Joseph Smith’s Murder: Do facts lead to truth?

[Anonymous]

I changed the title to more accurately reflect the topic. I’ll break this up so it’s not too long.

I highly recommend Carthage Conspiracy. Dallin Oaks clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court from 1957 to 1958. After his clerkship he practiced at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago. Oaks left Kirkland & Ellis to become a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. During part of his time on the faculty of the Law School, Oaks served as interim dean. Oaks left the Law School upon being appointed President at Brigham Young University. Oaks served as president of Brigham Young University from 1971–1980.

The book was first published in 1975 by the University of Illinois Press, and Oaks goes into great detail of the trial of the accused assassins. There are plenty of details in there that aren’t well known or discussed. You can find it for as cheap as $5.29 plus shipping at Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/025200762X/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0EK20Y7D09S6PN57ZQ0T&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

Page 20 discusses the actual events of the mob at the jail. I am including most of his footnotes below.

Quote:

In the Carthage jail on the morning of June 27 Joseph Smith wrote a letter to his wife, reassuring her that, if there was an attack, some of the militia would remain loyal. Later he and Hyrum entertained several visitors, including Cyrus H. Wheelock, who, fearing an attack on the jail, slipped a pistol into Joseph’s pocket.

Further down on the page (pages 20-21),

Quote:

“While there were guards around the jail,” eyewitness William Hamilton recalled later, “they were guards that did not guard and in fact I think understood the whole matter.” [Quoted in Berry, “The Mormon Settlement in Illinois”, 88, 89] The guards fired directly into the attackers from a distance of twenty feet, but no one fell. Scuffling briefly with the guards, the mob tossed them aside and stormed up the stairs toward the room where the prisoners were held. Upon hearing the guns firing below, Joseph and Hyrum seized their pistols and ran to the door to hold it shut against the attackers. Some of the mob fired shots through the wooden door, hitting Hyrum in the face. He fell upon his back, dead, his head toward an open window on the east. Joseph, seeing his fallen brother at his feet, stepped up beside the door and began firing his pistol at the men in the hallway. After attempting to fire all six barrels (three misfired) he ran to the window. Outside were more of the mob, who fired at him from below as bullets struck him from behind. [This account is based on the recollections of eyewitnesses Willard Richard, John Taylor, and John H. Sherman. Joseph Smith’s Journal kept by Willard Richards, June 27, 1844; Times and Seasons 5 (August 1, 1844), 598; Smith, History of the Church, VII, 102-4; VI, 617,19; Scofield, History of Hancock County, 846-47.] He teetered on the sill, with one leg and an arm out the window, and then fell to the ground, landing on his left side. [Hamilton and Sherman agree on this. Se also testimony of Thomas Dixon in “Minutes of Trial,” 60] An examination of his body showed he had been hit four times, once in the right collar bone, once in the breast, and twice in the back. Accounts differ as to whether he was dead before he hit the ground, [See Willard Richards to Brigham Young, June 30, 1844, Richards Papers, Church Archives] but Thomas Dixon, who was standing near the jail, said that while there was blood on his pants when he came to the window, “he was not dead when he fell–he raised himself up against the well curb.” [Cf. Ford, History of Illinois, 354, and Marsh, “Mormons in Hancock County,” 53, with the recollection of William H. Hamilton in Scofield, [i]History of Hancock County[/i], 845.] He then “drew up one leg and stretched out the other and died immediately.” [This recollection is attributed to Thomas Dixon in “Documents relating to the Mormon Troubles,” 26, handwritten notes on the trial testimony, Chicago Historical Society.] William R. Hamilton confirmed Dixon’s statement that the body was not molested after it hit the ground.[Scofield, History of Hancock County, 845; “Minutes of Trial,” 60. Another eyewitness states that Joseph was stabbed with a bayonet while on the ground. Samuel Otho Williams to John A. Prickett, July 10, 1844.]

