Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 11-04-2016 02:25 PM by Gene C.)

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

IF you can't imagine, and you haven't found an answer through nature you are satisfied with,
the alternative is to consider an answer that is beyond your imagination and above the laws of nature.

Angel

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 11-04-2016 05:48 PM by loetar44.)

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(11-04-2016 05:24 AM)loetar44 Wrote: KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

John,
I feel that we almost have reached a consensus. Almost anything is possible, there is no final “absolute truth”. It reminds me of the “many-worlds interpretation” in quantum physics, which states that there is an infinite web of alternate possibilities (in physics we speak of “wavefunctions”). Many-worlds implies that all possible scenario’s are real, each representing an “actual world”. Everything that could possibly have happened in our past has occurred in “another world”. A scenario (wavefunction) collapse (becomes the only scenario) only by “observation”, scientifically said it reduces to a single eigenstate. In other words: your scenario could be true, my scenario could be true, all possible other scenario’s could be true. Everything could possibly have happened. Each scenario is subjective. If you “observe” your scenario, your scenario (wavefunction) collapse (reduces to an eigenstate), and becomes suddenly the only scenario and is therefore true, because it is the only scenario that is left. This does not mean that that scenario is the absolute truth (correct at any moment), or near the absolute truth, it's only true (correct for one moment). The same goes for my scenario and all other possible scenario’s, when they collapse. As said, we live in a many-worlds world. I know that it's a serious claim, that carries some rather serious scientific, philosophical, and existential baggage. But as a physicist I believe in quantum physics and can live with a many-worlds scenario. Do we agree?

Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John
[/quote]

John,

I'm more a mathematician than a physicist, but I've an answer how I see it. In short: I believe in eternal inflation. In our beginning there was nothing but infinite potential, dense and hot, maybe 10^30 degrees, wildly experimenting with every possibility that quantum uncertainty permits. There were billions and billions events in eternal tiny moments expanding from every spark point for all eternity, unlimited by the speed of light or lack of space. One spark point that fell out of eternity (and entered time) became our universe. Other spark points that fell out of eternity became other universes, completely separate of our universe. I've a nice metaphor which can help to better understand this all, but I think this is indeed beyond the scope of the symposium and it is a much lengthier story. If you want I can send you a private e-mail.

Back to Stanton...
Is it possible that O'Laughlen went to Booth to talk him out of his wild plans? He already separated himself from the plot, returned to Baltimore, but came back to DC after Booth visited him there on April 13. I mean, its the opposite you say. Not Booth wanted him back, but O'Laughlen wanted Booth to stop. Seems to me more logic. What do you think?

(11-04-2016 02:17 PM)Gene C Wrote:

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

IF you can't imagine, and you haven't found an answer through nature you are satisfied with,
the alternative is to consider an answer that is beyond your imagination and above the laws of nature.

nice said Gene ! IMO it's better to say "above the known laws of nature". There a lot of laws we still don't know ....

John Fazio · 11-04-2016, 09:59 PM

(11-04-2016 05:41 PM)loetar44 Wrote:
(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote:
(11-04-2016 05:24 AM)loetar44 Wrote: KEES:

YOUR SCENARIO IS POSSIBLE, ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT ALMOST ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS UNLIKELY. THE SCENARIO I HAVE LAID OUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE LIKELY, INDEED MUCH MORE LIKELY.

