Was Stanton a murder target?

[Wild Bill]

Ok, Gene, if we are going with Nancy Drew, here is the analysis that my wife, Lynne , came up with. Her credentials are a class at the local community college on handwriting analysis, besides being a generally all around sharp cookie, to which I believe Laurie Verge will agree with.

The sharp rightward slant to Watson's letters of the alphabet reveal him to be a somewhat emotional person. His writing to the right of the page shows optimism. His lower case T's indicate that he is very ambitious because he crosses them at the top of the stems. A couple of the T's are knotted that indicates tenacity.

Letters with tails in the "lower zone" (like g and y) are continuous indicating that he likes to complete tasks. The letters with a lot of "upper zone" as opposed to middle zone indicates intelligence, while the lower case e's shows a tendency not to listen to others.

The i dots are usually very distinct and rounded which shows loyalty. The second i dot is hurriedly slapped in showing he is perturbed at some one, but not himself. Lower case a's & o's are sometimes open which denotes a good communicator--at least some of the time. They are also sometimes loses indicating he can keep secrets.

His signature and style are same as normal handwriting--what you see is what you get. Anything related to thinning hair, height, or gait is not really discernible from handwriting.

So you pays your money and takes your choice.

[Gene C]

C'mon Bill give me a break.
I can't compete with that.
(Although I think that was covered in chapter 1 of Nancy's book, The Burglars Note - Handwriting Clues, I just didn't want to get to technical)

:

[John Fazio]

(10-28-2016 06:41 AM)Gene C Wrote:  John, as for evidence that Stanton wasn't a target, I have none.
If Stanton was a target, why did they completely miss him?
My theory of - who wants to be a martyr for a lost cause, makes as much sense as anything else.
Why would so many of those involved in 'decapitating the union' never act? What happened to all those "suspicious people" hanging around Stanton's home that all the eye witnesses supposedly saw?
In this huge conspiracy, only a confused, misguided, down on his luck, star struck, 21 year old, did anything.

On this grand conspiracy theory, it's a lot like everything else. Lots of talkers, few doers.

Gene:

Why did they miss him? For the reasons given. It's not easy to assassinate someone. All the others failed too, except Booth.

They had no shortage of assassins, but they had an apparent shortage of quality assassins.

How do you know they never acted? Many attempted; only one succeeded.

There were only two suspicious people around Stanton's home and the evidence suggests that they ran away after being frustrated by a broken door bell the approach of messengers.

Booth succeeded, but that doesn't mean others did not try. We know that others did try.

John

---

[quote='SSlater' pid='61877' dateline='1477887327']
Since we are reviewing the complicity of all the people that we knew were involved, lets think about who were included in "the Half" that got away. (The ones who we never talk about.)
Examples: The New York Crowd, and the Canada Confederates. They are the real Criminals. They conceived the idea, approved it, paid for it, and profited the most, and walked away. If they didn't approve of what was to be done - it never would have been done. The ones that were caught were only "lackies".
I would like to know more about "The Action Group" who came to Washington, to meet with Booth, and approved the new plan (and Booth discussed it with his Action Group.) After that it went to Richmond for more approvals and the assignment of Harney to the program. Were the "Cotton Traders" in on the approval committee?
In my mind, we should be looking for clues that would identify "the Half that got away". (PS. Ward Hill Lamon was a "Cotton Dealer", I have to hunt to find where I read that. That doesn't make him BAD.
It was a "Public Program", and many participated.)

SSlater:

Please see pp.302 and 333 through 336 of Decapitating for the ones who got away and why.

John

---

(10-31-2016 07:02 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,
I’m afraid I still disagree, with respect and consideration. Our discussion will definitely NOT say that I don’t like your conclusions or that I don’t respect you. Be assured of the opposite. No doubt about it. Your book ("Decapitating the Union") is absolutely fabulous and one of my favorite books on my Lincoln shelve. I always recommend your book to others. You present sufficiently strong evidence and you defend your conclusions in a very strong way. I appreciate that. However, in all honesty, the way I see it, whether it is prima facie evidence, or not, one should never neglect rebutting evidence, or give rebutting evidence a lot less attention, or treat evidence in your favor as a proven fact, or give more credit to sources that support your theory. AGREED.

That said, I would first like to straighten my comment about O’Laughlen in Grant’s train heading to Burlington. I know you never said that O’Laughlen was in that train. I once read that there is a theory which said that, but don’t remember where I read it and in what context exactly. Let's drop it. OK; I NEVER READ IT OR HEARD IT BEFORE.

