A Boy and a Note

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:24 pm

She was first given the Bromo Caffeine by Dr. Bowen up in her room, and later that day the eighth of a grain of morphine given to her but Bowen didn't actually see her take it. My point was Lizzie had already been making inconsistant statements before she received any medications at all. Starting with the different statements made about where she was during the murder of Andrew. For example she was not under the influence of anything when asked by Alice Rusell, Mrs. Churchill, and Dr. Bowen where she was, yet she was already giving varying answers.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:46 pm

Someone very close to me was put on morphine while they were recovering in the hospital after having a major surgery. I have asked them questions about the drug to gain a better knowledge of how it can affect someone while they are on it. I'll have to speak with them again because I have a few more questions about the subject.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:46 pm

"Bowen didn't actually see her take it. "

Interesting point that is- just as nobody heard HER being sick on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

diana · Post by **diana** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:43 pm

Just a minor note regarding no one hearing Lizzie being sick. Bridget apparently didn't hear Lizzie being sick -- but she also claims she didn't hear Mr. or Mrs. Borden vomiting either.
"Mrs. Borden came down, and asked me if I heard they were sick all night. I said no. She said they were sick all night, taken with vomiting." (Bridget Sullivan: Preliminary Hearing.)

However Morse testifies (also at the Preliminary Hearing) that Abby told him Lizzie was sick:
"Q: Did she say who was sick?
A: She said Mr. Borden, and Miss Lizzie, and herself."

And Dr. Bowen is also asked about the Tuesday night Wednesday morning illness, and he testifies as follows:
Q: She [Abby] said that Mr. Borden and herself were sick sometime between nine and twelve, that they were both vomiting and that Lizzie, Miss Lizzie, was sick later." (Prelim. 407)

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:11 am

Thanks for the citations. I would guess that after all her manual labor, Bridget probably slept like a rock on the third floor and maybe could not hear beneath her, and surely not in Lizzie's room. I guess an experiment is in order to see what can be heard. I will say that when sleeping in the Borden's room now, the noises and smells of the kitchen below come wafting right up that set of stairs. Lizzie probably told Abby she was sick too, and Abby just repeated that to Bowen Wednesday morning. I know Bowen came over to see about Andrew that morning but I never read where he inquired of Lizzie's well-being then.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:14 am

You know, thinking about it again, if Abby went to Bowen's early Wednesday (wasn't it about 8 a.m.?) Lizzie was not usually up that early to speak with Abby- plus their doors were both locked in between the rooms. Maybe Abby did hear Lizzie in her "toilet room" after all as it was on the same wall as Abby's headboard. . . .

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:53 am

Vomitting and Bowen at the inquest, 116(23):
Q. Do you recollect what it was you prescribed for her?
A. I told her to take some castor oil, and take it in a little port wine to take the taste off, and probably that would be all she would want. I think immediately after breakfast, I thought they were neighbors, I would just go over. Before that, she said Lizzie came down, she heard them vomiting, I think she was in the next room, and she was up too, and she commenced to vomit at that time, about twelve. I thought if they did not call me I would go over and make a friendly call. I went over after breakfast. I think Bridget let me in, I am very sure it was the front door. I says “Mr. Borden, what is the matter?” He looked at me and wanted to know if anybody had sent for me. I told him no, Mrs. Borden was over, I thought I would just come over and see. He seemed well enough then. He said he felt a little heavy, and did not feel just right, but said he did not think he needed any medicine. I did not urge him at all, of course, and I went home. I did not think much about it. I saw Mr. Borden out two or three hours afterwards. When I went in, I saw Lizzie run up stairs. Mrs. Borden I did not see, because I had seen her before.
--I think this sounds like Lizzie commenced to vomit about midnight? As told to Bowen by Abbie, according to him.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:02 am

"Before that, she said Lizzie came down, she heard them vomiting, I think she was in the next room, and she was up too, and she commenced to vomit at that time, about twelve. "

Yes! That's the line I wanted. "Lizzie came down" I take to mean Lizzie came down stairs that morning and told the Bordens she had heard them vomiting in the night. This was probably prefaced by Andrew or Abby saying they had been sick in the night. So, there's one morning she got up early! But what I was interested to deduce was that Abby never told Bowen that she heard Lizzie being sick in the night- we only had Lizzie's word for it. It is an old ruse to say you are poisoned too, if you are the poisoner. And didn't Lizzie just scoot right upstairs when Bowen stopped over the house? He never got the chance to examine her or prescribe any medication. Curious.

