Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Prince Albert, and other things.

Expand Messages
  • servo@xxx.xxx
    It seems unlikely to me that a penurious old boot like Andrew would risk unnecessary cleaning and pressing bills by wadding up his coat and stuffing it under
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 11, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      It seems unlikely to me that a penurious old boot
      like Andrew would risk unnecessary cleaning and pressing
      bills by wadding up his coat and stuffing it under the pillow.
      It just seems out of character. Now, if Lizzie pulled it down
      from the coat rack and donned it (probably the right way around
      rather that back-to-front, which would be rather awkward), she
      could effectively cover herself from blood spatters. If she then
      hastily folded the coat and shoved it under the pillow.....well,
      who would find it strange that the coat had blood on it?
      Thus, she could remain clean, and not need much time to put
      herself in order.
      And speaking of that, don't you think she was a little TOO
      clean? Those who attended her testified that her hands and face
      were clean, and her hair and clothes were in order. If she
      spent any time in the barn loft as she claimed, you would think
      she'd be a bit dusty and dirty, what with shifting stuff around
      looking for lead for sinkers, or tin to fix the screen.
      Wouldn't a few scraps of hay at least be clinging to her
      skirt hem?
    • Ynr Chyldz Wyld
      From: ... I disagree. From all the pictures I ve seen, Andrew was a thin man. Lizzie was not thin, and in addition wore typical Victorian
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 12, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        From: <servo@...>
        > It seems unlikely to me that a penurious old boot
        > like Andrew would risk unnecessary cleaning and pressing
        > bills by wadding up his coat and stuffing it under the pillow.
        > It just seems out of character. Now, if Lizzie pulled it down
        > from the coat rack and donned it (probably the right way around
        > rather that back-to-front, which would be rather awkward), she
        > could effectively cover herself from blood spatters.

        I disagree. From all the pictures I've seen, Andrew was a thin
        man. Lizzie was not thin, and in addition wore typical Victorian
        attire, meaning a top with sleeves and a voluminous skirt over at
        least 2, probably 3, voluminous petticoats (typical Victorian
        summer attire)...

        IF she donned the coat (and I believe it's a big 'if'), she would
        have had to put it on backwards for it to be an effective cover...


        > If she then
        > hastily folded the coat and shoved it under the pillow.....well,
        > who would find it strange that the coat had blood on it?
        > Thus, she could remain clean, and not need much time to put
        > herself in order.

        But no one's convinced me how she could remain clean when pushing
        the folded coat under the pillow...

        I'm not disputing that the coat was put there because it was worn
        by whomever murdered Andrew...I just am not convinced it was Lizzie
        who did it...


        > And speaking of that, don't you think she was a little TOO
        > clean? Those who attended her testified that her hands and face
        > were clean, and her hair and clothes were in order. If she
        > spent any time in the barn loft as she claimed, you would think
        > she'd be a bit dusty and dirty, what with shifting stuff around
        > looking for lead for sinkers, or tin to fix the screen.
        > Wouldn't a few scraps of hay at least be clinging to her
        > skirt hem?

        One would think so...it's one of the things about Lizzie which is
        troubling...and why she can't be dismissed as totally innocent.
        But I'm still not convinced she was totally guilty, either...


        June
      • Roy Nickerson
        Yes, Yes, and Yes to all your points. All of this lives in the realm of speculation.....and that s what makes this case so enduring and so much fun! God forbid
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 12, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, Yes, and Yes to all your points. All of this lives in the
          realm of speculation.....and that's what makes this case so
          enduring and so much fun! God forbid that all Bordenites should
          agree; where's the fun in that?

