Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:30 pm**

I know Bridget doesn't have a motive to kill Andrew and Abby, but isn't a possibly that she could have killed, or helped Lizzie?

Maybe she wanted more money, or didn't like her station in live.
From the book, "Be The Judge, Be The Jury, The Lizzie Borden Trial", the testimony of Alice Russell,

Q.) Describe your talk with the prisoner the night before the murders.

A.) She said that she was going to visit a friend inMarion, She said she felt depressed. She had gotten a terrible feeling something bad was going to happen. Everyone but Bridget had gotten sick the night before. She thought it was from the bakers bread because Bridget didn't eat it. I told her, "If it had been from the bread, other people in town would have gotten sick too."

I was just wandering if maybe Bridget poisoned the bread, didn't eat it, and Lizzie ate too make it look like it was Bridget that was trying to kill the parents, even though they were in the plot together.

Or maybe Bridget was acting alone. Know it's a stretch, just looking at everything.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:48 pm**

Of those two, snokkums the “helper to Lizzie” is the better possibility I would say. As you say, the girl had no “close-up” motivation whatever (such as we know of) for a hatchet job on Mrs. Borden – and by her own account was rather fond of Abby. Had she been dis-satisfied with the situation at Number 92, Bridget could have moved on to another position without much difficulty. She had moved on before...

Did Bridget not say herself (this is recounted in Porter I believe) that she was in fact not happy in that house, but only stayed on account of Mrs. Borden?

“Talking about the family relations, she remarked that things didn't go in the house as they should, and that she wanted to leave and had threatened to do so, several times in the past two years. “But Mrs. Borden,” she declared, “was a lovely woman, and I remained there because she wanted me to. Now that she is gone, however, I will stay
there no longer than I have to, and will leave just as soon as the police will allow me.” [Porter, pg. 54.]

In theory, Bridget poisoning the bread is interesting. But ask yourself one question: How would Bridget have known how much of the bread to eat – or not eat as the case may be? Too risky…don’t you think?

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:22 pm**

Bridget was not a suspect after the first day. She was a material witness for the prosecution, working in the Sheriff's office (?).

Edward Radin first pointed suspicion at Bridget, but this was a way to show that there was another suspect.
Neither had blood spatter on their clothes, or a murder weapon.

Bridget was outside around the time of Abby's death (9:30 am)
Lizzie was outside around the time of Andy's death (11 am).
Neither could have committed both murders.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Arnold Brown still has the best solution to the murders.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:43 pm**

I think your "correct me if I'm wrong" request is really a plea for attention.
You've been corrected before and don't take notes, therefore you don't learn anything- so why should we correct you?

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:50 pm**

Snokkums, I hate to critisize, but your post is based on innacurate *testimony* and therefore is not worth answering. If you transcribe *testimony* here it should be from a source document- the original. Makes sense, yes?

Your speculation, however is usually interesting- I was wondering about Bridget - as -poisoner myself recently.
Why not the cook?

Using Porter, BTW, is not going to work either, sorry!
The story about Bridget liking Abbie and staying because of her is due to the letter Nellie McHenry wrote to authorities, after the Preliminary Hearing had started. That is in the Knowlton Papers. We don't trust Nellie- she was of the McHenrys ilk.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:34 pm**

Snok,

Ms. Rappaort's book is written for about the 7th grade level, and as Kat stated, there are inaccuracies. I believe that the inaccuracies are due to taking the story to a level at which young teens can get not only an interest in the case itself, but so they can also develop and use critical thinking skills.

I have corresponded and spoken with Ms. Rappaport however, we did not discuss the inaccuracies.

Tracy...

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:56 pm**

I was in a hurry. I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:03 pm**

I had been looking at Bridget myself- I thought maybe she had moved thru several jobs since coming to America because she might have liked to *add a little something* to the food to make people sick. A little sadistic game she played? I thought why not look at this as a theory? But I talked it out and was given the advice that it would be too much of a coincidence to have 2 killers or potential killers in the same household and acting at the same time- a poisoner = Bridget, and a hatcheter = Lizzie or ?
I thought that was reasonable- that the coincidence was too great. And as Doug-Oh says, the motivation just has never been found for Bridget as killer.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:21 pm**

Kat @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:43 pm wrote:I think your "correct me if I'm wrong" request is really a plea for attention.
You've been corrected before and don't take notes, therefore you don't learn anything- so why should we correct you?

