Bridget Sullivan
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
Deputy347k9
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:28 pm
- Real Name:
Bridget Sullivan
Basic records indicate Bridget Sullivan was residing in Anaconda, Montana by 1897. Married John M. Sullivan, a smeltman, in Montana in 1905. Does anyone know what become of Bridget? Did she have children? Passing during 1948, where was she laid to rest? Did she ever grant any interviews after leaving the Borden home? When did she leave Fall River?
Respectfully,
Deputy347k9
Deputy347k9
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:14 am
- Real Name:
Bridget remains an enigma.....
There is really very little known about her later life.
Legend has it tha at one time she was near death and sent for a close friend to make some sort of confession to-- According to this rumor she had the need to unload. She recovered without making any startling revelations and did not "confess" to anything.
All of this is, again-- rumor.
There is really very little known about her later life.
Legend has it tha at one time she was near death and sent for a close friend to make some sort of confession to-- According to this rumor she had the need to unload. She recovered without making any startling revelations and did not "confess" to anything.
All of this is, again-- rumor.
-
lydiapinkham
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:01 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: new england
Auds, I believe that rumor has more merit than most. Some time ago there was a thread on the forum giving credence to the story by way of the head librarian in Butte, where the friend lived. Kat, didn't a forum member verify her story by phone? (That the friend went to the librarian for books about "real murders," checked out all Borden materials to learn more about what Bridget had told her, then returned looking baffled as ever.) I've always found it a tantalysing tale--not too flashy to be true, but enticing just the same!
(Please, don't anybody ruin it for me!)
--Lyddie
(Please, don't anybody ruin it for me!)
--Lyddie
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
--I'm sorry, but this part is Victoria Lincoln:
Pg. 312+
"Then I read a book that set her forth as the true criminal and stated that she had died in Butte, Montana. (1) Its author told of having been permitted to examine the sequestered documents and Mr. Jennings' pocket memorandum book for the period. The lead seemed worth running down; and it was.
The story I now give you comes from Miss Mollie O'Meara, for thirty-five years head of the Butte Public Library and now retired. She is a charming and intelligent woman with whom I enjoyed talking, and I believe her to be wholly truthful; but I must remind you that her story is essentially incapable of being checked, since she had it from Minnie Green, now dead, who had it from Bridget, who died some years before Minnie.
Minnie had been Bridget's girlhood friend. When they first came to America together, Minnie was drawn to Montana, where a wave of Irish immigrants was being attracted to the copper mines. Bridget, less venturesome, stuck by the seaboard; but they kept in touch.
Yet they did not keep altogether in touch, for Bridget wrote Minnie nothing about her part in the Borden trial, only that she had come into a little money and was going home to buy a farm, which she proceeded to do. After some time in Ireland she wrote to tell Minnie that she had learned that lonely farming was not for her. After America, it was no life at all, and with all the young men crossing the ocean, Ireland was no place to find a husband. She had decided to come out to Montana.
This she did. In Butte she met and married a young smelter, had numerous children, died in her mid-eighties, and lies buried in Mount Olivet Cemetery, in nearby Anaconda.
She kept her bargain of silence for a long time. She was quite old before she spoke of Lizzie Borden. She was gravely ill with pneumonia when she felt a desire to confide in Minnie. They were old friends, their later years had brought them close into each other's confidence, and, as Minnie told Miss O'Meara, it disturbed Bridget, lying there sick, to think that she had not been wholly candid about how she came by that windfall.
She asked Minnie to come over from Butte to see her, since she believed that she might not recover and she wanted a last sight of her dearest friend. And suddenly, her long reticence broke down and she began to talk.
She had always liked Lizzie, she told Minnie; she had always felt herself on the girl's side in the dimly understood troubles in that house. So she helped her out in the trial. And still she had not said one single word there was not true, not a word. Lizzie was thankful to her, and Lizzie's lawyer made her promise to stay in Ireland and never come back.
Well, so he'd let her change her mind, but not in any way that could do harm. Montana is a long way from Fall River, and she even took a different steamship line, one to New York, not Boston, and she came straight out to Montana by the first train, just like he wanted.
Bridget was very ill, the talking had tired her, and Minnie could get no more details that day. When she came back, Bridget had turned the corner toward recovery. She would only say that she was sorry she'd let out even so much, since she'd promised the lawyer never to say a word when she took the money, and she'd always liked Lizzie, too.
She asked Minnie not to talk about it.
Minnie did not, until after Bridget died. Miss O'Meara finally heard the story when Minnie, an old woman, turned up at the library to ask if they had any books about murders there, not the made-up kind but murders that really happened.
If some old Irishwoman from my part of the world had told some purported first-hand tale about the latter end of Bridget I should not have taken it seriously; where I come from, the Borden case is still in our bones, and an old woman might have improved on an old memory until she believed it herself---or, at least found it worth sharing.
But Butte is far from Fall River, and Minnie, who waited until Bridget died to tell what she knew, only told it then to explain why she wanted to find out something more about the affair. Minnie showed herself to Miss O'Meara as fond of Bridget and not at all disapproving---only curious; for Bridget had wanted to drop the subject and she had respected her wish, since a promise is, after all, a promise.