The whole business could simply have been food poisoning of course, but there's just the possibility that Lizzie scurried down early (unlike her usual practice) to see the state they were in, and if she WERE guilty of trying to poison Abby, she might have been alarmed to hear Abby was going to scuttle right over to see Dr. Bowen- and very early too. If Abby went before breakfast it must have been urgent- and around 7 a.m. Imagine Lizzie being up that early!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:37 pm

Abbie ate her breakfast of pork steak before going over to Dr. Bowen's. He had not yet had breakfast tho maybe that is what you recall.

I can't tell from the way the bold part is worded whether he means Abbie is saying Lizzie came down next morning- or whether he means Abbie said she knew Lizzie to be vomitting at midnight. It's a strange way he words it, either way.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Good grief- pork steak on an upset stomach! No wonder she looked as if she were going to upchuck right in Dr. Bowen's office! They must have all had cast iron stomachs!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:52 am

I like to think of it as *Ham & Eggs* because Morse brought the eggs back and I can't find them eating any!
That's how I remember what Wednesday breakfast was: pork steak...

The menus are here, at the bottom:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... 9-1892.htm

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:04 pm

There is a big problem in searching for details that aren't written down and no eyewitness available.
Like searching for in a coal mine at midnight without a light for a black cat that isn't there.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:58 pm

Oh! Maybe Andrew was going to sell those eggs on the street for a penny each, Kat! Let 'Em Eat Mutton at home!

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:33 pm

Kat @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:52 am wrote:I like to think of it as *Ham & Eggs* because Morse brought the eggs back and I can't find them eating any!
That's how I remember what Wednesday breakfast was: pork steak...

The menus are here, at the bottom:
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Crime ... 9-1892.htm

Couldn't the eggs have been used in the making of other items that were on the menu that morning? Such as the Johnny Cakes? Or the cookies that are mentioned?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:59 pm

I'm still baffled by when exactly Lizzie heard Abby "come in". I really don't think she had the opportunity, even if we contend that it was actually the killer leaving.

Thursday Aug. 4, 1892, (P. Harrington.) Witness Statements, Page 5:

Miss Lizzie. “Saw father, when he returned from the P.O. He sat down to read the paper. I went out to the barn, remained twenty minutes; returned, and found him dead. Saw no one in the yard when going to or returning from the barn. Heard no noise whatever while in the barn.” (To a question.) Not even The opening or closing of the screen door. “Why not, you were but a short distance, and would hear the noise so made?” “I was upstairs in the loft.”

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:14 am

Oh but right about now, ham and eggs sounds so good- so normal!

But no- not our Bordens or not our Bridget?

Yes that's a good point about the eggs being used in making- cookies, bread? Johnny cakes? We'll have to ask Dave Quigley!

>>>>
Someone please find the topic where we attempted a timeline for when Lizzie might possibly have heard and said she heard Abbie come in for Yooper?
It is so complex I can't go there again for another year, I don't think...

PS: It was this year I believe..during Yooper's hiatus?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:55 pm

Shelley @ Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:33 am wrote:Can do Harry! Friday I will measure from the landing outside the side screen door to the front facade of the barn and also from the rear cellar step to the front of the barn.. I know the barn is currently set back further east into the lot to allow for the driveway turn into the parking lot.

Shelley, I don't know if you remembered to measure the distance. No problem if you don't do it right away. Anytime in the future would be fine.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:23 pm

Lizzie said she thought she heard Abby come in. If this was true, the only way that Abby, then, could have come in because "they had taken her keys" and the front door was always locked, was through the side door. The only time that could have happened was after Bridet went outside and was gossiping on the other side of the house, and Lizzie had just finished talking to her father now returned from town and she had maybe gone up the front stairs for some such thing just before she went outside to the barn. If her story was true then she could have heard the screen door open and close. Then the only place Abby could have gone was up the back stairs to her room or Lizzie would have seen her. Why then would Lizzie have people look up the front stairs to try to find her later? And, if Abby's room was in back, then why wouldn't she call out for her step mother as well as her maid? Very fishy.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:33 pm

Officer Allen found the front door locked and bolted when he arrived, and Lizzie neither saw nor heard anything from the yard or barn, both from the Witness Statements. Dr. Bowen had to get the key for Abby's room from the mantle in the sitting room when he asked for a sheet. Lizzie told Andrew and Bridget specifically that Abby had gone out immediately before going to the barn. Abby could not have gotten past Lizzie if she came in the back door while Lizzie was "discovering" Andrew. When Abby was discovered in the guest bedroom, why did it not occur to Lizzie that she had heard something other than Abby arriving, if that's what she actually thought?

