Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Irish

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Tesch
    Hey group! Either we re dead or I ve been kicked out. Saw Gangs of New York over the weekend with my wife. I had forgotten how despised Irish immigrants
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Hey group!

       

      Either we’re dead or I’ve been kicked out…

       

      Saw “Gangs of New York” over the weekend with my wife.  I had forgotten how despised Irish immigrants were in this country.  The movie took place in 1863, but I’m sure their lot hadn’t improved significantly by 1892.

       

      Which begs the question:  Why wasn’t Bridget Sullivan a suspect in the Borden murders?  She was the ideal scapegoat; a semiliterate, unprotected alien whose faith and nationality were scorned in New England.  Judging by her breakdown when the police arrived to fetch her, she expected to be accused.  And if there had been a shred of evidence or reasonable suspicion against her, she would have been arrested immediately

       

      If Lizzie was innocent, then she must suspect Bridget.  Yet neither she nor her attorney’s ever tried to incriminate Bridget, and the Prosecution retained her as a material witness.

       

      Bridget had opportunity to kill, but her only conceivable motive was outrage over working conditions.  If she were capable of this madness, wouldn’t there be some hint in her prior conduct.  Yet there is no record of any insubordination or temper regarding the servant.  Certainly Lizzie would have mentioned it if Bridget had ever acted improperly.

       

      Proposition:  If Bridget had murdered the Bordens she could not have gotten away with it...

       

      JT from Cincy

       

      PS:  I’m reading “Portrait of a Killer” by Patricia Cornwell, in which she fingers English painter Walter Sickert as being Jack the Ripper.  Not a new theory, but she’s giving it a new twist.  And she’s got DNA…

    • WestList@AOL.com
      In a message dated 1/16/2003 9:36:50 PM Central Standard Time, ... It s been awhile since I ve read my Borden books , but seems like I remember Bridget having
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 16, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 1/16/2003 9:36:50 PM Central Standard Time, jtesch@... writes:

        Yet there is no record of any insubordination or temper regarding the servant.  Certainly Lizzie would have mentioned it if Bridget had ever acted improperly.


        It's been awhile since I've read my "Borden books", but seems like I remember
        Bridget having been fired/terminated from another job previously?  What am I
        thinking here?  How long was she employed by the Bordens and what was
        the reason she left her previous employment?

      • Chamberlain Kathleen Reuter
        Jeffrey Tesch wrote -- Which begs the question: Why wasn t Bridget Sullivan a suspect in the Borden murders? She was the ideal scapegoat; a semiliterate,
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 17, 2003
        • 0 Attachment

          Jeffrey Tesch wrote --

           

          Which begs the question:  Why wasn’t Bridget Sullivan a suspect in the Borden murders?  She was the ideal scapegoat; a semiliterate, unprotected alien whose faith and nationality were scorned in New England.  Judging by her breakdown when the police arrived to fetch her, she expected to be accused.  And if there had been a shred of evidence or reasonable suspicion against her, she would have been arrested immediately

           

          If Lizzie was innocent, then she must suspect Bridget.  Yet neither she nor her attorney’s ever tried to incriminate Bridget, and the Prosecution retained her as a material witness.

           

          Bridget had opportunity to kill, but her only conceivable motive was outrage over working conditions.  If she were capable of this madness, wouldn’t there be some hint in her prior conduct.  Yet there is no record of any insubordination or temper regarding the servant.  Certainly Lizzie would have mentioned it if Bridget had ever acted improperly.

           

          Proposition:  If Bridget had murdered the Bordens she could not have gotten away with it...

           

           

          As I recall, Edward Radin’s 1961 book, “Lizzie Borden:  The Untold Story,” posits Bridget as the killer.  I haven’t read the book for years, but I remember not being very convinced by his argument.  Some of the  same problems occur with considering her the killer as with considering Lizzie:  1) how did she successfully hide the weapon; and 2) what would have happened to *her* bloodstained dress (an Irish servant wouldn’t have had so many dresses that a missing one would go unnoticed)?  Then, too, if Bridget were guilty and Lizzie completely innocent, how could Bridget have managed both murders without being seen by Lizzie?

