Assassination Trivia

[Steve Whitlock]

(04-15-2020 07:52 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 04:02 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  Since we all know many of the people in "Dark Union" are fictitious, and others are actual people who are claimed to have made statements they never made, do you know whether there was actually a Lottie Eaton, who supposedly recalled the story of John Henry Stevenson, aka Michael O'Laughlin (sic)?

I know that the John Henry Stevenson who married Martha I. M. Booth in 1869 in Baltimore, and again, as Martha L. Bellows, in 1871 in Boston, was the father on the birth record of Harry Jerome Dresback Stevenson. There are actual records for those events, and he was not the deceased Michael O'Laughlen at that time.

I haven't checked, and wont, (I've wasted too much time for the amusement of the late Neff-Guttridge) to see whether anyone other than Lottie Eaton, if she exists, or didn't die shortly after her revelation, ever heard John Henry Stevenson tell the same story, and claim to be the escaped Michael O'Laughlen.

I know the esteemed Steve Williams has done considerable research in this area and likely knows whether Lottie Eaton was real.

If anyone cares to see those marriage records and birth record I mentioned I'll post them. The reason for the 2nd marriage was likely because Izola was in court hearings to get a Navy pension for herself and her children (discussed in another thread) and some of the estate, such as it was, for the death of her husband, Charles Still Bellows, who died in 1869, and in his will left his estate to his brother, with no mention of a wife or children. Of course he is of record at sea when his wife was conceiving Ogarita Bellows, so perhaps he was a bit miffed.

Be that as it may, Martha Izola (Mills) Bellows-Booth??-Stevenson-etc won her court battles. I suspect the first marriage as Martha I. M. Booth was for Rosalie Booth's benefit and the claim that Izola had JWB's children.

As far as I can tell - Lottie Eaton is fictious, as well as "Mrs. Gladys Thurston". I haven't found any evidence they existed so far. There are women named Lottie Eaton living in or near Muscataine, Iowa but they don't match the biographical details given in this obviously forged typed account:

http://library.indstate.edu/about/units/...ughlin.pdf

However, the Clara Brandt who was named as the "benefactor" of Lottie was a real person:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/162733988

The real John Henry Stevenson firsts enters the historical record when he enlisted in the Union army in January 1863 in San Francisco, CA. So, Stevenson's documentary record overlaps with O'Laughlen's - which gives yet another reason why it's impossible they're the same person. Here's a link to Stevenson's grave in Arlington National Cemetery:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/4935...-stevenson

So, Stevenson was obviously still alive until 1906 and couldn't have died in Iowa in 1890. (Note the Findagrave contributor information about his unit is wrong. John Henry Stevenson was in E Co. 2nd Mass Cavalry. The John Stevenson who was in both CO B 2ND MASS INF and CO C 33RD MASS INF was a different soldier - the death/internment/pension information confirm that the Arlington John H. Stevenson is the same as the ex-husband of Martha Izola Mills Bellows. I don't know where the other John Stevenson is buried.)

Thank you for your information, Steve! I didn't find a Lottie Eaton in Muscatine Co., IA for 1880 or 1900, with Clara and Emma Brandt living with their father in 1900. Emma's middle name is Charlotte, which makes me wonder whether she could be Lottie; however, that doesn't account for the Eaton part, supposedly a niece, and yet I don't see, without much looking, an Eaton sibling for Clara and Emma to make Lottie a niece.

As you, and about everyone else, make the John H. Stevenson who died in 1906 the ex-husband of Izola, then the story told by Lottie, and Gladys Mitton, is highly suspect, if there even is a John H. Stevenson who died circa 1890 in Muscatine Co., IA. The newspapers have no mention of such an event. Nor is there mention in Iowa death and burial records.

There are other holes in the story to be sure, but the fact remains that a man who dies in 1890 can't be the same man who dies in 1906, even if similar stories yet abound for John Wilkes Booth.