Lizzie Borden Society Forum

There are mistakes in her interview with Bridget, but how much if any of it do you believe?

I found it interesting that Nellie mentioned Lizzie hearing Abby groan.
The interview strikes me as authentic, yet Bridget comes across as too open seeing she didn’t really know Nellie.

If the interview is accurate except for the known errors, such as the Churchill portion, it appears Bridget did help Lizzie on the stand.
According to the interview, Bridget saw Lizzie on the stair landing,

This is a transcript of a podcast of the Nellie McHenry interview - we can check the Knowlton Papers for accuracy when Camgarsky is back. I don't know how closely the podcasters read the Knowlton Papers or if they are just summarizing and dramatizing here.

I hereby enclose my statement to the City Marshal of Fall River, Rufus B. Hilliard. Dear Sir, I herein enclose the statement of Bridget Sullivan made to me at her boarding place in Fall River on the 19th of August, 1892, between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning.

After stating to her that I was from Tiverton, Rhode Island, and related to poor Mrs. Borden, that I wished to hear her story myself. Therefore, I called upon her personally for that reason, and after talking with her for about two hours, I elicited the following. That Mr. and Mrs. Borden had been very sick all night. Mrs. Borden asked Bridget if she had heard them vomiting.

Said someone had been trying to poison them and that she was going to see Dr. Bowen, but she knew they would not like it. Also asked Bridget if she had eaten the same food. She answered yes. All but the baker's bread. Mrs. Borden then burned the bread in the stove and burned herself doing it. Bridget ate her breakfast and was taken sick. She went into the yard and vomited it all up.

Bridget denied telling the O'Neill girl that Lizzie sent her upstairs to clean the windows. Mrs. Borden told Bridget to clean the windows herself, and she did so with a brush. She saw a Mr. Baker and a Mrs. Kelly's girl while doing them. So that was the last she ever heard Mrs. Borden say anything, and the last she ever saw of her. Mrs. Borden had been talking about Mr. Morse all week long, saying,

Now he is here, and I suppose we will have him on our hands all summer. I don't see why he don't get married and go away. Bridget also said if he had not come there this poor old lady would be alive today, as it was his being there that took her to that part of the house. She never went there as she knew well she was not wanted. The bed was found made.

Even the shams and Bridget supposed the old lady had made it as she was found dead in his room. Bridget was positive Lizzie was ironing when she went upstairs. Lizzie told Bridget that morning that there was a special sale at Sergeant's Dry Goods store, that they were selling the gingham for eight cents per yard, and asked Bridget why she did not go down. Bridget said she would get there before they were all gone.

I asked Bridget why the newspaper said so much about the fire. She said, Bridget then referred to the fact that Mrs. Borden always spoke about anything she was going to do or anything that happened about the house. Even if she was going out for a yeast cake, she would tell Bridget that she was going. She said no.

She did not believe Mrs. Borden received a note, as she was sure she would have spoken to her about it. Also, the front door had not been opened by Bridget until Mr. Borden returned, and it was fastened in such a way that he could not open it with his key. And when Bridget tried to let him in, she could not open it at first. And she said, Oh, shah! As soon as she spoke, she heard Lizzie laugh upstairs and looked up and saw her on the landing.

Mr. Borden came in and went into the sitting room. He did not ask for Mrs. Borden, as was his usual habit. Bridget felt sick to her stomach and had a bad headache after she finished the windows. She went upstairs and laid across the foot of her own bed. She did not go to sleep, but heard the clock strike eleven, got up and looked at her own clock, thought it would soon be time to go downstairs to get the regular noon meal. It did not seem but a few minutes when Miss Lizzie called, Maggie, come down quick! Father is dead! Go for Dr. Bowen! Bridget is called Maggie.

Bridget was so frightened, she did not look at Mr. Borden, but ran out for the doctor. Then Bridget asked, Where is Mrs. Borden? Lizzie said she went out. Go up to Mrs. Churchill's. I think you'll find her there. Bridget went and came back with Mrs. Churchill, and together they went over the house, and upstairs to Morse's room, where they found her. Mrs. Borden was dead, and she was so awfully frightened, she put her arms around Mrs. Churchill and cried. Miss Lizzie was quite cool, and not nervous. Dr. Bowen came running out of Mr. Borden's room, all excited and with tears running down his cheeks, saying, Oh, he is murdered! He is murdered to [expletive] pieces!