           

          In “A Private Disgrace,” Victoria Lincoln sees the fact that Lizzie never voiced suspicions against Bridget as evidence that 1) she knew her to be innocent because 2) she (Lizzie) knew herself to be guilty.  But logically, the second point doesn’t necessarily follow from the first:   Still, given the unlikelihood of an outside killer, the Bordens’ silence about Bridget *is* worth noting.

           

          Several people have suggested that Lizzie and Bridget could have worked together on the murder.   But this theory, while it helps explain both Lizzie’s and Bridget’s somewhat puzzling lack of awareness of each other’s movements, has many other problems.

           

          I’ve always wondered if, at the time, it was somehow clear to the police and others that Bridget couldn’t have done the killings, the reason might have been something so obvious that no one thought it worth mentioning publically.  Or the lack of attention to Bridget might be explained by the police’s inexperience/difficulties in dealing with major murders among the wealthy.  (As today’s JonBenet case proves, even police forces equipped with modern technology can bungle basic procedures.)

           

          And Jeffrey, I hope you won’t be too annoyed if I offer a comment about the expression “begs the question,” which you use in your message.  Many people use this phrase as if it means, “Here is a question that begs to be answered.”  But actually, “begging the question” means “assuming as true the very point that requires proof.”  In essence, the speaker is just “begging off  -- sidestepping the whole issue of proof and merely restating the claim.  Example:  “Stealing is a crime because the people who do it are criminals.”   Well, “criminality” is the very thing you have to prove – so you can’t use your claim as part of your evidence.

           

          I bring this up only because “begging the question” is a very useful and necessary logical principle that we risk losing if we change the meaning.

           

          Kathleen Chamberlain

        • Patsy751@aol.com
          Hi Group, I can t wait to see Gangs of New York being of the Irish persuasion myself. Anyway, Bridget had something to offer about the case significant
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 17, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Group,
            I can't wait to see "Gangs of New York" being of the Irish persuasion myself.  Anyway, Bridget had something to offer about the case significant  enough to want to make a "deathbed" confession.

            Patsy751
          • Muriel Arnold
            Hi gang: Talking about Bridget, my reseach showed that some of her relatives and friends said Bridget had a very hot temper. The reason she d left her last
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 17, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi gang:
              Talking about Bridget, my reseach showed that some of her relatives and friends said Bridget had a very hot temper.
              The reason she'd left her last employment was because a friend told her the Bordens were looking for a new maid/cook and the pay would be $3 a week, no kids, 1 1/2 days off and easy working conditions.
               
              I found nothing about her ever acting improperly while working for the Bordens.  She never brought any men to the house.
              Bridget worked for the Bordens for two years and nine months.
               
              I do recall  famous author Mary Livermore telling reporters that Lizzie told her, in an interview, that hands were stretched out against her in her own home that she had done favors for in the past.  (That had to be Bridget.)
              Muriel Arnold
               
              Author of  Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
              For more information
              muriela@...
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:41 PM
              Subject: Re: [40Whacks] The Irish

              In a message dated 1/16/2003 9:36:50 PM Central Standard Time, jtesch@... writes:

              Yet there is no record of any insubordination or temper regarding the servant.  Certainly Lizzie would have mentioned it if Bridget had ever acted improperly.


              It's been awhile since I've read my "Borden books", but seems like I remember
              Bridget having been fired/terminated from another job previously?  What am I
              thinking here?  How long was she employed by the Bordens and what was
              the reason she left her previous employment?



