Opinions on the recent Hatchet articles

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:14 pm

DJ @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:28 pm wrote: I don't think Emma wanted to draw attention to the Grand Tour. I believe all witnesses for the defense, particularly Emma, had been well-instructed by their attorneys (courtroom coached) to avoid certain topics, to hem and haw and remain just this side of committing perjury.
So, it could well be that the sisters switched rooms to accommodate Lizzie's newfound sense of living in luxe, along with the accoutrements of her tour.
Would Emma have admitted this at trial? I doubt it. The "Grand Tour" issue was too sticky a wicket. Just because she nixed the notion, doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

This is my thinking too DJ- entirely. I am certain Emma and Bridget were coached by Jennings or others on that defense team to skirt any issue which would throw Lizzie in an unfavorable light, or give any inkling of motive for gain due to a dissatisfaction with her living conditions. That could have been achieved by taking refuge in "I offered", "I don't recall". "I don't remember" to escape outright perjury. This sort of thing is done every day in court, Funny how clearly Bridget recalled Lizzie at the top of the stairs when her father came home when asked August 4th, only to say, "I don't remember where the girl was" at the trial 10 months later. If I were questioning Emma Borden today I would ask her just what prompted her to offer to give up her room all of a sudden after living in it since 1872! Then Emma would have to give a direct answer.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:20 am

Hi, Guys!

The mention of Crowe's location on the morning of August 4 comes from page 8 of the Witness statements. As for the letter writer, since she never came forward to make any kind of official statement, I think her unofficial statement to Porter sometime later is possibly wishful thinking on her part.

Thanks for your kind words otherwise, Sherry. I really enjoyed this issue--the new photo finds would be beautiful even if unconnected to the case, but given the story behind them, they offer a fascinating additional dimension to the story as we know it. Congrats to all for the find! I was very impressed by Shelley's Grand Tour research--I think she recreated what the experience might have been as far as such a thing could be done without fabrication. Kudos! Harry's painstaking list was a monumental achievement. I genuinely enjoyed all the articles this time around and continue amazed at how much we continue to glean from the Borden saga. I do think the broadened title helps to encourage forays into other topics that are compatible. Hooray for everyone!

--Lyddie (Mary)

DJ · Post by DJ » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:43 pm

Another thought re the Grand Tour: I believe it was a turning point for Lizzie, underscoring all that which was just out of her grasp, but needn't necessarily be.
As the WWI ditty goes: "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Pa-ree?"
Interesting that Lizzie, Emma, and Bridget took off on another such
voyage, before 1892 concluded. With any number of seaside/lakeside/scenic resorts closer to home, they needn't have crossed the ocean to find some peace and quiet away from Fall River.
It's as if Lizzie had to have another taste, right away.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:09 pm

DJ @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:43 pm wrote:Another thought re the Grand Tour: I believe it was a turning point for Lizzie, underscoring all that which was just out of her grasp, but needn't necessarily be.
As the WWI ditty goes: "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Pa-ree?"
Interesting that Lizzie, Emma, and Bridget took off on another such
voyage, before 1892 concluded. With any number of seaside/lakeside/scenic resorts closer to home, they needn't have crossed the ocean to find some peace and quiet away from Fall River.
It's as if Lizzie had to have another taste, right away.

First, welcome DJ!

When did this alleged voyage of Lizzie, Emma an Bridget take place? Certainly not in 1892. Lizzie was firmly locked up in jail from August 11 through the end of the year and into June of 1893.

Bridget's alleged payoff and return trip to Ireland as far as I know are both pure speculation.

Emma did go to Scotland but after breaking off with Lizzie.

I don't believe Lizzie ever returned but have read of hints that she did.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:24 am

I wonder what's the source for that, DJ?
Lizzie probably went to the Columbian Exposition in Chicago, 1893, just before it closed (October visit?). Other than that, she was looking at houses to buy with Emma and visiting Newport with the Covells.

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:59 am

Egg on my face about the 1892/1893 blunder-- massive sleep-deprivation is my feeble excuse.
I swear I read a contemporary news account about the Sisters and Bridget embarking the autumn after the trial. It stuck in my mind because Bridget was accompanying them, and, at the time I read it, I thought it might be part of her "lolly" for being faithful above and beyond the call of duty.
I'm searching for this-- anyone help? It appeared in the Fall River newspaper, as well as I recall, not an out-of-towner.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:28 pm

No problem, DJ. We all drift off at times.

