(12-20-2018 10:19 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier agree with you and that is what their Lincoln Conspiracy is all about? An even more controversial study by Rick Stelnick, Dixie Reckoning, follows a similar line.

Bill - I have been trying every chance I get to find any little notes, etc. that I kept during our adventures with Rick Stelnick. What a web he did weave in an attempt to deceive. I have to admit that he often made sense with some of his claims until you really analyzed them, and like Balsiger and Sellier, if he could just prove them with primary sources that he claimed existed.

---

(12-20-2018 10:48 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  IMO, Warren and Wild Bill make logical points. So why was Booth hidden in a safe house (and replaced by Boyd) rather than being killed? Hopefully, Mike G. will explain.

And, why was any part of the "diary" allowed to exist? At that moment in time and with the power he wielded (and evidently with the gang of thugs that did his bidding), why didn't Stanton just burn the darn thing?

Actually I have a better question. Why, for a week afther the assassination, did Edwin Stanton stand outside of Robert T. Lincoln's room with teans streaming down his face?

Source for this anecdote can be found on YouTube. Jason Emerson in a talk he gave for either Giant in the Shadows or Presidential Son I'm not sure.

And why did Mary Lincoln have such kind words for Stanton when she learned of his death?

(12-20-2018 12:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did Mary Lincoln have such kind words for Stanton when she learned of his death?

Yes, that's another good question Susan.

(12-20-2018 12:38 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 12:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did Mary Lincoln have such kind words for Stanton when she learned of his death?

Yes, that's another good question Susan.

As is why was Stanton invited to Robert Lincoln's wedding?

(12-20-2018 03:38 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 12:38 PM)GustD45 Wrote:  

(12-20-2018 12:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did Mary Lincoln have such kind words for Stanton when she learned of his death?

Yes, that's another good question Susan.

As is why was Stanton invited to Robert Lincoln's wedding?

All of this emotional speculation does nothing to explain the medical-scientific problems with the claim that Booth's body was the one taken from the barn and examined on the Montauk.

If Brutus had killed Julius Caesar secretly, Caesar's family would have had nothing but nice things to say about Brutus. Until shortly before the assassination, Brutus had been close to Caesar and had warmly supported him. Even months later, Brutus was seen to weep over Caesar's murder. Stanton was one sick man: deceptive, two-faced, maniacal, brutal, harsh, etc., etc. People like that can express great remorse one minute and turn cold as ice the next.

Why was the diary allowed to exist? I already addressed this question. Conger didn't read it before he handed it over to Lafayette Baker, along with the other items that Booth had handed over to be claimed as having been removed from the man in the barn. Doherty never saw any diary removed from the man, nor any of the other items that Conger claimed he found on the man--if Doherty saw these things taken from the man, it's very odd that he said nothing about this in his report. Somehow, possibly via Baker, two newspapers got wind that a diary had been found. So at that point Stanton didn't know how much traction those stories would get. It turned out that they died out rather quickly, because the War Department stonewalled on the matter. But, Stanton also could not be certain that someone who had seen the diary, such as Baker, would not later reveal its existence. So he kept it. But, when he and others got around to reading it, they realized they needed to edit it, and they edited it as much as they could without making the editing brazenly obvious to the untrained observer. Even the edited version clearly was unacceptable, which is one reason that it was suppressed.

In all seriousness, I would really prefer to believe that Booth was the man killed in the barn. It would make the case neater, less complicated, and more palatable. Whoever the man was, he was never gonna leave that barn alive. The search party was an execution party, hence all the lying about who shot the man and what he was doing when he was shot. There was no excuse for not taking the man alive.

Really, I would love to believe that the body on the Montauk was Booth, but there are too many glaring holes in the "identification" and three inexplicable scientific problems with it. Freckles don't just sprout on a dead body, and there is not even a halfway credible theory for how Booth could have acquired freckles during his flight. Similarly, bodies do not magically become markedly unrecognizable after the kind of flight that Booth experienced. Shortly before the barn shooting, Rollins had no trouble recognizing the picture he was shown of Booth as Booth, but on the Montauk no one could see a resemblance between their photos of Booth and the body in front of them. What in the world could have happened in the meantime to cause such a drastic change? And, the conditions of Booth's flight would not have caused him to look markedly older than he had looked when May saw him less than two years earlier.

Quote:Conger didn't read it before he handed it over to Lafayette Baker, along with the other items that Booth had handed over to be claimed as having been removed from the man in the barn.

I've about had it with your misinformation on this. Conger testified that he read the diary on the way back to Washington. Read some primary sources and get your facts straight for a change.

Rob

Emotional speculation? You're the one who's clinging to your theory like a beloved firstborn against all logic.

Did you ever answer Warren's question about why the supposedly brutal and maniacal Stanton left Booth alive? I would ask the same question about John Surratt.

Mike wrote "But, Stanton also could not be certain that someone who had seen the diary, such as Baker, would not later reveal its existence. So he kept it."

I love that "So he kept it". As if keeping it was the most obvious and logical thing to do. When in fact, as has already been said, the most obvious thing to do (if he were guilty) would have been to destroy it. If anybody had demanded "Where's the diary that Baker says he gave to you?" a duplicitous Stanton would have simply said "Diary? What diary? Baker gave me no diary. Conger may have given one to Baker, but I was never given it."

