Bridget.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:54 pm

Is it possible that Bridget served as a sort of buffer between the girls and their parents? I've always had the suspicion that Bridget knew a lot more than she ever let on about the atmosphere in that house. How could she not know? She lived there. Even if she was just a servant that was still her home as much as it was the Bordens' while she worked there. Could she have actually run interference on occassion?

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:44 pm

I think she did know more than she was tellin. But I also think she was very loyal to the family, especially the girls, mainly Lizzie.I also remeber reading somewhere that Bridget was the only one in the house that Abby could talk too. The girls weren't talking to her and I think she felt she couldn't talk to Andrew about how badly the girls were treating her. But then again, I also read that she wasn't really getting along with Abby or anyone of them for that matter.

I think she might have helped lizzie after the murder, you know cleaning up and what not.

Steveads2004 · Post by **Steveads2004** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:24 pm

Bridget saw a lot more than she revealed and it seems her testimony was coached by Lizzie's team to not reveal too much. She should have written her story before she died.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:14 am

There was a large class difference between the Bordens and Bridget, I don't know if either the elder Bordens or the daughters could ignore that in order for Bridget to act as a buffer. Since Andrew was paying her, I doubt that she would risk incurring his animosity under any circumstances. Bridget really had nothing at stake, my best guess is that she tried to avoid being put in the middle.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:47 pm

The class difference was quite a gap, I agree. But I don't believe that would stop Bridget from seeing and hearing what went on in the house and maybe trying to help in her own way. If only to try to make the atmosphere more bearable. We also hear from Bridget that Abby begged her not to leave to find employment else where. It seems the two might have become pretty close. I don't imagine finding a replacement maid would have been that hard. It is also pretty well known that Lizzie was very close with the servants she employed at Maplecroft. I don't think it would be such a stretch.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:27 pm

Bridget may well have tried to ease tensions in the household as best she could, and she probably knew quite a bit which she didn't disclose. The fact that Abby had to beg Bridget to stay implies that Bridget didn't want to be there, so maybe Bridget wasn't successful in her attempts or that Bridget was simply tired of the turmoil. The fact that Bridget remained in the household may indicate sympathy for Abby. If Andrew was remote or preoccupied and Lizzie and Emma were impossible, maybe Bridget was the only person in the house Abby could relate to.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:53 am

I read somewhere that Bridget was the only one Abby had to talk to in the house. I don't know how true that is, but given the tension between the girls and Abby, I have to believe that's a fact.

Steveads2004 · Post by **Steveads2004** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:17 pm

I think the myth takes over quite a bit here. Whose word do we have that Abby begged her to stay? Where in the documentation does it say that Abby had only Bridget to talk to? Where is the evidence that Bridget was paid to testify a particular way? Talk is cheap. Bridget may have had information but since we have nothing to go on, we cannot make suppositions or put words into her mouth 100+ years later.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:26 am

I just remeber reading about, and I don't know how true it is. But given the relationship between the girls and Abby, ther might be alittle truth behind the myth. But, you are right, there is no solid proof. I also heard that she didn't quite get along with Abby either, but who knows.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:55 pm

Bridget stated somewhere that she had talked about getting another job, and Abby asked her to stay on with them. I am still trying to find this source. It's been awhile since I've researched that particular claim. But I will post it when I find it.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:23 pm

I really don't think that Bridget had an allegience to either side of the group. She had to get along with her employers, Mr & Mrs Borden, but then she had to please Lizzie and Emma too, so she was sort of stuck in the middle, and probably did not want to get involved in the family relations. Hell, I wouldn't! I would do my job , stay out of it, and go to my room or go out as much as possible! I can relate to this, because I used to work for a small family owned business, and as an employee, you have to agree with all the family members to stay in good standing with the "group', so it is very unnerving at times, you wonder if you are pleasing the family or not.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:13 pm

Allen wrote:Bridget stated somewhere that she had talked about getting another job, and Abby asked her to stay on with them. I am still trying to find this source. It's been awhile since I've researched that particular claim. But I will post it when I find it.

The source is in the Knowlton papers, pages 34-35. Nellie McHenry, the wife of Det. McHenry, allegedly conducted an interview with Bridget on 19 Aug. 1892. Bridget was staying at her cousins in Fall River at that time. Here's some excerpts:

"......Bridget further stated that Mrs. Borden was always very kind and good to her & would talk to her tell her what she was going to do, the girls particularly Miss Lizzie was very different always keeping to themselves, and no one ever was allowed to go to Miss Lizzies room she took care of it herself. Bridget often said it was too bad Mrs. Borden was their stepmother she was too good for them and they did not like her." ...

