Unwanted Facts: Facts that Most Books on the Lincoln Assassination Ignore

[Gene C]

(12-06-2018 04:52 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  In reading through the gift shop’s list of books for sale, one sees an extreme bias in favor of the military commission’s story. Out of the 40-plus Lincoln assassination books on the list, only two challenge the military commission’s version.

In fact, even after all we have long known about the bogus nature of much of the military commission’s evidence, especially its Confederate conspiracy theory, some of the books offered at the gift shop double-down on that theory, and one of them even goes to the ludicrous extreme of suggesting that General George McClellan might have been involved in an assassination plot against Lincoln!

You would think that since the Surratt House Museum receives taxpayer money, its staff would ensure that the gift shop offered a more balanced selection of books. You would also think that the staff would feel some moral obligation, or at least some sense of basic fairness, to carry a few more books that defend Mary Surratt, especially since they are getting paid to run her house as a museum.

Your comments about what books the Surratt House sells and doesn't sell has only served to raise my respect for the staff there.
Mike, you have made some interesting posts full of different information, but I haven't seen to many people responding favorably to your comments and jumping on your bandwagon.

Here is an item to consider. Maybe the books you think they should sell most people don't want to buy.
I would frown upon an organization that receives taxpayer money selling books nobody wants.

Using logic, this may be an opportunity for you to open your own bookstore and sell the books that the Surratt House Museum does not want to sell.
If your analysis is correct, you should do quite well. Maybe you can sell some James Boyd bobble heads, you would have a monopoly on those.

[RJNorton]

I agree with Gene. Mike, I am a retired teacher, and most of the books you have mentioned I would never have used in the classroom. Offhand, the only exception I can think of is Tom Bogar's book. I think Tom did an outstanding job. So we agree on Tom's book but little else. I would have been fired, and rightfully so, if I handed out a book like Dr. Arnold's and used it as a text to teach the assassination in class.

I don't think you have ever mentioned Tony Pitch's book. Mike, how do you feel about that one? (I like it)

[mikegriffith1]

Here are more facts that most books on the Lincoln assassination ignore or minimize:

* In his testimony at the conspiracy trial, Louis Weichmann, one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, did not claim (1) that Booth visited Mary Surratt at 9:00 PM on April 14; (2) that she was “nervous, agitated, and restless” after this alleged meeting; and (3) that prior to Lincoln’s inauguration, Mary Surratt was “in the habit” of saying that “something was going to happen to old Abe which would prevent him from taking his seat.” Weichmann did not make any of these claims until after the trial. He made these claims in an August 11, 1865, affidavit to Col. H. L. Burnett, six weeks after the conspiracy trial ended.

In his belated and curious August 11 affidavit, Weichmann claimed that he “later ascertained” that the person who supposedly visited Mary Surratt at 9:00 PM on the night of the assassination was Booth. As mentioned, he also claimed that after this supposed meeting, Mary Surratt was visibly nervous and agitated. He did not explain how he “ascertained” that the alleged visitor was Booth; nor did he explain why he did not claim at the conspiracy trial that Mrs. Surratt was nervous and agitated after this alleged meeting.

* Two years later, at the John Surratt trial, Weichmann made a number of claims that he had never made before. For example, he claimed that when he and Mary Surratt were about to leave for the Surrattsville tavern at around 2:30/2:40 on April 14, Mrs. Surratt said, “"Wait, Mr. Weichmann, I must get those things of Booth's" (The Trial of John Surratt, volume 1, p. 391). That was the first time he had ever claimed that she said Booth gave her “things” that day. He said nothing about this in his testimony at the conspiracy trial nor in his affidavit to Burnett.

* At the conspiracy trial, Weichmann said that the package that Booth allegedly gave Mary Surratt looked like “two or three saucers” wrapped in paper (The Conspiracy Trial for the Murder of the President, Ben Poore transcript, volume 1, p. 85). At the John Surratt trial, he said it looked like “three or four saucers wrapped together” and that he thought it was a “glass dessert dish” (The Trial of John Surratt, volume 1, p. 447).

