1. "Bridget & Knowlton & A Piece of Paper"
Posted by Kat on Jun-20th-02 at 11:32 PM

In the Preliminary Hearing, pg.s 48-50, Bridget is asked a series of strange questions (which sound "Objectionable" to the court, to me).  They are based on the knowledge that Knowlton had shown Bridget a piece of paper after her day's testimony, that had maybe *half a dozen words on it*.  (Harry brought this up when asking if Bridget could read).
I believe an author (Arnold? Masterton?) recently gave a theory as to what the words were which were shown to Bridget...and I was impressed, but can't find it in my notes.

The series of questions themselves seem indicative of exactly what the defense is most concerned with...they're tipping their hand, so to speak, so anxious are they to find out what was on this piece of paper:
[THE NOTE WAS REFFERRING TO....?]

Something you had said somewhere?
Something you were going to say?
About a groan?
About a note?
About laughing up the stairs?
About saying words slowly?
Simply read them to you and said Nothing?

--Does anybody remember what that AuTHOR opined was in the note?  I remember thinking, "AH!"

--PS:  I have the trial on disc OPEN at the moment...Does anyone have a specific question that I can look up for you?
I'll be open an hour or so....kk

[EDIT HERE:  The trial disc is now closed for the day.  Maybe tommorrooo...at the same time....] 


(Message last edited Jun-21st-02  1:40 AM.)

I have neither author, so, I cannot check on it.  But, I would love to find out, you have piqued my curiosity, Kat!  And you know what curiosity did to the cat. 

Curiosity killed the cat
But satisfaction brought it back!

Exactly!  I guess thats why I keep coming back to the forum?    And you know what Lizzie did to the cat!

Masterton, page 171: (Earlier he quoted "The New York Herald" of August 6 as saying that Bridget, the only person in a position to know except Lizzie herself, had said that Lizzie wore the same dress all morning on August 4 and that there was no blood on it.)
"At the preliminary hearing, Bridget appeared to contradict what she had earlier told reporters on the subject.
Q. (Adams) 'When you saw Miss Lizzie at the foot of the stairs, at that time when she gave the alarm, what dress did she have on?'
A. (Bridget Sullivan) 'I could not tell you.'
Q. (Adams) 'What did she have on that morning?'
A. (Bridget Sullivan) 'I could not tell you.'
Obviously, 'I could not tell you' would be taken to mean, 'I do not know,' but other interpretations are possible.  Remember (Chapter 4) that, at the preliminary hearing, Bridget admitted she had been coached by the prosecution on one aspect of her testimony.  She declined to tell Melvin Adams what instructions Knowlton gave her but did say that he read a statement of about a half dozen words.  Do you suppose it was precisely five words, i. e. 'I could not tell you?'"

(I don't recall anything in Muriel Arnold's book about this, but I'll double-check later.)

Those identical answers sound like a rehearsed testimony? (If true.)
Writers say Bridget's testimony was NOT favorable to Lizzie, and wonder just why the rumors say she was paid off to leave America.

That's great Edisto!
I've been wondering about that for a year.
I'm gratified to still find that author's answer to what was in Knowlton's note as impressive a deduction as my first reaction.
Thanks.  kk

Yes, great sleuthing, Edisto!  And if our Bridget couldn't read, I guess they couldn't just hand her the slip of paper, they would have to have read it to her to be sure that she understood.  Boy, talk about a rehearsal! 

Hmmm...very interesting comment, Susan!  If Bridget couldn't read, it wouldn't be of much use to give her a piece of paper with a "script" on it.  Maybe she was able to read???

Well, while I can't speak for them, Harry and Kat also have tossed around this idea.  This may sound strange, but, do you think it is possible that while Bridget was in Ireland that she learned to read Celtic in school?  And when she came to America learned to speak English and not read or write it?  I wish that someone would do a book or study on our Brdiget's life prior to working for the Borden's, so little is known about it. 

Preliminary Hearing, Bridget, pg.48+

Here is the testimony.  Maybe it reads differently than my paraphrase, so you can have the info you need to make your own determination...

Q.  Where did you go when you left the court room last night?
A.  I went down in the office to wait for a carriage.

Q.  In the marshal's office?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Did you have any talk down there?
A.  No Sir. Of course there was words passed to me.

Q.  Did you have any talk about your testimony then, or later?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Since you left the Court Room last night, have you talked with anybody about your testimony?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Has it been read to you, or your attention called to any part of it?
A.  No Sir, I did not hear anything of it read.

Q.  Did anybody have any talk with you; did the District Attorney talk to you last night?
A.  Yes Sir, he said a few words to me down in the Marshal's office.

Q.  Was the Marshal there?
A.  He was around there, I do not know whether he was listening to me.

Q.  Who else was there?
A.  I cannot tell who they were.

Q.  Did they have any testimony, or anything, written out, or any paper which they showed you last night?
A.  Mr. Knowlton showed me a little paper.