              ---WHODUNIT???---

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Muriel Arnold
              Hi JT: The reason Bridget was not considered the murderess: 1. Mystery writers had already stopped making the butler or maid guilty in their dime novels. 2.
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 17, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi JT:
                The reason Bridget was not considered the murderess:
                1.  Mystery writers had already stopped making the butler or maid guilty in their dime novels.
                2.  Reporters had remarked something to the effect that if anyone was telling the unvarnished truth, Bridget had that face.  (She was an adroit liar.)
                3.  Knowlton believed Bridget was telling the truth about her window washing.
                My research showed she washed no windows outside and rinsed off only one.  She also washed no windows inside.  That was how good a liar she was.
                4.  Bridget killed Mrs. Borden while Lizzie was in the cellar.
                She killed Mr. Borden within two minutes after Lizzie left the house to go to the barn.
                 
                Edward Radin, who found Bridget to be guilty, fell for enough of her lies as to make his theory weak.  Wish now I hadn't gotten rid of some 15 books I had on this case.  Bridget got Radin to believe Bridget sounded the alram at 11:10.  WRONG!!
                 
                Bridget told Benjamin Buffinton, a former homicide detective, that she heard the City Hall Clock strike 11:00 just before Lizzie called her downstairs.
                Bridget told reporters she spoke to Mr. Borden about five minutes before Lizzie sounded the alarm.
                 
                Lastly, Bridget did not break down when the police came to the house for fear of being accused.  Bridget thought they had put two and two together and realized she had done the killing.
                 
                And JT, I'm waiting to hear your other 39 reasons why Lizzie was guilty.  I came up with 44 reasons for Lizzie and 50 for Bridget.
                Muriel Arnold
                 
                Author of  Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
                For more information
                muriela@...
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:34 PM
                Subject: [40Whacks] The Irish

                Hey group!

                 

                Either we’re dead or I’ve been kicked out…

                 

                Saw “Gangs of New York” over the weekend with my wife.  I had forgotten how despised Irish immigrants were in this country.  The movie took place in 1863, but I’m sure their lot hadn’t improved significantly by 1892.

                 

                Which begs the question:  Why wasn’t Bridget Sullivan a suspect in the Borden murders?  She was the ideal scapegoat; a semiliterate, unprotected alien whose faith and nationality were scorned in New England.  Judging by her breakdown when the police arrived to fetch her, she expected to be accused.  And if there had been a shred of evidence or reasonable suspicion against her, she would have been arrested immediately

                 

                If Lizzie was innocent, then she must suspect Bridget.  Yet neither she nor her attorney’s ever tried to incriminate Bridget, and the Prosecution retained her as a material witness.

                 

                Bridget had opportunity to kill, but her only conceivable motive was outrage over working conditions.  If she were capable of this madness, wouldn’t there be some hint in her prior conduct.  Yet there is no record of any insubordination or temper regarding the servant.  Certainly Lizzie would have mentioned it if Bridget had ever acted improperly.

                 

                Proposition:  If Bridget had murdered the Bordens she could not have gotten away with it...

                 

                JT from Cincy

                 

                PS:  I’m reading “Portrait of a Killer” by Patricia Cornwell, in which she fingers English painter Walter Sickert as being Jack the Ripper.  Not a new theory, but she’s giving it a new twist.  And she’s got DNA…



                ---WHODUNIT???---

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • WestList@AOL.com
                In a message dated 1/17/2003 6:02:57 PM Central Standard Time, ... Thank you for the information. My thoughts were obviously off-track. It would be
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 17, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 1/17/2003 6:02:57 PM Central Standard Time, muriela@... writes:

                  Talking about Bridget, my reseach showed that some of her relatives and friends said Bridget had a very hot temper.

                  The reason she'd left her last employment was because a friend told her the Bordens were looking for a new maid/cook and the pay would be $3 a week, no kids, 1 1/2 days off and easy working conditions.


                  Thank you for the information.  My thoughts were obviously off-track.  It
                  would be interesting to know more about Bridget.  I've always wondered
                  about her involvement in the case. 