What I ment with “… what you know for certain”, are facts like: Booth was in the presidential box in Ford’s Theatre, Booth shot Lincoln, Booth killed the President with a gun, not a knife, Seward was attacked by Powell, O’Laughlin was in DC with three friends and was in the National on April 13 and 14, etc. things like this. There is no doubt about these facts. This are things we know for certain.

You said “Could haves are infinite”. Yes! So, it is actually simpler than things which do have an end. Because when something has an end, we have to define where that end is.

This brings me again to Occam’s Razor. Let me explain again. Occam’s Razor is a principle which says that an event with minimal assumptions is simpler and the simplest explanation is (usually) the best. It’s a variant of the KISS- principle (Keep It Simple Stu***). The principle also says, that if you notice upon further investigation that you have not the simplest explanation: change your theory!

I don’t believe that the theory that the Confederate Government and its Secret Service conspired against the Union is a “simple” or the “simplest theory”. I DISAGREE; I BELIEVE IT IS. TO ME, IT IS ALL BUT BEYOND BELIEF THAT THE SUPER-HERCULEAN TASK OF ASSASSINATING THE FIVE MOST IMPORTANT MEN IN THE COUNTRY, AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME ON THE SAME NIGHT IN THE SAME CITY, COULD HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED IN THE MIND OF, AND ONLY IN THE MIND OF, A 26-YEAR OLD ACTOR WHO HAD NEVER BEFORE KILLED ANYONE IN HIS LIFE, AND, FURTHER, THAT ALL THE PLANNING FOR THIS MONUMENTAL UNDERTAKING TOOK PLACE ON THE NIGHT OF THE ASSASSINATION AND ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATIONS. THAT IS NOT A "SIMPLE" THEORY; THAT IS AN UNBELIEVABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE THEORY. Conspiracy always tend to be very complex, while murder is usually surprisingly simple. But this is NOT Occam’s Razor! The term “razor” refers to "shaving away" unnecessary assumptions. What remains is a simpler theory closer to the truth.

Can I throw my two cents in? Another example. What is closer to the truth? Did O’Laughlin meet Booth on Friday morning about 9:00 am on April 14, 1865 in the National or not? John I use your text from “Decapitating”, p. 113.

Theory A:
1) fact #1: O’Laughlen, in company with Early, Murphy and Henderson, stopped at the National
2) fact #2: O’Laughlen said he wanted to see Booth again
3) fact #3: Henderson testified that O’Laughlen told him he did’nt see Booth
4) fact #4: Early testified that he, Murphy and Henderson waited about three quarters of an hour
5) fact #5: They got tired of waiting and sent some cards up to Booth’s room summoning O’Laughlen
6) fact #6: The cards were returned with the message that there was no one in the room.
7) fact #7: The three men then left the hotel and went to a restaurant
8) fact #8: They were joined about an hour later by O’Laughlen
9) fact #9: O’Laughlen told later to Henderson that Booth wasn’t in
10) assumption #1: Booth was in (the greater likelihood is, that Booth was in)
11) assumption #2: O’Laughlen met with him
12) assumption #3: somewhere in the hotel if not in Booth’s room
13) assumption #4: he [O’laughlen] told his friends he did not meet with him [Booth] because he wished to distance himself from Booth
14) assumption #5: probably because he did not like what he heard from Booth
15) assumption #6: It is a reasonable to assume that Booth gave him [O’Laughlen] instructions on Thursday evening
16) assumption #7: having to do with reconnoitering Stanton’s home (either personally or by surrogate)
17) assumption #8: [O’Laughlen] returned to the National on Friday morning to apprise Booth of the results of the effort
18) assumption #9: the second visit must have been related to the first

