(10-21-2012 09:31 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  Taking a look at my map I just noticed that the Surratt boarding house was only 5 blocks from Fords Theater. Would Booth stop that close to the scene of the crime?

After sleeping on it I can now answer my own question - Yes.
Bank robbers in our own time frequently stop blocks away from the scene to change cars. So unless pursuit was on his heels it was logical to stop at the house to get final information from Mary.

Good point about the boots, Rick, but even if they are that soft, if there were pockets in the part near the calf, wouldn't the guns actually tighten things up and hold them securely in the boot? A soft hat could easily be folded and stuffed in them also. I agree Booth didn't plan for failure, but it could be on a long ride into the rural areas it was easy to lose a hat. Look how long the Navy Yard Bridge was. If the wind was blowing and his hat went in the water, it's gone. This may have been a practice of his from earlier experiences in the woods. The guns stuffed in the boots also makes the horse roll/broken leg story more probable. Rolling on a gun would make the break an almost certainty. And all this bad luck he had leads to the final conclusion only you, Richter and I believe - he pulled one of those pistols from his boot in Garrett's barn and shot himself!

This is a fascinating discussion! From my research perspective, I believe that Booth went to Surratt's boarding house 3 times the day of the assassination. The first time was around noon to ask Mary to go to Surrattsville. The second is when he returned to give her the field glasses around 2-ish before she and Weichmann left. The third time was between 8:30 and nine when Mary answered the door herself and talked with an unknown person. If I recall correctly, Anna said something to the effect that Booth had been there that evening. Smoot arrived after Mary (with her big bonnet) and Eliza Holohan were returning to the boarding house after an aborted attempt to walk to church for Good Friday services. That was about 9-9:30 ish. Testimony by Weichmann reveals that he rest of the evening was spent in the parlor, with everyone retiring between 10:30 and 11:00 pm when Mary's agitation and impatience drove everyone to bed. No mention of another visitor. However, that doesn't preclude Booth coming - could the pistols have been stashed outside?
It seems improbable that Booth would have had those guns on his person when he killed the president. He had to have picked them up somewhere enroute - Surratt boarding house, T.B., Surratt Tavern, Mudds, etc. You would think, though, that Booth would want to be armed as quickly as possible after he assassinated Lincoln. Herold seems to be the likely source, but when and where would the transfer have taken place?
As for Susan Jackson and her testimony about the men, I always assumed that she was talking about the detectives who came to the boarding house with Weichmann the day after the murder. It was this confusion that sent the detectives back to the Surratt boarding house for another search. I have always felt that because of Susan's misidentification of those men (she knew Weichmann) and the timing of their arrival at the house combined with what she heard them talking about, was another bit of misfortune for Mary. That second search was her downfall because Powell arrived in the nick of time.
In support of the idea that Booth *may* have left guns at Mary's house to pick up that evening, I can't help but think about the bullet moulds and percussion caps that were found in her dresser. What would she have need for those?

Jim - I meant only three heirs of Eli Huntt are left: myself, my daughter, and my grandson.

Joe,

Most of this comes under the heading "We will probably never know."

You make some very good points. Regardless of the gun in the boot or not, most breaks of the lower leg which take place when a horse comes down on you are a result of the tortion caused by the stirrup and the weight of the animal. Certainly another object would just compound the injury.

You are right; it seems that you, Bill & I are the only proponents of JWB using on of those Colt's handguns to send himself into eternity.

Rick

If Booth wore the more proper top hat to the theater (as was customary), could he have planned ahead and taken the slouch hat somehow because it would have been less conspicuous to the guards at the bridge and also much easier and safer to wear while riding hard and also avoiding tree branches? No one has answered my previous question as to whether or not a hat could be hidden under his waistband at the small of his back...

Weichmann testified that Mary Surratt did something strange that night by shooing the ladies of the house upstairs about 10 pm and then turning off the lights. Would this have significance? A signal to Booth? A way of obscuring his entry? Would Booth have dismounted and climbed that rather long flight of stairs to the door? Wouldn't wimpy Weichmann have reported something like this?

