+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Books - over 15,000 to discuss (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Mask For Treason (/thread-2350.html)
RE: Mask For Treason - Rick Smith - 12-04-2018 02:08 PM
(12-04-2018 01:11 PM)JMadonna Wrote: I believe Cobb’s testimony was very tightly rehearsed. Procescution didn’t care what Booth was wearing so it was not mentioned
I don’t know if his testimony was rehearsed or not, but it was detailed enough that Cobb mentioned Booth was not wearing gloves. My point is that a man of that time, out in public, especially one traveling, would’ve been a most unusual sight and certainly would’ve been remarkable.
RE: Mask For Treason - mikegriffith1 - 12-04-2018 06:06 PM
(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.
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.
Well, I did some research on the field glasses in an effort confirm your claims about them. Given my findings about your previous claims, I should have known that I would find what I found. You have once again described evidence in an incomplete manner and have avoided mentioning any of the problems with that evidence. In saying this, let me acknowledge that I realize that you might have done this innocently, perhaps because none of the sources you have read have provided a complete analysis on the issue.
Come to find out that there are numerous contradictions in, and obvious questions about, the evidence relating to the field glasses.
First off, rather than being the size of the binoculars that I used in the Army, which I wrongly assumed was the case, the field glasses that Mary Surratt supposedly gave to Lloyd were small opera glasses that Booth could have easily just stuck in his pocket. Here are some photos of field glasses from Booth’s day of the size that Booth supposedly had (click the image to see six photos of the glasses):
http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/07/are-these-john-wilkes-booths-field-glasses.html
Now why in the devil would Booth have bothered wrapping these small binoculars and asking Mary Surratt to give them to John Lloyd when he could have easily just stuck them in his coat pocket?
And then there’s the rather big problem that when shown the alleged Booth field glasses at the John Surratt trial, Lloyd said (1) that his impression was that the field glass was not the one he saw, (2) that the field glass he saw had the words “field glass” written in the top-center (whereas the alleged Booth binocs did not), (3) that the writing on the field glass that he saw was larger than the writing on the alleged Booth field glass, and (4) that the lettering was yellow (whereas the lettering on the alleged Booth binocs was not). Let us read the testimony he gave under direct examination:
By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. See if you see any mark on this field-glass that you ever saw before, (handing witness the glass.)
A. (After examining the same.) It is my impression that this is not the kind of a one that I saw. That one was made something like this, but just on top in the centre here was printed, in larger letters than these are, "field-glass."
Q. Did you take it and examine it at all?
A. I did take it, and attempt to look through it, but I could not see anything.
Q. You could not see through it?
A. No, sir. I do not know what anybody wants such a thing as this for.
Q. Was it such a thing as this?
A. This resembles it very much. It was such a make as this. It was a double glass.
Q. Was it like this?
A. That I cannot say. I did not examine it closely. I can only say that just on top here between these two glasses was printed in yellow letters, "field-glass."
Q. Turn that little screw there and tell us what you see then?
A. (After turning the screw as directed.) I see "marine."
Q. Turn it further.
A. (Still turning.) I see "theatre," "field," "marine." The other one that I saw had "field-glass" printed just between these two glasses.
Q. Was it printed like that?
A. The letters were larger than these.
Q. But the same kind of letters?
A. The letters on the other were yellow.
Q. What kind of letters are these?
A. That I can hardly tell.
Q. What color I mean?
A. I will leave that to somebody who has a little better eyesight. (The Trial of John H. Surratt, vol. 1, p. 288)
John Garrett could not identify the alleged Booth field glass as the one he saw either! He added that the only time he saw Booth with a field glass was in his father’s house and that he never saw it again. From his testimony under direct examination:
Q. Examine that glass, (field-glass exhibited,) and see if you ever saw it before.
A. I cannot testify that I ever saw this glass; I have seen one similar to it.
Q. Where?
A. At my father's house.
Q. State whether the one you saw Booth have was similar to this.
A. Similar to this; yes, sir.
Q. Did it have a case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you see it last?
A. I saw it at my father's house, in Booth's possession.
Q. Did he take it with him to the barn?
A. I don't know; I suppose not.
Q. How long did you have it in the house?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you see it there after Booth was captured?
