What did Bridget see??

[PossumPie]

Like I always say...go to the "official source" here is a photo of the Arrest Record...unfortunately the date is shown (11th) but not the time...give me some time I'll find the "official time"

[Curryong]

I will wait patiently, Possum!

Her eyes are grey, yes those rather bulbous but striking eyes! What's light, hair, eyebrows, complexion? Light hair, light complexion, not rosy then!

[Curryong]

Sorry Possum, but I just found this in the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, Page 113.

Boston Advertiser

Fall River, August 12th 1892.

'Lizzie A Borden was arraigned in the second district court before Judge J.C. Blaidsell this morning on charges of homicide arising from the killing of her father and stepmother. The courtroom was crowded to suffocation by a motley crowd of curious people in no way directly interested....Mr Morse, Miss Emma Borden and City Missionary Buck were present.

'Miss Borden, the prisoner, was represented by A J Jennings. She was dressed in a dark blue tailor-made gown and wore a black lace hat adorned with a few berries. She looked better than she did last night just before her arrest....'

[PossumPie]

Sorry Possum, but I just found this in the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook, Page 113.

Boston Advertiser

Fall River, August 12th 1892.

'Lizzie A Borden was arraigned in the second district court before Judge J.C. Blaidsell this morning on charges of homicide arising from the killing of her father and stepmother. The courtroom was crowded to suffocation by a motley crowd of curious people in no way directly interested....Mr Morse, Miss Emma Borden and City Missionary Buck were present.

'Miss Borden, the prisoner, was represented by A J Jennings. She was dressed in a dark blue tailor-made gown and wore a black lace hat adorned with a few berries. She looked better than she did last night just before her arrest....'

Thanks...I've been busy and didn't find the time of her arrest, but it is clear it was late evening on the 11th.

[Curryong]

Thanks for the above info on the Arrest Record Possum. I've just been viewing a special on TV about the missing Malaysian plane. Nearly as big a mystery as our Lizzie Borden one!

[MysteryReader]

I would love to know what Bridget saw and heard!! She sure was tight lipped about the whole situation. I am thinking it's one of two situations as to why she wasn't more forth coming. One: she was loyal and she was afraid of losing her job. After all, the Borden family(lizzie included) was her employer and was afraid of losing her job, or Two: She didn't see or hear enough to make a difference in the case.

I don't think that she (Bridget) saw enough to make a difference in the case. However, if you buy into the theory that Lizzie committed the murders naked (so she wouldn't have any bloody clothes), it begs to be asked- why didn't Bridget see Lizzie downstairs naked? Yes, she was cleaning windows but could see into the house (I'll have to go back and find my layouts of the house to be certain).

[Curryong]

I haven't got my books or notes near me at the moment, MysteryReader, but I think Bridget testified that she saw no-one in the downstairs rooms while she was actually washing the windows on the outside. Of course Andrew was still alive while she finished off the sitting room ones inside, as she could hear Lizzie and Andrew talking for a few minutes in the dining room. She apparently heard Lizzie ask if there was any mail and Andrew reply "Not for you!" Rude! Was that when she decided he had to go! Only joking!

What Lizzie was doing, how she was dressed, or not!! in that quite brief span of time between Bridget going up to her room to rest and Lizzie calling her down because Andrew had been murdered, is one of the keys to the Borden murders, isn't it?

[MysteryReader]

Curryong,

Yes! It is one of the keys. I have heard that Lizzie changed her statements numerous times so I need to pay attention specifically, to that. I'm still on the fence as to whether I think she did or didn't do it (I have my thoughts but can't explain why I think that way) but I'm not ready to spill yet.

[MysteryReader]

This from the Pittsburg Dispatch (Pittsburg, Pa.) Oct. 18, 1882....
"The vital bit of evidence which caused the police to arrest Lizzie Borden on the charge of murdering her farther and stepmother has at last leaked out. As has been suspected, the evidence has been furnished by Bridget Sullivan. The arrest followed immediately after her examination at the inquest. The only intimation that has been made public, was the remark credited to Bridget: "I'm not surprised that they arrested Lizzie Borden."
"Today it was learned why she was not surprised. The leak came through one of the officials who was present at the examination. That official said today to an intimate friend: "It was what Bridget saw, not what she heard or what she guessed, that led to Lizzie Borden's arrest. There were two important points, and they did not occur to her mind, agitated and shocked as she was at the time of the discovery of the crime, until she had a well defined idea of what the police suspected. Bridget said that she heard Lizzie down cellar hunting for something directly after Mr. Borden went out to go down town, and sometime after that she saw what she is positive was a hatchet, lying half hidden in the sitting room. She heard Lizzie down cellar before she went outdoors to wash windows; also saw the hatchet when she came inside to get some water to complete her work" Hmmmmmm....

