1. "I Could Just Kill Lizzie Borden"
Posted by haulover on Jan-18th-03 at 12:36 AM

i mean this partially in humor.  but in part, seriously.

instead of being so determined to keep her mouth shut, she could have said something after the trial.  she said nothing.

and so she leaves us with this mystery to solve, which we can't seem to solve.  we'd like to find her innocent, but she doesn't let us do it.  she looks guilty, but we struggle to find some explanation that lets her off.

but all those unanswered questions:  she refuses to help us, when (guilty or innocent) she could put so many questions to rest. 

lizzie borden improves her station in life, ignores the obvious questions about the crime, and tries to act as though nothing ever happened.

while we struggle to piece it together, she takes a secret with her to the grave.  determined to tell nothing, she dies with the knowledge. 

sometimes i hate her in that she could have made what we're trying to do so much easier and chose instead to be evasive and aloof.

sometimes i get sick of this, and i blame lizzie borden for it.

what's your point?

I think the point is VENTING frustration, which if Lizzie's Inquest is deeply studied, some of us reach that point at sometime in our progress.
Coming here and being able to say "I am FED up with these Shenanigan's" is like therapy.  Really.
I understand because I too have hated Lizzie and I had Stefani to talk to about it.  It releases something, to be able to say it.
I'm not even sure if it's not a *right of passage* to actually FEEL this and then move on to being more detached.

When I look at the O.J. case I was the same there too.  He was rich and a minority (like Lizzie as a female) became *infamous* and was ruled not guilty and never TOLD.  Rewards may be posted, a statement made that the person will not rest until the murderer is caught and then he moves to Florida and plays golf, as Lizzie moved to French street and *enjoyed* her new privledges.

If O.J. didn't do it , AND he is protected by having been already tried & acquitted, then why not explain the circumstances surrounding the deaths Truthfully--and the suffix of that word, notice, is FULLY.
SO, if these people are Not guilty, why do we not see them trying to find the murderer?

IMHO, O. J. Simpson was the murderer of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.  However, I don't think we can expect him to tell us what really happened, because he's representing himself as guiltless and claiming he never went near the crime scene on the night of the murders.  He may even believe that himself.  Basically, he HAS told us his version of what happened that night, even if he didn't do it on the stand in the criminal proceeding.  It's different with Lizzie.  Everybody knows she was there, and she never denied it.  Whether she went to the barn or not, she had to be very close to where two murders were committed.  It's terribly hard for me to believe she didn't see or hear something untoward.  Of course, Bridget was there too, and I wonder if she told all she knew.  Hacking somebody to bits with a sharp weapon isn't a silent crime.  It takes exertion on the part of the killer.  I would think it would have been possible to hear grunts, groans, blows struck, a body (Abby's) falling, whatever.

I can't say that I've ever hated Lizzie, but, frustrated by her, oh yes!  Shes like a puzzle box that you keep trying to unlock and you turn to get all the angles and may get halfway and find out that what you are trying doesn't work.  Remember Rubik's Cube?

Perhaps the reason neither Lizzie or O.J. have never said another word was so that they themselves could believe that they were not guilty or ever involved in these media spectacles that they were.  In Lizzie's case, the thought of possibly ending up in jail again after her prolonged stay could have something to do with it.  I think that would take alot out of a person.  I realize they may be protected by law, but, look how their lives are still under scrutiny, every move that they make ever after.  People point and whisper as they go by, can you imagine what it would be like if they suddenly said, yes, I did it?  If innocent, by all means they should be able to talk and clear the air which neither seems to be able to do. 

Think of it this way.  Perhaps one day you might be the accused. You didn't do anything or do the crime but you were in the vicinity and as far as anyone knows is the most likely suspect. You are tried and found not guilty. How would you live the rest of your life...give interviews at every opportunity professing your innocence?....since you don't know anything about the crime what CAN you say?...how would you convince people you really were innocent so next generations wouldn't be confused?...how could you make people understand you weren't deliberately thwarting them by not speaking because you don't know anything....how could you counter those who without any proof know you did it?