                  Another question... if someone knows.  Where did Bridget go following
                  the murders?  Did she remain in the Borden home throughout the investigation
                  and trial?  Again, it's been awhile since I've read up on the murders, but I seem
                  to recall Bridget packing up a few boxes and being taken away by the police
                  to stay somewhere else.  This sticks in my mind because I was always
                  curious about what was in the boxes... and whether or not the police
                  searched the belongings.

                  If the weather weren't so cold and miserable, I'd make a trip to the library
                  this weekend and check out a few Borden books.  It's about time for me
                  to start re-reading so I can get all the "facts" straight.

                  Meanwhile, if anyone knows where Bridget went... I'd love to know too.
                  Or maybe once again, my thoughts are off-track.  It wouldn't be the first
                  time.
                • Muriel Arnold
                  Hi gang: On Monday, August 8th, the police learned Bridget was packing. She was told that if she did so, she would be arrested at once. On Tuesday, August
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 17, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi gang:
                    On Monday, August 8th, the police learned Bridget was packing.  She was told that if she did so, she would be arrested at once.
                    On Tuesday, August 9th, after her testimony at the inquest, she was told she no longer had to stay at the Bordens and she would be the prosecution's star witness.  Emma asked Bridget if she would be returning.  Bridget said no and went to live with her cousin on Division Street.
                     
                    Within a month Bridget was working for the keeper of the New Bedford Jail.  There she remained employed till 5 June 1893 when her employment was terminated.  What made this interesting, New Bedford was where Knowlton lived, making it difficult for Lizzie's lawyers and anyone else to question her actions.  Several times the reporters tried to tell Knowlton that he had arrested the wrong one.  Unfortunately, Knowlton had made up his mind and having decided Lizzie was guilty, guilty she would be.  He was staking his political career on this case.
                    Muriel Arnold
                     
                    Author of  Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
                    For more information
                    muriela@...
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 11:59 PM
                    Subject: Re: [40Whacks] The Irish

                    In a message dated 1/17/2003 6:02:57 PM Central Standard Time, muriela@... writes:

                    Talking about Bridget, my reseach showed that some of her relatives and friends said Bridget had a very hot temper.

                    The reason she'd left her last employment was because a friend told her the Bordens were looking for a new maid/cook and the pay would be $3 a week, no kids, 1 1/2 days off and easy working conditions.


                    Thank you for the information.  My thoughts were obviously off-track.  It
                    would be interesting to know more about Bridget.  I've always wondered
                    about her involvement in the case. 

                    Another question... if someone knows.  Where did Bridget go following
                    the murders?  Did she remain in the Borden home throughout the investigation
                    and trial?  Again, it's been awhile since I've read up on the murders, but I seem
                    to recall Bridget packing up a few boxes and being taken away by the police
                    to stay somewhere else.  This sticks in my mind because I was always
                    curious about what was in the boxes... and whether or not the police
                    searched the belongings.

                    If the weather weren't so cold and miserable, I'd make a trip to the library
                    this weekend and check out a few Borden books.  It's about time for me
                    to start re-reading so I can get all the "facts" straight.

                    Meanwhile, if anyone knows where Bridget went... I'd love to know too.
                    Or maybe once again, my thoughts are off-track.  It wouldn't be the first
                    time.


                    ---WHODUNIT???---

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • Jeffrey Tesch
                    Muriel wrote: Hi JT: The reason Bridget was not considered the murderess: 1. Mystery writers had already stopped making the butler or maid guilty in their
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 20, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment

                       

                       

                      Muriel wrote:

                       

                      Hi JT:

                      The reason Bridget was not considered the murderess:

                      1.  Mystery writers had already stopped making the butler or maid guilty in their dime novels.

                      ***why is this relevant?

                       

                      2.  Reporters had remarked something to the effect that if anyone was telling the unvarnished truth, Bridget had that face.  (She was an adroit liar.)

