(07-29-2016 04:49 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I never recall reading anything about Stewart being a "shady lawyer." This forum is the first time I have seen it mentioned. Who was the source for this assessment of the man's character? Sounds suspiciously like something Richards would have said, but I can't find it in his correspondence.

Laurie:

This is from Richards's letter to Weichmann of June 10, 1898:

Probably you did not know Stewart. I did. His career as a lawyer
had been somewhat shady.

John

---

(07-29-2016 05:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Richards did call Stewart "shady" in his letter of June 8, 1898, to Weichmann and claims that before the war, he arrested Stewart in connection with some railroad bonds but "no serious charge" was ever brought against him. Stewart's difficulties with the bonds, however, appears to have arisen long after the war, according to his obit here (see bottom of first column).



http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

(It's the August 8, 1882, Washington Evening Star. Not sure why it's not linking.)

Stewart appears to have been a rather colorful character.

But what portions of his testimony are "replete with indications of intentional falsehood"?

Susan: I quote from Decapitating the Union:

Stewart lied. There does not appear to be any way around it. ...there can be no other conclusion. The unalterable fact is that his testimony is contrary to the testimony of at least seven other witnesses--Ritterspaugh, Richards, Ferguson, Debonay, Smith, Anderson and Burroughs, with an assist from Hawk. Further, if we disregard Stewart's testimony, the testimony of the others is easily reconcilable...Are there clues in Stewart's accounts that suggest fabrication? It appears so. He does not mention Hawk, though we know he engaged Hawk on stage. He does not mention Richards either, though we have Richards telling us he was with him at the critical moments. Nor does he mention Ritterspaugh, though Ritterspaugh preceded him out the door and even left the door open for him, which is consistent with Richards's account. In Stewart's accounts, he is a one-man show, which betrays self-service and which is contrary to all other evidence. Further, while all the other accounts are relatively brief, direct and matter-of-fact, Stewart's is a veritable symphony of detail , demonstrating one of the most extraordinary recalls ever to grace the pages of history or a complete hoax whose very detail exposes it as such...Stewart's story about how he did a pas de trois with Booth and his bay mare, coming within inches of stopping Booth and his transportation, is fanciful, to put it mildly, or a tissue of lies, to put it more emphatically. (Anderson was unambiguous: Booth tore through the door, touched the horse and was off like a shot. No delay, no pas de trois and no Stewart.)

John

My brain is getting fuzzy here from so much discussion, but didn't Stewart's elaborate explanation of what went on come almost immediately after the assassination; whereas, Richards's came decades later?

I also remember Mike Kauffman referencing Harry Hawk saying something about running off the stage and hiding when he saw Booth coming at him with a knife - something about Hawk had been romancing one of Booth's ladies?? If he wasn't there during the Stewart-Richards race, how could his statements mean anything?

I also remember Mike (serving as our narrator on the Surratt bus tours over the escape route) talking about Booth having to get his horse under control because it was somewhat spooked by the assassin's quick mounting. Mike said that Booth had his left leg in the stirrup trying to control the horse. He didn't go "off like a shot. No delay..." I can't remember if this is included in American Brutus, but it was a major point for Mike's theory that the leg was not broken in the jump to the stage because he was bearing all his weight on his left leg as he tried to control the horse.

Being a one-man show does not mean self-service if one is the only person around doing anything for heaven's sake, John. Your opening two sentences above reflect one of the most frequent comments that people have made to me about your book and your legalese style. You make flat statements and expect everyone to agree. "...there can be no other conclusions." Yes, there can be throughout the entire assassination story. That's what has kept it fresh and interesting.

---

(07-29-2016 05:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Richards did call Stewart "shady" in his letter of June 8, 1898, to Weichmann and claims that before the war, he arrested Stewart in connection with some railroad bonds but "no serious charge" was ever brought against him. Stewart's difficulties with the bonds, however, appears to have arisen long after the war, according to his obit here (see bottom of first column).



http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

(It's the August 8, 1882, Washington Evening Star. Not sure why it's not linking.)

Stewart appears to have been a rather colorful character.