I find Minnie's little story convincingly meager and undecorated. I believe it. I am glad that at least one character in the Borden saga married and lived happily ever after-and glad that she had some twinges of conscience, too; that power did not corrupt her utterly."
The footnote, (1) refers to Edward D. Radin, Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story (New York. Simon and Schuster, 1963).
--Right.
--Deputy, where did you get your info on Bridget? Was it an author?
I'd say, everyone get out your LBQ's.
Pg. 312+
"Then I read a book that set her forth as the true criminal and stated that she had died in Butte, Montana. (1) Its author told of having been permitted to examine the sequestered documents and Mr. Jennings' pocket memorandum book for the period. The lead seemed worth running down; and it was.
The story I now give you comes from Miss Mollie O'Meara, for thirty-five years head of the Butte Public Library and now retired. She is a charming and intelligent woman with whom I enjoyed talking, and I believe her to be wholly truthful; but I must remind you that her story is essentially incapable of being checked, since she had it from Minnie Green, now dead, who had it from Bridget, who died some years before Minnie.
Minnie had been Bridget's girlhood friend. When they first came to America together, Minnie was drawn to Montana, where a wave of Irish immigrants was being attracted to the copper mines. Bridget, less venturesome, stuck by the seaboard; but they kept in touch.
Yet they did not keep altogether in touch, for Bridget wrote Minnie nothing about her part in the Borden trial, only that she had come into a little money and was going home to buy a farm, which she proceeded to do. After some time in Ireland she wrote to tell Minnie that she had learned that lonely farming was not for her. After America, it was no life at all, and with all the young men crossing the ocean, Ireland was no place to find a husband. She had decided to come out to Montana.
This she did. In Butte she met and married a young smelter, had numerous children, died in her mid-eighties, and lies buried in Mount Olivet Cemetery, in nearby Anaconda.
She kept her bargain of silence for a long time. She was quite old before she spoke of Lizzie Borden. She was gravely ill with pneumonia when she felt a desire to confide in Minnie. They were old friends, their later years had brought them close into each other's confidence, and, as Minnie told Miss O'Meara, it disturbed Bridget, lying there sick, to think that she had not been wholly candid about how she came by that windfall.
She asked Minnie to come over from Butte to see her, since she believed that she might not recover and she wanted a last sight of her dearest friend. And suddenly, her long reticence broke down and she began to talk.
She had always liked Lizzie, she told Minnie; she had always felt herself on the girl's side in the dimly understood troubles in that house. So she helped her out in the trial. And still she had not said one single word there was not true, not a word. Lizzie was thankful to her, and Lizzie's lawyer made her promise to stay in Ireland and never come back.
Well, so he'd let her change her mind, but not in any way that could do harm. Montana is a long way from Fall River, and she even took a different steamship line, one to New York, not Boston, and she came straight out to Montana by the first train, just like he wanted.
Bridget was very ill, the talking had tired her, and Minnie could get no more details that day. When she came back, Bridget had turned the corner toward recovery. She would only say that she was sorry she'd let out even so much, since she'd promised the lawyer never to say a word when she took the money, and she'd always liked Lizzie, too.
She asked Minnie not to talk about it.
Minnie did not, until after Bridget died. Miss O'Meara finally heard the story when Minnie, an old woman, turned up at the library to ask if they had any books about murders there, not the made-up kind but murders that really happened.
If some old Irishwoman from my part of the world had told some purported first-hand tale about the latter end of Bridget I should not have taken it seriously; where I come from, the Borden case is still in our bones, and an old woman might have improved on an old memory until she believed it herself---or, at least found it worth sharing.
But Butte is far from Fall River, and Minnie, who waited until Bridget died to tell what she knew, only told it then to explain why she wanted to find out something more about the affair. Minnie showed herself to Miss O'Meara as fond of Bridget and not at all disapproving---only curious; for Bridget had wanted to drop the subject and she had respected her wish, since a promise is, after all, a promise.
I find Minnie's little story convincingly meager and undecorated. I believe it. I am glad that at least one character in the Borden saga married and lived happily ever after-and glad that she had some twinges of conscience, too; that power did not corrupt her utterly."
The footnote, (1) refers to Edward D. Radin, Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story (New York. Simon and Schuster, 1963).
--Right.
--Deputy, where did you get your info on Bridget? Was it an author?
I'd say, everyone get out your LBQ's.
