Frederick Demond
|
08-05-2015, 01:37 PM
Post: #1
|
|||
|
|||
Frederick Demond
Lately, there has been some conversation about a man by the name of Frederick A. Demond and his accounts regarding what occurred at the Maryland side of the Navy Yard Bridge when John Wilkes Booth and David Herold crossed. I questioned the reliability of this man and his recollections from decades later. I also criticized Demond’s well established association with Finis Bates, perpetrator of the “John Wilkes Booth Mummy” story. These issues threw up red flags to me and I, admittedly, got frustrated with those who were continually giving Mr. Demond’s words far more weight than I believed him worthy. I voiced these criticisms, attempting to display the fallacy of relying on dated and questionable references merely because they support ones’ favored view on a subject.
At the risk of being perceived as attacking anyone or of having an agenda other than the quest for truth, I am now going to post Demond’s different accounts over the years so that everyone may draw their own conclusion on his reliability and trustworthiness. April 21, 1865 (7 days after the event) In a letter written to his brother, George, Frederick had the following to say about the bridge crossing: Quote:“The night that the President was shot, I was on guard about 11 o'clock. They came over the bridge two men on horses and they told us the President was shot. The rest of the letter (which does not deal with the bridge crossing) can be read here. December 13, 1897 (32.5 years after the event) Demond wrote a letter to David Dana, after reading an account from Dana that had published in the Boston Globe. You can read Dana’s full newspaper article here. This is Demond’s reply that Dana also had published in the Boston Globe: Quote:“Mr D. D. Dana: September 16, 1911 (46 years after the event) Demond replied to a letter from Finis Bates, author of the volume The Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth. This is the first of three existing correspondences between the men. Quote:“Cavendish VT Sept 16th 1911 May 31, 1916 (51 years after the event) It appears that correspondence continued between Finis Bates and Frederick Demond for some time. However the next letter from Demond in Bates’ archive comes almost 5 years after the last one quoted. Notice the stark differences between Demond’s 1911 letter in which he denies there having been any password, and this one after 5 years of corresponding with Mr. Bates. Quote:“Cavendish Vt May 31st 1916 June 12, 1916 (51 years after the event) Bates received the letter quoted above and wrote back. Here is Demond’s response: Quote:“Cavendish Vt June 12th 1916[Demond’s enclosed statement follows] Quote:About the First of April 1865 my Co. C. 3rd Hvy. Arty. Mass. Volls. was Stationed at Fort Mahan D.C. about the Second or Third day of said month I was Ordered to report to Lieut. D.D. Dana at Fort Baker for Provost Guard duty. I did so and was employed in Guarding Prisoners who was sawing wood, and also going down to Union Town looking for Soldiers without Passes. In fact doing Police duty. After a few days I was sent down to Guard the end of the Bridge coming from Washington D.C. and crossing the East Potomac River to Union Town M.D. the names of the other men on this same duty at the Union Town end of Bridge was Corporal Sullivan in charge of the Guards and Private Drake and Johnson. I cannot remember the Given names of them at this late day. at the Washington End of Bridge was a detail of men under Sergt. Scott. I do not know the names of the rest of his detail. On June 16th, four days after writing this letter to Bates, Demond sent Bates a short postcard with a correction to his narrative. Quote:“Cavendish Vt June 16th Thus ends, to the extent of my knowledge, all accounts and correspondences of Frederick Demond relating his experiences at the Navy Yard bridge. I ask that you all read them all carefully and draw your own conclusions about the reliability and trustworthiness of Demond’s accounts. I know full well that our own biases make us “see what we want to see”, but, even acknowledging that fact, I would still like to give my opinion on Mr. Demond’s reliability one last time. I will credit Demond that I believe him when he says that he was present at the Navy Yard Bridge on the night of April 14th, 1865. I believe he was on the Maryland side of the bridge and that he possibly assisted in opening the gate so that Booth could pass over. However, I believe Demond to be unreliable on anything beyond those points. The only accounts in which Demond supports the idea of a password or countersign come 46 and 51 years after the event supposedly took place. This alone should make us suspicious. I previously posted about the scientifically studied fallacies of human memory and how, the more time that passes, the more likely these errors are to occur. (07-29-2015 07:13 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote: Human memory is a frail and fluid thing. Even ignoring the assumed memory loss that comes with aging, our minds are constantly altering our memories. Studies have shown that, among many things, imagining an event having taken place can create a false memory of it actually occurring, the manner in which you are asked about an event can change the way you remember it, and the more often you recall something the more the memory changes. We need to be objective and neurologically