Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I'm reading the Preliminary Hearing testimony of Eli Bence and Kilroy and Harte.

I understand that questions as to the woman's appearance who asked for prussic acid and their answers that say they cannot describe her clothing or hat or whether she had gloves or a purse can show that they might not have been paying as close attention as they seem to try to project.

But, I notice the question keeps coming up as to the color of her dress. They are being asked by the defense if it was Blue. Why is there a defense emphasis on a blue dress?

Adams even asks Harte about the colors of the display in the window and implies that would color his perception of what the lady was wearing by seeing her thru that light.

I can't figure this out because I don't know why he's asking.
Any suggestions?
I have not cross-checked the trial or the inquest or the witness statements for this line of questioning.

Maybe Lizzie was known for wearing blue dresses as a kind of trademark?

If you are reading Bence/Kilroy/Harte in any of the documents, you may notice that Bence said Lizzie spoke "low."
Bridget had said the same of Lizzie on Thursday when she sort of overheard Lizzie tell her father about the note.
I think the "low" description is interesting in that they both said that about her voice.

Bence is adamant the woman he thought was Lizzie was not wearing a blue dress when she came in the pharmacy. He says it was a dark color and: "I know it was not blue. I am positive of that". (Prelim. 281) And he says later: "I am sure it was not blue." (285)

But at trial, the defense elicits testimony from Bridget that Lizzie was wearing a blue dress on Wednesday.
"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." (Bridget Sullivan: Trial, 270)

I think that's why the defense was trying to get Bence et al on record as saying the woman they'd seen was not wearing blue.

From what I've read, the attorneys were seldom content with an "I don't remember" response from a witness. In the case of a dress, an obvious question is the color of the dress. Someone not particularly sensitive to the style or fabric would probably notice the color. If the witness did not remember what color the dress was, the attorney tried to determine what color the dress was not. By process of elimination, color by color, the possibilities can be narrowed down. Sometimes the process can jog the memory by making the witness think about it rather than just simply saying "I don't remember" without trying.

An emphasis on a blue dress in Lizzie's case might be warranted since her wardrobe included so many blue dresses. The odds were very good that on a given day she would be wearing a blue dress, but since she did own other color dresses, the point would be rather weak if taken by itself. A better tactic would be to eliminate all the colors in Lizzie's wardrobe one by one to show that it couldn't have been Lizzie that the clerk remembered. Blue would be the logical starting point for process of elimination since it eliminates a large number of Lizzie's dresses.