How could one pair of small field glasses/opera glasses wrapped in paper appear to be several dishes wrapped in paper? Go look at pictures of the alleged Booth field glasses, or field glasses that were similar in size. Imagine wrapping them in some paper, and then try to imagine how the package could look like a “glass dessert dish” wrapped in paper. A pair of field glasses wrapped in paper would be rectangular in shape and would look noting like some plates wrapped in paper.

Lloyd said that when he unwrapped the package, the only thing in it was a pair of field glasses. So no one can say that perhaps Mary Surratt put the field glasses on a few dishes and wrapped them in paper to disguise their appearance.

* When Lloyd testified at the John Surratt trial, he refused to identify the alleged Booth field glasses as the ones he had seen. He said (1) that his impression was that the alleged Booth field glasses entered into evidence were not the ones he saw, (2) that the field glasses he saw had the words “field glass” written in the top-center (whereas the alleged Booth field glasses did not), (3) that the writing on the field glasses that he saw was larger than the writing on the alleged Booth field glasses, and (4) that the lettering of that writing was yellow (whereas the lettering on the alleged Booth field glasses was not) (The Trial of John H. Surratt, vol. 1, p. 288).

* The accounts relating to the field glasses are riddled, literally riddled, with contradictions and questionable statements. Lt. Luther Baker gave conflicting accounts of his alleged discussions with the Garretts about the field glasses and his alleged “finding” of the field glasses.

During a portion of his testimony at the John Surratt trial, in one breath Baker said that he saw the field glasses "at the Garrett place, where Booth was captured," but a few moments later he said that he found them "about nine miles from Garrett's place" (http://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2014/...sses.html; The Trial of John H. Surratt, vol. 1, p. 321). In one of Baker’s accounts, a young boy, only five or six years old, not only knew which one of his older siblings had received the field glasses as a gift but also knew that the field glasses had been in the Mr. Garrett’s writing desk! Lucinda Holloway, a relative who lived in Mr. Garrett’s home, gave an account that markedly contradicts Baker’s accounts, not only as to when the field glasses were found but with whom Baker spoke and who told him where the field glasses were located.

These are the kinds of contradictions and doubtful statements you get when a story has been fabricated.

* At the John Surratt trial, Weichmann admitted, under intense cross-examination, that he told John Ford that he had told Secretary of War Edwin Stanton that he had seen a letter from John Surratt dated April 12 that indicated that John Surratt was in Canada, and that he did not see John Surratt during the 10-14 days leading up to the assassination:

Q. Did not you state to him [Ford] that you had told the Secretary of War that John Surratt had left here a considerable time before the assassination, and that, from a letter which you had seen, he must have been in Montreal at that time?

A. I may have said that; I may have said that I had not seen John Surratt for a considerable time before the assassination, and that I had seen a letter from him dated April 12; but I did not state to the Secretary or to Mr. Ford that I knew where John Surratt was when the blow was struck, because I did not know.

Mr. Bradley. I do not know whether you knew or not; that is not the question. I ask you if you did not tell Mr. John T. Ford that you had had an interview with the Secretary of War, and had told him all you knew about that affair, and of John Surratt's whereabouts at the time of the assassination, and that you had not seen John Surratt for ten days or two weeks before, and that you had seen a letter which satisfied you that John Surratt was in Canada at the time?

A. I believe I have told Mr. John T. Ford that; I have told it on the stand here; but I did not tell Mr. Ford that I knew where John Surratt was when the assassination took place. (The Trial of John Surratt, volume 1, p. 449)

Of course, as has been noted in previous replies, the defense established beyond any reasonable doubt that John Surratt was not in Washington at the time of the assassination, contrary to what the War Department and its prosecutors had claimed.

* Both Weichmann and Lloyd were kept in prison during the conspiracy trial and were only released after they had given testimony that was satisfactory to the prosecutors. In other words, when Weichmann and Lloyd testified during the conspiracy trial, they knew that if they did not testify as the prosecution wanted, they would remain in prison.

* One of the items of evidence that the War Department claimed was found by Detective John Lee in George Atzerodt’s room at the Kirkwood House was a single, lone spur, which was supposedly found lying on the floor. Incredibly, and amazingly conveniently, Weichmann claimed that this spur was the missing spur to three pairs of spurs that were found in Weichmann’s closet at the Surratt boarding house!