JOHN

John,
I feel that we almost have reached a consensus. Almost anything is possible, there is no final “absolute truth”. It reminds me of the “many-worlds interpretation” in quantum physics, which states that there is an infinite web of alternate possibilities (in physics we speak of “wavefunctions”). Many-worlds implies that all possible scenario’s are real, each representing an “actual world”. Everything that could possibly have happened in our past has occurred in “another world”. A scenario (wavefunction) collapse (becomes the only scenario) only by “observation”, scientifically said it reduces to a single eigenstate. In other words: your scenario could be true, my scenario could be true, all possible other scenario’s could be true. Everything could possibly have happened. Each scenario is subjective. If you “observe” your scenario, your scenario (wavefunction) collapse (reduces to an eigenstate), and becomes suddenly the only scenario and is therefore true, because it is the only scenario that is left. This does not mean that that scenario is the absolute truth (correct at any moment), or near the absolute truth, it's only true (correct for one moment). The same goes for my scenario and all other possible scenario’s, when they collapse. As said, we live in a many-worlds world. I know that it's a serious claim, that carries some rather serious scientific, philosophical, and existential baggage. But as a physicist I believe in quantum physics and can live with a many-worlds scenario. Do we agree?

Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

John,

I'm more a mathematician than a physicist, but I've an answer how I see it. In short: I believe in eternal inflation. In our beginning there was nothing but infinite potential, dense and hot, maybe 10^30 degrees, wildly experimenting with every possibility that quantum uncertainty permits. There were billions and billions events in eternal tiny moments expanding from every spark point for all eternity, unlimited by the speed of light or lack of space. One spark point that fell out of eternity (and entered time) became our universe. Other spark points that fell out of eternity became other universes, completely separate of our universe. I've a nice metaphor which can help to better understand this all, but I think this is indeed beyond the scope of the symposium and it is a much lengthier story. If you want I can send you a private e-mail.

Back to Stanton...
Is it possible that O'Laughlen went to Booth to talk him out of his wild plans? He already separated himself from the plot, returned to Baltimore, but came back to DC after Booth visited him there on April 13. I mean, its the opposite you say. Not Booth wanted him back, but O'Laughlen wanted Booth to stop. Seems to me more logic. What do you think?

(11-04-2016 02:17 PM)Gene C Wrote:

(11-04-2016 12:11 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Kees:

Asking me understand quantum physics is like asking an Eskimo to understand monsoon rains. But, yes, I do agree that any scenario re O'Laughlen's role in the assassination may be right, inasmuch as so little is known with certainty.

I did not know you are a physicist. Perhaps you can help me. I have long pondered the origin of the universe and of life on earth and, in fact, have written an essay on both subjects. Forget the second for now. Please share your thoughts on the origin of the universe. I am an agnostic precisely because I cannot imagine how the universe could have created itself out of nothing, but nor can I imagine the origin of a god or gods from nothing. I read Steven Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Lawrence Krauss (A Universe From Nothing) and was not satisfied with either author's explanation. I wrote to Krauss at length, expressing my objections to his analysis and conclusions, but never received a response. I know this subject is beyond the scope of this Symposium; nevertheless, I am most interested in your thoughts.

John

IF you can't imagine, and you haven't found an answer through nature you are satisfied with,
the alternative is to consider an answer that is beyond your imagination and above the laws of nature.

nice said Gene ! IMO it's better to say "above the known laws of nature". There a lot of laws we still don't know ....
[/quote]

Kees:

Thank you for your offering. Frankly, I cannot make sense of it. That leaves two possibilities: either it doesn't make sense or I am not equipped to understand it. How can "potential", which is an abstraction, i.e. not material, be "dense and hot". Further, I do not understand what "spark points" are; I do not know where the "space" came from; and, according to Sagan, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Still further, Sagan says that the laws of nature, as we know them, must be the same everywhere. Please send your metaphor, etc., to 3420 South Smith Rd., Fairlawn, Ohio 44333. Thank you in advance.

As for O'Laughlen, yes, your theory is possible, but I believe it is highly unlikely. I find it hard to believe that Booth's friend from childhood, who enjoyed a special relationship with Booth, would betray him or do anything that was contrary to his interests, including trying to talk him out of his mission. Booth was boss; the leader of his immediate action team. O'Laughlen was merely a subordinate. If he wanted to talk him out of it, he would have done so in Baltimore when Booth came there on the 13th to fetch him. The fact that he went to Washington and then, while there, went twice to the National, proves, to me, that he was still playing Booth's game.

