Newbie observation

This the place to have frank, but cordial, discussions of the Lizzie Borden case

Moderator: Adminlizzieborden

Post Reply
Scott Crowder
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:52 am
Real Name: Scott Crowder

Newbie observation

Post by Scott Crowder »

EDIT: The impetus for making this post initially was the idea that Bridget should have seen the body when she went upstairs for her nap. However, I've now seen the map and so realize she took a different flight of stairs up to her room. However, I still feel that Bridget is a valid suspect and since there doesn't seem to be a way to delete a post, I'll leave that part of my post that deals with some of those suspicions here and just delete the references to her seeing the body.

Some of the things that trouble me about this case is that so many of the "facts" are actually only the uncorroborated testimony of the maid. One thing I know about murderers is that they sometimes give themselves away by trying to be helpful to the police in finding a suspect. The maid was very helpful in pointing the blame at Lizzie.

It was the maid who said Lizzie was heard laughing upstairs when she let the father into the house. Casting suspicion that Lizzie was with the first victim. It was the maid who said she could hear the screen door slam from her room - yet couldn't hear the sound of an axe murder striking - that cast doubt upon Lizzie having been outside the entire time since the maid didn't hear anybody enter. It was the maid who gives us our timeline - a timeline that many say is impossibly short for any murderer to have committed the deed and hid the evidence and cleaned up after.

A lot gets thrown out the window if the maid is lying about everything because she did it.

The maid claims she was washing windows when the mother was killed. But she could just as easily have snuck inside. She claims she made several trips to the barn. Who is to say she didn't go in the house instead on one of those trips? In fact, Bridget is the last person to officially see Mrs. Borden alive when Mrs. Borden told her to clean the windows. That may have been when Bridget killed her.

Meanwhile, Lizzie's story stands up to scrutiny. Per the same maid, Lizzie barely ate breakfast, feeling nauseous. Later, she went out to the barn to eat some pears. Makes sense. The police allegations that it was stifling hot don't add up for several reasons. One, it was only 83 degrees that day and two - again per the maids testimony - several people made several visits to the barn that day. The father, the maid herself, Lizzie.

What makes more sense? That Lizzie, knowing the maid is in the house, hopes Bridget doesn't notice her dead mother just lying there, then hacks her father to death while hoping the maid doesn't hear and/or catch her in the act? Or that the maid, seeing Lizzie heading out to the barn, takes her opportunity to kill the father?

Bridget stated she'd been to the cellar. She could have gotten the murder weapon then.

Was it Bridget who had stolen from the Bordens? Was she confronted by Mrs. Borden? Perhaps they were suspicious and she feared being caught? The Manchester murder had supposedly been a disgruntled employee. Why not this murder too? She is described as being "bold" when she discovers Mrs. Borden later, while Mrs. Churchill won't go near. Because Bridget's the murderer and she's already seen the carnage? Returning now to the scene of the crime?

Afterwards she mysteriously disappears. Then there's a rumor somewhere that she made a deathbed confession?
User avatar
NancyDrew
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:33 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Robin
Location: New England

Re: Newbie observation

Post by NancyDrew »

Scott: You might find it very helpful to read some of the archived posts...Here is one thread that deals with Bridget's timeline...

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... dunnit.htm
User avatar
Star
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:16 am
Real Name: Patricia

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Star »

