** NEW DISCOVERY REGARDING BOOTH AUTOPSY PHOTO

[Rsmyth]

Then I can say "I shook the hand of John and Barry's friend."

[RJNorton]

(05-31-2013 05:28 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  Then I can say "I shook the hand of John and Barry's friend."

This is as extraordinary as when Joe Beckert once touched the same sofa Fido slept on.

[LincolnMan]

(05-30-2013 06:37 PM)barryssentials Wrote:  Hi. I spent most of the afternoon with Angela and David Smythe investigating Rev. Armstrong history in the newspapers. What a crazy character. He was a reverend who was caught in bars, houses of ill repute, etc and was eventually kicked out of his church. That aside, he sounds like he was a very loved character. In numerous responses from friends who commented in the newspapers at the time of his death, all indicated that although he had a close appearance to that of the actor, never once did Armstrong claim to be John Wilkes Booth and denied it to the day of his death. He even submitted evidence that he was studying in college far away from Washington at the time of the assassination. Reverend Armstrong is a 'movie of the week' if anyone cares to write it!
Barry

---

Hey Bill: To help give you an answer to your question, I need to tell you a bit more about what John hasn't included here. Lawrence Gardner stated that he and his father were collected by Major Eckert on the morning of the 27th and driven to the Navy Yard with the intent of taking the photo. It was Eckert who was in charge and he made the decision to abort the photo session. It certainly seems illogical to us today considering they were right there and could have easily snapped the shot, but this is how Gardner related the story, so we have to leave it to how each of us wish to interpret that move. Gardner mentions that they did stay onboard to take Herold's photo and in sporadic conversation with him, Herold indicated that the body was in fact that of Booth.
Barry

Thanks Barry. Great work!

[Gene C]

Congratuations guys. Your years of research have yielded impresive results.

[Gene C]

(05-30-2013 11:37 AM)John E. Wrote:  As an aside, Lawrence Gardner stated the following:
"The object of my father’s visit to the Monitor was photography, and the body in question was to be the subject. Did we take a picture? No. After everything had been prepared Gen. Eckert concluded that inasmuch as there was so little likeness in the remains to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture, and the plan was abandoned for that reason."

"...as there was so little likeness in the remains to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture..."

That quote from Eckert may become as significant as Gardner's statement that no photo was taken. More evidence of a Gov't coverup? A lot of old questions are going to be asked again. Expect a few of the "wacko theories" to be pulled of the shelf, polished up a bit, and re-circulated.

[John E.]

(06-01-2013 10:23 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:37 AM)John E. Wrote:  As an aside, Lawrence Gardner stated the following:
"The object of my father’s visit to the Monitor was photography, and the body in question was to be the subject. Did we take a picture? No. After everything had been prepared Gen. Eckert concluded that inasmuch as there was so little likeness in the remains to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture, and the plan was abandoned for that reason."

"...as there was so little likeness in the remains to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture..."

That quote from Eckert may become as significant as Gardner's statement that no photo was taken. More evidence of a Gov't coverup? A lot of old questions are going to be asked again. Expect a few of the "wacko theories" to be pulled of the shelf, polished up a bit, and re-circulated.

Does anyone know how often was photography used in identifying corpses in the 19th century? I think people mistakenly assume modern-day practices were used in the 19th century. As it turns out, Booth's face was the least identifiable feature on him after death.

[Gene C]

This was the first time I know of, but I'm not sure that it was used as an identifying tool, as much as proof that he really was dead (like the Ben Laden photo's)
It wasn't unususal to have a "death photo" taken as a final remembrance of the dearly departed. (though not the purpose here)
It seems like the physical and mental strain of the last 10 days of his life really showed in his physical appearance.

[RJNorton]

In January 1887 Dr. May wrote:

"And it being afterwards, at my request, placed in a sitting position, standing, and looking down upon it, I was finally enabled to imperfectly recognize the features of Booth. But never in a human being had a greater change taken place, from the man whom I had seen in the vigor of life and health, than in that of the haggard corpse which was before me, with its yellow and discolored skin; its unkempt and matted hair; and its whole facial expression sunken and sharpened by the exposure and starvation it had undergone!"

Strangely, he also wrote:

"The right lower limb was greatly contused, and perfectly black from a fracture of one of the long bones of the leg."

[BettyO]

Quote:It wasn't unusual to have a "death photo" taken as a final remembrance of the dearly departed.

