Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Thank you for the testimony, Susan!

Did Bridget claim her dress was damp? I'm trying to recall something about Why she said she changed her dress?

You are welcome, Kat. No, I can't find anything in that part of Bridget's testimony that says why she changed her dress. Maybe there is another passage elsewhere in her testimony? Outside of being damp, could it be possible that the dress Bridget wore earlier in the day was a morning dress, a dress for the heavier, messier work of the day that she changed out of normally in the afternoon for the rest of the day? Kind of like Bridget's version of Lizzie's Bedford cord dress?

If Bridget was rinsing the windows by throwing cups of water on them, some of the splashback would get on her dress.
How quickly would it dry? Would it help to cool her off?

Susan @ Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:08 pm wrote:...

Rays @ Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:30 pm wrote:

"I believe this topic was about the blood spatter, and lack therof on the dress of Lizzie (and Bridget). This proves them both innocent of committing the murder(s).

Ray, I don't understand your reasoning of due to lack of blood on Lizzie or Bridget that it makes them innocent? Unless you are presuming that moments after murdering Andrew that they would stand around in a blood spattered dress with dripping murder implement in hand waiting to be caught? I think that like most murderers, unless caught in the act, would hide the evidence of their wrongdoing as well as the murder weapon. We only have Bridget's word on the amount of dresses she personally owned and for Lizzie we only have her word and Emma's word on the amount and what kind of dresses that were in her closet.

It seems you made up your mind that one of the residents of the house did the murder, and are creating the idea of a missing dress.
If Bridget lied about this, probably Lizzie would have said something.
IF Lizzie lied about this, probably Emma would have said something. Emma had the most to gain from a Lizzie conviction.

You have the right to your opinion, but don't expect others to accept this. The idea of missing dress is just your imagination, isn't it? No mention in the Trial Transcript or other official documents?

No, Ray, I haven't made up mind yet on the killer. I vacillate between Lizzie having done it and someone else doing it, but, that Lizzie was in on the whole thing.

Personally I don't think Lizzie would be very familiar with what dresses Bridget owned in totality. And even if she did, Bridget left the house shortly after the murders, how would she know if Bridget was missing a dress? The same goes for Lizzie, once Bridget was out of the house and no longer laundering Lizzie's clothes, she wouldn't notice a missing dress had there been one. Emma would definitely notice, but, would she rat her sister out? According to her trial testimony, it was she who told Lizzie to get rid of her Bedford cord dress. Sounds to me like she was covering for Lizzie's indiscretion of burning that dress.

And theres nothing saying that the dress had to be missing. Couldn't Bridget's possibly already damp dress (indigo blue with a white clover leaf pattern) from window washing be made a bit more wet by wiping off blood spatter with a damp cloth? Who would notice? Plus there are many different ways of covering clothing to protect it, an apron, long coat, etc. All I'm trying to say is that just because neither woman was seen by anyone to have blood on her doesn't necessarily prove them innocent. They were both in and around the crime scene and had the opportunity.

RayS @ Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:30 pm wrote:
I believe this topic was about the blood spatter, and lack therof on the dress of Lizzie (and Bridget). This proves them both innocent of committing the murder(s).

I agree with you about the subject matter of this thread, and that's exactly what my posts have been about, however, if you've noticed I've also been pointing out that the lack of blood on the perpetraitor of this crime would not necessarily be unexpected; therefore, in my opinion, your hypothesis that "lack of blood = innocence" isn't valid.

If whacking a saturated towel on a sofa led to splatter on the wall behind the sofa, and on the whacker, that would be proof of what an expert testified to at the trial.

No, not necessarily. Again, the "saturated towel" experiment you described would not produce any scientifically valid results for what you're trying to prove for reasons I've already noted in a previous post. It does not matter if the experiment's results would happen to match what experts testified to - all that would be is coincidence.

If you can mention any murders by hatchet similar to Abby and Andy, do so. Others would like to read them as well.

Most of my info about more recent cases of "murder by axe" comes from my colleagues and case file information, and hasn't been made available for the general public to read in a published account...but I'll see what I can do for you....

I am of the opinion that cases are somewhat unique and studying other ones will not help necessarily in solving this one.
I think studying motive, and the characters of the suspects and victims can be helpful when comparing crimes, but not the actual details of the commission of the crime. Too many variables.
What do you think sguthmann?