-
Deputy347k9
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:28 pm
- Real Name:
Information on Bridget Sullivan
Kat:
Thank you for sharing that information regarding Bridget Sullivan. The information I have came from various sources, one in particular was a book titled "The cases that haunt us" by John Douglas, as well as WEB sites regarding Bridget's arrival in America. As you may know John Douglas was a member of the behavioral science unit at the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. John was the chief of this unit until his retirement in 1995. Mr. Douglas approaches these cases by focusing on several key themes. One is motive; why an individual decided to do what they did. Another is the evolution and development of the criminal; as John states, "you don't just wake up one morning and commit this type of crime without prior behavioral indicators". Thirdly, postoffense behavior; how the individual who committed this crime may be expected to act and react afterward. Example; In domestic murders, the killer often has someone else discover the body (s). Profiling has become a great tool in solving many serial type crimes. I have found Mr. Douglas's books very interesting. I have for quite some time been interested in the Borden case as well as the Lindberg case. Police agencies can learn well from these cases, "what not to do or overlook". In today's world the crime scene would have been set up, a crime scene log started by the first officer on scene, logging the times of all that enter the scene as well as the time out and purpose. Videos of the entire scene, outside, inside including vicitims would have been made. Press, friends, family and the curious (including officers not attached to the call, Mayor and Clergy) would never be allowed into a scene. the "dress" would not have been burnt for no one would be allowed into the crime scene until the investigation of the scene was completed. We can only imagine the out come if the clothing of the suspects had been collected, DNA samples received, clothing from the victims had been checked for fibers. Surly no person could have inflicted so much damage without leaving their DNA. This is fun!
Thank you for sharing that information regarding Bridget Sullivan. The information I have came from various sources, one in particular was a book titled "The cases that haunt us" by John Douglas, as well as WEB sites regarding Bridget's arrival in America. As you may know John Douglas was a member of the behavioral science unit at the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. John was the chief of this unit until his retirement in 1995. Mr. Douglas approaches these cases by focusing on several key themes. One is motive; why an individual decided to do what they did. Another is the evolution and development of the criminal; as John states, "you don't just wake up one morning and commit this type of crime without prior behavioral indicators". Thirdly, postoffense behavior; how the individual who committed this crime may be expected to act and react afterward. Example; In domestic murders, the killer often has someone else discover the body (s). Profiling has become a great tool in solving many serial type crimes. I have found Mr. Douglas's books very interesting. I have for quite some time been interested in the Borden case as well as the Lindberg case. Police agencies can learn well from these cases, "what not to do or overlook". In today's world the crime scene would have been set up, a crime scene log started by the first officer on scene, logging the times of all that enter the scene as well as the time out and purpose. Videos of the entire scene, outside, inside including vicitims would have been made. Press, friends, family and the curious (including officers not attached to the call, Mayor and Clergy) would never be allowed into a scene. the "dress" would not have been burnt for no one would be allowed into the crime scene until the investigation of the scene was completed. We can only imagine the out come if the clothing of the suspects had been collected, DNA samples received, clothing from the victims had been checked for fibers. Surly no person could have inflicted so much damage without leaving their DNA. This is fun!
Respectfully,
Deputy347k9
Deputy347k9
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
The Cases That Haunt Us:
117+
"The day of the murders, Bridget left the house, never to return. She was rumored to have gone back to Ireland, although this story has never been verified. In the late 1890s, she settled in Anaconda, Montana, where she married a man whose surname was also Sullivan. She did not speak of the Borden murders until 1943, when she contracted a severe case of pneumonia and believed she was going to die. She called her closest friend to her bedside, saying she had a secret to confide. But by the time the friend arrived, Bridget was on her way to recovery and said nothing. The only thing she later told the friend about Lizzie was that she had always liked her. She died on March 25, 1948, in Butte, Montana, at age seventy-three."
--Thanks. I see the section now. We (Stef & myself) have read all of Douglas as well and find him very interesting. However, his facts are skewed in his chapter, as most authors are, and we have wondered how much of his profiling on the Borden case depended upon these misstatements, or whether he could still profile effectively using false or exaggerated information. Do you have an opinion as to what weight this might have in Douglas' determinations?
117+
"The day of the murders, Bridget left the house, never to return. She was rumored to have gone back to Ireland, although this story has never been verified. In the late 1890s, she settled in Anaconda, Montana, where she married a man whose surname was also Sullivan. She did not speak of the Borden murders until 1943, when she contracted a severe case of pneumonia and believed she was going to die. She called her closest friend to her bedside, saying she had a secret to confide. But by the time the friend arrived, Bridget was on her way to recovery and said nothing. The only thing she later told the friend about Lizzie was that she had always liked her. She died on March 25, 1948, in Butte, Montana, at age seventy-three."
--Thanks. I see the section now. We (Stef & myself) have read all of Douglas as well and find him very interesting. However, his facts are skewed in his chapter, as most authors are, and we have wondered how much of his profiling on the Borden case depended upon these misstatements, or whether he could still profile effectively using false or exaggerated information. Do you have an opinion as to what weight this might have in Douglas' determinations?
-
lydiapinkham
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:01 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: new england
-
Deputy347k9
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:28 pm
- Real Name:
John Douglas/Profiling
Kat:
Thank you for the post, would you be so kind as to point out what facts Douglas has wrong, this for my learning. I am not sure what background data John Douglas utilized when attempting to profile this particular case. With little formal education relating to profiling I do not feel qualified to question Mr. Douglas's end results, though I believe only the facts should be utilized. I must say your questions have me re-reading my lecture notes relating to profiling. I will take a moment and list some of the notes that I just went over.
Criminal psychologists are in general agreement that criminal and or abnormal behavior can be traced to the deelopmental stage that includes birth to five years of age. Realizing, however, that severe psychological stress at any time in one's life can be the precipitator of an abnormal and or criminal act.