Gene:

My thinking (and everyone else's) is limited by the capabilities of my brain. That is to say that our brains are not capable of going beyond their imagination. We are not capable of sensing, in any way, anything that is not part of our universe, assuming there is something that is not part of our universe. If I can't sense it any way, I cannot justify belief in it. I believe it atoms, even though we cannot see them, because we have other means of sensing that they are there. Sagan said that the laws of nature must be the same everywhere. Our brains are not capable of going outside the laws of nature, assuming there is something outside such laws. Our brains, and the tools we use to make them aware of what is not immediately apparent to our senses, are all we have. Faith, which is almost a perfect synonym for belief, must be based on some reality.

John

SSlater · 11-04-2016, 11:13 PM

I feel like I am eavesdropping on a conversation in the next booth in a crowded bar. Neither one of you can reconstruct what was said or done in 1865. You have to accept what each one has said and that is the only answer. Why is it necessary that one of them is wrong? So, the only statement that is available to us is Booth said.... O'Laughlin said..... Surratt said.... Etc. Not one of them is wrong. All of their statements COMBINED, is the answer. (But, I like the way the debate is going.)

RJNorton · 11-05-2016, 04:00 AM

(11-01-2016 12:49 PM)John Fazio Wrote: To do only what he most probably did: case out Stanton's home, to get the lay of the land and to find out, if possible, Stanton's and Grant's planned whereabouts the following evening. (How did Booth know Grant would be at Stanton's home that night? He had sources inside the Federal government, probably including the White House.

John, I am fascinated by the possibility that Booth knew Grant would be at the Stantons' reception because there were sources either in the government or White House that told him. If it were the White House, can you possibly name a suspect? Did someone close to Lincoln meet with Booth and tell him? I am intrigued by that possibility. A mole in the White House?

(Was there a purpose to the Stantons' reception? Was it held specifically to honor Grant? If so, then Booth may not have needed "inside" information.)

HerbS · 11-05-2016, 07:35 AM

Was Stanton and Grant part of the conspiracy? We have been told that Mrs.Grant did not enjoy Mary Lincoln!

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 11-05-2016 09:29 AM by Gene C.)

John F,

I appreciate your comments, we both could write much more but this may not be the place. Here we will have to agree to disagree.

loetar44 · (This post was last modified: 11-05-2016 09:36 AM by loetar44.)

(11-04-2016 09:59 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Kees:

Thank you for your offering. Frankly, I cannot make sense of it. That leaves two possibilities: either it doesn't make sense or I am not equipped to understand it. How can "potential", which is an abstraction, i.e. not material, be "dense and hot". Further, I do not understand what "spark points" are; I do not know where the "space" came from; and, according to Sagan, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Still further, Sagan says that the laws of nature, as we know them, must be the same everywhere. Please send your metaphor, etc., to 3420 South Smith Rd., Fairlawn, Ohio 44333. Thank you in advance.

As for O'Laughlen, yes, your theory is possible, but I believe it is highly unlikely. I find it hard to believe that Booth's friend from childhood, who enjoyed a special relationship with Booth, would betray him or do anything that was contrary to his interests, including trying to talk him out of his mission. Booth was boss; the leader of his immediate action team. O'Laughlen was merely a subordinate. If he wanted to talk him out of it, he would have done so in Baltimore when Booth came there on the 13th to fetch him. The fact that he went to Washington and then, while there, went twice to the National, proves, to me, that he was still playing Booth's game.

