Life
in Victorian America
Forum
URL: |
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/LBForum/index.php |
Forum
Title: |
LIZZIE BORDEN
SOCIETY |
Topic
Area: |
Life in Victorian
America |
Topic
Name: |
Newspapers:
How Did They Know? |
1. "Newspapers: How Did They
Know?"
Posted by Kat on Apr-26th-02 at 1:15 PM
In the Privy, we've talked about the newspaper
*Interviews* with some of the different characters, and
whether they were phony or not: The Lizzie In Jail
Interview, The Hiram Harrington Interview, Emma's Supposed
Interview in 1913....
Some of these news *scoops* seem only to provide information
that could be gathered in other ways, such as research
of public documents (Emma's interview), or a rehash of
rumors and gossip, or a combination of both(Lizzie's jail
interview).
Upon re-reading Lizzie Borden: A Case Book
of Family and Crime in the 1890's , Williams etc.,
1980, There is a reproduction of an article in the Fall
River Daily Herald, dated August 6th, 1892 , pg.
40, under the heading:
THE POISON THEORY:
"Lizzie had told a friend the day before the murder
that she was afraid somebody had tampered with the milk
which had been left at the house. She seemed very
much disturbed about it and remarked: 'I am afraid
that father has an enemy.'
Keep in mind the date of this article is only 2 days after
the murders. Give the reporter time to roam around
the town seeking information, getting in touch with pertinent
people, writing the piece, and getting it in to the editor,
getting it typeset and being published in the paper and
the paper being sold, where it finally ends up in the
hands of the citizen.
WHERE were the repoters getting
this information?
We have shrugged aside many of the inaccuracies from the
first days which were printed in the papers, and concluded
these reports are not much worthy of consideration, because
of the major errors (like the reports that Abby was chased
upstairs by the assasin after Andrew's death, or she died
of heart failure).
But as with Hiram Harrington's *Interview* (in the Privy),
which was also reported on the 6th, some of the specifics
have made it into "Legend."
SO, where did THEY get this news, and WHEN did they get
it?
...The "Alice" comments from Lizzie, for example:
We have no information that Alice gave an interview, so
how could the papers know this about Lizzie's visit to
Alice Wednesday night? And only 2 days later!?
Are the police leaking information? If so, WHY?
Do the papers have an *Insider*, to provide private family
information? If so, WHO?
Even in an Internet age, it is hard to fathom such a fast
and relatively precise information-gathering process,
and Getting It All Into PRINT, in so short a time!
How Did They Know?
2. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Harry on Apr-26th-02 at 2:42 PM
In response to Message #1.
Some of it came from people like John
Cunningham. Not only did he notify the police he called
two different newspapers.
I think there were a lot of "sharp eared" people
in the employ of the newspapers or some who picked up
extra money by supplying information to them when they
ran across it.
3. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by bobcook848 on Apr-26th-02 at 10:02 PM
In response to Message #1.
Recall that Porter was a re-Porter (reporter)
for the Globe and his primary "beat" was the
police department. Undoubtly he was roaming the
interior of the house with his police cronies where he
could have easily 'overheard' certain comments.
From those comments he created stories, right or wrong,
and either sent them (written form) with a courier (usually
a fast running youth) to the news office where the print
would be done.
Trouble is if his story wasn't verified by the editor
then they ran whatever the typesetter got.
Since there was no phone at 92 Second Street the editor
would have had little choice but to actually believe what
Porter wrote and this became gospel. If what Porter
wrote needed a bit of spicing up well then that's the
job of the editor.
Little wonder that entire affair even got put across accurately.
And since Porter was pro-cop his writings were very lopsided
just like his book in 1893.
Does this help Kat??
BC
4. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Kat on Apr-26th-02 at 10:43 PM
In response to Message #3.
So you guys think Harrington really talked?
That Someone overheard Alice explaining about Wed. night
and talked?
That Fish talked?
That Mrs. Emery talked, or was overheard?
That MORSE TALKED or was overheard?
So much for *keeping secrets* !
Now I have a newpaper article that claims Dr. Bowen talked...It
contradicts what Alice says Lizzie told her about his
visit to the Borden's Wednesday, as in Sherry's LBQ article...
