Was Stanton a murder target?

[SSlater]

(10-28-2016 09:38 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John and others,

John, you said: “If you are still unconvinced, then I say, with all due respect and modesty, that the burden of proof has shifted to you. That is to say: please present your evidence that Stanton was NOT targeted.” And you said that your nine items “are not ‘proofs’; they are 'evidence'.” What's the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’? I've noticed that the word ‘evidence’ is often used in English as if it meant ‘proof’. IMO ‘proof’ only really exists in math. In the real world almost nothing can be truly proven. Evidence lends support to a hypothesis (or eventually theory), but those conclusions are always open to change. ‘Evidence’ may be used to form a theory and ‘proof’ shows the theory to be a fact. Right?

Of course I can’t prove (and nobody can) that Stanton was NOT a murder target. And the same goes for the opposite, Stanton WAS a murder target. There is ALWAYS place for doubt. In all modesty and be assured that I highly respect your opinions, but it seems to me that you present your case like there is no room for doubt, that your evidence is conclusive but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion. What to say about the 9 items in your posting and in your book? There is room for doubt re. each item. And I could not say it better than SSlater and Gene C.

I want to add:
1) O’Laughlen was seen in or near Stanton’s house on April 13, by 3 witnesses. 8 witnesses saw him at the same time at other places in D.C. Why assume (I use the word deliberately) that the accounts of the 3 are more reliable than the accounts of the other 8?
2) A mysterious figure was seen on Stanton’s porch and behind the tree-box on April 14. Why assume that it was a would-be assassin or even O’Laughlen? I find it hard to believe. Some say that O’Laughlen was also seen in the train to assassinate Gen. Grant at the same evening. Could it be, one man (O’Laughlen) seen at three places at the same time (Stanton’s house, in DC with a hangover, in Grant’s train)? That is at least no solid reasoning.
3) Yes, O’Laughlen was in the National Hotel on April 13 and 14, but why assume that he spoke with Booth and it was there that he got the assignment to kill Stanton? The first time he was only 5 minutes in the Hotel, but stay at the desk and did not see Booth (he was out). The second time he was circa 1 hour in the hotel, but Early (who was with O’Laughlen and stayed outside) never saw Booth. It’s even the question if Booth was in the hotel. On the morning of April 14 (according to desk clerk Walter Burton) Herold ran into the hall, looking for Booth. Both went to Booth’s room and found the room empty, and the bed still made. Burton’s account was 44 years after the event, maybe he was mistaken. Was Booth somewhere in the city, did he see the grand illumination and was he with Lucy Hale? Speculations of course. It is also speculation that O’Laughlen spoke with Booth in his room. It is unknown that O’Lauglen found Booth there. Why assume that he did?
4) Secretary of the Interior John Usher indeed said (wrote) “A man was heard by (Attorney General) Speed walking on his back porch, and was found at Stanton’s hid between a tree box who ran away”. Why assume that Usher saw that man? He wrote it a day AFTER Lincoln’s death and could have read it in The New York Times, which wrote on April 16 “Two gentlemen who went to the Secretary of War to apprize him of the attack on Mr. Lincoln met at the residence of the former a man muffled in a cloak, who, when accosted by them, hastened away”. Hudson Taylor gave his account on March 21, 1866, almost 2 years after the fact. Stanton himself was silent for almost 30 years. Stewart came with his account in 1908.
5) Stanton’s doorbell. Why assume that de bell was broken? James B. Morrow (a source for Eisenschiml) declared that a man named Sterling went to Stanton's home, to tell him the news of the murder. Stanton’s son then immediately came to the door, when the doorbell rang.
6) A lot of witnesses (Confederate operatives in Canada) were unreliable in the past, why assume that they are now fully reliable? Why did they say what they said? Well, if discovered (even the slightest suspicion), anyone involved in a plot like to decapitate the Union would face execution, or long prison terms at least.

I leave it with these 6 points. What I want to say is that you never must contaminate your evidence by what you think or what your (subjective) feelings are saying to you. Be objective. You have to concentrate on what you know for certain. Atzerodt’s confessions, certainly his last, is more near the truth than e.g. Jones book.

To decapitate the United States government is not easy. You need a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved a lot of people. Most theories fail to apply the principle of Occam’s razor, which say that simpler theories should be preferred to more complex theories. In other words Occam’s Razor predicts that the correct theory (or hypothesis) is the one that makes the fewest assumptions. The theory that is the truth is almost always the one that is the least complicated. Strip away the complexities and you are close to the correct answer. That Stanton was a murder target is in my opinion such a complexity. The simple story is that Lincoln (Booth), Seward (Powell) and Johnson (Atzerodt and Herold) were the targets.

WOW !!!!!!. So well said!!!