Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Ernesto · 01-25-2018, 07:56 PM

(09-27-2012 02:46 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Here is another photo of Izola Martha Mills.

doesn't look like the other picture of Martha. What's the source?

RJNorton · 01-26-2018, 10:22 AM

It's from p. 144 of Ted Nottingham's Curse of Cain. I should add, however, that I am a non-believer in the story Nottingham presents.

Here's another photo of her from p. 144 of Nottingham's book:

L Verge · 01-26-2018, 10:36 AM

(01-26-2018 10:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote: It's from p. 144 of Ted Nottingham's Curse of Cain.

And, that's all that needs to be said! Pardon the sarcasm, but I am not a fan of that particular book.

Ernesto · (This post was last modified: 01-26-2018 11:05 AM by Ernesto.)

(01-26-2018 10:22 AM)RJNorton Wrote: It's from p. 144 of Ted Nottingham's Curse of Cain. I should add, however, that I am a non-believer in the story Nottingham presents.

Here's another photo of her from p. 144 of Nottingham's book:

thanks

L Verge · 01-26-2018, 01:40 PM

To give the other side of the story to the theme of Nottingham's book claiming that Booth and Mills married and produced at least one child (maybe a second one after Booth escaped from Garrett's barn...), you might try to find a copy of The Elusive Booths of Burrellville, authored by two researchers who were members of the Surratt Society. It is probably out of print because it dates to about 1980. These two ladies picked up on the Izola Forrester story in This One Mad Act and, being from the Northeast, decided to track down everything they could find on record. They found absolutely nothing to support it.

At the time, James O. Hall was working with Forrester's descendants to try and determine the story's veracity The last that I was in on, at least some of the folks closest in blood to Forrester had serious doubts about the story also. Then came Ted Nottingham...

Steve Whitlock · 10-16-2019, 08:50 PM

(09-19-2012 02:10 PM)Jenny Wrote: Hi all!

I've been cruising around Ancestry.com (yeah, I hear everyone yelling, "GET OFF!") and decided to check in with an old "friend" of mine: The John Byron Wilkes family tree based on that nutty will written by Booth imposter John Byron Wilkes. I was surprised to find several new documents under Izola Mills' profile. One is a picture of labeled "Izola Martha Mills and JWB" which I will post here in a moment.

The other is a marriage certificate under the label "Letter certifying marriage of JWB and Izola Martha Mills." However it appears whoever posted this certificate might have missed something. Something important.

There is a note attached to the bottom which addresses a Mr. Hall (I am assuming Mr. James O. Hall). Even though I darkened it, I am not sure what it says - can you guys help me decipher it? But on the top of the document I believe I see a handwritten note that says, "Declared a forgery by Mr. Hall."

I don't know much about the whole "Izola Mills marriage" theory but I do find it amusing that someone submitted this as proof of a marriage when it clearly has notes declaring it a forgery! And I thought you all might like to see this picture of "Izola and JWB." Again, no idea where it comes from... and it doesn't really look like him to me.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Jenny,

Are you aware that Martha I. M. Booth, a widow, m: John H. Stevenson 2 Mar 1869 in Baltimore, MD? That was followed by the death of her husband, Charles Still Bellows, 16 Dec 1869. Martha L. Bellows then married, again, John H. Stevenson 23 Mar 1871.

It seems that Charles S. Bellows knew somewhat of his wife's indiscretions and wrote a will leaving everything (such as it was) to his brother, with no mention of a wife, nor children.

Martha then proceeded to file a claim for her late husband's Navy Pension and disputed the estate of Charles S. Bellows, having cared for his two children, Ogarita Elizabeth Bellows b: 22 Oct 1859 and Charles Alonzo Bellows (aka Charles S. Bellows Jr) b: 15 May 1861.

After all, she was a faithful wife who cared for her husband's children, and didn't remarry until 23 Mar 1871 to John H. Stevenson.

