Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

RJNorton · 11-01-2016, 02:15 PM

Thank you, John. As I've stated before, of all those on trial, I have a tougher time getting a grasp on O'Laughlen than any of the others.

John Fazio · 11-01-2016, 06:46 PM

(11-01-2016 02:15 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Thank you, John. As I've stated before, of all those on trial, I have a tougher time getting a grasp on O'Laughlen than any of the others.

Roger:

I think we can summarize the matter by saying that O'Laughlen was still in the conspiracy on the 13th and 14th. That explains why Booth went to Baltimore to fetch him and why he dutifully came to Washington that evening. He didn't come to collect the $500 Booth owed him; he had already done that on March 31 with Arnold. Note that Booth did not run off to Old Point Comfort, Virginia, to fetch Arnold. Arnold was, by this time, truly out of it. Further evidence re O'Laughlen is that he not only came to Washington, but also met with Booth that evening at the National and most probably met with him again at the same place the following morning. Inasmuch as three credible witnesses and Atzerodt have him at Stanton's home on Thursday night, it seems probable that the purpose of the meetings with Booth related to that assignment. It is possible that he followed through with that assignment with an actual attempt on Stanton's life on the 14th, but there is no evidence for that. I think it more likely that he was with his friends, as they said he was, and that the would-be assassin or assassins who were at or about Stanton's home on the 14th were among the "others" with whom Booth was in contact for such a purpose, another of whom he used to trail Grant on the train to Burlington. Recall Arnold's statement in his Memoirs that "There were occasions before I had become acquainted with the fact that others than Surratt and ourselves, already spoken of, were connected in the enterprise."

The foregoing is the most likely scenario, in my opinion, of what happened on the 13th and 14th that involved O'Laughlen.

There was enough evidence tying O'Laughlen to Booth's conspiracy to send him to the gallows. Only the alibis provided by his friends and observers saved him from that fate. But it was a short-lived salvation, because what had begun over wine and cigars in Booth's room in Barnum's in early August, 1864, ended, almost exactly three years later, in a stinking, slimy dungeon, with black vomit, delirium and vermin.

John

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 11-02-2016 07:41 AM by loetar44.)

(11-01-2016 06:46 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(11-01-2016 02:15 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Thank you, John. As I've stated before, of all those on trial, I have a tougher time getting a grasp on O'Laughlen than any of the others.

Roger:

I think we can summarize the matter by saying that O'Laughlen was still in the conspiracy on the 13th and 14th. That explains why Booth went to Baltimore to fetch him and why he dutifully came to Washington that evening. He didn't come to collect the $500 Booth owed him; he had already done that on March 31 with Arnold. Note that Booth did not run off to Old Point Comfort, Virginia, to fetch Arnold. Arnold was, by this time, truly out of it. Further evidence re O'Laughlen is that he not only came to Washington, but also met with Booth that evening at the National and most probably met with him again at the same place the following morning. Inasmuch as three credible witnesses and Atzerodt have him at Stanton's home on Thursday night, it seems probable that the purpose of the meetings with Booth related to that assignment. It is possible that he followed through with that assignment with an actual attempt on Stanton's life on the 14th, but there is no evidence for that. I think it more likely that he was with his friends, as they said he was, and that the would-be assassin or assassins who were at or about Stanton's home on the 14th were among the "others" with whom Booth was in contact for such a purpose, another of whom he used to trail Grant on the train to Burlington. Recall Arnold's statement in his Memoirs that "There were occasions before I had become acquainted with the fact that others than Surratt and ourselves, already spoken of, were connected in the enterprise."

The foregoing is the most likely scenario, in my opinion, of what happened on the 13th and 14th that involved O'Laughlen.

There was enough evidence tying O'Laughlen to Booth's conspiracy to send him to the gallows. Only the alibis provided by his friends and observers saved him from that fate. But it was a short-lived salvation, because what had begun over wine and cigars in Booth's room in Barnum's in early August, 1864, ended, almost exactly three years later, in a stinking, slimy dungeon, with black vomit, delirium and vermin.

John

John, Roger and others.

