Forum Title: LIZZIE BORDEN SOCIETY Topic Area: Lizzie Andrew Borden Topic Name: Bridget In The Papers  

1. "Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-26th-03 at 5:33 PM

Evening Standard:
"Tuesday, November 22, 1892  Page 4

"A NEW THEORY.

Cause of the Delay in Finding an
Indictment.


...The evidence which has thus far been given before the grand jury was much more thorough and complete than that offered at the preliminary hearing before Judge Blaisdell, even by the same witnesses.  Bridget Sullivan, for example, went into extensive details in regard to matters in the Borden family before the murder, and told a great deal of Lizzie's attitude towards her mother, as exhibited before the servant girl.
  
She was, however, unable to give any evidence bearing directly on the tragedy itself, but, besides describing Lizzie’s actions and appearance after the murder, she mentioned one very peculiar and significance circumstance.  It was this: Just before Bridget went upstairs to her room to lie down there was a kettle full of hot water on the stove and a roaring hot fire.  Directly after she was called downstairs by Lizzie she noticed that the water in the kettle had disappeared, and that the roaring hot fire was almost out, notwithstanding that less than 20 minutes had elapsed."

--I had not ever heard of this before.  Wasn't some of Bridget's testimony read back to her at the Prelim.?  Could that be where this comes from?  Missing Inquest info...?  Or made up.  (It's not *Trickey/McHenry* stuff, I don't think...)  A grand jury leak?


(Message last edited Jun-26th-03  5:33 PM.)


2. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jun-26th-03 at 6:03 PM
In response to Message #1.

Didn't other witnesses say there was no "roaring fire" in that kitchen? Another example of a good story from the press?
If you have the Inquest, you can look it up (if they asked her).


3. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Susan on Jun-26th-03 at 9:32 PM
In response to Message #1.

Wow!  A new story to me, never heard this before.  If it is actually something from Bridget's Inquest testimony, she sure changed her tune later.  According to her the fire in the stove was left to die and she never payed it any mind after that.  That is one of those weird points where Lizzie and Bridget agree, the fire was dying, dead.

I wonder with this story what the specualtion is?  That Lizzie used boiling hot water to clean herself with?  The hatchet stuck in super hot water to clean blood off?    Thanks, Kat. 


4. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by haulover on Jun-26th-03 at 10:55 PM
In response to Message #1.

kat:

FASCINATING.  that stove again.  i haven't seen it in the prelminiary or the trial, however. 

could this be that strange passage in the preliminary where bridget is shown words she said but doesn't read? 

i have imagined that bridget might have come into the kitchen while lizzie was stoking a roaring fire and never mentioned it.

now the tea kettle.  water.  that's a new one. 

but, as always..................who got this info?

WOW.  give me some more on this if you have it available.


5. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-27th-03 at 12:11 AM
In response to Message #3.

Yes Susan you studied that stove carefully.,  I thought you deserved some newspaper info.

The weird thing is this might not necessarily reflect upon info as to Lizzie burning a dress by Alice.

Because as far as I know, it was Dec. 1st or thereabouts when Alice gave the grand jury the burning of the dress story.
This article is dated Nov. 22, the day after the grand jury went on hiatus.
They supposedly re-convened to hear Alice tell of the dress-burning incident.

So it sounds like, if true, Lizzie could have burned another dress Thursday in the stove , but no one knew the significance yet of Sunday's burning of a dress.
It's a mystery.


6. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Susan on Jun-27th-03 at 3:33 AM
In response to Message #5.

Yes, with a roaring fire going in the stove, Lizzie could have burnt anything to a crisp, another dress, a hatchet handle, etc.  But, that kettle of boiling water, what was that for?  I did check the dictionary and it gives the definition of kettle as metallic vessel for boiling liquids, it sounds like it could have been a pot as big as a lobster pot?  Where would boiling water come into the picture, it wasn't like a baby was coming and "they" told Lizzie to go boil some water. 


7. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jun-27th-03 at 10:32 AM
In response to Message #1.

Think about this forenoon on a hot humid August day: a "roaring fire" in the stove? Is that anything more than a writer's imagination?
If the crime happened in winter, that would be more believable to me.


8. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-27th-03 at 5:28 PM
In response to Message #6.

Blood comes out better with cold water; you'd think Lizzie would know this.
If we can find a reason why lots of hot water was needed we might be getting into something pretty interesting...  good question, Susan.


9. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by harry on Jun-27th-03 at 6:01 PM
In response to Message #8.

I think the boiling kettle on the stove is a story on a par with the Bridget allegedly seeing an axe hidden in the parlor story.


10. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-27th-03 at 6:13 PM
In response to Message #9.

Yes I think that also was a *lost Bridget testimony* story, or a Nellie McHenry thing?
It's just that at the time, they didn't know Bridget's Inquest testimony was lost...


11. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by harry on Jun-27th-03 at 7:02 PM
In response to Message #10.

This was in the August 18, 1892 Evening Standard where Hilliard gave an interview with the press.