Welcome, Scott. We know that Lizzie had a motive--a slew of them, in fact--but what exactly do you think Bridget's motive would have been? Being a poor Irish girl in a foreign country, she desperately needed a job, and with the Bordens she had one. There's no evidence that either Andrew or Abby Borden ever treated her unkindly, or were unfair in any way. Bridget actually was given more "time off" from her job than most of the neighbors' "Irish maids" AND she was paid quite well. It seems in fact that she was quite fond of Abby (I don't think anyone was very fond of Andrew, but there's no indication he mistreated Bridget), and she seems to have gotten along well with the entire family. In her later years she even confided in a friend that she had always liked Lizzie--even tho neither Lizzie nor Emma could ever remember to call her by her rightful name, she was always "Maggie" to them! Andrew and Abby, by contrast, always called her by her given name--maybe no big deal, but at least they could be bothered to remember it and use it which to me at least shows they regarded her as an individual, not just another in a long line of servants. There's also zero evidence that she ever stole from her employers--as an Irish Catholic servant she would have been the first person suspected, yet the police apparently dismissed the idea of her involvement almost immediately. Plus stealing from the family for whom you work was the surest way to lose your job--and you wouldn't get hired by anyone else after word got out that you had "sticky fingers"! (And need I mention Bridget's terror of the police? The very thought of being arrested and going to prison would have been more than she could take IMO.) And if she wouldn't have stolen from the Bordens, what are the chances she would have butchered them--not just one of her employers but BOTH of them? And again--WHY???

And there was no "deathbed confession". As an elderly lady--far out in Montana--she thought she was dying and sent for a friend. But she didn't have much to say, mostly that she'd always liked Lizzie and so on--absolutely nothing incriminating. She was tired and sick and asked her friend to return later after she (Bridget) got some rest. When the friend returned, Bridget was better and had apparently decided she wasn't dying after all, so whatever she might have wanted to confess went unsaid. I grant you, someone with a totally clear conscience isn't interested in confessing when she thinks she's at death's door, so Bridget MIGHT have had some secret that troubled her after all those years. Maybe she knew more about the murders than she ever admitted, even on the stand. But knowing--or suspecting--something about murder is a far cry from being a killer. In fact as I recall, she did admit to the friend that she had told the truth and only the truth at the trial--but not the WHOLE truth. So okay, she was hiding something. But again--perjury is a long way from two exceedingly frenzied and bloody hatchet murders.

Anyway--that's my opinion, for what it's worth!
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

Hello Star.
Regarding Bridget Sullivan, there was no deathbed confession, that's true.
There were no 'confidences' to a friend either.

I've been doing some intensive research on Bridget's rather mythical career in Montana and the persons responsible for these anecdotes. The results, which I'm about to post, show that none of this material can be true. I'm afraid it's high time we dismiss this stuff.
User avatar
Star
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:16 am
Real Name: Patricia

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Star »

Hi, Interested Reader! Well, so much for my "fascinating" discourse, lol--but thank you for setting me straight! I DON'T think Bridget had a hand in the murders--so to speak--but I know virtually nothing about her following the murders. I've heard about all the rumors, of course, but that's all they seem to be. And now the sickbed "confidences" appear to be another false lead! I would dearly love to know just what happened to Bridget after she left Fall River--I very much look forward to hearing what you've found out! :-)
Scott Crowder
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:52 am
Real Name: Scott Crowder

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Scott Crowder »

NancyDrew wrote:Scott: You might find it very helpful to read some of the archived posts...Here is one thread that deals with Bridget's timeline...

