What did Bridget see??

BOBO · Post by **BOBO** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:11 am

This from the Pittsburg Dispatch (Pittsburg, Pa.) Oct. 18, 1882....
"The vital bit of evidence which caused the police to arrest Lizzie Borden on the charge of murdering her farther and stepmother has at last leaked out. As has been suspected, the evidence has been furnished by Bridget Sullivan. The arrest followed immediately after her examination at the inquest. The only intimation that has been made public, was the remark credited to Bridget: "I'm not surprised that they arrested Lizzie Borden."
"Today it was learned why she was not surprised. The leak came through one of the officials who was present at the examination. That official said today to an intimate friend: "It was what Bridget saw, not what she heard or what she guessed, that led to Lizzie Borden's arrest. There were two important points, and they did not occur to her mind, agitated and shocked as she was at the time of the discovery of the crime, until she had a well defined idea of what the police suspected. Bridget said that she heard Lizzie down cellar hunting for something directly after Mr. Borden went out to go down town, and sometime after that she saw what she is positive was a hatchet, lying half hidden in the sitting room. She heard Lizzie down cellar before she went outdoors to wash windows; also saw the hatchet when she came inside to get some water to complete her work" Hmmmmmm....

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:47 am

interesting. i was just reading the prosecution (knowlton, i believe) confirmed that there were leaks. the problem is, how to suss out which is an actual leak and which is a journalist trying to sell a hot newspaper story?

given bridget's evasive and misleading testimony that favored and protected lizzie, it doesn't seem likely she'd have said 'i'm not surprised that they arrested lizzie borden.' but this part:

There were two important points, and they did not occur to her mind, agitated and shocked as she was at the time of the discovery of the crime, until she had a well defined idea of what the police suspected.

has the ring of truth to it.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:32 pm

That is interesting Bobo! But why oh why, (if it's true of course and not some journalist's imagination) didn't Knowlton put Bridget on the stand to say what she'd seen? She couldn't refuse once she'd blurted it out to the police. The Prosecution would have forced her to testify to such a vital piece of evidence, and it would have caused a sensation!

I think Bridget liked Miss Lizzie and did what she could (while still telling the truth) when she gave evidence. The only bit I do have trouble with is her not noticing what Lizzie had on that day. I think she probably did remember that Lizzie wore the Bedford cord, as she had done on the Wednesday.

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:48 pm

Curryong wrote:That is interesting Bobo! But why oh why, (if it's true of course and not some journalist's imagination) didn't Knowlton put Bridget on the stand to say what she'd seen? She couldn't refuse once she'd blurted it out to the police. The Prosecution would have forced her to testify to such a vital piece of evidence, and it would have caused a sensation!

I think Bridget liked Miss Lizzie and did what she could (while still telling the truth) when she gave evidence. The only bit I do have trouble with is her not noticing what Lizzie had on that day. I think she probably did remember that Lizzie wore the Bedford cord, as she had done on the Wednesday.

Bridget was evasive but definite in her answers. She didn't offer more information than asked for, but seems to have been firm in her answers or flatly said "I don't know". When Lizzie was asked questions, she changed answers almost every time she was asked,
You are right though, she was very non-committal in her remembrance of what Lizzie had on. The above story most certainly is yellow journalism, IF Bridget had been heard saying that she heard Lizzie in the basement and seen a hidden hatchet she would have been the star witness, and it would have been logged into the record.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:16 pm

i don't think bridget told the truth on the stand. having read her testimony recently, reading what she had to say about how cordial the borden family was, that she never saw anything amiss, was a flat-out lie. she, better than most, knew what a horrible atmosphere it was. she'd even tried to leave a couple of times because of it.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:38 pm

I agree with Catbooks. The more I review Bridget's testimony, the more equivocal she sounds. I'm guessing that a servant who opened wide the closet door on all the employer's family skeletons would be hard pressed to find another job, even if she told the absolute truth.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:55 am

I would love to know what Bridget saw and heard!! She sure was tight lipped about the whole situation. I am thinking it's one of two situations as to why she wasn't more forth coming. One: she was loyal and she was afraid of losing her job. After all, the Borden family(lizzie included) was her employer and was afraid of losing her job, or Two: She didn't see or hear enough to make a difference in the case.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:07 am