Thank you, Kat! Very well put. I apologize for jumping in here; I hope you do not mind that I do...

IMO: Ray just does not have the desire to learn anything new because he has made up his mind that he has the best and only solution to the unsolved mysteries of the Borden murders. You have provided Ray with the opportunity to read the Official Documents by posting links to those documents, but you cannot force him to learn anything new if he does not want to. In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

I found the following link which explains the above phrase quiet well: http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/i ... water.html

Ray, this is not meant as a slam to you, to start any kind of trouble, or to offend you; I am simply stating the way it is.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:35 pm**

I think the simple truth should be acceptable.
I feel like I am being honest and I am not motivated by any anger or frustration.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:17 pm**

I think so too, Kat. Your post clearly shows that you are not holding any anger nor frustration; ditto for my post. You stated the truth, as I did; it is just that the truth is so very very sad.

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:38 pm**

twinsrwe @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:21 pm wrote:
Kat @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:43 pm wrote:I think your "correct me if I'm wrong" request is really a plea for attention.
You've been corrected before and don't take notes, therefore you don't learn anything- so why should we correct you?
Thank you, Kat! Very well put. I apologize for jumping in here; I hope you do not mind that I do...

IMO: Ray just does not have the desire to learn anything new because he has made up his mind that he has the best and only solution to the unsolved mysteries of the Borden murders. You have provided Ray with the opportunity to read the Official Documents by posting links to those documents, but you cannot force him to learn anything new if he does not want to. In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

I found the following link which explains the above phrase quiet well: http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/i ... water.html

Ray, this is not meant as a slam to you, to start any kind of trouble, or to offend you; I am simply stating the way it is.

Ha-ha-ha!!! Suddenly I feel thirsty, maybe not for water.
SO tell me just where is The Truth hiding out these days?
In the Trial Transcript? That's just the conflicting testimony that was used for the 'not guilty' verdict of the jury.
In the Inquest? That was only for probable cause.
In Porter's book (supposedly bought up an suppressed, like other books that you probably don't know about). A.S. Mercer's "Banditti of the Plains", plus the book on Warren Harding suppressed by the Secret Service and the FBI so the professor fled to Canada? "False Witness" by Matusow? Etc, etc.

I found Arnold Brown's book to contain the Most Truthiness. See my Parts 1 & 2.
What you believe is based in part on your past experiences and what you are prepared to believe.
What percentage of posters here believe Lizzie Dunnit and refuse to accept the verdict? That is their right, of course.

I do believe that Arnold Brown has the Best Solution. But if anyone else can publish a book that is accepted by most public libraries I will read it and consider changing my mind. Who will say likewise?

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:17 am**

I'd like to think that I have an open mind when it comes to the case. Yes, on any given day I have my opinions of what happened and, more importantly, who did it - but when authenticated research breaks new ground and/or provides for a new take or new insights, I'm certainly open to the possibilities and implications.

I found Brown's book interesting. For one, it was the first book that I'd read on the subject that introduced me to the possibility that an illegitimate child was somehow involved. What still bothers me is that Brown's theory doesn't include a plausible motive - unless you simply count having had the satisfaction of doing away with one's own father and a complete stranger. And why stop there? What better way to make sure your secret remains safe then to "off" whoever was at home?

I certainly come back to Bridget time and time again simply because she was there when it all occurred. But again, in my mind, I cannot come up with a motive that would account for her having done it. As we've discussed previouly, the Bordens were almost certainly worth more to Bridget alive than dead. Unless there is a legitimate documented paper trail of "hush money" from Lizzie to Bridget, I still have a problem accepting that Bridget would have wanted the Bordens dead for any reason.

I think that her involvement, at best, was that she knew/suspected and helped to conceal the truth - or at least what would have been additional "damning" evidence. We already know this to be true since she considerably downplayed the state of relations in the house when she was giving her testimony. But as far as her helping to conceal the killer(s), that would be assuming Bridget knew who that was. She may have had her suspicions, but I'm not entirely sure she knew for 100% who had killed her employers. Her behavior after the fact seems to be that of a person genuinely frightened and horrified by what had occurred...and by what might yet befall her?