                      ***also not relevant to the investigation              .

                       

                      3.  Knowlton believed Bridget was telling the truth about her window washing.

                      My research showed she washed no windows outside and rinsed off only one.  She also washed no windows inside.  That was how good a liar she was.

                      ***how can you research this?  Several witnesses verified that they saw her at work outside, including Tom Bowles, Mark Chase, Mary Doolin, Ellen Eagan, and Lizzie indirectly in her inguest testimony.

                       

                      4.       Bridget killed Mrs. Borden while Lizzie was in the cellar.

                      ***You had Abby’s murder at 8:45-8:50 – Lizzie not even downstairs yet.

                       

                      5.       she killed Mr. Borden within two minutes after Lizzie left the house to go to the barn.

                      ***whatever…I challenge anyone in this group (except Muriel) to review Lizzie’s inquest testimony about her trip to the barn and tell me she didn’t do it.    She admitted she hadn’t been to the barn for at least three months, had no “useable” fishing lines at the farm (why look for sinkers), and didn’t track in any dirt, grime, hay or sweat from the remarkably undisturbed loft.

                       

                      Sorry, but I don’t believe in this kind of coincidence:  Lizzie goes to the seldom visited barn on a useless errand just long enough for someone to kill her father…  Lizzie’s inquest testimony is the blueprint of her guilt.   

                       

                      And JT, I'm waiting to hear your other 39 reasons why Lizzie was guilty.  I came up with 44 reasons for Lizzie and 50 for Bridget.

                      ***Muriel - I would love to hear some of your Lizzie reasons!  Your Bridget theory has become tiresome, and I’ve never heard you incriminate Lizzie in any way.  I am all ears on this one!  What are your Lizzie Reasons?????????????

                       

                      JT

                       

                       


                       



                      ---WHODUNIT???---

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    • Muriel Arnold
                      JT: Here goes. 1. Mystery writers quit making the butler or maid guilty: It is relevant only in that they were no longer the police s number one choice. 2.
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 21, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        JT:
                        Here goes.
                        1.  Mystery writers quit making the butler or maid guilty:
                        It is relevant only in that they were no longer the police's number one choice.
                         
                        2.  Bridget's having a face which convinced many that she was telling the unvarnished truth:
                        Reporters made note of that.  Not relevant?  Bridget changed her story time and time again till she was satisfied that it made Lizzie look guilty.  Someone came up with Bridget having told 100 lies.
                         
                        3.  Washing the outside windows:
                        Tom Bowles saw Bridget outside.  I never read anywhere where he said he actually saw her do so.  I feel he assumed she had done so.
                        Mark Chase, across the street, never testified to seeing Bridget wash the windows.  He was more interested in the horse and buggy near the Borden house.
                        Mary Doolin told of speaking with Bridget across the fence.  Both were supposed to wash windows that day.
                        Ellen Eagan - she was there around 10:30, the time Bridget claimed she re-entered the house.  No window washing there.
                         
                        4.  Bridget killed Mrs. Borden while Lizzie was in the cellar when Lizzie was still upstairs?  Wrong.
                        I have Lizzie coming down around 8:45 (inquest testimony) and was in the cellar by 8:52, and in her room shortly before 9:00.
                        Bridget killed Mrs. Borden between 8:53 and 8:57 or 8:58.  Mr. Borden was in the sitting room.  Seeing he would have known Bridget had been upstairs, he had to go.
                         
                        5.  Lizzie's inquest testimony shows she went to the barn for sinkers.  If she had found any, she would have bought only lines when she went to the store later that day.
                         
                        Now:
                        As for how she didn't track in any dirt, grime, hay or sweat from the undisturbed loft:
                        Why didn't the police track any into the house?
                         
                        Lizzie going to the barn on a useless errand just long enough for someone to kill her father:
                        Come on JT, no murderer would have sounded the alarm within minutes of killing someone.
                         