I asked Bridget how it could happen that Mrs. Borden was killed right in her own house, and no one heard her cry out. Although Lizzie was so near Bridget, and her answer was, That is just what I said to Miss Lizzie! And she said, Oh, I heard her groan. Then Bridget added, I told that to the court and to the judge.

Bridget said it was her custom to fasten the cellar door after washing it if it was open. Someone opened it. When she started to clean the windows, Lizzie was going to hook the back door, but Bridget said she would be at work right there. She could see to it. Bridget spoke of where she had worked in Fall River at Mrs. Reeds in Remington. She said she came from Newport about three years ago, was there to visit three weeks before, and stayed all night. When she got out of this, she was going back to Newport. Bridget further stated that Mrs. Borden was always very kind and good to her, and would talk to her about what she was going to do. The girls, particularly Miss Lizzie, were very different. Always keeping to themselves, and no one ever was allowed to go to Miss Lizzie's 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. I asked Bridget if they quarreled. She said she would not want to say anything about that. Of course they would not quarrel in front of me. I pressed her upon this subject, but she evidently did not want to talk about it. She further stated that she made up her mind three times to leave there 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 us 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 pleasant in the house. I asked how it was. Well, the girls keep so much to themselves as...

The above report is in substance the result of the two hours of conversation with Bridget Sullivan. Mrs. Nellie S. McHenry, August 25th, 1892. Statement by Detective Nellie McHenry. Handwritten in ink.

Here is what stands out to me...

"She did not believe Mrs. Borden received a note, as she was sure she would have spoken to her about it."
If Bridget really said that, then that would lead me to believe she suspected Lizzie of lying.

That is just what I said to Miss Lizzie! And she said, Oh, I heard her groan. Then Bridget added, I told that to the court and to the judge.
This appears to be confusing what Lizzie initially said about hearing a groan (or a scraping sound) about the time of Andrew's murder.

Bridget also said if he had not come there this poor old lady would be alive today, as it was his being there that took her to that part of the house. She never went there as she knew well she was not wanted.
This is outright wrong - the only sewing machine was there - so Abby went to that room when she had to use the machine. Also, some guests of Abby and Andrew slept there. The imprecision of the language used throughout the trial really bothers me. NEVER is an absolute, it has a very specific meaning. It doesn't mean RARELY. The "No." And then following it up with, "none to speak of" type of language really bothers me in a life or death trial situation.

"Then Bridget asked, Where is Mrs. Borden? Lizzie said she went out. Go up to Mrs. Churchill's. I think you'll find her there. Bridget went and came back with Mrs. Churchill, and together they went over the house..."
I think she meant Mrs. Whitehead's house, not Mrs. Churchill's house, which was next door.

Bridget said it was her custom to fasten the cellar door after washing it if it was open. Someone opened it. When she started to clean the windows, Lizzie was going to hook the back door, but Bridget said she would be at work right there.
This is confusing the north side screen door with the east side walk in cellar staircase door.

I can’t remember if anyone looked for a burn Abby may have received from the stove. This would have required an exhumation, so doubtful.

Here is the letter with no edits. Couple things to keep in mind. This conversation was 2 hours long and obviously Nellie wasn't writing down notes. So everything in the letter was pure recollection of what is a relatively detailed chat. The letter is dated August 25 and the conversation occurred August 19. So if even a day or two passed before she put her recollection on paper, errors of memory would be amplified. She also, apparently, didn't know how to form a proper sentence.


--------------------------------------------------------
Knowlton Papers
Page 33
HK023
Document, typewritten, with notations handwritten in ink.