But what portions of his testimony are "replete with indications of intentional falsehood"?

I can't understand how A.C. Richards arrested Stewart "before the war" for railroad bond improprieties. The Metropolitan Police Department was not created until August 6, 1861. Before its creation, Richards was a teacher and then a local politician in his ward. He did not become the Superintendent until 1864, and apparently got the appointment because Lincoln recognized him as being a volunteer escort on Inauguration Day in 1861. Talk about political patronage...

I have also been spending time trying to find something that I remembered about Richards claiming that he took up headquarters at Petersen's - in the back parlor - and began interviewing witnesses. He was the one who ordered Booth's arrest. I guess he's shoving Stanton and the War Department aside also? Interestingly, police headquarters was a half-block down the street from Petersen's. Why not set up shop at his own desk. But wait, there is another Richards's version somewhere that says he was at headquarters.

The citation for this is a 2009 article from something called The Spectrum, which appears to have been an outgrowth of USA Today. Unfortunately, the link no longer exists.

(07-29-2016 08:25 PM)L Verge Wrote:  My brain is getting fuzzy here from so much discussion, but didn't Stewart's elaborate explanation of what went on come almost immediately after the assassination; whereas, Richards's came decades later?

Stewart gave his statement on April 15, 1865. Richards gave his in 1885.

(07-29-2016 08:25 PM)L Verge Wrote:  My brain is getting fuzzy here from so much discussion, but didn't Stewart's elaborate explanation of what went on come almost immediately after the assassination; whereas, Richards's came decades later?

I also remember Mike Kauffman referencing Harry Hawk saying something about running off the stage and hiding when he saw Booth coming at him with a knife - something about Hawk had been romancing one of Booth's ladies?? If he wasn't there during the Stewart-Richards race, how could his statements mean anything?

I also remember Mike (serving as our narrator on the Surratt bus tours over the escape route) talking about Booth having to get his horse under control because it was somewhat spooked by the assassin's quick mounting. Mike said that Booth had his left leg in the stirrup trying to control the horse. He didn't go "off like a shot. No delay..." I can't remember if this is included in American Brutus, but it was a major point for Mike's theory that the leg was not broken in the jump to the stage because he was bearing all his weight on his left leg as he tried to control the horse.

Being a one-man show does not mean self-service if one is the only person around doing anything for heaven's sake, John. Your opening two sentences above reflect one of the most frequent comments that people have made to me about your book and your legalese style. You make flat statements and expect everyone to agree. "...there can be no other conclusions." Yes, there can be throughout the entire assassination story. That's what has kept it fresh and interesting.

---

(07-29-2016 05:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Richards did call Stewart "shady" in his letter of June 8, 1898, to Weichmann and claims that before the war, he arrested Stewart in connection with some railroad bonds but "no serious charge" was ever brought against him. Stewart's difficulties with the bonds, however, appears to have arisen long after the war, according to his obit here (see bottom of first column).



http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/s...nge&page=1

(It's the August 8, 1882, Washington Evening Star. Not sure why it's not linking.)

Stewart appears to have been a rather colorful character.

But what portions of his testimony are "replete with indications of intentional falsehood"?

I can't understand how A.C. Richards arrested Stewart "before the war" for railroad bond improprieties. The Metropolitan Police Department was not created until August 6, 1861. Before its creation, Richards was a teacher and then a local politician in his ward. He did not become the Superintendent until 1864, and apparently got the appointment because Lincoln recognized him as being a volunteer escort on Inauguration Day in 1861. Talk about political patronage...

I have also been spending time trying to find something that I remembered about Richards claiming that he took up headquarters at Petersen's - in the back parlor - and began interviewing witnesses. He was the one who ordered Booth's arrest. I guess he's shoving Stanton and the War Department aside also? Interestingly, police headquarters was a half-block down the street from Petersen's. Why not set up shop at his own desk. But wait, there is another Richards's version somewhere that says he was at headquarters.

The citation for this is a 2009 article from something called The Spectrum, which appears to have been an outgrowth of USA Today. Unfortunately, the link no longer exists.