This is an interesting piece of information (I've not finished reading the thread, though) but the date of the article is 10 years before the actual murders...

[twinsrwe]

This from the Pittsburg Dispatch (Pittsburg, Pa.) Oct. 18, 1882....
"The vital bit of evidence which caused the police to arrest Lizzie Borden on the charge of murdering her farther and stepmother has at last leaked out. As has been suspected, the evidence has been furnished by Bridget Sullivan. The arrest followed immediately after her examination at the inquest. The only intimation that has been made public, was the remark credited to Bridget: "I'm not surprised that they arrested Lizzie Borden."
"Today it was learned why she was not surprised. The leak came through one of the officials who was present at the examination. That official said today to an intimate friend: "It was what Bridget saw, not what she heard or what she guessed, that led to Lizzie Borden's arrest. There were two important points, and they did not occur to her mind, agitated and shocked as she was at the time of the discovery of the crime, until she had a well defined idea of what the police suspected. Bridget said that she heard Lizzie down cellar hunting for something directly after Mr. Borden went out to go down town, and sometime after that she saw what she is positive was a hatchet, lying half hidden in the sitting room. She heard Lizzie down cellar before she went outdoors to wash windows; also saw the hatchet when she came inside to get some water to complete her work" Hmmmmmm....

This is an interesting piece of information (I've not finished reading the thread, though) but the date of the article is 10 years before the actual murders...

Actually, the correct date for this article is August 18, 1892.

Here is the actual newspaper article:

The Pittsburg Dispatch., August 18, 1892.pdf

[MysteryReader]

Thank you, Twinsrwe! I suspected it was after the murders but not sure of the exact date.

[twinsrwe]

You're very welcome, MysteryReader.

Partial content of article:

Whether the hatchet was then stained with blood the official did not state. Bridget saw it, and from certain indications which she described to the officials, was satisfied that it had been in the hands of Lizzie, whether before or after the murder of the stepmother she was, of course, unable to state. It was a strong point for the Government. It was necessary to connect Lizzie with the murderous weapon in some way, if possible, and Bridget did that for them. With. Lizzie down cellar and the hatchet upstairs, a conclusive point was established, and according to the theory of the police it is simply this: Either the woman secured the weapon for herself or for an accomplice, and in either case she had such guilty knowledge of the crime as to warrant a charge of murder in the first degree. The police can show, they say, that Lizzie Borden was either the principal in the murder or an accessory before the fact, and everything they have secured thus far indicates the former, although there are a few loopholes which might admit the fact that she was an accessory, but they are few and far between.

If, however, she was an accessory, it will throw out an idea that the woman was insane, and the police at present are strongly inclined to that theory rather than believe that this Christian girl, with so strong a reputation for piety and missionary labors, committed the heartless, cruel murder that they have shown the killing of Andrew and Abbey Borden to have been. That she could have cold-bloodily devised such a crime with another person is almost beyond their credulity, although all police officials follow the principle that nothing is impossible in crime.

If the contents of this article are true, then either Lizzie was the killer of both Andrew and Abby, or she was an accessory to the crimes, by aiding and abetting prior to the murders, and most likely after the deeds were done, as well. Either way, Lizzie was NOT totally innocent.

[Curryong]

We've got to bear in mind though, that not even at the inquest did Bridget infer that she had seen a hidden hatchet anyway. nor did she say she heard Lizzie in the cellar. Before she went out to vomit Lizzie was sitting at the kitchen table, during it Andrew presumably left the house, and when Bridget returned from the yard she testified that Lizzie was nowhere to be seen.

In other words, she didn't know where Lizzie had gone. The prosecution would have loved Bridget to have testified to what she supposedly saw according to the article. It would have meant a conviction for sure. Maybe Bridget wasn't surprised when Lizzie was arrested. After all, she was the only person she knew of, besides herself, who was in or near no 92 at the time of the murders. However, she never testified at Lizzie's trial to seeing or hearing anything implied in that article. I think the journalist concerned had had a chat to a police officer investigating the case and decided to spice it up a bit!