Correct, Gene. "Memento Mori" or Death Photographs of the "dearly departed" (most in what were referred to as "Sleeping Beauty" portraits) were extremely popular in the Victorian era. However, photography was not utilized much to identify the dead in the 1860s except for Civil War battlefield images. By 1876, photographs were taken of the corpses of the Cole Younger gang in the Northfield, MN raid and were widely produced. The identification purposes of photography were just beginning in it's infancy at this probable time.

http://www.icollector.com/BILL-CHADWELL-...E_i7352557

[Linda Anderson]

(05-30-2013 11:37 AM)John E. Wrote:  I've been across the country from Andersonville, GA to Harrisburg, PA and all the way to the middle of the Gulf of Mexico in search of new discoveries that will help forward Lincoln assassination studies. Most of the time, I've come up short but at least I know I checked and can cross things off my list of unknowns.

Recently, the research Gods threw me a bone and practically rewarded me for my past efforts and time. While searching for eyewitness accounts of John Wilkes Booth's burial, I discovered a newspaper article that has been hidden and/or overlooked by researchers for nearly 125 years...

As an aside, Lawrence Gardner stated the following:

"The object of my father’s visit to the Monitor was photography, and the body in question was to be the subject. Did we take a picture? No. After everything had been prepared Gen. Eckert concluded that inasmuch as there was so little likeness in the remains to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture, and the plan was abandoned for that reason."

Other than a statement made by Alexander Gardner himself, there can be no better source than his son, to definitively say what happened to the Booth autopsy photo.

John

That's a great discovery, John! Congratulations to you and Barry.

Have you been to the Huntington Library to see the Eckert Papers? Maybe they include some documentation that will confirm Lawrence Gardner's statement.

http://beta.worldcat.org/archivegrid/data/780190980

[John E.]

(06-03-2013 07:41 AM)Linda Anderson Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 11:37 AM)John E. Wrote:  I've been across the country from Andersonville, GA to Harrisburg, PA and all the way to the middle of the Gulf of Mexico in search of new discoveries that will help forward Lincoln assassination studies. Most of the time, I've come up short but at least I know I checked and can cross things off my list of unknowns.

Recently, the research Gods threw me a bone and practically rewarded me for my past efforts and time. While searching for eyewitness accounts of John Wilkes Booth's burial, I discovered a newspaper article that has been hidden and/or overlooked by researchers for nearly 125 years...

As an aside, Lawrence Gardner stated the following:

"The object of my father’s visit to the Monitor was photography, and the body in question was to be the subject. Did we take a picture? No. After everything had been prepared Gen. Eckert concluded that inasmuch as there was so little likeness in the remains to the photograph in existence of Booth, perhaps it would be best not to make the picture, and the plan was abandoned for that reason."

Other than a statement made by Alexander Gardner himself, there can be no better source than his son, to definitively say what happened to the Booth autopsy photo.

John

That's a great discovery, John! Congratulations to you and Barry.

Have you been to the Huntington Library to see the Eckert Papers? Maybe they include some documentation that will confirm Lawrence Gardner's statement.

http://beta.worldcat.org/archivegrid/data/780190980

Hi Linda,

I have not been to the Huntington library unfortunately. However, I have had access to similar papers of his located in Andersonville, GA. They were very disappointing to rummage through and not very helpful. I also had access to a personal notebook of his as well as his diary-book which is located in Auburn, University.

The diary book contained an entry for April 14 and April 15. Those entries were fantastic. Everything else though was not well thought out and consisted of an account of how much $$ he gave his wife for the week's expenses and how much she spent.

Nothing in regards to interrogating Lewis Powell or anyone else for that matter was noted.

[Linda Anderson]

I also wonder what information about the assassination is in the Seward Papers. Unfortunately, the Seward Project won't be finished for 6 more years!

[John E.]

The Thomas Eckert diary from Auburn University now available online. Please click the following link for a view: http://content.lib.auburn.edu/cdm/compou...088/rec/11

[Linda Anderson]

(06-03-2013 11:46 AM)John E. Wrote:  The Thomas Eckert diary from Auburn University now available online. Please click the following link for a view: http://content.lib.auburn.edu/cdm/compou...088/rec/11

Thanks, John.

[Rsmyth]

So, does this mean that the circa 1970’s statement that autograph dealer Joseph Lynch had not only the missing pages of Booth’s diary but the glass plate negative taken by Gardner is false?