What would it take to solve this Crime?

Curiousmind2014 · Post by **Curiousmind2014** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:02 pm

I think I have finally lost my patience. It fascinated me and gave me sleepless nights in trying to figure out what would have actually happened. However, none of us or many others from the past, have not been successful in solving this crime. I would also like to believe that truth will finally prevail. In this case, it has been 122 years since the crime took place. I can't wait any longer! haha.

In my opinion, following things can help in taking a step forward in solving this crime:

1. Metal detection test, on the Borden home, Maplecroft and property along side of it. Also, tests should be done to look for cavities underground or within the walls of both homes to seek what might have been left behind.

2. DNA testing on all the materials found on or around Abby and Andrew on that very day and everything belonging to Lizzie & Emma.

I think this should result in some findings and hopefully help us take a step towards resolving this crime!

I await your comments!

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:31 pm

I would like to see a cold case detective work it with the files of the Fall River Police department and of course access to the defense law firm files which they're still holding. There might be a suspect in either place. I expect a metal detector has been used to search 92 multiple times but maybe not Maplecroft though I don't think the hatchet would be there. If Lizzie secreted the hatchet at 92 and it managed to survive her time in jail, then she surely disposed of it after her return. The murder weapon is really needed to solve the crime but even if Lizzie's DNA were on it along with the blood of the victims, who can say she didn't touch at some point prior? The bodies could be exhumed but aside from modern doctors examining the bone marks, they won't get us a time of death. Possibly they could tell handed-ness though. Experts could review the doctors notes on stomach contents and possibly come to different conclusions but no temperatures were taken of the bodies and all we have are visual assessments/opinions of the state of clotting. There's not a lot of real data there. I'm of the unscientific opinion that because Abby was never seen again after going upstairs, she was dead by 9:30.

It's been stated before that short of something turning up in a Fall River attic, we're kind of sunk. It's really a closed room mystery except one in which two people are encased in a locked house while a double murder goes on and see nothing. Bridget is largely out of commission outside, so it's Lizzie really who sees nothing. And I just don't think that's possible. Either she did the murders herself or she saw the murderer and said nothing. Her lack of dishevelment has always bothered me; her hands and nails and hair were clean (and hair not wet from wiping off blood). If she did the thing, then she wore gloves and an overcoat of some kind - how did she get THOSE clean? Andrew's overcoat, ok, but what did she wear with Abby? The mac? If so, how did she wash it down? She had time to clean up after Abby but not Andrew.

I'd be willing to believe that if Lizzie did not do it, then she didn't know Abby was dead until she saw Andrew and the murderer who for whatever reason, she concealed. Reason being, I can't see her behaving normally to Bridget in the interim, or even fairly normally and getting out the iron, the flats, mentioning the fabric sale. Steely though she may have been, you can't hide the wild eyes of adrenalin and other signs of excitement. Bridget seems the sort that if she had witnessed Lizzie in a state that would have made its way to the witness stand. She was clearly leaving the Borden's employ right after the murders so she would have nothing to lose by mentioning such a thing.

I find all Lizzie's lies and confusions very explainable if she was covering for someone and had no time to think through her answers; that she stuck to the truth as far as she could and where it conflicted with the identity of the killer and her witnessing, she lied.

We're five generations past the crime and it's possible that there is a family who knows who did it (if an intruder) and enough time has elapsed to limit the shame and someone will come forward with a tale to tell, or a memoir, or a letter or diary. Then we can have fun dissecting whether THAT is true.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:49 am

What would solve this crime would be if the hatchet was found. However, as I believe it was thrown on the Crowe's Yard barn by Lizxie and then given to a carpenter who 'claimed' it, that's hardly likely to happen. The papers held by the Robertson law firm in Springfield might be interesting. I doubt that they'd hold a 'smoking gun ' but nevertheless it would be intriguing to see what went on in conference between Lizzie's attorneys, Emma and Jennings. I don't believe Lizzie ever confessed, so wishing for a written confession would be pretty hopeless.

So really would a cold case investigation. No witnesses alive, no hatchet, fingerprints, a very different no 92 and Maplecroft. It would be nice to know in one way. In another this forum would be gone, and much of the research done over the years would have been for nothing!

Don't you think that Lizzie being spotless after trying to find lead in a dusty barn AND eating juicy pears is just a little bit too good to be true? Almost as if she'd washed her face and hands and patted her hair down, really!