When analyzing a crime scene we must ask ourselves the quesiton, WHY? If we can determine the why of the crime, it will assist in determing who was responsible for the offense. The key to any successful investigation is to gather as much intelligence information relative to the crime itself. This includes victimology, crime scene analysis, etc. Once a suspect is developed we would gather as much intelligence data as possible relative to him/her. In profiling what we are attempting to do is determine whether or not this suspect has the background that would lend itself to the type of crime that is being investigated by you.
Investigators approaching this crime scene today may at the very least do the following;
1. Preservation of the crime scene.
2. Photographs;
a. Colored of victims
b. Larger the better, focusing on depth and extent of wounds
c. Body positioning, different angles
d. If residence involved, photos of other rooms, to include drawing of home, etc.
e. Photo or area to include aerial shot (that would have been difficult) to get a feeling for the area.
3. Neighborhood and complex
a. Racial, ethnic and social data
4. About the victim; age, sex, race, marital status/adjustment/intelligence/scholastic achievement/adjustment, life style, personality style, characteristics, demeanor, residency in relation to crime scene.
5. Medical examiners report; Photos to show full extent of damage to body, number of stabs, cuts, bruises to include lividity. We would also want completed toxiological reports. We would need to know if any of the wounds are post mortem. Would like to get the medical examiner's feelings, which is not committed to his report.
6. Map of the victim (s) travels prior to death; where last scene, by who, time and distance covered between being seen and death. Who found the body (s).
Well I guess I ran on and on, hope some of this may be food for thought when discussing what we could have or should have done. One of the problems with this case is so many years have gone by that many of the true facts relating to the crimes have been watered down.
Thank you for the post, would you be so kind as to point out what facts Douglas has wrong, this for my learning. I am not sure what background data John Douglas utilized when attempting to profile this particular case. With little formal education relating to profiling I do not feel qualified to question Mr. Douglas's end results, though I believe only the facts should be utilized. I must say your questions have me re-reading my lecture notes relating to profiling. I will take a moment and list some of the notes that I just went over.
Criminal psychologists are in general agreement that criminal and or abnormal behavior can be traced to the deelopmental stage that includes birth to five years of age. Realizing, however, that severe psychological stress at any time in one's life can be the precipitator of an abnormal and or criminal act.
When analyzing a crime scene we must ask ourselves the quesiton, WHY? If we can determine the why of the crime, it will assist in determing who was responsible for the offense. The key to any successful investigation is to gather as much intelligence information relative to the crime itself. This includes victimology, crime scene analysis, etc. Once a suspect is developed we would gather as much intelligence data as possible relative to him/her. In profiling what we are attempting to do is determine whether or not this suspect has the background that would lend itself to the type of crime that is being investigated by you.
Investigators approaching this crime scene today may at the very least do the following;
1. Preservation of the crime scene.
2. Photographs;
a. Colored of victims
b. Larger the better, focusing on depth and extent of wounds
c. Body positioning, different angles
d. If residence involved, photos of other rooms, to include drawing of home, etc.
e. Photo or area to include aerial shot (that would have been difficult) to get a feeling for the area.
3. Neighborhood and complex
a. Racial, ethnic and social data
4. About the victim; age, sex, race, marital status/adjustment/intelligence/scholastic achievement/adjustment, life style, personality style, characteristics, demeanor, residency in relation to crime scene.
5. Medical examiners report; Photos to show full extent of damage to body, number of stabs, cuts, bruises to include lividity. We would also want completed toxiological reports. We would need to know if any of the wounds are post mortem. Would like to get the medical examiner's feelings, which is not committed to his report.
6. Map of the victim (s) travels prior to death; where last scene, by who, time and distance covered between being seen and death. Who found the body (s).
Well I guess I ran on and on, hope some of this may be food for thought when discussing what we could have or should have done. One of the problems with this case is so many years have gone by that many of the true facts relating to the crimes have been watered down.
Respectfully,
Deputy347k9
Deputy347k9
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:14 am
- Real Name:
There is little to be gleaned from the Borden crime scene when one takes into account the massive number of people allowed to run helter skelter throughout the house the entire day of of the crime!
There is NO way modern day law enforcement can rely on techniques used today when studying the Borden case. Modern crimes are solved with a great deal of forensic evidence. A great boon to police work.
If this crime were to occur tomorrow-- specially trained and experienced homicide detectives would secure the crime scene immediately. They would separate the witnesses. Based on the prominence of the victims it would probably become a multi-jurisdictional investigation. It would be an entirely different set of circumstances.
With degrees in both psychology and criminology I do not put much stock in most profiling and certainly not in any of the "profiling" done on the Borden case.
I get frustrated with the "sexual abuse card" being played time and time again in this case-- Based on what we know about family dynamics I fail to see how any reputable psychologist or profiler can make that leap. (It feels so good to finally say that)
There is no way, save finding new evidence that this case will ever be solved without discarding the idea of reasonable doubt-- which is subjective. (I suppose someone could think aliens killed Lacy Peterson, thus-- in their opinion-- lending reasonable doubt to Scott's case)
Abandoning forensic evidence-- we have the old fashioned "gut instinct" to lead us....