[Anonymous]

Here’s the detail describing what happened to those 3 shots Joseph fired into the mob. From page 51,

Quote:

A Hancock County historian has stated that the grand jury was presented with the names of about sixty persons for indictment. They voted first on the entire sixty, but the evidence was so inconclusive that the number of grand jurors who voted to indict was less that the required twelve. The grand jury then struck off the ten names with the least evidence and voted once more, but again failed to secure the minimum votes. They continued in this manner until the list of potential defendants contained only the nine persons with the strongest evidence against them. In this last instance the requisite twelve votes were finally obtained, and the nine defendants were accordingly indicted or formally charged with the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.[Gregg, Prophet of Palmyra, 301-2. The Warsaw Signal, October 30, 1844, maintains that no indictment could be obtained from Tuesday through Friday, but that on Saturday the Mormons “smuggled” in two additional witnesses who provided the basis for the indictment.]

There were separate indictments for the two murders. Each charged the same nine defendents: John Wills,[A Mormon Source gives this as “John Patrick Wells.” Smith, [i]History of the Church[/i], VII, 162] William Voras,[So in indictment. Other sources often show it as “Voorhees.”] William N. Grover, Jacob C. Davis, Mark Aldrich, Thomas C. Sharp, Levi Williams, and two men named Gallaher and Allen, whose first names were not given.[There were three Gallahers in the Warsaw militia units: Charles, Patrick, and William. “Muster Roll of the Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers, Musicians and Privates belonging to the 59th Regiment 4th Brigade and 5th Division, Illinois Militia, under the command of Levi Williams,” Chicago Historical Society.]

From page 52, please note the 3 wounded:

Quote:

Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that they were the first men at the jail, that one of them shot through the door killing Hyrum, that Joseph wounded all three with his pistol, and that Gallaher shot Joseph as he ran to the window.[Hay, “The Mormon Prophet’s Tragedy,” 675] According to Hay, Wills, whom the Mormon prophet had shot in the arm, was an Irishman who had joined the mob from “his congenital love of a brawl.”[Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844, Brigham Young correspondence, Church Archives.] Gallaher was a young man from Mississippi who was shot in the face.[Hay, “The Mormon Prophet’s Tragedy,” 669, 675. Another source says Wills was a former Mormon elder who had left the Church. Davis, An Authentic Account, 24.] Hay described Voras (Voorhees) as a “half-grown hobbledehoy from Bear Creek” whom Joseph shot in the shoulder. The citizens of Green Plains were said to have given Gallaher and Voras new suits of clothes for their parts in the killing.[Statement of Jeremiah Willey, August 13, 1844]

[Anonymous]

Thank you Mormonheretic, I should get Elder Oak’s book.

I’ve been discussing this subject with a retired Institute Director in the ward. He said that he had a citation of one person dying from their wounds six months after the Martyrdom. But didn’t think that two people died. I’ll see if I can drop by his home in the next few days and get the book he’s referring to. It was interesting that this well respected historian in our Stake wanted me to know that he didn’t consider Joseph Smith as having killed him, since it took the man six months to die.

Your evidence from Carthage Conspiracy is compelling. It doesn’t read as direct testimony, but rather

Quote:

They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county. A contemporary witness reported these three as saying that

That’s not bad, but not conclusive either.

But here again, those are factual names, testimony, history, etc., that we can evaluate. Thank you.

Hawkgrrrl,

Quote:

Does the church white-wash? Yes. So does the company you work for, the country you live in, and the family you were raised in. If you keep a journal, so do you, to some extent.

A true generalization.

Ray,

I agree with this:

Quote:

I used that example to show that “facts” might or might not lead to truth – depending on if the information really is factual

but not this:

Quote:

AND how the information is processed and viewed by the person doing the determination of “truth”.

I think facts need to be treated as objectively and as sterile as long as possible. Clarity depends upon it. Discussion for sure depends upon it. Otherwise, you dissipate into “conversation stoppers,” by trying to spin or conform too quickly.