Rufus B. Hilliard
City Marshal
Fall River.
Dear Sir,
I herein enclose the statement of Bridget Sullivan made to me at her boarding place in Fall River on the 19th of Aug. 1892, between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning, after stating to her that I was from Tiverton, RI and related to poor Mrs. Borden that I wished to hear her story myself. Therefore I called upon her personally for that reason after talking with her for about two hours I elicited the following.
That Mr. & Mrs. Borden had been very sick all night. Mrs. Borden asked Bridget if she had heard them vomiting said some one had been trying to poison them and that she was going to see Dr. Bowen but she knew they would not like it? also asked Bridget if she (Bridget) had eaten the same food she answered yes all but the Bakers bread Mrs. Borden burned the bread then herself in the stove. Bridget ate her breakfast was taken sick went into the yard and vomited it all up.
Bridget denied telling the O’Neil girl that Lizzie sent her upstairs to clean windows, Mrs. Borden `told Bridget to clean the windows herself, and she did so with a brush, she saw Mr. Baker and a Mrs. Kellys girl, while doing so – that was the last she ever heard Mrs. Borden say, and the last she ever saw of her. Mrs. Borden had been talking about Mr. Morse all the week long saying “now he is here I suppose we will have him on our hands all summer, I dont see why he don’t get married and go away” Bridget also said that she thought if he had not come there the poor old lady would be alive today, as it was his being there that took her to that part of the house, she never went there as she knew well she was not wanted, the bed was found made even to the shams and Bridget supposed the old lady had made it as she was found dead in his room. Bridget was positive Lizzie was ironing when she went upstairs, Lizzie told Bridget that morning that there was a special sale of ginghams at Sargents Dry Goods Store that they were selling the gingham for 8 cts. Per hard and asked Bridget why she did not go down Bridget said she would get there before they were all gone.
I asked Bridget why the news papers said so much about the fire she said Oh there was no clothes or rags found she might have burned them all up – Bridget then referred to the fact that Mrs. Borden always spoke about anything she was going to do or anything that happened about the house if she was only going out for a yeast cake she would tell Bridget that she was going for it so in answer to the question if Mrs. Borden received a note said no she did not believe Mrs. Borden did as she was sure she would have spoken to her about it also the front door had not been opened by Bridget until the old gentleman returned ) (meaning Mr. Borden that the front door was fastened in such a way that Mr. Borden could not open it with his key and when Bridget tried to let him in she could not open it at first and she said “Oh shaw” as soon as she spoke she heard Lizzie laugh from upstairs and looked up and saw her on the landing: Mr. Borden came in and went into the sitting room he did not ask for Mrs. Borden as was his usual habit. Bridget felt sick at her stomach & had a bad headache after she finished the windows she went upstairs because she was sick and laid down across the foot of her own bed, she did not go to sleep but heard the clock strike eleven got up and looked at her own clock thought it would soon be time to go down stairs to get the regular noon meal it did not seem but a few minutes, when Miss Lizzie called Maggie come down father is dead go for Dr. Bowen) (Bridget was called Maggie) Bridget was so frightened she did not look at Mr. Borden but ran out for the Dr. then Bridget asked where is Mrs. Borden Lizzie said she went out, go up to Mrs. Churchill’s house I think you will find there Bridget went and came back with Mrs. Churchill together they went over the house and upstairs in Morse’s room they found her Mrs. Borden dead Bridget said she was the first one to find poor Mrs. Borden dead and she was so awfully frightened she put her arms around Mrs. Churchill and cried. Miss Lizzie was quite cool not nervous Dr. Bowen came running out from the old gentlemen all excited with the tears coming down his cheeks saying Oh he is murdered murdered ______.
I asked Bridget how it could happen that Mrs. Borden was killed right in her own house and no one hear her cry out although Lizzie was so near Bridget answer was “that is just what I said to Miss Lizzie and she said oh I heard her groan and then Bridget added I told that up to the Court to the Judge.
Bridget said it was her habit to fasten the cellar door after washing and if it was open some one opened it. When she started to clean the windows Lizzie was going to hook the back door but Bridget said she would be at work right there that she could see to it.
Bridget spoke of where she had worked in Fall River at Mrs. Reads & Remington.
She said she came from Newport about three years ago” was there to visit three weeks before and stayed all night that when she got out of this she was going back to Newport.
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.
I asked Bridget if they quarelled she said she would not want to say anything about that of course they would not quarel in front of me. I pressed her upon this subject but she evidently did not want to talk about it.
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 above report is in substance the result of the two hours of conversation.

Mrs. Nellie S. Mc’Henry
Provo Aug. 25/92

(Note: “Statement of Bridget Sullivan to Nellie S. McHenry” handwritten in ink on reverse side of document.)