Theory B:
1) fact #1: O’Laughlen, in company with Early, Murphy and Henderson, stopped at the National
2) fact #2: O’Laughlen said he wanted to see Booth again
3) fact #3: Henderson testified that O’Laughlen told him he did’nt see Booth
4) fact #4: Early testified that he, Murphy and Henderson waited about three quarters of an hour
5) fact #5: They got tired of waiting and sent some cards up to Booth’s room summoning O’Laughlen
6) fact #6: The cards were returned with the message that there was no one in the room.
7) fact #7: The three men then left the hotel and went to a restaurant
8) fact #8: They were joined about an hour later by O’Laughlen
9) fact #9: O’Laughlen told later to Henderson that Booth wasn’t in NOT SO. HENDERSON TESTIFIED THAT O'LAUGHLEN TOLD HIM HE DID SEE BOOTH.
Source for the following items: Clara E. Laughlin's “The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plot, His Deed, and the Penalty.” NOT A GOOD BOOK. NO NOTES, NO SOURCES, NO INDEX.
10) fact #10: Friday morning early Mr. [Walter] Burton, the night-clerk of the National, going off duty, met Davy Herold in the hall. "Going to see Booth?" he asked the boy. Davy said he was.
11) fact #11: "Well, I don't think he's in," said Burton …. Davy went to 228 and knocked, but got no response
12) fact #12: when the room was opened it was found to have been unoccupied.
13) fact #13: Nobody knows where Booth was that evening of the 13th, or that night. He was not at the National after Thursday noon
14) assumption #1: Booth was not in the National on Friday morning
15) assumption #2: O’Laughlen did not meet Booth in the National on Friday morning
16) assumption #3: O’Laughlen met someone else in the National

IMO, because theory A has a lot more assumptions than theory B, theory B is a simpler theory and more in keeping with Occam’s Razor, and therefore closer to the truth. I don’t say that it is proven that O’Laughlen did not meet Booth in the National, it “could be” that he indeed met him. I only say that it is CLOSER TO THE TRUTH that O’Laughlen did not met Booth in the National. I DON'T THINK SO. HE WAS GONE FROM HIS COMPANIONS 1.75 HOURS. WHERE WAS HE DURING THAT TIME IF NOT WITH BOOTH? MEETING WITH BOOTH ON FRIDAY MORNING MAKES SENSE IN VIEW OF HIS MEETING WITH HIM ON SATURDAY EVENING AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT BOOTH WENT ALL THE WAY TO BALTIMORE ON THE 13TH TO PERSUADE O'LAUGHLEN TO COME TO WASHINGTON THAT NIGHT AND TO STAY THROUGH AT LEAST THE FOLLOWING DAY. O'LAUGHLEN'S PRESENCE IN WASHINGTON MUST HAVE BEEN VERY IMPORTANT TO BOOTH FOR HIM TO TRAVEL ALL THE WAY TO BALTIMORE TO GET HIM THERE. HE WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO SO MUCH TROUBLE TO GET HIM TO WASHINGTON IF HE DID NOT PLAN TO USE HIM THERE IN SOME WAY.

BTW: we have no trace of Booth until about noon on Friday (“it was fully 11 am”), when he entered the breakfast-room at the National and was seen by Miss Carrie Bean. John T. Ford said in an interview on April 29, 1865: “He was the last man at breakfast that day; one lady only [Carrie Bean] was in the room, finishing her morning meal. She knew him [Booth] and responded to his bow of recognition.” I DO NOT RECALL THIS MATERIAL. IT DOESN'T SQUARE WITH DEMOND'S LETTERS, WHICH HAVE BOOTH AND HEROLD UNDER DETENTION ON FRIDAY MORNING ON THE MARYLAND SIDE OF THE NAVY YARD BRIDGE. BUT THAT IS NOT WHY I DID NOT MENTION IT. SHE DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL. I DON'T THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE KNOW WHERE BOOTH WAS AN HOUR LATER (AT THE THEATER). IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE HIS MEETING O'LAUGHLEN IN THE MORNING.

John, a question to you, why did you not mention Walter Burton and Carrie Bean in your book? They are not in the index. Or did I miss something?

Back to “Was Stanton a murder target?”. It “could be”, but in line with Occam’s Razor it is still in my opinion closer to the truth he was not. I realize that conspiracy theories are almost impossible to disprove, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE HE WAS NOT A TARGET; YOU HAVE ONLY TO SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE THAT TENDS TO SHOW IT because one always can find some way to rationalize away evidence that contradicts the opposite belief.

Kees

[Gene C]

John, the way you describe them, I'm not sure one could assemble a more incompetent group.

[John Fazio]

(11-01-2016 02:12 AM)Gene C Wrote:  John, the way you describe them, I'm not sure one could assemble a more incompetent group.