A. I did not. (pp. 303-304)
Everton Conger said he never saw the field glass until he saw it at the War Department:
Q. Please examine the field-glass shown you and see if it is the same field glass?
A. I do not know; I never saw it until I went to the War Department to get it.
Q. You did not take the field-glass from the house?
A. No.
Q. Do you know who did?
A. Byron Baker, as he is called. L. B. Baker is his name. (p. 309)
Now we come to Lt. Luther Baker. As Deborah Warner, curator at the National Museum of American History, points out in her 2014 article on the field glasses, Baker gave two different accounts of his alleged finding of the binocs:
Luther Byron Baker, the detective who brought the field glasses from Virginia to Washington, testified in one place that he saw them "at the Garrett place, where Booth was captured," and in another that he and Mr. Garrett found them "about nine miles from Garrett's place," at the home of people who may have been their relatives. (http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/07/are-these-john-wilkes-booths-field-glasses.html)
If we turn to Baker’s testimony at the John Surratt trial, we find that he gave a questionable story about how he supposedly found the glasses and gave two different stories about where he found them:
Q. Examine that field-glass, if you please, and state if you identify it.
A. I think it was in the latter part of July, after the assassination, that I first saw this field-glass. I saw it at the Garrett place, where Booth was captured. I was in among the ruins of the barn, poking among the ashes to ascertain if I could find any of the remains of the field-glass which I had been told. . . .
Mr. Bradley. Never mind what you had been told.
Witness, resuming. I found the remains of a cartridge-box; some lead, which seemed to have been melted, and a little wad. While I was there I ascertained from a small boy, who belonged to the place.
Mr. Bradley. Stop.
The District Attorney. Don't state what the boy said. Just state what you did after having this conversation with the boy.
Witness. I then asked Mr. Garrett if he had in his possession a field-glass which Booth brought there.
Mr. Bradley. Don't state what he answered.
Mr. Pierrepont. Just state what you did after the conversation with Mr. Garrett.
Witness. During a conversation with him I ascertained
The Court. Don't state what you ascertained from this conversation.
By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. You ascertained something that led you to do what?
A. To go in search of the glass.
Q. Did you find it?
A. Mr. Garrett and myself found it about nine miles from Garrett's place.
Q. Was it the same Mr. Garrett who was on the stand here?
A. Yes, sir. It was secreted in a chamber, in a clothes chest. I took it and brought it to Washington. General Baker and I took it to the War Department, and there it was left. [He had just said that he saw and found the field glass in the ashes among the ruins of the barn at Garrett’s farm!]
Q. And this is the same glass?
A. This is the glass, as far as my judgment goes. (p. 321)
Things got worse under cross-examination:
Cross-examination:
By Mr. Bradley:
Q. Is there any mark on that glass by which you identify it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. This thumb-screw and the label on it, I noticed as being peculiar.
Q. You never saw one before?
A. No, sir; I never saw one like it before.
Mr. Pierrepont. Just show that to the jury; I want them to see it.
Mr. Bradley. Never mind. You will have to bring it nearer to the party than that to make it evidence. There is nothing whatever to connect it with these parties.
The Assistant District Attorney. We think there is.
Mr. Pierrepont. In our view it is evidence enough to go to the jury.
Mr. Bradley. The witness is now under my cross-examination; when I am through you can take him.
Q. You never saw one before like it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nor since?
A. No, sir.
Q. At whose house did you find it?
A. I do not remember the name of the farmer, but about nine miles from the
Garrett place. I think they were relatives of the Garretts. (pp. 321-323)
This is a rather different story than the one he gave at the impeachment trial. He said that the little boy, only five or six years old, somehow knew that “Booth” had given the field glasses to Garrett’s daughter Joanna, that the little boy somehow knew that Joanna had put them in her father’s writing desk (not the bookcase, as Lucinda Holloway later claimed), that he asked the father about it but the father gave him no information, that Baker then called Joanna into the room and demanded the field glasses, that Joanna began to cry, that Mr. Garrett then spoke with Joanna for a moment in private, and that Mr. Garrett then told him where to find the field glasses.
So which is it? Did the little boy tell Baker where to find the field glasses, or did Mr. Garrett? Did Baker first see the field glasses in the ashes in the barn, or did he find them nine miles away? Why didn’t Baker say anything about Joanna in his testimony at the John Surratt trial?