This stands out as well. I don't believe it is accurate: "Mr. Borden came in and went into the sitting room he did not ask for Mrs. Borden as was his usual habit."

The interesting thing to me is there are several sentences in there that would make it seem like Bridget did not believe Lizzie's story about the note. If that's the case - that, plus the pail of bloody rags that Bridget didn't notice on Tuesday (hanging clothes out) or Monday (washing day, but Monday depends on what Lizzie meant by the bucket being there "three or four days" - if Lizzie really meant 4 full days, then Monday is included, and the laundry room is maybe 10 x 13 feet.

I've thought a lot about when and how much Bridget suspected Lizzie and all the implications of that, spoken and unspoken, between them. That, in and of itself, is very interesting to think about.

Based on this description, I think she was washing all day:

1. The Prep Work (Often done the night before)
Sorting: Clothes were carefully sorted by fabric and color. Whites, colored cottons, flannels, and heavy wools were all treated differently.

Soaking: Heavy linens and stained whites were put to soak overnight in tubs of cold water and soda to help loosen the dirt.

Hauling Water: Before any washing could begin, gallons upon gallons of water had to be pumped and carried inside by hand.

2. Heating and Boiling
The Copper Boiler: A large copper washboiler was filled with water and heated over a coal or wood stove.

Shaving Soap: Instead of modern liquid or powder detergent, maids used bars of harsh lye soap, which they had to grate or shave into the boiling water to create a soapy lather.

Boiling the Whites: White linens, sheets, and undergarments were actually boiled in the soapy water to whiten and sanitize them.

3. The Physical Scrubbing
The Washboard: For items that couldn't be boiled (or to scrub out stubborn stains before boiling), the maid used a wooden or corrugated tin washboard. Clothes were rubbed vigorously up and down against the ridges by hand.

Dolly Tubs: For larger loads, some households used a "dolly"—a wooden tool resembling a stool on a stick—which the maid would twist back and forth inside a deep tub to agitate the clothes.

4. Rinsing and "Bluing"
Clothes had to go through multiple rinse tubs of clean, cold water to remove all traces of the harsh lye soap.

The Blueing Step: In the final rinse for white clothes, a small amount of "bluing" (a blue dye powder or liquid) was added. This subtly tinted the fabric to counteract the natural yellowing of old cotton and linen, making them look brilliantly white.

Starching: Petticoats, collars, and shirts were dipped in a liquid starch solution to give them a crisp, stiff finish once dried.

5. Wringing and Drying
The Mangle/Wringer: To get the water out, clothes were fed by hand through a mechanical wringer—two heavy rollers turned by a hand crank that squeezed the water out into a tub.

Hanging: Heavy baskets of wet laundry were hauled outside to be hung on clotheslines. If the weather was bad, clothes had to be strung up on racks in the kitchen or an attic, which took much longer and made the house incredibly damp.

Lorcan -- sorry, not tracking with where you're going with the washing details.

I'm just pointing out that laundry in 1892 is not throw a basket full of clothes in the washer, press a button and walk away. Neither is drying all that heavy, wet clothing. Bridget spent a considerable number of hours in a 10 x 13 space and would have to have not noticed a pail full of bloody rags.

I agree Monday - washing day - what Lizzie said can be interpreted as the pail was there when Bridget was washing clothes or not until Tuesday.

Tuesday is the larger problem for Lizzie. Bridget specifically said she was carrying clothes out to hang on the line right out the door immediately adjacent to the laundry room, where I assume she stored at least some of the wet clothes. She said she went out of the basement door to hang them up, so the laundry room is, I think, a very likely location for the wet laundry to be stored until she hung them out to dry.

The room is only 10ft x 13ft. Bridget not noticing a bloody bucket in a room that small for 1 or 2 days, when it is literally her job to deal with those bloody pails, is a bit hard for me to believe.

I've been trying to point out when 1892 household tasks take a significantly different amount of time than 2026, so we think of the proper timespans when we are trying to puzzle through the testimony.

Ironing 1892 vs. Ironing 2026
Bed making 1892 vs. Bed making 2026
Laundry 1892 vs. Laundry 2026

All of these are vastly different in scope and time needed to accomplish in the Borden case vs. our lived experience.