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... dunnit.htm
Thank you! I DID find something important in that thread.
On the top margin of page 17, though, there's a notation that doesn't fit with the accompanying text. Jennings appears to have written: "L says while she was sprinkling her clothes in the kitchen she saw B in corner of yard near street talking with a girl - I think Dr. Kelly's girl".
I'm using the layout of the house to place each person in each room every 15 minutes according to their testimony. At 8:45-9:00 there's a very huge discrepancy, the first of its kind but definitely not the last. These discrepancies always have to do with Bridget. This particular discrepancy is between Bridget's testimony and Lizzies. Bridget says:
Five minutes later Miss Lizzie came through to the kitchen. I was washing the dishes and I asked her what did she want for breakfast. She said she didn't know as she wanted any breakfast, but she guessed she would have something, she guessed she would have some coffee and cookies. She got some coffee, and she was preparing to sit down at the kitchen table I went out in the back yard. I had a sick headache and I was sick to my stomach. I went out to vomit, and I stayed ten or fifteen minutes.
But Lizzie says:
Q. Tell us again what time you came downstairs.
A. It was a little before nine, I should say. About quarter. I don't know sure.
Q. Where was your father when you came down Thursday morning?
A. Sitting in the sitting room in his large chair, reading the Providence Journal.
Q. Where was your mother? Do you prefer me to call her Mrs. Borden?
A. I had as soon you call her mother. She was in the dining room with a feather duster dusting.
Q. When she dusted, did she wear something over her head?
A. Sometimes when she swept, but not when dusting.
Q. Where was Maggie?
A. Just came in the back door with the long pole, brush and put the brush on the handle. and getting her pail of water. She was going to wash the windows around the house. She said Mrs. Borden wanted her to.
Q. Did you get your breakfast that morning?
A. I did not eat any breakfast. I did not feel as though I wanted any.
Q. Did you get any breakfast that morning?
A. I don't know whether I ate half a banana. I don't think I did.
Q. You drank no tea or coffee that morning?
A. No sir.
Q. And ate no cookies?
A. I don't know whether I did or not. We had some molasses cookies. I don't know whether I ate any that morning or not.
Q. Were the breakfast things put away when you got down?
A. Everything except the coffee pot. I'm not sure whether that was on the stove or not.
Q. You said nothing about Mr. Morse to your father or mother?
A. No sir.
Q. What was the next thing that happened after you got down?
A. Maggie went out of doors to wash the windows and father came out into the kitchen and said he did not know whether he would go down to the post office or not. And then I sprinkled some handkerchiefs to iron
See our discrepancy? Was Bridget already cleaning windows having long since cleaned up the kitchen from breakfast and did she almost immedieately begin talking to the Kelly maid or was she puking her guts out for an ungodly 15 minutes?

One of the things my layout exercise is also revealing is that if you believe Bridget's testimony, she is the slowest dishwasher on earth. But then, if the Lizzie timeline is true, then Bridget becomes the slowest window washer on earth instead. What happens is you have Bridget with huge gaps of unaccountable time unless, and ONLY unless you believe Bridget's version of events, which constantly are at odds with Lizzie's. And so many of these discrepancies keep getting shown to have been Lizzie was correct, not Bridget, that it is building a picture of a woman who is lying so that the police think they have a timeline of what she was doing that is not true.

I have no clue what Bridget's motive might be, but if she is lying, and I think once I post up the visual diagrams of the rooms and where each person was each 15 minutes, it becomes clear that Bridget is most likely the liar, then she starts looking pretty guilty.
User avatar
Star
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:16 am
Real Name: Patricia

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Star »

Okay, I'm willing to take a look and consider all the possibilities, but while it's true that in court no one ever has to prove--or even propose--a motive in order to convict a person of a crime, still most ppl don't just wake up one day and decide to slaughter someone--much less TWO someones--for no discernable reason.

I very much want to take a look at your diagrams, I honestly do--but I assume you're familiar with Lizzie's inquest testimony? Talk about "discrepancies"--whether she was guilty or not, had the copy of Lizzie's inquest Q&A been admitted into evidence, even her lawyers seemed to be convinced that that alone would have convicted her. Not to mention Eli Bence's testimony regarding Lizzie's attempt to purchase prussic acid ONE DAY before the murders. No wonder Lizzie's lawyers fought so hard to keep out both Bence's and the inquest testimony--it was an extremely lucky day for Lizzie when both were excluded. And both Lizzie and her defense team knew it.
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

