Nothing further from me because I believe your last sentence speaks for itself.

Good for you, Laurie! There is no need to reinforce the foolishness and flights of fancy from a person who does not seem to get it that the symposium is a serious discussion of all things "Lincoln", grounded in thorough research and with an aim to educate--not delude with half-baked ideas. On occasion, this learning process has even introduced new evidence on things related to Lincoln but, again, these are grounded in meticulous research and investigation. A s

---

(09-02-2013 10:46 AM)Joe Di Cola Wrote:  Good for you, Laurie! There is no need to reinforce the foolishness and flights of fancy from a person who does not seem to get it that the symposium is a serious discussion of all things "Lincoln", grounded in thorough research and with an aim to educate--not delude with half-baked ideas. On occasion, this learning process has even introduced new evidence on things related to Lincoln but, again, these are grounded in meticulous research and investigation. A s

Oops, my message transmitted before I had finished...A square peg trying to fit into round holes just detracts from the usually high road of our discussions.

Thank you, Joe. My concern with the Information Age is that so many subjects - not just in the history field - are getting contaminated by inaccurate materials. We have enough problems in getting a clear picture of how our country developed and how it continues to develop without personal concoctions clouding the facts.

(09-02-2013 10:31 AM)Troy Cowan Wrote:  I collect the stories of people living at the time of Lincoln and put them in a timeline. Those stories that fall within the timeline I give more credence to, while those that are outside the timeline I tend to discard. When these stories are put together, I believe you can get an accurate picture of the events that shaped history. I believe in the comments I make, but I will never claim them to be a fact.

I'd just like to know the source of your "stories". It is difficult to put any credibility to unknown sources. Makes people wonder if you are just making it up. If it is an unknown source, that's oK to say. Many time I just can't remember where I read something, but usually someone else remembers reading it too.

Oh shucks! Do you mean to say that I have to prove that Abraham Lincoln wasn't a zombie hunter?

Craig, As long as you can blame your source if the're mistaken, you should be OK.

Joe said, "There is no need to reinforce the foolishness and flights of fancy from a person who does not seem to get it that the symposium is a serious discussion of all things "Lincoln", grounded in thorough research and with an aim to educate--not delude with half-baked ideas."

Joe,
In the search for the truth, all ideas need to be explored. If you feel you know the truth, then people with different ideas are impertinent and a discussion of those different ideas are unnecessary. However, if the truth escaped you and you criticize others, then you are doing a great disservice to everyone. I am asking you for tolerance. You see, I believe you are very wrong. But, I will never try to humiliate or shame you in an attempt to stop you from expressing your ideas.

I suppose you or your neighbor has a dog. Please find a dog and tell me its father's name. If you don't know the dogs father's name, please do the research and tell me.
Unless that dog has a pedigree, no amount of research will tell you the father's name. There is no paper trail to follow. If you are successful in learning the name, it will probably come from the dog's owners oral history.
People born before 1800 have the same problem--no paper trail to follow. We must rely on the families oral history to obtain information. Not to include that information is a crime in my opinion.

Likewise, smart criminals don't leave paper trails to follow. A really smart criminal will create evidence that leads away from him. If Lincoln's assassination was a large conspiracy, then those coconspirators got away with the crime. They didn't leave a paper trail to follow and they probably created false evidence to create confusion. They are all dead and never can be put on trial to prove their guilt or innocence. So, Joe, is it over? I don't think so, there are many people living at the time of Lincoln and Booth that have stories to tell, if we start paying attention to them and stop being so skeptical of them, they will tell us the true story.

Quote:After receiving treatment, Booth traveled to his farm in the Shenandoah Valley. There he lived with his wife, Izola, for a year-and-a-half.

... John Wilkes Booth never married Izola Mills. Someone who is perpetuating the "John Byron Wilkes" myth on Ancestry.com has the alleged marriage paper... even though he was blind enough to NOT see that, written right on the paper, Mr. Hall examined it and found it was a fake.

I even made a thread about this: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...d-353.html

Enjoy!

There is also a Rhode Island version of the Martha Izola Mills story. Two members of the Surratt Society spent years doing historical and genealogical research on Martha and her lineage. The end result is a book that has been out for about twenty-five years, The Elusive Booths of Burrillville. The end result was nothing but frustration for the authors because they came up with nothing to prove the Mills story.

I have met several members of that family (This One Mad Act), however, and they are lovely people. They were very close with James O. Hall, who was helping them prove or dispel the "myth." They were willing to accept whatever the end result might be.

Jenny, I reread your thread in which you wrote about "that nutty will written by Booth imposter John Byron Wilkes". I agree that John Byron Wilkes did not kill Lincoln. I do not know who Izola Mills D'Arcy is. She may have been an imposter also.

The Izola that I refer to was born into the Mills family and never was adopted by or married to a D'Arcy. Although she did have a connection to the D'Arcy's. Izola was raised by the D'Arcy family and Izola's daughter at times used D'Arcy as a stage name.

