Was Stanton a murder target?

[John Fazio]

(10-28-2016 09:18 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Booth told Powell.
Booth told Herold.
Booth told Chester.
Booth was a BS'er.

I don't give as much credibility to some of your sources as you do.
Other than that, you've made some interesting and thought provoking observations.

Gene:

Of course he was a B.S.er. So is everyone else in some degree. That's why we look for corroboration. It is also why we must sometimes be content with probabilities.

John

---

(10-28-2016 09:38 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John and others,

John, you said: “If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.” And you said that your nine items “are not ‘proofs’; they are 'evidence'.” What's the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ EVIDENCE IS PROBATIVE; PROOF IS CONCLUSIVE.? I've noticed that the word ‘evidence’ is often used in English as if it meant ‘proof’. IMO ‘proof’ only really exists in math. In the real world almost nothing can be truly proven. Evidence lends support to a hypothesis (or eventually theory), but those conclusions are always open to change. ‘Evidence’ may be used to form a theory and ‘proof’ shows the theory to be a fact. Right? ESSENTIALLY.

Of course I can’t prove (and nobody can) that Stanton was NOT a murder target. I DID NOT ASK YOU TO PROVE IT; I ASKED ONLY TO SEE YOUR EVIDENCE. And the same goes for the opposite, Stanton WAS a murder target. There is ALWAYS place for doubt. In all modesty and be assured that I highly respect your opinions, but it seems to me that you present your case like there is no room for doubt, NONSENSE. I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE INTRUDER ON THE 13TH IS NOT KNOWN AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE KNOWN, BUT THAT I LEAN TOWARD ITS BEING O'LAUGHLEN BECAUSE OF THE CATEGORICAL IDENTIFICATION OF HIM IN THE COURTROOM BY THREE CREDIBLE WITNESSES, BECAUSE OF HIS TWO MEETINGS WITH BOOTH THE EVENING OF THE 13TH AND THE MORNING OF THE 14TH AND BECAUSE OF ATZERODT'S CONFESSION, IN WHICH HE SAID THAT NO ONE WHO KNEW O'LAUGHLEN DOUBTED THAT HE WAS AT STANTON'S HOME ON THE 13TH that your evidence is conclusive but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion. What to say about the 9 items in your posting and in your book? There is room for doubt re. each item. THIS IS A MEANINGLESS STATEMENT, BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR DOUBT ABOUT ALMOST EVERYTHING And I could not say it better than SSlater and Gene C.

I want to add:
1) O’Laughlen was seen in or near Stanton’s house on April 13, by 3 witnesses. 8 witnesses saw him at the same time at other places in D.C. Why assume (I use the word deliberately) that the accounts of the 3 are more reliable than the accounts of the other 8? I DON'T ASSUME IT, BUT YOU ARE IGNORING ATZERODT'S CONFESSION.
2) A mysterious figure was seen on Stanton’s porch and behind the tree-box on April 14. Why assume that it was a would-be assassin or even O’Laughlen? I find it hard to believe. IT'S NOT HARD TO BELIEVE. THERE IS MULTIPLE ATTESTATION AND IT IS CORROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTED DECAPITATION. IF THE INTRUDERS WERE NOT ILL-INTENTIONED, WHY DID THEY RUN AWAY? Some say that O’Laughlen was also seen in the train to assassinate Gen. Grant at the same evening. I NEVER HEARD THIS SAID BY ANYONE Could it be, one man (O’Laughlen) seen at three places at the same time (Stanton’s house, in DC with a hangover, in Grant’s train)? NO ONE HAS MADE THAT ALLEGATION That is at least no solid reasoning.
3) Yes, O’Laughlen was in the National Hotel on April 13 and 14, but why assume that he spoke with Booth HENDERSON SAID O'LAUGHLEN MET WITH BOOTH IN THE EVENING OF THE 13TH; THERE IS NO DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT HE MET WITH HIM ON THE MORNING OF THE 14TH, BUT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS STRONG THAT HE DID. SEE PITMAN PP. 224, 225, 230. and it was there that he got the assignment to kill Stanton? I DID NOT SAY HE RECEIVED SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT The first time he was only 5 minutes in the Hotel, but stay at the desk and did not see Booth (he was out). NOT TRUE. RE-CHECK YOUR SOURCE.The second time he was circa 1 hour in the hotel, but Early (who was with O’Laughlen and stayed outside) never saw Booth. I DID NOT SAY EARLY SAW BOOTH. O'LAUGHLEN WAS GONE FROM HIS FRIENDS FOR AT LEAST ONE AND THREE-QUARTERS HOURS. WHERE WAS HE IF NOT WITH BOOTH? It’s even the question if Booth was in the hotel. NOT REALLY.On the morning of April 14 (according to desk clerk Walter Burton) Herold ran into the hall, looking for Booth. Both went to Booth’s room and found the room empty, and the bed still made. Burton’s account was 44 years after the event, maybe he was mistaken. Was Booth somewhere in the city, did he see the grand illumination and was he with Lucy Hale? Speculations of course. It is also speculation that O’Laughlen spoke with Booth in his room. It is unknown that O’Lauglen found Booth there. Why assume that he did? SEE ABOVE.
4) Secretary of the Interior John Usher indeed said (wrote) “A man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch, and was found at Stanton’s hid between a tree box who ran away”. Why assume that Usher saw that man? IF HE SAID IT, AN ASSUMPTION THAT HE SAW HIM IS SOMEWHAT BETTER THAN ONE THAT HE DID NOT SEE HIM He wrote it a day AFTER Lincoln’s death and could have read it in The New York Times, "COULD HAVES" ARE INFINITE. THEY AREN'T VERY HELPFUL which wrote on April 16 “Two gentlemen who went to the Secretary of War to apprize him of the attack on Mr. Lincoln met at the residence of the former a man muffled in a cloak, who, when accosted by them, hastened away”. Hudson Taylor gave his account on March 21, 1866, almost 2 years after the fact. Stanton himself was silent for almost 30 years. Stewart came with his account in 1908.
5) Stanton’s doorbell. Why assume that de bell was broken? THERE IS MULTIPLE ATTESTATION. STANTON'S BIOGRAPHER STATES CATEGORICALLY THAT THE BROKEN DOORBELL SAVED HIS LIFE James B. Morrow (a source for Eisenschiml) declared that a man named Sterling went to Stanton's home, to tell him the news of the murder. Stanton’s son then immediately came to the door, when the doorbell rang. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE FAVORS THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.
6) A lot of witnesses (Confederate operatives in Canada) were unreliable in the past, why assume that they are now fully reliable? WHY ASSUME THAT THEY ARE NOT? THEIR RELIABILITY RESTS IN PART ON THEIR MOTIVATION OR LACK OF IT Why did they say what they said? THEIR TESTIMONY MAKES A PRIMA-FACIE CASE. IF YOU QUESTION IT, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS IT. Well, if discovered (even the slightest suspicion), anyone involved in a plot like to decapitate the Union would face execution, or long prison terms at least. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