Things get even more confused and problematic when we consider Lucinda Holloway’s account, which you mentioned, although you did not bother to mention that she gave the account in 1897, 32 years after the fact. I do not see the time lapse as necessarily problematic. I only mention it because you folks always object when I quote a later account, but you turn around and quote later accounts whenever they say things you like.
Anyway, Mrs. Holloway, who lived in Richard Garrett’s home, said that “Booth” (the Garretts initially said they knew the man as “Boyd”) left his supposedly coveted and important field glasses on a bookcase in their house! She added that she wrote the initials “JWB” on the strap of the opera glasses! What’s more, she said that when Lt. Baker asked her father about the glasses, he unhesitatingly told him about them—but when Baker testified at the impeachment trial, he described a rather different encounter with the father. Anyway, here is what Holloway said:
After all had left and the family had become a little composed, I went to the bookcase to get some books for the children, as I was teaching school in the family at the time. The first thing that greeted my eyes were the opera glasses. I knew they did not belong to any of the family. I concluded they must be Booth’s, so I took them to Mr. Garrett and asked him what I must do with them. He replied by saying: ‘Take them out of my sight. I do not wish to see anything that will remind me of this dreadful affair.’
I told him I would send them up to my mother’s in a day or two. I took a pin and marked ‘J.W.B’ under the buckle on the strap. And during the day my brother came to Mr. Garrett’s and I gave them to him to take up to my mother, thinking they were too valuable to be destroyed as Mr. Garrett had directed me to do.
The next evening Lieutenant Baker, in company with Jack Garrett, came to Mr. Garrett’s in pursuit of them. They did not know really that they were there, but simply supposed that Booth had them and thought they might be there. Lieutenant Baker asked Mr. Garrett if they were not, and without hesitancy he told them I had them. He then came to me and asked where they were. I very reluctantly told him where they were. Lieutenant Baker and Jack Garrett went up to my mother’s, which was about eight miles, and got them. They came back to Mr. Garrett’s about four o’clock in the evening, and spent the night and returned to Washington the next day.”
Notice that Holloway said nothing about the field glasses being given to Joanna Garrett, nothing about Baker confronting Joanna, nothing about Joanna breaking down in tears, nothing about Mr. Garrett taking her aside to speaking privately to her. If these events had happened, surely Mr. Garrett and/or Joanna would have told her about them. Instead, Holloway simply has Baker asking Mr. Garrett about the field glasses and has Mr. Baker unhesitatingly revealing their location.
Now, of course, in addition to the problems with Hollaway’s story noted above, there is also the fact that “Jack Garrett” could not have come back with Lt. Baker within a few days of the barn shooting, because he was arrested and did not return until several weeks later.
Yet another problem is that Lt. Baker claimed that he did not find the field glasses until July, whereas Holloway has him retrieving them just a few days after the soldiers left. Baker stated that he returned to the Garrett farm after the Garretts asked him to sign a statement to document the damage done to the barn. Mr. Garrett wrote the damage statement on June 28. Thus, there is no way that Baker came back to get the field glasses within just a few days after the soldiers departed.
Lt. Baker did not “find” the field glasses until about two months after the man in the barn was shot and hauled away. That left plenty of time for someone to plant some field glasses with the Garretts. Recall that John Garrett testified at the John Surratt trial that he only saw field glasses in the house when he saw them in “Booth’s possession.”
Are we really supposed to believe that a little five-or-six-year-old boy was so alert about happenings around him that he knew that “Booth” had given the field glasses to his older sister and that, per Baker’s John-Surratt-trial testimony, Baker was able to “ascertain” from this brilliant little boy that the field glasses were nine miles away? Really???
Is it not puzzling that Baker said that the field glasses he found had the same words printed it on them as the field glasses that the War Department supplied for the John Surratt trial, yet Lloyd (1) said they did not seem to be the same field glasses, (2) said that they had different words printed on them, (3) said that the lettering was bigger than the lettering on the alleged Booth field glasses, and (4) said that the lettering was in a different color than the lettering on the field glasses submitted as evidence in the trial?
RE: Mask For Treason - Gene C - 12-04-2018 06:24 PM
What's your point?