Gotcha. Agree that if that pail was in the washroom and not scooted in a nook or cranny, Bridget would have seen it and dealt with whatever the pail contained before Thursday.

Assuming Bridget isn't the culprit, there would be no reason for her to have noticed the pail, done nothing with it and then tell the police she had never seen it.

For anyone wanting to prove Lizzie is innocent, I really think they have to provide a plausible, fact based alternative. The circumstantial evidence list is overwhelming and can't be ignored unless it all fits into another solution that implicates another person or persons.

Good summary Cam.
I still think it’s imperative to know if Bridget was aware of the pail prior to the Doherty and Mullaly’s escort to the cellar.
I think what Bridget meant in her (2 days) reference, was even if the pail had been there for ONLY 2 days, she would have seen it.
I can’t help thinking the cellar sink would be a common place for rinsing slops throughout the week.

Hi! Late to this thread, but one thing that really struck me in these last few posts is this phrase: "For anyone wanting to prove Lizzie is innnocent, I really think they have to provide a plausible, fact-based alternative."

Okay, well isn't that backwards? Isn't she already presumed innocent, legally and morally? Isn't the burden of proof on the guilt side?

The circumstantial evidence list against her is not exactly "fact-based" but is largely a matter of interpretation on top of a heavy dose of speculation. The bare facts referred to in these last few posts are: Lizzie was soaking menstrual napkins in a pail near the sink; we know it wasn't there on Monday (Bridget's washing day), and we know Bridget didn't notice it until Thursday. Those facts don't "prove" guilt or innocence either way. Not that it isn't reasonable to wonder about it, but in my humble opinion, you have to interpret and spin the bare facts pretty heavily to turn that into "evidence" of her guilt.

We are not in a court of law, this is not the US judicial system. There is no such thing as 'presumed innocent' or "burden of proof is on the prosecution" in trying to determine what most likely happened so long ago. We are not hampered by trial rules and requirements. And thank goodness for that.
Lizzie will not hang if we believe her to be a killer who got away with it.

The circumstantial evidence list is extensive and every one of them are built upon facts. But since we don't have a video recording of that days events, we are forced 130 years later to apply common sense or logic or other knowledge to try and connect the dots of facts. If that is speculation, then not sure how you can be so convinced she is innocent, because you are also just speculating. If common sense and logic are not allowed to be used to form deductions, then we are all wasting our time because she is neither guilty or innocent.

I have spent 6 years expunging and disputing real speculation and fabrication. I've also been willing to share the results and findings of an extensive amount of research and study. To have those efforts described as "a matter of interpretation on top of a heavy dose of speculation." is disappointing, to put in mildly.

If I may interject something I was pondering.
I was listening to Tom Lange, former detective who investigated the OJ Simpson case.
He talks about no murder weapon, video, or witnesses, but rather the culmination of many details, that in and of themselves don’t prove guilt. It’s when you look at them all together that is when things start to look bad for the suspect.

Of coarse OJ’s trial was doomed for a few reasons, and it’s a wonder how Marsha Clark could mess it up so.
She could have presented much more evidence than she did,regardless of the outcome, she simply held the evidence back and didn’t respect the detective’s advice on what to present, nor did she communicate with them honestly on some of the evidence.

There are striking parallels in the Simpson, and Borden trials, but what I’ve learned from Tom Lange when it comes to evidence, is that all the small details must be looked at and put together properly. Then it’s the totality that starts to show.

Part of the reason I look for things that may look good for Lizzie, is because it’s not easy.
For example, if Bridget saw the bloody pail before Doherty, and Mullaly found it, that to me would be great for Lizzie, but alas, it doesn’t seem to be the case.
It’s hard to find ways to help her, and it has always bothered me, because I do want her to be innocent.
I’m afraid most of the professional
investigators who spoke directly to Lizzie, and spent countless hours digging and interviewing also didn’t want to suspect Lizzie, but they had no other alternative.

I suppose we can look at the bloody pail differently, and that’s fine, but in order for the case to be understood, we must look at the facts in relation to other known facts, and sometimes that isn’t a clear line to see. Sometimes it is.

