Lizzie Borden Society Forum

We all seem to take for granted that Lizzie had her menses on the day her father and Step-mother were killed. The witness statement of one of the cops says that he arrived, saw the bodies, looked around and noticed a pail full of bloody rags and water. He asked Lizzie, who delicately said she "explained them" to the doctor. The doctor assured the officer that Lizzie "explained them" they had been there "3 or 4 days" (women generally menstruate for 3-4 days ) and it was dropped. All of the investigators, and indeed everyone discussing the case goes from the assumption that Lizzie really did happened to be menstruating on the days leading up to the murders. This is obviously reasonable, a woman has her period about 3-4 days/28 days. The odds would be 1 in 7 that she had it on any given day, definitely a coincidence. However, as far as I know, no doctor checked her for menses, or even to see if she was wearing a 'menstrual rag'. It was all taken for granted. When asked about the bloody rags, Bridget said they had NOT been there the day before else she would have washed them... (Thank goodness for disposable pads!) Now, very often when women live in close proximity, their menstrual cycles converge, and they get their periods on the same day. There is no mention by Bridget that she had her menses, and she surely would have known for sure if Lizzie did, based on the fact that Bridget seemed to have the task of washing, and in all probability Bridget would have had hers too. PERHAPS that one lie would have been how Bridget knew Lizzie did it, and made her move out quickly after the murders.

Not to mention, if it was true and they had been there 3-4 days--- DISGUSTING.

Fleet
Page 550

Q. You spoke of finding a pail near the foot of the stairs---I think you did, as you went down,---didn't you?
A. I did not. There was one there; I did not testify to that, I think.

Q. There was one there?
A. There was in the wash cellar.

Q. There was one there?
A. In the wash cellar.

Q. There were clothes in it?
A. There were.

MR. ROBINSON. It is agreed that that pail contained the napkins which had been worn within a day or two by the defendant,---the ordinary monthly sickness---and as to that fact that is all we propose to put in. We do not care to go into the details. It is also agreed that the sickness ended Wednesday night.

That is all, Mr. Fleet.

The testimony was that Lizzie's period ended Wednesday. I can only find hearsay evidence to this as it seems no one examined her. The spot of blood on her petticoat was almost certainly human, and fresh b/c it contained red blood cells, observable under a microscope, of the size consistent with human red blood cells. The blood spot while tiny, was larger on the OUTSIDE of the skirt than the inside, which from a forensic standpoint would mean the blood did NOT come from a menstrual rag unless it happened as she removed the rag and it dripped on the outside of the skirt/petticoat. A few years ago Kat mentioned on this forum that they could have easily verified that Lizzie had her period b/c she would have been in custody 28 days later, when the next one occurred, BUT I find no documentation that they did verify her story, they were so darn Puritanical about the whole thing, they wouldn't even talk about it except to say her "Monthly sickness" It seems they took her word for it. Anyway, even if she did a few more bloody rags used to clean up could have been dumped in the basin unnoticed.

OMG I never even thought of this possibility ... very good, everyone!

I have wondered, though, about the SIZE of the pail used for the rags. Was it large enough, perhaps, to hide a blood-soaked dress (and maybe even an axe) underneath the rags???

Very interesting, thanks for the post.

I'll play a little devil's advocate just to test the conjecture.

First, rags were found there, not the dress or any other articles of bloody clothing, correct?

So what is the possible suspicion? That she washed her hands and face with the rags and left them in the pail? Maybe. What happened to her clothing and the weapon?

Would it have made more sense to wash in a sink? I'm not sure if there was a sink, but with running water, I think there must have been. Not sure how much sense it makes to wash the victims blood with rags and then leave in a pail. She might have assumed everyone would buy her story about her period. But that's a pretty big chance to take, and a lot of forethought by someone who didn't have the forethought to stage a break-in or come up with a consistent story.

I think at best I would say this: there actually was a bucket full of menstrual rags soaking, and Lizzy might have added to it with rags from the murder cleanup. But if that's the case, there is also no reason to suppose they weren't just menstrual rags. Which kind of leaves this as inconclusive..though very interesting!

