The Reason Lincoln Had to Die

[mikegriffith1]

(12-17-2018 04:42 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(12-16-2018 10:23 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I can't tell you who, when, or why there are page missing from Booth's diary.
I don't have any facts to substantiate a theory.
I also can't tell you who, when or why it was taken apart and put back together in the manner you indicate.
Thank you for sharing that it was taken apart, that was new information to me.

I believe it's irresponsible to denigrate Edwin Stanton based upon the selective, sometimes misleading information and speculation you have furnished.

Gene et al.,

The Booth's diary was never taken apart and put back together. The FBI report says nothing of the kind. What does appear in the FBI report on "Page 4" of the official findings is a typo where the report's author accidentally put the wrong date when talking about how impressions of earlier and later writings can be seen on the blank pages. However, in the paragraph before this one the author put the correct date showing that it was a mistake later on. Looking for a conspiracy, Mr. Thomas created an elaborate and convoluted theory about the diary being taken apart, rewritten in Booth's handwriting, and then put back together. It's nonsense. Anyone with access to photographs of the diary can see the impressions laid out in the FBI report. Taking the later typo into account, everything matches as it should and no complicated tampering occurred. The laminating that exists on the pages near the spine of the book (and on the edges of the pages) was done by the well meaning park service workers in the 1940s or so. This action was taken to help preserve the diary and keep it intact. We would not use such a method today for preservation, but it was very commonplace then.

When and how the missing pages were removed will always be a subject of discussion, but the most likely scenario in my mind is that Booth removed them himself. As I tell people on the Booth tour, the large section of pages removed from the diary are from Jan - June of 1864. During that period of time, Booth was still acting and likely used the book for memorandum, keeping track of the cities he visited and his nightly earnings. When, during the escape, Booth discovered his letter to the National Intelligencer had not been published and that this small book was one of the few things left to him to write his thoughts in, it seems very probable he removed these unrelated sheets himself in order to start his manifesto on the first page.

Lastly, I've seen one individual on here try to prove it wasn't Booth at the Garretts' because the Garrett family talked about seeing "Mr. Boyd" writing in a black book and John Wilkes Booth's diary was red. I laughed when I read that because Booth's diary is a black book. The outside cover is black. It is only the inside that has the red leather.

One, the inside covers are clearly red. Red is the only color anyone would see if they saw someone writing in the diary, unless the writer were writing it in while holding it upright.

And are you certain that the first picture is of Booth's diary? I ask because the flap or tab seen extending from the right side of the diary in the second picture does not appear in the first picture.

Two, the Garretts saw the man writing on a date that came after Booth's last entry in his diary. Where is that entry?

Three, if someone did not take the diary apart, what's with all the obvious glue?

Four, how do you explain the shifted sections and the surgically removed pages?

Five, why do one of Booth's sentences end in mid-sentence?

Six, Congressman Butler made the point that the War Department’s prosecutors did not even inform the members of the military commission that they had Booth’s diary. Indeed, Butler noted that when Lieutenant Colonel Everton Conger, the man who supposedly found the diary on Booth’s body, testified at the conspiracy trial, the prosecutors carefully phrased their questions so that Conger’s answers contained no reference to the diary. Said Butler,

Why was not Lieutenant Colonel Conger allowed to go on and state what had been found on Booth's body? The questions were carefully put to him so that he should not tell about this book. He identified a knife, pair of pistols, holster, tobacco pipe cartridge, and a bill of exchange, etc., but he was nowhere asked, "were these all the articles that were found on Booth?” If he had been asked that question, he would have answered that he took Booth's diary from his pocket. (Alexandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser, March 27, 1867)

Well, now, isn't that interesting? Why do you suppose Holt and Bingham did not even want the military judges to know they had Booth's diary?