I am not claiming special knowledge that is referenced but not published.
I remember the testimony from one Doctor as the murderer of Andy would have blood spatter on him/her from the waist up. Isn't this true?
The murderer who struck a reclining Abby would have blood spatter on him/ner from the waist down?

So the lack of blood spatter, like the absent murder weapon, says 'proof of innocence' (derived from a lack of proof of guilty).

Note how the 'Lizzie Dunnits' have to invent claims of a hidden weapon and bloody dress to make their case, instead of accepting the facts!!!

Kat @ Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:16 am wrote:I am of the opinion that cases are somewhat unique and studying other ones will not help necessarily in solving this one.
I think studying motive, and the characters of the suspects and victims can be helpful when comparing crimes, but not the actual details of the commission of the crime. Too many variables.
What do you think sguthmann?

I think you're correct in that there are too many variables in any given case to think that it could lead to conclusions about another case, especially when separate by time and space. The only exception I could think of would be when dealing with a serial killer, where you have a number of cases that are related by way of the perp. But even among crimes committed by the same person, with seemingly the same motive, each case will have it's own details and variables, some which may relate to other cases, and some which are unique to that particular crime episode.

Motive is huge in looking at any crime. Figure out the motive for the crime, and you have a huge head start on IDing the criminal who did it. Most motives aren't even that complex - they often boil down to money, sex, and/or power...or a combination of those. But again, the details can muddy the waters, can obscure the base motive and thus obscure the perp. I think "Anatomy of Motive" by John Douglas is an incredible read (despite what some might say about Douglas).

So this is my very long way of saying that, yes, one shouldn't make conclusions about any one case based on another unrelated case. But there is information, patterns, even lessons in basic human behavior to be gleaned from an unrelated case that might give insight into another case. I take bits of knowledge from the law enforcement community I work within, but I do not take anything as an absolute that can be relied upon in all cases.

The doctor to which you refer, Ray, is Dr. Frank Draper. Here is his testimony from the trial, pg 1065:

Q. Assuming that spots were seen upon the wall immediately over the head and a little to the front of Mr. Borden, in large number, 80 to 100, that spots were seen upon a picture upon the wall midway over the body to the extent of 40 or 50, that spots were seen upon the door which was in the general direction beyond his feet, and that other spots were seen upon the door which was in a general direction behind his head, and between him and beyond the space where the assailant stood, in your opinion would the assailant of necessity receive some spatters of blood upon his clothes or person?
A. I should think so.

(Not definitely, he doesn't know so, only thinks it would be so-Susan)

Q. What part of the person would have been spattered?
A. The part that was exposed, that was not covered by furniture or by other protecting substances.

(like an apron, or a coat, or something else to cover up the clothing-Susan)

Q. Assuming that the assailant stood behind Mr. Borden using an instrument like the handless hatchet, having a handle in it like the one of the smallest hatchet here, and remembering the height of the sofa in a general way, what portion of his body would have received these spatters?
A. Assuming that he used his right hand, I should think the upper portion of his body, the clothing and his right side.


And so on.

So by your rationale, " the lack of blood spatter, like the absent murder weapon, says 'proof of innocence' (derived from a lack of proof of guilty). ", means that Billy Borden is innocent of the murders too. Were his bloody clothes or duster coat ever found by the police? Or his gore covered hatchet? Then we have a hidden weapon and hidden blood stained clothes again, don't we? Lack of blood spatter and lack of murder weapon=Billy Borden is innocent of the murders, correct?

RayS @ Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:08 pm wrote:I am not claiming special knowledge that is referenced but not published.

Again, that's the way it is at this point. I'll do some looking for referenced sources to back up what I've been saying, but until then, you're free to believe it or not. Or talk to your own local LE and see if they have experience with such murders?

I remember the testimony from one Doctor as the murderer of Andy would have blood spatter on him/her from the waist up. Isn't this true? The murderer who struck a reclining Abby would have blood spatter on him/ner from the waist down?

How would the Dr know? Did he see it happen? Had he seen someone who committed a similar crime right after they'd done the deed? He's guessing, giving his best medical opinion, and what would seem a logical one, unless one actually had experience with the real deal. And if the murderer was dripping with gore, and the surroundings awash with blood, why wasn't any indication found at the crime scene? Espeically the areas surrounding where Abby and Andrew were attacked? I believe there was some small blood spots, but nothing like a splattering that you seem to think would have to also be on the killer. Scene seemed pretty clean to me, as far as bloody murders go?

