Bridget's Nap

[Allen]

So, taking a nap when her schedule allowed for it doesn't seem to be odd to me. Also, I think that if Bridget had felt unable to do any heavy household tasks, she would have said so. Maybe she simply was suffering from a hangover .

Airmid.

P.S.: Just thought of it now, but do you think Bridget managed to bake some bread tuesday evening or wednesday while ironing?

Officer John Fleet had a conversation with Bridget on August 4, 1892. SHe made this statement to him.

The Witness Statements page 3 notes of John Fleet:

Went upstairs about 10.55 to fix my room.

What does 'to fix my room' mean, and what does that have to do with taking a nap? When did her statements go from 'fixing her room', to taking a nap? Is this important?

I've never found the idea of Bridget taking a nap when she did as odd. I would think she would want to get a little rest before beginning the chores for the meals and such later that day. She had been up very early to get breakfast, start the fire, set out the milk can, etc. If she hadn't taken a nap this could've made for a very long day for her indeed. Not only that but she was ill.


That makes sense to me that she probably made her own schedule as long as the main chores were done. She probably knew what needed to be done better than anyone else in the house, besides maybe Abby, and could just go about getting it done. It does sound like Abby asked her if she had anything important to do, Bridget says no is there something you needed done? Abby asks could you do the windows?

A Mrs. Borden was in the dining room as I was fixing the dining-room table, and she asked me if I had anything to do this morning. No, not particular, if she had anything to do for me. She said she wanted the windows washed.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[diana]

I wonder if Bridget initially said she was going up to 'fix her room' because it sounded better than going up to take a nap.

Probably, in those early hours, no one realized that everything they said would be recorded and examined so minutely and this may have been a reflexive attempt on her part to appear industrious rather than lazy.

[Harry]

Some of the initial newspaper reports had her washing windows on the third floor. They cite Bridget as saying that. However there were a great many errors in the papers on the 4th and 5th.

Some (including policemen) mention that she said it at the Inquest but there were no police or newspapermen allowed in the courtroom during the Inquest.

I believe if she did say it she did so to cover up her act of taking a nap. It might not have been unusual for Bridget to take a nap but I hardly think it was the norm for a servant in that day.

[Kat]

In the Hatchet issue, Aug/Sept 2005, pg. 34, in an article by me, there is info from the New Bedford Evening Standard specifically that I used (amongst other sources for the full article) which states:

"'Awaiting her [Bridget's] presence [at the inquest] were District Attorney Knowlton, State Officer Seaver, Marshal Hilliard and Medical Examiner Dolan, and soon after they were joined by Mayor Coughlin.'"

"There was a leak of information as to those inside- all of the above named, plus district officer Rhodes, and 'the district attorney's stenographer, Miss Annie Read [sic] and a couple of police officials who were among the first called to the house of the Bordens last Thursday.'"

--This info was published Aug. 10, page 2,3. Also there is a source of Porter, page 54. We usually think of the Standard as pretty reliable. It's interesting to note how many people were at the inquest with Bridget.

[Harry]

I wasn't talking about officials. I meant ordinary policemen. And at the time Bridget was testifying.

[Airmid]

The Fall River Herald, date unknown, but probably August 10th, from the Sourcebook p. 46:

A VALUABLE WITNESS
Bridget Sullivan proved herself a most valuable witness, and it is no wonder that she is carefully guarded at the house of her cousin on Division Street. It will be remembered that the story told all along has sent her to the third floor of the house to wash windows and that nobody has been able to ascertain when she ascended the stairs. She told the district attorney that she did not go to the third story to wash windows at all. Mr. Morse and Mr. Borden both left the house when Mrs. Borden was alive. One went down town on business, and one went to Weybosset street to call on friends. At 9:30 Bridget Sullivan, acting under Lizzie Borden's orders, went outside to wash windows. There were 11 windows, and she did not get through until 10:30. While she was on the north side of the house she commanded a view of one door, and while she was on the south side, she was close to another door. Nobody entered or left the house while she was washing these windows.
Just as she had completed her work, she saw Mr. Borden coming across the street and she hurried across the lower floor to let him in. The government has fixed the time at which he entered. The servant then attended to one or two other matters in the kitchen and went upstairs. As she passed through the sitting room she saw Mr. Borden on the lounge, and Lizzie was ironing, according to her testimony. Bridget Sullivan went to the third story where her room was situated to lie down a few moments, as her back ached. The next that she knew Lizzie called her and she went down to gaze on the awful scene which had startled the young woman who had summoned her. John Morse was not in the house.