Given what info I have at my disposal at this point, I cannot conceive that Bridget was responsible for killing AJ and Abby.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:34 am**

"I think that her involvement, at best, was that she knew/suspected and helped to conceal the truth - or at least what would have been additional "damning" evidence."

I am with you 100% on that statement. If Bridget had been unbearably unhappy or mistreated at the house- she could simply have found a new position- no reason to kill her employers. She had contacts and friends in the city obviously and their was no shortage of jobs in the many resort towns nearby, hotels, and private homes. I have a hunch that when Bridget came back in for that water dipper, she either heard or saw something-maybe someone in the cellar, and the story about the note simply did not make much sense to her. Yes, I also think she suspected plenty and noticed a few things which made no sense in the testimony of Lizzie.

After the trial was over, much has been made over the possibility that Bridget may have been paid off to leave town. Actually, I think a more compelling and simple case may be that Bridget wanted to get out of town herself. She would have been hounded until her dying day for details had she tried to stay, some employers in the city may have been unwilling to hire her as she had been involved in such a notorious murder case, and she may have even been nervous about being in the same city with a murderer on the loose who knew she had been on the scene the day of the crime. I would really love to know just what she did do from 1893-1896, but I bet she was glad to be rid of Fall River.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:10 am**

There is a very interesting statement of Bridget's attitude in the Witness Statements (pages 21-22). It's dated October 1, 1892. That date would have to be incorrect if it refers to the trial as that was held in June 1893. I don't believe she was free to leave nor seek other employment after the Preliminary hearing. Nor do I remember them paying her fees at the Preliminary. She appears concerned about finding employment. I don't understand her reference to "... no one wants to hire a person for one month."

"Harrington - October 1, 1892

Bridget Sullivan - Yes, I left New Bedford for good. I did not like the way the papers spoke of me, said I was in New Bedford jail. And I got a postal card from the Court, requesting me to call for my witness fees, and that was addressed to New Bedford jail. I did not like this, so I thought I would show them I would not stay any longer. I think I will try to get a place here, through Mrs. McKenney’s Agency; if not, I may go to Newport R. I. and work in the hotel where I was employed before. I have relatives in So. Bethlehem, and as I worked there before, I may go again.” In a joking manner she said she may go back to Ireland. She promised wherever she would go, she would let me know through Mrs. Harrington of Division street.
She saw nobody about this case since the trial, but several called at New Bedford, and she would not see them; neither would she in the future, for she was tired of the whole thing.
“I think it will be hard for me to get a place, for no one wants to hire a person for one month. I think the District Attorney should give me something for my time. The papers and postal card made me feel badly; but aside from them, I got tired over there. I had nothing to do but look at the walls of the prison, and I found seven grey hairs in my head. I would rather have a place where I would have something to do. ...”

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:05 am**

Who took the statement Har?
Edit here: Oh I see Harrington- thanks Har!
-------
That's interesting what you said about the dipper. I was usually of the impression that Bridget just nipped in and nipped out. Bridget said it was kept right inside the door in the sink room. She was asked where it was, maybe to make sure the testimony reflected that she only entered the house that little ways.
With her clomping up the steps and opening the screen, maybe if something or someone was there to be witnessed by her- they might have had plenty of notice before Bridget entered?

Prelim
Bridget
14
Q. During the time you were washing windows outside, did you go in the house?
A. Yes Sir, I went in after a dipper.

Q. Where did you go for a dipper?
A. In the sink.

Q. Did you go anywhereelse besides in the sink?
A. No Sir. It was when I got through washing them with the brush.

Q. To throw the water up on to them?
A. Yes Sir.
.....
pg 15
Q. Did you go in the house before you completed the washing the windows for anythingelse besides the dipper?
A. No Sir.

Q. For that you only went to the sink?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Where is the sink, right opposite the screen door?
A. It is the left side of the kitchen, next to the back yard.

Q. That is where the back entry comes out?
A. It is way in the back part of the kitchen.
.........

It seems more damning that Bridget did not see Lizzie than that she saw something.