So the lack of blood spatter, like the absent murder weapon, says 'proof of innocence' (derived from a lack of proof of guilty).

Note how the 'Lizzie Dunnits' have to invent claims of a hidden weapon and bloody dress to make their case, instead of accepting the facts!!!

Heck, why don't we just say that no murder took place at all, that their heads simply imploded? The scene of the crime supposedly holds no murderer, no bloody clothes, no weapon...well that would = no murder in your logic. That makes about as much sense as your argument for why Lizzie couldn't have possibly did it because no physical evidence tying her to the crime was ever found. First off, there was that dress burning, but even if it was just an old paint splattered rag and nothing more, the fact remains a crime did happen -a murder weapon certainly existed (exists), someone bashed away at the heads of the Bordens but neither were ever found. And remember, Lizzie didn't have to be the one swinging the axe, hatchet, or whatever, in order to have been behind the murders. If so, I would consider her still "guilty" of the murders, wouldn't you? Does your "proof of innocence" extend to that scenario?

From Dr. Draper's testimony, the question is prefaced partially by the assumption that blood was found beyond the space presumed to be occupied by the assailant, describing the blood spatter in Andrew's case. This indicates that all blood directed toward the assailant need not land on the assailant. Who can state positively that any blood must land on the assailant, and if so, how much? How much was found in the sitting room beyond where the assailant stood? I would think any blood on the murderer would most likely be found on the sleeve covering the arm used to swing the hatchet.

I agree, no motive established, no murder weapon, it all boils down to no one is guilty. Were the Fall River police ever criticized for not pursuing the case any further?

Susan @ Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:24 pm wrote:The doctor to which you refer, Ray, is Dr. Frank Draper. Here is his testimony from the trial, pg 1065:

Q. Assuming that spots were seen upon the wall immediately over the head and a little to the front of Mr. Borden, in large number, 80 to 100, that spots were seen upon a picture upon the wall midway over the body to the extent of 40 or 50, that spots were seen upon the door which was in the general direction beyond his feet, and that other spots were seen upon the door which was in a general direction behind his head, and between him and beyond the space where the assailant stood, in your opinion would the assailant of necessity receive some spatters of blood upon his clothes or person?
A. I should think so.

(Not definitely, he doesn't know so, only thinks it would be so-Susan)

Q. What part of the person would have been spattered?
A. The part that was exposed, that was not covered by furniture or by other protecting substances.

(like an apron, or a coat, or something else to cover up the clothing-Susan)

Q. Assuming that the assailant stood behind Mr. Borden using an instrument like the handless hatchet, having a handle in it like the one of the smallest hatchet here, and remembering the height of the sofa in a general way, what portion of his body would have received these spatters?
A. Assuming that he used his right hand, I should think the upper portion of his body, the clothing and his right side.

And so on.

So by your rationale, " the lack of blood spatter, like the absent murder weapon, says 'proof of innocence' (derived from a lack of proof of guilty). ", means that Billy Borden is innocent of the murders too. Were his bloody clothes or duster coat ever found by the police? Or his gore covered hatchet? Then we have a hidden weapon and hidden blood stained clothes again, don't we? Lack of blood spatter and lack of murder weapon=Billy Borden is innocent of the murders, correct?

Good, we agree that the murderer would have blood spatter, and Lizzie (and Bridget) had none at all.
Therefore the murderer was an intruder who left the house before anyone can see the blood on his sleeves. Putting on a duster would hide it from the public. QED.

This is a simpler and rational explanation than a "missing link" of evidence.
Note how the Doctor is careful in his explanation, to not go beyond the known facts in his expert opinion.

I still challenge anyone to experiment with a rolled-up towel that has been soaked in beet juice, and placed on top of a sheet to gather the spatter.

It's a lot easier to challenge someone to do it than to just do it yourself!

Yooper @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:25 pm wrote:It's a lot easier to challenge someone to do it than to just do it yourself!

I have no doubt in my mind that blood spatter resulted.
But if I said I did it and that was the result, who would believe that?
So it is best to have an objective witness, if there are any on this site.

I also know about the effects of beet juice spatter. Easier to remove than blood. IMO

[quote="RayS @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:05 pm
Good, we agree that the murderer would have blood spatter, and Lizzie (and Bridget) had none at all.
Therefore the murderer was an intruder who left the house before anyone can see the blood on his sleeves. Putting on a duster would hide it from the public. QED.