We did discuss this subject way back in January 2004. I found the thread in the archives:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... ertrip.htm

There is no record of any such trip. Bridget's testimony was hardly helpful to Lizzie. Some of it harmful in fact. If any reward was given it would have been for what she didn't say.

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:10 pm

Thanks for your help!
Also-- an overseas trip was announced, but in the NY Times, on June 23, 1893, citing a "Borden relative" as a source. Score a blow for unnamed sources! The sisters and Bridget were to travel "a trois." Either it was a bum steer all the way around, or perhaps someone opted out, or thought the wiser of such an indulgence at the time.
As for Bridget-- I'd bet she saw and heard enough during her tenure, exclusive of what happened the morning of the murders, to strike a terrible blow against Lizzie (and Emma). Even if she had zero prior knowledge of the murders, even if she were completely unaware they were transpiring, don't you think she could have volunteered information to the prosecution that would have cast Lizzie's relationships with her father and stepmother in a far worse light?
At some points in the trial, Bridget loosens up and editorializes about the Borden household-- I"m thinking about her comment re the clocks. To me, she seems to have been a potentially loose cannon who could have blown the lid off the case had she become a true friend of the prosecution and really opened up about the family's interactions and exchanges.
For that, alone I'm inclined to believe she was rewarded for her judicious silences, whether or not she was directly involved.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:49 pm

I always felt that by the time of the Trial, Bridget had some confidence, over and above being an Irish servant.

She didn't say Lizzie was crying; She said she didn't recall the dress Lizzie had on- altho she remembered the dress Lizzie wore Wednesday (the Bedford cord); She says Lizzie told her about the dress goods sale but had not ever done that before (implies trying to get Bridget out of the house); Her timing about being upstairs leaves out the amount of time Lizzie claimed to have been in the barn; She contradicts Lizzie about whether Lizzie had any breakfast. She doesn't see Lizzie all the time she herself is washing windows; She claims she did not see the bloody pail of cloths in the cellar; She knew nothing about a note coming; There's more. I don't think Bridget helped out Lizzie in any way- Harry and I had talked about this.
But He did mention to me that Bridget might only have helped out in what she didn't say, and I agree.

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:02 pm

Yes, yes, yes! Silences can speak, and conceal, volumes.
I think Bridget could have performed a full-blown character assassination on Lizzie based on what she'd observed as a working resident of the household. However, it would have been her word against Lizzie's-- and Emma's. How much easier it would have been to accept some money before the trial, especially when the defense counsel could have warned Bridget, "You side with the prosecution, and we'll rip you to shreds on the stand and possibly even drag you into the whole bloody mess." In so many words, put nicely and discreetly.
Even if Bridget were totally uninvolved with the crimes-- and she may well have been-- she still would have been frightened of implication. I don't think Lizzie would have dared to finger her because she feared Bridget would squawk, "Let me tell you some stories about Miss Lizzie."

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:01 am

Welcome, DJ! It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on the case.

Knowlton was working on Bridget. He met with her at least once. When someone came to fetch her for, I think it was her inquest testimony, she buckled, tears and all. She was afraid she was getting arrested.

I have always found it weird that Bridget didn't tell about the discontent at home.

If we are to believe in Nellie McHenry's interview of her shortly after the murders, Bridget said she did not like the way 'the girls' treated Abby and that she was going to leave three times but each time Abby appealed to her, and Bridget felt sorry for her and stayed. That's pretty strong stuff for Bridget to feel, and to see in the house, but she didn't tell it on the stand. Maybe she was afraid of Lizzie. I think I'd be. Maybe she figured that Abby & Andrew were dead and that nothing could bring them back anyway, so why bother to bring up the discord in the home.

Anna Howland Borden was the person whom Lizzie told rotten stuff to on her way home from her 1890 European trip about her home life and Abby. They were distantly related, so distant that some sources say they were not related. She was all ready to testify and was even on the stand, I think, when they stopped her from testifying. It seems like they said it was too far removed - the conversation took place too far in the past from the murders and wasn't relevant. I thought that was a strange ruling. Had she been allowed to testify, it would have thrown some weight in the direction of the jury hearing partly how things were in that house.