I will say that I don’t judge Lizzie, there’s always the remote chance that somehow things went differently than the facts seem to say, but it’s the truth that keeps me interested in the case, and searching for something that hasn’t shown itself yet, is part of the lure.
The witness testimony still fascinates me for some reason, and gives some of the closest looks at those involved to better understand some of the truths.

I so much appreciate your thoughts Camgarsky and Lorcan, and I hear you, and of course you are right that this is not a court of law, and also I am also thankful for that, because some of the "law" in Lizzie's case was nuts, like making the prussic acid inadmissible. I absolutely agree that a courtroom is not the best place to discover the truth, and the OJ Simposon case is the right example for that!

So you have got to the heart of what this forum is for, and maybe I have it wrong, maybe the purpose here is to discuss theories of the different ways she could be guilty and how she got away with it. I am interested in those things, but also interested in why the jury acquitted her, why the prosecution wasn't persuasive or able to convince them, why the "evidence" was considered so weak not just by the jury but also apparently by the judges and so many of the reporters who were in the courtroom. And also why what was considered weak evidence then is considered strong evidence today in the minds of those who look at the case today.

So I am here to learn things I didn't know before, and to get other thoughts, and maybe offer some of mine and explain how it appears to me and how I got where I am in looking at the case. If it sounded like I am negatively judging your own efforts to get at the truth, or not responding in the right spirit, then I apologize.

I don’t think the purpose of this forum is to discuss theories in the sense of whimsical possibilities, rather to look at where known facts collide as much as possible.
Even when it’s only one of many aspects of the case, such as the interview by Nellie, dress burning, the pail , etc..
There are those who have spent years in serious research, honing in on factual details about one single aspect of, or sometimes one angle of that aspect, and doing so while weeding out or adding other known facts as they relate and using many sources, time, and hard study.

When someone like Cam challenges me on an idea or theory, there are times I must admit I was wrong, or I must use known fact to back up my theory.
But one has to be clear in their speculation, because to claim fact, one must show truth which supports their claim, especially if it’s a new thought or idea in the Borden case.

Inspector, thank you, (and I meant my thank you to you earlier as well). You make good points, and you are an excellent mediator :) I do appreciate it when Camgarsky challenges one of my wrong assumptions, especially about sources, keeps me honest ha. He has a depth of knowledge I envy. And I think he and I have had a mild debate before on the definition of speculation; I believe he prefers the term "deduction."

I find most of the theories of guilt and "how Lizzie got away with it" I run across here are absolutely reasonable rather than whimsical. The disussion always makes me think harder about what's being discussed. And Camgarsky was right, my tilt toward innocence is also based largely on speculation, it takes a whole lot of belabored speculation to try to work out how an intruder could have done it!

My point was only that, whether one leans toward guilt or innocence, they are still theories, stories, best guesses, not "proof," not even the most educated guess (or deduction) is proof, even when I can admire and respect the reasoning behind it. There is no way around the fact that what is a reasonable argument to one person may not be a reasonable argument to another person.

But clearly I need to stop making that point, I can see that it comes off as critical of good, sound reasoning. And of course Camgarsky is also right that the point of this forum is to kick around theories, present the reasoning behind them, and not argue a court case, so again I apologize. I consider it a lesson learned.

Our forum is many things and I think we do them well:

1. Preservation of history: making both text and images available to the wider community so the digital archive is not lost in case a site like this goes away.

2. The Lizzie Borden case is usually filmed or presented with a bunch of tropes and caricatures (the scrooge, the evil step-mom, the creepy uncle, the rebellious young woman) and every single one of those is wrong and it takes some time to calibrate. Each of us has gotten past that stage, but I think there is an opportunity with this forum to act as tour guides to each other, and when someone new comes on board - gently pointing out the worst of the pitfalls and funhouse mirrors.

3. Bringing conflicting perspectives into the light for all to examine. The hard part is we're not all able to act like Sherlock, separating logic from emotion, but we can accept that we sometimes might feel a bit of emotion when debating. That's unavoidable, if we want to have a robust investigation. If we can earn each other's trust over time, this forum could be a place where we can build up our armor and that might help us in other areas of our lives.

Well said Lorcan! I especially liked your line about funhouse mirrors because that’s how the case seems to me sometimes—
PS Happy Fathers Day to all you dads out there. And a nod to Andrew Borden who seemed to be beloved by at least one of his daughters.