The missing Inquest testimony.

[Harry]

In a previous thread, Lyddie, in part, asked: "What happened to Bridget's statement at the inquest? Her answers to questions immediately after the crime would be so helpful. How did they lose an entire witness statement? ..."

There is correspondence in Knowlton regarding attempts by Adams to get a copy of Bridget's Inquest testimony.

Page 195, document HK188. This is a letter (dated approx. mid May 1893) from Adams to Pillsbury which says in part:

"Knowlton says you have Bridget Sullivan's testimony before Inquest and that we may have it. Therefore I ask for it - Please send by bearer. ..."

Note: Underlining is per the document.

On May 17, (page 196, HK189) Pillsbury writes Knowlton:

"Adams called upon me for Bridget Sullivan's testimony at the inquest, saying that you have referred him to me for it. I am very sure that I have never had or even seen it, and a careful search of the office discloses no trace of it; and there is no one in the office who has any recollection of ever having seen it. I think you are misled by the fact that I have a copy of Lizzie Borden's testimony at the inquest, but I am very sure I never saw Bridget Sullivan's. ..."

Note: Emphasis in bold type is mine.

Then on the same day, May 17, Pillsbury writes Adams (HK190) saying essentially what he told Knowlton. He had Lizzie's but not Bridget's, a search was made, etc.

So if these letters are truthful, neither Knowlton nor Pillsbury, had copies of Bridget's testimony. Why would Knowlton send Adams to Pillsbury (who in effect was Knowlton's boss) for a copy if he had one himself? And why would the defense wait until mid May, about 3 weeks before the trial, to pursue this important testimony?

There are a lot of questions to be asked and answered.

[william]

While it is true we do not have a verbatim copy of Bridget's inquest testimony, we do have a report which appears to be largely ignored when any discussion of this subject takes place.
In his book, "History of the Borden Murders," a general account of Bridget's testimony is given by E. H. Porter, police reporter for the Fall River Globe (see pages 54 through 56). Porter documents her replies to several questions put forth by the interrogators. You mighjt be tempted to assume from this that he was present during her testimony, until you read the following lines from his book: "As the inquest was held behind doors closed and doubly guarded by the police, there was no way of finding out what had transpired within."
So how did Porter know how Bridget responded to these questions? Did the police or some other informant provide him with this information? Was he given a copy of the secret testimony?
It is generally thought that Bridget Sullivan's Inquest testimoy did not differ in substance from the responces she gave at the Hearing and Trial. In short - no surprises.

[diana]

At trial, when Robinson is cross-examining Bridget, he makes reference to her inquest testimony and appears to quote from it.

Q. You testified at the inquest?
A. Yes, sir. ...
....Q. Did you, in answer to this question, "Did they talk pleasantly?" say "Yes, sir" and "they talked over things at Christmas, and if anything was the matter with Mrs. Borden, Lizzie did all she could for her"? (trial:258)

Later, he appears to be reading again from her inquest testimony:
Q. Now do you recall what you testified at the inquest about their eating together? I have asked you about it. Have you a clear memory about it now?
A. I don't know if they asked me anything about it.
Q. Well, were you asked this: "Did she generally get up to breakfast?" And you said: "Very seldom, she generally came down about nine o'clock."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. "And then helped herself to breakfast?"
A. Yes, sir. (trial:265)

The quotation marks are as they appear in the transcript. But this doesn't mean he had a copy of the entire transcript. Maybe these 'quotations' were just from notes made by the defense at the inquest.

And at the end of her examination at trial there is a definite difference of opinion between Bridget and Robinson as to the contents of her inquest testimony. Robinson says that Bridget testified that Lizzie was crying when she called her downstairs. Bridget admits that Lizzie was "excited more than I ever saw her." But when Robinson tries to introduce this as a quote from the inquest:

Q. "Was she crying?" "Yes, sir, she was crying." Bridget flatly denies it:

A. Well, that must be wrong; I couldn't say that.
Q. That must be wrong?
A. Yes, sir. I didn't say that, for I couldn't.
Q. So your memory is better today then it was then?
A. I don't care what my memory is, I didn't see the girl crying. (trial:341)

[Harry]

Terrific sleuthing Diana!!!

That would mean the defense must have acquired a copy between the middle of May and the start of the trial. Certainly Robinson would have shared the copy with Adams and there would have been no reason to request one from Pillsbury.

Just maybe that copy is in the sealed Robinson files in Springfield. Anybody know how to pick a lock?

[Kat]

That's good stuff you guys.
Bill that's a good question as to where Porter got secret inquest testimony.
Here is the relevant part from Porter which you pointed out, which sounds made up or contrived from news stories and Old News stories at That, and therefore old, original mistakes, like when Bridget supposedly first told that she was upstairs washing windows on her floor rather than napping:

"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 answered 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 down-stairs and resumed window washing on the third floor, which had been begun the preceding day. She might have seen Mrs. Borden as she went up-stairs. She could hardly remember. Mr. Borden had already left the house.
The witness went up into the third floor, and while washing windows talked down to the sidewalk with a friend. She went on with the windows and might have made considerable noise as she raised and lowered them. She heard no noise inside the house in the meantime. By-and-by she heard Miss Lizzie call her. She answered at once, and went down stairs to the first floor, not thinking of looking about on the second floor, where Mrs. Borden was found dead shortly afterwards, because there was nothing to make her look around as she obeyed Miss Lizzie’s call. She found Mr. Borden dead and Lizzie at the door of the room. The last point touched was the letter sent to Mrs. Borden warning her that she might be poisoned. Bridget said she knew nothing about this matter at all. Bridget finished her testimony shortly after noon and then returned to the matron’s apartments."

