Would Emma/Bridget have outright lied for Lizzie?

[Aamartin]

Do you think Emma and/or Bridget would have lied to protect Lizzie? Even by omission?

[Miranda]

I'm sure Emma would. Not so sure about Bridget. I have a feeling there was a bit of blackmail from Bridget, how else did she get the money to go back to Ireland?
I think that after all those years of lying for her sister, Emma left in a huff, because Lizzie was ungrateful. Lizzie's lifestyle had become intolerable for Emma, and Lizzie wouldn't change it.

[twinsrwe]

Do you think Emma … would have lied to protect Lizzie? Even by omission?

I think Emma would lie to protect Lizzie, via omission. She held onto the fact that there wasn’t any blood on Lizzie and there was no weapon found, but that doesn’t mean Lizzie didn’t kill Andrew and Abby. Emma wasn’t home during the time the killing occurred; her arrival was hours afterword. Therefore, Lizzie had more than enough time to cover her tracks. However, Emma was present during the time Lizzie burned her dress; Lizzie found out she was a suspect on Saturday, and she burned the dress on Sunday. If Lizzie had wore this the morning of the murders and there was nothing incriminating on it, then it would have been an item which supported her innocence. Emma kept her mouth shut; this is lying by omission.

As I posted in the topic titled, A pat on the back for Alice Russell: Back in Lizzie’s day, a dress that was not ‘presentable enough’ to wear, would have been torn up and used for cleaning rags or cut up for making patchwork quilts, etc. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the dress Lizzie burned was supposedly a new dress, which had been ruined when she brushed against fresh paint. That would have left a great deal of material without any paint whatsoever on it. So, not only was Lizzie being extremely wasteful by burning it, her actions were totally against what she would have been taught during her upbringing years.

Alice Russell knew the dress burning incident was an incriminating act. Although she kept this knowledge to herself throughout the inquest and a preliminary hearings, she did finally come foreword before the grand jury had finished hearing testimonies. Why? Did Alice finally come to the realization that she had witnessed an incriminating act, which could have implicated her as a accomplice in a cover-up? I think so.

I found this interesting tidbit, posted by Allen, in the topic titled, Newspaper archive articles:

Evening Tribune, Providence R.I. - April 9, 1929.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lx ... case&hl=en

Thanks for posting this article, Allen! I know you can’t believe everything you read in a newspaper article, but I think they are still worth reading because there are articles that are right on!

Do you think … Bridget would have lied to protect Lizzie? Even by omission?

I don’t think Bridget would lie to protect Lizzie, not even by omission. However, I do believe that she suspected Lizzie did the killings, early on. She did not stay at the Borden house Thursday night; she stayed with Mrs. Miller's servant girl. (I wonder what their conversations may have contained?) However, she did stay at the house Friday night. (She did not say that she slept in the house Friday night, just the she had stayed at the house.) She did not stay at the house Saturday or Sunday night, but did go back Monday morning for the day, and then left for good. Because of these actions, I think Bridget probably put two and two together, but had no way of proving the things she suspected. Would this be considered lying by omission? I don’t think so. I think lying by omission is when a person knows facts about a particular incident, but refuses to say anything about those facts.

I think Bridget was probably afraid for her life and she just wanted to leave that situation as soon as possible, which is exactly what she did!

[Allen]

I agree with you twinsrwe. I don't think Emma would have lied outright. I do think she would not have offered up any information she thought looked incriminating for Lizzie. She did down play the exchange heard by the prison matron about her giving Lizzie away. Since we really don't know what exactly was said there may have been nothing to down play. I do believe Emma genuinely loved Lizzie as a mother would love her. She stayed at Maplecroft long after she expressed serious misgivings about it. In her own way, I think she wanted to protect her sister even though she may have harbored her own suspicions. I also agree with you that Bridget would not have lied for Lizzie. She did contradict Lizzie's story in several aspects with her own testimony and she stuck to her story. But I do see some areas where she may have showed a certain reluctance to reveal all. In some instances she seemed somewhat reluctant to reveal the full extent of the hostility she may have witnessed in that household. But for the most part I believe she told all she knew.

