1. "I want you to wash these windows to-day."
Posted by harry on May-23rd-02 at 7:25 PM

One of the more suspicious things involving both Bridget and Morse was the difference in times when Mrs. Borden instructed Bridget to clean the windows.

Bridget says (trial testimony):

"Q.  Are you able to fix the time or about the time when you received this direction from Mrs. Borden the last time you saw her alive?
A.  Well, I can't exactly tell the time, but I think it was about nine o'clock."

Morse says (trial testimony):

"Q.  You think you spent about half an hour there which would bring it round to about half past seven when you got through breakfast?
A.  I think so."
...............
"Q. Give what Mrs. Borden said to Bridget?
A.  I think she said in this way: "Bridget, I want you to wash these windows to-day."
Q.  And about what time was that said?
A.  At breakfast time.
Q.  While you were seated at the table?
A.  Yes, sir."

Bridget says "about nine", Morse between 7 and 7:30.

Morse testified he left "15 to 20 minutes before nine." If Bridget is correct, she would have started the windows after Morse left, and would have completed them before Morse returned. He would have had no knowledge of her having done them, unless he was told when he returned.  But why would anyone tell him that? I can't see Lizzie saying "Oh, Uncle John, while you were gone someone killed father and Mrs. Borden. And, oh yes, Bridget did the windows too."

If Morse is correct, it casts doubts on Bridget's entire testimony.



(Message last edited May-23rd-02  7:29 PM.)

They also differ as to whether there were bananas on the dining room table at breakfast!

I know, that sounds superficial...but the window washing comments of Morse compared to Bridget, has always bugged me.
I'm more inclined to believe Bridget over Morse, yet here I am on another thread casting aspersions on Bridget's credibility!

I guess in order of who I believe LESS is:
Lizzie
Morse
Bridget
Emma

Yet Morse DID know the windows were ordered washed.  I used to wonder if he only pretended to leave at 8:45 a.m. and snuck back in and listened.  He could have been in the parlour, hiding.  Then he would cover his slip-up about knowledge of the window-washing command by saying it happened at breakfast.
(Bridget may or may not have known that Morse returned immediately.  Lizzie said she had told Bridget to Close shutters in the parlour(?) but Bridget made it known to everyone THAT SHE NEVER went into the Parlour--why would she disregard a direct order?)

  I've also wondered why Morse didn't wait to leave WITH ANDREW.  Were their destinations in opposite directions?

He certainly had time to kill Abby at 9, the second Andrew left and get over to Weybossett St., by 9:20, if Lizzie supposedly had the same time in which to kill Andrew, AND IT WAS ACCEPTED in a court of law that she had time.

(Message last edited May-23rd-02  8:30 PM.)

Didn't Bridget make some comment as to there being curtains in the parlour? 

I have to agree with you, Kat.  I trust Bridget's testimony over the others, but, it disagrees with Morse's and Lizzie's both.  Whos lying?  Well, we have one really big lie that Lizzie told about Abby getting a note for a sick person and saying THAT SHE WOULD GO IN WHAT SHE WAS WEARING.  As far as I know, in that time period, it would be reprehensible for a woman of Abby's standard to go out of the house wearing an old house dress and with no gloves or hat.  So, I find as you do that Lizzie is at the top of the list of people not to trust.  And Morse is definetly second, but, I tend to find Emma next in line.  Her testimony is sooooo rehearsed as to what to say, such as to the dress burning incident.  I feel that she lied to protect "Baby Lizzie".

But, as I had addressed in another post, Bridget's behaviour was strange the day of the murders.  She possibly knew more than she told? 

It's funny...when I went back to EDIT, I almost  changed the order of who I believed LESS, to put Emma above Bridget in my list!

Emma definetly did a number on the court.  We each of us might do the same...

David, you are free to disagree as you wish.

Each of us is entitled to our OWN opinion whether we arrive at that opinion by speculation or by fact. I have been reading about this case for years and don't need to be lectured to.