In one or two instances Richards witnessed the testimony given by one or more individuals who had evidence, a spur, I remember, before Judge Olin on April 15, 1865. I don't recall the location, but I assumed it was in the Peterson house. If you search for Richards and/or Olin in the index of The Evidence you will find it.

(07-29-2016 12:33 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Incidentally, if inconsistencies and errors always condemned an historical account, we should have to throw out all the evidence of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, because the Gospels are full of them.

John

John, I will politely and strongly disagree with you.
Since this forum is not the place for a discussion of this type, perhaps you can private message me and we can discuss this misunderstanding of the scriptures.

Apologies--I was on my way out the door and mis-paraphrased Richards. In his letter of June 10, 1898, he wrote, "Months before the scenes [Stewart] describes are said to have been participated in by him I had caused his arrest in connection with a large amount of R.R. bonds. . . However, no serious charge in connection with said bonds was sustained. The transaction was somewhat shady that is all as I remember it." So he didn't claim to have arrested Stewart before the war, but during it.

Laurie:

"Being a one-man show does not mean self-service if one is the only person around doing anything". That's the whole point: He WASN'T the only person around doing anything. There were at least eight others around who left accounts of what happened on or about the stage, in the passageway, at the back door and in the alley, after the shooting, and they ALL disagree with Stewart's account. More later.

I frankly don't care about comments that people have made to you about my book and my style, UNLESS AND UNTIL they support their criticism with facts, sources and reasoning. I have already had a taste of criticism of my book and my PowerPoint presentations, which criticism is, to me, not only acceptable, but heartily welcomed. Unfortunately, in some cases, when I ask for facts, sources and reasoning to support the same, I receive nothing but silence, thereby revealing the critic to be an infant, an amateur or a coward, or all three. Therefore, please do me the favor of telling those who have criticized my work to you to share their objections with me, but to please support the same with facts, sources and reasoning so that I can craft an intelligent response.

As to the issue:

Ritterspaugh said "...I opened the door (the rear door) and the man (Booth) had just got on his horse and was running down the alley...A tall stout man (Stewart) went out after me".

Richards said: "The gyrations Stewart describes as having participated in could not have taken place as there was no horse and rider than there and in sight".

James P. Ferguson said: "I saw the gentleman who first got upon the stage after Booth got off (Stewart)...I suppose it was probably two or three minutes --about that long--after Booth went off the stage that this man went out of the entrance."

Debonay said: "I think he (Booth) had time to get out of the back door before any person was on the stage".

Smith said: "...my impression is that Booth was off the stage before Mr. Stewart got on it".

Anderson said: "He (Booth) came out of the theater so quick that it seemed as if he but touched the horse, and it was gone like a flash of lightning".

Burroughs said: "Booth came out...He struck me...and knocked me down. He did this as he was mounting his horse...and rode off immediately". He also said, to Richards, that Booth just galloped away after having some difficulty in mounting.

Hawk said: " Colonel Seward (sic)...jumped to the stage and grabbed me. 'Where is that man,' he demanded. 'What man,' I asked. 'The man that shot the President!' 'My God' was all I could exclaim".

In none of the foregoing accounts is anything said about Stewart doing a pas de trois with Booth and his bay mare in the alley, yet Stewart claims he did. Stewart lied. Either he lied or the other seven witnesses, with an assist from Hawk, lied. Which is the more reasonable conclusion? Therefore, it was this, and only this, that I said was conclusive. I did not say, nor do I believe, that everything about the assassination is conclusive. Only a fool would say something that stupid.

John

---

(07-30-2016 07:40 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 12:33 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Incidentally, if inconsistencies and errors always condemned an historical account, we should have to throw out all the evidence of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, because the Gospels are full of them.

John

John, I will politely and strongly disagree with you.
Since this forum is not the place for a discussion of this type, perhaps you can private message me and we can discuss this misunderstanding of the scriptures.

Gene:

Please send me your email address so that I can address the inquiry you left with the Ohio Humanities Council. Mine is: jcf@neohio.twcbc.com

John

John,

Thanks.

