My Journey on Lincoln's Assassination

[davg2000]

(10-16-2018 07:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did the fake Booth not surrender?

Excellent question!

[Rob Wick]

I really don't want to get too deeply involved with this, but one other question comes to my mind.

Years after the rewards were distributed, Byron Baker mounted a speaking tour touting his role in the capture of Booth. He did so in an attempt to play down the role of Everton Conger, who got $15,000 of the reward money compared to $3,000 for Byron. Throughout the lecture tour, why didn't Byron, who had talked with Booth throughout the night, make the claim that the man in the barn wasn't Booth, further negating the claim of Conger to the lion's share? By this point, Byron had nothing to lose by disclosing that given that all involved had received their money. With such a scandalous story, Byron could have cleaned up financially. Even Lafayette Baker, who lived for three more years after the capture, never claimed the man in the barn wasn't Booth, and he got much less of the reward money than Conger did.

Best
Rob

[mikegriffith1]

(10-16-2018 02:36 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(08-16-2018 04:12 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  that Booth was not shot in Garrett's barn

Mike, do you have an explanation for Booth's diary being found in the possession of the man caught and killed at Garrett's?

First off, like so many other traditional assumptions about this case, the assumption that the diary was found on the man in the barn deserves a bit of scrutiny and does not hold up well under examination. How do we know that the diary was found on the man in the barn? Is it not very odd that Lt. Doherty said nothing about the finding of a diary on the body, and nothing about the other items that were allegedly found on the man? He said nothing about any of these items being found on the body--not in his report and not in his testimony. Not one word.

Second, as Dr. Arnold notes, the diary could have been planted on the body quite easily, or the planter could have simply pulled it out of his own pocket and claimed that he had just found it on the body.

But we do not really even know if any of the items that were allegedly found on the body were actually on the body at the farm. They could have been given to one of Lafayette Baker's two henchmen on the search party, Conger or Lt. Baker, ahead of time and simply handed over to the War Department with the claim that they were found on the body. Dr. Arnold suggests that Jett gave these items to Conger when they met shortly before the confrontation at Garrett's farm.

Third, the amount of damning evidence supposedly found on the body is nothing short of amazing, and rather suspicious--too pat, too convenient, too much. Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect. If a suspect is going to shave off his mustache to try to avoid being identified, why in the devil would he carry around a bunch of evidence that identified him?

[L Verge]

(10-17-2018 11:23 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I really don't want to get too deeply involved with this, but one other question comes to my mind.

Years after the rewards were distributed, Byron Baker mounted a speaking tour touting his role in the capture of Booth. He did so in an attempt to play down the role of Everton Conger, who got $15,000 of the reward money compared to $3,000 for Byron. Throughout the lecture tour, why didn't Byron, who had talked with Booth throughout the night, make the claim that the man in the barn wasn't Booth, further negating the claim of Conger to the lion's share? By this point, Byron had nothing to lose by disclosing that given that all involved had received their money. With such a scandalous story, Byron could have cleaned up financially. Even Lafayette Baker, who lived for three more years after the capture, never claimed the man in the barn wasn't Booth, and he got much less of the reward money than Conger did.

Best
Rob

Very good point, Rob - but I bet you won't get a response from Mr. Griffith If you have noticed, he sidesteps a great deal of legitimate points and questions thrown at him. He just keeps circling back to the same old suppositions and what-ifs...

[RJNorton]

(10-24-2018 06:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Second, as Dr. Arnold notes, the diary could have been planted on the body quite easily, or the planter could have simply pulled it out of his own pocket and claimed that he had just found it on the body.

I believe that in 1977 FBI experts examined the diary, and they were able to authenticate the handwriting as Booth's.

[Gene C]

(10-24-2018 06:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Second, as Dr. Arnold notes, the diary could have been planted on the body quite easily, or the planter could have simply pulled it out of his own pocket and claimed that he had just found it on the body.

But we do not really even know if any of the items that were allegedly found on the body were actually on the body at the farm.
They could have been given to one of Lafayette Baker's two henchmen on the search party, Conger or Lt. Baker, ahead of time and simply handed over to the War Department with the claim that they were found on the body. Dr. Arnold suggests that Jett gave these items to Conger when they met shortly before the confrontation at Garrett's farm.

