My whole problem with this line of thought is that there is no documented proof. It all boils down to opinion. If someone came up with a diary entry, letter or some type of documentation that showed the pursuer's point of view before the chase (limited to the Garrett Farm Patrol), then I would concede that the point is possible. In my own instance, I took known fact (Conger couldn't walk very quickly and in battle had to ride; he was declared unfit for military service; he had to rest on the way to Garret's Farm; he spent much of his entire life battling addictions to morphine and alcohol because he was always in pain; he had to sleep sitting in a chair because he couldn't stretch out in bed; his political enemies used his wounds as fodder to remove him from the Montana Supreme Court) and applied that to what happened that night. They were constantly threatening Booth and yet nothing ever happened. Finally, Conger took it upon himself to set the barn on fire. There had to be a reason. To me the only one that makes sense is his body was hurting intensely. I also agree with Dan that he was growing tired of Booth's demands. Would it stand up in a court of law? I don't know. But it would have a far better chance than stating that pure greed drove their actions.
With that, the plaintiff rests.