There has been speculation that Andrew Jennings gave Bridget money after the trial and told her to go to Ireland and never come back to the U.S., but there is nothing that I know of that exists to back that up.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:34 pm

It is very strange to me that someone, anyone, who did not kill the Bordens themselves, but who probably knew background info, would never speak of it! It's mind-boggling to me that any insider could go their whole lives without speaking to a trusted relative or spouse about the events that day.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:38 pm

I agree, Kat. But every now and then when reading about someone with ties to the case, the family will say "He never talked about it at all." Bridget is surprising, tho. And she liked to talk well enough; she wasn't shy. I think she was afraid of Lizzie. I wonder how she felt when Lizzie barred her from entering the sitting room when Andrew was freshly stricken. And she asked Lizzie "Miss Lizzie, where was you?"

Then, I think the other side got hold of her (Knowlton) and talked to her. It looked like she just wanted to say what she had to, then go into the world anonymously.

BTW, looking at Mary Naugle's 'birds-eye view map' of the Bordens' neighborhood in this last Hatchet issue, I am surprised to see that Alice Russell's house was not all that far away from 92 Second Street. At least it doesn't look it from the map.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:03 pm

I've been looking for a link between the Cheethams and the Buffintons. Have not found it yet- except they lived in the same house. Here are 1870 census and 1880 census. One gives no relationships between names, the other doesn't show a relationship between the 2 families.
Included here, below, are the census pages:

In reponse to:

Shelley @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:49 pm wrote:Sounds like Addie (sometimes reported as Annie) Cheetham. I am guessing Estelle was a Buffinton before marrying Thomas.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:06 pm

1880 Buffinton on Second Street/ with Cheetham

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:13 pm

It might read here (1900) that a Cheetham was sister to Adelaide Churchill, if the handwriting can be deciphered:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:15 pm

I just keep trying!
Reminds me of Fall River's Motto:
We'll Try!

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:10 pm

I thought maybe Estelle Cheetham was Addie's sister, and a Buffinton, but it does not look like it. Perhaps Estelle was Mr. Churchill's married sister and Addie Churchill was Addie Cheetam's auntie by marriage.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:38 am

Doesn't the 1900 census say Estelle Cheetham is "Head" and next in line says "Adelaide Churchill" "sister?" Which would mean you were right?

DJ · Post by DJ » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:55 pm

Returning to Bridget and a possible payoff for not providing full disclosure of the acrimony in the Borden household during the trial (let's say she knew nothing of the murders before, during, or after, that the morning played out with her window-washing and lying down for her nap, oblivious to all-- though one wonders when she was planning to arise and prepare the noontime meal, for three plus a guest).
Here's Bridget, right after the trial, mouthing off to a reporter no less, as Augusta documents. I say Lizzie (shielded by double jeopardy), but particularly Emma, could not stand to have her remaining in town, perhaps working for another family and carrying on and on about "them Bordens."
Emma's distaste for Abby arose at trial. She was just as much a beneficiary of the estate as Lizzie. I agree with the postings on the "Did Emma cause Lizzie to hate Abby" topic. You know what I'd bet? That the infamous "She is not my mother," was parroted from something oft-repeated by Emma. Abby was the only mother Lizzie had known.
Anyway, my point: The verdict created a vacuum. If not Lizzie, who?
Boy, Emma sure emerged as a prime suspect, alibi or no, insofar as her dislike of Abby was concerned (she could have been accused of hiring a murderer). ((Let's say she wasn't directly involved. It still looked bad for her as far as her being a suspect, and she doubtless realized this.))
Even if Bridget were merely frightened and/or intimidated during the trial, I'd wager Emma read her post-trial statements and paid her handsomely to leave town. Furthermore, I think Emma lived in fear that someday she would be accused. The local press would revive the story on anniversaries of the murders, underscoring the lack of a conviction.
It's almost as if Emma "willed" herself to outlive Lizzie-- Lizzie, who knew all, and could perhaps have commenced senile ramblings about Sister Emma's probable involvement.
It's likely Bridget didn't know "all." She could well have been completely innocent. However, she knew too much, just by having resided in that household. She made that crystal clear in her newspaper comments.
Here's a play or story scenario: Bridget in a Montana saloon, pouring drinks between sips of her own, encountering a traveler who has perhaps sought out her whereabouts, who wishes to pry, with finesse, particulars of the Borden household from her memories.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:52 pm

Yes Kat- that 's it. Estelle and Addie MUST have been sisters. Addie Cheetham is named for her aunt. Good- one mystery solved.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:04 pm

Too bad Len Rebello wasn't around in Montana in 1948!
He would have gotten the story!

Actually, I have no idea what happened to Bridget after she was released from her bond. Those who have researched her where-abouts seem to come up with differing dates. It's also almost comical that she probably married a man named Sullivan in a place known for Irish coppermine labourors.
There must have been lots of ladies named Bridget Sullivan!