I agree, Kat, there had to be a leak. Because I think the account I quoted here is too precise to be the product of a reporter's imagination, and it also contains enough errors to be a typical second-hand account, by someone who didn't take notes, and remembered the general outline of the testimony but hit the wrong button on some of the details.

I've been trying to fix the leak to a specific person, and I think the best candidates, at least for leaking information to the Herald, are Mayor Coughlin and Marshall Hilliard. In the Sourcebook on page 22, Fall River Herald, date probably monday the 8th, there is a very good account of Coughlin's and Hilliard's visit to the Bordens saturday night. There were no officers present at that time, and the story is as far as I can see written from the official's perspective. So I think one of them must have volunteered the information to the Herald reporter.
The other remarkable thing about the article that I cited above, is that it does not contain any detailed information about the testimonies of the other witnesses at the Inquest. Maybe their source was no longer present at the other interviews, or the source finally decided to keep his mouth shut.
All in all I would favour Dr. Coughlin as the leak, since he was the head the syndicate that owned the Fall River Daily Herald at that time.

Airmid.

[Kat]

Those are useful observations, especially the bigger picture of the Mayor head of a news outlet.

I agree with you girls about the casual nature of Bridget's responsibilities. I recall Bridget was asked about *the time* and she estimated time by the work she had to do. That gives the impression that she could do things at her own pace but also knew how long these chores took, and could probably plan for a nap if she was careful of her time.

Prelim
Bridget
187 (17)
Q. Have you any particular idea how long it took you to wash the windows outside?
A. No. I should think it was twenty minutes past ten when I got in the house.
Q. How do you fix that time?
A. By the way I had the other work to do?
Q. You estimate it by the amount of work you had to do?
A. Yes. I did not look at any time, but I judged by the work I had to do.

[RayS]

Those are useful observations, especially the bigger picture of the Mayor head of a news outlet. ...

While locally owned newspapers are more rare today, in those days it was the rule rather than the exception. Anyone who controls the news and how people think has political power, however defined.
Or haven't you noticed this in the past in favoring candidates?

William Jennings Bryan invented the whistle-stop campaign to get his message directly to the voting public when the establishment press censored his speeches. You can look this up!

[Smudgeman]

Why should any of us have to look up information from your posts? Isn't that your job as the poster to back up what your saying?

[RayS]

Why should any of us have to look up information from your posts? Isn't that your job as the poster to back up what your saying?

NO! My references are based on established facts from published books. It is dishonest to ask me when you can do your own research. It is also a subtle insult that implies the fact is under question. WHO questions the fact that Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget ..."?

From what I've seen, too many just speculate. Why didn't you ask those who talked about a hired assassin? The funniest thought was about a Chinese Tong hatchet man doing the Bordens!!! If any highbinder walked down the street dozens of people would have mentioned it at the time.

[Smudgeman]

Why should any of us have to look up information from your posts? Isn't that your job as the poster to back up what your saying?

NO! My references are based on established facts from published books. It is dishonest to ask me when you can do your own research. It is also a subtle insult that implies the fact is under question. WHO questions the fact that Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget ..."?

From what I've seen, too many just speculate. Why didn't you ask those who talked about a hired assassin? The funniest thought was about a Chinese Tong hatchet man doing the Bordens!!! If any highbinder walked down the street dozens of people would have mentioned it at the time.