"......She further stated that she made up her mind three times to leave their and gave in her notice but Mrs. Borden coaxed her to stay and once raised her wages Mrs. Borden was so good that Bridget stayed but was intending to leave? she gave as her reason that while the work was not hard the place was not pleasant for any girl on account of the odd habits of the family she said things were not very pleasant in the house, I asked how it was, well the girls kept so much to themselves their was no love for their stepmother. ..."

The spelling and punctuation, or lack of it, is the writers. The letter was written to Knowlton.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:51 pm

Harry thank you so much!! I still had not found the source. I am so glad you posted that.

So it seems that Abby and Bridget did talk, and that she did want to keep Bridget around.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:39 am

Bridget didn't waste much time in getting away from the household after the murders. With the elder Bordens dead, whatever turmoil existed between the two factions would have ceased. Bridget apparently didn't feel any loyalty toward Lizzie and Emma in what would ordinarily be considered as trying circumstances. I think Bridget put up with the unpleasantness as best she could for Abby's sake, but nothing beyond that. Once Abby was gone, so was Bridget!

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:14 am

True, once Abby was dead, Bridget went. I don't think she was all that thrilled with the job or Lizzie and Emma.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:55 pm

Yes:

I don't think Maggie was thrilled with the job either....I don't think she was thrilled with any job.

If you remember she had worked at 2 or 3 other places before coming to the Bordens. I don't think she was happy working for anyone, especially the Borden sisters. After all, she was an Andrew/Abby hire. If the Borden sister did not trust their parents, why would they trust their employee, unless they could bend her loyalties their way. To survive, Bridget would have to play both sides of that coin. Thus conflict with the sisters would be unavoidable.

Talking in the terms of probability and personal overlook, I think Bridget was a firecracker and not the innocent most people think she was.

Bridget took care of Bridget (she had to, no one else would) and what ever she knew she took it to the grave. There is no way Bridget lived in that house and was not familiar with the life blood which drove family politics.

Those who have known Bridget Sullivan later in life have fond memories of Auntie Bridget, and considered her endearing, but no pushover.

The real Bridget Sullivan would surprise many.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:33 am

Yes, I think she was working both ends, just to survive. But I do think she knew more than what she was telling. I think she was just happy to get away from the Bordens. Don't think she liked anyone in that house. And I can't say that I blame her.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:53 pm

Another possibility exists for Bridget's "desertion" after the murders. It could imply that Bridget thought Lizzie was guilty and didn't trust her, perhaps fearing for her own life. Even if Bridget got along with Lizzie before the murders, if Bridget thought Lizzie committed the murders it may have been enough to make her want to leave.

Personally, I don't see how Bridget wouldn't have seriously questioned the series of events to that end. Bridget overheard Lizzie tell Andrew that Abby was out. She finished her window washing and went to lie down, still no Abby. She is called downstairs to a chaotic situation, she is sent to find the doctor and Alice Russell, still no Abby anywhere in or out of the house. Then she is forestalled from looking for Abby outside the house, which was Bridget's logical first instinct and sent to the one remaining location where no one had been, where Abby was found dead. What a coincidence!! Or maybe not. I don't know if Bridget would have been aware that Abby had died sometime prior to Andrew at that point, but I think she she started putting two and two together about then!

John Watson · Post by **John Watson** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:40 pm

As Yupper points out, the minute Bridget walked into the guest bedroom and found Mrs. Borden - just where Lizzie suggested she might be - the maid had to suspect Lizzie of the murders. And once she admitted that possibility, she had to fear for her own life. I think it was likely at that moment that Bridget made up her mind to find another place to live.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:18 am

I think she just didn't like the attitude of the house, and after the parents were murdered, she had no reason to stay. And, I think you are right, she might have been afraid of Lizzie and for her life.

Steveads2004 · Post by **Steveads2004** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:42 pm

Fascinating stuff.I think that if I put myself in Bridget's position, I would want to get out of there since 2 people had just been brutally murdered. I would have no need to assign blame or make up my mind who did what. I'd be out of there. So her leaving shows us nothing about her opinion of whodunit, its just a natural human response. Would you stay on if 2 people were dead and blood was on the walls? Trying to put thoughts in Bridgets head just adds to the fog. The only way to judge where she was on the subject is to read her testimony. I don't trust 2nd hand interviews or quotes off the record. Just as I believe Emma never gave that later interview. I try to follow the facts only, as difficult as it is.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:13 am

I don't think I'd stay in a house where two people were killed and blood on the walls. I think that I would be afraid, scared too. YOu don't know who did it. If it was Lizzie or Emma or someone broke into the house. Just too erry (sp).