Isn't hate a pretty hard word to use against a person you don't and didn't know personally? Sometimes you remind me of Dave, perhaps it is the use of the small "i's".

carol:

i get your point.  i use lowercase because it's easier. 

i understand personal dignity and the aloof attitude that seems to result from it.  and i have thought about what it was like for an innocent lizzie borden to live out her life with this crime attached to her. 

i know that she knew more than she told, even if she's innocent.  it is maddening to me that she gets away with it.  we're trying to solve something that lizzie borden herself did not want solved.  it may be that lizzie herself did not strike abby and her father with the death blow, but she was not ignorant of what was going on in that house that day.  there is something shitty about the fact that she never had a word to say about it.  someone mentioned oj simpson.  well, he has given interviews.  lizzie never did.  not one damn word from her after she bought her property on the hill.  and with that was her denial of herself, changing her name to lisbeth.  it looks like she mastered the art of denial.  we have no record of an honest lizzie borden.

kat:

that's it exactly.  for a time it's interesting.  but there is a point where i can't stand to be jerked around by lizzie borden.  recently i let it get to me and i just gave up.  and venting--yes, i was venting.  damn her evasions and contradictions -- this is not an honest person.  personally i would not have anything to do with a person like this.  to ask a question twice and get a different answer each time.  to listen to irrelevant details outside the point of the question. 

I just wish that knowlton had been stronger and pressed harder toward the end.  but he felt much as i do.  he basically threw up his hands and said, to hell with it, i can't get anything out of her.

and that's what we're left with:  the ridiculous testimony of someone who is either guilty or trying to cover for a guilty party. 

i say i hate her, because if she's guilty she is a disgusting individual who should expect nothing but hate.  if she is innocent, i could hate her anyway for standing in the way of a solution to the crimes.

I agree with you, I don't think she was required to spend
the rest of her life insisting she didn't do it. She was
found not guilty. If she did it & she did indeed get away with
murder, the judge & jury let her do it. She didn't do much
to help her own defense.

I don't think her talking about the crimes would have changed many opinions.

If you felt she was guilty before you would have probably considered everything she said after a lie.  If you thought she was innocent you probably thought she was right in not speaking at all.

When you see O.J. or hear him on the crimes, does your opinion change?

What I always wondered was why she stayed in Fall River.  Once Emma moved she had no real family there.  Cook and Jennings (and whatever lawyer followed him) ran the financial side of things.  I think the defiance helped build the legend and to further isolate her.

What happens to the concept of personal responsibility?
If she did it, she clams up, gets a lawyer (A Female does this in 1892!!)and puts her fate in the hands of HIGH -Priced Council.
Saying the justice system is responsible for her getting away with it if she is guilty, is sickening to me.  (Not you, dear, the concept....because I'm sure that does happen)..

Other than that, I see people like snipers being walked to and from their hearings in Bullet-Proof vests.  This is a person who shoots a bunch of people, then is scared to die by being shot, so is protected by a vest.  What about their victims.  I'm sure they were scared to die and they had no bullet-proof vest!
Then this person, who obviously did it, pleads NOT GUILTY.
I think that is sickening.
If they want to kill people, and they sneak up on them and DO that, why not say they DID IT?  Because the law protects them, when they couldn't protect the victims?  I don't know why they don't proclaim the courage of their convictions which is "I just wanted to kill the S.O.B.'s!"  (I know this sounds naive, but it is a gut feeling of disgust)

Again, I say, a not guilty person should persue with all resources the true culprits and that would speak louder than words.

(Message last edited Jan-19th-03  9:01 PM.)

Oh, I agree Kat.  If she was innocent Lizzie certainly had the financial resources to hire detectives to pursue the killer.  That she didn't make a serious effort to do so says volumes.  The only thing that I know of that was done was the offer of the $5000 reward.  Lizzie thought it was her idea.  Sounds more like Jennings'.

I don't think her publically speaking about it would have helped much. Actions do speak louder than words though.