I'll take option 2, snokkums. I think she thought it was a stranger, who broke in. She wasn't worried about her job. She went to work and live with another family within days of the murders.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:28 am

snokkums wrote:I would love to know what Bridget saw and heard!! She sure was tight lipped about the whole situation. I am thinking it's one of two situations as to why she wasn't more forth coming. One: she was loyal and she was afraid of losing her job. After all, the Borden family(lizzie included) was her employer and was afraid of losing her job, or Two: She didn't see or hear enough to make a difference in the case.

There might be option #3: spilling her guts about her employer simply wasn't an acceptable option at that period in time...if Bridget ever again wanted decent employment within the area. Whether accurate or not, she might have felt this way.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:43 pm

i think bridget did see and hear enough to make a difference in the case. not that i think she overheard or saw anything directly related to the murders themselves. that is, while they happened.

she was protective of the bordens. not only in her testimony - flat-out lying about never seeing or hearing any discord - but through her life. if she ever did confide in anyone, we never heard about it. just that once when she thought she was dying and wanted to make some kind of confession, although we don't know what she was going to confess about. in any event she ended up dying without spilling any sort of beans about anything.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:51 pm

Bridget went to work, within days, for Josiah Hunt and his family. Josiah had been a Marshall in Fall River, but in 1892 was the jailhouse keeper at New Bedford. I'm sure Mrs Hunt would have given Bridget a reference for future employers but it's doubtful she told the Hunts anything of any importance about her previous job!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:25 pm

yes, i'm sure she would have gotten a nice reference from the hunts, and no doubt did get one from them. i wonder where she went after she left the hunts. we don't know very much about her life until she resurfaces in montana.

i still can't quite work out bridget's attitude towards the bordens. we know she liked and was sympathetic to abby. we know that twice she'd wanted to leave, within the 2.5+ years she was there, but abby talked her into staying. we know she thought lizzie and emma treated abby poorly. yet she also went out on the limb protecting them when on the stand, and beyond. and, apparently said she liked lizzie, even years later.

some part of it's explainable by the 'good servants don't talk about their employers' thing, but it feels to me like there's more than that involved.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 2:26 pm

new bedford. so both bridget and lizzie were in new bedford. i wonder if bridget came to visit her in the jailhouse.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:53 pm

• Bridget always liked Lizzie.

• Even though the job was relatively easy (though maybe not in comparison to homes with indoor plumbing and electricity) she wanted to leave twice in 2 1/2 years, but was talked out of it...or offered more money??? Yet she also says there was no discord in the family.

• She also liked Abby, so seeing her hacked to death had to be heartbreaking.

• She speaks of the horrible man coming back to kill her, too. Was this a red herring, or was she truly fearful. Or was she fearful of someone other than the horrible man.

• She was the only major player who responded with anything close to normal emotions.

• She had something to say on her death bed, then chose not to say it. I wonder if she had offspring...or whether she confided in her husband.

• From the trial testimony it appears as though she may have changed her testimony since the inquest...and her inquest testimony is lost. Either she contradicts herself, or Robinson is trying to confuse her into doing so.

None of this reconciles with itself...I wonder what her bank account looked like shortly after Lizzie was acquitted.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:00 pm

I don't think she would have visited. She (Bridget) had been a witness for the prosecution at the prelim trial, and yes I know she did try her best for Miss Lizzie on the stand, but there were a few things she testified (truthfully) to that didn't fit in with Lizzie's version of events. So I think Bridget would have regretfully stayed away. Maybe she was told to not visit by the D.A.'s office anyway.

debbie, Bridget married in her mid 30's and never had children.

Rushing to go out, but whoops, forgot to say, there were no facilities for female prisoners in New Bedford so I think Lizzie was kept in a jailhouse at Taunton.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 5:30 pm

debbiediablo wrote:• Bridget always liked Lizzie.