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Sun May 26, 2013 10:46 am

I'm bumping this thread up, since we've been discussing Bridgette in other posts.

Question: Did she and Lizzie EVER speak to each other again once the murders took place? Did Bridgette visit her in jail? Did they correspond when Lizzie lived at Maplecroft? How about Emma? Did she ever have any sort of lasting friendship with Bridgette?

If the answer is "no," I think that is quite telling...that possibly Bridgette was afraid of and/or disgusted by the sisters.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun May 26, 2013 2:39 pm

I am under the impression that they never talked after the murders. I never heard. I know I wouldn't have wanted to talk to Lizzie. I mean, what would they talk about? Bridget was the servant. I also think that they wouldn't have very much to talk about.

I also think she knew more of what was going on in the house than she ever let on.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun May 26, 2013 4:34 pm

I agree Snokkums. I don't think they would have had much reason to keep in touch. The Borden's were Bridget's employer. She may not have seen it as any different than any other job she had up to that point. With the exception that none of her other employers had been murdered. I also believe she knew a lot more about what was going on than she ever admitted. I don't recall that any of the other former maids kept in touch with the family either. Although I would love to have been able to ask them some questions as well. I think if any of them were available to be questioned the prosecution would have talked to them in their efforts to show the ill feelings between Lizzie and Abby. They called their seamstress as a witness. That shows they did some digging. I also agree that Bridget may have been less than fond of the Borden sisters.

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sun May 26, 2013 6:05 pm

I somehow believe that once Bridget asked Lizzie where she was, and Lizzie said she was in the barn, the jig was up in Bridget's mind. She knew Lizzie had no reason in the world to be in the barn, and that she was lying. Lizzie had ask her if she was going to wash the windows so she knew she would be outside, and the dress sale conversation they had would be subtle hints that Lizzie needed to know where Bridget was at every moment that morning. Those would all pose red flags in my mind. Also, didn't Bridget say she was in charge of the ironing? If so, then there would be no reason for Lizzie to be ironing that morning either.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Mon May 27, 2013 6:35 am

I think that Bridget might have been afraid of Lizzie, too. Especially if she thought Lizzie was lying. Think she might have known Lizzie did it and was freightened of her. I think she might have wanted just to forget the whole thing, so she left. Besides there was no reason to stay after the murders, that'd be creepy to stay in the house where people were killed.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Tue May 28, 2013 8:34 am

Yes, I agree with all the new posts...the only reason Bridgette would have had for keeping in touch with Lizzie after the murders was if they were friends before the murders. Since there is no evidence they ever did correspond (letters, phone calls, telegrams, cards at the holidays) one has to assume this was strictly an employer/employee relationship.

But this poses another problem (geeze-louise, the more you look for answers with this case, the more questions come up!

)...a lot of folks tend to think that Bridgette knew more than she told police, that she withheld certain details...WHY would she do this?

I'm trying to visualize a situation where I'm a housekeeper for a wealthy but stingy family. House full of tension, constant fighting, and even more constant passive-aggressive behaviors (ie Andrew locking his bedroom door but then putting the key to it in plain site on the mantel every single day). I'm sick, throwing up, and washing windows on a warm day (ugh.) I am tired and run-down, go upstairs to my hot attic room for a short rest. Suddenly, I hear the youngest daughter of my employer, a woman I know to be unhappy, yell for me to come downstairs right away because my employer is dead, injured, whatever. I run down the stairs quickly and find...WHAT? What could Bridgette have seen, heard, smelled or felt that she NEVER told anyone...or at least, certainly not the police or district attorney.?

Speculation?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Tue May 28, 2013 11:28 pm

It may be that the only thing Bridget held back was arguments among family members, which could easily be denied by both Lizzie and Emma. If she volunteered the information, it may not do any good. It might have marked Bridget as someone who discussed private family matters, something a prospective employer may consider a negative. It doesn't make much difference if this is or is not the case, only that Bridget may have thought it was.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed May 29, 2013 3:36 pm

That's a good possibility Yooper. Bridget could have believed that she would have a hard time getting employment if she spilled what she knew about the Borden family. No employer would like to believe their servants will share what goes on behind the closed doors of their home. That is their sanctuary. I've also leaned towards the possibility on many occasions that Bridget just wanted to be left alone about the whole thing. If everyone believed she didn't know anything, and had not seen anything, they couldn't ask her any questions. She may not have wanted to go through life being seen as "The Borden's Maid". I'd say if this was the case she did a pretty good job. She dropped out of view for a very long time.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Wed May 29, 2013 4:20 pm

