1. "Why Didn't Lizzie Speak?"
Posted by Kat on Apr-11th-04 at 8:09 PM

In "New England Gothic", from The New England Quarterly, it brings up the fact that Lizzie never spoke about the crimes, after her acquittal:

"Throughout Lizzie Borden's nearly year-long jail confinement- from her initial incarceration, through her trial, to her eventual acquittal- popular sentiment settled into a conviction that Lizzie was a wronged woman.  The New York Times, having run one of the more balanced accounts of the trial, editorialized after the acquittal about the 'outrageous' and 'barbarous wrong' done to a 'helpless' and 'innocent' woman.  The night Lizzie returned to her house on Second Street two thousand people gathered outside and sang 'Auld Lang Syne.' [sic- Lizzie went to the Holmes house the evening of her acquittal- but crowds did gather in her favour at Second Street].
But after the trial, Lizzie's continuing silence about the crime grew worrisome;  the Providence Journal, which had treated Lizzie favorably during the trial, was the first to voice doubts:

  There is no reason now for Miss Borden's silence;  let her speak!  Let
  her spare no effort to bring this horrible case to a more satisfactory
  conclusion than it now has reached, with so much evidence barred out
  by the Court, and the presuption of innocence so strenuously insisted
  upon by the Judge in his charge to the jury. (William's Casebook,229-30)

Other newspapers soon echoed the cry for satisfaction, and after legal experts began to critisize both the evidentiary decisions barring Lizzie's inconsistent inquest testimony and Judge Dewey's final instructions to the jury, public opinion turned against her."   


The public had access to Lizzie's inquest testimony printed in The Evening Standard, and probably was very ready to hear an explanation from her upon her (supported) acquittal.  Lizzie must have not realized what a continuing silence might do- which was to paint her in a less-than-satisfactory light.  The public by now felt she owed them- for their support- and she let them down.  No wonder they turned against her!  Why didn't she speak?

It is odd that she never spoke of the crime, especially considering her tendency to become overly excited.  When the police arrived to investigate the day light robbery and the evening she burst in on Alice Russel with her wild tales and rantings...

I think the entreaty was very out of character for New Englanders.  The business was over, and she kept her mouth shut.

What could she say?  If she was guilty, either of single-handed murder or of consipracy, she could disclose nothing.  If she was innocent, and didn't know by whom or how the murders had been committed (ha!), she could add nothing.

By the way, is there a thread for the newest HATCHET somewhere?     

(Message last edited Apr-13th-04  11:42 AM.)

>By the way, is there a thread for the newest HATCHET
>somewhere?     

There's one in "Stay To Tea", Bob.

Doug

And so there I will go!  Thanks, Doug.

I suppose she needed a *spin-doctor* for her eventful life and to handle the public and press in her infamy.
It may have been that around that time, people's (the public) concerns did not outlast the verdict and privacy was re-established to some extent- but I think the rules were changed in the Borden case and nobody knew it, until too late.
The press owned Lizzie when the trial was over and no one said "no" so they continued to follow her and after no response, *the sphinx of coldness* was then branded fair game.  One would think someone would have advised her differently.  A couple of choice interviews and maybe she could retire in peacer- or maybe not- it might be like feeding a black hole.
I suppose society never saw it coming- this invasion of press forever dogging a person's life- if only Lizzie had been better advised after the trial.

Or maybe she liked the attention?  Some attention, better than no attention- maybe that sustained her.

Edmund Pearson's 1927(?) book reignited curiosity in this case. His 1935 book practically convicted her in absentia. Curiously, Pearson seemed to have died not long afterwards, like Robert Sullivan ("enough evidence to convict"). Just a coincidence?

Creating a chart of each book and their verdict would show the interplay of opinions. But the fact remains that neither Lizzie or Bridget were ever convicted of the crime. THAT leaves an unknown whose identity was kept hidden, the only logical solution.

Would anyone else try to solve this?

I believe Lizzie could not speak about what happened on August 4, 1892. Her defense team as well as her personal experience with the criminal justice system (questioning by police, questioning by Knowlton at the inquest, hearing a judge say she was probably guilty, and ten months waiting in jail) must have impressed this fact of life upon her. There is a saying that goes something like this: "Keep still and be thought a _________ [fill in the blank] or open your mouth and prove it." Lizzie Borden had her acquittal and a new lease on life; better to be dogged by public opinion than the terrors of the law.