Why making O’Laughlen’s role in the assassination more important than it really was? The witness statements at the trial don’t show that he had an important role. Booth had told O’Laughlen on March 31 that he had "abandoned his project". His “group of confidants” was falling apart. Why he travelled to Baltimore on April 13 is not exactly known. Maybe he tried to get O’Laughlen back in the group. It’s speculation. O’Laughlen wasn’t a murderer and maybe he said that “the great struggle” was over. The New York Times had written “The history of blood is brought to a close. The last shot has been fired.” Maybe a depressed Booth told O’Laughlen that the night of April 13, 1865 would be one of the most radiant any one in Washington would remember, with the city celebrating peace by draping itself in lights. Booth felt crushed and humiliated and left O’Laughlen, feeling his world and everything he held dear was forever gone. O’Laughlen wanted to see that most beautiful, joyful night in Washington D.C. with his own eyes and went with three friends to DC with the afternoon train of 3:30 pm, arriving 5:30 pm. He went in the evening of April 13 to the National Hotel to meet Booth, most likely he wanted to see how he was doing now. O’Laughlin did not see Booth, he was no more than 5 minutes at the desk in the lobby of the hotel, to hear that Booth was out. That night, John Wilkes Booth walked among the revelers in a haze of resentment and alcohol. He heard the taunts against General Lee and the Confederate army. He saw the Union soldiers in their uniforms marching up and down the streets, celebrating. He, still crushed and humiliated, had to witness it all. He maybe went to Ellen Starr for an overnight visit and wrote his mother a note, the note Roger mentioned. He was at that moment a man with little hope, a man without prospects. When O’Laughlen tried to visit Booth again in the morning of April 14, he still had not returned. O'Laughlen was also not at Stanton’s home, it was a lookalike. At the moment suspected figures were seen at Stanton’s home on April 14th, O'Laughlen was (as Dave said) recovering from a hangover. On Saturday April 15, O’Laughlen returned to Baltimore with the 3:00 pm train. He had never seen Booth during his short stay at the city and was also no part of a conspiracy against Stanton.

Gene C · 11-02-2016, 07:04 AM

You both make good points to me.
I'm still leaning toward O'Laughlen not being involved in the assassination plot.

RJNorton · 11-02-2016, 01:31 PM

(11-01-2016 10:09 AM)loetar44 Wrote: We don’t know anything about Booth’s whereabouts between noon Thursday April 13 and “fully 11 am” Friday April 14.

How much weight (if any) should we give to Charles Wood's testimony at the John Surratt trial? Wood was a barber in Washington.

In his book on John Surratt, author Andy Jampoler writes:

"Charles Wood, a barber who had a chair in Brooker and Stewart's parlor on E Street, began the reconstruction of Surratt's schedule of April 14. John Wilkes Booth, John Surratt, Michael O'Laughlen, and someone who sounded a lot like George Atzerodt in Wood's description, came into Brooker and Stewart's together before midmorning he said, not long after Wood himself got to the shop after shaving the convalescent Secretary Seward in his bed at home a few blocks away. 'Mr. Surratt,' Wood continued, 'took my chair immediately on Mr. Booth's getting out...This time Mr. Surratt said to me, 'Give me a nice shave and clean me up nicely; I am going away in a day or two.'"

So we have a barber testifying Booth, Surratt, O'Laughlen, and possibly Atzerodt all came into the parlor together on the morning of the assassination. I realize Surratt was most likely in Elmira NY, but was the barber right about the other two or three men?

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 11-02-2016 03:02 PM by loetar44.)

(11-02-2016 01:31 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-01-2016 10:09 AM)loetar44 Wrote: We don’t know anything about Booth’s whereabouts between noon Thursday April 13 and “fully 11 am” Friday April 14.

How much weight (if any) should we give to Charles Wood's testimony at the John Surratt trial? Wood was a barber in Washington.

In his book on John Surratt, author Andy Jampoler writes:

"Charles Wood, a barber who had a chair in Brooker and Stewart's parlor on E Street, began the reconstruction of Surratt's schedule of April 14. John Wilkes Booth, John Surratt, Michael O'Laughlen, and someone who sounded a lot like George Atzerodt in Wood's description, came into Brooker and Stewart's together before midmorning he said, not long after Wood himself got to the shop after shaving the convalescent Secretary Seward in his bed at home a few blocks away. 'Mr. Surratt,' Wood continued, 'took my chair immediately on Mr. Booth's getting out...This time Mr. Surratt said to me, 'Give me a nice shave and clean me up nicely; I am going away in a day or two.'"

