Mudd Descendants visit Fort Jefferson NP

[John Fazio]

(07-30-2015 01:12 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 12:06 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Laurie:

As to where Booth spent the night, it has often been written that no one knows. It is known only that he did NOT spend it in his hotel room in the National. If he spent it in Washington, what was he doing at the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge in the morning with Herold? Demond said that he recognized Booth as the actor and that when he said to Booth that he recognized him, he acknowledged that he was Booth and that his companion was Herold. He went on to say that Augur's aide had conversation with Booth, that Dana's orderly came and said they were "alright" and that the entire Maryland-side detail expressed surprise when they saw them again crossing from Washington that night inasmuch as they had seen them earlier that day. Sounds pretty solid to me. If Booth spent the night in Washington, he would have had to rise early and then cross the bridge to Maryland for a rendezvous with Herold. Seems unlikely.

John

John,

Allow me to quote you something that I read in a book by an intelligent man. I've made a few substitutions to it which I hope you'll permit me.

Quote:"Entirely too much emphasis is laid by [Fazio] on eyewitness statements that support [his] conclusion and entirely too little emphasis is placed on eyewitness statements that do[es] not support [his] conclusion and on Booth's own words..."

You, John, wrote this yourself in your book when discussing Kauffman and Timothy Good's theory that Booth may have broken his leg in a fall from his horse and not at Ford's Theatre. However, I think it is very obvious that you suffer from the same bias you accuse them of.

Demond's accounts were the products of Fins Bates' manipulation and were stated more than 30 years later!!!! Why, in the name of Pete, do you even attempt to defend them? They are the lowest form of evidence that exist and yet you cling to them as gospel truth, dismissing all logical, and far more supported, alternatives. The only truth we can possibly give to Demond is that he was one of the guards on duty on the Maryland side of the bridge and that he saw Booth pass over. That's all that can be truthfully believed in any of his accounts. Everything else comes from Bates' constant baiting and is entirely suspect.

So much evidence points to the fact that Booth WAS in Washington on the night of April 13th/14th. Heed your own words, John, and consult Booth's writings. On April 14th, at 2:00 AM Booth wrote a letter to his mother from his hotel room at the National. He was there! The letter is addressed from Washington. For your unnecessarily treacherous theory to hold true, then Booth would have had to have been in Washington at 2:00 am, left in the wee hours of the morning, and then returned with Herold later. If that is the convoluted route you want to follow then my question to you would be, how did Booth know the mythical password to cross on the night of the 13th/14th? Don't you see, by using Demond's accounts as your foundation, you have nothing but a house of cards, John. I understand you are a lawyer and a d****d persistent one at that, but even you have to concede that Demond is likely very wrong.

You are a good researcher, John and I commend your knowledge of sources for your points, however, you are blind to anything other than your theory. You suffer from the same confirmation bias that you project onto others. As a lawyer you would argue your points indefinitely, believing that if you can convince others of your way, that would, by default, make your points true. But history doesn't work that way. We need to be objective when assessing a source or evidence, particularly when they support our own beliefs. And, most of all, when reporting on evidence that we believe supports our beliefs, we must, as responsible historians, preface that it is impossible to ever "prove" our points. We can provide evidence to why we came to our conclusion, but to claim our own interpretation is the only possible interpretation is the mark of a fool.

I do not believe you to be a fool, John, but I tire of reading your posts and your inability to acknowledge that the interpretations of others are just as valid and possible as your own. I tire of watching you browbeat people into submission and portray everything you espouse in your book as gospel and iron clad proof. I worry that those who are unfamiliar with the topics you discuss are reading your interpretations as the only interpretation and are therefore believing theory to be fact.

History is, and always will be, theory. We were not there and even those who were there interpreted and recalled the events based on their own life experiences and beliefs. History will never be set in stone and no one person can claim to know exactly how historical events played out.

Dave:

As to the bias you speak of , we are all guilty of cherry-picking to a degree. Elephants rule. Ask Jonathan Haight. It is a matter of the degree. The object should be to avoid excess, to keep one's mind open and to have the decency to admit error.

