Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

mikegriffith1 · 11-03-2018, 11:22 AM

(11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote:
(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote: [quote='mikegriffith1' pid='73688' dateline='1541255172']
Sigh. . . . This is a theory of how Booth was placed out of harm's way. The theory is "consistent" with the evidence. The evidence does not disqualify the theory.

I'm sorry if I have overlooked this, but it's not clear to me, what "evidence"?

Did you read my entire reply? As I thought I made crystal clear, I was referring to evidence that Dr. Arnold's discusses in Chapter 4 of his book.

(11-03-2018 10:03 AM)Gene C Wrote: Otto Eisenschiml devotes an entire chapter in his book, In the Shadow of Lincoln's Death, that it was most likely John Wilkes Booth who was shot and killed at the Garrett farm, but Eisenschiml does leave himself a little wiggle room.

"In all probability, and giving due weight to all aspects of the case, Herold felt certain that it was Booth, and no one else, who had been shot" p.65

"Pending further developments, the contenders for the orthodox theory have by far the better case, although it does not stand proven" p.87.

I know how much you respect Eisenchiml's research, are you saying Herold thinks Boyd is Booth?

One, Eisenschiml notes that Herold initially said the man was Boyd. How did you miss that? Or were you quoting someone else's quotation of Eisenschiml?

Two, as I've said a few times, I simply disagree with Eisenschiml on this point, and I believe that if Eisenschiml were alive today and read the research on this issue that was published after he wrote his books, he would change his mind.

Three, if you are going to insist that the man in the barn was Booth, then you need to, finally, come up with medical evidence that a body's appearance, including its "lineaments," can become unrecognizable, and magically grow freckles on its face, after no more than 10 days under similar circumstances. That's the hard, science-based objection that you keep avoiding.

(11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote: Moreover, how do you explain the account of Pvt. John W. Millington of the 16th New York Cavalry:

We could hear Booth accusing the man who was with him, David E. Harold, of being a coward. Harold was willing to surrender and Booth said, "You're a coward to desert me." Finally, Booth called out and said, "Harold will surrender, but I will not." Our captain said, "Tell Harold to pass out his arms and come out." Booth said, "Harold has no arms. They belong to me." "Our officer told Harold to come to the door. He came and as he opened the door Lieutenant Dougherty grabbed him and pulled him out. With a picket rope he tied him to a locust tree, called me and told me to guard him. I said to Harold, "Who was in the barn with you? Was it Booth?" He said, "Yes, Booth is in the barn."

Humm, now that's odd, since Doherty says no such thing in his report. Why do you suppose that is? Furthermore, Herold initially said that the man was Boyd.

(11-03-2018 10:53 AM)Steve Wrote: If a switch had been made why would "Boyd" call Herold a coward for deserting him? And why would Herold identify the other man in the barn as Booth prior to the shot being fired?

https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln73.html

Are you serious?! OF COURSE Boyd would have called Herold a coward for deserting him! It would have been only natural for him to do so. And, again, I point out that initially Herold said that the man was Boyd, not Booth.