I don't know what people would have expected her to say.  If she said more than what she said before then they'll ask "Why didn't you say that before?" If she says anything different from her Inquest testimony then "Was she lying the first time or is she lying now?"

A lot of her Inquest testimony is simply not explainable.  But the public had read that long before her acquittal.

The sudden turn-around in the public's opinion of her has always puzzled me. As Kat pointed out there was that Providence Journal article but that in itself doesn't seem to me to be enough to turn it around that quickly. 

There was a spontaneous uproar of approval in the courtroom approving of the verdict; there was a huge crowd when she left the court house cheering and some even holding their children up for her to touch and there was the huge crowd around 92 Second St. awaiting her arrival.  Then, as Radin so appropriately called it, "The Blight".

We sure could use a few diaries for the period after her acquittal.

Nothing is more changeable than public opinion, and the forces that drive it. One day cheered with hosannas, the next week crucified.
Or take that speech from Mark Antony in "Julius Caesar".

I wonder if OJ Simpson will ever be rehabilitated? This week on "Law & Order" the crack was "even if Fuhrman planted the glove that doesn't prove that OJ was innocent". But what does it prove?

I'm glad of one thing. When I joined the predecessor site many there thought Lizzie was guilty and admired her for it; few of the present members do so. So maybe she didn't say all she knew; I think this was Uncle John's work - Andy trusted him a lot. Better to die without scandal that ruins a life. And could damage his businesses! IMO

Your "unknown" was not convicted either.  Nobody was convicted.  By your logic, nobody committed the murder.

If we are to believe that interview with Emma later on in life, she states that she and Lizzie had many conversations about the murder where she professed her innocence again and again.  I don't think that Lizzie really had anyone else in town who had a sympathetic ear and was ready to believe her story, farfecteched as it was.  I guess she couldn't be retried again, but, anything Lizzie might say after the fact could become fuel for the fire.  Silence didn't buy her much, but, talk is cheap and those around her could gossip to their heart's content, Lizzie was a free woman.  If Lizzie let a bombshell drop, there might be some substance to the town's talk.  Probably better for her to be an enigma than the known killer who got away. 

i take this to mean that (irregardless of legalities)-- that lizzie had nothing to gain by telling the truth about what happened.  i think people thought it was as simple as whether or not her hands swung the axe.  suppose it was actually complicated -- and that her role in it was so shameful that she actually preferred the "lizzie borden took an axe" reputation.  in fact, my current speculation is that this is the whole mystery.

Maybe Lizzie never said anything because nobody ever dared ask her. Obviously if Fall River families "didn't talk about it" amongst themselves, no one would have ever had the guts to bring it up in Lizzie's presence. Can you imagine what the difference would be in this forum today, if just one person had?

Lizzie could still be indicted as an accessory after the fact if she admitted she knew and didn't tell. Obstruction of justice?
AR Brown's quote from the Knowlton question "how many children has your father?" suggests Knowlton also knew; which is different from being able to prove it in court.

Now, you know this is not true. No one convicted = open case.

In my opinion, Emma soon found out what happened. She also decided not to speak; hearsay?

Rebello, 300

"Anniversary Articles

1893-1914

'August / One Year Ago Today the Borden Murders / Startled and Astounded the Civilized World and Yet the Murderer or Murderess Is Free to Walk the Street, or Visit the Scene of the Carnage,' Fall River Daily Globe, Friday, August 4, 1893: 8.

This was the first article published by the Fall River Daily Globe to remind the public of the Borden murders. The anniversary articles lasted for twenty years with the exception of 1908 when no article was published. They didn't end until 1914."


--Lizzie put up with ostracisim, innuendo, gossip, her sister leaving her and both changed their names, and yearly articles dredging the whole terrible scandal back up again- and still she didn't speak, nor moved away.
It's almost unbelievable that she couldn't just say something- lie- anything- comment just a bit without giving anything away, and at least appease the press, if not Fall River.
She could at least have kept up the reward notice.
Jennings was quoted in the press.  One story said he had followed a rumor for months and hoped to still solve the case but that it didn't work out in the end.