RE: Mask For Treason - mikegriffith1 - 12-05-2018 09:23 AM
In going back and re-reading the accounts about the field glasses, I found that I somewhat misread one of the accounts, but I also found more problems than I identified in my previous reply.
The pronounced contradictions in the accounts about the field glasses, and the problematic assumptions about the field glasses in the traditional version, are exactly what you get when a story has been fabricated, when some people are willingly lying, and when other people are lying under duress and are trying to slip in truth here and there (and even trying to leave hints that their story is false).
According to the traditional story, for some inexplicable reason, Booth wrapped his small field glasses in paper and gave them to Mary Surratt to take to John Lloyd. Booth supposedly did this when he allegedly met with Mary Surratt at her boarding house at 2:30 PM on April 14, before Louis Weichmann took Surratt to Surrattsville to see Lloyd about a substantial debt. Weichmann claimed that Booth arrived at shortly before 2:30, that he had an “interview” with Mary Surratt, and that he gave her a package. But Thomas Bogar’s research suggests that Booth could not have been at Mrs. Surratt’s house at 2:30.
Bogar documents that Ford Theater employees James Maddox and William Ferguson saw Booth at around 2:45 “seated calmly at the prompter’s table, chatting quietly with Gifford, Spangler, and Spear” at the theater (Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination, p. 92).
Surratt’s boarding house was half a mile from Ford’s Theater. Allowing one minute for Booth to walk to his horse, untie the horse, and mount the horse before he left Mary Surratt’s house, if Booth had then ridden his horse at a normal trot (about 10 mph), he would have arrived at the theater no earlier than 2:34, and that’s assuming that he rode straight there and did not stop anywhere or to talk to anyone. Then, add time for him to tie his horse outside the theater and to enter the theater. Then, add time for him to find Gifford, Spangler, and Spear in the theater. Then, add time for the four of them to decide to sit down at the prompter’s table. Then, add time for the four of them to sit down and then converse at the table long enough that when Maddox and Ferguson noticed them, they were “seated calmly” and “chatting quietly” at the prompter’s table. That’s a mighty, mighty tight and unlikely time window.
Of course, all of this begs the question: Why on earth would Booth have taken precious time out of his pre-assassination timeframe to wrap his small field glasses, ride over to Mary Surratt’s house, have an “interview” with her, and give her the field glasses to take to Lloyd, when he could have simply carried the field glasses in his coat pocket and not have had to worry about the actions of others to retrieve the glasses later? The field glasses were small, so small that they were also described as “opera glasses.” They would have easily fit into one of Booth’s coat pockets or pants pockets.
Confederate conspiracy theorists, i.e., those who defend the military commission’s claim that the assassination plot was a Confederate plot, will say that Booth needed to tell Mary Surratt to tell Lloyd to have the “shooting irons” ready that night. But this tale has never made any sense. How do you get rifles “ready” for someone to take? This is fiction. Lloyd knew exactly where the rifles were in the tavern. He could have retrieved them from their hiding place in less than a minute, given his description of how and where they were hidden. If he had been super slow, it would have taken him all of two minutes to get the rifles from their hiding place.
The tale that Mary Surratt told Lloyd to have the rifles “ready” that night is based solely on Lloyd’s discredited—and substantially repudiated—testimony that Mary Surratt told him to get the rifles “ready” for someone to pick up that night. Again, how do you get rifles “ready” for someone to pick up?
Lloyd later admitted that he was threatened with death if he did not testify the way the prosecutors wanted him to testify. At the John Surratt trial, Lloyd back-peddled considerably and, among other things, said that he was not certain about what Mary Surratt told him about the riles. He also admitted that he was drunk the last two times he saw Mary Surratt before the assassination and that his drinking problem affected his memory.
The defense attorneys at the conspiracy trial firmly established that Mary Surratt went to see Lloyd to try to collect a substantial debt he owed her, because one of her creditors was pressing her for payment of a debt she owed the creditor and because she needed Lloyd to pay his debt to her so that she could pay her debt to her creditor. One of the judges at the military tribunal made the silly, inane suggestion that Mary could have done this by mail. Really? She had already been in contact with Lloyd about the debt. She went to see him precisely because he still had not paid her and because she was being pressed by a creditor. We all know that when someone who owes you money is not responding when you ask for the money by mail, the next logical step is to go see them in person to try to get the money.