If Bridget wanted to put the entire episode behind her and avoid being stigmatized as the Borden maid, she probably would have needed to leave Fall River. The fact that she did successfully drop from view for a number of years probably indicates this intent. It must have been difficult for her to put up with the requirement that she remain there until the trial was over. The time she spent working for the Bordens was less than pleasant if the household was divided. The Bordens had used up enough of her life by June of 1893! I wonder if she had to invent a new background to avoid being connected to the case? This seems a far cry from what someone would do under the same circumstances nowadays. If the murders occurred today, Bridget would be taking bids on the book and movie rights to the "True Story" of the Borden murders!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Wed May 29, 2013 6:29 pm

Couple of things...people do disappear, nothing strange, they move, make new friends...nothing sinister. In Victorian America, What went on in the house stayed in the house. As a maid/butler/etc your reputation hung on not carrying tales. After the murders, she moved on...didn't keep in touch? Heck, right after high school I was a male Au Pair to a nice wealthy family with two boys...but after I left, and went to college, I never contacted them again. Just didn't see the need to. Nothing sinister, some people don't keep in touch with everyone in their lives. What I see as most dangerous is 'We' in the 21st century trying to guess the motives of behaviors of people we don't know, who lived over a hundred years ago in another era and society. Picking apart facts is fine, but we must refrain from speculation as to why so and so did such and such. I would never consider urinating in a pan, and dumping it in my back yard...BUT if I lived in Fall River in the late 1800's, it may have been fine. Don't try to judge based on 21st century morals/behaviors.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed May 29, 2013 9:30 pm

As I stated in another thread, I never judge anything in this case based on today's mindset. That would be pretty pointless considering it does not apply to the mindset held by many in the nineteenth century. Or even the earlier part of the twentieth century. Or maybe even from the last decade. I try to judge everything based on what the mindset was at that time something occurred, and from facts. The Borden case was a very high profile case. It is also an unsolved case we are still hotly debating even today. Bridget was one of the only people left alive in the home when both murders occurred. People debated it back then so violently it's been reported it caused married couples to seek a divorce. No matter what era she had lived in, if anyone thought she knew anything, that would have made her a prime target for news hounds and gossip mongers.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Wed May 29, 2013 11:18 pm

Maybe.

Bridgette was afraid of airing the dirty Borden laundry. It would have made her unemployable, subject to unwanted scrutiny. The case was abhorrent to her, she shook it off like a bad case of fleas. That is plausible. definitely. But IF Lizzie did it, Bridget's proximity to the crime scene, the fact that she was one of the last people to see both Bordens alive (besides Lizzie) and the tight window of time in which the killings occurred (certainly Andrew's) make it hard for me to believe that Bridget didn't see, hear, or even "sense" something she kept to herself.

Didn't Bridgette almost make a confession when she though she was dying? It wouldn't have been something as vague as "the Bordens, they fought alot"...if the story of her deathbed near-miss it to be believed, it had to be something specifically about the day of the murders...in my opinion.

Great discussion, btw...

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu May 30, 2013 2:05 am

I'm not sure what information had to be involved in a confession which may or may not have been almost made.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Thu May 30, 2013 7:20 am

All I was trying to say is that IF we believe she almost made a deathbed confession and IF it was about LIzzie (a lot of "IF's", I grant you) then it would seem that the "secret" Bridgette withheld (IF there was one) would have to be more significant than simply "they Bordens fought a lot."

I don't want to get into any unpleasantness here. I thought it was alright to expound on theories and indulge in speculations.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu May 30, 2013 10:38 am

Theories and speculations are welcome, fantasies are less well received. That really is a lot of ifs! I think the story about the deathbed confession was from Victoria Lincoln's book, wasn't it?

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Thu May 30, 2013 3:51 pm

Yes, it is a lot of "if's".

I don't know where i heard it first...def in Lincoln's book, which I am finding out is so much gossip and uncited conjecture. Do you know where I can get Rebello for under $100?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu May 30, 2013 4:27 pm

I'm not sure where Rebello's book can be had for less than $100 anymore, but keep your eyes and ears open, you could find one. When I first joined the forum they were still available, though in very short supply, for $50. Unfortunately, Lincoln's book is held in something less than high regard, probably due to what many consider to be excessive speculation. Most of the Borden authors take liberties and speculate, it sells books! They all contain at least some truth, and often provide a new and different perspective.