There is NO way modern day law enforcement can rely on techniques used today when studying the Borden case. Modern crimes are solved with a great deal of forensic evidence. A great boon to police work.
If this crime were to occur tomorrow-- specially trained and experienced homicide detectives would secure the crime scene immediately. They would separate the witnesses. Based on the prominence of the victims it would probably become a multi-jurisdictional investigation. It would be an entirely different set of circumstances.
With degrees in both psychology and criminology I do not put much stock in most profiling and certainly not in any of the "profiling" done on the Borden case.
I get frustrated with the "sexual abuse card" being played time and time again in this case-- Based on what we know about family dynamics I fail to see how any reputable psychologist or profiler can make that leap. (It feels so good to finally say that)
There is no way, save finding new evidence that this case will ever be solved without discarding the idea of reasonable doubt-- which is subjective. (I suppose someone could think aliens killed Lacy Peterson, thus-- in their opinion-- lending reasonable doubt to Scott's case)
Abandoning forensic evidence-- we have the old fashioned "gut instinct" to lead us....
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Here is the discussion. If you can wade through, it's rather interesting. Seems I take Douglas apart.
We go off topic as usual, but into depths such as hanged women...
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... isbook.htm
We go off topic as usual, but into depths such as hanged women...
http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... isbook.htm
-
Haulover
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:44 pm
- Real Name: Eugene Hosey
- Location: Sycamore, AL
***With degrees in both psychology and criminology I do not put much stock in most profiling and certainly not in any of the "profiling" done on the Borden case.
I get frustrated with the "sexual abuse card" being played time and time again in this case-- Based on what we know about family dynamics I fail to see how any reputable psychologist or profiler can make that leap. (It feels so good to finally say that) ***
____________________________
i'm glad to hear it, actually. i have no idea myself. you say it just isn't there? Like for example, what is missing?
I get frustrated with the "sexual abuse card" being played time and time again in this case-- Based on what we know about family dynamics I fail to see how any reputable psychologist or profiler can make that leap. (It feels so good to finally say that) ***
____________________________
i'm glad to hear it, actually. i have no idea myself. you say it just isn't there? Like for example, what is missing?
-
Audrey
- Posts: 2048
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:14 am
- Real Name:
Everything!
There is NO proof that Lizzie was a kleptomaniac.
There are MANY reasons that may have led Lizzie to give her ring to Andrew. IE- emotional immaturity, lack of anyone else to give it to, wanting to kiss up to him, wanting to hurt Abby, and on and on. Maybe she felt a burst of closeness to him the day she gave it to him.
Seems to me the majority of the sexual abuse factor relies on that darn ring.
There is NO proof that Lizzie was a kleptomaniac.
There are MANY reasons that may have led Lizzie to give her ring to Andrew. IE- emotional immaturity, lack of anyone else to give it to, wanting to kiss up to him, wanting to hurt Abby, and on and on. Maybe she felt a burst of closeness to him the day she gave it to him.
Seems to me the majority of the sexual abuse factor relies on that darn ring.
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Deputy: Have you read the topic at the link? Did I go overboard? I truly did not recall I went that far.
Again I say I like Douglas, I admire the profiling work, and I've been asking this question as a real question- not rhetorical.
Stefani and I have discussed this before and decided that maybe the small facts are not needed as much in a profile.
I think there must be some good instinct as well. Being a cop, only you would know this because you've probably relied on it before in your job.
I was also thinking last night that it almost seems as if Profiling is out-of-date. Not fot this crime, of course, but for the 21st century crime.
I used to flex my meagre profiling skills and get a hit maybe 60% of the time. But now it seems that the perp is no longer who I would think it is, and I don't know why that is.
Any more thoughts on the matter would be helpful, I admit.
Again I say I like Douglas, I admire the profiling work, and I've been asking this question as a real question- not rhetorical.
Stefani and I have discussed this before and decided that maybe the small facts are not needed as much in a profile.
I think there must be some good instinct as well. Being a cop, only you would know this because you've probably relied on it before in your job.
I was also thinking last night that it almost seems as if Profiling is out-of-date. Not fot this crime, of course, but for the 21st century crime.
I used to flex my meagre profiling skills and get a hit maybe 60% of the time. But now it seems that the perp is no longer who I would think it is, and I don't know why that is.
Any more thoughts on the matter would be helpful, I admit.
-
Deputy347k9
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:28 pm
- Real Name:
Profiling
Kat:
Seems I had planned on accomplishing many things today, however, the wind and rain allows me to divert to a favorite past time. Regarding profiling and the Borden case; I believe this case has been so diluted with much speculation over the years that that I don't believe an accurae profile is obtainable. Profiling relies heavely upon speaking first hand with those involved, first officer on scene, witnesses, medical staff as well as potential suspects. Pointing out the errors within John's book (The Cases That Haunt Us) clearly shows homework was not accomplished. Without interviewing all involved many facts will be lost for so often reports are written in haste. I can recall several cases involving unattended deaths where the AG or Detectives needed a report NOW, written in haste I unconsciously overlooked facts that haunted me during trial. These small overlooked facts left out may be consistent with other similar crimes that could lead to a signature. Profiling is a "tool" and just that. I believe profiling remains a beneficial tool that needs to be utilized though not limiting other tools such as "gut instinct". This I have relied on many times. I have had what I believed to be a routine traffic stop, due to movement or where the suspect vehicle finally stopped caused the hair on the back of my neck to rise. My gut instinct was telling me not all is well. Calling for backup, more then once my instinct was right, thank God.
