the trouble to don it that day!

As for Lizzie and her hat- I agree it was set probably somewhere in the dining room on another piece of furniture- maybe a chair, or the lounge- thanks for the list of other furniture pieces probably extant that she might have put it.
Tho I still doubt it was on the table itself.

The shelf in the diningroom closet is another possibility, although I imagine she would have said "..put my hat away" if it had been put there, which was where Andrew usually hung his coat. Summer 1890 hats were not huge things, and it may have been just a straw boater. The wide-brimmed cartwheel hats did not come into fashion until much later, Edwardian period, and peaked in size by 1913, so the shelf could have held Lizzie's summer straw- that is if you believe she went up to the loft at all- hat or hatless. I think, personally, that detail was tacked on later to reinforce the notion of her being outside at the time of the crime.

Found this small article in what I believe to be a Fall River newspaper (The FR Evening News) dated Aug. 8, 1892. It covers an interview with ice cream peddler, Hyman Lubinsky. Bear in mind the date as it is before the inquest began. In part Lubinsky describes the woman he saw in the yard:

"He relates that while riding in his cart past Andrew J. Borden's house, at half past 10 a.m., on Thursday, he noticed a woman walking from the barn to the door on the north side of the house, which she entered.
The woman was, he thought, a little taller than himself; that is, about 5 feet 4 inches.; was bare-headed; wore brown or dark clothes - he didn't take particular notice which; and had one hand on her hip, and the other hanging or swinging; that she walked at an ordinary gait; that he did not know who she was, and did not remember that he had ever seen her before; that the woman was not Bridget Sullivan, to whom he once sold ice cream at the house, and whom he could identify if she passed."

1) At half past 10 Andrew was not home yet and Lizzie testified she went to the barn after her father returned home.
2) Lizzie was 5'4" according to the police arrest record.
3) According to Lizzie's inquest testimony on the 10th she wore a hat on her trip outside.
4) Lizzie wore a blue (light blue?) dress of some sort that morning.

He repeats the same thing at the trial, page 1409:

"Q. Can you tell how she was dressed?
A. She had on a dark colored dress.
Q. Could you give the color of it?
A. I can't tell what kind of color it was.
Q. Did she have anything on her head?
A. No, sir."

He does alter the time at the Trial (p1409)

"Q. Can you tell about what time it was when you left the stable?
A. It was after eleven.
Q. How much after eleven?
A. Well, a few minutes after eleven."

What amazes me is that he was a witness for the defense. His description on the 8th of August, just 4 days after the murders, certainly doesn't appear to describe Lizzie. No wonder Robinson made a shamble of his testimony.

Fascinating testimony indeed. Maybe the unidentified lady was merely stealing those succulent and irresistible pears strewn about on the lawn. Even today passersby cannot resist plucking the pears off the tree in the front of the house when they think nobody is looking. At the price of pears per pound, I can see why.