Does that make sense?

I know that it is difficult in Church discussions, and as Hawkgrrl would point out, at home, at school and at play- in life really.

[Anonymous]

Primarycolor, you quoted Oaks strangely. Let me quote that again, in context, and I’ll add some emphasis.

Quote:

Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob. They undoubtedly recognized their vulnerability and fled the county.

Between that and the subsequent statements footnoted by Oaks, I’d say that is more compelling than the OJ trial.

What do you make of the fact that nobody was convicted of the Smith brothers murders? Was justice served?

[Anonymous]

pc, I think you are totally misunderstanding what I am trying to say. I’m NOT saying we “should” interpret facts to fit any particular viewpoint we have. I’m NOT saying it’s not important to try to be objective as we analyze what we believe to be factual. All I’m really saying is that even finding indisputable facts doesn’t lead always to an understanding of truth. Obviously, it’s important, and, obviously, we need to try, but the equation “finding facts = finding truth” just isn’t correct in MANY cases – because those facts still need to be interpreted and applied by humans to have “meaning” outside their limited scope.

Let me try this explanation:

I can pick up two newspapers that each contain the same “facts”. An easy example is a statement, quote or speech by a politician; another is economic stats, like the new unemployment rate or the national deficit. (A constant example is the way our court system is set up to determine guilt or innocence – by allowing two people to present their own versions of “truth” using the exact same “facts” in many cases.) Those two newspapers can cite the exact same facts and yet interpret them in such a way that two diametrically opposite conclusions are reached – and claim, vociferously and passionately, that each interpretation is true and anyone who disagrees is ignorant or a liar. That happens all the time (every single day) in the real world.

So, I say again, that whether or not “facts” lead to truth is influenced HIGHLY by “how the information is processed and viewed by the person doing the determination of truth.”

Now, to your original situation:

Fact: Joseph and Hyrum had two guns that were smuggled into the jail for protection.

Fact: Joseph and Hyrum fired those guns.

Probably fact: Four shots worked; three misfired.

Fact: Three attackers were hit and injured.

Probably fact: No attackers were killed.

Perhaps fact: One or two attackers were killed as a result of Joseph shooting them.

Fact: Nobody was convicted of the murders of Joseph and Hyrum.

What “truth” MIGHT be construed from these facts?

1) Joseph was in jail; therefore, he was a criminal when he was killed.

2) Joseph was in jail without being convicted; therefore, he was innocent when he was killed.

3) Joseph fought back; therefore, he deserved to die.

4) Joseph fought back, since everyone has the right of self-defense; therefore, as an un-convicted prisoner, he did not deserve to die.

5) A grave miscarriage of justice occurred, since nobody was convicted of the murders.

6) The moment Hyrum fired his gun and Joseph then fired his gun, it no longer was murder but rather self-defense on both sides. Therefore, nobody should have been convicted of murder, and those injured were right to flee what would have been an unjust conviction.

7) Joseph really did “go like a lamb to the slaughter”, since he was severely outnumbered and slaughtered.

Joseph really didn’t “go like a lamb to the slaughter”, since he fought back and injured others.

9) Joseph was a martyr whose death sealed his work as a prophet of God.

10) Joseph was not protected by God and had to fight his own battle, so he was not a prophet.

I could go on and on and on, but my point is that translating “facts” into “truth” requires someone to interpret the facts and determine what is true about them – what they mean outside just their factual nature. Facts are two-dimensional, while truth is three-dimensional – at least. That’s why different people can take the same facts about Joseph, a political speech or the economy and come to radically different conclusions about what is true.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

You make me think that we have to add one more word to the equation: “opinion”

You have made the point that interpretation of the facts can lead to various opinions. As your moniker ” we see through a glass darkly ” suggests, many interpretations are be seen through the eye of the beholder. I agree.

So when you say:

Quote:

What “truth” MIGHT be construed from these facts?

I would change that to what “opinion” might be construed from the facts.