Seems I had planned on accomplishing many things today, however, the wind and rain allows me to divert to a favorite past time. Regarding profiling and the Borden case; I believe this case has been so diluted with much speculation over the years that that I don't believe an accurae profile is obtainable. Profiling relies heavely upon speaking first hand with those involved, first officer on scene, witnesses, medical staff as well as potential suspects. Pointing out the errors within John's book (The Cases That Haunt Us) clearly shows homework was not accomplished. Without interviewing all involved many facts will be lost for so often reports are written in haste. I can recall several cases involving unattended deaths where the AG or Detectives needed a report NOW, written in haste I unconsciously overlooked facts that haunted me during trial. These small overlooked facts left out may be consistent with other similar crimes that could lead to a signature. Profiling is a "tool" and just that. I believe profiling remains a beneficial tool that needs to be utilized though not limiting other tools such as "gut instinct". This I have relied on many times. I have had what I believed to be a routine traffic stop, due to movement or where the suspect vehicle finally stopped caused the hair on the back of my neck to rise. My gut instinct was telling me not all is well. Calling for backup, more then once my instinct was right, thank God.
Respectfully,
Deputy347k9
Deputy347k9
-
Haulover
- Posts: 721
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:44 pm
- Real Name: Eugene Hosey
- Location: Sycamore, AL
i do wonder if a huge clue about the murders would be available to us if not for the tight-mouthed friends/neighbors, etc. i suspect there are issues (things seen, heard, etc.) for example by both russell and churchill which they absolutely would not have said anything about -- something scandalous -- not that they were ever even asked. i know churchill saw plenty of the coming and going at the house and even heard them through open windows. and i'll always wonder what else alice russell saw/heard during her stay which she did not tell about.
-
william
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:25 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: New Hyde Park, Long Island, N.Y.
I have little confidence, if any, in profilers who express an opinion on a case after it has become a fait accompli. This would include Douglas et al.
This "Monday morning quarterbacking," is not only seen in books, it is also rampant on TV. It is obvious that these so-called profilers are making there determination after the case has been resolved, not before.
It would be interesting to see someone in this profession tackle a brand new case and live or die by the accuracy of the profile that he, or she, has offered in advance of the solution of the crime and the apprehension of the guilty party. Perhaps this would be a novel idea for a new reality show?
This "Monday morning quarterbacking," is not only seen in books, it is also rampant on TV. It is obvious that these so-called profilers are making there determination after the case has been resolved, not before.
It would be interesting to see someone in this profession tackle a brand new case and live or die by the accuracy of the profile that he, or she, has offered in advance of the solution of the crime and the apprehension of the guilty party. Perhaps this would be a novel idea for a new reality show?
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
jcurrie
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:50 pm
- Real Name: Janet Currie
- Location: Orpington, Kent
Bridget Sullivan
Both Robert Sullivan and Victoria Lincoln parrot the phrase about Bridget marrying and having numerous children. Yet on this site (I can't remember where) it's said that she had no children, only nephews and nieces. Which is right? Are there any Lizzie Borden fans living in Anaconda (is that correct?) who could check her grave for us? That sort of family information would be on her gravestone.
Also, it's been stated that Bridget returned to Ireland and bought a farm, but presumably sold it and returned to the States. I wonder if there any records in Co. Cork(?) which would verify this?
Also, it's been stated that Bridget returned to Ireland and bought a farm, but presumably sold it and returned to the States. I wonder if there any records in Co. Cork(?) which would verify this?
-
nbcatlover
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:10 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: nbcatlover
- Location: New Bedford, MA
I thought I had read this wrong before...Bridget had numerous children? I thought she was childless.Yet they did not keep altogether in touch, for Bridget wrote Minnie nothing about her part in the Borden trial, only that she had come into a little money and was going home to buy a farm, which she proceeded to do. After some time in Ireland she wrote to tell Minnie that she had learned that lonely farming was not for her. After America, it was no life at all, and with all the young men crossing the ocean, Ireland was no place to find a husband. She had decided to come out to Montana.
This she did. In Butte she met and married a young smelter, had numerous children, died in her mid-eighties, and lies buried in Mount Olivet Cemetery, in nearby Anaconda.
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
Re: Bridget Sullivan
Excerpt from Lizzie Borden Past and Present by Leonard Rebello page 66:
"It is believed Bridget Sullivan was in Anaconda, Montana by 1897. She was found to be residing in Anaconda and working as a domestic. A marriage certificate, dated 1905, was issued to John M. Sullivan and Bridget Sullivan. The marriage took place on June 21, 1905, at St. Paul's Church by Father J.M. O'Brien. Attendants for the newlyweds were Peter J. Sullivan and another woman named Bridget Sullivan who was a domestic for Judge George B. Winston. Mr. John Sullivan was born in Ireland (1868 as engraved on his headstone and the 1920 Federal Census listed his age as 52) and was the son of James and Margaret (Leary) Sullivan."