John

John,
I did not say that potential was dense and hot. I said: “In our beginning there was nothing but infinite potential, dense and hot” ---- three things necessary for the creation of our universe: 1. infinite potential, 2. dense and 3. hot. Infinite potential is a concept from quantum mechanics. I think Sagan said that MATTER cannot travel faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). BTW, it’s not from Sagan, but from Einstein. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. Spacetime itself expand at a rate such that objects within it are separating faster than the speed of light. And indeed the laws of nature must be the same everywhere IN OUR UNIVERSE. But there are probably more universes with totally other laws of nature. It’s my pleasure to give you my opinion. Please send me your private E-MAIL address via the contact page of this forum, because (I think) this is not the place to discuss this and snail mail is too slow.

Back to O’Laughlen, Booth, Stanton, Grant

All is possible, but why was O’Laughlen still Booth’s “partner in crime”? Yes, he had (from childhood) a very special and close relationship with Booth. Booth was a “good friend”, BUT turned a bad friend, a toxic friend, who tried to manipulate him and others. He had bad intentions. That’s why O’Laughlen left the group after the meeting in Gautier’s and returned to Baltimore. Yes, it’s possible that Booth still wanted O’Laughlen in his team. He travelled to Baltimore on April 13, but maybe found O’Laughlen still unwilling to join again (why would he have changed his mind?). Maybe O’Laughlen warned Booth of the consequences of his actions; that he would end up on the gallows. Therefore, as a lifelong friend, O’Laughlen tried to change Booth’s mind. That’s are friends for. That’s also the reason he went twice to the National. In all honesty, I don’t think, O’Laughlen was Booth’s “subordinate”, and did not see Booth as his “boss”, who “ordered” him to go to the National.

Another thing. As far as I know Booth told Powell, Atzerodt and Herold of his plan to kill Lincoln c.s. at the final meeting in Herndon House, in the early evening of April 14. What was his reason to tell O’Laughlen his plan on April 13?

John Fazio · 11-05-2016, 12:40 PM

(11-05-2016 04:00 AM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-01-2016 12:49 PM)John Fazio Wrote: To do only what he most probably did: case out Stanton's home, to get the lay of the land and to find out, if possible, Stanton's and Grant's planned whereabouts the following evening. (How did Booth know Grant would be at Stanton's home that night? He had sources inside the Federal government, probably including the White House.

John, I am fascinated by the possibility that Booth knew Grant would be at the Stantons' reception because there were sources either in the government or White House that told him. If it were the White House, can you possibly name a suspect? Did someone close to Lincoln meet with Booth and tell him? I am intrigued by that possibility. A mole in the White House?

(Was there a purpose to the Stantons' reception? Was it held specifically to honor Grant? If so, then Booth may not have needed "inside" information.)

Roger:

Grant and Julia were guests of honor at Stanton's home on the 13th, joined by dozens of War Department employees. Knowledge of their presence there might have come to Booth from his inside sources or from a public announcement. Either way, I regard it as a near certainty that there was treachery in the Federal government and, most likely, in the Executive Mansion (White House) itself. Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy refer to "Booth's intelligence system" working perfectly with respect to the president's and Mrs. Lincoln's theater party, which, they say, Booth learned of long before Mary's request to reserve the presidential box was received by James R. Ford at 10:30 in the morning of the 14th. Frederick A. Demond, a guard on the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge, wrote a series of letters, late in the 19th century and early in the 20th, which strongly suggest treachery at the bridge, which enabled Booth and Herold to cross after hours and without a pass. Demond's accounts have been challenged because of inconsistencies, but in my opinion there is enough consistency to conclude that there was indeed treachery at the bridge. Stringfellow wrote about a mission he undertook in Washington in March, 1865, at Davis's behest, in which, he said, he was in contact with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln and that he made this officer a proposition. Mills believes the officer was Parker. I doubt it, but must at least acknowledge the possibility. According to Roscoe, Robert Lincoln allegedly had documentary evidence of treason committed by a member of his father's cabinet. Jacob Thompson said he would not write his memoirs because there was still one man in Congress, in 1883, who enjoyed the confidence of the Federal government at the same time he was aiding the Confederacy during the war. Jacob Thompson also said that "many...prominent men in the North would be utterly ruined and destroyed if the many papers in his possession fell into the hands of the enemy". Remember, too, the many Copperheads whom Mary Lincoln excoriated and the many radical Republicans whom Nicolay said were secretly gleeful when Lincoln was gone. The octopus had many tentacles and any one of them was capable of feeding Booth information as to the president's and other Federal leaders' whereabouts at any given time and arranging for safe passage of the fugitives across the bridge. See also pp. 368-371 of Decapitating.