As for the dot of blood, couldn't that have happened in a variety of ways in a blood filled house? Dr. Bowen would have had blood on his hands from checking the bodies, as would others. Maybe most of those people ended up with trace blood on them, but there was no reason to check for that.

Thanks!

PossumPie wrote:Fleet
Page 550

Q. You spoke of finding a pail near the foot of the stairs---I think you did, as you went down,---didn't you?
A. I did not. There was one there; I did not testify to that, I think.

Q. There was one there?
A. There was in the wash cellar.

Q. There was one there?
A. In the wash cellar.

Q. There were clothes in it?
A. There were.

MR. ROBINSON. It is agreed that that pail contained the napkins which had been worn within a day or two by the defendant,---the ordinary monthly sickness---and as to that fact that is all we propose to put in. We do not care to go into the details. It is also agreed that the sickness ended Wednesday night.

That is all, Mr. Fleet.

The testimony was that Lizzie's period ended Wednesday. I can only find hearsay evidence to this as it seems no one examined her. The spot of blood on her petticoat was almost certainly human, and fresh b/c it contained red blood cells, observable under a microscope, of the size consistent with human red blood cells. The blood spot while tiny, was larger on the OUTSIDE of the skirt than the inside, which from a forensic standpoint would mean the blood did NOT come from a menstrual rag unless it happened as she removed the rag and it dripped on the outside of the skirt/petticoat. A few years ago Kat mentioned on this forum that they could have easily verified that Lizzie had her period b/c she would have been in custody 28 days later, when the next one occurred, BUT I find no documentation that they did verify her story, they were so darn Puritanical about the whole thing, they wouldn't even talk about it except to say her "Monthly sickness" It seems they took her word for it. Anyway, even if she did a few more bloody rags used to clean up could have been dumped in the basin unnoticed.

Well, Possum, I guess I'm somewhat "puritanical" myself, because this is a subject I don't like to discuss. Having said that, I admit that it has always bothered me that the "menstrual" explanation has always been just accepted as factual. In the testimony you quoted above, Robinson declares "It is also agreed that the sickness ended Wednesday night." Agreed between whom? The prosecution and the defense? Robinson and Lizzie? Needless to say, those bloody rags, cloths, or whatever they were, have always troubled me.

As far as I can tell, the State never tried to investigate this issue thoroughly, and so, that "evidentiary ship" sailed quickly away, so to speak.

Blood has been the key to solving this mystery. Why wasn't Lizzie "covered" in blood? Part of the answer is that a forensic analysis shows that there wouldn't be that much blood spatter, much more would slowly ooze out as the body lay there awhile. But I still believe SOME blood would have gotten her. If she had short sleeves and been lucky, maybe none would get on her dress. She could have washed blood off of her hands and forearms in 30 seconds and dumped the rag in the bucket... BUT it would have been some luck not to get one speck on her dress from either attack. That nags at me.
The first blow would be no blood spatter at all, and the person would fall on the floor. Subsequent blows would cause some spatter. Look at the below picture, the head was hit with a hammer, not a hatchet, 40 blows, MUCH more than either Mrs. or Mr. Borden and the blood on the perpetrator is on the lower legs, in a dress, this could be bare legs and washed off easily.

PossumPie wrote:We all seem to take for granted that Lizzie had her menses on the day her father and Step-mother were killed. The witness statement of one of the cops says that he arrived, saw the bodies, looked around and noticed a pail full of bloody rags and water. He asked Lizzie, who delicately said she "explained them" to the doctor. The doctor assured the officer that Lizzie "explained them" they had been there "3 or 4 days" (women generally menstruate for 3-4 days ) and it was dropped. All of the investigators, and indeed everyone discussing the case goes from the assumption that Lizzie really did happened to be menstruating on the days leading up to the murders. This is obviously reasonable, a woman has her period about 3-4 days/28 days. The odds would be 1 in 7 that she had it on any given day, definitely a coincidence. However, as far as I know, no doctor checked her for menses, or even to see if she was wearing a 'menstrual rag'. It was all taken for granted. When asked about the bloody rags, Bridget said they had NOT been there the day before else she would have washed them... (Thank goodness for disposable pads!) Now, very often when women live in close proximity, their menstrual cycles converge, and they get their periods on the same day. There is no mention by Bridget that she had her menses, and she surely would have known for sure if Lizzie did, based on the fact that Bridget seemed to have the task of washing, and in all probability Bridget would have had hers too. PERHAPS that one lie would have been how Bridget knew Lizzie did it, and made her move out quickly after the murders.