This IS a DISCUSSION board and that discussion will at times include speculation. We are over 110 years away from the crimes and we will NEVER know certain answers. All we can do is speculate. I shall continue to do so. Ignore my posts if that disturbs you.

I don't believe this!

Radin has an interesting point of view on this very subject (chapter 10), too long to list here.

Could you give a brief synopsis, Harry?  I don't have the Radin book anymore, it fell to pieces.  Thanks! 

For accurracy's sake, Mrs. Churchill only testified to seeing Bridget rinse one north parlour window at about 10:30 a.m.
(Trial, pg. 355, and Prelim., pgs. 276 & 279)

Mr. George Pettee is the only other witness to testify that he had seen Bridget during the *window-washing* time period.  He used to live at 92 Second Street.  He says he saw Bridget at about 10 o'clock standing "stationary" with a pail & dipper & brush, "in front of the house, nearly opposite the front door."
(Trial, pg. 645).

I know my windows!



EDIT here:  This was written BEFORE the post above, in response to message #5.  Whilst this was being composed the above was posted, unbeknownst to me.  It has not yet been read.

(Message last edited May-24th-02  3:15 AM.)

Well, I don't think I'll read it after all.

[EDIT HERE:  There was a silly couch picture here which was construed as mocking.  I have removed it this date, and apologize for any misunderstanding.  Because I was not clear, the post following this one is directed at my nonsence] kk

(Message last edited Jun-16th-02  5:43 AM.)

David, you can say what you want about me. I won't engage in childish tantrums. But to mention Terence Duniho in that tone is in unbelievably bad taste.

One more thing, it's not Henry Widdows. It's Harry Widdows, me.

Susan, If you wish you can e-mail me and I'll send you the Radin info. As I said it's too long to list here.

Like you, my book of Radin has virtually collapsed. What can one expect when I paid .50 for it some 30 odd years ago!  I think I got my money's worth. 

Please David, do NOT destroy your writings from the past!!! I don't know what they say, but you WILL come to regret it!!!

I guess you need a thicker skin to post here (a defunct board was really worse - its death was deserved). Remember, in this impersonal forum its easy to over state ideas and opinions. Please do not be too hard on those whose minds are made up and will never change, no matter what the facts are.
(But you all know I'm not like that.)

If any one is using a computer for their writings (and they SHOULD) you can use an application to easily look up phrases and words.

Always save (to a floppy?) any writing before you start any major revisions, too.

If there is something from 15-20 years ago that you don't want, consider donating it to a web site. It was a mistake to print out a thousand pages of trial testimony. Better to create an index and print this alone (assuming a standard page numbering scheme).

Some people have stated that washing windows was a weekly or monthly task at the Bordens.

My opinion was that the windows were washed as a cover story to explain why they would be closed on that hot August morning. So Andy could meet his visitor (Masterton calls him "Nemesis") without any fear of eavesdropping from an opened window by the passers-by.

Note the word "him". Does anyone doubt that a man would commit these brutal murderers? Isn't that implied evidence of Lizzie's (or Bridget's) innocence?

The OBVIOUS answer to the imagined discrepancy about the times is this: Abby merely repeated the order ("just in case you forgot"). I can understand how Bridget may have delayed starting this work in case they changed their mind on that hot and humid day.

That's just my opinion, based on my limited experience. I have no trial transcript to refer to. But that only shows what the lawyers wanted to have said for the jury.

I believe that Lincoln covers that in her book.  That Uncle John heard the order about the windows first thing at breakfast and Bridget did not reply or acknowledge Abby's order.  So, she repeats it to Bridget later.  This was the only place where I have seen this written so far.  Are there any more sources? 

Hooray, Good bye!

Gee, I popped in on this thread to read about Bridget's window washing and did I get a surprise.  I could say nothing, or I could say something.  I'll be my typical self and say something. 

