Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Greetings to all. I'm a new subscriber with just a passing interest in the Borden case, and while I've done enough research to get past the usual exaggerations, old-wives' tales and downright falsehoods surrounding the case I certainly don't possess the detailed knowledge of someone who's been immersed in it for many years. Perhaps, then, somebody here can explain to me what appears to be some major contradictions in the inquest testimony of Bridget Sullivan, as detailed in Edwin H. Porter's The Fall River Tragedy, page 55:

The first question put to her was in regard to her whereabouts all through the morning of Thursday up to the time of the murder. She answered that she had been doing her regular work in the kitchen on the first floor. She had washed the breakfast dishes. She saw Miss Lizzie pass through the kitchen after breakfast time and the young lady might have passed through again. Bridget continued that she had finished up her work down-stairs and resumed window washing on the third floor, which had been begun the preceding day. She might have seen Mrs. Borden as she went up-stairs. She could hardly remember. Mr. Borden had already left the house.

The witness went up into the third floor, and while washing windows talked down to the sidewalk with a friend. She went on with the windows and might have made considerable noise as she raised and lowered them. She heard no noise inside the house in the meantime. By-and-by she heard Miss Lizzie call her. She answered at once, and went down stairs to the first floor, not thinking of looking about on the second floor, where Mrs. Borden was found dead shortly afterwards, because there was nothing to make her look around as she obeyed Miss Lizzie’s call. She found Mr. Borden dead and Lizzie at the door of the room.

Unless some information has arisen of which I'm completely unaware, it seems that there are major problems with this statement as contrasted with Sullivan's testimony during the formal trial.

First, she says she "resumed window washing on the third floor ...." Nowhere in any of the documentation, nor in the trial transcript can I find any information regarding the washing of windows anywhere but on the first floor. In all other accounts she washed the sitting room, dining room and parlor windows on the outside of the house before moving inside to wash the sitting room and dining room windows, which she finished very soon after Mr. Borden's arrival home, at which time she washed out her cleaning cloths and hung them behind the stove. Also puzzling is the remark that the window-washing "had been begun the preceding day." That would appear to contradict testimony that Mrs. Borden had given the order to wash the windows on the day of the murders, remarking how "awful" they looked.

Second is her assertion that while washing windows on the third floor she "talked down to the sidewalk with a friend." The trial testimony in fact depicts her (by her own account) talking with the Kelly girl, outside the house and over the fence. Apart from the issue of locations, the inquest account takes place after Sullivan has gone upstairs, not to emerge below until called by Lizzie to the scene of Mr. Borden's murder. The trial testimony has the conversation occurring at least an hour beforehand, right after Mr. Borden has left the house.

Third, her account of being called downstairs by Lizzie contains the puzzling assertion that she "went down stairs to the first floor, not thinking of looking about on the second floor, where Mrs. Borden was found dead shortly afterwards, because there was nothing to make her look around as she obeyed Miss Lizzie’s call." In fact, if she had been coming from the third floor there is no way she could have seen the body on the second floor, since the first and second floors were accessible from the third floor only by the back stairs. The only way to logically interpret this is if she had by that time moved to the second floor, and was there when called by Lizzie, having to pass down the front staircase. But then, note, she says "she found Mr. Borden dead and Lizzie at the door of the room." Which, though logical in the context of her having been on the second floor, is completely contradictory to her testimony at trial, where she claims she had been lying in bed on the third floor and hastened down the back stairs to the kitchen, finding Lizzie at the screen door. Moreover, at trial she asserts that when she attempted to go into the sitting room, Lizzie prevented her, sending her instead to find a doctor. Ergo, she never witnessed Mr. Borden's bloodied corpse, nor beheld Lizzie at the door of the sitting room, as asserted at the inquest.

If the inquest testimony is credible it means that Bridget Sullivan's account of the affair is at least as suspect as Lizzie Borden's. It also makes one wonder why it wasn't brought up by the defense attorneys at trial.

That is an excellent dissection you’ve carried out of one of the knotty problems one faces when digging into the contemporary documents on the case. There are some startling contradictions between that account and Bridget’s later testimony. One might wonder why more wasn’t made of it back then.

Since no one more learned has jumped in yet, I will hazard an answer which may at least provide food for thought.

1. In fairness to Bridget, this suspicious presentation isn’t her actual inquest testimony, which hasn’t been available since not long after she gave it. The report of her direct words, as I understand, disappeared. It wasn’t available during the trial, and has never turned up since. Therefore, we’re left to speculate how much of the discrepancy derives from Bridget, how much from Porter.

2. Several later critics pick at Porter for inaccuracies or omissions in his book. This enhances any conjecture on point 1 that he may be introducing some confusion that didn’t initially exist.

3. Bridget’s account as recorded in the witness statements taken by the police, shortly after the crime and prior to the inquest, accord with her later surviving testimony much better than they do with Porter’s version.