[twinsrwe]

I also agree with everything you stated, Allen!

[Allen]

Does anyone else find it interesting that Lizzie didn't seem to form any bonds of friendship with her servants until she was the mistress of her own house? There didn't seem to be any strong bond of friendship between Lizzie and Bridget. Or the other maids up until this time. Although there is less evidence of what the relationship was between the earlier servants there doesn't appear to be any type of lasting bond formed. This intrigues me.

[twinsrwe]

Does anyone else find it interesting that Lizzie didn't seem to form any bonds of friendship with her servants until she was the mistress of her own house? There didn't seem to be any strong bond of friendship between Lizzie and Bridget. Or the other maids up until this time. Although there is less evidence of what the relationship was between the earlier servants there doesn't appear to be any type of lasting bond formed. This intrigues me.

You're got a good point there, Allen! It is my understanding that Bridget was closer to Abby, than either Lizzie or Emma.

[Aamartin]

The idea that the relationship between Lizzie and Emma was more of a mother/daughter one that sisters is certainly enough to change a great deal of what Emma may or may not have done with any knowledge she had or suspicions she had.

[Aamartin]

Regarding the dress burning--- I used to think that if it was indeed just paint stained that Lizzie might have burned it in a moment of defiance to all the perceived miserly tendencies she resented in Andrew. But Emma testified she encouraged Lizzie to do it. I think Emma knew exactly why that dress needed burning. And I don't think it would have been burned just for paint. I agree-- rags, quilt, etc

[twinsrwe]

The idea that the relationship between Lizzie and Emma was more of a mother/daughter one that sisters is certainly enough to change a great deal of what Emma may or may not have done with any knowledge she had or suspicions she had.

Yes, it sure does. Emma had promised Sarah, her biological mother, that she would take care of ‘Baby Lizzie’. I think Emma lived her life, up until she moved out of Maplecroft, fulfilling that promise.

I think Emma planted the seed of hatred, that she had for Abby, into Lizzie’s mind. I believe Emma was a very controlling person and when she could no longer control Lizzie, she had no choice but to leave her sister and never have contact with her for the rest of her life. (It’s true, I have no proof for this statement; it’s just my own personal belief).

[Aamartin]

The idea that the relationship between Lizzie and Emma was more of a mother/daughter one that sisters is certainly enough to change a great deal of what Emma may or may not have done with any knowledge she had or suspicions she had.

Yes, it sure does. Emma had promised Sarah, her biological mother, that she would take care of ‘Baby Lizzie’. I think Emma lived her life, up until she moved out of Maplecroft, fulfilling that promise.

I think Emma planted the seed of hatred, that she had for Abby, into Lizzie’s mind. I believe Emma was a very controlling person and when she could no longer control Lizzie, she had no choice but to leave her sister and never have contact with her for the rest of her life. (It’s true, I have no proof for this statement; it’s just my own personal belief).

I completely agree. Emma was not the shy little mouse she may have been perceived to be. I think that reputation served her well--- and she knew it.

[Allen]

I think Emma had a lot to do with Lizzie hating Abby as well. Lizzie was very young when Abby came into the picture. There was plenty of time for a parental bond to be made between them, and Lizzie would have been too young to remember much of her own mother. I think Emma fanned the flames of resentment and hatred in Lizzie because this is how she felt about Abby.

[Aamartin]

I think Emma had a lot to do with Lizzie hating Abby as well. Lizzie was very young when Abby came into the picture. There was plenty of time for a parental bond to be made between them, and Lizzie would have been too young to remember much of her own mother. I think Emma fanned the flames of resentment and hatred in Lizzie because this is how she felt about Abby.

Exactly..... Especially since we don't really have any evidence hearsay or otherwise that Abby was unkind or mean.

[Curryong]

What if we turn that another way for a moment. What if, on slender evidence Uncle John or Bridget had been arrested, and for whatever reason, anti-Irish prejudice or something the prosecution at the trial looked like scoring a conviction. Do you think, always presuming that Lizzie committed the murders, that she would stand aside and say nothing or would her conscience be too much for her. I know she never pointed the finger of suspicion at her uncle or the maid in any way, but if they were arrested, well.....

