Frederick Demond

[John Fazio]

[i][i]

(08-07-2015 01:25 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(08-07-2015 02:08 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  Dave:

Here's a little wisdom from a bright fellow who, regrettably, did not live very long:

In all unimportant matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential. In all important matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential.

Oscar Wilde

My ungracious response was occasioned by your ungracious response to a gracious one.

As for the merits, I grant that there are troubling inconsistencies in Demond's accounts. But observe that in all four scenarios, there is one constant. The four scenarios are: 1) Demond says nothing about receiving an order re a password and countersign; 2) He says they had no order re a password, etc.; 3) He says they did have an order and it came from Cobb; and 4) He says they did have an order and it came from Dana. The one constant in all four scenarios is that something is said about T.B. and T.B. Road. I conclude, therefore, that something was indeed said about T.B. and T.B. Road that night by at least Booth and most probably Herold too. The circumstances surrounding the use of the terms cannot be known with certainty, because we have only Demond's accounts and they are inconsistent. But the use of the terms in some context must be regarded, from the evidence, as a near certainty.

In my opinion, the inconsistencies most likely arise from the fact that the accounts are given so long after the facts rather than from a desire to please Finis Bates. As a good example of this, consider the completely ridiculous statement that Booth and Herold crossed at the same time and announced, as they were crossing, that the President had been shot. On the other hand, there are many telltale signs in the accounts of an honest effort being made by Demond to recall the truth, such as his statement that the Maryland detail thought it strange to receive the order, because they had never previously received an order re passwords, much less this particular password, because the Maryland side guards had nothing to say about passage once the rider had been cleared on the Washington side, and such as his statement that one of the detail (Drake?) remarked, after passage of the fugitives, "It is strange what is going on tonight". There are still other signs, such as his expressions of uncertainty and failure of memory and such as his categorical denial of Dana's statement that he had ordered the removal of all the guards from the bridge before the assassination and their relocation to his headquarters at Ft. Baker.

Further, I maintain (and so state in the book; see Chapter 24) that the fugitives would not have approached the bridge unless they were absolutely certain of passage. They would not, because they could not, leave the matter of passage, even in the slightest degree, to chance. Accordingly, I accept the password thesis if for no reason other than the fact that nothing would have guaranteed passage with greater certainty than the requirement of a password and countersign and the knowledge and use of the same by the passing riders. This is circumstantial evidence of a very powerful kind, which, coupled with Demond's constant, leads me to my conclusion.

I will add, in closing, that because of Demond's inconsistencies, and also because his account of the apprehension, detention and release of Booth and Herold is difficult (though not impossible) to square with other accounts we have of their movements on the 14th, the matter of their passage is one about which reasonable minds can differ. It should therefore not be an occasion for acrimony and recrimination. For that reason, I offer you a truce.

John

John,

You opened your response to me with a quote by Oscar Wilde stating that in essentially all matters, style, not sincerity, is essential. In your closing you admit that this topic is one "about which reasonable minds can differ." I agree with you and contend that the reason we differ on this, and so many other matters, is due to the ways in which our styles differ.

I thank you for your response and for your very clear and honest demonstration of how you approach the study of history. I appreciated reading it as it finally gave me insight about you and into a method uniquely different from my own. My process is to discover evidence, judge the reliability of said evidence, and then draw a conclusion from it. Your process is to begin with a conclusion based on your own logical beliefs, seek out any evidence that supports your conclusion, then use said evidence to re-establish and validate your original conclusion. Our two varying styles of studying history is the reason why we do, and will continue to, differ on many aspects relating to the assassination.

Your method has a strength to it that mine does not have. Using your method, you will always be able to sound more convincing because you base your conclusions on logic. It is hard to disprove analytical logic. Based on logic, I agree with you that Booth and Herold, "would not have approached the bridge unless they were absolutely certain of passage." This is a logical deduction to make. If someone is planning to kill the President, wouldn't they make every effort to guarantee safe passage out of the scene of the crime? The answer is a resounding, "Of course, he/she would. That is perfectly logical." You then took this logical conclusion and sought out evidence that would support it. You then found Frederick Demond and his later accounts that support the idea of a password which provided you the needed validation. You now have a perfectly logical argument, with a piece of evidence to support it. The best part is, even if the evidence is questioned by those who doubt its reliability, you still have that perfectly logical conclusion that you started with which will make you still seem convincing and correct.

