Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Apparently the writer came to the conclusion that Lizzie didn't turn over the dress she was wearing that day, but another one. After reading thru the whole post I have to agree with him. Lizzie did burn a dress that had a red stain on it, but she told the police that it was red paint.
Besides, her behavior and such thru the whole mess doesn't seem to be the actions of someone that is innocent; she didn't turn over the right dress, was seen burning one that had a stain on it, and kept changing her alibi.

That is telling me she had something to hide.

Yes, and if I remember correctly, Alice Russell's account of the dress burning was the deciding factor in her indictment.

Red paint stays red when it dries but red blood turns brown. Maybe Lizzie realized that the Police would know the difference right off when they saw it and decided to burn it before anyone even saw those stains.

Odd, but I always thought it was brown paint she brushed against?

-1bigsteve (o:

Are we missing the introductory paragraph, snokkums?

What author, which post, please elucidate? Thank you!
As for a *red* stain, the color of the paint stain on the Bedford cord was not determined to be red, I don't think.
They were painting the house *drab*, right?

yup, just noticed it. The thread was started on 11/06/03 by haulover. And it was stated "few of us seem to think LIzzie is actually innocent. I certainly don't. The question is what exactly went on that day. " I was trying to put the thread in my own words, don't know why it didn't get thru.

But the thread goes on to say that he thought maybe he was overlooking something fbut that someone else did the work and Lizzie knew who, and he had a question about the dress.

Hope that clears everything up. Sirry for the mishap.

I was just curious if Lizzie might have had a chance to burn any blood spattered items the morning of the murders? We know Bridget had a fire going for breakfast, but I know it was a sweltering day and the fire may have gone out or been put out shortly after the meal.

I don't think she did that day. I mean, she had the police and everyone coming in and out of the house; someone would have noticed.
I think she might have done it a couple of days later. Wasn't Emma that told the police about lizzie burning the dress and Lizzie telling the police that there was red paint on the dress?

I still don't know about the *red paint.* But thanks for being more clear, snokkums.

Maybe Lizzie hid whatever-it-was thru the day when the police were there, and burned it that same evening? Or buried it in the cellar?

Not to confuse anyone, but there was a spurious news item about the witnesses who were summoned to the grand jury, and relayed a story that Bridget had known about a lot of hot water boiling, on a hot fire, on the stove that morning, but later it was gone. The grand jury, and testimony of witnesses there, was under secrecy, so not much chance this was true. But if it ever comes up in your reading, you can decide for yourself if it has any merit. Personally I don't think so. Anyone carrying tales out of the grand jury would have been censored by the State, I think.

Evening Standard, Tuesday, November 22, 1892, page 4.

She could have burned the dress that night like you said, and had hid it all day because the police were there, but for some reason, I think she just waited a day. You know, wait until everything calms down a bit.

If Abby had been killed on the early side of the estimate- say 9:20 -9:30, Lizzie had plenty of time to burn things in the stove before Bridget came back inside from washing the windows. There wasn't much time after Andrew's murder and the alarm raised to Bridget upstairs. There was however, some time when Bridget was racing to Bowen's and Alice's to manage some tidying up or concealment of items if that had been required.

Yes, Shelley, I was referring to after Abby's murder. She might have worn Andrew's coat during his murder. There would have been less evidence to destroy.

Yes, burning the dress after Abby's murder may have posed a problem as Lizzie would not have known just when Bridget may have come in and caught her doing it. If Abby was killed on the early side of the estimate- say 9:20, Lizzie may have been pretty sure Bridget was busy at the side fence talking to the Kelly maid and getting her water from the barn and would be tied up outside long enough. She might have risked burning the dress then. I vote for concealment though-until the coast was clear later.

We don't know the quantity or location of the blood on the dress. Suppose she concealed the dress after Abby's murder- in the kitchen cupboard or in the sinkroom. Then after Bridget went upstairs and her father lay down- she may have put it on again for murder #2, carefully removed it, washed her hands and smoothed her hair. Last week I removed a skirt and blouse (8 buttons on the blouse or basque), unhooked a long skirt, stepped out of it, stepped into another clean skirt and blouse, hooked it, buttoned up the front of the blouse and reached under to pull down my blouse smoothly under my skirt, smoothed my bun, washed and dried my hands in a tad under 2 minutes- without rushing in the least. Richard- maybe we can do a home movie of this maneuver!

That's interesting - it never occurred to me she could have worn the same dress for both murders. As for changing quickly, I used to reenact for a historic site in Kansas - circa 1865 period clothing. It took me forever to fasten all the buttons on my high-necked dress and get into the hoop skirt!

" It took me forever to fasten all the buttons on my high-necked dress and get into the hoop skirt!"

Yes, because you probably do not do it everyday. The buttons were in the front of the blouse. Hoops were long gone by 1892 and so were bustles and other outlandish contraptions. Lizzie would have had a full cotton petticoat on. The skirt had either a one button or hook closure , probably on the side with a pocket placket. I crawl in and out of these outfits weekly, and it takes very little time. 1892 summer day clothing was not much different that a skirt and blouse today- just longer and fuller. After what had gone on in the previous decade, the 1890's were a breath of fresh air for women's outerwear. The only odd thing which kept growing in size where those leg o' mutton sleeves. The skirts were nice and roomy and allowed a manly stride!
Here's a company which makes a nice 1890's (early 90's) shirt waist
http://www.riverjunction.com/catalog/ld ... waist.html

kssunflower @ Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:33 pm wrote:Yes, Shelley, I was referring to after Abby's murder. She might have worn Andrew's coat during his murder. There would have been less evidence to destroy.

I thought that too for a while and then I thought of something else. The coat was found under Andrew's head on the sofa. If she had worn the coat she would have then had to raise Andrew's bloody head up and shove it under him. How could she do that without getting blood on her after all? And it would seem to me to be able to lift dead weight and shove a large folded coat under him at the same time would be a pretty arduous task.

I consider an *early side of an estimate* for Abbie's death to be around 9 am. No one says they saw her after that.

Shelley @ Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:48 pm wrote: Last week I removed a skirt and blouse (8 buttons on the blouse or basque), unhooked a long skirt, stepped out of it, stepped into another clean skirt and blouse, hooked it, buttoned up the front of the blouse and reached under to pull down my blouse smoothly under my skirt, smoothed my bun, washed and dried my hands in a tad under 2 minutes- without rushing in the least. Richard- maybe we can do a home movie of this maneuver!

That's pretty amazing. It certainly changes the way I think about Lizzie's possible clean up time for Andrew's murder. I had not thought that logically someone accustomed to removing those victorian garments on a daily basis would've been a lot quicker at it than I have given credit. One question that has always had me wondering is the amount of fabric used in the dresses. When it comes to possible hiding places could they have been rolled up to hide in a small space, such as a hatbox, or would they be too bulky?

I still think she had time to clean up or something. Wasn't it alittle (like 30 mintues) before she told Bridget to go get someone?

I mean her stepmother was killed at about 9:30 and her father about 11 or 11:30 and she was in and out the house; wasn't it about 12:00 or so when she told Bridget to go get someone?

She very easily could have cleaned up, hid what ever she was wearing , and look nice and neat when the police came. Or as was suggested had an outer layer of close on over the things she was wearing.

The timing is off a bit, snokkums., You might like this one- it is the prosecutions timeline from LABVM/L:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... yMoody.htm