This is a simpler and rational explanation than a "missing link" of evidence.
Note how the Doctor is careful in his explanation, to not go beyond the known facts in his expert opinion.

I still challenge anyone to experiment with a rolled-up towel that has been soaked in beet juice, and placed on top of a sheet to gather the spatter.[/quote]

No, Ray, I can't say that I agree with that. I stand by what I had posted earlier; the murderer wouldn't want to be caught for the murders and would logically clean their clothing of blood spatter, or change their clothing to dispose of that sign of guilt, or do something to prevent blood from staining their clothing from the get-go. The only way I can see the murderer being viewed with blood spatter on their person would be to catch them mere seconds after the last killing.

Susan @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:38 pm wrote:

RayS @ Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:05 pm wrote: Good, we agree that the murderer would have blood spatter, and Lizzie (and Bridget) had none at all.
Therefore the murderer was an intruder who left the house before anyone can see the blood on his sleeves. Putting on a duster would hide it from the public. QED.

This is a simpler and rational explanation than a "missing link" of evidence.
Note how the Doctor is careful in his explanation, to not go beyond the known facts in his expert opinion.

I still challenge anyone to experiment with a rolled-up towel that has been soaked in beet juice, and placed on top of a sheet to gather the spatter.

No, Ray, I can't say that I agree with that. I stand by what I had posted earlier; the murderer wouldn't want to be caught for the murders and would logically clean their clothing of blood spatter, or change their clothing to dispose of that sign of guilt, or do something to prevent blood from staining their clothing from the get-go. The only way I can see the murderer being viewed with blood spatter on their person would be to catch them mere seconds after the last killing.

Was it typical for men to wear black clothes / suits? Would that hide blood spatter?
Edmond Locard said that the perfect murder couldn't be committed, since the murderer was overcome with emotion and would always overlook small bits of evidence.

About 30 minutes after Abby's murder, the blood spatter would be tried and not rub off. But I wasn't there as a witmess.
Except an intruder could not change his clothes, only be able to put on a duster. That could've attracted attention at the time.

Kat @ Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:27 am wrote:Thank you for the testimony, Susan!
Did Bridget claim her dress was damp? I'm trying to recall something about Why she said she changed her dress?

I had never thought about that before! If Bridget's dress was damp or wet from her having washed off blood spatters it may not have been given a second thought because she could have gotten wet already from washing windows. And, by the time the police came to the house, her cotton dress could have semi dried and not been given a seond thought by anyone who, at that initial time, was not looking for anyone in the household to be guilty.

Angel @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:14 pm wrote:

Kat @ Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:27 am wrote:Thank you for the testimony, Susan!
Did Bridget claim her dress was damp? I'm trying to recall something about Why she said she changed her dress?

I had never thought about that before! If Bridget's dress was damp or wet from her having washed off blood spatters it may not have been given a second thought because she could have gotten wet already from washing windows. And, by the time the police came to the house, her cotton dress could have semi dried and not been given a seond thought by anyone who, at that initial time, was not looking for anyone in the household to be guilty.

Those of us who have read some book on this case know the following.

Bridget was seen outside around the time that Abby was killed. Radin had to claim Abby was killed earlier to cast suspicion on Bridget.
Since Bridget was on the 3rd floor (no water there) until called down by Lizzie, there was no chance to wash since she was seen as she came to the 1st floor. QED

Any fantasies about Lizzie or Bridget killing Andy run up against the facts.

Note how the difficulties are solved with an Intruder?

[quote="RayS @ Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:27
Bridget was seen outside around the time that Abby was killed. Radin had to claim Abby was killed earlier to cast suspicion on Bridget.
Since Bridget was on the 3rd floor (no water there) until called down by Lizzie, there was no chance to wash since she was seen as she came to the 1st floor. QED
Any fantasies about Lizzie or Bridget killing Andy run up against the facts.
Note how the difficulties are solved with an Intruder?[/quote]


Bridget could have gone outside immediately after she and/or Lizzie did the deed and cleaned up.
As for Bridget being on the third floor- that's what Bridget and Lizzie said- if they were guilty and/or in cahoots that may not have been true.
As for difficulties being solved re. the intruder story, there are as many discrepancies in that story as there are in any other, as has been pointed out ad nauseum.