analytical of all accounts that are dated so far from the events they describe as there has been more time for the above named "memory tricks" to have occurred. While we know that eyewitness accounts of traumatic events, like Lincoln being shot at Ford's, also produces it's own set of memory problems. Still, logically and neurologically, memories recalled from long periods of time are inherently less accurate and therefore less credible. In addition to these universally applicable memory issues, Demond himself writes of his own personal memory problems when he states, quite frankly that, “my memory is getting Poor”. Demond, and all accounts that are taken down so long after the events they describe, need to be taken with a healthy dose of suspicion and doubt. Some authors attempt to use the defense of, “These accounts must be true because why would ______ lie? What benefit would lying be to them after so long?” Such thinking demonstrates a disregard for how the human brain and memory work. Questioning dated accounts does not equate to calling the sources liars but merely acknowledges the well-established fallibility of memory. The drastic changes in Demond’s accounts pre and post Bates is also a telling sign of his reliability. Prior to his lengthy correspondence with Bates and his ownership of Bates’ book, Demond flat out denies there was ever any password or countersign. However, five years later this changes. Not only does Demond then support the idea of a password and countersign, but he recounts the minute details of how he came to learn the password and how he witnessed it being used. We should be circumspect of any source that does a complete 180 degree shift on a topic, regardless of what the topic is. Coupled with the fact that Finis Bates was a known manipulator with an established agenda, it looks very likely that Demond was subtlety coaxed by Bates until his own memory was in line with Bates’ theory. At the very least, it seems likely that Demond used some sort of resource to help his memory when writing out his June 12, 1916 statement for Bates. In this statement, which coincidentally supports Bates’ version of events entirely, Demond quotes his 1897 account almost word for word: Quote:1897 account It should be noted that Bates had published Demond’s 1897 account in his book and so Demond could very well have been writing his statement while consulting Bates’ book to help him fill in the holes. Demond seems to imply that he has already done this in his May 31st letter when he recounts having lent Bates’ book to someone he could no longer remember. “I have lost my Book that you sent me having lent it so many times and do not remember who I lent it to if I have it I could have sent it to you with corrections on margin but my memory is getting Poor so I cannot remember so far back if I had the Book I could have addid so corrections.” Essentially Demond is writing that without the book in front of him to jog (i.e. alter) his memory he can’t be of more use to Bates. Another piece of evidence that Demond used Bates’ book to help him write his final statement is this reference. Quote:Bates’ Book There, are of course, many times where Demond’s 1916 statement agrees 100% with Bates’ narrative even so much as Demond completely validating Bates’ accusation of treachery by David Dana. Quote:Bates’ Book All of this, I remind you comes from a man who, five years earlier said to Bates, Quote:“I have noticed that in your Book a good is said about the Guard allowing Booth to go by them and that they must have had Orders given them to Pass only those that had the Pass word T.B. or T.B. road. I as one of the Guards that night say that we did not have any such orders…” In a previous post I attributed Demond’s accounts as “the lowest form of evidence”. I still believe this to be partly true. The lowest form of evidence would be willful perjury, which I do not believe Demond committed. Therefore, to rephrase, I believe Demond’s accounts are of the lower forms of evidence. Demond’s accounts cannot be deemed reliable due to: - The extensive period of time between the event and source’s description of the event - The self-confessed “poor” memory of the source - The complete change of memory and stance of a core part of the source’s story (i.e. the existence of a password) - The lengthy involvement of Finis Bates in procuring a supporting statement from the source |
|||
08-05-2015, 02:19 PM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
Thanks for sharing that. I have a bit of a hard time trying to keep all these people and their stories straight.
It seems like quite a few of them had difficulty over the years keeping their stories straight too. So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in? |
|||
08-05-2015, 07:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-05-2015 07:28 PM by L Verge.)
Post: #3
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
Gene, I think that is a very astute observation. One thing that has bothered me with the claim that Booth (and Herold) had been detained while trying to enter the city in the morning is that no record of this has shown up in the guards' reports for that day. Once the assassin's identity was known, I would think that Demond and others on the Maryland side of the bridge would have rushed to tell someone that they had detained the man/men earlier that day when he/they were attempting to come into the city.