Star wrote:Hi, Interested Reader! Well, so much for my "fascinating" discourse, lol--but thank you for setting me straight! I DON'T think Bridget had a hand in the murders--so to speak--but I know virtually nothing about her following the murders. I've heard about all the rumors, of course, but that's all they seem to be. And now the sickbed "confidences" appear to be another false lead! I would dearly love to know just what happened to Bridget after she left Fall River--I very much look forward to hearing what you've found out! :-)
Hello Star!
We've all been misled by what purports to be Bridget's subsequent life! Sorry - I didn't mean to sound sniffy about it. But it's the usual case of something very shaky solidifying into 'fact' - with Bridget, almost in desperation for want of anything else. What I've been doing is going down to the foundations - for one thing to find exactly who was telling these stories. I hope you'll find it interesting. I think the results are quite surprising.
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

Scott Crowder wrote:

I have no clue what Bridget's motive might be, but if she is lying, and I think once I post up the visual diagrams of the rooms and where each person was each 15 minutes, it becomes clear that Bridget is most likely the liar, then she starts looking pretty guilty.

Bridget Sullivan was about to marry but the man died - a month before the murders.

Discredited detective McHenry put this information in his report after investigating Bridget's past history. The claim was also made in several contemporary newspapers and may well have been known to the Pinkerton Agency, likewise detailed to checking out Bridget.

If true it's arguably the closest thing to an emotional precipitant anywhere in the case. I mean, why would Bridget snap over the windows! She'd been doing that three years without collateral homicide.
Scott Crowder
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:52 am
Real Name: Scott Crowder

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Scott Crowder »

Bridget claims she went outside and vomited for 15 minutes. She's telling us she was really, REALLY sick. If she was emotionally distraught at the death of her fiance, if she felt as if now she was trapped being a maid when she'd been about to leave that life behind, if she really was Very Sick Indeed and felt put upon for not getting the day off, and if Mrs. Borden was being a bitch to her that day, well....people have killed for less. But this murder doesn't seem spontaneous, after all, the killer brought an axe. So this was premeditated. Lots of things besides emotions spur premeditated murder, but the brutality of the crime rules them all out. It wasn't greed for example, it was personal.

However, if it turns out Bridget must be lying, that doesn't necessarily mean she is the killer, just that she may be an accomplice. In which case, her motive may have been something as base as greed, while the actual killer had the emotional precipitant.

What were the circumstances surrounding the death of her fiance?
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

I'm afraid that's all there is i.e. that appeared in print in 1892. There's a flowery version calling him her 'sweetheart' but no name, no cause of death. Today it's usually overlooked but I suppose there was something behind so bold a claim. It's quite a something to factor into the scenario, if it could be demonstrated to have happened (!).
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

Scott Crowder wrote:
NancyDrew wrote:Scott: You might find it very helpful to read some of the archived posts...Here is one thread that deals with Bridget's timeline...

http://lizzieandrewborden.com/Archive04 ... dunnit.htm
Thank you! I DID find something important in that thread.
On the top margin of page 17, though, there's a notation that doesn't fit with the accompanying text. Jennings appears to have written: "L says while she was sprinkling her clothes in the kitchen she saw B in corner of yard near street talking with a girl - I think Dr. Kelly's girl".

I noticed this too and it's been troubling me. For one thing Lizzie set up the ironing-board in the dining-room according to her testimony yet she's "sprinkling" those hankies in the kitchen?
Any-way...

The Bridget & Mary Doolan chat I've visualised as taking place to the fore of the plot, up front near the pavement. Well, could Lizzie see that from the kitchen window? I mean, in photographs it looks like that dividing fence ran pretty close along the side of the Bordens house, so how much scope of vision would there be? I can imagine you'd easily see that from above, from Lizzie's bedroom, but sideways at ground-floor level from the kitchen window?

I'm wondering if Nancy Drew has been to the house. Can you tell us if you would be able to see this area from the kitchen-window?