I leave it with these 6 points. What I want to say is that you never must contaminate your evidence by what you think or what your (subjective) feelings are saying to you. Be objective. You have to concentrate on what you know for certain. ALMOST NOTHING IS KNOWN FOR CERTAIN. YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF: YOU ASK HERE FOR CERTAINTY, BUT EARLIER ASSERT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN DOUBT Atzerodt’s confessions, certainly his last, is more near the truth than e.g. Jones book. REMEMBER THAT IT WAS ATZERODT'S CONFESSION THAT IMPLICATED O'LAUGHLEN. IF YOU QUESTION JONES'S BOOK, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS IT.

To decapitate the United States government is not easy. You need a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved a lot of people. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT "INCREDIBLY" AND "BRILLIANTLY", BUT I DO BELIEVE IT INVOLVED MANY OPERATIVES AND ASSASSINS AND WAS PLANNED ABOUT AS WELL AS IT COULD BE, GIVEN THE TIME, THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE MATERIAL THE CONFEDERACY HAD TO WORK WITH Most theories fail to apply the principle of Occam’s razor, which say that simpler theories should be preferred to more complex theories. In other words Occam’s Razor predicts that the correct theory (or hypothesis) is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. The theory that is the truth is almost always the one that is the least complicated. Strip away the complexities and you are close to the correct answer. That Stanton was a murder target is in my opinion such a complexity. The simple story is that Lincoln (Booth), Seward (Powell) and Johnson (Atzerodt and Herold) were the targets. YOU HAVE CARELESSLY IGNORED ALL THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PRESENTED FOR THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION. AGAIN I SAY, IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY CONCLUSION, PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE AGAINST IT. NOT PROOF; EVIDENCE. I WILL ADD THAT POSTULATING THE ATTEMPTED DECAPITATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY MULTIPLE ASSASSINATIONS ORCHESTRATED BY THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS SECRET SERVICE, IS A MUCH SIMPLER AND MORE BELIEVABLE EXPLANATION (AND THEREFORE MORE IN KEEPING WITH OCCAM'S RAZOR) OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE NIGHT OF APRIL 14 THAN A THEORY THAT A 26-YEAR OLD ACTOR, UNSCHOOLED IN THE LAW, KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT POLITICS OR THE MILITARY, AND NEVER BEFORE HAVING KILLED ANYONE IN HIS LIFE, PLANNED, IN ONE NIGHT, THE ASSASSINATION OF AT LEAST FIVE OF THE MOST POWERFUL AND IMPORTANT MEN IN THE COUNTRY, AND ALL AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME NIGHT IN THE SAME CITY.

John