Oops! Sorry, officer Allen's statement was from the Trial transcript, p. 434. Lizzie's was from p. 5 of the Witness Statements.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:47 pm

Angel @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:23 pm wrote: Why then would Lizzie have people look up the front stairs to try to find her later? And, if Abby's room was in back, then why wouldn't she call out for her step mother as well as her maid? Very fishy.

I think she realized the note story probably wouldn't hold water if anyone actually went to look for Abby at this supposed sick friends house. Because there was no sick friend. It would be a wild goose chase. Leaving Lizzie sitting downstairs with all those present unable to get up to her room, because she'd have to walk past the body which she didn't want to discover.

There isn't any way Abby could've gotten in the front door with it locked if she had no key. Lizzie was stationed at the back door after Andrew was killed. Then the other witnesses started arriving by the same door. If she meant after Bridget had gone upstairs this doesn't make any sense either. Why would Abby come in and go directly to the guestroom? What happened to her street clothes? If she meant before Bridget came in from washing the windows there just isn't a window of opportunity for this to occur without Lizzie having SEEN Abby after she came in. Especially given the scientific evidence which fixed the time of Abby's death. I think it was a lie, just as the note was a lie.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:51 pm

I think so too Missy, Lizzie told so many lies, it is hard to believe anything she said. The note was a big whopper, and her "I think I heard her come in" was to prevent her from discovering Abby's body. She needed somebody else to discover that.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:14 pm

after the authorities arrived why didn't they make a through search of the house for the killer......who could have still been hiding in the house somewhere. I wonder how much longer Abbie would have gone on, laying up there before anyone went looking for her, had enough time passed would it have made it harder to set the time of death for her, given the heat in the quest room?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:18 pm

Perhaps the best thing Lizzie could have said about hearing the door would be something like "then it WASN'T Abby I heard, it must have been the murderer". She still has the problem of when she heard it, though.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:08 pm

I have alway's felt it was kind of strange that Abby's body was so conviently hidden from view behind that bed. No part of her body could be seen from the stairs (unless you got your eyes at floor level). She was killed in the only part of the guest room where her ENTIRE body could not be seen from the landing. What a perfect spot for a murderer to pick to kill Abby.

Hmmm...

It look's like Lizzie had to think on her feet when it came to creating her alibi. Her "facts" move around too much for my taste. Most of them don't have the "ring of truth" in my view.

-1bigsteve (o:

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:21 pm

I've never been in that room, but if that's true, then you add to it the fact that Abby not only landed there in that perfect small spot but did it without touching the dresser or the bed. and apparently as quietly as she could.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:07 pm

Nothing was ever brought up about any blood trails with respect to the bodies, either partial footprints or drops of blood from the murder weapon. The murderer seemed inordinately neat for a deranged killer. Possibly a female trait or consideration?

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:52 am

Yooper @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:07 am wrote:Nothing was ever brought up about any blood trails with respect to the bodies, either partial footprints or drops of blood from the murder weapon. The murderer seemed inordinately neat for a deranged killer. Possibly a female trait or consideration?

Arnold Brown's book mentions that Willy was a skilled butcher of animals.

BTW I believe most farmers NEVER asked others to do this, it was part of their job and they wouldn't want to spend a dime on this.

I'm surprised no one has ever challenged Brown on this. It seems like a fact designed to support his Theory. I don't think its truth or falsity is germane to his solution.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:21 pm

Yooper @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:07 pm wrote:Nothing was ever brought up about any blood trails with respect to the bodies, either partial footprints or drops of blood from the murder weapon. The murderer seemed inordinately neat for a deranged killer. Possibly a female trait or consideration?