YES, if your references are based on established facts, then produce the references Rays. You should do your own research, and not speculate from memory on books you have read years ago.

[doug65oh]

[Open mouth, insert "Ooooops!]

[doug65oh]

Sorry about that - maybe it would be better placed elsewhere. My mistake in placement. (At the time I posted the link, I thought it was the right spot - drotted bifocals anyway!)

[Kat]

Tell me about it! I have blended tri-focals!
Can't take an escalator even...

[snokkums]

Wasn't she feeling alittle sick, too? As was Abby.Maybe Abby let her lie down because she wasn't feeling well either.

[RayS]

Why should any of us have to look up information from your posts? Isn't that your job as the poster to back up what your saying?

NO! My references are based on established facts from published books. It is dishonest to ask me when you can do your own research. It is also a subtle insult that implies the fact is under question. WHO questions the fact that Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget ..."?

From what I've seen, too many just speculate. Why didn't you ask those who talked about a hired assassin? The funniest thought was about a Chinese Tong hatchet man doing the Bordens!!! If any highbinder walked down the street dozens of people would have mentioned it at the time.

YES, if your references are based on established facts, then produce the references Rays. You should do your own research, and not speculate from memory on books you have read years ago.

I will not disagree with you as to the best practices, but I'm just doing what many others have done over the years. How many references did "audrey" give here?
My "Proof of Brown's Theory Part 1 & 2" speaks for itself.

[RayS]

Why should any of us have to look up information from your posts? Isn't that your job as the poster to back up what your saying?

Unlike many others here, I have no axe to grind. I read a number of books, and Brown's theory works for me. I will continue saying this until somebody publishes a better book to convince me otherwise. Isn't that reasonable?
PS That means I am not involved in any commerce on Lizzie relics.

[Airmid]

I looked up page 54 in Porter and it has the following:

Officer Doherty was sent to the Borden house to bring Bridget Sullivan to the police station to appear as the first witness at the inquest.
......
Awaiting her presence were District Attorney Knowlton, State Officer Seaver, Marshal Hilliard and Medical Examiner Dolan, and soon after they were joined by Mayor Coughlin. A report that an inquest was underway quickly spread, but received prompt denial by the Marshal. When asked the meaning of the gathering he said it was an inquiry and the officers were searching for information. The domestic was in the presence of the officials for several hours and was subject to a searching cross examination, every detail of the tragedy being gone over exhaustively.
After this informed conference in the Marshal's office the party adjourned to the District Court room which is situated on the second floor in the building. There were present Judge Blaisdell, District Attorney Knowlton, City Marshal Hilliard, District Officers Seaver and Rhodes, Medical Examiner Dolan, the District Attorney's stenographer, Miss Annie White, and a couple of police officials, who were among the first called to the house of the Bordens.

Now that was news to me!
If Porter got this right, there was an informal session before the Inquest officially started. Any information about Bridgets testimony that was published in the newspapers could have originated from this informal session, and in that case the source didn't necessarily violate a pledge of secrecy.
Do you think Porter had this right, or did he or some other reporter invent a convenient story to explain how they were able to publish Bridgets words?

Airmid.

[RayS]

That sounds like the normal procedure of questioning a witness at police headquarters by the detectives in the case. (Based on the books I've read and films I've seen.)

Brown said Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father" but the police questioned them all just the same. They also checked the alibis of Emma and Uncle John.

The books should explicitly state that the police suspected an intruder right from the start, until they could find no suspect w/o an alibi.
Only then did they begin to suspect Lizzie. Don't overlook the spontaneous general strike caused by the murders! Arresting any suspect would send the worker back to their factories.