Maybe Eugene has something when he says he has a theory that what Lizzie was known for was better than what the truth really was?
(I can't imagine that tho...)

As I'm remembering that only interview Emma gave, she said that she
believed in Lizzie's innocence because no weapon was ever found.
She didn't know how Lizzie could have possibly gotten rid of the
hatchet.  Since I first became interested in this case, I thought of
the flat irons of the day as a possible weapon. I have a collection
of them (small, only 3) but they are varying sizes. "a sharp blunt
instrument" and how handy they were at that impulsive moment. 
 

I think Nanci makes a wonderfully valid point... And perhaps a topic for a thread of it's own.

Since a weapon was never really proven to be the actual instrument of death-- how do we know it was an axe/hatchet?  Can anyone be 100% positive it was?

***Maybe Eugene has something when he says he has a theory that what Lizzie was known for was better than what the truth really was?
(I can't imagine that tho...)***


this is at best a work in progress -- and in fact, a fiction.  but i'll say this again -- that a plausible fiction would beat anything we've got -- IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE LEGEND.  outside of poetic suggestions, i've failed to make the legend plausible.  the "shame" i'm imagining (could be truth, we haven't found the truth) -- would to my way of thinking have to do with what lizzie did that morning and who she did it with and how it was that she found herself with a murder on her hands.

i realize you're trying to encourage me.

can you answer this question?  what is a portuguese?  or who is a portuguese?  look at the statements.  they seem identifiable by sight and/or sound.  (i'm not talking about portugal, as far as i know.)  obviously, a portuguese was low class.  have you seen a picture of a "portuguese?"  do you know if persons thus "classified" by society worked at either of the two farms mentioned?  obviously this was an early suspicion and then dropped.  what is your sense of how much axe-work was a necessary part of the farm work?

and obviously i'm looking for a lizzie lover who did it -- though not someone who actually LOVED her.  the motive would have been self-preservation - leaving lizzie holding the bag.

the only reason i'm not arguing for lizzie's single-handed guilt is because of the circumstances of that last murder -- and the practical impossibility of lizzie having time to do anything but call for maggie.  was lizzie "set-up" by the murderer?  could she have been at the same time intimate with the murderer?

as far as lizzie speaking.......her side was pure defense.  i wouldn't expect her to volunteer evidence against someone else.  though i'm sure she knew more than anyone else knew. 

you know, if we ever have bridget's inquest -- there may be something there.  you notice knowlton's statement to lizzie that he has being trying to get information from her and miss sullivan and he has not been able to get it.

well, i don't want this to become stream of consciousness.  but where do you now stand on whether lizzie acted alone?  your trip to the house has unquestionably impacted your view on this.  we all know the legend is irresistible, but the impracticality of it really tips the scales.  we really are missing information.  in terms of evidence we now have, i can't see how we can piece it together. 

well, more later somewhere else...

http://www.rootsweb.com/~ussnei/tenement1879.htm
Here is a description of life in the mills for the minorities.
It doesn't include their religious preference or the effect their denomination might have on them.

I believe the Poutuguese were the lowest rung on the social ladder.
Does this have anythimg to do with the Trickey-McHenry story hinting at an ineligible suitor, not ammenable to Andrew?
(Gramma thinks where there's smoke...- I tend to think that way about some things as well..)

Is that worse than being thought a parracide, tho an acquitted one?

I'm not sure that there is such an amount of missing information that we can't eventually figure out the probable scenario.
Stef and I have come up with several, in our talks over the years- ones that can fit what we know.
The next-to-newest one I still really like but Stef has moved on.  I told it to the Interviewer- but I accidently left out 3 things (I couldn't think of all that we had figured under pressure of the camera).
But this just proves that I really still have no set stance- I enjoy the hunt.

After being in the house I will say this- if it helps you out-
That I found it bigger and more comfortable than I imagined and that there were 5 people in the house at once and when I wanted someone I had to go looking for them.   The connecting door to Andrew's room was open- and that could account for maybe not seeing ONE person. Otherwise, it was in no way obvious there were 5 people (one stationary in one room with the door closed) moving about that house.

