Herold and Surratt

[John Fazio]

(11-07-2013 09:08 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 08:19 AM)wsanto Wrote:  I'm curious if any of the prosecution's 14 witnesses identified him in Washington after Grant's train left town.

Bill, I believe the witnesses who testified they saw Surratt in Washington at 6 P.M. or later were Joseph Dye, Robert Cooper, Frank Heaton, Walter Coleman, George Cushing, and Susan Jackson.

Roger:

Excellent! The next question is: What time did Grant's train leave? (Let me add that though I am interested in this line of thought, I am doubtful that Surratt was Grant's pursuer. The letter received by Grant shortly thereafter, in which the writer identified himself as the would-be assassin and expressed his thanks to God that he had not been successful, does not sound like Surratt, whom other evidence indicates was a cold-blooded killer.)

John


John

---

(11-07-2013 09:26 AM)L Verge Wrote:  As you have probably already figured out, I agree with John Stanton and Bill on these last two posts. Maybe it's from too many years of seeing researchers trying to make full coats out of scraps of material -- and it usually leads to the Eisenschiml brand of history. If you can't find proof of something, phrase your text in the form of a question and leave the onus on the reader to draw conclusions.

Most of you know by now that James O. Hall was my mentor, and I had over thirty wonderful years of watching him track down leads and information. I also had the same pleasure with Bill Tidwell, Dave Gaddy, Mike Kauffman, Bill Hanchett, Ed Steers, Andy Jampoler, and others. One that I wish I had known was George Bryan, who authored The Great American Myth (even though he depended more on secondary sources than primary). I believe that it is still one of the best books written about the assassination.

When you have outstanding researchers like this all coming up with the same conclusions after years and mountains of research, you can't just toss out that "bath water." I believe that Occum's Razor applies here: When you sort through numerous trustworthy sources and the bulk of the evidence leads to one conclusion, that is likely the one that is true (or words to that effect).

Laurie:

No one can quarrel with your credentials. Familiarity with all those lights is impressive and enviable. Further, I agree with your assessments of Eisenschiml and Bryan. The latter's book has indeed stood the test of time. I agree, further, as to the wisdom of Occam's Razor (As between competing assumptions, the one with the fewest assumptions, i.e. the simplist one, is the best answer). I use it a lot. However, inasmuch as many positions have been taken on this post, it is unclear to me exactly what your conclusions are. Please state the same in a couple of sentences.

Thank you.

John