I understand what you mean, but I get so annoyed when people
who are judges & jury members act like they have nothing to
do with people being set free when they know damn well they
did it. They get their fancy lawyers & walk out like they
are innocent. I think the judge & jury are just as responsible
as the one who actually does the crime when they allow them to
get by with it.

Harry, you so smart!
You must have known to check here at half-time to reply so quickly!

"...If they want to kill people, and they sneak up on them and DO that, why not say they DID IT?  Because the law protects them, when they couldn't protect the victims..." The answer is some people do admit to their crimes, some don't.  Some people have a conscience and some don't.  Some people think they will get away with it through the court system which puts the burden on the prosecution to prove it., etc. Human nature. Think back to the last time you did something you weren't so proud of and how soon it took you to apologize or fess up. We all have been in such positions, although not as extreme as murder.

"...Again, I say, a not guilty person should persue with all resources the true culprits and that would speak louder than words..."
The Borden sisters did put the reward in the paper.  The police might have come down on Lizzie quite hard if she would have hired a detective to do what the police could not do? The police weren't shown in too sharp a light during their investigation, do you really think they would have wanted Lizzie Borden to show them up? THEY were content to not pursue other people, they are the ones responsible under our system to this job.  Also, there is the old adage, me thinks she protests too much.  If someone goes around professing their innocence people become suspicous too. The Ramsey's have been professing their innocence for years now and supposedly trying to find the killer, does this mean just because they are doing this you think them innocent? They might be they might not.  If Lizzie had gone after others people would have come down on her too, saying now she was free even though guilty she was trying to hang an innocent person for the crimes and it would have entirely changed her character as during the investigation she herself eliminated other suspects.

"...I think the judge & jury are just as responsible
as the one who actually does the crime when they allow them to
get by with it.." This happens, and there have been some news shows where they have interviewed jurors who didn't vote their conscience, were bullied into a unanimous vote and later recanted and said they were wrong.

Well, of course Lizzie and Emma DID hire a detective briefly for some purpose.  He didn't hang around for very long (highly suspicious, that), but they did put forth the effort, probably on advice from Mr. Jennings.  I was surprised to read in "Victorian Vistas" that Lizzie and Emma were still advertising that reward in January of 1893.  I don't know how long they kept it up, but the book does have one sample of the ad that dates from 1893.

Well that is the year of her trial, right?  She looks good posting a reward until her trial.

But what about after her trial?

And Carol, that was a rhetorical question and was really stating a Feeling...about someone admitting they *did it*.  I think I have a few years under my belt, (gratefully) where I really don't need that explained to me, thanks anyway.  (This is a FEELING thread, after all...)

But when you say oh the public or Me might think this or that no matter what Lizzie did [or Ramsey's or whomever], that doesn't convince me one bit.  i said actions speak louder than words, and I also now say that it is not done for public comsumption, but for personal satisfaction and closure to want to hunt down and find the murderer.  She can use the victim's money to do it, too...that is fair, & responsible.
I'm talking about personal responsibility and NOT *appearances*.

I live in a small town & having to be on a jury is dangerous,
the families of the people on trial threaten you, I guess
this goes on everywhere???? I have never been called for it
and like to think I couldn't be bullied into letting anyone
get by with anything --- but who knows what one might do to
save their own neck?

if i put myself in her place, and i'm innocent, i am calling reporters to my house and giving interviews.  i'm writing articles. if an embarassing relative did it, i am saying so even if i don't wish to give details.  the verdict is done.  i can say anything. 

or am i wrong and this is not actually true?  or do i fail to understand what it was like for such a women in this predicament at the turn of the century?

i suppose it's possible that she wanted to stand by her innocence and reject any challenge because that was the most practical thing to do?

After Lizzie was arrested, and through the waiting period for trial and through trial and at end of trial, Lizzie had Women's Groups supporting her.  She was a sort of rally point for a while...a cause.  If Lizzie had maintained these backers after trial, I think she could hve accomplished much in the way of using these resources to help find a murderer.
And those who may claim her a feminist, should follow through and expect Lizzie to stand up & speak and try to resolve the mystery, at the least.  She had the benefit of that support.
She could have done anything, and I think she would have been helped.
She had money, she had a Name, she had backers in her corner, she easily had the ear of ANY newspaper she cared to contact...she really was in a brilliant position to set about finding  the truth.