Eighteen-year-old Izola Mills married Charles Stills Bellows on July 30, 1855. Charles was a seaman and could be gone for over a year at a time. twenty-one-year-old Izola met and fell in love with twenty-year-old John Wilkes Booth. I a fit of passion they were married on January 9, 1859 and had a daughter on October 23, 1859. John Stevenson said he attended their marriage and he is the one that sold his farm in Shenandoah Valley to Booth. It was at that farm that Izola cared for Booth until his leg healed.

Izola was legally married to Bellows, but was married to Booth by passion.

Well, here are my thoughts on the premises of the entire matter:

Quote: I believe in the comments I make, but I will never claim them to be a fact.

Laurie's right - that does sum up everything you have to say and I understand why she won't be bothering to cut in any more on the conversation.

Troy, I have my own information that I do consider fact as I personally find it true. HOWEVER I cannot back this information up as it is not from conventional sources. Now I've always been taught that when it comes to history, proof is the name of the game. So I do not speak of "my" information here because historians need solid proof that is undisputable FACT to EVERYONE on the planet, not just to one person or a few people. I know I can't provide that so I just don't get into those things here. Yeah, I could make comments all day about information I believe to be true personally... but if there isn't solid proof behind it, no one is going to take me seriously. So I don't mention "my" information/facts that can't be proven here at all. It would get me nowhere without solid proof.

Yes, some people have interesting theories like Jerry Madonna... but he tries his hardest to find factual sources that would make his claims reasonable. Sure, not everyone believes him... but at the same time a lot of the things he has come up with cannot be completely dismissed either. No one would believe him if he just said "I know this is fact but I can't back it up."

I've heard the stories about Charles being out at sea when "John Wilkes Booth" impregnated Izola Mills due to Ogarita's birth date not matching up consistently with Charles' location and the apparent conception. Which is interesting. I do not wholly doubt the possibility that JWB could have been Ogarita's father, but I have to say that I can't believe the story that John and Izola Mills married unless there is a legit marriage license out there or other documented proof besides hearsay passed down through family tradition. Can you find it for me? I've never seen physical proof of this, only speculation, and I need physical proof or that's a tough sell. That's just me though.

I think the "Izola Mills D'Arcy" from the Byron Wilkes will is most likely the same person as Martha Izola Mills you refer to as she was the mother of Ogarita, who is named in the Byron Wilkes will as a beneficiary.

As Laurie wrote above as well as in the other thread, Ogarita's daughter, Izola Louise Wallingford aka Izola Forrester wrote "This One Mad Act," and I believe her descendants wrote "The Elusive Booths of Burrillville." There is just no proof that any of it is true. A DNA match would prove it for sure, but I think Wilkes (and Edwin) deserve to rest in peace and wouldn't be an advocate for it; the Forresters have an interesting story, but it's just that at this point: a story. No definitive documents or other proof to show the world that John Wilkes Booth really married Izola Mills, that he was the father of Ogarita, that he escaped. That's why most of us doubt any escape theories. Proof should be able to be found *somewhere* or in some way that would prove these claims as 100% true... but conclusive proof has never been shown for any of this.

Yes, history doesn't record everything... but this was a BIG event in fairly recent times in the scope of how long humans have walked the planet. Things were recorded. People can say "but this happened due to family tradition," but without any solid evidence, historians take those things with a grain of salt. I know of at least five different "Booth escaped" stories that have been written about, including the Forresters', and not a single one has ever produced conclusive proof. In light of the lack of historical proof of some sort (or a DNA test), I myself - as someone who admittedly once believed that Booth *did* escape - am sticking to the official "Booth died in the barn" story and do not believe he was ever married to anyone.

Not saying this to attack you or your beliefs - you can believe what you want and I can't stop you. I'm just saying why *I* can't subscribe to those particular views.

Quote:We must rely on the families oral history to obtain information. Not to include that information is a crime in my opinion.

See, that's another difference between us. I believe oral history just can't always be believed, especially in a case like this. People embellish stories, people forget details, stories change as they are passed down, some people love to *spin* great stories just to be associated with a famous person (even Booth) and the families take those tales to heart, etc. That's why I can't believe it.

To each his own.

PS: I have to ask this. Who do you think died in that barn if not Booth?

Open question: Does anyone know anything of John Wilkes Booth's sister Rosalie A. Booth? Supposedly, she was raising two of John's children. Rosalie and Izola were friends. Izola wrote to her son Charles Bellows Jr., "I think that with Rosalie A. Booth you will find a friend." I don't know where I am going with this, I need more information.

Jenny said, "I've always been taught that when it comes to history, proof is the name of the game." Jenny you have been taught a pack of lies. History is made up by the winners and the winners are not always good people and they always have to justify their actions. Jenny, I wish you would share your stories, I for one would be grateful.

Jenny asked, "Who do you think died in that barn if not Booth?"
James William Boyd
There are many reasons, but I would like to state one. Boyd had JWB tattooed on the knuckles of his left hand. Everyone that identified Booth by his tattoo were really looking at Boyd. John Wilkes Booth had no tattoo's.