• Even though the job was relatively easy (though maybe not in comparison to homes with indoor plumbing and electricity) she wanted to leave twice in 2 1/2 years, but was talked out of it...or offered more money??? Yet she also says there was no discord in the family.

• She also liked Abby, so seeing her hacked to death had to be heartbreaking.

• She speaks of the horrible man coming back to kill her, too. Was this a red herring, or was she truly fearful. Or was she fearful of someone other than the horrible man.

• She was the only major player who responded with anything close to normal emotions.

• She had something to say on her death bed, then chose not to say it. I wonder if she had offspring...or whether she confided in her husband.

• From the trial testimony it appears as though she may have changed her testimony since the inquest...and her inquest testimony is lost. Either she contradicts herself, or Robinson is trying to confuse her into doing so.

None of this reconciles with itself...I wonder what her bank account looked like shortly after Lizzie was acquitted.

i know, it doesn't add up! you're right, she did respond with pretty normal emotions. her testimony seemed like she was trying to be as honest as she could be, and still protect lizzie and emma.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 5:32 pm

oh, you're right. i forgot lizzie went to taunton. also since she was a witness for the prosecution, no visits to lizzie. i wonder, though, if they ever saw and talked with one another afterwards, or when the last time was that they did speak.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 3:29 am

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Bridget ever saw or spoke to either of the Borden sisters after she left No. 92 for the last time (except at the trial, of course!)
There has been a legend grown up that Bridget came into money after the trial and went back to Ireland, where she bought a farm or alternatively her parents were able to buy a farm. Again there doesn't seem to be any evidence for either move.
If she did go back it must have been a short episode. In 1897 Bridget was in Anaconda, Montana. If my memory hasn't failed me she was working as an 'operative' (factory hand?) there. In 1905 she married John Sullivan and then settled in Butte, Montana, where they led a simple life.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:26 pm

We know that Brdget left No 92 very quickly after the murders. I always thought she got a job with Josiah Hunt and his family immediately. However, perhaps things weren't as they seemed.

Harry posted this on the thread 'Bridget' November 2010, Page 9 of the threads. As he observed, the Prosecution insisted on keeping an eye on Bridget, and there was no travelling for her until the trial was over.

Witness statement. Fall River October 1st 1892. Bridget Sullivan. (Tired, resentful, fed-up!)

' "Yes, I left New Bedford for good. I did not like the way the papers spoke of me, said I was in New Bedford jail. And I got a post card from the Court, requesting me to call for my witness fees and that was addressed to New Bedford jail. I did not like this, so I thought I would show them I would not stay any longer.

"I think I will try to get a place here, through Mrs McKenney's Agency. If not I may go to Newport R.I. And work in the hotel where I was employed before. I have relatives in South Bethlehem, and as I worked there before I may go again."

In a joking manner she said she may go back to Ireland. She promised wherever she would go she would let me know through Mrs Harrington of Division St.' (Bridget's cousin's wife, in Fall River.) She saw nobody about this case since the trial' (the date above must be wrong. Must therefore be Oct 1893. Typo by Harry, or in original statement, unless Bridget's referring to the Prelim? Don't think so.) 'but several called at New Bedford and she would not see them. Neither would she in the future, for she was tired of the whole thing.'

"I think it will be hard for me to get a place, for no-one wants to hire a person for one month." (What's that about? Plans for Xmas, booked a passage on a ship?) "I think the District Attorney should give me something for my time. The papers and the postal card made me feel badly; but aside from that I got tired over there. I had nothing to do but look at the walls of the prison and I found seven grey hairs in my head. I would rather have a place where I would have something to do."

