I am about halfway through Dr. Robert Arnold's book The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln (2016). Arnold is a retired U.S. Navy surgeon who has been studying the Lincoln assassination for decades. In 2016, he published this book.

Arnold spent years digging through Lincoln-assassination-related documents in the National Archives and uncovered numerous witness statements and interview accounts that were never entered into evidence. He includes in his book copies of many of the documents that he found.

Arnold seems to debunk a number of assertions and accounts found in most history books on the assassination.

Arnold seems to make a very compelling case that the assassination was a carefully planned event that, among other things, required the help of someone inside Ford's Theater at least hours before the event, and that Stanton was involved in the plot.

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  required the help of someone inside Ford's Theater at least hours before

Tom Bogar, author of the outstanding Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination, made this post on this forum over four years ago:

"While there was no one "smoking gun" (pardon the inappropriate pun) to indict the stagehands en masse, I found after eight years of compiling research on them, that the (to me) compelling (if not overwhelming) evidence, collectively listed in my footnotes and my bibliography, led me to make an informed judgment that something was, with near certainty, amiss backstage and the tendency was toward the backstage area being a hotbed of southern sympathy. The primary factors were these: 1) the pattern of overheard remarks (by more than one witness) made by persons in leadership capacities, including Gifford, Carland, Maddox and Lamb, 2) the tacit allowance of such remarks by John and Harry Ford (although John had trimmed his sails noticeably, he had a solid states-rights background ethos), 3) comments made in several newspapers before and after the event alluding to the atmosphere of Ford's experienced by actors appearing there, 4) the strong Baltimore connection of many of the backstage figures, and the concomitant Secessionist sympathies which that conveyed, from the Baltimore Plot and the Pratt Street Riots onward, 5) the near-complete lack of similar sentiments expressed by the itinerant actors, who likely knew enough to be more circumspect than the stagehands, 6) the presence and behavior of Union veteran Jake Rittersbach, being so new to the backstage group yet had asked so many questions and then became the single most damaging witness against Ned Spangler, and thus, 7) the fact that Stanton and his men (both military and non) knew so quickly exactly where and when to swoop down on whom, far more so among the stage crew than among the actors, several of whom (e.g. Mathews and Emerson) might have been in theory equally suspect. I should note that in the process, I did feel the need to discount significantly the exaggerations of that serial enhancer of the truth, Leonard Grover. Bottom line: after doing the research, I reached a point where I felt secure in making an informed judgment."

(08-15-2018 04:23 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 03:04 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  required the help of someone inside Ford's Theater at least hours before

Tom Bogar, author of the outstanding Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination, made this post on this forum over four years ago:

"While there was no one "smoking gun" (pardon the inappropriate pun) to indict the stagehands en masse, I found after eight years of compiling research on them, that the (to me) compelling (if not overwhelming) evidence, collectively listed in my footnotes and my bibliography, led me to make an informed judgment that something was, with near certainty, amiss backstage and the tendency was toward the backstage area being a hotbed of southern sympathy. The primary factors were these: 1) the pattern of overheard remarks (by more than one witness) made by persons in leadership capacities, including Gifford, Carland, Maddox and Lamb, 2) the tacit allowance of such remarks by John and Harry Ford (although John had trimmed his sails noticeably, he had a solid states-rights background ethos), 3) comments made in several newspapers before and after the event alluding to the atmosphere of Ford's experienced by actors appearing there, 4) the strong Baltimore connection of many of the backstage figures, and the concomitant Secessionist sympathies which that conveyed, from the Baltimore Plot and the Pratt Street Riots onward, 5) the near-complete lack of similar sentiments expressed by the itinerant actors, who likely knew enough to be more circumspect than the stagehands, 6) the presence and behavior of Union veteran Jake Rittersbach, being so new to the backstage group yet had asked so many questions and then became the single most damaging witness against Ned Spangler, and thus, 7) the fact that Stanton and his men (both military and non) knew so quickly exactly where and when to swoop down on whom, far more so among the stage crew than among the actors, several of whom (e.g. Mathews and Emerson) might have been in theory equally suspect. I should note that in the process, I did feel the need to discount significantly the exaggerations of that serial enhancer of the truth, Leonard Grover. Bottom line: after doing the research, I reached a point where I felt secure in making an informed judgment."