[Kat]

I looked up page 54 in Porter and it has the following:

Officer Doherty was sent to the Borden house to bring Bridget Sullivan to the police station to appear as the first witness at the inquest.
......
Awaiting her presence were District Attorney Knowlton, State Officer Seaver, Marshal Hilliard and Medical Examiner Dolan, and soon after they were joined by Mayor Coughlin. A report that an inquest was underway quickly spread, but received prompt denial by the Marshal. When asked the meaning of the gathering he said it was an inquiry and the officers were searching for information. The domestic was in the presence of the officials for several hours and was subject to a searching cross examination, every detail of the tragedy being gone over exhaustively.
After this informed conference in the Marshal's office the party adjourned to the District Court room which is situated on the second floor in the building. There were present Judge Blaisdell, District Attorney Knowlton, City Marshal Hilliard, District Officers Seaver and Rhodes, Medical Examiner Dolan, the District Attorney's stenographer, Miss Annie White, and a couple of police officials, who were among the first called to the house of the Bordens.

Now that was news to me!
If Porter got this right, there was an informal session before the Inquest officially started. Any information about Bridgets testimony that was published in the newspapers could have originated from this informal session, and in that case the source didn't necessarily violate a pledge of secrecy.
Do you think Porter had this right, or did he or some other reporter invent a convenient story to explain how they were able to publish Bridgets words?

Airmid.

In my timeline, Bridget was escorted to the Court at 9:30 am. At 10 am (the Evening Standard says) Bridget was the first to be examined before Judge Blaisdell. The hearing was adjourned for dinner at 12:30, which was considered late by the judge's standards.
By then they were essentially done with Bridget that day. She didn't leave the building until 5pm tho- so some author's think she had a long hard day- but I didn't find any evidence of this.

[Kat]

It seems like there was a half hour window for Bridget to be questioned before her appearance in front of Blaisdell. But her whole appearance was pretty short so maybe Porter is exaggerating?

It's also possible that when it is claimed a witness was escorted or called to court, the time was when the officer got them and not necessarily the time they arrived. (See Witness Staements, pg. 13 for Bridget). That is one thing I had a bit of a problem with- not knowing that.

We know that is a day Bridget did not get a nap!

[doug65oh]

Offhand I'd suppose Bridget might have needed a nap that day, considering the rather rough start to her court day, as recorded by the intrepid Porter. Poor Doherty - he sure drew "short straw" duty that day!

[Kat]

Do you think 30 minutes with those men that grueling, if that happened before court?
The Standard was pretty reliable, considering all the other newspapers.
I must divulge that I looked this timing up in all the papers I could and also Porter and I'm very confident in my timeline.

See Hatchet Vol. 2, Issue 4, pgs. 32-36.

[Airmid]

EEEeeps Kat, I reported you instead of quoting you! I'm so sorry! Bah, I was afraid this would happen sooner or later, but I never dreamed it would happen with one of your posts!
This is what I wanted to quote:

The Standard was pretty reliable, considering all the other newspapers.

Are you referring to the New Bedford Evening Standard? Can you tell us why you think this newspaper is pretty reliable?

Thanks, and sorry, sorry sorry.
Airmid.

[Kat]

It was not sensationalist. It had varied reportage. It was the paper to publish Lizzie's inquest testimony in its totality- and probably most accurately. That version became the *official* one we use now.

Harry studies old newspapers and has a huge experience with them- probably more experience with case coverage in the papers at the time of anyone. He tells me the New Bedford Evening Standard is pretty reliable. But I can't speak for him.

He can rate the coverage, by the way.

I always compare as many sources as I can before publishing.
Porter didn't even do that.

[Kat]

BTW: When I was studying Porter I found a few direct lines in his book from the Evening Standard.
So I asked Diana to help me do a casual comparison. We found multiple instances of Evening Standard paragraphs in Porter's book.

Now a theory would be that Porter was writing for the New Bedford paper (which I don't know, but I doubt it) or Porter himself used the Standard to help him write and reference his book the year of the trial.

But: I did not have very many Fall River Globes at the time. We now have a larger selection of Fall River Globes so maybe that question will be resolved.