Gene:

In response, I cannot do better than to quote Arnold:

"The men by whom he (Booth) had been surrounded and who had associated themselves with him were, to a great extent, ignorant men. They clung to him for the bounty they were receiving at Booth's hand." (Arnold's Memoirs, p. 127)

John

[RJNorton]

How much did Arnold really know? Regarding the conspiracy, he also said, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

[loetar44]

John,

Some remarks in response:
1) O’Laughlen told later to Henderson that Booth wasn’t in NOT SO. HENDERSON TESTIFIED THAT O'LAUGHLEN TOLD HIM HE DID SEE BOOTH. Hmmm, see Decapitating the Union, p. 133 line 5.
And: Henderson testified on May 15: "I am acquainted with the prisoner, Mr. O'Laughlin (sic). I saw him in this city on Thursday and Friday, the 13th and 14th of April. I DO NOT KNOW whether he visited J. Wilkes Booth on either of those days, but he told me on Friday that he WAS TO SEE him that morning." (not HE SAW]
2) Clara E. Laughlin's “The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plot, His Deed, and the Penalty.” NOT A GOOD BOOK. NO NOTES, NO SOURCES, NO INDEX. Yes, you are right O’Laughlin’s book is not the best source we have (however, it is a source!), but Art Loux is saying exactly the same in Day by Day, p. 194.
3) Why do you ignore Walter Burton's statements?
4) WITH BOOTH ON FRIDAY MORNING MAKES SENSE IN VIEW OF HIS MEETING WITH HIM ON SATURDAY EVENING. Typo? I think you ment here THURSDAY evening.
5) I DON'T THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE KNOW WHERE BOOTH WAS AN HOUR LATER (AT THE THEATER). John, I think it’s very important we do know were Booth was. See below.

We don’t know anything about Booth’s whereabouts between noon Thursday April 13 and “fully 11 am” Friday April 14. If we know for certain that he was in the National, than O’Laughlen certainly could have met him there. But the point is: was he there? If O’Laughlen was not in the hotel, he did NOT meet Booth there Thursday night and Friday morning.

“It is likely Booth walked about the city on Thursday night to see the Grand Illumination. He may have spent time with Lucy Hale. There may have been an overnight visit to Ellen Starr” (Loux, p. 194). We have evidence that Booth was not in his room (Burton) and that his bed was unoccupied. Night-clerk Burton did not see Booth enter the hotel that night (he knew Booth very well, Booth always stops for a chat with Burton before he goes to bed.)

Lucy Hale and her sister Elizabeth had a room in the National. Was Booth in the National in Lucy's room? If so, why we don’t know that?

Ellen Starr is discussed here: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...-618.html”

There is sufficient evidence that Booth was NOT in the National during 20 to 23 hours. What is your evidence he was there? Assumption is no evidence. Making assumptions simply means believing things are a certain way with little or no evidence that shows you are correct (Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy).

[John Fazio]

(11-01-2016 08:04 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  How much did Arnold really know? Regarding the conspiracy, he also said, "No officials of the Confederate government had any knowledge in regard to it, although it was attempted to be shown by the military commission that they had, through many witnesses."

Roger:

Please see pp. 363-365 of Decapitating for material re gratuitous exculpations, several of which come from Arnold.

John

[RJNorton]

(11-01-2016 09:12 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  We don’t know anything about Booth’s whereabouts between noon Thursday April 13 and “fully 11 am” Friday April 14.

Is it known where Booth was when he wrote this letter? Or where it was mailed from?

[loetar44]

(11-01-2016 09:43 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 09:12 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  We don’t know anything about Booth’s whereabouts between noon Thursday April 13 and “fully 11 am” Friday April 14.

Is it known where Booth was when he wrote this letter? Or where it was mailed from?

Is this "sufficient evidence" that JWB did see on Thursday night the Grand Illumination and was NOT in the National to meet O'Laughlen?

[John Fazio]