In any case, the clerk who accompanied Lee to inspect Atzerodt’s room said he only saw Lee find a pistol, nothing else—no jacket, no spur lying on the floor, no knife. And the prosecutors never explained how this one lone spur came to be lying on the floor of Atzerodt’s room, which had just been cleaned.

* The two doctors who autopsied the body of the man shot in the barn wrote conflicting descriptions of the bullet’s path through the neck. Dr. Barnes said the bullet traveled at an upward angle, while Dr. Woodward said the bullet traveled at a downward angle. In 1993, a team of forensic anthropologists from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) and the National Museum of Health and Medicine (NMHM) examined the vertebrae and spinal cord and “were able to establish” that the bullet “entered high on the right and exited low on the left side of the neck,” and that it “was not self-inflicted” (Gretchen Wordon, “Is It the Body of John Wilkes Booth,” Transactions and Studies of the College of the Physicians of Philadelphia, 5:16, December 1994, p. 78). Note that the downward angle must have been rather sharp, since the bullet entered “high” on the right side and exited “low” on the left side.

* The fact that the AFIP-NMHM pathologists determined that the bullet entered on the right side of the neck and traveled markedly downward means that when the victim was shot, he was not facing the shooter, and that the shooter must have fired from a position significantly above the victim. This is further evidence that Boston Corbett lied about shooting the man in the barn and lied about what the man was doing when he was shot.

Dr. Robert Arnold examined the vertebrae specimens and the photographs of them and found that the bullet track was undeniably at least 25 degrees below horizontal. One of the photos showed a rod placed in the bullet track through the neck “and it clearly demonstrated the entry as being at least twenty-five degrees from the horizontal” (The Conspiracy Between John Wilkes Booth and the Union Army to Assassinate Abraham Lincoln, pp. 264-265). Dr. Arnold is a retired Navy surgeon and assistant coroner.

* None other than Congressman Benjamin Butler, one of the most virulent of the Radical Republicans, became convinced that Mary Surratt was “an innocent woman” and that the military tribunal had convicted her “without sufficient evidence” (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, March 26, 1867, p. 118).

[RJNorton]

(12-09-2018 11:50 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  * In his testimony at the conspiracy trial, Louis Weichmann, one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, did not claim (1) that Booth visited Mary Surratt at 9:00 PM on April 14; (2) that she was “nervous, agitated, and restless” after this alleged meeting;

Richard M. Smoot backed up Weichmann's claim that Mary was in an agitated state that night. He wrote in The Unwritten History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln that he visited Mary's boardinghouse at 9:30 on the night of the assassination. Smoot recalled:

"The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt. She was in a state of feverish excitement. I asked her if John had returned, and she replied that he had not. She then informed me that she was positive that the boat would be used that night, and that I would get my money in a day or two. She most earnestly besought me to leave the city and not be seen at her house again. Her manner caused me alarm. I felt that a crisis was at hand, and that I was facing some unseen danger."

IMO, it was apparent to Smoot that Booth's plan was to take action that very night, and Mary knew about it. It's possible Mary thought it was the kidnapping, not assassination; no matter what, she knew something was going down that night.

Maybe Weichmann was never specifically asked what kind of state Mary was in that night after 9 P.M., and that is why it's not in his trial testimony. I'll have to check the trial transcript.

[L Verge]

1. In case I missed your previous postings, Mr. Griffith, please cite in full for me the exact pathology report regarding the angle of the bullet as it entered Booth's neck. Also, I do not believe that the Booth vertebrae are privy to full, hands-on inspection - and Dr. Arnold's credentials do not appear high enough on any totem pole to grant him such access. And, even though I agree with Rick and Wild Bill regarding the unlikely possibility that Booth could have shot himself through the back of the neck, it would seem to me that the extreme downward angle of the bullet that you are trying to sell us the idea of would have depended on Booth's right arm being much longer than normal in order for him to get his elbow and upper arm raised up high enough to cause such a downward path.

2. Have you stopped to consider that Weichmann gave full details long after the trial because he was not questioned about such things before and during the proceedings -- and was smart enough to keep his mouth shut? "Don't ask, don't tell" has been a standard form of self-preservation long before the 1865 Conspiracy Trial and the late-20th century gender debates.

3. Perhaps both you and Beast Butler did not fully understand the concept of "conspiracy" as applied to the Lincoln conspirators?