[Harry]

Kat and Airmid, I'm afraid to give you my opinion on the Evening Standard. Last time I did that I was accused of being biased because I did the transcription of the paper and it was being sold on eBay and I was trying to boost sales. Yeah, right.

The Standard was hardly sensationalist. Not only did they print Lizzie's entire inquest but they printed many pages of the trial on a daily basis. In fact so much of the trial I did not transcribe that portion (been there, done that).

I saw no bias in any direction. They also included the daily comments of many other newspapers, both pro and con Lizzie.

If you haven't read the Standard articles you are missing a lot.

Yeah, I'm trying to boost sales.

[Kat]

Thanks Harry- just in time!

I should add the possibility that the Standard took from Porter's writings in the Globe, but just now I did a comparitive phrase search between the sections of the Standard that are almost exactly Porter* and the FRGlobe, of Aug. 10,1892. I did not find these phrases as common to both.

*I had marked up with pencil our copy of Did She Or Didn't She the parts, or words, which were different between the Standard and Porter- so I could easily find a phrase that was both in Porter and the Standard to compare to the Globe.

[Airmid]

Thanks, Kat and Harry! You are giving good arguments for your preference!

Funny that you should mention you compared Porter with the Standard, Kat! Because that's what I have been doing yesterday too, except that I also compared them both with the FR Herald. (Did I mention I'm so very happy with my Sourcebook? ) Like you, I was amazed to find whole paragraphs that appeared in all 3, or in just 2 of them, and so on. I read until my head hurt and I was thoroughly confused. I tried to find some arguments to tell which was the original and which the copy, but failed.
What most baffled me was some paragraphs were published in both the FR Herald and the Standard on the same date. One of those paragraphs I examined in detail was word for word the same in both newspapers, including an error ("John W. Morse"). I got the impression that both copied those paragraphs from a third source: The Globe? Associated Press? An "independant FR news agency" that we know nothing about?

I should add the possibility that the Standard took from Porter's writings in the Globe, but just now I did a comparitive phrase search between the sections of the Standard that are almost exactly Porter* and the FRGlobe, of Aug. 10,1892. I did not find these phrases as common to both.

That's very interesting! I have been wondering which sources Porter used for his book, and I assumed he would use his own writings, or at least those of his own newspaper. But that doesn't seem to be the case. How I envy you for having access to the FR Globe articles! And how about the FR News? Do any of you have accesss to that?

We're getting frightfully off-topic again, I'm afraid. I could go on about the subject for hours, but I'm afraid to bore all the other forum members. should we move our newspaper discussions to another thread?

Airmid.

[RayS]

Kat and Airmid, I'm afraid to give you my opinion on the Evening Standard. Last time I did that I was accused of being biased because I did the transcription of the paper and it was being sold on eBay and I was trying to boost sales. Yeah, right.

The Standard was hardly sensationalist. Not only did they print Lizzie's entire inquest but they printed many pages of the trial on a daily basis. In fact so much of the trial I did not transcribe that portion (been there, done that).

I saw no bias in any direction. They also included the daily comments of many other newspapers, both pro and con Lizzie.

If you haven't read the Standard articles you are missing a lot.

Yeah, I'm trying to boost sales.

Biased? A word to describe those who believe in what they say?
The facts of life say that someone who transcribes information and distributes it must charge for it. If he doesn't he could be accused of "bias" in pushing his point of view by giving it away.
Damned if you do charge, damned if you don't charge. Even putting it up on an Internet site costs money and time.

[RayS]

Thanks Harry- just in time!

I should add the possibility that the Standard took from Porter's writings in the Globe, but just now I did a comparitive phrase search between the sections of the Standard that are almost exactly Porter* and the FRGlobe, of Aug. 10,1892. I did not find these phrases as common to both.
...

Assume many reporters at the scene or press conference. Their reports should be similar, not word for word. Don't forget the editors may add or subtract something.

[Kat]

OMG ray- have you ever done a comparitive study of two sources, word for word for word for word? I have done it countless times.
Your response therefore is a bit superficial and trite.

