The article does not give one example of an error. One person admitted that he had not read the book. Article is critical for the book’s lack of footnotes.... Which is stunning since this article had no support... Did you read the article?
Your comments saved me from doing so, thank you.
Not having any footnotes alone seems like a strong mark against the book. I know that more and more pop history books don’t bother documenting their sources, but it also strikes me as a poor practice that cheapens a book. From the article, it also seems like it was also sloppily researched, based mostly off of second or third hand sources, as opposed to the myriads of original information, legal documentation, and interviews out there.
Yes, I read the article. While no specifics were given, the fact that Ford's Theatre banned it is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that BOR did a lousy job.
From the WP article: ‘Other Lincoln experts also have sounded off. In a review published in the November issue of “North & South — The Official Magazine of the Civil War Society,” historian Edward Steers Jr. cites many instances where the book strays from documented history, then asks, “If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in ‘Killing Lincoln’”?’
You say the article had no support - how about Edward Steers Jr.? Didn't you read the article???