So we have a barber testifying Booth, Surratt, O'Laughlen, and possibly Atzerodt all came into the parlor together on the morning of the assassination. I realize Surratt was most likely in Elmira NY, but was the barber right about the other two or three men?

A. Lincoln, His Last 24 Hours, by Waldo Emerson Reck, p. 67: “Booth’s first known movement after breakfast at the National Hotel on April 14 took him to the barber shop of Booker and Stewart on E Street near Grover’s Theatre. After Charles H.M. Wood shaved him and “trimmed his hair round and dressed it,” he dropped in at Grover’s Theatre …” No mention of the others!

The House on H. Street: The Conspiracy to Murder Abraham Lincoln by Daniel J. Weingrad, “Chapter 6: “The weather was beautiful and in the mid 60’s as Booth took a six or seven block walk up Pennsylvania Avernue to E. Street near Grover’s Theatre. At a barbershop whose sign identified it as “Booker & Stewart”, he removed his jacket and loosened his cravat. By the way he was greeted and fawned over, it was obvious he was a regular patron.” No mention of the ohers!

RJNorton · 11-02-2016, 03:06 PM

Many thanks, Kees. This testimony was part of the prosecution's effort to show Surratt was in Washington, not Elmira, on April 14th. I was just curious about the overall veracity/memory of this barber. Thanks for posting what you found.

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 11-02-2016 06:15 PM by loetar44.)

(11-02-2016 03:06 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Many thanks, Kees. This testimony was part of the prosecution's effort to show Surratt was in Washington, not Elmira, on April 14th. I was just curious about the overall veracity/memory of this barber. Thanks for posting what you found.