I realize that the authorities' procedures and tactics at that time left a lot to be desired, but it would seem that even an 18-year-old would have sense enough to think such a story was relevant. Also, wouldn't the guards have been asked to make a statement regarding the day's events - or even been summoned before the military court? When you attempt to wade through the trial transcripts, you see some things dwelt upon that seem much more irrelevant than what Demond claimed happened a half-century later. Forgot to add that the letter to his brother, written within a week of the assassination, mentions that Booth is the one who told them the President had been murdered as he rode past them into Maryland. Did he ever report that to the authorities? Especially if he recognized Booth from that morning's detainment. |
|||
08-06-2015, 05:05 PM
Post: #4
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
Over the years, William Wither's story of his backstage encounter with JWB became more dramatic. While Wither's coat was slashed by Booth, he initially seemed to not have suffered bodily injury. In later years, he was almost left crippled by his wounds. Likewise, many bystanders of historical events plugged themselves a little more into witnessed events, becoming minor participants. was comedian Jon Lovitz an understudy of Frederick Demond? That's the ticket!
|
|||
08-07-2015, 02:08 AM
Post: #5
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
Dave:
Here's a little wisdom from a bright fellow who, regrettably, did not live very long: In all unimportant matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential. In all important matters, style, not sincerity, is the essential. Oscar Wilde My ungracious response was occasioned by your ungracious response to a gracious one. As for the merits, I grant that there are troubling inconsistencies in Demond's accounts. But observe that in all four scenarios, there is one constant. The four scenarios are: 1) Demond says nothing about receiving an order re a password and countersign; 2) He says they had no order re a password, etc.; 3) He says they did have an order and it came from Cobb; and 4) He says they did have an order and it came from Dana. The one constant in all four scenarios is that something is said about T.B. and T.B. Road. I conclude, therefore, that something was indeed said about T.B. and T.B. Road that night by at least Booth and most probably Herold too. The circumstances surrounding the use of the terms cannot be known with certainty, because we have only Demond's accounts and they are inconsistent. But the use of the terms in some context must be regarded, from the evidence, as a near certainty. In my opinion, the inconsistencies most likely arise from the fact that the accounts are given so long after the facts rather than from a desire to please Finis Bates. As a good example of this, consider the completely ridiculous statement that Booth and Herold crossed at the same time and announced, as they were crossing, that the President had been shot. On the other hand, there are many telltale signs in the accounts of an honest effort being made by Demond to recall the truth, such as his statement that the Maryland detail thought it strange to receive the order, because they had never previously received an order re passwords, much less this particular password, because the Maryland side guards had nothing to say about passage once the rider had been cleared on the Washington side, and such as his statement that one of the detail (Drake?) remarked, after passage of the fugitives, "It is strange what is going on tonight". There are still other signs, such as his expressions of uncertainty and failure of memory and such as his categorical denial of Dana's statement that he had ordered the removal of all the guards from the bridge before the assassination and their relocation to his headquarters at Ft. Baker. Further, I maintain (and so state in the book; see Chapter 24) that the fugitives would not have approached the bridge unless they were absolutely certain of passage. They would not, because they could not, leave the matter of passage, even in the slightest degree, to chance. Accordingly, I accept the password thesis if for no reason other than the fact that nothing would have guaranteed passage with greater certainty than the requirement of a password and countersign and the knowledge and use of the same by the passing riders. This is circumstantial evidence of a very powerful kind, which, coupled with Demond's constant, leads me to my conclusion. I will add, in closing, that because of Demond's inconsistencies, and also because his account of the apprehension, detention and release of Booth and Herold is difficult (though not impossible) to square with other accounts we have of their movements on the 14th, the matter of their passage is one about which reasonable minds can differ. It should therefore not be an occasion for acrimony and recrimination. For that reason, I offer you a truce. John |
|||
08-07-2015, 06:43 AM
Post: #6
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password.
"There are few subjects that ignite more casual, uninformed bigotry and condescension from elites in this nation more than Dixie - Jonah Goldberg" |
|||
08-07-2015, 07:02 AM
Post: #7
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
(08-07-2015 06:43 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password. Well said, and I believe an accurate view of Booth's mindset: nothing was going to stop him completing his mission, short of death. |
|||
08-07-2015, 09:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2015 09:38 AM by John Fazio.)
