(12-02-2018 02:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We have seen no evidence that Booth had saddlebags that would add extra weight.

Don't want to get into an old argument again with you,but its good to know you finally admit that Booth had no 'magic' saddlebags with which he carried an extra hat. ... Wild Bill rides again!!

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 02:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We have seen no evidence that Booth had saddlebags that would add extra weight.

Don't want to get into an old argument again with you,but its good to know you finally admit that Booth had no 'magic' saddlebags with which he carried an extra hat. ... Wild Bill rides again!!

Hate to burst your bubble, but this recently discovered photo which my highly reliable sources indicate must be of Booth's horse outside of Ford's Theater on the night of the assassination
by the famous Irish photographer Paul O'Royd, seems to solve the mystery of Booth's other hat.

https://pixabay.com/en/horse-disguised-h...at-426721/

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 02:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We have seen no evidence that Booth had saddlebags that would add extra weight.

Don't want to get into an old argument again with you,but its good to know you finally admit that Booth had no 'magic' saddlebags with which he carried an extra hat. ... Wild Bill rides again!!

I don't remember ever thinking that Booth did have saddlebags. What I didn't agree with was the idea that the assassin stopped by the boardinghouse on his ride out of town to retrieve an extra get-away hat.

---

I love you, Gene Cook!

(12-02-2018 06:47 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 02:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We have seen no evidence that Booth had saddlebags that would add extra weight.

Don't want to get into an old argument again with you,but its good to know you finally admit that Booth had no 'magic' saddlebags with which he carried an extra hat. ... Wild Bill rides again!!

I don't remember ever thinking that Booth did have saddlebags. What I didn't agree with was the idea that the assassin stopped by the boardinghouse on his ride out of town to retrieve an extra get-away hat.

---

I love you, Gene Cook!

If Booth had no saddlebags & didn't stop to get a new hat - Then I guess Gene's solution is the only feasible solution.

My point was not that Booth stop for his hat at the townhouse, but for his pistols. The hat was secondary to that stop.

(12-02-2018 10:02 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 06:47 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 02:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  We have seen no evidence that Booth had saddlebags that would add extra weight.

Don't want to get into an old argument again with you,but its good to know you finally admit that Booth had no 'magic' saddlebags with which he carried an extra hat. ... Wild Bill rides again!!

I don't remember ever thinking that Booth did have saddlebags. What I didn't agree with was the idea that the assassin stopped by the boardinghouse on his ride out of town to retrieve an extra get-away hat.

---

I love you, Gene Cook!

If Booth had no saddlebags & didn't stop to get a new hat - Then I guess Gene's solution is the only feasible solution.

Using a saddlebag was common, especially if you thought you were going to be gone a few days. The logical assumption is that Booth probably had one. But, if the field glass had a strap, he could have simply tied it to the saddle, if he had no saddlebag.

Since no one reported seeing Booth with a field glass after his alleged stop at Surrattsville, he either lost it somehow or simply left it at the tavern. Jones didn't see it with him. Nor did Cox. Nor did anyone else who claimed to have seen him during his flight after Surrattsville.

I'm not at all sure that Booth had a field glass. We only have Weichmann and Lloyd's direct claims that he did. We have no reliable statements from Herold or Mary Surratt about this issue.

The whole poisoning scenario is too convoluted and requires too much raw speculation. It is certainly true that there are many cases in history where conspirators killed one of their own, and poison would be a good way to do it, but I see too many problems with Shelton's theory to believe it. I don't absolutely rule it out, but I don't believe it either.

"The whole poisoning scenario is too convoluted and requires too much raw speculation"

Mike I am glad we have found something we can agree on.

"Since no one reported seeing Booth with a field glass after his alleged stop at Surrattsville, he either lost it somehow or simply left it at the tavern. Jones didn't see it with him. Nor did Cox. Nor did anyone else who claimed to have seen him during his flight after Surrattsville.

"I'm not at all sure that Booth had a field glass. We only have Weichmann and Lloyd's direct claims that he did. We have no reliable statements from Herold or Mary Surratt about this issue."

I don't remember seeing where anyone was questioned about the field glasses. Please cite me the source for Jones and Cox SAYING that they had not seen them. I already gave you my source for the Garretts seeing the field glasses at their house and for Richard Garrett telling his sister-in-law to get them out of there - which she did by sending them to her family's home. And, that is where they were retrieved by the second wave of troops in Caroline County.