Q.  What kind of a little paper?
A.  I do not know what it was.

Q.  Did you look at it?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Was it in writing?
A.  In printing I think.

Q.  Was it something that you had said somewhere?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  It was. And had you made some mistake?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Was it something that you were going to say?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Something that you had said at the other hearing?
A.  No Sir. What I said was all right.

Q.  I understand that. What did he show you the paper for; do you recollect?
A.  I do not know.

Q.  You read it, did you not?
A.  No Sir, I did not.

Q.  You saw it was in printing?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  He handed it to you?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  You said he showed it to you?
A.  I said I saw it.

Q.  Was he talking about that paper when he showed it to you?
A.  No Sir. He read a little of it.

Q.  Was that something that you had said?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  When had you said it?
A.  I do not know when I said it.

Q.  Did you say it yesterday or at that other time when you were in this room?
A.  I do not know.

Q.  Had you said it at all at any time?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  Had you forgotten all about it?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  You remembered all about it?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  How much do you think he read to you, quite a little?
A.  About half a dozen words I should judge.

Q.  What were those half a dozen words?
A.  I dont know.

Q.  You dont know?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Cant you remember?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did anybodyelse show you any paper?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Was anybodyelse there beside the marshal, you say he was around there?
A.  No Sir. The marshal was not there with me then.

Q.  This was in the Marshal's room, in the open room there?
A.  I was sitting down there in a chair, waiting for a carriage.

Q.  Was it in the marshal's room, the open room there? It was not in a private room, it was in the public room, was it not?

A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  What time did you get home last night?
A.  I could not tell you.

Q.  You did not stay long down there?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  You did not stay long in the room down stairs?
A.  I waited for a carriage, that is all.

Q.  I do not know how long you waited for a carriage, you know.
A.  I do not know either myself; I did not have no time.

Q.  Did you get home to supper?
A.  Yes Sir.

Q.  About six o'clock?
A.  I could not tell; I suppose so.

Q.  You did not see anybody after that last evening?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Nobodyelse showed you any paper last evening?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  No one has shown you any paper this morning, or any printing?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Or read any half a dozen words to you?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Were those words that he read to you last night anything about this groan that you testified to this morning?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  How do you know they was not?
A.  I know they was not.

Q.  I thought you could not remember?
A.  Well, they was not about that.

Q.  Were they anything about the note?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Were they anything about the laugh up stairs?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Were they anything about her saying words slowly?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Yet you cannot tell us what they were about?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Did he ask you any questions about them?
A.  No Sir.

Q.  Simply read them to you, and said nothing?
A.  Yes Sir.

Thanks, Kat.  But, hunh?  What are they driving at with that little piece of paper that Bridget didn't or couldn't read?  6 words were read to her for what purpose?  They didn't ask about what she had said, just read it to her?  I don't get it, maybe I'm just not getting the picture here.  All this questioning that amounts to nothing.  Why? 

"I COULD NOT TELL YOU."

It's brilliant.

If Bridget is used to saying "I don't know", "I don't remember", "I can't tell..."
then reminding her to say these kinds of non-answers is lying without lying.
They ask her about the piece of paper and what was written on it (which I can't believe they were allowed to do!), and she truthfully says "I could not tell you., " or "I don't know"-  THAT is what is written!  It's like "Who's on First?"--the schtick that Abbott and Costello used to do...a guy NAMED "WHO" worked first base...so they say  "Who's on First." 

As Edisto said, it's ambiguous enough to be the truth...and a reminder to Bridget as to what her answer can be without truly lying...

(Message last edited Jun-22nd-02  9:19 PM.)

You know, Susan, the more I think about your question, the more I wonder along the same lines as you.
My primary question was to have the answer as to which author contrived an interesting explanation as to what that note said.

Now the question becomes..."What's the big deal about this piece of paper?"
Why does the defense Care SO Much about what is written there?
You've got me wondering why they went so far as to *show their poker hand*, to get an answer...

Most of what I cited in my post was a direct quotation from Masterton.  I don't necessarily agree with him.  I do note in the long passage quoted above that Bridget seemed to be in the habit of saying "I could not tell you," or words to that effect.  While it sounds a little odd (I myself would probably say "I don't know" or "I don't remember") it might have been the result of her Irish background.  I've always wondered why Bridget wasn't able to say what Lizzie was wearing before and after the murders.  Maybe it was short-term memory loss that resulted from the shock of the killings...Or maybe she and Lizzie really were in cahoots, which of course would change the complexion of the entire case.  A couple of weeks ago, I got some traumatic news, and I soon noticed that my short-term memory had been wiped almost clean.  This trauma was nothing like being a near-witness to two bloody killings, and my memory (such as it is) did return, albeit slowly.  Maybe something like that happened to Bridget.

Oh, okay, that makes a little more sense when you put it that way, Kat.  I can be dense at times.  It is brilliant!  But, it does seem to be alot of questioning going nowhere, unless it was to say, we know what you did and we are bringing it out in the open, don't play games with us? 

Need I point out that "I could not tell you" has different implications from "I don't know" or "I can't tell". The first implies that I know more than I am telling.
"I could not tell you who took that extra piece of pie" is different from "I don't know".