So, date wrong on witness statement and Bridget not a happy camper at the Hunts. It sounds like the D.A.'s Office put pressure on the New Bedford jail-keeper to give Bridget employment until the trial was over. Killing two birds with one stone, as Bridget didn't wish to stay at No 92 and they certainly didn't want her departing for other locations until after the trial. Interesting, if it is an Oct 1893 date on the witness statement, that the police were still catching up with her periodically.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:43 am

you have been finding some mighty interesting stuff, curryong! i'm positive i've never seen this before.

it is a bit confusing. it says 'witness statement,' which at first made me think it was early on. but i'm no lawyer by a long shot, and maybe a witness can make a statement any old time during the whole process. unless you added the 'tired, resentful, fed-up!' part, that makes it sound like it's from a newspaper article. actually, the whole thing reads like a newspaper article, not an official witness statement.

sounds like she felt like she was in jail, and that she didn't like that a single bit. can't blame her; she hadn't done anything wrong.

i didn't know she had any relatives in the states, so that's interesting new info for me. yes, what was that one month thing about? if it were written in october of 1892, she couldn't have been going anywhere. if it was in october of 1893, why would she only be able to work for a month?

eh, i'm tried now and probably not thinking very straight.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:12 am

It was me that added the 'tired, resentful, fed-up!' Harry definitely put down 'witness statement'. I wonder whether police keep in touch with important witnesses after a big case today? Perhaps they were also keeping a discreet eye on Lizzie's doings as well. After all, if she had suddenly rushed off to get married after the trial, for instance, ...!

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:00 am

oh, okay, well that clears that part up :)

but doesn't it read like a newspaper article? there's no q&a type of thing, just her talking about various things. i'm sure they were keeping an eye on lizzie, lol!

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:24 am

One thing to remember, Bridget wasn't above lying. She lied about her age several times on paper. We have different official documents with different birth years, including her death certificate, so for what it's worth, she didn't hesitate to lie if it helped her.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:48 am

I'm sure she was more than capable of lying, Possum, most of us are, present company excepted, of course! Of course she was born into a large, poor family, so she might not have known her true birth-date, besides the natural thing some females do of taking a few years off their ages!

I don't get the sense of lying from Bridget, though, in this rather strange document, more a sort of fed-upness, a tired feeling after the stress of giving testimony perhaps, and a "Oh well, that's over and now it'll be having to look for another place..." That kind of feeling.

I don't believe that she was paid off by Lizzie, but she surely must have had some savings. Abby paid her quite well and the Josiah Hunts paid her for a year. So, if she wanted to go back for a visit to Ireland to see her folks, she could probably have done it. In a third class cabin, of course.

debbiediablo · Post by **debbiediablo** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:41 pm

Then again, there's a difference between Emma paying her off and giving her a hefty severance pay for all the emotional trauma she had endured...which would buy some loyalty from Bridget without insulting her sense of righteousness.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:04 pm

debbiediablo wrote:Then again, there's a difference between Emma paying her off and giving her a hefty severance pay for all the emotional trauma she had endured...which would buy some loyalty from Bridget without insulting her sense of righteousness.

true. it would still seem like a payoff of some sort, if anyone found out, but i can see that happening.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:06 pm

PossumPie wrote:One thing to remember, Bridget wasn't above lying. She lied about her age several times on paper. We have different official documents with different birth years, including her death certificate, so for what it's worth, she didn't hesitate to lie if it helped her.

yes, we talked about that on another thread. i was amused to discover bridget had taken 10 years off of her age. she may not have known the exact year of her birth, but 10 years off is too much for it to not be deliberate.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:30 pm

Ah, you're only as old as you feel!

According to a Riobard O'Dwyer, an Irish genealogist who provided information for an article in the Lizzie Borden Quarterly, Bridget was baptised, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church in County Cork, Ireland in March 1864.
Bridget did state in her testimony that she had 'been informed (presumably by her parents) of her birthdate. Of course she gave her age at the time of the murders as 26, didn't she?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:50 pm

i just found this little nugget from an old thread, and figured this was the best place to stash it:

