1. "Errors"
Posted by harry on Mar-10th-03 at 3:04 PM

How can it be possible to get this many errors in one paragraph?

"As for the real Lizzie Borden, she never left New England. It was a fact that she was tried in June of 1892 in Fall River, Mass. for killing her well-to-do father, Andrew Jackson Borden, and her stepmother, the former Abby Durfee Gray. Lizzie had been seen taking an ax from a barn into the home on the day of the murders. Her father's skull was crushed and his wife's body was found upstairs on a bed, beaten to death. Lizzie was acquitted by an all-male jury in her June 1892 trial. She lived out her life in riches in New Hampshire."

Six sentences, six errors. A new record.

http://www.svcn.com/archives/lgwt/03.31.99/pic-past-9913.html

Trial in the same month as her acquittal, & BEFORE the murders were even committed.

& we thought the Victorians weren't so efficient!

That is one reason for "peer review" or using an editor (newspapers). Two (or more) heads are better than one in catching mistakes.

Errare humnum est.

I don't think I've seen a website that doesn't contain glaring errors on Lizzie - except ours    Maybe we could make a spot on this website for catching errors.  Not to criticize, but so people have a place to go to to get the story straight.  So many rumors still out there because of errors like this that have gone uncorrected.  We could have a title/category listed, then threads regarding each item where we could all post to it.  ???

I'm game!
Who pays our salary?

(Message last edited Mar-24th-03  3:23 AM.)

The same person who pays us for posting - nobody! 

I think, therefore I post!
I bet Ray could translate that into Latin.

Somehow I doubt those who make those glaring errors are too interested in getting it right.  I would think it would take a new book.
That's really my first thought.
You can try the idea.
How does the word get out that there is such a place for info, and what if we were descended upon for research projects?

Then we CHARGE for research. 
Could Stef maybe make a topic title like she did the "Privy", "Stay to Tea", etc.?  And call it something that means mistakes, but put a gentler way.  Is there a more 'Victorian' way to say errors? 
Every so often on Lily's old board, someone would come on and ask us to do research for them.  I did a few, but I was bummed out at their laziness and lack of enthusiasm and lack of caring for getting it right.  (They'd usually be school kids doing a paper and just wanting to get it over with.)  So we generally told people we didn't do research here for others, but would tell them where they could go to do it themselves. 

Why not direct the slackers to this free on-line essay.  It's appallingly bad.  At one point even ABBY falls under suspicion -- but luckily she's acquitted. 

http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/a5/dli197.shtml

Hey Diana, it's only $12.95 a page. 

Did you notice it's all one paragraph. Didn't even come up for air once.

Not only was Abby found not guilty, she was unable to prove her whereabouts during the murders. Huh?

Hilarious!

  Thanks, Diana!  I needed a good laugh.  I'm appalled at how many errors there are with all the source material that is quoted from and listed. 

I haven't looked at that site yet, Harry.  But now I must.  I must say I haven't considered Abby a suspect before this. 

I love it! --especially the part about Abby having been Lizzie's and Emma's mother since the age of two.  Talk about a child bride!  Michael Martins and Dennis Binette should be ashamed of themselves for giving out all that misinformation.  I'm sure it's all their fault.

NO!!! This "free" book report is realy a prank joke! IMO

I pity the fools who submit this as their homework. They'll get what they paid (zero).

It's All "FLENN'S fault!

Listen:

Ray:
Here is a sample of the paper and it mentions a mysterious "GROSS", and a Bridget & Lizzie Did It theory.
The only thing wrong is this "Gross" is not in the Bibliography, so you're no further forward!  (I didn't read the whole thing)
Here's the part with a "Gross" reference:

..."The next theory is that Lizzie killed her parents. Gross proposes that Lizzie did indeed murder her parents, but that she could not have brought off the crime successfully without Bridget's assistance. It was Bridget who spirited away -- virtually under the very noses of the police -- the murder weapon and the bloodstained dress. Gross suggests the possibility that Lizzie plotted the murders with Bridget. Gross is also missing a motive, but answers most of the rest of the questions: Why didn't Bridget hear 200lb Abby fall to the ground? What happened to the murder weapon? Why did Lizzie pay for Bridget's return to Ireland? This explains the mutually non-accusatory testimony of Lizzie and Bridget with respect to each other. Gross points out that only the two of them were in the house when the two-hundred-pound Abby Borden fell heavily and noisily to the floor after being struck. He finds significance in Bridget's passage being paid so that she could return to Ireland -- was it Lizzie's part of the bargain? He also attaches importance to Bridget's almost-death-bed confession over half a century later, when Bridget was living in Butte, Montana (Porter 56)"....

