Written by Vaughan Shelton in 1965. About 450 pages to long.

This book has some redeeming qualities, just not enough that made me want to read the entire book. Such as, the conspirators did not get a fair trial. He does a fair job of stating his case on this point, but considering the time and circumstances of Lincoln's death, and the nature of the crime, that shouldn't come as a big surprise. Unfortunately, that revelation was not enough to keep me reading.

Rarely do I not finish a book once I start it, and this is one of those rare occasions. I made it to page 92 before I quit. Maybe I'll pick it up later and read a chapter or two more. For now, there are just too many better books out there to read.

One of Mr. Vaughan's theories is that the wrong man, Louis Payne, was arrested, intentionaly misidentified by the government authorities, tried, and hung for the assassination attempt on Secretary Seward. Mr. Vaughan tries to prove his point by ignoring or heavily discounting certain facts, taking other incidents out of context and twisting events to try and prove his theory. I did not find his arguments or theories credible or convincing.

Unless you are looking for the "unusual" history and theory of the Lincoln assassination, skip this book. If that's what you enjoy or are looking for, you might like this one. Otherwise do what I did. Cut your losses, quit, and move on to something more worthy of your time. Like Betty Ownsbey's book, Alias "Paine".

Gene, if you make it to p. 94 Shelton talks about something that (at least on the face of it) I actually agree with. Apparently Lewis Paine (whom Shelton feels was framed) was allowed to keep his penknife (Shelton calls it a jack-knife) throughout his incarceration/trial. Betty also mentions that he offered it to Doster on the day of the execution. Shelton writes, "A knife in the possession of any prisoner charged with a capital crime is a remarkable circumstance." Maybe I am missing something, but I agree with Shelton on that.

Quote:Apparently Lewis Paine (whom Shelton feels was framed) was allowed to keep his penknife (Shelton calls it a jack-knife) throughout his incarceration/trial.

I seriously doubt that Powell kept a penknife with him throughout his trial - or that any of the prisoners kept anything which could be used as a weapon; irregardless of what Shelton said. The prisoners were allowed their own clothing and a change of clothing (Powell was denied even keeping his own personal effects for definite reasons of identification) and they were only allowed a change of underclothing, clean socks and handkerchiefs. Powell had one possession which he cherished - a little pin cushion which his mother had made for him as part of his army "housewife" kit when he joined up in 1861. He carried that thing all through the war and yes, it was in his pocket when he attacked Seward and when he was captured. This precious memento of his mom was taken away as evidence number 13, and was later returned to him. It was said that he begged and plead for the pincushion to be returned. The penknife, was more or less, I believe given back to him on the day before or the day of the hanging. I seriously doubt that he would have had this in his pocket while in the courtroom or in his cell. Just my thoughts.

I agree, Betty. The conspirators were hooded after Powell's attempt at suicide, but the authorities allowed him to keep a penknife that could have been used to slit his wrists or cut his throat??? I think not.

Betty and Laurie - thank you. Your comments sure make sense to me. Shelton states that the knife "was in his possession throughout the whole period of his imprisonment." Although Shelton's book is footnoted, there is no footnote for that statement.

Also, didn't the poor kid try to bash his own brains out against the walls of his cell??

On the basis of that fact alone, I doubt that he was allowed to keep a knife!

Shelton's book contains a lot of valuable information, and Shelton clearly spent years researching the case. I don't agree with all of his arguments, but I am impressed by the depth of his research on nearly all issues. His analysis of the differences between the trial transcripts, for example, is quite revealing. I think a couple of his major theories about the case are wrong, but I would recommend his book because of the valuable information and insights that it contains.

(11-30-2018 03:08 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  …., but I would recommend his book because of the valuable information and insights that it contains.

"Insights" is an interesting way to describe it.

In "WHAT ARE YOU READING NOW" thread, post #313, BettyO wrote

"Ooohhh, yes! I knew about this years and years ago....utter hogwash! In the 1980s, Shelton wrote The View from Eternity in which he claims that his clairvoyant wife "channeled" Lew. It was this information which he used to write Mask.... The one passage which I've always enjoyed out of this gobbledegook as John Brennan once called it, was the passage where in mid-flight, Powell's get-away horse changes from a gelding into a stallion....how this veterinary miracle takes place has never been fully explained"

(11-30-2018 05:34 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 03:08 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  …., but I would recommend his book because of the valuable information and insights that it contains.