She won in both matters, the Navy Pension and Probate.

I have copies of both the pension and probate, but they are a bit lengthy.

Steve · 10-17-2019, 04:02 AM

I have a copy of the 1869 Baltimore marriage record. My guess is the marriage, or marriage record, might have been for Rosalie Booth's sake by using the surname "Booth" to bolster Martha's claim about Booth being the father of two of her children. The 1871 Boston marriage record was created to prevent a fraud investigation by the pension examiners. If the examiners had looked more closely at the application they would've figured out that it was impossible for Bellows Sr. to have been the father of Ogarita, since he was at sea during Martha's entire pregnancy.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 10-17-2019 06:13 AM by Gene C.)

Maybe it's my memory, my eyes, my computer, or all four, but I remember when Jenny first posted the photo it was more in focus.
It's not that way now, but my comments on their appearance on post #2 seem to indicate it was.

Jenny · 10-17-2019, 08:59 AM

(10-17-2019 06:12 AM)Gene C Wrote: Maybe it's my memory, my eyes, my computer, or all four, but I remember when Jenny first posted the photo it was more in focus.
It's not that way now, but my comments on their appearance on post #2 seem to indicate it was.

You’re right, Gene - I posted these when it was free to host them on Photobucket. Now recently Photobucket has started charging if you want to post more than a certain amount; it blurs out the pictures if you don’t pay.

Steve Whitlock · 10-17-2019, 09:18 AM

(10-17-2019 04:02 AM)Steve Wrote: I have a copy of the 1869 Baltimore marriage record. My guess is the marriage, or marriage record, might have been for Rosalie Booth's sake by using the surname "Booth" to bolster Martha's claim about Booth being the father of two of her children. The 1871 Boston marriage record was created to prevent a fraud investigation by the pension examiners. If the examiners had looked more closely at the application they would've figured out that it was impossible for Bellows Sr. to have been the father of Ogarita, since he was at sea during Martha's entire pregnancy.

I also have the marriage records, as well as the 1871 birth of Harry Jerome Dresback Stevenson, which is sometimes claimed to have occurred in 1870 in order to go along with the myth of Martha running off to be with JWB and coming back pregnant in 1869.

I'm unsure as to exactly how long Charles S. Bellows Sr was away at sea, and whether a short term child could have been claimed. However, even in the case of a Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith and his vasectomy supporting his divorce against his wife for adultery the presumption was that when a couple is married any children that come along are the husband's. That's why Timothy Lincoln Beckwith got a million dollar settlement from RTL Beckwith's estate, rather than test his paternity, again, in court. And that was after a judge had already ruled against his mother for refusing dna testing.

Perhaps the feeling was the same for the probate and pension of Seaman Charles Still Bellows; however, had they known that she was a bigamist the results might have been different, and yet, would the children have still had a claim, having been born while Martha and Charles were still married. Why didn't he divorce her if not his children?

Do we know exactly when Martha and Rosalie got chummy? I noticed that in the hearings, and on her birth certificate, Ogarita was Ogarita Elizabeth Bellows, but later was Ogarita Elizabeth Rosalie Booth/Bellows.

Steve · 10-17-2019, 04:44 PM

(10-17-2019 09:18 AM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: I also have the marriage records, as well as the 1871 birth of Harry Jerome Dresback Stevenson, which is sometimes claimed to have occurred in 1870 in order to go along with the myth of Martha running off to be with JWB and coming back pregnant in 1869.

I'm unsure as to exactly how long Charles S. Bellows Sr was away at sea, and whether a short term child could have been claimed. However, even in the case of a Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith and his vasectomy supporting his divorce against his wife for adultery the presumption was that when a couple is married any children that come along are the husband's. That's why Timothy Lincoln Beckwith got a million dollar settlement from RTL Beckwith's estate, rather than test his paternity, again, in court. And that was after a judge had already ruled against his mother for refusing dna testing.

