One more post, on one broken leg.

[Jenny]

Quote:To me it makes sense he probably wanted the audience (thus the whole world) to remember his performance as a perfect one - until he learned the world saw his deed differently to what he had expected.

Eva, interesting insight - if he *did* lie in the diary about breaking his leg on stage, that's exactly why I'd think he'd do so. Just personal opinion.

Whether he broke it on stage, when the horse fell on him, or a combination of the two, I am still on the fence and cannot make up my own mind about which I believe yet. I need to do some re-reading (and keep an eye on this thread) and maybe then I can lean one way over another.

Quote:Do I believe well documented evidence? Yes, I certainly do and so does every other historian.

Quote:You know, at first this whole "debate" would get me upset and mad. I am now finding it downright hilarious to see how far the facts can be twisted or completely dismissed.

Just gotta say that I wholeheartedly agree with both statements.

[SSlater]

Laurie. When I posted this item, I thought it would be the LAST post on the subject and we would move on. Sorry! Now that we are in full swing, I plan to resurrect Stan Beason's version of the escape. I have tons of "story", and none of it is quoted here. Beason has provided "verification" of all his claims. (He was an original thinker.)

---

Laurie. No one has mentioned the "redhead', that was said to be in the party with Ruggles, Bainbridge, et. al. Should we discuss that?

[Gene C]

Who is Stan Beason?

[L Verge]

Gene - A resident of Caroline County, Virginia, who was determined to spice up the Booth escape theory a bit. Nice guy, died at an early age, but created a lot of confusion in a short period of time.

John S. Slater - Go for it. We might as well expose all the different versions of twisted history we can in one full swoop. I'll just lay in a stock of Jack Daniels to keep me pacified this weekend. Oops, forgot I have to be sober for the Surratt Society luncheon and program this Sunday. We're having the Director of the White House Historical Association talk on Mr. Lincoln's Neighborhood. At least I should hear some good history for an hour or two on Sunday. If he has his own unproven theory on the Lincoln assassination, however, I'm outta there!

[Troy Cowan]

Dave wrote, "Richard Baynham Garrett, who was 12 years old when John Wilkes Booth visited and was killed at his father's farm. He replied to a letter written by a man who was investigating Finis Bates' similar theory that John Wilkes Booth escaped his death."

Dave, Richard Baynham Garrett was born on Nov. 22, 1854 and at the time Booth came to his parents farm he was 11 years 6 months old. Finis Bates book came out fifty years later in 1907. Are you taking the word from the memories of an 11 year old boy that are some fifty years old? Richard is simply retelling the stories he has heard over the years. I don't trust the memories of an 11-year-old boy.

ooOoo

The following question has come up: The body was identified at least 4 times - at Garrett's, aboard Montauk, at Harvey and Marr's in Washington in 1869, and at Weaver's in Baltimore in 1869. All of these people identified the wrong body?

I believe that I must give you my personal opinion so that you will understand where I am coming from. You can believe or reject it. I am asking for your tolerance and you are under no obligation to read further. You may skip the rest of this post.

First I believe that Edwin Stanton planned to kill Lincoln and James William Boyd was released from prison to be the assassin. Boyd was a snitch and when his fellow prisoners learned that Boyd was informing on them, Boyd became afraid for his life. Boyd wrote a letter to Stanton telling him of his usefulness. He was released from prison and went to work for Stanton as the assassin of Lincoln. All Boyd wanted to do is get out of jail. On April 14, 1865, Boyd left the city, leaving Stanton without an assassin. When Lincoln was killed by another, Stanton became afraid that Boyd would talk. Stanton wanted Boyd dead, he could care less about Booth. Booth knew nothing about Stanton's plan.

People aboard Montauk were under pressure to give the identification that Stanton wanted. The same applies to others under Stanton's control.

The Booth family knew that John was alive and well. They certainly didn't want to body to be identified as that of another and then have the search for John Wilkes Booth reopened.

Back at the Garrett's farm just after a shot was heard.

Harold asked, “Who had been shot?”
Dougherty replied, “Booth.”
Harold said, “It was not Booth, but Boyd.
(Act of Congress, Trial of the Assassins and Conspirators (Barclay, 1865), 28.)

Two soldiers, Joseph Ziegen and Wilson D. Kenzie, were viewing the body of Booth on the Garrett's porch when one said to the other that it couldn't be the body of Booth because this person had red hair. One of the officers over heard them talking and shouted, "Don't you repeat that." A short time later, "Lieutenants Doherty and Baker and Colonel Conger then forced all present to swear that they would never revel what they had seen." The soldiers were threatened with court-martial if they did.
(John Griffin, Abraham Lincoln's Execution, (Pelican Publishing, 2006), 410.)

On February 17, 1869, Eliza Rogers wrote, "John Wilkes was there at Mr. Weaver's [funeral home]. When John's coffin was opened, he was laced up in 2 government blankets. His leg was broken square off below the knee and the bones had passed each other, and was protruding out the flesh"(John Griffin, Abraham Lincoln's Execution, (Pelican Publishing, 2006), 411.) Her statement does not match Dr. Mudd's. Dr. Mudd said it was a minor break just above the ankle, not a break below the knee.

Mr. Basil Moxley was one of the pallbearers at the funeral for Booth. He examined the body prior to the funeral and said it couldn't be Booth because the man had red hair.

[L Verge]

Steve Miller shot holes in the Zisgen and Kenzie claims years ago. See The Body in the Barn. Mr. Griffin's work was seriously dismissed when it arrived on the scene. His publishers appear to have a tendency to accept works that put the Confederacy in a good light. Some of their publications are good, but some are a "tad slanted."

