(03-24-2015, 12:47 AM)Thomas Thorne Wrote: I just read it having bought it at the conference. Not being an MD,I can't offer an informed opinion on it. The genre of medical speculation without modern diagnostic tools about persons long dead suffers from excessive certitude.

I'm sure another MD is even now writing a confident reply which repudiates the conclusions of this book and it will share the same defects.
Tom

---

Dar Tom
you are right to be sceptical. But note that in the acknowledgements I consulted a lot of
MDs who are expert about the medically related material. Having been in a medical dept for the past 30 yrs. I am well aware that differences of opinion can occur, but that's true of any discipline. There can be disagreement, but if the argument is backed up with evidence, then it's interpretation, and isn't that what virtually everything about the assassination boils down to. Besides, only a small part of the book is about medically-related issues. The book also deals with psychological, sociological, crimnalistics (forensics, ballistics), and related aspects. I look forward to your comments about those other parts of the book.

I own it but sure haven't had time to read it! Tom: any thing you can share about the author's conclusions?

(03-25-2015, 09:29 AM)LincolnMan Wrote: I own it but sure haven't had time to read it! Tom: any thing you can share about the author's conclusions?

Dear Bill

As I just lent the book to a friend, I'm going to have to wing it a bit. The idea that Booth had VD suffers from the obvious problem of our lack of lab findings to confirm it. The author's argument that VD caused personality problems which induced JWB's homicidal behavior has its own difficulties. Even if he had VD, how can we prove it caused Booth to behave the way he did? This is a wonderful example of the adage that correlation should not be confused with causality.

Dr Abel says a characteristic of VD is memory problems and cites an example of Booth asking what year it was. But all us I am sure have engaged in rhetorical questions such as this to other people. Nothing I have read indicates Booth had significant cognitive problems .

John Barrymore was an Edwin Booth type genius whose drinking destroyed his ability to form new memories. He was such a great actor that many people did not know he had to use cue cards when saying his dialogue in his later work. He had obvious cognitive issues.

The Civil War era was populated by legions of men whose violent activities were applauded or detested depending on the political point of view of the observer. I have never seen social disease considered to be a factor in the violence which led to the war or the battles these men fought. Some of them must have VD but so what?
Tom

Thanks Tom!
I am sitting here just glancing at topics in the book. I came across a paragraph that mentions what I would file under "unintended consequences." The author notes that if Mary Lincoln had not "humiliated Julia Grant, Grant's military escort would undoubtedly have prevented Booth from entering the vestibule." This entry is from page 59. The conclusion being, of course, that Lincoln would not have been shot that evening. That may be true. There were many circumstances that could have taken place that didn't that might have changed the course of that night. Personally, I don't want to lay that at Mary's feet- she had enough to contend with. I am not saying the author meant any ill-will either- but I can't speak for him. He also mentions that Charles Forbes never admitted to being the man sitting outside the box. That makes sense to me. Why would he intentionally admit to that/ given that history might blame him for not "protecting" Lincoln- simply because he was there- even though it wasn't his job.

(03-27-2015, 11:17 AM)LincolnMan Wrote: The author notes that if Mary Lincoln had not "humiliated Julia Grant, Grant's military escort would undoubtedly have prevented Booth from entering the vestibule." This entry is from page 59. The conclusion being, of course, that Lincoln would not have been shot that evening.

That is a pretty large conclusion to draw considering the evidence and variables.

Booth initially believed that Grant would be in attendance at the theater that night. He was a resourceful man and would have surely taken the possibility of a military escort into consideration and planned for it. Heck, he may even have thought he could waltz right by any escort because he was the famous actor John Wilkes Booth. And who knows, maybe he could have. As he said, his face was his passport.

I also don't think that if Grant had attended, him having a military escort is a foregone conclusion. If I recall (and I think it was addressed previously on this forum), Grant had on at least one prior occasion attended the theater, and on that night he had no military escort.

I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable assigning blame for Lincoln's death on Mary whether her actions lead to Grant declining the invitation to attend or not. The blame falls squarely on Booth.

I will read this book at sometime in the future and hopefully will have more context by which to properly evaluate the conclusions that are drawn.

I agrer. I don't think that even a military escort would have stopped Booth. He may not have escaped afterward, perhaps. Lincoln had been given a message while in the box. Like you said, Booth was a walking passport because of who he was.

Ed Steers thoroughly took apart the idea that Grant would have had a full military escort with him at the theater that night in his classic "Blood On The Moon". He noted that Gen. Grant had attended the theater with AL on previous occasions and as recently as March 1865 without any military guards.

If the author takes that stance, he might as well blame Robert Todd Lincoln and the myriad of others who turned down the president's invitation to Ford's that night...they might have stopped Booth.

Grant might have prevented the tragedy, or he would have been injured or killed himself. There is no way to know.

I enjoyed Dr. E. Lawrence Abel's article in the current Surratt Courier. Dr. Abel is Ernesto on this forum, and his Courier article is entitled "The Shot That Killed Lincoln." The article is especially interesting for anyone who has developed a firm opinion on the distance between Booth and Lincoln when the fatal shot was fired.

(Gene put a link to Dr. Abel's book, A Finger in Lincoln's Brain: What Modern Science Reveals about Lincoln, His Assassination, and Its Aftermath, earlier in this thread.)