Arnold points out that one of the black workers at Ford's Theater, John Morris, told authorities that fellow theater workers Gifford, Spangler, and Maddox were secessionists, but Joseph Holt suppressed his statement.

Arnold further notes that Margaret Roysea, a black lady who worked at the theater, adamantly insisted to government investigators that she never left any pieces of wood lying around in the theater. She said this in response to the official claim that the piece of wood that Booth used to jam the front vestibule door just happened to have been lying on the floor in the vestibule. Arnold argues that her insistence was the reason she was jailed for a time.

Another fascinating fact that I've learned from Arnold's book is that the very first version of the shooting had Booth firing through the hole in the door, i.e., with the door closed, and then opening the door to the suite to escape over the railing.

Finished Arnold's book today. A lot of information to take in. Arnold seems to make a solid case that Stanton, Baker, Holt, and some other Army officers were involved.

I had been skeptical of the theory that Booth escaped, mainly because I trusted the government's identification of the body and the family's later identification. But Arnold presents good reasons to doubt those identifications.

Another thing I find fascinating about Arnold's book is his medically based commentary on the wound described in the autopsy report and on the injury to Booth's ankle. A former Navy surgeon, Arnold shows that the government's version of the shooting of the man in the Garrett barn could not have happened, that there is no way the man could have been standing up and walking toward the barn door when he was shot, because the bullet entered the man's head at about a 25-degree angle. Arnold also seems to make a good case that the bullet must have been a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet.

The Amazon site for the book

https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Betwee...800&sr=1-1

Be sure to read the sample pages if you are thinking about buying this one.
Mike has a higher opinion of the book than I have, but I only read the "Look Inside" sample pages posted.

Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

(08-20-2018 02:56 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

Has Dr. Arnold ever treated, or experienced himself, a broken leg bone that has been subjected to twelve days of riding horseback (which included mounting and dismounting); spending a lot of time on the ground, which was cold and damp during April in Southern Maryland; and jostling around in a wagon? Bet not...

We rec'd a review copy of Dr. Arnold's book several years ago and decided not to get it for our gift shop.

---

(08-16-2018 02:27 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Finished Arnold's book today. A lot of information to take in. Arnold seems to make a solid case that Stanton, Baker, Holt, and some other Army officers were involved.

I had been skeptical of the theory that Booth escaped, mainly because I trusted the government's identification of the body and the family's later identification. But Arnold presents good reasons to doubt those identifications.

Another thing I find fascinating about Arnold's book is his medically based commentary on the wound described in the autopsy report and on the injury to Booth's ankle. A former Navy surgeon, Arnold shows that the government's version of the shooting of the man in the Garrett barn could not have happened, that there is no way the man could have been standing up and walking toward the barn door when he was shot, because the bullet entered the man's head at about a 25-degree angle. Arnold also seems to make a good case that the bullet must have been a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet.

The best description that I have ever heard as to how Corbett's pistol shot entered Booth through the back of his neck came from expert researcher, historian, and author Michael W. Kauffman.

When Mike used to narrate the Surratt Society's Booth Escape Route Tours, he would carefully explain that Corbett was actually aiming at Booth's shoulder in an attempt to get him to drop his rifle. However, because of the broken leg, as Booth advanced towards the door to escape the increasing flames, he limped on his injured left leg causing the bullet to hit him in the neck instead of the shoulder.

Have you read Dr. John K. Lattimer's detailed ballistic account of the shooting? I think it's still available on the secondary market. I knew John for forty years, and he was researching and experimenting in the ballistics field long before that. He was also expert in the Kennedy assassination and was the first civilian outside of the family to be allowed to study the autopsy and ballistic details re: JFK.

(08-20-2018 02:56 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

Does Dr. Arnold include the description that one of the three returning Confederate veterans who were with Booth and Herold on the ferry crossing the Rappahannock River into Port Royal gave later? It follows the same line as that of the autopsy report as to the swelling, etc.