From: Trial of John H. Surratt in the Criminal Court for the District of Columbia, Hon. George P. Fisher presiding, by John Harrison Surratt,George Purnell Fisher, p. 494 - 498
Wednesday, July 3, 1867
Charles H. M. Wood, sworn and examined.
By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. What is your business ?
A. I am a barber by trade.
Q. Have you been a barber in the city of Washington for some time ?
A. Yes, sir ; ever since I have been in the city.
Q. How many years ?
A. Since December, 1862.
Q. Where was your barber shop in April, 1865 ?
A. I came here on a Saturday, about the first of September, 1862, and I en-
gaged to go to work at Messrs. Booker & Stewart's barber shop, on E street,
near Grover's theatre, next to the old Union building.
Q. In this city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you. working at the same shop now?
A. No, sir; I now have a barber shop under the Ebbitt House, near Four-
teenth street. I am now in business for myself.
Q. Did you know Booth by sight before the assassination ?
A. Very well, sir.
Q. Did you ever cut his hair ?
A. I have, frequently.
Q. Did you ever shave him ?
A. I have.
Q. You knew him well ?
A. Very well, sir.
The prisoner at the bar was here requested to stand up, which he did.
Q. Have you ever seen that man (pointing to the prisoner at the bar) before ?
A. 1 have.
Q. On the morning of the assassination did you see him ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see him?
A. I saw him at Mr. Booker's barber shop.
Q. What did you do to him ?
A. I shaved him and dressed his hair.
Q. Will you tell us who came into the shop with him, if anybody ?
A. Mr. Booth came in, there were four persons who came together.
Q. Who were the four persons beside Booth and Surratt ?
A. A gentleman I take to be Mr. McLaughlin, they called him “Mac” and
from big appearance; (I having since seen the picture of Mr. McLaughlin,) I
should think it was him.
Q. Did he tell you where he had come from that morning — McLaughlin ?
A. They were speaking of BaltImore; the conversation between them was in
reference to some Baltimore—
Q. Between whom?
A. Between Mr. Booth, Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Surratt, the other gentle-
man that was with them had nothing to say ; he sat down nearly in the rear.
Q. Did you ever see the other man afterwards ?
A. I never saw either of the parties afterwards except this gentleman (the
prisoner.)
Q. Who was the other man, do you know ?
A. I did not know him.
Q. You may describe the man.
A. He was a short thick-set man with a full round head ; he had on dark
clothes which we generally term rebel clothes, and a black slouched hat.
Q. Did you cut Booth's hair that morning ?
A. I did ; I trimmed his hair round and dressed it.
Q. Won't you tell the jury what occurred between Booth and Surratt whilst
you were trimming Booth's hair ?
A. There was nothing particular that occurred
Q. What was said ?
A. Whilst I was waiting on Mr. Booth, Mr. Surratt was sitting just in the
rear of me; the thick-set man was sitting to the left of the looking glass, just
in the rear of my chair. The glass was next to the wall, and Mr. Surratt was
on the right side of the glass, the other one on the left hand. There were not
any words particularly that I remember said or interchanged ; but when I had
got through waiting on Mr. Booth, he (Mr. Booth) got out of the chair and ad-
vanced toward the back part of the shop; Mr. McLaughlin was in that direction
doing something about the glass. Mr. Surratt took my chair immediately on
Mr. Booths' getting out. During the time that I was spreading my hair gown
over him, and making other preparations for shaving him ; this other young
man, rather tall, with dark hair — 1 think not black but dark brown hair — rather
good looking, with a moustache, was figuring before the glass ; he had on a
black frock coat, and putting his hand in his pocket he took out two black braids ;
one of the braids with curls he put on the back of his head, allowing the curls to
hang down, he then took the other braid and put it on the front; it had curls
also, and they hung on the side. When he had done this he said; "John, how
does that look ?"
Q. Whom did he address as John ?
A. I do not know whether it was Mr. Surratt or Booth, but in making the
remark, he said "John." I turned round and said, "he would make a pretty
good looking woman, but he is rather tall." Says he, "Yes," in rather a jocular
manner, laughing at the time. He seemed to look taller to me when he put on
these curls than he did before, though I had not taken particular notice of him
before that. This time Mr. Surratt said to me : “Give me a nice shave and clean
me up nicely ; I am going away in a day or two."
Q. Will you state, when he said “Clean me up nicely” what his condition was
as to being clean or not?
A. He seemed to be a little dusty, as though he had been travelling some little
distance and wanted a little cleaning and dressing up, as I am frequently called
upon by gentlemen coming in after a short travel.
Q. Did he say anything to you about Booth ?
A Yes, sir.
Q. What was that ?
A. He asked me if I noticed that scar on Booth's neck. Says I, “Yes.”
Says he, " They say that is a boil, but it is not a boil; it was a pistol shot" I
observed, “ He must have gone a little too far to the front that time.” This
gentleman (Mr. Surratt) observed, “He like to have lost his head that time."
I then went on and completed the shaving operation. I shaved him clean all
round the face, with the exception of where his moustache was. He had a slight
mustache at the time.
Q. What did you do with the hair?
