Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

L Verge · 07-20-2015, 10:45 AM

(07-20-2015 10:39 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(07-20-2015 09:53 AM)L Verge Wrote:
(07-20-2015 09:10 AM)John Fazio Wrote:
(07-20-2015 08:26 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: I'm fine with the letter and the gallop-by while I personally cast some doubts on Lamon as an entirely reliable source. I am far away from home and my "JWB Day-by-Day" copy - what does JWB expert Art Loux write about the luncheon if anything?

Eva:

Nothing. Nor does Terry Alford in his recent biography of Booth.

One does not have to be a lawyer to know that the writings and statements of Julia, Ulysses, Mathews and Lamon establish a prima-facie case for the authenticity of the accounts they give. Anyone wishing to contest the same has the burden of proof, failing which the prima-facie case stands as truth and therefore history.

John

John

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm about to get clobbered here! I agree with many of the points that John espouses in his book, but I can't take any more of his style -- and I am not known for staying silent:

I'm sorry, John, but your style of arguing a point would make lots of lawyers (and even us non-legal imbeciles) jump up and scream, "Objection!" every two seconds. You are "leading our witnesses (i.e. readers)" every chance you get by trying to snooker us into thinking that your way is the only way to interpret evidence. The fact that major historians such as Loux, Alford, Hall, Kauffman, Steers, and others do not mention the luncheon incident (if there was one) says something.

For example, wouldn't Grant reporting something to Lamon in 1880 - 15 years after the murder - be irrelevant? Wouldn't him repeating what he had heard from Julia be hearsay? If Julia was so sure of what she saw at the lunch table on April 14, 1865, why didn't she mention it on April 15? If she did say something to her husband, why didn't he report it? Her information could have saved her husband's life, if a real threat to him was still out there before Booth was caught.

Wouldn't a lawyer have a field-day with the fact that Mrs. Grant was cross-eyed? Has anyone ever read how that really affected her eyesight up close or at a distance?

Why would the gang bother to sit down and have lunch in order to observe Julia's actions? They could tell she would be there throughout maybe an hour's lunch or they could monitor her from the lobby. By her being at lunch, it meant that the General was still in town. That's what they wanted to know, so why waste time - go monitor him.

If Mrs. Grant had mentioned the luncheon at the time of seeing Booth riding up to their carriage, wouldn't that have meant more to the authorities? I don't doubt that incident. Why didn't someone ask who that man was who dared to get so close to Grant? And, wasn't there a cavalry escort for the General en route to the train station? Did anyone else notice the rather bold move by Booth at that point?

What is your citation as to Herold being known for frumpy (or whatever term you used) clothing? So far as I know, there are only the photos of Herold on the monitor taken after twelve days on the run and the one of him as a schoolboy, in which he is appropriately dressed.

And finally, this is just a personal observation, but if Mrs. Grant noticed four men staring at her at lunch and later decided that one of them was Booth and two others were ill-dressed, why in the world didn't she include Lewis Powell in her description? To me, he would have stood out among the other three because of his good looks, his height, and his muscular build.

While I await the "matter of record" regarding Herold's "frumpiness," a fellow member of this forum emailed me the following and asked me to post it:

1. Men's clothing of this period is very loose fitting and even over sized. Sleeves are D shaped, which gives an even larger, roomier appearance. Look at photos of JWB and you can see good examples of this. He was known as a very fashionably dressed man. Men's clothing was not pressed or creased as modern clothing is. There was no center crease on men's trousers, which also gave a more open, loose appearance.

2. The photos taken on the Montauk of David Herold show the effects that 12 days of hard, outdoor wear and weather would have had on his clothing. But notice, he is still maintaining his neck wear, which shows he had a concern for his personal appearance even under the very trying circumstances.

Assigning a charge of "frumpy" to Herold's clothing is not only inaccurate but demonstrates a misunderstanding of men's clothing of this period.

Laurie:

Webster defines "snooker" as: to make a dupe of; hoodwink. He defines "hoodwink" as: to deceive by false appearance.

I do hope you do not really believe that these describe me.

John

I believe that your style of writing attempts to do that, but I suspect that your 30+ years of lawyering has trapped you in that mode. A good lawyer does what it takes to support his client, and in this case, you are the client.