[SallyG]

I think Emma would have done everything she could to protect Lizzie, including lying if need be. Bridget, by her own admission, liked Lizzie...she may have been closed-mouthed with anything incriminating.

As far as Bridget returning to Ireland, and buying a farm....I'm sure she was "rewarded" for her loyalty. She was probably encouraged to go back to Ireland and stay....however, she did return several years later, going as far from Fall River as possible!

[Curryong]

Bridget's interesting, isn't she, in her genuine reactions to the murders, bewilderment fear (never really settled back in that house again) bravery when looking for Abby's corpse, and in her silence afterwards.

[PossumPie]

Servants in those days were WELL trained in the art of discretion. They saw/heard things not meant for others to see/hear By definition, if you could afford a servant, you had some place in society, and a reputation to uphold, so one thing servants knew how to do was keep their mouths shut. Ironically, this code didn't hold between servants, and the gossip between servants flew. It just never made it past them to the outside world. I bet there was a servant friend out there who knew more about the case than we do...

[NancyDrew]

Let me throw in my 2 cents here...I think Emma absolutely lied for Lizzie. In fact, I think its possible they conspired together! And Bridgette? When we see her, she is a young, somewhat pretty (albeit a tad masculine looking) girl. But later in life, she turned out to be a hardened backwoods type, and quite unfriendly (sorry, too lazy for citations, but if pressed, I'll get 'em.)

I think that she, like anyone who has to clean out rich people's slop buckets, was probably sick of her "lot in life." and would have accepted money in exchange for keeping her mouth shut. I can't imagine the life of an Irish servant...and I have tried to, many time.

I'm half Irish...I used Ancestry Tree to trace my mother's side of the family, and my great grand-parents were straight off the boat from Ireland, and both worked for large wealthy families. There was a strong sense instilled in their children that this was a terrible life, and so my maternal grandmother sough to break the bond and went to nursing school. She met and married a young doctor there. (Unfortunately, her dream man turned out to be a nightmare; he was a violent alcoholic who died at age 33 after routine surgery due to the fact that he didn't tell the surgeon his body was used to a quart of whiskey a day. My grandmother had a huge life insruance policy on him, and she then went and blew it ALL within 10 years on a nightclub singer...the man I knew as my grandfather, since he adopted my already-born mother. Sorry for the personal trip down memory lane.)

To to sum it up, I think that not only Emma and Bridgette were capable of lying, I think they did. In fact, I think a LOT of people did.

[Darrowfan]

I have often wondered if many people didn't lie for Lizzie. That could explain, for example, why no one claimed to have seen blood on Lizzie just after the killings. Someone (Mrs. Churchill, Bridgette?) could have mentioned to Lizzie that she might want to "clean up" a bit before the police arrive. Of course, that is the loosest sort of conjecture on my part.

It has always bothered me that the witnesses who saw Lizzie just after the killings described her as being free of blood and not disheveled in the least. I believe that Lizzie committed the crimes, and logic tells me that she should have had at least a small amount of blood on her hands, face, or clothing. Since the witnesses all stated that they saw no sign of blood, it seems to me only a couple of possibilities exist:

1. Lizzie somehow managed to clean herself up before alerting Bridgette to the crimes. (seems unlikely)

2. In the excitement just after the killings, nobody noticed that Lizzie had a little blood on her. (even more unlikely)

3. As I mentioned above, someone might have warned her to clean herself up, just after the killings, and that person then lied about whether they saw any blood. (most likely)

[FactFinder]

I have to disagree that anyone would tell Lizzie to clean herself up. Why on Earth would anyone want to help Lizzie get away with murder? That, for me, makes no sense. These people were willing to live with a hatchet murderer walking free in the community for what reason? I believe she had plenty of time to get cleaned up. I think Emma may have been more closed mouth than anyone realizes. But I think it's because she thought Lizzie was innocent and didn't want to say anything that incriminated her further. Servants, not just of Irish decent, were taught to keep to themselves and out of family business. They were not part of the family they were there to do a job. If Lizzie did get any blood on her why couldn't she have said it was during the discovery of the bodies? All it would have taken was brushing against the sofa Andrew was lying on. She seems to have wanted to distance herself from everything. From being anywhere close to the bodies, from the blood, from having seen or heard anything, from knowing Abby was home, etc. Only someone with a guilty conscience would want to so utterly keep themselves that distanced.

