Was Stanton a murder target?
|
10-31-2016, 04:55 PM
Post: #61
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
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. |
|||
10-31-2016, 05:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2016 07:38 PM by Gene C.)
Post: #62
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
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) : So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in? |
|||
10-31-2016, 07:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2016 08:21 PM by John Fazio.)
Post: #63
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
(10-28-2016 06:41 AM)Gene C Wrote: John, as for evidence that Stanton wasn't a target, I have none. 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, |
|||
11-01-2016, 02:12 AM
Post: #64
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
John, the way you describe them, I'm not sure one could assemble a more incompetent group.
So when is this "Old Enough To Know Better" supposed to kick in? |
|||
11-01-2016, 06:42 AM
Post: #65
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
(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 |
|||
11-01-2016, 08:04 AM
Post: #66
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
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."
|
|||
11-01-2016, 09:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2016 09:30 AM by loetar44.)
Post: #67
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
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). |
|||
11-01-2016, 09:14 AM
Post: #68
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
(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 |
|||
11-01-2016, 09:43 AM
Post: #69
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target? | |||
11-01-2016, 10:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2016 10:11 AM by loetar44.)
Post: #70
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
(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 this "sufficient evidence" that JWB did see on Thursday night the Grand Illumination and was NOT in the National to meet O'Laughlen? |
|||
11-01-2016, 10:22 AM
Post: #71
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
(11-01-2016 09:12 AM)loetar44 Wrote: John, |
|||
11-01-2016, 10:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2016 10:55 AM by loetar44.)
Post: #72
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
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? |
|||
11-01-2016, 11:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2016 12:10 PM by John Fazio.)
Post: #73
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
(11-01-2016 10:55 AM)loetar44 Wrote: John, 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, P.S. You are the best non-native English speaker I have ever known. |
|||
11-01-2016, 12:20 PM
Post: #74
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
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? |
|||
11-01-2016, 12:49 PM
Post: #75
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Was Stanton a murder target?
(11-01-2016 12:20 PM)RJNorton Wrote: John, on p. 364 you write: 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 |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 16 Guest(s)