Thomas F. Harney

[John Fazio]

(11-18-2014 01:00 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Thank you, John. It sure makes sense to me that O'Laughlen had not planned to do harm to either Stanton or Grant at the reception. But I do have one more question. If no ill intent was meant, and that indeed seems the case, what was the purpose of O'Laughlen simply showing up at the reception and asking about Grant and Stanton? Certainly he wasn't going to ask them, "Where are you going to be on the night of the 14th?" My mind is blank as to what would be accomplished by O'Laughlen's presence at the reception.

Roger:

IMO his purposes (per instructions from Booth) were to positively identify both men; to learn of their planned whereabouts the following evening, if possible; and to determine the layout of the Secretary's home and grounds so that the same would be familiar to him when it came time for him or a co-conspirator to execute his part in the Friday Night Massacre.

Let me emphasize that I come to my conclusions based on the evidence as I have it. In fairness, however, it must be said that the evidence is inconclusive inasmuch as O'Laughlen's alibi was deemed good enough by the commissioners to keep him from the gallows. He did, after all, have seven witnesses testify on his behalf, against only three who put him at Stanton's. The commissioners, therefore, could hardly be blamed for sparing him, despite the conspiracy laws. Nevertheless, I still favor the conclusion that it was he at Stanton's, because some of the witnesses putting him there were unequivocal in their judgment that it was he and because of Atzerodt's statement, which the commissioners, of course, were ignorant of inasmuch as it was made after the trial was over.

John