Perhaps the feeling was the same for the probate and pension of Seaman Charles Still Bellows; however, had they known that she was a bigamist the results might have been different, and yet, would the children have still had a claim, having been born while Martha and Charles were still married. Why didn't he divorce her if not his children?

Do we know exactly when Martha and Rosalie got chummy? I noticed that in the hearings, and on her birth certificate, Ogarita was Ogarita Elizabeth Bellows, but later was Ogarita Elizabeth Rosalie Booth/Bellows.

Martha and Rosalie knew each other from at least 1869. Besides the Baltimore marriage record with her surname recorded as "Booth", Martha's anonymous 05 Dec. 1885 New York Sun letter (which got Edwin Booth so mad) claims that she saw John Wilkes Booth's body reburied. Also, Martha and John Stevenson's first child, a daughter named Rosalie Izola Stevenson was born in Boston on 17 Oct. 1870, and obviously named after Rosalie Booth. Rosalie continued to keep in contact (and sending funds) to Martha at least until 1883. Although, it appears Rosalie cut off contact with Martha by 1885 after apparently being persuaded by relatives, like brother Edwin, that Martha was a fraud.

Young Rosalie Izola seems to have died before 1880. Ogarita didn't originally have the middle name Rosalie, it seems to have been added later to try and convince Rosalie that her niece was partially named after her by JWB.

L Verge · 10-17-2019, 07:51 PM

(10-17-2019 04:44 PM)Steve Wrote:
(10-17-2019 09:18 AM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: I also have the marriage records, as well as the 1871 birth of Harry Jerome Dresback Stevenson, which is sometimes claimed to have occurred in 1870 in order to go along with the myth of Martha running off to be with JWB and coming back pregnant in 1869.

I'm unsure as to exactly how long Charles S. Bellows Sr was away at sea, and whether a short term child could have been claimed. However, even in the case of a Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith and his vasectomy supporting his divorce against his wife for adultery the presumption was that when a couple is married any children that come along are the husband's. That's why Timothy Lincoln Beckwith got a million dollar settlement from RTL Beckwith's estate, rather than test his paternity, again, in court. And that was after a judge had already ruled against his mother for refusing dna testing.

Perhaps the feeling was the same for the probate and pension of Seaman Charles Still Bellows; however, had they known that she was a bigamist the results might have been different, and yet, would the children have still had a claim, having been born while Martha and Charles were still married. Why didn't he divorce her if not his children?

Do we know exactly when Martha and Rosalie got chummy? I noticed that in the hearings, and on her birth certificate, Ogarita was Ogarita Elizabeth Bellows, but later was Ogarita Elizabeth Rosalie Booth/Bellows.

Martha and Rosalie knew each other from at least 1869. Besides the Baltimore marriage record with her surname recorded as "Booth", Martha's anonymous 05 Dec. 1885 New York Sun letter (which got Edwin Booth so mad) claims that she saw John Wilkes Booth's body reburied. Also, Martha and John Stevenson's first child, a daughter named Rosalie Izola Stevenson was born in Boston on 17 Oct. 1870, and obviously named after Rosalie Booth. Rosalie continued to keep in contact (and sending funds) to Martha at least until 1883. Although, it appears Rosalie cut off contact with Martha by 1885 after apparently being persuaded by relatives, like brother Edwin, that Martha was a fraud.

Young Rosalie Izola seems to have died before 1880. Ogarita didn't originally have the middle name Rosalie, it seems to have been added later to try and convince Rosalie that her niece was partially named after her by JWB.

Again, I refer to the book on The Elusive Booths of Burrillville that concluded that the whole thing was a scam. Also, we may need to take into consideration that some historians believe that Rosalie Booth (the sister) may have had some special needs issues and that she would have been an easy target for folks like Martha.

Mr. Hall developed a very good relationship with the late-20th century branch of this "family," and pretty much convinced them that This One Mad Act could not be documented.

