Mask For Treason

[mikegriffith1]

(12-02-2018 10:13 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:06 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  His book is one of the most thoroughly documented books on the Lincoln case.

Shelton writes that David Herold tried to poison Booth. He claimed the field glasses Mary Surratt delivered to Lloyd contained poison that Herold put into Booth's whiskey. According to Shelton, Booth drank deeply from the bottle of liquor brought to him by Herold at Lloyd's. The slow poisoning of Booth went on for some time.

Mike, I take it that you believe this to be true. What is the "thorough documentation" for this?

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

Anyway, since you asked, part of Shelton's documentation is the evidence, taken from accepted accounts, that Booth became very sick right after he drank with Herold and that he showed no signs of illness before then. Did you read Shelton's section on this? It consists of eight pages of heavily footnoted analysis (pp. 275-283).

I think Shelton might be correct about the poisoning, but I don't accept the details of his theory on the matter.

For example, to support his theory, he assumes that the body on the Montauk was Booth and that the alleged poison caused the freckling. He also accepts the few accounts that claim the body's face looked sunken and sharpened as if altered by "exposure and starvation," and he opines, not illogically, that poisoning caused this appearance.

If the Montauk body was in fact Booth, poisoning would be a better explanation for the alleged sunken/starved appearance of the face than the traditional version's explanation, since we know that Booth had many meals during his flight, that he spent three nights of his 10 days indoors, and that he spent several days doing nothing but lying around (with extra blankets) in thick woods. Ten days under such conditions would not even remotely cause the exposed/starved appearance that a few witnesses claimed to have seen, not to mention the fact that other witnesses said the face looked well preserved and even "perfect."

The timing of Booth's sudden illness is certainly interesting, but it is also entirely possible that Booth simply caught a flu bug or some other illness some hours earlier and that the illness did not manifest its symptoms until after he drank with Herold.

Furthermore, according to the traditional legend, Booth was the one who gave the field glass to Lloyd through Mary Surratt (because of course Booth could not possibly have simply carried the field glass with him!). This would mean that someone poisoned the field glass contents and then handed the field glass to Booth and Booth simply had no idea that it had been tampered with.

It is odd that this alleged field glass was never found. It should have been easily recovered from the tavern where Lloyd worked, but it was never found.

Additionally, I do not believe that David Herold would have knowingly tried to poison Booth. Anyone who has studied this case knows that Herold did not seem like that kind of a person at all. Furthermore, Guttridge and Neff make a good case that we can by no means be certain that Herold was the one who rode with Booth.

So, was Booth poisoned? Maybe, but maybe not. 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--but I think the other parts of his theory do not hold up.