          ----------
          > From: Ynr Chyldz Wyld <revcoal@...>
          > To: 40Whacks@onelist.com
          > Subject: Re: [40Whacks] The Prince Albert, and other things.
          > Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 8:22 AM
          >
          > From: "Ynr Chyldz Wyld" <revcoal@...>
          >
          > From: <servo@...>
          > > It seems unlikely to me that a penurious old boot
          > > like Andrew would risk unnecessary cleaning and pressing
          > > bills by wadding up his coat and stuffing it under the pillow.
          > > It just seems out of character. Now, if Lizzie pulled it down
          > > from the coat rack and donned it (probably the right way around
          > > rather that back-to-front, which would be rather awkward), she
          > > could effectively cover herself from blood spatters.
          >
          > I disagree. From all the pictures I've seen, Andrew was a thin
          > man. Lizzie was not thin, and in addition wore typical Victorian
          > attire, meaning a top with sleeves and a voluminous skirt over at
          > least 2, probably 3, voluminous petticoats (typical Victorian
          > summer attire)...
          >
          > IF she donned the coat (and I believe it's a big 'if'), she would
          > have had to put it on backwards for it to be an effective cover...
          >
          >
          > > If she then
          > > hastily folded the coat and shoved it under the pillow.....well,
          > > who would find it strange that the coat had blood on it?
          > > Thus, she could remain clean, and not need much time to put
          > > herself in order.
          >
          > But no one's convinced me how she could remain clean when pushing
          > the folded coat under the pillow...
          >
          > I'm not disputing that the coat was put there because it was worn
          > by whomever murdered Andrew...I just am not convinced it was Lizzie
          > who did it...
          >
          >
          > > And speaking of that, don't you think she was a little TOO
          > > clean? Those who attended her testified that her hands and face
          > > were clean, and her hair and clothes were in order. If she
          > > spent any time in the barn loft as she claimed, you would think
          > > she'd be a bit dusty and dirty, what with shifting stuff around
          > > looking for lead for sinkers, or tin to fix the screen.
          > > Wouldn't a few scraps of hay at least be clinging to her
          > > skirt hem?
          >
          > One would think so...it's one of the things about Lizzie which is
          > troubling...and why she can't be dismissed as totally innocent.
          > But I'm still not convinced she was totally guilty, either...
          >
          >
          > June
          >
          >
          > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
          >
          > Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
          > Sign up for eLerts at:
          > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          > ---WHODUNIT???---
        • David L. Radtke
          When I visited the house last year, they pointed out that there was a big lack of blood from these crimes. They believe that this could point to the fact
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 13, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            When I visited the house last year, they pointed out that there was a big lack
            of blood from these crimes. They believe that this could point to the fact
            that the Bordens could have been poisoned first.

            -Dave
          • Jeffrey K. Tesch
            ... From: Ynr Chyldz Wyld To: 40Whacks@onelist.com Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 6:21 AM Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 13, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              -----Original Message-----
              From: Ynr Chyldz Wyld <revcoal@...>
              To: 40Whacks@onelist.com <40Whacks@onelist.com>
              Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 6:21 AM
              Subject: Re: [40Whacks] The Prince Albert, and other things.


              >From: "Ynr Chyldz Wyld" <revcoal@...>
              >>>
              >I disagree. From all the pictures I've seen, Andrew was a thin
              >man. Lizzie was not thin, and in addition wore typical Victorian
              >attire, meaning a top with sleeves and a voluminous skirt over at
              >least 2, probably 3, voluminous petticoats (typical Victorian
              >summer attire)...
              >
              >IF she donned the coat (and I believe it's a big 'if'), she would
              >have had to put it on backwards for it to be an effective cover...
              >
              >
              JT says:
              Andrew was 6' 2" - Lizzie was around 5' 4". The Prince Albert would easily
              fit her and be an excellent cover from flying blood when she leaned around
              the door jamb to strike the blows. And as for her typical Victorian attire,
              she might have been naked under the coat for all we know.

              And let's remember that blood spatters were no problem in either murder;
              this was remarked on at the time by investigating officers, and a quick look
              at the crime scene photos confirms this. The bulk of Abby's blood lay
              beneath her head, while the trajectory of Andrew's went into the sitting
              room, not behind him. Even the pillow under is cheek is still white, and
              there's no blood discernable on the door jamb. So let's put to rest this
              silly notion that Lizzie would have been blood drenched after killing her
              father. I've lost more blood cutting myself shaving!