I asked Stefani and we thought maybe they did talk...
or there were paid *snoops*, or police *insider* informants,
or maybe Hanscomb, the Pinkerton man? Or McHenry
listening in?
5. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Kat on May-6th-02 at 8:28 PM
In response to Message #4.
There's a letter in the Knowlton Papers
which seems to illustrate what you-all have said.
Granted, this is about information *leaks* around the
time of the Grand Jury, but it may be indicative of the
practices affecting public sentiment, through the newspaper.
Knowlton Papers, pg. 100-1, Letter #HK100 & #101 (carbon
copy), from Pillsbury to Knowlton:
"ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING.
Boston, Nov. 23, 1892
Dear Mr. Attorney:-
You saw the Herald article yesterday morning, of course.
This will indicate to you doubtless, as it does to me,
not only that the reporter (Billings, I think, but don't
know certain) has lied a good deal, and also that some
juror has 'leaked' a little. The unavoidable difficulties
of this accursed case are such that I am reluctant to
add to them, but I think you ought to bring this before
the grand jury, and have something done about it.
There never was a better opportunity for teaching the
officers of the law to hold their tongues, and newspaper
reporters to let them alone and it ought to be availed
of. Probably I shall see you in the interval.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General.
Hon. H.M. Knowlton,
Nous sommes d'accord, mais COMMENT a le faire?"
(French phrasing written in Knowlton's handwriting)
--The first portion reads: "We are in complete
agreement."
"Mais" = My. "Comment"=how,
why, what. "Faire"= to do, to perform.
This may be an idiomatic phrase which essentially asks
"How do I do this?"
--Grand Jury dates...Nov. 7- 21st, 1892. Reconvened
Dec. 1st.
--Emphasis mine.
6. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by David on May-7th-02 at 2:32 AM
In response to Message #5.
(Message last edited Oct-6th-02 11:55 PM.)
7. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Edisto on May-7th-02 at 2:37 PM
In response to Message #6.
With similar schoolbook French (2 years
in college, plus a few brush-up courses), I would translate
"...mais COMMENT a le faire?" as "...but
HOW was it done?" (One says "a la"
in
French, but not "a le." The word would
be "au." Therefore, the "a"
is part of the verb "faire." The "le"
means "it" in this context.) Now let's
see if a real French speaker can shed any light on the
matter. Moi? Je ne suis pas une Francaise!
8. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Kat on May-7th-02 at 7:39 PM
In response to Message #7.
As Mr. Bertolet would say: "It
doesn't solve the crime"...
But this sort of stuff is interesting.
My French is from high school way back in 1968/69.
I only think I passed because I dated the teacher's nephew,
and had been to her house. I guess I didn't do too
badly for it being 34 years ago.
Well, Edisto, what does it mean to you?
And by real French speakers, I suppose it's meant "Any
Canadians out there willing...?"
9. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by David on May-8th-02 at 2:29 AM
In response to Message #7.
(Message last edited Oct-6th-02 11:57 PM.)
10. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Susan on May-8th-02 at 11:58 AM
In response to Message #9.
Kat, I spoke to a friend of mine from
France and he said the it means and I quote: (It)
Is okay with us, but how (in what manner) to do it?
From the horse's own mouth so to speak. Hope it
helps?
11. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by David on May-8th-02 at 5:05 PM
In response to Message #10.
(Message last edited Oct-6th-02 11:58 PM.)
12. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Susan on May-9th-02 at 4:20 AM
In response to Message #11.
Is your name Kat now David? I was
just trying to be helpful, my friend in France is from
Sweden originally and speaks 5 or 6 languages. I
don't claim that he is an expert in the language, but,
he is a law student and over summer break he gets work
in Paris.
13. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by David on May-9th-02 at 7:00 AM
In response to Message #12.
(Message last edited Oct-6th-02 11:59 PM.)
14. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Susan on May-9th-02 at 12:08 PM
In response to Message #13.
Yes, I agree, no quibbling! I'm
sorry, I did mean to post a smiley after that first statment
David, it does come across as being cold and snippy, which
wasn't my intention. I was actually poking fun at
you, but, without the smiley, I'm afraid the translation
got lost.
15. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Kat on May-9th-02 at 3:14 PM
In response to Message #14.
Sorry I was away, guys.
I did keep current by reading what everybody thought.
Thanks for the input.
That letter was dated Nov. 23, and a few pages following
there is a letter dated Nov. 28, 1892, from Pillsbury
to Knowlton (pg. 107) that begins:
"You French communication was received this morning,
but perhaps we disposed of it yesterday."
In between, there was Batchelder's results of his "sanity
survey" of friends and relations of Lizzie, and a
letter from Pillsbury to Knowlton including a Herald Article
in the newspaper that "should go with the other,
if Anything Is to Be Done About Either."
The latest letter specified here (HK#105) goes on about
"...I should be inclined to follow up this Herald
matter, even if the grand jury had to be held, or Adjourned
over it. I incline to think the best way is for
them to make a special presentation of these matters to
the court, requesting action.... "
This was serious enough for the Attorney General to comment
upon, and he seems to be giving Knowlton further advise
as to how he wants the situation with the press handled.
It seems as if Knowlton's *schoolboy French* might be
on par with an everyday persons, hence the simpler translation
of "But how do I do this?" (or: "how
is this to be done?" , etc,) (Especially if
he mixed his genders.) (BTW: there is a slash
mark over the "a", and the word "comment"
is UNDERLINED....since I don't know how to represent these
2 things on a keyboard, I did the best I could...which
I see could lead to questions...)
--emphasis and Capitals mine.
(Message last edited May-9th-02 3:16 PM.)
16. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Kat on May-9th-02 at 11:17 PM
In response to Message #15.
Back to newspapers:
In CaseBook of Family and Crime in the 1890's
pg. 18, there is the ending of William's commentary before
the news articles begin ver batin:
"...It is not too much to say that of all the people
in the house, Lizzie was most in control of herself.
The women persisted in fluttering about her and in trying
to apply known remedies for fainting. Lizzie was
so far from fainting that when Alice Russell said at
one point that she wished she had a fan, Lizzie informed
them in a calm voice that there was one in the china closet..."
*
* "Miss Russell told this
story to a Boston POST reporter in
1929. "
--Does anyone know anything about THIS *interview*?
(Message last edited May-10th-02 1:34 AM.)
17. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by David on May-10th-02 at 3:32 AM
In response to Message #15.
(Message last edited Oct-7th-02 12:01 AM.)
18. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Kat on May-10th-02 at 6:48 PM
In response to Message #17.
So, do you know anything about a possible
Alice Russell *interview*? Does anyone?
This never fails to spark my interest...
19. "Re:
Newspapers: How Did They Know?"
Posted by Kat on May-16th-02 at 7:17 PM
In response to Message #18.
Well, the Hiram Harrington information
is also in the Witness Statements, pg. 11. You can
judge, by comparison, if it is essentially the same.
(See PRIVY: " Hiram Harrington--Fall River Daily
Herald") The notes were signed "( Doherty &
Harrington )" and were probably from Saturday, August
6th, as that is the last date noted before this item.
Do we suspect that Doherty or Harrington *leaked* information?
It almost seems more likely that in this instance HIRAM
did the *outside* talking...
From the W.S.:
'"When the perpetrator of this foul deed is found,
it will be one of the household. I had a long talk
with Lizzie yesterday (sic), Thursday, the day of the
murder, and I am not at all satisfied with statement or
demeanor. She was too solicitous about his comfort,
and showed a side of character I never knew or even suspected
her to possess. She helped him off with one coat
and on with another, and assisted him in an easy incline
on the sofa, and desired to place a afghan over him, and
also to adjust the shutters so the light would not disturb
his slumber. This is something she could not do,
even if she felt; and no one who knows her, could
be made believe it. She is very stong willed, and
will fight for what she considers her rights. She
went to the barn, where she stayed twenty minutes, or
half an hour, looking for some lead from which to make
sinkers for fishing lines, as she was going to Marion
next week." He spoke about the Ferry street
estate being given to the girls, and afterwards being
returned. He spoke at some length about her telling
about the same story as was published in the News and
Globe of Friday evening. '
(Message last edited May-16th-02 7:27 PM.)
|
Navagation
Page updated
12 October, 2003
|
|