Q. Was she sitting in a chair in the kitchen?
A. When she was ironing?

Q. At that time?
A. No Sir.

Q. Did you see her in the kitchen there at all?
A. No Sir. She came in the kitchen before I went up stairs.

Page 76

Q. When you came in after the dipper, was not she there in the kitchen?
A. I did not see her.

Q. Just think a moment?
A. Not to my memory, I did not see her.

Q. When you came in for the dipper, was not she there in the kitchen, there in the arm chair you speak of, or in the rocking chair? Just think a moment; wait and take your time.
A. No; not to my memory, I did not see her.

Q. Did not you ever see her there in the kitchen in the rocking chair, the big chair, reading?
A. I do not remember.

Q. Did not you say this morning, you had seen her there reading?
A. Not that morning.

Q. At any time?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Are you prepared to say when you came in for the dipper, she was not sitting reading in the kitchen?
A. I do not remember to see her.

Q. You would not say she was not?
A. No Sir. I do not remember of seeing her.

Q. When you came in for the dipper, you went right straight out?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Where did you get the dipper from?
A. At the sink, at the head of it.

--Of course you may be right that Bridget saw something- we don't know. She may not even have been washing windows the whole time.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:37 am**

I rather thought she may have heard someone in the cellar, or saw the cellar door was open, or saw or heard Lizzie coming up out of the cellar. The sink room opening is right on top of the stairs down to the cellar and those types of things would have been easily observable or audible. Or then again- maybe it was what she did NOT see- namely Lizzie sitting at the kitchen table reading Harper's Weekly- it's a dead sightline shot from the screen door to the front of the stove. If Lizzie had really been sitting at the table, Bridget would have seen her.

As far as Bridget not washing windows the whole time- yes, I imagine with no lunch to have to cook, everyone off or occupied, the Kelly's maid home alone at present, Bridget, like most 20-something young people saw a chance to kick back a bit outside and lounge over the fence for a good gab with her pal. I always thought, having washed those windows and timed it myself, (and adding a trip or two to the barn)- that one hour was rather a lot- especially as she did not do the kitchen windows. She would have gone around the southeast corner to the barn for water- which is a quick shortcut, and done only the two sitting room windows, the two front windows and the three side windows (1 parlor, 2 diningroom)- 7 in all. Doing a good job with a long-poled brush, one window can be washed and rinsed in about 2 minutes flat. She did not climb up and down a ladder, did not squeegee the windows did not use Windex and paper towels. Even allowing 3 minutes for each window- one hour is a real stretch.

Bridget seemed reluctant in her witness testimony to make herself appear lazy and shirking her work. When she testified she tidied up her room around 11, she was not too forthcoming at first with telling them she laid down and had a rest. I think she also wanted to give herself the appearance of really scrubbing those windows for an hour outside and giving good service to her employer. She may also wanted to make sure she was outside that good full hour during which time Abby was slaughtered for good measure!

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:07 am**

That's pretty cool that you have washed those windows!

I was thinking along the lines of Bridget not cleaning the windows at all- rather than taking her time. It could be either, of course.

I had thought there was a case to be made for Bridget to have been up to something else. Mainly because she was rarely seen actually doing it that day- one sighting- and then we have those reporters looking around so soon after the crime was known and they claim there was not much disturbance in the grass! You'd think there'd be water and puddles and mud and some disturbance. If it was as humid as some say (which added to the heat index) traces of that wash water might not be gone as yet. No one mentions mud what with all those big feet traipsing around the house, investigating.

Anyway I learned from Bill that the opening to the sink room was pretty much across from the back stairs to the second floor. The cellar stairs as you well know (you've walked them countless times!) are close to the opening to the kitchen.

Bill had me run my hand along the wall there right by the side door and there I could feel where the sink room door used to be.

It's also interesting tho, that you are fixed in your thought on the cellar- I have been too, each time I have visited. There may be something to that!

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:16 am**

pg 15
Q. Did you go in the house before you completed the washing the windows for anythingelse besides the dipper?
A. No Sir.