A. After I was done shaving, I washed him off in the usual way, dressed his
hair, and put on the usual tonics and pomade.
Q. Tell the jury about what time in the morning it was.
A. I think it was near about nine o'clock. I had had my breakfast
Q. Where had you been that morning ?
A. I had been up to Mr. Seward's, and had come down again.
Q. Where did you find Mr. Seward ?
A. In his room, third story.
Q. Was he up or in bed ?
A. He was up.
Q. Did you see any other gentlemen at Mr. Seward’s that morning ?
A. Yes, sir ; I think I did.
Q. Whom did you see ?
A. Mr. Stanton called. Mr. Seward was either on the bed, or on the chair
by the bed, when I shaved him. I do not remember now exactly which.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bradlev.
Q. Where did you commence to work after arriving in this city?
A. I commenced to work at Messrs. Booker & Stewart's, on E street.
Q. And continued to work there until you went to the Ebbitt House?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say this thing occurred at the shop of Messrs. Booker & Stewart, about
nine o'clock in the morning?
A. I think it was about nine o'clock ?
Q. And you had been up to Mr. Seward's and shaved him ?
A. Yes, sir, and returned.
Q. Mr. Stanton was there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else was in the shop at the same time, do you remember?
A. There were several hands at work there at the time.
Q. What sort of a looking man was McLaughlin ?
A. The gentleman I have taken to be McLaughlin, they called him “Mac”
in referring to him, was a man quite as tall as Mr. Surratt, I think near about
the height of Mr. Surratt and Booth. They were all three nearly about one
height. Perhaps he might have been a little the tallest.
Q. Was he a fine looking man ?
A. Yes, sir ; he was what I would term a very handsome man.
Q. Do you remember his hair at all ?
A. It was very dark brown. I do not think it was black.
Q. Had he any beard on his face?
A. He had a moustache on, and, if I mistake not, an imperial ; but I am not so
sure about that. I am certain he had a moustache. I took more particular notice
of his hair and his size. He had on a black frockcoat. I think he had a black
silk hat, and light pantaloons.
Q. Do you remember how Mr. Surratt was dressed ?
A. He had on, I think, as near as my memory serves me, rather light clothes,
but I did not take particular notice of his clothes. As soon as he got into my
chair, I took up my hair-gown and spread it all over his clothes, so that you
could not see hardly anything except the tips of his pantaloons.
Q. You saw him while you were shaving Mr. Booth, did you not ?
A. He came in with the rest of the party.
Q. Could not you distinguish him as well as you could distinguish McLaugh-
lin and the other man ?
A. If I had taken that much notice. I took more particular notice of his head
and face.
Q. You had the same opportunity, however, to observe him as you had to
observe Mr. McLaughlin ?
A. As near as I can remember, the clothes he had on were rather light. I
cannot remember the particular kind of clothes, whether woollen, linen, or cotton.
Q. Do you remember what sort of a hat he wore ?
A. I did not take notice of his hat. Gentlemen generally come in there, take
their seats on the side next the wall, and immediately hang their hats on the
rack against the wall.
Q. You say he had no beard on his face?
A. No, sir ; he had a slight mustache.
Q. No imperial, goatee, or anything on his chin ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do I understand you that you had never seen any of these men but Booth
before that morning ?
A. I knew Booth very well. I had seen him in Baltimore, and cut his hair
when a boy.
Q. You had not seen the other three before that time ?
A. No, sir ; I do not think I had seen any of the others.
Q. And you have never seen them since, until you saw Mr. Surratt here ?
A. I live on E Street, just below here, and as I was going down to my dinner
one day, passing this court-house, he was coming out with the jailor. I stood
aside and looked. When I saw him I was utterly astounded. I instantly
thought I recognized in him the gentleman I had shaved and waited on imme-
diately after Mr. Booth, on the morning of the 1 4th of April. It made such an
impression on my mind that I spoke of it.
Q. When was it you met and recognized him ?
A. Last week, I think, Monday or Tuesday.
Q. Do you recollect whether there was anybody in the shop that morning ?
A. The young man that worked in the chair back of me, I think, was in
there. His name is Teebo ; he is a small man. He is now working in Nor-
folk.
Q. Do you know whether there were any other customers ?
A Well, about that time we were very much pressed, and we all had about
as much as we could do, there were so many strangers coming in. The shop
being next to the paymaster's office, soldiers used to come in there in perfect
droves.
Q. Particularly in the morning ?
A Yes, sir, generally pretty hard at work all day at that time.
Q. Was there anybody else there except yourself ?
A. The man who worked next to me in the next chair, I think, was gone to
breakfast about that time.
Q. Do you recollect about what time he went to breakfast ?
A. Some of us took our breakfast before we came to work. Others would be
at the shop and work until we came and then go to breakfast.
Q. What time did that man go to his breakfast ?
A. Between 8 and 9 o'clock, along thereabout
Q. What was his name ?
A. Robert Burton, I think ; I am not sure about the first name.
Q. Where is he ?
A. He is there working at the same place.
Q. Is he not one of the proprietors ?
A No, sir; he was working on the first chair on the left hand' as you enter the door.