Sorry I had to post this in two pieces but it was a rather large document, if anyone has seen some of the older certificate entries they can attest to this.
I found the original marriage certificate for Bridget Sullivan and John M. Sullivan. It states it was filed for on July 12, 1905.
Information for the groom - John M. Sullivan a white man aged 37 years, born at Ireland in the county of ---- and ---and of ---- and now a resident of Anaconda, in the county of Deer Lodge, in the state of Montana and the son of Daniel Sullivan and Julia Sullivan whose maiden name was Julia Sullivan and who has NOT been previously married.
Information for the bride- Bridget Sullivan a white woman age 35 years, born at Ireland, in the county of ---and ---of--- and now residing at Anaconda, in the county of Deer Lodge State and of Montana, and daughter of Eugene Sullivan and Margaret Sullivan whose maiden name was Margaret Leary and who has not been previously married.
It was filed June 20, 1905 by Rev. J.H.O Brien. and was witnessed by Pat J. Sullivan and Bridgie Sullivan.
There is no birthday listed on this document for either the bride or groom, but this Bridget Sullivan was 35 years old in 1905. That means she would've been born around 1870, and only been 16 when she came over from Ireland in 1886 if she truly is our Bridget. But Bridget claims in her testimony to have been 25 years old which sets her birth date at around 1866-67.
"It is believed Bridget Sullivan was in Anaconda, Montana by 1897. She was found to be residing in Anaconda and working as a domestic. A marriage certificate, dated 1905, was issued to John M. Sullivan and Bridget Sullivan. The marriage took place on June 21, 1905, at St. Paul's Church by Father J.M. O'Brien. Attendants for the newlyweds were Peter J. Sullivan and another woman named Bridget Sullivan who was a domestic for Judge George B. Winston. Mr. John Sullivan was born in Ireland (1868 as engraved on his headstone and the 1920 Federal Census listed his age as 52) and was the son of James and Margaret (Leary) Sullivan."
Sorry I had to post this in two pieces but it was a rather large document, if anyone has seen some of the older certificate entries they can attest to this.
I found the original marriage certificate for Bridget Sullivan and John M. Sullivan. It states it was filed for on July 12, 1905.
Information for the groom - John M. Sullivan a white man aged 37 years, born at Ireland in the county of ---- and ---and of ---- and now a resident of Anaconda, in the county of Deer Lodge, in the state of Montana and the son of Daniel Sullivan and Julia Sullivan whose maiden name was Julia Sullivan and who has NOT been previously married.
Information for the bride- Bridget Sullivan a white woman age 35 years, born at Ireland, in the county of ---and ---of--- and now residing at Anaconda, in the county of Deer Lodge State and of Montana, and daughter of Eugene Sullivan and Margaret Sullivan whose maiden name was Margaret Leary and who has not been previously married.
It was filed June 20, 1905 by Rev. J.H.O Brien. and was witnessed by Pat J. Sullivan and Bridgie Sullivan.
There is no birthday listed on this document for either the bride or groom, but this Bridget Sullivan was 35 years old in 1905. That means she would've been born around 1870, and only been 16 when she came over from Ireland in 1886 if she truly is our Bridget. But Bridget claims in her testimony to have been 25 years old which sets her birth date at around 1866-67.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Allen on Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
Re: Bridget Sullivan
To confuse matters even more, there is another John and Bridget Sullivan, with three children, also living in Deer Lodge, Anaconda, Montana. This is the 1900 Census and this couple is already married with children. And much older than the first couple.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Allen
- Posts: 3408
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:38 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Me
Re: Bridget Sullivan
And maybe the witnesses Pat and Bridgie Sullivan were husband and wife.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"He who cannot put his thoughts on ice should not enter into the head of dispute." - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
MysteryReader
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:03 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Misty
- Location: somewhere in GA
Re: Bridget Sullivan
Pretty much the same information I found (don't know about a farm in Ireland, though she did return briefly). However, I am not finding children for them so I'm guessing she was childless. Her will listed nephews and nieces. But I have her birthday as March 28, 1864.Allen wrote:Excerpt from Lizzie Borden Past and Present by Leonard Rebello page 66:
"It is believed Bridget Sullivan was in Anaconda, Montana by 1897. She was found to be residing in Anaconda and working as a domestic. A marriage certificate, dated 1905, was issued to John M. Sullivan and Bridget Sullivan. The marriage took place on June 21, 1905, at St. Paul's Church by Father J.M. O'Brien. Attendants for the newlyweds were Peter J. Sullivan and another woman named Bridget Sullivan who was a domestic for Judge George B. Winston. Mr. John Sullivan was born in Ireland (1868 as engraved on his headstone and the 1920 Federal Census listed his age as 52) and was the son of James and Margaret (Leary) Sullivan."
Sorry I had to post this in two pieces but it was a rather large document, if anyone has seen some of the older certificate entries they can attest to this.