Lizzie loved the theatre all her adult life. She may have felt she was playing a part in front of Bridget, in a way a starring role. She could well have worn Abby's gossamer to kill her stepmother and very carefully cleaned it, afterwards.

If she was covering for someone she certainly took a big risk for them. Arrest, incarceration in a jail sell for nearly a year, the chance of being hanged, a public trial, thousands of dollars spent on a dream team of lawyers including Robinson, and let's not forget the social isolation for the rest of her life. In the meantime the killer gets off scot free and is paid for it as well! Great fairness there!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:50 am

Curryong wrote:What would solve this crime would be if the hatchet was found. However, as I believe it was thrown on the Crowe's Yard barn by Lizxie and then given to a carpenter who 'claimed' it, that's hardly likely to happen. The papers held by the Robertson law firm in Springfield might be interesting. I doubt that they'd hold a 'smoking gun ' but nevertheless it would be interesting to see what went on in conference between Lizzie's attorneys, Emma and Jennings. I don't believe Lizzie ever confessed so wishing for a written confession would be pretty hopeless.

So really would a cold case investigation. No witnesses alive, no hatchet, a very different no 92 and Maplecroft. It would be nice to know in one way. In another this forum would be gone, and much of the research done over the years would have been for nothing!

Don't you think that Lizzie being spotless after trying to find lead in a dusty barn AND eating juicy pears is just a little bit too good to be true? Almost as if she'd washed her face and hands and patted her hair down, really!

Lizzie loved the theatre all her adult life. She may have felt she was playing a part in front of Bridget, in a way a starring role. She could well have worn Abby's gossamer to kill her stepmother and very carefully cleaned it, afterwards.

If she was covering for someone she certainly took a big risk for them. Arrest, incarceration in a jail cell for nearly a year, the chance of being hanged, a public trial, thousands of dollars spent on a dream team of lawyers including Robinson, and let's not forget the social isolation for the rest of her life. In the meantime the killer gets off scot free and is paid for it as well! Great fairness there!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 7:50 am

Curiousmind2014 wrote:I think I have finally lost my patience. It fascinated me and gave me sleepless nights in trying to figure out what would have actually happened. However, none of us or many others from the past, have not been successful in solving this crime. I would also like to believe that truth will finally prevail. In this case, it has been 122 years since the crime took place. I can't wait any longer! haha.

In my opinion, following things can help in taking a step forward in solving this crime:

1. Metal detection test, on the Borden home, Maplecroft and property along side of it. Also, tests should be done to look for cavities underground or within the walls of both homes to seek what might have been left behind.

2. DNA testing on all the materials found on or around Abby and Andrew on that very day and everything belonging to Lizzie & Emma.

I think this should result in some findings and hopefully help us take a step towards resolving this crime!

I await your comments!

I don't know if we could the fingerprints from the orginal crime scene because it happened so many years ago, and the house has been cleaned over the years. Besides, I think that the Fall river police goofed up in so many ways that it's probably impossable to be able to solve the crime. They had so many people coming and going that the crime scene was throughly contaminated.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:29 am

Yes, you're right Snokkums. No fingerprints, no DNA, unless that mysterious hatchet turns up pristine somewhere! I'm afraid the police in those days weren't worried really about keeping crime scenes untouched!

God knows how it happened, but I seem to have double posted earlier!!

Franz · Post by **Franz** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:41 am

Reopen the graves of all figures concerned in the crime: those of the two victims: Abby and Andrew, and those of Lizzie, Bridget, uncle John, and maybe Emma.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:52 am

Not to forgot the grave of 'Lizzie' staring across the way at Governor Robinson for all eternity. To solve this crime we need all the major players back for one day when we can give each of them a choice between sodium pentothal and waterboarding. No one need to do anything cruel to anyone, but I'd be willing to wager a fair sum that the innocent would pick the truth serum. The guilty would see enduring the torture as necessary.

irina · Post by **irina** » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:26 pm

The crime could be solved if the hatchet was found in the walls or somewhere like that at 92 Second. That would truly point to Lizzie. It is also possible other evidence will come up.

I am involved in another forum on another historic mystery though not so big a case as Lizzie. It's a very special forum so I don't want to write anything specific. My point is someone has access to records that were preserved. This someone is related to an investigator at the time the crime happened. Nobody ever thought to look for these records. There could be something like that out there in the Lizzie case.

