The Flimsy Case Against Mary Surratt

[AussieMick]

Mike,
Gene is right. The pictures are very good.
Did you get anybody to proof-read the document? I know that its not a pleasant process ... and you need to find the best possible people to do so. Too often they try to impose their own opinions and slant on what is, intrinsically, your document. But quality proof-reading would assist in identifying the typos and inconsistencies.

Example :
"How could small field glasses, small enough to be opera glasses, wrapped in paper
appear to be several saucers wrapped in paper? Go look at pictures of the alleged
Booth field glasses, or at pictures of field glasses that were similar in size (see picture
above). Imagine wrapping them in some paper, and then try to imagine how the
package could look like “two or three saucers” or a “glass dessert dish” wrapped in
paper. A pair of field glasses wrapped in paper would be rectangular in shape and
would look noting like some saucers wrapped in paper."

'noting' ? you mean 'nothing' ?
That's just the first typo I noticed (OK, maybe its the only one?)

I would though also comment on your use of 'Go look at pictures'. That type of vernacular is fine (though a bit insulting) on a forum. But its not really common usage in discussion papers (IMO).


The other issue , more of an opinion I know, the title ("The Flimsy ...") for the document could be improved ... maybe "A woman unjustly Hanged ? A Defence of Mary Surratt" ?