There is a description of them with markings differentiating them from British manufacture vs. French manufacture, so someone saw them at some point (maybe during the trial?). However, they weren't germane to the conspirators on trial, so why were they even significant -- much like the question of why the diary wasn't introduced in the 1865 trial. And please don't repeat your thoughts on that; we've heard enough.

This reply answers three responses.

(12-02-2018 01:15 PM)Gene C Wrote:  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.

Would you care to explain why the theory that Booth was poisoned is "abject nonsense"? Simply declaring something does not make it true. I have reviewed the evidence that supports Shelton's theory that Booth was poisoned. It is a matter of record. It is not definitive, but is consistent with his theory. However, it is also consistent with Booth simply catching a flu bug or something. So it is not "abject nonsense" by any rational standard. You might disagree with the theory, but there is evidence that supports it.

(12-02-2018 12:42 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(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.

Well, you see, I follow this concept called "critical thinking." I'm also a big fan of logic and reason. That means I do not blindly accept everything an author says, even if think highly of him and agree with him on many/most issues.

Now, to answer your questions:

One, as I've said, I am not certain that Booth was poisoned. I think he might have been, but that's as far as I think the evidence can be pressed.

Two, Shelton (necessarily) opines that Booth must not have drunk enough of the poison to kill him.

Three, if Booth was poisoned, then, yes, I believe he recovered and was able to make the Boyd switch and get away.

Four, I disagree with Shelton about Booth being the man in the barn. So, yes, on this issue, I agree with Dr. Arnold and disagree with Shelton.

Five, I would have to go back and check to be sure, but I do not believe that Dr. Arnold mentions Booth being sick during the first few days of his flight.

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  "Since no one reported seeing Booth with a field glass after his alleged stop at Surrattsville, he either lost it somehow or simply left it at the tavern. Jones didn't see it with him. Nor did Cox. Nor did anyone else who claimed to have seen him during his flight after Surrattsville.

"I'm not at all sure that Booth had a field glass. We only have Weichmann and Lloyd's direct claims that he did. We have no reliable statements from Herold or Mary Surratt about this issue."

I don't remember seeing where anyone was questioned about the field glasses. Please cite me the source for Jones and Cox SAYING that they had not seen them. I already gave you my source for the Garretts seeing the field glasses at their house and for Richard Garrett telling his sister-in-law to get them out of there - which she did by sending them to her family's home. And, that is where they were retrieved by the second wave of troops in Caroline County.

I've read Thomas Jones' account. He never mentions seeing binocs/field glasses. This is, admittedly, an argument from silence.

When I wrote my reply, I had not read your comments about the binocs being seen by the Garretts. If your comments on this issue are factual and credible, I would agree that I was incorrect to say that no one saw the field glasses after the stop at the tavern.

Would you mind presenting your sources for Garretts' statements on this?

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  There is a description of them with markings differentiating them from British manufacture vs. French manufacture, so someone saw them at some point (maybe during the trial?). However, they weren't germane to the conspirators on trial, so why were they even significant. . . .

That makes no sense to me. If Stanton, Holt, etc., had the binocs, they should have introduced them at the trial because they would have constituted evidence, albeit rather circumstantial evidence, that Mary Surratt carried them to Surrattsville at Booth's request. The prosecution introduced into evidence such insignificant items as the spurs that were supposedly recovered from Atzerodt's room as (flimsy) circumstantial evidence to back up part of Weichmann's story. So they certainly should have introduced the binocs, if they had them.

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  -- much like the question of why the diary wasn't introduced in the 1865 trial.

I think that is not only silly but indicative of a rabidly partisan, closed-minded attitude. Even Congressman Ben Butler noted that at least two entries in the diary could have had a huge impact on the verdicts and on the prosecution's case. Go read his exchange with Bingham on this issue.

And you seem to want to forget that Stanton and Holt did not merely decline to introduce the diary into evidence at the trial, they suppressed the diary's very existence from everyone--from the tribunal, from the press, from the defense attorneys, and from the American people. Why? Perhaps because they knew that the diary, even in its redacted form, contained explosive statements that would damage the prosecution's case and raise troubling questions?

By the way, after voicing his extreme suspicions about the diary's suppression, Butler went on to accuse Bingham of hanging Mary Surratt on the basis of insufficient evidence! Again, go read his exchange with Bingham.

