Mask For Treason

[mikegriffith1]

This reply answers three responses.

(12-02-2018 01:15 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Mike, I am going to borrow from some thoughts you expressed above, because it works both ways.

It is amazing how you are willing to engage in critical thinking to critically over analyze any well accepted traditionalist sources, but then you will turn around and unquestioningly accept the most abject nonsense from non-traditionalist sources.

Would you care to explain why the theory that Booth was poisoned is "abject nonsense"? Simply declaring something does not make it true. I have reviewed the evidence that supports Shelton's theory that Booth was poisoned. It is a matter of record. It is not definitive, but is consistent with his theory. However, it is also consistent with Booth simply catching a flu bug or something. So it is not "abject nonsense" by any rational standard. You might disagree with the theory, but there is evidence that supports it.

(12-02-2018 12:42 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 11:57 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  I think Shelton makes some valid points to support part of his theory--mainly, the part about Booth showing sudden signs of severe illness shortly after drinking with Herold

I simply asked because in other posts you have supported Dr. Arnold's statement that the switch with Boyd happened on the 24th; Booth seemed OK at this point, right? No mention at all of Booth being severely ill during the escape from Washington. Does Dr. Arnold, a physician and assistant coroner, discuss Booth's severe illness in his book?

So I am guessing you feel Booth recovered from the illness (possibly poisoning) and was able to make the Boyd switch on the 24th and make his getaway, do a lot of traveling, and finally passing away in India on October 12, 1883.

On p. 282 Shelton writes, "Booth died of a bullet wound in the neck at 7:00 A.M., April 26."

But I assume you believe Dr. Arnold, not Shelton.

Well, you see, I follow this concept called "critical thinking." I'm also a big fan of logic and reason. That means I do not blindly accept everything an author says, even if think highly of him and agree with him on many/most issues.

Now, to answer your questions:

One, as I've said, I am not certain that Booth was poisoned. I think he might have been, but that's as far as I think the evidence can be pressed.

Two, Shelton (necessarily) opines that Booth must not have drunk enough of the poison to kill him.

Three, if Booth was poisoned, then, yes, I believe he recovered and was able to make the Boyd switch and get away.

Four, I disagree with Shelton about Booth being the man in the barn. So, yes, on this issue, I agree with Dr. Arnold and disagree with Shelton.

Five, I would have to go back and check to be sure, but I do not believe that Dr. Arnold mentions Booth being sick during the first few days of his flight.

(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.

I've read Thomas Jones' account. He never mentions seeing binocs/field glasses. This is, admittedly, an argument from silence.

When I wrote my reply, I had not read your comments about the binocs being seen by the Garretts. If your comments on this issue are factual and credible, I would agree that I was incorrect to say that no one saw the field glasses after the stop at the tavern.

Would you mind presenting your sources for Garretts' statements on this?

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  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. . . .

That makes no sense to me. If Stanton, Holt, etc., had the binocs, they should have introduced them at the trial because they would have constituted evidence, albeit rather circumstantial evidence, that Mary Surratt carried them to Surrattsville at Booth's request. The prosecution introduced into evidence such insignificant items as the spurs that were supposedly recovered from Atzerodt's room as (flimsy) circumstantial evidence to back up part of Weichmann's story. So they certainly should have introduced the binocs, if they had them.

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  -- much like the question of why the diary wasn't introduced in the 1865 trial.

I think that is not only silly but indicative of a rabidly partisan, closed-minded attitude. Even Congressman Ben Butler noted that at least two entries in the diary could have had a huge impact on the verdicts and on the prosecution's case. Go read his exchange with Bingham on this issue.

And you seem to want to forget that Stanton and Holt did not merely decline to introduce the diary into evidence at the trial, they suppressed the diary's very existence from everyone--from the tribunal, from the press, from the defense attorneys, and from the American people. Why? Perhaps because they knew that the diary, even in its redacted form, contained explosive statements that would damage the prosecution's case and raise troubling questions?

By the way, after voicing his extreme suspicions about the diary's suppression, Butler went on to accuse Bingham of hanging Mary Surratt on the basis of insufficient evidence! Again, go read his exchange with Bingham.

(12-03-2018 07:27 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And please don't repeat your thoughts on that; we've heard enough.

Umm, you have repeated many, many of your arguments. I've heard enough of your Seeing the Emperor's New Clothes arguments too, but I'm enough of an open-minded analyst and critical thinker that I read as many of your replies as I can, and I don't complain when you repeat your time-warped talking points. So, I will repeat whatever argument I want, whenever I want. If you don't want to read the repeated argument, stop reading and move on.