About Emma- Louis Howe, as *family* apparently thought Emma *Did It.*

Rebello, page 138:

Oursler, Jr., Fulton, Behold This Dreamer! An Autobiography, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964, 366-367.

Fulton Oursler, in his autobiography, recalled a conversation he had with Louis Howe, Franklin D. Roosevelt's closest political advisor and friend. Mr. Howe was married to
Grace Borden Hartley of Fall River. She was a cousin of Lizzie's and a major benefactor of Lizzie's estate. Mr. Howe told Fulton that "Lizzy" didn't kill her parents. It was Emma who "stole back from Marion"[Massachusetts] and killed Abby and Andrew. Emma was "crazy" and suffered from "epileptic fits" according to Mr. Howe. "Lizzy discovered Emma and sent her back to Marion."

Fulton later made arrangements to have his friend Edmund Pearson and Louis Howe meet to discuss the Borden murders. Mr. Pearson did not agree with Howe's theory
according to Fulton Oursler. Mr. Howe's theory appeared in Edmund Pearson's "Legends of Lizzie" in the New Yorker, April 22, 1933.

--But, Emma lived out her life with her reputation intact. I was told too, that a good friend of Lizzie's finally dropped her but became closer to Emma. That was a sign that she was still respectable. These were Fall River people, and I can't begin to know the nuance of this behaviour. But in human nature, one shuns the person most think responsible, while showing supprt for one they think is innocent.

Yes, Emma painted herself as having the bigger problems with Abbie. But I just keep in mind that Emma came out of this rather cleanly. I think the town's collective opinion might be worth a lot, in terms of what might really be true.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:05 pm

I didn't see you there Shelley when I posted. Please excuse me.

Yes if the handwriting is thus deciphered, I think you are right.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:57 am

I've always thought that Lizzie and Emma weren't very nice people- they may have put on a front for show, but it seems to be subtly evident to people around town that Abby was not well treated. In fact, I think the girls made life a living hell for her. The reason I think this is that if a poor immigrant girl ( with not very much going for her in a new country prejudiced against the Irish, with not much money, and limited prospects for the future) could feel sorry enough for her employer, a superior, to want to leave, but sticks around when the employer begs her to stay, then it had to have been pretty bad for Abby. Bridget probably knew just how much grief the girls were giving Abby, but the only thing she could do was to silently be there for Abby. Bridget could have spilled her guts plenty at the trial, but she couldn't have possibly won in her situation- how would she get another job, live in that town with everyone knowing the revolting gossip, or even been trusted? If I had been in her place I would have felt it best to keep my mouth shut, feign ignorance in the family dynamics, and get out of Dodge as soon as possible. As for Emma and Lizzie, they probably would have been just as eager for Bridget to split too because the whole family situation even without the murders was probably too humiliating to risk Bridget possibly blabbing it to the world.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:52 pm

It's always been my opinion that moving far away from the scene of the crime was a good move on Bridgets part. After all who would want to stick around that area to try and get a job after being involved in an event like that? She was liable to be pressed for information about the goings on in the Borden household, or for gruesome details about the murders. After all it was the crime of the century at that time. It was hugely covered by the media, and EVERYBODY wanted to know about it. She was one of the only two people left alive in the house on that day. There was also the possibility of the whispers about behind her back..."do you think she did it?"..."does she know more than she is telling?"...pretty much what we say about her today. Can you imagine what it would've been like then when the events were still fresh in everyones mind? To me moving away just made sense. I don't really think Bridget was one for talking about what happened, in my opinion. If she was more of the story would've surfaced on down the line somewhere. And not just as a death bed confession type thing. She outlived Lizzie by 21 years. If she wanted to talk without fear of retribution she had 21 years to do it.