Edit ! to say, just been reading old forum posts and apparently you can... see that end of the fence from the kitchen window. :smile: Probably because the windows are fairly high off the ground.
Scott Crowder
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:52 am
Real Name: Scott Crowder

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Scott Crowder »

It will probably be a couple of weeks before I can start posting up the diagrams. I have other things going on this week. But when I do, I'll try to diagram out the entire yard and fences, and I haven't looked closely at the houseplans to see if the windows are indicated, but if they are, I can use some line of sight programming to definitively say what Lizzie - and others - could and could not see from their respective positions.
It may or may not prove anything, but it should at least be an interesting exercise.
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

Scott Crowder wrote:Bridget claims she went outside and vomited for 15 minutes. She's telling us she was really, REALLY sick.

Bridget, interviewed for the Boston Post, 20th August 1892:

'“Well, you can’t have any objection to saying whether it is true that you were sick on that day, and that you laid down because of that?”
“Well, no, I wasn’t just sick,” she said, in that slow way which is meant to qualify a term.'


There's nothing more to explain just what she means here. In fact Bridget refuses to say just what she means by it. The interview continues:

'And as she said this she went back into her own little bedroom - for during this talk, which was not as straight as is here told - but took little excursions one way and another of no general interest - she had gone over and sat down by the table and at a window, the outer [shutters?] of which were drawn. In the other room she was easily within conversing distance, but took advantage of her being there to make no answer at all when I asked her whether, not having been sick herself, she took any stock in the poisoning story.'


So Bridget later equivocated over her vomiting story. Was that because people were now looking to it to corroborate a poisoning attempt? Because that had become its significance?
Last edited by InterestedReader on Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Scott Crowder
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:52 am
Real Name: Scott Crowder

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Scott Crowder »

Could Bridget have been with baby? Could it have been morning sickness? And was her deceased beau just a kind fiction to give her alibi so there wouldn't be questions about who the father was? Could Andrew have been the father and that is what caused things to get out of hand? It would be good to be able to track Bridget during the next few months.
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

Perhaps she genuinely couldn't forsee any poison drama ahead when she first told of waking 'with a dull headache' and throwing up three hours later.

I tend to think she did vomit because there was nothing to be gained by inventing it. Except, of course, to put herself outside the house at a time she personally believes Abby Borden was being murdered.
Bridget and Lizzie both seem highly conscious that whatever they do outside will likely be observed - so Bridget was 'sick to her stomach', went retching outdoors, and supposed she was probably seen by someone.
It looks as if she wished she hadn't volunteered the fact, once talk turned to poison. Bridget cooked the food.

Was she pregnant?
Very unlikely - Bridget was sequestered by a 'job' at the prison for the next 10 months or so. She was under super-surveillance!
Was it migraine?
She's a trifle too active and busy the rest of the day. One couldn't call her debilitated, exactly.
A 'dull headache' might suggest low-grade food poisoning...

But I tend to think the most likely reason Bridget vomited was she'd seen the state of Abby Borden.
Scott Crowder
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:52 am
Real Name: Scott Crowder

Re: Newbie observation

Post by Scott Crowder »

I think Bridget vomited after the Abby killing too. I just wanted to leave no stone unturned. But the thing is, her timing of when she throws up doesn't jive in the timeline. As I think the visual timeline shows. It's precisely around that time that she is throwing up that her version of events starts to diverge from everyone else's.
It could simply be that Bridget doesn't remember things exactly as they happened. She thought she was still doing dishes, when in fact she had already thrown up and had already begun getting ready to clean windows when Lizzie came down. In which case her vomiting wasn't related to the sight of mutilated Abby Borden.
But I get the feeling the reason she moves things around in her timeline is because she's afraid someone saw her throwing up, so she mentions it, but she can't be seen throwing up when the murder took place because that's too incriminating. So she changes her timeline, only now it doesn't jive with anyone elses at that point in time.
mspitstop
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:52 pm
Real Name:

Re: Newbie observation

Post by mspitstop »