Oh, and please dont let me obstruct Susan's above Post ...

"Did you ever answer Warren's question about why the supposedly brutal and maniacal Stanton left Booth alive? I would ask the same question about John Surratt. "

(12-21-2018 12:04 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  Mike wrote "But, Stanton also could not be certain that someone who had seen the diary, such as Baker, would not later reveal its existence. So he kept it."

I love that "So he kept it". As if keeping it was the most obvious and logical thing to do. When in fact, as has already been said, the most obvious thing to do (if he were guilty) would have been to destroy it. If anybody had demanded "Where's the diary that Baker says he gave to you?" a duplicitous Stanton would have simply said "Diary? What diary? Baker gave me no diary. Conger may have given one to Baker, but I was never given it."

The "most obvious and logical thing"??? There would have been an absolute firestorm if Stanton had destroyed it and then, after Baker revealed its existence, had to claim that it was "lost." Nobody would have bought that tale. Nor would anyone have believed the line that "we destroyed it because we didn't think it had any evidentiary value."

The fact that the diary was so heavily edited and had 86 pages removed says volumes.

When the diary was released, it raised some very embarrassing questions, but it had been edited enough that Stanton and his co-conspirators were able to weather the storm.

(12-21-2018 12:04 AM)AussieMick Wrote:  "Did you ever answer Warren's question about why the supposedly brutal and maniacal Stanton left Booth alive? I would ask the same question about John Surratt. "

Sigh. . . . I've answered this question, this point, several times in this forum. Are you folks just brand new to true crime? Have you never heard of enemies cutting deals to kill a common enemy? Why would the brutal and maniacal Stanton agree to let Booth escape? Because that was part of the deal. In such an arrangement, Booth, or those speaking for him, would have made sure that Stanton, or those speaking for him, knew that if there were a double-cross, they would bring out evidence that would implicate Stanton and his allies. That is just one scenario that would not be unheard of in the history of crime.

I can think of other scenarios that would not be implausible: Lafayette Baker was bribed to let Booth escape and to accept a substitute body. Or, Stanton intended to kill Booth but Mosby's men got him to a safe house and left James W. Boyd at the Garretts' farm, and Lafayette Baker, Conger, etc., were willing to pass off Boyd as Booth to get a huge amount of reward money.

We can trade theories and speculation all day, but you guys need to address the scientific problems with the "identification" of the body as Booth. If you can find me a single case in the history of forensic science where a body underwent just one of the impossible changes under conditions even halfway similar to Booth's flight, I'd love to see it. I really would.

I can think of other scenarios that would not be implausible ... Booth shot Lincoln, escaped and was pursued to a barn where he was shot by Corbett. His worn and haggard body was taken and later identified by numerous people. Stanton had done did his best to maintain calm throughout the nation and ensure that Booth was located and captured if alive if possible. A tattered diary was located and passed to Stanton. It had obviously been used for various purposes and was considered as containing no information that would assist the Commission.

Sorry Mike, to many of your theories you try to prove by using selective and mis-information.
Dave Taylor's reply regarding Booth's diary, Dr, May's and L Gardner's concluding statements (among others) regarding the body on the Montauk being Booth are just a few examples of pointing out your misleading efforts. Your comments about Stanton above are not based upon fact and are a rehash of discredited theories, as are your comments about Booth's escape, his diary, and his remains on the Montauk.

Thanks to all who point these things out.

Since you claim that the body was Boyd and NOT Booth, and you further claim that there is no scientific precedent "in the history of forensic science where a body underwent just one of the impossible changes under conditions even halfway similar to Booth's flight", ('freckles' for example) and since the body on the Montauk had 'freckles', please show what evidence you have found that proves that Boyd was 'freckle-faced'.

If the body = Not Booth; and the body = Boyd; AND the body was 'freckled'; then Boyd = was 'freckled'. This is the necessary conclusion, following your logic. Please share your proof.

"We can trade theories and speculation all day..."

Mr. G - let's edit that to read, "YOU can trade theories and speculations all day." The rest of us with a good history background, logic, and plain old common sense will continue to depend on documented evidence gathered over 150 years by some very learned scholars.

Perhaps it's time to move on and end this sparring? Do let the Surratt House know when you publish a book so that we can consider it for our shop.

(12-21-2018 09:09 AM)tom82baur Wrote:  Since you claim that the body was Boyd and NOT Booth, and you further claim that there is no scientific precedent "in the history of forensic science where a body underwent just one of the impossible changes under conditions even halfway similar to Booth's flight", ('freckles' for example) and since the body on the Montauk had 'freckles', please show what evidence you have found that proves that Boyd was 'freckle-faced'.

If the body = Not Booth; and the body = Boyd; AND the body was 'freckled'; then Boyd = was 'freckled'. This is the necessary conclusion, following your logic. Please share your proof.

And, Mike, could you also please respond to wsanto's post. wsanto is a medical doctor who posted that ecchymosis would not develop if you broke the leg of a corpse. So if the remains on the Montauk were Boyd's, then no ecchymosis would have developed because his tibia was broken after he died (as reported by you). But considerable ecchymosis was indeed reported by Dr. Barnes during the post-mortem examination, and to me, this is definite evidence the body was Booth's, not Boyd's.