You know, I am starting to wonder if the bloody rags weren't from cleaning up the mess, not from the time of the month. The reason why I say that is because it seems to be gross to leave bloody menstrual rags in a bucket for two or three days. That's really gross.

snokkums wrote: You know, I am starting to wonder if the bloody rags weren't from cleaning up the mess, not from the time of the month. The reason why I say that is because it seems to be gross to leave bloody menstrual rags in a bucket for two or three days. That's really gross.

Right. Bridget's testimony is that the bucket wasn't there the day before- she said that she would have washed them b/c she did laundry that day. Lizzie testified they were there 4 days. Decaying Red Blood cells and epithelial tissue from the menses would be quite odoriferous after 3 days.

PossumPie wrote:

snokkums wrote: You know, I am starting to wonder if the bloody rags weren't from cleaning up the mess, not from the time of the month. The reason why I say that is because it seems to be gross to leave bloody menstrual rags in a bucket for two or three days. That's really gross.

Right. Bridget's testimony is that the bucket wasn't there the day before- she said that she would have washed them b/c she did laundry that day. Lizzie testified they were there 4 days. Decaying Red Blood cells and epithelial tissue from the menses would be quite odoriferous after 3 days.

It just wouldn't have happened that way! That house was clean-- Lizzie fastidious in her dress, etc. She aspired to high society. No way would she leave bloody rags around three or four days

Aamartin wrote:

PossumPie wrote:

snokkums wrote: You know, I am starting to wonder if the bloody rags weren't from cleaning up the mess, not from the time of the month. The reason why I say that is because it seems to be gross to leave bloody menstrual rags in a bucket for two or three days. That's really gross.

Right. Bridget's testimony is that the bucket wasn't there the day before- she said that she would have washed them b/c she did laundry that day. Lizzie testified they were there 4 days. Decaying Red Blood cells and epithelial tissue from the menses would be quite odoriferous after 3 days.

It just wouldn't have happened that way! That house was clean-- Lizzie fastidious in her dress, etc. She aspired to high society. No way would she leave bloody rags around three or four days

I agree. This is one facet of the mystery that doesn't get talked about, even today, as Darrowfan said, Menses is just not discussed much. "OK, OK, she had her period, that explains the bloody rags" and we promptly forget it.
NOW...if it had been a guy accused, and there were no women in the house AND a bucket of bloody rags were found...Hmmm We'd be all over that like a spider monkey.

Menstrual flow doesn't necessarily smell horrible UNLESS it is left to sit. The bacteria reproduce like crazy, and you have a very smelly mess- Bacteria, yeast, fungus need 3 things to reproduce WARM, DARK, & DAMP. (BTW, underarm sweat also doesn't smell bad...it is the bacteria that grow in it that gives it that underarm odor. That is why pads and tampons are advertized as being "absorbent" If they absorb the flow into the cotton and it can dry, not much odor. In Victorian days, there were no 'disposable' alternatives, so women used rags, and washed them out. BUT they never just threw them in a bucket of water for 3 or 4 days...That would have smelled up the house. Bridget seems to have had the unlucky duty to wash out all of the rags, b/c she says in her testimony that if they had been there the day before, she would have washed them b/c that was "wash day". Just one more inconsistency in Lizzie's testimony. I wish Kat would weigh in on this, she is a expert around here...

I thought Monday was wash day.

I agree this bucket of bloody rags is troublesome. I don't for one moment buy the argument (by Lizzie) that they had been there 3 or 4 days. The men here need to trust us gals...it just wouldn't happen.

Also, I'd like to point out one more thing; it may or may not be important. Menses don't just STOP. It's not like you're bleeding one day and the next you're not. The blood flow reduces down to a trickle, then sometimes spotting, then it goes away. And 3-4 days? Not always. I've had period that lasted 10 days. ESPECIALLY when I was emotionally riled up. Our bodies respond to any type of emotional stress. To assume that 28 days later, like a clockwork, Lizzie would have had her period again, is to ignore facts about how our cycles work. When my grandfather died, I stopped didn't get my period for 3 months. Any type of emotional upset, stress, sickness, MEDICATION, can throw off the delicate balance that exists between our reproductive organs and our pituitary gland. Just saying.