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:24 pm

Emma was obviously possessed of a better defined sense of propriety than Lizzie. I'm sure her feeling was, "Let's keep a low profile." Lizzie wanted to spend and to enjoy, to entertain and to travel.
Emma was never charged or tried, so of course she was more socially acceptable. Some people probably even sympathized with her, believing her to have a terrible cross to bear.
I still think she lived in fear of being suspected, however, which was all the more reason to maintain impeccable social graces, which would of course have widened the "schism of outside perception" between her and Lizzie.
Beneath the cool, calm exterior, however ... still waters no doubt ran deep and roiling.
A guess at the difference between the feelings of Emma and Lizzie:
Lizzie wanted the money she felt she was due, so she could do the things she felt she ought to be able to do. I think she would have tolerated Abby's being alive as long as she (Lizzie) could have led the life she wanted.
Emma wanted Abby dead-- she'd probably loathed her from the get-go, and done her best to turn Lizzie against her.
The "Tag Team" Borden Sisters, if we are to believe Bridget's remarks in print.
Emma no doubt didn't mind having the money, but she didn't want it for the same reasons as Lizzie. It meant freedom, as it did to Lizzie, but it didn't mean pleasure as much as it did to Lizzie.
Emma just didn't want Abby to have it.
"Miss Proper" Emma surely was appalled to see her oh-so-upright facade blown by a servant girl. I'd bet she couldn't throw money at Bridget fast enough.
If Bridget just wanted to get the heck out of Dodge and let sleeping dogs lie--
Why give the interview?
I think it was a passive-aggressive message to one or both sisters: "I've helped save your hides, and, if you want to be well rid of me and shut me up, then pony up."
Once established in another locale, why bring up the Bordens again, unless she wanted to be harrassed by curiousity seekers? New place, clean slate, no auld lang syne. Furthermore, how is she going to get far, far away without funds?
(Aside from the barroom scenario, I envision Bridget, in her latter days, running a boardinghouse for timbermen or such.)

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:31 pm

She at one time had the funds to come to America from Ireland, all before she knew the Bordens. I don't think a trip from Massachusetts to Montana would've been that big of a stretch really.

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:44 pm

I'm sure Shelley could clue us in on the cost of a ticket in steerage when Bridget bid adieu to Ireland. I'm guessing around the equivalent of fifteen dollars--
But, remember, people were leaving in droves because of the economic conditions-- she was seeking a better life in America.
During the early 1890s, it probably took as long to travel by rail from Massachusetts to Montana as it did to sail from Ireland to NYC. Maybe longer, given the transfers and layovers for different rail lines. It was probably more expensive, too.
Any RR afficionadoes to weigh in?
Point one: Why Montana?
Point two: What was she planning to do once she arrived? I don't think she would have gone that far without a nest egg, or perhaps even enough to say, launch a boardinghouse or a cafe.
If Bridget wanted to work as a maid, which was the height of her qualifications, why go farther than Chicago, where there would have been plenty of opportunities, as well as in any number of cities between there and Fall River?
It's simply not much of a stretch to imagine the reserved Miss Emma picking up that newspaper, clutching her pearls, and summoning Bridget to offer enough of an enticement to put some distance between herself and the Sisters Borden, and to forget, kindly, that she ever knew them.
I doubt Bridget had ever seen fifty dollars in her life, much less a thousand, or a couple of thousand.
Lastly, Bridget probably feared being the next suspect, which may have been one of the reasons she piped up about Emma and Lizzie to the press: Miss Abby had begged her to stay. She felt sorry for her. Why would she have killed her?
Look at Emma. Look at Lizzie. They made life miserable for her.
If Bridget knew that, she knew more than enough for Emma's and Lizzie's tastes.
Bye, bye, Bridget.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:46 pm

Yes, fifteen dollars per passage would have been alot for the late 1880's steerage. In 1912 it was possible to get a second class berth for some cabins on the Titanic for thirty dollars.

In 1893 Anaconda-Butte had the largest single concentration of Irish in America- not Boston or New York. They all went out to work the mines- so it was quite natural Bridget went out there-she probably had relatives there. Jules Rykebusch recommended a book called The Butte Irish to me, and it is still available on Amazon and well worth a reading to get the reason why Bridget went out there. Here is a partial Amazon review of the book- no author of the review given