I have been thinking the same thing. You would think a "deranged killer" would have been less concerned about leaving a "blood drop" trail or a bloody foot print. I never saw any testimony that a bloody shoe print was found or a trail of blood drops from the killer or his weapon. Who ever did the killings seems to have been rather careful.

-1bigsteve (o:

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:40 pm

But most of all, experienced in not leaving a bloody trail.
Brown makes this point regarding William S Borden and the story about putting down a horse.
Does it remind anyone of the "Legends of Lizzie"? No mention of time, place, or witnesses.

But I still believe Brown overall.

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:06 pm

Unless the note is a fabrication on the part of the killer or a means of disguising the killer's presence in the house, I don't think it's terribly important. The fact remains that Lizzie was alone in the house for most of the morning and that Abby was likely dead well before Andrew arrived home. Even if Abby did leave the house, she obviously was back in the house in time to be murdered.

I agree with a great deal of what's been said above. The "note" was Lizzie's way of keeping Andrew from looking for his wife. She couldn't say "I think I saw her go upstairs to the guest room." So she removed Abby from the house altogether with the "note," thereby keeping Andrew calm and - most importantly - downstairs. Her dialogue with Bridget served a similar purpose; it got Bridget out of the way.

The only other possibility I can see is that Lizzie let the killer into the house and the "note" was a means of explaining away a stranger's presence at the house. But I don't see too much evidence to support that.

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:54 pm

Dr_OBoogie @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:06 pm wrote:Unless the note is a fabrication on the part of the killer or a means of disguising the killer's presence in the house, I don't think it's terribly important. The fact remains that Lizzie was alone in the house for most of the morning and that Abby was likely dead well before Andrew arrived home. Even if Abby did leave the house, she obviously was back in the house in time to be murdered.

I agree with a great deal of what's been said above. The "note" was Lizzie's way of keeping Andrew from looking for his wife. She couldn't say "I think I saw her go upstairs to the guest room." So she removed Abby from the house altogether with the "note," thereby keeping Andrew calm and - most importantly - downstairs. Her dialogue with Bridget served a similar purpose; it got Bridget out of the way.

The only other possibility I can see is that Lizzie let the killer into the house and the "note" was a means of explaining away a stranger's presence at the house. But I don't see too much evidence to support that.

Could Lizzie herself have had a note sent to Abby? I would imagine someone would have come forward and said, "Yes, it was Miss Lizzie that asked me to deliver the note to Abby..." I think Lizzie would have been taking a big chance in doing something like that.

My guess is that there never was a note. Lizzie may have told her Father about a "note" to keep him from looking for Abby. If he found Abby's body the gig would have been up and Lizzie would have killed Abby for nothing. No money for Lizzie. Perhaps Lizzie tried, but failed, to get Abby to go off and visit someone so Lizzie could rub out her Father. But, why would she do that since Abby would have gotten some of the money? It brings me back to the thought that both Abby and Andrew were targets from the beginning, "if" money was the real motive, which I feel it probably was.

-1bigsteve (o:

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:18 pm

My best guess is that Abby was the primary target, especially given her probable time of death. If Lizzie was the murderer, she probably intended to leave the house and "lose" the hatchet while establishing an alibi. This would explain why she still had the hatchet if Abby was the only target, she didn't have time to dispose of it. Andrew came home before she could accomplish this, so his murder was a crime of opportunity. Lizzie couldn't have foreseen the scenario of Bridget going upstairs while Andrew took a nap. She didn't know if John Morse would be back or when. I think the story about the note was planned all along, it provides an excuse for why she didn't miss Abby before she went out, if she kept to the original plan of only killing Abby. I'm inclined to agree that the note ultimately is of little importance on it's own merit.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:07 pm

Lizzie seems to add bits to her original story after having more time to embroider it. She also said she asked Abby if she were going out in the old calico dress she was wearing. Abby said, according to Lizzie, she was not going to change. I think this was clever of Lizzie to later add on that bit. It explained why Abby was found killed in her old housedress. That was all ready for the excuse in case some bright head asked why Abby was in her work dress if she had had that note to go out.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:29 pm

Let us not forget that Lizzie was ever so fashionable that day. Abby was going to go out on the town in a Calico dress according to Lizzie, yet Lizzie needed a hat to go out in the back yard, and later thinks everyone would prefer she should change her dress., to be fashionable of course. One would need to dress the part.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:40 pm

Lizzie's dainty pink and white striped wrapper was just the feminine, lady in distress garment to put on. A wrapper, as we have discussed before, was worn by ladies in their bedroom, invalids, or just in the intimacy of their family and closest lady friends.