"Insights" is an interesting way to describe it.

In "WHAT ARE YOU READING NOW" thread, post #313, BettyO wrote

"Ooohhh, yes! I knew about this years and years ago....utter hogwash! In the 1980s, Shelton wrote The View from Eternity in which he claims that his clairvoyant wife "channeled" Lew. It was this information which he used to write Mask.... The one passage which I've always enjoyed out of this gobbledegook as John Brennan once called it, was the passage where in mid-flight, Powell's get-away horse changes from a gelding into a stallion....how this veterinary miracle takes place has never been fully explained"

I don't know what "BettyO" is talking about here. There is no trace of an appeal to supernatural inspiration in Shelton's book. Every conclusion he reaches is based on facts and logic that he presents. Some of his conclusions are not persuasive, in my view, but one can see that he did not reach them casually or hastily. His book is one of the most thoroughly documented books on the Lincoln case.

Just because someone happens to believe in this or that form of the supernatural does not mean we can summarily dismiss their research on another issue. Someone can be very wrong about a metaphysical issue but correct or at least credible on other issues.

(12-02-2018 08:06 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  His book is one of the most thoroughly documented books on the Lincoln case.

Shelton writes that David Herold tried to poison Booth. He claimed the field glasses Mary Surratt delivered to Lloyd contained poison that Herold put into Booth's whiskey. According to Shelton, Booth drank deeply from the bottle of liquor brought to him by Herold at Lloyd's. The slow poisoning of Booth went on for some time.

Mike, I take it that you believe this to be true. What is the "thorough documentation" for this?

For those interested, in a quick glance through my copy of Mask For Treason, Vaughan Shelton makes several references to the work of Ray Neff.
As I stated previously, I think Mask is such a poor book that I am not going to dedicate much time to discussing it.

(12-02-2018 09:13 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 08:06 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  His book is one of the most thoroughly documented books on the Lincoln case.

Shelton writes that David Herold tried to poison Booth. He claimed the field glasses Mary Surratt delivered to Lloyd contained poison that Herold put into Booth's whiskey. According to Shelton, Booth drank deeply from the bottle of liquor brought to him by Herold at Lloyd's. The slow poisoning of Booth went on for some time.

Mike, I take it that you believe this to be true. What is the "thorough documentation" for this?

It is amazing how you folks are willing to engage in critical thinking to critically analyze any non-traditionalist sources, but then you will turn around and unquestioningly accept the most abject nonsense from traditionalist sources.

Anyway, since you asked, part of Shelton's documentation is the evidence, taken from accepted accounts, that Booth became very sick right after he drank with Herold and that he showed no signs of illness before then. Did you read Shelton's section on this? It consists of eight pages of heavily footnoted analysis (pp. 275-283).

I think Shelton might be correct about the poisoning, but I don't accept the details of his theory on the matter.

For example, to support his theory, he assumes that the body on the Montauk was Booth and that the alleged poison caused the freckling. He also accepts the few accounts that claim the body's face looked sunken and sharpened as if altered by "exposure and starvation," and he opines, not illogically, that poisoning caused this appearance.

If the Montauk body was in fact Booth, poisoning would be a better explanation for the alleged sunken/starved appearance of the face than the traditional version's explanation, since we know that Booth had many meals during his flight, that he spent three nights of his 10 days indoors, and that he spent several days doing nothing but lying around (with extra blankets) in thick woods. Ten days under such conditions would not even remotely cause the exposed/starved appearance that a few witnesses claimed to have seen, not to mention the fact that other witnesses said the face looked well preserved and even "perfect."

The timing of Booth's sudden illness is certainly interesting, but it is also entirely possible that Booth simply caught a flu bug or some other illness some hours earlier and that the illness did not manifest its symptoms until after he drank with Herold.

Furthermore, according to the traditional legend, Booth was the one who gave the field glass to Lloyd through Mary Surratt (because of course Booth could not possibly have simply carried the field glass with him!). This would mean that someone poisoned the field glass contents and then handed the field glass to Booth and Booth simply had no idea that it had been tampered with.

It is odd that this alleged field glass was never found. It should have been easily recovered from the tavern where Lloyd worked, but it was never found.