In light of all of these issues, we should not be surprised to find glaring contradictions and problems in the accounts about the field glasses. Let us summarize them:
* The person who supposedly received the field glasses—Lloyd—testified at the John Surratt trial (1) that his impression was that the alleged Booth field glass entered into evidence was not the one he saw, (2) that the field glass he saw had the words “field glass” written in the top-center (whereas the alleged Booth field glass did not), (3) that the writing on the field glass that he saw was larger than the writing on the alleged Booth field glass, and (4) that the lettering was yellow (whereas the lettering on the alleged Booth field glasses was not).
* John Garrett said that the alleged Booth field glasses were not the field glasses he saw, and that he never saw field glasses in the Garrett house after “Booth” was allegedly shot in the Garrett’s barn (the Garretts initially said that the man’s name was Boyd, not Booth).
* Lt. Luther Baker, one of Lafayette Baker’s henchmen, supposedly found the field glasses in late July, eight weeks after Booth’s alleged death at the Garrett farm. However, as Deborah Warner, curator at the National Museum of American History, points out, Baker gave two different accounts of his alleged finding of the field glasses:
Luther Byron Baker, the detective who brought the field glasses from Virginia to Washington, testified in one place that he saw them "at the Garrett place, where Booth was captured," and in another that he and Mr. Garrett found them "about nine miles from Garrett's place," at the home of people who may have been their relatives. (http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/07/are-these-john-wilkes-booths-field-glasses.html)
* When Lt. Baker testified at the Johnson impeachment proceedings, he gave yet another version of finding the field glasses, a version that differed from his John Surratt trial testimony. At the John Surratt trial, Baker said that he “ascertained” from a little boy that he needed to ask Mr. Garrett about the field glasses, and that after he asked Mr. Garrett about them, he knew that the field glasses were not at the Garrett house and that, thanks to Mr. Garrett’s information, he found them nine miles away.
But at the impeachment trial, Baker said that the five-/six-year-old boy not only knew that “Booth” had given the field glasses to his older sister Joanna but that the field glasses were in the Mr. Garrett’s writing desk! Wow, has anyone ever known a five-/six-year-old boy who was so aware of goings-on around him, especially matters of this nature, and who could recall them some eight weeks later?! Really???
Anyway, Baker further told the impeachment trial that after speaking with the little boy, he talked with Mr. Garrett, that he then called in Joanna and demanded the field glasses, that Joanna then broke down and cried, that Mr. Garrett then spoke with her privately for a moment, and that Mr. Garrett then told him that the field glasses were nine miles away at a relative’s house. Baker said nothing about talking with Joanna in his testimony at the John Surratt trial. He did not even mention her.
* Recalling events 32 years later, Lucinda Holloway, Mr. Garrett’s sisters-in-law and the live-in teacher of his children, contradicted both of Baker’s accounts. She claimed that Baker confronted her, not Joanna, about the field glasses, and that she, not Mr. Garrett, was the one who told Baker where to find them. She also claimed that his happened a few days after the barn shooting, whereas Baker said he did not retrieve them until late July, some eight weeks later. Furthermore, Holloway said she found the field glasses on a bookcase, not in her father’s writing desk.
Additionally, Holloway said nothing about the field glasses being given to Joanna, nothing about Baker confronting Joanna, nothing about Joanna breaking down in tears, and nothing about Mr. Garrett taking Joanna aside to speak privately to her. As mentioned, Holloway claimed that Baker confronted her, not Joanna, and that she was the one, not Mr. Garrett, who told Baker where to find the field glasses.
The eight weeks between the shooting in the barn and Baker’s alleged retrieval of some field glasses was plenty of time for someone to plant field glasses at Holloway’s mother’s house nine miles away, assuming Baker even found them there. The Garretts were in a very vulnerable position and could have been easily persuaded—and probably were persuaded—to say whatever the War Department wanted them to say. At first, the Garretts said the man in the barn was named James Boyd, but later on they said he was Booth.
Did Lloyd really receive field glasses from Mary Surratt? I doubt it. I think Lloyd’s refusal to identify the alleged Booth field glasses as the ones he supposedly saw and handled was his way of pushing back against being forced to lie.