                        You want to hear some of my reasons why Lizzie "could have" been guilty:
                        I've been waiting since the middle of November for you 39 other reasons as to why Lizzie had to be guilty.   Knowlton supplied my 44 reasons.
                         
                        As for no incriminating Lizzie in any way:  Simple.  She was innocent.  I agree with Radin who said she had the misfortune of being at home.
                         
                        My Bridget "theory" may be tiresome, but alter all, she alone was guilty.  Why should I try to shift the blame onto Lizzie?
                        End of book.
                        Muriel Arnold
                         
                        Author of  Lizzie Borden Hands of Time
                        For more information
                        muriela@...
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 8:22 PM
                        Subject: RE: [40Whacks] The Irish

                         

                         

                        Muriel wrote:

                         

                        Hi JT:

                        The reason Bridget was not considered the murderess:

                        1.  Mystery writers had already stopped making the butler or maid guilty in their dime novels.

                        ***why is this relevant?

                         

                        2.  Reporters had remarked something to the effect that if anyone was telling the unvarnished truth, Bridget had that face.  (She was an adroit liar.)

                        ***also not relevant to the investigation              .

                         

                        3.  Knowlton believed Bridget was telling the truth about her window washing.

                        My research showed she washed no windows outside and rinsed off only one.  She also washed no windows inside.  That was how good a liar she was.

                        ***how can you research this?  Several witnesses verified that they saw her at work outside, including Tom Bowles, Mark Chase, Mary Doolin, Ellen Eagan, and Lizzie indirectly in her inguest testimony.

                         

                        4.       Bridget killed Mrs. Borden while Lizzie was in the cellar.

                        ***You had Abby’s murder at 8:45-8:50 – Lizzie not even downstairs yet.

                         

                        5.       she killed Mr. Borden within two minutes after Lizzie left the house to go to the barn.

                        ***whatever…I challenge anyone in this group (except Muriel) to review Lizzie’s inquest testimony about her trip to the barn and tell me she didn’t do it.    She admitted she hadn’t been to the barn for at least three months, had no “useable” fishing lines at the farm (why look for sinkers), and didn’t track in any dirt, grime, hay or sweat from the remarkably undisturbed loft.

                         

                        Sorry, but I don’t believe in this kind of coincidence:  Lizzie goes to the seldom visited barn on a useless errand just long enough for someone to kill her father…  Lizzie’s inquest testimony is the blueprint of her guilt.   

                         

                        And JT, I'm waiting to hear your other 39 reasons why Lizzie was guilty.  I came up with 44 reasons for Lizzie and 50 for Bridget.

                        ***Muriel - I would love to hear some of your Lizzie reasons!  Your Bridget theory has become tiresome, and I’ve never heard you incriminate Lizzie in any way.  I am all ears on this one!  What are your Lizzie Reasons?????????????

                         

                        JT

                         

                         


                         



                        ---WHODUNIT???---

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




                        ---WHODUNIT???---

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • RevCOAL
                        ... I m with Jeff on this one; not only is Muriel s contention irrelevant, it s untrue, as the butler did it remained a trite truism of dime novels well into
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 21, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >

                           

                          >JT:

                          >Here goes.
                          >1. 
                          Mystery writers quit making the butler or maid guilty:
                          >It is
                          relevant only in that they were no longer the police's
                          >number one
                          choice.
                           
                          I'm with Jeff on this one; not only is Muriel's contention irrelevant, it's untrue, as 'the butler did it' remained a trite truism of dime novels well into the 20th century, and indeed became a trite truism of early cinema...
                           
                          Which is neither here nor there when it comes to police investigating a REAL murder, as popular pulp fiction should have had no bearing on how they conducted their investigations...
                           
                          Fact of the matter is, Victorian prejudices would have cast suspicion upon someone of the working class before it would cast suspicion upon someone of the upper class, just as it would suspect a male perp before a suspecting a woman.
                           