4. I’ve come across, in more than one secondary account, the claim that Bridget fudged a little bit of her initial statements, not admitting that she had taken a lie-down in her room around 11 o’clock, supposedly because it wouldn’t look good for a servant to admit that. I’m vague on this one, unsure of the source. It doesn’t affect much of the inconsistency you’ve noted.

That’s all I can think of right now. Despite Porter’s close connection in time and space to the case, I don’t treat him as a primary source. I think of him as just one of the long line of pundits presenting their take on events, in the same league as Kent, Masterton, Brown, and so on. On the other hand, he sure provides a lot of consequential detail, doesn’t he? Unless we accuse him of making it up, we must ask how good were his sources, and to what extent he relied on memory when writing his book.

Vorchek, I guess we won't know for sure until or unless we can get some corroborating information. As you observe, Porter provides quite a bit of detail for something that was made up of whole cloth, and I understand his reputation was at least better than average. He certainly was aware of earlier witness statements and the trial testimony, which makes one wonder why he would have included this information which is so much at odds with everything else supposedly known about Bridget's accounting.

Here is a minor datum I can add. I just finished reading the Knowlton Papers, and they contain a reference I'd heard of before, but couldn't remember from where. In a private communication Knowlton is discussing the lost Bridget inquest testimony, and he shrugs it off, declaring that her statements there were practically identical to what she gave at the preliminary hearing. So, if he recalls accurately, she didn't make those strange comments. The oddities, then, would originate with Porter, or whoever told him the story.

And for what it's worth, I really can't see Bridget having assisted in the murders. She had too much to lose, not enough to gain, and no really credible motive.

I think Lizzie did it primarily because she wanted to live her own life on her own terms.

If you're interested in pursuing even more contradictions with Bridget Sullivan and some of her odd behavior, read Edward Radin's book, "Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story. Her timeline, when analyzed just doesn't add up. What you may discover as you look at the event - even in passing - it is not the murder, itself, that is as fascinating as how could the person (even if it was Lizzie) committed the crime and got away clean. Not who, but how.

"Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story"
The reviews for this one are pretty good. I just added it to my "must get" list. Thanks for the tip.

It is the first book I ever read on the subject when I was a kid. It's the book that got me hooked! Another good on is David Kent's "Forty Whacks", despite the unfortunate title. It is probably the most even handed book I've read and I've read just about everything. You do well to read the trial transcript itself. Otherwise you're just reading what other people think of it and the slants are really remarkable, plus you realize just why she was acquitted. Just in case you don't know it, try ABEBooks.com for Borden material. Many things that are offered elsewhere at exorbitant prices you can find there for reasonable ones.

AbeBooks is invaluable, putting you in touch with every bookstore in the world. In fact, I've already ordered Radin's volume from them. Great minds think alike!

Both of Kent's books are a pleasure. It's a pity he didn't live to engage in the ongoing debate.

I'll be interested to hear what you think of the Radin book.

I would like to add a couple of my own idea's here on 2 things. The 3rd floor didn't have any windows except 2 in front and 2 in back. So I think it would have been a little awkward for her to talk to the Kelly girl from that position (facing east) and the Kelly girl I am assuming is facing North. Anyway during Bridget Sullivans trial testimony she states that she was talking to the Kelly girl at the fence.
And also about the servant girl lying down at that time of the day falls right in place with my understanding that Bridget had all of Sunday off and half day on Thursday. That is a fair amount of hours to work if she got up a little after 6 AM.

Yes.

The Kelly yard and the fence that separated the Borden and Kelly property was on the "south" side.

The back of the house was the east side, the front west, and the driveway and side/back entrance into the kitchen on the north side, facing the Churchill house.

I believe the only two places you will find notation to Bridget washing windows on the third floor was in Porter's book and supposedly a report in the newspaper; probably the Globe, Porter's paper.

It was believed by Edward Radin, Lizzie Borden, The Untold Story, that this telling, if indeed imparted by Bridget, was done so in error, since she was terrified and not thinking straight or making sense. Or we may assume that Porter just got it all wrong, which is perhaps a feasible assumption since we cannot find it mentioned anywhere else. (at least not that I remember.)

I concluded that Porter got it wrong. Especially when he claimed that Bridget came straight down stairs after summoned by Lizzie, and did not bother looking in on "dead" Mrs. Borden in the spare room since she was obeying Lizzie's call. That is the way Edwin Porter tells it in his book and it makes little sense.

The problem here is that Bridget had no access to the spare room from the rear of the house. And there is no stairway to the third floor from the front of the house. Bridgets only access between the first and third floor was the stairway and Borden's Bedroom on the second floor, which was kept locked. It is puzzling why Porter reported that Bridget did not bother looking in at dead Mrs Borden. She could not.

It appears that Porter got the window washing, and Bridget talking to the Kelly girl over the fence, and the servant's nap on the third floor all mixed up. I believe what he reported never happened, at least in the order he told it. And as for Bridget not noticing dead Mrs. Borden..... well that just make him sound reckless in his coverage of the crime and the telling of facts.