John

RJNorton · 11-05-2016, 01:20 PM

(11-05-2016 12:40 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Stringfellow wrote about a mission he undertook in Washington in March, 1865, at Davis's behest, in which, he said, he was in contact with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln and that he made this officer a proposition. Mills believes the officer was Parker. I doubt it, but must at least acknowledge the possibility.

Thanks for replying to my questions, John.

Regarding Parker, the exact date he began duty at the White House is unknown (at least to my knowledge). Mr. James O. Hall wrote, "Parker must have been assigned to the White House in late March." So Mills' belief is conceivable. However, like you, I think unlikely.

John Fazio · 11-05-2016, 08:56 PM

(11-05-2016 01:20 PM)RJNorton Wrote:
(11-05-2016 12:40 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Stringfellow wrote about a mission he undertook in Washington in March, 1865, at Davis's behest, in which, he said, he was in contact with an officer occupying an important position about Lincoln and that he made this officer a proposition. Mills believes the officer was Parker. I doubt it, but must at least acknowledge the possibility.

Thanks for replying to my questions, John.

Regarding Parker, the exact date he began duty at the White House is unknown (at least to my knowledge). Mr. James O. Hall wrote, "Parker must have been assigned to the White House in late March." So Mills' belief is conceivable. However, like you, I think unlikely.

Roger:

My information is that Parker was assigned to White House duty some time between late February and early April, 1865, which means it could have been any time in March. See Chapter 15 of Decapitating for arguments favoring Parker's colossally bad judgment but opposing his complicity in the great crime and therefore opposing Mills's theory that Stringfellow's contact was Parker.

John

John Fazio · 11-06-2016, 07:31 AM

(11-05-2016 09:28 AM)loetar44 Wrote:
(11-04-2016 09:59 PM)John Fazio Wrote: Kees:

Thank you for your offering. Frankly, I cannot make sense of it. That leaves two possibilities: either it doesn't make sense or I am not equipped to understand it. How can "potential", which is an abstraction, i.e. not material, be "dense and hot". Further, I do not understand what "spark points" are; I do not know where the "space" came from; and, according to Sagan, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Still further, Sagan says that the laws of nature, as we know them, must be the same everywhere. Please send your metaphor, etc., to 3420 South Smith Rd., Fairlawn, Ohio 44333. Thank you in advance.

As for O'Laughlen, yes, your theory is possible, but I believe it is highly unlikely. I find it hard to believe that Booth's friend from childhood, who enjoyed a special relationship with Booth, would betray him or do anything that was contrary to his interests, including trying to talk him out of his mission. Booth was boss; the leader of his immediate action team. O'Laughlen was merely a subordinate. If he wanted to talk him out of it, he would have done so in Baltimore when Booth came there on the 13th to fetch him. The fact that he went to Washington and then, while there, went twice to the National, proves, to me, that he was still playing Booth's game.

John

John,
I did not say that potential was dense and hot. I said: “In our beginning there was nothing but infinite potential, dense and hot” ---- three things necessary for the creation of our universe: 1. infinite potential, 2. dense and 3. hot. Infinite potential is a concept from quantum mechanics. I think Sagan said that MATTER cannot travel faster than the speed of light (in a vacuum). BTW, it’s not from Sagan, but from Einstein. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. Spacetime itself expand at a rate such that objects within it are separating faster than the speed of light. And indeed the laws of nature must be the same everywhere IN OUR UNIVERSE. But there are probably more universes with totally other laws of nature. It’s my pleasure to give you my opinion. Please send me your private E-MAIL address via the contact page of this forum, because (I think) this is not the place to discuss this and snail mail is too slow.