NancyDrew · Post by **NancyDrew** » Fri May 31, 2013 4:17 pm

Yes, I"m finding that out. I want to start reading as many original newspaper articles as I can...they've got to be at least as accurate as the books and may contain tidbits someone else didn't think was important, but maybe I will...

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:52 pm

If you are interested in reading newspaper accounts you could try checking into The Lizzie Borden Sourcebook. Although I have found in my research after reading articles from the actual newspaper it came from, and then reading it as it presented in the Sourcebook, there are some discrepancies. Some articles have been edited and all of the article is not included.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:29 pm

NancyDrew wrote:Yes, I"m finding that out. I want to start reading as many original newspaper articles as I can...they've got to be at least as accurate as the books and may contain tidbits someone else didn't think was important, but maybe I will...

Not to throw cold water on that...but in those days, if a newspaper didn't have any facts about a "hot" case...they just made stuff up. Literally, not stretching the facts but making it up whole cloth. We see that in the Borden case

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:46 am

This is true there are articles about the case that are very inaccurate. There are articles that base their stories merely on rumors also. But I still read the newspaper accounts because even when they make the stories up it gives you a glimpse of what was going on at the time of the murders. These people were actually there. Even if it is just rumor being reported you see what rumors were going around at the time about the Borden's. What climate they lived in when it came to the residents of Fall River. There is one newspaper account where a family member allegedly claimed that John Morse had an inappropriate relationship with the girls. Is it true? I don't know. Did anyone in the family really say that? I don't know. But if they did say it, even if it wasn't true, it's interesting that this sort of gossip was floating around at the time. Even if the newspapers are the ones who created that rumor it would still have started circulating among the people of Fall River. Because many people believe what they read in the newspapers like it is the Bible. Many of the facts we know today came from newspapers. I'm sure many believe Nance O'Neil was Lizzie's lover. We have no information about Nance and Lizzie being friends except what can be read from the newspapers. There are newspaper accounts that are totally factual. We would not have some of the sworn testimony that we have today if it were not for a newspaper. So while they contained inaccuracies, that wasn't always the case, and I believe it's still important to read them.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Jun 02, 2013 10:59 am

PossumPie wrote:Couple of things...people do disappear, nothing strange, they move, make new friends...nothing sinister. In Victorian America, What went on in the house stayed in the house. As a maid/butler/etc your reputation hung on not carrying tales. After the murders, she moved on...didn't keep in touch? Heck, right after high school I was a male Au Pair to a nice wealthy family with two boys...but after I left, and went to college, I never contacted them again. Just didn't see the need to. Nothing sinister, some people don't keep in touch with everyone in their lives. What I see as most dangerous is 'We' in the 21st century trying to guess the motives of behaviors of people we don't know, who lived over a hundred years ago in another era and society. Picking apart facts is fine, but we must refrain from speculation as to why so and so did such and such. I would never consider urinating in a pan, and dumping it in my back yard...BUT if I lived in Fall River in the late 1800's, it may have been fine. Don't try to judge based on 21st century morals/behaviors.

Since we can't help the fact that we are living in the 21st century and the Borden murders took place in the 19th century, if we really believed all this, why would we bother discussing the case at all? It presumes we are unable to adjust our thought process to the time period.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Sun Jun 02, 2013 5:42 pm

Allen, I agree whole-heartedly with you that the newspapers of the day are BETTER than our speculations over 100 years later. They do give us insight. We just need to remember that especially the first ones were so full of errors (names, times, etc) that it is obvious a copy editor just wanted to scoop the other papers. As time went on, more actual facts emerged, but again, when one paper didn't have actual facts or eyewitnesses, they tended to make stuff up. Since my post above, I went back and re-read all the newspaper accounts I could rustle up. They did get me thinking...Morris had a lot of mystery surrounding him. He arrived at the Borden's house unannounced and with NO luggage, not even a change of clothes. He left that morning, and upon returning, walked past hundreds of people milling about the sidewalk and doors, past a number of police officers, didn't question anyone, and stood in the back yard and ate 3 pears. Then, still not questioning anyone, he walked inside, took a "quick glance" at Mr. Borden, went upstairs and glanced at "The older woman" as he referred to Mrs. Borden, and went back downstairs. WOW, that seems strange. When questioned he remembered the exact time and street where he was, down to the number on the trolly conductor's hat!! His story was so precise, it makes me wonder. His only alibi is his niece who said he left at 11:30 and that she had a 'number of visitors' that morning. That fact alone is his sole alibi.

Yooper: I only meant that we must be doubly aware that we are seeing this through the filter of 100 years and some actions that raise alarms to us today may not have been out of the ordinary