My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[AussieMick]

For a person that is supposed to be cunning and evil (deceitful to Lincoln and Seward and many 'friends' in the US Cabinet), Stanton must have had enormous regard and loyalty towards Booth. We're asked to believe that Stanton went to all this trouble in order to switch some deluded person for Booth ( I wonder what persuasion was used to induce Boyd to impersonate Booth?). Not only that , we have to believe that Stanton was willing to risk all this Machiavellian impersonation by unreliable fruitcakes would never come to light.

If I had been Stanton and was indeed involved in the assassination, I would have made sure Booth was killed as soon as possible ... maybe in a barn by soldiers.

[RJNorton]

(10-26-2018 05:58 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  We're asked to believe that Stanton went to all this trouble in order to switch some deluded person for Booth ( I wonder what persuasion was used to induce Boyd to impersonate Booth?). Not only that , we have to believe that Stanton was willing to risk all this Machiavellian impersonation by unreliable fruitcakes would never come to light.

Michael....Edwin Stanton, his wife, and the Stantons' son, Edwin L. 'Ned' Stanton, were all invited to Robert Lincoln's wedding which took place on September 24, 1868.

Does anyone seriously think this would have happened had there been the slightest whiff/rumor in Washington that Stanton was involved in Lincoln's assassination?

[L Verge]

(10-26-2018 01:41 PM)L Verge Wrote:  What is Dr. Arnold's source for claiming that Boyd had a wide scar on the back of his neck? BTW folks, I remember one of the first reasons we were critical of the book and did not sell it -- there are no footnotes nor endnotes in the entire book, and his meager list of sources are mainly Mark Katz, O'Reilly and Dugard, and the very questionable Theodore Nottingham (whose book we also rejected years ago).

I must semi-apologize and retract my statement that there are no footnotes or endnotes in Arnold's book. I began to dissect it this evening and realized that what is labeled as "Sources Noted" at the back of the book is really an elementary set of foot/end notes - 43 total, with the majority taken from the three previously mentioned authors with Bates thrown in along with medical references.

I also suspect that this is a do-it-yourself-with-the-help-of-a-printing-company publication because there are problems with page layouts, misspellings, photocopied pages that are just barely legible because no one tried to enhance the text/handwriting, and other problem areas.

I have no problems with do-it-yourself projects as long as you know the principles of publishing and have a qualified friend or colleague to support you editorially.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I'm not going to read the Arnold book to find out, so can someone tell me when the supposed Booth/Boyd switch was made?

Per Roger's comment above, Mary Lincoln upon hearing of Stanton's death wrote of her high regard for him.

[RJNorton]

(10-27-2018 01:24 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I'm not going to read the Arnold book to find out, so can someone tell me when the supposed Booth/Boyd switch was made?

Dr. Arnold writes that Boyd gave his correct name at the Garretts. So Booth was never there.

Quoting Dr. Arnold:

"At some point Booth was hidden in a safe house somewhere between the Rappahannock and the Trappe House."

Dr. Arnold goes on to say "probably close to the Trappe House."

Dave Taylor has a page on "The Trap" here.

[Susan Higginbotham]

Thanks, Roger! It seems that the Union not only found a plausible Booth who happened to have a broken leg, but one who possessed fine acting talents. Charming the Garrett children, exhibiting rapid mood changes, erupting at Herold when the latter decided to surrender, making a dying speech about telling his mother he died for his country--quite impressive for some hapless guy called upon to play the role of an escaped assassin. Did Stanton & Co. hold auditions?

[L Verge]

While said with tongue in cheek, Susan, you are right on target as far as the ridiculousness of assertions that have been made here as well as by a growing number of historical speculators over the past 120 years.

I warned that I was going to dissect Dr. Arnold's book page-by-page and share my thoughts on some of his statements on this forum. Get ready for a wild and bumpy ride folks because another mystery at Surratt House may have been solved. Some of you may remember Rick Smith posting over a year ago about the James Owens statement. Owens was a former slave of Austin Adams, a farm/tavern/store/hostelry keeper in Newport, Maryland, not far from where Booth crossed the Potomac.

He gave a statement to Col. H.H. Wells on April 28, 1865, in which he told of two men on horses, one with an injured leg, riding into Newport in the company of a young white boy ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE the date of Owens making the statement. In Dr. Arnold's book, the word ABOUT is forgotten, and Arnold declares that this event in Newport would have happened BEFORE the assassination even took place. Arnold then proceeds to suggest that the man with the injured leg was James W. Boyd, not Booth. Enter the future scenario of Boyd being sent into the final stages of the search as the Fake Booth.