Did the Garretts really see “Boyd” with some field glasses? Well, it is possible that Boyd had some field glasses and that they were the ones the Garretts described. This would explain why John Garrett said that the field glasses he saw with “Booth” in his house were not the ones the War Department entered into evidence at the John Surratt trial. But it is also possible that the Garretts never saw any field glasses and that they said they saw some because they were coerced into saying so. If this is the case, John Garrett’s refusal to identify the alleged Booth field glasses was his way of pushing back against being forced to lie.
If the issue of the field glasses had been a crucial issue, and if all the accounts about them had been given at a single trial, the defense would have easily destroyed their value as evidence by pointing out the glaring holes in the accounts and by hammering home Lloyd’s description of the field glasses that he saw and handled vs. the alleged Booth field glasses.
RE: Mask For Treason - Gene C - 12-05-2018 10:10 AM
Appreciate all that information, there is a lot of it.
Have you drawn any conclusion from all this info, is there some special significance for all this?
I did understand you to say you doubt Mrs. Surratt ever gave Lloyd the field glasses to begin with, which is interesting to me as John Surratt's and Mary's attorney never brought that up in their trial.
You mention - "Lloyd later admitted that he was threatened with death if he did not testify the way the prosecutors wanted him to testify"
Would you please share with me the source of that information. I have read that comment before, but do not know it's source.
RE: Mask For Treason - mikegriffith1 - 12-05-2018 11:26 AM
(12-05-2018 10:10 AM)Gene C Wrote: Appreciate all that information, there is a lot of it.
Have you drawn any conclusion from all this info, is there some special significance for all this?
I did understand you to say you doubt Mrs. Surratt ever gave Lloyd the field glasses to begin with, which is interesting to me as John Surratt's and Mary's attorney never brought that up in their trial.
Aiken had no reason to address the issue in the conspiracy trial, since the field glasses were not introduced into evidence and were only mentioned a few times in passing. Plus, Mary Surratt was not allowed to testify or even submit a statement to give her side on the issue, and of course Aiken couldn't just get up and say, "Well, my client told me that she did not meet with Booth at 2:30 and never took a package from him."
At the John Surratt trial, the issue of the field glasses blew up in the prosecution's face. Lloyd not only refused to identify the alleged Booth field glasses in evidence as the ones he had seen, but he noted clear differences in the wording and printing of the writing on the field glasses he saw vs. that on the alleged Booth field glasses.
By the time of the John Surratt trial, of course, Mary was dead and was not around to shed any light on the matter.
(12-05-2018 10:10 AM)Gene C Wrote: You mention - "Lloyd later admitted that he was threatened with death if he did not testify the way the prosecutors wanted him to testify."
Would you please share with me the source of that information. I have read that comment before, but do not know it's source.
There are tons of sources on this fact. For starters, it's in the John Surratt trial transcript:
Q. You state that that military officer told you that the statement you had made to Colonel Wells was not sufficient?
A. He said, as I remember, that it was not full enough.
Q. Did he say anything to you in the way of offering a reward, or use any threat towards you, for the purpose of getting you to make it fuller?
A. When I told him what I had repeated before, that I did not remember any person saying thus and so, he jumps up very quick off his seat, as if very mad, and asked me if I knew what I was guilty of. I told him, under the circumstances I did not. He said you are guilty as an accessory to a crime the punishment of which is death. With that I went up stairs to my room. (Volume 1, p. 290)
I would recommend reading Theodore Roscoe's discussion on Lloyd's testimony in his book The Web of Conspiracy, pp. 475-477.
None of this should be surprising. We know that other witnesses were also threatened with death or long prison terms if they would not say what the prosecution wanted them to say. Thomas Bogar discusses this coercion at length in Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination. Here is some of Bogar's research on this issue:
One day that week John Ford overheard an egregious instance of “witness preparation” in the prison yard: [Lafayette] Baker going at Rittersbach, putting words in his mouth. Whereas Rittersbach had actually heard Ned Spangler that night [April 14] say, “Hush your mouth. You don’t know whether it’s Booth or not,” Baker now told him to add that Spangler had slapped him across the face and warned, “For God’s sake, shut up! And don’t say which way he went.” If Rittersbach would not so testify, Baker threatened, he would be thrown definitely into the general prison population at Old Capitol. This approach by Baker, Ford believed, would unnerve anyone, “and cause him to think he believed he heard what did not.” Even though Rittersbach was self-motivated to testify and required little prodding, he was hauled before Colonel Burnett on the eve of the trial for another conversation. No notes exist of its nature.