Just on a whim this evening, I googled Adelaide Churchill and came across this site with her testimony from the trial, June 8, 1893. Is this an accurate rendering?

It presented something that I've never heard before, and seems to address one of the biggest questions literally everyone has about this case. Bridget said to Adelaide that, "Mrs. Borden had a note to go to see someone that was sick. She was dusting in the sitting room. She hurried off. She didn't tell me where she was going. She generally does." This is Bridget, independent of Lizzie, describing and confirming Abby's behavior after receiving a note. The questioning continues to assure that what they heard is what she was really telling them.

https://famous-trials.com/lizzieborden/ ... ltestimony

Very good question. You may take a seat at the head of the class...

Wish I could say this in just a word or two.... but

I can see the complication here. And the reply by Churchill is very perplexed.

Much has to do with the wording and the way questions were asked. The prosecution wanted to instill perplexity as to the note. And Robinson, Lizzie's attorney, did a lousy job clearing up the meaning behind Bridget's testimony at the trial.

Bridget must have been a nervous wreck. In some cases her testimony was ambiguous or in conflict with other witnesses. One such example is when she testified that Mrs. Borden told her to do the windows after Morse left, just after breakfast. Yet Morse testified that he heard Mrs. Borden instruct Bridget about washing the windows. Another was Edwin Porter's account of Bridget's whereabouts. He got it all wrong. Or was it the way Bridget conveyed it to him?

From what we know not only did Lizzie tell Bridget that Mrs. Borden received a note, according to the maid, but that Bridget testified in the Prelim that Lizzie told Andrew, in a very low voice, that Abby received a note, and that she overheard it. Bridget overheard that private talk. And at the time she witnessed Abby in the dining room dusting. Thus, Bridget has two stories which she tells about the note; at the trial and at the prelim. Neither mention that Abby stated as much.

At the preliminary hearings there was a conflict between Jennings and Knowlton about the note. Jennings wanted to clear up the confusion with Churchill about whether Bridget told her that Bridget heard the note story from lizzie, or from Mrs. Borden, the horses mouth, if you wish. Knowlton objected to the court that, what Churchill testified to should stand with no more questioning. Jennings objected. The court agreed with Jennings and allowed him to ask Churchill the following: (From the Prelim):


Q. (Mr. Jennings) The question we wanted to ask you Mrs. Churchill was with reference to this statement of Bridget’s to you with regard to the note which Mrs. Borden received. Whether or not she gave that as something that Miss Lizzie told her, or something that Mrs. Borden told her?
(Mr. Knowlton) I object to that; I do not object to that she said.
Q. Whether she said that as told to her by Miss Lizzie or by Mrs. Borden?
(Mr. Knowlton) The way to get at that would be to say just what she did say.
(Court) You may ask the question.
Q. Now as to that statement which you say Bridget made to you with regard to the note, whether she did or did not state whether Miss Lizzie, or Mrs. Borden told her that?
A. She did not say who told her. She said to me Mrs. Borden had a note to go see someone that was sick. She was dusting the sitting room, and she hurried off. She did not tell me where she was going; she usually does.


In conclusion, what Churchill said is what she heard. She was just repeating what Bridget told her. Prosecution Counsel was astute in their questioning in an attempt to 'not' clarify. Weather it worked in their behalf was a gamble they were willing to take. Since no note was found the prosecution wanted you to believe that there was no note. But in fact, if Mrs. Borden had told Bridget, directly, that she received a note it would back up Lizzie's account. In closure, Mrs. Churchills testimony did not help the prosecution nor the defense.

Also, if Bridget overheard Lizzie tell her father that, 'mother received a note' and further added that Abby then 'hurried off', then, there could really have been a note. Why would Lizzie mention such a thing to her father with Abby just feet away in the other room, dusting? (dinning room) Why did Andrew not ask his wife about it?

And to conclude the conclusion and continue the confusion, or perhaps the conversation:

Bridget indeed makes it sound like Mrs. Borden told her directly about the note, since she adds that, Abby hurried off. Off where? When? Confusion still exists with Churchills testimony. Consider..... Lizzie heard about the note for Abby, Bridget heard it from Lizzie, Churchill heard it form Bridget, and now we hear it from....?????? Whether the note story and what Bridget meant was something she heard in the house, told to her by Lizzie, or something that was actually told to her directly by Abby Borden is all unclear.

Opens up even more questions, heh? "Ah, the web, the web, to climb inside the spider's head."

mbhenty I don't know what it is about this case but there are still interesting finds yet they don't solve anything- it just leads to more questions!! Maybe the more questions we can write down, the more they will naturally coalesce around a solution and then corral it into a conclusion. I often think that there's some small piece of evidence that we see all the time and gloss over that's been staring us all in the face all this time... and once we see it, the answer will be so obvious. And I'll be there thinking, "HOW did I not see this?"