NancyDrew wrote:I thought Monday was wash day.

I agree this bucket of bloody rags is troublesome. I don't for one moment buy the argument (by Lizzie) that they had been there 3 or 4 days. The men here need to trust us gals...it just wouldn't happen.

Also, I'd like to point out one more thing; it may or may not be important. Menses don't just STOP. It's not like you're bleeding one day and the next you're not. The blood flow reduces down to a trickle, then sometimes spotting, then it goes away. And 3-4 days? Not always. I've had period that lasted 10 days. ESPECIALLY when I was emotionally riled up. Our bodies respond to any type of emotional stress. To assume that 28 days later, like a clockwork, Lizzie would have had her period again, is to ignore facts about how our cycles work. When my grandfather died, I stopped didn't get my period for 3 months. Any type of emotional upset, stress, sickness, MEDICATION, can throw off the delicate balance that exists between our reproductive organs and our pituitary gland. Just saying.

Nancy, It states in Bridget's witness statement "Washday was yesterday" so maybe she washed twice, I don't know. She said it wasn't there on Wednesday. I agree that some menses are not regular. Many women do however have regular periods, we just don't know with Lizzie. Someone several years ago postulated that She would have gotten it "28 days later" while in prison, but I agree with you. Stress of the murders, indictment, and incarceration would have thrown her off. I am bothered most by the fact that one hint that it was a 'delicate matter' and the police, prosecutors, witnesses, and even us- armchair detectives- just took it for truth.

I think you are right PP. If it was a guy they'd been all this case like a monkey. but because it was a woman and she said that it was her time of the month, we all, including the police, just excused the rags as it was her time of the month. I think the police really goofed this case.

snokkums wrote:I think you are right PP. If it was a guy they'd been all this case like a monkey. but because it was a woman and she said that it was her time of the month, we all, including the police, just excused the rags as it was her time of the month. I think the police really goofed this case.

Right...and to be fair to the police involved, back then it was a taboo subject. several samples of the blood from different rags could have been looked at under a standard microscope and the origin determined. Menses is actually the lining of the uterus tearing off, so the blood would have been mixed with a lot of endometrial cells and mucus. A rag that showed no endometrial cells wouldn't have been from menses. Blood typing wasn't invented until 1900, so they couldn't have determined anyone's blood type back then. Again, I think that the 'make or break' fact is did she have enough time between when Bridget went upstairs (about 10:50-10:55) and when she raised the alarm (11:10). Twenty minutes at most, It doesn't sound like much, but 20 min. of careful activity is a long time. 5 min. to talk to father, 1-2min. to kill him, 13 min. to take off his jacket, put it under his head, go to the basement wash the blood off of her arms, and lower legs, back upstairs to straighten her hair, and yell for Bridget.

Gross, I know... But would Lizzie have changed her pads in her room? Why not in the cellar? I wouldn't want to do such a thing in my bedroom with only a wash basin to clean up in afterwards.

Aamartin wrote:Gross, I know... But would Lizzie have changed her pads in her room? Why not in the cellar? I wouldn't want to do such a thing in my bedroom with only a wash basin to clean up in afterwards.

She would definitely have more privacy in her bedroom, since the door had a lock on it, no one could walk in on her while she was performing the task of changing her pad. She could change, wash up, and dispose of the dirty water without anyone knowing. Doing such a task in the cellar would leave her wide open for anyone to walk in on her – now that would be GROSS, not to mention humiliating!

twinsrwe wrote:

Aamartin wrote:Gross, I know... But would Lizzie have changed her pads in her room? Why not in the cellar? I wouldn't want to do such a thing in my bedroom with only a wash basin to clean up in afterwards.

She would definitely have more privacy in her bedroom, since the door had a lock on it, no one could walk in on her while she was performing the task of changing her pad. She could change, wash up, and dispose of the dirty water without anyone knowing. Doing such a task in the cellar would leave her wide open for anyone to walk in on her – now that would be GROSS, not to mention humiliating!

gotcha!