I'm sorry. I can accept Booth making three visits to the boardinghouse that night - the third being a pre-theater visit around 9 or 9:30. I still can't wrap my head around a post-assassination visit, especially just to retrieve a hat. I also think that it would have been easier to retrieve weapons farther out of the city -- Surrattsville, T.B., or Mudd's would be the logical places to me.

But, as Bill is prone to say about just being a dumb cowboy, "What do I know, I'm just a dumb ex-teacher/museum madam." Sorry, Bill, I just had to mimic you...

You people miss the point if you think JWB went only for the hat. It is the pistols that are of primary importance, the hat is secondary. As for a theater hat, Booth was dressed for riding, not the theater, look at those hip boots, e.g.

I don't see why it's such a stretch to think that Booth had both pistols with him at the theater. They really aren't that cumbersome. I have a hard time with the fact that he planned this to the letter and walked into a theater with armed soldiers in attendance and brought only a one shot pistol that he discarded. It makes no sense to me that he had to stop somewhere and pick them up. The Spencer carbine - that makes perfect sense. But it really wouldn't have been a burden to carry both pistols on his person.

Ok, then why did Booth need a derringer? And why knife Rathbone? JWB ought to have shot Lincoln and Rathbone on the spot?

William:

Please get better; we need you.

Booth to the boarding-house after the assassination? Almost certainly not. He was in much too much of a hurry to get out of the city to take the time and risk to stop there. Furthermore, he had no reason to. He had already stopped shortly before he went to the theater, about 9:00, to confirm the results of Mrs. Surratt's trip to Surrattsville. In his book, Weichmann said expressly that though he could not be certain of the identity of the 9:00 visitor when he came and then left quickly (because he was upstairs and could only hear footsteps), he later found out that it had indeed been Booth, thereby confirming his supposition.

Where did he obtain the pistols? Possibilities are infinite and certainty unobtainable, so we must be satisfied with probabilities because that is usually all we have. In my opinion, Booth planned for the possibility of failure, because he had to. He told Mathews that he was to deliver the letter to the National Intelligencer only after 10:30 if he, Booth, did not previously reclaim it. He would have reclaimed it, obviously, if he had not been successful the previous evening. Furthermore, he came within an inch of failing when Rathbone had a hold of his outer garment. Rathbone might have held on, thereby spoiling everything for the actor. Eckart or Lamon almost certainly would have hung on, and Booth had no idea who would acompany the President. Consider, further, as far as things going wrong, that everything that could have gone wrong with the other conspirators DID go wrong, even to the mis-firing of Powell's revolver, probably a 1 in 100 possibility. So, because things could have gone wrong and Booth knew it, it strikes me as possible, maybe probable, that he had a revolver, possibily two, on his person to meet any eventuality. Perhaps in his boots; more likely in his belt, nicely concealed by his coat. He could afford to (and did) discard the deringer, which is why he used it, but he would need his pistol or pistols, so he would not use them unless he had to. More likely, however, he had the pistols in a saddlebag, together with his extra hat (per Kauffman). Maybe the bay mare came with a bag, maybe it didn't, but even if it didn't, one could easily have been obtained from the stable he had behind the theater. But the most likely source of the guns, and one which no one has yet mentioned, surprisingly, is that Herold brought them to him when they met at the foot of Soper's Hill. Or perhaps Booth already had one and Herold brought a second one. Of the three possibilities mentioned, I believe this one to be the most likely.

No one in the Mudd household would have given the two fugitives guns.

We need to be careful about fanciful theories that do not comport with evidence, reason (common sense) and our understanding of human nature. Such are the theories of Eisenschiml, Shelton, Balsinger and Neff, et al. We need to be wary, too, of potboilers and bush-league scholarship, such as the assassination "history" that was published last year for public consumption, but which is so error-ridden that it represents a step backward in our quest for truth. The notion that Booth stopped at the boarding-house after the assassination, that Herold was there too and that he held Booth's flighty horse, is in this category. Why not have them all taking shelter in the basement playing cards while their pursuers thundered off on a wild goose chase?