But She retires quietly...to rest her nerves?  and these women's groups fall by the wayside, a special and unique opportunity is lost.
Then her business man of affairs apparently is set on the WCTU, and they leave the AJ Borden Bldg.  There are conflicting reports as to how this came about.

Opportunities lost...bridges burned...no looking back except on the anniversary date when the annual article comes out.  New friends..change name...Emma leaves...Why doesn't Emma keep searching, either?

(Message last edited Jan-21st-03  1:56 AM.)

I wonder if it wasn't something to do with the time period?  I remember reading some of the reports about how the Borden girls lived their lives in such a way that the breath of scandal never touched them, of course until the murders happened.

I wonder if that was what a lady was supposed to do in a situation like this where your name was linked to scandal, not talk about it and hope it went away on its own?  If Lizzie actively sought out ways to try to keep the search for the "killer" going, it also would keep her name in the paper more and more tied in with the scandal.  I realize this may sound farfetched, but, I'm trying to put myself in a woman's shoes from a different era and a totally different way of life than what I know as a woman today.  Even my one grandmother was brought up with the idea that a lady's name was only supposed to appear in the newspaper 3 times in her life; the day she is born, the day she marries, and the day she dies. 

(Message last edited Jan-21st-03  2:31 AM.)

Yes, I agree.  But when I brought up these women's groups, it was to show that they selected Lizzie as a cause, and the implication to some, through the years was that Lizzie was a Feminist.
Surely you've heard of that view of Lizzie?  I'm saying, if she truly was, then THAT was the time to proclain an alliance, and be supported through the search for a killer.

That she did fold her tent and slip quickly away from these groups does make her seem as if she just wished to be left alone.  That she wasn't affiliated with these groups, and may have been bewildered by what they may have expected of her after her release.

This point being that she wasn't therefore any feminist, just "Lizzie Brorden, confused Orphan."

I hope I'm not too cynical, but aside from "protection" there is another reason for wearing an obvious vest. So if there is somebody out there, they'll know where to aim!!!

Perhaps this was just a way to distract attention from the "cousin", as per AR Brown's book. Aside from the obvious "I'm not guilty, I offered a reward".

Do you know why rewards are seldom offered nowadays? Too many false claimants that foul up the investigation?

(Message last edited Jan-21st-03  6:32 PM.)

If you actually KNOW who is guilty, why didn't you testify as a witness?

Thankfully, I have never been a witness to nothing.

But I'm sure a lot of people who get arrested actually
do the things that make you get arrested. And I'm sure
that they get away with doing them because other people
allow them to. It takes a village I think??????

Yes, I have heard of the view that Lizzie was a Feminist and took the hatchet to her parents as a demonstration against the patriarchial society.  What a strange thing for a group of Feminists to attach their cause to, such a violent act.

I read of children nowadays successfully sueing their parents, if Lizzie had done something along those lines I can see those women championing her.  I think it must have been a heavy and trying time for Lizzie with jail and the trial, anyone in her corner must have been considered a godsend.  But, I have to wonder if she didn't fear these groups, saying that she did it and this is why, I wonder if she and her council didn't feel as if it might hurt Lizzie's case?

After the trial, I'm sure Lizzie had enough of being thrust in the spotlight of scandal and wanted out.  And, Lizzie got off, which it seems as though was what these women wanted, no more cause to champion. 

yes.  that she wanted to erase her past life and start over anew makes her look guilty to me. 

as i say, there may be a psychology and the expectations of an era at work that i don't understand.

i've read that she lost the support of many who had believed in her innocence because she never came forth with an explanation or a clarification of anything.

as a 41 year old male in 2003, i think -- as best i can anticipate such a thing -- i think that if i were brought to trial for the murder of my parents and i was innocent and was found not guilty, and i knew that many believed me guilty anyway -- i would have to do whatever i could to vindicate myself.  for one thing, i would write a book explaining what i knew of the events of that day and answer to the best of my ability every question surrounding me.

do you know if she continued attending her church after the trial?  at some point, she broke it off, didn't she?  i mean, that whole group eventually faded out of her life. 

i guess it's possible that she resigned herself to defeat as far as public opinion was concerned and did not feel she had the will to fight it.