"Wednesday, August 10, 1892

THE BORDEN TRAGEDY

A Curious Bulletin Given Out by the Police Last Night

Fall River, Aug. 9 - The following bulletin was given out to-night by State Detective SERNIE":
'The inquest into the BORDEN murder began before Judge BLAISDELL at 10 A. M. District Attorney KNOWLTON conducting the investigation. Bridget SULLIVAN and Lizzie BORDEN were questioned separately. The examination of neither was concluded. The inquest adjourned until 10 A M., Wednesday. Nothing was developed for publication.'
This meagre report was all that was given out officially, regarding the first day's proceedings of the inquiry. After adjournment Bridget SULLIVAN went to No. 80 Division street where she has relatives. She has hardly eaten or slept at the BORDEN house since the tragedy. District Attorney KNOWLTON told her he regarded her as a most important witness in the case, and promised to allow her to go on her own recognizance until the trial, if one takes place, provided she would not go away without first acquainting the city marshal.
While the persons at the inquest were at dinner, Bridget, or 'Maggie,' as she was called at home, was placed in charge of Matron RUSSELL, whose lips are sealed. The girl told the whole of her story to Mrs. RUSSELL, saying that she could not tell all before, as there were so many men about.

hmmm, what on earth did bridget tell alice that she felt she couldn't before that point, on account of the presence of menfolk??

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:23 pm

Do you think it might have something to do with the bloodied rags in the menstrual pail? I've been thinking about this and maybe Bridget was sort of puzzled about Lizzie not telling her, as she had the dubious pleasure of washing these rags at the 'girls'' 'time of the month'. (Didn't Lizzie intimate that the pail had been in the cellar for two days, and Bridget denied seeing it?)
Even today another woman's period wouldn't be exactly a savoury subject to discuss in front of male police. I really can't think of anything else. Mrs Russell was Matron Russell wasn't she, not Alice, who wasn't married. I don't understand why Mrs Russell, who was Matron at Taunton Jail, and was in charge of Lizzie during her incarceration, would be supervising Bridget, who was staying with her cousin and his wife in Division St.

Mrs Russell seems to have had loose lips. She was the one who reported that Lizzie had accused Emma of betraying her when Emma visited her in jail and she then vehemently denied in court that she had ever overheard any such conversation. So, goodness knows if this report of Bridget telling Mrs Russell anything has any foundation in fact.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:17 pm

yep, the bloody rags and menstrual bucket are all i can think of too. if that's the case, it means bridget knew something was amiss when it came to lizzie, or there wouldn't have been any need for her to even mention it. lizzie hadn't yet talked about it, had she? when was all that first discussed? this article is only from august 9th.

later on in the thread it becomes clear 'mrs' russell really is alice.

wait a minute, mrs russell denied overhearing that conversation in court?? i thought she was forced into a retraction (newspaper, i guess, not in court) by, i think jennings. then later retracted the retraction and said it was all true.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:39 pm

I must go back and do some research on this subject! I'm surprised the Russell was Alice, as they mentioned Matron. Maybe the reporter or the police who issued the bulletin were getting muddled up with the similar names! If it was Alice, then that would add to the doubts she had about Lizzie after the dress-burning episode, you would think.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:43 pm

but there wasn't any matron russell on august 9th, was there? well, i mean she was alive and all, but hadn't anything to do with matroning lizzie.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:56 pm

Aagh! You are completely right and I've been talking nonsense. It was Matron Hannah Reagan I was thinking of, and I got bamboozled by the original report that mentioned a Matron. 'Too early in the morning' will be my excuse!

So, it was Alice Russell and Bridget confided in her, possibly regarding Lizzie's menstruation. Did Alice know Bridget that well, I wonder. Alice was trying to help and support the sisters straight after the murders and was staying in the house, with them. I just wonder whether anything in Lizzie's manner or in the sisters' interaction, made her start thinking things weren't as they seemed, before the dress-burning?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:53 pm

Hannah Reagan was supposed to have related the Emma-Lizzie prison interaction to reporter Edwin Porter and, hardly surprisingly, it spread all over the newspapers.

This made Jennings extremely upset. He wrote up a retraction for the Matron to sign and gave it to the Rev. Buck who is supposed to have pressed her to sign, saying it would make things right between the sisters. She said she would take advice from Marshall Hilliard about what she should do, which she did, accompanied by the Reverend.

Hilliard read the retraction, became annoyed, and told both of them to go away! Later he went to Mrs Reagan and questioned her. She assured him that the incident had occurred. According to David Rehak ('Did Lizzie Axe For It?' Page 36) Hilliard gave Jennings a piece of his mind about possible witness tampering. Jennings left, waving the paper and shouting to reporters that Hilliard was refusing to let Mrs Reagan sign.