Q. For that you only went to the sink?
A. Yes Sir.

Q. Where is the sink, right opposite the screen door?
A. It is the left side of the kitchen, next to the back yard.

Q. That is where the back entry comes out?
A. It is way in the back part of the kitchen.

--Bridget, Prelim

This is what Harry calls *Bridget-Speak.* When she says "way in the back part of the kitchen" she is describing that area close to the back door, as opposed to near the wider kitchen area proper.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:27 am**

Yes, the sink room entry is at the foot of the stairs. I believe this photo will better show though, that from near the threshold of the sink room to the cellar doorway and steps is only TWO steps away ( I am standing here near the entry to the sink room) and Bridget would have certainly seen the door, had it been open, or could easily hear anyone coming up or down the steps. We can even hear people talking in the cellar while sitting in the diningroom-and hear feet coming up cellar stairs too. That back hallway is a tiny narrow space with all those doors opening close upon each other.
I am estimating that if the now closed-in wall were opened up, the old sink would be just about where the downstairs toilet is now-so at least the plumbing did not have to move far!

Coming from the sink to the cellar door would have added maybe another three steps.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:41 am**

Although the cellar door opens in, I imagine it was usually kept shut.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:42 am**

Ok.
I was under the impression , from Bill, that the sink was about where the shower is now.
It is an 11 and a half foot hallway, after all- accordng to the measurements. I don't know about 2 steps.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:50 am**

sguthmann @ Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:17 pm wrote:... I think that her involvement, at best, was that she knew/suspected and helped to conceal the truth - or at least what would have been additional "damning" evidence. We already know this to be true since she considerably downplayed the state of relations in the house when she was giving her testimony. But as far as her helping to conceal the killer(s), that would be assuming Bridget knew who that was. She may have had her suspicions, but I'm not entirely sure she knew for 100% who had killed her employers. Her behavior after the fact seems to be that of a person genuinely frightened and horrified by what had occurred...and by what might yet befall her?...

I agree sguthmann, I think that Bridget's behavior after the murders is very telling. It appears that she was not only frightened and horrified by the murders of Abby and Andrew, she was frightened for her own life, after all, these murders took place in broad daylight with two people in and around the house during that time - obviously the killer was still on the loose, and she may have thought that she could easily be the next victim. It is my understanding that she did not stay in the Borden house longer than what was absolutely necessary. I think Bridget had her suspicions relatively soon after the murders, and may have known who the killer was or at least highly suspected who the killer was, as time when on, although she may not, in her mind, have had the proof needed in order to back up her suspicions, and she did have her future employment to think about.

I think that Bridget may have downplayed the state of the relationships in the Borden house, when giving her testimony, because she may have been overly concerned about her future employment. The person who actually employed her was dead; who was left that could give her a reference - Lizzie and Emma. If she had not downplayed the state of the relationships in the Borden house, her future employment could very well have been in jeopardy.

The motive for Bridget committing the murders just is not there. She was free to leave anytime she wanted; she did not have to continue employment with the Bordens. Didn't Bridget try to leave prior to the murders, but Abby asked her to stay on?

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:51 am**

Maybe Bridget came in for the dipper and saw Lizzie washing blood off herself or something else. Or, if she's telling the truth and didn't actually see Lizzie, maybe she saw remnants of blood in the sink because Lzzie was in the middle of cleaning things up.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:54 am**

When we were at the house last year I was surprised just how small that side door hall area was. Ditto for that same area on the second floor.

However, I was also grateful for its being so short. Having offered to carry Stefani's and Kat's luggage up to the attic floor it was a blessing. I believe Kat's bags contained lead and Stefani's iron.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:07 am**

The shower( bath tub) is on the north wall, the toilet is on the east wall and it looks like, from the diagram the sink is on the east wall just exactly where the toilet is today. Hey! I can take a toilet shot Friday. Now that will be a first.

As to two steps- it is TWO of my steps. But I wear a size 10 and have a good stride- so I can easily get to the cellar in 2, to the kitchen threshold in 3. The important point though, is the sight line.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:30 am**

How many strides of yours from the back screen door to the entrance to the wider part of the kitchen?