Maybe a few..or even several posts back, didn't someone mention something to the effect that Lizzie loved attention even if it was negative ?  Therefore if she opened her mouth after the trial an the truth was told, maybe the focus would no longer be on her ?

Tracy...

Is that worse than being thought a parracide, tho an acquitted one?

Well, think of it like this: Even the ill repute of the acquitted murderess - no matter what, that would not change Lizzie's "class" standing; whereas the situation you mention (if I'm interpreting it correctly) such a thing would, in the eyes of her neighbors, send her to the bottom, rather than the top of the class.

Doug

Kat:

  I'm uncertain regarding the legality of the situtation, but wouldn't the offer of the five thousand dollar reward for the apprehension and conviction of the Borden killers be in force indefinitely, or at least until the demise of Lizzie and Emma?
If this is so, then there would be no need to reaffirm the offer.

Kat:
While it is true that we do not have a legal account of Bridget's testimony at the inquest, we do have the words of reporter E.H. Porter (History of the Borden Murders, pages 54 through 56).
Porter gives the impression that he was on the scene as Bridget answered several questions put to her by the authorities.
I could find no substance in the answers she provided that places us any closer to the solution of the crime.

(Message last edited Apr-14th-04  11:26 AM.)

Of course.  But you say that the fact that neither Lizzie nor Bridget was convicted leaves an unknown outsider as the only logical solution.  The fact that someone is not convicted does not automatically make them innocent.

Yes, but only those with guilty knowledge (an accessory before or after the fact) would be able to claim the reward.
AR Brown says JVM sent out those letters to keep them quiet. Does this sound reasonable as a cover-up?

While that is an interesting philosophical point, in fact a 'not guilty' verdict forever says they are innocent in effect.
But I'm not a lawyer, and others may comment on this.

Does President Johnson's 'not guilty' vote on impeachment say he could be guilty? Or what about President Clinton. What does the 'not guilty' say about Aaron Burr? Historical precedents.

This is a legal fiction which may or may not coincide with the truth.

(Message last edited Apr-14th-04  10:18 PM.)

I briefly thought of the irons, too, but they aren't sharp enough to cut Abby's hair or make cuts in the flesh as described.

A Portuguese: I'm in the minority today living in southeastern Massachusetts and not having any Portuguese blood. I think that over 50% of the population of New Bedford and of Fall River are now Portuguese: either "Mainland," Azorean or Madeiran. From the whaling day in the mid-1800s through the 1920s the Portuguese population in this area boomed. They were farmers, whalers, fishermen and unskilled mill workers. (The English and Irish were skilled mill workers, the French-Canadian and Portuguese were unskilled and provided cheaper labor until the textile industry moved south.)

Portuguese and French-Canadians were considered lower than the Irish, primarily because English was not their native language and they tended to remain socially and culturally isolated. As opposed to the Protestant "native" Yankees, the Irish, Portuguese, French-Canadian and Polish immigrants were all Catholic. They celebrated religious feast days, sang and danced in public, ate spicy foods and generally made the WASPs look even more like old sticks in the mud than usual.

Thanks for the elucidation on the ethnic groups.
When I mentioned that the minoritie's religious persuasian was not addressed in that article I linked- that's basically what I was trying to imply.
The immigrant's religious culture would be a large portion of their identity and that article left that out which made the point more of a "generic" ethnic person.
You described it well.
In those days the religion pretty much defined the person, especially in the New World where everything would be strange.

I was thinking more on Eugene's theory and I don't believe that Lizzie would fall for an immigrant because she was so tied to the status quo and society was so important to her.

That article did desribe how the houses were split among families which I thought was interesting as to our discussion of our questions about that re: the Borden house.
It did say the attic rooms would be shared by each family-
Like one floor -one family,  but the attics were shared.

(Message last edited Apr-14th-04  11:35 PM.)

I have no idea.  I don't know how we would find out.
Would that assume that the reward money was in escrow and held apart their whole lives ready to be disseminated?
Also wouldn't they revitalize the ad every now and then?

