Was there an assassin on Grant's train?

[John Fazio]

(07-20-2015 05:46 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  My opinion - she embellished a bit to provide more "drama" to the reader, also time expands memory, and people tend to believe these expanded versions. Like a proud hobby angler's caught fish gets bigger and bigger over the time.
Why didn't she tell of this incident instantly? Even if not for the purpose of investigation, but in letter or orally to friends. I would think most people wouldn't have kept such a "thrilling" account by themselves for decades. Despite I would think her eyesight might have made it difficult to identify those strangers later.

Eva:

I have already said that she did tell Ulysses about the luncheon and that he obviously thought the account was true inasmuch as he related it to Lamon in 1880. Do you suppose she would fabricate a story and then represent it to her husband as truth? As for the gallop-by by Booth, we have it from three sources--Ulysses, Julia and Mathews. As for the messenger, though Ulysses does not appear to mention it, recall that she strengthened the account by adding that : "I have thought since that this man was one of the band of conspirators in that night's sad tragedy, and that he was not sent by Mrs. Lincoln at all. I am PERFECTLY SURE (my emphasis) that he, with three others, one of them Booth himself, sat opposite me and my party at luncheon that day." What parts of her Memoirs relating to the messenger, the luncheon, the gallop-by and, while we are at it, the letter received by her husband from the would-be assassin, do you consider embellishment?

John