[AussieMick]

Obviously I cannot prove it, but it is highly unlikely that Booth was shot whilst standing or walking in anything like an upright position, with or without a crutch.

Consider the facts. He's got a smashed leg. Its been like that for almost 12 days (thats 12 not 10 by the way). He's been crouched or laid down in a barn for several hours. Most people find it difficult to stand after having sat for several hours.

If that bullet trajectory had not been as described with a sharp downward trajectory, then I would be very very surprised and very suspicious.

[L Verge]

(12-09-2018 05:29 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Obviously I cannot prove it, but it is highly unlikely that Booth was shot whilst standing or walking in anything like an upright position, with or without a crutch.

Consider the facts. He's got a smashed leg. Its been like that for almost 12 days (thats 12 not 10 by the way). He's been crouched or laid down in a barn for several hours. Most people find it difficult to stand after having sat for several hours.

If that bullet trajectory had not been as described with a sharp downward trajectory, then I would be very very surprised and very suspicious.

I still like the description that Mike Kauffman used to give when he narrated the Booth Escape Route Tours for us: Booth was leaning on one crutch (which, with my personal experiences on those dreadful things) would place him leaning downward on that side and likely pitched slightly forward. I would certainly agree that he was in severe pain by that time from his leg and from stiffness and fatigue.

He would now be in panic mode knowing that either the troopers were going to get him or he was going to die of smoke inhalation or burns very shortly. As Mike described it, he stood there perplexed and then made a turn for the door. Corbett knew that his commanders could likely be hit if Booth came out firing; he took aim for Booth's shoulder to get him to drop the weapon; Booth's movement towards the door caused him to badly limp on that left leg, throwing his body even farther down, and the bullet hit the neck instead of the shoulder.

To "silly" me, this seems like a very logical scenario and to heck with the logistical geometry (or whatever you use to trace trajectory).

[mikegriffith1]

(12-06-2018 06:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I agree with Gene. Mike, I am a retired teacher, and most of the books you have mentioned I would never have used in the classroom.

I can't fathom how any genuine institution of learning would object to using the books by Thomas Reed, H. Donald Winkler, and Robert Ferguson when teaching the Lincoln assassination. On what possible basis could they object? These are recognized scholars with books published by established publishing houses.

Quote:I would have been fired, and rightfully so, if I handed out a book like Dr. Arnold's and used it as a text to teach the assassination in class.

Then you must have worked at a school run by some very closed-minded and/or poorly read people.

[L Verge]

(12-09-2018 06:47 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-06-2018 06:16 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I agree with Gene. Mike, I am a retired teacher, and most of the books you have mentioned I would never have used in the classroom.

I can't fathom how any genuine institution of learning would object to using the books by Thomas Reed, H. Donald Winkler, and Robert Ferguson when teaching the Lincoln assassination. On what possible basis could they object? These are recognized scholars with books published by established publishing houses.

Quote:I would have been fired, and rightfully so, if I handed out a book like Dr. Arnold's and used it as a text to teach the assassination in class.

Then you must have worked at a school run by some very closed-minded and/or poorly read people.

Mr. Griffith - First, I do not remember you ever mentioning, much less citing, the three authors that you just praised. I am friends with two of them and certainly agree that they have contributed to the study.

However, if you are going to mention someone, please get the name correct. Thomas Reed is actually Thomas Reed Turner and a foremost scholar in this field. Donald Winkler has contributed some things also, but not in the same class as Turner. As for Robert Ferguson, I am going to Google him because my brain is not registering just who he is.

BTW: In the process of condemning school officials that Roger served under, it seems that you have also cast aspersions on his choice of reliable authors. You owe him an apology or retraction because he has certainly been very lenient and open-minded in allowing you to express your personal feelings and historical suppositions on this forum for lo these many months.

---

I'm back! Google shows that Robert Ferguson is an author of 21 books in the fields of Novels, Biographies, and one History book - the latter being a history of the Vikings.