Neither you nor anyone else really knows if Demond's accounts are a product of Bates's manipulations; he may have had more backbone than you give him credit for. Thirty years? They were actually given 46 and 51 years later, which probably accounts for some of their inconsistencies. "The lowest form of evidence that exists"? Hyperbole. I can think of many forms lower. "Dismissing all logical and far more supported alternatives". To begin with, I dismiss nothing; I ask only for evidence and reason. Secondly, which ones? I am still waiting for evidence contradicting Demond. I offered a "rough scenario" that would reconcile his accounts with what we know from other sources as to the activities of Booth and Herold on 4-14. I did not represent it to be fact, but only a "rough", i.e. a plausible scenario. Neither you nor anyone else has shown me why I should reject Demond outright, who, if I am to reject him, must be supposed to have written several letters and a comprehensive statement and lied from start to finish. He doesn't sound like he is lying. On the contrary, he sounds very sincere, offers much detail, acknowledges when he does not remember something or is uncertain of something and is therefore altogether persuasive. I might add that I find his accounts much more convincing that Surratt's claim that he escaped his captors in Italy by leaping into a 100-ft. ravine, miraculously landing on a 4-ft. outcropping of rock 35 feet below, lying stationary for a period, while his 6 captors fired at him from the rim of the ravine, all of whom missed their target, and then walked away to safety, a story I gather you accept as fact. And this despite the fact that we have an eyewitness who states flatly that it didn't happen that way, but that the escape was accomplished by nothing more romantic than Surratt's crawling through a sewer with the complicity of his 12 captors, not 6. So which one of us is the more gullible?

How do you know Booth was in his hotel room that night, stated with emphatic certainty? I just gave Laurie four sources (Laughlin, Bryan, Pitch and Loux) who say he wasn't. So which one of us is the less reasonable? Of course, it is always possible that he was there long enough to write the letter to his mother and then left. Or perhaps he wrote the letter elsewhere and at 4:00 pm rather than 2:00 am, per Art Loux. No one knows. In any case, even if he wrote the letter from his room, it would not preclude his being at the bridge in the morning. How did he cross the bridge, if he did cross the bridge? No mystery. There was no password in the morning. Demond is clear: the order for the same came late in the afternoon of the 14th.

I am not blind to anything, but I do ask for evidence and reason to support contrary views. you haven't given me any. You have only made naked allegations, such as: Booth wasn't at the luncheon. But I have 4 people who, directly or indirectly, say he was. Booth wasn't at the bridge. But I have an eyewitness who said he was. Booth spent the night in Washington. But I just referred you to 4 historians who said he did not spend the night in his hotel room and that no one knows where he spent the night, which at least leaves open the possibility that he spent it in Maryland, which would make sense because we know that that is where Herold spent the night. But Washington still remains a possibility, perhaps with one of his paramours. So which one of us is the more reasonable?

You do not have to give me lessons in objectivity. I have been on this planet many more years than you have and I have spent almost all of those years striving to be objective. The great majority of the cases I have handled in 50 years were settled because I was able to objectively see the other party's point of view. When have I ever claimed that my interpretation is the only possible interpretation? When have I ever refused to acknowledge the possibility that the interpretations of others are as valid as my own? Show me. That is pure calumny, unbecoming of a professional, indeed disgraceful.

If you are tired of reading my posts, there is a simple remedy: Don't read them. "I tire of watching you browbeat people and portray everything you espouse in your book as gospel and iron-clad proof".
Kid stuff. Childish hokum. Since when did calmly and civilly expressing belief and supporting it with evidence and reason become "browbeating". The word is defined as "to intimidate by overbearing looks or words". Only a man with an agenda would so characterize my posts. I quite openly and freely acknowledge my ignorance when I am ignorant of something, and my uncertainty about many issues and conclusions, and endeavor always to take account of opposing views, as I did, for example, with the issue of Mary's Surratt's guilt, setting forth all the exculpatory evidence as well as all the inculpatory evidence.

Dave, your unseemly and mean-spirited rant has all the earmarks of an agenda, rather than an honest and sincere quest for truth. What that agenda is, only you know, though it is possible that it is buried in your unconscious and that even you, therefore, do not know.

I previously asked you to review my book in BoothieBarn. I am now asking you not to review it. You may, however, keep the complimentary copy I sent you if you wish. If you don't want to keep it, please give it to Laurie for sale in the Society's bookstore.

If you do not like the tenor of this exchange, rest assured that I do not like it either. But recall how it started. You asked me to make copies of Demond's material available to you. I responded by saying that I would post it if I could (Linda is working on it), but that if I couldn't, I would send you hard copy at no cost. Your response to this gracious offer was your personally offensive diatribe. Thus this reply.

John