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And please don't repeat your thoughts on that; we've heard enough.

Umm, you have repeated many, many of your arguments. I've heard enough of your Seeing the Emperor's New Clothes arguments too, but I'm enough of an open-minded analyst and critical thinker that I read as many of your replies as I can, and I don't complain when you repeat your time-warped talking points. So, I will repeat whatever argument I want, whenever I want. If you don't want to read the repeated argument, stop reading and move on.

(12-03-2018 08:22 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I've read Thomas Jones' account. He never mentions seeing binocs/field glasses. This is, admittedly, an argument from silence.

When I wrote my reply, I had not read your (Laurie's) comments about the binocs being seen by the Garretts. If your comments on this issue are factual and credible, I would agree that I was incorrect to say that no one saw the field glasses after the stop at the tavern.

Would you mind presenting your sources for Garretts' statements on this?

Vaughan Shelton's "Mask For Treason" , pages 277-278

---

(12-03-2018 08:22 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Would you care to explain why the theory that Booth was poisoned is "abject nonsense"? Simply declaring something does not make it true. I have reviewed the evidence that supports Shelton's theory that Booth was poisoned. It is a matter of record. It is not definitive, but is consistent with his theory. However, it is also consistent with Booth simply catching a flu bug or something. So it is not "abject nonsense" by any rational standard. You might disagree with the theory, but there is evidence that supports it.

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...

Well, you see, I follow this concept called "critical thinking." I'm also a big fan of logic and reason. That means I do not blindly accept everything an author says, even if think highly of him and agree with him on many/most issues.

Now, to answer your questions:

One, as I've said, I am not certain that Booth was poisoned. I think he might have been, but that's as far as I think the evidence can be pressed.

You may have presented evidence that Booth became ill after the assassination, but you have not produced any evidence it was from being poisoned, you have only presented a theory.
I am a little critical of your "critical thinking.

---

(12-03-2018 03:51 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  The whole poisoning scenario is too convoluted and requires too much raw speculation. It is certainly true that there are many cases in history where conspirators killed one of their own, and poison would be a good way to do it, but I see too many problems with Shelton's theory to believe it. I don't absolutely rule it out, but I don't believe it either.

Your inconsistency is amazingly consistent

(12-03-2018 09:35 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 08:22 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I've read Thomas Jones' account. He never mentions seeing binocs/field glasses. This is, admittedly, an argument from silence.

When I wrote my reply, I had not read your (Laurie's) comments about the binocs being seen by the Garretts. If your comments on this issue are factual and credible, I would agree that I was incorrect to say that no one saw the field glasses after the stop at the tavern.

Would you mind presenting your sources for Garretts' statements on this?

Vaughan Shelton's "Mask For Treason" , pages 277-278

---

(12-03-2018 08:22 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Would you care to explain why the theory that Booth was poisoned is "abject nonsense"? Simply declaring something does not make it true. I have reviewed the evidence that supports Shelton's theory that Booth was poisoned. It is a matter of record. It is not definitive, but is consistent with his theory. However, it is also consistent with Booth simply catching a flu bug or something. So it is not "abject nonsense" by any rational standard. You might disagree with the theory, but there is evidence that supports it.

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...

Well, you see, I follow this concept called "critical thinking." I'm also a big fan of logic and reason. That means I do not blindly accept everything an author says, even if think highly of him and agree with him on many/most issues.

Now, to answer your questions:

One, as I've said, I am not certain that Booth was poisoned. I think he might have been, but that's as far as I think the evidence can be pressed.

You may have presented evidence that Booth became ill after the assassination, but you have not produced any evidence it was from being poisoned, you have only presented a theory.
I am a little critical of your "critical thinking.

---

(12-03-2018 03:51 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  The whole poisoning scenario is too convoluted and requires too much raw speculation. It is certainly true that there are many cases in history where conspirators killed one of their own, and poison would be a good way to do it, but I see too many problems with Shelton's theory to believe it. I don't absolutely rule it out, but I don't believe it either.

Your inconsistency is amazingly consistent

You know, I hate to be blunt, but this is really just sheer ignorance. You clearly have never cracked the pages of a logic or critical thinking textbook. I have not been the least bit inconsistent. I have, unlike you, shown myself to be entirely willing to critically examine sources with which I agree and willing to reject friendly theories that I find to be too problematic.