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:32 am**

Good thought about blood maybe being in the sink. If I had killed someone though, I think I would have felt safer cleaning up in the cellar- then I could hear if anyone were coming down the stairs. After the second murder though, Lizzie sent Bridget out and running up and down the street- so she could easily have stepped into the sink room to wash things up after that murder, and still be positioned handily near the screen door in case anyone should come in. I don't think Lizzie gave a thought to Bridget coming back inside the house after Bridget told her she could lock the door and she'd get water from the barn. And I always wondered why Bridget did come back in. For all she knew , Lizzie had locked the door. Maybe since she needed the dipper, figured Lizzie was in the kitchen or at the table, if the door was locked, she could call to her to open up. Curious, that.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:36 am**

Shelley- did you get my private message? I didn't get an answer.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:41 am**

Opps- forgot to check my inbox- I have sent a reply

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:07 pm**

theebmonique @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:34 pm wrote:Snok,

Ms. Rappaort's book is written for about the 7th grade level, and as Kat stated, there are inaccuracies. I believe that the inaccuracies are due to taking the story to a level at which young teens can get not only an interest in the case itself, but so they can also develop and use critical thinking skills.

I have corresponded and spoken with Ms. Rappaport however, we did not discuss the inaccuracies.

I was kind of wandering why it was written so simply. There are some more inaccuracies, too many to point out here. I don go to the archives and check some of the facts out. Does make for some interesting reading thou.

Tracy...

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:43 pm**

snokkums @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:07 pm wrote:
theebmonique @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:34 pm wrote:Snok,

Ms. Rappaort's book is written for about the 7th grade level, and as Kat stated, there are inaccuracies. I believe that the inaccuracies are due to taking the story to a level at which young teens can get not only an interest in the case itself, but so they can also develop and use critical thinking skills.

I have corresponded and spoken with Ms. Rappaport however, we did not discuss the inaccuracies.

I was kind of wandering why it was written so simply. There are some more inaccuracies, too many to point out here. I don go to the archives and check some of the facts out. Does make for some interesting reading thou.

Tracy...

Snok, please be very careful when using the quote feature. In your post above, you have it so that your response seems to be part of my post. After you click on "quote", make sure you type your response AFTER the last quote mark, which looks like this: [/quote] . That way, your response will appear outside of the white quote box.

The following is Snok's response to my previous post and should NOT be considered as mine in any way (the italics are mine):

I was kind of wandering why it was written so simply. There are some more inaccuracies, too many to point out here. I don go to the archives and check some of the facts out. Does make for some interesting reading thou.

Tracy...

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:00 pm**

Just review your posts after you have edited anything in the original msg.

Arnold Brown said so!

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:01 pm**

Shelley @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:32 am wrote:Good thought about blood maybe being in the sink. If I had killed someone though, I think I would have felt safer cleaning up in the cellar- then I could hear if anyone were coming down the stairs. After the second murder though, Lizzie sent Bridget out and running up and down the street- so she could easily have stepped into the sink room to wash things up after that murder, and still be positioned handily near the screen door in case anyone should come in. I don't think Lizzie gave a thought to Bridget coming back inside the house after Bridget told her she could lock the door and she'd get water from the barn. And I always wondered why Bridget did come back in. For all she knew , Lizzie had locked the door. Maybe since she needed the dipper, figured Lizzie was in the kitchen or at the table, if the door was locked, she could call to her to open up. Curious, that.

Please admit you are speculating and makin this up.
But if you have some testimony to support it, I'm all ears like a Bassett hound.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:30 pm**

Ray you don't care about testimony. You have *admitted* that yourself.

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:22 pm**

Bridget's view coming in the side door to get the dipper in the sinkroom. Cellar door is seen open. Actually, it is three steps, not two, to the cellar door from the sinkroom entry. And pretty easy to see that if Lizzie had been in front of the stove at the table, she would have been seen.

Posted: **Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:27 pm**

View standing by the cellar door looking down the hall to the side entry (door in this case closed).

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:04 pm**

Bridget was outside, and seen outside, around the time of Abby's murder. She is innocent of doing it, and knowing who did it. QED.

Lizzie was outside, and seen outside, around the time of Andy's murder. She is innocent of doing it (but they thought she knew who was there).

Any possible objections to this? You know where to file them.

Posted: **Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:07 pm**

twinsrwe @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:21 pm wrote:
Kat @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:43 pm wrote:I think your "correct me if I'm wrong" request is really a plea for attention.
You've been corrected before and don't take notes, therefore you don't learn anything- so why should we correct you?
Thank you, Kat! Very well put. I apologize for jumping in here; I hope you do not mind that I do...