There was no blood found on the dress Lizzie gave to the police. The dress was not found to be dirty and/or dusty from the barn loft, either. If Lizzie wore that dress on the morning of the murders, and if Lizzie had been in the hayloft, then the dress should have been dirty to some degree. Did Lizzie give the correct dress to the police?

Does anyone know of a reason why Lizzie would have been coming out of Emma's room while fastening her pink dress? Wouldn't Lizzie's dresses be kept in her room or the dress closet at the front of the house?

Personally, I don't know why Bridget was not suspected. She was in the house when Andrew was killed. So Lizzie was in the house when Abbie was killed. So Lizzie is a suspect, but not Bridget. It's almost not fair!

Anyway, Ray- please take note, for about the twelth time in 6 years, here is the timing of when Bridget was seen outside:
Bridget was seen outside probably about 9:30 by Mary Doolan, and at 10 by Pettey and by Mrs. Churchill.
BTW: This took about an hour to collect the proof, so as I ask, please take note.


Inquest
Mrs. Churchill
Q. Did you see any other member of the household?
A. No Sir. I saw the girl later washing the windows.
Q. How much later was it she was out washing windows?
A. It might have been ten o’clock. I cant tell.
Q. Washing windows on the outside?
A. Yes Sir.
127
Q. How long should you say she was out there, that you saw her washing windows?
A.. I cant tell. I stepped into my bed room for something, I saw her throwing water up on to the parlor window.
Q. She was washing the parlor window then?
A. Yes Sir.
_____

Trial
Pettey
Q. Did you at any time in the morning see Bridget anywhere?
A. I did.

Page 645

Q. About what time?
A. I should think about ten o'clock.

Q. What was she then doing?
A. She stood in front of the house, nearly opposite the front door.

Q. Did she appear to have anything with her, any implements of any kind?
A. Well, I saw the pail and dipper and brush. I thought she had been washing windows.

Q. Was she stationary at the time you saw her, or moving?
A. She was stationary.

Q. Talking with any one, or not?
A. No, sir.
______

Witness Statements
page 8
"In the morning, shortly before the murder, Dr. Kelly’s girl, Mary, was talking to Bridget over the fence, neither saw anyone in or around the yard."
_____

Prelim
Bridget

pg 8
Q. Where was Mrs. Borden when Mr. Morse was let out?
A. She was not in the dining room. I expect she was in the sitting room.

Q. Did you see her afterwards?
A. I did about nine o'clock.
....
10
Q. When you saw Mrs. Borden, where did you see her?
A. In the dining room, dusting. She wanted to know if I had anything particular to do that day. I told her no. Did she want anything? Yes, she said she wanted the windows washed. I asked her how. She said on both sides, inside and outside; they were very dirty.
....
13
Q. Did you get the water in the barn?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Have you any idea how long that was after Mrs. Borden told you to wash the windows?
A. Half and hour I should judge.

Q. During that half hour you were engaged in cleaning up your kitchen?
A. Yes Sir.
______
Trial
Bridget
230
A. Before I started to wash the windows, as I had the water and brush, Mrs. Kelly's girl appeared, and I was talking to her at the fence.
_______

That is about 9:30 at the fence, and about 10 on the front and then by the parlour window. Period.

That means, Ray, no matter what your *authors* say, Bridget had no alibi for the times of the killings.

Also, Bridget did not see Lizzie- supposedly- and Lizzie did not see Bridget- supposedly.

[Sounds suspicious to me.]

Kat @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:20 am wrote:Also, Bridget did not see Lizzie- supposedly- and Lizzie did not see Bridget- supposedly.

[Sounds suspicious to me.]

I tend to think the reason Bridget didn't see Lizzie is the fact that Lizzie was not really where she claimed to have been through out the day. I believe she was really upstairs at that time. I think she may have cleaned up in her room after murdering Abby. Bridget never went upstairs. She had no reason to go up there as she had no responsibilities there. Bridget really had no motive for killing the Bordens. I believe if she truly was the type of employee who would kill her employers for whatever reason, it would've happened more than just once. I don't see her endangering herself enough to help Lizzie kill her parent knowingly. She was an Irish immigrant in Fall River working for a family of Borden's, one of the most respected family names. That's a pretty risky situation in which to plan a murder.

I've been thinking about Bridget not doing the deed but helping in covering it up- after Andrew's murder at least.
I think there is no motive for Bridget to kill, but I think some nice handy blackmail would get her help to clean up or dispose of evidence.