Additionally, I do not believe that David Herold would have knowingly tried to poison Booth. Anyone who has studied this case knows that Herold did not seem like that kind of a person at all. Furthermore, Guttridge and Neff make a good case that we can by no means be certain that Herold was the one who rode with Booth.

So, was Booth poisoned? Maybe, but maybe not. I think Shelton makes some valid points to support part of his theory--mainly, the part about Booth showing sudden signs of severe illness shortly after drinking with Herold--but I think the other parts of his theory do not hold up.

(12-02-2018 11:57 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I think Shelton makes some valid points to support part of his theory--mainly, the part about Booth showing sudden signs of severe illness shortly after drinking with Herold

I simply asked because in other posts you have supported Dr. Arnold's statement that the switch with Boyd happened on the 24th; Booth seemed OK at this point, right? No mention at all of Booth being severely ill during the escape from Washington. Does Dr. Arnold, a physician and assistant coroner, discuss Booth's severe illness in his book?

So I am guessing you feel Booth recovered from the illness (possibly poisoning) and was able to make the Boyd switch on the 24th and make his getaway, do a lot of traveling, and finally passing away in India on October 12, 1883.

On p. 282 Shelton writes, "Booth died of a bullet wound in the neck at 7:00 A.M., April 26."

But I assume you believe Dr. Arnold, not Shelton.

Mike, I am going to borrow from some thoughts you expressed above, because it works both ways.

It is amazing how you are willing to engage in critical thinking to critically over analyze any well accepted traditionalist sources, but then you will turn around and unquestioningly accept the most abject nonsense from non-traditionalist sources.

You have made an excellent point, Gene, one that we should all keep in mind as we contend with Mr. Griffith's version of events.

"The timing of Booth's sudden illness is certainly interesting, but it is also entirely possible that Booth simply caught a flu bug or some other illness some hours earlier and that the illness did not manifest its symptoms until after he drank with Herold.

"Furthermore, according to the traditional legend, Booth was the one who gave the field glass to Lloyd through Mary Surratt (because of course Booth could not possibly have simply carried the field glass with him!). This would mean that someone poisoned the field glass contents and then handed the field glass to Booth and Booth simply had no idea that it had been tampered with.

"It is odd that this alleged field glass was never found. It should have been easily recovered from the tavern where Lloyd worked, but it was never found...."

Now, let's examine this statement that you made above: What is your definition of "field glass?" Is it the same as mine - an instrument used in the field by soldiers, sailors, and civilians primarily for the purpose of viewing activities from a distance? The way I am interpreting your use of a singular tense noun (field glass), you seem to be referring to a type of glassware that was handed to Booth with poison in it at the Surrattsville Tavern. Is that really what you mean? Guess again.

The sophisticated field glasses (maybe you understand "binoculars" better?), by 1865 descriptions, were almost identical to the set that is on display at Surratt House Museum. Mrs. Surratt carried them to the tavern in the late-afternoon of April 14th, gave them to Lloyd's sister-in-law, Emma Offutt, when Lloyd was late returning from the county seat, and then turned them over to Lloyd when he finally arrived.

Why didn't Booth carry them himself? We have seen no evidence that Booth had saddlebags that would add extra weight. He also counted on support for his needs from Lloyd, who already was hiding weapons, etc. (why not one more item that wouldn't be needed until the fugitives got in the "field"?), and then from other underground supporters in Southern Maryland. Why not have Herold responsible for the field glasses? Booth had no assurance that he would even be able to meet up with Herold after assassination.

As for the poison coming from "the glass" given to Booth at the tavern, Booth drank from the bottle brought to him by Herold. There would be no tainted glassware for anyone to retrieve from Lloyd. And, once again, cite a source for Booth even becoming ill. Even if he did, could it have been from excitement or from the pain of his injury? Remember also that Booth complained to Dr. Mudd about his back hurting badly. Anyone who suffers from back pain can attest to the fact that it can cause nausea at times.

And finally, the true field glasses were retrieved by Union forces that swarmed into Caroline County after the death of Booth and arrest of Herold. They had been at the Garrett farmhouse, but Lucinda Holloway had removed them to her family home earlier and reported that to the troops. They did not disappear until after the 1865 Conspiracy Trial (when someone likely decided to take home a souvenir...?).

Addendum: http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/...asses.html