Unfortunately, Dr. Arnold claims that Col. Wells did not save the Owens statement and that it never made it into the National Archives. In virtually the next sentence, however, he reverses himself and says that the statement miraculously survived and that it ended up in the archives at Surratt House Museum! It survived thanks to the research of James O. Hall, who made a typed transcript of the statement for his files, which were donated to Surratt House in the 1990s (before Hall's death). The copy also contained notes in Hall's handwriting to the effect that Owens needed more investigation because he sure was privy to a good deal of pertinent information about Booth's last days in Southern Maryland.

Dr, Arnold attempted to make photocopies of that piece in the James O. Hall Research Center at Surratt House and to include them as pages 276-277 in his book. And there he has a problem -- those pages are totally illegible because they printed so faintly. All that is legible is some of Hall's notes at the top of the page. (Hall's handwriting is very distinctive if anyone dealt with him frequently or has made good use of his research files.) But now, the story gets even better...

Rick Smith of this forum, my expert staff member Joan Chaconas, and I all remember that letter being in the Hall files a number of years ago. Rick used it for his own research on horse faking. About a year ago, however, he tried to find it once again, and it is missing from or filed incorrectly at the Hall Center. I have asked our research librarian to check the sign-in log between 2013 and 2016 to see if the library was visited by Dr. Arnold. By chance, did he gather up the letter containing the Owens statement with his notes by mistake? Joan actually has a copy of the letter that was sent to her by Hall originally, so the missing one from the files is not irretrievable -- it's just rather interesting that that first paper is missing and the contents used in a book, citing that it was from the Surratt House files.

[mikegriffith1]

(10-26-2018 05:58 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  For a person that is supposed to be cunning and evil (deceitful to Lincoln and Seward and many 'friends' in the US Cabinet), Stanton must have had enormous regard and loyalty towards Booth. We're asked to believe that Stanton went to all this trouble in order to switch some deluded person for Booth (I wonder what persuasion was used to induce Boyd to impersonate Booth?). Not only that , we have to believe that Stanton was willing to risk all this Machiavellian impersonation by unreliable fruitcakes would never come to light.

If I had been Stanton and was indeed involved in the assassination, I would have made sure Booth was killed as soon as possible ... maybe in a barn by soldiers.

One, you might want to read some of the better books that posit a Radical Republican conspiracy, because your arguments indicate you have not ready many, partly because your arguments contain several strawman arguments that no one has made.

Two, Stanton was in fact cunning, evil, and deceitful to Lincoln and others. Just read Gideon Welles' diary. I provide just a sampling of what Welles said about Stanton and other Radicals in "Gideon Welles and the Radical Republicans." And also read Lloyd Paul Stryker's book Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage. Stryker, as you might know, was one of the most famous attorneys in his day. He defended Alger Hiss.

Three, surely you have read in history that on occasion two enemies will agree to conspire against a common enemy whom they hate/fear worse than each other. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." In such arrangements, each side often makes the other aware of damning information that they have on them and that they will release it if they are double-crossed.

Four, Stanton would have wanted Booth dead?! REALLY?! Humm, then it is extremely odd and baffling that the first several wires that Stanton sent out on the murder, ostensibly to begin the manhunt, said nothing about Booth, even though there is ample evidence that Stanton knew almost immediately that Booth was the shooter.

Five, if Stanton came to an agreement with Booth's side, one logical condition would have been that Booth be allowed to escape, and there is very good evidence that Booth did in fact escape.

Six, who says Boyd agreed to be Booth's substitute? I am not aware of any alternative-conspiracy book that claims that Boyd agreed to impersonate Booth. So there is no need to assume that Boyd was "deluded."

Seven, who were the "unreliable fruitcakes"? Who would they be, in your opinion?

Your suppositions are far more problematic than mine. Mine are more logical and supported by more credible evidence than yours are.

[Steve]

From the account of Pvt. John W. Millington of the 16th New York Cavalry:

We could hear Booth accusing the man who was with him, David E. Harold, of being a coward. Harold was willing to surrender and Booth said, "You're a coward to desert me." Finally, Booth called out and said, "Harold will surrender, but I will not." Our captain said, "Tell Harold to pass out his arms and come out." Booth said, "Harold has no arms. They belong to me." "Our officer told Harold to come to the door. He came and as he opened the door Lieutenant Dougherty grabbed him and pulled him out. With a picket rope he tied him to a locust tree, called me and told me to guard him. I said to Harold, "Who was in the barn with you? Was it Booth?" He said, "Yes, Booth is in the barn."

https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln73.html

[AussieMick]

Hi Mike. I am more than wiling to accept that Stanton was cunning. He was a politician so theres no argument as I am concerned. Was he evil though? By which I mean willing to conspire to murder. Murder a person that he'd worked with on a daily basis and a person that had shown loyalty and friendship? (Enough to be invited to Robert Lincoln's wedding) ? Was Stanton that evil?

Books on Republican conspiracies ? Wow? I would never have imagined ! You mean there are books on that subject? (No ... I wont be adding them to my Xmas book list) ... next you'll be telling me there are books about the Kennedy assassination.