Speculation is necessary on this board.  Without it, we'd just be quoting all of the transcripts and other legalized papers.  BORING.  And the case won't be solved by doing that.  I don't believe we are a "jury" here to judge Lizzie or that this is our "duty" or our entire lives.  Brainstorming - throwing out ideas - is healthy, productive and just plain fun.  I always thought the answer to the Borden case is just missing a piece or two of this puzzle.  If anyone solved it, fine.  If not, that's fine too.  It's fun.  I am grateful that we have a forum to discuss this most intriguing case.  For many years I was busting with the stuff I had read and had no one to share it with.

Kat and Harry are good people.  Thank goodness Harry does post his wonderful web site findings.  Both are kind, helpful and nice to everyone.  There was no reason to jump on Harry or Kat.  Yes, they are well read - good for them!  The statements against them were unfounded, judgemental, and sure sounded like jealousy to me. 

Sometimes the Bible can be a dangerous thing. 

Back to Bridget & her windows:  I always thought Bridget did a crappy job on those windows.  Her method of rinsing - one dipperful of water splashed at them - would have made them look awful when they dried.  Maybe she didn't do any others than the ones the witnesses Kat cited said.  I can see rinsing with a hose till they were rinsed clear.  But just splashing a dipper at them?  She also gave herself an excuse to be inside the house, when she said she went indoors for the dipper.  (Does anyone know which door she used?)  That was pretty convenient, in case she was spotted going inside. 

I think it needs to be remembered that Bridget AND Lizzie were home that day.  I still don't understand why Bridget was not treated with the same suspicion as Lizzie and grilled in the same way.  Maybe even tried.  But that would probably have ended up like Lizzie's trial - not enough evidence (unless Bridget cracked).

Yes, the windows were done about every two weeks.  It was normal for Mrs. Borden to request it that day.  She was working, and it was hot.  It was probably cooler for Bridget to be doing the windows - working with all that cool water - than to be inside cooking that morning.  And Bridget didn't feel so lousy that she couldn't yak with the Kelly's girl out there.  In the 1975 movie, they have Bridget begging Mrs. Borden, "Oh please, Mrs. Borden.   Not today!  I'm feelin' poorly."  And Abby snapping back, "Inside and out."  That never happened.  

At 7 am it was 67 degrees out.  It was 83 at 2 pm.  At 9 pm 75. (US Signal Service - L. Rebello's book, page 61.)  According to the Fall River Daily Herald office, it was 66 at 8 am; 72 at noon; and 76 at 2 pm.  Does anyone know how far apart these places were located?  There's quite a discrepancy on that 2pm reading.  The times when I was there Fall River was a HOT town.  Just one of those places where the sun likes to beat down on.  Maybe it was coinidental.  It'd be interesting to hear from other Fall River residents, or anyone that has some weather readings, about their weather in general for summer.

Augusta,
Don't be so hard on poor Bridget.  After all, she didn't have Windex and a high pressure hose back in '92!  Seriously, I don't think they had the same high standards that exist today in matters of cleanliness.  Very often "a lick and a promise" was all the effort some of the many chores received back in 'the good old days."

I believe the heat on that momentous day was largely a matter of perception, rather than the actual reading on the thermometer. A few years ago I contacted several weather bureaus in the area.  I was informed the humidity was not documented in Massachusetts during this period of history.

Practically all of the testimony supports the popular belief that "It was a very hot day." If we assume a high humdity coupled with a temperature of about 78 degrees, their consensus is understandable.

I agree, sometimes how hot it feels is all a matter of perception. The more you think about the heat the hotter it seems to be.

What were the wind conditions that day? A little breeze would have helped. Wouldn't the heat dry the water pretty quickly causing streaks?

William, didn't you write an article for the LBQ on the heat that day? I thought I remembered it being referred to in Rebello(?).

Thanks for the kind words Augusta.

I have often wondered why Bridget didn't use plain old white vinegar when washing the windows?  Thats what my greatgrandmother had told that they used before there were such things as Windex or Glass Plus.  I have used it myself when cleaning glass vases and it works beautifully!  I imagine with the soot from the textile mills and the plain old dust from the streets, it would have helped.