"Now, marshal, the statement has gone abroad that Bridget, after Mr. Borden left the house in the morning, heard Lizzie go down cellar, and subsequently saw what she thought was a hatchet half-hidden in the parlor."
"That may have come from some party who knows," the chief replied. "I have not heard of it."
"I have devoted attention to many stories that were foolish, just because of the enormity of the crime, and in order that I might leave no stone unturned to solve it. If I had not been in this office; if I had been brought up in the same circle with her and known her as some of these people have, it is quite probable that I would have done as they are doing now.
"I will say, though, that it is strange that some of those who are looked up to for guidance by the people in their everyday life should say things that have been said from the pulpit, when they are really not in a position to judge the case because they do not know what we do and why we acted."

Hilliard seems to indicate it came from one of Lizzie's friends. But I can't see how it is in any way favorable to Lizzie.


12. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by haulover on Jun-27th-03 at 10:32 PM
In response to Message #11.

i've always assumed it was apocryphal, but i've heard that at some time and place bridget claimed to have seen a hatchet or axe somewhere downstairs in the parlor or in the sitting room.

i assume you'll agree with me that there's not much we can do with it in solving the crime -- or did you have something else in mind starting this thread?

i thought it more intriguing that bridget may have seen lizzie using that stove in a fired-up sort of way, burning something.  after all, she used that stove for her hankies.  and i've always wondered if her hanky ironing was some sort of false justification for using the stove.



13. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by harry on Jun-28th-03 at 12:41 AM
In response to Message #12.

I just threw that snippet in as a possible piece to Bridget's missing inquest testimony.  I do not know the source of it. If it did come from her inquest testimony I would not expect Hilliard to confirm or deny it. I do not believe it myself. It would be too big a incident for Knowlton to ignore.

I don't know to what extent the stove was searched.  Obviously the police were very lax in securing the premises and the stove was a possible place some things could have been hidden.

A dress would burn quite quickly assuming there was a sufficient fire.  One of the questions I would raise is whether a burning dress would leave a distinct aroma when burnt?  Some materials do.



14. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-28th-03 at 1:01 AM
In response to Message #10.

I guess that axe story was not in Nellie McHenry's letter to Hilliard, but a reference to the stove, was:

#HK023

[edit here], add:

..."also asked Bridget if she (Bridget) had eaten the same food she answered yes all but the Bakers bread Mrs. Borden burned the bread then herself in the stove.
..........
..."I asked Bridget why the news papers said so much about the fire she
said Oh there was no clothes or rags found she might have burned them
all up."

--I don't know what is meant here, and I have my doubts about this *Interview*.


(Message last edited Jun-28th-03  1:50 AM.)


15. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-28th-03 at 2:49 AM
In response to Message #13.

Evening Standard, on Bridget's upcoming interview at the Inquest:

"Tuesday, August 9, 1892*, pg. 6:

The final decision of the conference was to do nothing until morning, when the fact would be positively decided whether an inquest need be commenced or not.

It was the firm opinion of all that prior to such action being taken Bridget Sullivan ought to be given a vigorous examination.

It was stated by the marshal that she was in a very nervous state, a condition resulting from a cause yet to be fully determined.

He said that on Monday morning, after her return, she made hasty preparations to leave the house, and an officer on guard saw her packing up her effects.  He asked her what she was going to do, and she replied to get out. 

The marshal said the officer immediately informed him of the circumstances, and he instructed the guard to tell her she must not go on penalty of arrest.

Then Mr. Hilliard told how he called on the girl in the afternoon, and found her a physical and mental wreck.

She cried and said she could not sleep nights and was afraid to remain longer in the house.

He had reasoned with her and assured her that no harm could possibly come to her, but that availed nothing.

Bridget was not to be consoled.  He left her to endure a season of mental unrest, and suggested that by this morning she might be in a ripe condition to effectively interview.

This plan was endorsed thoroughly.

While the marshal was not without some evidence of a safe character to warrant action, the desirability of adding Bridget Sullivan's unreserved story to the general fund of information already possessed was apparent.

Then the conference adjourned."

--*The Inquest started with Bridget on Tuesday, Aug. 9th., the date of this article.  It was probably written Monday, the day before.
..............

Wednesday, Aug. 10, pg. 1:
..."The servant girl did not leave her friends last night nor this morning.
An officer who visited her found her in a much happier and more contented frame of mind than yesterday, when she was prostrated with nervousness and grief.
She talks in the most affectionate manner of deceased woman, the stepmother of the girls. "
..........

Wednesday, Aug. 10, pg. 2:

..."They have reviewed and re-reviewed every detail; they have examined Bridget Sullivan for hours, and every word that she has uttered has been caught by a stenographer.  They have prepared to interrogate Miss Lizzie Borden and to put her replies and statements on paper.  As the situation now stands these witnesses are the only two people on the face of the earth who can assist them.  Others have told all that they knew, and it amounted to nothing.  If the servant and Miss Borden have been equally frank, the verdict must soon be rendered.... 