If Bridget came upon Lizzie as she was killing Andrew or very shortly after, Bridget may have feared for her life. She might have offered to help cover things for Lizzie out of fear, then it became necessity after she had done so because she was then implicated. Think of how Bridget's involvement might alter the time line if Lizzie didn't wait for her to go upstairs before killing Andrew. While there wasn't necessarily much, or even any clean-up of blood on Lizzie, it might have increased the time element for the murders four-fold if we have twice the people and twice the time.

WHERE is the physical evidence for your imagined story?

WHAT testimony for Bridget helping Lizzie?

Come on now Ray, where is your physical evidence of "your" beloved theory, and where is your testimony? Fair is fair.

It is strange but I've noticed Ray gets upset when anyone looks at Bridget as a suspect.
I don't know why?
I was thinking about her as a poisoner.
We'll see how he reacts.

Kat @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:43 pm wrote:It is strange but I've noticed Ray gets upset when anyone looks at Bridget as a suspect.
I don't know why?
I was thinking about her as a poisoner.
We'll see how he reacts.

I never thought of Bridget as a poisoner but she would be in a good position to do so seeing she made the meals. Her & Lizzie could have even planned that one together, but I doubt that. If Lizzie offered Bridget the right amount of money I'm sure she would have kept quiet, which is exactly what she did, she didn't even spend another night in that house. I'm sure any sum that was offered would have seemed huge to Bridget because she probably wasn't making that much for a salary. I'm still really surprised that Lizzie paid her lawyer $25,000. Even for today I think that a good chunk of change.

She did leave Thursday night but she also came back Friday, and stayed one more night. It seems Lizzie didn't burn her dress until Bridget was really, really gone, Sunday A.M..

Bridget was in a very difficult and uncertain position as a result of the murders. It seems as though she really wanted to leave the Borden household, but she probably didn't have a lot of money, so her options were severely limited. I'm sure it had crossed her mind that she might be a suspect in the murders. I've thought it odd that with all the uncertainty for the future, Bridget wanted to give up the relative stability of a room and a job, even given the turmoil after the murders. Something must have overshadowed that, perhaps some fear.

My sense is that she did not want to be there, but she did come back to do the work. She had stayed with Southard Miller's *girl.*
Saturday would be the funeral and the Borden girls were probably needing help with all that.
Bridget said that she was told by Mr. Miller to stay there until he took her out. (That might refer to Monday.) So she must have felt that she was under orders from Miller, maybe because she had stayed under his roof.
I don't think Bridget stayed too long Monday at the Borden's.

Trial
Bridget
295
A. Yes, sir, and I came back Friday morning, staid there all through the time and did the work and Friday night I went out and came back and slept in the house.

Q. In the Borden house?
A. Yes, sir, and Saturday night I left for good as I thought, and came back Monday and Mr. Miller said I should not leave the house until he came and took me out.

Q. You did not stay there Saturday night?
A. No, sir,---or Sunday night.

Q. You were not there Sunday morning?
A. No, sir.

Q. Were you there Sunday at all for any part of the day?
A. No, sir, I came there Monday morning.

Yooper @ Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:07 pm wrote:If Bridget came upon Lizzie as she was killing Andrew or very shortly after, Bridget may have feared for her life. She might have offered to help cover things for Lizzie out of fear, then it became necessity after she had done so because she was then implicated...

I think fear had A LOT to do with Bridget's relationship with the girls, especially Lizzie, whom I gather wouldn't hesitate to sling a fit over anything that displeased her. In fact, I believe that in the Knowlton papers, there is a statement from a relative of Mrs Borden's who spoke to Bridget not long after the murders, and according to this woman, Bridget told her she was quite afraid living in that household and planned to leave several times, but that each time Mrs Borden had begged her to stay, and in the end she did.

If so, Bridget's actions following the murders are not so strange in light of the fact that she was already fairly terrified by the unpleasantness and volitile tempers under that roof - perhaps especially Lizzie's? I'm sure she was most anxious to get away, to distance herself physically and otherwise from the Bordens, but at the same time if she suspected Lizzie of being responsible, she may have been too afraid to say so fearing she also might end up like the Mr and Mrs.