Lots of people kept diaries in those days for example. People kept letters written to them. That Lizzie was of a class that kept diaries and letters, as opposed to say Bridget's class, it's possible there are bundles of papers in various historic societies and universities, that have never been catalogued or fully looked at.

What would be instructive would be for example if friends who remained close to Lizzie, could help explain Lizzie's seemingly false narrative about the barn, etc. What if, as I believe, Lizzie was in the cellar and heard her father being killed, heard other footsteps and assumed Abby had come home, etc., and what if a friend of hers later down the road acknowledged something like that? I know Franz thinks Lizzie may have done something shameful in the barn, so what if a letter acknowledged that it was too bad Lizzie couldn't say she was doing...whatever...?

We could yet learn if Lizzie had any serious suitors around the time of the murders. We could then find out what sort of fellow was interested in her, etc. In general there is a lot we don't know about Lizzie and filling in plain, ordinary gaps could be helpful. What he heck did she do with her life after school and before her trip to Europe? That's pretty much a blank. Church work and charities everyday of the week?

We may yet find business records that would give us more insight into problems Andrew may have had at the time, outside of the home.

There are lots of things that could yet be discovered. It would be easier to make those discoveries in this case than say Jack the Ripper where files were stolen, destroyed, destroyed when London was bombed, etc. Chances are papers pertaining to Lizzie are still in existence.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:24 am

If there's an answer to be had at this late date, I think it's locked in a law office in Boston. What the prosecution thought they could possibly prove in court may not have included all of what they really thought happened...it's one thing to know, another to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Here are some of things they couldn't find or identify:

murder weapon

clothing with blood stains

the "packet"

the circular item burning in the stove

the "note" assuming there was one; ditto the sick friend

a Last Will and Testament...odd for a man as financially astute as Andrew unless he was satisfied with allowing Massachusetts statute to control the disposition of his estate (does this make sense given what we know about him?)

how to gain access to the safe without breaking into it

the dress Lizzie was wearing that morning

That's a whole lot of missing evidence! Is it pattern or coincidence?

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:22 pm

I think the only way this case could possibly be solved is, if a hatchet were found with Abby and Andrew’s blood on it, and only one set of fingerprints on it.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:30 pm

Lizzie's fingerprints were never taken-- we'd have nothing to compare one to. So even if one was found it would still be circumstantial evidence. I also believe the house was literally gutted for the most recent renovations and nothing was found.

irina · Post by **irina** » Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:23 pm

It is possible that Lizzie's fingerprints could be found on letters she wrote. Patricia Cornwell looked for Walter Sickert's fingerprints all over papers & letters & didn't find any, but fingerprints could be left. Also Lizzie's DNA under a licked stamp for instance. It would be much less likely that any such would remain on the hatchet if it was found.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:27 am

irina wrote:It is possible that Lizzie's fingerprints could be found on letters she wrote. Patricia Cornwell looked for Walter Sickert's fingerprints all over papers & letters & didn't find any, but fingerprints could be left. Also Lizzie's DNA under a licked stamp for instance. It would be much less likely that any such would remain on the hatchet if it was found.

Interesting--- but it would still be considered circumstantial.... How do we know for sure who's fingerprint is who's on such an old document? Or if Lizzie licked her own stamps. I would personally accept these as evidence of her guilt, but they wouldn't hold up in court or beyond a reasonable doubt.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:21 am

What would it take to solve this crime?

A kid, a mad scientist and an old Delorean....

irina · Post by **irina** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:13 pm

The problem we have now is we can't even put a hatchet in Lizzie's hands, or anyone else's. I would think if Lizzie wrote a letter & maybe left a partial print in the same ink, it might mean something. The reason this is a mystery is because there is so little useful evidence.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:15 pm

We could all time-travel back to 1892 and warn Abby and Andrew....!!

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:23 pm

Good one, Curryong! How about if we time-travel back to 92 Second Street. in 1892, to observe what took place on the evening of the 3rd and all day on the 4th? This crime would be solved, but Abby and Andrew would still be killed, and this forum would no longer be.

Naaa, I like your idea better!

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:44 pm

I do wish I could time travel-- and be invisible-- just able to watch!

irina · Post by **irina** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:05 pm

We would all like to warn Abby and Andrew but aren't there sci-fi type shows with themes like that and the end is all about history can't be changed?