Thats interesting, William, that they didn't measure humidity at that time.  Do you know how it is done, is it a machine that is used or is it just something very plain and ordinary? 

I didn't think Bridget had a hose. I'm thinking of that grimy soapy water dripping down and probably already having dried, then her splashing it once with a dipper.  Yuck.  It really seemed slipshod, even for back then.  The more I think about it, the more it sounds like maybe she really didn't "do" the windows.  Maybe she just made it seem like it.  Yes, vinegar!  I use that myself when I wash the windows.  (Not twice a month, tho.  That sounds often, doesn't it?  I wonder if it was because they didn't do a great job of it.  Or because of the soot from the mill town + maybe the dirt & dust from the road.)

I remember an article on the weather in the LBQ.  It was groundbreaking, wasn't it?  Before that, everybody just kept copying down what other writers said - that it was over 100 degrees out.  Did Bill write that?

The weather report "until Thursday night" according to the Fall River Herald said "variable winds".  That sounds like a forecast.  Maybe they got them; maybe they didn't.  (Rebello, page 61)

I am the first to admit....I am not particularly bright when it comes to the subject of Lizzie.  It's been YEARS since I actually read a book dealing with the subject.  And as I recall,:-( one of those was by Evan Hunter.....not very impressive. 

I am not a scholar nor expect to be, but I will visit here and read some of the fasinating data I see posted here.

As for the heat on that day, remember the mode of dress.  High collars & long sleeves, etc.  The very thought of a corset gives me hot flashes in subzero weather.

Have a nice evening all.

There's a good chance Bridget may have used vinegar in window washing and other chores.  Remember that Charles Sawyer said he had been to the Borden house previous to the murders "to purchase vinegar."  So somebody at the Borden house had plenty of vinegar, and it's a time-honored way of cleaning glass.

I believe Fleet testified that there were barrels in the cellar that appeared to contain vinegar.  Maybe another of Andrew's money making items.  Eggs and vinegar, doesn't that make mayonnaise?

Just missing the oil! 

Yea, zoe, you've got a point.
In the Angela Carter story (LINKS, pg.4) she describes the clothing of the period and what Lizzie might be wearing.  She says Lizzie dons a light cotton frock in the morning that of itself may have been fine for the weather, but ADDED to that she probably wore a couple of long, starched petticoats, a short one, long drawers, woolen stockings and a chemise and corset.

But, when we read what articles of clothing Lizzie turned over to the court we only have listed a blouse waist (top) and skirt, and a petticoat, and shoes and stockings.

Either all is not listed that Lizzie surrendered to Jennings, or they were content with what she DID turn over, or Ms. Carter is taking artistic liberties. (?)

Kat, from what I have read in the past, a woman didn't necessarily have to wear a corset with a wrapper(housedress).  They wear made to be comfortable, around-the-house wear.  Maybe the other clothing that Lizzie wore that day was considered too intimate, the chemise, drawers and short petticoat, to be introduced into a court of law.  Look at how squeemish they were about menstruation!  I'm going to try and post a couple of pictures here, if they come through, great, if not, please excuse me!

Woo Hoo!  I did something right! 

I was hoping you'd learn to post attachments, and I wondered what would be the first thing you'd come UP WITH!!!! 
Now I know!
Not cars, but antique corsets!
COOL!

PS:  LOVED THE ELECTRICAL SOCKET!!!!

I know, kinda ruins the whole effect!  Oh well, what can you do! 

There's no way I would have made it in Victorian America if I had to wear all those clothes.  The men's clothing wasn't as bad, but it wasn't good either.  Coats over their shirts in the summertime?  Long pants all the time?  I don't blame Lizzie for changing into that wrapper in the afternoon.  I wonder if really heavy ladies, like Abby, bothered to wear a corset too?
Congratulations, Susan, on posting the lovely pictures!  Great job!

Thank you, Augusta!  I owe it all to Harry, hes a doll!  I have to agree with you, I don't think that I would make it in Victorian gear in the summer time! 