(11-01-2016 09:12 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,

Some remarks in response:
1) O’Laughlen told later to Henderson that Booth wasn’t in NOT SO. HENDERSON TESTIFIED THAT O'LAUGHLEN TOLD HIM HE DID SEE BOOTH. Hmmm, see Decapitating the Union, p. 133 line 5. KEES: YOU MEAN P. 113, LINE 5, NOT 133, LINE 5. AS FOR 113, LINE 5, THE REFERENCE IS TO THE FRIDAY MORNING MEETING. IT IS TRUE THAT AS TO THAT MEETING, O'LAUGHLEN TOLD HENDERSON HE HAD NOT SEEN BOOTH, BUT AS TO THE THURSDAY EVENING MEETING, HENDERSON STATED CLEARLY THAT O'LAUGHLEN TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD SEEN BOOTH. THE EXACT LANGUAGE, ON P. 230 OF PITMAN, IS THAT "O'LAUGLIN LEFT ME BUT FOR A SHORT TIME ON OUR ARRIVAL IN WASHINGTON, WHILE I GOT SHAVED, AND TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN TO SEE BOOTH."
And: Henderson testified on May 15: "I am acquainted with the prisoner, Mr. O'Laughlin (sic). I saw him in this city on Thursday and Friday, the 13th and 14th of April. I DO NOT KNOW whether he visited J. Wilkes Booth on either of those days, IN THE STRICTEST SENSE, HE "DID NOT KNOW", BUT HE HAD BEEN TOLD BY O'LAUGHLEN THAT IN FACT HE HAD BEEN TO SEE BOOTH ON THURSDAY EVENING, WHICH I HOLD AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT HE DID SEE HIM AT THAT TIME but he told me on Friday that he WAS TO SEE him that morning." (not HE SAW] O'LAUGHLEN WOULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT HE WAS TO SEE BOOTH UNLESS HE WERE CERTAIN OF SEEING HIM AND HE WOULD ONLY BE CERTAIN OF SEEING HIM IF THEY HAD ARRANGED THE PREVIOUS EVENING FOR THE MEETING THE FOLLOWING MORNING.
2) Clara E. Laughlin's “The Death of Lincoln: The Story of Booth's Plot, His Deed, and the Penalty.” NOT A GOOD BOOK. NO NOTES, NO SOURCES, NO INDEX. Yes, you are right O’Laughlin’s book is not the best source we have (however, it is a source!), but Art Loux is saying exactly the same in Day by Day, p. 194. ART LOUX CITES P. 458 OF "THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION: THE EVIDENCE" FOR AUTHORITY. THE QUOTED MATERIAL, HOWEVER, COMES FROM EARLY, NOT HENDERSON. I DID NOT SAY THAT O'LAUGHLEN TOLD EARLY HE HAD SEEN BOOTH IN THE EVENING OF THE 13TH; I SAID O'LAUGHLEN TOLD HENDERSON HE HAD SEEN HIM, PER HIS TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL.
3) Why do you ignore Walter Burton's statements? THERE ARE INFINITE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE SAME. THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FAVORING THE MEETINGS, COUPLED WITH HENDERSON'S TESTIMONY, IS STRONGER THAN BURTON'S STATEMENT. BURTON DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL UNDER OATH.
4) WITH BOOTH ON FRIDAY MORNING MAKES SENSE IN VIEW OF HIS MEETING WITH HIM ON SATURDAY EVENING. Typo? I think you ment here THURSDAY evening. YES, TYPO. I OBVIOUSLY MEANT TO SAY THURSDAY EVENING.
5) I DON'T THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE KNOW WHERE BOOTH WAS AN HOUR LATER (AT THE THEATER). John, I think it’s very important we do know were Booth was. See below.

We don’t know anything about Booth’s whereabouts between noon Thursday April 13 and “fully 11 am” Friday April 14. If we know for certain that he was in the National, than O’Laughlen certainly could have met him there. But the point is: was he there? If O’Laughlen was not in the hotel, he did NOT meet Booth there Thursday night and Friday morning. BOOTH WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT O'LAUGHLEN TO WASHINGTON IF HE DID NOT PLAN TO USE HIM. MEETINGS WITH HIM IN THE EVENING OF THE 13TH AND THE MORNING OF THE 14TH ARE THEREFORE PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH SUCH USE. O'LAUGHLEN WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO THE NATIONAL AT THOSE TIMES UNLESS HE WAS CERTAIN OF SEEING THE MAN WHO BROUGHT HIM TO WASHINGTON FOR AN EXPRESS PURPOSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR BOOTH TO HAVE SLEPT IN HIS ROOM FOR HIM TO HAVE HAD THE TWO MEETINGS WITH O'LAUGHLEN IN THE NATIONAL. HE MIGHT HAVE SLEPT IN LUCY HALE'S ROOM. OR HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN MARYLAND WITH HEROLD, PER DEMOND. IT IS NOT CRITICAL THAT WE KNOW WHERE HE SPENT THE NIGHT, ONLY THAT HE MET WITH O'LAUGHLEN TWICE AT THE NATIONAL.