Third, the amount of damning evidence supposedly found on the body is nothing short of amazing, and rather suspicious--too pat, too convenient, too much. Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect. If a suspect is going to shave off his mustache to try to avoid being identified, why in the devil would he carry around a bunch of evidence that identified him?

These two reasons just don't add up.
All your saying is it "could have" happened this way, but you have no facts to back it up.
You even admit, "but we do not even really know"
As for item #3, Booth shaved off his mustache before he made any entries in the diary.
His diary is basically a one man pity party.
Just like a lot of politicians today, he misjudged public reaction.
The shaving of the mustache only has to do with immediate identification.
Instead of being a guy with a mustache and a crutch with a nice spencer carbine,
now he's just a guy with a crutch and a nice spencer carbine.

But, the spencer carbine was probably a plant by union soldiers too.

Here are some "could haves" for you to consider.....
If all your conspiracy theories were true, the soldiers "could have" kept whoever in Garrett's barn, in the barn, when it burned to the ground.
Easier for a vast conspiracy to have the charred remains identified as Booth.
Or "it could have happened" this way,
Lafayette Baker could have really dumped the body found at Garrett's in the Potomac... until they found another body that more resembled Booth
and the body he did bury belonged to some one else.

To much supposition for me. Yours and Dr. Arnold's theories have to many "it could have happened" and 'we don't really know" to carry much weight and be seriously considered.

[Rob Wick]

Quote:Very good point, Rob - but I bet you won't get a response from Mr. Griffith If you have noticed, he sidesteps a great deal of legitimate points and questions thrown at him. He just keeps circling back to the same old suppositions and what-ifs..

And this is pretty much why this will mark my last entry on this topic. I wrote a long post refuting much of what Mr. Griffith has argued, and I've deleted it. It's not worth it.

Best
Rob

[L Verge]

(10-25-2018 10:06 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:Very good point, Rob - but I bet you won't get a response from Mr. Griffith If you have noticed, he sidesteps a great deal of legitimate points and questions thrown at him. He just keeps circling back to the same old suppositions and what-ifs..

And this is pretty much why this will mark my last entry on this topic. I wrote a long post refuting much of what Mr. Griffith has argued, and I've deleted it. It's not worth it.

Best
Rob

I am in agreement, but I just keep hanging in there hoping that the rest of us impart some good historical information to others. Once a dogged teacher, always a dogged teacher... (I guess).

---

(10-25-2018 08:11 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 06:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Second, as Dr. Arnold notes, the diary could have been planted on the body quite easily, or the planter could have simply pulled it out of his own pocket and claimed that he had just found it on the body.

But we do not really even know if any of the items that were allegedly found on the body were actually on the body at the farm.
They could have been given to one of Lafayette Baker's two henchmen on the search party, Conger or Lt. Baker, ahead of time and simply handed over to the War Department with the claim that they were found on the body. Dr. Arnold suggests that Jett gave these items to Conger when they met shortly before the confrontation at Garrett's farm.

Third, the amount of damning evidence supposedly found on the body is nothing short of amazing, and rather suspicious--too pat, too convenient, too much. Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect. If a suspect is going to shave off his mustache to try to avoid being identified, why in the devil would he carry around a bunch of evidence that identified him?

These two reasons just don't add up.
All your saying is it "could have" happened this way, but you have no facts to back it up.
You even admit, "but we do not even really know"
As for item #3, Booth shaved off his mustache before he made any entries in the diary.
His diary is basically a one man pity party.
Just like a lot of politicians today, he misjudged public reaction.
The shaving of the mustache only has to do with immediate identification.
Instead of being a guy with a mustache and a crutch with a nice spencer carbine,
now he's just a guy with a crutch and a nice spencer carbine.

But, the spencer carbine was probably a plant by union soldiers too.