IMO: Ray just does not have the desire to learn anything new because he has made up his mind that he has the best and only solution to the unsolved mysteries of the Borden murders. You have provided Ray with the opportunity to read the Official Documents by posting links to those documents, but you cannot force him to learn anything new if he does not want to. In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

I found the following link which explains the above phrase quiet well: http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/i ... water.html

Ray, this is not meant as a slam to you, to start any kind of trouble, or to offend you; I am simply stating the way it is.

Thank you for your quote. Horses will drink when they are thirsty; this makes them different from humans who will drink for any reason.

Can you really say what my desires are? Surely not!!!

Posted: **Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:31 pm**

Thank you for the pictures and the views, Shelley!

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:07 am**

I think we should remember that Bridget was also feeling sick that day. Did she have to stop and take a break because she felt ill on a few occassions? Was she moving a little slower than usual due to the fact that she felt poorly? I can't imagine being outside on a hot day, wearing a dress, walking back and forth from the barn to the house, feeling sick enough to have vomited on at least one occassion that morning, and it not affecting my work.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:16 pm**

What I was trying to get at with my post is maybe Bridget,while taking a break due to feeling like she might get ill, went inside the house to get out of the sun and sit down while her queasy stomach calmed a bit. Or possibly even to get something to take to calm it. We think of the Borden's possibly taking something to alleviate their illnesses, what about Bridget? I also think this could have something to do with why it might have taken her so long to finish the job of doing the windows. She might have been moving a little more sluggish on that day due to feeling sick.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:29 pm**

Kat @ Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:30 pm wrote:Ray you don't care about testimony. You have *admitted* that yourself.

That's obviously not true, as per this reply.
"Testimony" wasn't defined by you.
Was it what was said in court after rehearsing for months?
Was it what was said in the inquest?
Or what was quoted (correctly?) right after the murders?

While the earliest quotes are not always correct (even if earwitness), they are less likely to be modified before the trial.
That's why there is a Miranda warning (avoids problem from male boasting taken out of context), and other safeguards. IMO

PS The end result of the Trial Testimony was that Lizzie was found 'not guilty'. Was there any 'facts' in that trial that said differently?

Arnold Brown was able to solve the crime using new facts that were not available at the time (and couldn't be, given the silence of even Ellan Eagan).

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:30 pm**

Allen @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:16 pm wrote:What I was trying to get at with my post is maybe Bridget,while taking a break due to feeling like she might get ill, went inside the house to get out of the sun and sit down while her queasy stomach calmed a bit. Or possibly even to get something to take to calm it. We think of the Borden's possibly taking something to alleviate their illnesses, what about Bridget? I also think this could have something to do with why it might have taken her so long to finish the job of doing the windows. She might have been moving a little more sluggish on that day due to feeling sick.

I agree with your sentiments. We know she took time to speak with the maid next door. But only for a minute, as we all know how that works.

Posted: **Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:02 pm**

RayS @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:07 pm wrote:
twinsrwe @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:21 pm wrote:
Kat @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:43 pm wrote:I think your "correct me if I'm wrong" request is really a plea for attention.
You've been corrected before and don't take notes, therefore you don't learn anything- so why should we correct you?
Thank you, Kat! Very well put. I apologize for jumping in here; I hope you do not mind that I do...

IMO: Ray just does not have the desire to learn anything new because he has made up his mind that he has the best and only solution to the unsolved mysteries of the Borden murders. You have provided Ray with the opportunity to read the Official Documents by posting links to those documents, but you cannot force him to learn anything new if he does not want to. In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

I found the following link which explains the above phrase quiet well: http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/i ... water.html

Ray, this is not meant as a slam to you, to start any kind of trouble, or to offend you; I am simply stating the way it is.
Thank you for your quote. Horses will drink when they are thirsty; this makes them different from humans who will drink for any reason.

Can you really say what my desires are? Surely not!!!

Ray, please carefully re-read my post; I did not say what your desires are.

I apologize if I offended you, however, as I stated in my original post, this is not meant as a slam to you, to start any kind of trouble, or to offend you; I am simply stating the way it is.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:17 am**

This is in response to Allen:
Lizzie said she thought Bridget had gone upstairs, before Andrew came home. I've always wondered about that.