[Mara]

FactFincder, you've mentioned something important: Given the width of skirts, even of house dresses/wrappers, it would be almost more damning than not for her to be completely free of any blood after finding her father that way. Presumably, she'd have been walking through the door, maybe leaning to the right a bit out of habit to avoid the sofa, but surely some of that awful mess would have gotten on her.

Unless, of course, she was nowhere near the corpse after having created it and changed her clothes, and probably her stockings and shoes, too.

[Darrowfan]

I have to disagree that anyone would tell Lizzie to clean herself up. Why on Earth would anyone want to help Lizzie get away with murder? That, for me, makes no sense. These people were willing to live with a hatchet murderer walking free in the community for what reason? I believe she had plenty of time to get cleaned up. I think Emma may have been more closed mouth than anyone realizes. But I think it's because she thought Lizzie was innocent and didn't want to say anything that incriminated her further. Servants, not just of Irish decent, were taught to keep to themselves and out of family business. They were not part of the family they were there to do a job. If Lizzie did get any blood on her why couldn't she have said it was during the discovery of the bodies? All it would have taken was brushing against the sofa Andrew was lying on. She seems to have wanted to distance herself from everything. From being anywhere close to the bodies, from the blood, from having seen or heard anything, from knowing Abby was home, etc. Only someone with a guilty conscience would want to so utterly keep themselves that distanced.

You raise some interesting points, FactFinder. With regard to your question, "Why on Earth would anyone want to help Lizzie get away with murder?", I myself have wrestled with that question. It is possible that someone who saw blood on Lizzie might, as you suggested, think that she simply got the blood on her from being close to the bodies. Fearing that the police might get the "wrong idea", they may have told Lizzie to clean up. Again, I am engaging in rank speculation.

A more disturbing possibility is this: seeing blood on Lizzie, and drawing the obvious conclusion that she was the killer, Mrs. Churchill, or Bridgette, or the doctor, or some other person may have decided that if Lizzie killed her father, she must have had a good reason, and therefore, impulsively decided to shield her. Now again, this is rank speculation, but I get the feeling that many people in the community could simply not accept the idea that a young, female Sunday school teacher could commit this kind of crime, despite evidence of her guilt.

I recall that on another thread, when the posters were discussing the jury's verdict, and how they arrived at it, I posted the possibility that the jurors could not accept Lizzie's guilt, or the consequences of that guilt. In other words, I think it could have been the unspoken feeling among the members of the Fall River community that "We are not about to sentence a young woman from a respected family to hang, no matter what she's done."

[Darrowfan]

FactFincder, you've mentioned something important: Given the width of skirts, even of house dresses/wrappers, it would be almost more damning than not for her to be completely free of any blood after finding her father that way. Presumably, she'd have been walking through the door, maybe leaning to the right a bit out of habit to avoid the sofa, but surely some of that awful mess would have gotten on her.

Unless, of course, she was nowhere near the corpse after having created it and changed her clothes, and probably her stockings and shoes, too.

Mara, you bring up the idea that Lizzie could have cleaned herself up and changed her clothes. Some people have speculated that she cleaned up immediately after the killings, and before shouting for Bridgette. I have always found that unlikely, given the time frame. (between the time Bridgette went up stairs to lay down and the time Lizzie raised the alarm, no more than 15 minutes, at the most, could have passed)

If Lizzie changed clothes and cleaned up after she alerted Bridgette, and sent Bridgette for the doctor, then Bridgette would have seen Lizzie with blood on her.

As I have said before, this is the part of the case that I find most frustrating. I feel certain that Lizzie committed the crimes, but why do the witnesses all agree that she had no blood on her?