Here are some "could haves" for you to consider.....
If all your conspiracy theories were true, the soldiers "could have" kept whoever in Garrett's barn, in the barn, when it burned to the ground.
Easier for a vast conspiracy to have the charred remains identified as Booth.
Or "it could have happened" this way,
Lafayette Baker could have really dumped the body found at Garrett's in the Potomac... until they found another body that more resembled Booth
and the body he did bury belonged to some one else.

To much supposition for me. Yours and Dr. Arnold's theories have to many "it could have happened" and 'we don't really know" to carry much weight and be seriously considered.

More good points, Gene, and hopefully folks will pay special attention to your last paragraph here because we do get a spate of publications coming off the computer/presses that are filled with such sidestepping. There is quite a difference between possibility and probability -- and that's where primary sources, in-depth research, and logic come into play.

[RJNorton]

(10-24-2018 06:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect.

If Booth were as obsessed with hiding his true identity as you indicate, then why did he give his real name to Sgt. Silas Cobb when he crossed the Navy Yard Bridge?

[Gene C]

It "could have been" someone else using Booth's name.
Or "it could have been" Cobb was pressured into saying it was Booth
Or "it could have been" the mysterious rider said "Boothe" and Cobb misunderstood. They do sound similar.
Or "it could have been" Booth was insulted that he wasn't recognized for the star matinee idol that he was, so he gave Cobb his real name to impress him.

[L Verge]

(10-25-2018 01:09 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 06:48 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Anyone trying to escape with his life is not going to be carrying around a bunch of evidence that identifies him as the suspect.

If Booth were as obsessed with hiding his true identity as you indicate, then why did he give his real name to Sgt. Silas Cobb when he crossed the Navy Yard Bridge?

And also telling John Lloyd specifically what they had done. And, we only have the Mudds' word for it that he gave a fake name at their house (and, of course, I suspect that Herold had visited the Mudds on either April 12 or 13 to put them on alert - therefore, they would recognize him on April 15).

I am also confused as to how the army officers or the "Fake Booth" had the opportunity to get personal items from the assassin ahead of time and plant them on anyone stupid enough to take Booth's place in a life or death situation. We're talking a diary that has since been identified by the FBI (thanks to James O. Hall and Vice President Walter Mondale) as being in Booth's handwriting and a bank note from Ontario made out to Booth.

The four cdvs of actresses and even the one of Lucy are no big deal (few knew what Lucy looked like or that she was engaged to Booth). Other than those six "lost" letters that Mr. Griffith has yet to explain, other items are not that significant. And, I'll still question - since no answer has come - how the Dan Bryant stickpin gifted to Booth just happened to be holding together a torn undershirt on "Fake Booth."

[mikegriffith1]

(10-15-2018 07:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  [quote='mikegriffith1' pid='73414' dateline='1539636251']I quote from Thomas Bogar’s book Backstage at the Lincoln Assassination:

One day that week John Ford overheard an egregious instance of “witness preparation” in the prison yard: [Lafayette] Baker going at Rittersbach, putting words in his mouth. Whereas Rittersbach had actually heard Ned Spangler that night [April 14] say, “Hush your mouth. You don’t know whether it’s Booth or not,” Baker now told him to add that Spangler had slapped him across the face and warned, “For God’s sake, shut up! And don’t say which way he went.” If Rittersbach would not so testify, Baker threatened, he would be thrown definitely into the general prison population at Old Capitol. This approach by Baker, Ford believed, would unnerve anyone, “and cause him to think he believed he heard what did not.” Even though Rittersbach was self-motivated to testify and required little prodding, he was hauled before Colonel Burnett on the eve of the trial for another conversation. No notes exist of its nature.

Ford, his brother Harry, and Gifford witnessed the same sort of pressure brought to bear within the prison on a terrified Louis Weichmann, a Booth associate who had boarded at Mrs. Surratt’s. Weichmann would in due course provide exceedingly incriminating testimony, which led to the conviction and execution of several of the conspirators. A day later, Maddox, Gifford, and Carland overheard an officer in Old Capitol tell Weichmann “if he didn’t swear to more than he had told, he would be hung.” (Weichmann shortly after the trial would confess to Carland that he had perjured himself to save his skin, and tell Gifford “I’d give a million dollars if I had had nothing to do with it.”) As John Ford recorded in his ever-lengthening jail house manifesto, “Another damnable feature in this prison is that if a prisoner will not or cannot give such information as may be demanded of him, he is ordered to his room or cell and handcuffed and tortured into a more compliant witness or informer.” (pp. 180-181)

(10-15-2018 07:50 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Such interrogation techniques were routinely used for centuries in cases large and small and by a variety of ethnic and religious communities across the globe - some much more violent than those used on the Lincoln conspirators.