Just the simple fact that it appears to have been common knowledge that all was not well in the Borden household prior to the murders, and yet Bridget seems to not want to admit to this at all! Her testimony downplays - and outright omits -critical information regarding the relationships in the household. And yet she, of all people, knew just how bad things had become. Why did she keep up such a charade? Fear?

I think it was fear plain and simple. Two people had already been murdered in broad daylight in their own home on a busy street, while she was THERE. Not to mention the robberies prior to this. It seems someone was always able to "get in and out of the Borden home unnoticed". After the murders there is no way I would've stayed there. As for her testimony, if she had any inkling Lizzie was to be found not guilty, it might have been hard to say anything incriminating about her for fear of reprisal.

I think alot of it was fear. Bridget probably never saw a murder victim. I think she was very afraid of Lizzie. She probably felt that she might be next if Lizzie bullied her in any way. Also fear of reprisals because I don't know if Bridget was alone in this country or she had her own family to turn to for help.l

Smudgeman @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:55 pm wrote:Come on now Ray, where is your physical evidence of "your" beloved theory, and where is your testimony? Fair is fair.

The physical evidence for the events of 8/4/1892 are well known.

Arnold Brown's book explains how he came across the Hawthorne Memoirs. I take him at his word. This story best accounts for the mystery of the murders, for me and millions more (assumed number of readers).

Brown's parallax theory best explains why an Intruder did it, and why it was covered up. I wrote this up in Parts 1 to 5. But I've come to the end of the trail for this, I don't have much more to say.

I would recommend not responding to any provocative hypothesis for which there is no evidence at all. I think this was meant as a joke to see how many would take him seriously. I will look up the last 4 digits to see if they could be a ZIP code.

Kat @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:43 pm wrote:It is strange but I've noticed Ray gets upset when anyone looks at Bridget as a suspect.
I don't know why?
I was thinking about her as a poisoner.
We'll see how he reacts.

Surely you jest?

The same lack of physical evidence against Lizzie also applies to Bridget. B. was never a suspect after the first day. Demeanor?

About 40 years ago I read the Pearson book on this case, and happened to mention it to 3 of my co-workers. One hit the ceiling, "Bridget was innocent" after mentioning the Gross theory in blaming the two girls.
I later found out he was from Mass, don't know the city. You can guess the ethnic heritage, can't you?

Nevertheless, Edward Radin did a good job in writing a book that would sell well. It makes sense if you don't know much about the case, like most people. "It wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" is the quote that I remember from some book.

Does anyone here really think Bridget done it?

If you are talking about rgreen, I too think there is something not right with him or her.

Nadzieja @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:44 pm wrote:

Kat @ Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:43 pm wrote:It is strange but I've noticed Ray gets upset when anyone looks at Bridget as a suspect.
I don't know why?
I was thinking about her as a poisoner.
We'll see how he reacts.

I never thought of Bridget as a poisoner but she would be in a good position to do so seeing she made the meals. Her & Lizzie could have even planned that one together, but I doubt that. If Lizzie offered Bridget the right amount of money I'm sure she would have kept quiet, which is exactly what she did, she didn't even spend another night in that house. I'm sure any sum that was offered would have seemed huge to Bridget because she probably wasn't making that much for a salary. I'm still really surprised that Lizzie paid her lawyer $25,000. Even for today I think that a good chunk of change.

Shame on you for maligning Bridget. Brown says she was just what she seemed to be, a poor immigrant looking for a better life.

My opinion is that Bridget took a "loan" to go back to Ireland and never return to the USA. Talk about buying her poor parents a farm suggests her goodness. Then she remembered why she left in the first place. And returned to Canada (no US immigration records), entraining across the country to Butte Montana and its famous silver mine (don't remember the name).

Readers of mystery novels know that if someone takes money to keep their mouth closed, there is only sure way to keep that mouth closed.

See- he is threatened by the suggestion of Bridget as killer or even as helper after-the-fact.

We're not allowed to discuss it.

Just because she was a poor immigrant means nothing. She was a person, and had loves and hates just like you. I think Bridget was smarter than you give her credit for.

I still wonder why Bridget was never seriously considered by the police after the initial investigation? If they could believe it of Lizzie, why not the only other woman on the premises, Bridget? Was it a class thing? Or Bridget being Irish and one of their kind give her an edge with the police?