Goodreads lists his works here: https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/18...t_Ferguson and I don't believe you will find a single one that has anything to do with Booth or the assassination.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-09-2018 03:15 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 11:50 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  * In his testimony at the conspiracy trial, Louis Weichmann, one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, did not claim (1) that Booth visited Mary Surratt at 9:00 PM on April 14; (2) that she was “nervous, agitated, and restless” after this alleged meeting;

Richard M. Smoot backed up Weichmann's claim that Mary was in an agitated state that night. He wrote in The Unwritten History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln that he visited Mary's boardinghouse at 9:30 on the night of the assassination. Smoot recalled:

"The door was quickly reopened, and I was admitted into the presence of Mrs. Surratt. She was in a state of feverish excitement. I asked her if John had returned, and she replied that he had not. She then informed me that she was positive that the boat would be used that night, and that I would get my money in a day or two. She most earnestly besought me to leave the city and not be seen at her house again. Her manner caused me alarm. I felt that a crisis was at hand, and that I was facing some unseen danger."

IMO, it was apparent to Smoot that Booth's plan was to take action that very night, and Mary knew about it. It's possible Mary thought it was the kidnapping, not assassination; no matter what, she knew something was going down that night.

So you accept Smoot's tall tale here, but you reject other, far more credible and consistent accounts because they are problematic for the traditional version.

Now, did you happen to read the paragraphs before the one that you quote? Did you read Smoot's claim about why he was there, why he was at Mary Surratt's house at 9:30 at night on a Friday night?

Did you read where Smoot claimed that Anna told him that John Surratt "likely" would be back at the house on Friday night? Do you really believe she would have said any such thing? Did you read where Smoot claimed that Anna also told him that John wrote a letter to a "Miss Mitchell" in which he said that he would be back in Washington that Friday, "if he possibly could"? Do you really believe that as well? Really? The facts brought out at the John Surratt trial expose these claims as fairy tales.

So why did Smoot claim he went to Mrs. Surratt's house at 9:30 at night on a Friday night? Get ready: He said he went there to talk to John Surratt about payment for his boat! Oh, yeah, sure, makes total sense. You bet.

(12-09-2018 03:15 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Maybe Weichmann was never specifically asked what kind of state Mary was in that night after 9 P.M., and that is why it's not in his trial testimony. I'll have to check the trial transcript.

Weichmann volunteered plenty of information without being asked, so the explanation that he was not specifically asked about Mary's mood/state does not seem like a plausible excuse. He also initially failed to mention that Booth had given the package to Mrs. Surratt. He further initially failed to mention that Mary was supposedly "in the habit" of exclaiming that something was about to happen to Lincoln that would prevent him from filling his second term.

And, of course, he did not mention any of those things in his initial statement to the Metropolitan Police. In fact, after he went to the police station to tell what he knew and then told what he knew, the police saw no need to return to Mary Surratt's house. If he had told the police half of the stuff that he later said about Mrs. Surratt, they would have immediately returned to her house to arrest her.

[L Verge]

I think you are underestimating Richard Smoot's story. Double-check, but I'm pretty sure that you are leaving out his previous visit to the boardinghouse a few nights before, when he was told to come back on Friday to see John. Also, I don't recall that his conversations were with Anna; he spoke directly with Mrs. Surratt. If we could dig up one of Mudd's attorneys, Frederick Stone, he might also tell you how he tied in with Smoot and the first plan to kidnap Lincoln.

Just curious, do you ever intend to answer the numerous, good questions that a number of our posters here have thrown at you over the weeks? Inquiring minds want to know.

[GustD45]

(12-11-2018 11:38 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I think you are underestimating Richard Smoot's story. Double-check, but I'm pretty sure that you are leaving out his previous visit to the boardinghouse a few nights before, when he was told to come back on Friday to see John. Also, I don't recall that his conversations were with Anna; he spoke directly with Mrs. Surratt. If we could dig up one of Mudd's attorneys, Frederick Stone, he might also tell you how he tied in with Smoot and the first plan to kidnap Lincoln.

Just curious, do you ever intend to answer the numerous, good questions that a number of our posters here have thrown at you over the weeks? Inquiring minds want to know.

Mrs. Verge I don't think he wants to be confused with facts.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  1. In case I missed your previous postings, Mr. Griffith, please cite in full for me the exact pathology report regarding the angle of the bullet as it entered Booth's neck.

I've given the source twice now, including in my last list of unwanted facts.

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Also, I do not believe that the Booth vertebrae are privy to full, hands-on inspection - and Dr. Arnold's credentials do not appear high enough on any totem pole to grant him such access.