MY COMMENT:
1. IF MCLAUGHLIN (“MAC”) = O’LAUGHLEN, THAN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN TIME. AT CA. 9 AM O'LAUGHLEN ENTERED THE UNION HOTEL AND STAYED THERE FOR 1 ¾ HOUR.
2. CHARLES WOOD DID NOT SEE O’LAUGHLEN BEFORE, ONLY KNEW HIM FROM A PHOTO , AND DECLARED “I should think it was him.” IMO, NO POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 02:21 PM by L Verge.)

I'm trying to get back in the swing of things after being off-duty for awhile, and I have not had the strength to wade through all of these detailed postings. Keeping up with just John and Kees may send me back to the hospital, but I thought I would throw a curve ball into the discussion.

I believe that it was David Keehn, in researching his wonderful book on the Knights of the Golden Circle, that found out William O'Laughlen (Mike's older brother) was the childhood friend of Booth - with little Mikey tagging along. William was also a member of the KGC and very well may have been the brother that Booth turned to first. However, at the time of the assassination, William was soon to become a father for the first time, so there is speculation that Michael filled in for him in the final few months. Could William have continued to keep up with the plan with the idea that he would not be in on the final action?

Personally, I think the idea that it was Michael at Stanton's door is pure speculation - even at that time when the U.S. government was trying to pin anything and everything on the Confederacy.

RJNorton · 11-03-2016, 11:36 AM

(11-02-2016 06:48 PM)L Verge Wrote: Personally, I think the idea that it was Michael at Stanton's door is pure speculation - even at that time when the U.S. government was trying to pin anything and everything on the Confederacy.

I am beginning to agree with you, Laurie. I was on the fence, but if O'Laughlen were definitely not an assassin, I wonder why he would be sent to scout Stanton and Grant. This is not the same as Powell's scouting at Seward's IMO.

L Verge · 11-03-2016, 02:20 PM

(11-03-2016 11:36 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-02-2016 06:48 PM)L Verge Wrote: Personally, I think the idea that it was Michael at Stanton's door is pure speculation - even at that time when the U.S. government was trying to pin anything and everything on the Confederacy.

I am beginning to agree with you, Laurie. I was on the fence, but if O'Laughlen were definitely not an assassin, I wonder why he would be sent to scout Stanton and Grant. This is not the same as Powell's scouting at Seward's IMO.

I believe that Mike Kauffman suggests that O'Laughlen might have considered warning Stanton.

loetar44 · 11-03-2016, 04:08 PM

(11-03-2016 02:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(11-03-2016 11:36 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-02-2016 06:48 PM)L Verge Wrote: Personally, I think the idea that it was Michael at Stanton's door is pure speculation - even at that time when the U.S. government was trying to pin anything and everything on the Confederacy.

I am beginning to agree with you, Laurie. I was on the fence, but if O'Laughlen were definitely not an assassin, I wonder why he would be sent to scout Stanton and Grant. This is not the same as Powell's scouting at Seward's IMO.

I believe that Mike Kauffman suggests that O'Laughlen might have considered warning Stanton.

Kauffman thinks that it is far more likely that O'Laughlen, rather than wanting to attack Stanton (or Grant), wanted to warn them of Booth’s plot …IMO pure speculation.

John Fazio · (This post was last modified: 11-04-2016 01:12 AM by John Fazio.)

(11-02-2016 06:09 AM)loetar44 Wrote:
(11-01-2016 06:46 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(11-01-2016 02:15 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Thank you, John. As I've stated before, of all those on trial, I have a tougher time getting a grasp on O'Laughlen than any of the others.

Roger:

I think we can summarize the matter by saying that O'Laughlen was still in the conspiracy on the 13th and 14th. That explains why Booth went to Baltimore to fetch him and why he dutifully came to Washington that evening. He didn't come to collect the $500 Booth owed him; he had already done that on March 31 with Arnold. Note that Booth did not run off to Old Point Comfort, Virginia, to fetch Arnold. Arnold was, by this time, truly out of it. Further evidence re O'Laughlen is that he not only came to Washington, but also met with Booth that evening at the National and most probably met with him again at the same place the following morning. Inasmuch as three credible witnesses and Atzerodt have him at Stanton's home on Thursday night, it seems probable that the purpose of the meetings with Booth related to that assignment. It is possible that he followed through with that assignment with an actual attempt on Stanton's life on the 14th, but there is no evidence for that. I think it more likely that he was with his friends, as they said he was, and that the would-be assassin or assassins who were at or about Stanton's home on the 14th were among the "others" with whom Booth was in contact for such a purpose, another of whom he used to trail Grant on the train to Burlington. Recall Arnold's statement in his Memoirs that "There were occasions before I had become acquainted with the fact that others than Surratt and ourselves, already spoken of, were connected in the enterprise."

The foregoing is the most likely scenario, in my opinion, of what happened on the 13th and 14th that involved O'Laughlen.

There was enough evidence tying O'Laughlen to Booth's conspiracy to send him to the gallows. Only the alibis provided by his friends and observers saved him from that fate. But it was a short-lived salvation, because what had begun over wine and cigars in Booth's room in Barnum's in early August, 1864, ended, almost exactly three years later, in a stinking, slimy dungeon, with black vomit, delirium and vermin.

John

John, Roger and others.