[william]

Kat, I've just finished reading the microfiche readouts of the Fall River Globe re. the Inquest.
The reporter, whom I assume to be Porter (he was the police reorter For the Globe) has very little to say on this subject. He provides no detailed information about Bridget's testimony. This is in sharp contrast to the statements he made in his book.
How do we explain this discrepancy between Porter's book and his column in the newspaper? Was he given secret information at a later date from someone who was present at the Inquest? Or did he filch items from the columns of his colleagues in order to augment his contribution to the book?

[Kat]

Ity sounds like a steal. Other authors and reporters did that.
Weren't the first reports that Bridget was washing windows on the the third floor instead of admitting to be taking a nap?
There is a question even there if that improper explanation was made up and then followed up and explained away by printing that Bridget didn't want to have seemed lazy.

I also recall a news report that she was talking out the window to a friend.
Is this in the Sourcebook?

[Susan]

How interesting! I was under the impression that Bridget's Inquest testimony disappeared over the years, not during the Trial itself! Wow! I wonder how that happened? Was it some sort of hanky-panky or simply mislaid paperwork?

[lydiapinkham]

Thank you so much, everyone, for all the sleuthing. It all gets curiouser and curiouser. I really don't know whether there is a conspiracy or sloppy bookkeeping here, but evidence seems to disappear and reappear at the wave of a wand (or of wishful thinking). Bridget's reaction to the crying statement could be genuine--or not. What is one to think?

--Lyddie

[lydiapinkham]

I just thought of a strange possibility. Could they have been bluffing at trial when "quoting" from inquest testimony? That is, saying, "Isn't it true that you said" thus and so, when thus and so is based upon memory rather than hard copy? Could that be part of why Lizzie's testimony was found inadmissable? Because it was based on Porter's findings rather than a word-for-word court record? If I understand this correctly, it all begins to sound highly irregular. Have I followed this properly?

--Lyddie

[Harry]

Lyddie, the first part of your post (about bluffing) is quite possible. That's an old lawyer's trick to make you believe they have something they don't. Despite the inquest being super secret word always gets out at least about some of what went on. Walls had ears even back then.

Lizzie's inquest testimony was ruled inadmissible for several reasons. At the time she testified Hilliard already had in his pocket a warrant for her arrest. He knew she was testifying without her knowing about the warrant. She was in effect testifying against herself. Defendants need not take the stand for that very reason. An inquest is supposed to be used to determine the cause of death not to gather evidence against a known future defendant.

The other reason was that she was denied legal counsel during her testimony, while in effect being under de facto arrest.

[Doug]

Harry, I agree that a copy of Bridget's inquest testimony may well be with the Robinson file. It would seem that both sides in the case would have had copies of this testimony readily available to them before the trial, even if they had to ask the stenographer for "another" copy.

[Kat]

Fall River Daily Globe, Tuesday, August 16, 1892 Page 7 HEW

"The social plane, (and this is a matter of no consequence) which Andrew J. Borden and his family occupied, was not exalted. His habits and those of his wife and daughters were those of people who were enjoying a moderate income. They did not want for the necessaries, but they certainly were pinched as to the luxuries.

Close economy was practiced in this household and it was an economy under which many young ladies would be unhappy. Unless Miss Lizzie's friends misrepresent her, she chafed under the pecuniary restrictions which she felt were needlessly imposed. If the GLOBE is in error on this point or on any point connected with this case, it will gladly make corrections. It has been stated that the relations between Miss Lizzie and her father were the kindliest possible. That may be, but she thought that he was close with her and she complained to advisors outside of the family circle because she could not pay for certain privileges to which she believed that she was entitled.
As a plain matter of fact she could not dress, or travel or live

As Many Girls Dress,

travel and live whose fathers have not half the wealth attributed to Andrew J. Borden. Perhaps she did not crave for these things and her intimates state that she did not, but the fact remains."
......

This sounds just like Alice Russell's Inquest testimony:
151+
Q. Their ideas were more modern than his with regard to the way of living, do you mean?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. How did you get this, from the girls talk, or what you observed?
A. From what I observed. Everybody knew what Andrew Borden’s ideas were. He was a very plain living man; he did not care for anything
different. It always seemed to me as if he did not see why they should care for anything different.
Q. Did they complain about it?
A. Yes, they used to think it ought to be different; there was no reason why it should not be. They used to think it might be different.
Q. Lizzie or Emma, or both?
A. Both.
Q. There never was any wrangling between them?
A. No, I never heard any. They had quite refined ideas, and they would like to have been cultured girls, and would like to have had different advantages, and it would natural for girls to express themselves that way. I think it would have been very unnatural if they had not.
Q. He did not give them the advantages of education that they thought they ought to have had?
A. I dont know as it is just that; but people cannot go and do and have, unless they have ample means to do it.
_____

"Go" ="Travel"
"Do" = "Live"
"Have" = "Dress".

Are these things *leaks* and if so, and on purpose- by whom?

[Harry]

Makes you wonder who those "friends" of Lizzie were. Maybe Alice Russell was among those interviewed.

I find it hard to believe though that Alice would have revealed much about Lizzie to a reporter.

[lydiapinkham]

They do have a way of getting people to tell things they don't mean to tell by lulling them into forgetting they are speaking to the press. I don't think Alice would have deliberately given Lizzie up--at least, not at this stage--but by accident, maybe.

--Lyddie

[Kat]

Here are the people who were inside the room during certain inquest testimony:

District Attorney Knowlton, State Officer Seaver, Marshal Hilliard and Medical Examiner Dolan, and soon after they were joined by Mayor Coughlin.

“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.”

--This was the first day when Bridget was called. I suppose there are leaks a-plenty with this many attendees. I don't even know who "Rhodes" is.