....  At 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon it was known that nothing of a startling nature had been developed by the inquest, so far as the examination of the servant was concerned.  The girl was cool and collected, and told the story which she related when she was questioned concerning her whereabouts on the morning of the murder, and her experiences bearing on the discovery of the two bodies.  She did not halt or hesitate and the cross-examination failed to shake her.  The discrepancies in her testimony as given before the district attorney and to the police officers who have interviewed her from time to time were too trifling to be noticed.  If Miss Borden is as successful under fire as Bridget Sullivan has been,

The Inquest Will Not Figure Prominently
in the Case....

....At 5 o'clock Bridget Sullivan left the police station in company with officer Doherty and passed down Court square.  She was dressed in a green gown with hat to match and appeared to be nervous and excited.  Nobody knew her, however, and she attracted no attention whatever.  She went to the Borden house for a bundle and, still accompanied by Officer Doherty walked to No. 95 Division street, where her cousin, Patrick Harrington, lives, and where she passed the night.  She was allowed to go on her own recognizance* and seemed to be much relieved to get away from the Borden house.  The government impressed her with the necessity of saying nothing about the proceedings at the inquest and she was warned not to talk with anybody about her testimony.  Bridget Sullivan is one of 14 children.  She came to this country six years ago.  For three years she worked for a number of families in Fall River, and the police say that she bears an excellent reputation.  For the last three years she has lived with the Borden family, and for some time past has been threatening to return to Ireland.  She says that

Mrs. Borden Was a Very Kind Mistress

and that she was much attached to her.  Mrs. Borden used to talk to her about going home to Ireland, and used to tell her that she would be lonely without her.  Accordingly, the girl says that she did not have the heart to leave, but she never expected to be in an awful predicament like this.  She had been terrified ever since the tragedy, she said."

--* This was a miss-statement by the Press and later corrected to released on bond.

..."Neither the servant nor Miss Borden was represented by counsel, and that fact occasioned some little comment.  It is known that A. J. Jennings, Esq. called at the city marshal's office and applied for permission to look after the interests of the witnesses, but it was refused.  It is stated that Mr. Jennings, who can protest on occasion, argued at length against being excluded, but the government would not yield, and he was obliged to withdraw.  Consequently it was doubted last night if he were any better informed than the public regarding the nature of the testimony.  He had a short talk on Main street with Detective Hanscom, and went home early.

It was whispered in police circles during the evening that

There Was Something Very Significant

in the fact that Bridget Sullivan, the only government witness, with the exception of Miss Lizzie Borden, and a person on whom the prosecution must rely to explain certain occurrences before and after the tragedy, was allowed to go on her own recognizance*, and at 6 o'clock the bearing of the officials who have worked up the case indicated that they were in possession of information which they considered as very valuable, and which they had hitherto been unable to secure.

The servant, who is intelligent and well informed, must be more intimately acquainted with the conditions of things in the Borden household than anybody outside of the family.  She had worked there three years, and, as a rule, servants are observant.  A friend of hers said yesterday afternoon that she knew that Bridget Sullivan wanted to tell the truth and that she had nothing to conceal.  The government dismissed her solely on her promise to return in case she was wanted*, and this is taken to mean that the theory which has been entertained all along is to be abandoned, or that the servant's testimony, as taken by Miss White, the stenographer, contains all the information the police can possibly get from her.  This was mere supposition, however, and nobody felt any too sure concerning his conclusion.

The following brief conversation took place when the servant went to the Borden house for a bundle at 5 o'clock.  Miss Lizzie had not returned from the police station and her sister was keeping house:
'Are you coming back to-night, Maggie?' asked Miss Emma.
'Not to-night, Miss Emma,' was the reply.
'Are you coming back to-morrow night?'
'Not to-morrow night, Miss Emma,' said the servant again.
'I just wanted to know,' said Miss Borden, as she bade the servant good night."...




16. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-28th-03 at 3:18 AM
In response to Message #15.

Evening Standard, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 1892 pages 2 & 3.
(What the press reported Bridget said at the Inquest- Read At Your Own Risk):

"The Inquest Begun.

At 9:30 o'clock a.m. yesterday Bridget Sullivan was notified that her presence was required at police headquarters and she went to the Central Station under escort of Officer Dougherty.  Awaiting her presence were District Attorney Knowlton, State Officer Seaver, Marshal Hilliard and Medical Examiner Dolan, and soon after they were joined by Mayor Coughlin.  A report that an inquest was under way quickly spread, but received prompt denial by the marshal.  When asked the meaning of the gathering he said it was an inquiry and the officers were searching for information.  The domestic was in the presence of the officials for several hours and was subject to a searching

Page 3.

cross-examination, every detail of the tragedy being gone over exhaustively.