You write "Three, surely you have read in history that on occasion two enemies will agree to conspire against a common enemy whom they hate/fear worse than each other. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." In such arrangements, each side often makes the other aware of damning information that they have on them and that they will release it if they are double-crossed."

Well, yep. That sure helps to prove your case... not. (C'mon, Mike you can do better than that)

You write "Stanton would have wanted Booth dead?! REALLY?! "
I was making the case that IF Stanton were involved then he would have wanted Booth dead ... sorry, I thought that was a reasonable and logical statement. You seem to think that because the wires Stanton (a cunning and evil man according to you) sent out after the murder did not mention Booth ... this shows he didnt want Booth killed. I'd argue this shows Stanton was following the same protocol that police organisations follow right now when seeking a known killer. He'd be well aware that Booth could have changed his appearance and probably would not be using his own name .

you write "Five, if Stanton came to an agreement with Booth's side, one logical condition would have been that Booth be allowed to escape, and there is very good evidence that Booth did in fact escape."

Oh yes! Of course ... I'd forgotten about the camaraderie, loyalty and trust amongst murderers and conspirators.

You write "who says Boyd agreed to be Booth's substitute?"
Well, sorry, I thought that was the scenario that you were putting forward. (Are you saying Boyd just happened to materialise with Herold in the barn? Or Boyd chose to keep him company on his trip thru the countryside? Or was he blackmailed into the conspiracy perhaps? but that would involve 'agreement' of a sort
... Ok, Mike, I give up. You tell me why Boyd or whoever was in the barn with Herold.

You write, "who were the "unreliable fruitcakes"? Who would they be, in your opinion?"
well, let me see ... Booth, Herold, Atzeroldt, Powell. They all spring to mind. Then there's the planners of the kidnap attempt. I'd suggest that there were very few were thinking sanely at that time before Lincoln's death.

[Wesley Harris]

[quote='mikegriffith1' pid='73520' dateline='1540421328']

* The bullet was initially described as a rifle bullet. Read Dr. Arnold's analysis of the damage to the vertebrae and the tell-tale signs that the bullet must have been a high-velocity rifle bullet, and then find me a single forensic case where similar damage was done by a pistol bullet similar to the one Corbett would have used.
/quote]

Bullets can do crazy things. I've seen it too many times in working homicides and other death investigations. Like the man who was shot in the back of the elbow with a tiny .22, the bullet striking bone, tumbling up through his arm to strike his shoulder and then tumbling down to slice his heart nearly in two. Bullets don't follow a straight path and even nicking a bone can substantially change their direction. A bullet can enter at one trajectory, strike bone and go up, down, or all around. Even today with all our technology, in many cases we cannot identify the type of bullet that caused a wound if the projectile is not available. In all the cases I've worked where the projectile was not recovered, I've never had a forensic pathologist claim with a certainty that a specific type of firearm (rifle, revolver, pistol, etc) caused a solitary wound. It would be too risky to make that definitive of a determination.

The muzzle velocity of a 1861 Colt Army revolver is about 500-1000 ft/second, depending on the powder load. The muzzle velocity of a Spencer carbine is about 930-1030 ft/sec. Obviously there is some overlap, so saying one is "high velocity" at 1000fps and the other isn't would be foolhardy. There's simply no way Dr. Arnold could rule out Corbett's revolver as the weapon.

The correct response to a smoke-filled structure is getting the head low where the air is less contaminated. Smoke rises with the heat. Breathable air is down low. You bend over to get low. There's another explanation for your "25% trajectory."

That's all I will say. There's two ways to research. Pursue facts and see where they lead you or establish a preconceived notion and discard everything that doesn't fit it.

[L Verge]

(10-28-2018 04:31 PM)Wesley Harris Wrote:  [quote='mikegriffith1' pid='73520' dateline='1540421328']

* The bullet was initially described as a rifle bullet. Read Dr. Arnold's analysis of the damage to the vertebrae and the tell-tale signs that the bullet must have been a high-velocity rifle bullet, and then find me a single forensic case where similar damage was done by a pistol bullet similar to the one Corbett would have used.
/quote]

Bullets can do crazy things. I've seen it too many times in working homicides and other death investigations. Like the man who was shot in the back of the elbow with a tiny .22, the bullet striking bone, tumbling up through his arm to strike his shoulder and then tumbling down to slice his heart nearly in two. Bullets don't follow a straight path and even nicking a bone can substantially change their direction. A bullet can enter at one trajectory, strike bone and go up, down, or all around. Even today with all our technology, in many cases we cannot identify the type of bullet that caused a wound if the projectile is not available. In all the cases I've worked where the projectile was not recovered, I've never had a forensic pathologist claim with a certainty that a specific type of firearm (rifle, revolver, pistol, etc) caused a solitary wound. It would be too risky to make that definitive of a determination.