--Sound Familiar?
--Who the HE_ _ is Gross?

(Message last edited Apr-6th-03  6:04 AM.)

Abby fell to the ground?  So maybe she did take that long drop out of the nonexistent door?  BTW, "Gross" was the name of the guy I dated before I married my last husband.  I didn't realize he had branched out into writing.  I was kinda glad when we broke up, because I never did want to change my name to "gross."  Ewwww...Gross!
(Wow!  Look at that!  Arborwood changed my last expression into an URL, which leads to a nonexistent website.)

Gerald Gross edited MASTERPIECES IN MURDER, AN EDMUND PEARSON TRUE CRIME READER, published in 1963.  In that book he deals with the Pearson/Radin controversy.  Pearson was long dead.  Radin's book (making Bridget the killer) was published in 1963. In his book, Radin blasts Pearson for selective elimination of certain portions of testimony in his (Pearson's) book.  The popularity of Gross's book had to do with the issue of Mrs. Pearson's defense of her husband and counter-blasting Radin's criticism of her husbands editing in that book.  It was quite an issue in literary circles at the time. 

Victor

I mistyped.  Edward Radin's book should have read "...was published in 1961", not 1963. 

Victor

P.S.  And Kat, I'm suprised you had to ask "who is GROSS?".  Your sleuthing is exceptional, and as I said previously, I enjoy your posts. 

Gerald Gross was the editor of a republished version of Pearson's "Trial of Lizzie Borden" circa 1963. THIS must be the book I read in 1965. Gross logically said that if Bridget was outside when Abby was done in, then it must have been Lizzie; and if Lizzie was outside when Andy was done in, then it must have been Bridget. A rational conclusion based on the known facts.

I found a reference to this book in the Library of Congress in 2000.

AR Brown solved this case by using the unknown facts: a visitor whose presence was hidden by everyone. You can look it up.
...
Could this book have been withdrawn due to its blaming an innocent person? Even if dead, her children could have threatened to bring suit.

(Message last edited Apr-6th-03  3:18 PM.)

Ray & I have a "thing" going.  The "who the hell is Gross" comment was a sort of joke.
Sorry.  Inside joles might be a bit rude to other's.

Ray has been trying to find a "Certain Gross" which is what I really should have posted.  Misleading, now, I realize.

And Ray:  I hope this gets you somewhere!

Anyway, thanks for bringing it up.  Now I get to send members to the Privy to read for themselves just to what you allude.
Real references are always appreciated!
Thanks again.

http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=27&taid=8&topid=21&ut=1010542721

[He doesn't think it is this Gross.  He remember's a "Trial of" title]


(Message last edited Apr-6th-03  3:29 PM.)

Edisto, if you HAD married the man that WOULD be your website!
EWwww.Gross  (I'm trying it out myself)

Reading thru some of the early newspaper reports in the "Sourcebook" you come across some real lulus. 

Whew!  Speaking of errors, this eBay seller has included in his/her listing a long-winded account of the Borden tragedy that's loaded with them.  Also, the item being sold is totally bogus and is a picture of somebody's Aunt Mabel.  I notice the seller says not to email him/her again and say it isn't Lizzie.  "Don't confuse the issue by telling me the truth!"  This item was up before, and I was one of the hordes that emailed to say the picture isn't Lizzie.  I thought it had been sold.  Maybe the buyer returned it?

Yes, Edisto.  As you have said, replete with errors.
Here's the one I liked the most.

The seller indicates the photograph was taken in 1925 and if not Lizzie, he says, it could be her step mother, Abby. . .

Let's see 1925 . . . Considering Abby would have been dead for thirty-three years...Hey! She looks pretty good, doesn't she?

Plus the fact the seller obsconded with the text of this website without credit:

http://www.allsands.com/History/People/lizziebordenbi_zrz_gn.htm

But don't go to the link if you don't like popup ads. It is loaded with them.