I will concede right now, that we really don’t know whether anyone died from JS’s gunshots. However, at this point I think that you might concede that there is a possibility.

Now here is an aside, that gets to the heart of an important issue that I’ve been driving at for years: LDS have great difficulty discussing opinions about Church history and doctrine.

Why?

The true believer (I’ve been an ardent one- not so much now) won’t cotton to opinions. In fact, they are seen as anathema to the cause. No personal “causes” are tolerated.

Yet, that is a “conversation stopper”- an alienating generalization. Just because I want to “test” facts, develop an opinion and discuss it, doesn’t mean I’m part of a “cause,” particularly anti-Mormon, or someone wishing to “attack” the Church.

I want to be a “truth” seeker- don’t we all?

Now, when John Taylor said that he understood that three men were wounded and that two died I would assume that he wouldn’t have stated that unless he thought it was reliable information.

I was relying on what someone who lived through the actual experience decided (for some reason) to share with us. I will no longer be so bold as to say that it really happened. Should I equate President Taylor’s words to an “opinion?”

Mormonheretic:

I’ll need to get this book. Is it just me, but doesn’t this read as hearsay?

Quote:

Wills, Voras, and Gallaher were probably named in the indictment because their wounds, which testimony showed were received at the jail, were irrefutable evidence that they had participated in the mob.

Whose testimony? Wills, Voras and Gallaher weren’t there to testify were they? Bullet wounds? Do you think they might have gotten wounds at other times and others places with all the killings going on, in that area at that time? And with their apparent reputations? I think a better case was made against OJ.

You asked:

Quote:

What do you make of the fact that nobody was convicted of the Smith brothers murders? Was justice served?

Of course justice wasn’t served. I think that the Mormons were overwhelmed with enemies, and amid the chaos, that this was the least of their problems. It’s a total disgrace to the government of Illinois, and the U.S. government.

By the way, JS had every right to shoot and kill his attackers, I’m sure you ‘d agree, right?

Now, I don’t know if I dare, but I could make a case that JS didn’t shoot anybody, with the evidence (that never went to trial). I’m afraid that you would see this as a waste of time. But there is information in B.H. Roberts Church History that could be used as defense for JS, and that I found very intriguing. I would have to find an LDS person who was willing to suspend judgment, for the sake of conversation. But it has to do with unknown “facts” that aren’t in the story that you’re used to. Interested?

[Anonymous]

pc, very sincere question:

How, exactly, do you think we are disagreeing?

I really want to know, because I think you are reading lots into my comments from assumptions about my perspective that aren’t in my words themselves. I really would like to know where you think the disagreements are – and why discussing speculation fits into this thread.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

I don’t think that we are disagreeing: perhaps misunderstanding each other. I would like to see us work toward what we mean by “truth,”and give each other room. Some areas are open to opinion. The risk that we in-turn would concede to each other, is that this might eventually effect our perception of what is true.

To help, I’m suggesting that we refine our discussion by referring to opinions. (I think you justifiably chastised me earlier for jumping rashly to the conclusion that Joseph Smith killed two people.) I represented it at the time as truth. Whereas I think that if I had said, “I think that JS may have killed two people,” you would have found that more acceptable to engage in conversation. Am I right?

So, when you state:

Quote:

What “truth” MIGHT be construed from these facts?

1) Joseph was in jail; therefore, he was a criminal when he was killed.

2) Joseph was in jail without being convicted; therefore, he was innocent when he was killed.

3) Joseph fought back; therefore, he deserved to die.

4) Joseph fought back, since everyone has the right of self-defense; therefore, as an un-convicted prisoner, he did not deserve to die., etc.

I would say that these are opinions, that by better evidence, might lead to truth.

Now, I think that opinions and evidence can lead to truth. In court it is called testimony and evidence.