Apparently a group of Lizzie's supporters continued to press her to sign. She never did, though she apparently said later that she would have signed if instructed to do so by Marshall Hilliard. On the witness stand in court the Holmes's and a school friend of Lizzie's, Mary Brigham, all stated under oath (perjured themselves?) that Mrs Reagan had told them the incident was untrue.

Mrs Reagan did not make a good witness when questioned in court. She denied she had signed the retraction, which was true, but when questioned about Emma's various prison visits she was confused about times etc and all over the place with much of her testimony. Depends on who you believe, I guess, though I can't see what anybody would have to gain in making up such a story. It would have been much more credible if she hadn't spoken to Porter, however.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:26 pm

thank you for finding all of that! i read it fairly recently but didn't recall all the details.

very strange about lizzie's friends testifying mrs. reagan admitted to them she'd lied. i've always tended to believe her story, so if it's true, then they would have had to commit perjury. which is pretty serious for anyone, and probably even more so for someone in victorian america.

was this during the actual trial? i haven't read holmes' and brigham's testimony.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:37 pm

Marshall Fleet testified that he had seen a pail of bloodied rags and water in the cellar on the day of the murders. He asked Lizzie about them and she told him she had 'explained' to the doctor. Dr Bowen, of course, blew it all off with a 'That's all right" and, said it had been explained.
At the trial Robinson bobbed up with a 'let's not go there' response about the pail. It was to do with the 'usual monthly sickness', he said, which (apparently he had been informed) had ended on the Wednesday.

If the pail had been there for some days it's odd that Bridget didn't wash the rags when she did the weekly wash on the Monday, on the other hand if they were Tuesday's or Wednesday's contribution, those there the days of the strange fish and the 'turning' mutton when the whole household was feeling nauseous. It would be hardly surprising if Bridget just couldn't face washing those things then.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:35 pm

but that was during the trial, which was in june of the following year.

what would be involved in bridget's telling alice 'all' she had to tell at that point?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:00 pm

I've just checked in 'Goodbye Lizzie Borden' by Robert Sullivan. He states that Mrs Hannah Reagan acted as Police Matron at Fall River's Central Police Station. (Page 49) Presumably Hannah dealt with the searching of women prisoners, drunks, prostitutes etc (I wonder whether Fall River had a red-light district?)

Because the Police Station lacked the facilities for female prisoners, before her arraignment Lizzie shared Mrs Reagan's private quarters, and it was here, on the 24th August 1892, that (Page 139: Sullivan) the Lizzie-Emma exchange presumably took place.

Yes, the Holmes's and Mary Brigham were defence witnesses at the June 1893 trial and all gave evidence painting Mrs Reagan in an unfavourable light. Marianna Holmes just said that Mrs Reagan had denied it and instead (Page 155: Sullivan) had spoken about a joking egg-breaking trick that had happened when Emma and Mary Brigham were visiting Lizzie.

Charles Holmes went into more detail (page 156) and said that Marshal Hilliard had refused to have Mrs Reagan sign the affidavit and that there had been an altercation with a news reporter with one eye. (Porter.)

Holmes went further than the others and stated that when the Rev. Buck read out the affidavit to Mrs Reagan in his presence she had stated that the contents were true. (Page 156.)

Miss Mary Brigham testified (Page 156: Sullivan) that Mrs Reagan had told her "It's all a lie from beginning to end" and "I was willing to sign that paper but the Marshal wouldn't let me. He told me to go to my room and obey orders."

It's pretty clear that the defence were worried about Hannah Reagan's testimony. They brought in a reporter as well, who testified that he heard Hilliard bullying Mrs Reagan about the paper. I still think she (Hannah Reagan) did witness the Emma incident, though she seems to have backtracked about it later in front of Lizzie's supporters.

The sheer unprofessionalism of having all these people milling about in a police station, conversations with witnesses who would later go up against each other in court, it does take your breath away. It is so different to what would be allowed to happen now!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:10 pm

Sorry, my post above seems to have got in the way!