There's a story behind Basil Moxley too, but I cannot recall it right now. We might have carried it in a Surratt Courier years ago, but we have thirty-eight years of those articles to remember.

Note to John Stanton Slater: I forgot to tell you that your sarcastic post the other day about having to apply calculus in order to figure out how Booth could have broken his leg at Ford's had some of us rolling in the aisles laughing our heads off! It truly showed how ridiculous we can get.

[Rob Wick]

I've sat here with detached amusement as this thread plays itself out. I've resisted commenting simply for the reason Dave mentioned earlier, i.e., that no amount of comment can change a mind already made up, especially if it doesn't accept known and proven facts. Before I begin writing on Tarbell this weekend, I had to complete two book reviews for the Lincoln Herald. One was Ed Steers' book Hoax. At the end of the review I wrote the following, which sums up my views on this issue.

One can only hope that Steers’ work will help snuff out much of the misinformation which refuses to die and is allowed a wider venue with the advent of the Internet. Given that we still live in a society where people are firmly convinced that Abraham Lincoln was the son of Abraham Enloe or John C. Calhoun, or that John Wilkes Booth somehow escaped capture after killing Lincoln, it doesn’t look promising.

Best
Rob

[Dave Taylor]

As I previously stated, I knew that it would be an effort in futility to attempt to convince you, Troy, of the truth. You shall continue to believe your own, laughable fiction and that is your prerogative. The egregious errors you unfortunately believe and espouse are hardly worth "debating" as they have no substance. Therefore, I shall return to my previous state of ignoring your comments.

I will add one, last thing. I have to admit that I was surprised to read that you were once a teacher. You're inability to concede even the most basic historical facts when so many reliable, period sources attest to it, makes me wonder. I pray one of your students' other teachers taught them a lesson that you do not appear to have learned yourself: History is not intrinsic. It is not about us, our beliefs, or our desires. Wanting something to be true, does not make it so. History is extrinsic of us. Those who understand this fact gain immense knowledge due to their objectivity, and those who do not understand this are doomed to exist in their own house of cards.

[L Verge]

Very well put, Dave. Unfortunately, your comments will go unheeded, I fear.

[Troy Cowan]

Loire you are not alone, you and others provide us with criticism and little else. A typical statement of yours is as follows, Steve Miller shot holes in the Zisgen and Kenzie claims years ago. If you want to be taken seriously by me, you will have to provide documentation that proves your statement. Otherwise, it will be rejected.

Dave Taylor provides us with his truth by telling stories form the memory of an eleven-year-old.

[Hess1865]

Ya know, this all might make for a passable Saturday Night Live skit....

[L Verge]

Troy - Personally, I am ending this ridiculousness by suggesting that you obtain, read, and then refute the many fact-based, excellent pieces of research that others on this forum have studied. Start with Body in the Barn, progress to others such as American Brutus (which is one of the best pieces of research you can ever find on the subject). With your present state of mind on this, I really don't care if you take me seriously or not... However, I would appreciate it if you would learn to spell my name.

You remind me very much of a certain Mudd descendant, now deceased, who answered every question on how she felt about statements regarding the Dr. Mudd situation by answering, "They all lied." Her refusal to accept people's research and opinions even led to her ushering visitors at the Mudd museum out the door and off the property. That's not what historical debate is all about. I'm of the Jack Webb/Dragnet era where I want "Just the facts, sir, just the facts." And, you darn well better have the facts to back up your hypothesis.

[Troy Cowan]

(09-14-2013 12:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Troy - Personally, I am ending this ridiculousness by suggesting that you obtain, read, and then refute the many fact-based, excellent pieces of research that others on this forum have studied. Start with Body in the Barn, progress to others such as American Brutus (which is one of the best pieces of research you can ever find on the subject). With your present state of mind on this, I really don't care if you take me seriously or not... However, I would appreciate it if you would learn to spell my name.

You remind me very much of a certain Mudd descendant, now deceased, who answered every question on how she felt about statements regarding the Dr. Mudd situation by answering, "They all lied." Her refusal to accept people's research and opinions even led to her ushering visitors at the Mudd museum out the door and off the property. That's not what historical debate is all about. I'm of the Jack Webb/Dragnet era where I want "Just the facts, sir, just the facts." And, you darn well better have the facts to back up your hypothesis.

Laurie, I don't understand how you can criticize me for the very same things you are guilty of.

If you have books you want me to read, send them to me. I will read them and return them.

I understand that we have disagreements, even including our choice of sources. You seem to prefer people with a lot of letters after their name. Perhaps it would be good for you to know the sources I prefer. The following include sources I have used in my book and will continue to use on this forum.

They include: William Herndon, Ward Lamon, Father Chiniquy, Black Hawk, Dennis Hanks, Hanna Armstrong, Abraham Lincoln, Mary Lincoln, Melissa Edwards, James Shields, Jefferson Davis, Varina Davis, Sergeant Gleason, Lt. Edward Doherty, George McCellan, Ulysses S. Grant, Pope Pious IX, Finis Bates, and many more that were personally involved in the topics we discuss.

[L Verge]

Say good-night, Gracie...

[Jenny]

On the original topic: after rereading a few books and other sources, I think I'm on the "he broke it jumping off the stage" boat rather than the horse falling on him. I doubt he lied in his journal and I'm not finding enough evidence to support the mare taking a fall. It's possible though. Personally I just see a lot more evidence pointing to John breaking it jumping off stage and probably not feeling it until a bit later due to adrenalin.