I don't know if Dr. Arnold meant that he handled the spinal section or if he just visually examined it. But I would not be shocked to learn that the NMHM allowed him to handle it, since he is a retired Navy surgeon and a former coroner. There is no one among the military commission apologists who has his medical credentials.

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  2. Have you stopped to consider that Weichmann gave full details long after the trial because he was not questioned about such things before and during the proceedings -- and was smart enough to keep his mouth shut? "Don't ask, don't tell" has been a standard form of self-preservation long before the 1865 Conspiracy Trial and the late-20th century gender debates.

Uh, if so, then why would he have given any statement at all after the conspiracy trial? That makes no sense.

He volunteered plenty of information for which he was not asked in response to questions that were barely even tangentially related to his answers.

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  3. Perhaps both you and Beast Butler did not fully understand the concept of "conspiracy" as applied to the Lincoln conspirators?

LOL! "Beast Butler"?! The Confederates were the ones who gave him that label because he reacted with toughness when some Southern women were throwing stones at Union soldiers from windows and roof tops. Are you a Lost Cause believer?

I'm sure Butler had a pretty good handle on the concept of conspiracy as applied to any group of suspects. You realize that he was widely recognized as a skilled lawyer and was chosen to be the lead prosecution manager in Andrew Johnson's trial in the Senate, right? You knew that, right?

[L Verge]

(12-11-2018 05:07 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  1. In case I missed your previous postings, Mr. Griffith, please cite in full for me the exact pathology report regarding the angle of the bullet as it entered Booth's neck.

I've given the source twice now, including in my last list of unwanted facts.

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Also, I do not believe that the Booth vertebrae are privy to full, hands-on inspection - and Dr. Arnold's credentials do not appear high enough on any totem pole to grant him such access.

I don't know if Dr. Arnold meant that he handled the spinal section or if he just visually examined it. But I would not be shocked to learn that the NMHM allowed him to handle it, since he is a retired Navy surgeon and a former coroner. There is no one among the military commission apologists who has his medical credentials.

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  2. Have you stopped to consider that Weichmann gave full details long after the trial because he was not questioned about such things before and during the proceedings -- and was smart enough to keep his mouth shut? "Don't ask, don't tell" has been a standard form of self-preservation long before the 1865 Conspiracy Trial and the late-20th century gender debates.

Uh, if so, then why would he have given any statement at all after the conspiracy trial? That makes no sense.

He volunteered plenty of information for which he was not asked in response to questions that were barely even tangentially related to his answers.

(12-09-2018 04:00 PM)L Verge Wrote:  3. Perhaps both you and Beast Butler did not fully understand the concept of "conspiracy" as applied to the Lincoln conspirators?

LOL! "Beast Butler"?! The Confederates were the ones who gave him that label because he reacted with toughness when some Southern women were throwing stones at Union soldiers from windows and roof tops. Are you a Lost Cause believer?

I'm sure Butler had a pretty good handle on the concept of conspiracy as applied to any group of suspects. You realize that he was widely recognized as a skilled lawyer and was chosen to be the lead prosecution manager in Andrew Johnson's trial in the Senate, right? You knew that, right?

I know lots of things, Mr. Griffith, but when I (and others) attempt to point out facts to you, you rudely dismiss them and throw out more spurious information.

I'm sure that you know that when the Union troops set up shop in Baltimore and the rest of the state (especially Southern Maryland), the ruling officer became infuriated at the women of Baltimore and their blatant dislike of the Yankees. So the ladies were invited on a little tour of the city that ended high on a hill or on a rooftop with the Yankee suggesting that the ladies behave themselves or he could turn the guns around the other way and point them directly at the heart of the city. Not the best of ways to try and scare off a mouthy woman -- a lesson you need to learn.

Beast Butler was a very unwelcome visitor in Baltimore long before he went to Louisiana. As for believing in the Lost Cause, no, I never did - but I understand how the moonlight and magnolias blossomed as a way of dealing with the horrors of the war, the loss of life, and the loss of a way of life that had gone on for centuries. The handling of Reconstruction certainly didn't help the situation either. Don't try and sell me on the idea that either side in our greatest conflict was totally correct or totally wrong.