Back to O’Laughlen, Booth, Stanton, Grant

All is possible, but why was O’Laughlen still Booth’s “partner in crime”? Yes, he had (from childhood) a very special and close relationship with Booth. Booth was a “good friend”, BUT turned a bad friend, a toxic friend, who tried to manipulate him and others. He had bad intentions. That’s why O’Laughlen left the group after the meeting in Gautier’s and returned to Baltimore. Yes, it’s possible that Booth still wanted O’Laughlen in his team. He travelled to Baltimore on April 13, but maybe found O’Laughlen still unwilling to join again (why would he have changed his mind?). Maybe O’Laughlen warned Booth of the consequences of his actions; that he would end up on the gallows. Therefore, as a lifelong friend, O’Laughlen tried to change Booth’s mind. That’s are friends for. That’s also the reason he went twice to the National. In all honesty, I don’t think, O’Laughlen was Booth’s “subordinate”, and did not see Booth as his “boss”, who “ordered” him to go to the National.

Another thing. As far as I know Booth told Powell, Atzerodt and Herold of his plan to kill Lincoln c.s. at the final meeting in Herndon House, in the early evening of April 14. What was his reason to tell O’Laughlen his plan on April 13?

Kees:

The scenario you set forth--O'Laughlen trying to persuade Booth to call it quits-- is certainly possible, but I believe it to be less likely than the scenario in which he is still part of Booth's plans. If O'Laughlen tried to talk Booth out of proceeding with his plans, he would have told his lawyer this, would he not? In that case, his lawyer would have made that argument to the Commission, but there is no evidence that he did. His lawyer addressed only his client's whereabouts on the 13th and 14th, trying in this way to demonstrate that his client was not guilty of what he was charged with in the indictment and specifications. Your belief that O'Laughlen was not Booth's subordinate is off the mark. Please read the evidence against him in Pitman, especially Booth's letters to him dated March 13 and March 27 ("Don't fear to neglect your business. You had better come at once"; "Get word to Sam. Come on, with or without him, Wednesday morning. We sell that day sure. Don't fail". These orders are consistent with his going to the National on the 13th and 14th of April. He would not have gone unless he felt obligated to go.

There is persuasive evidence that all three of them already knew what was expected of them that night. That was certainly true of Arnold, who later told his captors that he had been given his assignment in the morning. The meeting was held merely to clarify roles and to tie up loose ends. Because push had finally come to shove, Atzerodt objected, but he put his head into the lion's mouth anyway. O'Laughlen and Arnold were always kept separate from the others, except at Gautier's and Campbell Hospital. Booth most likely gave O'Laughlen his assignment(s) in Baltimore. There was therefore no reason for him to attend the Herndon House meeting.

John

Wild Bill · 11-06-2016, 08:29 AM

Excellent, John. You got O'L down pat!

John Fazio · 11-06-2016, 09:00 AM

(11-06-2016 08:29 AM)Wild Bill Wrote: Excellent, John. You got O'L down pat!

Wild Bill:

Thank you. Confirmation from you is especially meaningful.

John

RJNorton · 11-06-2016, 10:42 AM

How do we even know Booth traveled to Baltimore on April 13th?

I do not see it mentioned in Art Loux's book. (Maybe it's there and I am missing it?)

Mike Kauffman writes, "Someone calling himself "Justice" reported seeing Booth talking to O'Laughlen in Baltimore, and said that O'Laughlen was supposed to accompany Booth to Washington that day. The story has the ring of truth; and makes O'Laughlen's trip to Washington appear less coincidental."

So is this letter from someone named "Justice" the only tangible evidence Booth went to Baltimore on April 13th? Is there more than "a ring of truth" to the alleged trip?