Why making O’Laughlen’s role in the assassination more important than it really was? KEES: WE DON'T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT REALLY WAS. THAT IS WHY WE ARE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE. The witness statements at the trial don’t show that he had an important role. HE WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY TIED TO BOOTH'S CONSPIRACY BY WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED AT THE TRIAL. HOW "IMPORTANT" THAT WAS IS A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION. Booth had told O’Laughlen on March 31 that he had "abandoned his project". AN OBVIOUS PLOY DESIGNED TO PACIFY HIM, IN MY JUDGMENT, BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT O'LAUGHLEN AND ARNOLD HAD LOST MUCH OF THEIR ENTHUSIASM FOR THE PROJECT AFTER THE GAUTIER'S RESTAURANT MEETING. AFTER THIS MEETING, HE WENT TO NEW YORK. SURELY THAT DOES NOT SIGNAL AN ABANDONMENT OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS A CONFEDERATE AGENT, BUT A FURTHERANCE OF IT. His “group of confidants” was falling apart. Why he travelled to Baltimore on April 13 is not exactly known. THE FACT THAT HE MET WITH O'LAUGHEN THERE AND ASKED (OR ORDERED) HIM TO RETURN TO WASHINGTON, WHICH HE DID, SUGGESTS THE LIKELY PURPOSE OF HIS TRIP Maybe he tried to get O’Laughlen back in the group. THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT HE HADN'T COMPLETELY LEFT THE GROUP, BUT THAT HIS ENTHUSIASM WAS WANING. REMEMBER THAT O'LAUGHLEN WAS BOOTH'S FRIEND FROM CHILDHOOD. REMEMBER, TOO, THAT BOOTH HAD NOT HAD AN ACRIMONIOUS EXCHANGE WITH O'LAUGHLEN AS HE HAD HAD WITH ARNOLD. REMEMBER THAT BOOTH'S RELATIONSHIP WITH O'LAUGHLEN WAS SO SPECIAL TO HIM AND SO SENSITIVE THAT HE FORBADE HIS SISTER, ASIA, TO DISCUSS HIM. It’s speculation. O’Laughlen wasn’t a murderer and maybe he said that “the great struggle” was over. The New York Times had written “The history of blood is brought to a close. The last shot has been fired.” NOT FOR BOOTH Maybe a depressed Booth told O’Laughlen that the night of April 13, 1865 would be one of the most radiant any one in Washington would remember, with the city celebrating peace by draping itself in lights. BOOTH WASN'T INTERESTED IN RADIANCE AND LIGHTS. THESE DEPRESSED AND ANGERED HIM Booth felt crushed and humiliated and left O’Laughlen, feeling his world and everything he held dear was forever gone. O’Laughlen wanted to see that most beautiful, joyful night in Washington D.C. with his own eyes and went with three friends to DC with the afternoon train of 3:30 pm, arriving 5:30 pm. He went in the evening of April 13 to the National Hotel to meet Booth, most likely he wanted to see how he was doing now. O’Laughlin did not see Booth HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? I DON'T BELIEVE IT FOR A MINUTE he was no more than 5 minutes at the desk in the lobby of the hotel, to hear that Booth was out. THIS IS NOT IN THE TRIAL TESTIMONY. HE WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO THE NATIONAL UNLESS HE KNEW HE WOULD SEE BOOTH. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRE-ARRANGED IN BALTIMORE That night, John Wilkes Booth walked among the revelers in a haze of resentment and alcohol. He heard the taunts against General Lee and the Confederate army. He saw the Union soldiers in their uniforms marching up and down the streets, celebrating. He, still crushed and humiliated, had to witness it all. He maybe went to Ellen Starr for an overnight visit and wrote his mother a note, the note Roger mentioned. He was at that moment a man with little hope, a man without prospects. When O’Laughlen tried to visit Booth again in the morning of April 14, he still had not returned. YOU DON'T KNOW THIS AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. O'LAUGHLEN WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO THE NATIONAL IN THE MORNING UNLESS HE KNEW HE COULD MEET WITH BOOTH. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRE-ARRANGED EITHER IN BALTIMORE OR AT THEIR MEETING THE PREVIOUS EVENING O'Laughlen was also not at Stanton’s home, it was a lookalike. HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? TALK ABOUT SPECULATION!!!! THREE CREDIBLE WITNESSES PUT HIM THERE, TESTIFYING THAT THEY LOOKED DIRECTLY AT HIS FACE AT CLOSE RANGE UNDER A BRIGHT LIGHT At the moment suspected figures were seen at Stanton’s home on April 14th, O'Laughlen was (as Dave said) recovering from a hangover. PROBABLY TRUE On Saturday April 15, O’Laughlen returned to Baltimore with the 3:00 pm train. He had never seen Booth during his short stay at the city NONSENSE and was also no part of a conspiracy against Stanton. NONSENSE

KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

(11-02-2016 06:48 PM)L Verge Wrote: I'm trying to get back in the swing of things after being off-duty for awhile, and I have not had the strength to wade through all of these detailed postings. Keeping up with just John and Kees may send me back to the hospital, but I thought I would throw a curve ball into the discussion.

I believe that it was David Keehn, in researching his wonderful book on the Knights of the Golden Circle, that found out William O'Laughlen (Mike's older brother) was the childhood friend of Booth - with little Mikey tagging along. William was also a member of the KGC and very well may have been the brother that Booth turned to first. However, at the time of the assassination, William was soon to become a father for the first time, so there is speculation that Michael filled in for him in the final few months. Could William have continued to keep up with the plan with the idea that he would not be in on the final action?

Personally, I think the idea that it was Michael at Stanton's door is pure speculation - even at that time when the U.S. government was trying to pin anything and everything on the Confederacy.

Laurie:

Welcome back. Everyone was pleased to hear that the episode was not more serious.

I agree about O'Laughlen at the door. I have already said that I believe that it is quite unlikely that either of the men seen at or about Stanton's home on the night of the 14th was O'Laughlen. The greater likelihood is that he was with his friends, as they said he was.

John

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 11-04-2016 06:03 AM by loetar44.)

KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

[/quote]

John,
I feel that we almost have reached a consensus. Almost anything is possible, there is no final “absolute truth”. It reminds me of the “many-worlds interpretation” in quantum physics, which states that there is an infinite web of alternate possibilities (in physics we speak of “wavefunctions”). Many-worlds implies that all possible scenario’s are real, each representing an “actual world”. Everything that could possibly have happened in our past has occurred in “another world”. A scenario (wavefunction) collapse (becomes the only scenario) only by “observation”, scientifically said it reduces to a single eigenstate. In other words: your scenario could be true, my scenario could be true, all possible other scenario’s could be true. Everything could possibly have happened. Each scenario is subjective. If you “observe” your scenario, your scenario (wavefunction) collapse (reduces to an eigenstate), and becomes suddenly the only scenario and is therefore true, because it is the only scenario that is left. This does not mean that that scenario is the absolute truth (correct at any moment), or near the absolute truth, it's only true (correct for one moment). The same goes for my scenario and all other possible scenario’s, when they collapse. As said, we live in a many-worlds world. I know that it's a serious claim, that carries some rather serious scientific, philosophical, and existential baggage. But as a physicist I believe in quantum physics and can live with a many-worlds scenario. Do we agree?

John Fazio · 11-04-2016, 12:11 PM

(11-04-2016 05:24 AM)loetar44 Wrote: KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

John,
I feel that we almost have reached a consensus. Almost anything is possible, there is no final “absolute truth”. It reminds me of the “many-worlds interpretation” in quantum physics, which states that there is an infinite web of alternate possibilities (in physics we speak of “wavefunctions”). Many-worlds implies that all possible scenario’s are real, each representing an “actual world”. Everything that could possibly have happened in our past has occurred in “another world”. A scenario (wavefunction) collapse (becomes the only scenario) only by “observation”, scientifically said it reduces to a single eigenstate. In other words: your scenario could be true, my scenario could be true, all possible other scenario’s could be true. Everything could possibly have happened. Each scenario is subjective. If you “observe” your scenario, your scenario (wavefunction) collapse (reduces to an eigenstate), and becomes suddenly the only scenario and is therefore true, because it is the only scenario that is left. This does not mean that that scenario is the absolute truth (correct at any moment), or near the absolute truth, it's only true (correct for one moment). The same goes for my scenario and all other possible scenario’s, when they collapse. As said, we live in a many-worlds world. I know that it's a serious claim, that carries some rather serious scientific, philosophical, and existential baggage. But as a physicist I believe in quantum physics and can live with a many-worlds scenario. Do we agree?
[/quote]

Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John