Post: #8
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
(08-07-2015 06:43 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password. J. Beckert: To begin with, gaining entrance to the box was not as uncertain as you suggest. In fact, if one accepts the theories of some assassination historians, such as Eisenschiml and Mills, it wasn't uncertain at all, because part of the conspiracy was Parker's absence from the passageway. I don't go that far, but I do believe Booth was quite certain he could gain access using a forged authorization from Lincoln, couple with a dry run to assess the difficulty. Second, how do you suppose he would have crossed without the certainty given by a password? What if Cobb had strictly enforced General Order No. 5, which prohibited passage after 9:00 without a countersign and a pass? Kauffman believes he was duty-bound to do so. What would Booth have done? Would he have shot Cobb? Then he would have had to shoot the rest of the detail, which, of course, would have raised an alarm on the Maryland side, which would have prohibited his crossing there. Would he have relied on luck? Good looks? A gratuity? Confederates in the wings prepared to force passage? All these measures have weaknesses; none offers certainty. He needed certainty and the idea hit upon by his handlers and superiors was most likely the password idea, because nothing else would offer the same assurance of passage. John [i] (08-07-2015 07:02 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:(08-07-2015 06:43 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password. Rick: A lot of things could easily have stopped him. See pp. 160-164 of "Decapitating". Let's just take one: Rathbone might have had a better grip on his jacket and kept him from going over the balustrade. Here's another: he might have broken his tibia instead of his fibula, in which case he would not have been able to walk. John |
|||
08-07-2015, 09:55 AM
Post: #9
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
(08-07-2015 09:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote:(08-07-2015 06:43 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password. John, But Rathbone did not have a better grip on Booth's coat and he did not break his fibula and he was able to move on. Rick |
|||
08-07-2015, 11:02 AM
Post: #10
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
(08-07-2015 09:55 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:(08-07-2015 09:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote:(08-07-2015 06:43 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password. Sorry; should have read, "Did not break his tibia. . ." |
|||
08-07-2015, 11:30 AM
Post: #11
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
(08-07-2015 09:55 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:(08-07-2015 09:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote:(08-07-2015 06:43 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password. Rick: Your saying that "nothing was going to stop him" means that success or failure was purely a matter of his volition. I am saying that that is not true; that factors independent of his volition could easily have thwarted his purpose irrespective of how carefully he had planned the deed. The fact that Rathbone's grip was not strong enough and the fact that Booth did not break his tibia thus become immaterial. See pages 160-164 of my book for a discussion of all the things that could have gone wrong for Booth, thereby wrecking his purpose, regardless of how determined he was in that purpose. To put a finer point on the matter, consider that nearly everything that could have gone wrong with the other would-be assassins did go wrong! John |
|||
08-07-2015, 11:57 AM
Post: #12
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
Booth's mission was complete the moment the bullet entered Lincoln's brain. All the points we're making, except what Parker's presence might have meant, would have occurred after the fact. I also doubt that Parker would have stopped Booth from entering the box.
I truly do not think Booth cared at that point if he lived or died. He had done what he set out to do - even though two cohorts did not (but Powell came close). Whether you consider him insane or patriotic, I consider him a political zealot willing to die for the cause. |
|||
08-07-2015, 12:04 PM
Post: #13
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
Quote:Whether you consider him insane or patriotic, I consider him a political zealot willing to die for the cause. I agree, Laurie - and Powell was the same from what I can gather. Young, yes - very young; but also a political zealot who could die for his Cause..... "The Past is a foreign country...they do things differently there" - L. P. Hartley |
|||
08-07-2015, 12:45 PM
Post: #14
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
(08-07-2015 11:30 AM)John Fazio Wrote:(08-07-2015 09:55 AM)Rick Smith Wrote:(08-07-2015 09:31 AM)John Fazio Wrote:(08-07-2015 06:43 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: While Demond's account is new to me, I take exception to the fact that Booth wouldn't have crossed unless he was certain of passage. Nothing was more uncertain to him than gaining entrance to the box at Ford's and he'd just stabbed a man that tried to interfere with his mission. I don't see him avoiding the bridge because of a password. In his Robert Lincoln bio Jason Emerson writes: "One of Robert's later friends suggested that perhaps the greatest effect of the assassination on Robert was the overwhelming guilt it caused him, in that he never forgave himself for his absence at Ford's Theatre that night. As the youngest member of the presidential party, Robert would have sat at the back of the box, closest to the door. According to Butler, Robert always felt that had he been there, "Booth would have had to deal with him before he could have shot the president." Does anyone think Robert's presence could possibly have made a difference? |
|||
08-07-2015, 12:59 PM
Post: #15
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Frederick Demond
(08-07-2015 11:57 AM)L Verge Wrote: Booth's mission was complete the moment the bullet entered Lincoln's brain. All the points we're making, except what Parker's presence might have meant, would have occurred after the fact. I also doubt that Parker would have stopped Booth from entering the box. Laurie: I agree about Parker. Had he been sitting in the chair provided for him in the passageway, Booth would have used the same writing to get past him (which I believe was a forged authorization) that he used to get past Forbes. If it worked for Forbes, it is almost a sure thing that it would have worked for parker. John |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)