Putting on a wrapper would be an instant sign of vulnerability which would send a signal to the police that she was "indisposed", overcome, not able to be rigorously questioned and disturbed. Add Bowen's presence and the fatherly presence of the minister, and Lizzie was set up perfectly. You could not write a better staging. The fainting couch was a nice touch too. All she needed was a lace hanky and a bottle of smelling salts.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:21 am

Shelley @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:40 pm wrote:Lizzie's dainty pink and white striped wrapper was just the feminine, lady in distress garment to put on. A wrapper, as we have discussed before, was worn by ladies in their bedroom, invalids, or just in the intimacy of their family and closest lady friends.

Putting on a wrapper would be an instant sign of vulnerability which would send a signal to the police that she was "indisposed", overcome, not able to be rigorously questioned and disturbed. Add Bowen's presence and the fatherly presence of the minister, and Lizzie was set up perfectly. You could not write a better staging. The fainting couch was a nice touch too. All she needed was a lace hanky and a bottle of smelling salts.

I was always under the impression that a wrapper was just a fancy name for a house dress, or dress made to be worn just around the house.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:56 am

Don't forget- it was Pink!

It certainly wasn't some garmet to signify mourning.

But, the note is important if we believe Lizzie, so I don't consider it of little importance. It's something we have to deal with, which I think we do a good job of doing.

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:48 am

1bigsteve @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:54 pm wrote: Could Lizzie herself have had a note sent to Abby? I would imagine someone would have come forward and said, "Yes, it was Miss Lizzie that asked me to deliver the note to Abby..." I think Lizzie would have been taking a big chance in doing something like that.

I don't believe the note existed. It was a "quick fix" to keep Andrew from exploring the house.

Beyond that, there might be something deeper to it. We have Lizzie telling Alice Russell prior to the murders that Andrew has enemies who are out to get him - that certainly sounds to me like she's trying to pin the murders in advance on some stranger.

Perhaps the "note" serves a similar purpose, the implication being that the murderer gained access to the house by claiming to have a note. Lizzie is putting a stranger at the crime scene. But that is stretching the bounds of believability.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:53 am

There would be no purpose in Lizzie sending a note to Abby to coax her to leave the house unless she had only planned to kill her father and needed to get Abby out of the way. Actually, as Abby usually went out foodshopping daily, and Lizzie did not know just when her father would return, that doesn't wash either.

I would stick with the common theory that there was no note, and it was merely a ruse to keep Andrew from looking around the house for Abby. Simple explanations are usually the correct ones.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:02 am

The wrapper, it is true, could be worn around the house. A lady could be uncorseted. Women who were expecting a baby could wear these around the house during her confinement. Invalids would wear these comfortable garments. A lady would never wear one on the street. Today I think housecoat might be a closer idea. Putting on a wrapper was a signal that you were either unwell, in a delicate condition, or just relaxing in an at-home situation-not a formal garment. Other than one's girlfriends, family, doctor, or minister making a sick call, anyone else seeing a lady in this sort of "undress" would not be recommended by polite society. Here is a series of photos of a paisley version of 1890's with the demi-train such as Lizzie's had.
http://www.vintagetextile.com/new_page_477.htm

This one is earlier, from the second bustle period of the 1880's. but it is striped and gives a good idea of the cut.
http://www.1860-1960.com/xa2041p0.html

I think, if Lizzie was guilty- this was a brilliantly "sympathetic" garment to put on as it effectively gave her a vulnerable, feminine, appearance which would signal to police , press, etc. that she was not approachable for distressing treatment. That it was pink is even more wonderful- what burly policeman would dare to browbeat such a poor, orphaned dainty morsel reclining, drugged from shock and grief on her fainting couch with doctor and minister in attendance? Only a CAD! Great staging Lizzie!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:37 am

1893 wrapper patterns (available from Past Patterns)

This one has the "shirred front" as Harrington described.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:39 am

Bed gown sometimes called a Mother Hubbard

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:42 am

Undies underneath that wrapper, chemise, crotchless drawers,petticoat.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:46 am

Or a "combination" , drawers made onto a chemise top. The corset would go over this, or it would be left off under a wrapper.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:13 pm

Shelley @ Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:53 am wrote:There would be no purpose in Lizzie sending a note to Abby to coax her to leave the house unless she had only planned to kill her father and needed to get Abby out of the way. Actually, as Abby usually went out foodshopping daily, and Lizzie did not know just when her father would return, that doesn't wash either.

