While you’re right, Eleanor, and there is no way to be sure about anything for absolute certainty, in my eyes the burden of proof is on the part of the escape theorists and thus far they have not proven their case. Have we, as historians, made mistakes in the assassination story? Absolutely. Specifics of the story change almost daily. But for something so drastic such as this, so much more is needed than a man who claimed to be Booth. There is no substance behind the escape theories. To me, one of the Garrett boys said it best when he was asked about Bates’ escape theory: “he was so eager to fit the facts to his theory that he clutched at straws”.
The mummy is still interesting, but nothing more than a novelty in the realm of the assassination.
Maybe that is him no one will ever know.
While you’re right, Eleanor, and there is no way to be sure about anything for absolute certainty, in my eyes the burden of proof is on the part of the escape theorists and thus far they have not proven their case. Have we, as historians, made mistakes in the assassination story? Absolutely. Specifics of the story change almost daily. But for something so drastic such as this, so much more is needed than a man who claimed to be Booth. There is no substance behind the escape theories. To me, one of the Garrett boys said it best when he was asked about Bates’ escape theory: “he was so eager to fit the facts to his theory that he clutched at straws”.
The mummy is still interesting, but nothing more than a novelty in the realm of the assassination.
Thanks for commenting!
Dave