Inquest
Lizzie
60(17)
Q. What was Maggie doing when your father came home?
A. I don't know whether she was there or whether she had gone up stairs; I can't remember.
....
68(25)
A. My father did not go away I think until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember; he was with me down stairs.
Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.
Q. After he went out, and before he came back; a large portion of the time after your father went out, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were the only person in the house?
A. So far as I know, I was.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:55 pm**

twinsrwe @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:02 pm wrote:
RayS @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:07 pm wrote:
twinsrwe @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:21 pm wrote: Thank you, Kat! Very well put. I apologize for jumping in here; I hope you do not mind that I do...

IMO: Ray just does not have the desire to learn anything new because he has made up his mind that he has the best and only solution to the unsolved mysteries of the Borden murders. You have provided Ray with the opportunity to read the Official Documents by posting links to those documents, but you cannot force him to learn anything new if he does not want to. In other words, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

I found the following link which explains the above phrase quiet well: http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/i ... water.html

Ray, this is not meant as a slam to you, to start any kind of trouble, or to offend you; I am simply stating the way it is.
Thank you for your quote. Horses will drink when they are thirsty; this makes them different from humans who will drink for any reason.

Can you really say what my desires are? Surely not!!!
Ray, please carefully re-read my post; I did not say what your desires are.

I apologize if I offended you, however, as I stated in my original post, this is not meant as a slam to you, to start any kind of trouble, or to offend you; I am simply stating the way it is.

First you say what my desires are or are not, then that that you didn't say this. You seem very contrary.
Yes, Arnold Brown came up with the best solution known so far. No one has (or can) come up with a better one.
But if they do, I will reconsider my judgment.

If I know the "best" way to go to a place, why bother with other suggestions?
"Best" can be either faster or shorter, sometimes both. But not always.
I hope you find this posting informative.

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:16 pm**

click

Tracy...

Posted: **Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:39 pm**

Ray seems to prefer talking about himself, rather than this topic.

Has anyone an opinion on what a potentially truthful Lizzie said about Bridget going upstairs before Andrew came home?
I thought it fit with Allen's surmise that Bridget was ill and uncomfortable- and not necessarily that Bridget was up the front stairs killing Abbie...

Posted: **Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:40 pm**

Kat @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:39 pm wrote:Ray seems to prefer talking about himself, rather than this topic.

Yes, it sure appears this is so. As far as I am concerned, if Ray wishes to continue this discussion, he can PM me, which he, most likely, won't do since he wants everything out in the open. However, that is the only way I am going to respond any further.

Kat @ Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:39 pm wrote:Has anyone an opinion on what a potentially truthful Lizzie said about Bridget going upstairs before Andrew came home?
I thought it fit with Allen's surmise that Bridget was ill and uncomfortable- and not necessarily that Bridget was up the front stairs killing Abbie...

I think Allen has a very valid point. I can't imagine washing windows on a hot day while feeling ill to my stomach and not have it affect my work, either. Bridget had to have been washing the windows at a much slower pace than usual, due to feeling ill. I highly doubt that Bridget went upstairs before Andrew came home. Lizzie did not specify which stairs, front or back, that Bridget had supposedly gone up. Why would Bridget go up the front stairs? This doen't make any sense to me. According to Lizzie's testimony, it is unclear that Bridget even went upstairs before Andrew got home...

Kat @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:17 pm wrote:Inquest
Lizzie
60(17)
Q. What was Maggie doing when your father came home?
A. I don't know whether she was there or whether she had gone up stairs; I can't remember.

Lizzie was unclear as to what she meant by "I don't know whether she was there..."; there is where? Lizzie was not questioned as to where "there" was. IMO: Lizzie's response to this question did not really indicate what Maggie was doing.

Kat @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:17 pm wrote:68(25)
A. My father did not go away I think until somewhere about 10, as near as I can remember; he was with me down stairs.
Q. A large portion of the time after your father went away, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were alone in the house?
A. Maggie had come in and gone up stairs.
Q. After he went out, and before he came back; a large portion of the time after your father went out, and before he came back, so far as you know, you were the only person in the house?
A. So far as I know, I was.

This appears to be one of the inconsistencies of Lizzie's testimony. The same question, worded a bit differently, was asked, yet Lizzie gave two completely different answers. If Maggie had come in and gone up stairs, then Lizzie was not the only person in the house, was she?

BTW: Tracy, please, check your PM. Thanks.

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Another look at Bridget

Another look at Bridget