***I was thinking more on Eugene's theory and I don't believe that Lizzie would fall for an immigrant because she was so tied to the status quo and society was so important to her. ***

this refers to the lizzie we don't know.  since she did not marry she did not define where she stood on personal relationships -- publicly speaking.  i don't know that i can explain this -- but when i think of lizzie having an intimate relationship -- i think of secrets.  on an intimate level, what sort of person was lizzie?  what would have appealed to her emotionally?  how did she view herself in these terms?  would she have been attracted to someone of a decidedly lower social status?  i guess you're saying no because of what we do know of her social activities and her obvious interest in the finer things that money can buy, etc.  but on top of this is that her relationships are so private -- and something strange and mysterious -- for ex., that emma left her the way she did --  apparently because of "something that was going on" -- from this i presume some sort of involvement lizzie had with someone.  and i can't help but wonder if this "theme" dates back all the way before the murders.  actually, the only source i have for this is the bit of astrology available.  lizzie's "social standing" is a very strange thing in itself after the trial -- i mean, her situation is practically unique.  it seems to me -- intuitive deduction on my part -- that lizzie is a sad, lonely person.  and it would not surprise me that her taste, her attractions -- are in the direction of the "underclass" or "downtrodden" or "unfortunate."  of course, this is not public information -- we don't have this.  but i think even with her reputation after the trial -- had lizzie been interested in the kind of relationship that would have "elevated" her socially speaking -- she could have found it.

I am not an astrology expert, but is there a way to have Lizzie's 'chart' done ?(I don't know if that's the right term)  Maybe that could give us some clues ?

Tracy...

Here is the newspapers impression of what went on the day Bridget was taken to be questioned.  I read what Porter had to say, and it's a good reference you gave, but i don't think Porter was there during questioning, do you?
The timing is hard to imagine as well.  Pillsbury was in town and I thought things were suspended temporarily until he left town.  By 2 o'clock they have Lizzie down there and it was said the judge was very strict as to his lunchtime, so I don't know whetrher there was a preliminary questioning of Bridget prior to the secret inquiry.  They got her around 9:30 and the proceedure began at 10.
It's possible, if Porter is correct, that she was questioned from 9:30 to 10, when the official questioning began.
At 12:30 they broke for lunch.
The timeline of Bridget at the Inquest is thus:
Inquest
Tuesday, August 9, 1892:

9:30
Doherty gets Bridget and brings to Second District Court in F.R. Police Station   (Evening Standard, Wed., Aug. 10, pg.2, & Witness Statements, 13)
“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.”

10:00
“Inquest opened at 10 a.m.”   (E.S 2.)
Marshal called it “inquiry”.
Bridget first to be examined behind closed doors.

12:30 p.m.
“Hearing adjourned for dinner”.  (E.S. 3., & Porter, 55)
A leak of those inside – all of the above plus Judge Blaisdell, district officer Rhodes, and “the district attorney’s stenographer, Miss Annie Read (sic) and a couple of police officers who were among the first called to the house of the Borden’s last Thursday.”
“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.”

1:40 p.m.
“The city Marshal and Officer Harrington drove to the house in a hack”...where City Marshal Hilliard served a subpoena...”a regular summons to appear as a witness at an inquest” to Miss Borden.
________

The Evening Standard
"THE CRISIS REACHED.

Action in Borden Tragedy to be
Taken at Once.

Bridget Sullivan Locked in With
the Authorities.

Thorough Examination as to Her
Knowledge of the Crime.

[By Associated Press.]
Fall River, Aug. 9. --- This morning the servant girl, Bridget Sullivan, was summoned to the central police station.  She walked down in company with officer Doherty and talked quite freely on the way.  She looked very much worried and was quite pale as compared with her appearance last Thursday morning when seen first by a reporter.  She told the officer that it was hard to be watched so closely and to have one's private affairs torn to pieces.  She was willing, however, to have the police or anyone else examine her every action since the time she arose Thursday until she was asked to go to the police station with the officer.  She did not care to talk very much about the details of the family relations.  She allowed that she wanted to leave two or three times, but she was urged to remain by Mrs. Borden, of whom she spoke very kindly.
She was taken at once into the city marshals' presence and also into the presence of District Attorney Knowlton and Medical Examiner Dolan.  These gentlemen, who, with Judge Blaisdell and the two detectives, are now handling the case, do not care to be quoted as having given any opinion on the merits of the present status of it, but they all agree that affairs are at a critical point and action may be taken at once.
Miss Sullivan was brought before the gentlemen to undergo a thorough examination as to the facts before and after the murder as far as she knew them.
While the servant was in the district court room, locked up with the authorities, Mr. Morse was walking along through Main street, and down to the banks, closely followed by Officer Devine. "

....
"The public hasn't been told when the servant last saw Mrs. Borden, and it has no inkling of her observations on the second floor as she passed up to clean the window under the roof.  And so the police may be in possession of several points which throw light on the slaughter for them. "
.....