Gene

"Therefore, please do me the favor of telling those who have criticized my work to you to share their objections with me, but to please support the same with facts, sources and reasoning so that I can craft an intelligent response."

I have asked your critics to take the matter up with you. One did at the conference in April, and you saw what happened... I often grow weary of being caught in the middle when it comes to a variety of disagreements between researchers, authors, etc. Your work is not the only one I have been called upon to either defend or attack.

(07-30-2016 06:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  ... I often grow weary of being caught in the middle when it comes to a variety of disagreements between researchers, authors, etc.

This reminds me of a song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WROJl6QtNMk

This attempt to decide "exactly what happened at Ford's Theater" on April 14th, is going nowhere. If I drop back 5 or 10 years and wrote down all we knew about April 14th - you would not recognize it, as the tragic moment, when compared to all that we are posting now -- and quibbling about it.
Today we are relying on "carefully modified quotes", "laundered reports", "self idolizing" writings, by negligent officials, who scrambled to protect their own "backside".

What happened to the story abut the humorous "sockdologizing" lines that produced an uproar of laughing and applauding, by the audience, that was scheduled to mask the pistol report? Richards says the stage was empty and all was quiet in the theater when he heard a dull thud - the shot, and Booth shinnied down the flag pole.
Huh! Wat? You don't say?

Richards was a good school teacher, not an experienced Police Chief- He blew it, his people also blew it. Everyone LIED to cover each other. As time went bye - the lies, lied about the lies. My name is Stanton, I know exactly what happened - I planned it!

---

(07-30-2016 11:12 PM)SSlater Wrote:  This attempt to decide "exactly what happened at Ford's Theater" on April 14th, is going nowhere. If I drop back 5 or 10 years and wrote down all we knew about April 14th - you would not recognize it, as the tragic moment, when compared to all that we are posting now -- and quibbling about it.
Today we are relying on "carefully modified quotes", "laundered reports", "self idolizing" writings, by negligent officials, who scrambled to protect their own "backside".

What happened to the story abut the humorous "sockdologizing" lines that produced an uproar of laughing and applauding, by the audience, that was scheduled to mask the pistol report? Richards says the stage was empty and all was quiet in the theater when he heard a dull thud - the shot, and Booth shinnied down the flag pole.
Huh! Wat? You don't say?

Richards was a good school teacher, not an experienced Police Chief- He blew it, his people also blew it. Everyone LIED to cover each other. As time went bye - the lies, lied about the lies. My name is Stanton, I know exactly what happened - I planned it!

That's a lie!

"This attempt to decide "exactly what happened at Ford's Theater" on April 14th, is going nowhere. If I drop back 5 or 10 years and wrote down all we knew about April 14th - you would not recognize it, as the tragic moment, when compared to all that we are posting now -- and quibbling about it.
Today we are relying on "carefully modified quotes", "laundered reports", "self idolizing" writings, by negligent officials, who scrambled to protect their own "backside".

"What happened to the story abut the humorous "sockdologizing" lines that produced an uproar of laughing and applauding, by the audience, that was scheduled to mask the pistol report? Richards says the stage was empty and all was quiet in the theater when he heard a dull thud - the shot, and Booth shinnied down the flag pole.
Huh! Wat? You don't say?

"Richards was a good school teacher, not an experienced Police Chief- He blew it, his people also blew it. Everyone LIED to cover each other. As time went bye - the lies, lied about the lies. My name is Stanton, I know exactly what happened - I planned it!"

GREAT RETORT, JOHN, THANK YOU!

Amen, Sarah Slater!

(07-31-2016 11:41 AM)L Verge Wrote:  "This attempt to decide "exactly what happened at Ford's Theater" on April 14th, is going nowhere. If I drop back 5 or 10 years and wrote down all we knew about April 14th - you would not recognize it, as the tragic moment, when compared to all that we are posting now -- and quibbling about it.
Today we are relying on "carefully modified quotes", "laundered reports", "self idolizing" writings, by negligent officials, who scrambled to protect their own "backside".