                           
                          >2.  Bridget's having a face which
                          convinced many that she was
                          >telling the unvarnished
                          truth:
                          >Reporters made note of that.  Not relevant? 
                          Bridget changed her
                          >story time and time again till she was
                          satisfied that it made
                          >Lizzie look guilty.  Someone came up
                          with Bridget having told
                          >100 lies.
                           
                          "Someone"?  WHO?
                           
                          And what specifically were these "100 lies"?  I for one would like to read all 100 of them...with documentation to back up that they are 'lies', of course...
                           
                           
                          >4.  Bridget killed Mrs. Borden
                          while Lizzie was in the cellar
                          >when Lizzie was still
                          upstairs?  Wrong.
                          >I have Lizzie coming down around 8:45
                          (inquest testimony) and was in
                          >the cellar by 8:52, and in her room
                          shortly before 9:00.
                          >Bridget killed Mrs. Borden between 8:53 and
                          8:57 or 8:58. 
                           
                          So when does Lizzie have time to eat a cookie and drink a cup of coffee (as she testified to doing upon coming downstairs that morning) in this time frame of yours?

                          And how does Bridget go upstairs, give Abby 11 or so whacks and then manage to not only hide the murder weapon but clean herself of all traces of blood, and then get herself back downstairs in this 4 to 5 minute timeframe of yours?
                            
                           

                          >As for how she didn't track in
                          any dirt, grime, hay or sweat from the undisturbed loft:
                          >Why didn't
                          the police track any into the house?
                           
                          Also, do we have any PROOF that Lizzie didn't track any dirt, etc. in?  Also, anything that may have stuck to her skirt hem from the 'barn', such as hay, could well have been brushed off as she traversed the yard from the 'barn' to the house...same thing regarding anything on her shoes, any dust, dirt, or hay could well have come off as she walked back to the house; especially considering how heavy the dew gets in that neck of the woods that time of year, dew that doesn't completely burn off until close to midday, especially in the shade (take it from someone who has gotten wet pants from sitting on what seemed to be dry grass at 11:30 am on an August morning)...

                          As for sweat, it seems to me that any occupant of the HOUSE would be just as sweaty (or not be sweaty) as anyone spending a few minutes in the 'barn'....
                           
                           

                          >Come
                          on JT, no murderer would have sounded the alarm within
                          >minutes of
                          killing someone.
                           
                          They would if they knew that it would be only a matter of minutes before someone else discovered the body; if the perp pretends to discover the body then they have the opportunity to place themselves elsewhere at the time of the crime; remember, this was well before modern forensic psychology determined that in most cases those who 'discover' the body most likely committed the murder, so common sensibilities of Lizzie's day would not have had her immediately under suspicion, indeed common sensibility of the day would have immediately viewed her with sympathy....
                           
                           

                          >As for no incriminating Lizzie in any way:  Simple.  She was innocent. 

                          Maybe.  Maybe not.  And if she was not innocent, she perhaps was not completely 'guilty', or at least not guilty BEFORE the fact, and/or guilty of actually performing the act, instead perhaps being guilty of aiding and abetting (before and/or after the fact) the actual perpetrator...
                           
                           

                          >My Bridget
                          "theory" may be tiresome, but alter all, she alone was guilty. 
                           
                          She had absolutely NO motive -- and your claim that she supposedly often suffered from headaches then proves that she was a drunk suffering from hangovers is pretty lame; the Bordens were adamant teetotalers, and would have never suffered a drunken maid in their employ.  Even if they did, Bridget would have been hard pressed to find another employer as lenient as the Bordens, who required as little duties as the Bordens asked of their maid, who gave as much time off as they did, and who paid as well as they did.
                           
                          Bridget may not have relished washing windows on a hot muggy day when she was suffering from a queasy stomach, but to state that the request that she do so was her reason for taking an ax to Abby's noggin 11 or so times is asinine....
                           
                           
                           
                          June
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           

                          ____________________________________________________
                            IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.