--This part came last in the papers but it's proper sequence describes the night before- Monday


"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."

On the 10th, partial remarks, on the previous days proceedings:


"Theories galore have been suggested, of course, and many of them have been tested, but none, with the exception of the one on which they have been proceeding, has been accepted.  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.

The former was not placed on the stand yesterday afternoon.  Attorney General Pillsbury arrived at the Mellen House before he was expected, and the district attorney, city marshal and others who were conducting the examination, left the courthouse immediately and engaged in consultation with him.  It is safe to state, however, that all the evidence, so far as the police are concerned, was in on Monday afternoon, and that they did not hope to add to their case by means of the more formal proceedings which were to follow."

--If your point is that Bridget is innocent because she acquitted herself to the officials, I personally don't think that is any proof.  These same officials failed to convict anyone for murder.  They must have slipped up somewhere.
I'm not saying that is your point, because I'm not sure what you meant.
But I found the stuff we need to help make a determination...
Someone may have a comment?

--This post was being composed during the printing of the 2 previous posts- it's in response to William
But I no longer think I know what his point was or his question-  He named me but clicked on haulover- so I thought it might be a combination of both of us.
But the point may be that the case can't be solved, not that Bridget was pretty innocent?


(Message last edited Apr-15th-04  2:38 AM.)

Supposedly Lizzie was kind of democratic in her treatment of her servants and that was possibly what disturbed Emma.
There is the rumor of Lizbeth's familiarity with her coachman, Tetreault, who was fired under Emma's regime and re-hired under Lizbeth's sole residency.
Maybe in the privacy of her home she was familiar with the servant but I don't think intimate.
That's just my opinion.
To be intimate makes her vulnerable and I just can't see Lizzie as that.
If we think she took her power by killing, why give it up again, to a man?
And if she did that with a low class peon or her friendly servant isn't she open to blackmail?

BTW:  I know a person named Tetreault and they are from Providence and we might find out something of that family.

The word is not "democratic" for the treatment of servants. This is one area I do have knowledge of from the very little my grandmother talked about. She said Miss Borden's employees were treated as family. I suppose that conjures up horrific images for some, but I mean family in a normal setting, not the extremes of Second Street.
Miss Borden would help in any way she could if there was a personal crisis being suffered by one who worked for her. One thing that impressed my grandmother was her kindness. Living there was like living in your own home. Civilities such as sitting in the library reading classics, having the privacy of your own space and sharing meals together all made for a really comfortable feeling and Grandma said there was nothing uncomfortable about living there, at all. She insisted that the only reason she ever left Miss Borden's employ was to go "acourtin'", to be able to attend the dances with the other young people and meet a young man. She later blamed the raging hormones of youth for making her do something she really regreted later. She always said she should have stayed on with Miss Borden and not let the foolishness of youth rule her head. There would have been plenty of time later to marry and have a family.

Gramma

Through the years a certain amount of mystery has surrounded Bridget's inquest testimony. The impression has been created that we might learn something of substance if we were in possession of this information.

I believe if there was an important avenue of investigation to be pursued as a result of her initial testimony, the option would have been exercised by the prosecution or defense when Bridget later testified at the hearing and trial. In other words, I don't think we would be any closer to a solution of the crime if we had access to her original statements.

(Message last edited Apr-15th-04  10:11 AM.)

Thank you Bill.  You can see I got all turned around by the time I was finished!
And you've said it so simply.

I can usually pull up a good descriptive word in a pinch - I only had third-hand knowledge of Lizbeth's treatment of her servants, whereas you have second-hand.
I did just look up "Democratic" in the dictionary to verify it meant what I meant:

'the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment, or the practice of this principle.'

It sounds like what you described.  Is it not?
Also, did Lizbeth require that her servant family did not marry?