(09-04-2013 11:20 PM)Troy Cowan Wrote:  Jenny asked, "Who do you think died in that barn if not Booth?"
James William Boyd
There are many reasons, but I would like to state one. Boyd had JWB tattooed on the knuckles of his left hand. Everyone that identified Booth by his tattoo were really looking at Boyd. John Wilkes Booth had no tattoo's.

Is this the same William Boyd from the Lincoln Conspiracy by David Balsiger & Charles Seller? Or is this a different William Boyd?
William Hanchett discusses him briefly in the Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, page 231-232

Does anyone know when and where William Boyd is first mentioned by Booth Escaped theorist?

Troy, if you haven't read it yet, I would suggest purchasing or borrowing from the library "The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies" by William Hanchett. If you don't believe it, you would at least find it interesting and understand the perspective most of us are coming from.
http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Murder-Con...8&sr=&qid=

Gene, if you follow the link you provided, you will see that nine people wrote a review of that book. I was one. If you read my review, it will answer your question.

Quote:Jenny you have been taught a pack of lies. History is made up by the winners and the winners are not always good people and they always have to justify their actions.

I believe 100% that history IS made up by the winners. The winners aren't always good people and do justify their not-good actions at times. I think the conspiracy trial was a circus, witnesses were manipulated and intimidated, and that Stanton was a bit of a jerk to put it very nicely (don't eat me for that, guys. It's not the point). However I haven't been taught a pack of lies on this subject by any means... and to use your position, I know as a FACT that Booth died in that barn through my undisclosed sources that I will not mention here on principle.

I would tell "my facts", Troy, because most of them DO go right along with the original story... but my source can't be proven as 100% accurate. As I said, history is about research and finding proof for your claims. That's something I won't ever back down on despite my own "facts". There must be an entire world of liars because all the history classes and all the historians I've met ask for research and proof of a claim that's different from the norm.

As I mentioned, I once believed Booth escaped. I honestly did. I have read **a lot** about the most prominent escape stories to try and PROVE them... and in the end, I came to the conclusion that none of the stories were true. They weren't provable. And they had elements too fantastical to be true as I will explain below.

I figured you'd say James William Boyd died, not Booth.

John Wilkes Booth. James William Boyd. Same initials. Both had tattoos on their hands (where's the proof for Boyd? JWB's beloved sister Asia vividly recalls in her memoir that John took India ink and tattooed himself). Boyd falls in with Herold by some strange chance, and they go to the Garrett's together. Boyd acts just like Booth: entertains the kids, eats dinner with the family, mentions the assassination. All by chance.

For some reason he doesn't immediately surrender with David Herold; oh wait, he was a wanted man now? That's well and good but, other than being already being pardoned by Stanton on February 14th of 1865 and free to go home to Tennessee, I am pretty sure Baker called him "Booth" while he was in the barn. Why wouldn't he have said "Jesus Christ, I'm not John Wilkes Booth! Let me out of here!" Because according to the Garrett family, the man killed knew of and asked questions about the assassination. Why would he go down pretending to be Booth KNOWINGLY?

Why would Davey Herold lie to his DEATH for Booth? Oh, because Stanton convinced him that he would go free if he *pretended* that they got the real Booth but threw him on the gallows last minute anyway? He had time before his death to tell the ministers the truth, if that was the case. Why did his ministers never say a word about it? Oh, Stanton bribed them? It can go on and on and on.

The real Booth? Sneaks away with his friend "David Henson" who ironically looks rather like David Herold and has the same initials. Or he flees to a mysterious farm that he allegedly owned with his alleged wife. Or he flees to Japan. Or to England. Or to Texas. Or to India. Or a magical fairy flies in and sprinkles him with pixie dust and he flies to Neverland.

There are so darn MANY of much of these stories with really, really, REALLY coincidental claims... and there has NEVER been one ouch of 100% proof from ANY of them. It gets ridiculous really. Makes for some great stories but I don't believe them to be true.

A good example of a story that has been proven false? The theory that Lewis Paine was a different person than Lewis Powell. There is a lady on this forum who has researched the man who died on the gallows for the attack on Seward for years. She has written a book full of proof and sources that show it was always the same man.

The same goes for many books written on the subject; they are researched in depth and sources are cited. However the Forresters' book, The Illusive Booth of Burrillville? As Laurie said, they did work hard to prove their claims and were friends with an expert researcher who wanted to help them prove or disprove whether they were related to Booth... but in the end they had to accept that there was no evidence despite all of the family history and documentations they searched through. It stinks because they would like to know the truth but it's likely they never will, and because there was no solid proof? They know they will never be able to tell people that they were related *as a fact.* I respect that and I wish I could help them find solid proof otherwise... but there just is no information out there to prove it that has been found at this point.

Anyway, that's my stance, Troy. Feel free to disagree with me but I think that's my last comment on the matter.