Lizzie Borden Society Forum

This has been driving me crazy!!! I have spent hours searching for the source of Lizzie, supposedly, saying "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father". This quote has come up in several different threads; does anyone know the source of this quote?

I think we proved it doesn't exist- only in a certain person's mind.
Isn't the closest we've come in the opening or closing statement at trial of one of the attorneys?

There's a topic around here where I investigated this very thing! Anyone know what topic that was?

Umm... Actually, now that you mention it, that quotation does exist - almost. Offhand it looks like someone (whomever, at this point - the source could be any one of hundreds) paraphrased - or tried to paraphrase the following lines:

Then somebody said: Why, the Portuguese on the farm. No, says Lizzie, he is not a Portuguese; he is a Swede, and my father has not any man that ever worked for him that would do that to him. Not Alfred
Johnson that worked for them, not Mr. Eddy, another farmer that worked for them, no assistant,-I cannot believe it of any of them.

You'll find those lines near bottom, page 1744 of the trial transcript, right above where the last full paragraph starts. The responsible party - per the frontside index, appears to have been Governor Robinson, judging by the page numberings.

As for how Bridget got in there, we might draw that using simple inference: Along with the farm and field hands referred to, Bridget was also an employee of Mr. Borden.

Thanks Kat and Doug, I really appreciate the input by both of you!

You know, Doug, I did read the entire trial transcript, but, apparently overlooked this paragraph as being a possible paraphrase of the quote, "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for father." As you both know, this quote has been posted in ump-teen number of topics as a non-paraphrased quote from Lizzie.

Good Lord! No wonder I couldn't find it! :ncool:

Again, thanks!

salright. I know exactly what you mean. Sometimes it's so hard to make these things out.

I remember that quote from reading Edmund Pearson's "Trial of Lizzie Borden" as published circa 1963 (with the Gerald Gross explanation as an appendix).
Yes, if may be a summarized newspaper quote.
We KNOW Lizzie never pointed a finger of suspicion at Bridget or anyone who worked for Andy.
Hence the quote is virtually accurate. QED

I believe that Arnold Brown also mentions this.

No writer (except E H Porter) was alive at that time, If Porter says so, we must either accept it, or reject it with a good reason. But we know the police did investigate everyone in that family.

Kat @ Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:49 pm wrote:I think we proved it doesn't exist- only in a certain person's mind.
Isn't the closest we've come in the opening or closing statement at trial of one of the attorneys?

There's a topic around here where I investigated this very thing! Anyone know what topic that was?

Lizzie Andrew Borden NEVER testified at the trial. So all we know is the written reports made by others. Were they all inaccurate? Maybe not.

If she did say that, it sure would make her look guilty. I can't think why she would say something like that.

At first, I thought it commendable that Lizzie, though under suspicion herself, never tried to pin the blame on anyone else (or at least, anyone else who could be identified). Robinson pointed this out in his closing argument, as well he might.

It was, of course. But perhaps she also thought that if she did, it might backfire--big time. When she needed all the friends she could get, she couldn't afford to make an enemy that might be all too effective in making things even worse for her than they were already.

snokkums @ Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:33 am wrote:If she did say that, it sure would make her look guilty. I can't think why she would say something like that.

Because it was the unvarnished truth!!!
Lizzie was trying to shield Andy's innocent employers, yet not tell who was the Secret Visitor. (Todd Lunday calls him "Nobody", an Unknown Subject".)

Constantine @ Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:27 am wrote:At first, I thought it commendable that Lizzie, though under suspicion herself, never tried to pin the blame on anyone else (or at least, anyone else who could be identified). Robinson pointed this out in his closing argument, as well he might.

It was, of course. But perhaps she also thought that if she did, it might backfire--big time. When she needed all the friends she could get, she couldn't afford to make an enemy that might be all too effective in making things even worse for her than they were already.

Lizzie was not under suspicion at that time. It was only after all other leads proved negative did the suspicion fall on her.

IF she had said she didn't see anyone then the lack of blood spatter and murder weapon would clear Bridget and Lizzie, then or now.

Remember Constance Kent? A famous 19th century case (1855?).