The muzzle velocity of a 1861 Colt Army revolver is about 500-1000 ft/second, depending on the powder load. The muzzle velocity of a Spencer carbine is about 930-1030 ft/sec. Obviously there is some overlap, so saying one is "high velocity" at 1000fps and the other isn't would be foolhardy. There's simply no way Dr. Arnold could rule out Corbett's revolver as the weapon.

The correct response to a smoke-filled structure is getting the head low where the air is less contaminated. Smoke rises with the heat. Breathable air is down low. You bend over to get low. There's another explanation for your "25% trajectory."

That's all I will say. There's two ways to research. Pursue facts and see where they lead you or establish a preconceived notion and discard everything that doesn't fit it.

Thank you, Wes, and I hope that everyone takes your last sentence seriously to heart...

[mikegriffith1]

(10-25-2018 01:52 PM)Gene C Wrote:  It "could have been" someone else using Booth's name.
Or "it could have been" Cobb was pressured into saying it was Booth
Or "it could have been" the mysterious rider said "Boothe" and Cobb misunderstood. They do sound similar.
Or "it could have been" Booth was insulted that he wasn't recognized for the star matinee idol that he was, so he gave Cobb his real name to impress him.

As I've said, your theory has just as many suppositions as mine, and they are not as plausible and do not fit the evidence as well as mine.

You are supposing that Booth, running for his life, gave his real name to Cobb, but that for the rest of his flight he used a fake name.

You are supposing that Cobb was telling the truth and was not lying under pressure from higher-ups, as so many others did.

You are supposing that Booth, though he gave a fake name after he encountered Cobb, and though he shaved off his mustache to avoid being recognized from pictures of him, carried with him a slew of incriminating evidence that plainly identified him as the wanted assassin.

You are supposing that Booth, running for his life and trying to hide his identity, showed several people his JWB tattoo during his flight.

You are supposing that it is just a cosmic coincidence that the gas lights got shut off along Booth's escape route in Washington just after he shot Lincoln.

You are supposing that it is just a cosmic coincidence that the Washington commercial telegraph lines got shut down for two hours after the shooting.

You are supposing that it was just an innocent mistake in the heat of the moment that the first dispatches that Stanton sent out on the assassin did not mention his name, even though the evidence is clear that Stanton knew very quickly that Booth was the shooter.

You are assuming that somehow, someway, by a process that has not been seen in any other case in the history of crime and forensics, Booth's body underwent such a drastic transformation in appearance that it looked nothing like him when it was viewed on the Montauk, and that it even grew freckles on the face. Yet, when Conger showed a photo of Booth to some people in Port Conway, including William Rollins, on April 25, they recognized Booth as the man in the photo. So whatever catastrophic, unprecedented transformation that supposedly occurred to Booth's body had not yet happened as of the day before he was supposedly shot and just two days before his body was supposedly examined on the Montauk.

The list of your illogical and unlikely suppositions could fill pages.

Also, someone said in an earlier reply that Everton Conger was just a nice, harmless guy and was no henchman for Lafayette Baker. That's odd, because Jay Robert Nash, on his chapter on Lafayette Baker in his book Spies, says Conger was as bad as Baker:

Quote:Colonel Everton Conger also worked for Baker's intelligence service, and was as conniving and secretive as his superior. (Spies: A Narrative Encyclopedia of Dirty Deeds and Double Dealing from Biblical Times to Today, New York: M. Evans and Company, 1997, p. 69)

[RJNorton]

(10-29-2018 04:11 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  You are supposing that it is just a cosmic coincidence that the gas lights got shut off along Booth's escape route in Washington just after he shot Lincoln.

Mike, I do not think I have read about the gas lights before. Can you cite your source please.

[Gene C]

(10-29-2018 04:11 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-25-2018 01:52 PM)Gene C Wrote:  It "could have been" someone else using Booth's name.
Or "it could have been" Cobb was pressured into saying it was Booth
Or "it could have been" the mysterious rider said "Boothe" and Cobb misunderstood. They do sound similar.
Or "it could have been" Booth was insulted that he wasn't recognized for the star matinee idol that he was, so he gave Cobb his real name to impress him.

As I've said, your theory has just as many suppositions as mine, and they are not as plausible and do not fit the evidence as well as mine.

You are supposing that Booth.....
You are supposing that Cobb .....

You are supposing that Booth.......

You are supposing that Booth, .....

You are supposing that it is just a cosmic coincidence .....
You are supposing that it is just a cosmic coincidence .....

You are supposing that it was just an innocent mistake .....

You are assuming that somehow, someway,.....

The list of your illogical and unlikely suppositions could fill pages.

And you are supposing that I was serious and not being sarcastic.
You supposed wrong - again.