What Was The Role of David Herold

[John Fazio]

(02-04-2013 02:04 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I hope Jerry sees this and will explain his thinking.

I sure like his book (as he well knows) and all the thinking and research he put into it, but my personal opinion, as stated repeatedly in the past, is the belief Spangler was more a victim of circumstances rather than complicit with Booth's plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

Roger:

Wonderful and congratulations. Let me say it loud and clear: SPANGLER WAS INNOCENT! Once more for emphasis: SPANGLER WAS INNOCENT. And it matters.

John

---

(02-04-2013 01:40 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I thought the gaslights issue had been resolved earlier with mention of the man who normally tended the lights being in his place. I also thought that we had agreed that the lights issue was part of the kidnap plot. Booth had no need for those lights to be out during the murder. He needed to see his target and his way to the exit - not to mention that he wanted the audience to see his grand performance.

Also, if there was no kidnap plot, why was Herold sent to Surrattsville on March 17 in a buggy with carbines and other supplies? Certainly that trip wasn't necessary to pull off a ruse.

Laurie:

The gas issue is not entirely resolved. Granted that Booth was an egomaniac, it nevertheless remains a possibility that he wanted the lights out to facilitate his escape. I doubt that he needed light to find the corridor that led to the back door. He knew the place like the back of his hand.

More importantly, kidnapping is not inextrictably bound to the deposit of the carbines and tools, etc., at the tavern. They could just as easily have been deposited in connection with assassination(s). In fact, they were. The fugitives stopped there on the night of the 14th and picked up one of the carbines (they would have picked up both of them, but for Booth's injury), the field glasses and whiskey. They hadn't kidnapped anyone.

John