Lizzie and Bridget

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:39 am

There was the theory that the "slop pail Lizzie brought down that morning...could have been used to transport the hatchet upstairs." --Is it meant that there were 2 pails- one with menstrual cloths that appeared in the cellar and one that Lizzie emptied in the water closet and brought back up to her room with water and a hidden hatchet?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:46 am

It was interesting when the point was made that dampened cloths would not burn- cloths Lizzie may have used to clean up after a killing.

So did Lizzie plan on returning from her trip away, to kill, timed to her period so that she could use the menstrual pail as her excuse to have bloody cloths?

As for Bridget's comment about *if she had seen it there she would have cleaned them*- maybe she only said that because it reflected on her that there was unwashed laundry she missed- and she might have known Lizzie was a personal slob, for all we know. Maybe not always- but maybe sometimes- maybe Lizzie was usually tardy in bringing her menstrual cloths down? It's just a thought. I'm trying to think like a Borden maid or family member- the daily reality of it.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:59 am

And Debbie wondered if Bridget was dry or wet: I thought Bridget said she was damp but did not change her dress until later in the afternoon. (But maybe she did change earlier, and still be damp...) but I can't find it! Help!?

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:03 am

I can't see Bridget being damp and lying down on her bed for a rest before dinner. I know when I wash windows outside, I can get quite wet by the time I'm done, and the first thing I do when I finish is change into dry clothes! I would certainly never lie down on my bed wearing wet, or even damp, clothes.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:07 am

Especially so since Bridget threw the water with the dipper onto the windows to rinse them. Some of that had to come down on her. Those windows are high off the ground so she would have had to throw the water with some force to reach the upper parts.

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:13 am

Apparently there were no hoses back then, and I can envision the act of throwing dipperfuls of water up at high windows would get a person pretty wet...I don't know how big the dipper was, but even a large one would take a bit to rinse windows.

Bridget had to have been quite damp...even wet. Would she have changed? I know her wardrobe was very limited. I just don't see her lying down with those wet clothes still on.

Hmmm...so did she really lie down at all?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:30 am

Bridget testified at the Preliminary hearing that she returned inside the house after doing the outside windows at approx. 10:20. She then went to work on the inside windows. She would not get as wet inside as she would have outside since no dipper would be used.

So there was a gap of approx. 35 to 40 minutes between her returning from the outside to when she went to her room. Would this be sufficient time for her clothes to dry?

SallyG · Post by **SallyG** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:24 am

That's hard to say. If it was a humid day, they might not dry as fast as otherwise. Her dress would have been cotton, most likely...cotton can take a bit of time to dry. I would expect her underclothes would have gotten damp as well, at least on top, and those would take longer to dry. That would be an interesting experiment..to recreate that and see how long it would take clothes to dry.

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:54 pm

Kat,
You mentioned my theory about the dampened cloths.
I thought, too, there's an outside chance Bridget could have been covering for some lax housekeeping.
It's either/or, isn't it? If Bridget's telling the truth, that goes a long way to "solving" the case: a pail full of bloody cloths, and Lizzie's lying about them. Either she did it, or she knows who did.
************************************************************
It seems, though, that Mrs. Borden was an extremely fastidious housekeeper. I wonder whether she would have tolerated such laxness?
After all, she doesn't excuse Bridget from window washing on that warm a.m., when Bridget is nauseated and apparently has a sick headache, as well.
*************************************************************
If Bridget KNEW she had washed the cloths, it would appear straightaway that then and there she had a pretty good idea that Lizzie was guilty.
But, with Mrs. Borden gone, there's no one to corroborate for Bridget. It's Lizzie Says v. Bridget Says, which is why I think Bridget kept her mouth shut. She was fighting an uphill battle, and she didn't want to be accused.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:18 pm

Kat @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:39 am wrote:There was the theory that the "slop pail Lizzie brought down that morning...could have been used to transport the hatchet upstairs." --Is it meant that there were 2 pails- one with menstrual cloths that appeared in the cellar and one that Lizzie emptied in the water closet and brought back up to her room with water and a hidden hatchet?

I think it's possible that the slop pail Lizzie brought down that morning could've been taken down cellar using the viable excuse of emptying the contents. Once she had it down there out of view she could've slipped not only the hatchet, but water for clean up into it very easily. She could've then transported both upstairs to her room. I'm sure that a slop pail was kept on hand in the rooms upstairs for a variety of uses, and it would not have seemed the least out of the ordinary her carrying it up.

I think the bloody cloths were deposited down cellar after both murders were complete, to be hidden in plain sight under the guise of being Lizzie's menstrual clothes. I believe that they actually were used in the clean up. It's very possible she could've used clean menstrual rags for clean up.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:41 am

Thanks for the input you guys and the extra bits about Bridget being damp. And Missy- the situation with the pail(s) you describe sounds reasonable. We don't know everything that went on- and it's good to be reminded of that.
~ ~ ~ ~
But- does anyone recall Bridget saying she was damp? It goes with her explaining how many times she went out that day- she had *errands* I think she calls it and that's when she changed her dress. I can't find it.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:33 am

SallyG @ Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:24 am wrote:That's hard to say. If it was a humid day, they might not dry as fast as otherwise. Her dress would have been cotton, most likely...cotton can take a bit of time to dry. I would expect her underclothes would have gotten damp as well, at least on top, and those would take longer to dry. That would be an interesting experiment..to recreate that and see how long it would take clothes to dry.

Yes, that would be an interesting experiment. I can't recall whether Bridget wore an apron but I assume so. That would cover her to some degree and could be easily slipped on and off.

In any case, to some degree she must have been uncomfortable. Doing that kind of physical work on a hot day would cause anyone to sweat. Then going to the hottest part of the house, the attic, couldn't have been pleasant.

Whether the Borden's had a hose or not is something we don't know. She's asked at the Preliminary if she used one and she replied no. There were 3 places a hose could have been attached (assuming they were all tap faucets). One was in the barn, one in the cellar wash room and one off the kitchen near the side door. None of the locations are outside and handy so Bridget didn't have much choice.

Did they even have nozzles back then to control the spray? The fire department may have had them but I don't know about their use by "civilians".