[PossumPie]

FactFincder, you've mentioned something important: Given the width of skirts, even of house dresses/wrappers, it would be almost more damning than not for her to be completely free of any blood after finding her father that way. Presumably, she'd have been walking through the door, maybe leaning to the right a bit out of habit to avoid the sofa, but surely some of that awful mess would have gotten on her.

Unless, of course, she was nowhere near the corpse after having created it and changed her clothes, and probably her stockings and shoes, too.

Mara, you bring up the idea that Lizzie could have cleaned herself up and changed her clothes. Some people have speculated that she cleaned up immediately after the killings, and before shouting for Bridgette. I have always found that unlikely, given the time frame. (between the time Bridgette went up stairs to lay down and the time Lizzie raised the alarm, no more than 15 minutes, at the most, could have passed)

If Lizzie changed clothes and cleaned up after she alerted Bridgette, and sent Bridgette for the doctor, then Bridgette would have seen Lizzie with blood on her.

As I have said before, this is the part of the case that I find most frustrating. I feel certain that Lizzie committed the crimes, but why do the witnesses all agree that she had no blood on her?

I posted several months ago, a training photo of a CSI wearing all white who bludgeoned a forensic head filled with fake blood with a baseball bat. The blood spatter was incredibly minimal and only on the arm holding the bat, and the lower legs below the knees. I think with a sharp hatchet, the amount of blood spatter and cast-off blood would have been minimal, a lot less than people realize. On a dark dress, almost invisible.

From a psychological standpoint, people will refuse to believe loved ones committed horrible acts, even when presented with overwhelming evidence. Emma may have never believed Lizzie did it b/c to believe that would be 'unbearable' to her.

[Curryong]

The complicating factors in this case make my head spin sometimes!
(1) We don't know what dress Lizzie wore on that Thursday morning. None of her friends, nor Bridget, could either remember or give testimony as to a particular garment. Only Mrs Churchill attempted a description-- a light blue gown with dark 'figures', or as we would say, pattern. If Lizzie wore a dark blue gown, in the rather dim light of the house a couple of blood spatters on the hem may well have gone unnoticed. If the police noticed then Lizzie could do some quick thinking (what's another lie among so many) and say that in her shock she must have gone closer to her dear father's body than she remembered and her hem must have swept up some blood.
(2) It's been speculated many times on this forum that Lizzie put on her father's overcoat backwards to do the deed. My only objection to that (and I actually tried it with a tomahawk and an older relative's overcoat!) is that it would be somewhat cumbersome to 'operate' in it in terms of it slipping due to the gaping at the back. Slipping the sleeves of the overcoat on over the enormous leg of mutton sleeves on women's dresses at the time, could present a problem too. However, one advantage of wearing the overcoat would be that, as Lizzie was considerably shorter than Andrew, the coat may well have covered her down to her boots. If any blood splashed on to the front of them it could be easily removed in a second by a cloth or handkerchief which could be then burned in the stove.

[PossumPie]

The complicating factors in this case make my head spin sometimes!
(1) We don't know what dress Lizzie wore on that Thursday morning. None of her friends, nor Bridget, could either remember or give testimony as to a particular garment. Only Mrs Churchill attempted a description-- a light blue gown with dark 'figures', or as we would say, pattern. If Lizzie wore a dark blue gown, in the rather dim light of the house a couple of blood spatters on the hem may well have gone unnoticed. If the police noticed then Lizzie could do some quick thinking (what's another lie among so many) and say that in her shock she must have gone closer to her dear father's body than she remembered and her hem must have swept up some blood.
(2) It's been speculated many times on this forum that Lizzie put on her father's overcoat backwards to do the deed. My only objection to that (and I actually tried it with a tomahawk and an older relative's overcoat!) is that it would be somewhat cumbersome to 'operate' in it in terms of it slipping due to the gaping at the back. Slipping the sleeves of the overcoat on over the enormous leg of mutton sleeves on women's dresses at the time, could present a problem too. However, one advantage of wearing the overcoat would be that, as Lizzie was considerably shorter than Andrew, the coat may well have covered her down to her boots. If any blood splashed on to the front of them it could be easily removed in a second by a cloth or handkerchief which could be then burned in the stove.