Wasn't there a place in the basement to defecate? a hole? There must have been some way of providing for privacy if so...

PossumPie wrote:Wasn't there a place in the basement to defecate? a hole? There must have been some way of providing for privacy if so...

That's what I thought--- maybe it was too dark in there to do it properly. I imagine pinning those rags into bloomers was one hell of a job!

twinsrwe wrote:

Aamartin wrote:Gross, I know... But would Lizzie have changed her pads in her room? Why not in the cellar? I wouldn't want to do such a thing in my bedroom with only a wash basin to clean up in afterwards.

She would definitely have more privacy in her bedroom, since the door had a lock on it, no one could walk in on her while she was performing the task of changing her pad. She could change, wash up, and dispose of the dirty water without anyone knowing. Doing such a task in the cellar would leave her wide open for anyone to walk in on her – now that would be GROSS, not to mention humiliating!

Someone posted pictures and in the basement, there is a room with a door. She could have changed things there and disposed of them. However, y'all are talking about smells, true but didn't someone say it was in water? Perhaps they soaked things back then? For the parents who use cloth diapers, you know what I am talking about.

The amount of time those rags were there was a point of contention between Bridget and Lizzie's testimony, wasn't it? If the rags in a pail had been in the cellar for three days, as Lizzie stated, then surely they would have been washed by Bridget on washing day which I believe was Tuesday on that week. Yet Bridget insisted she had never seen the pail until the Thursday.
Surely the toilet would have had a door and lock, though it would have been mighty dimly lighted in that cellar. I think Lizzie did the necessary things in the privacy of her bedroom.

[quote="Curryongr. I think Lizzie did the necessary things in the privacy of her bedroom.[/quote]

That statement alone might explain the pail- if there was only one bathroom (I didn't see any on the 2nd floor near the bedrooms or in any of them) would you want to traipse down to the cellar in the middle of the night to take care of things? Probably not and you'd have a pail.. hence it being there Thursday morning.

There was no bathroom in the house, no running hot water, one of the things that makes Andrew seem so miserly. I think people on the Forum have argued for years about the significance of those rags in the pail and what the pail might have contained.

I think I was just pointing out that Bridget had the pleasure!! of washing Emma and Lizzie's pads and if the pail had been in the cellar on Tuesday, washing day, she would have washed them. If they perhaps weren't there and appeared on the day of the murders, the mystery deepens!

Curryong wrote:There was no bathroom in the house, no running hot water, one of the things that makes Andrew seem so miserly. I think people on the Forum have argued for years about the significance of those rags in the pail and what the pail might have contained.

I think I was just pointing out that Bridget had the pleasure!! of washing Emma and Lizzie's pads and if the pail had been in the cellar on Tuesday, washing day, she would have washed them. If they perhaps weren't there and appeared on the day of the murders, the mystery deepens!

Okay, I wasn't talking about a 'regular' bathroom. The mystery doesn't deepen necessarily- if Bridget says that she washed clothes on Tuesday (thereby washing those, too) and then another pail ends up there later, what's so mysterious about it? I would imagine that they wouldn't just leave them sitting in the pail until the next wash day. Does that make sense?

I don't subscribe to the theory of the mysterious pail, but several posters over the years have developed theories that Lizzie wasn't menstruating at all (and Dr Bowen didn't examine her) and that therefore the cloths inside the pail of water were cloths that were used to wipe Lizzie down, after both murders.

Therefore she would not have needed to deposit anything in the cellar prior to Thursday as she hadn't yet murdered anyone. Alternatively, some have suggested that she did have her period but also deposited these cloths among the pads, knowing the police wouldn't be investigating closely! Some have also theorised that the hatchet was deposited in the pail and disposed of later. Hence the mystery of the suddenly appearing pail!

As I mentioned I'm not a believer in the bloodied cloths/axe in the pail theory.

Were gas wringer washing machines in use in 1892?

Don't think so. I think it was all elbow grease and washing tubs and then putting things through the mangle by hand which took two people. Didn't women use to make their children stand on one side of the mangle while they pushed the clothes through on the other?