[RayS]

Your response therefore is a bit superficial and trite.

Always with the insults or put-downs? No, I never have and never expect to do this. Have you said this to all the other posters?

Let's assume that then, like today, any differences would reflect on the reporter and editor. Changes for space, impact, etc. Anything quoted should be the same word for word. With the elimination of competition in news services there should be fewer differences, except where an editor selects to fit the space available.

[Airmid]

Here's a nice example of a paragraph in the newspapers. I selected a paragraph that was close, but not exactly the same in three sources. Have fun spotting the differences!

New Bedford Evening Standard, August 9th:
The marshal, medical examiner and mayor then carefully rehearsed, step by step, the summoning of Dr. Bowen, who was not at home when the murder was committed, and his

Ghastly Discovery on the Second Floor.

No theory other than that Mrs. Borden was murdered first was entertained, and Mayor Coughlin was positive that the murderer had shut the door after the deed had been accomplished. Miss Borden's demeanor during the many interviews which the police have had with her was described at length, and the story of John W. Morse's whereabouts was retold.



Fall River Herald, date probably August 9th:
The marshal, medical examiner and the mayor carefully rehearsed, step by step, the summoning of Dr. Bowen, who was not at home when the murder was committed, and his ghastly discovery on the second floor. No theory other than that Mrs. Borden was murdered first was entertained, and Mayor Coughlin was positive that the murderer had closed the door after the deed had been accomplished. Lizzie Borden's demeanor during the many interviews which the police have had with her was described at length, and the story of John W. Morse's whereabouts was retold.



Porter, page 45:
The Marshall, Medical Examiner and Mayor then carefully rehearsed, step by step, the summoning of Dr. Bowen, who was not at home when the murder was committed, and his ghastly discovery on the second floor. No theory other than that Mrs. Borden was murdered first was entertained. Miss Lizzie Borden's demeanor during the many interviews which the police had with her was described at length, and the story of John V. Morse's whereabouts was retold.

Airmid.
P.S.: Is there a Globe vrsion of this paragraph too?

[Kat]

I don't know if I can bear comparing today!
ray, I responded as I did because I felt insulted.
Maybe if you re-read your previous post thru my eyes you might see it as trite. It seems you are writing to merely read yourself. I have to admit it adds nothing.
I don't usually give you a "put-down" so acting the victim doesn't work. On one thread you compliment me for usually being fair to you.

What you've done here is trivialize hours and hours and hours of my own research. Things I do for the betterment of my own understanding of the reportage and what the earliest authors have done in their work. Also that kind of personal detective work proves to me that there were not rules of plaigarism back in the days of newspaper reporting.
Now, you may *know* this intellectually, but I have proved it to myself thru my own hard work and initiative and yes, you seem to be talking down to me. I don't like it and so I am telling you this.

[RayS]

I'm sure you discovered by now that one person's hobby is often looked down upon by others who don't share the passion or outlook.
Fishing or hunting? Restoring an old car? Growing flowers in backyard? Sewing your own clothes? Watching soap operas and quiz shows? Cooking and donating the pies and cakes to a charity? Reading mysteries or true crime?
These are a few examples that may not have practical values for everyone.

[Smudgeman]

I'm sure you discovered by now that one person's hobby is often looked down upon by others who don't share the passion or outlook.
Fishing or hunting? Restoring an old car? Growing flowers in backyard? Sewing your own clothes? Watching soap operas and quiz shows? Cooking and donating the pies and cakes to a charity? Reading mysteries or true crime?
These are a few examples that may not have practical values for everyone.

Why do you find it necessary to insult Kat every chance you get? She is one of the few who responds to your posts. Most of your posts warrant NO RESPONSE!

[RayS]

OMG ray- have you ever done a comparitive study of two sources, word for word for word for word? I have done it countless times.
Your response therefore is a bit superficial and trite.