"David M. Emmons, in The Butte Irish, examines the development of Butte, Montana, as an Irish town, tracing the story from the Potato Famine to about 1925. He focuses on two major questions: (a) What made Butte such a popular destination for Irish immigrants, both directly from Ireland and from other Irish areas of the US? and, (b) How did the development of an Irish enclave in Butte affect the development of the city? He goes on to examine the evolution of class relations within the Irish in Butte. Emmons describes Butte as a unique location in America for the study of an ethnic community. He argues that the town developed in such a way and at such a time that it was one of the only towns in the country to have a strong working-class, immigrant community in a position of major influence and power. There were several keys that made this path of city evolution possible. The first was the switch from silver and gold mining to copper production in the 1870's. This is key for Butte's "Irishness" on several levels. First, because of the large capital investment required for copper mining, Butte was forced to industrialize to a much greater extent than other major gold and silver mining camps of the West. Thus, Butte was the only one of these mining camps to become a major city. Immigrants from many of these camps came to Butte in large numbers. The timing of the beginning of Butte's copper era is a second major factor. The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's caused huge numbers of Irish to immigrate to America. In the years immediately following the famine, the Irish were nearly forty percent of those immigrating to the United States. Large numbers of Irish continued to immigrate in the next thirty years, supplying the US with many unskilled workers. Many of these Irish went to the mining camps of the west, the coal mines of Pennsylvania, or the copper mines of Michigan, because mining was one of the only industries they were familiar with. As many of the western mining camps became "played out," or ran out of viable ore, in the late nineteenth century, the Irish looked to the developing Butte. Because Butte was becoming an established city only when the Irish started going there, it did not have a previously existing community of entrenched middle class Americans, nor did it have a prior political structure. This is another key difference between Butte and other towns with sizable Irish populations such as Boston or San Francisco. In pre-existing towns and cities, the middle class often looked down on those of the working class, or at least had control of the political and social structure of the area. It is a well-known fact that Marcus Daly was one of the main reasons so many Irish came to Butte. Daly was the owner of the Anaconda Mining Company, and a strong Irish nationalist. His hiring policies were famous throughout the West, and even in Ireland, as being very generous to the Irish. Emmons lays out these reasons, detailing them extensively. His research was thorough, utilizing "two full carloads" of primary materials including records of Butte churches and Irish social organizations, letters, newspapers. Also cited in Emmons' bibliography are extensive interviews and secondary sources. Emmons is just as thorough in his treatment of the second question. He considers the miners of Butte on many levels. One of the more interesting themes of the book is the discussion of conflicting loyalties within the Irish enclave of the Mining City. The author frames this as the question of whether the people considered themselves "working Irish-Americans" or "Irish-American workers." He examines the politics of the struggling Ireland and its relationship with England, the structure of the Butte social organizations and the way their roles and importances, both absolute and relative to one another, changed and grew during this period, and changing demographics within the Irish and the rest of Butte-Silver Bow. The only complaint to be lodged against The Butte Irish is the author's occasional use of difficult sentence structure. I can't find the quote I was going to use here, but there were a few to choose from. The Butte Irish is a well-written and well-executed account of the development of a town and community, offering many insights into working class ethnography, labor relations, Montana history, and Irish history, among others. Emmons has managed to cover aspects of all these areas, even while maintaining a strong focus and cohesiveness throughout the book."

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:16 pm

Thank you, Shelley, for explaining the attraction of Butte as a hospitably ethnic and social milieu for Bridget.
Still-- she needed employment.
Does anyone know what she did in that regard?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:21 pm

Bridget had not only worked for private families as a domestic, but she had worked for a time in Newport in the old Perry House Hotel. Anaconda was full of boarding houses and hotels. I daresay she had a job initially in one of those and perhaps met her husband in that environment.

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:53 pm

Thanks, again!
It would be interesting to know whether she had children, and possibly still-living-today descendants.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:08 pm

Thank you very much for all the info Shelley.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:39 pm

Oh, we all can thank Jules Ryckebusch, planner of the 1992 Lizzie Centennial at BCC for recommending this book. Jules is an amazing man- and very knowledgeable about so many angles of this case. He is retired now and lives in New Bedford.

I never heard that Bridget had any children. Bridget is mentioned at this LONG link about famous people from Butte including Martha Raye.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... ie%3DUTF-8

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:11 am

DJ @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:53 pm wrote:Thanks, again!
It would be interesting to know whether she had children, and possibly still-living-today descendants.

As far as we know, Bridget did not have children. I believe it was a niece who was looking after her in her later years.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:40 pm

Partial quote:

DJ @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:44 pm wrote:Lastly, Bridget probably feared being the next suspect, which may have been one of the reasons she piped up about Emma and Lizzie to the press: Miss Abby had begged her to stay. She felt sorry for her. Why would she have killed her?

Bridget's alleged conversation about Abby asking her to stay was not with the press but with Nellie McHenry. She was the wife of the exceedingly shady Detective Edwin McHenry, he of the infamous Trickey/McHenry hoax. The Knowlton Papers (pages 33-35, document HK023) covers the interview.

Nellie addressed her letter (dated Aug. 25, 1892) to Marshal Hilliard. Nellie said she had tricked Bridget by saying she was a distant relative of Mrs. Borden

She alleged that Bridget said that "when she got out of this she was going back to Newport."