I know that you don’t like my use of the element of surprise. But, I’ve got another surprise that I stumbled on in History of the Church. It has to do with the weapon itself. Who owned the weapon, how it got into Carthage jail, and who had motive to use it, and why he had reason to “plant” the weapon (figuratively speaking), good reason, understandable reason, etc., And, it’s just a forensic opinion, not a suggestion that it’s true, just interesting.

Interested?

[Anonymous]

OK, I’ll be honest again – and not at all emotional, just to be clear:

1) When I put words in quotation marks when there is no need for attribution, it is for emphasis. I don’t like to write “so-called truth” – so, instead, I write “truth”. Generally, by that I mean “something believed to be true, whether or not it is absolute Truth”. Iow, I mean opinion.

2) You said:

Quote:

I know that you don’t like my use of the element of surprise.

It’s not “surprise” that bothers me. I don’t mind being surprised – really. It’s the idea (perhaps just a mistaken impression) that none of us know what you know with regard to this topic. Fwiw, your “surprise” isn’t a surprise to me – and not to many other participants here. I have read just about everything there is to read about the martyrdom from lots of different sources (as has mormonheretic – and others, I’m sure). I know who and how and why and what when it comes to the weapons. That doesn’t mean you can’t share ancillary facts that might affect how people view the event. I’m NOT saying that at all. I just don’t think it changes the central question being discussed here – and I think calling things “surprises” carries with it the idea that you’re here to educate us by sharing things with us that we don’t know.

I hope you understand the distinction I’m making, because it goes to the heart of the thread topic, imo. My perspective influences greatly my perception of truth – my opinion, just as it does for everyone here and elsewhere. The way we bring up topics and facts and opinions generally is influenced heavily by what we believe about others – as in the case of labeling additional information about the martyrdom a “surprise”. The choice of that word illustrates the pre-existing assumption you hold about those of us who comment regularly here – and specifically, in this case, about me. My point is NOT to chastise you for that; it simply is to point out that your pre-existing assumption is just that – a relatively uninformed assumption, since you and I have not discussed this topic prior to this thread. Therefore, you have no way of knowing whether or not I will be surprised by the other information you might share.

Will the sharing of these “surprising” facts change one’s view of the “truth” of the events of the martyrdom? Maybe, but maybe not – since everyone filters information through their own individual glasses and reaches their own individual decision regarding whether the conclusions of others are truth or error – or, most often, a combination of both.

Those facts need to be interpreted by the one who contemplates them, just as with the previous facts. That is my central point.

[Anonymous]

I respected Bushman’s approach, that while he was considered an “expert” on the history of Joseph Smith’s life and death, he readily acknowledged that every event has millions of details, and so the retelling of certain facts, ommitting other facts is inevitable to the historian. Bushman knew his research was still limited to what he perceived, and that clearly others could write a different history and be equally correct, based on their perceptions.

I think it is beneficial to know more details and the sources of those details to know their authenticity, so I can draw my conclusions on the history.

I’d like to understand more of the details on the weapons, whose they were, who “planted” them and why…and what is the source of that information.

I’m not sure it would “surprise” me…as I already have a testimony of the prophet, including all the historical facts I’ve come across so far (which are not all facts as presented by Church history sources).

Can you share the weapons stuff you know about, Primary?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Can you share the weapons stuff you know about, Primary?

I agree. I hope it was clear that it’s totally fine to share them.

[Anonymous]

Primarycolor,

One man’s hearsay is another man’s evidence. I guess it is circumstantial evidence–just as OJ’s evidence was circumstantial. I guess it’s hearsay, but I’d be hard pressed to find them innocent. There seems to be plenty of grand jury testimony to their guilt, and their refusal to stand trial doesn’t bode well for them either. I know grand jury testimony has different rules than criminal testimony, but I’m sure this testimony would have been presented in court if they had appeared for trial. (Plenty of other grand jury testimony was repeated for the criminal trial.) As such, I think it would have been difficult for these 3 men to avoid a conviction. Failing to appear before the court and/or refusing to supply a defense generally results in a guilty verdict. If they had been found later to stand trial, their previous failure to appear would have been another strike against them.