I don't know. Perhaps the police were hoping that Bridget would open up to Alice and tell her something which she might not want to impart to men, something which would confirm that they were right about Lizzie. This could then be added to the Prelim if they were going to arrest her, which they intended to.

Several of the police seem to have been suspicious about Miss Lizzie from the start. Hardly surprising really. She was the only person inside the house when the first victim was killed and was nearby for the second one plus had a motive. And her manner put some of the police off!

Perhaps they felt Alice was an honest and reliable person to 'supervise' Bridget and for Bridget to hopefully confide in.

Wait a minute. I'm sorry to be a terrier with a bone about this but Mrs Hannah Reagan was only co-matron at the Fall River Police Station. There was another Matron. What was her name?

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:59 pm

' The iron nerve and wonderful self-control of the accused woman was never more clearly manifested than when the warrant charging her with the murder of her parents was read to her this evening: This same woman, who yesterday seemed about to give away to her emotion, stood silent and motionless, without a tremor, when Chief of Police Hilliard entered the Borden mansion to serve the warrant upon her. Chief Hilliard tore open the envelope, unfolded the warrant and began to read.

Lawyer Jennings, attorney for the sisters, rose and said: "Mr. Marshal, I think my client will waive the reading of the warrant"
The Girl is Cool as a Cucumber".
"Do you waive such reading?" asked Chief Hilliard of Lizzie.
The woman was silent for a moment; then she turned to her lawyer.
"Answer him," said he.
"I waive further reading on that paper," she said.

There was no false note in the voice, she did not falter and there was no trace of nervousness. She stood cold and silent for a second. Only her lips trembled. Then her jaws shut with a snap and she sank back in her chair.

"You are placed in the hands of Matron Russell," said Marshal Hiliard, as he left the room. Miss Emma Borden arose and turned to her sister. For a minute they stood face to face, then the older woman hurried downstairs, followed by Lawyer Jennings and Mrs. Brigham. Downstairs a great throng urged to and fro. They filled the streets, choked into the hall, and even forced their way into the main room of the building.'

From 'Lizzie Borden-MA Genealogy Trails' website.

I think now that Matron Russell was Matron Reagan's co-worker at the Fall River Central Police Station. She would have been asked by senior police to keep an eye on Bridget and make sure she didn't make off for parts unknown. They probably asked if she could gain Bridget's confidence.

By the way Mrs Jane Brigham, mentioned above, was the mother of Mary, Lizzie's friend.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:49 pm

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!

sometimes i hate this case. it's more slippery than a greased eel! just when you think you've nailed down *one* thing as concrete, it slithers away from you.

thanks so much for locating all of that. i think!

that last (i assume a newspaper article) is quite confusing. first it appears the writer was there in the borden 'mansion,' observing all of this happening. but then they go downstairs (what, everyone was crushed into lizzie's room upstairs, when she was partially read the warrant? lizzie, emma, jennings, hilliard and mrs. brigham??), and then downstairs there's a huge crowd of people, filling the streets and the hall, and forcing their way into 'the main room of the building'?

sheesh.

anyway, so according to that, it looks like there *was* a matron russell. how very confusing. i wouldn't think hilliard would refer to alice russell as 'matron' russell, or place lizzie into her hands after she's just been arrested for murder.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:01 pm

In spite of the above,I don't think it was the Borden home, cos earlier in the piece they refer to them all waiting in 'a dingy room!' I think it was at the police station straight after the Inquest which was held there. I'm looking at my Sullivan (page 45) and he says she was arrested 'at the scene of the Inquest.'

Yes, like trying to hold mist, this case! Which was probably what the investigators thought too! It was evening and crowds had been surrounding the police station all day, watching witnesses coming and going.

Mrs Jane Brigham was the mother of Mary Brigham, Lizzie's friend.

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:53 pm

i just found one of harrington's statements, dated august 9th, where he says he went with marshal to summons lizzie. then back to the station house, then to the court house for the inquest, leaving the court house at 5:10 pm.

mist. yes. so frustrating!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:36 am

Was the Fall River court house part of the Central Police Station or an adjunct to it, I wonder. If it was, it would make sense to have Lizzie wait there, with Emma and friend, for her arrest, rather than everyone running all over town. I suppose the police station house was a sort of barracks, was it, for off-duty policemen?