The entire letter is a fascinating read and I have come to believe the interview did occur. Much of what it contains Bridget later said in her testimonies.

DJ · Post by DJ » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:52 pm

Thanks for the clarification!
If it's to be believed, as you say, it's evidence that Bridget "held back" in her on-the-stand picture of Life with the Bordens, which begs the question, "Why?" which raises the specter of a payoff.
I'm inclined to believe she was uninvolved with the crime, particularly if this threat-to-quit story is true. If she wanted to leave because of the sisters' ill-treatment of Abby, then what in the world would have compelled her to become involved in a murder plot on behalf of one or the other, or both?
I don't think threats, or even money, would have enticed her to become involved with the murders. Unless the Sisters had something "big" on her-- which would be what?
One thing's for darn sure: If she were involved with the murders, she proved herself to be a far superior actress to Lizzie.

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:42 pm

See
http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/fall05mt ... aconda.pdf

180 pages on Butte-Anaconda's significance as a national historic landmark and for detailed information, history, and development of the greater Butte area and the Alice Silver Mine and Anaconda Copper Mines. The area today has a population that is a fraction of what it was from the mid-1880s to the Depression.

This was working-class boom town. There were jobs, homes, social organizations, etc. I can see Bridget being very happy in this area. Anyone who was willing to work could have found a good life there during the time Bridget was there.

Here's a quicky article on the 3 "Copper Kings" who drove development in the area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Kings

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:40 am

Anaconda, Montana: Copper Smelting Boom Town on the Western Frontier. By Patrick F. Morris published in 1997.

"In early 1884, George B. Winston arrived to open a law office. A native of Missouri, he came to Butte in 1883 and moved to Anaconda soon after he was admitted to the Montana bar. He later became Anaconda's first city attorney, first City Clerk and was one of the seventy -five men to assemble in Helena in 1889, to write a constitution for the new state to be. Winston later became a judge and established a record for longevity on the bench, serving from 1904 to 1933. In 1896, he hired Bridget Sullivan, a maid who had worked for the notorious Lizzie Borden. Bridget worked for Winston until he died in 1936, never once mentioning the gory details of what she had seen that hot summer day in 1892 in Fall River, Massachusetts when her employers, Andrew Borden and his wife, were killed with an ax allegedly wielded by their daughter, Lizzie. Bridget married John M. Sullivan in Anaconda in 1905 and lived with him at 701 Alder Street for thirty-four years. When John died in 1939, she moved to Butte where she lived until her death in 1948. Both she and her husband are buried in Anaconda's Mount Carmel Cemetary."

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:55 am

Did Patrick Morris furnish any proofs that this was the same Bridget Sullivan? I don't have this book but I had heard the judge story too long ago, but am not convinced it was the same Bridget. Bridget Sullivan was as common a name in that town as John Smith practically. I hope it is true- something charming about the notion of Bridget working for the judge.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:18 am

Good news- there is one copy left over at Amazon.com, new, in paperback. I just got a copy. 25.00 plus 3.99 S&H. It is hard to find, so go for it!

DJ · Post by DJ » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:37 am

Many, many thanks for mining the wealth of information about The Later Years of Bridget!!!
She probably felt secure-- protected-- under the employ of a Man of the Law.
(If someone ever attempted to charge her with committing the murders.)

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:36 pm

It's possible that it wasn't out Bridget. I have my doubts that some of the information listed in Rebello in the profile on 65-66 pertains to the same Bridget Sullivan.

"Bridget left the Borden home shortly after the murders to say with her cousin, Patrick Harrington, at 95 Division Street in Fall River. Later she was hired by Josiah A. Hunt the jail keeper at Bristol County House of Correction in New Bedford. Bridget remained with the Hunt family until the Borden trial was over. She testified at the inquest, preliminary hearing, and trial in 1893. Bridget was accompanied to the inquest and preliminary hearing by Attorney James T. Cummings, the brother of ex-Mayor John W. Cummings (1886-1887). It was rumored Bridget was paid by Lizzie to return to Ireland. No evidence or documentation has yet been found to substantiate the rumors.