You're right, the complications make one's head spin. Sometimes we revisit topics multiple times with people coming and going on the forum. Some things that are assumed (like gallons of blood splashing everywhere) come more from bad movies than actual life. Some things we read in testimony, only to see contradicted elsewhere in other testimony. You have people arguing that the entire house was gone over with a fine toothed comb and a hatchet couldn't possibly have been hidden there, and other people pointing out repeated testimony by officers admitting that they only glanced into closets, and didn't open boxes or luggage. The whole thing is like a Rorschach Inkblot test. People see what they want to based on their own theories.

[Curryong]

In a way the earlier killing of Abby troubles me more, (if it was Lizzie.) There was no coat to give cover in the Abby killing and if she was bending/crouching over the victim Lizzie (or the intruder killer) must have received some blood spatter. And I do realise that there wouldn't be gallons, of course, but there would be some. Lizzie was an inexperienced killer and would have had to be extremely careful too not to stand in any part of the bloodied carpet, as leaving a trail showing her dainty hoof-prints heading away would be fatal. Whatever dress she was wearing at the time would have had to be meticulously cleaned off, and, if she changed dresses, how did she know Bridget wouldn't later blab 'Oh, Miss Lizzy changed her dress between breakfast and when she was ironing her hankies'? Women do often notice these things.
Off on a tangent, wasn't there blood found near a window in the guest bedroom that was never explained? Killer adjusting the shutters to allow more light, or shutting them, perhaps?

[snokkums]

I
think
Bridgetwould
havelied,too.
Toosave
herjob.

[Curryong]

But Snokkums, although Bridget liked the Bordens she left her job soon after the murders and went off and worked for the Josiah Hunt family

[PossumPie]

Bridget wouldn't have lied about murder. She didn't like the girls THAT much. She left them shortly after the murders never to return. Nobody was observant enough to notice what various dresses Lizzie wore that day, there are contradictions and "I don't remember" throughout the testimony. (lack of) blood on Lizzie has always bothered me slightly- again, there wouldn't be as much as people think. The whole silly idea of walking around the house naked hacking people up is ridiculous. ESPECIALLY during Victorian times when even if you were going to kill your father, you wouldn't let him see you naked...
If Lizzie were innocent, that means that SOMEONE sneaked into the house, hacked them both with a hatchet, and strolled casually out into broad daylight into a busy street. What about the blood then? No...there just wasn't enough blood on any killer to make an issue of it.

[snokkums]

yes
without
a
doubt.

[Curryong]

What are you agreeing with, Snokkums? Sorry to be a nuisance, I know your computer is playing up!

[PossumPie]

I keep thinking that we are not talking about lying to someone that you like their hideously ugly sweater, we are saying would someone risk perjury, jail-time, and suspicion of being an accomplice to murder if they lie. I wouldn't even lie for my own brother if it were a homicide investigation.

[debbiediablo]

Emma already had a dead mother, a dead father and a dead step-mother. She didn't want the only person in her immediate family, the little sister she was charged to care for, to go to the gallows. If Emma knew for sure that Lizzie was the murderer, then she also knew why and understood at a gut level that Lizzie would never be a threat to society again. If she didn't know for sure, then she likely couldn't or wouldn't accept the possibility.

I, too, have always wondered why no blood splatter but anyone who has ever seen a head wound knows the blood runs rather than sprays. I'm not sure that the motive and opportunity for Abby's murder are the same as for Andrew's. Maybe Abby encountered Lizzie coming out of her room with a hatchet and confronted her. At that point Abby had to die. Even if her murder was planfully executed, it doesn't mean that Lizzie had to clean up twice. Maybe she did after Abby, but I can see her wearing Andrew's jacket (either as initially planned or because she learned after the first hatchet job) and needing only to wash up in the slop bucket afterward.

I have always believed that any of us are capable of any heinous act under the right circumstances. But without those circumstances it's difficult to step into another person's personality and life to understand their motives.