              >>
              >
              >But no one's convinced me how she could remain clean when pushing
              >the folded coat under the pillow...
              >
              >I'm not disputing that the coat was put there because it was worn
              >by whomever murdered Andrew...I just am not convinced it was Lizzie
              >who did it...
              >
              >

              JT says:
              No other suspects, neither strangers nor conspiracy minions, would have
              reason to wear the coat and then stuff it under his head. This piece of
              evidence is just sooo Lizzie! And of course she could have jammed it under
              the pillow without getting blood on her (see above).


              Roy said:
              >> And speaking of that, don't you think she was a little TOO
              >> clean? Those who attended her testified that her hands and face
              >> were clean, and her hair and clothes were in order. If she
              >> spent any time in the barn loft as she claimed, you would think
              >> she'd be a bit dusty and dirty, what with shifting stuff around
              >> looking for lead for sinkers, or tin to fix the screen.
              >> Wouldn't a few scraps of hay at least be clinging to her
              >> skirt hem?
              >
              June said:
              >One would think so...it's one of the things about Lizzie which is
              >troubling...and why she can't be dismissed as totally innocent.
              >But I'm still not convinced she was totally guilty, either...
              >
              >>June
              >

              >JT says:
              Roy is right on the money with this one. There was no physical evidence
              that Lizzie was in the undisturbed barn loft, and there was no evidence of
              the barn's dust, dirt, and hay clinging to her "voluminous" dress. The barn
              loft alibi is laughable, and was only evolved by Lizzie when she realized
              her first three accounts of where she was (in the yard, heard a groan or
              distressing noise) placed her in position to observe the "phantom fiend"
              leaving the house.

              This is more than "troubling"; it shows her alibi for Andrew's murder was an
              outright lie! While I'm not sure about the legal concepts of "totally
              innocent" and "totally guilty", I do know there's a point in any crime where
              being "open-minded" gives way to using deductive reasoning to draw a logical
              conclusion based on the facts.

              I have a list entitled "40 reasons why Lizzie took her whacks", very similar
              to the OJ list called "100 percent (reasons) guilty!" I will post it
              soon...

              JT
              >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
              >
              >Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
              >Sign up for eLerts at:
              ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
              >
              >------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >---WHODUNIT???---
              >
            • David L. Radtke
              Let me state once again, that the theory of the Borden s being poisoned first which led to the lack of blood was not my own theory. The guide at the house
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 13, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Let me state once again, that the theory of the Borden's being poisoned first
                which led to the lack of blood was not my own theory. The guide at the house
                included it as part of the tour.

                I thought it sounded odd. I am just passing it on to the other Lizzie
                enthusiasts
                -Dave
              • Ynr Chyldz Wyld
                From: David L. Radtke ... lack ... fact ... This would only make sense if they had DIED of poisoning before being hacked with an
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 13, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: "David L. Radtke" <Dave2000@...>
                  > When I visited the house last year, they pointed out that there was a big
                  lack
                  > of blood from these crimes. They believe that this could point to the
                  fact
                  > that the Bordens could have been poisoned first

                  This would only make sense if they had DIED of poisoning before being hacked
                  with
                  an ax...since their hearts would have stopped beating beforehand, there
                  would have
                  been minimal blood spatter...

                  But if they were still alive when hacked, even if they'd been poisoned,
                  their
                  beating hearts would have caused the fresh wounds to spurt blood (albeit
                  blood
                  which was full of poison)...


                  June
                • Ynr Chyldz Wyld
                  From: Jeffrey K. Tesch ... How? Their heights make no difference. A short ROTUND woman can NOT wear a tall SKINNY man s jacket, at
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 13, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: "Jeffrey K. Tesch" <jktesch@...>
                    > >I disagree. From all the pictures I've seen, Andrew was a thin
                    > >man. Lizzie was not thin, and in addition wore typical Victorian
                    > >attire, meaning a top with sleeves and a voluminous skirt over at
                    > >least 2, probably 3, voluminous petticoats (typical Victorian
                    > >summer attire)...
                    > >
                    > >IF she donned the coat (and I believe it's a big 'if'), she would
                    > >have had to put it on backwards for it to be an effective cover...
                    > >
                    > >
                    > JT says:
                    > Andrew was 6' 2" - Lizzie was around 5' 4". The Prince Albert would easily
                    > fit her

                    How? Their heights make no difference. A short ROTUND woman can NOT wear
                    a tall SKINNY man's jacket, at least not so that it would give ample
                    coverage
                    as a butcher's apron...