There were stories in the papers that Lizzie had been shunned at church, that the ladies may have pulled their skirts away for fear of touching her.  And That was why She could not abide being in the church group anymore.  There were stories that she was vindictive and was getting back at those who shunned her by kicking the WCTU out of her father's building.

She couldn't turn around and fart without them writing news stories about her.

They wrote up the Tilden-Thurber scandal.  They had yearly articles, on the anniversary of the murders.  They printed a story when Lizzie and Emma decided to split up their portions of the Borden Building.  They wrote stories that she was going to compose a play, after befriending Nance.  She could have left town, but she didn't.  If she wanted to be left alone she could have moved away.
Maybe if she had realized that she could manipulate the press for her advantage, every bit as much as they manipulated stories about her the rest of her life, then she could have used that organ for the good of helping find the murderer.
You'd think it would have sunk in that she was infamous and thus her reputation was already ruined by scandal, whether innocent or guilty, so why not go all the way and speak up?  They might have left her alone for a while if she had spoken.
Maybe some irrepessible part of Lizzie didn't mind too awfully much being so well-known....better than a *nobody*?

Anyway...what about EMMA?  I asked this before.  If she really believes Lizzie is innocent why not take her share and hire a search for the killer(s)?

How thoughtless of her not to have considered how people one hundred years into the future would be inconvenienced and stumped by her selfish aloofness. Some people! The least she could have done for us was to admit everything so we could rest easy! How can one know what we'd do after a year-long ordeal of murder and trial which may have resulted in a death sentence? Most likely one would want to put the whole thing behind them and move on.

(Message last edited Jan-22nd-03  10:48 AM.)

Yes, I've read those stories, how cruel women can be at times.  There doesn't seem to be any reports of men reacting like that towards Lizzie.  You would think that they would be the ones that would be freaked out by her, that man-killer.

I think that she should have tried to manipulate the press too, since she was in it so much.  But, that is one quality about Lizzie, her stubbornness, she was aquitted and that was that.  Who were these people not to believe that, you can almost hear her think.

Once again, with Emma, I wonder if she just didn't want the whole thing to disappear, what scandal to the Borden name!  Here was her sister/child thrust in the public spotlight.  God/dess how she must have suffered!  I wonder how people in town viewed her?  Did they look at her and go, theres that Lizzie Borden's sister, poor dolt, she thinks Lizzie is innocent.  Or was it more like, that poor woman, how much must she endure?  I wondered if neither sister spoke to the press on advice from Mr. Jennings, sounds like something he might suggest?  Maybe at that point in time neither cared so much about finding the killer, Lizzie was off the hook and they were both incredibly wealthy. 

Well, we keep hearing here that Lizzie was acquitted and *that was that*.  Meaning she could have gone either way and we question the way she did go...her choice to not speak.
But I have been wondering about, and waiting for someone to bring up the possibilty of further proceedings against her and that may be why she didn't purposely publicize herself, after.

By that I mean I wonder if they had civil suits back then for wrongful death, which would make her elligible to be sued by Abby's family, for her portion of the estate if Lizzie was found guilty in civil court.
I don't know if that was an option under the law at the time, but if it was, and if the rules of determining guilt or innocence were as lax as at Preliminary, then that would be something a guilty person OR an innocent person would certainly want to AVOID.

I was leaning toward this as a pretty valid reason, but since no one brought it up I thought maybe it was known that such a case was not an option--that Whitehead's and Fish had no recourse?