Very well observed, Scott! Have you read Radin's "Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story"? If not, do. He makes a very good case for Bridget as the killer and gives a very good timeline. Also, David Kent's "Forty Whacks". Despite it's unfortunate title, to me, it is the best book with the fewest errors you could possibly read. I've always had a soft spot for Bridget as the killer and a good argument can be made.
User avatar
InterestedReader
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:52 pm
Gender: Female
Real Name: Wendy A.
Location: UK

Re: Newbie observation

Post by InterestedReader »

Me too, I'm reading the Radin right now (ordered a copy on Amazon, and it has to be the mouldiest-mildewiest-smelling book ever but never mind)... Radin gets downgraded because of his silly idea about the window-wash driving Bridget to murder, and some of his research is very flawed, but it's a conscientious and quite well-written book which, as you say, is really worth reading. He makes some sound points. The most thought-provoking section is where Bridget's account of events is set alongside Lizzie's in an analysis of the discrepancies.

I'd likewise recommend it to you, Scott, because Radin aims to demonstrate Bridget's mendacity. It's my impression that any involvement on her part is dismissed far too readily by students of the case; the rationales for Bridget's innocence are just as glib as those for Lizzie's guilt. Radin took a different approach in 1961 - in all the years since, has there been much else focus on Bridget Sullivan's viability as killer?

(Myself, I tend to the view that neither one - Lizzie or Bridget - could commit the murders without the other being aware of it.)
mspitstop
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:52 pm
Real Name:

Re: Newbie observation

Post by mspitstop »

InterestedReader, I'm sorry your copy is so mouldy!!!! For years I had my original paperback which was in tatters until I found a new copy on ABEBooks.com, a really terrific site. When Radin wrote his book in 1961, virtually his only predecessor was Pearson who wrote in the 1920s and 30's and was convinced of Lizzie's guilt. At the time there were few copies of Porter's Fall River Tragedy available and Pearson had read it and quoted liberally from it. Porter was the only contemporaneous writer on the subject. Radin also was the first writer to read the trial transcript. Even as far back as 1990, the only copy of the trial transcript was on microfilm in the Boston Public Library and you weren't allowed to copy it without permission of the Chief Justice of the Mass Supreme Court. I know, because I sat in the BPL one snowy weekend then and read the transcript and took notes. Now there is so much source material available it is easy to become an armchair expert. I agree that Radin's theory is no more ridiculous than many others proporting Lizzie's guilt. And I agree that no one has done a better job of breaking down Bridget's testimony and contrasting it with Lizzie's than Radin. Also his timeline is really excellent. The mystery to me is not so much WHO did it but HOW did they do it in such a short time!! When you're done with Radin, I suggest you move on right away to David Kent's Forty Whacks, to me, the best and most evenhanded of all the books. He doesn't really have a theory but he believes in Lizzie's innocence (as do I most of the time) and supports that premise very well without letting all the facts get in the way. He wrote two books, FW and The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook and they were published posthumously shortly before the Lizzie Borden Conference in 1992. What a shame! I would have loved to meet him and talk with him. He wrote the book that I would have written, in terms of his regard for the case and what made it so endlessly interesting.
User avatar
NancyDrew
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:33 am
Gender: Female
Real Name: Robin
Location: New England

Re: Newbie observation

Post by NancyDrew »

I am so glad this thread has started. And I can't wait to see more of Scott's timeline pix! I have always maintained that Lizzie didn't kill Andrew (she may, however, have killed Abby) and that both she and Bridget knew more and saw more than they ever revealed. There is simply too short a time span between when Andrew was came home and was discovered, (still warm and oozing fresh blood.) Lizzie was too clean, too spotless.

But what I wonder about is how these two women (Lizzie and Bridget) kept their secrets for so long under such INTENSE media and public scrutiny. How did they not 'crack?' Did they go over their "stories" before hand; rehearse them to each other? Lizzie's only admitted testimony is confusing, but not really damning. Bridget never wavered in her retelling of the events...she must have had nerves of steel.
Post Reply