Personal to Jerry Madonna: Please let me know what you have on Stringfellow making his escape from the boarding house a few weeks before the assassination. I have a special interest in Stringfellow.

Thanks to all of you for the benefit of your views and insights.

John

Bill - again, all this is speculation, but Booth didn't need a revolver as his primary target was Lincoln. I don't think he wanted to kill anyone else in the box. I believe the Deringer was the one tool needed for that particular job and Rathbone was not targeted for death. He just needed to be dealt with enough to make good his escape, which as John pointed out, came close to being foiled. The pistols could have easily been concealed on his person. They're just not that big to make that impossible or improbable.

Would JWB have worn his hat inside Ford's Theater?

Dear Mr Fazio

As a potboiler full of bush-league scholarship and fanciful theories that fail to comport with evidence, reason (common sense) and YOUR understanding of human nature, placing me on a level with Bill O'Reilly, Otto Eisenschiml, Vaughn Shelton, David Balsiger (you omitted Charles Sellier) and Ray Neff, et al., I am humbly and duly chastised by your superior theories of where Booth got his saddlebags (if he indeed had them) and your three hair-brained possibilities of where Booth got is pistols that place you in a category of higher intelligence than I. But I am just an old cowboy from the Arizona desert who has spent the last 30 years getting the ***** beat out of me by horses and mules, so what do I know? After all, those 4 college degrees in history and political science and constitutional law I finagled from state universities could not have been worth the paper they were printed on. Thank you for setting me straight on my scholarly inadequacies. What was your last article or book that out-did Bill O'Reilly et al. in sales? I did not catch their names.

Apologetically yours,

William (they don't call me Wild Bill for nuttin', partner)

Hi everyone: Barry Cauchon here. Wow. Fantastic conversation. One of my favorite words to use in my research is the word 'PLAUSIBLE'. In the absence of truth, a plausible theory can help us all to look in new and potentially, never before considered directions. There have been some very plausible possibilities put forth in this string and, being that I am not an expert on this particular subject, I am soaking them in for my own personal consideration. But I too am a believer in what John Fazio stated about having to be careful when mixing fact with plausible theories. As researchers, more damage can be done to the 'uninformed public perception' if our theories are presented accidently or otherwise as fact. John, I'm glad you mentioned this.
But I believe as long as the research community and serious students of the Lincoln assassination present plausible theories and opinions in the absence of hard truth, we stand a much greater chance of actually finding that truth. No plausible theory is too strange or wild if it stands up to the factual record. If it can cause someone to consider the problem in a unique or different way, then this is a great thing. Discoveries are made that way.
So here is to the power of the plausible theory. May these continue to be brought forth for all to debate and breathe fresh life into.
Have a wonderful day.
Best
Barry

I tend to agree with Joe on this one about the revolvers being secreted on Booth's person, and the boot theory sounds good - has anyone inspected the boot at Ford's to see if there are pockets? I also agree that the Deringer was all Booth needed or intended to use in the presidential box. This wasn't supposed to be the shootout at the OK Corral. Walk in, hit your target, and exit. Use the pistols when bigger guns come riding after you -- and that wouldn't happen until farther down the road.

Question on the boots: Was it possible for Booth to have the legs of his trousers on the outside, over the boots? He would be "attending" a formal theatre setting with the President and First Lady in attendance. I would think that he would be dressed for that part, in top hat and more formal looking attire than trousers stuffed into the boots. That would mean discarding or losing the top hat at some point and still having a head covering. If he knew he wouldn't need the pistols, he could afford to have his pants legs over the boots that were hiding the heavier weapons. Does that make sense?

Just a note that Joe Beckert is a retired law enforcement officer who wore guns every day for 25 years. I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but I do trust his judgment call on this - even though I still think the pistols were picked up down the road and likely at Dr. Mudd's!