How would we warn them? Somebody is going to kill you today? Maybe they extra lock the back door against an intruder & Lizzie does it.

Lizzie is going to kill you today? Maybe they would give her some extra money and insist she go shopping for the day. Only to have an intruder sneak in, etc.

Andrew, you and Mrs. Borden really need to be out of town for the day... So they hire a carriage to go to Swansea and the horses run away and both die of head injuries...

In a parallel universe they weren't killed. Or Bridget did it in one universe, Lizzie in another, Emma in another, an intruder in another...It seems that's how some view Parallel universes. I'm not sure I really agree with all that sort of thing though. Perhaps in one universe Mr. and Mrs. Borden kill Lizzie. It gets crazy.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:43 pm

While I don't believe it's possible-- I do believe changing one part of history would have catastrophic consequences. It's like the debate in college as to if you knew what Adolph Hitler was and had a chance to throw a grenade into an open Jeep of him and 2 children.... That said, it sickens me that the Holocaust happened recently enough that there are still people alive who remember it.... We may have come a long way technologically-- but.....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:45 pm

If we were ever to be able to time travel (not possible in my view) we would change history even microscopically just by being there, ie a hotel room that otherwise wouldn't be occupied that night, a theatre ticket (if you wanted to go to Ford's one April evening) that otherwise would be sold to someone else, food consumed that otherwise would go to another. If you were caught up in crowds and fell under a cart's wheels, an accident that otherwise wouldn't happen.

If we ever went back it would have to be invisibly. People, even in Lizzie's day, would regard the way 21st century humans talk and conduct ourselves as very strange, even if we tried to adapt. The smells and dirt of a late 19th century industrial town would probably knock us out!

I have to say though, Anthony's idea of a front row seat in the guest bedroom of 92, near the door and invisible, sounds very intriguing, even though the viewing would be a bit gory!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:29 pm

I would like to ask other posters if you were in charge of police investigations at the Borden house what would you order to be done first? How would you approach questioning Lizzie, and later Emma? Where would you search first, inside and out?

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:21 pm

I'd take all of them - Lizzie, Bridget, Uncle John, Emma, Bowen - down to the station house for extensive questioning while the police took apart the house starting with Lizzie's bedroom and Emma's alcove. Generally we hide things in places most accessible and easily monitored.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 7:02 am

Yes, debbie, even if Jennings was with Lizzie and Emma, watching like a hawk! It would need a very smart interrogator, also. I don't think Fleet or Hilliard were up to the job. They could all take a change of clothes and stay elsewhere. I'm sure Marianna Holmes would be delighted to put the sisters and Bridget up for the night while John could go to a hotel.

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:53 am

I would move Lizzie and Emma to another location immediately, telling them it was for their own protection and secure the house to search at leisure without interference. Bring in a Nellie Bly like woman police officer (if we're time traveling we can make this up) and have her go through the dresses one at a time with a steampunk microscope. Determine categorically what Lizzie was wearing by getting the dress witnesses together, and showing them all the blue dresses to have them identify the likeliest candidate. If the dress fits, you must not acquit!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:52 pm

Exactly Phineas! That would have to be done. Allowing the burning of that paint-stained dress was a huge blunder by the police, second only to them not searching neighbouring rooftops. Lizzie should have been asked to hand it over when she had changed into the pink wrapper, IMO. Nowadays that dress would be in police custody and tested to the max.

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:09 pm

I like the idea of taking the dress as soon as she changed into the wrapper. That would have been common sense, but they were still operating at that time under the concept of the grieving daughter. BUT do you suppose she had changed her dress already after Andrew? Possibly, she could have changed twice - after Abby, then again after Andrew. But my guess is she wore the paint stained dress for both, thinking it was already ruined and she'd get rid of afterward. In that case, it might already have been hidden and whatever dress she was wearing would not have been "the one."

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:43 pm

Does anyone think Lizzie had time to change between Andrew'd death and summoning Bridget?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:08 pm

No, I don't think so.

phineas · Post by **phineas** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:04 pm

She was already so pressed for time, it's doubtful. Just floated the possibility that her sartorial splendor kept a changin. If we believe that Lizzie changed out of the murder dress into the pink wrapper were Victorian mores such that she would have changed in private, not in front of Alice? Was Mrs. Churchill up in the room too? Would Lizzie have hung the dress promptly or crumpled it up on the floor? If it were an ordinary dress, I'd say tossed on the bed. But it wasn't ordinary...and being that Lizzie was upstairs in her room being doped by Dr Bowen, where did she put it for its stay until it made its way to the kitchen?