Now, Shelton theorized that Booth was poisoned. He never claimed to prove it as a fact. He presented it as a theory that fit a great deal of evidence, as a theory that was supported--not proved--by considerable evidence. What evidence?

* Herold had training as a druggist.

* Booth appears to have been in good health right up until he drank with Herold at the tavern.

* Booth quickly became ill after he drank with Herold at the tavern.

* Some aspects of the body's appearance on the Montauk are consistent with poisoning, i.e., they could have been caused by poisoning. Shelton never said they absolutely must have been, but that they could have been.

* Throughout history, it has not been unusual for conspirators in a plot to try to kill one or more of their fellow conspirators, especially if they feared that the person or persons could prove to be a problem later on.

By any standard of textbook logic and critical thinking, Shelton's theory that Booth was poisoned is not "abject nonsense." It is a theory that is consistent with several items of evidence. It cannot be summarily brushed aside because you don't think it fits with your flat-earth-like defense of the military commission's version of events.

But, even though the theory does have some evidence to support it--not "prove" it, but "support" it--I don't happen to believe it for the reasons I have already given.

When I find too many problems with a theory from a non-traditionalist source, I say so in no uncertain terms.

You, on the other hand, slavishly follow the military commission's tale to the point of laughable absurdity, to the point that you can't even bring yourself to admit that the targeted editing and huge redaction of the diary were done to remove information and were clearly done after the War Department received the diary.

Ouch, I suppose I deserve some of that.
In reading Mask of Treason, I do not interpret Shelton's writing as presenting a set of theories. To examine all sides of the theory is not the intent or purpose of his book.

Booth becomes ill after drinking to much alcohol. That is a common reaction.
Now if you really want to kill Booth after the assassination and your traveling with him down a lonely country road at night, is it easier and more efficient to poison him or just shoot him?
That's IF you want to kill him, and the evidence to support that idea is pretty thin too. So now we have to examine that scenario too. And it goes on and on and on.

So what is the point in initiating this discussion and even going down that road, making all these points in favor of this non traditional theory, and then claim you don't believe it?
I should know the answer to that, but I'm just an ignorant country boy.

(12-04-2018 05:38 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  You, on the other hand, slavishly follow the military commission's tale to the point of laughable absurdity, to the point that you can't even bring yourself to admit that the targeted editing and huge redaction of the diary were done to remove information and were clearly done after the War Department received the diary.

Sincere question,

How did we go from 18 pages cut out of the diary that General Butler testifies to on the floor of the House of Representatives in 1867, (that you mentioned in post#30 Unwanted Facts), to the 86 missing pages in the 1977 FBI report on Booth's diary you mentioned in the post #1. What was Stanton and the military commission's purpose in supposedly removing those additional 68 pages, now that the assassination trial is over and Johnson's impeachment proceedings would soon be over?

If after Butler's testimony, Stanton removes those additional pages, it would have been noticed then. Wouldn't anything in that diary (the additional but not yet removed 68 pages) further relating to a grand conspiracy have come out at Johnson's Impeachment trial and possibly also Surratt's trial.

(12-03-2018 08:15 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  My point was not that Booth stopped for his hat at the townhouse, but for his pistols. The hat was secondary to that stop.

Booth may very well have gotten a hat at the boarding house.

He certainly was wearing a hat by the time he arrived at the Navy Yard bridge, since Sgt. Cobb made no mention of a hat in his testimony. Had Booth not been wearing a hat, Cobb would have remarked on this. A 19th century man wearing no hat in public would have been highly unusual and would have drawn attention.

---

(12-04-2018 11:29 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 08:15 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  My point was not that Booth stopped for his hat at the townhouse, but for his pistols. The hat was secondary to that stop.

Booth may very well have gotten a hat at the boarding house.

He certainly was wearing a hat by the time he arrived at the Navy Yard bridge, since Sgt. Cobb made no mention of a hat in his testimony. Had Booth not been wearing a hat, Cobb would have remarked on this. A 19th century man wearing no hat in public would have been highly unusual and would have drawn attention.

Forgot to add that it was Bill Binzel who drew my attention to Sergeant Cobb’s testimony regarding the hat.

I believe Cobb’s testimony was very tightly rehearsed. Procescution didn’t care what Booth was wearing so it was not mentioned