"What happened to the story abut the humorous "sockdologizing" lines that produced an uproar of laughing and applauding, by the audience, that was scheduled to mask the pistol report? Richards says the stage was empty and all was quiet in the theater when he heard a dull thud - the shot, and Booth shinnied down the flag pole.
Huh! Wat? You don't say?

"Richards was a good school teacher, not an experienced Police Chief- He blew it, his people also blew it. Everyone LIED to cover each other. As time went bye - the lies, lied about the lies. My name is Stanton, I know exactly what happened - I planned it!"

GREAT RETORT, JOHN, THANK YOU!

Laurie:

Thank you.

Please do not burden yourself by being a middleman (middlewoman?). Just politely inform the critics that I would love to hear from them, but that I will naturally expect their points to be supported by facts, sources and reason. I'm still waiting for Dave Taylor's, which I asked for when it came to my attention that he found fault with my April presentation. Inasmuch as this is almost August, I have to assume he is quite busy.

John

John

(07-31-2016 02:37 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Laurie:

Thank you.

Please do not burden yourself by being a middleman (middlewoman?). Just politely inform the critics that I would love to hear from them, but that I will naturally expect their points to be supported by facts, sources and reason. I'm still waiting for Dave Taylor's, which I asked for when it came to my attention that he found fault with my April presentation. Inasmuch as this is almost August, I have to assume he is quite busy.

John

It’s true I have been quite busy, John, but I usually find time to read the posts here even if I can’t take the time to respond.

I would like to take the chance to apologize to you for harsh manner in which I tweeted about your presentation during the last Surratt conference. While I do admit that those are my feelings and that your style of history is one that I have a strong aversion to, I perhaps could have been more gentlemanly and diplomatic in expressing my views. I’m sorry for tweeting so “off the cuff”. Perhaps I was channeling the current Republican presidential nominee.

None of my criticisms are directed at you personally, John, merely your way of interpreting history. You are an amiable man and I have enjoyed our talks. I also hope your book is a success even though I disagree with much that is written in it.

In reference to your request for me to express my specific criticisms here, I’m afraid for such a task I do not have the time. I have done so about specific points of contention in the past, like here for example. My major criticism of your work, John, is the sources in which you put your blind faith into. You put use so many unreliable sources from decades after the events and parade them as equal and superior to contemporaneous sources. Your embrace of A.C. Richards’ error laden exaggerations of his exploits exemplifies this greatly. But I will not debate you, John. I have learned very quickly that debating with you is not worth the effort. You are, like a dear friend of mine, a wonderful debater, John. As I have said in the past, I have no doubt that you were a very talented lawyer. However, I would say of you (as you might say of me from your perspective), that you are too convinced of your own theories and beliefs that you will never change your view in spite of more reliable contrary evidence. To actively debate you in the manner you would desire would be a Herculean task that would take the end of time. My dear friend, the master debater, is one of those individuals who will continue to debate even long after his own point is proven incorrect or unsound, until the other participant ceases debate due to frustrated exhaustion. In this way my friend perceives that he has not only won the debate, but must also, therefore, be correct. I see a lot of my friend in you, John. If you want to call my lack of argument a symptom of cowardice or even interpret it as evidence that my view is unsupported by facts, that’s your prerogative. But I, and many others, will know that the desire not to debate you is not because my evidence is unconvincing, but because I know it will never convince you and therefore you would never end the debate.

John, I respect the work that you put into your research, I always have. But we will forever differ in our approach to history and the way in which we express our interpretations to others. You are comfortable writing phrases like, “Therefore, it was this, and only this” and believing it when it comes to history. I will never be able to write that about history, John. I may be comfortable in my supported beliefs, even so much to state them without including room for clarification or explanation, but I know that there will never be anything in this world that I will know for 100% certainty. Even if I was alive back in 1865 and witnessed some of these events, I could not claim anything for 100% certainty because I know that I am a human being and that human beings are imperfect.

Though I may disagree with your style of historical interpretation, John, and you with mine, I still wish you the best and do not want there to be any animosity between us. Again, I’m sorry for the tone of my tweets during your presentation last year and ask for your forgiveness.

Sincerely,

Dave Taylor