Upon the arrival of the Sullivan woman at the Second District Court, which adjoins the police station, the officers were all in readiness, and a swarm of newspaper men sought admittance to the room.  They were hurried out and the door closed.  But Fall River it is a leaky place, and at 12:30 o'clock, after the hearing adjourned for dinner, the proceedings were revealed.  There were present Judge Blaisdell, District Attorney Knowlton, City Marshal Hilliard, district officers Seaver and Rhodes, Medical Examiner Dolan, the district attorney's stenographer, Miss Annie Read*, and a couple of police officials, who were among the first called to the house of the Bordens last Thursday.  Bridget Sullivan

Was in Deep Distress,

and, if she had not already cried her eyes out, would probably have been very much agitated.  On the contrary, while tremulous in voice and now and then crying a little, she was calm enough to receive the interrogatories without exhibiting much emotion and answer them comprehensively.  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 downstairs and resumed window washing on the third floor, which had been begun the preceding day.  She might have seen Mrs. Borden as she went upstairs; 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 Borden call her.  She answered at once and went down stairs.  Miss Borden didn’t tell her what the matter was when she called her.  Bridget said 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.  She found Mr. Borden dead and Lizzie at the door of the room.

The last point touched yesterday was the letter sent to Mrs. Borden warning her that she might be poisoned.  Bridget said she knew nothing about this matter at all.  Judge Blaisdell dines at 12 o'clock with great punctuality, but he waited considerably later to get as far as possible with the Sullivan woman's testimony.  The poor girl begged to go home when the hearing was adjourned, but she was not allowed to."

--*Miss Annie White.

........

Thursday, August 11, 1892, pg. 2:

..." It is conjectured that

Bridget Sullivan's Testimony Was
Very Important,

and there must have been some purpose in the intimation thrown out last Tuesday that she was practically free, at all events it was a false hint and the servant's every movement was closely watched.  She appears to be anxious to follow the directions of the authorities to the letter and obeys them cheerfully. 

A report has been published to the effect that she was in bed when Miss Lizzie Borden first called her and that that point was brought out in the examination.  As near as can be ascertained, that is an inaccurate report.  Officers who have not been admitted to the inquest and who, of course, cannot positively deny such a statement, reiterate that the servant told them over and over again that she was up stairs on the third floor washing windows when Miss Lizzie called to her, and that she responded promptly.  She was certainly on the scene a few minutes after the alarm was sent out and it may be asserted without fear of contradiction, that the servant in the average Fall River family is much more likely to be found washing windows or making bread then in bed at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, provided of course that she is able to get along without a doctor."
........

...".Mrs. Borden went upstairs at 9 o'clock to put shams on the pillows, and as far as can be learned, never came down alive.  Miss Lizzie Borden ironed and went to the barn, and Bridget Sullivan obeyed an order which sent her to the attic to wash windows.  The links missing are the axe and the particulars of the movements of Mrs. Borden, Miss Borden and the servants. "

.............

...."Bridget Sullivan proved herself a most valuable witness, and it is no wonder that she is carefully guarded at the house of her cousin on Division street.  It will be remembered that the story told all along has sent her to the third floor of the house to wash windows and that nobody has been able to ascertain when she ascended the stairs.  She has told the district attorney that she did not go to the third story to wash windows at all.  Mr. Morse and Mr. Borden both left the house when Mrs. Borden was alive.  One went down town on business, and one went to Weybosset street to call on friends.  At 9:30 Bridget Sullivan, acting under Miss Lizzie Borden's orders, went outside to wash windows.  There were 11 windows, and she did not get through until 10:30.  While she was on the north side of the house she commanded a view of one door, and while


Page 3

she was on the south side she was close to another door.

Nobody Entered or Left the House

while she was washing the windows.  Just as she had completed her work, she saw Mr. Borden coming across the street and she hurried across the lower floor to let him in.  The government has fixed the time at which he entered.  The servant then attended to one or two other matters in the kitchen and went upstairs.  As she passed through the sitting room she saw Mr. Borden on the lounge, and Miss Lizzie was ironing, according to her testimony.  Bridget Sullivan went to the third story where her room was situated to lie down a few moments, as her back ached.  The next that she knew Miss Lizzie called her and she went down to gaze on the awful scene which had startled the young woman who had summoned her.  John Morse was not in the house.  Medical Examiner Dolan has testified that Mrs. Borden was slaughtered some time before Mr. Borden came in.  She might have been dead half or three-quarters of an hour.  Accordingly, the man who was concealed in the house came in before 9:30, when the servant started to clean the windows on the outside.  He did not leave before 10:30, and he could not leave the side door for some minutes after that, as Bridget Sullivan did not go up stairs to her room until after 10:30.  In other words, the servant was practically on guard for an hour, and the man who did the deed must have killed both Mr. and Mrs. Borden after he returned from town, or he must have concealed himself in the house at an early hour and waited. "

.....