Even if you believe her innocent (which I don't), she must have known she would be under suspicion.

Whoever did it got rid of any blood on his person (except for a pinhead bloodstain on his underskirt). His burning the dress took care of any that might have been left.

Remember Constance Kent? A famous 19th century case (1855?).

Yes, I remember Constance Kent. (Not personally. It was a little before my time.)

That case is made use of in one of the episodes of the film Dead of Night, a great British horror flick of the '40s.

The simple lack of blood splatter would not be enough to clear anybody who was at home at the time of two grisely murders, then or now. A simple change of dress and making sure her hands and face were free from blood would likely have been enough to keep Bridget from noticing anything suspicious when she called her down from her room. She sent her away pretty quickly. Then she allegedly stood by the back door, right near a sink with running water, while Bridget was gone. We also cannot say with certainty that Lizzie stood at the back door the whole time Bridget was gone, in my opinion. There were no witnesses to verify or account for every minute while Bridget was away to confirm this was the case. So she also had time while Bridget was away to continue clean up.

Allen @ Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:30 am wrote:The simple lack of blood splatter would not be enough to clear anybody who was at home at the time of two grisely murders, then or now. A simple change of dress and making sure her hands and face were free from blood would likely have been enough to keep Bridget from noticing anything suspicious when she called her down from her room. She sent her away pretty quickly. Then she allegedly stood by the back door, right near a sink with running water, while Bridget was gone. We also cannot say with certainty that Lizzie stood at the back door the whole time Bridget was gone, in my opinion. There were no witnesses to verify or account for every minute while Bridget was away to confirm this was the case. So she also had time while Bridget was away to continue clean up.

Maybe, but Dr. Sam Sheppard had NO BLOOD SPATTER on his pants, and no murder weapon was ever found. No motive either, as far as I remember. The criminologist who studied the crime scene after the trial simply stated that those pants could not have been worn by the murderer.

Your problem is that you first assume Lizzie did it, then have to create facts or suspicions to try to prove your case. You are free to do so, just admit that this is based on bias.

When I read that Pearson book circa 1965? I was convinced by the argument (from Gerald Gross) that Lizzie did Abby (inside at the time) and Bridget did Andy (inside at the time). Hence the Not Guilty verdict seemed strange and remarkable. But only if you don't know and are fooled by a liar with an axe to grind. THAT is why Arnold Brown's book was such a revelation to me. And most other unbiased readers, I trust.

PS GIven the known facts from then, is there anything that would change the verdict? You should know that moot courts have come to the same conslusion. Only in the fantasy world of drama can things be different.

Lizzie was not under suspicion at that time. It was only after all other leads proved negative did the suspicion fall on her.

--Ray

The Mayor, on Saturday after the funeral, Aug. 6th, told Lizzie, in her own parlour, she was suspected.

Kat @ Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:06 am wrote:

Lizzie was not under suspicion at that time. It was only after all other leads proved negative did the suspicion fall on her.

--Ray

The Mayor, on Saturday after the funeral, Aug. 6th, told Lizzie, in her own parlour, she was suspected.

Two days later seems like the FRPD acted very quickly, as they would today.
First, everybody at a muder scene would be suspect until cleared, then or now. The lack of blood spatter and murder weapon ruled out Bridget or Lizzie. Only Lizzie could be said to have a motive. But Radin pointed out that an employee could "go postal" then or now.

I believe it was Lizzie's saying "it wasn't Bridget" helped her. (The police investigated everyone anyway, even Emma in Fairhaven.)

allen, you come to the very heart of the matter. yes, she is seen standing in the side door by mrs. churchill, who was coming home from market. first, mrs. c saw bridget walking quickly up the street. when she came into her kitchen she looked out her window and saw lizzie standing in the doorway. then the famous query and answer and then mrs. c. came over.
after that, lizzie is [u]never[/u] alone again.
the endless fascination for me is how did ANYONE commit this crime. the timeline was beautifully laid out in Kent's book but i'd tighten it up a bit more. based on when lizzie and bridget say they last saw each other and when mrs. c sees lizzie in the doorway probably no more than about 8 minutes transpired.
it is why we can all argue here forever because no one should have been able to commit andrew's murder.