Lizzie herself claims not to have seen Bridget much that day despite them practically being in the same room at the same time. And Lizzie claims not to have been around in the areas of the murders while they were happening, how would she know whether Bridget had something to do with it or not? I believe that she could give a character assessment of Bridget as well as the farm workers, but, how could Lizzie be sure that they didn't do it?

Susan @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:02 pm wrote:I still wonder why Bridget was never seriously considered by the police after the initial investigation? If they could believe it of Lizzie, why not the only other woman on the premises, Bridget? Was it a class thing? Or Bridget being Irish and one of their kind give her an edge with the police?

Lizzie herself claims not to have seen Bridget much that day despite them practically being in the same room at the same time. And Lizzie claims not to have been around in the areas of the murders while they were happening, how would she know whether Bridget had something to do with it or not? I believe that she could give a character assessment of Bridget as well as the farm workers, but, how could Lizzie be sure that they didn't do it?

I guess the first person I would suspect is someone claiming the knowledge of who didn't do it! There is only one way to know that for sure! Lizzie didn't seem to show any interest in finding who committed the murders. If Lizzie was innocent, why wouldn't she suspect Bridget of the crime? Why would she wait for Bridget at the bottom of the stairs? Since Lizzie's innocence would dictate her knowledge of only Andrew's murder at the time others were summoned, why would she seem to know something about Abby's murder upon Mrs. Churchill's arrival? She "didn't know but that they had killed her, too". Why?

Susan @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:02 pm wrote:I still wonder why Bridget was never seriously considered by the police after the initial investigation? If they could believe it of Lizzie, why not the only other woman on the premises, Bridget? Was it a class thing? Or Bridget being Irish and one of their kind give her an edge with the police?...

You're correct about both having been at the home when the murders occurred, and yes that should have warranted at least more investigation (IMO, interrogation!) regarding Bridget, but at the end of the day, I think the cops were left with the same problem with Bridget as a suspect that I have: lack of motive. What would Bridget have had to gain by the Bordens being dead - especially Mrs?

On the other hand, one could argue that Bridget would have motive to help cover up the crime (i.e. money, or even simple fear for her own life) and why the cops didn;t go harder at her for those reasons, I do not know. In my mind, there's no way Bridget was involved actually committing the murders...but could she have helped to cover for the killer? Perhaps...

Bridget had had men around- maybe one of those *prowlers* that Lizzie saw was a beau of Bridget's? Maybe a not-too-nice beau of Bridget's robbed the Bordens earlier?
The questioning sounds like they know something of her male friends.

Prelim
Bridget
Q. Did you have any men call on you?
A. No Sir.

Q. Ever since you have been at this house?
A. Not in Fall River.

Q. While you have been in this house?
A. Not anybody from Fall River.

Q. I did not ask you where they were from. When did you have anybody call on you, not from Fall River?
A. About two or three months before that I guess.

Q. That is the last time any man has called on you at the house?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Has any man walked home with you?
A. No Sir.

Q. Has any man seen you in the back yard?
A. No Sir.

Q. Have you met anybody in the back yard for the last two or three months?
A. No Sir.

Page 52

Q. Did you ever meet anybody in the back yard?
A. No Sir.

Q. Or sit down with anybody on the back step, or in the back yard?
A. No Sir.

Q. Never in your life?
A. I have sat down with girls on the back stairs and in the kitchen.

Q. Have you ever sat out on the back side of the house, or in the yard with girls?
A. No Sir.

Q. Or with anybody?
A. No Sir.

Kat @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:02 pm wrote:See- he is threatened by the suggestion of Bridget as killer or even as helper after-the-fact.

We're not allowed to discuss it.

YOU ALL are allowed to discuss it, even to suggest that Andy and Bridget were more than friends, etc. Or was it Abby who was Bridget's best friend.

Its just that if you suggest something that is almost as silly as that "green theory", I'm trying to protect you from yourself.

You're welcome!

" 'She [Lizzie] "didn't know but that they had killed her, too." Why?' "

--Yooper Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:06 pm -last line

Who said Lizzie said this, because Lizzie did not say it in her inquest testimony. You even put quotes around it.

Kat @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:17 pm wrote:

" 'She [Lizzie] "didn't know but that they had killed her, too." Why?' "

--Yooper Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:06 pm -last line

Who said Lizzie said this, because Lizzie did not say it in her inquest testimony. You even put quotes around it.

The quote is from the Witness Statements, page 11, from an interview with Mrs. Churchill. She repeats this at the Inquest and at the Trial.