Didn't AR Brown write that in those days, a parent could do just about anything to their children short of killing them? Still true in some parts of the country?
In Europe it is now illegal for any parent to merely hit their children. England is under pressure for this. How does it work out over there?
I once read that Native Americans never hit their children for fear of revenge when they were grown and their parents now weaker. Is this true then or now?

i don't have any idea what they did back then.  but i can tell you what i think about the wrongful death concept against someone who has been found innocent.  it is an unjust concept.  it is a corruption of the justice system. 

I know that OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex-wife and her visitor. And that the later civil trial was most unjust. Note that Petrocelli rushed to trial to take advantage of OJ's notoriety!

However, it is still true that the proof for criminal guilt is stricter than for civil fault. Example: somebody with "two beers" hist and kills a pedestrian on a dark street. He is found 'not guilty' of manslaughter. But a civil trial could find him guilty of something. We do not live in perfect world.

I was under the impression that OJ's civil trial seemed rushed (?) because of the Custody hearings about to determine the children's guardianship, and whether they would be handed into joint custody with the Browns.

Petrocelli's book says he rushed to take advantage of OJ's notoriety, because he wasn't sure what would happen in the future. As I remember it.

Maybe it's both.
I do remember being shocked at the quickness of the civil suit and the custody hearing--didn't the custody issue get settled before the civil trial was over?  Was that an ace in his pocket that he thought would make him look good at the civil suit to already have family court award him some custody?  I'm a bit behind in my study of the case...it's been awhile.  But I remember thinking he was using those children.
Anyway, he's got the kids and he's STILL notorius.

As I've been looking around the Trial again I found today:
Emma, pg. 1569, testifying in response to Matron Reagan's assertion that the sister's had had a disagreement, and that Lizzie had turned her back on Emmer for the remainder of the visit.  The visit supposedly ended when Jennings came to the jail *cell* and wanted to see Lizzie alone.

I kind of wondered about that.  Emmer is going to pay for half the defence expenses and she is Lizzie's sister, and you'd think they would share stategy with Jennings--IF Lizzie had told her everything.  So why would they need to speak alone?  What would be the secrecy, and I wonder how Emmer felt about that?

"And Carol, that was a rhetorical question and was really stating a Feeling...about someone admitting they *did it*.  I think I have a few years under my belt, (gratefully) where I really don't need that explained to me, thanks anyway.  (This is a FEELING thread, after all...)" 

Am happy to hear your belt has a great many notches in it but I was responding to the group not just yourself, because I thought my opinion OK to post too, a valid one on the subject. Can't people both think and feel on this thread?  I recommend Starbucks decaf.

Maybe the reason other people didn't take Lizzie to trial again was because ordinary individuals didn't have the resources, just like today.

Is there ANY privacy in a jail in those days, or now? This is not lawyer-client privileges.

Both Texas and Florida have Homestead Laws that protect an individual from taking property as the result of a civil suit (I'm not a laywer). How much justice could he get in Calif? And FLA is a better state with less racial prejudice, some say. (Hispanic population.)

Would OJ have been in the deep doodoo if his second wife was AfroAmerican? I DON'T think so.

(Message last edited Jan-28th-03  6:10 PM.)

The comment made by Carol recommending "Starbucks decaf" to Kat was out of line. I thought it was a nasty thing to say.

The police did a lot of work following up suspects before the trial.  They even travelled to check out leads.  Evidence of such is in many sources.  After the trial, I wish they would have tried Bridget.  But they had the same case against her as they did Lizzie - even less.  I think, tho, that they could have gotten some sort of confession out of her on the stand, or before her trial with more, harder questioning.  Remember how she cried and carried on when someone came to pick her up for the inquest, and she thought she was being arrested?  It could have been she was just scared.  Or there could have been something else behind it. It seemed like one little push at the right moment and out the beans would spill.  Maybe she didn't do it, but maybe she knew more than she let on.

I have never understood why Bridget was not considered a suspect the same as Lizzie and treated the same way.  Maybe there are more police records of questioning her than we know of.

