My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[mikegriffith1]

(11-25-2018 07:53 PM)wpbinzel Wrote:  I have not previously engaged on this thread, but in a sincere effort to be helpful, I will point out that your fundamental flaw is that every one of your questions assumes facts that are not in evidence or documented.


* Why would Booth have needed Mary Surratt to carry binoculars to John Lloyd when Booth could have easily carried binoculars in his saddle bag?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth had a saddle bag.


* Why would Booth have relied on a drunkard like John Lloyd to have guns waiting for him at Surrattsville?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth knew or had met John Lloyd; or that Booth had any knowledge of Mr. Lloyd’s drinking habits.


* Why would Booth have stopped at Garrett's farm for one minute, much less many hours, when he knew every minute was crucial?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth “knew every minute was crucial.”


* Why would Booth have been lounging around at Garrett's farm, spending time relaxing on Garrett's front porch, when he knew every minute was crucial?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth “knew every minute was crucial.”


* If Dr. Mudd was trying to hide Booth's boot from the federal soldiers who came to his house, why didn't he just destroy the boot when he had plenty of time to do so, long before any federal soldiers showed up at his farm?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Dr. Mudd gave any consideration to Booth’s boot after Booth and Herold departed and “before any federal soldiers showed up at his farm.”


* If Mary Surratt was guilty, why didn't she run during the two days between the time police authorities first came to her house and the time they came back to arrest her?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that “making a ‘run’ for it” on April 15-17 was a viable option for Mrs. Surratt.


* If Weichmann had incriminating evidence against Mary Surratt, why did the Metropolitan Police appear to know nothing about it after he gave a full statement to them on April 15? (After Weichmann gave his statement, the police showed no interest in returning to Mary Surratt's house.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that demonstrates that of all the leads and statements taken in the two days following Lincoln’s assassination, the police should have reached the immediate conclusion that Mrs. Surratt was their prime suspect.


* If Holt and Baker really wanted to identify the body on the Montauk, why didn't they just have the Booth conspirators who were in their custody come up on deck and look at the body?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that proper police (civilian or military) procedure at that time included releasing imprisoned co-conspirators from their cells to make an identification already made by competent and unimpeachable witnesses.


* Why didn't Holt and Baker have Booth's left boot brought to the Montauk to compare it with the boot that was supposedly on the body's right foot, especially since the left boot had part of Booth's name written inside it?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that proper police (civilian or military) procedure at that time was to use physical evidence to make an identification already made by competent and unimpeachable witnesses.


* Why did Stanton falsely tell Lincoln that Eckert could not be spared that night to go with him to Ford's Theater? And why would David Homer Bates, who saw and recorded the Lincoln-Stanton exchange, have lied about this, given that Bates admired Stanton? You see, the problem is that Bates had no idea that Stanton lied when he claimed that Eckert had vital work to do that night at the War Department. (Eisenschiml discovered that Eckert handled only a few routine telegrams that night and that he left not long after Stanton told Lincoln that he could not be spared.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Bates’ wistful account, written some 40 years after the fact, of events of the morning of April 14, 1865, actually happened.


* Why did Stanton and Holt not use Booth's diary at the conspiracy trial if it contained nothing that was problematic for their case?

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth’s diary had any evidentiary value against any of the eight co-conspirators on trial.


* Why did the War Department suppress Booth's letter to his brother-in-law? (The letter was printed in a Philadelphia newspaper, then War Department agents came and confiscated it, and it was never introduced as evidence at the trial.)

A: Please provide evidence or documentation that Booth’s letter had any evidentiary value against any of the eight co-conspirators on trial.


I have no interest or intention of engaging in a debate with you on any of these points; but – again, in a sincere effort to be helpful – suggest that if you want your questions to be taken seriously, they must be based on a foundation of evidence or documentation that does not assume facts that are not in evidence or documented. Whether or not you heed this advice is, of course, up to you.

Some of these questions strike me as silly.

You need documented evidence that Booth knew that every minute was crucial? Have you read the accounts of his flight and his close calls with federal troops? You need documented evidence that Booth's diary would have had evidentiary value at the trial? Do you know anything about what his diary says? You need documented evidence that Bates' supposedly "wistful" account actually happened? Why is it "wistful"? Because it's problematic for your view? Again, why would Bates, who admired Stanton, have written this if it did not happen? You need documented evidence that the police should have arrested Mary Surratt after Weichmann first gave them an extensive statement? Really? If he had told the police half of the stuff that he later concocted about her, they would have raided her house within minutes of taking his statement. You need documented evidence that Booth had a saddle bag? Wouldn't the logical assumption be that he had a saddle bag, especially since he knew that he was going to be on the run for a few days?

And I have to wonder what you have read to believe that the witnesses on the Montauk were "competent and unimpeachable." That is laughable. Two of them were crew members who suddenly claimed that they had both known Booth for about six weeks.