I found the original marriage certificate for Bridget Sullivan and John M. Sullivan. It states it was filed for on July 12, 1905.
Information for the groom - John M. Sullivan a white man aged 37 years, born at Ireland in the county of ---- and ---and of ---- and now a resident of Anaconda, in the county of Deer Lodge, in the state of Montana and the son of Daniel Sullivan and Julia Sullivan whose maiden name was Julia Sullivan and who has NOT been previously married.
Information for the bride- Bridget Sullivan a white woman age 35 years, born at Ireland, in the county of ---and ---of--- and now residing at Anaconda, in the county of Deer Lodge State and of Montana, and daughter of Eugene Sullivan and Margaret Sullivan whose maiden name was Margaret Leary and who has not been previously married.
It was filed June 20, 1905 by Rev. J.H.O Brien. and was witnessed by Pat J. Sullivan and Bridgie Sullivan.
There is no birthday listed on this document for either the bride or groom, but this Bridget Sullivan was 35 years old in 1905. That means she would've been born around 1870, and only been 16 when she came over from Ireland in 1886 if she truly is our Bridget. But Bridget claims in her testimony to have been 25 years old which sets her birth date at around 1866-67.
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: Bridget Sullivan
If the birthdate of 1864 is correct then Bridget was pulling a fast one in saying she was 35 in 1905, when she was in fact 41! She did state at the preliminary trial that she had been told (by relatives presumably) that she was 25 in 1892. There is something wrong with that date too as that gives a birth date of 1867. There's something on another thread. I'll have to look it up.
Later,
I think Richard O'Dwyer the genealogist was correct, as are you, and March 1864 is Bridget's birthdate. All the rest is Bridget being slippery with dates because if she didn't know, nobody else needed to! She was therefore 28 at the time of the murders.
Later,
I think Richard O'Dwyer the genealogist was correct, as are you, and March 1864 is Bridget's birthdate. All the rest is Bridget being slippery with dates because if she didn't know, nobody else needed to! She was therefore 28 at the time of the murders.
-
MysteryReader
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:03 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Misty
- Location: somewhere in GA
Re: Bridget Sullivan
Curryong wrote:If the birthdate of 1864 is correct then Bridget was pulling a fast one in saying she was 35 in 1905, when she was in fact 41! She did state at the preliminary trial that she had been told (by relatives presumably) that she was 25 in 1892. There is something wrong with that date too as that gives a birth date of 1867. There's something on another thread. I'll have to look it up.
Later,
I think Richard O'Dwyer the genealogist was correct, as are you, and March 1864 is Bridget's birthdate. All the rest is Bridget being slippery with dates because if she didn't know, nobody else needed to! She was therefore 28 at the time of the murders.
She is like most women- don't want to tell how old they really are (no offense to any female here, though). I look younger than my age so I usually don't mind telling people (weight is an off limit topic, though).-
irina
- Posts: 802
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:56 pm
- Real Name: Anna L. Morris
Re: Bridget Sullivan
If Bridget lied about her age it would likely have been for a reason other than vanity. If we figured that out we could learn more about Bridget. Did she need to be younger to get certain kinds of work for example? I can' believe she was completely ignorant of her own birthdate and there is too much discrepancy for the confusion to be accidental I think. Were there any age limits on immigration?
Is all we see or seem but a dream within a dream. ~Edgar Allan Poe
-
MysteryReader
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:03 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Misty
- Location: somewhere in GA
Re: Bridget Sullivan
I have her birthday as March 28, 1864. I also have that she immigrated to America roughly at 19 or 1883-1885 (I couldn't get any more specific dates).
-
Curryong
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:46 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Rosalind
- Location: Cranbourne, Australia
Re: Bridget Sullivan
I don't think there were age limits on immigration in those much less regimented days. Whenever I've seen those flickering old films and photos of late 19th century immigrants arriving at Ellis Island, all age groups seem to be represented, from babies to white-bearded old men and ancient females wrapped in shawls. (Not that I think that Bridget came to America through Ellis Island. There were dozens of other designated ports of entry along the eastern seaboard.)
I think what the authorities were more interested in was whether any of these people were carriers of tuberculosis, cholera or other nasties.
Probably Australia's most famous bushranger (outlaw) of the 19th century, Ned Kelly, was born into a wild and lawless Irish clan and judging from his statements he was unsure of his birthdate and true age, as well. What is more, any documentation there was has long disappeared (been pilfered) and so his age has always been a matter of educated guesswork. Children in large poor families had no birthday celebrations, and I suppose if the mother had borne eight to ten children she might be a bit unsure of different birthdates herself!
I think what the authorities were more interested in was whether any of these people were carriers of tuberculosis, cholera or other nasties.
Probably Australia's most famous bushranger (outlaw) of the 19th century, Ned Kelly, was born into a wild and lawless Irish clan and judging from his statements he was unsure of his birthdate and true age, as well. What is more, any documentation there was has long disappeared (been pilfered) and so his age has always been a matter of educated guesswork. Children in large poor families had no birthday celebrations, and I suppose if the mother had borne eight to ten children she might be a bit unsure of different birthdates herself!