In other words, you will defend whatever the War Department did, no matter what, even when they threatened witnesses with death to get them to swear that they heard and saw things that they did not hear and see?

To judge strictly from your words, you seem to be saying that the immoral and illegal attempts to get witnesses to lie and falsely implicate others that Ford and others witnessed are no big deal because in some places around the globe even worse "interrogation techniques" were used.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I have to say, when a conspiracy theory starts to involve convenient doubles who are content to die in someone else's place and the massive planting of evidence, it's probably time to find a new conspiracy theory.

[mikegriffith1]

(10-17-2018 08:10 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 07:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did the fake Booth not surrender?

Excellent question!

He did try to surrender. He dropped his crutch, dropped his weapon ("arm"), and started walking toward the front door of the barn, as he had been asked to do. This is what Conger said he did. How is that not surrendering? If you drop your weapon and start walking toward the door as you've been asked to do, how is that not surrendering?

By the way, lest anyone think that by "arm" Conger meant the body part, "arm" was a very common synonym back then for gun. In fact, if you read Conger's testimony, you'll see that he used the terms "arm" and "arms" for gun and guns numerous times. If you read the entire trial transcript, you'll find dozens of instances where "arm" and "arms" were used for gun and guns.

Quote:I have to say, when a conspiracy theory starts to involve convenient doubles who are content to die in someone else's place and the massive planting of evidence, it's probably time to find a new conspiracy theory.

No one is saying that. No one has ever said that Boyd, or whoever the poor man was, knew he was going to be killed in Booth's place.

And what did Lafayette Baker mean when he told Loreta Valesquez that he intended to get Booth's body "dead or alive, or a mighty good substitute for it" (Theodore Roscoe, The Web of Conspiracy, p. 427, quoting Valesquez's 1876 memoir)?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(10-25-2018 04:16 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 08:10 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 07:19 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  And why did the fake Booth not surrender?

Excellent question!

He did try to surrender. He dropped his crutch, dropped his weapon ("arm"), and started walking toward the front door of the barn, as he had been asked to do. This is what Conger said he did. How is that not surrendering? If you drop your weapon and start walking toward the door as you've been asked to do, how is that not surrendering?

By the way, lest anyone think that by "arm" Conger meant the body part, "arm" was a very common synonym back then for gun. In fact, if you read Conger's testimony, you'll see that he used the terms "arm" and "arms" for gun and guns numerous times. If you read the entire trial transcript, you'll find dozens of instances where "arm" and "arms" were used for gun and guns.

Quote:I have to say, when a conspiracy theory starts to involve convenient doubles who are content to die in someone else's place and the massive planting of evidence, it's probably time to find a new conspiracy theory.

No one is saying that. No one has ever said that Boyd, or whoever the poor man was, knew he was going to be killed in Booth's place.

And what did Lafayette Baker mean when he told Loreta Valesquez that he intended to get Booth's body "dead or alive, or a mighty good substitute for it" (Theodore Roscoe, The Web of Conspiracy, p. 427, quoting Valesquez's 1876 memoir)?

Conger's statement, as quoted by you in the other thread, says nothing about Booth following instructions or otherwise expressing a wish to surrender. As for dropping the arm, in the same line of testimony, Conger goes on to claim that he told Baker that Booth had shot himself, which suggests that the "arm" Conger saw him drop wasn't his carbine.

In any case, the man in the barn had a chance to unambiguously surrender at the same time David Herold did. If the man wasn't Booth, why didn't he take that opportunity?

As for Velazquez, my understanding is that her "memoir" has been discredited, and had its doubters even in 1876.