Ford, his brother Harry, and Gifford witnessed the same sort of pressure brought to bear within the prison on a terrified Louis Weichmann, a Booth associate who had boarded at Mrs. Surratt’s. Weichmann would in due course provide exceedingly incriminating testimony, which led to the conviction and execution of several of the conspirators. A day later, Maddox, Gifford, and Carland overheard an officer in Old Capitol tell Weichmann “if he didn’t swear to more than he had told, he would be hung.” (Weichmann shortly after the trial would confess to Carland that he had perjured himself to save his skin, and tell Gifford “I’d give a million dollars if I had had nothing to do with it.”) As John Ford recorded in his ever-lengthening jail house manifesto, “Another damnable feature in this prison is that if a prisoner will not or cannot give such information as may be demanded of him, he is ordered to his room or cell and handcuffed and tortured into a more compliant witness or informer.” (pp. 180-181)
RE: Mask For Treason - Gene C - 12-05-2018 01:49 PM
Thanks Mike, I will try to review those in the next few days
RE: Mask For Treason - RJNorton - 12-05-2018 01:56 PM
Rick Smith is traveling today and asked that this information be posted in this thread:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is from the statement of Luther B. Baker, being questioned by Mr. Pierrepont and Mr. Bradley, during the John Surratt trial:
By Mr. Pierrepont:
Q. You ascertain something that lead you to do what?
A. To go in search of the glass.
Q. Did you find it?
A. Mr. Garrett and myself found it about 9 miles from the Garrett’s place.
Q. Was it the same Mr. Garrett who was on the stand here?
A. Yes sir. It was secreted in a chamber, in a clothes chest. I took it and brought it to Washington. General Baker and I took it to the War Department, and there it was left.
Q. And this is the same glass?
A. This is the glass, as far as my judgment goes.
By Mr. Bradley:
Q. Is there any mark on that glass by which you identify it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. This thumb screw and the label on it, I noticed as being peculiar.
Q. You never saw one before?
A. No, sir; I never saw one like it before.
Mr. Pierrepont. Just show that to the jury; I want to see it.
Mr. Bradley. Never mind. You will have to bring it near her to the party than that to make it evidence. There is nothing whatever to connect to these parties.
The Assistant DIst. Att’y. We think there is.
Mr. Pierrepont. In our view it as evidence enough to go to jury.
Mr. Bradley. The witness is now under my cross examination; when I am through you can take him.
Q. You never saw one before like it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nor since?
A. No, sir.
Q. At who’s house did you find it?
A. I do not remember the name of the farmer, but about 9 miles from the Garrett place. I think they were relatives of the Garretts.
Read Baker’s description, And you can see that this is no opera glass he is describing. He is describing something unique, and opera glasses were common place.
RE: Mask For Treason - L Verge - 12-05-2018 03:22 PM
Oh how I wish I could address each and every one of the incorrect statements made above by Mr. Griffith by posting them in bright red next to his erroneous assumptions! Even if I could, however, it would be a waste of my time because he would announce that my views/facts/sources were "silly."
I would just urge our readers to study long and hard the factual information given by other members of this forum who are more interested in presenting well-documented material than in wandering around rabbit holes for the sake of seeing one's name in print. At this point, I question whether or not anything good is coming out of this continuing "saga."
RE: Mask For Treason - Warren - 12-05-2018 04:12 PM
For what its worth, if it hasn't been posted before: http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/07/are-these-john-wilkes-booths-field-glasses.html
RE: Mask For Treason - Gene C - 12-05-2018 05:19 PM
I agree with you Laurie, however these discussions gives many of us a chance to benefit from yours and many others knowledge and experience.
Prior to this I had no idea Richard (emma1231) had communicated directly with Lynch on the alleged missing Booth diary pages. I appreciated his comments about this on another thread. The things we can learn from him!