                    She would have had a hard time getting that jacket to fit over her arms and
                    breast, and be able to maneuver an ax without splitting the seams...


                    > and be an excellent cover from flying blood when she leaned around
                    > the door jamb to strike the blows. And as for her typical Victorian
                    attire,
                    > she might have been naked under the coat for all we know.

                    You are obviously a fan of the Elizabeth Montgomery movie... ;-)

                    But it's extremely doubtful that Lizzie could have stripped naked to murder
                    her father, and gotten fully dressed again, in the time span between when
                    Bridget first went upstairs to take a nap, and when she heard Lizzie calling
                    her to come downstairs...

                    You really need to study the clothing of the period. Even the simplest
                    woman's frock took some time to get out of, and back into...they didn't use
                    zippers or snaps in those days, remember...but buttons, and hooks and
                    eyes...
                    on bodices, usually both were used -- hooks and eyes for the bottom layer of
                    closure, with a top piece laid over and buttoned...

                    The top was then attached to the skirt via hooks and eyes, sometimes by
                    buttons...

                    Add to this the chemise, drawers, corset, corset cover, and at least two,
                    usually 3, petticoats worn in summertime (wintertime called for at least 6,
                    up
                    to 9 in really cold weather)...and then don't forget garters, stockings, and
                    shoes which required a hook to button up...

                    It would have taken the full timespan of when Bridget went upstairs, to when
                    Lizzie called her back down, for Lizzie to have gone upstairs to strip (I
                    presume you're not suggesting she did a striptease for her dad), and for her
                    to get dressed again...there would have been no time to commit the murder,
                    all the time would have been used up just by undressing and dressing
                    again...


                    > And let's remember that blood spatters were no problem in either murder;
                    > this was remarked on at the time by investigating officers, and a quick
                    look
                    > at the crime scene photos confirms this. The bulk of Abby's blood lay
                    > beneath her head, while the trajectory of Andrew's went into the sitting
                    > room, not behind him. Even the pillow under is cheek is still white, and
                    > there's no blood discernable on the door jamb.

                    I've always found these blood patterns strange...especially Abby's...her
                    head wound should have caused blood to spatter all over the bed, before her
                    body hit the ground...the fact that it didn't leads me to suspect that she
                    was first struck over the head by a blunt object, causing her to fall onto
                    the floor, perhaps unconscious or semi-conscious, before she was hacked...

                    Andrew's wounds could possibly have spattered the way the police said they
                    did, but if the murderer stood behind to do it, they were still pretty
                    lucky that they didn't at least get their hands and forearms covered in
                    blood...

                    But perhaps it was more than luck...perhaps whomever killed Andrew was
                    familiar with anatomy, and knew just how such a wound as was inflicted would
                    bleed...

                    I doubt Lizzie had such knowledge...but a doctor would...so would a butcher,
                    and anyone familiar with slaughtering cattle...


                    > >I'm not disputing that the coat was put there because it was worn
                    > >by whomever murdered Andrew...I just am not convinced it was Lizzie
                    > >who did it...
                    >
                    > JT says:
                    > No other suspects, neither strangers nor conspiracy minions, would have
                    > reason to wear the coat and then stuff it under his head.

                    Their reason would be the same one you attribute to Lizzie...namely to
                    utilize it as an apron to keep themselves clean...


                    > This piece of
                    > evidence is just sooo Lizzie! And of course she could have jammed it
                    under
                    > the pillow without getting blood on her (see above).

                    No one's convinced me still that this could have been done without getting
                    blood on oneself...


                    > I have a list entitled "40 reasons why Lizzie took her whacks", very
                    similar
                    > to the OJ list called "100 percent (reasons) guilty!" I will post it
                    > soon...

                    You are convinced of her guilt. I am not. I'm not convinced she's
                    innocent,
                    either...I'm just not convinced either way....there's too much lying and
                    coverup by almost everyone involved...and to what end? There seems to have
                    been a big 'something' going on with and involving the Borden household in
                    the weeks leading up to the murders, a 'something' which has been ignored,
                    if not outright suppressed.