Steve Whitlock · (This post was last modified: 04-14-2021 08:14 PM by Steve Whitlock.)

(10-17-2019 07:51 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(10-17-2019 04:44 PM)Steve Wrote:
(10-17-2019 09:18 AM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: I also have the marriage records, as well as the 1871 birth of Harry Jerome Dresback Stevenson, which is sometimes claimed to have occurred in 1870 in order to go along with the myth of Martha running off to be with JWB and coming back pregnant in 1869.

I'm unsure as to exactly how long Charles S. Bellows Sr was away at sea, and whether a short term child could have been claimed. However, even in the case of a Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith and his vasectomy supporting his divorce against his wife for adultery the presumption was that when a couple is married any children that come along are the husband's. That's why Timothy Lincoln Beckwith got a million dollar settlement from RTL Beckwith's estate, rather than test his paternity, again, in court. And that was after a judge had already ruled against his mother for refusing dna testing.

Perhaps the feeling was the same for the probate and pension of Seaman Charles Still Bellows; however, had they known that she was a bigamist the results might have been different, and yet, would the children have still had a claim, having been born while Martha and Charles were still married. Why didn't he divorce her if not his children?

Do we know exactly when Martha and Rosalie got chummy? I noticed that in the hearings, and on her birth certificate, Ogarita was Ogarita Elizabeth Bellows, but later was Ogarita Elizabeth Rosalie Booth/Bellows.

Martha and Rosalie knew each other from at least 1869. Besides the Baltimore marriage record with her surname recorded as "Booth", Martha's anonymous 05 Dec. 1885 New York Sun letter (which got Edwin Booth so mad) claims that she saw John Wilkes Booth's body reburied. Also, Martha and John Stevenson's first child, a daughter named Rosalie Izola Stevenson was born in Boston on 17 Oct. 1870, and obviously named after Rosalie Booth. Rosalie continued to keep in contact (and sending funds) to Martha at least until 1883. Although, it appears Rosalie cut off contact with Martha by 1885 after apparently being persuaded by relatives, like brother Edwin, that Martha was a fraud.

Young Rosalie Izola seems to have died before 1880. Ogarita didn't originally have the middle name Rosalie, it seems to have been added later to try and convince Rosalie that her niece was partially named after her by JWB.

Again, I refer to the book on The Elusive Booths of Burrillville that concluded that the whole thing was a scam. Also, we may need to take into consideration that some historians believe that Rosalie Booth (the sister) may have had some special needs issues and that she would have been an easy target for folks like Martha.

Mr. Hall developed a very good relationship with the late-20th century branch of this "family," and pretty much convinced them that This One Mad Act could not be documented.

Yesterday I watched:

History's Greatest Mysteries Season 1, Ep. 4 "The Escape of John Wilkes Booth" Narrated by Laurence Fishburne

There are some points of interest in that the last male Booth from the Junius Brutus Booth line, i.e. Anthony Barton Booth, son of Elizabeth Barton Booth, and grandson of Sydney Barton Booth, made an appearance in the show. He provided some dna, according to my source, but the results were not stated, or I missed (I watched about 2 AM to 3:30 AM. so a little brain-fog).

The base for the Booth dna was provided by known descendant Joanne Hulme. Those tested include 4 descendants of Harry Jerome Stevenson, a descendant of Ogarita Booth, a descendant of Lisa Booth, she of the 3 generations of John Wilkes Booth; however, dna results prove not a match to the Lincoln assassin, John Wilkes Booth, line. That was predictable had the paper trail been used. The first JWB for Lisa Booth was born in 1866, so his father must have approved of the assassination. If necessary I can find that father's name again.

The descendants of Harry Jerome Stevenson also were not a dna match to the Booth line, but did match each other. Nor was there a dna match to the Ogarita Bellows/Booth descendant. There was no mention of whether Ogarita and the Harry J. Stevenson descendants were a match to each other. The dna testing was done by Colleen Fitzpatrick.