Catbooks · Post by **Catbooks** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:16 am

i'm pretty sure harrington and marshal went to the borden house to deliver the warrant though. then he went to the station house, and then to the court house. i dunno about the barracks-like station house. could have been!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:25 pm

This case is so confusing. I've read on a few websites that Lizzie was arrested on August 11th. That's not definitive of course, but could three or four of them have been wrong? Could the summons have been to the Inquest, which only lasted a couple of days? They would want her to attend that and give testimony, not skip off to Boston or somewhere!

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:14 pm

I've just been into the newspapers held by the Library of Congress and read a report in 'The New York Sun' of Friday August 12th 1892. Under 'Lizzie Borden Arrested!' they had, guess what, the same report posted earlier about Lizzie's dramatic arrest that I found on another site, but with a very important difference!

This, the original report, stated that before the Inquest began on the 11th of August there was a conference between Marshal Hilliard, Dr Dolan and Knowlton. That lasted over two hours, until after 10am. By that time I think the Inquest had begun for the day, and Mrs Augusta Tripp was giving evidence.

What is really weird, however, is this. It is clear from the New York Sun that the arrest took place at about 7:30 pm on the evening of the 11th as they printed the news the next day.

But in this original report it has Marshal Hilliard 'leaving his office' (in the Central Police Station presumably) and he 'went upstairs to the room'. That is, the 'dingy room' where Lizzie, Emma, Mrs Brigham and Jennings were waiting, 'with shadows darkening'. The other report must have been transcribed wrongly or came from a reprint from another newspaper that got it wrong when it said Hilliard went 'to the Borden mansion'.

Hilliard then arrested her there, and the rest of the report carries on in the same words as the piece I posted earlier, (though unless a reporter sneaked in I don't see how they can have seen Lizzie's reaction to being arrested!)

PossumPie · Post by **PossumPie** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:02 am

One thing I've learned studying this case...Newspaper articles are wrong. During the age of Yellow Journalism, the only goal was to sell papers. If they couldn't get the truth, they made it up. Just a few years after the Borden case, the Titanic sunk. One Newspaper, in an attempt to sell papers, plastered across the headlines Titanic sunk, NO LIVES LOST! I don't put any stock in a single news article I've read about the Borden case, INCLUDING one's that supposedly have "Eyewitness accounts" These also were made up whole cloth. VERY irresponsible writers of books then use the made up material to prove their pet theories, to...SELL THEIR BOOK!
I use only sworn testimony, even then I go on the premise that they still could be lying. My father was an Assistant Principal of a very rough High School. When shootings would occur, the news was all over it. At first, he honestly and accurately would explain what happened, but seeing them twist his words, and make stuff up, he refused to talk with the press after that.

BTW, Multiple sources (web sites, books, or newspaper articles) all reporting the same "fact" mean nothing...many just stole their "fact" from someone else who took it from a website who stole it from a news article, who made it up. That is how Urban Legends get started. When I was writing my latest book about Evolution vs. Creationism, I found many many creationist websites who quoted someone who quoted their pastor, who quoted....I spent 2 years tracking down the original sources for their claims and in most cases found that they took things out of context, or lied about the original source which had long been dis-proven. Pass that lie around long enough and it rings true.

Curryong · Post by **Curryong** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:44 am

Yes, the newspapers tracked down lots of witnesses and Lizzie supporters and opponents and made hay while the Sun shone, with them. Nevertheless, Lizzie was arrested on the 11th of August, by Marshal Hilliard in the evening, and it is far more likely that she was asked to wait at the Central Police Station with her lawyer than not.

The reporter indulged his imagination as most reporters do. I don't think, in fact, that there were any reporters around when she was actually arrested. What we've been trying to pin down is the actual date of Lizzie's arrest, which seems to be the 11th of August in the evening, as reports did not appear in the evening papers; (too late.) but the morning editions the next day carried the news of the arrest. The rest of the report is just entertainment!