BTW: My great-grandmother Huntt (who figures in the story) was a Methodist abolitionist. Mr. Huntt came from a slave-holding family, but they held their marriage together. She had one brother who fought for the Union and another who fought with the Confederate navy, was captured, and nearly died at Point Lookout - the prison camp in Southern Maryland that was just about fifty miles from where his sister lived.

That brother kept an open wound on his ankle for the rest of his life because of an injury from a pick-ax while he served on a burial detail. Both brothers survived and attended family get-togethers, but they never spoke to each other for the rest of their lives. My grandmother remembered those times vividly.

On the other side of the family, everyone was a Confederate from Southern Maryland. Look up the story of Col. John Sothoron sometime - he's family. On my father's side, they were all from the Virginia-North Carolina border and poor dirt farmers who owned no slaves, but loved their state.

Now, what's your story? Feel free to post while I hunt down your citations for that report on the bullet angle.

---

I'm back. Is this your citation? In 1993, a team of forensic anthropologists from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) and the National Museum of Health and Medicine (NMHM) examined the vertebrae and spinal cord and “were able to establish” that the bullet “entered high on the right and exited low on the left side of the neck,” and that it “was not self-inflicted” (Gretchen Wordon, “Is It the Body of John Wilkes Booth,” Transactions and Studies of the College of the Physicians of Philadelphia, 5:16, December 1994, p. 78). Note that the downward angle must have been rather sharp, since the bullet entered “high” on the right side and exited “low” on the left side.

* The fact that the AFIP-NMHM pathologists determined that the bullet entered on the right side of the neck and traveled markedly downward means that when the victim was shot, he was not facing the shooter, and that the shooter must have fired from a position significantly above the victim

It appears to me that you/maybe Dr. Arnold are citing Gretchen Worden of Philadelphia's Mutter Museum, who was a wonderful historian and scientist and did not believe the escape theories. Also in 1993, the museum director at AFIP (then housed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center) was a brilliant and personable young man named Paul Sledznik, who put no faith in the escape theory either. My staff and I worked with Paul for several years arranging tours of his facility. He was a topic of conversation just today as I was interviewed by the Green Mount Cemetery lawyer who defended the cemetery during the exhumation trials of 1994-1996. Paul appeared as a witness for the cemetery and cast aspersions on the claims of Orlowek and Chitty.

Your citations appear to need a little investigation as to what exactly they said - if anything.

---

Finally, my answer to your question as to why Weichmann kept on talking (but mainly writing a ms that he never published) after the trial and executions were over. I refer you back to my original statement that he was doing everything he could to clear his conscience and public opinion of the fact that he helped send a woman (whether guilty or innocent) to the gallows. His written work that was later published by Floyd Risvold (another acquaintance) is one of the most obvious pieces of self-vindication you could ask for.

[mikegriffith1]

(12-06-2018 06:01 PM)Gene C Wrote:  [quote='mikegriffith1' pid='74229' dateline='1544129526']
In reading through the gift shop’s list of books for sale, one sees an extreme bias in favor of the military commission’s story. Out of the 40-plus Lincoln assassination books on the list, only two challenge the military commission’s version.

In fact, even after all we have long known about the bogus nature of much of the military commission’s evidence, especially its Confederate conspiracy theory, some of the books offered at the gift shop double-down on that theory, and one of them even goes to the ludicrous extreme of suggesting that General George McClellan might have been involved in an assassination plot against Lincoln!

You would think that since the Surratt House Museum receives taxpayer money, its staff would ensure that the gift shop offered a more balanced selection of books. You would also think that the staff would feel some moral obligation, or at least some sense of basic fairness, to carry a few more books that defend Mary Surratt, especially since they are getting paid to run her house as a museum.

(12-06-2018 06:01 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Your comments about what books the Surratt House sells and doesn't sell has only served to raise my respect for the staff there.

Then you're showing respect for bias that is so extreme that it excludes books that are written by recognized scholars and that are published by established publishing houses.

(12-06-2018 06:01 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Mike, you have made some interesting posts full of different information, but I haven't seen to many people responding favorably to your comments and jumping on your bandwagon.

That is not a bit surprising. You have people in this forum who still believe that Spangler was guilty, who still peddle the Confederate conspiracy theory, and who still view the military commission as a credible and honorable tribunal.