...."It is becoming more and more difficult to obtain any information whatever from the police, and occasionally it is noticed that misleading statements are allowed to leak out apparently without contradiction from those authorities who are conducting the investigation.  It is said there is an object in all this, and circumstances connected with the departure of the domestic, Bridget Sullivan, from the District Court room Tuesday would seem to confirm this.  It was announced and apparently not without authority, that this woman had been allowed to go upon her own recognizance with the understanding that she was to appear when wanted.  As a matter of fact, it was learned yesterday that this is not true, and that with her departure she was placed under a guard.  This guard watched the house of her cousin on Division street all night and is still there.  The Sullivan woman desired to go to church, but Marshal Hilliard dissuaded her from doing so, and apparently she was very willing to carry out the wishes of the police in this direction.  The reason for the story that the domestic was free to go where she pleased without surveillance is unknown, but the fact of its falsity is good evidence that the suspicions of the authorities have not been lulled."
....

Friday, Aug. 12, pg 1:

..."Mr. Morse and Bridget Sullivan were then held as witnesses in the sums of $500 each. "

--Lizzie was arrested Thursday at the close of the Inquest, and arraigned Friday, Aug. 12.






17. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-28th-03 at 3:35 AM
In response to Message #6.

As I was reading the Evening Standard papers (a good buy, BTW) I noted that with all this talk of a fire or no fire in the stove, there must have been some fire at some point , if Lizzie asks us to believe Abby burned a note!


18. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Susan on Jun-28th-03 at 12:52 PM
In response to Message #17.

Thanks for the news articles, Kat.  Interesting to read them, I do remember reading somewhere that part about Bridget telling a falsehood about working up in her room instead of lying down.

Yes, I think that fire must have burned for quite some time.  Bridget started it around 6:15 in the morning and it must have burned until some time after 10:00 for Lizzie to iron.  A four hour or so, small coal fire that wasn't tended by Bridget once used for breakfast, is that normal for coal? 


19. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by william on Jun-28th-03 at 3:17 PM
In response to Message #18.

A fire started at six A.M. would not be going full tilt at ten, unless someone stoked it with additional coal. I can say this with some authority since it was my job to start the fire up every morning for breakfast. It would take about an hour to achieve maximum heat, and an other hour to taper off. I assume Lizzie supplied additional coal when she wanted to heat up her "flats."
A kettle of water placed on the stove for any purpose,washing dishes etc. would also get pretty hot, but I believe the original intent was to heat up the irons.


20. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-28th-03 at 4:34 PM
In response to Message #19.

That's pretty interesting you guys.
In Bridget's timeline, based on Prelim.:
6:15 a.m. — Bridget got up. Did not see anyone else. Started her fire. Opened the back door. Took in the milk. (pg. 2).

6:30- 6:40 a.m. — Abby came down stairs. (pg.4 ).

6:30- 6:45 a.m. — Getting breakfast. (pg .5).

6:45 a.m. — Opened the door for the ice-man. (pg. 3).

6:50 a.m. — "Ten minutes after her [Abby]", Mr. Borden came down in his shirtsleeves. (pg. 5, 6).

7:15 a.m. — Bridget first saw Morse at breakfast. (pg. 7).

7:15- 7:45 a.m. — Breakfast: Abby, Andrew and John Morse. (pg. 7).
..........

But Bridget starting her fire  & "getting breakfast" seem to happen within 1/2 an hour of starting the fire.  Maybe Bridget meant doing other things around the kitchen related to breakfast, before that fire got hot.
Also, tho, Lizzie did have some hankies ironed, according to Alice, by the time she, Alice, noticed.
If Lizzie wanted us to believe there was a note, and if Alice believed there might have been one which was put into the fire, Alice might have noticed something about the fire when she arrived, in order to make that unconscious suggestion to everyone.
So the fire, which was still going enough to burn Dr. Bowen's pieces of paper at noonish, started at 6:15, would, of necessity have been stoked in the interim, regardless of a burning of evidence to still be viable at noon.  More than just a few sticks or a stick of wood....

What does Harrington say about the fire?


21. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Susan on Jun-29th-03 at 11:10 PM
In response to Message #20.

Thanks, William.  Thats what I always wondered with the stove too, Bridget didn't stoke the fire and Lizzie says she added her "stick of wood" to it to try to get it going again, how could it be hot enough?  I wonder if the stove itself had retained enough heat from the morning fire to heat those flat irons initially but it soon petered out?  Or, did Lizzie totally lie about adding more coal to it?


Kat, I went over what Bridget would have to heat or cook on the stove for breakfast that morning, not much really.  Bridget made coffee, which I guess the pot could have just sat on the stove until the water boiled.  The mutton broth could be taken possibly straight from the ice box in its pot to put on the stove, unless that pot never left the stove?  But, that could sit on it to warm up as the stove did.  I think the only thing Bridget would have had to wait to cook on the stove was the johnny cakes, she'd need a fairly hot pan or griddle to cook those on.

From the Witness statements, Harrington says when Dr. Bowen threw the pieces of his torn up note into the stove, "There was very little fire in the stove, and the ashes which were on top looked as though paper had been burned there."

From the Preliminary Volume 5 Harrington is questioned on the stove:

Q. Not at all?  What did you see in the stove?
A. I was going to tell what he had in his hand.  When he took the cover off the stove, the fire was very low, and there appeared to be, or there was, rather large coal, or larger remains of something that appeared to be burnt paper, and it was quite large.  I should say quite large judging from the size of the stove, comparatively speaking.