I don't think Bridget lied for anyone nor do I think she was paid off. She was afraid...afraid that the murderer would come back for her whether she thought it was Lizzie or someone who sneaked in off the street.

[MysteryReader]

I don't know a lot about Victorian life (I've not done my research yet) but I wonder how many of us today would cover up for a family member we suspected of killing? What about those who are parents- would you cover up for your child if you suspected him/her of killing? I have to say honestly, I wouldn't cover up for a family member who was suspected; however, I would have to take a hard look at the family member suspected. I don't have kids but I have to say, again, I wouldn't cover it up. Would you?

[Curryong]

I would be devastated, MysteryReader, but I would have to say I wouldn't. I'd be going with them (if they wanted that) to the police station, but certainly no cover-ups.

With the Borden sisters, however, the bond was so strong, especially on 'little mother' Emma's part, that I do think she lied for Lizzie.
In fact, I'm almost certain she did when she said in her testimony at the trial that she had 'persuaded Lizzie to burn her paint-stained dress. Also in her putting the best face on the relationships in the family during that testimony, (though that's understandable.No airing of dirty linen, etc.)

I don't believe that she did persuade her, for a moment. In my opinion, Emma was 100 per cent determined to do her utmost to prevent her 'child' from going to jail. I don't know whether Emma ever faced up to the possibility that her sister murdered her parents but yes. I do believe she lied for her.

[Franz]

Do you think Emma and/or Bridget would have lied to protect Lizzie? Even by omission?

It's very difficult for me to answer, Anthony. I can't imagine if I were Bridget or Emma, what would I do...

I have nothing to say other than... I think Bridget and/or Emma might have at least somehow enbellished something concerning the relations between Lizzie and Abby, realizing that Lizzie was in a dangerous situation. But meanwhile I think this doesn't mean necessarily that they believed Lizzie was guilty and therefore tried to save Lizzie's life and lied. They, especially Emma, could have been very well convinced of Lizzie's innocence but lied as well for her (concerning the relationship Abby-Lizzie, I mean). Or they might have had some doubt but in order to avoid of Lizzie's being wrongly convicted, they lied. I have an idea, maybe very strange to some of you, that if they were very convinced of Lizzie's guilt, it would be less probable, according to me, that they lied --- especially Bridget --- for someone they believed a patricide and matricide murderess.

[Franz]

Does anyone else find it interesting that Lizzie didn't seem to form any bonds of friendship with her servants until she was the mistress of her own house? There didn't seem to be any strong bond of friendship between Lizzie and Bridget. Or the other maids up until this time. Although there is less evidence of what the relationship was between the earlier servants there doesn't appear to be any type of lasting bond formed. This intrigues me.

I think there could be two reasons in one: when Lizzie lived in the Barden house as daughter of the familly, she might have tought that servants worked directly for her parents, not for her. Menawhile, before the murders occured, she had other social activitie, other more "noble" relationships to intend; After the trial, she herself became the mistress of the house so she thought her servants worked directly for her, and meanwhile, she was somehow ostracized by the society. I am not criticizing Lzizzie for her "snobism" before the murders and something else after that. I can understand her for this issue.

[Curryong]

Yes, all good points, Franz. There may also have been an element of mistrust too. Bridget was quite close to Abby, who was fond of her, told her she would miss her if she left, etc. You don't usually become very friendly with people you consider are on your enemy's side, (as Lizzie regarded Abby.)

There might also have been a clash of personalities. Bridget testified that the remark about the sale of materials that Lizzie had told her about on the Thursday was the first time such a subject had been discussed between 'Miss Lizzie' and herself, whereas 'Miss Emma' had spoken to her before about such things.

[MysteryReader]

There might also have been a clash of personalities. Bridget testified that the remark about the sale of materials that Lizzie had told her about on the Thursday was the first time such a subject had been discussed between 'Miss Lizzie' and herself, whereas 'Miss Emma' had spoken to her before about such things.[/quote]

Sure, it could have been a clash of personalities but also, I see Emma being meek and Lizzie being snobby.

[Curryong]

Abby's relatives certainly got that impression, about both sisters being snobby, I'm afraid.