                    I feel that if THAT matter could be delved into, and brought to light, it
                    would go a long way to explaining the murders, give us a tangible suspect or
                    suspects, and just what role each one played, and give us insight as to why
                    they waffled, equivocated, or outright lied about their whereabouts and/or
                    activities the day before and of the murders....


                    June
                  • Autumn
                    June said A short ROTUND woman are you talking about Lizzie? I have never heard that she was rotund, I know I read that she weighted somewhere between
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 14, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      June said "A short ROTUND woman" are you talking about
                      Lizzie? I have never heard that she was rotund, I know
                      I read that she weighted somewhere between 120-130
                      lbs. I don't think that would be considered rotund.

                      Autumn
                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
                      http://im.yahoo.com
                    • Roy Nickerson
                      Well, I d say that Lizzie was on the....er, husky side (would buxom be a better word?). Now, I know she put on some weight during the 10 months she spent in
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 14, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well, I'd say that Lizzie was on the....er, husky side (would "buxom" be a
                        better word?).
                        Now, I know she put on some weight during the 10 months she spent in
                        Taunton eating
                        that high-class hotel fare. I guess the only way we could resolve this
                        would be to have
                        a lady of similar stature and build try to don a coat of Andrew's size.
                        Short of that, I
                        don't know how to resolve it......I certainly am not conversant on 19th
                        Century clothing,
                        be it men's or ladies. All I know is that they sure got rigged out in some
                        of the
                        damndest outfits in the hot months!

                        ----------
                        > From: Ynr Chyldz Wyld <revcoal@...>
                        > To: 40Whacks@onelist.com
                        > Subject: Re: [40Whacks] The Prince Albert, and other things.
                        > Date: Friday, January 14, 2000 10:17 AM
                        >
                        > From: "Ynr Chyldz Wyld" <revcoal@...>
                        >
                        > From: "Autumn" <autumnlite@...>
                        > > June said "A short ROTUND woman" are you talking about
                        > > Lizzie?
                        >
                        > Actually, at that point I was just talking 'in theory'....
                        >
                        >
                        > > I have never heard that she was rotund, I know
                        > > I read that she weighted somewhere between 120-130
                        > > lbs. I don't think that would be considered rotund.
                        >
                        > No, I wouldn't consider Lizzie rotund, I wouldn't even consider
                        > Abby rotund, even tho certain authors have treated her weight
                        > unkindly...
                        >
                        > But based on pictures I've seen of Lizzie, she was hardly only
                        > 120 - 130 pounds. She looks more like 140 to 150. She
                        > definitely wasn't svelte, and if fully clothed I believe would
                        > have had a problem getting her skinny father's coat to fit well
                        > over her arms and breast, and have been able to wield an ax
                        > without splitting the armhole seams...
                        >
                        >
                        > June
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
                        >
                        > Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
                        > Sign up for eLerts at:
                        > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >
                        > ---WHODUNIT???---
                      • Ynr Chyldz Wyld
                        From: Autumn ... Actually, at that point I was just talking in theory .... ... No, I wouldn t consider Lizzie rotund, I wouldn t even
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 14, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          From: "Autumn" <autumnlite@...>
                          > June said "A short ROTUND woman" are you talking about
                          > Lizzie?

                          Actually, at that point I was just talking 'in theory'....


                          > I have never heard that she was rotund, I know
                          > I read that she weighted somewhere between 120-130
                          > lbs. I don't think that would be considered rotund.

                          No, I wouldn't consider Lizzie rotund, I wouldn't even consider
                          Abby rotund, even tho certain authors have treated her weight
                          unkindly...

                          But based on pictures I've seen of Lizzie, she was hardly only
                          120 - 130 pounds. She looks more like 140 to 150. She
                          definitely wasn't svelte, and if fully clothed I believe would
                          have had a problem getting her skinny father's coat to fit well
                          over her arms and breast, and have been able to wield an ax
                          without splitting the armhole seams...


                          June
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.