"It is believed Bridget Sullivan was in Anaconda, Montana by 1897. She was found to be residing in Anaconda, working as a domestic. A marriage certificate, dated 1905, was issued to John M. Sullivan and Bridget Sullivan. The marriage took place on June 21, 1905, at St. Paul's Church by Father J.M. O'Brien. Attendants for the newlyweds were Peter J. Sullivan and another woman named Bridget Sullivan who was a domestic for Judge George B. Winston. Mr. John Sullivan ws born in Ireland (1868 as engraved on the headstone and the 1920 Federal Census listed his age as 52) and was the son of James and Margaret (Leary) Sullivan. He came to the United States in 1888 and became a citizen in 1898 (1920 Federal Census) He was listed in the Anaconda City Directory in 1896. John Sullivan was a laborer, puncher and converter, furnace man, smelterman and later a helper for the Anaconda Mining Company. After their marriage Bridget continued to work as a domestic. The Sullivans resided at various locations while in Anaconda. They purchased a home on Alder Street in 1915. Mr. Sullivan died at St. Ann's Hospital, March 12, 1939. He had been a resident of Anaconda for fifty years. He was buried at Mount Olivet Cemetary in Anaconda. "

In 942, Bridget moved to Butte Montana, to live with relatives at 112 East Woolman Street. She died at a local hospital in Butte on March 25, 1948, at the age of 73. Cause of death was cardiac failure, arteriosclerosis and senility. Bridget, for reasons unknown, was blind at the time of her death. She is buried at Mount Olivet Cemetary in Anaconda Montana. "

These two reports about her later life show how easily the Bridget Sullivans of Anaconda could become mixed up with each other. I think the woman who attended the wedding was more than likely her. But that is just my instinct.

In Rebello he states that the information about Bridget shows various birthdays for her. It starts at 1866, which is inferred by what she testified to at trial when she stated her age. The marriage certificate lists her date of birth as February 3, 1871. Riobard O' Dwyer, a noted genealogist, lists it as March 1864. The supposed headstone is engraved with the year 1869. A will for Bridget Sullivan inferred a birthday of of 1873. I believe that some of this information doesn't pertain to our Bridget. Some explain this with saying Bridget didn't know her own birthday or her age. I believe that some of the information just might not be our girl. Also Bridget's parents are listed as Eugene and Margaret (Leary) Sullivan. Could it have been the first marriage for the Margaret (Leary) Sullivan which was mother to John? Could the Bridget attending the wedding have been his sister, and THE Bridget Sullivan?

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:20 pm

The online geneaology boards don't help much either. I always use the + or - 5 years on my searches because very often the year is given as "approximately". Sometimes an actual birth is not registered immediately either,-so it is a minefield. Len went out to Montana, and I must say, he is unusually careful in his research and does not give a fact unless he is satisfied. Still, if the data is incorrect to begin with, it is easy to make an honest mistake based on what you have to work with.

I wish somebody would really get to the bottom of the Bridget thing for once and all. I suspect it would take another trip out there, or an interview with the judge's grandchildren.

I have always thought Bridget looked much younger than Lizzie in the few photos and drawings we have of her. But then again, we do not know when that famous photo of Bridget was taken, so it can only be speculation. I can see how keeping house and cooking for a judge could still be what she was accustomed to doing, and not such a bad job. There was a rowdy red-light district of Anaconda and some poor girls with no skills did far worse than Bridget. Too bad she did not have any children- or at least none we are aware of!

DJ · Post by DJ » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Yes, Shelley, sometimes the "documentation" leads one afoul. I was on a geneaology site and found my paternal grandmother's birthdate listed wrong, thanks to an incorrect birth certificate.
How wise of Bridget to settle in an area where her name was as apparently as common as cabbage and potatoes. Surely it was much easier to be anonymous before the gov't commenced tagging us all.
Even if someone were bold enough to ask her if she were "the Bridget Sullivan," she could handily deny it.
So-- no other, "later" pictures have emerged?
Gosh, it would be difficult to get to the bottom of all this, especially if Bridget didn't care to share her past with others, who might have passed on telltale information.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:28 pm

I am pretty sure other photos of Bridget exist somewhere. I would bet a wedding photo is in somebody's attic in Montana. I have only seen the one familiar one of her, which many guests at the house say looks like Christopher Reeve!! There were cartoon or line drawings of it in the newspapers, plus another cartoon of her which I don't think looks much like her. They are in the Virtual Library Gallery here.

nbcatlover · Post by **nbcatlover** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:27 am

After reading all of the above posts, I checked some census data from 1897 to 1930. There were between 10 to 14 Bridget Sullivans in the greater Butte area. There's lots of room for confusion here...just looking at paper records.

With so many women named Bridget Sullivan, perhaps she really did mind being called Maggie by the girls.