There is also this:

Q. What sort of fire was it that was there?
A. I could not swear that, but there was a small red spot down in the center.
(Mr. Adams) Not a blood spot.
A. A small spark of fire there that looked to me like coal, but that I would not swear to. 

Doesn't sound like much of a fire left at all.   
 


22. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-30th-03 at 12:56 AM
In response to Message #21.

Yes, but are we talking about enough fire to heat flats to iron what, 5 hankies?* at around 10 a.m. or according to Bridget, at 10:45 a.m. After Andrew returned?
And then Bowen put the pieces of paper in around noon?
From a fire that was probably ready full-tilt at 7 a.m.
Only stoked with a piece of wood til noon when there was a burning ember.
I don't think that fire could have lain untended except for a stick [Inq., Lizzie, 68] from 7 , (around breakfast) until Andrew got home, do you?

*[Trial, Alice, 399)

(Message last edited Jun-30th-03  12:59 AM.)


23. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Susan on Jun-30th-03 at 3:42 AM
In response to Message #22.

No, I don't, and thats why I wonder if Lizzie added coal, but lied about it.  She didn't want it known that there was possibly a fire hot enough in that stove to burn, say, a dress or such.  Which may be way she told her pitiable tale of putting her "stick on the fire" to get it going, it makes her sound like a ditz.  But, cast iron would retain heat for awhile after the fire had gone out, how long, I'm not sure?  I'm thinking if you heated it to red hot and let it cool down on its own, how long would that take about?  But, certain metals are better conductors for heat than others, and others retain heat longer than others.  I think copper is one of the fastest conductors, hence copper bottomed pans and pots.  Cast iron, like a skillet, conducts heat more evenly, I guess, spreads it out over its surface more efficently, but, would it retain the heat longer?  Anyone have any working knowledge of metals? 


24. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jun-30th-03 at 11:47 AM
In response to Message #22.

Some, like AR Brown, have questioned Lizzie's story about ironing hankies. Was it an after-the-fact rationale to explain her presence?
Actual witnesses describe a fire almost gone out. Not one quenched with water?
Are we concentrating too much on minor details that don't affect the big picture?


25. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jun-30th-03 at 7:35 PM
In response to Message #24.

We like the details.  They're very enlightening.

Alice is a witness to the already ironed Hankies and the ones which were still damp.  She hung them up.
It may have been a ploy, yes, to pretend to iron.
All Lizzie needed to do was wet some unironed hankies.
But no one specifies when Lizzie did iron those which were ironed, other than that day.  That  preceeding week, anyway.
If she only pretended to iron than she seems even more guilty.
We can consider that.

(Message last edited Jun-30th-03  7:36 PM.)


26. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Susan on Jun-30th-03 at 10:52 PM
In response to Message #25.

From Bridget's Preliminary testimony it sounds as if she sees Lizzie start to iron, so, possibly one hankie is actually ironed?  After that we can choose to take Lizzie's word or not.  I was thinking that it does sound like a reality.  Lizzie picked up her clean clothes that morning to bring up, I would assume her washed hankies were in the bundle and Bridget says that Lizzie usually irons those herself.  So, I could see her ironing the hankies that day, but, possibly just before murdering Andrew, what an odd choice of a chore to psych one's self up to murder. 


27. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by haulover on Jul-1st-03 at 12:52 PM
In response to Message #26.

i think the hankies are important physical evidence and very damning against lizzie.

the condition of the hankies (half-ironed) shows that at some point lizzie found a reason to stop.

i think what she wants us to believe about the fire in regard to the ironing, etc., is ridiculous.  because doesn't it amount to this?  if there was ever enough fire to iron even one of just several little hankies -- then there was fire enough to iron all the little hankies, all right there and then.  if she had meant to iron them, she simply would have done so.  she takes a tiny little job and blows it out of proportion in order to account for herself (throw in a magazine, a few paper wrapers and a pear) and even to give herself a reason to think "Hey, i know!  i'll go to the barn and look for a sinker!"  then when she comes back in -- she would have then finished the hankies except the fire went out and by now -- she's so hot and tired and stuffed with pears anyway, she thinks she'll go upstairs and sit down and wait and let maggie get the stove hot enough -- and then (which door?) -- well, we know the rest.

so i don't believe the reason she gives us for stopping ironing.  the best i've ever come up with is that it is a way of keeping an eye on Maggie until she can find a moment suitable for a more gruesome chore in the sitting room.

if you think about it, ironing is her explanation for everything; like everything she did was related to that, and that only.  and the ironing job itself a tiny one.





28. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jul-1st-03 at 6:20 PM
In response to Message #27.

Yes, if Andy told her to take a walk outside so he could talk to the secret visitor, that would account for un-ironed hankies.