It's a great system, John, and explains our other contrasting views, such as our views on John Surratt's escape in Veroli, Italy. You logically deduce that the story given by the Papal authorities and John Surratt, himself, (that he leapt into a ravine and landed on a narrow outcropping) is hard to believe. You therefore seek out evidence that will support a different series of events. You then find an account from a man which states that Surratt escaped by crawling down a sewer. This piece of evidence once again validates your logical argument. Even when that evidence is questioned due to it coming years later and several of the details in the evidence not adding up, you still have the supporting crutch of your initial logical conclusion which you can use to dismiss critics.

I envy you, John. Your style of history not only allows you to appear convincing to others, but also allows you to seemingly prove controversial points that I will never be able to prove. Since I start with the evidence, rather than a conclusion, I will always be stymied by possibilities and probabilities instead of the assurances and certainties that your method produces.

Still, I know I could never learn your style of history, John, because the world I know and observe is not a truly logical one. The history I study is filled with impulsive and unpredictable people, with countless instances of coincidence, chance, and luck. I, therefore, will continue to put more faith in evidence that occurred closer to the event. I will continue to be suspicious of sources that change over time. I will be wary of the involvement of third parties with an agenda. But, most of all, I will continue to assess the reliability of evidence before drawing a conclusion, even though doing so will prevent me from seeing the certainties of history that you enjoy.

Dave:

The style to which I (and Wilde) had reference has nothing to do with our approaches to history, but to communication. One does not generally respond to a salutory message with a venomous one.

Your assertion that there is a fundamental difference in our methodology is a chimera or a red herrring, or perhaps some of both, depending on whether it is borne of ignorance or self-interest. Virtually everyone draws conclusions from evidence, rather than the other way around. I do not begin with conclusions any more than you do. Almost no one does. Conclusions, i.e. belief and faith, are based on evidence, which comes to us constantly (except when we sleep) by way of our senses. Without evidence, there is no belief or faith, only imagination, which is limitless. I gather you haven't read "Decapitating", because if you had you would know that one can hardly turn to a page of it that is not in some way related to the presentation and evaluation of evidence, from which conclusions are sometimes drawn, and sometimes not drawn because the evidence is conflicting or otherwise inconclusive. Examples are superfluous.

Our real differences (as opposed to your fancied one) are nothing more unusual than differences of opinion as to what the evidence most likely shows. You favor Surratt's account of his escape. I don't. To me it is absolutely incredible, and I have already told you why in your July 2 edition of BoothieBarn. Lipman's account is, in my opinion, much more believable. Jampoler agrees with me--Surratt's account is a fish story. Schein agrees with you, hanging his hat on Lipman's erroneous reference to a date--a thread, in my opinion. Reasonable minds, as I have already said, can differ. You discount Demond's material re the crossing. I evaluated the evidence for six different ways the fugitives could have crossed the bridge and rejected five of them, settling on the sixth because it was, to me, the only way that would guarantee passage, and a guarantee was critical. Recall that Mrs. Surratt, pursuant to Booth's instruction, had already instructed Lloyd to have the guns and other items ready for pick-up. Recall, too, Booth's telling Ruggles that he had planned for success. Clearly, he had no doubt he would get across the bridge. With a roiling city behind him and death and most probably torture being the consequences of capture, do you believe he would leave any part of the business of crossing to chance? I don't.

Let me mention, in passing, that I observe that Schein is in fundamental agreement with me as to a general conspiracy of Confederate leaders to decapitate the United States government. Wild Bill and Rick Smith also agree. So do Tidwell, Hall, Gaddy, Hanchett, Current, Sears, Winkler, the Boutwell Report and, if I do not misunderstand her, Laurie. Should you, perhaps, give this issue a little more thought?

John