Curiousmind2014 · Post by **Curiousmind2014** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:57 pm

Thanks for posing that question Aamartin!

If Andrew arrived at 10:40am and Bridget was running around the streets of fall river by 11:14am it is possible that the change of dress took place. However, given that the crime was of passion, I believe it had to be Emma/Lizzie/Bridget who did this and got away with it. Following are the possibilities

1. Emma, Lizzie & Bridget involved (Debbie's molestion theory): Emma comes in the horse buggy and enters the house secretively after Andrew and John Morse have left for the morning. She kills Abby and hides in her room (Maybe this explains Lizzie's laughter/giggle. I am sure she was not laughing at 10:40am after killing Abby around 9-930am). Emma is told Andrew has arrived home. Lizzie sets up Andrew for the nap. Emma goes for the kill, changes her clothing, takes the soiled dress, murder weapon and the package Andrew bought with him and gets out of Fall River. Lizzie and Bridget go on to create drama.

2. Lizzie & Bridget involved: For this to be true, Andrew has to be killed before 10:55am for sure. I would suspect Bridget in this case. In her trial you can see the trend that she is tight lipped. However, she does mention that she never changed clothes while in her room around 11am. Break in pattern! She probably killed Andrew for everything he did with her sexually, especially perving her with his now "split eye ball". Lizzie takes the axe, cleans it, and hides it whereas Bridget goes upstairs to change her clothes followed by the drama we are aware of.

3. Only Lizzie/ Bridget involved: I think one would have to be very lucky to have escaped each other's eye. One of them had to be an accomplice and the other the murderer. I always believed Lizzie was an accomplice. Not a murderer. Nor innocent.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:02 pm

I believe the dress she burned is the one she killed Abby in. Then, she either used his coat, the door, or whatever to kill Andrew.

Curiousmind2014 · Post by **Curiousmind2014** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:06 pm

I don't think they would have kept anything related to murder in the house. If you ask me, everything was gone with the killer (Emma) even before Lizzie shouted out that "Father is dead/Someone came and killed father". I think people give Lizzie too much of a credit. Her behavior was cavalier and she definitely thought she can't get in trouble.

I think she was surprised that she was the suspect. She probably thought the cops would buy into the intruder theory because that was the truth and no murder weapon was found. There were no blood stains on Lizzie or Bridget or discovery of blood stained clothing than monthly sickness rags.

irina · Post by **irina** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:34 pm

I really wonder about the dress search and how it all got so mucked up. I think I remember Lizzie changed to the pink wrapper in Emma's room and that she was alone. Beyond that, it really seems like the police and everyone didn't want the actual dress. They waited a couple days we know. Lizzie should have plopped at least the skirt & petticoat in a tub to soak and claimed that in the mayhem she had a little accident due to flea bites or monthly sickness or whatever the polite term was. She could have shredded and disposed of the waist part. But anyway she didn't. Then Jennings turned over the dark silk when everyone~if they had been asked~could have said, wait a minute, she wore a light colored wrapper outfit. Apparently no one consulted witness statements or paid attention to testimonies or anything and about a year later the dark dress was presented at trial and everyone pretended to try to dig for the truth which could never be forthcoming.

Then back to the search, I have a mental picture of the police asking about LIZZIE'S dresses and if anyone (like Emma) claimed a dress as hers the police just bypassed it as not Lizzie's. I don't know that this happened but it would make sense considering everything else. Who's to say, if Lizzie did it, that she didn't wear an old dress of Emma's? It's possible too that the paint stained dress~someone noted that the dress had not washed well and the dye had streaked a bit and the fabric had not stood up~was in the giant walk in closet that the police weren't sure was a closet, in the kitchen. Perhaps the dress was already discarded in the closet to be turned into rags. Perhaps, if Lizzie did it, she collected the discarded dress, used it and replaced it in the rag bag in that closet, then later burned it. The police were looking for dresses hanging in clothes presses. I doubt they would have recognised a dress on an upper shelf, in a rag bag, as a dress at all. It seems Lizzie was caught burning the skirt portion. Who's to say the waist had not already been torn apart and turned to rags prior to August 4?