My original decision to not continue to read The Mask for Treason has been validated for me. Others may reach a different decision.
Mr. Griffin has given me/us sources so we can better evaluate some statements he has made and make a more informed decision. That may generate some additional conversation. This is a generous group when it comes to sharing information and ideas.
RE: Mask For Treason - L Verge - 12-05-2018 07:44 PM
I can agree to a certain point, Gene, and I do hope that we are helping others to read, analyze, and understand all the intricacies of the Lincoln assassination case. It is only for those who I hope are learning that I (personally) keep up this challenge each day. But at some point, one has to realize that one's energies are being drained away by trying to penetrate a brick wall.
Regarding Richard Sloan, if you ever get the opportunity to peruse a collection of his wonderful newsletter, the Lincoln Log, please do. Richard poured his heart, soul, and mind into producing a wonderful little grapevine of important information on both Lincoln and the assassination story during the 1970s and early-80s when it was manna from heaven for us addicts who were begging for information to feed our pre-occupation with this subject. Frankly, I'm surprised his wife didn't divorce him -- and on top of that, they were raising twins.
RE: Mask For Treason - mikegriffith1 - 12-16-2018 10:37 AM
(12-05-2018 05:19 PM)Gene C Wrote: My original decision to not continue to read The Mask for Treason has been validated for me.
Oh my goodness. You never finished reading the book, but your decision to stop reading it has somehow been "confirmed."
The bias exhibited in this forum is truly something to behold. It reminds me of the bias I have found among 9/11 "Truthers" who can't bring themselves to read or seriously consider any research that challenges their theories. I won't try to count how many times I've asked them if they've read this or that scientific study that debunks their theories and how many times they've replied with "I looked through it and could tell it was just more establishment propaganda" or "I started it but just couldn't take all the lies" or "I wouldn't waste my time on that garbage."
If I were working at a taxpayer-funded museum related to the Lincoln assassination and could determine which books, I would ensure that all major points of view were represented, and I would trust my customers to make up their own minds. I would include Shelton's book, along with the following:
American Brutas, by Kauffman
Dark Union, by Guttridge and Neff
Blood on the Moon, by Steers
Why Was Lincoln Murdered?, by Eisenschiml
The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, by Hanchett
Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination, by Bogar
Fortune's Fool, by Alford
It Didn't Happen the Way You Think, by Mills
Avenging Lincoln's Death, by Reed
Lincoln and Booth, by Winkler
Abraham Lincoln's Execution, by Griffin
The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and Its Expiation, by Dewitt
The Lincoln Assassination Riddle, by Williams and Burkhimer
Assassination of Lincoln, by Harris
The Suppressed Truth About the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, by McCarty
The True History of Lincoln's Assassination, by D'Amico
The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Trial and Its Legacy, by Hatch
Decapitating the Union, by Fazio
The Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth, by Bates
Mary Elizabeth Surratt, by James
The Assassin's Accomplice, by Larson
Mary Surratt: An American Tragedy, by Trindal
The Web of Conspiracy, by Roscoe
The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln, by Arnold
Trial of the Conspirators for the Assassination of President Lincoln, by Bingham
Into the Abyss, by Gillette
Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, by Luther Baker and Whitford
The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, by Oldroyd
And I would ensure that the museum's website offered a balanced selection of links on the subject.
RE: Mask For Treason - Rob Wick - 12-16-2018 11:45 AM
I truly love how you paint yourself as this disinterested logical-minded rationalist who is simply trying to tell all sides of a story (Otto taught you well) when you are far from that. You want to call me biased because I won't accept speculation over and above evidence, then feel free. Be that as it may I am curious about one thing. How would your perfect museum sell books that have been out of print for 100 or so years?
Best
Rob
RE: Mask For Treason - AussieMick - 12-16-2018 03:22 PM
Someone suggested that there are many many good books out there. You're never going to find time to read them all, even if you speed read. Unfortunately there are also many many books that are trash. The answer suggested was to take your age and subtract that from 100. So if you're 20, you get 80. If you're aged 99 you get 1. And thats the number of pages to read before deciding whether its worthwhile reading the rest of a book. Life's too short to waste reading books that you're not enjoying.
Which ones to start reading ? I guess you follow your nose ... but also take on board suggestions from people like Rob Wicks.