I can perhaps understand why Lizzie and Emma didn't search for the killer after Lizzie got off.  Firstly, I think it WAS Lizzie.  And it didn't matter what people thought afterwards - she was free and couldn't be tried twice. So why bother?
But there wasn't any love lost.  They both hated Abby.  I don't think they had it in their hearts to want to find out who killed her.  I don't know how they felt about their father, but his death was terribly convenient for them.  Like, why rock the boat? 
However, there is one reason that sticks out in my mind why they should have continued looking - if they didn't commit the murders.  I'd think they would want to know for their own sakes.  Why did someone kill them?  Are we next??  

AR Brown explains it all: the trial and payoff to the politicians was to cover-up the crime. Many said it was to get Lizzie off; that was also true. Note how this 'parallax view' from Brown explains the many questions around this case. That's why it is the 'final solution'.

Petrocelli's book explains how this trial was fixed (special laws, etc.). The jury was carefully chosen; those who said they believed OJ did it were NOT excluded from the jury!!!

Hello, Augusta!
You and I are on the same wavelength today!
I got up today thinking about Bridget.
If she was in the house and Lizzie was in the house (for either or both murders) then she SHOULD have been equally suspected.
And the more I thought about it the more ridiculus it seems to absolve  (before a trial) Bridget of  having anything to do wth the murders. 
She was in the house during Andrew's murder then she must know something.
Just as people think Lizzie Must Know Something about Abby's killing, bacause she was in the house at the time.
Also, a *killer* as *professional* might have more reason to kill them all, and not just the main target (whoever that might have been).
Therefore there is a Reason Bridget was not killed and Lizzie Was Not Killed.

That is a good point that Augusta brought up, why wasn't Bridget suspected more?  It seems the police are going on the testimony of a couple of witness' to Bridget being outdoors cleaning windows and then Lizzie's word that though she was in the house when Andrew was killed, she was upstairs, and therefor couldn't have done it. 

And theres poor Bridget's level in society, a menial and Irish to boot during a period of prejudice towards the Irish.  I have to wonder why she wasn't scrutinized more?  Did the police or someone on the force know Bridget?  Know for sure that she wasn't capable of committing murder?  Why latch on to Lizzie only?  Was it perhaps because they thought that Bridget had no motive and nothing was stolen and she was still around the house?  Hmmm, sorry, thinking out loud here, very curious. 

Muriel Arnold in The Hands of Time gives Bridget a motive to kill Andrew.  She was supposed to retrieve some important papers for Morse.  They were in cahoots.

I was also thinking of those windows and those people who were loitering nearby outside, Mrs. Manley and Mrs. Hart?
THEY didn't mentioned seeing Bridget.  They were outside the Borden house at about 9:45 A.M.  When asked, specifically, Mrs. Manley  tells of a stranger that she DID see near the Borden gate.  But no Bridget. (Prelim., 459)
Mrs. Dr. Bowen, who was looking out the window diagonally across the street, didn't mention seeing Bridget.  She WAS looking North, but movement across the way should have been noted by her.  That was about 10 or 15 minutes before 10:55.  At periodic intervals.  It's still possible that it was within the time frame as to when Bridget says she entered the house and started on the inside windoews...but barely...and if clocks were off, not too likely she would have seen Bridget if she WAS finishing outside.  (Prelim. 480+481) 
Mary Doolan, the Kelly's maid, made no statement that we know of as to the time she was with or the conversation she had with Bridget.  (She is in the W.S., but it is not specified as a recounting by herself, Doolan).  Bridget says she doesn't see anyone outside (other than Mary?)  No one see's Bridget other than May Doolan about 9:30 (we THINK--We don't really have documentation on that), Mrs. Churchill see's Bridget at  about 10 A.M. throwing water on a parlour window {Inquest, 126), and George Pettee  says he see's her at 10 A.M. standing in front of the front door area, with her pail & brush stuff.(Trial, 645)

So Bridget goes up to her room later and also says she didn't see anyone when she looked out her bedroom window.  (that is the 11 A.M. time.).(Witness Statements, 3)
Even LIZZIE says she didn't see Bridget, or else she implies she, at the least, did not Notice her. (Inquest)
Bridget could have been doing just about AnyThing.
We can say sightings of her were at 2 different times... Approx. at 9:30 at the Kelly fence with Mary Doolan, possibly.
And approx. at 10 A.m. for a minute by Pettee and a minute by Mrs. Churchill, Or however long it takes to throw water up on a window.

