Lincoln Assassination Status: a Still Open or Reopenable FBI Investigation?

[Richard Smith]

I assume that you accept that Booth assassinated Lincoln?  Apply your standard of proof used in the JFK case to the Lincoln assassination so that we can understand the difference with Oswald.  Link Booth to the weapon for example.  Where are the prints, pictures, documents, serial numbers, and witness testimony that link Booth to this specific pistol?  Where did he obtain it from?  Where did he buy his ammo?  Prove to us that Booth even carried that pistol or any pistol into Ford's Theatre.  What witness, for example, saw him carry it into the theater?  Show us a chain of custody regarding the pistol found or even who found it in "situ" (a word kooks love).  There are various and conflicting reports of who, when, and where it was found.  Prove to us that pistol was even used to kill Lincoln.  The bullet recovered from Lincoln can't be matched to that particular gun.  Show us how Booth loaded it since no such tools necessary to load the Derringer could ever be associated with him.  Don't cop out and tell us anyone saw Booth shoot Lincoln.  That would contradict the standard you apply to the JFK case.  They just heard what they "assumed" to be a shot like a loud "bang" and looked in that direction to see someone that looked like Booth pointing some unknown object at Lincoln.  No one saw him actually pull the trigger (i.e. the pedantic interpretation of seeing someone shoot another person such as in the Tippit murder).  Maybe it was a pipe or something else "made of wood" in his hand.  Like the object Marina and Bob Jackson described believing it to be a rifle but which you dismiss as being something else.  Maybe Booth just pointed it at Lincoln and shouted "bang" and someone else actually fired the shot from another location.  Explain to us why Booth would have carried only a single shot pistol.  It all just sounds like "opinions" and "assumptions" applying your form of logic because it is an impossible standard of proof. 

[John Iacoletti]

I assume that you accept that Booth assassinated Lincoln?  Apply your standard of proof used in the JFK case to the Lincoln assassination so that we can understand the difference with Oswald.  Link Booth to the weapon for example.  Where are the prints, pictures, documents, serial numbers, and witness testimony that link Booth to this specific pistol?  Where did he obtain it from?  Where did he buy his ammo?  Prove to us that Booth even carried that pistol or any pistol into Ford's Theatre.

Why do you have to link a weapon to Booth?  The only reason you try to link a weapon to Oswald is that you have nothing else.

An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him.  Rathbone fought with him and was stabbed by Booth.  An entire theater full of people who knew who he was saw him leap from the box shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannus".  He had accomplices who ratted him out.  He had a diary in which he said he did it.

The only way this would be the slightest bit analogous is if Lincoln keeled over and nobody saw anybody or anything, but a derringer was found elsewhere in the theater an hour later and a photo turned up of Booth holding a little gun that may or may not have been the same gun.

It doesn't freakin' matter whether anybody can prove if Booth bought the weapon, because that's not evidence that would prove who killed Lincoln.

"I walked with a firm step through a thousand of his friends, was stopped, but pushed on. A colonel was at his side. I shouted Sic semper before I fired. In jumping broke my leg. I passed all his pickets, rode sixty miles that night with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump. I can never repent it, though we hated to kill. Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment." -- John Wilkes Booth

"I didn't shoot anybody, no sir. I'm just a patsy". —Lee Harvey Oswald

[Richard Smith]

Wow.  The guy who repeatedly questions handwriting analysis as unscientific in the case of "Hidell" cites Booth's handwritten diary as evidence of his guilt!  LOL.  You can't make that up.  And we learn it suddenly doesn't matter whether you can link Booth and by implication Oswald to the murder weapons?  I'm speechless at the profound ignorance of that statement.  And who are these "entire theatre" full of witnesses who saw Booth with a Derringer?  You made that up.  They must have had great eyesight to ID the weapon in his hand in a darkened theatre while their attention was focused on the play and match it to the one found later.  But the witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun at the Tippit scene are discounted.  Did any of these witnesses see Booth shoot Lincoln per the pedantic standard you apply to the JFK and Tippit murder?  So what you confirm is that you believe Booth is guilty even though you can't link him to the alleged murder weapon found at the scene, link that weapon to the murder, or have any witness that saw him carry it into Ford's Theatre.  In addition, no witness saw him "shoot" Lincoln as you interpret that term in the JFK case.  He was just there at his work place like a bunch of other actors.  But he is obviously guilty while there is somehow doubt concerning Oswald.

btw:  Rathbone later murdered his wife and was committed to an insane asylum.  Maybe he assassinated Lincoln that is why Booth fought him.  It's possible and that is all that counts when trying to raise false doubt.

[Bill Chapman]

Wow.  The guy who repeatedly questions handwriting analysis as unscientific in the case of "Hidell" cites Booth's handwritten diary as evidence of his guilt!  LOL.  You can't make that up.  And we learn it suddenly doesn't matter whether you can link Booth and by implication Oswald to the murder weapons?  I'm speechless at the profound ignorance of that statement.  And who are these "entire theatre" full of witnesses who saw Booth with a Derringer?  You made that up.  They must have had great eyesight to ID the weapon in his hand in a darkened theatre while their attention was focused on the play and match it to the one found later.  But the witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun at the Tippit scene are discounted.  Did any of these witnesses see Booth shoot Lincoln per the pedantic standard you apply to the JFK and Tippit murder?  So what you confirm is that you believe Booth is guilty even though you can't link him to the alleged murder weapon found at the scene, link that weapon to the murder, or have any witness that saw him carry it into Ford's Theatre.  In addition, no witness saw him "shoot" Lincoln as you interpret that term in the JFK case.  He was just there at his work place like a bunch of other actors.  But he is obviously guilty while there is somehow doubt concerning Oswald.

 

Good one "Richard" Richard...

In tennis, they say play the other guy's game, but better. Seems you've trapped a rat.

[Thomas Graves]

Shouldn't this thread be in the "Off Topic" section?

-- MWT 

[John Mytton]

Wow.  The guy who repeatedly questions handwriting analysis as unscientific in the case of "Hidell" cites Booth's handwritten diary as evidence of his guilt!  LOL.  You can't make that up.  And we learn it suddenly doesn't matter whether you can link Booth and by implication Oswald to the murder weapons?  I'm speechless at the profound ignorance of that statement.  And who are these "entire theatre" full of witnesses who saw Booth with a Derringer?  You made that up.  They must have had great eyesight to ID the weapon in his hand in a darkened theatre while their attention was focused on the play and match it to the one found later.  But the witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun at the Tippit scene are discounted.  Did any of these witnesses see Booth shoot Lincoln per the pedantic standard you apply to the JFK and Tippit murder?  So what you confirm is that you believe Booth is guilty even though you can't link him to the alleged murder weapon found at the scene, link that weapon to the murder, or have any witness that saw him carry it into Ford's Theatre.  In addition, no witness saw him "shoot" Lincoln as you interpret that term in the JFK case.  He was just there at his work place like a bunch of other actors.  But he is obviously guilty while there is somehow doubt concerning Oswald.

btw:  Rathbone later murdered his wife and was committed to an insane asylum.  Maybe he assassinated Lincoln that is why Booth fought him.  It's possible and that is all that counts when trying to raise false doubt.

Thanks for baiting him and exposing the outrageous double standards. Hilarious!

JohnM

[Steve Howsley]

That was as complete a destruction of an Anyone But Oswald fraud as I've seen Richard Smith. Kudos.