A dark silk outfit and a petticoat were turned over to investigators. Some here have had an idea Lizzie likely would have worn stays or a corset, even around the house. I'm not sure of that but I think she likely would have worn a chemise under the wrapper and petticoat. (I think Abby wore a chemise under her other voluminous pieces of clothing.) Bras weren't invented yet and I just think she likely wore a chemise but that, if she wore one, it wasn't provided either. If she was guilty, it would make a lot more sense that she killed Abby wearing only a chemise, rather than that she would have been nude as some writers suggest. Indeed a chemise and no dress or petticoat could explain a lot. Such a garment could easily be chucked in the soaking pail with the "small bloodstained towels" and nobody would know the difference.

Of course I don't think Lizzie was guilty, but all of these thoughts do come to mind.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:43 pm

I agree with Anthony. I believe the dress Lizzie burned was the dress she was wearing when she killed Abby. She wore Andrew's Prince Albert coat when she killed him, and then wedged it between the afghan and pillow below Andrew’s head.

Curiousmind2014 · Post by **Curiousmind2014** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:13 am

@twinsrwe

Did anyone examine the Prince Albert coat which was carefully folded? Was an effort made to unfold it to see if it had blood stains on it? I would have assumed they checked for it. If they did, then it would be known if this coat was used by the murderer while committing the crime.

If I was Lizzie, I would not be waiting till Sunday to burn that dress. Too much of a risk! I would rather burn it first and then scream at the top of my voice that "Someone killed father". I repeat myself again. Lizzie was stupid or brave or just cavalier because she knew she did not commit the crime, someone else did.

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:40 am

Fabric doesn't burn fast enough to get rid of a Victorian dress just before yelling that "Father is killed".

There's a tremendous amount of silence on the Prince Albert coat. Nobody paid much attention to it then. Considering supposedly Lizzie wearing it backwards as has been suggested, tha would be very binding on the arm movement, the sleeves would likely have been too long and gotten in the way and if it wasn't buttoned at least once (in back?), it would have tended to slip down her arms and be an encumberance. Try wearing a coat backwards sometime. If it wasn't worn backwards, didn't that kind of coat have a low neckline, for lack of a better way to say it? I mean it didn't button up to the throat did it?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:17 am

I actually conducted an experiment using a male's borrowed coat, a toy tomahawk and a friend lying on a chaise longue, and wrote about it on another thread a while ago. I wasnt wearing long skirts but it did actually protect most of my front even when worn backwards! It was quite awkward and did slip but I buttoned it at the back (two buttons.)

I don't think that you would actually know how the thing would work unless you got a 5ft 3ins woman wearing a dress and corsets and boots of the time, and put over the dress a Prince Albert coat (waisted) from a 6ft male! If it was what I think a Prince Albert is then the two buttons would be able to be buttoned from the back but the front would gape badly over the woman's back. Women's sleeves at the time were reasonably full, (not half as full as the leg of mutton shape they were to be three years later) and a bit pointed. I don't know whether that would help a Prince Albert sleeve stay in position. We don't know how long Andrew's coat was on him (as in calf length or longer?)

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:24 am

By the way, contrary to what I've always thought, I was told by someone recently that if you want to smother a fire or put it out you burn clothing on it. I believe cotton would burn more easily than say wool, but neither guarantees a blaze and takes ages to burn, apparently leaving remnants. This person had been used to coal and wood fires all his life. I havent known an open fire since I left England.

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:22 am

Consider the "fierce fire" Jack the Ripper was said to have built at 13 Millers Court, in which he burned a "quantity of womens' clothing" as well as apparently, Maria Harvey's "laundry". The discussions rage on as to how bright, useful, fierce, hot, etc. that fire would have been. Some say clothing won't burn. Some write elaborate theories about how Jack must have twisted various items into wicks. Possible suspect William Bury burned some of his wife's clothes in a fireplace after he killed her.

I have no experience with a coal cook stove but the firebox would have been fairly small I think and not comparable to an open fireplace. Lizzie was seen shredding or ripping a skirt into smaller pieces and burning them while the stove must have been quite hot just after breakfast. That's about all I have to say about that.