Maybe you are right. But what is the point in comparing two difference news articles that say substantially the same thing?
That's what I don't understand.

[RayS]

I'm sure you discovered by now that one person's hobby is often looked down upon by others who don't share the passion or outlook.
Fishing or hunting? Restoring an old car? Growing flowers in backyard? Sewing your own clothes? Watching soap operas and quiz shows? Cooking and donating the pies and cakes to a charity? Reading mysteries or true crime?
These are a few examples that may not have practical values for everyone.

Why do you find it necessary to insult Kat every chance you get? She is one of the few who responds to your posts. Most of your posts warrant NO RESPONSE!

Why do you find it necessary to create insulting responses? Have you added anything to this discussion?
WHAT is the "insult" in my previous post?
You are beginning to sound like "anthony" or whatever he called himself.

[Smudgeman]

You bring out the best in me Rays. Why, with your sunny disposition and "fresh" new ideas, I am just bursting at the seams to discuss anything with you. Be careful - maybe I "am" Anthony.

[RayS]

You bring out the best in me Rays. Why, with your sunny disposition and "fresh" new ideas, I am just bursting at the seams to discuss anything with you. Be careful - maybe I "am" Anthony.

Discussions are with this board, you don't have to try to convince me of the rightness of Brown's Theory. Or what ever you believe in.

[Kat]

OMG ray- have you ever done a comparitive study of two sources, word for word for word for word? I have done it countless times.
Your response therefore is a bit superficial and trite.

Maybe you are right. But what is the point in comparing two difference news articles that say substantially the same thing?
That's what I don't understand.

Thank you for hearing me.

Remember my experiment with "The Robinsky Letter?"
It started by checking Brown's transcription. I found that everywhere it was published, there were differences. I can't recall right now how many comparisons I made. But I proved that at least 4 places where it was published were different from each other.

At first I thought Brown got it wrong. By checking everyone else, none match each other.
That tells me a few things.
Can anyone help figure out what?

For starters it proved to me that no one: not authors or editors, or professionals can transcribe something 100% correctly. That reflects on the value of the other things transcribed within a work, like Brown's.
It shows a not 100% attention to detail, which raises questions about other facts in a work.

It also leads one to find instances of plagiarism.
I think these couple of things right there are helpful results of the hard work entailed.

It's like people here thinking Porter could not be wrong- but yes, if he is plagiarizing the Standard, isn't that something worth finding out?

[Airmid]

OMG ray- have you ever done a comparitive study of two sources, word for word for word for word? I have done it countless times.
Your response therefore is a bit superficial and trite.

Maybe you are right. But what is the point in comparing two difference news articles that say substantially the same thing?
That's what I don't understand.

There's quite a few interesting points one could try to clear up by comparing texts. Two examples:

First, there's John J. Manning, a reporter, who was in the Borden house shortly after the murders. He testified in the Trial, but didn't tell as much as he might have liked, because he wasn't allowed to recount what other people had said to him. We know he had a conversation with Bridget early that day. We know that Bridget was close-mouthed later on!
Now, there's a newpaper article from the 4th that has a description on the bodies that reads as an eye witness report. There's also some tantalizing bits of information in that same article, that could have been supplied by Bridget. It would have been reasonable to assume that this newspaper article had been written by John Manning, but for one thing: the article is in the wrong newspaper! Manning worked for the Globe, but this article was in the Herald, a rival newspaper at the time.
Suppose some folks compared newspaper articles from different newspapers that appeared on the same day, and found that they contained paragraphs that were clearly copied from each other or from a common source, wouldn't that give support to the theory that Manning could have been the writer of that article after all? That's not a conclusion I would draw lightly, though, I would want to know more about the type of information the newspapers shared and whether this applied to scoops too. I would also like to know if newspapers shared out information to each other, or if they used a common source. So that's a lot of comparing to do!