(Message last edited Oct-6th-02  10:31 PM.)

Right, let's not jump to conclusions.  I said, "Sure sounds like jealousy to me."  That's my personal opinion.  It's not a fact.  It's true, that that is my personal opinion, and I stand by it.  I thought you were done with us?  I'm glad you're back, but I thought you weren't coming back. 

David,

You and your attitudes are getting old!!  Lighten up alittle, no one here is out to hurt anyone from the past or future.  Judge not and be judge not yourself!!  Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't make them wrong.  We all have the right to disagree, but not beat each other down with quotes from the bible and other nonsense.

You have added a lot of interesting ideas, but your tirads have got to stop. 

Turn the other cheek David.

May peace be with you (hopefully SOON),

Tracie

I have apologized privately in your letterbox, David.
Look for an "envelope" icon in the upper left corner of your main page.   kk

Also, please see post #15, if you would like.

(Message last edited Jun-16th-02  5:47 AM.)

I have finally read all the posts here. I am upset by the tone of the "discussion". But I am actually more upset when I see that some of the earlier posts have been recently edited by their author so the debate (and I use this word loosely) now does not make sense and makes the author seem less vindictive. I wish David would have left his words alone to stand on their own merit. By removing May 24th comments on June 15, the resonses by Harry and Ray are now out of context, which is VERY unfortunate. If you were retracting some unkind things you said, David, a simple apology would suffice. By removing your words and apparently some threats that you were going to burn up your collection (as evidenced by Ray's remark following yours), you are, in effect, trying to change history. Or your culpability in the argument that ensued. (shades of Richard Nixon here!)

I will not contribute to the debate regarding the necessity or evilness of gossip. I would, however, like to share the following:

David, you seem to base your understanding of the negativity of gossip, judgment, and speculation on what you call God's law-----which comes from your faith and religious beliefs. You must remember that not everyone here shares your beliefs. Not everyone is Christian. Not everyone believes in God. Those who disagree with you may also consider themselves to be Christian, but do not interpret the Bible as strictly as you do. Since religious belief is an UNDEBATABLE topic, please, in the future, stick to secular opinions and do not preach to us or warn us of our fate in the hereafter. These kinds of comments are inflammatory and flaming is not allowed on this forum.

This forum is a discussion area that will necessarily include speculation, gossip, and judgments. No one, so far as I read it, is trying to ruin someone's reputation. We are all groping in the dark with a 110 year old mystery, examining facts and the GOSSIP OF THE DAY to sift through the junk and arrive at some modern understanding of things. As a matter of fact, Kat is a person who "preaches" that each of us should use primary sources INSTEAD of news reports that are infamously full of innuendo. Neither is she a smart-ass. Smart, yes, smart-ass, no. I on the other hand have been accused of that many times, but since I was out of town when all this blew up, and nowhere near a computer for almost two weeks, I know you are not confusing the sisters.

It is a shame that you focused your ire on Kat and Harry, two of the most wonderful people you would ever want to meet. Both individuals have quite a history of studying this case in some rather profound ways. I will not speak for either one of them, but let me say that if they are affronted by your comments, that to me is a good barometer that you have gone too far.

David, you are welcome to continue to discuss this case on this forum. So far, I have not thrown anybody off. But just like before, I must insist that you consider that you are in a community of people quite different than yourself. The only thing most of us have in common is our interest in this case. Everyone, keep your religious beliefs to yourself, keep your profanity to yourself, keep your political beliefs to yourself. This is not the place for them as all of that is fodder for catfights and flame wars.

Thew problem with gossip (or hearsay) is not just that it seems to violate one of the Commandments (8th). But that it lacks "common sense". You are talking about something you really know little about, and are just assuming that what you heard is the truth.

Do stories get embellished in the retelling? Are some facts dropped out? Its not the truth, the whole truth ('as I saw it').

As Justice Dewey noted, eyewitness accounts can't be corroborated, and you can't be sure they are truthful or not mistaken.