Aamartin · Post by **Aamartin** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:33 pm

Some have speculated that Lizzie knew she would be covered in blood-- but I don't think so. I think this took her by surprise when she killed Abby-- leading to her having to remain home to clean up instead of going out to establish an alibi. (Possibly hid dress in bundle on Emma's closet floor) When Andrew came home she was stuck-- but this time she knew she had to take precautions. The dress she was wearing may very well have been the 'nicer' one she changed in to-- as she was planning on going out. She changed into the wrapper because the nicer dress was too thick/hot.

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:16 pm

That's an interesting thought, Aamartin~that things went awry and that was why Lizzie couldn't leave to establish an alibi.

What might she have worn downtown on a warm summer day? Surely not the heavy silk? What would have been a normal day dress or outfit to go to town? Such an outfit would likely have been dark since the streets, and sidewalks if any, would have been filthy with animal excrement, dust, spit, etc. Curryong....

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:29 pm

The majority of Lizzie's dresses seem to have been blue in colour, a shade she thought suited her, I expect. She also appears to have liked patterns (figures, as they called it) on her clothing. Lizzie probably wore her sole black dress, a black lace, to the funeral as there wasn't time to make up mourning clothes. Emma, of course, had mourning already. She would!

Lizzie would probably have worn a costume of linen or poplin, summer cotton, in a dark blue for going down town. Poplin was considered smart and would have been cool.

However, putting a spoke in the wheel here--didn't a few of the witnesses, Dr Bowen for example, describe at the trial what they remembered as a drab and faded garment? A house sort of dress. I'll have to check.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:54 pm

Dr Bowen questioned at the Inquest. Page 32 Vol. 2.

Q. Do you recollect how Lizzie was dressed that morning?

A. It is pretty hard work for me. Probably if I could see a dress something like it I could guess, but I could not describe. It was a sort of a drab, or not much colour to it to attract my attention, sort of a morning calico dress I should judge.

Later on. Mrs Churchill being questioned. Inquest Page 43 Vol 2.

Q. What dress did she have on, Lizzie?

A. She had on a blue and white calico. Blue and white with a deeper navy blue diamond in it; of a deeper shade of blue this diamond was, as near as I can tell it; I am not observing of clothes.

Calico cotton's not India silk or a walking out dress. In fact it sounds very much like the faded paint-stained garment but that's just my opinion!

irina · Post by **irina** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:35 pm

I agree with you Curryong, that Lizzie was wearing a pale blue with darker, small figure, wrapper that morning. I was wondering if it was even reasonable to think she may have planned to wear the bengaline silk downtown that day.

In the one jailhouse interview she gave she discussed their not wearing mourning and said Andrew was against the practice. That he had been in the undertaking business kind of gives that a ring of truth. It seems odd that a socially active person like Lizzie however would not have a deep mourning outfit on hand since folks died a lot oftener in those days than they do now. Though with her small immediate family there had not been deaths...well, until August fourth.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:44 pm

Curiousmind2014 wrote:@twinsrwe

Did anyone examine the Prince Albert coat which was carefully folded? Was an effort made to unfold it to see if it had blood stains on it? I would have assumed they checked for it. If they did, then it would be known if this coat was used by the murderer while committing the crime. ...

I don’t know if the Prince Albert coat was examined or not. However, I would be very surprised if it did not have blood on it, since it was found under Andrew’s head, between a cushion/pillow and an afghan. If the coat had been examined and blood stains were found on it, this would not have proved it was wore by the killer. Therefore, whether the coat was examined or not is really a moot point.

Curiousmind2014 wrote:… If I was Lizzie, I would not be waiting till Sunday to burn that dress. Too much of a risk! I would rather burn it first and then scream at the top of my voice that "Someone killed father". I repeat myself again. Lizzie was stupid or brave or just cavalier because she knew she did not commit the crime, someone else did.

Well, what you would do and what Lizzie did are two different things. Lizzie burned the paint stained dress on Sunday morning, after the Mayor and City Marshal had notified her on Saturday that she was suspected of committing the murders. This dress had been stained with paint for 3 months prior to Lizzie burning it; she continued to wear the dress, around the house, for 3 months after it had paint on it. Why did Lizzie feel it was absolutely necessary to burn this dress three days after her father and step-mother had been murdered, and the day after she had been notified that she was suspected of committing the murders? Was Lizzie really that incredibly stupid or was there something on that dress that incriminated her, and therefore she had no choice but to burn it? Apparently, Alice Russell saw Lizzie’s action of burning the dress as an act of guilt, otherwise she would not have bothered to inform Mr. Knowlton of this incident.