Second, the Hiram Harrington interview. That interview threw quite a bit of mud at Lizzie and the rest of the Borden family, and also contains a reference to Lizzie's lead-for-sinkers alibi. It appeared in all 3 major FR newspapers on the same day, and was also recounted in Porter's book. Porter was police and crime reporter at that time and was very much "on the case". He might very well have been the one who interviewed Hiram Harrington, if indeed the interview took place.
Porter, in his book, is known to have copied passages from newspapers quite literally, but is also known to have left out bits that had been proven incorrect in time. (We know this because we compared the texts.) So, it would be very interesting to compare Porter's version of the Hiram Harrington interview with those in the newspapers, and see if he left things out. More comparing to do!

That's just two examples, examples I've been especially interested in, and I'm sure others could relate dozens more. But I think these two examples might serve to answer your question: why would one do word-for-word comparisons of newspaper articles?

Airmid.

[Kat]

I like the different approaches illustrated here.
One sees the forest one sees the trees.
Good for you Airmid!

[RayS]

...
Thank you for hearing me.

Remember my experiment with "The Robinsky Letter?"
It started by checking Brown's transcription. I found that everywhere it was published, there were differences. I can't recall right now how many comparisons I made. But I proved that at least 4 places where it was published were different from each other.

At first I thought Brown got it wrong. By checking everyone else, none match each other.
That tells me a few things.
Can anyone help figure out what?

For starters it proved to me that no one: not authors or editors, or professionals can transcribe something 100% correctly. That reflects on the value of the other things transcribed within a work, like Brown's.
It shows a not 100% attention to detail, which raises questions about other facts in a work.

It also leads one to find instances of plagiarism.
I think these couple of things right there are helpful results of the hard work entailed.

It's like people here thinking Porter could not be wrong- but yes, if he is plagiarizing the Standard, isn't that something worth finding out?

The "Robinsky" letter was at least hearsay twice removed. It was not part of the Trial Transcript, hence each newspaper (?) that reprinted it may have edited it for its readers. That may explain the differences.
Arnold Brown alone analyzed this letter and came to a conclusion. Has anyone else commented on this letter, or just accepted it as is?
What about the posters on this board?
What "plagiarism"? Isn't that passing off another person's work as your own?
There was only one letter to be copied, and if it is part of the Jennings store of documents it may not be available today.

[Kat]

That's not the answer, nor my meaning, nor the correct response.
Sorry to have brought it up.

[RayS]

That's not the answer, nor my meaning, nor the correct response.
Sorry to have brought it up.

Don't be sorry. It goes to show the well-known fact of stories being changed or distorted by the hearer in retelling.
Was it "iron" or "lead" or what?
People often hear what they expect to hear, and sometimes they will distort for their own emotional needs.
Errare humanum est.

[Kat]

OMG ray- have you ever done a comparitive study of two sources, word for word for word for word? I have done it countless times.
Your response therefore is a bit superficial and trite.

Maybe you are right. But what is the point in comparing two difference news articles that say substantially the same thing?
That's what I don't understand.

Since you are always quoting Radin about this *literary hoax* that Pearson supposedly ennacted on his reading public, and since this news item I found answers your question as to why someone would want to compare 2 documents- (Actually I said there is merit in comparing documents word for word and you- ray- said why compare 2 news articles) it will show you why. It shows that Radin could never have made the assertion that you believe in and quote so often, without having done just this:

Charging Pearson with biased views, Mr. Radin writes:

"A line-by-line study of the official trial minutes and Pearson's version of the trial minutes was an excursion into a never-never land. But this book was not published as a fairytale; it claimed to deal with the life and reputation of an actual person. To put it bluntly, Pearson presented such a biased version of the case that it might be considered a literary hoax."--The Berkshire Eagle, June 24, 1961, by James A. Lynch (Reviewing Radin's new book Lizzie Borden: The Untold Story ).

--I'm not espousing this view myself, only transcribing it. I have no comment to make on what I transcribed. I only use this to illustrate why people do comparisons of documents, in a format and context you may understand.