Booth escape route north

[Jenny]

Quote:Jenny you have been taught a pack of lies. History is made up by the winners and the winners are not always good people and they always have to justify their actions.

I believe 100% that history IS made up by the winners. The winners aren't always good people and do justify their not-good actions at times. I think the conspiracy trial was a circus, witnesses were manipulated and intimidated, and that Stanton was a bit of a jerk to put it very nicely (don't eat me for that, guys. It's not the point). However I haven't been taught a pack of lies on this subject by any means... and to use your position, I know as a FACT that Booth died in that barn through my undisclosed sources that I will not mention here on principle.

I would tell "my facts", Troy, because most of them DO go right along with the original story... but my source can't be proven as 100% accurate. As I said, history is about research and finding proof for your claims. That's something I won't ever back down on despite my own "facts". There must be an entire world of liars because all the history classes and all the historians I've met ask for research and proof of a claim that's different from the norm.

As I mentioned, I once believed Booth escaped. I honestly did. I have read **a lot** about the most prominent escape stories to try and PROVE them... and in the end, I came to the conclusion that none of the stories were true. They weren't provable. And they had elements too fantastical to be true as I will explain below.

I figured you'd say James William Boyd died, not Booth.

John Wilkes Booth. James William Boyd. Same initials. Both had tattoos on their hands (where's the proof for Boyd? JWB's beloved sister Asia vividly recalls in her memoir that John took India ink and tattooed himself). Boyd falls in with Herold by some strange chance, and they go to the Garrett's together. Boyd acts just like Booth: entertains the kids, eats dinner with the family, mentions the assassination. All by chance.

For some reason he doesn't immediately surrender with David Herold; oh wait, he was a wanted man now? That's well and good but, other than being already being pardoned by Stanton on February 14th of 1865 and free to go home to Tennessee, I am pretty sure Baker called him "Booth" while he was in the barn. Why wouldn't he have said "Jesus Christ, I'm not John Wilkes Booth! Let me out of here!" Because according to the Garrett family, the man killed knew of and asked questions about the assassination. Why would he go down pretending to be Booth KNOWINGLY?

Why would Davey Herold lie to his DEATH for Booth? Oh, because Stanton convinced him that he would go free if he *pretended* that they got the real Booth but threw him on the gallows last minute anyway? He had time before his death to tell the ministers the truth, if that was the case. Why did his ministers never say a word about it? Oh, Stanton bribed them? It can go on and on and on.

The real Booth? Sneaks away with his friend "David Henson" who ironically looks rather like David Herold and has the same initials. Or he flees to a mysterious farm that he allegedly owned with his alleged wife. Or he flees to Japan. Or to England. Or to Texas. Or to India. Or a magical fairy flies in and sprinkles him with pixie dust and he flies to Neverland.

There are so darn MANY of much of these stories with really, really, REALLY coincidental claims... and there has NEVER been one ouch of 100% proof from ANY of them. It gets ridiculous really. Makes for some great stories but I don't believe them to be true.

A good example of a story that has been proven false? The theory that Lewis Paine was a different person than Lewis Powell. There is a lady on this forum who has researched the man who died on the gallows for the attack on Seward for years. She has written a book full of proof and sources that show it was always the same man.

The same goes for many books written on the subject; they are researched in depth and sources are cited. However the Forresters' book, The Illusive Booth of Burrillville? As Laurie said, they did work hard to prove their claims and were friends with an expert researcher who wanted to help them prove or disprove whether they were related to Booth... but in the end they had to accept that there was no evidence despite all of the family history and documentations they searched through. It stinks because they would like to know the truth but it's likely they never will, and because there was no solid proof? They know they will never be able to tell people that they were related *as a fact.* I respect that and I wish I could help them find solid proof otherwise... but there just is no information out there to prove it that has been found at this point.

Anyway, that's my stance, Troy. Feel free to disagree with me but I think that's my last comment on the matter.