The book notes that Mormons were intentionally excluded from the jury pool, so perhaps they should have joined the others. The state prosecutor made some curiously strange closing arguments which tremendously hurt his prosecution. Oaks could not understand why Lamborn (the prosecuting attorney) made these statements. Strangely, the man who represented Joseph Smith in court many times (and won) represented Joseph’s accused assassins. Apparently he was a fine attorney who rarely lost, perhaps their version of Johnny Cochran.

I am interested to hear BH Roberts story. With Oaks legal background, I wonder why he would not have included BH Roberts conclusions, though I know Oaks tried to stick closely to the trial issues and testimony. The grand jury testimony shows the 3 men were at the jail, bragged about shooting Joseph, and testimony showed they received their gunshot wounds from Joseph. I suppose I’d probably be more inclined to believe the grand jury testimony than BH Roberts (it seems Oaks believes the grand jury testimony more than John Taylor-who was shot in the jail at the time of Joseph’s murder), but I am interested to hear it and see if Oaks had any footnotes about Robert’s words.

[Anonymous]

REPORT TO THE GRAND JURY OF STAYLDS.COM

Hope you don’t mind the vehicle I’m using to provide information (that, upon study, became news to me). I’m putting on a Perry Mason suit, so please humor me.

I, Perry Mason, am setting out to provide information that will disclose enough evidence to re-open the case that prejudiced that Joseph Smith fired indiscriminately into a crowd of assailants. I will provide an opinion, based on facts, that it was more likely that there was another shooter, and that Joseph Smith was in fact murdered, unarmed- assassinated, and the gun was planted (so to speak).

I will present that:

1. The real shooter had motive to cover-up the fact.

2. Chain of custody of the weapon points to this other shooter

3. Description of the quick turn of events suggests the shooter could be the only one aware of physical detailed information.

Let me recount that it was John Taylor and Dr. Bernhisel that were sent to Carthage, Illinois, three days before the assassination, to plead with Governor Ford, to let JS and the City Council appear before a Nauvoo magistrate, instead of the anti-Mormon haven of “Justice” in Carthage.

To-whit, the Governor refused. John Taylor relates how on the night he spent in Carthage he was put on the defensive, asked to leave his room several times and separate from his companion, and feared murder, sleeping with his pistols under his pillow.

Next day, he traveled the 18 miles back to Nauvoo to apprise the brethren of his failure to change venue, and that the Governor insisted that they appear- and unarmed. JS and Hyrum decided that they had no choice but to concede and go to Carthage.

After hearing this, John Taylor retired to his home exhausted and slept:

Quote:

“Being very much fatigued, I slept soundly, and was somewhat surprised in the morning by Mrs. Thompson entering my room about 7 o’clock, and exclaiming in surprise, “What, you here! the brethren have crossed the river some time since.” pg 78 H of the Ch

Plans changed! Suddenly John Taylor realizes that the Brethren are on the run.

After getting supplied to travel JT contacted a Mr. Wheelock, who had a boat to help ferry him across the river:

Quote:

“As Cyrus Wheelock was an active, enterprising man, and in the event of not finding Brother Joseph I calculated to go to Upper Canada for the time being, and should need a companion. I said to Brother Cyrus H. Wheelock, “Can you go with me ten or fifteen hundred miles?” He answered, “Yes”. “Can you start in half an hour?” “Yes.”

pg 80

A short time later, as JT and Wheelock were making their escape, they ran into JS, Hyrum and the brethren, who had decided to reverse course: they decided to go to Carthage after all. The die was cast. John Taylor went with them.

I won’t set the stage prior to the events that happened two nights later in the upper room of the Carthage jail, but will quickly go point (2) “chain of custody.” Primarycolor had always assumed that out of the many visitors that the brethren happened to have, a visitor of relative anonymity happened to have smuggled a pistol and offered it to the group. But Perry Mason sees a linkage between John Taylor and the weapon.