The term "equality" does not really fit here. There was never any doubt about ones station in life. But the civility of treating people as human beings with feelings does apply.
Lizzie did not object to her "help" marrying. It was the work schedule that did not suit my grandmother's desire to attend local dances that made her leave. She left totally of her own accord just because she wanted to go out with young men and the schedule she had did not make that convenient.

Gramma

But Lizbeth agreed they had rights and deserved good treatment- sort of like the Golden Rule.

Thanks for the elucidation because her staff at the end seemed to be mostly unmarried ladies who figured in her will.
You are saying a woman might choose to be loyal in service under good conditions and not marry because they either had not the time or they were too dedicated?

it would be great except that we don't have birth time information.  you can look at the planets in their general configuration on her birth day -- and from that find some intersting things -- but you can't be very specific with just that info.  it's like having  a collection on dynamics without knowing just "where" to put them.

I would like to think Lizzie was kind to her servants for the right reasons.....

It does seem that she was decent to those that were decent to her.  Obviosuly someone in her employ would be nice to her but I also like to think that they were genuinly fond of her. 

I looked in my "etiquette"  book (Original Emily Post, 1922) and found this...

Are maids allowed to receive men friends?

Certainly they are!  Whoever in remote ages thought it was better to forbid "followers" the house and Nora or Marie or Selma slip out of doors to meet them in the dark had very distorted notions, to say the least.  And any lady who know so little of human nature as to make the same rules for her maids today is acting in agnorant blindness to her own duties to those who are not only in her employ, but also under her protection.

The fact that she works and lives in an employer's home makes her no less a young girl, with a young girl's love of amusement, which, if not properly provided for her "at home," will be sought for in other, and quite possibly dangerous, places. 




I think Lizzie was generous with her home and her hospitality.  She may very well allowed visitors.  On the other hand she may have been fearful of hiring new help as that was fraught with uncertainty.  "Will she like me?  Will she secretly think badly of me?" and may have discouraged them from leaving her.  This may also account for her generosity.

Thanks, Audrey, interesting info.  It made me wonder how Abby Borden handled Bridget's beaux, if any, that she had during her tenure there as maid.  I can't see her allowing the use of the parlor, but, maybe the kitchen or sitting room? 

Bridget is asked about beaux.  It's implied that they can meet in the yard or sit on the side steps, at least while she is at the house.

There is another factor not mentioned. From what I know about my grandfather, he was one of many from the same small European village that immigrated to America. I had relatives on the adjoining city blocks. That may be another reason for sticking together.

Even today (as immigrants to FLA) people from the same city or area will try to locate close together. Its more practical that way.

I doubt if a married servant would have lived in a small attic room!
It was more practical to hire a live-in servant who wasn't married.

I suspect this was the result from a shortage of good help in servants. If you want to keep them on, treat them well. As true today as then.

"You are saying a woman might choose to be loyal in service under good conditions and not marry because they either had not the time or they were too dedicated?"

Yes, that is part of it. My grandmother was very fond of working for Miss Borden. She was treated well and encouraged to better herself from what I can gather. It was the conflict in schedule of the local dances for young people that drove her to leave.
As for married people, Henry and Emily Cook were married. He as her chauffer for a time and she as her cook. There was no ban on married people as far as I can see.

Raymond, you are right about Lizzie being very cautious in who she hired and most of the time it was someone related somehow, or recommended by family or friends (yes, she did have friends). That limited her market for good employees drastically. It had to be someone she felt she could trust implicitly.
As for a tiny attic room, I was shocked when I saw the room my grandmother occupied! I had envisioned something as you imply. My first words to Mr. Dube were "Wow, this is rather large and bright for a servant's room, isn't it."  He told me that the travelling companion would have held a little higher status and be treated even more like family. There was a separate little dressing room and sink. It was a room I could have lived in very comfortably. Combine that with having the freedom to enjoy other parts of the house such as the library and kitchen and it becomes much like renting a room in a private home. Only you pay your rent by working for the landlady. And working demanded you be present on a day of the week you wanted to go out. Oh, well!

Gramma

As a practical matter, it is always wise to hire relatives than complete strangers for certain matters. You at least know their backgrounds.