Read often, post seldom. Decided to purchase the book and I can see why the Surratt Society decided not to sell the book.
I put this in the category of The Lincoln Conspiracy by Balsiger and The Curse of Cain by Nottingham. ( Yes, I own these books)
Just one example of a lack of research. On page 40 describing Booth's entry to the box and giving a calling card to a messenger. "There is nothing in the archives to indicate who this messenger was or if an attempt was made to identify him" What happened to Charles Forbes? Silas Cobb was in the conspiracy? It goes on and on.
Again, just my views.

Thank you Roger for this forum.

Richard - You may not post often, but you speak the truth when you do! And folks, you would be astounded at some of the manuscripts that come across our desks here at Surratt House...

Here is Barbara Scott's review of Dr. Arnold's book:

Quote:A new examination of the facts surrounding the violent death of President Abraham Lincoln gathered by a retired naval officer and surgeon/coroner, raises many valid questions about the generally accepted story of that assassination and its aftermath.

The idea for this book arose twenty years ago, after author Capt. Robert E. Arnold, M.D. read an article about the identity and autopsy of John Wilkes Booth. The evidence presented in that article seemed at odds with what the doctor was able to determine from the photographs and written accounts.

Arnold is clear from the outset: Booth and only Booth actually killed President Lincoln, by a pistol shot, in a public theater. He describes Booth as an egotistical actor with Southern sentiments who considered Lincoln a wrong-sighted politician; Booth wanted to kidnap the President while the war was still raging, but decided on assassination when it was clear the South had lost. But Arnold, like many other theorists, is sure that Booth did not act alone. The author names very likely conspirators highly placed in the Union army and government, the main one being Edwin Stanton.

According to Arnold, Stanton, who was serving as assistant to Lincoln’s Secretary of War, was a very radical Republican who had made himself one of the most powerful men in Washington through his connections to the military. Stanton and others like him felt strongly that the South should be punished after the war, and feared that Lincoln and his like-minded colleague Seward would institute policies of reconciliation, policies that threatened the radical Republican power base.

Throughout Arnold’s book are photographs of the written archives he was able to access. He makes many good points that definitely suggest an assassination conspiracy rather than a lone perpetrator. He also questions the death of Booth, believing it to have been staged; one piece of evidence he offers in support of this idea is that Booth’s body was taken to the US Montauk, where by remarkable coincidence, there were a number of people on board who could absolutely swear that the body was that of Booth. Also, a photograph of the corpse was ordered but never presented, and Booth’s diary, entrusted to Stanton, was later produced—with 18 pages missing. There are several extant theories about Booth’s survival, yet surprisingly, the ​US government has never approved DNA testing that could establish the identity of Booth’s ​purported ​remains.

The outstanding element of Arnold’s narrative is that it begins with action, and ​never deviates from action. The theoretical pieces are peripheral to the intense drama of these remarkable events—the cold-blooded murder of a much admired American, the pursuit and subsequent hanging of the presumed perpetrators, including one woman, all taking place during the somber days of mourning the slain president and the inevitable chaos within a government left without its leader. Mysterious notes, conflicting eye-witness accounts, assignations, denials, and record keeping often in handwriting only…all serve to heighten the drama, as depicted by Arnold.

Though there is no doubt who fired the fatal shot, Arnold invites interested or concerned readers to think seriously about the many possible, conflicting facets that touch upon this historic tragedy. This is truly a great read and a vast historical account of Lincoln’s assassination. The amount of research required to write this book was tremendous.

Mike, Dr. Arnold writes "almost no one believed it was Booth on the Montauk." (p.364)

Does Dr. Arnold, in his book, refute the testimony of Charles Dawson?

The review of this book by Barbara Scott is from a site where authors pay for reviews, and have the option of keeping negative reviews private. 'Nuff said.

Bless you once again, Susan. I am not familiar with her name; what are Ms. Scott's credentials for reviewing a book on the Lincoln assassination?

I have been asked many times to review books on the subject or to write blurbs for the back cover. I won't do it.

Thanks for posting that info Susan.

These reviews don't come cheap, from $300 - $495, plus
https://www.pacificbookreview.com/purchase-your-review/
And, after all that, they offer this option
"•Authors may remove their review from the site at any time, by emailing us at nicolesorkin@pacificbookreview.com"