Quote:

“Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock came in to see us, and when he was about leaving drew a small pistol, a six shooter, from his pocket, remarking at the same time, “Would any of you like to have this?” Brother Joseph immediately replied, “Yes, give it to me,” whereupon he took the pistol, and put it in his pantaloons pocket. The pistol was a six-shooting revolver, of Allen’s patent; it belonged to me, and was one that I furnished to Brother Wheelock when he talked of going with me to the east, previous to our coming to Carthage. I have it now in my possession.”

pg 100 H of the CH

Perry Mason submits to the Grand Jury that your credulity has to be suspended to believe that Mr. Wheelock brought Mr. Taylor’s gun into a room and offered it to “any of you.” Wouldn’t it make more sense for him to have said, “John, here’s your gun that I’ve been holding for you, do you want it?”

Now, as to point (1), motive. It isn’t a nefarious motive for John Taylor to have put the blame on JS for firing a gun. After all, JS was dead, and the living still had to face potential trials in this God forsaken, evil excuse for justice, in Carthage. In fact, JT had to survive several days alone and at the mercy of what he saw as a murderous group. Even though he was given some medical care, he refused to leave the jail until some fellow Mormons convinced him to let Carthinians help carry him to the outskirts of town. I’m sure it was in his interest of self preservation to “place the gun” in JS’s hands.

Point (3): Perry Mason finds it interesting that JT observed that the gun misfired three times; not only that it misfired, but three times. No one but the real shooter would conceivably even be aware of that fact. In other recollections JT said that the entire event happened in just two minutes. In that time you have Hyrum killed by bullets coming through the door and lock, you’ve got recollection of bullets flying into the room from the ceiling (which I assume meant floor- as to the shooter’s ceiling) and through the windows. And in all this cacophony you have JT stating that a gun, not in his own hand, was misfiring. I would ask, did he notice any of the assailants guns misfiring as well?

Also, JT relates that he was against the door with Willard Richards, but that JS changed positions with him to open the door and fire through the opening, then JS reversed and exchanged positions again, so that John Taylor went back to holding the door after the firing.Thus John Taylor tried exiting the window closer to the door, while Joseph Smith went out the furthest window from the door. Wouldn’t logic dictate that the shooter was at the door, shot through the door, and tried exiting the window closest to the door?

Okay. Done. Thanks for reading this. Primarycolor is back. If you’re mad at Perry Mason don’t take it out on Primary. He was just using some forensic logic, to point out that he never knew that the weapon actually belonged to John Taylor. Did you?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

he never knew that the weapon actually belonged to John Taylor. Did you?

I’ve read that.

The logic of the scenario is full of holes, and that highlights the issue of the post – unintentionally, I assume. Taking this approach does, however, allow you to call the people in the jail liars about the details – for no reason I can fathom.

[Moderator hat again: I will add only that I don’t know how this relates to the question of the thread. Honestly, I’m REALLY struggling with this to understand the purpose here – unless it is to show that facts do not lead to truth, which doesn’t seem to be the purpose at all.

Also, I will let this pass this time, but please don’t post another comment in a third-party voice. It simply doesn’t fit the tenor of this forum, and it can allow for all sorts of things to be said that would not be said under “normal” voice. That is not consistent with the purpose of this site either.

I have to admit that I am on the verge of locking this thread, especially after the last third-party comment. Please send me a Private Message explaining why I shouldn’t do that.]

[Anonymous]

I don’t get the Perry Mason bit, and you seem more interested in theatrics than discussion. Why the theatrics? (Crouching Tiger, Perry Mason) Do you think this is some creative writing class?

I don’t sense that you are a “struggling LDS members [with] a challenge to their faith.” It seems you are trying to “expose” some cover-up of the church. You seem more like a missionary intent on converting people. At this point I ask, what is the purpose of you posting this topic?

[Author]

Posts