Gerald Gross ("Masterpieces of Murder") gave his solution for the crime: Lizzie did Abby, Bridget did Andy. Since each had an alibi for one of the murders. He also admits the only other solution was someone who was hidden away and unknown (as if he heard the rumors).

Her story of a sale to Bridget was one way to get Bridget out of the house for the private meeting. Not for any crime. IMO


29. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jul-1st-03 at 7:51 PM
In response to Message #28.

Whatever *alibi* either girl may have had, it was tissue thin, you could see through it.
Both girls were in the house from 9 to 9:30 a.m. except for Bridget barfing those few minutes around 9.
Bridget got started on the windows around 9:30.
Abby was not seen , by Morse from 8:45 a.m., nor seen by Lizzie & Bridget after 9, supposedly.  But they are in the house during the crucial time, even including possibly Andrew.

The *alibi* for Lizzie killing Andrew may be Lubinsky but we have dealt with that issue and feel he has been discredited.
We, some here, at least "I", have a differing view as to who was where, when, and don't rely on those authors anymore...because also, we can create our own timeline, and you know the minutes can be manipulated.

(Message last edited Jul-1st-03  8:32 PM.)


30. "Lizzie In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jul-1st-03 at 9:32 PM
In response to Message #29.

Evening Standard, Tuesday, August 31, 1892, pg.1:

"Only a Love Affair.

The Boston Herald prints a story that the words "Emma, you gave me away," were really uttered by Lizzie, and thus explains it:

Lizzie had a love affair.  It was a simple one.  The young man, perhaps he was over 35, was met on the Cape by the accused, and he paid some attention to her, and she felt highly complemented.  So, last Wednesday morning, when he called at the Borden house to express his sympathy for Lizzie, and his belief in her innocence, he met and talked to Miss Emma Borden, and the pleasant times on the Cape were contrasted with the present sad state of affairs.  In some way Miss Emma Borden intimated that her sister liked him very much, and the young man departed, not thinking that his visit would be made to play such an important part in this now famous case.

Emma visited Lizzie in the afternoon at the matron's room, and, anxious to talk to her sister of matters that would be likely to make her forget, even for a moment, the awful position circumstances have placed her in, spoke of the visitor of the morning.

Lizzie heard with great interest and pleasure of the young man's sympathy and his belief in her innocence, and had begun to say how very grateful she felt for his kind thoughts and words.  Then Emma, in a joking way, told Lizzie of the intimation she had given the young man regarding Lizzie's interest in him.  A gleam shot from Lizzie's eyes and she straightened herself up.  Her womanly nature was hurt; a confidence broken.

Then she said: "Emma, you gave me away.  I'll never speak to you again."

Emma knew her sisters manner, and she made no reply to the indignant outburst.  She simply sat back in a chair, and watched her sister with a smile she could not well repress.  Lizzie sat still for a few minutes, then, realizing how foolish her outburst had been, regained her good temper, and began to laugh with Emma.  Then the sisters embraced with a fervor that the matron has never yet seen exhibited.  They kissed each other most affectionately when they parted.  Yet what a vastly different construction has been placed on the words of the prisoner."

--Susan, did you write this?
--I always had the feeling that the confrontation did happen.
I wonder when Lizzie was at the Cape.  That's a new one on me.


31. "Re: Lizzie In The Papers"
Posted by Susan on Jul-1st-03 at 10:29 PM
In response to Message #30.

Wow, thats good, I've never read that before.  It shows what a new twist can be placed on that cryptic, "You have given me away."

No, Kat, I can't lay claim to it.    Perhaps Tina-Kat? 

I wonder when this story came out in relation to the other we have heard for years where Lizzie states she won't give in one inch and turns from Emma and doesn't speak to her for hours.  Could it be that the one you posted was the true story and a reporter twisted it into something ugly just to have a story? 


32. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jul-2nd-03 at 11:37 AM
In response to Message #29.

Yes, there were no videotapes and stopwatches there. The jury has to weight the evidence and testimony, apply their common sense and practical knowledge, and deliver a verdict.

Does ANYONE here think their verdict was wrong, given the testimony and Judge Dewey's charge to the jury? Why didn't that 1996? replay at Stanford come to a different conclusion?

Those who control the testimony at a trial control the verdict.

It couldn't be Bridget, because Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father". This convinces me of Lizzie's goodness and innocence, since a guilty person could have pointed elsewhere.
I hope you will agree with this, but I have no real experience with murders.


33. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by haulover on Jul-2nd-03 at 9:30 PM
In response to Message #32.

ray:

i think most of us understand the jury's decision.  in fact, as a member of that jury, i say that if lizzie did it she need not have been as clever as she was -- she could have just dropped the axe in the sitting room -- what difference would it have made?  but we are not that jury.  that's the difference.

one of the main questions for us about this is:  was it easier for lizzie to cover up physical evidence -- or was it easier for crazy billy to come and go undetected?

recently i thought how odd it is that the brown theory just substitutes a bastard son for a greedy stepdaughter.  same sort of thing in a way.  except that lizzie benefited.

about the brown theory (i read the book once when it was published, that's all) -- is there or was there any physical evidence of this memoir (or whatever it was) that this hawthorne guy is supposed to have written?  is there any physical evidence that said william borden was son of andrew?  (i mean a document or even a letter)?


34. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jul-3rd-03 at 12:20 AM
In response to Message #33.

Jeffery thinks there was a relationship, but not father & illegitimate son.

Ray, when Lizzie says *It wasn't Bridget or anyone who works for Father*, THAT tells me she is at least accessory.  She must know who DID do it, if she can claim to know who did not.

She did point at Hiram Harrington, so what's that all about?  Her own uncle (by marriage).  They all lived together at Ferry Street before the move to #92 in 1872.  She must know the man.  They lived together until she was 12...


35. "Re: Hiram in The Papers"
Posted by Bob Gutowski on Jul-3rd-03 at 11:20 AM
In response to Message #34.

But didn't she only name Hiram after he gave that unflattering interview, the one in which he called our girl a "brilliant conversationalist?"

(Message last edited Jul-3rd-03  11:21 AM.)


36. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jul-3rd-03 at 1:06 PM
In response to Message #33.

I have no knowledge of such physical evidence aside from his notes. WS Borden did exist, and died under mysterious circumstances. All I can go on is reason and common sense. Would a Mass Judge fix the trial to let a murderess and patricide go free? Or more likely to see that an "innocent" went free? It is NOT just a "substitution". Doesn't it explain the discrepancies in the statements and actions?

Are judges in Mass elected or appointed by political bosses?

I beleive AR Brown's solution. But I also note that while Ellan was there, she never told about it at the time (Brown dances around to explain it; I'll accept that). And Hawthorne knew WS Bordne but was not present at the scene.

Then or now, families DO keep their secrets. Does anyone here talk about such things (bastard children, asylum or jail, drugs etc.)?


37. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jul-3rd-03 at 1:06 PM
In response to Message #33.

The TV film on Jon Benet Ramsey made this point: the roll of duct tape was not in the house! The murderer carried it away.
So too the lack of a murder weapon said the murderer took it away!

(Message last edited Jul-3rd-03  1:15 PM.)


38. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by rays on Jul-3rd-03 at 1:11 PM
In response to Message #34.

YES! That is exactly the point made (as I remember). "Either you give him up, Miss Lizzie, or face the gallows yourself." But she didn't budge one inch.
AR Brown understood the business world. He, and Spiering, noted the virtual general strike and work stoppage. The FIRST thing for the authorities is to get everyone back to work by arresting someone. Have you never hear of framing somebody for a "heinous crime"?
(No I can't give any examples right now.)

If Hiram Harrington's carriage shop and stable was used for the meeting (as per AR Brown), pointing at him would sort of point the finger at his guest. Bad feelings between them?

Could some sort of resentment have built up since they lived together?
...
If the police investigate Harrington and his shop that day what would they have learned? Didn't Brown mention that Uncle John FIRST visited their shop (from the horse car stop!) as if to find out what happened?


(Message last edited Jul-3rd-03  1:13 PM.)


39. "Re: Bridget In The Papers"
Posted by Kat on Jul-3rd-03 at 6:31 PM
In response to Message #38.

Ellen Eagan was called as a Witness at Inquest, Thursday, Aug. 11, supposedly,    ... but according to Rebello, pg 129:

"Mrs. Eagan was put on the stand and after the first three questions had been asked her, the authorities were satisfied that her evidence had no bearing on the case."

The weird thing about her is she lived on the other side of Main, and had no business, that we know of, on Second Street.  I don't fully believe she was ever there.  That area was not on her way to anywhere.
Then she is dropped from the case forever, until resurrected conveniently by Brown, along with that letter in Knowlton Papers ( [Edit Here: ]  #HK012, Aug. 12, by "Philip Gordon Reed", *illigitimate son*.) 

Admittedly this *witness* is listed in the Witness Statements (14), but even there she is "Allen Eagan".  How can you prove "Allan Eagan" is Ellen Eagan, anyway?

--As to *family secrets*, yes we discuss all that.  I don't know about you, of another generation.  It may be a generational thing.

--It's my understanding that Mr. Ramsey possibly left the house the murder morning, and more than once.  So if you think he could have removed the flashlight and the duct tape, I agree!

--Hiram Harrington is an enigma.  He may be one of the reasons Lizzie may not have enjoyed having relatives. H. Harrington, and Whiteheads seemed below her touch.
And living all together may not have helped.
I have a feeling Mrs. Harrington was an invalid at this time of the murders, and maybe before and after.  She was never called, though she was Andrew's sister.  Also I read that her *deposition* was taken but it does not survive that we know.
When Andrew deeded the Ferry street property to Emma and Lizzie, the Harrington's ended up moving, I think to Freetown.  That might be a serious bone of contention.  Tho Andrew paid Luranna for her share, the Harrington's still lived there I believe...at least until the girls took over the deed.



(Message last edited Jul-4th-03  4:23 PM.)