I would stick with the common theory that there was no note, and it was merely a ruse to keep Andrew from looking around the house for Abby. Simple explanations are usually the correct ones.

Arnold Brown's book contains a rational explanation for that note. It was to draw Abby out of the house for a confidential meeting between Andy and the Visitor. Brown mentions the later death of William Basset's daughter, as a sort of confirmation.
PS
According to Bridget, Andy did not question Lizzie about the note or Abby's absence, as if he expected it.

shakiboo · Post by **shakiboo** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:19 pm

Shelley @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:02 am wrote:The wrapper, it is true, could be worn around the house. A lady could be uncorseted. Women who were expecting a baby could wear these around the house during her confinement. Invalids would wear these comfortable garments. A lady would never wear one on the street. Today I think housecoat might be a closer idea. Putting on a wrapper was a signal that you were either unwell, in a delicate condition, or just relaxing in an at-home situation-not a formal garment. Other than one's girlfriends, family, doctor, or minister making a sick call, anyone else seeing a lady in this sort of "undress" would not be recommended by polite society. Here is a series of photos of a paisley version of 1890's with the demi-train such as Lizzie's had.
http://www.vintagetextile.com/new_page_477.htm

This one is earlier, from the second bustle period of the 1880's. but it is striped and gives a good idea of the cut. wow they're more like robes then I had pictured......thanks shelley it makes it a whole lot easier to visualise.
http://www.1860-1960.com/xa2041p0.html

I think, if Lizzie was guilty- this was a brilliantly "sympathetic" garment to put on as it effectively gave her a vulnerable, feminine, appearance which would signal to police , press, etc. that she was not approachable for distressing treatment. That it was pink is even more wonderful- what burly policeman would dare to browbeat such a poor, orphaned dainty morsel reclining, drugged from shock and grief on her fainting couch with doctor and minister in attendance? Only a CAD! Great staging Lizzie!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:46 pm

I think the first black and white pattern above comes closest to what Lizzie had on, based upon Harrington's excellent description. Some of the confusion I think came from Bridget's calling the blue house dress a blue wrapper which Lizzie had on Wednesday morning. There were fancier wrappers for entertaining lady friends at tea , and cheap calico house wrappers to slum around the house in , doing morning chores. and some boudoir wrappers which looked a little more like that paisley one at the link- with more of a dressing gown or housecoat look.

It was a versatile garment, which ended up going West on ladies who had to work like mules and needed a roomy unrestricted garment. It soon became known as a "prairie dress" and was worn with a Sunbonnet Sue calico bonnet and serviceable plain apron. My professor just completed a 6 month study on the history of the wrapper so I picked her brain!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 am

That series of posts have been Wonderful and informative! Thank you!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:53 am

Those styles are so very pretty, but good grief, what a lot of clothing the poor things had to wear those days. When my sons and I were going to reinactments at Gettysburg and Antietem I had a dress with the hoopskirts. I felt very good because the hoops underneath kept the dress away from me and it was so light and airy. However, I did not wear all the stuff underneath that they did in those days. No wonder everyone was swooning- they were probably overheated.

Dr_OBoogie · Post by **Dr_OBoogie** » Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:38 am

Angel @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:53 am wrote:Those styles are so very pretty, but good grief, what a lot of clothing the poor things had to wear those days. When my sons and I were going to reinactments at Gettysburg and Antietem I had a dress with the hoopskirts. I felt very good because the hoops underneath kept the dress away from me and it was so light and airy. However, I did not wear all the stuff underneath that they did in those days. No wonder everyone was swooning- they were probably overheated.

Not to mention the corsets, which were cinched very tight to give them that hourglass figure. They not only restricted breathing but actually pushed the ribcage up, deforming the unfortunate wearer.