[irina]

This report was all over the papers at that time. I found it while browsing through the old papers and was totally shocked. Then I thought about NONE of this coming out in any testimony. There were also some things written that sound false to me. I doubt Bridget would have talked about Lizzie like that. "I am not surprised Lizzie Borden was arrested!" I don't see her making such a statement and even if she did I don't imagine her dropping convention so far as to call Lizzie by her name that way. I would assume an Irish maid~in need of future employment~would follow manners of the day. Miss. Lizzie or Miss Borden would be appropriate. So a journalist could have written that bit but there is too much there that doesn't sound authentic.

Then I wonder if there is a kernel of truth in the article. I don't know. I do think Lizzie was in the cellar that day.

There were other widely published tales during that time. Witnesses are listed by name and detailed stories are told. One in particular had to do with a young mother pushing a baby carriage. I think she was with someone else and walking down the street. They looked up to the second story of 92 Second at a certain time of the morning and Lizzie was looking down at them. Etc. That didn't seem to make it to trial either.

There were so many of these things that that is one of the reasons I discount some other things like Lizzie and shoplifting and Lizzie giving away the horse car tickets.

[twinsrwe]

We've got to bear in mind though, that not even at the inquest did Bridget infer that she had seen a hidden hatchet anyway. nor did she say she heard Lizzie in the cellar. Before she went out to vomit Lizzie was sitting at the kitchen table, during it Andrew presumably left the house, and when Bridget returned from the yard she testified that Lizzie was nowhere to be seen.

In other words, she didn't know where Lizzie had gone. The prosecution would have loved Bridget to have testified to what she supposedly saw according to the article. It would have meant a conviction for sure. Maybe Bridget wasn't surprised when Lizzie was arrested. After all, she was the only person she knew of, besides herself, who was in or near no 92 at the time of the murders. However, she never testified at Lizzie's trial to seeing or hearing anything implied in that article. I think the journalist concerned had had a chat to a police officer investigating the case and decided to spice it up a bit!

I agree, Curryong, that is why I stated, 'If the contents of this article are true, ...'

IMO: I think that even if the prosecution knew what Bridget saw, they would never have asked her relevant questions pertaining to her seeing a hidden hatchet or hearing Lizzie in the cellar, because the prosecution had no intentions of convicting a woman.

I've always found Judge Blaisdell's statement at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, very telling:

"The long examination is now concluded, and there remains but for the magistrate to perform what he believes to be his duty. It would be a pleasure for him, and he would doubtless receive much sympathy if he could say, ‘Lizzie, I judge you probably not guilty. You may go home.' But upon the character of the evidence presented through the witnesses who have been so closely and thoroughly examined, there is but one thing to be done. Suppose for a single moment a man was standing there. He was found close by that guest chamber which, to Mrs. Borden, was a chamber of death. Suppose a man had been found in the vicinity of Mr. Borden, who was first to find the body, and the only account he could give of himself was the unreasonable one that he was out in the barn looking for sinkers, then he was out in the yard, then he was out for something else. Would there be any question in the minds of men what should be done with such a man? So there is only one thing to do, painful as it may be - the judgment of the Court is that you are probably guilty, and you are ordered committed to await the action of the Superior Court." (Porter, Edwin H., The Fall River Tragedy: History of the Borden Murders, 1893:139140).

Source: Page 162 of Lizzie Borden Past and Present. (Underlining is mine).

[Curryong]

Yes, twins, seeing things from today's viewpoint, it's incredible that judge and jury (and much of the Press) at the final trial were so reluctant to believe that a maiden lady, deeply involved in church activities and from a middleclass temperance home, would be congenitally capable of murder. I do think that Knowlton was convinced of her guilt, though. He was just resigned to the trial not going his way, I think.

[irina]

I think Knowlton may have had doubts or simply lost his will to prosecute. I get this idea from his letter to Pillsbury as well as some things he could have pursued at trial which he didn't. This bothers me because I believe if he believed Lizzie had killed for an early inheritance, he would have had the overwhelming desire to win the case. So I wonder if he thought she was possibly innocent or if he knew she was guilty but that there were serious extenuating circumstances.