Some excellent points Kat.

Why Mary Doolan was never sworn as a witness has also been baffling to me. If for no other purpose than to support Bridget's testimony and to help eliminate Bridget as the killer of Abby.  I would have thought the prosecution, since they were prosecuting Lizzie, would want Bridget's alibi to be as strong as possible.

I don't mean just taking a statement from her by a police officer (if one was taken) but having her testify before the jury.

She could have also testified whether she seen anyone suspicious lurking around the yard.  Heck, everyone else was asked that. Why not her.

Yes, I agree, how strange that Mary Doolan was never pinned down with this important question.  It seems as though the police take Bridget at her word and don't do much checking into it.  Do you think it may have been because some of the police officers were Irish themselves? 

If the police took Bridget's word as the truth, what was wrong with
everyone else? I think they could have gotten a lot out of her,
I mean she was crying already it would have been a piece of cake.

A craxy killer would not think rationally like you or me. They are never serial killers, because that requires too much racionation.
Dahmer was NOT crazy in the legal sense; he knew right from wrong, and was able to conceal his crimes.

Think of the average person who runs amok and kills strangers in a mall or restaurant or public place; usually kill themselves at the end.

Continuing.
Bridget was not in the house when Abby got it; she was upstairs out of sight when Andy got it. No reason to do her too.
Lizze was also out of sight when Abby got it; she was outside when Andy got it. No reason to do her either.
My reasoning from Brown's solution. I hope you will agree with the logic of this answer.

(Message last edited Feb-5th-03  7:59 PM.)

What's the point you are making, Ray?  That seems to be the differences in Organized Offenders and Disorganized Offenders.

Our murderer was probably Organized, because of the lack of clues, or evidence, and the ability to lie in wait and to plan and to hide a weapon.

If you consider your suspect disorganized then you may have to make your case.

[edit here:  Your EDIT wasn't there when I composed my post asking you your point, Ray]

(Message last edited Feb-5th-03  8:19 PM.)

What a conversation to come in the middle of! Personal thoughts aside, what if Lizzie didn't know? I mean yeah she could have probably given other leads, more then likely o a loved one or something. I personally don't think I could do that myself. So many things involved, you have to blame someone for the big mystery. Someone knew, right? Someone was not saying as much as they knew. Yes she looks guilty, and she was in the vacinity(sp). But overall we don't know for sure. As for hating Lizzie, that I can say honestly, I have never done. Then again, I cannot think of anyone I hate. A few people that I dislike, but could never hate. It takes way too much energy anyways. Lizzie didn't give interviews, but then again, it's a different time now then it was then. Would it really have changed anything if she did? I mean either way she wanted to get on with her life. I mean even her supporters during the trial made it hard for her to do that after the trial was over. What all can you expect from the woman really? Now days people are more outspoken then they were back then. If they have a problem with anything, they sure make it known. Murders get caught by bragging about the fact that they did it nowdays. Something that wouldn't have happened back then. Lizzie, and anyone who associated with her is dead now. So if by chance she told someone or something to that effect can never be known right now. Ya know, it makes ya wonder though, seeing as how people tend to confess things on their death bed, if by chance someone else got the information passed onto them, ya know? For now mostly all we have is speculation, and a big group of studiers, and wonderers, etc. So I can't hate Lizzie, because she did just what Lizzie would do, and what that is for sure, we will never REALLY know. But it's fun to guess!
  Red

Somebody asked why either Bridget or Lizzie survived the massacre. They were not witnesses to the acts. Does anyone believe otherwise?

I've always thought they survived it because they were
less ugly than a lot of other people. If it was really
a stranger who did it, maybe "they" had other plans for
Lizzie & Bridget. It could happen.....