“It is likely Booth walked about the city on Thursday night to see the Grand Illumination. He may have spent time with Lucy Hale. There may have been an overnight visit to Ellen Starr” (Loux, p. 194). We have evidence that Booth was not in his room (Burton) and that his bed was unoccupied. Night-clerk Burton did not see Booth enter the hotel that night (he knew Booth very well, Booth always stops for a chat with Burton before he goes to bed.)

Lucy Hale and her sister Elizabeth had a room in the National. Was Booth in the National in Lucy's room? If so, why we don’t know that?

Ellen Starr is discussed here: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...-618.html”

There is sufficient evidence that Booth was NOT in the National during 20 to 23 hours. What is your evidence he was there? SEE ABOVE Assumption is no evidence. Making assumptions simply means believing things are a certain way with little or no evidence that shows you are correct (Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy).

[loetar44]

John,

Yes, it was p.113 line 5. Typo. Thank you.

I'm not a native English speaker, but according to me "AND TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN TO SEE BOOTH" does not explicitly mean that he actually had seen Booth. Am I mistaken?

[John Fazio]

(11-01-2016 10:55 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,

Yes, it was p.113 line 5. Typo. Thank you.

I'm not a native English speaker, but according to me "AND TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN TO SEE BOOTH" does not explicitly mean that he actually had seen Booth. Am I mistaken?

Kees:

No it doesn't, but it is pretty good evidence that he did see him, especially because it is an admission against interest. The interest would become more meaningful for him with respect to the second meeting with Booth, which he denied had taken place (to Henderson). By that time, if not before, there could not have been any doubt in O'Laughlen's mind as to what Booth planned to do, and perhaps what he himself planned to do, and so it was in his interest--indeed his great interest--to put as much distance between him and Booth as he could. It all fits quite well if you begin with Booth's trip to Baltimore on Thursday to bring O'Laughlen to Washington.

John

---

(11-01-2016 11:57 AM)John Fazio Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:55 AM)loetar44 Wrote:  John,

Yes, it was p.113 line 5. Typo. Thank you.

I'm not a native English speaker, but according to me "AND TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN TO SEE BOOTH" does not explicitly mean that he actually had seen Booth. Am I mistaken?

Kees:

No it doesn't, but it is pretty good evidence that he did see him, especially because it is an admission against interest. The interest would become more meaningful for him with respect to the second meeting with Booth, which he denied had taken place (to Henderson). By that time, if not before, there could not have been any doubt in O'Laughlen's mind as to what Booth planned to do, and perhaps what he himself planned to do, and so it was in his interest--indeed his great interest--to put as much distance between him and Booth as he could. It all fits quite well if you begin with Booth's trip to Baltimore on Thursday to bring O'Laughlen to Washington.

John

P.S. You are the best non-native English speaker I have ever known.

[RJNorton]

John, on p. 364 you write:

"Arnold. Arnold was one of the ignorant ones. He and O'Laughlen were a sideshow compared to Surratt, Powell, Herold, and Atzerodt. When it became clear to Booth that the Baltimore duo were not killers, there was no way he was going to tell them what was really going on."

Knowing O'Laughlen was not a killer and was not to be told what was really going on, why did Booth want O'Laughlen to come to Washington on the 13th?

[John Fazio]

(11-01-2016 12:20 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  John, on p. 364 you write:

"Arnold. Arnold was one of the ignorant ones. He and O'Laughlen were a sideshow compared to Surratt, Powell, Herold, and Atzerodt. When it became clear to Booth that the Baltimore duo were not killers, there was no way he was going to tell them what was really going on."

Knowing O'Laughlen was not a killer and was not to be told what was really going on, why did Booth want O'Laughlen to come to Washington on the 13th?

Roger:

To do only what he most probably did: case out Stanton's home, to get the lay of the land and to find out, if possible, Stanton's and Grant's planned whereabouts the following evening. (How did Booth know Grant would be at Stanton's home that night? He had sources inside the Federal government, probably including the White House. If you doubt that, check Tidwell, Hall and Gaddy.) It is even possible that O'Laughlen had by this time signed on for killing, but I don't think so. His alibi for the 14th was stronger than his alibi for the 13th. Remember that only three of the eight witnesses who provided his alibi on the 13th were his companions. Further, Atzerodt's confession addresses only O'Laughlen's whereabouts in the evening of the 13th; he says nothing about the 14th.

John