They wanted to test the line of Laura Ida Elizabeth Booth; however, there are no living descendants for her line.

Getting away from the dna there was mention of an autopsy record, shown, that mentions JWB having a broken left leg aroung the ankle area. You may recall there was some confusion as to the right leg being mentioned by those on the Montauk, if memory serves, and the document establishes, further, the correct damage done to JWB's left leg.

A handwriting expert testified that the signature for the John W. Booth who married Louisa Jane Price in TN did not match that of J. Wilkes Booth. That stands to reason since a glance at the marriage records show that the same person, clerk or minister, did all the writing, and that wasn't the signature of John W. Booth. The program didn't mention that, but I noticed it long ago.

The same handwriting expert studied the signature of David E. George and concluded that his writing did not match that of JWB.

An expert for facial analysis stated that JWB was not a match to James W. Boyd, nor to David E. George/John St. Helen.

Those are some of the highlights for the show, which costs $2.99 to watch. I found it because I was looking for it. I wasn't going to mention this but the company that made "The Escape of John Wilkes Booth" contacted me 24 Sep 2019 and wanted to know if I would work with them for people they were researching. I agreed and provided some assistance, until we had a falling out because I wouldn't do an interview for the show. My reasons were that I look terrible these days, I also talk softly, and mumble. Then there was a long period where I couldn't complete a sentence without stopping to search for a word, or God forbid, a name that I should know. But I did know they were going to dna test people I wanted tested. It would be better if those dna results were published for analysis, but I haven't found any release by Colleen Fitzpatrick for that information.

My assessment of the program is that they have provided some necessary information for researchers, but the show is a bit cursory for development, in my opinion. I provided a lot of stuff they could have used, but perhaps there were time constraints, and maybe they didn't want to use the information I provided without my full participation.

I forgot to mention that Mike Kaufman was a participant in the show.

RJNorton · 04-15-2021, 04:01 AM

Many thanks to Steve Williams for sending the following materials. Steve writes, "The first is an article from page 4 of the 05 Dec. 1885 edition of the New York Sun. It's a letter sent anonymously from Martha Izola Mills in which she claims John Wilkes Booth was her husband and father of two of her kids, Ogarita and Charles Alonzo (without giving their names. Edwin Booth saw this article and was livid, writing to Edwina:

“Today’s Tribune contains a wretched lie about John Wilkes’ family, not one word of truth in it from end to end; I suspect it is the beginning of a ‘black-mail scheme’ of which I had some intimation months ago through a Boston lawyer… The widow of this Tribune article is only one of twenty that wrote to me after John’s death & is the one, I suspect, who got all poor Rose’s money – some $10,000 from her. Rose says all that is ended now & that she will save her money – I hope she is not deceiving me.”

Edwin was wrong the newspaper was the Sun, not the Tribune. I got the quote above from an article on Dave Taylor's site about Rosalie Booth which one can read here:

https://lincolnconspirators.com/2013/11/...ann-booth/

Martha had been in contact with Rosalie since around 1869 when Martha and her family had been living in Baltimore.

The second is this letter I found looking over some of the Izola Forrester papers several years ago. It's from Martha to son Charles Alonzo dated in 1883, but apparently meant to be given to Charles after her death (which was in 1887). In it she tells Charles that her first husband Charles Stills Bellows was his father. It's written two years before the letter sent to the Sun and its kind of weird how she tells Charles that her husband was his father but asks him to try and stay in contact with Rosalie Booth.

RJNorton · 04-15-2021, 08:12 AM

(04-14-2021 08:06 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: You may recall there was some confusion as to the right leg being mentioned by those on the Montauk,

Steve, please correct me if I am misstating something here. You used the phrase "by those on the Montauk." To me this implies there were multiple folks on the Montauk who said "right leg." My memory is as follows: it was only one single man, Dr. John Frederick May, who mistakenly noted it was Booth's right leg that was broken, not his left.